06-14-2017, 04:49 PM
(06-14-2017, 03:49 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-14-2017, 02:50 PM)Markster Wrote: Which is about as much as I expected. "It wasn't designed for bikes, so... oh well!"
As for the sidewalk cycling, I will continue to make judgements based on my safety. The new sidewalks in this section are thankfully much wider, reducing conflict.
This answer from Galloway really bugs me. I'm willing to accept a policy whereby cyclists are encouraged to use other routes to destinations and avoid busy through roads. But King is not a through road. I want to go places on King St. How can I do that? Am I as a cyclist simply not allowed to safely visit those businesses? If I was a business owner on that road I would be livid about such an answer.
Any road with no bike lanes should have a speed limit of maybe 35km/h or whatever a good speed limit for bicycles is, strictly enforced. If there is a need for motor traffic to go faster, then it needs to be segregated from bicycle traffic so that it can actually do so.
It’s weird. I think it’s fair to say that cyclists and pedestrians are getting more than lip service overall, but the same old double standard still exists, where it’s not taken as a given that they need to be accommodated by road design.