Kitsilano’s Peter Labrie doesn’t want bikes running through Kitsilano Beach Park or Hadden Park.

Labrie has started an online petition seeking a declaration by the city of these two areas as pedestrian-only zones.

Labrie launched the petition following a recent attempt by the Board of Parks and Recreation to designate a separated bike path through Kitsilano Beach Park.

Park commissioners voted on March 12 to delay a decision following strong opposition to the plan. The route would have connected the bike paths of Ogden Avenue on the East and Balsam Street on the West.

Will you be signing the petition?

Last modified: April 4, 2018

39 Responses to " Petition Demands Kits Beach and Hadden Park Be Declared Pedestrian-only Zones "

  1. Susan Smith says:

    I have already signed this Petition, and thank goodness Peter, a Kits Point resident, has started a Petition about this matter, as he lives right there at ground zero and knows the regularity of congestion between all modes of traffic. As a regular visitor to Kits Park and Hadden Parks, I have witnessed high-speed cyclists on the adjacent roads racing through the area, narrowly missing cars and pedestrians. A separated bike lane was built one-block South on York Avenue, but cyclists (HUB, the biking lobby group behind the Vision Party) demand to be beside the water. Tough toenails! Safety should always trump mere whims and preferences that threaten the safety and well-being of everyone, especially pedestrians, who have the right of way. If cyclists want to go to the parks, they should be required to dismount and walk their bikes. Coming to the parks should mean to stay awhile and not commute through at break-neck speeds. Cyclists that are in a hurry should not be in a park: use the designated and safe separated bike lane on York. We all spent millions to build it in 2014 at Vision City Council’s behest. Don’t waste this infrastructure that businesses, residents and neighbours of York Avenue had to sacrifice their parking and motorist accessibility for to create the York Bikeway. Have a voice for safety of all in parks: please sign the Petition!

  2. Peter Labrie says:

    Thank you, Susan.

    We must ensure these parks are enjoyed by the broadest spectrum of our society. This won’t affect people parking, nor will it prohibit the concessions from getting delivery of food and materials. Nevertheless, pedestrian paths should be for pedestrian. This is a non-partisan issue.

    We already have over 120 signatories. Anyone who wants to sign the petition can access it at: https://t.co/mQBmrYc03k

    Thanks for all your support. Cheers

  3. Diana says:

    I also live near the park and frequent it several times a week, most of the time walking but also bike through it often enough too. Sometimes it’s a bit congested in the summer but nothing a bike lane wouldn’t fix. Banning bikes in the park is ridiculous and a horrible idea for the community. So all the families that bike to the playground would be out of luck? Or want to bike to Jericho have to detour off to York?

    Susan and Peter, as a mom of two small kids, I’m often just wandering around the neighbourhood with them. Perhaps I can also walk around with you to try to understand what the big deal is. Even with two rugrats zipping all over the walkways I don’t think I’ve ever had an issue with bikes and feeling unsafe. Cars running stop signs by the school, on the other hand… ?

    Please reconsider this petition and what it could mean to families or people who rely on bikes for transportation.

  4. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    Thank you Diana for your thoughtful feedback. The Seaside Greenway is such a treasure not only for residents of Vancouver to enjoy but for people who visit here from around the world. One of the worst section of the greenway is Kits and Hadden Parks. The thought of families with kids and people of all ages and abilities being unable to traverse a continuous Seaside Greenway by bike is very difficult to contemplate.

    Please do not sign this petition. Instead, please write an email to Park Board to ask them to quickly resolve this issue and to build separate walking and cycling paths to make this section of the Seaside Greenway not only safe but also the highlight of a ride along the greenway.

  5. Kevin Sweeney says:

    Where do I find the petition opposing this selfish gesture?

  6. Seaside Greenway Resident says:

    Diana, you say, “So all the families that bike to the playground would be out of luck?” — How are they out of luck? They can bike safely on the separated bike lane on York, which is one block from Kits Park, and then walk or ride their bikes the one block between York and Cornwall, at which point they need to stop and get off their bikes anyway to cross busy Cornwall at a light/pedestrian crossing to access the park. After walking across Cornwall, they are at Kits Park and would just continue walking through the park and/or stop in the park to look at the view, talk to other pedestrians, go to a restaurant, play in the playground, etc. So, in what way are families “out of luck?” It seems to me that responsible parents would want their kids to be safe by riding on the separated bike lane on York, away from the high volume, high speed motorist traffic on Cornwall and Arbutus, and the high pedestrian volumes in the park. Why would you subject your kids to such dangerous riding conditions when there is a safe, separated bike lane on York and no likelihood of accidents when walking one’s bike in the park?

