Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don Atkinson posted:

This road takes us past our golf course (and the Vernon Naim dealer is located in the distance on the left !)

The highway used to have two lanes for traffic in the direction of the white car. Since our last visit, it has been reduced to one lane so as to accommodate the cycle lane/footpath. Note the "pedestrian" crossings on the cycle path. This effectively means that the white car (ie all vehicles) have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians when turning right eg to the liquor store beyond the bikes.

I think that this is the sort of arrangement that some cyclists in this thread are demanding be provided in the UK ie where the cyclist has a continuous right of way.

I personally don't think it is safe for cyclists to assume that all cars will give way, but at least the coroner will be clear as to who is at fault.

 

This is always a real issue where cycle paths cross driveways, and indeed cross streets. The idea that motorists turn right from other than the right-most lane is problematic for through-traffic cyclists in the right lane. The motorist finds themselves having to give way to vehicles coming from behind (somewhat like cyclists are expected to do all the time). I don't know what the answer is other than caution. Traffic light control for bikes separately can help, as does ensuring good visibility. One thing that doesn't help is that there is no standard for how the crossings are marked (they're painted solid green or as "elephant's feet" in Vancouver), nor any understanding of right-of-way by either cyclists or motorists.

And yes it is much better for cyclists if they have more continuous right-of-way. Slowing and/or stopping at every driveway only to accelerate again is frustrating and exhausting.

Interestingly, I am much more freaked out by these arrangements when cycling than I am when driving. On a bike I EXPECT the overtaking motorist to try to turn into me. They mostly don't, but it only takes one. When driving, I am always very nervous that I might strike a cyclist coming up from behind on my right. I check as best I can, and proceed very slowly.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This road takes us past our golf course (and the Vernon Naim dealer is located in the distance on the left !)

The highway used to have two lanes for traffic in the direction of the white car. Since our last visit, it has been reduced to one lane so as to accommodate the cycle lane/footpath. Note the "pedestrian" crossings on the cycle path. This effectively means that the white car (ie all vehicles) have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians when turning right eg to the liquor store beyond the bikes.

I think that this is the sort of arrangement that some cyclists in this thread are demanding be provided in the UK ie where the cyclist has a continuous right of way.

I personally don't think it is safe for cyclists to assume that all cars will give way, but at least the coroner will be clear as to who is at fault.

 

This is always a real issue where cycle paths cross driveways, and indeed cross streets. The idea that motorists turn right from other than the right-most lane is problematic for through-traffic cyclists in the right lane. The motorist finds themselves having to give way to vehicles coming from behind (somewhat like cyclists are expected to do all the time). I don't know what the answer is other than caution. Traffic light control for bikes separately can help, as does ensuring good visibility. One thing that doesn't help is that there is no standard for how the crossings are marked (they're painted solid green or as "elephant's feet" in Vancouver), nor any understanding of right-of-way by either cyclists or motorists.

And yes it is much better for cyclists if they have more continuous right-of-way. Slowing and/or stopping at every driveway only to accelerate again is frustrating and exhausting.

Interestingly, I am much more freaked out by these arrangements when cycling than I am when driving. On a bike I EXPECT the overtaking motorist to try to turn into me. They mostly don't, but it only takes one. When driving, I am always very nervous that I might strike a cyclist coming up from behind on my right. I check as best I can, and proceed very slowly.

Last paragraph. "I am much more freaked out.......when DRIVING than I am when CYCLING......"

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This is "our" road. OK, it's just the road on which we live. But the cost of the development included the cost of the infrastructure.

From left to right in the photo :- footpath; short-term vehicle parking lane; cycle path; highway (towards me); highway (away from me); cycle path.

We didn't have any say in what was being provided. However, the cycle paths get very, very little use. In fact, the footpath gets more use. We obviously pay tax to run our vehicles on the highways. We don't pay tax to use the cycle paths.

And the problem with that is what, exactly?

The cycle paths are not exactly generous, though I guess adequate (3ft?) provided there are no drain covers etc. the parking space is generous - is parking free, or charged?

