[CDL.TO]

So what percentage of cyclists do you think that corresponds to? 20-30%?

With this proposed change in the law... 80% or more.

Just to turn things around, what percentage of drivers do you believe come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign in a residential neighbourhood? I'm guessing less than 20%.

 

[Chuck]

I don't think that any of these new rules are necessary. I think that all vehicles that drive on the road need to follow the same rules, and that cops should ticket drivers - whether they are on two or four wheels - when they drive carelessly or dangerously.

I have a friend who was issued a ticket on his bike for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign in a deserted neighbourhood, while at the same you see dozens of other cyclists cruising through red lights at busy intersections, failing to stop for pedestrians, and driving the wrong way on narrow one way streets. The bottom line is that police should issue tickets when either a car or a cyclist is putting their or someone else's safety at risk through hazardous driving.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Uh, the fact that you are driving a motorcycle?

And how does that explain why cyclists should be treated differently?

 

[jmacmillan]

I cycle year-round. On any given day, I see more irresponsible cyclists than not (e.g., cycling on sidewalks, cycling the wrong way on one-way streets, ignoring stop signs and even red lights). I favour licensing bicycles. No license? seize the bike. Perhaps if these selfish riders were brought to account, we would have safer streets.

Naturally, I also support towing vehicles parked in a bike lane, on sight.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Do you mean that on a side street where every each and every intersection has a stop sign, every bicyclist should actually come to a full stop on their bicycle and put their foot on the pavement or sidewalk?

Do you, when you ride your bicycle?

 

[TKTKTK]

With this proposed change in the law... 80% or more.

Just to turn things around, what percentage of drivers do you believe come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign in a residential neighbourhood? I'm guessing less than 20%.

That's ridiculous. Drivers might bend the rules often, but I'll bet stop sign compliance is far higher with drivers than it is with cyclists.

You honestly think 80% of cyclists abide by the rules of the road? Some nights on my way home from work I don't see a single cyclist obey the laws (wrong way, no lights, no stops, etc, etc, etc) I just don't think changing this law is going to do any good. It's just going to encourage cyclists to be even less careful at stop signs.

 

[CDL.TO]

That's ridiculous. Drivers might bend the rules often, but I'll bet stop sign compliance is far higher with drivers than it is with cyclists.

You honestly think 80% of cyclists abide by the rules of the road? Some nights on my way home from work I don't see a single cyclist obey the laws (wrong way, no lights, no stops, etc, etc, etc) I just don't think changing this law is going to do any good. It's just going to encourage cyclists to be even less careful at stop signs.

Woah there. I said 80% with the proposed change in the law (that would allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign). Right now, I think on a quiet residential side street the percentage of divers and cyclists coming to a full stop would be about the same (less than 20%). I'm hardly calling cyclists saints... I'm actually stating that even with a change in the laws 1 in 5 cyclists would fail to yield the ROW!

I think expecting a cyclist to come to a full and complete stop (taking his feet off of the pedals) is unrealistic. A change in the law would make cycling a more enjoyable form of transportation for those who follow the law while placing the focus on those who put themselves and others in harm's way (by failing to yield the ROW).

No change in the law is going to change the behaviour of someone who breaks the law. What will do that is enforcement. There's no point in punishing the responsible citizens because of spite directed at the irresponsible ones (no matter what the ratio is). Does it make sense to oppose increasing the speed limit on the 401 because all the cars that speed down your residential side street?

 

[somody]

I'm completely in favour of this amendment. I always bike on the road. Even at busy places such as over highway interchanges, I bike on the road. This can be suicide. The problem is that drivers *and* cyclists do not know and follow the laws. Granted, in residential areas, I do not ever come to a stop at a stop sign unless there is a car already there or approaching before I get there. Even at red lights, if there is nobody coming, I might go through slowly. There was a point earlier from that motorcycle guy. What the hell are you talking about? You're riding a motorcycle. You come to a stop because it takes you a flick of the wrist to speed up again. It can take a good 10 seconds to get back to the same pace on a bicycle (more if the stop sign was at the bottom of a hill, and more if there's an uphilll section after the stop sign). Just recently, I was biking on the sidewalk, only because I was with a friend who is scared of biking on the road. Since I was on the sidewalk, I crossed the road where the pedestrians cross it, during a green light (walk sign). A block later, a cop pulls us over and gives us 4 tickets each (no horn, improper lighting, on sidewalk, ride in crossover). These totaled $260 per person. This is madness. Yes, I'm fighting it in court, especially since the only reflectors I didn't have were the ones that are supposed to be on your forks. Apparently, there was a bicycle campaign on until the 22nd. These tickets will probably be dismissed in court, but I find it pretty ridiculous, especially since none of these were for anything dangerous.

 

[confusion]

Less arguing about "Bike Rules".

This city needs a Bike Network with dedicated Bike Lanes. Do this, add mini stop signs, yield signs, etc, that are for cyclists.

Until then, I say cyclists can do whatever they want to survive on the roads. There are too many a-holes driving cars that put the cyclists in danger far too often. Until that problem is solved, all other issues are just hot air.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Sign Sign everywhere a sign

Less arguing about "Bike Rules".

...
Do this, add mini stop signs, yield signs, etc, that are for cyclists.

...

Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign...
​

We don't need more signs!

 

[IronMac]

I don't think that we need more signs or bike lanes...just a lot more enforcement of current laws and education.

 

[nfitz]

There are too many a-holes driving cars that put the cyclists in danger far too often. Until that problem is solved, all other issues are just hot air.

As a pedestrian, I've encountered more assholes driving bikes barely missing - or actually hitting me - or shouting at me for walking on the sidewalk - than I ever have cars. Even though the vast majority of vehicles I encounter while walking are cars, not bicycles.

From this I can conclude that there are a lot more assholes driving bikes than cars.

So I'd be careful about what you do in that glass house of yours.

 

[Chuck]

The proportion of commuters that are aggressive is substantially higher among cyclists than it is among motorists. In a typical week, I likely walk by thousands of cars, and the worst thing that will happen is a car will make too sharp a right turn and just barely encroach onto the sidewalk space.

The number of cyclists that pass by is lower by a factor of at least 10, and yet near misses happen almost daily - the most common infractions include plowing through red lights and across the crosswalk, and driving on the sidewalk.

If one car and one bicycle were both approaching, statistically speaking it is FAR more likely that the cyclist will in some way pose a danger to you than the car, regardless of the fact that the car is able to do more damage.

 

[nfitz]

I wonder if the moral from all this is that commuting by cycling is far more stressful than commuting by driving (leading to some very nasty cyclists). Which is interesting, as what often pushes me to take the TTC rather than driving, is that though it takes 3-times as long, it is far less stressful.

 

[Lone Primate]

We all know most cyclists disregard the letter of the law because it’s really annoying to come to a full, unclipped stop at an empty intersection.

What, this isn't true for people in cars? I'll have to remember to point this out if I ever get pulled over. "Oh, officer, it's just so annoying to have to stop just because the sign says stop..."



So let’s look at that. How difficult would it be – in fact, how difficult has it been – to break the will of cyclists? Clearly, ticketing cyclists doesn’t work –

Why not? It works for cars. Well, I know why not, but I'll come back to that.



it’s a waste of strapped SFPD staff and resources and I’ll be the first to testify that my ticket for blowing through a stop sign only created a lot of resentment. As it stands now, every intersection where a bike meets a car is a free for all. No driver really knows how a cyclist is going to behave because there is such a range of compliance with the law,

Boy, I sure wish these cherry-picked arguments worked for motorists! God, it would be so much more fun if we didn't have to follow the rules except the ones we wanted, but we were free to pour abuse on anyone else who didn't. You have to love the chutzpah of this kind of bald hypocrisy.

You know, some people don't like to line up in banks. They don't like to have to fill out forms to take their money out. Those people should be able to just walk in with a gun, and take as much as they wanted. If we all knew to expect that whenever someone came in with a gun, wouldn't that be lovely? There'd be no need for shoot outs or chases. The banks can afford it, they're rich! Why shouldn't there be different rules for people who bring pens into banks and people who bring in guns?

You know why these suggestions make sense to some people? Because bikes are toys. You know how I know they're toys? Because we let five-year-olds drive them in our streets. If a bicycle were a serious vehicle, like a car -- something you had to test to get a license for, prove you knew the rules of the road (like, you know, stopping at a signaled intersection, that kind of thing), something you had to be a certain age to drive on the road (eight, say, or ten), something you had to pay a few hundred dollars a year to insure... you know, in case you blew through a signaled intersection and caused an accident... something you had to get a plate for and display it... THEN they'd be serious vehicles worthy of respect -- and what's more, we wouldn't have people suggesting rules shouldn't apply to them. If guys like this creep got more than "resentment" from the ticket -- like a license suspension -- there wouldn't be questions about the unaccountable, unpredictable behaviour of cyclists anymore so than there is about that of motorists.

Never mind waiving the rules for cyclists. Let's see them step up to the plate and be responsible to the other people they're sharing the roads with.