Angry Bicycle Rider

[lightspeed]

We're saying the same thing. I'm just more cynical regarding our "new" laws.

Road sense should be based on a hierarchy of vulnerability.

Commercial > large vehicle > small vehicle > mc > moped/scooter > cyclist > pedestrian > dog/cat/squirrel

Kinda based on self preservation and respect for other more powerful and potentially dangerous vehicles. The onus should be placed more so on idiots not to place themselves in precarious situations or expose themselves to risk.

FWIW I do obey the new rules and I do - 100% - watch for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

But that's backwards to the idea of responsibility ... we don't preach that people with only knives should be worried about people with guns ... we put the onus of responsible gun usage on people who want to have and use guns ...

We require drivers of commercial trucks to take more training and exercise more caution ... we require taxi drivers to qualify to a higher standard of driving to gain the level of trust that a passenger places in them when they get in the car ... we require Class 5 drivers who get behind the wheel to the lowest standard of qualification, but they're the most numerous ...

The regulations are setup so that the operator who poses the greatest danger to the rest of the public has more responsibility than the next lower level ... but too often this is ignored by the SOV driver ... they're king of the road because they have control over this deadly beast ...

No one driving a car wants to kill another person ... but that is too easily what can happen when they aren't paying attention ... sure, a cyclist can ruin your day by running a stop sign ... but they can't hurt you ... what's moral outrage versus actual physical threat?

Again, same same. Responsibility V liability. Two different dynamics.

[DarkMagna]

Quote:
So why does the cyclist get this extra ruling.. This is one of the most ridiculous rules I have ever seen. If I am making a right turn, have my signal on, why should I have to watch for a cyclist passing me on the right. If a Motorcycle passes on the right it is illegal. Why any different for a pedal bike?

It's not an 'extra' ruling or special privilege for cyclists.
Think of it simply as another traffic lane. A motorcyclist shouldn't pass you on the right because he wouldn't be in his lane, but a cyclist is.

Just saying that people need to be more aware before they turn right - especially is you'd just passed a cyclist a few hundred feet ago. No shortage of incidents of cyclists being injured or killed by someone turning right, right in front of a cyclist.

[LTD]

Cyclists arent supposed to pass on the right either a car turning right ahead of a cyclist has the right of way

[spooker]

Cyclists arent supposed to pass on the right either a car turning right ahead of a cyclist has the right of way

Being "right hooked" is too common by a car who thinks they have enough room to turn in front of a cyclist ... that's hoping that the driver has even noticed the cyclist in the first place ...

No, it's not a good idea to pass a car on the right when they are turning right ... but that also means that the car a) has to turn on their signal with plenty of time for the cyclist to react safely, and b) the car hasn't just accelerated to get by the cyclist because they are impatient

Just like they tell vulnerable road to make eye contact with drivers, drivers should be making eye contact with cyclists ... make certain that the message is received ...

[GordonH]

^^^ spooker I'm not sure if you have noticed that vast majority of drivers, have no idea what that little lever sticking out of left side of steering column is actually for. lol

[DarkMagna]

I see that the interpretation of responsibility is being a little lost here, so I'll give an example of an instance that happened to me, and similar instances happen almost every time I'm out riding.

First, I suspect that a lot of drivers simply don't realize just how fast cyclists are actually moving. On level ground, just cruising along without trying too hard, I tend to cruise at about 25 to 30 km/hr. If I'm going down any grade, I can easily be doing the speed limit.
Also, I use clipless pedals, so my feet are 'locked' to the pedals (in a manner of speaking).

One day, I'm riding down Highway 33. I've passed Hollywood, heading towards 97. With the downhill grade, I'm easily hitting 50 km/hr.....so, I'm doing the same speed as what cars 'should' be doing - the speed limit. There's no bike lane, so by law, I must ride on the highway. I try to take up as little space as I can and I try to be predictable.

A guy in his car passes me in my lane and then 100 ft after passing me, turns right ..... right in front of me!
I can't "just stop"....I"m doing 50 km/hr. I can't hop onto the curb and I can't swing out to the left to go around him....that's put me right in front of the car that was behind him.

What shall I do?


Now, let's just say the same scenario occurs, but I've got a bike lane. Does that make it any better that a car passes me and then button-hooks right in front of me?
And when this occurs at an intersection, I'm like any other vehicle.....I'm in my lane and I'm proceeding straight through at anywhere from 25 km/hr to 50 km/hr. So you guys are saying that it's ok that a car that just passed me can turn right - right in front of me, simply because he'd just passed me and then wants to turn right? But somehow, you guys are interpreting it as me passing him on the right?

All I'm asking is that driver's try to realize that a bike lane is still a lane....it's intended to separate cars and bikes and make everything safer. But when I'm approaching an intersection at speed and a car passes me and then button-hooks me, I'm to blame for "passing on the right"?

You wouldn't change lanes right in front of another car and then brake hard and turn, so why is it ok to do it to an vulnerable cyclist?

When a car is already in front of me and he signals his intent to turn right, despite the fact that I'm intending to travel straight through, I still yield to him, even if it makes me miss my light. No, the issue I'm referring to and the one that occurs regularly, is the drivers that pass me and then turn right almost immediately.

Please, just be aware of the cyclist you just passed.

[spooker]

^^^ spooker I'm not sure if you have noticed that vast majority of drivers, have no idea what that little lever sticking out of left side of steering column is actually for. lol

I'm the eternal optimist ... and thankfully still alive to keep hoping ... but there's always a little part of me that knows I'll be taken out by a driver someday ...

[ktowner]

A guy in his car passes me in my lane and then 100 ft after passing me, turns right ..... right in front of me!
I can't "just stop"....I"m doing 50 km/hr.

What shall I do?

Well if my car is supposed to be able to stop at a split seconds notice then maybe your bike should too if you intend on being on the road. If this is not possible then maybe your bike shouldn't be on the road?

[spooker]

A guy in his car passes me in my lane and then 100 ft after passing me, turns right ..... right in front of me!
I can't "just stop"....I"m doing 50 km/hr.

What shall I do?

Well if my car is supposed to be able to stop at a split seconds notice then maybe your bike should too if you intend on being on the road. If this is not possible then maybe your bike shouldn't be on the road?

Bicycles can stop quicker than a car can ... but the reaction time of a normal human being means that if things are perfect the braking occurs within 0.75 seconds of notice ... that means that at 50kph the cycle has already travelled a third of the distance to the car before starting to brake ... and remember that while the car has the benefit of being able to skid sideways the bicycle could spill sideways and throw the rider off ... but with all things perfect the bike could stop within about 30 feet ... whereas the typical braking chart for a car shows 45 feet ...

But how would you feel about a driver forcing you to make an emergency stop? when the only thing between you and serious road rash is a layer of gortex ...

Hence the definition of "vulnerable" ... at the mercy of other road users who stay cocooned in their metal cages

I'm simplifying this, many discussions don't have an end because of all the factors that come into play with bicycles versus the mechanically assisted car industry ...

[36Drew]

FWIW I do obey the new rules and I do - 100% - watch for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

The fact that you think that ensuring it is safe to cross a lane before doing so is a new rule is....telling.

It's not a new rule.

[lightspeed]

FWIW I do obey the new rules and I do - 100% - watch for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

The fact that you think that ensuring it is safe to cross a lane before doing so is a new rule is....telling.

It's not a new rule.

"New" in the context of overall road rules. "New" when I refer to a sign on Ethel that sprouted up and are totally confusing local motorists. New " rules that totally supercede any form of common sense and behaviour previously in place. Now every cyclist thinks it's ok to pass a car in the right just as, or when, it's turning. Because of "new signs" and "new rules". New signs imposed by people who are now overriding common sense and potentially adding to the amount of accidents and bike-car conflicts.

I've been driving since before there were bike janes. I adapt.

Don't be such a nit picky little troll.

An expert speaks:

"The rules-of-the-road state that when a motor vehicle driver plans to turn right, they must signal and only make the movement when safe to do so, using due care and attention to avoid a collision. For the turn to be safe, a driver should check for other motor vehicles as well as cyclists and pedestrians who could potentially enter the path of their turn.

The cyclist should also follow the law. Passing on the right is allowed where there is unobstructed pavement for two vehicles to pass. The pass must only be made when safe to do so. Therefore, a cyclist passing a vehicle ahead that is clearly signaling a right turn which might block their path at any time would not be making a pass in safety."

[dirtybiker]

You wouldn't change lanes right in front of another car and then brake hard and turn, so why is it ok to do it to an vulnerable cyclist?
Please, just be aware of the cyclist you just passed.

. You must not get out much.

[36Drew]

"New" in the context of overall road rules.

The "road rules" that you're speaking of are 20 years old. The MC-MVA was put into law in 1996, and the section defining a designated-use lane (aka bike lane) has not changed since then.

"New" when I refer to a sign on Ethel that sprouted up and are totally confusing local motorists. New " rules that totally supercede any form of common sense and behaviour previously in place. Now every cyclist thinks it's ok to pass a car in the right just as, or when, it's turning. Because of "new signs" and "new rules". New signs imposed by people who are now overriding common sense and potentially adding to the amount of accidents and bike-car conflicts.

20 years. In that time, DVDs have come and gone. Smartphones have risen. The internets happened. You've managed to figure out all of that, but you can't figure out how a bike lane works and who has the right-of-way when crossing that lane?

I've been driving since before there were bike janes. I adapt.

As have I - and I've long since figured out how bike lanes work. Roundabouts as well.

Don't be such a nit picky little troll.

Yet here you are even posting something that clearly explains how to treat a bike lane as a motorist, but completely fail to understand what you've just posted in the context of cycle lanes. It's quite okay to be so wrong - but insisting that you're so right is just so sad.

[lightspeed]

"New" in the context of overall road rules.

The "road rules" that you're speaking of are 20 years old. The MC-MVA was put into law in 1996, and the section defining a designated-use lane (aka bike lane) has not changed since then.

"New" when I refer to a sign on Ethel that sprouted up and are totally confusing local motorists. New " rules that totally supercede any form of common sense and behaviour previously in place. Now every cyclist thinks it's ok to pass a car in the right just as, or when, it's turning. Because of "new signs" and "new rules". New signs imposed by people who are now overriding common sense and potentially adding to the amount of accidents and bike-car conflicts.

20 years. In that time, DVDs have come and gone. Smartphones have risen. The internets happened. You've managed to figure out all of that, but you can't figure out how a bike lane works and who has the right-of-way when crossing that lane?

I've been driving since before there were bike janes. I adapt.

As have I - and I've long since figured out how bike lanes work. Roundabouts as well.

Don't be such a nit picky little troll.

Yet here you are even posting something that clearly explains how to treat a bike lane as a motorist, but completely fail to understand what you've just posted in the context of cycle lanes. It's quite okay to be so wrong - but insisting that you're so right is just so sad.

You're so condescending it's painful. You really do troll other people's posts to nit pick and start petty arguments.

If you read what we both wrote we're actually saying the very same thing. Except you're trying to be insulting and inflammatory. While you argue with yourself and waste your own time.

It doesn't work. I won't bother investing time in further dialogue with you as you're absolutely impossible to converse with. You're not worth the effort.

You don't even live here yet you drop by on these forums to start your petty little e-wars. Well I'm not a player in that. Find someone else's time to waste. Why not stick to the burgeoning PoCo forums. You'll fit in with all the other ignorant, grubby, little upstarts.

Good day.

[36Drew]

You're so condescending it's painful. You really do troll other people's posts to nit pick and start petty arguments.

Trolling? You made a statement that was factually incorrect, and then built an argument around that incorrect belief. I'm sorry if you're not able to withstand having your shoddy argument torn apart.

Except you're trying to be insulting and inflammatory.

You're the one who started with the name calling - not I. This is two responses in a row you've called me a troll.

You don't even live here yet you drop by on these forums

And? I didn't realize one had to live in Kelowna to participate on the Castanet forums? Many participants are not residents.
At least one of the Mods (Jo) is an Islander. A few of us are west-coasters. There's some Albertans in here as well. If you don't want to converse with me, there's a feature for you to block me.

In the meantime - back to topic. Cyclists with dedicated bike lanes have right-of-way over vehicles wishing to cross said dedicated bike lanes. That has been codified into law since 1996. If you find the signage that the City of Kelowna has erected to try to explain this, then you should direct your complaints to the city.