Mountain Man
Senior Member
Heads up for anyone that uses the bike path, I've seen Bylaw doing speed enforcement in and around Edworthy lately. Last one was on the north side of the river by Angels Cafe late last week.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Cowtown
- Start date
Nimbus
Active Member
Somebody should just tell Angel's that the speed gun fires out woke 5G vaccine rays and she'll come running out to shut them down.
artvandelay
Active Member
Good - plenty of spandex dorks and e-bike losers ripping way too fast on the pathways lately.
Nimbus
Active Member
Good news is they'll go away when winter comes, and the pathways will return to the true riders. Gods chosen cyclists if you will.
lemongrab
Active Member
Kudos to the city for finally getting the pathway on the west side of 37th running north from North Glenmore Park! (it's probably been open for a few months, but I just enjoyed it for the first time yesterday)
This helps mitigate the worst gap in the entire greenway system. Richardson Way to Optimist Park still kinda sucks. It'll be interesting to see if TAZA follows through on the bike paths that were in ring road plans
This helps mitigate the worst gap in the entire greenway system. Richardson Way to Optimist Park still kinda sucks. It'll be interesting to see if TAZA follows through on the bike paths that were in ring road plans
Mountain Man
Senior Member
The Province of Ontario is granting themselves approval power for municipal bike lanes. Seems quite heavy handed and something the province shouldn't be involved in, so I 100% expect the UCP to do this too.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Would be a classic move for a highly visible provincial intervention into a municipal role. 2-3 Rick Bell articles are probably lined up already.
Will be extra funny in our city because the “silly hall” overstep that is requiring provincial intervention is a process that builds like 1km of bike lane every 5 years that is so negligible is scope, exactly zero impact to car commuters has occurred for a decade. At least Toronto actually paints the lanes, so one could at least pretend it’s a real impact because the lanes are real!
Roaring Flames
Senior Member
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Funny thing about this...
If they think not investing in bike lanes will make roads better what will they say when they do that and the roads are no better?
For the most part bike lanes are paint on a paved road, such a weird dog whistle that isn't original. Nice Dan "Doug Ford" MacLean.
That picture depicts the side of the road.
If they think not investing in bike lanes will make roads better what will they say when they do that and the roads are no better?
For the most part bike lanes are paint on a paved road, such a weird dog whistle that isn't original. Nice Dan "Doug Ford" MacLean.
HudsonA08
New Member
It is funny how they don't realize bike lanes are designed to remove the need for vehicles, thus reducing cars, thus reducing road use and damage. It's not one or the other, they work in tandem. Forcing people to use cars does not lead to less road costs.
Woosh
New Member
Unfortunately, suggesting people use their cars less is tantamount to Devil-worship for many Calgarians.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Sadly, he will probably get a lot of feedback, likes and agreement from people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves. The war on bike lanes has begun...
People who are capable of thinking for themselves, on the other hand, can only reach the opposite conclusion?
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Fair enough. Perhaps a bit antagonistic on my part.
What I mean is that people tend to latch onto populist ideas because someone they like said it. Bike lanes are an example because people see them as anti car while not actually considering that everyone on a bike is one less car on the road taking up more space and causing more wear and tear. So proposing to ban bike lanes to fix potholes would actually likely cause more potholes and add to traffic, not to help it. People will blindly support that though because it's "pro car".
Ramsayite
Active Member
People who care to learn about city building tend to realize there's a pretty strong consensus on what makes for a good public realm. It's pretty basic stuff to understand the negative externalities of cars and car infrastructure. If one applies even a bit of earnest effort into learning about cities, it becomes glaringly obvious that simping for more car infrastructure at the expense of other modes is contrary to building a healthy and sustainable city.
So yes, "People who are capable of thinking for themselves, on the other hand, can only reach the opposite conclusion" because they quickly encounter some well-understood best practices. Courting populism by kowtowing car users is the opposite of that.
Dan McLean is a great example of a councillor who knows jack shit about urbanism and city planning. He represents small-minded suburban reactionism at its finest. He would benefit from picking up any book on city planning or urbanism. But he strikes me as somebody who doesn't read anything deeper than a Tom Clancy novel.
So yes, "People who are capable of thinking for themselves, on the other hand, can only reach the opposite conclusion" because they quickly encounter some well-understood best practices. Courting populism by kowtowing car users is the opposite of that.
Dan McLean is a great example of a councillor who knows jack shit about urbanism and city planning. He represents small-minded suburban reactionism at its finest. He would benefit from picking up any book on city planning or urbanism. But he strikes me as somebody who doesn't read anything deeper than a Tom Clancy novel.