Thanks for the cnmmeots, Bob and Mark.Bob you’re picking up on some of my residual bias. Truth be told, there was a time when I felt 100% confident that I couldn’t enjoy cycling if I wasn’t doing it competitively. The only bikes I owned were race bikes, and the only way I wanted to ride was fast. My view started to change about seven or eight years ago, and it’s still evolving. Personal and professional responsibilities required me to cut back on my racing and training volume, so I began to look to bike commuting to get my fix . At that time, non-competitive riding was a sort of consolation prize for me. However, I discovered how enjoyable, fulfilling, and convenient it can be to use a bike for transportation and recreation. I also learned that I didn’t have to be in a particular heart rate zone to have fun. Without a doubt, my most enjoyable rides in recent years have been those that did not require an entry fee. I agree that the bike racer archetype can discourage average people from getting on bikes. It makes it difficult for non-cyclists to see a bike as anything but a toy or a piece of exercise equipment. That’s a shame, because cycling is so much more than a competitive sport, and there are so many people who would really enjoy and benefit from riding a bike. The Bike Fed’s mission is to inspire, motivate and unite a strong community of civic, business and political leaders, motorists and bicyclists to move bicycling forward. A key part of that mission is for cyclists of all kinds to be united. My future posts on this blog will probably connect more with the enthusiast segment of the cycling community, simply because that’s where I come from and what I’m most familiar with. Please understand, though, that my intent is to encourage all cyclists (and people who aren’t yet cyclists) to enjoy riding a bike. Some of my posts may inspire people to try a race for the first time, and others may inspire racers to commute or to enjoy other non-competitive types of riding. In all cases, I’ll be careful to write in a way that does not imply or encourage any sort of judgment or division among cyclists.Denny

It’s astounding, isn’t it? The focus on Global is lamenting the deaths and mayhem … yet they don’t seem to be able to see beyond the paradigm we live in. Their logic goes: “cars kill us, therefore, let’s find a way to make cars safer.” How about shifting it to: “Cars kill us (AND the planet), therefore, let’s lose the cars”!

I just ordered in used on Amazon (just a couple of dollars) … looking forward to reading it.

The reasonably responsible people at my work actually do not see anything wrong with doing 40 km/hr over the speed limit when coming down Gaglardi. They claim using the brakes will cause them to wear out prematurely! Like the minuscule cost of changing your brakes even compares to the lives lost on that hill. Burnaby installed a pull out on the descent so that the police can enforce the speed limit safely after the last death and these people I work with claimed that it was just a blatant cash grab. I can’t even talk to them sometimes, I just have to shake my head and walk away.

90 people a day died in traffic last year in the US. That’s the equivalent of 9/11 every 3 days. They’ll spend billions on anti-terrorism, wage wars and push changes in policy throughout the world to prevent another tragedy, yet mass transit has to scrape and scrounge for money while roads suck up a third of a city’s budget! Police can’t get funding for traffic enforcement! Roads are designed to allow more cars to move faster.

I really enjoyed Traffic: Why We Drive The Way We Do. It’s got some interesting thoughts on how we have a level of perceived risk that we are comfortable with and how each safety innovation that has come along has caused us to drive in a riskier fashion to maintain that level. Airbags, ABS brakes, wide streets all lead to faster driving with smaller following distances. This behaviour ends up negating the safety improvement and leaving no difference in the number of deaths.

Speaking to drivers here, it seems they think you can “get away” with speeding UP TO 20 km per hour over the limit. So 19 kph over is OK, but 20 and up you will probably get a ticket. A lot of them think that “sensible” driving is actually 10 kph over the limit. It’s a bit annoying, given that the same drivers will tell you that what they HATE about cyclists is the way they (cyclists) break traffic laws!

BC has cracked right down on driving drunk, and it seems to be paying off with less drunk drivers – I wrote about it here: The Tough New BC Drunk Driving Laws – An Attempt to Protect the Innocent, or a Self-Serving Money Grab?

Wow, that’s seriously Big Brother mentality!

Since many of our city roads have been converted from 4-lanes to 2 lanes (w/bike lane & turning lane), it has forced people to drive the speed limit.

Niagara has been known as having the deadliest roads in Ontario, and when you hear of an accident one (or both) of these words show up…Speed and/or alcohol. From what I’ve seen in many ‘accidents’ in the Lower Mainland, the same thing seems to apply.

People are actually calling for governments to make anyone wear a helmet when tobogganing (at least in Ontario)…For the one person every 10 years who gets killed by going head first into a tree.