Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

flomoloko t1_ja9fpd2 wrote

A survey sponsored by an automobile association. How clever..

>At IAM RoadSmart we are passionate about keeping road users safe and lobby government to influence road safety policy. You can find our manifesto, research reports and policies by clicking here.

20

cramduck t1_jaa2jk7 wrote

I would have a much easier time of this if all of our roadway infrastructure wasn't built for cars. As it stands, seeing a bicyclist is like a weird mix of encountering a deer "Oh God, I hope it doesn't suddenly dive in front of me" and encountering a cop "Oh God, I hope I'm not doing something illegal."

The end result is that any time I have to share a road with a bicyclist, my blood pressure goes through the roof.

14

igner_farnsworth t1_jaa135w wrote

Share the road... most bikers think this means "I'll do whatever stupid, illegal, inconsiderate, or dangerous shit I want while putting my life in your hands expecting you to see me, know what I'm doing, and not run my ass down."

Like I said back in the days I used to drive forklifts for a living... it doesn't much matter what the rules of driving a forklift safely are if you have a fork sticking through your chest... don't make your safety my responsibility.

7

potpro t1_jab3zzd wrote

A day doesn't go by that i don't see a cyclist running a red.. rolling through a stop.. right at red light when it says "no right on red".. or a variety of moving violations. I would say it's a bad apple that spoils the bunch but more like 50 apples spoil 200.

I will say if we had bike lanes throughout the busier cities and suburbs... we would all be 1000% better off.

The one thing that should be illegal is cyclists in a 45-50+. Uphill, going 20? Someone is going to die and 99/100 it won't be the Ford 350 that just changed lanes.

4

Banea-Vaedr t1_ja95037 wrote

That is not what the poll questions said

6

tantalor t1_jaanxdk wrote

Okay what did it say, don't leave us in suspense?

1

Banea-Vaedr t1_jaao9z6 wrote

Something like "has an aggressive cyclist almost caused an accident with you?" Or "should driver guilt be assumed in all cases with bicyclists?"

3

brookdacook t1_ja9tziu wrote

Eh, I biked a shit ton. I drive to. Majority of bike users I don't think should be allowed on the road. Bike paths can be an answer but it's very dependent on the city.

For reference I'm Canadian. Two cities I've been to enough to make commentary are Victoria BC and Calgary Alberta. There seems to be a weird push to eliminate lanes in main thoroughfares for bikes. These are streets that are already congested at prime hours. So congestion gets worse and to be honest I don't want to be on those roads anyway. This mainly a Victoria thing.

Calgary seems to do it better for the most part (my commute rarely involves the downtown bike lanes so feel free to comment you own experience) lots of rivers and "side" streets. Extremely pleasant. Calgary also just has thin white line to do bike stuff in.

Victoria recently implemented what, imo of course, an over engineered solution with there own lights and rules. For example we should be allowed to turn right on a red light. But with these bike paths your not allowed to if there light is green.

The problem here is so many people have no idea there not allowed to turn right on a red on these streets and it's dangerous. I've been almost clipped quite a few times and I feel this is greatly compounded by the fact that Victoria is a tourist destination.

Both cities suffer from being, tbh, Canadian. Hopping on your bike in summer you will see good utilization of the paths but come winter there's so few people. The decent season is about 4 months leaving 8 months of "why did we build this". Calgary being far colder in winter then Victoria suffers from this more but in both cities the bike lanes are ghost town for the most part. Seems weird to me to increase congestion with so little utilization when used year round.

Let me put it this way. If the avg speed of traffic on a road is 50km an hour and then a car is going 20km an hour I'd say that's at worst dangerous and at best adding a wild amount of congestion.

To be fair if you avg pedestrian walks at 3 km an hour and your ripping 20km that's also dangerous. But I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there's little chance of anyone dieing. Also, hypothetically, if you do not use the road and there's a pedestrian you can always go off the side in someone's yard for a couple of feet to give them room.

Personally, I use both depending on situation. A busy road I can't keep speed on? I'll hit the side walk. Busy side walk? I'll hit the road. If both are busy I'll use the side walk and pop off into grass to go around. If I can't do that I will pop off the curb into traffic till I've past the pedestrian then back onto the side walk. Also in these situations it's just a fact of life that you can't go top speed. It's dangerous to everyone and you need to know how to signal well for your safety and others.

5

brookdacook t1_ja9u8sa wrote

Oh also this is such a lawl headline. The fact it was obviously biased is already dumb but if any motorist feels threatened by a bike guess who loses? The guy on the bike. Basically 100% of the time.

5

MolecularMacMansion t1_ja97zm7 wrote

What kind of drivers? And who's safety is threatened?

1

Chaincat22 t1_jac1a40 wrote

Both. The cyclist is in the obvious danger. The driver, who doesn't want to kill the seemingly suicidally reckless cyclist, has to decide what to do before they hit the cyclist in half a second, the usual answer is swerve or slam breaks, and both can lead to accidents

0

Rolloftape23456 t1_jaclcuv wrote

If they use a bike on the road they should have a license they seem to never have any idea wtf they are doing

0

Cindexxx t1_jacsvmn wrote

If the cops actually did their job and enforced traffic laws instead of just running around being dicks it wouldn't be a problem.

1

Kind_Bullfrog_4073 t1_ja9nd46 wrote

Bicyclists are like deer. They like to pretend they're the only ones on the road and you might have to swerve to avoid having them crashing through your windshield which could lead you to hitting another car.

−2

jlcatch22 t1_jaa5kiu wrote

I saw two cyclists on the road recently, and had they been riding one behind the other they could have easily just occupied the side of the road, not impeding traffic. But no, in true dickhead cyclists fashion, they had to ride side by side, so that one of them was in the lane and cars had to wait for the opposing lane to clear to get around them.

−2

periphrasistic t1_jaaej17 wrote

Terrible. What do you do when you encounter a slow truck?

−6

jlcatch22 t1_jaaexxs wrote

A slow truck is probably there out of necessity. Not like the entitled dickhead on a bicycle that impedes traffic for his hobby.

4

Cindexxx t1_jacrpkr wrote

You know some people can't afford cars, right? If I'm biking it's a hobby, if my nephew is it's because he doesn't have a license much less a car. Taking an hour walk and turning into a 10 minute or less bike ride helps a lot getting to work or buying groceries. There's no public transit at all, there aren't even Ubers here. Even if there was, it'd cost way more than it's worth.

1

jlcatch22 t1_jact8kp wrote

Okay. What does that have to do with choosing to ride in the middle of a lane and not the side of the road?

1

Cindexxx t1_jad1c39 wrote

The side of the road is unsafe. Bikes should be following traffic laws, can't do that from the side of the road.

If there's a shoulder not covered in parked cars, of course they should be there. Safer for everyone. But in my small town most roads don't have a spot to ride, and riding on the sidewalks is illegal. So you go with traffic.

Now if you're lazing along at 6mph you're just impeding traffic, if you're that slow you should be walking. That's basically on purpose and I won't be defending that.

2

periphrasistic t1_jaagx14 wrote

So your contention is that cyclists should pay taxes to maintain the roads for your use, but if they also want to use the roads then they’re entitled dicks: do I have that right?

−4

IveGotDMunchies t1_jaah99p wrote

Most bike laws state that if a bicycle is on a road they must follow vehicle traffic laws. You're not supposed to ride two wide even as a motorcycle.

Furthermore laws usually state to ride next to the shoulder/curb so that vehicles can pass.

People doing the opposite are dicks. Am a cyclist

4

periphrasistic t1_jaai6p4 wrote

In my state, claiming the lane is legal and depending on the number of lanes and their width, vastly safer. When cyclists are in the side of a lane, motorists are encouraged to attempt to pass them within the lane, which has a nasty tendency to either clip the cyclist with their side mirror or force the cyclist into the doors of parked cars. If there is a wide shoulder though, then yes, cyclists should absolutely use that.

4

Merv71 t1_ja9cz8v wrote

Great post. Now sit back and watch all the bike dicks work themselves into a lather as they get pissed off

−7