Updates from February, 2020 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 13:26 on 2020-02-21 Permalink | Reply  

    The lede has been a little buried in this update on the man accused of the assault at Beaubien metro a few days ago: Simon Coupal Gagnon has also been charged with two other similar attacks in recent months.

     
    • Ian 19:28 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      This was also reported on CBC Radio this morning with the addendum that he is being psychiatrically evaluated.

  • Kate 09:07 on 2020-02-21 Permalink | Reply  

    The Daniel Weinstock affair continues: La Presse’s Yves Boisvert and Paul Journet weigh in. Richard Martineau has deliberately worded his brief retraction (picture him writing this with two QMI lawyers standing over him) to sustain the implication that Weinstock mentioned allowing excisions symboliques on young women as a legitimate possibility.

    There’s more on Twitter, but I haven’t found any commentary on other news sites. Maybe I’ve missed them?

     
    • Jack 11:27 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      “Mais on l’a humilié sans raison. On a officiellement jugé « controversé » sous des prétextes erronés un homme à la réputation impeccable, qui a passé sa vie adulte à réfléchir aux questions éthiques et qui s’est toujours fait un devoir de s’engager généreusement dans les débats de son époque.”
      We are living in an era where people like Martineau have real power. Thats what I find so troubling.

    • Ian 19:32 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.

      Goebbels

    • Ian 20:26 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      I vote we start referring to JdeM as le piano

  • Kate 08:47 on 2020-02-21 Permalink | Reply  

    The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from the city of Montreal over paying the creditors of the defunct Société de vélo en libre-service, which operated Bixi until 2014. Now it has no choice but to hand over the $16 million.

     
    • Ian 08:57 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      I guess it’s no coincidence all the borough parking stickers doubled in price.

      Yeah yeah I know that people keep floating that magic “it costs the city 10k a year to maintain a parking space” but let’s be honest here, those spaces exist whether people are billed for them or not, and we don’t actually know if that 10k is a real number or just a specific use case that is being recycled infinitely – or instance from the recent debacle with Sue Montgomery we know for a fact that the CDN/NDG budget spend isn’t actually specifically tracked, we literally have no idea how much a parking space costs to maintain in the largest borough in the city.

      Anyhow my point being those spaces would exist regardless so if the city doubles the price (or more depending on your vehicle’s engine capacity is like that’s an actual measure of anything worth noting) so getting more money for parking stickers is effectively free money.

      In the end paying to maintain parking spaces probably ended up being cheaper than the 52.9 million wasted on SVLS. I know that’s not the current administration’s fault but I bet you dollars to doughnuts a lot of the unelected decision-making city workers that were around in 2014 are still on the payroll.

    • Ephraim 09:36 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      The chamber of commerce keeps on screwing us over… again and again and again. The only thing we are missing are indictments.

    • Chris 11:41 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      >I guess it’s no coincidence all the borough parking stickers doubled in price.

      What happened to “Correlation doesn’t equal causation…”?

      >people keep floating that magic “it costs the city 10k a year to maintain a parking space”

      Magic?! Urban planners study this kind of thing. No time now, but can find you references later.

      >like that’s an actual measure of anything worth noting

      It’s a proxy for measuring how much the vehicle pollutes. An approximation. Sure a formula summing gas emissions plus tire particles plus brakepad dust all per distance travelled would be more accurate, but difficult to tally, validate, and enforce. It’s the ‘polluter pays’ principle. You choose a car that pollutes the public more, the public charges you more to park on public land.

      Also: if the City’s parking prices are so outrageously high, where is the private free market competition that can do it better/cheaper? Parking lots are transforming to buildings, in part because parking prices are so low that it’s more profitable for landowners to transform their parking lots into buildings. This is partly because the City’s subsidization of parking undercuts what would be the true market price.

    • DeWolf 13:12 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      $175 for a vignette is a steal. If it was up to the free market you’d be paying that price every month.

    • Ian 16:11 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      DeWolf, you jumped the shark. Even the most reactionary doctrinaire should realize that assertion is just silly.

      Chris… well, whatever.

