My original post: "Installing a bike trail along side an active RR of any kind is a very POOR idea. The FRA has developed strict regulations on how the two must be separated and how far apart (by what are essentially extremely tall and ugly looking fences)."

To which you replied: "If you were truly 'anti-stupid,' you wouldn't make such a statement."

Illogical, to be polite, because it has nothing to do with my original statements, which were "bad idea, but if done there are FRA regs which must be followed".

I am anti-stupid, but that doesn't detract from my statements in any way shape nor form. I stand by them, which BTW never implied, let alone stated, "should never be done" nor "isn't done". To find this information in what I said reveals more about the reader's biases and prejudices than mine.

The first one of these bike trails next to an active RR track I ever encountered was about 20 years ago north of Chico along the SP main line. It has one of these fences parallel to the track, about 25-30 feet away, to prevent the cyclists and pedestrians from straying onto the tracks, inadvertently (mp3 player jammed in ears) or otherwise (suicides). We engineers don't really like people offing themselves in front of our trains.

Being active in the Union, I was kept up to date regarding the Union-Company-FRA discussions over the concept and it's dangers and pitfalls, which lead to the development of the FRA regs that now cover the situation.

>If that's not what you meant to say,

It is precisely what I meant to say: bike trails adjacent to ACTIVE RRs are an unwise mix. You're not the first person on this forum to miss the word "active".

>The sentence following your introductory statement doesn't provide any nuance,

It most certainly does because it went on to say that the FRA actually has developed regulations concerning bike trails next to active RR tracks, which automatically implies that 1) it can be done, and 2) it has been done. "Poor idea" does not automatically equate to "isn't done", unless it's an inference by someone reading in and seeing things which arise from his/her own personal prejudices.

>but introduces a new issue that does not sufficiently support what you apparently meant (as explained by your arrogant reply to me).

No, it does not.

>Look pal, before you lecture about me putting a foot in my mouth, you should go back to school to learn how to write sentences which convey what you mean to say.

I'll say it once again, I wrote precisely what I meant to say "bad idea but it can be done if certain regulations are obeyed". If you see any meanings beyond these, hidden or otherwise, it's on you, not me.

>By the way, when I do have negative encounters with bicyclists, they are almost always on streets.

You got that right, and it's a growing problem.

>Your generalizations about bicyclists are both tiresome and poisonous.

While unfortunate, occasionally you have to hit mules over their heads to get their attention.