Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 356

rypinion · #**7101** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

1. Cyclist ask other vehicles for a meter of space when they pass but forget that when pulling up next to those same vehicles at lights.

2. Cyclists moving between the roadway and sidewalk as it suits their personal desires.

3. Cyclists using pedestrian crosswalk lights to force traffic to stop so they can ride across at an otherwise uncontrolled intersection. If a cyclist absolutely must cross there the proper procedure is to dismount first and walk your bike across.

And that is just the start of the list.

Are any of these even that big of a deal? Do they really inconvenience drivers that much? Driving must really stress people out if these things generate such hatred of cyclists.

I'm sorry but I'm totally of the opinion that cyclists are saving us all a boatload of tax dollars, so in terms of policy and in terms of my attitude as a driver I'm going to want make cycling as easy and inviting as possible. Especially when it comes to the Idaho Stop.

We all complain about taxes but then villianize every attempt to make transportation more efficient (bus, bike, walk).

rypinion · #**7102** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

So should motorized vehicles also be allowed to do a rolling stop at a 4 way when there is no other traffic? Traffic laws need to be applied in a uniform manner.

There's likely lots of examples in the city where a yielded or uncontrolled intersection would be safer than a 4 way stop.

rypinion · #**7103** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:10 PM**

This statement here is probably borderline trolling and not as extreme as my actual views, but this spins around in my head occasionally:

It's not 1950 anymore. All the (inefficient, expensive, unhealthy) car-only policies that GM invented and lobbied for are disappearing. The cities that don't get this are going to have billions in infrastructure deficit while other places are running lean cities backed by public transit, active transit, and a sharing economy.

Riverman · #**7104** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:11 PM**

^ I think the NDP is still looking for candidates.

bomberjet · #**7105** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:18 PM**

Cyclists want the best of both worlds. They want to be on the road just like vehicles, with all the rights vehicles have. But then jump sidewalks when it's convenient. Creep up along side all the vehicles at stop lights, when there clearly isn't room. Etc.

Next time I'm stuck in traffic with my car, I'll just ride the sidewalk by everyone! Being dramatic obviously. But it's the whole point of the situation. Then someone gets hurt or killed, and it's all the vehicles fault.

bomberjet · #**7106** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

There's likely lots of examples in the city where a yielded or uncontrolled intersection would be safer than a 4 way stop.

That wasn't the point of the statement. If there's a stop sign and no other vehicles. Is it okay to roll through? No, it's not.

Riverman · #**7107** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That wasn't the point of the statement. If there's a stop sign and no other vehicles. Is it okay to roll through? No, it's not.

Ask officer Frank. He sits across the street from my house and tickets hundreds of people a year.

steveosnyder · #**7108** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

^ I think the NDP is still looking for candidates.

I find this comment funny for 2 reasons: I agree with Rypinion and am a CPC member, will always be, and have never voted NPD, nor ever will. Second, judging by your post history, and the fact that we have mentioned age here a few times, it was your generation's debt laden spending habits that have put us in the taxation position we are in.

Traditional urbanism gives us the most tax dollars per acre of land. This is the type of development I like to see because it doesn't burden us further with even more liability. But while I support traditional urbanism, I do not go against suburban development provided they pay the full carrying cost of their development. This still doesn't happen, so I am against suburban development until it does.

CoryB · #**7109** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

Are any of these even that big of a deal? Do they really inconvenience drivers that much? Driving must really stress people out if these things generate such hatred of cyclists.

1. Cyclists travelling too close to vehicles is extremely dangerous. Cars stopped at the light could be making a right turn crossing the path of the cyclist and not be aware that their space has been encroached on.

2. Cyclists and pedestrians needing to share a sidewalk with the bike travelling at a hit rate of speed is dangerous to pedestrians. Add in the risks to both pedestrians and cyclists with closely fronted buildings such as those downtown.

3. If using the crosswalks isn't a big deal as you suggest and it is truly about "safety" for cyclists they should have no issue with taking the few extra seconds necessary to dismount and walk the bike across instead of breaking the law.

buzzg · #**7110** Posted **Sep 16, 2015, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Cyclists want the best of both worlds. They want to be on the road just like vehicles, with all the rights vehicles have. But then jump sidewalks when it's convenient. Creep up along side all the vehicles at stop lights, when there clearly isn't room. Etc.

I think here the issue is not that they go to the sidewalks when it's convenient, but when it's life-threateningly dangerous to actually stay on the road. Sure in a perfect world the cars would change lanes and go around in these situations, but they don't.

This is coming from someone who drives 95% of the time.

headhorse · #**7111** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 12:54 AM**

anyone at "On the Boards" tonight?

1ajs · #**7112** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 12:57 AM**

?

lilwayne · #**7113** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 1:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

?

its a restaurant with like board game theme

basically u get to choose a board game and play it while u order and eat your food.. the tables are big enough to accommodate this. theres a wide variety of games to choose from.. its pretty unique concept..

cllew · #**7114** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 1:11 AM**

Isn't "on the boards" part of the Winnipeg Design Festival 2015? they had a transforming downtown session called on the boards at the Forks from 18:00 to 19:30

http://www.winnipegdesignfestival.net/

1ajs · #**7115** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 1:17 AM**

o that place doh never been, all my game playing friends are members at skullspace where we have a nice sized collection of games as it is lol

headhorse · #**7116** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 1:18 AM**

yeah, I believe "On the Boards" is presentations on some current projects under development around the city.

1ajs · #**7117** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 1:18 AM**

the design festival is the weekend of harvest moon noooooooo

buzzg · #**7118** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 2:27 AM**

It's called Across the Board

The Unknown Poster · #**7119** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 1:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I can't say I've noticed this to be a major problem. Which laws do you see cyclists disobeying?

I routinely see cyclists ignoring stop lights and stop signs, not signalling, moving on and off sidewalks, weaving in and out of traffic.

drew · #**7120** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 2:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

I routinely see cyclists ignoring stop lights and stop signs, not signalling, moving on and off sidewalks, weaving in and out of traffic.

Other than the driving on sidewalks - I think we all see cars doing the same types of things, everyday.

There are shitty car drivers and shitty cyclists.

The shittiness is not exclusive to cyclists.