Halifax Active Transportation

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

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.

I'm very sorry to hear about this tragedy and it does help to explain your emotional response. Often times trauma does lead to strong emotional reactions like that so I do understand. That being said, feelings, no matter how strong, don't make false beliefs suddenly become correct. Saying no one "owes" anyone a safe corridor isn't really true because it's one of the government's core roles to create safe conditions for its citizens. It wouldn't be any more valid to say no one owes you safe tap water so don't risk contamination by buying bottled.

Decisions about how to ensure basic safety simply come down to what works best, and there isn't enough room, infrastructure and other resources for everyone to use a car for all their transportation needs, particularly as a city grows. One of the key reasons the city is promoting active transportation is because it can't afford to build and maintain enough auto-infrastructure for everyone to drive at the rate they currently are. And even if there was, a person shouldn't be obligated to spend a huge amount of money and resources for the simple privilege of getting around in their daily life because of how poorly our communities are designed. And of course, the biggest source of danger to cyclists is motor vehicles (which are also the biggest source of danger to one another). It doesn't make sense to focus on the people at risk from danger rather than the source.

It's also absolutely untrue that bikes are inherently less safe than cars regardless of individual anecdotes. In fact, even without additional infrastructure, cyclists have better health outcomes than motorists overall due to the benefits of incorporating exercise into one's daily life despite the risk of accidents (which is much lower than with motorcycles). The fact is, the #1 thing that makes cycling safer is greater numbers of cyclists since it makes them more visible and causes other road users to anticipate them and drive more responsibly.

If you're interesting in putting together an intelligent argument, you'll make an effort to look past individual emotions and anecdotes, regardless of how personal and traumatic, and consider all the evidence. That can be a hard thing to do, but when you live in a society with other people, sometimes it's necessary. Especially given the much broader array of challenges our society faces beyond the individual risk of accidents.

[Nouvellecosse]

But hopefully there's one thing we can all finally agree on which is that there ARE some people on the forum who are "anti-bike." Acknowledging that isn't being mean, unreasonable, or impolite. It's simply stating a fact.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

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.

Sorry to hear about the incident. Only thing I will say is that bicycles are not motorcycles, and that getting up to a high-speed on a bicycle and putting someone into a dangerous situation isn't as much of a reality as it is on a powered motorcycle.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

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.

This is simply disingenuous. We shouldn't assume that accidents are bound to happen and should be doing everything in our power to ensure they're prevented.

I'm not sure where or why you've come to the belief that cyclists are not 'owed' a safe corridor. Anyone in any sort of urban environment should have the right to a safe corridor, whether that's via active transportation or as a motorist, and especially as a pedestrian. At the very least, cars shouldn't have exclusive authority to go whenever, wherever they like at the expense of other transportation users. Generally this is about finding a usage balance and one that makes the most sense for local users and residents; not a vindication of one mode over another simply because.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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...

Keith, this is an interesting statement. I would think that you past comments and those of Dartguard just now would indicate the opposite.

Every group has vocal people with extreme views. But I think that the silent majority of “cycling community” including many on this forum are probably car owners too and simply want sufficient infrastructure to be able to cycle in the city.

You will always have idiots who will bike alongside cars, just as there are idiots in cars. But making it easier to bike in the city (ie. several identified bike corridors) may actually pull some cyclists off the streets.

It’s not 1s and 0s. I don’t think the vast majority of cyclists want to rid the world of cars.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But hopefully there's one thing we can all finally agree on which is that there ARE some people on the forum who are "anti-bike." Acknowledging that isn't being mean, unreasonable, or impolite. It's simply stating a fact.

As a child, I had a bike. I enjoyed riding it, usually on the sidewalk. The few times I took it out onto a street or road, I did not feel safe either, because I knew that I should not be there because it was dangerous. I did not feel like I needed a special road for myself. Then I grew up and the bike went away. It wasn't because I was anti-bike. It was because I found a better way to get around.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Decisions about how to ensure basic safety simply come down to what works best, and there isn't enough room, infrastructure and other resources for everyone to use a car for all their transportation needs, particularly as a city grows. One of the key reasons the city is promoting active transportation is because it can't afford to build and maintain enough auto-infrastructure for everyone to drive at the rate they currently are. And even if there was, a person shouldn't be obligated to spend a huge amount of money and resources for the simple privilege of getting around in their daily life because of how poorly our communities are designed. And of course, the biggest source of danger to cyclists is motor vehicles (which are also the biggest source of danger to one another). It doesn't make sense to focus on the people at risk from danger rather than the source.

The city has not expanded auto infrastructure to any great extent in decades. In recent years of course they are removing capacity from that in favor of largely non-existent cycling traffic and the promised cyclists, who largely still have failed to materialize. In some ways it is like those folks who prepare for visitors from outer space in the belief that the truth is out there and will arrive eventually. Also, I am not sure why anyone would believe that government owes people anything without them having to pay for it. I never expected govt to buy me a vehicle if I wanted to get around when I lived out in the country. So you can well imagine my response to govt building cycling infrastructure at great expense that is largely unused and unnecessary for the vast majority. I cannot see us reverting back to a situation like what was once found in 1960s Communist China, now of course abandoned there.

[Dmajackson]

The bicycle traffic lights at MacDonald Bridge / Nantucket / Wyse have been activated. I've driven through a few times and cyclists seem to be navigating the area better now. The only issue is the new protected left-turn coming off the bridge seems to cause a bit of a line-up and drivers frequently run the red light. I imagine overtime this will balance out as more people opt to continue up Nantucket during the long green light.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But hopefully there's one thing we can all finally agree on which is that there ARE some people on the forum who are "anti-bike." Acknowledging that isn't being mean, unreasonable, or impolite. It's simply stating a fact.

I think we've all agreed on this all along. The point that you've apparently missed is the tendency to label anybody who questions any aspect of cycling as a viable way to move mass amounts of people is labeled as "anti-bike". I addressed it with the poster, and this poster didn't move to clarify the point.

However, no sense in beating my head against a masonry wall any further. Sure, let's just say what we want and whatever happens happens. I'll agree to that.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think we've all agreed on this all along. The point that you've apparently missed is the tendency to label anybody who questions any aspect of cycling as a viable way to move mass amounts of people is labeled as "anti-bike". I addressed it with the poster, and this poster didn't move to clarify the point.

However, no sense in beating my head against a masonry wall any further. Sure, let's just say what we want and whatever happens happens. I'll agree to that.

As the poster in question, I didn't make up the anti-bike label but rather used it to characterize a group of users on here who consistently and automatically oppose any improvements made to bike infrastructure and make ridiculous and unfounded points about cycling and people who bike. As more articulate posters than I have pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence on why cycling is good for a city but these users continuously choose to ignore it. I stand by using the term as labels have a purpose in communication and are used commonly on this forum to describe other sorts of beliefs or groups of people without controversy (e.g. NIMBYs, YIMBYs, DINKs, Yuppies).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

As the poster in question, I didn't make up the anti-bike label but rather used it to characterize a group of users on here who consistently and automatically oppose any improvements made to bike infrastructure and make ridiculous and unfounded points about cycling and people who bike. As more articulate posters than I have pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence on why cycling is good for a city but these users continuously choose to ignore it. I stand by using the term as labels have a purpose in communication and are used commonly on this forum to describe other sorts of beliefs or groups of people without controversy (e.g. NIMBYs, YIMBYs, DINKs, Yuppies).

Apparently I am the poster boy for the "anti-bike crowd" as you describe it. I do not object to that sobriquet if you wish to use it for me as it would be seen by many in the city (and myself) as a badge of honor given the insanity being undertaken by HRM. There are lots of us all around North America in cities that have gone down the same bike path to nowhere that HRM is following. I must also assume in that case that you and your fellow bike travelers will not mind being labeled "crazy cycling zealots" in return. Pls. advise.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

As the poster in question, I didn't make up the anti-bike label but rather used it to characterize a group of users on here who consistently and automatically oppose any improvements made to bike infrastructure and make ridiculous and unfounded points about cycling and people who bike. As more articulate posters than I have pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence on why cycling is good for a city but these users continuously choose to ignore it. I stand by using the term as labels have a purpose in communication and are used commonly on this forum to describe other sorts of beliefs or groups of people without controversy (e.g. NIMBYs, YIMBYs, DINKs, Yuppies).

Thank you for your clarification. It has helped me decide how to proceed in future exchanges. I, personally, despise labels (including the examples you gave), as they are almost always used in a derogatory fashion (or at least their reasons for being are derogatory), as well as being lazy and thoughtless ways to describe how you perceive people that you don't agree with, or just don't like for whatever reason.

However, since this appears to be how people (in this case, the cycling advocate community, apparently) prefer to communicate on this forum (and, more broadly, in the current culture), then I will have no choice but to allow myself to sink to that level (a "race to the bottom" as such).

Fair enough. It occurs to me how ironic it has become to criticize Keith for his honest (if brusque) views while essentially doing the same in return. Gotta love it.

[Nouvellecosse]

I just find it frustrating when people focus more on policing the reaction to harmful behaviour rather than on the behaviour itself. I think it's fair to say that we all respect the rights of people like Keith and dartguad to hold and express their opinions. In fact, I actually do want to know how people think because it's a reality of the world I live in, like it or not. But clearly we've all heard and understood them at this point and there's little to be gained by sabotaging a thread intended for interesting and productive discussion on the topic. It would be like it someone went to a public meeting and talked over everyone saying the same thing over and over, and then someone eventually said, "ok, we got it, now let's move on." but instead, it became entirely an issue of how unfairly the disruptive person was being treated. It's like when there's a protest of an important issue and some observers completely ignore the issue and focus entirely on critiquing the protesters regardless of how peaceful because it's inconvenient, disruptive, etc.

The hecklers would never tolerate such a thing considering the fuss any time someone even mildly critiques cars, car culture, or car infrastructure spending. I once commented on how unattractive Dartmouth Crossing is because there's a parking lot in the middle of the faux Main Street and one of them even got mad and started an argument about that. It wasn't even about whether cars were good or bad, but just where the parking was located, yet they were so sensitive toward any perceived slight against cars they couldn't stand it. Can you even imagine if I went into every thread about car related projects and complained after basically every post regardless of the actual content?

Yet when we complain about them doing it in the active transportation thread, a topic they seem to have no interest in productive discussion on, we're scolded for not being gentle enough with them. Of course, I wouldn't do that kind of trolling in car related threads such as highway projects etc. because a) I'm not that interested in those topics, and b) I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other since I realize I would need more knowledge about the background and specific details to form one since knee-jerk reactions aren't useful. And i don't actually have a binary "cars always bad, non-cars always good" stance like the anti-bike people since, as others have pointed out, most cyclists are also other things including motorists and pedestrians (both of which apply to me).

So I fully reject the false equivalency. It's just not a thing. People who advocate for active transportation friendly planning are not the same as people who reject it. And a "no to all active transportation plans" stance is objectively harmful in terms of the environment, economy, individual choice and public health/safety. They're not merely differences in personal opinion and taste.

[OldDartmouthMark]

There, we've all aired our grievances, so it's time to move on...

FWIW, I like cycling, it's a great activity - lots of fun. I also have a great interest in all other types of transportation: motorcycles, cars, trucks, trains, planes, you name it, I'm interested. I am also interested in how cities function, and how people (all people) get the best use out of its infrastructure, culture, and everything else for that matter. Halifax is my specific focus, since it's my hometown and it's the place in which I conduct my business and live my life - I want it to be the best place it can be, for everybody (which also means compromises for everybody, BTW).

As such, I will continue to follow the "Active Transportation" (i.e. cycling... why don't we just call it that) thread, and will comment when I feel motivated. Please don't try to dictate what I can and cannot comment on. This board exists for opinions and discussion, and I don't see any reason why any of us should change this.

The only change is that now it's clear as to how we will have these discussions, and I'm thankful for the clarity.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I once commented on how unattractive Dartmouth Crossing is because there's a parking lot in the middle of the faux Main Street and one of them even got mad and started an argument about that. It wasn't even about whether cars were good or bad, but just where the parking was located, yet they were so sensitive toward any perceived slight against cars they couldn't stand it.

For the record, it wasn't me.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As such, I will continue to follow the "Active Transportation" (i.e. cycling... why don't we just call it that) thread, and will comment when I feel motivated.

Can't change the title. Mark. "Active Transportation" is a convenient Planning dogma disguise to make it seem that cycling initiatives are about things other than cycling. It's always all about cycling.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There, we've all aired our grievances, so it's time to move on...

FWIW, I like cycling, it's a great activity - lots of fun. I also have a great interest in all other types of transportation: motorcycles, cars, trucks, trains, planes, you name it, I'm interested. I am also interested in how cities function, and how people (all people) get the best use out of its infrastructure, culture, and everything else for that matter. Halifax is my specific focus, since it's my hometown and it's the place in which I conduct my business and live my life - I want it to be the best place it can be, for everybody (which also means compromises for everybody, BTW).

As such, I will continue to follow the "Active Transportation" (i.e. cycling... why don't we just call it that) thread, and will comment when I feel motivated. Please don't try to dictate what I can and cannot comment on. This board exists for opinions and discussion, and I don't see any reason why any of us should change this.

The only change is that now it's clear as to how we will have these discussions, and I'm thankful for the clarity.

I didn't dictate what you could or couldn't comment on; I disagreed with something you said (mainly the false equivalencies and the idea that active transportation advocates are wrong or uncivil for calling out unreasonable antipathy). I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

In terms of the thread title, the opponents of active transportation provisions tend to be equally against pedestrian oriented decisions as well including pedestrianized street sections, wider sidewalks at the expense of any general road space, bump outs at intersections, etc. Their antipathy isn't limited to bikes.

One thing that's important to remember is that there's no point in trying to have fruitful discussions that result in compromises and common ground if one side simply isn't open to that. The anti-bike people have made it clear that they're not open to any such thing so they're a lost cause in that respect.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

...the opponents of active transportation provisions tend to be equally against pedestrian oriented decisions as well including pedestrianized street sections, wider sidewalks at the expense of any general road space, bump outs at intersections, etc. Their antipathy isn't limited to bikes.

That's quite a generalization and I'm not at all sure it's true. With the exception of comments on "bump-outs" (which are typically not "anti-pedestrian" remarks) I certainly haven't seen it borne out on this board, or anywhere else in general discourse.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I didn't dictate what you could or couldn't comment on; I disagreed with something you said (mainly the false equivalencies and the idea that active transportation advocates are wrong or uncivil for calling out unreasonable antipathy). I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

Reacting to your implications... i.e. I wouldn't do this in a car-related thread, therefore you shouldn't do it in a cycle-related thread (errr... "active transportation"-related). If it wasn't meant that way, then I retract my statement. Sometimes it's difficult to wade through some of the haughtiness of your posts... so "my bad".

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In terms of the thread title, the opponents of active transportation provisions tend to be equally against pedestrian oriented decisions as well including pedestrianized street sections, wider sidewalks at the expense of any general road space, bump outs at intersections, etc. Their antipathy isn't limited to bikes.

I don't think that's the case, though there have been some aspects that have been (IMHO rightly) criticized, such as some curb bump outs, which appear to have created problems (by anecdotal observations) with questionable benefit. But here we have it again... more generalization of people because they disagree with some infrastructure decisions that the city has made... so I suppose if I don't like curb bumpouts I'm "anti-pedestrian"? Which would be weird as I really enjoy walking.

Re: the thread title... really, how often is anything except cycling discussed here?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

One thing that's important to remember is that there's no point in trying to have fruitful discussions that result in compromises and common ground if one side simply isn't open to that. The anti-bike people have made it clear that they're not open to any such thing so they're a lost cause in that respect.

However, sometimes you have to look in the mirror. Having a discussion with a group that doesn't accept or consider criticism is equally non-productive. I was originally hoping to perhaps improve that level of discussion by pointing out negative labeling (for both sides, BTW, as I detest "cycling zealots" as much as "anti-bike" labels), but neither side seems to want to drop their weapons, so I now see there is no point in that discussion, since my idea was apparently super-unreasonable.

This has become silly. Can we move on?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, sometimes you have to look in the mirror. Having a discussion with a group that doesn't accept or consider criticism is equally non-productive.

I think the OP's decree in his signature line stating "Don't make debatable assertions" really tells us all we need to know.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Apparently I am the poster boy for the "anti-bike crowd" as you describe it. I do not object to that sobriquet if you wish to use it for me as it would be seen by many in the city (and myself) as a badge of honor given the insanity being undertaken by HRM. I must also assume in that case that you and your fellow bike travelers will not mind being labeled "crazy cycling zealots" in return. Pls. advise.

I think you're projecting a bit on the "crazy" and "zealot". Bike advocates simply want to be able to bike without being killed or seriously injured. The tradeoffs to achieve this are reasonable and have been done by many other cities around the world and North America.

If you want to use labels you can say "pro-bike" or "bike advocates" but since you seem unable to engage in any kind of mature discussion I'm not expecting your tone to change.