Originally Posted by Culverin (Post 7414953)

I'm so going to get failed for this... but who cares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

Not a fat ass in sight = no drain to public health care

Possible traffic fatalities = low. Bike on bike accidents = people walk away with some scrapes at most.


Everybody poo-poos on the bike lanes, and I agree, cause they were poorly implemented. If we could get bikes into downtown and clear up just a sector that is car-free, I bet we would start seeing something like this... At least on a sunny day.

Originally Posted by Tachycardia! (Post 7415021)

Originally Posted by CorneringArtist (Post 7415667)

This works mainly because cyclists in Europe realize that they're a part of traffic flow as much as cars are, unlike the people here who have a God complex because they picked a "green" method of commuting.

Originally Posted by v.Rossi (Post 7415023)

Keep in mind, we pay for insurance while they don't. Let's not spoil 'them' some more. Them, being the 2 - 3 people using the Burrard Bridge every 2 - 3 hours.

Originally Posted by Culverin (Post 7415684)

Oh yeah, I totally agree with that, however, I just want to point out the the opposite is true. There are drivers who have a God complex just because they think the insurance they pay entitles them ownership of the road.

Originally Posted by Hondaracer (Post 7414990)

90% of people who work downtown do not live downtown

therefor your theory is in fact, fail.

Originally Posted by Acuracura (Post 6972844)

Just a note about North America and driving, North Americans have always been used to driving, and cities were built according to that. Comparing us to Tokyo or all those European cities (Paris, Amesterdam, Frankfurt, Zurich, etc.) isn't quite fair because those cities have been around a lot longer than Vancouver, Toronto, etc. They were originally walking/bicycling, got some cars and a ton of motorbikes, built a complicated system of underground trains, and still maintain that original walking/bicycling mentality. Those cities are older so they’ve had that much more time to build it properly, unlike Vancouver which is constantly experimenting with more car lanes, bike lanes, rapid transit, etc. If you’ve been to those places in Europe you’ll notice the cities are very dense, like how Vancouver is getting to be. Paris, for example, is extremely dense around the River Seine and has ‘suburbs’ around central area. Most people actually live in the center of Paris and either work there or out in those suburb areas. For those working centrally, they either walk, bike, or metro it. Those working outside of the center still bike or take transit to where they need to go. The metro is incredibly efficient and is very busy, but not white-gloved-pushers busy, during peak hours. This allows them to invest huge amounts into the city’s public transit as they can concentrate it all in the middle where it’s needed. Adversely, the GVRD has pods of people and not enough money to fund infrastructure to serve them all. You build a skytrain to Poco and it’ll be another decade before you can build one to Langley. In the mean time all those people and their cars commute daily to the center (Downtown Vancouver) and it creates major congestion, parking, and pollution problems. You’ll also notice those European cities build a lot of pedestrian only streets/bridges, bicycles outnumber and take the right of way over cars, and scooters/motorcycles squeeze in wherever they fit and park wherever they want. Not saying their system is better, but it doesn’t seem to suffer from the problems we’re having here. The difference is those solutions were built from the ground up, starting with the attitudes and expectations of the people living there.

Originally Posted by Culverin (Post 7415684)

Oh yeah, I totally agree with that, however, I just want to point out the the opposite is true. There are drivers who have a God complex just because they think the insurance they pay entitles them ownership of the road.

Wake up and smell the coffee, you pay more for insurance because you are handling a deadly weapon. You can run over stop signs, crash into buildings, kill pedestrians and total other vehicles. THAT is why you pay insurance, it's not a road ownership fee. For that same reason, a bike will never damage a stop sign, break a bone on a pedestrian or do any real damage to a storefront. And that is why my scooter pays less insurance, because the only harm I can do, is probably break a few bones on somebody and end up killing myself.

I really wish drivers would stop using "paying for insurance" as the exclusive right to own the road. It's just bad logic.

Originally Posted by Culverin (Post 7415684)

For that same reason, a bike will never damage a stop sign, break a bone on a pedestrian or do any real damage to a storefront. And that is why my scooter pays less insurance, because the only harm I can do, is probably break a few bones on somebody and end up killing myself.

I really wish drivers would stop using "paying for insurance" as the exclusive right to own the road. It's just bad logic.

Originally Posted by darkfroggy (Post 7415764)

Downtown is quite accessible through public transit.

A LOT of people use cars to drive to places where public transit is available. I have people who live near a skytrain station INSIST on driving to Metrotown.

There are people who need a car for their jobs, such as early risers/late-night workers. Delivery and foodstuff transportation are obvious. But I will argue that, on the whole, people are just too lazy. A lot of people do not need cars for their day-to-day activities.

I understand if you live in a rural area or in the suburbs. But there is no excuse if you live in the Lower Mainland.

I'm not a tree-hugger by any means, but we are really fucking up this world badly. People are seriously underestimating the effect of global warming.