Why are cyclists seen as sacred by the left?

[guyser]

Eyeball, I can't see how riding a bike on ice filled streets in -20c weather is advisable, but I guess some toughness is involved. But the pedestrians there really do take their life in their hands.

I can see it...in Regina and most other prarie cities.

-20 usually means dry weather, and that means dry snow, the squeaky kind. That footing is great for tires . Add in studded tires for bikes and voila...great traction.

Not so much when it is -2, damp like TO is in the winter.

[guyser]

There's cycling insurance that is mandated by law that I'm aware of.

There is, or did you miss an " not"

The cost associated with some sort of careless conviction or the burdens associated with hitting a person even if you weren't in the wrong are great.

At times, yes, but if a witness can provide backup, not necessarily true.

Edited November 29, 2011 by guyser

[eyeball]

What I object to is when a cyclist does die they are treated like they gave their lives for some greater cause in a war against the evil car.

Maybe this is a more a result of a confluence of moral entrepreneurialism and media if-it-bleeds-it-leads mentality.

Everyone else just sort of gets swept or dragged along for the ride.

[Boges]

Maybe this is a more a result of a confluence of moral entrepreneurialism and media if-it-bleeds-it-leads mentality.

Everyone else just sort of gets swept or dragged along for the ride.

Perhaps you're right. Grief Porn is a problem this day an age where people will weep for the deaths of a person they never met.

But still you don't see an organization plan vigils when a person in a Cavalier gets smoked by an 18-wheeler on the 401.

[Black Dog]

As a triathlete , I bike not everyday but when I do go out I am out for hours and cover anywhere from 30k to well over 100.

The abuse is staggering, and I too get it occassionaly (worst is old ladies to Church on Sunday morns)however it goes both ways.

Cyclists piss of drivers because cyclists, all in all, abuse the rules. You know that to be true.They also dont get ticketed and they are not licenced and insured.

Not to mention the meatheads who dont like spandex shorts on cyclists, meatheads who have little brain matter and thinks it is 'fun' to F around on cyclists.

I'm not sure that's the whole story. A lot of the crap I've taken from drivers has been based on their own ignorance of the rules. For example, I've had three separate encounters with drivers - one in Vancouver, two in Toronto - asking why I was biking on the road. Yes, it's far deeper than the fact some cyclists flout the rules.

[Wilber]

Yeah right. I'd say motor vehicles violating basic rules of the road (speeding, failing to stop completely at stop signs, running yellow or red lights, failing to signal, etc.) are so ubiquitous that they don't even register anymore.

But no, the problem is those pesky cyclists.

Leaving aside the fundamental absurdity of treating a bike the same way you would a car or truck, has it ever occurred to you that the shortcuts and illegal moves cyclists pull are often motivated by simple self-preservation? For example, the law dictates a left turn must be made from the far left lane, which is all well and good until you end up in front of some total psycho.

The problem is those who don't follow rules or show courtesy to those with whom they share the road. I ride a bike a bit and walk a lot so I know there are plenty of inconsiderate drivers out there. There is enough blame to spread around and cyclists certainly aren't lilly white. One problem is there is no requirement for cyclists or pedestrians to know the rules or the penalties as there are with drivers. Buy a bike and climb on. That's it, no testing or licensing yet here they are mixed in with those who are. There is also a fundamental absurdity to having two types of vehicles sharing the roads and rules that only apply to one of them.

Ultimately we are all responsible for our own safety and I'm continually amazed at some of the stunts cyclists, pedestrians and even motorcyclists pull when they are the only ones who stand to be seriously injured.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Wilber

[Black Dog]

Possibly but I would disagree that the cost is worthwhile. Cost benefit analysis are made all the time.

So what's the cost of this side guard initiative that makes it so prohibitive?

You could prevent all biking deaths by having bike lanes on every road everywhere but the cost is probably deemed to high.

Political cost perhaps.

I'm sure that goes both ways and drivers have to take shit from cyclists.

Difference is about a ton of steel and plastic moving at high speed.

There isn't cycling insurance that is mandated by law that I'm aware of. The cost associated with some sort of careless conviction or the burdens associated with hitting a person even if you weren't in the wrong are great.

The punishments for cyclists are basically the same as drivers for offenses under the HTA.

[Boges]

So what's the cost of this side guard initiative that makes it so prohibitive?

In the article it says it could cost up to $2,000 per truck. That might not seem a lot but it would ad up depending on how many trucks you own. And that only prevents someone from getting caught under a truck not getting hit by a truck.

How many lives will it save? I've seen no studies.

[Black Dog]

In the article it says it could cost up to $2,000 per truck. That might not seem a lot but it would ad up depending on how many trucks you own. And that only prevents someone from getting caught under a truck not getting hit by a truck.

How many lives will it save? I've seen no studies.

I've seen studies quoted from the UK that have credited side guards with reducing fatalities by 61 per cent.

In all honesty, though, I'm not sure where I stand on this. As a regular cyclist, I tend to respect larger vehicles and give them as wide a berth as I can. To me, that's the best option.

[eyeball]

In the article it says it could cost up to $2,000 per truck. That might not seem a lot but it would ad up depending on how many trucks you own. And that only prevents someone from getting caught under a truck not getting hit by a truck.

How many lives will it save? I've seen no studies.

They caused deaths to drop by 61% in Britain according to a report I heard. They've been mandatory there for 25 years now.

[guyser]

I'm not sure that's the whole story. A lot of the crap I've taken from drivers has been based on their own ignorance of the rules. For example, I've had three separate encounters with drivers - one in Vancouver, two in Toronto - asking why I was biking on the road. Yes, it's far deeper than the fact some cyclists flout the rules.

Quite true and I should have acknowledged that. I get the same thing from drivers up north.

You can put that in the meatheads section of my post.

I volunteer for a Kids Tri, and the roads are all closed to any cars, I marshall at the closed off section and the comments I get are out of this world.

"Why is it all closed, we can share" being the dumbest. 4 5 and 6 yr olds cannot 'share' a road and would kill us on liability.

[eyeball]

As for the sacredness of this issue to the left, you can bet the right-wing will be climbing as high on their own handlebars the minute someone suggests we force the trucking industry to shell out $2000 a truck to prevent deaths. Especially those of any whacky enviro-green-commie cyclist's.

[guyser]

One problem is there is no requirement for cyclists or pedestrians to know the rules or the penalties as there are with drivers. Buy a bike and climb on. That's it, no testing or licensing yet here they are mixed in with those who are. There is also a fundamental absurdity to having two types of vehicles sharing the roads and rules that only apply to one of them.

The way driver testiong has now become private, seems it is the same for car drivers. It certainly looks that way out there.

"...sharing the roads and rules that only apply to one of them' Should read rules that are applied differently."

Edited November 29, 2011 by guyser

[sharkman]

In the article it says it could cost up to $2,000 per truck. That might not seem a lot but it would ad up depending on how many trucks you own. And that only prevents someone from getting caught under a truck not getting hit by a truck.

How many lives will it save? I've seen no studies.

The elephant in the room is the fact that for the most part the road system is simply not designed to accommodate bikes and by that I mean new bike lanes. Sharing the existing lane is the best idea we've come up with and what it means is a lane that is wide enough for anything up to a large truck now has to be large enough for the large truck and a bike. It's dangerous because it's just not wide enough.

Throwing two vehicles in the same lane will only result in deaths. The driver who turns right and levels a bike that wasn't there 2 seconds ago, the driver that reaches down to the stereo and doesn't see the bike, etc. I could come up with dozens of at fault scenarios on both sides, but the thing is it just isn't safe.

[Archanfel]

The elephant in the room is the fact that for the most part the road system is simply not designed to accommodate bikes and by that I mean new bike lanes. Sharing the existing lane is the best idea we've come up with and what it means is a lane that is wide enough for anything up to a large truck now has to be large enough for the large truck and a bike. It's dangerous because it's just not wide enough.

Throwing two vehicles in the same lane will only result in deaths. The driver who turns right and levels a bike that wasn't there 2 seconds ago, the driver that reaches down to the stereo and doesn't see the bike, etc. I could come up with dozens of at fault scenarios on both sides, but the thing is it just isn't safe.

While I am big advocate of well designed bike lanes, it's simply not practical to have all the road fixed. In the mean time, it's important that both drivers and cyclists show courtesy. A bike shouldn't be on the right of a right turning vehicle if it wasn't there 2 seconds ago and a driver shouldn't reaches down to the stereo without keeping an eye on the road. The problem is such courtesy is not possible when the blaming game is being played for political gains.

[sharkman]

You responded to my scenarios but I could come up with dozens of "at blame" and "not at blame" scenarios but that is not the point. The point is there is not enough room for a large truck and a bicycle to be in the same lane. No courtesy can get around the fact that a large truck takes up all of the lane.

[msj]

In the article it says it could cost up to $2,000 per truck. That might not seem a lot but it would ad up depending on how many trucks you own. And that only prevents someone from getting caught under a truck not getting hit by a truck.

How many lives will it save? I've seen no studies.

It is mentioned in the article that the side guards lead to savings from fuel efficiency which you have not taken account of above.

[Archanfel]

You responded to my scenarios but I could come up with dozens of "at blame" and "not at blame" scenarios but that is not the point. The point is there is not enough room for a large truck and a bicycle to be in the same lane. No courtesy can get around the fact that a large truck takes up all of the lane.

Then don't get into the same lane at the same time if it's not safe to do so. That's the basic courtesy. A large truck should not get into the same lane as a bicycle and vice versa. A truck should wait behind a bicycle if the bicycle is there first. A bicycle should wait behind a truck if the truck is there first. Only when passing, should a truck get into the same lane, it should still leave enough space for the bicycle, use part of another lane if necessary.

[sharkman]

Then don't get into the same lane at the same time if it's not safe to do so. That's the basic courtesy. A large truck should not get into the same lane as a bicycle and vice versa. A truck should wait behind a bicycle if the bicycle is there first. A bicycle should wait behind a truck if the truck is there first. Only when passing, should a truck get into the same lane, it should still leave enough space for the bicycle, use part of another lane if necessary.

So you end up having a situation is which main arteries of traffic in major cities(with speed limits up to 60 k) are forced to go 20km/hr because of one single cyclist. I suppose that is why there is so much friction between the 2 camps. It doesn't work in practice.

[Archanfel]

So you end up having a situation is which main arteries of traffic in major cities(with speed limits up to 60 k) are forced to go 20km/hr because of one single cyclist. I suppose that is why there is so much friction between the 2 camps. It doesn't work in practice.

Neither massive trucks nor bicycles are that common on "main arteries of traffics" and most "arteries" have more than one lane. Trucks go across lanes frequently. For example, when they turn, they usually takes up the inner lane as well. Drivers learn to be careful around trucks and truck drivers learn to be careful around other cars. We simply need the same respect between drivers and cyclists. I both drive and bike. When driving in downtown, I always double check for cyclist when turning. And I always try to go with the flow of traffic when cycling (i.e. don't pass on the right all the time, it's frustrating to having to pass the same bicycle multiple times) and give plenty of hand signals. It's just common courtesy.

[sharkman]

Neither massive trucks nor bicycles are that common on "main arteries of traffics" and most "arteries" have more than one lane. Trucks go across lanes frequently. For example, when they turn, they usually takes up the inner lane as well. Drivers learn to be careful around trucks and truck drivers learn to be careful around other cars. We simply need the same respect between drivers and cyclists. I both drive and bike. When driving in downtown, I always double check for cyclist when turning. And I always try to go with the flow of traffic when cycling (i.e. don't pass on the right all the time, it's frustrating to having to pass the same bicycle multiple times) and give plenty of hand signals. It's just common courtesy.

I was not referring to "massive" trucks. simply large ones. A 3 or 5-ton without air brakes can have the same width as a full on Semi. I'm not sure what city you ride in, but in Vancouver let me describe what generally goes on. A bike is riding the shoulder and doing nothing wrong, I want to emphasize that. A large truck has to slow to 20k because the left lane of this artery is full of cars and he can't change lanes to pass the bike. The vehicles behind the truck have to then brake and want to change lanes, but only some can do so because it's busy, and the left lane also slows down with every lane change as people cut in. Traffic backs up more and more as the situation grows. The cyclist has done nothing wrong. The truck has done nothing wrong. But traffic is seriously affected and slowed all by one cyclist. There is more risk for accidents and deaths in these situations.

I submit that this is not a very good solution. The city planners can do nothing about it. The cops can do noting about it. There is no good solution, aside from banning bicycles or widening all the main arteries. Common courtesy and respect does not improve the traffic flow or lessen the risk of accidents, I'm afraid, but maybe my goals and yours are not the same here.

Edited November 30, 2011 by sharkman

[Archanfel]

I was not referring to "massive" trucks. simply large ones. A 5-ton without air brakes can have the same width as a full on Semi. I'm not sure what city you ride in, but in Vancouver let me describe what generally goes on. A bike is riding the shoulder and doing nothing wrong, I want to emphasize that. A large truck has to slow to 20k because the left lane of this artery is full of cars and he can't change lanes to pass the bike. The vehicles behind the truck have to then brake and want to change lanes, but only some can do so because it's busy, and the left lane also slows down with every lane change as people cut in. Traffic backs up more and more as the situation grows. The cyclist has done nothing wrong. The truck has done nothing wrong. But traffic is seriously affected and slowed all by one cyclist. There is more risk for accidents and deaths in these situations.

I submit that this is not a very good solution. The city planners can do nothing about it. The cops can do noting about it. There is no good solution, aside from banning bicycles or widening all the main arteries. Common courtesy does not improve the traffic flow or lessen the risk of accidents, I'm afraid.

I ride in Toronto and illegally parked cars causes far more slow down than bikes in downtown. Learn to change lanes in busy traffic and be patient if you want to drive in downtown. I have never seen a bike slowing down a major arteries outside downtown. Bikes usually avoid these streets and there are plenty of side roads for them. The only problems are bridges across highways.

[Wilber]

The way driver testiong has now become private, seems it is the same for car drivers. It certainly looks that way out there.

Not private where I live.

"...sharing the roads and rules that only apply to one of them' Should read rules that are applied differently."

No it shouldn't. If you are going to allow two different types of vehicles to operate on the same roads using different rules of the road, both users should have to demonstrate proficiency in understanding both sets of rules.

[WWWTT]

Cyclists are also required to follow the rules of the road as though they are vehicles. Unfortunately, too many don't.

Actually the rules of the road are made around cars and do not necessarily apply to bicicyles.

Bikers have superior visibility,acceleration is much slower and they have greater manuverability.

Personally I treat any pedestrian or cicylist like an unpredictable child walking beside the road and give them a wide berth.And when I'm the cicylist I am cautious and very aware.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

People keep saying cyclists are partially to blame, but the fact of the matter is if you're driving a 2000lbs+ vehicle, you damn well better be sure that vehicle is under your care.