Evan
My feedback
14 results found
-
408 votes
Provincial jurisdiction.
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
"Sacrifice a few more lives for the enviroment?"
Any study ever done one the issue has shown that you save FAR MORE lives by repealing helmet laws and so encouraging more cycling than the other way around.
Dying in cycling accidents is a very, very, very, very, very minor occurrence in the grand scheme of things.
How many people die from disease related to obesity, CVD, etc? Exponentially more.
And, how many people die directly and indirectly ffrom DRIVING? Exponentially more.
If you are a proponent of bike helmets, then you should be a proponent of mandatory driving helmets.
Evan
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
I realize that they are not riding in traffic, but I can post a video of that too.
Food for thought:
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
@colin
There is no end to the evidence in the opposite (for repealing helmet legislation) direction -- including peer-reviewed articles. Do a google search and you will find them.. In fact, check out the wikipedia page and you will find a balanced case for both sides. I have been involved with this debate far too much, lately, to post links right now.
How many kids die in car accidents? Is the net benefit of kids not wearing helmets in cars worth it?
Kids can STILL WEAR HELMETS with repealed legislation. This is a matter of choice.
There is not a single non-flawed study that demonstrates a reduction in head injuries or fatalities with more helmet wearing -- as a percentage.
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
1. People are far less likely to cycle if helmets are mandatory. BC saw a drop in participation of app. 28% post legislation.
2. The health gains of more people cycling FAR outweigh the potential safety gains of more helmet wearing.
3. We will save exponentially more tax dollars AND lives through healthier living than through more helmets.
4. There are massive environmental, economic, ecological, social, and cultural benefits to increased cycling. No city with a modal share over 10% (cycling) has mandatory helmets. Coincidence?
5. As more people cycle, cycling becomes safer. Safety in numbers applies.
6. With legislation, cycling fatality and serious head injury always remains the same or even INCREASES as a percentage.
7. Risk of accident and injury from cycling is not particularly high -- no higher than driving or walking -- let alone other, more risky activities.
8. Risk-taking behaviour by both cyclists and others (namely drivers) increases as perceptions of safety increase. A recent study showed that drivers give LESS room to people wearing helmets than to those not wearing helmets.
9. You and your loved ones can still wear helmets without legislation.
10. Bicycle safety is influenced to a far greater degree by education, policy, and infrastructure. Helmets are a band-aid solution.
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
@Tammy: I would love to know how a helmet saved your life as well as a FEW of your friends. That's remarkable.
@Lesli: The comparison make perfect sense. There is more to cycling culture than cycling infrastructure. Attitudes, awareness, participation (numbers) all have a huge part in this puzzle. The only places that HAVE mandatory helmet legislation is Australia, some provinces of Canada, some states in the US, and less than a handful of other places (Mexico's was just repealed; Israel's is on the way out). Turns out that the US, Australia, and Canada have some of the very lowest rates of cycling and some of the very highest rates of obesity. Weird.
Helmets are not like seatbelts for two reasons. First, seatbelts are proven to save lives; helmets are not. Second, seatbelts do not deter people from driving (which would be a good thing). Mandatory helmet deter people from cycling (which is a bad thing).
There is no proof that helmets save lives other than emotionally-driven anecdotal evidence. Statistics show that mandatory helmet legislation does not decrease fatalities or serious head injury as a percentage of cyclists and, in many cases, may increase it.
The 'brain injury clinic' argument is total BS. What about pedestrian head injuries? Falls? CAR DRIVERS!
If you are in support of mandatory helmets for cyclists, then you should be a HUGE supporter of mandatory helmets for drivers. Simple as that.
-
195 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
Bartosz, that is the biggest load of BS I've ever heard.
'Cornerstone of NA Culture'? More like the cornerstone of the mess we found ourselves in.
Most people live within 5km of their work place. Hardly out of range by human-powered transportation. Besides, longer distances can be easily covered by -- gasp -- public transportation.The 'average North American's lack of interest in cycling' -- oh, well, then we should just forget that idea!
"Our infrastructure is designed and built around the automobile. Our cities are designed for them."
Yes, and this is precisely why we need to move away from the private automobile NOW, before they get worse, and before we continue to pump environmental and economic resources into a bottomless pit.There is not a single, progressive city that is moving forward with automobile-based infrastructure. The likes of LA, DETROIT, Auckland, much of China, etc. are still hanging onto private automobiles. How has that been working out for them?
This goes beyond emissions. The car-oriented design and pod world lifestyle that results from it has massive economic, cultural, social, safety, and public health costs.
"Conversion of existing cars from gasoline to electric power reduces GHG emmissions not only by driving them, but the conversion process itself is far more ecologically responsible than designing and building an automobile from the ground up."
That will never happen.How long would the converted existing cars last the (growing) population? A few years... then what?
People will buy new, subsidized electric cars. Any new cars have a huge, negative environmental impact in their production which already outweighs their post-production emissions, which is why there is an on-going debate to whether or not the Prius is in fact environmentally WORSE than a Hummer H1!
"Electric Vehicles are a practical and ecologically responsible solution to the current emissions crisis."
No, it's a stupid, short-sighted solution that only takes into account one, relatively minor factor -- GHG."They fit within existing infrastructure."
Which requires billions of dollars and immense natural resources to maintain."From a cultural standpoint are easily accepted, and they still give people the feeling of freedom that comes with driving a car."
Freedom comes on a bike, as well, especially when you are not battling thousands of 2000lb metal objects for road space.
"To suggest that everyone must convert to either mass transit or human powered transportation solutions alienates the vast majority of the population."
More people can cycle, walk, or use transit in this world than can drive -- the old, the young, the disabled, the poor.... all of which mostly cannot or cannot afford to drive a private automobile, limiting their mobility and freedom.
For every extra car on the road, the convenience and viability of those alternative modes is reduced. Cycling, walking, and public transit are equitable methods of transportation. Cars are not.
"We must look at the emissions problem from more than just one angle."
Yes, which clearly you are not.
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
Could not agree more, Pradeep.
Please, let's not not be short-sighted an think EV are the answer. They most certainly are not. -
1,002 votes
An ongoing process. Many of the City’s recent initiatives (e.g. downtown separated bike lane trial, additional traffic calming on existing routes) work towards this vision. The draft Greenest City action plan will support this idea, and include directions to help inform the upcoming transportation plan update and new active transportation plan.
Evan
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
The only way that we will get the everyday Vancouverite to cycle is to not only improve infrastructure but also implement progressive policy AND eliminate mandatory helmet legislation and related fear-tactics (as featured in the recent bike to work weeks).
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Evan
commented
Once again, I completely agree.
So far, smarter appliances have only lead to more and more used appliances (or vehicles, or building upgrades, etc.), which in turn leads to FAR more waste and, counter-intuitively, more energy consumed. -
177 votes
This is one of the key actions in the draft Greenest City Action Plan
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
202 votes
The Draft Greenest City Action Plan includes an action to develop a building deconstruction policy. The City is piloting a building deconstruction project and is exploring options for an incentive program to encourage deconstruction.
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
73 votesEvan
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesEvan
supported this idea
·
-
669 votes
The draft Greenest City Action Plan will discuss this in a variety of ways.
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
314 votes
Included in the Draft Greenest City Action Plan.
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
227 votes
City has already moved beyond the 2,010 (garden plots) by 2010 challenge. Three new gardens were created in the summer of 2010 and others are currently in the planning stage. This is an idea included in the Draft Greenest City Action Plan.
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
176 votes
The City has supported projects that have voluntarily unbundled parking (e.g. Spectrum), and is actively working to gain authority to require unbundling in new development — this requires changes to Provincial legislation. In 2008, the City proposed the Unbundled Parking Resolution to give BC municipalities the authority to require unbundling in new development. This was passed by the Union of BC Municipalities. Provincial response to date: The Ministry of Community Development will review the proposal and refer the issue to the Development Finance Review Committee for discussion.
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
394 votes
An exciting idea!
Evan
supported this idea
·
-
599 votes
This is an evolutionary process. The City of Vancouver is already considered a North American leader in this regard. Current and future plans and projects (e.g. Cambie Corridor Planning Program) will continue to embrace this ideal.
Evan
supported this idea
·
