Thread by @HeartAGlow

1/To me, it's nb to differentiate between various subgroups of cyclists. Commuters are different than recreational are different from semi or wannabe pro athletes. (of course some are cross over of any/all segments...) #YYJ #YYJBikes #yyjpoli

2/ @CityOfVictoria is inviting one and all to come for the recreational experience they have created on #VancouverSt - as a destination; not a commuting route.

3/ many orgs are encouraging cyclists to make use of the expanding AAA bike lanes - for recreation and family fun -posting #NeighbourhoodRides experiences, awarding prizes for logging kms..

4/ But,what other "recreation or sport" than cycling; gets precedence/priority use of city infrastructure which denies any other ppl use of that space? Should we turn our streets into permanent basketball/tennis courts/marathon running routes? Why not? Aren't they as deserving?

5/ I'm trying to differentiate between city building safer cycling routes for those who opt for cycling as means of transport VS those who cycle for recreation/enjoyment/sport.

6/ I fully support making roads safer for commuter cyclists; but can't understand the rationale of giving recreational cyclists greater rights as it were than any other recreational users.

7/ Hell, we could turn roads into bowling alleys if the purpose is to provide outdoor venues for sport/family fun/recreation/exercise.

8/ Or lawn bowling. or crickets: the list is endless.
I'm just not buying into why cyclists are the only ones who deserve such venues (paid for by the by the majority who don't cycle) to have entire city streets dedicated to the pursuit of their personal recreation preference.

9/ Many ppl need to use our #YYJ roads. For many purposes. Top priority imo is to get to/from where we need to go; by whatever mode of transport we either opt for or need.

10/ The priority should be making roads safest possible for those who *need* them - not those who just wanna have fun.

11/ Those who *need* to use roads are many: including commuting cyclists, drivers who can't cycle, delivery and service vehicles, emergency vehicles.

12/ We can open a further debate for sure - widen the convo about what is "needed" beyond the basic - have to get somewhere- to other layers of human needs of enjoyment.

13/ but for the sake of this thread; I'm questioning
why my *basic* need as a driver to be able to move about my city is being denied me in service of recreational needs of cyclists who have been given carte blanche access to #VancouverSt #YYJ

14/ Sadly, I feel like I have to repeat myself time and again to those who accuse me of being part of some cyclist hating car cabal; that, though I'm unable to cycle myself; I'm a cycling advocate.....

15/ What I'm not an advocate for is closing entire roads like #VancouverSt, to other people who need to drive.
I truly think @CityOfVictoria failed us all.

16/ If #CoV goal is to make roads safer for cyclists, then that could have been achieved w/out sacrificing needs of drivers who also need to use #VancouverSt

17/ If @CityOfVictoria goal was to carve out a cycle only route - which caters only to cyclists - to ban drivers - that's what they've achieved; and that's what I object to.

18/ To "cycle" back to earlier points in this thread; why do *recreational* cyclists deserve this road to themselves, while drivers who rely on it for needed travel, are banned?

19/ And if the goal is to make recreation and family fun and exercise the best use of our roadways... why only cyclists? There are a myriad of other just as legit recreational activities that have just as much right to use of roads.

@threadreaderapp unroll