TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Nanny statism continues. Councillor mulls idea of licensing bicycles like cars!!
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 dont worry the electric car will be evil too. As will electric buses and whatever else they come out with. I think some people wont be happy until we are back in the cave man days. Or even extinct. I like the people who advocate that we should have fewer people on earth. I always reply with, "should we start with you then?" LOL

These people should be the first to go back to caves and see how long they'll survive without modern health and sanitation, fresh produce and clean tap water!!!

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood All it takes is for a side mirror to just tap the elbow of a cyclist and then shit hits the fan.

Bingo...clueless cabbie at 6:30 a.m., side mirror meet handlebar, lucky it wasn't worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Most major downtown roads should be one way and then MAYBE a bike lane would fit in

Did you hear about that idea to change Richmond and Adelaide into 2-way streets to, I shit you not, "improve traffic flow in Toronto"

quote:

Originally posted by malek These people should be the first to go back to caves and see how long they'll survive without modern health and sanitation, fresh produce and clean tap water!!!

I love camping

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Did you hear about that idea to change Richmond and Adelaide into 2-way streets to, I shit you not, "improve traffic flow in Toronto"

Another Adam Vaughan initiative!

I believe his idea is to "make the neighbourhood more like a community rather than an expressway" or something like that.

What douchebags!

quote:

Originally posted by Cro_Addict I fucking hate the cyclists as well! They ride around not really obeying any laws at all. I love driving so close to the curb so they cant get past me..lol...i know i am an asshole, but they should obey the rules of the road..

And what do I do if too many cars are being assholes and not giving me enough space to cycle safely? I move far enough in to the lane to force them to do a full pass around me - which is perfectly legal to do. I rarely do this - but some times it is needed.

I'm a cyclist - and do my best to follow the rules of the road. I don't go on sidewalks, I don't go the wrong-way down streets, I stop at all stop signs, signal when changing lanes, check blind spots / etc.

I do think that cycling laws should be enforced much stronger than they currently are, especially in high-traffic locations. I see allot of cyclists that bike like total assholes and they piss me off also - but to say 'all cyclists' is too broad of a generalization.

Yes, there are a lot of dumb asses on bikes - but there are also dumb asses in cars, and dumb asses who walk. Its the dumb-asses who get noticed the most because they are the ones causing you a problem - but for every dumb ass, there are far more people not being a dumb-ass.

Going as far as licensing / safety vests and mandatory helmets just seems overly extreme, and will just encourage more people back into the cars or onto public transit.

And really, unless this gets passed country-wide, how easy is it going to be enforced? What if you came up from Niagara on the GO and biking around Toronto? Or a tourist from the states?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 If a car stops close to the curb you need to stop behind it and wait your turn. IMO its lucky that bikes can go up the side of a car in the first place. Motorbikes cant!

Likewise - if you a car pulling up to a cyclist that was there first, don't squeeze them out of the curb.

I'll frequently sit behind a car turning right if it was there first and there is not enough room, but there have been many times a car has come up behind me and nearly hit me as it tried to squeeze past.

quote:

Originally posted by kaniz Likewise - if you a car pulling up to a cyclist that was there first, don't squeeze them out of the curb. I'll frequently sit behind a car turning right if it was there first and there is not enough room, but there have been many times a car has come up behind me and nearly hit me as it tried to squeeze past.

agreed especially if im turning right the bike goes first. I tend to treat bikes like another car unless there is a lot of room to go around them and im going straight. But thats why i tend to almost hit them often, because they dont act like regular vehicles most of the time.

For example, 4 way stop and i see a bike coming. He better stop like a car would because im going to go through once ive stopped. How many bicyclists get freaked out when they suddenly have to stop while blowing through a 4 way expecting me to wait for them?

But thats the problem.. often times motorists are enablers and let them get away with it

Without reading all 5 pages of thread, I will say I am 100% for cyclists having to be licensed to ride on the streets. I drive a motorcycle and share lanes with bikers on a regular basis. Being honest 75% of these cyclists don't follow any rules of roads. Constantly coasting through red lights, cutting off cars to over-take lanes, and lane splitting to get to the front of the line at stop lights. I think if you want the right to share the road with cars, bikes, trucks etc, you have to follow the same rules and if you don't you should be fined first then have your property suspended or taken away.

quote:

Originally posted by beatjunkie Without reading all 5 pages of thread, I will say I am 100% for cyclists having to be licensed to ride on the streets. I drive a motorcycle and share lanes with bikers on a regular basis. Being honest 75% of these cyclists don't follow any rules of roads. Constantly coasting through red lights, cutting off cars to over-take lanes, and lane splitting to get to the front of the line at stop lights. I think if you want the right to share the road with cars, bikes, trucks etc, you have to follow the same rules and if you don't you should be fined first then have your property suspended or taken away.

Go read the 5 pages... maybe youll have a different conclusion after you are done reading

Just did and I'm still for the licensing of cyclists. They have to start being accountable for some of the stupid shit they pull in traffic and if fining or licensing will help I'm all for it.
I hate to paint all cyclists with the same brush but if you're not doing anything wrong/breaking the laws of the road then what's the problem?

Mmm, Cyclists are supposed to follow the same laws of the road as cars - and technically, if we dont follow those laws there are fines.

quote:

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT A bicycle is considered a vehicle under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA), which means cyclists must obey all traffic laws just like other road users. If you don't obey the law you can be fined a minimum of $105 ($90 fine + $15 victim surcharge).

For a breakdown if you're curious, read here

If the police are not enforcing those laws to begin with - why is requiring a license going to change that?

How is adding more laws and licensing going to help if the current ones are generally not being enforced?

I'm not for required licensing / vests / helmets, but I am all for more consistent and strict enforcement of the current rules - and outside of the 'once a year blitz'.

I also think that the laws regarding bikes with wheels below X size needs to be reconsidered and also include an age-factor. The law is there so that children can learn to ride bikes on the sidewalk in safety (and generally in residential/less populated areas) - using the wheel-law to whip down a yonge street is stupid.

Should be a combination of wheel size / age and location.

Well maybe with a little more attention to the problem like licensing, officers will treat the infractions a little more serious?

I'm just going on pure observation and opinion on my end. If you're one of those cyclist that cut lanes, run red lights, and don't follow the same traffic laws as the others on the road then I'm speaking to you.

quote:

Originally posted by beatjunkie Just did and I'm still for the licensing of cyclists. They have to start being accountable for some of the stupid shit they pull in traffic and if fining or licensing will help I'm all for it. I hate to paint all cyclists with the same brush but if you're not doing anything wrong/breaking the laws of the road then what's the problem?

the problem is another layer of expensive bureaucracy combined with another excuse for a cash grab. Especially when we have laws in place already. The problem is that our left wing city hall wont mandate the police to charge cyclists with infractions.

Just seems like when current laws are not being enforced, throwing more laws on top seems to be counter productive.

If the police are not stopping cyclists for infractions now - what difference does it make if we have a license or not?

So, if they do this, and I don't have a license - if the police do stop me, I just get an extra fine for missing a license on top of whatever law I'm breaking? thing is - they are not even stopping people for breaking the law in the first place.

Start enforcing the laws first before throwing more on top.

And really - if they did this, it'd just be adding a great deal of cost to implementing it, enforcing it, setting up testing / licensing centers / etc.

I also think the idea of requiring a kid in grade 2 to get a license so he can bike to school to be somewhat absurd :|

I'm not sure what the solution is.

In an objective view, both cyclists and car drivers are idiots. No one group dumber than the other. Drivers hate bikers, and bikers hate drivers, and it's clear in this thread which side you sit on.

My biggest issue is with the difference in momentum in shared roads. A 3000 pound car moving at 40kmph is much more dangerous to a biker, than a 150 pound (bike, person together) moving at 20 kmph to a pedestrian. A biker hits a person, the accident probably isn't that bad. But, a driver hits a biker, and it's game over for the biker.

Jay, telling bikers to get off of main roads, and only on side roads is not a good solution. Have you ever used the bike 'high ways' in Toronto? The detours it takes you on are insane. It takes you twice as long as it should to get you places. Plus, they 'roads' are not thought out well because they lead you up very large hills, when they don't need to.

Then there are the random breaks in the routes. The signs mysteriously disappear, and the route continues 2-3 blocks away, without any kind of indication of where you have to go.

I would welcome more bike lanes on existing roads. In the summer they can be utilized by bikers, so they feel a bit more comfortable and safer. While in the winter, the extra space will be/can be used for snow plows to dump snow.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko I would welcome more bike lanes on existing roads.

apparently 1000km of additional bike lanes/paths was approved by council in 2001. but like all things in the city, it is a slow process and a couple years behind schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm always amused at pedestrians and cyclists who think they have a god-given right to cause thousands of dollars in property damage because somebody pissed them off. Just wait until the day one of them calls the police - or better yet, the day you find out that one of them keeps a baseball bat in the trunk, or a handgun in the glove box.

When someone gambles with your life its a little different than being pissed off at nothing.

as for the consequences im fully aware of what could happen, i can also assure you that a bike is faster than any car/pedestrian through the city.

re: Solution?

Education, education, education. Not necessarily police state fines.

Up here in Guelph theres a bit of a problem with excessive fining to the point where it has actually stymied the number of bicycle commuters, and there are more people driving around town, 1 person per car.

Perhaps a bit more signage indicating to cyclists and drivers what the rules of the road are? Right at intersections where cyclists and drivers can read them. Bikes should have no problem riding with car traffic. In progressive cycling cities such as those found on the US west coast, its amazing to see the number of cyclists on the road riding with cars. Granted, the cyclists are far more obedient of rules, as well as the drivers.

So somewhere down the road (hah) both drivers and cyclists have to meet half way. I doubt itll be a top down infrastructure based approach such as adding more bike lanes. Instead the solution will be a more informed demographic...and with a more informed group there will be a mutual understanding of how both driver and cyclist should conduct themselves on the road. At least thats the way its worked in leading North American cities.

I've done some work with Bicycle initiative groups and while most are touting that there should be bike lanes everywhere, I find thats a bit too utopian and definitely far too expensive. I dont need more tax dollars being idly spent.

0.02$

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood When someone gambles with your life its a little different than being pissed off at nothing. as for the consequences im fully aware of what could happen, i can also assure you that a bike is faster than any car/pedestrian through the city. re: Solution?

yes the solution is that hopefully someone runs you over and you realize that a car is bigger and faster driven by someone who wants to get back at ya, city or not.

Imagine how much transit we could get with all the bike lane, speed hump and lane reduction money.

Shovelling money into a mode of transportation that next to nobody uses for the possibility of next to nobody + 1 using it in the future is a very poor choice and setting wrong priorities.

We need to focus on mass transit or else people by default will use the car. Plain and simple.

I suggest die hard bicyclists might consider a move to miami or somewhere tropical. Vancouver at the very least!

We have what is called a nordic climate. Let's face it for what it is!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I suggest die hard bicyclists might consider a move to miami or somewhere tropical. Vancouver at the very least! We have what is called a nordic climate. Let's face it for what it is!

or mod your bike for the winter, like so:



http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/91211594_4947168a81.jpg?v=0

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Imagine how much transit we could get with all the bike lane, speed hump and lane reduction money. Shovelling money into a mode of transportation that next to nobody uses for the possibility of next to nobody + 1 using it in the future is a very poor choice and setting wrong priorities. We need to focus on mass transit or else people by default will use the car. Plain and simple. I suggest die hard bicyclists might consider a move to miami or somewhere tropical. Vancouver at the very least! We have what is called a nordic climate. Let's face it for what it is!

Ah nothing? Mass transit is incredibly expensive for initial costs, maintenance, labour, repairs...on and on.

Put a bike lane in, and forget about it, pretty simple. There is no way you can argue mass transit vs bikes on a cost basis.

A LOT of people in the city bike. Fine most of them will not bike in the winter, why should that restrict our plans for the rest of the year?

By that logic we should get rid of cars, because you cannot drive in the winter due to all the snow, since we have to pay for plows and salting.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Ah nothing? Mass transit is incredibly expensive for initial costs, maintenance, labour, repairs...on and on. Put a bike lane in, and forget about it, pretty simple. There is no way you can argue mass transit vs bikes on a cost basis. A LOT of people in the city bike. Fine most of them will not bike in the winter, why should that restrict our plans for the rest of the year? By that logic we should get rid of cars, because you cannot drive in the winter due to all the snow, since we have to pay for plows and salting.

Let's not forget how unionized mass transit is capable of crippling a city at its whim.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Put a bike lane in, and forget about it, pretty simple. There is no way you can argue mass transit vs bikes on a cost basis.

On a cost-only basis, no. On a cash flow basis (including revenue), most definitely.

I think the solution is really not as complicated as people are making it out to be.

- Make slow-moving streets (i.e. most streets downtown) one-way and put in dedicated transit and bike lanes. At first blush it might seem slower, but the traffic flow advantage from consistent traffic flow and/or improved light timing would offset that quite a bit.

- No bikes allowed on high-speed roads. To me that's any road with speed limit 60 or above; on a 60 road, most people will drive 70, and that is approximately the "cruising speed" at which reaction time slows and drivers start to get road rage in stop-and-go situations.

- Where possible, have paved bike lanes parallel to the sidewalks. There's no room downtown - hence the rationale for one-way streets - but in other parts of the city it works quite well (several roads here in Thornhill are like that). Or just have really wide sidewalks/walkways suitable for bikes - again, a few are like that over here and it's never a problem.

- Remove traffic obstructions. It's amazing that lawmakers consistently ignore the mountains of evidence built up over the years that stop signs, lights, and other traffic signals are actually harmful when overused. Where they are necessary, hire a competent traffic engineer to design and implement the timing systems necessary to keep traffic flowing.

Yes, this costs money, but it would be money well-spent.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.