Important issues like ellipsis abuse?
Perhaps you should move on?

Wow way to keep it classy Darcy, The guy admits he didn’t check his mirror and made an error, but you would punch his lights out for his error. It’s called an accident. You have some serious anger mangement issues. Like your other post in which you stated you’d purposely brush up against a pedestrian if they crossed into the cycle lane. I think the licensing system would be a success if it kept you and anyone that rides like you off the road. Cheers.

> which is enforced by requiring you to show proof of insurance when renewing
> your Road Fund License every year

Not sure of the mechanics of how they got away with it…could be they showed proof, got plates, then had to cancel it…could be non-matching expiration dates.

I’m too lazy to scam the system. I just pay.

Besides, I personally think the ICBC system is pretty good. Government legislates a requirement, government provides the minimum requirement. (Optional is another more complex issue…)

The alternative…legal requirement for insure with solely private providers strikes me as odd now. Imagine if government required you to have your children in school, but only private schools were available. Tuition rates would sprial skyward, and the for profit schools would staff as leanly as they could to improve profits.

Darcy, terminally amped on testosterone and tough as nails, flexed his tattooed biceps and manfully snarled in what he hoped was an intimidating tone:

“Then I’d punch your lights out, for being such an ass of course.”

Um… and this ties in with your perpetual stance of moral superiority… how, exactly?

Man, ask a civil question and get a fist in the face in return… Darcy, sweetheart, I can tell you that if you were to (attempt to) punch my lights out for ANY reason, I’d press charges against you for criminal assault. I think you might have a bit of a problem making your little insurance claim for your poor little bicycle after that. Like Not Running for Mayor said, you appear to have one serious anger management problem (not to mention an arrogance and self-righteousness problem). You call yourself one of the safest riders on the road? If that’s true, no wonder I see so many nutjobs riding bikes. One of the safest? Really? After you’ve already bragged about forcing hapless pedestrians out of your way by brushing them back as you ride by? After chest-thumpingly declaring that you’ve “declared war” on the automobile? Ever read any history? No one ever wins a war. Diplomacy is a much more positive approach.

Oh, incidentally, a bit of advice: Bragging about how you’d (attempt to) punch total strangers’ lights out because they pissed you off? Bad idea. Strangers can be just full of nasty surprises. In fact, take it from one who knows a thing or three about violence and its consequences: Throwing punches at strangers in the street because they accidentally caused you to run into a car door is a good way to get your bike fed to you, piece by piece. Word to the wise… beware of using the rhetoric of violence. There’s always going to be someone around who’s willing to call your bluff.
gmgw

> Darcy, terminally amped on testosterone

I wouldn’t be quite so sure of that, just a hunch.

You didn’t get a fist in the face for asking a question.

You got a hypothetical fist in the face for hypothetically hitting a hypothetical me with your car door because (as you admitted) you neglected to look.

And I’m not “Bragging about how you’d (attempt to) punch total strangers’ lights out because they pissed you off” because:
a) you didn’t piss me off, you almost killed me with your door (hypothetically)
b) I wouldn’t “attempt to”, I’d do it

Yes we practice defensive riding. That’s why 99% of the time you’ll see me in the middle of the left lane: it gives me a safety buffer, and makes it harder for cars coming behind me to ignore me. Lane position is of of the basic safety techniques you learn when you learn how to ride on two wheels.

Of course when you’re on a bicycle and staking out your claim to the road, drivers who are following often start honking horns or trying to pass because they get annoyed.

How fast I’m going has no bearing on fault: the driver is responsible for checking behind them prior to opening the door.

That’s why divided, protected bike lanes increase safety so dramatically…much like the one on the Burrard Street Bridge. Riding in traffic doesn’t scare me, but it scares the living hell out of a lot of people.

GMGW:

You better believe most riders practice defensive riding. They’d be sipping and puffing their way through life if they didn’t.

I drove (crept) across the bridge northbound at 5pm on Wednesday…I had a disabled passenger in my car, so I’m not sure she was eligible to cycle or walk across the “improved” bridge. During the 7 or 8 minutes we sat in traffic on the bridge, 4 cycles passed us northbound. As this was my first time over the “new” bridge, I was somewhat surprised by the arrangement at the ramp to Pacific eastbound. I came to a stop to avoid blocking the demarcated bike route (I couldn’t proceed eastbound due to traffic back-ups on Pacific at Hornby), all under the watchful eye of a police officer stationed at the north end of the bridge. While I was stopped, a cyclist advancing northbound in his new bike lane blew through the stop sign at the ramp and crossed in front of me. The police officer shouted out “You’re supposed to stop there!” Not surprisingly, the cyclist ignored him. As I moved eastbound on Pacific, two more cyclists rounded the corner from the bridge and rode along the Pacific sidewalk – adjacent to their newly-dedicated bike lane!
This is precisely the behaviour that is causing drivers frustrtation – this sanctimonious “have our cake and eat it too attitude” is not helping to build support for the cycling cause.
To conclude my trip I drove eastbound to Howe Street, turned right (which I can no longer do at Hornby) and drove along a newly-congested block of Beach Avenue past townhouse doors that are subjected to a new level of diverted vehicles. Further west on Beach I witnessed a white BMW driving at least 70kmh in the 30 kmh zone on Beach…but alas the perceived safety problems on the Burrard Bridge are consuming all available police resources, so there is no chance of a ticket being issued to the driver endangering the lives of park users.
I am a.) not convinced this is the right solution for the bridge and b.) confident that nothing is going to change under our current administration.

I wonder when somebody gets around to mention that in Europe very large numbers of bikes are at the train stations as folks are commuting to their work somewhere else? Or that many bike paths actually have their own stop and go lights? But to have people threatning to beat up on others with an opinion different that them, sure does lower the level of debate. It rapidy becomes a shouting match.
Just think Francis, if you write a couple more articles like this one about the Burrard Street bridge you can slip out of town for weeks at a time and the two sides of the argument fill up your blog space . When I was driving a commercial vehicle in town during the Expo 86 event, the stories kept talking about how the city would be in grid lock , the sky was falling etc. Some of our trucks shifted over a street or two, maybe a different bridge but it didn’t seem to impact much on our work. So lest not all panic over a bloody lane of traffic. Wait until the big circus comes to town and VANOC gets to close one heck of a lot of streets. A bike might be the best way to get around.

> Darcy’s “poor little bicycle”

One of my “poor little bicycles” has a replacement cost in the range of $3,500. (Racing frame, not a commuter.)

The one that I ride to work 99.9% of the days I work, do most of my grocery (and other) shopping on and that I jokingly refer to as my “pickup truck” has a replacement cost about $2,000 (including accessories to make it function as a daily commute.)

The other is a vintage carbon frame that, instead of going in a landfill, was converted to a fixed gear machine. It’s hard to estimate the cost on it, because it’s pretty old.

So don’t get started on “poor little bicycles.”

A shame about Westender’s experience with the cyclist who chose not to stop. The cop could have charged the cyclist…

> people threatning to beat up on others
> with an opinion different that them, sure
> does lower the level of debate.

For the record, I didn’t “threaten” to beat anybody up, and it wasn’t over an opinion.

I said that if somebody hit me with their car door I’d punch them out. That’s not an opinion that’s almost killing me…hypothetically of course.

As I’ve pointed out in the numerous close and contact-free calls I’ve had, I’ve never confronted the (generally apologetic) driver.

I must thank AGT for clearing up something. I have finally deduced why the fascists were not successful in WW2. They were riding around on bikes whereas the “good guys” had tanks and nukes.

Thanks, SV. Much appreciated, especially after the past couple of days.
gmgw

Darcy said:
“I was thinking yesterday as I watched a Lamboghini sail across the bridge quite a bit over the limit (I think…) that they should stick photo radar cameras in the gargoyles up there.”

There are an extraordinary number of exotic, high-end and performance-car dealerships clustered on or within a block of the east side of Burrard between 1st Ave and Broadway, mostly between 1st and 4th (another one is going in at 3rd & Burrard). They sell Lamborghinis, Porsches, Ferraris, Maseratis, Bentleys, Lotuses… you name it. I’m convinced that the salespeople in these dealerships quietly suggest to customers taking one of these six-figure boytoys out for a spin that they try one of the bridges if they want to check the acceleration; they’re the closest thing to an open stretch of highway in the immediate area (while I’m speaking here of what I’ve observed on the Granville Bridge, it comes as no surprise to hear that this happens on the Burrard as well).

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen one of these supercars barrelling north across the Granville Bridge at speeds approaching, I would guess, 80-90 MPH or even more (most cars in this bracket can easily accelerate from 0-60 MPH in under 5 seconds). One often sees high-end motorcycles doing the same thing. Generally they accelerate all the way to the “hump” in the middle of the bridge and then hit the brakes– you can see their brakelights come on at about the same spot every time. God help anyone who was pulled over with a flat tire or dead engine– or was riding a bicycle– just past the bridge’s crest.

It’s a frightening and disturbing sight, and I wish to hell the cops– and the City, who presumably license these dealers– would do something about it (not that they could catch one of these guys, on the bridge at least, if they decided to run). Every time I see a radar trap on the bridge it’s always at the *south* end. They’re certainly needed there too, but the real problem is northbound.
gmgw

Um, that was 60 MPH, not KPH– I tend to revert to non-metric fairly often, but IIRC 60 MPH=100 KPH. I’ve seen some of these “test pilots” approach what must be 80 or 90 MPH (miles per hour) or more– barely out of second gear for them. As you point out, “tons of people speed over bridges”. However, few do so as intimidatingly as a Ferrari (et. al.) driver in full flight.

On the other hand, Darcy, perhaps I’ve misunderstood, and you are actually capable of pedaling (up an incline,no less) at 60 MPH. In which case I must assume you can also leap tall buildings with a single bound and bend steel with your bare hands. It’s just as well, then, that our hypothetical street brawl remained hypothetical.
gmgw

“It’s just as well, then, that our hypothetical street brawl remained hypothetical.”

I LOL’ed

Here is my two cents: enforce the helmet and lights on bikes laws and you don’t need to license bikes. Although many helmet-wearers break the road rules, it would be a start. (Also as a bike rider and a driver, I think the worst offenses are when bikes go through red lights – stop signs on side street are only a problem when the four-way rule is not observed). If not being banned completely, car drivers who talk on cell phones should have to go to training on how to turn a corner with one hand on the wheel! ; )

Perhaps we should only ban cell phone calls made by temporarily deranged drivers of super cars (and only while crossing bridges?)

Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets: I think bicyclists should be as well. (While we’re at it, let’s modify motorcycle helmet laws to require full face, not just a skull cap.)

I can tell you from personal experience that it only takes one incident on a bicycle to make sure you won’t ever leave the house again without wearing a helmet. I literally can’t saddle up without on on my head…but I’m feeling much better now.

gmgw:
““I haven’t owned a car in 16 years””
http://tinyurl.com/qd2bog

> The last time I used a cell phone while
> driving

> My wife came within a hairsbreadth of > being T-boned by one at a 4-way stop in
> Richmond the other day

Somewhere in those statements you’ve either contradicted yourself (unless you had a cell phone before 1993) or you’re splitting hairs over “I haven’t owned a car…” and perhaps your wife owns it?

In any case, the point was never car ownership the point was reliance on car use…

Yes, cell phone calls should be banned in cars (and I think that ban should include the use of headsets, frankly.)

Darcy:
Here’s more biographical material than you’re going to want. As I’ve stated before, yes, my wife does own a car. Lest you be tempted to titillate yourself with visions of me gleefully targeting hapless bicyclists while at the wheel of my wife’s armor-plated Hummer, let me add that it’s a Toyota Echo that takes about half a minute to get to 60MPH; slightly less in a strong tailwind. She works in a corner of the Lower Mainland, that’s poorly served by transit–especially at night and on weekends, and she works late a couple of times a week as well as regular Saturdays– and she finds it much less stressful and time-consuming to drive to and from work. (Things have improved; for several years she worked in Abbotsford, which required an exhausting daily 100-mile round trip. She finally had to get an apartment out there and we only saw each other on weekends). For some years she worked in a location well-served by transit and we had no car at all, which sometimes made visiting her parents in south Surrey a challenge, especially in winter.

I owned a small truck (we greatly prefer small vehicles) for 15 years. I used to really enjoy backroading in the Lillooet and south Cariboo areas. In the late 80s/early 90s I had a job that required regular road trips of up to 3 weeks all over BC and Alberta, and I was provided with a company car for this purpose. I put the truck in storage. When I left that job and lost the use of the company vehicle I also got rid of my truck, which had become old and cranky, and I haven’t owned a vehicle since; mostly, to be honest, because I can’t justify the expense, but also because it would be redundant for us to have two vehicles.

We use the Echo together once or twice a week. I borrow it to run errands when I need a car to do so. We use it to take occasional weekenders out of town. We both recognize that the age of the individual automobile is coming to an end, and in any case, when we retire in a few years it is likely we will not be able to afford to maintain one. But for now it is a freely-chosen luxury in a shared life which has largely been devoid of luxury.

There you have it. Like I said, more personal info than you could ever want, but you did ask for clarification (sort of), and since god knows you and I have our differences, I thought it might be useful to provide some disclosure. Or maybe not. But here it is anyway.

PS: Agree with you on the headsets. When I’m driving with a passenger I don’t even look at them when we’re talking. It’s surprising how many drivers do. Any distraction can be deadly, headsets among them.
gmgw