bike lanes save money/lives/health

[WestCoastRunner]

Been years since I've been on that stretch. Walked it a lot during the sixties when it ended half way between Siwash Rock and Prospect Point. Not many bikes then.

[WestCoastRunner]

You should it out again then. Much different now.

[Argus]

A major story on last night's Vancouver news was about a pedestrian tourist who was knocked off the Stanley Park sea wall onto the rocks below. She is in hospital now for multiple injuries including a broken back. Speculation it was two cyclists racing each other.

Similar story in Ottawa the other day. Woman with two kids walking along the canal when some moron biker races downhill right at them. Apparently he had no brakes, so tried to put his feet down to slow down, but knocked some little kid ten feet when he hit him.

Honestly, there's no reason bicycles can't easily coexist with pedestrians as long as the bikers aren't morons. There's no reason to be racing along where there are pedestrians.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Argus

[Bryan]

Similar story in Ottawa the other day. Woman with two kids walking along the canal when some moron biker races downhill right at them. Apparently he had no brakes, so tried to put his feet down to slow down, but knocked some little kid ten feet when he hit him.

Honestly, there's no reason bicycles can't easily coexist with pedestrians as long as the bikers aren't morons. There's no reason to be racing along where there are pedestrians.

The thing is, the real story is usually the opposite. Most of the time its: the cyclist makes several attempts to warn the pedestrians they were coming (verbally and with bells/horns), only to have the pedestrian step right in front of them as they were passing by. I've had so many narrow misses like this I've lost count. Granted, I also slow right down, and I keep my hands ready on the brake levers, so the severity of such a collision would be greatly minimized.

And the riding without brakes trend just baffles me. It's really a popular thing to either buy a fixed gear bike that doesn't have brakes in the first place, or to remove all of the brakes immediately upon purchase. If you like to play with your toys like that on a closed space like at the skate park or on an open parking lot, that's one thing, but riding at full speed amongst traffic and/or pedestrians? How does someone make the decision to do that in the first place? Yeah, there is far too much nanny state mentality going on when it comes to bikes, but surely having a rule that you have to be able to stop is the bare minimum?

[GostHacked]

Bike lanes should be torn up. If you're not a skilled enough bike rider to get around in traffic, then maybe you shouldn't be riding your bike at all. But people who drive their cars shouldn't be inconvenienced by your life-style choice.

Drivers these days are distracted by all the gadgets in the car and their phones. It would be nice if drivers paid attention to the road. Even when driving my car, I have to watch out for the idiots. Even in a car I am at risk of getting hurt by these idiots. A cyclist does not stand a chance. Years ago I had a close call with a cement truck. A bike land would have been awesome as I only had inches to spare. I had to risk hopping the curb to get on the sidewalk. And bikes are not allowed on the sidewalk, so I seem to lose either way.

And what is with you lately? This is not typical of you.

[GostHacked]

And the riding without brakes trend just baffles me. It's really a popular thing to either buy a fixed gear bike that doesn't have brakes in the first place, or to remove all of the brakes immediately upon purchase. If you like to play with your toys like that on a closed space like at the skate park or on an open parking lot, that's one thing, but riding at full speed amongst traffic and/or pedestrians? How does someone make the decision to do that in the first place? Yeah, there is far too much nanny state mentality going on when it comes to bikes, but surely having a rule that you have to be able to stop is the bare minimum?

That is just really stupid. I really like the ability to stop the bike. Not just to prevent hitting people, but to prevent me going off the trail or something. Those are the kinds of people I like to throw sticks in their wheels. To show them what a sudden stop feels like.

No brakes? Wow, the stupidity.

[overthere]

Bikes should not be on sidewalks with pedestrians, period.

I have no problem with brakeless bikes on the roads. We should all encourage activities that benefit our common gene pool, and this one is obvious.

[GostHacked]

Bikes should not be on sidewalks with pedestrians, period.

I have no problem with brakeless bikes on the roads. We should all encourage activities that benefit our common gene pool, and this one is obvious.

Then separate bike lanes would satisfy the needs and the safety of everyone.

[Bryan]

I don't know what jurisdiction Bryan is in, so maybe the rules are different there. But in Ontario, you're only entitled to the whole lane in urban areas when it is too narrow to share or otherwise unsafe. Otherwise, you have to share the lane.

It's that "share the lane" idea that causes the problem. If it's OK for you to pass me inside my own lane when I'm ahead of you, then me passing you is sharing equally. This is one of those areas where the law is irrelevant -- you should never ride on the right side of the lane because it only encourages motorists to do things that are a direct threat to your life. If they have to properly pass you by changing lanes (the same way they would if you were a slower moving car), it greatly minimizes the incidents where you get stuck against the curb and makes it less likely for cars to turn across your path.

[Bryan]

Bikes should not be on sidewalks with pedestrians, period.

I don't have a problem with that, as long as pedestrians are not allowed on paths.

The fun part is the dual expectations of many non-cyclists. They talk out of both sides of their mouths -- "they're an obstacle on the road, they're too slow" is immediately followed by "they're too dangerous on the paths, they're too fast"

[cybercoma]

Similar story in Ottawa the other day. Woman with two kids walking along the canal when some moron biker races downhill right at them. Apparently he had no brakes, so tried to put his feet down to slow down, but knocked some little kid ten feet when he hit him.

Honestly, there's no reason bicycles can't easily coexist with pedestrians as long as the bikers aren't morons. There's no reason to be racing along where there are pedestrians.

Just the other day a bus went off the road on the Cabot Trail in Nova Scotia. The news reports didn't say it, but it was caused by some hipster cyclist riding his bike while drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon. He swerved in front of the bus and when the driver reacted to avoid colliding the the drunken hipster cyclist, who was also probably high, the bus went off the road. The resulting fiery explosion killed everyone on board. The liberal-biased media didn't report half of that because they want to push their climate change alarmist agenda and try to convince everyone they should ride bikes. Plus the cyclist was obviously a liberal, so of course they're not going to report anything negative about him. Meanwhile, it's the victims and their families yet again that suffer due to the completely nonsense liberal agenda.

[cybercoma]

I've got a statistic for you all too. You can't argue with facts. FACT: More car accidents are caused each year by cyclists on the roadways than anything else. I think we need provincial governments with temerity to start a bicycle registry to keep these maniacs in check. You need a license to drive a car and you need a license to own a vehicle. Why not for bikes? The liberal agenda. That's why.

Edited July 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

It's that "share the lane" idea that causes the problem. If it's OK for you to pass me inside my own lane when I'm ahead of you, then me passing you is sharing equally. This is one of those areas where the law is irrelevant -- you should never ride on the right side of the lane because it only encourages motorists to do things that are a direct threat to your life. If they have to properly pass you by changing lanes (the same way they would if you were a slower moving car), it greatly minimizes the incidents where you get stuck against the curb and makes it less likely for cars to turn across your path.

In most places the speed differential is too great for this to be practical. A cyclist riding in the middle of a lane in a 60 or 80 KPH zone is asking for trouble and at night he has a death wish.

[Bryan]

I've got a statistic for you all too. You can't argue with facts. FACT: More car accidents are caused each year by cyclists on the roadways than anything else. I think we need provincial governments with temerity to start a bicycle registry to keep these maniacs in check. You need a license to drive a car and you need a license to own a vehicle. Why not for bikes? The liberal agenda. That's why.

You have the relationship backwards. Most bicycle accidents are caused by car drivers.

http://www.research.utoronto.ca/smart-cycling/

While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling.

[cybercoma]

If the bicycles weren't there, the accident wouldn't happen. That means the cyclists are the cause. That's how cause works.

[Bryan]

If the bicycles weren't there, the accident wouldn't happen. That means the cyclists are the cause. That's how cause works.

If the cars weren't there, the accident wouldn't happen. That means the cars are the cause. That's how cause works.

[BubberMiley]

The news reports didn't say it, but it was caused by some hipster cyclist riding his bike while drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon.

That's impossible. Hipsters don't drink Pabst Blue Ribbon. They drink microbrewery ale.

[Wilber]

The fun part is the dual expectations of many non-cyclists. They talk out of both sides of their mouths -- "they're an obstac $le on the road, they're too slow" is immediately followed by "they're too dangerous on the paths, they're too fast"

The reality is, bicycles are neither one or the other and aren't compatible with either. The ideal solution would be dedicated bike lanes but they just aren't feasible in many places. Where they aren't, it's up to everyone to show a little extra courtesy and make it work for everyone. Butting heads won't get there.

[cybercoma]

If the cars weren't there, the accident wouldn't happen. That means the cars are the cause. That's how cause works.

You're wrong because that's where the cars are supposed to be. That's what the roads were built for. They weren't built for bikes and arrogant liberal climate alarmists who like to hold up traffic and create dangerous conditions for people just trying to get to work.

[Bryan]

Roads were built for bicycles. Cars came much later.

[Wilber]

Roads were built for bicycles. Cars came much later.

The ancient Romans had bicycles?

[Bryan]

The ancient Romans had bicycles?

Ancient Romans didn't have pavement.

[The_Squid]

The ancient Romans had bicycles?

you're saying the ancient Romans built roads for cars???

[Argus]

I've got a statistic for you all too. You can't argue with facts. FACT: More car accidents are caused each year by cyclists on the roadways than anything else. I think we need provincial governments with temerity to start a bicycle registry to keep these maniacs in check. You need a license to drive a car and you need a license to own a vehicle. Why not for bikes? The liberal agenda. That's why.

Would you like to tell us why you're miffed at the moderators, Cyber?

[cybercoma]

I'm not. Why would I be miffed at the moderators?