getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Russic]

You can always tell when we haven't had hockey in a while because people start getting super weird around here.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Eh. The same people crying about ebikes are the same ones who have pushed the dirty bikes out of the hills.
I was part of the Quad Squad in Southern Alberta. We built trails, warming shacks, bridges, cleaned #### up... then the NDP decided they were gonna shut down the trails to OHV, but promised to work with us to keep us happy, and able to use our machines snow or shine to keep riding. Never did. Got pushed out of Beaver Mines/Castle area. Limited to the trail system that basically only runs in the ditch beside the road. But hey, the warming shacks, bridges and everything else is there for the NIMBYs that bitched it up for everyone who built it.

I'm with you 100%, man. Used to offroad in Waiprous and MacLean Creek in my jacked up truck, and I know a bunch of those trails from my dirtbiking days. The complainers are such little NIMBY bitches. Those trails are awesome and 99.9% of people left their campsites pristine.

Offroad vehicles leave minor, inconsequential tiny little scrapes on top of the land that will heal in like 20 years if left alone. That's nothing in the big scheme of things.

I'm 100% supportive of OHV recreational areas.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm with you 100%, man. Used to offroad in Waiprous and MacLean Creek in my jacked up truck, and I know a bunch of those trails from my dirtbiking days. The complainers are such little NIMBY bitches. Those trails are awesome and 99.9% of people left their campsites pristine.

Offroad vehicles leave minor, inconsequential tiny little scrapes on top of the land that will heal in like 20 years if left alone. That's nothing in the big scheme of things.

I'm 100% supportive of OHV recreational areas.

Yeah and I think, at least from my experience, all of those guys were respectful. I also fish, so I was always mindful of where I crossed rivers, at actual crossings. My dirtbike ain't #### compared to a skidder and cat.
I remember a story years ago, I believe it was up around Rocky Mountain House. Some guys brought a vac truck to the hills, pumped water out of a river and into a hole where they smashed into it over and over with 4 wheelers and trucks. Boom, shut it down. The whole thing. Couple #######s ruin it for everyone.
I don't know man. It's different now. Used to go up there ready to stay for the duration, and we could for weeks on end without having to make a trip. Last couple times I've been up in Kananaskies we had guys beside us that leave trash everywhere, (one group of D bags burnt their trailer awning up by having it too close to the fire, so they tore it off and left it there) people that raid your firewood stack when you leave camp to ride and fish, and come asking for water and #### while turning their nose up at a dirtbike. Like dude, I'm up here to get away from you useless idiots.
I must be getting old.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As someone who has been cycling on Calgary pathways for over 40 years, the recent proliferation of ebikes and escooters has only increased the ######bag and annoyance factor. These things can easily do 30k, and the people driving them are even less considerate of others on the paths than cyclists are. On already crowded pathways, they’ve only made matters worse.

I’m not sure why we’re even allowing motorized vehicles on the pathway system. The distinction between an e-scooter or e-bike and a moped has become pretty much arbitrary. If we’re going to draw a line on what vehicles we do allow, it seems non-motorized is a pretty clear one. It’s like the reservoir. Want to know what kind of water vessel you can take on it? If it has a motor, you can’t. Crystal clear.

It sounds more like you just don't like the increased volume. If the exact same people were on pure push pedal bikes, wouldn't that be worse? On pedal bikes they'd be cycling less straight, taking breaks, and going slower than the flow of bicycle traffic. Would these people be less of a nuisance to you? Unlikely.

And there are clear distinctions in terms of what is legal and what is not when it comes to E-bikes. E-bikes can be distinguished based on power and they are already divided into classes.

Personally, I'm all for any type of e-bike, scooter, or other similar vehicle being allowed on a bike trail for the purpose of commuting. Will existing cyclists have to accommodate slightly different personal vehicles and increased volume. Yes, of course. As we encourage more people to ditch cars, you're going to see more people clogging up bike paths, especially during "rush hour".

I don't see why there should be this distinction between non-motorized and motorized. It sounds like you're just trying to keep the trails emptier and reserved only for people of a fitness and biking ability that you deem satisfactory, as not to be a slight nuisance to you.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Sorry to interrupt the bike lane discussion. I got a wonderful view this morning of a crackhead leaning against the pedestrian overpass by Chinook and taking a ####. That was a great way to enjoy my commute to work. 10/10.

That overpass is literally a toilet. I used to weave around human feces when I rode over the overpass every day to work.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Lots of people with kids and full-time jobs can ride a bicycle without motor assistance. Anyone under 60 who doesn’t suffer from some kind of legitimate disability should be able to pedal a bike 15 km without keeling over.

To be quite honest, it sound like you’re overweight and lazy. Which isn’t a crime. But you don’t need to justify that laziness by pretending it’s impossible for normal people to cycle any distance unless they’re fitness freaks.

I'm in fantastic shape for a person my age. I don't want to pedal to work everyday. Some days I'm tired. I also don't want to have to take a shower, change clothes, or de-stink myself before the work day.

It's great that you've managed to turn your commute into a workout. That's not for everyone.

I'm seriously considering buying a scooter. I plan to ride it on the bike pathways, as riding it on the roads is just too dangerous.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm in fantastic shape for a person my age. I don't want to pedal to work everyday. Some days I'm tired. I also don't want to have to take a shower, change clothes, or de-stink myself before the work day.

It's great that you've managed to turn your commute into a workout. That's not for everyone.

I'm seriously considering buying a scooter. I plan to ride it on the bike pathways, as riding it on the roads is just too dangerous.

Yeah, the idea that e-bikes are just for overweight, lazy old people is hilarious.

I like to work out when I wake up, shower, change, and go to work. Like you, I have literally no interest in breaking a sweat on the way to work and then having to shower and change when I get there. I’ve also worked in a office without a shower, which makes it a non-option.

But, apparently, rather than take an e-bike and arrive fresh as a daisy, cyclists would rather I take the truck they all complain about being “too big” because they can barely see over the hood and are worried I’m going to pancake them while they’re weaving through traffic. Geniuses.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

Personally, I'm all for any type of e-bike, scooter, or other similar vehicle being allowed on a bike trail for the purpose of commuting. Will existing cyclists have to accommodate slightly different personal vehicles and increased volume. Yes, of course. As we encourage more people to ditch cars, you're going to see more people clogging up bike paths, especially during "rush hour".

I don't see why there should be this distinction between non-motorized and motorized. It sounds like you're just trying to keep the trails emptier and reserved only for people of a fitness and biking ability that you deem satisfactory, as not to be a slight nuisance to you.

Sure, I’d prefer it if the paths were less crowded. Guilty as charged. It’s why I typically ride around the reservoir or along Fish Creek before 10 am on weekends. It’s no different from people preferring to ride on the highway when it’s less crowded (to use an example from another recent thread).

You’re repeating Sliver’s baseless claim that the people using e-bikes on the recreation paths are otherwise unable to use the path system. I guess maybe a few suffer from invisible disabilities. But most look fine to me; no different from the people walking and riding bikes, who come in all ages and shapes and fitness levels. The ones on e-bikes simply don’t want to exert effort. Which is fine. Just don’t paint this as some kind of ethical cause enabling access to people who otherwise couldn’t use the pathways.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by blankall

It sounds more like you just don't like the increased volume.

No it doesn’t.

It sounds lune he doesn’t line the increased volume of vehicles travelling at excessive speeds and without consideration for other path users. That’s not the same thing.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Some people need a trip to Europe if they are bothered by e-bikes on the pathways. These things are allowed in the bike lanes.

Spoiler!

HA, I never saw any of these when I lived in Europe. But it seems to 100% be a North American mentality to hate these things and anything new that comes on your "roadway". Literally everywhere in Europe is significantly more congested with people then Calgary. Yet it's a big problem here for people to share the road with bikes, share the pathways with e-bikes and e-scooters and other green methods of transport? Hilarious.

People there get frustrated when people drive like #######s on those things, but that is true for any kind of vehicle. The net positives by far outweigh the negatives. Unless we enjoy having more big dumb trucks on the road or keeping the bikeways strictly for bikes. It took time for people to get used to having them there, but my experience is that for the most part they live in harmony with each other, with the exception of big tourist cities like Amsterdam or Barcelona, where of course tourists ruin everything.

Are people who drive e-bike too fast a hazard? Sure. But I there are plenty of peddle bikers who are. I have had infinitely more close calls and piss poor interactions with bikers then I have ever had with scooter or e-bike riders. The world is changing and we need more of these e-transports than we need bike lanes being hogged by bikers or more vehicles.

The #### thread am I in anyways???

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sure, I’d prefer it if the paths were less crowded. Guilty as charged. It’s why I typically ride around the reservoir or along Fish Creek before 10 am on weekends. It’s no different from people preferring to ride on the highway when it’s less crowded (to use an example from another recent thread).

You’re repeating Sliver’s baseless claim that the people using e-bikes on the recreation paths are otherwise unable to use the path system. I guess maybe a few suffer from invisible disabilities. But most look fine to me; no different from the people walking and riding bikes, who come in all ages and shapes and fitness levels. The ones on e-bikes simply don’t want to exert effort. Which is fine. Just don’t paint this as some kind of ethical cause enabling access to people who otherwise couldn’t use the pathways.

Once again, not everyone wants to combine their commute with exercise. That's okay.

[Fuzz]

The bigger problem with the pathways and different user types is that we keep encouraging users to switch to active transport, but do #### all on the infrastructure side. Most pathways are not wide enough to overtake without crossing into incoming traffic, which at times can be steady. So it's a safety issue.


This could easily be resolved if we spent even a tiny fraction of what we do on roads. But most paths are in pretty crappy shape and way too narrow for all the users coming out. It's great people are active, but the city needs to keep up. Our pathways are embarrassing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by 81MC

No it doesn’t.

It sounds lune he doesn’t line the increased volume of vehicles travelling at excessive speeds and without consideration for other path users. That’s not the same thing.

