Frances Bula header image 2
← →

NPA councillor rescinds support for bike lane

October 6th, 2010 · 149 Comments

This out a couple of hours ago.

STATEMENT FROM NPA CITY COUNCILLOR SUZANNE ANTON

“No one who spoke to council on Tuesday expected to be a part of a Kangeroo council,” says Coun. Anton

“On Tuesday night at 11:38pm city council once again held a vote at the end of a marathon meeting that suited the agenda of the Mayor and his caucus more than it did Vancouver citizens, small business owners, or City staff.

“When the meeting concluded I was satisfied that two of my biggest concerns about the Hornby Street bike lane project were met. First, I was assured by the City’s Engineering Department that the design of the separated bike lane was the absolute best of all available options for Downtown Vancouver. Second, thanks to my amendment of the motion I understood that every best effort would be taken by the City to mitigate the impacts of this development upon Hornby Street residents, businesses and their customers.

“However, earlier today I discovered that a critical requirement of my support has not been met. I’ve learned that at 7:30am on the morning after council’s decision, crews and equipment began immediate work on the new Hornby Street bike lane. It’s clear to me from prepared signage and work plans that logistics for this project were not done overnight, and that staff was given direction to undertake this work weeks ago. Furthermore, I’ve learned that the road had already been marked in preparation for the work as early as Monday, a full day before the public meeting took place.

“Regardless of your views on the Hornby Street separated bike lane, no one who spoke to council on Tuesday expected to be a part of a Kangeroo council. It is a fundamental trust between citizens and their elected representatives that when we meet in council chambers that we are there to listen, deliberate and debate, and finally decide based upon the inputs we have received.

“It is crystal clear to me now that Tuesday’s council meeting was a mere formality, and pure political theatre. Businesses on Hornby Street cannot have faith that their concerns will be properly considered, nor can they have faith that this is a ‘trial’ project.

“I am therefore submitting a motion to rescind to the City Clerk, and withdrawing my support of this project. I will also request a full report from staff that explains how these preparations had been completed in time to stage work the morning after our vote.

“Thanks to the STIR projects, HEAT Shelters, and now this bike lane, Mayor Robertson and his colleagues have a well-earned reputation for being autocratic. With my decision I am hoping to send a clear message to council that we must listen to the people who elected us.”

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • Bill McCreery

    @ Ross 43. I’ve just reread Sean’s comment. He didn’t mention Sam or Eco Density. He speaks of this administration & bike lanes & offers his own opinion with respect to how well they are handling their consultation & implementation.

    If you can, why not comment constructively on what he’s talking about rather than trying to refocus the discussion to the past?

  • Sean Bickerton

    @Jonathan: The ecodensity charter involved two years of public consultations – some of the most extensive in the city’s history – and it is largely based on public suggestions on ways to make the city more green.

    Despite the change of government, it is still official city policy today, and is regularly quoted in the reports prepared for council as a way of evaluating moves towards a reduced ecological footprint.

    Further, the funds for it were authorized by council as part of the environmental measures that gave Vancouver the greenest building standards in North America.

    Similarly, the current Mayor has his Greenest City Action Team, and he is undertaking many new programs under its umbrella. And just as in the case of ecodensity, those funds were authorized for environmental initiatives.

    It’s not the lack of consultation, however, it’s the illegality of staff authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on something that council has not voted to approve.

    That is a serious issue of proper management of the city’s budget, and responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure elected officials oversee every dime spent.

    My question is, Who’s running city hall? Dr. Ballem and the unions or the councillors elected by taxpayers to oversee them? The unauthorized work on Hornby indicates it’s more the former, which should strike dread into all of the city’s ratepayers.

  • Morven

    @ Sean Bickerton # 48

    I agree.

    All good city administrations have policies. They commit resources to plan effectively how they might implement these policies. But when they take the step to turn a policy into a project, they have a design phase where they consult, negotiate, advise and revise.

    When you step from policy design to program implementation that involves real money ( and until the elected representatives actually vote approval) a normally prudent administration does not develop unfunded liabilities (something close to a hanging offence in some circles). That is simply the discipline of the market place.

    If we have no effective oversight of how city officials commit program resources , we are in a tough spot.
    -30-

  • Booge

    @Mira – to be fair – It is not about:

    Vision Vancouver, and whether or not they are
    ” low life crooks”.

    Nor is it about the NPA

    It is a discussion of the Flip-Flop that Suzanne Anton performed this morning.

  • pacpost

    Hi Bill,

    “In Vancouver neighbourhoods we have learned it is essential to openly consult with those affected by PROPOSED development BEFORE the straight lines are drawn.”

    I agree. I attended one of the public consultation sessions at the Pacific Centre’s Rotunda, in early September.

    As I work in a downtown office, I also filled out the survey form mailed to our office this past summer (I forget exactly when that was, but I would guess in June/July). I assume we weren’t the only office that received this.

    Having viewed online a portion of Tuesday’s council meeting, it appears that you have had one-on-one meetings with the City’s engineer about various issues related to the bike lane.

    The City’s engineer also stated that he, or his department, have conducted one-on-one meetings with the various businesses along Hornby.

    How much more consultation (prior to any spray-painting or otherwise) would you like to have seen?

  • pacpost

    @ Aiden #39

    How does one go from a hypothetical example to illustrate a point:

    “$4 million equates to a firehall”

    to a statement of reality:

    “during a time of deep cuts to everything including the closure of a Firehall”

    That’s an impressive contortion.

  • Mike Lombardi

    A Modest Proposal: A Share the Road: Cycling Safety, Education, and Awareness Program in Vancouver

    Now that the Vancouver City Council has approved the Hornby Bike Lane pilot project, it is time to develop a Share the Road: Cycling Safety, Education, and Awareness program in our city. The promotion and expansion of cycling is a key element of the Vancouver greenest city and transportation strategy. In order to grow and expand cycling as a transportation option, children, adults, motorists, and law enforcement officials need to be supported with a safety, education, and awareness program.

    Many members of our society are discovering the benefits of cycling. Unfortunately, many new cyclists in the Vancouver area lack the basic skills or knowledge to safely ride a bicycle in traffic. Many people are, quite simply, afraid of bicycling on streets. The purpose of a cycling safety education and awareness program is to increase cycling safety by improving the ability to ride with traffic as well as to heighten motorist awareness. One of the major challenges in helping people develop those skills and knowledge stems from the wide range of age groups that require this training along with the necessity to tailor the programs to target groups.

    Cycling, education, and awareness programs should be directed at the following groups:
    •Child cyclists (basic rules of the road in conjunction with hands-on cycling instruction)
    •Adult cyclists (the responsibilities of cycling, safety sharing the road with motor vehicle traffic, and tips on the benefits and methods of cycle commuting)
    •Motorists (the responsibilities of motorists/cyclists, safety tips for sharing the road; this education could be included in driver education programs, courses, and remedial programs)
    •Law enforcement officials (familiarity with traffic and enforcement regulations for both children and adult cyclists, and motorists)

    I believe that ICBC has the responsibility to take the lead role in bringing together appropriate organizations such as the Vancouver Police Department, cycling organizations, educational institutions, community and civic organizations, employers, local businesses and other interested agencies to develop and implement a Share the Road program. I also believe that the program should be funded through the education and safety division of ICBC.

    The benefits of developing a Share the Road program far outweigh the challenges. The program will require funding and resources and will need to be implemented in a way that considers public interest and all the daily distractions of school, work, and family life. In BC, ICBC is well positioned to allocate resources from its safety and education budget to fund the design and implementation of the Share the Road program and to prioritize which programs are the most important. All the agencies noted above should be invited to participate in the development and implementation of the program. Our experience tells us that most successful education and awareness programs are a result of coalitions of public agencies and private groups working together towards a common goal.

    I am sure that the elements of a cycling education and awareness program already exist in Vancouver, and through networks and technology it would be easy to access information about similar programs in other jurisdictions.

    Now is the time for ICBC to take a leadership role in our community by developing a Share the Road: Cycling Safety, Education, and Awareness program that will support the growth and expansion of cycling as an important green transportation strategy in Vancouver. Once developed, the program could also be expanded to other areas of the province.

  • pacpost

    Mike Lombardi,

    An excellent idea.

    The VACC has programs in place:

    http://www.vacc.bc.ca/cycling/cycling.php?pageID=38

    As you suggest, we now need other agencies to do their part.

  • IanS

    Education is always good, but I don’t know if ICBC has any jurisdiction or cyclists or mandate to address activities of cyclists.

  • IanS

    Errata: previous post should read “jurisdiction over cyclists”.

  • Morven

    @ Mike Lombardi # 57

    I wish such an initiative success.

    I have some reservations. A motorist who breaches the rules of the road faces financial and in some cases criminal sanctions. A cyclist who breaches the rules of the road faces few if any consequences and most are unenforced.

    There is limited deterrence for cyclists and apart from appealing to common sense and public spirit, I have some difficulty in seeing how behavioural change could be effected.

    Now if the consequences for a cyclist failing to stop at a stop sign was a fine and the fine dedicated to cyclist education, there might be a fair prospect for the desired change.
    -30-

  • Sean

    @Morven #57

    You see, this is why Mike Lombardi’s suggestion is such a good one. Everyone, even motorists, should be aware of the rules that apply. Cyclists ARE subject to fines and penalties because their actions are governed by exactly the same Motor Vehicle Act that cars are.

    Cyclists that damage property (whether they break the law or not) are just as liable as a motorist is. Most cyclists don’t carry insurance, but then they rarely cause the kind of damage that they can’t afford to pay.

    Cyclists ARE subject to fines for failing to stop for a stop sign, and so are motorists. For that particular infraction neither case seems to be enforced very heavily – but that’s a somewhat different issue.

  • Chris Porter

    http://canadianveggie.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/how-councillor-suzanne-anton-lost-my-vote/

  • pacpost

    Thank you Sean.

    Morven,

    I’ll make it easy for you, here’s the section of the Motor Vehicle Act pertaining to cycles (aka bicycles):

    http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05#section183

    “In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.”

  • Morven

    # Sean # 62

    It is one thing to be technically liable under the Motor Vehicle Act but another thing for it to be enforced. Can you remember the last time a cyclist was fined for cycling on the pavement yet this is a daily and widespread occurrence.

    E

  • Morven

    Erratum

    Even in the UK where the Highway Code is far more prescriptive, cycling rules of the road are not enforced because it costs more to enforce than is covered by the fine. Their solution, ramp up the sanctions.
    -30-

  • Richard

    @Morven

    I could type in a response but Ethan Baron did a great job today.
    http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/outpouring+spectacular+gibberish/3635864/story.html?cid=megadrop_story#ixzz11gufpsku

  • Tessa

    @Morven 65

    Since when was it illegal to cycle on a paved surface?

  • Chris Keam

    Pavement is an English term for the sidewalk.

  • SV

    And one of my favourite bands.

    Seriously though I’m trying to recall the last time I saw a car ticketed for a traffic violation.
    I’m thinking here about the section of the Adanac bikeway between Commercial and Clark which becomes quite a racetrack in the morning rush.

  • Kevin

    Can you remember the last time someone was given a ticket for driving 10-15km over the speed limit?

    I doubt it, however the “problem” is at least as widespread.

  • Higgins

    @ Mike Lombardi
    “A Modest Proposal: A Share the Road: Cycling Safety, Education, and Awareness Program in Vancouver” Wow!
    First you push someone down the stairs and then show them how to hang on to the balustrade. That’s rich, typical Vision empty words.I’ll say. You just found a new vocation Mike.
    After your gibberish on Monday night at the ‘dog and pony’ show over the school closures, at the VSB headquarters in Vancouver. By far your ‘last words ‘ were the most hilarious and stupid, on so many levels. I may be wrong but this is what you said : ‘we’ll look at it (process, report!?) and study the possibilities and who knows, we may have to close 5 schools, maybe 2, maybe none, maybe we’ll leave all as they are’
    Even if the wording is not exactly the same, the message is there. You’ll continue doing this futile exercise for the sake of the process, for the next 2-6 months or so. My question is then, why do it in the first place. Let’s all, go home and say we approve them all… to stay open.
    How about start thinking at the parents and kids who’s mental health you are playing with!?
    But again, Vision empty words. And sure blame everyone but yourselves.That’s why I say, biking may be good for you! Fresh air.
    As for Suzanne Anton…only good thingsa for the departed.

  • Booge

    as a cyclist of over 50 years experience and as a driver with over 40 years experience, I can categorically state that 70% of the Rules of the road or Motor-Vehicle bylaws _should not_ apply to cyclists.

    Jealous motorists would not not agree.

    But Common sense would see otherwise.

  • Tessa

    Thanks Chris. That one confused the heck out of me.

    I agree that biking on the sidewalk is poor form. I also agree that motor vehicle speeding is poor form. I don’t think anyone can seriously make any solid case that cyclist infractions aren’t enforced as well as other road users, or are somehow let off the hook. The data simply isn’t there, and I know lots of angry friends of mine who have been ticketed for failure to stop at a stop sign (usually a ticket that makes no sense from a safety perspective for a bike, meaning they looked both ways and slowed but simply didn’t put their foot down on the ground) and not wearing a helmet.

  • Chris Keam

    “Now is the time for ICBC to take a leadership role in our community by developing a Share the Road: Cycling Safety, Education, and Awareness program that will support the growth and expansion of cycling as an important green transportation strategy in Vancouver.”

    I absolutely agree that more cycling education is a good thing. I don’t think ICBC should deliver the program. Today they had to take down a Youtube video on cycling safety they had posted online after members of the BC Cycling Coalition pointed out that the advice it gave put cyclists in a dangerous position on the road that could very likely lead to injury or death.

    There are already excellent adult and youth cycling programs in place in Vancouver. All they need is more funding to expand. For as little as $10 a month, a private donor can provide the necessary resources for a kid to learn to ride safely, respect other road users, and gain bicycle maintenance skills that not only make them self-propelled, but self-reliant. The programs are offered by the PEDAL Foundation and the VACC. I’m a volunteer with both organizations so take that as you will.

    Nonetheless, I think the best strategy is for ICBC to focus on their core customers and encourage safer driving wherever possible. Give cycling organizations the money and resources to expand their current programs and let the people who already have skills in this area expand their offerings rather than duplicating services.

  • Morven

    @ Tessa # 73

    I betray the fact that I was born in the UK and still occasionally use the term sidewalk. When I learnt to cycle 60 years ago, it was drummed into us that cycling on the pavement (except in extreme emergencies) was illegal.

    For the few non-cyclists left on this thread, it is generally accepted that an 1879 English law case ruled that bicycles were technically carriages and could only be used on the road, not on the sidewalk and this has never changed.

    There seems to be some disagreement on sanctions applied to cyclists. I will accept your assertion that many of your friends have been ticketed but the general impression among non-cyclists is that traffic enforcement on cyclists is almost non-existent. For one, there just are not enough police to enforce it and in most cases, the motorists and pedestrians just would not see it.

    Perhaps if the city divulged the statistics, we might lay this area of contention to rest.
    -30-

  • Roger Kemble

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ&feature=player_embedded

    Frances has made available this wonderful opportunity to debate changing our small little world and all you can gossip about is cycling on the sidewalk!

    . . . and on the boss’s time too . . .

  • IanS

    @Chris Keam #74,

    You write: “I absolutely agree that more cycling education is a good thing. I don’t think ICBC should deliver the program.”

    I agree. As I said, i don’t think cycling really falls within ICBC’s jurisdiction. I also agree with Chris’s suggestion that bike groups should be funded to provide such education.

  • rf

    I want the cycling coalition to set up a observation exercise at 10th and Fir.

    Let them see for themselves why cyclists are “not ready” to share the road.

    If we had a $1 fine for every cyclist that goes full speed through that stop sign, I think we could pay for the Hornby street lane by Christmas.

    And let’s add the words “Bikes too” under the word “STOP” on stop signs. Is that so wrong?

  • Denis

    The lady spends a lot of time trying to keep herself in the public eye but gets a bit tiring with her”it’s them or me”complaints. She votes one way and the changes her mind. Reminds me of the bad old days on Vancouver Council where Some NPA guy got up with a motion, argued the merit of the motion then somehow voted against his own motion Got a few laughs

  • spartikus

    Let them see for themselves why cyclists are “not ready” to share the road.

    When I read comments like these I cannot help but think that the writer is advocating a ban on cycling. It’s the clear inference. As well is there underlying assumption that cycling isn’t simply a form of transportation used by a vast demographic swath, but one used by a different, hive-mind species.

    If we had a $1 fine for every cyclist that goes full speed through that stop sign

    I’m sure you would have a lot of loonies. I think another useful question to ask would be how many accidents have occurred at that corner that involve cars, bicycles and pedestrians.

    Statistics on accidents exist and are useful, and while I haven’t found some for 10th and Fir….I’ll keep trying 🙂

  • Jason King

    Can I ask a serious question that maybe Chris or someone could answer for me.

