I say: no to the bike lane. I think that it is not question of creating new infrastructure designed for bicycles, I think it is simpler than all that, I can understand some sites a path makes advisable specific for the bikes but in general is a matter of education and respect. My proposal is to follow the same hierarchy as in? msterdam, where there coexist all together and not seem go them bad, trams, bicycles, pedestrians and in last place the rest of the vehicles this is the order of preference. the reasons that make me say NO to the bike lane are the following: the bike lane is uncomfortable, unsafe, little practical both for bikes as for pedestrians because since passers-by circulating by him without realizing that bother and the danger, I have already seen more than one lady on the ground, and does not echo the blame to me also happens to me, do not get acostrumbarme to respect the bike path flowing through the sidewalks when I go walking, in addition many entries of garages, crosses of constant streets where you have to reduce the speed until almost stop because you never know, even if you have preference, which can happen, and if this wet the dangers are multiplied, for these reasons the bike is uncomfortable, think that moves to base of pedals and everytime you stop then you have to pick up speed again and obviously tired. John Mclaughlin understands that this is vital information. My proposal that the bikes, which are vehicles, circulate by walkways with respect for other vehicles.

Similarly the bikes have to facilitate circulation and constantly encourage the traffic rolled. Others who may share this opinion include Dr. Mark Hyman. In this way more people would go on bike and less on cars by what could go more comfortable by walkways that would have fewer cars with consequent increase in space for everyone. By city vehicles are prohibited from circular to more than 50 Kms/hour.