Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't wanna run over a cyclist. I don't wanna have that on my conscience, so it bothers me that they swerve in and out cut across traffic and do every inappropriate manoeuvre possible. It's mainly bike couriers I suppose, but all of them at some point have to interact with vehicle traffic and they seem to put all the safety concerns on us. 2 cars having a fender bender or side swipe in downtown Vancouver, TO or wherever is usually not too serious, but make it a cyclist and it can become life threatening.

Bike couriers are the worst, but a small subset of cyclists. And yeah, some cyclists can be irresponsible, but drivers should be more safety concious, seeing as how they are the ones wielding two tons of steel travelling at 50 km/h.

I ride a motorbike and it's amazing just how many vehicles don't see me (loud pipes and all). Cycles are smaller and have no sound, not to mention "doorings"....hey, I worry.

OT, but loud pipes are extremely annoying and don't enhance safety at all. Most threats are ahead of you. Your noisy pipes face backwards. All you're doing is pissing off bystanders and making people think you have a small penis.

  • Replies 370
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Sure..and just how do the cyclists specifically pay for the costs of such infrastructure changes.....a Spandex tax ?

Like any infrastructure, it will be paid for through taxes. Everyone pays for infrastructure, even those who don't use it.

Posted

I don't wanna run over a cyclist. I don't wanna have that on my conscience, so it bothers me that they swerve in and out cut across traffic and do every inappropriate manoeuvre possible. It's mainly bike couriers I suppose, but all of them at some point have to interact with vehicle traffic and they seem to put all the safety concerns on us. 2 cars having a fender bender or side swipe in downtown Vancouver, TO or wherever is usually not too serious, but make it a cyclist and it can become life threatening.

I ride a motorbike and it's amazing just how many vehicles don't see me (loud pipes and all). Cycles are smaller and have no sound, not to mention "doorings"....hey, I worry.

So, on the subject of better cycling infrastructure, what do you think?

Posted

You're right! I bet mowing down the blue haired crowd is the most cost effective and efficient way to reduce our environmental impact. Hell, it would almost instantly solve most of our regressive social ethical issues as well. All this time I've been pushing for low cost home efficiency retrofit loans payable through the municipal property tax system and then you come along with the trump card. Genius!

If that's the case, cyclists are doing a terrible job.... motorists mow down pedestrians at a much higher frequency than cyclists do.

Posted

Like any infrastructure, it will be paid for through taxes. Everyone pays for infrastructure, even those who don't use it.

So where will the extra revenue come from ? Motorists pay a lot more taxes that already built existing infrastructure.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Same way they subsidize the roads drivers depend on.

Cyclists pay gas taxes?

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted (edited)

Bike couriers are the worst, but a small subset of cyclists. And yeah, some cyclists can be irresponsible, but drivers should be more safety concious, seeing as how they are the ones wielding two tons of steel travelling at 50 km/h.

OT, but loud pipes are extremely annoying and don't enhance safety at all. Most threats are ahead of you. Your noisy pipes face backwards. All you're doing is pissing off bystanders and making people think you have a small penis.

Now that hurts! lol! Actually, the pipes have saved me more than a few times.

And, as far as drivers being more safety conscious, the majority of incidents that I've witnessed, have been the cyclist travelling faster than the auto. Usually a driver does their checks slows to make their turn and a cyclist travelling 20km faster gets hit at the turn - bike lane or not.

Don't get me started on "doorings".

Edited by Hal 9000

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan


I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah


Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball


Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball


Posted

So where will the extra revenue come from ? Motorists pay a lot more taxes that already built existing infrastructure.

Property tax, income tax, gas tax, congestion taxes, sales taxes, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

People who don't use the infrastructure still pay for it.

If you are suggesting that only users pay for bike lanes, that is just silly. These projects are not paid for that way in Canada.

Also, did you read the study where for every dollar spent the return is $6 to $24? So it is entirely worthwhile and will easily pay for itself and then some.

Posted

So, on the subject of better cycling infrastructure, what do you think?

I think the cyclists need to be more accountable for their own safety.

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan


I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah


Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball


Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball


Posted

So, on the subject of better cycling infrastructure, what do you think?

We have some great bike paths here along the canal and rivers. The problem is that the infrastructure is already built up, and when it was built nobody made allowances for bicycle paths. That means when the well-meaning types get the city to build a bicycle path along the road it narrows the space for cars, often removing a lane. Given cycling is something which, for the most part, only happens in nice weather, that compounds the traffic issues most urban centres already have. A few hundred people are happy, while many thousands are delayed.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
Also, did you read the study where for every dollar spent the return is $6 to $24? So it is entirely worthwhile and will easily pay for itself and then some.

Yes....I don't believe such the ROI is as great as proponents would have us believe. If it was that great, it would have been done decades ago.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Yes, they will be used less in winter... Roads are used less by cars in winter as well.

Not really, or at least in any measurable way. People still have to get to work, moreso in winter than summer since most people vacay in summer.

Some roads don't get plowed and are dangerous for motorists. Is this a liability issue? No.

All city major streets in a municipality/ city are plowed without fail. It may take a bit but any that would be candidates for bike lanes are always plowed.

Sidewalks are rarely plowed... and sometimes are even covered by road plows. Should we not have sidewalks then?

No idea what sidewalks have to do with this, its bike lanes, vastly different.

As an aside, sidewalks are plowed all over this city. If they arent by the city, then homeowners have a day to get it done or be fined.

