No reason

[james_davis_nicoll]

[Poll #1728245]

Comments

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

Some highways have "no bicycles" signs. Otherwise, bicycles are generally expected to be travelling on the side of the road rather than occupying a lane; IIRC, by law, vehicles can't travel too much *below* the posted speed limit, because they'd be obstructing traffic.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

It would be nice if this was enforced on Dufferin in Thornhill. Two traffic lanes, an HOV/bus lane, and a cycle lane: and the bloody cyclists ride in the HOV/bus lane rather than their own lane.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

I believe this should be limited to HOV bicycles, thank you.

[laetitia-apis.livejournal.com]

I never rode in the bike lane on Western -- it was absolutely unsafe to do so. Of course, that meant never riding on Western because the road was narrower than it had been before the lane was painted, and drivers didn't know that the bike lane was unusable. Since I was out for the entire day when I got that far from home, I could find alternatives -- or walk beside the road when short stretches were unavoidable -- but the president of the bike club had to give up commuting when the bike lane was painted.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

The only local "bike lane" -- about four miles of paved shoulder with signs -- represents clear and present danger to any cyclist trying to use it. Storm drain grates, loose sand and gravel, broken bottles, shattered bits of vehicle, and parked cars . . .

[janciega.livejournal.com]

In most places, bicyclists are not OBLIGATED to stay in the bike lane. There may be very good reasons not to be there. It could be in the door zone of cars, or full of debris, or who knows what.

Some argue that bike lanes are bad for this reason: motorists seem to believe that if a bike lane is present, that is the ONLY place a bicyclist should ride.

And that's just not true.