A proposal to keep pedestrian and cycling pathways from turing into “raceways” by city councilor, though local roads that once were public walkways are okay as raceways?
I’m not from Winnipeg, but this never works. Obviously, these people have not looked into the legal ramifications. A bicycle is unlicensed. This means there is no requirement to have qualified vision, testing, competency, there is no established form of measurement of speed, and no standardization of devices. Places have tried to license bikes for the last 150 years and all have failed. This has an extremely long history of being useless nonsense.
Absolutely every issue involving bikes is extremely simple to solve. All it takes is a designated right if way. Right of way applies to everyone all the time. Foot traffic needs to be reminded of this constantly. A right of way means one person in one lane. It is not a sidewalk, or optional. If you are in North America, and you are not on the right side as far to the right as practicable, you are on the wrong side. Every single problem happens because of stupid people that do not follow the right of way.
Sharing the roadway in the same direction is foolish. When a cycle must share the road, safest to be on the opposite side, to more clearly see oncoming traffic.
You may have misread, this is specific to multiuse pathways.
I was responding not to the article, but to the comment above me, which was stating that a cyclist in North America must be to the right as far as possible.
Perhaps I am the one with the misunderstanding then. I interpreted it as cyclists (and others) should be as far right as practical on pathways.
I grew up cycling on automobile roads, and was taught to ride on the left, so that I could be more aware and prepared for oncoming traffic. Riding on the right is trusting the drivers to avoid you, while riding on the left allows vision of the drivers as they approach.
I have no comment on if that is a best practice or not for a roadway.
On a multiuse path, however, it is not best practice.
This was overturned practice all the way back in the 1970’s IIRC. It creates higher speed collisions, panick situations, it is impossible for the faster approaching vehicle to gauge the speed of intersection, and it steals the ability to slow down to mitigate potential conflict and collision. It is wrong and it is based on terrible logic. I have commuted full time by bike for many years. I have been hit by 7 cars. Riding backwards is illegal and absolutely will get you killed. A car hitting you from behind is rare but is not even close to the biggest cause of crashes. The biggest issue is illegal u-turns and driveways entering and exiting the road. A driver in never going to look for backwards traffic before exiting a driveway. Drivers are licensed if a driver is incompetent, they should not have a license. This is the key legal issue that should be addressed but isn’t. There is a western culture stupidity about unqualified drivers allowed behind the wheel. This is incompatible with a completely inadequate public transit system and so there is no practical low bar for terrible drivers. The result of this lack of effective public transit is that we pay in blood and deaths instead of funded public infrastructure. Riding backwards as a policy only makes the problems worse; this has been proven legally and is the law everywhere.
You’re making huge changes to avoid one of the smaller risks of riding on the road, while introducing entirely new ones. Statistically, you are extremely unlikely to be hit from behind by an automobile while you are driving down the middle of the lane. You are less likely to be hit in the middle of the lane than at the far right. Yes, both do happen, but compared to other forms of car/cyclist collisions, they are not worth making a priority. You should be concentrating on entirely different issues to maximize your safety on the road.
The middle of what lane? Here in Michigan, bicycles are not considered at all during road planning. The most we get is a painted gutter called a ‘cycle lane’, which gets blocked by parked automobiles if it even exists. Recently a pedestrian was killed in a hit and run, and it didn’t sound as though the driver is even facing charges. Anyone not in an automobile is unofficially considered at-fault for such type of incidents.
In Toronto shared paths are limited to 20Kph, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
If close calls or accidents were happening, we should study the causes. Is it due to bikes going faster than it is safe? Due to pedestrians walking in the left/middle of the path? Due to poor visibility around tight corners? Each of those problems have different solutions.
We barely study the cause of accidents on our roadways in Canada and refuse to believe we could design them safer and instead consider fatal interactions with cars as “accidents”. I doubt governments are willing to study this in active transportstion paths given they barely want to fund the paths anyway and most municipalities still consider bicycle gutters as safe.
City’s should look at what the Finnish people are doing, IMO they seem to do it very well. Here is a great video for anyone interested in cycling pathways and how much thought goes into them.
If stuck behind a paywall try this link:
This didn’t work for me. But this did: https://archive.ph/EGNwj
Thank you
Paywalled.
I posted a link with the paywall removed in the comments incase anyone else comes up on the same issue.
Tyvm
Harder to do on mobile otherwise I’d likely have done it myself.
Instead of drafting new laws, administering fines, and criminalizing people who are just trying to get their fucking groceries home, how about spend that money on a second trail.
Need to keep the revenue flowing… Fuckin road pirates
Not everyone lives in a cityscape hellhole so we are going to need higher speeds to be able to not suck up people’s free time just to be able to get within range of a job without living in a sardine can apartment complex.
Not everyone can live within 1 mile of their job, and travel via bike – nor does everyone want to.
If you’re going to limit everyone and everything to 5mph, then you need an alternative that provides a quicker means of travel in rural/suburban areas.
cityscape hellhole
sardine can
🥱
This is an article about imposing speed limits on existing bike paths for existing people with existing bikes. Nobody (sadly) wants to take away your Dogde Ultra RAM 40K, and you’re still free to live wherever you want, dipstick.
Get back to r/fuckcarscirclejerk and have fun burning your strawmen with your fascist friends there.
Yeah, 6.2mph is silly even just from a riding perspective. I am not the most fit and I’m fairly sure I would need to force myself to ride that slow (and it’d probably feel less stable). Around other people sure.
12.4mph is not so bad, at least with my underpowered ebike I’d have to really put in a lot of power to go above that and it’d use up too much battery power (and thus range). If anything I stay around 9/10mph for efficiency (and it’s just a comfortable riding pace, also I have an upright riding position so not the most aerodynamic). My ebike’s motor cuts off at 15.5mph (even though again, it doesn’t really go that fast) because EU rules (even though I’m in the US).
6.2 is just over nine minutes a mile. Amateur runners typically move faster than that. 12.4mph would fall on the slow side for an amateur cyclist.
Not everyone can live within 1 mile of their job
why
