Well, Deerfoot was alright for a city of 500,000. Apparently nobody ever thought a city with a 100 year history of boom periods would grow any further....
Also, and serious question: what is so efficient about cycling? I get the "wasteful" part of the car driving argument, but I really don't see what is efficient about reaching your destination at a much slower speed.
- not requiring the need of expensive, complicated, et al systems like a car
- more resourceful... in terms of energy consumption (and including health), rather than burning gas
- in a ideal world of having bikes and cars coincide, bikes take up more space.... cars are lugging a lot of empty room for 1 driver
- mobility
- parking spaces for bikes
There are many, many reasons bikes are more efficient.... I'm shocked you even wonder that. Outside of NA, a lot of places rely on bikes for local commute. Its just here in NA, you get a lot of obnoxious bikers (like some in this thread) but every single commuter is obnoxious in their own right... bikes, motorcycles, mazda miata's, purple mustangs, mommymobiles, etc.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
The Following User Says Thank You to Phanuthier For This Useful Post:
Also, and serious question: what is so efficient about cycling? I get the "wasteful" part of the car driving argument, but I really don't see what is efficient about reaching your destination at a much slower speed.
It's not as simple as that, especially since "efficiency" can mean many things depending on the context.
Modes of transportation, how they operate, and how well they operate is dependent on myriad external factors and conditions, including infrastructure design, land use planning, climate, time of day, etc.
Roads that are designed for private automobiles to travel "efficiently" (in this context, mostly fast and/or with high relative volumes) are also the worst for every other mode of transportation (walking, cycling, public transporation) to operate efficiently - if at all - independent of almost any other condition (weather, peak volume vs. low volume hours, etc.). The proliferation of such infrastructure will render all other modes of transportation inefficient, unworkable, and a highly untenable option.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Yet another example of a cyclist who alternates between wanting to be treated like a vehicle or a pedestrian depending on what is most convenient for him/her. Cyclists are permitted to use crosswalks and take advantage of the pedestrian signal, but only if they dismount and walk their bikes across the street. In the situation you described, the cyclist was completely in the wrong.
I don't understand this.
So if I hit the button, wait for traffic to stop and then pedal across the road I'm committing some unforgiveable wrong? I absolutely must dismount and walk? That's ridiculous.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to V For This Useful Post:
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by V
So if I hit the button, wait for traffic to stop and then pedal across the road I'm committing some unforgiveable wrong? I absolutely must dismount and walk? That's ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is the notion that cyclists will always wait for traffic to stop. That is the reason for the dismount; it allows for the cyclist to transition to a pedestrian- giving the motorists time to react.
If I as a motorist hit a cyclist who was walking his bike; that is proof that the cyclist didn't just dart into the crosswalk.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
So if I hit the button, wait for traffic to stop and then pedal across the road I'm committing some unforgiveable wrong? I absolutely must dismount and walk? That's ridiculous.
Bicycles are vehicles, remember? Vehicles aren't allowed to use crosswalks, so the only way a cyclist is legally permitted to push the button and claim right-of-way over other vehicles at a crosswalk is to dismount, turn yourself into a pedestrian, and walk your bike across.
A quick Google search found this link describing the law in Ontario; I'm sure it's similar in Alberta:
Quote:
Cyclists are considered vehicles, according to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. When approaching an intersection where the cyclist needs to make a left hand turn, the cyclist has two options.
1. Move into the appropriate lane to safely cross the intersection and turn left as a vehicle in the flow of traffic.
2. Dismount and walk their bike across the crosswalk as a pedestrian. Cyclists must not cycle through a crosswalk and must stop behind the white stop line. Being in front of the white stop line is illegal, and can be dangerous too, as placing yourself in the intersection may create a conflict for vehicles behind you that want to turn right.
Guy in Cochrane probably deserved it. He totally did a rolling stop through a stop sign earlier in the day and the driver just couldn't handle the blatant skirting of the law and had to have his revenge.
Guy in Cochrane probably deserved it. He totally did a rolling stop through a stop sign earlier in the day and the driver just couldn't handle the blatant skirting of the law and had to have his revenge.
So I decided to follow the advice in this thread and treat cyclists as cars and cut over to the left lane to pass them. I stop at a light, and guess what? The guy in the bike rides all the way up to the line and is beside me in the same lane. So why should I treat cyclists as cars when they don't treat themselves like cars?
So I decided to follow the advice in this thread and treat cyclists as cars and cut over to the left lane to pass them. I stop at a light, and guess what? The guy in the bike rides all the way up to the line and is beside me in the same lane. So why should I treat cyclists as cars when they don't treat themselves like cars?
Why treat other cars like cars when there are some dicks who don't follow the rules of the road driving?
So I decided to follow the advice in this thread and treat cyclists as cars and cut over to the left lane to pass them. I stop at a light, and guess what? The guy in the bike rides all the way up to the line and is beside me in the same lane. So why should I treat cyclists as cars when they don't treat themselves like cars?
They treat themselves like bikes. Bikes are allowed to use the parking lane as a travel lane and can legally proceed to the front of the line. If you don't like it, ride a bike and take advantage of the rule for yourself.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
No it is not. You do not have to be jealous of something to be egotistical.
Example, it upsets me that my neighbour cooks stinky ethnic food and the smell comes into my condo, however, I am not jealous of him, or the fact that he eats it. If I had my way however, he would not do that because it bothers me, and he would cook something I like the smell of, which is my ego speaking....
Of course it's an unreasonable request, as he can cook what he wants. But it still bugs me, and I will still make sure my BBQ is extra smokey when I am cooking.
I think you need to brush up on what ego means, because that example you gave has absolutely nothing to do with ego in the context in which you have been using it.
They treat themselves like bikes. Bikes are allowed to use the parking lane as a travel lane and can legally proceed to the front of the line. If you don't like it, ride a bike and take advantage of the rule for yourself.
Meh, then I guess it goes both ways. Like I said, I've always ever just cut over enough to pass a biker on the left, and not actually switch into the left lane and cut back into the right after passing. It's only after reading this thread that someone suggested that. So I guess I'll just continue to do what I normally do and treat a cyclist as a pedestrian rather than a car. It's easier for me anyways.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man
Meh, then I guess it goes both ways. Like I said, I've always ever just cut over enough to pass a biker on the left, and not actually switch into the left lane and cut back into the right after passing. It's only after reading this thread that someone suggested that. So I guess I'll just continue to do what I normally do and treat a cyclist as a pedestrian rather than a car. It's easier for me anyways.
That makes absolutely no sense.
What Hulk is describing is something that bikes do that annoy you but is totally legal.
What you're describing is something you do that annoys cyclists that is totally illegal.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
That makes absolutely no sense.
What Hulk is describing is something that bikes do that annoy you but is totally legal.
What you're describing is something you do that annoys cyclists that is totally illegal.
Is it legal for bikes riding on the road to go all the way to the front? I dont believe I've ever seen that anywhere.
That would have to be a 'special bike rule' because its not true of vehicles or pedestrians.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
This makes no sense. Whose lane is it? How can it be legal for a bike to be in a car's lane, and then illegal for a car to be in a bike's lane? We are talking about regular traffic lanes downtown, where the cars are constantly passing the same cyclists, over and over and over and over, right?
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
