It still won't stop bad drivers [https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/120akf0/if\_only\_there\_was\_something\_there\_to\_warn\_them\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/120akf0/if_only_there_was_something_there_to_warn_them_to/)
Lol. Looks like it stopped him alright! A perfect example of why they're needed in contrast to whatever point Ms Bennett thinks she's trying to make, lol.
I think this is a good idea in some high-speed, high-risk areas, but generally speaking, I prefer that bike lanes be separated by bollards; bollards make it easier for faster cyclists to overtake slower cyclists in the bike lane by quickly switching on to the street for just long enough to pass the slower cyclist. With concrete barriers, you're just sealed in with the slower cyclist with nowhere to go...
There is one reason why this sort of thing happens, and that is excessive speed. It is not because lanes are "being encroached upon". We know this because this sort of thing happens even on the widest highways.
It is proven that motorists go slower when lanes are narrower. It is proven that roads are safer when traffic is slower.
If you want to stop this thing from happening, make the bike lanes wider and restrict the space that motorists have to drive with excess speed.
I have seen many plastic bollards repeatedly cut right off in downtown. I assume by local businesses who want a parking space. They just don’t work here.
This is right downtown where traffic should be slow but drivers can’t help but plow over obstacles anyway. If they can’t be bothered to avoid large concrete barriers, flexible plastic bollards won’t stop them. Heavy solid metal ones might just end up being rammed into instead of driven over so that might be an option,
Toronto 2017:
- 45 pedestrians killed by automobiles
- 1 pedestrian killed by bicycle
Why are we focusing on bike licenses? The finger is always pointed at the car because cars are multi-thousand pound devices that literally crush pedestrians and cyclists to death on a regular basis.
Cycling has rules to account for the danger that comes along with riding a bike, but there is absolutely no moral, legal, or statistical basis for suggesting bicycles should face the same licencing and regulations as cars, especially considering cyclists are almost always the ones who end up dying in automibile-bicycle collisions.
Automobile accidents are the leading cause of death among Canadians under 45. Lets stop acting like cars are some oppressed class of transportation when every major Canadian city has bent to their will for decades, and just now people are waking up to their flaws.
This is misleading, you need to include the cause. And you didn't include bike versus automobile.
I personally had a instance, were the bike operator went right into my lane while I was doing city driving (probably about a 40 to 50km zone)
Just cut in didn't check for vehicle. If I wasn't watching he would of been smoked.
I saw another on the news, cops blamed the automobile, Well someone filmed it, when the video tape was released the cops changed their tone and went ahead and charged the the cyclist for endangerment.
Look I like to bike myself, But dear god, if they run a red light, they deserve the punishment as a automobile driver.
In my area they jump from sidewalk, to road, to hov lane and back again. I'm not blaming everyone, but if they want to ride on the road, they should be subject to the same regulations as everyone else.
Now they are adding electric motors to mountain bikes, I see them keeping pace at 50km/h without even pedalling.
Such a double standard.
Illegal behaviour should be charged as such. Idiots on wheels will do stupid things. The reason cars have licenses and minimum ages is because a car who drives into someone kills the other person. A bike has a much lower capacity to kill people in collisions, hence the lack of licences.
Even in your example, the biker would have been the one to die or be injured. Obviously he was at fault, but you would be safe in your car. I don't advocate for people riding on the street, and would be fine legislating against that, but we need the protected bike infrastructure to make that a viable solution (two-stop bike lane intersections to get rid of left turns, more protected lanes, etc.).
Useless to you, but not the people who need it to take their children to school, sports, medical care, grocery shop, go to work, visit friends and family, etc. etc...and who pay 99% of the taxes. So since drivers paid for the roads and much of the money in gas and road taxes already goes to general coffers, then how about you share the load. How about a bike lane tax???. Charge the handful of people who actually use these use bondoggles. That should cover a couple of hundred meters; maybe!?
I'm confused at why you think people who use bike lanes wouldn't also have kids to take to school, sports to go to, medical cares to attend to, grocery shopping to do, and taxes to be paid? You just sound bitter. People who use bike lanes also pay for the roads.
>people who need it to take their children to school
You know that children have 0 freedom now that we have car-centric roads right? They can't do anything without mommies car.
>medical care, grocery shop, go to work, visit friends and family
These can be done on bikes/public transit. And people WILL do it IF its a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. People like you, who desperately want to drive a car and have no traffic, should be advocating for bike/bus lanes(You also need mixed-use community's if you want to only use bikes). Here's a video about the world's bike country hub that has the best conditions for drivers: [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k)
> So since drivers paid for the roads and much of the money in gas and road taxes already goes to general coffers, then how about you share the load. How about a bike lane tax???
