bike lanes save money/lives/health

Boges · July 22, 2014

I don't oppose cycling infrastructure. But taking away from existing roads especially main arteries aren't really helping the situation. There are bike lanes in my area but no lanes were taken away from the road for motorists.

Generally cyclists live relatively close to where they're riding, they likely wouldn't be adding to the congestion problem anyway as walking and public transit are also options for them. The roads however are largely used for commuters and people transporting goods. They don't really have the option to cycle, even if they wanted to.

Unless cyclists are saying they'd rather outsiders stay away, which if congestion continues that will be a reality. People who choose to drive downtown are courting frustration unless they do it in off periods.

Mighty AC · July 22, 2014

Require a bicycling licence and a bicycle licence for any biker and bike that are used on a road. The bicycling licence would require passing a written and road test similar to a vehicle licence. The bicycle licence would be a plate attached to the bike. Use the money charged for both of those licenses to fund bicycle lanes.

Educations is always a good thing but taxing the healthy, smart choice is generally not a good way to use the levers of taxation. Ideally we want fewer people in cars and more using efficient transit systems, connected to bike shares. We don't have efficient transit and intelligent urban design yet...but it is always smart to tax what we want less of (traffic, carbon, overweight Canadians) and promote what we do want.

I'd get behind a move to displace a little dodge ball and floor hockey time, in phys ed class, with some bike safety training. In my area, students in grade 3 or 4 get one day of safety information, I'd like to see that stepped up to 1 week every (or every other) year.

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

I don't oppose cycling infrastructure. But taking away from existing roads especially main arteries aren't really helping the situation. There are bike lanes in my area but no lanes were taken away from the road for motorists.

Generally cyclists live relatively close to where they're riding, they likely wouldn't be adding to the congestion problem anyway as walking and public transit are also options for them. The roads however are largely used for commuters and people transporting goods. They don't really have the option to cycle, even if they wanted to.

Unless cyclists are saying they'd rather outsiders stay away, which if congestion continues that will be a reality. People who choose to drive downtown are courting frustration unless they do it in off periods.

So what you're saying is, as a downtown-living, bike-riding elitist, I should forget about safe cycling infrastructure because of the inconvenience it causes people who live outside of the city's core?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Black Dog

Boges · July 22, 2014

So what you're saying is, as a downtown-living, bike-riding elitist, I should forget about safe cycling infrastructure because of the inconvenience it causes people who live outside of the city's core?

Those are the people using your roads. It's not like they're parasites using roads just for the sake of it. People who come into the city are looking to do business and create wealth in the city.

Taking lanes away will only make them less likely to do so in the future.

If the decision makers are fine with that then cool. Can't bike lanes be built in less travelled roads?

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

Those are the people using your roads. It's not like they're parasites using roads just for the sake of it. People who come into the city are looking to do business and create wealth in the city.

People who come in to the city by car who don't live here are parasites. They are using infrastructure they don't pay for.

Taking lanes away will only make them less likely to do so in the future.

Congestion doesn't seem to deter people from using their cars as it stands. And that's without bike lanes. Drivers need to get over congestion. they don't have a right to a speedy commute.

Can't bike lanes be built in less travelled roads?

In Toronto, if you are travelling east/west, you're pretty much stuck taking a major road (King, Queen, College, Dundas, Bloor etc.). You could probably create a bike lane network on some of the less traveled streets, but you need an actual network so people can connect to where they need to go and there's currently no leadership on that score.

Boges · July 22, 2014

People who come in to the city by car who don't live here are parasites. They are using infrastructure they don't pay for.

Being employed in Toronto or spending money downtown doesn't end up contributing to infrastructure? Sure they don't pay property taxes on their own but they're working for and/or supporting a business that do.

Lots of TTC employees don't live in Toronto.

Congestion doesn't seem to deter people from using their cars as it stands. And that's without bike lanes. Drivers need to get over congestion. they don't have a right to a speedy commute.

Sure but if there's complete paralysis that's not a good thing either.

In Toronto, if you are travelling east/west, you're pretty much stuck taking a major road (King, Queen, College, Dundas, Bloor etc.). You could probably create a bike lane network on some of the less traveled streets, but you need an actual network so people can connect to where they need to go and there's currently no leadership on that score.

Probably won't get any of that from the current mayor. His bread is buttered in parts of the city that don't rely on cycling as a major form of transportation either. What's Chow or Tory got to say about the issue?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Boges

Argus · July 22, 2014

The point of roads is to move people and goods as efficiently as possible. Creating an environment that privileges the personal vehicle has clearly failed to achieve that end as we can see from the epidemic of road congestion. Therefore, it's worth looking at ways to get people out of their vehicles and into alternative modes of transport and to make those modes as safe and viable as possible where it's appropriate.

Bicycling is neither safe nor efficient, particularly in Canadian weather. It will never be used by more than a tithe of commuters. I'm all for more effective public transportation, but the bicycle is not it.

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

Being employed in Toronto or spending money downtown doesn't end up contributing to infrastructure? Sure they don't pay property taxes on their own but they're working for and/or supporting a business that do.

I bet it doesn't come close. That's why we need road tolls or congestion pricing.

Sure but if there's complete paralysis that's not a good thing either.

Indeed. That's why it makes sense to provide and promote alternatives.

Probably won't get any of that from the current mayor. His bread is buttered in parts of the city that don't rely on cycling as a major form of transportation either. What's Chow or Tory got to say about the issue?

Chow has a cycling platform, not sure about Tory. Ford is irrelevant at this stage.

Bicycling is neither safe nor efficient, particularly in Canadian weather. It will never be used by more than a tithe of commuters. I'm all for more effective public transportation, but the bicycle is not it.

Not implementing safe cycling infrastructure because people don't ride because it's not safe is a self fulfilling prophecy. Case study after case study has shown that improved infrastructure increases ridership. In fact, most major cities have seen upticks in cyclist numbers even without infrastructure (between 2001 and 2006, the number of people riding a bike to work in Toronto increased by over 30 per cent). the reality is there's a growing demand for bike infrastructure in our cities as people seek out alternative modes of transportation that are more efficient and cost-effective than the car. they should be accommodated.

waldo · July 22, 2014

No I am not:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/vancouver-not-toronto-the-most-congested-city-in-canada/article18963826/

In its fourth annual global traffic index, Vancouver ranks fifth among the most congested cities in the Americas, Toronto ninth. In order, the 10 most traffic-clogged cities are Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Los Angeles, Vancouver, San Francisco, Honolulu, Seattle, Toronto and San Jose.

In Vancouver's case a lot of the blame rests with the city council which places a premium on feel good gestures that please activists but make life more difficult for average people. Closing lanes on Burrard is one of many boned headed decisions so even if I don't have specific numbers for that particular change the over all numbers make it clear that Vancouver has a serious problem with traffic congestion and you cannot seriously argue that removing a lane of traffic did not incrementally make it worse.

of course, if one didn't actually look at your link's referenced TomTom data/results... and didn't recognize the type of streetscape Vancouver actually has, your point about comparative Vancouver congestion might be related/relevant. By design (geographic imposed, or otherwise), Vancouver city proper has no ring-roads and no true city corridors (N-S, E-W)... unlike the bike corridors put in place to specifically address N-S, E-W city cycling.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

Bicycling is neither safe nor efficient, particularly in Canadian weather. It will never be used by more than a tithe of commuters. I'm all for more effective public transportation, but the bicycle is not it.

That is another great reason for separated bike lanes. Safety and ridership go hand-in-hand. Plus, it will make the cars/trucks more efficient as they do not have to deal with cyclists.

Mighty AC · July 22, 2014

That is another great reason for separated bike lanes. Safety and ridership go hand-in-hand.

Agreed! Make it easy and safe and everyone participates. As is cycle commutes are generally limited to athletes and the die hard.

GostHacked · July 22, 2014

Cycle lanes are an outstanding idea and there is even a cheap and easy way to improve safety at intersections without needing additional space. Check out this 2 min video:

It's a great idea. Well thought out.

GostHacked · July 22, 2014

Not implementing safe cycling infrastructure because people don't ride because it's not safe is a self fulfilling prophecy. Case study after case study has shown that improved infrastructure increases ridership. In fact, most major cities have seen upticks in cyclist numbers even without infrastructure (between 2001 and 2006, the number of people riding a bike to work in Toronto increased by over 30 per cent). the reality is there's a growing demand for bike infrastructure in our cities as people seek out alternative modes of transportation that are more efficient and cost-effective than the car. they should be accommodated.

In many cases it is easier to walk or bike a short distance than drive. If this makes it easier for that to happen. Not only will you clear up vehicle congestion, but also pollution would be reduced.

I used to bike a lot, but I would like separate paths away from the road. Sure that is not possible in all areas. But it's hard to try and get fit and be healthy when sucking in all the exhaust from vehicles.

BC_chick · July 22, 2014

Cyclists are the most inconsiderate people on the road. I think that's why most people hate them. If I had a dollar for every time I saw one do something dangerous only to turn around and finger the driver (or pedestrian)...well, I'd be a lot richer.

Seriously? I deal with at least a handful of angry drivers on my commute to work. I might get one rude cyclist per year.

BC_chick · July 22, 2014

In Vancouver's case a lot of the blame rests with the city council which places a premium on feel good gestures that please activists but make life more difficult for average people. Closing lanes on Burrard is one of many boned headed decisions so even if I don't have specific numbers for that particular change the over all numbers make it clear that Vancouver has a serious problem with traffic congestion and you cannot seriously argue that removing a lane of traffic did not incrementally make it worse.

Sure you can. Having the lane increases commuters who cycle.

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

Seriously? I deal with at least a handful of angry drivers on my commute to work. I might get one rude cyclist per year.

And here's the other thing: generally speaking, drivers get mad at cyclists for inconveniencing them and occupying road space drivers feel entitled to (I've been honked at and flipped off for nothing more than waiting to make a left hand turn from the regular lane). Cyclists get pissed at drivers for endangering their lives.

BC_chick · July 22, 2014

And here's the other thing: generally speaking, drivers get mad at cyclists for inconveniencing them and occupying road space drivers feel entitled to (I've been honked at and flipped off for nothing more than waiting to make a left hand turn from the regular lane). Cyclists get pissed at drivers for endangering their lives.

Yep, I've had drivers outright yelling at me to get off "their" road.

Argus · July 22, 2014

And here's the other thing: generally speaking, drivers get mad at cyclists for inconveniencing them and occupying road space drivers feel entitled to (I've been honked at and flipped off for nothing more than waiting to make a left hand turn from the regular lane). Cyclists get pissed at drivers for endangering their lives.

When a car is traveling at 60k its more than an inconvenience to have them slow down to 5k. Going around you is usually possible, but I have to wonder how many cars have sideswiped other vehicles swerving to do so. More than a few, I bet.

Mighty AC · July 22, 2014

When a car is traveling at 60k its more than an inconvenience to have them slow down to 5k. Going around you is usually possible, but I have to wonder how many cars have sideswiped other vehicles swerving to do so. More than a few, I bet.

Agreed. Bike lanes and better intersections (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23803-bike-lanes-save-moneyliveshealth/#entry982396) are the intelligent way to improve safety and convenience for everyone on the road.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Mighty AC

danchessplayer · July 22, 2014

I would aggree,

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

When a car is traveling at 60k its more than an inconvenience to have them slow down to 5k.

Well, first off they'd be speeding. Second, it's no different than having to slow down for a car making the same turn, yet I doubt many driver's get flipped off/honked at for doing so.

Going around you is usually possible, but I have to wonder how many cars have sideswiped other vehicles swerving to do so. More than a few, I bet.

So, we have a vehicle exceeding the speed limit, driven by someone so unaware of their surroundings that they swerve into other traffic to avoid having to slow down. And I'm the bad guy in this scenario for fulfilling my responsibilities under the Highway Traffic Act? Says a lot.

Mighty AC · July 22, 2014

So, we have a vehicle exceeding the speed limit, driven by someone so unaware of their surroundings that they swerve into other traffic to avoid having to slow down. And I'm the bad guy in this scenario for fulfilling my responsibilities under the Highway Traffic Act? Says a lot.

It's you damn cyclists who are making distracted and impatient driving more apparent!!! North Americans have drive thrus to get to damn it! We don't have time to slow down, come to complete stops or look away from our phones and double-doubles while driving.

That's why we buy so many massive SUVs. 1) Just in case they move the drive thrus to off road locations. 2) To fit our massive girth. 3) To mow down those damn granola eatin', pot smokin', commie pinko, hipster cyclists.

BubberMiley · July 22, 2014

When a car is traveling at 60k its more than an inconvenience to have them slow down to 5k. Going around you is usually possible, but I have to wonder how many cars have sideswiped other vehicles swerving to do so. More than a few, I bet.

Wait a minute. I thought you were arguing against separating bikes and cars.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

Wait a minute. I thought you were arguing against separating bikes and cars.

That's the crazy thing about the anti-bike crowd... they don't like them clogging up their lanes, but they would never be willing to spend infrastructure tax dollars on making the commuting safer even when it is shown that those lanes pay for themselves several times over! They would cut off their nose to spite their face!

And then they claim cyclists should pay for their own lanes... meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of roads that most people will never drive on in their lifetime that get paid for by everyone as a collective. The 10 houses on my street didn't pay for the cul-de-sac...