bike lanes save money/lives/health

[Wilber]

Ancient Romans didn't have pavement.

You're saying pavement was invented for bicycles?

[Wilber]

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

No, but I didn't say they were invented for bicycles.

[Wilber]

BTW, Roman roads were paved with stone.

[Bryan]

BTW, Roman roads were paved with stone.

The dirt paths covered with large uneven rocks that the Romans had is an entirely different thing than a modern smooth road. I mean, sure, technically an abacus is a computer, but no one is going to try to claim that the ancient Chinese invented "computers".

But, if you want to continue to be nit-picky for sport, I can revise the statement accordingly:

Roads that were smooth enough that it's even possible to drive a car on them only exist specifically because they were developed for bicycles.

[Wilber]

The dirt paths covered with large uneven rocks that the Romans had is an entirely different thing than a modern smooth road. I mean, sure, technically an abacus is a computer, but no one is going to try to claim that the ancient Chinese invented "computers".

But, if you want to continue to be nit-picky for sport, I can revise the statement accordingly:

Roads that were smooth enough that it's even possible to drive a car on them only exist specifically because they were developed for bicycles.

You obviously don't know anything about Roman roads. Many still exist.

[bush_cheney2004]

You obviously don't know anything about Roman roads. Many still exist.

Indeed....the Roman roads were built with far greater purpose than satisfying bicyclists wearing Lycra hot pants.

"The extraordinary greatness of the Roman Empire manifests itself above all in three things: the aqueducts, the paved roads, and the construction of the drains." Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 3.67.5

Edited July 27, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Bryan]

You obviously don't know anything about Roman roads. Many still exist.

I've seen them.

[Wilber]

I've seen them.

It seems you don't know what you were looking at. Do you really think dirt paths covered with uneven rocks would have lasted 2000 years. Not only were they cambered for drainage, archeologists think the surface was quite even when they were first built.

[overthere]

Roads that were smooth enough that it's even possible to drive a car on them only exist specifically because they were developed for bicycles.

Nope. People don't normally travel long distances on bicycles unless they're one of those weekend goobers in Spandex.

Have you seen the Napoleonic roads in France, many of which exist today and have cars on them now? They were built to allow cavalry, infantry, artillery and supplies on quick march routes at a time that were very few roads at all. The majority of heavy freight until the advent of trains in Europe went by canal, river and sea, none by bicycle. Napoleon obliged local governments to plant and maintain oak trees on both sides of these roads so his troops could march in the shade. Now those oaks are mighty indeed, and being right beside the road they tend to kill numerous French drivers every year.

[Black Dog]

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.

You mean drive?

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.

Assuming they can change lanes to pass me, which is not always the case in my urban area.

Way I see it sometimes it's more convenient for me to be able to ride on the right of a bunch of cars (say when they're at a light and I have to make a right turn). If I do that, I can't expect to also claim the whole road for myself in other circumstances; can't have it both ways.

[jacee]

Have to have it both ways, because it depends on circumstances.

[jbg]

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

As we all know a parked car was used to shield ducks crossing a Quebec highway. The ducks were fine, A car behind her didn't end up so well. The motorist was convicted (link to thread).

[The_Squid]

Toronto is making some new bike lanes... but city staff is ignoring the city council about making them properly separated for some reason.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/06/city-staff-must-install-posts-to-make-new-bike-lanes-safer-because-toronto-council-already-voted-for-them/

I noticed in the background of this photo that there are two delivery trucks taking up the non-separated bike lane. This forces cyclists to ride way out into traffic and makes it even more dangerous. Another good reason for physical separation of bikes and traffic.

[Bonam]

Toronto is making some new bike lanes... but city staff is ignoring the city council about making them properly separated for some reason.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/06/city-staff-must-install-posts-to-make-new-bike-lanes-safer-because-toronto-council-already-voted-for-them/

I noticed in the background of this photo that there are two delivery trucks taking up the non-separated bike lane. This forces cyclists to ride way out into traffic and makes it even more dangerous. Another good reason for physical separation of bikes and traffic.

Ridiculous. Illegally stopping or parking in the bike lane should incur a steep fine and be strongly enforced. Or better yet, just give cyclists the right to vandalize any vehicle illegally parked or stopped in the bike lane.

[The_Squid]

Here is an interesting video of what cyclists have to put up with... a car in the bike lane and then that same car nearly hitting a cyclist due to a failure to yield. Close call! Even when lanes are (mostly) separated motorists are still a hazard!

Before anyone says the car is in the right because the cyclist should have stopped as the car was turning, in Vancouver cars must yield to cyclists going straight. This is clearly marked at these intersections. I have included a google streetview of one of these signs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-driver-in-separated-bike-lane-almost-right-hooks-cyclist-1.2729054

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.27789,-123.131175&spn=0.000002,0.001742&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=49.277864,-123.131216&panoid=0v2FCibs8E11PooQUYoQlg&cbp=12,211.49,,1,-0.94

p.s. nice white Porsche 911 Cayman with white rims in the background!

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

[Black Dog]

Toronto is making some new bike lanes... but city staff is ignoring the city council about making them properly separated for some reason.

This is insane. The planner responsible should be canned for insubordination.

[Wilber]

Clearly shouldn't have been in the separated lane but she was signaling a right turn. Anyone passing someone on the right in an intersection when they are signaling a right turn has nothing to complain about if they get hit.

[The_Squid]

Clearly shouldn't have been in the separated lane but she was signaling a right turn. Anyone passing someone on the right in an intersection when they are signaling a right turn has nothing to complain about if they get hit.

You did not look at the google street view image I posted or read my entire post.

Please go back and re-read and click the link.

Vehicles must yield to bikes in the lane.

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

[guyser]

Clearly shouldn't have been in the separated lane but she was signaling a right turn. Anyone passing someone on the right in an intersection when they are signaling a right turn has nothing to complain about if they get hit.

Hmm...sure about that?

Recall that big semi turning right from the middle or left lane ? Did you really think you could breeze on through and not be held at fault? Not be charged?

[Wilber]

You did not look at the google street view image I posted or read my entire post.

Please go back and re-read and click the link.

Vehicles must yield to bikes in the lane.

I watched the video. If you look at it you will see the hedge in those planters is at or above the level of her side mirrors. If you insist on believing that drivers will be able to pick you up in their mirrors while turning, as you approach them on the right at 20+ kph, your Darwin Award will be well earned.

[Wilber]

Hmm...sure about that?Recall that big semi turning right from the middle or left lane ? Did you really think you could breeze on through and not be held at fault? Not be charged?

Huh? I think you used the wrong quote.

[The_Squid]

I watched the video. If you look at it you will see the hedge in those planters is at or above the level of her side mirrors. If you insist on believing that drivers will be able to pick you up in their mirrors while turning, as you approach them on the right at 20+ kph, your Darwin Award will be well earned.

Drivers must yield to cyclists. Look at the signs posted. I like how you can tell the cyclist's speed from that video... impressive... how do you do it?? You sure it wasn't 15kph?

Anyone who looks and yields properly instead of just blasting through a yield sign would see bikes in the bike lane. "I didn't see him there" is not a valid excuse to ignore yield signs.

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

[Wilber]

Drivers must yield to cyclists. Look at the signs posted. I like how you can tell the cyclist's speed from that video... impressive... how do you do it?? You sure it wasn't 15kph?

Anyone who looks and yields properly instead of just blasting through a yield sign would see bikes in the bike lane. "I didn't see him there" is not a valid excuse to ignore yield signs.

Carry on, they can put that on your tombstone.

[The_Squid]

I watched the video. If you look at it you will see the hedge in those planters is at or above the level of her side mirrors. If you insist on believing that drivers will be able to pick you up in their mirrors while turning, as you approach them on the right at 20+ kph, your Darwin Award will be well earned.

Here is the exact intersection where the driver turned right:

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.277844,-123.131077&spn=0.000001,0.000871&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=49.277844,-123.131077&panoid=OJqf04lj2qTJg-ZrDm580w&cbp=12,231.09,,0,7.14

Note the YIELD to cyclists sign and the hedge that really doesn't impair the vision of a driver.

Do you still think the driver was in the right?

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

[The_Squid]

Carry on, they can put that on your tombstone.

So because the car is larger, you think they were in the right? That's rather ignorant. When a semi truck fails to yield and squishes a car, you think the semi was in the right too?

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid