Maelochs

Are you saying I could not catch a trouser leg between a chain ring and the belt? Are you saying a woman could not catch a skirt or dress between a chan ring and a belt?

Pardon me for being a richard about it, but did you think about what I typed? What did you think I meant when I said the belt was exposed,so Still a hazard?

Look, I understand people have different opinions, but we need to have respect for Rational, well-explained, sound and sensible objections. I made such (IMO.) I have never seen these sorts of deals pay off (apparently this has been tried in several places ... and no one can name one which worked out.) I expressed the thought---as have others---that having a bike does not magically grant one a safe place to ride that bike.

Apparently the developer is still including just as many parking spots because so many people objected that what would likely happen is that no one would ride the bikes and thus would end up parking on the already crowded streets (which of course would increase the risks for cyclists.) Also, unless a person is single or part of a childless couple, both of whom are willing to accept a little extra complexity, car-free is pretty tough. Winters in Baltimore can include snow and freezing rain, and only a very few commuters are That committed.

And yes, having an exposed belt means that riders can still catch clothing in the belt. Considering that none of the bikes offer front derailleurs, I see no reason not to cover at least the area right around the drive ring, and once that is covered, why not cover the rest? I fully understand the difference between belt- and chain-drive. I also understand that flapping cloth is a hazard around both.

And please note, I used the word "hazard." Not "inconvenience," not "annoyance," not the phrase could stair or soil" ... Getting clothes caught in a drive system is a Hazard, which can cause a crash. You think sartorial splendor, I think survival.

Other than all that ... whatever. if you want to go car-free, do it. I'd say that if a person wouldn't go car-free because his or her apartment had a parking space, that person lacks the real commitment that going car-free requires. After decades car-free, I know about that. Car-free looks good on paper, but after three days of cold rain and then freezing rain with ice on the streets ... getting up to ride to work suddenly looks like the last thing a person would want to do. Ever see a "lifestyle" cycling ad where the rider was seriously worried about frostbite? Because as an Actual car-free commuter, I have taken that ride.

I do not Want this building, or the underlying idea, to fail. I would Much rather face all kinds of cyclists on the road than all kinds of drivers in SUV, trucks, and cars. But I am also realistic, and realize that our urban and suburban environments need a lot of redesign before they can offer safe and convenient car-free living to most people.

So to me ... given that the developer is still providing parking spaces, to me this looks more like a $500 move-in special with a twist, rather than a step towards a more inclusive transport model.