From @smokeycrow:
Riding in Vancouver has reached the point where young friends can casually ride unsupervised.
Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
Really looks like a rendering, not a photo, to me. But I could be wrong.
It’s probably real, if a bit Instagrammish or maybe over-processed. I have seen and photographed the same phenomenon myself.
If it is “rendered” (i.e. a Photoshop composite), it’s a really good one.
So what is the plan for new seperated lanes? I think we’ve celebrated the Dunsmuir and Hornby lanes to death, the fact is we need alot more of these instead of resting on our laurels. While other cities are rapidly making progress in this department our government seems to now be chickening out when it comes to building new cycle infrastructure.
Since Dunsmuir/Horby city has completed Comox/Hemken greenway with some separated bits, the Richard Street bike lane which is parking protected and York/Pt Grey which has separated bits as well as the amazing upgrade to the Burrard/Cornwall intersection. They also constructed separated lanes on Cambie/Kent south of Marine so now one can ride on separated lanes between the Canada Line Bridge and Cambie/63rd Ave. Also separated bits on Ontario between 49th and 52nd. We shouldn’t forget the Central Valley Greenway which has been around for a long time. Also, competed connection between north end of Cambie Bridge and Beatty. Also Quebec/Union between Pacific and Gore. Also, numerous improvements throughout the city like repaving of many bike routes and the spreading of lots of green carpets at conflict zones. Also, separated lanes on Powell Street Overpass which was a port project but I am sure that the city had influence in the design. Also, completion of Seaside Greenway at Convention Centre. I’m sure I missed a few projects, but city is certainly not resting on their laurels.
Bike share? Whats taking so long?
Helmet law 🙁
As Mike said, the stupid helmet law. Bike share in cities with a helmet law is a failure. Bike share everywhere else is a huge success.
BC justifies the helmet law on dubious health care benefits. If you receive certain classes of head injury while riding a bike, a helmet may mitigate the effects. Meanwhile discouraging a lot of people from riding a bike at all because they don’t want to wear a helmet increases a host of diseases of inactivity that cost the economy far more than the occasional head injury for which a helmet may help.
If the justification were valid then we should ban smoking because not only does it injure the smoker and cost the health care system money, it injures others with second hand smoke and costs the system even more money. The taxes paid on tobacco products do not cover these costs.
So whether we use pure economics (something the right wing loves) or invoke personal freedom (another thing the right wing loves), it’s easy to justify repealing the helmet law while criminalizing smoking as a form of assault. Yet our right wing governments do neither.
Can you show statistics on
A) people who don’t ride because of the helmet law
B) tax paid by smokers not covering healthcare
I don’t want to scrap, I am just curious about these things.
Statistics on the drop in cycling observed when helmet laws were introduced were studied in Australia. Check out this link, and the two studies linked there under Helmet Laws.
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
This has been linked and discussed here before.
.. and again, maybe if I met one of these people, I’d find it more credible. Or if the tickets were expensive, or common, or resulted in any sort of consequence due to non-payment… Or if it was remotely unusual to see an unhelmeted rider, then it woultd be understandable. Do we know how it was enforced in Australia and what the consequences are/were?
Urgh. I really don’t want to do this, it has been done before, you and I both know it.
It’s pretty obvious that the north/south traffic has the light in the above picture.
We really need to ditch this helmet law. The supposed need is based on what is likely an intentionally wrong study funded by a helmet manufacturer. Supported by propaganda since then.
Cycling as an activity is extremely safe yet we now live in a time in which we are being told a lie about it safety. It’s time to stop it and have our laws based on evidence and science and not industry propaganda and unjust fear.
Do you really think your skull hitting the pavement if you fall is safer? I should just leave it alone, but I need to know. Or are you assuming people do not fall? I don’t really care if people wear helmets at the end of the day but it seems pretty extreme to state they do nothing at all, though I appreciate the skepticism. (I do!) Whose science do you trust? Cyclehelmets.org or doctors and paramedics?
