The majority of council was opposed to adding a barrier-separated two-way bike lane on busy 1st Street S.E., but by an 8-7 vote they OKed all the other routes.
I have to say including Stephen Ave just boggles my mind. Way too dangerous. I think the smart cyclist will avoid this lane and stick to riding on safer streets.
You wouldn't put a one-way car/truck lane down the middle of Stephen Ave with a speed limit of 35-40k, why would you put a two-way bike lane there? It will (or should) be roughly the same width.
I'm all for more cyclists if dedicated bike lanes means they won't play slalom with pedestrians on the sidewalk or confuse motorists by selectively obeying traffic laws.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
The more cyclists on the road, and the less cars, the better. This is a long-term investment and it will pay dividends down the road, IMO. We should be getting greener, and this is a serious commitment to that objective from the City.
I think what some people always forgot in this debate, is that the inner-city is a lot of people's neighborhood and home. It's not just a place to go to work, or maybe get a drink, and then go away. The people who live here, and drive here, and park here…i.e., people who will be the most affected….are vastly for it. Go ahead and look up how many community associations vastly support it.
This is how people who live in these neighborhoods want to get around to areas that are too far to walk. I'm a huge car guy, but I don't want to always drive to a place 15 blocks away...and I'm sure you don't need me to drive either, taking up a lane and taking up parking space. Being able to bike in a safe and efficient way, yes even if its only for 7-8 months a year, would be amazing.
If you want to be a person who wants to drive everywhere, that's totally cool...hell, that may be why you live farther out. But the people who live close to these bikes lanes want this in...and honestly, considering they live most of their lives here, their opinions should take precedence. Nobody sticks their nose into you wanting to build a library or an overpass in the deep SE, so why do you feel that need to stick your nose into our neighborhoods?
Why are people always so against something that will have such minimal impact on their lives, yet make a lot of others happy? Biking is cheap, easy, and promotes a healthy lifestyle. But god forbid we add 15 seconds to some guys commute.
The Following 39 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
1. You're not the guy who counted pedestrians on the Peace Bridge are you?
2. The bike pathways seem to get a ton of traffic, why wouldn't these?
Keep in mind that bike lanes probably have their own tipping point in terms of network size. It needs to be big enough that it makes sense for people to use it, and for it to be a practical way of getting around. Right now, there's what 4-5 blocks? What happens when you get to the end of it? You get back to regular traffic with crappy inattentive drivers. That's not going to entice anyone. It's like building 2kms of a superhighway, and surrounding it with dirt roads.
The network needs to be a certain size for it to be adopted, and I think the current plan would be big enough to do so. Hopefully it would only get bigger after that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
1. You're not the guy who counted pedestrians on the Peace Bridge are you?
2. The bike pathways seem to get a ton of traffic, why wouldn't these?
Keep in mind that bike lanes probably have their own tipping point in terms of network size. It needs to be big enough that it makes sense for people to use it, and for it to be a practical way of getting around. Right now, there's what 4-5 blocks? What happens when you get to the end of it? You get back to regular traffic with crappy inattentive drivers. That's not going to entice anyone. It's like building 2kms of a superhighway, and surrounding it with dirt roads.
The network needs to be a certain size for it to be adopted, and I think the current plan would be big enough to do so. Hopefully it would only get bigger after that.
Nope, never even been on the peace bridge. I actually don't mind the thing now
Again, I have no problem with bike lanes. Separating cyclists from traffic and pedestrians is something I'm all for. I'm just saying I hope they actually get used enough to warrant them, because so far existing ones seem like a waste of space to me.
I'm just saying I hope they actually get used enough to warrant them, because so far existing ones seem like a waste of space to me.
I can only speak for myself, but I know that I don't bike off the current pathway, and on the streets, because I'm a big giant wuss and think its too dangerous. Put in separated bike lines, and I'll be there.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
I can only speak for myself, but I know that I don't bike off the current pathway, and on the streets, because I'm a big giant wuss and think its too dangerous. Put in separated bike lines, and I'll be there.
Fair enough. Hopefully there's others like you and the thing is used a lot.
But like you pointed out in a previous post, I'm one of the guys that this effects in almost zero way. I go into the downtown core maybe 5 times a year, if even that much. So really I have no dog in this fight. I'd just be annoyed if the city spent the money for nothing.
I've been watching this debate from the sidelines and I'm honestly not really sold on bike lanes either way... yet.
I see the general merit in encouraging more bike ridership, and I'm all for making it safer. Working in the beltline area I find I'm "sharing" the sidewalk with at least one cyclist a day, and it honestly grinds my gears. I find myself biting my tongue to not blurt out "hey! The roads over there!" each time I see one wobbling through pedestrian traffic. So I'm all for anything that keeps cyclist off the sidewalks.
But on the flip side I'm kinda turned off by the some of the "you should be happy we're saving the earth!" voices being aired as well.
Example, this:
Is it possible to be in favour of alternate transportation, while also being highly annoyed by the people likely to use it?
The Following User Says Thank You to Regular_John For This Useful Post:
I'm fine with it if bike licensing becomes mandatory. If you want to drive on the roadways you have to obey the laws and be licensed, so why not bikes? It makes ticketing much easier for police and brings in revenue from those that ruin it for law abiding cyclists.
By licensing bikes you also get a real number of cyclists not a made up number to push forward an agenda. It works both ways, if there's an increase in yearly bike licences then bike lanes get more funding.
Bike helmets on all roadways should also be mandatory just like they are for motorcycles.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
I'm fine with it if bike licensing becomes mandatory. If you want to drive on the roadways you have to obey the laws and be licensed, so why not bikes? It makes ticketing much easier for police and brings in revenue from those that ruin it for law abiding cyclists.
By licensing bikes you also get a real number of cyclists not a made up number to push forward an agenda. It works both ways, if there's an increase in yearly bike licences then bike lanes get more funding.
Bike helmets on all roadways should also be mandatory just like they are for motorcycles.
Agreed, insurance also.
The Following User Says Thank You to CrunchBite For This Useful Post:
Is it possible to be in favour of alternate transportation, while also being highly annoyed by the people likely to use it?
Go to Denmark or Holland, and see if bike-friendly cities turn everyone into an aggressive a-hole or an enviro-freak. It's not alternate transportation, it's just transportation. It doesn't have to be a statement or a thing.
I think generally most people just want a way to get around that's convenient. Driving in the inner city is often expensive and not very convenient. Walking is rarely convenient for more than a few blocks. It doesn't mean I want to burn my car.
I think one of the reasons you currently get a lot of aggressive a-holes cycling is because they are the only ones passionate about it, and are willing to do it in a dangerous situation. Make it easy for everyone to bike, and you'll get a lot more of the general population.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
The bike licencing thing idea makes some sense until you do a little research and realize that it has been tried in innumerable places and has been found to be impractical and unworkable in nearly every case, if not all.
The "make cyclists get insurance because automobiles have to" argument is flimsy as well. The primary reason you have to get insurance to drive a car is because of their massive capacity to kill people and do very significant property damage. This risk is exponentially less with bicycles.
stampsx2: "Made up number to push forward an agenda." Is this a specific problem you think exists?
Last edited by frinkprof; 04-28-2014 at 09:28 PM.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Council supports three new separated bike lanes downtown
