Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by racc

illegal intimidation

C'mon now. I agree with your point that judging all cyclists because of a few bad apples is a bad thing but I think responding with a very juvenile statement like 'illegal intimidation' makes you a hypocrit. I'm sure the vast majority of motorists respect cyclists that are obeying the law.

The truth of the matter is you shouldn't sink to the same low as people you're annoyed at who make unfounded accusations against cyclists. I fall into this mold from time to time myself when I get cut off by a cyclist and am cursing my wind screen but then I sit back and go "yes well in truth I see as many bad motorists as I do cyclists, and don't get me started about pedestrians!"



Really though I don't have an issue with cyclists. I think motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists need to co-exist in a nice way. It just makes sense. None of them will replace the other because there are just so many different situations out there that each excels at.

At the same time, my beef is with really BAD policy. Vancouver's Mayor makes really BAD policy unfortunately and it is done through emotion and for vote getting rather than simple analysis and facts.

Someone still has yet to explain to me why they clsoed the left turn lanes on King Ed and Heather to motorists in favor of a biking coridor when the truth is bombing around the area nearly daily and knowing cyclists in the area, more cyclists use Ash and Willow streets because the hill is less difficult.

What it has resulted in reality is the only road with a light and left turn lanes for cars has been closed off pushing us to Ash and Willow which are more dangerous to cross and turn at not to mention the bikes haven't moved so there are now MORE cars competing with cycles in more dangerous spots.

They would have been better off just adding flashing lights at Ash and Willow and leaving everything else as is.

So again like I said, really bad policy. That's just 1 spot above where boneheads made a bad decision and it will never be reviewed.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

but yet I'm assuming you will completely trust and listen to racc's data.

That's a poor assumption to make. I trust what I see with my own eyes.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by jhausner

In Surrey, anything from the flats to the high points would give you a great work out for example from Surrey Lake up 152nd to Guildford is a good push, or from Cloverdale to Highway 1 again another push. Can try something like Golden Ears to Guildford too for a long run, has some great hills especially in stretches of 96th but unfortunately from 176th to 152nd it isn't terribly biker friendly. There is though a bike trail that leads across most of Surrey along the power lines.

Langley try Langley City up 200th towards Highway 1. Again a great and long climb. Could also just do Burnaby up Willingdon or Royal Oak from BCIT. Another good climb and you end up pretty much at Metrotown.

Thankfully by next year the 96th Ave route from 176th St to 164st (where there is a trail under the power lines) will be upgraded with a new bike trail. Another trail along 100th Ave from 168 st to 176st is also being put in along with eventually an overpass over highway 1 at 168 st.

A good climb is the hill to SFU. I did it in 25 minutes from the downhill curve of Galgardi Way above Broadway to the round about on University Drive on a mountain bike. Then it is fun to ride down the trails.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

That's a poor assumption to make. I trust what I see with my own eyes.

Umm isn't that exactly what IanS's point was?

[whatnext]

A good piece on Red Light Robertson here:
http://www.citycaucus.com/2010/07/gr...light-incident
Transit drivers are the unsung heroes here, having to put up with idiot cyclists and car drivers.

I appreciate the irony that not a single cyclist is using the Dunsmuir bike lane by behind Meggs during his interview. Tax money well spent.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I appreciate the irony that not a single cyclist is using the Dunsmuir bike lane by behind Meggs during his interview. Tax money well spent.

Good heavens, no cyclists for the entire 7 seconds Meggs was on camera. My gosh, you've certainly made a persuasive argument that those lanes are completely useless, all right...

I used to gripe about the three-slot bike rake in front of the BCIT downtown campus always being full and having to chain my bike to a utility pole. The Dunsmuir bike lane includes over 20 new bike rack spaces right beside BCIT and they're already almost full. And in addition to all the extra cyclists I see every time I'm on Dunsmuir, I've also noticed that the Union Street bike route is a LOT busier since the lanes went in. Anyone who thinks those lanes aren't being used isn't paying attention.

Robertson did a stupid, stupid thing - but it has nothing to do with whether those lanes are good or bad. He'd probably have done the same thing with the old painted lane, and it would have been just as idiotic.

Maybe if we're lucky it will raise awareness of the issue and convince a few dumb risk-takers to be more careful.

[racc]

Originally Posted by usog

Wait, if you're just driving along properly/legally and a cyclist does something boneheaded resulting in you hitting them/them hitting you, would the driver get any sort of negative consequence? Asides from the probable insurance hit of course. If the answer is yes, that would be pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

You said:

Originally Posted by usog

If I were the bus driver, I wouldn't have tried to avoid the collision.

Which means you would have made a conscious decision to harm someone which is illegal regardless of what they are doing or not doing (unless it is self defences or you are protecting someone else from them.

You have no legal right to hit someone even if they are not following the rules. Now, if there is no way you can avoid them, then of course you are not responsible but if you can avoid them and don't, you are deciding to harm them, which of course, is not legal.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jhausner

C'mon now. I agree with your point that judging all cyclists because of a few bad apples is a bad thing but I think responding with a very juvenile statement like 'illegal intimidation' makes you a hypocrit. I'm sure the vast majority of motorists respect cyclists that are obeying the law.

I agreed that majority of motorists are fine around cyclists and a few are even down right sweet. However, the few that aren't, make it really uncomfortable to cycle along busier streets without separated bicycle lanes. Some are aggressive, some are reckless and some are just careless. Regardless, it is intimidating and often they are breaking the rules of the road. As a result, the majority of people don't feel comfortable cycling with protection from traffic. These are likely the same people that make it miserable to drive and also make walking hazardous.

A few bad apples spoil the roads for everyone.

[DKaz]

Taxi drivers in general, I almost got run off the road on two separate occasions in 2001 by taxi drivers when I was cycling everyday due to the bus strike.

[usog]

Originally Posted by racc

You said:


Which means you would have made a conscious decision to harm someone which is illegal regardless of what they are doing or not doing (unless it is self defences or you are protecting someone else from them.

You have no legal right to hit someone even if they are not following the rules. Now, if there is no way you can avoid them, then of course you are not responsible but if you can avoid them and don't, you are deciding to harm them, which of course, is not legal.

(Image mine(lol), hurr durr I know but just incase for image crediting rules >_>)
Yeeeah wasn't me who said that, thanks for trying anyways. And seriously 'red-light Robertston' probably owes his health(physical and political) to that bus driver, least you'd expect is for him to be a bit grateful y'know?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Umm isn't that exactly what IanS's point was?

In part, I suppose.

Racc's original assertion was that, if one watched cyclists, they would observe that 90-95% of them followed the rules of the road.

I disagreed, indicating that I watch cyclists downtown all the time and that most of the ones I see don't follow the rules of the road.

Racc then asserted that I was only watching the bad ones, not the good ones.

I disagreed, indicating that I watched both and, from my observations, the bad ones outnumbered the good ones. Often by a wide margin.

Racc then suggested that I wasn't watching in the right places, and that I should watch the Dunsmuir bike lane. Apparently, he asserted, even Milo Certig observed cyclists following the rules there.

I acknowledged that I didn't walk along Dunsmuir and that he may well be correct that cyclists on that street follow the rules.

Racc also asserted that I was probably seeing cycle couriers.

I agreed that, yes, I did see, among other things, cycle couriers. My understanding is that they are cyclists.

My main point - which was very limited - was that I disagreed with Racc's original assertion. No more than that. The remainder of the exchange consisted of Racc's attempts to explain away or disregard my observations because they didn't fit his beliefs.

At the end of the day, I believe lots of things I don't see myself. I don't count bikes going over the Burrard Street Bridge, but I accept, based on the City's numbers, that there was about a 7% increase in bike use on the bridge from last year before the bike lane, which is significant (though not as dramatic as the 26% "estimate" the City was touting prior to the data becoming available).

However, what I don't believe are Racc's broad, absolute and unfounded assertions about what all cyclists do.

[racc]

Originally Posted by IanS

My main point - which was very limited - was that I disagreed with Racc's original assertion. No more than that. The remainder of the exchange consisted of Racc's attempts to explain away or disregard my observations because they didn't fit his beliefs.

At the end of the day, I believe lots of things I don't see myself. I don't count bikes going over the Burrard Street Bridge, but I accept, based on the City's numbers, that there was about a 7% increase in bike use on the bridge from last year before the bike lane, which is significant (though not as dramatic as the 26% "estimate" the City was touting prior to the data becoming available).

However, what I don't believe are Racc's broad, absolute and unfounded assertions about what all cyclists do.

OK, lets trying and find some evidence. It is actually hard to find any on the rates that cyclists break the rules. I suspect the reason why no one bothers to keep track of this is because it isn't really much of a problem because even if cyclists do break the rules, it is not a big public safety problem compared to drivers breaking the rules.

What I can show is the cause of collisions resulting to injuries to cyclists. On bicycle routes in Vancouver motorists were responsible for 19 collisions while cyclists were responsible for only 4. On all streets in the city, motorists were responsible for 48 collisions while cyclists were responsible for 42. This seems to indicate that cyclists were not as well behaved on streets that are not bike routes, which, at the time, included downtown streets. Still, they seemed to be better behaved than motorists.

This is all from 1999. It is too bad there is not more recent data but this is all we have as far as any evidence goes.
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transpor...99bikeplan.pdf pages 69 and 70.

At 55% verses 4% in 2006, there is nearly 15 times as many automobile trips in Vancouver as bicycle. Around 10 pedestrians are killed by drivers in Vancouver every year. If collisions with bicycles resulted in a similar fatality rate, one pedestrian would be killed every year or two in a collisions with a bicycle. I have never heard of a pedestrian being killed in Vancouver due to a collision with a bicycle. Given the ridiculous level of coverage given to Mayor Robertson reportedly not stopping before turning right on a red, you can bet the media would go ballistic if a pedestrian was killed in a bicycle collision.

