Cycling Thread

[GGG]

I think the issue is one of enforcement. Unless you have a camera on your bike every ticket is getting thrown out unless you have a 3m spacing requirement which would prevent cars from passing.

So if the law is unenforceable why bother having it.

[ken0042]

I think what he is saying is that it may not be enforceable. I think by having a law in place, in the event of a collision, that would be a definite law that the car broke and put the driver of the car at fault. Just like the "following too close" law, it only applies when there is a rear-ended accident.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the issue is one of enforcement. Unless you have a camera on your bike every ticket is getting thrown out unless you have a 3m spacing requirement which would prevent cars from passing.

So if the law is unenforceable why bother having it.

If an officer observes it, it's very enforceable.

[Fuzz]

It takes the ambiguity out of it. When a driver thinks "hrm, how close can I get to that bike" the answer is "1m". The driver doesn't get to think "oh, I wasn't that close" while the cyclists craps himself. The driver knows he must leave 1m.

[ken0042]

What I'd like to see a clear cut law, along with signage, regarding pathways that cross roadways. For example on 130th ave you have this very clear sign, indicating cyclist must dismount to cross.
https://goo.gl/maps/jXkDhEygS3k
Just after the crossing, there is a sign indicating that dismounting ends.
https://goo.gl/maps/k32i51KAown

What makes this confusing for everybody is that in the next 50 metres there are two more places where pathways cross the road. One has a pedestrian light, and the other is uncontrolled other than a pedestrian crossing sign. It becomes unclear as to what each person should do. As a cyclist, I am ready to stop for cars as I see it is a pedestrian crossing. However almost always the car stops for me; no matter if I've dismounted or not.

[Torture]

Ontario moved to 1 metre. If you don't have 1M you have to wait until it's safe to pass the cyclist and there was a fair bit of rage from the drivers on the law change (2 demerit points and $110 fine).

any commented that vehicles would have no choice but to cross the centre dividing line to give cyclists a wide enough berth.

Police say that's exactly what drivers should do when it's warranted and safe, just as they do on rural roads to pass slower vehicles.

Const. Chuck Benoit Ottawa police cycling one metre rule June 2016
Ottawa police spokesman Const. Chuck Benoit says the law isn't being enforced with fines and demerit points yet. (CBC)

"[Drivers are] able to cross that yellow line … when it's safe to do so," Ottawa police spokesman Const. Chuck Benoit said in an interview this week.

But what about when there's oncoming traffic in the opposing lane?

"The motorist has to stay behind the cyclist until it's safe to [pass]," Benoit said.

Cue the anger....

Wild and crazy lawmakers out there!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...vice-1.3650574
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...cting-cyclists


and on more research, apparently it's not being enforced
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto...sing-rule.html

[Fuzz]

Dismounting at crossings is stupid. I can understand putting a stop sign for bikes(or yield to vehicles), you make sure it is clear, then go. But dismounting and walking just inconveniences everyone. If I let the vehicle go, we can both proceed quickly. If I dismount, they need to wait for me to hobble across the street, much slower than I would on a bike. It's a shame we have these rules where common nemeses dictates better results.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Dismounting at crossings is stupid. I can understand putting a stop sign for bikes(or yield to vehicles), you make sure it is clear, then go. But dismounting and walking just inconveniences everyone. If I let the vehicle go, we can both proceed quickly. If I dismount, they need to wait for me to hobble across the street, much slower than I would on a bike. It's a shame we have these rules where common nemeses dictates better results.

I ignore those. I make eye contact with the driver, nod and ride across. If they aren't looking and aren't stopping, I stop.

[Fuzz]

Ya, that's what I do. Every so often a self righteous pedestrian yells at me for not dismounting, like it affected them in some egregious way.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by habernac

You don't see a point in giving a cyclist room on the road? You clearly don't ride bikes very often.

It's not enforceable, therefore it's meaningless.

Although I'll admit I would find it amusing to see a bike get 15 tickets at once for passing a long line of cars waiting for the light to turn green, without giving them the required minimum distance as he passed them.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

It's not enforceable, therefore it's meaningless.

