$325 Ticket for Running a Red on a Bike - Worth Fighting?
I just received a $325 ticket for riding a red.
Quite the outrageous fine.
I do not wish to pay it and am wondering if anyone has any tactics to beat it?
A bit about what happened.
I was stopped, going Southbound on Yonge at Wellington. The filter light turned green for the northbound Yonge traffic, a single car drove north through the intersection, and I rode south through the red (as no other cars were coming). I was previously stopped and made sure the intersection was clear, so please no "Serves you right/don't run a red" comments.
Unfortunately, there was a cop behind me I didn't see, and I was quickly pulled over and ticketed.
Any suggestions to fight it???
Or should I just plead guilty and ask for a lesser fine?
Even if they knock of $100, $225 is still a hell of a price for an Idaho Stop.
FAAAACK!!!!
It's not so much that you have to stop for the red, but you may only go through an intersection when it's green.
Tell me this, would you be pissed if you saw a car do what you did? I would be.
If the light turns amber as you approach it you're to try to stop. If it's red you stop. You only proceed through if it's green.
I agree, it's harsh but there was a very blatant disregard for the law in your decision that should be corrected. An Idaho stop doesn't happen at red lights, it's for stop signs. Plead guilty and hope for leniency, but don't tell the judge you did nothing wrong or he might get pissed off.
If you didn't notice a cop right behind you, maybe you didn't really look that carefully?
And if bikes are to be accepted as vehicles, don't cyclists have to play by the rules we expect vehicle operators to follow?
Where an Idaho stop is allowed, that's different. Where it's not, and you know the penalty for a particular infraction, you accept the risk of a fine when you bust the light.
The ticket is BS, and we have all had one.
Yes of course we would all be mad if we saw a car run through the light. But how upset would you be if a pedestrian crossed? Not in the least bit.
A bike is not a car, nor is it a pedestrian. They cannot be treated as equal to either aforementioned, and it is a bit nonsensical to attempt to do so. The problem is that as a community we are not making an effort to build a network or a set of rules for which bikes fit within. It is crazy to make a bicycle completely stop at every stop sign on a residential street, if you are walking or running you would not come to a complete stop at every stop with a clear vantage point. Furthermore it is sad that we have gotten to a place where the car rules, and we all must work around the most inefficient means of transportation.
Enough of the ranting.
Re. the ticket
- The line that you will have to put up with at Edward St. is nothing short of ridiculous. You should count on at least 2-3hours to just book an appt with a JP or the court.
- I hope that you do have the time to fight the ticket because we should all stand-up and fight against this.
- The good news is it will not count as demerit points on your licence.
- I have also heard that it is a difficult process to issue you a ticket if you do not present a drivers licence.. but I haven't experimented with this.
All the best, keep spinning.
I think the ticket for running a red is $180, so were there other offences?
Did you provide any identification?
To clarify, a bicycle is a vehicle, so you can't claim the same condition as a pedestrian, and I’m pretty sure that an “Idaho Stop’ applies to stop signs and not traffic lights.
My advice: Plead not guilty and take it to court - it may take 6 months or more, so if nothing else you could save up for the big pay-back. When your court date arrives remember to show up (this is important!), and plead your case. There is a slim chance that the officer will not show-up, and a slightly better chance that the judge may reduce the fine.
I tend to see this from the position that we cyclists should expect to be treated in the same manner as cars; equality is a bitch.
I think the police may have been doing a mini-blitz on cycling tickets the last few days, because I have heard a few stories of people getting tickets this week.
I was pulled over on College on Wednesday because I rolled beside a stopped street car. (Which had noone coming out of the doors and there was a full empty lane between me and the streetcar, and I had slowed down.) The police officer didn't write me a ticket but gave me an official warning.
A few years I ago I got a ticket for rolling through a stop sign, and plead not guilty, and was able to get the fine reduced. But the process is long and annoying, and I am not sure if I would fight it again.
I outlined my experience fighting the ticket here :
http://www.undertones.ca/blog/?p=36
dont run reds.
1 reason why cars hate us in my opinion, and why they are often so inconsiderate toward us
I cant stand cyclists who run reds. maybe now youll make it a habit not to.
I feel strongly enough about this to add my voice here. A red light is not a suggestion. You shouldn't have run it, and it's really as simple as that.
The fine is really excessive though. I could have sworn the fine for running a red was much lower. I really think you should look up the law and try to get a handle on what the officer was charging you for. Is it possible you're getting smoked here?
I recently talked my way out of a red light ticket while driving.
After I pulled over the cop's first question was, "Do you know the fine for running a red light?"
me: "Yes, it's $180"
cop: "Oh! How do you know that, do you usually run red lights?"
me: " No, I know because I am a cycling advocate and I share that information with drivers"
cop: " So you're one of those cyclists that always runs red lights!"
me: "(ugh) No, I always stop"
Anyway, I figure since I entered the intersection on a green, that went yellow and turned red before I could exit due to left turning traffic, I drove away a free man.
Oddly enough, it was a bike cop without a light that stopped me, but I didn't bother bringing that to her attention. I did offer her a Bike Union sticker though, which she promptly refused.
I don't think you got a ticket for running a red light ($180), you likely got one for careless driving ($325).
Maybe you could have it reduced to the red light and save yourself $145.
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/pdf/hta.pdf
It's worth noting that if this happened at night without a Bell or a Light, the overall cost could have been $545.
An Idaho Stop applies to red lights and stop signs. A stop sign must be treated as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Unfortunately this law does not exist in Toronto.
The ticket I received is for "Red Light Fail to Stop, HTA 144(18)"
The set fine is $260, with the total payable $325. I believe the fines were raised January 1st of this year.
After the cop gave me the ticket, he tried to play the nice guy part and said he wouldn't ticket me for not having a horn, a which point I flicked my bell and rode off.
And honestly yes I would be pissed if I saw a car run a red, but as stated by benjamin, a bike is not a car. I stopped at the light, and when it was safe to proceed, rolled forward at walking speed.
I usually treat reds as Idaho stops as I feel its much safer as a cyclist to get out in front of traffic following in the same direction (where I can take up my chosen 2-3ft lane width), rather than be forced into the gutter by them.
I intend to take the ticket to court as I am a student and have the time to do so.
And despite the ticket, I will continue to treat lights as stop signs and stop signs as yields, I'll just be a lot more careful to check that no cops are around.
The fine for running a red light increased. If you're going to call your self an advocate and educate people you should check your facts.
http://www.torontocranks.com/?p=1503
IF you can't be 100% aware of your surroundings when you choose to run through a red then you deserve a ticket... no buts about it.
It is a lot of money though, i hope the ticket also mentions that you were on a bicycle not a car... otherwise your insurance CO will stick it to your car policy.
Lesson learned, huh?
and Idaho stops(not legal in Ontario btw) only apply with stop-signs - not traffic lights.
Obviously a car is not a bike but that is a moot point. Both are considered vehicles under the HTA. It makes no sense to say that some vehicles must obey the law while others are allowed to make up their own law.
The difference between a $325 ticket and no ticket was probably 30 seconds. If your time is that valuable I'm surprised you can afford to spend hours in traffic court fighting a ticket you earned. I trust you will offer the JP something more substantial than your "it's safer in Toronto for cyclists to run red lights" argument.
Good luck
Thanks to anyone actually giving solid advice. And thanks to stuart for posting his experiences fighting the stop sign ticket.
People, if you have nothing of value to add, other than "Don't run read lights," please stop posting in this thread. I asked for advice on fighting this ticket, not advice on how to ride a bike.
@dances_with_wolves
Please inform yourself and read entire threads before posting what has already been stated. Yes, I realize Idaho Stops are not legal in Ontario (I have already stated that if you read the thread). If you informed yourself on the Idaho Stop law, you would realize that it applies to both stop sign & red lights.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2009/04/idaho-stop-law-for-cyclis...
I realize I have no argument for getting this ticket dismissed, however I am looking for advice on whether to follow:
option 2, plea of guilty and ask for a lesser fine
option 3, plea of not guilty and have a trial (hoping that the cop does not show up)
For anyone who has experience with any type of traffic tickets, if I choose option 3, go to trial, the cop shows up and I have no argument, is it likely I will be able get a lesser fine??? Or should I just go with option 2???
