-
We made a gingerbread house!
Just kidding. It was a pre-fab. We just decorated it. 🙂
-
#windows #fail
-
Some Tips For Sharing The Road
I’m writing a longer than expected blog post on my 3-hour trip riding my cargo bike home to Brampton from Bloor and Spadina. In the process of doing that, another topic came up: Tips for sharing the road with other vehicles on the road.
- SIGNAL: Drivers appreciate a fair warning. Stick your arms out before you  have to, or as soon as you can, to show your intentions on the road.
- IF YOU SUDDENLY FIND YOUR LANE IS BLOCKED, STOP: If you don’t have time to follow step 1 to change lanes to move, Â stop your bike at the blockage. Do a shoulder check, and stick your arm out to tell drivers you’re changing lanes. Like when you’re in a car, WAIT YOUR TURN, and make eye contact with the drivers. Either someone will let you in to the next lane, or the traffic will break and you’ll have an opening. Either way, you’re taking an unnecessary risk if you choose to lane-split between lanes of traffic or just “go for it”.
- AT RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS, STOP ON THE LINE: Do I really need to explain this one? Blowing the line, or suddenly deciding the pedestrian cross walk suits your riding habit, will not earn you any friends, and puts yourself and others at risk of a collision.
- IN A TRAFFIC JAM, WAIT WITH THE TRAFFIC: Otherwise, dismount and walk your bike on the sidewalk to a spot where traffic is moving again before re-mounting safely. Traffic dodging techniques such as lane-splitting or filtering is risky, if not illegal, and the last thing you want to do is surprise the operator of a motor vehicle. Passing on the right (closest to the curb) is probably not a smart move either. If the lane is too narrow, you put yourself at risk of a “right-hook”. The best way to not get one, is to not be there to receive one.
Generally speaking, it’s important to remember that when sharing the road with other vehicles, cyclists do not suddenly become priority occupants of the lane. Sharing the space means share equally. Obey the road laws, and show the same respect and patience to other vehicle occupants (drivers and cyclists alike) that you want shown to you.
-
The tree is up. The kids helped a little. 🙂
I wasn’t sure this was going to happen, as I was not feeling well for the last few days. But, it came together, and the little ones are happy. 🙂
-
See ya, Instagram
-
Who Passed The Post?
Here’s an idea to review how we approach vote count in Canada. It stems from something that has bothered me since I first saw it on T.V: The comparing of “First Past The Post” and “Proportional Representation”. The idea that a popular vote of under 50% could decide a majority government is a source of frustration for me. First Past The Post is great in a 1-on-1 election, because the candidate elected has a clear majority mandate. It’s the majority mandate that’s tricky when a popular vote is separated 5 ways, which I respect that Proportional Representation seeks to solve.
But ultimately, why can’t we use a blend of both voting systems?
The way I’ve worked this out, the way people vote would not change at all, in that it only requires one voter to submit a single vote. The difference is in how the votes are interpreted, and using a systematic majority rule to decide the counting mechanism that is most appropriate. I’ll use the 2008 Canadian General Election results in my example.
It works like this:
When the votes are counted, if a riding has a clear majority (50+%) in favour of a candidate/party, then they win the seat as per majority mandate.
If not, then the riding has failed to come to a majority decision. The seat then gets submitted to a Proportional Representation pool.
The counting could also factor voter turnout, whereby if support for one candidate/party of those who voted is 60%, but only 58.8% of the riding came out to vote (as was the national average in 2008), then the actual percentage in favour of that candidate/party would be 35%, which in that case would fail to satisfy a majority rule.
In the final count, the ridings that have won seats by clear majority are subtracted by the total number of seats in the House of Commons. Those total number of seats assigned to the Proportional Representation pool get split up according to popular vote, and assigned to ridings in order of preference for who voted most in favour of that party.
It might sound a bit complicated, but I don’t think it is. Perhaps now is a good time to show an…
Example
Of the 308 electoral districts in 2008, 118 seats would have qualified for majority rule, that is, where the candidate in a riding received 50+% of the votes and would have rightfully won a seat via a clear majority.
Bloc Québécois 13 Conservative 80 Independant 1 Liberal 17 NDP 7 That leaves 190 pooled seats to be delegated by Proportional Representation. The first question that should be asked is how to decide which party is awarded seats first? It would make sense to delegate in order of popular vote ratio.
I’ve pulled some data from ThreeHundredEight.com to help calculate the popular vote.
Party Popular Vote Pooled Seats Awarded Bloc Québécois 10.00% 19 Conservative 37.60% 71 Green Party 6.80% 13 Liberal 26.20% 50 NDP 18.20% 35 Per popular vote, the pooled seats would be delegated in order national popular vote (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois, Green Party), and then in the order of the ridings that favoured each party most, determined by popular vote per riding. For example, because the Conservatives have the highest national popular vote in this scenario, their seats would be delegated first, in the order of the ridings that favoured them the most.
Under “Who Passed The Post”, the results would have been:
Bloc Québécois 32 Conservative 151 Green Party 13 Independant 1 Liberal 67 NDP 42 Note: The total number of seats filled in this outcome is only 306, which is 2 short. This is probably because the count of the Popular Vote percentages only totals 98.8%. Clearly, there are counts not taken into consideration on ThreeHundredEight.com.
I think this system would respect a riding’s preference where there is a clear winner determined by majority rule, while respecting the growing desire for representation of other parties in ridings that were unable to select a clear winner. All the while, this system does not change how people already vote, so there’s no learning curve in changing how to vote.
As always, please feel free to send me your comments!
-
Spring Colour Chart 2013
In case you haven’t heard, but Pantone has released their colour forecast for 2013. You can check out at [http://www.pantone.com/pages/fcr.aspx?pg=21005&ca=4].
-
Waste Management: Cyclists Need Not Participate
I recently had an awkward experience while dropping off my electronic and hazardous waste at the Brampton Recycling Centre, so much so that I wanted to share to get your opinions on it.
I approached the ramp to sort out my electronic waste, when a sign caught my eye that said that no bicycles or pedestrians are allowed up the ramp. Problem: I rode my bike to drop off my waste.
Fortunately, there was an understanding staff member who agreed to take my waste and sort it for me. But this was clearly an unusual situation for us both.
While I expect an argument could be made that this policy is for safety reasons, I have to ask this: If safety is a concern, why did I not see a sign that also bans motorcycles and e-bikes? These are also vehicles that leave their operators equally exposed, yet seem to be permitted.
The Recycling Centre in Brampton is the most comprehensive and convenient means of dropping off items that cannot be left for curb pickup. Yet it seems that there is an unfair bias to exclude cyclists or transit users from participating in drop-offs. There is also a certain irony in the thought of requiring the private burning of gasoline to take part in a program that’s meant to help save the environment.
And I have to ask why? Does this situation reflect an antiquated policy, or an exclusivity that Ford Nation would be proud of which favours cars only?