Lake to lake bike lane

[soupy]

And it does not take much at all to prevent yourself from being an easy target, as these are crimes based on opportunity.

Leaving a vehicle unlocked I can agree is inviting opportunistic crime. But does opportunist also include two plastic door stop wedges that cost two bucks at the dollar store, a one pound weight such as a rock or landscape brick, and about 24 inches of coat hanger wire? The two doorstop wedges at the top rear corner of the door will pry a locked car door open far enough to almost put your hand into to unlock. The piece of coat hanger will press or hook the electric door lock switch. All done in 30 seconds by even crack addled minds.
They watched BCAA tow truck drivers wedge doors open.

And they go through all this to open a vehicle with nothing of value in site?
Or do they choose the one who left items of value visible?

Lock your doors, don't leave items a thief may want in view. Then obviously you do not share any of the blame for the theft as you were doing what you could for prevention. Easy peasy.

Catch a crook, break their fingers so they cannot do it again.
Heck, I wouldnt mind if they placed 30 lb ball on chains on the ankles of anyone caught steeling. Some good public shaming and it wont be easy to run / ride away if they try to steal again.

[twobits]

And they go through all this to open a vehicle with nothing of value in site?

Ya they do. Once in the car, there are those console compartments and the trunk latch. It takes them less than a minute to get into any locked vehicle. Hip bump tests for a motion sensitive alarm. I've watched home surveillance video's of the balaclava punks in action.
Irony is that you are better off leaving your doors unlocked and nothing of value inside. At least then the only thing you experience is an invasion of privacy rather than a bent door frame or broken window. They are not vandals looking to damage vehicles....they are looking for opportunities so let them look to find nothing.
Just don't leave your garage door opener in the vehicle.

[soupy]

And they go through all this to open a vehicle with nothing of value in site?

Ya they do. Once in the car, there are those console compartments and the trunk latch. It takes them less than a minute to get into any locked vehicle. Hip bump tests for a motion sensitive alarm. I've watched home surveillance video's of the balaclava punks in action.
Irony is that you are better off leaving your doors unlocked and nothing of value inside. At least then the only thing you experience is an invasion of privacy rather than a bent door frame or broken window. They are not vandals looking to damage vehicles....they are looking for opportunities so let them look to find nothing.
Just don't leave your garage door opener in the vehicle.

There are still cars out there without a motion sensitive alarm? Not many.

[twobits]

There are still cars out there without a motion sensitive alarm? Not many.

Yup, still plenty of vehicles that do not have fobs....or working fobs. Plenty more too that have disabled the system because of repeated falses that *bleep* the neighbour off.

[soupy]

There are still cars out there without a motion sensitive alarm? Not many.

Yup, still plenty of vehicles that do not have fobs....or working fobs. Plenty more too that have disabled the system because of repeated falses that *bleep* the neighbour off.

Twobits..

More crimes of opportunity.
Don't leave keys in the ignition with a vehicle running. https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#247871

Preventable. And very risky actions on the victims part too.

[smoky500]

what does locked or unlocked cars have to do with bike lanes??????????

[ferri]

I see what happened, but let's see if we can drift back on topic now.

[twobits]

OK, on topic......90% of residents object to bike lanes diminishing traffic flow capability for the 20 bikes a day that use them. 99% object to bikes obstructing traffic where there are no bike lanes.

[pentona]

OK, on topic......90% of residents object to bike lanes obstructing traffic.

If one knows where to ride, (KVR and side streets) there is already good routes to either end of town. No need to screw up the busy roads that are already too busy. (Government Street for instance was the absolute worst place to put bike lanes on).

[spooker]

OK, on topic......90% of residents object to bike lanes diminishing traffic flow capability for the 20 bikes a day that use them. 99% object to bikes obstructing traffic where there are no bike lanes.

You're not building cycling infrastructure for the people already out there on bikes ... they are going to be out there no matter what

Build the routes for the people who would cycle if they felt it was safer than it is today ... then maybe those "busy roads" won't be so freakin' busy

I'm so tired of hearing people say that a person on a bike can go out of their way to get somewhere safer ... encourage people to do something good by not being idiots and suggesting that someone who is taking up less room, using no fuel other than a burrito, going slow enough to be safe, and enjoying nature should take the long way around ...

[ToddT]

then maybe those "busy roads" won't be so freakin' busy

Ok, I'll play. Let's say for example, the new bike lanes down Main Street and Skaha Lake Road actually work to encourage more cyclists to ride. Let's say bicycle ridership increases by 100%. You're telling me taking 20-30 cars off of the road is going to make the street less busy and safer for cyclists? Give your head a shake.


You want lake to lake? Use the freakin' path on the channel. You want pavement? Use the existing bike lanes, and side streets to avoid busy stretches of road. That is the beauty of cycling, your ability to dart in and out of smaller places is easier.


If I wanted to cycle from Skaha to Okanagan, there are two incredibly easy routes I could take. One would be the obvious, hop on the path by the channel, cross Eckhardt at the lights near Petro Can, and continue on down Riverside. The other, take South Main to Dawson, Government to Duncan (or all the way to Eckhardt), from Duncan I could dart up to the K-Streets and through to Ontario Street or Forestbrook, at which point I'd get on the PAVED trail, which would take me all the way to Front Street.


The infrastructure already exists. You're riding a bicycle. You're not supposed to be lazy. Leave that to us Neanderthal gas guzzlers.

ETA - Enjoying nature? Please. Let us all gawk at all of the beautiful nature that lines Main Street. Here's a tip - the best nature is found "off the beaten path."

[spooker]

Ok, I'll play. Let's say for example, the new bike lanes down Main Street and Skaha Lake Road actually work to encourage more cyclists to ride. Let's say bicycle ridership increases by 100%. You're telling me taking 20-30 cars off of the road is going to make the street less busy and safer for cyclists? Give your head a shake.

Anytime you increase the number of cyclists along a given route it creates more awareness for people that use that route regularly, when you get trained to see cyclists you actually look out for them ... and with the number of collisions these days, even a small decrease in cars will lower the chance of even a near miss ... less cars means more visibility for everyone ...

Concerns that increased walking and cycling produce more accidents have been countered by the “safety in numbers” (SiN) argument. According to SiN, the more walkers/cyclists there are in a population, the lower their risk.
...
The results suggest that bicyclists experience a short term Safety in Numbers effect through the season. Each individual cyclist experiences fewer occasions of being overlooked by cars and fewer safety critical situations (near-misses). Video observation data confirm this pattern.

You want lake to lake? Use the freakin' path on the channel. You want pavement? Use the existing bike lanes, and side streets to avoid busy stretches of road. That is the beauty of cycling, your ability to dart in and out of smaller places is easier.

what's the shortest line between any two points? a straight line ... how do you keep yourself safe while cycling? be visible, don't dart in and out of side streets ... people in cars complain that people on bikes don't follow the rules enough as it is, meandering all over the place with lefts and rights would just invite more issues ...

If I wanted to cycle from Skaha to Okanagan, there are two incredibly easy routes I could take. One would be the obvious, hop on the path by the channel, cross Eckhardt at the lights near Petro Can, and continue on down Riverside. The other, take South Main to Dawson, Government to Duncan (or all the way to Eckhardt), from Duncan I could dart up to the K-Streets and through to Ontario Street or Forestbrook, at which point I'd get on the PAVED trail, which would take me all the way to Front Street.

When I get down there with my bike next time I'll let you show me those routes ... they sound great and I need to learn Penticton better ...

The infrastructure already exists. You're riding a bicycle. You're not supposed to be lazy. Leave that to us Neanderthal gas guzzlers.

there's a difference between being lazy and not wanting to ride double the distance ... it's part of the reason that many Dutch cities are designed so that the bicycle routes actually take less distance to get somewhere than a motorised vehicle, encouraged to bike instead of the other way around as we have here ...

[JagXKR]

Anytime you increase the number of cyclists along a given route it creates more awareness for people that use that route regularly, when you get trained to see cyclists you actually look out for them ... and with the number of collisions these days, even a small decrease in cars will lower the chance of even a near miss ... less cars means more visibility for everyone ...

Flawed logic. Doubling the number of cyclists doubles the chance of one getting hit. Taking 20 cars off the road has a negligible effect.
Spandex is too tight maybe, cutting off the flow of oxygen to the brain?

[twobits]

I'm so tired of hearing people say that a person on a bike can go out of their way to get somewhere safer ... encourage people to do something good by not being idiots and suggesting that someone who is taking up less room, using no fuel other than a burrito, going slow enough to be safe, and enjoying nature should take the long way around ...

And I am so tired of being sold a load of BS that there is any kind of demand or justification for infrastructure investment for a few citizens that ride bikes. One problem is climate. Another is the geography cuz in case you haven't noticed, Penticton is built on top of three alluvial plains.....Shingle, Penticton, and Ellis Creeks that make east/west travel a serious grade challenge. The third, and most obvious statistic is that our residential demographic is not comprised of your millennial age group. If you cared to pay attention, it is actually moving way north of that age group that has no interest whatsoever in putting a bike seat in the crack of their *bleep* to go shopping. Nor are they particularly interested in funding your 20 bike a day lanes even if they could do so with the gas produced from the lunch Burrito and peddling south with a north wind.

[spooker]

Flawed logic. Doubling the number of cyclists doubles the chance of one getting hit. Taking 20 cars off the road has a negligible effect.
Spandex is too tight maybe, cutting off the flow of oxygen to the brain?

It's easy to find research results that show "Safety in Numbers" is a real effect ... it's actually called "Smeed's Law" and goes back to 1949 when it was used to show that road fatalities per vehicle were lower in countries with more driving.

Recent (2016)
http://roadsafetyanalysis.org/2016/11/cycling-safety-in-numbers-research/

Older (2008)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

Countries with the lowest levels of cycle use have the poorest cyclist safety records.

And I am so tired of being sold a load of BS that there is any kind of demand or justification for infrastructure investment for a few citizens that ride bikes. One problem is climate. Another is the geography cuz in case you haven't noticed, Penticton is built on top of three alluvial plains.....Shingle, Penticton, and Ellis Creeks that make east/west travel a serious grade challenge. The third, and most obvious statistic is that our residential demographic is not comprised of your millennial age group. If you cared to pay attention, it is actually moving way north of that age group that has no interest whatsoever in putting a bike seat in the crack of their *bleep* to go shopping. Nor are they particularly interested in funding your 20 bike a day lanes even if they could do so with the gas produced from the lunch Burrito and peddling south with a north wind.

If you think I'm a millennial then all this cycling is doing what it's supposed to, keep me healthy ... I didn't quite make the cut for a Baby Boomer but I am an early Gen Xer ...

Climate? I'm actually giving a talk tonight to a group of interested folk who want to know more about winter cycling ...

As I explained earlier, the number of cyclists on the road is directly related to the amount of safe infrastructure in the area ... you don't build infrastructure for the cyclists you see out there now, you build it for the cyclists who would be out there if they felt safe ...

And again, the amount of money that everyone pays is slanted more towards roads by a huge factor ... and people on their bikes pay just as much of those funds as people in cars ... a person who commutes by bicycle pays more than their fair share of what they use ...

And no, cycling isn't just about a road bike with that skinny seat up your crack ... my mother, while she had to give up two wheels due to vertigo, gets around quite well on a very comfortable seat on her three-wheeler now ... there are lots of options out there if you just ask ...

We need to make cycling just as normal as any other method for getting around ...