Updates from August, 2024 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 19:15 on 2024-08-06 Permalink | Reply  

    This Gazette piece on an abandoned social housing building on Walkley in NDG tells us:
    1. The building was abandoned in 2013
    2. The city has no funds to fix it or replace it
    3. Quebec has not offered any funding
    4. Ensemble says this is bad, but has no suggestions what to do

    Typically, nobody asks the Ensemble guy how he would go about getting funding for this project. There’s no indication that Ensemble could magically get Quebec to open its wallet for poor people in Montreal’s west end if Projet can’t.

     

    • Nicholas 20:47 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Has the city used up its $25+ million and growing affordable/social housing fund yet? The one it built up with proffers from developers who wanted to pay into the fund rather than include affordable units in their projects? Last I heard it was just sitting in a bank account (or, probably, being used to offset some other priority so as to keep the debt from looking higher).

    • Kate 08:42 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      I don’t imagine so, but there may be difficulties deciding which project should benefit in which borough.

    • Ephraim 10:29 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      Stupid suggestion…. you borrow the money to have someone fix it, figure out the costs per square metre and sell it on long term lease (25 years) as lease-to-own. If they sell anytime before the 25 years are up, they get to keep a percent tied to the total number of years lived there. So over 5 years is 20%, 6 years is 24% etc. but of the principal, not the interest. Which is a capital gain to them. And the city buys it back to do this again for another family. If they manage the full 25 years, they own it.

  • Kate 09:12 on 2024-08-06 Permalink | Reply  

    La Presse says police are closely watching cyclists, especially those on electric vehicles.

     

    • Ian 09:55 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Bike helmet laws may limit bike use, but brain injuries are a cost borne by society at large.

      Normalizing helmet usage is a nice start, let’s talk about normalizing not blowing through red lights or looking at your phone while you ride – both very common behaviours on Mile End bike path routes, anyhow.

      Blowing a light while looking at your phone, not wearing a helmet? Sounds like the sort of things that actually should be seriously suppressed, no? I know if a driver regularly blew lights while looking at their phone, everyone would be (rightly) up in arms.

    • Ephraim 10:12 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      @Ian – I can’t understand those who are on their phones and biking… but sometimes they have kids on seats behind them. You need to model the behaviour that you want from car drivers. You don’t want a car driver on his phone, well… don’t do it on your bike. (Especially with a baby in the seat behind you!)

    • Chris 11:09 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      >Bike helmet laws may limit bike use, but brain injuries are a cost borne by society at large.

      Lots of things are costs borne by society at large. Like car pollution. If we have to bear that, we can bear cyclist not wearing helmets.

    • MarcG 11:19 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Running the wrong way with the ball

    • SnootBoop 12:04 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

    • Ian 18:58 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Lol whut? OK fine, your brain injury. Have fun.
      @Chris amazing equivalency, you have fun without a bike helmet then, too.

      When I lived on Jeanne-Mance, a street with a northbound bike lane on the left and a southbound bike lane on the right, I would regularly see people biking at night, no hands, no helmet, on their phones, going the wrong way down the middle of the street. It takes a real galaxy brain to think that telling people not to do this kind of thing is somehow anti-bike.

    • Nicholas 20:53 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      The national burden for traumatic brain injuries is higher in Canada than the Netherlands, where bicycle usage is way higher and helmet usage outside children and racing bikes is essentially non-existent. We drive more than the Dutch and have more cars than them, and yet we still have more roadway deaths per capita, per vehicle and per vehicle kilpmetre driven. The biggest predictor of roadway deaths is number of kilometres driven my cars and trucks. It’s almost as if cycling (with or without a helmet) isn’t the dangerous activity.

      Helmet usage by drivers, passengers and pedestrians is also basically zero, even though most people who suffer traumatic brain injuries on the roadways fall into those categories. I bet if we mandated helmets for walking people would strictly be safer when walking than now, but would also walk less and drive more, so we’d all be less safe overall.

      Wear a helmet if you want, no one will stop you. But if you ask the people in the safest country in the world for cycling whether people should be ticketed for not wearing a helmet so as to improve safety, they’ll laugh at you. I’ve seen it.

    • Blork 20:55 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      That safety vest article is a straw man. It assumes people in vests and helmets are actually TARGETED by drivers. The real problem is that drivers often DON’T SEE the cyclist AT ALL, not that they don’t see them as “human.”

      Chris: another straw man. While you’re right that the effects of car pollution are borne by the population at large, that’s why there are emission control laws and standards, which are enforced (somewhat). Those enforcements and emission control devices are parallel with helmet laws.

      “Blowing through red lights” is also a bit of a straw man. There are so many variables there that you can’t reduce the whole thing down to one statement. As a life-long cyclist I’ve “blown through” thousands of red lights. In my case (and in many cyclists cases) one only “blows” the red light when one has slowed down, assessed the cross traffic, and then proceeds through when there is zero risk. As in, an approaching cross vehicle does not even need to take their foot off the accelerator because they’re so far away. Basically a “Denver stop” which is legitimate.

      Blowing through red lights without looking, or when there is cross traffic of cars, bikes, or pedestrians: No. Never.

      Cycling while phoning or texting? No. Never; especially texting, where both your mind AND your eyes are not on the road. Fine the f*ck out of them.

      Final note: people are stupid. My mind is regularly boggled by the stupidity of pedestrians, cyclists, and car drivers. Everyone has a responsibility to themselves and to society to be alert and aware and to not always assume you are safe just because you feel entitled to safety.

      In particular I am regularly boggled by people I see riding with their kids (either in carriers or in those kid trailers) in dangerous conditions seemingly without a care in the world. Like riding down pothole-filled ave. du Parc at rush hour with a kid strapped to your bike. Or racing down a curvy gravel path on Mont-Royal at 40kph while towing a kid in a trailer. Or cycling across Sherbrooke street at rush hour while texting with two kids strapped to a cargo bike. I’ve seen all that.

    • Ian 21:12 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      @Blork by “blowing through a light” I don’t just mean crossing against a red, I mean blowing thorugh assuming everyone else will get out of your way, pedestrians and cars alike. Of course I’ve crossed reds on a bike, everyone does. In a car? Never.

      @Nicholas I have spent lots of time in the Netherlands too, I have family in Groningen.

      Montreal is not the Netherlands.

      You want to ride without a helmet, go for it, lol. I was a daily bike commuter for decades with the scars to show for it – I may have blown out my knees & been doored several times, but no brain injuries, thanks. I don’t know anyone in Montreal that rides/ rode on the regular without injuries. But yeah, sure, helmets are for dopes. You can laugh all the way to the hospital. Thinning the herd, I guess.

    • Rennie 16:11 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      You mind your business, I’ll mind mine is a good rule to live by. Even for internet busybodies who like to tell other people how to live their lives.

    • Chris 18:16 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      >When I lived on Jeanne-Mance […] It takes a real galaxy brain to think that telling people not to do this kind of thing is somehow anti-bike.

      Ian, no one here argued being against all these things is “anti-bike”.

      >But yeah, sure, helmets are for dopes.

      Ian, no one argued that either.

      You seem to be conflating anti-mandatory-helmet with anti-helmet.

      Nicholas: well said!

      >While you’re right that the effects of car pollution are borne by the population at large, that’s why there are emission control laws and standards, which are enforced (somewhat).

      Ha! “Somewhat” indeed. Enforced so much that said emissions have increased for every decade for a century.

      >Those enforcements and emission control devices are parallel with helmet laws.

      Society has decided many deaths from car pollution is ok. We can likewise decide that some cyclist deaths from lack of mandatory helmet use is ok too.

      Biking without a helmet does no harm to anyone else, except sure some cost to taxpayers funding universal heath care. But so does overeating, not exercising, smoking, etc., etc.

      What about joggers? Should we mandate they wear helmets too, in case a car hits them? Anything but fix the real problem (cars) I guess!

    • Ian 18:29 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      It’s not a zero sum game, we can do both.

      But get this mind-bender – you can actually hurt yourself just falling off your bike, like slipping on ice, or having a blowout, or wiping out in gravel, or hitting a steel plate covering roadwork – in fact I have done all 3 and would have had a serious head injury each time had I not been wearing a helmet. Joggers tend not to have those issues.

      Road safety laws exist because they reflect the need to prevent injury from clear and immediate danger. If you want to make this about the existence of cars and climate change and lifestyle choices that’s just rabbitholing, and again, false equivalencies. (Massive brain trauma) != (long-term health effects from air pollution).

    • Chris 17:52 on 2024-08-08 Permalink

      Joggers absolutely do wipe out and hurt themselves. Why not require they wear helmets? After all, “road safety laws exist because they reflect the need to prevent injury from clear and immediate danger.”

      In a free society, sometimes individual choice trumps other considerations.

      You like that individual choice when it allows you to drive your polluting car around, but you abhor it when other make their choices.

    • Ian 17:59 on 2024-08-08 Permalink

      No, you have me all wrong. I fully support your individual choice to go brain yourself. Don’t let me stop you. I stilll think you are making foolish false equivalencies and now grasping at straws and resorting to ad hominem, but hey, no point arguing with thoe who won’t be swayed, right?
      The point of this conversation was not my moral stance on helmets (which would be weird) but trying to explain why the public safety laws that are there exist.
      Heck, go skateboard down the mountain in a ballcap and swim trunks if yiou want, I’m not stopping you.

  • Kate 08:46 on 2024-08-06 Permalink | Reply  

    Le Figaro is doing a series on Olympic installations worldwide and has lit on our beloved stadium, which it calls “le plus spectaculaire, architecturalement parlant, des enceintes que nous vous avons jusqu’alors présentée.” I don’t think the Figaro writer gets how unsuitable the design is for this climate, but the post‑Games use of the structure isn’t on his radar.

     

    • Ian 20:27 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Well, if nothing else came from the Olympics here, the famous anti-fascist graphic designer Otl Aicher who led the design team for the 1972 Munich Olympics designed the pictograms for our games, and we ended up using one of his fonts (Rotis semi-sans) for the City of Montreal.

    • Ian 20:29 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Legitimately directly involved with the White Rose society.

    • Kate 12:58 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      I’m still a fan of Rotis. Aicher did good work.

    • Ian 18:52 on 2024-08-07 Permalink

      AND he invented the universal bathroom sign! It was firrst used at the Olympics, too.

  • Kate 08:40 on 2024-08-06 Permalink | Reply  

    Many of us will have been startled late Monday by an Amber Alert for two kids, but they were found shortly afterwards in the United States.

     

    • MarcG 08:42 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      I think this is the first time the alert actually sounded on my phone. Why did it go off at midnight when they were known to be missing since the afternoon?

    • SnootBoop 12:08 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Theatre of policing

    • Ian 20:03 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      Well, they did find the kids. I’m the first to call ACAB but Amber Alerts work, even if it usually is a parental abduction.

    • CE 22:48 on 2024-08-06 Permalink

      I’m very glad I remembered to turn off the sound on my phone last night. It’s not easy getting back to sleep after a late night Amber Alert!

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