Cyclehelmets.org uses research. Doctors and paramedics use anecdotal evidence. No one is saying that people should be forced to not wear a helmet. By the same token, they should not be forced to wear a helmet. It should be a personal choice. Helmets may be good, but helmet law is definitely bad.
Well (and not wanting to open up the argument about helmets/no helmets), I wouldn’t want my son’s riding in the downtown without helmets
Heh, yup, no one is wearing helmets and the guy at the front looks like he has decided to proceed through the red. At least he’s looking both ways.
Looks as if he is using the bike box?
He’s got a red.
He does. But using the bike box is totally allowed while waiting for a red, or especially while turning left onto the Dunsmuir lane. There is no way to prove with this photo that he’s running the light, or if he’s even moving, or if the light has just changed going north/south.
He is probably anticipating the green light (the crossing street is already red):
that is the safest way to proceed here, if you don’t want to be hooked by right turning vehcile from Dunsmuir.
Anticipating green light is almost the safest way to proceed at intersection when you are a cyclist :
advanced cyclist cities provide advanced green light for cyclists for this reason…here we don’t have,…but that shouldn’t prevent cyclist to stay safe.
Better to risk a fine once a while than to ride unsafe!
If the front cyclist is simply stopped further ahead so as to be more visible to vehicles turning right, then that is definitely safer.
I don’t know if the crossing street is already red, but if it is, then the real issue should be the silver SUV either running the red, or turning right illegally on the red. Yet people are talking about helmets. What a waste of energy.
Excellent analysis Jen please keep up the good work.
? Is this sarcastic or not ? It was only an observation…
Helmetless riders make bigger dints in cars in a head-on collision. This kind of irresponsible behaviour toward others and their property is reprehensible!
What do helmets have to do with anything?
So therefore based on this one photo, statistically 75% of cyclists obey a red light.
If you want to insinuate more people are stupid/evil/wrong/whatever it is you’re insinuating for not wearing helmets, why not just go to Amsterdam or Copenhagen?
Now that I’m on a blog that isn’t vancitybuzz (a pile of shite blog which moderated almost all my comments, none of which were offensive or contentious at all) I can tell you that I have been to Amsterdam already. It’s a lot flatter than here. And for Pete’s sake it was an observation that you don’t need to take personally.
Did you point out to the people in Amsterdam that they weren’t wearing helmets?
No, why would I? I jumped on a bike rack (literally jumped on – I had bruises in the morning) and got pedaled around by a cute Dutchman on a bike with no brakes in the fog on new years.
I’ll make a concerted effort not to care if children fall off bikes and hit their heads. It’s not my problem, anyways. Is that better?
I think it would be better to care. The solution isn’t commenting on whether or not people wear helmets though. That is a distraction. The solution is pushing for safe infrastructure for all modes of transportation, including cycling.
True, but infrastructure only goes so far. The choices people make have a direct impact on their safety. (I’m NOT referring to the choice to wear a helmet or not) So let’s put education on the list too.
Out of curiosity though, do you think children should wear helmets when cycling? I didn’t as a child, and I bet you didn’t either.
Infrastructure only goes so far, true. But unlike the helmet law, it is at least going in the right direction, one of providing net benefits.
My kids wore bike helmets when younger and it was my decision. Kids I have taken cycling in organized events wore helmets. I didn’t wear a helmet as a child, whether cycling, skating, or skiing. Helmets are designed to provide protection up to 7 km/hr, which is the sort of speed a small child learns to ride at. Above that impact speed bike helmets crack or break open and don’t protect the head, except from abrasions.
I wear a helmet. It is just part of what I do. But I don’t think we should have a helmet law.
Fair enough, Jeff. I thought it was 30 km/hr, but I’ll take your word for it.
What does flatness have to do with helmets?
Oddly enough it’s safer to ride a bike in Amsterdam helmetless than it is to ride a bike in Vancouver with a helmet. I think this points out that helmets are a distraction. There’s not even any evidence that the helmet law has made bicycling any safer in comparison to other provinces without the law. Jeff Leigh hits the nail on the head there.
When asked if you told all the Dutch that they don’t wear helmets, you said: “No, why would I?” Then why did you do it here, if not to judge?
If you read back, Waynep commented that he would not want his children riding downtown without helmets. I pointed out no one was wearing one and the front guy looked as though he was kicking off through the red. People rushed in to explain how he couldn’t possibly be in the wrong in the above scenario. My original remark was an observation, with no opinion attached other than “heh, yup.”
I haven’t actually given you my opinion on people who wear helmets, or don’t wear helmets, although you seem to have drawn your own conclusions and taken offense. I just have a hard time with the idea that no one ever falls off bikes, or that hitting your skull on concrete is safer for your brain without a helmet on. I’m not a perfect person, and I’m not going to judge you for living your life as you please, provided you aren’t intentionally hurting others.
As for your last question, a holiday I took in 2008 does not bear any resemblance to an online discussion arising from a photo. Also, there is no law there. I don’t go the dog park and ask everyone why their dogs aren’t leashed in an off leash area.
I always find it strange that people claim wearing a helmet deters novice cyclists for two reasons. First, is the claim that they don’t want helmet hair? Yet the same people think these people will ride on Vancouver’s numerous rain days and risk rainhead? Second, when do novice cyclists become expert cyclists (and supposedly don a helmet?
It isn’t wearing a helmet that deters people, it is more likely the helmet law. And it doesn’t just impact novice cyclists, it impacts all cyclists. The helmet laws make people think cycling is dangerous. That perception of danger is the deterrent.
I feel like maybe you are underestimating people a little, most people have ridden a bike; what percentage do you think have NEVER fallen off? Since grace isn’t one of my many attributes I realize I am making a bit of an assumption that everyone has fallen, at least ONCE when learning to ride or otherwise. Is this true? I’d say usually people draw their own conclusions from their own experience and confidence or lack thereof.
I think the main deterrents are weather, terrain and logistics. certainly there are probably not a lot of professional women (this doesn’t mean all women and could apply to men too) who want to shower at work (if that’s even an option) and bring shampoo, conditioner- because trust me, LOTS of people wash their hair every day, hair dryer, brush, soap, razor, makeup if you wear it, deodorant, extra shoes, extra clothes, raingear, towels…
I’m not saying anyone has to do those things at all, but I am saying people do those things to get ready for work, and it’s more comfortable at home and part of routine. Some people don’t set foot outside the house unless they are made up and styled. Still, I appreciate what you are trying to say.
I think you have already met people who have been deterred from cycling by a culture of fear. We read on this blog all the time, comments from those proclaiming how dangerous cycling is. When the true statistics are presented, showing how safe it is, many of those posters dismiss the data outright, claiming it is biased. Similar to how some dismiss helmet studies because they don’t like the source, while referring to anecdotal stories as proof.
As someone who is an occasional rider with kids….and someone who has seen this discussion come around a few times let me make a few points. First corrolation does not equal causation but if we see very strong correlation it is likely there is a reason. There are a lot of studies that show cities without helmet laws have lower overal rates of total injury than cities with helmet laws. Lots of potential reasons why, but not for certain. Next cities without helmet laws tend to have higher rates of cycling. Again lots of potential reasons but not for certain. Next lots of studies that show higher levels of cycling have huge benefits for society thru different mechanisms like reduced health costs. Flip side is there are studies that show wearing a helmet reduces your risk of a head injury….but the actaul improvement is small, the study often quoted showing large benefits has been acknowdedged to be ‘cooked’. So take home as an individual you are safer wearing a helmet…but you would be even safer if that city did not have helmet laws.