Traffic delays up to 20% alongside downtown cycle lanes, city predicts

[Addick]

Originally Posted by jammies

So maybe it's not "jealousy", but an actual problem where cyclists are far worse "drivers" than motorists.

While cyclists may in fact be breaking the rules more often than motorists, I am extremely confident that there is a large amount of envy from motorists about the flexibility of cycling and walking. Could you imagine the outrage from motorists in Calgary if motorcycles were allowed to filter.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Addick

I am extremely confident that there is a large amount of envy from motorists about the flexibility of cycling and walking.

For me, it is the abrupt stopping required as a motorist as well as a pedestrian needed to deal with cyclists who choose to create their own set of rules.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Addick

While cyclists may in fact be breaking the rules more often than motorists, I am extremely confident that there is a large amount of envy from motorists about the flexibility of cycling and walking. Could you imagine the outrage from motorists in Calgary if motorcycles were allowed to filter.

Filtering is dangerous and dumb.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by ken0042

For me, it is the abrupt stopping required as a motorist as well as a pedestrian needed to deal with cyclists who choose to create their own set of rules.

I feel the same while cycling and motorists make their own set of rules by not stopping at stop signs or red lights. In these cases if I don't stop on my bike, I get run over.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Filtering is dangerous and dumb.

Incorrect.
http://www.cycleworld.com/2015/06/02...-rider-saftey/

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I feel the same while cycling and motorists make their own set of rules by not stopping at stop signs or red lights. In these cases if I don't stop on my bike, I get run over.

Assuming that you see motorists doing this as often as I see cyclists doing it- does that really mean that two wrongs make a right?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Assuming that you see motorists doing this as often as I see cyclists doing it- does that really mean that two wrongs make a right?

No, but the sentiment here from motorists is that cyclists choose to create their own set of rules, or choose when to follow the rules and when not to. It's not just cyclists that do this. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians all do this. To hear that cyclists as a group break the law all the time gets annoying, when I see motorists breaking the law by speeding, running stop signs, talking on phones, failing to signal, parking where they aren't supposed to, etc. etc. Half the gear grinder threads are about bad driving. People of all modes of transportation choose which laws they feel like abiding based on their mood and the situation.

If you are going to be annoyed by a cyclist that makes you stop abruptly, remember that when you choose which laws are applicable to you while you are driving.

For the record I drive and cycle, and obey the rules. I stop at stop signs in my car and on my bike.

[GGG]

People speed 100% of the time. It's accepted. So there is no way possible that cyclists have an infraction rate higher than cars on a per day, per km or per minute basis. The only time cars don't speed is when traffic density prevents them.

We have traffic laws to improve traffic flow and protect people. So if you add up all the time cyclists cause other commuters to be delayed you probably end up close to the amount that one distracted driving fender bender causes. Enforcement should be done to eliminate problem behaviours that affect the flow of traffic and the safety of traffic. Enforcing laws because they are there is draconian. If we start to see a rash of cyclists getting hit by cars do to law breaking then enforcement from a safety perspective would be warranted.

So since bikes on road infractions don't cause traffic delays and have a marginal impact on safety enforcement is a waste of time. Better off ticketing the 1/3 of drivers on their phones.

Where enforcement should be better is on busy pathways where there is risk being created.

And remember 100% of drivers commit an infraction everyday.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GGG

People speed 100% of the time.

Umm, what?

[takinghits]

Do Cyclists seriously have to ring a bell every time they pass someone?

[corporatejay]

My biggest problem is that when I do cycle to work, people treat the bow river pathway like a tour de france race. In the summer on a nice day that thing is PACKED with pedestrians, runners, slow cyclists, average cyclists and then a large amount of speed demons who have no regard for other people and how tight the lanes are.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by takinghits

Do Cyclists seriously have to ring a bell every time they pass someone?

I would judge the situation but if there ANY change whatsoever that the person you are passing might pull out, I would say yes. I either say "on your left" or ring my bell 95% of the time.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by takinghits

Do Cyclists seriously have to ring a bell every time they pass someone?

It's in the bylaw...

36.
A Person using a Pathway or Trail shall:
(a)
exercise due care and attention to avoid colliding with any other user;
(b)
exercise reasonable consideration for any other user;
(c)
give an audible signal by voice, bell or other signaling device before overtaking
another user; and
(d)
ensure they are visible to other users

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks...ksPathways.pdf

[CliffFletcher]

Yeah, that's like asking if it's necessary for a motorist to signal every time he changes lanes in traffic. Why yes, yes it is. Given the number of times I've seen pedestrians on a pathway suddenly make a u-turn without looking, or a cyclist or pedestrian drift over the yellow line, you better believe I hit that bell every time I'm about to pass a cyclist or another pedestrian, and every time I approach a blind corner. It's not as though it takes any great effort.

[TheAlpineOracle]

I think think ringing the bell every time they pass is great. Let's you know they are there and what is about to happen. That said, nothing pisses me off more than some asshat on a bicycle ringing their bell at you (pedestrian) when they are riding their bike on the sidewalk or a zone where it's clearly indicated that cyclists must dismount. The 10th street bridge it he perfect example of this. I can't remember once in the past ten years where I walked over that bridge where someone didn't over take me on a bike ringing their bell. It's illegal for them to be cycling over that bridge, yet they feel the need to ring a bell at me for obeying the law?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Umm, what?

In any situation in free flowing traffic all vehicles are driving at the speed limit. Given that your ability to control your speed is at best +/- 3 km/h all drivers will occilate above the speed limit. Not to mention the majority who go slightly over in the too slow to get a ticket region.

Congestion is the only thing that prevents drivers from speeding.

[chemgear]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...sed-by-results

Mayor Naheed Nenshi said he’s “not fussed” about new polling numbers that show Calgarians remain divided over on-street bike lanes.

The 2015 survey shows just 18 per cent are very satisfied with Calgary’s on-street bike lanes, while 42 per cent responded as somewhat satisfied.

“The fascinating thing about the bike lanes thing is that after all the drama, after all the ink spilled on it, after so much whining about it … we still have a clear majority of people say, ‘spend more,'” Nenshi told reporters.

However, the report actually shows only 20 per cent of respondents want the city to spend more on bike lanes. One-third said keep spending levels the same, while 47 per cent said City Hall should spend less.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...sed-by-results

Mayor Naheed Nenshi said he’s “not fussed” about new polling numbers that show Calgarians remain divided over on-street bike lanes.

The 2015 survey shows just 18 per cent are very satisfied with Calgary’s on-street bike lanes, while 42 per cent responded as somewhat satisfied.

“The fascinating thing about the bike lanes thing is that after all the drama, after all the ink spilled on it, after so much whining about it … we still have a clear majority of people say, ‘spend more,'” Nenshi told reporters.

However, the report actually shows only 20 per cent of respondents want the city to spend more on bike lanes. One-third said keep spending levels the same, while 47 per cent said City Hall should spend less.

Clear bias in the Calgary Herald's reporting there. Definitely misleading.

18% satisfied and 42% somewhat satisfied equals 60% of respondents with some level of satisfaction.
Probably a 4 option poll:
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Dissatisfied

Then who knows from that article what Nenshi meant by "Spend more" was he even speaking about this poll directly?
Was he saying:
A) Spend more on bike lanes
B) Spend more than we already are spending on the bike lanes (what the article is suggesting he said)
C) Don't spend another penny on the bike lanes

From the poll it seems 33% are in group A, 20% in group B, and 47% in group C

[Flames0910]

The 2015 survey shows just 18 per cent are very satisfied with Calgary’s on-street bike lanes, while 42 per cent responded as somewhat satisfied.

I'm for bike lanes and would have marked "somewhat satisfied" because the city still needs to work on bike timing, connectivity, and fill in some missing gaps in the network. Of course the Herald would have you think this means I'm against it.

Wasn't the entire cycle network something like 1% of the annual transportation budget anyway?

[Fuzz]

Cycle track was around $7 million, road budget was $515 million, so closer to 0.1% (to early to math). And that is a one time cost for the most part, where we spend that much on roads every year. I think we can afford it.
http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Pages/Ac...d-budgets.aspx