Bike vs pedestrian

Thanks for your thoughtful article. It can be a pain to follow traffic laws, but when we don't, not only do we endanger ourselves and others, we also chip away at what limited respect the "motoring culture" has for cyclists.

The people who run reds at full speed, slip between pedestrians crossing the cross walks almost hitting them, etc. don't give a shit. They don't read this blog. They don't care about other people but the ones in their inner circle. They're the same type self centered assholes who drive overpriced cars and almost run you over on the roads. Just because you're on a bike, doesn't mean you can't be a douche bag.

I may sound bitter and I am. This year I made a concerted effort to call out other cyclists for this dangerous behaviour. I try not to be rude or sound angry or condescending. I'm talking about really dangerous stuff. Like almost hitting little kids at a cross walk in front of a school. Weaving into cars through a red light. Some ignore me. Some give me the finger. A few however have stopped and made sure I understand that I should mind my own business as what they do is none of mine. Maybe, just maybe those who ignore me, and aren't the ones wearing headphones, will feel a little guilty and try a bit harder to share the roads next time. Somehow I don't think so though.

You're right Paul, but stop the vigilante enforcement of traffic rules... You'll be just like one of those guys in their car who really wants to teach that other guy a lesson. Just adding to the problem, take care of your own acts first.

I actually do think it's prudent to
> obey every ritual detail in the traffic laws
and
> show respect to a motoring culture that does not deserve it.

The more we all respect each other on the roads, whether or not we feel the other person deserves it, the safer everyone will be.

I hear Kivi's position a lot from cyclists, that we should obey every law in the book. Currently I do that, except for the one-way rule in residential neighbourhoods. The reason I stop for every stop sign is because I got fined for disobeying one in the winter. But seriously, this last rule means I am accelerating perhaps 20% of the time on residential roads, since every 200 metres I have to stop, and I don't want to expend energy braking, so I stop pedalling as soon as I see the next stop sign coming up. This rule should not apply on empty intersections (cf. Europe where "stop" means "yield": it is not used on equal intersections, so stop signs are a far rarer phenomenon), and the one-way rule should not apply to cyclists, as the reason one-way streets were installed does not apply to them. Moreover, if I didn't go against traffic on my own street for 70 metres every day, I would have to make a dangerous no-lights left turn on Bathurst every time I come home (or walk those 70 metres, but that's not the point--the assumption here is that I should behave like a vehicle). No thank you!

Last week I was riding in the bike lane on St. George, heading south approaching College. There was a woman on the sidewalk next to me; she was on a Bixi bike, and she was ringing her bell incessently for pedestrians to get out of her way. When we both stopped at the light at College, I was about to say something - to encourage her either not to do that, or to ride in the bike lane. It makes cyclists look bad. None of those pedestrians expected a bicycle to be riding up their rear on the sidewalks, nor should they. I don't know why I held my tongue. Well, actually, I do know why - I'm a true Canadian ... any type of public "scene" could leave me scarred for life ...

I don't think she was a tourist. She looked like a real bike commuter to me.

Do you, Paul, think this complete stranger on the bixi honestly didn't know she was supposed to ride on the street and that it was a simple matter of you, a stranger, telling her to get on the street?

Me either, probably why you're a smart guy and didn't say anything.

I disagree with Dances with Traffic. I think Paul is right to be calling people out on their bad behaviour, within reason. Drivers make all kinds of accusations without understanding the position of cyclists, but cyclists should be criticizing their own when they're acting dangerously. Not "teaching them a lesson" through actions, but speaking up in an appropriate tone? Sure.

I rarely weigh in on these things, but let me propose a few things:
Stop signs are designed to manage traffic flow between cars, not bicycles. Consider whether they would be used if the city were bike only. They would not. This is because there is a substantial difference between the angular momentum of a car and the angular momentum of a bicycle. Sadly yes, a pedestrian was recently killed by a cyclist, though this makes the broader news because it is so outside the norm. It is rather difficult to kill a person by another person riding a bicycle. (I'll spare you the math.) It is rather less difficult to kill a person by another person in a car. Given that the relative ratio is almost the same for a person riding a bicycle, (call it your own weight plus about 10 kg) we all instinctively lump cyclists in as closer to pedestrians than cars, and in fact we are! Generally non-polluting, quiet, not-very-fast commuters all. The fellows who make the road rules do the same back-of-brain math when they decide to allow bicycles to share a lane with everyone else. Or rather, allow anyone else to share a lane with you as a bicyclist. You and I as cyclists have to fight to keep a lane and are reacted to rudely should we do so. I as a motorcyclist am taught to take my full lane and would be penalized should I decide I can fit through less. As a driver, well I more or less have to take up a full lane but isn't that what the lanes were made for? My point here is that the fellow who killed the pedestrian seems primarily to be castigated for riding up the wrong way on a one-way street. He was expecting to be able to share that street with other traffic, just as he would have to were he going the other way. Any driver on that street would be little put-out given that they would expect right-of-way over the cyclist were he going in either direction. For the cyclist, the practicalities are rather different. Again, using the bike-only city test, would it make any sense at all to go around the block, especially given the width of our streets? It would not, and so for each motorist that cries foul against a yielded stop-sign, or a cyclist riding against traffic, there is first a motorist that must will him/herself blind against not only the basic practicalities of bicycling, but also by extension the insanity of our car-based culture.

It occurs to me that there is an important truth to be found somewhere between the positions of Anthony and Ed: although the bicyclist broke at least two rules of the road in the incident in question, cyclists are slow and agile enough that they can stop for pedestrians whenever they cross their path, whether it is the pedestrian, the cyclist, or both who are at fault. I still believe that most of the rules of the road really must be followed (i.e. all except stopping at empty equal intersections and following residential one-way rules), but if everyone were extra careful around intersections and other high-risk stretches of road, this sort of thing would be even rarer. It's not a race track people!

I'd like to see a crackdown on cyclists who ignore red lights, they make us all look bad.