In general the city of Vancouver has stated that they want to get people out of their cars - they've sent this message by refusing to expand traffic lanes for commuters, taking them away and giving lanes to bike commuters, increasing parking tax to 21% and by supporting greener initiatives such as ride share programs. At the same time while they haven't addressed the reasons WHY people insist on driving their cars and the lack of night time transit out of the down town core to the suburbs is one of the larger issues here.

While yes, providing feasible options for getting home at night would help get drunk drivers off the road, it would also fit with the city of Van's supposed mandate to make the city greener. A two fold benifit.

Now if they would stop building bike lanes that benifit maybe 500 people a day and address an issue that could, after a concert of canucks game benifit thousands that would be awesome.

Sounds like they're encouraging drunk drivers to become drunk riders ;) :D

Well now that they have those partitioned bike lanes at least they can't veer out in front of on coming traffic when biking while intoxicated? :P

That's what intersections are for.

and our mayor recently provided a perfect example of this.

"Sounds like they're encouraging drunk drivers to become drunk riders" There is an ad in a local paper where I live where the store that sells electric bikes is targeting just those people. I'm also aware of a medical scooter dealer in the Victoria area that sells spedial hopped up versions of their scooters to non-handicapped drivers who loose their DLs because of impaired driving convictions. The fact that non-handicapped drivers who operate them are breaking the law as they are now operating a "motor vehicle", doesn't seem to deter them and you can see them parked outside the local bars. It would be almost amusing if it wasn't tragic.

That is horribly sad. And terribly amusing.

Does a handy scooter qualify as a motor vehicle by the legal definition since you don't need a license to drive one?

We have had 2 local drunks charged for impaired driving while driving power lawnmowers on the highway. The scooters qualify as motor vehicles if they are not operated by handicapped drivers.

That's really, really, really sad. A DUI on a power lawnmower?

No what was really sad was TWO different impaired drivers...specially after the first one was caught and splashed all over the media.

Now if the two drunks were trying to RACE each other on their scooters... THAT would be funny!

Can I be given a DUI on my bicycle?

253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.


Your bike would need to have a motor on it to be considered a motor vehicle.

No but you could probably get a ticket for being drunk in public :rofl:

I remember an article about a loophole and the electric/motorized bikes - where you could drive a vehicle without requiring a license (like a bike) and still get a DUI.

Good to know I can ride my bicycle hammered!

Yet did you know statistically that of all modes of personal transportation home while drunk (cabs and public transit excluded), driving your car is the least likely to get you injured/killed? Someone compiled the statistics, it was hilarious to read his advice: "next time one of your friends says they'll walk/bike home, give them their keys instead". While obviously bad advice, the stats point out sometimes our logic is counter-intuitive of what is actually safest.

That must be one of the most uneducated and ignorant quotes I've seen this year.

"Good to know I can ride my bicycle hammered!" Not to be the grammer Police...but being physically able to ride your bike while drunk..ie " CAN ride" may be a misstatement. You may be permitted to ride but unable to ride because of your lack of physical ability. :)

if you really feel so strongly towards that, maybe you should explain your reasoning. I'm up for a discussion.

:)

I was being sarcastic to setup my point about a car being safer to drive home drunk than walking or biking. At least in a car you've got some sort of protection and safety features.

You may be protected, unlike the others that you may hit with the car ie pedestrians, cyclists, motorcycle riders etc.

Everyone keeps complaining about the Skytrain not running late. The system is aging and gets HEAVY use. it needs downtime to fix the track, switches cars etc etc. Sometimes it may require deenergizing the track and completely shutting it down. you think something that requires that kind of fix will be quick? I think it's pretty amazing they can keep all those kilometers of track in repair with only 4 hours a night, even on a rotating sched, which I am assuming they use.
If they ran it 24 hrs there'd be a LOT more problems when it matters, rush hours, and we all know theres more than enough of them already.

Night buses, yes, few and far between I think ever half hour if not less. But they do span the city and stop on a lot of major streets. You know why it doesn't come some times? Cause all those drunks are puking/fighting/pissing on the bus and once that's done the bus is parked and no theres no manpower to shuttle a bus out from the yard to replace it.

The system isn't for people who want to get piss drunk to the point where they're puking their guts out and becoming idiots.
You know why there's not better service at night in general?
because no one wants to deal with or risk dealing with a drunk who might start throwing punches for no reason, or destroying the backseat of the car.

If you want to drink that much, cause that much mess and headache for the people looking after you then yes you should be paying that 100$ round trip to surrey and back. And I feel bad for the taxi that will have to deal with the mess you leave behind.

It does come down to the bad few runing it for the rest of us who can drink and not leave a trail of destruction behind.

Yeah but what about the rest of us who only have a couple drinks with dinner.
Come on. And we're not asking the train to run 24hours EVERY day.

no, that's what I'm saying, it's the ones that go overboard that are ruining it for the rest of us.
I want to have a couple of drinks with dinner like most other people. But I drive for a living and I dont want to risk more than 1. (I'm 250lbs so I could probably do more but why chance it.)

In regards to the skytrain comment I made:

I'm talking about having the trains run an extra 1-1.5 hours, 2 or 3 days a week. Who will pay for them? The riders. If that is too much time for translink to maintain their trains properly, then someone please speak up. I don't know how much time is required, but honestly, I don't think 1-1.5 hours is too much to ask. It's not just for party ppl either. People who work odd hours, or just need general transportation will be able to enjoy it too.


as for what Gar said, I may have replied too harshly, and for that, i owe you my apologies. HOWEVER,

If one wants to go downtown, you should just move there? C'mon, that's not a realistic expectation. We live at the places we live in mostly due to cost, environment, work, circumstances, etc. If that means to dictate where we can or cannot go to enjoy ourselves, or just out for dinner/concert, then how is that right? Also, there is simply NO WAY everyone who wants to live near/in downtown to actually be able to FIT around downtown. There simply isn't enough space.

I don't think what I was suggesting was really a huge thing. Of course, I DON'T know what the cost of running a few trains a little later would be, however, I didn't think that it would be that great considering the amount of ridership it would attract, and also the safety it can provide. People get home safely. Less driving = less accidents, drunk drivers and pollution, if you want to count that as well. I'm not saying it will completely solve drunk driving, but i strongly believe it can greatly reduce the numbers.

Maybe a trial run of it from Translink? just to see if the cost/benefit justify thmselves? The police can still do their usual roadblocks, and the transit police and also perform their usual services. I don't have the numbers, so if anyone can come up with it, it'd be great.

The police would also be less stressed out, I myself would be less stressed out about getting creamed by joe blow in his drunken s-class. For an extra 3-4 hours of service per week, I think it's really achievable.

I'm not here for my personal gain to make this recommendation, since I can go home with fairly low transportation costs. I'm primarily trying to make a suggestion that may be FEASIBLE. something that would WORK, for the people and police a like. I've tried it, I like it. and if it did operate later, I believe a lot of people would agree too.

I'm talking about everyone, not just the destructive ones. If they're that drunk they probably can't get on a train anyhow. HOWEVER, destructive ppl are everywhere at every time. If they're not fucking up a bus, they'll be fucking up someone on the street or an establishment. I'm not saying they should be on the trains too, but I'm focussed mainly on the individuals who simply need a ride home after 4-5 drinks, feel a little woozy, but don't want to risk the drive.