Yeah, that’s exactly ass-backwards to how bike paths should be designed, which is as flat and direct as possible to maximize their utility for transportation.
If I ever had the opportunity to meet the moron who came up with that policy, I’d slap him across the face and yell “what the fuck is wrong with you?!”
His answer would have been (and this is a fact):
“Bicycling is extremely good for one’s health. When there are more hills, the health benefits get even bigger. Do you not care of public health? Why are bicyclers not important to you?”
Most of the time I’ve been arguing with people on moronic SCAFT-based solutions, the reaction has been: “But this was done for safety! You bikers are an impossible and reckless bunch. It’s about your safety, and the safety of all the light traffic”
(“light traffic” is the phrase used to mean the combined pedestrian and bicycle traffic. As opposed to “traffic”. Which is people going to their work and doing other important things.
Yeah, that’s exactly ass-backwards to how bike paths should be designed, which is as flat and direct as possible to maximize their utility for transportation.
If I ever had the opportunity to meet the moron who came up with that policy, I’d slap him across the face and yell “what the fuck is wrong with you?!”
His answer would have been (and this is a fact):
“Bicycling is extremely good for one’s health. When there are more hills, the health benefits get even bigger. Do you not care of public health? Why are bicyclers not important to you?”
Most of the time I’ve been arguing with people on moronic SCAFT-based solutions, the reaction has been: “But this was done for safety! You bikers are an impossible and reckless bunch. It’s about your safety, and the safety of all the light traffic”
(“light traffic” is the phrase used to mean the combined pedestrian and bicycle traffic. As opposed to “traffic”. Which is people going to their work and doing other important things.