Basically I'm just trying to find out how I can pay the least amount for this ridiculously extravagant ticket.
Thanks (to the people who are actually trying to help)
Dan ****
Thanks for your comment Heather,
My “recent” encounter with the 'red light' situation was in December – so back then it was $180.
Anyway, I have to admit I was trusting the information I got from the Toronto.ca website , http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/pdf/hta.pdf , but I guess it 's outdated.
Glad to have my facts straight now.
It's a trade off because you have to appear in court and possibly take the day off work in hopes of reducing your fine.
You do benefit from the delay in process, and the chance that the cop that gave you the ticket does not appear. If you can’t come up with a reasonable defense by the time your court date arrives, the judge might just sympathize with you, but it’s a long shot.
Hope this helps.
Looks like people in Idaho can go through a red light. Too bad this ain't Idaho toto.
I'm trying to help you too, stop going through red lights u silly bike salmon.
Obviously u have overrated your ability to monitor everything that is going on around you either that or you don't think police will enforce traffic laws when you break them right in front of their faces, frankly i'm not sure which one is more ridiculous.
If it were me, i'd treat this ticket as a wake-up call to not run through red lights instead of being a bitter betty.
I have news for you also, the Judge won't give two shits. She'll ask you did you run the light? Yes Judge. Did you have any cause to run the light? No Judge.
Stop wasting the system's time and money you were caught fair and square... Unless you plan on lying to the judge it ain't worth fighting.
plead not guilty
order disclosure
prepare case
show up
check out ticketcombat.com
Here is the link to the Idaho Legislature - Statute 49-720
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-7...
Looks like Red lights are in. Now how do we get you extradited to Idaho for the trial?
Daniel,
In light of the comment thread quickly digressing to the "I am better than thou" forum.
some solid advice can be found here:
http://respect.to/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=LegalInfo.HowToFightTr...
350!! There but by the grace of god go I. Sorry to hear about your ticket. I've followed a councillor who has some cycling clout home a few times - I can tell you he's the worst runner of stop signs.
I thought it was only the "I am smarter than thou because i don't have to fork over $325 for doing something everybody knows is illegal and dangerous" forum.
I'd feel bad like Heather does but, the guy admits to blatantly running the red light... truly i am confused. Maybe it was the bad role model choice of a city councilman... doubt he gets tickets though, haha!
If ya can't do the time don't do the crime.
The law blows, and I ride just like you do. I might fight the ticket, but I am a public servant and would lose no money for the two days it would take me: one to book, one for the court. Of course, the way our courts run would cost the taxpayer the cost of two-days' of supply teachers for my classroom: $400. Not so much for that, but because of the PITA, since this wouldn't go on my license, I might just pay the fine. After all, though $325 blows, it is about 1/3 what the average driver wastes in a month!
Years ago when I had a speeding ticket to fight (that cheap-shot pig location on Lake Shore by the legion: 80 in a 60), my friend, a lawyer, drafted a letter requesting 'disclosure' of documents from the crown attorney. None came, of course, for such a minor offense to the cops. That might have worked with the judge; however, the officer did not come, so it was dismissed. I'm not sure I would bother again, because insurance still gets a record, and still waits for the opportunity to screw you. It isn't any longer relevant to me as a driver: Autoshare only.
Wow, the stupidity in this forum overwhelms.
We're all lucky you jackasses are riding bikes, not driving trucks or cars.
Red lights, stop signs, tickets and fines exist for a reason.
We're in Ontario, not Idaho. Go ahead and move there. Or obey. Tha's the deelio.
Wow.
I was driving my Cadillac yesterday, I was doing 90 km/h in a 40 zone near a school.
I couldn't stop at the lights in time since I was going so fast, so I just went through. Luckily, the children crossing the street were fast enough to get out of the way, and I didn't hit anybody.
But then a crazy know-nothing cop comes and fines me for 1. running a red 2. speeding and 3. careless driving. Please people tell me how to fight this ticket!!
Thanks in advance!!
"I was driving my Cadillac yesterday, I was doing 90 km/h in a 40 zone near a school..."
Suggest you plead not guilty by reason of mental defect. Tell the judge you hit your head hard when you fell off your horse at a young age.
PS, If you do it again, make sure to at least hit someone. The fine for doing so is a lot less than blowing the lights.
Yahoo-man/driver, you need to get out more if you're reduced to picking fights with cyclists in the comments section.
Mr Freeride,
You say you're a student and you want to fight this? And that you plan on running more stop signs and red lights in the future? What grade are you in, son?
In case you're not old enough to have a G1, the law, the Highway Traffic Act, says bikes are vehicles. A bike rider chooses to blow a red or run a stop, the consequences are the same as if you did it in a car, truck, bus, or transport.
Any grownup with a driver's license already knows red lights mean stop, and stop signs also mean stop. They apply to bikes, too, as bikes are vehicles. And last time I checked, Toronto isn't in Idaho. So those of you who want Idaho stops...move to idaho like Yahoo man says, and stop confusing our youth, the drivers of tomorrow.
If your opinion is that HTA dosn't apply to you, or you're different from other vehicles on the road, you're in the wrong, and you get what's coming. Pretty simple.
I would advise young Mr Freeride to plead guilty, and at least learn to take responsibility for his actions. And please don't run reds or stop signs. You set a bad example for cycling, my young friend.
I did not blast through the light like a maniac as many of you are making it out. I came to a complete stop, saw no cars were coming, and rolled through cautiously. In my eyes, the equivalent of jaywalking. Unfortunately not to the law.
On Friday evening around rush hour I was out biking for about an hour. When there was a safe opportunity to cross through a red light, at least half of the riders I encountered were rolling through.
This shit happens all the time. I am not the only one doing it. Thanks to all that posted links and advice. I will definitely try to get my fine reduced. For anyone interested in the outcome, I'll update this thread when the time comes.
I'm wondering if the whistle-blowers on this site have ever jaywalked before?
you can't beat the ticket by any means I know of unless you plead not guilty and hope the officer doesn't show up. You might want to remember that the HTA prescribes $200 as the minimum fine for this offence (the justice can't set it any lower) and $1000 as a maximum fine. In other words, if the justice doesn't like you for taking up court time by pleading not guilty when you clearly did it, or just thinks too many cyclists run red lights, or wants to make the point that we don't live in Idaho, you could get stuck with a $1000 fine, plus the "victim assistance surcharge".
Sorry. Appealing to the justice can't save you more than about a hundred bucks, and going to court will cost you at least a day off work. You gamble that the officer might not show up, or the justice might feel lenient, against the possibility that you might get a harsher fine.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
As a cyclist, one of the most irritating things is waiting at a red light or behind a streetcar discharging passengers and seeing other bikers ride through as if they were above the law.
Keep us posted on your court date and location,
So i can show up with printouts of what you've posted here, and make a victim impact statement to the Justice on how your lousy cycling and antisocial manners hurt us all as a community. You ought to be taken off the streets and sent to reform school, punk.
He's a student, folks, so a day off means nothing to him; he dosn't have to show up for work, he dosn't have to worry about setting the team back; and he doesn't earn an income.
Therefore, he doesn't pay property taxes, which means he dosn't pay his fair share for the roads he uses (and flagrantly abuses).
And he plans to abuse more, waste taxpayer dollars arguing his opinion in court while we foot the bill for the Justice, the Crown Attorney, the Defence, and the Court officers wages. Have a fun time, Freeride. Helluva field trip.
And, he hopes to support others who choose to abuse by breaking the law. In fact, he offers to become our "reporter" for how to fight tickets, at our expense, on this free public forum! What a value! Sheesh!
Clearly this is one young cyclist that is not deterred by the law, the punishment, common civility, or the gentle persuasion of the community. Infuriating! Get off the roads, Freeride.
Dude, you need to get some. Pay if you have to.
I do take arcane pleasure in posting up here from time to time. And I get some, believe me.
When I used to try to be the voice of reason, I often got flamed off or directly insulted.
So I gave up and joined the fray with equally irritating, trollsome commentary. Glad you dislike it.
It's now a bit of fun to participate in this small corner of the Internet
and irritate people who try to irritate others with opinion and conjecture
and who never show face at community events, civic functions, etc.
Perhaps out of sheer respect for Herb and Anthony, I'll curtail some of my commentary.
After all, they spend a good bit of their own money and time to facilitate this for us.
And there are a handful of decent cyclists around here...Donald, John, Tom, Hamish, Yvonne.
But it sure is difficult to resist the urge to stir the pot
when there are so many deserving yahoos drawing attention to themselves
who post bizarre, socially inappropriate, and highly opinionated statements here.
Well now you know. Thanks for reading.
This has turned into a sad commentary on the cycling community.
A cyclist admitted that he blew a light and has trouble paying the fine. He is looking for options. Then he is pillared. Sure he worded his intro a little poorly, he could have been a little more formal and humble. Forgetting the nonsense replies, some of the info given is questionable. Some of it crosses the line into legal advice. Telling him that there is no way to beat it is plain wrong without knowing all of the info. Sure on the face of things, it does not look good for him. The number one thing for him to do is get informed. Not only about the HTA but every else that relates to his particular situation.
As per the nonsense. There is a multi-million industry in Ontario protecting drivers that have done the same thing he has, whether by mistake or malice. In fact, each taxpayer pays about $1000. year just to keep bad drivers on the road, anything from drivers with multiple convictions to killers. Cyclists are protected by a rag tag bunch of cycling advocates. Give the guy a break. I am not suggesting he not be held accountable for his actions but given the same level of support as anyone else. He is going to be paying for the ticket one way/form or another. Seems people are intent in drowning him in a pool of spit instead.
There is a view that the HTA is very rigid. If a cyclists has a rampaging rhino up at his back the HTA will either not apply or allow an alternative action to the red light. Find yourself at a light that does not sense (yes most are gone from Toronto streets) your presence you can hardly be expected to wait there for an extended period of time for a car to show up to set it off. While those two examples are the extreme most daily examples are a little more ambiguous. Ever gone through a green light to have it turn red when you hit the other side because they are timed for motor vehicle speeds? Cyclists do get tickets for these because it is the position of some cops that they should have expected the change and waited for the light to cycle over. Riding in a curb lane with parked cars, even if you are a door's length away from the cars, is also interpreted as contrary to the HTA if you are hit. The rationale is that you are supposed to be safely passing the parked cars, not possible if you were hit.
That said, if you are going to blow a light or violate any other part of the HTA have your reasons ready beforehand. I proceed with caution, when there is no traffic, through a particular red light a few times a week. It is in an intersection that has a volatile mix of traffic, aggressive drivers and poor design that you do not want to be caught in it when the light goes green.
@locutas_of_spragge
I was under the impression that pleading not guilty in court yet being found guilty would only result in a fine of the ticket value plus a court fee. Do you have any references to people getting their fines raised in court??
@DarrenS
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
I also had thought that Idaho Stops only applied to stop signs. So I've learned something here.
I would like to see adoption of this law for stop signs. It seems to be normal practice for even cautious and responsible cyclists to approach slowly, survey the intersection, then proceed if the way is clear. Especially on side streets where stop signs have been planted as traffic calming measures. Fining cyclists for not fully stopping such that they need to place a foot on the ground feels like harassment to me.
But proceeding through an intersection at stop sign happens when the vehicle operator determines that no other vehicle has the right of way. A cyclist can make this determination safely at a slow coast. At a traffic light it is more clear cut, there is no discretion for the operator: vehicles proceed when the light is green. In a dense traffic environment like we have in Toronto, adopting a law that allows cyclists discretion at signal lights would be problematic. Many cyclists would take this as license to dodge automobiles across busy intersections. Enforcement would become more difficult, more dependant on an officer's judgement, because it would be based on how they determine the cyclist had properly yielded to traffic. Here it is straightforward: the cyclist proceeded through the intersection on a red light, they were breaking the law. Waiting at a red light doesn't claim that much time, only a couple minutes, a chance to catch your breath, to survey the neighbourhood. The unwillingness to wait for green often seems to be shaped by ego. Too cool for the rules. Ego pushes every user on the street to be more confrontational, makes the interactions between different modes of transport that much more fractious.
A claim could be made that traffic signals exist to manage dangerous automobiles. They wouldn't be necessary if everyone travelled on foot or on bicycles, so why should we all become ruled by an environment created for the automobile? But the overwhelming majority of people in our communities are heavily invested in and dependant on their automobiles. Cyclists and pedestrians have to co-exist with them, and to do that we need to recognize that some rules are necessary. Hopefully the dominance of the car can be lessened some, but they're not going away anytime soon.
I hate watching other cyclists ride through red lights. I think it is behaviour that makes life more difficult for the rest of us, inspires the frothing drivers shouting for licenses and insurance for cyclists. I've stood at the corner of Eglinton and Duplex, right across from the police station, and watched people on bikes race through red lights hardly breaking cadence, with no fear that anyone in that building is paying any attention to anything that happens on the street. So I'm glad to hear some evidence of enforcement. I'd like to see more of it for moving through red lights, riding at night without lights, riding on the wrong side of the street and riding on sidewalks on pedestrian heavy downtown streets. Maybe if there was regular enforcement of these behaviours rather that bogus blitzes that target bells and putting a foot down at stop signs, there'd be less a sense that cyclists are a roving band of anarchists that need to be reigned in. Of course, if there's greater enforcement of cyclists there also needs to be greater enforcement upon drivers, quick ticketing of anyone in a bike lane, for starters. The suspicion held by each side that the other side is getting away with flagrant disregard of the guidelines fuels the war on cars rhetoric. I don't want to see a police state, but some sign that our very expensive police service is refereeing the playing field, judiciously calling the worst infractions, might cool the debate some.
That all said, $325 is a good chunk of cash for getting a twenty second head start on a green. I'm sure many clearly guilty drivers play the game of challenging the ticket with hope that the cop won't show at court time, so a cyclist is free to try that to, more power to you. Just don't expect a progressive law in one under-populated US state, a law that wouldn't fit here in the way you want to use it, to make you innocent. And don't expect every cyclist to bond with you in the spirit of community. For some cycling is an inexpensive, healthy and fun way to get from one place to another place, not a way to fight the power.
I think many of us are angry because we go out of our way to obey the law and expect others to. If you are tired of being characterized by the media as a red-light running cyclist then i think you're further angered by this casual dismissal of the law.
Good ol' Duplex and Eg. I pass by that intersection quite often when the weather is a little better. I always see police cars parked there, but I don't think I've ever actually seen a policeperson looking out for cyclists there. I think that pretty darn confirms my idea that they just don't care up here. Which is a good thing because I don't ride with a bell, and I often will take the sidewalk on major arterials. But I do always stop at the red.
I hope that cyclists understand that their bad behaviour quickly translates into negative rhetoric, especially when you factor in an irritated driver.
People regularly take time to tell me about the "crazy cyclist" that they saw pass a street car door, run a red light, or anything else that they see as inappropriate.
As a cyclist, I try to reassure them that these acts do not represent the majority of people who bike, but they are more likely to believe what they see. Enforcement is probably the most effective way to educate all road users, and cyclists are no exception. $325 in this case seems excessive (not to mention inconsistent), and of course the same should apply to drivers, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Who needs courts when there are enough cyclists out there to lynch a fellow cyclist? Thanks for the voice of moderation, Darren.
Funnily, the Google Ad alongside the forum said: "We fight tickets!" - and isn't that just how it is: while the cyclist community rings its hands about the perception to drivers and the ethics of it all, drivers are just hiring ex-cops to fight the tickets. No matter what cyclists do, drivers will continue to treat cyclists and peds as different species and fail to see the reflection in their own actions.
Par example, drivers don't like stopping at stop signs, and so rarely do. (And they don't even have the excuse of having to put the foot down and start pedaling again.
BTW, Darren, the spelling is pilloried, as in a Pillory that was used in town squares to hold the heads and hands for punishment and humiliation.
I will add my two cents worth to the debate going on here.
First, make sure you didn't get any points attached to the ticket. I know people who have had that happen. Points will make insurance go up much more than the fine. Even if you have no car now, it could make a difference in the future.
Next, your odds of getting no fine are low. Still, plead not guilty and show up for your court date. Prosecutors are willing to make deals. Explain how you are a student etc. The prosecutor will lower the rate. $180 is the usual rate for running a red in a car. You could get it down to at least that. You could probably get it lower than that too. It is not worth the prosecutors time to go to trial if you are reasonable. $180 is less unaffordable than $325.
Good luck with it. Post online what the results were.
@David
I have read that for some reason, in Toronto, demerit points from bicycle tickets are more likely to be accidentally added to my drivers abstract than in other towns. I have no idea why this is. I will definitely check my abstract (after this ticket is dealt with) to make sure this mistake has not been made.
My ticket clearly indicates that no motor vehicle was involved and that I was on a bike in case I do find a problem with my record and need to rectify it.
I agree that my odds of getting no fine are low, however I will still be going to court in hopes that either;
A. The officer does not show up and the ticket is dismissed
B. The prosecutor offers a plea bargain with a lower fine
Huh! That even escaped two different spell checkers. The vision I had in my head of what I thought was pillory was different from your link. I was thinking cyclist being tied down and speared in public.
Do not hope. Be prepared. Ask for disclosure as soon as you get the notice of trial. Understand what happens when you get to court and they have not provided it. If you do get it find out what information has to be in there.
Be ready for trial. Show up on a slow day or some internal blitz and you are going to trial. Find out what you can do to defend yourself. Showing up unprepared will result in peeing people off.
If you have never been to trial head over to Old City Hall and sit through a few HTA cases. They used to list the charges people are facing outside of the courtrooms but no longer do that. Explain to one of the court officers that you want to sit in a courtroom that deal with HTA issues. If memory serves me right the courtrooms are in the 300 series. ie 303,307.
As for the "Idaho Stop". Keep up to date on the research on this approach at traffic signals. Last summer a study pointed to improved safety using this approach. Careful, this is new and still being evaluated.
http://theathleteslawyer.com/cases/bicycle-injuries-145-lo...
A controversial study in the UK came up with a similar conclusion. Female cyclists tend to die at intersections at a higher rate than males. The initial conclusion was that females tended to be more law abiding and males more aggressive and tend to ignore the "rules".
If you do fight the ticket I would try to defend it as a mistake that won't happen again - ie you didn't realize there was an advance green and thought the light was changing. Trying to defend it as justified - to get yourself more safe space - is unlikely to work!
And really you don't need to jump reds to get that 2-3 feet of space if you don't jump the queue in the first place, if you are already staked out in position at the light without filtering past everyone else, then problem solved. But yeah its annoying waiting behind many cars that are turning right when you can easily filter past because you don't take up much space.
"...Trying to defend it as justified - to get yourself more safe space - is unlikely to work!..."
I am sorry Tanya but this is borderline irresponsible. A number of well entrenched rights we enjoy allow us to protect ourselves from harm by government. Whether it be a law allowing torture or something totally mundane like a traffic light signal. Whether this is an issue at all in this case is up to the person charged to decide. Prudent advice would be for him to research it or find competent counsel. Challenging what otherwise appear to be iron clad laws is how changes occur to make them better.
If he were to put on a credible and relevant defense to any issue the court would have to consider it. The right to protect oneself trumps a stop light charge. Again, that is something for him to decide if he wants to pursue. It takes good research and/or counsel to put on a credible and relevant defense.
"If you do fight the ticket I would try to defend it as a mistake that won't happen again - ie you didn't realize there was an advance green and thought the light was changing..."
Is irresponsible. You just counseled someone to lie to a court. It would be an interesting test to see if the court would/could hold you responsible if the cyclist used your suggestion in court.
I can't even remember the last time I saw a car do a full stop at a stop sign (except when there are pedestrians crossing). Any "grown up" as well as any five year old knows red means stop and "stop" means stop.
Your condescending tactics display a lack of maturity that just grates on my nerves. I agreed with almost everything you said, and yet I still wanted to smack you.
Enter a debate as our equal. Our peer. Right now, you are neither - nor are you a satisfactory father figure.
"Disuse is sometimes more efficient than (state) intervention in adapting the law to changing mores." Minister in France on a law banning women from wearing pants that is still in effect in Paris, France
Please listen to Darrens advice as well as the above:
plead not guilty
order disclosure
prepare case
show up
check out ticketcombat.com
Isn't this a case of common sense?? Jesus, why is there even a long discussion about this?
Stop Lights are used to stop grid lock. Cyclist do not contribute to grid lock. The law was written for Motorised Vehicles, since a Motorised Vehicle going through a red light could cause a potential fatality. A Bicycle is not a motorised vehicle, and the fatal results would likely be to the cyclist. We should be trying to get the Idaho Stop here in Ontario.
(and YES The Idaho Stop - IS for STOP LIGHTS not SIGNS! It treats a light as a sign. Stop, Look, Go when Safe...)
I've seen 'Crazy Pedestrians' and more "Crazy Drivers' and yes there are stupid-non-shoulder-checking-dressed-in-black-no brakes-weaving- cyclists out there too...
I practice a hyper aware Idaho Stop, and feel it is my right to do so. I Stop, Look both ways -respectful of the red, and then Proceed when it is safe to do so.
I ride past the street cars when I am BESIDE them, as they come to a stop and their STOP sign has not been activated. (Yet pedestrians are already walking out on the street, like dazed sheep, long before the streetcar arrives. Where is the law protecting me from Jaywalking Zombies?)
I also take a whole lane when construction or Movie sets force me to. I am sure people think I am a "crazy cyclist" when I actually act within my rights. Rights most people don't know we are entitled to.
SO Please:
Fight it.
Attend court.
Be respectful.
Dress well.
Play the Game.
Be Pro Active (ask for disclosure etc)
You may have broken an archaic law, but the law needs to change.
California recognises that a car and a bike are very different, and has made new laws accordingly. Why are we so behind?? Conservative, out dated Ontario perspective of course.
There are thousands of Laws the don't/didn't make sense: Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote. You can't drop a moose out of a plane. Let's hope the laws that cyclists are currently straddled with will follow the same route these stupid laws went!
For more: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/archaic-laws-french-women-s...
We do not live in Idaho, and our traffic laws are not the same as in Idaho
We have always recognized the experiences of other jurisdictions when it comes to things like safety. If lead in the water is going to poison people in Idaho it will do the same in Toronto.
Courts enforce the laws, governments make new ones
Do not believe everything Stephen Harper tells you. The police enforce the laws. The courts interpret laws and then apply them. If you do not believe me research "common law" and "judge made law". Every piece of the HTA more than a couple of years old has been interpreted by the courts many times. As silly as it is, the courts have determined that an accident caused by a driver putting on lipstick is in itself not proof of inattention when it comes to the charge of 'careless driving'.
If you are unhappy with the laws lobby the government
This is one of the ways to change a law. Many are changed/modified through challenges.
We also have the benefit of recognizing the "living tree doctrine". This allows the law the change with the times and as new info, like the Idaho Stop, come to focus adapt.
A judge has the discretion to issue a higher than the set fine
Yes they do. Though we have protections against that too. Putting up a credible, but ultimately unsuccessful defense, will not earn you the ire of the courts. Though making stuff up and hoping can get you into a lot of hot water.
I was not counselling someone to lie, I was assuming...
You told him how to plea on your assumptions based on your hope that your position would sound better in court. Do you know how often that non-sense goes on in traffic court and how many laughs it gets? A lot of cyclists get arrested because someone told them that they do not have to identify themselves.
You probably also want to do some research to find out if a "mistake" can even be used as a defense in a stopping case.
I read Daniel's posting as a request for tactics to beat a rather expensive ticket. So, I believe, did Tanya. It may make sense to think about principled ways to expand cyclists' rights when facing a traffic ticket, but the way I read Daniel's request, he didn't ask for that kind of information.
If you simply want to beat a traffic ticket that would cause you hardship to pay, then at least some of Tanya's advice makes sense, as, I believe, do my cautions. Anyone who wants to induce the courts to nudge the law toward upholding cyclist's rights would do well to follow Darren's advice. But I believe advancing the law takes three things: interest, resources, and the right case. Daniel can correct my reading, but as he phrased his initial appeal, I did not see where he claimed to have any of these prerequisites for a legal challenge to the status quo.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
John I do not believe in the differentiation of"cyclists'" rights. Any right that a "cyclist" has, so to does anyone else. Whether they are a driver, nutter, cyclist, pedestrian and so on.
I am not encouraging Daniel to challenge but rather to be prepared. Research and seek the appropriate counsel. Attending trial on a 'wing and a prayer' is stupid. What happens if he goes hoping that the cop does not show and he does? If you sit there and tell the JP you are now not ready for trial you are going to get burned.
"...simply want to beat a traffic ticket..." Is that a cue to make stuff up? If you want to beat a traffic ticket you need to do your research at the very least. Then you take the quickest/least expensive way out that is available to you. Quite frankly, if you head to court hoping to improve "cyclists' rights" by playing Perry Mason you will probably get nowhere or end up with huge costs. If you are comfortable making up whatever you feel will get you off that is up to you. Most of the time people will get away with it, the odd few get nailed to the wall.
The "Idaho Stop" is mentioned so oft here because it was original post. Whether that is even an issue that Daniel wants to pursue is up to him after he researches it and gets good counsel. It may not even be on the radar.
Let us forget for a moment the old adage, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when we look at Tanya's advice. What would stop the JP from amending the charge to "careless driving"? Essentially that is what she wants Daniel to plead.
Daniel, are you still going to "idaho stop" red lights?
I've been to traffic court twice.
The first time, as it happens, was to fight a ticket for going through a red light on a bicycle. The light was about to change, but not quite....
The simplest thing is to plead "Not Guilty" and then see what happens. It then is up to the officer to prove that you were guilty. If the officer does not show up, you are automatically found not guilty. That is exactly what happened to me (back about 1982 I think it was).
NOTE that you don't have to testify. It is up to the police officer to make the case. I am not saying "claim you didn't go through the light"; I'm saying that "let the police officer make the case that you're guilty; maybe something will go wrong in the officer's case."
More complicated is pleading "Not Guilty" and then trying to catch the officer out on a point of procedure or case law. Good luck with that, unless you are a lawyer. My other trip to traffic court was for speeding on the 401. I think in retrospect that the charge could have been defeated (duh, of course I was speeding; that's not the point), but I only recognized the possible flaws in the officer's case about five hours after being found guilty. Lawyers are paid for 1) understanding how a court of law works; 2) knowing the case law; 3) being able to think intelligently on their feet in a court of law. "Beat-the-ticket" advice may help a bit on 2), but 1) and 3) will be an insoluble problem.
If you are lucky, the judge may take pity on you and poke holes in the officer's case. I actually saw this happen in the case of a friend who had been ticketed for speeding in his taxi. The judge asked some questions of the officer, which poked holes in the officer's testimony, and then said "Not guilty", and to my friend "And slow down!"
If you plead "Not Guilty", the Crown may offer a deal to knock down the charge if you will change to guilty. If your driver's licence (and hence record for automobile insurance purposes) is not involved, and the sum offered is attractive, then consider going for the plea bargain.
Absolutely forget trying to prove that the law is an ass, or that "Idaho stops" should be legal in Ontario, or anything else. It won't work and will annoy the Court. You don't want that.
I don't see that "Guilty with an explanation" is of any assistance in this case. It's a useless plea. Maybe the judge might knock down the charge, but maybe not.
Pleading "guilty", well might as well mail in the fine now.
So, back to my advice (and I Am Not A Lawyer) is to plead "Not Guilty" and hope for the best. Is this a lie? No, it's a plea. It's up to the court to decide, and that's fine. Just don't testify on your own behalf (100% bad idea, no good can come of it), and don't annoy the court by stupid questioning of the officer (which is your right--the questioning part, anyway).
The best preparation would be to read up on court procedures, and then sit in on a few hours of traffic court. You quickly see that 99% of the people who represent themselves 1) don't have a clue how the court works; and 2) their misguided efforts never succeed.
All the above presupposes that you have the time to go to court to contest the ticket. Well, if you succeed, you've saved yourself $325; if you fail, you will at least have seen how our justice system works up close; either way you've learned something.
Friday @ 7:27 PM - Approach Red Light at Chester & Danforth.
Stop at line, foot down and wait.
Passing pedestrain says," Thank you for stopping." I reply," You're welcome."
Then I see a female cyclist, buzz by me doing about 25 km/h while sailing right through the light.
Please explain how is it that your "Red Light Diary" is helpful or what point you are trying to make with it.
Are you offering up some new theory on "guilt by association"? Much has been written about this fallacy. There is also many painful histories surrounding it. So you have something new that you can support?
Hi All,
I'm Brian, and I completely agree with Tom. This stretch of Danforth is rife with cyclists blowing reds with reckless abandon.
Quite literally, every time I stop for a red at Danforth and Playter, or Danforth and Chester, or Danforth and Greenwood, one, if not a few, cyclists simply ride right through those lights as if they aren't subject to the law. It's beyond "Idaho Stop"ing. I shake my head in shame.
In support of Tom, my perception is that for every one of us law-abiding, socially responsible cyclists, there are myriad others who just aren't. It sucks that there are only a handful of us out there actually trying to do our best. Very disappointing, demoralizing.
It leads me to the conclusion "no wonder our City dosn't want to do anything for us; most of us aren't really doing anything to cooperate anyhow".
I apologise if this offends, but this is what I really feel, and I realise it's a very visceral, instinctive response; I like to think I have a good sense of right and wrong.
Sincerely,
Brian
Many cyclists, not just young guys, blow through red lights at T-intersections, and it's not only a bit dangerous for peds, but it's fairly common and widespread - so much so that actually stopping for it and waiting - like motorists and peds do - is so unusual that occasionally we get thanked for offering respect for pedestrians, as I was once thanked by a ped crossing on Bloor near the Colonnade when that crossing was put in after a ped death.
And at times, I'm stopped at a T-stop, and I'm passed soo close by a cyclist blowing through that I sorta feel my sleeve clothing move a bit - and think thrice about why bother with advocacy, and if it's on a CM night, don't bother showing up as how can I justify breaking laws and dissing everyone else for such passholes?
Yes, I understand wanting to get ahead of the cartillery and bad road conditions, and the rush-hour Danforth tends to be nasty, especially in some winter conditions with extra ice/shit in the curb.
There can be no criticism for Tom and Brian for stopping at red lights. This is good. Their stopping at red lights is not an issue. It remains unexplained, outside of an unproved theory, how those who do not stop can have such a huge effect on cycling.
**
"no wonder our City dosn't want to do anything for us; most of us aren't really doing anything to cooperate anyhow".**
How does this follow? Is there some other force or submission that allows millions to be spent on motor vehicle infrastructure even though the majority of drivers ignore the rules.
Efforts and resources should be spent making the quality of life on the road for the Tom's and Brian' s better. Not obsessed with some red light runners. These red light runners are red herrings used to obscure more pressing issues.
I lived in Greektown for a few years. My afternoon commute home took me east on Danforth then north on Carlaw. While waiting in the left turn lane to go north on Carlaw I routinely waited for the light to turn red before proceeding. I knew from experience that westbound cars jockeying to get ahead of one another would blow the light.
I am willing to assume that if someone takes the time to thank me for stopping, that they feel quite the opposite about another blasting clear through a red light, especially one that is used primarily as a pedestrian crossing where the bike would typically come out the victor in a collision.
So yes, there is, in my opinion, a direct correlation between the irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists and the negative perceptions being formed by others on the road. You may call it a "fallacy", but if you look to the places where cycling has been embraced, i think you'll also see more responsible (and respectable) cycling on the whole.
I we envision a time when many more cyclists will take to the road, then we should ensure that that growth reflects the safe use of our roads. I guess you could say that I’m getting ready for that time, until then I’ll do my best to lead by example.
Hi all,
Brian again, sorry for all the thoughts...
Quite simply, I believe people remember negative/ experiences more readily. For example, lots of cyclists can clearly remember the horror stories of their riding lives. Many of us don't or can't recall the amazing, unencumbered, joyfilled successful riding experiences we have. I feel almost wierd to write "this morning I had a great ride thru Thorncliffe; my brakes worked, my cargo was solidly secure, the roads were dry, passing traffic gave me lots of space and changed lanes to avoid me, and no pedestrians were hurt or killed in this foray onto Toronto's roads!" How unusual is that!? Acutally, it's completely usual, but writing it out is what's unusual. It's contrary to human nature. We remember the awful, traumatic, injurious memories as a subconscious way of learning and adapting to our environments.
That's where I respectfully disagree with modifying environment to suit behaviour. My opinion and preference is to change behaviour to adapt to environment. And teaching, education is the key to this.
I believe that if we teach ourselves and our children to behave according to common sense (red light means "stop"), we will serve ourselves, and them, quite well. However, I believe that if we continue to ignore the problems like those who don't utilize good common sense (red light blowers), we will undermine ourselves, and those who try to help us, because people do remember the negatives, the injustices, the wrongs. Until the norm (running reds) becomes the exception.
Right now, I feel like our city is leaning towards red light running (and carelessness on the roads in all sorts of vehicles) being a common thing that no one cares to do anything about, starting with themselves, until it impacts them directly. We can make a change, if we truly intend and commit.
Sorry, I do so love writing! Hope this helps.
Brian
Guilt by association fallacy has been thoroughly researched for several decades. There are tons of related papers on it and many historical examples.
A really good example where an element of guilt by association surfaces is the struggle that African Americans had to endure. The negative actions of a very tiny fraction of the black population were held out as examples as to why the community as a whole should be denied basic rights. Are we just to wait till these few act acceptably to give the community as a whole equality? No because we concentrated, thankfully, on the vast majority. Guilt by association was used to cover up racism. Even most accepted definitions of racism itself confront the fallacy of guilt by association.
Wasting your time on a few scofflaws is pointless because people will always being doing something stupid. Those individuals will eventually, one way or another, be held accountable for their actions. They alone should be held accountable. The rest of us should not have to wait while a minority blows lights. Yes go out an inform people what stop lights are for, it is up to them, and them alone, to suffer the consequence of failing to heed your advice.
It is high time to stop pandering to the ills of the few and concentrate on the majority of cyclists who deserve much better.
"...That's where I respectfully disagree with modifying environment to suit behaviour. My opinion and preference is to change behaviour to adapt to environment..."
I do not think anyone is calling for a revolution but rather, when necessary, a considered change. The way in which traffic was understood 70 years ago has changed dramatically to what is understood today. Things evolve as our understanding expands.
Physics has not changed. Two vehicles meet in an intersection, then we have problems. Yet how to prevent those two vehicles meeting evolves. If we carefully consider a new approach and it proves more effective why would we not use it?
If for instance, the "Idaho Stop", proves to be significantly safer than our current approach why would we not embrace it or at least give it some consideration? If we did not accept evolution we would be debating this with smoke signals.
I regularly see bikes doing things they really shouldn't, and I almost never see anything being done about it, except perhaps for the drivers that provide honk therapy.
There was an enforcement blitz conducted by the police at 54 Division last fall that saw so “few scofflaws” that they only issued 184 tickets against cyclists in a five-hour blitz, from 4 p.m. until 9 p.m. on one road, despite conducting a 3 week awareness campaign.
Hi all,
Great conversation, interesting debate.
Taking this back to the beginning, it is clear that there are cyclists out there who regularly disregard the law, the norm and when caught are completely surprised or annoyed the exception * or when involved in a collision (injured or killed)* it is us who cry out at the outcome.
Young Daniel thought it was in his best interest to do what he thought was right, and a police officer disagreed with him. Now it will be up to a Judge to decide who is right. It seems like an awful waste of time, money, and resources, but that's how Daniel chose this to be.
What's very interesting to me is that he turned to a cycling forum to ask for support and opinion, which seems to generously support him with only a bit of protest. This indicates to me that a lot of folks on this forum subscribe to the notion that breaking the law and behaving irresponsibly with a bicycle is the norm. So whom is guilty by association in this case? It bothers me. I don't support any scofflaws, and neither do folks like Tom or others. I apologise if this provokes.
I agree it's high time for a perception shift, and I strongly urge all Toronto cyclists to take responsibility as civil, curteous, law-abiding people, and lead by good example on the roads.
I also agree that physics don't change, and neither do human nature. 70 years ago, before automobiles, before traffic lights, before pavement, traffic was very similar; bicycles were exceptionally common, and people used lots of common sense. It is the infrastructure, tools to navigate, and human perception that have changed, and those are big problems. Cars have become more prolific and automated and dangerous, to the point where we buy them based on safety features like airbags and ABS, which I view as tools to protect us from ourselves, infrastructure that accommodates our lack of skill and inexperience. That is what must change.
Brian
Tom you have simply made the case that the police blitz was ineffective. It is hard to know if in a city of 3 million whether or not 184 tickets is a few or not. Blitz skew numbers. If we ran a zero tolerance campaign on all vehicles I doubt anyone would escape a ticket in the same period.
Much is put into education and awareness programs. You have made it clear in this instance that these programs are failures or the other possibility is that the awareness campaign is flawed.
What needs to be determined is why it did not take hold with the population. Is there a fear or misconception that overrides the deterrent of a ticket.
The other issue is the reduction of harm. Did this blitz reduce harm or was it just a dog and pony show?
"...generously support him with only a bit of protest. This indicates to me that a lot of folks on this forum subscribe to the notion that breaking the law and behaving irresponsibly with a bicycle is the norm..."
I do not know how you could condemn so many people with so few facts. I will suggest that maybe people on this forum are willing to consider more broad issues when trying to understand why people ignore the "law". I do not know that you could prove evil intent in more than a half dozen cases of cyclists blowing lights. Misconceptions, a bad experience or a different belief set could drive people to act outside your interpretation of the law.
More time needs to be used trying to understand the reasons as opposed to alienating them. They are not bad people. Your opinion is that people do not care enough. You are entitled to that but being so rigid may prevent to truly understand why people do what people do. To effectively reach these people you need to understand them.
"...It seems like an awful waste of time, money, and resources, but that's how Daniel chose this to be..."
I am going to loosely paraphrase something that is quite often used in traffic courts and is recognized by the courts. I say loosely because I do not remember the quote verbatim nor the authors. "The traffic courts are the most important courts in the land. While the average Canadian will never see the inside of a criminal court, it will be more than likely that they will be involved with a traffic court. Their beliefs of the Canadian justice system will be based on those experiences. Therefore it is extremely important that they and the courts are served well". (Again, this is from memory but I think I have a good gist of it). Daniel will come out of this with a much better understanding of the courts and many things to think about.
Hi Daniel,
Questions for you :
Do you see this as an educational experience to gain better understanding of justice?
Does the ticket, or the process, and/or the reactions from fellow cyclists on this forum act as a deterrent to you running red lights and stop signs?
Do you intend to run red lights and stop signs in the future?
Has anything written in this forum helped or informed you?
Thanks,
Brian
Daniel, do not and i repeat do not plead not guilty and then go fight it in front of a judge, you will lose and he will charge the full price plus fees. Before the court there is a line to see the prosector--ask them right there that you if you plead guilty and ask for them to reduce the fine. Almost always they will reduce a lot--tell them you did stop before proceeding. This saves them court time so always reduce. So then with prosecutor you plead guilty, she reduces the fine. You go in court, judge sees agreement reached and boom you are gone. I see this all the time with car drivers getting fines reduced. The one time i fought a ticket because i wanted to stand for my rights i got my ass kicked.
I would also like to thank Darren and Herb for being sensible here as a way to many self righteous, "i am a law abiding citizen" people giving opinions. Damn Canadians can be incredibly anal. Other places have had the foresight to realise a bike is not a car.--Thanks Idaho
Bikers do not want to die so when we run a red light it is done with caution and only when it does not affect a car because that affects me/us/dieing.. Jaywalking is an offence too and is about as dangerous as me/us running a red light when it is safe. Going down a one way street the wrong way is about as dangerous as a jogger doing the same. "Running" light at a T intersection with nary a pedestrian in sight is not dangerous. Get over it folks.
Our politicians have put up a way too many stop signs and lights as it is.
Cars outnumber us/pedestrians dramatically, are extremely less mobile and way more killer capacity, a way less visibilty range, lot less stopping range and run red lights and stop signs, crosswalks with pedestrians on them etc etc all the time. If police need to blitz, blitz that as happens all day long at every intersection.
A bike is NOT a car-it is some politician that defined us as a vehicle in equality of a car. Just because it is law does not make it a good law or a right law.
Anybody who does not see the difference has a pickle up their but/way to anal.
Cars will alway hate the biker despite sentiments this is why cars hate us
Personally i think cars hate us because they are stuck in a traffic jams, all day every day and at all those lights and do not have the freedom we do.
Justa thought
thanks
p.s the bell ticket is a stupid law too but it is LAW--i wonder if who ever made this realises i/we are not mute so can yell and a lot louder then a "tinkle"bell--i got one of those, it is 110 dollars--what a waste of police time but according to many people on this forum i am not a law abiding citizen-this city is not bike friendly, apparently even by some bikers
p.s Daniel you do have to appication to appear in court hough and get a court date, then at the court date you go to prosecutor before court starts which you have to do anyway to tell them you are there and wil ask you what your plea is etc
Yes, the Police blitz was totally ineffective because it was limited to a short time in one location, but it suggests to me that more needs to be done on both enforcement & education, so we could do away with "crackdowns" that don't really accomplish aything.
As the minority on the road, cyclists are generalized and marginalized, and our actions are viewed disproportionately. The majority of people in Toronto could tell you about a negative experience they had due to a cyclist that did not stop, or got too close etc. While I know that there are many more incidents involving drivers, they are not the ones seeking support for things like cycling infrastructure and inclusion in public policy.
There still is a disconnect. Before enforcement and especially education becomes effective we need to know what the cause is. Statistically sidewalk riding is very dangerous. When you ask cyclists why they do it, differences in risks are cited, even if they acknowledge sidewalk riding is more dangerous.Usually aggression is high up on the list of things they experience on the road and not so much on the sidewalk. You cannot enforce or educate out drivers' aggression out of cyclists.
A good percentage, maybe even a majority, of people in Toronto do not believe cyclists belong on the road no matter how good cyclists are. That is why it is so hard to pander to peoples' negative experiences. It is fruitless if the people you are dealing with are irrational.
Billions are spent on seeking infrastructure for motor vehicles.Think of why the CAA exists.
Hi again,
This is awesome! Good conversation, not so much ranting or hyperbole...even Scotty had some valid points, mixed in with the other ennui.
I agree, "Just because it is law does not make it a good law or a right law."
I.E. the new cell phone / display law. My opinion is that it's a marketing (education) campaign with supporting legislation to make the message legit, simply encouraging people to use common sense while driving, and vilify irresponsible people that don't.
A few Police Officer friends have told me that HTA 130 (Careless Driving) has the same effect as the new law (HTA 366/09), and moreover that there's just not enough time in the day for police to enforce this law, or every law. At a certain point, people must take responsibility for their own actions, and the outcomes.
And just to clarify for Scotty, it is mostly Staff of our civil services that make recommendations to our elected leaders for legislation, etc. Politicians are like the Board of Directors: they rely on managers, clerks, and admin assistants to do a lot of the work. And moreover, We the People elect politicians when we vote (see: November 2010), and meanwhile, if you're not happy with what your elected representative is doing, give him / her a call, book an appointment to discuss your issues, and build a relationship. Don't just attack them because they are in a position of authority. They are trying to serve you who elected them (ostensibly, IF you voted).
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand - Darren, you are a worthy adversary, and I respect what you write. You should look at the cover of CAA magazine for Spring 2010! A pretty woman, with a bicycle, and a helmet! And three articles inside speaking to bicycling! Huh!
My questions to Daniel still stand - because I agree with Darren - we need to learn why people percieve things the way they do in order to tailor the curriculum to their learning style. Everyone learns in different ways. I am very curious to find out if Daniel wishes to learn and adapt.
I am also curious as to what the motivations of others on this forum are - is it that you were ignored, unloved as children; or had unpleasant upbringings; or that you just chose not to do the hard work? What is it that makes you the way you are today? And how does that apply to how you ride a bike and behave in traffic? Some very deep social psychology indeed!
Enjoy the ride,
Brian
http://www.ecovelo.info/2010/02/08/lets-stop-blaming-scoff...
and from the comments:
The rest of the comments are of interest as well. The 3% of motorists who stop for stop signs seems remarkable but consistant with my experience.
This bicyclist on bicyclist violence has to stop. We have more than enough issues with motorist on bicyclist violence and police profiling of bicyclists as "scofflaws".
'Nuff said.
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/how-to-discourage-pe...
Yeah. You BICYCLIST!
I think Brian that questions have to be neutral to have any sort of meaning. Respectively your questions to Daniel are leading and contain editorial. They are written in expectation of a certain answer.
The question would have to be crafted to accept both a 'yes' or 'no' plus ask a 'why' at the very least. The 'why' would probably open up more insight into what makes one choose a particular behaviour.
There also has to be an opening to a third answer too. That would be, as an example, someone who denies the existence/value of the HTA. If they have a well thought position, whether we find it palatable or not, it would be valid if not sustainable. For instance, our current traffic controls on the road are very passive. Looking at something more active, like air traffic where the users are in more direct contact with one another. You would have to be able to deal with credible answers like these as opposed to someone who tells you it is all mind control by the government.
Hi all,
Geoffery specifically....your own thoughts and opinions, please. They are important and need to be heard, in your own writing, in your own voice!
What all this comes back to is behaviour, perceptions, human nature, and the world around us. We need to adapt to the world and others; not to adapt the world and others to us. Gandhi said : "be the change you want to see in the world". I echo that. Stop for stop lights, ride responsibily, and others will follow. Even motorists. Motoring itself was once a recreational activity!
Work positively to shift the perception that bicycles are vehicles, not toys.
Believe and profess that cyclists have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as all other road users.
The perception of inequity among vehicles will shift if we work together to make it a reality.
We need to continually learn and grow. We need to cooperate and communicate. We need to respect ourselves, and others. Only then will the change be able to happen.
Brian
Not to take away from the points being made here, but the best time to start improving the perception of cycling is right now. Through our actions we can affect the interpretations that people make about cycling, one way or another; the Bike Union’s ‘Thank You Card’ campaign was based on this very principle.
Although good behaviour alone it isn’t going to eliminate every obstacle, re-write our laws, or cause a gushing of love towards cyclists, it is free, immediate and produces only positive effect.
Do good, not bad.
Brian it is very curious that you chose Ghandi to quote, his approach runs almost contrary to your position. I tried to research when and in what context said what you quoted, not been able to find it yet. Regardless, Ghandi was a master of civil disobedience and did not make any inroads with politicians with the approach you espouse.
Let us work this backwards for a moment, defining each step along the way. Two vehicles collide. This is bad, no question. Almost every person would agree that this is undesirable. A mechanism, for a lack of a better word, is put into place to help avoid these collisions in the form of "Rules of the Road" via the HTA. It does an adequate job of trying to keep these vehicles from colliding. There is interpretation at various levels of the HTA. Then comes interests groups who add their own interpretations, so on and so on. I think we have to deal with this in the arena between the the vehicles colliding and the HTA.
With this approach we can try to determine why a cyclist is behaving in a certain way, explain the risks (tickets, injury,etc) and offer help (or not) that takes into account their reasons for doing in the first place. I do not know why and see no reason to devalue any person as you have suggested for not acting in accordance with some "norms" of questionable origin. How does browbeating with damnation help people? There is no evidence to support it, wastes resources and is unproductive. How does running a red light have anything to do with being an "unloved child"? We are not dealing with serial killers, these are fallible human beings who ride bikes. No moralizing required.
Look at this in a marketing perspective trying to get people to like cyclists more. There have been very very few marketing campaigns that have successfully changed peoples behaviours outside of consumerism. Anti-smoking and drinking and driving campaigns are two out of maybe a handful. Marketing something on the behaviour of others? Have you ever seen a campaign that does, let alone successfully? The only one I can think of is the "Church of Latter Day Saints" campaign which asks fathers to spend more time with their kids. I do not if it can be considered successful.
A campaign has to target something that reverberates with the target audience. Cycling does more for drivers than for cyclists. Reduces demand for gas, reduces the number of cars on the street thereby reducing traffic jams, reduces taxes, opens up more parking spots, more space on the road and reduces health care costs. "Drivers look out for cyclists, they do a lot for you!", as opposed, "Drivers be nice cause cyclists are law abiding folk!"
Wow, you guys really know how to get the brain juices flowing.
Allow me to "dumb" this down for a minute with the following hypothetical situation:
A driver gets "totally pissed off" because some "arse hole" on a bike blows a red light and further delays his already sluggish commute.
This driver is a voter and decides his vote is going for the candidate that vows to license cyclists and nix the Jarvis Bike Lanes.
Now the elected Councillor/Mayor is casting his vote in City Council against the implementaion of a Bike Lane.
This is all about perception, nothing more.
Now here's a relevant quote from Albert Morris: "Feelings, wo-o-o feelings"
I love reading the different perspectives on this topic.
A few years ago, I frequently proceeded through certain red lights when I deemed it safe to do so. So I can sympathize with cyclists who safely proceed through red lights and I would never criticize the author of the post for doing so.
The reason I chose to not run red lights anymore is simply because: a) It gives drivers one more reason to start respecting cyclists, and b) I decided to start taking things slow and not be in a hurry all the time (life is much less stressful this way)
For those of you who think a car running a red is the same as a bike running a red, I wholeheartedly disagree.
Just because the HTA considers a bike a "vehicle", that doesn't mean it's the same thing as an automobile. If bikes were treated the same as an automobile, then bikes would be allowed on the 401, and automobiles would be allowed to drive on Martin Goodman trail. There's a reason the HTA has different rules for different road users.
If a car driver blows a red light, he could kill someone. A cyclist running a red light could hardly kill anyone but herself.
My advice is to fight the ticket, but plead guilty and make a deal with the prosecutor. I'm not saying the author didn't break the law, but the judge will give leniency under the circumstances that the author didn't put anybody's life in danger.
Wow guys this has been a great discussion and getting better and better.
I have a solution for angry cars and bike lanes like on Jarvis. THis could easily mesh and the cars kept moving if the lights were synched to do so--this is really what causes major slow downs on roads like this. Cars cannot speed with all the cars on the roads so at least let them move . A moving car is a less angry car.
So add the bike lanes, synch the lights and at least cars are moving albeit slowly. I can think of many major city streets that are outlets and inlets to the city where lights cause traffic jams. Our officials who design this seem to think motorists cannot drive more than 5-10 seconds without something bad happening. At least if cars were consistently moving at 20-30kms an hour there would be lot less frustration/anger on the road between other cars and bikes.
I knew a man who wrote a book on car culture, he states the same that people feel safe and strong in their cars---- i whole heartedly agree that people when inside their cars feel safe and do things they would not do normally if not for this safety net.
Because they feel safe they do things dangerous[ie running red lights, follow another car at 120kms 5 feet behindetc etc]
Since all of us are bikers i think none of us has that sense of safety and we are always on the look out. Going back to running red lights, most bikers who do run them understand that and do so with caution ad do not interfere with cars.-i learned to look behind me long time ago to see if police there though.
Cars do not corelate this to cyclists and that we do not have this same safety net. It would be great if all car drivers once rode a bike downtown to understand that but alas that is a dream.
Whoever stated above that stigmatisms stick by the few who are bad examples and the rest of that particular suffer is bang on, bikes is just one example of this in this city.
City could teach a course on street biking by a real street bikers--i see casual riders make almost deadly decisions daily like thinking a car hangin a right knows you are there or passes you and turns in front---i always look for this, take my lane and 100% of the time go on drivers side. Things like this should be in a course. Assume the worst and think where you need to be with that thought.-this might bring more harmony and safety as cars are not going to change
Thanks for the great debate
Tom you have not presented any sort of revelation. Any issue has differing interests who will present negative aspects of one another. This is not unique to cycling. You have not even presented the weakest of evidence to support that this sort of criticism/perception related to so called bad cyclists is any more persuasive than any other sort of tit for tat. Unless your position is that cyclists are brainless and spineless, these types of criticism and perception issues can easily be addressed.
You hypothetical situation ignores reality. How many one issue voters do you think there are out there? How many of those have cycling as their issue?
Revelation? Dude, that was a pail of cold water!
I talk to people who drive and I know that their perception of cyclists ranges from indifferent to poor to fury. I’ve watched politicians hang negative bullshit on cyclists over stuff like Jarvis or Bike Licensing and it sticks like crazy glue for some because these perceptions are reality to them. So if you want evidence, that’s all I’ve got, but if you speak with drivers, you’ll very likely get the same answers I did.
My point in its simplest form is that we need to focus on growing public support for cycling, and cyclists behaving badly, in the minds of others, detracts form that.
So what? Can you not get over some criticism. Cycling has so much going for it and some misinformed nonsense is not going to stop it in its tracks. You deal with the stuff and move one
I hear the very same things about people who rent in my neighbourhood. This type of criticism is at best opportunistic. Waste your time of negatives and that is what you are going to get.
I speak to drivers. Not one of them would even hint at a cycling being an issue when they vote. Not even on the radar. Even though some have had extremely negative views on cycling. If I have time, I engage them on this with the benefits of cycling to them to give them something to think about.
You make good points Darren, and we could debate the effects of bad behaviour ad nauseam.
I feel that there is a significant ignorance towards cycling in Toronto and that allows people to be swayed by minor issues like bad behaviour. When cyclists ride on side walks, slap cars or run red lights, it serves as fuel for the divisive talk spouted by Councillors like Walker and Minan-Wong. When I became aware of this reality, I changed my cycling behaviour because I didn't want to do anything that would serve such an agenda; advancing cycling in Toronto has enough challenges as it is.
Rocco Rossi took time to mention the Jarvis Bike Lanes when he addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto and it got plenty of applause. The “War on the Car” hype still resides in the minds of voters, and Councillor Gloria Lindsay- Luby put out a newsletter in the fall which identified her blocking of a new Bike Lane as an accomplishment. I even heard of a new candidate for Councillor that will be running a "down with bikes" agenda.
To you and I this is foolish babble, but what would an uninformed voter think?
The officer was doing you a favour; I have known a few cyclists who would gladly pay that amount for another hour on earth.
Good luck with the Darwin thing
I love the idea presented above about syncing the lights.
Tweak it. Wouldn't it be wonderful to sync the lights on Jarvis at rush hour at a particular (and slow) speed, AND TELL THE DRIVERS. A big sign would announce, "From 7:30 to 9:00, lights synced at 20km/h" for extended periods of time. If you travel faster, you will end up stopped at more lights than if you just stick to the exact speed.
The same could be done on Bloor from Christie to Sherbourne.
Also love the idea of the positive marketing campaign mentioned above, with a list of all the benefits cyclists give to drivers: reducing traffic, road damage, more parking, less demand for gas, lower health care costs (unless you hit them, of course)
Comment from Toronto Star RE: Stop Jarvis bike path.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/elections/article/769355--...
NotBrainwashed
Feb 22, 2010 2:49 PM
Rossi earned another vote.
Rossi has earned my vote with this position. We have catered to the bike mobs too long in this city. The majority of people use cars. We should respect the majority in this case and end the charade of bike lanes on major routes.
Agree 7 Disagree 14
Have a look here for info how to fight this ticket ...
http://respect.to/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=LegalInfo.HowToFightTr...
Best of luck,
Many cyclists have won their cases using this information.
**** the comments in this section would make a wicked script for a play. .." to stop or not to stop..that is the question...
any playwrights out there?
Fringe festival 2011