Cyclists and pedestrians get along fine. They each know their roles, they know the rules of the road, and so, coexist without problems. Drivers and cyclists get along fine. They each know their roles, they know the rules of the road, and so, coexist without problems. A statement like that could really go either way. A perfect example is of the video Culverin posted, as well as the video Death2Theft posted of the same thing in the rain. Each includes bikes, cars, trucks, and pedestrians coexisting in a potentially high stress environment.

Please don’t be mistaken about the theme of the thread. We’re talking about the feasibility of having alternatives to driving in Vancouver. This may include transit, cycling, and walking. It’s not just about noob summertime cyclists because for every idiotic cyclist (noobs, weekend warriors, daily riders, couriers, etc.), there are hundreds more idiotic drivers (noobs, adults, seniors, c-lais, midlife crisis guys, rice boys, road ragers, etc). I agree that everybody needs to respect the rules of the road and understand how their actions impact others, regardless if they’re behind a steering wheel, handlebars, or baby stroller. That’s responsibility of every road user.

I think the real issue here is attitude. If we can stop thinking cycling is just for kids and respect that it is another legitimate form of transportation, something like the OP’s video is totally possible. By thinking that every cyclist is anything less than an adult participating in childish behaviour with childish attitudes and childish excuses, we really won’t progress to what they’ve achieved in the Netherlands. I agree with goo3 that the road is not a playground. Most cyclists take it very seriously because their life is literally on the line. To be honest, it’s really childish to be so close minded about something when we’re merely discussing alternatives to accommodate the growing density of Vancouver.

Like J____ said, I’d love to live in a place like that, but it won’t happen unless drivers and cyclists respect each other’s chosen mode of transportation and share the road with each other. Driving, cycling, transit, or walking; none is better than the other. Each has their pros and cons, some are sometimes more appropriate than others in some situations, and it comes down to a personal choice.

If you look at that latest Netherlands video, you'll see the frequency of the busses, how smoothly they travel and with so few cars on the road. I'm not saying we can have an immediate change, but wouldn't the ideal situation be a quick 2-3 minute walk from any where in Burnaby and Vancouver that gets you quick and painlessly to your destination?

I am aware that Europe grew up with an acceptance of the train system and how this naturally evolves into their understanding of a good metro system. I'm also aware that our roads were designed with the car in mind. I know that our current system and growth trend is not sustainable and we're going to have a real problem in the coming years. Somebody's got to make that hard decision to do construction along a major corridor (like the canada and millenium line), and that decision will be a heck of a lot easier before we have double the cars on the road.

I just wanted to point out a possible alternative that does work. If you told me I had to suffer bussing for the next 2 years to have the UBC Line, Evergreen Line and a more transit saturation in Surrey built, I would gladly give up riding. I know it's for the greater good for Vancouver. Compared to Europe and Asia, I know we'll never come close unless the city is destroyed and we rebuild it from scratch, but I would love to at least look at our city in 15 years and know that is is a North American leader in sustainable transportation.

Honestly, where do you think Burnaby, Richmond, Vancouver would be without the Millennium Line and Canada Line?

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but they bike in The Netherlands mainly because the cost of owning and operating a car is probably twice as much as, if not more, than it cost to operate a car here.

No, you don't get it. Cycling in general is not childish. I'll say it again: deflecting the issue by pointing your finger at other groups as an excuse for your shit behavior is what's childish. Here's why. You point the finger at them ("I did it cuz Steve did it"). They can also point the finger back at you as an excuse ("Steve did it cuz I did it"), and we end up solving nothing! Worry about them in another thread (believe me, we do make threads for those). Right now, let's worry about you and deal with this issue.

Seriously, read what most here are complaining about and you will see the theme. It's not about a driver's right or the cyclist's right to use the road. It's about getting educated about how to behave on it! You act like it's not a problem. BULLSHIT. It was the biggest problem on the road last summer. Judging by the denial of these amateur cyclists, it will be the biggest problem on the road this summer as well.

All cyclists need only to have a bike to be able to hop on the road.

This summer, go out and count:
- how many are not wearing helmets
- how many do not signal
- how many do not shoulder check
- how many run stop signs
- how many blow through a red light
- how many do not have a light attached to their bikes after dark

Again, I call BULLSHIT. You clearly don't understand this: They DO care about their lives. But that doesn't mean they know how to take care of it or respect the impact their actions may have on others. Similarly, belittling drivers by saying bikes can't hurt them inside their chunks of metal is utterly disrespectful and childish. I hope I don't have to spell out why.

Furthermore, most pedestrians also drive! So they know what the rules are and what a dumb ass move is. I do a lot of walking. When a turning car doesn't properly yield causing a potential situation for the pedestrian crossing, they know who the dumbass is. When a cyclist runs a stop sign causing havoc for the drivers behind him, even though it doesn't affect them directly, pedestrians know who the dumbass is.

I'm glad you agree with half of my point that being on the road is no joke. Time to hammer through the other half. Believe me when I say this: The roads are big enough to accommodate everyone. Most drivers ARE adults, who care about going from A to B without shit happening to them, not just because they face real consequences, but because they are human. Cyclists will be accepted on the road, but they (as a group) need to show they know how to behave responsibly on it. Stop listening to the bike lobby who paint this as an us vs them issue.

Remember, I gave a choice not an ultimatum: "GROW THE FUCK UP OR GET THE FUCK OFF THE ROAD." We have 2/3 acceptance, and that's not good enough.

I was just there last month. People really are a lot skinnier. Could be due to the amount of cycling/walking they do plus diet.

I really think the helmet laws are a problem here. No on wants to have their hair a mess when they arrive at work.

LOOK AT HOW EVERYONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES

a good short documentary of bikes in amersterdam

Nobody has all the answers, just different perspectives and attitudes. There isn’t a right or wrong to this so there’s not need to convince anybody that cycling is good or cyclists are bad. Back to the discussion on cycling, I’m not trying to deflect the issue of idiotic cyclists. They piss me off too, especially when I’m driving or riding the motorcycle. Looking at that list of infractions, I can’t say that not signalling, not shoulder checking, running stop signs, running red lights, etc. are problems only associated with cyclists. Car drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, scooters, and cyclists all do this with varying degrees of consequences. We can’t ignore the fact that there are crappy road users of all types. I’m not saying this justifies stupidity on the roads, nor does it excuse any road user of their responsibility or accountability. But it is part of this discussion and to focus only on the stupidity of one group would give us a narrow perspective on an issue that actually has little to do with idiots on the road and more to do with density, sustainability, infrastructure, and city planning. Crappy road users and problems like accidents and congestion are just symptoms when the above root issues are not addressed.

When identifying groups like drivers, cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, etc. we should not assume they are all the same. Some drivers are safe, some can’t drive worth crap. Some cyclists respect the rules of the road, some think anything goes. Some motorcyclists are cautious, some are posers that squid around town until they eventually crash. Some pedestrians look both ways before crossing, some think the world stops for them as soon as their foot steps off the curb. My point is let’s not group road users by type and then slap a label that represents all of them. It’s too simple and only creates a divide based on inaccurate assumptions. Then we get statements like “you don’t get it”, “you don’t understand”, and “grow the fuck up” when clearly there’s a lot more to it.

goo3 made a point that most pedestrians also drive, thus they know the rules and what not to do. Believe it or not, most cyclists drive as well, and they also know the rules and what not to do. In fact, anybody with a license had to know the rules to obtain it and should know what not to do, but that doesn’t stop them from doing stupid manoeuvres on the road. So the dumbass is the one running the red light, flying through a four-way stop, jumping into traffic without even looking. It’s not always the drivers, it’s not necessary the cyclist, sometimes it’s the pedestrian, but each and every time it’s the dumbass. This is why grouping road users and labelling them is ‘childish’ because it not only simplifies a very complex problem but segregates people into factions. Some people in this thread have chosen a side when sides don’t need to exist. We’re all road users wanting the same thing: safe and efficient transportation. This is not an Us vs. Them debate nor will we all agree on every single point. It’s more likely we won’t because we all have different values, experiences, and knowledge which give us different perspectives and attitudes.

Take a quick flip through this article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/B...047/story.html

As you can see, driver's don't really pay their fair share for using the roads. It's all generated from property taxes at the Municipal level. We have a lot of non-revenue-neutral taxation structures in Canada, because of non-drivers subsidize driver, we don't have the revenue to build a sustainable transportation system. A sustainable city grows up, not out. It gets denser, not bigger.

Here's a quick video...

If we can even bring that incorrect distribution back closer to an equilibrium, we will have the revenue to finance a better mass transit systems.

To me, that is the point. It's a very hard and unpopular choice to make driving cost more, but it's really for the greater long term good. However, this only works if the city cooperates by making SMART choices. Think of all the wasted space on top of the new Broadway/Cambie Canada line station. That could have been PRIME real estate, view of downtown, view of the mountains, it could have heavily offset the cost of the Canada line. More revenue neutral choices should be embraced.

If we really wanted to bring more pedestrians and bikes into the city core, every skytrain station should have a large number of fully covered bike parking area. But we don't.

As I've mentioned before, the bike lanes in the city were poorly implemented. As if the critical mass "riots" aren't enough, all the city has is galvanize the adversarial drivers-versus-bikers attitude in the city.

Here are some possible low-cost, mostly pain free steps that could be taken.

1. Remove bike lanes from Dunsmuir. Relocate them. Powell is good because it passes Oppenheimer park. Expo Boulevard is a good candidate as well as that will take people to Andy Livingstone park, GM place and BC Place. Think of all the games, events and Sun Runs this could serve.
2. Large number of covered bike parking @ each skytrain station. This shouldn't have been that hard to do. I work in Arch/Engineering. Consultants score major LEED points by doing something like this. This would encourage some more recreation bikers and commuters to get on their bikes and at least make part of their commute on 2 wheels.
3. Each major skytrain station, Lougheed, Metro, Brentwood, Broadway, Stadium and Lonsdale should have a large number of bike lockers. This will encourage the hardcore bikers with multi-thousand dollar bikes to at least bike part way.
4. Find revenue neutral solutions to implementing more mass transit. High-rise over Broadway/City Hall @ the Canada line would be a prime example. Ditto with 2nd Ave and Cambie. It's not like they didn't have enough area at @ site.
   
   Build these units at high-end premium units, all they would have to do is entice a couple hipster anchor retail and service shops like Cafe Artigiano, Arcteryx, Lulu Lemon for a cheap 10-year lease and you can call those premium condos. You can over-charge and get away with it. The profits from a single unit like that would totally offset the cheaper lease.

Most of these could have been achieved with some better communication at the planning level. The covered bike parking and storage lockers could have been EASILY done at a fraction of the fiscal cost of the downtown bike lanes. Especially since it was our over-paid, standing around city workers putting in the bike lanes. This isn't completely opposite to having all the drivers hate bikers, this would encourage the city to embrace bike and let them ease into it. It's a culture change that can be affected.

If you don't think any of my suggestions are doable, please do share. I really do love vancouver, but I think our politicians are making poor choices on our behalf.

^^ the government (federal and provincial) needs to fucking step up and fund the evergreen line and some major bus/skytrain/light rail projects.

not only will it provide jobs but it will also benefit the area by :

--> allowing cities to set up zoning to have more high density areas along major bus routes/skytrain. Look at all the condos, they are all near skytrains (Brentwood, Joyce/Collingwood, New West, Highgate village, Lougheed, Metrotown). All the commercial retail spaces are a long major transit routes (west broadway, west 4th).

A lot of surveys, corporations as well as the municipalities have all said that they also want commercial spaces near skytrain or major transit routes. The commercial/industrial zones in south burnaby have high vacancies cause many WORKING vancouverites cant get there. Hence, Downtown is where most companies want to go.

Theres too many people that say "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" . . fuck these people.

the city and many companies want Oakridge area to be developed for commercial and possible condos/townhouses. Along with the marpole areas that are ajacents to skytrains.

The Population of Vancouver area is expected to increase by at least half a million people in the next 10-15 years or so. We have to find jobs for these people and they can't all be driving cars (or two)!


On another note, the big bend area is rapidly expanding, but the transit routes to that area are subpar.

not 100% sure, but I believe theres now a law or some rule that prevents residential and certain types of properties from being above skytrains.

I agree, but another alternvative is to have high-rise COMMERCIAL properties near skytrains/major transit routes. that will allow people to use transit to get to work, this will take away a lot of cars off the road.

IMHO, I think cities should zone to allow buildings like the MetroTowers near skytrains stations. The majority of easily accessible commercial areas are either downtown or along the Broadway corridor.

The other commercial/industrial parks are not easily accessible by mass transit.

I like where your going here, the city should definitely change some of their zoning, or have mix use. Retail and high rise residential, a long with commercial units. Allow people to live relatively close to where they work, like it's done in other major cities like NYC or in europe. Even if they drive, they won't have to drive long, soo less time spent on the roads.

There are two kinds of people in this world I cannot stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the dutch.
-Nigel Powers

Just had a spandex clad freak try to tell me how to drive when he thinks the road closed sign doesn't apply to bikes.