Open Letter to Cyclists.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by FFR

See...your technical breaking of the law does interfere with me. Because I am driving in rushhour traffic I must change lanes to go around you and then you zip past me at a light so that I must change lanes, again, to go around you. As you most likely know, in rush hour traffic this isn't very easy to do. The law was not made to protect cyclists. It was made to create a safe environment for all vehicles on the road.

Apparently we are just going to agree to disagree. Sure cycling past cars at a red light saves you time. But what I don't understand, and what no one has yet been able to explain to me is how cyclists can expect a full lane when cars are passing them, however, not expect a full lane when they are passing cars. At one point, you want all cars to change lanes to go around you and then at the next point, that rule is disregarded because it's easier for you.

I personally don't expect a full lane and no one really gives a full lane, especially during rush hour traffic. Having been tagged by a car making a turn before I know that you have to look out for yourself and when you are able to get to the front of the line you can do so with much more ease as well you are in everyones view. As I say it might suck somewhat for you, but you are in the very small minority when you say you switch lanes for a cyclist.

The city really needs to work on better cycle paths for people who go above 20 km/hour, which is really slow.

[BlackArcher101]

Holy crap is this thread going around and around.

Yes, you can say bikers jumping the queue at a red light "delay" you further. Now, imagine if I biker couldn't do that. They would never make any good progress forward in heavy traffic. Entirely negates the benefits of biking. Your 3 second delay in passing is far better than a 10 minute delay for the biker.

Also, to those saying they don't understand how bikers can expect a full lane when being passed but then go and pass vehicles themselves without a full lane... here is the key difference. Speed and momentum. A car passing a bike at 50km/h is going to hurt a lot more than a bike passing a car at 30 km/h. The room for error is smaller at speed with the car passing.

Hard to argue those points. The best way for any of this to be resolved is the city get off it's ass and get something done with dedicated bike lanes/paths and a shift of the way drivers and bikers think they can coexist together. God help any of the drivers here if they go to asia... or even anywhere but NA.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The law was instituted as a measure of protection in all likelihood and my technical breaking of the law does not interfere in any way shape or form with the spirit of the law. In fact I would imagine that it would only serve a safety risk when bikes are not at the front of the line...

What about the spirit of the law that says no cyclists permitted on Memorial drive? I guess that one is a technicality in your books too?

Keep breaking the law and bitching about motorists pissing you off while you do it... you'll get no sympathy from me.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Yes, you can say bikers jumping the queue at a red light "delay" you further. Now, imagine if I biker couldn't do that. They would never make any good progress forward in heavy traffic. Entirely negates the benefits of biking.

I thought the benefit of biking was the low cost and the exercise?

Why should one vehicle on the road be given preferential treatment? By your logic, heavy traffic negates the benefits of driving. So maybe drivers should just do whatever the hell they want to, such as driving on sidewalks, if they are in heavy traffic.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Yes, you can say bikers jumping the queue at a red light "delay" you further. Now, imagine if I biker couldn't do that. They would never make any good progress forward in heavy traffic. Entirely negates the benefits of biking. Your 3 second delay in passing is far better than a 10 minute delay for the biker.

Read: rules of traffic do not apply to cyclists.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

What about the spirit of the law that says no cyclists permitted on Memorial drive? I guess that one is a technicality in your books too?

Keep breaking the law and bitching about motorists pissing you off while you do it... you'll get no sympathy from me.

I don't recall asking for your sympathy nor caring if you gave it.

If you can show me that your obscure bylaw (not an actual law by the way) is intended for cyclists then I will agree with you in that I shouldn't be on the road... but until then I will continue to ride my bike on Memorial (generally before 7 in the morning and after 6 at night by the way) and not give two s about whatever the bylaw states.

[Dion]

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I thought the benefit of biking was the low cost and the exercise?

Why should one vehicle on the road be given preferential treatment? By your logic, heavy traffic negates the benefits of driving. So maybe drivers should just do whatever the hell they want to, such as driving on sidewalks, if they are in heavy traffic.

Yes, those are benefits, but if you start adding time to the already long commute, the likelihood of people biking to work is a lot less. I used to bike to work in Edmonton. Normally the drive was 30 minutes with half that time sitting idle. Biking and jumping the queue took me 35 minutes. If I didn't pass any cars, my time would be approaching 45-50 minutes.

Cities promote transit and biking to remove cars off the road and lessen the traffic. If the cons of biking start to outweigh the positives, then more people will rather hop in the car.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Read: rules of traffic do not apply to cyclists.

Show me the rule where it says they cannot and someone who was charged.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I thought the benefit of biking was the low cost and the exercise?

Why should one vehicle on the road be given preferential treatment? By your logic, heavy traffic negates the benefits of driving. So maybe drivers should just do whatever the hell they want to, such as driving on sidewalks, if they are in heavy traffic.

Low cost and exercise are two of the benefits but it wouldn't be feasible to ride a bike if it took 2 hours of sitting in traffic every day while cars passed you. It takes longer to ride a bike than it does to drive a car and having to wait in traffic with the cars would make it worlds worse and then you would have fewer people who would ride their bikes in on an average day, which means more cars on the roads and more traffic congestion.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Show me the rule where it says they cannot and someone who was charged.

Vehicle A cannot pass vehicle B in the same lane.

I have no interest in identifying the law you've already deemed irrelevant.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Vehicle A cannot pass vehicle B in the same lane.

I have no interest in identifying the law you've already deemed irrelevant.

So be it. The fact that I never heard of anyone being charged with this tends to show that even cops are unsure.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I don't recall asking for your sympathy nor caring if you gave it.

If you can show me that your obscure bylaw (not an actual law by the way) is intended for cyclists then I will agree with you in that I shouldn't be on the road... but until then I will continue to ride my bike on Memorial (generally before 7 in the morning and after 6 at night by the way) and not give two s about whatever the bylaw states.

Already cited it once here. Bylaw 26m96 Section 39 states no slow moving vehicles on the section of memorial drive during rush hour (Appendix M states the other roads where this is prohibited). Judging by the times that you stated you are borderline (I'm guessing because you are now back-peddaling and really know about the bylaw but don't want people here to believe that you are breaking more than one cycling law per day).

http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/...erks/26m96.pdf

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

You posted the bylaw before and I still don't care what it says... and a bylaw does not equal a law.

[Rhettzky]

[WhiteTom]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

a bylaw does not equal a law.

A bylaw is just a law that is passed and enforced by a particular municipal government.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&de...ition&ct=title

[Dion]

Bylaw: A law made by a municipal government.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/pub/gdbook/glossary.htm

[habernac]

what cracks me up about this bylaw is that it contradicts the signage they have in place right now on Ctr St. Morning and afternoon there's lane reversals, and the far right lane is a High Occupancy Vehicle lane, a bus and cab lane and a bike lane. So it's a bike lane but there's a ban on bikes there? That's pretty useful now, isn't it?

[MuffinChucker]

Originally Posted by FFR

See...your technical breaking of the law does interfere with me. Because I am driving in rushhour traffic I must change lanes to go around you and then you zip past me at a light so that I must change lanes, again, to go around you. As you most likely know, in rush hour traffic this isn't very easy to do. The law was not made to protect cyclists. It was made to create a safe environment for all vehicles on the road.

Apparently we are just going to agree to disagree. Sure cycling past cars at a red light saves you time. But what I don't understand, and what no one has yet been able to explain to me is how cyclists can expect a full lane when cars are passing them, however, not expect a full lane when they are passing cars. At one point, you want all cars to change lanes to go around you and then at the next point, that rule is disregarded because it's easier for you.

I don't expect a full lane. Just don't speed by me and try give me a as much room as possible. Personally I don;t expect a full lane.. all I really need is a couple feet.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dion

Bylaw: A law made by a municipal government.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/pub/gdbook/glossary.htm

Thanks for that...I know what a bylaw is but it differs greatly from a law which is passed by a Federal or Provincial Government in it's scope and most importantly in the ramifications for breaking the law. It is easy to say a law is a law is a law.... but in reality it isn't nearly that simple.