Профиль

In true #Autowa fashion, it would seem this "block party" doesn't actually involve any road closures.

I was ambushed on my way home from work yesterday.

Shared pathway. Despite this, if anyone ever bikes on the road parallel to the path, drivers lose their minds and scream WHY AREN'T THEY ON THE BIKE PATH!!??

This is Ottawa.

"Why close the road for bikes when there's a perfectly good pathway they can use?" Slow and crowded pathway vs. car-free open roadway.

Funny, considering this is what he's said about RTO in the past:

Ottawa By-law finally came by, 4 days later, to say there's "no obstructions on the bike lane and the roadways, including no glass, observed [...] no further action required for the service request, and it will be closed." I beg to differ.

This is exactly why I don't like to use the bike lane here. Drivers like this that don't know what a stop sign or stop line is for.

So I'm seeing this as R4 under the 1964 zoning. But you're saying that before this was zoned, they noticed in 1963 that it was unzoned and applied for the apartments. Cool stuff.

Sharrows when done right are actually the highest tier of bicycle infrastructure. Protected bike lanes are only needed to separate cars and bikes, but if you get rid of the cars you no longer need separation. The trick is to have more bikes than cars, then sharrows work great.

The difference is that car drivers kill and injure people ALL THE TIME when they run stop signs. There's a huge difference between a multi-ton vehicle and a person on a bicycle. If your only issue is that it's against the law, then maybe the law should be changed.

I'm not going to risk getting rear ended assuming the bike behind me will stop. Just as I wouldn't assume a car behind me will stop, because they won't. I rolled through because it was the safer thing to do. The driver rolled through because they didn't want to be inconvenienced by stopping. 2/2

I make a complete stop at stop signs on my bike 99% of the time. In this situation, 1. I have a wobbly child on the back, the slower I go, the more unstable the bike is. 2. There was a car approaching from behind, not a good time to fall over, and 3. Another cyclist was coming up from behind me. 1/2

That 3000lb white car with massive blind spots ran the stop sign without even slowing down, while overtaking a bike with a kid on the back, but sure, focus on the cyclist.

Point 3 in the RTO transportation plan says to ensure cycling infrastructure is well maintained, but point 20 delays the Bay Street renewal another year to reduce the impact on car traffic. I don't see how they're going to be able to do both here on Bay Street.

Points 1 and 2 are great, but if a ring road came with point 3 alone, I'd be down. Bulldoze the Queensway!

Here are ring road proposals from 1975 and from 2001. A 50 or 25 year old bad idea is still a bad idea today.

This article could have been written today, but it's actually 25 years old — "the proposed ring will have little to no impact on existing congestion levels. Indeed, by its promotion of urban sprawl, the road would likely create even higher congestion levels within four to five years of completion."

ottwatch.ca/lobbying/4980