Burrard Bridge Trial Makes Bridge Safer

175 posts / 0 new
Last post

It's a question of prioritization. In the situation, you have two locations with no current
oversight, you have to chose which is the best allocation of your resources.

"Double Bonus hint: You don't know where Semi 2 is being played, but you know where Semi
1 is being played."

What are you talking about? You have a stat which shows more serious accident, injury, or
death occurring along a bike route vs a notorious street such as Knight? Please share.

According to the Vancouver Police, in 2004 Knight street features in 3 of the top 10 most
dangerous intersections in Vancouver (40% of all the crashes on the top 10 list). Number 1
on the list, Knight and Marine, having more than twice the accidents of the number 2 worst
intersection (also on Knight).

http://vancouver.ca/police/operations/traffic/stats_index.html

However, for the sake of my analogy, by all means substitute "a road with serious history of
accident" for where I mentioned Knight.

RE: A serious question (for anyone other than Temple). How is the trial going? It's not part of my usual commute so I'm curious how well the traffic has adapted.

Hey, not a rant?! What's that doing here?

Anyways, I ride it everyday, and it's pretty damn good. Everyone not in a car loves it (pedestrians and cyclists alike) and there's no problems with traffic other than the turn southbound onto burrard from pacific. This can be fixed by changing the light pattern at Burrard and pacific, so I think it's going pretty damn well, and it will get better.

One garden shop on Hornby is kinda getting screwed by the new no right turn on hornby, and the exit for cyclists off of the south end of the bridge is kinda sketchy....oh, and the thermal expansion gaps on the bridge are ~3 inches wide and ~3 inches deep, which sucks when you're on skinny wheels and tires......

All in all, it's pretty damn good. Any issues are minor, and anyone getting worked up about it either way is, to put it in as charitable terms as possible, not focusing their energy wisely.

Why are discussions and disagreements on relevant topics seen as rants? Maybe the insults
from Brian and Dug are tainting the whole discussion.

--

I had opportunity to ride South over the bridge yesterday, and it was fantastic. Lots and lots
of cyclists and pedestrians. Years ago I used to cycle commute over the bridge and it was
sketchy. Trying it on a busy day like yesterday would have been... unpleasant.

The southbound exit is largely unchanged from how it was previously. It would make sense
for the left turn bay to be on the left side of the bike lane (sounds pretty obvious, eh?), but
that's a change beyond the scope of a few concrete dividers. Hopefully when they put in a
permanent solution, they'll figure out a better way.

As for driver satisfaction. I used to drive over that bridge all the time. Let me tell you that
Hornby and Pacific always had terrible flow. You'd always have people stopped to turn left
from Pacific (despite the few-second left turn arrow) as well as having cars stopped to turn
right, waiting for pedestrians. This would result in nobody travelling East on Pacific during a
large part of the green light.

Forcing the right a block later will substantially increase flow along Pacific (and hence the far
right Northbound lane of the bridge). During rush hour that lane is always backed up stop-
and-go well past the hump of the bridge (with people cutting in from the middle lane just
before the turn of course).

I'm confident that the changes in place will reduce driver congestion going Northbound. I wish
the city would put a student on a lawn chair to prove it, and then spread that information
publicly. If drivers could see a benefit to themselves, they'll stop complaining (as much).

"Why are discussions and disagreements on relevant topics seen as rants? Maybe the insults from Brian and Dug are tainting the whole discussion."

I thought the discussion was going fine until Dugly showed up and turned it personal.

A serious question (for anyone other than Temple). How is the trial going? It's not part of my
usual commute so I'm curious how well the traffic has adapted.

It's going wonderfully. There's little or no congestion on the bridge and everyone is adapting as
expected. If there were problems it would be all over the papers and the morning/evening traffic
reports but not a peep from them. Everybody is happy except those who predicted chaos and
gridilock.

I'm glad it's going so well (according to our scientifically accurate poll of cats in a sack) I'm not surprised at all actually, I think people are more adaptable than the "Holy smokes we'll never be able to get into downtown again!" crowd would suggest.

I used to bike over that bridge every day for work until I got hit a couple of times on the "bike lane" on Howe, from then on I drove. I'm really glad they're encouraging more biking and I do believe that more people will bike because of this. I'm not too chuffed if they're biking because it's more convenient to do so now or because their drive is less bearable.

Craig, sorry about that. Maybe on the next version of the forums they can have an "ignore" feature so you can just block me out.

m2c By m2c

It's a trick question, their are no Semi's at World Games. Plus WFDF doesn't use Observers. And I could work Semi 2 myself with a whistle and a bat.

Seriously, this is a great example of the Law of Small numbers, which is not a law but states (and this is a big paraphrase) that when you try to use the Law of Big numbers with a very small sample set you get a pointless result. The example above shows us nothing about the overall argument about the focus of law enforcement. It just kind of sounds like it should.

As has been pointed out, this post is about the bike trial, and I'm glad to hear that it is going well. As a more often vehicle driver I will be adapting to avoid the Burrard bridge going South when I can. Just doing my part.

Brian

"Seriously, this is a great example of the Law of Small numbers, which is not a law but states
(and this is a big paraphrase) that when you try to use the Law of Big numbers with a very
small sample set you get a pointless result. The example above shows us nothing about the
overall argument about the focus of law enforcement. It just kind of sounds like it should."

Evasion it is. Ok, how about my previous question. As a taxpayer, do you want to be paying for
that cop to be sitting for a couple days on a bike lane, or do you want him at a drinking-driving
road check (or maybe at a speed trap catching speeders on a busy road)?

That's really what it comes down to. I haven't heard one argument which even attempts to
suggest that it's a better use of resources.

Temple, I buy that as a taxpayer YOU don't want them used in that way. I'd quietly admit over a beer (of course not here) that in general I'd agree. But there are thousands of pissed off people who also pay taxes who DO believe that bikers are all scofflaws with a capital S. They also deserve a say in how the resources they pay for get allocated. (the same way bikers do, which justifies them having pavement devoted to them, right?)

There's nothing indefensible of their position. They have different priorities than you do. That doesn't make them irrational or idiots.

"There's nothing indefensible of their position. They have different priorities than you do. That
doesn't make them irrational or idiots."

I disagree again. When drivers want to see cyclists get targeted at the expense of preventing
automobile infractions, it's out of a sense of fairness or justice (or sometimes just
spitefulness). But equality of enforcement cannot outweigh the overall greater good of public
safety. We can't have police patrolling every block equally, regardless of crime statistics.
That's no different from devoting police resources to ticketing cyclists 'out of fairness' (again
'tickets of opportunity' are completely different from sitting a cop in a bike lane for a couple
days).

Our traffic laws exist to reduce accidents and injury. Enforcing those laws in any way which
negatively affects that overall goal is inefficient. Wanting something like that is certainly
not rational. Especially when you consider that what drivers want has a net detriment to
*drivers themselves*, there's no rationality involved.

Our roadways are dangerous enough. I'd like to see a lot more cops working to reduce
accidents and injury. Wasting one or more on targeting cyclists is a poor use of resources.

Regardless. Government should not give us what some or most want, especially not when
that causes increased risk to the population. True Democracy doesn't actually work, we'd all
pay no taxes and be allowed to fire rockets out of our cars when we see somebody cut us off.

You're making a couple of assumptions that I definitely disagree with. The most prominent one, that the rest of your argument seems to hinge on is this : "But equality of enforcement cannot outweigh the overall greater good of public safety."

This is false because first of all, this is not an issue of "equality of enforcement" this could be described as "proportionality of enforcement" or even as a public relations effort. Police don't simply work towards overall great good of public safety. While it is an important aspect of policing, it is not now, nor has it ever been the ONLY aspect of policing.

Another assumption that is not true: "Our traffic laws exist to reduce accidents and injury". The fact is much more complex than this and includes the efficient use of resources to support our economy and the implied assumption that some amount of risk and injury is acceptable. If your assumption were true then driving would be illegal full stop. We would have only specific professional drivers or a fully automated system.

my math might be a bit off here, but it's almost right.

There are 1330 constables in the VPD, assume they work 200 days a year on average, that's 266'000 days of policing. I can't remember them ever doing this in the last 10 years, so let's say 2'660'000 police days.

It's undeniable that wearing a helmet can save a life. Arguments such as that presented saying that drivers behave worse around bikers with helmets are worse don't apply on this stretch of road as there is very little traffic. Most injuries would presumably be bike vs. pavement. single vehicle (bike) kind of accidents. See link.

Bikers who split their heads open absolutely DO cost healthcare big bucks.

Devoting < 2/10^6 of policing resources to that certainly is NOT irrational. It's also not irrational to have police checking HOV lanes (not directly related to safety). There are literally thousands of hours of policing time spent on issues other than simply keeping the public "the most safe"

Do you think that bike head injuries happen for say every million traffic accidents? I'd suggest it's much higher than that, so by proportional enforcement you'd expect more time devoted to this.

start a helmet thread dudes.

If helmets are mandatory on bikes they should also be mandatory when

skiing
skateboarding
mtn climbing
ice skating
rollerblading
boxing
martial arts
and so forth

good luck with that

"Another assumption that is not true: "Our traffic laws exist to reduce accidents and injury".
The fact is much more complex than this and includes the efficient use of resources to support
our economy and the implied assumption that some amount of risk and injury is acceptable.
If your assumption were true then driving would be illegal full stop. We would have only
specific professional drivers or a fully automated system."

Best. Idea. ever.

Traffic laws are expressly for the purpose of preventing idiots from running into each other or
running someone else over. Full stop.

The idea that they should be used for P.R. efforts is so abhorrent to me I'm about ready to
bust a blood vessel. When we have police choosing who to charge with an offense or not, we
have made them judge and jury. They should either enforce the law or not and let a real court
decide innocence. Leaving it to their discretion is just creating a fertile field for corruption and
cronyism.

"True Democracy doesn't actually work, we'd all
pay no taxes and be allowed to fire rockets out of our cars when we see somebody cut us off."

Debatable. Most people wouldn't vote for such schemes.

Hyperbole.

None of your listed activities involve high speeds, pavement, and moving obstacles weighing ~one ton made of plastic and metal.

So presumably it would be OK to mountain bike without a helmet, but not to bike for
transportation sans skid lid?

I'm not saying one shouldn't wear a helmet, but if that's your criteria then a pedestrian should
have to wear a helmet to cross the street.

No, it's not 'ok'. It's wise to wear a helmet for most activities. But biking on streets is probably the most dangerous of those listed.

Pedestrians are, in theory, separated from traffic on sidewalks and crosswalks. Bikes are not.

"But biking on streets is probably the most dangerous of those listed."

Stats please.

"Pedestrians are, in theory, separated from traffic on sidewalks and crosswalks. Bikes are not."

So pedestrians should only wear helmets when walking on rural roads? :-)

Most pedestrians accidents happen in crosswalks.

Of course, the real funny part of this discussion is that most brain injuries are a result of car
crashes. The only thing more more dangerous than no bike helmet is driving w/out a helmet!

"Pedestrians are, in theory, separated from traffic on sidewalks and crosswalks. Bikes are
not."

A stat interjection:

http://vancouver.ca/police/operations/traffic/stats_index.html

Over the 5 year period of 2001-2005 pedestrians were involved in accidents where police were
called 1399 times versus 585 times when cyclists were involved.

3 cyclists died (0.5% of collisions), but 71 pedestrians died (5.1% of collisions). The reason
cyclists are required to wear helmets is because they'll accept it. That 71 number probably
would have been lower if they were all wearing helmets, but that's not something that people
are ever going to do as it's completely impractical. Our society shouldn't spend money on
armouring citizens when doing the theoretically safe activity of *walking*. If it's that serious
(and it may be), they have to solve the cause of the problem.

"Our society shouldn't spend money on armouring citizens when doing the theoretically safe
activity of *walking*. If it's that serious (and it may be), they have to solve the cause of the
problem."

I agree completely. But to change the way things are, we need to step outside the 'dominant
paradigm' and ask ourselves why we are forced to protect ourselves from cars users instead
of car users being held responsible for their failure to drive with respect for all road users. The
penalties for dangerous driving are a joke. Could it be that giving drivers primacy and relying
on cars for personal transportation was a huge mistake. I certainly think so. The destruction
of ecosystems and cities to support this terrible idea is proof positive of the flawed thinking
that puts cars first.

I was almost run over last week by a young woman who refused to slow down for me when I
walked across the road at Fraser and Tenth. She didn't even have to stop, simply slowing
down would have given me ample time to cross the lane she was in, as she was a block away
when I began to cross the street. Note that pedestrians have the right of way at intersections.
Instead I had to jump back out of the way to avoid being run over. I can only hope the
damage caused by my keys bouncing off her car door may serve as a reminder that not all of
us are willing to be the bee-yotch of reckless drivers.

The cause of the problem is deep-rooted and lies partially in our shared hallucination that the
ability to travel long distances at high speed has improved our lives. In fact, this belief is
probably wrong and is definitely in large part responsible for the fracturing of families, the
carnage on the roads, and the decreased civility that is increasingly the norm in today's
society.

And that's why initiatives such as the one on Burrard Bridge are both great steps forward...
and the recipient of so much hostility. It's a herald of a world we can't imagine unless we are
willing to question the status quo in a big way. A world (mostly) without cars will be the best
thing that ever happened to the planet in a long time.

I'm not sure how pedestrians have the right of way at an intersection when they are jaywalking. There is no crosswalk at Fraser and 10th.

I'm not sure how people can get a license without knowing the one of the most basic rules of the
road. Pedestrians have the right to cross at intersections whether there's lines on the road or not.

"Yield to pedestrians crossing the street even if the crosswalk is not marked."

(excerpted from link below)

Also the defn of a "crosswalk" is not necessarily a marked crossing:
(from Motor Vehicle Act)
(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface.

An intersection, alone, constitutes a crosswalk.

You seriously didn't already know this?

CK: you still did not have the right of way. Yes, she should have slowed down because you were already there, and to not do so would be vehicular homicide.

Mom: I think you are misinterpreting the MVA. As I read it, it states "a portion of the roadway (at an intersection or elsewhere) distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface."

Otherwise, what is the purpose of having the dozens/hundreds of pedestrian-controlled stoplights throughout this city? If any intersection is a crosswalk, and all drivers are forced to stop for pedestrians, that would create far more traffic problems than this one lane bike trial.

No misinterpretation here.

The law requires that Drivers exercise care for the safety of pedestrians WHEREVER they may be crossing.

Pedestrians have the right-of-way within a marked OR UNMARKED crosswalk at an intersection with a stop sign or yield sign, and at an OPEN intersection.

Drivers must yield to a pedestrian. Pedestrians should always exercise caution when entering an intersection where drivers are not required to stop.

Crossing BETWEEN intersections is a hazardous practice and, if done, pedestrians must first yield the right-of-way to all vehicles.

Stump, if you're going to quote that Driver Tip from from the vancouver.ca website, the driver who's car you potentially damaged could easily quote this Pedestrian Tip: "Make eye contact with drivers and wait for cars to stop".

Mom, does not that quote from the MVA include the phrase "distinctly indicated ... by signs or ... markings on the surface"? I did not believe an intersection alone was considered a crosswalk, especially across a road where cars have no stop-signs (like Fraser, at 10th). Yes, drivers need to exercise due care, but they're not obligated to stop, AFAIK.

"Pedestrians have the right-of-way within a marked OR UNMARKED crosswalk at an intersection with a stop sign or yield sign, and at an OPEN intersection."

With a stop sign or yield sign, yes. But not crossing Fraser, where there are no such signs, nor any markings of any kind. How do you define an open intersection?

To say that the law requires drivers to exercise care does not constitute right of way. Again, as I stated before, it's simply to avoid vehicular manslaughter, which the driver could then say "but I had the right of way, so I'm allowed to run them over."

It's no wonder ulty players don't know the rules. Nobody bothers to look.

--

BC MVA:

180) When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian
must yield the right of way to a vehicle.

1) "highway" (b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by
the general public for the passage of vehicles, and

119) "crosswalk" (a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere **distinctly
indicated** for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or

--

Pedestrians must yield the right of way to vehicles when not in a crosswalk. Note, that at an
intersection where a vehicle has a stop sign or light, the car does not have the right of way
regardless. This is why there are no crosswalks at stop signs.

"Make eye contact with drivers and wait for cars to stop."

Hard to do when the car is a block away. By law and by the basic tenets of a civil society she
should have given way. End of story y'all.

Temple, you only quoted one part of section 119. Please note subsection b:

"crosswalk" means

(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian
crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the
lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of
the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in
the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;

In other words, by walking from the southeast side of Fraser and Tenth to the southwest side
(as I was doing) I was acting lawfully.

Worth mentioning there was a red light at Twelfth at the time, which was a factor in my
deciding to cross the street at that time. I wasn't even impeding her progress. I do make it a
point to wait for a break in traffic before crossing the street, out of courtesy to other road
users, just as I will look up and down the road I'm crossing on my bike before deciding to hit
the button to activate the crossing signals. If there's a break in traffic coming up I wait and
take advantage of it, rather than stop traffic in both directions.

Oh, and she was probably speeding if my inner radar gun is reasonably accurate.

There are stop signs on Tenth at Fraser btw.

"By law and by the basic tenets of a civil society she should have given way. End of story y'all."

Not by law.

please reread subsection b Temple.

and note section 181 which puts the onus to prevent running someone over on the driver.

181 Despite sections 178, 179 and 180, a driver of a vehicle must

(a) exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway,
(b) give warning by sounding the horn of the vehicle when necessary, and

It's pretty obvious that people here are picturing Stump jumping out in front of a moving car, without giving it enough time to stop, and hucking his keys at her when she didn't stop. I admit, I pictured the same thing at first. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt :)

The fact is, she should have slowed down and didn't.

"Otherwise, what is the purpose of having the dozens/hundreds of pedestrian-controlled
stoplights throughout this city?"

To create a safe space for walkers that even the most thick-headed driver is likely to respect.

"If any intersection is a crosswalk, and all drivers are forced to stop for pedestrians, that
would create far more traffic problems than this one lane bike trial.''

Utter nonsense. For starters the protected lane trial isn't really creating traffic problems.
Further, A 5 or 10 second delay isn't going to affect traffic at all. People need to actually look
at the roads and see just how little traffic congestion there is. Go stand anywhere on
Broadway at any time of day and notice how often there are few or no cars travelling on the
road for a couple of blocks in either direction. Go stand on the Cambie bridge or Granville
bridge and do the same thing. Go look at Hwy 1 at any time other than rush hour and note
how much unused public space is being apportioned for the use of cars... to meet a couple of
hours of peak demand for SOVs. We are wasting huge amounts of space on an inefficient,
costly, and dangerous method of travel. Our great-grandchildren will look upon us as idiots.

Additionally, stopping for a pedestrian is faster than waiting for a traffic light. All you have to
do is miss the amber at one intersection and you've spent about 90 seconds stationary.
Average speed for a car in the city is 20kph, whether you speed or not, because by speeding
all you do is screw yourself out of riding the 'green wave' of lights turning green sequentially.

All you have to do is shake off the zoom-zoom brainwashing and imagine what our
transportation system would look like if we had thousands of mini-buses plying our streets to
realize we could have professionally-driven uncrowded buses on every single bus route,
running every few minutes (or even more frequently) 24/7 for probably less money in toto
than we currently spend on a non-sustainable, ecologically destructive system where SOVs
driven by barely competent amateurs sit idle for 22 hours of the day.

Next time you see a police officer, I urge you to ask them about the right-of-way ruling for crossing a street at an unmarked, uncontrolled intersection. I would be interested to know, as there seems to be some ambiguity in the MVA. I will do the same.

Further, I can't for a minute believe that a car-centred society would allow a lowly pedestrian to march straight across a road with nary a sign or line to indicate that they are allowed to do so. Were that the case, all of those thick-headed drivers would be rather confused.

You can believe whatever you want, but there's zero ambiguity w/r/t to the law in this
instance. Do you really believe the people who draft the wording are going to allow ambiguity
in a legal statute? Do you really believe the lawyer whose web page is linked below is going
to allow themselves to make a blanket statement on an ambiguous law and open themselves
up to a lawsuit or lost court case? You can't get a lawyer to make a definitive statement on
anything unless it's a dead cert. Their entire training revolves around proving 'beyond a
reasonable doubt' not 'kinda think so'. You couldn't get a lawyer to confirm today is sunny
unless they were either standing outside or looking out a window, and in the second instance
they'd probably still preface their remarks with a caveat... and that's exactly how it should
be.

I quote:
"The driver of a vehicle must give the right of way to a pedestrian who is in a crosswalk."

Intersections (marked or unmarked) are considered crosswalks. Peds have right of way in
crosswalks. It's that simple. I don't need to talk to the VPD to know this. Just consider
yourself a bit smarter and let it go.

"Were that the case, all of those thick-headed drivers would be rather confused."

That is exactly the case and pedestrian fatality statistics confirm it.

Sigh.

Your thinly veiled insult about my new education aside, I have yet to see anything that unequivocally states that intersections, marked or unmarked, are crosswalks. Your linking of a lawyer's website saying something that everyone here agrees upon, that a pedestrian has right-of-way at a crosswalk, means absolutely nothing and does not add anything of value to this discussion. Find me a useful link and I'll be happy to look at it.

The issue that we are debating is whether or not an unmarked intersection, such as Fraser and 10th, is considered a crosswalk. It seems as though the MVA can be read a couple of different ways, which baffles me as it is supposed to be the letter of the law, so don't go getting all high and mighty that your opinion is correct simply because you believe it to be so.

If you wish to continue to demand the right of way at these sorts of intersections, I wish you the best of luck. On the rare occasions when I need to drive a car, I will continue to not yield to those pedestrians unless doing so would be unsafe. Something tells me I won't be pulled over for it, as all of our police will be too busy giving tickets to cyclists not wearing helmets.

Keam: "By law and by the basic tenets of a civil society she should have given way. End of
story y'all."

Temple: "Not by law."

Keam: "Intersections (marked or unmarked) are considered crosswalks."

Injured Ninja: "I have yet to see anything that unequivocally states that intersections, marked
or unmarked, are crosswalks."

BC MVA 119.1.b) "crosswalk" means: the portion of a highway at an intersection that is
included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the
highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the
highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the
roadway;

--

Turns out I was wrong, and Keam, you're absolutely correct. Crosswalks are present all all
intersections, whether marked or not.

I should have taken my own advice and read the fraking rules.

Drivers should stop/slow down for pedestrians looking to cross at such intersections because:
"A 5 or 10 second delay isn't going to affect traffic at all."

From the Scofflaw Cyclist article:
" "Why do cyclists run red lights?" There are several reasons I've heard (safety in getting ahead of traffic and in-street sensors which do not detect cyclists, for example) but the basic answer is a classic risk/reward scenario. Jaybikers are calculating that the reward of keeping momentum or gaining the early start outweighs the risk of being caught or hit. "

So they're saving 5 or 10 seconds, no? Hmmm...

Temple, I'm surprised by 119.1.b, too, and am still digesting that.

I think a huge percentage of the population (90%+) believe that unmarked intersections do not have 'crosswalks', at least as most people understand that term.

I agree. I'm not sure I'd feel safe relying on that added bit of knowledge either. But I will feel
more comfortable crossing such areas where perviously I thought I was (very cautiously)
jaywalking.

appreciate the mea culpa Temple.

Not sure what your point is Tubster. You're going to have to be a little more plain.

"Your thinly veiled insult about my new education aside"

Honestly, it wasn't an insult. It was a piece of friendly advice. I was trying to give you an 'out'
where you didn't lose face.

"I think a huge percentage of the population (90%+) believe that unmarked intersections do not
have 'crosswalks', at least as most people understand that term."

Agree completely. Also, it's an indicator that we need to spend more time and money on driver
education, not wasting it on bicycle registration or cyclists' licences, or helmet crackdowns when
we have much, much bigger fish to fry in terms of the public good.

My point is that you think it's all well and good for cyclists to break laws to save a few seconds, but when it comes to motorists, they should just slow down and/or stop for pedestrians at these unmarked crosswalks because, hey, it's just a few seconds.

Side note, I heard they were changing the law so that cyclists no longer have to wear helmets, but instead wear the halos they think they all have.

I'd be interested to know how many cyclists stop at the stop signs during a pedestrian-controlled crossing (eg: 10th and Commercial), rather than flying right through. I suspect the number is somewhere near the <1% range.

Yeah, I think you're right on that one, IN.

Drivers often ignore stop signs in that case, too. A couple of years ago I was waiting to turn left (in my car) at a stop sign onto Denman, with a pedestrian controlled light on Denman. The light turned red as a car was coming towards the stop sign on the other side. I proceeded to turn, assuming he'd stop at the sign, but he blasted right through it, honking his horn as he swerved behind me. I've seen that many times since -- the stop sign 'disappears' for many drivers at pedestrian controlled lights.

Tubster:

We don't want halos. We want crowns! With jewels. And a sceptre. Guess what? I don't think
cyclists should be treated the same as cars. I think bikers should get special, preferential
treatment, since they're not as wasteful of precious fossil fuels as drivers! I'm sure you will
find that a bitter pill. So it goes. Peds/transit/commercial vehicles/bikes/motorbikes/cars
should be the way we prioritize road space.

But seriously, see if you can spot the difference between a cyclist riding through an empty
intersection and a motorist not stopping for pedestrians in a crosswalk.

Injured Ninja:

I use the 10th Commercial intersection at least four times a week at rush hour (morning and
afternoon). Compliance by cyclists there (stopping at the intersection before crossing) is
almost universal in my experience, on account of that whole getting run over by a car factor,
which has a funny way to tempering people's haste. Same with 10th and Fraser, which
doesn't have lights.

Or do you think cyclists and cars are supposed to stop there regardless of what the lights say?
That's an interesting perspective. If you can find a definitive answer I would be interested to
read it. Remember, there's a button for cyclists to push there as well, which would indicate to
me that traffic may be permitted to travel through the intersection without stopping, just as a
pedestrian isn't expected to stop at the curb, but has the right to just keep walking across.

"My point is that you think it's all well and good for cyclists to break laws to save a few
seconds,
but when it comes to motorists, they should just slow down and/or stop for pedestrians at
these
unmarked crosswalks because, hey, it's just a few seconds."

Nope. drivers should slow down and stop because they might seriously hurt or injure someone.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges just to win an Internet debate, but we're talking
about real situations with real consequences. Have you ever seen a kid get hit by a car? I
have. Twice. Have you ever had to watch a television interview of people grieving their lost
child or father, or mother, or other relative because some numbskull couldn't operate their
vehicle safely? I have... too many times to count. Funny how watching and listening to the
unedited tape of a Mom and Dad whose lives are smashed to pieces by the loss of their child
due to bad driving will affect your perspective. I hope it's something you never
have to know from personal experience.

Pages