colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (06/06/85)
[King of the Road] > > First of all where did the idea come from that roads were intended for > > automobiles and not for biclycles. Historically, roads were > > originally intended for bicycles and autos were considered a nuisance. > > Sure they were. Any evidence for this, or are we just supposed to > take your word for it? (Were the horses and wagons allowed on the road > with the bicycles?) There's plenty of evidence in the newspapers of the period, not to mention old people's memories. When motor-cars were introduced, they were indeed considered dangerous, and many people felt that they should be banned from public roads. And every time somebody had a motor accident, that feeling grew. It was many years before people came to feel that roads are mainly for cars. I do not blame anybody for questioning that attitude! -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
ewa@gatech.CSNET (Eric Allender) (06/09/85)
From postnews Sun Jun 9 13:33:23 1985 > > There's plenty of evidence in the newspapers of the period, not to > mention old people's memories. When motor-cars were introduced, they > were indeed considered dangerous, and many people felt that they should > be banned from public roads. And every time somebody had a motor > accident, that feeling grew. > > It was many years before people came to feel that roads are mainly > for cars. I do not blame anybody for questioning that attitude! > -- > Col. G. L. Sicherman > ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel A tangential interjection: I remember hearing some old-timers talking in my home town in Iowa. They were remembering that they were really happy when kids started driving cars, because if they were driving cars then they wouldn't be getting themselves hurt racing their horses. (!) Eric Allender School of Information & Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: ewa@GaTech ARPA: ewa%GaTech.csnet@CSNet-Relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!ewa -- Eric Allender School of Information & Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: ewa@GaTech ARPA: ewa%GaTech.csnet@CSNet-Relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!ewa
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (06/13/85)
> > > Historically, roads were > > > originally intended for bicycles and autos were considered a nuisance. Going back even further, when the bicycle was introduced it was considered a hazard to horses, carriges, etc. that the roads were then *intended* for. A startled horse pulling a coach was indeed a harzard! It went so far that in England road racing of bicycles was banned. This lead to a number of cycling traditions that are still with us most notably the time trial race (individuals starting at timed intervals, alone), and black (i.e. inconspicuous), clothing. The latter is still seen in cycling shorts and shoes, although color is encroaching. Some much for history. I hope nowadays, given that most automobile drivers are smarter than horses, we can work out more sensible solutions. As I have contended in past postings, the group (unfortunately), most at fault are the bike riders, the majority of whom have cavalier dis- regard for traffic laws. Respect is earned, not demanded. We don't need additional laws or complex communication protocols (we are also smarter than computers!), we simply need to use the existing system and show, if not respect, at least a little regard for each other. Fred Klink Varian Associates
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (06/16/85)
Unfortunately it was years ago that I saw the item, and I therefore can't document it, but it was a citation of a law from one of the midwestern states, providing that because motor vehicles are such obviously dangerous conveyances, each time one of them drove through town, it had to have someone walking out front to make sure it didn't hit any living creatures.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/19/85)
In article <324@varian.UUCP> fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) writes: > > given that most automobile >drivers are smarter than horses, Sorry, incorrect assumption..... :-)
bill@persci.UUCP (06/24/85)
In article <139@psc70.UUCP> tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: > Unfortunately it was years ago that I saw the item, and I >therefore can't document it, but it was a citation of a law from one >of the midwestern states, providing that because motor vehicles are >such obviously dangerous conveyances, each time one of them drove >through town, it had to have someone walking out front to make sure it >didn't hit any living creatures. I came into this late, but Palo Alto CA had such an ordinance on its books until the mid 1970s. The person walking in front was supposed to carry a lantern as well. The ordinance was forgotten until a couple students found it and obeyed! (Yes, they got a ticket! I think they beat it, though..) -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill