invictus43
Well-known member
To quote The Star:
Which, to me, is trying to imply that a lack of helmet use had some role in the other 73% of deaths..which is obviously not true.
Toronto Cyclists
- Thread starter Ed In Mississauga
- Start date
To quote The Star:
Which, to me, is trying to imply that a lack of helmet use had some role in the other 73% of deaths..which is obviously not true.
The 'obviously not true' was my point. Stating that 27% of riders who died weren't wearing helmets, then using it as justification to legislate helmet use, is an obvious red herring. If 27% of ALL riders wear helmets, give or take a few percentage points, then the 27% is a non-statistic. If 75% of ALL riders wear helmets, but only 27% of those who died while riding were, then the number is important. It's political bafflegab. It also seems to be how the 'study' presents the data, not just how The Star chose to write it up.
if on a city street with dual carriageway, the riders in the curb lane have no obligation to move over from the one metre they are allowed under the law.
if on a county road, with only one lane, two riders need only move over enough to allow a pass, and if there is no traffic coming in the other direction, no obligation to go single file is carried, afaik, especially if a single car approaches 2 or more bikes from behind. speed of 'traffic' would then be determined by the bikes, not the car.
i think the number of fatalities per capita derived from bad cyclists is far below that of bad driving/riding by motorcyclists and drivers. we can easily sit here and catalogue douch-e behaviour by all three groups, but this beotch session is highly hypocritical when we regularly ask the public not to judge us as motorcyclists on the actions of the minority. to suggest that the actions of the minority of cyclists is representative of all is about as welcome as suggesting hooligan riders are what we are all about.
motorist for over 25 years, cyclist for over 35 years. would put cyclists at the bottom of any list of road hazards anywhere in the gta. the vast majority of ignorance by vehicle operators comes from drivers of cars--far and above that of cyclists, they have the most to learn about sharing the road.
i have driven in many different countries where drivers have a saner appreciation for other vehicles on the road, and this one has such a bias for car culture that there is a clear arrogance by drivers in regards to sharing the road, such that i frankly don't blame some savvy cyclists for riding in a way to keep themselves safer. i'm not talking about dangerous riding, but in terms of aggressively maintaining lane presence against incompetent drivers.
GentlemanRacer
Well-known member
As a former cyclist, and one who will admit to taking traffic signals and signs only as guides to who had right of way, but otherwise not taking them seriously - I can tell you most cyclists on the road today are retarded. We don't need rules to protect them, we need fewer protections to encourage safer behaviour. Sometimes that means them being more aggressive.
The effect of protecting them with bike lanes and bitchy little activist rides has caused the number of cyclists on the road to skyrocket in a short period. Couple that with the low bar to entry, it means that most cyclists these days do not understand the risks they are taking, and they think the government should protect them from themselves. Cycling is fun, and a very pleasant way to get around the city. It's especially nice to see girls in sun dresses on them.
It's also freedom from the overbearing regulation of motor vehicles. Of course it's sad when someone dies, but everyone has their day. When the person saved by a bike lane goes on to cure cancer, I'll be impressed, but until then, cyclists should just STFU and ride. The more political they get, the less freedom they will have, and the whiners will ruin it for everyone.
Who said anything about 'speed of traffic'? Do I have to actually quote the statute to you?
Look at that chart, that I posted above, and tell me that bad drivers are more often responsible for cyclist deaths.
First time I went downtown Calgary on a Saturday it was like a ghost town. I'm like where are all the people and cars? Can't imagine what Sunday be like.
[video=youtube;5H81vSzFTX0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H81vSzFTX0&feature=plcp[/video]
Probably like downtown Ottawa, on any weekday after 6:00pm.
suzuki2000
Well-known member
bang on... cyclists or anybody that is in a position that put them at risk needs to be aware of the danger. Bike car motorcycle, boat, it doesn't matter. We all know that you should not drive your car into another, but it happens. A driver generally knows they should not run into bikes/pedestirans, but it happens.
If people go through life not being accountable to their own safety or well being, they will not understand when something bad happens. You can argue that the driver in the car should have given a cyclist more room but this does not change the outcome
conundrum
Well-known member
As was hinted earlier on in the thread -- Most downtown cyclists do not even hold licenses. To me, this is a BIG part of the problem as they do not understand the rules of the road, and therefore do not properly abide by them (they go off what others do or what they believe to be true). Granted this isn't all of them (there are still idiots out there), but overal cyclists need more education (if only there were a way to require a license to ride on public roads), and police need to actually enforce the laws regarding them.
As a side note, imo if a bicycle is on a road, it IS a vehicle, and therefore needs to abide by the same laws and regulations other vehicles do. If a cyclists blows a stop sign or more critically a red, he should be fined to the same extent of the law as anyone else who does so in a car, on a motorcycle, scooter, etc. The same should be said for anyone texting while cycling -- I can't count the number of people I see riding, no hands on the bars, texting on their phone, sometimes on the wrong side of the road. Just the other day I was riding through Oshawa and saw a teenager, no helmet, riding on the wrong side of the road (and taking up an entire lane), texting with cell in one hand and holding a 'tray' with 4 coffees from Tim's in the other.
