victor wrote:PiledHigher wrote:victor wrote:PiledHigher wrote:victor wrote:PiledHigher wrote:victor wrote:PiledHigher wrote:victor wrote:akashra wrote:Yes, I do.
Just because A implies B does not mean B implies A.
Correct, but I disagree with your other assertion, namely that bike paths aren't designed well, as that's an invalid generalisation. I think there are some that are designed well. The Koonung Creek Trail, which I use daily to ride home on, is a pleasure to use, since between Belford Rd Kew and Beckett St Donvale, there is only 1 road crossing where I need to stop. All other crossings have the path going under the road through a tunnel. I've also seen very few incidents of cyclists and/or pedestrians doing silly things on this path.
This still has some design issues as a number of the tunnels have fairly sharp turns at the tunnel approach. There are also some unnecessary curves, obscured visibility due to encrouching vegetation and steep gradients in a couple of places.
Not stopping at roads isn't the only design criteria I'm looking for.
Yes, it's not perfect, but I doubt any bike path in Melbourne is perfect. I've had no problems with this path. I just ride to suit the conditions.
I think the first generlisation is correct, most if not all Melbourne bike paths are not designed well.
No problem, but I disagree with you, and also agree with Marx's last comment.
So apart from the design problems I pointed out they are designed well.
What did the romans do for us...
In case you missed the hint in my previous post: I disagree with you and there's clearly no point in discussing it further since we're not changing each others' minds.
In case you missed my point, restating your opinion yet again to get the last word isn't a really good form of intenet discussion.
OK, I give up on this discussion, since you're not discussing anymore, just being rude.
You were never discussing, I pointed out a number of design issues, you failed to address why they weren't design issues..