Copenhagen is a northern city with lots of cycling.

Thats nice, Copenhagen gets 24 inches of precip a year (total, all year-rain snow sleet etc)

Avg snowfall for Toronto (never mind rain etc) is 48 inches.

Posted (edited)

I think the cyclists need to be more accountable for their own safety.

That's an ambiguous answer.

Cyclists pay gas taxes?

Of course... I own 2 cars, a boat and 3 bikes. I pay plenty of gas tax.

Edited by The_Squid
Posted

Not really, or at least in any measurable way. People still have to get to work, moreso in winter than summer since most people vacay in summer.

All city major streets in a municipality/ city are plowed without fail. It may take a bit but any that would be candidates for bike lanes are always plowed.

No idea what sidewalks have to do with this, its bike lanes, vastly different.

As an aside, sidewalks are plowed all over this city. If they arent by the city, then homeowners have a day to get it done or be fined.

Thats nice, Copenhagen gets 24 inches of precip a year (total, all year-rain snow sleet etc)

Avg snowfall for Toronto (never mind rain etc) is 48 inches.

OK... I will grant you that Toronto should not have bike lanes. And should keep Rob Ford as mayor.

It can be used as the model of what NOT to do for the rest of the country!

Posted

OK... I will grant you that Toronto should not have bike lanes. And should keep Rob Ford as mayor.

It can be used as the model of what NOT to do for the rest of the country!

Its pretty much a template for the rest of the country anyhow.
Posted

We have some great bike paths here along the canal and rivers. The problem is that the infrastructure is already built up, and when it was built nobody made allowances for bicycle paths. That means when the well-meaning types get the city to build a bicycle path along the road it narrows the space for cars, often removing a lane. Given cycling is something which, for the most part, only happens in nice weather, that compounds the traffic issues most urban centres already have. A few hundred people are happy, while many thousands are delayed.

But of course, it doesn't have to be like that at all if planned properly.

Vancouver's much maligned bike lanes were a success. Traffic wasn't any worse, traffic accidents were down, cycling increased.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-bike-lanes-to-stay-city-council-decides-1.1210290

Posted

Yes....I don't believe such the ROI is as great as proponents would have us believe. If it was that great, it would have been done decades ago.

So you have opinion, but no facts to back up your opinion that cycle paths don't work.

Got it.

Posted

Cyclists pay gas taxes?

Most cyclists also drive, so yes, though gas taxes account for only a small fraction of spending on roads. Those are mostly paid for by property taxes, that everyone pays.

We have some great bike paths here along the canal and rivers. The problem is that the infrastructure is already built up, and when it was built nobody made allowances for bicycle paths. That means when the well-meaning types get the city to build a bicycle path along the road it narrows the space for cars, often removing a lane. Given cycling is something which, for the most part, only happens in nice weather, that compounds the traffic issues most urban centres already have. A few hundred people are happy, while many thousands are delayed.

Can you give some specific examples?

Posted

Can you give some specific examples?

Vancouver. They keep talking about closing off a lane of major bridges to allow for bike paths. More traffic congestion cancels out any gain because a few dozen more people ride their bikes.
Posted

The seniors know what a honking horn means....but these self centered cyclists think everybody surely must know what it means to shout "On you left" and why it gives the cyclist the right to pass quickly with no concern for having to stop quickly to avoid injuring or killing somebody. The selfish cyclist is basically telling the pedestrian/other cyclists to "GET OUT OF MY WAY" so he/she does not have to slow down and pass safely.

So, if I understand correctly, your argument against safer infrastructure that separates cyclists from motorists and pedestrians is that the status quo is unsafe? Way to think that one through.
"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted (edited)

Vancouver. They keep talking about closing off a lane of major bridges to allow for bike paths. More traffic congestion cancels out any gain because a few dozen more people ride their bikes.

They added a bike lane to the Burrard bridge about three years ago IIRC: can you point me in the direction of the numbers showing an increase in traffic congestion?

Here in Toronto, they took away a lane of traffic on Jarvis Street for a bike lane. The impact on travel times was minimal (roughly one minute going south, and a bit longer north, mainly due to vehicles turning left). of course Rob Ford spearheaded the efforts to remove them, which cost taxpayers almost three times what it cost to install them in the first place.

The number one cause of congestion by a significant margin are single occupancy vehicles. Not bikes or bike lanes.

Edited by Black Dog
Posted

Vancouver. They keep talking about closing off a lane of major bridges to allow for bike paths. More traffic congestion cancels out any gain because a few dozen more people ride their bikes.

As Black Dog said, the Burard bridge project was a success. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. But you clearly don't even know about the project... you've just heard the griping.

Posted (edited)

They added a bike lane to the Burrard bridge about three years ago IIRC: can you point me in the direction of the numbers showing an increase in traffic congestion?

They took a lane off a bridge. There is no place on earth where it would not result in increased congestion because bridges are always bottlenecks in the system. However, I doubt Vancouver city council would bother to measure it because they likely don't want to know (or if they did measure it they would have a huge incentive to fudge the numbers). Edited by TimG
Posted

They took a lane off a bridge. There is no place on earth where it would not result in increased congestion because bridges are always bottlenecks in the system. However, I doubt Vancouver city council would bother to measure it because they likely don't want to know (or if they did measure it they would have a huge incentive to fudge the numbers).

So because you can't conceive of it, then it must not be possible? That's probably the worst cite I've ever read!

Clearly you do not know the area.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,898
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Flora smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Politics1990 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...