Comment 49434

By specialcircumstances (anonymous) | Posted October 13, 2010 at 23:11:36

There was a plan floated at one point to increase the speed of motorized downtown traffic by installing priority green signals along John.

The official bike routes crossed John at these same intersections. The signals at these points of the bike routes would be permanently red, unless a car arrived at the signal.

I was previously hit (luckily, not injured) by a turning car while riding my bike along this stretch, so I was pretty concerned that city staff were attempting to further speed up the traffic in the busy city core. The collision I had was with a car trying to squeeze through fast-moving oncoming traffic. This could only get worse if the signals never cycled to red. Frequent light changes allow cars to filter through these turns. None of these intersection have dedicated turn lanes!

I was concerned that bicycles would be unable to change the signals when cycling through along the cross streets (on the city's official cycle routes), and that the faster traffic would be dangerous for cyclists in general, so I emailed Bob, the ward's counsellor. When I contacted Bratina about these concerns, he responded:

"It's something staff thinks might be of benefit and I'm willing to see if they're right. If you're going after staff you have to pick your issues, otherwise life becomes difficult."

I was shocked. Bratina supported this? I emailed again.

He replied:

" speeding was the biggest continuing problem in our downtown neighbourhoods, especiall northbound on John and certain other stretches. I'm not referring in the case you mention to the notion of speed but faster in the context of stop and go situations."

So yeah. Speed is bad, but car traffic is a priority. Cyclists be damned.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools