« Police watchdog seeks help in cyclist death | Main | Study suggests women cyclists shouldn't set the bar too low »

03/30/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mitch

30 km/h? They will need to completely redesign the auto industry to make this practical.
Unfortunately life can't all move at the slow pace of your bicycle. Clog the streets with busses and cars going 30 km/h and it would take forever to get anywhere. This region has enough problems making forward progress on anything, the last thing it needs is to slow down even more.

Jimmy

Come on Mitch, no reason to be a hater. I happen to ride a bike, and maintaining speeds of 20-30k for excess periods of time is a bit tough for a cyclist. I presume the idea is to get traffic going at approx the same speed, which makes no sense as it is impractical. If everyone stayed in their lanes/posiyion on the road, we would be fine.

The cyclists need to understand their position on the road and if you want the same rights as cars, you'd better be prepared to obey the rules of the road.

Rule #1: The larger vehicle always has the right of way.

I won't even start to go into detail of the things i've seen cyclists do, but it is clear that cycling needs to be regulated, and drivers educated so we can ensure everyone knows what they are doing.


P.S. - It should be noted that THE ONLY reason the speed was reduced to 50/kph (that's what the speedo of my SUV says), is to allow for a crossing guard for the school....It has nothing to do with cyclists! Come on Bill, tell it like it is!

Rob Jakes

I believe that this desire for speed in transportation is driven by suberban sprawl. The quickly rising price of fuel will start a trend toward higher density urbanization which will further require that we start to reduce speed limits.

Locklin

Mitch: it works surprisingly well where it has been tried (eg. UK). It's only 10km/h slower on many residential streets, and it allows stoplights to be sped up.

James Dean

It would be great to slow down traffic on residential streets, but speed limits aren't going to do it.

When I'm driving, I could care less about speed limits. I drive at the speed that feels safe. I think that's been proven many times to be the norm.

Mike

What's the rush? It only makes sense when driving through a neighbourhood to value the lives of the people living and working there over your own personal convenience.

Jean

If it's not an arterial residential street, then something could be done with speed bumps or traffic calming circles.

In Vancouver, these are sometimes filled with community gardens. Check out the many examples:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/streets/greenstreets/photoGallery.htm

Since I did live in K-W, once upon a time, not all their residential streets need to be fast. K-W has great potential in some of the streets off of King St. By the way, I used to live off one of those streets... now a historic street for walking tours. :D

I know well, what it means to live and grow up on a calmer street in K-W: it was a one-way street off of King Street but just a 10 min. walk to the local bus stop.

Doug S

30 km/h? what a joke most cars idle that fast. The more i hear about this topic the stupider it sounds and the more frustrated i get. How do people not get it, roads are for cars, sidewalks are for pededestrians. Why should we make the roads accomodate pedestrans and bikes when we already have perfectly fine sidewalks? when a bike and a car collide it means serious injury,if a bike and a pedestrian collide it means very minor or no injuries. Why? because it already happens at very slow speed! so why make the roads slow too.

James Dean

Dear Jimmy,

When you start out by citing "rules of the road" that aren't actually laws, it doesn't help anyone.

A car does not have right of way over a bike any more than a mack truck has right of way over your car.

That might be the law of the jungle, but thankfully that's not the law of the road.

Jimmy

James Dean:

I fully agree with you regarding the law. Everyone should have the same priority on the road, and no one is less important than the next. What it comes down to though is survival, and what I am referring to is ignorant drivers/riders that say "hey, im in the right, so if they hit me, its their fault because I have the same rights."

My point is this: If you or someone you care about gets hurt because you have been hit by a larger vehicle, what does the law matter?

What is needed most is COMMON SENSE

Mike

Jimmy, while I think everybody plays a part in keeping the roads safe, shouldn't the greatest responsibility fall to those who pose the most danger to others?

Dino Snider

Even a 40 kph speed limit would be useful. That makes a car accident involving a pedestrian (or cyclist) much more survivable. Sadly, bike helmets are only rated for about 20 kph impacts (such as are experienced by the head of a cyclist who falls off a bike).
A road that FEELS safe at high speeds results in speeding. Subjective factors can be used to make drivers feel like they should slow down - this was in a book I read called "Traffic."

The comments to this entry are closed.