- 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
0
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:17 pm to member12
quote:
What is the point?
the point is that it sets a bad precedent as far as challenging bike lanes go and is perceived as a step backwards
quote:
Because demanding that this unnecessary lane stay in a high profile pissing match like this puts the ultimate goal of making Baton Rouge more bike-friendly in jeopardy.
or it makes the city think about where, how, and why they are putting bike lanes in certain areas
this proves that just because it is easy to put a bike lane in a certain area, it doesn't necessarily mean that there should be a bike lane
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:17 pm to member12
quote:
Cyclists have a bad reputation for following traffic laws for a reason.
Not even trying to argue that fact. I'm merely asking does it truly affect you? Do you think it is really that risky? Some of it is, but I think for the most part, they have that stereotype and it is used to bash them. But at the base of it, I don't think people care. If they didn't have to share the lane with them, they wouldn't complain about the violations.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:18 pm to KG6
quote:
You ever cross the road when the crosswalk sign still has the red hand up? You have time to see that no cars are coming and you make the decision to go. I think it should be considered on that level more than the way it is sometimes treated.
No it's not. As a vehicle operator, cyclists have responsibility to follow the rules of the road just like motorists. Bikes can and do cause significant injuries and God knows it sucks to be hit by a car.
BTW pedestrians should not risk their safety by jaywalking or ignoring crossing signs.
quote:
I'm merely asking does it truly affect you?
Does it affect you when a motorist texts and drives? It doesn't affect you until they smash into you. Like you, they probably think it's no big deal to ignore the law.
FOLLOW THE LAW. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:21 pm to member12
quote:
FOLLOW THE LAW.
heh...so what about the Glenmore residents?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:22 pm to Salmon
quote:
the point is that it sets a bad precedent as far as challenging bike lanes go and is perceived as a step backwards
I disagree.
Being unreasonable about this jeopardizes future bicycle oriented projects in the city. Removal of this lane would be a very minor inconvenience.....the end game is a more bike friendly city with bike lanes where they are actually needed.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:27 pm to Salmon
quote:
not the point though
So the point is that this lane should stay even though it's not needed and frick everyone with a bike lane on their street?
Yeah, that's definitely going to change the attitude towards cyclists in Baton Rouge. I'm sure people will be just thrilled to invite that element into their neighborhoods.
That's sarcasm BTW.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:32 pm to goofball
quote:
So the point is that this lane should stay even though it's not needed and frick everyone with a bike lane on their street?
I don't know. I know it sets a bad precedent. And I know that the residents are the ones that approved the bike lane to begin with.
Hopefully, as I stated earlier, it makes people think if a bike lane is actually needed. Not every street needs a bike lane. This is proof of that.
quote:
Yeah, that's definitely going to change the attitude towards cyclists in Baton Rouge. I'm sure people will be just thrilled to invite that element into their neighborhoods.
At least people now cannot claim ignorance when it comes to bike lane laws
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:53 pm to Salmon
quote:
I know it sets a bad precedent
I'll agree with that. Any residential neighborhood in Baton Rouge (U-club, Tara, University Acres, Southdowns, Bocage, Pollard Estates, etc...) will now balk at the idea of even thinking about it. Who wants this turmoil?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:04 pm to Salmon
quote:
I don't know. I know it sets a bad precedent. And I know that the residents are the ones that approved the bike lane to begin with.
You keep repeating "bad precedent" but I don't think you recognize how bad the cycling advocates and proponents would look if they jammed this down the throat of people who don't want it. Now that the cat is out of the bag and this is a highly public debate, cyclists have two bad choices. One is less bad that the other.
Keeping the admittedly and obviously unnecessary lanes and not allowing parking against the concerns of a very upset neighborhood would be a huge blow against the goal of making Baton Rouge bicycle friendly. From that point on, the city would face increased opposition to bike lane proposals especially in residential areas.
