bike lanes save money/lives/health

[Wilber]

Oh and the bit about having to watch for traffic from the left? Where exactly would that traffic come from?

You are making a right turn onto another street. Where the hell do you think the traffic on your left will come from.

Enjoy your Darwin.

[Wilber]

The car wasn't directly in front of the cyclist, but off to the left and itself partially obscured, a fact you continue to ignore. Oh and the bit about having to watch for traffic from the left? Where exactly would that traffic come from?

Must have been since he was able to brake and avoid the car that swerved suddenly into his path.

Oh and now the side window is obscured too! Interesting plant in that divider that can grow so rapidly in the course of a single comment thread. It's clear from the video that the side window is not obscured. And its clear from the google street view images posted that the "hedge" ends several feet before the intersection itself (another fact you ignore). Anything else?

Except you've focused all of your energy on denouncing the person who was minding his own business with nary a word about the person breaking the law and basic safe driving practices.

Oh so now the driver is too dumb to figure out a pretty basic sign. But that's the city's fault. OK,

This is a complete strawman. Pathetic.

Which makes it kind of important to stop and look when you are crossing a goddamned bike lane.

Maybe the cyclist was going a bit too fast, maybe he saw the driver signalling and wrongly assumed that the driver would obey the posted sign or at least note the presence of bikes in the actual bike lane. None of that changes the fact that his failures in this incident pale to insignificance next to the multiple errors and violations committed by the driver, who most certainly have been held legally responsible if the incident had been more serious. yet you continue to make excuses for her dangerous driving. Why?

Yet smart assed know it all cyclists don't have to demonstrate any level of knowledge or skill in order to share the road with other traffic. Do they.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet smart assed know it all cyclists don't have to demonstrate any level of knowledge in order to share the road with other traffic. Do they.

Touche'......

[Black Dog]

You are making a right turn onto another street. Where the hell do you think the traffic on your left will come from.

On this particular section of roadway, the only possible place would be traffic from the oncoming direction turning left onto the same street where the driver in question is turning right. See? Thanks for once again demonstrating your ignorance of the city you claim to have been driving in lo this many years.

Enjoy your Darwin.

That you have lived long enough driving as you must do is proof that natural selection is flawed.

Yet smart assed know it all cyclists don't have to demonstrate any level of knowledge in order to share the road with other traffic. Do they.

Here we have an example of a (presumably) licensed driver committing multiple violations of the rules of the road, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Black Dog

[Wilber]

Here we have an example of a (presumably) licensed driver committing multiple violations of the rules of the road, so I'm not sure what point you;re trying to make with this. It's ok: you can just admit you were wrong and move on.

I never said it was OK. I pointed out some possible reasons for it. I do say the cyclist also had his head up is ass and considering he is the most vulnerable, he has the most to lose because of it.

You can go to you grave claiming you were in the right, but you are still dead.

[Wilber]

That you have lived long enough driving as you must do is proof that natural selection is flawed.

I have been driving a long time. As well as a regular drivers license, I have an endorsement for heavy trailer towing and have take both basic and advanced collision avoidance courses from Driving Unlimited. What have you done?

[BubberMiley]

I have been driving a long time. As well as a regular drivers license, I have an endorsement for heavy trailer towing and have take both basic and advanced collision avoidance courses from Driving Unlimited. What have you done?

So who taught you that it's reasonable to proceed blindly across traffic when you're supposed to yield?

[Black Dog]

I never said it was OK. I pointed out some possible reasons for it. I do say the cyclist also had his head up is ass and considering he is the most vulnerable, he has the most to lose because of it.

You made a series of increasingly ludicrous excuses for the driver and never once acknowledged any wrongdoing on her part. So yeah, your faux concern for the cyclist is noted and dismissed.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

So who taught you that it's reasonable to proceed blindly across traffic when you're supposed to yield?

But the hedges, man: the hedges!

[Wilber]

You made a series of increasingly ludicrous excuses for the driver and never once acknowledged any wrongdoing on her part. So yeah, your faux concern for the cyclist is noted and dismissed.

Dismiss what you will, the guy was still riding like an idiot.

[Wilber]

You made a series of increasingly ludicrous excuses for the driver and never once acknowledged any wrongdoing on her part. So yeah, your faux concern for the cyclist is noted and dismissed.

For you, everything has to be black and white, right and wrong. You just can't accept that more than one action can contribute to a result. Your folly.

[Black Dog]

Dismiss what you will, the guy was still riding like an idiot.

By riding in a straight line in his designated lane. OK.

For you, everything has to be black and white, right and wrong. You just can't accept that more than one action can contribute to a result. Your folly.

Another silly strawman. You're awful at this.

[Wilber]

By riding in a straight line in his designated lane. OK.

Another silly strawman. You're awful at this.

You don't know what that driver did or didn't see. There were two cyclists, the one taking the movie and the one in the movie. The one in the movie passed the other just before the intersection at a much higher speed. Maybe she did see the first bike but not the one passing it. We don't know. The moral of the story is you can't count on being seen in these situations so ride accordingly.

The problem is you can't bring yourself to admit the rider might have contributed to the situation, so you are incapable of critiquing the whole incident and learning something from it. Instead, you use it to re enforce your own prejudices and learn nothing.

Doesn't matter to me, I'm not going to be the one jammed under a car or going over top of it. So carry on boys.

[guyser]

The problem is you can't bring yourself to admit the rider might have contributed to the situation, so you are incapable of critiquing the whole incident and learning something from it. Instead, you use it to re enforce your own prejudices and learn nothing.

I deal with this stuff every damn day.

I can tell you with no shadow of a doubt that the rider, in real time and in court should it go there, did nothing to contribute to the situation.

Absolutely nothing at all. As in 0% contribute. He was going where he should be, and following all laws.

No one the other hand, the driver.....?

100% at fault.

Thats what you need to see

[BubberMiley]

Doesn't matter to me, I'm not going to be the one jammed under a car or going over top of it. So carry on boys.

Does it matter that you're going to be the one driving the car with someone jammed under it?

[Black Dog]

You don't know what that driver did or didn't see.

This after you made numerous declarations about what the driver and cyclist could and could not see.

There were two cyclists, the one taking the movie and the one in the movie. The one in the movie passed the other just before the intersection at a much higher speed. Maybe she did see the first bike but not the one passing it. We don't know. The moral of the story is you can't count on being seen in these situations so ride accordingly.

That's so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated. Indeed, if you had stated that initially instead of embarking on an extended bout of excuse-making for the driver, you'd look a lot less like a dummy than you do right now. But here we are.

The problem is you can't bring yourself to admit the rider might have contributed to the situation, so you are incapable of critiquing the whole incident and learning something from it. Instead, you use it to re enforce your own prejudices and learn nothing.

I didn't need to see that video or have this discussion to know there are a lot of terrible drivers on the road and just as many people willing to make excuses for them.

Doesn't matter to me, I'm not going to be the one jammed under a car or going over top of it. So carry on boys.

It must since you've spent the last several pages concocting elaborate scenarios (she couldn't see over the hedge that wasn't there and was looking out for cars coming from a road that doesn't exist) to explain the driver's behavior.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Black Dog

[Mighty AC]

Dear Motorist,

Bike lanes are an advantage to both of us. Please value my life over your time. Please know that I will strive to follow the rules and make myself as visible and noticeable as possible as I am aware that you have a 2 tonne+ advantage. Please don't leave a child without a parent. Please be safe, courteous and share the road.

Sincerely a cyclist, a father, a son, a husband, an average citizen trying to lead an active, healthier lifestyle.

[sammer]

Great topic and interesting conversation.

How to create better environments for cyclists has been a longstanding debate here in Saskatoon, and unfortunately a quiet one. We're smaller than most major urban centres, but the city is quickly growing, meaning that we have a lot of opportunities to learn from mistakes and build a good city. Unfortunately, politicians (and much of the public) still regard cycling as an alternative to cars, when it should be treated simply as a mode of transportation in and of itself. When you frame cycling as an alternative, it somehow feels less important in the transportation conversation (imagine what the conversation would be like if we viewed driving as an alternative to cycling?). The benefits of biking have already been discussed, so I won't mention them here, but there are a fair number of advantages.

It is not only about building a city based on a tier of transportation options, prioritized by current levels of use; it's about building a city that encourages people to use some forms of transportation over another. I love urban design because of the way subtle design can encourage how you see and use the city, based on human psychology. The effects of building a city not based on cars is both apparent and unimaginable; overall, exciting.

The cycling issue is composed of a lack of political will and creativity, car culture, illusions of convenience and entitlement, a hatred for taxes, and poor urban development.

I am not an aggressive or fast biker, so cycling on the road with other cars is terrifying for me. The rules of the road/sidewalk for bikers is confusing at best, and this seems apparent in most other cities, too, based on some of your conversations.

I liked at one point in the conversation where it seemed to take a positive turn, thanks to Mighty AC, who believed the future would be less dependent on cars, and I hope this to be true. Building cities based on cars has not resulted in attractive and practical urban design.

I am curious -- has there been any studies on what it would take to get someone out of their car and onto a bike? (Ex. "What would convince you to bike as your main source of transportation?"). In other words, a survey or poll on the potential number of bikers, and their reasons for not biking? Perhaps those of you from cities with relatively larger biking communities have had a similar survey done where you live?

[Bonam]

I am curious -- has there been any studies on what it would take to get someone out of their car and onto a bike? (Ex. "What would convince you to bike as your main source of transportation?"). In other words, a survey or poll on the potential number of bikers, and their reasons for not biking? Perhaps those of you from cities with relatively larger biking communities have had a similar survey done where you live?

Right now I live within walking distance of work, but if I lived farther away, then to be convinced to bike on a regular basis I would need:

1) Safety. There should be a completely separate bike trail (physically isolated from any road) for the vast majority of the commute. Any on-road biking should be limited to <5 minutes at either end, through clearly designated bike lanes, with no cars parked to the right of the bike lane, no buses stopping in the bike lane, and no right turns across the bike lane.

2) Weather. I don't want to bike regularly in the rain, or on snow or slush. I have seen areas with covered bike trails.. that is an option.

3) Facilities at the other end of the commute. The workplace should have a shower / change room (not all workplaces do).

5) Distance. The bike commute should not exceed 30-45 mins each way max.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Bonam

[Mighty AC]

I am curious -- has there been any studies on what it would take to get someone out of their car and onto a bike?

Right now I live within walking distance of work, but if I lived farther away, then to be convinced to bike on a regular basis I would need ...

I think that list describes what it would take for the vast majority of people to use their bikes for more than just recreation. I don't bike in bad weather either, but I was wondering how a place like Copenhagen deals with winter when 40% of their population cycles to work.

First of all their infrastructure is far superior to what we experience in North America. Check out this bridge built to relieve some cycle congestion and save time for commuters. http://grist.org/list/copenhagens-newest-bike-lane-totally-rules/ Secondly, plowing bike lanes is a municipal responsibility so the way is made fairly safe and clear, very quickly. Most of all though, cycling has become a normal, accepted way to get around in the city.

That's the problem we face in North America. It's hard to convince officials to spend money on infrastructure when they don't see the demand, but it's hard to increase ridership without the infrastructure. A couple in Ottawa has started the Bicycle Lanes Project in Ottawa to encourage people to cycle and politicians to build the lanes. They do this with clever social media ads like this:

http://vimeo.com/73639694

An interesting fact from the vid: NYC experienced a 49% increase in retail sales on 9th ave when segregated bike lanes were installed versus only a 3% increase throughout the rest of Manhattan. Numbers like those could definitely convince major North American cities to build separate bike infrastructure in their cores.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Mighty AC

[jbg]

Great topic and interesting conversation....We're smaller than most major urban centres, but the city is quickly growing, meaning that we have a lot of opportunities to learn from mistakes and build a good city. Unfortunately, politicians (and much of the public) still regard cycling as an alternative to cars, when it should be treated simply as a mode of transportation in and of itself. When you frame cycling as an alternative, it somehow feels less important in the transportation conversation (imagine what the conversation would be like if we viewed driving as an alternative to cycling?). The benefits of biking have already been discussed, so I won't mention them here, but there are a fair number of advantages.

Great maiden post. I'm in the middle of reading Robert Caro's 1100+ page Power Broker, about many of Robert Moses' alleged mistakes in moving the New York City area into the 20th Century. I don't think he did so bad but hopefully Saskatoon can do better as oil causes that city to expand.