Updates from July, 2023 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 13:07 on 2023-07-09 Permalink | Reply  

    A baggage handler at Trudeau was seriously injured at work Saturday and has since died. CTV writes oddly that “it’s not yet determined whether the airport falls under provincial or federal jurisdiction. In the latter case, the Transport Safety Board of Canada will head the investigation rather than CNESST.” But TVA reports that the CNESST has banned whatever maneuver the worker was doing – described as extracting a suitcase from the sorting machinery in an unsafe manner.

    In other airport news, a service vehicle caught fire under a plane Sunday afternoon.

     

    • walkerp 09:11 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

      I’ve always been curious about what goes on at the baggage handling at Trudeau. I suspect there are serious shenanigans there and quite likely organized crime. Why is the international baggage claim so efficient and fast while the domestic one is one of the worst in Canada (IME)? I hope this accident triggers a deeper investigation. Would be a great opportunity for some investigative journalism as well.

      In any case, really awful way to go. Condolences to that guy and his family.

  • Kate 10:55 on 2023-07-09 Permalink | Reply  

    A plan for a kerosene terminal in Montreal East, meaning that train after train of inflammable fuel will pass through Montreal on their way to Ontario airports, has been supported by the CAQ but criticized by the opposition. With the ten‑year anniversary of the Lac Mégantic disaster fresh in our minds, the plan seems more than usually callous even from the CAQ.

     

    • Kate 09:58 on 2023-07-09 Permalink | Reply  

      CBC notes parenthetically that the SPCA won’t be charging adoption fees Sunday, and also profiles some people fostering and rescuing cats. My cat came from Nadia Verrucci, interviewed here, well before Nadia formally established a rescue.

       

      • Kate 09:55 on 2023-07-09 Permalink | Reply  

        Powered scooters are now explicitly allowed on bike paths, a situation I note with doubt, because the whole point of the paths was to separate human‑powered vehicles from motor traffic – or at least so I thought.

         

        • carswell 11:03 on 2023-07-09 Permalink

          Another thing about scooters is they’re often ridden by teen and 20-something males who like to go fast (30+ km/hr I’m guessing since they leave me in their dust on the Lachine Canal bike path and I don’t dawdle) and drive aggressively (swerving in and out of traffic) and unpredictably (abrupt U-turn yesterday by a guy either talking or live-streaming on his phone). They look like fun but also quite hazardous, and not just for the rider.

        • Chris 12:27 on 2023-07-09 Permalink

          >the whole point of the paths was to separate human‑powered vehicles from motor traffic

          Another point is to reduce the number of cars by providing space for non-cars. If this new policy is accompanied by:

          more space being taken away from cars by reallocating it to bike paths (ex: really wide paths like on Lajeunesse where there’s a space for scooter passing)
          people buying/using scooters *instead* of cars

          then maybe it’ll be worth it.

          If we start to get a lot of scooters, it can be used as a reason to reclaim more space. A rule change like allowing scooters to use the full width of an automobile lane (like motorcycles can, but bikes cannot), at least on residential streets, could also help to slow cars down.

        • Tim S 14:06 on 2023-07-09 Permalink

          I think the distinction between human-powered and motor-powered is the most important. Keep in mind that all these other vehicles – whether they’re cars or electric skateboards – rely on external energy which has to be produced or harvested somehow.

        • Ian 16:29 on 2023-07-09 Permalink

          Considering all pushback cyclists are giving over pedestrian-only areas I guess it’s only fair that motorized e-toys should be allowed on bike paths. That said, that genie is already out of the bottle, since electric bikes are allowed. Besides, by law all electric scooters and bikes can’t go faster than 32km/h, & bicyclists regularly do way faster than that, even on city sidewalks.

        • Blork 12:02 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          This change isn’t specific to bike paths. It’s a pilot project to allow “motorized personal transport devices” (MPTDs) on CITY STREETS, which includes bike paths. Not well noticed here is that until now, all those various scootery things were not, technically, even allowed on streets or bike paths. They were tolerated as long as the rider wasn’t driving dangerously, but this change makes them street-legal for the first time.

          Also note: helmet and lights required.

          With the ever-growing variety of MPTDs it’s sometimes difficult to determine what is even meant by “scooter.” Different people define it differently. But I think the INTENTION is to apply this to things like motorized kick scooters, skateboards, unicycles, and electric bikes that are designed to be used with the motor first and the pedals are just a backup (or a sham for regulatory purposes).

          It doesn’t really apply to ordinary electric bikes like the electric Bixis and similar bikes where the motor provides “pedal assist,” because those are simply thought of, and treated as, bicycles. So they are already street legal.

          AFAIK it does not apply to things like mobility scooters (those four wheel devices that old people putter around on). There’s no way they will require helmets for those, plus their top speed is very low (like 10KPH). They are intended to be used on sidewalks.

          I’m not sure how it applies to large scooters that are almost indistinguishable from a 50cc Vespa-like vehicle. AFAIK those are supposed to be licensed the same way a Vespa-like scooter is, and helmets have always been required.

          As for bike paths, I have no problem sharing the bike paths with these vehicles (except for the Vespa-like ones; they do not belong on the bike paths). As long as the rider drives safely and with the other traffic, so be it.

          The objective of the bike paths isn’t some judgey separation of human-powered and motor-powered vehicles or some velo-centric path of righteous superioity; the objective is to provide a safe path for people using small and efficient single-user vehicles that are not cars.

          I know someone who rides a small electric kick scooter to work every day, and a while ago we were discussing whether or not those vehicles should be allowed to use the bike paths. He put it this way: why should a cyclist be entitled to a safe separation from cars but not me? I agree.

        • Kate 14:13 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          Blork, following from that, why shouldn’t a “smart car” driver be entitled to a safe separation from an 18‑wheeler?

        • Blork 15:19 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          Kate, not really. Both of those are governed by the SAAQ, as are full-sized motorcyles, and all are taxed and regulated as motor vehicles.

          The “bike lanes” on the other hand are there for the safety of people using non-enclosed vehicles. As in, small and relatively slow vehicles where you are not wrapped up with seatbelts and airbags.

          It would be very impractical to segregate the streets according to type of motor vehicle. Similarly, it’s impractical to ban all but bicyles from the bike lanes, as that leaves an increasing number (and type) of vehicle and user who has no place to go. All of these scooter types mentioned above have much more in common with bicycles than they do with cars and trucks, primarily because of the level of protection they offer the rider (virtually none, outside of a helmet).

        • DeWolf 15:57 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          I think there’s some confusion here. Electric scooters are explicitly *not allowed* on bike paths:

          https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/transports-urbanisme/789601/transports-le-temps-des-scooters-electriques-sur-les-pistes-cyclables-est-compte

          https://www.lapresse.ca/auto/dossiers/201109/12/01-4446708-le-scooter-electrique-bientot-exclu-des-pistes-cyclables.php

          As Blork notes, these new regulations are meant to allow them on the roads, period, because they were in a legal grey zone before.

        • DeWolf 15:59 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          Those two news stories illustrate why there is so much confusion: the second is from 2011, when Montreal banned scooters from bike paths (which obviously hasn’t been well enforced), whereas the first is from 2023, when Quebec instituted a province-wide ban on electric scooters on bike paths (which may or may not be enforced).

        • Blork 17:43 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          My understanding is that, while scooters are/were not allowed on bike paths, this PILOT PROJECT does allow them on bike paths. From the CTV article:

          “MPTD users, who must be aged 14 or over and wear a helmet, will be able to drive freely on roads with a maximum posted speed of 50 km/h. They will also be allowed in bike lanes.”

          …but it’s still not very clear, because of the ambiguity around the term “scooter.” But from what I understand, those vehicles will be allowed on both roads and bike paths, with an eye on seeing if the Highway Safety Code should be amended.

          There are conditions. The vehicle’s maximum speed must be 25KPH, the rider must be 14 years old or older, must wear a helmet, and at night it must have lights and reflectors. So this is clearly aimed at lower-power and lower speed MPTDs, not the over-powered racing kick scooters and unicycles that claim to be able to go 40 or 50KPH.

        • Chris 18:59 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          Interesting. I wonder what they will they do about Highway Code section 487 which states:

          “487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side of the roadway…”

          This is presumably because bikes are slower, and they don’t want bikes ‘taking the lane’ and slowing down cars.

          This might make a good dividing line for who can and can’t use bike paths. If you are big/fast enough to ‘take the lane’ (motorcycles, vespas?), then no bike path for you. If you are denied being able to ‘take the lane’, then you get a separate dedicated lane.

        • Blork 19:20 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          Chris, that’s built-in already. The pilot project is only for vehicles that can’t exceed 25kph.

        • Ian 21:33 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

        • Chris 23:55 on 2023-07-10 Permalink

          Blork, that’s related, but not the same thing. Just because they are limited to 32 km/h, doesn’t mean they’ll be allowed to use a full lane, or not.

        • Blork 12:10 on 2023-07-11 Permalink

          Right. But I think that item in the highway code is not enforced unless the rider is creating a problem by taking the full lane. I see cyclists do that all the time (I do it myself sometimes), and it’s only an issue if the street is a wide and fast-moving boulevard. Even then, it’s only enforced if a cop happens to see it and can be bothered to do something about. Or if the cyclist’s actions cause an accident and they need to assign blame.

          The big flaw in that highway code, of course, is that it “requires” cyclist to ride in the danger zone for getting doored.

      • Kate 09:36 on 2023-07-09 Permalink | Reply  

        An inmate at the Rivière-des-Prairies detention centre got into an altercation and was later pronounced dead in hospital on Saturday. Whether this kind of incident gets a homicide number, I don’t know. Nothing’s mentioned in these pieces.

         

        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