TKTKTK
Senior Member
Then perhaps cycling isn't for you? There are physical limitations that prevent people from being able to drive. Endurance would seem like one of those for cycling.
|
|
|
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
Then perhaps cycling isn't for you? There are physical limitations that prevent people from being able to drive. Endurance would seem like one of those for cycling.
CDL.TO
Moderator
If not wanting to pointlessly waste energy means that one shouldn't consider cycling, then no one should consider cycling.
If not wanting to pointlessly waste time stuck in traffic means that one shouldn't consider driving, then no one should consider driving.
Every mode of transport has its weaknesses. It's rational to try and maximize the pros and minimize the cons, even if that means a shortcut down a residential sidestreet or wedging yourself through a steady stream of pedestrians when trying to make a turn.
I can say with confidence that cycling is for me, and I will continue to both coast through stop signs when there is no traffic around AND yield the right-of-way at a four-way stop to either the vehicle on the right or whichever vehicle got there first (even if that vehicle waves me through, I wave them through because they had the right-of-way).
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Those are both personal decisions. The threshold is different for everyone. Some people won't mind expending the necessary energy to bike safely and according to the law, others won't mind spending an hour in grid lock.
It isn't rational to create larger cons (unsafe, or unpredictable road interactions) to thwart smaller cons (cycling isn't universal, and depends on physical ability)
I'm glad you enjoy clycling, but I would reconsider the way you approach controlled intersections. I understand that you probably feel very safe, and understand exactly what's going to happen - but you introduce all sorts of unknowns for drivers: will he stop? Is he just going to keep going through? Drivers likely wave you through because they've become accustomed to having to yield right-of-way to less considerate cyclists.
Our road laws are, in part, about creating predictable interactions between all the different types of traffic on the road. One mode of traffic constantly operating outside of those rules is dangerous for everyone
And please, put down that old saw about road rules being created for the car and not at all for the bike. The Road Rights and Liabilities of Wheelmen was written in 1895
CDL.TO
Moderator
You need to get this idea out of your head that people on this forum and elsewhere are trying to legalize unsafe road practises. It seems to be at the root of all your arguments and has absolutely no basis.
Me: "I will continue to both coast through stop signs when there is no traffic"
You: "you introduce all sorts of unknowns for drivers: will he stop? Is he just going to keep going through?"
I said when there are no drivers!
You: "create larger cons (unsafe, or unpredictable road interactions)"
No one is justifying or calling for unsafe or unpredictable practices! No one!
Once you understand that what is being called for is inherently safe and is the law in other jurisdictions in North America, this debate can go along much more smoothly. If it's unsafe, it's not what's being called for, plain and simple! The way things are right now, different people are trying to debate the merits of completely different things.
Me: "I will continue to both coast through stop signs when there is no traffic"
You: "you introduce all sorts of unknowns for drivers: will he stop? Is he just going to keep going through?"
I said when there are no drivers!
You: "create larger cons (unsafe, or unpredictable road interactions)"
No one is justifying or calling for unsafe or unpredictable practices! No one!
Once you understand that what is being called for is inherently safe and is the law in other jurisdictions in North America, this debate can go along much more smoothly. If it's unsafe, it's not what's being called for, plain and simple! The way things are right now, different people are trying to debate the merits of completely different things.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
That isn't the point. There are no drivers that you see, or notice! It's still assumed that you're going to come to a complete stop. If you're trying to legalize not stopping at stop signs then you ARE attempting to legalize unsafe road practices. You wouldn't suggest that kind of selective discretionary behaviour for automobiles.
You are, but you don't appreciate it that way. You frame it as a convenience issue; "not wanting to pointlessly waste energy".
Blessing a single mode of transport with the ability to optionally abide by the rules of the road is unpredictable and inherently dangerous.
If you want to have a larger conversation about retrofitting Toronto's roads into something more closely resembling what Monderman proposes, I'm all for it! I just don't believe you can have cyclists wandering around as if that were already the reality.
At the end of the day, my opinion is simply: if you can't abide by simple rules of the road, then you don't belong on them. That goes for drivers as well as cyclists. A vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
nfitz
Superstar
That article seems to be BS. In England they've never had much in the way of stop and yield signs except at major intersections. They rely primarily on painted lines, symbols, and words on the road. That of course doesn't work here, given the snow.
Also there, cars driving too fast through small streets with houses is a common complaint, coming to quick stops at intersections, and passing each other where you wouldn't think two cars can fit through. When I inadvertently slip into my "English" driving mode in Toronto, people shout at me, wave their fingers at me, and stop their car dead while I'm passing because they are afraid I'm going to hit them.
Also there, cars driving too fast through small streets with houses is a common complaint, coming to quick stops at intersections, and passing each other where you wouldn't think two cars can fit through. When I inadvertently slip into my "English" driving mode in Toronto, people shout at me, wave their fingers at me, and stop their car dead while I'm passing because they are afraid I'm going to hit them.
chāi
Banned
Prove it, show me hard data or stats showing that cyclists not stopping at empty intersections is an unsafe road practice.
Your concept of "unsafe road practice" is out of line with reality.
One day when Toronto wakes up and decides to help foster urban cycling, I hope you'll be able to sleep at night knowing that somewhere in the city, at some desolate intersection a cyclist just coasted through a stop sign.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Sorry, no stats, only common sense. Did you have a statistic to reference for how much safer it is to treat stop signs as yields when others are expecting you to stop?
I'll seep fine, probably even through the ambulance sirens.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Stats:
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
Type 12: Ride Out At Controlled Intersection
Just as "Drive Out at Controlled Intersection" was the most frequent type of collision defined by a motorist action, Ride-Out at Controlled Intersection was the most frequent type defined by a cyclist action. Although there were over four times as many is "drive out" as "ride out" collisions at controlled intersections, almost as many cyclists as motorists were found to have disobeyed traffic control (21 motorists and 18 cyclists). In both types, the majority of collisions occurred at intersections controlled by stop signs. Although there were only 65 cases, this type of collision resulted in 2 of the 10 cycling fatalities that occurred during this two-year period. Thus, while cyclists disobeying traffic controls were involved in relatively few collisions, some of them clearly suffered very serious consequences.
— Chapter 3: Key Findings, pg. 26
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
Type 12: Ride Out At Controlled Intersection
Just as "Drive Out at Controlled Intersection" was the most frequent type of collision defined by a motorist action, Ride-Out at Controlled Intersection was the most frequent type defined by a cyclist action. Although there were over four times as many is "drive out" as "ride out" collisions at controlled intersections, almost as many cyclists as motorists were found to have disobeyed traffic control (21 motorists and 18 cyclists). In both types, the majority of collisions occurred at intersections controlled by stop signs. Although there were only 65 cases, this type of collision resulted in 2 of the 10 cycling fatalities that occurred during this two-year period. Thus, while cyclists disobeying traffic controls were involved in relatively few collisions, some of them clearly suffered very serious consequences.
— Chapter 3: Key Findings, pg. 26
chāi
Banned
Try again, they hit cars, thus the intersections weren't empty were they?
TKTKTK
Senior Member
My guess is that the cyclists didn't mean to run into, or be run over by, the cars in the intersection. It would be hard to say whether it was because the cyclists didn't see the cars (thinking they were fine to go through) or because the cyclists saw the cars but assumed they'd yield.
chāi
Banned
No, why would I? And why would I need them?
Who are these others you're referring to? I'm talking about empty intersections here, not ones with traffic.
Spontaneous liquefication ?
chāi
Banned
We've reached one agreement.
And because we don't know for sure, we can't draw much of a conclusion from your data in regards to my argument.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
But that's the whole point. Sometimes intersections aren't empty when you think they are, and that's when accidents happen.
I have really vivid dreams, thanks for asking
CDL.TO
Moderator
Yet again, this has nothing to do with selective or discretionary application of rules. (For that matter, how would it even be possible to write a law that permits discretionary application of a law? It's inherently absurd.) It would be a consistent application of a law... a cyclist can treat a stop sign as a yield sign. It's that simple.
And don't claim that I wouldn't support the same sort of treatment for automobiles. I think stop signs are overused and the majority of them should be replaced with yield signs. I also think it's stupid to get worked up about cars that use a rolling stop at a stop sign at a empty intersection.
It's pretty humourous that you pull out statistics showing the number of accidents where cyclists didn't properly yield the right of way to bolster your opposition to something that would have ABSOLUTELY no affect on the law about yielding the right of way.
I guess a comparison would be how Quebec legalized right turns on red only in 2003. If this was UrbanQuebec in 2002 I would be sitting here saying "Right turns on red when the way is clear makes a lot of sense, it improves traffic flow" while you would be saying "I've seen cars flaunting the law making right turns on red, so we shouldn't make it legal! And this will have cars colliding with other vehicles and running over pedestrians because they won't know who has the right-of-way! Either follow the laws or don't drive!".