I came across this letter this morning while reading the Herald.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Brazen+bicyclists/6973827/s...
I doubt that the 'Brazen Cyclists' title was used by the letter writer.
What do you think? If you could talk to Ms. Poschmann what would you say?
Point well taken but:
Submitted by Richard Z on
Point well taken but:
Elbow Dr
Submitted by InglewoodGuy on
I have used Elbow Dr often, as the bikeway/pathway route running parallel is nowhere near as efficient. And to this day I think the city missed a huge opportunity on that road. When they had it completely torn apart, they should have taken one of the lanes out for a N/S bike expressway into DT. Of the remaining three lanes, make one a reversal for morning/evening rush. Small loss of car capacity and huge feeder of bicycle traffic into and out of the core.
Plus, judging by the 40 kph speed zone and phantom playground zone the local residents would probably support getting some of the traffic off that road.
elbow drive..
Submitted by mikewarren on
...should have gotten bike facilities. That seemed to be very popular in the consultation they did on it which resulted in MUPs-only treatment (and not, of course, the whole distance). Right now it's all ripped up on the south side, including many curbs -- anyone in the area know the plan?
Grumpy at first
Submitted by bclark on
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 agree
Submitted by umgray on
I agree with her points and we are our own worst enemy. A day does not go by when I see bicycle commuters violate basic rules of the road. What percent do you think of the summer commuters on bikes obey the rules of the road? We truly need to educate our own and that is a monumental task!
Seconded
Submitted by asiawalker on
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.
Disagree
Submitted by DarrenB on
The author of this letter was very clear: she objects to cyclists that use the road. Her tone indicated that she felt bikes are a nuisance and that they should know the rules of the road that prohibit cycling down busy streets. She is also clear that if someone must be inconvenienced on the roadways, it should always be the cyclist.
That's nonsense. Legally, cyclists have the same entitlement to the road as a car, and if a cyclist is in front of you then they have the right of way. Period. I think we do all cyclists a dis-service by conceding our rights and entitlements, and we will never gain the respect of motorists as long as myths and misinformation such as those voiced by this author are propagated.
For these reasons, I believe education must be mutual: both cyclists and motorists require it, and we should never concede otherwise.
+1
Submitted by pinkrobe on
Agreed!
I assumed that when she
Submitted by Richard Z on
I assumed that when she writes "respect the rules of the road and stick to the designated routes" she meant: do two things, a) follow the law, b) stay off the major roads. I agree with a) and agree/disagree with b). As many have pointed out, often the designated routes are not practicabe or the "major roads" aren't actually major roads (eg Elbow Dr). I didn't interpret her as saying that the rules of the road say that you shouldn't ride on busy streets and so cyclists should follow the rules of the road by way of staying off busy roads. I guess that's a possibe interpretation and if it's what she meant, I'm with you, that's BS.
What is her problem?
Submitted by mercator on
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.
Also disagree
Submitted by Charbucks on
If she is a cyclist as she claims, then you'd think she'd understand that "a few kilometers out of your way" is actually kind of a big deal. You want me to go a few extra kilometers, because you can't stand to be slowed down for a few seconds?
It sounds like she's complaining about cyclists who follow the rules of the road but who chose to ride on busy roads, not those that run red lights and suddenly jump off of sidewalks in front of cars. Nothing she complained about in her article was against the law.
There are sections of all of the roads she mentioned (Memorial, Elbow, MacLeod) where it is entirely appropriate for a cyclist to ride. If her example of the cyclist on MacLeod during rush hour was downtown, then I highly doubt the cyclist was going any slower than the rest of the traffic. Besides, it's far safer for the cyclist to be in the middle of the lane.
Oh Becky
Submitted by coolegg on
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 have been known in the
Submitted by Tyrone on
I have been known in the winter to take the Macleod Tr. detour as opposed to the park. Mostly so the monsters don't eat me in the pitch dark.
I read this article today
Submitted by ryker on
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.
Bike lane
Submitted by snowandscience on
This is worth re-posting since you brought up NYC bike lanes
That article is a bit scary
Submitted by Charbucks on
I don't think aggressively ticketing cyclists is the way to fix things. I remember that happening during "cycling awareness week" when I lived in Toronto - the cops were out there ignoring all sorts of motor vehicle transgressions in order to pick on cyclists for doing things like standing up on the pedals to prepare for a green light (they called it "running a red" - $120 fine).
With the exception of the really jerky cyclists who actually do blatantly run red lights (like the ones I see every day crossing 12 ave at 11 st sw), I think you're right: cyclists break the rules when they don't feel safe. It's not a matter of "I'm too good for the bike lane", it's probably more like "that bike lane puts me way to far into the door zone".
As a side note, I think the "cyclists must use the bike lane if possible" law (if it is a law here) only applies to on-street bike lanes, not pathways adjacent to roads.
Running reds
Submitted by snowandscience on
I run the red here every single day. Usually after I come to a complete stop, there isn't a car in sight traveling toward the intersection, and the light is 2 minutes long. I'd be happy to wait 30 seconds, a minute etc. but waiting several minutes at stop lights is ridiculous when I can see my apartment from the intersection. By this point I've come through 9Ave (3 minute red) 10Ave (1 minute red) 11 Ave (2 minute red) and 12 Ave (2 minute red) - and potentially have waited 8 minutes for a stretch of road that takes <1 minute to cycle. Shorter lights are the solution here (although motorists will hate me for saying it) - Calgary's 2-3 minute traffic light intervals have to go.
traffic circles?
Submitted by mikewarren on
How about more traffic circles?
Downtown?
Submitted by winterrider on
I love traffic circles, but I don't think they work well once traffic volume increases to the levels seen downtown and in the beltline.
On the other hand, in my opinion every single 4 way stop in Calgary should be a traffic circle.
Circles
Submitted by ryker on
Traffic circles need to be cleared in the winter or they are a detriment to cyclists, IMO. I have a traffic circle on my block.
8 minutes?
Submitted by Charbucks on
I go through the same series of lights but also including Bow Trail. Somehow it just doesn't feel that long to me... but maybe that's because by the time I reach this section, I'm almost home, and I'm fine with chilling out for a bit. Except when the train passes, that can be quite the wait!
I've never sat down and timed the lights, but I agree, 9th, 11th, and 12th certainly feel longer than 10th. Do you think drivers would even notice if they were shorter? Since the intersection at 10th ave and 14th street opened up, traffic on 10th has increased astronomically, so it seems that drivers aren't necessarily factoring light timing into their route.
The longest light I have
Submitted by amf673 on
The longest light I have encountered is Bow Trail & 26 Street. If you miss the green it can be a full five minutes (I have timed it) before you get your turn, and when you do get the green it turns yellow when you are half way through the intersection! Thankfuly the new bridge at 24 St means I don't have to suffer that one any more (except today as they are paving the north side ramp to the bridge).
During rush hour
Submitted by snowandscience on
During rush hour the lights at 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th (in succession from Bow River pathway) are 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, respectively. Makes for a really really long 6 blocks on the way home, and can make up half of my commute time from the university - usually I take Pumphouse Road -> Bow trail -> turn right on 11 St to avoid the 6/9 Ave lights. Also agree w/Al about Bow/26th ALSO Bow/45th is just as bad. Can usually listen to a full song if I just miss the light going south.
Strategies for Creating a Culture of Safety for Bicycling
Submitted by Gromit on
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.
I agree with the Poschmann 100%
Submitted by cycling-puck on
I love to cycle to work, and I used to when I was literally pushed out of the road by two semis in one month and one elederly lady gave me the finger to ride properly in a street where there is not bike path nearby to get to work. However, yesterday I saw a cyclist jay cycling if you can use the term between traffict to cross McKnight and then go left to shorcut on a gas station to get to the next street! No helmet either!!!! So, I think we need enforcement of the cycling rules, take bikes away or seriously ticket people who cannot make their minds if they are acting like pedestrians or cyclist and on top of that they do not have helmets on!!!! Mandatory Helmets in AB!!!
Mandatory Helmets in AB???
Submitted by mikepzy on
UMM.... I think you need to learn the laws!!
Same for cars?
Submitted by DarrenB on
If the same logic is applied to cars (i.e. motorists get their cars taken away for speeding, failing to stop at red lights, entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present, running stop signs, etc.) then I might buy into this logic.
But if you are suggesting that this higher standard ONLY apply to bicyclists, then just like Poschmann's remarks, I just don't understand where you are coming from. Cars are the dangerous vehicles on our roads because they weigh a ton or more, go really fast, have limited visibility, and you don't have to worry about personal injury inside unless you hit something really big with it. I try to follow the rules of the road on my bike, but I am EXTRA careful to do so when driving my car because I know how much more dangerous it is. Why don't people understand that?
So what do you say -- let's take away ANY vehicle if the operator bends the rules. Right?
No comment about the mandatory helmet law remark as I suspect that is just trolling for a flame war (shame)...
Response to "Brazen Cyclists"
Submitted by bclark on
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.
More infrastructure needed
Submitted by snowandscience on
On-street infrastructure is what's needed - the letter today should have stopped short when it said "cyclists have no dedicated space"
Pathway too
Submitted by bclark on
Yes, on-street infrastructure absolutely. Also, some targetted upgrades of the pathways to separate, either in the same facility (i.e. Riverwalk) or separate facilities (i.e. towards Edworth), cyclists from pedestrians.
"Bans"
Submitted by amf673 on
are not usually the way. The counterpoint to that would be of course to ban cyclists from roadways during rushhour.We need to figure out how to co-exist on roads, pathways, and sidewalks.
The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation.-- Bertrand Russel