[Admiral Beez]

There's a very eloquent option she isn't thinking about and should, even I'm very seriously considering it for a winter bike: A fold-up. Fold it up before going inside. How in hell are they going to stop you then? You can get cheaper ones suitable for her needs second hand, or even new for a reasonable price. Really good ones cost more, of course, like any quality machines.

You don't need a fold up, just carry a bike bag.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mountain-B...cycle-Luggage-XL-Size-52-x32-x9-/282247864173

 

[steveintoronto]

You don't need a fold up, just carry a bike bag.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mountain-B...cycle-Luggage-XL-Size-52-x32-x9-/282247864173

She wouldn't have the where-with-all to disassemble the wheels from the frame and turn the handlebars sideways and remove the pedals every time she wanted to enter or leave.

Nor would I, and I build them. That's why the eloquent solution is a foldable bile. It's meant for that to happen in a minute or less. Condo law allows all sorts of conditions of tenancy. The awful truth of it is if you don't like it, don't live there. Or find some way of accommodating a way to make it work for you.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Condo law allows all sorts of conditions of tenancy. The awful truth of it is if you don't like it, don't live there. Or find some way of accommodating a way to make it work for you.

Reminds me of the HOA mess in the USA, where it's becoming difficult to buy a SFH let alone a condo that doesn't suffer from interference.

 

[steveintoronto]

Reminds me of the HOA mess in the USA, where it's becoming difficult to buy a SFH let alone a condo that doesn't suffer from interference.

There's two sides to it. If you buy a condo, surely you have the right to set rules as you would with a totally detached home? Most condos do now accommodate bikes, but it's a democratic right to set standards and rules as long as *constitutional rights* aren't being violated. Condo boards are democratically elected, albeit there are cases of 'gaming' the roster.

Many people expect you to take off your shoes before entering their house. That's their right. When you rent a condo, (or buy) be aware of the rules and regulations.

 

[aquateam]

Reminds me of the HOA mess in the USA, where it's becoming difficult to buy a SFH let alone a condo that doesn't suffer from interference.

I've heard so many horror stories about HOAs: being harassed for not planting specific species of flowers in specific colours, for leaving their garbage out the night before instead of bringing it out the same morning it's collected, for having a lawn gnome, etc. It's ironic how a country that has taken FREEDOM as their slogan accepts such authoritarian infringements of their rights to do what they want with their own property as completely normal. This extends to zoning, and the whole concept of private property as public space.

I get a mild dose of that autocracy when my apartment building harasses me for decorating my balcony, leaving my bike at the door for a minute while I grab something, etc.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The idea is that HOA associations are elected -and the HOA members and rules can be replaced. Now of course people usually don't give a crap enough to be involved in their HOA.. including even bothering to vote in the elections to ensure someone is the head of the HOA that doesn't institute ridiculous rules.

 

[smuncky]

Lakeshore cycletrack, from Todd Irvine on twitter:

https://twitter.com/todd_irvine/status/936305636651831297

 

[steveintoronto]

Lakeshore cycletrack, from Todd Irvine on twitter:
https://twitter.com/todd_irvine/status/936305636651831297

Rendering of the Proposed Design for the Lake Shore Cycle Track

The City of Toronto is planning a 1.4km cycle track along Lake Shore Boulevard West from Norris Crescent to First Street, west of Mimico Waterfront Park in Etobicoke, Ward 6. The new cycle track will provide a safe connection for cyclists, and will close a gap in the Waterfront Trail. [...]

That looks great! Minimalist? Yes, but reasonably safe, and as much as a bi-directional has it down sides, it also has an upside in terms of offered sense of lane width, since you can pass when safe, plus since it's to connect the 'missing gap' on the Waterfront Trail, it means not having to cross Lakeshore Rd twice when travelling west.. I hope there's going to be more concrete barriers than shown though.

 

[ADRM]

What are the east and west boundaries of this? I've seen conflicting info.

 

[smuncky]

What are the east and west boundaries of this? I've seen conflicting info.

From my understanding:

 

[steveintoronto]

Yeah, I had to think about that too, for cynical reasons: I bet the locals aren't overly happy about it, so it was probably only ever proposed to do what had to be done. It was a pretty glaring gap in the trail, and that stretch of Lakeshore, although pleasant, can have some nasty driving on it.

If it is finished the length proposed, then kudos to the City on this. It always irked me having to divert when the reason I'd be taking that route to begin with was to avoid dealing with traffic and letting my mind wander. It's not a particularly fast or direct way of getting anywhere needed.

 

[PinkLucy]

I've always felt safe (as much as one can feel safe) on that section of Lakeshore, but it was a pain to have to cross over and back when going west, so I'm glad this is finally in place.

 

[steveintoronto]

I've always felt safe (as much as one can feel safe) on that section of Lakeshore, but it was a pain to have to cross over and back when going west, so I'm glad this is finally in place.

There's a proclivity for 'racers' to go flying down there, albeit most drivers are calm and measured. I was rethinking my concern on that as to the concrete barriers. To feel confident cycling west, with opposing vehicles closely to the right, those barriers must be solid and numerous. Glancing at them, I was also wondering if they're anchored or not. If not, it could actually multiply the danger by being moved into the cycling lane rather than the vehicle bouncing off of them.

The Devil is in the detail on this, but it's one more example of bi-directional offering a much more welcoming sense of 'ownership'. I still maintain that bi is the best for a number of streets in Toronto, the Bloor Lanes being a prime example. It gets rid of adjacent parking so sightlines become wide open, door prizes disappear, and the other side of the street can be used for parking in its present form...not my idea of ideal, but much easier to sell to the locals....and enforce. And of course bi-directional is by far the most efficient use of restricted width streets.

If cycling is to be sanctioned on King, (and I don't see it in the grand scheme) it also will have to be bi-directional to use what little width is there.

 

[ADRM]

There's a proclivity for 'racers' to go flying down there, albeit most drivers are calm and measured. I was rethinking my concern on that as to the concrete barriers. To feel confident cycling west, with opposing vehicles closely to the right, those barriers must be solid and numerous. Glancing at them, I was also wondering if they're anchored or not. If not, it could actually multiply the danger by being moved into the cycling lane rather than the vehicle bouncing off of them.

The Devil is in the detail on this, but it's one more example of bi-directional offering a much more welcoming sense of 'ownership'. I still maintain that bi is the best for a number of streets in Toronto, the Bloor Lanes being a prime example. It gets rid of adjacent parking so sightlines become wide open, door prizes disappear, and the other side of the street can be used for parking in its present form...not my idea of ideal, but much easier to sell to the locals....and enforce.

The bi-directionals around the west and south sides of Queen's Park work very well, too.

 

[PinkLucy]

I've seen plenty of people using the Richmond Adelaide lanes as bi-directional lanes, so that's a start.