Rob Macdonald is well-known in the development world (best-known holdings or developments include the St. Regis Hotel at Dunsmuir and Seymour and the Hudson/Shore Club building next door that he announced as his first celebratory project when the NDP were defeated in 2001).
But he’s been stepping out into the media world more lately, with columns on the Olympic village mess (blaming various city administrations for their bad decisionsand now, this week, on bike lanes.
I’ve been hearing rumours from people in both Vision and the NPA that he’s thinking of running for council. If he does, he won’t have any shortage of strong opinions. His speech to the Urban Development Institute a year ago went around like wildfire.
In spite of his reputation for outspokenness, he tends to be mild-mannered, almost courtly, in private conversations. If he did enter politics, there’s one guarantee: He wouldn’t be dull.
Here’s his salvo on bike lanes.
Downtown Bike Lane Expansion
The City of Vancouver has over 400 kilometers of bike lanes and 98% of them have been properly planned over many years in accordance with the City’s long-term strategic transportation plan. However, the recent unwarranted and unwanted expansion of the pre-existing downtown Vancouver bike lanes principally on Hornby and Dunsmuir Streets has been a disaster, and a lesson in abysmal government practice.
This civic failure has several components:
1. There was close to zero public input prior to the installation of the Dunsmuir bike lane expansion. What little information that was provided to the public was misleading and the public was intentionally given no voice on the matter.
2. After thousands of complaints about the Dunsmuir fiasco, the bureaucrats decided to hold a very brief information and public input process on the proposed Hornby bike lane expansion. This process was a complete sham, as the civic government completely ignored the public’s strong opposition to the Hornby design, with the ultimate slap in the face being to begin construction on the destruction of Hornby Street only six hours after a midnight Council hearing approved the project. Wasting everyone’s valuable time when the decision to proceed was already cast in concrete completely proved the City Council’s lack of respect and distain for the views of the directly affected citizens, 97% of whom were against the patently flawed plan.
3. The massive expansion of the already existing bike lanes has required a deletion of critical street parking, loading zones, traffic lanes and right turn lanes. These harmful changes to what heretofore were primary arterial roads are in direct contravention of the City’s transportation plan. This existing transportation plan, which had universal acceptance and led to the original and workable bike lanes, was specifically against the further deletion of critical traffic and parking lanes.
4. The previous bike lane design for downtown was workable and balanced. The recent installation of the expanded and separated bike lanes has been carried out by extremists who are completely uncaring about the many parties whose interests are tied to these major arteries. How else could someone consciously design a system that is so unbalanced in approach and so destructive to so many people?
The transportation department says the “divided” bike lanes are safer for cyclists. Tell that to the woman who recently t-boned a delivery truck on Dunsmuir while in the bike lane; and the fire truck crew who could not come to her assistance for 20 minutes because the divided bike lanes prevented the fire truck from turning from Seymour onto Dunsmuir, causing the ambulance to get stuck as traffic backed up to the Georgia Viaduct. This all occurred even after City staff and Council had been emphatically told that fire trucks would not be able to properly make this turn because of the bike lane barriers.
5. What appears clear is that few, if any, Councillors paid much attention to the actual faulty design. Not paying attention to something so important is a complete abrogation of duty. Essentially, the project was the product of the radical environmentalists who are the same kind of people who organize the regular Critical Mass Bike Protest which breaks the law on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this crowd appears to have the current Mayor’s support, since he has ridden in their egregious event and as such, has supported their unlawful behaviour.
So what is the result of this lunacy:
- Traffic jams for cars and buses which wastes peoples valuable time and creates more pollution.
- Loss of access to people’s businesses.
- Dangerous cycling conditions in several areas.
- Serious life safety concerns where fire trucks have no ability to properly circulate.
- The loss of at least a million dollars of annual parking meter revenue for the City in a time of budget cuts.
- A substantial drop in sales revenue, in some cases upwards of 30%, in most all of the businesses directly impacted.
- Job losses.
- Business closures.
- Shopkeeper’s life savings wiped out.
- Falling property values.
- Falling property tax revenue which the City needs for other important initiatives.
- A downtown traffic plan that is so compromised that many people don’t even want to come downtown anymore unless they absolutely have to, which negatively affects the whole economic fabric of downtown Vancouver.
And all these patently obvious negatives were clear to see for anyone who had any measure of foresight but, unfortunately, our current crop of civic politicians seem to have a distinct lack of vision. What is crystal clear is that many of our current Councillors are guilty of psychopathic delusion and have become sanctimonious partisans who would prefer to feel good about themselves in isolation from what is good for the vast majority of their constituents.
What was originally labelled and sold as a “trial” has now changed. The new phrase coming from the mouths of people like my cycling Councillor friend, Raymond Louie, is that people will just have to learn to “adjust”. This is like cutting off someone’s legs and telling them everything will be just fine once they learn to “adjust”. Councillors are saying things like “don’t worry, the increased number of cyclists will be good shoppers.” Pardon me if I find this rather hard to believe. In fact I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so out of touch with reality to even say such a thing.
The public hates being lied to. Foolish decisions are one thing but lying to the public is another matter altogether. With the downtown bike lane expansion there are two matters which bare close review:
1) The transportation department appears to be providing incorrect information to the public about actual bike lane usage. We know this because we have our own 24-hour cameras that monitor Dunsmuir Street and our actual results show that the City is wildly overstating the actual usage. Either our extremely expensive digital cameras are wrong, or someone at City Hall is fudging the facts.
2) The transportation department repeatedly stated that the downtown bike lane expansion was “only a trial”. Now does anyone actually believe that the City would spend $25 million of taxpayer’s hard-earned money on this gold-plated boondoggle if it was just a simple “trial”? Does anyone actually find these people in City Hall believable when they have showed only contempt towards the public on this issue up until now and ignored the fact that 97% of the directly affected public was against the separated bike lane expansion in the first place? When people like Councillor Raymond Louie say things like – “people need to adjust” – does that sound like these installations, which have been secured deep in the ground with concrete and reinforcing steel, are just a “trial”? From every angle it appears that the public is being lied to; pure and simple.
This is not the Canadian way and this is not the way to go about making our City a better place.
On an entirely personal note, I am one of the lucky ones in this nightmare. Our business was the only one allowed to speak to City Council before the Dunsmuir bike lane expansion was approved. The transportation engineers were about to materially harm our business on Dunsmuir by removing the passenger loading zone at our hotel. Councillor Meggs personally stepped in to save our right to load passengers and their luggage after I literally begged him to do so, and I appreciate his actions. I only wish Council would look at all the other businesses that have and will be ruined by this bike lane expansion with the same caring that Mr. Meggs showed to me.
City Council needs to effectuate the obvious solution which is to restore the downtown bike lanes to the way they were previously. This would restore balance to the traffic system and preserve economic vitality in the downtown Vancouver core. That is the view of the hundreds of people and organizations I have heard from on this matter.
Mr. Macdonald is an avid cyclist and a major financial supporter of cycling events in Vancouver.
268 responses so far ↓
1 Deacon Blue // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:00 pm
1100 hours—Sunday, 19 december 2010… Christmas is 7 days away. I’m making my way “north” on Dunsmuir Street and this is what I observe…
1,000 cars; 100 pedestrians; and 1 bike.
2 Jason // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Well I guess we now have evidence that at least one “avid cyclists” hates the separated bike lanes.
I kind of like the hornby bike lane now…it’s like a barren, unused wilderness in the heart of downtown Vancouver. Even the cyclists don’t use it…I took a lovely photo from my car of a cyclist riding in the middle of the only remaining car lane while the separated bike lane was completely empty. Warms my heart.
Let another long winded discussion on bike lanes begin…
3 Tiktaalik // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:33 pm
This editorial is hilarious.
4 Tiktaalik // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Vancouver meet your Rob Ford.
5 Tessa // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:41 pm
@Deacon Blue: I’m sure you counted every single one, too.
6 Ben // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Let me be the first to say that the bike lane trials didn’t cost $25 million. The Hornby bike lane cost $3.2 million. I think Dunsmuir cost about the same.
For context, one of the new turn bays on Knight street costs $4 million.
There, that’s not so long-winded.
7 shepsil // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Ben, how right you are! Subsidizing the streets for cars has been going on for too long and I would rather subsidize Transit, Bikes and Pedestrian friendly initiatives.
If I were a developer, I would be thrilled that the city is making itself more pedestrian friendly, thus a better place to live.
8 Mark Allerton // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:10 pm
You know, it says he’s an “avid” cyclist but my guess is he doesn’t have any SRAM parts on his bike. Sounds like a Super Record kinda guy.
9 The Fourth Horseman // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:19 pm
I feel that a really bad case of “didactic” (sort of like shingles, but not as much fun) is just about upon us .
Wither the tsunami of outrage..in 3…2…1…
10 mezzanine // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:34 pm
0…
Dear Rob,
I disagree with your position.
If you do enter politics, I will not vote for you. I will also encourage people that I know not to vote for you due to your stance on bike lanes.
I encourage you to reconsider your position and show leadership in liveability and transport.
Sincerely,
Mezzanine
PS. if you do want to do substantial for the citizens of vancouver, please consider moving your pedestrian zone to St. Regis Alley. For the preceding time the north lane was occupied anyway by the SoF buses staging for the run back and BC Electric bilding never had a requirement for a pedestrian zone. Your insistence for a stopping zone IMO is the novel change causing much disruption.
11 Lin // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:11 am
If this IS our Rob Ford, bring it on. As my Toronto relatives tell me, the change there has been utterly refreshing. Accountability, care with taxpayer funds; we could use more Robs in our cities.
12 Glissando Remmy // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:53 am
The Thought of The Night
“Oscar Wilde once said: ‘Some cause happiness WHEREVER they go; others WHENEVER they DO GO!’. For Vision, the truth is in the latter.”
It’s refreshing when you hear from one of the big guns in town that they are fed up, that they had enough of this cheap spectacle put on by the gang at City Hall. Not long ago, we heard the same coming from Bing Thom and Nigel Baldwin…architects and not political douchebags.
The only legacy of the past two and some years left by Vision Vancouver & comp. can be summed up in Peter Drucker’s words:
‘Nothing is LESS PRODUCTIVE, than to make more efficient what should not be done at all!’
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
13 Richard // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
He is obviously a serious road warrior who gets an adrenaline rush out of battling with traffic. More power to him but cycling should not be an extreme sport. Separated bike lanes are for the the rest of us who don’t want to battle with a ton or two of metal.
The bike lanes have also calmed traffic making Dunsmuir and Hornby safer and more pleasant to walk along.
14 Bobbie Bees // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:40 am
Well, I can only say that the amount of venom spewed by Rob Macdonald,
was spetacular, but not unexpected.
The amount of fallacy in his little rant is unbelievable. But I must
admit, he is a good politician. Maybe he’s planning on running?
Too bad then that he doesn’t really give a hoot about the residents
who live and work down town. He says “and a downtown traffic plan that
is so compromised that many people won’t go down town unless they
absolutely have to”.
There are over 80,000 people living downtown.
In 1996 the West End had 40,940 residents and downtown had 17,405
Therefore 1996 there were a total of 58,345 residents living downtown.
In 2006 the West End had 44,560 residents and downtown had 43,415.
Therefore in 2006 there were at total of 87,975
By 2015 this number will be over 90,000.
Just how many more people does he think need to drive to come downtown?
Is he seriously implying that Tim Horton’s is gonna go belly up
because someone from Richards and Davie isn’t going to be able to
drive down to and park in front of Timmies?
Seriously?
Between SFU, BCIT and the esl schools in the neighbourhood of Seymour
and Dunsmuir, I seriously doubt that any of the restaurants are going
to go under any time soon.
Any business that can’t make a go of it under such population growth
must really have some serious issues with the way it is run.
Can you imagine for one minute if all of that population growth that
occurred between 1996 and 2006 meant one extra car on the road
downtown?
But first, one thing, I suggest everyone file a FOI request with the
St. Regis Hotel. If he’s video taping and recording the public in
general, that means that he’s collecting private and personal
information. Therefore, he has to disclose to everyone what he has
recorded.
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/legislation/PIPA/Personal_Information_Protection_Act.htm#part1
I wonder what else they’re recording with the digital video recorder?
When I was in commercial property management I had to bend over
backwards to make sure that our video cameras on our buildings did not
pick up anything out on the city streets. This way we could avoid
frivolous FOI requests.
Some poor anonymous cyclist hits a truck and the fire truck can’t get
to her. Well, that’s a steaming load if I ever smelt one. If a fire
truck needs to it can go counter to the flow of traffic. But maybe
instead of showing the fallacy of bike lanes, all Macdonald has done
is shown the fallacy of one way streets. Did you also notice how Rob
held the truck driver blameless? But then again fault wasn’t the
issue. The issue was an attack on the bicycle lanes. The truck driver
could have swerved into the bicycle lanes and killed 10 cyclists and
that wouldn’t have been an issue with Rob. In his logic, the bicycle
lanes would have been to blame, not the out of control truck driver.
Also, why doesn’t Macdonald point out all of the times car and truck
drivers pull ‘right hooks’ in front of cyclists on roads without bike
lanes?
Why Doesn’t Macdonald touch on how many cyclists win a door prize every year?
I’d love to see Macdonald touch on car drivers that perform
‘Californian Rolling Stops’ at just about every intersection in this
city.
I nearly got run off the road this year by a cab driver. He
practically ran me into the curb and then shouted that bicycles belong
on the sidewalk. Why oh why doesn’t Macdonald touch on these aspects?
Could it be because his imaginary t-boned cyclist allows him to sound
concerned about cyclists while at the same time serving up a good
heaping load of BS?
Somehow I don’t think armoured cars, limousines, moving trucks or
other such infractions of the painted bicycle lanes are on Rob’s
radar.
Oh, by the way, I did file a police report over the cabbie, but
because only had the car number nothing could be done. Imagine that.
Rob also mentions something about hotel guests having to unload in the
rear of the building. Too bad. If the Hudson on Granville has it’s
front entrance in the rear lane, what’s so upsetting about the St.
Regis having to load and unload guests in the rear lane.
Why does Rob seem to think that it’s okay for the city to supply him
with taxpayer funded on street parking, but not to supply cyclists
with safe on street cycling routes.
Saying that painted bicycle lanes work is a massive leap of fantasy.
All painted bicycle lanes do I ensure that cyclists ride in the door
prize zone.
No, I think the Sun ran this almost as a pre-tribute to the Auto show.
The Auto Show, one of the largest advertising bonanzas that the Sun
has ever seen.
Who buys the Sun any ways? I don’t.
In fact if you asked most Internet savvy cyclists if they buy the Sun
or the Province I think you’d find that most would say no.
How many bicycle shops advertise in the Sun? I don’t think I’ve ever
seen an ad. And I don’t count Sports Mart as a bicycle shop.
How many car manufacturers, dealers, repair shops, etc advertise in
the Sun? I’ve lost count.
I seldom even pay attention to the Sun online. It’s a dying medium
and it’s latching on to the only thing it sees as a way to sustain
itself. The auto industry.
I give Rob Macdonald just about as much credibility on this issue as I
do the columnist Jon Ferry. Anyone remember when the Province ran an
entire column of Jon’s where he ranted and raved that he had driven
past the Dunsmuir bicycle lanes on numerous times and he didn’t see
one single damn cyclist using the bike lanes? Too bad he also didn’t
see the large signs stating the bicycle lanes were closed and still
under construction and that they were barricaded off. Did the Province
editorial staff ever correct Jon on this little fact. Probably not.
Did the Province staff bother running a correction when the fact was
pointed out? Nope, not in their interest.
Both the Sun and the Province cater to car culture. It’s their last
hurrah. If they piss off the car drivers and the advertiser start to
withdraw, they’ve just cut off their life support. It doesn’t matter
how many free papers they give away in order to keep their circulation
numbers up, they need the auto advertisers. And if they can rally the
troops just prior to the Vancouver Auto Show, well all the better.
15 ThinkOutsideABox // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:39 am
@ Bobbie Bees
In 1996 the West End had 40,940 residents and downtown had 17,405. Therefore 1996 there were a total of 58,345 residents living downtown.
In 2006 the West End had 44,560 residents and downtown had 43,415.
On a side note, that pretty much dispels the myth perpetuated by developers, politicians, journalists and bloggers that there has been no residential development in the West End in the last 20 years. Thank you.
Who buys the Sun any ways? I don’t.
In fact if you asked most Internet savvy cyclists if they buy the Sun or the Province I think you’d find that most would say no. How many bicycle shops advertise in the Sun? I don’t think I’ve ever
seen an ad. And I don’t count Sports Mart as a bicycle shop. How many car manufacturers, dealers, repair shops, etc advertise in the Sun? I’ve lost count.
Nadbank ranks the Vancouver Sun in second place behind… The Province, for total weekly readership by resident newspaper.
Your demographic assumptions seem to unintentionally belie the countervailing reality of the paper’s reach.
16 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:18 am
I’m quite taken aback that my comment left at the Vancouver Sun on this op-ed – visible for most of the day yesterday, now reads “This comment is under review.”
Outrageous.
17 Coco // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:20 am
Dear Rob MacDonald,
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Please run for office.
CC
18 Tom // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:33 am
I’ll vote for Mr. MacDonald in a heartbeat.
…..while the cycling lobby meets to plot on what to do next….looks as though their candidate for council; Chris Keam, may have some difficulty winning a seat to protect their precious lanes.
19 rf // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:44 am
Run for mayor! Run for mayor! Run for mayor!
Anyone named Rob has a leg up right now!
20 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:48 am
@ Bobbie Bees #14
What makes your stance more credible than Mr. Macdonald’s?
Because he doesn’t share your ‘the world should be cycling’ view? How do you know he is not an advid cyclists?
What he has itemized is nothing new. It has be well publicized that there have been ongoing issues with the bike lanes, and the fact that they are not hitting the usage that was touted out in order to have these ‘trials’ in the first place. There were also concerns voiced about 911 responders being able to move through the city. And I find it shocking you would belittle an accident just to try push an agenda. You complain about how you have almost been hit by car drivers, well guess what, last spring/summer I was hit twice by cyclists – on the sidewalk. Most cyclists are no better drivers than car owners.
These lanes were slapped up without a clear plan or study on the overall effects.
Macdonald is hardly spewing ‘venom’, but then he is speaking out against the obvious and we all know that ‘cycling advocates’ have a problem with that.
As for the filing and FOI on the ‘security’ cameras – are you kidding? Under that blanket, let’s file an FOI on every hotel and street front business as the vast majority have some sort of secutiry camera viewing the outside activity of their building.
The Vancouver Sun…not all of us get our info from the Georgia Straight. Who cares where bike shops advertise? Some of us actually look to read the ‘news’ and not stare at adverts. And the Auto Show, one of the biggest trade shows Vancouver hosts – every year; we ‘taxpayers’ see a lot of tax revenue from these shows. Again, something that seems to be lost on you due to your disdain towards autos.
I hope Rob Macdonald runs for council…..
21 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:05 am
Here is the comment I made yesterday that is apparently too hot for anti-cyclists and Vancouver Sun to handle:
“It’s nice that the Vancouver Sun has identified Mr Macdonald as someone who financially supports cycling events. It would have been even nicer if it had identified him as a long-time member of, and financial contributor to, the NPA.
Mr. Macdonald makes what I consider a very serious charge: That the professional engineers of the CoV Transportation Dept. are faking their data. By how much? We don’t know, Mr Macdonald doesn’t say. We aren’t told how long he conducted his own survey using very expensive cameras.
Was it a month? A week? A day? An hour?
Mr. Macdonald attributes a 30% drop in business to the cycling lane. Again, according to what methodology? Has not the recession played a part?
I look forward to Mr. Macdonald presenting more evidence on this matter. Indeed, I look forward to the presentation of any evidence beyond the anecdotal.”
In fact, almost all pro-cycling comments have been placed under review. Profiles in courage indeed.
I certainly hope the NPA openly campaigns on removing the bike lanes. Alas for the bike haters, I think they will use the issue simply to demagogue their way back to power.
As Gordon Price (speaking about Rob Macdonald) puts it:
My hunch is that it’s not the cycle tracks per se that are annoying them. As people used to power – and having their power acknowledged – they are upset at having something that affects them and their customers imposed without what they believe to be appropriate consultation.
And yet, oddly, they seem to be missing the point. The City is changing in ways that they personally have already experienced: better living, better health, through active transportation.
Now they have to see how their businesses will benefit too.
The hippies didn’t prostrate themselves enough before the thrones of the City’s aristrocracy.
22 Kevin // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:08 am
Francis, are you kidding me? Reposting this article verbatim seems low. I won’t actually go so far as to say that it is untrue or full of lies, but at best a multitude of facts are misrepresented and unsubstantiated.
Would it be too much to ask for journalists to cite sources? And yes I know that Rob is not a ‘journalist’ but his article was published in a ‘reputable’ newspaper.
23 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:08 am
The notion that ‘avid’ cyclists are somehow blessed with the ability to design road systems that can accommodate multiple modes of travel is like suggesting beer league hockey players are innately capable of building hockey rinks, installing the ice making machine and writing a business plan for the concession.
Just to reiterate, the $25m figure quoted in the article is way, way off. I hope any other potential mayoral candidates have a more complete understanding of the City’s budget for roadwork, or we could be in real trouble. Or maybe the current Mayor brought the project in several hundred percent under budget? Must be one or the other.
24 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:11 am
And the Auto Show, one of the biggest trade shows Vancouver hosts – every year; we ‘taxpayers’ see a lot of tax revenue from these shows.
If that’s the criteria for encouraging use of a product, we should be bowing to the wishes of the marijuana industry. Brings in lots of money and kills fewer people.
25 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:14 am
“Looks as though their candidate for council; Chris Keam, may have some difficulty winning a seat to protect their precious lanes.”
Magic 8 Ball says… “looks doubtful”
26 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:16 am
Reposting this article verbatim seems low.
On the other hand, I have confidence that comments pointing out Mr. Macdonald’s errors in logic and facts won’t be suppressed here as they are apparently being elsewhere.
27 Chris // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:19 am
I find it difficult to take anyone who argues that bike lanes are bad for the environment seriously. Road congestion is good for the environment. Even the Wall Street Journal knows that: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461572304842840.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel
28 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:21 am
In the absence of data backing up Mr. Macdonald’s assertions, I’m inclined to regard his views in the same light as I view those who assert that the bike lanes have improved safety, reduced pollution or had any other beneficial effect.
29 Reverend Twowheeler // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:47 am
This one makes me chortle every time “what is the result of this lunacy: traffic jams”. Lets demolish the buildings in downtown, then, to build more lanes, shall we?
Funny this comes out the same week as wikileaks/Saudi/peak-oil. Public servants that fail to invest in complete streets and provide transportation choices are failing their electorate. Here is what transportation choices look like: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=191133697581762&set=a.191133634248435.53393.151076548254144
Although I agree with Mr MacDonald’s design critique. This simpler design would be less controversial, and is proven elsewhere: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=191140504247748&set=a.191140440914421.53396.151076548254144&pid=601704&id=151076548254144 I don’t know why Vancouver didn’t just do this.
30 Dan Cooper // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:56 am
“he tends to be mild-mannered, almost courtly, in private conversations”
As I’ve written here before, I don’t give a flying fig whether a politician is the nicest fellow in the world at home or with friends. (Just like I don’t care about how courtly, welcoming and dignified White folk in the Ol’ South were toward you just as long as you weren’t black, or how nice a violent drunk is when he isn’t drunk.) When you’re a politician, and your behaviour in public is regularly offensive and attacking, then that is what you will and should be judged on.
31 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:04 am
@ Chris Keam #24
So you want taxpayer money to fund the cycyling wants, yet you want restrictions placed on how the city collects those monies.
Makes sense……
32 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:09 am
Max:
Where did I say anything about restricting anything? Go be an idiot somewhere else.
33 AnnetteF // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:10 am
@Chris #27
Thanks for the link.
What a shame it is that we have a provicial government that is only funding car-based transportation for the ever growing number of residents in the Fraser Valley.
I’ll leave it to those with greater knowledge to explain to me how the Gateway project is the right option. Why are we not instead building passenger rail service to the valley, so that all of these people don’t have to drive into the city?
As a resident of a neighbourhood that will be hit hard by increased traffic coming into town on Hwy 1, I am bracing for impact.
34 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:15 am
@IanS #28
“In the absence of data backing up Mr. Macdonald’s assertions, I’m inclined to regard his views in the same light as I view those who assert that the bike lanes have improved safety, reduced pollution or had any other beneficial effect.”
Ian, you’re a data-oriented guy. I respect that. But take a look at this video of bike usage in the Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
Surely you could see how beneficial that level of bike mode share in Vancouver would be. The problem is, it takes YEARS to reach it. The bike lanes are still new, today’s data will NOT convince die-hards. But we need a vision of what CAN be achieved and the temerity to stick in out in the face of turf wars from people who are afraid of change.
People like Rob MacDonald obviously lack that vision. That’s not the kind of person who I’d like to see shaping our future.
35 ITK // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:18 am
I love how spartikus once again attempts to paint the entire NPA, past councillors and candidates, with the same broad brush because this one guy has an anti bike-lane point of view. In fact, past NPA councillors and most candidates have all supported bike lanes. But then again, we’ve come to expect that kind of sanctimonious political moralizing from Vision supporters who are often unable to see beyond their narrow party affiliation. To them, if it ain’t Vision Vancouver, it’s crap.
About Rob McDonald: what a dumb article. If this guy is really thinking about running for council, he’ll never get elected despite the red meat he threw to the small minority who are against anything and everything. Perhaps Rob McDonald and Randy Helten should join up and form the Do Nothing Party. They may get a few more votes than the Work Less Party.
36 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:28 am
@ Chris Keam #31
I see you are back to your true form.
I’m not George, I don’t bully well. And note, George has not been back on-line since your attack.
37 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:33 am
Sean @33,
Thanks for the link.
Yes, I certainly agree that achieving the level of bike usage depicted in the youtube link would be a good thing.
However, I’m far from convinced that it will occur here, even in time. Not all places are alike and not all places will foster the same kind of transportation culture as is depicted in the video.
I guess it really comes down to faith. In the absence of evidence showing the beneficial impact of the bike lanes, the question is whether one has faith that they will are, or will become, beneficial. Clearly, from the posts here and in the innumerable other bike threads on this and other blogs, plenty of people do share that faith.
38 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:33 am
I love how spartikus once again attempts to paint the entire NPA, past councillors and candidates, with the same broad brush because this one guy has an anti bike-lane point of view.
I cited Gordon Price in support. You do understand he was a past NPA councillor, don’ t you?
39 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:36 am
Max:
Offer up some useful comments on the topic. If you want to berate me, my contact information is easy to find. Heck you can even call me up.
Otherwise, let the people who are interested in the subject have some room to offer reasonable perspectives on an important issue.
thanks
CK
40 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:39 am
@Ian:
“Not all places are alike and not all places will foster the same kind of transportation culture as is depicted in the video. ”
Why?
Why won’t the solutions working in Copenhagen work in Seville (hint, they are). Why is cycling different from any other transportation mode?
What is unique about Vancouver that makes it an outlier when it comes to transportation choices?
41 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:54 am
@Chris Keam #39,
The answer to what question will require a review of geography and history which is far beyond what I am willing or able to muster. If you honestly feel that everywhere is the same as everywhere else, then I can’t imagine that anything I have to say will convince you otherwise.
My suggestion is that you travel a bit, maybe see some other places and get a feel for how different countries and different cultures work.
I also disagree with your your assertion that Vancouver, to the extent that it doesn’t at some point in the future embrace cycling as a significant transportation mode, is somehow unusual or exceptional in that respect.
42 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:00 am
“If you honestly feel that everywhere is the same as everywhere else, then I can’t imagine that anything I have to say will convince you otherwise.”
I’m not saying that. I am saying that around the world, people have essentially the same transportation requirements, and they seem to be met in mostly the same ways. When improvements arrive, they tend to embrace them.
Ian, you’re suggesting Vancouver is different. But you aren’t telling us what those crucial differences are. That’s a big gap in your argument and without some valid caveats regarding this city and its reluctance to embrace active transportation our best course is to emulate the best practices of those places who are reducing reliance on the most expensive ways of moving people around.
43 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:04 am
My suggestion is that you travel a bit, maybe see some other places and get a feel for how different countries and different cultures work.
That’s needlessly patronizing, Ian.
Cars have a high mode share in North America because North American governments built their transportation infrastructure around the car for multiple decades.
Cycling has a higher mode share in Europe because European governments invested in cycling infrastructure a number of decades earlier than than North American governments, who are starting now.
People, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, etc have a need to get from point A to point B.
There is nothing unique about Vancouver in that regard. There is no Canadian “auto gene”.
44 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:15 am
@Chris Keam #42,
“I am saying that around the world, people have essentially the same transportation requirements, and they seem to be met in mostly the same ways. ”
I’m not certain what you mean by requirements, other than at the most basic level of having to go from point A to point B.
Once we go beyond that, it seems to me there are a variety of different requirements that may require, or call for, different solutions or approaches to transportation problems, rather than a “one size fits all” approach. As you can no doubt tell from my posts, I’m not an expert, but it’s not difficult to identify some conditions which might dictate differing approaches to transportation, such as climate, geography, layout of the city, road infrastructure, transportation costs etc.
Further, there are local attitudes and approaches to transportation will affect the viability of different modes of transport. I’ve driven in many places in Italy and Greece where the overall approach to driving is such that you’d be crazy to try to get around on a bike.
“Ian, you’re suggesting Vancouver is different. But you aren’t telling us what those crucial differences are.”
You have misunderstood my point. I’m not asserting that Vancouver is different; rather, I’m asserting that Vancouver is not necessarily the same.
At the end of the day, my position is that we should judge the success or failure of the bike lanes in Vancouver on their merits, not on faith. If you’re right – and I hope you are – we should have, or soon have, plenty of data to support the assertion that the separated bike lanes have been beneficial to the City.
45 JP // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:18 am
Frances,
I don’t recall reading in your article about Peter Judd anything about him leading a gang of ‘extremist’ engineers and blue collar workers. Or Peter spending the day with the ‘Department of Making-up Transportation Figures and Conducting Sham Consultion Processes’. I assume that these were edited out for space.
46 Agustin // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:20 am
I echo the disappointment at the inclusion of this piece in the newspaper and on this blog.
Its purpose is clearly purely incendiary; it brings no substance to the discussion.
47 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:22 am
okay this is hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nMnr8ZirI&playnext=1&list=PL9890790CC89C8684
48 Agustin // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:26 am
@ IanS, #44: “I’m not asserting that Vancouver is different; rather, I’m asserting that Vancouver is not necessarily the same. ”
In other words, you’re strongly saying “maybe”?
49 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:43 am
@Agustin #48,
I’m saying that the fact that a particular program may have worked elsewhere does not necessarily mean that will work in Vancouver.
50 AnnetteF // Feb 9, 2011 at 11:45 am
In light of our current thread, I just decided to cycle along the Dunsmuir bike lane to pick up something at The Bay.
I was consistently joined by other cyclists and when I went to park at the bike racks directly across from the St. Regis, I got the second to last open spot available.
51 Ned // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Wake up people of Troy!
Also, Rob Macdonald is well-known in the development world as the guy who ressurected former mayor wannabee Jim Green of VISION!
Wakee, wakee… Interesting.
52 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:06 pm
For a history of how the car came to dominate North America in particular, I would like to recommend the 2nd chapter of “Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada and the United States” [PDF Transportation Research Board / National Academy of Sciences]
53 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“I’ve driven in many places in Italy and Greece where the overall approach to driving is such that you’d be crazy to try to get around on a bike.’
Interestingly, the Italian government embarked on a multi-million euro program to subsidize the purchase of e-bikes for transportation and due to public interest the program spent its funding in just four weeks. Further, Italy isn’t alone. Spain is investing heavily in cycling infrastructure, recognizing the good sense in providing a cash-strapped populace with economical ways to get around. The money being spent in South Korea to promote cycling is nearly a billion dollars, aiming for 10% of mode share nation-wide.
There are countless other similar examples, all over the world.
Investing in cycling isn’t a radical act. Globally, it’s the norm.
54 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:22 pm
@Chris Keam #53,
If that’s so, I wish the Italians the best of it. I love that country, but the driving in the towns and cities there scares the heck out of me.
“Investing in cycling isn’t a radical act. Globally, it’s the norm.”
That’s a catchy slogan.
No doubt we will soon see plenty of data demonstrating the beneficial effect of the bike lanes in Vancouver and will be able to put this debate behind us.
55 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“If that’s so, I wish the Italians the best of it.”
I’m tempted to assume that’s just a figure of speech, but in case it might be suggested I’ve made a statement without proof:
“Press Release – 1 May 2009
Italian Government Ministry for the Environment Announces Incentives for Purchase of Bicycle, e-Bike and Scooters
For the first time in Europe a government started handing out direct incentives for the purchase of a bicycle or e-Bike. The Italian government, through the Ministry for the Environment, started an incentive scheme which contributes to a maximum of 30% of the retail price of a bicycle or e-Bike. The maximum amount is €700 which is for a bike that retails for € 2,330. This is on average the retail price of a high-end electric bicycle.
According to the Minister for the Environment the incentives are not only for the purchase of bicycles but are also intended for small scooters and for electric Powered Two-Wheelers. They are valid for the whole of 2009. The incentives are based on a governmental budget of €8.75 million to be given to users who purchase a new bicycle or power assisted bicycle, without the need of writing off another vehicle. ”
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/italian-government-subsidizes-bicycles.html
Too bad our federal gov’t isn’t embarking on a similar program. Canada is a leader in e-bike innovation and helping our home-grown companies such as Bionx (Quebec) and Ohm Cycles (Abbotsford) would be a smart move.
56 Matthew // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking abilities would cringe at reading Mr. Macdonalds op-ed. It is full of un-cited and mostly erroneous numbers and stats. Until he can point to a source for his “facts” or mount a serious study to back up his observations, they will remain nothing but the personal opinions of a man with a political agenda.
I am in agreement with one point however: these cycle tracks should never have been labeled as a “trial”.
They should be called what they are: permanent and wonderfully designed improvements to the downtown streetscape.
Sorry Rob, these bike lanes are here to stay.
57 Jot // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm
That article is a disaster. It quotes a few stats, then to back up his own viewpoints he just lists personal observations. That is not reporting, its a rant.
Yesterday I walked down Howe and there were no cars, therefore we should rip out all the roads and turn them to sidewalks. Does that sound like a reasoned argument ? Its the same as saying the earth is flat because when I look out my window it looks flat.
58 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 12:39 pm
@Chris Keam #55,
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest you were making it up.
FWIW, I saw lots of scooters when in Italy the last couple of times, and even rented a scooter in some smaller places. Great way to get around, though I wasn’t brave enough to drive one in any real town or city.
I agree that the government should be encouraging the development and marketing of e-bikes. I also think that more e-bikes and scooters would be a good idea for Vancouver.
59 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@Ian #37
“Yes, I certainly agree that achieving the level of bike usage depicted in the youtube link would be a good thing. However, I’m far from convinced that it will occur here, even in time.”
Only one thing is certain: it WON’T happen if we don’t provide the infrastructure.
It’s amazing how consistent the link is between places that have developed the infrastructure and the use that the infrastructure actually gets. But it does takes time. My biggest fear is that opponents will be able to derail the program in these early days before the benefits become obvious.
If we can get to even half of what they’ve achieved in the Netherlands it will be good news for EVERYBODY. People will look back at the doubters and say “what were they thinking?”.
60 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:06 pm
@Sean #58,
“People will look back at the doubters and say “what were they thinking?”.”
I hope you’re right.
61 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:13 pm
@Sean #58,
“My biggest fear is that opponents will be able to derail the program in these early days before the benefits become obvious.”
I suspect there’s no danger of that. No one seriously believes that the bike lanes are a “trial” in the sense that they are likely to be removed any time soon. Too much money and political capital has been put into them at this point.
FWIW, I do not think the separated bike lanes should be removed, at least not any time soon. If things do go as well as you, and others, believe they will, the efficacy of the lanes will be supported by actual evidence and we can put this debate behind us.
If, OTOH, years from now the argument in support of the bike lanes remains “it works well in Copenhagen”, then I think a reconsideration is in order.
62 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm
@Ian #60
“Too much money and political capital has been put into them at this point. ”
That’s what they said about Toronto’s Transit City plan before Rob Ford got elected…
At least Vancouver has the advantage that it’s municipal policies aren’t dependent on the votes of the entire region.
63 Michael // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Well, I think this is a personal reasonable observation, by the anti-bike-lobby’s logic cars should have been bend a long time ago, considering how often they run stop signs, make illegal turns on red and break the speed limit.
After all, unless car drivers learn how to obey the rules of the road they do not deserve to have any roads.
64 Michael // Feb 9, 2011 at 1:52 pm
It would be very interesting to actually know where a lot of the opponents live.
I always found it curious that there seem to be two or three loudmouths out there who regularly use things like: “some business owners say….” or “people say …”
I did see ONE protest one weekend while the Hornby lane was still under construction, maybe 15 people or so stood with placards on Drake & Burrard talking about the city not respecting the elderly. The main point of contention seemed to have been the perceived loss of a loading zone outside their building (on Drake), though from what I can tell they still have one, they just need to walk 2m more to cross the bike lane now and the other objection seems to have been the removal of a bus stop across the street due to the dedicated bike lane.
I really don’t know how busy that bus stop is / was but within half a block there was at least one other bus stop so I don’t really think it was that much of an inconvenience.
65 Bobbie Bees // Feb 9, 2011 at 2:14 pm
@ Jot 56.
I’ve read Rob’s screed over an over, but I can’t find those stats that you’re alluding to. I can find tons of rhetoric and a lot of anecdotal ‘evidence’, but nothing in the way of stats.
66 George // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:04 pm
@Max 36
Not to worry my friend I haven’t gone anywhere… I’m just biding my time …. watching…
I too don’t bully well, I just play the game differently than some people…. for me it’s about the timing.
I have someone watching my back
no worries,
I like your style Max.. and your level of integrity…
67 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“Rob Macdonald is well-known in the development world as the guy who ressurected former mayor wannabee Jim Green of VISION!”
Yes, and if I’m not mistaken, he is the same developer who went “fishing” for towers in the DES, which led to the ill-fated Historic Area Height Review being launched by the NPA, and is now proposing (with Jim Green’s blessing) the 15 storey tower on a Class-A heritage building (the old Inter-urban railhouse) on Carrall Street.
He is also a major player along the old BC Rail route up Howe Sound.
But back in the old country, the Macdonald and Campbell clans have hated each other for centuries. So I wonder if he favours an inquiry into Campbell’s corrupt sale of BC Rail? My guess is: not on your life!
As Glissy said, it sure is “refreshing” to hear a benevolent developer speaking out with only the best interests of the City at heart…
* * *
On another note, I find Spartikus’ post regarding the censorship taking place on the Sun website to be VERY disturbing.
The blatant editorial bias is bad enough, but we live in a freaking democracy, and Free Expression is our unalienable right.
Shame on the Vancouver Sun!
The dinosaurs seem to be doing everything in their power to hasten their own extinction these days, and Rob Macdonald is clearly one of them.
68 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Shame on the Vancouver Sun!
Most of the comments have now been restored. It looks like there was an organized attempt to troll-rate comments unfavourable to Macdonald’s op-ed.
For IanS – hot off the presses…
Most individuals prefer bicycling separated from motor traffic. However, cycle tracks are discouraged in the USA by engineering guidance that suggests that facilities such as cycletracks are more dangerous than the street. The objective of this study conducted in Montreal was to compare bicyclist injury rates on cycle tracks versus in the street. For six cycle tracks and comparable reference streets, vehicle/bicycle crashes and health record injury counts were obtained and use counts conducted. The relative risk (RR) of injury on cycle tracks, compared with reference streets, was determined. Overall, 2.5 times as many cyclists rode on cycle tracks compared with reference streets and there were 8.5 injuries and 10.5 crashes per million bicycle/km The RR of injury on cycle tracks was 0.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.85) compared with bicycling in reference streets. These data suggest that the injury risk of bicycling on cycle tracks is less than bicycling in streets. The construction of cycle tracks should not be discouraged.
69 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:27 pm
@ Gassy Jack’s Ghost:
I too believe that sensorhsip is undemocratic.
But you missed that people on this thread were asking Frances why she reprinted this op piece or why she reprinted it in it’s entirety.
I refer to Kevin #22 and Agustin #46.
Why shouldn’t she?
70 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm
The issue at the Sun is I believe, that if a comment is tagged three times as offensive, it immediately goes offline for review. The Sun wasn’t censoring, although it would appear someone found the time and manpower to have at least three different online personas go through and ensure any pro-bike lane comments got the requisite three strikes to take them offline.
71 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“The risk of injury for cyclists riding on Montreal bike paths is about 28 per cent lower than for cyclists riding on comparable Montreal roads unprotected from traffic, according to a new study published Wednesday in an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals.”
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Separated+Montreal+bike+paths+lower+risks+riders+study/4253487/story.html#ixzz1DVY7Ik3X
“
72 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Feb 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Yes, I took a rare look at the Sun site and see they’ve been restored.
It is kind of scary, though, that there was apparently a coordinated effort to flag all the pro-bike lane comments. It’s like PAB has infiltrated civic issues too, now.
And Max, I didn’t miss those comments, but I don’t agree with them. Frances can post pictures of her cat for all I care, it’s HER blog.
Of course, that would only bring out the Radical Anti-Cat lobbyists, whom I hear there is a dogfight between Vision and the NPA over, as both sides are courting them for support heading into the fall election. One can only wonder what concessions might be granted…
Woof!
73 IanS // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm
@Spartikus #65,
Nice find. I’m not familiar with the way bike lanes are set up in Montreal, but I would imagine that they are not dissimilar to those in Vancouver.
I look forward to seeing some data in Vancouver to support the conclusion that the bike lanes in Vancouver have increased safety. To date, the only data I’m aware of is the ICBC data, which seemed to reflect an increase in accidents for a few months after installation of the separated bike lane on the bridge.
74 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm
BTW, Chris, as one who likes to bike around town with my young son, safety really is a major plus of seperated bike lanes. I wouldn’t have dared bike downtown in the past with him. Just saying.
Oh, and more fun anectdotes. I confronted an ambulance driver today who parked right in the middle of the seperated Carrall bike lane (even though there were two parking spots open on the other side of the street). He kept walking, but did break stride to shoot me the finger before he disappeared into Vera’s for lunch…
75 Jason // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I HATE jumping into these discussions but….
I just read this article and thought it was interesting as it covers some of the differences between US cyclists and Copenhagen cyclists, including culture, laws, etc.
http://www.svrdesign.com/blog/2010/04/copenhagen-ii-what-separates-us-is-our-separated-bike-lanes/
I found this an interesting fact:
“in Copenhagen bicyclists are required to use cycletracks wherever they exist, and citations are a real possibility for those who choose to ride in traffic with the cars and buses”
I’d be interested to hear from the cycling advocates on this board whether they’d be fine with such an approach in Vancouver. We’ve built the Dunsmuir & Hornby St. bike lanes…it seems to me that it would be a fair requirement that these lanes are now the ONLY lanes used by cyclists on these routes and that tickets are given if cyclists use the car lanes on these streets.
As I stated previously I was driving down Hornby just the other day with an empty bike lane next to me and a cyclists right in front of me in the only remaining car lane….so this DOES happen.
Any argument against implementing this in Vancouver? I mean if we’re apparently just like Copenhagen….
76 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm
“t seems to me that it would be a fair requirement that these lanes are now the ONLY lanes used by cyclists on these routes and that tickets are given if cyclists use the car lanes on these streets.”
What is the problem that this proposed rule would fix? Why do you think it would be fair? Would you suggest we should ticket vehicles with more than one occupant that fail to use an HOV lane?
77 data junkie // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm
“Would you suggest we should ticket vehicles with more than one occupant that fail to use an HOV lane?”
You just spent a great deal of time and energy bloviating here about how absolutely critical and necessary bike lanes are for safety and the green future of all… and now you equate them with thoroughly optional HOV lanes that only exist on major inter-municipal highways?
You are, without a doubt, the best possible “advocate” for bike lanes an anti-bike lane individual could hope for. Keep right on talking, guy.
When Vision gets thoroughly trounced in the next election and the bike lanes are yanked out so that emergency vehicles can actually make it through the downtown core, I’ll have you to partly thank for leading the charge on their advocacy. That, and whoever is advising Gregor on the supposedly pressing need for his midnight sessions.
78 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:52 pm
@Jason #72
“in Copenhagen bicyclists are required to use cycletracks wherever they exist, and citations are a real possibility for those who choose to ride in traffic with the cars and buses
I’d be interested to hear from the cycling advocates on this board whether they’d be fine with such an approach in Vancouver. ”
Speaking as a cyclist, I don’t have a problem with that idea.
The only hesitation I have is in situations where a cyclist might want to make a turn or reach a destination that’s on the opposite side of the street from the cycle path. Might need some special considerations for those types of situations – perhaps something like a bike box for turning cyclists, for example.
79 jason // Feb 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm
“What is the problem that this proposed rule would fix?”
We’re ensuring the maximum safety for cyclists. One of the primary reasons the lanes were built was because they are increasing safety. I point to comment #68 by yourself reinforcing this fact. The city has spent good money to put these lanes in on these routes. By requiring usage we’re getting several benefits: a) reducing the possibility of cycling accidents on these roads b) increasing usage of the lanes we just built c) having an excellent test case to study the positive effects of the lanes. If cycle accidents drop on these routes, we know that the cycle lanes are, in fact, increasing safety as cyclists can only use the separated lanes on these routes.
“Why do you think it would be fair?”
The new cycle lanes, which have removed an entire lane for cars are for BIKES ONLY. If a car drives down the cycle lane, they get ticketed. It seems COMPLETELY fair that the reverse should be true. In fact, I’m not sure how you can state otherwise.
I found it very peculiar that you would have issue with this. I mean you have used Copenhagen perhaps a thousand times as the ultimate example of cycling culture, yet when I suggest implementing a part of their cycling culture your immediate reaction is “No”.
If you believe we should be modeling our city on Copenhagen, why would we ignore this law, that they obviously brought in for good reason.
It seems to me this will greatly enhance cycling safety along these routes Chris. I really don’t understand….are you now suggesting you’re advocating against cycling safety?
80 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Hi Jason:
I’m neither for or against the idea until I can determine a few things:
Is there a need for additional rules? ie, what’s the problem we are trying to solve?
Will the proposed solution address the problem?
Is it consistent with other rules (or lack thereof)?
My immediate opinion is that if you are going to support this idea, then you would also support ticketing automobile drivers using residential streets when they could be using arterials?
With respect, I think you need to come up with a compelling argument ‘for’ this proposed arbitrary restriction on access to public space before I’d give it a closer look.
cheers,
CK
81 Agustin // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:07 pm
@ Max, #66: I’m disappointed because I think the post is of no value. It’s true that Frances can post whatever she wants here, and it’s also true that the Sun can publish whatever they want. But that doesn’t mean that it’s always a good idea.
I generally like the articles and information posted on this blog; generally it offers valuable information and discussion.
In this case, all that was offered was incendiary rhetoric and I voiced my disappointment.
But no biggie. Life goes on, and this blog will continue to be valuable as a whole.
82 Paul // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm
@ Chris Keam
This Survey is yet another example of the level of blindness pro-cycle trackers have. Clearly some form of separation from automobile traffic is important to improve safety for cyclists. However the argument on Hornby Street (in particular) wasn’t that cyclists don’t need a safe facility. The argument was (and still is) that separated bike lanes offer no more protection than a painted bike lane. In fact they lead to HIGHER car/bike collisions in comparison to painted lanes.
This view-point is shared by civil engineers in City Hall (even the ones who haven’t quit yet) and is based on sound scientific evidence. However they were told by their political masters that the studies don’t matter, they want a separated bike lane and that’s the end of that.
The Montreal Survey is fundamentally flawed because it did not even consider painted bike lanes as an option. Because of that, the findings are impossibly skewed.
83 Agustin // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@ Jason, #72: Yep, I’d be good with a rule saying that if a separated cycle lane exists, cyclists must not use the rest of the road there.
I’d throw in some caveats about situations where the lane is blocked (e.g., by an ambulance or construction, or what have you) or if it would be unsafe to use the cycle lane (e.g., in case of flooding or broken glass, or what have you) but in general I think it would be a fine approach.
84 Jacob // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm
If Rob Macdonald says that the bike lanes are a waste of parking space, then I could argue that parking spaces and back yard alleyways are a waste of space. Think about it. >1000 cyclist in a bike lane everyday, <500 vehicles use alley ways each day, <50 cars park at the a space everyday. they all take up the same amount of space, Well, the best use of the space is for cyclists. This unreasearched article is all he can think about destroying the bike lanes. The actual facts and the most important facts he left out are:
1) 99% of the space is for cars.
2)3% of people that go downtown travel by bike
3) cyclists and pedestrians have enjoyed the greening of the street, and a safer ride.
He is also wrong on these points:
1)the bike lanes cost 4.5 million, NOT 25 Million. ONE LEFT TURN BAY at Knight @33 cost 3.2 million.
2)The public input was NOT misleading, there were diagrams clearly drawn, and they did exactly what they proposed.
3) They were not wasting valuable time, and they stood up to their promise. they ended work BEFORE the christmas shopping season. The decision was NOT already decided, they still had to vote.
4)The previous system was workable, but not balanced. There were poor cyclists trying to ride between a large bus (a hard place) and a truck (a hard place). Now, the cycling spaces are 20X more safe.
5)If the cyclist that t boned the truck was in a non separated lane, then they would have been killed. The slow arrival of medical vehicles had nothing to do with the bike lane, it had to do with the huge number of cars.
6) so, Mr macdonald thinks that THE WEALTH OF A BUSINESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING! Well, maybe mr macdonnald should try to ride on burrard during peak hour without the bike lane.
7) MR MACDONALD IS NOT AN AVID CYCLIST. If he was, he would be supporting the bike lanes. It’s just like an environmentalist saying that cars help the environment. Just please, Rob macdonald has no logic in his article that was written in 15 minutes.
85 jason // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Sean…glad to hear it. And I’m sure an easy solution could be arrived at for accessing the other side of the street.
Agustin….I think both of your caveats are more than fair.
Glad SOME cyclists are taking a stance in favor of additional cycling safety. We’ve built the lanes, now we should ensure we get the most out of them.
86 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Jason:
You still haven’t supplied a compelling reason for the change. We ban slow-moving vehicles from freeways for a good reason. We have speed limits for a reason. If a cyclist chooses to ride in traffic and isn’t impeding the flow unduly, it’s hard to fathom the need for a rule mandating a choice most people will make voluntarily, because a few people have their own reasons for choosing a different option.
Again, what is the problem we are solving with this proposed change?
87 jason // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“Is there a need for additional rules? ie, what’s the problem we are trying to solve?”
Did you not read my post? Cycling Safety Chris…increased cycling safety.
“Will the proposed solution address the problem?”
According to YOU (post #68), separated bike lanes increase cycling safety by 28%. By keeping bikes in the lanes and off the roads were potentially saving lives. So yes, according to you, it would address the problem.
Is it consistent with other rules (or lack thereof)?
Again, I’m not sure you read my post. There is a rule on Hornby and Dunsmuir that cycle lanes are for cyclists only. So I would again state that its completely consistent with the rules on those routes.
“With respect, I think you need to come up with a compelling argument ‘for’ this proposed arbitrary restriction on access to public space before I’d give it a closer look.”
So incredibly odd. You advocated VERY strongly for these separated lanes, citing the safety of cyclists as your number one concern. Yet here I propose a policy (utilization of separated bike lanes) that would (by your account) increase cycling safety by at least 28% (post #61) and yet you don’t feel that’s a compelling argument.
So building separated lanes to increase cycling safety was absolutely necessary (according to you), but UTILIZING these same lanes to increase cycling safety is not a position you’re willing to take.
So very odd. I don’t know why you’d waffle on a suggestion that seems so in keeping with the arguments you’ve made in the past Chris.
88 Frances Bula // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Hi all
Glad to see everyone out. You realize that this is just providing Pavlovian reward for me to post more about bicycles. I will try to resist.
Re the issue of not putting up stuff with factual errors. This is a blog. That means it’s the free market of ideas, for good or bad.
It means there’s no gatekeeper, except for violent or libellous stuff. It’s up to everyone to debate. You can either have the MSM all the time (and even they/we don’t do a great job of checking all facts) or you can have a blog, but you can’t have both at the same time.
I try to weigh in when I can if I have pertinent information but it was a busy day (check tomorrow’s Globe and you’ll see why) and everyone seemed to be doing a great job of presenting arguments on all sides.
89 Paul // Feb 9, 2011 at 5:51 pm
@ Jacob…. The plans were clear. They clearly showed the bike lane on the north side of Drake Street. Guess where the bike lane showed up? The South Side. Misleading.
I live on Hornby Street, over a week before the “public hearing” city engineers were out marking where the temporary vehicle lanes would be during construction. That’s in solid paint. You don’t spend time prepping the street unless you’re going ahead with a project.
Again, Painted bike lanes are SAFER than separated bike lanes. God why can’t you pro-cycle track nuts get this through your head. There are NO studies that back up your claims.
and @ Jason
Forget fining cyclists who break the laws. I say impound the bike. Treat it like drunk driving. It’s dangerous. If you want to endanger your own life, you lose your bike. Fines are hard to enforce and even harder to collect. Take the bike away and force them to use a sustainable form a transportation that already has wonderful resources at it’s disposal.
90 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Jason:
You’re not advocating for a rule that increases safety. You’re advocating for a rule that says people are not allowed to take any risks of their own volition. There’s a big difference. The reason for your desire to eliminate that choice seems to be because there’s a safer option. So, what you’re essentially saying is that we should make rules to ensure that no one takes risks when safer options exist. I would suggest to you that that approach isn’t consistent with our rules concerning other high risk activities.
If people want to ride in traffic that’s a choice. It should remain so.
91 Jol // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“Separated Montreal bike paths lower risks to riders: study”
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Separated+Montreal+bike+paths+lower+risks+riders+study/4253487/story.html
92 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:13 pm
While I wait for my supper to finish cooking Jason, consider these variations on your premise:
Buses are statistically safer than cars. We should force people to take the bus when their destination is on a bus route.
Ski hills are safer than the backcountry. People shouldn’t be allowed to go in the backcountry when there is a ski hill in their area.
Salad is better for you than fries. People must order the salad when it’s available.
There’s a line between offering safe alternatives and mandating them. So far, Canadians don’t seem keen on the latter.
93 Paul // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:13 pm
@Chris Keam
What?!?! Which planet are you living on? Cuz here on earth there is a never ending list of laws that are enacted to protect people from themselves.
Drug laws for example. If someone wants to get cracked out on Crystal Meth, that’s illegal.
Selling your organs for profit, that’s illegal.
Suicide, that’s illegal.
I could go on at length, but the fact is society has a long history of protecting human beings from their own stupidity.
Not to mention, if you were a driver involved in a bike on car accident (even if it wasn’t your fault) I’m pretty sure the horror of someone being injured by your vehicle would cause severe emotional stress.
So barring cyclists from riding in the streets when a safer option exists should certainly be legislated. I just wish the safer option was indeed the safest option.
94 Agustin // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm
@ Chris Keam, #90: I understand what you are saying about allowing people to make the choice to ride in amongst the cars, and Jason’s points have indeed been about safety.
But I think there’s another side, as well. We are trying to get from Point A to Point B and do it in a manner that allows everyone to travel as safely and efficiently as possible. That’s why we have separated pedestrian lanes, (in the case of Hornby and others) separated cycle lanes, and separated motorised vehicle lanes.
I’d argue that for the same reason that we wouldn’t want pedestrians using the separated cycle or motorised vehicle lanes, we probably don’t want people on bicycles using the separated motorised vehicle lanes. I believe it’s a small restriction on the people on bicycles that allows the people in motorised vehicles to travel more efficiently.
95 Agustin // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:18 pm
@ Frances, #88: I think you could achieve the same effect by publishing a post that says “Bicycles. Begin discussion.”
96 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm
@Chris #90: “You’re not advocating for a rule that increases safety. You’re advocating for a rule that says people are not allowed to take any risks of their own volition.”
I gotta agree with Jason on this one. Bicycles aren’t allowed on sidewalks because it’s deemed to be less safe. If a dedicated road space has been provided for bikes, I don’t see why cyclists shouldn’t be required to use it. It seems reasonably fair to me. I’m not seeing where this substantially affects a cyclist’s ability to get where he’s going, assuming we provide for the reasonable exceptions that have been mentioned already.
97 mezzanine // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Looking at the Gordon Price link above wrt Rob McDonald being in the recent gran fondo thus making him an ‘avid cyclist’, this is what Voony had to say in the Pricetags comments..
“To be a recreational cyclist and [to be] against cycling as a “transportation mean” is unfortunately not a paradox. Like the “Tour de France” GranFondo doesn’t do anything for the cyclist commuter cause”.
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/bikes-and-business-4/
98 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:27 pm
@Paul #89
“Painted bike lanes are SAFER than separated bike lanes. God why can’t you pro-cycle track nuts get this through your head.”
Because it’s completely counter-intuitive to virtually everyone who actually rides bikes in both types of bike lanes.
It almost doesn’t matter whether they’re actually safer or not – you’re simply not going to get more people riding bikes unless they FEEL safer. There are a lot of drivers who won’t fly despite the countless studies telling them they’re idiots.
99 jason // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Thank you Paul, Agustin, Sean…you’ve all further articulated my point very well.
Again Chris, still rather shocked on the position you’re taking, especially given your previous posts on cycling safety. Very inconsistent.
100 Richard // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Too bad Mr. MacDonald didn’t wait just one more day before writing.
A study in Montreal has confirmed that the two-way separated bike lanes there that are very similar to Vancouver’s lower the risks to cycling.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Bike+paths+lower+risks+riders+study/4253487/story.html
101 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:51 pm
@Paul
“Drug laws for example. If someone wants to get cracked out on Crystal Meth, that’s illegal.
Selling your organs for profit, that’s illegal.
Suicide, that’s illegal.”
Sadly, those laws make little difference in people’s behaviour and in many cases only make things worse.
When people suggest a law because ‘it’s only fair’ and their rationale is that they have one documented case of the problem, I’d suggest it’s a solution in search of a problem.
102 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Jason:
My position is that people should have safe options. You’ll notice I never say that people should be forced from their cars despite the dangers of auto travel, or forced to wear a helmet while showering if they don’t have rubberized grippy flowers on the bottom of their tub. In fact, I’m quite comfortable with people taking untoward risks. My position on this is entirely consistent with my overall attitude towards life, which is that fewer laws are better than more, and freedoms should be defended vigorously. I support separated lanes because the data indicates they increase options for people and encourage cycling, not because I think the world needs to be bubble-wrapped.
103 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 7:01 pm
@ Jason #79
Have you not figure C. Keam out yet??
He is a proponent of do as I say and not as I do.
It is his modus oprendi
104 Baran // Feb 9, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Failing to provide any sources of data to back up his claims, Rob McDonald loses credibility in a handful of ways. Besides, if you really want to look at whether the bike lanes are working or not, you have do a proper cost-benefit analysis and look at its performance over a few seasons. He doesn’t do either. His point of view is so skewed to the extreme-right, that he risks being an extremist himself.
Such a shame that a daily newspaper publishes such non-factual article and accepts no responsibility the credibility of what they publish.
105 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm
“So building separated lanes to increase cycling safety was absolutely necessary (according to you), but UTILIZING these same lanes to increase cycling safety is not a position you’re willing to take. ”
Sorry, but that’s incorrect. If someone were to ask for my recommendation, I would suggest they utilize the separated lanes. I’m not willing to mandate it as a rule, because I don’t think it will be necessary. If the rule you propose doesn’t scale, or work in any other context, then chances are it’s unnecessary.
What you are suggesting IMO is that because you feel one group has had something taken from them (although there’s no restriction on cars travelling on Hornby or Dunsmuir, simply a barrier separating one lane for the use different road users) that it’s now ‘fair’ to take away something from the other side.
Given that there’s no indication that the situation is proving commonplace, there’s little reason to create a rule to address a non-existent problem.
106 Jacob // Feb 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm
@paul,
Oh yes there are numerous studies that show that separated lanes provide a much safer commute for cyclists, as of today: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.full.pdf?sid=a2ed422a-9dbe-409a-b762-40e0ffbcedc6
And, another study,
from price tags:
CYCLING SAVINGS IN SYDNEY
From Transport Newsletter 180:
“Sydney’s cycleways will save the city millions of dollars in travel time, pollution and fatalities over the next 30 years, a new report suggests.
Economists put a dollar value on factors surrounding the cycleways: Human life ($165,659 per year), health ($487 per year), and sitting in gridlock ($12.20 per hour). By crunching the numbers, top global economists AECOM found that over 30 years the paths would save Sydney $507 million – or 84c per kilometre.
… the report predicted the now empty bike lanes would be busy once the network was finished with demand skyrocketing 263% in the next six years.
Less congested streets would save $97 million, speedier journeys $143 million, fewer road deaths $40 million, slashed absenteeism $107 million, and ‘journey ambience’ – less stress for cyclists – would save $129.8 million.
“Significant benefits will be accrued by individuals, government and the general economy through the full development of the network’, the Economic Appraisal of the Inner Sydney Regional Bicycle Network said. ‘Travellers stand to benefit through travel time savings, avoided car costs, journey ambience and health benefits at the cost of a relatively small increase in accident costs’.
‘Cycleways are part of the transport solution For every $1 spent on cycleways, the benefit to our economy is approximately $4 – that’s compared with an average of $2 for motorways’.
In short, money spent on cycling always pays off.
107 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm
sorry, above post directed to Jason.
108 Andrea C. // Feb 9, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Sorry, but the rant this sorry developer made to the UDI a couple of years ago not so much “went around like wildfire” as “went off like he set his own hair on fire”.
Those of you who are crowing about voting for this guy should first consider this classic post from the much-missed Condohype:
http://condohype.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/red-menace-will-destroy-us-says-developer/
109 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Those of you who are crowing about voting for this guy should first consider this classic post from the much-missed Condohype
Oh my…
Macdonald said the New Democrats are a party beholden to “big public sector unions” that have been “taken over by a mixed bag of Marxist, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists and Castroites.”
Sigh…Tito never gets any love. And here he is in 2007:
Macdonald echoed his claim of a year ago that B.C. will go through an unprecedented “golden decade.”
Prescient!
110 Glissando Remmy // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:07 pm
The Thought of The Day
“When in Bruges, I want to climb up Belfrey Tower…on a Jacques Brel chanson playing in the background. When in London, I want to eat fish and chips by the Thames with Michael Caine. When in Copenhagen, I want to discover Vesterbro by bike and shop till dawn. When in Rome, I want to speak like an Italian with a Fiat 600. When in Paris, I want to soak in the sun and sip a cafe’ at Les Deux Magots, waiting for Godot. La Boca, Recoleta, Puerto Madero, San Telmo, Palermo, El Centro power walks, when in Buenos Aires. New York? I’ll pass. Last I heard, Robertson and Magee lost their BO in there…”
So, what am I saying here? People of Vancouver, STOP comparing your city with the ones above! If you want Vancouver to have a little bit of scent from everywhere, I have news for you. It’s already been done.
It’s loud, it’s kitschy, it’s the place where you go one way and your money goes the other, it’s in the middle of nowhere and they called it …Las Vegas.
There they have a bit of everything, though, I’m not sure of the success rate of their bike lobbyists.
Anyway, this time next year, I know I’ll miss Penny…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHi5apc1lQ
…when in Bruges.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
111 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Chris Keam post # 90
Jason:
You’re not advocating for a rule that increases safety. You’re advocating for a rule that says people are not allowed to take any risks of their own volition. There’s a big difference. The reason for your desire to eliminate that choice seems to be because there’s a safer option. So, what you’re essentially saying is that we should make rules to ensure that no one takes risks when safer options exist. I would suggest to you that that approach isn’t consistent with our rules concerning other high risk activities.
If people want to ride in traffic that’s a choice. It should remain so.
**************
GREAT, then why in the Lord’s name are we wasting money on bike lanes, whe in your own words, it is a matter of choice and personal risk?????
112 Max // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:28 pm
@ George #66
Hey buddy, you had be truly worried!
I am tres happy all is okay….:)
113 jason // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“What you are suggesting IMO is that because you feel one group has had something taken from them (although there’s no restriction on cars travelling on Hornby or Dunsmuir, simply a barrier separating one lane for the use different road users) that it’s now ‘fair’ to take away something from the other side.”
Actually no Chris, I’m continuing an advocacy for cycling safety…an argument that you have used since day one for the separated lanes but now seem to have abandoned.
And yes Chris, there is a law in place “restricting” cars from using the bike lane. So you are wrong on that as well.
And I suppose you are fine then with Pedestrians using the bike lane and the street? I mean just because we have a sidewalk, why should we restrict pedestrians from walking wherever they please…they should be allowed to take their life in their own hands, regardless of how dangerous it might be. Wait, you don’t like that analogy?
Your argument makes absolutely no sense Chris. I think you simply want it your way no matter how inconsistent your position is. I think we’re all now very clear how truly concerned you are with cycle safety – You’re concerned about it right up to the point where you have to give anything up to achieve it.
114 Everyman // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:22 pm
@Chris Keam 53
I’m sure if the Italian gov’t or our gov’t decided to subsidize purchase of cars (electric or otherwise) there would be great public interest in that too. IMHO if any “idea” needs to be subsidized by gov’t, its a sure sign the people don’t really want it (or they’d pay for it themselves).
Interesting to read the near-hysterical blowback from the bicycling lobby against Macdonald’s editorial.
115 Paul // Feb 9, 2011 at 9:48 pm
@Jacob
You clearly missed my early post about the survey done in Montreal. The survey is CRITICALLY flawed because it compared bike tracks to riding on the road. It didn’t even consider the option of a painted bike lane.
The argument on Hornby Street wasn’t about bike’s on the road. The argument was about taking a perfectly good painted bike lane and changing into a death trap by putting up barriers.
116 Sean // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:14 pm
@Paul #115
Ah yes, “death traps”.
From what I’ve been able to gather the safety studies are contradictory and inconclusive. A large part of the problem seems to be in comparing differing types of infrastructure.
Calling separated lanes “death traps” has the ring of desperation – do you have any actual data to back up your hyperbole?
One interesting report from Gordon Price’s blog: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901747
“On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport.”
117 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Jason:
Pedestrians and cyclists share space all over Vancouver on the Seawall, the Endowment Lands, and sections of the Central Valley Greenway and the 7-11 trail that follows the Skytrain out to Burnaby. So, just as there are places where that’s appropriate, and places where it’s not (sidewalks) it’s also appropriate that there be places where cars and bikes share space, such as Tenth Ave, and places where they don’t, such as the downtown separated lanes. I will also note that just a few days ago you offered up this sage observation in another thread regarding pedestrian safety.
“Interesting that perhaps some intelligent urban design coupled with some common courtesy and respect for all modes of transport might achieve the desired result, rather than endless rules, regulations and restrictions.”
As for my position, there’s no inconsistency between wanting safe options for people, and not wishing to create rules where none are needed. It certainly isn’t a contradiction of my desire for safer cycling infrastructure to be made available in the city. I certainly don’t think a single incident in which there was no safety issue involved, or at least not one that you have articulated to this point, should call for a wholesale change to the rules of the road.
118 Richard // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm
@ Paul 115
Your ignoring the fact that Hornby is a two-way path replacing the painted lane AND enabling some people to avoid the “suicide bike lane” where cyclists between buses and cars on busy Burrard Street.
It is really hard to argue that the Hornby painted lane was “perfectly good”. It was next to parked cars so cyclists risked being doored, between Robson and Georgia, cyclists where stuck between right turning cars and those going straight and at hotel, buses and cabs where always stopping in the bike lane.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Hornby lane is a “death trap” or even a “minor injury trap”. All it seems to be is a “faulty argument against bike lanes trap”
119 Chris Keam // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:32 pm
@Everyman:
I don’t think anyone is going to spend upwards of a thousand Euros on something they don’t really want. Similar programs such as the U.S ‘cash for clunkers’ program also met with success. Should we draw the conclusion therefore that people don’t really want cars unless they come with a gov’t rebate?
120 Paul // Feb 9, 2011 at 10:56 pm
@ Richard – Do your research before you discount solid statistical evidence.
Other countries have had negative results from cycle tracks: UK ( http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html ) Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in up to 12-fold increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1990 European conference on cycling, the term Russian roulette was used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths. http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/adfc173.htm
In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on roads with traffic than when using the city’s 800 kilometres (500 mi) of cycle paths. ( http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm ) The Berlin police and Senate conducted studies which led to a similar conclusion in the 1980s. ( http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html ) In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths, but these produce 75% of fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists.
In the English town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the off-road Milton Keynes redway system have on a per-journey basis a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists on ordinary roads. Cycle lanes and bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban situations. Incidentally, cycle lanes have been credited with reducing pedestrian crossing crash numbers by up to 30%.
121 The Fourth Horseman // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:50 am
(Enters, panting…)
“Hi everyone! Lemme catch my breath here..phew…just got back from casino expansion info session; mark me down as a “NO!”…
“So…whadidimiss? Hmmmm…
OK, ‘bye!”
122 The Fourth Horseman // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:58 am
http://tinyurl.com/45ofuz8
G’d night, everybody!
123 spartikus // Feb 10, 2011 at 7:50 am
@4th Horseman
I see your Portlandia, and raise you this surveillance tape of the NPA nomination meeting.
124 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 7:52 am
Ok Chris, no need to go on about this I think we’re all clear on your position:
Your for modeling our city on Copenhagen’s biking infrastructure – provided you can pick and choose which aspects of their biking infrastructure, as you don’t want us to copy any of their laws that may in anyway impede on you as a cyclist.
Your for bicycle safety – provided you don’t have to give anything up to accomplish it.
Thanks for clarifying Chris. Consistent as always.
125 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 8:18 am
Jason:
Make a case why it’s necessary to change the rules for everyone because you saw one cyclist not using a separated lane and then maybe your flip-flop in favour of “endless rules, regulations and restrictions” won’t look quite so much like a person simply looking to find things to argue about rather than a genuine effort to improve cycling safety. While you’re doing that, please address my other examples such as why you aren’t calling for penalties for people who don’t use HOV lanes when they have enough people in their car. Tell us why you won’t support legislation outlawing people cutting through neighbourhoods when there’s arterials just a block away. Maybe you’d like to add a new law that requires boaters wear lifejackets at all times, not just have them in their boat? Heck, let’s make one that sez no ice cream unless you eat your broccoli.
Creating laws because you think ‘it’s only fair’ is the worst possible way to run a system of laws.
First you establish there’s a problem. Then you articulate a solution. Then, and only with lots of thought and discussion, should you consider restricting individual freedoms.
I’m sorry you feel it’s necessary to continue a flawed argument after I’ve clearly explained my my position isn’t inconsistent with a desire to give people safe cycling options. Perhaps if you can build a stronger case for your proposal and explain the problem it addresses and why another law will fix it, it would gain more traction in my mind.
thanks,
CK
126 Sean // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:36 am
@Paul #120
“Other countries have had negative results from cycle tracks”
Yes, well I could just have easily picked out the favourable studies from the same Wikipedia article. The state of such things is that dueling studies will lead to a draw. But I suspect that once the number of modern studies start to outnumber the 20- and 30-year old studies we may find that the balance tilts, because:
- cycling numbers have gone up over time – it’s clear from many studies that cyclists are safer when there’s a lot of them and drivers have become used to looking for them.
- more modern safety measures such as bike boxes and bike signals are factored into the mix.
In the meantime, cyclists prefer separated cycle paths because they eliminate the two big dangers of ordinary streets or painted bike lanes that cyclists CANNOT CONTROL:
- being doored by someone getting out of their car
- being hit from behind
It’s THOSE fears that keep many people OFF their bicycles, and that’s why separated bike lanes WILL draw more people onto bikes.
127 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:38 am
Chris,
Many others on this thread clearly understand what I am suggesting, agree that it makes sense, and have no problem wrapping their head around why. So I think my argument is anything but “flawed”…in fact, I don’t see anyone else agreeing with YOUR point of view. Copenhagen implemented this law to increase cycling safety, so I didn’t pull this out of thin air…there is a good precedent set as to the benefits. So perhaps a little self reflection, as to why you’re so adamantly against something that would increase cycling safety, is in order.
Again, you’ve made your position clear Chris…it’s completely inconsistent with everything you’ve advocated for in the past, but that’s fine. I’m not going to spend my time trying to convince the inconvincible.
Anyway, back to the discussion…I think before I changed the subject you were discussing how we should model our city on Copenhagen…please go on.
128 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:38 am
If Chris has the right to ride his fixie on the road instead of in his multi-million-dollar bike lane, I want the right to drive my car on the sidewalk.
After all, people have the right to assume whatever risks they want!
Except, you know, HELMET LAWS.
129 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
Also: the City of Winnipeg used to have mandatory licensing for bicyclists, including a little license plate. Given the fact that bicyclists are vehicles under law, I see no reason we shouldn’t have bike licensing through ICBC so that they are insured and monitored just like people on motorcycles.
130 spartikus // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:47 am
the City of Winnipeg used to have mandatory licensing for bicyclists, including a little license plate.
Then you should know what Winnipeg’s bike registration is for. Hint: It isn’t insurance or monitoring.
131 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:49 am
lol Sparty, so that’s what Sean Bickerton looks like!
132 Mark Allerton // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:52 am
Actually, Jason, I agree with Chris’s point of view.
It’s obvious to any previous observer of your behavior on this forum that you have no actual interest in cycling safety in the downtown area and are just attempting to troll Chris yet again.
Chris has you completely and utterly nailed in his comment 105. You actually lost this argument a very long time ago and it’s rather pathetic to see how long you are able to convince yourself you are still winning.
133 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:56 am
Then you should know what Winnipeg’s bike registration is for. Hint: It isn’t insurance or monitoring.
Did you even read what I said? The city of Winnipeg USED to have proper licensing.
http://www.manitobaplates.com/collections.wpgbicycle.php
Honestly, that took five seconds on Google. You might want to try that sometime to avoid embarrassing your side of the debate.
134 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 am
Jason:
The only flaw in your solution is the lack of problem for it to address. Think about it.
135 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:04 am
Honestly, the level of bush-league political naivety on display here is almost bad enough to set a new high water mark for my cynicism.
Vision rammed the bike lanes through without any kind of consultation or broad mandate, and disrupted traffic on Dunsmuir and Hornby, to pander to a tiny base of cycle activists. Every day, people in Vancouver see this, and see how ghostly empty these lanes are, and are reminded. I’m hardly a biased party here- I don’t even own a car! I can’t even imagine how pissed I’d be if I was a F-150 driving Bill Good fan. Makes GOTV a lot easier to accomplish!
Municipal elections coalesce around issues. If you actually think that this fiasco was a smart or successful move from a political standpoint, you honestly don’t belong in politics of any kind. The perception of ‘boondoggle’, be it fast ferries or a bridge to nowhere, STICKS. The fact that this particular boondoggle appeals to a constituency of a couple hundred people just makes it all the more deliciously incompetent.
This is what happens when you try to air-drop a political party into a mature polity with the help of a little American largesse. Mind-boggling.
136 spartikus // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05 am
Your citing a program that was discontinued 30 years ago and I’m the one who is supposed to be embarrassed?
What were the license plates for, btw?
Was it monitoring and insurance?
137 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:11 am
Data Junkie:
“If Chris has the right to ride his fixie on the road instead of in his multi-million-dollar bike lane, I want the right to drive my car on the sidewalk.
After all, people have the right to assume whatever risks they want!”
What risk do you assume by driving a car on the sidewalk?
138 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:15 am
Getting sued for hitting somebody, of course!
If you object to the disparity of risk, how about: cyclists should have the right to ride on the sidewalk. Motorcyclists too, since if they hit a person at speed they’d be at risk of death or serious injury as well.
And clearly, pedestrians should have the right to walk in the street. Any situation with a disparity of risk should be legal!
139 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:21 am
“Your citing a program that was discontinued 30 years ago and I’m the one who is supposed to be embarrassed?”
So because it’s old (and it proved workable for nearly a hundred years), we shouldn’t try modernizing it for today’s context?
I… still don’t think you are helping your side of the debate, to put it nicely.
If cycling advocates want to push for it to become a major form of transportation, it stands to reason that safety and responsible use should also become larger priorities. Using a registration and plating system, along with mandatory insurance via ICBC, would go a long way to quelling the sense a lot of people have that cyclists want all of the respect and none of the duties of responsible road use.
Example: yesterday, on her way to work, my wife was nearly hit by a cyclists who was riding at high speed on the Hornby sidewalk instead of the bike lane. If she had been hit by a car and missed work, she would be entitled to compensation for lost wages and any rehab she needed. How is a bicycle that we are spending millions on providing proper infrastructure for any different?
140 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:22 am
“how long you are able to convince yourself you are still winning.”
Mark, this is a discussion…there’s no winning.
Chris is perfectly entitled to his opinion, no matter how inconsistent it is with other things he’s said. If he needs to recruit you, once again, to enter the discussion and defend his position so he’s not off on an island alone with his opinion, so be it.
As I’ve already said, I’ve presented my point of view, others understood it, thought it made sense, was fair, and agreed with me. Convincing Chris to change his point of view is not my concern. Chris is more than welcome to continue to state his point of view….I’ve made my point.
141 IanS // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:25 am
@Data Junkie #139,
You write: ..”, along with mandatory insurance via ICBC…”.
As was discussed on an earlier thread, many cyclists are already covered through their homeowners or renters insurance policies. No need for ICBC.
If cycling ever does become a significant mode of transportation, I’d tend to agree that making insurance mandatory is a good idea. I don’t think we’re there yet, though.
142 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:27 am
“Chris is perfectly entitled to his opinion, no matter how inconsistent it is with other things he’s said. ”
And Jason is perfectly entitled to misrepresent my opinion in an attempt to justify his flip-flop and expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
I’m not recruiting anyone Jason. You just can’t quit me can ya dawg?
If this were a movie I’d dub it Brokeback Bike Lane.
143 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:31 am
@IanS #141
“Many” is not “all”, however, and ad-hoc personal insurance lacks the comprehensive tracking, reporting, and… consequences, shall we say, of the ICBC vehicle database.
I have personally seen a cyclist blow through a red light and cause a minor fender-bender between two cars who had the right of way. HER insurance should pay for that, not the two poor slobs in the cars, or the general public at large.
IIRC, the Winnipeg system was designed so that you didn’t have access to dedicated cycle infrastructure unless you had the plate. If we’re going to keep building bike lanes, be they separate or painted, I’d like to see the same system + enforcement. No need to license kids on tricycles, but bike couriers on the other hand…
144 spartikus // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:39 am
IIRC, the Winnipeg system was designed so that you didn’t have access to dedicated cycle infrastructure unless you had the plate.
I have a question in to the Winnipeg Public Library to confirm that.
Winnipeg had dedicated cycling infrastructure from 1908 to 1982? Interesting.
145 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 10:45 am
Bike Couriers have number plates and a skills test to pass, yet they are rarely held up as paragons of safe cycling.
146 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:14 am
“If this were a movie I’d dub it Brokeback Bike Lane.”
Chris….while I completely support equal rights for individuals of your sexual orientation, please don’t confuse that with me being of the same sexual orientation.
And while I hate to burst your delusions of grandeur, if you scroll up you might notice that this discussion started after I asked a question that was in no way directed at you. Like normal, you were the first to respond to my post.
I’m sure you’re a wonderful fellow Chris, but I’m sorry, you’re not my type. I prefer girl cyclists.
So lets please move on….I’m sure others find your post just as creepy as I do.
147 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:26 am
Geez Jason, the only ‘straight’ answer you’ve given me is to a question I didn’t ask.
Don’t evade the only question that matters. What problem does your solution address?
148 Sean // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:33 am
@data junkie #143
“IIRC, the Winnipeg system was designed so that you didn’t have access to dedicated cycle infrastructure unless you had the plate.”
Do you understand that the Winnipeg licensing system doesn’t have anything to do with insurance, and it wouldn’t do a thing for your wife if she were hit by a cyclist?
I think what you’re asking for isn’t mandatory licensing, it’s mandatory insurance. Given how much less of an issue injuries caused by cyclists are, and given that the vast majority of cyclists are already covered through their homeowner and rental insurance policies, I’m not sure that’s really necessary – but please at least get your arguments straight.
By the way, if you’re that concerned about your wife, you should really be buying here ICBC’s “underinsured motorist protection” for $25/year. It’s a lot more likely that she’ll need that than the insurance a cyclist carries.
149 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:36 am
Chris…walk away. You’re the only one here obsessing about this. Again, I’ve already made my point. Let’s agree to disagree…we can even give extra points to you for “creepiness” if you’d like.
If you would like an answer to your last question, PLEASE reread my previous posts. I’ve answered that question 3 times already.
Some people just can’t let go…
150 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:38 am
Do you understand that the Winnipeg licensing system doesn’t have anything to do with insurance, and it wouldn’t do a thing for your wife if she were hit by a cyclist?
I think this finally confirms that bicycling advocates are illiterate. Or at least, unable to differentiate differences in space/time, like “past” versus “present”.
I know it’s really hard to understand this, Sean, but Winnipeg used to do something different than what they do today. I prefer the old system, and cited it as a building block of what I’d ideally like to see today.
The current system in Winnipeg is irrelevant and was never cited by anyone but people with reading comprehension problems.
Good god, people.
151 data junkie // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:42 am
I’ll make it even easier for some of you:
1) Winnipeg used to use license plates for bikes.
2) Using a similar system, B.C. could license and regulate bikes the way they do cars.
3) Part of this system could (and in my opinion, should) involve nominal insurance to cover biker-caused accidents.
But please, tell me again how the Winnipeg system of today has nothing to do with insurance. That’s just so… totally relevant. /eyeroll
152 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:50 am
Jason:
You’ve provided reasons why you think you’re idea is a good one. But, you haven’t articulated a need for the solution. I understand why you would want to avoid further discussion, but really, if you believe turnabout is fair play, considering the strong case made for improving cycling facilities, it’s not unrealistic to ask you to provide a better rationale for new legislation limiting choice, beyond citing a single example completely lacking in any context.
That’s my chief objection to your idea. It’s unnecessary. When you make a case that it’s needed, or likely to bring about a positive change, I’ll probably reevaluate my perspective.
153 Paul // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:52 am
@Chris Keam…. Come on man, buck up. Admit that your arguments don’t jive on this one.
On one hand you are vocalizing your support for separated bike lanes because they are “safer.”
However on the other hand you refuse to legislate people to actually use the safer option when it’s there. Which would without a doubt improve safety.
The idea of legislating mandatory use of a separated bike lane when one exists is no different from jay walking laws. Rarely enforced, but for the most part they are adhered to.
154 spartikus // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@data junkie
Unfortunately we can read. Your rationales and claims are continually shifting and you are being called on it.
#129 – Winnipeg had mandatory licenses (no reason for license given). We should institute licenses here for insurance and monitoring.
#143 – Winnipeg licenses were to access dedicated cycle infrastructure. Cyclist here shouldn’t be allowed on dedicated cycling infrastructure without a license. We should license bike couriers.
Presumably unlicensed non-courier cyclists would be allowed to use regular roads. Meanwhile, licensed bike couriers wouldn’t use dedicated cycling infrastructure.
#151 – Winnipeg had a license plate system (no reason for license given). We should institute that similar system here like we do for cars, which are licensed here primarily for insurance.
But per your earlier statements we are not to conclude that you are citing Winnipeg’s old system as support for insurance. Because if we did we are illiterate.
Facts pointed out to you:
1. Most cyclists are already covered by ICBC. 2. Couriers are already licensed.
Factual claims made by you:
1. Winnipeg’s license system was to access dedicated cycling infrastructure.
I am in the process of confirming that with WPL and the Manitoba Historical Society.
155 Sean // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:15 pm
@data junkie #151
“1) Winnipeg used to use license plates for bikes.”
And even back then it didn’t have anything to do with insurance, any more than Vancouver’s system of bike registration and numbered stickers did in the 1970′s.
If you want an insurance system, fine – but please remember that insurance and registration are two different things. If they weren’t then licensed motorists wouldn’t be required to carry proof of insurance with them (i.e., those from other jurisdictions where entities like ICBC haven’t taken over the role of both).
156 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:16 pm
@Paul:
You just penned how many posts telling one and all that separated lanes aren’t safer than mixing with traffic, and now you’re telling me that mandating their use would be ‘undoubtedly’ safer?
What if someone shares your viewpoint (assuming you still hold to this contention) that they’re better off riding amongst cars because they think it’s a safer, more visible place to be? Shouldn’t they have that option?
157 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Chris, this is honestly my last post on this subject as I feel we’re monopolizing the conversation with childish back and forth.
“beyond citing a single example completely lacking in any context.” While I completely disagree that this is all I’ve done, I find it ironic that this is your argument. You have repeatedly used Copenhagen as a “cycling model” and have vehemently argued that citing that city as an example is perfectly acceptable. Now you don’t like it because it doesn’t support your point of view.
“I’ll probably reevaluate my perspective.”
I have yet to see you reevaluate your perspective on any subject discussed. I therefore am not going to spend any more of my time hoping this is the rare occasion when you actually consider an alternate point of view.
I also honestly don’t care if you change your perspective Chris. Let’s leave it at that.
I’ll now leave you with the last word, as I know how important it is to you.
158 Sean // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Chris / Jason / et al:
Chris has some valid points rooted in the philosophy of the legal system.
Jason and others have reasonable observations on the practical aspects.
But as long as your opinions are coming from such different aspects of the issue you guys are never going to agree…
159 IanS // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:29 pm
As part of its purported eevillll anti-bike campaign, the Vancouver Sun has today printed a rebuttal by Geoff Meggs. Here’s the link: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/men/Separated+lanes+crucial+raising+cycling+share/4256631/story.html
160 Paul // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:34 pm
@ Chris Keam…. You’re right I don’t believe they are any safer. Studies show they are not.
I am simply putting forward your position that they are safer. Well if they are safer (as sidewalks are safer for pedestrians) why not legislate cyclists to use them when they exist?
And you are not riding in traffic in a painted bike lane. You’re riding on the same road surface and are clearly visible to vehicle drivers, in your own lane.
161 The Fourth Horseman // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:53 pm
LOL, sparty @122
Mike McGee called—he wants his jacket back!
162 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Paul:
Some people don’t think airbags are safer. Despite the fact all new cars must have them, we also provide ways to disable them. It comes down to choice. There’s been no case made that cyclists NOT using bike lanes is an issue. Until there is, there’s no need to mandate such, and reduce choice. If and when there was some reason to think it might become a safety issue, then that’s the appropriate time to consider inflicting on the taxpayer the added expense and debate necessary to change the law.
163 Mark Allerton // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:10 pm
@IanS 159
Was amused that the Sun put the response from Meggs (a transportation cyclist) under “Men’s Health” while putting Macdonald’s (a recreational cyclist) under “Travel”.
164 IanS // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:14 pm
It did? Heh.. both seem somewhat inappropriate.
In the print version, which was where I saw the piece, it was on the Issues and Opinions page.
165 Sean // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:18 pm
@Paul #160
“And you are not riding in traffic in a painted bike lane. You’re riding on the same road surface and are clearly visible to vehicle drivers, in your own lane”
Oh, but you are. Cars and delivery trucks regularly block the bike lane, forcing cyclists into the vehicle lanes (see: http://www.mybikelane.com/). Poorly parked cars often require you to enter the traffic lane in order to avoid their door zone. And vehicles regularly make incursions into the bike lane to turn, to park, or just because they’re not paying attention.
And as for “plainly visible” – well that doesn’t stop cars from hitting each other, or even from hitting trucks and buses which are plainly a lot MORE visible than a lowly cyclist.
I gotta admit, though, that painted bike lanes are still a helluva lot better than those gosh-awful “sharrows”.
166 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:20 pm
@Jason:
“You have repeatedly used Copenhagen as a “cycling model” and have vehemently argued that citing that city as an example is perfectly acceptable. Now you don’t like it because it doesn’t support your point of view.”
Not at all. You’ve offered up one part of Copenhagen’s approach to cycling and assumed that we must embrace an all or nothing approach. Yet, you’ve provided no context. Why did Copenhagen make that decision? Was it in response to a problem? Is it addressing the problem? Do we have the same problem, or a pressing need to ‘head it off at the pass’?
It’s your proposal. You need to build a case for it. You haven’t done that IMO.
As much as you’d like to think my position is based on sheer dogmatism, I’ve clearly explained why I think a new law is unnecessary and my rationale for that perspective.
You asked us what we thought of your idea. People responded. Some think it’s a good idea. Some don’t. Clearly it’s more complex that simply mimicking Copenhagen at every step, and using that city as an example by no means makes adopting every rule they have a necessary component of taking the parts that work for us.
167 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:39 pm
BTW Jason, I’m still getting a giggle from the fact you assume a movie reference implies this cowboy prefers bulls to heifers. Glad I didn’t choose a quote from Old Yeller!
168 Paul // Feb 10, 2011 at 1:43 pm
To the best of my knowledge cars are designed so that it is actually tremendously difficult to turn off the air bag Chris. The only situation where it may be acceptable to turn off the passenger side air bag is where you may have a child in the passenger seat, where studies have shown they are at a greater risk of injury with the airbag on.
I’m not sure about the legalities of deactivating the air bag in Canada, but I certainly know tampering with a cars safety systems is illegal in the US.
169 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Paul:
I did quick check before I used it as an example. To my knowledge, Transport Canada recommends against doing so without good reason, but I can find no indication it’s against the law.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp13178-menu-124.htm
170 Paul // Feb 10, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Did you also look up the conditions on automotive makers for permission to build or import cars into Canada? They must make it difficult to bypass safety systems. Therefore a law is probably moot, since the average person wouldn’t go to the trouble of disabling the system. This is a situation where technology is efficient at solving a problem and legislation is not required.
If you could figure out a technology that would keep cyclists in bike lanes then you would have a leg to stand on. But where technology fails, you have to have laws.
This is a long drawn out conversation about really a minor point though Chris. You are vehemently trying to argue the safety of bike lanes, it strikes me as odd that you wouldn’t be so in favour of passing a law that would tend to prop up that false feeling of safety. But most of your arguments strike me as odd.
BTW I’ll be hosting a tear up the bike lane party on November 20th. You’re welcome to come by Hornby Street and join in the festivities. T-shirts and crow bars will be provided.
171 spartikus // Feb 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Here is the response I rec’d from the Winnipeg Library:
We suspect that all the reasons you mentioned were part of the rationale. A Manitoba Free Press story from May 1,1908 describes the duties of the newly appointed “special bicycle detective”
“to compel all bicyclists to take out tags [licences], to trace missing bicycles which are reported to him; also to prosecute bicycle thieves and those who fail to take out tags.”
We suspect as well that in the event of a cyclist behaving irresponsibly in the roadway, the police would be able to find the person if the tag number were reported to them. Prior to the appointment of the detective, fees were collected by the cycle paths board which used the money to maintain cycle paths. [NOTE: I'd be on board with this if auto owners completely shouldered the same for road]
Several stories from the Winnipeg Free Press during 1982 stated that the original purpose of a licence fee was to provide a method of recovery if bikes were stolen.
Also, a history of cycle paths in Winnipeg. Of note….
On the rationale for creating cycle paths
Many roads were little more than trails ravaged by cart wheels and the annual freeze-thaw. Even on roads that were maintained, little thought was given to creating a smooth finish to the outside of the kerb lane. Often it was a place to pile construction debris and items that fell, or broke, off of passing carts. Telephone and hydro poles were often haphazardly installed along the roadside where cyclists wanted to travel.
The plan…
The long-term goal was to see separated, 14 foot wide paths with gas lighting throughout the city and marked paths that extended out to to Selkirk, Birds Hill and St. Norbert.
The more things changes….
The next day the Morning Telegram scoffed at the thought that the city’s 8,000 cyclists would bother to pay a ‘tax’ but did concede that they were not getting treated equally by the city. Actually, reading the Telegram’s editorial about the debate it could have been written in 2009 !
And the end…
The committee continued on the creation and maintenance of cycle paths through to the summer of 1906. That year city council made the decision to begin the wide-scale paving of roadways. Pavement made the need for much of the board’s work redundant. It was felt that the trails they had built from scratch, being mostly on city owned greenspace, could be handled by the parks board. The Cycle Path Board dissolved itself.
172 Agustin // Feb 10, 2011 at 3:39 pm
@ spartikus, #171: That is fantastic service from the Winnipeg library! Amazing!
173 Max // Feb 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm
From CBC, May 6, 2010
‘Vancouver city council has voted unanimously to spend $25 million over the next two years to build 55 kilometres of new bike lanes as part of a 10-year plan.’
*******
As someone pointed out, this means that each km of bike lane works out to a cost of
$138.54 /linear foot, or $454, 527.57 / km.
174 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Max:
The money is for more things than just the construction of new bike lanes, so your math is faulty.
175 jason // Feb 10, 2011 at 4:41 pm
From Meggs’s response:
“Despite 15 years of careful investment, with more than 400 lane-kilometres of bike routes, Vancouver has not seen the increase in cycling that other leading cities have seen.
Vancouver’s bike mode share has grown to only 3.8 per cent from 3.3 per cent during the past 15 years. Compare that with Seville, that built 140 km of separate lanes in just five years and saw cycling explode to 6.6 per cent of trips from just 0.2 per cent.”
Does anyone know if there are any other cities that have moved from an extensive non-separated bike lane system to a separated system and seen substantial increases? I’d be interested in looking at direct comparisons.
Speaking of direct comparisons….Seville…I was there 6 months ago…one of the most beautiful places in the world. But different in pretty much every way to Vancouver. As far as biking is concerned, one of the biggest difference would be the weather…their yearly average temperature is nearly twice ours (10.1 to 19.4), and their average number of days of rainfall is 1/3 ours (52 vs 166 for us).
Given that people cite “weather” as one of the primary deterrents to cycling in Vancouver, I don’t know that Seville is the best comparison.
(responses from individuals who’s last name is not “Keam” would be most appreciated)
176 Jacob // Feb 10, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Lets get back on topic, Rob Macdonald’s article is flawed in hundreds of ways. We cyclists should submit an article to the sun saying how it has been a success. Then hope that those stupid people that work for the newspaper put the article in.
177 Max // Feb 10, 2011 at 4:52 pm
@ Chris #174
Not my math – as you should be aware, since we were having this discussion on another blog.
You asked me where it was indicated that the city was spending $25M on bike lanes.
I referenced the CBC article and according to that article and that passage ithe city states it is spending $25M for bike lanes. It does not mention anything else.
Or is the city announcment incorrect?
And the math, is correct.
178 Jacob // Feb 10, 2011 at 5:05 pm
@Max
The 25 million is for cycling facilities, including traffic calming, traffic circles, and new bike routes.
179 Chris Keam // Feb 10, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Max
Why spread the same bad information on more than one site? Bad form to perpetuate incorrect information don’t you think?
180 boohoo // Feb 10, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Why are you guys arguing so much about what you can just look up?
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100506/documents/csbu5.pdf
The 25 million is for bike lane construction, maintenance, traffic calming, planning, bike parking etc…
181 Max // Feb 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm
@ Chris Keam 179
Perhaps you should take it up with the city or the various news outlets that reported it in the same manner.
Maybe the city put out a poorly worded press release as other sites wrote it up the same way.
But, if they are spending $25 M over the next 2 years, out of a 10 year plan, it beggs the question as to how much will be allocated in those following 8 years.
182 Paul // Feb 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Finally saw the video of the cyclist smashing into the truck crossing the bike lane. There we have it Mister Keam. Blinding proof of how “safe” your bike lane is.
I really can’t wait to tear these things up come November.
183 Jacob // Feb 10, 2011 at 9:19 pm
@Paul, if the bike lane didn’t exist, the cyclist would have easily died. Especially on Burrard.
@Jason, that is the perfect reason that we not only need cycling infrastructure, we need to teach people how the bike lanes fit into their everyday lives. Many have predicted the next generation to find ways other than car.
And a personal story, I recently took my 6 year old son for a ride on the dunsmuir and hornby bike lanes, and we had no problems going to our destination safely. If a 6 year old boy can go on the lanes, then a 50 year old person can. They just haven’t tried it yet.
Time will prove that the separated bike lanes are the best cycling improvement in many years.
184 Paul // Feb 10, 2011 at 11:18 pm
@Jacob. Thankfully time is running out on these tragedies in urban planning. Can’t wait to see the heavy equipment come in to dismantle Gregor’s tomb stone.
185 boohoo // Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 am
Paul,
Exaggerate much? This whole bike lane debate is so silly relative to actual real issues in urban planning/infrastructure spending/transportation planning.
186 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:33 am
Paul:
Which candidate in the November election is running on a platform to tear up the bike lanes?
You keep mentioning this, but to my knowledge not a single declared candidate has made that promise.
187 jason // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
Ok, so here’s video footage of many of the incidents that Rob Macdonald alluded to in his letter, including bike crashes and fire truck unable to turn down Dunsmuir:
http://video.aol.ca/video-detail/more-businesses-are-coming-forward-to-complain-about-vancouvers-separated-bike-lanes/3514401582
In addition you have the manager of the Tim Hortons on Dunsmuir saying business is down $50,000.
So….regardless of whether you’re pro or anti separated lanes, we now know that a) Rob Macdonald was not exaggerating or lying about the crashes/fire truck incidents and b) that the bike lanes APPEAR to have negatively impacted one business financially.
Just putting the facts out there, given that several people claimed Macdonald was making things up….
188 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:18 am
Jason:
I think the chief criticism of Macdonald’s editorial was that he used a figure of $25M as the cost for the bike lanes, which is incorrect.
189 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 am
Suzanne Anton changed her support of the separated bike lane. The way this mayor brought them in was wrong and hurtful. They need to go away. Better options exist and were not explored properly.
190 JP // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:29 am
Jason,
The section on Dunsmuir in front of the Tim Hortons has always been a No Stopping Zone. Although that seldom stopped people, and the VPD, from parking in the bike lane, as a man hole access created an area wide enough for vehicles to stop and only block the bike lane. So nothing has changed there as vehicles can continue to be illegally stopped on the north side of dunsmuir.
Second, apparently a value added tax was raised on prepared food, this might have caused reduced sales.
Food inflation, especially for coffee, has forced tim hortons to raise prices. For habit drinkers, when your coffee is no longer a loonie, 3 quarters and a dime, they might rethink their spending habit.
There are also 2 other tim hortons that have opened in the area possibly cannibilising sales.
191 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:30 am
Paul:
Perhaps I didn’t state my question clearly enough last time:
Which candidate for Vancouver City Council (any position) is promising to rip up the bike lanes?
192 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:33 am
One thing I found interesting about the Global News report was the full bike racks in the background of most of the shots of the bike lane as well as the interview with the Tim Horton’s owner.
193 spartikus // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:39 am
Macdonald also made the claim – quite unambiguously – that the CoV engineers were faking their cycling numbers. He provides no evidence. I find that incredibly irresponsible.
I question the footage of the fire truck. It’s a only few seconds long. Did it eventually turn the corner? Go another route? Was the corner in fact it’s destination? I don’t know and can’t tell. I’ve seen semi-trucks fit into small lanes by taking a wide turn. Why didn’t this fire truck with lights and sirens on do the same? Also, I see clearance that would have allowed the truck to continue on. Etc.
As for the Tim Hortons – I seriously question how much drive-in business a downtown fast food restaurant receives. I would wonder too how much his business has been affected by the HST and the recession. If he had said “my business is down, but the Tim Horton’s on Robson is doing just fine” – well, that would be one thing. But so far we have only very selective and ambiguous evidence.
The truck clearly did not check to see if someone was coming. I will say is, as a cyclist, I always check before heading into an intersection and never assume a vehicle is not going to turn even if it’s turning signal is not on. (I can’t tell from the footage whether the truck had it’s signal on) But that doesn’t mean this particular cyclist was at fault.
194 jason // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:50 am
“I think the chief criticism of Macdonald’s editorial was that he used a figure of $25M as the cost for the bike lanes, which is incorrect.”
Actually maybe you should try scrolling up Chris…
#14 – Bobbie Bees questioned the Macdonalds Tim horton’s claims and video footage
#21 Spartikus said drop in business claims were “anecdotal”
#22 Kevin said Macdonald’s claims were “unsubstantiated lies”
#28 IanS said he questioned it until there was evidence to back it up.
(I got bored so I stopped scrolling, but there may be more)
So no, there were may comments questioning MacDonald’s claims…this video footage at least substantiates some of the claims he made.
JP – sorry, I didn’t see people stopping on the North Side of Dunsmuir…just the south in front of the hotel…which I think is allowed. If you’re referring to the right turn down the alley, I would think that that is legal as the trucks have to serve Tim Horton’s and other businesses there, but I could be wrong.
“Second, apparently a value added tax was raised on prepared food, this might have caused reduced sales.”
I guess we could ask Tim Horton’s to compare the Dunsmuir store to one of the stores without a bike lane and ask if business in those are down the same percentage. I think you’re grasping at straws…but it’s worth asking.
195 spartikus // Feb 11, 2011 at 9:56 am
#21 Spartikus said drop in business claims were “anecdotal”
That’s right. How is that calling that particular claim a lie?
#22 Kevin said Macdonald’s claims were “unsubstantiated lies”
What Kevin actually said in #22: “I won’t actually go so far as to say that it is untrue or full of lies,, but at best a multitude of facts are misrepresented and unsubstantiated. “
196 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:01 am
“Second, apparently a value added tax was raised on prepared food, this might have caused reduced sales.”
Page 4 of the January 2010 newsletter of the BC Restaurant Association predicts an overall 7.5% drop in revenues with the addition of a 7% tax.
http://issuu.com/www.bcrn.com/docs/bcrn_online_december_jan._2010_-_issuu_upload
page 4, third paragraph
197 jason // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:07 am
Spartikus…simple point….people questioned the validity of Rob’s claims…I put up video footage to prove he wasn’t “making it up”….that is all.
Chris then claimed that people only questioned the 25m number, which was not the case, I was referencing the links above (which are there for everyone to read in their entirety) to state that wasn’t the case…I gave the reference #’s so that people could view them themselves given that I was paraphrasing.
Fair enough?
198 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:18 am
“Chris then claimed that people only questioned the 25m number,”
Did I? Let’s review:
“I think the chief criticism of Macdonald’s editorial was that he used a figure of $25M as the cost for the bike lanes, which is incorrect.”
That sounds a bit different from how you are portraying my comments Jason. Hyperbole makes productive dialogue much more difficult.
199 Max // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:32 am
I question the footage of the fire truck. It’s a only few seconds long. Did it eventually turn the corner? Go another route? Was the corner in fact it’s destination?…spartikus #193
********
Would you be questioning this if you , a loved one or a friend were injured and waiting for assistance?
I would hope, that if necessary, a fire truck or ambulance would do what is needed to get to their destination.
And if that means taking out a rack of parked bikes, so be it, no different than a car.
Those owners can then in turn take it up with the City.
200 spartikus // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:41 am
Who’s questioning the need for the Fire Dept to do what is necessary? Stop engaging in hysterics.
What is being questioned is what the footage represents. In fact, after a cut it appears a fireman is walking towards something off-camera as if the corner was the fire truck’s destination.
There is a gap b/w truck and lane large enough that in this observer’s opinion would allow it to finish it’s turn.
But perhaps we shouldn’t presume to speak for the VFD. If they have an issue with the bike lane, I am sure they will make a statement.
201 Richard // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:51 am
Or is it the increase in on-street parking on Seymour since the buses are back on Granville that is hurting business at Tim’s. I suspect not but it is as good a theory as blaming his problems on the bike lane. The one illegal parking space in front of Tim’s now contains 20-30 bicycles. He should be happy. The Bean Around the World on Commercial supported the first bike corral in Vancouver. One car parking space was replaced by 10-20 bike parking spaces and they are often quite full.
202 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:51 am
The video is not being used to blame the cyclist for the accident. There’s clearly a sign there warning drivers to yield to cyclists. The accident was clearly the fault of the vehicle driver.
The proof that you get from this video is that it backs up the studies that show you’re no safer cycling in a separated bike lane than in a painted lane. In fact, the studies say, you are safer in the painted lane.
Had that cyclist been in a painted lane, the cyclist arguably would have been more alert to the danger ahead and would have braked to avoid the collision. Also arguably, since the driver would have recently passed the cyclist on the road in a painted bike lane, the driver would also have been more aware of the cyclist and may have slowed to allow the bike to proceed first.
So my point has always been…. If it’s not safer. If it’s bad for business. WHY DO IT?!
203 jason // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
“Page 4 of the January 2010 newsletter of the BC Restaurant Association predicts an overall 7.5% drop in revenues with the addition of a 7% tax.”
Thank you Chris..so that’s 7% of the 30% that Horton’s is claiming. So we now have a 23% drop to consider.
“That sounds a bit different from how you are portraying my comments Jason. Hyperbole makes productive dialogue much more difficult.”
Yes Chris, that subtle difference that does not change the substance of what you said in anyway, is so very, very important. You’re right Chris, hyperbole DOES make productive dialogue much more difficult, and thank you for demonstrating that.
Folks, I’m not backing Macdonald’s claims, nor am I here to defend them. I do, however, believe it’s important that if there are visual facts that substantiate some of what he’s claiming, that they should be made available….which is what I’m done. Take them for what they are.
204 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:06 am
Arguably, the long barrier separating the lane from traffic might provide a fairly obvious clue that cyclists are in the area and caution is required when making a right turn.
If a lack of barrier is the solution, why do so many pedestrian fatalities occur in crosswalks?
If you’re not aware of what’s happening around your vehicle, you probably shouldn’t be entrusted with a license.
The reality, as any experienced cyclist can tell you, is that it’s easy to treat intersections as potential danger zones and act accordingly. It’s impossible to do anything about a distracted driver running you over from behind because they’ve allowed their vehicle to drift over a painted line. When looking at cycling accidents, it’s important to remember how often that type of accident occurs, and understand that it’s exactly the type of thing a divider makes impossible.
205 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:10 am
“Thank you Chris..so that’s 7% of the 30% that Horton’s is claiming. So we now have a 23% drop to consider.”
Well, let’s do that. Any other factors we should consider before deciding this big drop in revenue is solely because of the bike lane?
206 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14 am
“Yes Chris, that subtle difference that does not change the substance of what you said in anyway, is so very, very important. ”
Actually it does. ‘Only’ doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘chiefly’. That’s why I used chiefly. Because having read the thread, I understand they’re were other criticisms leveled at MacDonald.
207 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:16 am
‘there were’
(grammar geek flings poo, wonders why his hands smell funny)
208 Max // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:29 am
spartikus #200
Who is engaging in ‘hysterics’ aside form the cycling lobbyists?
The systematic attack lodged against Rob Macdonald’s op ed piece was predictable. Alert the troops, their is an opion contrary to ours…
We can’t have that! Some try to attack the facts or points he had laid out, other go for character assassination.
And others attack simple logic.
You dodged the question, ‘Would you take the same stance of having a 911 responder reroute if you, a loved one, or a friend was injured and waiting?’
I am guessing you’ve never had to wait for 911 responders to show up – seconds feel like hours.
For some medical issues such as heart attack or stroke, seconds can cost a life.
But why let common sense come into play when you have a bike lane to protect.
Truly, give your head a shake.
209 jason // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:44 am
“Actually it does. ‘Only’ doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘chiefly’. ”
Yes, and either way you were wrong. It was neither the majority criticism, nor the only criticism. So thanks for wasting our time on this ridiculous word play.
210 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:52 am
“Arguably, the long barrier separating the lane from traffic might provide a fairly obvious clue that cyclists are in the area and caution is required when making a right turn. ”
Obviously one 2 ton vehicle travelling next to another 2 ton vehicle should be a fairly obvious clue that it’s dangerous to change lanes, but it still happens. We’re never going to get rid of all crashes. The object is to reduce the likelihood of them happening.
The separated bike lane is more of a political statement than actual good civic planning.
Well I’m sorry Chris, I can’t support a political statement when it will lead to more injuries and will cost business dearly. There are better ways to encourage cycling.
211 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“There are better ways to encourage cycling.”
Such as?
Places that put in cycling infrastructure (esp. separated lanes) get more cyclists. More cyclists lowers the fatality rate. I’m sure you already know this Paul. But, regardless, what ways to encourage cycling can you point to that have a better record for increasing mode share and thereby reducing injuries per capita?
212 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Shared spaces. Granville Street is a HIGHLY pedestrian space. It’s certainly not a commuter corridor. I believe pedestrians, busses and bikes work tremendously well.
Education. Better educated cyclists are safer cyclists. Also more attention in driver training to existing cycling infrastructure would go a long way to making people feel more comfortable around each other.
Tax incentives. Give better incentives for people to buy and use their bicycle for commuting, not only pleasure.
Enforcement. We have drunk driving blitzes and speeding blitzes. Let’s have a bike lane blitz. Stick a cop on every corner down Burrard where a painted lane is. Break the rules, get a ticket. Of course, that would apply to drivers and cyclists. Also parking enforcement should more rigorously enforce trucks and cars that use the bike lane as a parking spot.
These are SIMPLE ways of encouraging cycling. They won’t cost millions of dollars to build and maintain.
213 richards // Feb 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm
I fully support Paul’s suggestion that we create more spaces shared by buses/peds/bikes (note the absensce of cars in that list). That sounds awesome. I like the separated lane, but I’d be equally happy if Hornby was bike/ped/bus only.
214 spartikus // Feb 11, 2011 at 1:24 pm
You dodged the question, ’
Actually I answered it in the very first sentence, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I am guessing you’ve never had to wait for 911 responders to show up – seconds feel like hours.
You must have incredible psychic powers to presume so, Max.
After reflection it’s seems incredible Global News didn’t follow up with the Fire Dept. on this. It seems the logical next step.
215 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Paul:
Those are all great suggestions, but where we find the data to suggest any or all of them put together would have the same kind of impact as better infrastructure. Consider a few points:
Shared Spaces – Sure, why not. But will it increase the amount of people who cycle?
Education – A Streetwise cycling course costs $45. How many people would have to take the course in your scenario? Even if only 100,000 people take it in BC, we’re still looking at the program costing nearly a half-million dollars annually.
Tax incentives – Roughly half of Canadians already own a bike. It’s not a tax break that’s keeping them off the road.
Enforcement – Absolutely. Let’s enforce our laws. But, what suggests to you that this will increase the number of people using bicycles for transporation?
I think all those ideas are good ones, but the fact remains – the single most effective way to encourage cycling is to build the right kinds of infrastructure that gets people to get on their bikes. To date, separated lanes have the best track record in this regard.
216 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm
richards…. If Hornby was a largely pedestrian corridor with virtually no commuter traffic like Granville Street, I’d be with you.
And you know one day, as driving becomes too expensive for the average person I’m sure that will be the smart thing to do. But right now, the smartest north/south corridor is Granville Street.
Keam and boohoo are quick to label me as anti-cycling, but in fact, I’m a big cycling advocate. I just don’t think separated bike lanes forward the cause. They’re too controversial. They don’t improve safety. And the political statement they make can be made without pissing off half the city.
217 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I haven’t labeled you as anything. I am asking you to provide some evidence that your suggestions will put more bikes on the road.
I’m asking you to disprove the wealth of evidence that separated lanes and improved cycling infrastructure does work.
218 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm
@Chris
Shared Spaces. There’s as much evidence that shared spaces increase cycling as there is evidence that separated bike lanes increase cycling. Some times separation works, some times separation doesn’t, some times separation actually DECREASES cycling.
Education. I’m not just talking about sit down lessons. There are other ways to educate people. Information campaigns, public sessions, greater emphasis on cyclists in licensing drivers.
Tax Incentives. I’m not talking about JUST an incentive to purchase a bike, although I certainly think that should happen. There are also continuing costs to ownership. Some people don’t trust their bike to reliably get them to work. Usually because it’s fallen into disrepair. Tax incentives and initiatives would get people to finally give it a try.
Enforcement. I haven’t seen any studies on enforcement, but logic seems to be on my side. Drivers and riders are less likely to break the rules if they know there’s an immediate consequence. And those who flaunt the rules will end up paying for initiatives to improve the initiative I mentioned above.
219 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Paul:
Again, those are all great ideas. But, where is the evidence they work as well as or better than the city’s current strategy? Which I might add, includes all those components (except tax breaks, which is outside their purview) and also the one thing you take exception too, but has the most data supporting its effectiveness at increasing mode share.
220 jason // Feb 11, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Given Paul and Chris’s debate, I thought I’d repost, the top 10 motivators/deterrents that might influence the likelihood of cycling, according to the UBC survey…this is data from surveyed BC residents:
* the route is away from traffic noise and air pollution
* the route has beautiful scenery
* the route has bicycle paths separated from traffic for the entire distance
* the route is flat
* cycling to the destination takes less time than travelling by other modes
* the distance to my destination is less than 5 km
* I can make the trip in daylight hours
* I can take my bike on the Skytrain at any time
* a 2-way off-street bike path has a reflective centre line for night and poor weather cycling
* secure indoor bike storage is available at my destination
The top 10 deterrents:
* the route is snowy or icy
* the street has a lot of car, bus, or truck traffic
* the route has glass or debris
* vehicles drive faster than 50 km/h
* the risk from motorists who don’t know how to drive safely near bicycles
* the risk of injury from car-bike collisions
* it is raining
* the route has surfaces that can be slick when wet or icy when cold
* the route is not well lit after dark
* I need to carry bulky or heavy items
Separated bike paths are but ONE influencing factor, and all the downtown separated bike lanes fail when it comes to:
influences:
* the route is away from traffic noise and air pollution
* the route has beautiful scenery
* cycling to the destination takes less time than travelling by other modes (may or may not)
* the distance to my destination is less than 5 km (may or may not)
* secure indoor bike storage is available at my destination (may or may not)
detterants:
* the route is snowy or icy (may be in the winter time)
* the street has a lot of car, bus, or truck traffic
* the risk from motorists who don’t know how to drive safely near bicycles (arguably the case)
* the risk of injury from car-bike collisions (watch the Global video)
* it is raining (only 166 days a year on average)
* the route has surfaces that can be slick when wet or icy when cold (only in the winter)
Just some more facts for your debate.
221 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Chris, come on man. You’re well aware of the studies. You’re not stupid. And you’re clearly not ignorant of cycling statistics.
But I’ll bite:
Let’s look at the Netherlands, they spent almost a billion dollars on cycling infrastructure, with no increase in riders.
Denmark has since 1975 been adding cycling infrastructure with no noticeable increase in cycling.
Also in the same time frame, Dublin made 200 miles of cycling facilities and saw a 15% decrease in ridership.
At the same time as all of those investments failing Germany, the UK and Ireland were experiencing a huge growth in cycling, with little or no investment in infrastructure.
So the old motto of “Build it and they will come” does NOT necessarily ring true.
222 Agustin // Feb 11, 2011 at 3:08 pm
@ Paul, #221: You’ve lost me. The Netherlands and Denmark have seen no increase in riders from their investment in cycling infrastructure?
Please read this article: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf
Here’s an excerpt from the abstract:
“This article shows how the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made
bicycling a safe, convenient and practical way to get around their cities. The analysis relies
on national aggregate data as well as case studies of large and small cities in each country.
The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling
facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming
of most residential neighbourhoods.”
223 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Paul:
The Netherlands has pretty much attained as high a mode share as any country is likely to get. With some cities at 50% mode share, they are building infrastructure to meet demand, not create it. Same in Denmark.
Cycling in London doubled between 2000 and 2008. Part of that success is due to their so-called cycling superhighways.
Berlin has more than quadrupled cycling mode share, while reducing injuries by 38%. Overall Germany has doubled mode share for cycling between 1982 and 2007 in med-sized towns.
Note this quote from an article on Berlin in the Independent:
“The German capital has a network of cycle-paths as carefully thought-out as a national motorway grid. There are 12 radial “highways” running like the spokes of a wheel from the suburbs into the centre, plus eight tangential routes linking them.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-tracks-all-round-in-berlin-where-pedal-power-is-supreme-706320.html
Copenhagen: 60% drop in injuries between ’95 and ’03, with big jump in cyclists over 40 yrs old at same time.
All stats from: http://www.nacto.org/downloads/pucher_dill_handy10.pdf
(page 12)
224 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Paul:
The Netherlands has pretty much attained as high a mode share as any country is likely to get. With some cities at 50% mode share, they are building infrastructure to meet demand, not create it. Same in Denmark.
Cycling in London doubled between 2000 and 2008. Part of that success is due to their so-called cycling superhighways.
Berlin has more than quadrupled cycling mode share, while reducing injuries by 38%. Overall Germany has doubled mode share for cycling between 1982 and 2007 in med-sized towns.
Note this quote from an article on Berlin in the Independent:
“The German capital has a network of cycle-paths as carefully thought-out as a national motorway grid. There are 12 radial “highways” running like the spokes of a wheel from the suburbs into the centre, plus eight tangential routes linking them.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-tracks-all-round-in-berlin-where-pedal-power-is-supreme-706320.html
225 Chris Keam // Feb 11, 2011 at 3:32 pm
continued from previous post to avoid the ‘two links and you await moderation’ rule
Copenhagen: 60% drop in injuries between ’95 and ’03, with big jump in cyclists over 40 yrs old at same time.
All stats from: http://www.nacto.org/downloads/pucher_dill_handy10.pdf
(page 12)
226 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 3:48 pm
@Agustin… I have a large problem with that “study.”
It attributes “separate cycling facilities” as the chief factor in getting people onto bikes. It completely neglected to consider that it was actually pro-bike policies and programmes that work better. It also failed to properly weight the fact that the countries in question make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in
central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking.
227 Agustin // Feb 11, 2011 at 4:38 pm
@ Paul, #226: OK, I understand your point about separated facilities vs. other carrot/stick techniques. We could debate that, but my main focus right now is on your assertions that Denmark and the Netherlands have seen negligible increase in cycling. I just don’t know where those assertions are coming from; they are contrary to everything I’ve seen.
228 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Oh one more thing, I totally forgot to clarify this Chris. At #186 you asked which candidate is running on a platform to tear up the bike lane.
Rob MacDonald’s article (which is the topic of this posting) says at the bottom that the bike lanes need to be returned to the way they were before.
So you’re right, not one declared candidate has come out against the lanes. However there is at least one (and quite probably more) who’s goal is to tear up these poorly designed eyesores.
229 Max // Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I read in this weeks Georgia Straight where the cycling lobbyists have already started petitioning the Parks Board for new money for the Sea Wall, and everything it inclues from False Creek, Coal Harbor and the park area.
230 Jacob // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:05 pm
@ Jason 187
The fire truck problem is the drivers fault, if you’ve ever taken the 22 Macdonald bus, you would notice that the turn from prior street to gore street is 5 times tighter than the one made by the fire truck.
231 Bill McCreery // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:16 pm
This item has gone into the strata-sphere. One aspect of this is that there are a relatively small group of the usuals involved in this occasionally interesting dialogue. However, stepping back, I don’t remember to many posts which have resulted in such spirited, typically sometimes off topic, debate. One wonders why?
Is there something which those more of the Vision persuasion fear at the prospect of a real credible mayoral candidate opposing Mr. Greggs which has fuelled these fires?
232 Jacob // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm
@ paul 212,218
I agree with you that we need to educate people to cycle, but if we don’t have cycling infrastructure, how do we educate people? Now, 1% of downtown road space is dedicated to cyclists. If it stays like that for 10 years, then I will guarantee that cycling will increase by >5% in that time. But, without the bike lanes then those about 60% of people that would cycle under specific circumstances, won’t cycle at all. Simply, my point is that after we have the infrastructure, we need to educate people how to use it.
233 Jacob // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:26 pm
And Paul and Jason, If you had read my 183 post, “I recently took my 6 year old son for a ride on the dunsmuir and hornby bike lanes, and we had no problems going to our destination safely.” Do you think that if the bike lanes weren’t safe, then I would a 6 year old on it?
234 Everyman // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm
What I find interesting is how quickly the cycling lobby is to label any business owner who disagrees with their agenda a “liar”. And yet you ask us to accept your anecdotal evidence of how awful it was to be a cyclist,pre-bike lanes. You’ve been confronted with hard evidence in this case,yet all you can do is bob, weave and obfusticate.
And please, can we leave the comparisons to Copenhagen and Seville behind. Neither is Vancouver. Neither is as wet as Vancouver. Vancouver does not have a federal government imposing outrageous vehicle levies to force
bicycle use.
@Chris Keam, you are right that no municipal party is saying they will end the bike lane “trial” (yes, I managed to write that with a straight face)
However, given that the pro-bike lobby is largely functioning as an extension of Vision Vancouver, I’d suggest you better be prepared for a backlash when Vision loses their council majority. At the very least, you should be praying Ladner gets a council seat and Anton retains hers.
235 Westcoaster // Feb 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm
After reading 229 posts, my thoughts: sorry Visionary Flake supporters – Rob Macdonald’s opinion piece (which you are furious at FB for posting – “What – no suppressing the dark side?”) is pointed but accurately expresses the annoyance and frustration of many Vancouverites, including myself.
The Hornby Street bike lane is EMPTY most of the time (as are the Burrard Bridge lanes which kicked off this financially wasteful undertaking by Gregor & Co. social engineering).
I live in the West End, and I can tell you as a daily TransLink user, evening gridlock heading west on Davie Street is now a regular occurrence, due to the restricted right turns from Davie Street on to Hornby Street.
Every day between about 3 and 6 p.m. westbound traffic forms a long line, made up of idling cars and buses, while one, maybe two, vehicles are able to turn right on to Hornby. How is this helping the environment? Or transit schedules? When the bus I’m riding on finally crosses Hornby, I always look up the bike line – nary a bike in sight.
What an expensive, fuel-wasting, self-serving joke. I’m hoping Mr. Macdonald forgets about running for council – I’d like to see him run for mayor, and send Juice Boy packing, along with his Vision comrades. I can hardly wait for the next election.
236 Max // Feb 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm
@ Jacon #230
Are you freaking kidding me??
This is the statment you are willing to stand by: ‘It was the driver of the fire tuck who is at fault’ ???
Seriously?
OH MY GOD!!!!! Put your training wheel back on buddy, you have lost you balance.
237 Sean // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm
@Max #235
“This is the statment you are willing to stand by: ‘It was the driver of the fire tuck who is at fault’ ???”
Who else are you going to blame for the fact that he didn’t start his turn from a lane that allowed him to clear his vehicle through the intersection? He’s a fire truck with siren and lights on, for heaven’s sake. It’s not like he doesn’t have a choice.
238 Paul // Feb 11, 2011 at 11:40 pm
And Jacob @233… You’re clearly delusional. Just because you’re willing to put your 6 year old’s life at risk doesn’t mean the bike lane is any safer.
We’ve just had a VERY long conversation about this, and I think even some of the pro-bike lane people will grudgingly admit that there’s enough of a body of evidence that shows separated bike lanes are not as safe as painted bike lanes.
We can continue to disagree about how many people they will entice onto their bike until we see staff numbers and have them examined properly, but the boat carrying the safety argument has already sailed Jacob.
and @Sean #235… He’s a fire truck eh? Must have been a tremendously painful surgery adding those flashing lights and water pumps to him.
239 Chris Keam // Feb 12, 2011 at 9:20 am
“I think even some of the pro-bike lane people will grudgingly admit that there’s enough of a body of evidence that shows separated bike lanes are not as safe as painted bike lanes.”
Which ones Paul?
I would absolutely ride with my child in one of the separated lanes, but there’s not a chance in hell I would take a child on a downtown bike lane without a barrier. When you look beyond the narrow criteria that suit your argument, it’s quite clear that statistics support the idea that separated lanes offer safety features that a stripe of paint cannot.
The reality is that the studies you reference are ten, twenty, even thirty years old. Features that were problematic in the past get addressed and have been in the context of Vancouver. Did the City make it perfect on the first pass? Perhaps not, but that’s an unrealistic expectation in the first place.
The hotel surveillance video everyone is watching doesn’t point to a problem with separated lane safety, it points to the ongoing need to level appropriate, more severe penalties against the minority of drivers who make the roads so dangerous for all people, with the clearest solution being license suspension more often and for longer periods of time. Perhaps when the consequences for dangerous driving start to impact those who engage in this behaviour to the same proportion as the individuals and families affected by our collective blind spot regarding the real cost of reckless driving, then we can start to talk about painted lines being magical car barriers.
The greatest irony in this endless, dreary, and reactionary attempt to use cyclists’ safety as a political lever to unseat the current Council is this:
The author who penned the original op-ed piece is also a major sponsor of the Gran Fondo ride from Whistler to Vancouver. And the big selling point of the ride?
“Starting at sea level in Vancouver, riders will head over the Lions Gate Bridge in a dedicated lane on their way up to Whistler… Riders will travel the rest of the route in a dedicated lane all the way up to Whistler. ”
I guess some cyclists are more equal than others.
240 spartikus // Feb 12, 2011 at 9:55 am
Is there something which those more of the Vision persuasion fear at the prospect of a real credible mayoral candidate opposing Mr. Greggs which has fuelled these fires?
Conversely, there are some of us who simply think encouraging cycling is a good idea. Doubly conversely, it could also equally be true that those of conservative persuasion are worried their wedge issue might disappear as the realization the sky isn’t falling sets in…and thus throw up continually debunked disinformation. I say conservative and not NPA because to my knowledge the NPA supports the bike lanes and only objects to the process of implementation. Perhaps that will change.
You could, as a public service, help us out on that.
I can’t speak for others, but I don’t participate as much on other subjects because I don’t possess the same degree of knowledge -> I’m one of those “if you don’t know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut” people.
Even if I find, say, urban planning fascinating.
241 Mark Allerton // Feb 12, 2011 at 9:56 am
“I would absolutely ride with my child in one of the separated lanes, but there’s not a chance in hell I would take a child on a downtown bike lane without a barrier.”
I can’t vote this up enough.
Is Paul actually prepared to state that he would ride with his (hypothetical, if need be) child in an downtown bike lane like the one on Burrard, but not on a separated lane like Hornby?
If so I think that tells us all we need to know about his competence as an observer on these matters.
If not, or if the answer is that you would not take your child on either kind of lane, does that mean that you either a) don’t believe it will ever be safe to transport your child on a bicycle in downtown Vancouver or b) believe this will only be possible with some third kind of bicycle infrastructure that we have not previously discussed?
242 Craigs // Feb 12, 2011 at 10:52 am
@Ben..
Well actually Ben, VISION has in fact budgeted 25 million bucks for bike lane folly over the next 2 years and this just happens to be about the amount of the deficit in Vancouver City’s budget.
And there IS one big difference between the Knight street turn bays and any of the bike lanes and that is..The Knight street bays are FULL the bike lanes are EMPTY.
And people, just so you arent deluded about what direction VISION is taking us, just look at Copenhagen. This is often a city held up as and example of a town doing all the right things and with a more brutal winter than Vancouver has.
Danes choose bikes but it isnt because of cool bike lanes. Let us imagine you decide you are going to buy a nice little HONDA car in Copenhagen. You will forced to pay TAX and it’s one-hundred and eighty percent–not just on the purchase price, but after the VAT(25% sales tax) has been applied. So you basically pay three times the MSRP for a vehicle that runs on a fuel more expensive than beer
243 Sean // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:12 am
@Paul #238
“You’re clearly delusional. Just because you’re willing to put your 6 year old’s life at risk doesn’t mean the bike lane is any safer.”
Paul you’re way, way outside the mainstream here. If you polled 100 parents, I doubt you’d get more than a few percent who think that their children would be just as safe in a painted lane as a separated lane.
The PERCEPTION of safety is what’s going to encourage cycling. And no matter how many studies you come up with, nothing is going to change my belief that for a defensive cyclist (one who shoulder-checks and verifies the way ahead is safe before they venture into a potential cross-traffic situation), separated lanes are safer.
Cyclists fear what they can’t control – and separated lanes remove the uncontrollable risks from cycling in traffic. THAT’s why MOST people feel they’re safer.
244 Paul // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:16 am
No. I wouldn’t put my child in either the Separated or Painted bike lane. Why? Same reason as I wouldn’t let them run down a downtown sidewalk without being within a few feet of me.
Kids are hard to control. Just because Jacob is willing to put his kid’s life at risk, please don’t infer that I would do the same thing.
Again, that’s the whole argument folks. Separated Bike Lanes do wonders to make people FEEL safe. But in all fact every last study shows they do no more for safety than painted lanes. In fact some studies show that they are even less safe.
And please, broken records, don’t pull out the survey’s that show the separated bike lanes are safer. ‘cuz we’ve all seen them, and none of them compare painted bike lanes. They only compare on-street vs. separation.
245 Mark Allerton // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:41 am
@Paul
So that’s “a) don’t believe it will ever be safe to transport your child on a bicycle in downtown Vancouver”, correct?
I’m sorry you are resigned to the city’s center being a poor environment for its residents, luckily not all of us have such low expectations.
246 Chris Keam // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:47 am
Copenhagen survey of all types of bike lanes, separated or otherwise linked below. Key finding – overall gains in safety outweighed increased risks of specific types of accidents.
(final paragraph page 2 and final paragraph of document pages 8-9)
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf
247 Jason // Feb 12, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Chris could you provide the exact quote you are referring to because I just read through that article and my take away from it was that traffic accidents increased, specifically for cyclists and pedestrians at junctions….the final paragraph seemed to suggest the health benefits outweighed the safety decrease and that there was a perceived increase in safety even though accidents actually increased.
They also seem to be suggesting that cycle lanes are a good middle ground between mixed traffic and cycle tracks.
248 Bill McCreery // Feb 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@ Sean 237.
I am not familiar with the specifics of the fire truc’k's turn problem, but, I have had my own experiences trying to turn north off Drake from the east. The Gregor and his bike lane designers seems to have lost their vehicular turning radius charts. The concrete curb at this corner is at least 6′ – 8′ too long. It extends into the turning radius of my little Maxima so that I have to swing wider which puts me into the left lane. A fire truck will have an even more difficult time making this evolution. At the very best this corner, which I believe is typical, is awkward. It is more likely dangerous as well.
249 Bill McCreery // Feb 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm
@ Sparks 240.
I also support encouraging safe, user friendly bike riding downtown. As I have repeatedly said, I do not support the way these lanes were imposed with little to no meaningful public consultation. I also am of the opinion that there are better ways to accomplish this objective, and which will not cause the kind of environmentally irresponsible traffic congestion and damage to businesses.
250 Mark Allerton // Feb 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm
@Bill
Do I take that to mean that you are committed to correcting the (perceived) damage – and if so what form might that correction take?
251 Jacob // Feb 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@ Bill
Again, in post 230, the 22 macdonald bus (same length as a fire truck) can make the sharp right turn from Prior onto Gore street (5 times harder than that one with the fire truck), without any problem.
252 Tango and Cash // Feb 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm
250 post-it notes on college notice board…Wow, people. GET A LIFE!
253 Sean // Feb 12, 2011 at 6:09 pm
@Bill McCreery #247
“I have had my own experiences trying to turn north off Drake from the east. … The concrete curb at this corner is at least 6′ – 8′ too long. It extends into the turning radius of my little Maxima so that I have to swing wider which puts me into the left lane.”
You’re talking about westbound Drake to northbound Hornby? That block of Hornby has only one traveling lane, how can a turn put you into the “left lane”? And in the following video I’m seeing a steady stream of cars making that turn around the bike lane curb with no issues whatsoever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ0i-At1zws
At any rate, I’m not try to claim that the lanes are perfect and can’t be improved – that’s the purpose of the trial. I’m just sayin’ that the video of the fire truck which missed the turn from Seymour can’t be blamed on the bike lane. The driver had plenty of room to make the turn if he’d started from a more rightmost lane on Seymour, which is his prerogative as an emergency vehicle. Even in the pre-bike lane era he’d have had to do the same thing if a car or delivery truck had been stopped there.
254 Bobbie Bees // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm
@Max
You might want to read this.
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/
and more specifically:
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/news/rlsgen/Video_Surveillance_Guidelines%28March2008%29.pdf
Enjoy.
255 Bobbie Bees // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:23 pm
@Sean #253
Yeah, funny thing about the video of the fire truck not being able to make the turn.
First, the Timmie’s delivery truck quite often stopped there. Even though the whole block of Dunsmuir on the north side was a dedicated Bus/Bicycle lane the large Timmie’s delivery truck would often stop there and block the buses. I guess it was much easier for him to stop there than it was for him to go down the lane way and enter into the loading dock.
2nd, as I mentioned , the whole north side of Dunsmuir Street was a No Parking / No Stopping zone. It was a bus lane / bicycle lane. I always hated riding in it as the buses would always speed past at high speed and try to squish me into the curb.
3rd, the truck in the video released by the St. Regis Hotel is the one who made the illegal manoeuvre, not the cyclist. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve had vehicle drivers pull hook shots in front of me on regular street.
256 Bobbie Bees // Feb 12, 2011 at 11:38 pm
@Sean #253,
Good catch with that turning radius BS.
I think the NPA have found their ‘hot topic’ for the November election. We’ve got the NPA cheerleaders out in full force.
NPA, that stands for ‘No Progress Allowed’ right?
Oh well, only in Vancouver.
257 Everyman // Feb 13, 2011 at 9:24 am
@Chris Keam 239
Fascinating to see the cyclist -on-cyclist slagging begin. Has Macdonald lost his membership card?
And seeing how you once again can’t resist the allure of Copenhagen in post 246, here’s some homework: tell us how much rainfall Copenhagen gets (not “rainy days” please). And counter, if you can, Craiggs example of the artificial tax burden Denmark must places on car ownership to encourage cycling. Enjoy your assignment!
258 Max // Feb 13, 2011 at 9:26 am
@ Bill #248
The video clip regarding the difficulties with the fire truck can be found in Jason’s post #187.
259 Max // Feb 13, 2011 at 9:33 am
@ Everyman #256:
You’ve forgot to include the cost per litre (or gallon) of gas.
Denmark’s gas prices are ranked as the fourth highest, internationally as well, Denmark is listed as the third most expensive country to live in.
260 Max // Feb 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm
@ Bobbi Bees #256
The ‘NPA’ cheerleaders??
I guess anyone who takes an opinion opposite to yours or the cycling advocates have zero right to comment.
FYI, count the number of posts placed by Chris Keam. I would suggest he has dominated this blog post.
261 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:59 am
@Max 260
I highly doubt that Global TV, The Sun or The Province are going to be asking me, VACC or Chris Keam for anything pro-cycling any time soon.
262 Bill McCreery // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:58 am
@ Max 258.
Thanks. I can’t keep up with all the comments.
Yup. The fire truck with a professional driver did what a fire truck does at a corner.
And the Hornby cyclist’s interesting and informative video showed what I spoke of my own experiences at Drake. There is in fact a left hand 2nd lane for about a third of the block and all the cars went partially into it as I did when turning.
263 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:11 am
@Bill McCreery 262
?
Bill, in all my years of driving and motorcycling on thing has always stood out in my mind. Car drivers almost never turn into the required lane. It happens all over the place. Granville and Davie. I can sit at Blenz and quickly lose count of the cars who make a Left hand turn from Northbound Granville onto Davie only to get stuck behind the bus in the curb lane. Why didn’t they turn into the driving lane like they were supposed to?
Another favourite of mine is to watch the lunacy at Granville and Smithe. Cars turning left onto Smithe seem to pick random lanes to turn into, it’s even more fun when car drivers stuck in the transit lane decide that they too are going to pull a left hand turn in front of the the actual left hand turn lane.
So, I know you’re gunning for any reason to hate the bicycle lanes, but let’s face it, vehicle driving skills are probably at an all time low in this city.
These four simple things would improve road safety.
1) Cancel the drivers license and privileges for about 3/4 of the current fleet of drivers.
2) Lower the city speed limit to 20km/h
3) Mandatory driver retesting every 2 years.
4) Make vehicle drivers automatically 100% at fault for any accident involving a lower class of road user.
264 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:08 am
@Bobbie Bees #263,
Despite the obvious unfairness of this:
“Make vehicle drivers automatically 100% at fault for any accident involving a lower class of road user.”
I’ll go with it if cyclists are automatically 100% at fault in any accidents with pedestrians.
Deal?
265 Bill McCreery // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm
@ bobee 263.
Please do not attribute my critique of an uncomfortable turn at Hornby and Drake as “reason to hate the bicycle lanes”. That is not the case, and you know that, or you have a memory problem. What I am “gunning for” is bike lanes that work. Hornby doesn’t IMO for a number of reasons which I’ve previously commented upon.
Your descriptions of various Vancouver drivers’ turning vagaries is about as disciplined as their alleged driving skills. You take your assessments from the matter at hand to a broad range of permeations and combinations and the unstated reasons those drivers may or may not have done what they did.
266 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:03 pm
@IanS 265
Deal.
267 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:30 pm
@Bill 265
Bill, at the end of the day, driver’s licenses are basically handed out like pez. If a car driver test was maybe 50% as hard as a motorcycle license I think we’d see a lot of improvement in the conditions of the roads.
Go take a look at any ICBC salvage yard. Where do all of these never ending wrecks come from?
That’s right, the road.
Take a look at these stats:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/roadsafety/tp3322-2008.pdf
In Canada between the years 1989 to 2008 over 62,706 people were killed in car accidents. 376,585 people were seriously injured in car
accidents.
Those are some pretty scary numbers if you ask me. Those number tell me that there’s some very serious issues with the manner in which people are awarded a driver’s license. Driving has gone from being a privilege to being a right.
And the one thing that I like to point out to the car driving crowd that love to scream and yell for all cyclists to be licensed. Most cyclists already are.
Especially the ‘scofflaw’ cyclists that the anti-cyclists like to rail on about.
Some of the horrific cyclists that I see riding around town also drive around town. And sadly their car driving skills are just as abysmal as their bicycle riding skills. But at least when they’re on their bicycle they’re not liable to kill or maim someone with a moment’s inattention. The real horrific cyclists tend to be the monthly bulge warrior. You know, the guy who hauls his bike out once a month to make up for the five days a week for the previous four weeks when he drives 5 km between home and work.
268 boohoo // Feb 15, 2011 at 7:45 am
@max 260
Sorry bud, you can’t play victim like that. That kind of stupid argument flows both ways, trust me I know lol.
Leave a Comment