Access to UBCO via Curtis Road tightened

[LANDM]

Why the hell can't people deal with a few bikes riding on Curtis Road?

And it starts full circle......it has been explained a thousand times in here. It's not a public road.

[wanderer]

I've personally talked with some of the people who are devoted to a culture of biking where they want and when they want, at all times of the year, and pushing an agenda to have this happen with little compromise. One even described themselves as "extremist bikers" in a reference to no holds barred attitude in getting what they want (gorilla marketing/activism). That seems the mentality of the bikers at UBC-O who have now taken a bully tactic and gone to the media naming the residents on that road who petitioned the court, two whom work at UBC-O. The court decided in favour of the petitioners, but that is not ok with the UBC-O bikers, now they resort to shaming, and intimidation. Sorry, the attitude of entitlement of these bikers is not gaining favour for their cause with many people. Maybe they should put their efforts toward fundraising to improve the "goat track" they feel is so inadequate for travel.

[Pacific]

Some people are militant idiots no matter what their perspective is, but I don't think this is bullying - it's public information.

Seems a bit hypocritical to have paid for those properties on government salaries by preaching healthy living in their professional lives while making it more difficult for others to do the same in their personal lives. "Healthy living, as long as it doesn't even marginally impact me."

The best argument I've heard made is that it's treacherous dealing with cyclists on a narrow gravel road... never even been out there but to be honest that seems really weak.

[Bsuds]

Why the hell can't people deal with a few bikes riding on Curtis Road?

And it starts full circle......it has been explained a thousand times in here. It's not a public road.

My post was a tongue in cheek responst to the post before it.

Why the hell can`t the transportation ministry connect a bike lane to the existing bridge?

[kgcayenne]

The best argument I've heard made is that it's treacherous dealing with cyclists on a narrow gravel road... never even been out there but to be honest that seems really weak.

Weak, indeed. I can picture it being treacherous if one of the two parties were driving faster than what is reasonable for a gravel road.

I'd be supremely ticked as a resident if my neighbours were driving too fast on the road kicking up enormous clouds of dust.

[LANDM]

My post was a tongue in cheek responst to the post before it.

Oops sorry....didn't notice that!

[westbankkid]

It still boils down to one main thing. It is a "PRIVATE" road and cyclists are "TRESPASSING" End of story. Suck it up cyclists using the road. I know I wouldn't be too thrilled if i lived on the street. 200+ per day use it.
Besides that they don't want to be sued if a cyclist gets hurt.

[Catri]

Seems a bit hypocritical to have paid for those properties on government salaries by preaching healthy living in their professional lives while making it more difficult for others to do the same in their personal lives. "Healthy living, as long as it doesn't even marginally impact me."

The best argument I've heard made is that it's treacherous dealing with cyclists on a narrow gravel road... never even been out there but to be honest that seems really weak.

So, if a person believes in and promotes healthy living professionally, they are never justified in impeding anyone from doing anything, anywhere, anytime so long as it's a healthy activity or else they're a hypocrite? So if 20 people showed up at 6am everyday on a doctor's front lawn and held a yoga class it would be selfish and hypocritical of the doctor to ask them not to? Even if it were more convenient for those 20 people to hold the class there than it would at the gym?

The actual best argument in this whole thing, the only argument really, is that it's a private road. Most of the people who've been using it as their commuter route have no legal right to do so and the people who live there are completely justified in defending their property rights. That does not make them hypocrites regardless of their profession.

Most of the comments on the most recent article that support the cyclist talk of "feelings of entitlement" with no understanding that these land owners actually are entitled to their own private property.

[Lerfy]

There is very good reason people do not want the public trespassing across their property. The Occupier’s Liability Act imposes legal obligations on a person who allows others on their property. This means maintaining the road in a sufficient condition that it is safe for the public, which probably requires more maintenance than if it were just being used by the property owners. As an example, if my driveway has a pothole, it’s no big deal because I can’t sue myself if I trip on it and hurt myself, but if I’m allowing the public to use it as a road, I now need to incur the cost of better maintaining a better surface condition to ensure that it is safe for the public. If one of these cyclists were to get into an accident or hurt themselves, the owners of the property will be liable and dragged into a personal injury lawsuit. If they are insured, their insurance will likely go up as a result of the claim. Realistically, they would probably even have to declare the public use to their insurer and pay increased insurance premiums in the first place just for allowing the public to use their property as a public road.

There are good reasons why people don’t want the public wandering across their property, and that is their right as property owners. I’m sure you would feel differently if there were a steady stream of people using your backyard as a shortcut.

[Grandan]

It still boils down to one main thing. It is a "PRIVATE" road and cyclists are "TRESPASSING" End of story. Suck it up cyclists using the road. I know I wouldn't be too thrilled if i lived on the street. 200+ per day use it.
Besides that they don't want to be sued if a cyclist gets hurt.

That was 500 over a 3 day period which included pedestrians, it does not add up to 200+ per day.
Over a 10 hour interval it amounts to an average of 20 per hour, not exactly an avalanche of users.
Residents consistently overstate the problem.

[Swoop]

It still boils down to one main thing. It is a "PRIVATE" road and cyclists are "TRESPASSING" End of story. Suck it up cyclists using the road. I know I wouldn't be too thrilled if i lived on the street. 200+ per day use it.
Besides that they don't want to be sued if a cyclist gets hurt.

That was 500 over a 3 day period which included pedestrians, it does not add up to 200+ per day.
Over a 10 hour interval it amounts to an average of 20 per hour, not exactly an avalanche of users.
Residents consistently overstate the problem.

...private property is private property - the volume of trespassers has nothing to do with tossing the rights to private property aside...

[GordonH]

Private property Definition:
n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

[Lerfy]

That was 500 over a 3 day period which included pedestrians, it does not add up to 200+ per day.
Over a 10 hour interval it amounts to an average of 20 per hour, not exactly an avalanche of users.
Residents consistently overstate the problem.

So lets use your number of 20 cyclists/pedestrians per hour... that is still a very steady stream of people. Would you be okay with somebody walking across your yard every 3 minutes just because they feel it's more convenient for them to use your property as a shortcut?

[danmartin]

So lets use your number of 20 cyclists/pedestrians per hour... that is still a very steady stream of people. Would you be okay with somebody walking across your yard every 3 minutes just because they feel it's more convenient for them to use your property as a shortcut?

This isn't quite the picture that you are trying to paint. This right of way already exits at the far side of all the rather large properties. It is there to allow access to all the properties be it vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian etc. so the owners knew there would be people crossing between their homes and the lake. If the homes were right by the right of way then I might understand the opposition but it appears to me that they were all built quite a distance from it.

[Lerfy]

It is there to allow access to all the properties...

Exactly! It is not there to provide access to the university. It is not there for the public at large. Let's call it what it is... A DRIVEWAY... It' is not a public road. I don't care if it's 10 yards or a 100 yards from their front window, I would not want somebody coming through my property every 3 minutes.