#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stopping Traffic
That's the headline, with a full front page colour photo of a "hold-up" on Burrard Bridge*. It leads an inside article about Vancouver's Critical Mass. The West Ender is a local rag that focuses on the neighbourhood probably most effected by the monthly CM rides. http://web.bcnewsgroup.com/portals-c...=49&id=1005784. I think it reflects well on the VPD and city hall attitudes toward recognising the place for Critical Mass in Vancouver history. Some excerpts: According to Muriel Honey, manager of the special events office at the City of Vancouver, the ride is classified as a protest event and, therefore, is not required to follow city guidelines. "Under the Canadian Bill of Rights, [Critical Mass has] the right to peaceful protest, which is what they do," she says. Cyclists risk a $100 fine if they are caught riding without a helmet, which became law for people of all ages in B.C. in 1996. Sgt. Smitas says officers may not always crack down on riders without helmets, though, because sometimes it causes more difficulty to enforce at the time than to let it go. Often, not wearing a helmet is part of the protest," he says. "So, by insisting on enforcement it could make a very peaceful demonstration more aggressive. They are taking responsibility for themselves, and everyone has the right to lawful democratic protest. We support an environment for that." End excerpts. This is not to open a discussion about headgear. It's just a comment about the environment that exists for bicyclists in a city with lots of voting cyclists. * Hey, that's Michael's orange Masi fixey! -- zk |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Stopping Traffic
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:24:57 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:
This is not to open a discussion about headgear. It's just a comment about the environment that exists for bicyclists in a city with lots of voting cyclists. Indeed. I'm ambivalent about CM as a movement. I agree absolutely about the message--bikes are traffic--but I'm less sanguine about the fact that CM circuses give a bad impression on bicyclists. Negative impressions are tough to fight. But I have observed that in certain places, once enough bicyclists have taken to the road for transportation, they force a change in the local balance of power. When I lived in England, I observed that bicycles and bicyclists pretty much ruled Central Cambridge. In London, bicycles got grudging respect from other road users simply because high density made it necessary to get along. Which led me to think: these local balances of power were occasioned by the combination of several factors. Population densities in England are much higher than in most of North America; settlements there seem more compact than they do here. A fair number of English villages/towns/cities simply aren't built for automotive traffic: narrow, winding streets and so forth. Also, automotive fuel is just that much more expensive. The relative bike-friendliness comes from the number of voting bicyclists, yes--but it's the underlying pattern of settlement that determines the number of bicyclists in the first place. Nothing persuades like the pocketbook. -Luigi |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Don't even think about stopping in a crash | nash | General | 12 | March 15th 07 07:49 PM |
Traffic Citations & Traffic Cops | Freddie | Mountain Biking | 0 | March 23rd 06 05:02 AM |
Stopping to smell the roses | David Martin | UK | 11 | June 10th 05 10:21 PM |
Stopping Smoking | Not Responding | UK | 30 | January 17th 05 12:13 PM |
Thanks for stopping | [email protected] | Australia | 4 | December 9th 04 11:44 AM |