11042 replies to this topic

[PraiseKek]

^ that's just not realistic as a cyclist though. It's fairly obvious you rarely cycle.

Do you really pass a car on the right if they're signaling to turn right? I mean that is a 100% guaranteed way to die just a matter of when. 

[lanforod]

Do you really cut cyclists off when turning right across their right of way? That's a 100% guaranteed way to kill someone.

Edited by lanforod, 18 July 2018 - 03:06 PM.

[PraiseKek]

No I don't but if you want to die go ahead and pass a vehicle on the right with their right signal on. That's just plain moronic. Almost as dumb as riding close to a car that has just parked. Yes yes you'll be in the right but you'll be dead so the point is moot.

[On the Level]

I didn't have to wait to turn, nothing was ahead of me and the light was green for me.

 

If the cyclists do indeed have the right-of-way, well I think that is a huge bunch of accidents waiting to happen. If I were a cyclist I would never pass on the right of the car as I feel there are just too many other things for the driver to be looking for.

 

 

That’s as silly as saying if you were in the right lane and there was a row of cars in the left lane you would stop and wait for them to all clear out before proceeding because one of them might come into your lane. As a cyclist you proceed but there is watchfulness of the guy who doesn’t look and tries to right hook. That’s how you stay alive on two wheels.

 

That isn't a very good analogy.  Car traffic within a left lane typically doesn't turn right cutting off traffic in the right lane.   

 

I have no problem riding past traffic on the right, but if traffic is slowing down at the intersection, it's often turning right.  Regardless of what is "legal", that's a situation you should avoid.  It is much the same as riding (or driving) along side of a vehicle while sitting in their blind spot.  It might be legal, but it's not a good idea.  People don't shoulder check so why would you put yourself in harms way?   

[spanky123]

Yes, a "boon" for anyone retiring that can't make their way down on a bike and need to park. A "boon" for a family anywhere beyond Fernwood. A "boon" wanting to bring their dog down. It's just going to be marvelous.....simply spectacular!!

Hmmm. The Mayor lives in Fernwood, doesn’t have a family or a dog!

[Cassidy]

Despite opinions on cars making right turns across bicycle lanes, when it comes to a "hard impact" with a car, it's always the bike rider who will wind up in the hospital or the cemetery.

 

Bikes aren't the "equal" of cars in any aspect of their use on public by-ways - and they never will be ... especially in terms of resiliancy.

 

I literally despise bicycles on public thoroughfares as a result of the death of a friend who would match only Coryburger in her advocacy for bicycles ... she died on a rainy Winter night after being run over on her bicycle by a car making a left hand turn across a bike lane in stopped traffic.

Victoria being such a small town, there may even be some here on the forum that knew her.

 

She would be aghast at my current hatred for bicycles (were she still alive to let me know).

 

As the years passed, and my hatred for bicycles waned, I walked by Government and Fisgard on my way to work the morning that poor lady met her end after being hit on her bicycle by a car making a right hand turn onto Fisgard. I happened by prior to the ambulance arriving.

 

My hatred for bicycles on public thoroughfares was made strong again.

Edited by Cassidy, 19 July 2018 - 05:43 AM.

[jonny]

What did you get?

 

Just a basic Giant flat bar hybrid. 

[jonny]

Cassidy must really hate when he sees people walking out in public. 

 

Luckily, road fatalities have been going down over the years. Interestingly, and despite perhaps popular opinion, there are more road fatalities in rural settings than urban. 

[Mike K.]

I'd wager the lack of lighting, soft shoulders, less congested roads leading to higher speeds, and the propensity for wildlife interactions add to the higher incident rates. That and access to emergency care takes much, much longer than for those in the city.

[jonny]

People are travelling much faster in rural settings than urban settings. That's the main factor. 

 

Anyway, my point is people die for a wide variety of reasons, but at least traffic fatality numbers are heading in the right direction. 

 

I know somebody who died hiking. I don't I hate hiking now as a result. 

[Coreyburger]

Despite opinions on cars making right turns across bicycle lanes, when it comes to a "hard impact" with a car, it's always the bike rider who will wind up in the hospital or the cemetery.

 

Bikes aren't the "equal" of cars in any aspect of their use on public by-ways - and they never will be ... especially in terms of resiliancy.

 

I literally despise bicycles on public thoroughfares as a result of the death of a friend who would match only Coryburger in her advocacy for bicycles ... she died on a rainy Winter night after being run over on her bicycle by a car making a left hand turn across a bike lane in stopped traffic.

Victoria being such a small town, there may even be some here on the forum that knew her.

 

She would be aghast at my current hatred for bicycles (were she still alive to let me know).

 

As the years passed, and my hatred for bicycles waned, I walked by Government and Fisgard on my way to work the morning that poor lady met her end after being hit on her bicycle by a car making a right hand turn onto Fisgard. I happened by prior to the ambulance arriving.

 

My hatred for bicycles on public thoroughfares was made strong again.

 

I'm very sorry your friend and for you having to witness the Eileen Evan's crash. As a former CRD employee, I spend most of that day wondering if a friend was the victim (both the CRD and the City of Victoria have their staff parking entrances on Fisgard).

 

However, I diverge on what the crash means. To me (and the GVCC), it means we need more protected bike lanes with signal-separation and better trucks with sideguards, better mirrors and collision avoidance. These are the things that will prevent these kinds of tragedies happening again.

[RFS]

I'm very sorry your friend and for you having to witness the Eileen Evan's crash. As a former CRD employee, I spend most of that day wondering if a friend was the victim (both the CRD and the City of Victoria have their staff parking entrances on Fisgard).

 

However, I diverge on what the crash means. To me (and the GVCC), it means we need more protected bike lanes with signal-separation and better trucks with sideguards, better mirrors and collision avoidance. These are the things that will prevent these kinds of tragedies happening again.

The fact is cycling is a relatively dangerous activity, and I agree we can do more to make it safe, but cyclists will still get killed (tragic).  But like most of life, cycling is a calculated acceptance of risk and danger. 

[Coreyburger]

The fact is cycling is a relatively dangerous activity, and I agree we can do more to make it safe, but cyclists will still get killed (tragic).  But like most of life, cycling is a calculated acceptance of risk and danger. 

 

No, cycling is not a very high risk activity. https://pdfs.semanti...0f66437876e.pdf

[RFS]

No, cycling is not a very high risk activity. https://pdfs.semanti...0f66437876e.pdf

According to that data it has the second highest fatalities per 100 million KM (Second to pedestrians) and the highest injuries per 100 million KM

Attached Images

• 

[Greg]

There's some pretty sloppy semantics going on here. Being a pedestrian or a cyclist is only a high-risk activity because of pedestrians and cyclists being killed by collisions with cars. It is not inherently dangerous to walk or cycle. It is dangerous to walk or cycle only when automobile traffic is added to the mix. You don't address that problem by discouraging people from walking or cycling, you address the danger by protecting them from cars.

 

If someone is walking and they get shot, we don't consider them a pedestrian fatality, we consider them a gunshot victim. If a cyclist or pedestrian is killed by a car, using that event to quantify the danger of cycling or walking, rather than the dangers associated with operating motor vehicles, is a misuse of data.

[RFS]

There's some pretty sloppy semantics going on here. Being a pedestrian or a cyclist is only a high-risk activity because of pedestrians and cyclists being killed by collisions with cars. It is not inherently dangerous to walk or cycle. It is dangerous to walk or cycle only when automobile traffic is added to the mix. You don't address that problem by discouraging people from walking or cycling, you address the danger by protecting them from cars.

 

If someone is walking and they get shot, we don't consider them a pedestrian fatality, we consider them a gunshot victim. If a cyclist or pedestrian is killed by a car, using that event to quantify the danger of cycling or walking, rather than the dangers associated with operating motor vehicles, is a misuse of data.

Semantically speaking, you may be right, but nonetheless when you get on your bike and head into traffic you are accepting a degree of risk.  I'm not saying people shouldn't do it.

[nerka]

, but nonetheless when you get on your bike and head into traffic you are accepting a degree of risk. 

I agree - and keeping that risk in mind helps keep you alert and safe.

[Cassidy]

There's some pretty sloppy semantics going on here. Being a pedestrian or a cyclist is only a high-risk activity because of pedestrians and cyclists being killed by collisions with cars. It is not inherently dangerous to walk or cycle. It is dangerous to walk or cycle only when automobile traffic is added to the mix. You don't address that problem by discouraging people from walking or cycling, you address the danger by protecting them from cars.

 

If someone is walking and they get shot, we don't consider them a pedestrian fatality, we consider them a gunshot victim. If a cyclist or pedestrian is killed by a car, using that event to quantify the danger of cycling or walking, rather than the dangers associated with operating motor vehicles, is a misuse of data.

Although I may appear at times to play the part of a "slow thinker" on the internet, I'm not actually so inclined in real life ...I totally get the semantics of the situation - cars do the killing, not bikes. Although it's always the person on the bike that gets killed ... never the driver of the car.

 

However many ways you want to parse the information ... cars are NEVER going away, so cyclists, pedestrians, and other "exposed travellers" have to deal with the dangers caused by cars and drivers, and how those dangers are in fact amplified by inviting cyclists to continue (for example) in a straight line when cars make hundreds (if not thousands) of right hand turns across the cyclists potential path every day.

 

It's irrelevant who was "right" and who was "wrong" when one party is dead.

Cyclists need to get off their high horse ... staying mounted isn't helping anybody, least of all those who may wind up underneath a car (and that person is never the driver of the car).

Edited by Cassidy, 19 July 2018 - 04:31 PM.

[FogPub]

Where there is no bike lane at all, and the cyclist does what s/he should and behaves like a car in the car lane, is when it all works best.

 

By "behaves like a car" I mean that on approaching an intersection where there's a lineup of vehicles s/he doesn't pass anybody on the right (or left, for that matter) but instead takes his/her place in line behind the last car in his/her lane; moving forward only when it does.

 

Bike lanes just encourage and enable passing on the right; combine that with the dashed bike-lane lines at intersections being way too short (often just one or two car lengths) and it's a recipe for trouble..

[A Girl is No one]

I’m just going to put this here....
“Calgary man, 75, dies after he's struck by cyclist in crosswalk”

https://calgaryheral...ed2966ffdf1/amp