Bicyclists suck!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I used to drive down Parkdale Blvd daily, and the amount of times I witnessed some dickbag cyclist that would go blasting down the bike path, then hit the pedestrian signal and ride right across the street without waiting for cars to stop just blew my mind.
I know it's mean, but I secretly wanted to watch one of those a-holes get plastered.

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.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I used to drive down Parkdale Blvd daily, and the amount of times I witnessed some dickbag cyclist that would go blasting down the bike path, then hit the pedestrian signal and ride right across the street without waiting for cars to stop just blew my mind.
I know it's mean, but I secretly wanted to watch one of those a-holes get plastered.

On Bow Trail heading west at Sarcee Trail there is a right hand turning lane where there is a crosswalk. No pedestrian signal. As you drive up you can see the cyclists riding up the hill. Some of them don't even look at they drive across the road. I assume there has been or will be somebody killed there.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by habernac

As a few have stated already, the infrastructure in this city sucks for bikes. Just came back from the southwestern US, very jealous of all the bike lanes I see down there.

If you're a cyclist and run stop signs when other traffic is there, you're an idiot. If you're a motorist that complains about bikes running stop signs when there's no traffic around, you're also an idiot.

Haha! If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Pretty sure no one would be complaining about that if it didnt happen when there is traffic around.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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.

It is sooo gear grinding.

But to be honest, I really don't care if a cyclist dismounts to use a pedestrain signal, but I expect that he/she should at least give traffic a reasonable amount of time to stop. They can't just pull up at mach 3 and smack the button as they pass and expect me to jam on my brakes.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by 4X4

It is sooo gear grinding.

But to be honest, I really don't care if a cyclist dismounts to use a pedestrain signal, but I expect that he/she should at least give traffic a reasonable amount of time to stop. They can't just pull up at mach 3 and smack the button as they pass and expect me to jam on my brakes.

riding from sidewalks into crosswalks or onto roads is the most dangerous and stupid thing a cyclist can do.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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.

At some intersections they have crossbikes in addition to the crosswalks or they are joined together as one. They are clearly marked, have bike symbols on them and also have broken white lines on the outside of the crosswalk part. They are usually on major bike routes/paths and are wider than most crosswalks.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It has to do with people in vehicles all having to slow down to creep around the bike that is on the road, no big deal the first time. But then you hit a couple red lights and the guy come from the back again and the whole lot of vehicles have to slowly and carefully pass him again and again slowing down all the traffic.

While there is no real other solution since the city does not have enough bike lanes, it is still a frustrating experience for drivers. You just were slowed down in order to carefully pass the cyclist and then you hit the red light and you suddenly have to pass him all over again.

This is especially frustrating when:

1) It is rush hour

2) There is bike path 10 M to the right (ex. Memorial, 16th Ave around Montgomery, Elbow Drive).

Why put yourself (and others) at risk when there are safer routes (bike paths and side streets)?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is especially frustrating when:

1) It is rush hour

2) There is bike path 10 M to the right (ex. Memorial, 16th Ave around Montgomery, Elbow Drive).

Why put yourself (and others) at risk when there are safer routes (bike paths and side streets)?

Your second point isn't a great example.
The bike paths have a speed limit of 20 kph, so that's why people ride on the road. They're actually doing it so they don't have to break any rules.

[Resolute 14]

Well, given that it seems many cyclists are unable to come to a complete stop properly, they should be following the slower speed limit anyway.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, given that it seems many cyclists are unable to come to a complete stop properly, they should be following the slower speed limit anyway.

Well considering the guy on the road is probaly the one more likely to follow the rules than the guy zipping along the path at 30-40 kph, I'd say it's a bad example.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

So since I speed in my car from time to time, I can break rules on my bike? No more 2 second stops for me.

There is no such rule as the 2 second rule.

[JohnnyB]

The biggest problem I see here is really that the culture and the infrastructure in Calgary so heavily favours modes of transport which are wasteful and inefficient. Cities really should be doing as much as possible to encourage cycling over driving all over the place, but Calgary is so poorly set up for it that cyclists and motorists are at odds with each other. For the mere sake of sustainability, preference should be given to cyclists and cars should be seen as privileges with damaging longterm effects to everyone else in the community but that's a hard sell in a place like Calgary where both the local culture and the infrastructure are set against it.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

The biggest problem I see here is really that the culture and the infrastructure in Calgary so heavily favours modes of transport which are wasteful and inefficient. Cities really should be doing as much as possible to encourage cycling over driving all over the place, but Calgary is so poorly set up for it that cyclists and motorists are at odds with each other. For the mere sake of sustainability, preference should be given to cyclists and cars should be seen as privileges with damaging longterm effects to everyone else in the community but that's a hard sell in a place like Calgary where both the local culture and the infrastructure are set against it.

It's a conspiracy since we live in an Oil and Gas driven economy. The powers that be planned poor infrastructure in order to make sure we use lots of Oil and Gas in Calgary.

[Phanuthier]

I don't know about you guys, but every time I drive in my $13,995.00 car, or my $200 bike, or my $3800 motorcycle, I know I puff up my chest, size up my ego and it pisses me off if a cheaper car, bike or motorcycle passes me. It really pisses the shat out of me.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It's a conspiracy since we live in an Oil and Gas driven economy. The powers that be planned poor infrastructure in order to make sure we use lots of Oil and Gas in Calgary.

The moronic design of Deerfoot Tr. would suggest there wasn't anyone here capable of coming up with a simple plan, let alone a conspiracy...

[Resolute 14]

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.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

I will beat a car from my house to work at 8am on my bike 100% of the time.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Well there are two defintions of efficiency. Bikes are obviously much more energy efficient than a car, and if you're looking at it from a time perspective, sure they may not be that efficient, but in rush hour conditions bikes can often get places just as fast as other methods including driving.

For example, I have two options for getting to work, I can drive to the train station and take that into downtown, or I can bike there.

It's about 25km each way.
To drive/take the train usually takes me ~ 50 minutes.
To bike takes me 50 minutes in the morning and about 70 in the evening (a lot of uphill on the way home), so I've added ~20 minutes to my total commute time, and managed to get 2 hrs of exercise in. Plus add that to the fact that if I take the train, I would usually go for about a 1hr workout once I got home anyway, so I'm acaully saving 40 minutes of the day and getting twice as much exercise.

That's efficiency.

Plus, it's a lot more fun than sitting on a train.

[BurningYears]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

It's efficient for me cause its only about 5 min longer then taking a bus at rush hour. so not only do I get home in relatively the same amount of time I also do not have to spend time in the gym doing cardio as I've done it on my way home.

Obviously this isnt the same for everyone, but a bicycle is a much more efficient use of energy then a car.

^^^^ What Shantz said

[Weiser Wonder]

I envy people who have the balls to bike around the downtown of a city. I tried it once, never again.