2307 replies to this topic

[Coreyburger]

I don't think that is true.  The reason we're seeing more taller vehicles is due to pedestrian safety standards, not some yahoo soccer mom's appetite for inflicting carnage on pedestrians. 

 

What "pedestrian safety standards". There are none in the US (and thus Canada): http://www.iihs.org/...s/topicoverview

[shoeflack]

Anecdotally, my partner purchased her small SUV for the sole reason that it was higher off the ground than a sedan and therefore she felt safer on the road in it.

 

I think that is an extremely common train of thought in consumers.

[Coreyburger]

Anecdotally, my partner purchased her small SUV for the sole reason that it was higher off the ground than a sedan and therefore she felt safer on the road in it.

 

I think that is an extremely common train of thought in consumers.

 

The occupants of taller cars are generally safer. Those in smaller vehicles and those not in vehicles are not. This is where gov't regulation needs to come to play - consumer choices that endanger other people should not be allowed

[lanforod]

The occupants of taller cars are generally safer. Those in smaller vehicles and those not in vehicles are not. This is where gov't regulation needs to come to play - consumer choices that endanger other people should not be allowed

 

Careful. You wouldn't want government regulation telling you that you can't ride bikes on the road because you're putting yourself at risk, would you?

[Mike K.]

Anecdotally, my partner purchased her small SUV for the sole reason that it was higher off the ground than a sedan and therefore she felt safer on the road in it.

 

I think that is an extremely common train of thought in consumers.

 

She sits higher off the ground due to a different seating configuration. The ground clearance between a cross-over (aka SUV only by marketing, not by ability and technology or even ground clearance) and an average family sedan or wagon is minimal.

 

Consider that the ground clearance difference between a Ford Fusion and a Ford Escape (a small "suv") is 1.9 inches.

[sebberry]

I don't think so. Taller vehicles because of pedestrian safety? No way.  

It's purely market driven. People want small SUVs/CUVs and pickup trucks. Those are set higher off the ground than the couples and sedans that were far more popular in the 80's - 00's.

 

https://www.caranddr...-fatter-feature

 

People who buy taller cars because they want better visibility are doing so, in part, because even the compact cars are much larger than their ancestors from 20 years ago.

[Mattjvd]

Anecdotally, my partner purchased her small SUV for the sole reason that it was higher off the ground than a sedan and therefore she felt safer on the road in it.

I think that is an extremely common train of thought in consumers.

I HATE hitting the little concrete bars that divide parking stalls with the front bumper of of my car. Next vehicle will be an SUV so I have enough ground clearance for to avoid that.

[sebberry]

Careful. You wouldn't want government regulation telling you that you can't ride bikes on the road because you're putting yourself at risk, would you?

 

That same regulation might also get rid of transit busses.  If they weren't for the purpose of transporting bikes, the metal contraption mounted to the front bumper would be considered some type of medieval torture device.  The flat front of a bus also doesn't help with pedestrian impact safety.  The long wheelbase? Makes crushing people on curbs during turns easier too. 

[rjag]

Reasonable regulation and a little bit of personal responsibility is not a bad mix, but "consumer choices that endanger other people should not be allowed" could be applied to very many things we take for granted in our lives. 

 

Flying, trains, skateboards, dogs, cats, swimming pools, ponds, Kathleen Wynne, Jeremy Corbyn, stiletto heels....

 

How would you determine what was on the list? Committee by Diktat? 

 

Life is full of risk and personal responsibility seems to sort most of the obvious ones out, like not using a hair dryer in the bathtub...for all the less obvious, 'necessity is the mother of invention' ie airbags, bike helmets....of course we need regulation but not in a way that it smothers us....that's draconian

Edited by rjag, 19 January 2018 - 12:03 PM.

[lanforod]

Yeah. I'm all for reasonable safety regulation, but no amount of regulation is going to stop stupid idiots from eating tide pods.

[Bingo]

That same regulation might also get rid of transit busses.  If they weren't for the purpose of transporting bikes, the metal contraption mounted to the front bumper would be considered some type of medieval torture device.  The flat front of a bus also doesn't help with pedestrian impact safety.  The long wheelbase? Makes crushing people on curbs during turns easier too. 

 

[sebberry]

The occupants of taller cars are generally safer. Those in smaller vehicles and those not in vehicles are not. This is where gov't regulation needs to come to play - consumer choices that endanger other people should not be allowed

 

Obvious solution then is to ban all compact and midsized vehicles. 

[rmpeers]

Obvious solution then is to ban all compact and midsized vehicles.

Yeah but those are probably the only vehicles that can fit in the new Fort Street lanes!

[nagel]

Good one.

[mbjj]

I have to drive a small car as I have short legs. It was difficult to find one when I went to replace my last car. All that I tried, I could  not properly reach the pedals.

 

My husband takes note of cars much more than I do and his comment is, very few SUVs in France or Germany and the ones which exist there are much smaller. They all seem to manage. And you certainly wouldn't want one in the UK as the parking spots are quite small. We find it difficult to back out of our driveway with large vehicles parked on either sides. It's quite hazardous for us.

[Danma]

On a slightly different topic... IF you're going to put bike lanes on a road, does it not seem reasonable to actually extend the bike lakes to the end of the block?

The one bike lane I find annoying is the bike lane on Craigflower and Admirals on the westbound lane. When the turning lane appears, the bike lane just disappears and suddenly drivers will occupy all the space to the right side. It's frustrating as a cyclist when there's no signage or clarity as to the expected behaviour. In theory the right hand lane is for turning onto Admirals to cross the bridge, so should I be in that right lane at all? I'm mystified why they wouldn't bring the bike lane up to the intersection...

[Mike K.]

Different municipality at that point so that could be the likely reason?

[Star Dust]

I for one, am like many others in having the opinion that cyclists who ride on main roads need to have a riding license, and especially insurance.

 

Just like getting a driver's license for motorcycles or a car, a learner's test should be administered to prove that cyclists are familiar with all road signs, road markings, line paintings, as well as proven knowledge of how to ride safely on the road. Then a Road Test would be administered by a certified instructor and a person would be required to pass that test before being licensed.

 

Insurance is an absolute must to cover injuries caused by a cyclist or to a cyclist by motor vehicle or another bike. If you want to ride in traffic and want to ride in the streets, then you need to go through all the same training and licensing as anyone else on the road.

 

Back in the License Plates were issues to bikes in Greater Victoria. I will attach an image of some actual bicycle license plates that were used right here in Victoria several decades ago.

Attached Images

• 

Edited by Star Dust, 19 January 2018 - 05:45 PM.

[LJ]

What "pedestrian safety standards". There are none in the US (and thus Canada): http://www.iihs.org/...s/topicoverview

Really?

 

https://www.caranddr...-fatter-feature

[North Shore]

I for one, am like many others in having the opinion that cyclists who ride on main roads need to have a riding license, and especially insurance.

I already have a driver's licence for cars and motorcycles - now I have to get another one for a bicycle? How much do you figure this added layer of bureaucracy is going to cost?  What happens if I just stick to bike lanes and non-main roads - do I still need a licence then?

Insurance?! I'd be interested in seeing a study on the amount of damage and injury done by cyclists to cars, compared to the reverse. Where's the great number of accidents caused by rogue cyclists?? - 'cos the way you bike-haters go on, there's carnage out there on the roads every day, and it's all caused by cyclists.  Except that there isn't - most accidents are car-on-car and the vast majority of costs are a resut of that.  Notice the way that insurance costs have risen over the last several years - thank (y)our fellow drivers and their piss-poor driving habits for that - not cyclists.