So far, Quebec is the only Canadian province that has updated its legislation to allow wheelchairs and mobility scooters on bike and roll routes and low-speed roads.
My friend, there are already slow cyclists in the bike lane. They will remain there, because they have the right to it by definition. Adding other kinds of small mobility vehicles with similar speeds is not materially going to impact us faster cyclists, as long as the bike lane is of sufficient width for us to safely pass them. This is coming from another 90 kg/>30 km/h rider who often has to use the main road for practical reasons.
In fact, I tend to use the main road over available bike lanes specifically when the width of the bike lane is insufficient for passing slower cyclists in a safe manner. The other reason I skip the bike lane is when it is designed in an unsafe manner, such as ending abruptly and forcing conflicts with pedestrians, or when it crosses turning lanes in a manner where drivers cross the lane without looking.
So, lets see. So far in this thread cycle paths should be wide enough for an emergency vehicle, should be used by all manners of transport other than automobiles and speed restricted due to slow moving scooters and pedestrians.
Sounds like it removes all the benefits and adds all the problems of the system we currently have.
I don’t think they should necessarily be speed restricted, nor is that the law where I live - the only rule is that you can’t exceed the speed limit on adjacent roads (which practically makes them unbounded for almost all cases for cyclists under their own power).
By making them wide enough for emergency vehicles, they can accommodate both slower and faster moving cyclists, with mobility vehicles moving at similar speeds to slower cyclists and hence automatically being accommodated. I don’t think pedestrians should be co-located with cyclists and mobility vehicles, as these actors have different incompatible needs.
My friend, there are already slow cyclists in the bike lane. They will remain there, because they have the right to it by definition. Adding other kinds of small mobility vehicles with similar speeds is not materially going to impact us faster cyclists, as long as the bike lane is of sufficient width for us to safely pass them. This is coming from another 90 kg/>30 km/h rider who often has to use the main road for practical reasons.
In fact, I tend to use the main road over available bike lanes specifically when the width of the bike lane is insufficient for passing slower cyclists in a safe manner. The other reason I skip the bike lane is when it is designed in an unsafe manner, such as ending abruptly and forcing conflicts with pedestrians, or when it crosses turning lanes in a manner where drivers cross the lane without looking.
So, lets see. So far in this thread cycle paths should be wide enough for an emergency vehicle, should be used by all manners of transport other than automobiles and speed restricted due to slow moving scooters and pedestrians.
Sounds like it removes all the benefits and adds all the problems of the system we currently have.
I don’t think they should necessarily be speed restricted, nor is that the law where I live - the only rule is that you can’t exceed the speed limit on adjacent roads (which practically makes them unbounded for almost all cases for cyclists under their own power).
By making them wide enough for emergency vehicles, they can accommodate both slower and faster moving cyclists, with mobility vehicles moving at similar speeds to slower cyclists and hence automatically being accommodated. I don’t think pedestrians should be co-located with cyclists and mobility vehicles, as these actors have different incompatible needs.