Share the Road

11516171820

Comments

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...This study concludes that cyclists should wear helmets, but they should also be aware that it cannot protect them in particular situations. ... This study focused on the potential contribution of a bicycle helmet. We strongly recommend wearing helmets, because 37% of cyclists from our group could have survived if they had been wearing helmets at the time of the crashes. ...
    37% of the lives in the study seem worth saving to me. This is why I really don't understand the hostility to helmets too often seen here.

    Can you show where the hostility is coming from? Most of us cyclists are saying we wear them, even though experience suggests that they do not do much. This article suggests that the hostility comes from non-cyclists
    “That’s more or less what the infamous helmet debate has become,” Hussey lamented. “Shouty strangers shouting at other shouty strangers for choices that don’t affect the first shouty stranger’s life. It’s a bit weird, definitely a waste of energy, and not a fun place for cyclists to share space in.”

    As Boardman noted, in the Netherlands, perhaps the least perilous country for cyclists in the world, helmets and hi-vis are almost unknown. You don’t make cycling safe by obliging every rider to dress up as if for urban warfare. You do it by creating a road system that insulates them from fast-moving and unpredictable road traffic.
    Crucially, it seems the perception of reduced risk when a helmet is worn can both prompt riders to be more reckless with their own safety and nudge drivers into being less careful towards cyclists.
    Some studies have indicated that they [compulsory bike helmet use] put off enough people from riding bikes in the first place that the resulting negative effect on public health more than cancels out any benefits from fewer head injuries.
  • edited May 23
    In other news, an ex-bishop who killed a cyclist while drunk and while driving, is getting a release from jail after a 50% reduction in prison time for "good behaviour". I get it, that there's a system to release offenders, but 3½ years for killing someone and associated crimes doesn't seem right. Link to story.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Roads shouldn't be shared - especially not with cars.

    I started advocating segregated infrastructure (as well as vastly improved public transport, FWIW) seventeen pages and fourteen months ago. The cyclists weren't keen, as I recall.

    We're not keen on what we usually get. We'd be very keen on the sort of thing they manage in places like the Netherlands. However, our experience in the UK is that it's seldom fit for purpose.

    What we were really not keen on was the prospect of being given substandard infrastructure and then being forced to use it.

    A serious difference is that road users in the Netherlands are, for the most part, Dutch. Dutch motorists, while not necessarily nicer than their British counterparts, are I'm sure, more cycle-aware, as indeed are the Belgians and the French.

    Presumed Liability makes them so.

    Very likely, but would that occur without the Dutch being Dutch?

    The system in the Netherlands is so very different than the UK.

    When they build a new road, or change a road the Dutch have to put in cycling infrastructure for that route and make sure any roads that are crossed don't have their cycling routes impeded. The cycling infrastructure has to be in place and usable before the road is opened and usually before it is built.

    Cycling is safer in the Netherlands because cycling is put first, before that of cars and lorises. Pedestrians less so. To get from my brother's home in Eindhoven to the market we have to walk down the cycle lane, giving way to cyclists, as there is no infrastructure there for pedestrians.

    Sorry, but the utopia of the Netherlands does not exist if you like walking.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    RooK wrote: »
    ...The study clearly states that the biggest need is with respect to cyclists getting hit by cars; maybe we could think of a way to not have the cyclists jousting the cars?
    I once went down when I hit an unexpected gravel patch. I was very grateful for my helmet - and thereafter I also wore bicycle gloves.

    I see no reason not to wear a helmet. But I'm fully aware that I'm in a minority here.



  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    ...Can you show where the hostility is coming from? Most of us cyclists are saying we wear them, even though experience suggests that they do not do much. ...
    I've been dealing with the hostility on this thread almost since it began. My own experience suggests (strongly) that helmets are important.

  • I think I've understood that most of us wear helmets some of the time. We just don't want helmet-splaining to be the focus of cycling safety. I feel exactly the same about lack of reflective pedestrian clothing (high viz) and distracted walking as explanations for why pedestrians are being killed by drivers. In both walking and cycling terribly inadequate infrastructure and drivers who fear being delayed while distracted are the actual issues to address.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 25
    No, Rossweisse, you have continually attacked cyclists riding inappropriately as you see it and have conflated that with cycle helmets, from page 1 of this thread. I don't think anyone has condoned illegal cycling behaviour, mostly we have agreed some people are idiots, whether cyclists or drivers. In response it been pointed out repeatedly that roads are unsafe for cyclists in the spaces where there is no infrastructure, which is most of the world, much more unsafe than for car drivers, protected in their metal boxes. And you have continued, 20 pages in, to conflate inappropriate cycling behaviour with cycling being unsafe and insisted that all cyclists should wear helmets as protection against the lack of safe cycling spaces, in the face of the evidence.

    I suspect that if you weren't being so catastrophically upset by the few cyclists behaving inappropriately and counted how many cyclists there were altogether compared to that few you'd realise how small a minority is the problem. We keep saying it, some people are selfish idiots, car drivers or pedestrians. And the only real solution is not bike helmets, but infrastructure for both cyclists and pedestrians away from the dangerous metal boxes. Personally I think banning personal car use, on climate and health grounds would solve many of the problems. Along with provision of public transport, delivery times for goods, pedestrian only areas and proper cycle parking.
  • SighthoundSighthound Shipmate
    In the UK there has been a policy for many years now of effectively destroying public transport by making it more expensive, deregulating it and insisting that it must make a profit. I have have yet to see a road - even a deserted track in the most remote of areas - that is expected to make a profit, so why should railways?

    As matters stand, for many people, in many places, the car is the only practicable way to get about. Not true for able-bodied citizens in central London, but get out into the sticks and it is. Once you have a car, it makes perfect sense to use it, especially as people tend to compare petrol cost (alone) to train fares.

    If you want to change this, then you need to vote (very) differently and be willing to pay substantially more in tax. Wishing it away, or airy-fairy schemes that are barely more than cosmetic will not do the job.

    Frankly, the really neglected minority are pedestrians. Speaking as one, I feel we are treated like dirt. To say nothing of being expected to behave as though we have perfect sight, perfect hearing, and built-in radar.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    No, Rossweisse, you have continually attacked cyclists riding inappropriately as you see it and have conflated that with cycle helmets, from page 1 of this thread. ...And you have continued, 20 pages in, to conflate inappropriate cycling behaviour with cycling being unsafe and insisted that all cyclists should wear helmets as protection against the lack of safe cycling spaces, in the face of the evidence. ...
    I'm sorry it's come across that way. I really am in favor of universal care and courtesy toward others - and, as I have noted on numerous occasions, I was a serious cyclist until I became unable to ride for physical reasons.

    I admit that I don't understand the refusal of some to wear helmets, and regard it as foolish, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in better infrastructure for cyclists, or acknowledge the obvious fact that motorists are the primary problem for the safety of both cyclists and pedestrians. Being as careful as possible on the infrastructure we have is, however, crucial.
    Sighthound wrote: »
    ...Frankly, the really neglected minority are pedestrians. Speaking as one, I feel we are treated like dirt. To say nothing of being expected to behave as though we have perfect sight, perfect hearing, and built-in radar.
    Yeah, pretty much.


  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    If it is foolish to go without a helmet, then it is also true that pedestrians and car occupants not wearing them are foolish, because both of those groups also frequently die of head injuries following collisions. But no-one expects them so. I don't understand why cyclists are picked out. I wear one when I'm going to be riding fast, or off-road on technical ground where the chances of a crash are high enough to make it - in my personal estimation - worthwhile. I don't for a couple of miles to the station or from the station to work, where a few miles represent an infinitesimally small risk, just as I don't when on foot, and for exactly the same reasons and based on exactly the same assessment of risk.

    Everyone not motorised is treated badly by current infrastructure. Driving divisions between cyclists and pedestrians - notwithstanding the faliure of some of the former to respect the latter - is akin to the way that the wealthy and powerful like to pit the poor against immigrants, the low paid against the unemployed, and so on and so forth. At any busy junction, pedestrians will be expected to take the long way around, risk badly lit underpasses where personal safety may be compromised, wait for ages at multiple Pelican crossings. They are expected to negotiate cars parked on pavements, to give way to traffic turning across their path as they cross minor roads. And when cycling provision is put in, it generally treats cyclists in exactly the same way, and far too often on the same provision - we have local authorities who believe that a cyclist on the footway is an illegal menace until they put a slap of paint on it and a blue shared facility sign. Is it any surprise when some cannot understand why they are legally allowed - and by many motorists expected - to ride on one piece of footway, but not on another apparently identical except for lacking a painted white bicycle on the ground?

    The motor vehicle is the interloper in shared spaces. It is the source of the danger. It is what pushes cyclists and pedestrians into conflict. But it is given the lion's share of the space, and the convenience of drivers always is given top priority. I recall asking Sheffield Council what they could do about the very busy Manor Top junction, which is made far worse by tram lines which cross the road at a very narrow angle - absolutely lethal; one should cross them at as near 90 degrees as possible on a bike, but that would mean crossing from the left to the right of the traffic lane, and would almost certainly result in a driver knocking you off. Every suggestion was met with "but that would impede traffic flow" - by which is meant motor vehicle traffic flow. More important than me not coming off in the middle of a busy road, which has happened once and won't happen again because I now muck around getting off and walking around the junction. Would we countenance making roads dangerous for car drivers and telling them to push their car over the dangerous bit, were that even possible?

    A change of societal attitude is required.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited May 26
    Somehow, I doubt that improving bike-safe infrastructure and wearing safety helmets are mutually exclusive. Seems like an example of "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good".

    I don't think I've ever worn a helmet for biking. Last time I rode was long ago, and helmets weren't really a thing then--if they were available at all. I don't think I'd like wearing one. But if I decided to try a local bike-share program, I'd probably get a helmet--for my own safety, and because IIRC we've got a bike-helmet law.
  • I did mean the comment about removing personal cars and am aware that it would mean a rethink in lots of ways. But climate change means we should be rethinking the way we live.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Sighthound wrote: »
    In the UK there has been a policy for many years now of effectively destroying public transport by making it more expensive, deregulating it and insisting that it must make a profit. I have have yet to see a road - even a deserted track in the most remote of areas - that is expected to make a profit, so why should railways?

    As matters stand, for many people, in many places, the car is the only practicable way to get about. Not true for able-bodied citizens in central London, but get out into the sticks and it is. Once you have a car, it makes perfect sense to use it, especially as people tend to compare petrol cost (alone) to train fares.

    If you want to change this, then you need to vote (very) differently and be willing to pay substantially more in tax. Wishing it away, or airy-fairy schemes that are barely more than cosmetic will not do the job.

    Frankly, the really neglected minority are pedestrians. Speaking as one, I feel we are treated like dirt. To say nothing of being expected to behave as though we have perfect sight, perfect hearing, and built-in radar.

    Spot on about the destruction of public transport, and about the inconvenient truth that for many of us if the option of a private car isn't available then we are marooned because in many rural (and semi-rural) areas it isn't just that the cost of a taxi is prohibitive, but that in lots of areas they don't exist.

    As an example: yesterday we had news pf a proposed levy on everyone who gets to Heathrow Airport other than by public transport. Something so obviously dreamt up by a muppet who lives well within the M25 and with access to the Tube system that its laughable. Even if you live in somewhere like Bognor Regis, c80 miles away, you've got a 4 hour train journey to get to the airport in place of a 90 minute car journey. And since we don't have trains that run throughout the night, for many people it will give them a "window" for accessible 'plane times of about 8 hours. Crazy.

    And correct again about ignoring neglected pedestrians. Where I live most of the roads are unlit and have no pavements, a lot of hedgerows that come right to the edge of the narrow roadway, and now local councils are urged not to mow such verges as exist to help wildlife, so pedestrians have to wade through waist high grass and wait for one of the few buses trying not to get flattened because there are no bus laybys and no bus shelters.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    One does not simply walk to Heathrow...

    It's illegal. Ditto cycling. There's no pedestrian or bike access to the terminals.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    This video (scroll down) is just one example of why the shit about careless cyclists with no helmets engenders screaming, silent and otherwise. I myself got hit in a bike lane by a car that stopped at a stop sign and then pulled out because there were no cars coming. Just me, riding in the bike lane, wearing my helmet.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Somehow, I doubt that improving bike-safe infrastructure and wearing safety helmets are mutually exclusive. Seems like an example of "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good". ...
    Thank you.

    I had minor injuries,but saved myself from far greater injury, by wearing a helmet. A friend saved her life, although she was still in hospital for months after getting run over by a van. (One of her many roommates was a young woman who was left brain dead because she wasn't wearing a helmet when she was hit.) I really do not understand the hostility toward a very basic item of common-sense bicycle safety that is proven to be effective.

    But I'm done arguing with the wind-in-my-hair crowd over this. Suit yourselves, and may you be spared any and all accidents.

  • Came across this video from the UK's The Guardian. Worth a view. It's about cycling, law breaking and harm. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2019/may/09/do-cyclists-think-theyre-above-the-law-and-does-it-even-matter-video
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    If everyone - cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, and the people who hop aboard those damned electric scooters - were to consistently obey the law, take all possible sensible precautions, and keep courtesy and safety in mind, the roads (not to mention the sidewalks) would be far safer for all of us.

    Too much trouble, I know.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    In theory, theory and reality are the same. In reality, they're not.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    What cyclists have been saying for 20 pages now is that obeying the law and taking sensible precautions are sometimes contradictory impulses, and staying alive takes precedence.
  • Thank you for that @NOprophet_NØprofit, @Rossweisse did you actually watch the whole video, because your response suggests you didn't.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    What cyclists have been saying for 20 pages now is that obeying the law and taking sensible precautions are sometimes contradictory impulses, and staying alive takes precedence.

    Every few months, there's a local news story about some crazy person riding their power chair or scooter in the road. It's "news" because ableist folk rarely backtrack for blocks because there's no curb cut, or tip over on an uneven sidewalk or a steep driveway or even just a patch of sand, or get stuck in a drain, or slalom around sidewalk signs and cafe seating, to name just a few challenges.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    ... @Rossweisse did you actually watch the whole video, because your response suggests you didn't.
    Yes, I did. Why is it that you apparently don't believe that reasonable people can disagree on this particular issue? I lived it, I saw it unfurl, I came to conclusions about common sense and the proper exercise thereof, based on what I lived and saw.

    It's true that I don't believe that cyclists are somehow better than anyone else and thus entitled to ignore the laws of physics. It just doesn't work that way. But suit yourself...




  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    It's true that I don't believe that cyclists are somehow better than anyone else and thus entitled to ignore the laws of physics.

    It's possible that she's just flabbergasted that you seem determined to make this be a point of contention that exactly nobody except you is arguing.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    If everyone - cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, and the people who hop aboard those damned electric scooters - were to consistently obey the law, take all possible sensible precautions, and keep courtesy and safety in mind, the roads (not to mention the sidewalks) would be far safer for all of us.

    Too much trouble, I know.

    https://cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cyclist-red-reverts-light-safety-1.5153269

    I'm amazed that people want the infrastructure changed because they fear for their lives when they are in the process of breaking the law. It's mostly about taking personal responsibility.

    Like you said, if everyone (cyclists, pedestrians, and, yes, motorists) obeyed the law, there would be far fewer "accidents". And, as a bonus, it wouldn't cost a fortune to implement. I object to having to pay more taxes because of other people's bad decisions.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Like you said, if everyone (cyclists, pedestrians, and, yes, motorists) obeyed the law, there would be far fewer "accidents". And, as a bonus, it wouldn't cost a fortune to implement. I object to having to pay more taxes because of other people's bad decisions.

    This - about if everyone obeyed the law, there'd be far fewer accidents - isn't true. I'm going by anecdata here, but I'm going to say that the vast majority of accidents aren't down to law-breaking. They're due to inattention. Sometimes the inattention is a criminal act, like you were drunk, drugged, or using your phone. Whatever the cause, inattention might mean you run a light, or don't see the queue of traffic ahead of you, or forget to check your blind spot, and that can have potentially fatal consequences. One of the major causes of death for cyclists is lorries turning left at junctions.

    Until it's acknowledged that the laws of the road are constructed for the benefit and ease of motorised vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians will be forced to put themselves in danger by obeying the law, and will have the dilemma of how best to stay safe.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    One of the major causes of death for cyclists is lorries turning left at junctions.
    Which is why it's safer for bikes to sit forward at lights and preempt the lights changing slightly to stay ahead of said lorries. London now has cycle filter boxes and lights to allow this on some junctions. However with a reverse light system, that technique fails. If the cyclists obey the law, as per @sharkshooter, they get squished by lorries turning left. Great choice.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    RooK wrote: »
    It's possible that she's just flabbergasted that you seem determined to make this be a point of contention that exactly nobody except you is arguing.
    It's possible that I have misunderstood her.


  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    ...
    https://cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cyclist-red-reverts-light-safety-1.5153269

    I'm amazed that people want the infrastructure changed because they fear for their lives when they are in the process of breaking the law. It's mostly about taking personal responsibility.
    ...
    "Personal responsibility" is probably the worst approach to ensure the safety of any process because people en masse are inconsistent fuckups, on purpose and by accident. This is a slightly more detailed description of how those lights work. (I've never heard of such things - Caprica City uses loop sensors that sense cars and bikes. These seem like a Lucy-and-the-football program for traffic lights.)

    Are traffic sensors common sense for pedestrians, cyclists?
    The city tells me the traffic lights are programmed this way to account for cars making right hand turns. Let's say a driver leaves Fisher Park school and wants to make a right turn on Holland. They stop at the red light and wait for a gap to turn right. While waiting, the car has triggered the sensor.

    The system begins the process of eventually giving the traffic on Holland a red and that driver a green. But what if in the time before the car gets a green, it was able to make its right turn? The city's engineers say that would be an unnecessary red for the traffic on Holland.

    So the system does one final check: when the light on Holland is red, but before giving the car exiting Fisher Park a green, it checks to make sure that car is still there on the sensor. If it isn't, then no need for a green coming out of the school and it's right back to a green light for traffic on Holland. The city calls this feature a "Revert Red."

    I agree that one should never start moving until the light has turned green and the intersection is clear and one is sure there's no moron running the red light, but in reality, it seems the programming of these sensors plus human expectations and inattention can lure pedestrians and cyclists into a dangerous situation. And while motor vehicles also shouldn't start moving early, it appears that they are large enough that the problem doesn't arise if they anticipate the red. In this case, making it all about the cars has created a risk for other users. The system can trick vulnerable users into making a fatal mistake, but it does prevent those unnecessary reds that are, what, 30 seconds?
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    ...
    "Personal responsibility" is probably the worst approach to ensure the safety of any process because people en masse are inconsistent fuckups, on purpose and by accident. ...

    So we have to pander to the lowest level of competence? I, personally, would never support that.

    When cycling, I am aware that I am at risk 100% of the time, and I take every precaution. Why wouldn't I? I know that taking risks could mean death. Is it not reasonable for cyclists to not ride up beside (and even pass) vehicles on the right (left if you are in the UK) when there is a chance they will turn into you? Get real people, you might make it to your destination a minute earlier, but you might get dead.
  • That rather assumes that the vehicle turning left is indicating early enough to know that it is going to in advance. Good luck with that one.

    Avoiding this issue is why at lights it's more sensible to wait in front of the traffic - and we have feeder boxes for cyclists at many junctions to allow that.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited June 5
    So we have to pander to the lowest level of competence?

    Ah, so you are not supportive of speed limits, or seat belts, or traffic lights.

    Unless, of course, you're just stuck in a mindset of what is "right" and cannot fathom things being different. It's a common limitation of humans as they age. If that's the case, then please try to hear what some of us are actually trying to say, which is this: As long as we force cyclists to directly interact with cars, all nominal 'rules' are lip-service to safety and not actually safe. Actual safety would be preferred, rather than scapegoating some visibly convenient interlopers while ignoring that non-rule-breakers are also systematically injured.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited June 5
    Interestingly, in most cases cycle lanes are on the left leading to advanced stop boxes. You are specifically directed by the infrastructure to ride up the left of the queuing traffic. Which is fine as long as anyone intending to turn left is indicating. Otherwise it's a problem.

    I personally tend to ride down the outside of any lane carrying possibly left turning traffic - I often ignore cycle lanes for this very reason and ride where I would if they weren't there, for my own safety. But that puts you in the "Get in the fucking cycle lane you stupid cunt!" shout zone instead.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    ...But that puts you in the "Get in the fucking cycle lane you stupid cunt!" shout zone instead.
    (I know we're in Hell, but could we please try to eschew the C-word? It's the equivalent of the N-word, and hideously offensive. Thanks.)


  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    What she said, re C-word.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    ...
    "Personal responsibility" is probably the worst approach to ensure the safety of any process because people en masse are inconsistent fuckups, on purpose and by accident. ...

    So we have to pander to the lowest level of competence? I, personally, would never support that. ....

    In that case, please, please, please, never, ever volunteer for your workplace safety committee.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    ...But that puts you in the "Get in the fucking cycle lane you stupid cunt!" shout zone instead.
    (I know we're in Hell, but could we please try to eschew the C-word? It's the equivalent of the N-word, and hideously offensive. Thanks.)


    I'm supportive of your right to have your own opinion on the c-word, and your right to object to its use. And in some contexts it certainly is hideously offensive and inappropriate, and can be indicative of a toxic attitude. But, at least here in the UK it's not, as such, anywhere near as toxic as the N-word! At least, not in my opinion.

    I know there's been a recent Purg thread on this, too, which has gone through the peculiarities of this word. But I, personally, don't think it would be a forward step to censor what is in many contexts a very strong, and while unacceptable to some, nevertheless fairly unexceptional epithet; especially here in Hell. Just my tuppence worth though, nothing more!
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Just my tuppence worth though, nothing more!

    There's a Styx thread on the subject. Can we please this particular tangent there, please?

    DT
    HH
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Dave Walker, sometimes of this parish, has some cartoons in the Grauniad today. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/28/a-cyclists-guide-to-biking-the-city-a-cartoon
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Excellent little set methinks.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    That last one is a mic drop on this thread.
  • They ripped out the cycling lanes in my city starting June 20.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited June 30
    We have the dreaded white line type of bike lanes here, and they are worse than useless. The odd times I am feeling lucky and I get my bike out, I tend to choose routes that involve streets that do not have lanes simply because the usual free for all is much easier to deal with. Thankfully, the local roads department has resisted the temptation to try and make 40 foot roads four lane.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    We have the dreaded white line type of bike lanes here, and they are worse than useless. The odd times I am feeling lucky and I get my bike out, I tend to choose routes that involve streets that do not have lanes simply because the usual free for all is much easier to deal with. Thankfully, the local roads department has resisted the temptation to try and make 40 foot roads four lane.

    They have a limited utility around here - all the cars are parked in them freeing up the carriageway for riding.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    The local sense of humour is such that the wide streets have a 6' parking lane, a 4' bike lane, and a 10' traffic lane in each direction. Using the bike lane is car door roulette as folks seem chronically unable to see bikes in their rear view/side mirrors. So far I have been lucky. The other bonus here is that the police periodically are keen on enforcing the 25 mph down town speed limit, which means we do not have folks whizzing through at 40mph that often, as it has a local reputation as a speed trap.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    One thing I will say in Toronto's favour is the people seem to understand that bike lanes are for bikes. We are increasingly getting actual separation in some places, though that hasn't been practicable everywhere.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    And especially you, you dozy runt who pulled out of a side road when Mrs Sioni was already in the main road, and couldn't be arsed to make an emergency stop, possibly because you were wearing flip flops, thus running into the passengers side, just behind me.

    I'm afraid I lost my temper with you: I didn't hit you, which was just as well because you are some eight inches shorter and probably eight stone lighter, otherwise be on some juicy assault charge. I probably scared you a bit before Mrs Sioni exchanged details, etc, etc. At least our car still stops, goes and behaves OK and the door that took the hit still opens, closes and locks OK.
  • Driving is such a stressful thing. Body is fine from sound of that story.

    Here's another. You cannot make this stuff up. https://www.therecord.com/news-story/9497436-driver-ticketed-for-using-case-of-beer-as-toddler-s-car-seat/

    The link contains enough to know what a fool this dad is.
Sign In or Register to comment.