As a cyclist or pedestrian, “Ignoring” stop signs and red lights, in any city with even moderately heavily traffic loads, will quickly take you out of traffic permanently. Treating them slightly different than a car would treat them, is not the same as ignoring them.

And along with some “desire for an outright ban”, will inevitably come demands for additional taxes to fund bike lanes, separate bike traffic lights where these lanes cross cars lanes etc. All for no other reason than to keep utterly incompetent drivers from crashing into equally incompetent cyclists. And vice versa, as in your case. Competents choosing either form of transportation are perfectly capable of getting along as it is.

By your logic, should we move to an outright ban on cars because it seems many, if not most, drivers “ignore” speed signs, and are “not trainable”? Or motorcycles, because riders “ignore” bans on lane splitting. Or even pedestrians, as many will, on occasion at least, jaywalk? Facts are, on the street, as opposed to in traffic planners’ and lawyers offices, heavy, fast moving vehicles kill others, while slow lightweight ones at best manage to kill themselves. Meaning it makes sense to give the slower and lighter more leeway when it comes to interpreting signage and regulations, than faster, heavier ones.

And I’m not even a cyclist. Wish I had the legs for riding up and down San Francisco hills on a fixed gear without brakes, but I simply don’t. But I do speed, I jaywalk, I used to lane split with abandon back when I rode motorbikes, and if I ever were to ride a bicycle in traffic up here, there’s not a snowballs chance in hell I’d worry more about rigidly following some rule cooked up by a clueless bureaucrat, than about my own judgment of what is safe and proper.

Besides, in practice, I have plenty of driving experience in many of the most bike infested cities in the US and Europe, and the bikers that slows down progress the most, are specifically the ones least flexible with the rules. And I’d be willing to bet those are the ones screaming the loudest to have me taxed to pay for bike lanes as well. And I seriously doubt I am an exception. Whenever I come up behind a biker, it rarely, if ever, takes more than 5-10 seconds before I have an opportunity to pass. And then it takes another 10 seconds to catch up to my old spot in traffic. No time lost at all, and I’d be willing to bet entirely typical. At least for those of us competent enough to realize crossing double yellows to pass bikers is perfectly OK as long as visibility is there; whatever the usual suspects in the traffic planning bureaucracy might think about such “hoologanism.”

So, the way I see it, this whole cars vs. bikes “war”, is little more than yet another manifestation of post Rush Limbaugh America’s obsession with viewing everything as “Us” vs. “Them”. Or “they ain’t like us, lit’s go gittim!”, as the rednecks put it.

Ignoring stop signs and red lights certainly are typical. Look at the lengths that some go to defend it…

Crossing on a red after making sure no cars are coming, is not the same as “blowing through” it.

See what I mean?

It’s comments such as these that are moving toward a desire for outright bans on many roads. There is simply no way to get cyclists to moderate their behavior; they not only break laws brazenly, but tirelessly defend their disobedience.

This is not a trainable group of people. No requests for law abiding behavior will be respected. Since we can’t jail them all, an outright ban would be easier to enforce.

That’s not a fixie, it’s a single-speed mountain bike. Look at his left wrist and you can see the brake line, or the red part of the caliper (in this case) below the rear hub.

Damn, no wonder You have little faith in bicyclists’ safety judgments! I kind of feel the same way about pickup trucks after a friend was mowed down by one while sitting in the left turn lane waiting for a green arrow on a motorbike. Driver had no insurance (he was one of those “undocumented” ones). My friend is OK now, but spent 3 weeks in a hospital, and a year to regain strength in his crushed right leg.

I really don’t think this is typical of bicyclists, though. Guys who can’t even avoid hitting stationary objects probably figure out they should find another mode of transportation relatively quickly. Like a wheelchair, for example. Hopefully not a multi thousand pound car.

And, again, I don’t defend “blowing through” reds. Crossing on a red after making sure no cars are coming, is not the same as “blowing through” it. Think of it like jaywalking. It’s perfectly possible to cross the road on a red without much danger. Of course, it’s also possible to run right into the road in front of a speeding Hummer, or even, to nosedive into the windshield of a parked car. Condoning the first is not the same as condoning the other two.

