["Red and blue go so well together"]
This brilliant cost-saving idea came to me while reading a recent letter to the editor. It says, in part:
"...there's far less risk of injury to cyclists and
pedestrians involved in a sidewalk collision than
that of a car and cyclists, due to many simple
scientific facts such as speed, mass, etc. and
therefore, the safer option (sidewalks) should
prevail until a better solution is found."
[by K. Swallowell, Nov. 30, London Free Press]
I thought, better solution? I've got it. Why, there's almost no risk of injury at all if riders and walkers are on opposite sides of a street, e.g., cyclists on their designated blue sidewalk (aka bike lane) and pedestrians on the other one.
What makes this a brilliant solution to the 'we need more bike lanes'/'bicycles on sidewalks' debate?
Several things:
There are under-used sidewalks in all corners of
the city because most people travel by car.
A car's speed and mass make streets unsafe for
bikes. But, empty sidewalks are often steps away.
Sidewalks follow almost as many desired routes
inside the city as busy streets.
The city does not have to paint half the sidewalks,
just certain select routes through town.
Putting bike lanes on busy streets seems like an
expensive design flaw to me.
["My idea saves tonnes of dollars, but makes sense!"]
Blue paint is cheaper.
We could likely get it on sale at Wal-Mart.
I'll paint the Wortley Rd. sidewalk myself (west
side, from Askin to Elmwood) for free.
What do you think about this idea?
How long would it take people to develop new habits re sidewalk use?
Where can we get blue paint at the best price? : )
Psst. While we're thinking about design flaws. Does any brand of peanut butter come in shorter, wider jars? I hate having to work so hard to get the last bits of pb off the bottom of these tall ones.
***
Please click here to read dusted off your bike yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment