bike lanes save money/lives/health

[Bryan]

OK...but thats a lot cheaper than begging for every road and intersection in North America to be "upgraded" for bike lanes that some whiney cyclists won't use anyway...because they're...special.

Not special, just somewhat disinterested in being killed by motorists who are so inattentive that they don't even know that they are the problem. You'll never see me calling for bike lanes, and neither will the vast majority of cyclists. Those people doing all the begging are a very small minority. If they build something I never asked for, that is far more dangerous than what i already used, why would I use it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Those people doing all the begging are a very small minority. If they build something I never asked for, that is far more dangerous than what i already used, why would I use it?

Beats me...I've been a "cyclist" since the early 1960's and never had a problem...still don't as I tool around on my toney Cannondale. The law of gross tonnage doesn't change...not even for those "special" cyclists.

[Black Dog]

Oh good: another interesting thread sidetracked by the troll-in-residence.

[Mighty AC]

While I want adequate bike infrastructure as much as the next guy, I disagree with your theme in this post that bicycling is "the future". Bicycling is a form of transport that will likely remain relatively niche, used by maybe 10-20% of commuters at most, whether due to distance, weather, physical fitness, convenience, etc.

I'm just saying that going forward transportation will be less car based. This will be aided by higher density communities, with mixed use zoning, more efficient mass transit and sensible bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

[Mighty AC]

Not special, just somewhat disinterested in being killed by motorists who are so inattentive that they don't even know that they are the problem. You'll never see me calling for bike lanes, and neither will the vast majority of cyclists. Those people doing all the begging are a very small minority. If they build something I never asked for, that is far more dangerous than what i already used, why would I use it?

Die hards will always use their bikes, but cycle infrastructure leads to an increase in the number of average Joe riders. Cycle lane and intersection design can be far better and safer than what is being used here. The Dutch have made simple tweaks that cost next to nothing, yet dramatically improve safety and ease of use. Any increase in the number of trips that do not require a motor vehicle is a good thing.

[BubberMiley]

When I ride my bike, I'm a whiny cycling doper, which just fills the girl from Regina with rage.

[Black Dog]

This is exactly what I'm talking about: A cyclist that you just passed within the same lane, then tried to kill by turning in front of him. You're the one who is 100% at fault there, and you're completely oblivious to it. Pay attention or get off the road.

Actually cyclists need to pass on the outside. A driver turning right (assuming they are signalling, which is not always the case) needs to check for pedestrians and bikes before proceeding, so a driver that has just passed a cyclists should probably wait until that cyclist has passed him before making the turn. But bikes should only pass cars on the right when it's safe to do so, which would not be the case when coming up on a car that's signalling a right turn. Too many cyclists just blissfully keep going through without paying attention to the cars ahead of them are doing, assuming the drivers will see them or that they have the right of way.

[BubberMiley]

I guess one is "too many", but if cyclists really rode with the kind of disregard for safety described here, they'd already all be dead.

[Mighty AC]

This is exactly what I'm talking about: A cyclist that you just passed within the same lane, then tried to kill by turning in front of him. You're the one who is 100% at fault there, and you're completely oblivious to it. Pay attention or get off the road.

Actually cyclists need to pass on the outside. A driver turning right (assuming they are signalling, which is not always the case) needs to check for pedestrians and bikes before proceeding, so a driver that has just passed a cyclists should probably wait until that cyclist has passed him before making the turn. But bikes should only pass cars on the right when it's safe to do so, which would not be the case when coming up on a car that's signalling a right turn. Too many cyclists just blissfully keep going through without paying attention to the cars ahead of them are doing, assuming the drivers will see them or that they have the right of way.

That's why this easy intersection tweak makes so much sense: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23803-bike-lanes-save-moneyliveshealth/#entry982396

[Argus]

Then get used to being "inconvenienced"....

What do you call that, the tyranny of the obnoxious minority?

[Argus]

Technically you're right, I suppose, since a person who is injured or dead is likely "less happy" than one who is not. My right to personal safety trumps anyone else's expectation of a speedy commute.

It's not about your right to personal safety. You'd be perfectly safe walking on a sidewalk or riding in a bus. It's about your personal preference and enjoyment, which you feel is more important than that of other people.

If a few additional seconds or even minutes on a commute really makes life that much more difficult for people, that's some sad sad stuff.

A few minutes here, a few minutes there. It all adds up, and it's every day. All for what? So one individual can feel good about himself by bicycling to work.

As for the majority/minority stuff: meh. I'm honestly not that interested in the maintenance of a flawed and ultimately counterproductive status quo that privileges drivers at the expense of literally everyone not in a car. That model is obviously broken.

Notwithstanding that the people in those cars likely pay about 98% of all taxes which maintain your city, you mean?

[Argus]

Exactly! Car based design and culture is entirely flawed and currently changing;

Not noticeably, and not towards bicycles.

Beyond the old end of Gen X the desire to live in sprawling car based suburbs is minuscule; even among those with young families. The people who are our future are gravitating towards higher density, walkable communities. They want to bike, walk and use transit with cars being an occasional use vehicle better obtained through a rental agency or a share.

Utter nonsense. The only thing driving people into the urban core is the high prices of detached homes and the long commutes due to inadequate infrastructure. Given a choice, virtually every young family would FAR rather have a nice detached house with a big back yard for the kids, and streets that are relatively quiet and safe. It's mostly just singles who want to live in big condos downtown.

Fortunately, the percentage of people who own and rely on cars will drop going forward.

No sign of that happening. Cars are extremely useful and save tons of time, and if you have kids, virtually a necessity. I speak as someone who experienced the inconvenience of not having one for many years, and who wasted tons of time waiting around on buses.

[GostHacked]

It's not about your right to personal safety. You'd be perfectly safe walking on a sidewalk or riding in a bus. It's about your personal preference and enjoyment, which you feel is more important than that of other people.

People don't have the right to be safe? Governments try to throw rules down our throats to follow in order to combat terrorism to keep us safe, but yet setting up a bike lane is not important? There is a stretch of road near me where a couple cyclists have been killed. Because of that, there are now bike lanes on both sides of the road.

A few minutes here, a few minutes there. It all adds up, and it's every day. All for what? So one individual can feel good about himself by bicycling to work.

You sound bitter, were you recently slighted by a hipster bike rider?

Notwithstanding that the people in those cars likely pay about 98% of all taxes which maintain your city, you mean?

Even if I don't drive, I am still paying taxes, which part of is used for roads.

Why do you hate bike riders?

[Argus]

If traffic is moving quickly, then it's trivially easy to change lanes briefly to pass and causes minimal obstruction. If traffic is moving slowly, than the cyclist is likely no slower than the cars stuck in traffic. Regardless, even if it causes some level of obstruction, I'd much rather impede traffic than risk being killed by idiots who think it's a great idea to pass within 3 inches of a cyclist.

Or, here's a more sensible idea. Ban bicycles from all major roads.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

No one is talking about that, though.

That is exactly what happened in Ottawa with the Alta-Vista corridor.

[Black Dog]

It's not about your right to personal safety. You'd be perfectly safe walking on a sidewalk or riding in a bus. It's about your personal preference and enjoyment, which you feel is more important than that of other people.

Says the guy who wants to restrict other people's choices because of the minor personal inconvenience it causes him. Why don't you walk or take transit instead of driving? Or better yet: bike.

A few minutes here, a few minutes there. It all adds up, and it's every day. All for what? So one individual can feel good about himself by bicycling to work.

I bike because it's cheap, good exercise and far more convenient than other available forms of transportation. That's my justification for that choice: what's yours for your choice to be an asshole?

Notwithstanding that the people in those cars likely pay about 98% of all taxes which maintain your city, you mean?

Cite?

That is exactly what happened in Ottawa with the Alta-Vista corridor.

Cite?

Edited July 24, 2014 by Black Dog

[Argus]

More like judge agrees with cyclist, dismisses fine and reprimands cop for being an idiot. Even that is only if the cop is that much of an idiot that he writes tickets for things that are not illegal.

Cops rarely bother with bicyclists. But, for example, you're required to have a horn and light on your bike. I don't know anyone who has them, but you get a ticket if you don't. You're also supposed to come to a complete stop at stop signs. I've never seen that done either, except where there's no choice because cars are crossing in front of the bicyclist.

[Argus]

I'm just saying that going forward transportation will be less car based. This will be aided by higher density communities, with mixed use zoning, more efficient mass transit and sensible bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Actually, what I foresee going forward is the end of the private automobile. Once these cars can drive themselves around, it will make little sense to put one in the garage all day. You'll simply summon one through an app and it shows up and takes you away. No taxi drivers needed either.

[Black Dog]

Cops rarely bother with bicyclists. But, for example, you're required to have a horn and light on your bike. I don't know anyone who has them, but you get a ticket if you don't. You're also supposed to come to a complete stop at stop signs. I've never seen that done either, except where there's no choice because cars are crossing in front of the bicyclist.

Rarely see cars doing that in that situation either. On Monday I was behind a TPS cruiser that coasted through three consecutive stop signs.

[Argus]

People don't have the right to be safe?

You're not allowed to walk on the road. You shouldn't be allowed to bicycle on it either. As I said, you're perfectly safe walking on the sidewalk or riding a bus.

Even if I don't drive, I am still paying taxes, which part of is used for roads.

The vast majority of taxes are paid by the upper classes and the upper middle classes, virtually all of whom have cars, often multiple cars.

Why do you hate bike riders?

I don't hate bike riders. I love efficiency. Narrowing high volume roads for the sake of a few bicyclists offends my sense of efficiency.

[Argus]

Rarely see cars doing that in that situation either. On Monday I was behind a TPS cruiser that coasted through three consecutive stop signs.

Well, I do it. Police are not subject to laws, that's why they don't bother.

[The_Squid]

What do you call that, the tyranny of the obnoxious minority?

Sharing the road.

[Argus]

Says the guy who wants to restrict other people's choices because of the minor personal inconvenience it causes him. Why don't you walk or take transit instead of driving? Or better yet: bike.

Roads are built for cars, not slow moving bicycles. I'm fine with bicycles having separate lanes as long as they don't impede the roadways. Don't know why this puts you into such a snit.

I bike because it's cheap, good exercise and far more convenient than other available forms of transportation.

So it's your convenience vs the convenience of hundreds of car drivers who have to figure out how to get past your moving roadblock.

[Argus]

Sharing the road.

You can't share the road when you don't move at the proper speed of traffic. If I drove my car down the road at half the speed of traffic I'd be pulled over and get a ticket for obstructing traffic. Why should bicyclists be able to do it?

[GostHacked]

You're not allowed to walk on the road. You shouldn't be allowed to bicycle on it either. As I said, you're perfectly safe walking on the sidewalk or riding a bus.

You are allowed to walk on the road if there is no walkway. Typically you walk in the opposite direction.

The vast majority of taxes are paid by the upper classes and the upper middle classes, virtually all of whom have cars, often multiple cars.

I drive a car and a motorbike, and I support bike lanes.

I don't hate bike riders. I love efficiency. Narrowing high volume roads for the sake of a few bicyclists offends my sense of efficiency.

Well, if you want to be part of the solution, take your own advice, use public transportation.