Coulda fooled me. Many of them are not capable of riding safely, showing no respect whatsoever for signals or signage. You yourself have defended blowing through lights on this thread, with the customary excuses made by cyclists. On the whole, they have earned their reputations, and those reputations are deservedly not good.

I’m sort of dumbfounded to be the first one to raise the issue of idjit cyclists riding against traffic (i.e., on the wrong side of the road).

Yeah, I wish that you had told me about that before one of them took a piece out of my hood with the bike frame and my windshield with his body. (Next time, I’ll know better than to sit at stop signs, patiently awaiting my turn to go, just so said idjit can ride the wrong way right into a stopped car.)

And surprisingly, he didn’t have insurance, or ID, or cash, or much of anything else. At least I got a repair bill, so I was able to do my part for the economy.

My solution to minimize the risk of being rear ended from behind as a biker is not at all to “blow through” anything, but simply to realize that you are a lot safer where cars are less likely to hit you from behind. The far side of an intersection with a red light is one such place. If you can make it there safely, it strikes me as a rather nice and safe place to be compared to right in front of a wall of cars antsy to accelerate. “Blowing through” an intersection does not seem like the best way to get there safely, though, but I can guarantee you that there both have been, and will continue to be, instances where a light is red, yet crossing is perfectly safe for someone looking far enough down both crossing lanes. One thing that do bother me, is the sheer paucity of bikers with anything like a rear (or even front) light. If there is one thing those guys should be required to have, it is lights, although we would probably need much, much stricter punishment for bike and bike equipment theft before they’d go along. Some guys here do have strobes, which I find wonderful, even though it, again, would be blatantly illegal on a civilian car.

I don’t bike much (SF isn’t exactly flat, and I’m no spring chicken…), but I still jaywalk, not by “blowing though intersections”, but only after making sure crossing is safe to do. If my judgment of “safe” is off, well, I’m the one getting hit, noone else. Same goes for bicyclists. But not cars, which is why stricter enforcement for them makes sense.

Next time you yield to a pedestrian when turning right at an intersection, stop to check how much space you left between you and the curb. That’s where you reckon bicycles ought to ride when going straight, right? Do you always leave the 3ft + 1ft + 3ft you’re supposed to? If you do, hats off to you. You’re definitely in the top 1% of American drivers for consistency. I know I don’t, as I expect bikes going straight to go left of me when I’m blinking right, just like I expect cars and motorbikes and Segways and whatnot should do. Even pedestrians, if there’s no sidewalk.

In Holland, the latest craze seems to be a separate set of traffic lights for bicycles where all these bike paths meet car lanes, specifically to address issues of cars turning across bike lanes at intersections, and vice versa. So now, you have to wait for pedestrian signals, then for bike signals, and then, finally cars can go. And this in a country where the tallest hill is a speed bump, and speed limits are such that fast bike riders and cars go pretty much the same speed, even absent traffic. The reason for this, is that the Dutch wants to encourage everyone from 3 to 90, stoned, drunk or not, to ride their bikes in city traffic, and prioritizes to make this safe for even the slowest moving and least aware of the population. Which may be fine, I guess, but it sure doesn’t make getting from A to B in a car any quicker.

The bike population on American city streets is much narrower. Most ride faster, and are of an age where they are perfectly capable safely sharing lanes and signals with cars. And yes, there are those who are not, but as long as bikes are kept off the sidewalks, this is kind of a self limiting problem. SF probably have some of the most attitudish bikers anywhere, especially the couriers, yet outside of Critical Mass, they’re hardly the ones holding up traffic here. Those couriers driving cars, and double parking them with hazards on outside downtown highrises, on the other hand…….

… unless said bike lanes are actually completely separated, with overpasses preventing any interaction between cars and bikes at all.

That’s a fine idea, and I’d be willing to pay more in taxes to make it happen, but I doubt most of my fellow Americans would. I doubt we can afford to make this happen in most places.

If bikes are not turning right, they should move far enough left to allow a car to make an inside right turn unimpeded. Non right turning cars should as well, but of course never do, unless there are specific road markings indicating they have to.

We have some bike lanes in my city that are constructed that way. The lane generally is on the right, but will remain straight where the road widens for right turns.

