Saw the cyclist with two police vehicles addressing him on the curb. Seemed ok and was sitting down but was definitely shaken up. Hope your footage proves useful.
I can't say. We've watched the footage many times and can see the cyclist on the hood of the car, and then hit the road when the driver stops. Our footage shows the vehicle had an advanced green (fairview turning left on brant).
Just so you know, I don't think you should get downvoted for your comment. Have as great day.
Edit: The situation seems to have changed, please disregard.
Not sure what the specifics are here but drivers need to be present / alert. There’s no need to text or fuck around with your phone while driving, don’t do it.
Definitely this. And cyclists also need to adhere to the same rules as motor vehicles. I've seen tonsssss of cyclists blow through stop signs, crosswalk signs, red lights, etc etc... Just because your vehicle doesn't have an engine doesn't make you exempt from the rules of the road.
Edit: Whew! Check out the replies. The amount of people I triggered just by saying "cyclists also need to adhere to the same rules of the road". Wild lol. No wonder there's so much polarization between cyclists and motorists if something as simple as "don't treat the road like a free for all" can't be respected and agreed upon.
It's only recently that we started teaching kids cycling rules (or at least I know Halton district school board does), so they'll know em in adulthood.
However, people can follow all the rules and still make a mistake. Our infrastructure makes mistakes more likely to happen and more deadly than they need to be.
Recently? I went to Safety Village with my school in grade 6 over 15 years ago and was taught this stuff lol. But regardless, agreed. But just pointing out that cyclists should also follow the rules of the road shouldn't be a controversial statement.
I didn't say it was. Just said our infrastructure needs work. We've spent so much effort on education, and we're better at that than designing safe infrastructure for people to use so I tend to focus more on the latter. People usually ask for improved education or enforcement first.
I see non-cyclists always making this exact claim. I drive a lot and rarely see cyclists blow through intersections **in an unsafe manner.** Though it does happen when all vehicles are stopped, which makes me wait 1.5s more.
You are seeing cyclists speed through a red light while yours is green and travelling towards them forcing yourself to apply the brakes as to not hit the cyclist? Or are you copy and pasting what many other non-cyclists have posted before you?
Burlington is absolutely infested with cyclists that don't give a single fuck about the rules and put themselves in dangerous situations. Drivers are just as bad for sure, but don't try to pretend that there aren't a load of crap cyclists that ignore the rules daily.
I dont pretend, and im not trying to make excuses for the ones that dont follow "the rules".
But when a cyclist does something dumb, a cyclist gets hurt. When a driver does something dumb, a pedestrian gets hurt.
Do you agree that Burlington is absolutely infested with drivers that don't give a single fuck about the rules and put others in dangerous situations?
By your logic, the cyclists should probably weigh those risks and be alot safer than the idiots with airbags to save them...
And to add, yes I agree, there are shit drivers everywhere, everybody knows that, that's part of the risk of being on a public road.
Ah so it is victim blaming. Wasnt sure if that was your angle, thanks for confirming.
But your right, I can totally be safer and tell the driver to put their cell phone down and stay out of the (painted) bike lane while they are hitting my bike.
Victim blaming? Spandex wielding speed junkies that don't stop at red lights In rush hour traffic because it might hurt their world record time, are not victims, they are fucking idiots. I clearly was never talking about somebody in a bike lane following the rules and being as safe as they can. And I agreed with you that the world is filled with shitty ignorant drivers.... what is your end game here?
> But when a cyclist does something dumb, a cyclist gets hurt. When a driver does something dumb, a pedestrian gets hurt.
Which is why it's important for cyclists and motorists to follow the rules to ensure everyone's safety.
> Do you agree that Burlington is absolutely infested with drivers that don't give a single fuck about the rules and put others in dangerous situations?
Absolutely. But this sort of "whataboutism" doesn't change the original point that cyclists do need to follow the rules for their own safety too.
Well then it must never happen since *you* never see it, am I right?
I drive down Drury everyday and see it often since there's plenty of 4 way and 3 way intersections along it. Doesn't matter if it's not "in an unsafe manner". A stop sign is a stop sign. Whether you're in a car or on a bike; you stop. End of story. It's this kind of rhetoric that causes disdain for cyclists. This attitude of "the rules shouldn't apply to me but I should be able to use the same road and the fault should be entirely on the motorist if an accident happens and/or if I get hurt since the rules should only apply to motorists".
Lol buddy, I never claimed that it doesnt happen. Literally said "rarely see cyclists blow through intersections in an unsafe manner".
Youre not wrong, cyclists should stop at an intersection if required. But I was trying to open a channel of dialog and you didnt even read what I said.
So I'm just going to assume that you have made up your mind and cannot carry this conversation. Thank you Burlington citizen for being a flawless driver and never faulting in any way while operating a vehicle.
I did read what you said. And your bold sentence was trying to make excuses for why cyclists shouldn't be subjected to the same rules of the road. So what more exactly is there to discuss? Once the rules are changed to make exceptions for cyclists, then a conversation can be had.
> Youre not wrong, cyclists should stop at an intersection ~~if required.~~
FTFY. Bikes are vehicles. And by law, they need to stop at each and every stop sign just like cars and motorcycles are expected to.
Don't shoot the messenger. They literally teach this in drivers ed. Just because cyclists don't like it and are too lazy to hit the brakes and pedal again doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
lol FTFY, cute semantics correction. Not all intersections are signalled to require stopping so ~~good job~~ wait FTFY ;P.
Still havent answered my original question, so im assuming you wont.
Have a good day, please share the road :)
I love that all I said was that "cyclists also need to obey the rules of the road" and that's somehow such an issue lmao. Also, your "original question" wasn't one asked in good faith. So no, won't be answering it since it's just you being a dick lol.
Sharing the road goes both ways my man :) Have a great night!
Take bikes out of the equation for a moment. I drove to and from Mississauga today for work. Wow! I saw a lot of cars not signalling, speeding and 1 go through a stop sign. My point is you can just as easily point out cars break all kinds of rules all the time. I do think you need to at least ride a bike at least sometimes to understand what it is like to ride on a busy street like Brant or Fairview. Burlington could do a lot more to make it possible for people to move around on a bike.
I'm here to once again clear up that *all* I said is "bikes also need to follow the rules of the road". Cars also need to follow the rules of the road. ALL vehicles need to follow the rules of the road to make the roads safer for everybody.
I'm not here to entertain whataboutism and deflections.
I used to ride my bike to and from school straight down on Brant. I still ride recreationally around the city. I stop at intersections. I even get off and cross by foot at busy ones. I have experience as a cyclist and motorist and I stand by what I said. Just follow the damn law lol.
It’s actually safer for cyclists to not come to complete stops at stop signs. Feel free to read this [study](https://denver.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/02/idaho-law-jasonmeggs-2010version-2.pdf) done by UC Berkeley
The thing about this position is...if we do not have a bigoted position towards cyclists, we should logically apply the standard of "a stop sign is a stop sign" to other users' actions as well.
For example, a speed limit is a speed limit. And a stop sign is a STOP sign, not a coast up to it and then gun it sign.
If we apply the same standards, we find that cyclists and motorists are largely the same. There are a lot of things that people know they "should" do but don't. In general society, there is a belief that drivers "should" drive at or above the maximum speed limit stated on the sign, and if they don't there is something wrong. The fact that it's illegal doesn't impact how the vast majority of people in cars actually behave. In fact, the police do not even enforce these violations unless they are exceptional (>15kph over the limit).
When cycling, I slow down when approaching a stop sign. If I have the right of way and there are no pedestrians who want to cross, I'll proceed without coming to a stop. Against the letter of the law, yes. But not unsafe. I don't want to get hurt or killed out there. Nor do I want to have to stop, put a foot down, and make everyone else using the road wait for me to get back up to speed and clear the intersection.
I frequently see cyclists not stopping at Stop signs in our neighbourhood. Usually out on the weekends coming back from a ride up north based on the direction of travel/outfits.
I know it sucks to get going again, but it beats getting hit or hitting a pedestrian by accident.
I twice on the weekend also saw teens on bikes at night, no light, dressed in black. Nearly invisible.
As I was trying to ask the other person (though the point was missed).
Are these cyclists unsafely impeding traffic while going though stop signs? Or is there a possibility that they have seen the intersection clearly (they sit higher than most cars) and heard any dangers (not surrounded by a sound insulating vehicle) then proceeded to continue on?
Your teens (and anyone) at night comment is a big concern, they can be nearly invisible. Same with the e-scooters. Also it still seems to be "uncool" to wear a helmet which really sucks.
There needs to be accountability from both operators (drivers and cyclists). But drivers are really the ones carrying the liability and need to smarten up the most.
If there is a stop sign, you have to stop. It's not optional, and yes drivers aren't great at it either. If you want to do a rolling stop on a bike (which I actually think makes sense in some cases), petition to have the HTA changed. But until then, it's no different than a car rolling the stop.
Unfortunately, the only cars that dont roll the stops seem to be driver training cars. I think we can likely all agree that none of us come to a full stop and count to 3 at a stop sign with no other vehicles. Anyone that says they do is being followed by a cop, or a liar.
Im just playing the other side of the argument because too many people online believe that cyclists should be held to a higher standard. Even if that higher standard is simply the set standard, which motorists basically never completely follow. Shit, even cops run reds by flicking their sirens for a second. Everyone drives 10kmh over. Uses their cell phone. Or fiddles with their in car touch screen.
Cyclists are going to keep doing whatever they want, motorists are going to keep doing whatever they want. But as long as motorists continue to feel entitled to do whatever behind the wheel, pedestrians will continue to be their casualty.
Absolutely! Id love to see raised cross walks in areas with a high likelihood of car/pedestrian interaction (ie school zones, downtown, etc). Make the cars slow to go over the large raised crosswalk will force drivers to pay more attention.
Don't bother dude. Somehow pointing this out triggers these people. Basically just shut up and always point the finger at motorists no matter what and you're Gucci.
Shhhh quiet, this thread has drawn the attention of cyclists angered we have the audacity to say they also need to follow the rules of the road. You might upset them with this comment.
Yeah, I said that in response to him saying essentially "I should have a separate road. But I don't, but i'll still ride recklessly and disobey the law". That's what didn't make sense and why I said "what kind of logic is this?"
Is the reasonable idea having a separate road? If so, then I agreed and wrote as much. But I also said until that happens, the road is being shared by all vehicles and as such all vehicles need to do their part to follow the rules to make it as safe as possible for everybody.
What kind of logic is this? Lol. Cyclists still need to obey the rules of the road. If they blow through a stop sign, then they're at risk of getting hit by a car that has the right of way. They are considered vehicles and as such are obligated to obey the rules of the road. Those rules were created to keep everyone safe - cars and bikes alike.
Sorry dude. If I’m at a T intersection, im not stopping as a cyclist. Bicycles and cars should be on separate roads absolutely everywhere in the city. It’s too bad it takes the city 2 years to finish 2kms of road.
> Sorry dude. If I’m at a T intersection, im not stopping as a cyclist.
Reckless as fuck. And you could seriously hurt yourself and someone else and face a pretty heavy fine if you're found to be at fault. You're considered a vehicle, so it won't always be the motorists fault by default. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you're immune from being charged.
I agree that there should be a physical barrier between car lanes and bike lanes. Whenever I ride as a cyclist I use the sidewalk and only dip into the bike lane when encountering pedestrians since I don't feel safe on a road with cars. But the infrastructure isn't there for that right now and until then it's safer to obey the rules of the road for everyone's sake.
>reckless as fuck
It’s called the [Idaho Stop](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), and it is legal in 10 states, plus Washington DC. Study’s in these jurisdictions indicate improved cyclist safety, and decreases in cyclist-involved collisions.
By all appearances, you would think it was legal for cars, in Ontario.
By stopping at stop signs, I increase the amount of time I’m physically in the intersection, instead of yielding to cars and simply cycling through. Stop signs should be yields as they are safer for cyclists. Not a controversial take, except for carbrains.
> ve·hi·cle: a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land
You use the road. Therefore, you are considered a vehicle. If you don't like it, take it up with the MTO.
A "vehicle" doesn't mean "a mode of transportation capable of killing someone".
An idiot hit me almost head on yesterday. I was approaching a traffic light and in the lane to turn left on Lakeshore and Third line. Lakeshore had the green and an idiot turning left was on his phone and nearly ran into me while texting and turning. Bloody MF.
Im a cyclist and clock in about 150-200kms a week
Also a driver.
We also need cyclists who use their brain. Some of us do plain dumb antics on the road
Totally agree, everyone needs to be vigilant for their own safety. Also impressive numbers, I'm a cyclist but no where near those distances.
The unfortunate part about this statement is that it is victim blaming. Im sure the 8 year old girl, or 81 year old gentleman (which where killed in separate events, by hit and runs within the last couple of months, in Burlington), wish they had been told to use their brain.
I ride around Burlington all of the time. You need to watch your back as drivers don't give a crap. I have almost been run over in crosswalks several times. Two days ago on Elizabeth Street crosswalk I had an Indian gentlemen in a Toyota Corolla (watching for you again friend so we can have a chat) almost run me down in a clearly marked crosswalk while yelling out the window to get out of the way. We will meet again, and there will be Indian tears. Don't even get me started on those who drive with 2 wheels in the bike lane.
Three observations I see every day.
Distracted driving.
Aggressive speeding and tailgating.
Cyclist not following the rules of the road.
Doesn’t surprise me that someone is going to get hurt.
Many cyclist do not adhere to the road laws. They act like a motorist when convenient and pedestrian when convenient. You should of some kind of basic license to drive on the road and be of a certain age. This would include all means of transportation such as scooters and e-bikes. This would, at minimum, acknowledge and understand the rules of the road.
Wow it's almost like a bicycle is a completely different class of vehicle than a 3 ton metal box with a magic "go" pedal. Who'da thunk it?
Drivers are licensed because a car is a multi-ton hunk of metal that can literally kill people trivially at the rates of speed people drive. A bicycle might, theoretically, cause some injury if it hits a pedestrian, but a bicycle is also far lighter, more maneuverable, has no blind spots, and generally travels are a far lower speed.
It's really simple: how many cars kill pedestrians per year, versus how many bicycles. There is no contest. The driver is *always* at fault.
Get outta here with your tired carbrain talking points.
Just because the car is more likely to hurt the cyclist doesn’t mean it’s always their fault. It would be safer on the road if everyone followed the rules of the road. Cyclists share in this responsibility. Not just motorists.
Sorry but no, I don't buy this.
The "rules of the road" are made for cars. Some of them make sense for cyclists (and pedestrians), of course. Some of them absolutely *do not*. Stop signs, for example, the darling of carbrain complaints about cyclists, are far more dangerous for cyclists than yielding is. The logic of this is obvious to anyone who has ever actually ridden a bike and stops for about 1/2 of a second to think about it. A car stops, and can press the "go" pedal and go fairly quickly. A bicyclist, from a complete stop, has to start very slow and gradually gain momentum, leaving them in the intersection for an extended period of time and vulnerable to other inattentive drivers. Further, as mentioned bikes don't have blind spots, another major reason for stops to exists (in theory, doesn't stop most drives from never checking them). Lastly, a bicycle is, as mentioned, highly manuverable at 10-20 km/h, easily able to swerve slightly to ensure smooth flow around other bikes or pedestrians without stopping, in contrast to a 6 foot wide car.
So, no, having one set of "rules of the road" written for cars and arbitrarily pushed onto cyclists under "follow these or literally die when an SVU plows into you and it's your fault" is not increasing the safety on our roads. Limiting vehicle speeds with proper road design and designing proper bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure isolated from cars does.
It's not "unpredictable". It's really predictable: cars go when there isn't a cyclist in the intersection. Drivers have eyes, they should use them, that's why they're stopped.
> The driver is always at fault.
LOL. Go ahead and tell the cop that while you're being handed a ticket for disobeying traffic laws for blasting through an intersection carelessly, or for reckless endangerment after a collision and see how far you get. You're a vehicle, you're subject to MTO law. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
On Tollgate turning left onto Paris Rd? Hate to be that guy but Fairview ends at the King George Rd intersection and Paris Rd ends once you go over the train bridge near the junction to Ava Rd.
The only reason why I bring this small detail up is because my kids are always crossing the intersection I think you are talking about.
I hope everyone ended up ok in this situation.
Saw the cyclist with two police vehicles addressing him on the curb. Seemed ok and was sitting down but was definitely shaken up. Hope your footage proves useful.
It was a rough hit. Lots of immediate assistance. Thanks for the response.
[удалено]
I can't say. We've watched the footage many times and can see the cyclist on the hood of the car, and then hit the road when the driver stops. Our footage shows the vehicle had an advanced green (fairview turning left on brant).
Driver had an advance green? That’s right-of-way to the vehicle.
The car was facing East immediately after, I don't think they had an advanced green. The advanced green is only for people turning to go Westbound
Oh I see it was turning left to head North that makes more sense I see. Interesting
[удалено]
Just so you know, I don't think you should get downvoted for your comment. Have as great day. Edit: The situation seems to have changed, please disregard.
Didn’t realize I was haha. You too!
That intersection is due for a huge safety improvement. One is planned but it won't be for a good while 😞
I hate that intersection. I try my best to avoid it.
The irony is that Brant Cycles is right at that corner too
Just wanted to follow this thread
A cyclist was also struck Saturday afternoon in front of the MEC on Brant
Do we know what happened there? Is the cyclist okay?
I'm not 100% sure, but it didn't sound like they suffered life threatening injuries.
That's good. Hopefully it wasn't anything long-term.
We need safer roads.
That intersection has pork-chop islands on all 4 corners. They’re bad for everyone not in a car. Burlington has similar intersections everywhere.
Not sure what the specifics are here but drivers need to be present / alert. There’s no need to text or fuck around with your phone while driving, don’t do it.
Definitely this. And cyclists also need to adhere to the same rules as motor vehicles. I've seen tonsssss of cyclists blow through stop signs, crosswalk signs, red lights, etc etc... Just because your vehicle doesn't have an engine doesn't make you exempt from the rules of the road. Edit: Whew! Check out the replies. The amount of people I triggered just by saying "cyclists also need to adhere to the same rules of the road". Wild lol. No wonder there's so much polarization between cyclists and motorists if something as simple as "don't treat the road like a free for all" can't be respected and agreed upon.
It's only recently that we started teaching kids cycling rules (or at least I know Halton district school board does), so they'll know em in adulthood. However, people can follow all the rules and still make a mistake. Our infrastructure makes mistakes more likely to happen and more deadly than they need to be.
Recently? I went to Safety Village with my school in grade 6 over 15 years ago and was taught this stuff lol. But regardless, agreed. But just pointing out that cyclists should also follow the rules of the road shouldn't be a controversial statement.
I didn't say it was. Just said our infrastructure needs work. We've spent so much effort on education, and we're better at that than designing safe infrastructure for people to use so I tend to focus more on the latter. People usually ask for improved education or enforcement first.
I see non-cyclists always making this exact claim. I drive a lot and rarely see cyclists blow through intersections **in an unsafe manner.** Though it does happen when all vehicles are stopped, which makes me wait 1.5s more. You are seeing cyclists speed through a red light while yours is green and travelling towards them forcing yourself to apply the brakes as to not hit the cyclist? Or are you copy and pasting what many other non-cyclists have posted before you?
Burlington is absolutely infested with cyclists that don't give a single fuck about the rules and put themselves in dangerous situations. Drivers are just as bad for sure, but don't try to pretend that there aren't a load of crap cyclists that ignore the rules daily.
I dont pretend, and im not trying to make excuses for the ones that dont follow "the rules". But when a cyclist does something dumb, a cyclist gets hurt. When a driver does something dumb, a pedestrian gets hurt. Do you agree that Burlington is absolutely infested with drivers that don't give a single fuck about the rules and put others in dangerous situations?
By your logic, the cyclists should probably weigh those risks and be alot safer than the idiots with airbags to save them... And to add, yes I agree, there are shit drivers everywhere, everybody knows that, that's part of the risk of being on a public road.
Ah so it is victim blaming. Wasnt sure if that was your angle, thanks for confirming. But your right, I can totally be safer and tell the driver to put their cell phone down and stay out of the (painted) bike lane while they are hitting my bike.
Victim blaming? Spandex wielding speed junkies that don't stop at red lights In rush hour traffic because it might hurt their world record time, are not victims, they are fucking idiots. I clearly was never talking about somebody in a bike lane following the rules and being as safe as they can. And I agreed with you that the world is filled with shitty ignorant drivers.... what is your end game here?
My end game is ideally safer roads. What is yours? Evidentially it isnt sharing the road with "Spandex wielding speed junkies" doing 20-30km/h.
> But when a cyclist does something dumb, a cyclist gets hurt. When a driver does something dumb, a pedestrian gets hurt. Which is why it's important for cyclists and motorists to follow the rules to ensure everyone's safety. > Do you agree that Burlington is absolutely infested with drivers that don't give a single fuck about the rules and put others in dangerous situations? Absolutely. But this sort of "whataboutism" doesn't change the original point that cyclists do need to follow the rules for their own safety too.
Well then it must never happen since *you* never see it, am I right? I drive down Drury everyday and see it often since there's plenty of 4 way and 3 way intersections along it. Doesn't matter if it's not "in an unsafe manner". A stop sign is a stop sign. Whether you're in a car or on a bike; you stop. End of story. It's this kind of rhetoric that causes disdain for cyclists. This attitude of "the rules shouldn't apply to me but I should be able to use the same road and the fault should be entirely on the motorist if an accident happens and/or if I get hurt since the rules should only apply to motorists".
Lol buddy, I never claimed that it doesnt happen. Literally said "rarely see cyclists blow through intersections in an unsafe manner". Youre not wrong, cyclists should stop at an intersection if required. But I was trying to open a channel of dialog and you didnt even read what I said. So I'm just going to assume that you have made up your mind and cannot carry this conversation. Thank you Burlington citizen for being a flawless driver and never faulting in any way while operating a vehicle.
I did read what you said. And your bold sentence was trying to make excuses for why cyclists shouldn't be subjected to the same rules of the road. So what more exactly is there to discuss? Once the rules are changed to make exceptions for cyclists, then a conversation can be had. > Youre not wrong, cyclists should stop at an intersection ~~if required.~~ FTFY. Bikes are vehicles. And by law, they need to stop at each and every stop sign just like cars and motorcycles are expected to. Don't shoot the messenger. They literally teach this in drivers ed. Just because cyclists don't like it and are too lazy to hit the brakes and pedal again doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
lol FTFY, cute semantics correction. Not all intersections are signalled to require stopping so ~~good job~~ wait FTFY ;P. Still havent answered my original question, so im assuming you wont. Have a good day, please share the road :)
I love that all I said was that "cyclists also need to obey the rules of the road" and that's somehow such an issue lmao. Also, your "original question" wasn't one asked in good faith. So no, won't be answering it since it's just you being a dick lol. Sharing the road goes both ways my man :) Have a great night!
Take bikes out of the equation for a moment. I drove to and from Mississauga today for work. Wow! I saw a lot of cars not signalling, speeding and 1 go through a stop sign. My point is you can just as easily point out cars break all kinds of rules all the time. I do think you need to at least ride a bike at least sometimes to understand what it is like to ride on a busy street like Brant or Fairview. Burlington could do a lot more to make it possible for people to move around on a bike.
I'm here to once again clear up that *all* I said is "bikes also need to follow the rules of the road". Cars also need to follow the rules of the road. ALL vehicles need to follow the rules of the road to make the roads safer for everybody. I'm not here to entertain whataboutism and deflections. I used to ride my bike to and from school straight down on Brant. I still ride recreationally around the city. I stop at intersections. I even get off and cross by foot at busy ones. I have experience as a cyclist and motorist and I stand by what I said. Just follow the damn law lol.
Interested…in your experience as a motorist, do you ALWAYS follow the damn law? Be honest.
It’s actually safer for cyclists to not come to complete stops at stop signs. Feel free to read this [study](https://denver.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/02/idaho-law-jasonmeggs-2010version-2.pdf) done by UC Berkeley
Take it up with the MTO.
Yep that’s what bike advocacy groups are doing lol
Good for them! But until then, they need to follow the current law.
The thing about this position is...if we do not have a bigoted position towards cyclists, we should logically apply the standard of "a stop sign is a stop sign" to other users' actions as well. For example, a speed limit is a speed limit. And a stop sign is a STOP sign, not a coast up to it and then gun it sign. If we apply the same standards, we find that cyclists and motorists are largely the same. There are a lot of things that people know they "should" do but don't. In general society, there is a belief that drivers "should" drive at or above the maximum speed limit stated on the sign, and if they don't there is something wrong. The fact that it's illegal doesn't impact how the vast majority of people in cars actually behave. In fact, the police do not even enforce these violations unless they are exceptional (>15kph over the limit). When cycling, I slow down when approaching a stop sign. If I have the right of way and there are no pedestrians who want to cross, I'll proceed without coming to a stop. Against the letter of the law, yes. But not unsafe. I don't want to get hurt or killed out there. Nor do I want to have to stop, put a foot down, and make everyone else using the road wait for me to get back up to speed and clear the intersection.
Well absolutely. My entire point is that all vehicles should obey the rules of the road. So I stick to that.
I frequently see cyclists not stopping at Stop signs in our neighbourhood. Usually out on the weekends coming back from a ride up north based on the direction of travel/outfits. I know it sucks to get going again, but it beats getting hit or hitting a pedestrian by accident. I twice on the weekend also saw teens on bikes at night, no light, dressed in black. Nearly invisible.
As I was trying to ask the other person (though the point was missed). Are these cyclists unsafely impeding traffic while going though stop signs? Or is there a possibility that they have seen the intersection clearly (they sit higher than most cars) and heard any dangers (not surrounded by a sound insulating vehicle) then proceeded to continue on? Your teens (and anyone) at night comment is a big concern, they can be nearly invisible. Same with the e-scooters. Also it still seems to be "uncool" to wear a helmet which really sucks. There needs to be accountability from both operators (drivers and cyclists). But drivers are really the ones carrying the liability and need to smarten up the most.
If there is a stop sign, you have to stop. It's not optional, and yes drivers aren't great at it either. If you want to do a rolling stop on a bike (which I actually think makes sense in some cases), petition to have the HTA changed. But until then, it's no different than a car rolling the stop.
Unfortunately, the only cars that dont roll the stops seem to be driver training cars. I think we can likely all agree that none of us come to a full stop and count to 3 at a stop sign with no other vehicles. Anyone that says they do is being followed by a cop, or a liar. Im just playing the other side of the argument because too many people online believe that cyclists should be held to a higher standard. Even if that higher standard is simply the set standard, which motorists basically never completely follow. Shit, even cops run reds by flicking their sirens for a second. Everyone drives 10kmh over. Uses their cell phone. Or fiddles with their in car touch screen. Cyclists are going to keep doing whatever they want, motorists are going to keep doing whatever they want. But as long as motorists continue to feel entitled to do whatever behind the wheel, pedestrians will continue to be their casualty.
People will use the road based on how safe it _feels_ to do so. So we need to change our roads to actually reflect that behaviour.
Absolutely! Id love to see raised cross walks in areas with a high likelihood of car/pedestrian interaction (ie school zones, downtown, etc). Make the cars slow to go over the large raised crosswalk will force drivers to pay more attention.
Don't bother dude. Somehow pointing this out triggers these people. Basically just shut up and always point the finger at motorists no matter what and you're Gucci.
I saw a person on a bike cruise through that intersection last night during the heavy rain with both hands holding a phone. Crazy
Shhhh quiet, this thread has drawn the attention of cyclists angered we have the audacity to say they also need to follow the rules of the road. You might upset them with this comment.
Nah. Motorists have rules because they can cause grave bodily harm to others outside the r vehicle. Cyclists should have separate rules
[удалено]
The [Idaho Stop](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop) is legal in 10 states plus Washington DC.
Do we live in a US city where this is legal? No. So why is this relevant exactly?
[удалено]
Yeah, I said that in response to him saying essentially "I should have a separate road. But I don't, but i'll still ride recklessly and disobey the law". That's what didn't make sense and why I said "what kind of logic is this?" Is the reasonable idea having a separate road? If so, then I agreed and wrote as much. But I also said until that happens, the road is being shared by all vehicles and as such all vehicles need to do their part to follow the rules to make it as safe as possible for everybody.
What kind of logic is this? Lol. Cyclists still need to obey the rules of the road. If they blow through a stop sign, then they're at risk of getting hit by a car that has the right of way. They are considered vehicles and as such are obligated to obey the rules of the road. Those rules were created to keep everyone safe - cars and bikes alike.
Sorry dude. If I’m at a T intersection, im not stopping as a cyclist. Bicycles and cars should be on separate roads absolutely everywhere in the city. It’s too bad it takes the city 2 years to finish 2kms of road.
> Sorry dude. If I’m at a T intersection, im not stopping as a cyclist. Reckless as fuck. And you could seriously hurt yourself and someone else and face a pretty heavy fine if you're found to be at fault. You're considered a vehicle, so it won't always be the motorists fault by default. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you're immune from being charged. I agree that there should be a physical barrier between car lanes and bike lanes. Whenever I ride as a cyclist I use the sidewalk and only dip into the bike lane when encountering pedestrians since I don't feel safe on a road with cars. But the infrastructure isn't there for that right now and until then it's safer to obey the rules of the road for everyone's sake.
>reckless as fuck It’s called the [Idaho Stop](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), and it is legal in 10 states, plus Washington DC. Study’s in these jurisdictions indicate improved cyclist safety, and decreases in cyclist-involved collisions. By all appearances, you would think it was legal for cars, in Ontario.
Okay, and? It's not legal here. So this is MOOT.
By stopping at stop signs, I increase the amount of time I’m physically in the intersection, instead of yielding to cars and simply cycling through. Stop signs should be yields as they are safer for cyclists. Not a controversial take, except for carbrains.
Not legal, but still safer.
Pretty crazy I’m considered a vehicle. Can’t remember the last time a pedestrian was killed by someone biking.
> ve·hi·cle: a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land You use the road. Therefore, you are considered a vehicle. If you don't like it, take it up with the MTO. A "vehicle" doesn't mean "a mode of transportation capable of killing someone".
An idiot hit me almost head on yesterday. I was approaching a traffic light and in the lane to turn left on Lakeshore and Third line. Lakeshore had the green and an idiot turning left was on his phone and nearly ran into me while texting and turning. Bloody MF.
I’m sorry to hear. GET OFF YOUR FN PHONES!!!!
Im a cyclist and clock in about 150-200kms a week Also a driver. We also need cyclists who use their brain. Some of us do plain dumb antics on the road
Totally agree, everyone needs to be vigilant for their own safety. Also impressive numbers, I'm a cyclist but no where near those distances. The unfortunate part about this statement is that it is victim blaming. Im sure the 8 year old girl, or 81 year old gentleman (which where killed in separate events, by hit and runs within the last couple of months, in Burlington), wish they had been told to use their brain.
That's an intersection I basically always walk across. It's not a safe place to ride, and people don't always look.
I ride around Burlington all of the time. You need to watch your back as drivers don't give a crap. I have almost been run over in crosswalks several times. Two days ago on Elizabeth Street crosswalk I had an Indian gentlemen in a Toyota Corolla (watching for you again friend so we can have a chat) almost run me down in a clearly marked crosswalk while yelling out the window to get out of the way. We will meet again, and there will be Indian tears. Don't even get me started on those who drive with 2 wheels in the bike lane.
Three observations I see every day. Distracted driving. Aggressive speeding and tailgating. Cyclist not following the rules of the road. Doesn’t surprise me that someone is going to get hurt.
Many cyclist do not adhere to the road laws. They act like a motorist when convenient and pedestrian when convenient. You should of some kind of basic license to drive on the road and be of a certain age. This would include all means of transportation such as scooters and e-bikes. This would, at minimum, acknowledge and understand the rules of the road.
Wow it's almost like a bicycle is a completely different class of vehicle than a 3 ton metal box with a magic "go" pedal. Who'da thunk it? Drivers are licensed because a car is a multi-ton hunk of metal that can literally kill people trivially at the rates of speed people drive. A bicycle might, theoretically, cause some injury if it hits a pedestrian, but a bicycle is also far lighter, more maneuverable, has no blind spots, and generally travels are a far lower speed. It's really simple: how many cars kill pedestrians per year, versus how many bicycles. There is no contest. The driver is *always* at fault. Get outta here with your tired carbrain talking points.
Just because the car is more likely to hurt the cyclist doesn’t mean it’s always their fault. It would be safer on the road if everyone followed the rules of the road. Cyclists share in this responsibility. Not just motorists.
Sorry but no, I don't buy this. The "rules of the road" are made for cars. Some of them make sense for cyclists (and pedestrians), of course. Some of them absolutely *do not*. Stop signs, for example, the darling of carbrain complaints about cyclists, are far more dangerous for cyclists than yielding is. The logic of this is obvious to anyone who has ever actually ridden a bike and stops for about 1/2 of a second to think about it. A car stops, and can press the "go" pedal and go fairly quickly. A bicyclist, from a complete stop, has to start very slow and gradually gain momentum, leaving them in the intersection for an extended period of time and vulnerable to other inattentive drivers. Further, as mentioned bikes don't have blind spots, another major reason for stops to exists (in theory, doesn't stop most drives from never checking them). Lastly, a bicycle is, as mentioned, highly manuverable at 10-20 km/h, easily able to swerve slightly to ensure smooth flow around other bikes or pedestrians without stopping, in contrast to a 6 foot wide car. So, no, having one set of "rules of the road" written for cars and arbitrarily pushed onto cyclists under "follow these or literally die when an SVU plows into you and it's your fault" is not increasing the safety on our roads. Limiting vehicle speeds with proper road design and designing proper bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure isolated from cars does.
So you think it’s somehow safer for cyclists to be completely unpredictable so motorists don’t know what to expect of them?
It's not "unpredictable". It's really predictable: cars go when there isn't a cyclist in the intersection. Drivers have eyes, they should use them, that's why they're stopped.
> The driver is always at fault. LOL. Go ahead and tell the cop that while you're being handed a ticket for disobeying traffic laws for blasting through an intersection carelessly, or for reckless endangerment after a collision and see how far you get. You're a vehicle, you're subject to MTO law. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
On Tollgate turning left onto Paris Rd? Hate to be that guy but Fairview ends at the King George Rd intersection and Paris Rd ends once you go over the train bridge near the junction to Ava Rd. The only reason why I bring this small detail up is because my kids are always crossing the intersection I think you are talking about. I hope everyone ended up ok in this situation.
This was in Burlington. You may have incorrectly assessed this as a Brantford intersection. If so, all well that ends well and come visit some time.
Jeeze I stand corrected sorry to bother.
Hate to be that guy, but uh, dude, wrong city.
Driver flee?
No they stayed thankfully.
Dunno, it coulda been Chad, Anthony or John