Maybe bright yellow will work better

Facetiousness aside, the concern here is people putting their infants and even their oblivious selves at risk. Sure, non-cyclists are often ignorant of what a collision of a 200 pounder on a 35 pound bike at even a slow 12 MPH can do to a human, but honest to God, pushing a baby in front of any vehicle on a path clearly marked for cycles only is beyond stupid.

Roads are for vehicles, motor, cycle and where allowed equestrian, and not for pedestrians. Ped paths for for walkers, runners and maybe young ones on trikes. Bike paths are there to protect cyclists while giving them safe passage.

Just like there are signs on interstate ramps forbidding pedestrians, cyclists and horses, each of these paths should make it clear who is not allowed, with legal penalties. Glibly saying, "Of course pedestrians should walk wherever they feel they want to," is inane.

I say post it and fine 'em. If people are so callous and dumb that they'd put their kids' lives in danger on the road or bike path, let them know it's dangerous, dumb, and illegal.

Unfortunately, the DCR thinks ignoring the issue by saying, "Watch out for pedestrians!" is a solution.

I regularly poke fun at both pious and profane pro-bike comments on blogs. The reason I poke fun at these self-absorbed folks, is that they have little awareness of anyone other than themselves. Something like 'car drivers are mean, so therefore i can do whatever i like on my bike...because i can.'

Fortunately this is a minority of cyclist, albeit a noticeable minority. Dave Atkins' excellent post outlines behavior that not only works for everyone, but builds good will for the cycling community.

Last week i heard the head of Mass Bike on WBUR and he had a difficult time moving beyond the 'drivers are mean' so bikers have no alternative..., rather than acknowledging the anger and frustration that many pedestrians and responsible drivers feel at outlaw bicyclists.

The socially positive benefit of increased bicycle use would be better advanced more by responsible cyclists advocating responsible cycling.

I was going to ignore your comment, but since you took the trouble to use your Caps Lock key, I have to take you seriously now.

If a cyclist sees you in an area marked BIKES ONLY, then its on bro.

The real problem continues to be that people don't read, don't care, and don't bother no matter how they are getting around because nobody holds them accountable for their antisocial behavior while walking, cycling, or driving. The real solution: enforce ALL rules for ALL modes - cyclists, motorists, and sheepedestrians included.

The path that runs along the Pond is very wide. It is easily wide enough for a bike and a few people lined up side by side. The path also matches the criteria of sidewalks where bikes are legal: non-business areas.

The trail that runs adjacent to the Pond is fine for transportation from point A to point B but is unrelated to the use of the path around the Pond. That path is for recreation. Biking along that path is a recreational activity. The path is wide enough, long enough, and gosh darn it is good enough for walking, jogging and biking.

However, if the goal is for the path to be exclusively for the sauntering set (which I gladly do as well) then let's go the full route of banning any form of movement other than walking.

We should also ban cars, motorcycles, trucks and any other vehicle that makes the Jamaica Way a virtual highway. The park roadways from the Fenway to the Arboretum were never designed for motorized vehicles. Not only are they dangerous to people but they are destroying one of the grandest boulevards of trees in the city. If banning bikes is a quality of life matter then to not ban vehicles that damage the area is disingenuous.

It is ironic that with a push for more bicycling that one of the finest areas for bike recreation is off limits. Like I wrote wrong headed.

You are welcome to do what you wish with your dead. Please respect mine.

Both of them are equally 'classy' as both were designed around the same time by the same landscape architect, Henry Dearborn. Both have a large number of famous people buried in them.

It has always been my impression that people could drive cars into these two cemeteries for any reason, not just to participate in a funeral. Mount Auburn will even rent or sell you you a cassette tape or a CD so you can do a one-hour driving tour.

When the Forest Hills Educational Trust was still active, they sponsored the occasional bicycle tour.

You are, if you pardon, dead wrong about the concept and the contrast here. Both FH and MA are garden cemeteries, pioneers in the field and setting the tone for the U.S. MA is a few years older, but they were designed as parks as well as places for the dead.

From the beginning, both were for individuals and families to enjoy fellowship, stroll, picnic, engage in contemplation and also honor their dead. An idea was to integrate life and death in a new, positive way.

Both have beautiful grounds. I know both well and prefer FH, as did many noted writers and artists when it came time to plant their bones.

Banning the quiet cycles while allowing noisy, smelly motor vehicles for anything other than maintenance and burial is illogical and against the original aims. Times change, but this change at MA is not necessarily for the better.