cracking down on bicycles - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about sports cars, aeroplanes, ships, rockets etc.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13619141
Toronto Sun wrote:Crackdown on cycle-paths: Levy

It’s time to enforce city bylaw banning bicyclists from the sidewalk

Image

January 27, 2011 Sue-Anne Levy

I will make no bones about it.

Cyclists who use the sidewalks to get from Point A to Point B in this city are for the most part rude, arrogant and a pain in the neck.

I’ve lost count how many times I’ve been startled by sidewalk cyclists aggressively pedalling behind me — without warning — as I walked my two dachsies or jogged on the city’s sidewalks, forcing me and my dogs to quickly jump out of their way.

Dare tell them the sidewalks are for pedestrians. Even dare.

More often than not that suggestion is greeted with an obscenity or the middle finger.

It’s not enough that the city’s helmet-heads feel they own the roads with their constant mewlings for more bike lanes on major thoroughfares.

Evidently, they believe they have the right to commandeer our sidewalks, too.

But why shouldn’t they?

For years — most particularly under the David Miller regime — the bike lobby was given a free ride at City Hall.

...


Oh my gawd. Don't you hate it when you're walking your dogs, and some guy trying to get across town in the winter is biking on the only surface where you won't risk being permanently damaged by a car or truck? At the end of the day, it's the fault of the cyclist for not respecting the rules of the road that he has been given.

from the comments

Code: Select alllast summer, I was walking my 5 police-trained rotweilers on Spadina when this three-year old bitch came racing towards us on a green, plastic dragon-cycle. Panicking, I unleashed one of the dogs on her to immobilize her before she could cause any damage. But the dogs and I were still noticably upset for a few minutes after the incident.

.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13619147
In Canada, it depends on which city you're in, and in Montreal, on what neighborhood.

In English neighborhoods, you must obey the rules of the road. And one of the expensive Anglo suburbs (Westmount) has some kind of helmet law.

The French parts of the city are much more bike friendly, and less "by the book" with traffic rules.

Toronto is all Anglo city, so it's much more helmets-and-rules.
User avatar
By peterm1988
#13619200
All depends how wide the pavements are, doesn't it?

I used to get very angry with people riding on the pavement in London, but in Berlin or Tel Aviv, it's less of an issue, given how wide a lot of the pavements are.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13619303
Hmmm. I am both one of those cyclists who people bitch about riding on side walks, and one of the people who bitch about cyclists riding on side walks. For those who think this is hypocritical, worry not, context changes it a great deal. In those areas where I cycle on the sidewalks, I do so because the roads are dangerous and there are either no bike paths or there is a local driver culture that ignores those bike paths. I do not complain when cyclists cycle on the side walk in similar situations, even though I am a pedestrian the overwhelming majority of my time on the sidewalk.

In those areas where there are respected bike paths, I condemn those cyclists who obviously are not new to it and who ride on the sidewalk.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13621581
In those areas where there are respected bike paths, I condemn those cyclists who obviously are not new to it and who ride on the sidewalk.

As long as there is enough space for pedestrians and cyclists, they get along just great.

Cars take up too much room, and are incompatible with other users because they're too dangerous.

Cars belong in suburbia and the countryside only. And yet, it's the bicycle that gets criticized for not wanting to be in dangerous situations with cars.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13621595
Typical anti-car rant again, so soon, Qatz? :lol:

Helmets are about bike safety, not fascism. :moron: An old school pal of mine, suffered brain damage from a bicycle accident. He HAD a helmet on and would be dead otherwise! I'm a health and safety coordinator and I can tell when things are done for safety ,and when they're just bureaucratic nonsense. Then again, if someone is stupid enough to ride a bike or motorcycle, without a helmet, their parents were probably fishing from the shallow end of the gene pool, anyhow.

Cyclists using sidewalks(when necessary) should use the same type of caution that a car on the road uses for cyclists. (Don't start a rant about how bad car drivers are, I've seen cyclists cutting off cars, and narrowly avoiding killing themselves) I've used sidewalks when the road was too dangerous(no shoulder, or gravel shoulders). I slowed for pedestrians and had no problems. Vancouver has many bicycle lanes now, so the sidewalks are unnecessary.

QatzelOk wrote:Cars take up too much room, and are incompatible with other users because they're too dangerous.
The same could be said about bicycles being incompatible with other users because they are too dangerous. I would also add impractical.

QatzelOk wrote:Cars belong in suburbia and the countryside only. And yet, it's the bicycle that gets criticized for not wanting to be in dangerous situations with cars.
:roll: Bullshit lies, as usual. The drivers get criticized just as much when it comes to sharing the roads, only you're purposefully, and willfully ignorant, of that fact. There would be far less cycling accidents with there was licensing, safety courses and safety equipment for cyclists(like those Helmet Nazis you hate so much). Teaching drivers to be more aware of cyclists also needs to be done.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13623027
The same could be said about bicycles being incompatible with other users because they are too dangerous.

It could be said, but the speaker would be wrong.

Bicycles are about as dangerous as rollerblades. If given the choice, who would you rather be sharing a road with as a vehicle-less human being: cars or bikes?

Answer: bikes.

Car drivers seem to have lost their common sense because they now depend on their cars like a second pair of legs. Drivers respond to limits on cars like these were limits on where you can walk with your own two legs.

This explains why drivers can complain - with no irony - about bikes "taking up room" and "creating dangerous situations." These drivers are just defending their metal and petroleum super-legs.
By AnnoyingConservative
#13623045
Wow, ask a question and answer it yourself, nice. Cars go on roads. Bikes go on bike lanes, side walks, or out in the sticks where I usually ride, the road because cars rarely on there and we can move to the second lane when they are coming. And drivers are nice enough to slow down and let us move out of the way.

When I think of bikes on the side walks, I think of three diffrent possiblities. Ether the rider slows down and carefully weaves around people, the rider is a prick anyway and pushes his way though. Or if it's crowded, the rider might as well just get off and walk along the side walk until it's clear enough to ride.

btw, that comment about the rotweilers better be a joke because that's kinda sick. Sicking dogs on a little girl because she's on a bike.

Now this talk about 'Cars belong in suburbia' and whatnot. Where in your country's laws does it say that cars can only be driven in those areas?

Also, I hope you aren't taking to much from a quote from a columnist.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13623052
AnnoyingConservative, in case you didn't notice, QuatzelOk is one of the top trolls(his threads are usually designed for trolling too) and is anti- North American culture, anti-cars, anti-people, and anti- ... just about everything. Don't expect rational discourse.
By AnnoyingConservative
#13623055
Ohhhhh, that explains everything. I was wondering why my head hurt. It was from all the lack of logic.. non sequiturs. Sit penuria in scientia
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13623063
AnnoyingConservative, in case you didn't notice, QuatzelOk is one of the top trolls(his threads are usually designed for trolling too) and is anti- North American culture, anti-cars, anti-people, and anti- ... just about everything. Don't expect rational discourse.

But that's why he has a special place in our hearts, AnnoyingConservative. He's PoFo's mad mascot, if you will. :)

Just remember: never try to reason with The Qatz, and never insult him either. Stick to those rules, and you'll do just fine on PoFo, kid. :up:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13623399
Please try to restrict the subject of your discussions/inquiries to the OP subject: the anti-bike rants that are popular in popular media like the web versions of paper newspapers.

I've notice one of the tactics of anti-cycle writers (commenters, trolls) is to cite the Reason/Cato/Heritage foundations.

Always the same three.

Because no one real sticks to the same script?
By Pants-of-dog
#13628037
'Tever.

I ride my bike on the street.

Riding on the sidewalk is great for kids.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13628332
I ride my bike on the street.

Riding on the sidewalk is great for kids.

Last week, I went for a long bikeride after a snowstorm.

The roads were like skating rinks with a soft coat of snow on them.

Since the sidewalks were almost empty of pedestrians, they were prime bike path material.

In the natural world, you have to improvise and barter with the environment you are offered.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13628380
True dat. People must clear their sidewalks and there likely isn't many people out in the cold anyways, so biking on sidewalks makes perfect sense. I used to do that when I had a mountain bike, although it's a bit dangerous in winter. A bad wipe-out, with a broken arm, made me reconsider biking in winter. :hmm:
By Pants-of-dog
#13628659
QatzelOk wrote:Last week, I went for a long bikeride after a snowstorm.

The roads were like skating rinks with a soft coat of snow on them.

Since the sidewalks were almost empty of pedestrians, they were prime bike path material.

In the natural world, you have to improvise and barter with the environment you are offered.


Buy studded tires.

ABC on Parc has them. So does MEC on L'Acadie, and JR on Rachel.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians and children.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13628815
Buy studded tires.

There's always a product you can buy to avoid common sense.

But once you run out of surplus money, you will need your common sense, and it just might not be there anymore if you stopped using it a few credit cards ago.

Money is a blunt instrument just like a car.
By Pants-of-dog
#13628831
QatzelOk wrote:There's always a product you can buy to avoid common sense.

But once you run out of surplus money, you will need your common sense, and it just might not be there anymore if you stopped using it a few credit cards ago.

Money is a blunt instrument just like a car.


There are also products you can buy that make sense, like bicycles. Or did you steal yours?

One of these sensible products is studded tires for winter cycling.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13628859
studded tires for winter cycling

Voluntary simplicity says: "take the empty sidewalks, they're safer than the roads after a snowstorm."

I think he's just annoyed that he's been denied t[…]

Does Palantir See Too Much?

I suppose art does imitate life. All three optio[…]

Who will win the 2020 US election? (poll)

I expect Trump will look like he's losing narrowl[…]

@Politics_Observer Fox News is USA's state-spons[…]