"Red Light Robertson" is not the only careless rider in town

Post by Daniel Fontaine in

125 comments


Whoa! Mind those stop signs! CityCaucus.com's exclusive video of a UBC intersection

The media headlines this morning are blaring out about "Red Light Robertson" and yet another situation whereby Mayor Gregor refuses to take responsibility for his own actions. Remember the fare evasion, folks? Today's The Province newspaper cover story is reporting that Vancouver's Mayor ran a red light on his bicycle and almost caused an accident with a Translink bus.

However, as our exclusive video from a UBC intersection shows, Mayor Robertson is by no means the only cyclist who feels they are above the law when it comes to riding their bikes on our streets.

A few weeks ago I was crossing the street near my work site. In the blink of an eye, I was almost sideswiped by a speeding cyclist who was flagrantly ignoring the rules of the road by not stopping at a 4 way stop. This wasn't the first time I had a near miss at that corner with non-helmet wearing cyclists who often treat pedestrians like we're just second class peasants.

red-light-robertson-cover Armed with a video camera, I thought it might be interesting to use a portion of my break to film the aforementioned intersection from a safe distance. What I was able to capture on film at two separate times of the day was simply astounding. Take for example the one cyclist who is seen riding on the sidewalk without a helmet with a coffee in his right hand as he zips onto the road. Cyclist after cyclist can be seen ignoring the basic rules of the road and putting both pedestrians and motor vehicles at risk of injury or accident. If you don't believe me, click on the exclusive video I've just posted to get a sense of what I'm talking about.

The cycling lobby in Vancouver has become the most powerful force on this city council. Unlike other community groups, when the cyclists speak, this council listens. Council has already closed off portions of Burrard Bridge and Dunsmuir Street to vehicular traffic and handed it over to the cycling community...with more lanes to come on Hornby Street. Meanwhile, little effort has been made to ensure that cyclists (big supporters of Vision Vancouver and Mayor Gregor "critical mass" Robertson") are actually adhering to basic traffic laws.

It's not like I'm asking for much. I simply think wearing a helmet (provincial law) and stopping at clearly marked stop signs (another provincial law) should be a no-brainer. However, based on the video I shot over the course of about an hour, these basics are being ignored at not only this intersection, but hundreds of similar ones across Metro Vancouver.

Can you blame the cyclists? After all, the Mayor is a huge cycling advocate and few others on council (of all political stripes) would dare attempt any type of crackdown on law breaking cyclists. That's because any such attempt would be met with howls of protest and threats of a political calamity.

As for the cover story in today's Province newspaper, they state:

When the mayor and the bus driver pulled up alongside each other at Georgia Street, MacDonald told him, “Thanks for giving me a heart attack. You of all people should look left before you make a right turn on a right,” she says. “He said, ‘I’m really sorry about that.’”

The last she saw of the man she now calls “red-light Robertston” was his two-wheeled figure — clad in dress pants and a white dress shirt with a colourful tie flapping over his left shoulder — turning left onto Nelson Street, heading in the direction of City Hall.

She gives the mayor a full 10 on a one-to-10 scale of dumb things cyclists do, but she’s hoping that he’s been “scared straight,” as he appeared shaken by the near miss. “He looked like he was going to come out of his skin,” she says.

Mayor Robertson seemed repentant regarding the fact he almost caused an accident and scared the living daylights out of a veteran transit driver. Province columnist Ethan Baron seems a tad skeptical of Robertson's version of events:

Robertson on Monday appeared reluctant to admit wrongdoing. He acknowledged that the bike-specific stoplight on Dunsmuir at Richards was red, but said, “I wasn’t going against a red light. There was a red light to go straight on Dunsmuir. I turned right in the crosswalk.”

It was when he left the crosswalk and tried to get across the curbside bus lane and into the bike lane on Richards that the conflict with the bus occurred, Robertson says.

This “I-was-turning-into-the-crosswalk-not-the-roadway” excuse sounded a little weak to me, so I took a walk over to the intersection. When the light is red for bikes on Dunsmuir, traffic on Richards is coming from the left. It is quite clear that when the light is red, bikes must stop at the white stop line painted in the bike lane, whether they’re going straight or turning right, just as at any red light.

You could classify me as a fair weather cyclists as I only ride my bike during the drier summer months. However, I would never consider leaving the yard without my helmet. Nor would I consider knowingly breaking traffic laws by running stop signs and riding erratically. By posting this video I'm fully prepared to take the wrath of the Mayor's cycling lobby who will no doubt come back at me with the following justification for what you've just seen:

  • I'm only showing one side of the story and should film cars at a busy intersection to demonstrate how bad the average driver is.
  • Cyclists are saving the environment by leaving their cars at home. Cut us some slack, dude.
  • These are just isolated incidents at one intersection and don't reflect the wider cycling population whom for the most part are law abiding citizens.
  • Blah, blah, blah

No matter how you slice it, was you see on this video is a clear indication to me that the Vancouver police need to better enforce the laws when cyclists choose to ignore them. However, when the Chair of the Vancouver Police Board just happens to ride his bike in support of Critical Mass and is caught cycling through red lights, well...

What do you think? Should more be done to crack down on reckless cyclists – like this guy riding down Dunsmuir Street – who call Vancouver home? Good luck if you think it's going to happen under the reign of Red Light Robertson.

- Post by Daniel

125 Comments

If they put a two-lane bike lane on Hornby, mark my words, a biker is bound to killed or seriously injured near Dunsmuir.

You have a bottleneck of parkades that empty out onto Hornby just before Dunsmuir (3 of them). It's pretty chaotic for those who don't do it everyday. Now you are going to add concrete barriers to one side of the street and bikers racing up from the right, instead of just speeding down from the left. Half the cars coming out of those lots have to cut immediately across 2-3 lanes in order to proceed through Dunsmuir or turn left on it.
How does a biker feel knowing that they are going to run a bike lane opposite traffic where you have cars spitting out from each side of the road at a steady pace, particularily during rush hour.
Part of me wants them to do it just so Vision runs themselves out of office.....

Wow, the cyclists on the video are pathetic! What percentage of the cyclists broke the law?

from the city's website:

Follow the rules of the road
-Obey all traffic regulations and speed limits.
-YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS and watch for school children crossing the routes.

Go set up shop at 7th and Pine on the bike route and try and get a bike to stop for a pedestrian. The cars are actually pretty good.

Most of the bikers don't even hear you yelling at them because the ipod is too loud.

I see a lot of cyclists breaking the law, but I don't see a lot of dangerous biking. Most cyclists don't come to a complete stop at every stop sign, especially if there is no traffic. Most cars don't either, they roll through. Personally, I slow down, check for traffic, and then proceed if it is clear. In some places that is legal behaviour, called the Idaho Stop Law. See http://vimeo.com/4140910 . It's meant to keep cycling safe and efficient.

I'm curious Daniel, what percentage of cars came to a complete stop before the stop line, as legally required? Your video cuts most of them out, but I can clearly see a few who check for traffic and then roll through that intersection.

You're too funny. Making it sound like bikers are a big danger to the public. I almost get taken out more often crossing the street for lunch in a single day by cars than I have issues with bikes in a whole month of walking in town.

As mentioned above, how many cars roll through a red light? Tons and they rarely look right to check for people crossing the street before turning.

Nice work by The Province and City Caucus for making such a non-issue front page news. The media fiddles while BC burns. Good job.

Just to follow up with my media bashing.

The economy is in the can, jobs are being lost, we maybe sitting on a huge housing bubble and there was a huge leak of military intelligence from Afghanistan yesterday (some of which says Canadian died from friendly free) and this is the front page news on the Province? Is the Province now the National Enquirer or US mag? A celebrity gossip rag?

I know newspapers cater to their readers, but I refuse to believe the readers are that shallow and simple minded. Shame on the Province for leading with, in the national and international context, such an unimportant "news" item.

With this latest episode with Gregor, I remember a web site that was online a while back who suggested Gregor and Vision were sociopaths.

Although I have railed against them from before they were elected I thought this was pretty harsh.

Now though I have to wonder. If we go back to 2008, Gregor "forgot" to purchase a transit pass.

A couple of weeks ago, he referred to those opposed to his loading of a committee as f--king hacks, and blamed it on a long and contentious meeting, that wasn't really longer than any other council meeting, or even that more contentious.

Now, he runs a red light, and will be forever referred to as "Red-light Robertson", and is yet again defiant that anything was his fault.

So is Gregor a Sociopath?

Here are the signs and symptoms listed at wikipedia:

* Persistent lying or stealing

("Forgetting" to buy a transit ticket, hmmmm sounds like lying to me, and could even count as stealing. As for persistence we obviously don't know but a lot of what he's spoken since being mayor could be considered mis-truths.)

* Apparent lack of remorse[3] or empathy for others

(He has a lack of remorse for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the same ideals as he has, and has shown that his Cambie street grandstanding for businesses was only that.)

* Cruelty to animals[4]

(Nothing here folks, thank goodness.)

* Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper

(Long and contentious meetings, yeah right. Red flag #3 right here.)

* A history of childhood conduct disorder

(Not sure about this but I'm sure if we asked his parents or Frances Bula, they/she would tell us what a good boy he was/is.)

* Recurring difficulties with the law

(Let's review, transit ticket, and runnning a red light are just two we know about. My opinion is that he's as guilty as those folks in Critical Mass that he denies associating with.)

* Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others

(Although Visionistas will groan about this one, I'm fairly certain that you could ask the people in the Westend and in NEFC whether or not they feel their rights have been violated.)

* Substance abuse

(I've heard nothing that Gregor partakes in any "smoke" parties, but it wouldn't surprise me. But nothing here folks, as far as I know.)

* Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights

(From all reports Gregor was quite enthusiastic at the MMA fights and has said he is a big fan. In my book, ANYONE who thinks this is a sport and is a fan, has some issues they need to seek therapy for. It's barbaric plain and simple. He may not get involved in fights but since he enjoys seeing blood spill in this sport, by association, this fits like a glove....just don't call him OJ...get it?)

* Inability to tolerate boredom

(From watching him at council meetings, disinterested, playing with the lights, helping people with their computers, paying no attention to the speakers, again this fits like a glove, call him OJ here.)

* Disregard for safety

(Running a red light would certainly qualify here. Does anyone really think this is the first and only time while on his bike, Gregor didn't follow traffic laws....? Didn't think so.


Now to diagnose a "sociopath" or "psychopath" as they are also known, you need 3 of the following 4:

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since the age of 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B) The individual is at least 18 years of age.

C) There is evidence of Conduct disorder with onset before age 15.

D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.


You be the judge. To me its very clear.

I work two blocks south of there at an office on East Mall. I obey all of the traffic laws on my bike (which strongly annoys some impatient motorists). I'm also a motorist, and obeying the laws strongly annoys people too, such as obeying the speed limit on a 2-lane road, or coming to a full stop at a stop sign where the walk light is illuminated (been sworn at for obeying that law in the car).

Of course although Vancouver can't do anything with the intersection in the video since it's at UBC, in Vancouver there already is a lot of bike enforcement going on this year, the VPD set up along the 10th Ave and also the Adanac bike routes, which are two of the busier bike routes. But just as police enforcement of traffic laws on cars, as rare as this enforcement is, we still see plenty of drivers with cellphones, or those exceeding the speed limit.

To answer the difficult question of what the solution to what you saw on the video is would be to answer the question of how to stop pedestrians walking at "Dont Walk" or crossing midstreet, or how to get motorists to never exceed the maximum speed limit. Not an easy task.

I live on a corner lot in East Van. While gardening in my front lawn I watch cars cut through my neighbourhood and maybe 1 in 20 actually stops at the stop sign.

Should I videotape them and rant about it on a blog to?

No, this doesn't mean I condone the cyclists behaviour, but let's be realistic here people. What's more dangerous?

@ Ryan

Completely agree, local 'news' is a joke. It's tough to even qualify it as news anymore.

Does anyone know if this video was taken in Idaho or in Vancouver? I think it was Vancouver and what we saw was a whole lot of people breaking the law in BC. Chris, stop making excuses and just admit cyclists have a problem. That's usually the first step in recovery. How can you defend someone cycling through this intersection with a coffee in their hand or someone riding "with no hands". Amazing what you will stoop to.

DANIEL, you are missing the point of the last two years in Vancouver. Bicyclists have indeed become the privileged class in Vancouver. We have spent incredible sums to create bike lanes on downtown bridges for a small number of riders. City sidewalks are seldom safe as bike riders ride the sidewalks with impunity. It is the Cortes Islanders preferred way.

My name is Chris, and I have a problem. Anyone else want to admit they have a problem? I guess only cyclists break traffic laws, go faster then the speed limit, roll through stop signs, etc.

The arguments on this site are becoming ridiculous. First, you tried to argue cycling would cause gridlock. But that never happened. Now, you're reduced to complaining that cyclists break the law, so they should be denied infrastructure. If that was the criteria, not a single mile of highway would ever be built in this country, because every one has chronic speeding problems.

You can bet if a vehicle hit one of those cyclists and injured them, there would be hell to pay. The cycling lobby would be squealing like stuck pigs. Everyone would jump to the conclusion that the car driver was at fault. This video is very revealing and instead of deflecting attention by attacking car drivers, let's stick to the topic please. Yes, car drivers are bad too, but way too little attention is paid to how poorly cyclists adhere to traffic laws. Kudos to the Province for their coverage, hopefully it will start a real debate and lead to action.

You are right Daniel - you have found cyclist out! We break the law on a regular basis at stop signs among other spots.

As the first commenter questioned if the video was filmed in Idaho or not. Maybe it is time we revisited the law and make the law reflect practice - a Yield as Stop law similar to the one Idaho on the books since 1982.

Yield as Stop Video - http://vimeo.com/4140910

Riding is different than drive and I am sure you attest to that, even as a casual cyclist. You are exposed to the elements (weather, noise) and you are more connected to the environment around you and you can speak more easily to the pedestrians and other riders around you.

Driving. You are shielded from all. Psychologically it is often the driver against everyone else - communication is hampered.

(See Traffic - why we driver the way we do for a good run down on the issues of driving and communication).

As for the mayor running red lights - well that is not even allowed in Idaho by cyclists or mayors.

@Chris. Are you condoning the way these cyclists are riding their bikes on public streets? Are you not concerned about safety of the cyclists and pedestrians? I thought the reason we put the bike lane on Burrard Bridge was to improve safety for cyclists. If so, shouldn't you stop attacking the authors of this blog and speak to the actions of those caught on this video.

You guys are incredible, it's like cyclists can do no wrong. No one is saying car drivers are perfect, but clearly there is work to be done on teaching cyclists basic safety laws. Surely you could drop the blind ideology and agree with that statement?

@ Greg

Everyone needs to be more defensive. Drivers break laws all the time. Cyclists break laws all the time.
Pedestrians break laws all the time.

Why is it cyclists get pissed on? Cars are exponentially more dangerous.

pretty funny to see Vision hacks like boohoo and co. whining about what is newsworthy.

And if Ryan had his way everyday the headline would be "people are dying".

Suck it up, buttercups. The bloom is off this guy. Previous mayor/parties got run out on policy or lack of persona.

This guy will go down because people are actually getting an idea of what kind of person he is. Aloof-undereducated-pretty-boy who-was-lucky-to-marry-a-rich-guy's- airy-fairy daughter.

Just check out his educational history on wikipedia. All I can say is, 'say what?'

enrolled at the University of British Columbia. However, he later transferred to Colorado College.[2] At Colorado College, he completed a BA in English and Biology. After graduating, he intended to become a medical doctor, going so far as pursuing a medical fellowship at Stanford University. Yet upon application, the University of British Columbia medical school denied him admission.[3] His rejection both relieved and surprised him.

he persued amedical fellowship at Stanford but UBC rejected him? Talk about making something out of nothing.
And what is a BA in English and Biology? Since when is Biology a BA?
Sounds embellished. 'If something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true (Judge Judy)'.

Is he actually a college graduate?

sigh....rf...you're a pretty sad state of affairs...

you and your ilk are so twisted and embedded into this 'us vs them' mentality you apparently can't even open your eyes much less see straight.

I make a comment about cyclists, drivers and pedestrians all breaking laws and all needing to be safer and I've a vision hack?

I say again, grow up.

I've been hit twice by cyclists - once on a sidewalk, once in a crosswalk. The first incident left a rather large bruise on my right arm. Did the guy stop - nope. Thankfully it was me and not an older person or a child.

A few weeks back, by boyfriend and I were out on the bike (motorcycle). We were at an intersection - had the green light and were heading through. Out of the corner of my eye, I see this cyclist to my left, barreling through the red. We cleared him by about 3 feet. After the sick feeling of narrowly missing an accident that could have taken us all down, I has to stop my boyfriend from going after the guy. He was furious.

That cyclist placed as all in danger.

I do love how cyclists come up with every excuse possible in order to sugar coat continued bad behavior.

'Look what cars do' has become a tiresome and somewhat pathetic rebuttal.

@Greg - I'm saying the actions of most of the cyclists aren't that dangerous, even if they are breaking the law. There are some cyclists in that video that scare me - the ones that blow through the intersection at full speed and the ones on sidewalks. But the others slow down for the intersection and check for traffic coming down the perpendicular avenue. A lot of cars do the same thing, and as long as they are mindful of pedestrians and other traffic then I don't mind.

The issue here is safety. And cyclists who don't come to a complete stop aren't inherently dangerous, as some people here are trying to argue. Daniel managed to capture dozens of cyclists breaking the law. I could just as easily capture dozens of cars breaking the law too. But are they putting people in danger?

P.S. What comment of mine made you accuse me of attacking the authors of this site? I see a lot of personal attacks in the comments, but all I said was "the arguments on this site are becoming ridiculous." I encourage you to read through the comments and see who is making personal attacks and what side of the debate they fall on.

Enforcement of traffic rules must be based on strong evidence that the enforcement will increase public safety by reducing deaths and injures. With between 20 and 30 deaths each year caused by careless and reckless driving, it is really hard to make a case that the police should crack down on cyclists and pedestrians for not obeying the rules.

The police have only a limited amount of resources devoted to traffic enforcement. If they ticket cyclists more, the result would be fewer tickets issued to drivers for speeding, running red lights, not stopping at crosswalks and drinking and driving. The reality is that if police start cracking down on misbehaving cyclists or pedestrians for that matter just because some people find them annoying, the result will be that more people will be injured and die on the streets of Vancouver.

Of course, if someone can provide strong evidence that cracking down on cyclists at a given location is the best use of police resources, I would support that.

Richard:

The primary reason Vision is spending millions of dollars on cycling lanes is based on safety.

The Burrard Bridge was sectioned off due to 8 accidents where 'cyclists' got injured. 5 of those accidents included cyclists hitting pedestrians.

Several months back the police went out one weekend to give 'information' tickets to cyclists - reminding them to obey the rules of the road. There were over 3,000 tickets handed out - in ONE weekend.

So now we have Councilor Meggs who 'may' have ran a stop sign that resulted in his injury and the Mayor running a red light that could have resulted in his death had it not been for the quick reaction of the bus driver.

So don't laa dee da the simple fact that cyclists need to shape up. If they want to be treated with respect - they need to give it and adhere to the rules of the road just as everyone else is suppose to.

These are not isolated incidents in any way. I could set up a camera at the intersection near my home (Hornby & Helmcken) and come up with video of similar, if not worse behaviour. The police should crack down now, as it's become an epidemic. The longer they go without enforcing bylaws, the more emboldened the cyclists will become.

"The reality is that if police start cracking down on misbehaving cyclists or pedestrians for that matter just because some people find them annoying, the result will be that more people will be injured and die on the streets of Vancouver."

What nonsense. Cyclists now have zero deterrents to obey the rules of the road. Handing out some hefty fines will indeed start sending the message that they are not above the law.

Ma/Richard,

You're right, these probably aren't isolated incidents. But so what?

I'm sure there are just as many drivers breaking laws per capita as cyclists. Probably even more pedestrians per capita break laws than cyclists or drivers.

So why aren't we more concerned about drivers breaking laws given the degree to which they can cause so much more damage/injury?

oops that should read ma/mark.

Mark--No one is above the law--but I ask again, what is a greater danger? If we had more resources we could tackle more issues, but that's a whole other issue...

In the last 5 years or so, cycling has become exponentially more popular. Many new cyclists are completely unaware of (or don't care about) the rules of the road and are reckless and dangerous. Far more than any motorists. For example, I have yet see any cars barreling down crowded downtown sidewalks or going the wrong way down one way streets while talking on a cellphone, etc.

Boo-hack: Who says we're not concerned about motorists breaking laws?! The laws should be enforced for all who share the road.

I drive and I bike. I follow all traffic laws, and am constantly frustrated by the number of cyclists AND drivers who do not. Particularly dangerous problems are:

- cyclists who do not stop at stop signs and red lights
- drivers who do not stop at stop signs and red lights
- drivers who pull out from stop signs when there is clearly a bike coming (bikes are capable of travelling much faster than drivers generally give credit for)
- cyclists who, instead of stopping at a light, insist on circling in the intersection waiting for a chance to cross
- drivers who pass a bike then immediately attempt to turn in front of (or worse, while beside) the bike
- drivers and cyclists who do not signal turns when there is clearly traffic around who would be affected

And that's just the interactions between bikes and cars, let alone respect for pedestrians.

@ Chris
"the actions of the cyclists are not that dangerous, even though they are breaking the law.
... that says it all....
Gregor,while breaking traffic rules, endangered citizens that were using an alternative form of environmentally friendly transportation, a bus, driven by a veteran professional driver. So it isn't car vs. bike. IMO.

boohoo:

It shouldn't come down to 'who is the greater danger' cars vs bikes. (For pedestrians - it is both.)

That is like arguing: If a shop keeper is robbed is a guy with a gun a greater danger or a guy with a knife.

For the innocent bystanders - it is both and equally so.

Cyclists need to quit pointing the finger at car drivers and yelling 'bad driver, bad driver' while ignoring the fact that there are many 'bad drivers' withing their own group.


Mark/Max

Boohack? What's with you children....?

Of course it comes down to greater danger. That's how our police with their limited resources have to work. I'm sure there are thousands of 'crimes' that go unpunished every day by any and all groups of society, but we can't arrest/charge/fine them all. You have to pick and choose. And naturally, you pick and choose the ones that are a greater threat to the public safety.

I don't know why people pick on cyclists so much, I suppose it's the hip thing to do now, but frankly the danger they pose is minimal.

Please understand I'm not condoning their behaviour, but let's be realistic here... A car is a more dangerous weapon, that's just what speed/weight/volume does.

I'm a cyclist and a driver. I'm not pointing fingers at either group for breaking laws, I know I break laws while doing both as I'm sure we all do. So let's get off our collective high horses shall we?

What is getting lost in this back and forth as to who is the most careless is the disproportionate influence that cyclists appear to have on civic policies. We are in the middle of summer with fabulous weather and the bicycle lanes are hardly utilized. What is going to happen in winter?

I suggest the cycling initiatives are not so much pro bicycle but anti car. It doesn't matter if the bicycle lanes are used or not, it makes less room for cars. If people don't willingly make the right decisions to take transit, then force them. And in the religion of Green, that is a good thing.

oops, sorry Chris, this post was written by George... not Chris. My bad:)

Sure, cyclists need to shape up as do motorists and cyclists but it is quite ridiculous to suggest that cyclists need to do so to gain respect.

There is no evidence to suggest people on bikes are any worse than people in cars or on foot.

Instead of obeying the law and not speeding, motorists lobbied successfully against photo radar so they could get away with breaking the law. , Vancouver is spending $6.2 million to build a left turn bay at Knight and 57th because reckless drivers would not follow the rules of the road killing and injuring other drivers, pedestrians and themselves. The province spent hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading the Sea to Sky Highway to try and reduce deaths and injuries caused by speeding and reckless drivers.

On Dunsmuir one has to look out for people walking in the bike lane and just walking across the street or at least stepping into the bike lane against the lights. While this can be annoying, it is not that big an issue if one is alert. I certainly don't expect the police to do anything about it unless it proves to be a big public safety issue.

boohoo:

I've yet to be hit by a car driver (thankfully) - however, I have been hit twice by cyclists and in under a 4 month period.

So perhaps my idea of the 'greater' threat is a bit tainted.

For me, I now worry more about being hit by a cyclist than a car as I find cyclists less predictable in their behavior.

When I am stopped at an intersection to cross as street, I can see the cars stop - cyclists, it is hit and miss whether they blow through.

I have to say, I agree completely with this post. Cyclists who think the rules of the road don't apply to them (they do - all of them) give the rest of us a bad name and contribute to the ongoing animosity between drivers and cyclists.

I also agree that drivers get away with turning every day without signalling, rolling through four-way stops without even slowing down and (my personal favourite as a pedestrian) gunning it through an intersection as the light turns red and pedestrians and cars are beginning to cross or turn. All of which, as a cyclist, is always a hair-raising experience that makes me scared to get back on the bike sometimes.

So any of your drivers out there who think that you've got something on us cyclists should wipe that smug look off your face.

@Richard. Can you venture to guess how much injured cyclists cost our medical system? Every time one of them falls and plows their head into the concrete...can you say KAAAACHING.

Richard, you naively assert that we shouldn't crack down on cyclists because drivers are worse. What utter horse$H(T. Bad cyclists eventually get into accidents which end up costing all tax payers millions of dollars in additional medicare premiums. Use your head for once. Bad cyclists do cost tax payers money. Full stop.

I call this selective editing. Even then, you could see numerous violations by motorists as well.

All road users need to follow the rules and there needs to be more enforcement. Otherwise, we will have what we have now, where nobody follows the rules of the road.

Chad, 400 people are killed and 28,000 people are injured in the province by reckless and careless driving. Careless and reckless driving is a huge threat to all people who drive, walk and cycle. Cracking down on dangerous driving will save far more money, lives than cracking down on reckless cycling.

If the police ever manage to reduce the levels of reckless driving to the point where reckless cycling is a greater threat than driving, then of course, the should start cracking down on cycling. Until then, suggesting that they ignore dangerous driving and instead focus on cycling, which is a much smaller threat, is simply irresponsible and will lead to more deaths on our streets.

My favorite are the cyclists careening down a sidewalk full of pedestrians right next to a bike lane. And the ones who ring their bells at you because they can't get past you on the busy sidewalk full of pedestrians. I see this going on everywhere in Vancouver. This video could have been taken at almost any intersection in a busy area of Vancouver.

Since living in Vancouver, I've had more close-calls with cyclists than I have with cars while walking around the city. Everyone on the road needs to mind the rules and pay attention, including cyclists.

Also, I recommend all pedestrians look both ways before stepping into the street. I've noticed that pedestrians here tend to blindly step into the street without first making sure the coast is clear. This was something we were all taught as kids: Before crossing the street, look both ways first!

Car drivers should also be more mindful of bike paths and cyclists sharing the road. If you see a cyclist coming down a bike path next to you, put on your turn signal and wait until the cyclist passes before driving across the bike lane to make your right turn. It only costs a few seconds and shows respect for everyone using the road.

@Chad - if you want to argue this based solely on the cost to the medical system, then you're going to lose.

First, there is about 100 times more accidents and deaths with pedestrian/car then pedestrian/cyclist collisions. (do a search for "Collisions and Fatalities in NYC Traffic Accidents" - I'd link, but last time it swallowed my comment)

Second, biking provides numerous other health benefits (cleaner air, lower cholesterol, reduced risk of heart disease, etc) when compared to driving a car. That represents huge health care savings.

Third, Vancouver has more pedestrian deaths per capita then any other major Canadian city. Guess how many of the 31 pedestrians who died last year where hit by a cyclist?

Congratulations to the Province and this website for their contributions in escalating rather than trying to diminish conflict between cars and bikes in our city. I understand that the Province is a populist newspaper interested in simplistic but loud headlines but the people behind this website are clearly clever so I question their intent. Is it to smear the mayor? Is to curry votes by spurring anti-bike sentiment? Is it to attack cyclists? Or is it something else?

