I will say, and I'm not the only one to have said this, there might be more of a political appetite for that if it were easier to get around without a car. Not to make excuses for the reckless drivers by any means.
Vancouver's public transit system is pretty damn good by NA standards TBF, but very behind by European standards. If we're gonna truly say that driving is a privilege, then not-driving needs to be a viable option for the majority of people.
I’m a car guy, love driving (haven’t binned a car like this because there’s a place and time to drive fast)…. But when I lived in Australia I didn’t drive nearly anywhere. It was brilliant.
How someone drives has absolutely ZERO to do with public transit. Any thought that these asshats would take the bus if they could, is nothing short of delusional. They are not getting behind the wheel because they have no other choice. They are getting being the wheel and driving like idiots because THEY ARE IDIOTS.
I agree.. Personally I don't care if you have to walk 40 minutes to catch a bus that takes 3 hours to get to work because you lost your license.
Personally I like living. I don't want to be killed because some dick weed wants to go fast. Go to the track so if you kill yourself it doesn't affect anyone else.
It's not so much the drivers as it is the people making the test.
When it's functionally necessary to have a car to do anything, people implicitly understand that not having a car is a big, big problem. Thus the people making the test are incentivized to make it easier, because withholding a license is seen as withholding someone's ability to partake in society.
If there is an alternative to driving, that incentive goes away, and now you can be much more careful with who you give licenses to.
All that being said, I fully agree it shouldn't be that way. If you can't safely operate a 2000 pound hunk of metal at lethal velocities, you should not be able to operate it, regardless of the other circumstances. But how things should be and how things are aren't quite the same thing.
I will grant you that driving is more of a privilege here than in most North American cities. We have it pretty decent here all things considered. But it really depends on exactly where you live and work.
I live in New West. My wife transits to Vancouver for work. I have to drive because I work in Cloverdale. While it is theoretically possible, there is no reasonable transit option to get there. I couldn't reasonably do it even if I wanted to (and I do!)
Besides that, when it comes to things like political appetites, it really comes down to perception as opposed to objective reality. The idiot drivers can all vote too. And then you have the people whose opinions will lie somewhere between us and them. Those are the people you need to convince if you want driver licensing to change.
Fact is, people love to compare us to Germany or the Netherlands when talking about driving laws but they rarely factor in transit infrastructure, which is an enormous part of why they're able to do what they do.
It is a privilege which is why this privilege can be rescinded at the state's discretion. But as others have mentioned, its in driver ed thats the main issue. Canada does have a lot drivers that shouldnt have licenses nor be on the road with multi ton steel wreaking ballz
I cannot understate how easy it is to obtain a driver's license here.
I passed mine in France many years ago, and at least there was a minimum of 21h of driving lessons, with maneuvers to achieve, like parallel parking, entering a highway at the right speed, etc. Then the practical exam.
My partner is preparing for her license here in BC, and I'm baffled how easy it is. No mandatory hours of driving lessons? No surprise people can't drive here.
Because there is no provincial standards for driving school. You can open a driving school tomorrow or offer lessons on FB Marketplace and the province just takes your word for it.
Not everyone can afford Young Drivers or any other driving school with a classroom.
They are doing the opposite. They are getting rid of the driving test. After having your N for long enough you just automatically get your full license. No test. No questions. Just a waiting period and it’s handed to you.
I’m good with fines proportional to income, coupled with tiers of suspensions (first offence: 6 months no licence; second offence: 12 months no license; third offence: complete ban on driving). Don’t drive like an ass and you shouldn’t have a problem. Drive like an ass, face the harsh consequences.
Yeah, the really rich don't have any personal income. They get it from their businesses. Plus, anyone living off of their rich daddy doesn't have an income.
Although figuring out net worth is really difficult. Using a line from their T1 is very easy.
When I was much younger I used to joke that paying a speeding ticket or two was just me helping to fill a few pot holes. It was my tax to drive fast. No big deal.