So, whatever the rate of breaking the rules, it is pretty clear that reckless cycling is not nowhere near the public safety problem that reckless driving is.

Sorry, this is not direct evidence on rates of compliance for cyclists but it is the best I can do.

[SpongeG]

i see cyclists run red lights and ride on sidewalks

no idea of the numbers but its pretty regular

if they are alone they are more likely to do so - but i have observed that when there are more than one they will usually go with what the rest do

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

OK, lets trying and find some evidence. It is actually hard to find any on the rates that cyclists break the rules. I suspect the reason why no one bothers to keep track of this is because it isn't really much of a problem because even if cyclists do break the rules, it is not a big public safety problem compared to drivers breaking the rules.

What I can show is the cause of collisions resulting to injuries to cyclists. On bicycle routes in Vancouver motorists were responsible for 19 collisions while cyclists were responsible for only 4. On all streets in the city, motorists were responsible for 48 collisions while cyclists were responsible for 42. This seems to indicate that cyclists were not as well behaved on streets that are not bike routes, which, at the time, included downtown streets. Still, they seemed to be better behaved than motorists.

This is all from 1999. It is too bad there is not more recent data but this is all we have as far as any evidence goes.
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transpor...99bikeplan.pdf pages 69 and 70.

At 55% verses 4% in 2006, there is nearly 15 times as many automobile trips in Vancouver as bicycle. Around 10 pedestrians are killed by drivers in Vancouver every year. If collisions with bicycles resulted in a similar fatality rate, one pedestrian would be killed every year or two in a collisions with a bicycle. I have never heard of a pedestrian being killed in Vancouver due to a collision with a bicycle. Given the ridiculous level of coverage given to Mayor Robertson reportedly not stopping before turning right on a red, you can bet the media would go ballistic if a pedestrian was killed in a bicycle collision.

So, whatever the rate of breaking the rules, it is pretty clear that reckless cycling is not nowhere near the public safety problem that reckless driving is.

Sorry, this is not direct evidence on rates of compliance for cyclists but it is the best I can do.

My goodness, thou dost protest too much.

During my walk to/from home, I've been counting the proportion of cyclists not wearing helmets. Almost HALF of the cyclists did not wear helmets, and almost every cyclist I saw broke the rules of the road (running reds, wrong way on one-way, failing to signal, endangering pedestrians, riding on sidewalk, etc to infinity) at least ONCE before leaving my sight.

You want the world bubble-wrapped, don't you? Grow some first. Don't expect society to coddle your addled masses.

[racc]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i see cyclists run red lights and ride on sidewalks

no idea of the numbers but its pretty regular

if they are alone they are more likely to do so - but i have observed that when there are more than one they will usually go with what the rest do

And I see motorists running red lights, running stop signs, getting stuck in the middle of an intersection during red lights, stopping in bike lanes, not stopping before turning right on red, not stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks, speeding, going the wrong way around traffic circles, ignoring don't enter signs, etc. pretty regularly. I don't have any idea of the rates either.

My point was is that whatever the rate is, there is strong evidence that this is a large public safety problem.

[SpongeG]

never said car drivers were any better

there are bad pedestrians too

people who work in restaurants spit in food too but like all things its a small percentage of baddies

[IanS]

Originally Posted by racc

So, whatever the rate of breaking the rules, it is pretty clear that reckless cycling is not nowhere near the public safety problem that reckless driving is.

I don't disagree with that.

My (and I'll say it again) limited point was in response to your assertion that, if one looks, one will see that 90-95% of cyclists follow the rules. I do look and that's not what I see. That's all.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by racc

My point was is that whatever the rate is, there is strong evidence that this is a large public safety problem.

Uh. No. With respect, here was your point (and I quote from your original post, to which I was replying):

"[You wrote] Try actually observing cyclists and you will find the large majority of them follow the rules of the road. Maybe 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 don't but you can say the same for drivers and pedestrians."

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

Almost HALF of the cyclists did not wear helmets, and almost every cyclist I saw broke the rules of the road (running reds, wrong way on one-way, failing to signal, endangering pedestrians, riding on sidewalk, etc to infinity) at least ONCE before leaving my sight.

Almost half didn't wear helmets? Where do you walk? That's sure a lot different from what I see, and frankly in my mind it casts some doubt on your claims.

Just as a sanity check I had a look through my photo archive for shots I tagged with "bicycle". Of the 25 cyclists I found in pictures in various locations throughout the city of the past few years, ALL were wearing a helmet.

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative, but that's just so at odds with what I've seen that I had to comment on it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative, but that's just so at odds with what I've seen that I had to comment on it.

As a commuter cyclist I see a lot of cyclists on my route every day. I'd say non-helmet users account for about 5% of total cyclists.