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

[RougeUnderoos]

I would imagine that most people interested in this conversation live in Calgary, so I gotta ask - where exactly are y'all driving in town here where the people in cars are following the rules? PM me the secret place if you don't want to make it known. I wont tell anyone.

The reason I ask is because, as usual, whenever the issue of cycling comes up, people bitch and moan about the scofflaw cyclists as though they are the only ones not following all the rules.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I would imagine that most people interested in this conversation live in Calgary, so I gotta ask - where exactly are y'all driving in town here where the people in cars are following the rules? PM me the secret place if you don't want to make it known. I wont tell anyone.

The reason I ask is because, as usual, whenever the issue of cycling comes up, people bitch and moan about the scofflaw cyclists as though they are the only ones not following all the rules.

I walk pretty much everywhere and don't have a horse in the cars vs. bikes debate; however, I'm supportive of increased investment in cycle infrastructure and am glad to see the city building more bike paths...

...BUT, on a per capita basis, my anecdotal experience leads me to believe that cyclists are far more likely to disobey traffic laws than drivers are. If I see a bike approaching a stop sign, there's a better than 50-50 chance that the rider will just plow through without stopping or even slowing down. The same cannot be said about cars. I've never been nearly run over on a sidewalk or crosswalk by a motorist, but that's pretty much a daily occurrence with cyclists.

[Magnum PEI]

I assume we're ignoring speeding? If so it's probably close to even. The big one now is the two or three cars that turn left on a stale red every cycle at every intersection.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If I see a bike approaching a stop sign, there's a better than 50-50 chance that the rider will just plow through without stopping or even slowing down.

I don't know where you live, but I hope it's on a bald-ass prairie where these people can see for miles in every direction because if not, the mortality rate for cyclists must be through the roof!

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The same cannot be said about cars. I've never been nearly run over on a sidewalk or crosswalk by a motorist, but that's pretty much a daily occurrence with cyclists.

And people and their dogs wandering all over bike paths is a daily concern of mine...

The point I'm trying to make is that cars, bikes, and pedestrians all break the rules. Cyclists always seem to be singled out in these arguments as reckless hellraisers ruining it for everybody.

The funny thing about the argument in Calgary is that it's often people saying both cyclists are a hazard, and that there aren't enough of them to justify cycling infrastructure.

[Yellefan]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

It would be neat to see (and probably impossible to calculate) what percentage of bikers get a ticket versus percentage of motorists in a day.

Wonder if they'd be close? Would it be safe to assume that in the grand scheme of things both modes of transport have very low ticket rates simply due to the numbers involved and only so much law enforcement to go around?

In the 5 years I've been biking into work I've been ticketed twice. Once for speeding on the bike path (20km/hr speed limit-- it was kind of hilarious to see the bylaw guy pop out from behind the bush and stop me) and once for riding on the sidewalk (yep, I was that guy)... so it does happen.

In comparison I've received 1 ticket in 24 years of driving.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know where you live, but I hope it's on a bald-ass prairie where these people can see for miles in every direction because if not, the mortality rate for cyclists must be through the roof!

I live in the Beltline and work in the downtown core.

The point I'm trying to make is that cars, bikes, and pedestrians all break the rules. Cyclists always seem to be singled out in these arguments as reckless hellraisers ruining it for everybody.

Again based purely on my own anecdotal experience (which may or may not be statistically valid), on a per capita basis, cyclists seem to disregard the rules of the road far more frequently than drivers and pedestrians do.

The funny thing about the argument in Calgary is that it's often people saying both cyclists are a hazard, and that there aren't enough of them to justify cycling infrastructure.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am in fact a supporter of increased cycling infrastructure, but I wish cyclists would stop being their own worst enemies. Following the rules of the road makes their behaviour more predictable which in turn increases safety for everyone who shares our roads. Instead, too many cyclists selectively choose if and when they follow the rules, which rules they choose to obey, and they want the same right of way afforded to pedestrians also afforded to them when bicycles are vehicles no different than cars.

[Magnum PEI]

Are you including everything in your anecdotal evidence? Things like tailgating, distracted driving, accelerating on yellow, not stopping for right turns, rolling stops, drunk driving, unsafe lane changes, ignoring school zones, stunting, illegal u-turns etc, etc. I reckon most drivers do at least one of these things often.
Not to mention that speeding is still technically illegal, and most drivers are consistently 10-20 km/h over.

[GGG]

I would suspect that 100% of drivers commit a driving infraction everyday by the letter of the law. I suspect cyclists are the same.

I think probably about 10% of drivers probably cause gears to be ground by not following the social conventions of driving. The big issue is that the social conventions of driving and cycling conflict with eachother even though all parties are breaking the rules all the time.

[Tinordi]

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am in fact a supporter of increased cycling infrastructure, but I wish cyclists would stop being their own worst enemies. Following the rules of the road makes their behaviour more predictable which in turn increases safety for everyone who shares our roads. Instead, too many cyclists selectively choose if and when they follow the rules, which rules they choose to obey, and they want the same right of way afforded to pedestrians also afforded to them when bicycles are vehicles no different than cars.

How is the issue of cyclist behavior relevant to the discussion of building more accessible and safe cycling infrastructure? What does one have to do with the other? If cyclists are deemed as "bad" people then they don't deserve the spoils of being able to bike around conveniently and safely just like those pure and holy motorists who never break the law or endanger other people?

Aren't they two separate conversations?

Of course they're not because this conversation is just a veiled attempt to bitch about people and lifestyles we don't like because it mildly shames or inconveniences us!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Regorium

There's no doubt that transit users are by far the most subsidized. I'm pretty sure this happens in every single city, and in general, is considered a very good use of tax dollars.

However, we're comparing roads to cyclists. In fact, in the context of this discussion, we're talking about capital costs between roads and cyclists.

Cyclists and drivers subsidize transit users. There is no net subsidy to drivers, therefore cyclists are not subsidizing drivers. They're just subsidizing transit users more.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

Cyclists and drivers subsidize transit users. There is no net subsidy to drivers, therefore cyclists are not subsidizing drivers. They're just subsidizing transit users more.

Simply untrue from a multiple account perspective.

Health, pollution, infrastructure, parking are all subsidized for motorists.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Simply untrue from a multiple account perspective.

Health, pollution, infrastructure, parking are all subsidized for motorists.

Please show this without omitting the property and income taxes they pay. A subsidy is not merely a service provided by the government without a user fee, i.e Murray Edwards does not get subsidized healthcare. Your first article failed to do so, it simply enumerated the things motorists get and that's not good enough if they cover their weight in general income.

[Tinordi]

Road and vehicle expenditures by three levels of government: $48 billion

Vehicle based revenues:

Fuel tax: $11.8 billion

Funding gap: 35 billion

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/anre-menu-3017.htm

Now are you telling me that user fees for vehicles and parking are making up this 35 billion or is it coming from general property and income tax revenue. If it's the latter then it's a subsidy because not all tax payers are drivers.

67% of Canada's total population holds a vehicle license. The percent of the population between 16 and 65, tax paying driving folks is about 62%. And not all license holders are regular drivers or drive at all but use licenses as IDs. That's just the basic expenses.

There's a number of other subsidies for vehicle use that drivers do not directly pay including:

"Free" parking. Free roadside parking, set backs, rights of way are all subsidies in the form of foregone revenue.

Traffic congestion. Drivers are not paying for the costs of congestion including lost productivity and all the other opportunity costs.

Risk of accident and death imposed on others. Driver insurance typically does not cover the risk imposed on others, or it is significantly under priced.

Environmental and health costs. These are material. Criteria air contamitants impose respiratory illness (valued in the billions in the US) that drivers do not pay but the health system and tax payers generally pay.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Road and vehicle expenditures by three levels of government: $48 billion

Vehicle based revenues:

Fuel tax: $11.8 billion

Funding gap: 35 billion

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/anre-menu-3017.htm

Now are you telling me that user fees for vehicles and parking are making up this 35 billion or is it coming from general property and income tax revenue. If it's the latter then it's a subsidy because not all tax payers are drivers.

Not if the non-drivers are getting something more expensive, also out of general revenue. Something like public transit, or health care for seniors, or education for youth.

If we both pay equal tax and you get a diamond and I get a lump of coal, both out of general revenue, and you insist that my lump of coal is subsidized, you're either foolish or cynical.

When you don't look at what non-drivers get out of the same general revenue sources, you are ignoring a part of the picture that is necessary to make the conclusion you are attempting to make.

That is what I am telling you, not this strawman you have come up with.

As well, the notion that youth are subsidizing drivers, which you've implied, is ridiculous - not much tax revenue from the under-17 crowd.

[Tinordi]

You're the one constructing the strawman or engaging in a bait and switch. My definition of subsidy is very simple, are the users of a good paying the full cost or not.

It doesn't matter if other people are getting subsidized else, that's besides the issue. If you get a diamond worth without paying the cost of producing the diamond then you are receiving a net subsidy. If I pay property taxes to which 40% of tax revenue goes to roads that I don't use directly or only benefit from 10% of their total cost then I'm subsidizing someone who is by definition not paying the cost to which they are using it.

It's also noteworthy that you don't address the other meat of my argument in all the other costs drivers don't pay like health, risk, environment, congestion. Do you think society generally should be paying for those as well? Because that would mean you support subsidizing drivers.

Finally, I said that 67% of people own a license but 62% of people pay taxes generally. So those non tax paying people are using a road system they don't pay for at least through income taxes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You're the one constructing the strawman or engaging in a bait and switch. My definition of subsidy is very simple, are the users of a good paying the full cost or not.

You repeatedly omit the contribution made by drivers to general revenue, so that's not consistent with the definition stated here.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It doesn't matter if other people are getting subsidized else, that's besides the issue.

It matter when I make a mathematical assumption, likely conservative in your favour conservative in your favour, of equal tax contributions. But since you mentioned the lack of youth and senior drivers, it's worth bringing up that these groups contribute little to revenue - whereas the driver demographic does.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If you get a diamond worth without paying the cost of producing the diamond then you are receiving a net subsidy. If I pay property taxes to which 40% of tax revenue goes to roads that I don't use directly or only benefit from 10% of their total cost then I'm subsidizing someone who is by definition not paying the cost to which they are using it.

Sure, unless you're in cancer treatment, going to university, low-income, etc. And if you are subsidizing drivers, you're an anecdote, not a respresentative sample.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's also noteworthy that you don't address the other meat of my argument in all the other costs drivers don't pay like health, risk, environment, congestion.

I could poke at the small holes in your logic, like congestion being a cost that affects other road users, but why would I do that when I'm already poking at the far bigger hole? I don't need everything in your argument to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Do you think society generally should be paying for those as well? Because that would mean you support subsidizing drivers.

General revenue can pay for things without creating a net subsidy. That's my whole point.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Finally, I said that 67% of people own a license but 62% of people pay taxes generally. So those non tax paying people are using a road system they don't pay for at least through income taxes.

That demographic may be subsidized within road users, if you consider who they are.

[Tinordi]

I think I've identified the source of our disagreement, I'm arguing that it's a cross-subsidy and you think I'm saying it's a net subsidy. Anyway, all that to say, motorists do not pay the full costs of the roadway system or its externalities. My original point is arguing that bike lanes are a waste of tax dollars is stupid in comparison to what cyclists likely cross subsidize for motorists.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The point I'm trying to make is that cars, bikes, and pedestrians all break the rules. Cyclists always seem to be singled out in these arguments as reckless hellraisers ruining it for everybody.

I agree that confirmation bias is at work when someone sees a cyclist behave badly and projects that onto all cyclists.

However, I agree with the earlier post that cyclists genuinely are more likely to behave an entirely selfish manner on the road, and ignore the rules. I've been commuting by bike on and off for 25 years years in this city. And I'd estimate close to half of cyclists more or less just behave however they like. They don't signal - ever - they jump the que at lights, ignore stop signs, etc. Even in their interactions with other cyclists and pedestrians on the pathways they ride in a bubble of adrenaline-fueled self-regard.

Any cyclist who is honest with himself knows this is true. We can stammer and get defensive and point to bad drivers, but that doesn't make it not true. Cyclists, as a whole, really are their own worst enemies when it comes to public perception. They really have to lose that renegade, F-U attitude.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How is the issue of cyclist behavior relevant to the discussion of building more accessible and safe cycling infrastructure? What does one have to do with the other? If cyclists are deemed as "bad" people then they don't deserve the spoils of being able to bike around conveniently and safely just like those pure and holy motorists who never break the law or endanger other people?

Cyclists are trying to change the status quo. But they'll never have the raw numbers to force through these changes without broader public support. Anything done to improve the conditions of cyclists will be done at the forbearance of the motorists who make up the far greater number of taxpaying and voting citizens. So it's up to cyclists to win the war of public perception. Sure, some drivers simply hate cyclists and will oppose anything that causes them personal inconvenience. But most people are pretty reasonable, and will share the road if they think cyclists are doing their part to make compromises work. So when cyclists ride in a unpredictable and law-defying manner, they're only hurting themselves.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would suspect that 100% of drivers commit a driving infraction everyday by the letter of the law. I suspect cyclists are the same.

I think probably about 10% of drivers probably cause gears to be ground by not following the social conventions of driving. The big issue is that the social conventions of driving and cycling conflict with eachother even though all parties are breaking the rules all the time.

Driving 80 in a 70 zone when all the cars around you are also driving 80 doesn't cause any problems. Driving 80 and weaving in and out of other cars and not signalling on a stretch where everyone else is doing 60 causes annoyance and is in fact dangerous. Much of the cyclist behaviour that annoys drivers falls into the latter category.

Much of the animosity towards cyclists would vanish if they simply did three things consistently: always signal, always wait at the back of line of stopped cars, don't weave onto an off of sidewalks and roads. And it's in the interests of cyclists to do those things because riding predictably reduces the chances of getting struck by a car.

For bonus points, cyclists could nod and wave, and show the other signs of courtesy and appreciation that the more considerate drivers use. Stop riding in a bubble as though it's you against the world.

[Fuzz]

CliffFletcher, a lot of that is true, but there are cases where it is safer and better for everyone if a cyclist does proceed to the right of the vehicles up to the light. I'm thinking in cases where there is a wide shoulder and they will be biking on that shoulder when the light goes green. There are also cases where you need to ride from a sidewalk to the road(I'm mostly thinking pathway connections) so blanket statements are not necessarily true in all cases. Though I do agree that I wish cyclists would signal more.