I am an avid cyclist for fitness, not commuting. I'm an avid car driver as well. The stupid, dangerous, aggressive shit i see vehicle drivers pull all the time astronomically outnumbers the stupid shit cyclists do. I just think the fed-uppedness is misdirected. I've said it before...take all of the bikes off the streets of Toronto and traffic and safety really doesn't improve one iota. Entitled car drivers are just whiny bitches (there, I said it.) PPl love to fucking whine these days.
New Rules of the Road in effect today
- Thread starter Mr Bret
- Start date
So does the number of vehicle drivers. Your dismissal of legit complaints as whining basically guarantees that this argument isn't going to get anywhere productive. Not that this thread was really going to accomplish anything anyway.
It happened to me as I posted above. The cyclist broke my leg. He was fine and ran off as I lay on the ground. I am not on some anti- cyclist tirade- I am objecting to a law which I think shifts the onus on proof of liability to the motorist when it should at least be equal for both parties
I'm no expert on Ontario's highway traffic act, but I do know bicycles aren't allowed on 400 series highways. I know they're considered vehicles and can share a lane - but they are allowed to position themselves to wholly occupy a lane? I thought cyclists had to stay to the right to allow passing? I'm corn-fused. Maybe I should look deeper into the law and bylaws.
Not really sure why the amount of protection a cyclist wears is relevant to this convo. I see motorcyclists without body armour all the time. There are still a lot of people who don't buckle up in the rear seats of cars. You reap what you sow.
Yes, this thread like many others won't solve the debate. There are those who say FU cyclists, and those that say FU cars. Drivers are in the majority but I wouldn't under-estimate the amount of support cyclists have. The interesting thing for me is to see what is posted by whom, and how =)
Not really sure why the amount of protection a cyclist wears is relevant to this convo. I see motorcyclists without body armour all the time. There are still a lot of people who don't buckle up in the rear seats of cars. You reap what you sow.
Yes, this thread like many others won't solve the debate. There are those who say FU cyclists, and those that say FU cars. Drivers are in the majority but I wouldn't under-estimate the amount of support cyclists have. The interesting thing for me is to see what is posted by whom, and how =)
http://www.womenscycling.ca/blog/sheila-psychling/ontario-bike-regulations—know-your-rights-2/
Cyclists are required to ride as close as practicable to the right curb of the roadway, except when:
travelling at the normal speed of traffic
avoiding hazardous conditions
the roadway is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side-by-side
riding alongside another cyclist in a manner that does not impede the normal movement of traffic
preparing to make a left turn, passing another vehicle, or using a one-way street (in which case riding alongside the left curb is permitted).
The bolded case is the situation I posted about above
Or directly from the ministry's cycling handbook
1. slower traffic stays right
2. slower traffic must give way to faster traffic when safe and practical
...
Taking a lane
In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it
is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/pdfs/cycling-skills.pdf
.
And from the 1st source, bicycles are prohibited on expressway / freeway highways such as the 400 series, the QEW, Ottawa Queensway and on roads where “No Bicycle” signs are posted
Right, but it baffles me that people can see thousands of shitty incidences done by car drivers on a daily basis (texting/incessantly honking/shittily parking/speeding/aggression/following to close and on and on), yet take their frustrations out on probably seeing a couple shitty things done by cyclists. I find it peculiar.So does the number of vehicle drivers. Your dismissal of legit complaints as whining basically guarantees that this argument isn't going to get anywhere productive. Not that this thread was really going to accomplish anything anyway.
Another cash grab from the police state called Ontarweowe.
Think about parking revenues. If they actually towed vehicles that would eliminate the problem, however, it would also end the revenue stream. This way they are assured a constant stream of revenue without eliminating the problem.
We're do you think they are getting the money from to pay all those cops, firemen and ttc ticket collectors on the sunshine list?
Think about parking revenues. If they actually towed vehicles that would eliminate the problem, however, it would also end the revenue stream. This way they are assured a constant stream of revenue without eliminating the problem.
We're do you think they are getting the money from to pay all those cops, firemen and ttc ticket collectors on the sunshine list?
For me it's relativity. A hundred bad drivers in a thousand is better than eight bad cyclists in ten.
If you think 90 percent of drivers give cyclists the full required meter when they pass you are in LA LA land.
And the ten percent of bad car drivers KILL far more people than cyclists, what does that do to your relativist view?
Nothing. If there were 1000 drivers on the road and 1000 cyclists, and the skew was the same, we'd have a lot more cyclists behaving wrongly on the road than drivers. That's why it's relative.
1. I think a higher percentage of drivers, near 100% if not 100%, very likely including you, routinely fail to obey the rules of the road
2. Dangerous drivers are a lethal menace, dangerous cyclists are a minor nuisance
Last edited:
I believe you're correct in that near 100% break rules of the road, in that they break the speed limit. However, the prevailing wisdom is that you should go with the flow and that not impeding traffic is more important than maintaining an arbitrary number on the speedometer. The point is that those drivers who break serious rules, like running red lights, are few and far between. Whereas cyclists more often than not will go through a red if they think the way is clear.
And yes, I speed in non-urban areas where the speed limit is 80km/h+.
Dangerous cyclists are a lethal menace to themselves.
You forgot:
f) Their own stupidity
If a pedestrian runs out on the road in front of oncoming traffic, you can't say a motor vehicle was responsible for his death.
That said, many of the deaths would be caused by driver's stupidity as well.
My biggest pet peeve when I'm driving/or riding my bike is vehicles driving too close. That to me is the number 1 cause of accidents, is a serious issue/infraction and is done by way more than a 'few and far between' number of drivers.
If you are already out the door and they run into you, then it's the fucking Cycle Nazi's fault. Yes. But not if you open a door without checking. They have no way of knowing (SchlongConery gave a more detailed answer in that there's no time for the cyclist to take evasive action and he's right).
Exactly, and ditto about those riding on a sidewalk (save and except for small children but I see adolescents who are stronger than myself riding their bikes on the sidewalk - WTF!).
Last edited:
Ok. I probably have used the left lane a few times in my life but in my recent life, I use the pedestrian crossings which are is safer. However, I might use a left lane and left hand single when there are no lights or stop signs (i.e., going from straight roadway to a side street).
I probably would sprain my back or shoulder doing that lol, but due to a couple of close calls, I've learned my lesson to check beforehand. Some cyclists are smart and will notice a driver inside and honk their horn or ring their bell.Gameboy27 said:
Last edited:
