View Single Post
Old 12-29-08 | 08:47 PM
  #78  
spinninwheels's Avatar
spinninwheels
aspiring island dweller
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: island off of an island

Bikes: Easy Racers GRR, Cannondale T-2000/Rohloff Custom, Cannondale R-700, Custom Fixie/Single Speed, Santa Cruz

Originally Posted by trustnoone
So the three inclusive paragraphs were a dishonest comment
Nowhere did I state that his observations were dishonest. It was his opinion, of which he is entitled. Furthermore, his letter was dripping with a condescending and condemning attitude. And that was the reason for my tongue in cheek comment.

How did Mr. Horn know the cyclist was commuting to work? Did he know him? And if he did, how far was his commute...5, 10, 20, 40 km? If it was a 5 km commute, with only 2 km of that on the highway, would that make a difference to anyone?

I couldn't say for sure, that I would necessarily do what that cyclist did. But that's because I don't know the details of the situation. Maybe you're more familiar with that stretch of highway than me. It's been two years since I cycled it last. Getting in and out of Vancouver via the Lougheed, if indeed that was what the cyclist was attempting, is still a major pain.

Originally Posted by trustnoone
We are all either part of a problem or part of a solution. I would suggest that taking a lane of a highway in any weather condition in any vehicle at 50km/h below the posted speed limit is being part of the problem.
Not necessarily. I don't mean to split hairs, but the problem is the weather. He could be a contributing aspect to a bigger, potential problem. But he is not part of the problem. Drivers who travel too fast for road conditions, are also a potential variable in this equation.

Originally Posted by trustnoone
In fact, impeding traffic on a highway is most likely unlawful.
It probably is. And if the RCMP decided to ticket him, it would be for the judge to decide, extenuating circumstances or not, as to whether he was impeding traffic and/or an additional hazard.

Originally Posted by trustnoone
As cyclists who commute under most conditions we are part of that solution and if for no other reason, we in a small way reduce congestion.
I don't totally agree with you there.

Here are some quick, yet loose numbers: 1.69 % of the employed Vancouverites commute by bike*. So depending which population you want to use, Vancouver proper (~600,000), or the GVA ( >2,000,000); then roughing the workforce at a conservative 20% - that's between 2,000 and 6,000 cycle commuters. Granted probably not all of them would drive if they couldn't cycle, but it's still a significant amount.

* http://www.tetracom.ca/transtalk/?p=1934


Originally Posted by trustnoone
Here's a quote we've heard too: "One Less Car". By increasing congestion which increases the likelihood of accidents far more than decreasing speed increases safety the lone cyclist is really creating "Many More Cars".
I'm confused by that statement. Are you stating, that by reducing cars on the road, you're actually increasing cars on the road? Or do you mean congestion? They are not synonymous.

I also think that the saying ONE LESS CAR means a lot more than just potentially reducing traffic. What about pollution and conserving finite resources? Does that count?

And are you also saying that decreased congestion, reduces accidents more than decreased speed limits?

A saying that I like even more than ONE LESS CAR, is...

Be the change that you want to see in the world.

Originally Posted by trustnoone
We can hate the motorist, but in the 900 odd days I commuted in Vancouver, I was safely passed or given the lane by probably more than 50,000 of them. Or more precisely, by all but one car and one bus.
Firstly, I'm glad that your experience of cycling commuting in Vancouver was a positive one.

Secondly, who hates the motorists? I'm very aware of what they do, obviously, but I don't hate them.

Originally Posted by trustnoone
There is a lot to be said for making a few common sense choices with respect to road use, not only for safety, but courtesy too.
I agree.

Originally Posted by trustnoone
If we choose the moral high ground for no other reason than because we can, we could easily find some of our highways closed to us by those who pass us everyday without complaint.
I don't mean to be contrary, but there are a lot of assumptions and judgements made by both drivers and cyclists, let alone Mr. Horn, you and me. There are also a lot of bad decisions made my drivers and cyclists. I just don't think that we know whether or not it was a bad decision, or just a motorist venting and stating it as such.
__________________
Life is either a wild adventure or nothing - Helen Keller

Last edited by spinninwheels; 12-29-08 at 08:51 PM. Reason: spelling
spinninwheels is offline  
Reply