June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am #8512
Is it really $150 fine for going 20-30km/h on the pathway, and $400 for going 30-100km/h? While I agree that fines are an important deterrent to bad behavior, that seems excessive as the you need to be going around 50km/h over the limit in a car to get such fines(well the 400$ one). Especially as it was $50 a short while ago. Also there doesn’t seem to be graduated increases….same fine for going over 30km/h as it is for 70km/hJune 4, 2019 at 5:57 pm #8513
I agree, it is preposterous. And it makes riding on the pathways a criminal offence. Just try riding down Nose Creek pathway at 20 km/hr with a tailwind! Ridiculous and no evidence that it improves safety for anyone. The one-size fits all speed limit for the pathways has got to change at some point, or it’s going to become too expensive to ride on them at all. I’ll stick to the roads where I can travel at a reasonable speed thank-you.June 5, 2019 at 2:04 am #8514
From Bylaw 11M2019
17(1) Speed in excess of limit on a pathway
– up to 10 km/h over limit $100-$150
– more than 10 km/h over limit $250-$400
17(2) Unsafe speed on a pathway $250-$400
This is from their engagement summary:
Comparison with Other Cities
Pathway speed limits are stated only in Calgary (20km/hr) and Winnipeg (30km/hr). However, many other pathways reference due care and attention, or that speed cannot be immoderate.
Calgary must be super dangerous since we have both:
17 (1) A person must not exceed speeds of 20 kilometers per hour on a pathway unless otherwise posted.
17 (2) Despite subsection (1), a person must not travel at a speed that is unreasonable due to weather, traffic or pathway conditions.
I think they should drop the speed limit entirely and go with “unreasonable”. Tricky to enforce I guess – my unreasonable may not match yours. It does, however, allow for higher speeds where/when safe and appropriate.June 6, 2019 at 1:08 pm #8519
Thanks to everyone for chiming in and respectfully expressing your opinions and suggestions. Bike Calgary will be writing a letter to the City of Calgary and we want to make sure we incorporate as much member feedback as possible. Please continue to offer your suggestions and references to useful information (e.g. the reference to the Winnipeg speed limit of 30 km/hr and lack of specified speeds in other cities).June 6, 2019 at 1:57 pm #8521
I think it’s difficult to enforce a carte blanche max limit for the whole city – we would never do it for roadways. For example I typically take the pathway between Sarcee and Strathcona Blvd. that runs along Bow Trail. It’s about a -4.5% downhill and green fields with good visibility all along. I think common sense dictates that I should slow if I’m passing a pedestrian however if I’m able to see well ahead, why should I now be concerned that Bylaw could be setting a speed trap here to fill coffers. So many things can be done to help pathway behaviour and safety without a focus on speed here – how about putting some bylaw un-uniformed officers out there on bikes targeting unsafe passing, lack of bell use, etc. – that’s something I’d be happy to support.June 6, 2019 at 8:44 pm #8522
Here’s what I posted on some link on FB: the Fuzz only focus on cyclists. Never runners, bladers, scooters, walkers, dogs, wanderers, roller skiis, those un/plugged and clueless, those on the wrong path (when divided is provided), or little kids meandering about at the peak of rush hour whilst their clueless parent(s) don’t consider risks to everyone.June 6, 2019 at 9:12 pm #8523
About every 6 weeks I suggest Bike Calgary submit to Council it’s complete membership list requesting new brake pads for every member. Just specify manufacturer and type. I’m sure it won’t be a problem. Compliance comes at a cost.
June 6, 2019 at 10:48 pm #8525
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by gp4000.
Yes. I imagine a lot of this is due to volumes of tickets from pedestrians on the pathway who get passed at rates they felt uncomfortable with. Which means they’d just submit tickets of speeding cyclists regardless of the situation.
After commuting for 5+ years, I’ve seen a lot of people on the pathway system who seem like they are too jumpy to be sharing the space with bicycles. They’re not paying attention and either jump the wrong way, act frightened, or yell after people who have done nothing wrong. Not speaking from experience personally, I’ve seen enough that I can recognize them and give them wide births, but I have seen it happen to many other people who were not going over the speed limit.
While I think enforcement of bicycles is equally as important as cars, and to some degrees pedestrians when all three are in mixed spaces [car/bike or bike/ped], I do think a lot of the hammering comes from unjust reactions.
I cannot sympathize with a pedestrian who thinks a bicycle passed them unsafely when they were going 22-25kmh and who both voiced their passage (or rang) and who also used the appropriate left lane to pass them. This is what I saw a lot. And I got the feeling many felt this way when, in idle conversation, my sister voiced she doesn’t like to go on the pathway system because the speeding cyclists are there.
Perhaps what they really need to do is readjust high volume areas to have better separate cyclist/pedestrian spaces.
The few accidents I did see, all came from unsafe passing. The worst of which was the blind corner underpass on one of the crowchild area bridges where a fellow doing probably about 30kmh on a single speed passed a lady silently and ran into another bicycle in the other lane. He broke his wrist and stunned the other cyclist.
The correlation here is probably that the majority who are passing unsafely, are also speeding. So everyone else gets punished for their poor behaviour. There is a good chance you may be profiled on a road bike in kit so careful out there 🙂June 6, 2019 at 10:53 pm #8526
and I really like the idea of sponsored brake pads. I wear through mine every year with the bluffs 🙂June 8, 2019 at 1:44 pm #8531
Interesting little fact to through into the mix here – I heard from a reporter who inquired with the City how many cycling speeding tickets were issued last year – the answer was zero. Plenty of warnings, but no fines.
So the question becomes, what does a higher allowable fine accomplish? Better compliance? Cycling deterrent? Likely not a cash cow!
Again, feel free to use this forum to help solidify your position or test ideas, but at the end of the day, it is you submission to your City councillor that will effect a change. Get active in your local politics! The City’s webpage for contacting your councillor is very easy – give it a try!June 8, 2019 at 6:15 pm #8541
I live in Ward 4. So, you know, talking to my councillor is like talking to …. (fill in the blank). The increased fines, whether actually enforced or not, only serves to confirm the hypocrisy of Calgary being cycling friendly. You want me to cycle instead of drive? But I can’t exceed 20kph on the pathways? Ok, then I’ll ride the road instead (which I prefer to do, anyway). But so much new infrastructure is only car centric: Stoney Tr and !A; Sarcee and 16Ave; the entire nightmare of what used to be Simons Valley Rd (? I can’t recall if this is the correct designation) to Airdrie. Seriously, does the City want to promote cycling as a real mode of transportation? If so, then, yes, speed restrictions at choke points (ie Eau Claire) but I don’t want the threat of a 400.00 fine when I’m doing 35kph going S on Nose Creek at 7AM when I’m ALONE on the path (and will slow down to an absolute crawl if I see anyone else anywhere near me).June 8, 2019 at 6:41 pm #8542
To be sure it’s a shared responsibility. ‘On your left” results in the pedestrian moving to the left; Ring the bell; “On your left”, no acknowledgement – right, earbuds; Ring the bell: ‘I saw you coming you didn’t have to ring your bell’; I pass 3 metres to the left: ‘Hey, why didn’t you ring your bell?’. ‘Ding, ding ding. On your left, on your left’, to the 3 abreast stroller people on the bike only path. We’ve all been there. And they want to fine the cyclists.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.