I read that in the US there's such a huge global panic about children
being kidnapped, that at some places it even borders the illegal to let
children *walk* on the street alone (eg. to go to school or hobbies).
Eg. some woman got fined because she let her kid do that.

  Instead, children are always driven by car to and from wherever they
need to go.

  Now, this seems to be an utter failure of perspective: Approximately
100 children are kidnapped each year in the United States. However,
over 10000 children die in car accidents each year in the United States.
That's a one hundred-fold difference. Nevertheless, they still consider
driving them by car safer than letting them walk.

  Thus the "cure" to the problem of 100 children being kidnapped each
year is to have ten thousand of them die in car accidents.

  Sense or proportion, anyone?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Sense or proportion, anyone?

Aren't you talking about America?

Have you *seen* their portion sizes? (Or their waistlines... sheesh.)

Still, craziness is not limited to the US. How many people actually got 
killed by bird flu? Swine flu? Mad cow disease? Terrorist attacks? Car 
accidents? Spot the odd one out... [And I don't just mean the one that's 
actually preventable.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>   Now, this seems to be an utter failure of perspective: Approximately
> 100 children are kidnapped each year in the United States. However,
> over 10000 children die in car accidents each year in the United States.
> That's a one hundred-fold difference. Nevertheless, they still consider
> driving them by car safer than letting them walk.

Well, how many of those 10000 children were /in/ mom's SUV at the time 
of the accident, and how many were /in front/ of some stranger's pick-up 
truck? Or some other mom's SUV, for that matter...

(Are you sure it's only 10000? That sounds pretty amazingly low for 
about half a continent.)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 100 children are kidnapped each year in the United States. 

And something like 95% of those are kidnapped by their own relatives. The 
parents will get divorced, mom gets the kid, dad kidnaps his own kid, etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4ab1277c@news.povray.org...
>  I read that in the US there's such a huge global panic about children
> being kidnapped, that at some places it even borders the illegal to let
> children *walk* on the street alone (eg. to go to school or hobbies).
> Eg. some woman got fined because she let her kid do that.
>
>  Instead, children are always driven by car to and from wherever they
> need to go.
>
>  Now, this seems to be an utter failure of perspective: Approximately
> 100 children are kidnapped each year in the United States. However,
> over 10000 children die in car accidents each year in the United States.
> That's a one hundred-fold difference. Nevertheless, they still consider
> driving them by car safer than letting them walk.
>
>  Thus the "cure" to the problem of 100 children being kidnapped each
> year is to have ten thousand of them die in car accidents.
>
>  Sense or proportion, anyone?

It's a very good point.  I grew up in a house in the middle of the woods.  I 
had neighbors that were no closer than about 1/4 mile away.  I had an older 
brother, but certainly from the time he was 12, we were both home alone 
after school (I was 8/9).  The worst thing that ever happened is that my 
brother got fat, because he would eat too many snacks while Mom and Dad 
weren't around.

But anyway, this question came up again for my wife and me, in regards to 
our daughter, who was 10 at the time.  We started leaving her at home alone 
for the couple hours after school.  Neither of us was actually worried about 
her being kidnapped, but both of us were worried about "What will people 
think?"  Even so, we'd normally call just to make sure she was there, and 
that she hadn't, say, slipped in the bathtub or something.  If that 
happened, it's possible that an overly zealous prosecutor could put us on 
trial for child-neglect.  Michigan (where I live) has no law setting a 
certain age for children to stay home alone, so it's really left up to 
society in general, and at this rate, by 2100, society will believe that 21 
years old is the youngest you should be.

In reality, I think most people are like us.  We're not so much afraid of 
kidnappers, as much as we are afraid of how we might be viewed by our 
neighbors/community, not to mention Social Services (the government child 
welfare watchdog).  Once THEY come to get your kids, it can be months, or 
even years, before you get them back.

If I could talk to my grampa now, he'd probably tell me about how he had to 
get home from school, hop on the tractor and plow the field until sunset, 
when he was 8 years old...  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Still, craziness is not limited to the US. How many people actually got 
> killed by bird flu? Swine flu?

  I don't think that comparison is valid. There is precedent for dangerous
influenza pandemics killing staggering amounts of people. For example the
1918 flu pandemic ("Spanish flu") killed over 50 million people. The Hong
Kong flu killed about one million people in 1969. The Asian flu killed
about 2 million people in 1958.

  Thus it's not "crazy" to be scared of a flu pandemic.

> Terrorist attacks?

  I remember one year when terrorist attacks alone killed many thousands
of people.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Thus it's not "crazy" to be scared of a flu pandemic.

  However, do you know what *is* crazy? Thousands of pigs being slaughtered
and international import bans on pork. Why? For the sole reason that it's
called "swine flu". No other reason. It doesn't matter how much the WHO and
everybody is telling that the name in no way implies that pigs spread the
disease. If it was called something else, then the poor animals would not
get slaughtered and people would be none the wiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak_actions_concerning_pigs

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4ab1277c@news.povray.org...
>
>  Instead, children are always driven by car to and from wherever they
> need to go.
>
Just as another way of looking at this issue, the "car culture" is huge in 
the US.  In most places in the world, bicycles are all over the place. 
People driving cars must be more patient in those countries.  As an avid 
"cyclist" in the US, I can honestly say that not only to most people think 
"You should get the f*** off the road!" but roads are becoming less and less 
bicycle friendly.  At the same time, our society is trying to build bike 
paths, all over the place.  70 years ago people would have openly wondered 
why we needed bicycle trails, as we already had roads, and they work just 
fine for bicycles.

Something which irritates me (short rant).  We have a major divided hi-way 
near where I live.  I used to ride my bike across it.  Recently, the 
government decided to install a "Michigan Left Turn" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left) and to also remove the center 
section which allowed traffic to proceed straight across the highway, so now 
you have to make a right-turn, then a left-turn (U-turn) in order to go 
straight across.  That's fine.  Someone was killed there a couple years ago, 
and there are a lot of accidents.  Maybe that will help.  Fine.  I can deal 
with that.  But what if I want to ride my bike across the highway?  Well, 
now I have to ride my bike 1/2 mile down a busy major hi-way.  That's 
something I try to avoid at all costs.  The alternative is to cross two 
lanes of traffic, stop in the fast lane, walk my bike through the new 
ditch,that used to be the road crossing, get back on my bike, cross 2 more 
lanes of traffic, then continue on.  They did not even consider the 
possibility of people on bicycles or even pedestrians.  It apparently never 
even crossed their minds that anyone not in a car would be on a road.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/16/09 12:59, Warp wrote:
>    I read that in the US there's such a huge global panic about children
> being kidnapped, that at some places it even borders the illegal to let
> children *walk* on the street alone (eg. to go to school or hobbies).
> Eg. some woman got fined because she let her kid do that.
>
>    Instead, children are always driven by car to and from wherever they
> need to go.

	I think it's mostly media exaggeration. It's fairly routine for 
children to walk/take the bus, and raises few eyebrows generally.

	As for the number, 100 is too few. In my small town of about 100,000, 
we have a bunch of cases each year. According to:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810#1

it's more like 250,000. The number that are reported missing is over 
750,000.

	Jeremy did raise a good point about Child Services. They can get really 
nasty, and while it's probably not the norm, ridiculous behavior on 
their part is quite well known.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 09/16/09 14:44, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 100 children are kidnapped each year in the United States.
>
> And something like 95% of those are kidnapped by their own relatives.
> The parents will get divorced, mom gets the kid, dad kidnaps his own
> kid, etc.

	That doesn't negate a fear of letting them go out ;-)

	According to the link I provided, it's more like 80%. According to 
another paper I found, it was 78% for 1999.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 09/16/09 15:17, Warp wrote:
>> Terrorist attacks?
>
>    I remember one year when terrorist attacks alone killed many thousands
> of people.

	I remember one year where over 150,000 kids were kidnapped in the US 
alone...

	And according to this:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FY867

	More "children" (usually teens, though) have been abducted and then 
sexually assaulted than have died of terrorism in any year in the US.

	Perspective?

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>   I don't think that comparison is valid. There is precedent for dangerous
> influenza pandemics killing staggering amounts of people. For example the
> 1918 flu pandemic ("Spanish flu") killed over 50 million people. The Hong
> Kong flu killed about one million people in 1969. The Asian flu killed
> about 2 million people in 1958.

There are people claiming that /vaccinations/ were the actual cause of 
the Spanish Flu pandemy.

>   I remember one year when terrorist attacks alone killed many thousands
> of people.

Despite every one of these deaths being one too many, they are far 
outnumbered by - for instance - those falling victim to the tobacco 
industry even /every day/.

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay schrieb:
> Just as another way of looking at this issue, the "car culture" is huge in 
> the US.  In most places in the world, bicycles are all over the place. 
> People driving cars must be more patient in those countries. 

Well, as a German I'd say "bicycles all over the place" applies to China 
and possibly the Netherlands, but not to "most places" in the world. 
Sure, bicyclists in the streets are quite a common sight over here in 
Europe, but it's not like our streets would be literally clogged. And in 
the netherlands, which might have the highest "density" of cyclists, 
they have a remarkably good system of separate ways for their "fietsen", 
so even there it's a no-issue.

But yes, the US seem to be particularly devoid of bicycle traffic, 
apparently considering them more of a children's toy than a "mobility 
device".

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Yeh, my short experience of the US made me think that the entire road system 
> is not designed to cater for pedestrians or cyclists at all.  Making it by 
> foot even short distances is a nightmare, footpaths just randomly end, you 
> are forced to cross over large areas of parking lot or multiple-lanes where 
> it is obvious nobody usually crosses, or walk along the side of the road 
> because there is no path, it just felt really uncomfortable.

  In Finland these are quite common:
http://otoksia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/kevyen-liikenteen-katkoviiv.jpg

  (And no, the road going under the bridge is not for cars, but pedestrians
and cyclists.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I read that in the US there's such a huge global panic about children
> being kidnapped, that at some places it even borders the illegal to let
> children *walk* on the street alone (eg. to go to school or hobbies).
> Eg. some woman got fined because she let her kid do that.
>
>  Instead, children are always driven by car to and from wherever they
> need to go.
>
>  Now, this seems to be an utter failure of perspective: Approximately
> 100 children are kidnapped each year in the United States. However,
> over 10000 children die in car accidents each year in the United States.
> That's a one hundred-fold difference. Nevertheless, they still consider
> driving them by car safer than letting them walk.
>
>  Thus the "cure" to the problem of 100 children being kidnapped each
> year is to have ten thousand of them die in car accidents.
>
>  Sense or proportion, anyone?

You're comparing the wrong numbers if you want to make a decision about the 
safest way for your kid to get from A to B.  You need to be comparing the 
expected deaths per distance travelled, not the total number of deaths. 
Obviously these numbers are not as easy (maybe even impossible) to find or 
estimate accurately.

Otherwise you end up with absurd conclusions, like the safest way to get to 
school is to walk on your hands with your legs tied together, because nobody 
has ever been kidnapped or killed while walking on their hands with their 
legs tied together.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/17/09 01:51, Warp wrote:
>>          As for the number, 100 is too few. In my small town of about 100,000,
>> we have a bunch of cases each year. According to:
>
>>
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810#1
>
>> it's more like 250,000. The number that are reported missing is over
>> 750,000.
>
>    I think that the article I read was referring to the 115 which get killed
> each year by their kidnappers.
>
>    I wonder how many of those abduction reports are caused by panicking
> parents, without the child having been really abducted. I wonder that if
> they call the next day to the police to say "we are sorry, it was false
> alarm", if it still is counted in the statistics of abduction reports.

 >
 >    My suspicion is that those numbers are greatly inflated by a (mostly
 > false) moral panic in the US.
 >

	I doubt it. As I said, the "great" concern is more a media myth than in 
reality. And as Darren pointed out, most of the kidnappings are within 
the family (say, after a divorce), which makes sense.

	In any case, the numbers I gave for 1999 indicate that over 15000 
abducted kids were sexually assaulted - I doubt those were made up.

	And yes, the number of confirmed dead is on the order of 100. But if 
you're a parent, death isn't the only concern. Being kidnapped for a few 
days is bad enough.

-- 
Clones are people two.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         And yes, the number of confirmed dead is on the order of 100. But if 
> you're a parent, death isn't the only concern. Being kidnapped for a few 
> days is bad enough.

  Even if we considered being kidnapped (in any way or form) to be about
equally probable as getting killed in a car accident (if we count also
getting injured in car accidents, which can also be quite traumatic, the
number probably goes way up, but as far as I understand it, just the
death statistics are high enough to easily keep in par with the kidnapping
statistics), some other considerations should also be taken into account:

  The risks may be about the same, but the consequences of avoiding the
risks are much worse in the case of kidnappings than in the case of car
accidents. The "solution" to the former is to drive the children everywhere.
This decreases significantly the amount of exercise they get, which is a
huge growing problem in the US. Even when they grow older, they will have
learned the bad habit to drive everywhere, and it's unlikely they will get
rid of that bad habit, thus worsening the problem of not getting exercise
throughout their adulthood.

  Also driving them everywhere is way more expensive, and this money wasted
on gas and car maintenance is always away from something more useful and
educative (such as healthy hobbies).

  Not to talk that growing in a constant state of fear is not healthy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:54:51 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>And in 
>the netherlands, which might have the highest "density" of cyclists, 
>they have a remarkably good system of separate ways for their "fietsen", 
>so even there it's a no-issue.

That's not what I found when I worked in Eindhoven. The cyclists scared me half
to death when I was walking about the town centre. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 09/17/09 08:47, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          And yes, the number of confirmed dead is on the order of 100. But if
>> you're a parent, death isn't the only concern. Being kidnapped for a few
>> days is bad enough.
>
>    Even if we considered being kidnapped (in any way or form) to be about
> equally probable as getting killed in a car accident (if we count also
> getting injured in car accidents, which can also be quite traumatic, the
> number probably goes way up, but as far as I understand it, just the
> death statistics are high enough to easily keep in par with the kidnapping
> statistics), some other considerations should also be taken into account:

	Which gets to the main crux of the problem: Every society has 
acceptable and unacceptable deaths/related problems.

	Dying in a car accident, where no one was drunk and it was just an 
"honest mistake" is more desirable than dying via being kidnapped, or 
sexually assaulted while kidnapped.

	I'm willing to bet families who've lost children to simple "honest" 
accidents recover much quicker than those who've had their children 
killed/molested by kidnappers.

	So if you view things in terms of "risk", realize that in most parents' 
minds ("right" or "wrong"), they *are* going for something less risky, 
because one death is not as bad as the other one. It makes sense to 
allow the likelihood of that death to go up if it will reduce the 
likelihood of the really bad kind.

	You can see this in many aspects of society.

	Take iatrogenesis. It's essentially having adverse effects to your 
health because of "complications" while receiving treatments. It could 
include errors by doctors, medication errors, catching other diseases 
while staying in the hospital, and more. If you count it as a "cause of 
death", it's the third highest cause of death in the US.

	More people generally die in the US simply by catching diseases while 
at hospitals than from, say, diabetes. (Well, roughly the same number).

