BIKE: Do bike lanes really improve bike safety?

[Stuart Werbner]

This unfortunate response, which I fully expected, is also part of the 
problem, I believe...

   __o
_`\<,_
(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Werbner
Annuit Coeptis

"Any time of year it's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of 
life" -- the president


>From: Michael Bluejay <bikes>
>To: "Stuart Werbner" <stuwerb>
>CC: bikin-fred, forum
>Subject: Re: BIKE: Do bike lanes really improve bike safety?
>Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:37:53 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
>Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.41]) by 
>mc9-f28.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Wed, 5 Jan 2005 
>10:38:01 -0800
>Received: from [192.168.0.101] (cs6625163-17.austin.rr.com 
>[66.25.163.17])by ms-smtp-02-eri0.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP 
>id j05Ibu8H026050;Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:37:57 -0600 (CST)
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFkIIjDuDuP/eFETEdxhnKR
>References: <BAY1-F398D51922D9B6238480DC2BF920>
>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
>X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
>Return-Path: bikes
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2005 18:38:02.0327 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[AFF84670:01C4F355]
>
>On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Stuart Werbner wrote:
>
>>Yo MBJ,
>>
>>At the risk of hurting your feelings, after visiting your website, I  can 
>>understand why more people dont visit it.
>>
>>I notice that you've got dated items still on there all the way back  from 
>>1999. Dude, like that's way too 20th century!
>
>>I have visited your site a number of times and have found some useful  
>>info on it. But, I would venture a guess that if you kept your site  more 
>>up to date, more people would take it more seriously.
>
>
>This does indeed piss me off since it's not true.  Here's a list of  
>updates made since 1999.  This is available as the very second link on  
>every single page on BicycleAustin, under "Site Updates".
>
>While I still do a fair amount of updating to the site, it's true that  I 
>no longer do as much as I used to.  There's a reason for that.   (Stuart's 
>bitching is part of that reason.)