The Vancouver media has just launched another attack on Vancouver cyclists. On Tuesday the Vancouver Sun ran an opinion piece by Rob MacDonald entitled “Downtown Bike Routes are a Disaster”. And tonight Global headlined the news with a promise to tell us more about:
“The growing anger over Bikes Lanes – why they’re very much becoming a public safety issue.”
Both of these “news items” were full of smoke and mirrors. And both were journalistically unsound and utterly illogical. What is the agenda, and who is sponsoring this assault?
Read about Great Bike Rides in and Around Vancouver Here – Vancouver Cycling
MacDonald’s article: A Tour de Force of Smoke and Mirrors
The by-line on MacDonald’s article claims that he “financially supports cycling events in Vancouver”. What does that mean?
- He once gave 50 cents to the VACC?
- He funded a bicycling-themed birthday party for his five-year-old son?
Like the entire article, it’s nothing but smoke and mirrors. MacDonald simply throws out a series of gross exaggerations, without ever once deigning to actually substantiate anything with facts. His outrageous statements include:
“There was close to zero public consultation before expanding the Dunsmuir bike lane.” (Do we ever get consulted about the millions spent on roads for cars???)
“After thousands of complaints about the Dunsmuir fiasco.” (Thousands? Where is the data? And fiasco? Talk about inflammatory!)
“The massive expansion of the bike lanes” … (Massive? Puh … leeze … all we now have is the bare bones of a safe cycling network in Vancouver. If the expansion seemed large, it was merely because of the pathetic state of bike lanes before.)
MacDonald also refers to the recent modest but solid improvements to our bike lanes as “this lunacy,” and alleges that they have given rise to serious safety concerns (more about this last point below). Finally, in a piece of inflated rhetoric that would have made Churchill blush, he calls for the removal of the new bike lanes, stating that this would:
“rebalance the traffic system and preserve economic vitality in the downtown Vancouver core.”
First off, the notion that the traffic system has ever in living memory been balanced in downtown Vancouver is ludicrous. Second, the notion that a couple of bike lines will destroy Vancouver’s economic vitality is beyond exaggeration – it is a blatant, self-serving lie.
This article would not have earned a passing grade in a first year journalism course, yet the Sun published it anyway.
Global News: A Tour de Force of Unbalanced Reporting and Total Illogic
The news item on Global was almost as bad as MacDonald’s embarrassingly bad article. Global stated that “many business owners and downtown commuters have had enough” of the bike lanes.
How many is “many”? Three? Twelve? And where is the data to back up this claim?
The only people interviewed on this story were self-serving business people. And see this post to show how these business people simply continued to LIE about the impact of the bike lanes. If Global wanted balanced reporting, they should have stopped a cycling commuter and got his or her opinion. If it had happened to be me, I would have told them how the lanes have utterly transformed my experience of cycling in the Vancouver core – from downright terrifying, to an absolute joy (absent-minded pedestrians and motorists notwithstanding).
The most outrageous part of this news item was blaming the bike lanes for the stupidity of motorists. The narrator states:
“The lanes are supposed to keep cyclists safe, but check out this security video which shows a collision between a car turning right in front of a rider, in the right hand bike lane. Cameras at the St. Regis hotel have captured five such accidents since the bike lanes went in last June.”
What I saw on this video was a motorist turning dangerously in front of a cyclist, cutting across a very clearly demarcated bike lane, without bothering to check, and thereby causing an accident.
To blame this accident on the bike lane is almost insanely illogical.
This accident was not caused by the bike lanes; it was caused by the same old same old: motorists who endanger both cyclists and pedestrians by their selfish and stupid driving. Did you know that nine pedestrians have already been mown down and killed by motorists in Vancouver this year?
These pedestrians were not killed by the existence of roads; they were killed by motorists. To say that the pedestrians were killed by the roads, or that the cyclist was hurt by the bike lane, is tantamount to saying OJ was innocent because the knife did it!
I am furious that Global had the gall to use this accident as evidence that the bike lanes are “very much becoming a public safety issue” – the safety issue is the same as it has always been: stupid, selfish people driving huge, dangerous vehicles. Cyclists are commonly injured or killed by cars making dangerous right turns in front of them. Most of the time, there is not a divided bike lane to be seen.
A bike lane is not required to injure cyclists – all that is required is a stupid driver, anywhere.
What is needed is not to close down the bike lanes: what is needed is to vigorously police the bike lanes and fine dangerous motorists very heavily.
The Bloody Great Fire Engine Issue
The other alleged safety issue raised by both MacDonald and Global is that fire engines are unable to turn into roads that have divided bike lanes. MacDonald states:
“The city’s transportation department says the “divided” bike lanes are safer for cyclists. Tell that to the cyclist who recently T-boned a delivery truck on Dunsmuir in the bike lane, and the fire truck crew who could not reach her for 20 minutes because the divided bike lanes prevented the fire truck from turning from Seymour onto Dunsmuir.”
First of all, note the way MacDonald subtly blames the cyclist: that mean old cyclist T-boned that innocent truck! No, what presumably happened was just what happened in the video: a person driving a truck pulled across a bike lane without checking for cyclists.
If that was what happened, then it was not the fault of the lane, the truck, the cyclist, the bicycle, nor of any birds that happened to be flying by at the time: it was the fault of the driver!
Second of all, why on earth was a fire engine even required? As an immigrant to this country, I have always been astounded that when someone trips in the street, an entire giant fire engine is despatched to deal with the incident. When I first got here I called for an ambulance after a drunken pedestrian stumbled outside my house and cut her forehead. Imagine my amazement where not one but two fire trucks showed up! Twelve firemen applied a band aid, and then left.
The woman was not on fire! And there was absolutely zero chance that she would suddenly burst into flames. So why on earth did the incident require two fire engines?
The same can be said for the unfortunate cyclist who could not be reached by the fire engine. She was not on fire; she was not about to burst into flames – so why was a fire engine even required ?
In this particular instance, could the firemen not have picked up their little medical bag, got off the truck and walked to the cyclist? In the bigger picture, do we really have to pollute the atmosphere to this extent to get medical help to people? In a downtown scenario, medical help could be rendered way quicker by paramedics on bicycles, and there would be no need to pollute the atmosphere and crowd the road with bloody great fire engines.
To finish off on a balanced note: Global rounded off the news hour with a cute story about Lawrence Carlson, a farmer who does not need a car: he has used his ingenuity to fix an electric bicycle deemed irreparable – with a bungee cord!
Yeah, there’s obviously something behind all these lies. It appears that in the cycling revolution that we’re no longer in the “ridicule you” stage but now in the “fight you” stage.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga103630.html
Living in east Vancouver most people I know have a healthy suspicion of mainstream media but not everybody does. Many people just believe what they read and don’t question it. It’s important for everyone to respond to this kind of misinformation.
Also it would be good for the City to officially make an announcement responding to the recurring false beliefs that some people have. Things such as who pays for the roads, what consultation there was, why the crews were prepared, etc.
It could have nothing to do with cycling at all. It might be just the mainstream media’s topic they picked as they try to drag down those in power. At any other time they would’ve picked something else.
I too am perplexed by what lies behind the lies, Clark. You may be right – it may have nothing at all to do with cycling. It could just be that the media publishes whatever will engage public debate. It is after all the era of any fame is better than obscurity. For example, if I wanted to quadruple the traffic to my site, all I would have to do is publish a vitriolic post spewing hatred for cyclists. Or post something that would give the public the opportunity to spew hatred for cyclists. Come to think of it, that’s precisely what Macdonald and Bula have done …
Yep! People getting along isn’t “News”.
I used to work in TV News and got a real insight into what their needs are and how they view things. It was then that I started mistrusting anything I heard them say or saw them show.
Interesting to hear that happens here too. Many years ago I did a day’s real-life work experience at a newspaper in apartheid South Africa. At the morning news briefing, one of the journalists suggesting doing a news story on the growing union protests. The news chief pulled a face and said, “I don’t want anything depressing.” So that important bit of news just didn’t get reported – no one knew about it apart from those directly involved. Granted that was under a full blown censorship/dicatorship regime, but it did make me realize that the media has incredible power to manipulate reality.
I believe that was the same article where any pro-bike comment was reported as inappropriate, obviously the author of businesses trying to silence cyclists.
I’m not too sure of the statistics on Vancouver, however from what I was told by a friend in Montréal, cycling has become MUCH safer since the separate bike lanes. Same with NYC, just read any article or blog and they provide plenty of statistics on how streets with separate bike lanes have reduce the amount of injuries/deaths of cyclists drastically, while slowing motorists down to the speed limit.
Are there still accidents? Of course but assuming there aren’t going to be accidents is idiotic. Pedestrians are still hit and killed despite having sidewalks.
Usually the accidents happen at driveways or intersections when motorists aren’t paying attention to through traffic.
With the fire truck issue, perhaps the author would like to explain why on wide streets where there is plenty of room to move over, motorists seldom do and the fire-fighters are left laying on their horn?
As for why fire engines respond to non-fires? Despite the larger size of the vehicle, they tend to be the first on the scene and are properly trained compared to the police in medical emergencies, plus they tend to have everything an ambulance has, minus the transporting capabilities.
If I look at where I live, I’m about 850 metres to the fire hall, compared to 1.6 km to the nearest ambulance dispatch. A fire truck would get to me sooner in a medical emergency, all be it only a few minutes.
As for the media’s reporting, I’ll use some Ontario (Toronto actually) examples…
1. Rob Ford. No matter what negative came out about him, Toronto media spun it in his favour. Ford was and is constantly on one of Toronto’s right-wing radio station, while on another radio station, former PC leader of Ontario has his own radio show in which he did nothing but promote and highlight Ford in a good way, even having contests related to the gravy train.
Anyone who claims our media is too far left needs to shake their head. If they go any more to the right they’d be Fox News with even less facts.
2. This one annoyed me. CTV Toronto went to a quiet street in the city to a new bike lane. They claimed to have sat there for an hour counting bikes. They showed the video in a time lapse. I believe one bike went down the bike lane.
They spun the story as if it was a waste, all the while when they were showing the video only two cars passed, yet never mentioning the low traffic volume of cars and how it didn’t disrupt motorists at all.
As for businesses “losing money”, I’ve yet to see any proof of this. I believe one business in Vancouver claimed he had to close because of the Burrard Bridge bike lane, despite closing in the middle of the worst recession in decades.
One of our Canadian Tires claimed they “may” lose business here when a new bike lane was put down. Our city caved in and one stretch of the road is four lanes now.
I simply make mental notes of businesses that complain, so I can either limit or stop shopping there all together.
“The by-line on MacDonald’s article claims that he “financially supports cycling events in Vancouver”. What does that mean?”
His hotel, The St Regis, is a big sponsor of the RBC GranFondo Whistler. At the finish line, the St Regis presented all finishers with a medal. Interestingly, one of the big selling points of paying to sign up for the GranFondo ride is that it provides a protected route, much like the new Dunsmuir St bike lane does.
Oops I meant my above comment as a top-level comment, not as a reply to Ryan’s comment.
Thanks for that info, Alex. So it seems that he really does support cycling events. I just get irritated when vague claims are made. It’s like when we buy products because “a portion of the proceeds goes to homeless shelters” or whatever. I always think, WHAT portion? If it’s 0.000000001%, then it’s meaningless. If it’s 10%, then I should be buying that product …
There’s a load of great stuff going on elsewhere. A Minnesota ceosresgmnn, Jim Oberstar who spearheaded the original federally-funded rails-to-trails program has just gotten a major highway funds allocation for bike lanes, paths and trails. Let’s hope Wichita gets its fair share and uses it intelligently to make bike commuting and better recreational riding happen. (He and other like-minded Minnesotans have made Minnesota the top-rated cycling-friendly state.)One of the really interesting things is his and others’ observations on kids’ biking, as in riding to school most days. It’s been noted that in the old days when kids rode bikes and walked to school, rather than being driven and bused, obesity was rare, but now 30% of kids are obese.This means if Wichita will build a rideable street system, and mount a concerted share the road campaign, all of us from kids to adults can enjoy better health.
Ryan, I agree with you that separate lanes make cyclists safer. It’s a no-brainer. If anyone disagrees, I suggest they try cycling along a busy street, then try Hornby, and just FEEL the difference. It’s not rocket science. Of course there will still be accidents, but as you say, it is just plain idiotic to assume there won’t be.
I get your point about the fire engines, but I still think the situation needs to be re-thought, not just accepted because that’s the way it’s always been. If the fire hall near your house sent our paramedics on bikes, would they not get to you just as fast, if not faster? Imagine that, a fleet of bicycles parked next to the fire engines … You could probably buy around 250,000 bikes for the cost of one fire engine, too. (Guessing they must run at about a quarter million, and a good bike can be purchased for $1,000.) I come from a country where fire engines only go to fires … and that system works too. I get that we have to keep our well-trained fire-persons busy saving lives, but there is nothing that dictates that fire-persons can only move through space if ensconced in a fire engine.
Finally, I agree with your policy of boycotting businesses that speak out against cycling. There are plenty of businesses that don’t speak out against cycling, and I will take my money there. (Just as I never go to Wal-Mart after reading about their systemic discrimination against women, and of course their assault on the trade union system.)
St. Catharines only has the “painted” bike lanes, however when roads went from no bike lanes to those, it made a world of difference…Did it make me or any other cyclist safer though? Absolutely not. I’ve seen people distracted stradling the line or even driving in them. I have witness outside my house people using the bike lane as a passing lane.
I’m sort of mixed on the firetruck issue though. It is mainly an equipment related thing. It would be difficult for them to have everything they need on a bike, plus if they respond to a non-fire emergency, then get called to a fire that means they’d have to ride back to the station and get ready.
My fire station has a van for emergencies now, however if it’s out on a call, a firetruck is used.
I guess I’m also looking at it from a smaller city POV. Perhaps in a more crowded city it would make sense to have police, paramedics and fire-fighters on bikes.
Ryan, I like your idea of diversifying the services. If paramedics on bikes were dealing with a bleeding person, the firetruck could be ready and waiting at the fire station to go roaring off if someone called in a fire.
Fire trucks respond because they’re stationed at multiple points all around the city and can often get to the scene faster that other emergency vehicles. In fact in most of the accidents I’ve witnessed the fire trucks get there first. And even if that wasn’t true, you can’t really argue the fact that the fire trucks NEED to be able to get onto Dunsmuir Street in case there’s, say, a fire…
Nonetheless, whoever was driving that fire truck was an idiot. There are FOUR traffic lanes on Seymour street and he tried to turn from one of the leftmost lanes. Of course he’s not going to be able to make the turn. Duh! He’s a FIRE ENGINE, for heaven’s sake, with sirens and lights and everything – he should understand how large his vehicle is and choose the appropriate lane to turn from, even if he has to turn left from the rightmost lane on Seymour.
I understand that the city engineers worked with the emergency services departments on these kinds of issues. Even for plain old delivery vans they’ve left strategic gaps in the barrier to give them the clearance they need to make their turns.
If “fire trucks can’t access Dunsmuir because of the bike lane” becomes some sort of real issue then it’s a travesty, IMHO.
However I do notice in the Global news video the couple of dozen bike racks beside BCIT seem to be pretty much full as usual.
Hi Sean. I understand your point about the fire truck response – I just think that fire-persons could ride on something else apart from a truck. Of course you are right that we need fire engines if there is indeed a fire – but as you say, it is ludicrous to make out that that truck could not have got into the correct lane to make the turn.
Good spot of the bike racks – I missed that.
Firefighters really do have to respond in a fire truck. That’s partly because they need to keep their medical equipment in the fire truck for actual fires, partly because they often don’t know ahead of time exactly what medical equipment they’ll need (jaws of life?), and partly because if they receive ANOTHER call that DOES require a fire truck then they can’t waste time going back to the fire hall to get it.
It must drive MacDonald nuts owning property (the St. Regis Hotel and Shore Club) across the street from the most highly used bike racks in the city (the ones on Dunsmuir at BCIT). Even on the coldest days this week, they were full of bikes.
I must remember to take a photo of that … to listen to the news, you’d swear Hornby had become a ghostland of homeless people and no one else …
There’s a heated discussion on Frances bula’s state of vancouver blog. http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/developer-with-rumoured-political-ambitions-weighs-in-on-the-bike-lanes/#comments
You should post this whole article on it.
Thanks Jacob. I went there and tried to post a link back to my post, as it would be too much to post the whole post. However, I seem to be blocked from doing so – not sure why. I would be obliged if you would attempt to post such a link – it may just be that I have been blackballed from the Frances Bula club …
So now we know what this is really all about.
http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Potential+rival+pedalling+straight+mayor/4263732/story.html
He’s going to run for mayor. It looks like he’s just grabbing whatever issue is in the tabloids this year. Pretty typical politics really for the power hungry. Don’t really have a platform just want power.
How do we get through this ?
Yes it’s part of the blowback from what many see as Mayor Moonbeam’s ham handed handling of the whole issue-what do you expect nothing is free in life!
Moonbeam is vulnerable on this and a number of other issues and many are saying he’s already lost by aligning himself too closely with ‘fringe elements’ -again that’s politics.
Morale @ City Hall is @ an all time low and Staff (a number of whom I know personally) see jobs being sacrificed because of shoddy decision making and skewed priorities.
So enjoy the bike lanes while you can and don’t make any plans around other proposed routes-now is not the time.
AGT, what are you doing posting here on Average Joe’s blog?
Moonbeam? Uh, we’re not 6 years old, fyi.
Average Joe: I was on Granville St. on Saturday night enjoying the street party and you’ll never guess what I saw: Paramedics on bicycles!
Thanks Jo!!! That kind of thing gives me hope that our species may actually survive 🙂
i like it Vancouver: not at all Fun City to Become nay Bike City? | Average Joe's Cycling Blog very lately im your rss reader
Bikes are nice. But…. we already pay hard for green, alternate to cars transportation into downtown Vancouver (transit). Why would want a duplicate system at the cost of closing schools and continuing homelessness on the streets? (Vancouver city is about 25 million over budget, same as the amount budgeted for bike projects in next 2 years). And after bikes get their special place on the road, why not Horse lanes?
I mean why do bikes have to go downtown AT ALL?
Craigs wrote:
>I mean why do bikes have to go downtown AT ALL?
To go shopping like everybody else. To go to restaurants and movies.
I have a better question. Why would anybody consider driving a car downtown?
Good question, Clark. I guess people drive cars downtown so they can sit all alone in gridlock, search hopelessly for parking, pay through their teeth IF they manage to find parking, gnash their teeth, get old before their time and die … thus depriving the world of yet another stupid person. Mmm … maybe not such a bad thing, after all …
For my part, the most recent time I rode a bike downtown, it was to spend a couple of thousand dollars at the Apple store. It was very amusing to me that I was followed around by a security guard after I came in with my helmet and pannier! I found this almost flattering – usually in my business clothes I am regarded as just another stuffed-shirt old fart who couldn’t possibly harm anybody or steal anything 🙂 But in my cycling clothes, I was transformed into a potential threat – go figure. The best part was that I was able to turn the tables when I suddenly became a high-paying customer … at which point the security guard melted away … and the second best part was that the parking was free 🙂 And the third best part was that I got home feeling exhilirated after yet another great work out on my bike. How I LOVE cycling downtown!