- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bike lane controversy on Glenmore Ave in BR
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:40 am to gmrkr5
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:40 am to gmrkr5
quote:
the "share the road" campaign is a real thing with commercials and signs. this fight clearly goes against that idea at its core
so you are against bike lanes completely then?
pretty sure 99.9% of cyclists would say "share the road, but if you want to give us bike lanes, we will gladly accept those"
which, if you are not aware, if there are dedicated bike lanes, means that it is illegal for bikes to ride in the road
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 11:42 am
1
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:40 am to hawkster
quote:
With that reality in mind, how much difference does it actually make to create bike lanes on this one residential street? If you are truly a dedicated cyclist, then the bike lane on Glenmore should represent a tiny fraction of the public roadways you travel. And unless the city goes totally nuts, you will never be able to count on bike lanes for the majority of your travel.
As one of the recent articles stated, a change like this could set a dangerous precedent for the removal of lanes in other areas of the city, taking a step back in the introduction of the Complete Streets program and FutureEBR.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:43 am to TigerRob20
I wonder if it would be possible to move the bike lane to the median side of the road? It may be impossible but it's just a thought.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:44 am to gmrkr5
quote:
one of the funniest parts of all this is it's cyclist that scream "share the road" but here they are not wanting to share. a dedicated lane that nothing but a bike can be allowed in is the opposite of sharing the road
That's another thing....this is how upset some cyclists get over having to steer around a lawn truck, a stray garbage can, or a UPS van. Why would residents of other neighborhoods support dedicated bike lanes on their street after this, knowing that visitors and service vehicles will get tormented and/or ticketed?
It was a mistake for cyclists to make a mountain out of this particular molehill if the ultimate goal is more bike lanes.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 11:46 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:44 am to Salmon
quote:
so you are against bike lanes completely then?
pretty sure 99.9% of cyclists would say "share the road, but if you want to give us bike lanes, we will gladly accept those"
which, if you are not aware, if there are dedicated bike lanes, means that it is illegal for bikes to ride in the road
so share with us now but then if we get what we really want we will no longer share with you?
mmm kay
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:45 am to dewster
quote:
It was a mistake for cyclists to make a mountain out of this particular molehill if the ultimate goal is more bike lanes.
yep, they will lose this fight and it will negatively affect their future "campaigns"
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:47 am to gmrkr5
quote:
so share with us now but then if we get what we really want we will no longer share with you?
your point makes zero sense to me
cyclists push for bike lanes because motorist don't share the road
if motorists shared the road, we wouldn't need bike lanes
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:49 am to dewster
quote:
That's another thing....this is how upset some cyclists get over having to steer around a lawn truck, a stray garbage can, or a UPS van. Why would residents of other neighborhoods support dedicated bike lanes on their street after this, knowing that visitors and service vehicles will get tormented and/or ticketed?
It was a mistake for cyclists to make a mountain out of this particular molehill if the ultimate goal is more bike lanes.
Exactly. Plus, roads were never intended to be exercise locations. It is silly to think taxpayers should fund this stuff all over the city. Go to a gym or a specific place designated for bikes like the levee. But why make all these roads all over the city for bikers?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:49 am to dewster
quote:
It was a mistake for cyclists to make a mountain out of this particular molehill if the ultimate goal is more bike lanes.
what is the point of more bike lanes if people are just going to use them as parking lanes all the time?
either no bike lanes or bike lanes and enforce the no parking rule
pretty simple to me
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:50 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Plus, roads were never intended to be exercise locations.
not all people use bikes as a means of exercise
some use them for transportation
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 11:51 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:51 am to Salmon
quote:
your point makes zero sense to me
cyclists push for bike lanes because motorist don't share the road
if motorists shared the road, we wouldn't need bike lanes
dont know what to tell you. other people seem to understand it just fine.
it certainly seems like the cyclist are the ones not willing to share now doesnt it? can you not understand that statement?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:51 am to piratedude
quote:
bike lanes were damn sure always a part of the plan.
People will definitely think twice before accepting a plan like this now.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:54 am to gmrkr5
quote:
it certainly seems like the cyclist are the ones not willing to share now doesnt it?
fine
no bike lane then and don't ever complain if a cyclist is holding you up on a street
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:56 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
People will definitely think twice before accepting a plan like this now.
That's the setback for cyclists. They had to know that they'd be at risk for losing their dedicated lane when they started affixing flyers to windshields, confronting residents, and demanding that BRPD issue tickets on a residential street.
It's a neighborhood street that should never have had a bike lane anyways. Traffic is light and moves slow enough to share the lane with motorists.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 11:58 am to Salmon
quote:
no bike lane then and don't ever complain if a cyclist is holding you up on a street
Bike lane on Glenmore is stupid anyway. Build them on the entire lengths of highland, Perkins, Government, bluebonnet/Coursey, Burbank/Sherwood Forest, Scenic Highway, Plank Road, Airline(in EBR).
Everybody's happy.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:01 pm to Salmon
quote:
no bike lane then and don't ever complain if a cyclist is holding you up on a street
in this particular case, works for me
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:05 pm to TigerRob20
quote:
taking a step back in the introduction of the Complete Streets program
Good. This is a politically correct waste of scarce resources.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:06 pm to dewster
quote:
It's a neighborhood street that should never have had a bike lane anyways. Traffic is light and moves slow enough to share the lane with motorists.
You should read up on why there are bike lanes there.
All part of the original plan to slow, and lessen traffic on that street that the homeowners requested and agreed to.
That "neighborhood" street is a thoroughfare
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:07 pm to hawkster
quote:
Good. This is a politically correct waste of scarce resources.
Better infrastructure is a waste of resources?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:07 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
in this particular case, works for me
Same here
Page 18 of 31
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News