I have posted this topic as it seemed there was some call for it based on the aberration of the previous ' Bike Lift' post. Perhaps the previous post had exhausted most of the ideas, opinions, points of views on bike insurance vs. no bike insurance, but something tells me there might be more!I randomly picked the below YouTube Video on the one road rule of STOPPING. It is in Golden Gate Park, California, but the issue is of course relevant to the streets of North Vancouver and all roads everywhere.
31 comments:
Yes! If they are of drivers license age, then they have to also be held responsible for obeying the rules of the road, the same as an automobile.
If cyclists choose to use our roads in ways that are downright dangerous, veering into left hand turn lanes, they need to be held accountable for any mishap while cutting across lanes of traffic, unsafely.
There have been too many incidents with adult cyclists using pedestrian sidewalks, dangerously. They usually ride off, unidentified. The majority may obey the rules, but just like automobile drivers, there are a few rotten apples.
Years ago, cyclists were treated like pedestrians, having to stop at intersections, and walk their bikes at crosswalks, etc. This should be the safety rule taught to children. Children should not be riding on really busy city roads (ie. Marine Dr./Lonsdale, etc.)
If cyclists choose to ride on our really busy streets/hwys like "motorists", they should be regulated under the same rules and licenses as a motorist.
Something you said is very important anon 12:34pm, "our roads". Remember that. They belong to everyone. Even people who don't drive.
I'll come to a complete stop as long as the guy in the car behind me doesn't get all pissy because he can't wait for me to get started again. Yes, this happens. So to save time and to be mindful of drivers behind us, many cyclists, if safe to do so, will treat the stop sign as a yield. Remember, a cyclist isn't isolated from the sights and sounds that a motorist, enclosed in an automobile, is. If you're in a car, the enclosed cockpit prevent s you from hearing what's coming and to some degree, due to blind spots, prevents you from seeing what's coming. If you ride a bike at all, you'll be aware that you have better visibility and auditory capability than you do in your car. This makes the idea of a stop sign being used as a yield make sense and no less safe than coming to a complete stop. It also helps to keep the traffic moving because the cars behind you are able to get to the stop sign and accelerate through the intersection. Now, hopefully we can have a discussion without this turning into another round of name-calling.
Stop means stop !
Let's talk insurance. It appears to me that when a cyclist is in a collision with an automobile, it is the insured automobile driver who pays the shot. The cyclist is off the hook. I have heard about this many times.
Did you know that the majority of accidents where fault could be determined the automobile driver is most often at fault? Metro news did a story on this a few months ago. iCBC numbers showed that it was as high as 96% of accidents between cars and bikes were the car drivers fault. If a cyclist is found at fault I very much doubt he would be off the hook. Claims against insurance may not be possible but you can be certain there could be civil action taken.
Cyclists need to know that there are a lot of blind spots around a car, and that cars cannot stop on a dime.
If a cyclist weaves in and out of traffic, like some I have seen do, and suddenly appear "out of blue" as a car is making a move forward, backward, or turning right on a corner, those cyclists are asking to be flattened by an automobile.
This game of "chicken" is unnerving for those driving large powerful vehicles. It is another distraction that they don't need. I don't care how "experienced" a rider is. This kind of thing is dangerous. And cyclists need to be held accountable. Licensing and insuring them is the only fair way to go. Anything less smacks of entitlement that is not deserved.
The driver of large dangerous machines is responsible for controlling his machine regardless of what a cyclist might be doing. The child that runs into the street or the vehicle that has a blow out and loses control as just two examples. Your attention must be fully on the task of driving and nowhere else. To blame others for your inability to to be attentive while behind the wheel is ridiculous. You have no control over the actions of others so you must be in a position to control your vehicle regardless of what other people are doing.This is not to deny that there are some reckless cyclists on the road. Just as there are some really horrible drivers on the road.
Hey John, rather than just posting topics that antagonize one group of road users against the other, how about commenting? You're a cyclist, where do you stand? Or are you now only interested in playing puppet master and watching the "discussions" that result from your provocative topic choices? There's an election on, why aren't we talking about local candidates? This once interesting blog has turned into a chorus of whining by a tiny group who will never be happy.
Cyclists are doing drivers a favour by not stopping at stop signs as they might be slow getting started again? Wow. Why wouldn't the same skewed logic apply to drivers? If they just slowed and then went right through stop signs they wouldn't be holding up the drivers behind them. Sheeeesh.
Yes, they are "our" roads. That means that all users have to follow the same rules which are written down as legislation for all to read and follow.
I walked to a 4 way stop near a popular park today and sat on the bench enjoying the sun and fresh air. Lots of parents, kids, seniors walking to and from the park in the cross walk. Tons of cyclists enjoying a ride in the sun. My observations.
a. Full stop at stop sign, look both ways, proceed. 2. Both parents with young kids showing them the proper way to ride and follow the rules.
b. Slow and go through stop sign. Most riders (about 70%). Especially if someone was walking through the crosswalk or a car was turning left the cyclists would slow prior to the stop sign and then speed up and ride right through the stop sign once the obstruction was out of the way.
c. Go right through the stop sign without slowing at full speed. About 25% of riders.
d. There is no age associated with going right through stop signs. Older riders are as guilty as young riders so the popular idea of reckless youth doesn't hold true.
e. No helmets. About 15%. Again, both young and old.
Conclusion. Yes, there is a widespread general disregard for the rules of the road by the majority of cyclists. If ever there was a cash cow for the police to bring in some revenue this is it. I could have handed out a couple of dozen tickets in a very short time.
Should cyclists be licensed? I really don't know but they sure should be fined just like the rest of us.
So, anon 7:21pm does nothing else I say about cyclists and pedestrians better auditory and visual connection to their surroundings than car drivers not give you a hint as to why they can proceed without coming to a full stop not make any sense to you? I challenge you to get out and ride a bike on a regular basis. I can guarantee you that you'll begin treating stop signs as yields when safe to do so as well. Legislation in Idaho already recognized that this maneuver poses no more risk to cyclists than coming to a full stop. Other jurisdictions are starting to study adopting the stop as yield for cyclists as well.
Funny, I was out walking the dogs this afternoon and observed only two cars out of dozens that actually came to a full stop at intersections with stop signs. If motorists are going to complain about cyclist for doing exactly the same thing, I call shenanigans.
Nope they shouldn't pay insurance. Yup they should have licence plates. Stiff fines for
traffic violations.
Even if they did pay insurance it would be very affordable let as bikes are cheap to fix and cause much less damage to meat or machinery on impact than do insured cars.
Insurance doesn't cage bike riding behaviour.
Anon 7:54. There is a general foundation of most western democracies known as "the rule of law." That is, laws are passed by elected representatives, enforced by the police and upheld by the judiciary.
A key point is that the law applies EQUALLY to all and all are expected to comply with and respect the law.
When laws need revision they are returned to the legislators and reconsidered and sometimes amended.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, how keen your ears, what people in cars are doing or anything else.
Everyone must comply with the law and it is supposed to be applied equally. So whether you are a car, motorcycle, motorscooter, bicycle or any other vehicle encompassed by legislation you must comply or, if not, you should be sanctioned by a fine. Period.
No, in our society you don't get to decide which laws you feel are OK to respect and which ones you decide to flaunt.
If you think your point is justified (I don't) then I encourage you to dig up like-minded people and encourage a review and amendment of our laws by elected representatives.
All people who choose to defy the law and are observed by police doing so should be ticketed regardless of their mode of transportation.
Anon 6:34 pm,
"This once interesting blog has turned into a chorus of whining by a tiny group who will never be happy."
That'funny it's a once interesting blog, but you still visit and make comments and strangely your comment sounds like whining?
