When I read her closing about wanting cyclists to obey the rules of the road and stick to bike paths and bike routes I was kind of grumpy because I felt she was misleading people by suggesting cyclists are not supposed to ride on undesignated routes. After considering it I realized they are likely two separate requests.
I appreciate that she states her respect for cyclists on the road as well as her attempt to see our perspective. I would encourage her to write the City requesting that they ensure a robust cycling network is built so that cyclists have viable alternatives to the routes she is concerned about however, I would caution her that cycling is a legitimate form of transportation and cyclists have the right to ride on all roads except a couple.

I was almost in a very bad accident with a bus this morning thanks to not one, not two, but THREE misinformed bikers absorbed in their own mini Tour de France to obey the rules of the road. We are absolutely our own worst enemy and I agree with umgray -- education should start with our own.

I'm confused because it sounds like she is complaining too many cyclists are taking up a lane on McLeod Tr, but I doubt that is likely.  It sounds more like she would just like all cyclists on the pathway (or sidewalk) so she isn't inconvenienced.  

My response to these folks: if you want to drive fast go over to Deerfoot, Stoney, Crowchild, etc.. Trail, you can go as fast as you like. 

I am all for cyclists following the rules of the road, and for a long time I have said that we earn ourselves no respect from drivers, and do ourselves no favours, when we break the law. But Becky is looking at the situation all wrong.

She should be asking herself "Why would a cyclist choose Elbow Drive over the designated bike route just a few blocks away?" The answer is that our designated bike routes often suck due to poor planning and execution. They route cyclists onto sidewalks, such as at 69 Ave and 5 St SW for example; or into a gravel alley such as at Canfield Rd and Anderson Rd SW. Another example, one I run into frequently myself, is the situation those of us in the deep south face before and after Fish Creek Park is closed daily - we have no legal option other than to ride on 37 St SW or McLeod Trail - both 80km divided roads. I guess the city and province just don't care enough about cyclists to notice or address that issue. A bicycle route (and a road for that matter) is like a chain - a few bad links in the chain makes the whole thing worthless. Would Becky tolerate being required to get out of her car and push it a few feet several times on her route downtown? Would she avoid that route next time?

The second thing that bothers me about Becky's point of view is that she implies that riding anywhere other than a designated bike route is against "the rules of the road." Not so, of course.

The third thing that bothers me about Becky's point of view is that she implies that taking the lane on a busy thoroughfare is a sign of disrespect by the cyclist and she confesses "I become quite disturbed and curse that user." It isn't an act of disrespect, it is an act of safe operation of a vehicle (assuming the particular situation is such that taking the lane is the safest option for the bicycle operator and the other vehicles). Does she become disturbed and curse every slow moving vehicle she comes across on the roads?

I would love to ride in a well thought out, separated, bicycle lane from the deep southwest into downtown. Alas the city and province have so far failed to make this happen. Becky should be joining the calls for this kind of smart transportation infrastructure rather than cursing those who are doing the best we can with what the city and province provide us.

I read this article today

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/nyregion/manhattan-court-sends-erring-...

that says, in NYC at least, you are required to stay in the bike lane if one is available to you.  You aren't required to stay in the bike lane if it's blocked or you're making a turn but the notion that the road is not equally available to cyclists is quite a mental shift for me.  Apparently it's not a mental shift for entitled people like Becky.

In most cases I think cyclists prefer bike lanes.  When they don't, there's a reason: bike lane does not go where I want, bike lane blocked, bike lane snow removal incomplete, bike lane requires significant detour, bike lane speed limit too slow, etc.  I think looking at the reasons moves the discussion from an emotional us-vs-them to a constructive look at how infrastructure can be improved.

Further to DarrenB's comments,

Strategies for Creating a Culture of Saftey for Bicycling

http://vimeo.com/43603867#

Much of this narrated PowerPoint is based on Keri's experiences in Orlando, but is completely applicable to Calgary.

It would be nice if Becky would watch this.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Restricted/6985821/story.html

Run in today's Herald.

I disagree that restricting pedestrians from pathways is a good solution. Pathways are a shared amenity, enforcement of such a rule would be impractical, exclusive use of the pathways would not change the fact that cyclists need to use streets.

Really it's an attitude change that's required. Roads (including sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) are conduits for the movement of people, for recreation or transportation.