26 replies to this topic

[mikedw]

Dear Messrs Dhillon (mailto:mark@1st-team.bc.ca) and Coté (mailto:gcote@esquimalt.ca)

I want to lodge my opinion with regard to the proposed Two-Laning/Traffic Crippling of 800 Block Esquimalt Road (Dominion to Head Street). In short, this plan is a mistake.

Other examples of two-laning and the addition of bike lines (namely, 2800-3000 blocks Quadra St.; Fort St. above Cook; and Bay St. from the Point Ellice Bridge to Government) does not “calm” traffic. It creates traffic density. The addition of bike lanes does not provide a safe place for bicycles and small engine motorcycles (mopeds, scooters, electric bikes, etc.) to travel. The majority of the bicyclists continue to use the sidewalks and force pedestrians to dodge the vehicles. As the number of electric bikes and mopeds has climbed in the last year, I have seen their numbers on the sidewalks. In many of these incidents, the bicyclists are using sidewalks adjacent to bike lanes. In some cases, I have seen bicyclists using bike lanes and running counter to the flow of traffic creating a hazard for those bicyclists who do use the lanes as intended. I would call on organizations like the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition to use information campaigns to urge their membership to follow good practices, but I feel they dismiss this majority of bicyclists who disobey almost every law and bylaw as the exception and not the rule.

As is it now: Esquimalt Road is a heavily used route. The Navy base and the population density coupled with the route as an alternative feeder route to the Western Communities means that it is always in heavy use. I live near 700 block Esquimalt and I have observed that traffic falls to single lane usage only between the hours of midnight and 6 AM. Motorists using the road for the other 16 hours per day will be crippled by this proposed move. By forcing drivers to use a single lane it will raise the level of frustration. It will require an extraordinary amount of attention versus regular vehicles and industrial vehicles entering the flow of traffic; and force users to find pull-over points when emergency vehicles come through (see below). The occasion traffic lulls that currently happen will cease. As it is, motorists ignore the designated pedestrian crossings—as evidenced by the number of fatalities seen at the pedestrian controlled crossing in the 800 block area. As a parent who has to hurry my daughter across these crossing, I do not see a window when this problem will lessen and I feel that the two-laning will only make it worse.

Esquimalt Road serves as the emergency route into and out of Esquimalt. In our estimation, we see 30 or more emergency vehicles per day using their lights and sirens to speed through this stretch of road. I have to assume that this is because Esquimalt Road is the fastest route through the area. Do we really want to calm the flow of emergency vehicles? Isn’t urgency implied? If we remove two lanes, emergency vehicles will likely be stuck behind traffic that has nowhere to go. The move in the Esquimalt-Victoria make-up to remove services from Esquimalt and that means that services have to come into the region via 800-block Esquimalt Road.

Through a directed effort at traffic crippling, the Esquimalt municipality now has only two stretches of four lane roads: Esquimalt Rd. and Admirals Road. This is why the traffic density appears to be desperate: motorists don’t have an alternative route. I would applaud and support some move to allow higher densities along Wilson/Old Esquimalt Rd; Craigflower Rd; Head St.; and/or other roads that lie between the Western Communities, Downtown and Esquimalt.

Options that promote higher traffic density without increased risks to motorists and pedestrians:

- Increase in the number of lanes when the road will allow it (e.g. Head St.) to lower traffic frustration and promote usage. In the Bay St. example, the reduction of lanes means near perpetual gridlock. In that example, cars are stuck for long periods behind large, slow industrial vehicles turning off of Bay Street.

- Additional roads. From Dominion to Head St., there is no way to exit Esquimalt Road. That’s a 520-meter stretch, when most stretches see side streets every 160 meters. If you’re on Esquimalt Road and you want to be one of the other nearby roads, you are locked into a half-kilometer stretch. Purchasing parking lots and green space, connecting them and turning them into thoroughfares means that motorists and pedestrians can find their own shortest route to a destination. The sooner that a vehicle, the sooner it ends its contribution to traffic density.

- Traffic lights to control traffic flow (e.g. a traffic light at Wilson and Catherine).

- Park & Go in areas where traffic flow, parking capacity and transit can accommodate them. (e.g. long-term parking in Vic-West at he large lot and Bay and Tyee that is currently used to store cars) with free or subsidized bussing for motorists who would otherwise be destined for large employers in Esquimalt (e.g. CFB Esquimalt and Dockyard). This concept would be much less expensive than the lane changes and resulting fallout. During high capacity hours (e.g. 6AM – 9AM and 3PM to 6PM), an “express” route could move motorists from the Park & Go locations to Admirals/Esquimalt or Admirals/Colville.



While I applaud the concept of beautifying this region, I feel this may be little more than lipstick on a pig. This area has a lot of street prostitution, IV drug use, drug dealing, public drunkenness, assaults and property theft. Planters and picturesque lamp posts will not address these problems.

Largely, Vic-West and Esquimalt is serving as a dumping ground for the problems we would rather not show off to the tourists. Victoria has become a magnet for visiting vagrants. Our economy is very active with lots of open employment in entry-level positions. Our “homeless” population climbs in step with tourist season and the upsurge is made up largely of people from outside of the CRD who arrive with the intention of using our social services for as long as we will tolerant them. Housing prices and availability contribute to this problem and the lower rents in Vic-West and Esquimalt mean that these problem elements congregate in our area. We now have an ecology of people who make our streets unsafe. In an example walk from our home, along Esquimalt Road and up Head Street, we counted more than 20 used hypodermics. The area is unsafe.

Bingo parlors, bars, bottle depots, pawnshops, cheque cashing: these are not ideal destination locations. I think this is a chicken-and-egg question: do businesses cater to the local residents; or do people move to an area that has the services they would use? People are moving through this stretch of road, because of its not a spot where people want to stop. The Esquimalt municipality rescinded the business license for 822 Esquimalt Road and I think that is great. Businesses are profiting from the dynamic of this region. Esquimalt and Victoria have to use business licensing as leverage to promote change in this area. If an apartment building or a business has a lot of police calls—or an emergency response team call—the municipality has to pass on a bill for services rendered to the business owner. If buildings or businesses serve high-risk individuals, they have to pay for their choices. When a business applies for licensing in this area, their approval should not be a fait complii: they should have to be approved contingent on whether or not their business would be of benefit to the make-up of the area. I would look at the percentages of business sectors in municipalities and neighbourhoods where crime and social problems are low. Then, business licensing can follow those numbers: approve prospective businesses and would comply with this model; refuse business licensing to businesses that do not comply and let attrition work in our favour.

In closing, I would like to thank you for your efforts in addressing this area. I think all problems have solutions and I would like to help in whatever capacity I can. Due to a prior commitment, I will not be able to attend the information session Wednesday, November 8th, but I look forward to participating on future occasions.[/url]

[gumgum]

I don't know.
I don't live on that steet, but considering that eastbound on Esquimalt rd from Catherine to Tyee is single lane, and is single lane both ways west of Lampson, I wonder how much an effect reducing Dominion to Head to one lane will really have. I'd be more inclined to believe that it would slow the traffic down a little bit - and I think people drive too fast around there anyways. Simple math would dictate that halfing the available lane would increase congestion, but I doubt that in this case you'd notice a significant difference.
I have driven through there many times, and have never noticed any bottlenecking when I reach a lane reduction from two to one.
A friend of mine lives near the corner of Esquimalt and Robert, so I'm there often. People drive scary fast at that point of Esquimalt. It is so a horrible place to walk right now - not to mention bike. Yet I have never noticed any congestion that would justify the two lanes in either direction that is there at the mo.
The Fort street example you use, I firmly believe has been exagerated small minority disgruntled drivers within the community. I drive that run many times, including rush hour, and I have barely noticed a difference with congestion.

As bicylist and a driver, I believe in bike lanes.
Yes there are dumbasses out there that still use sidewalks even if there are available bike lanes; but should this not be a matter for better education, and police enforcement of bike laws?
And as far as providing room for emergency vehicles, the road will probably be just as wide as it is now.

[zoomer]

The majority of the bicyclists continue to use the sidewalks and force pedestrians to dodge the vehicles. As the number of electric bikes and mopeds has climbed in the last year, I have seen their numbers on the sidewalks. In many of these incidents, the bicyclists are using sidewalks adjacent to bike lanes. In some cases, I have seen bicyclists using bike lanes and running counter to the flow of traffic creating a hazard for those bicyclists who do use the lanes as intended.

While you raise a number of interesting points, my opinion is that you raised too many. You should have limited yourself to specifically the title of your open letter, been too the point and kept your letter as brief as possible. Otherwise, they may not read it all, or view it as a rant about the problems in Victoria/Esquimalt.

Also, where in the heck are you seeing these bike infractions? I ride my bike virtually every day, and have been for decades, and I've only once seen a cylist "using bike lanes and running counter to the flow of traffic". As well, the majority of cyclists do not use sidewalks! Stand on any street for longer than 10 minutes and you'll prove my case. Stand on Fort street for 1 hour, and you'll likely see dozens and dozens of cyclists on the road...perhaps 1 or 2 using the sidewalk..I wouldn't call that a majority.

I also think your letter loses a lot of credibility when you say that "this majority of bicyclists who disobey almost every law and bylaw as the exception and not the rule." Yes, cyclists probably disobey more laws than motorists (because they are not licensed and its much easier to do on a tiny bike instead of a much larger vehicle), but it's not the majority.

[mikedw]

Also, where in the heck are you seeing these bike infractions? I ride my bike virtually every day, and have been for decades, and I've only once seen a cylist "using bike lanes and running counter to the flow of traffic".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57709577@N00/sets/72057594096841361/
I likely that I take an inordinate number of bicyclists-breaking-the-law photos, but it's a sore point. Motorists break the law. Pedestrians break the law. The differences: cars have license plates, so there is some hope of lodging a complaint; and pedestrians can't sneak up at 35kph (really I'm going 30 kph in my car and bicylcists overtake me).

I been hit by bikes twice (stupid me not looking behind me while walking on the sidewalk). My wife was hit once by a bicyclist while we were walking to work; the bastard kept on going.
My concern is for my daughter: I've taught her to watch for traffic and to be very careful when crossing the street. I've taught to watch out for others. Two things I haven't managed to pass on: how to anticipate someone coming out of nowhere at 20kph; and how to have 360 degree vision to dodge someone from behind.

I concede that I bring up too many points in my letter, but Esquimalt and Victoria think they can solve the problems by doing Quadra/Hillside number on 800-block Esquimalt. That will mean a removal of one lane each way; likely adding under-used bike lanes; putting in some high maintenance islands down the middle with lots of pretty flowers. So at the end of the day: we'll have a lot of nice road work, lots of congestion, the same amount of cars and the same amount of crime.

City planners have one way to solve traffic congestion: they shut down lanes and block streets. Now they're about to do it outside of my house and that ticks me off.

[Scaper]

Good work on being active buddy!!! In time as you write more and more letters you start getting the nack for it...I am still trying to fine tune mine...

but great job none the less~~~ :-D

[aastra]

I was nearly hit by a bike going the wrong way one night by Beacon Hill Park. I had several lights and reflectors and such at the time, he did not. He came around the corner "out of nowhere" and I stopped as suddenly as I could. He cursed at me for not paying attention. I had three bright headlights (two on bike, one on helmet).

One morning I was walking on Government Street and a cyclist riding on the sidewalk nearly hit me. She screeched her rusty old bike and stopped literally with part of her front wheel between my legs. She hadn't been paying attention at all. She cursed at me as if it had been my fault.

Regarding riding on the wrong side of the street, everybody seems to forget that we were explicitly taught to do this by those safety training courses back in our 1970s elementary school days. I've been in arguments with people about it...suffice it to say, MANY people think you're supposed to ride against traffic and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.

[mikedw]

Regarding riding on the wrong side of the street, everybody seems to forget that we were explicitly taught to do this by those safety training courses back in our 1970s elementary school days. I've been in arguments with people about it...suffice it to say, MANY people think you're supposed to ride against traffic and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.

I think bicyclists need licensing-- maybe upto age 12, there are some limitations and no licensing requirements. After that, bicyclists have to get licensed and can go onto busier streets. If you're caught with a bike and without a license, your bike is held until you show with your licnese to claim it (just like cars when they lack a licensed driver or insurance).

Looking back into history. For about the first 20-30 years of automobiles, no one had driver licenses. Then bad actors and traffic density forced a licensing system to come into play. Then, some time after that car insurance became mandatory.

Bikes pre-date cars, but I think their usage has spiked in recent years, so much so that we have density plus bad bicyclists creating a problem. When challenged on why a bicyclists are using "no bicycle allowed" trails or the sidewalks, many of them have replied, "no I'm allowed." I think they honestly don't what the rules are. There has been a lot of misinformation. People have been encouraged to use bikes reagrdless of how they use them.

I think a bicyclist hitting a pedestrian is treated like bumping one person into another on the street. In reality, it's someone moving on a piece of metal at 30kph with a helmet aimed at you.

I know how this discussion spirals from here: licensing bicyclists will discourage bicycle usage. That hurts the environment. That puts people in their cars. That increases traffic congestion. You're punishing the good bicyclists. Yadda yadda yadda.

Ultra-light planes are unlicensed because there are very few of them in comparison to the risk they pose. Were they dotting the skies with frequency, I'm sure they'd be licensed.

If you're a good bicyclist, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, you'll have less to worry about because the bad bicyclists will be walking. Isn't that what's this all about? Stopping the bad actors and allowing the remainder to keep doing what they're doing?

[VicHockeyFan]

Regarding riding on the wrong side of the street, everybody seems to forget that we were explicitly taught to do this by those safety training courses back in our 1970s elementary school days. I've been in arguments with people about it...suffice it to say, MANY people think you're supposed to ride against traffic and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.

I think bicyclists need licensing-- maybe upto age 12, there are some limitations and no licensing requirements. After that, bicyclists have to get licensed and can go onto busier streets. If you're caught with a bike and without a license, your bike is held until you show with your licnese to claim it (just like cars when they lack a licensed driver or insurance).

Looking back into history. For about the first 20-30 years of automobiles, no one had driver licenses. Then bad actors and traffic density forced a licensing system to come into play. Then, some time after that car insurance became mandatory.

Bikes pre-date cars, but I think their usage has spiked in recent years, so much so that we have density plus bad bicyclists creating a problem. When challenged on why a bicyclists are using "no bicycle allowed" trails or the sidewalks, many of them have replied, "no I'm allowed." I think they honestly don't what the rules are. There has been a lot of misinformation. People have been encouraged to use bikes reagrdless of how they use them.

I think a bicyclist hitting a pedestrian is treated like bumping one person into another on the street. In reality, it's someone moving on a piece of metal at 30kph with a helmet aimed at you.

I know how this discussion spirals from here: licensing bicyclists will discourage bicycle usage. That hurts the environment. That puts people in their cars. That increases traffic congestion. You're punishing the good bicyclists. Yadda yadda yadda.

Ultra-light planes are unlicensed because there are very few of them in comparison to the risk they pose. Were they dotting the skies with frequency, I'm sure they'd be licensed.

If you're a good bicyclist, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, you'll have less to worry about because the bad bicyclists will be walking. Isn't that what's this all about? Stopping the bad actors and allowing the remainder to keep doing what they're doing?

We don't need another level of beaurocracy covering bike licensing. If a bike whacks you and it is his fault and you are hurt, sue him. It's not like auto insurance where you might be in a car crash and lose considerable money/loss of employment opportunity, spend 6 months in hospital or die etc.

[gumgum]

So getting back to the point of bike lanes - shouldn't you be happy that they're introducing them in your neck of the woods, what with all of these sidewalk bikers? Yeah there still will people on sidewalks with lanes, but it will encourage less of them.
There's no safe, easy option for bikes to get into Esquimalt from d/t and vice versa right now.
This is a progressive change for Esquimalt.

Bicylists and drivers and pedestrians - there is as many equally dumb and insane of each.

As I was driving this morning, I had a woman cut me off in her SUV to the point that I had to swerve severely to avoid her. I honked at her and she gave me the finger. Does that example get me any closer to the arguement that there shouldn't be roads for drivers?

[aastra]

Actually VHF, plenty of people have been maimed or killed after getting struck by cyclists. Happens all the time.

I agree with you that we don't need another level of bureaucracy. We just need some proper training. Those elementary school sessions I mentioned that led so many people astray in the 1970s weren't a bad idea in principle.

I shudder whenever I hear people advise you to make eye contact with drivers. As if people don't run into people or things right in front of them all the time. I don't care what the driver's doing, I care what his car is doing. He can smile and wave me by and all of that silly stuff all he wants. I'm not going until it's safe.

[VicHockeyFan]

Actually VHF, plenty of people have been maimed or killed after getting struck by cyclists. Happens all the time.

I disagree.

This is from a Boston study:

In 1999, there were 750 bicycling fatalities and 51,000 bicycling injuries resulting from traffic crashes in the United States. While these numbers continue to decrease from year to year, bicyclist fatalities still account for 2 percent of all traffic fatalities as well as 2 percent of all traffic injuries.

http://www.massbike..../statistics.htm

Now, so we see of all traffic accidents, only 2 percent involve bikes. An I submit that there are WAY more bicycle/car accidents than bicycle/pedestrian accidents. It's a non-issue.

In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.

http://www.car-accid...ages/stats.html

Here is your chance of dying from stuff other than illness/old age:

http://www.nsc.org/l...atinfo/odds.htm

The first figure after the V87 etc. is the number of deaths per year (USA 2003). The second figure is your chance of dying in any given year. The third figure is your chance of dying in your lifetime. ie. a figure of 84 (Motor Vehicle accidents) over you life is one in 84. Chances of dying from any "accident" (not including murder) is one in 34.

You'd have to be one lucky (or unlucky) sucker to die from contact with venomous snakes and lizards - 1 in 1,874,034 in your lifetime, and probably lower in Canada.


Deaths Due to Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries, V01-X59, Y85-Y86 109,277 2,662 34
Transport Accidents, V01-V99, Y85 48,071 6,050 78
Motor-Vehicle Accidents, V02-V04, V09.0, V12-V14, V19.0-V19.2, V19.4-V19.6, V20-V79, V80.3-V80.5, V81.0-V81.1, V82.0-V82.1, V83-V86, V87.0-V87.8, V88.0-V88.8, V89.0, V89.2 44,757 6,498 84
Pedestrian, V01-V09 5,991 48,548 626
Pedalcyclist, V10-V19 762 381,693 4,919
Motorcycle rider, V20-V29 3,676 79,121 1,020
Occupant of three-wheeled motor vehicle, V30-V39 13 22,373,077 288,313
Car occupant, V40-V49 15,797 18,412 237
Occupant of pick-up truck or van, V50-V59 4,163 69,865 900
Occupant of heavy transport vehicle, V60-V69 442 658,032 8,480
Bus occupant, V70-V79 36 8,079,167 104,113
Animal rider or occupant of animal-drawn vehicle, V80 101 2,879,703 37,110
Occupant of railway train or railway vehicle, V81 24 12,118,750 156,169
Occupant of streetcar, V82 2 145,425,003 1,874,034
Other and unspecified land transport accidents, V83-V89 15,107 19,253 248
Occupant of special industrial vehicle, V83 12 24,237,500 312,339
Occupant of special agricultural vehicle, V84 175 1,662,000 21,418
Occupant of special construction vehicle, V85 20 14,542,500 187,403
Occupant of all-terrain or other off-road motor vehicle, V86 906 321,026 4,137
Other and unspecified person, V87-V89 13,994 20,784 268
Water transport accidents, V90-V94 573 507,592 6,541
Drowning, V90, V92 412 705,947 9,097
Other and unspecified injuries, V91, V93-V94 161 1,806,522 23,280
Air and space transport accidents, V95-V97 742 391,981 5,051
Other and unspecified transport accidents and sequelae, V98-V99, Y85 642 453,037 5,838
Other specified transport accidents, V98 2 145,425,003 1,874,034
Unspecified transport accident, V99 0 --- ---
Nontransport Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries, W00-X59, Y86 61,206 4,752 61
Falls, W00-W19 17,229 16,881 218
Fall on same level from slipping, tripping, and stumbling, W01 597 487,186 6,278
Other fall on same level, W00, W02-W03, W18 3,896 74,653 962
Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture, W06-W08 838 347,076 4,473
Fall on and from stairs and steps, W10 1,588 183,155 2,360
Fall on and from ladder or scaffolding, W11-W12 417 697,482 8,988
Fall from out of or through building or structure, W13 600 484,750 6,247
Other fall from one level to another, W09, W14-W17 701 414,907 5,347
Other and unspecified fall, W04-W05, W19 8,592 33,851 436
Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces, W20-W49 2,658 109,424 1,410
Struck by or striking against object, W20-W22 809 359,518 4,633
Caught between objects, W23 136 2,138,603 27,559
Contact with machinery, W24, W30-W31 640 454,453 5,856
Contact with sharp objects, W25-W29 99 2,937,879 37,859
Firearms discharge, W32-W34 730 398,425 5,134
Explosion and rupture of pressurized devices, W35-W38 30 9,695,000 124,936
Fireworks discharge, W39 11 26,440,910 340,733
Explosion of other materials, W40 147 1,978,571 25,497
Foreign body entering through skin or natural orifice, W44-W45 22 13,220,455 170,367
Other and unspecified inanimate mechanical forces, W41-W43, W49 34 8,554,412 110,237
Exposure to animate mechanical forces, W50-W64 171 1,700,877 21,919
Struck by or against another person, W50-W52 39 7,457,692 96,104
Bitten or struck by dog, W54 32 9,089,063 117,127
Bitten or struck by other mammals, W53, W55 78 3,728,846 48,052
Bitten or stung by nonvenomous insect and other arthropods, W57 12 24,237,500 312,339
Bitten or crushed by other reptiles, W59 0 --- ---
Other and unspecified animate mechanical forces, W56, W58, W60, W64 10 29,085,001 374,807
Accidental drowning and submersion, W65-W74 3,306 87,976 1,134
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub, W65-W66 332 876,054 11,289
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into swimming-pool, W67-W68 515 564,757 7,278
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into natural water, W69-W70 1,225 237,429 3,060
Other and unspecified drowning and submersion, W73-W74 1,234 235,697 3,037
Other accidental threats to breathing, W75-W84 5,579 52,133 672
Accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, W75 497 585,211 7,541
Other accidental hanging and strangulation, W76 277 1,050,000 13,531
Threat to breathing due to cave-in, falling earth and other substances, W77 46 6,322,826 81,480
Inhalation of gastric contents, W78 393 740,076 9,537
Inhalation and ingestion of food causing obstruction of respiratory tract, W79 875 332,400 4,284
Inhalation and ingestion of other objects causing obstruction of respiratory tract, W80 3,004 96,821 1,248
Confined to or trapped in a low-oxygen environment, W81 16 18,178,125 234,254
Other and unspecified threats to breathing, W83-W84 471 617,516 7,958
Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature, and pressure, W85-W99 396 734,470 9,465
Electric transmission lines, W85 96 3,029,688 39,042
Other and unspecified electric current, W86-W87 280 1,038,750 13,386
Radiation, W88-W91 0 --- ---
Excessive heat or cold of man-made origin, W92-W93 10 29,085,001 374,807
High and low air pressure and changes in air pressure, W94 10 29,085,001 374,807
Other and unspecified man-made environmental factors, W99 0 --- ---
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames, X00-X09 3,369 86,331 1,113
Uncontrolled fire in building or structure, X00 2,761 105,342 1,358
Uncontrolled fire not in building or structure, X01 57 5,102,632 65,756
Controlled fire in building or structure, X02 35 8,310,000 107,088
Controlled fire not in building or structure, X03 39 7,457,692 96,104
Ignition of highly flammable material, X04 55 5,288,182 68,147
Ignition or melting of nightwear, X05 3 96,950,002 1,249,356
Ignition or melting of other clothing and apparel, X06 104 2,796,635 36,039
Other and unspecified smoke fire and flames, X08-X09 315 923,333 11,899
Contact with heat and hot substances, X10-X19 88 3,305,114 42,592
Contact with hot tap-water, X11 26 11,186,539 144,156
Other and unspecified heat and hot substances, X10, X12-X19 62 4,691,129 60,453
Contact with venomous animals and plants, X20-X29 94 3,094,149 39,873
Contact with venomous snakes and lizards, X20 2 145,425,003 1,874,034
Contact with venomous spiders, X21 8 36,356,251 468,508
Contact with hornets, wasps and bees, X23 66 4,406,818 56,789
Contact with other and unspecified venomous animal or plant, X22, X24-X29 18 16,158,334 208,226
Exposure to forces of nature, X30-X39 1,140 255,132 3,288
Exposure to excessive natural heat, X30 273 1,065,385 13,729
Exposure to excessive natural cold, X31 620 469,113 6,045
Lightning, X33 47 6,188,298 79,746
Earthquake and other earth movements, X34-X36 32 9,089,063 117,127
Cataclysmic storm, X37 75 3,878,000 49,974
Flood, X38 26 11,186,539 144,156
Exposure to other and unspecified forces of nature, X32, X39 67 4,341,045 55,941
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances, X40-X49 19,457 14,948 193
Nonopioid analgesics, antipyretics, and antirheumatics, X40 210 1,385,000 17,848
Antiepileptic, sedative-hypnotic, antiparkinsonism, and psychotropic drugs n.e.c., X41 1,205 241,369 3,110
Narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens] n.e.c., X42 9,231 31,508 406
Other and unspecified drugs, medicaments, and biologicals, X43-X44 7,648 38,030 490
Alcohol, X45 373 779,759 10,048
Gases and vapours, X46-X47 690 421,522 5,432
Other and unspecified chemicals and noxious substances, X48-X49 100 2,908,500 37,481
Overexertion, travel and privation, X50-X57 48 6,059,375 78,085
Accidental exposure to other and unspecified factors and sequelae, X58-X59, Y86 7,671 37,916 489
Intentional self-harm, X60-X84, Y87.0, *U03 31,484 9,238 119
Intentional self-poisoning, X60-X69 5,462 53,250 686
Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation, X70 6,635 43,836 565
Intentional self-harm by firearm, X72-X74 16,907 17,203 222
Other and unspecified means and sequelae, X71, X75-X84, Y87.0, *U03 2,480 117,278 1,511
Assault, X85-Y09, Y87.1, *U01 17,732 16,403 211
Assault by firearm, X93-X95 11,920 24,400 314
Assault by sharp object, X99 2,049 141,947 1,829
Other and unspecified means and sequelae, X85-X92, X96-X98, Y00-Y09, Y87.1, *U01 3,763 77,292 996
Event of undetermined intent, Y10-Y34, Y87.2, Y89.9 5,072 57,344 739
Poisoning, Y10-Y19 3,700 78,608 1,013
Hanging, strangulation, and suffocation, Y20 108 2,693,056 34,704
Drowning and submersion, Y21 215 1,352,791 17,433
Firearm discharge, Y22-Y24 232 1,253,664 16,155
Exposure to smoke, fire, and flames, Y26 100 2,908,500 37,481
Falling, jumping, or pushed from a high place, Y30 77 3,777,273 48,676
Other and unspecified means and sequelae, Y25, Y27-Y29, Y31-Y34,Y87.2, Y89.9 640 454,453 5,856
Legal intervention, Y35, Y89.0 423 687,589 8,861
Legal intervention involving firearm discharge, Y35.0 347 838,184 10,801
Legal execution, Y35.5 60 4,847,500 62,468
Other and unspecified means and sequelae, Y35.1-Y35.4, Y35.6-Y35.7, Y89.0 16 18,178,125 234,254
Operations of war and sequelae, Y36, Y89.1 14 20,775,000 267,719
Complications of medical and surgical care and sequelae, Y40-Y84, Y88.0-Y88.3 2,855 101,874 1,313
*The manner of injury for ICD-10 code U01 is Assault by Terrorism; for code U03 it is Intentional Self-Harm by Terrorism.

[aastra]

I believe those MassBike numbers summarize incidents between cyclists and motor vehicles, yes? Anyway, it doesn't matter because nobody would dispute that the number of serious injuries coming out of bicycle-motor vehicle accidents would far exceed the number of serious injuries coming out of bicycle-only or bicycle-pedestrian accidents. The point is, serious injuries can and do occur all the time during bicycle-only and bicycle-pedestrian accidents.

I'd be interested to know if anybody has ever bothered to track all serious bicycle-related accidents. Methinks many serious incidents involving bicycles would be left out of the statistical mix precisely because those incidents didn't also involve motor vehicles. For the record, Google offers a boatload of "hit by bicycle" injuries and fatalities. Also for the record, I get the impression that serious bicycle accidents that involve nobody but the cyclist himself/herself are actually more common than serious accidents involving pedestrians.

Here's some data from Western Australia (pop. 2 million):

Over the period 1981 to 1995, 99 bicycle injury deaths were registered in Western Australia.

During the period 1981-1995, there were 9,554 hospitalisations...due to bicycle crashes.

The majority of bicycle crashes resulting in hospitalisation did not involve another vehicle. This crash type formed an increasing proportion of all crashes, rising from 79.3% in 1981-1983 to 84.7% in 1993-1995. Crashes involving other vehicles were more common in older age groups.

[aastra]

Extrapolating those numbers from Western Australia to the entire USA would seem to paint a horrific picture. Methinks somebody's not keeping accurate stats somewhere.

[VicHockeyFan]

Hmm, this is interesting:

[aastra]

My sister and her husband bought a brand new car a couple of years ago and what happens? They're stopped at a stop sign and a drunk cyclist comes roaring in from the cross street, misjudges the turn, and ends up all over their hood and windshield. Bike and all. They were sure miffed about it.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I think there's something really important here, which is not being addressed.

First, I'll try to be clear about my own position, which will probably have the lot of you flaming me shortly since I'll piss everybody off for one reason or another -- my love of what amounts nearly to run-on sentences should annoy a few people... ;-) No comment on Esquimalt (since I don't drive or bike there), but I live a block or two from Fort & Cook, and haven't observed traffic congestion problems there, except when someone tries to use the right-hand lane (marked clearly enough as "ending" some metres up the road) to speed ahead of whoever is in the thru-lane (which is the middle lane). If and when everyone just plays it cool, there are no problems with the cars or the bikes. It's strictly the guys (and gals) on steroids that cause friction, except for the occasional new bug on the road, who weaves from lane to lane because s/he hasn't understood which / what / where lane is actually ending where /when.

For me, it's more a question of bad userinterface, but not a question of bike vs. car, or even the pros or cons of "traffic calming." (My personal bias is that the internal combustion engine was probably the worst invention ever, which is not to say that I think that the personal motor vehicle will disappear from the face of the earth anytime soon. If anything, traffic will continue to increase, especially if we make the jump to electric cars or biofuels.)

Politics: I have always been on the left, although seeing the left these days, I'm starting to wonder, and find myself most often feeling more comfortable with Jane Jacobs's stance, who basically said "to hell with left and right," because what matters is not what "side" of the aisle it's on, but whether it makes sense and is right for people. Now, in academic marxist leftism (which for a long time was my "home"), it is of course the height of philistinism to champion anything as banal as common sense, but then again, academic marxist leftism also allowed old coots to create [url=http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo:9198e]the postmodernism discourse generator[/url:9198e], a site that has poked more than one big hole in ivory tower "discourse."

However, I digress.

Is anyone still reading this far?

Back to what I think is important yet not being addressed: you can argue back and forth about how many, as well as whether or not, cyclists ride on sidewalks, or argue statistics regarding how many people are hurt by cyclists vs hurt by cars, etc. The fact is that cyclists, like all populations, are not exempt from breaking the law (or the bylaws, same thing), and the real question is why do we keep making excuses for people who do that (regardless of area), and why do we keep making excuses for lack of enforcement of the laws that do exist?

When I started a thread (somewhere on this forum), leading with the T-C article about the d/t merchants complaining that people thought d/t was "scary," the downtown Victoria boosterism response was that it's only little old grannies from the 'burbs who think d/t has gotten gross. When mikedw started a thread that, among other things, included complaints about cyclists on sidewalks, he too is smacked down by the boosters who argue that it's not a problem. When I started a thread about urinals, the response (again, mostly from the Victoria booster camp) was more or less the same: namely that "boys will be boys," and let's not worry about stuff as insignificant as a few people pissing up the street. Eventually, aastra came to the rescue (in all three threads) with some comments about d/t indeed being in need of cleaning up in places, and that indeed cyclists ride on sidewalks and endanger pedestrians, etc., and given that whatever aastra says carries weight and has clout, his comments had a sobering effect.

At the same time, of course, there's also always the lunatic fringe (oops, did I just use the Peter Pollen word??), folks who say we should build concentration camps for "subhumans," but (a) I don't share that view one bit, and (b) one hopes that those folks find a suitable, harmless hobby.

Yet even the supposedly "sane" people get into numbers and statistics and start fighting about how many people have in actual fact been injured by cyclists, etcetera etceteroo.

But that's not really the issue! The issue is that people connected to all sorts of public life issues (shopowners losing business or at their wits' end over hooligans disrespecting their property by urinating/ defecating on their shopfronts, parents trying to keep their kids safe on urban sidewalks, and so on) feel that no one is enforcing the bylaws that do exist. What seems to happen instead is that we micromanage increasingly smaller, ever more intimate areas of human existence (remember the UK kid I referenced who got sent to the principal's office for not having a healthy lunch?), without actually addressing the bigger issue.

The bigger issue is that scofflaws get away with it: you're not punished by your community if you can get away with it.

Scofflaws on the sidewalk, as well as scofflaws in the corporate world, and everything inbetween. We keep inventing reasons as to why we should excuse from the law our "personal" Johnny (the one we know and love, the one from "our" community, the one "we"have a vested interest in), even while we seethe inwardly over that a** hole Johnny we haven't met, but we're sure is just a 100% jerk, who's getting away with murder, the utter creep. It's like relativism under the law, instead of equal before the law. Equal before the law means it applies to everyone, and it is applied. Relativism means "we'll make you feel guilty about some incorrect word choice" (see what happened to Pollen on using the word "lunatic"), because we don't really have any way anymore of enforcing actual laws.

I really truly don't understand why people of integrity (on this forum, wherever), whether left or right, don't insist on integrity in the public sphere. And that integrity includes NOT pissing in doorways, NOT riding your bike on the sidewalk, NOT cutting off other motorists, NOT giving other people the finger, NOT getting in peoples' faces on the street, NOT taking corporate kickbacks, NOT stealing shareholders' money, NOT taking bonuses that amount to a sum equal to the gross national product of small nations, and so on and so forth. It's as though we've become a nation of excuse-makers, and the bureaucratic response has been to make ever more ridiculous micro-laws to manage people's lives, even as regular laws aren't enforced. Or else, the enforcement is beyond over-the-top, as in "let's send a tear-gas equipped SWAT team after a lone guy holed up in some crazy lady's boarded-up building."

Yes, let's send the Panzer-Division after panhandlers. Geez. <note: this is sarcasm>

We don't differentiate anymore. We don't struggle against incipient things or use the laws we do have, we wait until we don't know what to do next anymore, and then we call for *more* laws.

Yes, you could license bicyclists. But how about enforcing what's already on the books?

On the cyclists issue: I see bicyclists nearly EVERY day who are recklessly endangering pedestrians. To the naysayers: don't tell me it doesn't happen, please, because you're destroying your credibility that way.

But it's not about the cyclists. It's about enforcement of the majority view, which says that public safety trumps personal expression. And if you leave that out of the equation, you quite probably end up with *more* laws (but which aren't necessarily better, and which are too intrusive or offensive to personal liberty, and which end up not getting enforced either), and you end up, paradoxically, with an intrusive regime that micromanages at the intimate level (what you should eat, how many sexual partners it's considered "normal" to have, how much you weigh, whether you should drink, and so on and so forth).

[m0nkyman]

I've been saying for years that society started going downhil when we outlawed duelling. Things were much more sane when you could get killed legally for being rude.












I'm only half kidding.

[Holden West]

Ms. B. Havin's post has won the bi-monthly

[zoomer]

The fact is that cyclists, like all populations, are not exempt from breaking the law (or the bylaws, same thing), and the real question is why do we keep making excuses for people who do that (regardless of area), and why do we keep making excuses for lack of enforcement of the laws that do exist?

Ok, so this thread is huge already, so I may be mistaken, but I don't recall anyone making excuses for the lack of enforcement of the laws that exist. I think we all agree that laws should be enforced to the full extent that is practical (and I see police all the time drive past a cyclist without a helmet, and do nothing about it, which ticks me off). The issue is how big of a problem is this really?

I really truly don't understand why people of integrity (on this forum, wherever), whether left or right, don't insist on integrity in the public sphere.

On the cyclists issue: I see bicyclists nearly EVERY day who are recklessly endangering pedestrians. To the naysayers: don't tell me it doesn't happen, please, because you're destroying your credibility that way.

I think we all hope or would like to insist on integrity in the public sphere, but remember we are dealing with humans, not robots. In the past, present and future in all societies you had and will have those who do not conform to the community's norms and mores. It would take an army which Big Brother would be proud of to enforce every single rule, bylaw, law, legislation that has ever been drawn up. How many bylaw officers, police officers alone would it take to effectively enforce all rules dealing with urination and cyling? It's impossible. It's a matter of resources and priorities, and that's the point VHF made so effectively.

You mentioned bicyclists "nearly every day" endangering pedestrians, well at least it's not every day! Of course the same can be said for vehicles, the actions of parents endangering their children, etc, etc, etc.

Also, in my reply to Mikedw I stated "I also think your letter loses a lot of credibility when you say that "this majority of bicyclists who disobey almost every law and bylaw as the exception and not the rule." Yes, cyclists probably disobey more laws than motorists (because they are not licensed and its much easier to do on a tiny bike instead of a much larger vehicle), but it's not the majority."

As you can see I clearly stated that cyclists disobey laws, (and no doubt can endanger pedestrians, although endangering pedestrians is a low percentage from what I've seen and as the statistics bear out) and to say that the majority of bicyclists disobey almost every law and bylaw is not credible.

If you see a cyclist on the sidewalk, yell at them to get off! You're right in that it shouldn't be tolerated, but we can't expect a wide sweeping, ongoing and effective police/by-law officer campaign either.

[mikedw]

I really truly don't understand why people of integrity (on this forum, wherever), whether left or right, don't insist on integrity in the public sphere. And that integrity includes NOT pissing in doorways, NOT riding your bike on the sidewalk, NOT cutting off other motorists, NOT giving other people the finger, NOT getting in peoples' faces on the street, NOT taking corporate kickbacks, NOT stealing shareholders' money, NOT taking bonuses that amount to a sum equal to the gross national product of small nations, and so on and so forth. It's as though we've become a nation of excuse-makers, and the bureaucratic response has been to make ever more ridiculous micro-laws to manage people's lives, even as regular laws aren't enforced. Or else, the enforcement is beyond over-the-top, as in "let's send a tear-gas equipped SWAT team after a lone guy holed up in some crazy lady's boarded-up building."

I feel that we have been infantilized. There was a great piece in Utne a year or two back. It showed 25 year-olds at Ellis Island in 1900 and 25 year-olds in New York ca. 2000. Those in 1900 looked grown up, they had started families and moved to a new country. The latter group looked like party-hearty teenagers.

If we are infantilized, then someone else can make the big decisions for us. Then, we're left to dally and play with video games and not grow up. Our consumer society wins. Polticians and bureaucrats win.

This also means we can "do what we can get away with" vs. "doing what is right." We can get away with peeing in a doorway, so do it. We can get away with biking down a sidewalk and pegging a woman from behind, so why not? We can straddle two lanes in our SUV because we can get away with it and no one is stopping us.

We're a generation without a moral compass. Maybe that's a good thing: we can be talked into stuff easier if we have no inner source of ethics that could block a Big Mac diet; or watching 6 hrs. of TV; or spending more in a shopping spree than what a person in Africa earns in six months.

I think this topic of personal responsibility is part of a bigger issue.