I will relate an incident of my own recently. About a month ago I was driving eastbound on 29th street when as I passed a cyclist, who occupied the curb lane beside me, changed from that curb lane to the center lane which I occupied. The cyclist did not give clear intentions to change lanes and did not look carefully enough and as a result hit my car on the passenger side rear door, causing a significant dent on that part of the vehicle. The cyclist suffered some relatively small injuries and fortunately was wearing a helmet. Thankfully this incident wasn't worse for the cyclist, it certainly could have been. ICBC deemed the resulting claim to be the cyclist's error. I paid $500 deductible to get my vehicle repaired and since the cyclist is not insured ICBC could not collect this amount to reimburse me. So I am out the $500 for an incident that was not my fault. My only option is to take the cyclist to small claims court or to ask the cyclist to reimburse me, but since the cyclist thought the accident was my error, I doubt there would be much cooperation on that.
Hello Anon Saturday, September 05, 2015 6:34:00 p.m.,
Thank you for asking the questions. I am sure posts on the federal election and the candidates will start to unfold soon.
Yes I am a an avid 'off road' cyclist for about 20 years now. I avoid riding on the road as much as possible because I don't feel it's very safe, however because it has no cars on it, one of my favourite 'on road' rides is the 11 km paved road to the Seymour Fish hatchery/dam/old growth forest and back especially on a sunny day. The highways are built by 'geniuses' for use regularly by the 'not so genius' and no matter who's at fault in an accident when it's car vs. bike, car always wins.
Anon 1:27pm, I don't think it matters what the cyclist thought, as ICBC already judged him to be in error. I would think that would stand for something in small claims court.
But why should this driver be forced to pay $500 out of their own pocket for something that is not their fault? Why should he/she have to take the cyclist to small claims court?
What other option is there?
I avoid places like the Spirit Trail because it has become too dangerous for many pedestrians to walk there. It has become a cyclist, longboarder and roller blader playground.
It's a shared use trail. They have every right to use the trail. If you're uncomfortable with that, it's on you, not the other users. Maybe you should stick to walking the malls in the morning. Nobody but seniors there to get in your way.
@ Anon 10:35 Even if they did pay insurance it would be very affordable let as bikes are cheap to fix
Been a while since you shopped for a bike I'd guess. $3-5,000 is not unusual these days, and repairs will be proportionally high.
Though admittedly I get my bikes from Craiglist and haven't paid more than $35 ever.
As for licencing, I'd swear that when I was growing up in Kelowna we did, in fact, licence bikes, and I know that other jurisdictions did the same.
The cyclist would need insurance if they are the cause of damage to an automobile, or causing injury to a pedestrian. It goes beyond the cost of a wrecked bike. Maybe placed as an addition to their drivers insurance, since many adult cyclists also drive.
Pedestrians cause accidents too, are you going to want them insured as well?
Heard there was another 'cyclist vs pedestrian' kerfuffle on Fromme Mtn today. The RCMP were on the scene.
Anon 7:45. Rogue pedestrians veering off the sidewalk, careening at a breakneck 2 kph and brushing their wool cardigan against the metalwork tend to happen less frequently and cause proportionally less damage than the cyclist on their metal mount illegally blasting through the stop sign at 35 k. Probably not an insurable risk.
Yes Barry.. when I was growing up in East Vancouver you had to pay for and display a registration decal on your bike. Not sure why but it did allow you to check if a used bike had been registered .
I'm rethinking my outlook on bikers and insurance. 3500 dollar bikes aside..bikers need to be carrying mandatory third party liability insurance just so the unfortunate pedestrian who is hit by a cycler and sustains something like a neck or back injury will have someone with deep enough pockets to sue.
And where the accident is the fault of the pedestrian?
Very infrequent so not insurable. It is handled like any other lawsuit for negligence where damages are awarded. If a pedestrian is found at fault (jay walking, walking against a signal) then the court will award damages to the plaintiff and the defendant must pay damages.
So, why can't that be applied to cyclists as well?
It can be and is at the moment.
However, a bicycle is covered under Section 183 of the Motor Vehicle Act which impose "the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." That being the case, logic follows that if insurance is required for a driver (a duty) it should also be required for a cyclist.
Post a Comment