The fact is that many more of us car drivers are going to become cyclists and transit riders in the coming years due to the escalating energy prices brought on by globally peaking oil production(SFU Urban Studies Director and former NPA councilor discusses latest report on the topic here: http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/phony-war/#comments). Accommodating this mobility shift with appropriate infrastructure will take time and money. So my question to the City Caucus crew is whether you think we need to be building this non-motorized transportation infrastructure to accommodate what will be increasing demand for non-automobile mobility options? Or are you ignoring the reality of peak oil in favour of making political points?

I wouldn't bank on cycling numbers jumping in leaps and bounds in near the future.

As is stands right now - roughly 4.5% of the Vancouver commuting population cycles. (and that includes the recently announced 24% increase) I would suggest this number drops during the 'wet weather months', and quite possibly the summer months. I walk the Burrard Bridge everyday to and from work and there have not been a lot of cyclists - more walkers than anything.

You have an aging population - the boomers are retiring as well as a highly diverse ethnic population.

Many of the people that work in Vancouver come from outside of the city.

So unless housing prices drop to the point that people can easily afford to live in the city limits with a family, they will continue to travel from the neighboring municipalities.

I agree, cycling has its benefits, as does walking, going to the gym, and eating healthy.

But to try to push everyone onto bikes will only cause people to rail against it.

I have no problems with the creation of bike ways - but, I do whole heartedly believe that cyclists as well as drivers need to obey the rules of the road as laid out by the laws that govern all of us.


Many bicyclists in Vancouver are idiots. This proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some of the whining and spin I am reading in these comments are mind-bogglingly stupid.

Take this comment from Chris:

"I see a lot of cyclists breaking the law, but I don't see a lot of dangerous biking."

Hey Einstein, it's called semantics. If some moronic bicycle rider is breaking the law, it's dangerous. Wake up and smell the coffee. There are laws in place specifically due to those reasons. Ridiculous.

People who don't wear bicycle helmets are the dumbest of the dumb. All it takes is one small spill and they can easily crack their heads on the pavement. Over and above the utter brainlessness of not wearing a bicycle helmet in this day and age, not wearing a helmet is also ILLEGAL. Making any connections yet? Wake up. WAKE UP.

Here is an interesting comment from Ted:

"You can bet if a vehicle hit one of those cyclists and injured them, there would be hell to pay"

You're damned right, Ted. This is exactly what a colleague and I were discussing in the case of the mayor. What if the same thing had happened with the mayor cutting off a car and the car hit him? Would the mayor have readily admitted that it was his fault? His apology for his stupid behavior was already a bit on the weak side. But had it not been a public transit vehicle but a private citizen innocently driving along and having the crazy mayor on this bike cutting him off, I'm starting to get the impression many in Vancouver would be going on about how crazy all the drivers are here in Vancouver and how dangerous it is for the bicycle riders and boo hoo hoo make us more bike lanes yada yada yada

PITIFUL. What a joke.

Thanks for your response Max. I think what you may be overlooking is the impact that peak oil will have on how people get around:

"During the gas price rises of 2006-2008, U.S. citizens turned to public transportation in record numbers. Light rail ridership was the biggest winner, as was an old and reliable form of gas-free transportation, the bicycle. The biggest losers: SUVs (RIP Hummer) and personal automotive use. Across the nation, people substantially reduced their driving for the first time in decades, particularly in metro areas that had other mobility options." (http://www.commoncurrent.com/notes/2010/03/peak-oil-in-four-years-mobilit.html)

Yawn....Did you really just reference 'Peak oil'?...why don't we just 'open our kimonos' and 'think outside of the box', realize 'it takes a village', recognize 'it is what it is' and just 'LOL'.....

Oops. Missed a key paragraph:

"One of the smartest steps communities can take to prepare for oil price and supply volatility is to maintain public transit service levels. It is especially ill-advised to cut public transit systems to fund highway or automotive-based initiatives: a transit district in suburban San Francisco, for instance, is cutting public transit service to help pay for a $75 million road improvement project.

Getting light rail funded and built by 2014 or 2015 is not likely in areas without pending efforts, so metro areas should also investigate other means of mobility investments, including:

- Bus Rapid Transit systems or routes
- Pedestrian-cycling infrastructure
- Multi-modal transportation hubs
- Car-sharing programs for city employees, businesses and residents
- Designated carpooling stops and incentives
- Technologies enabling transit use, car-sharing and car pooling"

(http://www.commoncurrent.com/notes/2010/03/peak-oil-in-four-years-mobilit.html)

I see the cyclng fascists are out in full force today defending their saviour.

Terrific post Daniel. You literally could have taken this at ANY intersection or roadway in town. Since the election of Vision Vancouver the cycling lobby has indeed become the privileged class and it's an outrage. For less than 4% of the people to be holding the rest of the city hostage (and millions upon millions of your tax dollars is despicable).

The Hornby Street bike lane was leaked to me two weeks ago but I chose to do nothing with it since there are more than that one on deck.

Frankly, I hope it doesn't happen since as one astute reader put it, someone will get killed. I had an office at Park Place some years ago and Hornby is absolutely the wrong place to be doing this.

The point any longer is about how pathetic and socialist Vision really are.

It's, rather, how dormant the NPA are that they can't mount a defense for the majority of the city, who are no surely repulsed by the eco-nuts and cycling fascists that have overtaken the city.

They have got to go, and in many cases they will.

Peak oil has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that Mayor Gregor didn't stop before turning into the path of a transit vehicle, that is what we are discussing. Nothing to do with oil, that is a smoke screen.

This video means nothing with respect to this story because it was filmed on UBC campus, aka another world where there are no rules and very little traffic (cars). If you actually take another look at the video you will see that with the exception of one or two cars, NO ONE is stopping at the lights, pedestrians, cars, and bikes alike. Most of them slow down but keep on going. I worked at UBC for 3 years and the problem there are not cyclists, but pedestrians! The number of times I almost ran over someone on my bike because someone blindly walked across a road with their head phones on, was ridiculous! Roads mean nothing at UBC; students traverse them like a open lawn.

And really, who stops at stop signs these days anyway, drivers and bikers alike....stop signs should be changed to SLOW @ GO signs.


@ Max

I'm sorry your view of cyclists vs cars is tainted by your personal experience, but surely you see the statistics prove otherwise?

@ A.G.

Fascists defending Gregor?
Pathetic and socialists?

You throw around words like fascist and socialist but I don't think you really know what they mean. If you did, you wouldn't use them so loosely and incorrectly. All you do is degrade the discussion into mind numbingly childish, stereotypical name calling.

Stats may show otherwise, however, you have to realize the ratio of drivers vs cyclists in this Province is far greater and I would also venture that many of the cycling related incidents go unreported.

Of the 8 reported bike accidents on the Burrard Street Bridge prior to the opening of the bike lane, and the reason cited by the mayor and council for separating the lane - 5 involved cyclists hitting pedestrians.

That is a 63% ratio.

Once again: if biking is the big issue for *you* the opposition...you are going nowhere.

Actually it has everything to do with the discussion because peak oil means we need to adapt our existing infrastructure that assumes a continuous supply of cheap oil to a new energy regime where distance and car-based mobility are going to cost a whole lot more. One of cheap and effective means to respond to this predicament is to build more cycling infrastructure. But as long as cycling investments are framed through an us (cars) vs them (bikes) lens we are doing ourselves a disservice by not being able to see that these investments are important for keeping the city and region functional and prosperous in light of situation where "we are racing towards a future that will be very difficult, and we have to do what is necessary to not economically kill ourselves" (http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/safety_security/energy_security/hirsch_peak_oil_production.html).

@Max

Well of course collisions between cyclists and pedestrians was the major issue on Burrard Bridge because cyclists were forced to share the sub standard narrow sidewalk with pedestrians. Fortunately, Mayor Robertson and council had the courage to make the difficult decision to fix the problem by giving cyclists and pedestrians their own space on the bridge.

Now the bridge is much safer for everyone who drives, cyclists or walks over the bridge.

Stats can be very misleading because they can be spun to show whatever you want them to show. For example, this so called 4% of the population that cycles. What is the population? The entire Vancouver population including children and seniors? Children and many seniors do not drive, let alone bike. And how was this calculated? Based on a full population survey or a sample set? Was the sample set sufficiently random? or did it include mostly drivers?

If you take a count of cyclists versus cars on that video, cars are out numbered 5 to 1.

What would be more accurate is to determine the % of the population that drives, at the very least to provide a comparison base. The way this 4% is thrown around implies that the other 96% are drivers, which is completely false.

The figure comes from the 2006 Census (long form version) which had questions about transportation mode

@ May Ryan - "This video means nothing with respect to this story because it was filmed on UBC campus, aka another world where there are no rules and very little traffic (cars)."

Oh yes, cyclists in Vancouver are a completely different breed of people as compared to those evil UBC cyclists.

They all obey traffic laws and don't whiz through stop lights. NOT! What planet are you living on May? As previously stated, this video could have been shot at almost any Vancouver street corner. Get real. Where do you think most of the people cycling on campus come from? That's right, Vancouver. Duh.

This video is shocking but what's more shocking is the reaction from the cycling community on this blog. They are circling their bikes and claiming that all is great and nobody did anything wrong. Give your head a shake. We need more enforcement and the sooner the better.

