Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

I'm talking about characterizing cyclists as lawbreakers, a fringe group, don't contribute much to taxes (I am assuming Vancouver does not have a cyclist exemption for property taxes), etc.... it's really a distraction for others reading the thread. But as an outsider/lurker I'll leave it at that.....

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

China in particular, is making massive investments in rapid transit and high speed rail. Already, with only a small percentage of the population driving, the roads are already clogged with traffic. It is not uncommon for people to simply give up and go back home rather than wait hours in traffic. The automobile simply is not really a viable form of transportation in large Chinese cities. 20 million electric bikes are sold compared to only 13 million cars or so.

And most people in Chinese cities are and will living in condos or apartments because there simply is not the room for single family housing.

Obviously it is a myth that the automotive industry is good for the economy. The industry has way to much capacity. The factories have around twice the capacity they need to meet demand. This is partially a result of massive subsidies and tax breaks by misguided governments who believe that the auto industry is good for the economy. Wages have also been cut dramatically to attract the "industry". Entry workers now don't make much more than fast food workers.

Then there is the tens of billions of dollars governments wasted to bailout non-viable automakers. It would have been better to let them fail to reduce overcapacity and invested the money in industries of the future.

And finally. Detroit. Enough said.

[jozero]

I trust you are equally in favour of removing massive subsidies to public transit?

Weird, I thought we were talking about biking. How about responding to the questions ? As citizens we've entrusted the government to use our money for the common good, like health care and transportation infrastructure, this isn't at question, but we also want government to use it wisely. The tax revenue spent on infrastructure for private vehicle use is WAY beyond what is spent on transit or cycling per person. Your "the money isn't being used efficiently" stance makes zero sense by singling out biking or transit. The transportation mode you've decided to get behind has historically received way beyond what it actually put into the system.

[tybuilding]

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.

I have a car and I have a bike. Can I have a bike lane and a road to drive on? Seems fair to me. But you can not cycle on every street. There is certainly not a lane for cycling or a separated path on every street. I should be able to get around just as easy on my bike as in my car.

[deasine]

I too believe this car vs. cycling needs to stop. If you don't like it, don't read it, same as how the cyclists who don't like gateway don't comment on it (or stir up heated insulting debates). Anymore posts from this point will result in an immediate suspension.

[osirisboy]

Interesting article in the Vancouver Sun:

Memo to cyclists: Obey the law


Vancouver Sun July 2, 2010



Each year, there are 1,300 crashes involving cyclists in British Columbia, and, on average, 10 people are killed and more than 1,400 are injured. When car and bicycle collide, the cyclist invariably loses.

All of this carnage is preventable but it will take significant changes in behaviour on the part of both drivers and cyclists to make our roads safer.

Drivers already know what to do. They have to pass a driving test to show they are familiar with the rules of the road and can competently operate their vehicles in order to qualify for a driver's permit. They must also prove the vehicle is roadworthy and buy insurance before they can legally use public roadways. Failure to abide by the rules set out in the Province of British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act carries severe consequences, including loss of the licence or the impounding of the vehicle or both. Reckless driving can put the violator behind bars.

Not so for cyclists. Anyone can purchase a bicycle and ride it. There are no licensing requirements, no tests of knowledge or skills, no insurance, no safety checks.

Many cyclists either don't know the provincial laws and city bylaws that govern cycling, believe they don't apply to them or deliberately flout them, as if to say, "Catch me if you can." The City of Vancouver recently unveiled plans to spend $25 million on cycling infrastructure as part of its "green" program that includes making cycling a more attractive means of getting around town than private automobiles.

However, even by its own generous estimates, only 3,500 cyclists bike to work every morning, so the proposed spending on cycling works out to $7,142 per cycling commuter.

Expand the parameters to include the Vancouver census metropolitan area and, according to Statistics Canada, a scant 1.7 per cent of workers cycle to work, a proportion unchanged since 1996, although there was a temporary bump up in 2001 when Vancouver was in the midst of a transit strike at the time of the census.

This might come as news to many cyclists but they are covered by the Motor Vehicle Act just as drivers are. They are also governed by the City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849. Here a small sample of laws on the books that cyclists break every day. Cyclists are required to obey stop signs and other traffic control devices and enforcement.

- No person shall operate a bicycle without having at least one hand on the handle bars.

- No person shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk (or on a crosswalk) except where posted by signs.

- A cyclist must ride as near as practicable to the right side of the street, except when turning left from a left-turn lane.

- No person shall ride a bicycle upon a street while wearing headphones or other device capable of transmitting sound.

- No person shall ride upon a street unless the bicycle is equipped with a bell.

- A person commits an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act if the rider (or passenger) is not wearing a bicycle safety helmet that meets certain standards and specifications. (The fine for a breach is a maximum of $100.)

- A bicycle operated a half-hour before sunrise and after sunset must have a white light mounted on front and a red light or reflector on the rear.

- A person operating a bicycle must signify turns with appropriate hand signals.

If cyclists followed these rules, as they are required to do, cycling and driving would be safer for all. In fact, authorities say wearing approved helmets alone could prevent up to 85 per cent of serious injuries, which account for 80 per cent of all bike-related deaths.

How many cyclists know or care that when two vehicles come to an intersection with a four-way stop at the same time, the one on the right has right of way? Or that their front white headlight must be visible at 150 metres?

If cyclists obey the traffic laws they must be respected as rightful users of the road and drivers must look out for them. Aggressive tactics by cyclists will never force motorists to get off the roads. But skilful cycling within the limits of the law will prove to drivers that bicycles belong there.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Memo+cyclists+Obey/3226739/story.html#ixzz0swUXoAcl

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Interesting article in the Vancouver Sun:

Interesting article. Of course for every point made in the article there are equivalent comments that could be made for drivers and (to a lesser degree) pedestrians.

I took the VACC Commuter Cycling course and found it to be very worthwhile. It made me realize that while cycling I am bound by the motor vehicle regulations and do have all of the rights and responsibilities of a motorist, including the use of left-turn lanes, etc.

It also made me a lot less apprehensive about keeping a wide berth from parked cars. Before I probably tried overmuch to accommodate passing cars by scrunching as far right as possible, but I now realize that I have as much right to the traffic lane as a vehicle does and it's perfectly OK to leave a wide enough buffer zone to avoid running into a suddenly opened door.

[Zassk]

And on the front page of the Sun yesterday (same day as the other article, I think), another very interesting article:


Wearing a bike helmet might not make you any safer


BY HARVEY ENCHIN, VANCOUVER SUN JULY 6, 2010


There was a dent in the side of my bicycle helmet after an inattentive driver collided with my Marin Novato on the Ontario Street bikeway, hurling me to the pavement. I concluded that my injuries would have been a lot worse had I not been wearing it.

As a lifelong cycling commuter, I have worn a helmet since the early 1980s, long before legislation made it mandatory in British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the mid-1990s. My support of laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets was strengthened by this painful experience. After all, if wearing a helmet reduces the number and the severity of injuries, enforcing rules that all riders wear them would seem to be good social policy. That thinking led the City of Vancouver to juggle logistics to ensure users of its proposed bike sharing scheme, modelled on Montreal's Bixi program, will wear helmets in compliance with the law.

Unfortunately, there are flaws in this line of reasoning and assumptions that are not backed up by evidence.

Colin Clarke, a mechanical engineer and British cycling advocate, has argued that the helmeted head will be subject to more impacts than a non-helmeted one in part due to the larger size of the helmet compared with the bare head. A near miss for a bare head may have an impact force of 70 per cent of a direct impact for a helmet wearer, he claims. Furthermore, while helmets may offer adequate protection from skull fractures, they may increase the risk of brain damage from "rotational shearing forces" given the greater number of impacts for helmet wearers. Helmets, especially if they're improperly fitted, can also throw a rider off balance or impair vision and hearing.

