It is necessary to ban bikes from routes where they reduce either speed or road's real estate to let the road carry more commuters per hour.
Gary - 12 years ago
1. As pointed out, many roads and bridges are closed to cyclists. Expressways are the best example.
2. Bike lanes on side streets can be very difficult to navigate -- stop signs at most corners, parked cars, etc. The need for frequent stops, as opposed to continuous travel on a main artery, slows cycling speed while tiring the rider with repeated acceleration -- unless the editorialist wants cyclists to ignore the stop signs.
3. Cycling lanes and routes are often ppopulated by large numbers of casual cyclists, meandering along with little attention or awareness to their surroundings, characterized by random and unpredictable behaviour. They are a great hazard to an alert and attentive cyclist who is riding to go somewhere.
Bikegirl - 12 years ago
What streets have motorists lost access to? Clearly the writer has never, or rarely ever, experienced urban streets from the cyclist point of view.
Whitney - 12 years ago
I notice in the editorial a reference to the concept that "if cyclists have their own space motorists should too". This is an explicit statement of one of my major objections to bike lanes; also, they will never serve all the destinations I need as a utility cyclist, and they encourage unsafe practices on the part of both the cyclist and the motorist. Planners please take note of the explicit adversarial tone, as well - do away with bike-specific roadway facilities and put the money into cyclist education and quality bike parking instead.
Jack - 12 years ago
Often high traffic routes are the most efficient for cyclists and offer a more direct route to their destination. Discrimination is not allowed by race, discrimination by vehicle must not be allowed. Hate speech must cease.
Nederton - 12 years ago
Oh, great. Yet another idea to turn normal people into outlaws. If such a thing were to happen, would it even be enforceable? What would it accomplish anyway?
Jim Grayson - 12 years ago
All (traffic) lanes are "bike lanes"; some, we even let motor vehicles on.
John S. Allen - 12 years ago
I challenge Arno to find any analysis or research which supports his statements about safety, street capacity. and reduction of congestion due to increase in bicycle use.
Arno - 12 years ago
So far, only 5 blocks of one active traffic lane has been upgraded to two way bike lanes. This doubled the capacity of two major downtown streets, made the streets much safer for cyclists and greatly reduced conflicts between drivers and bike riders. All this with negligible effect on drivers. City was wise to install separated lanes as these are good for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and businesses. the Province editors and the driving public should encourage the city to install more bike lanes as these will make cycling safer, thereby encouraging more people to cycle, thereby making the roads less congested for those who must drive.
kim hauner - 12 years ago
It is foolish even to suggest that public streets could be used for any exclusive method of transportation, or conversely that a legitimate user should be excluded from using public streets. Historically streets were developed for pedestrians, horses and wagons, bicycles, trams, and only more recently used for motorized vehicles such as cars, buses and trucks.
Why should anyone exclusivity for their prefered method of transportation over another? Let's face it, personal needs, affordability and styles change over time. What is needed is for a reduction of conflict by creating special spaces for each type of use, so that nobody is endangered while using a public street.
Let's continue to create more special lanes for pedestrians, cyclists, public transit and some for cars too, but above all, let's get along.
Tim - 12 years ago
Some streets already ban bikes, freeways, current Port Mann, 99 Tunnel. I would still avoid cycling on busy roads though as much as possible. Sometimes it is unavoidable and when it is I would rather go on the sidewalk, which is likely mostly empty of pedestrians. Arterial roads are pretty much unavoidable because commercial developments are along them, cyclists may live or work on one or bike routes are few and far between with no roads that connect well or are parallel which is common in the suburbs.
It would be foolish to ban bikes on some streets. Bikes can carry far more people than cars per square metre. Better to ban the cars and ease congestion.
It is necessary to ban bikes from routes where they reduce either speed or road's real estate to let the road carry more commuters per hour.
1. As pointed out, many roads and bridges are closed to cyclists. Expressways are the best example.
2. Bike lanes on side streets can be very difficult to navigate -- stop signs at most corners, parked cars, etc. The need for frequent stops, as opposed to continuous travel on a main artery, slows cycling speed while tiring the rider with repeated acceleration -- unless the editorialist wants cyclists to ignore the stop signs.
3. Cycling lanes and routes are often ppopulated by large numbers of casual cyclists, meandering along with little attention or awareness to their surroundings, characterized by random and unpredictable behaviour. They are a great hazard to an alert and attentive cyclist who is riding to go somewhere.
What streets have motorists lost access to? Clearly the writer has never, or rarely ever, experienced urban streets from the cyclist point of view.
I notice in the editorial a reference to the concept that "if cyclists have their own space motorists should too". This is an explicit statement of one of my major objections to bike lanes; also, they will never serve all the destinations I need as a utility cyclist, and they encourage unsafe practices on the part of both the cyclist and the motorist. Planners please take note of the explicit adversarial tone, as well - do away with bike-specific roadway facilities and put the money into cyclist education and quality bike parking instead.
Often high traffic routes are the most efficient for cyclists and offer a more direct route to their destination. Discrimination is not allowed by race, discrimination by vehicle must not be allowed. Hate speech must cease.
Oh, great. Yet another idea to turn normal people into outlaws. If such a thing were to happen, would it even be enforceable? What would it accomplish anyway?
All (traffic) lanes are "bike lanes"; some, we even let motor vehicles on.
I challenge Arno to find any analysis or research which supports his statements about safety, street capacity. and reduction of congestion due to increase in bicycle use.
So far, only 5 blocks of one active traffic lane has been upgraded to two way bike lanes. This doubled the capacity of two major downtown streets, made the streets much safer for cyclists and greatly reduced conflicts between drivers and bike riders. All this with negligible effect on drivers. City was wise to install separated lanes as these are good for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and businesses. the Province editors and the driving public should encourage the city to install more bike lanes as these will make cycling safer, thereby encouraging more people to cycle, thereby making the roads less congested for those who must drive.
It is foolish even to suggest that public streets could be used for any exclusive method of transportation, or conversely that a legitimate user should be excluded from using public streets. Historically streets were developed for pedestrians, horses and wagons, bicycles, trams, and only more recently used for motorized vehicles such as cars, buses and trucks.
Why should anyone exclusivity for their prefered method of transportation over another? Let's face it, personal needs, affordability and styles change over time. What is needed is for a reduction of conflict by creating special spaces for each type of use, so that nobody is endangered while using a public street.
Let's continue to create more special lanes for pedestrians, cyclists, public transit and some for cars too, but above all, let's get along.
Some streets already ban bikes, freeways, current Port Mann, 99 Tunnel. I would still avoid cycling on busy roads though as much as possible. Sometimes it is unavoidable and when it is I would rather go on the sidewalk, which is likely mostly empty of pedestrians. Arterial roads are pretty much unavoidable because commercial developments are along them, cyclists may live or work on one or bike routes are few and far between with no roads that connect well or are parallel which is common in the suburbs.
It would be foolish to ban bikes on some streets. Bikes can carry far more people than cars per square metre. Better to ban the cars and ease congestion.