[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Do you really think this? In my experience people care about other people and don't want to harm them - this includes people who drive cars (although the cycling coalition probably doesn't want you to believe this).

According to this link, about a third of car-on-bike collisions are the result of aggressive drivers. So, do I really think some drivers intentionally violate cyclists' right to be on the road, leading to injury and death sometimes? Yes.

Further, these acts of aggression make a strong impact on how cyclists perceive the road. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of potential cyclists choose not to because they see how aggressive and crazy some drivers can be, and how little there is to protect cyclists (i.e. no protected infrastructure).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, there are rude crackpots out there who will yell at you or whatever, but they're not intentionally mowing you down, or you wouldn't be writing here. Furthermore, if this were happening on a regular basis, it would be in the news every day, and people would be going to jail for it.

So because I'm alive I have no right to complain about bad and aggressive drivers or advocate for the right to bike safely? That's an... interesting take. In your mind does anybody have the right to complain about anything or should we all just be happy and thankful that we're alive and not try to make the world a better place.

And again, about a third of accidents are the result of aggressive drivers, so a significant portion of accidents can be attributed to these “rude crackpots”

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If it were really that bad, then separated bike lanes wouldn't help you anyhow, unless there were reinforced concrete walls dividing the bike lane from the car traffic, and if there were, and people hated cyclists so much, they'd wait until you had to cross a street, or pull out a gun and shoot you. It sounds ridiculous, but that's how your assertion sounds to me. Ridiculous.

As long as there's a physical separation between cars and cyclists then most people on bikes will feel and be safe as it makes it harder for drivers to intentionally or unintentionally injure or kill cyclists.
The issue is drivers already have a weapon that’s better for intimidation than a gun, their car. Further, they can often excuse any aggression or intimidation that may unintentionally lead to injury or deathder with by saying it was raining, or the cyclist wasn’t flashy enough.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If you want to cling to the idea that it's really that bad, then maybe Keith was right - the only safe way to cycle is for underground tunnels for bicycles only. The cycling coalition should be lobbying council for this - they'd probably get it, though it might take awhile for them to get around to it, if you consider delays in other infrastructure projects, like Cogswell for example.

Again, a metre-wide bike lane or MUP is all anybody wants. That is usually enough to prevent unintentional and intentional road violence. If you want to put cars in tunnels under the city though then I think a certain Elongated Muskrat may have something to sell you.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The 16 year old kid in Texas, who in your article was described as trying to 'roll coal' on them but couldn't handle the truck enough to not hit cyclists, is an idiot nutjob (but even then apparently wasn't trying to run over cyclists), like many other idiot nutjobs out there in society that we have to put up with.

As you say, our society is filled with idiot nutjobs who drive cars the size of tanks. We can choose to do nothing about this and face the consequences (more deaths and injuries) or build some basic infrastructure which will protect all users of the road.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If there were stats available, I wouldn't be surprised if more people are injured/killed from mass shootings in the US, than cyclists intentionally run over by drivers.

So because if fewer people are being killed by aggressive drivers than mass shootings are we not allowed to complain about cyclists’ deaths and injury? If so I don't get what a lot of people are doing always complaining about bike lanes when I haven't heard of a bike lane ever killing somebody. Or did the cycling coalition cover that story up?

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As far as using Facebook (or twitter, or reddit, or instagram, etc etc) as a barometer by which to judge society's values... you shouldn't. If you want to read the worst that society has to offer, then those are good sources. But really... "step away from the facebook", you'll be better off for it.

I disagree. Online is often a dirty and scary place, but it absolutely impacts the real world and can be a barometer for how people feel. It’s obviously not a total reflection of everybody, but I think it can help us understand the state of society somewhat (ie it’s not pretty).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Nobody said that. I used examples where there can be so many things going on, including poor visibility, that can be conducive to accidents happening between cars and bikes... i.e. an argument for separated bike lanes. I'm arguing for the same thing you are, yet you still are trying to change the narrative to something I wasn't saying in the first place.

Sorry, I misinterpreted you and admit I was wrong. In my defense I haven't totally gotten used to writing on SSP and may miss some things).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I already said that I'm clinging to the 'build it and they will come' thing, but it still doesn't change my thought that I wish more people would use the existing. It's my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it.
All that said, I don't take "planning principles" as law, or fact, for that matter. Planning ideals have changed so much over the years, and current ideas will change in the future, depending on what is popular at the time. Again, feel free to disagree... this is just my opinion.

I will disagree with you, don't worry about that!

As a thought experiment, let’s say the idea that if you build it they will come isn't true. How would this work for car infrastructure - i.e., there's no roads, no highways, no nothing. Would we expect car to appear then? Probably not. Build car infrastructure though, then the cars will come.

Imagine a downtown without sidewalks - would people still walk? Probably a little bit but not as much as they would if there were sidewalks.

Now, we don't have to imagine, a city with barely any protected bike infrastructure. Will some people bike in the city? Ok course, as there's brave people who aren't that afraid of getting injured and people who have no other good transportation options. This however is a small minority of the total population. Build out a network, though, and people who may normall be more afraid of getting injured will start to bike more as the risk goes down.

Further, not trying to be facetious, but are there any cities that have not built it but are still good cycling cities? Every good cycling city I know also has good infrastructure (i.e., Montreal, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, certain neighbourhoods of Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa). Tokyo may be somewhat of an exception but they have narrow streets often that can act like traffic-calmed streets in North America, at least that’s my understanding of it.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The question is whether you think that the flyover ramp is worth using up half the cycling infrastructure budget, and are you OK with major sections of the cycling network not being done to pay for this (which you've already stated is a major reason why people aren't using it).

Is a flyover ramp vs an alternative solution, that is just as safe but less convenient, worth having an incomplete cycling network in the rest of the city?

Yes. Feel free to disagree or call me hypocritical, but I think this connection is critical for linking the two major population centres of the HRM core. Ideally though wouldn't have to be one or the other and we could build more protected bike lanes while at the same time doing this project.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Enough said.

Maybe I was wrong as I can't find the exact number. Still, the money runs out in 2024 so if this bridge isn't built before then the City is going to be on the hook for 100% of the bike infrastructure. If we care about fiscal responsibility then this shouldn't be acceptable.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Already discussed, and it's out of my hands anyhow. If (more like when) it's built, I hope it lives up to the expectations being pushed by the cycling coalition and all of their followers. Safe cycling should be available to all, and I hope that the choice build the super-deluxe bridge flyover doesn't mean that more people in other parts of the city don't have decent cycling infrastructure to use because most of the budget was blown on this.

That's fair enough. I don't think you're wrong for thinking that building a network may be more important than improving the link between Halifax and Dartmouth through this bridge concept. I can see both sides to this debate but am mostly pro-flyover because that's what the plans are and theoretically that should be what we’re currently prepared to build.

Unfortunately, while we're arguing about whether to go for the network or do this fly-over, nothing on the ground seems to really be getting built and at the same time a lot of people on here, and yourself included at times, argue that we have too much bike infrastructure which is a little crazy when you compare our city with others across the country.