It's time to end the free ride for cyclists
by Paula Carlson, editor Surrey/N.Delta Leader (a local rag)
They’ve got their own paths, their own lanes, and their own streets, and if Vancouver’s mayor gets his way, they’ll soon have their own bridge.
In addition to their specially designated areas, cyclists clearly have clout.
They’re certainly increasing in numbers. Packs of pedal-pushers are a common sight on urban streets, in all types of weather and across staggering distances.
Years ago, slogging to work under your own steam while battling the elements and fellow commuters was seen as diehard. Now it’s de rigueur.
TransLink has added bike racks to buses, two-wheelers can be packed onto SkyTrain, and walkways in parks and along seawalls have been divided in half to accommodate bicycle enthusiasts.
Even new multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects – such as the Pitt River Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge and the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge – have incorporated cyclists into the plans, with lanes and ramps and roundabouts factored in.
In Vancouver, a lane on the Burrard Street Bridge has been closed to cars to make way for cyclists as part of a three-month $1-million pilot project.
And in the future, having cyclists share the same span with motor vehicles may not be good enough. Mayor Gregor Robertson is talking about building a $45-million crossing in False Creek that would be open to bikers and pedestrians only.
All municipal taxpayers would pony up the dough, mind you.
Enough is enough. It’s high time cyclists enjoyed the full rights of the road – including the right to obtain a licence, buy plates and insurance, and be subject to more frequent traffic violation tickets.
After all, under the Motor Vehicle Act, a person operating a bicycle has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle.
If bicycles are going to be a permanent and proliferate part of the regional transportation system, then bike riders need to buck up.
5the cost of getting around isn’t going to get any cheaper. In fact, TransLink – the regional authority responsible for transit – is currently grappling with how to raise an extra $450 million in annual operating costs for improvements such as more SkyTrain lines and additional buses.
Some of the funding measures being considered include hiking fuel, pay parking and property taxes, raising bus fares, and imposing a car levy.
If drivers, businesses and homeowners have to shell out for transit, then why not cyclists?
The template for regulating cyclists is already in place. Commercial cyclists, such as couriers, must pass a written test and purchase a licence plate.
Adding a requirement for insurance and ramping up enforcement of existing traffic laws would generate revenue and encourage safer riding practices. Fines, “points,” and at-fault accidents that increase the cost of bike insurance would act as a deterrent to cyclists who want all the rights of the road, but adhere to none of the rules (e.g. failing to stop at red lights and stop signs; travelling on sidewalks; riding without due care and attention).
Cycling is a viable and pleasurable means of transportation that is obviously gaining in popularity and breaking new ground. However it’s time to level the playing field.
I say welcome to the concrete jungle. But cyclists should enjoy gridlock in all its glory – and that means helping to fund the system.
[email protected]
Showing posts with label road users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label road users. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2009
in response
--A response to a published editorial in the Burnaby NewsLeader and Surrey/North Delta Leader by Paula Carlson, editor
It's time to end the free ride for motorists. As a car-free person and cyclist by choice, I am constantly being forced to subsidize a motoring lifestyle that is rapidly destroying the public environment for private benefit, which in turn serves to destroy my own, and my neighbours' health and well-being.
Whenever I see "free" parking, I pay for that. Every time I see an obese smoker idling in traffic inside a ton of useless metal, with three empty seats beside her, I think, 'there is my tax dollars subsidising an unhealthy lifestyle enabled by motoring,' and I will pay for that for years to come. Your auto insurance subsidy, your gasoline subsidy, your parking subsidy, the brown haze of pollution, I pay for that.
Police services that assumes I am at fault in any collision, and that laughed in my face when I asked about the liklihood of my stolen bike being returned, I pay for that. Yet I see a large publically funded bait-car campaign with a great deal of advertising. I pay for that.
Without any public consultation, the federal goverenmnet has seen fit to buy 12% of a failed foreign car company, and will guarantee warranties on poorly built products. I pay for that.
Cyclists are not some strange invasive species. They are your friends and neighbours, your doctor and your postman; they are homeowners, business owners and sometimes motorists and yes, they are already taxpayers, just like you.
Unlike many self-serving lobby groups, the future that cyclists desire is a benefit to everyone--clean air, a clean and healthy food and water supply, communities and streets that are safe for all users. Instead of attacking bicycle riders, you should be thanking them for trying to bring a healthier and more livable future to the Lower Mainland.
It's time to end the free ride for motorists. As a car-free person and cyclist by choice, I am constantly being forced to subsidize a motoring lifestyle that is rapidly destroying the public environment for private benefit, which in turn serves to destroy my own, and my neighbours' health and well-being.
Whenever I see "free" parking, I pay for that. Every time I see an obese smoker idling in traffic inside a ton of useless metal, with three empty seats beside her, I think, 'there is my tax dollars subsidising an unhealthy lifestyle enabled by motoring,' and I will pay for that for years to come. Your auto insurance subsidy, your gasoline subsidy, your parking subsidy, the brown haze of pollution, I pay for that.
Police services that assumes I am at fault in any collision, and that laughed in my face when I asked about the liklihood of my stolen bike being returned, I pay for that. Yet I see a large publically funded bait-car campaign with a great deal of advertising. I pay for that.
Without any public consultation, the federal goverenmnet has seen fit to buy 12% of a failed foreign car company, and will guarantee warranties on poorly built products. I pay for that.
Cyclists are not some strange invasive species. They are your friends and neighbours, your doctor and your postman; they are homeowners, business owners and sometimes motorists and yes, they are already taxpayers, just like you.
Unlike many self-serving lobby groups, the future that cyclists desire is a benefit to everyone--clean air, a clean and healthy food and water supply, communities and streets that are safe for all users. Instead of attacking bicycle riders, you should be thanking them for trying to bring a healthier and more livable future to the Lower Mainland.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Open Letter
--an open letter to the motorist who nearly killed me last Friday morning, from a bicycle rider
Dear Ma'am,
We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.
When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.
Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.
I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.
If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?
If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.
When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.
Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.
Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.
yours,
on two wheels,
David
Dear Ma'am,
We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.
When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.
Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.
I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.
If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?
If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.
When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.
Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.
Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.
yours,
on two wheels,
David
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Lessons in Greed pt.1
It is often the smallest nuggets of information that are more disturbing than the frequent Grand Mal articles common to media on both sides of the corporate divide. A case in point is this little data point that I found most disturbing. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reports that although 89% of drivers are concerned about “driver distraction”, yet informed of the fact that “that cellphone use made them four times more likely to be involved in a collision.”, “60% of drivers would not agree to stop using their cellphones while driving.”
OK? Got that?
So 9 out of 10 drivers see someone doing something stupid on the road, often associated with cell phone use. Ten out of ten bicycle riders would report the same thing. Anecdotally, the connection is often made. “So, I look up after seeing his bumper go by my handlebars with two inches to spare, the guy’s got a cellphone glued to his ear...”
They have been made aware that using a hand held in-car distraction may quadruple their likelihood of an accident. Still, given their own choice, 6 out of ten would choose to ignore this simple collection of pertinent facts, and give a big “fuck you” to all other road users.
We already know that all cagers believe that the roadway and the space enveloping their car is their exclusive property. “Get off the road! You don’t pay for it!” is a common call of the wild cager in flight.
We also know the common cager belief in the idea that one’s own time and personal errands are all that matters. “That guy on the bike is obviously not going anywhere too important. I mean, where could he possibly be going if he can’t even afford a car...”
We know the cager deliberately wants to be isolated from the world, sealed inside his steel and glass cage, lost in a delusion of “freedom”, “individuality” , traffic-free winding seaside roads and other kinds of marketing mythology...see any car commercial for more details.
Now we know that three out of five cagers believe the safety of other road users is inconsequential. The IBC data gobbet drips with the grease of motor mentality, steeped in the shit of marketed car culture.
This is indicative of the greed culture we live in, the me first, stuff my pockets full, ignore the obvious, play the game, screw the future, business as usual, fuck the rest of you, just don’t get caught society we have built.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Duelling with Buses
Anyone who is running a stop sign at full speed and failing to check if the other stops are occupied, is obviously a danger to herself and other road users. It seems that many people never studied rudimentary physics and have no understanding of inertia and braking distance, and the dangers large heavy vehicles can pose. But like the jerk who collided with me, no amount of public campaigning or private instruction will change idiotic behavior in those who are idiots.
Away from stop signs, duelling with buses on busy streets is one of the most dangerous situations facing a rider. The uneducated person on a bike may believe that to suck the curb on the right hand side is the prime directive, whereas experience or skills courses teach us that this is not so.
For example, on a street like Broadway, where parked cars, bikes and buses essentially must share the right hand lane, the dangers posed by passing a bus, especially the elongated ones are extreme. Approaching a stopped and loading bus from behind I will typically check the bus' rear lights and indicators, and have a look down the right hand side to guage the progress of the loading/unloading of passengers. If I see the bus is about to pull out and re-enter traffic lanes, I will yield and try to be visible in the driver's mirrors, as I do not want to suck bus exhaust and leapfrog with the bus all the way down the road.
However, if I am confident i can pass the bus on its leftside before he pulls out, I will do so. The real danger comes, and frequently happens, when the driver fails to check his traffic side mirror, and fails to see or ignores the (always assumed) invisible cyclist. It is indeed terrrifying when you are halfway past the bus, and it starts to roll and edge to the left, back into the traffic lane. This presents the cyclist with a tough dilemma and no place to go but to sprint for the front of the bus, hoping the driver sees you or is slow enough into traffic before you reach the front of the bus. Also hoping a motorist behind you doesn't have the same idea--ie, failing to yield and instead choosing to race past.
When the bicycle rider is already in the right hand flow lane and the bus starts to move, the rider runs the risk of being cut off and/or side-swiped by the merging bus, or else is forced into the lefthand flow lane, a place where no rider wants to find herself.
Yet also implicit in this discussion, although usually unvoiced, is the motorists' (and society in general) perception that bicycles are toys, riders are out for recreation only, and so are not legitimate road users. A bus driver with a schedule to maintain will typically view the cyclist as an annoyance, as an illigitimate road user, and so as someone who deserves no respect as a road user. John Forrester refers to this as "cyclist inferiority".
Lately I have been wondering about exactly what instruction does the typical sixteen year old beginning driver recieve in 'driver's ed" courses in regard to dealing safely with bicycles--my guess is none. Similarly, what instruction do city bus drivers get in relation to co-mingling with bicycles on the road. Here again, my guess would be next to none.
Away from stop signs, duelling with buses on busy streets is one of the most dangerous situations facing a rider. The uneducated person on a bike may believe that to suck the curb on the right hand side is the prime directive, whereas experience or skills courses teach us that this is not so.
For example, on a street like Broadway, where parked cars, bikes and buses essentially must share the right hand lane, the dangers posed by passing a bus, especially the elongated ones are extreme. Approaching a stopped and loading bus from behind I will typically check the bus' rear lights and indicators, and have a look down the right hand side to guage the progress of the loading/unloading of passengers. If I see the bus is about to pull out and re-enter traffic lanes, I will yield and try to be visible in the driver's mirrors, as I do not want to suck bus exhaust and leapfrog with the bus all the way down the road.
However, if I am confident i can pass the bus on its leftside before he pulls out, I will do so. The real danger comes, and frequently happens, when the driver fails to check his traffic side mirror, and fails to see or ignores the (always assumed) invisible cyclist. It is indeed terrrifying when you are halfway past the bus, and it starts to roll and edge to the left, back into the traffic lane. This presents the cyclist with a tough dilemma and no place to go but to sprint for the front of the bus, hoping the driver sees you or is slow enough into traffic before you reach the front of the bus. Also hoping a motorist behind you doesn't have the same idea--ie, failing to yield and instead choosing to race past.
When the bicycle rider is already in the right hand flow lane and the bus starts to move, the rider runs the risk of being cut off and/or side-swiped by the merging bus, or else is forced into the lefthand flow lane, a place where no rider wants to find herself.
Yet also implicit in this discussion, although usually unvoiced, is the motorists' (and society in general) perception that bicycles are toys, riders are out for recreation only, and so are not legitimate road users. A bus driver with a schedule to maintain will typically view the cyclist as an annoyance, as an illigitimate road user, and so as someone who deserves no respect as a road user. John Forrester refers to this as "cyclist inferiority".
Lately I have been wondering about exactly what instruction does the typical sixteen year old beginning driver recieve in 'driver's ed" courses in regard to dealing safely with bicycles--my guess is none. Similarly, what instruction do city bus drivers get in relation to co-mingling with bicycles on the road. Here again, my guess would be next to none.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Who Pays?
A local bicycle rider has written:
“Every spring I hear the same two complaints from motorists. Cyclists don't follow the rules of the road, and they do not pay to use them.”
Leaving aside the first complaint for the moment, I had some thoughts about the second.
The counter-argument to the false idea of “my taxes pay for the roads” are many. The simplest one is that taxes are taxes and everybody pays them. Saying that this kind of tax is earmarked for that kind of program is a false argument. Its like saying I can’t pay you the $20 dollars I owe, because its in my left pocket....
--Sure I have the $20, but its in my left pocket and that’s for something else.
--See, my right pocket is empty.
--If I had the $20 to pay you, it would be in my right pocket....
It’s all about priorities.
The most elegant one is that if everybody rode bicycles [by using the word “bicycle”, generally I mean any self-propelled, lightweight, emission free vehicle], we’d likely never have to build another road. Ever. Think about that for a moment.
Well maybe that is an exaggeration, but maintenance budgets would drop to a quarter or a tenth of current levels. In the absence of free and easy (read subsidy and society-enabled) motor vehicle traffic, we have already built every road we are likely to ever need.
Ten thousand cyclists a day passing over any given piece of road for a hundred years will not equal the damage done to roads that a year’s worth of motor traffic will inflict.
Currently, the motorist ensures he will be paying high taxes simply by being a motorist. Most car owners have never even considered how much society subsidizes their “right” to drive.
A sane system would demand the demonstration of “cause for use”. In the short term, this would allow a road user such as a contractor who absolutely requires a vehicle to still make a living. But the single use motor driven commuter would no longer be a viable option. It is ridiculous how we preserve some of the most expensive real estate in Canada for keeping our cars happily waiting for us at the end of an office-bound day.
Getting people out of personal use cars will free traffic gridlock and allow once again the efficient use of roads. Dedicated routes could then be maintained for heavy and light truck/service traffic along commercial routes. Other routes would be exclusively for transit--maxi and mini buses, and clean-air taxis. Still others would be dedicated to bicycles. Many neighbourhood streets would gratefully succumb to depaving.
By creating separate traffic streams, one of the three major impediments to getting people out on bikes is removed, as conflict with motorised traffic is limited to infrequent intersections. Imagine how quickly you could get from SFU to ScienceWorld if you only had to stop at lights at Willingdon, Boundary and Main streets, with the Boundary overpass coming online next year!
It’s all about priorities.
“Every spring I hear the same two complaints from motorists. Cyclists don't follow the rules of the road, and they do not pay to use them.”
Leaving aside the first complaint for the moment, I had some thoughts about the second.
The counter-argument to the false idea of “my taxes pay for the roads” are many. The simplest one is that taxes are taxes and everybody pays them. Saying that this kind of tax is earmarked for that kind of program is a false argument. Its like saying I can’t pay you the $20 dollars I owe, because its in my left pocket....
--Sure I have the $20, but its in my left pocket and that’s for something else.
--See, my right pocket is empty.
--If I had the $20 to pay you, it would be in my right pocket....
It’s all about priorities.
The most elegant one is that if everybody rode bicycles [by using the word “bicycle”, generally I mean any self-propelled, lightweight, emission free vehicle], we’d likely never have to build another road. Ever. Think about that for a moment.
Well maybe that is an exaggeration, but maintenance budgets would drop to a quarter or a tenth of current levels. In the absence of free and easy (read subsidy and society-enabled) motor vehicle traffic, we have already built every road we are likely to ever need.
Ten thousand cyclists a day passing over any given piece of road for a hundred years will not equal the damage done to roads that a year’s worth of motor traffic will inflict.
Currently, the motorist ensures he will be paying high taxes simply by being a motorist. Most car owners have never even considered how much society subsidizes their “right” to drive.
A sane system would demand the demonstration of “cause for use”. In the short term, this would allow a road user such as a contractor who absolutely requires a vehicle to still make a living. But the single use motor driven commuter would no longer be a viable option. It is ridiculous how we preserve some of the most expensive real estate in Canada for keeping our cars happily waiting for us at the end of an office-bound day.
Getting people out of personal use cars will free traffic gridlock and allow once again the efficient use of roads. Dedicated routes could then be maintained for heavy and light truck/service traffic along commercial routes. Other routes would be exclusively for transit--maxi and mini buses, and clean-air taxis. Still others would be dedicated to bicycles. Many neighbourhood streets would gratefully succumb to depaving.
By creating separate traffic streams, one of the three major impediments to getting people out on bikes is removed, as conflict with motorised traffic is limited to infrequent intersections. Imagine how quickly you could get from SFU to ScienceWorld if you only had to stop at lights at Willingdon, Boundary and Main streets, with the Boundary overpass coming online next year!
It’s all about priorities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
