Driver sentenced to commute by bicycle for rest of his life.

You're entitled to think whatever you want. And if someone who doesn't like what you're doing decides to run you over, you will have no right to complain about it.

He wouldn't go very far then :troll:

lol yessssss! they can ride to the hospital , cuz they would just be blocking the ambulance and the cops

Free speech is one thing; disruption of public utilities (and don't think any other way--the roads and sidewalks are utilities) is another. And you're right, we do have free speech. We have the right to protest against the government if we disagree with their decisions. We're allowed to voice our ideas if we think the government could do something in a better way. We can do it wherever we want whenever we want as long as it doesn't significantly disrupt others. Oh, but wait. If we're sufficiently well-organized, we can even disrupt others! Every year, someone signs off on a permit requesting the use of the block surrounding the Vancouver Art Gallery--that's right. They close some of the major downtown arteries downtown so that people can protest.

The proviso? That you fill out some forms early on, that you clearly list the times and locales that you want to disrupt, and that you pay a fee for these privileges (and no, the fee you pay is not nearly what would be required depending on the event. I very much doubt that the 4/20 festival organizers pay for on-duty cops to attend and make sure there's no trouble).

Now, you might say that there can't be any comparison between these two events. And I would agree on the following things:

1) Illegality.

Pot is illegal. Biking is legal. For me, this is all the more reason that Critical Mass should be respectful of the law(s). What they're doing isn't illegal--all they want is more awareness and more access to what they already have.

2) Static vs Dynamic.

The Potheads don't move much. Okay, it's true. But there are lots of events which roam around (or have a corridor booked off for them), so really moving around isn't much of an issue.

3) Set Days.

In a way, both of these events are the same. 4/20 only happens on...well, 4/20. The day of the week changes year-to-year, so you can't say that it isn't disruptive. I remember a few years back it was on a Friday. That Friday happened to coincide with a provincial Pro-D day, resulting in a HUGE spike in teen/youth attendance. That's a rant for another day, but suffice it to say that allowances can be made.

4) Representative.
And this is my biggest bone of contention. This is the reason that Critical Mass claims they can get away with it all. Let's be serious. We all know you guys are a protest and a political movement. We all know exactly what your goals are--to "make it known how many bikeists note1 there are" and to make yourself seen, heard and felt in order to try and convince people to give you what you want.

You're strongarming. Blackmailing. You are doing what the Mafia does. "Listen, I got a problem. It's not really a problem per se, but it's something that causes us annoyance. So how's about we do this. Each day, I'm gonna make it known that I have a "problem" for about an hour. It's gonna be very difficult for you to do your business while I make it known that we have this problem, so perhaps you would be able to find some sort of solution for this problem of ours?"



The reason for all the bitterness in the thread? Exactly what I've listed. And like I've said before, the solution? Critical Manners. Read up, people.


Note1
I call them "bikeists" because "Biker" is a big scary man with a beard. A Bikeist is a tiny little pansy who pedals a lot. And Jeremy Clarkson says it.

Well. Fucking. Said. I used my last thanks on you.

Berz out.

about fucking time

lol.. what is the point of the critial mass anyways?

all I see is a bunch of hippies trying to fuck with people.


and the funny thing about these biker faggots is if you honk at them or something they'll flip the fuck out. I made a post a while back in one of the hippie bike threads. I honked at some lady to get fucking moving on her bike (she purposley slowed down on her bike that's why I did, and my car was blocking traffic as I was trying to drive across some intersection). She blocked my car in the middle of the road screaming "he tried to run me over" and proceeded to call the cops..... basically just because she was honked at.

these fuckers only want attention and cause drama because they have nothing better to do.


:devil: :fuuuuu:

THIS MAN!!! so much win :fullofwin:
(minus the spelling mistake)

I'm pro green transportation. Biking is a good alternative, but with our weather and lifestyles, it's not practical for everybody.

While I'm, not necessarily anti-car, I think you'd have to admit:
- With no strong emphasis on carpooling, it's not very green.
- Our roads were not designed to handle the current traffic, and it's only going to get worse.
- Our current transportation system really isn't sustainable.


I think critical mass is good concept gone wrong.
It has turned from something which should be generating positive publicity into something that has left a nasty taste in the mouths of drivers.
And there are a LOT of drivers.
Ignoring all other factors...
Critical mass (in Vancouver) and it's associated branding and momentum is simply not effective in cooperatively building a fully integrated and sustainable transportation system for metro vancouver.


While I know this a car forum, so the demographic is certainly skewed,


Driving on the Road is not a RIGHT.
In our Vancouver-is-green society, It is a privilege.
That is why you pay, and bikes don't.
Also, your property tax is used for the roads and that is under public ownership.

Insurance is a whole different animal.

Please don't make horribly flawed arguments about bikers not paying, while drivers do.
Drivers have to pay because they need to be insured against doing damage to other parties while having a lethal weapon at their fingertips.
I could very well own a house, and not drive a car.
I'd be paying for my share of the roads, and then some.

1. In an ideal situation, if we were planning a new city from the ground up. There would be bike lanes everywhere.
   But this isn't practical, but there should still be bike lanes in some places. And elsewhere, bikes will have to share the road with cars.
2. Car hits bike, rider dies.
   Bike hits pedestrian, both get a bit of scrapes. Tops.
   
   Even if we were to look at this from a purely economics standpoint, bikes should be allowed on the sidewalk if they don't have to pay for insurance.
   But we're also talking loss of life.
   I just think our system with this is broken.
   If we aren't forcing bad bike riders onto the road, maybe there wouldn't be so much trouble?

So why not just run her over?
Seems pretty justified from what you've been saying in this thread, right?

For those that failed me, please explain how this is any different from hurting unarmed protesters.

So biking on public road is a right? :speechless:

If you want to argue from an economics standpoint, bikes SHOULD pay for insurance.

Why?
Bikes hit bikes = economic damages (anything > 0 should be compensated)
Bikes hit pedestrians = same thing
What about bikes hit parked cars?

But insurance markets for bikes and cyclists won't exist because it's too costly.

Didn't a biker killed a pedestrian on Main street last year? How do we compensate that?

I respect the cyclist on those new bike lanes... just not assholes who blocks the road.

I cannot remeber where, I belive it was somwhere in the Europian union, that a bike road insurance program has just started. I am hoping this will eventually come to pass here in Canada in Heavy traffic areas. It only makes sense.

He would if there's no punishment for his actions. This is why cyclist in CM are hated on, because they can block the road and receive no punishment.

4 pages of babbling and no1 posted an article about the incident?



http://road.cc/content/news/31464-dr...urbing-content

if buses came more frequent and goes more places i'd be happy to take it

wow, you need a JDM car to hurt someone.

just :stfu:

I agree that cycling could be good but I think it would be difficult to implement in a city like Vancouver where you already have so many people traveling in to work. Problem with Vancouver, as already mentioned many times and everyone already knows, is that majority of jobs are centralized in the city and people are coming from different parts of the lower mainland into this one location.

Reason why we don't like cyclists is that our streets are already filled with so many cars taking up the roads that the unpredictability of cyclists actions and inefficient use of complete lanes simply anger us since a lot of the times a cyclist will take up one complete lane for himself.

I agree that cyclist lanes on all streets would be great for a new city but, again with Vancouver, we have so many cars on the road that the construction of any new lanes would just anger us more because we already have this negative connotation with cyclist and, in addition, 'dey would be takin err roads'. Also putting in left turning lanes would be a hassle for everyone I think.

It seems to work well in Amsterdam though.

Have to add that I hate it when I want to make a right turn at an intersection and theres some cyclist in front of me blocking.

Of course not, no-one deserves what this driver did.

My mama taught me an important lesson: if you poke an animal often enough, it may strike back. These people obviously did not have mamas as smart as mine.

Pretty sure Vancouver is the only place in the WORLD where people are laid back enough to let the hippies cycle around like that

That kind of stupidity would never fly in Calgary, or any other city for that matter.... I guarantee you'll read about some angry redneck in a jacked up F350 mowing everyone down not unlike in this video

I respect their message, but there's more constructive ways of getting it out there then getting stoned and meandering around on the roads and intersections completely oblivious to traffic, inconveniencing everyone and pretty much just acting like a bunch of idiots :facepalm:

It's tragic, but no one should be really shocked it happened. If you play with fire.....

Although I feel bad about ppl getting hurt, critical mass does overstep their boundaries.
Blocking up traffic for others, riding reaaaalllll slow, and ignoring street signs.

( I hope the dog was ok!! )


Found this on youtube.com

Some comments are funny, one guy claims that hes a hardworking guy,has a family, blah blah...and as a driver waiting 10 mins behind a critical mass isnt the end of the world. Big deal!?!

HAHAHHA...hes probably never seen our Vancouver Critical Mass...with the amount of cyclists we have...the trip from Broadway/Oak to Broadway/Cambie would take 40-45 mins if we are lucky.

Totally!

Cities that have mainly bikes as transport in the EU such as Amsterdam managed to build around the bike lanes, even going as far as giving cyclists a bit of the right of way in concentrated areas. Vancouver forced the implementation of the bike lanes and caused hell with traffic patterns.

Culverin, I've given some thought about both supporting and refuting it, but like you said, it's not practical. I for one would like to see some kind of step forward for that, but the way the city forced the implementation of the bike lanes likely left a bitter taste in the mouths of motorists. Some may have altered their driving habits due to them, but until public transit is improved a bit more, I doubt that anyone will move forward with green commutes.

http://road.cc/content/news/31464-dr...urbing-content

Props to the man for having the balls to do something

no props to how he did it.