Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

I do the same. In safety terms, if you're not visible within the limits of a driver's windshield, you might as well not exist. Europe is recognising this with the creation of advanced stop zones for cyclists.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

Yes - they are very common.

I didn't start this thread as some sort of anti-cycling rant (cycling is a Good Thing), more of an anti critical mas rant. What exactly are they complaining about? Also their tactics are bullying and authoritarian which goes against how I see the world. Although ironically these idiots think they are the opposite; yeah, stopping people going about their business makes sense for these free thinking liberals who thumb their noses at authority - tossers.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

Jerry, I wasn't referring to you or this thread, just the media hoopla. :)

I can see where people would be sanctimonious. It's a bit of the undertone to Vancouver sometimes I find.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

Hi,
Don't worry I didn't take anything personal.:thumbup:
cheers
Jerry

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

-Vancouver
+Canada

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

Actually, I was going to say to the poster who commented about the cyclist getting angry at being cut off by a car turning right.

In Vancouver (BC?), if you're turning right then you need to shoulder check for just such a thing and you will fail a driving test for not shoulder checking to the right enough.

While I think that poster was referring to Ontario, in BC the cyclist would have had every right to bawl you out, cop or no cop.

In NZ, OTOH, cars generally win...

Different places, different rules...

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

All bicycles should be registered and have license plates the same as all road users and carry insurance. Cyclists cause accidents as well. Makes them far more accountable to their behavior on the road. I have seen many cyclists thinking they are above the rules of the road, cutting off trucks, cars, motorcycles, even pedestrians. The other day a cyclist was cursing a semi truck he came up the inside of and as it turned right after having signaled for about half a mile. Not a lot of common sense there.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

1. Bicycle registration: impossible to enforce. It's 25 lbs of aluminium and rubber. It can be made in a garden shed. You wouldn't even be able to describe 'what' was registered - there's no VIN.

2. "The same as all other road users" - what about horses and pedestrians? Motorised vehicles are the special case, because they have the fossil-fuelled power to do significant damage. That's why the law describes operating a motor vehicle as a privilege, not a right. It says no such thing about riding a bicycle.

3. Cyclists sometimes do cause accidents. They are usually the sole casualties. Same with pedestrians - would you have them carry compulsory insurance too? Injuries and property damage inflicted by bicycles are really tiny in number.

4. Registration and insurance makes no difference to accountability. In fact, insurance arguably undermines accountability because it allows the cost of a policyholder's negligence to be shared with all the other policyholders. The law already holds cyclists fully accountable for their actions, and to an adequate extent. Enforcement is another matter.

5. "Thinking they are above the rules of the road". Interesting choice of language here. Most road users are flexible in their interpretation of the rules. Among drivers, failure to observe the rules is endemic - despite compulsory registration and insurance. And the consequences are usually much more grave when an accident results.

I don't condone cyclists jumping lights etc but from a pure safety perspective such misdemeanours are simply not comparable with motorized vehicles doing the same thing. Yes the law applies equally to all parties, but the operator of a motor vehicle has many times the potential to cause death and destruction, and the law recognizes that. To argue that everyone should be subject to the same registration and insurance regime is a bit like saying that rooftop wind turbines should be regulated by the nuclear inspection authorities - ie. simply not justified by the risk they present.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

I don't agree that bikes should be registered. Just get the ***** off the pavement or stop expecting me to get out of your way when you are cycling on it (I see this last a lot in Vancouver)

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

As I don't have much else to do on a hot Sunday morning -

No reason why a VIN cannot be etched into a bicycle frame. Have not seen any 'shed made' bicycles, but then there are also homebuilt aeroplanes, custom cars and motorcycles, all of which are registered. Don't see how registering a bicycle would be any less enforceable than motorcycles, mopeds or trailers. I have seen many 'shed built' traliers that are registered and insured.


Many horse owners carry liability insurance and if the horse is valuable enough, insure that as well. If a horse causes damage or injury the owner is liable. Pedestrians are not road users, however if they causes an accident by negligence, they too should be liable. Too many people these days dont take responsibility for their actions, it is always somebody elses fault.

The bicycle rider themselves may not be involved in a collision, but could well cause one and do a runner. An incident the other day in downtown, a cyclist cut through a line of traffic, weaving in an out of the line instead of waiting, cut a car off and caused it to swerve into oncoming traffic. The cyclist was long gone, yet witnesses could not say any more than the color of the bicycle. Both drivers were injured and substantial damage to the vehicles. The cyclist caused it, if the cycle had a license plate, may have been more chance of finding them.

Often because no one can identify a bicycle as there is no number to take. Put license plate in a cycle and I think we would see a much higher degree of compliance, because now they are traceable. It is not fool proof, neither is the care licensing, people still drive without insurance, while disqualified, under the influence. Hit and runs still occur, but licensing is a start to enforcement.

Not always. Mtorcycles and mopeds are licensed as are trailers. Cyclist perhaps need to ride with their vulnerability in mind, as do motorcyclists. Accidents will happen, perhaps they may be reduced though. Won't know until it is tried.
A cyclist running a red can have far more serious consequences than a car, for the cyclist (putting up provincial medical costs if the cyclist in uninsured) and motorists. A cyclist cannot get out of the way particularly fast, perhaps causing a vehicle to have to swerve and cause a collision, without being involved in it.

There are gaggles of cyclist out riding two or three abreast, making it difficult for traffic to pass and causing no end of congestion, then complaining when traffic gets too close or cuts them off. Sharing the road goes two ways, cyclist have to become aware that the use of the road is not their given right to the exclusion of all others.

Not sure how you analogy really relates, but output of both sources of energy are governed by the utilities authorities. I feel sure both also carry insurance, although the premiums and limits are governed by the risk. Each has rules, you can no more put up a nuclear power station than go and build a wind farm will nilly.

The closest analogy I can thin of is aviation, where each user (to the most part) has respect for the other. Everything from ballons to A380 is registered and insured as are home builts. Under air law a balloon has right of way over a 380, airspace has been divided up to keep them separate and rules applied to make sure the 380 does not take a balloon for a ride.If the balloon wander into the way of the 380 there is an inquiry and blame is apportioned. Same in marine rules. The theory is that a vessel under sail is less maneuverable than a powered vessel. I for one would not be sitting in sail boat in front of a super tanker claiming my right of way.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

Seems the same is true across all provinces: (from an Alberta government publication)

"The bicycle is a vehicle Under all provincial Highway Traffic Acts the bicycle is recognized as a vehicle and thus cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicle operators. Good cyclists know this, act accordingly, and expect to fully integrate with traffic"

I hate the way the cyclists always blast straight through the 4-way stop near my home right in front of me, whether I was there first and stopped (as one should), or on the approach! If I did the same, they'd be dead meat! :curse:

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

Here's an interesting article in The Toronto Star on bicycles running Stop lights/signs.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/675301

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

If they cannot balance and need to blow a stop sign then perhaps they sould stop bicycling or get a trike. If they get broadsided by a truck biking won't be a problem anymore.

Bicycles are no different to motorcycles in regards to balance, yet mayhem would ensue if m/c started behaving in the same way as bicyclists.

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

I wasn't talking about technical feasibility. I was talking about enforceability. Applying a 60kph speed limit to highways could make a significant difference in the casualties, but enforcing it would be impractical because it would be seen as ludicrous. Same problem with bicycle registration, only without the safety benefit.

Many cyclists do too. So what?

Same for cyclists. Do horses have number plates?

So I still don't understand why bikes need plates but boots don't.

I think we would see millions of bikes without numbers, and no enforcement of the law. And since the number of reportable accidents (injury or damage to others) caused by bicycles is vanishingly small, the scheme would fail the so-what test.

Trust me, we do. It's not a decision we have to make. The risk to a cyclist almost always exceeds the risk the cyclist presents to those around him.

We live in different locations, but in 6 months with a lot of cycling and a lot of driving I have seen a lot of cyclists fail to stop and not one even came close to causing an accident as a result.

Well they have completely different regulatory regimes, but I wasn't talking about wind farms, I was talking about rooftop turbines. Nuclear installations have safety hazards with huge consequences, and are therefore subject to a much stricter regime.

I like the aviation analogy because as a private pilot it sometimes seems to me that the huge regulatory burden is there to keep the skies as clear as possible for the commercial carriers; the same motivation is often behind motorists' gripes about the freedom that cyclists enjoy.

You're almost there with the marine analogy, but a bicycle is more like a sea kayak (which also needs no registration or insurance).

Re: Warning: Sanctimonious cyclists ....
 

However a Kayak is unlikely to stand their ground with 250,000 tons of tanker bearing down on them.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this. To my mind many cyclists are a pain in the arse on the road. If cyclists abide by the rules of the road, had equal regard for other road users, including pedestrians, who they also seem to have blatant disregard for then there would be far less of a problem. Pretty much what they expect everyone else to do for them.

Private air traffic should not be let loose amongst commercial traffic until they know what to do. However at least we have controllers to keep some degree of order, until you get a private pilot who cannot navigate or understand a radio command :eek: