Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by usog

Racc, why is it always your tactic to redirect people questioning the etiquette of local cyclists onto that of everyone else rather than addressing the question? It's a trend I've noticed. But personally I haven't had any issues with super-cyclists as of yet.

Don't you know, cyclists can do no wrong.

As I sat at Starbucks the other day I'm sure the 50% of bike riders not wearing a helmet was some sort of weird coincidence. Not to mention the guy riding without a helmet and talking on a cell phone while navigating a busy street. Or the bike-riding mother with 2 kids in tow who just blew through a stop sign.

As a note to the poster above re: counting cyclists between 10 and 11 being bound to end up with low numbers, you'll notice counting motor vehicles does not yield the same low result. Yet the velolovers here will argue vociferously that bike routes are somehow a brilliant use of scarce infrastructure dollars. The market has spoken, yet they can't bring themselves to admit that. The sad thing is current council is governing as if they were in charge of the Resort Municpality of Vancouver. Live in Killarney? To darn bad, never mind having any sense of Vancouver's economic place in Metro.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

As a note to the poster above re: counting cyclists between 10 and 11 being bound to end up with low numbers, you'll notice counting motor vehicles does not yield the same low result.

I'm sure if I counted the number of cars going by Dunsmuir and Hornby between 10AM and 11AM I could easily come to the conclusion that all the moaning and groaning over vehicle congestion on Dunsmuir was completely bogus. I can tell you for a fact that on a typical day there's NO car congestion anywhere along Dunsmuir around 4PM when I usually arrive.

My point is that you don't pick an off-peak location at an off-peak time to make judgments on whether the infrastructure being adequately used, no matter what kind of traffic you're measuring.

[SpongeG]

for those who don't live in the city like say paris check it out

• Video Link

[SpongeG]

and the other way

• Video Link

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The contrast is that cyclists in Vancouver for the most part feel they own the roads, can do whatever they want, and blatently ignore even the most basic of road laws that being the "stop sign."

...with over 40,000 vehicle accidents per year in BC, it's pretty obvious that drivers don't follow the rules of the road, either. That's a fact, not an anecdote.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The sad thing is current council is governing as if they were in charge of the Resort Municpality of Vancouver. Live in Killarney? To darn bad, never mind having any sense of Vancouver's economic place in Metro.

Sad but true...But then again Vancouver proper is really Downtown and Kits... Well, maybe Shaughnessy too, but you are not allowed to do anything there except sleep so it really does not count...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

for those who don't live in the city like say paris check it out

• Video Link

That's quite an impressive (NOT) number of cyclists vs motor vehicles or pedestrians. Nothing like catering to a fringe group with taxpayer money.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's quite an impressive (NOT) number of cyclists vs motor vehicles or pedestrians. Nothing like catering to a fringe group with taxpayer money.

I thought it was a decent number of cyclists. I'm not quite sure what you think a sufficient number is to warrant safe infrastructure. It certainly wasn't barren. Furthermore, this was shot during the opening of the route I believe. If it's anything like Burrard, numbers will just keep increasing over time.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

I thought it was a decent number of cyclists. I'm not quite sure what you think a sufficient number is to warrant safe infrastructure. It certainly wasn't barren. Furthermore, this was shot during the opening of the route I believe. If it's anything like Burrard, numbers will just keep increasing over time.

We don't have over a year of data for Burrard so its hard to predict that will keep increasing over time. The data on the City website certainly illustrates how seasonal cycling is in Vancouver.
http://vancouver.ca/projects/burrard/statistics.htm

[jozero]

As a note to the poster above re: counting cyclists between 10 and 11 being bound to end up with low numbers, you'll notice counting motor vehicles does not yield the same low result. Yet the velolovers here will argue vociferously that bike routes are somehow a brilliant use of scarce infrastructure dollars. The market has spoken, yet they can't bring themselves to admit that.

How has the market spoken ? In cities across the world the percentage of road dedicated to biking directly correlates to the percentage of people in biking - in Vancouver its virtually 1:1. Around 5% of the road is dedicated to biking, and around 5% of people bike. New bike lanes are built, more people are biking.

I drive as well occasionally. It doesn't take much research however to know that drivers have it good. Gasoline tax doesn't even come close to paying for roads, and vehicle tax doesn't even come close to covering the cost of health care that car accidents cause. This is for private car use, not transportation of good use.

So if you are arguing for market forces to rule, then let them really rule. Demand that gasoline and vehicle tax rises to match what private vehicles actually use, instead of living off general tax revenues to subsidy driving. Request that those that do ride bikes get a massive reduction in taxes, because their relatively benign healthy activity result in way less costs to society.

[racc]

Originally Posted by usog

Racc, why is it always your tactic to redirect people questioning the etiquette of local cyclists onto that of everyone else rather than addressing the question? It's a trend I've noticed. But personally I haven't had any issues with super-cyclists as of yet.

Because people are always trying to judge all cyclists by the actions of a few that are misbehaving as you did by saying "questioning the etiquette of local cyclists". This is fundamentally wrong. If you said there are a few people on bikes that are reckless, dangerous or whatever, I have no problem with that. When a driver behaves recklessly, people don't say all drivers are reckless.


It is wrong to judge people by the actions of other people.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jozero

How has the market spoken ? In cities across the world the percentage of road dedicated to biking directly correlates to the percentage of people in biking - in Vancouver its virtually 1:1. Around 5% of the road is dedicated to biking, and around 5% of people bike. New bike lanes are built, more people are biking.

I drive as well occasionally. It doesn't take much research however to know that drivers have it good. Gasoline tax doesn't even come close to paying for roads, and vehicle tax doesn't even come close to covering the cost of health care that car accidents cause. This is for private car use, not transportation of good use.

So if you are arguing for market forces to rule, then let them really rule. Demand that gasoline and vehicle tax rises to match what private vehicles actually use, instead of living off general tax revenues to subsidy driving. Request that those that do ride bikes get a massive reduction in taxes, because their relatively benign healthy activity result in way less costs to society.

I trust you are equally in favour of removing massive subsidies to public transit? I'd be careful what you wish for, governments that would have to do without gas taxes, vehicle registration fees and all the tax revenues associated with automobiles would be impoverished.

There's a reason emerging economies like China and India are so keen to encourage an automotive industry. Its become de rigeur for the Gordon Price's of the world to bash private vehicles from their one bedroom downtown condo perches, but that's not reality for most people.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I trust you are equally in favour of removing massive subsidies to public transit? I'd be careful what you wish for, governments that would have to do without gas taxes, vehicle registration fees and all the tax revenues associated with automobiles would be impoverished.

There's a reason emerging economies like China and India are so keen to encourage an automotive industry. Its become de rigeur for the Gordon Price's of the world to bash private vehicles from their one bedroom downtown condo perches, but that's not reality for most people.

Only because the car has made it so! If we build cities around cars, obviously it will be far more convenient and fast to drive places! Obviously nobody will want to walk, cycle or take transit! This has nothing to do with the market, so much as it has to do with American-style urban planning.

Do the Chinese and Indians want Hummers and monster homes for themselves? Of course they do, because that's want the rich Americans have and they think that ownership of such facilities will bring them the same social status and represent their nation's rise in the world. If they were smart, they'd actually be working to maintain they high rates of cycling and transit usage rather than adopting the old industrial model of modernization. But who can blame them for wanting that lifestyle that is so touted?

Quite frankly, a city in which 90% of the population either walked, cycled, or took transit to work would be far more economically efficient than one with lower rates. Such rates would keep main thoroughfares nearly exclusively for important goods movement. Such a city is possible and requires only compact, mixed use buildings within a walkable perimeter, coupled with sufficient density and social services for said residents. I'd say downtown Vancouver is a perfect example of that type of community and we must continue efforts to replicate similar forms in the regional town centres. The only thing inhibiting the development of a 90% alternative mode share is the single family homes, not just in the suburbs of the South Fraser, Richmond, or the Tri-Cities, but also in the COV proper.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nothing like catering to a fringe group with taxpayer money.

What an ignorant comment. My tax money is as good as yours.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

What an ignorant comment. My tax money is as good as yours.

If you don't own a car, your tax contribution is worth far less. And here I thought you were lusting after a Lexus.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If you don't own a car, your tax contribution is worth far less. And here I thought you were lusting after a Lexus.

Funny, I dropped off a large property tax check at City Hall today that had nothing to do with owning a car or not. Cyclists are taxpayers, and we have every right to demand a fair share of services to meet our needs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If you don't own a car, your tax contribution is worth far less. And here I thought you were lusting after a Lexus.

You are all mixed up my friend. I'm a drunken cyclist. I pay way more liquor tax than you pay on your gas. You're a 2nd class citizen.

[twoNeurons]

This thread is getting annoying!

Speaking as a guy who hasn't [really] ridden a bicycle since high school, it doesn't make sense that there is such hatred toward a rather paltry sum spent on some useful infrastructure.

For the most part, I think people are HAPPY that the cyclists are "out of their way", "on their own road".

[waterloowarrior]

whatnext... is your whole point being in this thread just to troll/bash cyclists?
Some of us enjoy reading productive discussion and infrastructure news/pictures.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

whatnext... is your whole point being in this thread just to troll/bash cyclists?
Some of us enjoy reading productive discussion and infrastructure news/pictures.

If you read through some of my posts I do support cycling infrastructure where it doesn't negatively impact other infrastructure users and as a Vancouver taxpayer I want to see some sort of return for that investment - being In Waterloo, I doubt that's as much of a concern for you.