10-16-2016, 08:11 PM
(10-16-2016, 07:38 PM)curious_look Wrote: For the record, I do not have a speedometer on my bicycle.
Having a quantifiable threshold, like a speed limit, is much easier to enforce then something more qualitative ("courteous behaviour"), so I can see why that would be a proxy. Ideally you wouldn't be enforcing it on an empty trail when you could be going top speed, you would only be enforcing it in more congested conditions.
That said, I have had some very dangerous interactions with e-scooters on the spur line/laurel trail by Erb Street over the past month. I currently feel there should be some enforcement of signaling directions and passing for all wheeled vehicles in order to retain trail users.
Making a law that is intended to be broken is bad policy. We already know we won't be enforcing it anyway. Sadly, we already do this far too often, the multi-use paths are actually very good example of this. And having laws which are intended to be broken I believe is a major cause of people not following the rules, if one rule is made to be broken, why not all of them.
Another problem is, speed limit doesn't mean courteous behaviour, and everyone's idea's of courteous behaviour is different. I could pass a pedestrian way too close at 20 km/h, and make them feel very uncomfortable. Other pedestrians are simply uncomfortable being on the trail with bikes at all.
Building better infrastructure is the best way to reduce these "dangerous" interactions. Come out to the Iron Horse Trail Improvement consultation and demand a wider trail than is being planned. That's a real change that would make the trail safer and more comfortable, and functional for all users.
And do keep the scope of "dangerous" in mind, I have frequent "dangerous" interactions with cars. I far far more worried about that than I am about the occasional road cyclist who zips past me too close on the trail. Objectively I know one poses a far greater danger to my safety and well being than the other.