Halifax Active Transportation

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the "us vs them" mentality. Your first sentence displays it, labelling anybody who isn't 'rah-rah' over cycling on city streets as "anti-bike". This mentality is happening all over society these days, and it is not productive.


There are a group of people who aren't "anti-bike", but do look at the situation pragmatically. They see infrastructure as a finite resource and want to see it used most efficiently. They also see a fraction (~25%?) of road surfaces that have bicycle infrastructure installed being used by very few cyclists (by anecdotal observations) relative to the number of cars, motorcycles, buses, trucks that compete for the same space and wonder whether this is the best use of the infrastructure. This makes it more difficult and less efficient for the majority who use those methods (and, subsequently has a negative effect on climate change by causing motor vehicles to operate less efficiently... i.e. idling in traffic jams).

I'm not "anti-bike" by any sense of the term, and I have been supportive of bicycle infrastructure from the start, but lately I have wondered whether it's the best use of our resources to transport people in an efficient manner. After all this time I still see very few cyclists using the infrastructure and am starting to wonder whether "build it and they will come" is actually a realistic expectation.

IMHO, our city leaders have failed us in not planning for and providing an efficient transit system (i.e. combination of buses, trains, underground, etc.), and have jumped upon the popularity wagon of wanting to be viewed as being trend-setters, while ignoring the needs of the majority of the citizens. Again, IMHO, you take care of the core travellers first with excellent transit, which would naturally reduce car traffic, then you can effectively invest in great, separated, bicycle infrastructure (rather than simple painted lines that disappear in the rain and snow, and eventually wear off leaving unfamiliar people wondering what to do).

Tired of the "anti-bike" label, and the dumbed-down tribalism that seems to completely envelop this entire topic.

Has Halifax actually even tried implementing bike infrastructure though? There's like 3 protected bike lanes on the peninsula and each one is disconnected from the other. Halifax is behind every other major Canadian city I can think of in terms of AT infrastructure yet our urban structure should be able to support a greater number of cyclists than other cities due to the dense urban core of the city.

I'm sick of having to hear the same anti-bike arguments on here when I would think anyone who's spent any time at all thinking about transportation would recognize cars aren't the solution to urban travel and instead we need to develop safe and reliable options for walking, biking and transit.

Right now, transit and walking is fine in the core of the city and biking is only for the brave cause of a lack of infrastructure. As people who care about the urbanism of our city (which I would think would be everyone on this forum), I don't see why encouraging a more efficient way of getting around is so controversial.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Has Halifax actually even tried implementing bike infrastructure though? There's like 3 protected bike lanes on the peninsula and each one is disconnected from the other. Halifax is behind every other major Canadian city I can think of in terms of AT infrastructure yet our urban structure should be able to support a greater number of cyclists than other cities due to the dense urban core of the city.

I'm sick of having to hear the same anti-bike arguments on here when I would think anyone who's spent any time at all thinking about transportation would recognize cars aren't the solution to urban travel and instead we need to develop safe and reliable options for walking, biking and transit.

Right now, transit and walking is fine in the core of the city and biking is only for the brave cause of a lack of infrastructure. As people who care about the urbanism of our city (which I would think would be everyone on this forum), I don't see why encouraging a more efficient way of getting around is so controversial.

Halifax has wasted millions of tax dollars so far on this folly and is planning to spend millions more to build among other things a $10 million bridge off the Macdonald as an alternative to an inexpensive signalized crossing. While cars may not be the ultimate solution to urban travel, given how sprawly HRM has become due to decades of suppressing development on the peninsula, that is where a lot of the commuters are coming from. Walking and biking offer no solution for them. And HRM has proven for decades that they have no clue whatsoever on how to operate a useful transit system. As a result most commuters strongly prefer the private vehicle. Despite that obvious reality, HRM is reducing roadway capacity and making getting into the core far more difficult.

People on this forum have been talking about a more efficient way of getting DT for decades. LRT/BRT from Bedford/Sackville, monorails, a third bridge across the harbour with some sort of mass transit component other than Transit buses, tunnels under the harbour or subways on the peninsula, you name it. Nobody is opposed to them in principle although the financial commitment is massive. Cycling infrastructure is simply a paen to the current planning dogma that is seemingly mostly designed around the desires of college students. It is far, far down the list of effective solutions to the problem. Thankfully the general public is starting to realize that.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Has Halifax actually even tried implementing bike infrastructure though? There's like 3 protected bike lanes on the peninsula and each one is disconnected from the other. Halifax is behind every other major Canadian city I can think of in terms of AT infrastructure yet our urban structure should be able to support a greater number of cyclists than other cities due to the dense urban core of the city.

