Cycling in Toronto

I bike past a sign on my way home from work that says “traffic must yield to pedestrians”. It’s good to know the city is asking drivers to brake when people are walking in front of their cars. All we need now is for the municipality to educate the public with signs saying: “motorists not allowed to kill cyclists”.
It’s Bike Month! So cool since, in the past we only got a week! Here in Toronto we’re celebrating everything bike from May 25 to June 25. So get that old machine greased up and back on the streets. We need you. Nothing makes a cyclist feel safe like seeing bikes in front and behind. Drivers may be too blind to miss a lone dude, but surely they’ve got to respect a whole string of us. . ..Anybody need a bike for the summer? I’ve got an extra, but I may need it back if something happens to mine. Seriously, leave me a message, its just taking up room upstairs. Needs a seat and some lovin’.
Most of Toronto’s idea of a bike lane is that thin strip that follows the parked cars, sandwiching bikers between moving traffic and unpredictable parked car doors. I spend so much time watching to see if there’s a driver about to open his door that I can barely keep my eye on traffic. At least the moving cars are going the same direction I am and are somewhat alert. The people who just finished parking are the largest hazard- they seem to figure they’re done driving so they can shut their brains off and stop observing their surroundings.

Getting “doored”, its happened to me, I’m definitely not alone. In my situation, dude opened his door without looking for bike traffic. I rode straight into his door, flew over the top, and landed square on my back in the middle of the street with cars coming in both directions. I was ok, but my leg has sucked a bit ever since. Several years back, a buddy of mine borrowed my avocado green cruiser (giant fenders, three gears, a real beauty of a bike). Riding down Queen my friend was doored. My sweet bike was completely wrecked and the dickhead with the car had the nerve to shout at my injured friend calling him an idiot. Such selfishness.

Don’t let my stories discourage you, commuters on the 400 highways have a greater chance of getting killed than a downtown cyclist. . . ..We are numerous, drivers are accustomed to our presence and to some degree cyclists are even willing to help each other out. As opposed to most Toronto car drivers who would run down their own grandmother to get to work 30 seconds earlier.

There are some great links for cyclists in Toronto, check these sites:
Biking Toronto (Comprehensive)
I Bike T.O. (Varied Contributors)
Community Bicycle Network (Learn to do repairs and find bikes)
Toronto Bicycling Network (Find riding groups)
Toronto Cranks (Has a good bike lane petition and great articles)

City of Toronto: Cycling
I think it must be our demographic; cyclists are well connected on the internet.
So where do i think major cities should be heading? Tolls, tolls, tolls. Charge people a fortune to drive into the city then use the money to expand public transportation and bike lanes. Once the ttc is built up like the systems in European cities we could start experimenting with days/areas where automobiles are simply not allowed. It’d make us a healthier, happier more environmentally sound population. I realize we still need delivery trucks, buses and cabs, but its stupid that we continue to let car commuting clog our city and our lungs with single occupant vehicles from Scarberia and Bramptartica.

Every time someone decides to switch from car to bike or transit we all benefit.

So how can we help the cause of cyclists?
—Go out on your bike the last Friday of every month and support cycling- its called “critical mass”. When people see how numerous we are maybe they’ll feel safe enough to get out of their cars and join us.
—Follow the rules of the road, use lights and helmets. Don’t give anti-bike losers an excuse to criticize us. Besides, it’s safer for all of us if our behaviour is easy to predict. Cycling isn’t a place for individual flair- except for streamers and stickers. . . ..I’ve got animal the muppet on my handlebars.

—Ride in the centre of the right lane in places where there is no bike lane, no more of this getting creamed against the curb bullshit. I pay taxes too. Even though you want to drive 60kph, the city limit is only 40kph, I’m taking a whole damn lane and you can deal with it!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Add to Google Buzz

Like This!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

46 Responses to “Cycling in Toronto”

  1. ponch58 Says:

    I am a big fan of cycling. Great for the environment and fat reduction in human beings. And it’s super fun.

    However, there are a great deal of cyclists who ride their bikes with a giant chip on their shoulders. “Stupid drivers! They better watch out for me!” This is an incredibly dangerous practice. What if a boat driver tried this approach? On the water “right of weight” is the common practice. If a guy in a tiny speed boat gets creamed by a giant barge it is the speed boat drivers fault not the hard to manouvre giant barge. In fact the barge probably didn’t even notice at all.

    Again I repeat, cycling is a great thing. I wish bikes could replace cars all together. But cyclists too need to show a little courtesy while riding. Shoulder check when switching lanes, signal your turns, yes you have to stop at a four way stop and for Christ’s sake, get off the fucking sidewalk!!!!

  2. remistevens Says:

    You’re kidding right? If a car plows over a bike its the cyclists fault for getting in the way of a barge driver who can’t be expected to see something so insignificant as a bike?

    There is certainly a courtesy deficit. But its the motorists who don’t care to show respect 9/10 of the time. “Stupid drivers!” is almost always a defensive response to aggressive driving.

    I don’t condone sidewalk riding, and i never do it. But i understand why people do with the terrible conditions cyclists have to put up with on the street. It is the “right of weight” all right, and cars exploit that constantly to break the rules.

  3. ponch58 Says:

    You missed my point. If a cyclist is riding along following the rules of the road and a driver, not paying attention, hits him, yes the driver is to blame. My point is, who is dead? I’m not going to go swimming in an ocean beach inhabited with sharks and expect that the sharks will leave me alone. Humans are far to eager to place the blame on commonplace situations on other people. I think it’s a cop-out for a lot of cyclists and they feel like they can do whatever the hell they want with the mindset of “These drivers are assholes!” Sure they are, it’s not going to change, so protect yourself and be careful.

    Yes you are right, drivers need to be more cautious of cyclists and pay more attention all the time. I just did a blog about this myself. I do see a lot of cyclists blazing through four way stops in front of me, doing “sweet jumps” off the sidewalk and weaving in and out of traffic without signaling.

    Ok. Here is a situation for you. Cars lined up at a red light. Parked cars all along the side of the road. No bike lane. The cyclists, according to traffic laws, should wait in line with the rest of traffic until the light turns green and proceed in turn, correct? How many cyclists actually do this? I would estimate it at about 1% and that’s being generous. There are some who ride through cautiously paying mind to the fact they are in a vulnerable position, but the majority go flying through this narrow space like a bat out of hell with no fear whatsoever. This is not only an unsafe and illegal practice, it is downright stupid!

    You may very well be a courteous and responsible cyclist but there are an awful lot who are not. Conversely, most drivers are irresponsible and ignorant but there are some who take pride in their driving practices and abilities.

  4. remistevens Says:

    Dude, your analogy is terrible and you’re point is inconsistent. Cars are not sharks, cars are not inherently dangerous and they certainly aren’t out to “hunt” their neighbours.

    The road should not be filled with sharks, we need tougher laws protecting cyclists and more societal pressure on bad drivers to show respect (which is where things like blogs come in). You seem to imply that drivers are just always going to be dangerous and that its up to the rest of us to work around them and just deal with it. Well no, that’s bullshit. I’m going to keep shouting at them, I’m going to keep breaking rules to avoid their wrath, and if one of them hits me I’m going to sue and they will rightfully pay me a ton of money.

    Breaking rules? Every driver does a rolling stop at stop signs, people park in bike lanes, drivers cut off cyclists constantly- not to mention cell phones, stereos and pulling sweet burnouts. Again the driver is wielding a much more dangerous device. Its not the same as when some kid does a curb jump.

    Often when the cyclist is “doing whatever the hell he wants” its in an attempt to escape the menace of cars. Have you ever tried to legally stop in a line of cars on a bicycle at a light? The drivers will yell at you, honk their horns, try to muscle you out of your position. I always ride up the thin line on the right of the cars, otherwise i risk being the focus of angry drivers. Besides, fuck the city for not providing me with a bike lane so i can do this legally. We all pay taxes but for whatever reason the cars are provided with two massive lanes and i get nothing. Since I’m not socially allowed to use the car lanes (and that social pressure is enforced by use of giant chunks of steel. Where am i going to ride? Some go on the sidewalk, some go down the thin strip, maybe i could start biking down the subway tracks would that make you happy?

    Bad drivers cause harm to others, bad cyclists cause harm to themselves. Its entirely different.

    You need to take pride in the fact that you show courtesy and follow the laws? What a crock of shit. I don’t want your pride, i just want you to do what you are supposed to. Its like saying that the guy who owns a gun should be proud of the fact that he didn’t go on a killing spree.

  5. ponch58 Says:

    First of all, cars ARE inherently dangerous, as is anything that weighs over a tonne and can move. What if the parking brake went in a car and it started rolling backwards down a hill and a cyclist goes wheeling through a four way stop and gets mashed by the runaway vehicle? If the cyclist was obeying the rules he would still be alive. I realize this is a ridiculous and possibly “terrible” analogy but it is a possibility.

    You seem to think that better driving habits is going to single handedly ensure the safety of cyclists everywhere. May I refer you to your own quote from your Close the Toronto Island Airport post. “…the most obvious reason to stop Porter Airlines and remove the island airport is that planes will crash, its inevitable.” If this is true, then wouldn’t safer flying practices ensure that planes will remain in the air and no harm can come to the people below? Of course not. There is this thing in life called “accidents”. Whether a situation is avoidable or not, it can still occur. As society moves faster and faster and technology takes over all human thought and ability, (after all, there are cars that “park themselves” now) it becomes the responsibility of the slower and less advanced vehicles to take a more cautious approach. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s inevitable.

    “…we need tougher laws protecting cyclists and more societal pressure on bad drivers to show respect…” You are absolutely correct! Humans should also not have unprotected sex with a perfect stranger but no amount of “societal pressure” has been able to fix this one either. People are, by nature, assholes and by all means create public outcry, scream until you are blue in the face, but do yourself a favor and protect yourself. In the end, no laws will protect you and you will end up looking like a 1/2 ground beef 1/2 bacon hamburger patty on the side of Dundas Street.

  6. remistevens Says:

    A car can’t move without a driver. Yes it is inherently harmless. About as dangerous as any rounded stationary chunk of metal.

    Marcus. Youre obviously continuing to blame cyclists for the incidents which occur between bike and car. Further youre clearly bitter about the cyclists disdain for drivers claiming we have chips on our shoulders and do whatever we want.

    I find it hard to believe that your only motivation is a desire to educate cyclists so they can protect themselves.

    Every conceivable incident will occur at some time and either side might be responsible for the collision. Someone somewhere will die from a pencil.

    The fact remains that the careless driver hurts others, the careless cyclist hurts himself. If you have some sort of altruistic need to help out cyclists, by all means criticize them when they do wrong. If you want to help out society in general, criticize the drivers. Pollution, collisions, being overweight; people driving cars are easily the most effective killing force mankind has ever known.

  7. remistevens Says:

    and the unprotected sex analogy is another lemon. Like the cyclist this is again about a person taking a risk of themselves. Sure you might encourage a friend not to endanger himself, but its his life, if he wants to risk himself so be it.

    The driver on the other hand is risking others. Its like the guy who knows he has VD and has unprotected sex- which is completely different. This guy should be thrown in jail and severely punished.

    No one has the right to play games with other people’s lives.

  8. ponch58 Says:

    Sorry, I just got back from picking the remains of a cyclist off my car. I was driving down the road and he came flying through a stop sign and I creamed him.

    I guess he showed me that I should be more careful.

    I made sure to back over him a few times to be sure he wasn’t suffering though. I’m a humanitarian after all.

  9. remistevens Says:

    If cars stopped at 4 way stops they would never hit cyclists.

  10. remistevens Says:

    It’ll be up to the rest of us to charge you with manslaughter, but it should be murder. Its amazing how drivers change their tune about whos who on the road once they actually kill someone. Its all fun and games until then, followed of course by years of guilt and regret.

    I’d rather get creamed than live a lifetime knowing that my silly arrogance cost someone else their life.

  11. ponch58 Says:

    “If cars stopped at 4 way stops they would never hit cyclists.”

    That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! You are insinuating that the only time cyclist get hit, is when a car runs a 4 way stop. That’s just stupid.

    I was driving in Toronto the other day. Pulled up to a four way stop. Stopped looked both ways, saw a cyclist coming, right down the middle of the street. I needed to turn left and couldn’t because he was in the middle of the road. He dawdled on towards the intersection and without even looking at me or acknowledging where he was, just rode right on through the stop sign. I honked at him and raised my hands in a “What are you doing?” gesture. He looked back at me and yelled “Fuck you! You impatient cocksucker!!” I can see how I was in the wrong in this situation. It was clearly me breaking the rules and endangering lives.

    This is the shoulder chip I speak of.

  12. remistevens Says:

    Perfect example, you stopped, collision did not occur. Cars that aren’t moving don’t hit people.

    The bike breaks a rule, you get annoyed. You break the same rule, someone dies. You’ve got the bigger responsibility.

    how many times do i need to say this?

  13. remistevens Says:

    You’re still proud of the fact that you don’t murder people with your vehicle huh, denying your given right as a driver?

    Seems i was right, Toronto really does need signs telling motorists that they aren’t allowed to kill cyclists. . . .

    I shout at cars that break the rules because they’re risking my life. You shout at bikes, uh, because youre annoyed i guess, or trying to educate them maybe? You just keep shouting, trying to help them for their own sake, it sounds like a great strategy. Maybe if you’re not getting through you can plow a couple down, that ought to convey the message youre looking for.

  14. ponch58 Says:

    I shout at bikes, cars, buses, pedestrians, women with strollers and anyone else who is breaking the rules or not using their heads. I am not bias. An idiot is an idiot.

    Perhaps a better sign would be “Everyone pay attention to what is going on!”

  15. ponch58 Says:

    Today my wife and I were riding our bikes home from baseball. A guy in an SUV came wheeling around from behind us and turned sharply right, narrowly missing my wife. She, riding cautiously, was alert to his approach and slowed down. That guy was, in fact, a jackass. She, being careful, remained alive to talk about it.

  16. remistevens Says:

    Ah yes, more ignoring of my point.

    When you shout at the car or bus, its defensive. All others, you’re just trying to save people from themselves. If youre shouting in defense, go for it, so do i. But the pissy educational shouts you can keep to yourself.

    An idiot with a car is not the same as an idiot with a bike. Its not even close.

  17. ponch58 Says:

    Pissy educational shouts should be kept to ones self? Better shut down the blog then. Its pointless and nobody cares.

  18. remistevens Says:

    Still skipping my point, wonderful.

    A guy in an SUV hits your wife, a kid on a skateboard hits your wife. Its all the same thing right? An idiot is an idiot afterall.

  19. remistevens Says:

    I should start up an argument over at Marcus T Got Some Bitchin To Do see how you like it!

  20. ponch58 Says:

    I will address your point. Yes an idiot in a car has a more disastrous result. They should be more careful. However, it doesn’t mean that an idiot on a bike can shirk his responsibilities of obeying the law. What if a cyclist, breaking the rules, were to hit a pedestrian? Could the pedestrian not be killed?

    I am not disagreeing with your point that drivers need to be a lot more cautious of cyclists. Yes the statistics show a devastating result. I just don’t think it’s a wise approach for anyone to take in any situation to sit back and expect to be protected by what’s right or wrong. It just doesn’t work that way.

    I’m sorry if you feel that I am “tainting” your blog with this argument, but if you didn’t want it, you wouldn’t allow comments in the first place. I would be more than happy to host an argument at Bring it on! That’s why it is there.

    By the way, I do really like this post. Really got the blood flowing. 😉

  21. remistevens Says:

    I remember about 5 years ago a bike courier killed an old woman by running a red light. The true idiot could find a way to make sponges dangerous.

    We can’t be protected by whats right, but we should strive to make whats right the norm- or at least the legal standard. Anything dangerous you use in public should be highly regulated and respected. Most things are essentially safe, but people get lazy and impatient which causes the danger.

    Bring up how much you like macs over pcs on your blog, that ought to keep us occupied for months.

  22. ponch58 Says:

    “Anything dangerous you use in public should be highly regulated and respected.” Finally we agree.

    I would like to see more bike safety pushed on the public. I remember in school, once a year, the police would come in and run a “Bicycle Safety Day” They would go over signaling, proper bike etiquette, safe bicycle operation and bicycle maintenance. It was fun and taught all the kids a lot.

    I wonder if this still goes on in schools? Did it ever happen in inner-city schools?

    It’s not just kids that need this kind of safety education. There are a lot of adults who just never learned the basics like hand signals or a bicycles place on the road.

    Furthermore, and this might please you, with the ridiculous testing you have to do now to obtain a drivers license (money grab), why isn’t there more of a push put on sharing the road with cyclists? I don’t remember it ever coming up in any of my 29,000 mandatory road tests.

  23. ian Says:

    people are idiots regardless of their mode of transportation.

    PS. I didn’t even read it.

  24. remistevens Says:

    Dude, i was talking about cars. Bikes are dangerous only in the rarest of circumstances. Your priorities are wack and you still don’t get it.

    You still seem to think the greater need is for cyclists to be better educated.

    Drivers never get checkups, they teach you nothing about operating around bikes, and they go without consequence for their actions %99 of the time.

    If we’re going to allocate more public money towards helping cyclists, it should be applied against the drivers side not wasted on cyclists. So what do you think the guy you almost hit didn’t understand what a stop sign means? Of course not, he got lazy. He can get lazy and its no where near as big a deal as if you were to get lazy. . . ..I don’t mind footing the bill if they start putting bad drivers away for attempted murder, doubling our police traffic patrols, and doing regular driver’s training. But i don’t want my taxes wasted trying to tell people something they already know. Don’t get hit by cars: . . .duh. . . ..

    A guy starts firing off a machine gun wildly, what is the state’s response? We don’t start educating the public on how to avoid him, we fucking take him down and remove his weapon.

    Spend the money fixing the guy with the weapon, not the harmless guy. You’re still livin in backwards land my friend.

  25. remistevens Says:

    But a bike day for kids is a good idea, kids are stupid.

  26. remistevens Says:

    I suppose adults are pretty stupid as well, but not like kids. Kids are a small intellectual step up from dogs and monkeys.

  27. ponch58 Says:

    Why would you want to limit the education of bike safety? There’s that chip again. “I ride a bike, I’m not dangerous, I can do what ever the fuck I want.” That’s horseshit!!! Drivers have so much to pay attention to today, (no, I’m not talking about their phones and iPods) how can you not think it’s an outrageously dangerous distraction to have a bunch of jackass cyclists flying around from all fucking angles, doing whatever they want? That is incredibly naive!! It is becoming very obvious that in this time that you’ve been without a car, you have forgotten what it is like to drive in the city. It is a difficult and mind occupying task.

    What right do the cyclists have to not follow the traffic laws? If a cyclist causes a driver to swerve and hit 17 pedestrians and kill himself, that cyclist is responsible and should be thrown in jail! The fact that you can’t recognize this boggles my mind!

    How many cyclists did you mow down while you were driving around the city with your laptop on the steering wheel. You are a hypocrite, pure and simple.

    Safety is the responsibility of all parties involved. Period.

  28. remistevens Says:

    Sure safety is everyone’s responsibility. A grandiose statement that doesn’t really apply to this argument. It doesn’t mean its an equal arrangement- the guy with the machine gun has more responsibility than the guy with the pea shooter. The fact that you still haven’t acknowledged that drivers have way more responsibility towards road safety is what boggles my mind. Everything we’re talking about here comes back to that point and you continue to find ways to evade it.

    Everything is limited by funds, they should not be wasted on cyclists. That’s not limiting bike safety, its economics. Spend the cash where it will make the biggest difference.

    I was a terrible driver i admit it. If i killed someone i should have gone to jail. I still drive sometimes, but now i’m slow and attentive. How does this make me a hypocrite? Youre just reaching for insults here because you’ve run out of logical things to say. Attack my credibility because you can’t attack what im saying.

    And cyclist are no more distracting than other cars and pedestrians who are also breaking rules.

    If everyone actually followed the 40kph speed limit, collisions in the city would be rare. If you’re unable to stop your vehicle when something unexpected happens, you’re going too fast or following too closely. Didn’t you get taught that in drivers ed?

    Ah, exactly. . . ..You haven’t been checked out for defensive driving skills since you were 16 and no one is making sure you do it.

  29. remistevens Says:

    But seriously Marcus, try and tell us how cyclists have more responsibility towards the safety of our streets than motorists. Public policy, blame, costs, . … all of it comes back to that point- concentrate on the guy with the machine gun not the guy with the pea shooter. Explain why we should focus on the pea shooter guy? Its ridiculous, and your whole argument depends on it.

  30. remistevens Says:

    I take it back, you did try to answer this twice. The first time you said everyone needs to be safe. Which i myself pointed out in my original post, what we’re arguing over is where focus should lie.

    The second time you said the cyclist distraction thing. Pea shooter guy could distract machine gun guy. But its not any worse than the distractions coming from other machine guns and pedestrians so its not an adequate reason to focus on pea shooters.

    You’ll never make something stick because the relationship is nowhere near equal- like you keep trying to depict.

  31. remistevens Says:

    hey there was an ian comment there i missed. too many ponch comments filling the queue.

    I imagine M and I are the only ones reading this far down.

    thanks Ian, yes its true you’re an idiot.

  32. ponch58 Says:

    An “accident” can always be narrowed down to a single cause or fault. A cyclist speeds alongside vehicles with their attention on the stoplight. Driver signals and turns right, cyclist t-bones him. Cyclists fault. Don’t argue this. If it was a car speeding up the shoulder it would be his fault. Correct? Or if the cyclist signals his right turn and a car runs him down anyways, it is the drivers fault.

    Your argument is, the cyclist will be dead and the driver will merely have a dent in his car. So the driver is always at fault due to the result of the situation. Correct?

    Now the argument is, who has more reason to be careful? You say the driver because his actions cause death and not inconvenience. A nice thought. Naive, but nice. This situation can not be mathematically equated due to the involvement of humans. And human nature will triumph over reason every time. If human nature did not dictate that drivers will continue to kill cyclists you would have found no reason to write this blog. No laws will stop it. No divine intervention is going to occur. The grinch’s heart will NOT grow 2 sizes too big. Drivers SHOULD be more careful but they are NOT going to. Therefore, cyclists should look the fuck out for themselves.

    A brutish and cynical point of view? Maybe. But it’s honest and realistic.

    This has been and will continue to be, my point and argument.

  33. ponch58 Says:

    Yes it is true. Ian, you are an idiot. Shut up and ride the train.

  34. ponch58 Says:

    This gun analogy of yours doesn’t really fit the argument. Drivers and cyclists are not going around the city trying to kill each other. They become victims in regulated situations with rules and laws.

    If you really want to use the machine gun/pea shooter analogy, it must be put in context. Imagine we are at a shooting range. Some people have machine guns. Some have pellet guns. One guy with a machine gun is focused on the target, blasting away. Fully within the rules. Guy with the pellet gun decides he’s tired of waiting for his turn and steps in front of machine gun Jimmy to take his own shots. He gets shot in the back of the head and dies.

    If your analogy holds true, the machine gun guy is at fault because he has a more dangerous weapon. It doesn’t matter that the pellet gun guy broke the rules and jumped in front of him, even if he was focused on his target. He should be expecting that someone is going to jump in front of his machine gun at any given moment.

    Or maybe the guy with the pellet gun shouldn’t put himself in an unnecessary and dangerous position.

  35. remistevens Says:

    Who said the gunners were trying to kill each other? They’re in a shooting range, fine whatever, one guy has a dangerous thing the other has a harmless thing. Stop evading and tell us why they’ve got an equal responsibility to safety.

    Next 2 paragraphs are the “distraction” counter again where you try and pretend that cyclists are worse than other cars and pedestrians at causing distraction.

    And you finish it with cars being inherently dangerous again as though nothing can or should be done.

    I’m gonna walk towards you punching, if you get punched, its your fault for not moving.

  36. remistevens Says:

    Whenever one group of people is killing another, the killers justify the situation by blaming it on circumstance and pretending that both sides are equally at fault. Worse yet, sometimes they actually think the dead deserved it or brought it on themselves.

  37. remistevens Says:

    oh wait i missed your post about your “main argument”; cars are inherently evil again, and bikes need to look out. Nothing can be done about it so lets work on getting bikes out of the way.

    I already said this one is bunk because defensive drivers doing the 40 speed limit can avoid pretty much anything.

    Change is possible. Things change all the time, especially simple fixes like traffic. Drunk driving has been greatly reduced by stiffer punishments and more patrols- why not city speeding, parking in bike lanes . . .etc? . . .. I’ll tell you why, its because drivers like yourself keep perpetuating this belief that driving aggressively is perfectly natural and can’t be helped. Shit, and you think we’ve got a chip.

  38. ponch58 Says:

    When did I say I was an aggressive driver? I drive the speed limit, alertly at all times. I am ready for any situation. If i wasn’t I would have killed at least a dozen dangerous cyclists by now. I’m doing my part, when will the cyclists do theirs?

  39. remistevens Says:

    clean off your reading glasses. I said you perpetuate the myth that driving aggressively is natural and can’t be helped; we need to look out because there will always be aggressive drivers. Fact of life deal with it. . . .. But its not natural, and it can be remedied in the same way we crack down on drinking or speeding.

    Yesterday I fully stopped at a stop sign. The truck opposite me wanting to turn started honking, pissed that i had stopped and slowed him up. This happens constantly. If you rode a bike in the city you would understand that most drivers do not want or expect bikes to follow the rules. They want us to run stops, cut along the curb at lights and use crosswalks and sidewalks.

    Then there is you screaming obscenities for the opposite. If drivers knew what they wanted, maybe we could deliver. One thing is consistent though, Toronto drivers want to get wherever they’re going as fast as possible. To hell with obstacles.

  40. remistevens Says:

    Its incredibly simple Marcus.

    A driver breaking a rule endangers others, a cyclist breaking a rule only endangers himself.

  41. remistevens Says:

    Here’s a good one for you,

    If you are in the right lane coming up to a light and you see a bike stopped by the curb, do you pull up beside him? Of course you do, there isn’t a driver in this city who doesn’t.

    Ah but you’re quick to criticize cyclists who break the exact same rule by cutting along the curb to pass cars stopped at lights.

    hypocrites, every damn one of you.

  42. John Spragge Says:

    ponch58: yes, cyclists have an obligation to obey the traffic laws and ride prudently. That means staying off the sidewalks (children excepted), lights at night, don’t blow red lights or stop signs. Fine.

    But your invocation of the “law” that says everyone in traffic has to line up and wait their turn fails, because nowhere in the HTA does it actually say that cyclists have to get in line with drivers. It does say that vehicle operators overtaking have to turn out far enough left to prevent a collision, but bicycles filtering up the right lane can avoid a collision just fine. Besides, if you work out the implications of the rule that traffic cannot pass on the right, it would, if followed, make car traffic in Toronto pretty much impossible. Consider: the car in front of you makes a right on red. The car in the lane beside you intends to go straight. According to the letter of the HTA, you have to stay put, rather than pass on the right. But if you do, you’ll get some serious honking, because everyone expects you to move up and take advantage of the next opportunity to turn right. And in fact, if drivers didn’t do this, then Toronto would gridlock. Toronto even has traffic management instruments (advanced right turn signals) that don’t work if drivers don’t pass on the left.

    Now, once at the intersection, cyclists should not obstruct right turning motorists. If the motorists signals right and the cyclist wants to go through, the cyclist should either wait for the motorist to turn, or go around the right turning motorist to the left. And above all, I try to ride my bicycle prudently and courteously. But if we want to get serious about urging people to abide by the laws, we have to avoid making mistaken claims about what they say.

  43. remistevens Says:

    Thanks John,

    I’m glad to hear you’re another prudent and courteous rider. Its the most predictable behaviour, if cars can predict your actions, they’ll be able to avoid you and hopefully keep their cool.

    Its very true that keeping traffic moving must always be considered. I’ve also heard many people complain about cars finishing left turns through a light as it turns red, but again, if drivers didn’t do this the streets would gridlock.

    hmmm. I thought passing on the right was only permissable in a separate lane? There is a law in the HTA about riding in single file, I figured scooting up the right without a bike lane would be failing to ride single file- two vehicles are thereby beside each other within the same lane. A driver passing on the right does so in a different lane. . . ..Personally, if its legal or not, I’m going to keep doing this. Drivers expect it and it can be done safely. Again, I like to be predictable.

  44. ponch58 Says:

    …”There are some who ride through cautiously paying mind to the fact they are in a vulnerable position, but the majority go flying through this narrow space like a bat out of hell with no fear whatsoever. This is not only an unsafe and illegal practice, it is downright stupid!”…

    Welcome back Mr. Spragge. My favourite thing about blogs is that everyone takes the tiniest part of a sentence and manipulates it to prove their own point. Yes, it IS against the law to scoot up the shoulder at a red light, regardless of mode of transport. Yes, it IS a necessary action for the flow of traffic. Allow me to dumb this down for you. If you go flying through a narrow passage surrounded by moving and stationary objects, the chance that you will make contact with one of these objects is great. PLEASE EXERCISE CAUTION.

    The world is NOT looking out for you. Most times they aren’t even looking out. They are looking up at stoplights, doing continual mirror checks (as stated in the drivers handbook), looking in the back seat to see what their baby is choking on, chasing the hornet out of their cars, reaching for the window control to keep the smell of rotting garbage out.

    Yes a person driving a car is lethal. Look the fuck out. Or, maybe you want to ride your car down the subway tracks for the sake of convenience?

  45. remistevens Says:

    Once again, stating my point exactly. Drivers are ignorant murdering fools, our government needs to crack down on them so that they stop killing cyclists.

    Ah the Marcus solution. Don’t make any attempt to fix the problem, just tell the people who are being murdered to look out. . . . .Its her own fault for getting raped, she shouldn’t have dressed so provocatively. She neglected to ‘look the fuck out’.

    Thanks for clarifying the legal question as well. I had no idea you moonlight as a judge.

  46. Greatest Depression Ever! « The Remi Stevens Bolg Says:

    […] By remistevens Worst part of the news is the sympathy crap and the disturbing shit- pet care and traffic accidents. Celebrity news of course being comprised of both crap and shit. When it comes to the real stories, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: