1m buffer around bicycles on roadways

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How about we just allow them on sidewalks instead?

Well to Lime Bike users, it's already legal.......

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would absolutely welcome a 1m buffer for passing, especially when I'm commuting with my 3 year old in the Chariot behind me. Realistically though, I don't expect it to be practical to enforce and therefore it wouldn't change drivers' behavior at all... Just a pat on the back for city council for making the city safer for alternative commuting.

You... bike on the road with a child behind you?

Wow.

[NissanFanBoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You... bike on the road with a child behind you?

Wow.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You... bike on the road with a child behind you?

Wow.

Kind of my thoughts as well. Alternative commuting is great, but actual rush hour commuting on roads with a kid in the bike trailer... that seems nuts to me. The rewards definitely do not outweigh the risks IMO.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kind of my thoughts as well. Alternative commuting is great, but actual rush hour commuting on roads with a kid in the bike trailer... that seems nuts to me. The rewards definitely do not outweigh the risks IMO.

Yea, I'm not saying not to do it, but with how AWFUL people are at driving, especially if on any sort of main road (even a major artery through a suburbs), the risk is just so high for the reward of what? Going for a bike ride with your kid in the back who would be entertained by a cardboard box in the backyard? And on top of all of this, going slower than bikers already do because of the extra weight?

I know a lot of people who bike. All of them have either nearly been or have been in major incidents with cars, all on roads with speed limits below 60.

Put me in the "don't get it" column. Guy probably gets his flu shot though

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You... bike on the road with a child behind you?

Wow.

Almost as bad as raising your kid Vegan.

[CLiVE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would absolutely welcome a 1m buffer for passing, especially when I'm commuting with my 3 year old in the Chariot behind me. Realistically though, I don't expect it to be practical to enforce and therefore it wouldn't change drivers' behavior at all... Just a pat on the back for city council for making the city safer for alternative commuting.

It would be nice as mentioned just to raise awareness of the issue, but again I don't think it will change much behavior or be enforced.
For my commute downtown from the NW I avoid major roads and stick to 90% pathways and bike lanes for my 22km commute downtown.

However, Most of the near misses I've had are with passing vehicles are on the highway. (Most have been trucks with trailers, that possibly don't realize/forget the trailer is wider than the truck)

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kind of my thoughts as well. Alternative commuting is great, but actual rush hour commuting on roads with a kid in the bike trailer... that seems nuts to me. The rewards definitely do not outweigh the risks IMO.

All I can picture is the tragedy of someone’s foot slips off the brake at a stoplight with you in front of them... and there isn’t a damn thing you could do about it.

Same logic as a motorcycle, what would be a fender bender turns into a proper disaster.

And people get in fender benders all the time.

That said, I am pro 1M if it means that filtering is more formally banned and enforced. Amazing how close morons take it and I know I am going to get a nice 2 foot long handlebar scratch across the side of my car one of these days.

That was just one bullet point of the law though, there’s a lot of other garbage that points me in the direction of no for this.

Allow cyclists to yield instead of coming to a full stop when entering/exiting a roadway or sidewalk from/to a pathway. Currently cyclists must come to a complete stop prior to entering/exiting from/to a pathway, unless the intersection is marked with a yield sign.

What is the motivation behind this garbage?

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is the motivation behind this garbage?

It's really stupid for me to have to do a full stop coming off a pathway, to cross a road, to get back on the pathway, when it is fully apparent that no one is coming or am not at risk. I am pretty sure they are just making this 'legal', cause no one does this anyway.

Technically, to the letter of the law, you have to do a full stop, and then cross. Full stop to get back onto the path.

Its funny all the drivers that bitch about the little things that cyclists do. For example, i typically am going to ride across at a crosswalk. it makes it faster for everyone as im out of the intersection in 1/10th the time it would take to walk, yet still you get some people in cars bitching for the sake of bitching...

[lilmira]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is the motivation behind this garbage?

aka Idaho stop, rolling stop...… It doesn't mean you can go when it's unsafe or when you don't have the right of way. When you are rolling slow on a bicycle you have a lot of time to figure out if it's safe to proceed or not. Obviously when there is a lot of traffic you probably end up stopping or you have some mad track stand skill. It just makes it easier if you can go when it's good.

[dirtsniffer]

cars should be able to do rolling stops tooooooo.

also i dont care if you get off your bike before crossing the road, but you sure as shit need to stop and yield if I am coming. want me to stop? get off your bike ahaha.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

cars should be able to do rolling stops tooooooo.

also i dont care if you get off your bike before crossing the road, but you sure as shit need to stop and yield if I am coming. want me to stop? get off your bike ahaha.

If you have a stop sign, and i do, and im there first, why should i have to stop..? It's going to be faster for both you and I if an Idaho stop happens..

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you have a stop sign, and i do, and im there first, why should i have to stop..? It's going to be faster for both you and I if an Idaho stop happens..

Because if a car played by the same logic, he would probably run down the cyclist who would just run the stop sign by default

Cyclist logic: “if it’s more convenient for me, why should I have to obey the law”

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you have a stop sign, and i do, and im there first, why should i have to stop..? It's going to be faster for both you and I if an Idaho stop happens..

The same logic can go for cars at a 4-way intersection.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you have a stop sign, and i do, and im there first, why should i have to stop..? It's going to be faster for both you and I if an Idaho stop happens..

What about all the instances where it's faster to do the same in a vehicle? Like running a red light at 2AM instead of waiting for it, or treating every stop sign as a yield, or driving down the shoulder then forcing myself in front of a huge lineup of cars. All of those things would be faster for me.

This is exactly what I posted about earlier - the typical cyclist mentality is that they are vehicles when convenient and pedestrians when convenient - and who cares what the rules are or who else it inconveniences.

[ExtraSlow]

Honestly, we should just have roundabouts everywhere instead of stop signs, then nobody stops unless there is traffic they need to yield to. BAN STOP SIGNS!!

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is exactly what I posted about earlier - the typical cyclist mentality is that they are vehicles when convenient and pedestrians when convenient - and who cares what the rules are or who else it inconveniences.

An Idaho stop is more efficient, and safer for everyone.. How does this make it ANY less convenient for you, as it clears the intersection faster? I am not advocating blowing stop signs or cutting infront of traffic, but it is faster for everyone involved if the biker is there first, to allow them to use it as a yield instead of a stop.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Honestly, we should just have roundabouts everywhere instead of stop signs, then nobody stops unless there is traffic they need to yield to. BAN STOP SIGNS!!

Driving in Europe is so smooth because of this, in some cities you almost never stop.

[lilmira]

As much as I do rolling stop riding on the back roads around the outskirt of the city, I don't think it's good idea to put that in the bylaw. It's not suitable for urban area. Leave it as is, use your own discretion.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

An Idaho stop is more efficient, and safer for everyone.. How does this make it ANY less convenient for you, as it clears the intersection faster? I am not advocating blowing stop signs, but it is faster for everyone involved if the biker is there first, to allow them to use it as a yield instead of a stop.

I'm not arguing otherwise, I am arguing that it would be illegal do to many of those things in my vehicle, and when a cyclist is on the road they are a vehicle. Why is it OK for cyclists only to ignore the rules of the road and run stop signs at their discretion? It would be faster for me in my car to treat stop signs as a yield if I got there first too, but what is that ticket, $280?