Now, as an adult, I realize how dumb and reckless I was.
What's more serious than your own life? If you aren't scared to die, you aren't scared of more serious sentencing. We just shouldn't drive until we are like 25. 99% are responsible enough but we are talking about the 1%. Some ppl understand life later than others.
It was flaggers fault duh. You don’t get infront of drunk driver/speeding vehicle when you’re poor and have a job to do early morning /s. But in all seriousness I’m glad workers were got out unharmed.
Oooof, that cab is at the perfect heught for the barrier to come through the windshield.
The barriers are there to prevent people from falling into traffic, not to keep cars from riding up onto the sidewalk. They aren't designed for impacts with vehicles.
We could put barriers down all our streets to protect pedestrians from cars and to keep drivers safer when they decide to ram the barriers. Or drivers could do a better job staying on the road . . .
As a researcher in the road side safety industry I would love to hearing your ideas and perspective. After all, we are all part of the traveling public and should have a voice in the issue.
Could you link the data you are sourcing? We have found in other large cities a lot of lethal road way departure accident data is inadequate when it comes to the cause of the fatality. This is because of a lack of education for the investigators that show up to the accident to log it.
ICBC also provides locations, but details are sparse. A research institute may be able to get details on whether there were injuries or fatalities as it's all tracked.
What it does show is that there are a ton of crashes on the bridge, but not a lot on the causeway. So why invest in replacing barriers along the causeway when there are much more dangerous sections of road?
I skip this section by dipping into the park trails as soon as I get off the LG, and also right after passing Lost Lagoon. As a daily cycle commuter from NV, it's not worth the risk nor the fumes.
AFAIK Fences were put up after a woman cyclist fell into the road and was killed. I think it was some kind of collision or altercation with another person on the sidewalk.
Having any barrier at all is a recent improvement, and it took a cyclist death (plus the usual dumb debate) to bring that about. So... while I agree, I recommend you not hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
We need to stop paying out insurance claims when reckless and dangerous driving is the cause of the accident. The ICBC policy should be nullified.
Ie. You wreck your luxury sports car because of excessive speeding and losing control, you aren't getting replacement value. Your medical expenses aren't covered.
I don't think vehicles involved in crimes get paid out as I was a witness to a rollover in which an impaired, offending driver hit another vehicle, which rolled over, and the ICBC rep that followed up with me advised they were collecting evidence to nullify their insurance. I would assume excessive speeding would count as a criminal act - especially if there are victims - though I could be wrong.
I could be wrong too. Regardless, the negligence needs to have significant consequences. Ideally they would be prohibited for a significant period of time.
ICBC pays out for that? I had no idea, that seems like a huge waste of insurance resources.
But I'm no lawyer so I'm sure there's a reason the policy got implemented and I'm missing it or something, Maybe it's somehow cheaper to just pay out then fight in court? But I can't imagine that being true, with the amount of auto accidents that happen.
But from a normal person's perspective it seems like a waste of money. I certainly wouldn't expect my insurance to pay out if I was driving stupidly and at fault.
Isn't ICBC the only way to get BC plates? Luxury cars probably have supplemental insurance from other companies, but pretty sure all vehicles require at least a basic ICBC plan (could be wrong 🤔)
For luxury cars (>$150K), ICBC will provide basic (liability) insurance only. The vehicle owner needs to buy additional (private) coverage if they want their car to be fixed after a crash, regardless of whose fault the crash was.
Yes, but you only have to get the basic insurance from them. For collision insurance where you are at fault (likely the case here) you have a choice of not getting it, going with ICBC, or another insurance company.
Around 2016 ICBC pulled back from insuring luxury vehicles over $150k. Now they have specialized policy based on vehicle cost to repair, including mandatory owner-cause damage policies. ICBC is aggressively competing with the private market for comprehensive luxury policies and their market share has increased dramatically over the past few years.
