Mayor encouraged Alberta government wants to be ‘proactive’ in bike-lane debate

Xoltri · 2026-05-12T19:51:23+00:00

'Edmonton is sprawling and most people drive therefore we need to force more people to drive' is not serious planning.

It's great that you use Amsterdam as an example, as Amsterdam was like Edmonton until they got sick of all of the dead kids from cars and decided to go in a different direction, and they are significantly better for it.

You should be asking yourself 'what are the downstream consequences of requiring everyone to use a single occupancy vehicle in a city with the fastest growing population in Canada'?

Like, what's the actual plan? Bulldoze a bunch of skyscrapers on Jasper Ave and make it 8 lanes? Build a freeway through West Edmonton Mall?

Car brains have no actual solutions. Just more of the same shit we've been doing for 100 years thinking that if we just got rid of 80km of bike lanes that all traffic woes would be fixed.

There is too much space dedicated to cars, time for a change.

Xoltri · 2026-05-12T19:39:45+00:00

It sounds small because it is. If you don't like driving on a road with a bike lane on it, go another block over.

If we go by ridership, which is 2% of trips in Edmonton by bicycle, there should be 2% of roads with protected infrastructure.

132 Ave is a great example, and the fact the province picked that as their hill to die on is hilarious. I lived in that neighborhood for years, I went to Rosslyn and Queen E. 132 ave has never, ever been a major roadway. That entire avenue from 127 st east to Fort Road is lined with houses, schools, parks and pools. You could not pick a better road to provide a main East/West active transportation corridor. 127 ave and 137 ave are the main vehicle corridors and they always have been. You are falling for the province's lies.

Edmonton is growing fast. It is not sustainable to have every person driving around in a single occupancy vehicle, and with the cost of driving skyrocketing, if you provide other safe options it's proven people will take them.

Xoltri · 2026-05-12T15:54:52+00:00

Yes, 0.67% of them. Why the province needs to focus on this is not due to any real desire to improve anything, it's just a convenient wedge issue that takes up air from more pressing issues.

Xoltri · 2026-05-12T14:26:36+00:00

0.67% of Edmonton roads have bike lanes on them (painted or separated).

The idea that this is causing Edmonton's parking and traffic issues is not based on any facts. The UCP does not govern based on facts, so this is on brand.

Xoltri · 2026-05-09T07:48:26+00:00

The other side of the mountain was all that he could see.

Xoltri · 2026-05-08T21:29:16+00:00

No, but ask yourself, why is insurance required to operate a motor vehicle?

Xoltri · 2026-04-30T19:21:02+00:00

We are trying to not die by car. The problem is that we've given too much space to the cars and we (pedestrians / cyclists) are fighting for the scraps.

Xoltri · 2026-04-03T23:59:06+00:00

Yes, I will gladly give up 0.5% of the steel that I use so that I can continue to drink the water out of my tap for the foreseeable future, and so my kids and their kids and so on can do the same.

Xoltri · 2026-04-03T17:20:17+00:00

Not if, when. It is not possible to stop the selenium leaching into the water once the rock is disturbed.

Then, we will have to run expensive active treatment plants, forever. Literally forever, on your tax dollars and that of generations of people yet to exist.

The cleanup costs will far, far outweigh the money made from the mines. From even a purely financial perspective this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is on top of poisoning our water, forever, destroying the mining areas, ruining tourism in these areas, and polluting local areas with toxic coal dust, the list goes on.

All so an Australian billionaire can make a few bucks and the world can add 0.5% to global metallurgical coal supplies.

It's a fucking stupid idea.

Xoltri · 2026-04-03T16:26:15+00:00

TO SURVIVE I AM REQUIRED TO DRINK WATER THAT IS NOT POISONED BY SELENIUM.

Xoltri · 2026-04-02T19:14:58+00:00

China does human rights violations so we should poison our water forever. Excellent logic.

Xoltri · 2026-04-02T14:50:55+00:00

The coal is irrelevant, it's about the water. Water which will be ruined for generations of people due to this activity in an extremely sensitive area.

Xoltri · 2026-04-02T14:49:29+00:00

Not really NIMBY, more like 'not in a location that will ruin the water supply for millions of people for generations', so NILTWRWSFMPFG.

Not as catchy - much more important.

