 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | And how exactly is a quick step to the side for a polite cyclist an impossible burden?
|
Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to see any reason why I should have to, given that the sidewalk is for pedestrians. That's not just my opinion, it's the law's opinion. It's an impossible burden in exactly the same way that having to jump aside for someone on a vespa scooter, a moped, or a motorcycle would be. |
Ah, so it's not physically impossible, you just don't want to, and don't have to. Do tell, though, is a quick step for a polite cyclist the same as jumping aside for motorized vehicle? Because we wouldn't want stretch things. I mean, I have often found making room for a wheelchair is much like diving headlong out of the way of a semi...
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
| Quote: | | I might additionally notice you didn't touch the community spirit aspect. |
Because I don't believe that a bylaw that restricts sidewalks to pedestrians and children on bikes is destructive to the community spirit. |
Funny, I don't believe I made any mention of believing that either.
| Sibjyn wrote: | | Quote: | | Clearly an equivalent situation. |
Sure it is. I walk in the road because I don't feel safe on the sidewalks. Too many bikes. |
Ah, I see now. So would "I keep my car parked inside the mall, because there's fewer cars there to hit it" also fly? I mean, clearly we're paying no attention to how reasonable the alternative situation is, ever breaking any bylaw because of feelings of insecurity are automatically the same, no questions asked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do tell, though, is a quick step for a polite cyclist the same as jumping aside for motorized vehicle? |
Not exactly, but not in the way you might think.
If a motorized vehicle, say a Vespa, came up behind you on the sidewalk, you'd hear it a mile away. When a bike comes up behind you you don't (until that little bell says "Mr. Scaredy-cat, comin' thru!")
| Quote: | | Funny, I don't believe I made any mention of believing that either. |
True. You insinuated that any pedestrian who doesn't cheerfully ignore that bylaw, and voluntarily make way for cyclists, is destructive to the community spirit. Close enough, if you ask me. What's the point of a bylaw if, in the interest of "community spirit", I'm supposed to ignore its existence? The bottom line is that it's that bylaw that forbids adults from riding on the sidewalk, and all any pedestrian can do is refer to that bylaw.
| Quote: | | I mean, clearly we're paying no attention to how reasonable the alternative situation is |
Clearly not, since the most sensible alternative situation would be that cyclists who don't want to ride on the road should walk. Perfectly reasonable, yet you'll have none of it. Better to break the law in the name of convenience and community spirit, says you.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | Do tell, though, is a quick step for a polite cyclist the same as jumping aside for motorized vehicle? |
Not exactly, but not in the way you might think.
If a motorized vehicle, say a Vespa, came up behind you on the sidewalk, you'd hear it a mile away. When a bike comes up behind you you don't (until that little bell says "Mr. Scaredy-cat, comin' thru!") |
And if somebody else who's walking and can't get by approaches you, you don't hear them until they cough or say "excuse me" either, what's the difference?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | True. You insinuated that any pedestrian who doesn't cheerfully ignore that bylaw, and voluntarily make way for cyclists, is destructive to the community spirit. |
Oh, how stupid of me! I hadn't realized there was a bylaw against make room for cyclists, and letting them get by would require you to personally break the law.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | What's the point of a bylaw if, in the interest of "community spirit", I'm supposed to ignore its existence? The bottom line is that it's that bylaw that forbids adults from riding on the sidewalk, and all any pedestrian can do is refer to that bylaw. |
So what would you do if you hear a bell ring, and when you turn around there's a cyclist going slowly behind you on the sidewalk looking like they want to pass? Ignore them because they shouldn't be there? Outstretch your arms to prevent their heinous, law-breaking actions, and/or tell them they don't belong and are breaking the law? Make a citizen's arrest and phone the police to lock up the menace to society? All of those seem rather contrary to community spirit to me. Almost all of those choices require more effort on your part than politely stepping to the side and letting the cyclist pass, so I don't see how accomodating the cyclist is such an imposition on your sidewalk use.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Clearly not, since the most sensible alternative situation would be that cyclists who don't want to ride on the road should walk. Perfectly reasonable, yet you'll have none of it. Better to break the law in the name of convenience and community spirit, says you. |
And howso will I have none of it? Have I at any point said "cyclists shouldn't ride on the roads"? Please point out to me where I did, if that is the case. Personally, I ride on the street more often than not, but I also have a queer ability to see things from the perspective of somebody in a different situation than my own, and to try to deal with what "isn't [directly] my problem!"
Should a cyclist be on the sidewalk, though, and trying to pass a pedestrian, the law's already been broken and it's a bit late to discuss where the cyclist should legally be; so are you going to be polite and let the cyclist pass, or be rude and not make a quick, easy modification to your behaviour to accommodate the cyclist? On option seems to me quite in keeping, on both sides, to positive community spirit. The other seems needlessly vengeful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And if somebody else who's walking and can't get by approaches you, you don't hear them until they cough or say "excuse me" either, what's the difference? |
They're allowed on the sidewalk.
| Quote: | | I don't see how accomodating the cyclist is such an imposition on your sidewalk use. |
And I don't see how riding on the road, like the law requires, is such an imposition on a cyclist.
It's not like this bylaw is all a huge secret, and cyclists are only told about this after they've bought their bike.
| Quote: | | Should a cyclist be on the sidewalk, though, and trying to pass a pedestrian, the law's already been broken and it's a bit late to discuss where the cyclist should legally be; |
Too late to discuss it, maybe, but not too late to fix it.
They can pass me on the road. And maybe, while they're on the road long enough to pass, they'll realize the road isn't so scary after all. Or maybe they'll decide they'd rather walk.
Thing is, the only reason (and it's a pretty feeble one) that you can give for why adult cyclists would ride on the sidewalk is because they want to. They like it better. Never mind pedestrians, and never mind the law. If cyclists don't like the law then they should ignore it, and what's more, so should pedestrians. That just doesn't make sense.
Would you apply the same nonsense to a scooter or moped? If not, why? Because they're slightly larger? Because they're motorized? But what if they're afraid too? If you can tell a moped driver to suck it up and drive where they're supposed to, I can't really see why it's so hard (or so toxic to "community spirit"!) to do the same for cyclists.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1140
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And if somebody else who's walking and can't get by approaches you, you don't hear them until they cough or say "excuse me" either, what's the difference? |
I've been bumped by someone trying to get by me on the sidewalk before, and I never heard them say "excuse me".
I've also been knocked off my feet into oncoming traffic by a bicyclist on the sidewalk. Hurt my knee enough that I had to take a week off work. Plus I lost about $100 in groceries I was carrying at the time, and ripped up both my jeans, my jacket, and smashed my watch. Another $250 worth of losses, plus a lost week's work. I estimated about $1000 out of my pocket due to that incident.
I didn't hear the little tingle of his bell before he plowed into me. But I do remember him yelling over his shoulder "sorry!" as he took off on out of there. Nice of him to apologize like that...nice bit of community spirit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWW
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 549
Location: North central Edmonton
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting. As an avid and experienced cyclist I'll weigh in.
First off, riding on sidewalks is illegal and no one should do it. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing a cyclist riding down a busy sidewalk weaving in & out between pedestrians. It gives all of us a bad rap.
Having said that, the vast majority of cyclists on sidewalks are the types who are toodling along, barely aware of their surroundings and usually totally inept at riding a bike.
Lets talk about pedestrians on bike paths now. What pisses me off to no end is pedestrians weaving all over the bike paths as I ride in a straight line, Ignoring me as I yell "on your left" then have the audacity to scream at me when I barely miss them because they're walking like drunken sailors on shore leave. Or walkers with the iPods cranked so they can't hear anything going on around them, or groups of people who walk four abreast, totally blocking the bike path and totally oblivious to anything going on behind them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | And if somebody else who's walking and can't get by approaches you, you don't hear them until they cough or say "excuse me" either, what's the difference? |
They're allowed on the sidewalk.
|
Well colour me confused, because a post ago the problem with cyclists was that you can't hear them coming. Is not being able to hear someone coming the problem or not?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | And I don't see how riding on the road, like the law requires, is such an imposition on a cyclist. |
What difference does it make now, you've already decided that there's no reason you'd accept. And if a cyclist were behind you on the street, I somehow doubt you'd give them the chance to justify not being on the road. You've already decided it's unacceptable, so what does the potential justification have on your decision not to be polite?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | They can pass me on the road. And maybe, while they're on the road long enough to pass, they'll realize the road isn't so scary after all. Or maybe they'll decide they'd rather walk. |
So that would be a no to the polite choice.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Thing is, the only reason (and it's a pretty feeble one) that you can give for why adult cyclists would ride on the sidewalk is because they want to. They like it better. Never mind pedestrians, and never mind the law. If cyclists don't like the law then they should ignore it, and what's more, so should pedestrians. That just doesn't make sense. |
Never mind pedestrians? Care to explain that one to me? Is it impossible for both to use the same space? Have I said cyclists shouldn't concern themselves with minding the pedestrians? I don't remember every saying that, care to show me where it was?
And so should pedestrians ignore the law? That's the second time you seem to have indicated that it's illegal for a pedestrian to be accommodating to a cyclist. I'm really very intrigued by this idea, because I've never heard of such a thing. Please do tell, how is it forcing pedestrians to ignore the law by being polite. That just doesn't make sense.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Would you apply the same nonsense to a scooter or moped? If not, why? Because they're slightly larger? Because they're motorized? But what if they're afraid too? If you can tell a moped driver to suck it up and drive where they're supposed to, I can't really see why it's so hard (or so toxic to "community spirit"!) to do the same for cyclists. |
I've made room for a motorized love-seat driving down the sidewalk, I fail to imagine I'd freak out and be inconsiderate if A scooter or moped did happen to be behind me. What does that have to do with them belonging on the road? Have I said anywhere that cyclists don't belong on the roads? There seems to be along of things that I've evidently said, that I don't remember typing, and nobody has yet pointed out where I actually said them. Surely that's just because my memory is terrible, rather than anybody else being disingenuous...
| Sibjyn wrote: | | Quote: | | And if somebody else who's walking and can't get by approaches you, you don't hear them until they cough or say "excuse me" either, what's the difference? |
I've been bumped by someone trying to get by me on the sidewalk before, and I never heard them say "excuse me". |
Tell me it ain't so! So you mean it's possible for somebody legally entitled to be there on the sidewalk to act like an asshole. Without the need for illegal cycling! Almost as though the problem were the assholish behaviour, and not the presence or absence of a bike between their legs...
| Sibjyn wrote: | I've also been knocked off my feet into oncoming traffic by a bicyclist on the sidewalk. Hurt my knee enough that I had to take a week off work. Plus I lost about $100 in groceries I was carrying at the time, and ripped up both my jeans, my jacket, and smashed my watch. Another $250 worth of losses, plus a lost week's work. I estimated about $1000 out of my pocket due to that incident.
I didn't hear the little tingle of his bell before he plowed into me. But I do remember him yelling over his shoulder "sorry!" as he took off on out of there. Nice of him to apologize like that...nice bit of community spirit. |
Shitty deal, and I'm sorry to hear it. Would it have been any consolation if the cyclist was allowed to be on the sidewalk and did that, though, or was it the assholish behaviour itself that was the problem, rather than the legality of the situation?
Were you expecting me to defend the cyclists actions? Have I said anything that would indicate that I believe everything all cyclists do is cinnamon and furry kittens, and they can do nothing reprehensible while on a sidewalk? Or have I rather tried to claim that it's possible for a cyclist to be on the sidewalk without being an affront to the safety and sidewalk dominance of pedestrians? Because an anecdote about a cyclist's shitty behaviour would disprove one, but be entirely compatible with the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Is not being able to hear someone coming the problem or not?
|
It's a problem that, in one case, has a simple solution.
Not much to be done about inconsiderate people walking on the sidewalk — no law against it — but in the case of cyclists it's easy.
| Quote: | | you've already decided that there's no reason you'd accept |
I'll accept "childhood", as will the law.
| Quote: | | Is it impossible for both to use the same space? |
No, it's not impossible. It's unnecessary. There's a perfectly good road for cyclists to use. There's simply no need for a road vehicle to be on the sidewalk.
| Quote: | | That's the second time you seem to have indicated that it's illegal for a pedestrian to be accommodating to a cyclist. |
Sorry if I'm unclear. A pedestrian hopping aside so a bike can whiz by certainly isn't illegal. But the law is there to protect pedestrians, and I don't think that pedestrians should feel any obligation whatsoever to ignore that law (or, in other words, not expect that law to be obeyed).
Obviously any pedestrian who wants to step aside so an adult on a bike can ride on the sidewalk is free to do so, but all they're doing is encouraging cyclists to believe that the sidewalk is a legitimate place for them to ride.
| Quote: | | I fail to imagine I'd freak out and be inconsiderate if A scooter or moped did happen to be behind me. |
Are you vying for some kind of "Mr. Considerate" award?
Are you this considerate when people want to idle their cars for a half hour, or spray roundup on their dandelions, or double-park behind you?
Evidently you think sidewalks are for anyone, driving or riding anything (if you have some limit, please say). What's more, you feel it's a matter of courtesy to allow this.
| Quote: | | Have I said anywhere that cyclists don't belong on the roads? |
That depends what one means by "belong on the roads". If you do, in fact, believe that they belong on the road then you're curiously "courteous" about it when they're not. At this point it really looks like your argument is that bikes should be allowed on the roads, if the riders feel like it, or on the sidewalk (with pedestrians "sharing" pedestrians space with them) if they don't.
At this point it really looks like the bulk of your argument is that pedestrians are cads and boors if they don't hop to when some cyclist rings the Bell Of Importance, not that bikes belong on the road.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
I'll accept "childhood", as will the law. |
In other words, you've already decided that there's no reason you'd accept.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Sorry if I'm unclear. A pedestrian hopping aside so a bike can whiz by certainly isn't illegal. But the law is there to protect pedestrians, and I don't think that pedestrians should feel any obligation whatsoever to ignore that law (or, in other words, not expect that law to be obeyed). |
If a cyclist is on the sidewalk, the law has already been broken. A pedestrian accommodating another person, regardless of what's between their legs, has nothing to do with the law. If a person is walking their dog without a leash, in most places that's just as illegal. Are you worried about being an accessory to the crime if you pet the dog? Are you being enslaved to permissiveness of lawlessness if you don't do everything you can to end the unnecessary affront to the legal social fabric? Is it really so bad, if the dog isn't bothering anybody?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Obviously any pedestrian who wants to step aside so an adult on a bike can ride on the sidewalk is free to do so, but all they're doing is encouraging cyclists to believe that the sidewalk is a legitimate place for them to ride. |
Or the next time they do, because evidently their willing to break the law and ride on the sidewalk, they won't give you the chance to be a dick about it and just blow by you like an asshole, which I trust would be a bigger imposition on your safe use of the sidewalk. Is it "right", or your fault? Hell no, but heaven forbid you lift a finger when it's not your explicit responsibility.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Are you vying for some kind of "Mr. Considerate" award? |
No, is it really so unbelievable that somebody might be considerate without personally getting something out of it?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Are you this considerate when people want to idle their cars for a half hour, or spray roundup on their dandelions, or double-park behind you? |
No, but I'd consider all of those a lot less polite than a cyclist ringing a bell to alert you that they'd like to pass on a sidewalk. Polluting is a huge problem to everybody's health. Blocking my vehicle for half an hour is a big imposition. Taking 3 to step to the side doesn't hurt me, and it's 1/600th of the time imposition of your double parking example. Do you really see blocking somebody's car for half an hour as an equal imposition as requesting a few seconds to get past somebody on a sidewalk?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | That depends what one means by "belong on the roads". If you do, in fact, believe that they belong on the road then you're curiously "courteous" about it when they're not. At this point it really looks like your argument is that bikes should be allowed on the roads, if the riders feel like it, or on the sidewalk (with pedestrians "sharing" pedestrians space with them) if they don't.
At this point it really looks like the bulk of your argument is that pedestrians are cads and boors if they don't hop to when some cyclist rings the Bell Of Importance, not that bikes belong on the road. |
"Curiously" courteous? Fuck, what's so hard about personally evaluating if a polite request is an undue hardship on you to accommodate, the law be damned? Are you going to tell me that you've never broken a law? never jay-walked? Not come to a compete and total full stop at a stop sign? Sped? What makes your personal judgement so special, while a cyclist on a sidewalk is afforded no such potential of acceptable judgement?
And no shite the bulk of my argument isn't 'where bikes belong', I never claimed that bikes belonging on the road was my argument. I was responding to the issue of the civility of cyclists' actions on the sidewalk. Incidentally, the clear superiority of apple pie is not my key thesis when I debate what type of crust to use for cherry pie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In other words, you've already decided that there's no reason you'd accept. |
No. Did I not just say that I'd accept childhood as an excuse? So will the law.
I'd also accept unanticipated and immediate danger (as would the law).
What I don't have time for is handwringing crap about "my safety". It's no secret that bikes are supposed to be operated on the street, not the sidewalk, and anyone who buys a bike without considering this has wasted their money.
In short, if you don't feel safe riding your bike appropriately, on the road, then you shouldn't have bought a bike, and you should probably take up walking.
| Quote: | | Hell no, but heaven forbid you lift a finger when it's not your explicit responsibility. |
Um, maybe I haven't been explicit enough about this, but I don't really WANT cyclists riding on the sidewalk. They don't belong there. So the reason I don't really want to lift a finger to help them have a more satisfying experience RIDING ON THE SIDEWALK is because I really don't want them to ride on the sidewalk. I want them to ride on the road, where they're supposed to.
At that point it gets kind of absurd to talk about it in terms of "politeness". Why am I supposed to be polite to cyclists riding on the sidewalk? Why am I supposed to help them ride on the sidewalk easier?
| Quote: | | Do you really see blocking somebody's car for half an hour as an equal imposition as requesting a few seconds to get past somebody on a sidewalk? |
I see them as similar in the sense that both are prohibited by law, and notwithstanding you, most people wouldn't feel it to be a lack of politeness to NOT encourage or tolerate this.
I'm not refusing right-of-way because half a second is too much.
I'm refusing right-of-way because bikes have NO rights on a sidewalk. Period.
If bikes were legally permitted on the sidewalk, of course I'd move out of the way. But they're not, and I'm glad of that, so I don't.
It's very puzzling to me that you cannot understand that bikes don't belong on the sidewalk. And if bikes don't belong on the sidewalk, why is it important that I pretend they do long enough to be courteous about it. Why is it that I owe them my courtesy?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norse of 60
Kokanee Kid
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3711
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is called a sidewalk for a reason. If you bring you bike onto the sidewalk for any reason, dismount and walk it. I fucking loathe bikers who think they can morph from vehicle to pedestrian to use sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, roads, lawns as they see fit. I refuse to yield to them whether I'm on foot or in a vehicle. They give responsible bikers a bad name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
No. Did I not just say that I'd accept childhood as an excuse? So will the law.
I'd also accept unanticipated and immediate danger (as would the law). |
And accepting childhood is a very useful contribution when the discussion was pretty clearly geared towards adults.
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | If bikes were legally permitted on the sidewalk, of course I'd move out of the way. But they're not, and I'm glad of that, so I don't. |
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | Do you really see blocking somebody's car for half an hour as an equal imposition as requesting a few seconds to get past somebody on a sidewalk? |
I see them as similar in the sense that both are prohibited by law, and notwithstanding you, most people wouldn't feel it to be a lack of politeness to NOT encourage or tolerate this.
I'm not refusing right-of-way because half a second is too much. |
So the situation really has nothing to do with it? The law is the law is the law? I trust then that you've never done anything to ever break any law, hmm?
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | It's very puzzling to me that you cannot understand that bikes don't belong on the sidewalk. |
Oh give that a rest or point out where I said that. Seriously, I'm getting pretty tired of you misrepresenting me on that point in every post, and never actually backing it up with anything. This is what, the second, third time I've called you on making that claim? Quit with the disingenuous crap already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And accepting childhood is a very useful contribution when the discussion was pretty clearly geared towards adults. |
Very well. I'll also accept it from any adult hurtling toward me on their bike who's willing to yell "Out of my way! I'm childlike!"
| Quote: | I trust then that you've never done anything to ever break any law, hmm?
|
Well that's between me and the sanctity of the confessional!
But I can assure you that if I have, I certainly haven't expected anyone to be courteous to me in the process.
| Quote: | | Quit with the disingenuous crap already. |
By all means feel free to say that bikes DO NOT belong on the sidewalk then, if you feel misinterpreted.
But I will need you to say it, plainly. And not qualified by "... but if they are, you should be really courteous to them" (because that's just absurd).
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
Very well. I'll also accept it from any adult hurtling toward me on their bike who's willing to yell "Out of my way! I'm childlike!" |
Uncanny...how long have you been a psychic? That's precisely what I imagine when I think about a polite cyclist on the sidewalk. Incidentally, I imagine a relaxation massage to involve somebody scratching their nails on a chalkboard and lobbing baseballs at my head while somebody else swings chains around like they're a candy kid tripping at a kick-ass rave. 
| Senor Magoo wrote: | By all means feel free to say that bikes DO NOT belong on the sidewalk then, if you feel misinterpreted.
But I will need you to say it, plainly. And not qualified by "... but if they are, you should be really courteous to them" (because that's just absurd). |
Bikes don't belong on the sidewalk. Did that solve the problem? Will cyclists never be seen on the sidewalk again? 'Cause I still don't see any reason to be discourteous to the polite ones regardless of where they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thing is, bikes DO belong on the sidewalk. People below a certain size are in fact legally required to ride their bikes on the sidewalk. Which gives us all a pretty clear indication of how safe the street is legally considered to be. The law clearly is willing to make exceptions for safety reasons, so why should age be the only determining factor? Some people feel that streets aren't safe enough to bike on, and the law basically agrees with them. It's hardly surprising that people who are trained to believe that streets are too dangerous to bike on when they are kids grow up to believe that streets are too dangerous to bike on.
IMO, it's the behaviour of the cyclists that warrants the attention. Respectful cyclists who don't endanger pedestrians and dismount and walk their bikes when appropriate- OK by me. Cyclists - whether adult or preteen - that drive erratically or dangerously on busy sidewalks or otherwise co-opt the sidewalk. Bad form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The law clearly is willing to make exceptions for safety reasons, so why should age be the only determining factor? |
It's fairly conventional for the law to take steps to protect children.
By this logic, since the law believes it's unsafe for a ten year old to drive a car, well, "why should age be the only determining factor?" — 30 year olds should also be prohibited from driving a car!
| Quote: | | and the law basically agrees with them. |
Actually the opposite. The law quite explicitly disagrees in the case of adults. If the law wanted to agree then there'd be no bylaw against adults riding on the sidewalk.
| Quote: | | It's hardly surprising that people who are trained to believe that streets are too dangerous to bike on when they are kids |
Then shouldn't we also see adults who can't cross the street unless they hold somebody's hand??
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Last edited by Senor Magoo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWW
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 549
Location: North central Edmonton
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The thing is, bikes DO belong on the sidewalk. People below a certain size are in fact legally required to ride their bikes on the sidewalk |
That's not really correct. Bike with a certain wheel diameter are permitted on the sidewalk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the city of Toronto website:
| Quote: | City bylaw allows cyclists with a tire size of 61cm or 24 inches or less to ride on the sidewalk. The intent of this bylaw is to allow young children to cycle on the sidewalk while they learn to ride. The bylaw is based on wheel size because it is difficult for Police to enforce age-based bylaws, as most children do not carry identification. This is a municipal bylaw and rules vary in communities across Ontario.
|
Bolding mine, lest any adult think that that by retrofitting with 23" tires, they're in the clear.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | By this logic, since the law believes it's unsafe for a ten year old to drive a car, well, "why should age be the only determining factor?" — 30 year olds should also be prohibited from driving a car! |
Many 30 year olds are prohibited from driving cars. For safety reasons. So what?
Obviously it's a free country. You are free to be an asshole to absolutely every adult cyclist you see on the sidewalk. Even the kids you suspect of being old enough to ride on the street if you like. Perhaps carrying the pertinent bylaw might make you even more beloved and respected. Godspeed to you. Here on earth we make do with what we have.
This all puts me in mind of the UPS driver I met once who had parked his truck all the way across the bike lane one block north of College on Bay. Traffic forced me out of the car lane as I tried to get around him, so in a split second I took the only option left to me - the sidewalk, empty except for the delivery dude. The driver had the gall to yell at me for riding on the side walk - "Hey! That's illegal!" said the guy parked in the bike lane in front of a honking great "No Stopping" sign. OK buddy. Have a nice heart attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | OK buddy. Have a nice heart attack. |
That seems a bit discourteous!
You weren't delighted to share your lane with him? What about community spirit??
Here's the thing: bikes belong on the sidewalk the same way trucks belong in the bike lane.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3142
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boy, are you guys ever lucky.
You have sidewalks.
When I taught my five year old grandgrrrrrrrrl to ride a bike we had no option but the road.
Of course, people in Tahsis are odd. Tahsis is, after all, "a seperate reality". Drivers saw a little girl on a bike, realized she was wobbly and new to the fun, and slowed down. A few of them stopped and smiled at her.
She wasn't in the middle of the road, she was on the side of the road, but the bush bunnies stopped or slowed right down anyway. And smiled. But what we would know about politeness, consideration, or courtesy?
Mind you, it's probably been an hour and a half since the last car went down my road so probably none of this applies. City life is a tad more busy, I would expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
'lance
hundred aker woodsman
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 500
Location: the Monsoon Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: | Boy, are you guys ever lucky.
You have sidewalks. |
[ObMontyPython]
... Looooxury! Why, in my day...
[OMP] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3142
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Perzactle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Here's the thing: bikes belong on the sidewalk the same way trucks belong in the bike lane. |
In certain circumstances bikes are permitted on the sidewalk. Under no circumstances are delivery trucks allowed to park in a bike lane. Not to mention that there is a "safe" way to bike on the sidewalk; slowly, avoid crowds, dismount when around small kids, etc etc. There is no "safe" way to park in the bike lane. Either you are blocking the lane or you aren't. So no, not exactly.
| Quote: | | You weren't delighted to share your lane with him? What about community spirit?? |
If I got tied in knots over every vehicle parked in the bike lane, I'd have worked myself into a heart attack years ago. I am quite resigned to people parking in the bike lane, swerving into the bike lane without signaling or looking, opening their doors into the bike lane. I was, however, delighted by his hilarious "zero tolerance" stance.
Personally, if I have to move over to accommodate an elderly or timid cyclist on the sidewalk by a busy street, I don't mind at all. Unless he/she is bombing along at 15 kliks and I am walking with my daughter. Then it is annoying. Other than that, I find this to be tempest in a teapot. If you are able to cycle in the street, you should. It IS safer for everyone involved in the long run. If you don't, at least be respectful of the pedestrian traffic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In certain circumstances bikes are permitted on the sidewalk. Under no circumstances are delivery trucks allowed to park in a bike lane. |
I believe I've mentioned the only two circumstances: teaching young children to ride a bike (from the City website) and an immediate hazard, such as a runaway vehicle (and that's just a guess).
What are the other circumstances? And are they going to realistically apply to the adults who seem to believe that sidewalks are their own traffic-free zones?
For the record, I couldn't care less about someone hopping up on the sidewalk occasionally to avoid a wide delivery van, for example. It's the people who believe sidewalks to be an alternate bike lane that I'm addressing, and I really doubt you'll find any kind of legal circumstance that validates their belief. Certainly you will not find "timid" listed (and in fact the City website addresses this directly).
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17673
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The other thing for me is that there's a big difference between riding on an almost deserted sidewalk, and, say, along Bloor Street or Yonge Street in downtown Toronto, where there are hundreds of pedestrians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the sidewalk is almost deserted then they'd have no need to ring their little Bell of Entitlement to make pedestrians move out of their way.
But when the sidewalk really is empty, who'd care? So long as the cyclists understand that when the sidewalks aren't empty then it's back to the road.
And honestly, by the time a cyclist has convinced themself that they have a personal exemption from the law, and can ride wherever "feels right" to them, I have my doubts that they're suddenly going to hop down on the road just because some pedestrians are using their favourite "bike lane".
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
But when the sidewalk really is empty, who'd care? |
Oh ho ho ho! But it's the law, Magoo! And the law is the law is the law, so I hear. Context is irrelevant, it's illegal of all things! Surely we can't countenance such flagrant disregard for the law. It's no different than commandeering a tank and driving it through a kindergarten class! Both are illegal and we seemed pretty clear that that leaves no distinction between the two, didn't we, Magoo?
(I sincerely hope I laid that on thickly enough that it's positively oozing sarcasm, yes?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very well. I'm just taking an "if a tree falls..." perspective. Riding a bike on an empty sidewalk is as much a problem as exposing yourself in an empty park.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ottawa driver charged after 5 cyclists injured:
| Quote: | A man has been charged after five cyclists were injured in a hit-and-run collision on Sunday morning in Ottawa's west end.
The collision happened near the intersection of March Road and Solandt Road in Kanata shortly before 8 a.m.
Ottawa police Const. Wallie McIlquham said the five cyclists — three men and two women, ranging in age from 27 to 45 — were riding in the bike lane when a man driving his wife's beige minivan allegedly crashed into them. |
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cyclists on sidewalks really annoy me. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, the streets are for cars, trucks, bicycles and scooters.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Candid, with hot-links to related articles (??). I appreciated the rationale as well as conclusion.
Mikael of Copenhagenize on Why We Should NOT Wear Bike Helmets
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12.22.10
| Quote: | ...
I have personally been the target of Mikael's ire for a post I wrote about bike activist Matthew Modine not wearing a helmet. After the Matthew Modine takedown I spent some time looking at much of the research that Elly Blue alludes to in her Grist post on the Helmet Wars and have come to the conclusion that Mikael was mostly right.
...
Cyclists are killed primarily by cars and trucks, yet the common North American attitude, as espoused by Toronto's new mayor, is that they bring it upon themselves by being on the road. The helmet wars are a diversion from the real problem: Lousy bike infrastructure putting cyclists in the same space as lousy drivers who get away with murder.
50,000 Americans are shot every year, yet you don't see campaigns to put the entire population into bulletproof vests. You don't blame the victim. Why are cyclists any different?
More on Helmets in TreeHugger:
To Helmet or Not To Helmet; This is the Question
A Brain Surgeon on Bicycle Helmets
Dutch Cycling: Remember the Phone, Forget the Helmet
If People with Lawnmowers Were Treated Like Cyclists
Do Helmet Promotion Campaigns Instill a Fear of Cycling?
Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car Accidents |
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/why-we-should-not-wear-bike... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I tend to agree, and I actually stopped wearing a helmet last summer after digging into the research lit on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Damaran
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Winnipeg is actually making dedicated bike lanes, and I think it's great because I don't own a car and really don't care to. The city has expanded the bike lanes by a huge amount this year owing to stimulous money, and the refurbished Osborne bridge will have dedicated bike lanes on both sides. Now the downside. Although the bridge will have bike lanes, the streets on either end don't, so for a while anyway the bicyclists will be at the mercy of cars/trucks on a very busy avenue. But it is a start.
BTW you can get anywhere in this city on bike because it's so flat. Only for 6 months of the year though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Only 6 months, Eric? I see you haven't been properly introduced to the joys of winter biking. 12 months of wheeling around town totally possible.
As for the bridge bike lanes you speak of, I've seen a lot of the same issues and I think they tend to be rather general concerns. Cycling infrastructure gets built in a piecemeal fashion in isolated chunks without much network planning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
As to helmets. People fall off of bicycles all the time, for no reason except they lost it. If they hit their heads on the pave, they may suffer a life threatening and/or completely debilitating injury.
One specific case I know of was a lawyer riding in the Whistler area. He hit a rock on the road and went down, hitting his head. He lived, but he was permanently (seriously) disabled. A helmet would most likely have prevented that.
However, I guess each cyclist knows what their head is worth. Apparently a large number of them believe their head is worth less than $100.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Except that that's just an argument by anecdote. If every cyclist was likely to fall off their bike and mash their brains, then that would mean that they all value their head less than $100. If the average helmet is let's say $25 and 1 cyclist in 10 is going to mash their head, well now the helmet cost per head saved is $250. 1 in 100 cyclists, and the helmet cost per head saved is $2500. 1 in 1000, you're now up to $25,000. And that's assuming that a helmet would save every head that would otherwise get mashed.
It could be noted that people also fall down the stairs for no reason except they lost it and hit their heads with catastrophic results, where's the push for helmet-wearing while using stairs? Does everybody who engages in that behaviour without wearing a helmet believe their heads are worth less than $100 too?
From a good (though getting old) review of cycling safety in Britain (Wardlaw MJ. Three lessons for a better cycling future. BMJ. 2000 Dec 23;321(7276):1582-1585.):
| Quote: | Let us examine the facts. The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial.(3) Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping.(4) Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more “dangerous” than a mile of cycling. In both cases, of course, the activity itself is harmless—but it's in the way. Although a mile of driving is ten times safer than a mile of cycling, a mile of urban driving is ten times more likely to kill a pedestrian than such a mile cycled.
[. . .]
Notwithstanding the above, it still takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22 000 years for one death. A recent study in Glasgow estimated that 150 000 people are admitted to hospital annually with head injuries in the United Kingdom(6); road cyclists account for only 1% of this total, yet 6% of the population are regular cyclists and a further 5% are occasional cyclists; 60% of admissions were alcohol related. Do we need revelling helmets?
[. . .]
The statistical wrangle over the effectiveness of helmets is actually a side issue; what we need people in authority to understand is that cycle helmets inevitably damage public health. Even for cyclists on Britain's roads, the health benefits exceed the risks by a factor of 20.(7) The health benefits of cycling are so great—and the health injuries from driving so great(8 )—that not cycling is really dangerous. By telling people that they need helmets for an activity that for a century has been regarded as “safe”—and in fact has a fine safety record—you inevitably engender the impression that cycling must have become more dangerous than driving and walking. That deters cycling. That reduces cyclists' presence on the roads. That increases the risk of death.
[. . .]
Experience shows helmets give only limited head protection. Studies in Australia show some prevention of superficial injuries (such as scalp lacerations) but only marginal prevention of “mild” head injuries and no effect on severe head injuries or death.(14) When helmets were made compulsory in Australia, admissions from head injury fell by 15-20%, but the level of cycling fell by 35%.(15,16) Ten years later, cycling levels in western Australia are still 5-20% below the level they were before the introduction of the law(17) yet head injuries are only 11% lower than would be expected without helmets.(18 )
[. . .]
Our tarmac world is stuck in the Dark Ages; if you get hurt, you're wrong. The assault on cycling has vandalised the appeal of the safest, cleanest, most efficient, healthy, and fun means of personal transport that exists—right at the time we most need it. Cyclists don't need helmets, they need priority. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
F.
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 2578
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It could be noted that people also fall down the stairs for no reason except they lost it and hit their heads with catastrophic results, where's the push for helmet-wearing while using stairs? |
Wasn't it Denis Leary who said, "Life sucks; wear a helmet"? Tough love, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FWIW, I just reviewed an Infographic that North America is several times more dangerous for non-auto (non-motor-vehicle) transport than Europe, UK, and Asia. So, someone may <g> have to re-work their illustration <g>. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't worn a helmet in a few years and I currently cycle in St.John's, rain, fog and more rain...winter I just don't trust drivers even if I have studs on....and it is hilly and very slushy...
However, I do wear a number of lights and reflectors to make sure that I can be seen....drivers here in NL are pretty tame because they are surprised to see a cyclist, especially in a rainstorm; which, by the way, also makes them dangerous...as they think you will 'move' to let them pass...
Cycling here in NL is definitely seen as a recreation especially for children, very few regular cycling commuters.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HAHL wrote: | | ... Cycling here in NL is definitely seen as a recreation especially for children, very few regular cycling commuters.. |
As a tease, http://www.acronymfinder.com/NL.html, as I was more confused than usual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Damaran wrote: | | Winnipeg is actually making dedicated bike lanes, and I think it's great because I don't own a car and really don't care to. The city has expanded the bike lanes by a huge amount this year owing to stimulous money, and the refurbished Osborne bridge will have dedicated bike lanes on both sides. Now the downside. Although the bridge will have bike lanes, the streets on either end don't, so for a while anyway the bicyclists will be at the mercy of cars/trucks on a very busy avenue. But it is a start. |
I think some of the money was misdirected. Is digging up side streets in West Winnipeg really that important, when there is still no safe way to ride your bike down Portage or Pembina? Is Assinibione Avenue really that critical a cycling route that it was worth the disruption to tear up the street? Whatever happened to the GPS study the City did a while back?
By the way Eric, welcome to EnMasse, hope you find it to your liking. In terms of transportation issues in Winnipeg, here is a dedicated thread for that very subject
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Damaran
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DSquared wrote: |
I think some of the money was misdirected. Is digging up side streets in West Winnipeg really that important, when there is still no safe way to ride your bike down Portage or Pembina?] |
There is a new dedicated bike lane next to the new bus route that parallels Pembina. No luck with Portage though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brazilian driver faces probe after bikers hit
| Quote: | Brazilian prosecutors have asked a judge to order preventive detention for a driver who ran down dozens of bike-riding activists in the southern part of the country, injuring at least 40 people.
A statement from prosecutors said they are seeking to have the suspect, identified as Ricardo Jose Neis, jailed in anticipation of possible charges of attempted homicide. A ruling is expected within two days. Until then, Neis remains free.
Neis is accused of speeding through a pack of more than 100 cyclists taking part in a Critical Mass ride last Friday. Authorities say 40 riders suffered injuries such as cuts and broken bones, though nobody was killed. The incident was captured on amateur video and posted online.
[. . .]
Neis' attorney, Luis Fernando Coimbra, told Globo TV network's G1 website that the cyclists were beating on his client's car and threatening him, and he acted in self defence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What the rest of the story?
Bixis Get Bashed In Toronto
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 05.10.11; Cars & Transportation (bikes)
| Quote: | The Bixi bike rental program started in Toronto last week, despite the prevailing attitude in City Hall that cyclists are pinkos. And everyone knows sharing is for commies, anyways. So it is ironic that the forces of evil, wrapped in a big black Lexus, took out a three day old Bixi stand right across the street from City Hall.
... |
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/05/bixis-get-bashed-in-toronto... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5480
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, yes, and more yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Refuge
Member
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 37
Location: Somewhere on stolen land
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have just started riding a bike agin with my son in a trailer behind me. We both have a lot of fun. I used to bike daily but had to stop because of an injury and then got pregnant. Now that my son is finally old enough I am enjoying getting back out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6169
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've noticed that drivers seem a lot more tolerant than they used to be, but then there are way more cyclists out there now than there used to be, too. Twenty years ago I was almost all by myself among the cars and trucks, now I see bikes everywhere, even in winter.
That said, a couple of recent incidents show we aren't accepted by all. While I usually stay on the roads, I ride on the sidewalk when going up bridges (not down, as I can go faster) and on Idylwyld Drive, which is the main North/South route in town. The lanes are narrow, and very popular with semis, and there's no room for bikes on them when the traffic is heavy. Cops don't even bat an eye when they see us on the sidewalk - it's suicidal to try to ride on the road there.
A couple of weeks ago a pedestrian said something to me as I was riding up the sidewalk on Idylwyld. It sounded negative, but I couldn't tell under my toque and the Duke Ellington in my earbuds. Then on the way home, as I was about to cross Idylwyld, a motorist honked at me, 'cause I guess he didn't like me on the road.
A couple of days ago I noodged a guy who's been blocking the sidewalk on Idlylwyld while he waits for the bus. He stands in the middle of the sidewalk like Geroy Simon scoring a touchdown (which may never happen again, now that he's been traded to the Riders) and refuses to get out of the way.
This time I had to squeeze over (there's snow everywhere, too, which narrows the sidewalk considerably) until I was almost in traffic, and I dropped down onto one foot and bumped into the goof. He swore at me and said I shouldn't be on the sidewalk.
Did Magoo move West?
This morning I was assailed by another motorised honker as I was on the street.
Bike lanes sure would be nice - we're hated everywhere we go.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics