Jump to content

      














Photo

Should Government Street become a pedestrian boulevard?

Government st Poll Pedestrian new urbanism Government street pedestrian mall

  • Please log in to reply
848 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Government street become a pedestrian boulevard (110 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Government street become a pedestrian boulevard from Yates street to Humbolt street (Allowing restricted single lane traffic)?

  1. Yes (69 votes [62.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.73%

  2. No (28 votes [25.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.45%

  3. Depends (13 votes [11.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.82%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#841 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 14,327 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 10:07 AM

pro cycling folks don’t use the lanes! too slow.

#842 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,431 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 10:52 AM

The by-law requires cyclists to dismount, and yet we have a couple of cyclists above (one of whom I regularly agree with!) who feel that (as cyclists) by-laws simply don't apply to them if they ride "at a meandering pace".

 

And cyclists wonder why they are so profoundly disliked by a healthy swath of the local population?

 

Cyclists in Victoria really do need to do a serious clean-up on their act, especially in light of all the money and transportation real estate that is currently either already dedicated, or on the verge of being dedicated to the needs of those cyclists.

 

Perhaps some of the pro-cycling folks here on the forum could report back to this thread as to why by-laws that apply city wide don't actually apply to them?

 

I haven't ridden my bike down the "dismount" section of Government. I just said I wasn't particularly bothered by those who I had seen do so. In much the same way I don't get too bent out of shape when someone jaywalks across View from the McDonald's heading toward the Bay Centre. Both are technically illegal, and people really shouldn't do it, but it is pretty harmless. Are pedestrians "profoundly disliked by a healthy swath of the local population"? People seem to have an ability to get genuinely angry at cyclists for the most minor and mundane reasons, which suggests there may be underlying issues involved.


  • Danma and Brantastic like this

#843 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 14,327 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 11:13 AM

I agree with your last sentence.

#844 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 11:16 AM

Perhaps some of the pro-cycling folks here on the forum could report back to this thread as to why by-laws that apply city wide don't actually apply to them?

 

It does re-enforce the view that there are a number of cyclists that are self absorbed and have little regard in working with other segments of the population.  The elderly, those with young children, those that are mobility impaired are all impacted by cyclists yet there seems to be a complete disregard for them and their comfort.  The issue isn't "cycling" per say but the boorish / elitist culture that has been created around it.


  • Spy Black likes this

#845 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,431 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 11:28 AM

It's kind of silly how sometimes "cyclists" are lumped together like a monolithic group. You've got serious recreational cyclists (including "middle-aged men in spandex") who are focused on their workout and occasionally ride in a manner that could definitely be called self-absorbed. You've got a homeless population using bikes for transportation and moving possessions around, and who seem to often ride on sidewalks, and sometimes show little regard for their own safety. I think a lot of the anger towards cyclists probably stem from those two groups. But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the family riding down Government Street to check things out, or the young woman on her bike with a basket using Government Street to get to Chinatown to buy produce. 

 

There are a lot of different people on bikes, riding in a lot of different ways. I'm pretty sure people driving cars don't want to be lumped together as one cohort every time some Senior drives their car through an Oak Bay storefront.  :)


  • zoomer, Daveyboy, jasmineshinga and 1 other like this

#846 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Member
  • 490 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 02:26 PM

....I'm pretty sure people driving cars don't want to be lumped together as one cohort every time some Senior drives their car through an Oak Bay storefront.  :)

Except such drastic vehicle accidents happen maybe once every 6 or 7 years, where as bad behaviour by cyclists can usually be seen within about the first 10 minutes (if even that long) of a person looking for it.

 

Cyclists have a somewhat sizeable act to clean up on a very broad scale, and denying the need to clean that act up only tends to drive the point further home ... the point made regularly that most folks make note of as "careless cyclists" who disobey traffic signals, signs, and by-laws, ones that the rest of the world follows more rigidly.

 

Equivocating cycling bad behaviour with a disoriented or medically distressed senior citizen driving an automobile only makes cycling folks seem even more desperate for anything in order to justify what is quite blatantly incredibly bad behaviour!


  • Nparker, Cats4Hire and Victoria Watcher like this

#847 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,431 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 06:07 PM

Sat outside Garrick's Head for two hours this evening. Three cyclists went down the closed block of Government. One was a 65-70 year-old lady with a cruiser bike and a basket. One was a homeless guy. One was a 50ish guy with a commuter bike (going the "wrong" direction). None were going faster than 10-12 kph. I just can't get excited by this. None of the three could reasonably be described as "quite blatantly incrediby bad behaviour!".

 

Also, where is the "cyclists dismount" sign? Because I haven't found it yet.

 

/Also, if you think someone only drives a car through a store front here every 6-7 years, you aren't paying close attention. But I admit that is largely irrelevant. On the other hand, how many people have been killed by cyclists in the last 6-7 years in Victoria?

 

//but this isn't exactly the hill I want to die on. They should dismount. I just don't think it is a very big deal, that's all.


Edited by Greg, 26 July 2020 - 06:21 PM.


#848 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 56,827 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 08:12 PM

It’s on Fort.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#849 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Member
  • 490 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 10:30 PM

..... I just don't think it is a very big deal, that's all.

I know that you're likely more than aware that simply not liking any given by-law, or a personal belief that the breaking of any given by-law is "no big deal" is absolutely no excuse for breaking it.

 

It's precisely this attitude that justifies 99% of what car drivers and pedestrians say about cycling bad behaviour ... and it really is time that cyclists got over themselves and began behaving in a manner that reflects the massive amount of taxpayer funds put into reinventing the downtown core in order that cyclists can ride in a safe, and law abiding manner.



 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users