Should Bicyclists Pay?

[hobbyguy]

Bicycle crashes involving ICBC: http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Pages/Cyclists.aspx

There were 11,000 ICBC involved bicycle accidents in that time frame. If you do an internet search for "ICBC bicycle accident claims", you will get a long list of lawyers chasing bicycle accidents.

Yes, the bicycle lobby tries to say not, but the info is there. Bicyclists cost ICBC a LOT of $$$

Wanna "share the road"? Share the cost!

11,000 accidents involving cyclists ... doesn't say that cyclists are responsible ... and the Google search returns a lot of lawyers who will help cyclists who are involved in accidents and don't know how to handle it, since lawyers like to pursue cases they can win it would seem that these would be cases where the cyclist has a case against the other involved party ...

in 5 years there are on average 1.3MM accidents in the province ... that means that if you do the math, accidents involving cyclists represent 0.8% of the total ... if you take mode share at 1.5% that makes it look pretty good ... lower number of involved accidents versus the number of trips means lower chance of being involved in an accident ...

are you making the case you want to make?

Yup. ICBC takes in $6 billion per year. You can't drive a car on the public roads without license and insurance. Why then a bicycle? .4% x $6 billion = $32 million. That too much to ask?

Came across this too: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/how-many-cyclists-are-really-using-bike-lanes-1.553752

"Skeptics argue that the bike lanes will be empty once the rain hits. Montreal deals with this problem by removing their bike lanes in the winter months. During the summer 3,600 people use their lanes per day."

That seems a reasonable move. Don't know the logistics of it, but it poses another question? Should Kelowna bike lanes only be "active" April-October? Might help with parking for a few months...

[Jflem1983]

Look to Edmonton. U can ride all over south Edmonton on paved trails. Never cross a road really. It is fun. Safe. Well used. Kelowna needs to follow that example. Make pathways away from roads.

[Even Steven]

Should Kelowna bike lanes only be "active" April-October? Might help with parking for a few months...

That is the dumbest idea I've heard. For a number of reasons:

- In Montreal, the cycling lanes are not used during winter because nobody sane cycles during winter. We do.

- What the hell are going to do with a cycling lane? It's not useful as driving lane, and it's not useful as parking lane because of the size.

- If you think you can use it for parking, you have to spend oodles of money on properly signing all cycling lanes and then removing the signs after. Oh, I'm sure it won't cost anything to the city.

[spooker]

Yup. ICBC takes in $6 billion per year. You can't drive a car on the public roads without license and insurance. Why then a bicycle? .4% x $6 billion = $32 million. That too much to ask?

What happens to that money? It seems to benefit the government when they run out of direct taxes and pays people injured by drivers ... I'd say the latter makes sense since cars are causing so much damage ... the former is covered in another thread here ...

Plus, the majority of people on bikes already pay to ICBC ... they should be getting double-dipped because they're going to not increase pollution or damage roadways when they leave the car at home? and their incident of accident is lower?

Came across this too: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/how-many-cyclists-are-really-using-bike-lanes-1.553752

"Skeptics argue that the bike lanes will be empty once the rain hits. Montreal deals with this problem by removing their bike lanes in the winter months. During the summer 3,600 people use their lanes per day."

You do realize this article is originally over 7 years old and the last update to it was over 5 years ago? Things have changed quite a bit ... https://torontoist.com/2017/02/wintertime-bike-count-on-bloor/

That seems a reasonable move. Don't know the logistics of it, but it poses another question? Should Kelowna bike lanes only be "active" April-October? Might help with parking for a few months...

It's already bad enough that bike lanes are used as "snow storage" by the City operations department ... and you think you could park in the 1.5m that is the typical width of a bike lane? As Even Steven mentioned, trying to build "convertible" spaces is not worth the hassle ...

