Cycling Thread

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why, though? a vehicle is a safety threat for a bike. The driver is several feet from the side of the vehicle in potential conflict and doesn't have a good view. A cyclist can be much closer becuase their view is unobstructed, making it easy to determine a safe distance.

I think cyclists deciding what is safe for themselves is a poor idea. We don't let drivers set what speed limit is safe we base it on design conditions and what we learn about driving habits. Humans are terrible at evaluating risk of outlier events.

For example at a red light drivimg between a parked car and a car in the traffic lane with 3" to spare on either side isn't a very safe activity yet one that I do occasionally. It entirely relies on the car not moving for me to be safe. Whether this activity should be permitted should be decided based on risk assessments done outside of the moment where I want to make the light and get home.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Well, clearly I hit a nerve on this one.

Presumed liability is about the assumptions lawyers and insurance companies start with. The idea is to protect vulnerable road users by reminding the less vulnerable to exercise care, not to give cyclists free reign over the streets. It's like the NHL's rule of "if you can't find evidence to overturn, the call on the ice stands" — you still look at the video footage to get the call right.

Under presumed liability, in a collision with a cyclist, the motorist is assumed to be liable for injury, damages or loss, unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Same thing if a cyclist hits a pedestrian: barring evidence to the contrary, the cyclist is considered liable.

Presumed liability also recognizes that vulnerable users are more likely to have more severe injuries in the event of a collision (and no insurance). Under the current framework, even if the cyclist dies, motorists usually get away with a small fine: http://globalnews.ca/news/3520368/gl...e-for-drivers/

Nearly every country in Europe already has presumed liability including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. Here's how it works in the Netherlands (note that drivers are not always held 100% responsible):

Spoiler!

I'm not saying it's a silver bullet. But if there's a panel looking at legal frameworks to improve cycling safety in our province, it should at least be on the list.

Yeah, I understand what it does. I'm not too keen on a system that presumes one side is guilty. Right now the default is that each party takes care of their own damages, while ensuring that each party has the option to sue the other in court if they feel they were the innocent party. I agree that's not a perfect system either, but I think it is better than one where the bigger vehicle is presumed guilty (for no reason other than it is bigger).

For what it's worth, I don't think it should apply to bikes vs pedestrians either. It's just a bad idea all around.

[GGG]

I think pursumed liability is good from an insurance stand point. As a bike commuter I wouldn't have issues buying insurance for myself however for a casual cyclist this would become a burden. And since most people biking also own cars it's would be cost effective for the insurance burden for injured cyclist to be born by all drivers as a default unless you can prove the cyclists is at fault. It's not that palatable from an equality under the law stand point but from a best interests of society it has a lot of merit.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think presumed liability is good from an insurance stand point. As a bike commuter I wouldn't have issues buying insurance for myself however for a casual cyclist this would become a burden. And since most people biking also own cars it's would be cost effective for the insurance burden for injured cyclist to be born by all drivers as a default unless you can prove the cyclists is at fault. It's not that palatable from an equality under the law stand point but from a best interests of society it has a lot of merit.

Presumed liability would really only work if every party was required to obtain insurance.

Further, I think society is best served by parties bearing the costs of their own decisions. The fewer externalities the better.

[Flames0910]

On the whole crosswalk thing, there is actually no law that prohibits cyclists from riding through a crosswalk. You simply give up the protection you would have had by dismounting and acting as a pedestrian.

This site is talking about Edmonton, but the rules are the same in Calgary:

There is currently no section in the Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590 or the Alberta Traffic Safety Act specifically dealing with cyclists in crosswalks. Cyclists are not legally required to dismount at crosswalks and there is nothing to prohibit a cyclist from riding along a crosswalk.
...
If a cyclist chooses to ride his or her bike along the crosswalk, they are considered a vehicle. The crosswalk only serves to provide protection for pedestrians.

Source: http://edmontonbikes.ca/bylaw-5590-traffic-bylaw/

[GGG]

From your same link regarding multi-use crossings in Calgary

The status of riding in crosswalks can vary. For instance, in Calgary, but not Edmonton, people riding bicycles across multi-use crossings have the right of way just as any pedestrian:


Calgary Bylaw 26M96
MULTI-USE CROSSINGS
41.1

The Traffic Engineer may designate crosswalks upon which a person may ride a bicycle to cross the roadway.
Where the Traffic Engineer has designated a crosswalk pursuant to subsection (1), any crosswalk so designated shall be known as a “multi-use crossing”. The Traffic Engineer shall indicate the multi-use crossing by the placement of such traffic control devices as the Traffic Engineer deems necessary.
A person operating a vehicle on a roadway must yield the right of way to:
a pedestrian; and
a person riding a bicycle;
who is crossing the roadway within a multi-use crossing.

When crossing a roadway within a multi-use crossing:
a pedestrian; or
a person riding a bicycle;
has the same rights and obligations of a pedestrian using a crosswalk.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

On the whole crosswalk thing, there is actually no law that prohibits cyclists from riding through a crosswalk. You simply give up the protection you would have had by dismounting and acting as a pedestrian.

This site is talking about Edmonton, but the rules are the same in Calgary:



Source: http://edmontonbikes.ca/bylaw-5590-traffic-bylaw/

That sounds suspicious, but it might be true. From memory, the TSA states that bikes are essentially cars unless the context clearly suggests otherwise, and I'm pretty sure I can't drive my truck down a crosswalk to avoid a red light (although, if I can, my commute is about to get a lot better).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

That sounds suspicious, but it might be true. From memory, the TSA states that bikes are essentially cars unless the context clearly suggests otherwise, and I'm pretty sure I can't drive my truck down a crosswalk to avoid a red light (although, if I can, my commute is about to get a lot better).

Neither can a bike. This is essentially referring to pathway/road crosswalks and whether a cyclist needs to dismount.

Or right turn crosswalks.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by GGG

Neither can a bike. This is essentially referring to pathway/road crosswalks and whether a cyclist needs to dismount.

Or right turn crosswalks.

ah ok, that makes a lot more sense.

Damn, I guess I'm still going to be traffic.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think cyclists deciding what is safe for themselves is a poor idea. We don't let drivers set what speed limit is safe we base it on design conditions and what we learn about driving habits. Humans are terrible at evaluating risk of outlier events.

For example at a red light drivimg between a parked car and a car in the traffic lane with 3" to spare on either side isn't a very safe activity yet one that I do occasionally. It entirely relies on the car not moving for me to be safe. Whether this activity should be permitted should be decided based on risk assessments done outside of the moment where I want to make the light and get home.

Come on now, drivers make decisions based on what they think is safe ALL THE TIME. Half the driving manual includes phrases "when it is safe to do so". Why can a cyclist not decide it is safe to pass a vehicle within a certain distance?

[Flames0910]

The final post in this thread is a quote from CPS:

there is no law that says you must walk your bicycle across a crosswalk.....but, if you are hit in the crosswalk, you are not a pedestrian therefore drivers do not have to yield to you...you are now a vehicle, so rules of the road apply. Also if the cross walk little [sic] signal shows don't walk and you ride your bike across, you could receive a ticket for failing to obey a traffic control device.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by GGG

From your same link regarding multi-use crossings in Calgary

As a driver, how does one know they are approaching a multi-use crossing as opposed to one where the cyclist was instructed to dismount? That's my thing- the cars have no way of knowing if they need to yield right of way to me or not.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

My god, I hope there was green text in there that I just didn't pick up on.....

Otherwise, that is exactly the problem that cars have with cyclists. Cyclists all want rules to make the roads safer, they just don't want them to apply to cyclists.

Why wouldn't the rules apply to all vehicles on the road? Why is it acceptable for a bike to pass without giving a safe distance, but a car must?

Because cyclists are the ones at risk of physical harm? Do you ride a bike regularly in traffic? It can be terrifying how close some people come, often for no good reason other than they have some complex about needing to run cyclists off the road. Laws don't necessarily have to be about perceived fairness, it is about safety. How terrified do you get of cyclists in your vehicle?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because cyclists are the ones at risk of physical harm? Do you ride a bike regularly in traffic? It can be terrifying how close some people come, often for no good reason other than they have some complex about needing to run cyclists off the road. Laws don't necessarily have to be about perceived fairness, it is about safety. How terrified do you get of cyclists in your vehicle?

Given that it would be even safer if the rules you are suggesting were mutual, I suppose you are agreeing with me.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I think there is a lot of room for common sense in this, but the reason cyclists have to dismount is so that drivers have a chance to see them and slow down/stop in time.

I've had several instances where a cyclist ripped straight across a crosswalk at their regular speed. How am I supposed to be able to stop in time when they are going 10x faster than a pedestrian?

I think what Fuzz was saying (and I agree with) is that if you don't dismount as a cyclist, and treat it like an intersection where the other direction has the right of way, it works out fine.

For example, if I'm riding up to a crosswalk, and there are cars coming, the presumption is that I stop and wait for the car to pass so I'm able to proceed across the crosswalk, with no cars having to stop or yield for me, as they have right of way.

There shouldn't be a case where a cyclist is ripping through expecting cars to stop for them, they are in the wrong, and basically failing to yield.

This prevents cars from having to stop, and wait for a cyclist to cross at pedestrian speed. It's better for everyone, in my opinion.

The cyclist still has the option at a very busy crossing to get off their bike if there are no openings in traffic that they can navigate without having the right of way. So there is a backup plan for people less confident, or in extremely heavy traffic.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think what Fuzz was saying (and I agree with) is that if you don't dismount as a cyclist, and treat it like an intersection where the other direction has the right of way, it works out fine.

For example, if I'm riding up to a crosswalk, and there are cars coming, the presumption is that I stop and wait for the car to pass so I'm able to proceed across the crosswalk, with no cars having to stop or yield for me, as they have right of way.

There shouldn't be a case where a cyclist is ripping through expecting cars to stop for them, they are in the wrong, and basically failing to yield.

This prevents cars from having to stop, and wait for a cyclist to cross at pedestrian speed. It's better for everyone, in my opinion.

The cyclist still has the option at a very busy crossing to get off their bike if there are no openings in traffic that they can navigate without having the right of way. So there is a backup plan for people less confident, or in extremely heavy traffic.

Now I'm confused... So cyclists can run red lights by pretending to be a pedestrian going through the crosswalk?

** ignore me, i don't read sew gud **

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Come on now, drivers make decisions based on what they think is safe ALL THE TIME. Half the driving manual includes phrases "when it is safe to do so". Why can a cyclist not decide it is safe to pass a vehicle within a certain distance?

And they are routinely terrible at it. For example how vehicles pass bicycles.

Just because they are at risk doesn't make them better a judging the risk than a car. They have better visibility but anyone who thinks it is safe to go within 3" of a car at anytime is not behaving in a safe manner. I have done this and observe others doing it regularly.

You could make the distance less when the car is stationary but passing within a meter of a moving car say when passing them in playground zones or at lights is not any less safe than the car passing you.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As a driver, how does one know they are approaching a multi-use crossing as opposed to one where the cyclist was instructed to dismount? That's my thing- the cars have no way of knowing if they need to yield right of way to me or not.

No idea, I'm not sure where any multi use crossing are.

The cycle track has signs that are different but I'm not sure if those are multi use crossings or just cycle tracks.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Now I'm confused... So cyclists can run red lights by pretending to be a pedestrian going through the crosswalk?

If at a red light and the crosswalk has the little man saying walk they can BECOME (not pretend) a pedestrian by dismounting from their bike and walking across the street.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by GGG

No idea, I'm not sure where any multi use crossing are.

The cycle track has signs that are different but I'm not sure if those are multi use crossings or just cycle tracks.

10 street NW has a multi-use crossing. It's at a red light so there is no confusion about who has the right of way.