I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.
As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.
Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.
The link also talks about all types of cycling.
There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.
Like you’re doing in this chain with a post link you’re ignoring that started this whole topic….?
I’ve addressed your concerns, you’re saying these trails need to be road wide, I provided reasons why they don’t need to be. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean I’m here in bad faith. It just means you have a bias and are the one not wanting to discuss something, you just want to be heard and your view is the only one.
No, I’m saying in the context where the intended audience is road cyclists they would need to be road wide. The fact that you’re completely ignoring the context is what makes you an arsehole.
And for the last time, road cyclists aren’t the only ones out there. If you make the track for road cyclists so they can fast, it’s useless for anyone else since it’s not safe. Meaning you’re making it for one group of people only…. Like I’ve said.
I’m not ignoring context, I’ve explained everything multiple times, you just refuse to listen.
And unless you’re in a large group and clustered together (which in stupid and dangerous) you don’t need more than a regular multi use pathway. Why do you think you need 12 feet of width to make massively large sweeping turns?
This community truly has some of the most ridiculous and ignorant users.
How am I trolling for answering your concerns? You’re the one whinging and bitching, and not contributing to the conversation, those are what a troll does.
Take the L and go home.
If the point you’re making isn’t that all pathways should be road wide, you’re doing a shit job of it, and not answering questions or providing information so you can help be steered to the right information.
You’re not. You’re ignoring them. This was always a conversation about one thing and you insist on turning it into something else and you blame me for not going along with your offtopic nonsense. Piss off dickhead.
On the very, very slight chance that you’re genuinely confused and not being a dickhead, or for the benefit of any audience, this started with someone observing that maybe in this circumstance local traffic is genuinely being held up be people out for exercise. I pointed out that if you wanted to have fully separated paths for those users, you would need it to be just as wide as the road. Nowhere in there was I talking about anyone other than road bikers, because nowhere before that was anyone talking about anyone other than road bikers.
Then you came in and decided to shoehorn in an irrelevant topic. If we were talking about people riding on off-road trails, the solution would be obvious. So obvious it’s not really necessary to talk about it in an already un-motornormative space. Or at least, I try to assume that level of good faith from users here unless they prove otherwise.
I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.
As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.
Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.
The link also talks about all types of cycling.
There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.
No. And only an intentionally bad-faith reading of my comment could come away thinking it was.
Like you’re doing in this chain with a post link you’re ignoring that started this whole topic….?
I’ve addressed your concerns, you’re saying these trails need to be road wide, I provided reasons why they don’t need to be. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean I’m here in bad faith. It just means you have a bias and are the one not wanting to discuss something, you just want to be heard and your view is the only one.
No, I’m saying in the context where the intended audience is road cyclists they would need to be road wide. The fact that you’re completely ignoring the context is what makes you an arsehole.
And for the last time, road cyclists aren’t the only ones out there. If you make the track for road cyclists so they can fast, it’s useless for anyone else since it’s not safe. Meaning you’re making it for one group of people only…. Like I’ve said.
I’m not ignoring context, I’ve explained everything multiple times, you just refuse to listen.
And unless you’re in a large group and clustered together (which in stupid and dangerous) you don’t need more than a regular multi use pathway. Why do you think you need 12 feet of width to make massively large sweeping turns?
I’m done with you. Go away troll.
This community truly has some of the most ridiculous and ignorant users.
How am I trolling for answering your concerns? You’re the one whinging and bitching, and not contributing to the conversation, those are what a troll does.
Take the L and go home.
If the point you’re making isn’t that all pathways should be road wide, you’re doing a shit job of it, and not answering questions or providing information so you can help be steered to the right information.
You’re not. You’re ignoring them. This was always a conversation about one thing and you insist on turning it into something else and you blame me for not going along with your offtopic nonsense. Piss off dickhead.
On the very, very slight chance that you’re genuinely confused and not being a dickhead, or for the benefit of any audience, this started with someone observing that maybe in this circumstance local traffic is genuinely being held up be people out for exercise. I pointed out that if you wanted to have fully separated paths for those users, you would need it to be just as wide as the road. Nowhere in there was I talking about anyone other than road bikers, because nowhere before that was anyone talking about anyone other than road bikers.
Then you came in and decided to shoehorn in an irrelevant topic. If we were talking about people riding on off-road trails, the solution would be obvious. So obvious it’s not really necessary to talk about it in an already un-motornormative space. Or at least, I try to assume that level of good faith from users here unless they prove otherwise.