Cyclists need to obey the law

[tboy]

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.

Actually, that is debatable because if the rider wasn't in a proper lane (if he was on the crosswalk) and came off the sidewalk, he was breaking TWO laws which caused the accident. The old adage "the one making the turn, or the one behind is always at fault" is long gone.

Again, I'm sorry about your daughter's near miss but please, enough of the snide comments. In the case you described yes, he was obviously at fault (hence why he bought her a bike) but his advice is what I was taught and teach anyone who will listen. The way I see it: if a car hits me? They get a scratch, I could get dead. If there is any doubt, wait until it is long gone.....because only an idiot would stop and back up if they are through the intersection already....

As for seeing someone standing on the sidewalk. Take a look at your blind spots in your car the next time you're driving. If you can't see every point of your bumpers, and you can't see your headlights, or your licence plates, then maybe you shouldn't be driving either? I know what you're going to say and before you do? If you can't see your licence plates you won't be able to see a kid in a pedal car or a wagon if he was right in front of you......

 

[hunter001]

As for seeing someone standing on the sidewalk. Take a look at your blind spots in your car the next time you're driving. If you can't see every point of your bumpers, and you can't see your headlights, or your licence plates, then maybe you shouldn't be driving either? I know what you're going to say and before you do? If you can't see your licence plates you won't be able to see a kid in a pedal car or a wagon if he was right in front of you......

Again Tboy logic. SHe was stop clearly on the fucking side walk waiting to cross. If you can see someone on the sidewalk, clearly in the open then you should be driving. Whatever the other shit you talking about is just more Tboy shit.

 

[tboy]

LOL relax cowboy, man, you really need to get laid or something!!!!

Did you not also post:

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.???

Well I'm telling you: there are some vehicles out there that block your view of

SOMEONE STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK

Ah more of hunter's crap.......

BTW: did you teach your kid to let the car go no matter what now?

 

[enduser1]

riding on the sidewalk, not signaling a turn

Hi,

I break those laws all the time. Why?

I am sick and tired of being cut off by cars. To be blunt, cars don't see you on the road.

I have been cut off at stop signs so many times I automatically assume I will be cut off. And yeah I have head lights on in the daytime and a bell. So I am in compliance with the law.

EU

 

[raydeon]

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.

I gather that you are pulling a trailer with the 1 y.o. in it, and that the 9 and 10 y.o. are riding small bikes, so you are OK. As I said before, the cops (other than to ones in Burlington) in general are not enforcing the rules of cycling. But if you were riding alone, I would advise you to ride on the road.

Be extremely careful riding on the sidewalks. I consider it more dangerous for the cyclist than riding on the road. I don't know where you ride, but I will give you an example.
Riding along the Lakeshore Blvd. West, from Pt. Credit all the way to Burlington, there are many sections where they have so called "cycling paths" which are really and added band of paved sidewalk, or sometimes just the sidewalk itself. Now you have a lot of houses and properties along the sides of the road, most of them with hedges fronting, and driveways going out, with no visibility either for the driver or the cyclist riding on the path/sidewalk.

I have seen many accidents caused by cars just getting out of their drive.
I feel much safer on the road. At least I can see them coming, and I have a buffer zone. You won't get me to ride on those so called bike paths. Any experienced cyclist will tell you the same. The situation is even worse when riding on the sidewalks. Pedestrians who by definition belong on the sidewalk are very impredictable in their movements. They have no reason to think that a cyclist is coming from behind, and therefore do not look before changing direction or stepping aside.

I was raised in Europe where cycling is more disciplined, and where the law is very strictly enforced. As a cyclist, one obeys the traffic laws, which means stop at red lights and stop signs, do not ride against the one way streets, or on sidewalks, get in the correct lane to make turns, signal....

I have cycled (and worked) in many places, the Middle East, Africa, India, Nepal, Thailand, Cuba....and the rules are the same everywhere. Why can't people here realize that and conform to them, rather than trying to find excuses to break the law to justify their selfish attitudes and do things which actually jeopardize their own safety and that of others?.

I said before, the subject needs to be adressed seriously by the government, and educating the youngs is very important. There has been an attempt made with the Canada Bike program, but it is not enough. You have also to be aware of the so called "teachers" who in my opinion are incompetent in that discipline. I was watching a couple of days ago the news, CBC or CP 24.
There was an older man wearing a crossguard uniform, teaching kids bike riding. He had no idea about it. A female reporter was shown on a bike. He adjusted her helmet, and guess what, the helmet was way out back of the head....in case of a fall, she hits the front lobal part of the head, and good bye to a useful life.. He also told the riders to adjust the seat so both feet can touch the ground.....how can you ride and control a bike with your knees hitting your chin when you pedal..... I may exagerate a little, but you get the point. We need proper education.

I hope I am not boring you. Go out and enjoy nature and the benefits that cycling will provide you. They are many places and small and beautiful roads in Southern Ontario where cycling is enjoyable.
Feel free to PM me if you want to know more.

 

[raydeon]

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.

You are way out of line here Fuji. You cannot have special laws for cyclists. They are classified as vehicles and must respect the same rules and rights as any other vehicle on the road.

However, your paragraph 4 is right on the dot. Actually, most cities or regional traffic authorities advises that the cyclists should ride in a straight line, one meter away from the curb to avoid storm drains, road debris, manhole covers. Riding in and out to avoid those obstacles puts you in more danger of being hit by a car.

 

[basketcase]

...
I find most of the cyclists are not bad, except couriers. ...

I don't mind couriers. They ride like they are f*ing crazy but have enough experience and awareness to stay out of trouble many times. The ones that piss me off are the people who haven't ridden much and decide it's good thing to do but are absolutely oblivious to not only the rules of the road but everything going on around them.

 

[tboy]

You are way out of line here Fuji. You cannot have special laws for cyclists. They are classified as vehicles and must respect the same rules and rights as any other vehicle on the road.

However, your paragraph 4 is right on the dot. Actually, most cities or regional traffic authorities advises that the cyclists should ride in a straight line, one meter away from the curb to avoid storm drains, road debris, manhole covers. Riding in and out to avoid those obstacles puts you in more danger of being hit by a car.

And therefore should also abide by the HTA laws that says you must pull over and allow faster moving vehicles to pass ..........

As for getting cut off from vehicles turning right, well, yes, that does happen a LOT and I say it is because no driver has ESP and has NO idea what the bicyclist is doing or going to do. If the cops enforced the law and ticketed those that don't use hand signals (as is required by law) then everyone would know the other's intention.

As with driving a motorcycle, you have to be on the defensive 100% of the time and put yourself and keep yourself in a position to avoid any trouble. As for vehicles turning right and cutting you off, for the most part (though not always) cars will signal their intention and if you are in front of them, then you should be fine, but if you're beside them, then slow the F down. If you're behind them then pull out around them (while remaining in your lane) and go back to the bike lane or whathaveyou.

Again, I will say this: the city should be installing more bike lanes but NOT at the cost of a regular vehicle lane. THat is just retarded.

One option could be is dedicating the opposite flowing lane of traffic to bicycles only. In other words in the morning, the lane for traffic away from the city closest to the curb would be reserved for bike traffic in both directions. In the evening, the curb lane leading into the city would then be reserved. Kind of like how the middle lane of Jarvis is changed depending on the time of day.

I mean really though, restricting an entire lane that typically handles 5,000 vehicles at rush hour to a couple of hundred (maybe) bicycles? THen half the year leave it idle because it's too cold to ride a bike? That certainly isn't the answer.....

Georgia had an awesome plan. There was an old rail spur that ran plantation cotton from Atlanta to all points north and west. They ripped up the rails and turned it into a 500 mile bike path. The beauty of it was that they kept the covered bridges and stations along the way. They turned the stations into rest stops. I always wanted to blade it but everytime I was in Atlanta it was either pouring down rain or I was too busy working. But there are railway lands that run right down to the core from all directions that could easily be modified to contain a paved bike path. I mean, that would eliminate the problem of intersections, etc.

 

[Ref]

I'm surprised that the Mayor has not introduced a bike tax...er license fee. That is such an easy cash fix for him. Then he could introduce a parking sticker (flat fee) so cyclists could park their bikes against light post, etc. He could also introduce a special bicycle tire tax for green purposes.

Do they still make bikes with sissy bars?

 

[star_lord1]

I have to agree with you. I ride sometimes on trails, like the Waterfront trail, or the Burlington Beach trails and the rollerbladders are the one to watch out for. Because of the nature of their sport, they need a lot of space. I always make sure I warn them before passing.
But the trails are there for all to share, pedestrians, runners, cyclists, skateboards,wheelchairs, walkers, dogs.... let's be tolerant.

As for the legality of rollerblading in the street, some city forbid it. Don't know about TO.

I drive, cycle AND rollerblade. As a skater, we don't think we own the road - we believe that cyclists, auto drivers and pedestrians think THEY own the road.

When driving, cyclists and skaters are a pain. When cycling, cars, skaters and pedestrians are a pain. When skating, cyclists and pedestrians are a pain. There's a pattern here: anyone going at a speed significantly different than my own is a potential source of problems. I see it when driving: slow trucks and/or cars offend me 'cause they're blocking me (and I just KNOW it's deliberate!). Faster vehicles are a right nuisance: if the limit's good enough for me it's good enough for them!

At any rate, there'll always be conflicting goals when sharing a resource - any resource.

The legality of skating on roads vs sidewalks in Toronto is obscure to me. I suspect that skaters should be using the road since we are wheeled and move rather faster than pedestrians. The issue would seem to be one of maximizing public safety but laws don't always reflect this. Maybe someone else knows? My personal choice is to use the bike paths (Note to self: it's BIKE path not SKATE path nor WALKING path. Second note to self: forget first note to self - I'm too selfish!)

As far as skating goes, we do need a lot of space but we know this as we skate and - if given enough of an advanced warning - we will stop skating, coast and let the cyclists past.

Here's an interesting thought regarding space: do cyclists know how much space they need? I've observed this and found they require a considerable amount of space. Most cyclists will look at their handlebars or pedals and treat that as the amount of space needed. In fact, the measurement should be made at the shoulders which are wider and - at the high point - move around quite a bit particularly when leaning into a turn.

By way of educating non-skaters here are some special problems that skaters have:
1) we have very small wheels. An obstacle that is negligible in size to a bicycle or car tire, a small stone, unevenness in the the pavement, even interlocking stones, is a large obstacle to inline skates. Think in terms of relative radii of the wheel compared to the size of the obstacle. We spend a good deal of time looking down for very good reasons.
2) we are slower than cyclist and always will be - small wheels are less efficient than large wheels
3) it takes time to move from a full stride - which occupies a lot of space - to an upright position suitable for passing. Don't ring your bell right behind us and expect instant response: won't happen
4) the convention for passing in Toronto is to yell/shout/speak clearly and distinctly "Passing on your left" (or right as may be) or using a bell or otherwise make your presence known. Try not to just scoot past in the hope we won't collide
5) skating is noisy - we have the sound of our hard wheels on the pavement plus the wind in our ears plus whatever noises surround us. A bicycle is a good deal quieter. Please take that into account when observing point #4

 

[alexmst]

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.

It was a traffic light intersection - small residential street entering onto larger street. Light was green east/west favouring busy street traffic. Light was red for small street traffic waiting to enter busy street.

No cars were present attempting to leave side street. No pedestrians were present on sidewalk. I was turning left from busy street onto side street. Not much traffic that time of day. I waited a 20 seconds for a break in westbound traffic, then turned accross westbound lanes (2) into side street.

Kid on dirt bike was on sidewalk moving east at speed. The sidewalk crosses the side street and he had the 'walk' symbol in his favour.

So I didn't see him coming, and turned into him, but saw him directly in front of me at mid-way into my turn and stopped. He didn't look at me or seem to notice me and kept going (he was wearing a walkman/ipod and seemed self absorbed). Westbound traffic - there wasn't any (good as I was blocking westnound lanes now having braked for him).

Yeah, technically bikes shouldn't be on the sidewalk, and he should walk the bike across an intersection...but realistically maybe 5% of teenage kids on bikes do that. When I was a tennage kid I drove my bike on the sidewalk (we're talking suburbs where pedestrians are few and far between) and didn't walk it across streets. BUT, I did look to see if cars were going to turn in front of me and modified my speed to avoid them. I never had a car/bike accident as a bike riding kid, and of course I didn't wear a helmet either as no one had heard of kids wearing bike helmets back then. If I didn't look where I was going I would have surely had several accidents as a kid.

So, back to my near miss - yes, I would have felt at fault and like shit if I had run over the 13-15 year old kid, whether i was technically at fault or not. Who wants to be the guy who runs over soemone's kid? Not me. I do try to watch out for them...I am just saying that from my experience as a kid it is in their best interest to be aware of what cars are doing.

Not that I escaped unscathed as a kid driving a bike back in the day. I got my shoelace caught in my chian at speed and took a tumble - getting a gash on my chin. I should have got stitches, but didn't and now I have a scar to this day...looks like a dueling scar, so I don't mind ha ha. Also my friend's bike crashed into mine once and I lost a tooth when I hit the curb mouth first. But I avoided cars as I didn't want to end up a hood orament.

When I was 14 I would have seen the car sitting with its signal on waiting to turn...looked at the westbound traffic and seen that a break was about to happen...put two and two together and figured out the car was going to make the turn momentarily, and I would probably have reduced my speed so he could turn before I went across the road. This kid didn't do that, which put all the onus on me as the driver to see him and avoid him. I did avoid him. But two people trying to avoid each other will work better than one person only doing it.

 

[antaeus]

I bicycled for many years in Toronto, commuting actually long distances as part training for triathlons. I found the best routes were the most direct, large streets. Over the years the number 1 issue for me was cars trying to squeeze by me, as described by fuji's point 4. Second danger was cars darting into mall driveways cutting me off.

I was hit about 11 times, brushed ultra close by squeezing cars so many times I don't remember, both low and very high speed cars. After having my foot driven over a few times, very painful, numbing even, I learned to always stand-stop with leg opposite to traffic. Sometimes I went down as the automatic jerk reaction to being squeezed so close resulted in a mini accident like banging the curb or parked car. 3 times my bicycle was destroyed, one time only a hospital trip. I've covered most of the road rash scars with tattoos. I would estimate incidences of cars squeezing by me where there really wasn't room to safely fit a car happened 3 - 5 times per trip; spread that out over about 7 years of long distance race-commuting and you see where I remain upset about it today. I remember one incident a car squeezed by me so close it ripped open the velcro straps on my clipless bicycle shoe.

My solution was to always ride in the middle of the lane or offset into one of the tire grooves. At most red lights I would move over to the curb as a courtesy, the slow moving vehicle thing, and always looked down at the cars turn signal: of course numerous incidences of upset drivers as I blocked their right turn but how was I to know with no turn signal. Sometimes I would stay standing at a red light occupying the middle of the lane on purpose to stop squeezing cars: I learned to recognize the signs of drivers who would do this.

Three incidences I remember after yelling at the driver as I was being squeezed he stopped, got out and physically attacked me, all three claiming bicyclists, by law, are restricted to 3 feet from the curb (incorrect, of course). Two times police were called, one time the guy was arrested for being belligerent with the police officer yelling he knew the law better than I or the police.

I also find in this debate that drivers seem to know a lot about the HTA in regards to bicycles on the road but not so much regarding vehicles.

I agree with previous comments about bicyclists obeying, within reason, rules of the road, no high speed sidewalk riding, etc. But, without active prosecution of the HTA regarding bicycles, some people will always express carelessness.

 

[hunter001]

Kid on dirt bike was on sidewalk moving east at speed. The sidewalk crosses the side street and he had the 'walk' symbol in his favour.

So I didn't see him coming, and turned into him, but saw him directly in front of me at mid-way into my turn and stopped. He didn't look at me or seem to notice me and kept going (he was wearing a walkman/ipod and seemed self absorbed). Westbound traffic - there wasn't any (good as I was blocking westnound lanes now having braked for him).

Yeah, technically bikes shouldn't be on the sidewalk, and he should walk the bike across an intersection...but realistically maybe 5% of teenage kids on bikes do that. When I was a tennage kid I drove my bike on the sidewalk (we're talking suburbs where pedestrians are few and far between) and didn't walk it across streets. BUT, I did look to see if cars were going to turn in front of me and modified my speed to avoid them.

I am not a cop but I pretty sure that you would be at fault if the even if the kid was on the sidewalk or not. He should have dismounted his bicycle to cross the road but since he was under 16 I believe he is allowed to drive on the sidewalk. Either way it is good you didn't hit him.

Edit: In Toronto the sidewalk law is bicycles with in Toronto bicycles with a wheel diameter of 24 inches or less are allowed on sideways. Age doesn't appear to be factor. http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/map/car_bike_collisions.htm#sidewalks
The funny thing is you can get one of those fold up bikes (they have really small rims) and ride legally on the streets of Toronto.

 

[Jade4u]

I have learned how much space I need now with my trailer. Trust me I will stay off the sidewalks as much as I can, they are only there to get me to point A and point B. When it was just me on the bike I could hit the grass or easily pass anyone. Oh and it is along Dixie and Burnhamthorpe that I do most of my riding. I stick mostly on Burnhamthorpe and the parks in the area. AppleWoods Hills Park has lots of nice trails. Golden Orchard Drive connects you to Willow Creek Park which is also nice and has places to stop for the kids to swing etc... I am fully aware of what the Lakeshore is like there is barely enough room for the pedestrians and too many stores in that area. Whenever I go there I take the bus and then go to Jack Darling Park. (No Bikes) Now if I could just get dog walkers to keep thier dogs on thier leashes in parks that DO say to keep dogs on a leash.

 

[raydeon]

And therefore should also abide by the HTA laws that says you must pull over and allow faster moving vehicles to pass ..........
.............................................
Georgia had an awesome plan. There was an old rail spur that ran plantation cotton from Atlanta to all points north and west. They ripped up the rails and turned it into a 500 mile bike path. The beauty of it was that they kept the covered bridges and stations along the way. They turned the stations into rest stops. I always wanted to blade it but everytime I was in Atlanta it was either pouring down rain or I was too busy working. But there are railway lands that run right down to the core from all directions that could easily be modified to contain a paved bike path. I mean, that would eliminate the problem of intersections, etc.

The road lanes are wide enough to allow for a car or a small truck to pass a cyclist safely when the cyclist is riding 1 meter from the curb, so we are not obstructing the flow of traffic. The problem is that most motorists do not seem to know the width of their vehicle. The lanes in North America are wider than in most countries, and yet that does not seem to be enough for most drivers. Draw your conclusions.

The only case when I said that it is legal to occupy the full lane (refer to my thread) is when the lane narrows to such a point that it would be unsafe for a car to pass. Yet some impatient driver would certainly try to do so if one gives him a chance. Usually it is caused by some form of construction, and the speed limit is reduced. That is why in that case I occupy the middle of the lane, but usually it is for such a short distance, a hundred meters at the most that it does not affect the traffic, and again I say that is perfectly legal.

I think we agree on most points tboy. I like what you said about the trail in Georgia. Have you ridden it? I have done the full length of the Blue Ridge Pkwy in the South-North direction (571 miles). The cars are not a problem, very few, mostly motorcycles, and the speed limit is 45 mph.

Do you know we have a similar trail here in Ontario. The paved trail along the Welland canal from Pt. Weller to Pt. Colborne (42 kms) is complete now.
From Pt. Colborne to Ft. Erie they have made a paved trail where the old CN line was, beautiful, with trees and bushes on the side. From Ft. Erie you have the Niagara Pkkwy trail to Chippawa and then from N.F. to Niagara on the Lake. No cars to worry about except when going thru N.F. and from N.O.T.L. back to the Welland canal, but if you use the small roads instead of the Lakeshore rd., you are in the middle of the wine country. The all loop is 142 Kms, and is refered to as the Niagara Great Circle Route. I ride that route quite often in the Summer. Maps are available at the Lock # 3 Museum at a cost of $2 which goes to the Niagara cycling society who was responsible for the building and ongoing maintenance of the trail......Not quite Georgia, but it's a start.

If you have info on the Georgia trail I would appreciate if you would PM me.

 

[tboy]

Actually I wasn't able to do the GA. cotton rail line trail. I saw pictures of it and it looked amazing. I was even considering taking a vacation and skating it. That would be a feat though: skate 500 miles......

I will look into the Pt Colbourne trail. I hadn't heard about it oddly enough. Thanks for the tip!

 

[fuji]

You are way out of line here Fuji. You cannot have special laws for cyclists. They are classified as vehicles and must respect the same rules and rights as any other vehicle on the road.

We already have special laws for cyclists. I'm proposing that we change them to be different special laws.

I agree cyclists should follow the rules. However, that doesn't mean the rules are OK, the rules need reform.

 

[hunter001]

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.

As with most laws it is the +/- 10% of any group that will be assholes and won't obey the laws cause major hazard to pedestrians.

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.

Kind of strange one but I can't disagree.

3. Riding across at a pedestrian crossing. Should be OK subject to the same constraints as riding on a sidewalk.

Yes.

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.

Correct on this one.

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.

I often, when I am cycling by myself, coast through stop signs but I don't agree with point. If I get caught I will pay a fine. There are a lot of cyclists if they don't know the area they are cycling in could get blindside by a car doing the same thing. Since cycling isn't licensed there are vast differences in cycling skills and as usual for public safety the current rules seem to make the most sense.

 

[fuji]

And therefore should also abide by the HTA laws that says you must pull over and allow faster moving vehicles to pass ..........

See, this is why the HTA needs to be reformed. As much as people say that a bicycle is a "vehicle" it just isn't. There are meaningful differences.

In this case a strict interpretation of the HTA requires the cyclist to put their life in unnecessary danger. That is plainly NOT the intention of the HTA, but that is how it is written.

At any rate when I am cycling I am not going to put my life in unnecessary danger. I am going to ride safely whether or not it is in strict adherence to the HTA. That means I am going to be well out in the lane, and if you want to pass me, you are going to have to edge over into the oncoming lane.

That'll make you think twice and pass carefully, and that is good for both of us.

As for getting cut off from vehicles turning right, well, yes, that does happen a LOT and I say it is because no driver has ESP and has NO idea what the bicyclist is doing or going to do.

Yet another reason to take control of the lane. The driver has no idea what would be a safe action, so don't let them decide. By taking control of the lane the cyclist can decide when and how the driver can pass.

And no, for the most part, cars DON'T signal that they are about to turn right. Most drivers don't have a mental conception that a bike is a "vehicle", they don't treat a bike like a "vehicle", and so they turn right directly in front of a cyclist with no prior warning.

Maybe some drivers signal properly but I am not going to entrust my life to someone else having a clue. I am going to take the lane and control when the car can turn.

Again, I will say this: the city should be installing more bike lanes but NOT at the cost of a regular vehicle lane. THat is just retarded.

It's part of the city's official plan to get people out of cars and into other modes of transit. At some point that implies giving more real estate on the road to other sorts of vehicles. If you don't like it don't drive--I think that's the point actually.

 

[raydeon]

We already have special laws for cyclists. I'm proposing that we change them to be different special laws.

I agree cyclists should follow the rules. However, that doesn't mean the rules are OK, the rules need reform.

I was not aware that they had special laws for cyclists. Can you please enlighten me on the subject.