Home of the BrewNosers

CorneliusAlphonse wrote:Letter writing time!!

benwedge wrote: Hold up, you've got cars in a bike lane to complain about right now.

bluenose wrote:It's love-hate for me on rural routes... I'd like to see more access for cyclists, but man it sucks to come around a corner at 80/90 kph on a rural road and nearly cream a cyclist who's decided to bike in the middle of the lane

benwedge wrote:

bluenose wrote:It's love-hate for me on rural routes... I'd like to see more access for cyclists, but man it sucks to come around a corner at 80/90 kph on a rural road and nearly cream a cyclist who's decided to bike in the middle of the lane

When I do loops like Waverley or Peggy's Cove, if I'm approaching a corner I move to the middle or outside of the lane to increase my visibility. I pull back to the side once I'm confident the car can pass safely with no oncoming traffic. I've never had anyone honk at me or do anything negative when doing this.

Halifax cyclists are getting a rough ride.

Someone recently threw a bunch of thumbtacks along the municipality’s newest bike lane on Windsor Street, which could have caused an accident, let alone the damage to peoples’ bicycles, said Ben Wedge, co-chairman of the Halifax Cycling Coalition.

“It looks like there’s been some tacks right along the west side of Windsor Street between roughly Almon and Liverpool,” Wedge said in an interview Wednesday. “I’ve heard three people confirm for sure they’ve had flat tires as a result of this.”

The Windsor Street lane recently joined four others in the city — including Bell Road, South Park Street, Lower Water Street, and Brunswick Street — on Oct. 18. Cyclists just got through celebrating the latest addition on Monday.

But it’s disheartening to see someone take such a mean-spirited measure, which could have threatened cyclists’ and motorists’ safety, Wedge said.

“From our side, this is a pretty surprising thing,” he said. “I knew there was going to be a little bit of pushback, (but) to see that someone (is) doing a direct action that’s unsafe ... that’s pretty surprising.”

Wedge said he tried to check the section Tuesday evening but it was too dark to get a good look. He and some others from the coalition, which has 440 members, planned to check again Wednesday.

He said Halifax Regional Police have been very supportive in helping the public ease into this latest bike lane.

Police spokesman Const. Pierre Bourdages said Wednesday that no one had reported the vandalism to officers, but added cops on bikes have been patrolling that area for the past few days to ensure the transition goes well.

“Two days ago, on the 21st and 22nd, we had officers who were doing a proactive assignment (on Windsor Street).”

Anyone with information is asked to give police a call, he said.

Zac Howarth, who works at Jack Nauss Bicycles on Agricola Street, said he’s already fixed one bicycle tire that was stuck with a thumbtack. The cyclist wasn’t sure where she’d run into it, Howarth said.

“I just had one come in today with a flat tire that had a thumbtack,” he said. “It’s unusual to see thumbtacks unless they’re deliberately placed.

“I have never seen a thumbtack in a wheel. ... It happened in the Tour de France ... a couple of years ago.”

Howarth said he was recently on Windsor Street and saw a number of cars parked near the forum directly in the bike lane. Tow trucks did show up later to take them away.

Other reports of cyclists running over the thumbtacks were on Twitter and other social media this week.

Wedge said if members of the public have a problem with bike lanes, they should call the police or their local councillor instead of resorting to such vandalism.

“They’re doing something that’s really unsafe for everyone on the road. You (cyclists) might swerve and enter the traffic lane,” to avoid the hazards, he said.

CorneliusAlphonse wrote:Speed limit is a limit, not a requirement... The bigger question is if he is able to remain visible for cars to slow down before hitting him. If he stayed on the white line, everyone would pass regardless of the safety of doing so. By moving out, people won't pull into the oncoming lane around a blind corner and will slow down instead.

So while it isn't the best option (have a well-paved and maintained (cleaned) shoulder/bike lane would be preferable from my point of view), it is the safest for all involved given the current layout of our roads.

Given something ben said to me at another time, some of these roads may see some paved shoulders when they are repaved starting in the 5-10 year timeframe.

bluenose wrote:

CorneliusAlphonse wrote:Speed limit is a limit, not a requirement... The bigger question is if he is able to remain visible for cars to slow down before hitting him. If he stayed on the white line, everyone would pass regardless of the safety of doing so. By moving out, people won't pull into the oncoming lane around a blind corner and will slow down instead.

So while it isn't the best option (have a well-paved and maintained (cleaned) shoulder/bike lane would be preferable from my point of view), it is the safest for all involved given the current layout of our roads.

Given something ben said to me at another time, some of these roads may see some paved shoulders when they are repaved starting in the 5-10 year timeframe.

So when you drive your car/truck, do you tend to drive significantly less than the speed limit?

True the speed limit is a limit, but there's also the issue of one cyclist impeding the flow of traffic. If we're talking about a city/town area where the limit is 50 and a cyclist is doing 35, then no worries, but doing 35 kph on a rural road where the limit is 80 kph, and vehicles tend to drive 80/90 kph is another story... Otherwise, you're impeding traffic... I ride a motorcycle so I know about trying to make myself visible to cages, but I don't impede the flow of traffic while doing so.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else you say... the shoulders on all public roads should be wide enough for cyclists.

benwedge wrote:It's no different than encountering a tractor moving between two parts of the farm.

benwedge wrote:The Motor Vehicle Act does not define a minimum speed for traffic, only a maximum.

benwedge wrote:I will not take any safety risks when out riding my bike, traffic be damned.

benwedge wrote:It's no different than encountering a tractor moving between two parts of the farm. The Motor Vehicle Act does not define a minimum speed for traffic, only a maximum. I will not take any safety risks when out riding my bike, traffic be damned.

mr x wrote:

benwedge wrote:It's no different than encountering a tractor moving between two parts of the farm. The Motor Vehicle Act does not define a minimum speed for traffic, only a maximum. I will not take any safety risks when out riding my bike, traffic be damned.

FYI, there are conditions where you must use emergency signals if you cannot maintain speed, but they are locally posted IIRC. I can't remember if there is more to that or not.