Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Duelling Point Grey Road/Kits Point picnics today, partying with purpose

July 5th, 2014 · 125 Comments

At the risk of setting off a 350-comment mudfight, I feel obliged to note that there are a couple of picnics on today that seem destined to inspire people to party where their politics are.

The pro-bikeway/greenway Point Grey Road festivities are outlined here: http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/dev/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/poster-map.jpg

The Save Hadden Park, triumph over the bike lane, group appears to be gathering here: http://www.vanramblings.com/save-kits-beach-hadden-park-seaside-greenway-picnic.html

Enjoy!

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Jeff Leigh

    Susan:

    “The fact is that even one serious injury or death caused by a cyclist is inexcusable and unacceptable if it could be prevented by licensing. ”

    I disagree. In a world of unlimited resources, and no unintended consequences, you may have a point. Let’s agree that even one serious injury or death is very unfortunate. But if it was saved by spending $xx on implementing a licensing system, and that was the only benefit, while there were other demonstrated societal costs (reduced participation, etc) when logically that same $xx investment would have saved many more lives spent in a more intelligent way, perhaps applied to something like enforcement, is very wrong.

  • Bill

    @Jeff Leigh #90

    “But if the accident was caused by the pedestrian….””You appear to have tried and convicted him.”

    Shouldn’t the presumption be the pedestrian was not to blame until the cyclist proves otherwise if we were to follow the same “reverse onus of proof”.

  • Jeff Leigh

    The presumption, but not the conclusion. That is why we have due process.

    We don’t have any details yet, and it would be premature to judge. It is too early to call the cyclist’s actions ‘dangerous behaviour’ as Susan did. She was grandstanding. All we know is that one person died, and another was injured. And from the limited details in the article, one of them was doing something that results in a ticket and fine in WA, namely walking in a bicycle path.

    The cyclist has a duty of care towards the pedestrian, just like a motorist does to cyclists and pedestrians.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #98,

    You have admitted that not having licensing does not improve compliance with the traffic laws, so why not have licensing? Areas that have licensing demonstrate greater compliance. The expense is an obstacle for large cities, but there is no evidence that it is an obstacle that cannot be overcome.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #99, again, you are focussing on the cost of administering licensing only. You are not arguing that licensing does or does not influence compliance. Please address that issue, as it is the issue at hand. Does licensing increase compliance? If you say no, prove it with evidence please.

  • Bill

    @Jeff Leigh #103

    “It is too early to call the cyclist’s actions ‘dangerous behaviour’ as Susan did.”

    So if there was similar evidence like in the article you cited way back in #67 (where the driver did have a witness to support their evidence), you would still be willing to convict the cyclist?

  • Jeff Leigh

    The burden of proof is on you Susan. You are arguing the affirmative. You have presented no evidence for your extraordinary claim that areas with bicycle theft recovery stickers have greater moving vehicle regulatory compliance, and no cost benefit analysis that shows any benefit for what is agreed to be a burdensome cost.

    And it is a minor point, but you have failed to concede any of the outrageous points that you have rightly been called on.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Bill #106:

    With or without an onus of disproving negligence in place? And including the balance of probabilities? And considering contributory factors such as walking where prohibited, if in fact that took place?

    The question is so theoretical I am having trouble understanding what you mean.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #99,

    You are implying that “registration” and “licensing” are the same thing; they are not. Registering a bicycle by serial number for the sole purpose of trying to recover that bicycle if it is lost or stolen is not the same thing as licensing a bicycle and its cyclist for the purpose of identifying the rider if he/she commits a traffic offense or is injured/killed while riding and has no other form of identification. Licensing also permits points to be issued in the form of demerits for traffic offenses against the license, with the threat of license suspension and the penalty of not being permitted to ride a bike if the offenses start to add up against the rider. Your deliberate, or ignorant, confusion of “registration” and “licensing” is irritating and not helpful to the discussion at hand. Thanks.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #99, you are simply wrong when you declare that the City of Davis does not make licensing mandatory; although it is true that California state law allows cities to choose whether or not to allow jurisdictions to make licensing mandatory, Davis has chosen to do so, making licensing mandatory both on its campus and as a form of penalty and monitoring of cyclists who break the rules of the road:

    “6.01.040 Penalty for violating chapter:

    Obtain a city bicycle license immediately and pay the penalty required in Section 5-9.”

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #100,

    Thank you for summarizing Toronto’s reasons for not returning to licensing; you prove my point that the reasons not to license were cost-based only. What you have not noted in your summary is that these cities have repeatedly considered licensing as a means of urgently controlling cyclist violations of the rules of the road; they have chosen not to license on the basis of administration costs only, and not on the basis that licensing would not control cyclist behaviours.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #101, I am well aware that you would prefer to position money over life. We will have to agree to disagree there Jeff, as I value life above all else.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #103,

    The fact is that in the eyes of the law, pedestrians are regarded as more vulnerable than cyclists, and cyclists as more vulnerable than motorists. The cyclist should not have been travelling at such an excessive speed that he could not stop for an obstacle in his path, such as the elderly pedestrian. This is analogous to a motorist driving at an excessive speed on a city street or not leaving enough room in front in the event of having to stop suddenly: vehicular negligence.

  • Bill

    @Jeff Leigh #108

    Not that complicated Jeff. If a reverse onus of proof was in place (being pedestrians are vulnerable relative to cyclists), are you willing to convict the cyclist based on the same fact pattern as the article you referenced in #67: Only witness is a fellow cyclist who said pedestrian veered into their path, pedestrian can’t say what happened because in this case they are dead.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #107, I was not aware that this blog was a court of law such that “the burden of proof was on [me]”; I thought that this was an open forum for informal discussion. And, I believe I am entirely accurate in that presumption.

    Nevertheless, I have opted to provide (1) many evidenciary real-life accidents caused by non-compliance in areas where there is not licensing, (2) large and small current applications of licensing (employed both as a reward and penalty to control cyclist traffic behaviour) with statistical results of compliance with the rules of the road, and (3) numerous cities that have proposed licensing as a viable means to curb cyclist behaviour but have abandoned the idea due to administrative costs only. I have also provided ample medical evidence to support the helmet law, which you oppose but refuse to discuss.

    You have failed to provide any evidence that licensing bikes does not increase compliance, and you insist on not providing any. The reason is that there is no support for your biased position. What is clear from the research is that a majority of cyclists oppose both the helmet law and bike licensing, which is no surprise. Cyclists, being human, want as few restrictions on their behaviour as possible, but the recurrent serious accidents caused by cyclists and the demands for licensing to control the dangerous actions of cyclists are incontravertible evidence that without restrictions, cyclists are a menace.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Susan #109

    The use of the word registration was a quote from the manager of the program at UC Davis, a reference you quoted as evidence of licensing.

    I agree that blurring the two is confusing. So which do you mean?

  • Jeff Leigh

    Susan #110

    Wrong again. It is a shared registration system. A sticker is mandatory on campus, optional in town. And it has nothing to do with moving violations.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Susan #112

    Wrong. I value all life. And many lives over a single life. You want to save one at the expense of many. That is misguided IMO.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Susan #113

    In Ontario, yes. See their highway act. Not in BC, unfortunately. But maybe soon.

    How many times have you seen vehicular manslaughter applied to a motorist killing a pedestrian or cyclist, apart from drunk driving?

  • susan smith

    Until the matter of high administration costs for bike licensing is resolved for large-scale applications, such as the City of Vancouver, we may have to depend on enforcement of traffic rules, which is currently non-existent. A Party that chooses to make bike licensing and/or enforcement a priority in its platform would likely do very well on election day.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #118,

    No, I want to save as many lives as I can. How does bike licensing “save one life at the expense of many?” What utter rot.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #117,

    It is NOT optional in town; you are incorrect. Citizens cannot simply choose to license or not. I cited the law itself in #110; a City of California bicycle license is imposed as penalty for violations of rules of the road.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #116,

    I am referring to “licensing” as per the California state law in the City of Davis, used as a means of deterring aberrant cyclist behaviours. You have used “registering” as per the University of Davis’ policy on bicycle-theft prevention. Apples and oranges, Jeff. Don’t confuse the two.

  • susan smith

    Jeff, #119,

    Provide B.C. case law as evidence showing that in accidents between cyclists and pedestrians, pedestrians have been found at fault more often or equal to cyclists.

  • Frances Bula

    Jeff, Susan: Can I politely ask you guys to take this offline. People who get automatic notices of new messages on my blog are being driven crazy and it doesn’t look to me as though anyone but you two feel especially passionate about this. Thanks.

←  Older Comments
 →