Topic: Steering You Right: Bicycle mayhem

[The Mighty Duck]

Moreover, drivers turning right are not trained to look in the side view mirror of the right hand side to check for bicycle traffic.

I don't know where the writer did his driver training, but in my experience this is patently untrue. I was trained to both check my mirror and shoulder check my blind spot before turning right, and I always do. I was also trained to pay attention to my surroundings - if I pass a cyclist shortly before I need to make a right turn, chances are that cyclist is still nearby, so I know to a) be extra cautious and make sure I have sufficient room to turn in front of them, or b) wait until the cyclist is past before turning.

As usual, this Steering You Right column is short on information and long on uselessness. Although it does generate some good discussion, I suppose.

[MJMontreal]

The writer says that both the driver and the bicyclist were legally entitled to make their manoeuvre, I disagree. As far as I understand it, when a car and a bicycle both face a green light, if the car wants to turn right, it must first yield to any pedestrians or bicycles approaching the intersection. So wasn't the car wrong for failing to yield to the bike??? Anyway, no wonder Montrealers are always moronically trying to take out bikes and pedestrians, I guess you can't expect everyday people to know the rules of the road when Mr Charness, a legal expert, doesn't!

[mmret]

No, don't read into it things I didn't say.

The principle is that outside the subject of who screwed up, motorists have far more potential to harm cyclists than vice versa.  There already is a traffic law that motorists must avoid collisions if they can reasonably do so, even if they are an innocent party.  Tying these together means that if a motorist collides with a cyclist under almost any circumstances, the motorist is held responsible.  The motorists are expected to foresee that cyclists may do something the motorist does not expect.  In the case of some European countries, the motorist is held responsible for any collision involving a child or senior cyclist.  In practice, this means that North American motorists would have to be vastly more careful around cyclists than they are now.

Now you may be one of the many motorists who will protest that cyclists are always breaking the laws so why should motorists be responsible for the resulting accidents.  Was I right about that?

My response is that an objective analysis of the situation reveals that in fact, motorists far more commonly violate the laws of the road than do cyclists, and this is compounded by the fact the motorists are the ones throwing more dangerous weight around.  Note that North American cyclists commonly curtail their cycling because they're afraid of motorists, while pedestrians and motorists don't curtail walking or driving because they're afraid of cyclists.  It's pretty obvious who needs to be reined in.

What a stupid post.  You are, of course, entitled to an opinion and to share it, but that does not make it "objective analysis", as you say. 

So you claim my post is very stupid, but cite only one objection to it.  Nothing like proving your point, which is the gist of your criticism of my post.

Virtually all motorists, when not stuck in traffic, continuously break the speed limits.  They don't signal as required for turns, don't negotiate intersections as required by law, park illegally whenever they get a chance, pull U-turns, fail to merge properly, bully and endanger each other. The list could go on.

You could point out what cyclists do to violate the traffic laws, but there's no way cyclists' violations are as common and pose as much hazard as the violations of motorists.

If you were more objective, this would be obvious to you also.

Are you just trying to be as irritating as possible?

[X-Traction]

Virtually all motorists, when not stuck in traffic, continuously break the speed limits.  They don't signal as required for turns, don't negotiate intersections as required by law, park illegally whenever they get a chance, pull U-turns, fail to merge properly, bully and endanger each other. The list could go on.

You could point out what cyclists do to violate the traffic laws, but there's no way cyclists' violations are as common and pose as much hazard as the violations of motorists.

Shrugs.  I see cyclists violating more traffic laws than autos every time I go to TO. 

Well, I haven't driven in TO for quite a while.  I suppose it's possible the expressways are so choked with traffic that no one exceeds the speed limit on them any more.

And why do you speak of "cyclists" and "autos".  Have the "autos" in TO taken on a life of their own.  Oops, that might irritate mmret.

[nlm]

I had a favourable tailwind and hit 70 km/h one day. Cop car coming up the hill flashed his lights and gave me the slow down signal. If I had gotten a ticket, it would have been framed and put in my office!

That's awesome - good on ya!

[nlm]

Apparently cabbies have to always right shoulder check when turning right for the purpose of looking out for cyclists. At least its on a cab exam I think.

How about mandatory testing for all valid drivers license holders every, lets say 5 years (come on, since 90% of drivers think they are above-avg drivers, who can really argue with this?). Introduce driver and cyclist awareness as part of these tests as if you were both a driver AND a cyclist.

[quadzilla]

Apparently cabbies have to always right shoulder check when turning right for the purpose of looking out for cyclists. At least its on a cab exam I think.

Cabbies take an exam? 

[Spec5]

And why do you speak of "cyclists" and "autos".  Have the "autos" in TO taken on a life of their own.  Oops, that might irritate mmret.

You evidently didn't read my post - autos are being driven by "zombies" in TO

[safristi]

Zombies can't drive Autos.......     they STICK to real Meat eating Kars get wif da programme man..........

[Oldsguy]

And they won't have that respect until ALL motorist/cyclist accidents are deemed to be the fault of the motorists.  When word gets out that motorists are being really nailed for colliding with cyclists, motorists will start taking better note of the presence of cyclists, and keep their distance.  Only this will correct the imbalance between the weight the respective parties are throwing around.  But it requires the buy-in of the police, who so far typically represent the interests of motorists.

...so your solution is that the cyclists are always right?

No, don't read into it things I didn't say.

That is certainly the logical conclusion from reading what you wrote.

The principle is that outside the subject of who screwed up, motorists have far more potential to harm cyclists than vice versa.  There already is a traffic law that motorists must avoid collisions if they can reasonably do so, even if they are an innocent party.  Tying these together means that if a motorist collides with a cyclist under almost any circumstances, the motorist is held responsible.  The motorists are expected to foresee that cyclists may do something the motorist does not expect.  In the case of some European countries, the motorist is held responsible for any collision involving a child or senior cyclist.  In practice, this means that North American motorists would have to be vastly more careful around cyclists than they are now.

Now you may be one of the many motorists who will protest that cyclists are always breaking the laws so why should motorists be responsible for the resulting accidents.  Was I right about that?

My response is that an objective analysis of the situation reveals that in fact, motorists far more commonly violate the laws of the road than do cyclists, and this is compounded by the fact the motorists are the ones throwing more dangerous weight around.  Note that North American cyclists commonly curtail their cycling because they're afraid of motorists, while pedestrians and motorists don't curtail walking or driving because they're afraid of cyclists.  It's pretty obvious who needs to be reined in.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. It illustrates what I find to be the attitude of what I call the militant cyclist, those who join in things like critical mass and the like, who think they are somehow better or more virtuous than the rest of us fat slobs because they ride a bike, and therefore can do whatever the hell they want on it regardless of the law. You ask about cycling violations? Holy crap, man, open your eyes. I seldom encounter a bike that is not violating some traffic law. My favorite is using a crosswalk at an intersection to let themselves ignore the flow of traffic that everyone else must follow, but that is just scratching the surface.

I think if you want to drive a bike in traffic you should be allowed to do so only if you have a registration plate, insurance, and wear an airbag-equipped suit along with a helmet to protect you from the inevitable crash that is sure to happen.

[X-Traction]

It illustrates what I find to be the attitude of what I call the militant cyclist, those who join in things like critical mass and the like, who think they are somehow better or more virtuous than the rest of us fat slobs because they ride a bike, and therefore can do whatever the hell they want on it regardless of the law.

I agree with you that definitely there are some cyclists with exactly that attitude and behavior.  However, given that most adult cyclists are also car owners and motorists, I'd venture that the number of cyclists who feel that way, are a very small minority.  They also make it more difficult for people who try to advocate for cyclists' interests.

It may come as a shock to you, but there are also motorists, who never ride bikes, who it would be fair to call "militant motorists".  Not only are they a nuisance, but they are throwing a lot of dangerous weight around.  I've had to get the police to deal with a few of those people over the years.

You ask about cycling violations? Holy crap, man, open your eyes. I seldom encounter a bike that is not violating some traffic law. My favorite is using a crosswalk at an intersection to let themselves ignore the flow of traffic that everyone else must follow, but that is just scratching the surface.

Yet again, if you can't see the almost universal and continual lawbreaking by motorists, then your vision is badly clouded by your opinions.  For instance, I'd venture you don't regard speeding as lawbreaking, or not stopping completely for stop signs.  Your radical views only make the motorists' point of view seem less sensible.

[kenm]

An a-hole will always be an an a-hole, no matter what their means of transport. I see stupid motorists, stupid motorcyclists, stupid bicyclists, and stupid pedestrians almost every day. Fortunately, they're a small minority of the population, but they sure do stand out from the crowd.

[safristi]

  I've seen stupid CROWDS.....

[kenm]

I've seen stupid CROWDS.....

Well, every so often, all these a-holes need to get together! 

http://www.vancouversun.com/readers+share+their+dramatic+photos+Vancouver+Stanley+riot/4959343/story.html

or

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/london-riots-crowd-violence-science-1929/

[safristi]

..... ..........Bang on.............

[rrocket]

And why do you speak of "cyclists" and "autos".  Have the "autos" in TO taken on a life of their own.  Oops, that might irritate mmret.

Because I know you're a bit OCD when it comes to this topic, so it's amusing to see what kind of response I'll get from you.

[X-Traction]

And why do you speak of "cyclists" and "autos".  Have the "autos" in TO taken on a life of their own.  Oops, that might irritate mmret.

Because I know you're a bit OCD when it comes to this topic, so it's amusing to see what kind of response I'll get from you.

Hmm, Wikipedia says typical symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder "include excessive washing or cleaning; repeated checking; extreme hoarding; preoccupation with sexual, violent or religious thoughts; aversion to particular numbers; and nervous rituals, such as opening and closing a door a certain number of times before entering or leaving a room."