There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By seancb (registered) - website | Posted August 13, 2008 at 14:11:50
Frank, I find it interesting that you think cyclists should take the entire lane all of the time. If only this were possible. You are the only motorist I've ever heard utter this request - I fully support your vision, but fear as a cyclist that I will be physically run off the road and possibly abused for practising something like that.
I have to reiterate kevlahan's point about what I call the "cyclist's lane double standard":
When a cyclist approaches a red light or a stop sign, motorists tend to speed past the bicycle and muscle into position in front of them, only to stop at said intersection. In the motorist's mind, the bicycle does not "own" the lane. If the cyclist was taking the entire lane, the motorist would be angry that he was hogging the road. In this situation the driver has no trouble "sharing" the lane with the bicycle.
Now, the situation has become a line of stopped cars who just passed a bicycle. Once the cars have stopped moving, all of a sudden they believe that the cyclist owns the lane and should stay in said lane, lining up behind the cars. They no longer want to share this lane! Meanwhile, if they had thought that way all along, they'd be in line behind the bike anyway since they would not have passed the bike. This is a serious double standard. It reminds me of a small child who approaches you and says they want to "share", but what they mean is that they want some of what you have. If motorists are happy "sharing" the road by taking it from cyclists, they have to accept it from the other direction as well.
One of the main reasons I believe in bike lanes is that they allow fair treatment of cyclists in these "line up" situations.
But bike lanes cause other horrible problems that need to be considered: a bike lane at an intersection can be a death trap. Putting a bike lane to the right of traffic is akin to putting a "straight through" lane to the right of a "right turn" lane. We would NEVER do that. But on many streets this is exactly how bike lanes are installed.
The real key is that a mutual respect must be reached between riders and drivers. And the best way to do this is to get more cyclists on the road so that there is a better balance between the users.
Regarding the "law off", I am open to it because I ride safely and within the law. I break some rules, but generally break fewer than most drivers. However my point was more general: there are different levels of 'law-abiding-ness' in both cyclists and motorists, and it's not fair for any of us to paint all users with the same broad brush.
That being said (and this is the important part), the reality remains: car drivers have an extra responsibility because they are operating machines that can very easily maim or kill human beings through even a minor bout of inattentiveness (or 'law breaking-ness') of the operator.
A side note about the physics discussion... there's a lot more to it than just the pinpoint of force. And I think empirical evidence is enough proof that we don't have to do all of the math. Cars routinely kill people, bicycles rarely do.
And my opinion is that calculating by passenger mile is less accurate than by time spent at the activity in terms of real world safety. Someone may spend their entire life on a bus, travelling countless thousands of miles, so by passenger mile they are astronomically safer than someone who spends their entire life walking back and forth to the store simply because of the math. When it comes down to it, the amount of time you spend doing an activity is more important than how much ground you cover. Distance is arbitrary - by that argument, skydiving is a safer way to travel than climbing a ladder, cause you cover WAY more distance jumping out of planes! Just some thoughts...
I vote down for offensiveness and up for humour. I cast no votes based on my level of agreement.
Permalink | Context