Pch

Stuki’s solution to being rear ended is to blow through red lights. Mine is to stay in a location in which your back end isn’t likely to face the front of a car. If bikes want to sit in
the middle of a lane, then they have to deal with the same statistical odds of being hit from behind as the rest of us, and deal with it.

The have to anyway, unless there is a bike lane or a very wide shoulder. Riding to the right side of the lane just encourages drivers to crowd you out and “share” the lane, and they might still hit you from behind. I feel safer letting drivers see my backside than letting them come along side me at 4 to 5 times my speed.

Cyclists seem to have it stuck in their heads that they have all of the rights of cars when it suits them, with none of the responsibility. It’s no wonder that they’re god awful to deal with, and seem incapable of obeying basic rules of the road that even the most dumb driver can handle.

I’m a daily cycle commuter but I tend to agree with your statement. The rules have to apply all the time, not just when convienient.

The reality is that a bike is not a car. If you want a mode of transportation to be on par with a car, then drive a car. A bike is not a car.

The reality is a street is a street, and in most places, everyone can use it -bikes, horse drawn wagons (if you want me to put a slow moving vehicle sign on my bike I’ll be glad to do so) donky carts, ox carts, mopeds, 1911 Baker Electric cars, etc. etc. etc. Some drivers just seem to have it in their heads that they have a God given right to accelerate to the speed limit (and then some) and maintain that speed w/o impediment. Some people will just have to learn what the brake is for.

The reality is that bikes can impede the flow of traffic, and their users often behave as unpredictable scofflaws. They can inflict damage, yet carry no insurance. Something has to give.

I agree many are scofflaws. A motorcycle cop should be able to take care of them – or a bicycle cop.

I doubt cyclists inflict much damage.

They can impede traffic flow, if one takes the attitude that the faster vehicles have some sort of “right” to go the speed limit, but that just isn’t the case. Bicyclists have as much right to use the public streets as motorists, and if you can’t get around them safely, you’ll just have to go slower. Life isn’t fair. Or rather, it is fair, which sometimes means you can’t have everything to your own liking.

Since we aren’t Dutch, we have to deal with the Americans (or in this case, Canadians), who apparently aren’t so enlightened. The Americans have shown a tendency to abuse the rules, so perhaps it’s time that we accepted that reality and clamped down accordingly, so that it becomes clear that trying to have it both ways isn’t an option.

If by clamping down you mean ticketing cyclists for disregarding traffic rules, I’m all for it.

A spouse’s emotional response is not relevant to the legality of Bryant’s actions. Furthermore, Bryant’s spouse possessed legs. She could have joined her husband.

Jumping and running was ONE option. Driving off while NOT trying to crush Sheppard (assuming (perhaps falsely) that Sheppard was not an immediate threat) was another option.

The minute that the bicycle nut decided to turn it into a violent confrontation was the moment that he set himself up for whatever followed next. Pointer for next time: Don’t grab a moving vehicle if you want something good to come of it.

IF (and I’m uncertain regarding details here) Bryant attempted to remove Sheppard from his vehicle while Sheppard was not an immediate threat, Bryant was not retreating. He’s using deadly force.

Don’t get me wrong. Bryant’s choices were crappy IF (again – I’m uncertain regarding details here) Sheppard wasn’t an immediate threat.

And without a doubt, Sheppard was a POS hothead. Which leads to a much larger issue: The decline of effective policing in Toronto and the subsequent increase in borderline incivility and casual violence. (There’s a certain irony in that Bryant’s political brothers at Toronto City Hall are probably sympathetic and/or responsible for this decline).

If I were a Toronto tourism official, I’d make some phone call to get this thing settled quickly before it gets any play in the US. Here in the states, savvy travelers talk about the decline of Toronto and (off topic) many UK cities.

Stuki’s solution to being rear ended is to blow through red lights. Mine is to stay in a location in which your back end isn’t likely to face the front of a car. If bikes want to sit in the middle of a lane, then they have to deal with the same statistical odds of being hit from behind as the rest of us, and deal with it.

The absolute last thing anyone could want for is for bicyclists not turning right to hog the right turn lane.

I yield to pedestrians at intersections all the time, as everyone should, given that it is required. I would similarly yield to bikes, for the same reason.

Cyclists seem to have it stuck in their heads that they have all of the rights of cars when it suits them, with none of the responsibility. It’s no wonder that they’re god awful to deal with, and seem incapable of obeying basic rules of the road that even the most dumb driver can handle.

The reality is that a bike is not a car. If you want a mode of transportation to be on par with a car, then drive a car. A bike is not a car.

The reality is that bikes can impede the flow of traffic, and their users often behave as unpredictable scofflaws. They can inflict damage, yet carry no insurance. Something has to give.

The Dutch have the right idea. Bike paths are everywhere, and the riders tend to be good about obeying the rules. Bikes are a mode of transport, not a crusade, and the actions reflect the difference in attitude.

Since we aren’t Dutch, we have to deal with the Americans (or in this case, Canadians), who apparently aren’t so enlightened. The Americans have shown a tendency to abuse the rules, so perhaps it’s time that we accepted that reality and clamped down accordingly, so that it becomes clear that trying to have it both ways isn’t an option.

Have you ever driven in a city filled with bikes? The absolute last thing anyone could want for is for bicyclists not turning right to hog the right turn lane. Even in Europe, where right turn on red is illegal (but bikes are everywhere), this is nothing but a nuisance, as 20 bikes slowly start accelerating in the right lane when the light changes, blocking the one right turning car, so that everyone behind him again is blocked from going straight. And silly preoccupations with building “bike lanes”, than inevitably end at intersections, only makes it worse, unless said bike lanes are actually completely separated, with overpasses preventing any interaction between cars and bikes at all.

If bikes are not turning right, they should move far enough left to allow a car to make an inside right turn unimpeded. Non right turning cars should as well, but of course never do, unless there are specific road markings indicating they have to.

Dynamic88,

Stop as Yield makes a lot of sense for bikes, as they are so damn slow accelerating from a full stop. Also, if they crash, they bear the brunt, as opposed to cars. Self preservation will cause them to actually yield, while if cars were allowed this, they would risk others’ lives, not just their own.

What I’ve noticed here, both in a car and on a motorbike, is that the most competent cyclists do indeed “take their lane”, which is perfectly fine. Of course, those guys are also some of the faster ones, so pretty much ride with the speed of (city) traffic anyway, at least on the flats and downhills. And when they go really slow uphill, I can make a solid pass in 50 ft of road, which is almost always available if one is alert (Or can be made available with some judicious use of flashing high beams :) ). If I’m ever stuck behind a cyclist for long, it is inevitably as the second or more car behind him/her, as the first one is an utter incompetent, incapable of passing something as small and slow as a bicycle. And that is hardly the fault of the biker.

It is a suitable place for them to be. Cyclists should by all means take their lane. On most public streets there is no minimum speed limit, so cyclists are on par with motor vehicles. Drivers will just have to learn patience and speed adjustment. (just pretend you are driving in the 3rd world and there is an ox-Cart in front of you) Of course, if there is a bike lane, that is where they should be.

It doesn’t follow that cyclists should run stop signs or red lights. Although – Idaho has stop as yield law, allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. I’m against this. I don’t think it’s any great trouble to come to a stop and get started again. It would actually make more sense for cars to treat stops as yields, as it takes more energy to get a car moving again.

Bikes make sense for a lot of travel, and drivers are just going to have to learn to live with it. Crowding a bike in the lane is dangerous for the cyclist. A polite cyclist will of course pull off to the side and let a line of cars go by, but this isn’t always possible.

Back on topic – Mr. Sheppard apparently decided the way to deal with a very minor traffic accident (apparently he was not injured at all by the accident) was to commit assault and battery. You have to be a little tougher than Mr. Sheppard to take on a Saab convertible.

You must be joking. I could see how well that would go over with the wife: “OK, honey, I’m going to climb out over the trunk lid, while I leave you here to fend for yourself with the Mad Cyclist.”

The minute that the bicycle nut decided to turn it into a violent confrontation was the moment that he set himself up for whatever followed next. Pointer for next time: Don’t grab a moving vehicle if you want something good to come of it.

wouldn’t it be better not to stop at stop signs if on a hard to see bike?

No.

It might make more sense if indignant riders would stop pretending that they are on a par with motor vehicles, and stopped along the curb line instead of parking themselves in the middle of lanes as if that’s a suitable place for them to be.

Cyclists should keep right, and obey traffic laws. If they can’t figure that out, then we should just ban them entirely from busy roads and be done with it. If they can’t use common sense, then keeping them out of harm’s way would make a lot more sense for the majority of road users.

I blame the police too. They should’ve arrested Sheppard for DUI.

Maybe not, but a lot of cyclists turned out to ride for Mr. Sheppard – they could not all have been couriers.

I’m a daily cycle commuter myself, but I don’t join any bicycle groups as they tend to be filled with sanctimonious types.

Hilarious!

I am a 200-pound karate black belt, and in Bryant’s situation I would stomp on the gas peddle too. It is the only rational response to someone grabbing at you through the window.

I like your Firebird analogy. I don’t know much about Canada, but here in the US, while people are conditioned to sympathize with Saab drivers over Firebird drivers, even Saab drivers are trumped by bicyclists. Whoever belongs to the most politically correct class wins.

Other than that, from the point of view of avoiding being rear ended, wouldn’t it be better not to stop at stop signs if on a hard to see bike? Unless the Saab driver saw the biker, and hit him on purpose; in which case perhaps they both deserve to die, to follow the logic of a poster above.

Many US states have ‘retreat’ type language written into their laws – that in effect, you must first try and get the hell out of before you can use force to defend yourself.

Even so, this can be a grey area. If you are alone in your car, a judge may say you should have just tried to drive away, however if you have a spouse or a small child with you then an immediate response might be viewed as reasonable.

Other states are completely different, giving you a ’stand your ground’ right in cases of self defense (it’s more states then you think). The thought being that retreating in the face of danger actually encourages an attacker.

As for the old chestnut of what would be acceptable if it occurred inside your house – as apposed to your SAAB – it just comes down to demonstrating intent. Both yours and theirs.

As I (and many others) have peaceably maintained firearms in my home for many years, it is not out of the norm that I would have a Benelli M4 shotgun readably accessible. I do not know Mr Burgler’s intentions, and (especially with a family present) I am allowed to err on the side of caution and use whatever force I see fit.

If I am in my car, it’s a bit different – as the first question cops and judges ask is inevitably “What the hell are you doing with a gun in the car…?” The second question (which is a bit more germain to this thread will be “If you were that scared for your life, you were in a car, why didn’t you just drive away?”

You better have some reasonable explanations.

Check this video. One of the guys is doing this ride is on a fixie! Brings back memories from back in the day when my balls were big, and my brain was small. Sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv-ISen-UTQ

Gardiner, apparently those warrants were all issued in Alberta. If they’re not Canada wide warrants, then the TPS could have hauled him in and contacted the local cops in the Land of Cows and Oil, but then an Edmonton constable would have had to come out and escort him back to face fairly minor charges. They likely figured it wasn’ worth it.

More here

I think it’s wise at this point to stop the speculation and wait for some facts to be released. Supposedly there’s video and there are eyewitnesses. The Toronto Police aren’t stupid. They’ll get to the bottom of this and we’ll find out what really happened.

BAN CONVERTIBLE SAABS.

BUY A CONVERTIBLE SAAB, GET YOUR CHOICE OF .40 OR 9mm AND 2 MAGAZINES FOR FREE.

ALL YOUR DRIVING PROBLEMS SOLVED.

And besides:

1. Settle domestic disputes
2. Settle disputes with neighbors
3. Something constructive to do while drunk/stoned
4. Hours of fun for the kids
5. Hours of fun for the neighbors’ kids
6. A big help during temper tantrums
7. Chance to be judge, jury, executioner…a big man!
8. Almost like having a big penis
9. Big bonanza for gun thieves
10. Surefire way to blow your dough
11. Terrify the meter man
12. Help deal with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, rage, and other honky stuff
13. Fun to fondle…and so BIG
14. “I was totally sure it wasn’t loaded, Your Honor.”
15. Get yourself killed in a raid, rather than merely arrested!
16. You can’t always be reading great literature, right?
17. Rare chance to become a murderer, get reborn as a lab animal and try again!
18. Angry white men never screw up. Never.
19. Such a comfort when depressed…