According to a 2003 article in the American Heritage Invention and Technology magazine, a surge in bicycle helmets from 1991 to 2001 -- to the extent that 69 per cent of child cyclists and 43 per cent of adult cyclists wore helmets by the end of the period -- was accompanied by a decline in ridership and an increase in cyclist accidents, resulting in 51 per cent more head injuries per cyclist.

Was this an illustration of moral hazard? Did wearing helmets give riders a false sense of security, resulting in riskier behaviour? Or perhaps traffic conditions, aggressive motorists or faster, lighter bikes are responsible for the elevated injury rate and mandatory helmet laws kept it lower than it otherwise would have been. We don't know.

Surveys in British Columbia in 1995 and 1999 indicated an increase of 7.5 per cent in cyclists over that time frame. But 1995 was much wetter than 1999, the population had grown by more than 200,000 and Vancouver had invested in more cycling infrastructure. Accounting for these variables, one study estimated that the helmet law discouraged cycling by 28 per cent.

One source cites statistics from Western Australia where head injuries fell by 11 to 21 per cent when helmet requirements were put in place, but cycle use fell by 30 per cent or more, meaning the risk of head injury increased for those who continued to cycle.

In Canada, the claim of a 45-per-cent reduction in the head injury rate for provinces with helmet laws compared with provinces without them failed to adjust for the level of cycling activity. A study that compared six-year periods on either side of the helmet laws in the four provinces that have them calculated a reduction in fatalities of 37 per cent and a reduction in cycling of 20.5 per cent, for a net reduction in fatalities of 20.4 per cent. In provinces without helmet laws, there was a reduction of 29.5 per cent.

An examination of hospital admissions reveals that admissions fell by 10 per cent over a 12-month period for provinces with helmet laws, while provinces without helmet laws saw a reduction of 22 per cent.

Clarke cites research showing that life-years gained by cycling outweigh years lost to accidents by a factor of 20 to 1. If five per cent of cyclists stopped cycling because of helmet laws, he said, any benefit from helmets would be lost. With estimates of cycling being discouraged by roughly 20 per cent, helmet laws would appear to do more harm than good.

If that is the case, helmet laws infringe civil liberties without any justifiable purpose, a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the Netherlands, there is high a rate of cycling and a low rate of cycling injuries. Virtually no one wears a helmet. There is, however, a vast cycling infrastructure that keeps bikes and cars apart. We need more study to determine whether the helmet law is achieving its objectives and, more importantly, to develop a comprehensive plan to improve cycling safety. In the meantime, I'll continue to wear my helmet.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Wearing...e+safer/3239860/story.html#ixzz0t0uebp6A

[AlexYVR]

Edited and deleted.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zassk

And on the front page of the Sun yesterday (same day as the other article, I think), another very interesting article:

Very interesting food for thought - thanks for posting!

[s211]

Originally Posted by Zassk

<snip> If five per cent of cyclists stopped cycling because of helmet laws, he said, any benefit from helmets would be lost. With estimates of cycling being discouraged by roughly 20 per cent, helmet laws would appear to do more harm than good.

If that is the case, helmet laws infringe civil liberties without any justifiable purpose, a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
<snip>

If someone isn't going to wear a helmet because it infringes on their civil liberties, then by all means don't let me stop them.

Let them crack their addle-pated skulls open... fewer crackpot libertarians left to stunt adult discourse on this planet.

[Porfiry]

Burrard Bridge bike lanes a success, says Vancouver mayor
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Burra...+says+Vancouver+mayor/3251622/story.html

VANCOUVER -- On the same day that Vancouver city council is to consider a plan to make separated bike lanes on Burrard Bridge permanent, the city says it has recorded the millionth cyclist since it began the bike lane trial nearly a year ago.

The city says magnetic counters that register metal bike wheels clicked past 1,000,000 just after 10 p.m. Wednesday.

...

The city says there's been a 24 per cent increase in cyclists on the bridge since the lanes opened on July 13, 2009. It says 200,000 more bicycle trips were recorded on the bridge than before the lanes went in place, and that between 500 and 800 cyclists an hour cross the bridge.

...

"This is a remarkable achievement," he said. "Over one million riders in less than a year shows that when you build safe, protected bike lanes, people of all ages will come out and use them. The Burrard Bridge bike lanes have been a big success and helped make cycling and walking over the bridge safer for thousands of people every day.

"Before the bike lanes were in place, only the most dedicated cyclists used Burrard Bridge. Now it's become a popular route for families, seniors, kids — it's a safe and fun way to get into downtown or head towards Kits beach."

I bet carbon-fiber wheels don't trigger the counters, so 1 million is probably an undercount.

[AlexYVR]

Very cool that it's used so much! This was my favourite statistic:

The number of cyclist injured badly enough to require hospital care while crossing the bridge also fell from four to one during a five month period.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...rard-bridge-bike-lane.html#ixzz0t7xn3Jfn

Looks like things are going well. I hope they vote to keep the lane thought with this administration I'd be surprised if they didn't. The article does acknowledge the negatives:

A city report found the bike lanes did made the trip across the bridge longer by up to six minutes, but only in certain directions at particular times.

Councillor George Chow says the city will look at ways of speeding up traffic exiting the city during afternoon rush hour.

. . .but in my opinion, it's worth it. Good stuff.

[Zassk]

...but I'm curious... did they measure other bridges to see whether the increase was new riders or existing riders? I would think that the bike lane entices some people to change their previous route into downtown.

[SFUVancouver]

^ Well that's a fairly straight forward set of choices:

Burrard Bridge vs Granville Bridge vs Cambie Bridge vs land route around the creek.

I would not be surprised if a handful of the brave/suicidal people who cycle over the Granville Street Bridge have switched to Burrard but I cannot imagine people who would previously have taken the Cambie Bridge or cycled aroud the creek have instead switched to the Burrard Bridge. I most of the increased ridership is induced.

[tybuilding]

World's most friendly cycle cities:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/07/worlds-most-bicycle-friendly-cities.html

Surprising to see Tokyo on that list. Amazing that 20% of the trips there are made by bike.

And maybe a little bit of overkill on cycling infrastructure, an bike shaped island:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/06/bicycle-island-off-copenhagen-coast.html

[tybuilding]

If we want to get Google to cover our cycle routes with directions I guess we would have to petition Translink to send in route information.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/maps/thread?tid=1ad0e4001e1f04ee&hl=en

[MistyMountainHop]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

If we want to get Google to cover our cycle routes with directions I guess we would have to petition Translink to send in route information.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/maps/thread?tid=1ad0e4001e1f04ee&hl=en

They could use the City of Vancouver's route data. The City provides data of its bike routes in DWG, KML and SHP format as part of its OpenData program:

http://data.vancouver.ca/datacatalogue/bikeways.htm

The Terms of Use gives a world-wide, royalty-free license to the data:

http://data.vancouver.ca/termsOfUse.htm

[WarrenC12]

Or use this...

http://www.cyclevancouver.ubc.ca/cv.aspx

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

World's most friendly cycle cities:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/07/worlds-most-bicycle-friendly-cities.html

Surprising to see Tokyo on that list. Amazing that 20% of the trips there are made by bike.

In Tokyo, as in most of Japan, Bicycles and pedestrians share the path. The sidewalks are WAY wider than they are here and most people either use a bike as part of their journey or for short journeys.

Most bikes are utility cycles with one to three gears, a basket in front and a chain guard.

Most bikes are very inexpensive, bike racks are everywhere. The locks are chintzy, meant mostly to prevent casual or accidental theft:

source

Biking is very different in Japan.
This picture speaks volumes: