Pete Owens wrote:If you don't consider cyclists as traffic then you do consider us as second class citizens - period.
If you do consider cyclists as traffic then the issue would not have needed explaining to you.
There's no need to explain anything,there was a cycling festival roads were closed so all ages could take part,other traffic was diverted.
It's explained clearly here:-
Cunobelin wrote:
Shoogle wrote:There was a closed road bike event in Glasgow city centre at the weekend. I didn't attend. The local evening newspaper, the Evening Times, reported that "the roads were closed off to normal traffic." Does this make cycling abnormal?
Normal - all traffic that uses the route may do so Closed to normal traffic means that a subset of that group is allowed and the rest excluded.
London Marathon is an example, residents only, an incident where only emergency vehicles are allowed, and a thousand other situations, not abnormal at all
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
According to the Collins English Dictionary: "Someone or something that is abnormal is unusual, especially in a way that is worrying." I'm definitely part of the traffic even though Sustrans talk about 'traffic free paths'.
there was a cycling festival roads were closed so all ages could take part,other traffic was diverted.
But that is not what the organisers said in the link. To remind you:
organisers wrote:On Sunday 4 August, we closed the roads of Glasgow to traffic and hosted a free cycling festival.
That sentence only makes sense if you don't consider cyclists to be traffic.
We all know what they intended to mean by the wording - so deeply held is the anti-cycling prejudice in which cycling is not considered as traffic that most would not even notice - in the same way that most men would not notice a job advert for a fire man rather than a fire fighter to be problematical.