- 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 10:08 am to TigerBR1111
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:08 am to TigerBR1111
I would respect the opinion of cyclists more if they were cowboys on horseback.
1
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:11 am to hoolius
quote:
I think the issue with this argument is that there are more vehicles on the road now...and more importantly a lot more distracted drivers.
how is a bike lane going to save you from someone more worried about posting selfies to Instagram?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:13 am to gmrkr5
It would certainly have to be a better option than riding in the same lane as the distracted driver
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:29 am to gmrkr5
Right, if I have to veer outside of the bike lane to avoid a parked car I have more chances of being hit by a texter.
As a cyclist with common sense I should look back and make sure there are no cars...that's hard to explain to a child riding in a neighborhood. I definitely teach my kid to be aware, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here...she doesn't always listen.
As a cyclist with common sense I should look back and make sure there are no cars...that's hard to explain to a child riding in a neighborhood. I definitely teach my kid to be aware, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here...she doesn't always listen.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:32 am to JScoop8
quote:
Why does it work for CH but not Glenmore? The parking in front of homes issue is the same.
That is an interesting question. Part of it is the attitude of the homeowners. CH residents aren't OT ballers, or don't try to appear to be, unlike some Glenmore residents who "allow the bike riders to ride our street and look at our beautiful lawns."
another reason may be the lack of speed bumps on CH, so bikers can and do utilize the auto lane when cars aren't overtaking them.
CH residents are generally younger and less affluent, and more likely to identify with more current culture, like riding bikes as a mode of transportation.
Finally, any CH resident who lived there before the 2007(?) switch to one way with bike lanes will tell you that the neighborhood is vastly improved as a result of the change.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:35 am to KG6
quote:
A bike can cause about as much damage as a jaywalker
Cyclists have killed pedestrians before and damaged private property. They are almost as likely to hit a pedestrian as an automobile.
LINK
LINK
LINK
Why are you so eager to accept no responsibility for the unlicensed, uninsured, unregistered, and untaxed vehicle you operate on a public street?
quote:
So again, I think everyone needs to be honest with themselves
The honest truth here is that cyclists demand the privileges of a motorist with no training, no enforcement, no insurance. Your post is yet another example of such.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:37 am to member12
quote:
Cyclists have killed pedestrians before and damaged private property
The statistics don't show that it's likely enough to warrant the need for insurance. People are killed from all kinds of things. We don't have insurance for every single thing. Same with property damage. We have car insurance because it statistically is likely that everyone will be in a car accident at some point and monetarily, we require that you are prepared. Not so with a bicycle.
quote:
honest truth here is that cyclists demand the privileges of a motorist with no training, no enforcement, no insurance
Cyclist don't demand a damned thing, because it's already given to them. There is no requirement for training nor insurance. Do you really truly feel that a cyclist needs a license, or are you just annoyed by them to the point that you want to enforce some ludicrous rule? Do you think that there are enough cases where damage occurs that a cyclist needs insurance? How much of a monetary value do you think they cause per year? Think about it before you try to act high and mighty. This all boils down to purely being annoyed with them. Quit fooling yourselves.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 10:48 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:39 am to Golfer
quote:
First, there have been "no parking" signs installed on the shoulder though the entirety of CH. Second, the distance from a cross-street is much shorter than Glenmore. So if you were to have a party at your home it's not going to be a major inconvenience. Third, CH has bike/walk lanes on both sides of the one-lane vehicle road. So if someone sees a car parked in the bike lane (it does happen, but rather infrequently) they can move to the other side of the road and have a safe travel lane.
Not sure why you got downvoted but this is pretty much spot on. You can't compare Glenmore to Capital Heights, they are apples and oranges. The change on Capital Heights has changed the neighborhood for the better, there is no denying this. However, trying to implement the same idea on a blvd makes zero sense.
I have no met a single resident who thinks the bike lane needs to be removed in its entirety. It really needs to be a parking lane. You can still ride your bike in the parking lane, but telling people they can't park in front of their house if they need, so someone who doesn't live there can have a bike lane, is asinine at best.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:40 am to uway
quote:
I would respect the opinion of cyclists more if they were cowboys on horseback.
fricking right <<<<<<<--------------
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:40 am to Golfer
quote:
Why does it work for CH but not Glenmore? The parking in front of homes issue is the same.
First, there have been "no parking" signs installed on the shoulder though the entirety of CH
No-parking signs are a relatively recent addition... maybe 12-18 months. And they initially installed them facing the wrong way on the south side of the street. stop signs for the east bound bikers are relatively recent also. We never had much problem, and a phone call to BRPD solved those quickly.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:41 am to member12
quote:
no training
I remember having to learn the bike hand signals while in driver's ed and bike laws are the same as car laws
quote:
no enforcement
not the cyclists fault that cops are generally ignorant of bike laws
quote:
no insurance
I have insurance
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:41 am to Barf
quote:
Not sure why you got downvoted but this is pretty much spot on. You can't compare Glenmore to Capital Heights, they are apples and oranges. The change on Capital Heights has changed the neighborhood for the better, there is no denying this. However, trying to implement the same idea on a blvd makes zero sense.
I have no met a single resident who thinks the bike lane needs to be removed in its entirety. It really needs to be a parking lane. You can still ride your bike in the parking lane, but telling people they can't park in front of their house if they need, so someone who doesn't live there can have a bike lane, is asinine at best.
I finally agree with you on something. This is all that needs to be said.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:43 am to Barf
quote:
I'm actually very much in favor of the Government street plan
Government needs buildings that orient towards the street instead of a parking lot. You'll never get a safe pedestrian environment on that sidewalk without slowing traffic significantly and installing street parking.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:43 am to piratedude
I didn't think there was much of a problem on Glenmore either 
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:44 am to Barf
quote:
I have no met a single resident who thinks the bike lane needs to be removed in its entirety. It really needs to be a parking lane. You can still ride your bike in the parking lane, but telling people they can't park in front of their house if they need, so someone who doesn't live there can have a bike lane, is asinine at best.
I agree with you, but the fact is that it was made into a bike lane and just to take up for the bikers here, they see the dedicated bike lane being taken away a move backwards and setting a bad precedent for any future or current dedicated bike lanes
it shouldn't have been made into a bike lane to begin with
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:46 am to link
quote:
was this the conclusion reached at the meeting? is this really happening?
Nope. DPW is deciding. And since they cannot donate land to private landowners....
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:47 am to Salmon
quote:
I agree with you, but the fact is that it was made into a bike lane and just to take up for the bikers here, they see the dedicated bike lane being taken away a move backwards and setting a bad precedent for any future or current dedicated bike lanes
Well, those assholes should have picked a different battle, shouldn't they?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:47 am to Salmon
quote:
it shouldn't have been made into a bike lane to begin with
Yep. When it was converted in 2006/07, I don't think many here understood bike lanes. Including the residents on Glenmore. A few of the Glenmore residents claim that Ingolf said at multiple meetings you can park in the lane, and Ingolf swears he never said that. Of course both are trying to recall back 9 years and at that time there were very few bike lanes or sharrows painted anywhere.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:48 am to goofball
I'm curious to see how this is resolved
seems to be a-hole vs a-hole though doesn't it?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:49 am to torrey225
quote:
Nope. DPW is deciding. And since they cannot donate land to private landowners....
DPW will perform an analysis. Ultimately approved by Metro Council.
Page 15 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News