--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Schubley@... wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I realize I'm outnumbered on this,
>

Count me in among the outnumbered ones. Eliminating street hazards (tram rails
or other kind) is good both for "competent" and "incompetent" cyclists. Just
because we might have attained a level of expertise that allows us to ride
through them safely, doesn't mean that we are entitled to ignore those hazards
when talking about cycling policies and engineering.

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Schubley@... wrote:
>
> Why should we competent cyclists be asked to evaluate roads
> for the incompetent?
>

Because if there is someone around able to distinguish between real and
imaginary hazards, it is (or it should be) us. The segregationist camp is all to
happy to bundle together all kind of actual or fantasy, mild or lethal dangers
in their effort to push their agenda. The discipline to point out existing
dangers, even when they do not affect us, is part of the process of separating
reality from fiction, and it is a responsability we cannot shoulder off because
there is nobody else in this field to take it up.

Of course, the installation of tram rails obeys much stronger forces than us and
is not likely to be affected by whatever we think of it, but in my opinion that
is not reason to be blasé about the shooting just because we can dodge the
bullets.

Txarli
If bike lanes are the answer
you got the question wrong.
http://bicilibre.wordpress.com