One could argue a bicycle can't hurt anyone, but what if they run into another cyclist, or a pedestrian (what if they are a child, elderly, etc)? If I recall, something like that happened around a year ago in Toronto. Also, what if they stupidly ride into an active intersection and get pegged by a car and killed? What about the turmoil to both the driver and the family of the deceased?
Anyhow, just my 2 cents on the issue.
As a side note, imo if a bicycle is on a road, it IS a vehicle, and therefore needs to abide by the same laws and regulations other vehicles do. If a cyclists blows a stop sign or more critically a red, he should be fined to the same extent of the law as anyone else who does so in a car, on a motorcycle, scooter, etc. The same should be said for anyone texting while cycling -- I can't count the number of people I see riding, no hands on the bars, texting on their phone, sometimes on the wrong side of the road. Just the other day I was riding through Oshawa and saw a teenager, no helmet, riding on the wrong side of the road (and taking up an entire lane), texting with cell in one hand and holding a 'tray' with 4 coffees from Tim's in the other.
One could argue a bicycle can't hurt anyone, but what if they run into another cyclist, or a pedestrian (what if they are a child, elderly, etc)? If I recall, something like that happened around a year ago in Toronto. Also, what if they stupidly ride into an active intersection and get pegged by a car and killed? What about the turmoil to both the driver and the family of the deceased?
Anyhow, just my 2 cents on the issue.
Last edited:
GentlemanRacer
Well-known member
Bicycles aren't motor vehicles, and their physical properties do not resemble anything like a motor vehicle. They are a human powered apparatus, and to treat cyclists like motorists is absurd. They have nothing in common other than being users of a road.
Traffic signals should only exist to determine right of way, and physics will sort out the rest. Anything else is just political ******** and revenue confiscation.
Oddly enough, you're wrong. Conundrum said "treated like a vehicle." Guess what? Under the law, a bicycle IS a vehicle. It simply isn't a motor vehicle. Any section of the Highway Traffic Act, that states the word 'vehicle' rather than the phrase 'motor vehicle', can be applied to a bicycle.
clearly there are some people who are under the misapprehension that bicycles must always move over for faster traffic. this is not always the case.
as for your chart, did you happen to look a little further down in the same source and find this:
| Contributory Driver Action | # of cases* |
[TD="width: 110"]
%**
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Speeding[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
31
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
30%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Driver inattention[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
29
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
28%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Failure to yield[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
20
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
19%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Unspecified human error[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
6
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
6%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Medical condition[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
2
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
2%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Car door opening[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
1
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
1%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"]Other[/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
32
[/TD][TD="width: 110"]
31%
[/TD][TD="width: 216"] Total Actions Identified [/TD]
[TD="width: 87"]
121
[/TD][TD="width: 110"][/TD]
furthermore, these are only related to deaths, which i was not solely referring to.
so much carnage is caused by drivers on a daily basis, so much more than cyclists.
Last edited:
When you ride a bicycle on a public road alongside traffic, that bicycle is a vehicle according to my insurance company. I was hit by a car on my bicycle and it was his fault. I went to his insurer and received a settlement to fix my bicycle. Because I also drive and am insured, I was able to utilize the insurance system, something a non-driving cyclist would know nothing about.
It's called common sense, but you can't legislate that. If I'm riding my bicycle at 20 km/h and traffic behind me is going 60 km/h, it's in my best interest to stay out of the way regardless of what the law says. Why would I want to use the whole lane when it would be incredibly dangerous? Just to prove a point? The point that I have the right or be dead right?
invictus43
Well-known member
And right on cue, they trot out the kid whose dad died after getting run over by a truck (!!) crying about how he misses his dad and wearing a helmet will save the world..grrroaannn....
No, actually people seem to be referring to situations in which cyclists are required to move over, and yet flatly refuse to do so.
As to your chart yes, I did see it, and immediately discounted it from the discussion as 'speeding', in and of itself, isn't a cause of these incidents.
And with respect to the 'carnage caused on a daily basis' it wasn't a factor in the conversation at hand, as it had shifted to cyclist deaths and this 'study.' The only useful information in it seems to indicate that the best way of help cyclists to not be killed, is to enforce the law where they are concerned. It is the most immediate, effective, and logical means given that they appear to be their own worst enemies. Note that I don't say enact new law, but rather simply apply what already exists.
just so everyone is clear--my posts addressing the concern stated by the op about cyclists and accidents are ON TOPIC
your posts about cyclists and causality in fatalities, by your own admission, is OFF TOPIC
furthermore, when presented with stats that counter your off topic contentions, you dismiss your own source?
. . .good work
The topic forked. I followed.
I dismiss it as a cause of the subject in question. Cause. Effect. Get that?
The last thing we need is someone like afong circle..........er, arguing for us.
from your source:
"In 62% of cases (64 of 104) in which the cyclist collided with a vehicle (defined as a motor vehicle, streetcar or train), one or more modifiable actions on the part of the driver were identified which were felt to have contributed to the death."
those modifiable actions include speeding. the source you use finds causality attached, but you don't. lol, nice cherry-picking. dismiss it all you want, but if one can arbitrarily discount findings then what value does your source actually have? apparently none, which means your argument has the same value.
. . .good work