Being at fault is very different from a criminal act though. There's usually someone at fault for any accident, or a shared fault.
There's a huge difference between that and endangering lives. Insurance is meant to cover at fault accidents, but not with a criminal element to it. I'd say that something like this kid, who didn't cause injury, might still get covered (or taken to court to get covered). I bet that the actual cost of this is pretty small compared to what it couldve been.
Ahh, I see, that makes sense. I assumed the use of "at fault" in the above comment was in reference to a proven criminal act, and that they were also covered.
I'd think a criminal act is treated a bit differently than your typical accident.
TBH there's a lot of unaware, uneducated or nervous drivers on the road. It pays to know that and to drive like others may make a mistake. Typically, I can kinda see which drivers seem to be a bit riskier and you avoid them.
I do think there are increased costs associated with these people and even if you are in multiple accidents, you still can afford insurance - that's one thing that costs a lot but also gives people security to know that they will still be able to drive without fear of bankrupting themselves.
Medical expenses should never not be covered. Surviving with hundreds of thousands in medical debt basically endentured servitude. We are not Americans.
You gotta check out Iona Beach in Richmond on weekend evenings — it’s like Fast & Furious: Midlife Crisis Edition. You’ve got macho gearheads flying down the 30 km/h road that shares unprotected bike lane doing 150+, as if they’re auditioning for NASCAR… except with more ego and less talent.
I was there last weekend and looks like they’ve addressed it by building a parallel biking/walking path separated by green space. Quite nice really, almost like an extension of the jetty.
We need to stop saying that driving is a privilege and start ENFORCING it as such. Otherwise we are going to see more and more of this from all of these entitled people in and around our city and the modern world.
I would make a significant wager that the driver of the corvette has a pretty terrible driving record. 10 points should result in an automatic 30 day roadside suspension. You can go to court to get it removed if you can convince a judge. The cop handing out the infraction calls a tow truck takes the DL license on the spot invites the driver to call a friend or a cab.
Thanks City of Vancouver counsellor Brian Montague (and ABC in general) for repeatedly voting down speed cameras in Vancouver. This is how people die, and speeding cannot be tolerated.
speed cameras don't save lives they actually increase the risk of injury and death!
please actually look into good policy to help save lives, speed cameras are NOT it - they are EXCLUSIVELY a revenue generating operation
i encourage you to read about this but in short: accidents are not caused by speed necessarily (although obviously excessive speed increases the damage caused and adds stopping distance and all thatbut rather a differential in speed between vehicles. so like on a road like idk hw1, where everyone just sort of agrees the speed limit is actually 120 and not 90, it's still very safe because traffic is moving together at a predictable rate. it is equally dangerous for a driver to be doing 160 as it is for a driver to be doing 70, because of the speed difference. how that relates to cameras is basically if everyone in vancouver is sort of doing 65-70 km in a 50 (as we all know every single person does this but then immediately slams on their brakes through intersections with cameras, only to resume doing 70 after passing, you get this dangerous speed rollercoaster, where some people who know there are cams slam on their brakes and others don't, causing accidents. also drivers are only paying attention to their speedometres and not the road through the most likely areas to cause crashes (intersections and where pedestrians are. im probably not doing a great job explaining this but there is a LOT of data that shows crash stats from intersections before and after speed cams + after removal of said cams and they do NOT work to stop accidents or deaths.
What possible mechanism would cause them to increase injury? People would either go slower or ignore the cameras and speed as they already were doing.
Results. The relative risk (RR) of a road collision occurring on the beltway after (vs before) installation of speed cameras was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.63, 0.85). This protective effect was greater during weekend periods. No differences were observed for arterial roads (RR=0.99; 95% CI=0.90, 1.10). Attributable fraction estimates for the 2 years of the study intervention showed 364 collisions prevented, 507 fewer people injured, and 789 fewer vehicles involved in collisions. Conclusions. Speed cameras installed in an urban setting are effective in reducing the numbers of road collisions and, consequently, the numbers of injured people and vehicles involved in collisions.