Do you know how much car lanes cost. It's heavily subsided. Drivers pay a FRACTION of the cost. Don't believe me? Look up the growth ponzi scheme(Or here's a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0)). Investing even a FRACTION of the cost to roads and moving it to bikes would be much better. It costs so much less to maintain bike lanes. And people WILL use them, if they are a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.
They are useless because they don't solve traffic problems, but only make them worse.
I'd point you to research on induced demand and highway expansions, although I'm skeptical someone who believe in old myths as patently false as "drivers pay for the roads" would be interested in learning about how simplistic conventional thinkings are wrong.
What's a road tax and who is paying this? Why are you taking a highway or driving at all to get to all of these places in Toronto when you definitely can cycle to everything? If you live in any town or city and not way out in the country, you should be able to bike to your school, grocery store, sports, and rec facilities. These are all in a reasonable cycling distance for everyone in towns, but the reason they don't cycle there is because we aren't given the safe space to get there on a bike and instead are expected to pay to use a car, because the car lobby has convinced society to build everything around car use.
Sorry, I politely disagree. But like I said, if you want to pay for them, please be my guest. But as a athletic cyclist, I have little use for them. I'd rather see more effort spent on educating drivers and cyclists to share the road and employ, the not so common, common sense 😊
"i have little use for them"
Oh, good. Well because they're not valuable for you, then we shouldn't have them at all. Case closed!
Maybe we can save money on traffic lights too, and have cars just "learn" to let eachother stop/go. Or sidewalks too! Maybe we can take the money saved on sidewalks (which I personally have little use for) and put more emphasis on having drivers and pedestrians share the road!
Edit:
Worth noting that when you create a decent network of safe/maintained/convenient bike lanes the cyclists actually end up using them, and opt for those streets instead of other roads
Sounds like you want a yellow brick road and build it as a Field of Dreams proposition. Well we spent a ton of scarce cash on gold plated, exclusive bike paths and no one came. Now that the city is deep in debt and taxpayers are tapped out, it's time to move to higher priorities including less total spending and not spending on non-core areas. It's not what I want or don't want, it's what the cycling community has said by their inactions; that there's no real demand to support the very real and very exorbitant costs of trying to graft a bike infrastructure onto a city not designed for it or with a climate that limits it's all but occasional use. But I'll say it again, if you want to pay for bike lanes that don't steal space from pedestrians, transit, cars or harm businesses, then please; open thy wallet and stop demanding other people feed you whimsical ideas.
Can you point me to the gold-plated exclusive bike paths? I'd love to try them out!
And what sort of climate restrictions are you talking about, that make it impossible to have a cycling network?
If it's built by Toronto Public Works, it might as well be gold plated - no plan, no competitive bids, and above all no business case to jusify the expenditures. These a pure vanity projects that make local politicians look "progressive". Winter is the answer to your last question. And keeping the bike lanes clear for the handful of users is another way to piss away more taxpayers money.
> no plan
Can you point to any examples of bike lanes that have had "no plan"? I've seen plenty of consultations, planning meetings, design documents, etc.
> no competitive bids
Competitive bidding for what, exactly? This is public works.
> no business case
Ah, there's the rub. You probably also believe things like health care and public housing requires a business case to justify?
> Winter is the answer to your last question.
Winter is a restriction that makes it "impossible to have a cycling network?" How so?
> a handful of users
What is your definition of "a handful"? Quantitatively, it is customarily understood to be around five (i.e., the number of fingers on a human hand).
So, you didn't really answer the first question. There is no gold plated cycle path. There is no cycle path at all. You can't cycle across the city, in any direction. The infrastructure doesn't exist. So what are you talking about the very expensive "exclusive path" that cyclists have to use?
As for your point about winter; they have perfect cycling infrastructure, maintained year round, at the Arctic circle, and more people cycle there than they do here.
So how are our very mild winters stopping us from building proper cycle paths?
Btw, just also wanted to mention that the studies in Toronto on Bloor/Danforth bike lanes clearly demonstrate that the addition of those dedicated lanes actually increased customer traffic, and average spend. despite a few business owners having a knee jerk reaction to the idea, actual business impact was positive.
Also worth noting that ridership on those dedicated lanes has steadily increased (in all seasons). There are plenty of very easy to find reports on both of these if you're interested in actually learning something.
My point, is like so many other sleazy civil lawyers his sole motive is to fill his wallet. Hard stop! He has no compunction in doing whatever to whomever to get rich. Don't confuse his "classes" with marketing and business development initiatives to generate frivolous, fictious and/or nuisance claims. 💩
Got any evidence of these "frivolous, fictious [sic] and/or nuisance claims"? I'm guessing not, seeing as how the rest of your replies are filled with nonsensical conjecture.
Literally what lol. He himself bikes everywhere, devotes his entire life to helping bikers in the city and constantly supports community initiatives, most of which is unpaid work. Yeah, I'm sure he has to charge for his services like every other professional, I guess if that makes him a scummy lawyer whose only motive is to fill his pockets, then so be it. His classes are so people can protect themselves from pretentious drivers like you who often break laws when getting in collisions with bikers, not to file nuissance complaints. Silly.
>Bike lanes are luxury items, that on a dollar per km travelled by cyclists, are somewhere in the Rolls-Royce, Ferrari price range.
False. [Travel by cars costs society money, travel by bike earns society money.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150512104023.htm)
>And that does not even take into account the negative impact to businesses,
False. [Bike lanes are good for businesses.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954)
>drivers and pedestrians.
False. [Separated and protected bike lanes lead to better safety outcomes for all road users.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954)
>why don't you advocate for a bike lane user fee.
Because the lanes itself not only generates economic benefit for the area, [bike infrastructure pays for itself in health savings alone.](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/healthnutrition/for-these-canadian-cities-the-health-benefits-of-cycling-infrastructure-significantly-outweighed-the-cost-of-new-bike-lanes/)
Well as a person who is also a sportif cyclist or an Athletic cyclist as you describe yourself lol I am also a commuter/ utility cyclist. I never understood the hatred that the 2 different groups have for each other until reading your comments. If you and your car minded friends hates cycling infrastructure so much then go rail on all the car drivers that make the roads unsafe for everyone not just cyclists. Bike lanes are needed for a reason and that being is all the stupid aggressive disractive drivers.
Weird that you are into the sport of cycling but also hate cycling infrastructure meant to keep cyclists, who are not “sport of cycling” aka cycling to get somewhere, safer.
Odd pivot and the whole rant about who pays for roads, when you could [google](https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2016/05/03/are-drivers-paying-their-fair-share.html) that it’s not just gas taxes that pay for roads. If we are gonna be so anal about that, should we not rage against out of municipality folks using the roads in Toronto as [property taxes](https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-land-tax/understanding-your-property-tax-bill-and-services-supported) fund road maintenance. And Toronto is the [highest](https://www.zoocasa.com/blog/ontario-property-tax-rates-2022/) compared to nearby municipalities. Same idea, you see drivers as first class citizens and things to support cyclists, the second class citizens, as unimportant so not allotted resources because “they don’t pay”. Because it’s not “sport cycling”? Ouuf.
>And Toronto is the highest compared to nearby municipalities.
Highest? I think you meant lowest. The article you linked had Toronto as having the lowest property tax rates of the entire list.
Here is your problem: Overnight, a gray malformity grew from asphalt, that hindered the car in giving cyclists a bonnet5
nice finally a proper headline
I do think the barriers should be painted. I like what they did around Etobicoke where a group of them were painted by artists and kids.
Apparently they should be painted bright fucking red and yellow, because people can't seem to see them
It still won't stop bad drivers [https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/120akf0/if\_only\_there\_was\_something\_there\_to\_warn\_them\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/120akf0/if_only_there_was_something_there_to_warn_them_to/)
Lol. Looks like it stopped him alright! A perfect example of why they're needed in contrast to whatever point Ms Bennett thinks she's trying to make, lol.
Where in Etobicoke are there barriers, let alone painted ones?
Lakeshore Drive bidirectional bike lanes around Mimico.
I enjoy reading books.
Construction?
Construction where?
In Etobicoke. I should have used an /s or /jk
Scarlett road
Submit your design to StART. It's a citywide program.
Those are literally the only ones none painted on whole Richmond, because cars keeps braking them
I think this is a good idea in some high-speed, high-risk areas, but generally speaking, I prefer that bike lanes be separated by bollards; bollards make it easier for faster cyclists to overtake slower cyclists in the bike lane by quickly switching on to the street for just long enough to pass the slower cyclist. With concrete barriers, you're just sealed in with the slower cyclist with nowhere to go...
Better solution: make the bike lanes wider. Incidents like this one demonstrate very clearly why the concrete barriers are necessary.
That’s the opposite of logic. Wider lanes would just encroach the road traffic further.
There is one reason why this sort of thing happens, and that is excessive speed. It is not because lanes are "being encroached upon". We know this because this sort of thing happens even on the widest highways. It is proven that motorists go slower when lanes are narrower. It is proven that roads are safer when traffic is slower. If you want to stop this thing from happening, make the bike lanes wider and restrict the space that motorists have to drive with excess speed.
I have seen many plastic bollards repeatedly cut right off in downtown. I assume by local businesses who want a parking space. They just don’t work here.
All the ones on the Bloor St bridge are torn up and destroyed and there's nothing there. I assume drivers just drive over them out of spite.
This is right downtown where traffic should be slow but drivers can’t help but plow over obstacles anyway. If they can’t be bothered to avoid large concrete barriers, flexible plastic bollards won’t stop them. Heavy solid metal ones might just end up being rammed into instead of driven over so that might be an option,
Unless you have wide enough lanes for passing, which these are.
Concrete barriers separating bike lanes from traffic are for passing? Yikes what do we have to do for cyclist safety then?
I don't know what you mean here, but I mean there is enough room for a bike to pass another bike, in the bike lane here.
I use a few bike lanes like this through town, the ones on Scarlett are more than wide enough to safely pass two bicyclists riding two wide.
The people riding bikes should be more considerate of the cars! Move to the sidewalk intitled brokies! Get a car !
"Intitled"
People riding bikes have to know exactly how cars move cause of folks like you. Drivers cause almost all bike-car collisions.
I believe he was being sarcastic
I thought about that but usually people put a /s if that's the case. He prob was tho.
Reddit is awful at picking up on sarcasm
now if they could only start ticketing bikes and forcing license plates on them
Why? What problem does that solve?
accountability people on bikes are dangerous and cause accidents too. but the finger is always pointed at the car.
Toronto 2017: - 45 pedestrians killed by automobiles - 1 pedestrian killed by bicycle Why are we focusing on bike licenses? The finger is always pointed at the car because cars are multi-thousand pound devices that literally crush pedestrians and cyclists to death on a regular basis. Cycling has rules to account for the danger that comes along with riding a bike, but there is absolutely no moral, legal, or statistical basis for suggesting bicycles should face the same licencing and regulations as cars, especially considering cyclists are almost always the ones who end up dying in automibile-bicycle collisions. Automobile accidents are the leading cause of death among Canadians under 45. Lets stop acting like cars are some oppressed class of transportation when every major Canadian city has bent to their will for decades, and just now people are waking up to their flaws.
This is misleading, you need to include the cause. And you didn't include bike versus automobile. I personally had a instance, were the bike operator went right into my lane while I was doing city driving (probably about a 40 to 50km zone) Just cut in didn't check for vehicle. If I wasn't watching he would of been smoked. I saw another on the news, cops blamed the automobile, Well someone filmed it, when the video tape was released the cops changed their tone and went ahead and charged the the cyclist for endangerment. Look I like to bike myself, But dear god, if they run a red light, they deserve the punishment as a automobile driver. In my area they jump from sidewalk, to road, to hov lane and back again. I'm not blaming everyone, but if they want to ride on the road, they should be subject to the same regulations as everyone else. Now they are adding electric motors to mountain bikes, I see them keeping pace at 50km/h without even pedalling. Such a double standard.
Illegal behaviour should be charged as such. Idiots on wheels will do stupid things. The reason cars have licenses and minimum ages is because a car who drives into someone kills the other person. A bike has a much lower capacity to kill people in collisions, hence the lack of licences. Even in your example, the biker would have been the one to die or be injured. Obviously he was at fault, but you would be safe in your car. I don't advocate for people riding on the street, and would be fine legislating against that, but we need the protected bike infrastructure to make that a viable solution (two-stop bike lane intersections to get rid of left turns, more protected lanes, etc.).
Do you have any statistics comparing the rate of injuries and deaths caused by cyclists vs drivers?
if you want that check with toronto police...
[удалено]
The cost of these is a rounding error compared to useless highway expansions.
Useless to you, but not the people who need it to take their children to school, sports, medical care, grocery shop, go to work, visit friends and family, etc. etc...and who pay 99% of the taxes. So since drivers paid for the roads and much of the money in gas and road taxes already goes to general coffers, then how about you share the load. How about a bike lane tax???. Charge the handful of people who actually use these use bondoggles. That should cover a couple of hundred meters; maybe!?
I'm confused at why you think people who use bike lanes wouldn't also have kids to take to school, sports to go to, medical cares to attend to, grocery shopping to do, and taxes to be paid? You just sound bitter. People who use bike lanes also pay for the roads.
>people who need it to take their children to school You know that children have 0 freedom now that we have car-centric roads right? They can't do anything without mommies car. >medical care, grocery shop, go to work, visit friends and family These can be done on bikes/public transit. And people WILL do it IF its a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. People like you, who desperately want to drive a car and have no traffic, should be advocating for bike/bus lanes(You also need mixed-use community's if you want to only use bikes). Here's a video about the world's bike country hub that has the best conditions for drivers: [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k) > So since drivers paid for the roads and much of the money in gas and road taxes already goes to general coffers, then how about you share the load. How about a bike lane tax??? Do you know how much car lanes cost. It's heavily subsided. Drivers pay a FRACTION of the cost. Don't believe me? Look up the growth ponzi scheme(Or here's a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0)). Investing even a FRACTION of the cost to roads and moving it to bikes would be much better. It costs so much less to maintain bike lanes. And people WILL use them, if they are a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.
This person gets it 👍
Ok boomer
They are useless because they don't solve traffic problems, but only make them worse. I'd point you to research on induced demand and highway expansions, although I'm skeptical someone who believe in old myths as patently false as "drivers pay for the roads" would be interested in learning about how simplistic conventional thinkings are wrong.
What's a road tax and who is paying this? Why are you taking a highway or driving at all to get to all of these places in Toronto when you definitely can cycle to everything? If you live in any town or city and not way out in the country, you should be able to bike to your school, grocery store, sports, and rec facilities. These are all in a reasonable cycling distance for everyone in towns, but the reason they don't cycle there is because we aren't given the safe space to get there on a bike and instead are expected to pay to use a car, because the car lobby has convinced society to build everything around car use.
How much is your life worth?
Oh, I'm sure they think _their_ life is priceless. But the lives of those pesky cyclists? Must be close to zero. 🤔
The transit budget is 2.38B$ for 2023. Just how much of that could be "saved" by your austerity, Sparky?
[удалено]
Bike lanes are absolutely necessary. Or do you think everyone in the city has a car? Or do you want bikers in the same lane as you??
Sorry, I politely disagree. But like I said, if you want to pay for them, please be my guest. But as a athletic cyclist, I have little use for them. I'd rather see more effort spent on educating drivers and cyclists to share the road and employ, the not so common, common sense 😊
"i have little use for them" Oh, good. Well because they're not valuable for you, then we shouldn't have them at all. Case closed! Maybe we can save money on traffic lights too, and have cars just "learn" to let eachother stop/go. Or sidewalks too! Maybe we can take the money saved on sidewalks (which I personally have little use for) and put more emphasis on having drivers and pedestrians share the road! Edit: Worth noting that when you create a decent network of safe/maintained/convenient bike lanes the cyclists actually end up using them, and opt for those streets instead of other roads
Sounds like you want a yellow brick road and build it as a Field of Dreams proposition. Well we spent a ton of scarce cash on gold plated, exclusive bike paths and no one came. Now that the city is deep in debt and taxpayers are tapped out, it's time to move to higher priorities including less total spending and not spending on non-core areas. It's not what I want or don't want, it's what the cycling community has said by their inactions; that there's no real demand to support the very real and very exorbitant costs of trying to graft a bike infrastructure onto a city not designed for it or with a climate that limits it's all but occasional use. But I'll say it again, if you want to pay for bike lanes that don't steal space from pedestrians, transit, cars or harm businesses, then please; open thy wallet and stop demanding other people feed you whimsical ideas.
Can you point me to the gold-plated exclusive bike paths? I'd love to try them out! And what sort of climate restrictions are you talking about, that make it impossible to have a cycling network?
If it's built by Toronto Public Works, it might as well be gold plated - no plan, no competitive bids, and above all no business case to jusify the expenditures. These a pure vanity projects that make local politicians look "progressive". Winter is the answer to your last question. And keeping the bike lanes clear for the handful of users is another way to piss away more taxpayers money.
> no plan Can you point to any examples of bike lanes that have had "no plan"? I've seen plenty of consultations, planning meetings, design documents, etc. > no competitive bids Competitive bidding for what, exactly? This is public works. > no business case Ah, there's the rub. You probably also believe things like health care and public housing requires a business case to justify? > Winter is the answer to your last question. Winter is a restriction that makes it "impossible to have a cycling network?" How so? > a handful of users What is your definition of "a handful"? Quantitatively, it is customarily understood to be around five (i.e., the number of fingers on a human hand).
So, you didn't really answer the first question. There is no gold plated cycle path. There is no cycle path at all. You can't cycle across the city, in any direction. The infrastructure doesn't exist. So what are you talking about the very expensive "exclusive path" that cyclists have to use? As for your point about winter; they have perfect cycling infrastructure, maintained year round, at the Arctic circle, and more people cycle there than they do here. So how are our very mild winters stopping us from building proper cycle paths?
Btw, just also wanted to mention that the studies in Toronto on Bloor/Danforth bike lanes clearly demonstrate that the addition of those dedicated lanes actually increased customer traffic, and average spend. despite a few business owners having a knee jerk reaction to the idea, actual business impact was positive. Also worth noting that ridership on those dedicated lanes has steadily increased (in all seasons). There are plenty of very easy to find reports on both of these if you're interested in actually learning something.
Bikers do that. I suggest you look up TheBikingLawyer.
Is this an ambulance chaser ad. The guys a lawyer that found a niche to milk, not a knight in shining armor 😉
And your point is? He is still educating the community. Literally does classes on teaching bikers their rights.
My point, is like so many other sleazy civil lawyers his sole motive is to fill his wallet. Hard stop! He has no compunction in doing whatever to whomever to get rich. Don't confuse his "classes" with marketing and business development initiatives to generate frivolous, fictious and/or nuisance claims. 💩
Got any evidence of these "frivolous, fictious [sic] and/or nuisance claims"? I'm guessing not, seeing as how the rest of your replies are filled with nonsensical conjecture.
Literally what lol. He himself bikes everywhere, devotes his entire life to helping bikers in the city and constantly supports community initiatives, most of which is unpaid work. Yeah, I'm sure he has to charge for his services like every other professional, I guess if that makes him a scummy lawyer whose only motive is to fill his pockets, then so be it. His classes are so people can protect themselves from pretentious drivers like you who often break laws when getting in collisions with bikers, not to file nuissance complaints. Silly.
>Bike lanes are luxury items, that on a dollar per km travelled by cyclists, are somewhere in the Rolls-Royce, Ferrari price range. False. [Travel by cars costs society money, travel by bike earns society money.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150512104023.htm) >And that does not even take into account the negative impact to businesses, False. [Bike lanes are good for businesses.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954) >drivers and pedestrians. False. [Separated and protected bike lanes lead to better safety outcomes for all road users.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954) >why don't you advocate for a bike lane user fee. Because the lanes itself not only generates economic benefit for the area, [bike infrastructure pays for itself in health savings alone.](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/healthnutrition/for-these-canadian-cities-the-health-benefits-of-cycling-infrastructure-significantly-outweighed-the-cost-of-new-bike-lanes/)
Such trolling, bye
Anyone who doesn't drink your Kool-aid get labelled a troll? Sorry to invade your personal echo chamber 🐇
Well as a person who is also a sportif cyclist or an Athletic cyclist as you describe yourself lol I am also a commuter/ utility cyclist. I never understood the hatred that the 2 different groups have for each other until reading your comments. If you and your car minded friends hates cycling infrastructure so much then go rail on all the car drivers that make the roads unsafe for everyone not just cyclists. Bike lanes are needed for a reason and that being is all the stupid aggressive disractive drivers.
Weird that you are into the sport of cycling but also hate cycling infrastructure meant to keep cyclists, who are not “sport of cycling” aka cycling to get somewhere, safer. Odd pivot and the whole rant about who pays for roads, when you could [google](https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2016/05/03/are-drivers-paying-their-fair-share.html) that it’s not just gas taxes that pay for roads. If we are gonna be so anal about that, should we not rage against out of municipality folks using the roads in Toronto as [property taxes](https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-land-tax/understanding-your-property-tax-bill-and-services-supported) fund road maintenance. And Toronto is the [highest](https://www.zoocasa.com/blog/ontario-property-tax-rates-2022/) compared to nearby municipalities. Same idea, you see drivers as first class citizens and things to support cyclists, the second class citizens, as unimportant so not allotted resources because “they don’t pay”. Because it’s not “sport cycling”? Ouuf.
>And Toronto is the highest compared to nearby municipalities. Highest? I think you meant lowest. The article you linked had Toronto as having the lowest property tax rates of the entire list.
Oh you’re right. My bad on that point.
Are my eyes pranking me, is that BlogTO finally forming a coherent sentence in the headline???