Login / RegisterAdvocacy groups call for focus on cycling ahead of B.C. election
B.C. cycling advocates are pushing for more discussion about two-wheeled transportation issues as the provincial election approaches on May 14.
“We’d definitely like the profile raised somewhat and people to start to really talk about it and start to realize the benefits and the potential of cycling, of improving it for all people in British Columbia,” B.C. Cycling Coalition president Richard Campbell told the Straight by phone.
“In large cities it’s a great way to get around to avoid congestion and busy streets. In small communities where they’re not large enough to have a good transit service it’s really the only other option that people have to get around besides driving,” Campbell said.
The nonprofit B.C. Cycling Coalition is calling on the province to take a series of steps to improve the experience for cyclists across the province. A key recommendation is for the province to invest $300 million over four years to upgrade roads and bridges and to help local governments pay for cycling projects.
In its 2013 budget speech, the B.C. government pledged to invest $9 million in cycling infrastructure as part of spending over the next three years on major transportation projects.
“There are definitely good routes in portions of Vancouver and the region. [But] there are a lot of missing links,” Campbell said. “It’s not the case where people can just hop on a bike and go from anywhere to anywhere and expect a safe, quick, convenient route, and especially if they want to cycle around with their children.”
The coalition's other recommendations include updating legislation to make roads safer, improving access to the ferry system, and granting authorities such as TransLink more power to raise funds for cycling projects through measures like a gas tax or tolling. They also call on the province to invest $10 million a year on marketing and promotion of cycling, as well as skills and safety education programs.
The B.C. Cycling Coalition argues the investment in cycling is justified because it will help improve people’s health, boost tourism, reduce air pollution, and provide affordable transportation options.
B.C. transportation minster Mary Polak could not be reached for comment.
Erin O’Melinn, executive director of the Metro Vancouver group HUB: Your Cycling Connection, also called on the B.C. government to do more. She highlighted the need for cycling infrastructure improvements across the region.
O’Melinn said, for example, the shared sidewalk on the Second Narrows Bridge needs to be widened and the Central Valley Greenway route through the suburbs needs to be better connected.
“The province needs to step up and realize cycling is a huge solution that’s very cost-effective and can solve a lot of their problems,” O’Melinn told the Straight by phone.
HUB is a member of the B.C. Cycling Coalition, a provincial umbrella organization for local and regional cycling groups.
I am all for improvements to existing infrastructure, however it must still be paid for, and the rest of the non cycling public, should not be burdened with these costs, My thoughts are that if they want it they should pay for it, with license and registration fees, and mandatory liabilty insurance.
Also everyday I see cars bullying bikers, cutting us off, passing too close and honking just for the sake of it. And you see this without cyclists breaking any rules.
It's time to stop disrespecting, or we're going to perpetuate this problem.
To what?
Oh where do I start with you....
"Perhaps something should be done for the cyclists, when and only when they start to obey the traffic, and other laws"
It's very easy to play this card at first glance, because cyclists are using the same infrastructure. However, traffic laws were designed for automobiles, taking into account theit physical characteristics and limitations, and abilities of the driver to handle appropriate traffic situations (at stop signs, red lights, etc.). It's easy to stop at an intersection in a vehicle because all it takes is the press of a gas pedal to start up, plus the brakes can rapidly stop the vehicle if oncoming traffic is seen. It's much more inconvenient for a cyclist as they need to use their own footpower to start up again, plus those first few pedals are the most vulnerable for said cyclist, as they don't have enough momentum to coast or keep balance. Having biked in this city for 5 years on both bike routes and downtown streets, I can confidently say that the best balance for myself between safety and maximizing efficiency is to slow down at a stop sign, look both ways, and then go through.
"My thoughts are that if they want it they should pay for it, with license and registration fees, and mandatory liabilty insurance"
How do you intend on enacting this? Who does this extend to? Does it include children? If so, how do you intend on enforcing licensing? Does this include cyclists who are on roads only? Paved trails? Mountain trails?
Secondly, don't even get me started on the liability insurance argument. Most people who ride bikes spend maybe $500 capital on a bike and maybe $100 on maintenance annually. Since insurance claims would mainly center around automobile and health-related issues, the cost of insurance would likely be closer to that for automobiles, say $100/month and $1200/yr. Does that make financial sense for the average cyclist? I think not.
What's missing from the plan is a need to educate drivers AND cyclists on the nuances of driver-cyclist interactions on the road (i.e. drivers looking for cyclists before turning, or before exiting a car to avoid the infamous "dooring", and cyclists adopting a "right of weight" mentality on the road, being hypervigilant against possible accident triggers (car doors, blind intersections, avoiding busy roads).
The nondriving public is heavily burdened with the costs associated with our car centric culture. License and registration fees pay for nothing but license and registration.
The real cost is in livability when vast amounts of our best living spaces are set aside for roads and parking, when the air we breathe is fouled by millions of one passenger vehicles, and when trying to avoid the use of motor vehicles is difficult because of the culture of entitlement by ignorant drivers.
Time to start thinking Mark.
Take rolling stops for instance: all the outcry and hoopla over a suggestion that cyclists regard stop signs as yield signs. Such venom in the pages of Vancouver's rabidly anti-cycling Province, comments at work from co-workers ("Oh you silly cyclists, going too far again..."). In ALL of that noise, not ONCE did I read or hear any reference to the simple fact that on a bike one can see SO MUCH MORE than in a car. Try it: Roll up to a stop sign in a car and stop when the car reaches the stop bar (not the driver's eyes, the car, as in the front bumper). Now do the same thing on a bike, stopping when the front of the bike reaches the stop bar. In the former case, your eyes are still way back there, behind a hood, a windshield, and sitting low. In the latter, your eyes are atop the stop bar and there is NOTHING around you to obscure your view. What you might notice doing this experiment is that when riding the bike you only need to stop if anyone is coming from either side, because you've been able to assess the traffic at the intersection from several meters back before you arrived at the stop bar. In the car, it is almost always completely necessary to come to a full stop because you CAN'T SEE anything on the cross street until you're actually OVER the stop bar.
Does the fact that bikes and cars are often apples and oranges in the way they are built and designed stop the anti-cycling gang from crying foul? Goodness no! It's like pointing out how few cyclists are on the Burrard Bridge. Well, here's an idea: get out of your car and onto a bike and make it better! I'm pretty certain that only a few of the nay-sayers are actually physically incapable of cycling (and those that are, well, you alone have the right to complain). As for the rest of you able-bodied complainers, your lack of vigour, curiosity, open-mindedness, energy, guts and imagination is not my fault.
actually the burrard bike lane encouraged 10 000 new cyclists and made the city a $1 000 000 profit.
It's fun to make up stats isn't it!
Car drivers, I ask for your patience. I agree that cyclists often ride recklessly because it is part of the culture (hence, the Reckless Bicycles store) and because, until recently, there were no bike lanes and bike-controlled intersections to give us mortality-conscious riders a degree of confidence.
I am all for a modest licence fee for cycling, simply to assuage some resentment that drivers may feel.
However as a driver myself, I cannot understand why anyone who has seethed impatiently in slow traffic can possibly have anything but eagerness to get people out of their cars and onto bikes.
That shift alleviates congestion, and increases healthiness therefore lowering medical costs, which I would say is a business case for bicycling investment in itself.
I don't drive or cycle - I walk. Both drivers and cyclists have their fair share of idiots, but the majority seem to function correctly. This needn't be so damn complicated - learn how to co-exist without demonizing each other.
If we invest in more cycling infrastructure, like better bridge lanes and separated lanes on busy streets, we will reduce the number of conflicts between cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians, making it safer and more pleasant for all. And safer, separated cycle lanes and bikeways make it more attractive for people to try cycling. I know it did for me, and I love seeing a whole different side of the city than you normally do when in a car or bus.
And if it would help build and maintain the cycling network, I would not be opposed to a small fee earmarked on my property tax, for instance, that could go toward these kinds of projects.
In this day and age of people expecting technology to live their lives for them (cars, computers, multi-platform phones, air conditioning, on-line, 1-touch access to a swirling universe of services and information, etc.), and the parallel expectation that despite a total lack of effort to engage the world on a physical level, our already over-burdened health care system will alleviate our all-too-often self-inflicted maladies, there has got to be something at least a little heroic and noble about cycling or walking. I know it's lousy PR, but I am not going to pretend that riding my bike home 12 km in the rain after a long night's work is anything but heroic and noble; and I'll go even further and say that those who won't even consider it lack a certain degree of gumption commonly associated with what I call "character".
It would be nice if we could all just get along, and I try to do just that. I'm a very courteous and law-abiding cyclist. But riding up hills and in all kinds of cold and hot and rain and wind simply produces too much self-congratulatory stuff for this aspect of cyclist behaviour to ever really go away. Kudos to those cyclists who don't attach any egotism to the activity - it would probably be better for me if I could achieve such Zen perfection. In the meantime I'll allow myself a modicum of smugness on the road to true enlightenment.
Because not all drivers are able to follow the law completely and behave 100% safely, I don't see why we cyclists and pedestrians should have to pay for infrastructure for motorists.
Until all drivers are able to comply 100% with the law, we should convert all the roads to cycle tracks and wider sidewalks.
That sounds pretty stupid, eh? Doesn't sound any smarter when people say it about cyclists and cycling infrastructure
Better education, cooperation, patience and compassion are what we really need. (And separated cycling infrastructure suitable for all ages and abilities built wherever possible, to eliminate these conflicts from even happening in the first place.)
Pages