Cycling in urban areas, death tolls are up since bike paths have been implemented

Another piece on La Presse this morning

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/...ure-en-croisade-contre-une-piste-cyclable.php

FAIBLE PART MODALE

Selon les données des enquêtes Origine-Destination du ministère des Transports, la proportion de l'utilisation du vélo sur l'ensemble des déplacements à Laval est stable depuis 2003. Elle se situe à 0,5 %. Même à Montréal, la part modale du vélo atteint seulement 2,5 %.

Au cabinet du maire Marc Demers, on rappelait hier que la Ville « tient à implanter et à connecter de plus en plus de pistes cyclables à Laval ».

« C'est important d'offrir des alternatives à l'auto solo et de favoriser la mobilité active. Plus il y aura de pistes, plus elles seront connectées, plus les gens les utiliseront. »

- Valérie Sauvé, attachée de presse du maire Marc Demers
Click to expand...

Don't municipalities realize that we are a northern country and can only cycle 6-months of the year on avg. Furthermore, our road conditions are so terrible that it is dangerous. On many occasions I am forced to ride on the road vs. cycling paths. Let alone the people walking on cycling paths where the stupid dogs.
 
allroad said:
Another piece on La Presse this morning

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/...ure-en-croisade-contre-une-piste-cyclable.php



Don't municipalities realize that we are a northern country and can only cycle 6-months of the year on avg. Furthermore, our road conditions are so terrible that it is dangerous. On many occasions I am forced to ride on the road vs. cycling paths. Let alone the people walking on cycling paths where the stupid dogs.
Click to expand...
Inb4 les gars du forum qui viennent nous faire la morale qu'ils font du vélo 365 jours par ans et qu'ils ne sont pas mort.
 
je propose le prochain modele de bixi

1397777514000-bilde3.jpg
 
Ronin said:
I just Googled who the author is & climate change denial is his bread and butter, he paneled speeches for The Heartland Institute, a lobbying group mostly financed by energy conglomerate.

I'm not really surprised he wrote this shitty article based on twisted facts & bullshit.
Click to expand...

how is this about climate change? is there something that's not about climate change for you?
I can see the connection if I try.. the more people die, the better it is for climate change. this is a fact, so more cyclists dying is a good thing. so let the suckers die because it's for a good cause. is that what you're implying?

I see you are able to connect 2 things that are not connected in this article (cycling and climate change) but you agree with the post below where correlation and causation are not connected.. so you disagree that more cyclists + poor conditions + disrespect of the rules = more deaths, but you agree with let's ignore what this guy says because climate change denial.

do you ask your plumber how he feels about climate change before you let him fix the pipe that's leaking?


Spaceman Spiff said:
Correlation does not imply causation.

http://www.tylervigen.com/correlati...l_number-of-films-niclas-cage-appeared-in.png
Click to expand...

what about the number of deaths by drowning vs how many private pools people have in the backyard? do you see causality there?
the rising number of cyclists + poor conditions + their renowned disrespect of the road rules has no correlation with margerine consumption, but probably has a correlation with the number of cycling accidents and deaths right? a 10 year old can get this one right.

just because you use that graph it doesn't make you right. all it means is that you know how to insert an image on a forum. it has no impact on your grade 8 biology class grade or your understanding of other concepts.

when you see an issue, instead of asking yourself what can be done to fix it, as a normal person should, you immediately proceed to attack the character and the idea before you even take 5 seconds to consider whether there might be a grain of truth to it.

soooo what I take from this thread is... cyclists are getting killed. this is a fact. let's ignore the possible causes and not do anything about it because climate change teaches us that every correlation is wrong!
 
^^
if you are not able to spot when a columnist writes with a stupid "partie pris" on a topic using shit logic and arguments, then that must suck for you in your everyday life.

The La Presse article is actually relevant, not just the highlighted part. Shitty biking infrastructure is not much better than no infrastructure at all... no shit Sherlock.
 
allroad said:
Another piece on La Presse this morning

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/...ure-en-croisade-contre-une-piste-cyclable.php



Don't municipalities realize that we are a northern country and can only cycle 6-months of the year on avg. Furthermore, our road conditions are so terrible that it is dangerous. On many occasions I am forced to ride on the road vs. cycling paths. Let alone the people walking on cycling paths where the stupid dogs.
Click to expand...

C'est encore du cyclotourisme et des jeunes qui prennent le vélo pour aller voir les amis à Laval. Ce n'est pas de déplacement quotidien....
 
vladjet2000 said:
what about the number of deaths by drowning vs how many private pools people have in the backyard? do you see causality there?
Click to expand...
That's not how the scientific method works. Unless you produce a study with the list of causes and locations of drowning deaths, you are just making an assumption that people are drowning in their backyard pools.
the rising number of cyclists + poor conditions + their renowned disrespect of the road rules has no correlation with margerine consumption, but probably has a correlation with the number of cycling accidents and deaths right? a 10 year old can get this one right.

just because you use that graph it doesn't make you right. all it means is that you know how to insert an image on a forum. it has no impact on your grade 8 biology class grade or your understanding of other concepts.

when you see an issue, instead of asking yourself what can be done to fix it, as a normal person should, you immediately proceed to attack the character and the idea before you even take 5 seconds to consider whether there might be a grain of truth to it.

soooo what I take from this thread is... cyclists are getting killed. this is a fact. let's ignore the possible causes and not do anything about it because climate change teaches us that every correlation is wrong!
Click to expand...
What i take from your message is that you have the very annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouths and then get worked up over something they didn't even say.
Also, you can't seem to be able to discuss a topic without throwing around insults or condescending comments. That's why so many people find you so unpleasant.
 
Last edited:
Ronin said:
^^
if you are not able to spot when a columnist writes with a stupid "partie pris" on a topic using shit logic and arguments, then that must suck for you in your everyday life.

The La Presse article is actually relevant, not just the highlighted part. Shitty biking infrastructure is not much better than no infrastructure at all... no shit Sherlock.
Click to expand...
you are not able to spot the truth and important things when an idiot columnist writes an article, no matter what clickbait or stupid polarizing Trumpist argument he uses, if any. now I understand why you believe what you actually believe. and yes, it sucks.

Spaceman Spiff said:
That's not how the scientific method works. Unless you produce a study with the list of causes and locations of drowning deaths, you are just making an assumption that people are drowning in their backyard pools.
Click to expand...
I don't need to produce a study showing this. I can produce a bylaw that says your pool has to have a fence about it because children are at a high risk of drowning in it. how do you feel about more guns in a population vs more gun deaths? do you need a graph for that one or is that a preconceived notion that needs no proving? I'm pretty sure that like every normal person you get the idea. refuting something obvious because there's no government study on it is arguing for the sake of arguing. Yet you believe in climate change which is solely based on government charts which have been wrong 100% of the time in their predictions so far. try to be a little less biased and look at facts rather than how you feel about that fact or the person who spewed it out.

Spaceman Spiff said:
What i take from your message is that you have the very annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouths and then get worked up over something they didn't even say.
Also, you can't seem to be able to discuss a topic without throwing around insults or condescending comments. That's why so many people find you so unpleasant.
Click to expand...
first thing you said was that this guy is not actually believable because he's a climate change denier. so right off the bat he's wrong because of a climate change reason. you completely ignore the fact that cyclist deaths are on the rise, which is actually the point hidden in the possibly stupid suggestions he might make. because.. climate change. And yet you are the one who feels insulted. I'm sorry, I have a hard time how you can advocate for equality when you are insensitive to people dying, especially for a reason that is completely unrelated.

because you once said that Antifa is a recent movement, and I showed you it was founded in the 1940's, everyone should ignore whatever you say. If you're wrong about something you're wrong about everything? I disagree. Everyone is wrong about something sometime.
 
deathguyQC said:
- trop de cyclistes ont aucun respect (CSR)
Click to expand...

J'ai une couple de cyclistes a job, quand je leur dis que le CSR s'applique aussi a eux, ils me répondent que non. Centre-ville de MTL c'est l'enfer. Stop / Rouge cycliste s'en fout et les piétons sont du style j'l'doua. So toi en char tu dois avoir des yeux tout le tour de la tête pour évité d'en tuer un. Car le CSR s'applique seulement si ta un volant dans les mains.. duh.
 
vladjet2000 said:
you are not able to spot the truth and important things when an idiot columnist writes an article, no matter what clickbait or stupid polarizing Trumpist argument he uses, if any. now I understand why you believe what you actually believe. and yes, it sucks.


I don't need to produce a study showing this. I can produce a bylaw that says your pool has to have a fence about it because children are at a high risk of drowning in it. how do you feel about more guns in a population vs more gun deaths? do you need a graph for that one or is that a preconceived notion that needs no proving? I'm pretty sure that like every normal person you get the idea. refuting something obvious because there's no government study on it is arguing for the sake of arguing. Yet you believe in climate change which is solely based on government charts which have been wrong 100% of the time in their predictions so far. try to be a little less biased and look at facts rather than how you feel about that fact or the person who spewed it out.


first thing you said was that this guy is not actually believable because he's a climate change denier. so right off the bat he's wrong because of a climate change reason. you completely ignore the fact that cyclist deaths are on the rise, which is actually the point hidden in the possibly stupid suggestions he might make. because.. climate change. And yet you are the one who feels insulted. I'm sorry, I have a hard time how you can advocate for equality when you are insensitive to people dying, especially for a reason that is completely unrelated.

because you once said that Antifa is a recent movement, and I showed you it was founded in the 1940's, everyone should ignore whatever you say. If you're wrong about something you're wrong about everything? I disagree. Everyone is wrong about something sometime.
Click to expand...

so conclusion of all your bullshit, stop promoting cycling because more cyclist = more dead. Now can you see the climate change argument or you are still too blind fooled ?

What about this one: Anyone who can read knows I’m in the pay of the oil industry, as is Energy Probe Research Foundation, an organization I helped found in 1980 and where I’ve remained since. It’s hardly a secret.

So you really takes the words from a author who's on the oil industry's payroll on this subject ?

... ... ...
 
vladjet2000 said:
first thing you said was that this guy is not actually believable because he's a climate change denier. so right off the bat he's wrong because of a climate change reason. you completely ignore the fact that cyclist deaths are on the rise, which is actually the point hidden in the possibly stupid suggestions he might make. because.. climate change. And yet you are the one who feels insulted. I'm sorry, I have a hard time how you can advocate for equality when you are insensitive to people dying, especially for a reason that is completely unrelated.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. That was Ronin. Remember what i said about you making up shit about what i said?

I'm insensitive to people dying? Jesus, you have the dumbest arguments.
 
almostock said:
so conclusion of all your bullshit, stop promoting cycling because more cyclist = more dead. Now can you see the climate change argument or you are still too blind fooled ?

What about this one: Anyone who can read knows I’m in the pay of the oil industry, as is Energy Probe Research Foundation, an organization I helped found in 1980 and where I’ve remained since. It’s hardly a secret.

So you really takes the words from a author who's on the oil industry's payroll on this subject ?

... ... ...
Click to expand...
almostock said:
so conclusion of all your bullshit, stop promoting cycling because more cyclist = more dead. Now can you see the climate change argument or you are still too blind fooled ?

What about this one: Anyone who can read knows I’m in the pay of the oil industry, as is Energy Probe Research Foundation, an organization I helped found in 1980 and where I’ve remained since. It’s hardly a secret.

So you really takes the words from a author who's on the oil industry's payroll on this subject ?

... ... ...
Click to expand...

that's not my conclusion. what I said, if you read my post, is that you should be able to extract the facts and discuss a solution. it doesn't matter who paid the author as long as you can extract the facts, which seems to be a HUGE issue here. some are debating the simple equation below.
the fact is that more cyclists + bad conditions + ingnoring the rules = more cyclist deaths.

you're saying that I'm a proponent of less cyclists. please point out where I said that.
better conditions + educating the cyclists (or fining them when they don't respect the rules) will go way further if you want my opinion but so far NOT A SINGLE PERSON here has come up with a semi half-assed idea about how to stop these useless deaths, but a lot have come up with random stuff about the author.

what I am deploring is the fact that certain posters, like the one below ignore the facts, which is people's deaths and bring in climate change as an argument to do so. and then I'm the stupid one.

we're discussing cycling, poor conditions, ignorance and death, and the reason some find for this to be wrong is climate change. and I'm dumb. now I've heard everything.

Spaceman Spiff said:
I didn't say that. That was Ronin. Remember what i said about you making up shit about what i said?

I'm insensitive to people dying? Jesus, you have the dumbest arguments.
Click to expand...
show me where in this thread you have showed a tiny degree of sympathy for the people who have died, or a kind of afterthought of how to improve this. this is my argument. you're saying it's dumb. please read your own posts before replying again and feel free to use as many quotes as you want from what you have said so far. all you have done is try to discredit the author because you disagree with him on other subjects. again, show me how I misunderstood what you're saying by quoting what you have already posted. if you can't find anything, then please let this thread die.
 
vladjet2000 said:
that's not my conclusion. what I said, if you read my post, is that you should be able to extract the facts and discuss a solution. it doesn't matter who paid the author as long as you can extract the facts, which seems to be a HUGE issue here. some are debating the simple equation below.
the fact is that more cyclists + bad conditions + ingnoring the rules = more cyclist deaths.

you're saying that I'm a proponent of less cyclists. please point out where I said that.
better conditions + educating the cyclists (or fining them when they don't respect the rules) will go way further if you want my opinion but so far NOT A SINGLE PERSON here has come up with a semi half-assed idea about how to stop these useless deaths, but a lot have come up with random stuff about the author.

what I am deploring is the fact that certain posters, like the one below ignore the facts, which is people's deaths and bring in climate change as an argument to do so. and then I'm the stupid one.

we're discussing cycling, poor conditions, ignorance and death, and the reason some find for this to be wrong is climate change. and I'm dumb. now I've heard everything.


show me where in this thread you have showed a tiny degree of sympathy for the people who have died, or a kind of afterthought of how to improve this. this is my argument. you're saying it's dumb. please read your own posts before replying again and feel free to use as many quotes as you want from what you have said so far. all you have done is try to discredit the author because you disagree with him on other subjects. again, show me how I misunderstood what you're saying by quoting what you have already posted. if you can't find anything, then please let this thread die.
Click to expand...
the fact is that more cars + bad conditions + ingnoring the rules = more drivers, cyclists and pedestrians deaths.

There is no fact and no data to back up the author's words, except for the fact that he is paid by the oil industry, everything else is called his opinion.
 
vladjet2000 said:
show me where in this thread you have showed a tiny degree of sympathy for the people who have died, or a kind of afterthought of how to improve this. this is my argument. you're saying it's dumb. please read your own posts before replying again and feel free to use as many quotes as you want from what you have said so far. all you have done is try to discredit the author because you disagree with him on other subjects. again, show me how I misunderstood what you're saying by quoting what you have already posted. if you can't find anything, then please let this thread die.
Click to expand...
You're not going to address the fact that you keep confusing my posts with Ronin's?

I wrote "Correlation does not imply causation." That's it. I have no idea how you went from that to "I have no sympathy for the people who died and i am trying to discredit the author because i disagree with him on other topics." Either you are still confusing my posts with Ronin's or you are really reaching because you have a pathetic need to win all arguments.

P.S.
If someone doesn't say anything about cyclist deaths, it doesn't mean anything. Except maybe that they have more pressing matters than virtue signaling on a third rate car forum.
 
Ronin said:
lol sympathy... keep pumping walls of crap and more appeal to shit feeling.

Are you a SJW?
Click to expand...
sympathy does not make a SJW. first find out what it is then talk.
almostock said:
the fact is that more cars + bad conditions + ingnoring the rules = more drivers, cyclists and pedestrians deaths.

There is no fact and no data to back up the author's words, except for the fact that he is paid by the oil industry, everything else is called his opinion.
Click to expand...
here's one where some data is quoted. it's not hard to find.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4272816/...es-in-june-has-canadians-talking-bike-safety/
Spaceman Spiff said:
You're not going to address the fact that you keep confusing my posts with Ronin's?

I wrote "Correlation does not imply causation." That's it. I have no idea how you went from that to "I have no sympathy for the people who died and i am trying to discredit the author because i disagree with him on other topics." Either you are still confusing my posts with Ronin's or you are really reaching because you have a pathetic need to win all arguments.

P.S.
If someone doesn't say anything about cyclist deaths, it doesn't mean anything. Except maybe that they have more pressing matters than virtue signaling on a third rate car forum.
Click to expand...
you're right, that wasn't you. I got mixed up in the messages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top