Removing bollards will make trails safer
I congratulate Saanich council for the decision to request that the Capital Regional District remove the rigid bollards on cycling trails.
I have questioned the positioning of bollards for years, in part because I have fractured a wrist when I hit one. More importantly, I have witnessed many close encounters.
With increased traffic plus more trikes the risk of a collision with a bollard is increasing. Well done, Saanich council.
Ken Fyke
Saanich
Keep the bollards, limit the vehicle width
In regard to the proposed removal of bollards on Capital Regional District bike/walking trails, I wonder if anyone has considered limiting the width of vehicles such as bicycles and tricycles.
After all, that is something that we already do for cars and trucks on roads. I suspect that wide vehicles of this type could also be an issue for other cyclists, as well as for walkers on the trail itself, bollards or no bollards.
Continually increasing cycling use is going to require additional regulation for the safety of everyone involved.
While cyclists correctly say that vehicles on trails are not a problem now, the reason for that is simply because the bollards are in place!
Given today’s increasing lack of respect for public facilities, if bollards were removed, it would only be a matter of time until irresponsible folks start using motor vehicles on trails, endangering cyclists, walkers and the trails themselves.
When the planned widening of trails takes place, that will make them even more enticing for errant auto thrill-seekers.
Dale Leitch
Saanich
Bollards on trails are there for safety
The bicycle community is asking the Capital Regional District to remove bollards from the regional trails. It is felt that the bollards pose risks to the riders.
I would beg to differ and would say that the bollards should be considered “traffic calming” for those using the trails.
They exist in places where extra caution is required — where the trails cross a road. All those crossing the road should proceed slowly rather than racing on through.
Often there is a stop sign for both road traffic and cyclists. The cyclists choose not to heed the directions to stop or even slow down. They often pass each other as they cross the intersection.
The rail trail crosses the street on which I live and I observe this cavalier behaviour on a daily basis. One of these days there will be a serious accident involving a bicyclist, a pedestrian and/or an auto.
Please consider the bollard a reminder that you are approaching a road and you need to slow down and proceed with caution.
These are the rules of the road for all!
Jose Perena Pratt
View Royal
Actually, we need more bollards
Remove bollards? Gosh no. Add more. Many, many, more and make them closer together. Please!
Something has got to get these electric bikes and scooters under control. Every time one ventures onto a trail these days, it’s a game of dodging reckless riders who are oblivious to pedestrians and seem to think that the trail was made exclusively for them.
They ride with abandon, whizzing by at highway speeds, coming up from behind seemingly out of nowhere with no warning, coming within inches and occasionally clipping others.
They don’t even care enough to slow or stop to see if they hurt anyone. They simply don’t seem to care. Better yet, ban electric bikes and scooters on all trails.
After all, we have spent untold millions so they can ride safely on our streets.
Chris Mayhew
Sooke
Roundhouse proposal would add to chaos
The new proposal for the Roundhouse proposal for Vic West does nothing for the “community well-being” of the area. The 1,870 more residential units and 1,700 more vehicles injected into that small parcel of land will only add to the chaos on Kimta Road and beyond.
For a project of this magnitude, roadways and traffic movement should absolutely be addressed by the city as part of the overall proposal, and not something to be figured out after the fact.
When reading the developer’s proposal, one might think that this is the solution to Victoria’s affordable housing problem.
In fact, only 215 of the 1,870 units in this project will be dedicated to affordable housing leaving the remaining units for those that can afford high-priced condos or rental units.
So that means several years of noise, dirt, construction equipment, traffic, outhouses, etc. so that we can accommodate these folks?
And then there’s the density myth. There is no evidence that increased density lowers housing costs — it’s more likely to have the opposite effect. 91原创 is a well-documented example of that, and there’s lots of material on that subject that I’m sure our city council has studied extensively.
These decisions are irreversible and will have a huge negative impact for the next several years on the many thousands of people presently living in the neighbourhood.
Let’s not let greed dictate policy. Twice as big doesn’t mean twice as good. Stick with the original plan.
And in the meantime, fix the roads.
Don Gorman
Victoria
How many houses does a person need?
Re: “Tax is pushing money out of the province,” letter, Jan. 10.
The writer is upset that they feel they are forced to sell their secondary home otherwise they need to pay a speculation tax. They are claiming that this is pushing money out of B.C.
In reality, someone else will likely buy the house, no money is leaving B.C., and with the speculation tax in B.C., there is a greater likelihood that the person buying this house will be one that is buying their only house and that the house will be lived in full-time.
The purpose of the tax is to help increase a person’s ability to own one house, before someone can own two or more.
It is always disappointing to see people upset that they cannot afford to continue to own multiple homes when so many people are struggling to own their first one.
The more that people choose to own secondary homes, or speculate on property outside of B.C., the more that housing will become available to those who want to own their home.
No one is forcing them to leave. If they are upset that they cannot have a getaway house in the city of their choosing, they just need to check their privilege and ask themselves if one house is enough to live in.
Don Peterson
Fernwood
Can afford a second home, but not the tax
Re: “Tax is pushing money out of the province,” letter, Jan. 10.
The letter raises concerns that the speculation tax is removing money from B.C.’s economy. I would ask how much money is lost from the economy by over-inflated rent being paid to out-of-province landowners.
The speculation tax is designed to encourage long-term rentals and discourage vacant and underutilized residential properties.
The writer is, apparently, wealthy enough to own multiple properties but not quite wealthy enough to pay the speculation tax for leaving one empty most of the time.
I’ll shed no tears.
Sean Gimbel
Mill Bay
Ask clinics for a service guarantee
I was disappointed to learn that the Shoreline Medical Clinics in Sidney and Brentwood Bay will be closing their walk-in clinics.
This marks further deterioration of our medical system generally and specifically in a region where the demographics demonstrate an urgent need for improvement, not decline.
The Shoreline clinic in Sidney received financial assistance from the Town of Sidney (a $190,000 bridge loan) in 2016. It was among five clinics allocated $3.6 million in 2022.
This to provide services to the communities they served. That they cannot provide service in a manner that is needed, and are reverting to another service model, is disappointing and in my opinion somewhat ethically flawed.
It is my hope that if any level of government choo ses to fund public medical options in the future, they receive concrete assurance of successful outcomes, rather than accepting failure as we seem so given to do these days.
Our medical care system is broken at all levels. Unless government accepts that to provide health care (urgent care providers) at a useful level, a profit may not be possible, we are in desperate trouble.
Robert W. Jones
Sidney
Rising cost of interest is a serious concern
Re: “Government spending needs a shot of responsibility,” editorial, Jan. 5.
The statement that “the annual interest on the federal debt is greater than the amount spent on health care” should be a resounding declaration, a very loud wake up call, that something is very seriously amiss!
Thanks for bringing that forth, so very succinctly and poignantly. Who receives that interest? Who profits from that interest?
High time to bring forth the answers into the public domain.
John Vanden Heuvel
Victoria
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times 91原创, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Aim for no more than 250 word; subject to editing for length and clarity.
