[No Vacancy]

"Young men" are proportionally more the ones who feel comfortable biking in the more dangerous situation out in traffic. Bike lanes make things more comfortable and safe for those non young men who tend to feel less comfortable in dangerous traffic.

Incorrect. Biking on major streets is an enormously risky endeavor. Bike lanes on major streets intersect with traffic frequently and end up posing a greater risk than streets without them.

You can wish people would just cycle as a hobby but that's also just complete denial of reality. People cycle to get around because they need to.

Cycling should be illegal on major streets. I'm 100% in favor of bike lanes on side streets.

There are bicycles on our streets and there will continue to be no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

I'm in favor of cycling on streets. Just not major streets. It's too dangerous for cyclists and it slows down traffic to a crawl.

Not everyone can afford a car, insurance, parking first of all. I'm glad you're fortunate enough that you can.

Again, take the side streets or public transit. Public transit in Toronto is amazing.

Also if everyone who needed to get around used a car that would more cars on the road creating traffic. With our population growing this will never be sustainable and cycling will only increase. People also cycle as part of their job (I hope you never order food delivery if you think cycling should just be a hobby).

You can only cycle about 4-5 months a year in Toronto. The rest of the time the weather is too inclement.

This is just reality. If you think we can create a magic alternate reality where cycling is just a "hobby" that's just pure fantasy.

As for "side streets" being the place for lanes, I challenge you as well to please specify what realistic viable side street routes exist to our major corridors for instance Bloor street. I'd be interested to see your map and specifics around how it would work.

You should not cycle on Bloor at all! It is way too dangerous.

 

[No Vacancy]

It's a real tell that in the middle of the worst housing crisis this city has seen in decades, investment landlords feel that they are the actual victims here.

Aren't all landlords "investment landlords"? Who is saying they're a victim? We will all be victims under a Chow administration, but the greatest victims, ironically, will be good tenants.

 

[toonderly]

Just had a robocall from John Tory urging me to vote for Ana Bailão because he is confident she will fix the city's finances.

 

[PinkLucy]

Incorrect. Biking on major streets is an enormously risky endeavor. Bike lanes on major streets intersect with traffic frequently and end up posing a greater risk than streets without them.


Cycling should be illegal on major streets. I'm 100% in favor of bike lanes on side streets.

I'm in favor of cycling on streets. Just not major streets. It's too dangerous for cyclists and it slows down traffic to a crawl.


Again, take the side streets or public transit. Public transit in Toronto is amazing.




You can only cycle about 4-5 months a year in Toronto. The rest of the time the weather is too inclement.



You should not cycle on Bloor at all! It is way too dangerous.

Guess what. Cyclists need to get places, because that’s what cycling is for. Sometimes that requires major roads rather than side streets that go nowhere.

What makes bike lanes dangerous? People driving cars dangerously. So how about we deal with that a d make alternative transportation better as so many large urban centres have done? A mayoral candidate focussing on that would have my support.

And a reminder that this is the by election thread so let’s get back to focussing on that.

 

[No Vacancy]

Guess what. Cyclists need to get places, because that’s what cycling is for.

So do motorists. Bikes on major roads make it more difficult for them, more dangerous for pedestrians, and bikers themselves.

Sometimes that requires major roads rather than side streets that go nowhere.

That's too dangerous for everyone involved and clogs the streets.

What makes bike lanes dangerous? People driving cars dangerously.

No actually it's the fact that bikes veer in and out of the lanes and intersect with vehicle traffic. They are dedicated, they are only partial. And they take up too much space on major roads.

It’s time to rethink the concept of bike lanes as a safe space for cyclists. Why? Because it’s impossible to structure bike lanes without vehicles turning into these lanes to get to underground garages, above-ground parking lots, and to make right or left turns at intersections.

So how about we deal with that a d make alternative transportation better as so many large urban centres have done? A mayoral candidate focussing on that would have my support.

I'm in favor of improving public transportation. Bike lanes are a menace on major streets.

 

[Northern Light]

So do motorists. Bikes on major roads make it more difficult for them, more dangerous for pedestrians, and bikers themselves.



That's too dangerous for everyone involved and clogs the streets.




No actually it's the fact that bikes veer in and out of the lanes and intersect with vehicle traffic. They are dedicated, they are only partial. And they take up too much space on major roads.






I'm in favor of improving public transportation. Bike lanes are a menace on major streets.

This is all off-topic trolling. Nothing more or less.

 

[No Vacancy]

This is all off-topic trolling. Nothing more or less.

It's appears that when you read things you don't agree with they are automatically labeled trolling. Might want to get that bad behavior checked out.

We were politely discussing Anthony Furey's campaign platform in the Toronto Mayoral Race forum.

 

[Northern Light]

It's appears that when you read things you don't agree with they are automatically labeled trolling.

I am well known as being among the most open-minded here and willing to entertain arguments and people with whom I disagree.

But the arguments must be made in good faith, by people of good faith, they must be germane to the topic of the thread and demonstrate some intelligible thought process.

That is not the case here. There is a cycling infrastructure thread here where you can post your widely discredited views that have been shown by evidence the world over to make no sense, those arguments have been had here before
and they were resoundingly exposed as ill-conceived before.

***

Your other arguments on other subjects are no less absurd, they are clearly designed to engage people in a flame war, and to degenerate a place of thoughtful discussion into the morass that is SkyscraperPage.

I'll pass thanks.

We were politely discussing Anthony Furey's campaign platform in the Toronto Mayoral Race forum.

This is inaccurate, you were baiting other members with comments you know to be infuriating and intellectually unsound.

Also, as Furey cannot be described as a credible contender at this juncture, I don't think his fringe views merit further examination.

 

[Videodrome]

Does Furey know that we can still read all of his old columns and see how unfit he is to be mayor?

 

[tripwire]

I'm pretty ambivalent to this by-election, but with the recent anti-Chow sentiment I'm definitely leaning towards voting for her; just so much hyperbole and borderline racism. IMHO, they all suck - some will suck more for sure but I'm pretty uninspired by all of them.

 

[PL1]

I think I just found a second user for my Ignore list...

 

[No Vacancy]

I am well known as being among the most open-minded here and willing to entertain arguments and people with whom I disagree.

But the arguments must be made in good faith, by people of good faith, they must be germane to the topic of the thread and demonstrate some intelligible thought process.

That is not the case here. There is a cycling infrastructure thread here where you can post your widely discredited views that have been shown by evidence the world over to make no sense, those arguments have been had here before
and they were resoundingly exposed as ill-conceived before.

***

Your other arguments on other subjects are no less absurd, they are clearly designed to engage people in a flame war, and to degenerate a place of thoughtful discussion into the morass that is SkyscraperPage.

I'll pass thanks.



This is inaccurate, you were baiting other members with comments you know to be infuriating and intellectually unsound.

Also, as Furey cannot be described as a credible contender at this juncture, I don't think his fringe views merit further examination.

Your entire reply is laced with scathing ad hominem attacks. You really need to get those anger issues under control.

 

[No Vacancy]

Does Furey know that we can still read all of his old columns and see how unfit he is to be mayor?

Can you please be more specific? In my opinion he’s the most qualified of the bunch.

 

[ShonTron]

So, who is Kevin Weiner? Anyone on UT?

 

[MrRoboto]

Can you please be more specific? In my opinion he’s the most qualified of the bunch.

Anthony Furey is a media pundit with deeply right-wing views. Why doesn’t he want to talk about that now? | The Star