• 8 Posts
  • 1.21K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle








  • I think there’s a disconnect of what people mean by fast and slow here. A slow cyclist is still going at 15km/h, and 30km/h isn’t even that fast,

    What’s the context? Country bike lane or urban trail? 30km/h on an urban bike trail is too fast. That’s why places that do post speed limits for cyclists often have them at 20km/h or slower.

    Whereas electric wheelchairs are optimized to move within walking speeds, so about 4-6km/h. Having someone move 5km/h share space with someone going 20km/h+

    I disagree. If you’ve even been in a sufficiently wide bike track, you’ll realize there are no real conflicts.

    The issue is that very few tend to be very wide, so any conflict is a result of the design, and not the concept.

    is like having roads that share 60km/h with those going at 20km/h.

    Yes, a single, narrow road in that scenario would create bottlenecks. Although, this is common on roads where farm equipment is used.

    The more accurate comparison would be a multi-lane road where slower drivers are on the right side, while faster drivers are on the left. They have enough width over those multiple lanes to avoid conflicts.

    We’re asking that bike lanes be sufficiently wide to also avoid conflict.

    Not to mention that some bike lanes are actually too narrow for wheelchairs to fit.

    100% agreed. Too narrow for bike trailers, cargo bikes, trikes, and mobility scooters.

    That’s why we need laws that make it mandatory to have WIDE lanes for these users.

    there’s entire sections of the city that have zero side walks as well, but those areas also have zero bike lanes despite allowing cars to go 40km/h or even higher.

    We have a few places like that around here. It’s unnerving to say the least, and I wish they were only going 40km/h… I’ve clocked cars and large trucks going well over 80km/h (in 50km or 60km/h zones) as I white-knuckle through on my bike.



  • Shared bike/pedestrian paths tend to be dangerous for both, because pedestrians tend to take up the whole width or jump right into the path of a bicycle or scooter.

    Anecdotally, yes, I’ve experienced that happening.

    Whether it’s statistically true that shared multi-use paths are more dangerous, I’m not sure. Data does suggest that wider is better.

    But in my experience, conflicts are common when you have narrow shared pathways, or have shared infrastructure in places where bike/pedestrian paths aren’t normalized.

    We have a section of trail along our waterfront that splits into a pedestrian and cycle path (dual lane) that’s separated by several meters of grass, bushes, and trees. This is well away from any roadways.

    While this might seem ideal, I can’t tell you how many times you get cyclists in the pedestrians on the wrong path, which creates even more conflicts because you’re expecting the separation.

    Granted, there are parts of the world that have different forms of cyclist/pedestrian separation that I don’t have here, so I can’t comment to how effective other forms of trail design are.

    Best practice around the world has been “make it as wide as you can”, and also having a centreline seems to reduce conflicts and speeds (interestingly enough!).

    When I have experienced conflicts with pedestrians (while I’m riding my bike or e-scooter), it’s almost always because they are distracted, don’t have control of their dog/child, or are walking in a group of more than 3 people and taking up both lanes of the pathway. I rarely, if ever, experience conflicts in sections where the path is wide.

    But perhaps the caveat of my experience is that I cycle defensively, always ring/call out when I pass, and never speed past pedestrians.



  • No, I’m saying I use a bike to go fast without a car.

    For sure, but bike lanes (of any width) aren’t really designed for fast bikes. Granted, wide bike lanes (like in some areas in Montreal) would accommodate fast cyclists because you have a ton of space to pass slow riders.

    Widening the lane and adding slow moving individuals increases the likely hood of an accident. Also makes the lane less usable by cyclists.

    But we currently have the same users on very narrow lanes… how would widening it make the problem worse?

    Yes, we would be inducing demand, but with wide lanes, this would be a non-issue.

    If you want better infrastructure for those with disabilities widen the sidewalk where they are already safe.

    In a perfect world, yes, I agree. Unfortuantely, you can’t have wide sidewalks and wide bike lanes and wide roads. There’s just not enough room or money for that.

    If you build a very wide “bike lane” that replaces a sidewalk and standard bike lane at the same time, you can build more of them, and they’d be safer than having a narrow bike lane and narrow sidewalk.

    The idea of bike lanes was to separate them from cars. How is making it a new sidewalk an improvement?

    You’re still separated by more space :)

    Ok, in this context, I don’t think that anyone is proposing simply building a wider bike lane next to cars. The ideal would be to do what other cities have done (Paris, Montreal, various cities in the Netherlands, etc.) and build “wide bike lanes” that are actually regular roads with no car access.

    If you frame it as a need for cyclists, you get very little support (in fact, you get push back from NIMBYs and carbrains). However, when framed as an accessibility right for people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, then you have more legal obligations to build this infrastructure up, and cyclists win at the same time.



  • We would need to be careful how we push back so he doesn’t have an excuse to start an actual war.

    I don’t think a single unhinged lunatic in all of human history ever suddenly became reasonable because their victims began walking on eggshells. In fact, the opposite happens. Just ask his buddy, Putin.

    Trump will do what he wants, no matter what our response is. So, we can tell the world that we will not cave to this madman, and hope that our allies back us up.

    Either way, we lose hard by not doing anything or being too light in our response.

    And yes, a war is possible - no matter what we do - that’s the unfortunate reality of having a lunatic in charge. We have the support of NATO if it comes to that. Trump will need to decide whether he wants to be dragged around town like Mussolini, or not.






  • I’ll just share with you my experience:

    I was also paying for a YouTube Premium family plan, but still got ads. What made me cancel was the fact that they’re still using trackers, so they were making money off me three times (subscription, ads, and selling my data)!

    Coupled with the fact that “content creators” don’t really make content for the love of making it. It’s all created “for the algorithm”, especially the “watch to the end”, clickbait titles and thumbnails, “like and subscribe” begging, “only 15% of you are subscribers”, sponsored content disguised as education, etc… Videos today are nothing like they were 15 years ago, because it became solely about making money.

    Google is one of the pioneers of the enshittification movement!