There isn't any problem. I was just illustrating the fact that some communities make some sort of provision for cyclists.

If I had had a say in the provision, I would have provided a wider cycle path on each side.

The parking is free. This is Vernon. Apart from some 25 cent per hour parking for on=street  in the town centre, nobody charges for parking.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This is not "our" road but we use it daily. I have never seen a pedestrian use it and only the occasional cyclist.

It looks to be a relatively safe environment for the cyclist. Notice that even here in Vernon, we find it necessary to remind cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Reminds me of my opening post !

I wonder what stupid idiot of a motorist designed that. (Only a motorist would stick pedestrians and cycllsts together - and there is room there for them to be separate (though in practice itbmay be so sparsely used that it isn't a problem shared...

 

On the basis that steam gives way to sail, the instruction for cyclists to give way to pedestrians does not seem unreasonable - but of course, the same rule should be applied to the road, cars yield to cyclists and pedestrians. Now there's a thought...

No pleasing you IB.  The cyclists and pedestrians are kept safe from road traffic (at considerable expense) but you whinge that pedestrians and cyclists should also be separated with a barrier. Why can't cyclists just behave nicely ? Ok, that leads back to my opening post in this thread.

And yes, as I said, it is sparsely used.

As for motorists giving way to cyclists, cyclists giving way to pedestrians etc, I agree.  And that's what I do. Pity that most cyclists that I have encountered don't. Hence this thread !

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This road takes us past our golf course (and the Vernon Naim dealer is located in the distance on the left !)

The highway used to have two lanes for traffic in the direction of the white car. Since our last visit, it has been reduced to one lane so as to accommodate the cycle lane/footpath. Note the "pedestrian" crossings on the cycle path. This effectively means that the white car (ie all vehicles) have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians when turning right eg to the liquor store beyond the bikes.

I think that this is the sort of arrangement that some cyclists in this thread are demanding be provided in the UK ie where the cyclist has a continuous right of way.

I personally don't think it is safe for cyclists to assume that all cars will give way, but at least the coroner will be clear as to who is at fault.

 

This is always a real issue where cycle paths cross driveways, and indeed cross streets. The idea that motorists turn right from other than the right-most lane is problematic for through-traffic cyclists in the right lane. The motorist finds themselves having to give way to vehicles coming from behind (somewhat like cyclists are expected to do all the time). I don't know what the answer is other than caution. Traffic light control for bikes separately can help, as does ensuring good visibility. One thing that doesn't help is that there is no standard for how the crossings are marked (they're painted solid green or as "elephant's feet" in Vancouver), nor any understanding of right-of-way by either cyclists or motorists.

And yes it is much better for cyclists if they have more continuous right-of-way. Slowing and/or stopping at every driveway only to accelerate again is frustrating and exhausting.

Interestingly, I am much more freaked out by these arrangements when cycling than I am when driving. On a bike I EXPECT the overtaking motorist to try to turn into me. They mostly don't, but it only takes one. When driving, I am always very nervous that I might strike a cyclist coming up from behind on my right. I check as best I can, and proceed very slowly.

My experience and concerns exactly.

Jeepers, creepers !!, I never thought we could ever agree on anything regarding motorist/cyclists.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This is not "our" road but we use it daily. I have never seen a pedestrian use it and only the occasional cyclist.

It looks to be a relatively safe environment for the cyclist. Notice that even here in Vernon, we find it necessary to remind cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Reminds me of my opening post !

I wonder what stupid idiot of a motorist designed that. (Only a motorist would stick pedestrians and cycllsts together - and there is room there for them to be separate (though in practice itbmay be so sparsely used that it isn't a problem shared...

 

On the basis that steam gives way to sail, the instruction for cyclists to give way to pedestrians does not seem unreasonable - but of course, the same rule should be applied to the road, cars yield to cyclists and pedestrians. Now there's a thought...

No pleasing you IB.  The cyclists and pedestrians are kept safe from road traffic (at considerable expense) but you whinge that pedestrians and cyclists should also be separated with a barrier. Why can't cyclists just behave nicely ? Ok, that leads back to my opening post in this thread.

And yes, as I said, it is sparsely used.

As for motorists giving way to cyclists, cyclists giving way to pedestrians etc, I agree.  And that's what I do. Pity that most cyclists that I have encountered don't. Hence this thread !

I wasn't for one moment thinking of a wall, but surface markings and/or signage (with periodic reminders) - nothing would stop either pedestrians or cyclists using the other side when clear, e.g passing others, but would have a responsibility to keep watch while so doing and giving way to the rightful 'traffic'.

Of course, if users are sparse then it is an academic point.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This is not "our" road but we use it daily. I have never seen a pedestrian use it and only the occasional cyclist.

It looks to be a relatively safe environment for the cyclist. Notice that even here in Vernon, we find it necessary to remind cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Reminds me of my opening post !

I wonder what stupid idiot of a motorist designed that. (Only a motorist would stick pedestrians and cycllsts together - and there is room there for them to be separate (though in practice itbmay be so sparsely used that it isn't a problem shared...

 

On the basis that steam gives way to sail, the instruction for cyclists to give way to pedestrians does not seem unreasonable - but of course, the same rule should be applied to the road, cars yield to cyclists and pedestrians. Now there's a thought...

No pleasing you IB.  The cyclists and pedestrians are kept safe from road traffic (at considerable expense) but you whinge that pedestrians and cyclists should also be separated with a barrier. Why can't cyclists just behave nicely ? Ok, that leads back to my opening post in this thread.

And yes, as I said, it is sparsely used.

As for motorists giving way to cyclists, cyclists giving way to pedestrians etc, I agree.  And that's what I do. Pity that most cyclists that I have encountered don't. Hence this thread !

I wasn't for one moment thinking of a wall, but surface markings and/or signage (with periodic reminders) - nothing would stop either pedestrians or cyclists using the other side when clear, e.g passing others, but would have a responsibility to keep watch while so doing and giving way to the rightful 'traffic'.

Of course, if users are sparse then it is an academic point.

Ah ! makes sense now.

Vernon and Coldstream are spread out over quite a few hills and small mountains, so walking and cycling tend to be confined to the town centre or local areas. Hence some of the cycle paths/footpaths are very sparsely used.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This road takes us past our golf course (and the Vernon Naim dealer is located in the distance on the left !)

The highway used to have two lanes for traffic in the direction of the white car. Since our last visit, it has been reduced to one lane so as to accommodate the cycle lane/footpath. Note the "pedestrian" crossings on the cycle path. This effectively means that the white car (ie all vehicles) have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians when turning right eg to the liquor store beyond the bikes.

I think that this is the sort of arrangement that some cyclists in this thread are demanding be provided in the UK ie where the cyclist has a continuous right of way.

I personally don't think it is safe for cyclists to assume that all cars will give way, but at least the coroner will be clear as to who is at fault.

 

This is always a real issue where cycle paths cross driveways, and indeed cross streets. The idea that motorists turn right from other than the right-most lane is problematic for through-traffic cyclists in the right lane. The motorist finds themselves having to give way to vehicles coming from behind (somewhat like cyclists are expected to do all the time). I don't know what the answer is other than caution. Traffic light control for bikes separately can help, as does ensuring good visibility. One thing that doesn't help is that there is no standard for how the crossings are marked (they're painted solid green or as "elephant's feet" in Vancouver), nor any understanding of right-of-way by either cyclists or motorists.

And yes it is much better for cyclists if they have more continuous right-of-way. Slowing and/or stopping at every driveway only to accelerate again is frustrating and exhausting.

Interestingly, I am much more freaked out by these arrangements when cycling than I am when driving. On a bike I EXPECT the overtaking motorist to try to turn into me. They mostly don't, but it only takes one. When driving, I am always very nervous that I might strike a cyclist coming up from behind on my right. I check as best I can, and proceed very slowly.

My experience and concerns exactly.

Jeepers, creepers !!, I never thought we could ever agree on anything regarding motorist/cyclists.

We agree on a lot actually. We agree that shared-use paths are problematic if other than very lightly used. We agree that some cyclists behave appallingly towards pedestrians.

Where we differ is that I see cycling an overwhelming net positive gain for society, and something to be encouraged - both as a recreational activity and as a way of actually getting around;  whereas you would tax it out of existence.

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

I'm with Winky on this.

Clive B posted:

I'm with Winky on this.

You mean that cycling is going to take off in a big way, sufficient to generate an OVERWHELMING positive gain for society ?

I appreciate the POTENTIAL, but not the reality.

Don Atkinson posted:

Clive B posted:

I'm with Winky on this.

You mean that cycling is going to take off in a big way, sufficient to generate an OVERWHELMING positive gain for society ?

I appreciate the POTENTIAL, but not the reality.

Overwhelming was not meant in the global context. I meant that benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives.

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

See, I think differently. Cycle commuting is by far the best way to get to work that I know of, for commutes between 3km and up to 30km each way. That covers a huge proportion of commuters. I know most people don't want to do it. That is often becasue they are lazy and out of shape, fear motorists and don't want to get wet or sweaty. I am incredibly grateful that those things don't apply to me. My cycle commute is one of the highlights of may day, and I miss it if I can't do it for some reason. I ride my bike to the office 98% of the time I am working there.

Very few cyclist in Vancouver? You're joking, right? The downtown is positively teeming with them. I guess it's all relative. There are still far fewer cyclists than there are people sitting alone in steel cages.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

See, I think differently. Cycle commuting is by far the best way to get to work that I know of, for commutes between 3km and up to 30km each way. That covers a huge proportion of commuters.I know most people don't want to do it. That is often becasue they are lazy and out of shape, fear motorists and don't want to get wet or sweaty. I am incredibly grateful that those things don't apply to me. My cycle commute is one of the highlights of may day, and I miss it if I can't do it for some reason. I ride my bike to the office 98% of the time I am working there.

Very few cyclist in Vancouver?You're joking, right? The downtown is positively teeming with them. I guess it's all relative. There are still far fewer cyclists than there are people sitting alone in steel cages.

My point exactly. And they won't do it.

No ! i'm not. Presumably Monday 28th August was some kind of "bikers' holiday". Plenty of pedestrians. A fair number of cars. Bu**er-all bikes. This was while walking in the Burrard/Robson/Coal Harbour area of town and driving along the roads in/out to the Trans Canada (1st Ave etc).

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

Easy: price motorists out of existence! At least £5/litre extra tax on fuel immediately, the tax to be doubled every year. 

And create cycle labpnes on all roads at leat as wide as car lanes - a 2-lane road becomes single track for cars (but add passong spaces)

(Yes, I know there are many related issues like the effect on car industry)

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

Easy: price motorists out of existence! At least £5/litre extra tax on fuel immediately, the tax to be doubled every year. 

And create cycle labpnes on all roads at leat as wide as car lanes - a 2-lane road becomes single track for cars (but add passong spaces)

(Yes, I know there are many related issues like the effect on car industry)

Nice one IB. Paste a copy in the "best jokes" thread. One of the best I've seen for quite some time ! 

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

Easy: price motorists out of existence! At least £5/litre extra tax on fuel immediately, the tax to be doubled every year. 

And create cycle labpnes on all roads at leat as wide as car lanes - a 2-lane road becomes single track for cars (but add passong spaces)

(Yes, I know there are many related issues like the effect on car industry)

Nice one IB. Paste a copy in the "best jokes" thread. One of the best I've seen for quite some time ! 

Other than the detail required, including addressing knock-on effects, mine is every bit as serious and realistic as your suggestion of taxing cyclists, and has the environmental and health imperative behind it...

(And as I have previously indicated, I am a motorist as well as a cyclist)

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

Easy: price motorists out of existence! At least £5/litre extra tax on fuel immediately, the tax to be doubled every year. 

And create cycle labpnes on all roads at leat as wide as car lanes - a 2-lane road becomes single track for cars (but add passong spaces)

(Yes, I know there are many related issues like the effect on car industry)

Nice one IB. Paste a copy in the "best jokes" thread. One of the best I've seen for quite some time ! 

Other than the detail required, including addressing knock-on effects,mine is every bit as serious and realistic as your suggestion of taxing cyclists, and has the environmental and health imperative behind it...

(And as I have previously indicated, I am a motorist as well as a cyclist)

Priceless ! The "Best Jokes" thread will have them helpless on their backs, laughing their socks off !

It certainly made me smile

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

Easy: price motorists out of existence! At least £5/litre extra tax on fuel immediately, the tax to be doubled every year. 

And create cycle labpnes on all roads at leat as wide as car lanes - a 2-lane road becomes single track for cars (but add passong spaces)

(Yes, I know there are many related issues like the effect on car industry)

Nice one IB. Paste a copy in the "best jokes" thread. One of the best I've seen for quite some time ! 

Other than the detail required, including addressing knock-on effects,mine is every bit as serious and realistic as your suggestion of taxing cyclists, and has the environmental and health imperative behind it...

(And as I have previously indicated, I am a motorist as well as a cyclist)

Priceless ! The "Best Jokes" thread will have them helpless on their backs, laughing their socks off !

It certainly made me smile

"Every bit as serious and realistic" as your completely absurd suggestion is accurate. That is to say, neither are serious nor realistic.

Don Atkinson posted:

"overwhelming net positive gain" is over the top IMHO. Very few people participate and that is unlikely to change (e.g. as we gradually migrate to electric cars for short commuter journeys).

I only saw a very few cyclists when I was in Vancouver back in August. They are virtually non-existent in Calgary and even in the UK, London is the only place I have seen even modest numbers of cycling commuters.

IMHO people would have to be "forced" to use bikes for commuting. Not just incentivised, but forced. I'm not sure how people could be forced, Perhaps others have some ideas ?

According to CDP 7000 mayors across the globe  have pledged have their cities carbon neutral or equivalent by 2050.

So, how does the electric car and cycling g feature in this scenario (bearing in mind, a number of countries in Europe have announced electric only from between 2025 and 2050)?

Can electric cars thrive with the extra investment needed for infrastructure? Will more investment in green public mass transit be needed?  

In my mind, the force already here, it’s just a gentle touch right now.

Oh ! I think my suggestion that users of the highway be charged based on occupancy is fair and very easy to implement. It covers both cyclists and cars. The figures I proposed are reasonable (20p per mile) for cyclists. 

Your 3km journey would cost 40 p each way. I think most cyclists would pay without flinching.

OTOH, £5 per litre extra fuel tax, doubling every year, i.e. More than £5000 per litre in 10 years time, and still doubling.........More like a riot well before then !

Don Atkinson posted:

Oh ! I think my suggestion that users of the highway be charged based on occupancy is fair and very easy to implement. It covers both cyclists and cars. The figures I proposed are reasonable (20p per mile) for cyclists. 

Your 3km journey would cost 40 p each way. I think most cyclists would pay without flinching.

OTOH, £5 per litre extra fuel tax, doubling every year, i.e. More than £5000 per litre in 10 years time, and still doubling.........More like a riot well before then !

Do you? Really??? I beg to differ.

As for the petrol tax, I am open to discussion as to the most realistic effective tax - one that will stop people buying and using private petrol cars within a few years.

Of course public transport wpuld need to be improved in the same timeframe, and something done to ensure electric cars don't overrun the world in the same way as petrol cars, leaving space for cyclists, else a tax on electric car use would be needed, too.

winkyincanada posted:

Nice try winky !

Those 76,250 deaths on the right could just as easily be eliminated by brisk walking.

Of course, the "deaths caused by cycling" (and walking) would initially rise - quite significantly IMHO.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Nice try winky !

Those 76,250 deaths on the right could just as easily be eliminated by brisk walking.

Of course, the "deaths caused by cycling" (and walking) would initially rise - quite significantly IMHO.

The "deaths caused by cycling" is a bit of a misnomer. They are mostly "deaths caused by motorists where the victim was a cyclist". I couldn't "brisk walk" to the office every day. The 50km round-trip would take up too much of my day. It's perfectly do-able by bike, though.