Everything Bicycles | Winnipeg

[rkspec]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Does anyone believe that there should be a User's Fee payable to the City for use of these bike paths and extra bike lanes located throughout the city that the City has specially built for bicycle traffic?

How will you know who paid and who didnt?
Paid riders on the bike paths while everyone else on the road?
The city to hire a crew to police bike path eligibility?

IMO, just open it to everyone for the sake of safe biking.

[Authentic_City]

Why Don't You Need a Bicycle License?

David Dudley

Nov 28, 2016

Short answer: Because it’s pointless and expensive. But that hasn’t stopped a few intrepid cities from trying.

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...icense/508937/

[headhorse]

people who cycle are a net gain on the system anyways with reduced health care and road maintenance/capacity costs. should we also charge pedestrians for using sidewalks? if you're worried about costs of infrastructure, you should be advocating for policies bringing down the share of car commuters..

[esquire]

If anyone advocates a user fee for cyclists to cover maintenance, then you are simultaneously advocating a user fee for cars that is pricier by orders of magnitude, given the far higher costs that roads impose.

Bring on the toll roads!!

[rkspec]

if anything, i do miss the mini license plate i used to have hanging off the rear seat of my BMX when i was a kid.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Just throwing this out there to see how others feel about the situation.

Does anyone believe that there should be a User's Fee payable to the City for use of these bike paths and extra bike lanes located throughout the city that the City has specially built for bicycle traffic?

Some taxpayers still do not have sidewalks in their areas for kids and seniors to walk to ammenities in the area, but there are paved bike paths all over the City. It is agreed that bikes do take some strain off the environment, but do load it up in other ways. Therefore, bicyclists should be paying part of the bill through user fee or taxation contribution.

Secondly, should it not be mandatory for bicycles to have an I.D. plate and insurance plan similar to autos and motorcycles that use the roadways of the City and the Province? If a bicyclist hit a pedestrian or auto, should they not have liability insurance to cover the claim by the injured party?

My short answer is no, it's a ridiculous idea.

[alittle1]

So in essence, what most people are saying is "no user fees" because is cost too much to impliment and police. So, why pay parking fees, transit fares, building permits, speeding tickets, park-use permits, land title search fees, passport fees, etc. We already paid to develop all these things through taxation of some sort, therefore we should be entitled. In fact, people who pay more tax then others should be allowed to go 5 mph faster (9.2 kmph) faster than people who pay less taxes. People that ride bicycles are more entitled because their carbon footprint is smaller than those that drive autos, and those that drive motorcyles should be just a little less entitled to road and path use than bicyclists.

Should bicyclists be regulated as to speed they should drive at? Can bicyclists pass on either side? Do pedestrians or do bikes have the right-a-way? Should bicycles be forced to have a working STOP light, and working head and tail lights on their bike. Should bikes have "daytime running lights", so that they can be 'seen' better? Is the sidewalks safer than the roads, no one uses them anyways!

Feel free to weigh in on any of these questions......love to hear your answers.

[DancingDuck]

Originally Posted by alittle1

So in essence, what most people are saying is "no user fees" because is cost too much to impliment and police. So, why pay parking fees, transit fares, building permits, speeding tickets, park-use permits, land title search fees, passport fees, etc. We already paid to develop all these things through taxation of some sort, therefore we should be entitled. In fact, people who pay more tax then others should be allowed to go 5 mph faster (9.2 kmph) faster than people who pay less taxes. People that ride bicycles are more entitled because their carbon footprint is smaller than those that drive autos, and those that drive motorcyles should be just a little less entitled to road and path use than bicyclists.

Should bicyclists be regulated as to speed they should drive at? Can bicyclists pass on either side? Do pedestrians or do bikes have the right-a-way? Should bicycles be forced to have a working STOP light, and working head and tail lights on their bike. Should bikes have "daytime running lights", so that they can be 'seen' better? Is the sidewalks safer than the roads, no one uses them anyways!

Feel free to weigh in on any of these questions......love to hear your answers.

Lots going on here.... All of those are considerably different than a "user tax": We pay speeding tickets because that is the penalty for breaking a law, we pay for building permits to ensure buildings are properly built, transit it fares because that is the cost to ride... We don't pay a user fee on top of a transit fare, just like we don't pay a user fee to enter a building after it was built. Like I said in my earlier post, and esquire restated, cars don't pay tolls and pedestrians don't pay to use sidewalks so why does it makes sense for bikes to pay bike lanes?

If a cyclist is on a street, don't go faster than the speed limit, on a dedicated lane, same thing, and on the sidewalk only as fast as you can react to a pedestrian.

As for lights, aside from the difficulty of fitting that many lights on a bike, there already is a "stop" light, called a hand signal... Not sure what benefit would be gained from daytime running lights

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by DancingDuck

Lots going on here.... All of those are considerably different than a "user tax": We pay speeding tickets because that is the penalty for breaking a law, we pay for building permits to ensure buildings are properly built, transit it fares because that is the cost to ride... We don't pay a user fee on top of a transit fare, just like we don't pay a user fee to enter a building after it was built. Like I said in my earlier post, and esquire restated, cars don't pay tolls and pedestrians don't pay to use sidewalks so why does it makes sense for bikes to pay bike lanes?

If a cyclist is on a street, don't go faster than the speed limit, on a dedicated lane, same thing, and on the sidewalk only as fast as you can react to a pedestrian.

As for lights, aside from the difficulty of fitting that many lights on a bike, there already is a "stop" light, called a hand signal... Not sure what benefit would be gained from daytime running lights

Exactly. And bikes can still be ticketed for numerous things, just like cars. People can be ticketed as well for jaywalking (even though we don't care here), drinking in public (see: DUI), many things.

And if someone is going to argue "well most cyclists don't signal!!" – neither do many cars, and I can guarantee you there isn't a driver in Winnipeg that doesn't break a single law every day.

[h0twired]

How did this not make the thread?

https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/st...08638885515269

Anyone ride down McDermot/Bannatyne on their commute today?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by h0twired

How did this not make the thread?

https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/st...08638885515269

Anyone ride down McDermot/Bannatyne on their commute today?

Was discussed at length in the Infrastructure and Exchange threads. I don't think it's open today – last night for Jazz Fest the lanes were still very much under construction. Will find out in 20 minutes when I go downtown though.

[Authentic_City]

^It appeared to be under construction this morning. There was a fair bit of construction disrupting the bike lane between HSC and Princess Street. How far west on Bannatyne will this extend?

[buzzg]

UPDATE: Still under construction but they appear to be very close. They've adjusted some of the bike signals to be lower, and are putting up signage/finishing off curb repairs.

McDermot east of Rorie has now been converted to a one-way, and work is starting today on mirroring the Bannatyne angled parking design. Soon as sewer work on Bann wraps up (it's moving quickly), they'll be installing the angled spots permanently.

The Bannatyne roundabout and all the ped/bike crosswalks on Waterfront from Lombard to James are being upgraded. The walkway is now concrete, framed with brick. It's a good idea – the bricks have just not been holding up well through winters.

Authentic_City – this portion of the project technically extends to Hargrave, but then the Hargrave to Sherbrook is being done as part of the West Alexander cycling project – so it will go Waterfront to HSC by the end of summer, or sooner.

[michelleb]

How do the McDermot/Bannatyne bike lanes compare to the "buffered" bike lanes on north Pembina near Confusion Corner that have some curb protection? (here and there...broken up by long stretches of access points) Those lanes feel very tight widthwise.

Also, does anyone know if these curbs will have some kind of post fencing?

[buzzg]

Well these are actual curbs, so they’re much more than buffered. They’re also wider as they’ve used an entire lane for them onnthe portion between Main and Hargrave.

[michelleb]

Sweet. Gotta get up there soon to check 'em out.

[Authentic_City]

I'm following the discussion of cycling in the Portage and Main thread, but thought in best to post a response here:

Originally Posted by windypeg

In reality, cyclists and motorists break traffic laws at about the same rate.
https://www.outsideonline.com/227300...s-more-drivers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-...-similar-rates

Interesting studies cited here. Thanks for posting these. The finding that motorists and cyclists are about as compliant with the law is somewhat misleading without considering the context. According to the first study, cyclists obeyed the law about 87-88% of the time, while motorists obeyed the law 85% of the time. The second study found rates were about 91-92% for motorists and 92-93% for cyclists. Great. However, keep in mind that these are individual average rates, not aggregate numbers.

There are many more cars on the road than bikes, and keep in mind that the main cycling season is only about 6 months in Winnipeg. Even if individual rates of compliance with the law are comparable, there are many, many more traffic violations in total (aggregate) per year by motorists than cyclists because of the far greater number of cars on the road, and the seasonality of biking. It is therefore not surprising that motorists get many more tickets than cyclists.

Also, consider the fact that most motorists break the law (strictly speaking) nearly every time they drive (exceed the speed limit even just a bit? Roll through a stop sign? Fail to signal? etc.) Given this fact, it's actually quite interesting just how rare it is to get a ticket as a motorist. I've been driving a car nearly every day for almost 30 years and I've had only about 5 or 6 moving violations (speeding, no left turn, etc.). That's a very low rate of detection!

Given the very very low rate that motorists are actually caught and ticketed for driving offenses, it stands to reason that cyclists would represent a much smaller overall proportion of traffic tickets.

So, yeah, it's not reasonable or logical to demand cyclists and motorists get an equal number of traffic tickets.

[Authentic_City]

Also moved from the P&M thread:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

The majority of cyclists in most Canadian cities who commute to and from work, do so simply because they cannot afford a car...

Maybe, but not necessarily. According to a recent Statistics Canada report, cycling is more common for those in higher income households and among those with higher levels of education. The report speculates that flexible work hours for professionals and availability of dedicated biking infrastructure in higher income areas might explain the higher rates of cycling among higher socioeconomic segments of society. However, there are certainly those who commute by bike (or foot) because they can't afford a car).

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../14788-eng.htm

I have also seen some research from the US suggesting a higher level of education, rather than income, is most associated with bike commuting. For instance, one US study found that individuals with a graduate degree are most likely to commute to work. Of course having a graduate degree doesn't always equate to a high income (as some graduates of philosophy have discovered).

[headhorse]

I think financial literacy is big one too... so many people view a car as a necessity and will go into debt to have one. I share a car with my partner and the other one busses/cycles/walks the rest of the time. it really makes no sense for most households to have two cars, especially if it's just being driven each day to be parked somewhere else for most of the time.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I think financial literacy is big one too... so many people view a car as a necessity and will go into debt to have one. I share a car with my partner and the other one busses/cycles/walks the rest of the time. it really makes no sense for most households to have two cars, especially if it's just being driven each day to be parked somewhere else for most of the time.

Definitely. What also matters (obviously) is the quality of transit or AT options available. I moved to Norwood so I could have great transit access and cycling options. I sold my car – didn't need to, but just wasn't using it much. Maybe I'll buy something again in winter, but I don't know yet.

And, to be clear, I hadn't ridden a bike in 3 years – just got a new one in April. So it's not like I'm some avid geared-up cyclist.