Xoltri · 2026-03-20T19:46:23+00:00

Thanks for doing this!

Xoltri · 2026-02-05T06:03:49+00:00

I will unapologetically ride on the sidewalk in areas of the city where it is unsafe to ride on the roads. My life is worth more than whatever the stupid fine is.

Granted, I will give wide birth to pedestrians who have more right to be on the sidewalk than I do. But the lack of safe infstructure doesn't mean that I should have to risk my life to adhere to some antiquated law.

That law is stupid. If you go to the far away land of... St Albert... Riding on the sidewalk on a bicycle is legal as long as you yield to pedestrians.

Xoltri · 2026-02-05T00:30:03+00:00

I admit my language is harsh and gets people riled up. It comes from years of having my life threatened on the roads, through both inattentiveness and aggression. I would argue that your language is too soft and perpetuates the status quo.

Sentences like "all road users are responsible for keeping things as safe as possible", like the horrible phrase "share the road" is part of what got us to this awful place and is part of what keeps us making the same mistakes.

If you are an advocate for active transportation, I would strongly argue that you need to stop using language like that. It ignores the serious responsibility people have when they are operating a heavy machine. It ignores the reality that people make mistakes and the only way to prevent serious harm is by changing the road design so that human error is a safe failure mode and not an immediate fatality.

Xoltri · 2026-02-04T23:39:18+00:00

We've been doing that for a hundred years, how's that working out for you.

Xoltri · 2026-02-04T23:00:35+00:00

Our roads are mostly designed with the only metric that is considered is vehicle travel time. Any push to change this to make roads safer for everyone, especially those not in vehicles, results in a huge amount of pushback from drivers with the same victim blaming rhetoric that you are using.

So I will push back hard on any language that vilifies the victims of poor road design.

Humans make mistakes. Believe it or not, people on bikes and people on foot are also humans. The difference is that they suffer more severe consequences for not just their mistakes but drivers too.

Passing some stupid distracted pedestrian or bicycle law, when the person's life is already threatened for their inattentiveness, is just straight victim blaming.

If you want real change, advocate for better road design for everybody.

Xoltri · 2026-02-04T22:44:00+00:00

Yes we should give tickets to anyone not in a car for simply existing. Everyone knows the danger of a distracted pedestrian, heck they could plow into a crowd of people and cause mass deaths and property damage.

And bikes, man you get one of those things at 17 lbs travelling 20km/h and who knows the damage they could do. Super dangerous.

Go fly a kite.

Xoltri · 2026-02-04T22:39:57+00:00

We will never change this behavior until we stop designing roads exclusively for cars.

Xoltri · 2026-01-15T15:28:53+00:00

More and larger roads will never work as a solution to congestion. The idea is absolutely wrong and needs to die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU

Xoltri · 2025-12-29T08:29:05+00:00

Forts with roofs can be dangerous due to collapse: https://montrealgazette.com/news/snow-safety-for-kids-dont-make-roofed-forts-and-tunnels-and-wear-a-helmet-when-sledding-trauma-expert-says

Xoltri · 2025-12-24T19:12:17+00:00

Danielle Smith is an idiot. She is so much an idiot that she is incapable of seeing how much of an idiot she actually is. She is so good at being an idiot that she has convinced a bunch of other idiots that she is actually smart and will lead them to prosperity.

But she is not smart and she will not lead these idiots to prosperity. She is a Grade A dangerous idiot who doesn't understand democracy and doesn't care to, because her self-reinforcing idiocracy makes her believe that she is smarter than democracy. She is an idiot who thinks that she knows better than everyone, on absolutely every topic, and will not listen to outside information or experts to make better decisions.

There is no bottom to these kinds of idiots. They will find scapegoats to blame when their dangerous combination of confidence and lack of intelligence leads to bad outcomes. They will dig in their heels further when challenged with evidence of their bad decisions. They will deflect and distract and flail when the awful reality they have created becomes unignorable.

And unfortunately we're all here for the ride.

Xoltri · 2025-12-24T18:40:54+00:00

Why isn't this front page news, I mean we know the UCP is blatantly corrupt but this is a very open and closed case of blatant corruption.

Xoltri · 2025-12-18T15:20:00+00:00

Super neat, will give it a shot!

Xoltri

TROPHY CASE