License Bike Riders!

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

I've been following the Arbutus Coridor (or as it's actually known "The Great VUL Bike Debate") discussion but have primarily stayed out of it. But after a couple of experiences the last few days I have my own bike rant.


We (i.e. the cities of the Lower Mainland) need to require bike riders to be licensed. Once that happens, they need to then enforce that law.


I'm sick and tired of cyclists blowing lights, riding on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way on one-ways (or on the wrong side of the street).


How many near-misses (or near-hits as they should be called) and actual accidents do we need before people start taking cyclists more seriously?


And why don't cops currently enforce the laws that are in place? How many times have you seen a cyclist breaking the law right in front of a cop (or a driver for that matter, but this is a bike rant) without anything happening?


Maybe if bikes were more regulated (i.e. riders had to be licensed) we'd have fewer problems (although, that hasn't worked that well for cars, but it could be a start).


/end rant.

Completely agree with your rant.


Primary solution is enforcement. The licensing part is only secondary, and useless without the primary solution.


Unfortunately, increased enforcement would come with a price-tag. I doubt the general public would agree to significant increases to municipal, provincial, and/or federal taxes to pay for it. It seems almost everyone wants government to do more without an appropriate willingness to pay for it.


Like you, I've also tried to stay out of the exciting bike debate, for the most part. And here, I've probably already said too much.


Vigilante's Unite! Use those lovely vehicles for more than just clogging the highways... run over those rogue cyclists and make more room on the roads. The auto and fuel manufacturers will love you!


Definitely NOW that's too much :)

One of the challenges cyclists face is using their vehicles efficiently in a system designed to prevent one ton cars piloted by people in a hurry from running into each other, rather than one designed to facilitate the flow of smaller, more nimble modes of transportation.


Registering bicycles was done in Vancouver for years btw. I don't know why the program ended (I think that occurred in the mid-70s).


You could spend a lot to enforce those laws, but I wonder what the real numbers (as opposed to T-dot's rant inspired vision) of cyclists causing accidents really is? In terms of cost/benefit, I think you'd find as much benefit with a jaywalking crackdown. Certainly more stringent penalties for bad drivers would be an obvious first step.


So, if you're making the argument that our roads will be safer, I haven't seen any evidence (hard data or anecdotal) that a crackdown on bicycle users would achieve anything other than an optical salve to all those drivers stuck in traffic. If you simply want to slap the wrist of scofflaws, then by all means a crackdown is in order.


Btw, I regularly do all the things T-dot has enumerated. Like a lot of car drivers I tend to treat traffic laws as guidelines to be observed when necessary, not slavishly obeyed.


If you are going to licence bike riders (as opposed to registering bikes) how do you plan to do that? At what age will one need a licence? Can one ride a bike before that age?


Please don't complicate a simple, elegant solution to transportation with red tape and regulations. If you must regulate cyclists, I'd rather we focused on making sure all bikes ridden at night are properly equipped with light/reflectors. That's my pet peeve in terms of dumb-ass bikers.

I don't think we need licensing, rather just enforcement of existing laws. What's a license going to do? Provide a name should the police catch someone running a red? And what about kids? When someone's 5 year old daughter gets her first bike, does she need to go in for a test? Or is it just an identification card?


There are a couple of rules that could do with better enforcement for bike riders, but already we have a crime problem that seems far more serious than bikers, so I'd expect more effort to go towards that before imposing fines on yahoo kids riding the wrong way down the street.

You're all right, sometimes one needs to take a breather before posting Rants. Bikes shouldn't need licenses. But I for one would like to see more enforcement of laws for cyclists.


Dugly, you're right of course, but sometimes I like to live in my fantasy world where cops take the time to enforce the laws that are being broken in front of them (unless they're on their way to somewhere else). The system needs to change to remove a lot of the paperwork that officers are required to do so they can spend more time enforcing the law.


I don't drive much, I take transit 95% of the time, and I bike for recreation. Everytime I see a cyclist running lights/stopsigns, riding on sidewalks, or riding without helmets, all I think is (thanks buddy, you just devalued all my efforts at making cycling more acceptable to the populace). When riding, I try to make sure that I follow all the rules (i.e. I hand signal and stop when I need to. Heck, I don't even ride in a turning lane unless a sign says that's ok....stupid dad, why'd he have to be a cop?)


