Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FREKI

I would certainly not commute by bike if we didn't have bike-paths everywhere and I had to be on the same streets as cars, buses and trucks!

Fair weather is good, but seperate paths is the alpha and omega in a city where all can afford cars and PT is omnipresent, rapid and fairly priced..

Gas for commuting is covered by the state so that's technically free to Danes..

As for the "old windy poor roads" I'm very curious about those - outside the Old Town where most have been converted to pedestrian streets exactly where would they be? ( feel free to link to Google Street view ) I don't think Copenhagen is any less car friendly than any other city I've been to..

As far as age and roads Copenhagen started sprawling big time about 130 years ago and is if anything very similar to North American cities - right down to majority living in single story homes in the sprawling suburbs.. ( less pop density than LA btw )



For a person who commutes by bike daily what is crucially important to me is:
- separate bike-paths and bike friendly infrastructure ( separate and synchronized light signals, road painting, signs, etc )
- no helmet laws ( if I have to wash my hair every time I get to work it would be even faster to drive or take PT making biking a slow and impractical choice )
- no extra insurance demands ( while it of course is possible to cause damages while biking it should be covered by regular insurance and not separate like motorbikes and other vehicles that travels at much faster speeds )

What would make more bike here:
- tax deductible ( like people here can deduct their PT and car commuting expenses why not bikes, they have talked about it for a long time but nothing have happened )
- bike freeways above street level or tunnels ( a few small stretches is under construction, but a wast network with no red lights and no stops would be great! )
- mandatory bike cams on trucks and buses that enters urban areas ( especially on foreign trucks that is not used to bikes and sadly kills bikers every year here )

What I think should be law:
- a bike drivers licence test that one had to pass to be able to purchase bikes and use them
- small bike licence plates with a NFC chip to prevent theft and insurance fraud

What...? Gas is free for commuters? Did I read that right?

As to insurance, does Copenhagen have the same ratio as daredevil young men riding bikes as Vancouver? I am always aghast when witnessing the few cyclists who actually use the Cambie Street bike lanes pedal furiously downhill to reach about 65 km/h. Theyre not going to have much control if a car or pedestiran unexpectedly crosses their path.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Does Copenhagen have the same ratio as daredevil young men riding bikes as Vancouver? I am always aghast when witnessing the few cyclists who actually use the Cambie Street bike lanes pedal furiously downhill to reach about 65 km/h.

Yep, some people are pretty stupid. And that goes at least as much for motorists as it does for cyclists.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What...? Gas is free for commuters? Did I read that right?

Well that's what you get when you have the unofficially highest taxes in the world (highest in Europe) combined with socialism that would make Marx blush

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

As to insurance, does Copenhagen have the same ratio as daredevil young men riding bikes as Vancouver? I am always aghast when witnessing the few cyclists who actually use the Cambie Street bike lanes pedal furiously downhill to reach about 65 km/h.

They're probably trying to keep pace with traffic so they don't get rear-ended by some idiot driver. When I'm in traffic I always "pedal furiously" out of sheer terror.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Will they be as well-used as the one in your photos?

Looks like the road is not used either. Should have turned it into a park.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

They're probably trying to keep pace with traffic so they don't get rear-ended by some idiot driver. When I'm in traffic I always "pedal furiously" out of sheer terror.

That wouldn't apply on Cambie as the lane is largely separated.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Looks like the road is not used either. Should have turned it into a park.

Why would there be vehicle traffic on it? Consider:
1) it's a road that deadends at Burrard
2) there was never a light for cars on Comox to cross Thurlow
3) Nelson is a better route out of the West End and out of downtown
4) local drivers would know the bike lane was installed with its attendant slowdown of vehicles

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That wouldn't apply on Cambie as the lane is largely separated.

A painted line won't stop an idiot driver from hitting you.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Some interesting articles this past week from the mainstream media on bikign in Vancouver:

The vast majority of Vancouver cyclists ticketed for not wearing a helmet over the past five years still haven't coughed up the fine, according to a new ICBC report.


People have had it with Vision's bike agenda


Rules of the road must also apply to cyclists

Happy reading!

Here is another one:

Cycling expert touts Vancouver’s innovation

John Pucher sees Vancouver as a continental leader and says we need to do more bragging about the walk/cycle friendly city

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/s...tml?id=8533920


The 85% of head injury prevention stat that ICBC mentions there is bogus. It was from 1989 and has never been replicated.

The ability of bike helmets to reduce injury has been overblown, Titus says. Helmets are sometimes said to reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent, but that statistic comes from a 1989 study that has not been replicated. “Studies in the last 20 years have calculated that helmets prevent 10 to 40 percent of head injuries,” says Titus, who compiled the statistics in his testimony against Maryland’s helmet law. Overstating the effectiveness of helmets sends a message that current helmets are good enough, Titus says.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...tes-pediatrics

[s211]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

The 85% of head injury prevention stat that ICBC mentions there is bogus. It was from 1989 and has never been replicated.

The ability of bike helmets to reduce injury has been overblown, Titus says. Helmets are sometimes said to reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent, but that statistic comes from a 1989 study that has not been replicated. “Studies in the last 20 years have calculated that helmets prevent 10 to 40 percent of head injuries,” says Titus, who compiled the statistics in his testimony against Maryland’s helmet law. Overstating the effectiveness of helmets sends a message that current helmets are good enough, Titus says.

I might accept an up-to-date study as long as they differentiate in their study between road/path riding versus death-sport downhill bike riding. Otherwise, lump it all in together and of course no amount of helmet is going to help.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by s211

I might accept an up-to-date study as long as they differentiate in their study between road/path riding versus death-sport downhill bike riding. Otherwise, lump it all in together and of course no amount of helmet is going to help.

I asked the ICBC spokesman for their source of the 85% and it was research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I emailed him back to inform him that they have formally dismissed the 85%.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...-bike-helmets/ Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets reduce the risk of a head injury by 85%.

NHTSA agreed to remove the 85% estimate from its website: http://bike.risingsea.net/docs/Legis...e-to-Titus.pdf

The best way to promote safety and to boost cycling is to provide good infrastructure. The results of which was featured in a recent article in BC Business:

http://www.bcbusiness.ca/manufacturi...-cycling#close

According to the latest City of Vancouver data on the often controversial Hornby Street separated bike lane, the per cent of female cyclists using that corridor jumped from 28 per cent of all adult bike trips in 2010 (at which time there was only a painted bike lane on the street) to 37 per cent in 2012 (a year after the separation was installed).

“We are becoming a safer city to cycle in,” a beaming Bracewell said.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

I asked the ICBC spokesman for their source of the 85% and it was research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I emailed him back to inform him that they have formally dismissed the 85%.

Thank you for doing this. My experience with ICBC is that they seemed obsessed with helmets and oblivious to all the other things that could be done to decrease injuries and death.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What...? Gas is free for commuters? Did I read that right?

Yes..

By registering your workplace with the tax-department and numbers of days you commute you receive 2,13 DKK ( $0,39 CAD ) per km you commute.. ( it's automatically deducted from your income tax )

It's then up to people how they want to commute - bike, car, bus, train whatever..

For nearly all it's a surplus deal and is often also "paying" a large chuck of the car price..


It was originally done to halt the exodus towards the cities and to keep people in the small villages and suburban municipals..

Originally Posted by whatnext

As to insurance, does Copenhagen have the same ratio as daredevil young men riding bikes as Vancouver? I am always aghast when witnessing the few cyclists who actually use the Cambie Street bike lanes pedal furiously downhill to reach about 65 km/h. Theyre not going to have much control if a car or pedestrian unexpectedly crosses their path.

Hmm.. we don't have all that many hills and bikes are virtually all separated from traffic since they have their own bike-paths - but there are idiots here who crosses red lights and/or make other strange and illegal moves..


Generally based on how many bike here fatalities are low ( it's the same risk as getting shot with around ~25 deaths per year ) - most are killed by foreign trucks doing right turns

We grow up with bikes and good bike infrastructure, so while some do dumb things most know how to bike and how not to bike ( it's a different thing with tourists ) so those who do take risks rarely take extreme risks..

Originally Posted by WBC

Well that's what you get when you have the unofficially highest taxes in the world (highest in Europe) combined with socialism that would make Marx blush

The average Dane pays ~34% in income tax with the deductibles included ( first ~$10.000 is tax free ) so while high it's not as extreme as many seem to think..

[Porfiry]

Park Board hoping to make Stanley Park causeway safer
http://www.news1130.com/2013/06/25/p...auseway-safer/

The Vancouver Parks Board is doing everything it can to improve the safety of both cyclists and pedestrians sharing the Stanley Park causeway. A motion passed Monday night stems from the death of a cyclist on the causeway at the end of May but carries no specific suggestions. Most supporters who attended the meeting do favour some kind of barrier.

[officedweller]

another article:

http://www.nsnews.com/news/Possible+...079/story.html

[whatnext]

I'd like to see a cost/benefit analysis examining how many bike commuters there are on that route on a regular basis vs. what the expense to the taxpayer would be on this.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'd like to see a cost/benefit analysis examining how many bike commuters there are on that route on a regular basis vs. what the expense to the taxpayer would be on this.

So, what's a human life worth to you? How many dollars exactly?

[WarrenC12]

As mentioned recently, the Hornby bike lane was about the same cost as the left turn bay at Knight and 33rd. What's worth more? It's apples and oranges.

[Metro-One]

If they are going to build a barrier then they will need to widen the pedestrian / cycling path. In fact what should be built is a really nice wide path beside the road, with separated pedestrian and cycling paths. But that would require chopping down a few trees... this will really tear some of the ultra bleeding hearts in half... a nice new bike path or save the trees????

I am serious about having a new path beside the road with dedicated cycling and pedestrian lanes though, would be great! No barrier needed if there is enough space between the path and the road, or at the most a non invasive metal railing, no more stupid jersey barriers.

[rsxstock]

i notice a lot of the green paint near the stanley park area is already coming off probably due to cars crossing path. i wonder if they did enough testing on the material or if they were just trying to pull a fast one