Open Letter to Cyclists.

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Wouldn't those situations be your fault though? and by fault i mean rules of the road fault even if you couldn't do anything to avoid the accident.

I can't see how it's my fault if I'm at an intersection, do not have a stop sign or anything else and a car turns left in front of me.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I'm just curious...

Have any of you cyclists ever been hit by a vehicle?

Thankfully no. I think for the most part drivers and cyclist can co-exist.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I can't see how it's my fault if I'm at an intersection, do not have a stop sign or anything else and a car turns left in front of me.

Something like this happened a few years ago to a co worker. Driver of the vehicle was charged with making an unsafe left turn.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I can't see how it's my fault if I'm at an intersection, do not have a stop sign or anything else and a car turns left in front of me.

That's not what you posted though. I will agree it was ambiguous and i understood it as you were going the same direction and were passing a guy when he turned right infront of you. Seemed the logical deduction to make seeing as you included in that point a part about having a door opened infront of you, which would entail you passing someone(am i off base here??), under that interpretation would the rider not be the one at fault?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If it is bumper to bumper traffic, what is the harm in the cyclist moving to the front of the line, it isn't hurting anyone? I mean it isn't as though you are not moving anywhere at a faster or slower pace because of a cyclist. What is the rationale other than envy in that case?

Guy. This has been addressed ten times over in this thread. Moving to the front causes all the cars that already passed you to have to pass you again. It fatas up a lane.



Now let us discuss the pros and cons of permanent bike paths...

There are many, many streets in Calgary with boulevards that could be converted into bike paths. Why not? Because Calgary is a winter city? Why shouldn't these paths receive the same service that roads do? There are small street sweepers and plows. Clear them off so that the paths are usable for more like 75% of the year. Between chinooks and mild winters, it's not like Calgary is under ten feet of snow all winter. The paths could be usable for most of the year. And with safer, designated paths, more people would be inclined to cycle to work and it would probably relieve pressure on our roads.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that the real reason the city doesn't address bike paths and cyclist safety is because they're trying to railroad people into the transit system to justify paying for expansion.

Seriously think about it. Streets like 11th and 12th DT, Center street, Mcleod Tr., Elbow dr, all of these streets have large boulevards that could be converted into bike paths.

It may not be feasible on some of those roads, but if Calgary designated a few of the collectors and used the boulevards as bike paths, it would keep the cyclists off the thoroughfares and it would promote bike usage.

The question is how to pay for it. Bike licenses? (can we get a smilie that indicates a guy ducking for cover as trash and tomatoes are thrown at him?)

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Guy. This has been addressed ten times over in this thread. Moving to the front causes all the cars that already passed you to have to pass you again. It fatas up a lane.



Now let us discuss the pros and cons of permanent bike paths...

There are many, many streets in Calgary with boulevards that could be converted into bike paths. Why not? Because Calgary is a winter city? Why shouldn't these paths receive the same service that roads do? There are small street sweepers and plows. Clear them off so that the paths are usable for more like 75% of the year. Between chinooks and mild winters, it's not like Calgary is under ten feet of snow all winter. The paths could be usable for most of the year. And with safer, designated paths, more people would be inclined to cycle to work and it would probably relieve pressure on our roads.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that the real reason the city doesn't address bike paths and cyclist safety is because they're trying to railroad people into the transit system to justify paying for expansion.

Seriously think about it. Streets like 11th and 12th DT, Center street, Mcleod Tr., Elbow dr, all of these streets have large boulevards that could be converted into bike paths.

I posted a few pictures earlier from Toronto on why it doesn't work there and why it wouldn't work here.







http://toronto.mybikelane.com/tag/runnymede

[4X4]

Saw those. I was envisioning using the boulevard. Leave them raised up like the sidewalk so it doesn't interfere with storm sewers on the streets. And since the storm sewers are right there, it'd be easy to tie in with a similar drainage system for the bike paths.

The only conflict I see with my idea (besides the cost) is the vehicles wanting to turn off these collector roads would have to keep in mind that they are cutting off cyclists. I'm sure there's a solution.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Saw those. I was envisioning using the boulevard. Leave them raised up like the sidewalk so it doesn't interfere with storm sewers on the streets. And since the storm sewers are right there, it'd be easy to tie in with a similar drainage system for the bike paths.

The only conflict I see with my idea (besides the cost) is the vehicles wanting to turn off these collector roads would have to keep in mind that they are cutting off cyclists. I'm sure there's a solution.

Ahhhhh ok! I can see your design working.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

I'm pretty sure the point that the poster was trying to make is this - walk a mile in the other guys shoes. Most adult cyclists are also drivers, so we understand your frustrations with bad cyclists who flaunt or completely ignore the rules of the road. Many (not all) of the drivers who complain so loudly about cyclists haven't been on a bike in years. If you get on the saddle, you might understand better our concerns.

As someone who enjoys my bike ride to work nearly everyday, I have to say that a lot of drivers are just bad. Yesterday, for instance, I was in a designated right turning lane, and I signaled a right turn. A truck passed me in the driving lane, and then turned (no signal) right in front of me. I had to slam on the brakes and wait for him to pass.

I drove to work today, and I drove the same way that I normally bike. I was slowed for about 20 seconds waiting for an opportunity to pass a bike, while I waited over a minute stopped behind a car making a left turn. For the most part, bikes are not what causes traffic delays.

Seeing people with bad biking habits annoy me, because it makes us all look bad and further fuels the anti-bike crowd. Today, I saw a guy talking on a cell phone riding his bike down the street, and it angered me. I realize that with rights come responsibilities. Same goes whether you are in a car or on a bike. Whether I'm driving or riding a bike, I always try to think about what the other guy would want me to do - simple things like being visible, acting predictably, signaling my intentions, and showing respect for the other vehicles on the road.

Fair enough I skimmed that post and figured I missed the actual point of that statement.

I agree with alot of what you are saying. Of course there will be bad drivers on both sides. I just think that cyclists should have to follow the same rules as everyone else on the road. For me its mostly just people riding between cars, or beside stopped cars. There is not a lot of room there and they are just asking for trouble. Not to mention complaining about getting a whole lane when being passed, then passing EVERY car that is stopped causing the whole cycle to repeat. How about cyclists follow the same rules as those on motorcycles...

[habernac]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I'm just curious...

Have any of you cyclists ever been hit by a vehicle?

Have any of you drivers ever hit a cyclist?

I was hit last year, driver didn't bother to check for me in the lane beside him and ran into my right pedal. I was lucky in that it just put a big hole in his plastic bumper, didn't injure me or my bike.

[Hakan]

I was hit by a drunk driver. Totalled my bike and my helmet saved my life.

[millhouse11]

I was hit last year on 9th ave and this suv decided to make a turn into a parking lot at the last minute...no signal light or anything..
I got the better of her suv though. Big dent in her door and I ripped the mirror off with my shoulder. My bike was fine, I just had a bruise on my shoulder. 3 people ran up, asked if I was ok, and gave me their numbers as witnesses.

I did have a buddy t-boned last year when a car ran a stop sign. Broke his leg, and was in therapy for the better part of a year.

[MuffinChucker]

I was clipped by a mirror 2 summers ago... no major damage to me or my bike.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by FFR

My only issue is this:

Cyclists feel cars should change lanes to pass them as they are a vehicle on the road themselves. Fair enough. I completely understand not wanting to get clipped by a mirror of a terrible driver.

However, they also want the privilige of being able to pass cars, while sharing a lane.

So drivers must change lanes to go around a bike, but bikers can pass cars in the same lane?

I don't get it. If you want to be treated like a vehicle, act like a vehicle? It confounds me to no end how cyclists want to be given a full lane (which I fully appreciate) but then can decide they don't need a full lane whenever they choose.

This sums up most "anti-bike" people perfectly.

If we're supposed to share the road with you then why should you be allowed to do things cars and motorcycles simply aren't allowed to do? "Because I can" seems to be the most common explanation.

[FFR]

Except that I don't want to say I'm anti-bike. I think it's great that some people can cycle to work. I just think that if cyclists are expecting a full lane when cars pass them, then I think I (as a vehicle) should also be allowed to expect a full lane when a vehicle (car or bicycle) passes me.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

There's the rub, how often do motor vehicles give cyclists a full lane, very rarely in my opinion, often times the vehicles might move slightly over if traffic permits or just barrel on through if it doesn't. Safety wise that is a much bigger concern than someone going to the front of the line when they are on a bike.

Question, I ride on the far right side of the road, if traffic stops, there are cars directly besides me because I don't take up a full lane (not that vehicles would ever give on but alas that is life), should I just stop where I am even though there is no reason to do so?

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

There's the rub, how often do motor vehicles give cyclists a full lane, very rarely in my opinion, often times the vehicles might move slightly over if traffic permits or just barrel on through if it doesn't. Safety wise that is a much bigger concern than someone going to the front of the line when they are on a bike.

Question, I ride on the far right side of the road, if traffic stops, there are cars directly besides me because I don't take up a full lane (not that vehicles would ever give on but alas that is life), should I just stop where I am even though there is no reason to do so?

In regards to your top comment. I completely agree that most drivers do not give cyclists a full lane. I, however, do and would appreciate the same gesture back to me.

And as for your question, yes you should just stop where you are because there is a reason to do so: the law! As a vehicle on the road, you must also obey road laws. Yes, the law is to give cyclists a full lane to pass. The law is also that cyclists act as a vehicle. I don't see where in the law it says that a cyclist can choose to break the law at their leisure.

Sure, cars don't follow the law either...so you've decided that gives you the right to break the law to? Lots of people break the law and steal. Does that make it ok for everyone to steal?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by FFR

In regards to your top comment. I completely agree that most drivers do not give cyclists a full lane. I, however, do and would appreciate the same gesture back to me.

And as for your question, yes you should just stop where you are because there is a reason to do so: the law! As a vehicle on the road, you must also obey road laws. Yes, the law is to give cyclists a full lane to pass. The law is also that cyclists act as a vehicle. I don't see where in the law it says that a cyclist can choose to break the law at their leisure.

Sure, cars don't follow the law either...so you've decided that gives you the right to break the law to? Lots of people break the law and steal. Does that make it ok for everyone to steal?

You are likely one in over a hundred who give the entire lane, some slightly move over, but most keep to their original path when they encounter myself or another cyclist on the road... that is a safety concern which is of much greater importance than a cyclist who makes his way to the front of the line during bumper to bumper traffic.

The law was instituted as a measure of protection in all likelihood and my technical breaking of the law does not interfere in any way shape or form with the spirit of the law. In fact I would imagine that it would only serve a safety risk when bikes are not at the front of the line...

[atb]

I drive to work everyday through downtown and for the most part I don't mind cyclists as long as they realize they need to obey the same traffic laws as cars.

I do however have a problem with the idiots who think it's a good idea to ride in between lanes of moving traffic, which is exactly what happened this morning on 4th street. I really question what the **** people like that are thinking and how they can expect to have a safe ride to work/home.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

You are likely one in over a hundred who give the entire lane, some slightly move over, but most keep to their original path when they encounter myself or another cyclist on the road... that is a safety concern which is of much greater importance than a cyclist who makes his way to the front of the line during bumper to bumper traffic.

The law was instituted as a measure of protection in all likelihood and my technical breaking of the law does not interfere in any way shape or form with the spirit of the law. In fact I would imagine that it would only serve a safety risk when bikes are not at the front of the line...

See...your technical breaking of the law does interfere with me. Because I am driving in rushhour traffic I must change lanes to go around you and then you zip past me at a light so that I must change lanes, again, to go around you. As you most likely know, in rush hour traffic this isn't very easy to do. The law was not made to protect cyclists. It was made to create a safe environment for all vehicles on the road.

Apparently we are just going to agree to disagree. Sure cycling past cars at a red light saves you time. But what I don't understand, and what no one has yet been able to explain to me is how cyclists can expect a full lane when cars are passing them, however, not expect a full lane when they are passing cars. At one point, you want all cars to change lanes to go around you and then at the next point, that rule is disregarded because it's easier for you.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by atb112

I drive to work everyday through downtown and for the most part I don't mind cyclists as long as they realize they need to obey the same traffic laws as cars.

I do however have a problem with the idiots who think it's a good idea to ride in between lanes of moving traffic, which is exactly what happened this morning on 4th street. I really question what the **** people like that are thinking and how they can expect to have a safe ride to work/home.

That is dumb and setting themselves up to be clipped or worse. Driving in this city is hard enough without idiots jutting in and out of traffic... if your a cyclist stick to the right side of the road whenever possible and realize that no matter who is at fault you will lose in a collision.