Comment 76321

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted April 30, 2012 at 03:40:53 in reply to Comment 76320

Since you have clearly missed the point of this article, please allow me to explain it to you.

The point of this article is to give an example of a city that has looked carefully at the current traffic rules and decided that in some cases different rules should apply to cyclists and motorists.

Similarly, many narrow downtown streets in Paris allow bicycles to travel counter-flow, cyclists are allowed to use most bus lanes and they have installed bike boxes at many traffic lights. A similar example would be adopting the Idaho stop rule for stop signs in Hamilton.

In the European Union they have decided that right turn on red in dangerous and it is prohibited in all countries. North America (which generally allows right turn on red) is exceptional internationally.

Despite your claim that there are no problems, right turn on red is particularly dangerous for pedestrians, so our choice is bad for both pedestrians and cyclists!

I'm not sure why some readers object to considering examples from other cities, especially as these same readers are the first to claim that something (like cyclists treating stop signs as yield signs) would never work.

How can we improve if we don't learn from examples elsewhere? Or do you really think Hamilton is already the best it can possibly be?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2012-04-30 04:01:35

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds