On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html

Paragraphs I found interesting:

"“Toronto has located cycle lanes directly in the path of opening
car-doors, without the required space allowance, which of course has
created a major hazard and fanned a sterile debate about who is to blame
when a driver or passenger throws open a door and potentially kills or
seriously harms passersby,” adds Sagaris.

Case in point, between November 2013 and August 2014, police received 62
reports of dooring.

Meanwhile, intersections – where most collisions occur – have received
little to no attention."

Yet I know of a very energetic cycling advocacy group that's actively
lobbying for door-zone bike lanes! And the League of American
Bicyclists gives positive "Bike Friendly" points to cities that have
door zone bike lanes. Personally, I think a DZBL should blackball a
city from "Friendly" status.

Also:

"Meanwhile, intersections – where most collisions occur – have received
little to no attention..."

"“(It’s) important progress, things like the Richmond and Adelaide
separated cycle tracks..."

Someone's not recognizing that cycletracks are a strategy to reduce only
the (largely mythical) hits-from-behind between intersections, and that
they greatly complicate interactions at intersections. Yes,
intersections are where most collisions occur; and cycletracks don't
help. They probably hurt. This is why AASHTO has recommended against
cycletracks for decades.

But those guys are stuffy old engineers. According to some, it's high
time that facility design was put in charge of watercolor artists!


--
- Frank Krygowski