Originally Posted by
spinninwheels
How did Mr. Horn know the cyclist was commuting to work? Did he know him? And if he did, how far was his commute...5, 10, 20, 40 km? If it was a 5 km commute, with only 2 km of that on the highway, would that make a difference to anyone?
I suggesting it is irrelevant what the cyclist is doing. On clear roads I cover 2 km in 3 to 3.5 minutes. I would cover approximately 10km in the same amount of time in a car. On the Lougheed, that makes a difference. Maybe not enough to drive someone insane, but probably. Thus I would suggest that taking a lane on Lougheed highway or any other highway is a bad idea. Now if for what ever reason, it takes 30 minutes to travel that same distance, it makes little difference why, but traffic congestion will be a problem. If it is the cause of one road user, that user is an idiot regardless of his personal plight. Yes, it makes a difference to other road users.
Originally Posted by
spinninwheels
Not necessarily. I don't mean to split hairs, but the problem is the weather. He could be a contributing aspect to a bigger, potential problem. But he is not part of the problem. Drivers who travel too fast for road conditions, are also a potential variable in this equation.
Weather is not a problem in itself, but it is always a factor. If a cyclist rides without lights is the problem with the sun for being on the wrong side of the earth? Nature is mitigated by skill and choice of equipment. Failure to mitigate uncontrollable effects is the problem.
Originally Posted by
spinninwheels
Here are some quick, yet loose numbers: 1.69 % but it's still a significant amount.
1.69% is small. 2,000-6,000 commuters is not that significant. Is it even more than a minute of traffic on any major route in the GVRD? It is small enough though, that we should never see any negative press on the matter.
Originally Posted by
spinninwheels
I'm confused by that statement. Are you stating, that by reducing cars on the road, you're actually increasing cars on the road? Or do you mean congestion? They are not synonymous. I also think that the saying ONE LESS CAR means a lot more than just potentially reducing traffic. What about pollution and conserving finite resources? Does that count?
What I am saying is 60 cars on the road one minute longer negates the reduced traffic, pollution reduction, and conservation made by taking one car off the road for an hour.
Originally Posted by
spinninwheels
And are you also saying that decreased congestion, reduces accidents more than decreased speed limits?
Sure, I'll say that. Are you saying that the most congested roads don't have the most accidents?
Originally Posted by
spinninwheels
..motorist venting and stating it as such.
Chances are. But try as I might, it's hard to find a positive spin for taking a lane of the lougheed on a bike.