There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 14, 2009 at 14:25:45
Borelli: "Hamilton is barely comparable with Copenhagen, and given the differences in core density (Cop: 5,908/km2, Ham: 451.6/km2) its verging on ridiculous to assume that the same structural magic bullets that have worked there can be applied here. "
It's misleading to compare the overall population density of Hamilton (which includes vast tracts of rural land) to Copenhagen.
A better comparison is population density in the urban core, where the majority of cyclists now ride: the Durand neighbourhood actually has a population density twice that of Copenhagen's: 12,600/km2 (11000 for an area of about 0.87km2). So, there should be absolutely no difficulty justifying Copenhagen bike policies and infrastructure, at least in the core. I visited Copenhagen a year ago, and it was clear that the greatest cyclist density was in the core, not the suburbs.
Let's start by improving cycling infrastructure in the core of Hamilton where there is currently the greatest demand (e.g. Eastgate to McMaster and the waterfront to the escarpment)and then extend it outwards as demand rises.
Licensing (and mandatory insurance) won't solve any problems, and the vast majority of cities and countries that have incresed cycling have seen no need for licensing. It really does seem to simply be a way to "get back at those reckless cyclists", despite the fact that the facts show that cyclists cause very few accidents (90% of bike-cyclist collisions are caused by motorists!).
The same argument could be made to "license" pedestrians: they use the roads (especially in areas without sidewalks and when they cross intersections), they cause accidents and they don't obey traffic laws.
There's a very good reason we license drivers, but not cyclists and pedestrians: the financial risks and physical danger associated with operating motor vehicles are orders of magnitude greater than with cycling or walking (where, in any case, almost all injuries are still caused by motor vehicles). This shouldn't be a mystery to anyone!
Permalink | Context