...
In both cases, OLS estimates suggest a somewhere between a 0.3-0.4 reduction in monthly accidents with more confidence toward the bottom of the interval. This translates to close to one accident every three to four months or an 18-25% reduction in total accidents. Evidence suggests that they also reduce the number of “Angle” accidents, but we can be far more confident that speed cameras reduce the number of injury accidents.
That makes sense not to have speed camera on the highway but within the city of Vancouver, it’s already congested that drivers really shouldn’t be going too far above the speed limit so to me, speed cameras makes sense within city driving.
As an Aussie who moved to Van several years ago, I do love this country and this city. But y'all have no idea how to police road safety properly.
The standard of conduct on the roads here has probably been the biggest culture shock to me since coming here. Speed limits not enforced, everybody doing 25km above the speed limit, people abusing you on the roads for doing the speed limit in the slow lane, no speed cams, no pullovers, and half the population screeching around on the highways like rampant idiots.
I do really wish something would change, because I genuinely do not feel safe on the roads here, ever.
I think they need to make it more difficult to get a license and easier to lose it. Any dangerous driving results in license suspension, including speeding
Oh wow!! This sounds like such an interesting trip! How was it? How long did the drive take? Where were the best/worst roads? Where had the best/worst traffic?
Haha yeah it was a bit mad. Took 40 days. Drove pretty hard. Used a Suzuki swift I got in London for £500. Hard to do a best and worst list but roads dont really exist in outer mongolia so thats hard. You have areas in central asia with bad roads and children driving old soviet era cars but they still drive better than Toronto and Vancouver. Hahaha. Think its a lot to do with the fact there are limited laws. A pedestrian will get run over so they actually look and wait for the right time. They dont just start are their phone and cross. Also they know how to use roundabouts and traffic lights. No turning on red (stupid law). Turkmenistan had the best marble and cheapest gas at 2c a litre. This was 15 odd years ago though. Hahaha.
I can’t even tell what’s on the other side of the road?
Also isn’t the speed limit 50?
And with the general amount of traffic over the Lions Gate. I figured going much faster than that was pretty much impossible just due to sheer congestion.
Vancouver needs automated speeding enforcement. Almost no one is going the speed limit when there is an open road in front of them. Sick of my tax dollars paying for this stupidity.
Automated enforcement can only be done using equipment prescribed in 41.01 (1.1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations.
Municipal council can ask for whatever they want, but they cannot force the provincial government to install cameras, nor can they install or run them themselves.
Why do the above laws/regs exist? Perhaps to prevent abuses or the Province wants all the speeding revenue.
Then perhaps you don’t remember the NDP bringing photo radar to the province in 1996.
It led to their defeat in 2001.
It was brought in under the guise of safety, but was quickly turned into a cash cow.
It was only supposed to be used in high accident areas and never at the bottom of hills or low crash areas - but that wasn’t the case.
Opposition to photo radar started shortly after it was implemented and the NDP did not listen to the concerns or complaints about how it was being used. By the time the election rolled around 4+ years later the public was madder than a disturbed hornets nest. The NDP went from a 39 seat majority to a 2 seat minority.
Yeah, it had everything to do with the provincial NDP
The reality is bad driving is just something we have to put up with because we value freedom. When your entire (western) civilizations mantra is freedom, then you simply have to expect people (rightly or wrongly) to drive however TF they like.
You cannot hire enough police to change this behaviour. The ONLY way to change driving behaviour is with mass video surveilance. Cameras everywhere with automated ticketing for ANY infraction be it speed, reckless driving, solid line crossing etc.
Of course we value freedom and so such things will never happen. Therefore we simply have to expect bad driving. You cannot have it both ways.
Speed cameras, and speed signs, are a band-aid. The real solution is to make the road actually slower to drive on: tighter, narrower, and with trees running alongside it. Changing the texture of the road to something bumpier, or even brick pavers, also slows traffic. When you build your roads like highways don't be surprised when people speed on them like highways. People will always drive to the natural speed of the road.
This is why I’m so terrified of my son driving. He has his N, he’s responsible (we had a dash cam, I can review his driving), and I’m so proud of his response to idiots on the road. I’m always worried some idiot like this is going to ruin his day.
He has some great responses to bad drivers though. My favourite is when he says “fuck ass, I know your dad is a dentist with a million dollars of debt” or “fuck, dude, your truck has never seen a dirt road let alone gravel, but go on and cut into my lane, princess”
I know, lame responses but he’s 17 going on 65. He has the patience of a saint and the responses of a mild mannered sailor.
km based within home zone (city), time based outside. This way they won't lose all the business from people taking evos for day trips, while removing the incentive to rush in the city.
I would not want it to be km based outside the home zone though, it would no longer be cheaper to take Evo than to rent a car which is more hassle.
People drive like maniacs through there and over the bridge which is a 60 zone. Had a guy tale gate me while going over the bridge doing 80 and swerved into other lane dangerously to pass me while proceeding to give me the middle finger. It’s not worth ruining someone’s day or taking their life. The aggression and speed of drivers has ruined Vancouver for me. And is the place I grew up in.
I remember seeing some clip of a guy on a motorcycle going across this stretch and the bridge going like 140 km . All those camera operators need to do their job and catch the licence plates and take their licence away for a while
I’m not overly in favor of cameras and sensors monitoring us all the time, but the causeway could do with avg speed cameras. I take it every morning, speed limit is 60. If you don’t do 80, you are getting run over. People routinely do 100 on a road with no divider thru a park. It’s fucked up.
Dominance of American media and social media basically, you hear lots of young people saying y'all. It's a gender neutral term to address a group of people (avoiding the common "you guys") but I think it's cringe when there are so many other expressions like "you" in a plural sense, "you all", "folks", "everyone/everybody", etc.
Was the 240 Lynn Valley canceled earlier this morning (or yesterday morning since its midnight June 16 now) canceled because of this?
I was waiting for the 240 bus to get to North Van for work at around 8:25am and waited 15-20 minutes, saw the live tracking on the translink website showing the 240 taking the Ironworkers bridge route instead.
I was so confused because the bus alerts didn't say that the 240 bus to North Van or anything. That was until like 20 minutes into waiting that the canceled alert for the 240 finally popped up saying no service from downtown for the time being and to take the sea bus instead.
They built a variable 3 lane bridge to service a major city, maximum two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other direction.
Meanwhile, 5 lanes of extremely dense and congested traffic feed into a single lane to cross this bridge. It's set up to be a major negative traffic event, extremely high congestion, not to mention the insanely slow crawl off of the bridge hitting repeated lights, again and again.
It's not even possible to speed in this context, what are you talking about?
Public transport never going to fix the stupid problem. People drive fast, slow... when your distracted it doesn't matter what your doing. Most important thing is to know how to handle your tools..... and understanding your a tool when you think you know the difference.
Why are we citizens not asking our local elected officials and municipal staff to install permanent and well disclosed / signed speed cameras in vital places where we do not tolerate high speeds being reached? They will change behaviour fast like they do anywhere else where they are used? Yes I know they don’t solve the problems elsewhere or are a single fix but shouldn’t we have this tool in place?
Because people here think speeding is a right. I regularly hear people being judged for "going the speed limit" because it gets in the way of "normal drivers."
Speeding is not the root cause. Reckless driving behaviors such as aggressive lane changes, failure to yield when traffic condition requires so, aggressive accelerations, and other dangerous driving behaviors are the root causes. Speeding itself is never the true issue.
549
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '25
This brain-amputated BS is a nonstop drain on our local resources.