Results 1 to 81 of 81

Thread: Cycling - bad drivers

  1. #1

    Default Cycling - bad drivers

    Anyone other cyclists here experiencing an increase in abuse from motorists this year so far?

  2. #2

    Default

    Its a two way thing, there are horrible drivers, and horrible cyclists (or horrible pedestrians too). Both drivers and cyclists need to be aware of each other, and both follow the rules of the road.

  3. #3

    Default

    I gave up cycling on roadways a couple of years ago after I was run off the road.
    Breaking my clavical, I was left on the side of the road unnoticed.
    Traffic slowed down, but only to get around me...

  4. #4
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    not really. it's like snow... people freak out and takes a little bit to get used to riders on the roads again. but a lot of people are cranky in the morning/all of the time... if someone is being a dick let it go and karma will fix them. just make sure you're following all the rules and it's ok. on the other hand, i did have someone turn into me when it was my right of way and squish me between their car and the next lane's car. man the stupid burns sometimes. i almost booted his mirror off. he got mad at me lol and caught up and rolled down the window to yell me me. protip: don't roll down the window when you almost ran over a biker cuz you're gonna have a bad time - i won't say why. that dude got off easy considering there wasn't a cop around...

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,426

    Default

    I've been cycling to work year round for over 10 years. I have had no major incidents, and minor incidents have been rare enough that I can't really say if they have become more or less common recently. Poor winter road maintenance is my biggest complaint, followed by a lack of good routes through certain areas of the city.

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    I haven't brought the bike out yet but in general I haven't had any issues for a few years. My trick was to default to being in the lane, ride with traffic, obey the same rules as the cars, and route finding that puts me on roadways conducive to riding.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  7. #7
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    349

    Default

    ^Agreed.
    Driving North on 111st from Henday to Southgate, sometimes cyclists use the road instead of the purposely built multi-use trail on the East side ( in all seasons, not just in winter). If there is a multi use trail - use it. It was constructed for that purpose, and it's safer.

  8. #8
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^the 111st trail changes sides of the street, winds a bit and crosses avenues away from the main intersection, so for cyclist who aren't just out for excercise it's both slower and less safe that the street.

    More on topic, I haven't noticed an increase in hostile drivers, they've been good this winter, just like the last. No, that's not true. Hostile drivers encountered increased from zero to one, but I think that's more random fluctuation than trend.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ^the 111st trail changes sides of the street, winds a bit and crosses avenues away from the main intersection, so for cyclist who aren't just out for excercise it's both slower and less safe that the street.

    More on topic, I haven't noticed an increase in hostile drivers, they've been good this winter, just like the last. No, that's not true. Hostile drivers encountered increased from zero to one, but I think that's more random fluctuation than trend.
    I don't mind that path, but it can get quite busy sometimes for cyclists out there for exercise. The last two weeks were hell for me even going around my neighbourhood. I suspect it has to do with me taking up more of the road than I usually do due to the insane amounts of gravel/sand from the winter. Thankfully it seems that that's been cleaned up now so that hopefully will help.

    That being said, it's shocking what some drivers will do to cyclists though....

  10. #10

    Default

    Pedestrians and cyclists are being exposed to new levels of increasing abuse every year. Apparently stopping at stop signs, redlights, crosswalks is optional now as pedestrians are crossing.

    How do some of these people get licences? The new cool is apparently barely slowing at controlled intersections and making a right hand turn with minimal use of brakes..damned be anything in the way.

    I stepped out of the way while crossing a crosswalk yesterday and had to get back on the curb to facilitate a speeding pickup truck too busy to be wasting time stopping for pedestrians at a redlight and crosswalk that had no intention of stopping even though they were looking right at me at a light that had changed 2 secs ago. I had the walk sign. But a huge pile of vehicle is bigger so...

    One of the major impacts of increased freeways that I note is that the Henday has resulted in patterns of highway/freeway actions continuing on suburban roadways. As if everything is an exit on/off ramp and no slowing down for anything.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Pedestrians and cyclists are being exposed to new levels of increasing abuse every year. Apparently stopping at stop signs, redlights, crosswalks is optional now as pedestrians are crossing.

    How do some of these people get licences? The new cool is apparently barely slowing at controlled intersections and making a right hand turn with minimal use of brakes..damned be anything in the way.

    I stepped out of the way while crossing a crosswalk yesterday and had to get back on the curb to facilitate a speeding pickup truck too busy to be wasting time stopping for pedestrians at a redlight and crosswalk that had no intention of stopping even though they were looking right at me at a light that had changed 2 secs ago. I had the walk sign. But a huge pile of vehicle is bigger so...

    One of the major impacts of increased freeways that I note is that the Henday has resulted in patterns of highway/freeway actions continuing on suburban roadways. As if everything is an exit on/off ramp and no slowing down for anything.
    Yep I've noticed this as well. The problem though I think seems to be that a certain population of drivers cannot bear the thought of slowing down for pedestrians, or god forbid.... a cyclist. Hell I even saw a pedestrian who had a walk sign who was crossing at a standard pace get honked by an impatient driver trying to turn. The one I always get on my bike rides is people who think they can beat me and turn in front of me, ignoring their responsibility to yield when I have the right of way. Sigh.

    More or less though things have gotten better since residential streets in my area have been cleaned. But that doesn't change the fact that some drivers will always think that saving a few seconds of their time is worth putting a vulnerable road user in danger, which is just disturbing.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I've been cycling to work year round for over 10 years. I have had no major incidents, and minor incidents have been rare enough that I can't really say if they have become more or less common recently. Poor winter road maintenance is my biggest complaint, followed by a lack of good routes through certain areas of the city.

    From Paul Turnbull
    I haven't brought the bike out yet but in general I haven't had any issues for a few years. My trick was to default to being in the lane, ride with traffic, obey the same rules as the cars, and route finding that puts me on roadways conducive to riding.
    I rarely have any problems, for the same reasons.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    How's about the cyclist from hell I encountered today on 96 St. just north of 23 Ave. Yes, a small quiet road in a light industrial area, but this guy had two 8' 2x4's strapped across his carry rack behind the saddle - so effectively a wide vehicle, not unlike an ultralight plane. Because of potholes and assorted gravel, he was weaving about all over the place.

    Next to no traffic about so I was able to give him a good wide berth. God forbid he ventured onto nearby Parsons Road, 23 Ave, or 91 St.

    They walk(cycle) among us, folks.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  14. #14
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Well that was a first - today I had a car roll onto my foot at a stopsign.

    Approaching the stopsign I'm in front with the car behind me. I'm planning on going straight, so I'm taking the lane to prevent yet another bozo from right-hooking me. I stop, but the fat, stupid, lazy, entitled piece of excretion still has to try to squeeze in beside me. They squeeze so tight that they brush my left hip with their fender, and end up driving onto my foot.

    My shoe took the brunt of it, and I don't appear worse for the wear (although it's two hours later and my foot does feel a little weirdly warm).

    I gave them a spectacular earful, with a fist to the hood for good measure. And very impolitely forced them to back up, since my shoe was caught under their wheel.

    And a couple blocks later there's another stopsign, and they're still behind me. So I got off my bike, stood in the middle of the road, and asked them if they were planning on paying attention this time.

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ i would have loved to see you telling that person off. Some drivers are just ignorant period.

    hope you are ok.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  16. #16

    Default

    One of the many reasons I don't ride my bike in Traffic.

    The city is not bike friendly.

    When I'm driving I'm forced to dodge the cyclist not really paying attention to traffic.

  17. #17
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The fun part of a dash cam...

    Not only do I catch the stupid drivers...but the equally stupid cyclists.

    ....like the goof on the yellowhead yesterday...cutting off a Semi...and the cyclist was ridng no hands because he was texting!...

    or the dolt this morning...5 am...on calgary trail...in the rain...not paying attention and wearing all black...


    Moral...there are bad drivers and cyclists amongst us. The offenders are pretty much even if you really wanted to do a quantitative study. Keep your head up...drive to the conditions...and respect that regardless of your belief that your 2 wheeled mode is superior...you lose to the car simply due to sheer mass...and "but I had the right of way" is a crappy epitaph...because you now have an epitaph.


    drivers...heads up...you don't want to hit someone....
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    The number of wheels and power source don't make people better or worse drivers.

    It's like the time I was making a right hand turn on my bike, I looked for pedestrians crossing, then looked left for any cars or bikes coming from that way, then almost got creamed by two cyclists from my right screaming down the sidewalk and into the crosswalk yelling that they had right of way because of the WALK light. <facepalm/>

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  19. #19
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    ^ Exactly. Some people are just jerks / bad drivers regardless of their method of transportation. Granted, given the choice between being hit by bike or hit by a car....

    As a cyclist I have faced down plenty of stupid drivers. And as a driver and pedestrian, I have also encountered many jerk cyclists. I've never understood why bike lanes are often combination bike, bus, and taxi lanes. If there's ever two types of drivers I don't want to encounter while on my bike, it's bus drivers and taxi drivers. Some ETS drivers seem to tailgate you for sport.

    On the flip side, there is one notorious cyclist in my neighbourhood who purposefully swerves and meanders in front of cars to prevent them from passing him, even when the road has plenty of space to do so safely. Just for some kicks I guess. (P.S. if you're a middle-aged male cyclist in Parkallen who does this, my mother-in-law has declared she will run you over next time she comes to visit and you're doing this to her. And that woman does not mess around.)

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,426

    Default

    ^There are definitely some rude taxi drivers out there, but my only problem with buses has been when the average speed of the constantly stopping bus is about the same as mine and we are repeatedly passing each other. Like Paul Turnbull, the most common type of rude cyclist I have encountered are the ones who think they have the right of way on the sidewalk. This is especially annoying when the adjacent road has plenty of room for cyclists (like 95 St in McCauley / Alberta Avenue).

  21. #21
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    The fun part of a dash cam...
    Please Richard, I beg of you, no more reminders that cars weigh more than bikes. We get it. Right of way does matter, and will continue to matter, in court, even if it doesn't matter to the deceased "superior" cyclist you refer to.

    I've had a helmet cam for about 5 years. You wouldn't believe the stuff I've recorded. Or maybe you would.

    First, let me state this clear fact I couldn't help but notice: Riding a bike on the streets of Edmonton is very safe. Most drivers are great. But there is one trend I'm seeing. Drivers are OFTEN not looking where they are going.

    There are bad motorists and cyclists out there. Some are the ignorant jerk type that thinks they are more important than everyone else, and thus above the rules. Some are drunk &/or impaired. Some are distracted.

    Some just aren't very good drivers or bicyclists (including new ones) who know they aren't good, but need to drive/ride, and won't get better until they gain some experience.

    And everybody makes mistakes. Especially kids on bikes.

    We could all tell anecdotes all day long, but until I hear the exact same story tens of thousands of times I'm looking on most as exceptions that prove the rule.

    The #1 problem now, by far, is motorists not looking where they are going. More than drunk driving, or bad driving, or jerks, or anything else. These are not bad, evil, stupid people. They are everyday ordinary people, and they aren't looking where they are going.

    There are commonalities, but, fundamentally, riding a bike is much different than operating a motor vehicle. I'm a pretty firm proponent of vehicular cycling, but to expect everybody who rides a bike to operate similar to a motor vehicle is foolish.

    Bikes are self powered and while extremely efficient compared to an automobile, stopping and starting are significant physically on a bike, unlike a car. Same with going up or down a hill, or into or against the wind. Weather makes a big difference. Bicyclists don't need keys, gas, a license, or money, and roads are only one of many options. Bicyclists don't need to be 16 or older.

    You can get off, pick it up, turn around, and roll or carry it with you if you choose. Bicyclists take up very little space, and can squeeze through areas impossible for a car. Bicyclists are usually up a lot higher than motorists, and can see over top of most vehicles. They can stop, literally turn on a dime, and go any other direction. Bikes can go around barriers that are impassable to cars. And they will do these things. Etc, etc, etc.

    What I'm getting at, is while we can work toward educating people as to the rules of the road, and give cyclists the same rules and responsibilities, we can't expect that people will follow them, and our rules of the road (like speed limits) need to allow for the fact that human beings will continue to act as human beings, do foolish things, and make mistakes.

    So when a speed limit may seem slow because it's much slower than what you feel is optimal, maybe consider it allows for the fact it has to account for may "outside" variables.

    We can make a rule requiring cyclists to stop completely at a stop sign before proceeding, then be enraged when, being human, so many ignore the rule. Or we can make allowances for differences and come up with a safer alternative like they do in Idaho for rolling stops for cyclists.

    Even there, people, especially kids, will continue to make mistakes.

    The #1 rule I continue to see broken, by motorists, and it happens daily when I'm out riding, is drivers not looking where they are going!!!!!!!!!

    I know enough to look someone in the eye, or assume that they can't see me. I learned that through experience. If I was hit by a vehicle merging into traffic, say while riding along the Gateway Boulevard bike path going south past the Tim Horton's parking lot, (where a friggin' hedge blocks much of the driver's view while leaving the parking lot anyway) and a driver hit me because they weren't looking where they were going and stepped on the gas while looking behind them (like lots of people do), it would still not be my fault. I'm 100% aware of the fact it wouldn't matter to me if I was dead.

    There are myriad steps I could (and often do) take to avoid or ameliorate risks, including giving up cycling entirely, but that does not take away from the fact the real problem is drivers not looking where they are going. Until we are able to deal with that problem, which starts with accepting that it is indeed the fundamental preventable problem, we will continue to have tragedies, and will continue to blame the bicyclist, at least in part.

    Maybe there is too much going on inside the car that has nothing to do with outside the car. The roads need to be safer. Even good cyclists make mistake. A mistake shouldn't be a death sentence, because a driver isn't paying attention, and that's what I see happening more and more often. I don't know how to stop it.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  22. #22
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Excellent post Jim

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    You wouldn't believe the stuff I've recorded.
    No kidding.

    I mention that a car actually hit me.

    And Richard? He has to tattle about some nasty cyclist stealing his favorite colour pencil crayon. Oh, and like there there was this other that that a cyclist hid his bottle of muselage, so he couldn't finish his mothers' day project!

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Antipathy towards cyclists seems to wax and wane in direct correlation to it being used as a wedge issue by dirtball politicians pouring gasoline on any fires they come across.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  25. #25
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    My one incident this year was a guy yelling out his pick-up window for me to get off the road, and when \i didn't comply, that I should "get off the bike tough guy", as if a bicycle is an unfair advantage in a fight against two guys in a Silverado.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    I've had a helmet cam for about 5 years. You wouldn't believe the stuff I've recorded. Or maybe you would.

    First, let me state this clear fact I couldn't help but notice: Riding a bike on the streets of Edmonton is very safe. Most drivers are great. But there is one trend I'm seeing. Drivers are OFTEN not looking where they are going.

    There are bad motorists and cyclists out there. Some are the ignorant jerk type that thinks they are more important than everyone else, and thus above the rules. Some are drunk &/or impaired. Some are distracted.

    Some just aren't very good drivers or bicyclists (including new ones) who know they aren't good, but need to drive/ride, and won't get better until they gain some experience.

    And everybody makes mistakes. Especially kids on bikes.

    We could all tell anecdotes all day long, but until I hear the exact same story tens of thousands of times I'm looking on most as exceptions that prove the rule.

    The #1 problem now, by far, is motorists not looking where they are going. More than drunk driving, or bad driving, or jerks, or anything else. These are not bad, evil, stupid people. They are everyday ordinary people, and they aren't looking where they are going.
    Most definitely. I've been considering a helmet cam as well, I imagine that may come in handy. I definitely agree with the statement that biking in the city is safe - I encounter a countless amount of motorists that are courteous towards cyclists on my daily ride. However the unfortunate thing is that it only takes 1 crazy or distracted driver to end it all for a cyclist.

    I would also agree with drivers not looking out to be a huge problem. I'd say that it's still a regular occurrence to see a driver texting or talking on their phones. Sad, really.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Excellent post Jim
    ++

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  28. #28
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    211

    Default

    I suspect that there are a select group of people out there who are jerks when they are driving, cycling, or walking and they all seem to consciously avoid eye contact.

    I find the friendlies are the one who get eye contact and play nice together.




    Can I talk about phobias?

    Lots of people have this irrational fear of being buried alive. My phobia is that I will be run down in a pedestrian crosswalk by someone texting & driving. I just can't shake it.

    It's that eye contact thing.
    Last edited by BoyleStreetBoy; 26-04-2014 at 02:38 PM.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Excellent post Jim
    ++
    Add to this. Jimbo makes the best posts on this subject. Glad he's back.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    I suspect that there are a select group of people out there who are jerks when they are driving, cycling, or walking and they all seem to consciously avoid eye contact.

    I find the friendlies are the one who get eye contact and play nice together.




    Can I talk about phobias?

    Lots of people have this irrational fear of being buried alive. My phobia is that I will be run down in a pedestrian crosswalk by someone texting & driving. I just can't shake it.

    It's that eye contact thing.
    A few years ago I'm stopped at a light next to a main road. (I'm in a vehicle) Fortunately, as is my practice, I stop a little bit more than I have to from the intersection. While I'm waiting for the light to change a sports car coming perpendicular loses control, goes off road, and slams into streetlight pole just in front of me just feet away from where I was parked. At high speed. Pieces of this vehicle were flying everywhere, fortunately missing my, and other vehicles, and no pedestrains were standing right there or they'd be dead in an instant.

    Greaseball walks right out of his vehicle fine. Not a mark or cut. God loves idiots. Momentarily have half an impulse to run him over for Darwinian sake..

    I'm stretching it with that last part but you all get the gist. I did make sure to call him a ******* ***** and called the police.

    The amount of times cars do go off roads and across sidewalks, into lawns, buildings etc in this City is outright shocking. I had a stat awhile ago that around 10% of accidents in this city involve hitting parked cars. Which tells you about everything you need to know about many drivers in this city.
    Last edited by Replacement; 26-04-2014 at 03:14 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #31
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    You wouldn't believe the stuff I've recorded.
    No kidding.

    I mention that a car actually hit me.

    And Richard? He has to tattle about some nasty cyclist stealing his favorite colour pencil crayon. Oh, and like there there was this other that that a cyclist hid his bottle of muselage, so he couldn't finish his mothers' day project!
    Congratulations...that has to be the most unintelligent comeback I have read on this forum. If it is an attempt as sarcasm...try again. If it is an attempt to discredit my opinion...try again. If it is an attempt to make sense...really...try again.

    A "no-hands" riding dolt texting on a cell phone trying to have a fight with a Semi is somehow related to whatever claptrap you just tried to type? I was worried that the goof would get killed, and contrary to the belief of some here...drivers do NOT WANT TO HIT YOU! Heck, I felt sorry for your foot being run over...that is not what I want to have happen to anyone. That was completely stupid on the part of the driver.

    Any post I've made is about getting over yourself, recognizing some realities, and then being defensive about your driving no matter what mode of transportation you choose.

    ...and people wonder where the "superior" cyclist stereotype comes from...

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    My one incident this year was a guy yelling out his pick-up window for me to get off the road, and when \i didn't comply, that I should "get off the bike tough guy", as if a bicycle is an unfair advantage in a fight against two guys in a Silverado.
    ...and that was a stupid, ignorant, absolutely low brow thing for the people in the Silverado to do...I'd have zero sympathy if these two knuckle dragging sloths did get the ever loving crap kicked out of them...

    ...but if I mentioned a cyclist that came flying out of my back alley this morning...completely in my blind spot...and the only reason I did not hit him was because I always stop at the end of my building's entry because I KNOW it is a blind spot...but he still wants to lip me off as if I am at fault because my completely stopped car somehow surprised him...then I'm derided as someone upset because of some pathetically written alleged Crayola incident???


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    The fun part of a dash cam...
    Please Richard, I beg of you, no more reminders that cars weigh more than bikes. We get it. Right of way does matter, and will continue to matter, in court, even if it doesn't matter to the deceased "superior" cyclist you refer to.

    I've had a helmet cam for about 5 years. You wouldn't believe the stuff I've recorded. Or maybe you would.

    First, let me state this clear fact I couldn't help but notice: Riding a bike on the streets of Edmonton is very safe. Most drivers are great. But there is one trend I'm seeing. Drivers are OFTEN not looking where they are going.

    There are bad motorists and cyclists out there. Some are the ignorant jerk type that thinks they are more important than everyone else, and thus above the rules. Some are drunk &/or impaired. Some are distracted.

    Some just aren't very good drivers or bicyclists (including new ones) who know they aren't good, but need to drive/ride, and won't get better until they gain some experience.

    And everybody makes mistakes. Especially kids on bikes.

    (...).
    ...yes Jim, I'd believe you...as I said the fun part is catching stupid drivers...a part of my quote that 100% of those bitching about what I said conveniently left out. I'd completely believe you. 1 billion trillion gagillion hundred bigillion percent believe you...

    240GLT mentioned how he loved threads full of hyperbole and selected quotes...seems they happen here just as much as urban vs suburban...or cell phones...I may as well entertain him here...

    Jim...I will always repeat that simple law because both drivers and cyclists forget simple physics. It is also why I keep saying, "Never race a train to a crossing, for if it is a tie, YOU LOSE!" Yet we still get cyclists cutting off larger vehicles...and cars trying their luck with trains...

    Driver's don't get it when it comes to Semi's. Every day I go out I see inattentive and uneducated drivers having fights with a semi, or honking at it when the driver of the car is sitting completely in that semi driver's blind spot. I also see it on right turns...the semi driver turns wide and some goof in a small car thinks it is an opening for him or her to sneak in...and then wonders why the trailer is riding up their trunk...or flips the semi driver off for honking...

    Boaters don't get it...I've seen many a runabout cutting off tugs, ferries, cargo vessels...and then getting mad when the trumpet of horns blast off...funnier still is the yelling that ensues because the runabout is mad due to the wake of a tanker...

    It is the same as saying, "The one who dies with the most toys, still dies". ...yet the pursuit of material wealth still moves on unabated...

    You even bring up court...so what...I'm still dead. I'd like to not be dead...I seem to have avoided it well so far...all court does is punish those still not seeing 6 feet of dirt above their heads....

    ...but I agree, overall, the streets of Edmonton are very safe. I agree (and never ever disagreed) that there are poor drivers on all sides and we could spend hours describing that.

    Dirty secret...and I will confess as I answer a point both you and Nunymare bring up...but don't fully explain...



    Quote Originally Posted by Nunymare View Post
    Most definitely. I've been considering a helmet cam as well, I imagine that may come in handy. I definitely agree with the statement that biking in the city is safe - I encounter a countless amount of motorists that are courteous towards cyclists on my daily ride. However the unfortunate thing is that it only takes 1 crazy or distracted driver to end it all for a cyclist.

    I would also agree with drivers not looking out to be a huge problem. I'd say that it's still a regular occurrence to see a driver texting or talking on their phones. Sad, really.
    ...get the helmet cam. It is not only something that can help, but it also can be used to show off great things along your ride..

    ...both you and Jim mention that automobile driver's aren't looking, aren't paying attention...when in reality...many cannot see you!! Outside of the blindingly obvious issues like newfangled's incident with a careless and unattentive driver when he/she was clearly in plain sight...there are many times where I have been absolutely surprised by a motorcyclist, a bicyclist, a pedestrian, and even other cars! ...and the incidents of the cyclist or pedestrian being absolutely zombie-like attached to their current text or instagram moment is getting rather common...so it is NOT just car drivers...

    Even before my disability, I did one major thing...before I walked across a street, or rode my bike, I would always make sure the other driver saw me before I did anything. I lived exactly what I said. With my disability, I even check more often when I'm walking...for my pace is only one speed...slow. I wanted to cycle again, so I tried one of the recumbent bikes and a recumbent trike with hand pedals...I tried some absolutely amazing, comfortable, and easy to use machines...bright orange, well marked, reflective...and as soon as I went out in traffic the problem was obvious. The drivers couldn't see me at all...even with that silly orange whip antenna flag on my bike! I was just too low. The same thing happened in Seattle as it did here. You all want to blame the driver for not paying attention? Take a second and make sure that you are doing all that you can to make sure THE DRIVER ACTUALLY SEES YOU! It is not always 100% the car driver's fault.

    I completely agree about driver attention. The drive back from Calgary on Thursday has some excellent footage of goofs, dolts, der der bull balls truck drivers...semi drivers lost in space...minivan drivers trying to race mustangs, mustangs trying to race me even though I just keep my car on cruise...and the requisite idiots on the Deathfoot 500 between Memorial and Country Hills finishing off with the requisite dorks and under-endowed drivers on the Nisku to Gateway Cannonball Run...and nary a cyclist in sight. Yes...there are good drivers...and really BAD ones...

    Maybe, just maybe...before you go off on the next driver that you think needs to keep his head up...make sure yours was up too. Jim mentioned that we may continue to "blame the cyclist, even in part". I will counter that with the simple reality that sometimes...the cyclist is to blame.

    The OP was about an increase in abuse from motorists. I simply countered with the reality that there is an increase in silliness on all sides...I guess some don't want their panacea poked...

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy
    Can I talk about phobias?

    Lots of people have this irrational fear of being buried alive. My phobia is that I will be run down in a pedestrian crosswalk by someone texting & driving. I just can't shake it.

    It's that eye contact thing.
    Sure.

    Summer 2009

    Crosswalk outside Canada Place

    Rush hour...afternoon

    Green light...pedestrian crossing says don't cross...

    ...gentleman with nose buried in cell phone walks out without looking...gets hit by a mirror...gets mad at the driver

    Same area...a year later...a gentleman who was either under the influence or somehow not in the right frame of mind...decided that running from the Shaw across to Canada Place to join his friends was a great idea...not in a crosswalk...cars swerved...he still got clipped...sent flying...pedestrian does a cartwheel in the air...lands...strangely his behind is now in direct alignment with his stomach...180 degree turn...

    ...lady had no chance to avoid him...she is completely distraught...all she kept saying was " I didn't mean to"...and "the sound...it made an awful sound"...

    Yup...scares the heck out of me...how that body looked lying on the street...I don't want it to be me...I was sick all afternoon from seeing that...

    ...call me a liar...I have the OnStar record from calling 911...and left my name as a witness...

    Everyone needs to slow down, stop vilifying one over the other...and simply just keep all your heads up! ...and I mean ALL!!
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  32. #32

    Default

    ^

    Theres an interesting case in Ontario right now. A lady driving home at 1:30am, sober by all reports, ended up hitting 3 cyclists that were driving on a highway ABREAST of each other, in the dark, with barely any functioning reflectors on them and no reflective clothing. One of the young cyclists was killed, another injured, another no injuries( the one that was driving on the shoulder of road.)

    The parents of the deceased boy have attempted suing the lady even though there were never any charges, not even negligence, inattention or anything. Indeed in the section of roadway she came upon the cyclists just past a small hill on a windy road. Police reports are that nothing reasonably could be done to avert this unexpected tragedy.

    The parents of the boy typically say something like "being stupid should never be a death sentence'' which completely and entirely ignores that being stupid and driving your bike on a highway at 1:30 am in the complete dark with no reflectivity is almost guaranteed to get you in serious harms way in a hurry. Sorry, that's just reality. Juggling chainsaws is probably inadvisable as well..

    This lady is being sued, this could be any of us. She's counter suing now due to how she's been impacted by this tragedy and subsequent recriminations.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  33. #33
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    It happens all the time actually.

    Why the statement that people naturally blame the cyclis upsets me...is that in most case law I see, the driver is automatically the suspect for blame. The concept of "reasonable chance to see" the pedestrian, cyclist, or other lightweight form of transportation is king...if there was a good chance for the driver to see the pedestrian et al, then the driver is at fault. Quebec seems to be the only province where this is not the case...

    I haven't read the case, but I will bet that is the premise of the civil suit....even with the police report. They will try to have it proven that she could have swerved even slightly...gauge reaction times..etc

    ...it is why I still do not like jaywalking...

    ...it was the whole concept of Pause (assess the situation), Point (clearly show your intent to cross and again gauge if the driver(s) have seen you), and Proceed (once you know it is safe to do so). It wasn't brought about because the pedestrian has the right of way...it was brought about to make sure your 150# torso does not meet a 3000# car travelling at speed...and makes you put your head up too.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  34. #34
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I was driving east down Highway 38 one night, near the North Saskatchewan crossing, and doing 100 km/h. I almost rear-ended some sort of cart (golf or otherwise) with 2 guys in it. They were driving with no lights and no reflectors. I managed to slow down in time and pass them. Have no idea why they were out there at night and out in the in the middle of the lane. It wouldn't have taken much for someone to not see them in time and smash into them.

  35. #35
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^

    Theres an interesting case in Ontario right now. A lady driving home at 1:30am, sober by all reports, ended up hitting 3 cyclists that were driving on a highway ABREAST of each other, in the dark, with barely any functioning reflectors on them and no reflective clothing. One of the young cyclists was killed, another injured, another no injuries( the one that was driving on the shoulder of road.)

    The parents of the deceased boy have attempted suing the lady even though there were never any charges, not even negligence, inattention or anything. Indeed in the section of roadway she came upon the cyclists just past a small hill on a windy road. Police reports are that nothing reasonably could be done to avert this unexpected tragedy.

    The parents of the boy typically say something like "being stupid should never be a death sentence'' which completely and entirely ignores that being stupid and driving your bike on a highway at 1:30 am in the complete dark with no reflectivity is almost guaranteed to get you in serious harms way in a hurry. Sorry, that's just reality. Juggling chainsaws is probably inadvisable as well..

    This lady is being sued, this could be any of us. She's counter suing now due to how she's been impacted by this tragedy and subsequent recriminations.
    This is a hard case, because she was going 10 over the speed limit, or just what everyone does, when the collision happened. But on the other hand, she was going 10 over the speed limit, which is illegal and was clearly a significant contributing factor to the deaths, and was (in retrospect) too fast for the road. If you can't stop for a slow moving object that's travelling the same direction as you are, that's too fast. She would have hit anything that was there - a moose, a moose, a lost load, a fallen tree... Unless the three cyclists where spread across all 3 lanes (the article didn't say so) she should have been able to go around them even if it was too late to stop. She was either overdriving her headlights (it mentions minimal reflectors but it doesn't mention dark clothing) or she wasn't paying enough attention.
    The article I read noted that her husband was driving immediately behind her, which is certainly odd, and would imply impaired driving, although there could be another explanation, and yet the article described administering an blood alcohol test as going above and beyond.

    So while driving her speed in that location should rationally be considered negligent, it's not because EVERYBODY has driven like that at least once, and a lot people have done the same thing in the past week.
    Last edited by highlander; 27-04-2014 at 09:20 AM.

  36. #36
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    My one incident this year was a guy yelling out his pick-up window for me to get off the road, and when \i didn't comply, that I should "get off the bike tough guy", as if a bicycle is an unfair advantage in a fight against two guys in a Silverado.
    ...and that was a stupid, ignorant, absolutely low brow thing for the people in the Silverado to do...I'd have zero sympathy if these two knuckle dragging sloths did get the ever loving crap kicked out of them...

    ...but if I mentioned a cyclist that came flying out of my back alley this morning...completely in my blind spot...and the only reason I did not hit him was because I always stop at the end of my building's entry because I KNOW it is a blind spot...but he still wants to lip me off as if I am at fault because my completely stopped car somehow surprised him...then I'm derided as someone upset because of some pathetically written alleged Crayola incident???
    I met a cyclist who claimed to have negative encounters with drivers very regularly. I mean, not just a minor scare from an inattentive driver, but actually getting yelled at. I suspect that is says more about that particular cyclist's style & habits than it does about drivers. I meet far more drivers who yield to me when I really shouldn't be yielded to... I'm waiting cross an arterial at a side street but I havent dismounted to become a pedestrian...than drivers who are aggressive or otherwise "bad" beyond the usual inattention that can be compensated for with basic defensive driving.

    Even before my disability, I did one major thing...before I walked across a street, or rode my bike, I would always make sure the other driver saw me before I did anything. I lived exactly what I said. With my disability, I even check more often when I'm walking...for my pace is only one speed...slow. I wanted to cycle again, so I tried one of the recumbent bikes and a recumbent trike with hand pedals...I tried some absolutely amazing, comfortable, and easy to use machines...bright orange, well marked, reflective...and as soon as I went out in traffic the problem was obvious. The drivers couldn't see me at all...even with that silly orange whip antenna flag on my bike! I was just too low. The same thing happened in Seattle as it did here. You all want to blame the driver for not paying attention? Take a second and make sure that you are doing all that you can to make sure THE DRIVER ACTUALLY SEES YOU! It is not always 100% the car driver's fault.
    Recumbents scare the crap out of me. So does biking with my kids where we have to interact with traffic. If I'm on anything other than a wide-open residential street with them I'm riding behind them taking the whole lane as they ride close to the curb. Visibility is so important, not just being seen but also being high enough up to see around (most) traffic. I feel unsafe riding behind a bus or large commercial vehicle because I can't see far enough to asses risks and routes ahead of time.

    Everyone needs to slow down, stop vilifying one over the other...and simply just keep all your heads up! ...and I mean ALL!
    This is good advice for everyone, and for those who are already going slow enough (pedestrians, slow cyclists), the important thing is to be reasonably predictable.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    A few years ago I'm stopped at a light next to a main road. (I'm in a vehicle) Fortunately, as is my practice, I stop a little bit more than I have to from the intersection. While I'm waiting for the light to change a sports car coming perpendicular loses control, goes off road, and slams into streetlight pole just in front of me just feet away from where I was parked. At high speed. Pieces of this vehicle were flying everywhere, fortunately missing my, and other vehicles, and no pedestrains were standing right there or they'd be dead in an instant.

    Greaseball walks right out of his vehicle fine. Not a mark or cut. God loves idiots. Momentarily have half an impulse to run him over for Darwinian sake..

    I'm stretching it with that last part but you all get the gist. I did make sure to call him a ******* ***** and called the police.

    The amount of times cars do go off roads and across sidewalks, into lawns, buildings etc in this City is outright shocking. I had a stat awhile ago that around 10% of accidents in this city involve hitting parked cars. Which tells you about everything you need to know about many drivers in this city.
    Seems to be a trend among a large number of sports cars that I see. And those decked out pickup trucks on lifts. I cringe hard whenever one is on the road anywhere close to me just out of instinct and previous experiences with these types of vehicles. Hell once I was passed at 100+kmh on a neighbourhood street by one...

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I met a cyclist who claimed to have negative encounters with drivers very regularly. I mean, not just a minor scare from an inattentive driver, but actually getting yelled at. I suspect that is says more about that particular cyclist's style & habits than it does about drivers. I meet far more drivers who yield to me when I really shouldn't be yielded to... I'm waiting cross an arterial at a side street but I havent dismounted to become a pedestrian...than drivers who are aggressive or otherwise "bad" beyond the usual inattention that can be compensated for with basic defensive driving.
    Luckily I've only been yelled at once. Funny thing was he seemed to be in a rush as he tailgated me, then all of the sudden had a good 5 minutes to scream at me at a stopsign...

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Richard you're a dear friend. It's not you, it's me. I've just heard the "don't you get it that cars weigh more than bikes" thing ad nauseum, and it's still hard to come up with a reasonable response.

    Anybody past the age of 3 who doesn't understand, at a very basic level of consciousness, that being hit by a much larger, much heavier object moving at a high rate of speed is a losing proposition isn't going to have an "aha" moment because someone clued them in. They probably need a caregiver.

    People don't ride/step out into traffic, or get hit by trains at crossing, or ride without lights, or burn a u-turn without looking, etc, because they don't understand physics. There is always another reason. That's what I'd prefer to concentrate on.

    I'm pretty sure I know exactly where you're coming from. When considering certain spectacularly stupid decisions, fatal, or inconsequential, it's hard to come up with anything beyond stupid.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 26-04-2014 at 10:55 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    No Jimbo, it's not you. It's Richard.

    Because just as everyone knows that obviously a vehicle can damage a human, everyone also knows that we have this thing called "Law" which says that just because someone is bigger than you they can't just beat you up, or wail on you with a baseball bat, or break into your home and steal all of your stuff.

    But every time one of these discussions comes up Richard is right there preaching that might makes right, while tattling on all the cyclists he's seen smoking and saying the "s-word".

  41. #41
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^

    Theres an interesting case in Ontario right now. A lady driving home at 1:30am, sober by all reports, ended up hitting 3 cyclists that were driving on a highway ABREAST of each other, in the dark, with barely any functioning reflectors on them and no reflective clothing. One of the young cyclists was killed, another injured, another no injuries( the one that was driving on the shoulder of road.)

    The parents of the deceased boy have attempted suing the lady even though there were never any charges, not even negligence, inattention or anything. Indeed in the section of roadway she came upon the cyclists just past a small hill on a windy road. Police reports are that nothing reasonably could be done to avert this unexpected tragedy.

    The parents of the boy typically say something like "being stupid should never be a death sentence'' which completely and entirely ignores that being stupid and driving your bike on a highway at 1:30 am in the complete dark with no reflectivity is almost guaranteed to get you in serious harms way in a hurry. Sorry, that's just reality. Juggling chainsaws is probably inadvisable as well..

    This lady is being sued, this could be any of us. She's counter suing now due to how she's been impacted by this tragedy and subsequent recriminations.
    This is a hard case, because she was going 10 over the speed limit, or just what everyone does, when the collision happened. But on the other hand, she was going 10 over the speed limit, which is illegal and was clearly a significant contributing factor to the deaths, and was (in retrospect) too fast for the road. If you can't stop for a slow moving object that's travelling the same direction as you are, that's too fast. She would have hit anything that was there - a moose, a moose, a lost load, a fallen tree... Unless the three cyclists where spread across all 3 lanes (the article didn't say so) she should have been able to go around them even if it was too late to stop. She was either overdriving her headlights (it mentions minimal reflectors but it doesn't mention dark clothing) or she wasn't paying enough attention.
    The article I read noted that her husband was driving immediately behind her, which is certainly odd, and would imply impaired driving, although there could be another explanation, and yet the article described administering an blood alcohol test as going above and beyond.

    So while driving her speed in that location should rationally be considered negligent, because EVERYBODY has driven like that at least once, and a lot people have done the same thing in the past week.
    I don't believe she was administered a breathalizer. She should have been. It's very controversial, because her husband, who was following her home in his car, is a police officer. etc.

    The problem I, and everybody else on the planet, has with this is the fact the woman who killed the teenage kid is now suing the parents for mental stress - for millions. It's a sick world sometimes. As if the parents of the kid who was hit and killed aren't having a tough enough time - she sues them. She kills their child, and then sues the parents because she feels bad about it. If she thought she had a lot of stress before, I bet there's a lot more now that this has gone public.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,337

    Default

    I don't see how having a spouse driving immediately behind you implies impaired driving.

  43. #43

    Default

    Jimbo. She counter sued. After the parents first sued her a year ago. Its quite clear the parents have pursued this all along and that the defendant is now doing so as well. I chose to read beyond the one sided firmament that is so often contained in Christine Blatchfords columns. She's a columnist, just rattling swords and getting hits. Its what she does. Its a jaundiced piece.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...606/story.html



    The lawyer of the defendant probably recommended countersuit and possibly so that both suits are eventually thrown out or settled out of court. Nobodies bringing the teen, 17, back, and that's the biggest tragedy.

    But this accident could happen to almost any driver. That's a tragedy as well that somebody should have to experience something like that because a teen age 17, 16, and 16, didn't have a clue what they were doing or how to even remotely safely ride bikes.
    Last edited by Replacement; 27-04-2014 at 12:53 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post

    This is a hard case, because she was going 10 over the speed limit, or just what everyone does, when the collision happened. But on the other hand, she was going 10 over the speed limit, which is illegal and was clearly a significant contributing factor to the deaths, and was (in retrospect) too fast for the road. If you can't stop for a slow moving object that's travelling the same direction as you are, that's too fast. She would have hit anything that was there - a moose, a moose, a lost load, a fallen tree... Unless the three cyclists where spread across all 3 lanes (the article didn't say so) she should have been able to go around them even if it was too late to stop. She was either overdriving her headlights (it mentions minimal reflectors but it doesn't mention dark clothing) or she wasn't paying enough attention.
    The article I read noted that her husband was driving immediately behind her, which is certainly odd, and would imply impaired driving, although there could be another explanation, and yet the article described administering an blood alcohol test as going above and beyond.

    So while driving her speed in that location should rationally be considered negligent, it's not because EVERYBODY has driven like that at least once, and a lot people have done the same thing in the past week.
    I'm a little confused at what you're saying and I particularly disagree with the bolded. I've done a lot of night driving and long trips driven at night. Particularly anywhere out west in Alberta or BC theres undulating terrain, hills, winds, and lots of sections that you don't see that far ahead. The road in Ontario was undulating terrain as well as cited. Certainly not far enough ahead to stop on a dime because a moose, pedestrian, or cyclist is relatively stationless there. At either 80 or 90K its hard to stop. If it wasn't hard people would never hit animals which as careful as you want to be can happen around a bend (I never have ftr but theres been close calls)

    As a person who drives at night what I really pay a lot of attention to is any signs of oncoming light. Which of course indicate vehicle(s) ahead. The last thing I do, or should ever expect to see is three teens riding abreast of each other on a two lane paved road at 1:30am.
    Hey, if we want to say that paved roads are now the abode any time of night of any inappropriate use then we would be slashing secondary highway speed limits down to city type limits.

    These teens shouldn't have been on the road cycling at that time, period. For any reason. That they did so abreast of each other is startling. That the teens were riding abreast is an agreed statement of claim that neither side is disputing. That would be imo a more heinous decision than to creep barely over the speed limit.

    Lets look at the parents lawsuit allegations as well:

    Majewski, Mlynczyk, their new partners and their children are also suing the Simons and Simcoe County for a total of $900,000. Their suit alleges Sharlene Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident, and that Jules Simon allowed her to drive the SUV when “he knew or ought to have known” she was in no condition to do so.
    None of the claims in either suit has been tested or proved.
    These are simply blind specious allegations. Theres no substantiation whatsoever for the bolded statement of claims.

    The parents of the child are making several unsubstantiated claims. Against the driver, the drivers husband, the investigating officers, the Simcoe police force, the OPP, the investigation etc. With not one reviewing body establishing any of their claims.


    At worst the driver was slightly over the speed limit. That's it. But theres an attempt here, and in the lawsuit to make her look like she's a driving murdering menace. Which nearly all of us could be coming up to that scene. Its a tragedy all round.
    Last edited by Replacement; 27-04-2014 at 01:09 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #45
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    I don't see how having a spouse driving immediately behind you implies impaired driving.
    Because it was 1:30 am and you don't typically ferry vehicles at that time. They were clearly driving home from some sort of party, and if one of them were impaired it would typically be the one in front, with the one behind keeping an eye on the one in front. It's obviously not a sure thing, but it seems to me a very real possibility.

  46. #46
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The point is that driving fast, especially at night or in places with less than ideal visibility is an extremely dangerous thing, but it's become such a common thing, something that everyone does, we don't think it's anything.
    I don't doubt that the driver has suffered from this, I don't really think that she needs any more punishment, but I do think it's reasonable that her insurance (and by extension, the motorists of Ontario) pays for the medical costs and funeral costs for the cyclists. Actually if she really needs therapy it should also be paid by her insurance. Because if she really was driving responsibly (other than speeding - that's her fault and her fault alone) everything else that led to this was at root caused by the collective takeover of roads by motorists who want to go fast.

    While the boys should have had lights by law and by common sense, they are only necessary because drivers go faster than their own lights safely allow. Riding 3 abreast was only a minor contributor - all 3 were injured - but even that law is intended to allow faster vehicles to pass, not to allow them to blast by without changing course. The idea that some have that the boys shouldn't have been out on bikes at 1am, but driving at that time is perfectly OK is justified because of the danger created by cars going fast. The idea that if you're going the speed limit and paying attention it must be the other's fault - again, it only makes sense to us because driving is something we've made a right that somehow has a lower standard of care than driving similarly dangerous vehicles on a closed industrial site.

    So yeah, it's not much the boy's fault, it's not substantially the drivers' fault, it's mostly our driving culture's fault.

  47. #47
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,337

    Default

    Wow. Lights are necessary so other users of the road can see you. Riding without making themselves visible is what caused this tragedy.

  48. #48
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Correction: lights are necessary when drivers assume that 10km over the limit (or the limit) is the right speed to travel even when that means that by the time your headlights lit up a dark obstacle it's too late to stop.

    It's not a natural condition, it's a consequence of a particular societal choice.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Correction: lights are necessary when drivers assume that 10km over the limit (or the limit) is the right speed to travel even when that means that by the time your headlights lit up a dark obstacle it's too late to stop.

    It's not a natural condition, it's a consequence of a particular societal choice.
    It's extremely doubtful that if she had been doing 80km/h she could have avoided the accident. Further, all vehicles on highways require proper illumination. Further, all vehicles on a highway are required to be driving at a speed that will not impede the normal flow of traffic. This applies whether you're driving a car, tractor, or a bicycle.

    Bicycles are vehicles and they have to obey the same laws as anyone else. If she had rear ended a car travelling at 10km/h that had no tail lights nobody would be arguing about who's fault it was.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  50. #50
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    All true, other than that where traffic is sporadic the requirement isn't that your speed be enough to not impede others, rather it's either that or allow others to pass.

    But it is that way because we've decided as a society that we care that divers can get there fast more than we care about other road users.

  51. #51

    Default

    ^ You've made several erroneous conclusions in the thread which I'll list.

    1)Stating that the speed was a major factor in the accident. The police doing the investigation, and the reviews did not agree with your assessment in anyway.

    2)That the teens riding abreast of each was not a factor. Indeed the investigation has revealed it was a major factor.

    3)That the driver could've taken evasive action. It was a two lane paved road. 3 cyclists riding abreast of each other would take up at least one lane. But being that they were essentially invisible evasive action assumes they could even be spotted in time or at all. Are you even familiar with night driving on an overcast night? You don't even spot large animals on a highway until you're almost on them. The ONLY thing you spot in advance is the reflection of their retinas. If you wait until you spot the hides its too late.(again this is key as two out of three of the teens bikes even lacked proper reflectors)

    4)You've attempted to suggest the driver was impaired. No evidence of this whatsoever.

    5)You've attempted to suggest the driver was inattentive. No evidence of this whatsoever.

    Several reviews of this accident all concluded with the same, that the driver was not at fault in anyway and that she could not have avoided, evaded etc, hitting the teens who had made a grievously poor decision to go cycling 1:30am in the dark with no lights, insufficient reflectors, no helmets, and no reflective clothing.
    Last edited by Replacement; 27-04-2014 at 11:30 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So yeah, it's not much the boy's fault, it's not substantially the drivers' fault, it's mostly our driving culture's fault.
    It is the TEENS fault unfortunately. That's the clear reality in this situation. How could anybody possibly be biking on a highway abreast at 1:30am in the morning with no lights, poor reflectors, and no reflective clothing and not think any of this was going to be a significant problem. Its late at night so additionally one would think the teens could hear upcoming cars and move out of the way. Its usually quite quiet at night so any sound would be easily detected. To still be travelling abreast as the vehicle hit them (again this is an undisputed point that they were abreast) is absolutely bizarre. Talk about inattentive. Perhaps they were even cycling with ipods on.

    The act of the teens was such monumentally poor judgement it defies any common sense. Didn't want to put it so bluntly but when I see anybody state it wasn't the teens fault.

    I had more sense than that as a 5 yr old.

    Fortunately most of us do.
    Last edited by Replacement; 27-04-2014 at 11:39 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So yeah, it's not much the boy's fault, it's not substantially the drivers' fault, it's mostly our driving culture's fault.
    It is the TEENS fault unfortunately. That's the clear reality in this situation. How could anybody possibly be biking on a highway abreast at 1:30am in the morning with no lights, poor reflectors, and no reflective clothing and not think any of this was going to be a significant problem. Its late at night so additionally one would think the teens could hear upcoming cars and move out of the way. Its usually quite quiet at night so any sound would be easily detected. To still be travelling abreast as the vehicle hit them (again this is an undisputed point that they were abreast) is absolutely bizarre. Talk about inattentive. Perhaps they were even cycling with ipods on.

    The act of the teens was such monumentally poor judgement it defies any common sense. Didn't want to put it so bluntly but when I see anybody state it wasn't the teens fault.

    I had more sense than that as a 5 yr old.

    Fortunately most of us do.
    I'll bet that you, and everybody else, have made equally stupid decisions at some point in your life.

    There's no question the kids made a very poor choice.

    There's also no question the driver was speeding. She should have been administered a breathalyzer, if only for her own protection. She killed someone. It should be automatic. The fact her husband, a police officer himself, was there brings up the question of special treatment.

    Much of the outrage over this story stems from the first time it was published. The article stated the driver was doing 90 kph over the 80 kph limit (no comma), not doing 90 in an 80 zone. Much of the original article seems to have been gleaned from neighbourhood anecdotes.

    And, of course, suing the estate of a child you killed, for pain and anguish, is beyond the pale. Her pain and anguish, and that of her husband, are only beginning, I'd bet.

    I'm sure a lot of the facts will come out soon enough.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  54. #54

    Default

    So today I was out on a ride in my neighbourhood. Was taking the lane due to a blind curve near a school field as there were cars parked on the side for a soccer game. This jackass in a car behind me then speeds into the oncoming lane IN the blind curve, where there was a car coming around (!!), and cuts me off JUST to avoid a head on collision. Out of instinct I throw my hands in the air as this happens, and the driver takes note, stops a bit further up, opens his door into my path, and curses me out to ride on the sidewalk. Un-*******-believable. Called the police right on the spot.

    Apparently to this man, the two seconds of his time are well worth risking his life, my life, and the lives of a completely innocent car occupants. Sick.

  55. #55
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    Alas there are bad bicyclists too, yesterday was driving my car, 2 bikes were ahead driving side by side, the one in the middle was way over the center line into essentially the oncoming traffic's lane (there were no stripes). I tapped on my horn (they were about 200' ahead) lightly to not scare them but to let them know I was approaching, it wasn't until I actually go to the them that the one in the middle of ride decided to pull right.

    Unless you are a peloton with prearranged permission from the applicable jurisdiction to close the road then you have to follow the rules of the road, that means driving on the right hand side.
    Last edited by sundance; 08-05-2014 at 12:53 PM.

  56. #56
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    On streets without lines driving on the right normally just means moving to the right enough to allow oncoming traffic to pass, and from your report it seems that this was not on a high-traffic street, and the cyclists did move over to allow you to pass.

    If they were a car would you have thought the driver a bad driver, other than a little slow?

    You don't state how fast you, or they, were going, but if they were road cyclists going over 30 on a residential street I'd be more inclined to call you a bad driver for trying to pass them at all.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Alas there are bad bicyclists too, yesterday was driving my car, 2 bikes were ahead driving side by side, the one in the middle was way over the center line into essentially the oncoming traffic's lane (there were no stripes). I tapped on my horn (they were about 200' ahead) lightly to not scare them but to let them know I was approaching, it wasn't until I actually go to the them that the one in the middle of ride decided to pull right.

    Unless you are a peloton with prearranged permission from the applicable jurisdiction to close the road then you have to follow the rules of the road, that means driving on the right hand side.
    Out of curiosity how old do you think these cyclists were. I'm astounded that somebody on a bike would have so little awareness of traffic while cycling on a road and doing so abreast of each other. I wonder whether the act of cycling, which feels recreational, for the casual cyclist ends up with them somehow dropping their guard and forgetting about the seriousness of the activity of cycling on urban roads where any error can instantly result in the end of everything. Again I expect kids to exercise better sense and I did as a cyclist then and now.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    On streets without lines driving on the right normally just means moving to the right enough to allow oncoming traffic to pass, and from your report it seems that this was not on a high-traffic street, and the cyclists did move over to allow you to pass.

    If they were a car would you have thought the driver a bad driver, other than a little slow?

    You don't state how fast you, or they, were going, but if they were road cyclists going over 30 on a residential street I'd be more inclined to call you a bad driver for trying to pass them at all.
    Typically people cycling alongside of each other are not going fast. They're not racing in this instance but usually gabbing as if they are on a walk in a park. I would be surprised at 20K. Going 30K on a bike in residential areas and amidst parked cars, etc is also careless

    In the example provided above the driver should not need to tap his horn to get the cyclists to pay attention to their activity on an urban road. Being attentive to their cycling activity on urban roads would be of course any sensible cyclists responsibility.

    My vulnerability is at a max while cycling on city roads. I cycle with that in mind at all times and being aware and inputting any traffic information I can. City roads are not the place for inattentive cyclists anymore than crosswalks are the place for inattentive dreaming pedestrians.
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-05-2014 at 01:35 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  58. #58
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Typically people cycling alongside of each other are not going fast. They're not racing in this instance but usually gabbing as if they are on a walk in a park. I would be surprised at 20K. Going 30K on a bike in residential areas and amidst parked cars, etc is also careless
    Is driving 30km/hr careless? because if it's not safe for cycling it's not safe for driving. I bike 30km side-by side sometimes just going places, not exercising or going fast. On streets like Ada (and most residential streets) it's perfectly safe, and anyone passing is the one not being safe.

    In the example provided above the driver should not need to tap his horn to get the cyclists to pay attention to their activity on an urban road. Being attentive to their cycling activity on urban roads would be of course any sensible cyclists responsibility.
    Who says they weren't paying attention? Even the guy driving 200' behind didn't really make that claim. On a quiet residential street there's should be no need to be checking behind constantly - there is (or should be) an expectation that drivers approaching from behind will slow down and pass carefully


    My vulnerability is at a max while cycling on city roads. I cycle with that in mind at all times and being aware and inputting any traffic information I can. City roads are not the place for inattentive cyclists anymore than crosswalks are the place for inattentive dreaming pedestrians.
    All we know is that there were no lines on this street, but that's enough to tell us that this wasn't some high-traffic thoroughfare. It was as street either in an industrial area or in a residential neighbourhood. If it's the latter there should be an expectation that traffic travels more slowly, and that cyclists and pedestrians will be there, and will sometimes be less than 100% focused on the job of avoiding bad drivers. If this happened on a 4-lane arterial then it's a different thing, but it didn't.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    20-30 years old, it was a rural road in Strathcona County so 80 km/h before I approached them, near them perhaps 30 km/h. Driving side by side I get, but try to keep in your lane.

    At 200 or so feet ahead not sure they would have heard me, hence the horn tap.

  60. #60

    Default

    ^^ I typically enjoy your posts and welcome alternate views on this or any other topic.

    But on the topic of Cycling I have tons of experience through 50 yrs and with a lot of mileage on roads, highways, etc. In my cycling resume I have had 3 accidents with vehicles all of which were the drivers fault, but hurt nonetheless and the worst instance caused me to be put on a spine board, ambulance ride, hospitalized, and coming to and not knowing what extent my injuries and mobility were. A terrifying ordeal. Provided by a driver that had completely stopped at his stop sign, and then inexplicably proceeded at the lst second while I had right of way and was doing 35K on a main road. His car was suddenly right in front of me and I couldn't avoid in either direction because the drivers action was so unpredictable. I ended up hitting the car, did manage to steer my bike to the side a bit so I took the load on shoulder and one side of the body but my head did break the driver side window. I was of course wearing a helmet.

    I assure my only mistake above was cycling around 35K on a main road with the right of way and assuming I could do that without potential tragedy.

    Never again. I never travel that speed on any city road anymore.

    ANY cyclist travelling this speed or greater is susceptible to unforeseen circumstance and what occurred to me.

    No airbags, no protection, not effective enough breaking or control, and only raw physics of smashing into a car or being propelled by pure physics with cyclists being tossed like ragdolls.

    That you would differentiate no difference in a vehicle, vs a bike travelling at this speed is incomprehensible.
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-05-2014 at 02:23 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    20-30 years old, it was a rural road in Strathcona County so 80 km/h before I approached them, near them perhaps 30 km/h. Driving side by side I get, but try to keep in your lane.

    At 200 or so feet ahead not sure they would have heard me, hence the horn tap.
    Driving side by side is something that should not be occurring on a roadway. If it is you had better be aware of every possibility of oncoming or approaching or side traffic. Or even of the many drivers that take "California turns" that would basically run right over the center of the road cyclist in an instant in making a poorly executed turn.

    People seem entirely unaware how quickly a fatal accident situation can present itself.

    It is possible that people don't think this as much until they experience the utmost vulnerability and what can occur.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #62
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^ You've made several erroneous conclusions in the thread which I'll list.

    1)Stating that the speed was a major factor in the accident. The police doing the investigation, and the reviews did not agree with your assessment in anyway.
    In police talk, "speed wasn't a factor" means "no-one was going more than 10 or so over the speed limit" Speed was a factor, absolutely. If she were driving 30km/hr she would not have hit them. Incidentally, there's a campaign from a subdivision along that road to have the limit lowered to 60km/hr, so there are others out there who think that 90km/hr is not really a safe speed on this road.


    2)That the teens riding abreast of each was not a factor. Indeed the investigation has revealed it was a major factor.
    Ok, it was a factor. But considering how she managed to hit all 3 riders it's certainly not the biggest factor. Actually, we don't even know whether the one she only sideswiped was on the right or the left. for all we know they would have survived if they had all been on the wrong side of the road.


    3)That the driver could've taken evasive action. It was a two lane paved road. 3 cyclists riding abreast of each other would take up at least one lane. But being that they were essentially invisible evasive action assumes they could even be spotted in time or at all. Are you even familiar with night driving on an overcast night? You don't even spot large animals on a highway until you're almost on them. The ONLY thing you spot in advance is the reflection of their retinas. If you wait until you spot the hides its too late.(again this is key as two out of three of the teens bikes even lacked proper reflectors)
    She hit all 3, so they must have been riding essentially in one lane, so there was room to go around.

    And yes, I have driven at night in the country. If you can't see you slow down. Just because a sign says 90 or whatever doesn't mean you have to go that fast, or that's you're relieved of all responsibility if you don't exceed it by more than 10. Again, this isn't a major highway. It's a 10km long rural road with a town or subdivision about every 2km, and she should have been going slower and paying more attention.

    I've driven Ontario rural roads, at night. I barely go the speed limit in the day time, and I typically drive around 80 on a clear night, and even less when conditions are bad.

    As for reflector, we only know that 2 of 3 didn't have "the proper" reflectors, but a quick check of ontario law finds that they require reflective tape on the front and rear forks, not the plastic thingies that come with every bike (I've actually never seen a bike in ontario with proper reflectors) so they could have had decent reflectors and still be not "proper", plus, if 2 of 3 didn't have reflectors that means that one of them did, and since they were riding 3 abreast that means that the one with reflectors was visible. She should have seen the one and slowed down. As it was, here best case is she saw the one and moved over just enough to only bump him with her mirror.



    4)You've attempted to suggest the driver was impaired. No evidence of this whatsoever.
    And none to the contrary. A undetermined sobriety test (apparently not a blood alcohol test) administered by someone who thought that administering it a a 2am fatal crash scene was being cautious, not just a bloody obvious step does not exactly inspire confidence.

    5)You've attempted to suggest the driver was inattentive. No evidence of this whatsoever.
    Other than the fact that she hit some people.

    and no evidence at all to the contrary.

    Several reviews of this accident all concluded with the same, that the driver was not at fault in anyway and that she could not have avoided, evaded etc, hitting the teens who had made a grievously poor decision to go cycling 1:30am in the dark with no lights, insufficient reflectors, no helmets, and no reflective clothing.
    No lights - not good:
    Insufficient reflectors: Not particularly relevant
    Helmets: pretty much irrelevant when you're hit from behind by a driver going 90.
    Reflective Clothing: Actually, the boy who died had reflective piping on his jacket.

  63. #63

    Default

    Highlander, just noted this. You say you cycle side by side on Ada blvd and consider this fine.

    Do you consider that this is one of the most atypical examples of a roadway found anywhere in the city? i.e. its entirely non commuter in nature.

    That is a road that is almost exclusively local traffic, it has parking on only one side afairc, and is not a road designed to get from A to B. Its a gentle ride with civic minded neighborly drivers looking out for each other and in many cases being actual neighbors. Luckily in such a road and isolated example public consideration and mitigated speed does occur even as a social or conscientious response.

    This is hardly the case on most roadways. I'm sure people could come up with a few specific examples but its the exception rather than rule. I can tell you that theres no road like that in all of SouthEast Edmonton.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  64. #64
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    20-30 years old, it was a rural road in Strathcona County so 80 km/h before I approached them, near them perhaps 30 km/h. Driving side by side I get, but try to keep in your lane.

    At 200 or so feet ahead not sure they would have heard me, hence the horn tap.
    OK, that makes a big difference. Rural roads, for sure, they should have left room for passing on the left without making you slow down much.

  65. #65
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Highlander, just noted this. You say you cycle side by side on Ada blvd and consider this fine.

    Do you consider that this is one of the most atypical examples of a roadway found anywhere in the city? i.e. its entirely non commuter in nature.

    That is a road that is almost exclusively local traffic, it has parking on only one side afairc, and is not a road designed to get from A to B. Its a gentle ride with civic minded neighborly drivers looking out for each other and in many cases being actual neighbors. Luckily in such a road and isolated example public consideration and mitigated speed does occur even as a social or conscientious response.

    This is hardly the case on most roadways. I'm sure people could come up with a few specific examples but its the exception rather than rule. I can tell you that theres no road like that in all of SouthEast Edmonton.
    Yeah, I know. There aren't many that actually work like Ada boulevard, but as far as I'm concerned there's no reason that every non-arterial road *could* work like Ada.
    Arterial roads, and pretty much anything with lines, is a different story. I wouldn't recommend any cyclist or group ever taking more than one lane on other than an organized ride, and I do try to keep to the right of the lane when safe to do so.

  66. #66

    Default

    ^ I certainly wish more of the city could be cyclist, pedestrian, or other user friendly but of course its not the case and in a drastically sprawled urban area lead footing it is pretty much the rule here.

    I appreciate your points even if we disagree on some of this.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  67. #67

    Default

    Cyclists and motorist. Do not share the lane. Lanes are meant for one vehicle at a time. Do not attempt to pass another vehicle using the same lane. It's illegal. Switch lanes, pass, and then return to the lane, or stay behind.

    Tired of seeing motorists pass cyclists in the same lane.
    Tired of seeing cyclists scoot past to the front of the line using the same lane currently occupied by another vehicle.

    Both sides needs to obey the rules of the road.

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    [
    As for reflector, we only know that 2 of 3 didn't have "the proper" reflectors, but a quick check of ontario law finds that they require reflective tape on the front and rear forks, not the plastic thingies that come with every bike (I've actually never seen a bike in ontario with proper reflectors) so they could have had decent reflectors and still be not "proper", plus, if 2 of 3 didn't have reflectors that means that one of them did, and since they were riding 3 abreast that means that the one with reflectors was visible. She should have seen the one and slowed down. As it was, here best case is she saw the one and moved over just enough to only bump him with her mirror.


    Reflective Clothing: Actually, the boy who died had reflective piping on his jacket.
    Just wanted to focus on this part as we probably will continue to disagree on the rest. I actually think similarly on the bolded. We don't know for sure its the case with the released details but possibly is.
    I'm not aware of the citation that states the boy who died had reflective piping on jacket or how reflective the piping was.

    I will state again, that the reality on many Canadian roads, and particularly winding roads (and this is said to be one) is that turns in the road often can result in situations where the granted speed isn't consistent with what actually should be happening. Even with many highways like this. For instance drive much of the Yellowhead anywhere west of Hinton and tell me the road truly supports 100K/hr. The visibility around several bends(sometimes marked and with directive signs and limits) basically precludes it really being a 100K road. In many instances you are really outdriving the capability of the road and knowing whats around each corner or hill at that speed. With in most cases Semi trucks all around you reinforcing said stated speed..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  69. #69
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^ I typically enjoy your posts and welcome alternate views on this or any other topic.

    But on the topic of Cycling I have tons of experience through 50 yrs and with a lot of mileage on roads, highways, etc. In my cycling resume I have had 3 accidents with vehicles all of which were the drivers fault, but hurt nonetheless and the worst instance caused me to be put on a spine board, ambulance ride, hospitalized, and coming to and not knowing what extent my injuries and mobility were. A terrifying ordeal. Provided by a driver that had completely stopped at his stop sign, and then inexplicably proceeded at the lst second while I had right of way and was doing 35K on a main road. His car was suddenly right in front of me and I couldn't avoid in either direction because the drivers action was so unpredictable. I ended up hitting the car, did manage to steer my bike to the side a bit so I took the load on shoulder and one side of the body but my head did break the driver side window. I was of course wearing a helmet.

    I assure my only mistake above was cycling around 35K on a main road with the right of way and assuming I could do that without potential tragedy.

    Never again. I never travel that speed on any city road anymore.

    ANY cyclist travelling this speed or greater is susceptible to unforeseen circumstance and what occurred to me.

    No airbags, no protection, not effective enough breaking or control, and only raw physics of smashing into a car or being propelled by pure physics with cyclists being tossed like ragdolls.

    That you would differentiate no difference in a vehicle, vs a bike travelling at this speed is incomprehensible.
    And I appreciate your posts as well, and even in our disagreement I don't think we're too far off. You're right, of course, that a cyclist should do everything in their power to stay safe, including lights, avoiding dangerous roads, and generally staying out of conflict areas. My sometimes strong posts on this topic are *slightly* on the devil's advocate side as a response to posts like some of yours that point out a cyclists realistic responsibilities but downplay, from my perspective, the degree to which the dangerous conditions are caused by what we too often consider "normal' driving behaviour. I'm a year-round cyclist myself and I do much like you recommend, I avoid busy roads, use lights and generally proceed with caution. Maybe I'm a little bit of an idealist, but I do think that our streets (and drivers) can be improved enough cyclists and pedestrians can let their guard down just a little.

    Maybe I spend too much time on Ada boulevard.

    As for your last comment about the difference between a "vehicle" and a bike, presumably in response to my comment about vehicle speed, yes, I stand by it. Icy conditions excepted, if it's not safe for a bike to go that fast it's not safe for a car. As far as safety is concerned, on a bike you kill yourself, in a car you kill others.

  70. #70
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    [
    As for reflector, we only know that 2 of 3 didn't have "the proper" reflectors, but a quick check of ontario law finds that they require reflective tape on the front and rear forks, not the plastic thingies that come with every bike (I've actually never seen a bike in ontario with proper reflectors) so they could have had decent reflectors and still be not "proper", plus, if 2 of 3 didn't have reflectors that means that one of them did, and since they were riding 3 abreast that means that the one with reflectors was visible. She should have seen the one and slowed down. As it was, here best case is she saw the one and moved over just enough to only bump him with her mirror.


    Reflective Clothing: Actually, the boy who died had reflective piping on his jacket.
    Just wanted to focus on this part as we probably will continue to disagree on the rest. I actually think similarly on the bolded. We don't know for sure its the case with the released details but possibly is.
    I'm not aware of the citation that states the boy who died had reflective piping on jacket or how reflective the piping was.

    I will state again, that the reality on many Canadian roads, and particularly winding roads (and this is said to be one) is that turns in the road often can result in situations where the granted speed isn't consistent with what actually should be happening. Even with many highways like this. For instance drive much of the Yellowhead anywhere west of Hinton and tell me the road truly supports 100K/hr. The visibility around several bends(sometimes marked and with directive signs and limits) basically precludes it really being a 100K road. In many instances you are really outdriving the capability of the road and knowing whats around each corner or hill at that speed. With in most cases Semi trucks all around you reinforcing said stated speed..
    I only found one reference to reflective piping, and only for that one boy, but the news photo of him showed him in a motorcycle-style jacket with some material that looked like it could be reflective, but not something I would count on for myself.

    These sort of conditions you're talking about make me wonder what really will happen if self-driving cars become commonplace. Will everyone be forced to slow down, or will big companies like Google accept the liability of driving the same was as the rest of us yahoos?

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    ^Google self driving cars will be pretty smart and possibly better than humans to avoid these issues. See this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g

    Most drivers would be less good than the google car in some of these conditions.

  72. #72
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Yes, but they're programmed to be cautious. I presume that the same "caution" will continue when self-driving cars actually make it to the market, but I wonder whether it will make us safer, or whether a significant portion of us will refuse to turn on a auto-driver feature that sticks to the speed limits and slows down at blind corners, just so we can get to the ski hill 20 minutes earlier.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Google self driving cars will be pretty smart and possibly better than humans to avoid these issues. See this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g

    Most drivers would be less good than the google car in some of these conditions.
    I think we're still along way from that. It seems as if a lot of imformation is being inputted on a case by case basis and situation by situation basis. Which only makes the car as intelligent as every situation and analysis that has been individually inputted into it. I'm not detecting here with this prototype that there is much learned intelligence involved or applying to new situations.

    For instance, would a flying cardboard box on the highway cause a vehicle such as this to stop dead in its tracks while detecting an object? How does it respond to dogs, animals, Flying birds, ducks atypical traffic like Tractors etc.

    Will it auto detect improper road configurations that do not allow for turn road recovery into proper lane and that sometimes require two lanes free to make the appropriate turn?

    If ANY traffic sign fell down anywhere would it auto detect free flow lanes, how to merge (without the directional sign) etc?

    Worse, would it figure out exactly what to do if a stopsign is down, or if traffic lights are not working. The present prototypes have been having significant trouble even navigating 4 way stops when these are clearly signed. This is worrisome.

    Will it anticipate changing conditions and variable road conditions found during winter and inclement conditions. Will it have enough sense to pull over at a safe roadside pullout if anticipating a severe storm ahead.

    Could you imagine what such a vehicle would do if another driver was presenting a roadrage situation and being aggressive?

    So many countless situations and variables and I think there would be still great unpredictability. I fear the result of trying to "every instance" proof the intelligence of a "self driving" vehicle. Really this should be nightmare material for us all.

    Stephen King is probably working on a suitable sequel as we speak.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Yes, but they're programmed to be cautious. I presume that the same "caution" will continue when self-driving cars actually make it to the market, but I wonder whether it will make us safer, or whether a significant portion of us will refuse to turn on a auto-driver feature that sticks to the speed limits and slows down at blind corners, just so we can get to the ski hill 20 minutes earlier.
    The flipside is individuals, most, like to be in control. We give this up when on plains, trains, ships or being passengers etc. But given a choice between driving and having some latest prototype driving me I know which I would choose in an instant. And not for speed or efficacy either.

    As rolled out, and with easily noted irregularities I don't even trust cruise control unless the road has really not got much traffic. I've seen cruise controls do the strangest things and even new millennium versions. Hyundai seems particularly suspect in this regard.

    With any technology we have to keep in mind the assembly line type manufacturing that goes on. What may theoretically work as drawn up may not be properly executed in product roll out and with yet more technology resulting in more potential for vehicles to critically fail and endanger. I think any instance of thousands of recalls, product alerts, indicates how much difficulty the auto individual is having with quality control right out of the gate. What would a self driving vehicle be like 2 yrs down the road. What monitoring would need to be in place to ensure nothing goes awry?

    heh, this is probably another thread though.
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-05-2014 at 04:43 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    There are also some very interesting questions of how to program autonomous vehicles to behave ethically. The challenges of dealing with ordinary road conditions are one thing, the challenges of making difficult ethical decisions is even harder.

    One example I heard was one of, if you're stopped at a intersection with a pedestrian crossing in front of you and you see someone about to rear end you. A vehicle programmed to avoid collisions may move out of the way endangering the pedestrian. A person might choose, keep their foot on brake and hold on. They might also attempt to move out of the way while hitting the horn to alert the pedestrian. And so on.

    How an autonomous vehicle deals with cyclists is also going to be fraught with difficult to code solutions.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    It's worth noting that in Alberta it actually is explicitly illegal for cyclists to ride abreast. Plenty of other jurisdictions have fuzzy rules, like you must not impede passing or you must ride as far right as practicable, but from the USE OF HIGHWAY AND RULES OF THE ROAD REGULATION:

    Travel single file
    78 A person who is operating a cycle on a highway in the same
    direction in the same traffic lane, except when overtaking and
    passing another cycle,

    (a) shall not operate the cycle adjacent to another cycle
    travelling in the same direction, and
    (b) in the case of a cycle other than a motor cycle, where
    more than one cycle is travelling in the near vicinity of
    and in the same direction as another cycle, shall operate
    the cycle directly in line with and to the rear or front of
    the other cycle.
    Of course running stopssigns and redlights is also illegal, and I had a pretty bad monday for that. There was the ***** in the blue imprezza who snoozed through a stopsign and nearly tboned me in grandin, and who gave me the finger when I let him know that maybe he should actually try obeying the law. Then the princess in the brown pontiac who didn't need to stop at the top of the highlevel, and would have hit me if I'd entered the intersection as I was legally allowed. And then the grey somethingorother who honestly thought she should be the 3rd or 4th car allowed through a red light on 102ave, because construction zones apparently mean that traffic lights magically don't count or something?

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    There are also some very interesting questions of how to program autonomous vehicles to behave ethically. The challenges of dealing with ordinary road conditions are one thing, the challenges of making difficult ethical decisions is even harder.

    One example I heard was one of, if you're stopped at a intersection with a pedestrian crossing in front of you and you see someone about to rear end you. A vehicle programmed to avoid collisions may move out of the way endangering the pedestrian. A person might choose, keep their foot on brake and hold on. They might also attempt to move out of the way while hitting the horn to alert the pedestrian. And so on.

    How an autonomous vehicle deals with cyclists is also going to be fraught with difficult to code solutions.
    How do you code how to respond to random butterfly behavior?

    Even in the video it states that the self driving vehicle will yield if a cyclist has singled or looks to be changing lanes or turning. It will wait even if the cyclist does this multiple times. I could see it continuing to wait in vain for the cyclist to do something coherent while 25 cars behind are lined up.

    Similarly how often have we seen an inexperienced driver attempt a lane change right into another driver who alerts and avoids collision. The inexperience drivers inate reaction is to recover back in the lane they are in often with a very jerky movement and depending on speed out of control action. The inexperienced driver will then continue to drive somewhat paralyzed with fear, with blinker still on (if it was on) and with even astute drivers trying to take as wide a berth from the driver as possible. The inexperience driver continues to givee indication of wanting to change lanes but at that point will now go straight regardless of needing to turn..Its the instinctive stay in lane, hide in shell, inate response to fear.

    In such instances the rattled driver stays rattled and illogical for sometime. Should probably just pull over at first opportunity to self compose but how many do. How does any programmed vehicle respond, comprehend, or interact with illogic? Aberrant emotion? Driver rage? etc.

    Its odd that we haven't successfully programmed a robotic mechanism to safely conduct a blind person down a sidewalk. We still have carefully trained dogs to do this. Intelligent dogs with multivariate real senses. But we mean to automate vehicles to hurtle tons of metal down killer highways at high speed.

    yikes
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-05-2014 at 05:27 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  78. #78
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ im sure there would be driver over-ride options for those absurd situations you find yourself in
    be offended! figure out why later...

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ im sure there would be driver over-ride options for those absurd situations you find yourself in
    Apparently you've never encountered fairly common Millwoods driving behavior. I swear theres drivers here that get passed if they know how to turn the ignition key or how to get somebody to fill up their gas tank..

    Theres driver instructors here that I don't know would pass judging from how they drive when they're behind the wheel.

    You learn random a whole lot when you drive for decades in Millwoods, just saying.

    The worst thing is the spring. All these drivers that couldn't possibly keep a vehicle out of the ditch in the winter are on the roads..
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-05-2014 at 06:03 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  80. #80
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ im sure there would be driver over-ride options for those absurd situations you find yourself in
    Why would the driver be paying attention at all if vehicle was driving itself. Part of the point of an autonomous vehicle is that it's reaction time is going to be faster than a persons. If a vehicle makes an emergency decision that saves the car and driver but kills someone else, what is the liability. If the vehicle makes a decision that kills the driver but saves someone else, what is the liability. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the biggest killers out there because absurd situations occur. Anything programmed to function on the streets has be able to deal with that.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  81. #81

    Default Ran over cyclists iPhone

    Earlier today during the Tuesday AM rush, two cyclists pass me on the right along the curb. Traffic starts to flow again and I move left to pass the last one. This guy is texting on his phone with one hand, slams into a post, phone goes flying and I ran over it; toast. I put the 4 ways on stopping to make sure he's okay he gets up comes running over cursing giving me all kinds of profanity for not looking out for cyclists . . . I guess I'm a bigtime redneck ahole now since I drive 4x4 with a winch. I offered to call EPS and was told where to shove it. I smiled back (glad I ran over the phone afterall) and said "have a pleasant ride" then drove off. This could've turned out to be a real tragedy for him and me as well, luckily it was only the phone and not his legs, torso, or head. Not good enough for him though.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •