raydeon said:
Two birthdays this month so soon to be 1, 9 and 10. As long as the cops do not tell me that I have to ride on the street because I like having them follow right behind me and direct them. Then again the tires on the trailer is smaller.
Cyclists need to obey the law
- Thread starter lawyerman
- Start date
Two birthdays this month so soon to be 1, 9 and 10. As long as the cops do not tell me that I have to ride on the street because I like having them follow right behind me and direct them. Then again the tires on the trailer is smaller.
WHile this may be true, but when there is no constuction, no impediment in any way (other than being an ass) then there is no reason for them to do this.raydeon said:I don't know the specifics of your reference tboy, and you are probably right in that case, but there is a section in the Higway Act that says: " If for various reasons, (road repair, accident, narrow bridge...) the lane narrows to a level which would make passing unsafe, then it is acceptable and recommended that the cyclist occupies the centre of that lane in order not to encourage an unsafe passing by a motorist".
I mean, if they stuck with the laws of the road they wouldn't be able to ride the curb at stops. They'd have to wait behind whatever car they were behind when the light turned red. Either that or let the traffic pass them when the light turned green but of course many don't, they jump the green specifically to impede traffic.
This is why I say we need more bike lanes but not at the expense of a whole lane of motorvehicle traffic (as in the dundas st east reference) That is just retarded. Plus couple that with the fact that 8 months of the year bike traffic is pretty much nil due to incliment weather.
I forgot about another pet peeve I have with cyclists: how they don't stop for streetcars. OH that bugs me too. You finally get around them, only to be held up yet again by a streetcar stop then they catch up and zip right through....When I see one coming in my mirror I have half a mind to edge over tight to the curb to stop them......
A cyclist need walk a bike across an intersection only if the cyclist is acting as a pedestrian, which means that the cyclist would already be walking the bicycle toward the intersection on the sidewalk.MLAM said:(which is what they are supposed to do..dismount and WALK the bike across the intersection if they have stopped). They twist and turn and spin and do all sorts of contortions to keep the bike upright, and as often as not they bump into pedestrians or end up in traffic.
If a cyclist comes to a stop at an intersection while riding on the road then the cyclist may ride across the intersection. Also, the cyclist can go to the left turn lane to make a left turn just as a car would.
When a cyclist is riding on the road, the cyclist should follow the laws for slow moving vehicle traffic. When a cyclist is on the sidewalk, the cyclist should walk the bicycle and follow the laws for pedestrians.
Edit: I see that raydeon and fuji have also made this poist. Sorry for the repetitiion.
That's only if they want to use a pedestrian crossing, you don't have to walk a bike across an interesection. Bikes can go anywhere and do anything a car can do, except for on highways.MLAM said:2) Will do ANYTHING to avoid dismounting from their bikes when stopped (which is what they are supposed to do..dismount and WALK the bike across the intersection if they have stopped).
Cyclists are not restricted from all highways, just the big divided ones.fuji said:That's only if they want to use a pedestrian crossing, you don't have to walk a bike across an interesection. Bikes can go anywhere and do anything a car can do, except for on highways.
Realistically there should be some change in the law to accomodate some things that reasonable cyclists do. This does not excuse those who are unreasonable.
1. Riding on the sidewalk. It should be OK, subject to some sensible rules: Pedestrians get an absolute right of way. If you can't safely pass one, slow down or stop. Always slow down to walking speed when passing a pedestrian, etc., it's the asshole cyclists who whiz by at 20km that are a danger to pedestrians, not the majority of considerate cyclists.
2. Riding the wrong way on a one-way residential street where the speed limit is 30k or less. It should be OK again subject to common sense. Stay to the side of the road. No-one ever got hurt doing this. Ever.
3. Riding across at a pedestrian crossing. Should be OK subject to the same constraints as riding on a sidewalk.
4. Ownership of the lane in traffic. Cyclists should NOT actually stick to the far right of the lane. That's too dangerous, there are too many hazards by the edge of the road (car doors, people jumping out from between cars), and it encourages motorists to attempt to pass the cyclist without pulling out into the next lane over. A lot of cyclists have been killed doing this--it's much safer to be well out into the lane. When a car has to pull out into the left lane to pass you, they think about it, and execute the move carefully. When they think they can squeeze between you and the white line they're liable to bump you and send you flying into a parked car.
5. Four way stops. A cyclist does not really need to stop for a safe crossing. They need to slow down to a near stop, look around, and proceed if it makes sense. Having to put your foot down is a MAJOR inconvenience (you lose all your inertia) and there is no added safety benefit of a complete stop over a near stop.
Of course there are cyclists who abuse all these things. There are people who rather than slowing down at a 4-way speed right through without slowing down at all. There are people who ride at full speed on sidewalks they share with pedestrians. There are people who ride up the middle of a one-way street, or ride on one-way thoroughfares where it is completely unsafe.
There's no excuse for running through red lights, etc.
What I'd like to see are some sensible reforms to the rules that apply to cyclists to allow safe and convenient cycling as per the above, followed by a harsh crackdown on the jackasses who do the really obnoxious things.
1. Riding on the sidewalk. It should be OK, subject to some sensible rules: Pedestrians get an absolute right of way. If you can't safely pass one, slow down or stop. Always slow down to walking speed when passing a pedestrian, etc., it's the asshole cyclists who whiz by at 20km that are a danger to pedestrians, not the majority of considerate cyclists.
2. Riding the wrong way on a one-way residential street where the speed limit is 30k or less. It should be OK again subject to common sense. Stay to the side of the road. No-one ever got hurt doing this. Ever.
3. Riding across at a pedestrian crossing. Should be OK subject to the same constraints as riding on a sidewalk.
4. Ownership of the lane in traffic. Cyclists should NOT actually stick to the far right of the lane. That's too dangerous, there are too many hazards by the edge of the road (car doors, people jumping out from between cars), and it encourages motorists to attempt to pass the cyclist without pulling out into the next lane over. A lot of cyclists have been killed doing this--it's much safer to be well out into the lane. When a car has to pull out into the left lane to pass you, they think about it, and execute the move carefully. When they think they can squeeze between you and the white line they're liable to bump you and send you flying into a parked car.
5. Four way stops. A cyclist does not really need to stop for a safe crossing. They need to slow down to a near stop, look around, and proceed if it makes sense. Having to put your foot down is a MAJOR inconvenience (you lose all your inertia) and there is no added safety benefit of a complete stop over a near stop.
Of course there are cyclists who abuse all these things. There are people who rather than slowing down at a 4-way speed right through without slowing down at all. There are people who ride at full speed on sidewalks they share with pedestrians. There are people who ride up the middle of a one-way street, or ride on one-way thoroughfares where it is completely unsafe.
There's no excuse for running through red lights, etc.
What I'd like to see are some sensible reforms to the rules that apply to cyclists to allow safe and convenient cycling as per the above, followed by a harsh crackdown on the jackasses who do the really obnoxious things.
Oh and my favorite... a bicycle does not need to have a bell on it unless you are mute. In any situation where you need to signal someone it's dangerous to remove your hands from the brakes in order to ring the bell. It's much better to use your voice to call out to the person whose attention you need.
Furthermore, there should be NO situation in which a cyclist needs to call out to someone. Cyclists should be slowing down and stopping.
Now if you WANT to have a bell fine, it's useful when you are riding on the sidewalk and you are cycling very slowly behind some pedestrians, you can ring the bell to get their attention, so they can politely, calmly, and slowly move aside. It's a little less offensive than having to yell in that case--it's a courtesy thing.
A bell is never a safety issue on a bike.
Furthermore, there should be NO situation in which a cyclist needs to call out to someone. Cyclists should be slowing down and stopping.
Now if you WANT to have a bell fine, it's useful when you are riding on the sidewalk and you are cycling very slowly behind some pedestrians, you can ring the bell to get their attention, so they can politely, calmly, and slowly move aside. It's a little less offensive than having to yell in that case--it's a courtesy thing.
A bell is never a safety issue on a bike.
Fuji, I know you're going to look at this as a continuation of the other thread but are you out of your mind?
You seriously want to change the law to allow a VEHICLE to DRIVE on a PEDESTRIAN sidewalk? OMFG. My mother was run over by a bicyclist doing warp factor 4 when she stepped out of a hair salon and she sufferred a broken leg, torn ligaments and numerous contusions. After 10 yrs she STILL has trouble walking properly and now YOU want to make this LEGAL? HOLY SHIT.......
You also want to make it legal for a VEHICLE to use a CROSSWALK? What part of WALK don't you understand?
They don't have to STOP at STOP signs? WTF drugs are you on man. WHy do you think they put in stop signs? As a minor inconvenience or because traffic flows in all directions? I mean, now according to you, NO one has to stop at intersections. Man, how many MORE deaths are going to occur your way?
Here's an example for you: I was turning left (south) onto victoria street at Ryerson. People were walking cross the crosswalk, cars were stopping at the stop signs. When it was clear to do so (and my turn to proceed) I started into my turn, just as a bicyclist riding in the wrong direction on the wrong side of the street runs the stop sign and I plow into him because, hey, I'm not looking for TRAFFIC to come from that way, I'm looking for PEDESTRIANS.
So he flies over my hood, I ruined the bike, the hood of my car, the grill, and one fender. He cracked his head, (no helmet) and had numerous bumps and bruises. He broke three laws: no helmet, not stopping at the stop sign, and driving/riding on the wrong side of the street. BFD he didn't get a ticket and I sure as shit didn't see a penny for the repairs to my car.
Now you want to make this the NORM????? HOLY SHIT.....
Next thing you know you're going to say they should be allowed on the 400 series highways and be allowed to ride the yellow lines.....
You seriously want to change the law to allow a VEHICLE to DRIVE on a PEDESTRIAN sidewalk? OMFG. My mother was run over by a bicyclist doing warp factor 4 when she stepped out of a hair salon and she sufferred a broken leg, torn ligaments and numerous contusions. After 10 yrs she STILL has trouble walking properly and now YOU want to make this LEGAL? HOLY SHIT.......
You also want to make it legal for a VEHICLE to use a CROSSWALK? What part of WALK don't you understand?
They don't have to STOP at STOP signs? WTF drugs are you on man. WHy do you think they put in stop signs? As a minor inconvenience or because traffic flows in all directions? I mean, now according to you, NO one has to stop at intersections. Man, how many MORE deaths are going to occur your way?
Here's an example for you: I was turning left (south) onto victoria street at Ryerson. People were walking cross the crosswalk, cars were stopping at the stop signs. When it was clear to do so (and my turn to proceed) I started into my turn, just as a bicyclist riding in the wrong direction on the wrong side of the street runs the stop sign and I plow into him because, hey, I'm not looking for TRAFFIC to come from that way, I'm looking for PEDESTRIANS.
So he flies over my hood, I ruined the bike, the hood of my car, the grill, and one fender. He cracked his head, (no helmet) and had numerous bumps and bruises. He broke three laws: no helmet, not stopping at the stop sign, and driving/riding on the wrong side of the street. BFD he didn't get a ticket and I sure as shit didn't see a penny for the repairs to my car.
Now you want to make this the NORM????? HOLY SHIT.....
Next thing you know you're going to say they should be allowed on the 400 series highways and be allowed to ride the yellow lines.....
Nope. You don't drive a bicycle, you pedal one. I want some recognition that bike has both vehicle and non-vehicle properties, which in the real world, it actually does.tboy said:You seriously want to change the law to allow a VEHICLE to DRIVE on a PEDESTRIAN sidewalk? OMFG.
Right, so you saw the part where I said that should not be allowed? You should be able to ride a bike on a sidewalk but you should not pass people at warp factor 4, you should pass them at walking speed.My mother was run over by a bicyclist doing warp factor 4
That guy was not a considerate cyclist, he was an asshole, and as a result of his asshole behavior your mom got hurt.
In other countries it doesn't seem to be a problem.You also want to make it legal for a VEHICLE to use a CROSSWALK? What part of WALK don't you understand?
You see the bit where I said there is no added safety benefit in a bike coming to a complete stop?As a minor inconvenience or because traffic flows in all directions?
Here's my prediction: NONE.I mean, now according to you, NO one has to stop at intersections. Man, how many MORE deaths are going to occur your way?
Sounds like he wasn't obeying the rules I set out.a bicyclist riding in the wrong direction on the wrong side of the street runs the stop sign and I plow into him because, hey, I'm not looking for TRAFFIC to come from that way, I'm looking for PEDESTRIANS.
Coming to a near stop and proceeding IF IT IS YORU TURN would not have permitted him to do that. He still attempted to cross the intersection out of turn which is not allowed.
Whatever...
...the point isn't what they have a right to do or not do...the point is that they sure as shit don't have the right to run over other people feet and dart in an out of traffic in their pathetic attempt to stay upright because they are TOO LAZY TO STOP AND GET OFF THE FUCKING BIKE (or set one leg down or whatever).
Yesterday I watched this guy make circles...literally going between scaring the pedestrians who were waiting to cross and scaring the drivers who were nearly running him over, because he wanted to stay up on the bike versus (at least partially) dismounting and waiting like everybody else.
I've seen cyclist weave back and forth between cars stopped at an intersection to keep from dismounting as well...but they would have cried "foul" if they had been run down by one pulling off when the light changed.
Walk the bike..don't walk the bike...whatever...but get off of it when you aren't riding it...don't just do tricks to try to stay upright while you inconvenience everyone else...
fuji said:That's only if they want to use a pedestrian crossing, you don't have to walk a bike across an interesection. Bikes can go anywhere and do anything a car can do, except for on highways.
...the point isn't what they have a right to do or not do...the point is that they sure as shit don't have the right to run over other people feet and dart in an out of traffic in their pathetic attempt to stay upright because they are TOO LAZY TO STOP AND GET OFF THE FUCKING BIKE (or set one leg down or whatever).
Yesterday I watched this guy make circles...literally going between scaring the pedestrians who were waiting to cross and scaring the drivers who were nearly running him over, because he wanted to stay up on the bike versus (at least partially) dismounting and waiting like everybody else.
I've seen cyclist weave back and forth between cars stopped at an intersection to keep from dismounting as well...but they would have cried "foul" if they had been run down by one pulling off when the light changed.
Walk the bike..don't walk the bike...whatever...but get off of it when you aren't riding it...don't just do tricks to try to stay upright while you inconvenience everyone else...
In the suburbs I ride on the sidewalk too. On the roads out there the cars are going much faster than a bike, and most drivers are ignorant of how to pass a bike safely. Riding on the road in much of scarborough is suicidal.
On the sidewalk on the other hand it's safe and a CONSIDERATE cyclist isn't a danger to anyone.
I agree there are a lot of assholes on the road, and they're both in cars and on bikes.
On the sidewalk on the other hand it's safe and a CONSIDERATE cyclist isn't a danger to anyone.
I agree there are a lot of assholes on the road, and they're both in cars and on bikes.
Fuji:
The flaw in your logic:
Stop SIgns: THey have to stop NOW according to the law and don't so do you really think saying "slow down" is going to make them MORE or LESS careful?
What about pedestrians at intersections? There are MANY where you cannot see around the corner because of bushes, newspaper machines, mail boxes etc
As for a VEHICLE travelling at WALKING SPEED still carries a lot of inertia behind it. Even if it was being PUSHED it would have caused more damage than if a pedestrian had run into her.
Sorry, anything ridden, driven, motorized, people powered, battery powered or something you sit in, on, or ride, IS A VEHICLE and does NOT belong on a side WALK.
Just so I get this right: You don't ride your bike on the road in the suburbs because the cars are going too fast right? So, by your own logic a pedestrian is safer with a bike on the sidewalk than off? You forget the golden rule: pedestrians have the right of way ALWAYS.
Again, using your logic: Applied to pedestrians, they don't walk on the road because vehicles are travelling too fast, so if you put vehicles on the sidewalk, WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO? Sorry, we haven't managed to master self propelled flight yet......
Dont' get me wrong, I think the city should start building enclosed, covered bikeways (like a monorail) running into the city with ramps up to it at major intersections so that people can bike to work all year round. But until they do that,
SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS, ROADS ARE FOR VEHICLES
Just for reference:
Vehicle:
any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:
Bicycle: a vehicle with two wheels in tandem, usually propelled by pedals connected to the rear wheel by a chain, and having handlebars for steering and a saddlelike seat.
You can put your own definition into it however you want but the true definition is the above......
Just an addendum:
The guy I hit by Ryerson? He WAS following your rules: he slowed down but didn't stop at a stop sign, he was driving the wrong way on a one way street/lane.......the only law (according to you) is that he wasn't wearing a helmet.
One of the problems of riding the wrong way is none of the traffic signs can be read. But that doesn't matter in Fujiland because the bikers don't have to abide by them anyways.....
The flaw in your logic:
Stop SIgns: THey have to stop NOW according to the law and don't so do you really think saying "slow down" is going to make them MORE or LESS careful?
What about pedestrians at intersections? There are MANY where you cannot see around the corner because of bushes, newspaper machines, mail boxes etc
As for a VEHICLE travelling at WALKING SPEED still carries a lot of inertia behind it. Even if it was being PUSHED it would have caused more damage than if a pedestrian had run into her.
Sorry, anything ridden, driven, motorized, people powered, battery powered or something you sit in, on, or ride, IS A VEHICLE and does NOT belong on a side WALK.
Just so I get this right: You don't ride your bike on the road in the suburbs because the cars are going too fast right? So, by your own logic a pedestrian is safer with a bike on the sidewalk than off? You forget the golden rule: pedestrians have the right of way ALWAYS.
Again, using your logic: Applied to pedestrians, they don't walk on the road because vehicles are travelling too fast, so if you put vehicles on the sidewalk, WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO? Sorry, we haven't managed to master self propelled flight yet......
Dont' get me wrong, I think the city should start building enclosed, covered bikeways (like a monorail) running into the city with ramps up to it at major intersections so that people can bike to work all year round. But until they do that,
SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS, ROADS ARE FOR VEHICLES
Just for reference:
Vehicle:
any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:
Bicycle: a vehicle with two wheels in tandem, usually propelled by pedals connected to the rear wheel by a chain, and having handlebars for steering and a saddlelike seat.
You can put your own definition into it however you want but the true definition is the above......
Just an addendum:
The guy I hit by Ryerson? He WAS following your rules: he slowed down but didn't stop at a stop sign, he was driving the wrong way on a one way street/lane.......the only law (according to you) is that he wasn't wearing a helmet.
One of the problems of riding the wrong way is none of the traffic signs can be read. But that doesn't matter in Fujiland because the bikers don't have to abide by them anyways.....
My kid was riding on the sidewalk this year and she still got hit. She stopped at an intersection, a car stopped, she went to cross the intersection and the guy ran over the bike making a right. There isn't anywhere safe in the city to drive a bike. If she had been walking she would probably be dead because the guy wasn't paying attention to what was happening on the sidewalk.fuji said:In the suburbs I ride on the sidewalk too. On the roads out there the cars are going much faster than a bike, and most drivers are ignorant of how to pass a bike safely. Riding on the road in much of scarborough is suicidal.
On the sidewalk on the other hand it's safe and a CONSIDERATE cyclist isn't a danger to anyone.
I agree there are a lot of assholes on the road, and they're both in cars and on bikes.
Hey Hunter, that really is too bad about your daughter. Something to consider though is that how tall is she? Where was she standing?hunter001 said:My kid was riding on the sidewalk this year and she still got hit. She stopped at an intersection, a car stopped, she went to cross the intersection and the guy ran over the bike making a right. There isn't anywhere safe in the city to drive a bike. If she had been walking she would probably be dead because the guy wasn't paying attention to what was happening on the sidewalk.
I say this because in my truck, the front pillars are so thick (for safety) that I can look to my left and right, and someone could be standing directly in line with the pillar and I wouldn't see them. On more than one occasion I was making a left (slowly) and someone was walking at a pace that kept them totally hidden by this pillar and luckily I saw them but only when the angle changed dramatically. So now that I learned this whenever I'm making a turn I lean forward or stretch back to look around this forward blindspot.
Now imagine in fujiland where your daughter wouldn't even have had to stop, she could just pedal right out in front of traffic "hoping" that they will abide by the traffic laws even if she doesn't.
I know it would cost cities lots of money but I think the best solution is not bikes on sidewalks or on roads. The first sidewalk closest to stores or if you are travelling in the direction of traffic the left hand side should be a sidewalk for pedestrians, then there should be another sidewalk that is meant for bikes and then the street which is meant for cars.
The sidewalks I primarily take is not near stores and has signs that say cyclists please dismount going over the bridge or at crosswalks etc...
A city not so over populated like Mississauga still has pleanty of land space beside most sidewalks and could easily be changed. I can really see this being a problem in cities like Toronto though.
The sidewalks I primarily take is not near stores and has signs that say cyclists please dismount going over the bridge or at crosswalks etc...
A city not so over populated like Mississauga still has pleanty of land space beside most sidewalks and could easily be changed. I can really see this being a problem in cities like Toronto though.
That's not a bad plan. The way to do it would be to steal a lane from the road and turn it into a cycling area, with a barrier between it and the area still remaining for cars. You'd just need one lane, the cycling area would be a 1/2 lane wide on each side of the road.Jade4u said:I know it would cost cities lots of money but I think the best solution is not bikes on sidewalks or on roads. The first sidewalk closest to stores or if you are travelling in the direction of traffic the left hand side should be a sidewalk for pedestrians, then there should be another sidewalk that is meant for bikes and then the street which is meant for cars.
That would also discourage driving which is a plus, could be part of the city's environmental plan.
She is about 4'6" - 4'8" maybe taller and was standing on the sidewalk, on the corner, no obstructions. It was a car and not truck and he did look at her but I guess he figured he had the right of way (even though she was there waiting for him to stop before continuing) His comments after buying he a new bicycle was "Always let the car go first no matter what. That is just a cop out for his bad driving.tboy said:Hey Hunter, that really is too bad about your daughter. Something to consider though is that how tall is she? Where was she standing?[
She was at the corner on the sidewalk waiting for him to stop. If you can't see someone there you shouldn't be driving.tboy said:I say this because in my truck, the front pillars are so thick (for safety) that I can look to my left and right, and someone could be standing directly in line with the pillar and I wouldn't see them.
I almost ran over one the other day...he was riding a dirt bike on the sidewalk and went through the intersection and I was turning left. I braked in time - he didn't appear to notice me. Sort of splitting hairs whose fault this near miss was...I'm driving the big bad car, so I guess it would have been my fault. Thing is, he'd have been flattened and I would have been uninjured. I have no desire to run the guy over, but if he wants to ride on the sidewalk, how about using one of those little bell things or a horn on his handlebar when approaching a busy intersection? I glance to look for pedestrians...if none are in sight, I check again for oncoming cars, then make the turn. By biking so fast along the sidewalk he is in the intersection walkway seemingly out of nowhere and I see him as I am mid-turn barreling down on him.
I have no prob with bike lanes for bicycles...and i give them space...but driving on the sidewalk requires a bit of awareness of cars making turns. I don't want to be giving a police report about how I flattened him, but he has a persoanl stake in avoiding getting flattened, too. Lets look out for each other, guy. Respectful driving goes both ways.
I have no prob with bike lanes for bicycles...and i give them space...but driving on the sidewalk requires a bit of awareness of cars making turns. I don't want to be giving a police report about how I flattened him, but he has a persoanl stake in avoiding getting flattened, too. Lets look out for each other, guy. Respectful driving goes both ways.
If he was going straight crossing with the light and your were making at left it would still be your fault. He would be on the road at the time you hit him. If it was a four stop then it might be different.alexmst said:I almost ran over one the other day...he was riding a dirt bike on the sidewalk and went through the intersection and I was turning left. I braked in time - he didn't appear to notice me. Sort of splitting hairs whose fault this near miss was...
