Westside wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 3:53 pm
To say cyclists don't pay for infrastructure may be your experience, but is untrue - we all pay tax and that pays for the majority of infrastructure
Never said they don't pay for infrastructure.
Ok we all pay tax that pays for infrastructure. Why should motorists pay registration and have insurance, but cyclists who want dedicated bike lanes and the same rights on the roads as motorvehicles/motorists not pay those same things?
To say cyclists run more red lights than motorists may be your experience, but is untrue - unfortunately there are both drivers and cyclists who break the rules for which there is no excuse.
I never said cyclists do more of anything then motorists. Did I say there was an excuse for motorists breaking road rules? A motorist can be held accountable, because his/her vehicle is registered and has rego plates on it.
To say cyclists have no accountability may be your experience, but is untrue - as in any traffic accident, all parties are required to stop and provide identification - including cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders etc.
So my experience is untrue?
Far out you're a special one.
Anything else you would like me to disprove for you?
What I would like is for you to participate in a discussion without making up flat out lies about what was said.
Start with that, and then we can talk about what you think you've disproved.
Besides, your argument makes no sense. You don't want to see cyclists take space away cars (or even share that space), yet you applaud a project that added in 2 tram lanes (which take up a lot more space than two bike lanes) at the expense of two rows of on-road parking and by decreasing the width of the existing lanes? Pot meet kettle much? And on top of that, you're now fitting LESS into that space because every cyclist that now chooses to get on the bike is one less car using that existing space.
I've spent more time then I wished talking to a militant lycra hoon, but anyway..since you cant, or refuse to understand..
The trams have a dedicated track, motor vehicles have their own dedicated lanes. Neither interferes with the other. The signal sequence is also designed so that trams and motor vehicles do not interfere with each others operation.
What I'm in favor of, is road infrastructure that accommodates motor vehicles AND cyclists, and any public transport.
What I'm saying, since you're too dense to comprehend it because you'd rather be a militant cyclist on an internet forum, is that we need better infrastructure that takes all this into account. What I'm saying is that the current situation of band aid solutions with vehicle lanes being squeezed tighter and tighter and bike lanes being painted down, is not adequate.
We need to start designing city streets for all modes,
ISN'T THAT WHAT THE HELL I'VE BEEN SAYING? LMFAO For crying out loud..
and if that's at the expense of a few entitled motorists like yourselves, then that's the price we pay.
On ya bike
Because no network can sustain a single-occupant car-dominated city.
Except the hundreds of cities that are already? Wow, some of the shit you read online.
All modes have their place, but they all need to coexist safely and economically.
WOW..
Having to share a lane and drive courteously around a cyclist, or better yet have a lane reduced or removed to help encourage cycling is not a high price to pay for a better integrated and active-friendly city centre.
It's interesting that people like you, militant cyclists, never seem to ever want to take responsibility for their own behavior.
As demonstrated above, particularly the last quote, your mentality is that everyone else should move and adapt to suit you and your lycra.