Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[IanS]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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.

I'll have to add helmet use to my things to watch out for.

[racc]

Originally Posted by IanS

I'll have to add helmet use to my things to watch out for.

Helmet use is high on routes where locals tend to cycle. On the Seawall where a lot of tourists come from places without a nanny state that don't have helmet laws, not surprisingly, fewer people wear helmets. People also seem to be wearing helmets less in the hot weather. I see many with the helmet on the handle bars.

Melborne, even a worse nanny state than here, the bike share system is failing due to the helmet law.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/...-1225898680726

We can peddle our city, but very few people can pedal our bikes

* Andrew Bolt
* From: Herald Sun
* July 30, 2010 12:00AM

* SEE Melbourne's ranks of unused blue bikes? Proof that too much government fussing over your health makes you fat.

And, boy, no one fusses more than does a Victorian Government.

We are Australia's nanny state, which is why our new $5.5 million Melbourne Bike Share has a giant spoke in its wheel.

Most cities around the world with such a scheme - a network of docking stations of hire bikes - have found it works a treat. Take Montreal, a city Melbourne's size, which in its first five months logged a million rides.

But Melbourne? Two months after parking 600 bikes in 50 docking stations in the city, the Government has sold just 70 rides a day.

The reason is as simple as it was predictable, and Melbourne Bike Share's own surveys picked it up as the most cited disincentive: it's having to wear a helmet.

Victoria's politicians decree that no one may cycle without foam and plastic strapped to their noggin. Penalty: $146.

Never mind that as an adult you're able to figure whether the risk of cracking your skull on the asphalt is a small price to pay for the convenience of cycling without a helmet. On impulse.

The state says it knows better. No helmet, no ride. For your own good. Even if it's not.

It's offensive bullying, and no other city with a bike scheme like ours is so impertinent. Mexico even scrapped helmet laws to make its system work.

It's a no-brainer. Who carries a helmet on the off chance they will hire a bike? Which tourists pack one for a trip here?

And who'd want to rent one that's been drenched with someone's sweat, speckled with their dandruff, slickened with their gel or infested with their nits?

In fact, Big Nanny strikes even there. So weighed with responsibility for the idiocy of others are we that Melbourne Bike Share won't rent helmets, anyway: "If we were to provide helmets with the bikes we would need to check every helmet after each ride to ensure they are not damaged - and are clean."

Brilliant. So to save us from an unsafe helmet, it provides none at all.

How beautifully this sums up our nannyism, which has made cycling the niche pursuit of people who dress in lycra and are thin already.

Few, if any, Western countries have people less likely to cycle, and cycling activists blame our helmet laws.

Victoria introduced them in 1990, and police prosecuted the helmetless with all the zeal they reserve for the peaceful. Cyclists were hit with 19,000 fines in the first year for being so wicked as to have nothing on their head but sunshine.

And so a law meant to keep us healthy persuaded many Victorians it was no longer worth the bother to cycle.

The Monash University Accident Research Centre estimated bicycle use by children fell by as much a third in the first 12 months. Making cycling safer also made cycling rarer.

Some experts even doubt helmets make us much safer anyway, especially not if they drive cyclists off the road.

Holland, with one of the world's safest cycling records, rejects helmet laws, arguing that the best way to make cycling safer is to build separate cycling paths and lanes.

Its experts also argue there's a kind of safety in numbers, which helmets just undercut. More cyclists means more awareness from drivers, which is why even fat vrouws will dare pedal there, like they sure won't here.

You may agree or not. But what no one can accept is that this Government thought it could have both its helmet law and its bike scheme.

It can nag us about our brittle skulls or our fat gut, but it cannot yet force us to both lug our helmets and pedal its bikes. Those deserted stands of blue tell the tale.

[s211]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

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.

Both directions, morning and afternoon:

Seawall, Pacific, Dunsmuir, Georgia, Quebec.

I'm not making this stuff up.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

Helmet use is high on routes where locals tend to cycle. On the Seawall where a lot of tourists come from places without a nanny state that don't have helmet laws, not surprisingly, fewer people wear helmets. People also seem to be wearing helmets less in the hot weather. I see many with the helmet on the handle bars.

Melborne, even a worse nanny state than here, the bike share system is failing due to the helmet law.

When I mention the Seawall, I'm not talking the tourist trade. You can spot those helmet-carrying tw@ts a mile away.

And a bike-sharing thing FAILING because of a helmet bylaw ?!?!? Just goes to show you how STUPID people can be.

[Stingray2004]

Interesting tidbit about separated bike lanes... speaking of the proverbial "Catch-22":

According to Lon LaClaire, manager of Strategic Transportation Planning, the No. 1 reason people don’t bike is because they don’t feel safe.

Separated bike lanes allow cyclists to feel safer which leads people to bike more, said LaClaire.

However, LaClaire added that cities that have implemented separated bike lanes found that “collisions between cyclists and motorists have increased.”

Source: http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...lane-on-hornby

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by IanS

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.

I, undoubtedly, have spent more time looking than you. I've biked thousands of hours in Vancouver and my apartment directly overlooks Homer St. (which has a bike lane). I work at home and my desk faces the street. I've seen the best and worst from everyone, everyday of the week, from dawn until dusk, as an observer and as a participant.

My observations, and the collision statistics I've seen, suggest that on balance cyclists are no worse and no better than the average pedestrian or motorist, either when it comes to simple compliance with the law or in the more important measure of accidents and injuries.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I, undoubtedly, have spent more time looking than you. I've biked thousands of hours in Vancouver and my apartment directly overlooks Homer St. (which has a bike lane). I work at home and my desk faces the street. I've seen the best and worst from everyone, everyday of the week, from dawn until dusk, as an observer and as a participant.

My observations, and the collision statistics I've seen, suggest that on balance cyclists are no worse and no better than the average pedestrian or motorist, either when it comes to simple compliance with the law or in the more important measure of accidents and injuries.

And? What does that have to do with anything I've said?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

Helmet use is high on routes where locals tend to cycle.

Absolutely untrue.

Originally Posted by racc

On the Seawall where a lot of tourists come from places without a nanny state that don't have helmet laws, not surprisingly, fewer people wear helmets. People also seem to be wearing helmets less in the hot weather. I see many with the helmet on the handle bars.

Melborne, even a worse nanny state than here, the bike share system is failing due to the helmet law.

Melbourne isn't a state. It's a city. And I wouldn't characterize Australia as worse nanny state than the Netherlands, not to mention every cyclists' definiition of nirvana, Denmark. You know, that would be Denmark with a 63% top tax rate? And the jusrisdiction that had to implement even higher taxes on vehicles to thwart citizens' desire to own a car. Leading to the rather "ungreen" behaviour of forcing Danes to import 10 year old German autos. Social engineering and nanny-statism at its best!

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting tidbit about separated bike lanes... speaking of the proverbial "Catch-22":



Source: http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...lane-on-hornby

The statement she made is actually quite deceiving. At the end of the day, it really depends on howthe infrastructure is implememted (whether or not sufficient signage is present, amount or lack of road markings, etc. ). At the end of the day, these segregated cycling lanes promote more cycling, and thus, generally means more cycling use. There are increases in driver-cycling related accidents because there are a lot more cyclists.

[worldwide]

as a cyclist and a driver I follow the rules of the road much more closely as a driver. of course i still speed, but not excessively, however i always signal turns, take due care (shoulder checks etc) try not to go through late oranges etc...

as a driver I could potentially kill or severely injure somebody but as a cyclist it's my ass on the line. I'm always very on point when it comes to traffic, specifically not getting killed by it, but i still get places fast and that means not stopping unless absolutely necessary. i don't know why you guys have your panties in a knot. does it really matter in the grand scheme of things. Ive never hit anyone, people have nearly hit me, but I'm good at predicting the worst case scenario and therefore avoiding crashes.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Melbourne isn't a state. It's a city. And I wouldn't characterize Australia as worse nanny state than the Netherlands, not to mention every cyclists' definiition of nirvana, Denmark. You know, that would be Denmark with a 63% top tax rate? And the jusrisdiction that had to implement even higher taxes on vehicles to thwart citizens' desire to own a car. Leading to the rather "ungreen" behaviour of forcing Danes to import 10 year old German autos. Social engineering and nanny-statism at its best!

Way to change the subject to something totally irrelevant. Yes, Melbourne is a city so Victoria would be the nanny state although the term nanny state can be applied to any level of government that is over protective.

What is social engineering is designing cities where people are forced to drive a car. This was all engineered by the car and oil companies. They even bought up streetcar systems and tore up the tracks so people would be forced to drive.

Here is a fine piece of propaganda used in GM's social engineering efforts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74cO9X4NMb4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7dT2HId-c

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

Way to change the subject to something totally irrelevant. Yes, Melbourne is a city so Victoria would be the nanny state although the term nanny state can be applied to any level of government that is over protective.

What is social engineering is designing cities where people are forced to drive a car. This was all engineered by the car and oil companies. They even bought up streetcar systems and tore up the tracks so people would be forced to drive.

Here is a fine piece of propaganda used in GM's social engineering efforts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74cO9X4NMb4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7dT2HId-c

Thank you for the lesson in ancient history. I hadn't noticed GM trying to buy Translink, but I'll be on my guard now. The sad fact is your beloved Copenhagen requires outrageous levies and taxes to force people onto bicycles. Given their choice, as we see with the exploding car sales in China, the consumer has made their choice for motor vehicles clear. Its only the heavy hand of nanny state governments that dissuades them.
China's auto sales surged past the United States to reach record levels in 2009
Chinese Car Sales Break Sound Barrier

One inconvenient truth noted upthread was that city studies showed the Burrard Bike lane had increased vehicle travel times. Multiply those extra minutes by the number of vehicles and you get increased emissions. So the whole bike lane exercise isn't about being green, is it?

I'm not even going to bother to protest the bike lane on Hornby. Its a foregone conclusion. Vision Vancouver will stage some sham consultation and then do exactly what they were planning to do anyway. Its their standard m.o.

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting tidbit about separated bike lanes... speaking of the proverbial "Catch-22":



Source: http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...lane-on-hornby

In absolute terms that may be true, but what matters is the risk, and with an increased number of cyclists the risk of getting in an accident decreases significantly.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The sad fact is your beloved Copenhagen requires outrageous levies and taxes to force people onto bicycles.

Copenhagen is the happiest city in the world.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The sad fact is your beloved Copenhagen requires outrageous levies and taxes to force people onto bicycles. Given their choice, as we see with the exploding car sales in China, the consumer has made their choice for motor vehicles clear. Its only the heavy hand of nanny state governments that dissuades them.

The people in Copenhagen are perfectly happy to ride their bicycles. It is a democracy, if the people did not like the government policies of encouraging bicycle use and discouraging car use, they would have voted the government out long ago.

In fact, they seem to be very happy in general even with or perhaps because of the high taxes. This one study, found them the happiest people on the planet.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

Not particularly surprising. While driving on the open road in the country can be fun, driving in a city is quite frankly a miserable experience. It is no wonder that drivers are so cranky and in such a hurry to get out of the vehicles they supposedly love. Cycling, on the other hand, can be quite enjoyable as long as bikes are separated from traffic. It is also quite nice to see all the beautiful Danish women cycling around. It is quite easy to be happy.

The sad truth is that the Chinese government has to massively subsidize gas so people there can afford to drive. Even with the massive subsidies for gas, last year 20 million electric bikes were sold as opposed to only 13 million cars. People are choosing bicycles as in spite of only a small portion of the population owning cars, the traffic jams are so horrible that cycling is simply much faster.

The Chinese government is also investing hundreds of billions of dollars in rapid transit and high speed rail. The Chinese will never be forced to drive like people are over here.

Originally Posted by whatnext

One inconvenient truth noted upthread was that city studies showed the Burrard Bike lane had increased vehicle travel times. Multiply those extra minutes by the number of vehicles and you get increased emissions. So the whole bike lane exercise isn't about being green, is it?

That is really stretching it. Any increases in emissions would be very minimal and an insignificant portion of the emissions due to driving in the city. If you actually bothered to do any research, you would have realized that travel times have actually decreased for northbound traffic and it is only a few hours a day when travel times are impacted at all. With the speeds likely reduced on the bridge on the uphill sections, emissions may actually been decreased. Racing up hill uses a lot of gas.

Anyway, if you are really worried about emissions and emissions caused by congestion, then stop driving. The overwhelming cause of congestion in the region is too many people driving. It will also be a moot point as more and more people get hybrids which don't have any emissions when they are stopped.

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm not even going to bother to protest the bike lane on Hornby. Its a foregone conclusion. Vision Vancouver will stage some sham consultation and then do exactly what they were planning to do anyway. Its their standard m.o.

With Burrard Bridge at least, there was 18 years of consultation and the Mayor promised to do it during the election campaign and he won by a landslide. The same people that complain about Burrard Bridge for whatever reason are now complaining about the process on Hornby. Give me a break. It is not about process, you just don't like the decision.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

The people in Copenhagen are perfectly happy to ride their bicycles. It is a democracy, if the people did not like the government policies of encouraging bicycle use and discouraging car use, they would have voted the government out long ago.

In fact, they seem to be very happy in general even with or perhaps because of the high taxes. This one study, found them the happiest people on the planet.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

Riiigght. High taxes are the way to ultimate happiness.

Originally Posted by racc

The sad truth is that the Chinese government has to massively subsidize gas so people there can afford to drive. Even with the massive subsidies for gas, last year 20 million electric bikes were sold as opposed to only 13 million cars. People are choosing bicycles as in spite of only a small portion of the population owning cars, the traffic jams are so horrible that cycling is simply much faster.

The Chinese government is also investing hundreds of billions of dollars in rapid transit and high speed rail. The Chinese will never be forced to drive like people are over here.

The Chinese are also investing billions in the auto industry and the auto infrastructure. The fact is more and more Chinese own a car and most aspire to own one.

Originally Posted by racc

That is really stretching it. Any increases in emissions would be very minimal and an insignificant portion of the emissions due to driving in the city. If you actually bothered to do any research, you would have realized that travel times have actually decreased for northbound traffic and it is only a few hours a day when travel times are impacted at all. With the speeds likely reduced on the bridge on the uphill sections, emissions may actually been decreased. Racing up hill uses a lot of gas.

Anyway, if you are really worried about emissions and emissions caused by congestion, then stop driving. The overwhelming cause of congestion in the region is too many people driving. It will also be a moot point as more and more people get hybrids which don't have any emissions when they are stopped.

With Burrard Bridge at least, there was 18 years of consultation and the Mayor promised to do it during the election campaign and he won by a landslide. The same people that complain about Burrard Bridge for whatever reason are now complaining about the process on Hornby. Give me a break. It is not about process, you just don't like the decision.

Since you're big on anecdotal evidence, its plain for anyone driving that idling times waiting to cross the bridge southbound have increased, whether down Thurlow or northbound along Pacific. The city has admitted as much. Why should I stop driving, it allows me to be far more efficient with my time and accomplish far more economic activity than the alternative.

Oh and i do love it when folks defend Gregor's love of public consultation. Click below for a quick refresher on his respect of the process:
http://www.straight.com/article-3346...your-cellphone

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IanS

I'll have to add helmet use to my things to watch out for.

FWIW, 19 of the 26 cyclists I saw on the way home yesterday were wearing helmets.

4 of the 9 cyclists I saw on the way to work were wearing helmets.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thank you for the lesson in ancient history. I hadn't noticed GM trying to buy Translink, but I'll be on my guard now. The sad fact is your beloved Copenhagen requires outrageous levies and taxes to force people onto bicycles. Given their choice, as we see with the exploding car sales in China, the consumer has made their choice for motor vehicles clear. Its only the heavy hand of nanny state governments that dissuades them.
China's auto sales surged past the United States to reach record levels in 2009
Chinese Car Sales Break Sound Barrier

One inconvenient truth noted upthread was that city studies showed the Burrard Bike lane had increased vehicle travel times. Multiply those extra minutes by the number of vehicles and you get increased emissions. So the whole bike lane exercise isn't about being green, is it?

I'm not even going to bother to protest the bike lane on Hornby. Its a foregone conclusion. Vision Vancouver will stage some sham consultation and then do exactly what they were planning to do anyway. Its their standard m.o.

You:

racc:

Nothin' like a little leftie paranoia and spin-doctoring to ram their social engineering agenda down our throats.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by whatnext

One inconvenient truth noted upthread was that city studies showed the Burrard Bike lane had increased vehicle travel times. Multiply those extra minutes by the number of vehicles and you get increased emissions. So the whole bike lane exercise isn't about being green, is it?

No, it was about SAFETY!! About cyclists possibly falling into the path of vehicles.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Since you're big on anecdotal evidence, its plain for anyone driving that idling times waiting to cross the bridge southbound have increased, whether down Thurlow or northbound along Pacific. The city has admitted as much.

[QUOTE=whatnext;4930326]

Actually, I'm big on actually evidence, which you seem to ignore. If you actually bothered to carefully read my post, you would have realized that I said that according to the citynorthbound travel times have decreased, which makes sense because there wasn't a lane reallocated and the banning of right turns at Hornby has allowed traffic to flow more smoothly.

From the city's web site:

As with buses, general vehicle travel times along Burrard Street are unchanged. Driving trips which approach the bridge from the east along Pacific Boulevard are longer by about 30 seconds during peak periods. The most noticable change to vehicle travel times is for trips approaching the bridge from the west along Thurlow Street or Pacific Street. Accessing the bridge via Thurlow and Pacific now takes an average one and half minutes longer in the morning peak period and three minutes longer in the afternoon.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why should I stop driving, it allows me to be far more efficient with my time and accomplish far more economic activity than the alternative.

So you could actually do something to lessen the congestion that is strangling the regional economy instead of complaining about it.

You also might want to consider saving just a few drops of oil for future generations instead of wasting it by using the least efficient form of transportation ever invent.

You also may have noticed that oil is spilling into the water all over the place. Using oil and supporting these companies that don't seem to care at all for the environment, the economy or the people that work for them is simply irresponsible.

By the time you take into account the time you spend earning the after tax money required to own, operate and maintain a car into the equation, you might find the total time spent supporting and using your car makes in really no faster than other forms of transportation unless you are really making the big bugs.

As well, if you walk, cycle or use transit you don't have to spend time driving to gym to stay fit.

Anyway, you trolls are getting rather tiresome. This a bike forum not a whiney motorists forum. I can always go post some inconvenient truths on the Gateway forum if you want.