Would having to bike around cyclist moving at a slower speed and meandering all over the cycling lanes be easier? Everyone has a dream of being able to commute without interruptions, but that's not practical.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The bigger problem with the pathways and different user types is that we keep encouraging users to switch to active transport, but do #### all on the infrastructure side. Most pathways are not wide enough to overtake without crossing into incoming traffic, which at times can be steady. So it's a safety issue.


This could easily be resolved if we spent even a tiny fraction of what we do on roads. But most paths are in pretty crappy shape and way too narrow for all the users coming out. It's great people are active, but the city needs to keep up. Our pathways are embarrassing.

Was just about to say this. Nobody questions overbuilt wide 4 lane roads in the suburbs, but god forbid we widen pathways/sidewalks or twin more busy spots

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Our pathways are embarrassing.

Calgary ranks 5th out of 163 large (300k+) cities in North America for its biking network. Hardly an embarrassment.

https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.o...ies/calgary-ab

The busiest stretches have been substantially improved the last decade: the Bow River riverwalk; near Heritage Park and Glenmore Landing; South Glenmore Park; North Glenmore Park. The paths have been widened and twinned with separate pedestrian and cyclist paths in those areas (which people ignore because they can’t/won’t follow simple signage).

Much of the pathway system is along wooded river embankments or hillsides. The landscaping, grading, and tree removal would be an enormous and costly job. I don’t know how many hundreds of trees we’d have to rip out and thousands of cubic meters of dirt we’d have to move just to widen the 15 km of the reservoir pathway (never mind the other 985 km of pathways in the system).

I mean, it would be nice to have wider paths. I just don’t know how practical it is. It’s certainly not something that could be “easily resolved.” Are there cities with extensive bike path systems like Calgary’s where the paths are substantially wider?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Calgary ranks 5th out of 163 large (300k+) cities in North America for its biking network. Hardly an embarrassment.

https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.o...ies/calgary-ab

The busiest stretches have been substantially improved the last decade: the Bow River riverwalk; near Heritage Park and Glenmore Landing; South Glenmore Park; North Glenmore Park. The paths have been widened and twinned with separate pedestrian and cyclist paths in those areas (which people ignore because they can’t/won’t follow simple signage).

Much of the pathway system is along wooded river embankments or hillsides. The landscaping, grading, and tree removal would be an enormous and costly job. I don’t know how many hundreds of trees we’d have to rip out and thousands of cubic meters of dirt we’d have to move just to widen the 15 km of the reservoir pathway (never mind the other 985 km of pathways in the system).

I mean, it would be nice to have wider paths. I just don’t know how practical it is. It’s certainly not something that could be “easily resolved.” Are there cities with extensive bike path systems like Calgary’s where the paths are substantially wider?

Ah, the "we have so many km of path" bull#### number. Have you actually been on a lot of them? they are garbage. As top the rest of your defeatist post, you sound like someone who works for the city. The Edworthy to downtown section has challenges, sure, but it's not like we don't have challenges building roads, and the city doesn't just shrug and say "good enough". There are plenty of sections with no trees in the way that wider paths could be put in. Or do split paths and separate users. People with your attitude are why we still have what we have.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ah, the "we have so many km of path" bull#### number. Have you actually been on a lot of them? they are garbage. As top the rest of your defeatist post, you sound like someone who works for the city. The Edworthy to downtown section has challenges, sure, but it's not like we don't have challenges building roads, and the city doesn't just shrug and say "good enough". There are plenty of sections with no trees in the way that wider paths could be put in. Or do split paths and separate users. People with your attitude are why we still have what we have.

Did you even look at the criteria?

Each city receives a City Ratings score on a scale of 0 - 100. A low score (0-20) indicates a weak bike network, meaning the city lacks safe bikeways or there are gaps in the network. A high score (80-100) indicates that most common destinations are accessible by safe, comfortable bike routes that serve people of all ages and abilities.

City Ratings scores are released annually each summer based on results from our Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA), a data analysis software that measures the quality and connectivity of a city’s bike network. The BNA assesses six factors captured in the acronym SPRINT:

• Safe Speeds
  Protected Bike Lanes
  Reallocated Space
  Intersection Treatments
  Network Connections
  Trusted Data

https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.o...-ratings-works

This is what an excellent bike pathway system looks like according to one of the most prominent cycling advocacy groups in North America. Could it be better? Sure. But if you feel Calgary’s pathway system is embarrassing, you’d feel pretty much any North American city’s pathway system (and most European cities as well) are embarrassing.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ah, the "we have so many km of path" bull#### number. Have you actually been on a lot of them? they are garbage. As top the rest of your defeatist post, you sound like someone who works for the city. The Edworthy to downtown section has challenges, sure, but it's not like we don't have challenges building roads, and the city doesn't just shrug and say "good enough". There are plenty of sections with no trees in the way that wider paths could be put in. Or do split paths and separate users. People with your attitude are why we still have what we have.

Have you ever tried arguing dispassionately about something, ever?

[2Stonedbirds]

...but that's no fun.

[TorqueDog]

Show me one of Fuzz's posts that's fun.