The Reasons why we must be involved in city politics
Here's one: (from The Globe and Mail Jan 21, 2010)
In his speech Mr. Rossi won his biggest burst of applause for a plan to prohibit bike lanes on major roads. “As mayor I will oppose bike lanes on major arterials whether its bike lanes, whether its Jarvis, whether its Finch, whether its Warden ...” he said, telling reporters later that not only would he ban future lanes on major roads, he would “look at” ripping out existing bike lanes on major roads.
What's your reason?
To take such a strong right-sided stance on this topic, he is effectively committing political suicide. Too many people in this city are either already cyclists or at minimum agree that cycling and sustainable transportation is important for the future health of our citizens and our city.
In a single speech, he has alienated himself from a substantial portion of the electorate.
I wouldn't be surprised if he backtracks on this hard-line stance once he realizes he has made a grave misjudgment.
Attitudes like Rossi's are exactly what Christopher Hume is saying we need to change in our city in his recent articles in the Star.
He is counting on vote splitting everything from the centre to the left. Even the frontrunner General Smitherman is against cycling infrastructure. The future will bring a cycling unfriendly Mayor. It is time to look to our friends in the US who thrive in anti-cycling environments.
...Should be banned, and ripped out. *
Anyone ever try to "take the lane" on arterial "diamond lanes" like Eglinton, anywhere between Bathurst and Warden? Fageddaboudit!
One step better : hydro or rail corridors with paved, arterial-bridged or signalized intersections, year-round maintenance, and first aid patrols riding their length daily.
Bikeways. Like the West End Railpath, CN Leslie Rail Trail, or Lakeshore Boulevard east of the Don. All functioning examples of physically separated bike lanes in existence right now.
Rossi is at least a personable, approachable businessman. I met him last week, and was greeted by a warm smile and a firm handshake. The man looks a person right in the eye.
Contact your Liberal representative and ask why the former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, recruited by Michael Ignatieff, is waging a war on bikes and active transportation in Canada's biggest city?
Liberal Party of Canada
81 Metcalfe Street, Suite 400
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6M8
Phone : (613) 237-0740
Fax : (613) 235-7208
email : info@liberal.ca
Here are a few reasons why I am not surprised by Rossi's statement:
- The issue of Jarvis has been twisted to make people believe that the centre lane was removed to accommodate Bike Lanes - it was not.
- There are far more people stuck in traffic than there are cycling around the city, and the way I see it, cyclists are an easy scape goat - it has been done before.
- The “War on the Car” is still fresh in people’s minds, so it makes or easy media spin.
Getting the truth out into the public forum is essential, but it needs a sound strategy. There is plenty of time to allow Rossi to paint himself into a corner, in the meantime there’s one thing to remember: even if elected Mayor of Toronto, he will not have the power to do any of these things on his own.
East end biker, I had to chuckle when I read your last sentence.
I could just picture Rocco Rossi looking me right in the eye while shaking my hand before saying: "sorry son, but I am banning bicycles from Toronto. You had better grow up and get yourself a good old automobile to get yourself around"
I Dare anyone on this forum to organize a debate between mayoral candidates
with the topic "bicycling in Toronto" as the focus. You've got lots of lead time. Do it.
And ask Rossi to his face what he meant by his comment, and what his platform is.
Pick a venue, invite the candidates, promote the event, and write about it here.
Anything else is imaginary, rhetorical ennui, or media spin; oops, same thing.
You rampant imagineers crack me up with your made-up realities and conspiracy theories.
One of the comments at The Globe's online article had this to say:
Uh-huh.
This could only sound reasonable to someone who has only ever had a windshield perspective of the world.
Let's try banning private motor cars from major arterials. Then we'll see how well you'd be able to get around. Not well at all? That's what you'd be doing to those who ride bikes.
Major streets are where most of the destinations are. Often, they are also the only through route. Toronto is a city of rivers, but only the arterials get bridges over them. To force cyclists off of the main roads is saying that "Bikes don't belong."
In the downtown, cyclists are between 16% to 33% of the traffic. Do we really want them to squeeze onto already over-crowded public transit? Can our roads take that many more cars, and can we afford that much more pollution?
And, do we want to encourage our population to incorporate physical activity into their daily lives, to be more fit and healthier? The advantage is lowered health costs (ie less taxes) for us all.
