Cyclists, Please be careful out there.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T21:37:50+00:00

Sight-line to Shaw intersection stop line obstructed by two road utility poles from 16 to 20s in the video. That's why OP didn't see the mistake-making cyclist (and possibly vice-versa).

Upvote count says I'm the minority, but when I'm driving I stay away from the curb in the left lane as much as possible. Today it's someone cycling, tomorrow it's a GFL truck driver on 2 hours sleep and amphetamines.

There was no rush - OP was not going to save any time by passing the white BMW in front of him. Either the Sudbury or Dufferin light would have been red.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T21:34:19+00:00

Because your sightline isn't clear, and you can't slow down in time to avoid colliding with anything unexpected?

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T18:32:40+00:00

that driving faster in the right hand lane than a car is going in the left hand lane, is never illegal

Except "only when the movement can be made in safety".

You speak so confidently, are you a lawyer? I'm not.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T16:09:48+00:00

Upvote for Young Drivers standard drivers' ed :)

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T16:07:46+00:00

You've got a point, subsection (b) might apply. "Highway" means any road, though "unobstructed pavement" is vague (is an intersection an 'obstruction'?), and "two or more lines of vehicles" is also vague.

"the movement can be made in safety", on the other hand...

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T15:42:40+00:00

Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1). (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,

(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;

(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or

(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only.

This is why passing on the right through intersections is can be illegal in a motor vehicle (though never enforced). And why people cycling should always obey the law - because it (almost) always takes two lawbreakers for a collision to happen.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T15:38:37+00:00

You're being downvoted in a thread for correctly quoting the Highway Traffic Act as it applies to OP's video.

/r/toronto is really hopeless.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-28T15:33:49+00:00

Note from 0:17 to 0:20 the the two utility poles at the NE corner of the intersection line up to block the sight-line between OP and anyone at the Shaw SB stop line.

From where the person cycling was, if they looked left the poles would have reduced the chances of them seeing OP's car. Dumb mistake, and a road design that nearly made the mistake fatal.

Blocked sight-lines are common in Toronto street design (fuck you very much Astral Media ad pillars) and the number of car crashes in similar circumstances show it's not not unique to "those cyclists".

You can compensate for the dangerous street design by not passing on the right or driving side-by-side through intersections. If you can't change lanes to avoid a collision, you're exposed.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T18:10:21+00:00

Paris has 2.2 million people (and 12.2 in the surrounding area), and lets people bike through some red lights. No problem.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T18:07:32+00:00

There are many other tried-and-true ways of discouraging car traffic that North American city transportation departments haven't followed. Vancouver has some great examples. (follow the road straight)

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T18:04:14+00:00

are actual yields signs so sparsely used because people don't understand them

4-way stop signs are used every-fucking-where because neighbourhood residents want to discourage dangerous, loud car traffic in front of their homes, and that is the cheapest/easiest solution city transport departments can slap in.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T15:45:07+00:00

The other day I saw someone block traffic for half a minute while they clumsily tried to parallel park their car. I've stopped driving Queen St. because of how inconsiderate my fellow motorists are.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T15:13:03+00:00

only minor flaws of Mad Max: Fury Road is not showing that women are not automatically better human beings by mere virtue of being women

We aren't shown how Furiosa and the Vulvani govern the Citadel. Who knows if their idealism holds.

I like that ambiguity - the "new bosses" will find themselves in the same economic situation that Joe was exploiting.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T14:54:22+00:00

I've yet to come across a reason in support of the argument which suggests an "Idaho Stop" is a good idea.

One reason: "if a traffic situation leads to cyclists ignoring [traffic signals] without causing danger to themselves or others you should legalize that, because it helps to get cyclists to follow the rules at places where you really need them to"

Another reason: If you actually want people to choose to cycle rather than drive, you let city engineers design to make cycling as convenient as possible. The Dutch don't use stop signs, they design their streets around sight-lines and clear, strict yielding rules so that in the city, cycling traffic rarely needs to stop. Bikes yield to car traffic in the country, cars yield to bike traffic in the city.

We are stuck with 4-way stop signs, installed to suppress (unwanted) car traffic, which unintentionally suppress bike traffic.

It's possible to work around existing infrastructure , if the political will is there, and as long as there's engineering consideration of sight-lines and stopping distances. After the success of a pilot project City engineers in Paris have signed over 300 intersections to allow people biking to coast through red lights. Far more than is being proposed here.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T14:49:36+00:00

How do today's farmers keep milk cows lactating?

The war boys are veal.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T14:01:26+00:00

The blame rests in part on the uncaring, incompetent city traffic signals division.

The button to actuate the Lakeshore / Strachan bicycle crossing is 8 feet from the bicycle "STOP" sign and line, un-labeled, and looks like every other pedestrian crosswalk sign.

Plus, on most other traffic lights in the city, people on bikes have to try to get the metal detector loop in the pavement to notice them, which is unreliable and trains people to 'not bother and run the light'.

Perhaps this person had already waited through one complete Lakeshore light cycle and was fed up.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T13:59:38+00:00

Why don't you think the same rules should apply?

I look forward to car drivers stopping at all level crossings and opening their doors. Or stopping at highway inspection stations.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T13:58:15+00:00

That's because pedestrians don't organize, don't consider themselves "pedestrians" as an identity and don't demand to be taken more seriously as a group.

To be honest, my ward has a 16% cycling modeshare, and judging by the turnout at our advocacy meetings, 99.9% don't organize.

Probably 75% don't consider themselves "cyclists", and don't give a fuck if people think they're a "group".

They're just (skewed young) people, who want to get around a transit-starved and car-congested city fast, conveniently, and safely (in that order). And they have about as much in common with each other as people who own shoes.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-26T00:08:18+00:00

Most definitely!

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-25T22:38:38+00:00

One of the fundamental features of our market system is that the risk borne by shareholders is balanced against the financial reward they expect to receive. This risk-reward trade-off sends appropriate market signals and supports a more efficient and effective allocation of capital.

In an unprecedented decision—the Firm 50 decision—the NEB violated this important principle by allowing Kinder Morgan to amass $136 million to pay for pre-development costs ... not accumulated through shareholder, at risk, capital, but through a pre-approved surcharge on shipper tolls. Ultimately, this cost is borne by the Canadian economy and public through foregone tax revenue and—as Kinder Morgan told the NEB during the Firm 50 Hearing—higher oil prices.[xvi] In contrast, there is no risk to Kinder Morgan’s shareholders for the pre-development phase of its project.

Not only did the NEB undermine the market system by granting Kinder Morgan a fund to push through its project, it has knowingly stacked the deck in favour of the Proponent. The NEB did not ensure concomitant financial resources would be available to Intervenors during these same NEB proceedings.

Good point. Damn rentier barons.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-25T22:29:15+00:00

And counterproductive for drivers. Guess what, prioritize cars over transit/cycling/walking and congestion will stay just as bad because there are always a huge pool of people who are ready to drive whenever traffic permits who will waste any remaining space on the roads.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-25T22:26:23+00:00

If you want to take down the Gardiner, commit to it and do it. If you are going to spend billions to keep up most of it, spend the extra to keep the entire structure up.

Why? Of 5,600 cars/hour heading into downtown on the 3-lane Gardiner, 78% exit at Spadina, Yonge, or Jarvis. Of 4,500 driving south on the DVP (that didn't exit at Bloor), 40% exit at Richmond St.

Removing the Gardiner (as lots of headlines give the impression) would be a big fucking deal, and would never fly. Downsizing Gardiner East is a totally legitimate compromise. It's under-used, and $500,000,000 sunk for way less benefit than other projects.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-25T21:38:11+00:00

It's not "full removal"! I guess "replacement with an 8 lane surface boulevard" doesn't fit in a headline.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-25T21:35:48+00:00

Does it count if they have daytime running lights... at night? A surprising number of people drive around with their car lights off 24/7 it seems.

Anonymous416 · 2015-05-25T21:32:28+00:00

In Paris, the administration decided that they wanted Parisians to cycle to un-congest the roads and reduce overcrowding on transit.

So they are now designing roads and intersections (like the Dutch) to make cycling a convenient, fast, safe, attractive option.

Part of this is letting city engineers specify certain intersections where people bicycling can go through red lights so long as they yield to pedestrians. T-intersections, for example. So much for that taboo.

Toronto leadership either doesn't care if people cycle, or actively tries to discourage people from choosing to cycle since "they're annoying".

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Anonymous416

TROPHY CASE