Keeping the obviously unnecessary lanes and not ticketing people that park on them would encourage more motorists to use bike lanes for parking everywhere. That's obviously not a good solution.
The realistic and logical solution is to remove lanes that are not necessary. That's the most reasonable solution for cyclists and the neighborhood and doesn't create public hostility towards the expansion of bike lanes in the future.
It's too bad a few jerks had to ruin a good thing....and then get themselves quoted in the paper the way they did. That happened. It was wrong for the city to install the lanes in the first place, and it was catastrophically stupid to confront residents that parked on the lanes and call the police on service vehicles.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:09 pm to goofball
quote:
The realistic and logical solution is to remove lanes that are not necessary. That's the most reasonable solution for cyclists and the neighborhood and doesn't create public hostility towards the expansion of bike lanes in the future.
I actually agree with this
just trying to offer another perspective
I've actually rather enjoyed this debate and there hasn't been too many "frick those cyclist homos" comments. Good job OT
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:10 pm to goofball
quote:
very upset neighborhood
One street.
Other members of the neighborhood I've talked to are laughing at the Glenmore residents and backing the cyclists.
One guy said that he voted against the plan in 2007 bc they would not be able to park in the bike lane. His street said "no thank you".
This is a Glenmore problem, not a neighborhood problem.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:17 pm to magildachunks
quote:
This is a Glenmore problem, not a neighborhood problem
Demonstrating that Glenmore is stuck with unnecessary bike lanes will make it a cycling problem city wide when residents start actively fighting the city on bike lane installation after this pissing match.
Do you really want to cultivate a NIMBY attitude for bike lanes? This is a very poor choice in battles on the part of a dozen or so cyclists that seem bent on setting the city's efforts to become more bike-friendly back.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:20 pm to goofball
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:35 pm to magildachunks
quote:
This is a Glenmore problem, not a neighborhood problem
Not true at all. A large number of residents on Hundred Oaks(the other bike lane)feel the same way but letting Glenmore carry the water.
St. Patrick's Day can't get here fast enough!
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:48 pm to HoopyD
NIMBYs for the win.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:30 pm to member12
quote:
They look unreasonable by demanding a bike lane where it isn't necessary, and completely unsympathetic to the concerns of residents and motorists.
Just to be clear, bikers did not demand a bike path on Glenmore. in 2006ish, capital heights, webb park and 2 other adjacent neighborhoods went looking for help from the city because of the volume and speed of traffic in the area. several meetings were held with dpw, where the people on capital heights st. and glenmore wanted traffic calming measures, including speed bumps and bike lanes. Much of the remainder of capital heights and virtually all of webb park hated the plan.
glenmore asked for, approved and got bike lanes, and were told at the meetings that the prohibition against parking in bike lanes would be enforced by brpd, if we called. Glenmore wanted bike lanes, not so the bikers could view their lawns, but because the bike lanes brought relief to glenmore.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:34 pm to goofball
quote:
I don't think you recognize how bad the cycling advocates and proponents would look if they jammed this down the throat of people who don't want it
glenmore residents begged for it, as did capital heights. no one forced anything. 8 years later, capital heights is thrilled, and glenmore changed its mind.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:40 pm to piratedude
quote:
glenmore changed its mind
And now a few militant cyclists want to keep these unnecessary lanes just to spite the neighborhood for opposing it. Removing the lanes would barely be a minor inconvenience for cyclists on Glenmore or Hundred Oaks. It's a slow-moving residential street that never needed dedicated bike lanes.
That's a catastrophically poor strategy if the goal is to foster a bike-friendly community and expand bike lanes in the future.
quote:
bikers did not demand a bike path on Glenmore
They are demanding them now even though bike lanes make no sense on a street like that....and doing so in a very public way that is showing the whole city how unreasonable cycling proponents can be. That will generate additional hostility towards bike lanes when the city wants to install them in other places in the future.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 3:45 pm
Page 28 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News