My only problem is that cyclists (i.e., kids) get used to blowing off stop signs, then become drivers of automobiles and do the same thing.
Do cyclists need to stop at a stop sign?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
That's not the problem. The problem is more likely the cars that come up and turn right illegally in front of the cyclist.CapitalGuy said:
Yeah. One of the most common accidents a cyclist faces is a car making an illegal right that clips the cyclist. Especially a bus or truck.
Again, I'm not arguing for the sake of argument. I just have a hard time visualizing how yielding would be safer than stopping, even in the illegal right turn scenario.fuji said:
Assuming the car is making the illegal turn regardless of whether the biker is stopped of moving, if the biker doesn't stop, then the car will hit him anyhow. Except the biker will be moving faster and the impact will therefore take place at a higher speed. More dangerous for the biker. In this scenario, there is not much the biker can do to avoid the car...unless he accelerates through the intersection that much more quickly. But of course that doesn't sound too safe an action to take. In the best case, the biker is swerving onto an un-planned track, which could bring him into a new situation such as a third vehicle, an obstruction in the road, a ditch, a curb, or even just a skid and a slide. In any event, he loses control. If stopped, he has full control.
If the biker stops and looks every way, he will see that a car is approaching from behind him, and (presumably) assess whether it is safe to proceed through the intersection or not (making eye contact with the driver, gaging whether the driver is slowing down enough to come to a full stop). And, I am assuming the biker is bright enough to stop near the curb, not in the potential path of traffic. As well, if he does get hit, then its a lower speed accident than if the biker had been rolling through the intersection.
If anything, the what-ifs can be played out to the point where I might see how it could approach a draw. But right now I still can't see how not stopping could be safer than stopping, assessing, and proceeding when safe. Up to the point of arrival at the intersection, there is no difference between the yield and stop scenarios. At the intersection, the stopped biker has more time to assess the safety of entering the intersection. If the stopped biker has made a rational decision, then there should be no drama once inside the intersection. Its the yielder, who has had less time to assess the safety of the crossing, who exposes himself to greater risk by entering the intersection too quickly, or too cockily.
And again, I think the yield law makes sense, as I think the risk is low enough that the bikers (I am one of them) should be allowed to roll through a stop sign if the intersection is clear. Slowly, of course. There would be problems if a biker decided he was "equal" to a car, and played chicken at at 4-way stop the way some drivers do...its one thing for two cars with air bags to play chicken, but, well I don't have to spell it out. Lol.
Not if you swerve out of the way. Cyclists are usually pretty aware of traffic and would generally notice the car coming up behind and move out of the way if they can.CapitalGuy said:
Another problem--
The first 1-2 turns of the pedal on a bike you are just getting your balance and you're pretty wobbly. You aren't able to react very well and if you've come to a complete stop that puts you right in the middle of the intersection at this vulnerable moment.
Compare if you coast up to the intersection in complete control, and enter with maximum balance and readiness.
You are thinking like a car. A bike with momentum and low velocity (as in an idaho stop) can make an almost 90 degree turn. The bike does not have to accelerate out of the way of the car, it can veer out of the way of the car.
We're talking about a STOP SIGN here, which means a bunch of small streets, not a superhighway. And yes, I'd rather hit a curb or a ditch than a car.
This can be done just as easily without stopping. Remember that in an "idaho stop" the bike slows down a lot, to an almost stopped speed, just enough momentum to maintain good balance.
This is nonsense. On my bike I can slow down to a point where I can take a good 30 seconds to assess the situation before entering the intersection, all without stopping. You only need at most 10 seconds, and if that's not enough time, yeah, stop. It's natural anyway--the bike will presumaly slow down more and more if there is uncertainty until stopping is natural.
LOL. You are assumign the other vehicles will make rational decisions. Other vehicles at stop signs tend NOT to count bikes when they are determing right of way. So you may make a perfectly rational decision but that doesn't mean that anyone else does.
Sure at that point the accident is not the biker's fault, but the biker will still be the one in the hospital, not the car driver who is at fault.
- - -
The basic principle here is simple: A bike with momentum is a bike that is under control, and for all kinds of reasons, when you are on the road, you want control.
A bike that has stopped is a bike that is completely out of control, and a bike starting from a stop is wobbly and not in good control.
The key to safe riding on a bicycle is maintaining control. In truth that's the key to safe operation on ANY vehicle, but in a car stopping does not interfere with control, which is why different rules are called for.
Yes there are cyclists who blow through intersections without even slowing down, who enter them at high speed, nobody is proposing that is safe. What we are proposing is slowing down to the slowest speed that still affords good balance and control--and it's honestly pretty slow, just not a complete stop.
I watched someone blow through a red light at full speed on a bicycle. He even sped up to do it. I can't help but wonder if he even noticed the light.fuji said:
He was lucky it was at quiet and at night. I can't see surviving running a red with on-coming traffic on a bicycle.
On the other hand, in England, I think you have to give the bicyclists a full lane when passing. That would be a pretty good idea here too. It is just that I could see the car drivers screaming like hell. Forcing space around bicycles would be a very good idea.
It should also be illegal for bicyclists to run up beside large vehicles. It is hell having a big vehicle, trying to make a right hand turn, and having a bicyclist beside you. No matter what you do, the bicyclist is dead meat if you make the turn and don't see him. Heavy vehicles are worst, they make it hard to see, and the bicyclists can rest against them to relax.
I always pass vehicles on the left on my bike. That gets some funny looks from drivers who do not expect to be passed by a bicycle on the left side, but it is way safer, despite the funny looks.Cassini said:
I almost think bike lanes should be inserted into the middle of the road, rather than on the outer edges, but on higher speed roads that creates issues too.
Really when you are making a right turn if there is a bike lane to your right you should consider the bike lane as an extra lane, maybe even pull into it to signal to the cyclist that you are going to turn right. They could then pass you on the left.
The reality of riding a bike in Canada is that most motorists are too idiotic to understand what the cyclist is trying to do and so the cyclist has to assume that every motorist is an idiot who needs to be blocked for the safety of the cyclist.
This is why you see cyclists getting in front of cars and taking a whole lane--they properly shouldn't be doing that, but they don't trust the motorist to pass them safely if they don't do it, and they have a point.
Huh? I'm not sure what you're posting Fuji. It is legal to make a right turn on red under the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19). Now I'll fully agree that it is illegal to turn in front of someone "cutting them off" if that is what you are saying.fuji said:
Turning right in front of a bicycle is illegal:Aardvark154 said:
That's exactly what I mean. A cyclist stopped at an intersection will frequently find that car drivers want to swerve in front of them to make a right turn, rather than properly waiting for the cyclist to move through the intersection.Now I'll fully agree that it is illegal to turn in front of someone "cutting them off" if that is what you are saying.
Worse if the vehicle making the illegal right is a truck or a bus or even just a large SUV given the way they swing around the turn the cyclist faces the risk of being dragged under the wheels of the vehicle.
In such circumstnaces you really want to be able to move, either to block the vehicle before it makes the illegal turn, or to move safely out of its way.
A stopped cyclist, or one who is wobbly afer having just started from a stop, is at high risk of injury in the face of such illegal but unfortunately not uncommon behavior by drivers.
Aardvark154 said:Huh? I'm not sure what you're posting Fuji. It is legal to make a right turn on red under the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19). Now I'll fully agree that it is illegal to turn in front of someone "cutting them off" if that is what you are saying.
Correct, it is legal to make a right on red (assuming no signs prohibiting)
But.... if a bike is already at the red light going around him to make your right hand turn is just as illegal as if you did it with a car stopped there instead of the bike.
Since a bike is a vehicle under the HTA it IS ALREADY entitled to a full lane.Cassini said:
I assume you mean the bicycle is occupying the same lane as the large vehicle. If so, it is already illegal for the bike to go up beside the large vehicle.Cassini said:
A biker is equal to a car as far as the right-of-way rules. If the bike got to the 4-way before the car it would have the right-of-way.CapitalGuy said:
If the bike wasn't going to get to the stop sign before the car then the car would have the right-of-way and the cyclist would have to stop rather than roll through the intersection.
The problem isn't with the right-of-way rules... the problem is the motorists/cyclists that don't follow them.
As a regular cyclist I am finding this a very interesting thread. Fortunately there has been only one poster who thinks we should just be run over or banned.
Riding a bike in busy urban areas is very difficult if you want to survive. I am fortunate to live in a less densely populated part of the province and could not imagine trying to cope with traffic and crazy drivers in the GTA.
On a regular basis, when approaching a four way stop, when there are other vehicles at the stop I prepare to stop. When there are no other vehicles stopped I slow, check both directions and proceed if it appears that no other vehicles are likely to run the stop sign. I recognize that this is a violation, however, as FUJI says, control of the bike requires momentum.
Obviously cars and trucks are going to pass me. I only take a major part of a lane when it is unsafe for me to be close to the curb (debris, sand, gravel, storm grates etc.) but under those conditions I am entitled under the HTA and common sense to take the lane. Car drivers do not seem to see the problem or understand the problem of curb lane obsrtuctions unless they are also cyclists. I have no desire to impede the flow of traffic, but I also do not want to be run over because I see a danger to cyclists and attempt to avoid it.
Because cycling is mainly a 7 month a year activity in Ontario it will never replace the car for most of us, therefore will never achieve the level that will create acceptance with the cars drivers.
Notwithstanding my bias I do appreciate the thoughful (for the most part) discussion.
Riding a bike in busy urban areas is very difficult if you want to survive. I am fortunate to live in a less densely populated part of the province and could not imagine trying to cope with traffic and crazy drivers in the GTA.
On a regular basis, when approaching a four way stop, when there are other vehicles at the stop I prepare to stop. When there are no other vehicles stopped I slow, check both directions and proceed if it appears that no other vehicles are likely to run the stop sign. I recognize that this is a violation, however, as FUJI says, control of the bike requires momentum.
Obviously cars and trucks are going to pass me. I only take a major part of a lane when it is unsafe for me to be close to the curb (debris, sand, gravel, storm grates etc.) but under those conditions I am entitled under the HTA and common sense to take the lane. Car drivers do not seem to see the problem or understand the problem of curb lane obsrtuctions unless they are also cyclists. I have no desire to impede the flow of traffic, but I also do not want to be run over because I see a danger to cyclists and attempt to avoid it.
Because cycling is mainly a 7 month a year activity in Ontario it will never replace the car for most of us, therefore will never achieve the level that will create acceptance with the cars drivers.
Notwithstanding my bias I do appreciate the thoughful (for the most part) discussion.
