Thursday, August 18, 2016

Lynn Valley Caterpillar sacrificed for Bike Lanes

The famous Lynn Valley caterpillar hedge is slated to be uprooted as part of work to add the final stretch of bike lanes on the DNV side of the Upper Levels.

Details here.

The District says: "The hedge creature — located at the intersection of William Avenue at Lynn Valley Road — will also have to be removed. While our Parks Department will make every effort to restore the hedge creature, it is a series of inter-connected shrubs, with a large, complex root system, that will be difficult to transplant."

Harrumph.

(Couldn't find a photo online. )

88 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's too bad. My kids always look for it when we go in to Lynn Valley that way. I support bike lines, but I have reservations about putting them on the main streets rather than putting them on some parallel side street. Vancouver (outside of the downtown core) has done an excellent job of utilizing side streets and a little bit of paint and signage to create very nice leisurely bike routes on side streets rather than the white knuckle pro's-only bike lanes on busy streets.

I realize there is no alternative in this section as LVR runs counter to the grid pattern in the area, but wherever reasonably practicable, they should use side streets instead.

Just my two cents.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there are side streets that travel east-west as directly as Lynn Valley Road. It's already a bike route and the evolution to a protected bike rout is a welcome one.

Anonymous said...

The caterpillar is Ogopogo or Naitaka, the name given to the not so mythical cryptid lake monster (it is not a monster it is misunderstood) reported to live in Okanagan Lake.

It surprises me that the supporters of a bike lane would also support the destruction of a key piece of First Nation's heritage but then the same folk also removed the totem pole from 29th and Lynn Valley Road instead or requiring it be fixed using CACs.

Where is the outrage from the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations? The sacred Naitaka hacked up. What is next? A casino?

Anonymous said...

A shrub is part of First Nations Heritage? Did they prune it into that shape, or was it appropriated by some white guy with nothing better to do? Stop looking for things to be offended by and get out and ride a bike. It'll make you feel better. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

The minority bike crowd doesn't care about anything but themselves.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why they would have to remove the median to build bike lanes that are no where near the centre of the road?

Anonymous said...

Anon Saturday, August 20, 2016 3:10:00 pm, have you seen the way car drivers behave? And you accuse cyclists of only caring about themselves? Cars can kill and do far more damage than any cyclist or pedestrian can. And you know what? Bikes are allowed to use the roads, so it only makes sense to provide infrastructure that separates them. The result is fewer conflicts and safer roads for all users. Get on a bike and try it for a while, you mit change your tune.

Anonymous said...

Creating bike lanes along Lynn Valley Rd has nothing to do with infrastructure. A consultant put forward a proposal backed by a road contractor and paving company to create a bike lane. Bribes were paid to the DNV's Engineering department in order that the required recommendation was made. Money changed hands at the Mayor's golf tournament at Seymour Golf Club, the CAO got a new Germans convertible sports car etc. And with nay 2 minutes of discussion it was all approved. There are no decisions made at municipal hall without money changing hands under the table at the Seymour Golf Club, or at the Raven Pub & Restaurant in Deep Cove, or the Holiday Inn LOL. The last objective decision made in council chambers was in the 1990s.

Anonymous said...

Anon Sunday, August 21, 2016 10:56:00 pm, you need to warn people to put on a tinfoil hat before reading your posts. Holy conspiracy theories, Batman!

Barry Rueger said...

And the site moderator needs to understand that having people post as "anon" does not mean he can't be sued for libel.

And that "Anon" probably left behind an IP address that can be used to track him or her down.

Anonymous said...

There's a moderator?

Barry Rueger said...

By "Moderator" I mean "Person to whom the writ will be delivered."

Anonymous said...

That troll knows he won't be sued for libel because the attention will reward him. He would have to be pretty far out of bounds for a politician to want to end up in a public space with him.

The real $ecret deci$ion making room is the hidden scotch and poker room above the Lynn Valley Café in the park.

Anonymous said...

The writ is properly called a "notice of civil claim."

A "notice of civil claim" must be served in person on the party to the litigation not to a blog owner, save from an order by the court.

A municipality CANNOT sue for defamation. The rule is called libel chill.

The difference between a politician that anon references at 9:10 and Donald Trump is that Trump's wife. although posing naked in the 199Os, was not a call girl in 2009 :-), and Trump's wife...well it is better left unwritten.

Poker....I do not even know her :-)



Anonymous said...



Change the names and this could very well be a North Shore municipality.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/lawsuits-loom-in-lillooet-where-municipality-and-citizens-remain-at-odds

Anonymous said...

Linked

Anonymous said...

It does sound like the Lilloet's got some 'splaining to do, but I don't see the connection to North Vancouver. Other than Trollbert's baseless complaints, there is no evidence the District is harassing citizens or threatening defamation for legally protected speech.

Anonymous said...

So desperate the locust and the defendant have become after losing their claim for costs LOL!!!

They are both well on their way up the river by the end of the year :-)

Corrupt as a $3 bill are both :-)

As well as anti-Senitec homophobes :-)

Anonymous said...

By the end of the year? How do you see that happening at all?

Typically, you only claim for costs after you have won... Did you lose in the courts?

Anonymous said...

I thought I had lost but when the judge said "the parties will bear their own costs" the opposing lawyer went into a rage and stormed out of the courtroom in a tirade worthy of the gals who falsely accused Mr. Jan Ghomeshi! The millennials and their entitlements LOL. Best not to forge that Even in law school there are people who graduate in the bottom 50%. They go to work representing public sector entities who have no concept of cost v benefits.

In any event, it seems the lawyer had incorrectly assumed that the judge would ignore the fact that a municipal councilor is an anti-Semitic bore, the mayor is a homophobic horse's ass, and a local mountain bike club uses sexist language such as "Ladies Only" as it carries out its business. Counsel also assumed the court would overlook that the entire cadre of miscreants created a conduit in 2015 for $80,000 in public funds to flow out of city hall to pay for their friend's booze fests in the Seymour at family-friendly locations with such names as "severed dick", those events affectionately termed "trail maintenance
days."

The court overlooked nothing sending a clear message, "Sir, f you want to lock up the buggers, make sure you file your paperwork properly next time. The parties will bear their own costs."

Anonymous said...

You are a busy guy... Do you already have a copy of the transcript?

Anonymous said...

Anti-Semitic bore? If memory from the blog serves, his indiscretion in this matter was that he would not denounce a mountain biker that had used an eagle symbol that was also, in some foreign country, used by Neo-Nazis? Is that the legal requirement in your world that everyone must proactively denounce every usage of symbols connected to racist propaganda? If so, the iron cross is on almost every skateboard, Let's arrest them! The Waffen SS symbol is used throughout Rock memorabilia, maybe we should arrest the aging rockers. Even the Rainbow was used by neo-nazis to make it seem friendly to kids, are we to denounce the usage of the rainbow as anti-Semitic?

The mayor is a homophobe? You obviously have never met the man or learned anything about his awesome family that he is very proud of. I don't know him that well and I know about how actively supportive he is.

As for "Ladies Only" I am sure you are aware of section 15.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the affirmative action clause that allows sex discrimination where it is used to empower women in fields where they were historically underrepresented or diminished in some way. I would say it is fair to say that mountain biking has been male dominated and it is reasonable to have women only events to seek equitable participation.


Anonymous said...

Who's anon 9:12am and what's his/her beef? Seems to have a raging hard-on for a couple of people on council.

Anonymous said...

He's Trollbert, an angry old curmudgeon who is mad at the district because they gave him a ticket for refusing to leash up his dog at a public park. So he decided to use his considerable anger to complain about everything and drag people who didn't bow to his will into court. He ran for council in 2011, unsuccessfully, and has devoted a bunch of free time to harassing people he disagrees with (especially Mayor Walton and Councillor Bond because he hates mountain bikers).

He is sometimes entertaining, but then you realize how vile he can be and how he brings out the worst in people. I have had my fill.

Anonymous said...

Sorry the 'you're a busy guy' link from yesterday is dead... it is referring to his court services online civil claims.

COLBERT, Hazen v BOEKHORST, Mike Provincial
Small Claims North Vancouver Provincial Court 1122752 06Dec2011 18Sep2012

COLBERT, Hazen v BOND, Mathew Supreme
Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts 164441 17May2016 10Aug2016

COLBERT, Hazen v DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER Supreme
Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts 111780 18Mar2011 13May2013

COLBERT, Hazen v SALLY, Jeremy Supreme
Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts 143487 07May2014 27May2014

COLBERT, Hazen v CURRAN, Douglas Supreme
Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts 149260 01Dec2014 17Aug2016

COLBERT, Hazen v SALLY, Jeremy Provincial
Small Claims Robson Square Provincial Court 1551573 13Mar2015 12Jun2015

Anonymous said...

Sorry, mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa... He ran and lost in 2014, not 2011... Don't want to get sued. :)

Anonymous said...

I am shocked to see a person who owns a legal advocacy and consulting business, and is accredited in municipal law, being in the BC Court records regarding municipal matters!

The defendants/respondents are all associated:

1. One is an employee of the DNV

2. One is a member of DNV Council

3. One is the DNV

4. One is a development lobbyist who worked extensively with the DNV

5. One is an associate of the same development lobbyist.

Anonymous said...

1. One is an employee of the DNV... The animal welfare/bylaw officer who demanded that you leash up your dog and ticketed you when you didn't... you sued him.

2. One is a member of DNV Council... Who refused to condemn a person for using a picture of an eagle that you didn't like, and voted on matters pertaining to a volunteer organization that he used to volunteer with.

3. One is the DNV... cause the are evil no doubt. :)

4. One is a development lobbyist who worked extensively with the DNV... Actually he was a neighborhood volunteer who made no money from development he just wanted his own neighborhood turned into a vibrant dense neighborhood. (Presumably so he could sell high and move out which is what most pro development volunteers do)

5. One is an associate of the same development lobbyist. I have never heard of Jeremy Sally, but it looks like he is a reporter, not a developer...and I can't find anything to do with North Van for him.

So did you win on any of these? Or are the courts corrupt?

Anonymous said...

I am curious, you say that you are "accredited in municipal law", which body has accredited you in municipal law? Are you saying that you are a lawyer?

Anonymous said...


The courts are not corrupt and your question is contemptible. In fact the wonderful thing about the Supreme Court of BC is that, unlike municipal councils in the province it operates with independence and based on evidence not graft. It does not accept money from lobbyists, does not call a stick or barrel of river rocks a `community amenity contribution`and it does mot pay out public monies to its friends.

That volunteer group is called the NSMBA. A volunteer group? Really. Over the past two years the NSMBA has paid out over $450,000 in salaries and benefits to it's "volunteers." At least $150,000 and as much as $300,000 came from the treasury of the DNV. Additional public monies were used to buy beer for the `volunteers.``

Keep on trolling and you might might find the answer to your last question. Hint. Do not troll only in British Columbia legal databases :-). Canada includes 9 other provinces and three territories and I am willing to bet $100 you have been to none.






Anonymous said...

Mathew Bond and Hazen Colbert are highjacking this blog to take pot shots at each other. No surprise from Colbert who cannot find it in his heart to say anything nice about NV District Council or about anyone who disagrees with his sensitivities. We voted for Bond because we thought we were getting a new approach to politics and an open mind. Seems all we got was a spoiled, fresh-mouth, anti-Semitic brat who hates successful people a generation older than him for owning a home.

Anonymous said...

Anti-semetic? Where's your evidence of this? Hating older generations who own homes? Again, where's your evidence? A news article that outlined the difficulty of younger families finding homes here on the North Shore doesn't mean hatred for your generation. You're out of line. And no, I'm not Mr. Bond. And no, I don't know him.

Anonymous said...

I don't care

Anonymous said...

Not sure why so much time is devoted to Mathew Bond on the subject of the bike lanes on Lynn Valley Road other than Bond (but also others) supported using green space in which the caterpillar lies so that bike lanes can be extended on Lynn Valley Road where they will be as unused as the ones on Mountain Highway. Bond's sole activity on DNV Council has been to champion increased DNV funding for the NSMBA which subsequently ended up in the pockets of his friends, two facts proven by videos and minutes of Council meetings and the financial records of the NSMBA. But these facts are hardly news and are not apparently prohibited in BC municipal politics After all Vancouver Mayor Moonbean created waterfront land for friends by closing a road in Point Grey allowing his friends' property to more than double in value overnight.

Anonymous said...

A median with plants on it isn't really "green space". As for the bike lanes being unused, do you have actual numbers to support your claim? I know of several people who use the bike lanes daily. I ride to Lynn Valley regularly and welcome a proper bike lane. If you rode a bike, I bet you would too. The safer cycling is, the more people will ride, thus reducing the number of cars on the roads.

Anonymous said...

I know several people who believe Elvis Presley is alive and living outside Detroit.This does not make Elvis a variable in decision making. Everyone who can cycle, like me, would like to cycle more. But my limits are not the lack of bike lanes but rather that I cannot safely cycle with my dog on the bike etc. Adding bike lanes does not remove cars from any road. Investments in public transit might. I came home from the Vancouver convention centre on Thursday night leaving at 8pm. It took me 90 minutes to get to Lynn Valley by walkingm Seabus and bus, a distance of less than 10km. Next time I will drive - that takes 20 minutes.

Here is the photo people were looking for:

http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-goodbye-hedgy-a-poem-1.2339914

Anonymous said...

Want to cycle with your dog, get a cargo bike. People do it all the time. Show me your sources that confirm that bike lanes don't increase bike use, resulting in fewer cars on the roads. You're entitled to your opinion but you don't get to create your own facts. Cite your sources.

Anonymous said...

A dog is not cargo. Caninephobia lives. The only time bike lanes result in fewer cars on the road is when the bike lane eliminates parking on the road.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:21. Show us your sources that bike lanes reduce car congestion. From what I see in downtown Vancouver they take what were formerly car traffic lanes and convert them to bike lanes thereby exacerbating traffic congestion in the remaining traffic lanes.

Anonymous said...

Increase in the number of drivers commuting to and through the city is exacerbating traffic congestion. Did you think single occupant vehicles could get away with free and easy commuting forever?

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3061757/building-bike-lanes-really-does-get-more-people-out-of-their-cars
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf

And lets address some of the other myths that the anti-bike crowd keep repeating:

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/9-things-drivers-need-stop-saying-bikes-vs-cars-debate/
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/07/5-anti-bike-arguments-that-should-be-retired/398489/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2013/apr/11/pedalling-myths-antibike-lobby

Anonymous said...

Well then, 10:32, ... I guess you wouldn't be averse to TOLLING BIKE LANES, until they are paid for. Right?

Anonymous said...

Lets see. We had 2 lanes for cars. We took one for bikes. Now we squeeze twice as many cars into one lane plus the extra ones due to the "increase in the number of drivers commuting to and through the city." Seems like we have successfully increased traffic congestion.

"You don't need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows."- Bob Dylan.

Just try driving through Vancouver core and figure it out.

Anonymous said...

For 20 years we have built no roads and bridges. We have built bike lanes until they are coming out of the yazoo. We have densified to the point some neighborhoods are so dense people do not even know who is sleeping in the bed beside them. Yet traffic congestion has never been worse.Commute times have risen etc. Increased density and bike lanes are an abject failure albeit that I appreciate dedicated bike lanes on routes with trucks and buses spewing diesel.Roads, highways and bridges are too important to be the stage for grandstanding by police services who investigate fender benders for 7 hours and the transportation planners who want to use economic infrastructure for social engineering. Time to clear out the wackos by hook or by crook.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:26pm, Not at all, but only if the roads are also tolled to make up for their use by autos, which is heavily subsidized by tax payers. Oh, and all that free car storage along the streets, maybe start paying for that, too. Park your cars on your own property and free up that space for other uses. Stop making ridiculous trips in the car to fetch a litre of milk. Stop chauffeuring the kids to school. Stop voting against additional transit. Stop blaming everyone else for traffic. You are traffic.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:15pm, the rhetoric is strong with you. Is traffic congestion caused by those on the shore or those who don't live here but come to work or pass through on their way to work? Is it caused by ridiculous car trips to get a litre of milk? Is it caused by all the helicopter parents who need to chauffeur their children everywhere? Careful, because the majority might consider you the wacko.

Anonymous said...

Hey Smuggy McSmuggerton, everyone benefits from roads even those that choose to ride bikes. Your services both exist and are cheaper because 86% of your neighbors have voted to build infrastructure for their evil cars. It is the same funding model as most of our other services. All people pay for hospitals not just the infirm, everyone contributes to libraries, pools, schools, and utilities such as roads. Yes, even though your crap doesn't stink, you have to contribute to sewers too.

Anonymous said...

Hey, you've just helped me make my point. All taxpayers pay for the infrastructure, including cyclists. We all pay property taxes whether we rent or own. These are what pay for that infrastructure, so it only seems fair that some of that should go towards making streets safer for other users. Cars cause a disproportionate amount of wear and tear on the roads compared to other modes (transit, cycling, walking) and those other modes subsidize those costs. Everyone pays, so everyone should benefit equally, not just the motorist. Now, if all you want to do is resort to name calling, I'm not interested. Want to discuss it in a civil manner, I'm more than happy to oblige.

Anonymous said...

Then you misunderstand me, I am all for building safe bike routes, but I am absolutely opposed to taking away from driver infrastructure to do it.

Anonymous said...

Agree with Anon 1:28. Bike lanes that don't reduce auto traffic and parking lanes are ok with me. Can't abide reducing traffic lanes for bikes as it just causes a congested mess.

Love the dedicated Spirit Trail running through the south end of Norgate and the Capilano reserve. When riding in that bike lane I watched a cyclist in full spandex riding westbound between Capilano Rd and Park Royal on the car road blissfully ignoring the beautiful dedicated bike lane 30 feet to his north and holding up a string of cars at least 10 deep. He was matching my progress in speed and direction.

All the planning and expense to create a safe, wide bike lane complete with streetlights and this joker elects to hold up traffic instead. Wow.

Anonymous said...

Actually, sport riders are supposed to be on the street if riding fast (where they are legally allowed to be, by the way). The spirit trail is a multiuser trail where slow speeds are required. It isn't a dedicated bike path, so speeds around pedestrians need to be tempered.

Anonymous said...

Well this guy wasn't riding fast as he was was matching my cycle speed on the Spirit Trail which matched all the other bikes on the trail. His speed was slow enough to hold up a string of cars but, as you say, he was entitled to ride on the street and ignore the bike path. Key on the word "entitled".

Anonymous said...

Is there a minimum posted speed on roads?

Anonymous said...

Don't get me wrong, riding slowly on a road when a multi-use lane adjacent is available is a little douchy. But remember that all cyclists are permitted to ride the roads. They are 'entitled' no more than car drivers.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:55. It is an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act S.150 (2) to drive at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal movement of traffic, without moving to the right. The fine is $109.

The cyclist was riding in the middle of the road blocking traffic.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:00. Get real. The land has been acquired, money, planning, and construction all completed for a super wide, blacktopped and lit path that permits bicycles. The cyclist holding up traffic was being an entitled goof and trying to cover for that type of behaviour doesn't look good.

Anonymous said...

I think I said he was a bit douchy. If you're angry about it, go file a police report.

Anonymous said...

What would one report? An unknown person was breaking the law last week? A smug response from an apologist for unacceptable behaviour who ensures just a little crack to weasel under the radar - "a bit douchy". If that is a pervasive cyclist attitude don't count on broad based public support.

Anonymous said...

The cyclist wasn't breaking the law. He was on a road that the motor vehicle act says is okay. If there isn't room for a car to safely pass, that's too bad. He is required to ride as far right as he determines is safe. It's his call to determine what's safe. There may have been debris on the right side of the road. Cyclists are just trying to get where they're going without being killed. They
Have equal right to the road As car drivers. If your attitude is that you're more important than other legal road users, then I think it is you who has the lousy attitude. Grow up. Your the one here who is being smug. I'm only pointing out cyclists rights.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, the stretch of road being discussed (between Capilano Road and Park Royal) has a school zone along it that runs to approximately Mathias Rd. It then has a 20Km/h zone that starts shortly after turning on to Bridge Rd. that carries on until you reach Park Royal. The stretch of road which has a 50 km/h speed limit is only about 600 metres long, according to satellite maps. How seriously inconvenient is it for a driver to reduce his speed for less than a kilometre?! This is really what gets your panties in a twist? You're probably the same sort of person who ignores the reduced speed zones because they're inconvenient to you.

Anonymous said...

You can turn yourself inside out making excuses. The rider was a selfish person that intentionally and illegally held up car traffic when he had the option of the beautiful wide bike lane 30 feet to the north. Keep writing and confirm your sense of entitlement to the readers. That childish attitude damages your credibility to reasonable people.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:17pm, you're not up on the motor vehicle act, are you? Nothing that cyclist did (as you described it) was illegal. And stop thinking that you speak for reasonable people. You're another typical NIMBY who can't stand to consider other people in this world. You're the only one who matters and you're making that very clear. You're probably the sort of person that rushes old people in crosswalks by edging your car forward and not coming to a full stop. You're a dinosaur who can't stand that the world is moving forward without you. Self absorbed people like you are what's ruining our communities, not cyclists.

Anonymous said...

Well, the self-serving cyclist was impeding traffic without moving to the right which is illegal under the MVA. Intentionally impeded traffic right beside a wide open cycling lane.

As for the "you're probably this or that" I'm not going to bite.

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:51. Thought you might enjoy some remedial reading.

Rights and duties of operator of cycle
183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.

(2) A person operating a cycle
(a) must not ride on a sidewalk unless authorized by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(b) must not, for the purpose of crossing a highway, ride on a crosswalk unless authorized to do so by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(c) must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,
(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,
(e) must keep at least one hand on the handlebars,
(f) must not ride other than on or astride a regular seat of the cycle,
(g) must not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped, and
(h) must not ride a cycle on a highway where signs prohibit their use.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see more horse lanes. After all, horse owners pay the same taxes as cyclists.

I want a Lynn Valley horse lane.

Anonymous said...

Sport cyclists are required to ride the road, not multiuser paths. The path itself has signage saying to ride slowly. Sport riders would cause too many conflicts with pedestrians. Lots of kids running about at the playgrounds along that stretch of trail as well. Don't need the roadies crashing into them.

Anonymous said...

What nonsense. Show us the section of the Motor Vehicle Act that requires "sport cyclists" to ride on the road. The term doesn't exist in the Act and doesn't exist in any governing legislation at all except in someone's imagination. See MVA, Part 3, Definitions.

Drivers of any and all vehicles (which include bicycles) are required to drive with due care and attention to reasonable consideration for others using the roadway and must not drive at a speed that is excessive to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions. See MVA Section 144.

The cyclist as described was cycling at low speed in the middle of the road impeding traffic. The cyclist as described was matching the speed of the cyclists on the path beside him.

MVA Section 150 (2) says that vehicles impeding traffic must move to the right. The cyclist didn't.

MVA Section 182 (2) (c) says that cyclists must ride as near as practicable to the right side of the road. The cyclist didn't.

The guy was a selfish goof and trying to make up stuff to justify his behaviour doesn't fly.

Anonymous said...

I have a bike lane in front of my house and while I support building them where we can, it probably only takes three or four cars off the road during a commute. The rest of the trips on it are recreational, it is supper busy on Sunday mornings and Thursday and Friday evenings, so I suspect it is almost entirely recreational. It is used by some students to get to school, but if it wasn't there they would probably just use the trails and side streets. Still, I support adding them were it is not too costly.

Anonymous said...

I guess a "sport cyclist" is like a "sport driver." Those that don't drive with consideration for others and are above the law because they have defined themselves as being special and exempt.

Anonymous said...

Does the MVA say anywhere that a cyclist is required to use a multiuser path?

Anonymous said...

No, common courtesy dictates that. There is no bike lane on that section of roadway but a bike lane right beside it. Hmmmm...what should a sensible person who is riding with "reasonable consideration for others using the roadway" do? Ooops, that presumes we are dealing with a reasonable person.

Anonymous said...

Again, the lane is a multiuser trail, not exclusively a bike lane. Common sense dictates that sport cyclists use the road and not create a hazard for pedestrians and children on the multiuser trail. Call the District if you don't agree, but is my understanding that they encourage the fast speeds on the road, not the multiuser path. If it were a true separate bike lane then, yes, you'd be right. But it wasn't, which is what I've been saying all along.

Anonymous said...

Are you intentionally missing the point? The guy on the road was not travelling at a speed any faster than the cyclists on the bike path. He was just holding up traffic on a road with no bike lane. A mean-spirited and unnecessary use of that stretch of road when he had an alternative. I was one of 2 or 3 folks riding along on the Spirit Trail matching his speed.

You are turning yourself inside out to justify his thoughtless behaviour and all this hooey about "sport cyclist" has no relevance at all.

Anonymous said...

I'm not justifying anyones behaviour. Only pointing out there is no law requiring him to use the multiuser path, no matter how much you stamp up and down. The MVA does allow him to be on the road. If you don't like it, like I said, report the matter to the police and see how far you get.

Anonymous said...

For the third time there is a law no matter how much you threaten to hold your breath. He was intentionally impeding traffic and not moving to the right of the lane as required by MVA S. 144.

He had an option and he chose to be a pain in the ass.

Your post 8:22. "The path itself has signage saying to ride slowly." Rode down there and rode the stretch between Cap Rd and PR to check out your statement. No such signage at all. Pants on fire.

So being a "sports cyclist" is not a recognized definition that permits anything at all. He was not riding fast as you somehow assert (you weren't there). That road has no bike lane and he had a choice to use the bike lane provided beside the road. He elected to impede traffic instead. There is no signage from Capilano Rd. to Park Royal saying to ride slowly. Pretty much all BS.

I get it. You are some kind of cyclenazi where you make up the rules as you go along and pretend that your opinions are facts and ride however and wherever you like without consideration for others on the roadway. You are exactly the kind of person that gives cyclists a bad name.

Moving on.

Anonymous said...

Point me to the law saying he's required to use the multipurpose lane. You're the one making up the rules, not I. Do you get all wound up about cyclists on roads not adjacent to multipurpose trails? You're the sort of person who needs to have his own way regardless of the circumstances and give rational but fallible humans a bad name. You've also succumbed to Godwin's Law for bringing up Nazis. Bravo.

I guess you missed the signs that say to slow/yield to pedestrians, etc. I ride the path fairly regularly and don't think I'm making it up. But, it is a multiuser trail and common sense would suggest that it isn't for high speed use. Of course, common sense isn't so common any more and you've done a great job of illustrating that here.

If this all bothers you so much, go talk to the police and the District to get the rules you want posted for all to see. Then you can have the last word.

Anonymous said...

Just waiting for the municipal governments in the region to start building "canoe lanes." Why build a bridge between Deep Cove and Port Moody when a canoe lane will do. Buoys will be strung across Burrard Inlet with egress and ingress lights and signals for canoes among the container ships. Imagine going direct by canoe from Southlands in Vancouver across the Fraser to YVR. Move people from cars onto bikes and stop building roads, and into canoes as replacement for bridge infrastructure. Its brilliant. And skateboard. Yes skateboards can be used as a substitute for investment in high speed rail. The solutions have been around for eons.

Anonymous said...

People in Deep Cove already want the number of kayaks reigned in from the water as a result of the successful Kayak rental business. It is unlikely a bylaw to allow canoe lanes would pass final reading subsequent a public hearing. But backyard chickens is an agenda item on a regular basis in the DNV so who knows.

Anonymous said...

Nutshell. One guy is a fan of riding like a weenie and one supports considerate cycling. No contest.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:20pm. I didn't indicate support whatsoever, In fact I said the guy was being a douche. I was merely pointing out that the law allows all cyclists to use the roads. Also pointing out that the sport riding and multiuser paths aren't compatible. I've seen too many go fast, spandex clad types on the multiuser paths completely disregard pedestrians and kids. If you disagree, then support dedicated bike lanes so that we can eliminate all of these conflicts.

Anonymous said...

If I were to prioritize my tax dollars going to hard surfaces, it would look something like this...

Freight Movement Roadways
Emergency Management Road space
Commuter Road Space
Pedestrian Priority/Multi-Use Sidewalks
Multi Use Bike/Transit Lanes and Pullouts
Commercial Time limited Parking
Multi-Use Recreational Trails
Dedicated Pedestrian Only Trail
Unregulated Multi Use Parking
PokemonGo/Cell Phone Pullouts
Dedicated High Speed Bike Only Lanes
Snail Racing Lanes

So dedicated bike lanes is not the bottom of my list, but it certainly looks a little like Mack the Turtle.

Anonymous said...

So, more of the same nonsense that we have now. Transit should be at the top of that list.

Anonymous said...

Kook if we all had nice 4-wheel drive trucks and SUVs we would not need so much hard surface road. I used to walk 10km to school over farm fields and forest. So no need for some many hard surface pedestrian rights-of-way. Soon all seniors will have 4-wheel drive scooters as well. So more easements through fields etc, canoe lanes and skateboard rights-of-way. We can save taxes and allow North Shore senior managers to again double their salaries over the next 6 years.

Anonymous said...

Whoa - the biking laws at Anon 9:12. You mean that its illegal to ride 2 abreast? Across crosswalks? Impede traffic? Got to keep to the right? Have to stop at stop signs?

This must be for another country cause no one following that stuff.

Anonymous said...

Horse lanes would solve it all.

Anonymous said...

Do we not have horse lanes now, with all the exhaust being recycled during meetings at City Hall?

Anonymous said...

"So, more of the same nonsense that we have now. Transit should be at the top of that list."

Actually the current system works quite well. Yes, we are reaching the capacity of some of our routes but considering that most of the bottlenecks were designed for the populations we had in the 60's, I would say the system has held up well.

I do support Transit, but the only dedicated Transit lanes I support, other than short distance queue jumpers and lay-bys, are mass transit Skytrain space.

Anonymous said...

The Translink system works well coming and going from downtown Vancouver which had 50% of the jobs in the region back in the 1960s when the system was designed> But with Surrey and Burnaby about to overtake Vancouver in total employment and downtown Vancouver now below 25% of the region's jobs, the system is not working.

Anonymous said...

Yawn. I'm so bored of this. Don't you know that Staff hold the balance of power and facts that back up the aligations? Let's chat...