Was looking at the Calgary Herald online and saw this letter:

Council has approved expanding bike lanes for a very small minority, so it's now appropriate for bicycles to be licensed. Testing will ensure that riders clearly understand that vehicular rules of the road apply.

Revenue from these licences can be used to pay a portion of the road painting, signage and enforcement.

I understand these fees will not provide a full cost recovery, as the two cyclists I see each morning on 10th Street couldn't possibly cover all of the costs associated with that brain wave.

Link to the letter:

https://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...119/story.html

1. The bike lanes are for the benefit motorists as they are intended to keep cyclists out of the way so motorist have less delay.
2. If the letter writer wants more cyclists to obey vehicular rules then they will find that more cyclists will be in the way when they make vehicular left turns or when they leave the bike lane when going straight thru intersections to avoid being right hooked.

This must have been written by an A&S regular, one of the "vehicular cyclist" people.

That doesn't seem to work for motorists, I wonder why he/she thinks it will work for cyclists.

Motorist: "we want those darn bikes out of the way."
Road Engineer: "OK we can put in bike lanes to guide the cyclists to stay out of the way... Of course this may complicate things."
Motorist: "get them out of my way."
Newbie Cyclist: Oh goodie, Bike Lanes... this road must be safe."
VC Cyclist: "Idiot newbies... Bike Lanes are gonna kill you."
Motorist: "get them damn cyclists out of my way."
Road Engineer: "Well we put in Bike Lanes, but now you motorist have to watch for cyclists... and 'share the road'..."
Motorist: "the hell with that, if them cyclist are gonna use that much road, tax them."
Road Engineer: "we already do, in fact cyclists pay more taxes per mile of road used than motorists."
Politician: "Look we put down some paint. Vote for me."
Cyclist: "I just want to go to my office and the store...."
Motorist: "Get them damn cyclists off my road."
Pedestrian: "Get them damn cyclists off my sidewalk."
Cyclist: "I wish I could fly."

That is a pretty accurate synopsis.

Maybe, though I'm inclined to think it's some cager who's p/o'd over the 10th Ave. NW bike lane. There's been a s**t load of opposition to creating on street bike lanes in Calgary. Many (cagers/non cyclists) feel the existing bike path network throughout the city already more than accommodates cyclists. The problem is the downtown core and streets/routes leading there. There are plans to create on street lanes downtown, but that of course is like throwing gas on the fire. Opinion is split. Cyclists want the lanes, motorists don't.

10 Ave NW Bike Lane (PDF):
https://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...provements.pdf

10th Ave. NW Bike Lane at the City of Calgary:
https://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...t-Project.aspx

Ya know.. I'm about sick and f'n tired of hearing motorists lament over the scofflaw cyclist.
When these hypocritical motherflockers actually obey they speed limits, and stop BEFORE the crosswalk, I'll listen to their petty complaints.

Until then, I have only one message for them... GFY.

No surprise on who made this backwards comment. It is similar to what we see in many newspapers.

Hahahaha. I only read the Herald when I want to smash cinder blocks with my head.

Like we've said before sadly, we're "damned if we do, and damned if we don't."

We as cyclists are in a "no win situation."

One thing that I find ironic is that as I've said before I've even have had pedestrians yell at me to get off of the road.

About the only real "problem" with the "weekend warrior/trail riding" cyclist is that they don't fully understand what the cycle commuter faces on a daily basis. And I think that most of them would wet their shorts if they encountered even just .05% of the "abuse" that regular cycle commuters have to put up with.

The trail cyclists that I've personally talked to, are fully aware of what the conditions that daily cycling commuters face, and that is why these particular cyclists, that I talked to, have decided to only ride trails.

They also might be aware, but also think that the people dealing with those conditions are willfully stupid. That would be Calgary, in my experience.

A new bike lane was marketed very poorly both prior to and following its installation. The survey and plan that Calgary undertook to verify the token gestures I'm sure they had already planned was also weak in my opinion.

Calgary has always been more about the appearance of being a 'world class' city than actually being a 'world class' city (whatever that means). Look at the Calatrava nightmare. They didn't care about doing it properly.

Those how to use the new road videos should be used as an example of taking what should be easy and making it confusing for everyone.

I have discussed the same issues with "tri" cyclists and they too feel that in spite of their skills, the road conditions are just not conducive to commuting.

+1

Skills? They do not even know how to paceline!

Yeah, pace line... I see so many commuters doing that every day. Com'on CB.

While these guys are physically strong riders, why is it that so many chose not to commute on a regular basis... it would only add to their training.

Do they ever train with any gear? No! They're like the marathon runner who used to work with my husband. She would drive to work, pretend to work for a couple of hours, then go for a run right past her home. When asked why she didn't just run to work (showers were available), she said she would never run with a pack of clothes. She also wouldn't consider driving only once or twice a week and storing clothes at work. There was just something abhorrent about combining a workout with anything utilitarian. My experience with tri-folks and many of today's version of roadies is largely like this.

Priceless.

I can't put down here what I'd say to all the 'special interests' in this example, the censor would short-circuit.

Why are many very good road racers so poor at time trials? The riding really is different.

Commuting for base fitness is good. But doing continuous higher speed efforts for long periods of time with no stops, does require training other than just commuting.

+1 lol

Last winter there was a letter to the editor along of the lines of: "Its dangerous to bike in the winter, the city should pass a law against it for their own good."

Licensing huh? Its called a punitive tax in my books. I'd never pay it.

I wonder what's next? A pedestrian license to pay for sidewalks or a sand-box license to pay for the playground?

Aaaannnddd another Letter To The Editor in the Calgary Herald:

Re: "License bikes," Letter, Dec. 1.
Many Calgarians can't understand why nobody has suggested licensing bikes, even though the proposed bike facilities will incur considerable costs. Now, finally, Richard Wilkie has raised the seemingly unmentionable subject.
Think about it: Com-muting bikers don't pay transit fares or parking, they don't buy gasoline (or, thus pay a gas tax), and they don't pay for insurance. Surely, it's reasonable to expect that they can afford bike licences.
As for recreational cyclists, Calgary's 600-plus kilometres of pathways cost a lot to build and maintain, especially if they're cleared in the win-ter. So, why not charge for licences to help pay these costs?

I guess some people have nothing better to do than complain about cyclists, now that the snow is falling there. Or maybe they are jealous that we (Calgary cyclists) are:

"riding through the snow,
on our trusty steed today,
past the snowbound cars we go,
laughing all the way."