Stump, I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but I truly feel that if you want to spur more people into riding a bike and/or accepting bikes as a more mainstream form of transportaion, you have to play by the rules that are in existence.


Sometimes I feel like I have a unique experience because I drive (albeit infrequently) and I ride downtown (as well as off-road). I know I can't be alone, but I would expect that if more people did both, they'd be more inclined to drive/ride in ways that respect the other side more.

Yep the cops don't have enough to deal with now. Let's make them deal with even more paperwork & bureaucracy to enfoce what essentially are saftey measures for people too stupid to do it themselves. There are far far greater issues of public safety to deal with that are regularly ignored. If you want to ride with no helmet, stoned the wrong way down the street with your headphones on, thats fine by me. Darwinism will ensure you don't represent a very big proportion of the cycling community in short order.

Ta ta Bagger

"but I truly feel that if you want to spur more people into riding a bike and/or accepting bikes as a more mainstream form of transportaion, you have to play by the rules that are in existence. "


How will obeying rules that slow me down encourage others to ride a bike? How will playing by rules that needn't apply to my form of transportation encourage others to take it up as well?


I'm not sure why you're connecting the two. If you're saying that people get a negative impression of bikes due to the minority that ride recklessly (I definitely would NOT put myself in that category), it's probably true, but they're not going to listen to your concerns whether there's a connection or not for the same reason some people are road ragers in their car, they don't particularly care what others think of their behaviour.

T-Dot, I couldn't agree with you more on that one. Cops have way too much red tape to deal with. The whole legislative system seems to make it harder and harder to enforce even simple laws. How hard can it be to bust someone for driving drunk? Well it's not just a matter of pulling them over, there's tonnes of paperwork, and hundreds of lawyers who try to get them off. (Mostly paid for by the tax payer).


Of course, it's not that simple, people do deserve some representation for when they have to defend themselves, but why can't the law be clear enough that people can defend themselves anymore? And people who show up knowing they're guilty, but just to see if the cop shows up to testify (speeding tickets etc.) It's a complex problem, but I'd love to see some legislative reform to make our system more fair and more clear for everyone. The people, the defendants and the enforcement.


Then maybe the police would have time to enforce the perfectly good rules we already have. Especially when some idiot who thinks the rules don't apply to them because their personal religion/cult doesn't want to play with the rest of society. Just because you're on a bike doesn't excuse you from participating in society. Just because you want to ride the wrong way down the road on a 1 way street, causing traffic problems and generally just being an ass, doesn't mean you should. The attitude that the rules were made for other people is so outrageous. That is exactly that kind of retarded mentality that makes our society feel like we're entitled to get out of whatever ticket we're handed. It's the exact same mentality of entitlement that makes people think they can sell drugs to kids and race cars on residential streets.

You forgot one.


It's that kind of mentality that lets people think they can drink beer in public parks despite laws forbidding it.


Is it OK to break the rules a little bit, like when car drivers exceed the posted speed limit by 10 or 15 k/mh? Or when they back onto a street (it's against the law... you're supposed to back in and drive forward coming out). Or maybe, just maybe, the laws designed for cars don't serve cyclists very well and a few of us use our common sense to deal with it.


Why do you assume cycling scofflaws are causing traffic problems? Seems drivers are the big problem there. You should find out what causes most traffic delays. Hint: it's not bad bikers.


I do think that people driving see cyclists breaking the law and then think 'why should I respect that cyclist as a vehicle, s/he isn't behaving like one'. So that's why I link the two.


As for breaking the rules a little bit, I'm generally against that too.


and why do I assume that cycling scofflaws are causing problems?...becuase I see it and experience it almost on a daily basis. I used to live downtown (I now live on the North Shore) and I work downtown. There has been a number of times when I've witnessed near misses because of cyclists ignoring laws, and I have narrowly avoided (note that I avoided, not the cyclist avoiding me) collisions with cyclists that felt the rules didn't apply to them. Also, they're putting themselves in danger. When I lived in Edmonton, I witnessed a cyclist blow a red light, then overcompensate to avoid hitting a truck coming the other way, hopped a curb and ran into a wall.


So to address your concerns, yes, I agree, drivers have a lot to improve too. But there are a lot more cars out there, so proportionally, I think bikers need to take a collective look and address their way of thinking.


and I fully don't believe that you get to ignore the laws that you don't like or as you put it "don't serve cyclists very well". If the law doesn't work, go through channels society has and get them changed.

"I do think that people driving see cyclists breaking the law and then think 'why should I respect that cyclist as a vehicle, s/he isn't behaving like one'. So that's why I link the two. "


I know what you're saying. I've seen the whackos riding down kingsway weaving around and tying up traffic. There are bad apples in every bushel. By the same token, any cycling commuter can tell you there are total dick drivers out there that will purposefully rev engines or cut close to you in an attempt to startle you to get their jollies or out of some warped sense of revenge for some perceived slight that doesn't even pertain to you.


What I do is lump these (bike and car) bad apples in the "crazies I have to watch out for" category. If you let the crazies disturb your harmony then you are distracted and leave youself open for the next crazy or you become one yourself.


As road uses, we all need a heapin helpin of patience, common sense and paranoia.


Y'all keep your head up and expect the unexpected out there!


Happy St Paddy's day to ye!

Just yesterday I was carpooling to work, driving at Ash and 26th or 27th, can't remember. There are traffic circles so I would say I was going about 4-6 km/h. I was turning left so I was in the traffic circle, almost all the way around when a cyclist flew through, clipped my bumper and crashed. Oh the rage he let loose on me for being in what he said was his way would have shocked anyone. I was clearly in the traffic circle, I was 2/3 of the way around it, but it's my fault.


ahhhh people are so silly.


No offence, but I bet the cyclist has a different version of the story.


My biggest beef about traffic circles (they work awesome when used properly) are the idjit drivers who cut through rather than go around the roundabout. Saw a cop do it just the other day. Very dangerous, esp. on side streets where visibility is compromised by parked cars.


Then there's the people who don't use turn signals, in roundabouts, and at regular intersections. Really people, all you have to do is flail that left arm around until you hit the signal lever (unless you're on the phone) and you have a 50/50 chance of sending the right message!

Thanks, I was there. I was 2/3 of the way around the traffic circle. I was turning left, understand? That means I had to drive all the way around it. That means when I entered the traffic circle the cyclist was not there. That means my car was visible from all 4 sides for the length of my trip around the circle. I could have just cut that off and driven up the left side illegally, but I chose to be a good little citizen and drive all the way around.


How could that guy on his bike not see me? Why did he not have time to stop? I'm sure his version would include me ripping around at 50 km/h with my stereo blaring and booze flying out the windows but alas, it was 6:45 in the morning and all was quiet.


Are you just questioning something you no absolutely nothing about for the sake of argument? What is your rational?

My rationale is simply to point out that the cyclist has in all likelihood a different version of events. I'm not calling you a liar, but do you think your version is the absolute truth? I'll bet the other guy does too.


Since, as you pointed out I wasn't there, I won't say if you're right or not.


"How could that guy in his car not see me? Why did he not have time to stop?"


The above is probably the story the dude is telling his friends today right?

whatever. i can admit when i make errors, this was not one time. he was either a: cycling with his eyes closed b: thought he could beat me c: not paying attention. if i am in the circle, i have right of way. simple as that. as for him telling his buddies the same thing i would say; he came from behind me and clipped my bumper, nothing i could do short of having eyes in the back of my head.


in any case, i did not deserve, nor did the others in my car the tongue lashing this wanker gave me. i was out of my car right away asking if he was ok, he didn't stop to think whether we were ok. just immediate rage.

Instead of getting rid of the gun registry, why not just repurpose it for Bicycles?

I wonder if, since you were travelling at 4 to 6 k/mh and most people go thru roundabouts at about 10 - 20 k/mh (rough estimate), he thought you were yielding?


Re: right of way, my understanding is that you yield to your right? Any chance the rider thought you were going to abide by that rule, had seen him, and were going to let him maintain his momentum thru the roundabout? Any chance you both misjudged speeds? Oh wait, you never saw him. :-)


Re: the visceral rage. Unfortunate, but sometimes a very frightening experience unleashes the adrenalin and we're doing and saying things before we've had a chance to think about it. Any possibility that's what happened? I wonder if he's sitting at work thinking to himself, Geez, that guy didn't deserve that.


As to injuries, you were in a slow-moving car that was hit by a bike. I have trouble imagining what injuries driver and passengers could realistically expect to sustain in such a situation.


Maybe for whatever reason, he didn't see you. If it's an acceptable excuse for you in your car....


Maybe it is as clear-cut as you've described, but do any of my suppositions seem possible?

Stump, what's your point? Why are you defending the cyclist? Is it for any other reason that

to

be argumentative?


If I said I got rear ended in front of a crosswalk, what value would there be to jumping in to

play

the devil's advocate by asking if my brake lights were working, how hard I hit the breaks, did

I

actually reverse, etc?


Wouldn't a "yeah, like I said, cyclists can be just as big idiots as drivers, but at least you

weren't

at risk of death" suffice?


It's things like this that tend to make people think you're not basing your beliefs/arguments/

reasoning and general contributions to this forum on any sort of rational base (as opposed to

simply basing them on merely an

opposite and argumentative base).

Right of way: The person in the roundabout always has right of way to persons entering the roundabout.


Visceral Rage: it's all about controling your rage. Is that an acceptable defence on the ulty field next time? If I get my knees taken out, is it ok if I yell at you and unleash the f-bomb, as long as I'm sorry about it later?


Injuries: a GM study has found that more injuries occur in low-speed collisions (53% of low-speed injuries are whiplash - see link below)


But yeah, your suppositions do seem possible.


It's also entirely possible, that according to what Kermit stated above, the rider thought he had right of way when he did not. So perhaps licensing would have educated him as to how to operate a traffic circle?


And yes, there are many bad drivers of cars out there. I know this. But just because I think that car drivers are terrible can't mean that I think bike riders are also terrible?


by the way, did you know that it's illegal to listen to your ipod while you ride your bike? (http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/regulations.ht...) It's bylaw 2849 60A

4-6 km/h is not exact, how could it be. I was not looking at my spedometer. what I meant was I was going very slowly. 20 km/h? No. Perhaps 8 km/h at the max as I was going basically clear round in a circle. Had I just been going straight, perhaps 15 km/h. As for the yielding, I did yield to my right. When I entered the traffic circle, there was no one to my right, left, straight, behind, up or down.


Here is the scenario for you one more time.


I drove up to the traffic circle, looked all 3 ways, nobody in sight. (There is a small ridge on the east side of this intersection, I'm assuming he was about to crest that hill and come into sight). I entered the traffic circle going a possible 4-8 km/h at most, probably slower as I take those things slowly because I don't trust people to slow for them in the first place. I pass the east bound lane, turning I pass the north bound lane ( I was driving north on Ash turning west on 27th of 28th, not sure which). At this point, I have been in clear view for the length of my trip through the circle. since I'm assuming he was coming from the east, and since as i said the east side is a ridge, he would have a clear view of me from above (even if it were flat i believe there is nothing but a small hedge in the middle of circle). I continue my turn, starting to pull out of my circular route and onto the west bound lane when smack, he hits my front left bumper and goes sprawling into the sidewalk.


First of all, he was cycling on the wrong side of the traffic circle, (this guy being one of the same you were describing as 'idjit drivers who cut through rather than go around the roundabout.'). He should have been on the same side as me, thereby making it basically impossible to hit my front bumper. Secondly, he was obviously going faster than me as he caught up to me in the time it took me to go through the circle. Sounds to me like he didn't want to slow down and follow me, thought he could cruise through on the wrong side and pull in front of me. Not only is this illegal, it's also highly dangerous as there could have easily been someone behind me who would have smoked him.


As for the injuries, of course, the likelyhood of me being injured was low. My point was his reaction was so volatile it was almost scary. I can only imagine this guy fought with his wife or something before he left.


Is this the only truth? Is my memory 100% accurate? Of course not. But this scenario seems more than likely.

"First of all, he was cycling on the wrong side of the traffic circle"


OK, if you'd mentioned that in your first post I would have been behind you (pun totally intended) from the get-go.


Your original description had me visualizing a very different incident.

"Stump, what's your point? Why are you defending the cyclist? Is it for any other reason that to be argumentative? "


Not at all. In my previous post you'll see how one piece of vital information makes the situation much more clear. Asking the questions I did got me that info.


"If I said I got rear ended in front of a crosswalk, what value would there be to jumping in to play the devil's advocate by asking if my brake lights were working, how hard I hit the breaks, did I actually reverse, etc?"


I think those are questions that the police/ICBC would want answers to in the event of an accident. I guess the value is in finding out as much data as possible before coming to a conclusion.

"I think those are questions that the police/ICBC would want answers to in the event of an

accident. I guess the value is in finding out as much data as possible before coming to a

conclusion."


