|
Toronto is about to make life a lot more difficult for motorists... on purpose! (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That's exactly it. Riding a bike is one of those choices, and when you make that choice, you make it knowing that you are sharing the road with vehicles about 500 times your weight, some of them being driven by people who are exhausted, distracted, high, etc. This is called risk, and it accompanies every important decision in life. It is certainly OK to take a risk, but highly inappropriate to demand that everybody else inconvenience themselves and potentially expose themselves to greater risk in order to make the experience less risky and more convenient for yourself.
The world is a much bigger, faster place than it was 100 years ago. If you can accomplish what you need to accomplish with just a bike, that's great. However, cyclists should understand that bicycle is no longer the preferred mode of transportation - not downtown, not anywhere. It may serve a small number of people, but is too impractical for the vast majority. It does not make logical sense to design a city for the benefit of a very small number of people with very modest requirements; a well-designed system is designed to accommodate the maximum expected stress, not the minimum.
There's not enough living space downtown anyway to accommodate everyone who currently commutes. And these same people who want fewer cars are usually the ones opposed to high-rise construction and in favour of subsidized housing. |
It's not an acceptable risk to have to share the road with drivers who are exhausted, distracted or impaired.
biking is not preferred in part because many view it as dangerous thanks to drivers, especially those not used to driving downtown. I know many people who either refuse to drive down here or who are very nervous when they do. drivers. If they can't handle the busier streets and the greater number of pedestrians, cyclists and pedestrians, then perhaps they shouldn't be driving down here or need some lessons.
we also have winter, so biking year round isn't really possible.
other than that...not much has changed to make biking a relic of the past. the city has failed to make it an attractive transportation option and has failed to make public transit a truly viable alternative to driving.
I'm certainly not defending this Jarvis thing and I think it's naive to suggest that the core be "designed" for small groups of people...but there's nothing wrong with making the core more bike and pedestrian friendly. more bike lanes, wider sidewalks in some places, and more 'pedestrian-only' areas.
The solution is better transit...not catering to cars in the downtown core.
btw...I want fewer cars and am all for high-rise construction and relegating most subsidized housing to non-prime areas of the core (not to be equated with full-on gentrification). |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Less home, less quality home. And yes the trade off can be worth it.
How has the city declined? do you really want me to go there? |
how is it 'less quality home'?
yes, I'm asking you how the city has declined, specifically downtown vs. surrounding areas or outside the city since that's what we're ultimately debating here when talking about 'less home' for the money. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm certainly not defending this Jarvis thing and I think it's naive to suggest that the core be "designed" for small groups of people...but there's nothing wrong with making the core more bike and pedestrian friendly. more bike lanes, wider sidewalks in some places, and more 'pedestrian-only' areas.
|
the problem with this was that the main focus of this project was shifted to a "war on cars" debate. if you read the original report, it didn't even recommend bike lanes. however, kyle rae decided to flip sides and endorse a plan where there would be bike lanes instead of widened sidewalks.
personally, i'd rather have the beautification of jarvis through the implementation of planters, wider sidewalks, new trees and other streetscape improvements which were recommended by the original report and not what council voted for.
for those that use jarvis, there is a bike lane a street over for cyclists to use. i think there are more pressing routes that could be made or extended. personally, i can't wait for east bayfront/donlands area to be done which will proportionaly divide streets for all modes of traffic. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I would rather see that kind of beautification too. Jarvis needs it.
I'm hardly a crusader for cyclists' rights, just a wee bit anti-car when it comes down to planning in the core of a major city. I do much agree with the original article that attempts at reducing traffic should be coupled with transit improvements and incentives to not drive.
I'm honestly not familiar with the original plan vs. what was voted on. Did Kyle Rae give a reason for the switch? why would they deviate from the original plan? or is the cyclist lobby really just *that* powerful :D |
|
|
| gummybear |
I was listening to talk radio on my long ass drive to work this morning and they were speaking of legislation that would require cyclists to get a license and get some sort of registration.
I totally agree with this..If you want to share the road..pay for it..as well get educated on the rules of the road since many cyclists either refuse to follow the rules..or just plain don't know what the rules are..
You can't have it both ways...you're either in or not. You either stop at every single red light/stop sign..or don't whine about having the same rights as a driver...I don't have the option of looking both ways on a red light and proceeding because I feel that it's safe to do so...why should you?
ps. jarvis is never going to be beautiful..that's like slapping some new paint on the walls and purchasing some new furniture in a house that's infested with roaches...they should focus on "cleaning" up that street.. |
|
|
| Pett |
| 99% of bike riders will never make a complete stop at a stop sign. get over it, reality happens |
|
|
| exraver |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pett
99% of bike riders will never make a complete stop at a stop sign. get over it, reality happens |
Ha ha, about 80% of drivers do exactly same thing! |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| stop pulling percentages from your asses |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pett
So I'm kinda against bike lanes, just don't expect me to make full stops at stop signs, don't expect me to cut you off if you make it to the stop sign first either. It's all about balance |
i never expect the cyclist to stop at the stop sign. slow down and see if there is anything coming or people walking.
it's the other part that is the problem.
if the bike is going straight and the car is turning right, it's the bikers that just blindly go through that are the problem.
wait for car to turn or go around the left if the car was there first. good job Pett. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
wait for car to turn or go around the left if the car was there first. good job Pett. |
pshhhhhhhhhh wishful thinking, because they don't pollute, they can do whatever they want, green smugness. |
|
|
| Espresso |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
well, i was almost a resident of Jarvis and ing ran the other way. too bad it was only after the landlord scammed me out of a lot of money, i saw people shoot heroin in broad day light, and a crack whore was dropped at the corner with half her clothes missing.
so i dunno... that doesn't happen in my neighbourhood.
maybe you think it's the norm for those kinds of things to happen but it's not normal. |
Oh noes so you had a bad experience with your landlord and then conclude that Jarvis is not safe to bike? wow talk about generalizations.
first off Jarvis runs from Bloor to Lakeshore Blvd, so this traffic congestion/pollution/noise affect all of us (who are actually living on this street as opposed to you folks) it wasn't and still isn't mainly about biking it's about the people who live on this street and are fed up with the unwanted traffic.
Second, Jarvis is as safe as any other neighborhood in downtown Toronto, the same things you said can be found pretty much on Queen/King/Dundas/Bloor streets etc. I've been living on this street for 8 yrs now and sure things you said exist(Hooker Harvery's/creakheads/etc) and no it's not normal, but it's not as dangerous you make it to be, quite contrary Jarvis is way more safe than Parliament/Sherbourne, etc.
Jay, you'll have a lot of complaining to do in the next few months (what else is new with you, eh? lol ) Miller and co are pushing this agenda (finally) this is just the beginning and the Bike Plan is here to stay, like it or not.
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/index.htm
| quote: | | Traffic engineering and street design that encourage walking and cycling; |
Toronto didn't/doesn't have a biking culture/rules/regulations like Vancouver or most European cities do, because lack of infrastructure and that biking was never implemented on this (planned) scale as a means of transport, but things are changing and will keep changing and with that the biking culture will mature overtime, pedestrains/cyclists/motorists will have to learn how to respect each other and get along.
You can either complain or accept it and try to find solutions to harmonize this new phenomenon that you can't grasp.
Or just maybe you should go back whining about how you have to pay for garbage bags since they took away your free plastic bags. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Espresso
Oh noes so you had a bad experience with your landlord and then conclude that Jarvis is not safe to bike? wow talk about generalizations.
first off Jarvis runs from Bloor to Lakeshore Blvd, so this traffic congestion/pollution/noise affect all of us (who are actually living on this street as opposed to you folks) it wasn't and still isn't mainly about biking it's about the people who live on this street and are fed up with the unwanted traffic.
Second, Jarvis is as safe as any other neighborhood in downtown Toronto, the same things you said can be found pretty much on Queen/King/Dundas/Bloor streets etc. I've been living on this street for 8 yrs now and sure things you said exist(Hooker Harvery's/creakheads/etc) and no it's not normal, but it's not as dangerous you make it to be, quite contrary Jarvis is way more safe than Parliament/Sherbourne, etc.
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/index.htm
|
Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't care if the whole city adds bike lanes. As long as cyclists follow rules, the problems wouldn't exist.
As far as I heard, they did some calculations and it will take driver's 2 additional minutes if the bike lane is added. I don't care about 2 minutes. I never have to go on Jarvis.
Mount Pleasant/Jarvis, is one of only 3 routes to get downtown so cars/traffic are always going to be there. For the Jarvis residents to think that they are going to get rid of traffic where a million people have to get into the city everyday are delusional.
As for safety, I am soo happy for you that you feel ok living there but I don't understand why you have to discount my opinion about the area. I don't want to go there, I don't want to hang out there, I don't want to bike or walk there, I don't want to drive there and I don't want to live there. I am not insulting you just because you choose to live there.
PS. Parliament/Sherbourne is basically the same neighbourhood, 1 city block away. |
|
|
|
|
