By Ryan McGreal
Published March 08, 2007
An article in today's Toronto Star on the city's burgeoning debt crisis contained the following nugget of wisdom by councillor Rob Ford of Etobicoke, which I repeat here without further comment:
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day.
(Thanks to Jason for finding this.)
By Sharchy (anonymous)
Posted March 08, 2007 22:23:31
( Permalink )
By A Robot (anonymous)
Posted March 08, 2007 22:35:02
( Permalink )
By Lugubrio (anonymous)
Posted March 08, 2007 23:59:51
( Permalink )
By Spanners (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 03:19:20
( Permalink )
By re90 (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 04:19:51
( Permalink )
By seancb (registered) - website
Posted March 09, 2007 09:24:41
re90,
A simple way to reduce your fear of passing cyclists is to pass slowly and leave lots of space. If this means changing lanes or waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic, so be it.
You call it "your" lane... it is only "yours" in this case because there is a bike lane. If there was no bike lane, the cyclist would be entitled to the entire car-width lane. So until you own the deed to the land on which "your" lane is located, we'd all appreciate it if you shared it with the rest of us (cyclists and drivers alike)
( Permalink )
By foo (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 09:41:46
( Permalink )
By geogblog (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 09:43:08
( Permalink )
re90,
Regarding "your" lane, here's what the Ontario Highway Traffic Act has to say on the matter:
Vehicles meeting bicycles
(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others
(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).
( Permalink )
By Greyhound (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 11:31:35
( Permalink )
By Kaze (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 12:31:18
( Permalink )
By Bikeguy (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 13:12:10
( Permalink )
By bumpy (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 13:21:41
( Permalink )
By Kaze (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 13:40:41
( Permalink )
Dear bumpy,
Cover a third of a cup of bulghur wheat in warm water and soak it for 15 minutes, then squeeze out the excess water. Mix in the juice of three lemons, two cloves of crushed garlic, and a dash of salt and pepper. Wash and pat dry a bunch of fresh mint and of flat parsley (it's got more flavour than the curly parsley), and chop them finely with a good chef's knife or, failing that, a food processor on pulse. Mix the herbs in with the bulghur mixture, and add four thinly sliced spring onions, three diced tomatoes, and a splash of extra virgin olive oil.
You've just made a tabbouleh salad. Enjoy!
( Permalink )
By foo (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 15:51:48
( Permalink )
By foo (anonymous)
Posted March 09, 2007 15:57:09
( Permalink )
By Ted Mitchell (registered)
Posted March 10, 2007 21:12:33
What self centered bully gene makes people rationalize that the size and weight of their vehicle is directly related to their claim to a lane?
Did their parents not love them? Or teach them anything about consideration?
Surely, the number of people moved is the thing that matters. Then, enter the concept of efficiency and you have to divide people moved by the size of the vehicle.
So by measure of transportation need alone, bikes and single occupant cars have equal claim to a lane.
By measure of efficiency, the bike has much more justification, it is simply the better tool for the job. That's not just an opinion, it is a quantitative argument.
I challenge Mr. FOrd to disagree with me after he spends a month on a bike.
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted March 11, 2007 11:43:52
this is one great conversation. I've been chuckling all the way through it. I'm glad Bumpy enlightened all of us as to why there is so much traffic gridlock in the Golden Horseshoe - it's the bikes! And all this time I thought it was the insane number of cars on the road. I guess I'm wiser now. Thanks bumpy!
( Permalink )
By SkidVicious (anonymous)
Posted March 12, 2007 12:55:37
( Permalink )
By SkidVicious (anonymous)
Posted March 12, 2007 12:57:52
( Permalink )
By seancb (registered) - website
Posted March 14, 2007 12:33:10
I laugh because it seems like every single argument on here against bikes stems from a motorist who is angry not because of safety or any reasonable issue, but because they are upset about being late. Even the comment about cyclists passing stopped cars by using the parking lane reeks of jealousy of not being the first and fastest. I am certain that every motorist who has posted here has illegally passed a car on the right whenever there is space to do so (i.e. when the car in front of you is turning left and ther eis no left-turn-lane -- BUT there is space to duck to the right).
I think the real answer here for everyone is to take it easy. Slow down. There is no need for us to be running lights, passing dangerously, and punching each other out because we were cut off.
The real scary part is the fact that automobiles are capable of causing severe carnage to passers-by, whereas bicycles tend to injure nobody but the rider (except in extreme cases).
( Permalink )
By augidog (anonymous)
Posted September 14, 2007 10:06:00
( Permalink )
By Dominion (anonymous)
Posted March 05, 2008 16:07:49
( Permalink )
By Nikolaos (anonymous)
Posted May 22, 2008 13:15:59
( Permalink )
By SmartBrains (anonymous)
Posted June 30, 2010 02:10:35
( Permalink )
By Rusty (registered)
Posted March 08, 2007 17:31:17
Ford is an idiot, there's no defending that, but he highlights a common problem among City Councilors:
a. he does a great job at meeting his constituent's needs. A recent Star article highlighted a day with Councilor Ford which found him working 12 hours, and visiting constituent's homes personally, along with various city staffers, to address their complaints directly. Now that's service. He is also ethically astute and regularly files the lowest expense reports of all Toronto Councilors. But: b. he has a complete lack of understanding of how to build and manage a livable city. His ignorance is truly astounding.
All this brings to mind a sort of Vancouver model of local government whereby the City staffers and councilor assistants take on the lion share of the constituency work, and the councilors concentrate on making decisions that affect the city as a whole.
I have always felt that the job description requirements of our city councilors are too broad. We should have reps who attend to constituents needs, and reps who are dedicated to (and understand how to cater for) the good of the city as a whole. It seems it is too much to ask our city councilors to be good at both.
Ben
( Permalink )