Halifax Active Transportation

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

350 kg? Good luck for the operator unloading that by him/herself. Seems quite silly really. Use the appropriate tool for the job.

Think of it more like a Purolator van loaded with a bunch of smaller packages with the cumulative weight of 350 kg. It would be unloaded one delivery at a time.

My biggest worry, when loaded like that, would be the ability to brake effectively - with only 3 narrow tires contacting the pavement - and its stability, as tricycles with the 2 wheels out back tend to be inherently unstable.

Noted in this episode of Top Gear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=QQh56geU0X8

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Think of it more like a Purolator van loaded with a bunch of smaller packages with the cumulative weight of 350 kg. It would be unloaded one delivery at a time.

My biggest worry, when loaded like that, would be the ability to brake effectively - with only 3 narrow tires contacting the pavement - and its stability, as tricycles with the 2 wheels out back tend to be inherently unstable.

Noted in this episode of Top Gear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=QQh56geU0X8

Well, yes.

I prefer this from Top Gear:

https://youtu.be/aK_Ru6tScBE

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Hey Keith, you might like this post I made on one of the Moncton threads from earlier this week:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1710

The city (of Moncton) may be looking at ultimately spending $6.5M to address an active transportation problem on Mountain Road up by Magnetic Hill. Traffic counts suggest only about 20 cyclists a day on this section of the road, and they almost all ride on the sidewalks anyway...........

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, yes.

I prefer this from Top Gear:

https://youtu.be/aK_Ru6tScBE

Loved it Keith, Loved it . Imagine there's no Bike lanes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Hey Keith, you might like this post I made on one of the Moncton threads from earlier this week:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1710

The city (of Moncton) may be looking at ultimately spending $6.5M to address an active transportation problem on Mountain Road up by Magnetic Hill. Traffic counts suggest only about 20 cyclists a day on this section of the road, and they almost all ride on the sidewalks anyway...........

That seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Hey Keith, you might like this post I made on one of the Moncton threads from earlier this week:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1710

The city (of Moncton) may be looking at ultimately spending $6.5M to address an active transportation problem on Mountain Road up by Magnetic Hill. Traffic counts suggest only about 20 cyclists a day on this section of the road, and they almost all ride on the sidewalks anyway...........

The data is particularly telling:

On June 18, two cyclists were counted using the bike lanes, while 14 rode on the sidewalk. On July 4, eight used the bike lane and 14 used the sidewalk.

In Halifax you can double or triple those amounts, but the percentage riding on the sidewalks is thankfully much less.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, yes.

I prefer this from Top Gear:

https://youtu.be/aK_Ru6tScBE

Thought provoking and not far from the truth, I think.

Clarkson was brilliant on that show - it's too bad that he was ushered off.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thought provoking and not far from the truth, I think.

Clarkson was brilliant on that show - it's too bad that he was ushered off.

...He was 'ushered off' for punching a producer because he wasn't happy with the craft services. I loved that era of Top Gear, but that's indefensible.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

...He was 'ushered off' for punching a producer because he wasn't happy with the craft services. I loved that era of Top Gear, but that's indefensible.

Not saying that I disagree with his punishment, simply saying the show lost much of its appeal after he was dismissed. That same brashness that likely led to him pulling an a-hole move like that also seemed to give the show its irreverent edginess that made it entertaining...

Edit: Not that this excuses assaulting another individual - that will never be right or defensible. However, noting that humans' emotional state can be affected in several ways by many things, I did note this from Wikipedia:

In his Sunday Times column on 19 April, Clarkson revealed that two days before he hit Tymon, he had been told by his doctor that a lump he had could be cancer of the tongue.

I still think that he must be somewhat of a jerk and would not want to work with him, but also think that there is usually more to the story than appears at the surface, yet we as a society (especially with the advent of social media) seem to be totally comfortable with judging a person regardless of whether we have complete information or not. This should not be considered an improvement of the way we live...

[Keith P.]

Clarkson was constantly in hot water with his BBC bosses for any number of transgressions, perceived or otherwise. In addition to his work on Top Gear he appeared in a number of other television shows, had various newspaper columns, wrote books and magazine articles, etc. All of them had him expressing opinions that were decidedly non-PC and which horrified the ultra-progressive BBC management, so that last incident was the excuse they had been looking for to get rid of him. Of course that meant the show they produced in his absence was very second-rate and almost nobody watches it.

Given the ability of institutions and govts to forgive far worse transgressions by some I think we should have learned by now it is as much or more about the person committing the dirty deed than the dirty deed itself when it comes to punishment.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In Halifax you can double or triple those amounts, but the percentage riding on the sidewalks is thankfully much less.

Maybe that is where they should be. At least when a cyclist collides with a pedestrian they have far less chance of killing themselves. Of course the luckless pedestrian may not share that view. OTOH, if their injuries are not severe you have the opportunity for rough justice to be meted out right then and there.

[MonctonRad]

At least in a bicycle/pedestrian collision, it is automatically the cyclist who is the perpetrator. In a bicycle/car collision, the cyclist always gets a pass........

[OldDartmouthMark]

Sorry, guys, not acceptable. I realize you are half joking (or at least I think you are), but sidewalks need to be a safe space for pedestrians. Nobody should have to suffer a head trauma or other injuries while walking on the sidewalk because they were hit by a moving vehicle.

I've had experiences where walking and cycling are mixed together (in Japan and Ottawa - and Montreal to a lesser extent) and had some near misses even though I was being vigilant in looking out for them. Not all cyclists follow the rules (limit speed around pedestrians, and warn them with a bell as you approach), and pedestrians are unprotected - so this is an unacceptable mix. In Montreal I saw a cyclist almost run over a toddler because he was riding too quickly through pedestrian traffic - luckily this did not turn out to be tragic, but once the risk is introduced the possibility is there.

You say it would be easy to determine who is at fault? Would it? Bikes have no licensing or insurance requirements and cyclists are virtually unidentifiable once they have their helmets and sunglasses on - plus there would not be a plate number to report. With no insurance and the possibility of the cyclist leaving with no identification, the pedestrian will be left to pay for their injuries and possibly not be able to work and pay their bills. Then there would be the legalities - once it's made legal for cyclists to ride on sidewalks, who will enforce the rules - what will the rules be? - who will determine fault?. I can see a lot of he-said she-said situations coming about ("he walked out right in front of me")...

There is an undeniable move towards cycling, and politicians want to appear to be trendy and ahead of the curve (even if it may not be necessary or practical, as in Moncton's case), so cycling lanes appear to be the best compromise (which it is, for both cyclists and motorists). But... pedestrians should not have to pay the price for this.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You say it would be easy to determine who is at fault? Would it? Bikes have no licensing or insurance requirements and cyclists are virtually unidentifiable once they have their helmets and sunglasses on - plus there would not be a plate number to report. With no insurance and the possibility of the cyclist leaving with no identification, the pedestrian will be left to pay for their injuries and possibly not be able to work and pay their bills. Then there would be the legalities - once it's made legal for cyclists to ride on sidewalks, who will enforce the rules - what will the rules be? - who will determine fault?. I can see a lot of he-said she-said situations coming about ("he walked out right in front of me")...

These are the exact same issues involved in mixing cyclists with motor vehicles on our streets. Perhaps we need to resolve those issues first. Registration and high-visibility ID numbers would be a start.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

These are the exact same issues involved in mixing cyclists with motor vehicles on our streets. Perhaps we need to resolve those issues first. Registration and high-visibility ID numbers would be a start.

Yes, except if a cyclist runs into a car (or vice-versa), the cyclist almost always comes out on the bad side of it, while the motorist suffers damage to their car (and likely a ticket or fine, and possibly increased insurance rates).

But yes, I agree, a vehicle is a vehicle and thus there should be accountability. I know the biggest argument against it is the cost to cyclists, and that some can't afford it - IMHO, why not just provide registration as a free, but mandatory, service - registration and plates. There would be a cost involved, but there is for everything - all taxpayers are paying for cycling lanes, so just add this one to the mix.

[Summerville]

YES! Police check points and a special police unit to track all of the cyclists, regardless of age. Okay, we can hire security guards to do this,...just pay it out of the traffic budget.

Insurance to cover all damage over and above the standard $500 or $1k deductible. The police officer or authorized city official can confirm that the cyclist has the proper insurance when they card the cyclist.

Better yet,...outlaw bikes, or as you say Keith,..."discourage the use of bicycles on streets"

I think we all know that the only answer is to have bike lanes.

[Northend Guy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

These are the exact same issues involved in mixing cyclists with motor vehicles on our streets. Perhaps we need to resolve those issues first. Registration and high-visibility ID numbers would be a start.

I agree with Keith on this point. A prerequisite for receiving registration should be a completion of a bicycle safety course. I don't think this needs to apply to recreational users in off-street areas, but a municipal requirement for street usage (perhaps in urban zones) does not sound unreasonable to me.

I am a fair-weather cyclist, and a motorist. Frankly it irritates me that there are so many cyclists who spurn road rules with no consequence. I absolutely respect the ones who do follow the rules, and have no problem with catering to them. And as a cyclist, I appreciate when drivers do the same. I do think that registration and visible ID numbers would go a long way towards making cyclists accountable for the way they interact with street traffic.

Make the course available in schools for kids a couple of times a year, even make it free for everyone (maybe take it from the infrastructure budget?). Safety trumps everything. It's true that bike lanes make things safer, but ultimately, individuals need to take responsibility for their own safety. If they choose not to, the rest of us should be able to hold them responsible. I understand that the idea of a registration system is distasteful to some, likely some of whom are responsible cyclists. It may even deter some from taking up urban cycling. IMHO, safety trumps convenience every time.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Northend Guy

I agree with Keith on this point. A prerequisite for receiving registration should be a completion of a bicycle safety course. I don't think this needs to apply to recreational users in off-street areas, but a municipal requirement for street usage (perhaps in urban zones) does not sound unreasonable to me.

I am a fair-weather cyclist, and a motorist. Frankly it irritates me that there are so many cyclists who spurn road rules with no consequence. I absolutely respect the ones who do follow the rules, and have no problem with catering to them. And as a cyclist, I appreciate when drivers do the same. I do think that registration and visible ID numbers would go a long way towards making cyclists accountable for the way they interact with street traffic.

Make the course available in schools for kids a couple of times a year, even make it free for everyone (maybe take it from the infrastructure budget?). Safety trumps everything. It's true that bike lanes make things safer, but ultimately, individuals need to take responsibility for their own safety. If they choose not to, the rest of us should be able to hold them responsible. I understand that the idea of a registration system is distasteful to some, likely some of whom are responsible cyclists. It may even deter some from taking up urban cycling. IMHO, safety trumps convenience every time.

Well said and very reasonable response.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

YES! Police check points and a special police unit to track all of the cyclists, regardless of age. Okay, we can hire security guards to do this,...just pay it out of the traffic budget.

Sounds Orwellian to me...

Insurance to cover all damage over and above the standard $500 or $1k deductible. The police officer or authorized city official can confirm that the cyclist has the proper insurance when they card the cyclist.

Started alright but went Orwellian again...

Better yet,...outlaw bikes, or as you say Keith,..."discourage the use of bicycles on streets"

Nope.

I think we all know that the only answer is to have bike lanes.

Seems to be the consensus of most...

See Northend Guy's post above. IMHO it strikes the best balance of anything I've read in this entire thread.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sounds Orwellian to me...
Seems to be the consensus of most...

See Northend Guy's post above. IMHO it strikes the best balance of anything I've read in this entire thread.

Bike lanes in HRM have proven to be a massive failure. Cycling is actually down since the program began. Anecdotally I was running around town today and saw a grand total of 2 cyclists on the megabucks MacD bridge bike track and one riding on the sidewalk adjacent to the Bedford highway. We are not getting any kind of return on that investment.