Burrard Bridge Trial Makes Bridge Safer

175 posts / 0 new
Last post

Not that this isn't a horrible tragedy or anything, but how does it apply to the bike lane trial?

Happened in a crosswalk.

"Happened in a crosswalk."

Not that this isn't a horrible tragedy or anything, but how does it apply to the bike lane trial?

Same way Critical Mass applies to the bike lane trial

BTW, this isn't a horrible tragedy, it's business as usual on our streets.

No, I think it is a horrible tragedy, AND it's business as usual on our streets, which makes it all the more puzzling why driver education and licensing is so inadequate.

"why driver education and licensing is so inadequate."

Because we are brainwashed by advertising and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot of the
first order.

I don't hear anybody or see any advertising defending our licensing system.

There are concerns. It would cost a lot, and inconvenience good and bad drivers alike. It would
seriously inconvenience bad drivers. There would be a huge public outcry and it would likely be a
political land mine.

That said, I don't think those reasons are good enough not to do it, and I'd love to see the
system greatly reformed. Sadly, those are the main reasons why many things that need to be
changed don't get changed.

Car advertising glorifies aggressive driving, speeding, and presents inaccurate and wildly
unrealistic images of car use that breed a sense of entitlement to road space that is in no way
possible in the real world. Further, Those images are in direct contradiction of the supposed
values and attitudes we are expected to bring to our driving behaviour.

Ah yes, inconvenience. The most pressing issue of the day fer sure.

What CK says about media and advertising creating an unsustainable and dangerous idea of car use is true. However, I think Temple is correct in saying that the real reason the licensing system is such a joke is simple politics. It would cost more, (at least visibly, although I'm sure the costs would be recovered in reduced medical expenses and property damage) and there would be an inconvenience factor, particularly on the part of bad drivers who would now be denied licensing, plus there's the provincial nature of licensing. It would be political suicide to enact these measures, but I contend that it must happen.

Luckily our premier isn't in the game to be popular:

"When you do what's right, I think in the longterm that always pays off."
- Gordon Campbell

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

I hate to get this back on topic, but today is the next best chance for the anti-bike-lane people/press to claim that the trial isn't a good idea. So far according to the radio things seem fine on the Burrard Bridge, granted that the afternoon may be more of an issue, but who knows.

Any eye witness reports RE: Today vs Last Week.

As for the Licencing issue, getting a licence in BC has become harder in the last 10 years as we now have a graduated system over 2 (??) years rather then the system that was in place when I was 16. Also, speeding and other traffic infractions now carry a much more steep penalty in terms of $$$. Again, when I started driving a speeding ticket didn't cost anything (or was so nominal I have forgoten), now it's $100-$200+?

IMO, it's not the licence system that is the problem. The idea that you can stop bad drivers in their tracks when they are 16 or 17 is not likely. Experiance is the best teacher for driving, and idiots who drive drunk, drive fast or even drive stuipid won't be stopped by having to jump through more hoops to get their licences.

I would like to see more short term licence suspensions. If you take someones ability to drive (legally) away when they are 20 for 2-3 months I would bet they would be much less likely to kill someone with their car when they are 25.

m2c

M2C,

I agree that the licensing system will have no impact on the people intentionally disobeying the laws, such as speeding and DUI. For that sort of thing steeper penalties (including immediate suspensions) may be the best deterrents. The issue I have with the roads these days is more the inept and just plain bad drivers: the ones who aren't confident making a left-hand turn, or who don't realize that the right side of their car is in fact in the next lane. This issue could be addressed by a better licensing/driver education system. In some countries a considerable amount of education (including "advanced" skills such as skid recovery and high speed maneuvering) is required prior to licensing. You're absolutely right that experience is the best teacher, so why not give them some useful experience prior to letting them loose that will enable them (and their surroundings) to survive their acquisition of the experience necessary to hone their skills? The testing could be more rigorous as well, with a passing standard being higher than "they didn't cause a pile-up," which seems to be the cae these days.

Still, though, you're right that licensing alone isn't the problem, but it is one.

-->I hate to get this back on topic, but <--

And you hate it so badly that you're actually NOT going to do it?

Or am I missing a connection between our current graduated license system and the burrard bridge trial? Because I don't see it.

The protected lanes trial is about safety far and above any other consideration. Better drivers
would equal safer roads for all users.

Further to the young drivers issue, I think a bus pass should be free up to age 21 (outside of the
U-Pass system), so that we can combat the allure of automobiles with a convincing $$$
argument for making sustainable transportation choices.

TransLink is already whinging about being in the hole, sadly me thinks they're not going to give up the good chunk of their revenue brought in by the under-21 crowd.

Not that I don't think it's a valiant idea. Or having the downtown core have free transit (like Seattle). Or have less zones/one zone. Or cheaper fares. Or not tack on another $2.50 to get to the airport, as the plan is after a year. Or not cancel the Evergreen Line.

Sorry Mort, I guess your selective reading skills just missed the first part of my post. Keep seeing what you want to see.

BTW - Again, any comments from people who have used the Burrard Bridge so far this week.

U-Pass is a great idea, good article in the Strait about the impact of the U-Pass "creating" transit users, like crack, get them hooked with cheap fares and then jack up the price. Might be a business plan there for extending the U-Pass to High School (or is there something in place???), after riding the bus for 8+ years it would be a habit.

m2c

Oh, I read and understood your entire message, m2c. My deeper point, which apparently YOUR selective comprehension skills missed, is that I found it somewhat amusing that you threw in a minimal comment about the trial going well and claimed it was an attempt to get us on track, but then you spent a whole lot more words and paragraphs going off on a completely different tangent.

In my experience, when someone says they're going to get us back on track, they actually try to do it and stay there... not wander away in the next breath.

---------------

"seeing what I want to see" ? ... really? Was that necessary? Do you follow my logic and focus in posts? Or is that just your stock answer to anyone who puts any type of criticism in your direction?

Fine... just carry on as if I'm not here then.

I assumed M2C was just reacting to the political comment in the previous post.

Anything to do with commuting safety is 'on topic' in this post, IMO, be that road changes, biker behaviour, driver licencing, etc.

Nothing on either the Sun or Province websites about how awful everything has turned out. Some complaints from people having to wait four minutes for the next train (gasp!), but all in all, not the smegstorm the media was hoping for.

Fair enough, Craig, if the topic has expanded to be that... I was more focusing on the wording of the subject line and assuming that was the topic.

Not that it really matters though... I tend to not hang around on the politics forum much... and now you know why.

Funny article by hack in 24 yesterday that, among other things, was making the claim that the bike lane was an enviromental nightmare because the extended times for cars translated into more polution. Wack job thinking.

Of course nothing about the safety issue.

m2c

That's because pollution > safety when it suits your needs.

And convenience > pollution the rest of the time.

"Funny article by hack in 24 yesterday"

Any paper that requires people to thrust it at you while you try to enter a transit station also requires columnists to say outrageously stupid things as a means of generating readers.

Tsakumis and I have become acquainted in the blogosphere over the Burrard issue. Overblown rhetoric and bully tactics are part and parcel of his S.O.P.

(In Montreal this week. So many bikes, so little conflict between cars and bikes. A breath of fresh air and an example of what Vancouver could be with a little more time and money.)

a bientot!

Pages