Safe Cycling: Share The Responsibility

I got pulled by a cop under this campaign this morning. I was coming down Queen St, with a street car squeezing me out and over into the tonnes of parked cars lining the streets. Coming to a very minor intersection, with absolutely no cars coming through it, even in the distance, I took the decision to continue through the red light after stopping for a moment in order to put distance between myself and the street car that was riding my ass all the way along. What do I get for this cautious approach to cycling?

A 190 Dollar fine and an earful of crap from a cop. Its absolutely ridiculous that cyclists are treated the same as cars in the Toronto traffic codes, we are clearly not large metal hunks of junks, powering down the streets, but more flies in comparison - breaking a red light when there are no cars coming is clearly not a danger to anyone and is a clearly sane thing to do when there are so many cars squeezing you to the street car.

The cops are fucking idiots if they think this form of harassment of cyclists in the guise of an education campaign is conducive to good traffic behavior. Within two minutes of my ticket I saw two separate idiots, both jabbering on mobiles, one nearly squeezed another cyclist onto the footpath in that classic Toronto maneuver of hugging the curb with out looking. Then, the other veered all over the road in a U-turn while chatting on the phone, swinging in wildly at cyclists going the other direction. I see this sort of shit everyday - is it any wonder cyclists like me will bend the rules of the road if it keeps us ahead of traffic and is no danger to myself or others?

Get real and do some proper policing instead of picking off cyclists because we are easy.

Targeted Police campaigns against cyclists are infair. We're not drunk drivers.
Especially their infamous re-branded 'Cycle Right' campaign now called 'Safe Cycling'.

May I suggest you visit the ARC library and read up on how to fight tickets?

I should mention that writing in public about the incident as you did is not helpful should you choose to fight the ticket.
Good luck.
;-)

How did the cop stop you? I would never encourage someone to evade the law, but... can a cop in a cruiser and dress shoes catch a cyclist in the city who doesn't want to be caught? The question is rhetorical, of course...

Why did you give him your name? I deliberately don't carry ID for this express reason. If pressured, I just start speaking about my paperz in a German accent. That usually embarrasses them enough to let me go.

I was pretty hungover and late for a job interview, so my usual array of tactics to avoid fines were not to the forefront of my mind this morning. Mainly I'm not from here, so I have no idea how the police deal with issues like false names and verifying it with them. I'd do it all the time back home, but thats because I know the game there. He demanded something with my name on it, and that was a credit card. Really though I played the whole game of "ah I'm not from here and didn't realise" but he was having none of it, which really says it all.

And as for trying to out run a cop car on a battered old hybrid when I've somewhere to be in fifteen minutes, no so sure. I've seen Pedal the courier documentary too, just not sure if I could get that speed.

Hey, I am not criticizing your decision to stay, just throwing a thought out there. Law students are taught that "the law is a whore", which could mean any number of things; I take it to mean that it is bought, sold and arbitrary. It is just the sort of thing that happened to you, that makes people not repect the law, much less police.

One thing among many to make me resent the police was getting harrassed by a cop doing security for a film shoot. Paid to be there by a road-hogging production company, tried to get my ID (was it because I was on a bike, too?), in his METRO POLICE UNIFORM! How is they can wear that when not on proper police duty? I was younger and more niave. I stopped, and he gave me quite a hard time. Took my personals and no doubt tossed them, as it had nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with intimidation. Well, that's the nature of policing isn't it? At least the yobs I run into policing seem to think so.

Next time that happens, I am getting his name and badge number, and see if he'll explain what law I have broken... or should I just flip the bird and hightail it?

a good example for motorists, instead of telling them why we have to blow through lights and stop signs. That way, we can keep the topic of conversation on the need for mutual respect, rather than on our riding.

...are always the first to throw stones.

Ever notice how motorists like to complain about cyclists "disregard for the law"? And yet how many motorists actually come to a full stop at a stop sign? Or yield right of way properly at a four way stop?

from here:

Motorists tend to act as though the rules of the road don't apply to them. Not only do they hog the entire road, forcing cyclists off to the sides, but they are always hitting cyclists, pedestrians, and each other. The number of people that motorists kill every year is astounding.

how many of these motorists were obeying the law at the time? How many of these were "victimless" crimes?

If a cyclist blows a stop sign or red light the risk that they put others at, especially those more vulnerable than themselves, is much smaller than the same risk of motorists when they do it. And yet motorists continue to break the law and then blame the victim. They've been at it a while now, too!

Anybody got the stats for how many people cyclist killed, either in this city, or across canada last year? How does that compare to motor vehicles? Is this for both on the road and off road? Somehow I doubt that cyclsts' "lawless" behaviour is a big killer.

do not excuse car dependence, car overuse, cars destroying the environment, cars destroying our city, homicidal drivers, careless drivers, road rage, or road hogs in cars. But cyclists who insist they (we) have a right to violate the law make it harder to talk about these things. When we justify our decision to bust stop signs and red lights, we create a huge obstacle for ourselves when we call for respect.

I found what looks like an excellent analysis of bicycle fatalities; in most of the cases, the fault lay with the operator of the motorized vehicle. Some motorists don't want to hear that. Do we really consider the ability to bust a red light or a stop sign so important, so precious, that we will defend it at the cost of talking about more important things like sharing the road and mutual respect? Do we really want to hand the people who consider us a nuisance an easy distraction from the important issues? Do we want people who might otherwise ride with us, organize with us, and fight the politicians with us to look upon us as a culture of lawlessness and contempt for safety?

I think we can do better. I think we can set an example.

be shot and pissed on at first light. It would save a lot of damage to cars.

All laws deserve challenge to test their worthiness. Laws that have govern the road have done a fairly poor job at it. Your whole argument revolves on who is better at calling the kettle black.

Cyclists who break the law put themselves at considerable risk, and may eventually pay the ultimate consequence.

Motorists who break the law too often kill pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists. And then get away free, or perhaps with a fine, if truly unlucky. And they even get to blame the victim, too! (Oh the pedestrian came out of nowhere, the cyclisty wasn't wearing a helmet, etc) Boo hoo, the poor motorists.

My arguments truly suck, but they don't suck as much as the murders that occur on our streets every day from motorists. I hate the idea of being a victim because there are roads. I don't even have to leave the house, the motor vehicle will even come and hit the house for me: It's like a delivery service, and I didn't even have to call to order! see http://680news.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20070526... for only one example.

Black is black, and it's wrong to break the law. We should never j-walk, spit on walkways, or blow through stop signs, or break the many other laws that govern our life. And yet every day eveyone does. We are all sinners, and we should all repent. We are all guilty; Kafka was right. Mind you, so was McLuhan.

Anthony -
who's is starting to lose his sence of humour on this topic...

History is rife with good people breaking the law to challenge its stupidity. All part of the democratic process. Apartheid and lack of voting rights were all laws. What would have happened if every one obeyed them?

There are cyclists undoubtedly out there that are anti-social and are few bricks short of a load who would ride through a busy intersection against a red without a moment's thought.

There are others who simply believe that things should be different and will ignore things like the HTA. They face all of the risk/reward and punishment/admiration for taking a stand for what they believe, whether we agree with them or not. We would all have a very awful life if the law was static.0

Oh, us poor cyclists, we're targeted by murderous motorist and corrupt cops. All we wanna do is ride our bikes...

The safe cycling campaign was aimed at motorists and cyclists alike. I confess I ran a red light on Danforth and Castle Frank last week and felt relieved when I saw that the woman in front of me was busted for running the very same light. The cop was already busy so he couldn't pull me over. I confess that I run reds and stop signs. Not because I think lawmakers are evil and cops are rancid. I like to ride pretty fast (25 to 35 km/h) most of the time and it's hard to stop and wait 30 seconds with your heart pounding and brain racing and ... damn it I have to shift down again.

But traffic control has a purpose and I'm sure if all (cyclists, motorists and pedestrians) of us obeyed the rules there'd be less accidents. I am making an effort to stop when I'm supposed to even when the bozos-on-bikes blows through them.

I think if cyclist want respect from motorists then we have to be respectful of them and the rules of the road. I've said it before and I'll say it again, every day I ride, I encounter more bad cyclists that drivers. In the past year I've had "words" with motorists on 4 occasions and in each of those incidents, I did something bone headed and was being called to task.

Otherwise, (believe it or not) I find motorists respectful and considerate. Attitude is everything man.

There used to be a time in Ontario when you got a ticket and you would have to go to a 'feel good' session. Everyone would sit around and discuss your bad habit and then how you would work on not repeating. The hope was the offender would start to respect the people involved in creating and enforcing traffic laws. This was done in place of a trial, needless to say it was a huge failure although very popular with offenders.

Anthony, I think 'traffic control' is reaching. The rules of the road created by the HTA are very passive and motor vehicles is the only transportation type using it. Compare it to a more proactive system like shipping that depends on ships identifying one another and telling each where they are and where they are going. With motor vehicles the best that happens is that one signals and hopes the other sees it. Other jurisdictions have traffic rules with different priorities, notably pedestrian priority.

It would be nice to believe that cyclists showing drivers respect would be enough to make the world a happy place. The driving public has solidly confirmed that they cannot get along with one another, let alone an additional worry of people on bicycles. Studies seem to indicate that a good majority of accidents occur due to inattention. You can have and obey every law going. That is until the guy behind you is reading it while driving and runs you down.

I do not know how you would qualify a bad cyclist versus a good cyclist let alone against a good driver.

Ah yes, the perrenial excuse... the other guy isn't obeying the law, so it doesn't work, why should I follow the rules, nobody else is??? Perhaps the HTA needs revision, that's all part of the process.

I think you're idea of ships checking signals with each other is a good one. I often catch the eye of motorists (when they don't have tinted windows) to see if they are paying attention. I often have subtle signal exchanges to indicate that we understand each other. I find this approach helps to foster respect with motorists. I'm not concerned with making the world "a happy place". I am concerned with having a good ride and arriving alive. There are inattentive drivers, cyclists and pedestrians out there, no doubt about it. Part of my defensive driving strategy is being aware that they are out there.

I have some very basic criteria in my assessment of good and bad cyclists and motorists. First would be an understanding of the rules of the road. Secondly would be following them. Third criteria would be an understanding of the vehicle they are driving. If you have an automatic vehicle, you can get away without understanding how gears work but stardard vehicles require a certain amount of awareness of speed and gear shifting. While I couldn't quantify this, I would say a large number of cyclists don't know how to use their gears. A fourth criteria is in handling said vehicle. Motorists have to undergo testing to indicate they at least know the rules of the road and can manouveur their vehicle (at least during the test).

Every day I see cyclists careening through rush hour traffic barely keeping their balance, carrying cups of coffee or talking on cell phones (yes I know drivers do too and they shouldn't), cutting across several lanes of traffic without even checking, to name a few.

I guess what I'd like to point out is that so much pro-cycling rhetoric is really anti-car. My subjective experience, based on riding 5 or 6 days a week, all year round, through downtown traffic, is that we all have to share the responsibility of safety. Motorists who can't drive properly shouldn't be on the road. Cyclists without the requisite skills to ride through busy traffic should find routes that are safe. (I'm a supporter of more bike lanes so cyclists of all skill levels can ride safely).

If you review the various bicycle collision reports for the City of Toronto there are some obvious patterns. Most accidents happen at intersections, in rush hour during the warmer months. As a cyclist, I attempt to be more careful at intersections during rush hour in warmer months. Whether one's defensive strategy is to obey the traffic signals or not, being hyper alert of all traffic, vehicular, velopedic and pedestrian is a must.

Ride hard but ride safe. Two wheels go fast, yippee.

BTW, who's Anthony?

I don't think anyone here doubts that motorists violate the law at least as much as cyclists, or that motoring crimes do far more harm. I don't think any of us see the HTA as flawless. I consider the current car-centric transport policy criminally reckless with the air we all breathe, not to mention the lives of the people on the street. The leniency enjoyed by homicidal drivers appalls me.

I simply say, as I have said before, that if we argue that we as cyclists have a right to break the law anytime obeying the law would inconvenience us, that argument gets in the way of other points we want to make. I have come to this conclusion after reading dozens of web-log posts; motorists who dislike cycling often use this as their primary argument.

I'll just address a couple of points raised here earlier:

1) People who attack cyclists for disregarding the law overlook worse crimes by motorists.
Absolutely right. For exactly that reason, I consider it a mistake for us to argue that we can disregard the law safely, and that we should have a right to do so. When we make an issue of cyclists having a "right" to violate the law, we ignore motorists who do violate the law.

2) Cyclists who flout the law do so as a form of civil disobedience.
Although no universal definition of civil disobedience exists, the definition I generally accept includes the following: (a) a clear analysis of why we consider the law/government policy wrong. I don't see that here. Inconvenient does not equal wrong. (b) An effort to change the policy within the law. If any cyclists have mounted a serious campaign to get traffic lights abolished, I have yet to hear of it.

I think John you will have to look to Idaho where they changed their law as it applied to cyclists and stop signs/lights. There cyclists need not stop for either provided it is safe to do so, they are treated more as yield signs. So there have been 'serious campaigns' to get traffic lights abolished and/or their effects mitigated. The change in Idaho did not occur overnight, more and more people challenged till finally there was enough of a critical mass/political will to change it.

Cyclists, like any other citizen, has the right to challenge any law they chose to. Whether they have the right to break the law is another issue. That cannot be taken away from them because other cyclists feel it is inconvenient to their cause.

Apologies to Anthony, was replying to Road Runner in earlier post.

I'm Anthony.

Or was that a rhetorical question like "Who is John Galt?" or something?

If someone, somewhere in the world works for and gets a change in a law, that does not justify anyone, anywhere in breaking a similar law in their jurisdiction. The traditional definition of civil disobedience requires that you personally attempt (legally) to change the law you break. In any case, the principle of civil disobedience generally applies to laws which implement an actual injustice, not laws we find inconvenient.

Just to come back to the original point: I see some pretty substantial evidence that cyclists who claim a unique right to ignore the law steer the discussion away from the issues, from facilities for cyclists to the actual case for changes to the law, which would improve the cycling environment for all of us. I claim no right to tell anyone they cannot break the law (although I can and will point out the weaknesses in their justification). I certainly claim no right to tell anyone they have no right to argue for changes to the law, something I engage in myself quite a lot. But I will also point out the downside of public attempts to justify breaking the law.

Good to see someone else out there isn't trapped in the mindset that equates a bike with a car. I mean after all that is how the rules of the road here define it. It is totally idiotic to use the same set of rules for cars as for bikes. It's illegal to hop on the path - but what the fuck do you do when a truck squeezes you off the road or construction work blocks the curb? Get real people. I've enough experience with cycling to realise that I am in a much more fragile position than a motorist and as such assess the risk on that basis, I've had zero accidents and my cycling is tame and considerate - applying the exact same rules to me that are designed for huge metal boxes really amounts to an absurdity. Should prams be forced off the paths and into the traffic lanes, they are after all vehicles of transit? And whats the fixation with the bell in Canadian bike regulations? Would a hooter do or couldn't I just shout at driver about to door me?

John I really cannot figure out which dictionary you are using. I looked at several different definitions and nothing came close to what you are suggesting. Civil refers to the fact that there is no violence involved when one "breaks" the law.

Here is one of the definitions available on line,

Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

Laws are changed in one of two ways. Either through an act of parliament or through the courts. The latter and probably the most common, usually involves an individual getting charged with an offence and then appearing before a judge. He makes his case and then either loses or wins, the process is repeated in the appeals process. Provided the accused wins at every stage he then changes the law by whatever new interpretation the court provides. If a cyclists challenges stop signs and makes a case for it then wins he has changed the law regardless.

Now is every cyclist blowing through lights looking to challenge the HTA, probably not. Yet one will caught and will challenge the law.

Darren was responding to a comment I had made and had addressed me as Anthony so I asked, BTW who is Anthony? It was a wee bit of a joke, don't take it personally.

Road Runner, Beep Beep.

you might find you get more respect on a bike the faster you go. I have found that when I ride my fast bike that I have very few close calls, incidents with ignorant drivers, and the like.

On the other hand when I ride my beater bike around (which is limited probably to going about 15 km/h) I am treated much worse.

It is even worse If I put a box on the back of my bike to get groceries I think.

My opinion is that motorists pick on those they perceive as being weak or poor more than those who appear fast and well off.

I, of course, have no data to back this up, as that would be very hard to come up with.

Interesting comment about speed. I tend to ride fast most of the time and have noticed that my level of alertness is hyper sensitive. I tend to monitor the flow of traffic osmotically and respond at a pre-conscious level. In a word, I'm in the zone. When I ride slow, I tend to day dream and that is when mishaps occur through inattention. If you believe the Ontario guide for Cycling Skills, the slower one rides, the less stable one is on a bicyle. This may explain why slow moving cyclist seem somewhat inept. Following Anonymous' logic, motorist may in fact interpret that slow moving, somewhat unstable cyclist as unskilled.

I'm not suggesting that anybody ride faster than is safe for them. The beautiful thing about bicycle transportation is that everybody can travel at their own pace. Just not sure if slow moving unstable cyclist are safe in busy traffic - thus the need for, yes, here it comes.. more bike paths and lanes. I'd even support certain roads being limited to bicycles. Imagine a couple of east-west or north-south corridors for bikes only? That would make the narrowing of Landsdowne seem like a playground row.

I use the same definition of civil disobedience that I and my friends use when we risk arrest to protest the destruction of First Nations culture, wars, arms races, and assorted other forms of violence.

As for the prospect of changing traffic laws through the courts, I have never seen an example where that worked, and I don't see any prospect of it happening here. Traffic courts tend to defer to the legislature, and I honestly don't see a viable legal or charter argument against stop signs or traffic lights.

In any case, I insist on the difference between a well-conceived and strategic campaign to change the law, either through the courts or the legislature, and a generalized claim that cyclists have the right to break any traffic law that doesn't suit us. The former I support. While I defend anyone's right to do the latter (you'll notice I don't call for unplugging blogs, nor do I make personal attacks, etc.), I do find it has a cost. If nothing else, it uses up a huge amount of energy to no purpose.

Really John, where do you get this stuff from.

"Traffic courts tend to defer to the legislature..." How about they refer to case law? The court looks at past cases to guide them in the interpretation of the law, the legislature writes the law. All of the case law came about from someone challenging the law. Virtually every section of the HTA has been challenged. It could probably be argued that Charter protection is already afforded to cyclists who go through red lights. If you are stopped or about to stop for a red light and someone threatens to run you over you have the right to proceed through in order to protect yourself. Protection would exist if you got nailed for running a red at a light timed for motor vehicle traffic only, I am thinking about wide intersections. It would be interesting to see a challenge based on the increased exposure to exhaust as one had to wait for a stop sign.

You do not run much of a risk of arrest at a protest provided you do not engage in or threaten violence, once you engage in violence you are no longer in the realm of civil disobedience. You have a right to protest, protected by the Charter in turn supported by case law.

The right to challenge a law is much different from your right to break the law. Many people have successfully challenged the law without a "...well-conceived and strategic campaign to change the law".

I took a quick peek at your blog. Mobility rights under the Charter mean the right to enter and leave Canada, work/live in any province, etc. Has nothing to do with riding a bike or walking or driving.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#circulation

I get this stuff from experience in various lower courts. If you can find one lawyer who thinks they could get a justice of the peace in traffic court to entertain a charter argument to the effect that no cyclist has an obligation to obey stop signs or red lights, please post a cite: I'd love to read it.

Yes, all cyclists with a reasonable apprehension that a driver intends to assault them in any way can go through a red light or stop sign to evade an attacker. That right (called the defence of necessity) exists in common law. I would go farther: I would defend any cyclist's right to deal with any dangerous situation by breaking the rules to the extent necessary to do so. Such a defence does not, however, extend to cyclists that running red lights or stop signs because they find it inconvenient to stop. And I honestly don't think the traffic courts would or will ever entertain an argument that it does.

The terms "risk arrest" and "civil disobedience" tend to get used interchangeably; both phrases refer to the violation of a law, or disruption of an institution, which produces injustice. Some aspects of critical mass (depending on your interpretation of the law) qualify as civil disobedience. Just to clarify: I personally consider the critical mass ride completely legal. But a statement that you do not propose to obey the law because you find it inconvenient most definitely does not qualify as civil disobedience.

I'll gladly answer any comment you make about my weblog, if you'll post your comment there.

John, First you state that, "Traffic courts tend to defer to the legislature...", and then when challenged change your tact to "I get this stuff from experience in various lower courts." You seem to know what common law is, so you have to know that your first statement is incorrect.

Outside of a Careless Driving charge how many lawyers have you seen in traffic court? Regardless, the Charter is used all of the time in different cases. If someone had the right evidence to challenge a stopping law then they are open to challenging, either via the Charter or an inadequacy in the HTA. The JP could easily dismiss their attempt but an avenue to appeal is open. Timing of lights has been used quite successfully over the years to defend against no stopping charges, it comes down to a simple problem of math.

"The traditional definition of civil disobedience requires that you personally attempt (legally) to change the law you break". You have change your definition for civil disobedience so many times it is hard to know what it is, I do not even see how it is relevant.

Where did you get this from, "But a statement that you do not propose to obey the law because you find it inconvenient most definitely does not qualify as civil disobedience."? I said that if you are prepared to challenge a law you dislike, you run all of the risks and rewards of doing so. Just showing up at court and saying I find the law inconvenient does not hack it, nor is it what I am suggesting. One certainly does not need the cycling community's permission to challenge the law.

I would agree civil disobedience is a tool of CM. It is concerned with social-political matters so are other issues running at the same time.

If you want to challenge my consistency, please provide quotes from me in which I have changed or contradicted my definition of civil disobedience.

Then if you wouldn't mind going back to the beginning of this thread, the post I originally responded to, please explain how the statements in that post add up to a challenge to the section of the HTA which deals with traffic lights.

When we claim that as cyclists we or deserve have a special exemption from the law, I believe we alienate people who might otherwise support, join, or at least not oppose us. You don't have to agree with that, but I would like to know what rationale you have for disagreeing with it. Whatever your opinion on challenging the law, that has no relevance to the point I made.

To answer your other point: I claim no particular right, or ability, to stop cyclists from breaking the law. I do claim the right to point out that doing so has a cost: on the evidence, it appears to inflame opponents and alienate potential allies. I will continue to point out the problems with arguing that we have a right to break the law. If you have an objection to my position, please explain it.

Cyclists do not have any special exemptions or rights. They have the exact same ones as motorists and as any other citizen.

You keep moaning on about "the right to break the law'. I have repeatedly told you there is no such right. There is a right to challenge any law by any person. Some people will plan it out others will find themselves unexpectedly charged with an offence and will have to defend themselves.

"When we claim that as cyclists we or deserve have a special exemption from the law, I believe we alienate people who might otherwise support, join, or at least not oppose us." You keep reading into this. No one is making the claim. This is right wing hack stuff right out of the Harper manual. Sully a person because they have a belief that will cause you some grief. Part of the democratic process is that you may offend some people, it happens. The law is not rigid nor easy, if it were we would never progress as a society.

You for some reason tried to make this an issue of civil disobedience when it has little to do with it on top of conjuring up some definition you and your friends made up for it without telling the rest of the world.

Hey guys, this is devolving into an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. My experience is that no one ever wins these kind of matches. Besides, if I recall the genesis of this dogmatic trajectory is that some enterprising activists wanted to bring to the City's attention the fact that they have not kept their promise to build more bike lanes. You guys seem to be getting bogged down in in the sidebars.

Yapping about the law won't safe cyclists. Perhaps new bike lanes will. An Energy Bar for thought.

Let's address, please, what the person whose comment started this thread actually wrote. OK? I read it as:

• He claimed to have intentionally ridden through a red light in order to stay in front of a streetcar
• The police ticketed him
• He appears to have claimed they should not have done so.

I see no way to read this except as a claim for an exemption from the law. From reading statements from other cyclists, it seems to me that as a community we tend to make this statement a fair bit. It also seems clear to me that this statement, more than any other, raises hackles. So as we embark on organizing for better cycling facilities and more respect for cyclists, I think it makes sense to look at that one claim, which above anything else we claim or do alienates people.

I don't know if Darren_S and I have met. I do know he has produced a caricature of me and what I believe. I hope we can meet and work out the personal side of these matters. In the meantime, I'll go back to the issue at hand, because if we want bike lanes, if we want bike routes, if we want the city to spend money joining up bike paths, then political support has to matter to us. So I'll ask this again: where, in the post which started this whole thread, do you find a principle so important that it justifies alienating people who might otherwise support us?

John,

Evans v. City of Toronto establishes the condition on Queen St. as it relates to cycling. It is not unreasonable to believe, as he states, "I was coming down Queen St, with a street car squeezing me out and over into the tonnes of parked cars lining the streets." ,that he had enough fear of being forced into a dangerous situation by remaining beside the streetcar to blow the light. Even more reasonable to believe that the cyclist would be found not guilty due to duress. While I am not into the habit of blowing lights, if I found my self in a similar situation I would blow the light.

He has a legitimate complaint with respect to the ticket regardless of what "hackles" may occur. I think he has raised and extremely important issue that needs to be thoroughly examined regardless of how much discomfort it provides you.

make an inefficient focus.

It does not make me particularly "uncomfortable" to have cyclists justifying blowing lights, blowing stop signs, or violating any other rules of the road. It does strike me as ineffective politics.

If you see this as a safety issue, I suspect we agree on it to some extent, because I believe the HTA has the overriding purpose of keeping people safe, and therefore the courts should recognize safety as a justification for, say, a cyclist who takes the lane or even, in a serious situation, goes through a red light. I qualify that two ways: everyone has the same right to invoke safety as a justification, from pedestrians to the drivers of eighteen wheelers, and when we invoke safety as a justification for a breach of the HTA, it makes sense to identify the safety situation and the threat clearly.

There is a large disconnect with what happened here and your overwhelming need to define it as bad politics. When that streetcar was bearing down on him he was not thinking how it would look politically, only how it would feel if any of the identified dangers of Queen St would come to bear.

"...when we invoke safety as a justification for a breach of the HTA, it makes sense to identify the safety situation and the threat clearly." The cyclist made the point (identified the threat) in his original post. You chose to ignore that info, for whatever reason, in your last post summing up the event. I find that quite disingenuous.

have no relevance here. Either the objective facts validate my concern about the political effect of claims by cyclists to have a special right to violate the law, or they do not. I assure you that I had no need to see this, or to see this, or read anything like this, or this. I don't agree with what these people say, but they either believe what they write/film, or else they think other people will. Either way, I think (again, based on the hard cold objective evidence) we take a political hit, and I honestly don't see a compensating advantage for us in making the claim that, as cyclists, we have a right to break the law.

Which brings me to the specific case. I honestly see it as a borderline case that an observer can read either way. I certainly don't think your accusation of "disingenuous" holds; not when the post that started this thread contains the phrase:

Its absolutely ridiculous that cyclists are treated the same as cars in the Toronto traffic codes, we are clearly not large metal hunks of junks, powering down the streets....

In any case, I don't have any problem saying that while I consider this a marginal case, I still consider any cyclist facing an imminent threat has the right to end the rules to cope with that threat. But if we go farther and claim that any cyclist has the right to violate essentially any traffic rule, (evidence as cited above) we will take a political hit.

So I will ask again: if you consider it worthwhile to take that hit, why? And on the same topic, if you believe all cyclists ought to agree with you, again, why?

John, I think you are having me on.

The guy from London on Youtube. Do you really think I care what some raving individual with deep rooted problems rants about. It was unbearable to watch. Pay attention to some satirical cartoon??? The comments you linked to were a real joy. First one complains that they cyclists are riding on the sidewalk and then by the end, same person, wants them off the road for being too slow. This is a rationale person who's ramblings we should put weight to? If you did not want to see it why did you read it? You are wasting your energy on this? I get calls from people after a cyclist memorial telling me how good it was that a cyclist was killed. In future I will ask for their number for you, they probably have a lot of important things to say about cyclist behaviour.

The issue of how cyclists are treated in contrast to cars is an important issue. I have borrowed here from another post that addresses the issue.

Coroner's report on cycling fatalities. Rec. #12 (Legislative Review) in part reads:
"Ontario's Highway Traffic act presently does little to clarify how bicycles interact with other traffic on our roads. The concept of motorized vehicles yielding to non-motorized vehicles, who in turn must yield to pedestrians seems to be a common sense rule which should be accepted by all road users. "
These were very intelligent people(doctors, lawyers, engineers) that recognized the problem of the difference between cars and cyclists.

Marginal case? Pretty dismissive even in the light of the facts we do have. What, cyclists should shut their mouths until it is politically advantageous or their issue is popular? It is not like TV where all the elements to the story are laid out so everyone can figure them out in an hour.

"...But if we go farther and claim that any cyclist has the right to violate essentially any traffic rule, (evidence as cited above) we will take a political hit.

So I will ask again: if you consider it worthwhile to take that hit, why?..."

Have you not grown tired of trying twist this. I think this is the third time I have said it now. No one has the right to break the law, everyone has the right to challenge it - a fundamental part of democracy. I can have it etched in stone if it can help.

You were downright disingenuous. You summed up the facts by leaving out elements that do not support your arguments.

Opposition to cycling, fundamentally, does not make sense. It doesn't make sense that with peak oil coming, the Star still publishes a two-section spread dedicated to the glory of the car. The video you found "unbearable", I find no more insane than Case Ootes blocking bike lanes because of his terror that drivers will spend two seconds more in the same cars that they loudly claim nothing will ever get them out of. If you look at the reality of the situation, we have to deal with some pretty crazy ideas.

Which means we have a choice. We can try to gently coax the people Case Ootes and Rob Ford represent out of the crazy thought, belief, and value system they've got themselves into, or we can inflame them. Claims that we have a right to bust red lights or stop signs, or that we can do it safely, have the effect of the matador's cape waved at a bull. It does cost us, in public support, and in hardened attitudes. And what, I ask again, do we get out of it?

Couple of comments on communication:

You asked if I wanted cyclists to shut up. I don't. I want us to think about how what we say affects what we can achieve for ourselves and the rest of the cycling public. Politicians call that "message discipline", and it works.

Right now, about 2/3rds of the residents of this city ride bicycles. We have every possible argument for cycling: public health (obesity), public health and the environment (pollution), public health and safety (the death toll from car crashes) the cost of roads, the increasing gridlock, and the rising cost of gasoline. And with all that, how many kilometers of cycle lanes did we get over the past few years? I want the cycling community in this city to win, which means, like it or not, thinking about the way we present ourselves, thinking about how we negotiate, and thinking about how we bring the cyclists who don't get involved in this work into it.

Which brings me to the second point: you won't convince anyone of anything by responding to disagreement with a personal attack. Nothing you have said so far makes me believe that complaining about getting tickets for running red lights accomplishes anything, except to inflame those who disagree with us.

Four the foruth... I will not bother John as you refuse to read it.

Why in the hell would you waste your time on the likes of Ootes and Ford? The first is a has-been and the other irrelevant. They may have a great monied election machine but who takes them that seriously.

The best Ootes can accomplish is stalling projects. He failed to stop Dundas and failed on Cosburn. Ford? You nailed it on the head, lunacy. Actually the best thing Ootes has done is to unite cyclists against his stupidity and given the Mayor someone to blame for his failed promises.

There are so many good people working on cycling issues, why not concentrate on them? Why are you so worried about a few people on the fringe of sanity. Who in their right mind would want Ford support cyclists while he rants about his silliness? I am floored.

There are so many good people out there that can look past the bumbling rantings of these two clowns. They can examine the issues and ignore all of the silly static.

John you can spend a lot of wasted energy on the likes of Ootes and Ford and you will never get anywhere. Direct your energy to those that are doing good. There will be blips along the way but that happens with anything. Those blips though should be opportunities to progress the quality of life of cyclists.

To put it simply: I believe in cycling excellence, and to me, cycling excellence means either obeying the law whenever I can do it safely, or else mounting a serious challenge to the law, complete with good argument against that law and an effective defence strategy. When a fellow cyclist finds it necessary to break the law, I don't want to attack them. But I do want to point out that we can aim for something better. If we want to change the law, we can aim to do it in an intentional, thoughtful, strategic manner. If we want respect on the road, we can set a good example of effective road sharing. We can demonstrate what good cycling looks like, both to prospective cyclists and to motorists.

Some of the things I have said have obviously excited strong opposition, at least from Darren. So I have to ask, Darren: have you read something other than a commitment to cycling excellence and effective strategies for change into what I have written? If so, what exactly have I written that you have a problem with? And if you have a problem with the idea that excellence in cycling includes following the traffic laws, particularly the ones designed to safely regulate traffic, unless we have a clear and effective strategy for challenging them, will you explain it?

John, you want to apply a higher standard and/or to cyclists than anybody else - drivers, the average Joe, farmers, etc. etc. No court has ever recognized this and there is a sad history with those who have tried. You yourself pointed to the test of reasonableness and equity.

This all to a problem that does not exist.

You have cited many instances where people are ranting about how dangerous cyclists are. Why are there no numbers to back it up. Cyclists, in Toronto, are killed at a rate of one twentieth of those killed by cars and one tenth to one fifteenth of pedestrians killed. If cyclists are so bad why aren't there kill numbers much much higher?

The vast majority of people charged with an offence did not plan for it, regardless of their beliefs prior to being charged. They just plead guilty because they should strive to meet some Wal-Mart rah rah inspired mark of excellence?

Cyclists are real people.

So I have to ask, Darren: have you read something other than a commitment to cycling excellence and effective strategies for change into what I have written?

Yes. You want to remove fundamental rights of cyclists in order to make a good PR campaign.

And if you have a problem with the idea that excellence in cycling includes following the traffic laws, particularly the ones designed to safely regulate traffic, unless we have a clear and effective strategy for challenging them, will you explain it?

Cyclists are individuals, each with their own concerns. It is complete absurdity to have them submit to "we". This is not a popularity contest. There are hundreds of checks and balances to counter anything untoward in our system.

Darren, you've obviously misread pretty everything I've written. I'll interpose your comments with what I meant:

you want to apply a higher standard and/or to cyclists

No. I want us to recognize and aim for the highest standards, because I think that serves the cycling community in this city best; it'll help us grow more quickly, and overcome political opposition most effectively, if we set cycling as well and safely as we can as our goal. That doesn't mean I want the police, the courts, or the politicians to come down on us any harder than they do on motorists; it means agree with the League of American Cyclists that obeying the law, where possible, makes us safer cyclists and more effective advocates for cycling.

They just plead guilty because they should strive to meet some Wal-Mart rah rah inspired mark of excellence?

OK, first, I never suggested anyone should plead guilty, and I never would. And I can assure you that Wal-Mart has never inspired anything in my life. I simply believe that we will achieve more, at every level and in every way, if we commit ourselves to trying to cycle as well,
safely, and predictably as we can. If you don't like the word "excellence", I can find others. But if you want reasons to cycle as well as possible, and to hold the best possible cycling practices as the standard:

• It sets us apart from the swamp of mediocrity called car culture,
• It keeps us predictable on the road, and therefore adds to our safety,
• it encourages non-cyclists to get involved with cycling,
• It encourages cyclists who don't work actively on cycling issues to join us. Believe it or not, people would rather join a community dedicated to doing the best job they can, than one which refuses all standards.
• It helps us when we go to demand effective access to the roads from politicians.

You want to remove fundamental rights of cyclists in order to make a good PR campaign.

I suppose, given your earlier misreadings of what I've written, that it wouldn't take much further misunderstanding for you to reach that conclusion. So: if you mean legal rights, I have never suggested that any cyclist ought to give up any rights: to self protection, or to fair and equitable treatment by the government and before the courts. The cycling community can say to any cyclist charged with an infraction: we will fight tooth and nail for equitable treatment for you; none of that means we have to abandon our ideal, that of cycling as safely and well as we can. As for PR-- well, if caring about what we look like to people not involved with cycling encourages more people to get on their bicycles, or encourages a few politicians to actually lay down some bike lanes, then I consider it worthwhile.

Cyclists are individuals, each with their own concerns.

As an individual cyclist, I try to cycle as well, safely, and predictably as possible. As an individual, I will explain why I do so. As an individual, I will continue to speak out about the benefits I enjoy from the way I cycle, and the costs (to me and others) of not cycling well. I don't ask anyone else to not speak up; I welcome discussion. But I would prefer to have people answer what I say (that we should aim to cycle as well as possible, and that means obeying the law wherever possible), not what I have never said (cyclists should plead guilty, give up our rights, etc.).

League of American Cyclists so it the turmoil over at LAB? In a previous post you dismissed me for using an Idaho example. The US has the worst safety record in the developed world for cycling and you are looking to them for guidance?

The misread bit is funny too. How many times did it take before you got over the "right to break the law".

you want to apply a higher standard and/or to cyclists

No. I want us to recognize and aim for the highest standards,

Then you blather on about "..if we commit ourselves to trying to cycle as well,
safely, and predictably as we can..." or the like. Worked really well for your US friends? Though it does make sense to a point, until you go on about the "it' stuff, ie "...sets us apart.."
At best they are unproven assumptions, I do not want to even think about the number of times I have had someone look me in the face and ask why, "...if their loved one(cyclist) was doing everything right why are they dead?" Too many times to make it an insignificant number.

(add.- Toronto Police give a figure of 50% of cyclists being at fault in a collision. They have also admitted that a large number of collisions go unreported or misreported and will most likely significantly reduce the fault rate for cyclists.)

Then who says we are not cycling "...as well, safely, and predictably as we can..."? Where are the kill rates to back up your claims that we are dangerous? So far you have only been able to point to Rob Ford and Case Ootes.

JS- "I don't ask anyone else to not speak up;,
,though you would like them to restrict speaking up when they do not match your ideals for cycling.

JS- "I do claim the right to point out that doing so has a cost: on the evidence, it appears to inflame opponents and alienate potential allies."

JS- "Claims that we have a right to bust red lights or stop signs, or that we can do it safely, have the effect of the matador's cape waved at a bull. It does cost us, in public support, and in hardened attitudes. And what, I ask again, do we get out of it?"

• I did not "dismiss" your claims about the Idaho traffic laws. I agree with what the Idaho legislature has done. If you have a coherent strategy to get similar laws adopted in Ontario, I'll gladly help with it.
• I did not "get over" the issues raised by claiming, in effect, that we have a right to break traffic laws. My background apparently differs so much from yours on issues of civil disobedience that I decided that we had no chance of resolving it in the current context. Going back over the comments you have made about laws in general convinces me that you have some ideas you have not expressed.
• I have never argued that doing everything right will keep cyclists safe, or that a cyclist who got killed must have done something wrong. Cycling in a city given over to motorized traffic involves inherent dangers. So far, thank the Creator, I have stayed lucky.
• I have not cited Rob Ford or Case Ootes as authorities on anything; I cited the fact that people voted for them as a political problem. I cited our failure in making political headway to get the facilities, such as cycle lanes, safe bicycle routes, and a coherent bicycle policy (which would include changing four-way stops to give priority to bicycles, among other things).
• You said I wanted us to give up a fundamental right. I advocate the responsible exercise of our rights, but I have never proposed that we give them up. So can you tell me what right you have in mind?

"The traditional definition of civil disobedience requires that you personally attempt (legally) to change the law you break." - John G. Spragge

How do you legally break the law? Maybe you and your friends can explain it. Thoreau is still spinning is his grave.

You went on in great length in your previous post on how we should strive for excellence. You cited the ideals of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB). When excellence is so important to you why would you pick a set of unproven ideals originating from one of the worst places on the earth to cycle? Why would you not strive for proven concepts from countries that have far superior records on cyclist safety and that are much better at providing facilities for cyclists. Even more curious in light of the fact that LAB cannot agree on the position themselves.

How do you legally break the law?

I didn't write that you can legally break the law, but that you can make legal attempts to change it. And I'd appreciate it if you would read what I write before you attempt to lampoon it. I've spent 42 years cycling and thirty-odd years as an activist, not all of it easy or comfortable. It won't kill you to make some effort to keep this conversation, if not polite, then at least relevant.

You cited the ideals of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB).

I cited the position of the League of American Bicyclists in favor of obeying the law. And no, I don't suggest unthinking obedience to the law; I simply insist that if we plan to disobey the law, we ought to have some specific analysis to explain why we find that law wrong, and a specific strategy for changing it. We cannot cite the Highway Traffic Act when it suits us, and ignore it at other times.

Why would you not strive for proven concepts from countries that have far superior records on cyclist safety and that are much better at providing facilities for cyclists.

Please explain which jurisdictions implement the proven concepts you have in mind. I may well support some or all of these polices.

Let me remind you of the only claim that I have so far made: that cyclists ought to try to avoid violating the law, unless we have a clear analysis of why we find it wrong and a specific strategy for changing it. We don't have to break the law without such an an analysis and plan. Breaking laws dealing with safety often makes for bad cycling, and doing it in public, even defending the rightness of our doing it, makes for lousy politics, particularly when so many of us cite the HTA as our authority to use the street. If you think I have made any other claim, please cite it, because I think you may have misread my opinion.

Even more curious in light of the fact that LAB cannot agree on the position themselves.

Please provide a citation for this controversy.

I don't run red lights on my bike, ever. I jay - bike through the intersection. There is no law against jay biking. Try it sometime.

My strategy sometimes is to make a right turn, go 8 metres, make a u-turn and then make another right turn. Voila!

I'm not sure what you mean, Ben. What is jay-biking?

I like the discussion going on here about sidewalk cycling...

Sidewalk cycling #2
from Take the Lane
by TheRecord

Jay Biking: It is a term for stopping at a red light, making sure it is safe, and then going. It is similar to jay walking at a red light.

As a pedestrian and driver I am constantly astonished at the flagrant
disregard for traffic rules and pedestrian safety displayed by Toronto cyclists.

As I stumbled on this forum I see an opportunity to register my dismay to the cycling community at large.

I am frequently forced to dodge cyclists riding on sidewalks and going down busy one way street in the wrong direction. I can't walk out onto the sidewalk now without looking both ways. As a driver I find it hard to afford courtesy to cyclists who refuse to respect any traffic signs let alone less obvious rules like passing a turning vehicle on the right.

The kinds of experiences I describe happen to me several times a day and I grow increasingly irate with the hords of scofflaws maurading my neighbourhood.

If cyclists want respect and courtesy from pedestrians and drivers they might start by respecting the rules and laws of the road.

Hi Steve,

Although this is my first post here, I've been lurking for a while, and I can assure you that many of us here share your frustration with many cyclists. I think the real problem is lack of cyclist education. It's true some people are just inconsiderate idiots, but I think most people don't know the rules of the road and how cars and bicycles are supposed to interact.

For example, many cyclists don't know to pass a right turning vehicle on the left. However, judging by the number of times I've been yelled at by a motorist for doing so, I'd say that many drivers don't know the rules either.

But let's not place all the blame on cyclists. As a cyclist, pedestrian, and motorist, I am able to see all aspects of how we interact with each other in Toronto. And I can tell you, that every day my bike ride down Queen St. consists of cars speeding, cutting me off, speeding up to pass me only to turn directly in front of me without signaling, and not giving me my proper space (we are entitled by law to a half lane, or a full lane if we need it). I am also on the lookout for cars who invariably run the red light, don't come to complete stops at stop signs, and who generally aren't paying attention because they are talking on a cell phone. Add to that pedestrians who seem to love stepping out into the street without looking, and us cyclists have it just as hard as you do.

Please keep in mind that there are cyclists on the road like myself, and I hope many others on this site, who do follow all the rules of the road, and frown on cyclists who disregard those rules. The problem is that many motorists like you, see cyclists run a red light, then project your anger onto another cyclist, like me, who would have stopped at that light. And that's not fair.

The best way to get along in this city is for everyone to obey the rules of the road, but no one does that perfectly (I'm sure you speed, and do a rolling stop at stop signs). All we can do is our best and try and educate others along the way.

Cheers!

I am amazed Steve. Cyclist does everything right, verified by police, but still ends up dead by a driver claiming that he did not see the cyclist. This tends to be the excuse in less serious cases too. Cyclist has rear light, fluorescent jacket, and stopped at a light only to get hit by driver who does not see him/her. Cyclist gets sideswiped, driver did not see him.

Yet when a cyclist rides on the sidewalk and every driver between here and North Bay sees him.

Please do explain.

The Toronto Score so far this year.

People killed by cars 28
People killed by cyclists 0

Darren_S,

Your stats are all wrong. Yes, perhaps automobiles killed 28 people this year by direct physical contact, collisions, "accidents", etc. What about smog? Toronto Public Health estimates that "1700 people die prematurely each year (months or years earlier than expected), 6000 are admitted to hospital each year".[1]

Crazy, eh?

Hi Darren, I don't think a body count really addresses the issue I raised. Due to the obvious disparity of forces between car and cycle - the outcome of a collision is predictable, regardless of who is at fault. Perhaps more telling statistics would be - who was at fault, whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet or riding at night without a light.

Citing the one example of the rider who "did everything right" is just that ... one example. I've watched cyclists by the dozens per hour blow through the stop lights outside my building and this culture of "the rules don't apply to me" is what I find unacceptable. Sure drivers and pedestrians break the rules but at least there is some acknowledgement that those rules exist. I have pretty good idea of what to expect from a car but not so with bikes.

If 10 cars an hour drove through the intersection at Spadina and Richmond regardless of right away and then drove onto the sidewalk to avoid waiting with the rest of us peds or drivers...there would be consequences - but not so with bikes.

Hey I am not trying to demonize cyclists...just suggesting that cyclists obey the rules of the road.

Anyone out there want to make the case that cyclists are generally traffic law abiding citizens and that my daily encounters (mostly as a pedestrian) are anomalous to my neighbourhood?

The excuse of not seeing the cyclist is quite common. Cyclists are victims of hit and runs on an almost hourly basis. Number one excuse, when caught, is that they never saw the cyclist.

Steve we could get into a real pissing match over the culture of ""the rules don't apply to me". I drove 400kms from the north home to Toronto. For the most part I drove at about 15kms over the limit the whole way. I passed about 10 cars an hour, I was passed by about 300 an hour. The vast majority were 25kmh over. If you traveled any slower than the average you were guaranteed some irate driver would hang onto your bumper in the slow lane. Tailgating was more the rule than the exception, even at 130kmh+. So maybe drivers should first set an example for everyone else to follow. Cyclists get tickets for riding the wrong way and blowing lights just like drivers do. If you look at the stats for the last police campaign cyclists were ticketed in a greater percentage compared to drivers.

Body count is an important issue here. How is it that drivers operating motor vehicles with so many safety features are able to maim or kill so many people? Are you not concerned?

I will take a hit from a cyclist any day over a car.

Indeed, I think all responsible cyclists are offended by the cyclists that blow stop lights. Of that, there is likely no question.

However, let's look at this issue realistically. According to a 2005 Now Magazine survey, there are more than 900,000 cyclists in Toronto with about 10,000 being year-round cyclists. Of the 900,000, approximately 350,000 are seasonal commuters. According to StatsCan, the Ministry of Transportation reports that cyclists have the lowest number of deaths and injuries among 'vulnerable road users: pedestrians, scooter drivers and cyclists. According to the 2005 Cyclist-motorist collision report, the overwhelming majority of accidents involving cars and bicycles are the fault of motorists. Armed with that information, we can make several inferences: when cyclists do blow a stop-light, they rarely cause accidents as they tend to blow the light relatively safely---as wrong and illegal as it may be, slowing and proceeding only when there are no cars immediately present; that when motorists blow stop-lights, as I witness at virtually every intersection at every interval every day, the consequences are often deadly and destructive; that it is yet another myth that motorists like to cite to denegrate cyclists, that cyclists flout the law and don't know the rules of the road; that it is still a myth that cyclists cause cars to collide when they race through a red light. Evidence shows that many motorists are unfamiliar with the rules of the road and openly and flagrantly violate the rules even when the consequences might be disastrous.

My personal observations are similar to yours. I see many cyclists cruise through stop lights, carelessly ignoring the danger, even veering around stopped cyclists like my son and I so that they can foolishly proceed without stopping. Unfortunately, I see even more cars racing through ambers and flying through reds at 60+ km/h. There are good (experienced) cyclists and bad ones. I can spot them and so can you. Alternately, there are good and bad motorists too. It's just that when a motorist makes a mistake, the consequences are often calamitous. The two offences are equal only in their act, not in the consequence.

What I find curious is that many cyclists are also motorists with drivers licenses. Even when they are not, they still know they need to stop at a red light. Children as young as 4 know that. It's not like it's a secret. The reason that many cyclists feel that they run a red without legal repercussion is that they cannot be deprived of their 'right' to ride a bicycle as a motorist can be denied their privelege to drive. They are, in effect, invisible in the eyes of the law (and this, perhaps, explains why the police are resentful and hostile toward cyclists). With no license needed, easy escape from identifying oneself and escaping any impact upon their drivers license and with being able to easily evade detection, cyclists may feel invulnerable, the only risk being hit by a vehicle. Perhaps that needs to change. Perhaps the playing feild needs to be evened out. Perhaps we need to be licensed, just as motorists are. Or, perhaps, we don't. After all, we don't cause the vast majority of accidents. We don't cause millions of dollars in property damage every year and we don't kill thousands of people.

As I often remind my son, don't worry about what others do, worry about what you do. We can't control others and we can't legislate against stupidity. We can only make sure that we, ourselves, behave responsibly, predictably and legally.

Occam's Razor: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Cylists ride the way they do, because they have to and they can.

Put away the grand conspiracies of invisibilty to the law, anarchism, and your resentments as a driver in grid lock passed by someone in a lower status vehicle.

Get over it.

Bull. They don't HAVE to ride that way. They CHOOSE to.

Joe's posting is very even handed and I have to agree with most of it but I beg to differ on the ratio of cars versus bikes breaking traffic rules. Maybe it's just my experience or where I live but ... during rush hour, when there are thousands of cars passing my place, a minority of motorists flout the law while the majority of cyclists do.

As for Darren's suggestion that I express more concern about driving the 400 - he's right and I will hop on over to the forums "Get of my tail" and "Don't drive in the passing lane". There is plenty to gripe about drivers but as this is a cyclist forum ....

Occam's Razor ("All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one") doesn't apply to this debate as several explanations for observed behaviour could be equally as simple as the next. I agree with Joe that lack of legal consequences for cyclists is at the root of the issue. It's just human nature to get away with what you can. After all that's why we need laws in the first place. Licenses for cyclists anyone?

Well anyway I won't take anymore of your time with my complaints. I'll be looking for you folks on your bikes - stopped at a stop light. You'll see me looking in my rear view mirror before I open my door and I'm sure you'll be the ones wearing helmets.

Thanks for your time.

Steve W.

"Bull. They don't HAVE to ride that way. They CHOOSE to."

Agreed.

I'm able to ride the entire city by being aware, assertive, and acting predictably, and so can everyone else.

The problem is people just aren't used to riding their bikes in the city yet. We need more bikes on the streets so that all cyclists feel safe while riding. Because right now, I often don't feel safe when I have cars speeding past me (doing more than the 40 or 50 km limit downtown), and when I see trucks and buses consistently go up on the sidewalk when making right hand turns too quickly.

These problems, though serious, don't give us cyclists the right to break the law.

I pay a great deal of attention to cars at stop-signs and stop-lights because of the common complaint by motorists that cyclists all run reds. I particularly pay attention to busy intersections along Bloor, but even elsewhere in the city, my observations have been identical. As soon as the light turns amber, 3-4, sometimes 5 cars all rev up and race through. It reminds me, always, of the old Yakov Smirnov gag when he describes moving from Russia to the US and was learning how to drive. "Red means stop, green means go and yellow means go like hell.' Sometimes the amber only last for a few seconds and I often see as many as 3 cars fly through the solid red. There is usually a delay of 1-2 seconds before the crossing traffic gets its' green and that delay prevents collisions. But I have witnessed countless close-calls when an approaching car or bike was timing their approach to the intersection and proceeded at a fairly good clip as soon as the crossing street signal turned red. They enter the intersection without the expectation that 2 or 3 morons are barreling through still, in spite of having been commanded (by the amber light) to stop as much as 7 seconds earlier.

Comparitively, cyclists at these same intersections will run the amber, but rarely the red. They can't go through as quickly and the vast majority of cyclists come to a stop. It is only at less-busy intersections that I see cyclists run a full red, but the difference is cars run them at ALL intersections, busy or otherwise.

When cyclists run reds at busy intersections, they avoid accidents with better maneuvering and the fact it takes cars a second or two to gain any speed from a stopped position and can still stop easily. One of the observations I have noticed is that risky red runners tend to be youngish guys in their 20's on fairly fast bikes (going too fast for the traffic congestion conditions, in my opinion) and they are often the same type of guys who speed in cars, pass too closely and crowd cyclists on the road. Maybe it's a macho thing or an illogical preconception of invincibility. Who knows.

And while I'll be stopped at the red light, you'll never see me with a helmet. :)

Cyclists ride much more lawfully in Japan, where I lived, and so did I there. I did, because with Japan's traffic environment, that was the safest way to ride. The Japanese do, why? Probably for cultural reasons, but also my reason I expect. I'd love to hear from anyone who has cycled in a bicycle-friendly environment of a different culture: Holland, Denmark...

I do not ride like the Japanese here, because I'd get creamed. Neither do I ride like some witless twit. I ride with a few principles in mind: no one gets hurt, keep my momentum, you cannot underestimate the stupidity of humans. So far, knock on wood, I have neither been in nor caused any accidents. That's my proof that I should continue to ride the way I do. Screw the 'letter of the law'.

"Amazed? - Spend an hour at Spadina & Richmond"

Just noticed this. This is funny because I work at Spadina and Richmond. Every day without fail, I watch pedestrians cross Queen street against the advanced green that cars get off of Spadina. They get pissed at cars who have the right of way making a left hand turn. One time, a woman crossed against the advanced green, then yelled at a guy in a car for crowding her. I told her that he had an advanced green and she was walking against the "Don't Walk" sign and she told me to shut up!

Also, every single day at Richmond and Spadina, cars enter the intersection and block off other cars while they wait for the Queen St. light to change.

Spadina and Richmond is a perfect example that it's not only cyclists who disobey traffic laws, it's idiots using all modes of transportation. The city would run so much smoother if everyone would just respect others enough to follow the rules on the road.

Steve I thought about you today.

Had my helmet on, riding in daylight, purposely chose a low traffic route on the way to a bike lane, slowing down to stop at a red light and pulling a one metre-wide trailer with my two year-old son in it.

First thing the driver did after me hitting me, from behind, today was to say, "Sorry, I did not see you". Did I mention that I stick out like a sore thumb on the best of days.

I guess the driver spent so much time looking for cyclists on the sidewalk that he missed the one on the road.

That is so weird. I also thought about this forum just after a cyclists almost ran me over on the sidewalk this afternoon. When I not so politely suggested he ride on the road he got off his bike and confronted me. He told me that because the tires on his bike are less than 24 inches in diameter he was allowed to ride on the sidewalk and that I should get a life.

At least you got an apology all I got was a 75 year old guy telling me to fuck off.

Coincidently my car is in the shop for new tires. Of course I called right away and asked for 23" wheels so I can drive on the sidewalk too - yippee no more waiting in traffic for me.

Had it been me, I would have reminded the 75 year-old fool that the law is intended to isolate childrens' bikes as being permitted on sidewalks as they tend to have rim sizes of less than 24". The By-law also states that cyclists who are on the sidewalk MUST yield to pedestrians, travel slowly and respect pedestrian traffic. If he almost ran you over, he clearly violated the by-law.

Herecomes2 stated:
For example, many cyclists don't know to pass a right turning vehicle on the left.

Is this true if the cyclist is the bike lane? On streets without bike lanes I pass on the left, but where a bike lane exists I pass on the right. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I phoned the city traffic division and they couldn't give me an answer.

So, I'm wondering what your source is.

Ian

Ian asked:

"Is this true if the cyclist is the bike lane? On streets without bike lanes I pass on the left, but where a bike lane exists I pass on the right. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I phoned the city traffic division and they couldn't give me an answer."

At an intersection a bike lane will have a dashed, rather than solid line. This is to allow a moving car to merge completely to the right for a turn, so long as the lane is clear. An approaching cyclist should signal and move left.

For traffic going straight, passing on the right is fine.

So, I'm wondering what your source is.

