Safe Cycling Police Campaign starts
Mayor let off with warning?
Be aware, cyclists! Starting today, Toronto police are "campaigning" for safer cycling (pdf). In theory it means education and enforcement of cyclists and motorists. What it means in practice is that police wait at intersections to catch cyclists making the all-to-common mistakes of doing a "rolling stop", not making proper signals, not having a bell, not having reflective tape on the front and back forks, or of riding through the crosswalks or sidewalks. In practice the education part means police will encourage cyclists "to refresh themselves with the rules of the road" by giving out fat traffic infractions.
Toronto police have also started to target motorists who park in the bike lane or endanger cyclists in other ways. To their credit, the police are learning that it's not just about cracking down on cyclists but there needs to be stronger enforcement of motorists. But why don't we keep the pressure up to ensure that the police actually enforce bike lanes and car doors the rest of the year? And why don't we let them know that putting an enforcement campaign right in the middle of Bike Month is not very helpful or respectful of cyclists? It's like saying: "Congratulations! Here's your ticket!"
Credit: Gabi (Flickr)
Comments
There is a very short article in today's Toronto Star (printed version) today:
Just two days ago, I was riding south on Brock, approaching Dundas. Two cops on bikes were ahead of me, stopped at a red light at Dundas, wanting to turn left (east). Instead of waiting for the light to turn green, they crossed over the opposite lane of traffic to the north-east corner, hopped onto the sidewalk, rode along the sidewalk for a bit, then crossed Dundas to the south side and continued east.
Looks like some bike cops could also stand to "to refresh themselves with the rules of the road".
Unfortunately "but he's doing it!" hasn't been an acceptable excuse since we were 5. (remember mom saying "do as I say, not as I do"?)
It's not fair, but in the end, emulating cops or other bad cyclists isn't going to fix anything.
What I'd really like to know is if there is a police sponsored or approved site that puts together all the rules that cyclists should be following? ie, Most of us know all the big ones, but little things like the reflective tape needing to be on our front forks was a new one for me.
of the six bikes in that photo, how many have reflective tape on their forks? none?
Sorry redphone, but you've misinterpreted my post. I'm not saying we should emulate cops - far from it! I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this "Share The Responsibility" campaign when bike cops are some of the worst cyclists out there.
When those who should be enforcing the law break the law, it cheapens the whole legal system.
As for your question about what the laws are, google "bike laws toronto" and this is the first link...
http://www.messmedia.org/messville/TO_FINES.HTM
I don't see anything about reflective tape there.
The stuff about reflective tape etc. has nothing to do with City bylaws....it's all Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
Good summary of HTA stuff as it applies to cyclists is in the MTO's "Cycling Skills" booklet:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling/section5.0.s...
Also...technically, those cops and the mayor aren't breaking any laws by not having the reflective tape on their forks. However, they better be parked or walking at least half an hour before sunset.
-Vic
funny, that the first offence on that list is section 62(17) `Improper bicycle lighting' since that is the section that includes reflective tape here is the text from the ontario highway traffic act:
Motor assisted bicycles, bicycles and tricycles, lights on, etc.
(17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor assisted bicycle, bicycle or tricycle shall carry on the front thereof a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light and on the rear thereof a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector approved by the Ministry, and in addition there shall be placed on the front forks thereof white reflective material, and on the rear thereof red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (17).
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_st...
Open you car door and kill someone ... no charges laid.
Run over a cyclist from behind ... no charges laid.
Kill a seven year girl on her bike while riding on a crosswalk ... no charges laid.
Steal a truck and run over a guy in the middle of the night ... he got away ...
Etc.
Break the law on your bike and no safe passage for you. Ever.
Got it? Good.
Those are the rules of the road.
"Motorists are asked not to park in the marked bicycle lanes." Asked? Come on! Why has our society become so soft? Is it not illegal to park in a marked bicycle lane? Shouldn't that be enough... it's illegal so don't f'in do it or you'll get a ticket, and maybe get towed!
New ideas don't scare me; it's the old ones that do.
Excuse me, where / how do cyclists learn "the rules of the road"? How do rules that are rarely taught get "refreshed"? Pleeze.
If bikes are a part of road traffic, cyclists should have the same training (and proof of training) as the rest of the road users. But they don't. All a person needs is to go out, buy a bike, and hit the streets. It's a great inside joke in this province.
Bicycle teaching and learning needs to become a daily part of peoples' lives.
Everytime I ride, I see uninformed, uneducated, blissfully ignorant people doing things with their bikes that are totally unacceptable, illegal, and dangerous. If these cyclists were driving automobiles, traffic would be mayhem.
Remember the phrase "sunday drivers"? That's what occasional, recreational (unskilled, dangerous) motorists used to be called. But then driver training and licensing became law, was made common, and getting your 365 / G1 became a rite of passage, not a luxury. Now the pendulum has swung; cycling is marginal, esoteric, and widely percieved as recreational; "Sunday cyclists" are a regular part of traffic.
Until all cyclists take their status as vehicular road users seriously, things will continue to stay the same. And the rest of society will follow right along, because they don't know any better, because no one's teaching them in the first place.
When the rules of the road - and the consequences for breaking them - benefit cyclists, then we'll obey them. But until that happens it's pretty rich to give us tickets for doing things, like riding on sidewalks, that contribute to our safety. Let us take care of ourselves - the police certainly aren't interested in doing it for us.
And no driver should jump in here to say that I am somehow duty-bound to obey laws that endanger me. You aren't expected to do that, so why should I?
I agree with Brian here. The next time some moron wobbles past me through a red light and then slows down so that I have to cross streetcar tracks to get past them when I inevitably catch up, I would love to see them get a ticket. Or at least have the coppers delay them with a stern warning for a while.
If we want to be taken seriously as road users, we need to ride well proper like. With the following exeptions.
Couriers ok, at least they take a good look if they blast through the red, I got no problem with that. I also give cabbies a break for changing lanes without signaling stopping without indicating, it's what they do, so you have to be aware of that.
Bottom line is I want to see the rules enforced all the time, not just during bike month. Having no emissions or noise pollution does not give us the right to drive like arses.
Mike
We need both. I've got to agree partly with Brian. People would benefit greatly from a more intensive cycling course in all schools. I don't think it has to be a matter of licensing but just that everyone gets the education. I think you'd find a lot more people who'd feel comfortable about getting on their bikes. Plus we'd have a whole lot more drivers that were aware of the cyclist's perspective and take greater precautions.
The Dutch and Danish have a great street system for cyclists and they put a lot of emphasis on education. The two go hand in hand.
You can always break the rules of the road afterwards, but at least you'd be smart enough to know which ones you can safely get away with.
But, as others pointed out, this police emphasis on education is ridiculous. I think they expect people to google for the right rules or something.
"Danger", "risk", "hazards" are around all of us, every moment, every day, every where. Life is full of risk, most people are blithely unaware of what's happening around them and even within them.
It's about taking responsibility for actions and consequences. Traffic, and the world, would be different if ppl relied on their own training and skills, rather than the devices and laws designed to assist and promote good choices.
Choosing to ignore the laws and the signals is a valid choice, but one should be aware of the consequences, and the message that choice sends to others.
Education is something we can all participate in - knowledge is useless if it is not shared!
I suggest writing to your MLA/MPP and get some of these laws repealed.
Reflective material on forks?! I haven't seen one bike on the road or one bike for sale with reflective material on the forks. They just don't exist. That law should be rescinded. If increasing visibility is the intent of the law then that intent is already covered by requiring lights. But IMHO it doesn't matter how visible you are, drivers who do not look for cyclists will not see you.
Bells: Useless for people who ride quickly. It's much more practical and safe to yell, and start avoiding the collision than it is to reach for the bell, ring it, then try to get your hands back into position to steer / brake / bail. I know bells give a great deal of comfort to people who travel at a leisurely pace, so why not make them optional, instead of mandatory?
If anyone has laws they would like amended, add a comment, and hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus.
What's annoying about this law is that many bicycles simply don't have enough area to comply with this law. Even if you tried, you couldn't make kid's bikes, bikes with suspension or road bikes with narrow forks/stays comply with this law.
If these laws are so important then why doesn't the law require that bikes be sold already equipped to ride? That is require the retailer, the importer, and/or the manufacturer to include this stuff pre-installed on the bikes before I can buy it.
Because so few people ride bikes that comply with this onerous provision, I simply see it as another excuse to blame the victim when a collision occurs. The police/insurance/courts can say "look, that rider's bike didn't comply, so that fault lay on the bike rider."
I went into a bike shop just last weekend to buy some reflective tape, as I had just recently learnt that it was required by law.
The guy at the counter told me that I must have been mistaken, and that tape was not required by law. Only lights and reflectors (so he said).
I said I wanted to buy some anyway, but they only had one roll of red in stock, and no rolls of white. So I gave up.
Actually, I spoke to two people in the bike shop. The first guy didn't even know what I meant by reflective tape.
The second guy knew about the reflective tape, but he seemed to think it was an unusual thing to ask for.
I'd hate to see compulsory safety classes for cyclists, it would be one more barrier for the average person to hurdle when deciding to make that commuting change.
People know it's illegal to ride through a red light and some take that risk, education won't deter recklessness.
For the record.
I have absolutely no problem with getting a ticket if I break the rules of the road.
While the seasonal crackdowns on safeless cyclists -- sans condom? -- amount to tits on a bull as far as improving cyclists' welfare, I don't think them worth much anxiety. Just be more vigilant for a week or two, heed the letter of the law, then roll on your merry way.
Police have to be seen doing something -- anything, by Gawd! -- to address the mobs of lawless cyclists running amok on city streets. Since they've effectively eliminated gunplay in the projects and car-nage on the highways I suppose we represent the next frontier of barbarism. Who'd have thunk the lack of a bicycle bell would put civilization at risk?
I obey the rules of the road, but do not have the tape on my forks. In fact, I've always found it strange that this law was passed. Cars MUST be sold with all regulated safety equipment fully functioning (lights, horns, brakes, etc). If safety features are to be mandated for bicycles as well, why are the manufacturers not required to install these presale? Surely the tape can be added when the other stickers are. They'd even be trendier. More like the 3M taping on running jackets. Punish the manufacturer not the owner for failing to provide the adequate safety gear. This will also save dollars on enforcement.
Since our rules of the road are based on the admiralty's rules of navigation, let's compare our roads to our waterways. Motor boaters are required to have proof of competency. Operators of larger vessels, being Captains of ships, have more training than most, while ferry Captains are held to a higher standard still.
Motorists , too, are required to have proof of competency: that is have a driver licence. Operators of large vehicles, ie trucks, have more training than the rest of us, while bus drivers are held to a high standard by the bus lines they work for.
In comparison to miles travelled or hours logged, Captains, truck drivers and Bus Drivers have a lower collision rate than just about everybody else. There's little doubt that the extra training that they received has something to do with this accomplishment.
But there's more to it. Captains and Bus/Truck drivers also have to pre-qualify. These people have show an aptitude, as well as the proper attitude, to be hired by those who own these large machines, and/or to obtain insurance for their vehicles. Almost all Captains start in an apprentice program before become officers and earning their rank as Captain, a process which usually takes years. Truck/Bus drivers are required to have several years of driving experience before taking the additional training to learn to operate large vehicles.
A person in a rowboat, canoe, or bicycle does need not have any training before they go out and use our public right-of-ways. Using a human powered machine is seen as a "right". The amount of damage that can be done to others, and to property, is miniscule in comparison to the amount of damage that can unleashed by a large, high powered vehicle. This is why cyclists and canoeists don't require vehicle registration or insurance, while motor vehicles and motor vessels, and their operators, require both.
Most of our waterways are nowhere near as busy as our roads. Our roads have complex laws and regulations which one should make themselves familiar with before taking to the roads. Expert riders have a lower crash/collision and injury/death rates than novice riders. Riding involves learning a complex skill set, similar to a plumber or electrician. The difference between a novice and an expert rider is about four years of daily riding, or about the same length of time as most apprenticeship programs. People who participate in a program such as CAN-BIKE can find that time between novice and expert reduced to as little as six months.
To my knowledge, there has been no follow-up studies of CAN-BIKE graduates to find out if their crash/collision rates or rates of injury/death are any lower than those who have not taken the program. Because the course is voluntary, it may be that the training is only part of the reason for any difference; the kind of people attracted to such a program (self pre-qualification) may also a factor.
That being said, there is still no reason to discourage anyone from taking CAN-BIKE. Other experience and studies have shown that groups of people with additional training generally do better than those who didn't receive the extra training. Reviewing the rules of the road, cyclist's roles & responsibilities, negotiating with other people using the roads, handling a bike, and avoiding various types of hazards on the road is still a complex skill set. Learning some good habits can only be good for everybody.
In the meantime, we have to suffer with adults riding bikes like kids on our roads.
Agreed to the person who said manufacturers should be responsible for adding Bells and Reflective Tape.
How come all of the bikes at Canadian Tire don't have either, yet it is the law? I'm buying something under the false pretense that it has met the safety specifications outlined by the province. If I bought a piece of electronics that wasn't certified the police would be cracking down. Where is the CSA?
Thank gawd others are with me on this one. Screw reflective tape. I have a front and rear light, that is enough, if you can't see the lights, you're not going see the tape.
Manufactures should not be responsible for these items as not everyone rides their bikes on road and not everyone rides at night.
I rode mountain bikes, dirt jumps etc. for several years before ever really riding on road. Bells and lights are certainly not needed there. Think someone is going to go to a skatepark and be like... 360, to bell ring nose tap.
Canadian Tire has white reflective I bought some last week .,,,,,, =8^) (Steeker)
,,,, =8^) (Steeker)
If I get a ticket for not having a bell or lights I will flip out because my bike light was stolen recently and my bell has been stolen TWICE.
i was ticketed $110 this morning for slowly rolling through a stop sign at a quiet side street intersection in south riverdale. the cop was out of sight in her car around the corner and awaiting to pounce on cyclist prey, while claiming to me that she was trying to save my life. it is infuriating and discouraging that bike safety week focuses on enforcing the law with cyclists rather than clueless motorists. data is needed on number of cyclists ticketed during bike safety week versus number of motorists. i think the comparison would be compelling.
The data will be available in hard copy at one of the TCAC meetings. Watch the agendas to see when it will be coming up.
Toronto Cranks . com had some data about the number of bikes vs cars that were ticketed. The numbers were greatly skewed toward the cyclist category in relation to the proportion of each type of vehicle on the road. There are way more cars than bikes on the road, but cyclists ended up getting a similar number of tickets.
Biciped,
If you would like help in fighting the ticket you got, I will be happy to help you.
Martin
I'm curious to know if they would go as far as targeting cyclists rolling through a 4-way stop.
Today I was also pulled over and given a ticket by a police agent on St. George North of College. They are always at St.George either N or South of College targeting cyclists.
I went to 137 Edward St. Court House to challeng the ticket and wait for my day in court...
seee, I think this is stupid. slowing for a stop sign is perfectly fine and ticketing stuff like this will just piss - people - off !
Maybe instead of having a stop sign, they should say that your momentum should be below a certain threshold to pass through the intersection. They could tweak it so that cars would basically have to stop, but bikes could roll through. To enforce it, the police could carry scales in their trunks so that they could weigh you, then multiply your mass by your velocity and compare it to the momentum limit.
It would be more fair to factor in elasticity somehow, but that would probably be too complicated for most traffic cops, lawyers and judges. Are there any people who know enough about physics to chime in here?
As someone who works in field that is only slightly less nerdy than actuarial math, I'm allowed to say that.
I got the same thing the other night. Instead of taking my car out, I went by bike to my baseball game. I was riding on a residential street, and did the same thing...slowed up as I approached the stop sign (and it was a 4 way stop), when I got close enough to see there was no other car in sight (except of course the cop car who was staying hidden), I rolled through. They gave me a ticket, stating it was for my own safety...and they also added on another because I did not have a bell on my bike. Personally, I feel that the bells are a total waste...I can yell louder than the bells.
There are two things that really got to me about this. The first being that I chose to ride my bike (around 25km round trip) to do my part to help reduce the pollution in the city. It took the officers (2 by the way, not just one) somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes to write me my tickets. The whole time, they left their engine idling.
The second was summed up by one of the officers parting words to me. It wasn’t ride safely, or something along those lines. He just reinforced that they had this campaign going on, so make sure I didn’t do something to get a ticket again.
So to sum up my experience, I’m definitely fighting my tickets, and in the future I’ll think twice before I take my bike. If the idea of their campaign against bikes is to have more people take their cars and reduce the number of bikes on the road, it just may have worked with me…there’s a lot less hassle with my car…the police don’t bother motorists for petty things.
Where were the police tonight on my ride home as a cab (with a very belligerent passenger) forced me off the road so he could whiz by the streetcar and run a red light? Or when a van passed close by, and a passenger leaned out and screamed, just to scare the crap out of me? My usually peaceful and rejuvenating ride home was ruined tonight.
Today, my mother in law saw a driver make a careless right turn and nearly plow into a cyclist with a baby...
I fail to see how ticketing cyclists will make us safer in this city.
Yes, it was a 4-way stop!! I took pictures of the intersection today, and since the stop sign is mostly covered by tree branches, the pictures should prove helpful in defending my case in court.
I would appreciate your legal advice Martin!
To you idiots who are of the opinion that "stop" signs are optional for bicycles...
which part of "stop" do you not get? "stop" means "stop", not slow down! those cops are "preying" on weak, stupid animals who don't behave properly!!!! so you got yours, stupid, next time stop, and it won't cost you $110 and a waste of time fighting a losing battle!!!!
where do ppl get off asking for special treatment because they're on a bike? and why do ppl think making an environmentally friendly decision to ride a bike has anything to do with being an exception to the Highway Traffic Act? ignorant!
I'm sorry, but cyclists that don't obey the laws are not welcome on my streets. I have gone way out of my way to get the experience and skill needed to ride safely, cooperatively, and functionally in traffic, and there is no way I'm going to sit back and let morons like you continue to voice your misguided opinions on this forum without a rebuttal from one cyclist who takes his role as a vehicle operator seriously.
it is infuriating and frustrating for those of us who try to make things better for all cyclists in this Province and city to be continually undermined by clueless miscreants who don't consider themselves vehicle operators. when you get on your bike, you become a vehicle operator. it's not a choice, it's not negotiable. if you don't like it, take a pedicab, take a rickshaw, take the bus, take a taxi, get your mom to drive you, or walk... but if you ride, ride properly, law-abidingly, and think about others around you.
