Thursday, May 11, 2006
Groups were formed and each table assigned one facet to report; we were the "bike" group
Interestingly, EVERY table, not just us, wanted to make sure stuff about bicycles was included. Unlike big.small.all, nobody voiced fears of what cycling improvements would do that they didn't like. In fact, it was another table that said they wanted to be sure it was understood that there were different kinds of cycling needs - wander on the bike path vs. get to your destination. (So, since we had all clumped together, it was obvious that it wasn't "just that bike group" that was concerned with cycling issues.)
The facilitators were hoping to gather more people; one person wanted to know how many people were connected to the U, sounding as if she expected it to be a high number... and it was VERY low.
THe facilitators also noted from the beginning that while cycling had increased a tenth of a percent over 10 years, the cycling infrastructure was not very good, as seen by the paths. THere was, alas, a hidden assumption that what paths as existed were good things... I'm afraid that didn't get corrected.
There were a few fringe types, but really not too many. Mostly people who pretty much knew what they were talking about and had good ideas.
And of course... when we boiled things down to the Big ISsues...it's that BOuby one. Cyclists should be intended users of the road. Seems some people think that since cyclists have been using Green Street's painted shoulder lane, that they should be taken away, lest they be considered "encouragement" for cyclists (yet not meeting official standards). Yes,somehow, misperceived legal liability is more important than actual, genuine, moral liability. In my humble opinion, if you make the roads less safe, somebody's going to get hurt because you did that. Cause and effect is liability to me.