Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Rant: Cyclists in Vancouver


Recommended Posts

I agree. My solution is to put the cyclist road along the pedestrian roads and make them follow the same rule as the pedestrians. For example, they cross the street when the pedestrian light turns to "walk." This way they won't clog up the traffic and the cyclists are not in the danger of getting into fatal accidents. If the cyclists paths are placed alongside the pedestrian paths, then the worst that can happen in an accident is that a pedestrian gets hit by an idiot cyclist and breaks a leg! Breaking one's leg is far better outcome than losing one's life. Where pedestrians are not allowed, bikers should not be allowed either for their own safety. Most of the bridges in Vancouver already has pedestrian paths on the side so all the city needs to do is to separate the pedestrian path into two, one for the pedestrians, one for the bikers and do not allow the bikers on the lanes of the bridge or the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good on paper but a lot of sidewalks on busy streets are so narrow that it's already uncomfortable when two people have to walk by each other. If there were bike lanes parallel to every major road, we could then ban cyclists from major roads.. win-win.

I don't have a problem with educating cyclists. But licensing them will cause recreational cyclists to end up driving, which causes more congestion. Vancouver has enough congestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like cycling but just a couple weeks ago, I was driving along Marine Drive stopped at a red light (the light where the buses turn into towards the Canada Line station). I was pretty far from the red light and my position was closest towards the sidewalk. As I was waiting for the light, a cyclist sped past my right window, crashed into my right side mirror, bent it forward, and didn't even have the nerve to look back. When it was a green light, I couldn't catch him because he was already out of sight. It's bent so forward that I can't even use the mirror anymore and I just got it fixed a month ago costing me close to $200 to repair it and now I have to bring it in for repair again.

Seriously, wtf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think cyclists are a problem in Vancouver, you should see it in Amsterdam.

Bike-blog--Amsterdans-cyc-006.jpg

bikes-parking.jpg

dc7a2ead3159d714b8e618d4fefb51b4.jpg

amsterdam1-articleLarge+(1).jpg

Actually, it's not as much a problem with drivers (as driving there is growing to be more and more rare), it's more a problem with cycling congestion and bicycle parking.

If Vancouver's headed this way, and it might be (Vancouver plans to reduce car trips to 33% by 2040), you can pretty much say goodbye to cars in the downtown core unless you're very wealthy.

Driver-Cyclist relation problems? Solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't ride a bike and I can't see myself using one - used to just blindly hate them - but I took a geography class on Cities that really changed my mind - too many roads and parking lots can really stagnate a city, or so I learned, as driving culture over pedestrian / public transit / cycling culture pushes back store-fronts to accommodate cars via parking lots, etc. This makes it a lot tougher for boutique and independently operated businesses to compete as they rely on foot traffic walking by as natural advertisement, as well as adding to the culture of a city.

Not to mention you can accommodate a lot more pedestrian/cycling traffic than you can vehicular traffic. "The city" is supposed to be a place with jobs and a cultural hub - thus people living in "the city" are expected to drive less as they live within cycling distance or have access to public transportation. Even before I knew this, if I wanted to go downtown, I either sky-train in from Surrey or find one place to park and travel the rest on foot if I'm going to be be-bopping around - it's a lot easier.

Back on-point to the OP - sure, cyclists should be subject to laws akin to those they share the road with. The bottom line is there just isn't enough space to provide infrastructure for everybody to drive and I can't see bikes going anywhere and these are issues that probably should be addressed as they become more prevalent.

As far as bike lanes, do they not alleviate a lot of the cyclist-induced problems of sharing the road?

How do other cycle-centric cities address this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing bothers me more than seeing cyclists on the sidewalk. We ripped apart half of this city to put in lanes for these pricks and they still opt to inconvenience pedestrians and use the sidewalk. Bloody cyclists think they own the whole city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To drive a car you must:

1. Be over 16 years of age.

2. Pass an eye exam.

3. Pass a written exam on the rules of the road.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of the rules of the road in the presence of a driving instructor.

5. Pass other medical exams if you are a senior.

6. Purchase insurance.

7. Purchase your driver's license.

8. Purchase your license plate.

9. Pay taxes for road maintenance.

10. Not be over an established intoxication limit.

To ride a bicycle you must:

*crickets chirping*

I believe that covers all of the rules that are enforced regularly. I find any argument or initiative to makes things easier for cyclists to be ridiculous. You want to cycle around, go mountain biking, need to get from point A to B, take transit or walk, need exercise, go to the gym, want to help the environment, don't have children. There is simply no legitimate need for cycling to the point where we need to re-think our entire city and drop other priorities to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

need to get from point A to B, take transit or walk,

Cycling is significantly quicker for many people who live in areas poorly served by transit.

need exercise, go to the gym,

Many people dislike the gym. Alternatives are good.

want to help the environment, don't have children.

Nothing stopping cyclists from refraining from reproducing.

There is simply no legitimate need for cycling to the point where we need to re-think our entire city and drop other priorities to do so.

You could say that about almost anything: Dog-walking, watching hockey, drinking alcohol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing bothers me more than seeing cyclists on the sidewalk. We ripped apart half of this city to put in lanes for these pricks and they still opt to inconvenience pedestrians and use the sidewalk. Bloody cyclists think they own the whole city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To drive a car you must:

1. Be over 16 years of age.

2. Pass an eye exam.

3. Pass a written exam on the rules of the road.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of the rules of the road in the presence of a driving instructor.

5. Pass other medical exams if you are a senior.

6. Purchase insurance.

7. Purchase your driver's license.

8. Purchase your license plate.

9. Pay taxes for road maintenance.

10. Not be over an established intoxication limit.

To ride a bicycle you must:

*crickets chirping*

I believe that covers all of the rules that are enforced regularly. I find any argument or initiative to makes things easier for cyclists to be ridiculous. You want to cycle around, go mountain biking, need to get from point A to B, take transit or walk, need exercise, go to the gym, want to help the environment, don't have children. There is simply no legitimate need for cycling to the point where we need to re-think our entire city and drop other priorities to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...