Bicycles versus Cars: The Current

Let's be honest. The real reason many motorists---most of whom haven't ridden a bike since they were ten if ever at all---want cyclists to have licenses has nothing to do with safety, as they claim, but because they resent that cyclists don't incur the same cost and hassle as they do, that they are seemingly unidentifiable and invisible and, therefore, immune to penalization or prosecution. And they have a point.

They often conveniently forget, however, that the vast majority of adult cyclists do possess a drivers' license, even if they don't currently own a car or choose to ride their bikes as their primary mode of transportation, that they have been just as well trained (for whatever that's worth) as motorists and that they know the HTA and take liberties with the rules just as motorists do.

What those complaining motorists fail to take into account is the tremendous number of traffic infractions commited all around them every day by fellow motorists and the potention for calamity they impose on others. While they may honk their horns and curse at them, they don't deny the offending motorist the 'right' to be on the road, because---gosh darn it---the motorist has a license plate. But, let them see one cyclist cruise through a stop sign on a quiet, one-way residential downtown street (that three cars just recently rolled through as well) and they act as if the cyclist has commited the most heinous crime in the world and deserves to be run over.

They also forget the outrageous carnage that motor vehicles inflict upon the roads every day: the hundreds of costly minor acidents, the devastating serious accidents, the mind-boggling property damage and the tragic deaths and crippling injuries they inflict. They fail to consider that cyclists do not contribute to that destruction. They assume that cyclists cause most accidents they are involved in or provoke cars into hitting one another rying to avoid an errant cyclist when the actual percentage of cyclists being 'at fault' in collisions is only about 15% according to most studies and that, if asked to honestly recall one incident where cars collided because of the actions of a wayward cyclist, 99% of motorists couldn't. Their hostility and resentment is misplaced, as a result.

Those motorists---and I don't mean to imply ALL motorists, just the ones who call for cyclists to be licensed---assume that cyclists ride through red lights and stop signs because they don't know any better or don't respect the law. We all know that's hog-wash. Cyclists who do run reds generally do not ride through a busy intersection, but quiet ones with little or no crossing traffic, and they do it so they don't have to lose momentum. It's not a conscious flouting of the law. It's simply that it doesn't make sense to come to a halt for no reason. The motorist has been psychologically conditioned to stop---and even cyclists who are driving will stop at that desolate red light whereas they might have ridden through had they been on their bike.

The problem is not with the cyclists but the fact that police rarely cite cyclists for these infractions and they rarely cite offending cyclists for several reasons: the cyclist posed little or no danger to other traffic or pedestrians, the cyclist may or may not have a license and obtaining a conviction may be a time-consuming and, ultimately, pointless ordeal. After all, even if a cyclist lost his or her drivers license, the cyclist cannot be banned from riding a bike. Maybe if the cyclist had to possess a 'bike license,' it would be possible to have them banned, but since they don't, the cops won't even bother with the incident. It's simply not worth the time and effort. The greater problem is that the police also ignore motorists who openly endanger cyclists, as if that is a fair trade-off for not being cited when they commit a traffic offence, that cyclists deaths and serious injury are not as important or serious as motorist deaths and injuries. It's like they're saying 'hey, we'll let you get away with almost everything, but don't expect our protection when something bad happens.'

Many motorists assumptions about cyclists are, as we all know, way off-base and their attitude is frequently childish, at best. We all know they are thinking 'well, how come I can't just drive through that intersection if he's allowed to?' 'How come he doesn't have to pay for a license every year like I do?' As if a license suggests motorists actually know the rules of the road, when it is clear to everyone that they often don't. We only need to point out one thing to illustrate how ridiculous that attitude is: the fact there are three seasons, so far, of 'Canada's Worst Driver' on television and the fact that every one of the candidates passed their drivers license exam! Most of those drivers in that program couldn't tell you, beyond the absolute basics, how to safely execute proper turns or reverse or park, when to use their signals, what half the features in their car are supposed to be used for or what the signs on the road and other markings actually mean.

Motorists need to stop and think about their objections rationally and logically. They need to see that the danger to other uses of the road posed by a cyclist are negligible in comparison with theirs, that cyclists are rarely at fault in collisions in spite of frequently bending or breaking a few rules here and there---just as they do, that driver error is such a serious problem that extraordinary measures like red-light cameras have been invented to curb their bad driving habits, not cyclists, that motorists commit far more and far more serious traffic infractions than cyclists and that motorists---not cyclists---wreak death and carnage upon the roads.

I say that if cyclists are required to earn licenses, then cyclists should succesfully demand that motor vehicles be mechanically, electronically or otherwise prevented from exceeding speed limits on urban roads, that stop signs officially be regarded as 'Yields' for cyclists, that the police take a much more proactive stance in citing motorists for endangering cyclists and that ALL incidents involving cyclists and motorists be given the same attention and importance as car on car incidents.

"Since many, if not most, adult cyclists are already license holders, they run the risk of losing their driving PRIVELEGE if they are convicted of traffic infractions commited while riding their bike."

It is very hard, pretty close to impossible, to lose your license because of a HTA infraction committed with a bicycle. You will still face fines under the HTA whether or not you have a license. You can get charged with HTA offences as a pedestrian. You cannot collect demerit points while riding a bike. The only way to lose your license is to accumulate a certain number of demerit points(while operating a motor vehicle) or have it taken for certain offences under the HTA/ criminal code. The most common are careless driving and impaired driving. While riding a bicycle you can get charged with careless driving which allows license suspension as a penalty. The reality of which remains in the abstract, which means you would have to do something really really stupid and unique to lose it.... like ride over cars stuck in traffic. It is pretty hard period to lose your license for careless driving even if you kill someone.

The only way to lose your driver's license for a HTA offence while riding a bike is that you did not pay your fine, even this questionable.

You are liable for any civil judgment against you. You damage someone's property and you are liable. If you do not have insurance it comes out of your own pocket.

I wear a helmet, a yellow reflective sash, have two lights front and two rear. I signal my left turns (but only those, as drivers might understand that one signal). I stop at red lights and slow down at stop signs. I always yield to pedestrians. I don't care about the law, as it is unenforced on the roads, and I don't care about civility (to drivers) as I just want to stay alive.

I don't 'need' to do any of this, but I do, because I know drivers can't be trusted to their duty of care, and because I have a duty of care to pedestrians,and other cyclists (not sure about roller-bladers) because I could hurt them. In my opinion, apart from menace to pedestrians and cyclists, cyclists may ride any damn way they please: they are only going to hurt themselves. I am also against adult helmet laws, even though I always wear mine, and won't ride with anyone who doesn't. It isn't the role of the state to protect cyclists from themselves. If a cyclists whacks into your car, or more likely you have whacked into him, I'm not going to be too concerned about your paint job.

Who the hell cares what a driver thinks of cycling? We are of no danger to you! I'm a cyclist worried about my safety; you're a driver worried about your convenience. I'm a cyclist out in all weathers; you're a driver in a bubble. To put it more simply: %$#@ *&^! I want the law to make you care, so that you give me the room the law says is mine.

I have always found it curious that motorists get all bent out of shape over what cyclists do or don't do when it has no effect on the motorist whatsoever. For instance, if a motorist is stopped at a quiet, low traffic red light like there are on Harbord St. and a cyclist in the bike lane cruises through the red at 10km/h, how does that affect the driver in any way? It's not as if the driver was forced to take evasive action or slam on his brakes or anything. But they get rip-snortin' mad about it anyway. So while I understand that motorists get pi**ed-off when cyclists do something illegal, it is irrational and misplaced. What they're really steamed about is the fact that the cyclist will likely never get caught nor have his right to ride threatened. Do they get just as peeved when a motor vehicle fails to signal a lane change or turn, when a motorist races through a light a few seconds after it turned red? Only if it inconveniences or frightens them. The cyclist posed no danger whatsoever to the motorist when he did something illegal, but the offending motorist did pose a risk, yet the affected innocent motorist still becomes incensed when a cyclist commits an illegal act. Very puzzling.

As for travelling the wrong way on a one way street, the police have even advised me they will likely never ticket a cyclist for that infraction. Many streets have clear signage allowing bicycles to enter one-way streets in the wrong direction and the police don't mind if all one way streets are treated similarly.

I interviewed the Media constable for traffic services today and he provided me with some interesting stats. There are approximately 28,600 instances of cars going through reds every year in Toronto, based upon citations issued in a sample week from March 19-25 this year. So far in 2007, just over 61,000 tickets have been issued to motorists whereas only 2,500 have been issued to cyclists and over 3,000 have been given to pedestrians. In a 5 day blitz last winter, 7,000 tickets were issued to motorists, 148 to pedestrians and 55 to cyclists---mostly couriers. I recall that week however and remember it was icy and cold. Very few cyclists would have been out. Curiously, in a one-week 'Safe Cycling' blitz in June, 1001 cyclists were issued tickets and almost 5,000 motorists were cited. Most recently, in mid-November, 867 cyclists received tickets: 127 sidewalk riding offences, 28 riding double infractions, 328 stop sign violations, 305 red light offences, 28 careless driving charges and 51 unsafe lane changes. Clearly, most of the year-to-date citations for cyclists were issued during blitzes as opposed to every day events.

Considering that there are only 3 cyclists deaths this year, but 14 driver and 8 passenger deaths as well as 19 pedestrian fatalities, perhaps it's occupants of cars and pedestrians who should be made to wear helmets.

According to the 2003 report, of the 1014 reported incidents involving cars and bikes, only 51 were serious with one resulting in a fatality. All others experienced minor or minimal injuries. Of the 51 serious injuries, however, more than half of the cyclists were not wearing helmets and they did sustain head injuries. Not surprisingly, almost 90% of the incidents were the fault of the motorist.

The same cannot be said for motorists when they do it more than 25,000 a year compared to the estimated 10,000 times that cyclists run reds per year. Bad things happen when cars do it.

• The math seems off here. If the capture rate for motorists is 6% and we know that 12000 tickets were issued last year that would indicate motorists ran lights 200 000 times in 2006. This number would be slightly more consistent with various studies that show motorists run red lights three to 12 times per hour per intersection.

Even that number is on the low side. There appears to be 1800 signalized intersections in Toronto, doing the math on the low side and that works out to red lights being run 47 million times a year.

Of course there is no causal connection between those two recent events, but there is a social connection: it was widely implied that the person who stabbed represented cycling society (mistakenly labelled a messenger), while the person who shot is not made to represent drivers. Bloody typical.

It's about time we got a great deal more militant. We aren't going to change minds, and we aren't going to get what we want, apparently, by playing nice. It's time we just took it.