Raise the Hammer

Ryan, do you not read what I'm typing? If a cyclist screws up he has every potential to kill more than himself. Not to mention a lifetime of guilt for the driver who hit him because of his own idiocy. It's responsibility on the part of both drivers that is the problem. Each vehicle is inherently safe in it's own environment. If you choose to bike, you choose to use an option that provides less personal protection than other modes of transportation on the road. If you're using the road which is designed for the majority of users (larger vehicles) you'll end up paying some sort of price.

Complete segration would be great and I completely understand the inverse relationship between the number of cyclists and the collisions resulting from it, however, when infrastructure can't and isn't being designed to accomodate both modes safely, the majority wins all the time. As such, it's obvious that a cycling network is optimal but...who sees that coming anytime soon?

In reference to a comment made earlier by Jason, the city has capital projects in planning and design stages long before they actually put the shovel in the ground. That's one reason why you don't see bike lanes. That's the only excuse I can think of.

Sean, your statement while possibly correct shows the inane argument we're having. If a cyclist blew through every stop sign, he'd get killed or cause the death of someone else trying to avoid him. If a motorist does so, he gets a wrecked vehicle.

There's no solution to allowing 2 very different types of transportation in one roadway without either forcing both to follow the same rules or have a complete segragation. Hence my comment about bike lanes separated by a 500 high curb (like the new one on the Kenilworth Access) and keep the bike lanes off the road if possible...i.e. have a separate network for cycling and only have bike lanes where there's no other option.