Dear Editor:
Re: Public City Pathways are to be Shared and Apply Vigilance When Cyclists Merging into Motor Traffic, July 23 Mailbox.
Regarding the first letter – as the writer confirmed with the city engineer, the two outside pathways are for commuter cyclists and the inner pathway is to be shared.
Why would it be so difficult for the writer to use the outside pathway with the other cyclists and leave the inner pathway for walkers? I think that the design is mainly at fault, but surely a little common sense on the part of the cyclist would go a long way.
Regarding the second letter – all I can say is “When is it all going to end?” Does this writer think that drivers have no other distractions on the road but to be constantly checking for cyclists, bike lane endings, bike lane merges and all other bike related stuff?
I think that cyclists should be of the mind that drivers may not have seen them and act accordingly.
On a daily basis I see cyclists breaking the law with little or no regard for anyone else on the road. Seems to me that this is a little one-sided. If you choose to cycle in a busy city, where even the car drivers are complaining about the congestion and madness on our roads, then you have to accept some risks.
It’s not that we begrudge the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on bike lanes – it’s the cyclists’ entitlement issues that annoy a large percentage of the public and the fact that no matter how many bikes lanes etc. are built – in their minds, it’s not done right or it’s never enough.
Willow Hayden
West Vancouver
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
