TO bicycle stunt rider being looked for by TPS

Forum Sponsor
fastar1 said:
How is that different for a bike than it is for a car?
Click to expand...

If a cyclist hits *anything*, it usually means a significant injury for the cyclist; ergo, cyclists (especially those who ride aggressively) tend to practice more due diligence to avoid hitting anything. It also coincides with the natural human-tendency of selfishness and survival.

This includes being acutely aware at intersections; it is also MUCH easier to see and especially to hear cars/vehicles/pedestrians/old ladies on a bicycle, as opposed to being in a car (surrounded by glass and/or a stereo) or even on a motorcycle (engine noise , helmets that cover your ears).

The same principle that motorcyclists are generally less distracted than car-drivers, because it is a higher risk activity with less distractions, applies to bicycles as there are even higher consequences (in an urban setting) and even less distractions.

I overestimated how many people here would probably already understand this.

Also, I'm speaking in general terms; there will always be the 50 y/o drunk outlier that just lost his license and is riding his daughters bike home from the bar with no regard to his or anyone else's safety.
 
I used to commute daily to downtown T.O., sometimes with a kid or two in a trailer.

I also fixed over a dozen of other cyclists' flats on the Martin Goodman Trail.

Only been bumped four times while stopping at a stop sign. Three of them were bicycles.

99%+ of cyclists have zero interest in other users or rules. This needs to change.

And don't get me started on those rollerbladers with the sharpened ski poles flailing along the trail.

As far as hitting things. They either bounce off a car leaving a dent and take off, or run over little old ladies who can't dodge fast enough.
Anecdotally, they've dished out far more than they've been given that I've seen.
 
Kri$han said:
If a cyclist hits *anything*, it usually means a significant injury for the cyclist; ergo, cyclists (especially those who ride aggressively) tend to practice more due diligence to avoid hitting anything. It also coincides with the natural human-tendency of selfishness and survival.

This includes being acutely aware at intersections; it is also MUCH easier to see and especially to hear cars/vehicles/pedestrians/old ladies on a bicycle, as opposed to being in a car (surrounded by glass and/or a stereo) or even on a motorcycle (engine noise , helmets that cover your ears).

The same principle that motorcyclists are generally less distracted than car-drivers, because it is a higher risk activity with less distractions, applies to bicycles as there are even higher consequences (in an urban setting) and even less distractions.

I overestimated how many people here would probably already understand this.

Also, I'm speaking in general terms; there will always be the 50 y/o drunk outlier that just lost his license and is riding his daughters bike home from the bar with no regard to his or anyone else's safety.
Click to expand...
Then to re-state your position more clearly, you figure there should be different rules for cyclists because they're less likely to cause collisions due to their awareness and vulnerability? Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
fastar1 said:
Then to re-state your position more clearly, you figure there should be different rules for cyclists because they're less likely to cause collisions due to their awareness and vulnerability? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

No.

They don't need different rules based on them being less likely to cause collisions - those are two very different statements:

- They need different rules because they are a different form of transportation. You can't treat them like pedestrians (although many people think they should be), and you can't treat them like motor vehicles (although even more people think they should be). The rules for cycling need to be somewhere in-between.

- They are NOT less likely to cause accidents: accidents, by definition are random, sporadic and due to many different variables, including (gasp) times when it's NOT the bicycle rider's fault!

My stop-sign example was just one instance when it is not practical to apply motorvehicle rules to bicycles.
 
daught said:
How many dents do you figure a killed cyclists is worth?
Click to expand...

Too many. How many hospitalized/killed pedestrians is a cyclist's ignorance and apathy to the rules worth?
 
Show me one article of a pedestrian injured or killed by a cyclist. I saw two cyclist get doored just this month

Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
 
Kri$han said:
There are some laws, but not enough of them, and I still think there is plenty of room for more definitions, such as how they should be have at small and large intersections. At a small intersection (residential, 2, 2-lane roads), I think it's fine for a cyclist to be in the left-turn lane/position right where a car would be. In large intersections (think Etobicoke, main roads), bicycles should have to behave as pedestrians, however I totally disagree with having to walk your bike in this scenario. A left turn should be done by going straight, then waiting for the light to turn and crossing at the side of the road.

Also, running a residential stop sign when there are no other cars around is a TOTAL :whocares: scenario. I wish there was a law that stated if a cyclist is disobeying the law and gets hit, it is 100% the cyclists fault.

Every cyclist with a brain is always thinking "what if I get hit right now?", and they (we) will still disobey the written rules of the road because if any imminent danger is avoided, then no harm/no foul.
Click to expand...

I've had more than a few situations in which the cyclist said, "Who cares" at a residential stop sign and I've almost killed him because I made a proper stop and then went through when my turn came up, only to have a hidden cyclist blow right through. That law exists for a reason. That reason is that you don't always see the car.

Kri$han said:
No.

They don't need different rules based on them being less likely to cause collisions - those are two very different statements:

- They need different rules because they are a different form of transportation. You can't treat them like pedestrians (although many people think they should be), and you can't treat them like motor vehicles (although even more people think they should be). The rules for cycling need to be somewhere in-between.

- They are NOT less likely to cause accidents: accidents, by definition are random, sporadic and due to many different variables, including (gasp) times when it's NOT the bicycle rider's fault!

My stop-sign example was just one instance when it is not practical to apply motorvehicle rules to bicycles.
Click to expand...

Their rules ARE already 'in between.' They are classed as vehicles, rather than motor vehicles, meaning that they don't have to adhere to a massive volume of the HTA. They need nothing more than that.
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
I've had more than a few situations in which the cyclist said, "Who cares" at a residential stop sign and I've almost killed him because I made a proper stop and then went through when my turn came up, only to have a hidden cyclist blow right through. That law exists for a reason. That reason is that you don't always see the car.
Click to expand...

I've had plenty of instances where I'm coming home in the dark, stop at a stop sign, nothing on either side, start moving and BAM out of nowhere a cyclist with no lights or any warning blasts in front of me. Then they typically yell and tell me to '**** off and watch for bikes *******!' WTF! you're a hood ornament if I didn't catch a glimpse as you enter my peripheral vision and it's my fault...**** tards for the most part.

@daught - As for cyclists injuring/killing pedestrians yes it's very rare, but it happens.

Just for fun I love, absolutely adore, the cyclists in Halton Hills....3-4 wide taking up full lanes and if you honk you get bombarded with F bombs because they are 'training' for whatever the hell they train for...anyway back to dreaming of faster bikes.
 
mimico_polak said:
I've had plenty of instances where I'm coming home in the dark, stop at a stop sign, nothing on either side, start moving and BAM out of nowhere a cyclist with no lights or any warning blasts in front of me. Then they typically yell and tell me to '**** off and watch for bikes *******!' WTF! you're a hood ornament if I didn't catch a glimpse as you enter my peripheral vision and it's my fault...**** tards for the most part.

@daught - As for cyclists injuring/killing pedestrians yes it's very rare, but it happens.

Just for fun I love, absolutely adore, the cyclists in Halton Hills....3-4 wide taking up full lanes and if you honk you get bombarded with F bombs because they are 'training' for whatever the hell they train for...anyway back to dreaming of faster bikes.
Click to expand...
South Kingsway and up Riverside used to be a haunt for training runs.
 
Kri$han said:
No.

They don't need different rules based on them being less likely to cause collisions - those are two very different statements:

- They need different rules because they are a different form of transportation. You can't treat them like pedestrians (although many people think they should be), and you can't treat them like motor vehicles (although even more people think they should be). The rules for cycling need to be somewhere in-between.

- They are NOT less likely to cause accidents: accidents, by definition are random, sporadic and due to many different variables, including (gasp) times when it's NOT the bicycle rider's fault!

My stop-sign example was just one instance when it is not practical to apply motorvehicle rules to bicycles.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to pin down a specific example where a rule for a car's use of the road needs to differ from a bike's. You come back to the stop sign example but what exactly isn't practical about it for bikes that is practical for cars?
 
fastar1 said:
I'm still trying to pin down a specific example where a rule for a car's use of the road needs to differ from a bike's.
Click to expand...

Dedicated lanes, filtering.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Dedicated lanes, filtering.
Click to expand...
If lanes are are wide enough, I believe cars are allowed to share them just like filtering on a bike. It just so happens that they're usually only wide enough for one car.

As for dedicated lanes, I guess they are different rules in effect but I've never considered for example park paths or highways as different rules, just different infrastructure. Everything can get its own lane in different circumstances: trucks, buses, streecars, pedestrians, taxis, cars, bikes, motorcycles. I don't think we consider them all to have different rules.
 
Iceman said:
Nothing worse than taking your time to safely pass a cyclist only to have them squeeze between you and the curb at the next light and you have to find a safe spot to pass them again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that drives me nuts, especially in my work truck which is neither nimble enough nor narrow enough to safely pass a bicyclist without a healthy portion of the oncoming traffic lane...which means it can sometimes take an extended period of time for me to find an opportunity (and gain the required speed/momentum) to safety achieve the pass...only to have the dolt fumble up the side of my trailer and tractor at the next stop light so I have to do it all over again.

Hate to have to say it, but it's infuriated me enough times that I've actually taken to rubbing my tires up against the curb when I expect it to happen so that they CAN'T do it. I cannot deal with trying to get around you again after every freakin' red light without fear of you ending up impacted inside one of my sets of duals.

And of course, since the rules don't apply to bicyclists, when trying these blocking maneuvers (for their own damned safety) I've had them come up my drivers side instead to pass me, as well as just hop up onto the sidewalk and do it that way instead. Because just stopping in the line of traffic where they happen to be at that moment the light turns red is apparently impossible?

Cyclists do themselves their own biggest disservice doing crap like this.
 
The recent 1 m rule doesn't help either. In my experience drivers have always been great, even excessive, in giving me room when they pass. Some have plenty of room but are too afraid to pass, causing a blockage and infuriating the drivers behind against me, even though I'm well out of the way.

But this is one of those rules that shouldn't be exclusive to cars. If drivers need to leave 1 m space then cyclists should have to leave themselves that much space when they ride up alongside cars at the stop too. I don't see any reason for having anything other than uniform rules for all road users.
 
Forgot to mention. On Friday I was traveling some road north of the GTA, I forget exactly. There was a HUGE paved shoulder beyond the painted line - it was probably 3 feet wide, and was designated for bikes.

But not once, but TWICE in a 15 or 20KM section of road I came upon cyclists who were straddling the white line in such a fashion that passings cars were risking clipping the cyclist as they passed if they didn't move over. And again, for one of them, I was forced to decelerate and wait for an opportunity to move over into the opposing traffics lane (once an opportunity presented itself) and then finally pass - this is a painful process for a heavy truck, and of course it infuriates the **** out of everyone behind us as well. The guy on the bike was oblivious, still riding basically ON the line even as I struggled to swing out and around him whilst trying desperately to accelerate before oncoming traffic had to go onto the other shoulder at my expense.

WTF is with that? Is this just the cyclist mentality again or something I'm missing? WHY would you not ride at least comfortably in the middle of that 3 feet of asphalt you have all to yourself, or if you actually value your life, perhaps on the far outer 12" where you have the most buffer between passing semi trucks and cars that could turn you into a red smear in the blink of an eye?

I should download my dashcam footage and post it here if I can find it. It was utterly ridiculous.
 
Fom your description it sounds like a high speed roadway with very little traffic on the shoulder, which would lead to accumulated dirt and c**p along the side which might not seem significant to drivers but to cyclists is a hazard, especially if they have narrow, high pressure tires.

Might just be a poor implementation of a bike lane. But who knows.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom