Hackers Test #2, p.125.
|
The lecturer describes a case study of The lecturer first explains that bike lane did not improve the city’s environment for there was only a small increase in cycling population because biking was physically demanding. In fact, only 1% more people chose to ride bicycles. This result is the direct opposition to the writer’s opinion that bike lane will attract a lot of people riding bikes ( to ride bikes 로 고치셔야할듯;; 이렇게 되면 해석이 이렇게 되는거 아닌가요? "자전거를 타는 많은 사람들을 끌어들인다.. 사람들로 하여금 자전거를 이용하도록 이끄는 거니까 to 써야 될거 같아요.) to the extent that car traffic will decrease. In addition, drivers got more stress because of the newly instituted lane. They had to endure the still severe traffic jam, while there was an empty space on the road for bikers. To drivers, making a bike lane was just erasing a car lane. This fact also contrasts the reading passage’s view that car drivers will also benefit from bike lanes for the reason that they will have lanes with much less cars. Finally, the lecturer says that bike lane did not decrease(-> lower 가 나을듯.) the rate of traffic accidents. Since bikers assume(d) their lane safe, they are(were) much more vulnerable to the unexpected accidents. For example, a bike may crash on the opening door of a car. This phenomenon is unexpected for the writer, who anticipated safer roads thanks to independent lane system for both drivers and bikers. |