« Movie Nights on the Met Branch Trail | Main | DC Council passes contributory negligence fix bill, Bowser signals willingness to sign »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

New Zealand has very different laws that make this sort of thing possible. In the USA, if there was any injury, they would sue the bridge maker.

What the hell? Helmet laws are an over reach but mandating clip on pedals makes sense? Or is this an Emily Letelier moment?

If you mean Emily Litella, then yes.

Reading the source article I feel like New Zealand is separated from us by a common language...

The "clip-ons" refer to the fact that the bridge was widened ten years after it was constructed by hanging new sections off of it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Harbour_Bridge#.27Nippon_clip-ons.27

The pedestrian/bike path depends upon this unique construction. However, I would think that pretty much any bridge that can handle motor vehicle traffic could have a bike/pedestrian path added -- proportionally, the loads are minimal.

no reason not to do this except the complete lack of funding for non-car infrastructure in the region.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader