Safe Cycling: Share The Responsibility

Hi Steve,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

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

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

Please do explain.

The Toronto Score so far this year.

People killed by cars 28
People killed by cyclists 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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