News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Why on earth would anyone want to be Premier of a rust belt province like Ontario, when you could be Mayor of Toronto?

There's way more publicity and cache as Mayor.

A Premier is a distant shadow figure whose activities are vague and remote at best. IPSO polled Ontarians and only 42% knew who the Premier of Ontario was.

As opposed to 75% who knew who the Mayor of Toronto is.
 
gristle said:
This is a little over the top, don't ya think?

Bike use is going up, which means the incidence of poor cycling practices will become more evident. What needs to happen is for more clear rules to be created concerning how and where bikes are to be used. These rules must be enforced. Cyclists have to be educated on the rules of the road - along with car drivers.

As for "shutting down all the bikes" and then insisting on licensing, that makes no sense. It's just pure fantasy to think that bikes would be banned. It's not gonna happen. As for licensing, the question is to what end? What is the purpose or aim of licensing? If there is no rationale, then there will be no licensing simply because it will cost the city too much money.

I highly doubt Michael Bryant will run for mayor. I think his ambition was for the Liberal leadership should McGuinty decide to move on. Why don't you let the court case take place before you weigh in with paranoia about the "establishment?"

Can you prove that Torontonians hate cyclists? I actually hear more rants about cars than cyclists. The real issue isn't one or the other, but the problem of poor cycling a or driving practices. Why not focus your energy on that rather than getting wound up over some conspiracy about the establishment coming down on all cyclists?
Click to expand...

Every driver I speak to wants cyclists and bike paths banned from the city. As for the authorities who actually run the city, they'll have a cow if one of their own is sent to jail in shackles. And they will seek revenge, not on the justice system, but rather -- and as always -- on the citizens.
 
Does anyone even question whether there would be a debate on licensing bicyclists if a former AG hadn't been involved in one's death?

It just seems like a lot of mitigation (and perhaps poisoning of the jury pool in anticipation of the trial).

Sure cyclists can be a menace but so can roving packs of teens and people with bad body odor. Honestly, not everything needs to be regulated (to death) even when your friends with political aspirations are involved.
 
I think it's safe to say there would zero discussion about bicycle licenses if Michael -- I'm innocent -- Bryant had not allegedly killed the cyclist.
 
OttoSchloss said:
Does anyone even question whether there would be a debate on licensing bicyclists if a former AG hadn't been involved in one's death?

It just seems like a lot of mitigation (and perhaps poisoning of the jury pool in anticipation of the trial).

Sure cyclists can be a menace but so can roving packs of teens and people with bad body odor. Honestly, not everything needs to be regulated (to death) even when your friends with political aspirations are involved.
Click to expand...

And it's funny, because a far bigger and more dangerous menace IS the car. I'd love to see some blitz enforcements on the 400s because there have been almost daily (and 'almost' because I don't drive every day) instances of idiot drivers that are far more likely to put me and others in a body bag. But here we are, discussing bike licencing.
 
So, I have some details on this proposed bicycle licensing system:

First off, you write a written test identifying traffic signs. This is pretty easy. When you pass this you get a B1 license, which allows you to bike around suburban cul de sacs with training wheels on, or you can pedal a "big wheel" or other tricycle in an enclosed, fenced play area.

After mastering the training wheels, you can pay a $100 fee and take the B2 test. A B2 allows you to ride a bike on marked trails, sidestreets and roads with designated bike lanes, but you're not allowed to ride a bike if you've consumed any alcohol, you cannot ride at night, and you can only ride on the side of an arterial road if you are being trailed by a bicyclist with at least 5 years of "big road" experience.

After 12 months, you can pay another $100 and apply to take the B2 exit test. With a full "B" license you can now ride a bike all on your own wherever you want and whenever you want, as long as you promise to keep your blood alcohol level below 0.08. Congratulations! Don't forget, the B license is fully valid in other North American jursidictions with bicycle licensing such as...uh...nowhere, because nobody else believes nanny state bullshit like bicycle licensing achieves anything.
 
Mystic Point said:
Every driver I speak to wants cyclists and bike paths banned from the city. As for the authorities who actually run the city, they'll have a cow if one of their own is sent to jail in shackles. And they will seek revenge, not on the justice system, but rather -- and as always -- on the citizens.
Click to expand...

Please spare me the hysterics. There are plenty of cars drivers who cycle, and plenty of cyclists who drive. There is no mass campaign among drivers to ban bikes. None.

There are bike paths in a number of cities, and more will be coming here. The aim of any regulation is to get car and bike drivers to obey the same regulation and to learn how to properly conduct themselves on the streets and in traffic.

And the hyperbole about "authorities" having "cows" and seeking revenge on citizens - grow up already. Stuff like this makes you look pretty unreasonable, paranoid and/or childish. Is that how you want to project yourself here?
 
OttoSchloss said:
Does anyone even question whether there would be a debate on licensing bicyclists if a former AG hadn't been involved in one's death?

It just seems like a lot of mitigation (and perhaps poisoning of the jury pool in anticipation of the trial).

Sure cyclists can be a menace but so can roving packs of teens and people with bad body odor. Honestly, not everything needs to be regulated (to death) even when your friends with political aspirations are involved.
Click to expand...

We were debating licensing cyclists long before the Darcy Allan Sheppard/Michael Bryant tragedy.
 
BRAZILFEST-SEPT9-09094.jpg
 
No license for e-bike riders

From The Star:

Ontario has officially granted electric bikes the same access to the streets as standard two-wheelers.

Plug-in e-bikes can be pedalled like a regular bicycle or travel with the assistance of the electric motor. Under the provincial definition, they weigh less than 120 kilograms and may not be modified to travel faster than 32 km/h, setting them apart from gasoline-powered scooters and motorcycles.

E-bikes have become more common in the past three years – the time the province has been studying where they fit in the traffic equation. Prior to that they were treated as limited-speed motorcycles or mopeds under the Highway Traffic Act.

The rules announced Thursday are meant to counter concerns by standard cyclists, who say the weight and speed of e-bikes can pose a threat, especially in bike lanes and on paths and trails. But e-bike access to those amenities is up to individual municipalities, according to the province. Toronto permits e-bikes to use cycling paths and lanes.

Under Ontario's rules, e-bike riders must be at least 16 and wear a bike or motorcycle helmet. Electric bikes are not allowed on provincial highways.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the 120 kilograms limit refers to the e-bike, not the rider!
 
I don't see a Star series ... many of those articles were in other publication. More like the words of a couple of the more wacky councillors ... hmm, not even in the summer.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top