Sharing the road doesn’t mean drivers can hog it

Adam Ferland, Science V Wednesday, 12 March 2008

In the 24 January article “We all have to share the roads—something you inattentive cyclists need to remember,” Kyle Chisholm demonstrated a curious definition of the word “share.”

Now, granted, it’s been a while since I was in kindergarten, but I don’t seem to remember sharing being along of the lines of bogarting something all for oneself. Why, then, does Chisholm’s idea of “sharing” the road consist of telling cyclists to get off of it, in favour of the many marked bicycle paths he sees in his hungover stupor?

Do tell me, Chisholm, where precisely these many magical bicycle paths exist in reality? A quick consultation of my handy Cycle Edmonton map shows that the only northbound route heading right onto campus for cyclists is 112 Street (designated by the map, conveniently enough, as a “signed bike route on roadway”), the very same route you want cyclists off of.

Unfortunately for you, cyclists have just as much right to the roads—including the main ones—as you. I’d kindly ask you to respect that right. And while we’re working on the issue of respect, I’d also kindly ask you to not belittle all cyclists just because you see some breaking the rules of the road.

If I had a dollar for every time I saw a driver break those same rules, I could probably afford to join you in the mass congestion of personal transit polluters (if I even wanted to give up my bike).

Does that mean that I’m justified to wax poetic on the shortcomings of all drivers?

-->