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

[northcrunk]

Downtown business were already squeezed with the massive increase in the cost of parking downtown. Now add even less spaces for people who come down (usually on the weekend) and I can definatly see why they are not happy.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

As would adequate enforcement of the rules, I would propose.

Better roads with higher speed limits would also reduce speeding.

Totally disagree. Infrastructure is best engineered to align with what how we know it will affect behaviour.

Same with people speeding on roads, enforcement only works to a degree. People drive to the speed they feel safe and comfortable, called "design speed". If we want people to speed less, especially on say residential streets, we should have a narrower carriageway with on street parking, lots of opportunities for pedestrians to cross. If most people are speeding, that's a design failure primarily, not an enforcement failure.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Downtown business were already squeezed with the massive increase in the cost of parking downtown. Now add even less spaces for people who come down (usually on the weekend) and I can definatly see why they are not happy.

There is so much cheap or free parking available downtown on the weekends, the cycle tracks are not even a factor. In fact, I bet it will bring net more people to downtown on the weekends.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

When someone can bike faster than 20 mph I will consider them a vehicle. Right now they are just an annoyance (not the bike couriers, they at least know how to ride in traffic). The bike in to work crowd is just rediculous. Going 10mps on their banana seat bike wearing a skirt and heels. Nobody wants to smell you after you bike in either unless you can have a shower at work.

If only there was some way to segregate them from traffic so they wouldn't interrupt traffic flow to quite that extent.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

If only there was some way to segregate them from traffic so they wouldn't interrupt traffic flow to quite that extent.

Use the sidewalk. I really don't care as a pedestrian.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah this parking thing is a bit odd to me. I've never driven by a downtown business, found no parking in front and said "f'k it I'll go somewhere else". I'll usually Park several blocks away and walk if I have to.

This was apparently the same argument made by downtown businesses against Car2Go's. They claimed the cars parking in front were discouraging customers... Downtown? as if. People go DT for a reason. They don't go to the closest restaurant they could park to.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Use the sidewalk. I really don't care as a pedestrian.

I do!

I hate bikers who use the sidewalk. It's illegal.

Oh and when they have the audacity to use their bell to make pedestrians move.... I sometimes want to put my umbrella right through their spokes.

There are several reasons that bikers were changed to vehicle status.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Use the sidewalk. I really don't care as a pedestrian.

According to section 42.1.c of the City of Calgary Traffic Bylaw, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk.

The few exceptions to this law include peace officers, delivering newspapers, or being under 14 years of age.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

According to section 42.1.c of the City of Calgary Traffic Bylaw, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk.

The few exceptions to this law include peace officers, delivering newspapers, or being under 14 years of age.

...and where the city has painted a yellow line down the middle designating a sidewalk as a pathway.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Admitedly, I don't know exactly what's right. These past few days I've just been behaving like a car except staying on the shoulder so cars can pass. At red lights I don't jump to the front of the line and instead wait my turn on the shoulder behind the car I'd been following. Only once have I needed to make a left on a busy street (17th onto 2nd). It felt a little awkward, but I advanced right into the middle of the intersection in the left lane, held my arm out in the left turn signal, and waited until I could turn. Was that right?

You've been doing it right. Give yourself a pat on the back.

[RatherDashing]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Admitedly, I don't know exactly what's right. These past few days I've just been behaving like a car except staying on the shoulder so cars can pass. At red lights I don't jump to the front of the line and instead wait my turn on the shoulder behind the car I'd been following. Only once have I needed to make a left on a busy street (17th onto 2nd). It felt a little awkward, but I advanced right into the middle of the intersection in the left lane, held my arm out in the left turn signal, and waited until I could turn. Was that right?

According to the city, you can turn left in three ways. You can turn left like a car (as you did, using the full lane). You can also proceed straight through the intersection on the right hand side, stop at the opposite corner, join the traffic at the front of the line, and wait for a green light. This is a lot more comfortable where bike boxes exist, as some drivers get a bit upset when you stop and turn in front of them. Or thirdly you can use the crosswalks to get through the intersection. See here:

City of Calgary

[RatherDashing]

On another note, I feel like the city could clear up a lot of problems by issuing a clear set of rules for how bikes and cars need to interact. The left turn thing is a good example, as a lot of people (drivers and cyclists) don't seem to know the rules, and it causes a lot of frustration on the road. Other examples would be when cyclists should ride by the curb vs. taking their lane, when it is okay to pass cyclists, how you should enter a roadway as a cyclist, etc.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

If they want the cardio benefit they should stick to the pathways. Bike lanes, biking with traffic, etc. should be 100% about transportation.

Agreed, you give bikers a good name. However, far too many of your brethren ride like the rules don't apply to them and that sitting on a bike makes them the master race on road.

Today at noon the guy with the anti-bike lane sign was protesting on 8 Ave SW. A young girl on bike heckled him from the other side of the road and then sped away. Behaviours like this was what caused friction between, bikers and non-bikers.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Totally disagree. Infrastructure is best engineered to align with what how we know it will affect behaviour.

Same with people speeding on roads, enforcement only works to a degree. People drive to the speed they feel safe and comfortable, called "design speed". If we want people to speed less, especially on say residential streets, we should have a narrower carriageway with on street parking, lots of opportunities for pedestrians to cross. If most people are speeding, that's a design failure primarily, not an enforcement failure.

Design speed primarily impacts width, curves and cross sections. Speeding is not a result of a design failure, because many roads are designed for 10 km/h above the posted speed in less than ideal situations.

I think what you're describing is more like contextual design. Road width still comes into play, as you can use widths to reduce the comfort of speeding. But you affect behaviour more using the outside context of the road i.e. roadside furniture, pedestrian access, development density, etc.

So what's my point? My point is I actually agree that enforcement helps, but is definitely not the only factor in controlling speed e.g. if you were to post a 50 km/h speed limit on Deerfoot, no one would follow it, ever, despite enforcement.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, the cyclist shouldn't have been riding along the shoulder past stopped cars in the first place. He should take a lane, like all the other vehicles, and stop in the back of the line cars and wait his turn, just like all the other vehicles. Basically, behave exactly like a car. It's not rocket science, but it's remarkable how many cyclists don't seem to understand.

However, helmets are not mandatory for adults in Alberta.

Do you also think that that cyclist should then move to the shoulder when traffic starts moving??

If it is illegal for the cyclist to pass vehicles on the shoulder at a stop light, is it illegal for motorists to pass cyclists when traffic is moving? Why do motorists get is both ways? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander?

Serious Questions.

[tete]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Agreed, you give bikers a good name. However, far too many of your brethren ride like the rules don't apply to them and that sitting on a bike makes them the master race on road.

Today at noon the guy with the anti-bike lane sign was protesting on 8 Ave SW. A young girl on bike heckled him from the other side of the road and then sped away. Behaviours like this was what caused friction between, bikers and non-bikers.

The guy with the anti-bike sign is Larry Heather. He deserves to be heckled at all times.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by gasman

Do you also think that that cyclist should then move to the shoulder when traffic starts moving??

If it is illegal for the cyclist to pass vehicles on the shoulder at a stop light, is it illegal for motorists to pass cyclists when traffic is moving? Why do motorists get is both ways? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander?

Serious Questions.

Vehicles shouldn't be expected to go as slow as bikes when the average cyclist struggles to go even 30.

It's also illegal for motor bikes to pass at a stop light. If a cyclist can go faster than a vehicle I don't see any reason why they couldn't pass when they are moving like a vehicle does now. Why do cars need to be restricted from passing a moving cyclist?

Does biking take a few I.Q points off? Or is it just all the bugs they eat? Serious question

[shermanator]

Could you imagine Larry Heather coming across a pro-choice, gay cyclist? He would probably have a heart attack!

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Could you imagine Larry Heather coming across a pro-choice, gay cyclist? He would probably have a heart attack!

He would die on the spot for sure. Maybe crap himself a bit. You never know though, those loud anti-gay anti-pro choice guys are usually the ones hiring male prostitutes.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Vehicles shouldn't be expected to go as slow as bikes when the average cyclist struggles to go even 30.

It's also illegal for motor bikes to pass at a stop light. If a cyclist can go faster than a vehicle I don't see any reason why they couldn't pass when they are moving like a vehicle does now. Why do cars need to be restricted from passing a moving cyclist?

Does biking take a few I.Q points off? Or is it just all the bugs they eat? Serious question

I didn't say a vehicle should be restricted from passing a moving cyclist, I was implying that I don't have a problem with a cyclist passing me when I am stopped at a red light.

The cyclists isn't changing lanes to pass the row of stopped cars, they are riding generally in the same path as they were when the cars passed them when they were moving.

If the argument is that passing the cyclist slows down traffic, why does the cyclist catch up to the same people at the red lights? Shouldn't all of those cars be long gone now that they aren't held up by cyclists? I would propose that they probably don't have a really huge impact to the actual comute times for motorists, but people get annoyed that someone passed them while they were stuck in traffic.

No different than the guys that refuse to let people merge in front of them at an onramp, because they have some complex about somebody possibly getting somewhere before them.