317 replies to this topic

[Evan]

Evan, it is pretty clear that this issue is mostly about your personal bias against car transportation.

Your points are nearly all made via personal anecdotes.

My points are nearly all made via empirical research and case studies.

[Evan]

Good call.
Why do more females die in bath-tubs?

I would wager that it's because they have more baths.

[rjag]

Looks like you are on a 1 bike crusade here. Just my $.02 from driving home today. Coming up Fort near Dunsmuir Shell and a bike is on my right, he decides to lane change about 15 feet in front of me and ride in the middle of my lane, I hit the brakes hard and avoid a new hood ornament. Then said cyclist decides after about 10-15 seconds that he'd now like to ride in the far left lane to turn onto Fernwood so without looking he just switches lanes. The car coming up in that lane was doing maybe 40km and had to jam on the brakes and skid to avoid said cyclist. Mr cyclist then casually looks over his shoulder and flips the bird at both of us and proceeds on his merry way.

Now that being said its encounters like this that cause all sorts of aggravation between folks. I know its not the bikes fault that he's an idiot but imagine what could have happened and by your justification in a prior post, his injury or death would have been the drivers fault. I dont think so.

oh and perhaps you're right; he was wearing a helmet, maybe this accounted for his perception of invincibility.

I've got nothing against bikes, I think they are a great mode of local transport, frees up more space on the roads and all that, but not everyone can live on a bike, they have a purpose but are not a solution.

[Evan]

Looks like you are on a 1 bike crusade here. Just my $.02 from driving home today. Coming up Fort near Dunsmuir Shell and a bike is on my right, he decides to lane change about 15 feet in front of me and ride in the middle of my lane, I hit the brakes hard and avoid a new hood ornament. Then said cyclist decides after about 10-15 seconds that he'd now like to ride in the far left lane to turn onto Fernwood so without looking he just switches lanes. The car coming up in that lane was doing maybe 40km and had to jam on the brakes and skid to avoid said cyclist. Mr cyclist then casually looks over his shoulder and flips the bird at both of us and proceeds on his merry way.

Now that being said its encounters like this that cause all sorts of aggravation between folks. I know its not the bikes fault that he's an idiot but imagine what could have happened and by your justification in a prior post, his injury or death would have been the drivers fault. I dont think so.

oh and perhaps you're right; he was wearing a helmet, maybe this accounted for his perception of invincibility.

I've got nothing against bikes, I think they are a great mode of local transport, frees up more space on the roads and all that, but not everyone can live on a bike, they have a purpose but are not a solution.

If your details are correct, then I think any reasonable person would see that the cyclist was being an idiot. That said, such anecdotes don't really impact the debate at all, because drivers are just as likely to be idiots.

I am in crusade mode not because i am some kind of cycle-nazi but simply because want a better city. And, I feel as though this legislation is and always will be a barrier. And, it is something that requires a bit of paper work and promotion to implement, not a decade and 50 million dollars.

Fair enough re final thoughts. However, for inner city transportation, tell me a better solution that is more universally beneficial than a huge modal shift towards cycling (walking, and transit)?


Food for thought: Video of Rush Hour in Utrecht

[LJ]

Looks like you are on a 1 bike crusade here. Just my $.02 from driving home today. Coming up Fort near Dunsmuir Shell and a bike is on my right, he decides to lane change about 15 feet in front of me and ride in the middle of my lane, I hit the brakes hard and avoid a new hood ornament. Then said cyclist decides after about 10-15 seconds that he'd now like to ride in the far left lane to turn onto Fernwood so without looking he just switches lanes. The car coming up in that lane was doing maybe 40km and had to jam on the brakes and skid to avoid said cyclist. Mr cyclist then casually looks over his shoulder and flips the bird at both of us and proceeds on his merry way.

Sounds like you maybe hit the wrong pedal.

[sebberry]

Food for thought: Video of Rush Hour in Utrecht

I'm sorry, but scrapping helmet laws will not make BC anything like that

Do seatbelt laws prevent people from driving?

[Ms. B. Havin]

I got pretty ticked off at a cyclist today - and the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet exacerbated it.

One of the offspring is learning to drive, so we go out to practice when possible. Today, we approached a four-way stop, and arrived at the stop sign literally a second or two before a cyclist did (the cyclist was traveling perpendicular to us, and reached the stop sign on our right).

The Learner knew that we had the right of way, but wisely decided not to rush into the intersection because we've all seen many many cyclists ignore the four-way stop sign rule and ride straight through.

The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet - and since it IS the law to wear a helmet, we wondered (all in those semi-seconds before proceeding) if, being a scofflaw, he wouldn't also scoff at the law that says he's supposed to stop at a stop sign.

Hence we hesitated on the side of caution and made sure that he really was going to stop at the stop sign. So you know what this jerk does? In the brief moments that are passing, he practically flips us a bird because we're not moving fast enough for him.

The cyclist's idea, it seems, was to cruise up to the stop sign while we drove through, so that he could then cruise through without coming to a full stop. Our full stop - and split-second hesitation about whether or not he was going to yield the right of way - interrupted his plans, and he flips us one.

That guy - not a kid, he must have been in his early 30s - really advanced (NOT!) the cause of cyclists and being helmet-less.

He's the guy not wearing a helmet, even though that law hasn't been repealed yet - so how are we supposed to know he takes any other rules seriously? Hence we stop - full stop, which is required anyway - and he gets mad at us. What an idiot.

For the record, it seems to me that most of the cyclists I see around town (and I'm in the downtown area, Harris Green, etc.) are NOT wearing helmets. And here's what many of them are also doing: they're riding on sidewalks. They ride against traffic. They go through red lights and stop signs.

But they have the nerve to flip a driver if they're slowed down by seconds.

Evan, I understand your crusade to an extent, but I think you're going about this the wrong way. Encouraging more disregard for rules (which your argument for ditching helmets implies: effectively, you're telling people to stop wearing helmets if they don't feel like wearing them, perhaps thereby hoping to create a groundswell that forces a repeal of the helmet laws) creates more of a blur for those of us who already think that cyclists don't pay enough attention to rules.

[Evan]

I'm sorry, but scrapping helmet laws will not make BC anything like that

Do seatbelt laws prevent people from driving?

Nope, but there is not a single city with a large modal share in cycling that has mandatory helmet laws.

No, they don't, and, no, not a useful comparison.

But they have the nerve to flip a driver if they're slowed down by seconds.

More anecdotal evidence. People, including cyclists, can be idiots.

For every driver with a story like that, you can be sure that a cyclist can tell you of the many drivers doing equally stupid things -- with far greater risk to the cyclist's life -- because they are delayed by a few seconds. Such experiences are and should be completely inconsequential to this discussion.

This is about a much bigger picture than a relatively small percentage of individuals' behaviour -- drivers or cyclists.

Evan, I understand your crusade to an extent, but I think you're going about this the wrong way. Encouraging more disregard for rules (which your argument for ditching helmets implies: effectively, you're telling people to stop wearing helmets if they don't feel like wearing them, perhaps thereby hoping to create a groundswell that forces a repeal of the helmet laws) creates more of a blur for those of us who already think that cyclists don't pay enough attention to rules.

When did I encourage people to stop wearing helmets and disregard the rules? Don't remember that one.

My one and only goal is to have mandatory helmet laws repealed and so gain the resulting health, safety, environmental, social, and built environment benefits.

You may have noticed that the existing rules and infrastructure primarily serve one mode of transportation at the expense of all others.


Have any of you actually looked at the evidence or are you just responding from personal anecdotes and emotionally-driven biases?


I have no personal experiences that make me anti-car, if you're wondering. My reasons for pushing for this are only and purely based in a) research, b) observation, and c) logic.

[VicHockeyFan]

So you know what this jerk does? In the brief moments that are passing, he practically flips us a bird because we're not moving fast enough for him.

It's very strange that many cyclists do it for the exercise, but then they go out of their way to avoid any situation that will cause them to exert more effort, like coming to a full stop. It's a bit like driving your car to the gym to work out when you could jog there in 10 minutes.

[jklymak]

That's not really a fair comment. Stopping requires a lot more effort, and just like everyone else, we have places to be. That doesnt excuse rude or illegal behaviour, but it doesn't mean cyclist should be expected to be more patient.

Many localities have slightly different right of way laws, so that cyclists can treat two way stops as yields. Since that is what most do anyhow, even the most responsible, this seems like a reasonable change to the laws. Doesn't work for four ways obviously.

[sebberry]

It's very strange that many cyclists do it for the exercise, but then they go out of their way to avoid any situation that will cause them to exert more effort, like coming to a full stop. It's a bit like driving your car to the gym to work out when you could jog there in 10 minutes.

[sebberry]

No, they don't, and, no, not a useful comparison.

Why is it not a fair comparison?

Seat belts are a piece of safety equipment you must manually put on and fasten, just like a bike helmet.

In most cases, a seat belt only protects the wearer, unless the collision is extra violent, an unbelted driver won't be thrown around and injure other occupants.

Seatbelts leave marks in the fabric of my clothes, just as helmets mess up hair.

I think it is a useful comparison.

As for education before enforcement - I put my seat belt on because I have been educated in the benefits of wearing one, not because I am worried about getting a ticket.


As for the cyclist at the 4-way stop - I agree, if you see someone breaking one rule, what's to say they will obey another?

Ms. B. Havin, that's one very useful tactic towards defensive driving you can pass on to your new-driving offspring. Monitoring people who are breaking the rules is a good way to stay safe when they get near you.

[Evan]

Why is it not a fair comparison?

Seat belts are a piece of safety equipment you must manually put on and fasten, just like a bike helmet.

In most cases, a seat belt only protects the wearer, unless the collision is extra violent, an unbelted driver won't be thrown around and injure other occupants.

Seatbelts leave marks in the fabric of my clothes, just as helmets mess up hair.

I think it is a useful comparison.

It's neither a fair nor useful comparison. Here's why:

Cycling participation dropped, significantly, with helmet legislation.

Driving participation did not drop, at all, with seatbelt legislation. (I've never heard anyone of not driving because of creases.)

Pretty clear cut difference there, Sebberry.

Additionally, more cycling is beneficial for all of society. More driving is not.

[aastra]

Remind me, how do we know that cycling participation has dropped?

[sebberry]

Remind me, how do we know that cycling participation has dropped?

And how do we know that such a decrease is directly caused by helmet laws?

If there has been a drop, perhaps helmet laws have gotten rid of some of the more unsafe cyclists?

[gumgum]

Here's a bunch of evidence regarding other parts of the country.

[aastra]

Thanks for that.

[Evan]

Remind me, how do we know that cycling participation has dropped?

Transport Canada/BC does not track such statistics. Why would the ministry of transportation want to know about cycling trends? That'd be silly.

Anyways, the commonly cited estimate is a 28% drop post-legislation (ref).

The most reliable stats come from Australia, who has lead the way in helmet legislation since 1991 -- and who interestingly just passed the USA as fattest country in the world -- and generally enforces the law, like BC.


(image ref)

[Evan]

And how do we know that such a decrease is directly caused by helmet laws?

Based on increased infrastructure, increased education, and huge increases in population, we should expect a very sizable increase in cycling.

If there has been a drop, perhaps helmet laws have gotten rid of some of the more unsafe cyclists?

Maybe.

Maybe, we have also gotten rid of the majority of female and teen cyclists. Maybe.

[sebberry]

The most reliable stats come from Australia, who has lead the way in helmet legislation since 1991 -- and who interestingly just passed the USA as fattest country in the world -- and generally enforces the law, like BC.

Well that's it then. As people get fatter they ride less.