We need to share more of these stories to give people a realistic view of how things happen in the city, and how we can be more effective in our advocacy. Thanks for making this!
Protected bike lanes are basic safety. They should never be up for debate because basic safety is not debatable. It's like debating that there are too many life jackets on the party boat so there's no room for your grand piano. Maybe you were never entitled to bring a piano on the boat in the first place, and irrespective of that, you don't get rid of the life jackets. Public comment on protected bike lanes is so ridiculous. It's a fault in our system in the first place and unbelievably messed up that crazy residents actually show up to exploit this fault.
I am from montreal and old enough to have seen impact of mayoral changes. Earliest bike paths were done along Lachine canal which was a Parcs Canada facility and into the old port which was Prts Canada facility (both federal) and not the city. Its success as a leasure/tourists draw made it more of a positive image. (though it was a most excellent bike-highway fro west island to downtown during off peak cycling hours). Mayors of montréal did photo ops to announce some bike paths on certain arteries for the purposes of a photo op, not to make them usable as commuting. Many were built betwene sidewalk and row of parked cars which means intersectiosn were dangerous due to cyclist not being seen. And one on St-denis had very dangerous design for underpasses. It is one thing to do a photo op for new bike path in a park or otherwise "useless" land, it is another to do something which reduces car lanes. A few years ago, Valérie Plante was elected as mayor, and suddently, a lot of stuff got magically unlocked. That dangerous underpass on St Denis got fixed properly after there was another cyclig death. Many bike paths created, and now, many get cleared of snow in winter. It shows that a mayor does make a difference, and the staff below understand what is needed when they are given carte blanched to do something right. The damger is what happens when the ayor changes. If the bike paths have taken root and become too popular, then the next mayor has to maintain them, but if they are still building up ridership, it becomes very easy to scale back bikje pacth, stop deploying new ones, and stop clearing them at the next budget cuts. It may take longer before the concept of cycling as an alternative to cars instead of cycing as a leasure activity really gets engrained and takes root in municipal governance so it becomes integral part of urban planning. Note that New York City has made huge improvements in previous decades to setup cyclable environment. I was unaware of the term "sharrow" and always though it meant dedicated shoulder on the side, but recently learned it was just a suggestio to car drivers that bikes will occupy the street. The effectiveness then depends on just how wide the right lane is. In many roads, the right lane is wider than the left lane to give mroe space for cyclists, but the extra width is defeated by bad road conditions, potholes etc on the side of road. Car drivers (aka politicians in their Cadillacs) are unaware of bad road conditions for cyclists because their comfi car never rides that far to the right where all the potholes are. The term sharrow is basically the equivalent of "watch for deer" signs on rural roads.
Actually, a lot of people just skip going out altogether because having to get dressed to drive halfway across town and spend a couple of hours just to run a simple errand is too much hassle and not worth it. Most North Americans just stay indoors and stay isolated because there's no incentive or motivation to go out just for the sake of going out. When they do go out, they get in their cars, rush to their destination, finish quickly, then rush back to their lonely concrete cages. 🤦
What is wrong with that? Humanity spent thousands of years perfecting indoor. In the US you are allowed to kill any intruders. We a have proverb, Home sweet home.@@I.____.....__...__
Edmonton sucks so bad for cycling, omg. I'm trying to use my bike year-round and it's so difficult. The 81 hour standard for clearing paths is ridiculous and the clearing of bike lanes is so-so at best. Mike Janz is the only one that advocates for us.
Some of us ride because riding in winter is awesome. At least it should be. Slippery singletrack in the river valley shouldn’t be safer than riding on the street, but here we are. 😔
I always get very upset about concern trolling when it comes to rhetoric against anything, but especially bike lanes. Using elderly/disabled and funding for opioid crisis as shields against alternative mobility is unconscionable. If anything positive can be taken from this, you can argue that the ease in which bike infrastructure can be implemented, but also changed or removed may convince some skeptics to at least give it a try - obviously the key is to keep it in place long enough to see the positive results instead of having it be a foregone conclusion. Although I wonder if previously installed bike lanes will be easier or harder to reenact.
To use the elderly and disabled as an excuse is foolish and wrong, and doesn't make any sense. If there's ever a user group that needs protected bike lanes, or the legal ability to ride on the footpath, it's the elderly and the disabled, because I know they don't want to ride on the road with cars and the people that drive them.
@@petergibson7287 They HAVE to use the elderly/disabled/etc. as an excuse because they wore out the children. They can't use the "think of the childreeeeeen!" line anymore so they had to pivot. 🤷
I find it interesting that you never actually state "Edmonton" in the title or video. I only figured it out from the content. Maybe that was on purpose? Hmm. Really good video. I think long-term resilience requires a more extensive cycling network. It's easy to justify removing a cycle lane when it doesn't go anywhere, but harder when part of a large network.
Its easy to take a picture of an empty bike lane because the cyclist are moving, they only take up the space for less than a minute. Parked cars however are still for hours, so its easy to take a picture of many parked cars. So even if the parking lane benefited 20 people a day, while the bike lane benefited 100 people day, its hard to see that unless you record the whole week. Or course a news van is there for only one hour, most likely not in rush hour.
Yup, it's very hard to get a photo of things in flux. Been there. Also, the photo clearly shows the bike-lane covered in snow because the city didn't bother to plow it like they did the road. This is like when FOX would preempt shows on Sunday night to run football overtime (despite having a dedicated FOX Sports channel 😒), then cancel the shows for having "low ratings" despite the low ratings being because the show was never aired FOR anyone to watch. 😒
You forgot the other neighborhood issue that has been used. Shadowing from Tall condominiums could cause cyclists to become disoriented when riding between buildings due the shadows cast by the buildings and hotspots caused by sunlight leading to the blinding of cyclists who would wander into the active lane of traffic due to disorientation. Vision zero in Toronto translates to Vision zero liability for the city in an accident involving cyclists.
12:30 - "driving faster than the "desired" speed will feel uncomfortable or dangerous" - in my case it works just the opposite way. My suspension easily swallows speed bumps at 40-50, even 60 kmh ... and is absolutely helpless at slower "desired" speeds. Either brake to almost still, right before the hurdle, or proceed at constant pace above the "desired" limit. In real life, of course, it's a combination of both. The main deterrent for me is not the bumps, or the curves, or other devious tricks - but the cameras.
I don’t understand why they made two unidirectional lanes (one north and one south) instead of a bidirectional bike. Your video show no conflict with driveways one one side. Why not make a bidi ? It looks like there is enough space for a bidirectional, a car lane and on street car parking.
A bidirectional lane on the south side was proposed. Some drawbacks are that it wouldn't connect with some painted door zone lanes in the west and it would end abruptly in the east because of the weird intersection that I mention in the video. There were also claims that such a lane would reduce the turning radius onto the street too much. The parking would also likely still have been removed as the road is around 8.5m wide in most places. The city has to make car lanes at least 3.2m wide, even for slow speed roads, and the bike lane should be at least 4.2m wide but we always get the "constrained" standard of 3m. The standard is 2.5m for a parking lane. I'm not sure if those numbers include extras like the barrier for the bike lane or gutters.
nimbys really do suck ass, if i were in desperate need of parking there i'd go find any of the four side streets and walk a couple hundred meters but you mentioned that jasper ave needs bike infrastructure, but 102 ave, one block north, has a many kilometers long protected bike lane running alongside jasper avenue, and same with plenty of other "parallels" to major car commuter routes. we need more bike infrastructure, but at least the city creates viable options if you plan your route. after all, it's much easier to put bike lanes off of major car commuter routes, since that's easier to accomplish. in the case of jasper ave, it's definitely worth it to make it more bike friendly, but that can only come after much less people commute to downtown by car, since there's no option except taking out a lane, which will inevitably bring a shitstorm upon city council and remember, no shame in riding the sidewalk when it's the safest option
@@Frostbiker Yup, that's why many areas have long stretches of unbroken road so that pedestrians and cyclists can't cross the street and have to either risk their lives to dodge traffic or to walk/bike a kilometer up/down the road to the next intersection, then cross, then walk/bike 900m back down. 😒
To clarify, on this section there were 2 bike lanes (2 direction) and now there is one? In the video shots I am seeing you on a protected bike lane with street parking on the other side. Did the additional bike lane remove all on-Street parking?
Originally, there was a westbound sharrow and an eastbound contraflow painted bike gutter. The City installed single direction protected bike lanes on both sides. The westbound lane was then removed and returned to just a sharrow.
Imagine you knew all this two years ago. Do you have any thoughts on what could have been done differently so that this (or similar) safer/better infrastructure could have remained? PR/outreach, data, different design? a few specific concessions for parking/loading? different process up front?
Two years would not be far enough to go back in my city. Like other cities, my city has required years of planning and consultation for each few kilometres of bike lane. It has also delayed bike lanes for years because one church along the route complained it would lose space for five cars once a week. What is less like other cities is that my city will remove a bike lane to the point you would never know it existed on short notice. The bike lane in this video is not the first lane that was removed in the dead of winter when you would only ever see really urgent road work being done. I assume it's a vocal minority, since the residents of the city have been voting in a majority of pro-bike councillors for about 15 years, but that minority knows that they can focus their whining and have some non-car infrastructure removed. The City's planners also create substandard infrastructure and do their utmost to never inconvenience a driver. Substandard infrastructure isn't used as much as proper infrastructure would be which "proves" no one bikes in this city and infrastructure should be removed. If the N/S painted door zones to the west were protected bike lanes and the lanes in the video were connected with protected bike lanes to the downtown grid, it could be argued that the removed lane was a critical link. I wish the City had kept their promise to leave the lane in until this Spring. Stories from Janette Sadik-Khan and others have shown that people get used to these changes and realize the world didn't end when a little car space was turned over to people on bikes.
I love that you included a quote from Donald Trump, anyone claiming that less parking is "liberal propaganda" can hear straight from the horses mouth that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with buissness
Noticed one thing in this video where are all the bikers ? Might have been a good Idea to show some of those 300/day bikers in this video . Oh it's winter in most of it . I've seen bikers in the winter all of them were collecting pop bottles . Oh too Edmonton has snow on the streets for around 5 months of the year . Isn't snow and bike safety a concern ? Net zero HM 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Screw it, take over a lane in the middle of lane... And not the right of the road... There are plenty of times I was doing the 25 mph posted speed with arrogant angry drivers passing me...
You think that's activism, I think that's a countdown to a driver eventually running you down. 🤦 I'd rather ride in the broken, gravel, sand shoulder (until I can get to a sidewalk) than risk riding in the middle of the road. I've already been run over in the SIDEWALK, I just assume EVERY driver is a psycho now. 🤷 It's like the adage in the dirty-cop video community, "what good is being right if you're ?"
Same story in Australia, there are councillors in my city that watn to remove the bike lane featured in this video. ruclips.net/video/CzE0UfpfFX8/видео.html
Good to see that occasionally cities do the right thing. Many "protected" bike lanes are a danger to pedestrians and motorists, and are not used by many cyclists. Much of the time the construction of bike lanes negatively impacts the vast majority of citizens to benefit a tiny number.
I like to hop to work on my pogo stick. I demand a pogo stick lane next to the bike lane. And can we get it heated so the snow that's plowed onto this new lane from the vehicle and bicycle lanes doesn't impede my oh-so green, renewable, and environmental friendly mode of transportation? Shame to people who use tires! It's filthy, and polluting our planet!
The contradiction here is that it will remain a "hobby" if there isn't enough infrastructure to make people ride bikes on a day to day basis within their neighborhoods.
You're just part of the problem with that attitude. Riding a bike might be a hobby for some, and on the weekend it is for me too, but on weekdays it's an essential method of transport. Actually, on the weekends it is too, because I'm never going to walk anywhere.
Cycling is not a serious mode of transportation. The distances are too great in north American cities for it to ever be anything more than a glorified hobby.
I like bicycle lanes. But I hate protected (with barriers or poles) bicycle lanes. These lanes are usually dirty. And my freedom of movement restricted. Where I live there are lanes with poles. So now I am worried hitting the poles with my handlebars.
@@truedarklander So what you are telling me is that if the bicycle lanes were cleaned then they would not be dirty. Also, you are also telling me that if the lanes where not narrow then they would not have restriction of movement? Did you just restated what I stated in my first post, without adding any insight or explanation??
@@truedarklander You missed my point. Let me see if I can make it clear to you. If something is clean then it is not dirty. If something is narrow then movement will be restricted. Does it make sense how what you wrote was just redundant?
I'm going to warn you first here. My comment isn't going to be what you want to hear, but it does have some constructive criticism if you're willing to give it a shot. Did you just lament a blocked bicycle lane using a clip of two ambulance vehicles with their emergency lights on in the bicycle lane? And then supporting the city's photo radar program which was so predatory, the province literally had to step in, introduce a moratorium on new locations, and introduced strict new rules to prevent further abuse? It didn't even form a worthwhile part of your argument! It only served to reinforce car hatred and contempt that cyclists stereotypically show for their fellow road users. This isn't some targeted anti cyclist city hall gleefully rubbing their hands as they take jackhammers to a bicycle lane near downtown. Sometimes the city makes some decisions for motorists with the roads that need to be undone. Sometimes these changes were enjoyed heavily by one group, but came at the expense at others. This isn't something that happens only to cyclists. The car vs cyclist angle isn't doing you any favours. It's quite clear that the loss of your favourite bicycle lane has you feeling upset, but the way your video was framed, I'm having a really hard really feeling sorry for you. At best, it doesn't make me want to support you, it makes me want to just shrug my shoulders and tell myself the city probably had a good reason for it. At worst it reinforces the whiny cyclist stereotype and makes me instantly want to disengage with it. Oh sure, your fellow road warriors will give you a standing ovation, but they're not who you need to win over. Why do I actually care about making your message more palatable for others, you might ask? Well, it's a bicycle lane on a street in a part of town I never drive on, let alone never go near. Getting your bicycle lane back doesn't hurt me whatsoever. Saying motorists deserve tickets and saying they're to blame anytime something doesn't go a cyclists way is unnecessary and getting tiring. You can be better than this.
When society believes and acts that life and urban planning is nothing but a power game, amsterdaming our cities' infra will be like social media: influence, clout, exclusion, and deplatforming. What's to judge between the carbrain and the bike brain? Power, only.
When was the last time a major city closed off an entire section of road to cars like they did this protected bike lane? It hardly ever happens, but when they build a few miles of actual bike infra, it's no problem to destroy the whole thing over what, some random parking spots or some local property values? He made it clear in this video that there really isn't a good reason and if anything, a further waste of money to rebuild it.
In which scenario would you feel more comfortable watching your 12yo daughter riding her bike: merging with car traffic (vehicular cycling), or riding a bicycle path that is free from cars? What about riding on a straight six lane arterial road versus a narrow street with paving stones? Which one is safer?
We need to share more of these stories to give people a realistic view of how things happen in the city, and how we can be more effective in our advocacy. Thanks for making this!
Protected bike lanes are basic safety. They should never be up for debate because basic safety is not debatable. It's like debating that there are too many life jackets on the party boat so there's no room for your grand piano. Maybe you were never entitled to bring a piano on the boat in the first place, and irrespective of that, you don't get rid of the life jackets. Public comment on protected bike lanes is so ridiculous. It's a fault in our system in the first place and unbelievably messed up that crazy residents actually show up to exploit this fault.
Instead of voice we got a vote.
I am from montreal and old enough to have seen impact of mayoral changes. Earliest bike paths were done along Lachine canal which was a Parcs Canada facility and into the old port which was Prts Canada facility (both federal) and not the city. Its success as a leasure/tourists draw made it more of a positive image. (though it was a most excellent bike-highway fro west island to downtown during off peak cycling hours). Mayors of montréal did photo ops to announce some bike paths on certain arteries for the purposes of a photo op, not to make them usable as commuting. Many were built betwene sidewalk and row of parked cars which means intersectiosn were dangerous due to cyclist not being seen. And one on St-denis had very dangerous design for underpasses.
It is one thing to do a photo op for new bike path in a park or otherwise "useless" land, it is another to do something which reduces car lanes.
A few years ago, Valérie Plante was elected as mayor, and suddently, a lot of stuff got magically unlocked. That dangerous underpass on St Denis got fixed properly after there was another cyclig death. Many bike paths created, and now, many get cleared of snow in winter.
It shows that a mayor does make a difference, and the staff below understand what is needed when they are given carte blanched to do something right. The damger is what happens when the ayor changes. If the bike paths have taken root and become too popular, then the next mayor has to maintain them, but if they are still building up ridership, it becomes very easy to scale back bikje pacth, stop deploying new ones, and stop clearing them at the next budget cuts.
It may take longer before the concept of cycling as an alternative to cars instead of cycing as a leasure activity really gets engrained and takes root in municipal governance so it becomes integral part of urban planning.
Note that New York City has made huge improvements in previous decades to setup cyclable environment.
I was unaware of the term "sharrow" and always though it meant dedicated shoulder on the side, but recently learned it was just a suggestio to car drivers that bikes will occupy the street. The effectiveness then depends on just how wide the right lane is. In many roads, the right lane is wider than the left lane to give mroe space for cyclists, but the extra width is defeated by bad road conditions, potholes etc on the side of road. Car drivers (aka politicians in their Cadillacs) are unaware of bad road conditions for cyclists because their comfi car never rides that far to the right where all the potholes are.
The term sharrow is basically the equivalent of "watch for deer" signs on rural roads.
Bike bike nudge nudge is such a good brand name, kudos
Here in North America we are severely addicted to the automobile. Most people take their car for all these short trips and that's sickening literally.
Actually, a lot of people just skip going out altogether because having to get dressed to drive halfway across town and spend a couple of hours just to run a simple errand is too much hassle and not worth it. Most North Americans just stay indoors and stay isolated because there's no incentive or motivation to go out just for the sake of going out. When they do go out, they get in their cars, rush to their destination, finish quickly, then rush back to their lonely concrete cages. 🤦
What is wrong with that? Humanity spent thousands of years perfecting indoor. In the US you are allowed to kill any intruders. We a have proverb, Home sweet home.@@I.____.....__...__
yup everyone has an opinion
Edmonton sucks so bad for cycling, omg. I'm trying to use my bike year-round and it's so difficult. The 81 hour standard for clearing paths is ridiculous and the clearing of bike lanes is so-so at best. Mike Janz is the only one that advocates for us.
so you collect bottles in the winter too as most bikers then
Some of us ride because riding in winter is awesome.
At least it should be. Slippery singletrack in the river valley shouldn’t be safer than riding on the street, but here we are. 😔
I always get very upset about concern trolling when it comes to rhetoric against anything, but especially bike lanes. Using elderly/disabled and funding for opioid crisis as shields against alternative mobility is unconscionable.
If anything positive can be taken from this, you can argue that the ease in which bike infrastructure can be implemented, but also changed or removed may convince some skeptics to at least give it a try - obviously the key is to keep it in place long enough to see the positive results instead of having it be a foregone conclusion. Although I wonder if previously installed bike lanes will be easier or harder to reenact.
To use the elderly and disabled as an excuse is foolish and wrong, and doesn't make any sense.
If there's ever a user group that needs protected bike lanes, or the legal ability to ride on the footpath, it's the elderly and the disabled, because I know they don't want to ride on the road with cars and the people that drive them.
@@petergibson7287 They HAVE to use the elderly/disabled/etc. as an excuse because they wore out the children. They can't use the "think of the childreeeeeen!" line anymore so they had to pivot. 🤷
@@I.____.....__...__ Plus, bike lanes are *great* for kids. Gives them independence and lets em get exercise.
I find it interesting that you never actually state "Edmonton" in the title or video. I only figured it out from the content. Maybe that was on purpose? Hmm.
Really good video. I think long-term resilience requires a more extensive cycling network. It's easy to justify removing a cycle lane when it doesn't go anywhere, but harder when part of a large network.
“Vision Zero” is such a joke in the US and Canada. Politicians focus on words, not actions.
Its easy to take a picture of an empty bike lane because the cyclist are moving, they only take up the space for less than a minute. Parked cars however are still for hours, so its easy to take a picture of many parked cars. So even if the parking lane benefited 20 people a day, while the bike lane benefited 100 people day, its hard to see that unless you record the whole week. Or course a news van is there for only one hour, most likely not in rush hour.
Yup, it's very hard to get a photo of things in flux. Been there. Also, the photo clearly shows the bike-lane covered in snow because the city didn't bother to plow it like they did the road. This is like when FOX would preempt shows on Sunday night to run football overtime (despite having a dedicated FOX Sports channel 😒), then cancel the shows for having "low ratings" despite the low ratings being because the show was never aired FOR anyone to watch. 😒
You forgot the other neighborhood issue that has been used. Shadowing from Tall condominiums could cause cyclists to become disoriented when riding between buildings due the shadows cast by the buildings and hotspots caused by sunlight leading to the blinding of cyclists who would wander into the active lane of traffic due to disorientation. Vision zero in Toronto translates to Vision zero liability for the city in an accident involving cyclists.
12:30 - "driving faster than the "desired" speed will feel uncomfortable or dangerous" - in my case it works just the opposite way. My suspension easily swallows speed bumps at 40-50, even 60 kmh ... and is absolutely helpless at slower "desired" speeds. Either brake to almost still, right before the hurdle, or proceed at constant pace above the "desired" limit. In real life, of course, it's a combination of both. The main deterrent for me is not the bumps, or the curves, or other devious tricks - but the cameras.
Gee this sounds just like Toronto!
do you get a tax brake if you don't have a car?
I don’t understand why they made two unidirectional lanes (one north and one south) instead of a bidirectional bike. Your video show no conflict with driveways one one side. Why not make a bidi ? It looks like there is enough space for a bidirectional, a car lane and on street car parking.
A bidirectional lane on the south side was proposed. Some drawbacks are that it wouldn't connect with some painted door zone lanes in the west and it would end abruptly in the east because of the weird intersection that I mention in the video. There were also claims that such a lane would reduce the turning radius onto the street too much. The parking would also likely still have been removed as the road is around 8.5m wide in most places. The city has to make car lanes at least 3.2m wide, even for slow speed roads, and the bike lane should be at least 4.2m wide but we always get the "constrained" standard of 3m. The standard is 2.5m for a parking lane. I'm not sure if those numbers include extras like the barrier for the bike lane or gutters.
nimbys really do suck ass, if i were in desperate need of parking there i'd go find any of the four side streets and walk a couple hundred meters
but you mentioned that jasper ave needs bike infrastructure, but 102 ave, one block north, has a many kilometers long protected bike lane running alongside jasper avenue, and same with plenty of other "parallels" to major car commuter routes. we need more bike infrastructure, but at least the city creates viable options if you plan your route. after all, it's much easier to put bike lanes off of major car commuter routes, since that's easier to accomplish. in the case of jasper ave, it's definitely worth it to make it more bike friendly, but that can only come after much less people commute to downtown by car, since there's no option except taking out a lane, which will inevitably bring a shitstorm upon city council
and remember, no shame in riding the sidewalk when it's the safest option
Walking a couple hundred meters? Isn't that what poor people do?
@@Frostbiker Yup, that's why many areas have long stretches of unbroken road so that pedestrians and cyclists can't cross the street and have to either risk their lives to dodge traffic or to walk/bike a kilometer up/down the road to the next intersection, then cross, then walk/bike 900m back down. 😒
@@I.____.....__...__ Been there many times. I feel you.
To clarify, on this section there were 2 bike lanes (2 direction) and now there is one? In the video shots I am seeing you on a protected bike lane with street parking on the other side. Did the additional bike lane remove all on-Street parking?
Originally, there was a westbound sharrow and an eastbound contraflow painted bike gutter. The City installed single direction protected bike lanes on both sides. The westbound lane was then removed and returned to just a sharrow.
Imagine you knew all this two years ago. Do you have any thoughts on what could have been done differently so that this (or similar) safer/better infrastructure could have remained? PR/outreach, data, different design? a few specific concessions for parking/loading? different process up front?
Two years would not be far enough to go back in my city. Like other cities, my city has required years of planning and consultation for each few kilometres of bike lane. It has also delayed bike lanes for years because one church along the route complained it would lose space for five cars once a week. What is less like other cities is that my city will remove a bike lane to the point you would never know it existed on short notice. The bike lane in this video is not the first lane that was removed in the dead of winter when you would only ever see really urgent road work being done. I assume it's a vocal minority, since the residents of the city have been voting in a majority of pro-bike councillors for about 15 years, but that minority knows that they can focus their whining and have some non-car infrastructure removed. The City's planners also create substandard infrastructure and do their utmost to never inconvenience a driver. Substandard infrastructure isn't used as much as proper infrastructure would be which "proves" no one bikes in this city and infrastructure should be removed.
If the N/S painted door zones to the west were protected bike lanes and the lanes in the video were connected with protected bike lanes to the downtown grid, it could be argued that the removed lane was a critical link. I wish the City had kept their promise to leave the lane in until this Spring. Stories from Janette Sadik-Khan and others have shown that people get used to these changes and realize the world didn't end when a little car space was turned over to people on bikes.
Infuriating, to say the least.
I love that you included a quote from Donald Trump, anyone claiming that less parking is "liberal propaganda" can hear straight from the horses mouth that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with buissness
Business govt.
Bike are made with metal too
Noticed one thing in this video where are all the bikers ? Might have been a good Idea to show some of those 300/day bikers in this video . Oh it's winter in most of it . I've seen bikers in the winter all of them were collecting pop bottles . Oh too Edmonton has snow on the streets for around 5 months of the year . Isn't snow and bike safety a concern ? Net zero HM 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Screw it, take over a lane in the middle of lane... And not the right of the road...
There are plenty of times I was doing the 25 mph posted speed with arrogant angry drivers passing me...
You think that's activism, I think that's a countdown to a driver eventually running you down. 🤦 I'd rather ride in the broken, gravel, sand shoulder (until I can get to a sidewalk) than risk riding in the middle of the road. I've already been run over in the SIDEWALK, I just assume EVERY driver is a psycho now. 🤷 It's like the adage in the dirty-cop video community, "what good is being right if you're ?"
Same story in Australia, there are councillors in my city that watn to remove the bike lane featured in this video. ruclips.net/video/CzE0UfpfFX8/видео.html
Removal the Bikes Lanes Period would be a Better Idea, as they Impede Real Traffic. A complete waste of Money and Road
yes
Good to see that occasionally cities do the right thing. Many "protected" bike lanes are a danger to pedestrians and motorists, and are not used by many cyclists. Much of the time the construction of bike lanes negatively impacts the vast majority of citizens to benefit a tiny number.
This whole video went right over your dense head, huh?
You forgot the tags.
@@I.____.....__...__ You forgot the " I don't know how to evaluate data" tag
I like to hop to work on my pogo stick. I demand a pogo stick lane next to the bike lane. And can we get it heated so the snow that's plowed onto this new lane from the vehicle and bicycle lanes doesn't impede my oh-so green, renewable, and environmental friendly mode of transportation? Shame to people who use tires! It's filthy, and polluting our planet!
Unicycle lane.
I'm not sure you're using your pogo-stick correctly, you're supposed ride on top of it, not use it as a suppository. 😒
Sounds like a lot of infrastructure for a hobby. Job zones are not close enough for working people to use it as a method of transportation to work.
The contradiction here is that it will remain a "hobby" if there isn't enough infrastructure to make people ride bikes on a day to day basis within their neighborhoods.
You're just part of the problem with that attitude. Riding a bike might be a hobby for some, and on the weekend it is for me too, but on weekdays it's an essential method of transport.
Actually, on the weekends it is too, because I'm never going to walk anywhere.
Cycling is not a serious mode of transportation. The distances are too great in north American cities for it to ever be anything more than a glorified hobby.
@@Novusod incorrect
I like bicycle lanes. But I hate protected (with barriers or poles) bicycle lanes. These lanes are usually dirty. And my freedom of movement restricted. Where I live there are lanes with poles. So now I am worried hitting the poles with my handlebars.
That seems to me to be due to be them not being cleaned and them being too narrow.
@@truedarklander So what you are telling me is that if the bicycle lanes were cleaned then they would not be dirty. Also, you are also telling me that if the lanes where not narrow then they would not have restriction of movement? Did you just restated what I stated in my first post, without adding any insight or explanation??
@@answerman9933 You seemingly are blaming the protection for the dirtyness and narrowness when this is not the case.
@@truedarklander You missed my point. Let me see if I can make it clear to you. If something is clean then it is not dirty. If something is narrow then movement will be restricted. Does it make sense how what you wrote was just redundant?
@@answerman9933 No it isn't, as protected bike lanes aren't inherently narrow, which you seem to want to imply is true.
I'm going to warn you first here. My comment isn't going to be what you want to hear, but it does have some constructive criticism if you're willing to give it a shot.
Did you just lament a blocked bicycle lane using a clip of two ambulance vehicles with their emergency lights on in the bicycle lane?
And then supporting the city's photo radar program which was so predatory, the province literally had to step in, introduce a moratorium on new locations, and introduced strict new rules to prevent further abuse? It didn't even form a worthwhile part of your argument! It only served to reinforce car hatred and contempt that cyclists stereotypically show for their fellow road users.
This isn't some targeted anti cyclist city hall gleefully rubbing their hands as they take jackhammers to a bicycle lane near downtown. Sometimes the city makes some decisions for motorists with the roads that need to be undone. Sometimes these changes were enjoyed heavily by one group, but came at the expense at others. This isn't something that happens only to cyclists.
The car vs cyclist angle isn't doing you any favours. It's quite clear that the loss of your favourite bicycle lane has you feeling upset, but the way your video was framed, I'm having a really hard really feeling sorry for you. At best, it doesn't make me want to support you, it makes me want to just shrug my shoulders and tell myself the city probably had a good reason for it. At worst it reinforces the whiny cyclist stereotype and makes me instantly want to disengage with it. Oh sure, your fellow road warriors will give you a standing ovation, but they're not who you need to win over.
Why do I actually care about making your message more palatable for others, you might ask? Well, it's a bicycle lane on a street in a part of town I never drive on, let alone never go near. Getting your bicycle lane back doesn't hurt me whatsoever. Saying motorists deserve tickets and saying they're to blame anytime something doesn't go a cyclists way is unnecessary and getting tiring.
You can be better than this.
YOU can be better than this bullshit you wrote...
Lol
😅
When society believes and acts that life and urban planning is nothing but a power game, amsterdaming our cities' infra will be like social media: influence, clout, exclusion, and deplatforming. What's to judge between the carbrain and the bike brain? Power, only.
When was the last time a major city closed off an entire section of road to cars like they did this protected bike lane? It hardly ever happens, but when they build a few miles of actual bike infra, it's no problem to destroy the whole thing over what, some random parking spots or some local property values? He made it clear in this video that there really isn't a good reason and if anything, a further waste of money to rebuild it.
Cycle lanes are not a good thing. Bikes belong on the road. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
This is not true at all. No city with a lot of people riding bikes have your philosophy
No they don’t
@@joenuts5167 Bro is making shit up 🤡
Vehicles with a top speed of 20mph? Electric unicycles would be more apprioprate.
In which scenario would you feel more comfortable watching your 12yo daughter riding her bike: merging with car traffic (vehicular cycling), or riding a bicycle path that is free from cars? What about riding on a straight six lane arterial road versus a narrow street with paving stones? Which one is safer?