Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
If it is bumper to bumper traffic, what is the harm in the cyclist moving to the front of the line, it isn't hurting anyone? I mean it isn't as though you are not moving anywhere at a faster or slower pace because of a cyclist. What is the rationale other than envy in that case?
|
Guy. This has been addressed ten times over in this thread. Moving to the front causes all the cars that already passed you to have to pass you again. It fatas up a lane.
Now let us discuss the pros and cons of permanent bike paths...
There are many, many streets in Calgary with boulevards that could be converted into bike paths. Why not? Because Calgary is a winter city? Why shouldn't these paths receive the same service that roads do? There are small street sweepers and plows. Clear them off so that the paths are usable for more like 75% of the year. Between chinooks and mild winters, it's not like Calgary is under ten feet of snow all winter. The paths could be usable for most of the year. And with safer, designated paths, more people would be inclined to cycle to work and it would probably relieve pressure on our roads.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that the real reason the city doesn't address bike paths and cyclist safety is because they're trying to railroad people into the transit system to justify paying for expansion.
Seriously think about it. Streets like 11th and 12th DT, Center street, Mcleod Tr., Elbow dr, all of these streets have large boulevards that could be converted into bike paths.
It may not be feasible on some of those roads, but if Calgary designated a few of the collectors and used the boulevards as bike paths, it would keep the cyclists off the thoroughfares and it would promote bike usage.
The question is how to pay for it. Bike licenses?
(can we get a smilie that indicates a guy ducking for cover as trash and tomatoes are thrown at him?)
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.