  7. Susan Smith says:

    Kevin, how is ensuring safety for all users of the park “selfish?” Asking everyone who accesses the park to walk puts everyone on equal footing (if you will excuse the pun), equal status of use, and 100% solves the major safety problem because no other form of transportation would be competing for space against pedestrians. Cyclists walking their bikes in the park would be pedestrians too, so no danger of conflicts, impacts, injuries or death. Why wouldn’t you want that? The only “selfish” suggestion is the one made by cyclists who want not only the existing separated bike lane one block away on York that cost millions, but also another redundant separated bike lane in the park, wasting millions more in taxpayer dollars to construct an unnecessary and unsafe path that would endanger the high volumes of pedestrians in the park while robbing the park of much of its grass and trees.

  8. Peter says:

    The petition will probably exceed 200 this morning. Seven people signed while I was getting a coffee. The response is overwhelmingly positive. I hope to be over 1,000 by next Friday. I am getting some great feedback, such as:

    •Bike lanes are for few whereas parks are for the masses…
    •This [pedestrian paths] should be only common sense.
    •Not a place for cyclists, there are plenty of streets for them and they should be kept out of these areas.
    •We do not need bicycles speeding…where people are walking…
    •These parks are congested, as it is. I agree to keep them [for] pedestrians.

    It is important to stress that this is not a petition against individual bikers. Rather it is a petition to protect pedestrian areas in these magical parks.

    Cycling enthusiasts often cite how well cycling works in the Netherlands. They are right. I lived in the Netherlands for many years. The Dutch have both: (a) bike lanes and (b) pedestrian-only areas. When cyclists travel through pedestrian areas, they walk their bikes.

    Yes, there’s nothing like the freedom of cycling (I love it too). But the cyclist’s freedom ends where the freedom of the pedestrian begins. Civilization is based on boundaries (in one form or another). Cyclists don’t want pedestrians on bike lanes. That’s fair. Pedestrians don’t want cyclists on pedestrian paths.

    Respect is a two-way street.

  9. Ned says:

    I agree with that point Peter but have a different conclusion. Of course, when you’re walking you don’t want someone whizzing by you, that’s natural however the most workable and best solution is to have a separate path for cycling on. I can understand the reaction to want to just simply ban it entirely but that’s unrealistic and unenforcible. Locals might know about such a ban exists and follow it but tourists won’t know and they’ll come here and rent a bike and cycle on the shared path. Then a few years go by and locals will just do it anyway and since the police have higher priorities they won’t bother enforcing it.
    York is too far to expect someone to dismount and walk.
    People are not in any danger from bicycles when they are around them. This is a wrong notion. A ban is misguided and will be ineffective. The problem here is with a mistaken idea (the supposed danger) that some people hold. Get rid of that idea and find out what’s real and go from there. Every neighbourhood has a few people with mental health issues that latch onto an idea and go with it. Some of them go quite far and have a bit of a following for awhile but a governing body (like PB) should be wise enough and strong enough to do what is right based on facts.

  10. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    Peter writes
    “The Dutch have both: (a) bike lanes and (b) pedestrian-only areas. When cyclists travel through pedestrian areas, they walk their bikes.”
    I too have cycled extensively in the Netherlands and have found that
    (a) cycling facilities are almost entirely separated from traffic and from people walking
    (b) I have rarely seen pedestrian only areas and have only seen them in very busy city squares – never in parks. I have noticed beautiful and safe separated pedestrian and cycling paths through busy parks. Here is an example from Amsterdam: https://i.imgur.com/xBAF6Bg.png

    We do need a way for connecting the Seaside Greenway between Vanier Park and points west. If you sign this petition, this will become impossible. Think of families with children enjoying a ride on the Seaside Greenway. A path through Kits Beach Park could be the highlight of this ride.

  11. Cam says:

    More silliness from Peter Labrie. Fulls of misrepresentations and outright lies about what the Park Board had proposed. He just hates bikes. The Park Board had proposed a very good route through the park, that needed a few tweaks and clarificiations, but didn’t infringe on any of the Park’s current users and nicely linked the area with the seaside greenway, which has proven itself over the years to be very popular and not at all the “dangerous and disruptive” thing that Peter tries to paint it as. No “zigzagging” nor interruptions of picnic areas. No part of it through protected Hadden Park as he implies. A perverse effort from a perverse guy.

  12. Seaside Greenway Resident says:

    Ned,

    You are right that we do not have enough enforcement of rules of the road for cyclists, and we definitely need that enforcement, like we used to have in Vancouver in the past when cyclists had to be licensed and held accountable for illegal acts. However, accepting lack of enforcement as an excuse to put in a dangerous bike path merely enables the continued lack of enforcement and gives cyclists carte blanche to ride erratically to everyone’s lack of safety disadvantage. You are wrong when you say York Avenue (one block from the park) is “too far to walk” for a cyclist; cycling requires a lot more health and ability than walking, especially one block. What you mean is that you do not want to dismount and walk. Fine; stay on your bike and keep riding on York Avenue. If you want to go to the park, get off your bike and walk a block; your choice. Finally, you say that “people are not in danger from bicycles when they are around them”; tell that to the friends and families who have lost loved ones as pedestrians hit and killed by cyclists speeding both on streets and in parks: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn-cyclists-continue-rip-prospect-park-unsafe-speeds-crackdown-article-1.983227

  13. Seaside Greenway Resident says:

    Cam,

    You state that the Seaside Greenway “is not at all dangerous or disruptive”; would you care to explain then why the number of accidents has increased since the installation of this Greenway instead of decreased? Do you consider an insufficient number of parking spaces for residents due to the removal of parking for the greenway “disruptive” for the residents where the parking has been or will be removed? Do you consider the sudden whizzing by of thousands of cyclists in front of one’s driveway so that one cannot safely access one’s home “dangerous or disruptive?” Do you consider the request for approval of a bike lane through a park or on a street without
    ANY preliminary safety or viability studies being conducted “dangerous?” Do you consider removing old growth trees from a popular picnic area and putting a winding paved bike path in their place not “interrupting picnic areas” and not “zig-zagging?” Clearly, and illogically you do, or you simply are talking through your hat, not having read the details of the recently failed effort to construct a bike path through Kits Park.

  14. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    Seaside Greenway Resident,
    Enough of the hyperbole and misinformation. Park Board was simply asked to approve a certain routing in principle. More planning and consultation were planned. No changes to resident parking were considered. No old growth removal was considered. proposed path was well away from picnic areas in a lower used section of the park. Can’t get into your driveway? Why not wait a couple of seconds for the bike to pass. Give me a break!

  15. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    A much bigger risk is motor vehicles driving in the park.
    Somebody drove a stolen truck into the ocean at Kits beach
    https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/2018/04/05/truck-found-kits-beach/

    Park should be declared “Motor Vehicle Free”

    Also, there were 47 motor vehicle crash incidents near the corner of Arbutus and Cornwall over 5 year with at least three involving pedestrians.

    Anyone want to start a petition to ban motor vehicles from the park?

  16. Susan Smith says:

    Arno,

    The most significant difference in your example of today’s weird, rare event of a truck driving into the brink is that nobody was in the truck and nobody was injured or died; most likely, someone forgot to secure the breaks, and the truck rolled in from the parking lot, or whoever stole the truck was trying to hide it deliberately in the water. There is no comparison to this one-off event and the common, daily occurrence of cyclists misbehaving and terrorizing pedestrians, often resulting in injuries or death. What do motor vehicle accidents with pedestrians have to do with bikes; the Petition is about a bike lane, yes or no, not about cars, so why are you bringing motorists into the discussion about a bike lane? Could it be your cyclist-driven war-on-cars preoccupation? Motor vehicles do not drive in Kits Park; they park in a parking lot, and the drivers get out and walk, so what are you talking about? Nonsense.

  17. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    Susan,
    So how many people got injured or killed by people riding bikes in Kits Beach Park? I was only trying to point out that motor vehicles operators are almost 100% responsible for injuries and deaths due to transportation. The focus on cycling as a safety issue is not borne out by any data.

    Again I ask how are people to cycle along our magnificent Seaside Greenway if the route through Kits Beach park is taken away? How many families with kids, seniors and people from throughout Vancouver and from around the world are you denying the amazing experience of riding on our Seaside Greenway?

    We should work together to design a super safe cycling path to connect Vanier Park to points West. This petition is simply causing divisions in our community and I cannot fathom the motives behind it.

  18. Susan Smith says:

    Arno,

    No one is denied anything. Families, individuals, tourists and the like can all freely access Kits Park. No one is blocked, gated or prevented from coming to the park just because, for safety, cyclists are required to dismount. You make this sound like a profound hardship just because cyclists who choose to go the park have to get off and walk their bikes while in the park. Isn’t that what a park is for, to slow down, stay for a bit and enjoy the ambiance. Why/how is that a hardship? There is no gap or disconnect in the Seaside Greenway: look it up. The Vision City Council with its Transportation Engineering Department celebrated officially “The Completion of the Seaside Greenway” on Sept. 9, 2017 (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seaside-greenway-vancouver-completion-celebration-protest-1.4282949). You just don’t like the Greenway as it has been installed; HUB would prefer another redundant bike lane through the park. Well, I might prefer a mansion, a yacht or a Lamborghini, but so what? I do not need them, and my money is best spend on needs. The same is true of our tax dollars. And, clearly you still have not read the proposal for the bike lane through Kits Park because a proposed route winds through the old growth trees (a heavily-used picnic area), and at the Park Board vote to table the plan until at least after the October election, the project manager confirmed that trees, grass and parking would have to be removed from Kits Park if the plan went ahead. Indeed, she was specifically asked how many trees and how many parking spaces would need to be removed, and she had to admit that she did not know the exact number, which was pretty pitiful. So, Arno, get your facts straight and stop trying to mislead people.

  19. Kitsresident says:

    This petition is selfish and not needed. The park is for everyone. Pedestrians and cyclists can share the path. I go to the three parks all the time as a pedestrian and there is no congestion. Cyclists should slow down around the beach area. Existing path could be widened by 1 metre with a line painted down the middle. This would cheaper than building a new bike path.

  20. Kitsresident says:

    Just look at the path around stanley park. It is a single path with painted lines to separate pedestrians and cyclists.

  21. Susan Smith says:

    Kits Resident,

    You are right that “cyclists should slow down around the beach area.” The problem is that they speed up when paved bike path is installed. Look at the existing research, which shows this fact. Also, widening the existing pedestrian path would require eliminating green space. Park maintenance and protection is about preserving green space and increasing, not decreasing, green space, so you are advocating against policy. Finally, separated paths in parks with painted lines have been found to be dangerous because both pedestrians and cyclists venture over their side of the line (especially cyclists who are passing each other and the children pedestrians in the park), resulting in impacts, injuries and death. Again, look at the study results.

  22. Susan Smith says:

    Kits Resident,

    The Petition is NOT “selfish,” just the opposite; it advocates for all transportation mode users to have equal and safe access to the park/beach. Motorists are currently required to park and get out of their cars for the safety of pedestrians in the park, not drive through the park, and motorists do not complain of consider this requirement “selfish.” So, how is it “selfish” to similarly require cyclists to dismount for the safety of pedestrians? A bicycle is a moving vehicle, and it injures or kills pedestrians on impact, just like a car. Why do you think you are entitled as a cyclist to be a weapon to pedestrians, but a motorist is not? You are the one being selfish.

  23. Ned says:

    Seaside Greenway Resident.
    Just so you know, the NY Daily News is basically a local National Enquirer type publication. You can’t believe anything you read in it. They invent and embellish for drama and sales.
    My point about a ban being unenforceable was to say that it will not produce the results you want. The knee jerk reaction to just ban anything that’s an annoyance is a sign of immaturity. If your desire is to walk without the discomfort of someone cycling by you, banning cycling will not produce that effect. You might get some enforcement for a little while but it’s such a low priority (since it’s based on a fallacy) that the police will stop responding after awhile.
    With some place to cycle in the park, if designed well, people will know where to cycle and where not to. People when walking will know where to expect a bike to be. It’ll all be good. This is shown all over the city where cycling and walking each have a place to happen.

    I hope the next Park Board is made up of individuals who will do a better job of community engagement.

  24. Susan Smith says:

    Ned,

    Your comment, “The knee jerk reaction to just ban anything that’s an annoyance is a sign of immaturity” — so, you think then that banning cars from the park and from York Avenue (the designated bike route in the area) is immature and wrong too, right? Or, is it just bicycles that you don’t want to see banned anywhere for any reason, even safety?

  25. Ned says:

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

  26. John says:

    The dialogue is degenerating into a car-versus-bikes binary. That is what cyclists like because Vision Vancouver has used this as a wedge issue, allowing Vision to stay in power for 10 years. And Robertson cycles.

    The petition is simply designed to keep the common space of these parks open to the broadest spectrum of patrons. Cyclists are welcome, provided they walk their bikes. Let’s not turn this into a feud.

    Arno Schortinghuis is a bike troll. He hangs around VanPoli, and trashes anyone who disagrees with him. His FB page is full of pin-up pictures of bikes. Okay, he likes bikes. Got it? Don’t waste time on Arno, or he will hit you with his bicycle pump.

  27. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    With phrases like “cycling as a wedge issue allowing Vision…” I wonder who the trolls really are. Some people on this site have strong anti cycling views. I do not understand this and would like to know why this is so. I have yet to receive any clear answers which have even a modicum of fact. If you can provide examples of where I “trash” people, please let me know – this is certainly not my intent. I do like to present facts, but I guess some people are afraid of facts and resort to name calling, lying and use of hyperbole.

    Vision has had a majority on council since 2009 – not for 20 years. That our mayor and some councilors ride bikes occasionally is totally irrelevant. The reason they won elections is partly because they had clear policies to improve transportation in our city for everyone. They have been very successful at this.

    If I am referred to as a troll for my attempt to speak for the families with children and people of all ages and abilities who love to ride a bike on our magnificent Seaside Greenway, then I will wear this badge with pride.

  28. J.R. says:

    Vision was elected in 2008. That means Vision has been in power 10 years. You know, 2018 minus 2008 equals 10. No one every said they were in power 20 years!

    Robertson announced on September 7th, 2017 the “Seaside Greenway” was complete. Let me quote Robertson: “Work to complete the Seaside Greenway in Point Grey was coordinated with sewer separation work and water main upgrades along both Point Grey Road and Alma Street”. That comes from the City’s website.

    There is no “gap”. You dreamt that up the “gap” story as a pretext to take green space away from park patrons. The “Seaside Greenway” is asphalt. Asphalt is not green. It is more of the same nonsense.

    You defend Vision, and you are a former President of the BC Cycling Coalition. That makes you a politically biased troll.

  29. J.R. says:

    Vision was elected in 2008. That means Vision has been in power 10 years. You know, 2018 minus 2008 equals 10. No one every said they were in power 20 years!

    Robertson announced on September 7th, 2017 the “Seaside Greenway” was complete. Let me quote Robertson: “Work to complete the Seaside Greenway in Point Grey was coordinated with sewer separation work and water main upgrades along both Point Grey Road and Alma Street”. That comes from the City’s website.

    There is no “gap”. You dreamt that up the “gap” story as a pretext to take green space away from park patrons. The “Seaside Greenway” is asphalt. Asphalt is not green. It is more of the same nonsense.

    You defend Vision, and you are a former President of the BC Cycling Coalition. That makes you a politically-biased troll.

  30. Seaside Greenway Resident says:

    Have you got that clear, now, Arno? The Seaside Greenway was “completed” in 2017 (it is now a year later, 2018) by Vision-led City Council’s own admission in their documentation that they promulgate online, and in their patting-themselves-on-the-back “Seaside Greenway Completion Celebration Party” of September 2017. The “gap” propaganda that Vision, HUB and the BC Bicycling Coalition love to fabricate has grown too old. This “completion celebration party,” which was a flop (by the way), occurred on Point Grey Road at Macdonald Street and was opposed on the street and in the media by many Vancouver residents, who disagreed with the Phase 2 installation of a totally unnecessary $6 million-dollar sidewalk extension that narrowed the roadway, making Point Grey Road much more hazardous than it was previously, as borne out by accident/crash/injury statistics. Your claim Arno that “The reason [Vision] won elections is partly because they had clear policies to improve transportation in our city for everyone” is utter nonsense. There was nothing “clear” about it, just the opposite. Vision was elected because party members, including Mayor Gregor Robertson, blatantly lied to the residents of Vancouver by telling them, for example, in 2013 that Council would not reconfigure a bike route on Point Grey Road by tearing out trees, landscaping and driveways(but they did), that they would “end homelessness by 2015″(but they didn’t), and that after their first controversial term of office, “they would be more transparent” and “engage in more public consultation”(but they became less, requiring more F.O.I. requests, and gave power to their Transportation Engineers to no longer have to consult with the public). Well, Arno, Vancouver residents have woken up to the recognition that Gregor and his Vision Party are bold-faced liars, which is why most Visionistas are not running again — they know they are not going to be re-elected in 2018 because the public is fed up with our tax dollars being wasted on unsafe Vision-legacy-led pet-projects that are U.S. Tides-driven. You can pull the wool over people’s eyes and lie for only so long, Arno, before the extent of lies add up and cannot be denied, thank God. What Vision has done to Vancouver is a travesty, and I trust that the new non-Vision Council in 2018 will hold Vision and the old Vision-led Council accountable.

  31. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    Wow! I will let the readers decide who is the real troll here.

  32. Vegan Biker says:

    Arno, you are President of the B.C. Cycling Coalition. Your Facebook page is strewn with photos of bicycles.

    You were a significant contributor to Vision Vancouver in the last election (that shows up the Vision’s declaration of donors). Let’s face it, you are a shameless Vision troll.

  33. Arno Schortinghuis says:

    It is my experience that when someone resorts to personal attacks that they have no facts of logical arguments to put forward. So sad. Also I notice that you don’t want to identify yourself. Not a good sign.

  34. Vegan Biker says:

    I am just saying you are biased. You are President of the B.C. Cycling Foundation, and a loyal donor to Vision Vancouver. Those are facts.

    You hang around sites, and you criticize anyone that disagrees with you. Thus, you are a Vision troll. That is reality.

    I did identify myself. I am the Vegan Biker.

  35. Beth says:

    Vegan Biker,

    Arno is also a regular blogger on the bike-centric sites PriceTags and Vanpoli, which block any poster who attempts to post truthful but negative articles and studies about dangerous and erratic cyclist behaviour, as well as factual cyclist-caused accidents in Vancouver and elsewhere. As much as I recognize cycling as a healthy fitness activity and a means of commuting for some, it is shocking how cycling organizations in Vancouver, and their members, viciously attack personally anyone who offers truth about the negative sides of cycling and cycling infrastructure that is unsafe. Bike lanes have been and will continue to be a major concern for voters as the October election looms; the Kits Park area, like Point Grey Road, Commercial Drive, the 10th Avenue VGH area, and many others are contentious because of safety concerns and impacts on accessibility to services and businesses. These discussions should be welcomed and encouraged by the open-minded, not shutdown and hidden by cycling advocates. Vancouver has suffered from the lack greatly from the lack of transparency while Vision has been in government. I look forward to the return to visibility and information-provision when Vision is gone.

  36. Arno S says:

    Beth
    Please show me where I have viciously attacked anyone. I have asked a lot of questions and have not had good responses. In fact, I have received personal attacks. This is very sad. I encourage everyone to stick to the topic and not attack other posters.

  37. Susan Smith says:

    Arno,

    You, and your friends Lynne Kent, David Fine and Adam Smith, advocate for a bike path through Kits Park or on Arbutus Street adjacent to the park, despite the obvious safety hazards to pedestrians. You claim to represent Kits Point residents through the KPRA (Kits Point Residents Association), but no such organization has ever existed as a legal entity and yet has negotiated with the Park Board fraudulently on behalf of Kits Point Residents together with HUB and the BC Bicycling Coalition, of which you are a member, in regard to the Kits Park bike path as recently as this year. There is no licensed or registered KPRA, and there has been no Kits residents association since 2008 when the only one that ever existed was disbanded.

  38. Seaside Greenway Resident says:

    Arno,

    You call people “trolls” and “anti-cycling” bloggers. Those are personal attacks and also untrue. You do this to try to deflect the truth about pedestrians being put at risk by cyclists if a bike path were to be built at Kits Park. Your postings are all over the Internet as supporting bike infrastructure regardless of the safety implications, and when someone brings up this critical issue of safety, you, and your cycling-at-any-and-all-costs friends, start calling that person “a troll” or worse. Why is it that you never admit to the dangers that cycling poses for pedestrians, especially in parks?

  39. Seaside Greenway Resident says:

    Please watch the newly-added video on the Petition, and sign the Petition if you have not already done so. Let’s keep Kits Park safe and accessible for all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *