Burrard Bridge Trial Makes Bridge Safer

175 posts / 0 new
Last post

I use that intersection 5 days a week, as well. I was not referring to going through the intersection when the light is green for Commercial traffic, I was referring to when the Little White Man is doing his thing (or more often, the Blinking Orange Hand of Hurry the Hell Up). In that circumstance, and at all other intersections in similar scenarios (of which there are many along the entire 10th avenue route), compliance is the opposite of universal.

"Or do you think cyclists and cars are supposed to stop there regardless of what the lights say?"

There are no lights at these intersections that pertain to cyclists or other motor vehicles. The only lights are for pedestrians (walk/don't walk). Yes, there is a button for cyclists to activate the light, but presumably if you are using that button you have already stopped, AS THE STOP SIGN REQUIRES. Stop signs do not pertain to pedestrians.

So you think, that when the Little White Man is on, that cars are allowed to travel through the intersection unimpeded?? I am terrified at that prospect. Say a pedestrian is crossing the intersection, which as you have stated over and over again as fact is completely legal. Surely they are not expecting to be run over by a car because there is a stop sign.

An interesting perspective indeed. If you can find a definitive answer as to why vehicles are allowed to not stop at stop signs, I would be interested to read it.

"So you think, that when the Little White Man is on, that cars are allowed to travel through
the
intersection unimpeded??"

I don't know. I'm waiting for you to provide a link or something similar which will answer the
question definitively. I did the legwork on the intersection question n'est-ce pas?

Certainly the current common practice is traffic (bikes, cars, etc) traveling in the same
direction
as the pedestrians crossing the street travels through the intersection without stopping. I've
never seen a cop issue a ticket for it and it's not addressed in the pedestrian activated lights
section of the MVA AFAIK.

Would love to know the answer and hope you will share any further info with the rest of us.

"Say a pedestrian is crossing the intersection, which as you have stated over and over again
as fact is completely legal."

It's not legal to cross against the pedestrian signals i.e. the Don't Walk indicator. Earlier we
were discussing uncontrolled, unmarked intersections (crosswalks) where a different set of
rules applies. Appropriate section of MVA below.

Pedestrian controls
132 (1) When the word "walk" or an outline of a walking person is exhibited at an
intersection by a pedestrian traffic control signal, a pedestrian may proceed across the
roadway in the direction of the signal in a marked or unmarked crosswalk and has the right of
way over all vehicles in the intersection or any adjacent crosswalk.

(2) When the word "walk" or an outline of a walking person is exhibited at a place other than
an intersection by a pedestrian traffic control signal, a pedestrian may proceed across the
roadway in the direction of the signal and has the right of way over all vehicles.
(3) When the word "wait", the words "don't walk" or an outline of a raised hand are exhibited
at an intersection or at a place other than an intersection by a pedestrian traffic control
signal,
(a) a pedestrian must not enter the roadway, and
(b) a pedestrian proceeding across the roadway and facing the word "wait", the words "don't
walk", or an outline of a raised hand exhibited after he or she entered the roadway
(i) must proceed to the sidewalk as quickly as possible, and
(ii) has the right of way for that purpose over all vehicles

Stopping at intersections

186 Except when a peace officer directs otherwise, if there is a stop sign at an intersection, a driver of a vehicle must stop

(a) at the marked stop line, if any,

(b) before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or

(c) when there is neither a marked crosswalk nor a stop line, before entering the intersection, at the point nearest the intersecting highway from which the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting highway.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

And I'll take back the pedestrian entering the intersection against the red light. Not the section you quoted, but section 129.

"Seems pretty cut and dry to me."

Yep. Would certainly make sense for cars to obey that rule. Not that I've seen it happen. All the
more reason to change the traffic laws to let bikes treat stop signs as yields and stop lights as
'proceed if safe' signals IMO.

Finally something we can agree upon.

I haven't seen any increased traffic on the Burrard bridge in my daily commute (bus or by bike).

also, we used to take off our rollerblades at the middle each time but now it's safe enough to blade on and off the bridge without worry about dodging bikes or being shouldered into traffic..

front page of the province has an grumpy editorial about Critical Mass, calling for the cops to intervene, presumably with truncheons and tasers.

Must be hugely disappointing that there was no "Burrard Fracas" as predicted so they're attempting to put gas on the fire with this editorial.

Circulation is down! Quick! Stir up some controversy!

Especially considering that Burrard is, as far as I know, almost always used in the CM rides.

That said, I pity the poor drivers who get stuck waiting for thousands of cyclists to meander through the downtown core. Not a nice way to spend 20 minutes in the heat.

Maybe if critical mass stuck to the bike lanes, didn't block traffic and obeyed laws it would get more support. I bike to work every day and I think critical mass is ridiculous. There are other ways to go about your message. This is coming from a guy who was hit by a van this week when he didn't shoulder check and veered into the bike lane and side swiped me downtown.

Hear hear, Squiggsy. I'm with you on that one. It was cool to see that many bikes in one spot, but I felt like a hypocrite riding through red lights and distrupting traffic. I bailed as soon as I could and haven't gone back since.

Like a lot of people I'm conflicted regarding CM.

However, I would point out that blocking cross traffic and keeping the Mass together by
running red lights (known as 'corking')actually reduces the total amount of time drivers are
inconvenienced.

Also, remember this is an example of some basic tenets of democracy at work. The right to
protest, to peacefully assemble, to use public space without having to submit an itinerary to
an authority figure.

Further, keep in mind that this weekend's Pride Parade is actually the evolution of a riot
(Stonewall) and shows how far we have come in a short time. Remember the suffragettes
marching for the vote? Roundly vilified by polite society back in the day, yet the idea that
women aren't property and deserve the right to cast a ballot is without debate now, just a
century later.

Critical Mass will undoubtedly disappear or change when the concerns of its participants are
adequately addressed. Sacrificing hard-won civil rights to address the issue of a rolling street
closure that happens once a month and lasts for about 15 minutes (in any one particular
location) seems like a pretty high price to pay to prop up a transport system that is clearly no
longer the right solution to our needs.

I'm also divided on the CM issue. I'm sure that if they obeyed all of the laws etc. (ie: didn't block intersections) drivers would be less irate, although that would also break up the procession and allow cars to become interspersed, which would lessen the impact and could become dangerous. However, I think that one factor that reduces its impact is the party atmosphere created by people wearing costumes, riding crazy bikes, reportedly (though could be a fallacy) drinking and toking en route and so on. This makes it into a big counter-culture party that's disrupting people's lives rather than showing that cyclists are a significant portion of the population and that they deserve a place at the transportation table.

" the party atmosphere created by people wearing costumes, riding crazy bikes, reportedly
(though could be a fallacy) drinking and toking en route and so on."

Take away the bikes and you're describing the area around GM and BC Place before a Lions or
Canucks game!

This is one of the most polarizing issues in Vancouver today. Fantastic.

Agreed there is a right to peaceful protest. Agreed that ~25% of the riders make a bad name for the whole intent of the event. I'm really glad this has been publicized this time around, so that there's more awareness and hopefully less traffic at 6 o'clock downtown.

Just to reiterate something Biker CK touched on several posts back - the 'right' to drive in a single occupant vehicle is a myth.

The same, that the right to drive is a myth, could be said for bicycles. Not operating a bicycle, which is also a single occupant vehicle, in a safe manner may not be as dangerous as a tonne of steel and plastic, but it is dangerous nonetheless, especially when doing so in traffic amongst said tonnes.

Don't forget that the biggest hindrance to public health, safety and traffic flow in the city is the tens of thousands of single occupant vehicles that crawl through this city every day - not a once-a-month protest ride.

Until Translink starts putting tolls on every bridge to get more money. That's one way to kill the number of SOVs.

"The same, that the right to drive is a myth, could be said for bicycles."

Choice of transportation is not a right, however, we do have the right (under the Canadian
charter) to peaceful assembly and freedom of association and also also to some extent with
regard to this issue, the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

Basically, no individual who is not under a court order should be expected to file a travel plan
with the police. Critical Mass is a thorny issue for the bigger questions regarding our society that
it raises, especially in regulating the treacherous ground where personal freedom, public
responsibility, and the right of free speech all collide.

I will rudely insert some facts into the debate.

Subsidies for auto use in Vancouver accounts for 42% of total cost. Next time somebody tells
you the drivers are paying for everyone else, please point them to the link below

One idea:

A committee of concerned citizens, including undercover police officers, whose objective is to maintain the monthly Mass, and reduce conflicts and potential injuries.

This committee participates in all masses and corks appropriately (so they'd need to number ~30 riders?) along a pre-planned route that the police have already flagged...

...okay the idea is not well thought out just yet!!

Not being a regular cyclist, and not a fan of CM, this is something I could get on board with....

http://criticalmanners.wordpress.com/

I'm not a fan of CM, but from the perspective of a pedestrian. I don't mind the idea of it, but
I've had problems with its execution.

Of the two times I've needed to cross a road that had CMers on it, both times I was nearly
struck by multiple cyclists. It makes you shake your head that those auspiciously fighting for the
road to be shared are running into people at crosswalks.

There are a lot of good intentions at CM, but there are a lot of idiots who are just there to screw
around, and don't pay attention to where they're going.

CK Do you have more up to date information than the link you posted?
Also, do you know where I can look to find details as to where money collected in gas tax and/or tax in general gets spent?

"Of the two times I've needed to cross a road that had CMers on it, both times I was nearly struck by multiple cyclists. It makes you shake your head that those auspiciously fighting for the road to be shared are running into people at crosswalks. "

I take your point in principle on pedestrians crossing during the CM.
This is possible on narrow roads if CM is slow moving or bottle necked.
In an ideal world CM would stop for all pedestrians and perhaps even buses.

However of all the incidents i witnessed yesterday the most dangerous of them were pedestrians trying to walk (some though ignorance of the danger some though defiance of CM) through the CM peleton, its just too dangerous for all involved.
But most pedestrians did wisely waited cross the road. As frustating as it may be to wait CM is best treated as a single vechicle.

You don't see any irony in the fact that the event staged to raise awareness on the dangers
faced by cyclists on the road actually makes it less safe for the even more disadvantaged
pedestrians?

Way, way, way more pedestrians are killed every year on the roads. Where's the concern for
safety by the CMassers?

"However of all the incidents i witnessed yesterday the most dangerous of them were
pedestrians trying to walk (some though ignorance of the danger some though defiance of
CM) through the CM peleton, its just too dangerous for all involved. "

When the little white man says walk, pedestrians have right of way. Many of the CMassers
recognize that, many don't.

If it's too dangerous to walk through a crosswalk because of Critical Mass, then there's a
problem with Critical Mass, not pedestrians.

I think much of Critical Mass is an excuse to screw around. I'm certainly warming to the idea
of Critical Manners. Though I'd think there's a happy medium between the two for safe and
effective protest.

“You don't see any irony in the fact that the event staged to raise awareness on the dangers faced by cyclists on the road actually makes it less safe for the even more disadvantaged pedestrians?”

-I love irony & I do see it. However it lasts for 10-15mins during a celebration/protest.

“Way, way, way more pedestrians are killed every year on the roads. Where's the concern for safety by the CMassers?”

-Killed by cars! So any appeal to cars drivers to be more aware of other commuters seems to address this matter.

“When the little white man says walk, pedestrians have right of way”
-..as do cars when the lights are green etc. expect for 10-15mins of every month when CM occurs!

“Many of the CMassers recognize that, many don't.”

-And that is a fine point. When this occurs in front of the mass fine CM stops. When this occurs in the middle of the Mass (that should be treated as one vehicle) the problem occurs. Anybody crossing through the middle of a mass of independently controlled vehicles will encounter difficulties, but in the case of pedestrians/CM it occurs with increased risk but usually safely.

Take the tour de france, ( not a perfect analogy but the best I can think of) sure pedestrians can cross the road on cross walks or not heck they can even stand in the middle of the road on the uphills if they want. But crossing in the middle of the peloton is plain silly and common sense usually prevails. However every year a pedestrian will step in front of a bicycle and get hurt (as does the cyclist). This year on the tour an old lady stepped in front of a motorcycle and died as a result of her injuries. As tragic as this incident is the blame can only lie with the old lady. ( I believe the motorcycle swerved to try and avoid the contact which occurred on the road)

Last night police motorcycles were flanking and speeding up the sides of the CM, aka Tour de France style.

Where does this leave pedestrians?

I still believe it’s possible for pedestrians to safely cross the CM at certain times & places, and I encourage it, as I do CM stopping/giving way to pedestrians. But to step out into the middle of CM and then blame the one rider who is a split second too late or has not space to avoid you for the incident is silly.

“Critical Manners”

As much as i love rules i realise that CM is run by the lack of them or structure. Therefore common sense and patience seem wiser approach. The police seem to have worked that one out, which is great. ( side note - I was impressed with how the police handled the event)

“Though I'd think there's a happy medium between the two for safe and effective protest.”

-As far as i know nobody was injured (correct me if i’m wrong)

-the protest/celebration is certainly all over the news. Which is interesting, the press loved hyping the event up and then when it’s peaceful they ignore it.

"Killed by cars! So any appeal to cars drivers to be more aware of other commuters seems
to address this matter."

So, an appeal to car drivers that endangers pedestrians is good for pedestrians? Rich.

Also, comparing CMass to the Tour de France is an abysmally poor analogy.

"But to step out into the middle of CM and then blame the one rider who is a split second too
late or has not space to avoid you for the incident is silly."

You've painted my actions as taking an unavoidable position. That's something you assumed,
and it's incredibly far from the truth. The two times I've had to cross the CM, I've done so
slowly and safely. Each time there were multiple people not looking where they were riding
(literally) and I had to shout and jump out of the way. As an aside, there's no circumstances
(even ped vs car in a crosswalk) where you have the right to jump in front of somebody
without time for them to react.

If CMassers do expect pedestrians to wait, then they need to have their 'corkers'
blocking off the crosswalks as well. Otherwise, as a whole, the process is inherently unsafe.
They're not doing this though.

--

It's the height of irony that bikes in that instance are on what they consider to be 'their road'
and as such expect no other conveyances to be present (peds can walk somewhere else, but
not on my road). They're guilty of distracted driving, obliviousness of their surrounds, and
carelessness towards others. (Sound familiar?)

Expecting pedestrians to wait 20-30 minutes (10min are you kidding me?) for the mass to
clear is unreasonable, unless your idea of CMass is just to cause anarchy and mass
inconvenience to citizenry, and not to wage effective bike vs auto protest. Which is it? Piss
everybody off, or inconvenience drivers one day a month in order to raise awareness? Which
do you think is more effective pro-bike action?

Even if you do expect pedestrians to wait (and let's say you put safety measures in place to
request/ensure that), you still have a situation where the vehicles are being operated unsafely
and without concern for others who may actually be on the road (not jumping out
unavoidably of course).

CMassers aren't using the roads responsibly, they're wallowing in the mud puddle of taboo.
They seem to get a high off owning the road during CM. It's so much like the cult of
entitlement to the road that car drivers have as to be funny.

I buy into cyclists being more aware of where they are going and their fellow users, and yea your description sounds close to accurate and not dissimilar to drivers. The only difference lies in the speed and level of danger to all involved.

I wonder how people guage the number of people on the ride? I gather it was probably the largest of the year. I guess wait times & spacing varied across town. However efforts were made to condense the mass and clarify the route on a couple of occasions.

Certainly CMass does cause a degree of anarchy and mass inconvenience to citizenry, and a little joy and frivolity too. (I know you weren’t feeling it temple but others were)

I believe in corking pedestrian crossings where it is an issue, like at the bottom of hills where the speed of the CM increases. (which i did). By and large pedestrian crossing wasn’t a consistent problem.

Like I said in ‘124’ I’m open to improvements in integration of pedestrians and buses but I doubt it will happen or if it would be any safer.

On safety, yet to hear of any incidents!!!! I rode for 2 1/2 hours, last night and didn’t have a ‘close call’ with a car (or ped). And yet on most of my shortly daily rides something ‘interesting’ happens.

The cult of entitlement to the road is funny, I think of it as reclaiming the road for a couple of hours, before giving it up again to cars.

Is a protest an effective use of the road?

Good question. The same question can be asked of gasoline powered traffic in downtown.

It certainly sounds like a fine goal.

Again - A non-biker who is for bikers rights and alternative transportation ideas etc...yadda yadda yadda.

And I also realize that no matter how many "Biker without a helmet blew through a 4-way stop, gave me the finger and then turned onto a sidewalk" stories there are that majority of bikers are better than that and even with all the idiots on bikes they are casuing less damage to others than cars.

However, the Critical Mass is an example of somthing that might have been started for a good reason, but is being taken over by an element that will ruin any positive impact it could have. When the media only covers CM in terms of how dangerous and annoying it is (most of the news reports I saw Friday) then the organizers have to ask themselves what is the point?

This is turning into nothing more than a Critical Mob and if it keeps up then some old lady crossing at a light is going to get hurt or killed (yes, cars kill way more people, but if this happened then it would be such a "Man Bites Dog" story it would be everywhere) and then what?

So the people behind CM (if there are any) need to backup and realize that if what they want is more respect, more bike infrastructure and more whatever else they better get a hold of this event.

And how about this for a suggestion - Critical Mass just like it is, but obay the rules of the road. If there are 1000 bikers going through downtown, but they wait at the lights and obay the rules of the road then what can people say? Sure it would mess up traffic (and thus cause some of the focus they are looking for), but it is much harder for a news reporter to come down hard on you if you are not doing anything wrong. As it is, it's just too easy to call everyone involved thugs.

So step up! Slow down. When you stop at a red light hand out flyers to peds and car drivers. You will still make a splash, and even more so if you could get a large number of bikers to act this way.

m2c

I have been thinking the same thing. Critical Manners seems to go a little too far in that they
are keeping to bike lanes. I like the idea of blocking off an entire direction of a street, but
completely legally. It would still cause a disruption to traffic as you state, but have so much less
negativity.

I wonder what would happen if the CMassers tried this just one month as an experiment. The
news would probably be all over it, but this time in a good way.

Why did the local government and press make such a big fuss about CM this time?

Call me crazy ( i might be) but I think politicians/planners have worked out that CM will occur during a key friday evening in the last week of the Olympics. I’ve not checked out which events might be disrupted (hockey & access to the cypress I’m guessing) So they’ve stoked up the matter last week to gauge public opinion on what to do about this matter. In the past there has not been much trouble and relatively speaking the press coverage last week did not match the level of disruption/trouble caused. I’m not sure how the bylaws they passed recently affect CM/public gathering during the Olympics?

That is probably why politicians have been making a fuss about - predetermined routes / the lack of leadership of CM to work with to plan routes/manners etc. They don’t want a uncontrollable mass of 3000 people embarrassing the government / Vancouver by high lighting the short comings of the city.... the list is long enough as it is!

What I feel they should do is a quick consultation with other major city officials (Budapest for one) who have worked with CM and turned into in into a celebration of cycling, with a very positive spin on the event. This will only make it more popular and increase numbers! but at least they avoid the negative world press, which is what they really fear.
However there is snow/ice/rain to reduce rider numbers. (snow is the last thing Vancouver needs during the olympics!)

Frankly I can’t see why the city wouldn’t want to encourage locals & visitors on to bikes to reduce the inevitable 14 day gridlock! They did go to all the expense, and hassle of making the Olympic village LEED certified, why not embrace the whole movement?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that the whole ordeal is getting longer and longer?
Perhaps it was once a 10-15 min inconvenience. However the 'mass' took over 30 minutes to
pass any given point in June, and about as long in July. Don't forget that it crisscrossed
several times through downtown.

At that point it's not merely an awareness raising inconvenience. It's a serious blockade of the
city.

I'm all for the idea behind the protest, and I'd like to see a sensible Critical Mass during the
Olympics, but not if it means effectively shutting down all traffic in the downtown core for
several hours. That's not acceptable to the general population on many different levels.

I think making a link from CM to the Olympics to Gov't control of all media sources is making things a little more evil then they are.

It is more resonable to think that July 31 had great weather and thus resulted in the largest (??) CM to date + the Burrard Bridge has put bikers rights higher up in the mind of most people, news organizations included.

However, even if there is a conspiracy, what are the CM people going to do about it?? If the CM in Aug to Feb is going to be news, then they have a great chance to take advantage of the coverage to help their cause. Take advantage and prosper, devolve into a good idea controled by a minority of punks and you will lose out.

Choice is up to you. I would be fully supportive of a legal CM on Feb 26th. It would show the world that Vancouver supports alternative transportation methods.

m2c

m2c

I think making a link from CM to the Olympics to Gov't control of all media sources is making things a little more evil then they are.

It is more resonable to think that July 31 had great weather and thus resulted in the largest (??) CM to date + the Burrard Bridge has put bikers rights higher up in the mind of most people, news organizations included.

However, even if there is a conspiracy, what are the CM people going to do about it?? If the CM in Aug to Feb is going to be news, then they have a great chance to take advantage of the coverage to help their cause. Take advantage and prosper, devolve into a good idea controled by a minority of punks and you will lose out.

Choice is up to you. I would be fully supportive of a legal CM on Feb 26th. It would show the world that Vancouver supports alternative transportation methods.

m2c

m2c

If a CM ever takes place where they stop at red lights and don't employ corking, I'm all for it and will definitely participate. Until that day, I'll remain embarrassed that CM is one of the most prominent cyclists' rights events in our city. It just gives us a bad name.

Check out Critical Manners. August 14th.

http://criticalmanners.wordpress.com/

Anybody interested in fielding a VUL contingent?

For all of the cynics.

Oh you just wait til September when all the 'real' traffic starts again!
And wait til the weather turns crappy and all those cyclists go back to their cars!
And wait for me to quit my carpool, drive myself, get stuck in traffic, then whine about the traffic YOU'VE created with your bike lane!

/sarcasm.

Agreed. First it was just wait until the trial starts. But nothing happened. Now it's just wait until
September. My prediction is the increased volume will dissipate quickly... if it ever materializes
on the Bur. Brdg. in the fall

The car-huggers are starting to look like cliched Doomsday prophets, their placards festooned
with a series of crossed out Armageddons that have come and gone without the slightest hint of
fire or brimstone.

If we all had one of these, we wouldn't need no stinkin' bike lanes!

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/about+cyclists+motorists+urban+suburb...

"The critical mess that is critical mass without critical manners isn't really about cyclists versus motorists. It's about urban versus suburban. And that, in this neck of the woods, is a battle without end."

Here's an article about a driver being attacked by bicyclists (very one sided, they apparently didn't even bother to ask the bicyclists side of the story)

Dugly: "Here's an article about a driver being attacked by bicyclists (very one sided, they
apparently didn't even bother to ask the bicyclists side of the story)"

Whaaaa-?

Did you read the article you posted?

From the article: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/sfl-bicyclist-assaults-driver-
p082009,0,6162863.story

There are 28 sentences in that article.

4 sentences report what the driver said.

5 sentences report what the police report said or other 'allegedly's

1 sentence quotes a law that cars have to be 3ft from bikes when passing.

8 sentences report what the cyclist suspect's lawyer said.

6 sentences report what the other cyclists at the scene said.

4 sentences report what unrelated cycling advocates said.

So, that's 4 points from the driver's perspective, 6 'neutral' sentences, and 18 points from
cyclist perspectives.

I understand you thought it was one-sided, but are you sure it's in the direction you thought?

Also, it seems they went to great pains to not only get the cyclist's statement (via his
lawyer), but they got the statements of the other cyclists that were present, and then sought
out statements from cycling advocates!

Once again, did you read the article?

/ Move along
// Nothing to see here

Interestingly the linked story changed from when I read it and when you read it. You can even see from the description on digg that it's describing a different article.

You can see reference to the original article on the sunsentinel page on the left hand side under related, the second link is apparently the same altercation but the text is removed.

Here's a link to the original article http://rorr.im/digg.com/other_sports/driver_of_lexus_attacked_by_bicycli... from a cache site.

Thanks for pointing that out Temple. Good to see you're on top of the game. You win teh internetz!! (Oh yah, and double thanks for being such a jackass about it.)

p.s. I didn't count the number of sentences that were pro driver or anti biker on either page. My bad!

Dugly: "Here's an article about a driver being attacked by bicyclists (very one sided, they
apparently didn't even bother to ask the bicyclists side of the story)"

From the article you originally saw:
http://rorr.im/digg.com/other_sports/driver_of_lexus_attacked_by_bicycli...

9 statements from local (but not present) cycling advocates.

1 statement that they tried to "ask the bicyclists side of the story", but the cyclist suspect
wasn't available for comment.

2 statements from the cyclist suspect via the police report.

1 statement from the cyclist witnesses via the police report.

Are you sure that was the article you read? Did you just stop reading the article after you'd
gotten the information that you wanted it to say?

Oh, and sorry for being so brusk while pointing out that your statement was so completely
untrue.

/ Not as advertised.
// Incendiary fail.
/// Move along.

Temple, I'm afraid I must be slow. I don't understand the point of your post.

It seems like the entirety of your two posts is that I misrepresented the bias of the article. Is that all?

Presumably you read the article. You counted and categorized statements and sentences. You don't seem to disagree that the article is relevant, although I might have missed some statement about that in my confusion. However your most pressing issue, to which you devoted 2 reasonably long posts, is that you feel I misrepresented the bias of the article?

And based on that you think everyone else should skip reading it entirely ("/move along //nothing to see here").

Am I missing something in your posts? Were you expressing any opinion about the article? Do you not feel it's relevant to the discussion? Or does your entire contribution really boil down to "I Temple believe Dugly's opinion on the bias is wrong" plus your usual style of expression?

p.s. the cache is now expired and it forwards you to the 'current' article. Sorry to anyone who might have wanted to read it. The posted content now is significantly different.

You guys need to stop fighting. I suggest you both begin work on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b36Yi-Pb1wM

I think you'd both look fantastic doing that on the Burrard bridge.

Who's fighting?

I see four lights.

VANCOUVER — A baby being pushed in a stroller by his mother was run over and killed by a
flatbed truck at Abbott Street and Expo Boulevard around noon Wednesday.

link to full story below

Pages