I'm sick of having to hear the same anti-bike arguments on here when I would think anyone who's spent any time at all thinking about transportation would recognize cars aren't the solution to urban travel and instead we need to develop safe and reliable options for walking, biking and transit.

Right now, transit and walking is fine in the core of the city and biking is only for the brave cause of a lack of infrastructure. As people who care about the urbanism of our city (which I would think would be everyone on this forum), I don't see why encouraging a more efficient way of getting around is so controversial.

HRM has spent millions of dollars implementing cycling infrastructure. Regardless of whether it has been well-spent, the city has devoted significant time, money, and resources.

Cars are part of travel in HRM. They are essential for many people who live outside the peninsula and downtown Dartmouth.

It will also be difficult to persuade people to give up their cars if transit continues to be unreliable. The recent spate of cancellations - which shows no signs of abating - do not help encourage people to make the switch.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Halifax has wasted millions of tax dollars so far on this folly and is planning to spend millions more to build among other things a $10 million bridge off the Macdonald as an alternative to an inexpensive signalized crossing. While cars may not be the ultimate solution to urban travel, given how sprawly HRM has become due to decades of suppressing development on the peninsula, that is where a lot of the commuters are coming from.

This is important too. HRM made and continues to make choices that negatively impacts urban intensification, which in turn impacts development of better transportation infrastructure. Protected cycling lanes and transit-as-first-option are far easier to implement with more people. Height restrictions, fixation on heritage structures (with no meaningful incentives to developers to preserve), and outright opposition to major developments (e.g., Eisner) make it more difficult to implement. That the same people both promote transportation overhaul while opposing the necessary conditions for success is why we are at where we are at.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Has Halifax actually even tried implementing bike infrastructure though? There's like 3 protected bike lanes on the peninsula and each one is disconnected from the other. Halifax is behind every other major Canadian city I can think of in terms of AT infrastructure yet our urban structure should be able to support a greater number of cyclists than other cities due to the dense urban core of the city.

I'm sick of having to hear the same anti-bike arguments on here when I would think anyone who's spent any time at all thinking about transportation would recognize cars aren't the solution to urban travel and instead we need to develop safe and reliable options for walking, biking and transit.

Right now, transit and walking is fine in the core of the city and biking is only for the brave cause of a lack of infrastructure. As people who care about the urbanism of our city (which I would think would be everyone on this forum), I don't see why encouraging a more efficient way of getting around is so controversial.

Here we go with the "anti-bike" label again.

I think the main issue I have with all the back-and-forthing is how it is being sold. The bike coalitions appear to be selling bicycling as being a replacement mode of transportation for the private car. While there is no doubt that bicycling is a good, fun activity that doesn't have any negative effects on the environment, and it is a viable form of transportation for some, it is not a viable form of transportation for everybody - and I will go out on a limb and say it's not viable for the majority, for a number of reasons. I won't list them off because it's obvious if you really think about it.

I tend to think of cities like Vancouver as the mecca for cyclists and cycling infrastructure. Though I haven't been there in about 7 years, I recall there were a lot of cyclists using the infrastructure, which I thought was a great thing - but still "a lot" appeared to be only a small fraction compared to the number of personal cars/trucks that were being used there. So even with Vancouver's high usage of cycling infrastructure, and vastly superior transit system, there was still quite a lot of personal vehicle traffic. All anecdotally, and I'm sure that the folks here who live in Vancouver or have more experience there can set me straight if I'm missing something.

So my point is... I love bicycling, and have always supported bicycle infrastructure, but I do have doubts as to whether it will ever have so much usage that it makes a sizeable dent in the amount of people that it moves around the city. However, it seems if I have doubts, and express them here, I'm labeled as "anti-bike"... which in my mind I'm not, but none of that seems to matter. So when I'm immediately labeled by somebody who knows nothing about me and doesn't even take the time to consider my opinion, it's hard for me to place any value on what they say.

