cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/30050658

“They are not safe. They are anything but for safety,” said a woman who added vehicles in the two-block section sometimes drive in the middle of Springbrook to avoid the bollards.

Oh, so drivers behind of the wheel of an automobile are the danger. Why remove the bike lanes rather than the car lanes?

I heard that Etobicoke’s NIMBYs are insane, but this is a new level of stupidity from Richmond Hill.

  • @exanimeEnglish
    -1•2 hours ago

    I think what they’re actually trying to say is that you have some observational bias, not that two wrongs make a right.

    I don’t think it’s a bias. The issue here is that if a car causes a low speed collision with another car, as bad as it is, there is a good chance the “worst” damage is property damage. If a cyclist is involved, on the other hand, there is a HUGE risk of bodily harm or death.

    I also kinda want to point out that bikes rolling stop signs isn’t dangerous

    It is incredibly if they are going straight on the same road a car is turning right.

    I DO see a bigger problem if a cyclist runs a Stop sign, not because it’s a worse road infraction but because the risk they are taking is orders of magnitude greater. And to boot, if I as a driver see a pedestrian, I assume they will follow pedestrian rules, if I see a car I assume they will behave as a car. Cyclist on the other hand usually follow a hybrid pattern, they may jump on or off the road as they please, they may or may not stop at signs of red lights, they may or may not signal turns (yes, I know, car drivers do the same but I know a car cannot turn where there is no road, a cyclist can turn whenever)

    The problem is that if you simply ask a question here, it immediately goes “car bad, bike good” and a conversation cannot take place