Ban the bike!

[delSol97]

Drove 12 kms to work today (and that's not on highways), and what I counted was:

2 bikers (1 was a homeless guy)
48 pedestrians
100+ cars (I couldn't keep up)

Yet all new road projects seem to be prioritizing them in the reverse order.

If there is any doubt we are becoming a society that caters to special interests, do your own unscientific survey.

[oscillate_wildly]

While we're at it, why don't we ban pickup truck drivers in Kelowna too? They're apparently more of a menace on the road than anyone else presently "sharing" the road.

[spooker]

@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.

For one, Sutherland is a future ATC ... and currently with the lower traffic rates it makes a good way to travel east/west for cyclists as an alternative to Harvey or Springfield ... since Richter is a main north/south route for cyclists putting the bike box here made sense to help westbound cyclists turn south ...

One of the issues they have found is that people don't always see cyclists, not as big as a car so when scanning for other traffic too often a person on a bicycle is missed ... so if you're moving forward after stopping behind the bike box so that you can see northbound traffic and a cyclist is coming up you're going to have conflict ...

Is your patience so taxed by waiting the 30 seconds or so for the light that you'd want to take the chance?

Yet all new road projects seem to be prioritizing them in the reverse order.

If there is any doubt we are becoming a society that caters to special interests, do your own unscientific survey.

It's the same reason why the cycling coalition lobbies to get the bike lanes, cycle tracks, and multi-use paths plowed when it snows ... they aren't asking for the cyclists that are using it, those people will be out there no matter what ... the request is for people who would cycle if they are given a safe place ...

We've seen over the last 50 years what prioritizing a single mode of traffic will do to the overall system ... now planners are realizing that it's not sustainable ... make the car the priority and people drive more and then create more congestion and then want more roads that just keep the cycle of spending increasing ... by encouraging other modes of travel the hope is that other transportation modes will be used more and reduce the demand on the limited space we have called roads ...

The future is not the single-occupancy-vehicle ...

[spooker]

Something to think about ...

“It may be possible to improve drivers’ hazard perception through additional, nontraditional avenues such as promoting greater engagement in cycling and other forms of active transport."

That's a quote from the author of this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28732320

Seems that cyclists behind the wheel are safer than non-cyclists ...

[delSol97]

Is your patience so taxed by waiting the 30 seconds or so for the light that you'd want to take the chance?

Why the smart *bleep* response? There was nothing smart *bleep* about my post.

Having said that, your response still makes no sense and neither does the intersection. There are hundreds of intersections in Kelowna not setup like this. In fact, it's the only one I can think of. It would make more sense for me to be able to do a right when I am approaching the intersection and it is still red.

If I'm sitting there for 30 seconds waiting for it to turn green, the likelihood of a biker showing up beside me unnoticed increases significantly and they will also be expecting to proceed through the intersection when it turns green, which in fact increases the risk as I start to do a right and now have to remember to shoulder check again.

Again, this type of congestion inducing decision making doesn't make for safer roads IMHO, and I have no problem with the "green lanes", it's the no-turn on RED which makes no sense.

[delSol97]

The future is not the single-occupancy-vehicle ...

Isn't that a bicycle?

[spooker]

A person who is behind the wheel of a car, controlling roughly 2500lbs of bone-crushing metal, has a responsibility to stay attentive and make sure that other road users are not affected in a detrimental manner.

Making a right-turn on red is a "convenience" ... it's not a right ... through experience people have become to understand that right turns on red are not safe ... in most European Union member states they are prohibited in all locations except when there is a flashing green arrow ... drivers look left as they move right ... from the NACTO website

Right-turn prohibitions are especially useful for intersections in downtown areas with high walking and bicycling levels, or for streets with right-side bike facilities, where permitting turns would result in long delays for transit vehicles running in the right lane.

https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/intersections/signals-operations/turn-restrictions/

The future is not the single-occupancy-vehicle ...

Isn't that a bicycle?

Who's being the smart *bleep* now?

Is it really?

https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/advice-inspiration/news/gocab-bicycle-taxi-for-children

[JagXKR]

Before applying the "user-pay" to cyclists I think we need to look at the same thing for motorized vehicles ... a bicycle causes approximately 1/600th the damage to a roadway that a car does. The underlayment for a car-carrying roadway is quite different from that of a paved bicycle pathway, about 5 times the cost if I remember correctly. There are numerous studies that show cars are the most subsidized form of travel in North America.

Every thing you have came to the store via truck. Used a road to get there. From your pretty spandex shirts and shorts to the very bicycle you are riding. The truck paid for the road via taxes on diesel. You pay nothing.
If governments used all the money collected from fuel taxes for the roads and the roads only the roads would be paid for by vehicles. No subsidies, just user pay. But alas the governments steal from those taxes to fund "other" projects. Like bike lanes.

[Queen K]

Jag, Spooker has a F150.
He also happens to cycle.
And visit me.
Not if Rwede had his way though ^^ "Ban the bike!"
Rwede is so mean sometimes.

[dirtybiker]

If governments used all the money collected from fuel taxes for the roads and the roads only the roads would be paid for by vehicles. No subsidies,

I do miss the days when one could get away with riding a motorcycle the same as a bicycle, cutting across parks, parking lots, bumping over curbs and medians, pretty much free for all whim and wimsy, yet still a rightful road user if one chose to be
on one.

You wish for rights on the road, be carful what you wish for.

It could very well restrict you to them !

[spooker]

Every thing you have came to the store via truck. Used a road to get there. From your pretty spandex shirts and shorts to the very bicycle you are riding. The truck paid for the road via taxes on diesel. You pay nothing.
If governments used all the money collected from fuel taxes for the roads and the roads only the roads would be paid for by vehicles. No subsidies, just user pay. But alas the governments steal from those taxes to fund "other" projects. Like bike lanes.

Do you know how much the government spends on roads each year? Do you know how much comes in via fuel tax each year?

Based on the 2012 numbers, the federal government spent $13BN on roads ... the gas tax brings in $5BN ... another $1.6BN is estimated to come in via GST on the fuels ... where is the other $6.4BN coming from? Sure looks like if drivers were the only ones paying for the roads they'd be the first to drive into the potholes on the underfunded and poorly maintained roads for half the price ...

By the way, commercial trucks pay extra fees for road usage, beyond the fuel tax ... the reasoning for that is they will cause more damage being significantly heavier than a regular car ... but it seems to be overlooked that the same damage comparison can be applied between a car and a bicycle, yet people call for cyclists to pay more than drivers ... I'm still scratching my head over than logic ...

... roads belong to all users because either directly or indirectly we all pay for them ... no one has a monopoly on roadways ...

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

If governments used all the money collected from fuel taxes for the roads and the roads only the roads would be paid for by vehicles. No subsidies,

I do miss the days when one could get away with riding a motorcycle the same as a bicycle, cutting across parks, parking lots, bumping over curbs and medians, pretty much free for all whim and wimsy, yet still a rightful road user if one chose to be
on one.

You wish for rights on the road, be carful what you wish for.

It could very well restrict you to them !

Yeah I miss them days.. still do it a bit now, but expect a big hassle if I get caught.
I remember having the chat one day when 2 of us cut across the old Dr Knox School playing field, the cop was annoyed but let us go.
About 3 years back there was a street festival in Revelstoke, with a bicycle display in the middle. They were closing it down, and I rode the motorcycle slowly through there. Came out the other end, cop noticed me lit up the lights burned a U eee, and pulled me over. Was fairly annoyed and asked if I did not know they have that most Saturdays.. and I told him I was from the Okanagan. He said OK , don't do it again, can't you see the barriers. I SAID I did, and I thought it meant cars.. ..
All them pathways in town, I don't see any no motorcycle signs...

[Rwede]

Jag, Spooker has a F150.
He also happens to cycle.
And visit me.
Not if Rwede had his way though ^^ "Ban the bike!"
Rwede is so mean sometimes.

I didn't write the article Queenie. Nor did I write the headline.

And if spook rides his bike over to visit you, I hope he can still peddle home once you're through with him.

[Queen K]

You could have said that you personally weren't "for" banning the bike.
But you didn't.
Did you?

And yes, I know you didn't write the article.

Btw, when was the last time you were on a bike? Serious question. You part of the Spandex Alert Crowd up in East Kel?

[alfred2]

ban the idiots who ride the bikes, eg. in this snowy weather one idiot is riding down springfield.