[Article] Speed limit proposed for active transportation routes
[Article] Speed limit proposed for active transportation routes
A Winnipeg councillor’s bid to create a speed limit for bicycles, electric bikes and scooters on active-transportation pathways is raising questions of whether such a restriction would be adequately e...
A proposal to keep pedestrian and cycling pathways from turing into "raceways" by city councilor, though local roads that once were public walkways are okay as raceways?
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not from Winnipeg, but this never works. Obviously, these people have not looked into the legal ramifications. A bicycle is unlicensed. This means there is no requirement to have qualified vision, testing, competency, there is no established form of measurement of speed, and no standardization of devices. Places have tried to license bikes for the last 150 years and all have failed. This has an extremely long history of being useless nonsense.
Absolutely every issue involving bikes is extremely simple to solve. All it takes is a designated right if way. Right of way applies to everyone all the time. Foot traffic needs to be reminded of this constantly. A right of way means one person in one lane. It is not a sidewalk, or optional. If you are in North America, and you are not on the right side as far to the right as practicable, you are on the wrong side. Every single problem happens because of stupid people that do not follow the right of way.
Sharing the roadway in the same direction is foolish. When a cycle must share the road, safest to be on the opposite side, to more clearly see oncoming traffic.
You may have misread, this is specific to multiuse pathways.
I was responding not to the article, but to the comment above me, which was stating that a cyclist in North America must be to the right as far as possible.
Perhaps I am the one with the misunderstanding then. I interpreted it as cyclists (and others) should be as far right as practical on pathways.
I grew up cycling on automobile roads, and was taught to ride on the left, so that I could be more aware and prepared for oncoming traffic. Riding on the right is trusting the drivers to avoid you, while riding on the left allows vision of the drivers as they approach.
I have no comment on if that is a best practice or not for a roadway.
On a multiuse path, however, it is not best practice.
This was overturned practice all the way back in the 1970's IIRC. It creates higher speed collisions, panick situations, it is impossible for the faster approaching vehicle to gauge the speed of intersection, and it steals the ability to slow down to mitigate potential conflict and collision. It is wrong and it is based on terrible logic. I have commuted full time by bike for many years. I have been hit by 7 cars. Riding backwards is illegal and absolutely will get you killed. A car hitting you from behind is rare but is not even close to the biggest cause of crashes. The biggest issue is illegal u-turns and driveways entering and exiting the road. A driver in never going to look for backwards traffic before exiting a driveway. Drivers are licensed if a driver is incompetent, they should not have a license. This is the key legal issue that should be addressed but isn't. There is a western culture stupidity about unqualified drivers allowed behind the wheel. This is incompatible with a completely inadequate public transit system and so there is no practical low bar for terrible drivers. The result of this lack of effective public transit is that we pay in blood and deaths instead of funded public infrastructure. Riding backwards as a policy only makes the problems worse; this has been proven legally and is the law everywhere.
I only get around LA on a bicycle and I would NEVER EVER ride on the wrong side of the road. That is essentially a death sentence.
If you ride 20 mph on a road with 35 mph traffic, going the opposite direction is a 55 mph closing speed. With traffic is only a 15 mph difference.
Not to mention people typically only scan for what they expect to see. My city has some bike lanes that go in both directions on one way streets. No way I use the bike lane going in the opposite direction because few people will be looking in the oncoming direction when at intersections.
Walking in the opposite direction makes sense because there is minimal difference in the closing speeds and a person can step sideways off the road to avoid danger.
You're making huge changes to avoid one of the smaller risks of riding on the road, while introducing entirely new ones. Statistically, you are extremely unlikely to be hit from behind by an automobile while you are driving down the middle of the lane. You are less likely to be hit in the middle of the lane than at the far right. Yes, both do happen, but compared to other forms of car/cyclist collisions, they are not worth making a priority. You should be concentrating on entirely different issues to maximize your safety on the road.
The middle of what lane? Here in Michigan, bicycles are not considered at all during road planning. The most we get is a painted gutter called a 'cycle lane', which gets blocked by parked automobiles if it even exists. Recently a pedestrian was killed in a hit and run, and it didn't sound as though the driver is even facing charges. Anyone not in an automobile is unofficially considered at-fault for such type of incidents.