A good city, to me, is one which is good to the people of the city.
If you want a city good for cars, you can have it! Just don't make me live there.
haha what? because cyclists don't need to go visit anything on a major street and should be kept out of the real picture! what we need is a urban expressway on major streets so that they become uninhabitable like the shoulder of the 401.
haha what? because cyclists don't need to go visit anything on a major street and should be kept out of the real picture! what we need is a urban expressway on major streets so that they become uninhabitable like the shoulder of the 401.
This guy is just going to waste money and time.
Smitherman will win, and if he's smart, he'll get the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Education to introduce graduated licensing for cyclists starting in gradeschool. And MTO should enforce mandatory bike safety inspections every few years, same as all other vehicles & drivers on the road have to do. Way too many mechanically unsafe bikes out there. And way too many cyclists who don't take themselves seriously as part of the road hierarchy. Gotta change that. Only THEN will we have entitlement to bicker and bitch and gripe about infrastructure and lack of respect.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2...
Have these folks ever spent any time at city hall? They sound like they jumped into the race without ever having attended any of the meetings at city hall. When Jarvis was debated at city hall, it was the cyclists who filled the audience.
With 11 pedestrians now killed by auto collisions in January alone, I wish we had a Mayoral candidate that was more interested in controlling vehicles instead of bikes.
Seymore's correct! If there is a "War on the car", then the elderly (I'm getting up there), mom's with strollers, and, as of today, the disabled are losing big time. If 11 people in 11 days had been killed with firearms, we would be reading about the "winter of the gun", but cars? Not only is it no big deal, but we have mayoral candidates complaining about cars not having enough public space. And the commentary is wonderful. "Older people get killed by cars because they move more slowly and their reaction times are slower."
holdsworth
Rocco Rossi is not an experienced politician, and he knows that he is not likely to fare well in a Mayoral race. This is probably why he came out with such an evocative speech yesterday to the Empire Club of Canada.
This quote may say it all:
"It's been over a hundred years since we elected a mayor who wasn't already in elected politics," he told the crowd. "Maybe, just maybe, that's part of the problem."
- Maybe Mr. Rossi, but I doubt it.
Check your facts, kids. The majority of the pedestrian collisions involved commercial vehicles and professional drivers, not cars and amateur drivers. Vans, buses, taxis and trucks are all differently licensed, mandatorially inspected before operation, and their drivers are the most educated on the road.
Anyone else here have a CVOR or higher than D-class license? I think not. But this cyclist does.
The fact is, pedestrians (and cyclists, i might add) are being less careful around traffic. Dosn't matter who's in the right or who's got the right of way (and that's a whole other debate in itself); like the cops say, pedestrians and cyclists always lose against motor vehicles, and these last few days prove it.
Give us commercial operators the space we need. Our blind spots are waaaay bigger than you think, and our vehicles require a lot more room to move. There is nothing worse than a pedestrian or cyclist coming into our side space and risking getting hit because we can't see them. I deal with this every day, and it's not my fault some imbecile puts himself in harm's way because of his own stupid behavior. Laws, rules, regulations mean nothing if stupid people put themselves in the kill zone out of ignorance and stupidity.
So be careful out there, riders and walkers, and be aware of where you are and whether that driver can see you. If you can't see him, he can't see you, and one wrong move could result in tragedy.
Haha, surely you troll Mr. Hardware... you obviously have a LOT of taxpayer money to burn through with all those programs and licenses. If we want a proper road heirarchy for a city how about
Pedestrians #1 cyclists #2 motorcycles #3 cars #4 light trucks #5 heavy trucks #6
Something tells me you're throughly ass-backwards though! hahaha!
What is next, sneaker inspections for tied shoelaces and pedestrians hand-books for dealing with stairs and dog-poop on sidewalks? lol...
Most trucks aren't equipped with the proper mirrors or cameras.
Most trucks have no "pedestrian barrier"
Most truck drivers are in a rush, very tired and just ain't great drivers - i have seen a few awful ones.
These are normal people(pedestrians and cyclists) who are NOT responsible for driving the truck, they are not the imbeciles. Yes they shouldn't pass but.....
You are bringing the danger to the environment, got it?
You are 100% responsible even if he was in your blind-spot.
as a road "hierarchy" exists. On our streets and roads, only one thing counts: people. Some people use the roads courteously, and others don't, but we all have a responsibility to use the road safely, and that burden alls most heavily on those who operate vehicles inherently dangerous to other people. The physical properties of different vehicles means that bicycles pose relatively little threat to other road users, so while I deplore bad cycling, a look at the accident statistics for the past week shows vividly whose road use habits urgently need to change.
I do not believe that in the present context, change of habit can happen without change of attitude. As long as a significant number of people view using a car to intimidate, harass, or force other road users to yield their right of way as anything but a crime of violence, some motorists will continue to do it, and the rest of us will continue to tolerate it. As long as motorists enjoy their existing impunity, with the associated death toll, other road users will resist calls to improve their behaviour in any significant way.
With the exception of a tiny minority of cyclists who engage in actual violence, most cyclists ask nothing more than respect for our persons and our safety. And we, like all other road users, like all other citizens, indeed like all other people have the absolute right to expect that kind of respect, without any condition whatever. I advocate that cyclists strive at all times for excellence, but my right to basic consideration from other road users and safe road facilities does not depend on my, or any other cyclist, attaining that excellence.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
I'll see your class 'D' and raise you an IFR rating :-)
A professional driver has the responsibility to get from point 'a' to point 'b' without killing, injuring, or threatening anyone. Full stop. It doesn't do to accept anything less. Granted, unforseen circumstances arise and other road users do stupid things, but it doesn't do to write safety off as the other person's job. If you want the responsibility of operating a large and potentially lethal vehicle on the public streets, you have to do everything possible to ensure you do no harm. That means installing safety features, it means careful trip planning, to avoid conflicts with pedestrian traffic, and above all, it means constant vigilance and work at a high standard. If truckers cannot meet these safety standards, then we should consider revising our delivery methods in favour of ones that can.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Most bicycles aren't equipped with the proper mirrors or cameras.
Most bicycles have no "pedestrian barrier", bumper, airbag, or lights.
Most cyclists are in a rush, very tired and just ain't great drivers. In fact, lots can be insane, drunk, sick, dizzy, on suspended drivers licenses, not even speak or read english, and yet by your arguement, they are "entitled" to be on the road. uh huh.
These are abnormal people(pedestrians and cyclists) who are NOT responsible; walking into the path of a truck, they are imbeciles. Yes they shouldn't pass.
Inattentive pedestrians bring their own danger to the environment.
You are 100% responsible even if he was in your blind-spot. Huh? Look at your own words! I'm responsible for something I can't see, hear, feel, or control!? ooookay...
have a nice life, brief as it will be...
When I ride my bike I can see all around me, I can get a higher view than an SUV and there is nothing to obstruct my view. There is also nothing to distract me, like my passenger, radio, coffee, map, cell phone; even if I had a mirror I would never use it. I can hear everything around me, use lights both front & back and I can stop very quickly.
For every cyclist who is "in a rush" there are disproportionate amount of drivers that run yellow & red lights.
There are inattentive people using the road, and that excludes no one. Until an accident has been investigated, I would avoid assigning blame in any direction. We need to look out for each other and use the road responsibly, and that applies everyone.
However, studies on collisions between vehicles and cyclists show that drivers are usually at fault. So if you are going to the extent of dividing cyclists in to those that are crazy, drunk and illiterate, I’d expect you would take a similar look at driver behaviour.
See, places like this the defence of motorized vehicles parts company with reality. If I collide with another pedestrian, even a 100-kilo teenager going at a brisk walk, I might fall down. I stand only the same risk of injury I have from any other mishap, such as slipping on the ice. In other words, other pedestrians, even clueless pedestrians, don't make the world more dangerous, for me or anyone else.
If a 2000 kilo car or a 5000 kilo cube van smacks me at 50 km/h, I stand a very good chance of dying. The moment you get behind an engine, you asume an awesome responsibility, and unless and until we hold the operators of powered vehicles fully responsible for the safe operation of those vehicles, and recognize the dangers inherent in a car or a truck, then motorists will enjoy impunity, which some of them will abuse with fatal results.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
We don't go blaming the rape victims for violence imposed on them. Yet we continue to insist that cyclists and pedestrians are suicidal whenever one has been hit by a motor vehicle; which is bullshit.
Motorists due have a legal and moral obligation to drive safely, one that they took on voluntarily when they asked to obtain a drivers license. But instead of owning up to their responsibility, instead they blame the victims for the terrible and tragic violence that they themselves have unleashed onto our communities.
The answer to this is to get our laws changed so that drivers are always guilty of an offence in all cases where they hit a pedestrian or cyclist unless they prove they were, indeed, innocent, and the victim truly was suicidal. But this law change cannot happen at the municipal level, and this topic was started to discuss municipal politics, and the platforms being put forward by the people running.
Do we even want to get back on track?
Tom quoted Mr. Rossi as saying:
"It's been over a hundred years since we elected a mayor who wasn't already in elected politics," he told the crowd. "Maybe, just maybe, that's part of the problem."
Kevin's comment:
The next time Mr. Rossi is sick, maybe I should operate on him. I don't actually have any medical or surgical experience , but he doesn't seem to believe that this is necessary.
My goodness, did you even try to restrain your motormouth there?
You left one fact off the list, cyclists aren't 18 wheel transport trailers or even a compact economy car.
One pedestrian was obliterated each day by cars and trucks in the last 11 days. Some while desperately trying to cross the road on crutches. I have only heard of one cyclist killing a pedestrian EVER and certainly no cyclists have killed a motorist(at least not in a collision)
For every person killed in a car there are about twice as many killed outside the car. How many people does a cyclist kill for every cyclist who is killed...
This is earth callling Mr. trucker and Little miss killjoy, "he was in my blindspot" is not an accepted defense. If you do not check your blind-spots when you turn and you murder somebody that is negligence. You are behind the wheel. YOU are in charge of your truck or car. It is YOUR responsibility to look out for the little guy. I suggest you grow up and accept the responsibility that comes with your driver's license with some maturity. It would be a tragedy if you do nonchalantly kill somebody because you feel that you don't have to check your blind-spots or yield to a little "abnormal" kid chasing a ball into the street.
Defensive cycling teaches not to be in a blind-spot, this does not absolve the driver in ANY way of checking their blind-spot, it is only a technique taught because so many drivers are just awful at watching their blind-spots.
In a democracy, we want (more or less) "normal" citizens running things.
There are some countries where only a few are "groomed" to run things. Fascist and Communist countries, as well as Monarchies and Emperors come to minds. Perhaps you'd prefer Fuedal rule, like in Somalia?
I'd much rather be electing first-timers and novices and newbies than to only have a state-ordered choice who whom I have permission to elect for our public offices.
You and I are still able to run for any office, even if our chances are low. And I am as free to have voted for you, as you to have voted for me.
It bother's me much less that someone's new; it matters more to me what they stand for.
Anthony wrote:
"It bother's me much less that someone's new; it matters more to me what they stand for."
Kevin's comment:
It is possible to stand for all the right things and still be incredibly bad at getting anything done. I prefer a candidate for mayor to have served in some prior elected office so that I can see that they have some skills in dealing with the day-to-day reality of political compromises, and of dealing with staff, the media, constituents, etc.
I can assess those skills with someone who has been a councillor, a school board trustee, or even, like Furious George, a provincial cabinet minister. Rossi? Who knows?
I had the same problem with Belinda Stronach's campaign to be Canada's prime minister. I don't believe that is an entry-level position either.
hardware,
Before we create licensing for cyclists and impose mandatory safety inspections for bikes I think we need to simply enforce the rules that are currently in place. Behaviour, in any sense, has a habit of following the path of least resistance. Most drivers do not speed because they know it’s going to cost them, cyclists are no different. If you were likely to get a ticket for not having a light on your bike, I think everyone would have one.
As you say Smitherman should act "smart", then I would suggest that you should too. Regulating cyclists is impractical, uneconomical, unnecessary, and above all serves to dissuade people from cycling in the first place. There is value in education about cycling, it could start at school, and should absolutely be a part of driver training. But graduated licensing for cyclists at grade school? Are you serious?
I’m not sure if you’re more interested in improving cycling or regulating it into obscurity, but your knowledge on the subject makes me think it’s the latter.
Hey everyone,
I'd like to run for office, and I've got some great ideas that we could implement that would turn Toronto around and get it back on the rails.
First, we bring in Europeans to establish a new, more efficient and enlightened government.
Second, we harvest all the remaining big trees and sell them to the highest bidders.
Third, we eliminate all marsh and wetlands, because everyone knows they're a source of West Nile Virus, H1N1, and poisonous gases.
Fourth, we channelize all the rivers to protect their banks from erosion. And we implement dams to protect our developed areas from flooding. We wouldn't want the Downtown Core to become like New Orleans!?!
Fifth, we run expressways through all the disused ravine areas that criss-cross our city, and eliminate all the diesel-belching buses that cause congestion on the roads, creating thoroughfares for private automobiles, which are the way of the future, once they all convert to hydrogen and electric propulsion.
Sixth, we outlaw bicycles once and for all, because they are archaic, dangerous, and just don't belong on roads. Roads are meant for cars, nothing else. That's why every home has a driveway, so people can park their cars, which are essential to our way of life.
Reality : we have choice in whom we elect, and just as these "revolutionary" ideas were touted by our city's forefathers "back in tha day" (I.e. Brule, Simcoe, Keating, Gardiner, et al) perspective allows us to see that if they had succeeded in all their plans (some made it, some diddn't) things would be much different for us now. So choose your elected officials well, and make sure they do what you elect them to do, and follow up to ensure their performance after you vote for them.
History repeats itself.
Hey Anthony,
Come on. Face reality, just like a man's first time, a driver's license is a rite of passage. It's obligatory to have a driver's license. It's not a privelege, it's a necesssity. Driver's licenses are exactly like sex. You're not a man until you've done it. Every man has one. If you're a manly man, you've broken the law and gotten away with it! Cool! Don't have a driver's license? You're opting out of the status quo. You're a weirdo. You're on the fringe. You're uncool. Just ask the kids.
Morals? Who really respects morals anymore? People with morals are the religious! Drivers don't have to take responsibility, they've got GPS and proximity warning sensors and airbags and OnStar to protect them!
To get back on topic, I'd rather support Smitherman, because he's a local, he's got experience, and he knows how City Hall works. That is sooo crucial to the mayor's job. Miller was a good Counsillor before he became mayor, and he's done a pretty good job. Smitherman should be the one to replace Miller.
As for having a newbie in office; remember back to the days when there'd be a supply teacher in your class? It'd be havoc, the educational environment would break down because the new supply teacher wouldn't know the rules, the way the class operated, or who was who. That's exactly what would happen if someone without political and local experience was elected.
Look at what happened at the last TCAC meeting - the chair was absent, a newbie was in charge, and all of a sudden, new ideas started being recieved, new subcommittees were struck, and lo and behold - change! Heh, careful what you wish for!
Dances with Traffic,
Dude, you need to pay attention to what you write. It's called a "blind spot" because it's a place that can't been seen! How can you see something that is in a place that cannot be seen!? How can any driver act or react to something or someone that is in their blind spot if the spot is inherently invisible!?! You're asking drivers to be prescient, visionary, clairvoyant! Or not moving at all!
Here's the deal : we draft a law that states "walking, riding, or driving in any vehicle's "blind spot" (defined as that place in a driver's field of vision which is not visible) is an offence under the Highway Traffic act, which carries a minimum penalty of being ostracized and tsk-tsk'ed; to a maximum penalty of DEATH" and then publicise that accomplishment in a splashy media campaign and press releases from all levels of government.
Come on, if you're in a vehicle's blind spot, you're basically asking to be hit, and it's your fault for putting yourself in harm's way. And if I, as a responsible driver, don't see you or that child or doggie or cyclist that has come into my blind spot without my knowing, I can't be held responsible for not being able to see that which I cannot see. That's why we call so many of the things that happen on our roads "accidents".
ride on
Crazy drunk illiterate drivers get caught. Crazy drunk illiterate cyclists don't. The cops don't care about drunk cyclists, cos statistics show no one gets killed by drunk cyclists. Only drunk drivers.
If studies were done on cyclists experience, decisionmaking ability, and state of mind when involved in accidents, results might show, shockingly, that most cyclists fall into that category of crazy, drunk, and unaware of thier responsibilities.i.e unfit to be on the road. It's good we don't need licences.
it's an easy out for someone who can't get a drivers license - they can just pick up a bike. That's what makes cycling so great - it's cheap, because we don't have to pay gas tax, insurance, or parking; and you don't need to know anything except where to point your wheel and how to break. And riding a bike drunk won't get you into trouble.
Nobody cares what you do on a bike. Except if your in an accident.
Canada's criminal code bans drunk driving of motor vehicles. Period. Drunk cycling is legal. I suppose one could make out that drunk cycling is a HTA "Careless Driving" offence, since it does not restrict the category of vehicle and someone drunk is "without due care or attention."
The reality is that no police officer is going to try to be the one to make legal history by laying that charge.
So the reality is that drunk cycling is legal.
In my opinion, that is A Good Thing. It may inspire a drunk driver to get out of his car and onto a bike instead.
Killjoy wrote, among other things:
Killjoy, do you know why you can take a flight across the Atlantic, at 35000 feet going three quarters of the speed of sound, in greater safety than you can drive your car to the airport? At every level, from airline executive and cabinet minister to ramp worker, everyone involved in aviation knows that crashes don't just happen, that one wise decision can break the chain of events leading to a crash. And pilots don't accept excuses, not even from the dead. That uncompromising integrity keeps millions of people safe in the stratosphere; it means that the rest of us have no reason to fear as a plane flies over.
Ironically, the pilots, mechanics, designers and regulators have created such a culture of safety in aviation that aeroplanes and airports attract terrorists. Terrorists don't attack road traffic, because amid the routine slaughter that takes place on our roads, people would barely notice. In fact, bad drivers killed more people in Northern Ireland than the IRA, UDA, and other armed groups. Over the past sixty years, bad driving has killed more North Americans than al Qeada, the communist parties of the Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam, the Japanese government of Hideki Tojo and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, combined.
So, 'killjoy', as a mariner, cyclist, pilot, and, yes, motorist, let me ask you: do you watch for people outside your so-called "blind spot" who might walk or ride into it? Do you plan your routes so as to avoid concentrations of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users? Do you get a weather report before driving? Have you trained yourself to keep a scan going at all times, watching the traffic, your speed, and pedestrians on the sidewalks who might cross the road? Have you cultivated the habit of thinking, of watching people and working to predict their motion? Did you think about sight lines when you bought your vehicle? If you have a vehicle, such as a cube van, which necessarily has bad sight lines, have you investigated an after-market device such as a video camera to make up for it?
Even with the most rigorous training and oversight, circumstances come together in ways that nobody could predict, and crashes happen. But a culture of excuses has developed around cars and trucks: if I don't see this or know that, if I have a "blind spot", then you can't hold me accountable. I think the time has long come to take the drivers' licences away from the three brass monkeys. The time has come for the culture of motoring to measure up to the culture of aviation, and to stop causing preventable carnage.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Of course, I might consider trading some access to "major arterials" for more recognition being given to property access by foot and bike when classifying roads. I mean with e.g. Yonge St., traffic movement is identified as a "primary function" since it's a major arterial. Looking at how many people use it to get into e.g. the Eaton Centre though, there's no way that anywhere near as many people are driving or riding in cars along it; they just wouldn't fit. Of course, that's a bit of a "downtown" bias, since the only major arterial that I could see down here retaining its designation with such considerations is Lakeshore.
Really though, if someone's going to suggest that cyclists only be removed from "major arterials", challenge them to find an East-West route of any substantial length, close to downtown, that doesn't run along any major arteries.
Actually, all bikes are equipped with at least the proper mirrors and cameras, and some even have extras. This is, of course, because the proper mirrors and cameras for a bicycle are none, according to all statutes and regulations affecting cycling in Toronto.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/blind.shtml
There ya go buddy, check your blind-spots before you end up looking like even more of a colossal idiot. The way you're speaking about it one would suspect a blind-spot is a sucking obsidian nothingness that exists on the left and right of cars.
Nobody is asking or deserves to be hit, EVER. You're just assuming people don't have to cross a car or truck blind-spot? People have to cross blind-spots EVERYDAY just to get around. Many people end up in a blind spot through no action of their own but instead by the ineptitude of truckers initiating right-hooks and cutting off pedestrians and cyclists.
Smarten the f up.
...Up, Dances.
Let's have a little chat about timing. How much time does your beloved MTO site recommend for checking a blind spot? Like I"m gonna be looking there every waking second of my driving. Impossible.
When a dumbass walks, rides, or drives into my blind spot the nanosecond after I've checked it, whose fault is it if he gets smacked by the side of my car, van or 18 wheeler? Not mine if he wasn't there when I checked before moving.
If I checked the blind spot as the darling cartoon recommends, and there was no one there, I'm in the right, and the gas pedal goes down. Someone walks into that spot while I"m doing evertthing else a good driver should be doing, and it's TFB for them.
So let me summarize : timing. Anything in my blind spot after i've checked it just before making a move, not my fault. Reasonable. Don't patronize me, every motorist knows I'm right, and that stupid people who don't pay attention to vehicles when they're close to them get whats coming to them.
I've already got my driver's license, end of story.
You make your bed, and then you sleep in it killjoy.
This conversation has expired.
Godspeed to you and the person caught in your blindspot.
killjoy,
I am glad that you think you drive responsibly, and yes Blind Spots are just that - so long as that refers to the space around your vehicle and not that between your ears.
"TFB" does not cut it for me, if you're operating a vehicle with that attitude maybe it's time to stop. And just so you don't dismiss me as an unqualified cyclist, I have held driver's license for over 25 years; in that time I have never put a limit on how safe I ought to be driving.
if pedestrians, cyclists, and other critters beamed into blind spots, drivers would have an excuse for hitting them. But few documented cases of persons actually teleporting into a vehicle's blind spot exist, and most people inside a blind spot got there from a position where the driver could see them, and either misread the cues in their motion, or did not notice them, or else assumed they would avoid the vehicle.
The first error stems from inexperience, the second from inattention, and I can think of no reason or excuse for the third. In all cases, the onus lies of the person in charge of the heavy vehicle to make the maximum possible effort to avoid vulnerable road users. Even with a best effort, some crashes will happen, but if the culture and the law regarded traffic deaths as absolutely unacceptable, fewer of them would happen.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Is a driver's licence a necessity? Perhaps not, unless you want to drink alcohol or be able to return products at some stores.
I needed a driver licence to prove I was 19 to get into the bars and drink. So, at 19, I got a driver licence. All bars must accept a drivers licence as proof of age, and a driver licence was (and often/usually is) easier to get than just about any other form of useful identification. The irony here is, of coarse, that our society is trying to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving, yet we continue to allow a driver's licence to get us booze!? This helps, how?
My aunt is legally blind and, therefore, is ineligible to drive. She carries a card issued by the CNIB which is valid to use as identification. However, she has been denied the ability to return products at several stores who have a (mistaken policy) that only allows the use of a driver's licence as identification (even with a receipt!). I don't think that it would surprise anyone that the stores that give her this kind of trouble are also the same stores that have large, vast parking lots in front of them.
Tell me, how does it help our society when we assume that everyone has (and wants, or is even eligible for) a drivers licence?
I didn't start driving with any regularity, or frequency, until I was 26. (Which was likely a good thing, too, because I was mostly drunk until then) That was when I bought my first car. I gained 50lbs in the first year of car ownership, which I'm still trying to lose; but then I still own a car...
And you're right about our society being amoral. What else would explain the rudeness we extend each other?
I was once told by a very wise man that "all change, ultimately, is for the better." He qualified this with a "sometimes have to have make things worse before we figure out to make things better." About five years later, when I got my first job working in the computer industry, an analyst who was documenting the running code on the Wang mainframe said to me "Anything useful needs to be changed; anything useless needs to be documented." It did not take me very long to see the wisdom in that comment.
We're not advocating to bring in the historians and archivists because we want to toss our whole civilization. We advocating for changes because we want to make our current systems run even better for a more diverse group of people than is currently being served; ie cyclists.
Elections put us at the potential point of change. We can choose to have more of the same, (ie feel good platitudes but no action, likely Smitherman, Pantalone) a change backwards, (ie the removal of installed bike lanes, likely Rossi, Mammoliti) or something else entirely.
In the end, the change we'll get is up to us voters to decide...