Bicyclists suck!

[Knut]

I do not mind when a bike moves to the front of the line at a stoplight, as long as when the light turns green they are not holding up traffic.

It happens on 14th street SW near bankview all the time. Stop at the light. Cyclist moves to the front and all the cars have to wait until the traffic lets up going the other way to get around him.

Maybe that is just one Jack-ass though..

[burn_this_city]

This does not make sense.

[Bunk]

I think we can all agree that more of this in places like the Centre City would create a lot more clarity and safety and a lot less conflict.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think we can all agree that more of this in places like the Centre City would create a lot more clarity and safety and a lot less conflict.

I was going to say that. Reading both sides of the debate in this thread points to one thing for me. Specific bike lanes, bike infrastructure, and bike rules.

This would greatly reduce the complaints from both sides.

[The Yen Man]

Yah, I'm just talking about regular roads, not designated bike lanes. I mean, most of the time for safety (and when there are no cars in my left lane) I just cut halfway into that lane to go around a cyclist. But I never actually cut fully into the left, and then back to the right after passing the cyclist.

If you're saying a cyclist can go all the way to the front, even when I'm already in the same lane, yet it's illegal for me just to pass the cyclist using the same lane, then that's just a dumb law. I give him the courtesy of treating him like a car and following all the normal passing procedures, and the guy gets to screw me over at a light by making me have to do it again (when there are probably cars stopped next to me now at the light). I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep giving him the same courtesy if he can just keep potentially screwing me over at each light.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I was going to say that. Reading both sides of the debate in this thread points to one thing for me. Specific bike lanes, bike infrastructure, and bike rules.

This would greatly reduce the complaints from both sides.

And drug testing.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by troutman

And drug testing.

Man, I'm so up for testing drugs.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

If you're saying a cyclist can go all the way to the front, even when I'm already in the same lane, yet it's illegal for me just to pass the cyclist using the same lane, then that's just a dumb law. I give him the courtesy of treating him like a car and following all the normal passing procedures, and the guy gets to screw me over at a light by making me have to do it again (when there are probably cars stopped next to me now at the light). I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep giving him the same courtesy if he can just keep potentially screwing me over at each light.

I just get my car over as far right in the lane as I can so that the bike rider can't get past me. Problem solved.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I just get my car over as far right in the lane as I can so that the bike rider can't get past me. Problem solved.

D'baggery rules eh?

[burn_this_city]

Lane splitting isnt legal in Alberta. Not sure how protecting your lane is d-bagish. We're taught in motorcycle school to move to the right of the lane at intersections where cars and bikes might try and squeeze by on the right. Opening your passenger door would be full d-bag.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

D'baggery rules eh?

For the cyclist it does, that's why he is trying to stop them from passing.

[Barnet Flame]

Depends on the rationale.

[Locke]

So, is it legal for bikes to ride to the front at a light or not? I'd wager that it isnt.

Because if it isnt, then the cyclists cant proclaim its for their own safety as its inherently unsafe, so theres no rationale for an exception as cyclists usually claim.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Lane splitting isnt legal in Alberta. Not sure how protecting your lane is d-bagish. We're taught in motorcycle school to move to the right of the lane at intersections where cars and bikes might try and squeeze by on the right. Opening your passenger door would be full d-bag.

I think thats just motorcycles though. I learned the same thing in my MSF coarse.

[burn_this_city]

I'm also curious, does this mean I can ride my motorcycle to the front of the line at lights?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Locke

So, is it legal for bikes to ride to the front at a light or not? I'd wager that it isnt.

Because if it isnt, then the cyclists cant proclaim its for their own safety as its inherently unsafe, so theres no rationale for an exception as cyclists usually claim.

Can't speak for Canada, but in the UK it is. In fact there are Cycle Boxes at the head of main intersections to give cyclists a head start at lights for safety reasons. Cycle boxes that are routinely ignored by motorists.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Can't speak for Canada, but in the UK it is. In fact there are Cycle Boxes at the head of main intersections to give cyclists a head start at lights for safety reasons. Cycle boxes that are routinely ignored by motorists.

Ok, but thats the UK, not here. The UK also tends to have designated lanes for cyclists, unlike here.

[Bill Bumface]

If there is a parking lane (definition is pretty grey) I'm 99% sure it's legal for the cyclist to use it and go to the front.

Basically, if there is room for cars to park, but you aren't allowed to drive your car there because there are no lane markings, bikes can jump to the front. This also means you have plenty of room to get by without switching lanes, so no one is pissed off.

If the lane of traffic is directly adjacent to the curb (no room for cars to park) then bikes can't and shouldn't jump to the front.

On a road where a marked lane is sometimes legal to park in (17 ave SW) I have no idea and this can create a mess at intersections with bikes trying to cut up past right turners etc.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think we can all agree that more of this in places like the Centre City would create a lot more clarity and safety and a lot less conflict.

Yes. Add dedicated bike lanes every 3 or blocks and make it illegal to ride your bikes on any streets through the core outside of those dedicated lanes. Lots of people walk a few blocks from where they park or from the C-Train to their work, so it shouldn't be a big deal for cyclists to walk a couple of blocks from a bike parkade to their final destination.

However, I don't really understand what's going on in the second photo. It looks like cyclists have their own lane before and after the intersection. What purpose does the big green area at the front of the lane serve?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yes. Add dedicated bike lanes every 3 or blocks and make it illegal to ride your bikes on any streets through the core outside of those dedicated lanes. Lots of people walk a few blocks from where they park or from the C-Train to their work, so it shouldn't be a big deal for cyclists to walk a couple of blocks from a bike parkade to their final destination.

However, I don't really understand what's going on in the second photo. It looks like cyclists have their own lane before and after the intersection. What purpose does the big green area at the front of the lane serve?

That is the cycle box I was referring to. At red lights, vehicles are not allowed to enter the box. It gives cyclists a head start at the lights.