Winnipeg Construction X

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Sure so side by side is not legal, but as a single cyclists I'm entitled to use a full lane (and always do so people don't try to sneak by me within a foot), so it makes no difference.

Also gas taxes are federal and provincial, in Winnipeg the city builds roads.

Even if drivers were paying more directly for roads (they're not), they also require significantly more money per user. If a cycle path was built independent of a road, it doesn't need nearly the level of underground work and support that roads do. So the point is moot.

No you aren't. The Manitoba Highway Traffic act says you have to operate "as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway"

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Also Manitoba law dictates cyclists are to ride single file when in groups. So. Yeah.

haha ok, well MB law also dictates that drivers are supposed to stop at crosswalks, fully stop at stop signs, signal their lane changes, stop rather than accelerate at an amber light, stay under the speed limit, and a bunch of other things that I see drivers fail to do on a daily basis.... So. Yeah.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

haha ok, well MB law also dictates that drivers are supposed to stop at crosswalks, fully stop at stop signs, signal their lane changes, stop rather than accelerate at an amber light, stay under the speed limit, and a bunch of other things that I see drivers fail to do on a daily basis.... So. Yeah.

And I see cyclists on the sidewalks, running reds, and driving the wrong way down streets. So yeah... what’s your point? Some drivers are assholes, so that means cyclists can can be even bigger douchebags?? Lol. The funny thing here is the cyclists im complaining about are the ones from Winnipeg... who drive their SUV’s to the country to ride their bikes.

[bomberjet]

Hell yeah I ride my bike on the sidewalk. Not going to put my kid out in traffic with the lunatic drivers.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Lolololol. They do not pay the same. Bikes do not pay fuel taxes or insurance registration fees. Also Manitoba law dictates cyclists are to ride single file when in groups. So. Yeah. As for the shoulder being dangerous. lol they are located in 60 and 70 km zones and the shoulders were widened and paved specifically for cyclists use. You’re also supposed to be as far to the right curb as possible when travelling on highways. not impeding traffic because you’re worried about your safety. Nothing like going around a blind curve on Henderson at 70 km and having to slam on your breaks because a cyclist is holding up traffic.

ooooh...i love this debate.

insurance pays for your $30,000 vehicle when to crash it....it does not pay for roads.

registration doesn't pay for roads.

gas tax pays for a very small portion of roads....but nowhere near proportionate to the amount of wear vehicles cause.

you know what does pay for the overwhelming majority of city roads?...PROPERTY TAXES....you know who pays property taxes?....CYCLISTS.

and they get way less in return than those who drive vehicles....in fact, if you only ride a bike or walk, you are heavily subsiding drivers.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Hecate

And I see cyclists on the sidewalks, running reds, and driving the wrong way down streets. So yeah... what’s your point? Some drivers are assholes, so that means cyclists can can be even bigger douchebags?? Lol. The funny thing here is the cyclists im complaining about are the ones from Winnipeg... who drive their SUV’s to the country to ride their bikes.

The point is some portion of people break the rules, in cars, on bikes, and any other mode of transportation, but it's stupid to hate the entire group because of the ones who do.
"that means cyclists can can be even bigger douchebags"
If you think cyclists are overall the bigger douchbags I'm not sure what planet you live on. For starters, the person with the 5000-pound vehicle is a lot more likely to fucking kill somebody than a cyclist on the sidewalk. Not to mention the guy in the car breaks rules for his own convenience/laziness, cyclists take a lane or the sidewalk usually when the other options aren't safe. But if you think drivers aren't the grandest douchebags you can't possibly spend much time walking in Winnipeg. Get out of your car for once and see a new perspective. I've gone from shocked to angry to irritated to just not being able to care anymore at the majority of drivers who ignore crosswalks when I'm waiting to cross with my 8 month-old in a stroller. If some driver kills my daughter someday I'll try to remember bikes are bad too because they go on the sidewalk sometimes.

[trueviking]

there are idiot drivers and idiot cyclists, no question...the difference is, idiot cyclists annoy you because you cant drive as fast....idiot drivers are controlling a 4,000 pound machine that can kill people.

I would definitely say there are waaaay more drivers breaking laws than cyclists....and the consequences are very different.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by cheswick

No you aren't. The Manitoba Highway Traffic act says you have to operate "as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway"

Exactly - so there’s no set distance. For me it’s not “practicable” to ride close to the curb because there’s gutters, and vehicles try and squeeze by. It’s most practicable (and fully legal) for me to ride in the centre of the lane to ensure my safety.

The below is From the cycling section of the City of Winnipeg’s website, in which you conveniently left out the part about cyclists being able to ride on all roads, and clearly implies cyclists should ride according to the conditions, and their comfort level:

“Cyclists can legally travel on all City roadways unless otherwise indicated by signs. The Highway Traffic Act states that a cyclist is to ride as far to the right of the lane as is practicable. The correct road position for a cyclist varies with traffic volume and speed, conditions and width of road, weather and cyclist’s skill level. Cyclists should ride far enough out from the curb to maintain a straight line of travel and avoid any hazards that might exist in the gutter.”

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There are rules for roadways with marked lanes, but section 112 applies to all roadways. You must yield to oncoming traffic if you have parked cars in your lane. Obviously if you were driving a larger vehicle on a narrow street with parked cars it would be reasonable to let you proceed as it is much harder for a large truck or a vehicle hauling a trailer to pull into a vacant parking space on a street. I would think that this would not only be reasonable, but just plain common sense. Unfortunately too many people here are passive aggressive and that has become worse in recent years . Drivers almost always used to wave to thank another driver for letting them in or when a driver allowed a vehicle to proceed when it really wasn't their right of way, but this seems to me anyways becoming more rare. It really is time to take the "Friendly" off of the plates and go back to "Sunny" or "100,000 lakes", whatever Minnesota might say about that.

As for Arlington that's an old streetcar route so although it is two lanes it is wide enough in spots to be used as a four lane roadway. So for example, northbound at Ellice or Sargent or N. Dame there is room for vehicles to go around the traffic that is turning left. I see nothing wrong with that.

You obviously didn't look at the 60 second driver I linked to.

Anyways, you're right about the intersections on Arlington. But in between it's one lane each direction with room for parked cars.

[trueviking]

I was a ‘car guy’ most of my life and a few years ago I traded in my little German convertible sports car for a rusty old Dutch bicycle, so I have lots of experience on both sides. Almost every time I go somewhere on my bike I encounter a driver gunning it to make a yellow light, or passing me too closely, or not looking for cyclists or pedestrians when turning, or not signalling when changing lanes, or rolling through stop signs like I’m not even there, or parking in the bike lane, or texting and driving, or simply driving too fast. All of those things endanger my life.

As a driver, I don’t ever recall feeling like I was in danger because of the actions of a cyclist. I feel in danger almost every time I get on my bike. I can’t ever recall slamming on my brakes as a cyclist blew through a light in front of me. Maybe that happens but I certainly do that far more often for drivers when on my bike.

I sometimes would be annoyed that a cyclist was keeping me from driving faster, but it was just that. Annoying. And I realize now that most of the time cyclists ride away from the curb is so drivers don’t try to squeeze past them at high speeds.

I truly believe these stories about rogue cyclists blowing through lights and weaving in and out of traffic are wildly exaggerated and are really more about annoyance because drivers believe cyclists don’t own the road equally and don’t respect the dangers they pose.

It’s easy to forget that you are operating a high speed 5,000 pound machine. When you are a vulnerable road user the dangers becomes very obvious. I wish all drivers would go for a bike ride in the city every once in a while. It would change how they see those annoying cyclists and maybe create a little respect for the machine they are controlling.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

The point is some portion of people break the rules, in cars, on bikes, and any other mode of transportation, but it's stupid to hate the entire group because of the ones who do.
"that means cyclists can can be even bigger douchebags"
If you think cyclists are overall the bigger douchbags I'm not sure what planet you live on. For starters, the person with the 5000-pound vehicle is a lot more likely to fucking kill somebody than a cyclist on the sidewalk. Not to mention the guy in the car breaks rules for his own convenience/laziness, cyclists take a lane or the sidewalk usually when the other options aren't safe. But if you think drivers aren't the grandest douchebags you can't possibly spend much time walking in Winnipeg. Get out of your car for once and see a new perspective. I've gone from shocked to angry to irritated to just not being able to care anymore at the majority of drivers who ignore crosswalks when I'm waiting to cross with my 8 month-old in a stroller. If some driver kills my daughter someday I'll try to remember bikes are bad too because they go on the sidewalk sometimes.

If you’ve ever been stuck behind a cyclist who holds up traffic on a RURAL provincial highway you’d know what I’m talking about. If you’ve ever waited 15 minutes riding your breaks because some cyclist has “taken a lane” for his own personal “safety” you’d know what I’m talking about. It becomes even more frustrating when the cyclist in question can move two feet over to the right and allow a dozen people to pass, but refuses too. ITS CALLED CONSIDERATION. Just because you don’t have anywhere to be, doesn’t mean I, or the other people you’re making wait, don’t. While you’re lazily cycling along. There could be a kid being rushed to the hospital with a severe cut or brain injury, or a wife driving her husband who’s having chest pains.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by trueviking

ooooh...i love this debate.

insurance pays for your $30,000 vehicle when to crash it....it does not pay for roads.

registration doesn't pay for roads.

gas tax pays for a very small portion of roads....but nowhere near proportionate to the amount of wear vehicles cause.

you know what does pay for the overwhelming majority of city roads?...PROPERTY TAXES....you know who pays property taxes?....CYCLISTS.

and they get way less in return than those who drive vehicles....in fact, if you only ride a bike or walk, you are heavily subsiding drivers.

We have a network of roadways that are used to deliver goods and services. So unless you as a pedestrian or cyclist hover in mid air and consume nothing, you’re getting the exact same value as everyone else. Where you’re not contributing is registration, licensing, and fuel taxes. Oh yeah and profits from MPI are used to fund all sorts of events over the province. Yup those evil drivers are helping fund things like the folk festival. And the opera.

[wags_in_the_peg]

I'm not going to get into this debate, but what I don't understand is why do we have 10+ ft wide sidewalks on both sides almost all along Portage ave? Can that not have a curb dropped in and make separate bike lanes? also, last year Corydon had a major rebuild and looks like it continuing this year, why aren't they splitting up the sidewalk to include a bike lane. do it progressively over time, we dont always need to remove a car lane to get a bike lane.

[esquire]

^ Normally I wouldn't be thrilled about cutting the sidewalks back, but considering how much space is wasted on Portage Avenue's sidewalks (just look at how much clutter there is... planters, benches, signs, mailboxes, newspaper boxes, etc. such that the actual walking path is really only a few feet wide in most places) there may be something to that theory.

Maybe with more efficient placement of all that junk there could be room for bike lanes and a sidewalk? Thinking back to Copenhagen with all its bike infrastructure, I have to say that the sidewalks were generally pretty narrow there... I don't remember seeing too many Portage Avenue style sidewalks there. Portage's sidewalks are built like it's still 1928 and the streets are packed with shoppers carrying bags from Eaton's.

[GreyGarden]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Just because you don’t have anywhere to be, doesn’t mean I, or the other people you’re making wait, don’t. While you’re lazily cycling along. There could be a kid being rushed to the hospital with a severe cut or brain injury, or a wife driving her husband who’s having chest pains.

God, you're just grasping for anything at this point... If the kid was being rushed to the hospital for a brain injury, the ambulance would turn on its sirens and everyone would have to do there best to move over, including the cyclist. I've never seen a cyclist hold up an emergency vehicle, but I've definitely seen some entitled guy in a 4x4 be in the way and stuck. Compare the size of the two, that alone should solve the issue you're wrestling with.

I don't understand this deep unease around people on bikes. It reeks of resentment, jealously and fear that the City is changing.

I've also never understood why people demand that bikes be held to the same standards as cars. They're so far a part in terms of the amount of danger they pose that it makes no sense to take that stance.

[esquire]

^ I'm not sure what's worse in Hecate's books, cyclists or all those cops building Maric Homes

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

I'm not going to get into this debate, but what I don't understand is why do we have 10+ ft wide sidewalks on both sides almost all along Portage ave? Can that not have a curb dropped in and make separate bike lanes? also, last year Corydon had a major rebuild and looks like it continuing this year, why aren't they splitting up the sidewalk to include a bike lane. do it progressively over time, we dont always need to remove a car lane to get a bike lane.

Portage maybe, but there's no way the sidewalks on Corydon are wide enough to be split into a sidewalk and a bike lane.

Originally Posted by esquire

Thinking back to Copenhagen with all its bike infrastructure, I have to say that the sidewalks were generally pretty narrow there... I don't remember seeing too many Portage Avenue style sidewalks there. Portage's sidewalks are built like it's still 1928 and the streets are packed with shoppers carrying bags from Eaton's.

Not really seeing how this is a relevant comparison. It all has to do with the overall width of the street. Narrow sidewalks work fine on a narrow street, as is usually the case in Copenhagen, but a wide street needs wide sidewalks. Especially a wide street with fast-moving traffic like Portage. If Portage only had a narrow sidewalk right up against the street, it would be a horribly uncomfortable place to walk.

That said, I think bike lanes could work on Portage. I'm just pushing back on the idea that since narrow sidewalks work fine in Copenhagen, they would work fine on Portage Avenue as well. It's not a one-size-fits-all thing.

For a European example to balance Copenhagen, take the Champs-Elysees. Massive wide road, massive wide sidewalks. If you replaced the wide sidewalks of the Champs-Elysees with the narrow sidewalks of Montmartre, it would be awful, even though the narrow sidewalks work fine in Montmartre where the streets are also narrow. It's all about proportion.

Also, I'm having a hard time finding it problematic that the sidewalks are built "like it's still 1928". Isn't that a good thing?? The mid-20th century saw aggressive narrowing of sidewalks all over North America in order to make more space for cars. That we still have wide sidewalks on our main drag is something to celebrate.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Also, I'm having a hard time finding it problematic that the sidewalks are built "like it's still 1928". Isn't that a good thing?? The mid-20th century saw aggressive narrowing of sidewalks all over North America in order to make more space for cars. That we still have wide sidewalks on our main drag is something to celebrate.

I take your point. But what I was getting at was the fact that since so much of Portage's sidewalks are squandered on random junk and are unwalkable anyway, then why not find a way to put that space to better use as a cycling lane?

Look at this stretch of Portage near Portage Place... the sidewalk is probably pushing 15 feet wide but I doubt even half of it is clear for actual walking. The other half has planters and other stuff in the way.

https://goo.gl/maps/jAS3QrXLNXuszP8g7

Even if you turned half of that ROW into cycling lanes, you wouldn't lose any of the actual walking path that exists today.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Hecate

We have a network of roadways that are used to deliver goods and services. So unless you as a pedestrian or cyclist hover in mid air and consume nothing, you’re getting the exact same value as everyone else. Where you’re not contributing is registration, licensing, and fuel taxes. Oh yeah and profits from MPI are used to fund all sorts of events over the province. Yup those evil drivers are helping fund things like the folk festival. And the opera.

Once again. Your registration pays for your car. It is not used to pay for roads.

Once again, your insurance pays for your car. It is not used to pay for roads.

Once again, fuel taxes pay for very little road.

Once again, the vast majority of roads are paid for by property taxes.

Once again, people who ride bikes pay as much property tax as drivers.

MPI pays for the opera?....LOL....since when does MPI make profit?

The societal cost of driving faaaaaar outweighs any advertising contributions from MPI.

If everyone rode a bike as their primary mode of transportation we would be so flush with cash we wouldn't know what to do with it all....we would have far lower health care costs, road maintenance budgets could be slashed by 90%.....there's 8 parking stalls for every car in Winnipeg. Imagine what we could do with all that land....maybe some infill development that reduces our property tax burden.

[Peggerino]

I'd prefer a car lane is taken away for a bike lane rather than sidewalk. A major reason Portage is so unattractive and has low sidewalk usage is all the motor traffic and the smells and noises associated with it. A better city would add a wide protected bike lane on each side and separate them from the road with a buffer with bushes or trees.