Although I'll admit I would find it amusing to see a bike get 15 tickets at once for passing a long line of cars waiting for the light to turn green, without giving them the required minimum distance as he passed them.

ah, you're one of these heroes. Why did I bother responding?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It takes the ambiguity out of it. When a driver thinks "hrm, how close can I get to that bike" the answer is "1m". The driver doesn't get to think "oh, I wasn't that close" while the cyclists craps himself. The driver knows he must leave 1m.

I think you grossly overestimate the driving ability of the average driver. In fact, I couldn't tell you if I am giving you 1m or 80cm most of the time.

Not to mention that if both vehicles are moving, how do you determine who is at fault? Do you give a ticket to both of them?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by habernac

ah, you're one of these heroes. Why did I bother responding?

I think you were hoping to be able to put together a valid rebuttal, but you failed.

My tongue-in-cheek response aside, I don't think you've provided any rational argument for how these laws could possibly work.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Dismounting at crossings is stupid. I can understand putting a stop sign for bikes(or yield to vehicles), you make sure it is clear, then go. But dismounting and walking just inconveniences everyone. If I let the vehicle go, we can both proceed quickly. If I dismount, they need to wait for me to hobble across the street, much slower than I would on a bike. It's a shame we have these rules where common nemeses dictates better results.

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've never hit a cyclist doing this, but I'm sure plenty of other people have.

In this situation, The cyclist is 100% at fault, but I'm not sure that would be true if cyclists didn't have to dismount.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I think you grossly overestimate the driving ability of the average driver. In fact, I couldn't tell you if I am giving you 1m or 80cm most of the time.

Not to mention that if both vehicles are moving, how do you determine who is at fault? Do you give a ticket to both of them?

You are missing the point. Lets say it is kind of tight, and a car passes the bike, and there is no law. The driver can say he thought he gave enough room, when it could have been inches. If the driver thinks a few inches is enough space, then currently he is fine to do that. With a law it is not up to the driver to decide how close is a safe distance. That decision has been taken away. It's gone from arbitrary to not arbitrary.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second part. If the vehicle passes the bike to close, it is the vehicle at fault. If a bike passes a vehicle, the cyclist has deemed it safe to do so and is not at fault.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure what you mean by your second part. If the vehicle passes the bike to close, it is the vehicle at fault. If a bike passes a vehicle, the cyclist has deemed it safe to do so and is not at fault.

I don't think we as cyclists can have it both ways. Minimum passing distance must apply for both.

Edit- for no other reason than for keeping up appearances. How can we tell drivers the minimum distance is one thing, but the arbitrary for cyclists?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I don't think we as cyclists can have it both ways. Minimum passing distance must apply for both.

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.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You are missing the point. Lets say it is kind of tight, and a car passes the bike, and there is no law. The driver can say he thought he gave enough room, when it could have been inches. If the driver thinks a few inches is enough space, then currently he is fine to do that. With a law it is not up to the driver to decide how close is a safe distance. That decision has been taken away. It's gone from arbitrary to not arbitrary.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second part. If the vehicle passes the bike to close, it is the vehicle at fault. If a bike passes a vehicle, the cyclist has deemed it safe to do so and is not at fault.

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?

[Flames0910]

#1 - I hope I am misinterpreting what you mean by this, as it is straight-up ridiculous. I had to google this to make sure it was as stupid as it seemed to be. Every single reference to it that I could find was from some hipster blogger who argued that cars should be deemed at fault automatically because they are bigger. They then tried to argue that it wasn't any different from strict liability offences (which is also horse####).

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):



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, presumed liability should at least be on the table.

[Canehdianman]

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 because their view is unobstructed, making it easy to determine a safe distance.

A bike is a safety threat to a car as well.

If a cyclist decides that he only needs to give me 50cm (instead of the mandated 100cm in this case) as he passes me, who's fault is it if I move over 50 cm (to avoid some debris on the road) and hit him?