🚀 go-pugleaf

Philip G. Aaronson (aaronson@win207.nas.nasa.gov) wrote:
>1. Cycling on Alma is a legal privilage. Meaning, irritating
>   drivers is NOT a valid reason to go elsewhere. 

By going through life with no concern about those around you you can be
fairly certain those around you are not going to be too concerned about
you.  Why should motorists be considerate of cyclists who ride on Alma
any more than other inconsiderate motorists and cyclists?

>   riding on Alma does not make one a stupid, asshole cyclist
>   giving the rest of the cycling world a bad name.  

This may be your opinion, but it is not shared by many others.  The
vast majority of drivers and a good majority of cyclists would disagree
with you wholeheartedly.

>   the privilage of riding on Alma and roads like Alma 
>   ( virtually any road on the east coast :) ) should not
>   be taken away. 

Your opinion again.  I suppose you would also argue for cyclists right
to ride on freeways.  I don't want to see cyclists rights restricted
unnecessarily either, but responsibilities go along with those rights
and riding on Alma is irresponsible precisely because so many viable
alternate routes exist.  Abuse those rights and you're quite likely to
lose them.

>2. Because most drivers during commute hours do not keep
>   a distance, or have the patience which would allow them
>   to safely deal with cyclists, another route is
>   a good idea. This does NOT mean that in an accident,
>   it is somehow automatically the cyclist's fault. The
>   wild careening maneuvers cars execute passing or avoiding
>   cyclists are similarly not automatically the fault of the
>   cyclist. 

Good points, I would say that an accident on Alma would be the
responsibility of both parties.

Roger Marquis