4 ms·

I commented above, but I think I'm in the aforementioned cult. At least where I live, the legal changes are in place: cyclists are allowed to use any public ro

I commented above, but I think I'm in the aforementioned cult. At least where I live, the legal changes are in place: cyclists are allowed to use any public roadway with a limit less than 100km/h, take the lane any time they need to, and aren't required to use bicycle lanes or paths just because they're there. The problems are entirely cultural: people aren't raised to treat bikes as vehicle. As a kid they're encouraged to use the sidewalks for safety, but most people never graduate to riding safely and properly on the roads. Every bicycle path is also a walking path, because biking isn't a slower car, it's a faster pair of feet (so to speak). Because bicycles aren't "vehicles", and most people never ride on the road, they don't have much empathy for people who do. Incidentally, we have a few fatalities a year from intoxicated biking, which I think stems from the idea that it's somehow much safer than driving while drunk. I'd love to live in a place where there were either clear delineations (cars/bikes/pedestrians). Failing that, bikes really belong on infrastructure for cars, not infrastructure for pedestrians.

awjr 13y ago
I really have to disagree here. I have a 9 year old daughter who should be able to ride to school, but the roads are not 'safe' for kids to ride on. The problem with that 'cult' is that it is driven from a fear that once you provide segregated cycling infrastructure then, you as a cyclist have no right to use roads (Germany has done this). This is a fallacy that keeps the majority of the population in cars. You need to make the 'perception' that cycling is safe enough for 10 year olds to use to actually enable people to begin cycling. This is so much more about the general health, well being and safety of the general public than whether you are able to tank it down a dual carriage way while being passed by cars doing 70mph.
- alanctgardner2 13y ago
  The problem isn't about rights; as I said, we have segregated infrastructure AND we can use public roadways in Ontario. I don't think anyone's going to take that away. The problem is the way segregated infrastructure is promoted: here in Ottawa, they have green circle signs with bicycles, as if to say 'bicycles are allowed here'. This gives drivers the impression that bicycles won't be on streets without the signs, and that they can be inattentive (dooring, cutting people off while turning, etc). All of our cycling fatalities locally come from driver inattention, not malice - even though it's douchey to overtake aggressively, it doesn't kill nearly as often as opening your door without looking. I guess my point is that road cycling culture is a chicken and egg problem. If more people of all ages are riding, drivers will be more conscious, and it will be safer. If everyone stays constrained to the walking paths and bike lanes, the utility isn't there ( because the lanes and paths don't go where you want ), and the drivers get to stay oblivious. Finally, your last point about the dual carriageway misses the point completely. Yes, people who like biking a lot are the 'early adopters' who push for more radical social change. For all the reasons I've mentioned, highways are actually very safe: wide lanes, wide shoulders, very little direction changing (no turns, no dooring) and pretty attentive drivers. I'd wager you have less fatalities on highways than congested metropolitan areas, because the drivers are less distracted and overburdened.

awjr 13y ago

I really have to disagree here. I have a 9 year old daughter who should be able to ride to school, but the roads are not 'safe' for kids to ride on. The problem with that 'cult' is that it is driven from a fear that once you provide segregated cycling infrastructure then, you as a cyclist have no right to use roads (Germany has done this). This is a fallacy that keeps the majority of the population in cars. You need to make the 'perception' that cycling is safe enough for 10 year olds to use to actually enable people to begin cycling. This is so much more about the general health, well being and safety of the general public than whether you are able to tank it down a dual carriage way while being passed by cars doing 70mph.

alanctgardner2 13y ago
The problem isn't about rights; as I said, we have segregated infrastructure AND we can use public roadways in Ontario. I don't think anyone's going to take that away. The problem is the way segregated infrastructure is promoted: here in Ottawa, they have green circle signs with bicycles, as if to say 'bicycles are allowed here'. This gives drivers the impression that bicycles won't be on streets without the signs, and that they can be inattentive (dooring, cutting people off while turning, etc). All of our cycling fatalities locally come from driver inattention, not malice - even though it's douchey to overtake aggressively, it doesn't kill nearly as often as opening your door without looking. I guess my point is that road cycling culture is a chicken and egg problem. If more people of all ages are riding, drivers will be more conscious, and it will be safer. If everyone stays constrained to the walking paths and bike lanes, the utility isn't there ( because the lanes and paths don't go where you want ), and the drivers get to stay oblivious. Finally, your last point about the dual carriageway misses the point completely. Yes, people who like biking a lot are the 'early adopters' who push for more radical social change. For all the reasons I've mentioned, highways are actually very safe: wide lanes, wide shoulders, very little direction changing (no turns, no dooring) and pretty attentive drivers. I'd wager you have less fatalities on highways than congested metropolitan areas, because the drivers are less distracted and overburdened.