Ban the bike!

[Bsuds]

When you add in that many of these intersections have "green bike lanes" for a whole 10 feet and no right hand turn on red ... the road between these intersections don't even have a bike path ... some of the decision making is odd at best around here.

Are you aware that the green lane does not mean you cannot make a right turn. It is there to make drivers aware of cyclists.
The ones with the green "Box" are the ones where no right turn on a red is the rule. I have not seen too many of these. (yet) But sure see many drivers who ignore or are ignorant of those laws.

https://www.kelowna.ca/roads-transporta ... e-markings

I think anything that makes us more aware of our surroundings for safety is a good thing.

[Lloyd Johnson]

I regularly use my bike as transportation to errands & exercise. I try to follow the "Rules of the Road" I usually take the Cycling Lanes & Cycling Paths to get to my destination. I do, wear bright clothing, have front & rear lights & wear a helmet. I do dislike cyclists that ride on the sidewalks, run red lights & don't follow other rules of the road. I can go to most destinations using cycle lanes of paths.
We also have an automobile, which my wife is the primary user, so we do pay Registration & Insurance; In fact I feel safer on my bike than when driving the car in Kelowna. A lot of drivers are Crazies. Fortunately I have never been involved in an altercation with a vehicle - Close sometimes, especially at intersections. I must say I think I have witnessed more vehicles that did not make that right turn when I was entering the intersection, than vehicles that cut me off.
How many of you naysayers have cycled the KVR or any part of the Rail Trails?

[Queen K]

Right, I did see one cyclist this morning doing it right with wheels all lit up on the bike and he was wearing reflective stripes and a helmet. But oh my, what a rarity.

Rwede would have it that bikes should be banned, but I've taken the argument to "reductio ad absurdum" just for a fun exercise in ridiculousness.

No bikes need be banned. The bike is such a part of our society and growing up that no one can imagine for a moment anyone banning bikes. The question at hand, is do cyclists pay for their share of road fees and the answer is "through a million different ways, yes of course they do."

[spooker]

As we introduce more and more anti-idling bylaws to keep our air cleaner, every "new" road construction in this town seems to be promoting congestion. Forgetting about all the new additional lights and any thought of having a 4-lane road ever again, of particular annoyance to me is the removal of right-hand turn lanes in the interest of "biker safety".

Mainly the reason for this is that the "dance" that is required from boths modes is not quite intuitive ... so for simplicities sake they remove the right-hand turn lane ... a good example of how this gets fun is westbound Springfield at Ethel when the bike lane has to cross the vehicle lane before the intersection ... previously the bike lane stayed to the right and a green light would cause a lot of near misses as drivers wouldn't check the bike lane before making the turn ...

When you add in that many of these intersections have "green bike lanes" for a whole 10 feet and no right hand turn on red ... the road between these intersections don't even have a bike path ... some of the decision making is odd at best around here.

Can you give me an example? I can't recall a green application that isn't attached to a bike lane or other related infrastructure

Do your groceries or building supplies supplies get delivered by bicycle?
Do fire-fighters show up on bicycles?
Do paramedics rush your wife going in to labor to the hospital on a bicycle?

I think it's pretty easy to come up with a significantly longer list that "motorists" bring to the table over cyclists.

Fire fighters are a critical service, so are paramedics, they get a pass ... Trucks carrying goods to market typically pay extra fees for the use of the roads ... none of your examples rebut 60-years comment ... should he have specified "single occupancy vehicles"? you know, the 3000lb metal cages used to transport a 200lb meat-bag ...

Sure, I use inflammatory words at times ... gets your attention eh?

No one that I know of wants the car to go away ... that would be stupid ... but trying to make anti-cycling arguments based on moral outrage is just as idiotic and I'd like to think it's beneath us ... but too often I see statements made based on "personal experience" that come across as "and that's the way it is" ... if you make a claim like that please do your research ... it makes it easier if you're both a cyclist and driver

[Boda]

Bicycle riders are mandated by law to follow the very same rules as motor vehicles.

Arguing that bicycle operators seem arrogant or they think they own the road while abiding by existing laws is as ridiculous as the argument that a motor vehicle operator is doing something wrong by not "going with the flow" of traffic that's speeding 20k over the limit that I've seen in other threads.

Motor vehicle operators need to back off their high horse position and respect lawful rules of the road.

[Urban Cowboy]

Bicycle riders are mandated by law to follow the very same rules as motor vehicles.

Arguing that bicycle operators seem arrogant or they think they own the road while abiding by existing laws is as ridiculous as the argument that a motor vehicle operator is doing something wrong by not "going with the flow" of traffic that's speeding 20k over the limit that I've seen in other threads.

Motor vehicle operators need to back off their high horse position and respect lawful rules of the road.

So if not arrogant, what exactly would you call bike riders, who feel they aren't obligated to wait for a red light to go green the same as the cars do?

Your analogy certainly doesn't fit the circumstance.

[holdin]

Although a rider myself, nothing pees me off more than, after we pay for bike lanes, the entitled jerks decide to ride two abreast(illegal) in these lanes and make drivers have to swerve to get around them or slow to a crawl to try and get around them!

[Steve-O]

I drive more than I bike and have to say I don't think I've witnessed any of these bad cyclist behaviors being complained about here. Are you all making mountains out of molehills because your friends neighbors cousin once saw something?

Ok, I have seen kids and the dudes that look homeless or like a drug dealer whipping around on bikes being jackasses but that doesn't seem to be the group most are arguing about here.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

Perhaps again I should extend my offer to show anyone who cares, a part of town where 90 percent of the motorists are blatantly disregarding the rules of the road.l

[spooker]

Bicycle riders are mandated by law to follow the very same rules as motor vehicles.

Arguing that bicycle operators seem arrogant or they think they own the road while abiding by existing laws is as ridiculous as the argument that a motor vehicle operator is doing something wrong by not "going with the flow" of traffic that's speeding 20k over the limit that I've seen in other threads.

Motor vehicle operators need to back off their high horse position and respect lawful rules of the road.

So if not arrogant, what exactly would you call bike riders, who feel they aren't obligated to wait for a red light to go green the same as the cars do?

Your analogy certainly doesn't fit the circumstance.

It's the same thing when you teach your kids about pointing a finger at someone ... you're pointing the other fingers back at yourself ... drivers who call cyclists entitled because at times they break the rules are ignoring the fact that there is no shortage of drivers who are breaking the rules just as well ... why should a driver speeding be any more acceptable than a cyclist crossing against the light? are their motives not the same? heck, half the time a light will never turn green for a cyclist so it's the only way they'll ever cross the intersection ...

we're all "entitled" road users ... we have to look beyond the actions and try to fix the motivations ...

[Urban Cowboy]

Bicycle riders are mandated by law to follow the very same rules as motor vehicles.

Arguing that bicycle operators seem arrogant or they think they own the road while abiding by existing laws is as ridiculous as the argument that a motor vehicle operator is doing something wrong by not "going with the flow" of traffic that's speeding 20k over the limit that I've seen in other threads.

Motor vehicle operators need to back off their high horse position and respect lawful rules of the road.

So if not arrogant, what exactly would you call bike riders, who feel they aren't obligated to wait for a red light to go green the same as the cars do?

Your analogy certainly doesn't fit the circumstance.

It's the same thing when you teach your kids about pointing a finger at someone ... you're pointing the other fingers back at yourself ... drivers who call cyclists entitled because at times they break the rules are ignoring the fact that there is no shortage of drivers who are breaking the rules just as well ... why should a driver speeding be any more acceptable than a cyclist crossing against the light? are their motives not the same? heck, half the time a light will never turn green for a cyclist so it's the only way they'll ever cross the intersection ...

we're all "entitled" road users ... we have to look beyond the actions and try to fix the motivations ...

Sorry but that response reeks of deflection sprinkled with a smidgen of ridiculous justification.

Given bikes are obliged to follow the same rules of the road as cars, you know like obeying signal lights, signalling their intent when changing lanes or turning, etc., then how on earth does your statement that "half the time a light will never turn green" make any sense whatsoever? Are you suggesting cars and bikes are sitting side by side looking at a red light, that never turns green, so the cyclist takes it upon himself to skirt the intersection in order to move on?

That's certainly how it's written.

Maybe the cars should scoot up the sidewalk in that case too, given their owners time is just as precious as the cyclists.

[spooker]

Sorry but that response reeks of deflection sprinkled with a smidgen of ridiculous justification.

And yet you completely ignore the main point of my earlier post ... what of the motivation for bad behaviour?

Given bikes are obliged to follow the same rules of the road as cars, you know like obeying signal lights, signalling their intent when changing lanes or turning, etc., then how on earth does your statement that "half the time a light will never turn green" make any sense whatsoever? Are you suggesting cars and bikes are sitting side by side looking at a red light, that never turns green, so the cyclist takes it upon himself to skirt the intersection in order to move on?

That's certainly how it's written.

Maybe the cars should scoot up the sidewalk in that case too, given their owners time is just as precious as the cyclists.

To spell out my example, most intersections will not detect a cyclist on their own ... taken a little further there are intersections in other cities with lights for the cyclists that will let them start first as history has shown that it's safer for everyone that way ...

http://road.cc/content/news/90436-cambridge-approves-uks-first-cycle-only-green-lights-notorious-blackspot-junction (2013)
https://www.fastcompany.com/3053969/these-rfid-tags-allow-danish-cyclists-to-turn-traffic-lights-green (2015)

How about cars use their signals? How about cars actually stopping for a yellow instead of speeding up? For every bad behaviour of a person on a bike there is one done by a person in a car ... there's no defense for either side ... and the whole "gotta go with the flow" is a pile of rationalizing crap ... "so it is written so shall it be done" makes it sound so fundamental, but how do you equate that to the reality out there on the road? if it was going to go by law why would we need enforcement?

As someone who wrote JCL on punchcards to run my apps on an IBM mainframe timeshare to wait the evening for the operator to deliver the printouts I learned patience decades ago ... and the price of a typo ... I'm going to make sure that I've thought out my statements and that they've gone through several filters before going public ... unfortunately, by using a media such as this we're at a disadvantage trying to make sense of each other's thoughts ...

[Urban Cowboy]

To spell out my example, most intersections will not detect a cyclist on their own ... taken a little further there are intersections in other cities with lights for the cyclists that will let them start first as history has shown that it's safer for everyone that way ...

That's little more than a cop out.

For starters how often are you riding on city thoroughfares with lighted intersections, where you don't have an automobile or more waiting for the light as well?

On the off chance (I'm not buying into this) that you are alone, and the bike doesn't activate the green light, there's this pole with a button on it that will activate the walk light, so you can dismount and walk through the intersection. Problem solved and you're welcome.

[spooker]

That's little more than a cop out.

For starters how often are you riding on city thoroughfares with lighted intersections, where you don't have an automobile or more waiting for the light as well?

On the off chance (I'm not buying into this) that you are alone, and the bike doesn't activate the green light, there's this pole with a button on it that will activate the walk light, so you can dismount and walk through the intersection. Problem solved and you're welcome.

And you're avoiding the real problem.

The worst thing is that drivers always have their windows up so they can't hear anyone warning them when they're doing something idiotic. If people in cars would just ride around with the windows rolled down so they could communicate better with other road users it would save a lot of lives. Can't you see how that would work?

[delSol97]

@spooker

Here is an example of what I'm referring to, this road IMHO is not "bike friendly" yet seems convinced it needs to protect them at this intersection.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8798605, ... 312!8i6656

I see no reason why I should not be able to do a right turn here if there is no biker there.