BowCycle's picture

Posting of a No Bicycles sign

I have submitted a request to 311, but this sign is disheartening. 

It is on Burma (144th Ave) and 85th Street in the NW, a very dissapointing thing to see.


winterrider's picture

Missed the 85th

Ignore my question on where this sign is, I just glossed over the 85th St after reading Burma Rd and 144th Ave I assumed the address was over.

Funny, I was there last night on 85th St heading south, no one out of 15 cyclists even noticed the sign!

2wheeler's picture


I've added a 311 request #17-00699133.  Hopefully some volume of calls will have this resolved soon.  

DarrenB's picture

Not in the City of Calgary

That photo looks like it is facing northward, correct? If so, 85th St north of 144th Ave NW would be in the RM of Rocky View, not the City of Calgary. Looks like that RM is up to old tricks again.

winterrider's picture

It's in Calgary

I was on that road this week, and I noted a City of Calgary City limit sign about 1 to 2 km north of Burma Rd on 85th St.
I presume from that that all this land has been annexed.

DarrenB's picture


So this sign is westbound on 144th, not northbound on 85th? Mybad.

Actually, looking at the map you provided, I see that the 85th St NW road allowance also falls within the new City of Calgary boundary. So it would be in the City regardless (mybad).

As Mike says, though, it seems absurd that they would put a no bicycling sign on a primary route in the city's cycling network. I encourage everyone to put in a 311 request on this one (mine is sent). And if anyone lives in Ward 2, you might want to call the councillor's office, also (Joe Magliocca - 403-268-2430 or use the online form here:



winterrider's picture

Already done

I also took the time to ask them what their cycling coordinator Mr Thivener's views were on this sign. Hopefully that gets this across his desk.

Kerryv's picture


I drove down 144 Ave last night from 85 St to Symons Valley ranch. There were no bicycle signs the same as this in both directions at every intersection between 85 St and Sarcee Trail where Nolan Hill begins. I will also call 311 on Monday. 

dnorman's picture

Near misses?

That's insane! Near misses are a reason to put up "watch for cyclists" and "drive safely" signs. They can't just ban people from a road because other people can't drive safely. I'd like to request "no cars" signs along Stoney Trail. I've had near misses driving there. It's clearly not safe for cars.

2wheeler's picture

City response


The logic is incredible!  Their have been many "near misses with cyclists and pedestrians", however the sign required that cyclists become pedestrians and walk that section of road.  This is a clear case of discirmination against cyclists in relation to other slow moving vehicles and pedestrians.  This is exactly the case that the Springbank decision made.  The City's response is tellingly car centric.  


If the road has had near misses then perhaps the speed limit should be dropped?  Perhaps vehicles should be prepared to slow down and wait for a safe time to pass a slower moving vehicle?  You know, perhaps drivers should be forced to obey the Rules of the Road and conduct their vehicle in a manner that doesn't jeopordize the safety of other road users?!  And what does the purpose of travel have to do with it?  Their is no stipulation in the Highway Traffic Act concerning the purpose of travel wether it be work/leisure/sightseeing; we are allowed by Provincial legislation to use the road system for which we have paid taxes.


Old thinking dies hard!


Did you find out if Tom Thievner has been notified of the ban?


winterrider's picture

Putting the pieces together

Did any of you notice this story from 3 days ago?

The gist of it is that residents in the north are complaining about gravel trucks which must originate at the gravel pit on 144th and are trying to access Stoney.

I have a couple take aways from this. 

1. The gravel trucks are speeding and driving recklessly (according to residents, they may be biased by the noise).

2. The City has obviously had prior discussions with the gravel truck drivers regarding their needs in the area, this was the main justification for the new interchange work at Sarcee and Stoney which has been going for almost a year.

My presumption is that the no cyclists signs have been placed at the behest of the gravel truck drivers, who are alleged to be driving unsafely through residential neighbourhoods, so no surprise they can't drive safely around cyclists.

Is there someway to leverage this? Possibly contact CBC for a follow up on their gravel truck story with these other restrictions?

bclark's picture

Trying to Find Out More

I've reached out to some of my contacts and am trying to find out more on the reason these signs were installed and whether they can be removed. Seems that, based on precedent in Springbank, these signs would likely fail a court challenge. Hopefully I can get some clarity.

2wheeler's picture


I submitted a 311 request asking why the City had closed a road to cyclists.  I linked to the court decision but haven't heard anything back.  It's been 2 weeks.