Printable View
Do you live far or near from cycling infrastructure? Survey here. It's short. You'll see.. :)
Yellow survey button on right -hand side after you scroll down from linked pg. Yes, of course, survey results will be on blog.
People have their specific beefs and praise. :rolleyes:
Hope more from these forums will respond..we're getting more male respondents ..only because link is posted on another but more male-dominant forum.
Didn't notice it ask me for my gender, maybe a missed a bubble to push?Quote:
Originally Posted by shootingstar
I didn't see that button either. But I did take the survey... since last Summer there is a bike lane at the end of my block.Quote:
Originally Posted by TsPoet
No we didn't ask for gender.
I just made a general comment...not totally scientific. :p But plausible because I know the dynamics and have been on the other forum for a few years.
I'm finding the questionnaire to be a bit challenging. Maybe they could define "cycling infrastructure." I have a feeling that what the City of Edmonton considers to be cycling infrastructure is quite different from my own definition.
Not meant to be a totally academic exercise. As soon as stick in definitions, it maybe alot of reading for folks. :o
But results would be interesting if international in scope.
Hint- what comprises of cycling infrastructure is given in the multiple choice options for anyone to choose. If they wish.
Then indicate in comments box any other comments....
NWBY, your hubby could do Edmonton, and you Seattle. Split tasks. :p
I'm not totally sure what a biking infrastructure is, but I suspect that might mean I don't live near one. ;)
From the survey page: "It can be bike paths, signed bike routes, buses with bike racks, etc."Quote:
Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl
Such infrastructure may or may not connect to other such infrastructure, and may or may not be usable by cyclists with a wide variety of skill levels and comfort levels using such infrastructure. ;)
NbyNW: You're too smart for your own good. :rolleyes: :D
Some cyclists....really think that any cycling infrastructure, is some form of unwarranted special treatment.
In doing this survey, some feedback:
From me: "But then, if we let things be as they are, some of us wouldn't have at least bike lockers in our work buildings or apartment buildings, "
Male cyclist responding to my above remark:Me: (I'm abit wordy):Quote:
two questions: 1) What's happening that's threatening them? and 2) Why 'should' you have those things?
Here's what I mean by question two; I'm not sure if you think it's necessary to have those things, "nice" to have those things, or maybe they should be legally required.
For the private facilities, I will speak here, since I've lived in 3 highrise buildings:
Some buildings forbid residents to bring in their bikes into building. Then if they ask for this, then there should be secure bike lock-up facilities for residents. The cars get a parking spot, so why not the bikes also?
lst home: No bikes in condo building. There was lock-up bike locker rm. Solved the problem.
2nd home: Underground shared locked bike areas. also includes lock-up area for kayaks.
3rd home: I have to bring bike and store it in storage rm. I'm tired of tracking dirt through my place.
4th home: Upcoming will be in my own storage locker in midrise building. There is a bike storage rm. that is shared, but WAY too tiny. What was the developer thinking? We live 2 min. away from a 30-km. bike path.
Bike lockers at office, commercial buildings is helpful for cyclists who commute regularily. Again the rule for alot of workplaces, no bikes in buildings. So provide secure facilities for the employees who bike.
I have taken the risk of locking up my bike against a rack in a public, open area, no cage for several years in downtown Toronto for the full work days, 4-5 days per wk. But it was an older hybrid, which is not as attractive to steal.
For the above 2 scenarios, it would be a benefit to the residents or employees. Again we automatically give this benefit to the car drivers, without thinking much about this.
Some people, truly truly don't want any public funds spent on public cycling infrastructure.
That includes cyclists. Meanwhile their tax dollars gets wasted on other things, at times.
The roe hwy bike path is 300 or so metres from our house. I can ride from my house to the kwinana bike path n beyond without encountering a vechicle on that path. Heaps of bike paths in Perth..
Shootingstar...hate to tell you this but not everyone bikes..please understand..I know YOU don't have a car but some people do. Don't expect everyone just to give up thier car or assume their $$ needs to go to cycling infrastructure. In an ideal world, sure. Just remember you're not the only citizen in the city you live in.
We discussed something similar to this the other day in our planning tute. If we want people to come to our side of the table, show them both sides of an arguement. There'll always be about 15-20% of people that won't agree with us or want X or Y or blah blah. That's just a part of society and live with it.
We need ours to go play on the dirt..:D take doggie to the doggie beach and wander round Australia.
I don't think I ever said to people to give up their cars completely for everyone.
But what I do tend to say is that our choices should not be restricted to only car. To accommodate every stage of our life. By the time we're much older an frailer,we will be unable to drive a car. So, do all of us have young people/children driving us around, or we be closer to local transit? However I agree with a line of thinking, that if a neighbourhood doesn't want transit, then don't place bus routes out there if another neighbourhood has been requesting for it. Cruel, eh? We have to set budget spending priorities. Sorry for the transit digression.
In another forum for some anti-bike lane cyclists --cyclists who don't feel a need for road bike lanes, MUPs..some realized after all, it's a cheap amenity for a building developer (commercial office or high rise residential) to provide locked communal bike storage space within the building. :)
1 car parking space probably could easily hold 6 bikes comfortably or more. It's a wonderful, cheap way to "sell" or lease a occupacy space for tenants or residents.
Hope this all doesn't detract from responding to the survey.
I don't really live near any cycling infrastructure. One path is 8 miles away and the other is 5 miles away. The first one is the busiest bike path in the country; I didn't even ride it until last year. It is impossible, except mid-week, midday. It does go places I might want to shop or go out to eat, though. The other one is brand new. It goes along a good part of the route I drive to my internship. It is supposed to go through my town, but I have doubts it will ever get here. A lot of dissent about this, even though there are thousands of cyclists. The main gripe is that it will ruin a currently dirt trail that runs a long a pond by being paved. The abutting homeowners think cyclists (and joggers) will pee in their yards :eek:. The people complaining want the path to be crushed stone in Concord, but that would eliminate use by people with strollers, wheelchairs, etc.
The only cycling infrastructure I would like has to do with workplace stuff. I ride mostly on semi-rural country roads or suburban roads. There are tons of cyclists around here and drivers are mostly used to us. I don't need a bike lane. You can take your bike on the commuter rail that leaves from Concord during non-peak hours. We don't have bus service.
Lest you think this is only about non-motorized vehicles ...
there was recently a situation near me where a guy who lived in a condo complex wanted covered parking for his motorcycle, which was his only transportation. Particularly in the winter, there was an issue with the parking lot snowplow creating a tall ice berm over which he was unable to haul his bike. He put up a little portable shed that fit entirely within his assigned parking space, but the management made him take it down.
Just throwing that out there ... I don't really have an opinion whether there ought to be separate parking for motorcycles.
I will also say that I'm much more irritated by structures that are designated as bicycle racks, but have basically zero practical application for that purpose ... there might be four or five loops, but the only way to secure a bicycle to the thing is to lean ONE bicycle crosswise across the whole thing, and if it's close to a building, you can't even put a second bicycle on the other side. I'm actually happier if I can lock my bike to a signpost, a park bench, or a tree than if I feel I have to use one of those so-called racks.
Peeing cyclists.....OMIG...are we all really that uncouth in civilized, highly surburban areas? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crankin
If given a choice, I would rather have path pavement type to include wheelchairs and strollers. There's no real rationale anymore, to limit many different users in this type of manner. None. Otherwise it's dinosaur thinking.
I discussed this at length with a green developer recently. For a development 5km from the CBD, the council insisted on 2 car parks per unit, which entrenches car dependency and lower density. Most people will only make the switch to walk/PT/bike when it's more convenient so encouraging cars is just silly. However he also thought communal bike parking was ok and I disagree. We allocate unique car parking spaces but seriously expect communal parking of valuable portable items like bikes? If it's not sufficiently secure to chain up the hifi or the artwork to the rail, why expect cyclists to do the same? Or are we unwittingly treating bikes with less respect? How about we fit in two or four secure, usable spaces instead of six second rate ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by shootingstar
I'm surrounded by it, and it takes me anywhere I want to go. It's called roads. Why spend money on duplicate (or separated) infrastructure when it already exists? Sure, separated facilties help some people get started, but if drivers make the roads unsafe for other users, surely it is the issue of driving unsafely that needs to be addressed. With education and advice for cyclists about alternative routes where major roads are impractical. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crankin
I actually think it's worse now with regarding our "trust" or expectations/hope that drivers would drive more safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by oz rider
*Now with the added distraction of drivers using their cellphone or texting while driving or at least distracted, a factor that never existed even 20 yrs. ago., no I don't trust the situation.
*Our population is also aging and probably enough of them, still insisting on driving when they are in their 80's, when really they shouldn't be on the highways or on busy roads. (Would that include some /many of us one day?? :))
*Our laws have not changed to severely penalize drivers who injure or kill cyclists if they are at fault.
The argument about not having some separate routes for bikes is not bad, except it's gotten us nowhere in encouraging lots of people to bike, when we never had any bike paths or bike lanes 30 yrs. ago. Except the difference was maybe the roads weren't as busy in certain urban areas compared to now??
Painting a wide enough bike lane and modifying traffic light times on a wide, 4 multiple lane road that is only heavily used for 5 hours out of 24 hrs. each day, really isn't a big deal in some areas of a city. Most cities have some roads like this. It's cheaper to start with this. The reality is that if you had a teenager cycling, where would you like the person to "graduate" to heavier traffic roads in terms of cycling.
Driver education not to speed? I dunno. How many of us go over the speed limit...honest? Well, are traffic calming circles particularily in some residential areas, useful if the road is wide enough? Certainly useful for big hills stopping in residential intersections, in terms of cars and bikes shooting down.
Absolutely agree with a lot of that shootingstar; I just think we are nibbling at a problem that requires big bites, nursing the victims rather than fixing the problem. And there does not seem to be a silver bullet - it will take political will and a multi-pronged approach using the best of behavioural research beyond simple enforcement. Most people won't be simply encouraged to ride; it will happen for most when it becomes the easiest/cheapest option; the path of least resistance if you like. And that needs things like congestion taxes, strict liability, end-of-trip facilities, sensible bike parking, safety etc. The gently gently route will be long and slow, and maybe that's all society can stomach.