Cyclist, walkers seriously hurt in crash along U of T
- Thread starter Anbarandy
- Start date
Martin Regg Cohn, the columnist, is not the Toronto Star editorial board.
He writes columns.
Below is the image attached to the column written by the columnist entered in as photographic evidence which does not support his or your opining.
1) No, none, nada, nil bike lane caused traffic congestion and gridlock as claimed.
2) 7 motorized vehicles travelling on unclogged, uncongested and open downtown roadway
3) 3 bike lane users in the bike lanes which account for 30% of all trips on this stretch of Richmond St. plus 3 bicycles on the sidewalk indicating 3 other bike lane users
4) 7 motorized vehicles vs 6 bike lane users
5) Kinda renders his and your opinions as not only 'faulty eyewitness' opining but also fabricating a narrative that really just does not address the actual root causes of motorized vehicle caused congestion, gridlock and mayhem.
Last edited:
Once again, Anbarandy waxing poetic.
Like it or not, Cohn makes some valid points. But I guess that since he's just a "columnist", you won't agree with anything he says. How typical...
Last edited:
Meaning what. His opinions have no merit?
If your opinions are to be taken seriously, you need to show how his opinions are wrong.
You have clearly not done so here. All you've attempted to do is shoot the messenger without addressing the message. Kinda weak, if you ask me.
You realize that every column written by journalists has to be approved by the editor, right??
If the editor doesn't agree with the article, or thinks it contains errors, it would never get published
Last edited:
1) You obviously have never worked for a news organization.
2) Thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of columns have been published in newspapers where the editor has differences of opinions with authoring columnists.
3) A columnist is just that, a writer of columns consisting of his/her thoughts and opinions and not a decider of fact.
4) Errors get flagged and fixed by proofreaders, AI unfortunately so it seems at the Star.
5) Legal is also involved when issues of legal liability may be flagged.
6) Columnists would not be columnists if they cannot attract eyeballs to their columns which has little to do with factual presentation and more to do with their thoughts and opinions attracting readers.
1) Stating that a columnist is just that, a columnist, is NOT stating that "his opinions have no merit".
2) Stating that a columnist is just that, a columnist, is NOT an attempt to "shoot the messenger".
3) If your reply is to be "taken seriously" YOU "need to show" the how, why, and what of my stating that the columnist is just that, a columnist and NOT a decider of fact contradicts points 1) and 2) above.
4) "You clearly have not done so here".
5) AND "all you've attempted to do is shoot the messenger without addressing the message."
6) "Kinda weak, if you ask me."
What exactly is the issue?
Is it that restoring a few kms of car lanes to some inner city, urban, downtown, local and neighborhood roads will somehow solve motor vehicle caused traffic congestion, gridlock and chaos?
Do you think this columnist believes the above statement?
And if that is not the intent of restoring car lanes then what is?
Last edited:
I highly doubt that this collumnist is the only person at the Toronto Star that has negative opinions of some of the bike lanes
What exactly is the issue?
Is it that restoring a few kms of car lanes to some inner city, urban, downtown, local and neighborhood roads will somehow solve motor vehicle caused traffic congestion, gridlock and chaos?
Do you think this columnist believes the above statement?
And if that is not the intent of restoring car lanes then what is?
While we still await you're answers on several questions, asked by a few, in this thread. You keep posing more of your own...
Myself being one of them, rather than deflection, holy than though stances on cycling, and questions , instead of answers, which were answered in kind, but not the way you wanted to hear.
The columnist hit the nail right on the head, but you can't see that, as your bicycle shaped glasses blind you to anything that is contrary to your opinion. Very obtuse if you ask me...
Now we all know that Toronto has waged a war against the car for decades, the bike lanes being their newest weapon against the car, and removing the lanes will not be the panacea to eliminate gridlock. It will merely alleviate the severity that it is now and seeing that gridlock is an issue in Toronto, it's about time that they address this issue, instead of burying their heads in the sand.
Toronto sucks to get around in! It's easier to drive in European cities and the big cities in the eastern US. The transit is better and the traffic moves. They get it. Toronto doesn't.
What exactly is the issue?
Is it that restoring a few kms of car lanes to some inner city, urban, downtown, local and neighborhood roads will somehow solve motor vehicle caused traffic congestion, gridlock and chaos?
Do you think this columnist believes the above statement?
And if that is not the intent of restoring car lanes then what is?
I've already stated my case and answered your questions, with well thought out ideas of where to place bike lanes.
You haven't answered any of my questions and your responses are very childlike, amounting to covering your ears and repeating "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"
The only bike lanes that need removing are the ones on major streets.
The main reason is that emergency vehicles often cannot get through and this is going to end up costing lives
If you believe this "Toronto has waged a war against the car for decades" sloganeering, placard waving, politics by division bullshit, which clearly you do, then you do not have any "well thought ideas" regarding this subject at all.
Restoring a few kms of car lanes to some inner city, urban, downtown, local and neighborhood roads will NOT amount to a hill of beans regarding motor vehicle caused traffic congestion, gridlock and chaos BUT what it really helps do is give "Mr. War on the Car" Kingpin Doug Ford a divisive culture war issue for his upcoming unwanted early election pitting suburban motor vehicle drivers against those who actually live in the neighborhoods affected by this and who actually own these roads.
If motor vehicle caused congestion, gridlock and traffic mayhem really is a concern to Doug and you "War on the Car" n#tjobs, there are many things that Doug can do that would actually help alleviate this problem and NO restoring a few kms of road is NOT one of them
Last edited:
Here's an example. Recently I was driving on Yonge St. just north of Bloor.
Both lanes were packed with cars.
A fire truck came up and there was nowhere for cars to pull over because of the bike lanes
Both lanes were packed with cars.
A fire truck came up and there was nowhere for cars to pull over because of the bike lanes
See the parking lane?Here's an example. Recently I was driving on Yonge St. just north of Bloor.
Both lanes were packed with cars.
A fire truck came up and there was nowhere for cars to pull over because of the bike lanes
Most of these roads have parking lanes.
If it really is a problem, then remove the parking lane or lanes.
Parking or lives, what's your choice?
Thats going to hurt retail stores. Nowhere to park for their customers
Hurting retail stores, yeah right! as if!, or lives, what is your choice?
