Halifax Active Transportation

[DartmouthSteve]

Cyclists can still get tickets.

And if their "bad behaviour" involves a car, they are more likely to die or be seriously injured.

Bad cyclists are not free of consequences.

[Drybrain]

Bicyclists aren't some group of scofflaws just riding around ignoring the rules of the road en masse. Most cyclists see those who ride dangerously or obnoxiously--going the wrong way on streets or in bike lanes, tearing down sidewalks, running reds--as annoyance, the same as most drivers see aggressive drivers as irritants or dangers. Same with scooter riders tearing sidewalks. No one is defending, but they also aren't representative of the median scooter/bike user.

Regarding stop signs though, it's true--I'll slow, check and yield to any oncoming traffic. If no one is there, however, I won't come to a full stop, because of the effort of stopping and starting. It actually makes sense to permit cyclists to treat stop signs as yields, for this reason. It's a different type of vehicle, some modest flexibility with road rules, based on vehicle type, is reasonable.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Most Car owners obey the laws of the road. It seems there are consequences when they don't. The 1% are in the ascendant thus their bubble of safety also includes an above the law clause.

Not true whatsoever. For instance, it's extremely common for motorists to exceed speed limits, often by a fairly significant margin. I've hundreds of car trips across the maritimes and several into Quebec and Ontario and and I usually set my cruise control to the exact speed limit. Yet any time there are passing lanes, I'm passed constantly. Like multiple cars per minutes and often at speeds that make it seem like I'm standing still. Just try setting your cruise to 110 on the 104 and see how motorist "obey the laws". I doubt it'll be more than 10 minutes before discovering that claim is total nonsense.

Another example is right on red. The law is that you treat it like a stop sign. Come to a complete stop and survey the intersection and cross walks to ensure it's safe, proceed only once it is. But I constantly have people roll through barely even slowing and having close calls with pedestrians. Same with red lights in general. The law is that when it turns yellow, you stop as long as you can safely do so. But I see a good 75% of people continue driving when they were perfectly capable of stopping with some literally speeding up trying to get through before it turns red.

The whole idea of motorists diligently obeying laws while cyclists are scofflaws is nothing but selective vision and confirmation bias. People who make criticizing cyclists their life's mission only focus on that and simply don't notice when motorists break laws because that's not something they're concerned about. If you're looking for something then you're much likelier to see if then if you're thinking about or expecting other things. Fact is, all laws are threats of a consequence in response to people not adhering to certain behaviours. There are two parts there, the threat and the consequence (enforcement). And if either part is missing then many people respond as such. And that applies to people in general. Not any specific group or category.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Not true whatsoever. For instance, it's extremely common for motorists to exceed speed limits, often by a fairly significant margin. I've hundreds of car trips across the maritimes and several into Quebec and Ontario and and I usually set my cruise control to the exact speed limit. Yet any time there are passing lanes, I'm passed constantly. Like multiple cars per minutes and often at speeds that make it seem like I'm standing still. Just try setting your cruise to 110 on the 104 and see how motorist "obey the laws". I doubt it'll be more than 10 minutes before discovering that claim is total nonsense.

Let’s talk about highway speed limits. They are generally the same today as they were when I was a little kid riding in the back seat of the family car back in the ‘60s. They have never been adjusted to account for twinned multilane highways, better steering, suspensions, tires and brakes on modern cars. In some jurisdictions in the USA major highways have a max limit of 80 or even 85MPH. Even here before the switch to the metric system there were sections of twinned highways that had a 70mph limit IIRC. Now you are breaking the law technically if you drive 68. Given the arbitrary and in many cases political nature of highway speed limits it should not be surprising that some choose to ignore them. Of course, locally the poster child for that is the 80km/h limit on the Circ, thanks mostly due to problematic sections with lots of entering/exiting traffic, but other sections where driving at the limit feels absurdly slow.

Looking overseas, there is the example of Germany where sections of the Autobahn have no maximum speed whatsoever. Yet their driving statistics do not show them to be particularly hazardous though that country has quite stringent licensing requirements that many here would fail. Regardless, complaining about being passed while driving with cruise control set to the limit on sections of roadways with little traffic and in good conditions seems like weighing something with a finger on the scale.

Another example is right on red. The law is that you treat it like a stop sign. Come to a complete stop and survey the intersection and cross walks to ensure it's safe, proceed only once it is. But I constantly have people roll through barely even slowing and having close calls with pedestrians. Same with red lights in general. The law is that when it turns yellow, you stop as long as you can safely do so. But I see a good 75% of people continue driving when they were perfectly capable of stopping with some literally speeding up trying to get through before it turns red.

Today I happened to be at the signals at the bottom of Nantucket Ave waiting for a green signal to go across the Macdonald bridge. Over in the far right lane that replaced the slip lane that was there forever before Sam Austin had it removed, enacted a “no right on red” prohibition, and used our tax money for some new programming and equipment for the signals there to install a dedicated right turn signal, a red SUV rolled up to the previously empty right turn lane and came to a full stop. It sat there for a bit, seemingly confused The rest of us were still waiting for our go signal as left turn traffic that was heading northbound on Wyse entered the bridge. Seeing no traffic actually continuing northbound on Wyse, the SUV inched ahead, stopped, inched ahead more, stopped again, and finally made a right turn on red despite a sign being posted high above the intersection prohibiting same. I can fully understand how someone not using that intersection regularly could make that mistake. It went from a normal intersection to one with confusing rules that is poorly signalled and signed to boot.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Most Car owners obey the laws of the road. It seems there are consequences when they don't. The 1% are in the ascendant thus their bubble of safety also includes an above the law clause.

Not where pedestrians are involved. I’ve stood on a corner waiting to cross and 10 cars can drive by, I often have to wait until there’s no traffic to cross safely.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Not where pedestrians are involved. I’ve stood on a corner waiting to cross and 10 cars can drive by, I often have to wait until there’s no traffic to cross safely.

If you’re just standing still like a house by the side of the road, not showing your intentions, perhaps a wave or a hand signal might come in handy.

[Drybrain]

It’s almost impossible for me to go a day without seeing a driver doing something either illegal or at least reckless. Yesterday a driver at Robie and Almon hit the gas at the green and made a fast right-hand turn in front of a crowd of pedestrians about to step out, for example. Tires squealing and everything. As Jet posted, pedestrians standing at an intersection, clearly intending to cross, can stand there basically forever unless it’s a marked crosswalk—most drivers simply do not stop at unmarked crosswalks, though they’re supposed to. And people are constantly zooming down my narrow street at 40 km/hr, which may not be illegal but is definitely not driving the conditions, and is reckless, especially given the number of kids around.

Aggressive driving is a plague, and it’s a vastly bigger problem than reckless cycling/scooting (not to excuse those either). And even relatively good drivers regularly violate the rules of the road; the above example of unmarked crosswalks being an especially common one.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Not true whatsoever. For instance, it's extremely common for motorists to exceed speed limits, often by a fairly significant margin. I've hundreds of car trips across the maritimes and several into Quebec and Ontario and and I usually set my cruise control to the exact speed limit. Yet any time there are passing lanes, I'm passed constantly. Like multiple cars per minutes and often at speeds that make it seem like I'm standing still. Just try setting your cruise to 110 on the 104 and see how motorist "obey the laws". I doubt it'll be more than 10 minutes before discovering that claim is total nonsense.

Another example is right on red. The law is that you treat it like a stop sign. Come to a complete stop and survey the intersection and cross walks to ensure it's safe, proceed only once it is. But I constantly have people roll through barely even slowing and having close calls with pedestrians. Same with red lights in general. The law is that when it turns yellow, you stop as long as you can safely do so. But I see a good 75% of people continue driving when they were perfectly capable of stopping with some literally speeding up trying to get through before it turns red.

The whole idea of motorists diligently obeying laws while cyclists are scofflaws is nothing but selective vision and confirmation bias. People who make criticizing cyclists their life's mission only focus on that and simply don't notice when motorists break laws because that's not something they're concerned about. If you're looking for something then you're much likelier to see if then if you're thinking about or expecting other things. Fact is, all laws are threats of a consequence in response to people not adhering to certain behaviours. There are two parts there, the threat and the consequence (enforcement). And if either part is missing then many people respond as such. And that applies to people in general. Not any specific group or category.

Let me give you some real life driving experience as I drive about 35-40,000 KM's per year for my Job. All 100 series Highways in N.S. are designed in dry conditions for 120 KM's per hour. I have travelled the region since 2008 and will set my cruise control at 120 and have sailed through dozens of RCMP speed traps at that speed.I have never been charged or caused any accidents but I have seen some very dangerous antics on the Road.BTW the most potentially dangerous situation in my experience is being around two Females travelling in a vehicle together. 75 % of the attention is on the shared conversation not the road.Again before the Social justice flame throwers get revved up, 35-40,000 km's per year for the last 17 years.

The right turn on red is no more in the region and I wonder where that peculiar Montreal rule was voted on by the majority of the travelling public. Of course it was implemented without that input, to there again, protect non existent Bikes. Eventually these rule changes will be challenged in court and hopefully physical harm will not be involved.

Folks are getting frustrated with the traffic congestion and the Premier is on notice . He also drives around here and he is hearing a head full. The Kingdom of the Bike may not last all that long.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If you’re just standing still like a house by the side of the road, not showing your intentions, perhaps a wave or a hand signal might come in handy.

Being 6’ 4”, standing three feet into the intersection, making eye contact with oncoming drivers, with my arm extended where I intend to cross; seems like a clear indication that I wish to cross the street; perhaps I need to carry an orange flag?

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Most Car owners obey the laws of the road...

I live near an intersection on a significant traffic artery where there is no left turn for northbound cars. I regularly see, with my own eyes, cars stopping traffic to make that illegal turn. I also regularly hear the accidents that result from that same behaviour.

I own a car, but live close enough to work that I walk. There is one intersection where I can rely on other motorists to NOT check the crosswalk - they're busy looking one direction for a break in traffic and as soon as they see one, they accellerate and start turning, THEN they may look the opposite direction. I've had to rap cars with my umbrella or hand. I change my route to avoid this intersection now, but I'd say a good 30% of the time, I've had this experience.

I've sped in my own car, not obeying the rules of the road, and most people I know would probably say the same. We get complacent, feel like we know our surroundings enough to be safe, and gauge that we can probably go faster than the posted limit.

We're kidding ourselves if we think any of the cyclist, pedestrian, or driver "groups" are superior to others. It's not helpful when you say car drivers are better than the other people, and it's not helpful when cycling promoters say they're morally superior.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by JET

Being 6’ 4”, standing three feet into the intersection, making eye contact with oncoming drivers, with my arm extended where I intend to cross; seems like a clear indication that I wish to cross the street; perhaps I need to carry an orange flag?

I'm only 6'-3" and don't have your clear advantage, lol, but still find myself in potentially dangerous situations where drivers don't look before starting a turn - usually in a rush to make it in where they see a break in traffic.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Yet unfortunately it jams up traffic on Brunswick if anyone wants to turn Left to downtown or Right at the corner in Daves picture. Folks are NOT attending weekend events in Halifax due to the traffic chaos. Hmm bike people are happy and the economy slightly melts.

I attended a grandaughters swim meet at Centennial yesterday and had to backtrack to eventually take Gottingen as Cogswell street was completely jammed with folks caught in the Gottingen/Cogswell intersection between lights. The rain did not make it feel very safe. No bikes at all.

Earlier this week I broke my vow to avoid DT when I had to go along this stretch to get to SGR and then Queen St.

I navigated the poorly designed roundabout at North Park and Cogswell, then immediately had to make a sharp turn to get on what used to be the main way to get to that part of DT, Rainnie Dr. In their infinite wisdom, HRM planners decided that Rainnie should no longer be that main artery, instead making Cogswell into that route despite it being densely residential on one side.

I recall talk from them at the time of making Rainnie not only into a bike route but also making it into parking. Of course Rainnie was also traditionally heavily used for DT parking on both sides. For some reason I had it in my head that the parking had been configured into 90 degrees to the curb on one side. I was surprised to see that it was all parallel to the curb on the north side the way it traditionally was, except that there was a lot less of it. On the side closest to the Citadel it was the usual unused bike lane of course, one wide enough for two lanes of cyclists. This was mid-afternoon and a Thursday and nary a cyclist could be found, quelle surprise.

Arriving at Brunswick was where the real eye-opening changes were found. The intersection with Duke was narrowed and traffic was backed up as described earlier. But getting onto Brunswick was where the really good bad stuff was found. A forest of green sticks and concrete curbs, road paint everywhere, and a very confusing mess of marked-up pavement nobody was using, quite possibly because it was just so confusing. There were not only bike lanes but what I would call "pens", rectangular sections with more stick and concrete serving some purpose of which I am unsure. This nonsense continued all the way to SGR, where parking has been eliminated on Brunswick entirely. Again, there was nary a cyclist to be found though there were lots of vehicles trying to navigate through it. What a mess. The HRM planners seem to think we are Santa Barbara.

[DBaz]

It is too bad this forum doesn’t allow blocking users. It would make it much more enjoyable for my infrequent visits.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by DBaz

It is too bad this forum doesn’t allow blocking users. It would make it much more enjoyable for my infrequent visits.

Not as effective as an outright block, but there is an ignore function. You'll still see when someone posts, and if anyone quotes them you'll get the full quote, but it's better than nothing.

User CP -> Edit Ignore List

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Not as effective as an outright block, but there is an ignore function. You'll still see when someone posts, and if anyone quotes them you'll get the full quote, but it's better than nothing.

User CP -> Edit Ignore List

Thanks!

[Keith P.]

It's too bad some members are so doctrinaire that they cannot see anything other than the One True Way.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by DBaz

It is too bad this forum doesn’t allow blocking users. It would make it much more enjoyable for my infrequent visits.

Seriously? How difficult is it to scroll past past posts you don't care to read?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Seriously? How difficult is it to scroll past past posts you don't care to read?

It appears all he wants is an echo chamber.........

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It appears all he wants is an echo chamber.........

Are you referring to me?

No, I absolutely don’t want an echo chamber, and I’m more than happy to have me opinions challenged. I will engage pretty much everyone else if I think I have a relevant point of view to share.

I just no longer want to see posts that cannot be limited to why it’s felt that certain development decisions are incorrect, even though I sometimes agree that they are. When every post seems like a personal attack on city staff, councillors, and by extension those that voted for them, I no longer want to even give the post any validity.

I know people who work in provincial positions and spoken to some of the councillors, and without exception they seemed committed to doing the best with the resources they have.

I’ve seen people say more than once that people say “oh, that’s just the way he is” in reference to the poster in question. That’s a weak excuse. Why should I not just put him on ignore? And by suggesting I shouldn’t voice that opinion are you not also advocating for an echo chamber?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by DBaz

Are you referring to me?

No, I absolutely don’t want an echo chamber, and I’m more than happy to have me opinions challenged. I will engage pretty much everyone else if I think I have a relevant point of view to share.

I just no longer want to see posts that cannot be limited to why it’s felt that certain development decisions are incorrect, even though I sometimes agree that they are. When every post seems like a personal attack on city staff, councillors, and by extension those that voted for them, I no longer want to even give the post any validity.

I know people who work in provincial positions and spoken to some of the councillors, and without exception they seemed committed to doing the best with the resources they have.

I’ve seen people say more than once that people say “oh, that’s just the way he is” in reference to the poster in question. That’s a weak excuse. Why should I not just put him on ignore? And by suggesting I shouldn’t voice that opinion are you not also advocating for an echo chamber?

I'm not looking for an echo chamber either. In fact, there are multiple times over the years where I've even gotten into long drawn-out debates with people I didn't agree and still didn't even consider adding them to the ignore list. But if you're referring to the person I think you are, I added them to the list too. If someone is just negative and says the same thing over and over again ignoring even the most solid facts and reasoning or aren't capable of discussing topics in a rational way, it's just a frustrating waste of time. It's the same thing in real life where you just have to learn to ignore such people because all engaging with them does is cause frustration and takes time and energy from other things.