Or, it could have been that the cyclists didn't obey the 15 km/hr signage on the sidewalk that has just recently been spray painted over with (ugly) black paint. I would place money on that one as the primary cause for the 'accidents'.

For the number of cyclists on the bridge - the same outcome could have been had by designating one walkway for cyclists - either the east or west side, and the other for pedestrians. The lane did not have to go.

Less wear and tear on the bridge structure (which council still has not addressed) less overall cost for ugly barricades (cost $1.5M) - which are now being replaced (additional cost of $2M) less traffic lined up from Pacific trying to merge southbound on the bridge,less traffic sat idling on the bridge deck and two less businesses that have gone under due to the change.

The exact same outcome - cycling wise, at a lesser cost both financially, environmentally and well, socially.

And for what - a whopping 24% increase on the existing 3.7% of cyclists? that is an increase of 0.8% for a GRAND total of $4.5%.

They did not think the lane change through.

The should have practiced the '7 P's':

Prior Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

Oh yes I forgot. Only people who blindly support cyclists regardless of how they behave can form government in Vancouver. Dream on honey.

Only 4% of trips made into downtown Vancouver are made by cyclists. That means 96% of the "rest of us" have a few votes we can spread around. Stop your bullying and intimidation tactics and stick to the issue at hand.

Do you support the cyclists you saw in the video? Is this the type of activity you would support? If it is, I think you're more out of touch than you're willing to admit.

It is ridiculous to suggest that bikes can be a substitute for cars. Public transit, maybe, but even then wait until the price of fossil fuels starts to rise and there will be increased demand for alternative modes of travel/energy which consumers will pay for without heavy subsidization. Rather than throwing public funds into the Green Money Pit, let the free market do what it does best - supply consumer demand.

@Maudern. You clearly miss the point. This isn't about cyclists vs. car drivers and who loves whom more. This is about people blatantly breaking the laws of BC. I guess you believe there should be no rules for cyclists? A free for all you say?

Terence: Obviously you have never been on a bike, nor been to a university campus. Cyclist drive differently on campus because there is less traffic and less roads where cars are allowed, thus they can get away with it.

More to the point, it is impossible for you to make this claim that this intersection is like any other in Vancouver without the video to back it up. And if you actually looked at the video objectively, you would see that there is a loop in video - a repeated section to make the situation look worse than what it really is.

But hey, what do I know, I live on another planet.

Peak Oil has nothing to do with the fact that our Mayor blew a stop, put a transit driver and innocent citizens at risk, never mind the fear put into the driver, responsible for her passengers.

Now the term "Peak Oil" sounds like a smoke screen to me. Are you just trying to excite me with the exuberance of your own verbosity...nice spin, but this intelligent public isn't buying it.

We are having a discussion about the Mayor and his cycling traffic transgressions, has nothing to do with oil. Absolutely nothing.

Lisa,

You're wrong.

4% of people cycling DOES NOT mean 96% of people drive.

Unless of course you consider everyone who walks, skateboards, takes transit, etc... are drivers.

@ Bill: The key to dealing with peak oil is planning, as in taking steps now so we don't get screwed later. Robert Hirsch, the guy who cowrote the landmark 2005 peak oil report for the US Dep't of Energy explains this:

"If the world started (to implement solutions) 20 years before the peak oil problem, we would have stood a very good chance of beating the problem and could have avoided significant negative consequences for our economy. As it turns out, we now don’t have 20 years; we don’t even have 10. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if oil production begins to decline within the next few years."

Scaling up infrastructure, whether it be for energy or transportation takes time and money. Once we're into peak oil there will be more demands on spending at a time when money will be harder to come by. We need to be making these investments now so when oil prices shoot up our region can keep functioning fairly well and a big chunk of people's incomes aren't eaten up by commuting costs. This makes me wonder why you think that waiting for higher energy prices is going to make transportation infrastructure cheaper. Forbes magazine writer Chris Steiner's book '$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better' suggests that transit systems will paradoxically be dealing with less funding because gas tax revenue will decline as people try to cut back their driving in response to rising gas prices (http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/06/are-you-ready-for-20-per-gallon-gas.html). I guess that means we'll be paying more for transit then too. Or walking and riding bikes a lot more.

Finally, you suggest "it is ridiculous to suggest that bikes can be a substitute for cars." Well, there are many cities throughout human history that have and continue to get along without a heavy dependence on cars for transportation. Biking is one option. Walking has stood the test of time as a pretty resilient form of transportation. Certainly, electric cars will be in the mix as well but their upfront costs will be a deterrent for a lot of people (e.g. $41,000 for a Chevrolet Volt).

Head down to any intersection in Kits - along Cornwall.

This intersection is a mirror image of many of those - especially Cornwall and Cypress.

If you are a pedestrian you need to keep your wits about you because between the cyclists and the cars - it is like a bad game of frogger.

I'm not really sure what to add to this discussion; the tone's pretty aggressive and makes me wish that I had commented earlier.

I ride from Jericho to Burnaby and back every day and while I see a lot of the behaviour that this discussion is focused on, I also see a lot of courtesy, coming from all road users. Drivers almost always stop to let me across at Nanaimo and Grandview - I wave thanks and they nod acknowledgement. In my experience, most road users are fairly civil; I do see the opposite every day too, of course - a cyclist blowing past me as I stop to let a pedestrian or car take their turn at a four way stop, or a driver taking a roundabout the wrong way at high speed - but these are the exception, not the norm, despite what the preceding comments may suggest.

The mayor obviously pulled a boneheaded move and is in the wrong; he's not the only cyclist to break a traffic law, which is unfortunate. So do many motorists, which is also very unfortunate, possibly more so due to their greater mass and velocity, which presents a greater potential for harm.

There's a big difference between running a stop sign at a deserted intersection and shooting through a crowded one. It's not a legal difference (obviously, and not even at UBC), but rather one that has to do with courtesy. I don't stop at every stop sign, but I slow down, look very carefully (this is in my best interests), and if I see that it is not my turn, I stop. If there's nobody around, sure, I'll roll through. And yes, sometimes when I stop, another cyclist will speed through from behind me, which is disappointing and obviously has a major effect, given that many of you feel passionately (capital letters and all) about the rudeness of those sorts of acts.

I say the above in the spirit of saying something that isn't ideological, but rather to humbly suggest that it's reasonable for cyclists to proceed through intersections when it's nobody else's turn. I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that this is a relatively lower-risk activity on a bicycle than in a car (most cyclists are going less than 30km/h most of the time, versus upwards of 40km/h in a car); it's not risk free, but it's lower-risk.

I'd also humbly suggest that recent re-allocations of road space represent a very small fraction of the road space in Vancouver. The vast majority (80%)of the surface of every right-of-way in this city is dedicated to parking (usually free!) and moving cars and trucks; recent changes are but a drop in the bucket. Compared to a place like Calgary, which has literally hundreds of kilometres of dedicated paths for walking and cycling, often in scenic park corridors, many of which lead downtown, it's difficult for Vancouver to offer a separate space that feels safe for cyclists without taking some road space that is dedicated to cars.

And the helmets, really, it's not very relevant. Yes, BC has a helmet law, but that doesn't make it more or less dangerous to wear (or not) a helmet. Cyclists who don't wear helmets aren't trying to personally insult anyone, and it really doesn't make things any more dangerous for other road users. If a helmetless cyclist runs a stop sign, it's the stop sign running that's dangerous, not the lack of a helmet.

That's a lot of text. To finish:

As a cyclist, I apologize for running that stop sign or red light.

As a driver, I apologize for fiddling with the stereo, or for running the red light on Granville at 70 in a 50 zone.

As a pedestrian, I apologize for having my nose in a book and occasionally forgetting to look up before crossing the street.

As a skateboarder, I apologize for making beautiful, unpredictable carving turns at what feels very fast to me, but may not be to you.

We're all in this together, attentive, inattentive; courteous, rude; fast, slow. Perhaps we can try to get along? I'll promise to stop when it's your turn at a four-way stop, I'll wave thanks when you stop to let me across a busy arterial, and for those of you walking and driving, and commenting on forums, please be attentive, don't tar those of us on bikes all with the same brush, and perhaps lay off the caps...

@ George:

Look at the title of the article '"Red Light Robertson" is not the only careless rider in town'. This article uses the fact that Robertson "blew a stop" to smear the broader population of Vancouverites who choose to get around by bikes as law-breakers. Delinquent cyclists and motorists should both be ticketed for illegal maneuvers because both make them. If it's not happening we need better enforcement. But, the way this has been framed amounts to an attack on efforts to build a cycling friendly city by attacking those who would use that infrastructure and the mayor who is just the latest in a long line of elected officials from the NPA, Vision and COPE who have championed it. Such infrastructure is critical to our success as we move into the post-Cheap Energy era so attempts to diminish efforts to build it are in my opinion counter to the interests of the city at large. Thanks for your feedback.

Since arriving in Vancouver 6 years ago, I was a transit rider first, then shortly after a bike rider, and then most recently I bought a car.

Throughout the time here, the least safe I've felt cycling on the roads in Vancouver is in the past year.

I don't feel that intimidating people by arguments of peak oil will bring anyone to support cycling and abandon their cars. It certainly doesn't sway me. In fact if anything it just makes the most vocal cycling advocates appear as a curious chattering class fringe.

That video is hardly a damning indictment against cyclists given the fact that pretty much everyone disobeyed the rules when it came to stopping.

Oh, and I like the edit job at on point in the video so you can't tell if the car actually came to a full stop or not.

This is such a non issue. Yawn. Yet again more tiresome Vision hatred.

@Bill
Putting two-way cycling traffic on one side of the bridge would not have been responsible and would have been even more dangerous than having cyclists and pedestrians share the sidewalk. A 2.8m wide sidewalk is simply too narrow for two-way cycling traffic. Given the high volumes of cyclists, such a two-way path should be at least 4m wide. Cyclists heading against the flow of traffic would be blinded by the lights of the oncoming cars. The only serious injury during the trial was caused by a cyclist going the wrong way.

It was pretty obvious that sharing the sidewalks was not a workable solution. Cyclists are about as likely to obey a 15 km/h speed limit on the downhill section as motorists are to obey the 60 km/h limit on the bridge. It is also not apparent that going slower would have been any safer. On Granville Bridge, the city was forced to spend millions of dollars installing a barrier in the centre because motorists refused to follow the speed limit and drive safely.

The slight backups at the north intersection can be fixed when the city redesigns the intersection to make it safer for everyone.

Lastly, I find it really hard to believe that a hard to notice art gallery went out of business due to the bike lanes. I never even noticed it when I was cycling by. Do you really think people driving by would first notice it then stop and spend thousands of dollars on art. Of course not. People would make an appointment and a special trip to view the art. An extra couple of blocks of driving is not going to make a difference. I suspect the poor economy was more of problem than the lack of traffic.

Ryan.

Bitter, much?

Notice how despite there being three minutes of video, Ken focuses on one millisecond of tape which "might" incriminate one driver. All this while he ignores the cyclist riding his bike on the sidewalk without a helmet and holding a cup of coffee. The hypocrisy on this blog from the cycle fanatics is absolutely amazing.

Ken, despite your best attempts at manufacturing some sort of conspiracy about the editing of the raw footage I took yesterday, let me assure you of the following:

1. Yes, there were cars that didn't come to a complete stop. Yes, that's against the law. Yes you do see that as part of the video. However, the video and this post wasn't focusing on the behaviour of car drivers (I'll leave that for another day). It was illustrating that many cyclists completely ignore the rules of the road.

2. No, I didn't edit out any nice bits showing cyclists obeying the traffic rules. That's because no one did during the time I was filming. I'm confident there are many law abiding cyclists who frequent that corner on any given day, I just didn't happen to see any when I took this footage. If you have the time, I'd encourage you to perform the same experiment and see if it yields any different results. I somehow doubt it.

The purpose of this post was to get people talking about the need for people to obey traffic laws, regardless if they ride a bicycle or drive a car. More often than not it is pedestrians that bear the brunt of this reckless behaviour.

Kudos to everyone for joining in the debate today and raising some very good points on both sides of the discussion.

Umm, not quite there Terri. In fact most drivers in the video roll through the stop sign. My point with the edit was that it looks as though it was done with intent so as not to show the roll through. I guess after the first edit Daniel figured he'd have to edit out every car that rolled through and then gave up.

Look, I walk to work, ride my bike in the city for both errands and exercise, and I drive a car. Yes, cyclists break laws every day. But so do motorists. And even pedestrians. The "evidence" in the video doesn't merely condemn cyclists but it condemns all three, thus it doesn't really do a heck of a lot to justify tarring cyclists.

And just like just like when citycaucus tried to create an anti Vision story out of nothing when city crews didn't clear out side streets during our once in a life time snow storm in December 2008, this red light Robertson issue is a complete non story except to those who are partisan NPA hacks.

boohoo...

You're kidding, right?

Motorists that break the rules of the road (rolling stops---I know--I got a ticket for that one and haven't done it since!, speeding, inattention, cell phone using, DUI, etc)that are caught are fined, receive points or tickets or lose their licenses or go to jail or a combination of all of these.

Those are seen as pretty powerful disincentives by most drivers out there.

However, bicyclists--and I am one of those too---do not have any fear of being caught, because, well, they don't have anyone pressing down on them to obey the laws.

The fact that they are more vulnerable is no excuse, and indeed, shows both a lack of rational thinking and, dare I say it--extreme sense of ENTITLEMENT because they are not in one of those nasty GHG spering carbon critters. Never mind that those at the MOST end of the transportation scale---pedestrians, are totally ignored by many on bikes.

BTW, the other day, near Main and 10th, young woman on bike, without helmet, TEXTING as she road towards me.

WTF!!?!?!??!?! Does owning a bike make you stupid?

CTV did a great story on Red Light Robertson tonight. The mayor was unavailable for comment but he did issue the following written statement from what is jokingly known by staff as his 3rd floor bunker at City Hall:

"It was a good lesson for me and I hope it serves as a reminder to everyone to use caution and follow the rules when out on the road..."

I suspect his staff had a little talking with the Mayor after they read his quotes in The Province newspaper this morning. These sound a lot nicer and more contrite. That's more like it!

There are so many post here, I can't find what I was looking for.

I believe that someone wrote that 4% of the pop. of Vancouver ride bikes (downtown?) implying that 96% of the population heading downtown is using a car.

Actually, 40% of the people heading into downtown Vancouver arrive and dsepart on transit. Which would imply that there are an awful lot of pedestrians walking around at noon.

All the more reason for bikers and pedestrians and drivers to obey the rules of the road

Ken thanks for reminding us of how incompetent Vision was during that big snowstorm. I had almost completely forgotten about how they left seniors stranded for days in their home while the mayor vacatoned in sunny Mexico. "Pass the sun tan lotion honey, my beautiful looks are getting a tad burnt".

How Vision left people requiring medication locked up in their apartments and unable to walk on our snow and ice covered sidewalks. I almost forgot that many of our main aterials and most of our side streets were like something out of a horror movie for weeks.

Oh yeah, did I say thank you for reminding everyone who reads this blog about how inept Vision was back in 2008. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The intent is not to intimidate with arguments about peak oil. Nor is to convince people to drive less. Rising gas prices and the internet (http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155) have already shown themselves to be more than capable of achieving that. The intent is to argue that safe cycling infrastructure is a critical piece for maintaining building a peak oil resilient transportation system while advancing that pitting drivers and cyclists against each other is not going to get us there. It may win some cheap political points but it won't build support for the infrastructure that's needed for the difficult period that is knocking at our door. Once again, thanks for your thoughts.

I spoke to Council on July 8th about exactly this kind of behaviour, as well as other issues (congestion, pollution, rude cyclists) around the bike lane. For the Mayor to listen to my concerns then turn around and pull this kind of stunt and eqivocate about his responsibility for it makes you question not only his leadership qualities, but even his suitability for public office.

Robertson's worst act of pro-cycling oppression occurred when he first assumed office as mayor. Any of you remembered how he officially sanctioned that big, illegal Critical Mass ride through Vancouver a year ago? A ride that was not safely organized, but which interrupted traffic and posed a safety hazard? An ad hoc ride that Robertson asked the police to guide through the streets even after the organizers refused to stick to designated routes?

Drivers and pedestrians don't hate cyclists in general, but are seething at City Hall's brazen support of troublemakers like Critical Mass who want to ram their beliefs down our throat without consultation. Moreover, they represent a tiny minority who are supported by a deluded mayor who thinks they are some sort of romantic rebels out of the movie "V" or "The Matrix."

Many were so disappointed in Robertson by his early act of allowing one of his supporters, Critical Mass, to fail to submit to a designated parade route. By flaunting laws and "getting in the face" of the general public, Critical Mass is setting itself up for a public backlash.

There have been numerous instances where some of the Critical Mass leaders have shown aggression towards pedestrians and drivers as they assert their rights. If that kind of rolling, random parade of troublemakers occurred in any other city they would have been busted. Instead, we must longsuffer a mayor who allows a fringe protest group to trample on the road rights and safety of the general population.

I know BC people consider themselves the kinder and gentler left of the political centre. The problem is that radicals and utopian thinkers like Robertson masquerade as centrists, but when they win office they readily reveal themselves as far left thinkers who have no idea of the grief they impose on citizenry in their pursuit of social engineering.

The Thought of The Day

“It must suck to be Raymond Louie.”

To sit there all day long, in the Council Chambers, looking up only to see this impostor of a mayor day in, day out, having Your job, and sucking at it, boy, oh boy, it must hurt like Hell.

It must hurt like a canker sore after a French Kiss; like a fully blown mother’s bosoms with an appetite lost baby; like an erect middle finger and no audience.

Yes Raymond, I dig you. You should take it easy. Cure that.

Anyway, as for Gregor & company…oh my, those Vision people! They would do anything to stay in the spotlight, now wouldn’t they?

Note to self : ‘ Remind the Mayor to stay away from the Skytrain tracks. Behind the yellow line’
Buggers.

Biking. Organization. Zoned. Over…B.O.Z.O.

The way they should be. The way they are. Geoff Meggs and Gregor Robertson.
One, trumped over by an SUV on… RED. The other, almost run over by a BUS on… RED.
Spokespersons for B.O.Z.O.? Oh, yes. You bet.

Bing!
I have an idea. I have an idea. Picture this.

Complete ban of all SUV’s, Buses, and Undercover Police Cruisers in Downtown Vancouver. Eh? No, strike that, in All Vancouver. Paint more bike lanes. Bike lanes for the right handed and for the left handed people. Bike lanes for visiting Britons, South Africans or Kiwis. Wait, wait, wait. Here it comes. Are you ready?

No-Traffic-Lights at intersections. There, I said it!

Call me Gregor, if this is not Golden. It’s Golden I’m telling you! What’s with all these traffic lights, anyways? By Jupiter, Green is ‘Go, go, go!’ Amber is for decoration (looks good come Christmas time). and RED a mere suggestion.

Am I right or am I right, or am I right, right?!

And Raymond, again darling, you know what to do. You might even get some NPA hacks to back you up.

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

"Once again: if biking is the big issue for *you* the opposition...you are going nowhere."

Well, consider this; every bike vs car article in the local mainstream media quickly becomes the most read and most commented story. So it would appear to indeed be "the big issue" to most of us Vancouverites.

It's quite apparent that anyone half-presentable who takes an "end the bicyclista coup d'état" stance would get an incredibly easy council seat next election. People in Vancouver are sick of this garbage. Sick of sickly little vegans with planning degrees trying to inconvenience us into eco-submission.

I noticed Andrea Reimer's Wikipedia page says she started using LSD at age 12, I wonder when Gregor and the rest of Vision started?

I see traffic gridlocked every evening from the Burrard Bridge west to Jervis/Broughton, except during the weekend when it's back to Cardero/Bidwell. Who do you think you're kidding, Chris?

Cyclists should be made to take a cyclist training and safety course in order to ride on the street. Once the course is passed, they should be made to take a cyclist road test similar to those who take a vehicle road test when getting their driver's license. This will help with getting safer cyclists on the road. Could you imagine the chaos if nobody in cars actually had to have a license or any training whatsoever in its operation?

Secondly, to use the roadways, cyclists should be made to carry insurance. A cyclist can cause an accident too.

If a cyclist is not willing to get a license and insurance, then stick to the trails and get off the road!

Just watched your video-OMG the soundtrack is more irritating than listening to city council congratulate themselves on the unqualified, resounding success of the bike lanes. Maybe some Strauss, or even Scott Joplin would have made this easier to watch. Anyways, the real issue is the Mayor's behaviour and his Nixonian prevarication about said behaviour.

It looks like Robertson's staff are hiding him away from the media and public again on this issue. Why is he issuing media statements instead of going in front of the cameras and facing the music? This has really become a pattern for the mayor when the media starts going a little sour for him (that's been happening a lot lately. maybe he needs to get some new communications staff??).

He needs to show some back bone and get out of his office and speak to the public and ignore the advice of his staff. Just like when he called people "fuck'n hacks" he needs to fess up and admit he goofed, yet again. We're waaaaaaiting! No more written statements from Kevin Quinlan please.

It's not that bikes are more vulnerable, I didn't say that. I said cars are more dangerous. Cars hitting cars, cars hitting people, cars hitting buildings, cars hitting bikes, cars hitting anything is more dangerous than bikes hitting things.

I never said anything about GHG, that seems to be your weird issue.

Yes, there are bad cyclists out there. So what, there are bad drivers/walkers/skateboarders/unicyclists/joggers/etc etc etc...

As for your last comment, I will sit back and enjoy it seeing as you but two paragraphs earlier said you're a cyclist!

From that Globe & Mail article - May, 2010 - Richard Blackwell


'In Vancouver, by contrast, the highest proportion of bike injuries resulted from collisions with cars. And on the West Coast, it is also much more common for cyclists to be hurt after running into pedestrians or other cyclists.'

So accidents with injuries for cyclists come from:

1) cars
2) hitting pedestrians
3) hitting other cyclists

Hmmm good to see every car & truck in that video come to a stop too!!

I do enjoy how you belittle the demise of a business - a business that seems to have had no issues prior to the cycle lane being installed.

I also note that you fail to recognize the failure of another business operating in the same area.

But hey, just coincidence ...right?

I am sure you would have something different to say if it were your livelihood, or that of a family member or friend.


@ Ken - if it's a non-story why comment? If in your estimation the Province is an NPA hack, that would definitely make you a Vision hack. that being true, I'm sure you'd like to reduce everyone to your level, but some of us actually care about the issues involved.

The story is that a mayor who grew up a little too privileged seems to have problems taking responsibility for his own actions, in this case breaking the law causing a near-collision with a city bus, then waffling about it like a five year old instead of owning up.

Integrity is rare. Leadership is even more rare. That's what's at question here, not the Province's editorial policy or City Caucus doing some great original op-ed work and stimulating a discussion around an issue that many obviously want to comment on, including yourself.

Hack away all you want. Attacking the motivation of others merely reveals a lack of conviction regarding your own.

‎"He that cannot obey, cannot command."

~ Benjamin Franklin

I was just about to comment that the anti-cycling sentiment here isn't reflective of the broader NPA. With people like Susan Anton, Michael Geller, Gordon Price, and Sean Bickerton being supportive of cycling. Those 4 are people I admire and support, and will have my vote if they run in the next election.

But since Sean is here and making comments, I'm curious if you agree with some of the comments on this post.

Do you think police should crack down on cyclists who fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs?

Do you support the separated bike lanes downtown (including the pending Homer lane)?

@ Chris. "I was just about to comment that the anti-cycling sentiment here isn't reflective of the broader NPA."

Somehow asking for the basic rules of the road to be adhered to is "anti-cyclist" in your view. You and your pals are truly a piece of work. If someone was advocating that cars could barrel through red lights, I'm sure you would be setting your hair on fire. But if cyclists do it there is no problem. Double standard if I ever saw it.

Just stumbled upon this video from a friend of mine who flipped it to me. It's definitely going viral. Loved reading all the comments too. I think I'm leaning towards the side of more enforcmenet, but am sympathetic to some cyclists who break the law if there is nobody at the intersection.

I find it intresting that this seems to have devolved into a who is worse cars or cyclicts?

As a person who enjoys cycling and drives, I am the first to admit that I have blown or rolled thru stop signs (on occasion) and taken liberties when possible (but in a safe manner) and making sure no matter what I am operating I don't endanger myself or others).

There isn't a single villian in this entire episode, there are many depending on the conversation.

1) Would be nice to see the Mayor provide some leadership (instead of relying on his minions to craft some wordsmithing to dismiss his actions), admit he screwed up and become a contstant demo of cycling safety.

2) Would be nice to see VPD enforce traffic laws all over the City for infractions by motorists and cyclists.

3)Develop a real plan for new network of dedicated cycling lanes, instead of a shotgun approach to appease a vocal minority.

and most of all........

Some common sense when operating either a vehicle or bike

Both modes of transport should enjoy the privledge of travelling around the City with a healthy respect for each other.

Dave--it's not who is worse. It's who is a greater danger. I still don't see how that's debatable.

Cars breaking laws pose a greater risk to the public good than cyclists. That's not to say cyclists should therefore ignore laws, etc... but frankly, there aren't enough police/enforcement resources to tackle all issues. So we must pick and choose.

It would be nice for the VPD to be enforcing all rules of the road for all modes of transportation--but it's just not realistic.

Checking back to see where this discussion is going and am not surprises to see this has (of course) devolved into typical adolescent "NPA hack/Vision hack" mudslinging session. Amusing to read but hardly useful.

Back to regular programming, I guess.

Yes Patrick, I do think it is anti-cyclist to insist that every cyclist come to a complete stop at every stop sign, regardless of other traffic considerations. I've already said I'm against cyclists who barrel through stop signs and full speed and ones who ride on the sidewalk, so I'm not sure why your so angsty. How would you take it if I insisted the police crack down on every car speeding on the highway? Maybe using photo radar? There are cars on Highway 1 breaking the "basic rules of the road" every hour of every day.

I have 2 basic questions for the leadership of the NPA:
1) Do you support separated bike lanes downtown? (Even though it will mean reductions in space available to cars)
2) Do you think the police should crack down on cyclists who break the law? And if so, which laws specifically, or do you think every law should be strictly enforced for cyclists?

Hi Chris,

I fully support a network of integrated, dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian walkways throughout the city. I confess I'm not virtuous in the way of Councillor Anton or Peter Ladner, who are truly and passionately committed cyclists as you note. I walk rather than ride. But I support making Vancouver as livable as possible, in the same modern way that Amsterdam and Munich incorporate streetcars, pedestrian paths, bike paths, and cars.

That being said, everyone using public rights of way are governed by laws that clearly lay out who has the prevailing right of way in any situation. Anyone out on the streets - pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles - need to learn and respect those rights of way or risk injury to themselves or others.

For safety's sake, I would fully support enforcement efforts at keeping any vehicles off sidewalks and targeting anyone going the wrong way down any one-way street.

Thanks Sean. You have my vote next election. Good luck, and keep up the great blog.

boohoo: The police are capable of balancing the needs of their jobs.

The bigger problem is that on the occasions where they have handed out 'information tickets' to cyclists reminding the of the laws that govern them under them motor vehicle act - just as drivers are governed under the motor vehicle act, the cycling coalition gets up in arms and starts screaming 'discrimination'.

In 2008 between Jan. 1 and June 1 - there were over 3,700 tickets handed out to people for not wearing a helmet.

And after reading several archived articles - your argument about cars being a greater danger mirrors (almost word for word) that of
Arno Schortinghuis, president of the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition.

His statement to the Vancouver Sun:

“Yes, cyclists are breaking the law if they don’t follow the rules of the road, but it’s not the cyclists that are going to kill or injure the driver of the car,” he said.

Of all the articles that I have read with regard to cyclists being ticketed for infractions - one glaring point comes through - none of them think that the law applies to them - to the cyclists. They should not be held accountable for abuses to the law.

Just as a side tidbit - if you bump into a pedestrian and cycle away without turning over your particulars, that’s considered a hit-and-run — and it’s a criminal offence.


That's right. I am a cyclist.

But I borrow my commuter bike from my sister.
:-) Becoming becoming a full time bike user might make me more addled and socially agressive. So I split my transpo needs between walking, biking and car.

I also train for tri's on my own roadvbike. That requires a lot more speed---so I find an appropriate venue to do so, that will allow me to ride as quickly as possible, without needing to make too many stops. That many on bikes within city limits appear to think they are training for a road race is a problem.

In Europe, people who use bikes for commuting appear to largely use 1 to 3 speed bikes. They peddle lightly and seem to be very cognizant of where they and others---including drivers and peds--are. very courteous, at least from what i have observed in Stockholm.

When traversing city streets as a commuter, I observe stop lights, stop signs and good stuff like that, I stick to the rules of the road. After all, we tell drivers to give themselves enough time to get to a destination---bike riders should not be able to justify their speed, lack of full stops and flouting of the rules of the road just because they are bike riders.

The "bike purists" we find here and on other blogs are fanaticists, ego-driven complainers and deniers.

They make the rest of us, who enjoy biking, but are also able to holster our desire to "rule the road", look bad.

@ BooHoo & Chris

Have to say I am proud to be an "NPA "Hack

that said...

I have to say almost to a person, any NPA member I have spoken to regarding the Bike lanes supports separated bike lanes.

BUT ...
as part of a comprehensive, well planned network that incorporates the existing biking network throughout the City (not just the Downtown Core).

What is tiring is the holier than thou attitude and rationalization for ignoring rules of the road that many NOT all cyclists display.

This isn't to defend bad drivers by any means but some common sense driving by many cyclists (and drivers) would ease the anger.

Unfortunately, unless the VPD enforces the rules against both equally the anger to one another will continue to grow.


Pride Day & Festival

Just a note to readers...

The NPA will have a Booth at the:
Pride Festival
Sunset Park
Sunday 1 August
010:00 - 17:45 (5:45 pm)

We invite everyone to drop by
Say hello
Pick up a balloon for the kids

Happy Pride Day & Festival to everyone!

Enjoy the diversity of OUR City

@Dave

A couple of points. The large majority of cyclists do obey the rules. Just observe cyclists along a major bicycle route like Dunsmuir. When the Sun's Miro Cernetig took the time to observe cyclists on Dunsmuir he found "all were paragons of bicycle etiquette, too, obeying the rules of the road".

Sure, there are few spots around town where cyclist behavior is worse but the same can be said for motorists and pedestrians. Not really surprising because most people drive, cycle and walk.

Police enforcement is based on improving public safety. I suspect as there is no evidence to suggest that cyclists are big threat to public safety, the police focus almost all there efforts on cracking down on reckless driving. If police didn't base enforcement on the improvement of safety, the result would be more motorists, cyclists and pedestrians being injured and killed.

Even for collisions involving cyclists, the city's bike plan found that 60% of the collisions were the fault of motorists.

Richard:

1) I can't believe you would quote Miro Cernetig - his credibility was pretty much shot every time he swooned over Robertson's chiseled jaw...

2) I can't believe you would quote the City's 'bike plan' numbers - or any cycling numbers currently put out by the city - as they are being heavily scrutinized by several MSM journalists who - just aren't quite buying what the city is trying to sell. In other words - those highly manipulated to suit our cause numbers...

@ angry

I am not a 'bike purist', I probably drive 80% of the time, bike 10%, walk 10%. Stop assuming anyone who isn't fervently jumping on Gregor or bad mouthing cyclists is an 'ego driven complainer and denier'.

@ dave

I'm proud to say I'm not a 'hack' for any party. I think the ridiculous labeling of 'us' or 'them' just divides us and makes for bs partisan politics. I suppose my philosophies line up more with one party than another, but please, and this applies to this and any other blog where people are labeled 'visionistas' or 'npa hacks' or whatever other childish brand, don't assume I agree with what all this group or that group does.

What's also tiring is our acceptance of the rationalization and igonoring of the rules of the road that most NOT all drivers display. We're just used to drivers rolling through stop signs, or driving 75 kph down Oak so we accept it. Hell most people get mad or get their doors blown off when you're only driving 50 kph down Oak. But when a bike breaks the rules and the biker says 'what's the big deal' oh my god they are holier than thou elitists! Please....

First he rides with the pack of cyclists who clog the streets every month to get votes. Then he pretends they're a protest, now he's acting like one and showing that they are allowed to do things like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48331153@N08/

Max, more on this please. They seem to have convinced themselves the numbers are true, yet it's a little too convenient that the "millionth rider" crosses over the bridge the day before Council decides to give them two million dollars more for design consulting. Roll out the barrels...the pork barrels, that is.

This is interested; Daniel made a video to highlight how cyclists are breaking the law and in doing so, he posted a video online with music playing in the background.

Did Daniel write/publish/compose this music himself? Did he get permission to use this music? No? Hmmm... copyright infringement is a form of theft, is it not?

Alistair, here's all you need to know about the song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNjPgE1muTM

As for the rights, it's possible that after 75 years the song is in the public domain, unless renewed by the rights owner for Laurel & Hardy movies.

@Alistair: There's a lot of royalty-free music you can get, it might be one such track of that?

@Gerry: I was curious so did a count on a ride across and counted 46 bikes on my way into downtown for shopping, and 41 (over 4 mins, 9 secs) on the way out. Not very scientific since I'm moving and can only count people on the opposite side of the road and anyone who passes me. But it's on video so verifiable at least: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SpYwZiLHJk

Response to Gerry Maguire (cut and pasted from my comment at francesbula.com)

The issue isn’t how many bikes there are on the bridge… it’s how few cars there are in the city when you actually take a step back and consider how much space is devoted to ensuring there are no delays whatsoever in their travel.

Go stand at Broadway and Cambie on any day, at any time outside of rush hour and you can see how there are times when, looking eastward, all six lanes are nearly devoid of any traffic beyond parked cars. You can do the same experiment at Broadway and Fraser. Blocks and blocks of blacktop all the way to Clarke and beyond, with just a few cars. In fact, almost any major street will be close to empty for short periods of time at any time of year. Certainly my residential street (11th Ave E), and the Tenth Ave bike route are regularly home to numbers of bikes far in excess of the amount of cars on the street.

Critics of bike lanes and other initiatives that promote more sustainable transportation opportunities should stop searching vainly for evidence of bicycle gridlock, and start taking a more jaundiced view of the incredible waste of resources we have allowed in the quest to eliminate delays during a couple hour a day of peak demand. Start thinking of all that pavement as potential land for housing, parks, community gardens, etc, and the profligacy of a transportation network built to satiate the automobile’s requirement to monopolize large amounts of public space is brought into sharp relief.

If we cast half as critical an eye towards automobile infrastructure as we do towards improved transit and active transportation amenities, this city would be awash in parks, pools, and other expensive seasonal attractions and still have money to spare.

I see the Vancouver Board of Trade is wading in:

Weren't they supposed to be just a 'trial'?
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
Janet Brown | Email news tips to Janet
7/29/2010

The Vancouver Board of Trade is wading into the fray over more bike lanes downtown.

The City's "preferred option" for a cross-town separated bike path is Hornby Street.

The Board's Assistant Managing Director Bernie Magnum says businesses along Hornby will definitely suffer, "One of our members manages several parking garages on the east side of the street and their experience with the Dunsmuir bike lane is that when you have an entrance into a parking garage where you have to cut across a bike lane people are more reluctant to go in there because they're concerned they may hit a cyclist and it's just another barrier to going into a parking garage."

Magnum also says the Board would like to know who'll be using the bike lanes. He says if it's folks peddling for pleasure another route should be considered not a busy business corridor.

pedaling

not

peddling

many thanks on both counts Chris

Today's Van. Metro has an article on the upcoming supposed 'consultation' as well.

This statement is interesting:

...However, LaClaire (Lon LaClaire, manager of Strategic Transportation Planning)added that cities that have implemented separated bike lanes found that "collisions between cyclists and motorists have increased."


Hi Gerry:

I have several 'acquaintances' that work in various medias.

When the 1 millionth rider was declared, I contacted two to ask their opinion on the numbers. Neither were buying it and both stated they were looking into those 'numbers'.

This paragraph has been taken from the City's website which kind explains why their 'math' may be off:

Estimating bicycles

We have provided estimates of the number of cyclists who would have used the Burrard Bridge without the protected lanes. We have found that it is possible to estimate the number of cyclist on one bicycle route by measuring the cyclists using another route. The number of cyclist using a route on a given day is affected by season, weather, day of the week and other factors, but collectively the cyclists using one route appear to make their decisions in the same way as the cyclists using another route. We found that this lead to patterns of use that are very similar. In statistical terms, the usage patterns are strongly correlated. We have been using measurements of the Ontario Bike Route to estimate the number of cyclists who would have used the Burrard Bridge had we made no changes.

nice video.

At 0:25 Pedestrian crosses illegally.
At 0:26 bus only stops because he would have hit the pedestrian
At 0:29 motorist blocking crosswalk
At 0:43 SUV rolls through stop sign
At 1:34 garbage truck rolls through stop sign
At 2:27 white van goes through stop sign
At 2:41 pedestrians illegally cross road
At 2:52 motorist goes through stop sign
At 3:06 appears motorist goes through stop sign

where2beforfree-smallbanner
Check out BCWineLover.com!

Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement



Close