    Is there a reason why the city has chosen to start the work immediately on the bike lanes? It seems to me that Dec/Jan are the biggest retail months for businesses, and arguably the slowest biking months of the year. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to wait until Feb 1, with a goal of having the lanes ready for mid April? I would think it would be a win/win….you have less disruption for people coming downtown to shop, you don’t negatively impact businesses on Hornby leading up to the busiest season, and you don’t negatively impact cyclists too much because most of them aren’t going to be cycling in the snow. On top of that, if you were cynical, you’d think that doing this would give you better “pro cycling” statistics as ridership is obviously going to go up in the spring/summer.

    I’m just curious if there was a specific rationale behind it other than “get the lanes up as fast as possible”….no need for snarky responses, I’m simply asking a question.

  • spartikus

    Is there a reason why the city has chosen to start the work immediately on the bike lanes?

    Being ready before the Holiday shopping season is precisely the reason.

    “We’ve heard from the businesses that they’re quite concerned about the disruption,” said Dobrovolny. “So we made a commitment to them that we wouldn’t be on the street impacting their Christmas sales and would have the heavy construction done early in November.”

    For that reason, said Dobrovolny, he made sure his crews were ready to go as soon as council signed off on the bike lanes, which they unanimously did Tuesday night.

  • Dan Cooper

    rf writes, “If we had a $1 fine for every cyclist that goes full speed through that stop sign, I think we could pay for the Hornby street lane by Christmas.”

    I think the same would be true if the fine applied to auto drivers, sadly. In my experience, if a driver in this town comes to a full stop at a stop sign, other than when they actually see someone coming on the other street, it is either to read a map or because they were originally from abroad. I’ve actually had Canadian passengers (when I drive for work) laugh at me and sneer, “American driver!” because I come to a full stop. Crazy.

    And Morven – whom I used to think was just in favour of consultations generally, but who now has come out as actually just thinking cyclists are bad bad and don’t deserve safe facilities – writes, “the general impression among non-cyclists is that traffic enforcement on cyclists is almost non-existent. For one, there just are not enough police to enforce it and in most cases, the motorists and pedestrians just would not see it. Perhaps if the city divulged the statistics, we might lay this area of contention to rest.”

    “Divulged?’ Have you asked for these statistics and been refused, because they are being kept a dark secret? Are you wanting them delivered to your home by a (presumably non-bicycle) courier, for your personal consideration? Or would it be sufficient if a representative of the police department read this blog daily, intuited what information would be pleasing to you, and posted it here? Please clarify!

    While we’re talking statistics, could you point me to the poll showing a “general” impression among drivers that bicyclists – but not motorists – are completely let off the hook legally? I’ve tried googling this, but it has eluded me.

    I would certainly agree that it seems TO ME that there are either not enough police to enforce the laws for EITHER motorists OR bicyclists, or the police are simply not bothering. I see both cyclists and drivers (as well as pedestrians) breaking the law all the time, and – as someone else noted in a previous post – the only time I have ever seen anyone stopped for it, in Vancouver, was at what was clearly a set-piece sting operation. As far as I can tell from casual observation, day to day traffic patrolling and opportunistic stops don’t take place. I wouldn’t say they DON’T happen, of course, because I haven’t asked for the statistics either.

  • Jason King

    “Being ready before the Holiday shopping season is precisely the reason.”

    Again, still seems like Feb/March construction would have made a lot more sense. Rather than rushing to complete a lane that will more than likely be empty for several months of horrible weather, take the time and put it in just as ridership starts increasing.

    I know “common sense” doesn’t rule the day…but doesn’t this make more sense to some of you?

  • Aiden

    Piggy backing on your comment Dan – looking at budgetary cut backs, perhaps a higher priority for the use of the funding approved the other night – should have been put into hiring more police – or traffic cops.

    I think the biggest question really is; should bike lanes have been a priority spending item at this time? Funding has been pulled back from a number of programs and services throught the city, spending millions on a trial program that requires permanent infrastructure seems a bit rash. Bike lanes could have been phased in; relieving the financial strain and reducing the need to sacrifice some programs and services for another.

  • Sean

    I’m a little mystified at all these “cyclists are lawbreakers” comments too. Yes, some cyclists are. Yes, in an ideal world we could afford to enforce every infraction, or at least the more egregious ones.

    But what’s the point of the comment? Is it that there shouldn’t have separated bike lanes? Is it because cyclists somehow don’t “deserve” them?

    Be very careful when you tar everyone in a group with the behaviour of its worst members. Down that path lies some really ugly outcomes.

  • Morven

    # Dan Cooper # 84

    I simply asked my non-cycling neighbours. It may be unscientific but that is the impression they have based on their experience. I never said that all cyclists are transgressors, only that the general public gains their impressions from their own experience.

    Much as they gain an impression of politicians and lobby groups from their own experience. They are framed by the exceptions rather than the majority. Tough but that is politics these days.

    If the real world is different, please supply me with reliable statistics. In England, where there may be upwards of 3 million recreation and transit cyclists, there was, according to legal documents, one criminal code charge against a cyclist in 2008 (the cyclist was acquitted).

    Are we any different here?
    -30-

  • Chris Keam

    Bad weather and darkness during peak commuting times make downtown streets dangerous for cycling with traffic as drivers’ visibility is reduced even further. The need for protected facilities is greater during the winter months.

    With some drivers now openly admitting to assaulting cyclists, it’s becoming more and more clear that cyclists need additional protection from aggressive and potentially violent individuals.

    [edited]

  • spartikus

    If the real world is different, please supply me with reliable statistics.

    Which I did above. Here’s some more.

  • spartikus

    Apologies, you meant traffic ticket stats.

  • rf

    I’m not advocating a ban. But I do get frustrated when I see that the next step is to impose more lanes on major arteries in the city.
    The mentality seems to be similar to how I used to define my mother’s mindset during my parents divorce. “Everything that is yours is half mine. Everything that is mine is all mine” (Big surpise, rf has mommy issues, ha ha).

    I don’t think you are going to find stats about near misses and minor contact between bike and pedestrians. There have certainly been some major car/bike collisions at that intersection.

    My suggestion for the cycling coalition (to observe this particular intersection) is that I firmly believe it is an ideal example of where cyclists seem to only think the rules (ie. Stop signs) only apply if you are really risking your life by ignoring them.

    I’m not trying to exaggerate. I just sincerely wish that the coalition would go and witness an intersection like this. They may get some understanding of why so many have such a grudge against cyclists. Watch how many times a twenty-something on a bike goes full-bore through the intersection, ipod in their ears, while a pedestrian is already crossing 10th ave. They can’t even hear you call them a a*%hole!

  • Morry

    I ‘m with Boog.

    As one who has cycled widely throughout the city, as well as the surrounding areas. I can list at least 100 traffic lights in the GVRD that a cyclist can more or less ignore. That is, the traffic lights are plainly meant to co-ordinate the flow of big vehicles along specific lanes. A bicycle’s flow along the road in these 100 spots is not affected by either car or pedestrian.

    In those situations there is no logical reason for the cyclist to stop.

    Much akin to any right thinking pedestrian ignoring a “Do Not Walk” sign when there is no traffic about. It is only common sense to ignore such a “by-law” late at night or early in the morning with no cars about.

  • pacpost

    @ Morven

    “but the general impression among non-cyclists is that traffic enforcement on cyclists is almost non-existent.”

    May I interest you in this new fangled thing called google?

    Let me do it for you (vancouver bike crackdown):

    http://www.fearlessgearless.com/2007/06/helmet-law-crackdown

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/07/02/bc-vancouver-bike-helmet-crackdown.html

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/29/bc-bicycle-safety-campaign.html

    http://www.straight.com/article-332138/vancouver/no-crackdown-cyclists-vancouver-police-claim

    Four years straight of visible, reported vpd campaigns to enforce certain rules.

  • Jason King

    “With some drivers now openly admitting to assaulting cyclists, it’s becoming more and more clear that cyclists need additional protection from aggressive and potentially violent individuals.”

    CHRIS…I’m disappointed. You have repeatedly stated that anecdotal experience between cyclists and drivers should NOT be included in the debate, and that you should not tar all cyclists with one broad brush because of a couple bad apples, yet you felt it was fine to use one persons comments on “threatening” to assault cyclists as justification for installing the bike lanes immediately, and use this ‘anecdotal’ comment as an example of a “looming” threat of drivers against cyclists. Should we arm cyclists to protect them against this onslaught from drivers?

    tsk tsk Chris….you can do better than that.

    Chris, there is AMPLE evidence that cycling decreases SUBSTANTIALLY in the winter months, and with the El Nina coming this winter, we can anticipate some good snow fall which should further decrease ridership in December/January.

    I asked, what I thought was a very legitimate question, and you come back with that?? Come on.

    I realize its damn near impossible to get anyone to concede a point in these discussions, but does no one else think there would have been a lot of logic to a Feb/March construction time line rather than Oct/Nov? No one?

  • Chris Keam

    Hi Jason:

    Unfortunately you missed my first paragraph in response to your question about implementing the plan for winter. Here it is again:

    “Bad weather and darkness during peak commuting times make downtown streets dangerous for cycling with traffic as drivers’ visibility is reduced even further. The need for protected facilities is greater during the winter months.”

    Given that there are numerous studies supporting the contention that more cyclists makes regular roads safer, but creating awareness, clearly those times when there are fewer cyclists might warrant increased safety measures in other ways.

    [edited]

  • Chris Keam

    sorry, note the correction to the typo.

    “more cyclists makes regular roads safer, by creating awareness”

  • Sean

    @Jason #93

    Aside from the notion of it being to best improve cyclist safety sooner rather than later, I think the main impetus for completing Hornby earlier might be to get better stats for the Dunsmuir trial (which will reach the 6-month point in mid-December).

    Connecting the downtown network will probably help to boost numbers on Dunsmuir, and the sooner we see what the numbers are the sooner we’ll be in a better position to judge the effect of the Dunsmuir lanes.

  • Jason King

    You guys are seriously incapable of conceding even the smallest of points….it amazes me.

    Sean…so your anticipating the numbers in December to provide some “better statistics” in favor of bike lanes? Mid December? For Cycling? Really?

    You know this is coming right….
    http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Wicked+winter+expected+Lower+Mainland+worst+Nina+since+1955/3640530/story.html

    Perhaps one of you could attach a snowplow to the front of your bikes so we can ensure the lanes are usable.

    And Chris if you’re honestly worried about your safety from a guy who claims he’s going to “assault” cyclists, a separated bike lane is not going to protect you. But I think we both know that you’re pretend fear of drivers purposely assaulting cyclists is about as legitimate as others fear of “renegade cyclists who are terrorizing our roads”. Yes, both anomalies have occurred on occasion, but isolated incidents are not justification for or against separated bicycle lanes….you and I both know that, so lets stop the fear mongering.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ pp 58.

    I have had 1 one-on-one meeting, not JD’s suggested plural, with City’s Engineering staff to become informed about the specifics of the PROPOSED, I thought, DESIGN, not “about various issues related to the bike lane”. I was then advised that the design was being changed on a daily basis. It had apparently been changed again as well since my meeting per the change in the location of the 1300 passenger / block loading bay.

    The current City drawing says: “Parking/loading and passenger zones maintained” with respect to the bay[s?] in question with 1 arrow pointing to the location of 1 bay which is not in front of the Lebanese restaurant I was referring to. I understood there was to be 1 bay serving 2 condo building + the restaurant. And that’s all there is still shown on the drawing. The drawing says parking is to be maintained & yet the drawing shows 2 spots in front of the Ticket Master building eliminated. +/-8 other spots have been eliminated in an area which serves 4 condo buildings with 75% parking & no guest parking.

    To add insult to injury the Vision Council is also about to approve a spot rezoning for a 31 storey [in an 8 storey neighbourhood, 12.44 FSR [in a 5.0 zone = +150% increase], 196 unit condo, also with 75% parking on a 100’x130′ postage stamp site @ 1304 Hornby. This obscene, seriously out of scale density + the loss of +/-10 spaces will make the already parking shortage worse in the area.

    The documentation is @ best vague & it certainly is confusing, even more so because the whole process was being conducted @ a full gallop. Why the hurry?

    You say: “The City’s engineer also stated that he, or his department, have conducted one-on-one meetings with the various businesses along Hornby”.

    Several speakers Tuesday night said they had not met with the City. Also @ least 2 condo buildings were not contacted or notified. Who do we believe? Unfortunately this sham of a process & the collapsed timetable brings City staff’s impartiality & integrity into question. In my view this is an extremely important bit of collateral damage of Vision’s reckless agenda. Citizens must have a ‘bond of trust’ with civic employees otherwise our whole governance model breaks down.

    It’s not “How much more consultation….”, it’s ‘how’.

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →