pedestrian lane & other signage

[recycled]

On my last weekend ride I came across a curious sight, something I've never
seen before.

The place: Bolton Ontario.

The scene: fully detached suburban development of wide unlaned residential
streets with side walk on one side.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=2089104

I can't recall exactly which street it was but I was travelling so that
sidewalk was on my left, ion the opposite side of the street. On the right
side as I turned on to the street I notice a 'bike' lane marked out. A
little surprised as I've never seen a marked bike lane on a rez street of
this type, I look down for the familiar bike symbol. Low and behold there is
no bike symbol but a 'pedestrian' symbol.

To be clear, this is a marked lane on the street. I've never seen this
before. I speculate that they were making up for the lack of sidewalk on the
right side of the street.

A question arose in my mind: Should a cyclist use the lane? [Please, no
bike lanes GOOD/bike lanes BAD debates. Assume you would otherwise use and
find acceptable the bike lane and just to remove it from the question, there
is no street parking and thus no door zone issues] It isn't marked as no
bikes nor pedestrian only.

What would the informed rider do?

===

On another ride - sorry I don't recall exactly where - I cam upon a signed
and maintained trail through a wooded area.

I was doing some road riding but I paused to view the signage. It consisted
of the 8 or 10 symbol permitted/not permitted signs everyone is familiar
with. There was none - green circle or red slash for cycling.

There were signs permitting among other things snowmobiling, Xcountry
skiing [admittedly non-issues in July] horseback riding, even bow hunting!
While others banned motorized vehicles, camp fires, camping, firearm hunting
etc.

So I guess the question is which philosophy?

"That which is not specifically banned is permissible."

Or:

"That which is not specifically permitted is banned."

[Tom Keats]

In article <g5osa6$b82$1@news.datemas.de>,
"recycled" <u-lock@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> On my last weekend ride I came across a curious sight, something I've never
> seen before.
>
> The place: Bolton Ontario.
>
> The scene: fully detached suburban development of wide unlaned residential
> streets with side walk on one side.
>
> http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=2089104
>
> I can't recall exactly which street it was but I was travelling so that
> sidewalk was on my left, ion the opposite side of the street. On the right
> side as I turned on to the street I notice a 'bike' lane marked out. A
> little surprised as I've never seen a marked bike lane on a rez street of
> this type, I look down for the familiar bike symbol. Low and behold there is
> no bike symbol but a 'pedestrian' symbol.
>
> To be clear, this is a marked lane on the street. I've never seen this
> before. I speculate that they were making up for the lack of sidewalk on the
> right side of the street.
>
> A question arose in my mind: Should a cyclist use the lane? [Please, no
> bike lanes GOOD/bike lanes BAD debates. Assume you would otherwise use and
> find acceptable the bike lane and just to remove it from the question, there
> is no street parking and thus no door zone issues] It isn't marked as no
> bikes nor pedestrian only.
>
> What would the informed rider do?

I guess the informed rider would have become informed by
asking the local municipal gov't about it.

Chances are the pedestrian symbol implies cyclists as
well -- to a lot of people, cyclists are just wheeled
pedestrians.

But there may be young children using that "pedestrian lane",
and it really wouldn't be fair to inflict vehicular traffic
(i.e: bicycles) on them. So I'd treat it as a sidewalk.
I'd think it effectively /is/ a sidewalk.

> ===
>
> On another ride - sorry I don't recall exactly where - I cam upon a signed
> and maintained trail through a wooded area.
>
> I was doing some road riding but I paused to view the signage. It consisted
> of the 8 or 10 symbol permitted/not permitted signs everyone is familiar
> with. There was none - green circle or red slash for cycling.
>
> There were signs permitting among other things snowmobiling, Xcountry
> skiing [admittedly non-issues in July] horseback riding, even bow hunting!
> While others banned motorized vehicles, camp fires, camping, firearm hunting
> etc.
>
> So I guess the question is which philosophy?
>
> "That which is not specifically banned is permissible."
>
> Or:
>
> "That which is not specifically permitted is banned."

If there's Horsie People and bow-hunters in there,
I'd just voluntarily avoid the place.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tom Sherman]

recycled wrote:
> ...
> A question arose in my mind: Should a cyclist use the lane? [Please, no
> bike lanes GOOD/bike lanes BAD debates....

Where is Zaumen? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[It's Chris]

As for the Ped lane, I would stay off. It was obviously designated for
non vehicular traffic.

I would say that it's safe to take the trail though. If they permit
snowmobiles, I doubt very seriously they would mind a relatively slow
moving and lightweight bicycle.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> If there's Horsie People and bow-hunters in there,
> I'd just voluntarily avoid the place.
>
There is a bow hunting season for Horsie People? How much is the license? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Patrick Lamb]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:41:22 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:
>If there's Horsie People and bow-hunters in there,
>I'd just voluntarily avoid the place.

If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?

Email address works as is.

[Tom Keats]

In article <g5p0lm$bjf$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> If there's Horsie People and bow-hunters in there,
>> I'd just voluntarily avoid the place.
>>
> There is a bow hunting season for Horsie People? How much is the license? ;)

I wouldn't advise it.

Might accidentally shoot the horse.

Horsie People are among the worst fates to
ever befall equuity or humanity.

Horsie People almost desperately need to be
beaten-up and robbed, just to bring 'em down
a peg. 'Xcept I don't do that kinda stuff.

Wouldn't wanna traumatize the horse.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Chip C]

On Jul 18, 10:57 pm, dedendaddy4spamm...@webtv.net (It's Chris) wrote:
> As for the Ped lane, I would stay off. It was obviously designated for
> non vehicular traffic.

Ditto. It's a sidewalk. A really crummy sidewalk, but a sidewalk.

> I would say that it's safe to take the trail though. If they permit
> snowmobiles, I doubt very seriously they would mind a relatively slow
> moving and lightweight bicycle.

More to the point, if they imagine snowmobiles and X-country skiers
are somehow compatible, they should think hikers and bikers will just
love each other.

Chip C
Toronto, Ont.

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <g5p0lm$bjf$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> ...
>>> If there's Horsie People and bow-hunters in there,
>>> I'd just voluntarily avoid the place.
>>>
>> There is a bow hunting season for Horsie People? How much is the license? ;)
>
> I wouldn't advise it.
>
> Might accidentally shoot the horse.
>
Good point.

> Horsie People are among the worst fates to
> ever befall equuity or humanity.
>
> Horsie People almost desperately need to be
> beaten-up and robbed, just to bring 'em down
> a peg. 'Xcept I don't do that kinda stuff.
>
Since it cost more (for the urban dweller) to keep a horse than to run
an automobile, you will not find lower class Horsie People.

> Wouldn't wanna traumatize the horse.
>
butbutbut, can we put a diaper on the horse to keep the trail clean?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Tom Keats]

In article <g5tfsa$6aj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> butbutbut, can we put a diaper on the horse to keep the trail clean?

Can we put diapers on cars' tailpipes to keep the troposphere clean?

I think not.

We're doomed to wade in people's (especially car drivers')
atmospheric petro ****.

Thanks a lot, car drivers.

But it's not your fault. You've been put-up to it.
By General Bullmoose. "What's good enough for
General Bullmoose is good enough for the US of A!"

Well-aged horse poop is an excellent botanical growth
medium -- once its pH gets down to a decent level.

To horticulterists, horse poop is as good as gold.

The byproducts of car driving are, in Chinook jargon:
cultus. You can't use the byproducts of car driving
for anything, except ultimate death and destruction.

The whole POV paradigm is Hellish and horribly wrong.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca