A big thanks goes out to HUB for putting out a questionnaire to all candidates in Metro Vancouver asking about their commitment to infrastructure for people who ride bicycles. The results are valuable information, and will certainly help me to make up my mind about who gets my vote.
.
.
I urge everyone to vote, so that the results reflect a wide and deep a picture of Metro Vancouver’s citizens. Small turnouts mean the results reflect small well-organized sub-sets of the population.
I do however, already have a bead on one person for whom I will not vote, based on their response to this questionnaire. Anyone who has such little understanding of “how it works” does not get my vote:
Audrey Siegl (Council – COPE) – same answer to both questions
Yes Again, only if cyclists pay insurance for road use, maintenance and infrastructure as drivers do.
So that’s one down and dozens to go.
The total silence from the NPA speaks volumes.
As a CoV cyclist and voter, it is disappointing to see only one NPA candidate participate. Equally unsettling to see that Vision candidates didn’t have anything compelling to say and simply submitted identical statements provided to them. I would have hoped for more
Like many bike critics, Audrey seems to be confused about what “insurance” means. Insurance doesn’t pay for road use, maintenance, or infrastructure. And you can’t even buy “cyclist insurance”, at least not from ICBC. For most cyclists, the liability for any damage they cause while biking is already covered by their homeowner’s or renter’s policies.
What I WAS able to buy from ICBC is underinsured motorist protection for $25/year. It protects me if an underinsured motorist hits ME and is unable to pay for any medical expenses or long-term care not covered by the medical services plan. It applies whether I’m cycling, walking or riding as a passenger in someone else’s car.
…just going over the results for New West…we’ve got our share of candidates with exactly this attitude, which includes the related whine “we need to license cyclists”.
Yeah. Because bike-licensing fees would so totally pay for roads, since they aren’t, you know, paid for by taxes. And it would be so cheap to administer, too. And, since cyclists are so dangerous and bikes are killer machines, we need a barrier to entry and proof of competency testing, like for guns and cars.
Todd Litman’s got a good response: http://www.planetizen.com/node/52501
Should be required reading for all candidates.
The cyclists have won. The 20th century Moses school of thought has disappeared from the academic circle, and every influential agency is touting sustainability and cycling. The last straw was the city installing bike paths along the newly built powell overpass.
It has been now firmly established that a complete street must contain a road for cars, sidewalk for pedestrians, trees, and a bike path. All new developments will have this, and it’s not debatable anymore.
I commend the efforts by HUB for trying hard to promote cycling, but in the long run, cycle infrastructure will be permanently installed, regardless of the political position of a few backward politicos. There are a few more battles that need fighting (eg commercial dr. and water st.), but in general, we’ve won.
What we need is more discussion on what types of urban design best stimulates a city. Eg) how should we design bike lanes to be the most comforatable; how should we redesign traffic lights and intersections to suit cyclists etc.