Regardless, I still think the city should improve the cycling infrastructure, and hopefully make a complete-enough circuit that it will be a safe and useful way for cyclists to make their way around the city. However, I kind of wish that it would just be discussed in a more pragmatic fashion, without the labels and superlatives that turn some of us off. Just say that there are a lot of people who would like to be able to cycle safely in the city, and that it's a great form of exercise and good for the environment... don't, however, try to feed us a bunch of misinformation in an attempt to make us believe that in the depths of the winter that, like, 90% of Haligonians will use a bicycle to take their kids to school or hockey practice, or try to get to work on time if they live in Halifax and work in Burnside (or whatever permutation you want to come up with), pick up their groceries, etc. etc. In fact I would suggest that even on the best weather days in summer you'd still struggle to have more than 10% - 20% of commuters on bicycles (as opposed to those who answer in a poll that they would be "interested" without actually doing it, and continuing it on a long-term consistent basis) - of course that's just my opinion.
Just be honest and realistic, and I'm all in on supporting cyclists. Feed me B.S. and I'm not even listening anymore...

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Halifax has wasted millions of tax dollars so far on this folly and is planning to spend millions more to build among other things a $10 million bridge off the Macdonald as an alternative to an inexpensive signalized crossing. While cars may not be the ultimate solution to urban travel, given how sprawly HRM has become due to decades of suppressing development on the peninsula, that is where a lot of the commuters are coming from. Walking and biking offer no solution for them. And HRM has proven for decades that they have no clue whatsoever on how to operate a useful transit system. As a result most commuters strongly prefer the private vehicle. Despite that obvious reality, HRM is reducing roadway capacity and making getting into the core far more difficult.

I don't necessarilly disagree with this but for people who do live on the peninsula biking can be a useful way to getting around. Even with almost no infrastructure you see lots of people biking throughout the city. If we made it safe to bike the numbers surely would increase and there'd be fewer cars on the road, easing congestion and reducing air pollution in our most densely populated neighbourhoods. The bike lanes in question would serve local residents who deserve a good way to get around and that currently is not provided on the peninsula. Further, it's not like new bike infrastructure makes it that much harder for drivers, usually it just means a couple of parking spots get taken away or a turning lane is removed, not exactly a "war on cars".

Originally Posted by Keith P.

People on this forum have been talking about a more efficient way of getting DT for decades. LRT/BRT from Bedford/Sackville, monorails, a third bridge across the harbour with some sort of mass transit component other than Transit buses, tunnels under the harbour or subways on the peninsula, you name it. Nobody is opposed to them in principle although the financial commitment is massive. Cycling infrastructure is simply a paen to the current planning dogma that is seemingly mostly designed around the desires of college students. It is far, far down the list of effective solutions to the problem. Thankfully the general public is starting to realize that.

Concerning price, the cost of building solid bike infrastructure is ridiculously small compared to car infrastructure. For example, Nova Scotia apparently is going to spend $500 million on repairing highways in the next five years and nobody seems at all concerned about the cost of that. And that's just a couple highways, there's probably at least another few hundred million of dollars that are to be spent on urban and suburban road maintenance that no one will bat an eye at. Building a safe bike network on the peninsula could be done by just providing bollards to some of the main streets as opposed to some mega-engineering project that's necessary for road projects.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Here we go with the "anti-bike" label again.

I think the main issue I have with all the back-and-forthing is how it is being sold. The bike coalitions appear to be selling bicycling as being a replacement mode of transportation for the private car. While there is no doubt that bicycling is a good, fun activity that doesn't have any negative effects on the environment, and it is a viable form of transportation for some, it is not a viable form of transportation for everybody - and I will go out on a limb and say it's not viable for the majority, for a number of reasons. I won't list them off because it's obvious if you really think about it.

I tend to think of cities like Vancouver as the mecca for cyclists and cycling infrastructure. Though I haven't been there in about 7 years, I recall there were a lot of cyclists using the infrastructure, which I thought was a great thing - but still "a lot" appeared to be only a small fraction compared to the number of personal cars/trucks that were being used there. So even with Vancouver's high usage of cycling infrastructure, and vastly superior transit system, there was still quite a lot of personal vehicle traffic. All anecdotally, and I'm sure that the folks here who live in Vancouver or have more experience there can set me straight if I'm missing something.

So my point is... I love bicycling, and have always supported bicycle infrastructure, but I do have doubts as to whether it will ever have so much usage that it makes a sizeable dent in the amount of people that it moves around the city. However, it seems if I have doubts, and express them here, I'm labeled as "anti-bike"... which in my mind I'm not, but none of that seems to matter. So when I'm immediately labeled by somebody who knows nothing about me and doesn't even take the time to consider my opinion, it's hard for me to place any value on what they say.

Regardless, I still think the city should improve the cycling infrastructure, and hopefully make a complete-enough circuit that it will be a safe and useful way for cyclists to make their way around the city. However, I kind of wish that it would just be discussed in a more pragmatic fashion, without the labels and superlatives that turn some of us off. Just say that there are a lot of people who would like to be able to cycle safely in the city, and that it's a great form of exercise and good for the environment... don't, however, try to feed us a bunch of misinformation in an attempt to make us believe that in the depths of the winter that, like, 90% of Haligonians will use a bicycle to take their kids to school or hockey practice, or try to get to work on time if they live in Halifax and work in Burnside (or whatever permutation you want to come up with), pick up their groceries, etc. etc. In fact I would suggest that even on the best weather days in summer you'd still struggle to have more than 10% - 20% of commuters on bicycles (as opposed to those who answer in a poll that they would be "interested" without actually doing it, and continuing it on a long-term consistent basis) - of course that's just my opinion.
Just be honest and realistic, and I'm all in on supporting cyclists. Feed me B.S. and I'm not even listening anymore...

Building safe bike infrastructure doesn't mean forcing anybody to give up their cars or banning cars. All people want is a safe way to bike. In the case here, it is a neighbourhood with an already high number of cyclists but the status quo (no bike infrastructure at all) means it's dangerous to do so. This means there will be unnecessary injuries and deaths in exchange for a few parking spots or a turning lane. Since biking has numerous benefits for health, city finances, the environment and is a fun and efficient way to get around, and is something that should be encouraged rather than discouraged, the status quo is no good.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Building safe bike infrastructure doesn't mean forcing anybody to give up their cars or banning cars. All people want is a safe way to bike. In the case here, it is a neighbourhood with an already high number of cyclists but the status quo (no bike infrastructure at all) means it's dangerous to do so. This means there will be unnecessary injuries and deaths in exchange for a few parking spots or a turning lane. Since biking has numerous benefits for health, city finances, the environment and is a fun and efficient way to get around, and is something that should be encouraged rather than discouraged, the status quo is no good.

I'd really like to know what a 'high number of cyclists' is in terms of a real number.

Don't underestimate the value of even a single parking spot to a small retailer or to an individual with a mobility issue.

The ROI on road infrastructure is huge compared to bicycle infratructure.

I can appriciate your persistance and dedication to what you want, but suggest that your energy might be better directed to protesting our current city council and the Peggy Camerons of this city that work hard to keep the peninsula density so low that bicycle infrastructure remains largely unnecessary and increased road capacity more necessary as citizens have no choice but to live far from the city core, and in the absense of decent transit, have no choice but to use a private vehicle for commuting.

We don't have to speculate on whether or not there is a war on vehicles from the perspective of city council as council members have publicly stated it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Here we go with the "anti-bike" label again.

The problem is that there clearly are a few people on the forum who actually are "anti-bicycle" in that they oppose any and all bike-related initiatives, insult cyclists. They even claim that the technology is invalid by arguing all kinds of nonsense about when it was invented or even that bikes don't stand up on their own. They don't have nuanced discussions about the pros and cons of individual projects, supporting some and being skeptical of others. They oppose them all unconditionally. Calling out that type of behaviour isn't divisive; the behaviour is. There's no valid reason to pretend that these people don't exist or that their invalid knee-jerk reactions are actually reasonable just for the sake of seeming somehow more polite. An important part of any discussion is truth.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The problem is that there clearly are a few people on the forum who actually are "anti-bicycle" in that they oppose any and all bike-related initiatives, insult cyclists. They even claim that the technology is invalid by arguing all kinds of nonsense about when it was invented or even that bikes don't stand up on their own. They don't have nuanced discussions about the pros and cons of individual projects, supporting some and being skeptical of others. They oppose them all unconditionally. Calling out that type of behaviour isn't divisive; the behaviour is. There's no valid reason to pretend that these people don't exist or that their invalid knee-jerk reactions are actually reasonable just for the sake of seeming somehow more polite. An important part of any discussion is truth.

Definitely. It doesn't really matter what is presented against these views (traffic flow, business flow, general usage of public space) it'll be roundly dismissed as solely serving some sort of cyclist narrative or cabal, as if cyclists all get together in the shadows to think of ways of how best to inconvenience car users.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Definitely. It doesn't really matter what is presented against these views (traffic flow, business flow, general usage of public space) it'll be roundly dismissed as solely serving some sort of cyclist narrative or cabal, as if cyclists all get together in the shadows to think of ways of how best to inconvenience car users.

You have just described the HCC and to some extent their captive members of HRM Council and HRM Planning to a T.

BTW, I have yet to see a bicycle that stands on its own unless it is parked using a rack or a kickstand. It is an inherently unstable and thus dangerous form of transportation.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

All people want is a safe way to bike. In the case here, it is a neighbourhood with an already high number of cyclists but the status quo (no bike infrastructure at all) means it's dangerous to do so.

Cycling amidst vehicle traffic will always be inherently dangerous. I cannot understand the narrative that it can be made "safe".

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You have just described the HCC and to some extent their captive members of HRM Council and HRM Planning to a T.

It's a conspiracy!

Originally Posted by Keith P.

BTW, I have yet to see a bicycle that stands on its own unless it is parked using a rack or a kickstand. It is an inherently unstable and thus dangerous form of transportation.

I can't tell if this is satire or not.

Originally Posted by Keith P

Cycling amidst vehicle traffic will always be inherently dangerous. I cannot understand the narrative that it can be made "safe".

This is ultimately down to the way that people drive cars and not how people use bicycles. The only way it can be made safe is to either better educate drivers, better enforce road standards, or separate bikes from cars entirely where needed. How many people are killed in collisions with cars each year as opposed to collisions with cyclists? etc.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JHikka

This is ultimately down to the way that people drive cars and not how people use bicycles. The only way it can be made safe is to either better educate drivers, better enforce road standards, or separate bikes from cars entirely where needed. How many people are killed in collisions with cars each year as opposed to collisions with cyclists? etc.

That is like blaming the lions for mauling the drunk who jumped the fence and went into their pen. To excuse cyclists from responsibility for they way they operate their velocipedes in traffic and only focus on drivers as being the only cause is both absurd and nonsensical.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Building safe bike infrastructure doesn't mean forcing anybody to give up their cars or banning cars. All people want is a safe way to bike. In the case here, it is a neighbourhood with an already high number of cyclists but the status quo (no bike infrastructure at all) means it's dangerous to do so. This means there will be unnecessary injuries and deaths in exchange for a few parking spots or a turning lane. Since biking has numerous benefits for health, city finances, the environment and is a fun and efficient way to get around, and is something that should be encouraged rather than discouraged, the status quo is no good.

I think these are fair points.

One thing to note, that I think is a positive, is that for the most part the routes are often planned for streets that are not main routes for car/truck/bus traffic, but often parallel or able to achieve a reasonable route while reducing both the risk to cyclists and impediment to car traffic.

I still would prefer a higher level of discourse on the subject (from both "sides"), but I suppose it's not necessary, and not typical in today's style of "discussion". I'll still push back against anybody who refers to me as anti-bike or whatever, as disagree with that assertion, and in addition I think labels are just a symptom of lazy thought and disengaged conversation. I don't have any aspirations of changing the world, though, so there are no expectations being held.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The problem is that there clearly are a few people on the forum who actually are "anti-bicycle" in that they oppose any and all bike-related initiatives, insult cyclists. They even claim that the technology is invalid by arguing all kinds of nonsense about when it was invented or even that bikes don't stand up on their own. They don't have nuanced discussions about the pros and cons of individual projects, supporting some and being skeptical of others. They oppose them all unconditionally. Calling out that type of behaviour isn't divisive; the behaviour is. There's no valid reason to pretend that these people don't exist or that their invalid knee-jerk reactions are actually reasonable just for the sake of seeming somehow more polite. An important part of any discussion is truth.

Nobody is asking anybody to pretend something doesn't exist. I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest that polite, respectful conversation is more productive than labeling and name-calling, but perhaps I was wrong.

Duly noted. Let's move on.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Definitely. It doesn't really matter what is presented against these views (traffic flow, business flow, general usage of public space) it'll be roundly dismissed as solely serving some sort of cyclist narrative or cabal, as if cyclists all get together in the shadows to think of ways of how best to inconvenience car users.

This is mass generalization and an underestimation of the intelligence of forum members. These issues really can't be discussed by ones and zeros, there is a lot of grey area in between that really can make or break the discussions.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

They don't have nuanced discussions about the pros and cons of individual projects, supporting some and being skeptical of others. They oppose them all unconditionally. Calling out that type of behaviour isn't divisive; the behaviour is. There's no valid reason to pretend that these people don't exist or that their invalid knee-jerk reactions are actually reasonable just for the sake of seeming somehow more polite. An important part of any discussion is truth.

That same argument works when applied to our esteemed HRM Council though. They jam through cycling infrastructure projects without debate and unconditionally even if they are ill-considered or unsupported by factual data. See the Austinland degradation in DT Dartmouth and surrounding areas, with Wyse Rd a confusing mess of signals, bollards, bumpouts, obscure painted pavement warnings and signs designed to appease a non-existent or at best a tiny minority of the population, pushed through by an extremist POV from the councillor on the subject. One suspects he sketched out what he wanted to see on the back of a napkin, gave it to staff, and instructed them to build the amateurish measures now extant there. It is difficult to believe professional staff would come up with that, although who knows. HRM is now proposing to install speed bumps in the middle of certain intersections to "improve safety" for left-turn traffic, although how encountering such things where one does not expect to find them doesn't sound safe to me, so perhaps it is the staff who need to be held accountable.

But sadly that has been the pattern of this council for far too long. One of the early and most unfortunate moves was the use of the abandoned rail ROW up from Joe Howe Dr out towards Bayers Lake and the suburbs of Lakeside, Beechville, Timberlea and Tantallon for the COLT recreational/bike trail instead of the mass transit option that was/is so desperately needed. Could both have been accommodated on that ROW? I suspect so, but the caterwauling from the bike activists drowned out all rational discussion of that possibility and to my knowledge it was never seriously considered.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is mass generalization and an underestimation of the intelligence of forum members. These issues really can't be discussed by ones and zeros, there is a lot of grey area in between that really can make or break the discussions.

I don't think anyone is generalizing. We're referring only to the few people who behave that way, mainly Keith, Dargard, and The Crow Whisperer (who hasn't posted for awhile). Whether or not they're intelligent I don't know, but their behaviour is what it is, regardless of what that says about them. If you don't think the behaviour can be reduced to ones and zeros, then by all means encourage them not to do so.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is mass generalization and an underestimation of the intelligence of forum members. These issues really can't be discussed by ones and zeros, there is a lot of grey area in between that really can make or break the discussions.

I fully agree. Oddly, it is the cyclist community that seems to take to the ones and zeros POV the most, with cars=evil and cycling=good regardless of the reality of the situation. It is very frustrating, but I suppose it is symbolic of our level of discourse these days, just like the morons who attacked the Premier on Saturday by chanting slogans at him while he minded his own business in the stands with family/friends at a Wanderers game. I mean, really...

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think anyone is generalizing. We're referring only to the few people who behave that way, mainly Keith, Dargard, and The Crow Whisperer (who hasn't posted for awhile). Whether or not they're intelligent I don't know, but their behaviour is what it is, regardless of what that says about them. If you don't think the behaviour can be reduced to ones and zeros, then by all means encourage them not to do so.

Actually I think I can string an intelligent argument together and if that amounts to "behavior" then so be it. The cycling community can not handle folks that express an alternate opinion that is my case based on many decades of life experience. I feel very strongly about all bikes especially Motorcycles after a very tragic accident that happened to some inlaws back in the nineties .A young person pulled a 60 MPH wheelie that T boned my inlaws. They were under direct supervision of up state NY Motorcycle cops turning right at 3 miles per hour to marshal in a farmers field for a bike convention North of Albany. Mr flew 65 feet and went into Cardiac arrest. Mrs took the brunt of the contact and shattered her entire left leg. Both were in Comas from June 9 -Aug 15 of that Summer. They wolk up in a London Ontario Hospital on different floors 45 minutes apart. The doctors wanted to pull both plugs three times between June and August. The children would not agree. Mr has since passed on but Mrs is still in Ontario living as best she can with more metal than flesh in her left leg. Its kinda funny seeing her go through Airport security.

So sure jump on a bike. The odds are against you and society DOES NOT owe you a safe corridor. Make the proper Adult decision and buy a car.

Everyone eventually gets into an accident. Improve your odds and buy a car.

P.S. its going to be interesting with the recent narrowing of a section of Caldwell road . The Tim Hortons will be jamming up traffic and causing Chaos
as folks try to go through the drive through for the morning coffee. The tuesday morning Garbage trucks were already a pain in the butt. More frustration to come care of the city. Bikes will be safe and happy though, all twelve of them in a community of about 25,000.