The source would mostly be the HTA, some would be a bit of forethought or common sense.

A bicycle is NOT required to use a bike lane. (Bike lanes are not mentioned in the HTA, and the municipality would be overreaching it's legal reach requiring bikes to do so, and it would be unsafe, especially when you see how often cars and trucks are parked in bike lanes)
But a bike lane is still a lane of traffic. Bicycles are still vehicles of the road, and may use the portion of the road that makes the most sense and/or would be the safest in the situation.

A bicycle is expected to ride as far right as "practicable". (HTA 147)

I like how the Regional Coroner for Toronto both explains what HTA 147 means, and what it should mean.

The HTA also requires drivers of vehicles turning right to move to the most right-hand lane before turning, and when turning left to move to the most left-hand lane before doing so. Or to use lanes designated for that purpose. So a driver should merge their motor vehicle into the bike lane before turning right, and block you from passing on the right for the safety of both cyclists and the driver's own safety.

To summarise the intention, faster vehicles should, when practical and safe to do so, pass on the left. Passing on the right is not outlawed, but rather discouraged (unless passing a vehicle intending to turn left, when passing on the left is outlawed because it's unsafe)
Passing a vehicle intending to turn right on the right is also unsafe, and even if it's not specifically outlawed it would be a behaviour to avoid.
Passing on the right is always assumed safe to do so when the right lane is travelling faster than the left lane.

So always pass all vehicles turning right on the left side. And all left turning vehicles on the right side. Pass other vehicles on the left when safe and practical, but it's OK to pass on the right when/if it's safe to do so.

Am I as clear as borscht?

Though one wouldn't think so, Anthony's summary makes some sense. Like most of life, there are many gray zones involved in the rules we make for ourselves.

In the practical world (as opposed to traffic theory), my problem is with this:
"So a driver should merge their motor vehicle into the bike lane before turning right, and block you from passing on the right for the safety of both cyclists and the driver's own safety."

The "merging" is very often done when I'm in the lane beside them! I call this special case of merging a "sideswipe."

Ian

To the end of every section or statement in law it would be prudent to add this: "When it is safe to do so". This is both reasonable and should be expected.

The prime rule, if you will, is to avoid a collision or other unsafe incident. Life, and the avoidance of injury, overrides any part of the HTA.

A very big part of driving/riding defensively is first to know the law and follow the law to the best of our ability. Doing this keeps our behaviour both safe and predictable. But it also involves knowing that the law and that it's enforcement is flexible only in so far as we should choose the course of action that is in our and other road users greatest safety, even if that action is against the law.

Above all else, don't have a collision. "I had the right of way" isn't a defense when there was something you could have done to avoid a collision.

Andrew is a good example of a cyclist who moves out to the left at intersections, and he also tries to be courtious to motor vehicle drivers that wish to turn right. He doesn't like to take the lane, as I would advocate, because he doesn't like being hassled by impatient right turning drivers. So he tries to be courtious by moving far enough left to allow these folks to turn. Sometimes he's found himself a bit too far left and has had fast moving traffic on both sides of him. He's let his kind sharing nature be taken advantage of by rather selfish seeming drivers who behave like their impatience outweighs his safety. As I indicated I'd rather take the verbal abuse or honking and avoid the right hook by taking the lane, and also avoid the high speed squeeze by being caught between lanes of high speed motor traffic. Andrew will figure out a solution that works best for him, as will we all.

So how to avoid the sideswipe and the right hook?
My suggestion: Move left and take the lane as you approach an intersection. Move right again once you are through the intersection. You want to keep that extra wiggle room while crossing through the intersection in case something enters the intersection (like a turning car, pedestran, dog, whatever) as you are travelling through.

Two weeks ago a cyclist died in a collision involving a Mississauga transit bus. As a bus driver for a 12 years on GTA streets I have a one message for all cyclist and it is very clear : HTA (Highway Traffic Act) is one and only and for all of us sharing the roads. My experience is that 99% of cyclists don't obey the basic traffic laws, which include cyclists favorites:
- Running a red light,
- Running a stop sign,
- Changing lanes to overtake vehicles while stopped at the red light,
- Cycling in between vehicles/lanes, or between vehicle in the curb lane and a curb, or jumping on the sidewalk to overtake stopped vehicles, than again jumping on the road don't even looking at a vehicle coming in the lane,
- Not signaling turns,

You "the cyclist" are entitled to whole lane, but you "the cyclist" must obey traffic rules and regulations as any other motor-vehicle on the road. I see lots of stupid people attempting to drive these days, but cyclists are the most vulnerable participants and must be double the careful , because driving culture doesn't exist here, instead we have a multicultural driving soup.

Bon appetite

I cycled in Amsterdam for a few weeks about fifteen years ago. There seemed to be a different set of laws for cyclists. The details are unclear but the jist of it was that bikes had right of way over vehicles and pedestrians over bikes. Biking there is generally a very mom and pop sort of speed due to the cobblestones and low vehicle presence. Bicycles were used for deliveries and commuting. Basically, the bikes ruled the streets.

There is a funny expression I heard there: " I like the Germans but give me back my grandfather's bike." It refers to the retreating German soldiers "requesitioning" of Dutch bicycles on their withdrawal at the end of the 2nd world war.

For the love of Christ! Could the drivers please find someone to represent them that is not out of their tree? Is there not anyone out there that can post something at least half sensible?

"...instead we have a multicultural driving soup." What point are you trying to make. There are too many immigrants on the road? This rates high as to one of the stupidest things I have ever read in this debate.

Hopefully your excuse is that you were drunk when you wrote it, as drunk as 99% of the bus drivers when they are driving.

It's a metaphor, dumbass.

Maybe, had his argument been intelligible or his stats at least half factual.

I'd like to ask John P. if he writes similar diatribes against motorists? Does he purposefully go out of his way to point out the millions of transgressions he must see daily on his routes? Is he completely knowledgeable about the rights, responsibilities and recommendations he is required to observe both for his own vehicle and cyclists?

On my daily rides, I see many cyclists and motorists fail to observe many basic road rules. I see cyclists often run red lights (and neither condone it nor do it myself) and stop signs, fail to signal, thread the lanes and use sidewalks as alternative routes, just as he points out. Yet, I also see motorists accelerate to double and even triple the speed limit to race through red lights with 3, 4 and 5 cars flying through controlled intersections, often well after the light has turned solid red. I see motorists roll through the very same stop signs as the cyclist rolls through. I see most motorists failing to signal lane changes or turns, frequently after having failed to check their right mirror or look into their blind-spot, as they are legally required to do. I see cars park, stop, pass or drive in diamond or bike lanes. There are fools, idiots and morons on bikes, but unfortunately there are more fools, idiots and morons in cars and when they make a mistake, the damage is castrophic. Not so for cyclists.

To paraphrase John: you, the motorist, are entitled to use our public space with your vehicle, but you must obey the rules of the road.

You see, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Motorists violate more acts under the HTA than cyclists (and that's not just because there're more of them) and frequently with far greater consequences.

Allow me to elucidate: most cyclists that run reds do so at intersections without much cross traffic or when there's a signficant gap in traffic. It's still not right and I share your frustration, but the risk is low and I understand the cyclist does not want to lose the momentum they have achieved by stopping---seemningly---unnecessarily even though they should and are told they must under the HTA. They often are travelling so slowly as to not be a danger to anyone, pedestrian or motorist when they run a red and, of course, they are considerably more capable of stopping within inches or maneuvering around a pedestrian than a car who commits a similar act but is travelling at 60+km/h and has little maneuvering capability and a long stopping distance. The two acts may seem the same, but they are not the same. Cyclists rarely strike another vehicle or person when commiting their infraction and cause no deaths or injuries. Quite the opposite is true for motorists. So, while many motorists sit in their cages and become all indignant and self-righteous when they see a cyclists commit a flagrant transgression, they never stop to consider the issue more carefully and realize that a cyclist running a red does not have the same risk and potential for calamity as when a car does it.

Cyclists generally thread lanes to reach the stop line for a reason and the reason is to avoid the most common type of collision a cyclist is a victim of, the right hook. Many motorists do not signal their right turn and if the cyclists makes the presumption that the vehicle without a signal in the right lane is proceeding straight, that cyclists will soon wind up underneath that car. Guaranteed. So, cyclists move to the front and ensure they are seen by the motorists. It makes perfectly logical sense to do so and inconveniences motorists very little. Siome progressive jurisdictions recognize the danger so much they have given cyclists lanes on the right and the right-of-way before right-turning motorists.

The other consideration, of course, is that the motorists fail to respect the cyclist in the lane in front of them and scoot up beside the cyclist rather than remaining behind the cyclist as they are legally required to do. A motorist may PASS, partially in the same lane as a cyclist, provided they have given the legally-defined safe distance between the two vehicles, but a motorist is NOT permitted to run up along side the cyclist and crowd the cyclist into the curb or 'share' the lane as they approach a red light. Yet, EVERY motorist does it. John, are you accessing motorist forums and reminding them about that? They don't come up beside motorcycles or dump-trucks, why do they think it's okay to come up beside a cyclist?

If motorists want cyclists to behave more like motorists (and I could insert all kinds of comments in here about that), then treat them like fellow motorists and respect their lane when they're in it.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to when you observe cyclists not changing lanes to overtake vehicles while stopped at a red light. Do you mean you regularly see cyclists ride over the stopped vehicle? Please explain further.

Cyclists passing parked cars on the right generally have sufficient room in what remains of that right lane and are legally permitted to use it, allowing the left lane for 'faster(?)' motor vehicle traffic. How is this an issue? It is a courtesy when cyclists move over to that narrow strip of right hand lane, but if you would prefer us to move completely into the left lane, I'd have no objection personally, but the thousands of cars, trucks, motorcycles who wish to pass and who must sit behind and wait for a SAFE opening might argue otherwise. Motorists have a simple responsibility when driving in that left lane: be aware of what is on the right, respect any cyclist in that partial right lane, signal their intentions and make turns safely. Do not, as I experienced yesterday (and many many times daily) cut into the right lane suddenly, with no signal, dart just ahead of the cyclist and crank on the wheel to make a sharp, sudden and unannounced right turn across the path of the cyclist. That, my friend, is tantamount to attempted vehicular homicide.

Watch cars for a day and tell me how many you see that straddle the dotted line. Buses, taxi's, large trucks, delivery vans and inattentive motorists frequently occupy more than their lane, by the way. Please mention that on the car forums you must surely visit to complain about their habits.

Far too many---ahem---cyclists (and I hesitate to call everyone on a bike a cyclist) use sidewalks, but, at times I understand why. On busy roads and avanues it is never acceptable unless they're parking, but on rarely used sidewalks, particularly under railway overpasses, near construction zones or particularly congested, confusing and poorly designed sections, the sidewalk might be a safer option (I've nearly been struck four times this summer at the underpass near my home) because the right lane narrows or disappears, cars approach far too quickly, their vision is impaired with the change in light and dark under bridges, cyclists are less visible and slower because often there is a hill involved. I've even had TTC buses groaning their brakes as they sat on my rear tire as I've taken the road on under-passes. I neither recommend nor condone sidewalk use, but in rare instances, I see the value.

The real question is why does any of this bother a bus driver or motoris? Most, if not all the instances, generally don't affect the drivers directly. They may witness the infraction(s) comitted by the cyclist and recognize that the cyclist violated the HTA, but so what; it rarely affects the stopped motorist or even the moving one. If I ranted every time I saw a motorist flaunt an HTA law, all I would be doing for 24 hours a day, 365 days a week is ranting and I'd on;y be able to rant about 10% of the occurences. Motorists need to pay far more attention to what THEY'RE doing and ensuring THEY are operating their vehicle safely and legally rather than being concerned about what some cyclists or even other motorists are doing. Until motorists are perfect, they have no credibility in their complaints. Cyclists don't threaten motorists lives, after all, not even a little. Cyclists concerns have more validity becuase when an idiot in a car makes a dangerous move on a cyclist, that cyclist will likely die as a result.

Stastics prove that more than 80% of all collisions involving motorists and cyclists, the motorist is at fault, that the motorist committed such a serious breach of the HTA that they caused the accident. In spite of the wild claims by John P---and many other motorsists---who myopically ignore the majority of cyclists who do ride safely and legally (it seems they are dangerously invisible to motorists because they do ride legally and maybe the unsafe ones are smarter by making themselves more visible), the statistics and facts don't support the accusations. Exagerration makes claims worthless, after all.

John, all I can say is, in conclusion, the realities facing cyclists and the realities facing motorists are two different things. Cyclists sometimes have to do things that motorists wouldn't do or don't understand for self-preservation reasons. We know where dangers exist that you don't face and take counter measures against them. Pot holes, broken pavement, debris, etc. are no threat to a car or bus, but are potentially perilous for us, so when we make corrective maneuvers, there's a reason you just don't understand. The risks are not the same when we commit similar illegal acts. If they were, all cyclists would have to be insured, because of all the damage we'd cause. But we rarely, rarely, rarely ever kill anyone or cause property damage.

Worry about what YOU do on the road, don't worry about us. Worry that YOU are signalling your turns and lane changes and checking both mirrors and blind-spots. Worry that YOU are not exceeding the posted speed limit. Worry that YOU are coming to a stop when encountering an amber light and not proceeding through intersections. Worry that YOU are not running reds (a problem so serious the police have red light cameras to catch you). And worry that YOU are not distracted, impatient, frustrated, aggressive, talking on your cell (yes, I see many bus drivers doing that even though it is expressly forbidden by the transit authority you work for). texting, eating, putting on make-up, playing with the stereo or whatever. When YOU commit NO infractions whatsoever, then you can complain about cyclists. Thanks.

StreetBeat - Sep. 20 - Cyclist Trapped Under Streetcar

Thursday September 20, 2007

CityNews.ca Staff

It was a terrible sight to see, but it thankfully wasn't as bad as it looked. Police raced to Queen and Leslie Sts. during the dinner hour Thursday, after a man was hit by a streetcar and then fell underneath the vehicle. The victim was riding his bike at the time and swerved to avoid another driver, who had opened his car door as he was passing by. It took rescue crews only a short time to free him and he managed to walk away with just a few cuts and bruises.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_14948.aspx

Yet again another accident caused by a motorist not paying attention to their surroundings. Thank God the cyclist escaped minor injuries!! This city needs to address the 'Door Zone' with some concrete barriers for bike lanes.

In no way should cyclists be further segregated by physical barriers. Cycilists need and have the right to the ROAD---all of it. It is a cyclists and pedestrian road FIRST, not second and motorists should be the only users inconvenienced. They are GUESTS upon public space, after all.

I more than sympathize with the struck rider, bu the answer is the police taking the infraction more seriously---much more seriously! Not as a curious oddity, a humourous anecdote.

A few months ago, I came across a situation only moments after it occured where a young, novice rider hit a motorist after the motorist opened his door and stepped in front of her in one fluid motion. The cyclist endured minor injuries and damage, yet after the police arrived, interviewed the involved parties, he let the driver off with a warning. Standing to the side, I politely and respectfully questioned the officers why they let the driver off, asking what sort of a message it sent to him or other drivers. Much to my chagrin, the senior officer, after a moment of thought, agreed and remarked 'yeah, you're right..' I thanked him and asked him to keep a special eye out for our safety, considering the situation he had just investigated was an actual collision with injury and damage, yet only ranked a warning. Law enforcement cannot be allowed to continue to be blind and unconcerned about our safety. The legend on the sid of their vehicles---when they actually get out of them---reads 'to serve and protect,' but I know it is not cyclists whom they serve nor protect. That MUST change. They must start treating motorists as the pariahs they are and start giving cyclists the respect they deserve and have earned.

The reality is that while events like this continue to happen there will continue to be the perception that cycling is dangerous.

That perception is somewhat mitigated by bike lanes. But when we constantly see bike lanes full of parked cars, trucks, and taxis, we all know that's not really helping either.

The next things we can try are buffered lanes (but that only provides more parking room) or segregated lanes.

Segregated lanes, or at least the discretionary use of these, has been used throughout the world. Montreal is a Canadian example. We had one last year on Queens Quay for a while (That reminds me, wasn't that supposed to start being built as a permanent thing THIS YEAR?)

Novices appreciate these segregated lanes much more than riding in mixed traffic, or even the bike lanes as we now have them on Toronto's streets. Being a parent of young kids who ride, I'd appreciate them too. Perhaps not all routes and roads need them, but many of the more popular and busy routes would benefit from them. Four year olds on their bikes are very hard to see from the cabin of most SUVs and trucks, and are not as stable or as competent as you.

I understand the many arguments against segregation. The unfortunate reality is that there are far to many drivers of motor vehicles who believe that their rush or hurry or "right" to drive unencumbered outranks everything else on the road. I'm sure you've met one or two. I've met too many. And worse for me, some are even my neighbors and my family members!!

We are not going to change this attitude anytime soon, and this attitude is at least somewhat re-enforced by all kinds of car ads and other popular media. We must use other means to both defend ourselves, and protect our ability to travel safely to our destinations by bicycle. Segregated bike lanes are one way of doing this. And it has the added benefit or removing motor traffic lanes at the same time, reducing the motorcar's attractiveness, and reducing the number of motorcars that can be on the road.

Other places have them, and places that have especially high rates of bike use use have more of them. Perhaps it's time you took a closer look at segregated bike lanes, and gave it second thought.

Or perhaps you should go for a ride with my four year old, and explain to her why it's OK that car drivers park in bike lanes, and why it's OK that SUV and truck drivers can't see her, and choose to drive within inches as they pass. Now imagine she is YOUR daughter. Because I would like her back from the ride in one piece.

I am sure everyone on this site has your daughter's back, so you get your daughter back.

I was already a decent cyclist, and had been a delivery driver, when I took to Toronto streets, so I understood enough about traffic flow and human stupidity in it, that I have kept myself uninjured (knock). I got the better part of my cycling experience in a non-auto-centric country - Japan - which is why I could get it unharmed. How children safely transfer from sidewalk and park to the street, I cannot imagine in this town.

I had to rent a van last night, and as a cyclist, I found I left a lot of room for cyclists (but none on my right at an intersection when I had signaled a right-turn - better they should go to my left). Make all drivers cycle in city traffic, and it'd get safer pretty quick. Make drivers bear the full costs of roads, foreign oil-wars, vehicle-trauma cases, global-warming and pollution, and there'd be much more room for cyclists.

Until utopia, however, the best solution is get rid of on-street parking, and make that lane well-enforced bike lane.

The debate over whether cyclists have the right to run red lights seems disconnected from the issue of bicycle safety. As the police have pointed out in their PR statement for this campaign, the vast majority of cyclist-car collisions are a result of careless drivers. Therefore, policing that targets motorists addresses the vast majority of safety issues around cycling in the city. Targeting cyclists has a negligable effect on cyclist safety. As a person who pays taxes, I question the use of my money on a campaign that has little effect on public safety. Even if it does help to end the society-destabilizing crime of cyclists pedaling through stop signs.