52 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bill Smolick // Mar 10, 2010 at 7:24 am

  I’m just glad it wasn’t Andrea Reimer. Love her.

• 2 Chris // Mar 10, 2010 at 8:32 am

  I hope he’s better soon, and city council uses this opportunity to invest in safer bike infrastructure.

• 3 JP Ratelle // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:06 am

  All the infrastructure in the world won’t stop wreckless cyclists and wreckless drivers from causing accidents.

  Nor is it feasible to put concrete barriers throughout the city so that 10,000 of 750,000 people can ride their bike everywhere.

  Perhaps if all you cyclists would like to start paying for licenses and insurance, there would be more money for more of your infrastructure.

  For the most part the cycling crowd wants a free ride though and expects everyone else to pay their way through life.

  Let’s wait to hear what exactly happened to the real mayor of Vancouver before we start throwing even more money to this complete nonsense.

  Accidents happen and you’ll never eliminate them completely.

  Get over yourselves already.

• 4 Kyla // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:45 am

  Couldn’t agree with JP more.
  The cyclists in this city are acting like traffic laws don’t apply to them – running red lights and failing to use hand signals. Licensees and insurance if you want to be a reckless cyclist.

• 5 Keith // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:02 am

  I don’t believe older people should be riding bicycles.
  They put themselves at great risk for broken bones for which they may never fully recover, and become a burden to the health system and their families.
  Better to walk, which does more to strengthen your bones.
  I wish Councilor Meggs full recovery.

• 6 Annette F // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:04 am

  JP, surely you cannot be serious.

  Your me vs. “them” rhetoric is old and is a big contributor to the current animosity between cyclists and drivers in this city.

  While there is no doubt that many crashes are the result of stupid actions by cyclists or drivers, saying that “all the infrastructure in the world” will not reduce crashes in ridiculous, as anyone who has ever cycled in Denmark will tell you.

  And my reference to “crashes” is deliberate. The medical profession no longer refers to “MVA’s” (motor vehicle accidents) but uses “MVC’s” (motor vehicle crashes) to make the point to those of you who need it that things are rarely accidents, but are caused by preventable actions.

  Many of my non-cycling friends tell me that they are afraid to cycle in the city. Investing in better infrastructure for bikes would no doubt lead to more people cycling.

  Or, as JP seems to prefer, we could maintain the status quo, keep adding cars to our roads, lose the occasional cyclist or pedestrian, see our rates of obesity increase, wait in traffic breathing in pollution and all end up as bitter as JP is.

• 7 spartikus // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 am

  Amazing – both JP Ratelle and Kyla were eyewitnesses to Councillor Megg’s accident. I mean they must have been to be so confident to use the occasion of a man’s serious injury (I understand he requires spinal surgery) as an opportunity to wax poetic about reckless bikers. One, perhaps, but what are the odds of two?

  Licenses and insurance only pay a minuscule amount towards transportation infrastructure, btw. The vast majority comes from taxes that cyclists pay too – and to that end the car is very heavily subsidized.

• 8 Chris // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:14 am

  Same tired, baseless arguments from the autotopia crowd.

  1) Cars need to be insured because of the costly damage they can cause other people and property. Bikes don’t have that risk. We already have health insurance to cover personal liability. Car insurance doesn’t pay for infrastructure. It covers the damage they cause.

  2) Property taxes pays for the majority of infrastructure, and the costs of maintaining car infrastructure is much, much higher then bike infrastructure. My property taxes are subsidizing car drivers. If more people cycled, the city would save a ton of money. In addition, shifting from cars to bikes is healthier (reducing health care costs) and leads to urban density (maximizing tax revenues).

• 9 michael geller // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:20 am

  First of all, I want to wish Geoff a speedy recovery. The city needs his wise counsel on council.

  Now with respect to improving bicycle safety, last year I took the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition bicycle riding course. It was a very worthwhile experience. I must confess that I did not learn enough to feel comfortable riding my bike around the city, but I did learn how to be a better motorist in a city with an increasing number of cyclists.

  After the course was over, I suggested to the coalition that they prepare some easy to understand full page posters that could be placed in newspapers and around the city, to educate motorists on the rules of the road as they relate to cyclists.

  In Vancouver, unlike Copenhagen or Amsterdam, most of our motorists are not cyclists and therefore do not fully understand, or empathize with cyclists. We are not even aware of what cyclists can, or cannot do legally. While I fully agree that we need to create safer cycling lanes, we also need to devote more attention to the education of motorists…how to make turns …how to open doors, etc….with cyclists in mind. Hopefully this will help reduce the incidence of accidents, and result in more motorists wanting to become cyclists.

• 10 Cycle // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:20 am

  Both JP Ratelle and Kyla and Keith are asshats!

  I am 65 and ride bicycles on a regular basis. I have been hit by drivers who don’t seem to “see” cyclists. Those hitting me are of the young and old driver types. no one suggests that they should not be allowed to drive.

  Vancouver drivers are amoung the most incompetent i have coem across. I have driven in europe (england, italy, france) and while the drivers there are fast they are VERY good drivers. YVR drivers are for the most part brain-dead.

  As to the cause of the Accident that Councillor Megg was involved in: we have no information on which to draw any conclusions on how it came about and who is at fault.

• 11 Chris Keam // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:13 am

  “Perhaps if all you cyclists would like to start paying for licenses and insurance, there would be more money for more of your infrastructure.”

  300,000 for the bike lane is a bargain. Amortized over five years, it’s only costing the city $164 a day to create a 7 day a week, 24/7 safe cycling lane into downtown, linking a major bikeway (Adanac) to bike lanes into and through the downtown core. Divide that figure by the number of cyclists using the lane and it becomes clear just how cost-effective bike lanes are, esp. compared to adding buses, freeways, and other capital intensive ways of dealing with traffic congestion.

  Further, when you compare the cost of road projects such as left turn bays (as high as $3.2m in some cases):

  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960418/vtc3.htm

  or the cost to treat someone injured in a traffic accident, it seems that cyclists aren’t the ones getting a ‘free ride’ in terms of society absorbing the cost of individual transportation choices. It’s reckless car users that see their poor choices subsidized by the population at large, and it’s their behavior that is largely responsible for the million-plus traffic deaths that occur annually around the world that cost us billions of dollars. By all means, let’s make our roads safer… but let’s do so in such a way we get the most bang for our buck. Those solutions include separated bike lanes.

  As to licensing, there are a host of issues with that seeming solution as well? At what age will the license have to be acquired? 16? 12? 21? How do you propose to handle out of town visitors who rent a bike? Will someone need a license for public roads, but not necessarily for an off-road trail? How do you plan to test for the license? How much will people be willing to pay to get a license before they decide the tiny risk of a fine is a better bargain that coughing up for a license. The list goes on and on, but really, the obvious problem on the bridge this morning wasn’t the bikes, but the long line of single occupant vehicles crawling into town. That’s the real issue we face, not whether or not some yahoo didn’t hand signal while cycling. Further to that point, no institution withholds safety improvements because a small minority are scofflaws. It doesn’t happen on highways, or ski hills, or public beaches, or anywhere that I can think of off the top of my head… so I don’t understand why cyclists should be the exception.

• 12 Jeannette // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:19 am

  @JP you say that it isn’t feasible to put up seperated concrete barriers so that cyclists can ride everywhere…

  Obviously you haven’t traveled much. There are cities in the world that are much larger and much more complicated from a road infrastructure point of view that have plenty (and I mean TONS) of separated bike lanes. Amsterdam, Paris, and Copenhagen to name a few. In some places, there are even separate street lights for the cycling lanes as well.

  What is impossible is only defined by the limits of our will and imagination.

  Until you see a city where tens of thousands of people actually do literally commute by bicycle everyday, you cannot say what will or won’t, can or can’t happen in Vancouver. To do so is short sighted and limiting. I hope you don’t base the rest of your beliefs off of such a narrow vision.

• 13 MB // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:21 am

  I used to think taking road space from cars and devoting it to bikes and pedestrians should be done in small, incremental bits.

  This incident, and JP’s and Kyla’s callous, car-obsessed reponses, have now nudged me to say it should be done more dramatically with much improved funding.

  I wish counc. Geoff Meggs a speedy and full recovery. If he moves independent, separated bike infrastructure upwards quickly in City priorities with this indelible experience, then he can count on my vote in the next election.

• 14 Bill Lee // Mar 10, 2010 at 12:26 pm

  We don’t know the circumstances of the (Not The Peter) Meggs crash. Was he visible (lights, reflectors etc?) Was he signalling?

  Was the driver not paying attention, too far off the road etc.

  There are several hundred “knock-downs”, many unreported, every year. I’ve had cars racing through a city roundabout, making a right just in front of me, opening doors with signalling. [If I'm driving a car, I always yell to the passenger "Rock!" Climbers will know the logic of that.] I just get up, check myself up. Talk to the driver who usually stops and asks how I am lying on the road/sidewalk/verge. And pedal away, or sometimes walk home.

  I’ve had pedestrians cross the Adanac route in the middle of the block from between parked cars unexpectedly. A bit late, and they never look to see the Silent Steed coming down on them. Bells or horns help, but usually you are pulling on your hand brakes (ah the days of coaster brakes) too hard to hit the bell lever.

  By the way, the gaps in the barriers on the Dunsmuir viaduct show that the engineers are finally thinking of access, egress and self-cleaning features. The west side of the Cambie bridge is dreadful.

  I’ll still take my route up Gore and along Pender into town, thank you. When is the Georgia side getting theirs on that one-way road?

  Mendacious Meggs still has his proposal to tear the viaducts (first up in 1926) up on his no-comments-blog.

• 15 Roland Tanglao // Mar 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm

  Get Better Soon/Gute Besserung to the councillor. Could somebody please tell us exactly where he was hit?

  The following quote is extremely vague as to the exact location, some precise details would be helpful!
  QUOTE
  While riding in a bike lane, Mr. Meggs was involved in a collision with a car in south Vancouver at about 9 a.m. yesterday, according to Mr. Jang.
  END QUOTE

• 16 Evan // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm

  I wish Geoff all the best and a speedy recovery.

  A friend of mine was also hit by a car this past weekend while she was cycling on a main street marked as a cycling route. She is still in hospital today and won’t be able to ride a bike again for many months. The driver simply did not see her because she was too focused on where she was turning and not what was oncoming. My first thought on why this happened is because the driver was not looking for a cyclist, she was only looking for oncoming cars. Separation of cyclists and cars can decrease these sorts of accidents but it’s too expensive to put barriers on every road. At minimum there needs to be more education to motorists that they are sharing the road with cyclists whether they like to or not.

  Luckily our auto insurance covers these sorts of accidents in terms of victim compensation, but there are no repercussions whatsoever in terms of driver error. Just because they did not break the law doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a penalty. Increases in insurance don’t penalize drivers enough.

• 17 Keith // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

  As a 60 year old asshat, I would like to point out the majority of bicycle accidents involve older men.
  If you go to Google News and write “bicyclist killed”, you will get all the latest news concerning bicyclists in the English world.
  What stands out are the age and sex of most cyclists killed. They are mostly men over 30 years old.
  The younger people have the good sense to stay of the main roads.

• 18 Chris // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

  Roland – 51st and Granville. A quick Google News search will give you more details.

• 19 spartikus // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

  @Keith,

  This isn’t true – for men, the demographic of age 56+ has statistically the lowest number of cycling accidents. 16-25 years old has the most.

  Source: ICBC [PDF pg. 120]

• 20 Edward // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm

  Oh, could we please, please, please (please!) not resort to the usual reactionary “all-drivers-are bad” / “all-cyclists-are-bad” polarities? Yes, there are bad cyclists, and yes there are bad drivers. There are also bad motorised scooter riders, bad pedestrians, bad bus drivers, bad old men with walkers, and bad dogs. Screaming about everyone else’s infractions without examining our own will get us nowhere but angrier and further apart.

  I’ll say right off the bat, I’m a cyclist, so my position is not one sympathetic to the car. But realistically, as much as I would like to see a city in which the private automobile does not exist, they are probably here to stay, largely thanks to the extremely wealthy and influential automotive lobby. However, I’d rather find a way to coexist safely than spend the rest of my days in ulcer-inducing angst.

  All those people who want cyclists to contribute to infrastructure through licensing and insurance: I’ll be happy to examine this with an open mind when we as a society can have an honest and impartial examination of the the true cost of owning an automobile and just how much of it is communally subsidised, whether through subsidies to automakers, in the form of supportive infrastructure, or in terms of providing fuel.

  To those who complain about traffic law infractions by cyclists: Have you looked around? When did you last see a car obeying the speed limit? Cars fly through red lights and stop signs everywhere, all the time. Just stand at an intersection sometime and watch. There is little or no noticeable effort to enforce these traffic laws. It’s as if we as a society have decided to leave it to motorists to use their own best judgement do decide when it is safe to ignore traffic laws. Why, then, do we not expect cyclists to do the same? Should every cyclist be obeying every law to the letter, while motorists ignore many of the laws with virtual impunity? Why would cyclists accept that? Be the citizen that you would like everyone else to be, and perhaps you’ll start seeing some results.

  As for the efficacy of infrastructure in improving safety, JP is correct in pointing out that we cannot put concrete barricades down every street on which a cyclist might want to ride, but that does not mean that separating cyclists from traffic is not worthwhile in some areas. The more cycling infrastructure is visible, the more the presence of cyclists will be visible and apparent to motorists generally. This has the potential to improve things overall.

  It is bloody dangerous to cycle in this town. I have been hit by cars on several occasions, and in not one of those cases was I doing anything illegal.

  Drivers have to get used to the idea that cyclists have a right to use the roads too, and to do so safely. And we all need to relax just a tad.

• 21 borg // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  @Edward : I can say without any doubt that as a car driver of many years, as well as a cyclist, that Vancouver Drivers as a demographic group are the worst I have seen in my many travels and driving experiences in other parts of the world. They are just bad in so so so many ways. This is not a cyclist vs motorist comment. Just an observation that many will agree with.
  Van motorists: run lights, pass in the curb lane, signals? hardly anyone use them anymore… they are afraid of wearing out the lights… change lanes without signalling and leave no room for you to brake for them should the light change… all because they are caught behind a left-turning car. Sometimes they pull this in front of heavy trucks with no braking room. Unbelievable stuff! And all of this plus other stuff it happens every day in front my eyes. And don’t get me started on what happens to me as a cyclist.

  What has not penetrated the feeble vancouver driver’s mind is that we have way many more cars and bikes on the road and the days of fast travel in the city is over. Get used to going 5okm per hr and slower. That is the way it is.

  Education is what is needed… and a lot more common sense. COMMON SENSE.

  A speedy recovery to Mr Meggs.

• 22 michael geller // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm

  To add to the potential confusion and safety issues for motorists, and cyclists, you might want to check out the foldable, portable Yike Bike from New Zealand. You can see it at http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com

• 23 michael geller // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm

  Here’s a bit more information on the Yike Bike…

  “If you don’t mind your handlebars being located beside your butt and endless giggles and smirks as you roll by then perhaps the YikeBike is the fancy bit of urban mobility kit you’ve been yearning. Looking something like a space-age version of that charming British improvement on the French boneshaker bike, this mini penny-farthing is minimalist but packs some cool features. Not only is it equipped with turning and braking indicators but it is the first “bike” to feature anti-locking brakes.

  The carbon fiber frame ensures strength but keeps it light enough (10 kg/22 lb) to carry up a couple flights of stairs after you spend the 15 seconds it takes to fold it up.

  It’s said that its 1 kW motor offers a power to weight ratio better than many sports cars and makes acceleration brisk but the electronically set speed limit of 20 km/h (12.5 mph) will keep you from overtaking any Porsches on the straightaways. Unless there’s heavy traffic. That’s where the Yikebike’s small footprint and maneuverability might turn smirks of superiority to expressions of envy.

  The lithium battery can take you 9 to 10 kilometers (about 6 miles) and takes 20 minutes to charge 80 percent. Don’t look for this sleek set of wheels on sale in America anytime soon as the roll out early next summer includes only a handful of European countries and its home turf, New Zealand. With a price to be set somewhere between €3,500 – €3,900 ($4,989 – $5,559) we suspect it won’t cause cities to be designed around them as the Segway was supposed to do but if they ever figure out a way to play polo on them, look out!”

• 24 JCobb // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  If God had intended man to ride bicycles, He wouldn’t have invented the Harley.

• 25 Chris Keam // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm

  “If God had intended man to ride bicycles, He wouldn’t have invented the Harley.”

  Real bikes have pedals. Like the very first Harleys.

  Yikebike. A toy. Nowhere to put cargo, a top speed that’s lower than current ebikes, and a price tag that’s ludicrous for a machine that does less than my beat-up old mountain bike. If you want folding electric-bike options, there’s lots of better ones than that goofy looking thing.

• 26 Higgins // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:32 pm

  Geoff Meggs – The Brain, in a bike accident?
  It’s called KARMA people!

• 27 sv // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:49 pm

  So what’s the comeuppance for dickish comments?

• 28 Mark Allerton // Mar 10, 2010 at 8:50 pm

  Get well soon Geoff.

  I’m tempted to use the word “unbelievable” about JP & Kyla’s comments, but unfortunately I am all too used to seeing the victim blamed these days.

• 29 Frances Bula // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:00 pm

  @all. Just thought I’d let you know that I have heard third- or fourth-hand that Councillor Meggs is deeply touched to know that his injury has inspired such a thoughtful conversation. Good to know that his humour lobe hasn’t been impaired.

• 30 chuck brook // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:44 pm

  Geoff, All of us at Brook + Assoc. wish you a speedy and full recovery! All the best, Chuck, Gary and Laurie

• 31 Glissando Remmy // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:15 pm

  The Thought of The Day

  “Smell that? Love is in the air. Simply follow the Ass Kissing Parade on Frances Boulevard.”

  What a robust following of well wishers! Lest we forget that the gent would eagerly push your 90 year old granny down a flight of stairs in order to get his bike lane over Burrard bridge approved.
  Geoff got hit by that car the same way Ark Tsisserev got hit by “retirement”. They both didn’t see it coming.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 32 jimmy olson // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:52 pm

  @Glissando : Sorry mate… but that is bad form.

• 33 Keith // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:50 am

  @spartikus

  Looking at the ICBC tables; by far the majority of bicycle accidents are in the 26 to 60 year old group. It only goes down after 60 because there are much fewer cyclists of that age.

• 34 booge // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:41 am

  Keith: “I would like to point out the majority of bicycle accidents involve older men.”
  ” .. majority of bicycle accidents involve the 26 to 60 year old group”

  So what is your new point?

• 35 Roland Tanglao // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:57 am

  chris: I read all the articles referenced in Google News here:
  http://news.google.ca/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dcQ5_DCPhXodz5MAgxHc7xeESroiM

  And the most precise location is Angus Drive near 51st which (call me a location geek) isn’t precise enough for me

  Where can I get precise accident location information, would that be the Vancouver Police Department?

• 36 Ron // Mar 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  I think Angus Drive is a “bike route” not a “bike lane” as previously reported in the news.

  Odd thing is that I wouldn’t expect it to be a high volume route.

• 37 booge // Mar 11, 2010 at 1:20 pm

  @Ron. I suspect in the early morning commute time it would have a fair number of both bikes and cars; Cars on their way to main arteries and bikes commuting to work. It can be tricky in some spots as i recall.

  I too would like more precise information about the accident in terms of location and direction of both car and cyclist.

• 38 Ron // Mar 11, 2010 at 1:42 pm

  Good point – hadn’t considered time of day.

• 39 Chris // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:21 pm

  Geoff Meggs won’t need surgery. http://twitter.com/geoffmeggs/status/10335229375

• 40 Mr Peanut // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:27 pm

  Strongbold bugger! He will be back on bis bike by June!

  Go meggs go

• 41 Mr Peanut // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:29 pm

  Strong old bugger! He will be back on his bike by June!

  Go Meggs Go!!!

• 42 A. G. Tsakumis // Mar 12, 2010 at 4:01 am

  I’d be interested to find out what the details of the accident were. It’s a fair question. Apparently, the driver was at fault, but was Geoff in the wrong at all?

  But thank goodness, Frances, PR assistant to Vision Vancouver, let us know how Geoff feels. Gosh, we’ll all sleep better.

  Speedy recovery to him, sure, you don’t wish that on anybody, but the cycling facists in full force on this blog is astounding and further evidence of how low the once mighty have dipped.

  Single occupant cars are a problem? Idiots, it’s called freedom to choose.

  But ya know…old Geoffers injury got me thinking…let’s have a look at the Critical Mass website–the Mecca of the selfish and radical….very interesting. The fascism is thick enough and weepy too. The demand for the bike lane was about originally about safety but now one of the chief wingnuts talks about single car occupants. The fact the bikes lanes are essentially empty means nothing, apparently.

  And…some VERY interesting rhetoric on the ole Critical Mudd, I mean Mass site. VERY interesting…

  Yup, Meggs would really go out of his way to wish any of his opponents a “speedy recovery”. Yup, sure would. He’s Sullivan without the chair. But he wouldn’t set on anyone’s neck, nah…good ole Geoff.

  And why don’t Geller, Bickerton and Anton go and run for Vision, since they don’t have the first godamned clue about how to distinguish themselves from Vision, other than to pander to them.

  That’s not the enlightened leadership that will inspire and save this city from the grips of the extremist camp currently occupying the Hall.

  That’s stupidity, cowardice and easy. It’s sickening.

  Vision have nothing to worry about. Meggs will recover and go back to being the de facto Mayor, and VV will continue to total screwing of the city.

  Maybe Geller can give him a ride home from the hospital and Bickerton can make him some soup.

  Perhaps Suzanne should rub his earlobes with lavender and tea tree oil.

  …then wrap him in a shroud.

  What a complete joke.

• 43 Chris Keam // Mar 12, 2010 at 7:44 am

  “Single occupant cars are a problem? Idiots, it’s called freedom to choose.”

  The problem is that many people feel forced into their cars because the choices for timely transit or safe walking/cycling aren’t there.

• 44 SV // Mar 12, 2010 at 8:18 am

  hey let’s not feed the trolls.

• 45 MB // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:41 am

  A few years back I saw what I can only think was a ‘bandit sticker’ sloppily pasted to the back door of an Expedition with the obligatory lone male occupant:

  BIG TRUCK / SMALL PENIS

  Freedom to criticize too, eh?

• 46 booge // Mar 12, 2010 at 10:13 am

  AGT: simmer down lad – “but the cycling facists in full force on this blog ”

  … no one here is forcing anyone to ride a bike instead of commuting the way they are at present: be it walking, car, or transit.

  By the way you should exercise more. It will help with you blood pressure. In fact why don’t you ride a bike on weekends.

  It rains in vancouver and this keeps us `over-caffeinated`

• 47 A. G. Tsakumis // Mar 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm

  booge: I’m in perfect health despite being overweight. And I exercise regularly and have lost a reasonable amt of weight over seven mths.

  MB, you know, it must be really easy to sit behind a couple of initials, afraid to let people know who you are and cast aspersions about people.

  I guess that makes you ‘large’, eh? You are indeed a fool if nothing else. Enjoy yourself.

• 48 Dean S. // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:46 am

  Francis – you have a number of irritable readers, I see.
  Why are there no cranky pedestrians complaining about both cyclists and cars?! There’s a niche available for someone. Hop to it!

  By the way – the driver stopped and called for help, as most citizens would. I don’t believe they asked him for license fees.

• 49 Bill Lee // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm

  http://www.twitter.com/fabulavancouver
  alerts readers to a radio station survey on dedicated bike lines all over the city.

• 50 Mr Peanut // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:18 pm

  Cars are going to Lear to share:
  LaHood: “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

  google the story

• 51 booge // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:40 am

  mrpeanut: here is the link
  Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated on his blog “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” http://bit.ly/beH3GV

• 52 Barbie // Mar 23, 2010 at 9:09 am

  30 cyclists attended the opening ride of the Dunsmuir bike lane. Hmmmm. It cost all of us $300,000.00 to install those lanes. That’s $10,000 per cyclist. I think city council made a good vote purchase. Don’t you. Let’s be reasonable about installing these lanes. The surrounding corollary damage to businesses when vehicular lanes are closed is unacceptable.

Leave a Comment