Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway
Aren't there certain sections of sidewalk that are also bike paths? I'm thinking of Jubilee near BDI and the stretch of Main or QEW (whatever it's called at that point) right by the Forks.
|
Yup, and on Main Street, and St. Mary's, and numerous other places where it's clearly a sidewalk, but there's no safe place for a bike, so the City doesn't want to make a decision either way and throws up cyclist yield signs so no one is ever right or wrong, and no one knows if they're actually on an AT path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew
^ there are bikepaths that sometimes run parallel to a sidewalk, but as a general rule, sidewalks are not bikepaths.
|
Except the city doesn't follow those logical rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter
Why do cyclists ride on the sidewalk? Because the feel that riding on the street is to dangerous. Given the attitudes of many in this city, hard to blame them.
Signage and implementation is also problematic. Coming off the pathway by BRT and crossing Jubilee, the sidewalk on Jubilee is labelled as MUP. Problem is that the sign is 50' from the crosswalk. Does that mean that the section between the crosswalk and the sign is not an MUP even though there is no physical difference? Of course not. No reasonable person would ( or expect someone else) to dismount, wak and then remount and ride where there is no difference except for the location of a sign.
|
I've been saying for YEARS that the city needs a complete overhaul of the way it handles cycling and AT signage. Even with the new lanes on Pembina there's nothing other than painted bike logos in the lanes (even though 6 months they're invisible) which only signals to bikes that they're in a bike lane. They need to be more clearly marked to motorists, as well as pedestrians - ESPECIALLY at the bus stops.