	Now I believe that if significant resources were allocated to address 
iatrogenesis. the number of deaths could be reduced by a lot - perhaps 
even down to half. And I doubt you'd even need *that* many resources to 
significantly tackle this problem.

	But society has deemed dying by being kidnapped, or by a terrorist, as 
much worse. Hence, it makes the tradeoff and allocates 
disproportionately more resources to those than to tackle this problem.

	Same applies to trying to tackle traffic fatalities, and many more. 
Health care, anyone? 		

	Of course, what I'm saying isn't an invariant. Other societies will 
view all this differently, but will probably have other inconsistencies 
related to deaths that may not be present in the US. And these change 
over time. I believe that society _can_ be convinced in changing these 
variables.

>    The risks may be about the same, but the consequences of avoiding the
> risks are much worse in the case of kidnappings than in the case of car
> accidents. The "solution" to the former is to drive the children everywhere.
> This decreases significantly the amount of exercise they get, which is a
> huge growing problem in the US. Even when they grow older, they will have
> learned the bad habit to drive everywhere, and it's unlikely they will get
> rid of that bad habit, thus worsening the problem of not getting exercise
> throughout their adulthood.
>
>    Also driving them everywhere is way more expensive, and this money wasted
> on gas and car maintenance is always away from something more useful and
> educative (such as healthy hobbies).
>
>    Not to talk that growing in a constant state of fear is not healthy.
>


	Which is all acceptable compared to being kidnapped. The goal isn't to 
reduce fatalities. It's to reduce "really bad" fatalities.



-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:

>> And in 
>> the netherlands, which might have the highest "density" of cyclists, 
>> they have a remarkably good system of separate ways for their "fietsen", 
>> so even there it's a no-issue.
> 
> That's not what I found when I worked in Eindhoven. The cyclists scared me half
> to death when I was walking about the town centre. :)

Mind you, I was referring to bicycles vs. automobile traffic - not 
bicycles vs. pedestrians :-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Mind you, I was referring to bicycles vs. automobile traffic 

In china, it's bicycles vs busses. I'm surprised there's any chinese people 
left in the world, myself.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   Thus it's not "crazy" to be scared of a flu pandemic.
>
>   However, do you know what *is* crazy? Thousands of pigs being slaughtered
> and international import bans on pork.

They are slaughtered everyday.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:32:46 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>Stephen schrieb:
>
>>> And in 
>>> the netherlands, which might have the highest "density" of cyclists, 
>>> they have a remarkably good system of separate ways for their "fietsen", 
>>> so even there it's a no-issue.
>> 
>> That's not what I found when I worked in Eindhoven. The cyclists scared me half
>> to death when I was walking about the town centre. :)
>
>Mind you, I was referring to bicycles vs. automobile traffic - not 
>bicycles vs. pedestrians :-)

I knew that but I'm emotionally scarred. ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>  In Finland these are quite common:
> http://otoksia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/kevyen-liikenteen-katkoviiv.jpg

Which side of the dashed line can I expect oncoming cyclists to use?  The 
dashed line to me makes it look like they should come on the left (and I 
stay on the right) like a normal car road, but then the sign seems to 
indicate bikes should stay to the right of the centre (or is that just a 
general sign to say the road is shared, where the vertical line is 
meaningless?).

Post a reply to this message

> In china, it's bicycles vs busses.

On a 4-lane road, with no cycle lane, in a curve, with (3-wheeler) bicycle 
and bus in the same lane but going in opposite directions.  The scariest 
thing is that really nobody cared and acted like this is completely normal 
behaviour.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4ab23df0@news.povray.org...
>... The "solution" to the former is to drive the children everywhere.
> This decreases significantly the amount of exercise they get, which is a
> huge growing problem in the US. Even when they grow older, they will have
> learned the bad habit to drive everywhere, and it's unlikely they will get
> rid of that bad habit, thus worsening the problem of not getting exercise
> throughout their adulthood.
>
>  Also driving them everywhere is way more expensive, and this money wasted
> on gas and car maintenance is always away from something more useful and
> educative (such as healthy hobbies).
>

That's partly what I was getting at in my bicycle post.  Not only do 
children learn the "bad habit" of driving everywhere, but alternate forms of 
transportation seem to be discouraged by the government as a whole.  Many, 
if not most, cities and towns that have bicycle paths got the money from 
private funds.  There is a HUGE percentage of the population that seem to 
think bicycle paths are a waste of public money, but money spent on roads is 
never wasted.  It's a sad fact.

Having said all of that, the vast majority of people I encounter on the road 
while riding are very courteous, especially while I'm riding by myself.  But 
get a handful of cyclists in a group, traffic has to slow down more often, 
cars may get backed up a bit, and people become extremely irritated and 
impatient, apparently because now they will arrive at their destination 45 
seconds later, which I guess is just inexcusable.

I don't know if this is true in other developed countries, but in the US, 
your cars really seem to be an extension of your home.  In fact, for some, 
it's more of a home than their actual home/apartment.  I think that's part 
of the reason we tend to drive the large SUV's, and more and more of the 
"comforts of home" seem to be showing up in our automobiles.  And if those 
comforts aren't there from the factory, then there's always plenty of room 
to pack them in yourself.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 11 lines --]

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > >   Thus it's not "crazy" to be scared of a flu pandemic.
> >
> >   However, do you know what *is* crazy? Thousands of pigs being slaughtered
> > and international import bans on pork.

> They are slaughtered everyday.

  But now they are slaughtered and thrown away. That is, killed for nothing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  In Finland these are quite common:
> > http://otoksia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/kevyen-liikenteen-katkoviiv.jpg

> Which side of the dashed line can I expect oncoming cyclists to use?  The 
> dashed line to me makes it look like they should come on the left (and I 
> stay on the right) like a normal car road, but then the sign seems to 
> indicate bikes should stay to the right of the centre (or is that just a 
> general sign to say the road is shared, where the vertical line is 
> meaningless?).

  Coincidentally, that photo is in a website complaining about that exact
problem.

  That kind of arrangement is rare, though. Usually it's more logical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18-9-2009 0:12, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:54:51 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
>> And in 
>> the netherlands, which might have the highest "density" of cyclists, 
>> they have a remarkably good system of separate ways for their "fietsen", 
>> so even there it's a no-issue.
> 
> That's not what I found when I worked in Eindhoven. The cyclists scared me half
> to death when I was walking about the town centre. :)
Did anyone post 
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month yet?

I like the dutch entry: 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/February2009.htm

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Yeh, my short experience of the US made me think that the entire road
> system is not designed to cater for pedestrians or cyclists at all. 
> Making it by foot even short distances is a nightmare, footpaths just
> randomly end, you are forced to cross over large areas of parking lot or
> multiple-lanes where it is obvious nobody usually crosses, or walk along
> the side of the road because there is no path, it just felt really
> uncomfortable.  I even saw a sign that said "No Cycling" at the vehicle
> entrance to a shopping centre parking!  That just wouldn't be allowed here.
> 

I have seen a few signs like that at shopping malls, usually right next
to the racks for locking a bicycle to. In other cases, it is at the
entrance to the large parking structure. And with the way people drive
through those, I would not feel safe taking a bike into it.

The "No bicycles, No skateboards, No rollerskate, etc" signs that I have
seen are usually to keep out the kids who want a large open parking lot
to try new tricks in. Getting there via those methods is fine, but
riding around in the parking lot, or worse inside the shopping center,
is not.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:04:06 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>Did anyone post 
>http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month yet?
>

That was quite amusing. I particularly liked the one where the cycle path
swerved around a lamppost only to direct the bicycles into a bus shelter. 
About eight << from the link :)

>I like the dutch entry: 
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/February2009.htm

I suppose that path takes you home from the coffee shop :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message