bikebuddha
I get the current podcast so I can keep abrest of things up north. They had a pretty good show on bicycling in canada on Thursday.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20071122_3968.mp3
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20071122_3968.mp3
Bicycling in Canada on the Current
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
ChipSeal
This program is a good study on the difference between "Anti-car advocacy" and "Cycling advocacy".
Dave Mezin of the Toronto Cyclists Union is a movement to "provide a safe place for cyclists on the road." His group is pushing for a faster implementation of the regional bike plan. (More bike lanes and MUPs.) "We have too many cars. We need to move away from the car centric planning of our streets. We need to get people out of their cars and onto transit, we need them walking more and cycling more."
Susan La Rowe says that Montreal is a bicycle friendly city. What evidence does she offer? How many bike lanes and MUPs there are! Their crown jewel? A separated "commuter path"!
Bonnie Fenton of Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition points to 4% of trips done on bikes, and promotes cycling education- even classes that practice riding in traffic! But then she's the one that made this statement: "Cars have space and pedestrians have space, and cyclists are in some undefined middle there. We need to create the space for cyclists."
The overall tone of the piece is that cyclists need separate facilities. This is not (in my opinion) helpful to transportational cycling or a safer environment for cycling. Cycling advocacy should seek to implement roads designed to accommodate all users of the roadway, not set-asides that particular anti-car zealots can point to as dubious progress.
Dave Mezin of the Toronto Cyclists Union is a movement to "provide a safe place for cyclists on the road." His group is pushing for a faster implementation of the regional bike plan. (More bike lanes and MUPs.) "We have too many cars. We need to move away from the car centric planning of our streets. We need to get people out of their cars and onto transit, we need them walking more and cycling more."
Susan La Rowe says that Montreal is a bicycle friendly city. What evidence does she offer? How many bike lanes and MUPs there are! Their crown jewel? A separated "commuter path"!
Bonnie Fenton of Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition points to 4% of trips done on bikes, and promotes cycling education- even classes that practice riding in traffic! But then she's the one that made this statement: "Cars have space and pedestrians have space, and cyclists are in some undefined middle there. We need to create the space for cyclists."
The overall tone of the piece is that cyclists need separate facilities. This is not (in my opinion) helpful to transportational cycling or a safer environment for cycling. Cycling advocacy should seek to implement roads designed to accommodate all users of the roadway, not set-asides that particular anti-car zealots can point to as dubious progress.
donnamb
I've never been to Montreal and don't know their particular challenges or needs.
bikebuddha
I think separate facilities can serve cyclists particularly when you live as I do in a city designed for cars. The problem is making them cycling friendly and useful.
ChipSeal
I think separate facilities can serve cyclists particularly when you live as I do in a city designed for cars. The problem is making them cycling friendly and useful.
I live in a city designed for all road users. (Dallas) I like the fact that about 90% of the multi-lane roads around here have a narrow right lane. It works out great for cycling! (The right lane is a 10' wide bike lane. ;)) Very few of our streets allow curbside parking. (A public space set aside for one type of road user- motorists.)
Separate facilities are usually expensive, exclusive and introduce many new hazards for the cyclist for each hazard that is reduced. Few separate facilities make a cyclists trip shorter in either distance or time when compared to traveling on the road. I would support them if they were safer and more useful than using the public road.
I live in a city designed for all road users. (Dallas) I like the fact that about 90% of the multi-lane roads around here have a narrow right lane. It works out great for cycling! (The right lane is a 10' wide bike lane. ;)) Very few of our streets allow curbside parking. (A public space set aside for one type of road user- motorists.)
Separate facilities are usually expensive, exclusive and introduce many new hazards for the cyclist for each hazard that is reduced. Few separate facilities make a cyclists trip shorter in either distance or time when compared to traveling on the road. I would support them if they were safer and more useful than using the public road.
closetbiker
Vancouvers' (that would be Bonnies realm) situation is uniquie (I think).
They teach VC but also push for "facilities"
I think one of the best things Vancouver advocates have done is get cycling questions in the new drivers guide and drivers tests. We already had that right in law. It's good that drivers are being educated about it.
They also managed to get the mandatory side path law nixed, so a cyclist can choose if they want to ride in traffic or on a "facility"
"Traffic calming" is a strategy is pushed and used too.
They teach VC but also push for "facilities"
I think one of the best things Vancouver advocates have done is get cycling questions in the new drivers guide and drivers tests. We already had that right in law. It's good that drivers are being educated about it.
They also managed to get the mandatory side path law nixed, so a cyclist can choose if they want to ride in traffic or on a "facility"
"Traffic calming" is a strategy is pushed and used too.
bikebuddha
I live in a city designed for all road users. (Dallas) I like the fact that about 90% of the multi-lane roads around here have a narrow right lane. It works out great for cycling! (The right lane is a 10' wide bike lane. ;)) Very few of our streets allow curbside parking. (A public space set aside for one type of road user- motorists.)
Separate facilities are usually expensive, exclusive and introduce many new hazards for the cyclist for each hazard that is reduced. Few separate facilities make a cyclists trip shorter in either distance or time when compared to traveling on the road. I would support them if they were safer and more useful than using the public road.
But when roads are designed primarily for cars they tend to do things like going straight up steep hills. we have a real problem with that here in Atlanta. Older roads tend to follow the land while newer roads, that happen to have things I need like grocery stores located on them, often make me feel like I'm riding the six gap century. Since it's unlikely the government will decide to tear up and regrade these newer roads why not introduce some alternative transportation paths to make it easier for non-drivers to get where they need to go?
Separate facilities are usually expensive, exclusive and introduce many new hazards for the cyclist for each hazard that is reduced. Few separate facilities make a cyclists trip shorter in either distance or time when compared to traveling on the road. I would support them if they were safer and more useful than using the public road.
But when roads are designed primarily for cars they tend to do things like going straight up steep hills. we have a real problem with that here in Atlanta. Older roads tend to follow the land while newer roads, that happen to have things I need like grocery stores located on them, often make me feel like I'm riding the six gap century. Since it's unlikely the government will decide to tear up and regrade these newer roads why not introduce some alternative transportation paths to make it easier for non-drivers to get where they need to go?
ChipSeal
Since it's unlikely the government will decide to tear up and regrade these newer roads why not introduce some alternative transportation paths to make it easier for non-drivers to get where they need to go?
Good question. The reason separate facilities for "safety" is a bed idea, is because it can turn out like the Francona notch bike path:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/franconia/franconia.htm
Good question. The reason separate facilities for "safety" is a bed idea, is because it can turn out like the Francona notch bike path:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/franconia/franconia.htm
LittleBigMan
Vancouvers' (that would be Bonnies realm) situation is uniquie (I think).
They teach VC but also push for "facilities"
I think one of the best things Vancouver advocates have done is get cycling questions in the new drivers guide and drivers tests. We already had that right in law. It's good that drivers are being educated about it.
They also managed to get the mandatory side path law nixed, so a cyclist can choose if they want to ride in traffic or on a "facility"
"Traffic calming" is a strategy is pushed and used too.
Good point, the crux of the biscuit.
I think we cyclists are much more likely to get what we want by not fighting each other. We have enough against us, as it is.
As long as cycling where we want remains a personal choice, nobody can dictate where we ride.
They teach VC but also push for "facilities"
I think one of the best things Vancouver advocates have done is get cycling questions in the new drivers guide and drivers tests. We already had that right in law. It's good that drivers are being educated about it.
They also managed to get the mandatory side path law nixed, so a cyclist can choose if they want to ride in traffic or on a "facility"
"Traffic calming" is a strategy is pushed and used too.
Good point, the crux of the biscuit.
I think we cyclists are much more likely to get what we want by not fighting each other. We have enough against us, as it is.
As long as cycling where we want remains a personal choice, nobody can dictate where we ride.
bikebuddha
Rather than create infrastructure solely for climbing-challenged cyclists, how about the cyclists getting some lower gearing or getting more fit?
Disclaimer: I live in a relatively hilly area.
Because I'm middle-aged and grumpy and unlikely any better at climbing while loaded down with groceries or books than I am now. ;)
Disclaimer: I live in a relatively hilly area.
Because I'm middle-aged and grumpy and unlikely any better at climbing while loaded down with groceries or books than I am now. ;)
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.