Halifax Active Transportation

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

To hear that you drive in fear next to a cyclist is a good thing. Your vehicle, even a 1500lb smart car will KILL a cyclist.

As a cyclist, I treat every car as a killer. I expect them to drive over me. I have even been hit a few times. I keep close to the curb/shoulder at all times. I signal. In some provinces, like here in Ontario, I am entitled to the entire lane. So, drivers must give me the full lane.

As a driver, I am on the lookout for cyclists. I keep back and give them a wide berth. I know my 2500lb truck will kill them. I have yet to be in a collision with a cyclist.

I avoid cyclists, pedestrians and motorcycles at all costs when I'm driving. Give them lots of room allow lots of braking distance (in the case of motorcycles), expect them to do stupid and unpredictable things. Because I know I could kill them with my car, and I don't want to do that to anybody nor do I want it on my conscience.

Any driver who is scared by bicycles is a good, sensible driver who understands the risks. I have lots of respect for this level of awareness.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nope.

The HCC threw a tantrum to get Mason to jam this through because their members didn't like having to ride uphill from the admittedly terribly-designed existing setup, and didn't want to have to use the much more logical and responsible solution which was a crossing signal at the end of the bridge like that used for pedestrians. It was his way of giving the Italian salute to motorists, whom he seems to hate.

To be honest, I'm surprised that this level of spending is accepted by cyclists, as it will obviously draw funding away from what could be more widespread and useful cycling infrastructure, that could improve safety for many more cyclists, not just the ones who ride over the bridge and want to turn left. I would prefer the city to focus less on 'sexy' boutique (read: unnecessarily expensive) infrastructure and focus more on improving things overall. To spend 7 million on this, yet think a painted line on the side of the road is acceptable bicycle infrastructure seems to be a little bipolar in a financial sense.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It perplexes me a little that there is no training required to ride a bicycle on the street. All you have to do is make sure you have a helmet on and a headlight if you're riding at night. There is also no requirement to register bicycles to provide a method of identification (i.e. licence plate), so basically cyclists are expected to ride on the street and obey traffic laws (and keep themselves from being injured or killed) but have no training requirement. So essentially they have no more responsibility than pedestrians, yet they are riding in traffic.

They are also not required to carry insurance, so if a cyclist runs over a pedestrian (it happens), they are not required to be insured to cover the victim's medical expenses or really carry any responsibility at all. Maybe they'll get a ticket for a negligible amount but that's it. There is no license to take away from them, so they can jump right back on their bike and do it all over again (though it would be foolhardy to do so for obvious reasons).

The training is the big thing for me, though. As a car driver, when I used to cycle I understood the rules of the road and the limitations of driving a car or large truck (especially maneuverability, blind spots and braking distances), so I rode accordingly and did what I had to do to attempt to avoid being killed. I covered hundreds and hundreds of kilometers on my bike and never had an incident with a car. There were some close calls, but usually I was able to predict what the car was about to do, through my driver training and driving experience.

Conversely, and rightfully so IMHO, there are laws that require motorists to take care of bicyclists by giving them 1m clearance, etc. It's a good thing as it's easy to kill or seriously injure a cyclist or pedestrian with 3000+ lbs of car, but at the same time it puts all the responsibility on the car driver as the bicyclist is not really responsible for looking out for their own safety (even though it's in their best interest to do so).

It's really a disservice to cyclists to not require them to have training and pass at least some basic testing to prove they have the knowledge and skills to safely cycle on the same road as cars and large trucks. Ignorance is definitely not bliss, especially in this case.

It is attitudes like this that cause more problems than good.

Do pedestrians need to be trained and carry insurance?
What about skateboarders?
Or how about the elderly with their walkers?
Or those mobility scooters?

All of those are mot likely going to kill another person. Hurt, yes, but kill no.

Cyclists do have to follow the rules of the road including following traffic signals and signs. The fact they don't is poor enforcement.

Everyone, even a pedestrian is required to provide proof of id if the police ask for it. Most cyclists do carry some form of accepted id.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It perplexes me a little that there is no training required to ride a bicycle on the street. All you have to do is make sure you have a helmet on and a headlight if you're riding at night. There is also no requirement to register bicycles to provide a method of identification (i.e. licence plate), so basically cyclists are expected to ride on the street and obey traffic laws (and keep themselves from being injured or killed) but have no training requirement. So essentially they have no more responsibility than pedestrians, yet they are riding in traffic.

They are also not required to carry insurance, so if a cyclist runs over a pedestrian (it happens), they are not required to be insured to cover the victim's medical expenses or really carry any responsibility at all. Maybe they'll get a ticket for a negligible amount but that's it. There is no license to take away from them, so they can jump right back on their bike and do it all over again (though it would be foolhardy to do so for obvious reasons).

The training is the big thing for me, though. As a car driver, when I used to cycle I understood the rules of the road and the limitations of driving a car or large truck (especially maneuverability, blind spots and braking distances), so I rode accordingly and did what I had to do to attempt to avoid being killed. I covered hundreds and hundreds of kilometers on my bike and never had an incident with a car. There were some close calls, but usually I was able to predict what the car was about to do, through my driver training and driving experience.

Conversely, and rightfully so IMHO, there are laws that require motorists to take care of bicyclists by giving them 1m clearance, etc. It's a good thing as it's easy to kill or seriously injure a cyclist or pedestrian with 3000+ lbs of car, but at the same time it puts all the responsibility on the car driver as the bicyclist is not really responsible for looking out for their own safety (even though it's in their best interest to do so).

It's really a disservice to cyclists to not require them to have training and pass at least some basic testing to prove they have the knowledge and skills to safely cycle on the same road as cars and large trucks. Ignorance is definitely not bliss, especially in this case.

You have articulated my theory of the cyclist Swoosh of entitlement in exquisite detail.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is attitudes like this that cause more problems than good.

Do pedestrians need to be trained and carry insurance?
What about skateboarders?
Or how about the elderly with their walkers?
Or those mobility scooters?

All of those are mot likely going to kill another person. Hurt, yes, but kill no.

Cyclists do have to follow the rules of the road including following traffic signals and signs. The fact they don't is poor enforcement.

Everyone, even a pedestrian is required to provide proof of id if the police ask for it. Most cyclists do carry some form of accepted id.

Think what you may about my 'attitude', but you are missing my point. I'll restate it more simply:

Cyclists are riding their bicycles in traffic, but there is no required training to do so. This is dangerous to the cyclist.

Licensing, insurance, registration are all required of motor vehicles. Cyclists want to be considered vehicles in the eyes of the law but have no requirements of responsibility for their own or others' safety that motorists are required to have. Nor do they want to have requirements or responsibilities.

That's all I want to say about it - didn't mean to go off on a tangent actually.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Think what you may about my 'attitude', but you are missing my point. I'll restate it more simply:

Cyclists are riding their bicycles in traffic, but there is no required training to do so. This is dangerous to the cyclist.

Licensing, insurance, registration are all required of motor vehicles. Cyclists want to be considered vehicles in the eyes of the law but have no requirements of responsibility for their own or others' safety that motorists are required to have. Nor do they want to have requirements or responsibilities.

That's all I want to say about it - didn't mean to go off on a tangent actually.

Your tangent is the attitude of most uneducated drivers who feel the roads are only for them.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Your tangent is the attitude of most uneducated drivers who feel the roads are only for them.

I disagree. I am an educated driver and I feel the roads are for everybody who possesses the skills, knowledge and training to be able to use them safely.

You are campaigning for the unskilled, untrained and unconcerned cyclist to be able to use these same roads without the tools to protect themselves, not cyclists like yourself who are obviously trained, aware and intelligent enough to try to reduce your own risks and do your part to protect yourself when you're on the road.

For some reason, you want everybody to be OK with people on the roads who have no idea of how to behave in traffic in order to protect themselves. I don't understand your line of thinking, but feel no reason to insult you over it. In fact I have great respect for your personal awareness of the risks, despite your illogical defending of untrained cyclists putting themselves at risk unnecessarily.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I disagree. I am an educated driver and I feel the roads are for everybody who possess the skills, knowledge and training to be able to use them safely.

You are campaigning for the unskilled, untrained and unconcerned cyclist to be able to use these same roads without the tools to protect themselves, not cyclists like yourself who is obviously trained, aware and intelligent enough to try to reduce your own risks and do your part to protect yourself when you're on the road.

For some reason, you want everybody to be OK with people on the roads who have no idea of how to behave in traffic to protect themselves. I don't understand your line of thinking, but feel no reason to insult you over it. In fact I have great respect for your personal awareness of the risks, despite your illogical defending of untrained cyclists.

You are assuming these cyclists do not know the rules of the road.

There are many drivers who legally posses a drivers license and they do not know the basic rules of the road.

Case in point, when I did my motorcycle written test a few years ago, it included the rules of the road test. The conversation between the testing person and myself was:

Me "I bet most people who already have a license pass this with no problems?"
TP "You would be surprised how many don't pass it."
Me "Actually, no, no I would not. I have seen the horrible drivers everywhere"

So, please actually educate yourself instead of playing the victim.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are assuming these cyclists do not know the rules of the road.

There are many drivers who legally posses a drivers license and they do not know the basic rules of the road.

Case in point, when I did my motorcycle written test a few years ago, it included the rules of the road test. The conversation between the testing person and myself was:

Me "I bet most people who already have a license pass this with no problems?"
TP "You would be surprised how many don't pass it."
Me "Actually, no, no I would not. I have seen the horrible drivers everywhere"

So, please actually educate yourself instead of playing the victim.

Again, you are missing my point. I do not doubt that there are knowledgeable and skilled cyclists on the roads. But it is only a coincidence, basically, as they are not required to be.

There are bad car drivers on the road as well, and I wish they could be taken off the roads equally, but at least they have some requirement to meet the minimum standards. Imagine if car drivers had the same requirements as cyclists, which are... none?

When I got my motorcycle license many years ago, I actually took the training course, which included practical riding experience being taught by trained professionals. This training has saved my life, and should be a requirement for all motorcyclists vs the walk in, write the test and ride around some cones method that many choose.

Your example is an argument that even people who have their car and motorcycle licenses should have to take training to ride a bicycle on the roads. I agree with this.

There should be extensive training to operate any vehicle on public roads, and there should be regular retraining and retesting requirements. Driving and biking are dangerous activities, and many people do not take it seriously enough. Many people also die as a result, which is very sad and unnecessary. Have a talk with your local police officer/RCMP sometime, you'll be amazed at how stupid people can be and how tragic are the situations that they create.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are assuming these cyclists do not know the rules of the road.

There are many drivers who legally posses a drivers license and they do not know the basic rules of the road.

Case in point, when I did my motorcycle written test a few years ago, it included the rules of the road test. The conversation between the testing person and myself was:

Me "I bet most people who already have a license pass this with no problems?"
TP "You would be surprised how many don't pass it."
Me "Actually, no, no I would not. I have seen the horrible drivers everywhere"

So, please actually educate yourself instead of playing the victim.

What's that word above? A TEST? Point, meet poster.

Cyclists require no testing, no knowledge of the rules of the road, no registration of their vehicle, no insurance, no licensing, and even if by some chance a ticket gets issued to one for an infraction or dangerous behavior, there is no mechanism to see them actually pay it or otherwise be penalized for their behavior. Yet we allow them on roads with swiftly moving heavy traffic. What could possibly go wrong? Heck, bolt a chainsaw engine on your bicycle while you're at it for extra bonus points.

The replies to Mark here illustrate the famously entitled and arrogant attitude of far too many cyclists in this town and particularly that of their lobby organization, the HCC.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What's that word above? A TEST? Point, meet poster.

Cyclists require no testing, no knowledge of the rules of the road, no registration of their vehicle, no insurance, no licensing, and even if by some chance a ticket gets issued to one for an infraction or dangerous behavior, there is no mechanism to see them actually pay it or otherwise be penalized for their behavior. Yet we allow them on roads with swiftly moving heavy traffic. What could possibly go wrong? Heck, bolt a chainsaw engine on your bicycle while you're at it for extra bonus points.

The replies to Mark here illustrate the famously entitled and arrogant attitude of far too many cyclists in this town and particularly that of their lobby organization, the HCC.

My point was that pedestrians do not as well. From your two attitudes, they should as well.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My point was that pedestrians do not as well. From your two attitudes, they should as well.

The reason I didn't buy your argument is that pedestrians do not move along at 30 - 40 km/h in traffic. It's not the same thing.

That's all.

[Nouvellecosse]

The risk to pedestrians is as high or higher than to cyclists as pedestrians would generally fare as poorly as a cyclist would in a collision with a motor vehicle, while the risk posed by either is comparably low since the occupant of the motor vehicle would fare mostly unscathed in either case. It isn't the speed that does the damage; it's the momentum (ie, speed x mass). That's why placing bikes and and pedestrians in the same category with regard to risk and responsibility makes far more sense than grouping bikes and cars. It's a case of having more than one factor involved, literally. A cyclist and pedestrian's momentum are close enough that a cyclist with a combined bike and body weight of 70kg moving at 25km/h would have equal momentum to a 90kg person running at 18km/h. When my mother biked, she never exceeded about 20km/h so her momentum would have been less than a large man on a brisk run. There's really no argument based solely on safety to require one to be licensed and not the other.

[MonctonRad]

I've visited Amsterdam though, and can attest to the viciousness of Dutch bicyclists. They don't stop for anyone (especially pedestrians). I can't tell you how many times we were warned by our tour guide to be careful (and she was referring to the cyclists, not the motorists).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The reason I didn't buy your argument is that pedestrians do not move along at 30 - 40 km/h in traffic. It's not the same thing.

That's all.

I can't even move at 30-40km/hr, unless I am coming down Magazine Hill.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I can't even move at 30-40km/hr, unless I am coming down Magazine Hill.

Sorry, I was talking from my own experience, as I used to try to keep up with traffic, but could never quite do it... Even if you are riding at 10 km/h you are still flowing with traffic, so the concept is the same.

The conversation regarding cyclists and pedestrians being the same is really missing the point. Pedestrians do interact with traffic but only to cross the street. They don't move with traffic and follow the same rules, as cyclists do.

I can see that there will always be a resistance for cyclists to be governed by the same rules as motorists, even though it would be to protect their own safety (as supported by nouvelecosse's comments above). You don't need to worry, because no politician would touch it with a 10 foot pole, nor would any government agency get anywhere with getting people to follow the rules. Enforcement would be a nightmare, and regulatory costs would have to be passed on to the cyclists - that would not fly.

So it's all good. I wish the best for cyclists and hope to God that they know enough to keep themselves safe.

Have a nice day.

[Keith P.]

Well, the province has announced plans to scrap and rewrite the Motor Vehicle Act (apparently to be renamed the Traffic Safety Act), so this is the time to demand cyclists be brought under its powers.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sorry, I was talking from my own experience, as I used to try to keep up with traffic, but could never quite do it... Even if you are riding at 10 km/h you are still flowing with traffic, so the concept is the same.

The conversation regarding cyclists and pedestrians being the same is really missing the point. Pedestrians do interact with traffic but only to cross the street. They don't move with traffic and follow the same rules, as cyclists do.

I can see that there will always be a resistance for cyclists to be governed by the same rules as motorists, even though it would be to protect their own safety (as supported by nouvelecosse's comments above). You don't need to worry, because no politician would touch it with a 10 foot pole, nor would any government agency get anywhere with getting people to follow the rules. Enforcement would be a nightmare, and regulatory costs would have to be passed on to the cyclists - that would not fly.

So it's all good. I wish the best for cyclists and hope to God that they know enough to keep themselves safe.

Have a nice day.

Except for a license and proof of insurance, all the other laws must be followed by cyclists too.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

all the other laws must be followed by cyclists too.

Except that most never do.

Stop signs for cyclists seem to be merely a suggestion. As long as the coast is clear, in my experience, most cyclists will continue straight through the intersection to conserve momentum.

Less than 10% of cyclists use proper hand signals to indicate their intentions ( which would be nice since the cyclists around here are like rabbits in traffic - you never know which direction they will meander to next). As a consequence, I tend to give cyclists a very wide berth, to the point of my car occupying at least half of the adjacent lane. In heavy traffic, it's hard to do this therefore a cyclist in the roadway forces me to slow down and follow him until it is safe to pass. This in turn exponentially increases traffic congestion, leading to frustrated and angry drivers late for work.

Biking is fine for the dedicated overzealous 5% minority who wish to engage in bicycle commuting. Where feasible, dedicated bike paths well removed from roadways should be constructed for them. There is actually a fairly extensive trail network in Moncton for bicycle commuters (including our current mayor). That's great, but in areas of the city where dedicated bicycle ROW's are not possible, priority should be given to the (95%) majority who use motorized transportation to get around.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Except that most never do.

Stop signs for cyclists seem to be merely a suggestion. As long as the coast is clear, in my experience, most cyclists will continue straight through the intersection to conserve momentum.

Less than 10% of cyclists use proper hand signals to indicate their intentions ( which would be nice since the cyclists around here are like rabbits in traffic - you never know which direction they will meander to next). As a consequence, I tend to give cyclists a very wide berth, to the point of my car occupying at least half of the adjacent lane. In heavy traffic, it's hard to do this therefore a cyclist in the roadway forces me to slow down and follow him until it is safe to pass. This in turn exponentially increases traffic congestion, leading to frustrated and angry drivers late for work.

Biking is fine for the dedicated overzealous 5% minority who wish to engage in bicycle commuting. Where feasible, dedicated bike paths well removed from roadways should be constructed for them. There is actually a fairly extensive trail network in Moncton for bicycle commuters (including our current mayor). That's great, but in areas of the city where dedicated bicycle ROW's are not possible, priority should be given to the (95%) majority who use motorized transportation to get around.

And that goes down to enforcement. Why don't the police enforce the laws?

There was a time that drivers would be drinking booze while driving. This was normal. Now it is not. That is due to enforcement.

So, instead of demanding more laws, why not demand more enforcement of the laws?