The problem is that bicycles are treated in the HTA largely the same as cars when they are not the same as cars and should not be treated the same as cars. 4-way stop signs and 1 way streets in areas that have been put there for "traffic calming" should not apply to bicycles. It should not be possible for municipalities like Mississauga to have stop lights that are only activated by the weight of a car on a sensor so that a bike has to wait forever unless a car pulls up to cause the light to change. Police understand the difference between bicycles and cars and subjectively apply the HTA as is seen fit by the individual officer unless there is a blitz on. I once ran through a red light (safely and after stopping to make sure that there weren't pedestrians or through traffic) and only notice a police car heading the other direction halfway through the intersection and was fortunate enough that that officer turned a blind eye to my offence.
Until the law is updated to reflect the reality of bicycles and motor vehicles requiring diffferent principles of operation, we will be stuck with this subjective and seemingly random application of the law as it is written during blitz periods.
I remember, growing up in a Vancouver suburb, the concept of 'courtesy intersections'. None of the side streets near me had stop signs, leaving drivers with the understanding (and the law) that you should slow enough to assess the situation, and negotiate your travel with other road users. Around 1994, courtesy was no longer enough and my entire neighborhood was mined with stop signs.
Bicyclists are in an uncomfortable situation now that roads have been redesigned to suit machines that crush people and each other when they collide. So much for courtesy.
We don't expect pedestrians to come to a full stop - legs together three deep breaths look right look left - because we recognize that pedestrians have ample time to look both ways and judge whether or not it's safe to enter an intersection without breaking stride. And it's not like coming to a full stop would be particularly onerous for a pedestrian. Although the HTA treats bicycles as vehicles, in many ways we're closer to pedestrians than to cars and the laws need to recognize that. And unlike for pedestrians, coming to a full stop and starting up again is a lot more work for cyclists. Part of making things better for all cyclists is advocating for changes to laws that don't make sense. I would argue that full stops at 4-way stops is one of them, and that many or most one-way streets need to include a "bicycles excepted" sign.
Sadly, there are plenty of cyclists out there doing stupid and reckless things that the cops should have had lots to keep them busy on real infractions without targeting cyclists rolling through 4-way stops in residential neighbourhoods.
Brian,
I think the debate here is mostly about cyclists being ticketed for doing a "rolling stop" like most cars do. I've seen that many motorists treat stop signs as "slow to 10 or 15 km/h momentarily" signs, so it seems like this isn't exclusively a problem with cyclists.
For example, see Do As I Say, Not As I Do.
This morning they were ticketing at the top of john street just north of queen.
I think mentioned this a month ago but I got a ticket for a rolling through a stop sign on Beverley.
I am attempting to document the process of fighting it.
What I have done thus far is outlined here :
http://www.undertones.ca/blog/?p=25
The debate is based mostly on opinion and perception, with convenient ignorance of reality and convention.
In reality, data indicates intersections are the most dangerous places for traffic, all traffic. Read the Ontario Coroner's reports, which HTA is partly based on. Stop signs exist at intersections, because we cannot depend on everyone to exercise proper timing and spatial judgement at every intersection.
Opinion and perception, however, are that stop signs at intersections are inconveniences and hindrances. And thus many road users, oblivious or ignorant to the underlying theme and reality itself, choose unwisely to do as they wish.
In reality, HTA dictates that pedestrians have right-of-way on most roads. Many municipalities take that one step further and build infrastructure specifically designed for pedestrian right-of-ways, they're called sidewalks.
Opinion and perception, however, are that vehicle drivers, and cyclists, can choose to ignore this infrastructure, the precept of right-of-way, and willfully infringe on the rights of pedestrians. Cars make a statement of power, authority, and identity. But the noble and educated citizen recognises that it is only a facade, and that behind the machine is a human. Automobiles are just tools in the hands of operators, same as a hammer, a gun, a pen, or a computer. Bicycles are the same. Following guidelines for using those tools, and wielding them wisely, based on skills, experience, and reality, not opinion or perception, is the way to go.
Law enforcement is based on written law, not opinion and perception. While I fully agree that there are parts of the HTA that need to be updated, I cannot agree that special exception be given to bicycles. Many fail to realise that bicycles were road vehicles long before automobiles were created; pavement on roadways was made for bikes, and other wheeled vehicles. Automobiles seem to be declining in popularity and sustainability. Bicycles will take their place. Bicycle operators today should look forward to that day, and plan to be an effective part of it.
The HTA as written is currently in effect and is not open to negotiation on the fly. My understanding is there are only two defences to a ticket received under the Act:
You can argue you were ticketed in error (you did not do what the ticket says you did). Or, you can argue the ticket is an inproper application of the Act (you did do something, but will argue that what you did is not illegal under the act).
For most of the folks here, neither seems to be the case. If you did not stop at a stop sign, and the HTA says that cyclists must stop, your guilty. Pay the fine and stop complaining!
The appropriate avenue for changing legistation you don't agree with is through your elected officials. The traffic court judge has no jurisdication to change the law -- even if they agree with you. Frankly, you are much more likely to get the law changed by paying your fine and letting your Provinical MPP hear your story ... and getting them to agree that the situation is silly .. than complaining to the judge.
Regarding arguements for special laws for cyclists: not sure I agree with this. Being safe on the road means having all users know what to expect from one another. Having a stop sign mean stop for cars and yield for cyclists seems like a recipie for more car/cyclist collisions. I'd rather the current situation where I know what motorists SHOULD expect me to do.
On a personal note -- yes, I do sometimes roll through stop signs and otherwise do things prohibited by the HTA. But, I know that what I'm doing puts me at risk (both in terms of safety and potential tickets), make individual judgements based on the situation at hand and will accept the outcomes.
Some laws are dumb and need to be broken.
Abortions would still be illegal if Morgentaler followed them, shopping on Sunday would still be banned, marijuana would be...
...wait a minute - gotta go work on that one.
The appropriate avenue for changing legistation you don't agree with is through your elected officials. The traffic court judge has no jurisdication to change the law -- even if they agree with you.
Many laws have been tossed by the courts. Some of those tossed had their genesis in lowly traffic courts. Politicians are as prone to making bad laws as anyone else is.
Judges change the meaning of the law all of the time by the manner in which they interpret it and there are miles of case law to back it up.
Somehow I think equating a woman's right to choose to the freedom to roll through stop signs might be just a wee bit of a stretch.
And yes, laws have been tossed out by the courts because they were unconstitutional. Does the HTA violate my constitutional rights as a cyclist in some way I'm not aware of?
What law got tossed out based on the ruling of a traffic court? I'm not lawyer and would be very curious to learn of a similar situation where a traffic case actually overturned an existing traffic law in Ontario.
For sure, the interpretation of a law changes as cases are tried. Perhaps you might find a judge who looks at the requirement to put a foot down as redundant if the person being charged can hold a track stand for 10 seconds or more. But, for those doing a rolling stop ... how wide an interpretation do you think there is going to be for a concept like "stopping,"
Motorists make exactly the same arguements I've been seeing here about speed blitzes on clear days on the 400 series highways. They say that a safe speed on a clear day is well over 100 km/h, that just keeping up with the flow of traffic demands a faster pace and that the speed enforcement is about revenue collection, or looking like the police are doing something, rather than really making the roads safer. Haven't seen too many of those 115 km/h tickets overturned, nor has the law changed.
But hey, maybe being "green" will somehow make a difference in the eyes of the court.
Does the HTA violate my constitutional rights as a cyclist in some way I'm not aware of?
First I am not a lawyer. There are several 'nuances' that recognize your rights, mainly the ability of the police to pull you randomly over. The cops can do it to cars but not to cyclists, they must first see an offence. I myself and dozens of other cyclists I have spoken to have had their rights violated. They cannot pull you over and search your bike for offences. If they see you blow a light, then it is fair game.
Currently, there are challenges under way to toss the Road Racing provisions of the HTA. I would hate to see it happen but it is quite fascinating to see the process. Most of the provisions of the HTA were challenged decades ago when it came into force. Case law has shaped how it is interpreted. Most notably careless driving, stopping and speeding have had many challenges, some resulting in the entire law being reworded or parts of it tossed.
While I would answer no to the question of yours I quoted, I would answer yes that the application at times has violated persons constitutional rights.
I'm not equating bike laws with abortion but pointing out that laws aren't perfect. Laws are sometimes changed or ignored because they didn't make sense, no need to go armed with a constitution. There are old dusty outdated laws that are ignored by the police, why not also turn a blind eye to minor cycling infractions if they don't present a danger?
Hemp growing laws were drawn up out of ignorance. It used to be illegal for two unrelated people to live together in Toronto just a few decades ago.
I'm going to continue to treat stop signs as yield signs, I'll give way to traffic or pedestrians coming through.
Red lights I'm fine with, except when you need to activate them by walking to a button. I wonder if that nonsense is constitutional?
This morning on St. George, a little bit south of Bloor, I got a ticket for rolling through a stop sign. This is my first year in Canada and was surprised to know we can get a ticket on a bike... The officer said "I am doing this for your safety". Well, Thank you very much! I will talk to my lawyer friend to see if i have a chance of winning the fight.
A few trapdoors opened under ppl participating in this debate a few comments ago. It sure seemed like someone equated a woman's right to choose with a cyclist's right to disobey the law. But as good CAN-BIKE trained cyclist, I'll avoid that confrontation altogether and go around the problem!
All this talk about constitutional rights is untimely. Here's the deal : you renew your constitiutional rights every time you vote. Our elected officials are the ones who can make the changes you feel necessary, and establishing personal, productive relationships with your Councillor, MPP, MP are the way to get that done. Complaining and whinging about inconveniences is not the way to change. And above all, using a roadway is not a right, it's a privelege, perhaps even a luxury. I've lived and rode in China; police there don't give out nearly as many tickets because riders there obey the laws and act responsibly for their own sake.
Which part of "stop" do people not get? I find it extremely hard to understand how intelligent, informed, capable inviduals who choose to ride their bikes on the road, do not choose to obey the laws that are intended for their own safety, and the safety of others. I can understand that common sense is not entirely common, and that judgement differs from person to person; but gosh, what part of the hexagonal red sign do people not understand? it is truly baffling.
I rode downtown and back six times this week, and diddn't once get a ticket, or get hit by a car, or endanger the lives of pedestrians. But only one of those rides was "perfect", where every cyclist I saw obeyed the law, rode responsibly, and acted like decent ambassadors of our community. How much am I asking for to have people do such simple, worthwhile things!?!?
The fight is in each rider's head : to do what's right, and reject poor choices based on opinion, and ill behavior.
Well Brian, I was coming up to a stop light on Dundas East at Broadview. I decdied to hold back at the tail end of the cars because many were turning. Whizzing by me was a fellow in a jacket emblazoned with all of his CAN-BIKE achievements. He flew right into the kill zone of a truck that was in the process of turning with its signals on. This caused both the truck and the car behind to do an emergency manouver to avoid the cyclist. Not the first time I saw him pull a stupid stunt, I recognized him from rides where the City hired him to help guide them and as a CAN-BIKE instructor.
So based on that, is it fair that each and every person who wears a CAN-BIKE gets painted with the same brush of dumbass? No, it just plain immature and petty. HIstory is full of the same dark rationale being applied to the detriment of millions of people.
History is also full of politicians of acting fairly on behalf of its people. Ya, right.
People want change. There is going to be complaining and "whining" until there is either a critical mass of it to invoke change or it is simply dismissed.
The Idaho Stop and Roll law is a perfectly example of when stop does not get it.
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K
You did the right thing Darren, congratulations. I would have commended you on your good judgement to hold back if I had been there. Rewarding good behavior on bikes is very important. If you can identify the rider who committed those offences, why not write to someone in a position of authority about it? Riders should be held accountable.
As far as i know, CAN-BIKE hasn't issued clothing or achievement badges. But maybe some innovative citizen decided to bring more attention to the program by creating his own marketing initiative. Too bad there's nothing to back it up. Oops. CAN-BIKE is a great program, but if the people who are involved in it themselves don't do what's right, who cares?
Meanwhile, if we're going to talk about achievements and immatureness and pettiness on display, why is it that cyclists who obviously don't have appropriate skill and competency to ride on the road get ignored by the majority of society? I saw six people who were barely in control of their bikes - shopping bags on the handlebars, long hair in their faces, skirts flowing into the the rear wheel, wobbling and scraping their pedals on the curb edge - why aren't ppl screaming bloody murder when they see these obvious dangers!?! Because ppl don't care. Because bikes are percieved as toys, not vehicles.
If ppl really care, if ppl really want change, they will begin to care for themselves, find a way to spread that caring to others, and make the "care" a popular movement. "Caring Mass". And the change will happen regardless of what politicians do or not do. But while there are still miscreants and anti-social yahoos willing to break laws and incite disruption and criticise loudly instead of working positively, personally, and contributively towards spreading care awareness, things will remain the same.
It is commom to see the COPs parking their cars on the bike lane and their bikes in the midle of the sidewalk to get their long lunchs at Runnymede and Annete.
Brian, why are you so focused on "miscreants and anti-social yahoos". There are hundred times more cyclists out there that do not fall into this category than do. They have suffered a lot of negligence because of this focus. It is simply used an excuse to not do anything. The City cannot get its act together on the Bike Plan, lets blame cyclists who do not wear helmets.
It is beyond my comprehension how one can use the amount of long hair in one's face as a test of much one cares. It is petty.
Ten years ago, many people worked quite "positively, personally, and contributively" on the Coroner's Report on Cycling and still we bury our friends. Are you going to label us "anti-social yahoos" because we criticize the inaction loudly?
Brian, how does one respond to such a diffuse post? You have the masses suffering from a compassion deficit; long hairs with -- the horror! -- grocery bags slung from their handlebars, scraping the curb with their pedals; and miscreants, criticizing loudly, disrupting the whole works! Hey, sounds like a great way to spend a Saturday night to me!
Let's return to the subject: The Safe Cycling campaign by Toronto's Finest.
Yup "Stop" signs mean stop -- no argument there. The point remains that not doing so doesn't necessarily translate into unsafe cycling. A typical scenario: a car and myself roll toward a 4 way Stop simultaneously; before either of us come close to halting, I wave the motorist onward; he rolls on through and so do I. Neither of us are acting irresponsibly nor unsafely, but both of us are eligible to $100+ fines.
There's the Safe Cycling campaign for you: often it has little to do with safe, intelligent cycling. How does a ticket for not having a bell, or having a bell to begin with, protect me from a left hook? It doesn't. Neither does it prevent me from getting doored, floored by a right hook, or squeezed out of a lane.
Sure, I can stop at a Stop sign where there are unobstructed sight lines and nobody is in sight, but it is to insult one's intelligence to claim one's safer for doing so. The rational behind the Safe Cycling Campaign more concerns strict adherence to misguided laws, which many cyclists correctly apprehend, little, if at all, conduce to their welfare.
That hundreds of millions of cyclists in Mao era China use to safely share roadways with all manner of vehicles AND in the absence of traffic lights and signs attests to the fact that the concept of safety is not rooted in the letter of the law but in perspective.
Darren, carelessness is woven into today's social fabric. The majority of those hundreds of cyclists you mention havn't taken any training or think of themselves as vehicle operators; that makes the level of skill and competency on our roads pretty mediocre. Miscreancy and stunting are what make the news, and what ppl pay attention to.
Ppl ride carelessly, flaunt the law, and behave stupidly because it's accepted that they'll get away with it, and may even make the news. It's a unique problem to Toronto. If a hundred plus cyclists took to an expressway in Hong Kong, or Paris, or London, there would be police arrests and jail and prosecution like nothing you've ever seen. but it happens in Toronto, and ha ha ha...they got away with it! Excellent! We're So World Class!
And it goes beyond cyclists : drivers can drink hot coffee and drive while talking on their cell phones because very few people care. It's more important they get caught for speeding and drunk driving than texting on their mobile devices, or grappling with a sandwich while behind the wheel. In other jurisdictions, such behaviors are labelled dangerous driving. But not here.
The vast majority of Torontonians place their own care and well being in devices and actions of others, rather than taking responsiblity for themselves. That rider with hair in the eyes obviously dosn't give a damn about seeing what's ahead, nevermind around them. Petty? No, petty is labelling that rider by their gender, race, ethnicity, clothing, or job, role in society, leadership ability. Let's get angry at cops because they're doing the dirty work few of us want to engage in - correcting inapporopriate behaviour and unsafe action - le't's leave it to someone else, we've all got important, busy lives. After all, we work hard running a world-class city.
A helmet is a fashion statement to most Torontonians, not a preventative measure. Not enough people have family/friends/colleagues affected by brain injury to get the concept of how a helmet works. Few people measure their helmets, for example, as to the extra visibility it affords them, or the protection it gives from sun. Most ppl don't see the multi-faceted benefits a helmet delivers. Helmet marketers have failed us, generally, by not explaining the full benefits. And being the Fashion nexus we are, heaven forbid a helmet sully the coif of the day, or ruin the look!
I don't care too much about ten years ago. And I am sorry for your loss; I too have lost friends, and I very nearly lost my own life on the streets while cycling. But Coroner's reports don't matter if people don't care or don't take action. Today, I care about the paucity of participants at the monthly Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee meetings at City Hall. If so many people want change, why are they not present and vocal when it counts? If cycling infrastructure were so important to people, the TCAC would have to hold its meetings in the Air Canada Centre to accommodate the audience, and Councillors would be overwhelmed with letters, emails, meeting requests, and phone calls.
But it's not enough of a priority to a majority of ppl; ppl generally just don't care.
And how timely that Luke would chime in with a reference to China - in China, the majority know that if one breaks the law and attracts the attention of the police, the consequences are dire. I've lived and rode in China. The Chinese have a saying : "stay away from trouble, trouble stays away from you". I've always remembered that when seeing a police officer anywhere. And so far, I've never been arrested or charged; and only ticketed when I was caught, all six foot one two hundred ten pounds white skinned Canadian male - breaking the law. Funny that.
Well Brian I am glad that we do not throw cyclists in jail for expression like the Americans do... hell they were throwing people who even looked like cyclists in jail. It is a pretty draconian society that supports actions like those.
TCAC, well there is a useful arm of City Hall if I have ever seen one. Ever wonder why people do not show? Probably because they do not care to put up with its non-sense. It took them three meetings to make it public exactly where they meet.
http://www.torontocranks.com/?p=249
Stop obsessing about cyclists with hair in their eyes, pay some attention to the rest of us.
All your comments should be applied to motorists, in spades. I agree that cyclists need to obey the HTA, but a cyclist is far less likely than a motorist to cause death or serious injury to another member of the public. The CAR-nage on our roads is almost entirely due to bad behaviour of motorists.
For instance, only 7 percent of motorists routinely stop properly. A high percentage roll through stop signs, and even through red lights if turning right. Few seem to understand or care where they are supposed to stop. They ignore the painted lines and pay no attention to sidewalks if there are no painted lines. Many will stop with their vehicles completely blocking a crosswalk forcing pedestrians to step into traffic.
The emphasis of the bike week safety blitz should be focussed on dangerous motorist behaviour.
"... It should not be possible for municipalities like Mississauga to have stop lights that are only activated by the weight of a car on a sensor so that a bike has to wait forever unless a car pulls up to cause the light to change ..."
If a traffic light sensor doesn't detect your vehicle (bicycle) it can be treated as malfunctioning. This is why Toronto is in the process of changing these over to units that will detect all road-legal vehicles. The new ones are indicated by three white circles on the pavement. Stop your bike over these and you will be detected.
With the old ones if the light doesn't change after waiting a reasonable time (measured in minutes, not seconds), you can consider the traffic light is failing to change and treat it like a flashing red. Exactly as you would in a car if the light wasn't ever changing. Wait until the way is clear, then proceed.
This whole thing reminds me a scene from the second season of the tv show "The Wire". Basically the head of a local union pisses off the head of a local Police division so the police majors orders people in his division to go to the Union head quarters and ticket cars.
The moral of the story? Everybody breaks the law. Everyone. There is normally an understanding between police an citizens that not every violation warrants penalty. Because it would be impossible for police to do so. The application of law as it applies to when violations are penalized is a matter of policy not law.
If this was simply an issue of the letter of the law and cyclists rolling through stops signs I would have no problem at all. I agree that there are a lot careless cyclists that break the law and those people do deserve to get ticketed. But that isn't what is going on here.
If it was about rolling through stop signs police would also ticket every car that rolls through signs along with every bicycle. But clearly there has been an assigned policy made to ticket cyclists and not motorists.
So the next question is why the application of policy? For our safety? From the cities own study of cycling. (http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_...) 2.8% of cycling accidents occurred from cyclist proceeding unsafely through controlled intersections whereas 12.2% of accidents occurred from a motorist proceeding unsafely through controlled intersections. So clearly policy does not match statistical data. If this blitz was to improve cycling safety police should be focusing on cars running stop signs as it results in more cycling accidents.
The conclusion we can take from this is exactly like the scene from The Wire. The police have no evidence to support that ticketing cyclists will improve their safety, so we can conclude that the police must just be out to get us. This is not for our satefy, but because we've pissed off the wrong people... Motorists.
I'd like to apologise for taking the discussion off topic, and diffusing it.
I'm very passionate and expressive about cycling, and truly wish to advance and promote cycling in Toronto. Please forgive me for being selfish and long winded.
I'd like to express gratitude to my esteemed colleagues in the debate who kept the conversation astute, civil, and impersonal. There are a lot of great minds around cycling in Toronto, let's get them focused on moving forward with positive accomplishments.
Sincerely,
brian
I think the next random traffic violation that gets it's own safety month should be jaywalking. "Pedestrian Safety Month" has a nice ring to it. And I can't wait to be smugly told "I'm trying to save your life" by the officer giving me the ticket. After all, all laws of the road must be obeyed by everyone all the time, right...?
CPT_Sunshine says:
"The conclusion we can take from this is exactly like the scene from The Wire. The police have no evidence to support that ticketing cyclists will improve their safety, so we can conclude that the police must just be out to get us. This is not for our satefy, but because we've pissed off the wrong people... Motorists."
I find this leap ... breathtaking. If police are not doing a blitz to improve public safety, the only other logical conclusion is that they "..must just be out to get us."
Not because the policy may ... wrongly ... believe that the blitz does, in fact, address cyclist safety. Not because ... in the wake of a couple of high-profile cyclist accidents, the police want to be seen as "doing something" about cycling safety.
Nope ... it must be because they are out to get us.
I have to say that I find this attitude ... present in the posts of many of my fellow cyclists here ... more than a little disturbing. It seems there is a group that believes that those of us who travel on two wheels in this city are really a highly repressed group. A group whose very rights are being suppressed by the government and by entrenched interests -- motorists. A group whose are best characterized as victims, with neither the power or the influence to take their rightful place on the road or within society. A group who daily take their lives into their own hands, just trying to survive tyranny and injustice one more day.
Really?
I've been riding in Toronto for over a decade. I don't think cycling in the city is perfect, but I've managed to commute regularly from the east and west end to downtown for most of those years and have found that option preferable to driving or transit. I really don't find my experience on the bike in traffic vastly different than when I'm in a car ... obviously the consequences of any kind of accident are much higher on the bike, but I no more feel anyone is out to get me on the bike than I do driving.
From an effecting change perspective ... from reading these boards, it seems that cyclists are a pretty literate, educated bunch. As far as an interest group goes, we're getting infrastructure -- not anywhere as quickly as I would like, but in an age when infrastructure of all kinds is in short supply, I don't think we are doing too badly. We have a councilor who is an advocate for cycling and we live in an age where the key transportation issues (congestion, cost and environmental impact) really make the future of cycling appear very bright.
I am very happy that I live in a city with so many passionate, dedicated cyclists. I'm happy to see cycling issues gain traction in public policy.
But, I cannot agree we are downtrodden victims. I do not agree that the lot for cyclists is dire. And, from my perspective, things are actually getting better (if not quickly enough for some) rather than worse.
And, in the case of police enforcement, I see it as being no different than every other police traffic blitzes. Police set up speed traps of nebulous effectiveness (from a safety point of view) all the time. Perhaps police do believe this improves safety (and I think many genuinely do). Or perhaps they just need to be seen as visibly "doing something." Or maybe it is really about ticket revenue. But, I'm always a little bit skeptical of accusations that they are really just "out to get us."
I do not think there is any sort of collusion out there. There is a huge amount of ineptness and covering one's own ass but certainly no collusion. You can find many cops out there that have it together yet when they are served a misinformed directive by the Chief there is not much one can do in the short term.
Sorry, I didn't quite explain myself fully there.
I didn't mean to say that police are out to get us ... well they are ... but it's not of their decision. I don't think there is any doubt that this blitz is a direct result of motorists putting political pressure on the police force to stop "rouge" cyclists. The cyclists out there that are reckless and break the law. That is the cause of the public policy.
The problem then becomes how the police apply that policy and unfortunately that is done by meeting quotas. The police, to satisfy the political pressure bring back numbers, their own stats. "We ticketed X cyclists for rolling through stop signs today", for example. It's unfortunately because that is how cyclists who aren't endangering anybody, who aren't being reckless end of with a ticket over some bull$h!t.
Tone, as far as cyclists "just trying to survive tyranny and injustice one more day". You are trying to diffuse the argument with hyperbole. What we do face with this blitz is discrimination. Every time a cyclists rolls through a stop and gets ticketed and a car rolls through a stop and get nothing it's discrimination. Anytime the law is applied differently to a minority group in society it's discrimination.
I agree - "out to get us" is a bit of a stretch, but how about: out to look like they're doing something without actually doing anything? How about: "Look at us! We're doing our job to keep cyclists safe!" without doing anything that might offend motorists. And the city can show the great amount of activity and effort they're making without actually addressing anything. Nice job, guys.
Oh, and to the person who suggested a "Pedestrian Safety Blitz" - at least last year it already existed: http://www.thestar.com/article/275606
Though my posts were mired with diffusion and tangents, it seems a handful don't get the message, or still wilfully ignore.
If these "reckless" cyclists weren't running stop signs in the first place, the police wouldn't be targeting and ticketing them.
But it's easier to cry foul like a baby than to change behavior. Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world". If you continue running stops and not including yourself as a vehicle, be prepared for status quo, and to be a target yourself.
I'll cease from commenting further, one more braying jackass adds more shit to the farm, and dosn't make the farmer's job any easier. I'll do what I say, "being the change", and continue riding like an example of what good cycling should look like - I usually wear black and a reflective orange vest with a Canadian flag, because it's all about MVP, and good communication for positive change.
Other city campaigns I'd like to see:
We could fight industrial waste by fining people who put fail to wash their metal recycling before disposal
Let's fight gun violence and concealed weapons with a 'baggy clothes blitz'
Why not fight homelessness by making it illegal to have no known address?
Fight violence against women by banning skirts that end above the knee.
< /sarcasm>
This is known as addressing the problem that is least likely to effectively object as opposed to addressing the problem that will actually do the most good.
I agree that there are some cyclists whose behaviour on the roads is in need of ticketing. However, the excessive focus on cyclists is, in my opinion, another example of blaming the minority for their own continued oppression. It's opportunistic BS.
Brian your position is based on the premise that if you follow the rules you will be safe. The evidence to support such a position is very weak and almost contrary.
With respect to Toronto stats, in non-fatal collisions, cyclists and motorists are equally found at fault. Cyclists following the rules are no safer from collisions than the "reckless" bunch you so admire.
In fatal collisions, it is more often than not the motorist who is at fault in the collision. A British study follows that more British women die in collisions because they tend to follow the law. Whereas British males are more aggressive and and tend to break the rules and have lower fatality rates.
Be careful out there Brian, following the rules is no better insurance against collision when compared to being reckless. In fact, it may even be more risky.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/14351.pdf
Watch out you may get a ticket for just being outside without being in a car. Because cars can do no evil, pedestrians and cyclists are obviously getting themselves killed by their own actions.
Hi,
Out here in Vancouver, June is bike month. What this means in practice is that the police write a bunch of no-helmet tickets (there is a mandatory helmet law in British Columbia).
Also, I have not seen it mentioned in the comments here, but this interesting statute exists in Idaho: Title 49, chapter 7.
I always thought it was very civilized and reasonable.
Of course now that I've posted my comment I see that the Idaho law was already mentioned.
Traffic laws are very frustrating because it's obvious that they are designed to keep people in cars from killing themselves and others.
I love the momentum idea. A bike's w/ person has such low momentum rolling through a stop sign at 15km/h. I know that people driving cars only slow down to that speed at times, and their momentum is roughly 20 times ours, far more dangerous.
Today I got a ticket ($110) for slowly cycling through a stop sign. Wilmington/Purdon, near the Finch Av. West. The police car was hidden out of the sight, at Purdon Dr.
I am new in Toronto. Really discouraging experience...
I do not have Ontario drivers license and intend to pass a driver exam in 3-4 months.
What problems can I have in future with my driver's license (I hope I will have it;) ? Do bicycle points count for car dirver's license? May thу bicycle increase the car insurance (in future)?
Any suggestions how to fight the ticket?
Thanks a lot! Mar.
good!
i've seen many pedestrians getting smacked by bikers like you at U of T who don't realize that large red octagon with "Stop" on it applies to all vehicles on the road.
Obey the law its very easy.
Cyclists get by motorists in so many situations the least we can do is stop at a stop sign.
Its not a bloody personal crusade for free expression. Its a matter of public safety.
Now i'm going to hear all of the "what if's" about going through intersections when no one is there at 3am. Yet this reductio ad absurdo misses the reality of my comment in that 3am red light runners aren't the problem. Its the 3pm ones who don't stop at stop signs at U of T and bash into people, or the ones that ride through stop signs/red lights with no regard for motorists or their own well being.
The last time I checked cars weigh in excess of 3000lbs thata much weight coming at you at 20-40 kph = cyclist splatter. Think with your head not with your idealistic free expression nonsense.
The road can only be safe (it will never be safe because large pieces of metal going at high speeds is just plain dangerous), so the road can only be safer if everyone is playing by the same rules.
If it were up to me (and I know I will be lambasted as a fascist) but you shouldn't be allowed to ride your bike on the road without at least elementary knowledge of the HTA in other words how about a Bike1 test. Before you are given the responsibility of driving a car or riding a motorcycle on the road you have to pass a test, how about the same thing for bikes?
It boils down to one thing, if cyclists are all griping that cars and motorcycles don't give them respect on the road they should perhaps reassess the respect that they give others. Respect is a two way street and by showing careless disregard for the rules of the road you are disrespecting and infuriating those who do abide by the law (including your fellow cyclists).
In your replies don't treat me like a child because i've insulted your unlawful riding habits. If you want to get all Socratic about the ethics of obeying an "unjust" law take it up with your philosophy teacher not with the HTA or the Toronto Police Service.
"If it was about rolling through stop signs police would also ticket every car that rolls through signs along with every bicycle. But clearly there has been an assigned policy made to ticket cyclists and not motorists."
Um they do...
Do you drive a car?