Comments on: Is San Diego channelling Janette Sadik-Khan?

By: Serge Issakov

Serge Issakov — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:51:08 +0000

There is nothing new about bike lanes being created for reasons other than benefiting bicyclists. What would be new is a bike lane that actually did benefit bicyclists. How can a “facility” specifically designed to contain someone be a benefit to said person?

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:29:43 +0000

I had exactly the same feelings as Esteban.

I’m going to think about this article for a long while. In a way, I’m seeing the lanes being there for motorists as a Good ThingTM.

I really believe that cycling benefits everyone, even non-cyclists.

Here is a clear example where we have an opportunity to save lives of motorists.

I have been thinking about this topic for a while, and I do believe that many lives are saved due to a cycle waking up a motorist. Unfortunately, we’ll never know how many motorists have been positively affected. Perhaps it’s better this way.

By: Esteban

Esteban — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:25:24 +0000

I”m glad to hear the report, as I couldn’t attend. Too bad that the bike lanes were designed only to mediate motorized traffic. I”m happy they’re there, but the logic is troubling.

By: Larry Hogue

Larry Hogue — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:08:48 +0000

I’ve heard the thinking about the 85th percentile speed limits being safer before, but I’m not sure I believe it. Maybe if they posted speed limits at the 75th percentile, so people would really drive at the 85th percentile.

At the meeting last night, Jim Baross explained the 85th percentile rule differently, as an attempt to prohibit towns from creating speed traps by setting absurdly low speed limits. Now, we’re all beginning to think that aburdly low speed limits are a good thing.

-Larry