Cycling Master Plan

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by adam

There are only a couple ways to get to Burlington from Hamilton - one is the highway, the other is York Blvd. Take away the bike lane on York Blvd. and you are effectively banning bikes from traveling from Hamilton to Burlington and vice versa unless they ride in traffic - which will be enough to stop the majority of the cyclists currently using those lanes. Banning was a strong word, you are right - but it was close.

ps - my sense of reality? I cycle along York Blvd. regularly, believe me, this is reality.

My gawd your reading comprehension isn't very good. Where did I say get rid of the bike lanes.

[adam]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance.

.

[flar]

If York Blvd. from Dundurn to Burlington were in Ottawa it would probably have the bike lanes, trucks and commercial vehicles would be prohibited and it would be bike only (i.e. closed to all motor vehicle traffic) for a few hours on Sundays.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by adam

.

And where in that statement did I say ban bikes and bike lanes. All I said was that I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads. There are plenty of alternative roads where they can be placed. Once again your reading comprehension is lacking.

[adam]

Here is a map that includes Hamilton's cycling lanes.
http://www.map.hamilton.ca/Static/PD...0-%20Urban.pdf

Most busy streets are that way because they are useful to get from one place to another. Bikes, just like cars, need to get from point A to point B. If we exile bikes to non-busy streets, we are saying that they are only good for recreation. This won't ever reduce the number of trips taken by car and it won't help get more cyclists in the city. How many people would hop on a bike to get a bag of milk if they felt safe on the route? Probably a heck of a lot more than those who do right now. For most, going to do a routine errand involves getting on a busy street. Its busy because it leads somewhere useful. Shake your head a few times if you think that cyclists only want to ride for 10 minutes in a park on the weekend. There are droves in the younger generation who want to bike to work and to do errands for exercise, reduction of fumes in the city, help get rid of the grip the car companies have on our government, and overall well-being. I bet that if everyone took a trip on a bike 2-3 times a week we'd see a reduction in heart disease, obesity and the unemployed would have more motivation to find work. Its hard to find time to exercise nowadays and bikes are the perfect solution.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

And where in that statement did I say ban bikes and bike lanes. All I said was that I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads. There are plenty of alternative roads where they can be placed. Once again your reading comprehension is lacking.

And what's to stop a driver from going into diabetic shock on an 'alternative' road? I realize many Hamiltonians see Main and King as expressways for getting through the downtown, but that is not the case for the thousands of people who live and work there. There needs to be bike lanes on Main and King because there are destinations on Main and King. Cyclists have places to go, just like drivers.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads.

I'm not convinced SUV's should be on busy roads.

[Jon Dalton]

Bike lanes should be on busy roads because bikes are on busy roads. It's hard for some people to get this but biking is transportation for a lot of us. Bikes could potentially move as many people as cars in this city. People who ride for transportation will take the most direct route, they won't detour because of the minute possibility of some freak accident like this one.

[adam]

I was cycling this weekend and noticed quite a few fellow cyclists along King St all the way from Gage Park to Queen St. Everyone kept to the far right side of the road. There was a retired man going rather quickly on a nice hybrid bike, a couple on mountain bikes going much slower, a man dressed in hippie regalia on a low-rider going very slowly and enjoying every minute of it, and then there was me on an old touring bike going quickly... Everyone was having a great time. A dedicated cycling lane along King would give cars a piece of mind and make cyclists that much more comfortable. They could use those yellow road buoys to separate the cycling lane from the road if necessary. Or maybe create a lane for carpoolers/bikes only.

The downtown is a compact little area perfect for cycling. Dundurn to Victoria is under 3km, the entirety of James St (from St. Joe's to the bayfront) is almost exactly 3km. So a cyclist can get from one side of the downtown to the other in less than 10 minutes!

[ryan_mcgreal]

Folks, it's abundantly proven that the best way to reduce the number of cyclist casualties is to increase the number of cyclists. There's a very strong inverse correlation between the rate of cycling and the rate of injuries/deaths.


(Source)

[FairHamilton]

Fuzzy logic....

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance.

Or 2 in a small car. Point?? Small cars shouldn't be allowed on busy roads?

I know this was just a freak occurance but it would make me think if I was a cyclist.

Or a motorist, or a pedestrian, or a public transit rider...... Could happen to anyone at anytime.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

And where in that statement did I say ban bikes and bike lanes. All I said was that I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads. There are plenty of alternative roads where they can be placed. Once again your reading comprehension is lacking.

It's busy roads that NEED the bike lanes the most in order to protect cyclists by allowing them their own space seperate from the main traffic. On quieter streets it doesn't matter quite as much (although they're always nice of course).

[Jon Dalton]

Ryan, for the win! Bike lanes result in more bike riding AND less bike accidents, end of story.

[bigguy1231]

A little reality check is in order. The city of Hamilton is not going to build bike lanes on the busiest roads in the city. Politicians in this city do not have the will to do so. Even if there was a demand for the lanes you will not see them on the busiest streets because the demand still pales in comparison to the number of people who will use their cars, bike lanes or not.

I realize in your idealistic fog, that most of you just can't see that. Cyclists are in the minority and always will be. Votes are what matters to politicians, and cyclists numbers just don't add up to enough votes to matter. Politicians will pay lip service to you, but when it comes to commiting money to projects, it's going to be a long time comming. There are just too many other priorities.

[omro]

Time for new politians then, if those currently in office are not going do what's best for the city and the people who live in it.

A bike lane is absurdly cheap to implement compared to other traffic altering measures. It's PAINT on a road. Have a pilot scheme. Try it and see what effect it has in six months and if it's had none, you repaint the roads back. Tada.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The city of Hamilton is not going to build bike lanes on the busiest roads in the city.

What's on the other side of those yellow stick thingies along Main and King?

Politicians in this city do not have the will to do so.

Which politicians, the ones who ratified the Transportation Master Plan which includes bike lanes? Or the ones who unanimously supported the public works report which moved the Shifting Gears plan into the budget phase?

Even if there was a demand for the lanes you will not see them on the busiest streets because the demand still pales in comparison to the number of people who will use their cars, bike lanes or not.

Unlike Montreal or Ottawa, where the demand also pales in comparison to people who will use their cars?

I realize in your idealistic fog, that most of you just can't see that.

See what? That Portland doesn't have a 15% cycling rate? That Amsterdam doesn't have a 40% cycling rate? Or are you suggesting that Hamilton has some unique cultural disposition towards the automobile that is not present in cities where cycling infrastructure has proven successful?

Cyclists are in the minority and always will be.

As is the case in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, New York, and just about any first world city. On a bad day in Groningen (50% cycling rate), cyclists are the minority.

Votes are what matters to politicians, and cyclists numbers just don't add up to enough votes to matter.

Quite true. Also very true in Portland, Amsterdam, Montreal.... wait, isn't this getting kind of redundant?

Politicians will pay lip service to you, but when it comes to commiting money to projects, it's going to be a long time comming. There are just too many other priorities.

See Transportation Master Plan, June 2007, endorsed by city council.

[ryan_mcgreal]

We have a situation in which a very large, heavy, powerful motor vehicle killed a cyclist and two occupants of a small motor vehicle. It boggles my mind in such a tragedy that anyone should suggest that the problem is the presence of the cyclist (or, by implication, the small motor vehicle) and not, you know, the actual vehicle responsible for killing three people!

I think Jack Wolters, Amsterdam's chief traffic safety officer, put it best when he said:

The target of the police is not to control cyclists and pedestrians. It is to control the most dangerous part, motorcar drivers. [emphasis added]

Sadly, I expect to see yet more magical exceptionalism to explain why this doesn't apply to Hamilton in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[ryan_mcgreal]

New report: cycling in Amsterdam is now higher than driving:

"The bicycle is the means of transport used most often in Amsterdam," reports Bike Europe. "Between 2005 and 2007 people in the city used their bikes on average 0.87 times a day, compared to 0.84 for their cars. This is the first time that bicycle use exceeds car use."

[ryan_mcgreal]

More evidence that the best way to make cycling safer is to get more cyclists on the road:

Cycling has almost doubled on London's main roads in nine years and increased by 30-50% in cities such as Bristol, Leicester and Leeds.

But it's really remarkable that despite the increase in cycling, casualties suffered by cyclists are still down by around a third. To anyone who doesn't cycle this might seem a bit odd. Shouldn't more cyclists mean more crashes and injuries? As those who cycle will know, however, the more cyclists there are the safer it will be for everyone.

CTC (the UK's national cycling organisation) found that the same phenomenon occurs if you examine different areas within the UK. Cambridge, where a quarter of people cycle to work, or York where it is about one in eight, have a much lower risk of injury for cyclists than places where you hardly ever see a cyclist on the streets.

Why does this "safety in numbers" effect occur? The vast majority of cyclist injuries result from crashes with motor vehicles, and most of these appear to be primarily because the driver "looked but did not see". Cyclists (and motorcyclists) have even given this type of crash a name – Smidsy, an acronym for the drivers' refrain, "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you!"

These type of crashes start to decrease as cycling levels rise.

One more thing:

At a population level, of course, not-cycling is far more dangerous than cycling. The life expectancy of non-cyclists tends to be two years shorter, with 39% higher all-cause mortality than cyclists.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I realize in your idealistic fog...

Facts are foggy things.