10-07-2015, 09:06 AM
(10-06-2015, 04:18 PM)Canard Wrote: Stood up for what? The needs of the few vs. the needs of the few?
I just hope the Region will be a bit firmer with a polite "no" on this one: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5943...-s-roads-/
I'm all for bike lanes (and obeying traffic laws, like stoplights) but permitting two-abreast cycling is a step far, far too far, in my opinion. If cyclists get to do that, I'm driving my smart car on the sidewalk.
Respectfully, it's not at all helpful to make comparisons between actions that are merely inconvenient, to ones that are dangerous. I know you're kidding around, but I don't see how it advances any conversation.
(10-06-2015, 09:14 PM)Canard Wrote: No, I still don't support it. It's like allowing someone to text behind the wheel, "just because nobody else is around". It's still unsafe. When I'm driving my Prius in EV mode, cyclists don't hear me coming up behind them and won't move over.
If your car didn't come with a horn, you should look at having one installed. I know it's not a requirement of law, but you shouldn't pass a bicycle if you think the cyclist isn't aware of your presence, even if you're giving the legally required meter of room. And, if a cyclist is taking a lane and hasn't yet moved over to allow you to pass, it's probably because he or she doesn't yet believe it to be safe. And you should be patient.
To be honest, I would find the argument that this move would slow traffic to cycling speed pretty compelling, if I believed it. I don't think it will slow traffic, but if it were to do so, that would be a positive in my mind. 99% of cyclists are never going to ride abreast or even take a lane for any length of time on busy streets. If they can be empowered to do so on local roads, and slow traffic to a more human speed, they'd be doing a great service.