Precicely. Now again, what value would there be in *your* playing devil's advocate and asking

those questions?


Why, back in the context of kermit's anecdote, do you feel it's necessary to A) enquire

more about what happened so you can come to a conclusion of fault, but more quizzically B)

skip that process entirely

and immediately suggest

that the story as described was likely not true?


Do you see how that certainly appears to be nothing more than argumentative?

No.

"I guess the value is in finding out as much data as possible before coming to a conclusion."


But you didn't.


60B.

No person shall ride a bicycle upon a street unless the bicycle is equipped with a bell capable of being used as a warning.


I have to put a bell on my bike? ... why can't I just ride around saying "briiinnnngggg, briiinnnngggg"?

"I guess the value is in finding out as much data as possible before coming to a conclusion."


But you didn't"


Hmmm, take another look at post 21. Once I found out the one piece of information you'd omitted I supported your original contention. Before that point I'd simply provided some other interpretations of the event that hadn't been considered.


Imagine how much shorter some other threads could be if you took my assertions at face value without regard to other possibilities. :-)

I missed your point earlier kermit where you said the rider was behind you. My apologies for that. Makes the guy an even bigger idiot for trying to beat you through the roundabout... as your turn signal would have indicated the obvious potential for a collision by trying to pass you on the left side of the roundabout.


He must have been really hauling ass for you not to have seen him in your rear view mirror before entering the roundabout.

Stump, you honestly think you were asking questions to get clarification about the events surrounding that incident? Why don't you go ahead and scroll up a bit and re-read your posts. Here's the numbers



Post 12) In which you state "I bet you're wrong" (i.e. I bet he has a different story). You also go on about how easy it is for drivers to signal, which, at least in my experience, drivers are far more consistent about than cyclists. Interestingly enough, in a roundabout you signal a "left" turn until you come to the "exit" (i.e. road) that you are taking, at which point you flip to a right signal. I've NEVER seen a cyclists do this correctly.


No questions asked.



Post 14) in which your ONLY question is: "I'm not calling you a liar, but do you think your telling the truth?"


Which doesn't appear to be a question phrased in such a way to elicit supplementary information. I'm not calling you a moron, but do you _think_ you're intelligent?



Post 17) In which you proceed to display a remarkable amount of ignorance about how traffic circles are governed. Ironically enough, this is enough reason in itself to support licensing cyclists, although ostensibly you have a drivers license, and so I suppose it also supports re-evaluating licensed vehicle operators.


To be fair, and I'm always fair, you DO indeed ask questions in post 17, including such fact finding queries as "my understanding is that you yield to your right? Any chance the rider thought you were going to abide by that rule, had seen him, and were going to let him maintain his momentum thru the roundabout?"


And after presenting an alternate universe, which is completely unsupported by any information that you DO have, you ask "Maybe it is as clear-cut as you've described, but do any of my suppositions seem possible?"



I think if you had truly intended to get information out of someone, you might have the intelligence to ask "what were the circumstances around this collision?". Or "Did you see the cyclist at all before the collision?" Basically, you could have asked ANY question that was actually meant to elicit some fact out of the situation, but you never did. All you did was present yourself as an antagonist and (once again) an uninformed observer who picked a side for the sake of picking a side. "Do my suppositions seem possible?"



Perhaps you see where I am coming from (and possibly other posters, however I will not speak for them)

I think it's funny that you (there's a few yous, but I'll stick with second person singular if you don't

mind) think I jumped to the defense of the cyclist for making the fairly obvious statement that

there's two sides to every story.


I think it's hilarious that a few simple suppositions about alternate views of the event are

immediately labelled as accusations of lying. Actually, I'm a little pissed about that. If I wanted to

call kermit a liar I'd man up and just do it. I didn't do that because I don't think it's the case. I

also think that sometimes people are quite assured of their rectitude even when they are wrong. If

99% of the posters on this forum (esp. the rules category) aren't proof of that then nothing is. See

my gaffe re: roundabout right of ways for further evidence.


I think it's funny that whenever my posts veer near sarcasm and irony I get called on the carpet.

It's especially funny considering some of the pots calling this kettle black. I will now cease from

such behaviour. However, I will be expecting no less from my critics and will be calling them on it

when they fail to set an example.


I think it's a bit odd that I was supposed to ask kermit for details (s)he was providing already. It's

too bad one of the most important parts was left out at first, but it's hardly TEOTWAWKI. Of course

if all I had in mind was defense of the cyclist, I probably would have found a way to blame kermit

still instead of immediately reversing my position given new information.


I'm sorry I don't know the official rules for Internet debating. I thought we were having more of a

free-form discussion. Perhaps someone could point me to a link.


Thank you however for the clarification on roundabouts. I had erroneously been applying the same

rules as a four way stop.




"I'm not calling you a liar, but do you think your version is the absolute truth? I'll bet the other guy

does too."


is the complete original quote. Which is a lot different from this characterization of the same

statement as seen below.


"Post 14) in which your ONLY question is: "I'm not calling you a liar, but do you think your telling

the truth?"


is how you characterized it Dugly. From my perspective, that's not entirely fair.



"Interestingly enough, in a roundabout you signal a "left" turn until you come to the "exit" (i.e.

road) that you are taking, at which point you flip to a right signal. I've NEVER seen a cyclists do this

correctly. "


Many cyclists don't signal anywhere, which is very rude in my opinion. The city should spray paint

some instructions on the pavement of the bike routes or something. Or teach it in schools as a part

of Phys Ed.


I do signal my right turns exiting a roundabout, but I think it would be unsafe to signal left going

thru leaving only one hand on the bars for most of the turn. Incidentally, I can't remember the last

time I saw a car do the left blinker til turning right part.


T-dot:

Given clear sight lines and no traffic, cyclists tend to cruise thru stop signs. Besides roundabouts, I

can't think of a way to devise a rule that's friendly to cyclists (helping them conserve momentum)

to deal with intersections. I say that to address your point about changing the laws. So, I'm going

to stick with my pragmatic approach and smile and say Yes Sir, No Sir when the VPD catches me at

it and hands me my ticket. Just the cost of saving time IMO. Pre-emptively, no I'm not stupid enuff

to risk my neck on any thing less than a sure thing in such a situation and yes other people aren't

so cautious. Not sure what you can do about stupid people besides make laws that tick off smart

people. :-)

Stump...I wish the case you state (i.e. ...no traffic) was always the case, but in my

experience walking downtown, more often than not, cyclists blow lights/stop signs merely

because they can a) beat the traffic b) find a hole in the traffic or (albeit less frequently) c)

make traffic stop for them (c is generally only possible downtown due to traffic congestion).


I make every effort to be the better driver when I'm on a bike, as I realise that in the event

it comes down to me and a car, the car will win every time. Thus, as I see it, it's up to me

to try and be the most curtious rider that I can be and offer up the most information that I

can to other users of the road. That's the main reason that it pisses me off so much when I

see other riders behaving "recklessly".


Of course, by many of the examples that I've given earlier, you could also start to form an

arguement that perhaps pedestrians should be licensed too. It just seems to me that people

are becoming more and more likely to only care about themselves and their situations and

not give any (and/or minimal) consideration to those around them.

Your last para. nails it - for cyclists, walkers, car drivers, even bonehead skateboarders who ride on

streets where they shouldn't (fyi - boards, blades, etc ARE allowed on roads without a centre line in

Vancouver).


FWIW, empathy and altruism may be on the way back. I attended a presentation at my daughter's

daycare and the techniques they're using to condition children these days should theoretically raise

a generation that learns to see thru others' eyes and behave accordingly.



"You also go on about how easy it is for drivers to signal, which, at least in my experience, drivers are far more consistent about than cyclists."


As a cyclist I don't signal because at any intersections (ie anywhere you would be turning) I would much rather have my hands near the brakes and on the handle bars for control. Rather than signal and hope for cars to see my signals and react accordingly while taking away my ability to react. I try to make sure the other cars won't be put into a position where my actions (signalled or otherwise) can put me into jeopardy. Of course nobody is perfect hence the wanting to be near the brakes. I then use my entire body and road positioning to do the signaling for me. I also don't give a fuck about the laws if it is a matter of personal safety. There are laws out there that are actually hazerdous for cyclists to follow. I will take the ticket and live rather than abide and die.


There are far far worse things I see cyclists doing on a regular basis (cheating up along side of a line of cars stopped at lights is a great example).


When cycling any debate over who has the right of way between you and a car ends up with you on the loosing end. Back to the traffic circle argument above. For the cyclist it doesn't matter wether they were right or wrong, they are the ones who got hurt. So as a cyclist you have to be defensive and assume that nobody will yeild the valid right of way and that everybody is a drunken/ moronic driver at best (Odds are the one that hurts you will be).


There are FAR too many piss poor cyclists on the roads. There are far too many shitty drivers. The difference is a piss poor cyclist is more often than not a hazard to themselves whereas a shitty driver is a hazard to those around them.


These are the insights of nearly two decades worth of cycle commuting.

"So as a cyclist you have to be defensive and assume that nobody will yeild the valid right of way and that everybody is a drunken/ moronic driver at best (Odds are the one that hurts you will be)."


You know what they say about assumptions...

That's by far stupidest response I've ever seen from you kermit.


Sure it's a fun little trite saying; when you assume, you make an ass of u an me. Ha ha that's

awesome, so funny.


How the hell does a cyclist assuming the car is not going to drive safely make an ass of

anybody, or in any way not represent the best way to ride a bicycle in a city?


Do you disagree that a cyclisct has to take more responsibility than they legally have to

according to the rules of the road?


There's another trite little saying that's much more applicable to the discussion: better

to be safe than dead right.

you take this too seriously...


I'm quite sure I could come up with something on a whole other level of stupidity.


"Back to the traffic circle argument above. For the cyclist it doesn't matter wether they were right or wrong, they are the ones who got hurt."


I'm sorry he got hurt but it's his own damn fault.


"Do you disagree that a cyclisct has to take more responsibility than they legally have to according to the rules of the road?"


No, I think this applies to drivers as well. We need more people taking responsibilty for their actions in all walks of life.


"There's another trite little saying that's much more applicable to the discussion: better to be safe than dead right."


Tell that to the guy on the bike who went through on the wrong side, too fast!!

Believe it or not, it was a backhanded compliment. Generally you're not one to spout useless

quips like that.


"Tell that to the guy on the bike who went through on the wrong side, too fast!!"


Ah, he was nearly dead wrong, which I don't think anybody strives to be.

Ok, I guess I just felt like spouting off for the sake of it. Seems like a popular activity here.

Brian...I am curious, what laws are hazardous to your life? I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I can't think of one. Even signalling, I use my arms to signal and I've never felt like that was putting me further at risk. If you could clarify, that would be great.


Everyone else...does it seem like everyone is either at each other's throats or it's a love-in on the forum?


Let's hope for continued nice weather, I could handle getting out and running this weekend.

T-dot, I agree with you. I signal my intentions to change lanes, and to turn and don't feel that it affects my ability to do so safely. (I don't bother with signaling stops, as there usually isn't enough time to do so, and if someone is so oblivious to me that they need me to tell them that they're getting closer, I don't think a hand signal is going to help much)


The thing that keeps signalling from interfering with safe operation of a bike is that you signal your intention, rather than the fact that you are actually doing something. While actually performing the maneuver, both hands are on the bar. Some awareness of your surroundings (ie: upcoming surfaces) and a shoulder check before signaling help keep a signal safe to carry out.


The only laws I can think of that may be "dangerous" could be using left turn lanes in really busy traffic. In that situation, I think that most cyclists would just follow two edges of an intersection, and I doubt any driver would argue with that.

kip By kip

As a aspiring commuter cyclist in this my new city I am doing my best to use my bike as I would a vehicle by obaying all the traffic laws. I am also trying to use deswignated bike routes, which I might add are set up quite nice. Cycling in my home town Kitchener Ontario was dangerous to say the least so I appreciate the measures taken in Vancouver to help promote safe cycling.


I do see the majority of bike commuters are quite respectfull of all the laws but there could be enforcment of the people who are not. One of the things that are just as frustrating as cyclists who are not observing lights/stop signs are pedestrians who do the same. you can wait 5 minutes at a stop light until it changes at a major road and pedestrians just keep on walking across... there could be an enforcment authority that takes care of bikes and pedestrians maybee.

Passing this along for those who are interested.


----------------



The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition's FREE commuter

cycling skills courses have started. If you've ever thought about using

your bike for transportation but felt uncertain about it, this may be

the course for you.


Classes are one day long and are being held in Burnaby, Langley

Township, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Port Moody, Richmond,

Surrey, and Vancouver.


Go to www.vacc.bc.ca/bikeskills for dates and locations or to register.