Raise the Hammer

I'm interested to see if it shows the 50 meter long bike lane on Dundurn South and the possibly-not-even 50meter bike lane on Aberdeen.

Great news ... I was wishing for this just the other day. Mostly in terms of giving travel times, rather than sticking to bike routes.

Wait ... there are bike lanes on Dundurn and Aberdeen? Those are both part of a regularish route I take (Westdale to the beer store and back) and I've _never_ noticed any bike lanes.

Dundurn's lanes are on a single bridge just south of Main. Aberdeens are about as far as you could spit, just east of Longwood.

Actually, those aren't bike lanes on the Dundurn bridge ... they are just a visual narrowing of the lanes over the bridge (I checked this with Daryl Bender). Bike lanes would have the little bike symbol painted on the pavement ...

well, whatever they are they are completely useless. What with being a whopping 100 feet long and all.

Bike lanes are coming to Dundurn South this spring. When they rebuilt the bridge over the railway tracks TLC had asked that the bridge include enough room for bike lanes, so I think that may play a part in the current line painting. Regardless, this spring should see the job on Dundurn South completed (and about time!)

rrrandy, from what I hear a small group of old timers is trying to have those bike lanes blocked. Despite the fact that virtually no street parking will be lost in the area a small, but vocal group of people is fighting the city and McHattie trying to have the lanes blocked all in the name of 'having a balanced transportation network'. I heard one of the folks interviewed on CHML by Bill Kelly and it was hilarious. You'd think only criminals ride bikes and that nobody will patronize places like Rays Boathouse anymore if a bike is spotted in the area.

Hopefully the city will do the right thing, but we'll see. Thankfully we've got a good councillor here so I'm sure the project will be able to proceed.

Maps on the internet? Bikes? Bah! Both of these are just passing fads

"Now all a city like Hamilton needs is a viable bike network in place so cyclists can actually have their choice of safe routes."

Ryan, we already do have a viable bike network. They are called sidewalks, bike trails, and parks. Until cyclists start obeying the rules of the road and begin paying insurance they have no place on our streets.

Capitalist...while I've heard all of the arguments for cyclists obeying the rules of the road...insurance???

Insurance covers the risk of damage to persons or property caused by the operator of a vehicle.

Thast damage is significant when you're dealing with a vehicle that weighs upwards of a ton, powered by liquid fuels and capable of speeds of up to 240 km/h.

Contrast that with a vehicle that weighs 20 lbs, entirely human-powered and capable of speeds of maybe 60 kph tops going downhill.

Just how much damage have cyclists caused so as to need to be covered by insurance? Even if somehow a cyclist is deemed at fault in an accident, it is the cyclist who bears the entire damage in any collision.

Since the value of a bicycle is usually less than the deductible anyhow, what benefit is there to anyone other than the insurance companies to mandate this? Why don't you just call it what it really is...you want to increase taxes for cyclists and give the profits to insurance companies.

Just like the typical capitalist...more taxes are OK for everyone but me.

All the "active living" talk elsewheer put me in mind of this thread and led me here: http://goo.gl/maps/3cOj5

Fascinating when you zoom out and compare Hamilton to areas like Burlington/Oakville/Mississauga or Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge.