-=> Quoting Phil Piltch to Ken Peck <=-
 PP> We have some fun debate a couple of years ago when
 PP> debate rang over where to put a new dump, while the current government
 PP> of the day adamently discounted incineration of waste.
 I seem to remember it was the people who lived downwind who were most
 against it... the incinerator was built and used, and then restricted.
 Queen's Park was suggested as a site for a garbage fill site... on the
 basis that NOTHING USEFUL was being done with that property currently...
 and that more garbage wouldn't hurt it.
 Anything ever come of that suggestion to open the old Metro landfills
 as Mountain Biking areas?  For that matter is anything happening at
 Metro Cycling Committee at all?  I've been out of touch due to college
 this summer. (Don't tell anyone I bought a REAL mountain bike, please!)
 PP> While the rest of Metro Toronto has embraced this trail, this one area
 PP> worries over all these intrusions into their neighbourhood - crime,
 PP> traffic, etc... one map maker was going to show this trail anyway...
 
 Scarberians STILL don't want Toronto's garbage, eh!
 Guess they're the same ones who want sea walls along the bluffs to prevent
 erosion from washing their houses into the lake ( turning the bluffs into
 slopes that no one would want to see in the process)... instead of the
 natural process of bluff renewal... just because they were dumb enough to
 build on a clay bluff area...
 PP> We've been having a bit of a debate on speed limits here
 PP> talk of increasing the speed limit to 110 /120 KPH,
 PP> supposedly to reduce pollution, and improve capacity and flow of
 PP> our major highways. Blame for "accidents"was
 PP> placed on other factors besides speed, such as ...
 PP> Only crash stats can clear that one.
 I've always believed that the true problem is attitude and ignorance.
 Regarding MAXIMUM posted limits as being the absolute minimum at all times
 without regard to other conditions - road, weather, vehicle, personal etc.
 - leads to trouble.  Ever notice that most car advertisements STILL push
 performance and aggressive driving styles as desirable attributes.
 Another thing is the 'SAFETY' factor... convincing people that passive
 design features like airbags, crash bars etc WILL protect them thru almost
 anything... NOT TRUE of course.  But it encourages people to trust the
 car to protect them, so they lower their involvement in making safety
 decisions, choosing to simply point the vehicle and choose some speed.
 I'd personally like to reverse the process and increase the personal
 risks a bit... and get the driver DRIVING again.  Minimizing sensory
 overload would help a bit too, as would making things just a little less
 comfortable, ( help keep people awake on long drives).
 PP> Ultimately, I wonder what effect this has on cycling safety - seems
 PP> many motorists have trouble distinguishing a local street with a
 PP> freeway, and road designers only seem to add to this confusion...
 You would be amazed at a problem I see out here... over courteous or
 over cautious... drivers give bikes a clear lane when passing... right
 over to the other side of the road... (that's not the BAD part)...
 However they usually pay no attention to what is or might be coming the
 other way, even on blind hills...
See you again...
 
... Anything that kills you makes you... well, DEAD.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Renegade v5-11 Exp
---------------