Re: Reduced sidewalk riding fine & cycle paths - Page 2

05-08-2004, 09:11 PM

Chris B. wrote:

>On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:05:27 GMT, "Doug Purdy" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Check out Jan Wong's article "All thos cycle paths" in today's Globe and
>>Mail Toronto section page M3 or at
>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>
>Try:
><http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040508/WONG08//?query=jan+wong>
>
>>"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views every
>>issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist. Their job
>>is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials on
>>cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that city
>>council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50 from
>>$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.
>>
>>"The pedestrian committee, a kinder, gentler group, actually supported
>>the cycling committee in cutting the fine. Asked why, Rita Brooks, the
>>pedestrian co-chairwoman and a non-cyclist, hesitated. "It was sort of
>>the lower-income argument. But that's not very good, is it?"
>>
>>"The cycling committee holds sway over a $72-million bike plan that will
>>change the face of the city. That includes doubling the number of
>>cyclists in Toronto within 10 years by ensuring everyone lives within a
>>five-minute ride of a network of 1,000 kilometres of bike paths"
>>
>
>A self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
>More evidence that the greatest threat to people who wish to ride
>their bikes to go somewhere or who wish to ride above 5 km/h and don't
>desire dodging and weaving around 3 year olds on tricycles is the
>so-called Cycling Advocate.
>
Agreed, we already have a network of routes to use on bicycles. It's
called the streets and highways of where we live.
Best regards, Bernie

05-08-2004, 10:58 PM

> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??

What a load of horse-manure.

05-08-2004, 10:58 PM

> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??

What a load of horse-manure.

05-08-2004, 10:58 PM

> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??

What a load of horse-manure.

05-08-2004, 10:58 PM

> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??

What a load of horse-manure.

05-08-2004, 10:58 PM

> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??

What a load of horse-manure.

05-10-2004, 11:00 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote :
> I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
> (the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.

Exactly - the appropriate response would be to hike the fines for
speeding, red light running, or aggressive driving.

-Steve

05-10-2004, 11:00 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote :
> I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
> (the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.

Exactly - the appropriate response would be to hike the fines for
speeding, red light running, or aggressive driving.

-Steve

05-10-2004, 11:00 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote :
> I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
> (the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.

Exactly - the appropriate response would be to hike the fines for
speeding, red light running, or aggressive driving.

-Steve

05-10-2004, 11:00 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote :
> I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
> (the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.

Exactly - the appropriate response would be to hike the fines for
speeding, red light running, or aggressive driving.

-Steve