Comments on: Name at least three things wrong with this picture

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:07:46 +0000

Oh, Steve, you forgot the ET connection. Those bicycle chevrons weren’t meant for human eyes — they’re for aliens looking in from . . . out there somewhere. Geesh! Didn’t you read Chariots of the Gods? Or listen to Coast to Coast AM?

Ditto for the traffic signs.

Cheers

By: Marc-O

Marc-O — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:57:50 +0000

I do love this inverted bike passage.

By: silhouette

silhouette — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:17:18 +0000

There’s no potholes.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:42:20 +0000

1- UK/Japanese road painting. (brilliant way to keep the cyclists on their game!)
2- Heading into the park would be breaking the law, as they should only be turning right or left.
3- … they’re all blocking the sidewalk over yonder… (can’t stand biker’s on sidewalks, unfortunately they have little choice at this intersection)

4- if they ever have to break hard in the rain to avoid a collision here, they will slip hopelessly under the car/bus/truck due to the frictionless aspect of those paint chevrons. If they’re on fixie…well say goodnight Gracie.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:07:28 +0000

*busiest bike lane in North America

By: mare

mare — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:39:51 +0000

Another thing that is wrong (but that can only be seen if you have one of those zoom-in-on-the-picture-and-sharpen-it gizmos that they have in bad movies) is that on the other side of the park cyclists can’t cross when pedestrians have green light because it’s a scramble crossing where all pedestrians, so also the ones going East-West, have green at the same time. So there is an extra light for the cyclists there. That is of course ignored and/or overlooked and cyclist regularly (almost) hit the pedestrians. And this is the busiest bike-path on the whole island of Montréal. Bad design.

By: Karine

Karine — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:18:24 +0000

I’m guessing you’re talking sarcastically so I will guess that one thing is the cyclists waiting at the red light instead of just going through without missing a bit… I also see the bike traffic arrow on the ground contradicting the sign indicating a mandatory left and right turn. And looking at it again I’m noticing what Christelle is saying about making the cyclist ride on the left UK style…

By: DAVE ID

DAVE ID — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:47:03 +0000

1. The lines are pointing the wrong way
2. If I look at Google Maps, there doesn’t seem to be a bike path beyond that point.
3. I have no clue.

By: Christian

Christian — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:23:29 +0000

1) That squirrel near the fence looks to be in pretty bad shape.

2) Those “turn-left-or-right” signs are redundant, the one at the bottom is just adding to the noise.

3) Just kidding about that squirrel.

By: Christelle

Christelle — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:16:04 +0000

the lines are not right, it’s telling the bikes to ride like in the UK :P
the sign is also telling bikes to either turn left/right while the path is in front..

these lines are new… i walked there almost daily when i lived in the city to go to the doggy park with Happy… Miss it.

By: Joel

Joel — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:01:12 +0000

Well first, the paint indicates bike traffic should be on the left (not the right.) And despite the backwards flow indicated, cyclists are still going the normal way.

I like to think bikes are vehicles - NOT pedestrians. (Call me crazy.) This kind of red light - walk/don’t walk fosters the idea that cyclists ARE pedestrians. For the bikes to go on the vehicle green, they’d have to be coming up the middle lane of Colomb.

I walk the sidewalk in this photo to work everyday. As a pedestrian crossing this “bike road”, it’s worth being heads up. The threat of traffic inspires cyclists to feel little patience for pedestrians.