      If nobody even knows how the CDN/NDG bufget breaks down in any meaningful detail, there is no way you can possibly claim that you know with any certainty how much a parking spot costs to maintain or is worth. …

      But that’s not the point. The point is that the city needs to make more money, because it spends it in stupid ways like the SVLS debacle. THAT is why parking sticker prices, jaywalking tickets, and yes, commercial taxes keep going up – not for any altruistic reasons, despite what the politicians (and apparently those that believe their bunkum) might say. 52.9 million is a lot of money, especially with nothing to show for it.

    • CE 16:48 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      I think anyone who has driven a car in central Montreal can agree that it’s difficult to find a parking space. That means demand has outstripped supply. How is that usually dealt with? By adding more supply or raising prices to lower demand. Since there’s little desire to tear down buildings to build more parking and streetside parking is pretty much maxed out, the only thing left to do is lower demand with higher prices. This is done with pretty much every single thing that is bought or sold in our economy. I don’t understand why it’s controversial when attempts are made to subject parking prices to market forces (especially considering all the negative externalities created by parking and car use).

    • Ian 18:07 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Funny, those same excuses are what gentrification apologists say about rising rents.

      But of course you are right, this is effectively a sin tax, an easy source of revenue like when other levels of government raise taxes on alcohol or cigarettes – nobody will complain, and if anyone does have the nerve to so much as cock an eyebrow at our beloved overlords there are plenty of good little holier-than-thou citizens who will happily tut, tut them into silence.

      Still, I say it again – why are all these things mysteriously getting their pricetags rung though all at once and at the same time? Why is the city rmysteriously powerless to prevent property taxes and commercial taxes from rising? Why can the city do so little to create social housing in the face of big development $$$?

      There are, for example, 52.9 million reasons.

    • CE 18:26 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      “Funny, those same excuses are what gentrification apologists say about rising rents”

      There’s a difference between affordable housing and cheap parking. One is absolutely necessary for a functioning city, the other contributes to lowering the quality of life for everyone in the city, including those who benefit from it. It’s a good comparison to make though, it’s insane that we’re currently subsidizing parking (by offering free or undervalued streetside spaces or requiring developers to provide it) while the vast majority of housing is subject to market forces with only some flimsy protections to keep prices and landlords in check (and a small percentage of public housing).

      Your questions answer themselves. We’re in a situation where the city is trying to correct some the problems with affordable housing and are seeing that municipal taxes are too high. Why not raise money by raising the prices on a service that the city has been basically giving away for decades? Especially when this service has so many direct and indirect impacts on everybody’s quality of life.

    • Ian 19:37 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      How charmingly naive – In no way does raising parking fees somehow prevent rents from rising or renovictions from happening, as usual you are comparing apples and oranges.

      How dos raising the price of parking in Ville Marie, the Plateau, and Outremont help low income people getting renovicted in Mile End and HoMa? I’ll help you out here: it doesn’t.

      What do all these elements have in common? They bring more money in to the city coffers. As usual, when trying to understand the motivation for these sorts of things one only has to ask, “Cui bono“?

  • Kate 08:44 on 2020-02-21 Permalink | Reply  

    This week, city hall doubled its financial assistance to landlords making residential buildings more accessible for the disabled.

     
    • Ian 19:40 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Giving money to landlords again for stuff they used to simply be legally obligated to do on their own dime, interesting. Last week it was up to 500k apiece for renos.

      Somebody’s lobby group is busy stuffing recyclable brown envelopes, I suspect.

  • Kate 08:37 on 2020-02-21 Permalink | Reply  

    Notes of weekend road closures.

     
  • Kate 20:47 on 2020-02-20 Permalink | Reply  

    The CAQ has voted to expand the reach of the Charter of the French Language. Maybe this will slow down the real estate boom a little.

     
    • Kevin 22:39 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Quick! The people are realizing that the CAQ often acts before it thinks! And that the Caisse is doing worse than the markets! Beat the same old drum!

    • Filp 00:45 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Given that it’s 2020 and the charter is 43 years old, anyone who is seriously considering moving here won’t be deterred by the french language. Ontario is wide open and directly next door, so those who choose to come to Quebec made a conscious decision to live with this political reality. Especially business owners. We can rest easy knowing rent will continue to increase when the sun rises tomorrow loool

    • Ian 08:44 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Yeah I think we’re going to need another referendum to get the rents down. This is only going to effect small companies, so expect lots of light industry corporate divisions to make sure their staff is somehow under the magic number. That was the loophole everyone used to avoid francisation in the past anyhow, and it doesn’t cost anything to do.

    • Kevin 11:05 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      @Ian
      It’s not going to affect anyone. This was just a meaningless motion to start a potential examination of existing law.
      Bureaucrats are going to toss this in their equivalent of the honey-do jar.

    • Kate 14:12 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Kevin, what is a honey-do jar? (I can assume from context you mean putting it in a place where it will be forgotten, but I don’t know the expression.)

    • Ian 16:12 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      The to-do list of household chores, e.g.; Honey, do _____ on Saturday

  • Kate 14:07 on 2020-02-20 Permalink | Reply  

    I haven’t been following every step of the hearing on Pierre Coriolan’s death, but this piece Thursday was striking in the simplicity of the question from the coroner: What was the hurry? Why did Coriolan, alone in the face of five police officers, have to be subdued so quickly?

    A second thing strikes me. Last year the SPVM promised all officers would get training about mental health crises. I posted about it and even mentioned I’d seen it promised a previous time. Now in this piece it quotes the head of the Police Brotherhood saying that he expects the coroner to recommend mental health crisis training for the police.

    How can we believe these promises when every time they’re mentioned, it’s like a brand new idea that hasn’t been thought of before?

     
    • Ian 16:45 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Hm one might almost suspect that they are lying and just saying what they think people want to hear with no intention of actually changing anything but that would be far too cynical an assumption to make about our buddies in blue, right?
      Related note: seen on a metro cop, a thin blue line QC flag patch.
      https://twitter.com/noahchermes/status/1230927540983910408

  • Kate 13:15 on 2020-02-20 Permalink | Reply  

    Bit of a dust-up Thursday between McGill professor Daniel Weinstock, who’s refuting a claim by Richard Martineau that he once defended a modified version of female circumcision, presumably to appease parts of the Muslim community. Either Martineau is lying outright, or Weinstock is.

     
    • Jack 13:27 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      We know who the Minister of Education believes, a Sec.V grad who sings for his supper and frankly is the definition of a Zelig. Or a PhD with years of study in this exact field. This from Martineau…
      “Le ministre de l’Éducation Jean-François Roberge n’a pas tataouiné !

      Il n’était même pas 8 h ce matin que déjà, son bureau émettait un communiqué annonçant que le philosophe Daniel Weinstock (dont je parle dans ma chronique d’aujourd’hui) ne pilotera plus un des forums portant sur la révision du cours d’éthique et culture religieuse.

      Rappelons que monsieur Weinstock, qui enseigne le droit à McGill, a dit qu’on devrait envisager que l’État permette les ” excisions symboliques ” afin d’accommoder les parents qui tiennent à cette pratique…

      Une proposition délirante…

      Bravo au ministre, qui a réagi au quart de tour ! On aime ça de même !”

    • Kate 13:43 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      It’s so weird, I remember when Martineau wrote for Voir and was mildly lefty. Anyone know what Kool-aid he drank?

      But the education minister removing Weinstock from an important consultation based on this claim is bizarre. And I’m not seeing any retractions from QMI either.

    • J 14:03 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

    • CharlesQ 14:08 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      The Quebecor coolaid is the most powerful one… I can’t beleive they still get away with this. It’s like their fake story about a mosque asking that there are no female construction worker on a work site near them. And Martineau promoting islamaphobia at every turn and he still has his job.

    • Jack 15:03 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      I used to read him in Voir, he was a cosmopolitan , sovereignist sceptic , democratic socialist, as was the owner. Now he writes for a bigger check signed by PKP, where he is a hard nationalist xenophobe. He and his wife ferment islamophobia on a weekly basis. This kind of character assassination is invariably deployed against minorities.

    • Kevin 11:05 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      He moved to a nice house in Westmount.

    • Kate 14:13 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      I wonder if I would turn this blog into a right-wing rantfest if you offered me a nice house in Westmount and the means to keep it up.

      I don’t think so, not because I’m a saint, but because I’d keep tipping over into satire. Although in some ways Martineau could be doing that and yet still find he’s taken seriously.

    • Michael Black 14:17 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Almost a hundred years ago a nurse was given a house in Westmount. Clearly she made an impression, I’m thinking it had something to do with the big flu epdemic of a few years before.

  • Kate 08:58 on 2020-02-20 Permalink | Reply  

    Jump bikes haven’t been banished in the scooter ban, although the company has to pay more for a permit this year. Curiously, one of the arguments against the scooters was the impossibility of making people obey helmet laws for powered vehicles, but that issue isn’t even mentioned here.

     
  • Kate 08:52 on 2020-02-20 Permalink | Reply  

    There has been an arrest in the assault of a woman near Beaubien metro station last weekend. A La Presse opinion piece reminds us how lucky we are to live in a big city that’s one of the safest in the world, and that this is something worth preserving.

     
    • Ian 08:46 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      So I guess it wasn’t a warning, eh.

    • Kate 14:01 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      All I meant in the initial was that such a report is in the public interest, warning people to keep an eye out for trouble.

    • Ian 16:13 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Ah I thought you meant like as in a gang thing, my bad.

  • Kate 21:49 on 2020-02-19 Permalink | Reply  

    Off-island again: there was a truly massive pile-up on autoroute 15 in Laprairie midday Wednesday. The Journal has the photos. Radio-Canada says 200 vehicles were involved, two people are dead and many more were injured. Among vehicles you can see in the scrum are a schoolbus and a tanker truck.

    Why doesn’t English have a terrific word like “carambolage” for this kind of thing? “Pile-up” doesn’t do it justice.

     
    • Ian 09:04 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Listening to CBC radio this morning the mayor of St Donat was being interviewed and he said since the Ministry of Transportation raised the roadbed 20 years ago that stretch has always been prone to whiteouts and fog, there are constant complaints, and the Ministry does nothing. Maybe they will now. The Minister in charge said they would have to conduct a study.

    • MarcG 11:12 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Do schoolbusses still not have seatbelts?

    • YUL514 13:18 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      “Do schoolbusses still not have seatbelts?”

      No.

    • MarcG 13:40 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      No they still do not, meaning yes they now do?

    • Dhomas 03:44 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Schoolbuses do not have seat belts.

    • Ian 08:47 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      They do for the driver, same as city buses. For that matter, intercity buses don’t have passenger seatbelts wither – though that is slowly changing. https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2018/07/transport-canada-to-make-seat-belts-mandatory-on-highway-buses.html

    • YUL514 11:29 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Sorry about that Marc, no they do not have seatbelts. I cringe everytime our kids go on field trips that require highway driving like apple picking and Cabane à sucre.

    • jeather 12:22 on 2020-02-21 Permalink

      Wearing no seatbelt in a schoolbus, a vehicle where the interiors are planned to be made without seatbelt use and the seats reflect that, is very different from not wearing one in a car. (I’m not against trying to add seatbelts to school buses, but they are set up with tall, closely spaced, strongly attached, highly padded seats for a reason.)

  • Kate 21:43 on 2020-02-19 Permalink | Reply  

    Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough wants to name an otherwise nameless spur of Henri-Bourassa la Rue des Petits-chars as a nod to the streetcars of old. Streetcars used to turn and go back southwards in that area near Millen Street, so it’s an appropriate location for the name.

     
  • Kate 21:37 on 2020-02-19 Permalink | Reply  

    The city has decided to borrow another $20 million to complete the first phase of work on Ste‑Catherine Street between Mansfield and Bleury and including Phillips Square.

     
    • Max 02:43 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      I’m all for this. The city’s overdue on making nice with Phillips Square. Victoria and Dorchester Squares both look fabulous these days. It’s high time we did away with the extraneous asphalt surrounding Phillips, and hooked it up with Place Frère-André in a manner befitting the importance of the area.

      Throw those landscape designers a bonus cheque while you’re at it. The recent renovations of our downtown public spaces have all come out exceedingly well.

    • Ian 09:18 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      @Max It would be pretty nice if they pedestrianized that whole block south of Ste Kitty including the streets immediately east west and south of the park. They may as well, really, since the terrasses have been allowed the sidewalks on the east side are pretty much impassable and the streets south and west don’t get very much traffic compared to other blocks in the area anyhow.

      I don’t understand what you mean about connecting that with place-F-A though, that’s a full block away at Rene Levesque?

    • Bill Binns 11:39 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      I’m still pissed about how badly the city screwed over the woman who bought the flower kiosk business.

    • Max 11:45 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      @Ian: I’m thinking that Place Phillips (the street south of Cathcart) could be narrowed by removing some parking. If both squares and the sidewalks were redone harmoniously (consistent plantings, paving stones, street furniture, etc) then we would effectively have one larger square that extends all the way to Dorchester. It would be great if that weird bit of diagonal parking by the Tim’s and the Crane Building were incorporated too. I think the street’s wide enough to accommodate 3 lanes of traffic (two north and one south) along with some really ped-friendly sidewalks.

    • Max 11:53 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Also, Ian: I don’t think the street on the east side will ever be pedestrianized. It’s an important link for traffic getting from the Victoria Square area to Sherbrooke. The street on the west side has a problem too. It’s an important southbound connection between Sherbrooke and Rene-Levesque. The drivers would revolt.

    • Ian 16:24 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      To be fair city councillors is also used by a lot of bicyclists, it is the least steep grade from Rene Levesque to Sherbrooke.

      It’s not an important driving link though, University, er, Robert-Bourassa only 3 blocks over serves that purpose just fine. City Councillors is very narrow and doesn’t have that much traffic between Ste Kitty and DeMaisonneuve compared to other nearby streets. As far as Union is concerned TBH I mostly only see delivery trucks between Ste Kitty & RL.

  • Kate 20:14 on 2020-02-19 Permalink | Reply  

    A New York Times writer looks at Montreal’s Nordic spas with some handwavy theories about why they’re popular.

    I like the view of the “Lac Des Battures” – a marshy little pool on Nuns’ Island.

     
    • Meezly 11:32 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Men down south have always flocked to Montreal for the strip clubs. Now the American ladies will come in droves for the spas :-O

  • Kate 12:30 on 2020-02-19 Permalink | Reply  

    The city has decided the pilot e-scooter projects didn’t work so the Lime and Bird scooters won’t be back this summer. Apparently 80% of them were parked illegally during the test period last summer.

     
    • Ephraim 13:50 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      That number is LOW…. it’s more like it was incredible to see one actually parked legally.

    • Ginger Baker 13:53 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      Top contender for lamest excuse of all time.

      The headline here should be that over 200K people chose this non-polluting method of getting around town.

      Who cares if they’re left where they’re not supposed to be… that’s a solution that can be fixed.

      This comes across as throwing Ensemble a bone… it’s disappointing. There are far greater issues at stake than disorder of scooter parking.

      This is giving up at the first instance of a problem.

    • jeather 14:01 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      I was about to be amazed that only 80% were parked illegally. I am curious why they didn’t get a chance to fix it — this seems like a really fast cancellation.

    • Jim 14:04 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      Ginger Baker,
      Hopefully this is more the city telling the companies that they need to figure out a way to ensure that their users comply with the rules. Other sharing services like Car2Go, although now defunct, prevented users from just parking their cars anywhere – if you weren’t in a legal space, you were still paying until you parked in a leagal spot. Lime and Bird just need to figure out how to do that. If you read the article, the GM of Lime wanted to put the blame on Montreal and claimed that a 90-day test was not sufficient time. It was plenty of time to figure out that they didn’t have a way of ensuring the things were parked properly (or for that matter that users were 18 – a third of the people I saw riding Lime were clearly under 18.

    • Ian 16:43 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      Lower polluting than walking? I don’t think so. Most of the ones I saw abandoned in silly places were blocking up sidewalks.

    • Spi 17:26 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      Of all the stupid and dangerous behaviour I’ve seen on montreal roads (god knows there is no lack of it) the worst have been from people on electric scooters even if only based on 3-months of service. The most memorable was one flying full speed in the middle of the night against traffic on Penfield. It would have only been a matter of time before someone died from it.

    • Blork 18:43 on 2020-02-19 Permalink

      Yeah, I highly doubt even one single person chose a Lime or Bird scooter over driving. They were an alternative to walking or maybe in some cases public transit. I’m sure most people rode them for fun. Maybe a handful rode scooters instead of taking a taxi. But there’s no way those scooters reduced the number of private cars on the road by even a single car.

    • Chris 10:57 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      I don’t know why people are fussing. The tech exists, so it will be used. If government, police or commerce try to stop it, they will fail. We simply have to accept that it is now part of public life.

      Apologies for the plagiarism. 🙂

      We can regulate scooters, and we can regulate facial recognition too.

    • Blork 11:06 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      As the article indicates, the door is not closed to them coming back, so it’s up to Lime and Bird (and similar) to come up with and implement the “tech” that will solve these problems. If they do that, maybe we’ll see them again. But it’s not up to the city to do that. The city just says “we don’t want your shitty scooters laying all over the place; find a way to dock them or otherwise control where they are left and you can try again.”

      Also bear in mind that the root of the problem isn’t technical or even regulatory; it’s human. People are idiots and incapable of doing the reasonable right thing unless you threaten or force them.

    • Kevin 11:21 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      The current tech bubble involves ‘disruptor’ companies that exist solely as a way for so-called entrepreneurial ‘creators’ to line their pockets at the expense of venture capitalists who are so blinded by technology they can’t recognize when something completely fails as a business model.

    • Bill Binns 11:55 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      In my neighborhood, I rarely saw the scooters in use during the day. They were used primarily by drunk people late at night from what I saw. I do not believe I ever saw a single person wearing a helmet while riding a scooter and I saw more than a few obvious children riding the things.

      There was a lot of bad driving of the scooters which has been noted everywhere but why do cyclists get a pass on the exact same behavior? I also wonder why people driving scooters that are locked to 20 kph are required to wear helmets but no helmets required for the people riding bikes down Berri or St Denis or Guy at 60 kph or faster (Yeah, I’m sure. Don’t make me rent a radar gun).

      The scooters are just the tip of the spear though. The city can ban the rentals but they can’t ban ordering one on Amazon for $300 and hitting the bike path. Our political overlords at Velo Quebec have been strangely quiet on the issue but there is a reckoning coming between the Team Spandex’s legions and the battery powered barbarian hordes about to invade the bike paths.

    • Blork 12:40 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Bill, remember that the city hasn’t banned the scooters; it’s banned the DOCKLESS RENTAL of scooters. The most complaints were from people leaving them all over the place; blocking intersections, cluttering up sidewalks, polluting the Lachine Canal, etc. Nobody who buys their own scooter is going to just throw it down on the sidewalk when they’re not using it.

      Regarding scooters vs. bikes: I’m pretty sure the amount of control you have when riding a scooter is a lot less than when riding a bike. If you hit a pothole when riding a scooter you’re going down and possibly taking a pedestrian or cyclist with you. Most cyclists can survive a pothole (you might get a flat tire but there’s less chance of you going down than if you were on a scooter.)

      BTW, bicycles are supposed to be limited to 20kph when they’re on the bike paths. As you know, this is not enforced. But I doubt many are actually hitting 60. I know that I occasionally hit 35 when I’m on the bridge and going down the long decline, and at that speed it feels like I’m doing 100.

    • Bill Binns 14:41 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      @Blork

      Ok, researching radar gun rentals in Montreal…

      “My” Starbucks used to be at the corner of St Denis and Ontario. At least until it tragically closed a month or so ago. For years I have been crossing Berri at Ontario 4 times a day. It is not at all unusual to see bikes passing cars in free flowing traffic coming down Berri. Unbelievably, I have also seen them run the red light at Ontario at that speed, something which can only be considered suicidal.

    • Kevin 14:55 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Quebec law doesn’t currently allow anyone to ride a privately owned e-scooter.

    • Blork 15:43 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Are you sure about that, Kevin? I sure see a lot of motorized skateboards, hoverboards, Airwheels, etc. zipping around unimpeded by the law. I can’t see how adding a handle onto one makes it cross a line.

    • marco 19:43 on 2020-02-20 Permalink

      Anyone who rides a low-speed electric scooter on public roads must comply with the following rules and requirements:

      be 18 years of age or older
      have attended the training program offered by the manufacturer or distributor registered for the pilot project 😉
      ride only on roads where the speed limit is 50 km/h or less
      wear a protective (bicycle) helmet 😉
      use the turn signal lights to signal their intentions 😉
      obey the Highway Safety Code, as well as the other conditions of the pilot project
      have with them the certificate attesting to their participation in a training program 😉
      refrain from carrying passengers, hauling a trailer or pulling or pushing any other object
      refrain from using a low-speed electric scooter that has been modified

      https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/saaq/documents/pilot-projects/low-speed-electric-scooters/

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel