Whenever politicians take on something controversial, they spent their political capital. That’s what’s happening in Vancouver right now with the Burrard Bridge.
But, as I found out yesterday, some unexpected people think Vision will actually gain political capital by putting on the bike-lane trial, not spend it.
My story on this in the Globe is here.
140 responses so far ↓
1 Urbanismo // Jul 14, 2009 at 7:26 am
Hey Mr. Cannie Scott you wear a kilt . . . pusillanimous isn’t in your vocabulary . . . cycle lanes all over . . . go for it . . .
2 Frothingham // Jul 14, 2009 at 7:47 am
_Mr. Ransford said. “I think this is one that could turn out to be a political win for them.”_
It’s all in the timing. And folks this one is for keeps. As his Bobness said: The times they are a’changing
3 Not running for mayor // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:00 am
I doubt this will be a polictical winner, the reason being that most bike riders would’ve already have been in the Vision/Cope camp so the upside was limited at best. On the other hand there will be Vision/Cope voters that swing away due to this. How much who knows.
4 T W // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:32 am
One reason this will be a political loser is that at the end of the three month “test”, the proponents of the cycle lane will be the ones that judge success, not some impartial expert.
So the conclusion that might well be drawn is that, absent outside assessment, the three month “test” is just a convenient way of ramming this measure through.
5 Frothingham // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:36 am
Of course Vision cannot win on a single issue. But in the aggregate if this is a success coupled with other successful issues then yes it will add up to good political capital. I don’t see a major push back happening on this issue. I am now hearing from friends with school – aged kids that there is much negative social stigma being expressed against all the big SUV that kids get driven to school in the west side of town. The kids are saying … we want a clean planet for our future. The kids are teaching their parents.
His Bobnes is amoung us.
6 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:37 am
It’s a six month trial being that will be re-assessed at the mid-point, not a three month trial.
7 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:38 am
oops, meant to cut out the ‘being’ in prev. post.
8 SV // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:51 am
Or maybe people adapt to the change andget on with their lives? Yes, change is hard, people will adapt.
9 Kera McArthur // Jul 14, 2009 at 9:14 am
Congratulations to the mayor and council on the trial. It’s long overdue.
Now we can open the debate further about other ways to get people out of their cars.
You can read my proposal for a citizen-led design competition for a car-free crossing in today’s Sun here http://www.vancouversun.com/free+crossing+discussions+should+involve+public/1789112/story.html. And please take action by signing up on our web site to show your support here http://www.thinkcity.ca/car-free_ideas
10 spartikus // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:08 am
I think the real story isn’t so much the political capital to be gained from supporting the trial, but rather there isn’t much capital to be gained from opposing it.
The stances from opposition politicos is telling.
11 Mark Allerton // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:16 am
It’s interesting to look at the comments about the trial on the G&M site and the CBC’s – where they have agree/disagree buttons on each comment.
I mention this because many of the naysayers seem to believe themselves to be The Voice Of Common Sense And All Right-Thinking People.
A quick survey of those agree/disagree votes shows this belief to somewhat mistaken.
12 rf // Jul 14, 2009 at 11:09 am
so far so good….but personally, I think that the safety and injury to bikers issues is a little self inflicted. Agressive bikers are very much like agressive drivers. They ride with a sense of entitlement and arrogance. “Psycho-bikers” and “road-ragers” and pretty similar. There would be a lot less injuries and accidents if they just slowed down instead of acting like everyone else is/should get out of the way, especially at bottlenecks. Unfortunately, they are not the ones that get hurt….it’s usually someone else after they have gone ripping by or cut them off.
One needs only to read how DMcgee writes on this blog and I can get a pretty good idea of how he/her rides.
13 LP // Jul 14, 2009 at 11:13 am
“The stances from opposition politicos is telling.”
Spartikus, who are you suggesting are the opposition politicos? Other than one NPA council member, there is no opposition.
She’s said her peace, been on the news, etc… but what is one person to do when there is a majority on council?
Who exactly are you expecting to stand up and fight for the majority who drive and don’t agree with the trial?
This will live or die in the fall/winter when people are back to work, the rains are back and all but Darcy, Richard and Chris are back in their cars. Enjoy your little summer experiment at the expense of taxpayers, it will not be permanent.
And as far as I remember Ransford was in the other camp and was a pariah to many of you not too long ago. For any of you to now say Bob is among you is laughable.
14 spartikus // Jul 14, 2009 at 11:42 am
Spartikus, who are you suggesting are the opposition politicos?
I choose the word “politico” purposely. In Francis’s article Peter Ladner, Bob Ransford and Dan Fountaine are quoted – my point being they aren’t taking a firm stand in opposition, which I find telling. Unlike 1996, there’s nothing to be gained, either for their own personal ambitions, or for that of the NPA.
Who exactly are you expecting to stand up and fight for the majority who drive and don’t agree with the trial?
I haven’t seen any empirical evidence that the majority of the citizens of Vancouver are opposed to the trial. The CBC’s online poll is a statistical dead heat and online polls are not scientific – as is noted by disclaimer at the bottom. If you have data to share, please do.
15 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Who exactly are you expecting to stand up and fight for the majority who drive and don’t agree with the trial?”
My dear old Dad says you have to fight your own battles in this world.
Failing that, there’s the BCAA (too busy implementing a bike-assistance program to comment I guess), the DVBIA which is, as far as I can tell, grudgingly accepting that lane reallocation isn’t the end of business as we know it.
One might also wonder why former transp. minister Falcon or Point Grey MLA G. Campbell failed to go to bat for drivers on this issue? For some reason the New Car Dealers Assoc. of BC hasn’t weighed in (bigger fish to fry right now I suppose). Perhaps VANOC should have spoken up, what with GM as one of their major sponsors?
Ya know, it’s almost as if this bridge trial is a well-thought-out, well-executed, relatively minor change to the Metro road network, implemented at exactly the right time to allow for plenty of time to adjust driving patterns before school is back in session and liable to continue to see plenty of walkers and bikers… as new adoptees of active transportation realize 15 minutes in the rain is only fatal some of the time and the very self-same raincoat they don to walk the dog or watch the kid’s soccer game can also be used as a shield against inclement weather in other situations as well.
Or… maybe the mighty defenders of the poor oppressed drivers of the world were cowed when they woke up one morning to see a 350 cu in Chevy engine in their bed leaking fluids in a scene reminiscent of the Godfather. Yeah, that’s it.
16 LP // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“In Francis’s article Peter Ladner, Bob Ransford and Dan Fountaine are quoted – my point being they aren’t taking a firm stand in opposition… or for that of the NPA.”
The old guard, and they failed miserably. Using them as a barameter for anything is a waste of everyone’s time. Sometimes Sparty you make me wonder about you.
Quoting the CBC for any poll online or otherwise is a joke. To take that one step further all online polls are a waste of everyone’s time. But go ahead and follow those if you like.
Any data compiled from now until after the long weekend in September is useless as well. If anyone uses summer data to base their decision on going forward, they should be tarred and feathered.
The REAL data that everyone will need to pay attention to will come from Labour day FORWARD, not backward to July 13. The public and most others are giving it the summer letting everyone enjoy it while it’s nice outside.
I will promise all of you that come Fall/Winter when those bike lanes empty out, the mayor’s head will be served on a platter.
Add to that a nice lawsuit from Hornby Street merchants for loss of business (do you think Art Knapp, the family business of a former Socred Premier is going to let the NDP dominated Vision Mayor ruin their business without a fight), and Gregor’s ass is grass.
No one is going to support spending $1 million + a year to convert the bridge for a few months of nice weather and something else will be done…….just watch and see.
And by all means if you believers want to continue with your delusional beliefs that any data and online polls collected during the summer months will mean anything at all to Vancouverites come fall when those lanes are empty, go right ahead and continue living in your own Fantasy Land.
Perhaps you’ll be able to offload your make believe kingdom of bike lanes and bridges to an offshore investor for a bag full of cash down the road.
17 LP // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Chris,
If you think this is over, or won on the part of the cycling lobby which you are part of, you are so sadly mistaken that I feel sorry for you.
My comments here are almost always primarily based on strategy, and not on ideology. Regardless of my personal beliefs I try to comment on what may or may not be going on behind the scenes.
Those who are truly intelligent admit they know nothing and continue to seek out more than they know.
Apparently you seem to know all, and that will prove your downfall. Sometimes you should try and listen and not always open that yap of yours.
18 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“Apparently you seem to know all, and that will prove your downfall.”
Do tell. Where do I purport to know all?
“Those who are truly intelligent admit they know nothing and continue to seek out more than they know.”
Truly intelligent people know nothing? OK.
“Sometimes you should try and listen and not always open that yap of yours.”
There’s a door that swings both ways.
I’m sorry my attempt at a little humour rubbed you the wrong way.
19 George Chow // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Hi Frances:
This trial will enable us to gather up data and to decide on the work program for the Burrard Bridge after the Olympics. As you know, during the 2008 election, voters approved an additional $20 million to our capital plan for major bridge maintenance – replace the outer railings, repave the sidewalk, improve the lighting, and erect a crash barrier between the sidewalk and vehicle lanes. Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the trial, one to two lanes will be closed to traffic for up to 18 months to 2 years.
This trial will help us make the right decisions going forward.
Regards,
Councillor George Chow
20 spartikus // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Using them as a barameter for anything is a waste of everyone’s time.
Who would you suggest?
Quoting the CBC for any poll online or otherwise is a joke. To take that one step further all online polls are a waste of everyone’s time.
LOL…I’m pretty sure I said the same thing. I’ll take this as a “no” you don’t have anything tangible to back up your assertion.
21 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“If you think this is over, or won on the part of the cycling lobby which you are part of, you are so sadly mistaken that I feel sorry for you.”
The trial has commenced. Speaking only for myself, that was the only goal I had when contributing my abilities to the effort. I’m immensely pleased with the outcome at this early stage and I think it’s a fine foundation to build on. If it requires adjustments and refinements over time that’s to be expected IMO. Let’s stick to the issue and not make it about me, my alleged braggadicio or anyone other unrelated topic.
22 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“(do you think Art Knapp, the family business of a former Socred Premier is going to let the NDP dominated Vision Mayor ruin their business without a fight)”
If it’s too early to claim success, must it not also be too early to claim businesses will be ruined?
23 Dawn Steele // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Get a grip, folks. The majority of Vancouverites like me rarely if ever use the Burrard Bridge, don’t care and were blissfully unaware that this was even an issue before the media storm that erupted yesterday.
I’m not a cyclist, but if I’ve grasped the issue, it seems the reality is west-side cyclists need safe access to get downtown, same as the west-siders who walk or drive. Fair enough, and that being the case, encouraging more vehicles to utilize Granville certainly seems a lot more sensible than taxing us all to fix your problem – at least from where I sit.
So I sure hope this trial works out for all of you – and I’m not sure I understand (or even want to understand) why anyone would be hoping otherwise.
24 SV // Jul 14, 2009 at 3:26 pm
LP why do you sound so angry?
25 pw // Jul 14, 2009 at 4:31 pm
other than a few self-absorbed cycling advocates, does anybody more than 10 feet from city hall care?
26 gmgw // Jul 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Chris Keam asuggests in a neighbouring thread that this exercise may end up saving the city millions of dollars. I assume he means that should the bike trial prove successful it won’t be necessary to make major structural changes to the bridge to accommodate bikes, through some of more outlandish design proposals that have been put forward. Unfortunately, sooner or later it’s going to be neccessary to spend (at least) several tens of millions of dollars on the Burrard Bridge anyway. Last Friday night I walked across the birdge, bidding farewell (temporarily? permanently? who knows?) to the view from the south side. Have any of you looked at the bridge railings lately? They’re in terrible shape. The concrete is crumbling away and the rebar is showing through in multiple places. Close up, the bridge looks grubby and dirty; it’s really showing its age.
This in itself is not surprising, as the bridge is nearly 80 years old; but if the railings are that deteriorated, one has to wonder what kind of shape the rest of it is in, structurally speaking. Considering that the Burrard Bridge is often touted as one of the architectural gems of Vancouver, it’s being poorly looked after. Time for a major restoration. There go Chris’s savings… several times over, probably.
gmgw
27 Urbanismo // Jul 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Responding to Fred and Frothingham, clearly there is a strong public demand to know how I breakfast.
So: one delicious slice heavy, dry bread from the market, assorted fruit and, wait for it, 1½ cups of strong caffeinated coffee, spiked with whole goat milk . . . no sugar . . . no Geritol.
As the coffee perks I obsess over, currently, Los Lobos . . .
What is Geritol anyway? I assume the first syllable refers to geriatrics . . . but I dunno I’ve heard of it but that’s all . . .
Now doesn’t that beat futile speculation on VV’s future and let’s hope us walkers and cyclists stay cool . . .
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/8architecture/vivo.htm
28 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“Chris Keam asuggests in a neighbouring thread that this exercise may end up saving the city millions of dollars. I assume he means that should the bike trial prove successful it won’t be necessary to make major structural changes to the bridge to accommodate bikes, through some of more outlandish design proposals that have been put forward”
Actually, I mean that if we can curb and decrease our car use sufficiently we may find enough road space becomes available that expensive new ped/cycling bridges might be unnecessary or at least can wait for a number of years.
29 A. G. Tsakumis // Jul 14, 2009 at 5:46 pm
There is nothing to be gained in this trial, for now. But much to be lost.
The notion Gregor put out there yesterday, that it is already a success is such unadulterated bullshit. It doesn’t matter at all at this point, since the bridge is only seeing about 25% of the traffic it would normally get. I drove across twice today, once, at mid-morning, with some congestion, and a second time, in mid-afternoon, and there were probably twenty cars on the bridge, if that.
The challenge will be in the fall and if Clr. Chow’s insane contention proves true, that this will be a longer trial than first thought. Let’s see how this works then. Vision will lose half their votes on the westside, south of 16th, just watch.
Until then, the cycling fascists and the accompanying lobby group have nothing to do all day long, since most of them don’t work particularly hard when they can find work at all, so it’s easy to sit behind the computer and lob bomblets at the hard working taxpayer and fill up news websites with their mindless pap and approving comments.
Frankly, I think they should be taxed. Licence bikes and put plates on them. Tax them to the max and have those funds go to promoting more reasonable green initiatives. You want the world to change children, great, then put your damn money where your mouths are. C’mon heroes…
The social engineering lot are insidious in their foolish rhetoric. And cowards when it comes to paying up.
And as for the comments of Peter and Bob, both of whom I respect, they’re wrong, simple as that.
Peter is an avid cyclist who cost himself the NPA Mayoral nomination in 2005 with his support of similar BB nonsense, and Bob, who is a very good friend of mine, and one of the best political minds in the province, has just finished a two week stretch of cold medicine.
As for the attack on the VanderZalms, only an idiot would suggest Bill and his family would be doing this to stick it to the NDP loving Mayor. What stupidity.
So, by that calculus, I’ve discovered that Joel Solomon, Gregor’s business godfather, is an investor in a bicycle manufacturing company: Is Gregor so up on bikes just to satisfy him? Is Gregor an investor in the company?
Take a deep breath folks. The wall for all of the extremists is coming, and they’ll be hitting it at about 60KM/HR.
And they’ll have only themselves to blame, handlebars and all.
Build a godamned cycle and pedestrian bridge right along side the BB and be done with all this lather and pompousness, so we don’t have to listen or read to out-of-touch idealistic, doctrinaire fantasists anymore.
30 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The bike industry is pretty healthy these days. I’d recommend it as an investment to anyone. Particularly the e-bike sector. Big jump in sales worldwide, with continued growth expected.
31 Richard // Jul 14, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Alex, I’m not sure how providing people with increased safe transportation choices is either social engineering or fascist.
Forcing everyone to drive whether they want to or not, on the other hand….
32 Sour Grapes Alex // Jul 14, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Alex,
For the love of god man get some class and get over yourself you pompous wind bag. have you got nothing better to do than to spend time on blogs with your inane vitriol for everyone? Get some therapy instead, it will help you more than taking your physchosis out on every freakin’ blog you can get access to.
33 SV // Jul 14, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Pompousness and lather aren’t restricted to those who ride bikes:)
As for my work ethic I work pretty hard all year long and volunteer too-so what if I ride a bike.
I guess I should just learn to ignore the vitriol and enjoy the nice weather.
34 Mark A // Jul 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm
It’s funny, in the past couple of hours I’ve seen comments on three different blogs suggesting that cyclists should be licensed just like motorists. Is this the latest Talking Point from the office of Susan Anton, or what?
35 Frothingham // Jul 14, 2009 at 9:41 pm
@Chow
Thank-you Councillor . I don’t think this has sunk in to the others commenting herein: “Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the trial, one to two lanes will be closed to traffic for up to 18 months to 2 years.
This trial will help us make the right decisions going forward.”
In other words special bike lane or not not there will be ongoing improvements being carried out until 2011 that will see less traffic flowing over the BB.
36 Richard // Jul 14, 2009 at 9:48 pm
And then there is the Olympics. A successful Burrard Bridge Trial goes a long ways to to proving that we can handle the massive street closures during the Games.
37 Bboy Pen // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“They ride with a sense of entitlement and arrogance”
“if they just slowed down instead of acting like everyone else is/should get out of the way, especially at bottlenecks”
Couldn’t have said it better myself Mr. rf. It’s that arrogant attitude these bike riders have that absolutely makes me want to run them over some days.
38 Frothingham // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I have seen a total of TWO (2) business owners complain ILLOGICALLY that they are harmed in the SAME way that the Cambie Street merchants were. I think these two fellers are smoking some of the plants in Van der Zalms garden shop.
The Cambie street mis-project took place along a 1 to 3 mile stretch involving many business. Street traffic. both drive-by and walk-by was greatly diminished.
In the case of the two shop owners, on one little block, they are facing traffic flow adjustments. Happens all the time in many cities. I would venture that the garden shop sells mostly to the apartments dwellers all around him. For those others who drive to his shop there is an extra TWO whole blocks to travel. Same goes for the art gallery. If people have driven 2,4,8 miles to get to them driving another 2-4 blocks is not a hardship. Cars that have chosen these shops as their destination will do so. As for casual drive by business they are dreaming in colour if they expect us to believe that accounts for 20-25% of their business. I don’t buy that. They are complaining for political reasons.
39 Frothingham // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:41 pm
@Bboy Pen and Mr rf.
just replace the word “automobile” for “bike” and you’ll have the other view. There are bad auto drivers just as there are bad bike riders. Don’t paint them all with the same brush. It’s an untrue statement when you do that.
40 gmgw // Jul 14, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Frothingham said:
“There are bad auto drivers just as there are bad bike riders. Don’t paint them all with the same brush. It’s an untrue statement when you do that.”
Two points in response: 1) Why do we see so many bad bike riders out there if, as the bicycle lobby keeps insisting, they’re a small minority?
