Why spend money on bike lanes?

[southy]

Ok .. I will probably get torched for this, but I have a very difficult time trying to comprehend cyclists thinking. Thursday on my way to work I was driving south on Government. Traffic was heavy and with the array of crosswalks and the odd light driving Government is hectic enough. Oh did I also say Government has two bike lanes on it ... one for each direction. As I approach the lights at Duncan and Government out of no where come two cyclists heading north in the main lane ... they then cut into the North turning lane and cut in front of me and make the turn onto Duncan. Perhaps someone can enlighten me .. since there are two bike lanes on this street shouldn't the cyclists be using them and making their turn left on the crosswalk? I could be wrong, but gee ... these two idiots almost got hit. And yes they were wearing the expensive spandex suits and colorful helmets. Not your run of the mill kids on a bike. It really seems to me and pardon me if I am using a wide brush but these cyclists seem to think they are entitled to do whatever they may and by God don't you dare as a vehicle owner and driver question them or you will receive a friendly salute and some harsh words. It is difficult to report these idiots to police as they would never be caught. Yes, its summer folks ... take extra care driving because if one of us do hit these idiots it will probably be us who are charged. Go figure!!

[Anonymous123]

Sounds to me like they might be "challenged".

[fluffy]

It's my understanding, and I am by no means any sort of expert in this, that cyclists are bound by the same rules as motorists. To me this means that when turning left they should be moving from the bike lane into the center lane and then turning left from there with any appropriate signalling and right-of-way rules adhered to. I think what you witnessed Southy, was not so much illegal as it may have just been rude, comparable to impatient and/or aggressive motorists who run yellows or cut other drivers off. That being said, there is an air of elitism among some cyclists, not all mind you, but enough that these instances are not uncommon. This would indicate a basic ignorance of Newtonian physics in their thought that a few pounds of titanium frame and a micro-layer of spandex would stand up against a couple of tons of Detroit steel and a texting driver.

[Daspoot]

Just like motorists, cyclists as a group include some who don't follow the rules. If motorists could do the things cyclists could do like cutting to the front at lights/stop signs, passing on the right and riding on sidewalks , some certainly would. It has nothing to do with lanes or user groups as a whole. It's just someone not following the rules while steering something with wheels.

[twobits]

It's my understanding, and I am by no means any sort of expert in this, that cyclists are bound by the same rules as motorists. To me this means that when turning left they should be moving from the bike lane into the center lane and then turning left from there with any appropriate signalling and right-of-way rules adhered to. I think what you witnessed Southy, was not so much illegal as it may have just been rude, comparable to impatient and/or aggressive motorists who run yellows or cut other drivers off. That being said, there is an air of elitism among some cyclists, not all mind you, but enough that these instances are not uncommon. This would indicate a basic ignorance of Newtonian physics in their thought that a few pounds of titanium frame and a micro-layer of spandex would stand up against a couple of tons of Detroit steel and a texting driver.

You bring up a very good point. Bikes are subject to MVA regulations. But do the rules change when bike lanes are provided? When there are bike lanes, should the bike remain in it's lane at an intersection and then cross lanes as a pedestrian would when a green light in that direction permits, or do they cut out of the bike lane approaching an intersection and behave like a motor vehicle making a left hand turn? Where is Castanet contributor KL3-something from the RCMP in Kelowna when ya need him?

If I had my druthers, any road with sidewalks would have one side for pedestrians and the other side for bikes, skateboards and scooters. Get em off the asphalt cuz as Fluff points out, Detroit iron (or Japanese, Korean etc) does not mix well will any of the above. Imagine how much better traffic would flow just on Gov't street if we had four lanes for vehicular traffic instead of two for cars and two for the little used bike lanes. Never mind the damn cost of the bike lanes and lost economy due to inefficient flow of traffic. I would like to see a study done that examined net greenhouse gas emissions as a result of bike lanes. I am thinking bike lanes cause way more emissions than they save just from impeding traffic flow given the utilization.

[coolworx]

Hey motorists...
Instead of constantly kvetching about cyclists, why don't you pay attention to your speedometers (it's 50kph on Main on the two way section, and 30kph on the one way section - and Lakeshore is also 30kph).

Ohh, and get off the d*mn cell phones.

[twobits]

Hey motorists...
Instead of constantly kvetching about cyclists, why don't you pay attention to your speedometers (it's 50kph on Main on the two way section, and 30kph on the one way section - and Lakeshore is also 30kph).

Ohh, and get off the d*mn cell phones.

Hey cyclist's....

Instead of thinking you are above the rules of the road according to the MVA, why don't you quit running reds, riding two or three abreast on roadways, quit weaving in and out of the flow of traffic, stay in the designated bike lane and comply with the rules and benefits that it provides you?

Ohh, and don't flash me the d'mn middle finger when I try to remind you that you are impeding traffic when it is contrary to the rules of the road. If you are one that rides appropriately, I apologize in advance. Real world experience would suggest you would be in the minority however.

[tootall23]

It is just like many of the other "Green" policies. It is there because we have elected officials who make policies to keep "Vocal Minorities" happy. I rarely see a cyclist using the bike lanes.

The property owners on Government street who had their property expropriated must just love what the city has done there.

[pentona]

It is just like many of the other "Green" policies. It is there because we have elected officials who make policies to keep "Vocal Minorities" happy. I rarely see a cyclist using the bike lanes.

The property owners on Government street who had their property expropriated must just love what the city has done there.

I believe that the Mayor, at least one councillor and one or more city managers are cycle enthusiasts; most likely why the push for what THEY want; not what the majority wants. With the hoo-flaw created about Ellis Street bike lanes and loss of parking spaces, it appears that the city may be backing off; for now at least. Government Street expropriation was done for 4 laneing the street, was it not? Not for bike lanes. I agree, they are rarely used.

[fluffy]

I'm of the mind that as fuel prices continue to rise and environmental concerns are taken more seriously that bicycle traffic will increase. At that time the wisdom of having the proper infrastructure in place already will become more apparent.

[pentona]

I'm of the mind that as fuel prices continue to rise and environmental concerns are taken more seriously that bicycle traffic will increase. At that time the wisdom of having the proper infrastructure in place already will become more apparent.

I disagree completely. The need to four lane government st has been apparent for a long time now and that is why the properties in question were expropriated. It was never for bike lanes. I ride a bike but would never ride on that street. There are far more suitable and quiet streets more than suitable for bikes than Government Street. The city should do a survey and see how many bikes use that street as compared to cars. Note to fluffy: If you have ever been down Government steet on a school day between 8 and 9am or 2 and 3pm you will see what I mean. Two lanes simply don't cut it. I don't see too many moms picking up their kids from school on a tandem bicycle...lol.

[fluffy]

Have you seen the stats on childhood obesity lately? Maybe it would be better for them to let them walk home.

It's not so much about the situation in the here and now, but being prepared for what is to come. People are learning to put health and environment ahead of convenience, and simple finance will encourage people to limit fuel consumption. Having the infrastructure in place will encourage this sort of progress.

[pentona]

Have you seen the stats on childhood obesity lately? Maybe it would be better for them to let them walk home.

It's not so much about the situation in the here and now, but being prepared for what is to come. People are learning to put health and environment ahead of convenience, and simple finance will encourage people to limit fuel consumption. Having the infrastructure in place will encourage this sort of progress.

You haven't seen all the young people driving these jacked up oil patch trucks then, big money abounds with them; money is no object. Fuel consumption/mileage doesn't matter. I don't agree with it, but its a fact of life. If more people WERE using the bike lanes (and I say they are not), then you might have a point. The ratio of vehicle to bike traffic on that street is very high on any given day. I know people (including myself) who won't ride on it, its too busy with cars and pollution. Far better areas of town to ride bikes on and much safer. The street should be used for the purpose that it was intended for, after those expropriations.

[fluffy]

If you agree that extravagant consumption of fossil fuels and all its associated repercussions is a concern then why not support measures that actively encourage alternatives? Government Street congestion is an isolated example, and has been said occurs mostly around school traffic, however the geography makes that route a logical choice for cycle traffic. It sure won't sit nicely with the one car/one person convenience addicts, but as you say, it is a fact of life and isn't going to change without a gentle push in another direction. I support bike lanes wholeheartedly.

[pentona]

If you agree that extravagant consumption of fossil fuels and all its associated repercussions is a concern then why not support measures that actively encourage alternatives? Government Street congestion is an isolated example, and has been said occurs mostly around school traffic, however the geography makes that route a logical choice for cycle traffic. It sure won't sit nicely with the one car/one person convenience addicts, but as you say, it is a fact of life and isn't going to change without a gentle push in another direction. I support bike lanes wholeheartedly.

I support bike lanes as much as you do, Fluffy. Just not on Government Street. If there were a lot of cyclists using it (and there are not) then forget four-laning it but the land was expropriated with our tax dollars for vehicle traffic expansion; not bike lanes. There are several good and quiet routes already in place for bikes and I use them all the time; every day in fact. Government street is not on my list. If you are thinking that you can reduce the vehicular traffic on that street in favor of more bikes, I think you're dreaming. As I said, if more bikes used it and crowded out the cars, things would be different, but thats not the case.