Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa
Umm isn't that exactly what IanS's point was?
|
In part, I suppose.
Racc's original assertion was that, if one watched cyclists, they would observe that 90-95% of them followed the rules of the road.
I disagreed, indicating that I watch cyclists downtown all the time and that most of the ones I see don't follow the rules of the road.
Racc then asserted that I was only watching the bad ones, not the good ones.
I disagreed, indicating that I watched both and, from my observations, the bad ones outnumbered the good ones. Often by a wide margin.
Racc then suggested that I wasn't watching in the right places, and that I should watch the Dunsmuir bike lane. Apparently, he asserted, even Milo Certig observed cyclists following the rules there.
I acknowledged that I didn't walk along Dunsmuir and that he may well be correct that cyclists on that street follow the rules.
Racc also asserted that I was probably seeing cycle couriers.
I agreed that, yes, I did see, among other things, cycle couriers. My understanding is that they are cyclists.
My main point - which was very limited - was that I disagreed with Racc's original assertion. No more than that. The remainder of the exchange consisted of Racc's attempts to explain away or disregard my observations because they didn't fit his beliefs.
At the end of the day, I believe lots of things I don't see myself. I don't count bikes going over the Burrard Street Bridge, but I accept, based on the City's numbers, that there was about a 7% increase in bike use on the bridge from last year before the bike lane, which is significant (though not as dramatic as the 26% "estimate" the City was touting prior to the data becoming available).
However, what I don't believe are Racc's broad, absolute and unfounded assertions about what all cyclists do.