[Omnitheo]

No bicyclists should not pay.
Firstly, roads are not paid for by vehicles. They are primarily paid for through taxes. This is because it is not just drivers that use roads. Even before I or any roommates owned a vehicle, we paid taxes to the city that went towards roads. This is because even without driving, everyone uses the roads. Garbage pickup, mail delivery. Installers, delivery drivers, taxis. Even walking to work as a pedestrian, we take advantage of the roads. Should pedestrians pay to use the sidewalks?

On the note of pedestrians, when I was a pedestrian I hated moterists. As I’m primarily a motorist now, I can speak to the concerns that most moterists hate pedestrians. There is one thing both can agree upon though, they both hate cyclists. And this is primarily why we need to make it easier for cyclists. Provide their own paths, their own lanes. Because they’re not going away, but at least we can avoid cyclist conflicts with traffic on the road or pedestrians on the sidewalks.

I live up a steep hill, making cycling slightly tedious, so I don’t do it often. If I lived anywhere in the flat of town though, then I would rely on it almost exclusively, as it is far more stress-free than driving. And as healthy as walking without being as slow. Remember each cyclist is another car off the road. The solution to traffic isn’t to add more lanes to allow for even more traffic. It’s to provide and encourage viable alternatives. We now have an excellent path along the old rail corridor that gives pedestrians and cyclists a great shortcut and safe alternative to the busy enterprise area.

[maryjane48]

When i lived in kelowna back when sane folks were the majority. I biked everywhere. Then the hobby old techie types moved in and i felt they drove withwelding masks on so. Started to drive more

[Urban Cowboy]

No bicyclists should not pay.
Firstly, roads are not paid for by vehicles. They are primarily paid for through taxes. This is because it is not just drivers that use roads. Even before I or any roommates owned a vehicle, we paid taxes to the city that went towards roads. This is because even without driving, everyone uses the roads. Garbage pickup, mail delivery. Installers, delivery drivers, taxis. Even walking to work as a pedestrian, we take advantage of the roads. Should pedestrians pay to use the sidewalks?

Well by that reasoning why on earth should I pay so much tax at the gas pump, and then have to purchase license plates for my vehicles to boot?

After all I'm using the same infrastructure as you when you cycle.

The point is we ALL pay taxes, but when you drive and require fuel, you get to pay again for the same infrastructure use, and again for licensing, so why should bicycles be exempt from contributing multiple times? They aren't even required to be insured and yet indirectly cost us through ICBC claims involving cyclists.

Looks to me they are getting a free ride in more ways than one.

[Hassel99]

your homeowner policy will not cover you clipping and injuring a pedestrian

This is false.

(in general, since all wording are not the same) Homeowners policy covers your for Personal liability and has no exclusion for operations of a pedal pike for normal private use. It is excluded however, if you use your bike for business such as a bike messenger.

[spooker]

Well by that reasoning why on earth should I pay so much tax at the gas pump, and then have to purchase license plates for my vehicles to boot?

After all I'm using the same infrastructure as you when you cycle.

The point is we ALL pay taxes, but when you drive and require fuel, you get to pay again for the same infrastructure use, and again for licensing, so why should bicycles be exempt from contributing multiple times? They aren't even required to be insured and yet indirectly cost us through ICBC claims involving cyclists.

Looks to me they are getting a free ride in more ways than one.

If you can lower the impact of your car to that of a bicycle then sure, we'll give you a discount ... but a car requires a different underlayment, they require more road maintenance, they require more space, they require more engineering to handle the speeds ...

People speak like cyclists and drivers are different species, they're not ... but the majority of cyclists are also drivers ... though the opposite can't be said with any certainty ... plenty of drivers could benefit to get some exercise ... oh the irony of driving to the gym to get on a stationary cycle, no wonder they all have TVs attached now, gotta be entertained to ignore the obvious issue ...

[Omnitheo]

No bicyclists should not pay.
Firstly, roads are not paid for by vehicles. They are primarily paid for through taxes. This is because it is not just drivers that use roads. Even before I or any roommates owned a vehicle, we paid taxes to the city that went towards roads. This is because even without driving, everyone uses the roads. Garbage pickup, mail delivery. Installers, delivery drivers, taxis. Even walking to work as a pedestrian, we take advantage of the roads. Should pedestrians pay to use the sidewalks?

Well by that reasoning why on earth should I pay so much tax at the gas pump, and then have to purchase license plates for my vehicles to boot?

After all I'm using the same infrastructure as you when you cycle.

The point is we ALL pay taxes, but when you drive and require fuel, you get to pay again for the same infrastructure use, and again for licensing, so why should bicycles be exempt from contributing multiple times? They aren't even required to be insured and yet indirectly cost us through ICBC claims involving cyclists.

Looks to me they are getting a free ride in more ways than one.

You pay for your license plates because you are exponentially more likely to kill someone any time you get inside your car than anytime you can hoist yourself into a bicycle.

[LTD]

your homeowner policy will not cover you clipping and injuring a pedestrian

This is false.

(in general, since all wording are not the same) Homeowners policy covers your for Personal liability and has no exclusion for operations of a pedal pike for normal private use. It is excluded however, if you use your bike for business such as a bike messenger.

nope

[Steve-O]

Not true at all. Might have been accurate 20 years ago, but not now. Sorry, I'm a mountain biker, I've ridden in Kelowna and area since the 80's, and I've seen how the trails and riding styles have changed over the years. New trails are being broken all the time and power assist bikes are definitely going to cause more trail damage.

I wouldn't be bothered if an environmental tax was slapped on mountain bikes to help pay for restoration.

Where do you ride Tech? I'm on the westside and like I say in my post, the trails at Rose Valley and Smith Creek look pretty much today like they did 10 years ago. So do the trails at Crawford. Again, studies have shown the mtn bikes have no more impact on trails than hikers. Yes, there are new trails, but the ones I'm seeing are being built to drain properly so no erosion. Rose is sanctioned and Smith is a few months away so any new trails to be built will have to follow guidelines to ensure their sustainability, and any builder worth his salt is already doing so. 20 years ago trail building was like the wild, wild west and we ended up with trails like in that picture but today there is more thought being put into. Few rebels still out there but even Gillard is now sanctioned and being cleaned up so it is safe for the guys that want to shred and huck the big hits. So ya, what I am claiming is the truth as I have seen it and I feel it is more the rule as areas have realized how much tourism a solid trail network can draw but no doubt there are some exceptions out there.

I know and ride with a few guys on power assist, their bikes have no more impact than mine and for one of them, he would no longer be riding if it wasn't for power assist. I am concerned about the e bikes that have a throttle however.

[Urban Cowboy]

You pay for your license plates because you are exponentially more likely to kill someone any time you get inside your car than anytime you can hoist yourself into a bicycle.

Well I also exponentially pay more via gas taxes, so how is that an argument for bicycles getting a free ride?

Bicycles cost ICBC money, hence us automobile drivers pay more via higher rates, yet the bicycles still get off scot-free not paying insurance nor licensing fees.

[spooker]

Well I also exponentially pay more via gas taxes, so how is that an argument for bicycles getting a free ride?

Bicycles cost ICBC money, hence us automobile drivers pay more via higher rates, yet the bicycles still get off scot-free not paying insurance nor licensing fees.

Thanks for all of that. Those of us on two wheels appreciate it. And the potholes, we love the potholes you leave behind burning all that gas you pay for.

[Jflem1983]

So my road is a major route through town.

There are no side walks at all . The bike lane is a worn out line . Down by the tight corner it is completely gone. .

To ask todays cyclist to pick up the bill for 75 years of mismanagement is a bit much. Kelowna has had over 100 years to build infastructure. They have neglected to build any roads side walks pathways or any thing else used by the public.

Kelowna is just not a very well run city. This council is a perfect example of why not