Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
> My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable
maintenance-free
> meccas you make them out to be.

A more important point is that bicycles inflict zero damage on the
roads. The points are largely independent - and both may be true.


> Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
> but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
> for him.

Perhaps if you stood on the road, 30 inches from semis passing at 60
mph, you'd understand.

But perhaps not. Not everyone can understand everything, I've found.

- Frank Krygowski