2) Yes, there are certainly a great many bad car drivers. Fortunately, few of them are so bad as to drive on the sidewalk, even though hundreds of bike riders do every day in the downtown area alone, and even though it’s illegal for them to do so, just as it is for car drivers. One young jerk swept past me at high speed with no warning in the 900 block of Seymour yesterday, close enough to ruffle my clothing– I was thankful that I hadn’t happened to lurch to the right in that moment (the ol’ motor control gets unpredictable at my age). He stopped– on the sidewalk– at the light just ahead of me. I’d like to have said something, but I didn’t feel like being told to f*ck off, or worse, which appears to be the standard biker’s response to any face-to-face criticism, if my own experience is any indication. Not to mention the fact that he was both bigger and about 35 years younger than me.
Later that same day an SUV driver, talking on his cell phone, blew through the stop sign and short crosswalk at the end of the Seymour off-ramp, near Drake, at about 30 MPH, right in front of me; just as I was about to step into said crosswalk to start across the bridge. As a pedestrian and occasional driver, I am so goddamned sick and tired of all the irresponsible, reckless, aggressive, and terminally stupid assholes on wheels there are in this city– and there are a phenomenal number of them, on both two and four wheels. May they all end up in hell together, jockeying for position in the lake of fire.
gmgw
41 gmgw // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:08 am
Frothingham also said:
“In the case of the two shop owners, on one little block, they are facing traffic flow adjustments. Happens all the time in many cities. I would venture that the garden shop sells mostly to the apartments dwellers all around him. For those others who drive to his shop there is an extra TWO whole blocks to travel. Same goes for the art gallery. If people have driven 2,4,8 miles to get to them driving another 2-4 blocks is not a hardship. Cars that have chosen these shops as their destination will do so. As for casual drive by business they are dreaming in colour if they expect us to believe that accounts for 20-25% of their business. I don’t buy that. They are complaining for political reasons.”
They are complaining because, apparently, at no time in this process were they consulted by the City, even though City officials are always bragging about how much they consult with the public on every little thing these days (even though we all know those consultations will likely prove meaningless in the end, at least they have *symbolic* value).
I think the Hornby businesspeople have a legitimate gripe. They should have been brought into the process early on (although it’s not clear when the decision was made to ban right turns onto Hornby from Pacific). A few years ago the street outside our building went through a redesign and reconstruction which, we were dismayed to discover, left us as the only building in the area with not only no parking but no stopping zones outside. Makes it pretty difficult when we have contractors in the building, or someone’s moving, or is having something large delivered, or calls a taxi. Although we had been informed about the overall reconstruction, the City engineers only let us know about this nasty little side effect late in the process, when it was far too late for us to try to stop or soften it.
For this reason I can sympathize with the Hornby Street merchants, probably a lot more than you can. They should have received the same courtesy, which was likewise denied us. It doesn’t matter if the changes are being made for the best reasons in the world. You still *consult* and *inform*. What they chose to do about it at that point would have been up to them, but at least they would have been informed. It’s the only proper and respectful thing to do in such circumstances.
I refer you once again to Allen Garr’s column touching on this topic, from the July 6 issue of the Courier. He pretty much nails it, and Gregor as well: http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/opinion/story.html?id=23a2716f-ca2d-4e87-9755-34a65bde2736
gmgw
42 A. G. Tsakumis // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:29 am
Sour Grapes:
It’s not me in need of therapy, but instead therapy might be a better option for a coward who hides behind a contrived name and pretends that my comments were either full of wind or vitriolic.
Suffer! I stand behind my statements and they will be proven over the course of the next few months. It won’t take long.
If you don’t like what I’ve written, great, sign your name and go to town, otherwise, I couldn’t care less what your opinion is.
Let’s see who you are and then we can ascertain what your motivation is fueled by (other than personal venom for me, which was obvious).
Have you ever had Fun All Around Quebec?
FAAQ…
43 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:45 am
> the cycling fascists and the accompanying lobby group have nothing to do all
> day long, since most of them don’t work particularly hard when they can find
> work at all,
Alex, that’s just plain insulting and has no basis in fact. As usual, you’ve exposed your personal bias with all the grace of an elephant in a tutu.
The demographics of those who cycle to and from work area as varied as the demographics of workers themselves. I met a carpenter a few weeks ago who was riding, along with his tools.
I suspect he might have something to say about “hard work” to a person who writes scathing indictments based on their opinions without any research.
44 Bob Ransford // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:21 am
Alex, the medication has worn off!
45 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:33 am
The initial public meeting for this project was held on a weekend and saw hundreds of people come through the Roundhouse Community Centre to look at the plans and speak with representatives of the city about the lane reallocation. There were also council meetings on the topic. The 2 affected business owners could have requested to speak to the Bicycle Advisory Committee on the topic. They might have sent a letter or made a phone call to Council. There has been ample opportunity to consult with decision-makers on this project. It seems to me what DIDN’T happen was no one went to these businesses expressly to give them a lane reallocation tutorial. I would suggest that expectation is unrealistic.
46 Frothingham // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:53 am
“I am so goddamned sick and tired of all the irresponsible, reckless, aggressive, and terminally stupid assholes on wheels there are in this city– and there are a phenomenal number of them, on both two and four wheels. May they all end up in hell together, jockeying for position in the lake of fire.”
kinda like that! I’m with you…
47 spartikus // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:06 am
Thank-you Councillor . I don’t think this has sunk in to the others commenting herein: “Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the trial, one to two lanes will be closed to traffic for up to 18 months to 2 years.
Someone did. They called this voter-approved measure – which would have happened under Vision or the NPA – “insane”.
Why bridge maintenance is insane is left unstated, but I’m getting the idea the author considers anything insane that might cause him a modicum of personal inconvenience. Perhaps I’m mistaken in this, and the author will expand on his reasoning.
But I’m thinking I’ll just be called a name.
48 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:11 am
> One young jerk swept past me at high
> speed with no warning in the 900 block of
> Seymour yesterday, close enough to ruffle
> my clothing
I didn’t do it! (I do appreciate being called young though.)
Yes, cyclists should stay off the sidewalk. Many don’t. It’s a big problem.
A bigger problem is cars that blatantly ignore rules. I appreciate the fact that you provided an example of that as a counterpoint to your cycling example. I was almost killed today by a van driver who blatantly decided to run a red light on Rupert. His comment was that he “would have made it if I hadn’t started to cross.” The light was RED before he was in the intersection. Sigh.
It would be an interesting world if there were no such thing as wheeled vehicles. Might even be a better one. It would certainly be a smaller one.
49 Frothingham // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:12 am
Garr is offbase:
“The right turn onto Hornby has been a long-standing traffic route for people heading to the West End and Stanley Park to avoid fighting their way up Burrard”
So regardless of the bike lane issue, had city engineering deemed that this traffic plan was disruptive and would no longer be the way to the West end and Stanley Park , it would be a simple traffic flow readjustment. Like I said this happens all the time, the canard about being *consulted* is just feel good political blathering. In the end the result and decision stands as it was based on Engineering’s best evaluation of the TOTAL issue of traffic flows. And note that even Garr states that this was but a way to the west end. Those two business did not DEPEND on the traffic flow down their street. Again 90% of the traffic would probably not even be aware of the businesses.
( ps another reason to ban teh right hand lane off the bridge is that a) i have seen too many cars fail to stop for pedestrians going straight on north on Burrard, and B) ditto for the next corner turning down Hornby. I would have banned this years ago given the way drivers fail to yield to pedestrians)
Oft times in large cities a small number of people get inconvenienced for the connivence of a majority. It’s just the way it is. has always been and will always be.
What I find offensive is that these two would equate themselves with the Cambie st. merchants. Now those are people that sympathize with. Enough said…. have a great day.
50 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:13 am
1) Why do we see so many bad bike riders out there if, as the bicycle lobby keeps insisting, they’re a small minority?
Because you are looking for them, aka confirmation bias.
51 not running for mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:36 am
Someone mentioned the Bicycle Advisory Committee. What’s the story with it these days, since G. Meggs was appointed to it the memebers have been restricted to speaking to the media and their minutes have been curiously absent fromt he COV website, all other advisory committees are reporting as normal, just the bicycle one appears to have been silenced. All insite into that? Doesn’t appear to be the open goverance that was sold last fall.
52 Edward Abbey // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
OK I signed my name and I also think Alex T is a windbag, who uses Frances Blog, because no one reads his.
53 michael geller // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:15 am
OK, Francis, welcome back. I’m just back from the ULI Young Leaders’ conference in Seattle and am pleased to see the Burrard Bike Trial is well underway.
So can we now shift our attention to the upcoming Public Hearing (Tuesday July 21) on Laneway Housing and suites within suites, the VIEW and CAPACITY study that is underway, and whether Olympic Village is still going to be filled with mold.
The laneway housing is a complicated issue, and needs some sound commentary from Fabula readers; the results of the VIEW and CAPACITY study could potentially alter our city and…
If the Olympic Village is not going to be full of mold, will the Mayor and Councillor Louie, who called for the ‘investigation’ please get some front page attention to the fact that this city financed development is going to be all right!
Now I’m going to drive over the Burrard Bridge….
54 spartikus // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:16 am
their minutes have been curiously absent fromt he COV website
Google has the May 20th minutes cached.
55 A. G. Tsakumis // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:26 am
Burrard Bridge status:
Still nothing of any consequence.
Three riders in the bike lane. Cars flowing nicely.
Vision Vancouver fraud meter: Off the charts.
Do this in the fall when the real numbers appear and watch what happens.
This city is being held hostage, no less than this stream of comments, by the cycling lobby.
It’s obscene. Saftey and security, yes! SO PAY FOR IT LIKE THE REST OF US!!!!!!
Gregor Robertson will soon knock off Sam as Vancouver’s worst Mayor. I actually stopped to speak to some of the pedestrians walking over.
Here’s my favorite: “I voted for Gregor Robertson, my whole family did and that’s never going to happen again. This is all just a lot of disruption. I ‘ve walked to work for ten years. Do you know how many cyclists come over this bridge and think they own the road? Most of them. They make me sick”
From the mouths of the sane.
56 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:34 am
> Still nothing of any consequence.
> Three riders in the bike lane. Cars flowing
> nicely.
Again, a meaningless datapoint. Why do intelligent people do this? Why does Alex? (Those are mutually exclusive groups.)
On day one, there were city staffers counting traffic. Day one was obviously skewed by first-day enthusiasts, but the city will be continuing this study and there will be actual numbers.
At that point you can assess the numbers, and determine the value of safety.
I’m not sure what “SO PAY FOR IT LIKE THE REST OF US!!!!!!” means. We pay taxes, and those taxes are used to pay for roads. Those roads suffer tremendous wear and tear due to to private car use, and my taxes are paying to repair them…even those who don’t own cars.
Maybe it would be wise to let the study unfurl, and then see what the numbers show rather than ranting.
57 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:38 am
Tsakumis has apparently gone on record as supporting the trial’s continuation into the fall. For once I agree with him.
“It’s obscene. Saftey and security, yes! SO PAY FOR IT LIKE THE REST OF US!!!!!!”
We get it Alex, you want to be the Limbaugh of Lotus Land. There’s no need to yell.
58 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:36 am
I thought the era of the opinionated, non-fact based, dumb as a canal horse, conservative blowhard was over?
59 Mark Allerton // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:45 am
What Alex means when he says “PAY FOR IT LIKE THE REST OF US” is that he feels the best way to encourage more people to use bikes is to place bureaucratic and financial obstacles in the way of new cyclists. Oh, wait…
I have wondered if this sudden rush of cycle-licensing advocacy was the latest phase of a spin campaign, but I suspect it’s more likely that those against the trial are now entering the third stage of grief – bargaining.
Oh well, only depression and acceptance to go…
60 Not Running for Mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:13 am
Thanks for the link, funny enough 45 minutes after my post the minutes are now up on the city’s site where they belonged all along.
Guess someone is watching.
Personally I don’t think the licensing thing is a bad idea, so long as the fees are modest and additional money is invested into infrusture. Something along the lines of a mandatory knowledge test and you get a license valid for life for something like $25. Same with bikes, license them for life for a $25fee. Won’t break anyones bank. Give the province the right to suspend/revoke licenses and seize bikes of chronic offenders. This might help to remove the bad apples that give the rest of the cyclists a bad image.
To appease the cyclists the province should go just as hard against the bad drivers to get them off the road.
61 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:26 am
What about skateboards? Lots of young people use them for transp. and they are legal on city streets that don’t have a center line. Inline skaters? People who use mobility scooters? Segways?
I think there should be a demonstrated need for this added layer of bureaucracy, rather than implementing a program to address what remains a non-issue IMO.
62 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:28 am
Oh yeah, a modest fee wouldn’t even cover the cost of the program. If it took a half-hour for a city employee to test and certify a cyclist, the $25 fee would be spent on admin costs before the cyclist even got out the door.
63 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:32 am
Oregon recently was looking at implementing a “bicycle registration fee.” The proposal suggested that it be the same as the vehicle registration fee for cars. Article here:
http://tinyurl.com/najp5n
$54/year.
Keeping in mind that many (most?) cyclists probably spend…$800 tops for a bike, and get an annual tune up for about $30 – $40 does that seem reasonable?
Does the impact of a bicycle on the roads equal the impact of a car? Does the “state” provide an equivalent level of services?
Does registering a bicycle do anything to establish that you know how to ride one safely?
(I realize your comment suggested a “knowledge test” but I can’t see $25/year covering the cost of administering it…and am I going to have to have an additional Bike licence???)
I’m not inherently opposed to a fee. But such a fee on bikes should not be onerous (which will discourage casual cycling, and those who cycle infrequently), should be appropriately scaled and should provide services in exchange for fees.
The Province, incidentally, exempts a wide variety of bicycle parts (as well as bicycles themselves) from PST. This forces me to ask my somewhat standard question: why discount one revenue source in one place (providing an incentive) just so you can tax it somewhere else (with user fees etc.)?
Weird, n’est-ce pas?
64 Not Running for Mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:43 am
The point wouldn’t be able making money, if it could break even then great. The point would be to be able to remove the problem cyclists and educate the remaining ones.
Right now you could have a problem cyclist but with no recourse to remove the person from the roads.
I doubt driving licensing makes any money but it’s certainly needed. Heck does dog licenses make money?
Why not have licensing? As for skateboarders, segways, inline skaters, sure why not if it’s needed.
65 gmgw // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:03 am
I asked:
“Why do we see so many bad bike riders out there if, as the bicycle lobby keeps insisting, they’re a small minority?”
Chris Keam responded:
“Because you are looking for them, aka confirmation bias.”
I would have expected a less simplistic response from you, Chris. The fact is, I’m *not* looking for bad cyclists (except when I’m driving, crossing a street, or walking somewhere like the False Creek seawall, and that’s for reasons of self-preservation rather than to make a point); indeed, if only to keep my blood pressure at manageable levels, I would very much prefer to not see them at all.
But I can’t help it if so many bicyclists do idiotic things while in my (casual) field of vision. I suppose I could constantly give them the benefit of the doubt: “Well, yes, that young man *is* riding rather fast along that crowded sidewalk, but perhaps he’s on the way to visit his sick mother”, or “Certainly he shouldn’t have knocked down that old lady, but I’m sure *he* feels bad about it, too, and if he’d had time to stop, I’m sure he would have apologized to her…”.
Sorry. The proportion of bike riders who are idiots is at least equivalent to the proportion of idiots among those who drive cars, and I reserve the right to point out reckless riding when I see it. And again, I really, really wish I didn’t see as much of it.
gmgw
66 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:10 am
OK, maybe ‘looking for them’ was a poor choice of words. Let’s replace it with ‘more likely to notice them’. But I still think it’s a case of confirmation bias at work, in the same way I notice bad drivers more than I notice the good ones. Good drivers, and cyclists don’t call attention to themselves through their behaviour.
But, if we accept our thesis, it’s only one more argument for separated facilities for drivers, cyclists, walkers et al IMO.
67 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:10 am
“your thesis.”
68 Not Running for Mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:23 am
Another bonus about having each bike registered, it would create a central register (sorry tinfoil haters) that would give the police a much better chance of reuniting bikes with their rightful owners. Bikes have had serial numbers for years, it would be incredibly simple to set up that database. So long as they don’t hire the firm that did the long gun registry for the federal liberals.
69 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:26 am
” it would create a central register (sorry tinfoil haters) that would give the police a much better chance of reuniting bikes with their rightful owners. ”
Not a priority for them. It would cost manpower and reduce revenue.
70 Mark Allerton // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:38 am
It does appear that licensing was tried in a number of US municipalities in the 70s, but with very few exceptions these laws have been taken off the books or are no longer enforced. Presumably because they turn out to be a huge waste of everyone’s time and money.
BTW, there are two different things being talked about here: licensing of cyclists and insurance of bikes. I did wonder, if I already have a driving license, doesn’t that mean I have already been certified as aware of the rules of the road? What additional knowledge would I be expected to have?
I find it somewhat amusing that people who were calling cyclists “fascists” are ready to contemplate requiring a license and insurance for everything from a wheeled suitcase upwards.
71 spartikus // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Bicycles used to be licensed in Vancouver. I remember in the 70′s putting on the license sticker each year, and having the friendly police officer examine your bike. Since I was a kid, I don’t remember if there was a fee, or why it was stopped…
…undoubtedly the conservative Reagan/Thatcher deregulation revolution of the 80′s freed us from this statist tyranny
72 gmgw // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:45 pm
For me, the best argument in favour of licensing cyclists is to make it a bit easier to identify the irrespnsible ones. A while back I mentioned the incident of a few years ago in which a friend of mine was rollerblading past Second Beach (*not* in the bike lane)– she was new to the sport, and a bit wobbly– and she was knocked down by a speeding cyclist. She fell on her butt, resulting in a fractured coccyx; not serious but quite painful. Several passersby witnessed the incident, came running over to help, and yelled at the biker to stop as he sped away; his response was to give them the finger(!).
Had there been some means of identifying him, she might have had some recourse. I’m not sure what, if any, charges could have been brought– is there a statute covering bicycle hit-and-run?– but it would have been *something*. She could as easily have fallen on her face as on her ass, and in that case it would have been nice to have someone to sue for the reconstructive surgery and/or dental costs.
I don’t know whether it would be possible to design a bicycle equivalent of a license plate that would be readable from more than five feet away, but it’s long past time that this was looked into– if only because it might make that alleged “tiny minority” of kamikaze bikers out there a bit more reluctant to pull some of the crazy shit they do if they thought they might be indentifiable. And while we’re at it, a point system, similar to that applied to car drivers, should also be devised to use on licensed bicyclists who commit multiple infractions. All this is probably idealistic, but I think it’s also doable.
gmgw
73 T W // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm
My observation is that if the cycle lobby want to be taken seriously, and want us non-cyclists to take them seriously as other road users, a small cycle licence fee seems a small price to pay for political respectability. But I suspect from the shrill clamour of some of the posts, some of the cycle lobby seem to think any regulation , whether a licence or a road use regulation, is an anthema. So if the cycle lobby wants political respectability, they should take a deep breath and endorse the idea of a small fee.
But I always was an optimist.
74 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
A license plate doesn’t seem to make much difference to couriers. A suspended license didn’t dissuade Paul Wettlaufer from driving. Lawbreakers rarely operate with getting caught in mind AFAIK. I support the idea of responsible cycling but I don’t think registering bikes is the way to go about it.
75 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“My observation is that if the cycle lobby want to be taken seriously, and want us non-cyclists to take them seriously as other road users, a small cycle licence fee seems a small price to pay for political respectability”
We (cyclists) are already recognized as legitimate road users by the law. You’re basically suggesting we have to pay a user fee to lay claim to the rights we already have.
76 Not running for Mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:36 pm
So what is doesn’t dissuade Paul Wettlaufer from driving. It does keep most drivers in check. I fail to see the negative of licensed bikers and bikes.
The bike courier program has been a success, the regenade couriers are quickly dismissed as complaints are filed against them as they can be id’ed by their biker plates. It hasn’t completed stopped the problem but it’s cut down on it measurably.
77 Mark Allerton // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“You’re basically suggesting we have to pay a user fee to lay claim to the rights we already have.”
Exactly! And on the flip side, the threat/implication is that if we don’t agree to this, cyclists should have to accept less rights than they currently have.
Funnily enough, I have been having this exact same argument with vancityguy over at kitsilano.ca: http://www.kitsilano.ca/2009/07/13/nothing-to-report-from-bike-trial-this-morning/
78 SV // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The thing that keeps jumping out at me in this discussion is that the consistent lack of enforcement of traffic laws by the police has left both drivers and cyclists dealing with their less polite members.
I ride daily and see poor behaviour from both camps what I never see are the police, unless it’s Bike Month and they’re handing out fake no-helmet tickets probably the least useful way for them to encourage safer cycling/driving.
79 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“So what is doesn’t dissuade Paul Wettlaufer from driving. It does keep most drivers in check.”
Except it really doesn’t. Lots of drivers still regularly speed, run red lights, cut off pedestrians and cyclists and generally behave like they own the road when they get behind the wheel. They know the occasional ticket is just the cost of playing the game.
80 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:37 pm
> Bikes have had serial numbers for years,
> it would be incredibly simple to set up
> that database
Every bike I ever bought as a kid was registered with the Police, as were all of my friends’. Not a single one ever got returned because of it. (I have, mercifully, never had a bike stolen…though some asshat did steal my PEDALS one day while I was at work.)
> It does keep most drivers in check.
Licencing keeps most drivers in check? The daily experience I have with cars running red lights, turning illegally at stop signs and directed turns, and speeding doesn’t suggest so. Neither does the thousands of accidents that happen every day across the country.
> a small cycle licence fee seems a small
> price to pay for political respectability
The point, fairly explicitly implied I though in my comment above, is “what’s small?”
To a car driver, a $54 registration fee is an extremely small cost relative to the cost of a car: less than a single tank of gas in most cases. To a bike it represents 5 – 10% of many bike purchases. $25 is more affordable, but still a relatively large fee.
81 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Insurance is a separate issue than licencing, complete. In BC they’re intertwined by ICBC but the issues are unrelated.
Governments require you to carry liability insurance on your vehicle because of the high potential for damage. It’s got nothing to do with safety.
Simply put, if I slam into you on a bike I’m still liable for your injuries, damage to your property that resulted, and possibly criminal charges.
If I slam into you in a car, I’m still liable for your injuries, damage to your property that resulted, and possibly criminal charges, but you’re much more likely to be dead than just injured.
I could conceivably purchase insurance to cover my liability, though I’ve never looked into it and have no idea what the costs would be.
Licencing is just a way of identifying me if I flee the scene (and not the only one.)
Yes. SV, you’re correct…the lack of enforcement is the problem. If cops can’t enforce them against cars currently how many new officers are we going to add to enforce them against bicycles? Wouldn’t there be better directions to direct those resources?
82 Frothingham // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:59 pm
It’s not a case of Autos versus bikes. … but.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2009/07/running-red-lights.html
PS registration for bikes will be like the gun-registry programme. … a mess.
83 Frothingham // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The Myth of the Scofflaw Cyclist:
http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/07/the-myth-of-the.html
84 T W // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm
We pay our elected representatives and their full time officials to come up with solutions in the public interest. If bike licencing is a hot button item, how about city hall coming up with a strategy and a solution that meets the needs of cyclists and non -cyclists alike.
If there is a realistic strategy and not merely a political stance, where is the updated report?
85 Mark Allerton // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Dare I suggest that bike licensing is not in fact a “hot button item”, but a straw man put up by people with an interest in stirring up trouble for the current Mayor & council?
86 Mark Allerton // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I highly recommend a read of Frothingham’s “Scofflaw” link, it’s a great article, in particular the analysis of lawbreaking by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in terms of perceived risk versus reward.
87 gmgw // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Darcy said:
“Simply put, if I slam into you on a bike I’m still liable for your injuries, damage to your property that resulted, and possibly criminal charges.”
What about that all-too-common scenario wherein a cyclist slams into the suddenly-opened door of a parked car? This happened to me once, about 20 years ago, back when I still owned a car. I’d just parked on upper Davie and, being in a hurry, neglected to check my mirrors before opening the door; as soon as I did, a cyclist slammed into it, spilling himself onto the road. Scared the hell out of me, as I figured he had to be injured. But no… he jumped up, madder than hell, and began screaming at me about what a [insert favourite expletive here] I was. He quickly worked himself up into a real rage and from his body language I sensed he was going to start throwing punches any moment. I was considering various self-defense tactics when, fortunately, a cop pulled up, assessed the situation and told us both to get lost.
In such a case, who is assigned responsibility for the accident? Is there case law on this? I’ve heard a range of opinions, but nothing definitive. I ask this not as a discussion point but because I’m genuinely curious. God forbid it should ever happen again, but if it did, it would be useful to know.
gmgw
88 Mark Allerton // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:46 pm
gmgw: you ask…
“who is assigned responsibility for the accident”
…shortly after writing…
“(I) neglected to check my mirrors before opening the door”
Is this a joke? Case closed, I think.
89 Not Running for mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:09 pm
If licensing and registration doesn’t deter drivers from bad behaviour then the obvious solution is to stop licensing and cars and drivers as it apparently doesn’t do anything if we listen to the bike lobby.
If we want to be on equal footing then lets be on equal footing. I would have no problem paying the modest fees knowing it would keep some people in line.
90 spartikus // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:40 pm
If licensing and registration doesn’t deter drivers from bad behaviour
It may or may not serve as a deterrent, but what it does do – what it’s intended to do – is to insure financial security for those involved in an accident.
Hence the term insurance.
Here are ICBC’s accident statistics for May 2007 for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
91 spartikus // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Grammatically ensure, but I digress.
92 Urbanismo // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Frances,
I had a wonderful day sailing the Straits: gentle wind, beautiful sunshine, rolling swell . . . then home for a chilled glass of Chardonnay . . .
. . . then 91 whining jerks obessing over bikes and bridges . . . and for all I know thir sexual inadequacies . . . one irrelevant creepy even whined that BB rail was in “bad shape.”
May God help Vancouver
The Triffids have take over . . .
Expect the worst . . . get a life for God’s sake . . .
93 spartikus // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:21 pm
then home for a chilled glass of Chardonnay
I’m thinking it was more than a glass…
94 SV // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Potent potables indeed.
And not everyone is whining. There’s some standard issue griping too!
95 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:19 pm
> In such a case, who is assigned responsibility for the accident? Is there case
> law on this
In every case that I’ve been aware of (and thankfully none have involved me, though I’ve had more than one close call) the driver has in fact been at fault. You are responsible for checking behind you.
As you pointed out, in your case you didn’t check your mirrors. You actually should do a shoulder check, but you’ve admitted your error. You probably should have have to write a substantial cheque.
I can tell you if it happened to me I wouldn’t waste time screaming at you. You’d be charged, and I’d have a new bike at the expense of your insurance company: any bicycle that’s had an impact that hard can’t be guaranteed to be safe to ride unless it’s thoroughly tested.
Then I’d punch your lights out, for being such an ass of course.
96 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:25 pm
> Hence the term insurance.
Again: your vehicle insurance has nothing to do with your vehicle licence. In BC because both are issued by ICBC the waters are muddied. There’s a third issue as well: your vehicle operators licence.
Your vehicle licence has nothing to do with safety. It only identifies the vehicle.
You operators licence identifies the operator, not the vehicle. Many jurisdictions have the concept of a “primary operator” but this is a convenience only, allowing them to come after you for your children’s parking tickets.
Your insurance is financial insurance against potential wrongs of various sorts, with most governments in North America mandating a minimum amount of liability insurance for motorized vehicles.
In Ontario and Washington I have personally known people who have had:
1) an operator’s licence (commonly a driver’s licence)
2) a vehicle licence
3) no insurance of any sort
as insurance is issued privately, and vehicle licences are issued by the state. I know a number of people who own and operate motorcycles without a legal licence to do so, and consequently no insurance to do so.
Insurance is a totally separate issue from licencing.
97 Denis // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Looks like your article has generated a lot of comments, so the yes and no sides are engaged on the issue. That’s the democratic process at work.
98 Mark A // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:49 pm
>no insurance of any sort
Had not realized things were that loose in some places – though I was aware ICBC was created partly in response to high levels of uninsured driving especially in rural areas.
In the UK, all car insurance is private but mandatory, which is enforced by requiring you to show proof of insurance when renewing your Road Fund License every year (i.e pay your annual road tax for the car and get the badge that goes in the front window.)
99 Urbanismo // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Denis
This isn’t the democratic process at work.
A very important issue is being trivialized . . . wake up before cycling becomes the butt of jokes . . .
100 Urbanismo // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:04 pm
You are all abusing Frances’ good offices . . .
There are important issues to be addressed . . .
Time to move on . . .
101 SV // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Important issues like ellipsis abuse?
Perhaps you should move on?
102 SV // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm
oh, I forgot…
103 Not Running for mayor // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Wow way to keep it classy Darcy, The guy admits he didn’t check his mirror and made an error, but you would punch his lights out for his error. It’s called an accident. You have some serious anger mangement issues. Like your other post in which you stated you’d purposely brush up against a pedestrian if they crossed into the cycle lane. I think the licensing system would be a success if it kept you and anyone that rides like you off the road. Cheers.
104 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:42 pm
It’s actually called almost killing me, so yes…I’d punch his lights out if his door hit me.
The two most vivid recollections of this almost happening too me ended with me NOT hitting a door, and two very very very apologetic drivers. In one case I was moving quite quickly (it was downhill, though it was also a bike lane so he should have known…) and me taking very deep breaths and reminding myself that I was still alive.
But yes, in the case Mr. gmgw cites the cyclist actually hit his door so yes…I’d punch his lights out if I were that cyclist. Unless he was really really old, in which case I’d settle for the insurance money and a new bike.
As for licencing, paesano, believe me when I say I’m one of the safest cyclists you’ll find. Contrast me with the asshat who knowingly ran a red light and almost hit me yesterday, or the turd-burglar on a scooter today I saw blow through three stop signs.
I stop, I don’t ride sidewalks, I follow the rules. I have but one speeding ticket to my name in my entire driving history…and that one when I was 17.
105 Darcy McGee // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:46 pm
> which is enforced by requiring you to show proof of insurance when renewing
> your Road Fund License every year
Not sure of the mechanics of how they got away with it…could be they showed proof, got plates, then had to cancel it…could be non-matching expiration dates.
I’m too lazy to scam the system. I just pay.
Besides, I personally think the ICBC system is pretty good. Government legislates a requirement, government provides the minimum requirement. (Optional is another more complex issue…)
The alternative…legal requirement for insure with solely private providers strikes me as odd now. Imagine if government required you to have your children in school, but only private schools were available. Tuition rates would sprial skyward, and the for profit schools would staff as leanly as they could to improve profits.
106 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“The guy admits he didn’t check his mirror and made an error, but you would punch his lights out for his error. It’s called an accident.”
Actually it was negligence and could well have ended with a cyclist in the middle lane, his head squished like a grapefruit by the next car to come along. I have a friend who is still dealing with the physical consequences of being doored, months after the collision (I refuse to use the term accident to describe avoidable incidents).
107 gmgw // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Darcy, terminally amped on testosterone and tough as nails, flexed his tattooed biceps and manfully snarled in what he hoped was an intimidating tone:
“Then I’d punch your lights out, for being such an ass of course.”
Um… and this ties in with your perpetual stance of moral superiority… how, exactly?
Man, ask a civil question and get a fist in the face in return… Darcy, sweetheart, I can tell you that if you were to (attempt to) punch my lights out for ANY reason, I’d press charges against you for criminal assault. I think you might have a bit of a problem making your little insurance claim for your poor little bicycle after that. Like Not Running for Mayor said, you appear to have one serious anger management problem (not to mention an arrogance and self-righteousness problem). You call yourself one of the safest riders on the road? If that’s true, no wonder I see so many nutjobs riding bikes. One of the safest? Really? After you’ve already bragged about forcing hapless pedestrians out of your way by brushing them back as you ride by? After chest-thumpingly declaring that you’ve “declared war” on the automobile? Ever read any history? No one ever wins a war. Diplomacy is a much more positive approach.
Oh, incidentally, a bit of advice: Bragging about how you’d (attempt to) punch total strangers’ lights out because they pissed you off? Bad idea. Strangers can be just full of nasty surprises. In fact, take it from one who knows a thing or three about violence and its consequences: Throwing punches at strangers in the street because they accidentally caused you to run into a car door is a good way to get your bike fed to you, piece by piece. Word to the wise… beware of using the rhetoric of violence. There’s always going to be someone around who’s willing to call your bluff.
gmgw
108 gmgw // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Chris said:
“Actually it was negligence and could well have ended with a cyclist in the middle lane, his head squished like a grapefruit by the next car to come along. I have a friend who is still dealing with the physical consequences of being doored, months after the collision (I refuse to use the term accident to describe avoidable incidents).”
OK, so the jury’s verdict appears to be that responsibility rests entirely on the driver in this situation. Mea culpa, mea culpa. But, not being a bike rider, curiosity impels me to ask– when you’re riding past a line of parked cars on a busy street, do you slow down? Do you watch for parked cars with drivers in them? Do you ready yourself for a sudden stop if it was to prove necessary? Do you anticipate that someone might suddenly open their door and plan an evasive maneuver, if there’s room? Do you watch half a block ahead for cars that are parking or have just parked and take note that someone is likely to emerge from that car momentarily?
I don’t know; like I say, I’m not a bike rider. Maybe there’s a feeling of invulnerability that goes with riding. Maybe cyclists simply expect other people to look out for *them*. I have no idea. But I do know that every responsible car driver practices something called defensive driving. When I drive through downtown, I try to take in every single thing that’s going on ahead of me (and even behind me) often as far as two blocks ahead– this includes other cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, traffic lights, buses, what-have-you; analyze that information, and adjust my driving accordingly. Do bike riders practice something similar? Call it “defensive riding” if you like. Getting “doored” is indeed an avoidable incident, and a deplorable one. But it seems to me that in order to avoid such incidents, it’s necessary for both car drivers and cyclists to take responsibility.
gmgw
109 Mark A // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm
> Darcy, terminally amped on testosterone
I wouldn’t be quite so sure of that, just a hunch.
110 Mark A // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:59 pm
gmgw: Let me answer you by asking a question in return. What are your expectations of the driver of a car passing a line of parked cars on a narrow street?
111 Darcy McGee // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:42 am
You didn’t get a fist in the face for asking a question.
You got a hypothetical fist in the face for hypothetically hitting a hypothetical me with your car door because (as you admitted) you neglected to look.
And I’m not “Bragging about how you’d (attempt to) punch total strangers’ lights out because they pissed you off” because:
a) you didn’t piss me off, you almost killed me with your door (hypothetically)
b) I wouldn’t “attempt to”, I’d do it
Yes we practice defensive riding. That’s why 99% of the time you’ll see me in the middle of the left lane: it gives me a safety buffer, and makes it harder for cars coming behind me to ignore me. Lane position is of of the basic safety techniques you learn when you learn how to ride on two wheels.
Of course when you’re on a bicycle and staking out your claim to the road, drivers who are following often start honking horns or trying to pass because they get annoyed.
How fast I’m going has no bearing on fault: the driver is responsible for checking behind them prior to opening the door.
That’s why divided, protected bike lanes increase safety so dramatically…much like the one on the Burrard Street Bridge. Riding in traffic doesn’t scare me, but it scares the living hell out of a lot of people.
112 Urbanismo // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:45 am
Frances,
OMG has it come to this . . . the conversation has degenerated . . .
What a sad turn of events for I fear I have contributed to this current cyber malaise as much as anyone. Clearly this bikes-on-the-bridge discussion has gone way beyond constructive.
I regret your generosity in providing this platform for debate is not working out. Bikes are important but in the scope of a future city they rate some where down the line.
The city, the province is not in good shape:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/07/14/BadEconomy/
I am tempted to caste blame but in fact we walkers, talkers, riders, drivers and gossipers are the real culprits.
The population seems incapable of selecting competent leadership.
In my brief encounters with the current premier way back when he was MOV I was not impressed then and I am not impressed now. But he was elected fair and square . . .
Ever since Team, of which the current premier was an acolyte, the city has been catering to mortgage paying clients while ignoring wealth-creating endeavours . . .
The previous mayor Sam Sullivan, was in my opinion, far too in thrall to what may be described as the, now dormant, development industry, which it is, and the real estate industry: “industry” it is not! Yet he too was elected fare and square . . .
Some months ago Mr. Sullivan released a cameo of himself soliloquizing before, what appears to be, his web cam: of course it is no longer available, wisely for him. For, indeed, it showed a man who deserves our respect and sympathy for his courage. But what is also clearly showed . . . Mr. Sam Sullivan should never have been mayor of this city.
The current mayor and council clearly have the best of intentions yet I fear for their decisions. VV is showing a well intended yet ominous naiveté that bodes ill for the future . . . but the alternative is yet under whelming . . .
VV has made a massive mistake in taking on the OV debt. In my opinion council should have gone eye-ball-to-eye-ball with VANOC. VANOC would have had no alternative but to step up to the plate and at least the debilitating Olympic debt would have been distributed more thinly.
Sorry for my part in this debacle. Sin embargo, I await pensively for passionate and constructive discussion directed to those who are responsible, for many reasons, to return.
Unfortunately we are mired in an acrimonious and trivial squabble about bicycle lanes on your wonderful blog and squabbling amongst ourselves does not equip us to face a quixotic future.
113 Chris Keam // Jul 16, 2009 at 7:07 am
GMGW:
You better believe most riders practice defensive riding. They’d be sipping and puffing their way through life if they didn’t.
114 SV // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:36 am
Chris has that right.
GMGW you bascially described how one should approach a row of parked cars. However when possible I like to be far enough out in the lane that a car door won’t hit me, though this is not always possible.
Generally I’ve found that if I ride defensively and try not to take near misses personally I get to my destination in one piece and in a better mood than if I get all adrenalized.(This is easier said than done sometimes-when my daughter was hit in her trailer a few years back I had to show some serious self-control once I knew she was okay).
One last thing gmgw-you made reference above to Darcy’s “poor little bicycle”. I’m not sure if your intent was to trivialize “the bike” but I just thought I’d point out that my bike is the way I move myself and my family around. It’s not a toy, it’s my vehicle and when it’s out of commission my life changes quite a bit.( I’ll tell you all about ICBC and the replacement of my trailer some other time).
115 Westender // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:36 am
I drove (crept) across the bridge northbound at 5pm on Wednesday…I had a disabled passenger in my car, so I’m not sure she was eligible to cycle or walk across the “improved” bridge. During the 7 or 8 minutes we sat in traffic on the bridge, 4 cycles passed us northbound. As this was my first time over the “new” bridge, I was somewhat surprised by the arrangement at the ramp to Pacific eastbound. I came to a stop to avoid blocking the demarcated bike route (I couldn’t proceed eastbound due to traffic back-ups on Pacific at Hornby), all under the watchful eye of a police officer stationed at the north end of the bridge. While I was stopped, a cyclist advancing northbound in his new bike lane blew through the stop sign at the ramp and crossed in front of me. The police officer shouted out “You’re supposed to stop there!” Not surprisingly, the cyclist ignored him. As I moved eastbound on Pacific, two more cyclists rounded the corner from the bridge and rode along the Pacific sidewalk – adjacent to their newly-dedicated bike lane!
This is precisely the behaviour that is causing drivers frustrtation – this sanctimonious “have our cake and eat it too attitude” is not helping to build support for the cycling cause.
To conclude my trip I drove eastbound to Howe Street, turned right (which I can no longer do at Hornby) and drove along a newly-congested block of Beach Avenue past townhouse doors that are subjected to a new level of diverted vehicles. Further west on Beach I witnessed a white BMW driving at least 70kmh in the 30 kmh zone on Beach…but alas the perceived safety problems on the Burrard Bridge are consuming all available police resources, so there is no chance of a ticket being issued to the driver endangering the lives of park users.
I am a.) not convinced this is the right solution for the bridge and b.) confident that nothing is going to change under our current administration.
116 Peter G // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:24 am
Urbanismo,
Campbell, Sullivan or Robertson. It doesn’t seem to matter who sits in the mayor’s chair, we still have the same inept bureaucrats running things. Unless VV can do a housecleaning on these people, they are destined to last as long as Sullivan did. I walk daily from Homer and Nelson to the Pacific Centre. Today I counted 6 city blocks where the sidewalk is blocked. Apparently the engineering department has handed reponsibility for traffic management over to the construction industry. Perhaps the city should consider hiring just one professional traffic engineer to help them manage things. This is the same department, the same “brains trust” that have been looking for a solution to the dumpster problem for 4 years and so far have managed exactly zilch….
117 Denis // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:49 am
I wonder when somebody gets around to mention that in Europe very large numbers of bikes are at the train stations as folks are commuting to their work somewhere else? Or that many bike paths actually have their own stop and go lights? But to have people threatning to beat up on others with an opinion different that them, sure does lower the level of debate. It rapidy becomes a shouting match.
Just think Francis, if you write a couple more articles like this one about the Burrard Street bridge you can slip out of town for weeks at a time and the two sides of the argument fill up your blog space . When I was driving a commercial vehicle in town during the Expo 86 event, the stories kept talking about how the city would be in grid lock , the sky was falling etc. Some of our trucks shifted over a street or two, maybe a different bridge but it didn’t seem to impact much on our work. So lest not all panic over a bloody lane of traffic. Wait until the big circus comes to town and VANOC gets to close one heck of a lot of streets. A bike might be the best way to get around.
118 Urbanismo // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:53 am
Peter,
“It doesn’t seem to matter who sits in the mayor’s chair, we still have the same inept bureaucrats running things. ”
I agree with you whole heartedly and the first to go should be the dozens upon dozens of time servers who are deemed “permanent.”
Dr. Penny do you read?
119 Darcy McGee // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:34 am
> Darcy’s “poor little bicycle”
One of my “poor little bicycles” has a replacement cost in the range of $3,500. (Racing frame, not a commuter.)
The one that I ride to work 99.9% of the days I work, do most of my grocery (and other) shopping on and that I jokingly refer to as my “pickup truck” has a replacement cost about $2,000 (including accessories to make it function as a daily commute.)
The other is a vintage carbon frame that, instead of going in a landfill, was converted to a fixed gear machine. It’s hard to estimate the cost on it, because it’s pretty old.
So don’t get started on “poor little bicycles.”
A shame about Westender’s experience with the cyclist who chose not to stop. The cop could have charged the cyclist…
120 Darcy McGee // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:41 am
Denis’ comments about bikes at train stations and paths with their own lights are spot on.
The Central Valley Greenway is a GREAT trail, but it would benefit from “pedestrian/cyclist activated” crossings at some major intersections — most notably Boundary Road (I haven’t ridden it much east of there.)
Having said that, most Vancouver drivers are polite and on a number of occasions when I’ve crossed boundary I’ve been surprised to see streaming traffic stop to allow me to cross in the crosswalk. As with most of these situations it takes one driver to make it happen: if just one driver in one lane starts to stop, others will often follow.
Skytrain for years didn’t allow bicycles at all. I couldn’t believe this when I moved here. I can understand rush hour to some extent but to not allow them at all….ridiculous. Thank god that’s changed.
Bikes like the Strida folding bicycle are designed to _integrate_ with transit: designed in London, the concept was to allow you to pedal from home to a Tube station, fold it up and get on the Tube, then pedal from the Tube to the office. A teflon drive belt replacing the chain was just one design feature to accommodate this.
West Coast Express stations offer bike lockers, but the supply is limited. Skytrain offers some as well.
Integrating cycling with transit is a great way to encourage it.
121 Darcy McGee // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:44 am
> people threatning to beat up on others
> with an opinion different that them, sure
> does lower the level of debate.
For the record, I didn’t “threaten” to beat anybody up, and it wasn’t over an opinion.
I said that if somebody hit me with their car door I’d punch them out. That’s not an opinion that’s almost killing me…hypothetically of course.
As I’ve pointed out in the numerous close and contact-free calls I’ve had, I’ve never confronted the (generally apologetic) driver.
122 gmgw // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:53 am
SV said:
” gmgw-you made reference above to Darcy’s “poor little bicycle”. I’m not sure if your intent was to trivialize “the bike” but I just thought I’d point out that my bike is the way I move myself and my family around. It’s not a toy, it’s my vehicle and when it’s out of commission my life changes quite a bit.”
SV, my comment was made in response to Darcy’s stated intention to “punch my lights out”. Over and above the general bellicose stupidity of his statement, I’ve been on the receiving end of physical violence a few times, both threatened and actual, and I do not appreciate being threatened , even,, as Darcy put it, “hypothetically”. The “poor little bicycle” comment was a none-too-polite attempt to make the point that I place considerably more value on my hypothetical jaw and/or nose and/or skull than I do Darcy’s hypothetical bicycle. I think most courts of law, hypothetical or otherwise, would agree.
And that’s probably enough hypothesizing for now.
gmgw
123 jaymac // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I must thank AGT for clearing up something. I have finally deduced why the fascists were not successful in WW2. They were riding around on bikes whereas the “good guys” had tanks and nukes.
124 SV // Jul 16, 2009 at 7:30 pm
gmgw- got it. And while I have you here I’d also like to say I appreciate your points of view and all you bring to the debate. While I consider myself a safe and considerate cyclist(and occasionally a driver too)I don’t think it ever hurts to be questioned.
125 gmgw // Jul 17, 2009 at 1:06 am
Thanks, SV. Much appreciated, especially after the past couple of days.
gmgw
126 Darcy McGee // Jul 17, 2009 at 1:05 pm
This will undoubtedly interest some:
http://tinyurl.com/nwxelf
and I say good on the Police (though there is always the question of using limited resources more wisely.)
I was thinking yesterday as I watched a Lamboghini sail across the bridge quite a bit over the limit (I think…) that they should stick photo radar cameras in the gargoyles up there.
127 gmgw // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Darcy said:
“I was thinking yesterday as I watched a Lamboghini sail across the bridge quite a bit over the limit (I think…) that they should stick photo radar cameras in the gargoyles up there.”
There are an extraordinary number of exotic, high-end and performance-car dealerships clustered on or within a block of the east side of Burrard between 1st Ave and Broadway, mostly between 1st and 4th (another one is going in at 3rd & Burrard). They sell Lamborghinis, Porsches, Ferraris, Maseratis, Bentleys, Lotuses… you name it. I’m convinced that the salespeople in these dealerships quietly suggest to customers taking one of these six-figure boytoys out for a spin that they try one of the bridges if they want to check the acceleration; they’re the closest thing to an open stretch of highway in the immediate area (while I’m speaking here of what I’ve observed on the Granville Bridge, it comes as no surprise to hear that this happens on the Burrard as well).
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen one of these supercars barrelling north across the Granville Bridge at speeds approaching, I would guess, 80-90 MPH or even more (most cars in this bracket can easily accelerate from 0-60 MPH in under 5 seconds). One often sees high-end motorcycles doing the same thing. Generally they accelerate all the way to the “hump” in the middle of the bridge and then hit the brakes– you can see their brakelights come on at about the same spot every time. God help anyone who was pulled over with a flat tire or dead engine– or was riding a bicycle– just past the bridge’s crest.
It’s a frightening and disturbing sight, and I wish to hell the cops– and the City, who presumably license these dealers– would do something about it (not that they could catch one of these guys, on the bridge at least, if they decided to run). Every time I see a radar trap on the bridge it’s always at the *south* end. They’re certainly needed there too, but the real problem is northbound.
gmgw
128 Darcy McGee // Jul 17, 2009 at 8:54 pm
> There are an extraordinary number of exotic, high-end and performance-car
> dealerships clustered on or within a block of the east side of Burrard
Not the point. Tons of people speed over bridges, it’s actually quite common. It doesn’t take a Lamborghini to go faster than 60km/h: I can do it on a bicycle if I try hard enough.
At least a Lamborghini can’t hit me with those vertically opening doors.
129 gmgw // Jul 18, 2009 at 12:52 am
Um, that was 60 MPH, not KPH– I tend to revert to non-metric fairly often, but IIRC 60 MPH=100 KPH. I’ve seen some of these “test pilots” approach what must be 80 or 90 MPH (miles per hour) or more– barely out of second gear for them. As you point out, “tons of people speed over bridges”. However, few do so as intimidatingly as a Ferrari (et. al.) driver in full flight.
On the other hand, Darcy, perhaps I’ve misunderstood, and you are actually capable of pedaling (up an incline,no less) at 60 MPH. In which case I must assume you can also leap tall buildings with a single bound and bend steel with your bare hands. It’s just as well, then, that our hypothetical street brawl remained hypothetical.
gmgw
130 Darcy McGee // Jul 18, 2009 at 7:08 am
Speed limit on the Burrard Bridge is 60km/h. If you’re going faster than that, you’re exceeding the speed limit. It doesn’t take a Lamborghini to exceed the speed limit.
Now that I think about it it might actually be 50km/h. I haven’t driven over that bridge in quite some time…probably months.
Never said I could do 60km/h up the Burrard Bridge, though I could quite easily do it down. I can hit it for about a minute or two on a flat before before my lungs relocate themselves externally from my body, which is not as helpful as it might sound.
131 Chris Keam // Jul 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“It’s just as well, then, that our hypothetical street brawl remained hypothetical.”
I LOL’ed
132 gmgw // Jul 18, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Sigh. I’ll attempt to make the point one more time… On the Granville Bridge, most drivers routinely exceed the posted limit, yes.. That’s why there are frequent radar traps to be seen at the south end. However, when exceeding the posted limit by 20 KMH or so becomes the norm, most drivers to tend to adjust to said norm.
The wild cards, however, are the exoticars routinely being tried out on the bridge, by drivers inexperienced in the handling of such powerful vehicles, and who not only exceed the posted limit but regularly double and even triple it or more. This phenomenon, I submit, constitutes an extraordinary hazard (greatly surpassing the regrettably common hazard of drivers who exceed the posted limit by a lesser amount) to any other individuals who may be traversing the bridge on four or two wheels at the time of said transgression, especially for unsuspecting motorists or velocipedists who may have just passed the highpoint of the bridge in a northerly direction and hence be invisible to the temporarily deranged driver of the supercar(s) gaining on them at a very high rate of speed, thereby dramatically increasing the likelihood of a serious or even fatal collision.
Clear?
gmgw
133 Paul // Jul 19, 2009 at 7:17 am
Here is my two cents: enforce the helmet and lights on bikes laws and you don’t need to license bikes. Although many helmet-wearers break the road rules, it would be a start. (Also as a bike rider and a driver, I think the worst offenses are when bikes go through red lights – stop signs on side street are only a problem when the four-way rule is not observed). If not being banned completely, car drivers who talk on cell phones should have to go to training on how to turn a corner with one hand on the wheel! ; )
134 Richard // Jul 19, 2009 at 8:41 am
Paul, the problem is the helmet law, that is mainly what the police do enforce probably because it is just so easy. Helmet tickets 4% of all tickets in Vancouver and cycling accounts for about 4% of trips.
While I encourage people to wear helmets, it should be a matter of personal choice like it is in the majority of countries in the world.
Scarce enforcement resources should be first focused on protecting other people from the actions of reckless cyclists and preventing collisions, not making collisions safer.
So focus the limited enforcement resources on ticket cyclists who are riding fast on sidewalks and blasting through red lights.
I’m with you on banning cell phones while driving. The province is considering this now.
135 Darcy McGee // Jul 19, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Perhaps we should only ban cell phone calls made by temporarily deranged drivers of super cars (and only while crossing bridges?)
Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets: I think bicyclists should be as well. (While we’re at it, let’s modify motorcycle helmet laws to require full face, not just a skull cap.)
I can tell you from personal experience that it only takes one incident on a bicycle to make sure you won’t ever leave the house again without wearing a helmet. I literally can’t saddle up without on on my head…but I’m feeling much better now.
136 gmgw // Jul 20, 2009 at 12:28 am
The last time I used a cell phone while driving (*not* something I’m normally stupid/disorganized enough to do; this time I was late for an appointment) was, coincidentally, while using the Granville Bridge. I’m generally a cautious and aware driver. This time, while getting out my phone, punching the number, and talking for maybe sixty seconds, I made two right turns, turned onto the bridge, merged with traffic, accelerated, and moved over two lanes. At the end of the call I suddenly realized that I had no clear memory of having done any of the above in the previous minute. About all I can offer in my defense is that I wasn’t exceeding the speed limit. That doesn’t for one moment excuse the risk(s) I took.
Ever notice, these days, how many drivers running stop signs and yellow or even red lights are talking on cellphones? My wife came within a hairsbreadth of being T-boned by one at a 4-way stop in Richmond the other day. The sooner cellphone use while driving is banned, the better.
gmgw
137 Darcy McGee // Jul 20, 2009 at 10:23 am
gmgw:
““I haven’t owned a car in 16 years””
http://tinyurl.com/qd2bog
> The last time I used a cell phone while
> driving
> My wife came within a hairsbreadth of > being T-boned by one at a 4-way stop in
> Richmond the other day
Somewhere in those statements you’ve either contradicted yourself (unless you had a cell phone before 1993) or you’re splitting hairs over “I haven’t owned a car…” and perhaps your wife owns it?
In any case, the point was never car ownership the point was reliance on car use…
Yes, cell phone calls should be banned in cars (and I think that ban should include the use of headsets, frankly.)
138 Chauncey Gardner // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm
John Les, forced to resign as Solicitor General of BC due to investigations of shady land deals, said “more research was needed” when it came to banning cell phones in cars.
Next up for Solicitor General was notoriously reckless driver John Van Dongen, who was forced to resign due to excessive speeding tickets.
These are BC Liberals in charge of public safety, stinking up the province with their sense of entitlement and privilege.
You expect them to hold the public accountable when they aren’t?
BC Liberals are full of rot from the top down.
So hold off on drinking that Kool Aid Gregor.
139 gmgw // Jul 21, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Darcy:
Here’s more biographical material than you’re going to want. As I’ve stated before, yes, my wife does own a car. Lest you be tempted to titillate yourself with visions of me gleefully targeting hapless bicyclists while at the wheel of my wife’s armor-plated Hummer, let me add that it’s a Toyota Echo that takes about half a minute to get to 60MPH; slightly less in a strong tailwind. She works in a corner of the Lower Mainland, that’s poorly served by transit–especially at night and on weekends, and she works late a couple of times a week as well as regular Saturdays– and she finds it much less stressful and time-consuming to drive to and from work. (Things have improved; for several years she worked in Abbotsford, which required an exhausting daily 100-mile round trip. She finally had to get an apartment out there and we only saw each other on weekends). For some years she worked in a location well-served by transit and we had no car at all, which sometimes made visiting her parents in south Surrey a challenge, especially in winter.
I owned a small truck (we greatly prefer small vehicles) for 15 years. I used to really enjoy backroading in the Lillooet and south Cariboo areas. In the late 80s/early 90s I had a job that required regular road trips of up to 3 weeks all over BC and Alberta, and I was provided with a company car for this purpose. I put the truck in storage. When I left that job and lost the use of the company vehicle I also got rid of my truck, which had become old and cranky, and I haven’t owned a vehicle since; mostly, to be honest, because I can’t justify the expense, but also because it would be redundant for us to have two vehicles.
We use the Echo together once or twice a week. I borrow it to run errands when I need a car to do so. We use it to take occasional weekenders out of town. We both recognize that the age of the individual automobile is coming to an end, and in any case, when we retire in a few years it is likely we will not be able to afford to maintain one. But for now it is a freely-chosen luxury in a shared life which has largely been devoid of luxury.
There you have it. Like I said, more personal info than you could ever want, but you did ask for clarification (sort of), and since god knows you and I have our differences, I thought it might be useful to provide some disclosure. Or maybe not. But here it is anyway.
PS: Agree with you on the headsets. When I’m driving with a passenger I don’t even look at them when we’re talking. It’s surprising how many drivers do. Any distraction can be deadly, headsets among them.
gmgw
140 Richard // Jul 21, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Well, Burrard Bridge is definitely a winner for blogs. It seems to be a great way to get clicks and comments.
Leave a Comment