This morning’s front-page lead, paper-version:
.
You can practically see them salivating down at Granville Square. Fair and balanced, that’s our Sun.
.
Whereas Global TV’s online version:
.
And even The Sun’s version when they went online:
.
BTW, Global has a poll: Do you support the further expansion of bikes lanes in Vancouver?
A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I saw one. Those who stoke and encourage controversy predicting that there will be some.
The Cornwall – Point Grey Road lanes are a no-brainer.
I expect that they would take the form of two one-way painted lanes, given the number of driveways that front onto Point Grey Road (mostly on the north side) and the need to seamlessly link to the Burrard Bridge bike lanes, which are also one-way.
I can’t see how a separated bike lane on Commercial Drive could work unless all parking was removed on one side, which would be tough for the businesses–who would lose a lot of customers who don’t live that close–and not good for the community who would lose restaurants and retail in the absence of customers from outside the immediate area. Most of the streets near the Drive are residents only parking.
Another thought: maybe we need to understand where cyclists who regularly pass through the Commercial Drive area are going or coming from. Is Commercial their desintation? If it’s not, just as effort has been made to divert vehicle traffic that doesn’t need to be on that street to other routes, maybe doing a better job on nearby bike routes is the solution to help cyclists get to where they want to go?
For example, I’d wonder if the existing bike route on Woodland, 2 blocks west, couldn’t be relocated to Cotton, only 1 block West, and a better job done of traffic calming and bike priority barriers put in.
As someone who lives just off the drive, I would openly welcome any form of bike lane on Commercial, most of all a separated lane. I have two young children, and we do all of our shopping on the drive. We like to bike as much as possible to run our errands, but it just doesn’t make sense on the drive where I feel unsafe on my own, let alone with two kids attached to the back of my bike. The Woodland bikeway is great if you’re just passing through, but to get to the main strip, it just doesn’t make sense with all the hills to get back up to Commercial from Woodland. A huge benefit to a bike lane would also encourage a more positive image of cyclists in our neighbourhood, making it accessible to families and people of all ages, instead of those on bikes willing to risk their safety amongst the cars.
The addition of more bike parking on parts of commercial would be nice as well as there are points of the year where parking your bike can be challenging so more parking would be nice. I also would like to keep as much of the car parking as possible. I think we shouldn’t take any away as there is very little to begin with.
Cotton Drive wouldn’t make sense. The street ends at Britannia on one end and 3rd Ave. on the other, not very far, not to mention no cross light at Commercial. Yes, Woodland works great for people passing through, not so well for residents. I used Commercial Drive a lot when doing errands on the Drive, and sometimes passing through as well. I also witnessed a crash between a left-turning car and a straight-through cyclist at Commercial and Charles last year, more than a little jarring, and can say anything that improves safety in particular at intersections would be welcome with me.
Well, Gordon, you may not like the headline but the story is accurate. What part of it do you disagree with?
Story fine. Headline provocative (particularly the use of “sure”). Needlessly so – as the online version illustrates.
While the article is more balanced than the conflict-highlighting/causing headline, I still had trouble reading past the trotting out of the tired myth of ‘cyclists not paying their share’…. I dream of a day when journalists can include facts in their articles to stop perpetuating the same old mis-truths.
[For Mr. Lee’s benefit: cyclists pay property taxes just as drivers do & funding for city infrastructure comes from property taxes.]
Is it a clever play on words? Separated bike lanes would “cause division” as it divides up the roadways
Author
Too clever by half – or I’m half-witted. Probably the latter, since I bet you’re right, Tim. But nonetheless, it’s way too inflammatory for the front page grab. Most readers, particularly those who glance at newspaper boxes, won’t likely get the nuance.
I don’t know. It seems to have gotten you to talk about this issue. Of course, the writers don’t write the headlines and that can provide some trouble for us when a story isn’t accurately titled. But in this case, what is it that you don’t like? The fact that the city’s continuing (and legitimate) expansion of bike lanes and improvements is still nonetheless likely to spark controversy among residents and motorists?
What, you want us to write “City bike lanes coming to Point Grey and Cornwall” with a subhead (But don’t worry, the city says everything is just fine and we’ll all be happy”)
Okay, I get it. Nobody sells papers by saying “Breaking news: Nothing happened today and nobody had anything to say”. But goodness, a lot of oxygen is being consumed (including mine) on the friggin’ headline.
The Sun wrote a headline that works: it was used for the online version. Why the difference? Or more particularly, why fan the flames? Certainly it’s appropriate to mention that the bike lanes have been controversial, even divisive, in the context of the article. But the headline to me says The Sun is gaming the process to generate conflict.
Gordon, the simple and mechanical answer is that the online version is written by a web editor who does not have to pay attention to space constraints. The print edition has only so many characters that can be used. But “gaming the process”? To what end? We had you at “hello”.
To quote Jeff:
“The fact that the city’s continuing (and legitimate) expansion of bike lanes and improvements is still nonetheless likely to spark controversy among residents and motorists?”
That’s not what the headline says. The headline says it is “sure” to create division, meaning certain, meaning there is absolutely no chance it will not create controversy. To say it will undoubtedly is saying something the writer of the headline, whomever that may be, cannot possibly be certain of. It is, essentially, inaccurate, and likely designed to spark that very controversy, to encourage it.
Yes, there are space constraints, and many others, but I would agree with Gordon Price on this one – the headline is a bad headline. Too bad. It’s not a bad story, and I would rather be discussing that.
Though it’s likely a play on words, and a cute one, it’s not even a “sure” thing there will be a separated lane: the article specifically says that Hornby or Dunsmuir style separated lanes are not necessarily the plan.,
How about Jeff you write the news without bias or personal opinion? You know, what a newspaper should do? If I want the newspaper or authors opinion on whether or not the bike lanes are good, bad or ugly, I’ll read the opinion section.
Doug (whoever you are), you make a mistake. I have expressed no opinions in the story. I report it. I don’t frankly care if the city wants to put in a bike lane or take one out; it’s a story. (Just like I don’t frankly care which party is in office; NPA, Vision, COPE, Green or Rhinoceros.) You will notice, I hope, that we covered both sides of the bike lane comments, from those who are concerned about it to those (like Peter Ladner) who applaud the idea.
In this forum, however, I certainly am expressing an opinion about the conversation about a headline that I didn’t write and which seems to be diverting peoples’ attention from the story.
(I make a point of posting comments under my own name because I disagree with the common trait of people using anonymity. I encourage anyone posting to use their full names because it adds credibility.)
Jeff,
The point is the headline is leading, it sets the tone for the article. Why wouldn’t it say ‘new bike lanes proposed for Vancouver’ or something equally informative. I believe newspapers are meant to inform and deliver the news, not make assumptions are they not?
Author
This is why I posted the quote from Barney Frank back in April: http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/quote-barney-frank-on-the-media/
The interviewer asks:
INTERVIEWER: But isn’t part of that just because the media is expected to be adversarial?
FRANK: Who expects it to be adversarial? Where did you read that? Did you read that in the First Amendment? Where did you read that the media is expected to be adversarial? It should be skeptical, why adversarial? Adversarial means you’re the enemy. Seriously, where does that come from?
The Sun headline is adversarial in the sense that it assumes and thereby promotes conflict.
The City undertakes a process, based on plans that go back to the 1990s, that is meant to include consultation, to define the trade-offs, negotiate if necessary, and move forward, preferably by consensus but at least by being inclusive. The Sun ‘games the process’ by setting up conflict as a presumed intent of the exercise – as one “… sure to cause division.”
The comments that follow the article are immediately vituperative. And some of those entering the process will likely bring that attitude with them, particularly if the Sun continues with the slant embedded in the headline.
Oh, goodness. I knew it would come up. Blame the newspaper for the fact that some people write “vituperative” comments, as if they would have a different opinion if we wrote ” ‘new bike lanes proposed for Vancouver’ or “something equally informative.”
Hang on, can you just wait a minute while I go over to those mischievous minions over on the headline-writing desk and beat them with a copy of “Pablum Headlines for Dummies”.
Let me see. If we’d fired this story on to the back page, someone would have complained that we were in cahoots with the city and we’re “gaming the process” by downplaying the story.
The comments below the article aren’t your responsibility, people will think whatever they want. But am I wrong that the point of a newspaper is to provide news and let the reader decide? That’s why there is an op/ed section. If not, then what is the point?
@Jeff Lee
Fine balanced story. Headline over the top but still a notch or six above Province editorial today. Yikes, a race to the bottom?
Well, I guess in regards to the Province headline there’s no ambiguity. And I didn’t write that one either.
Apropos of nothing, I cycled in this morning from New Westminster with fellow Royal City resident Jerry Dobrovolny, Vancouver’s director of transportation and on whose desk the bike lanes buck stops. I’ll file a blog on that experience a little later. Suffice to say that in one ride we managed to catch many of the city’s important bike routes and lanes, including a jaunt over the Dunsmuir Viaduct and the Hornby lane.
And yes, without conflict.
Look forward to that blog post.
Thanks for that link Richard, nothing brightens a day like seeing the Province editors throwing their toys and acting like 5 year olds who didn’t get their way.
To be honest, I drive/walk and ride around Vancouver all the time and this war-zone that the newspapers keep alluding to just doesn’t seem to exist, the vast majority of people I encounter, whether driving/biking/walking, are pleasant and polite. Maybe they don’t read the news?
Commercial Drive north of First is simply too narrow to have a dedicated bike lane. And we sure do not want that section of the Drive widened. However, as a resident non-car-owner myself, I am happy to encourage more bikes on and near Commercial. Rather than try to change the Drive just to accommodate bikes, I would rather see some work done to encourage bikes along Salsbury Drive and Cotton Drive, bringing them in each case just one block away from the Drive. Maybe some sort of bike parking facility on each, so riders can then walk easily to the Drive.
@jakking
Many people are cycling along the Drive because they want to go to shops or cafes on the Drive. Detouring them over a block to streets that do not continue for that long is not going to be effective and they will continue to cycle on the Drive or not even bother cycling and just drive. Especially once we get a bike share system, detouring cyclists just won’t work.
Cyclists also want to be were the street life and action is. And, sexy cyclists also make the street much more interesting. Why hide them away on side streets.
Back in the 70’s, Copenhagen tried to get cyclists off the main streets by creating bikeways on side streets. Not surprisingly, cyclists still used the main streets, so they created cycle tracks along main streets. Now they are the best cycling city in the world with around 50% of trips by bike in the core of the city.
On the other hand, I can see parking the bike and walking around the neighbourhood to do your shopping (and eating) a reasonable solution.
It’s like grocery shoppers who try to barge their shopping carts down already crowded aisles because they can’t take their eyes off of it for 5 seconds (lest someone steal their unpaid items). Leave the cart by the oranges and wander the produce section and walk back to the cart with your items. Easy.
It’s also a bit like car drivers driving from one end of the strip mall to the other end of the strip mall.
Jeff’s blog post is excellent if you haven’t read it yet – http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/05/18/cycling-with-jerry-dobrovolny-vancouvers-director-of-transportation/
I don’t mind the Sun’s provocative headline. I just wish they’d add thumbs up/down buttons for comments, so I could filter out the hate-filled rants below the article.
Nevermind. Looks like they do have ratings, but you need to create an account first.
Another reason why I always refuse phone calls urging me to subscribe to the Sun/Province – I hope the comments that “the papers are too biased” get passed up from the telemarketers. I’ll take the Globe’s sparser but more objective reporting instead.
That’s right Gordon, channel Sarah Palin and blame the lamestream media. Anyone who thinks controversy won’t be caused with this, particularly among the small businesses along Commercial Drive, has their head in the sand.
To all you bike advocates who see opponents under avery rock, the headline is mostly correct. It is predictive, but it is most likely to be true. Any transportation prject will cause division. If the story had been: “bridge tolls sure to cause division” or “road construction closure to cause division”, not only would you agree, you would probably cheer.
EVERYONE moves around the city, so everyone feels invested in transportation planning and decisions. Plus, the systems are concrete, and thus simple to understand. So esssential, and thus so political. The headline writer was just stating the obvious.
Adam Fitch
Not that anyone cares anymore, but I saw an example of “Pacific Press Sloppy Headlines” on June 7, this kind of “skim article, write headline” is common.
“Oklahoma City secures first berth in NBA Final since franchise relocated from Seattle in 1996”
The franchise relocated in 2008. Seattle reached the finals in 1996. India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1956 (Sun headline a while back)… Point? Don’t trust headlines….