So where do cyclists belong?

[Maxt]

This guy is moving faster than pedestrian traffic... But is damn lucky the bus behind him wasn't a faster vehicle.

MdHBFvfF3Dc

[Khyron]

The road. He hit a wet manhole and slid out from under him.

He shouldn't have used the ped crossing to get started but sometimes you move over to the curb/sidewalk so cars can turn right.

And if the bus had hit him, the bus would have been at fault.

[lilmira]

What happened? Pothole?

[JustinMCS]

They belong on the street and have to obey the same laws as traffic, but that does pose an interesting question. People in cars can slam on the brakes and get rear ended, but they don't typically fall out of their cars and get run over!

[know1edge]

should we take motorbikes off the road for the same reason?

[finboy]

Bike paths :dunno:

[Tej.S]

My reaction: :rofl: :clap:

[Sentry]

Originally posted by know1edge
should we take motorbikes off the road for the same reason?
Motorcycles don't impede traffic.

[HiTempguy1]

You also can not impede traffic in a road bound vehicle. Shouldn't you have to register and insure yourself to be biking on public roads (what if you cause an accident?)

[FraserB]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
You also can not impede traffic in a road bound vehicle. Shouldn't you have to register and insure yourself to be biking on public roads (what if you cause an accident?)

This.

If you want to be on the road, registration and insurance. Exactly like any other vehicle on the road.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by FraserB


This.

If you want to be on the road, registration and insurance. Exactly like any other vehicle on the road.

How many victims have been killed by cyclists vs how many victims have been killed by motorists? Almost all of your insurance is the 1-2 million policy to cover your screwup errors while chatting on a cellphone eating a big mac. The rest is for the value of the car. Also the risk that at any moment you go crazy and put your foot down you can kill multiple people. Can pretty much only kill yourself on a bike.

Also it's the MAXIMUM speed - as much as we bitch, there's no law against doing 30 in a 50.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by FraserB


This.

If you want to be on the road, registration and insurance. Exactly like any other vehicle on the road.

Exactly, too many times bikers hit cars and there is nothing a person can do to be compensated for damage because they can just ride away. Not a fan of the "hardcore" bikers that ride right in the path of traffic, it seems like the normal bikers will get over to the side so that vehicles can pass, but some of the spandex wearing granola munchers need a good bounce off the pavement once in awhile.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Khyron


there's no law against doing 30 in a 50.

I'm pretty sure there is, something along the lines of "impeding traffic". Is it ever enforced? No. But in the case of 75% of bikers can't maintain more than 20km/h constant pace when on roadways. Considering the speed limit is typically 50 (and let's be realistic, everybody is doing 10 over), they are not only impeding traffic, there is a SERIOUS risk of collision due to speed differential. It's unsafe.

The rules of the road can not (imo, and should not) only apply to "some" types of vehicles. It is an all or none affair. Any vehicle being driven on public roads, unless permitted otherwise (such as temp permits for farm equipment transport or industrial equipment moving) should be properly licenced and insured like any other vehicle.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I'm pretty sure there is, something along the lines of "impeding traffic". Is it ever enforced? No. But in the case of 75% of bikers can't maintain more than 20km/h constant pace when on roadways. Considering the speed limit is typically 50 (and let's be realistic, everybody is doing 10 over), they are not only impeding traffic, there is a SERIOUS risk of collision due to speed differential. It's unsafe.

The rules of the road can not (imo, and should not) only apply to "some" types of vehicles. It is an all or none affair. Any vehicle being driven on public roads, unless permitted otherwise (such as temp permits for farm equipment transport or industrial equipment moving) should be properly licenced and insured like any other vehicle.

Not only can someone legally ride a bike at 10km/hr on Glenmore, they are entitled to the entire lane (just like a motorcycle). Now common sense says to move right as much as possible to leave as much room for passing as you can - and I tend to avoid most 80+ roads just for the speed differential.

You can also ride on any highway in Canada, unless it's specifically posted as forbidden (Deerfoot, some parts of Coquihalla)

What blows my mind is that people will buzz close to a biker risking actually killing someone with a family just because they had to slow down for a few seconds, before pushing that big heavy accelerator pedal back down and resuming the cellphone call/big mac consumption.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Khyron
The road. He hit a wet manhole and slid out from under him.

He shouldn't have used the ped crossing to get started but sometimes you move over to the curb/sidewalk so cars can turn right.

And if the bus had hit him, the bus would have been at fault.
I looked at it frame by frame in the editor, he goes in between 2 man hole covers, can't tell what he actually hit, the edge of the c train track or something, but it wasn't the man hole covers.
I dont think it would have be the bus's fault if he would have gotten hit by it, little the bus could do to prevent or predict the guy faceplanting unexpectedly like that.
This makes a case for the 7st separated lanes, but its doing it at the expense of roadways that still does'nt make sense. If the city changed the bylaw and forced cyclists to the sidewalk, would cyclists give pedestrians, the same courtesy they currently demand from drivers?

[canadiandaytona]

You guys are fucked. Glad I'm no longer biking on Calgary's roads.

[a social dsease]

I don't think his wheel slipped or he hit a manhole. Looks to me like his chain either snapped or skipped off the chain ring.

For all the people criticizing cyclists, my advice to you is: try it. Not as easy as it seems. Not the actual pedalling, but sharing the roads/paths with other cars, buses, pedestrians and other cyclists. You might change your tune after a few days riding to work.

In my experience riding on the road is the quickest and most direct way to get around, but it can be terrifying at times sharing the road with motorists who often give you no room and don't slow down at all as they pass you with inches to spare. Slower residential streets with huge shoulders are usually fine as cars are going slower and there is lots of room to pass, however faster roads with zero shoulder (elbow, Southland etc) are quite dangerous and on roads like this the only safe option is to take an entire lane. I've tried riding as close to the curb as possible on roads like this (so as to not impede the right lane) and most cars will change lanes anyways to go around you. Some don't and will whiz by without even slowing and this is obviously very dangerous.

Pathways are my preferred route however there are some downsides. First of all the pathways don't go everywhere. I come from the south and the path I take to get DT ends by the Safeway in mission. Therefore I have no alternative but to ride on the road for the remaining 20 blocks to get to my office. The video above was taken in that downtown area where there are no pathway options, roadway is the only choice.

Also the pathways generally follow the rivers and are not very direct. Taking the path adds several km vs the road ( for me).

Lastly there is a LOT of pedestrian traffic on the paths, especially in the afternoon. Some pathways aren't even worth taking (eg 37th path between oak ridge & Anderson) because there are so many people/dog walkers clogging the path that you can't even maintain a reasonable speed.

And also don't even get me started on the sh*t job the city does of snow removal on the pathways in the winter.


Overall I think calgary is pretty good for biking, most motorists are very courteous and the pathways are reasonable. What I would like to see are: a pathway or dedicated bike lane running right into DT from the south, more bike routes in the suburbs, and widening of existing paths to have a designated walking lane plus a designated biking lane ( like the bow river path near Chinatown)

Source: I bike to DT everyday from Woodbine (16km each way)

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Khyron


Not only can someone legally ride a bike at 10km/hr on Glenmore, they are entitled to the entire lane (just like a motorcycle). Now common sense says to move right as much as possible to leave as much room for passing as you can - and I tend to avoid most 80+ roads just for the speed differential.

You can also ride on any highway in Canada, unless it's specifically posted as forbidden (Deerfoot, some parts of Coquihalla)

What blows my mind is that people will buzz close to a biker risking actually killing someone with a family just because they had to slow down for a few seconds, before pushing that big heavy accelerator pedal back down and resuming the cellphone call/big mac consumption.

But why would you do that? Just to be a total asshole with no regard for society? Cars are on the road. period. that aint gonna change, but what you can do is try to share with the beasts that outweigh you by a few thousand pounds. No one really wants to run a biker over, but the attitude of entitlement is absurd. If I tried to drive 10kmh down Glenmore I would expect to get ticketed, towed, or beaten, and it should be the same for some moron who thinks he is more important than the thousands of people who have had to pay millions in gas tax to upkeep the road and are just trying to get to work. When each bike is sold with a 10,000$ luxury tax that goes to infrastructure then you can complain that cars are hogging the roads. Until then stick to bike paths, or, even easier, ride along the side like the hundreds of bikers that no one complains about. Its mainly the wanna-be "pro" bikers that are the problem. And here in the okanagan, paramedics are forced to scrape a few more off the highways every summer, which is hard on them and a strain on resources.

It is also terrible for the environment to let these bikers do this, but I'm sure they don't give a shit about that or they would have thought of it.

[Lex350]

It's bitching like this from the OP that leads to what they did to 10th street. If they can't be in traffic then you are going to get all these stupid bike lanes.

[Maxt]

Actually on 10 st same could happen as the bike lane is also the bus lane iirc.:nut:

[dirtsniffer]

OP, I know what you're thinking, but cyclists don't belong under a bus.... :devil:

[revelations]

Originally posted by Khyron
Not only can someone legally ride a bike at 10km/hr on Glenmore, they are entitled to the entire lane (just like a motorcycle). Now common sense says to move right as much as possible to leave as much room for passing as you can - and I tend to avoid most 80+ roads just for the speed differential.

You can also ride on any highway in Canada, unless it's specifically posted as forbidden (Deerfoot, some parts of Coquihalla)


No, you cannot legally obstruct traffic in that manner. Going 70kph on Glenmore is slow enough.




Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulations TSA

Driving at appropriate speed


2(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) notwithstanding that a speed limit is prescribed by or pursuant to the Act or any other Act in respect of a highway, drive a vehicle on that highway at any rate of speed that is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following:

(i) the nature, condition and use of the highway;
.......

(c) drive a vehicle at such a slow rate of speed so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic then existing on a highway except when it is necessary to do so for the safe operation of the vehicle or to comply with Parts 1 and 2.(eg mechnical break down)

[NoMoreG35]

Originally posted by Khyron


Not only can someone legally ride a bike at 10km/hr on Glenmore, they are entitled to the entire lane (just like a motorcycle). Now common sense says to move right as much as possible to leave as much room for passing as you can - and I tend to avoid most 80+ roads just for the speed differential.

You can also ride on any highway in Canada, unless it's specifically posted as forbidden (Deerfoot, some parts of Coquihalla)

What blows my mind is that people will buzz close to a biker risking actually killing someone with a family just because they had to slow down for a few seconds, before pushing that big heavy accelerator pedal back down and resuming the cellphone call/big mac consumption.

This causes road rages :rofl:

[Khyron]

Originally posted by NoMoreG35


This causes road rages :rofl:

Of course it does. I ride a bike on the road but I ALSO drive a car, and I get annoyed when some other biker is slowing me down. It's normal - the "everyone is an idiot but me" thing.

I move right when I can and I NEVER blow a stop sign/light if it would make a car have to stop out of turn. I don't cut to the front at red lights unless I'm turning off onto a path/side road. But at the same time, I'm not riding in the gutter with all the glass and gravel either. Thus I've only been raged on a couple of times in 5+ years.

When I was 12 or so I rode a BMX bike down Glenmore (it wasn't as busy as it is now but still a bit of a pucker factor). 2.1c doesn't apply to bikes/horses/tractors/tanks etc - intent applies. You crawl at 30 in your Mustang to be a dick, you'll get a ticket, you crawl at 30 because you have a mattress tied on the roof you probably won't.

Paths are 10-20k/hr so I use them where it's empty and use the road where the path is clogged with dogs. If I want to go fast, I'll put myself in the risky position not the pedestrians. Memorial is probably the most sketchy that I used.

[voodoo]

what drives me nuts is the the fact they cant decide what they want to be.

they drive on the road all the cars get backed up behind them, when all the cars finally pass them and get back to driving speeds, you come across a red light and the freaking cyclist hops onto the pavement or inbetween cars, just to pull out onto the road in front of the first car in line.

then when the light goes green, every car has to deal with trying to pass the igonrant cyclist again.

that shit pisses me off to no end, other than that i have no problem with bikes being on the road.

[snowcat]

Originally posted by GTS4tw

but some of the spandex wearing granola munchers need a good bounce off the pavement once in awhile.

Fucking yes.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Last night, cyclist was using the street. Lane splitting and went through a red light. Next intersection there wasn't a big enough gap between vehicles to lane split, so he went down the wrong side of the road.

[Isaiah]

I live and mostly operate downtown so I'm always navigating around cyclists but I've often wondered: are they actually entitled to the full width of the lane? So if three lanes of traffic are traveling at 50 and the cyclist is on the right hand side of a fourth lane, can you not use the remainder of the lane? That entire lane of traffic behind the cyclist has to go at their speed and can't pass within the lane?

[rx7_turbo2]

I think at the very least if the city is going to continue it's push for more bicycles and more bicycle access they need to take a serious look at mandating that these vehicles be registered.

It would serve multiple purposes.
-Registration fees would generate revenue.
-Violation tickets would generate revenue.
-Most importantly it would take the anonymity away! Most riders would be FAR less likely to participate in the activities that frustrate drivers and pedestrians if they knew they could be held responsible for their actions.

It only seems reasonable.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Isaiah
I live and mostly operate downtown so I'm always navigating around cyclists but I've often wondered: are they actually entitled to the full width of the lane? So if three lanes of traffic are traveling at 50 and the cyclist is on the right hand side of a fourth lane, can you not use the remainder of the lane? That entire lane of traffic behind the cyclist has to go at their speed and can't pass within the lane?

The wording is terrible. The police chief was on CBC awhile back trying to explain it. When no clear shoulder available, legally the bike OWNS the entire lane, just like a motorcycle. If you want to pass, you are supposed to do a full lane change. But the bike is also obligated to ride as far right as possible (without riding in debris/snow/gravel) in the lane, making space. So the reality is you can go around, knowing that technically the bike still has the right of way. This means cars can dart around when possible but they can't just bully their way past. Try and stay as far as possible - 4-5 feet should be minimum. Don't be a dick. Lots of cops cycle recreationally and there's more and more go-pros out there.

Also most good cyclists will ride well out from parked cars because of the risk of getting doored not because they are lane hogs.

[ffmf]

From discussions between bike advocacy groups and the CPS it seems like bicycles would be classified as slow moving vehicles so they are able to travel slower than traffic.

With regards to taking the lane see part 3(1)(b):


Slow moving vehicles
3(1) If a person driving a vehicle is driving the vehicle on a
highway at a speed that is less than the normal speed of the traffic
on the highway at that time and place and under the conditions then
existing, that person shall drive the vehicle
(a) in the right traffic lane then available for traffic, or
(b) as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the
roadway,
except when either
(c) overtaking and passing another vehicle travelling in the
same direction, or
(d) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
road or driveway.

As close as practicable to the curb is open to interpretation given safety concerns to cyclists and the conditions of the road.

With regards to passing, here's what I've found:


Overtaking and passing
21(1) Subject to section 22, a person driving a vehicle that is
overtaking another vehicle
(a) shall, at a safe distance, pass to the left of the other
vehicle, and
(b) shall not return the overtaking vehicle to the right side of
the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle
whereupon that person shall return the overtaking vehicle
to the right side of the roadway.

I think at the end of the day, courtesy needs to be extended by both drivers and cyclists. Cyclists need to stop lane splitting resulting in delays to drivers that have just passed them as well as following the rules of the road as vehicles. I've found that if you're predictable (i.e. following the rules of the road) as a cyclist it is much easier to share the road in traffic. Right now, drivers have no idea whether a cyclist is going to stop or blow through a stop sign or use the crosswalk as a pedestrian.

Drivers need to understand that cyclists are allowed on the road and try to provide some courtesy in just sharing the road and giving some space when passing.

Regarding infrastructure and fees, most cyclists are drivers as well and so they pay the same fees that all drivers do. A lot of the road infrastructure is paid through property taxes so cyclists pay for infrastructure as well.

As for registration, I'm not sure how it would work, but here is an article with brief discussions of it.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/10/12/the-case-for-and-against-bicycle-licences-in-calgary/

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by ffmf

As for registration, I'm not sure how it would work, but here is an article with brief discussions of it.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/10/12/the-case-for-and-against-bicycle-licences-in-calgary/

How it would work? It doesn't seem that difficult.

I'm not saying everyone including children riding bikes in their neighborhood should require registration. You simply mandate registration for a select number of roadways/pathways/corridors.

Bikes will need to display a "plate" proving valid registration, and will need to pay a fee yearly to renew that registration.

Bike advocates make it sound like it's some colossal impossible daunting task to do this. It's not rocket science.

[finboy]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


How it would work? It doesn't seem that difficult.

I'm not saying everyone including children riding bikes in their neighborhood should require registration. You simply mandate registration for a select number of roadways/pathways/corridors.

Bikes will need to display a "plate" proving valid registration, and will need to pay a fee yearly to renew that registration.

Bike advocates make it sound like it's some colossal impossible daunting task to do this. It's not rocket science.

This, it would keep the asshole bikers that EVERYONE (drivers pedestrians, and GOOD bikers) are annoyed with in check. It is a very logical step to get bike commuting more acceptable, because currently there is no way of identifying an asshole on a bike. It's not like the fee would need to be high, but using the excuse that the city told me "it would discourage ridership" is utter bs.

[ercchry]

this one motherfucker almost EVERY morning is in front of me at the lights to get out of the community on his bicycle... in the right turn lane, when he is traveling straight and EVERY time its a fresh red light...

i think what bothers me the most about it, is he is about 1 block from the bow river pathway... where he could ride freely with no cars and no traffic lights. its also quicker than the road to get into the core :banghead:

that, and assholes that ride 4 wide on the highway

its a give and take bicyclists... if you want us to follow the rules and "share the road" FOLLOW THE RULES TOO!!!

[ffmf]

1. Absolutely agree, cyclists really need to follow the rules of the road if they expect some goodwill with regards to sharing the road with drivers.

2. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the cyclist in your case may be traveling over the 20 kph limit on he pathways and so needs to be on the road.

3. Those Floyd Landis wannabes are almost worse than the couriers. Zero respect for rules of the road, pedestrians on the pathways, and other cyclists. They act ultra entitled and are uber dicks caring only about their lap times or whatever. I should clarify that I'm not talking about all road bikers, just a specific subset.

At the end of the day, driver or cyclist, some people just suck.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
I think at the very least if the city is going to continue it's push for more bicycles and more bicycle access they need to take a serious look at mandating that these vehicles be registered.

It would serve multiple purposes.
-Registration fees would generate revenue.
-Violation tickets would generate revenue.
-Most importantly it would take the anonymity away! Most riders would be FAR less likely to participate in the activities that frustrate drivers and pedestrians if they knew they could be held responsible for their actions.

It only seems reasonable.

And most important of all, insurance. If it's road going, it needs insurance.

[BrknFngrs]

I'd really love to see CPS do a blitz on bikes not following basic laws. Just walking in this morning I saw two different bikes run blatant red lights and another biker turn the wrong way up a 1-way street, clipping a pedestrian in the crosswalk at the same time (and that's ignoring all the usual stuff like lane splitting, passing on the shoulder, etc)

[FixedGear]

I drive cars and I ride bikes. I have to say that the way car drivers act towards bike riders is FAR worse and FAR more inconsiderate than how bike riders act towards cars. Snowcat mentioned about how bikers break traffic laws -- but you'd be surprised at how many cars I see violate traffic laws every time I bike to work. It's ridiculous!

[M.alex]

Clyclists belong 10 feet under.

I hate them,especially downtown. They all seem to think they're the ultimate combination of car/pedestrian.

[finboy]

Originally posted by FixedGear
I drive cars and I ride bikes. I have to say that the way car drivers act towards bike riders is FAR worse and FAR more inconsiderate than how bike riders act towards cars. Snowcat mentioned about how bikers break traffic laws -- but you'd be surprised at how many cars I see violate traffic laws every time I bike to work. It's ridiculous!

And if cars break laws, they can esily be identified by their plate and reported. If they cause damage to property or people, they have insurance to cover it. The same can't be said for bike commuters, nor can the level of enforcement.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by finboy


And if cars break laws, they can esily be identified by their plate and reported. If they cause damage to property or people, they have insurance to cover it. The same can't be said for bike commuters, nor can the level of enforcement.

The bike advocates argue that mandating registration won't change anything "Why would I all of a sudden change the way I ride just because I have a plate?" "A law breaking rider will always be a law breaking rider regardless of whether they have a plate"

It's nonsense. Apply the same logic to automobiles, can you even imagine what type of drivers you would see if those drivers had virtually complete anonymity behind the wheel? The roadways would be a scary place.

Bicycle rider anonymity is the MAJOR issue. Make the riders accountable for their actions and you will see their actions change.

[ffmf]

Sounds good in theory, but this isn't a novel solution to a novel issue. This must be an issue in other cities as well, (such as Toronto, where it was rejected) so if this is the panacea to magically make law abiding cyclists why isn't this widely implemented?

I'd like to see if other cities have implemented it, the results, and the costs. So far I haven't found much, but I haven't searched in detail yet.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[finboy]

Toronto has had history with it but the challenges faced currently and the direction they are heading are very different. One only needs to visit Montreal to see how bad a system with rental bikes can do with private property (I saw several bikes clip, ding, or run into parked cars, and the person on the bike just rode away). Part of the solution is increased enforcement and education of BOTH drivers and bikers, but very little action seems to be taken on the biker education side. That might be a result of the fact that most people learn to ride from their parents when they are young.

Licensing wouldn't be a silver bullet, but running it throught the registries for people over 14, enforcing the current laws for both cars and bikes, and building a better education system for both users might bring some level of civility to this problem. A lack of identification on bikes is still a HUGE problem here though, as it is next to impossible to report asshole riders.

Prime example, I was just driving on Kensington road in the rain, a biker pulls fully into the first lane to my right (he had a stop sign) expecting 4 lanes of traffic to stop for him as he rides across. I honk at him, he stops right in front of my car, starts yelling at me, and tries to move to block my path again when I go to move around him. Besides prompting my desire for a dash cam, it drives home the point that even if I did, there is no way for me to identify this guy to police for ignoring a stop sign.

I get that the majority of riders aren't like him, I'm not when I am on a bike either, but it's people like that who are painting a negative stereotype that is driving the divisive nature of this issue. We would all be better served to get people like that (either in cars or on bikes) removed from the equation.

Also...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9323432/Number-plates-for-bicycles-proposed-in-Tokyo.html

[megavolt]

I commute to work by bike every day and unfortunately there are a lot of stupid cyclists.

It's really hard being a responsible cyclist in this city with all of the idiots enraging the drivers.

And unfortunately I'd have to say that by my experience about 50% of cyclists that are confident enough to ride on roads downtown don't follow the rules.

I really don't know where this comes from, I've been riding regularly for 3 years and still have no urge to emulate those idiots.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

Bicycle rider anonymity is the MAJOR issue. Make the riders accountable for their actions and you will see their actions change.

Sure works great with motorcycles - most of whom have their plate folded up under their rear wheel.

Plates and insurance are because cars KILL OTHER PEOPLE (and get stolen). A cyclist gets in an accident they are almost always on the losing end. If you want ID just to rat out assholes, I want every person to have an rfid id/badge on their forehead at all times - Lineups would be a lot more civil without anonymity right? Even 1080p dash cams have trouble reading car plates, let alone bike ones 1/5 the size.

It's not your job to enforce speed limits, red lights, passing on the right etc with vehicles why would it be different with cars? Police will ticket riders who don't come to a complete stop, they nail red lights just like anyone else. A bike bangs your parked car - so does an idiot with a shopping cart at Superstore. If a cyclist keeps running red lights, Darwin will get them eventually.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Khyron


Sure works great with motorcycles - most of whom have their plate folded up under their rear wheel.

Plates and insurance are because cars KILL OTHER PEOPLE (and get stolen). A cyclist gets in an accident they are almost always on the losing end. If you want ID just to rat out assholes, I want every person to have an rfid id/badge on their forehead at all times - Lineups would be a lot more civil without anonymity right? Even 1080p dash cams have trouble reading car plates, let alone bike ones 1/5 the size.

It's not your job to enforce speed limits, red lights, passing on the right etc with vehicles why would it be different with cars? Police will ticket riders who don't come to a complete stop, they nail red lights just like anyone else. A bike bangs your parked car - so does an idiot with a shopping cart at Superstore. If a cyclist keeps running red lights, Darwin will get them eventually.

All your points lead to enforcement problems, which I agree are a big part of the trouble. While random assholes might ding your car with a shopping cart, we are not talking about operation on a public road way. Out of curiosity, what is your thought for dealing with asshole riders/drivers? Besides let karma deal with them? I personally don't want killing or injuring a cyclist on my conscience.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Khyron


Sure works great with motorcycles - most of whom have their plate folded up under their rear wheel.

Plates and insurance are because cars KILL OTHER PEOPLE (and get stolen). A cyclist gets in an accident they are almost always on the losing end. If you want ID just to rat out assholes, I want every person to have an rfid id/badge on their forehead at all times - Lineups would be a lot more civil without anonymity right? Even 1080p dash cams have trouble reading car plates, let alone bike ones 1/5 the size.

It's not your job to enforce speed limits, red lights, passing on the right etc with vehicles why would it be different with cars? Police will ticket riders who don't come to a complete stop, they nail red lights just like anyone else. A bike bangs your parked car - so does an idiot with a shopping cart at Superstore. If a cyclist keeps running red lights, Darwin will get them eventually.

Whenever someone is so adamantly against something that seems to be incredibly reasonable and logical I have to ask why?

"Plates and insurance are because cars kill other people"? Seriously? So they serve no other purpose? You do realize how stupid that sounds right? Like um lets see when it comes to property damage. I called in a hit and run on a vehicle today, using what info? You guessed it the plate. People in this thread have mentioned they've witnessed cyclists cause property damage with impunity because they are essentially anonymous.

I don't want cyclists to register their vehicles because I want to call the plate in and report moving violations myself. That's an enforcement issue as has been mentioned already.

What I'm saying is that currently most motorists feel that most cyclists don't have to play by the same rules and that's incredibly frustrating, forcing cyclists to abide by some of those rules, while generating a profit at the same time would do a lot to appeasing motorist concerns. That and as mentioned I think the VAST majority of cyclists would find their behavior change for the better.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


This is common sense

Agreed.

I can't understand ANY opposition to it. I see no downside. What is required by motorized vehicles WORKS, it's a proven system, why would it not be equally effective for cyclists?

I've yet to hear any argument from the other side that doesn't boil down to "cause I don't wanna, that's why"

[Khyron]

Ok, I'll try another angle. Do you think this is the first time this has come up? Show me another municipality where this is currently successful. If you can't, why not? Toronto did it in 1935 to 1955ish. Amsterdam has millions of cyclists. Logical place to try it no?

Simple. The "net" costs far more than the fish you'd catch. Ignoring any infractions that "annoy" you, and ignore any infractions that are already laws for any vehicle traffic (red lights, stop signs, speed limits) what exactly are you left with? Vandalism? Is there really an epidemic of bikers smashing mirrors and windows, any more and vandals on foot or skateboard or inline skates?

Driving a 2000+ pound motor vehicle can cause a public danger. Riding a bicycle does not. That's why you require insurance in a car. Public liability and public disability.

Another view: If you gave the police an extra 20 million this year, would the public be better served by the police focusing on cyclists breaking the law on the road (who are only risking themselves), or looking at cars breaking the law (impaired, distracted, careless/wreckless, etc) who are killing innocent people?

[tobslau]

Both parties - drivers and cyclists are affected if rules aren't followed

There are times where i'm driving downtown and a cyclist runs a red light or cuts in a late - it sucks but not all cyclists do it.

There are plenty of drivers too who make it difficult for cyclists

Though the sad reality is that if you share the road, ideally all vehicles would follow a standard - not saying bikes should be registered and insured due to the cost differential, just some sort of way to make cyclist accountable, other than the honor system (million dollar answer!)

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Khyron

Driving a 2000+ pound motor vehicle can cause a public danger. Riding a bicycle does not.

Simply NOT true, there is no discussion to be had, you are wrong.


Originally posted by Khyron
would the public be better served by the police focusing on cyclists breaking the law on the road (who are only risking themselves)

Again you've done yourself a disservice buy making a completely untrue and ridiculous statement. The more ludicrous statements you make the harder it is to take anything you say seriously.

You keep trying to push this angle that cyclists can't possibly have a negative or dangerous impact on other people sharing the road whether motorists or pedestrians, yet this thread alone has given you multiple accounts of just such experiences.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Khyron
Ok, I'll try another angle. Do you think this is the first time this has come up? Show me another municipality where this is currently successful.

All of Japan, although it used more for theft prevention, bike registration is still necessary there.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Khyron
Driving a 2000+ pound motor vehicle can cause a public danger. Riding a bicycle does not. That's why you require insurance in a car. Public liability and public disability.

[/B]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2009/06/08/calgary-bike-crash-zoo-path.html

I couldn't find the link for the old lady being hit a few years back, or the dog that got hurt. Just about everyone has a story or two about a cyclist incident.

I also found this little gem...
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/cycling/Cycling-Strategy/2011-cycling-strategy.pdf?noredirect=1


:nut:

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Maxt


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2009/06/08/calgary-bike-crash-zoo-path.html

I couldn't find the link for the old lady being hit a few years back, or the dog that got hurt. Just about everyone has a story or two about a cyclist incident.

I also found this little gem...
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/cycling/Cycling-Strategy/2011-cycling-strategy.pdf?noredirect=1


:nut:

Local one a couple weeks ago:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/92756/Flipped-off-cyclist-allegedly-causes-crash

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Khyron
Driving a 2000+ pound motor vehicle can cause a public danger. Riding a bicycle does not. That's why you require insurance in a car. Public liability and public disability.
? [/B]

You could not be more wrong. Buddy of mine was hit by a cyclist while he was walking a few years ago. Concussion. Said it was worse than the whiplash he got from a car accident. Cyclist just yelled at him to watch out and took off. This happened in a crosswalk when the cyclist miraculously changed from a vehicle to a wheeled pedestrian and used the crosswalk instead of having to wait at a red light to turn left.

[rx7_turbo2]

The attitude held by some cyclists, and Khyron apparently, is laughable at best.

The reality is cyclists are capable of both personal injury even death, and property damage while operating their vehicles on public roads. No "if's" "and's" or "but's". There is NO debate, there is no discussion, it is reality. Khyron may claim otherwise but that would make him wrong as fuck, as has been clearly illustrated in this thread so far.

So that being the case it is entirely reasonable that if a cyclist want's to ride their bike on public roads, including the plethora of new bike lanes they should at the very least be required:

1) To register the bicycle and be issued a license plate, that must be renewed annually.

2) Insure the vehicle, and be able to provide proof of valid insurance.

3) Successfully complete a very basic test consisting of street signs, and general rules of the road that they will be subject to. This doesn't have to be crazy, think of it like the boat operators license type thing.

I think those small steps would go a very long way to easing tensions between motorists and cyclists. It's reasonable, it's fair, it just makes sense.

[ffmf]

Next up, pedestrians with license plates on their back because they too can cause accidents, injuries, and even deaths. (Yes I know, different scale, but the scale between bikes and people is similar to the scale between bikes and cars). If public reporting were implemented this may even increase driver/cyclist tension as there seems to be many irrational anti-bike drivers who would report law abiding cyclists due to personal vendettas (see comments on twitter and forums threatening and hoping for injured or even dead cyclists).

Again, no evidence whatsoever that licensing and registration will solve these issues. Yes, registration does exist in some cities but mainly only relating to theft.

For 3), Agreed, that education and awareness needs to be amped up big time. Especially when more bike lanes will be phased in resulting in increased cyclists. The urban cycling course by Bike Calgary would be a good start. I would even possibly support an enforcement blitz to try and tone down the crazy cyclists and maybe they would learn something hoping that it's ignorance and not self entitlement causing them to ride the way they do (doubt it). Instead, the beginning of the season enforcement relates more to handing out speeding tickets on the pathways for a quick cash grab.

I'm dubious of the costs as well. The time and costs of setting up policy, a registration system, and enforcement would not likely be captured by the registration costs. Plus how would you force registration? Imagine the outrage by people who are not only pissed that a miniscule portion of their taxes are going to bike infrastructure but also a bike registration system that may or may not work.

I agree that cyclists not following the rules of the road are causing issues, but before implementing such a far reaching and costly policy, prove to me that it will work or has worked elsewhere. Hate to reiterate what others and myself have stated, but there are many cities with the same (or worse) traffic and cyclist issues that Calgary has where this idea has been rejected.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by ffmf
Next up, pedestrians with license plates on their back because they too can cause accidents, injuries, and even deaths. (Yes I know, different scale, but the scale between bikes and people is similar to the scale between bikes and cars). If public reporting were implemented this may even increase driver/cyclist tension as there seems to be many irrational anti-bike drivers who would report law abiding cyclists due to personal vendettas (see comments on twitter and forums threatening and hoping for injured or even dead cyclists).

Again, no evidence whatsoever that licensing and registration will solve these issues. Yes, registration does exist in some cities but mainly only relating to theft.

For 3), Agreed, that education and awareness needs to be amped up big time. Especially when more bike lanes will be phased in resulting in increased cyclists. The urban cycling course by Bike Calgary would be a good start. I would even possibly support an enforcement blitz to try and tone down the crazy cyclists and maybe they would learn something hoping that it's ignorance and not self entitlement causing them to ride the way they do (doubt it). Instead, the beginning of the season enforcement relates more to handing out speeding tickets on the pathways for a quick cash grab.

I'm dubious of the costs as well. The time and costs of setting up policy, a registration system, and enforcement would not likely be captured by the registration costs. Plus how would you force registration? Imagine the outrage by people who are not only pissed that a miniscule portion of their taxes are going to bike infrastructure but also a bike registration system that may or may not work.

I agree that cyclists not following the rules of the road are causing issues, but before implementing such a far reaching and costly policy, prove to me that it will work or has worked elsewhere. Hate to reiterate what others and myself have stated, but there are many cities with the same (or worse) traffic and cyclist issues that Calgary has where this idea has been rejected.

:banghead:

Why can't we be the first, the innovator? Isn't Nenshi always waxing poetic about bullshit like that?

[Maxt]

Originally posted by ffmf
[B
For 3), Agreed, that education and awareness needs to be amped up big time. Especially when more bike lanes will be phased in resulting in increased cyclists. [/B]
So far, bike lanes have failed to increase numbers of cyclists, the whole notion of build it and they will come is nothing more than a pipe dream .
Look at the planning link I posted above, they had use pictures of people from other cities for the document.
The picture of the cyclists in snow, is from Japan for christ sakes, probably from a news clip of a freak snowstorm, and in Japan, a bicycle is used to get from home to the traincstation maybe 6-10 blocks, not for the kind of commuting the City of Calgary wants people to do.
When they did the propaganda video for 10 st, they couldnt even get cyclists on video using it unsolicited, they had to put out a freaking casting call to get people on bikes to use it.
What kills me is the statistics and questionnaire results the city is using to justify what they are doing to roadways like 10th st, 11 st se, 7 st.. Yes there are people that uncomfortable riding with traffic, but what do you think the results would be if they had asked the specific question like" Do you agree with fucking up the road network and creating traffic congestion for automobiles in order to accommodate less than 2% of the commuting public that might use a bike"?

[finboy]

Originally posted by ffmf
Next up, pedestrians with license plates on their back because they too can cause accidents, injuries, and even deaths. (Yes I know, different scale, but the scale between bikes and people is similar to the scale between bikes and cars). If public reporting were implemented this may even increase driver/cyclist tension as there seems to be many irrational anti-bike drivers who would report law abiding cyclists due to personal vendettas (see comments on twitter and forums threatening and hoping for injured or even dead cyclists).

Again, no evidence whatsoever that licensing and registration will solve these issues. Yes, registration does exist in some cities but mainly only relating to theft.

Padestrians aren't sharing the road, moot point. If bike riders are fine on bike paths and even residential roads I have no issues with them not needing plates, when they star operating on roads where cars, trucks, bikes, scooters, etc. operate and require registration/insurance, they should have skin in the game as well.


For 3), Agreed, that education and awareness needs to be amped up big time. Especially when more bike lanes will be phased in resulting in increased cyclists. The urban cycling course by Bike Calgary would be a good start. I would even possibly support an enforcement blitz to try and tone down the crazy cyclists and maybe they would learn something hoping that it's ignorance and not self entitlement causing them to ride the way they do (doubt it). Instead, the beginning of the season enforcement relates more to handing out speeding tickets on the pathways for a quick cash grab.

I'm dubious of the costs as well. The time and costs of setting up policy, a registration system, and enforcement would not likely be captured by the registration costs. Plus how would you force registration? Imagine the outrage by people who are not only pissed that a miniscule portion of their taxes are going to bike infrastructure but also a bike registration system that may or may not work.

I agree that cyclists not following the rules of the road are causing issues, but before implementing such a far reaching and costly policy, prove to me that it will work or has worked elsewhere. Hate to reiterate what others and myself have stated, but there are many cities with the same (or worse) traffic and cyclist issues that Calgary has where this idea has been rejected.

As I posted earlier, they are trying to work on something in Japan, governments don't want to seem anti-bike or potential money wasters, so they won't make an unpopular move. The fact remains that just like drivers, education won't solve everything as there are a small group of assholes who think the rules shouldn't apply to them. They are the ones causing a lot of the frustration for everyone, and while education is a big part of the trouble (and enforcement), accountability will keep assholes in line or remove them from the equation all together.

We have registries, and currently require registration for almost all road going vehicles, I don't find the process hard for any of my vehicles, and would have no issue with registering both my bikes were it required.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by ffmf

Again, no evidence whatsoever that licensing and registration will solve these issues. Yes, registration does exist in some cities but mainly only relating to theft.

Maybe because cyclists have such loud mouths the government does not want to touch it. Criticizing cyclists = pro car = pro big oil and that's just unpopular now, despite the jobs and money it brings in.

I don't know if licensing will fix accidents or bad cyclists but it will allow for two things:

a) bikers pay for the bike lanes. Revenue goes towards maintaining them. If there is not enough revenue from it then the lanes don't pay for themselves. Get rid of them.

b) if some dumbass biker pulls an illegal move and gets turned into tomato paste by my car then I know my damages are covered because their insurance company can find them at fault and fix my damages. :devil:

[Maxt]

I think the City is so desperate to get any kind of number increase to justify this social engineering crusade, they wouldn't do anything that would jeopardize increased cycling numbers, no matter how much sense it made.

[dubhead]

It's pretty typical of a special interest group saying "hey we want to be included" so we say "ok we have no problem with that as long as you follow the same rules as everyone else" to which they say " no way that's discrimination" Fair is fair if cyclists want to be treated as equals on the road then they should be open to to sharing the same requirements as everyone else who uses the road as in licencing, registration and insurance.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Maxt
I think the City is so desperate to get any kind of number increase to justify this social engineering crusade, they wouldn't do anything that would jeopardize increased cycling numbers, no matter how much sense it made.

Ultimately this is probably the reason you don't see this type of thing mandated in many municipalitys. Nobody wants to be seen as "anti green". Now if you have even half a brain you know mandating registration/insurance/licensing has nothing to do with being or not being "green" but half a brain might be more than the vast majority of people are dealing with so........

[Khyron]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
The attitude held by some cyclists, and Khyron apparently, is laughable at best.

The reality is cyclists are capable of both personal injury even death, and property damage while operating their vehicles on public roads. No "if's" "and's" or "but's". There is NO debate, there is no discussion, it is reality. Khyron may claim otherwise but that would make him wrong as fuck, as has been clearly illustrated in this thread so far.


You can say my opinion is wrong, or laughable, but it happens to be shared by the police and most civic governments that have studied the issue.

An Ingram M11 can cause a public danger. A cheese grater does not - even if you find one or two cases where someone killed someone else with a cheese grater. In the US, auto fatalities per year range from 25-45 thousand, injuries in the hundreds of thousands. Cyclists injure 1000 people a year with the odd death. It's a totally difference scale, regardless of anecdotal evidence you bring up.

We can't even get gun registration to work.

PS - I hate most dedicated bike lanes - especially in Calgary. Not a total bike nazi.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Khyron
An Ingram M11 can cause a public danger. A cheese grater does not - even if you find one or two cases where someone killed someone else with a cheese grater.

Great analogy :rofl: :banghead:

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Khyron


You can say my opinion is wrong, or laughable, but it happens to be shared by the police and most civic governments that have studied the issue.


Yes I can say, and I did say, and as mentioned the fact "police and most civic governments that have studied the issue" oppose it has far less to do with it not being effective and more to do with them not wanting to be seen as opposing alternate forms of transportation.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Great analogy :rofl: :banghead:

About as good as comparing your chances of being killed by a car to your chances of being killed by a bicycle. Bathtubs are far more lethal. You should register them!

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Khyron


About as good as comparing your chances of being killed by a car to your chances of being killed by a bicycle. Bathtubs are far more lethal. You should register them!

It isnt just about being killed. A friend of mine hit an idiot once and short of suing him how do you get the damage fixed? He had to pay for a new windshield out of his own pocket, I bet if he knew that before hand he might have been a little lighter on the brakes...

[Khyron]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


It isnt just about being killed. A friend of mine hit an idiot once and short of suing him how do you get the damage fixed? He had to pay for a new windshield out of his own pocket, I bet if he knew that before hand he might have been a little lighter on the brakes...

I was driving and stopped on 17th ave. These drunk guys were walking by and banged on my hood and dented it, and ran away. How do I get my damage fixed?

I was driving on Highway 8 and hit a deer. My front grill was broken. How do I get my damage fixed?

I was driving downtown and these zombie runners swarmed my car and damaged it - they ran away. How do I get my damage fixed? (True thread here somewhere)

I was in a parking lot and some woman backed into me with her black dodge pickup. She drove off without stopping. I took down the plate but it was fake/stolen.
How do I get my damage fixed? (Another true thread)

I DID hit 2 pedestrians who were jaywalking. My front bumper/headlight and side mirror were smashed. How do I get my damage fixed? (Again, true)

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Khyron


About as good as comparing your chances of being killed by a car to your chances of being killed by a bicycle. Bathtubs are far more lethal. You should register them!

Do people use bath tubs to commute on public roads? How about the Ingram, do people commute with those on a regular basis? Your other was what? Oh ya a cheese grater, haven't seen a whole lot of people riding those to work either.

Until they do your analogies are just poorly thought out extremes. You can keep coming up with them, but it won't bring your argument any more credibility.

On one side you have a group of us arguing completely logical, reasonable, and fair changes to the current system, in an effort to solve what is a growing concern.

On the other is you, relating bicycles to extreme items that have nothing to do with the conversation like cheese graters and tubs.

Well done Sir, well done!:clap:

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Khyron
I was in a parking lot and some woman backed into me with her black dodge pickup. She drove off without stopping. I took down the plate but it was fake/stolen.
How do I get my damage fixed? (Another true thread)


So your argument is we shouldn't require registration and a plate on motorized vehicles either, because some people will use a fake/stolen plate?

Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore?

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Khyron


I was driving and stopped on 17th ave. These drunk guys were walking by and banged on my hood and dented it, and ran away. How do I get my damage fixed?

I was driving on Highway 8 and hit a deer. My front grill was broken. How do I get my damage fixed?

I was driving downtown and these zombie runners swarmed my car and damaged it - they ran away. How do I get my damage fixed? (True thread here somewhere)

I was in a parking lot and some woman backed into me with her black dodge pickup. She drove off without stopping. I took down the plate but it was fake/stolen.
How do I get my damage fixed? (Another true thread)

I DID hit 2 pedestrians who were jaywalking. My front bumper/headlight and side mirror were smashed. How do I get my damage fixed? (Again, true)


So we agree on this. People should be held responsible for their actions! Even more so when operating a dangerous vehicle like a bicycle. I'm glad I could help you realize this.

Obviously you are just kidding around about the deer....right?

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by GTS4tw



So we agree on this. People should be held responsible for their actions! Even more so when operating a dangerous vehicle like a bicycle. I'm glad I could help you realize this.

Obviously you are just kidding around about the deer....right?

After that last post I just threw him up on my ignore list. Seriously, anybody that would post such nonsense isn't worth the effort.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


After that last post I just threw him up on my ignore list. Seriously, anybody that would post such nonsense isn't worth the effort.

He is certainly confused about what it means to live in a big group of people anyways. He must have a lot of problems in life, like having people come up and dent his car randomly, having pedestrians run in front of him, zombies bouncing off his car, people hitting him in parking lots and running. Sounds like he drives like he bikes, in peoples way.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


So your argument is we shouldn't require registration and a plate on motorized vehicles either, because some people will use a fake/stolen plate?

Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore?

The term "comprehensive" insurance means a broad spectrum of things that can happen. Narrowly focusing an enormous amount of time, effort and money on something that is an insignificant fraction of the total damage payout is asinine and has nothing to do with logic. It's emotional rage because it looks like someone is getting away with something that you are not - similar to line cutting (huge rage for something with minimal impact).

If you don't understand the damage potential difference between a car and a bicycle, I don't know how else to explain it. You say a machine gun vs grater is absurd - that is exactly the point - that's how different a car is to a bicycle.

My "answer" is simply spend the money to have more cops out on the roads looking for ALL infractions rather than just fishing at simple speed traps to get their quota. Get those idiots swerving all over the road texting while driving. Catch that biker who is riding in the crosswalk then jumping into the roadway. Encourage more cycling training classes so people are more confident in the road and know how to behave. Ie, pretty much what all the studies on the subject have already concluded (contrary to your theory that it's some sort of conspiracy by the all-powerful hippy/cycling lobby to suppress anything anti-bike)

Off now for an 80km bike - and most will be off the roads because I value my skin. A registration plate wouldn't change that.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


So your argument is we shouldn't require registration and a plate on motorized vehicles either, because some people will use a fake/stolen plate?

Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore?
His point is that you don't just arbitrarily legislate anything that could potentially cause injury or death. His point can't be any more clear. He gave the ratio of car to bicycle injuries and deaths to illustrate his point that the number of bike related incidents is negligible to the point that it would not justify the effort of changing legislation.

[rx7_turbo2]

This thread is gonna get hard to read seeing how Isaiah was already on the old ignore list, and Khyron just joined him.

Khyron you should feel proud, joining the ranks of Toma, codetrap, and modelexis on my list.

[Isaiah]

rx7_turbo2 why are you so angry? You are a very aggressive internet user.

We need internet registration and insurance for people like you with no regard for the rules of etiquette. You could hurt somebody.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


After that last post I just threw him up on my ignore list. Seriously, anybody that would post such nonsense isn't worth the effort.

I don't have anyone on my ignore list, but after reading his post(s) in the vaccine thread, I think Khyron will be the first contender.

That guy is just blatantly stupid.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I don't have anyone on my ignore list, but after reading his post(s) in the vaccine thread, I think Khyron will be the first contender.

That guy is just blatantly stupid.

Don't hesitate! I've been here a long long time. My beyond experience has improved 10 fold with the simple action of adding a half dozen of the more blatant idiots to my list.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
This thread is gonna get hard to read seeing how Isaiah was already on the old ignore list, and Khyron just joined him.

Khyron you should feel proud, joining the ranks of Toma, codetrap, and modelexis on my list.

I actually like reading all opinions - having a board of people that are all clones of me would be rather boring. Of course if anyone re-reads the thread they'll at least see I wasn't the one resorting to "stupid"/"idiot" posts. Good luck debating in the real world! No ignore button there.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
This thread is gonna get hard to read seeing how Isaiah was already on the old ignore list, and Khyron just joined him. Khyron you should feel proud, joining the ranks of Toma, codetrap, and modelexis on my list.
Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Don't hesitate! I've been here a long long time. My beyond experience has improved 10 fold with the simple action of adding a half dozen of the more blatant idiots to my list.
Originally posted by Khyron
I actually like reading all opinions - having a board of people that are all clones of me would be rather boring. Of course if anyone re-reads the thread they'll at least see I wasn't the one resorting to "stupid"/"idiot" posts. Good luck debating in the real world! No ignore button there.
Wow.. I think rx7_turbo2 might have just hurt my one feeling. I'll pull it out in a bit and check it over.

It must suck to be unable to handle dissenting opinions.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Isaiah

His point is that you don't just arbitrarily legislate anything that could potentially cause injury or death. His point can't be any more clear. He gave the ratio of car to bicycle injuries and deaths to illustrate his point that the number of bike related incidents is negligible to the point that it would not justify the effort of changing legislation.
How many people bother reporting the incidents when there is no tool to find the offender? No method, why bother?

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Maxt

How many people bother reporting the incidents when there is no tool to find the offender? No method, why bother?

Exactly, it is a tough statistic to believe considering how often minor incidents go unreported. Anyways, it isnt just about registering to find someone in the case of an incident, it also relates to paying for bike lanes. If the bikers payed a registration fee then the money could be used for better signage, and more dedicated bike lanes, instead of converting road lanes and making a dangerous situation for everyone. However people do not understand paying their own way, therefore drivers will continue to subsidize bikers while the bikers continue to complain that they are not treated fairly.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
How it would work? It doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not saying everyone including children riding bikes in their neighborhood should require registration. You simply mandate registration for a select number of roadways/pathways/corridors. Bikes will need to display a "plate" proving valid registration, and will need to pay a fee yearly to renew that registration. Bike advocates make it sound like it's some colossal impossible daunting task to do this. It's not rocket science.


Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
So that being the case it is entirely reasonable that if a cyclist want's to ride their bike on public roads, including the plethora of new bike lanes they should at the very least be required:

1) To register the bicycle and be issued a license plate, that must be renewed annually.

2) Insure the vehicle, and be able to provide proof of valid insurance.

3) Successfully complete a very basic test consisting of street signs, and general rules of the road that they will be subject to. This doesn't have to be crazy, think of it like the boat operators license type thing.

I think those small steps would go a very long way to easing tensions between motorists and cyclists. It's reasonable, it's fair, it just makes sense.

This whole concept of bike registration/insurance is laughable. It would be absolutely impossible to enforce as there would be FAR too many exceptions and administration to set up. First, you'd have to have some sort of way to distinguish all the zones. "You are entering an insurance/registration required zone." signs posted all over the place. Then the exception list would be a mile long. Does my 5 year old daughter requre a license/registration/insurance to ride her bike with me from the Zoo to Prince's Island park? That's part of the commuter zone. Will she have to write a test? Might be tough, she can't read very well yet. Would it only apply during commuting hours? If we ride on public roads to get to the Timmy's vs staying on the path? If she doesn't have it, are you going to haul a 5 year old up in front of a judge to pay a fine? Or am I responsible for her and have to pay even though she's out riding with my neighbor?

How many cyclist cops would be required to police these zones? Hundreds? What do you do with the teenagers who are riding and can't afford to pay? Incarcerate them? Transfer responsibility to their parents? How are you going to track the sales of bicycles? If I have 5 bikes at home, do I have to generate a VIN for each of them and register each one? Does it become the responsibility of the bicycle manufacturer, or someone like Walmart. "I'm sorry sir, you can't take that $25 bicycle home without a plate and proof of insurance."

Sorry rx7_turbo, your idea seems fine on the surface, but when you actually start to think about it you'll hopefully realize that implementing it would be well nigh impossible.

Here's some interesting information on collisions.. consider the source of course.. it's just info, not trying to make a point with it.
http://bikecalgary.org/collision-stats

[ffmf]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


This, Exactly, it is a tough statistic to believe considering how often minor incidents go unreported. Anyways, it isnt just about registering to find someone in the case of an incident, it also relates to paying for bike lanes. If the bikers payed a registration fee then the money could be used for better signage, and more dedicated bike lanes, instead of converting road lanes and making a dangerous situation for everyone. However people do not understand paying their own way, therefore drivers will continue to subsidize bikers while the bikers continue to complain that they are not treated fairly.

Again, you make it seem like bikers don't drive. Many bikers pay the same fees as drivers. Also as stated before, property taxes contribute the most to infrastructure costs. So again, many bikers pay for road infrastructure. Lastly, the cost of bicycle infrastructure is miniscule to the money spent on roads as a whole. And I would argue that it makes it safer for both drivers and bikers through separation (specifically cycle tracks). Of course at the cost of less road for drivers.

Actually one more thing, registration wouldn't cover the cost of infrastructure, it would cover the cost of setting up and maintaining the registration system.

[Maxt]

Just make bike helmets mandatory for everyone, and have everyone buy a bike helmet that has a licence number on it.. Easy.


Originally posted by codetrap




This whole concept of bike registration/insurance is laughable. It would be absolutely impossible to enforce as there would be FAR too many exceptions and administration to set up. First, you'd have to have some sort of way to distinguish all the zones. "You are entering an insurance/registration required zone." signs posted all over the place. Then the exception list would be a mile long. Does my 5 year old daughter requre a license/registration/insurance to ride her bike with me from the Zoo to Prince's Island park? That's part of the commuter zone. Will she have to write a test? Might be tough, she can't read very well yet. Would it only apply during commuting hours? If we ride on public roads to get to the Timmy's vs staying on the path? If she doesn't have it, are you going to haul a 5 year old up in front of a judge to pay a fine? Or am I responsible for her and have to pay even though she's out riding with my neighbor?

How many cyclist cops would be required to police these zones? Hundreds? What do you do with the teenagers who are riding and can't afford to pay? Incarcerate them? Transfer responsibility to their parents? How are you going to track the sales of bicycles? If I have 5 bikes at home, do I have to generate a VIN for each of them and register each one? Does it become the responsibility of the bicycle manufacturer, or someone like Walmart. "I'm sorry sir, you can't take that $25 bicycle home without a plate and proof of insurance."

Sorry rx7_turbo, your idea seems fine on the surface, but when you actually start to think about it you'll hopefully realize that implementing it would be well nigh impossible.

Here's some interesting information on collisions.. consider the source of course.. it's just info, not trying to make a point with it.
http://bikecalgary.org/collision-stats

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Maxt
Just make bike helmets mandatory for everyone, and have everyone buy a bike helmet that has a licence number on it.. Easy. How does that solve the infrastructure & enforcement issues?

I guess I should ask, since I'm a little fuzzy from the painkillers. But what is this all trying to accomplish? To provide accountability for a miniscule segment of the cyclist population? Seems like overkill to me. Establish a huge and expensive registration/insurance/enforcement regime for literally hundreds of thousands of cyclists in the province (it would have to be done provincially at a minimum), in order to police a hundred (tops) inconsiderate cyclists in the downtown core. Seems to me a far more effective and targeted approach would be to just put a few more cops on bikes to enforce the existing rules.

Also, does anyone have any commentary on if the existing registration process for automobiles is actually self sustaining and doesn't require large infusions of tax dollars from general revenue?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I've said it before, cycling is a very grey area right now and it needs better definition.

Agreed. Seems so logical.

Codetrap must have missed my post where I mentioned he was an illustrious member of my ignore list. Wouldn't have seen his post if Maxt didn't quote it ;)

Max, save your breathe, you won't get anywhere with him.

[speedog]

Interesting posts indeed. Used to cycle commute a number of years ago and generally I took paths or sidewalks designated as paths or roadways designated as bicycle routes - riding on McKnight or 32nd Ave NE or Centre Street just didn't have much appeal to me even tough I legally could ride on them because I placed more value on my own well being than the right I had to occupy a lane on those roads.

That said, did I roll through stop signs as a cyclist (whether straight through or making a turn) - sure I did but (and this is a big but), I roll through stop signs as a regular car/truck driver as well. There are hardly any of us that always comes to a complete stop at a stop sign and especially so on a right hand turn and better yet, virtually none of us follows the rules when it comes to stopping where we actually should be at a stop sign. And as a cyclist, how many of you actually obey the path speed limit going down into the valley from Crescent Road above the curling club?

Did I split lanes or roll to the front at a red light as a commuting cyclist - sometimes yes, sometimes no. As a commuting cyclist you quickly learned where you could get away with this and where you couldn't and most motorists didn't really care - I know that myself, as a motorist, have no issues with this when it's in an area where it's never going to inconvenience me in any way as being an auto/truck driver, I'm going to be stuck there in traffic regardless of whether a few cyclists gain an advantage on me.

Licencing cyclists - just more red tape that's not going to fix anything and if anything, it's just another way to tax my family. Police just enforcing our current laws is the solution 0 bike lanes like 10th Street/Northmount - here to stay and as a regular auto/truck driver, we'd best be all learning to respect the laws that govern these lanes - don't like, then lobby your elected official.

[m10-power]

If you ride on a public road you should have to be registered and insured like everyone else. I have seen many cyclist hit cars then quickly ride away in the downtown area. Hard to be a witness with no plate to document.

Cyclist by far are the most lawless group of people using the roads, there needs to be much more enforcement on that group by the police. Starts with license plates to remove the anonymity.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I personally do leisure riding, and I stick to sidewalks and pathways... every so often I get some idiot yelling at me from a car to "get off the sidewalk"... I mean fuck off, really. I don't have a 10lb road bike, an aerodynamic spandex outfit, or a pair of mirrored Lance Armstrong sunglasses. So I am not about to go out onto the road and risk my life while holding up traffic.


Funny - that is one of the more serious/enforcable bike offences with no grey area. You are over 14, you do not ride on sidewalks, period. Beach cruiser, BMX or otherwise. But you choose to say "fuck off" and ignore the law because it's not convenient? Welcome to the lawless cyclist club! We have T-shirts!

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FixedGear]

bikes on sidewalks is way more dangerous for everyone. not only can bikers hit pedestrians (didn't some elderly woman in Calgary die from this several years back?), but there is better chance for car-bike collisions as auto drivers aren't looking for bikes to come whizzing across intersections on sidewalks.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by m10-power
I have seen many cyclist hit cars then quickly ride away in the downtown area.

According to Khyron what you saw is no big deal and doesn't matter, certainly what you saw isn't a big enough issue that something should be done about it. Property damage from bicycles is on par with that of tanks and death by cheese graters :rofl:

I went back and read some of his statements, what a tool.

It's funny every post by someone I consider a reasonable and intelligent person has stated the same thing. It's gotten to the point that it's time for bicycles used on city thoroughfares to be required to have registration and insurance. Then when I see the username of somebody who I've read nonsense from in unrelated threads, someone I consider to be a complete and utter waste of time, their posts in this thread don't disappoint, and my generalization of their character is reaffirmed.