Sarkaria (Ontario’s transportation minister) said Friday that only 1.2 per cent of people use those bike lanes to commute to work, compared with 70 per cent who drive, and the lanes are taking away nearly half of the infrastructure on those roads, making commutes longer for drivers.
Why hasn’t anyone challenged the use of that statistic?
Commuting isn’t the only way to use transportation infrastructure and bike lanes, so it’s incredibly dishonest to say that “only 1.2%” are using those particular bike lanes.
If I use bike lanes for 100% of my errands and 0% for commuting, does that invalidate those lanes?
By the same token, at what point would they consider removing sidewalks if people aren’t using them specifically to walk to work?
Bikes lanes take up like 20% of road not 50% Mr. corrupt Ford.
They also have more capacity than the car lanes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F_B0HtewDU
The power couple at Oh the Urbanity! channel even went out to demonstrate it… 567 bike lane users to 492 car lane users.
In one simple video, along with some basic facts, they proved that:
- Bike lanes take up way less space than the car lanes; imagine what our cities would look like if you could reclaim 1-3 car lanes and make them public spaces!
- Bike riders, even in greater numbers, never cause gridlock.
- The cost of those bike lanes is a fraction of that of the roads.
- Quite a few of those cyclists panniers and backpacks, which means they were using their bikes for more than fitness.
- Car infrastructure (those traffic lights) slowed down cars and cyclists. And I’m willing to bet that if there was no car infrastructure, cyclists could get around a city much faster than cars ever could.
- There is obvious demand for cycling infrastructure. This is a Canadian city, and one that likely isn’t as developed as some European ones, yet the demand is clear.
- While you can’t see faces, you can see that there’s a diversity of cyclists (ages) and abilities.
- Hard to validate without a survey, but I’m willing to bet that out of those 567 cyclists, I’m sure a good chunk wouldn’t be able to afford the cost of car ownership. So, cycling is giving them an accessible and affordable way to travel.
But what does the mayor think he can do? He literally has no power over provincial government. It is actually the opposite the provincial government has all the power and gives some to the local governments.
They mayor is a she.
This is why I don’t support bike lanes without education for cyclists. Literally 15 minutes ago
Zipping past elderly and toddlers on the sidewalk, while the hard curve divided bike lane sits empty. And this happens multiple times a day.
Until cyclists don’t lose their shit when you suggest they educate themselves and use etiquette, you guys can’t handle bike lanes.
My photo is a perfect example of you guys getting what you wanted but refusing to use it, while being an asshole to pedestrians. Get rid of them, it’s clear you guys don’t use em
I will point out that the entire road looks empty, except out in the distance. Such a waste of space to have that many lanes.
But onto the photo. Is this a very new bike lane?
I see no signs, no painted indicators, nothing to indicate what it’s for. That could be for pedestrians for all we know.
Most cyclists don’t use sidewalks, because sidewalks are bumpy and uncomfortable to ride on, and sidewalks tend to be more dangerous than other routes.
However, I can think of a few reasons why someone like the person in the photo might:
a) they are unaware that the bike lane exists, especially if there are no way finding signs or painted surfaces.
b) they might not have a clear way on/off that path; for example, where does it end up putting them? Right on the road, or to other cycling infrastructure?
c) they might have a left turn coming up, and the path doesn’t take them there.
d) there could be some unknown variable that we don’t know about in this context. For example, since it looks new, it’s possible that there could be construction or constructions signs on the other part of that bike lane, forcing the rider to move onto the sidewalk.
e) it might actually be the safest way around, for one reason or another.
I’m not sure why the sidewalk and this apparent bike lane are connected like that. Seems like they built it out of spite, and not because they wanted to improve safety or convenience for either cyclists or pedestrians.
But I assume that it’s a very new (just made) bike lane, and that signs/wayfinding will come, and fewer people will choose the sidewalk.
What would the alternative be? Have them use the road? Wouldn’t we be back to square one with all the arguments to put in cycling infrastructure?
Zipping past elderly and toddlers on the sidewalk, while the hard curve divided bike lane sits empty. And this happens multiple times a day.
I won’t condone that kind of behaviour, especially if it jeopardizes safety. I know the feeling as a cyclist, but in my case, it’s usually multi-ton SUVs travelling at well above the speed limit, and punish passing me while they have a perfectly good empty lane beside them.
Where I’m standing there are markets indicating bike lane entrance at the intersections, They have been up all spring and summer, but nobody uses them, they just use the sidewalk. Even people on electric bikes and scooters use the sidewalks. You can travel miles in every direction on bike lanes where I live
Can you name the area? I’d be interested in seeing what the rest of the cycling infrastructure looks like. The way it looks now, if it’s been up since spring, it still looks very unfinished.
Have you ever used a crosswalk at an intersection with cars? People constantly take a run at pedestrians and run red light which kills people all the time. Drivers constantly park in bike lanes next to empty driveways and empty parking lots. Does that mean I should not support roads for cars because “you guys can’t handle bike lanes?” See how absurd of a statement that is?
