entretanto wrote:Hey juanton just be glad we have elected leaders who in their infinite wisdom know what's best for us.
I am stating that the racks didn't meet city code, and were installed such that they cannot be used as specified by the manufacturer. Pretty simple concepts, I would think.
If you bought a shelving unit to store your CDs, and then found out after assembly that the only way you could do that was to stack on top of each other, instead of putting them on the shelves like books, perhaps you would think there was a problem with the design. Yes, the shelves are still "usable," but I would think you would say, "But not as most people expect a CD storage unit to work."
Bicyclists will often lock their bikes to almost anything in an effort to secure their transportation - parking meters, trees, sign posts, etc. This doesn't mean these items are properly designed bike racks.
I will try to get the city Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator to come on and explain how the bicycle racks codes were developed, since he feels pretty passionately about them. (We have our disagreements about what is an acceptable rack. I tend to have a more flexible definition than he does.)
The city's code follows that developed by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
(mostly urban designers and engineers around the country), so they are considered pretty standard. The racks at the Pinney Hawthorn branches of the library do not meeet these national codes either. Fitchburg is also adopting an even stricter set of standards, and in fact is recommending getting rid of many racks that I feel are fine.
Getting back to the original intent of the article, I think that the city should be following the same rules and codes that it sets out for other property owners. When we don't have racks that meet our own code, it doesn't seem right.