Angry Bicycle Rider

[lightspeed]

For the sake of petty argumentative idiots I repeat:

"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."

[spooker]

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."

The statement you are quoting is correct, if a bit simplistic. Similar to the way a cycling must ride as far right as is "practicable" and how this is applied is not as intuitive as many people think. Instructors teach that if the lane is narrow, not allowing for a car to pass a cyclist with a safe amount of clearance, then a rider is best to take the middle position in the lane so that a car will not "cheat" passing and increase the risk to both parties.

Being in the bike lane and seeing a car pass, then put on the right-turn signal is one of the scariest things in the world. Did the driver see me? Are they going to allow me to pass before making the turn? And that's just the questions that happen when a driver puts on a turn signal ... god forbid they didn't see me and aren't going to signal their turn ...

Driving a car or riding a bicycle, doesn't matter, you want to have flow and not have to brake a lot or have to accelerate all the time ... requiring a cyclist to apply the brakes everytime they see a turn signal just because they are vulnerable is inconsiderate ...

It's not simple, it's something that everyone should try at least once in their life ... i.e. walking in another's shoes ...

[mexi cali]

Always have a broom handle available for a P.O.S. cyclist like this.

I think that would be considered assault and battery ... are you going to keep a gun handy for the P.O.S. driver who pulls stupid stuff?

Sigh..... Only in a perfect world.

[mexi cali]

^^^ 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

Apparently, it's a really expensive and often declined option on many of todays vee hickles.

[mexi cali]

You'll fit in with all the other ignorant, grubby, little upstarts.

Ohhhhhh. you just insulted a whole lot of us. What to do, What to do?

[mexi cali]

OK; here is the definitive answer which should serve to set the record straight for all y'all. Everyone seems to understand that bike hits car, disaster for bike. Car hits bike; same result. Conclusion? Cyclists need to understand this rule. I mean really understand this rule and conduct themselves accordingly.

Cuz right or wrong, see above rules and imagine what it will be like as you spend the next 3 months picking gravel outta your *bleep* and being sponge bathed.

The only way this can be different is if every automobile driver and every cyclist arrive at a collective common sense epiphany and suddenly everyone is yielding to everyone else saying "no I insist, after you" while smiling idiotically with their eyes glazed over while no one goes anywhere.

It may be of benefit to cyclcists to understand that the above two ruels are derived from the little known science which is a close cousin to gravity and is called the "right of weight" It is the same rule I observe when deciding whether or not to turn in front of the loaded trator trailer who is making an ill advised and illegal turn in front of me leaving me in the right and thankfully, alive.

Cuz you know, there's "right" and there's dead right".

Just sayin.

[spooker]

OK; here is the definitive answer which should serve to set the record straight for all y'all. Everyone seems to understand that bike hits car, disaster for bike. Car hits bike; same result. Conclusion? Cyclists need to understand this rule. I mean really understand this rule and conduct themselves accordingly.

Cuz right or wrong, see above rules and imagine what it will be like as you spend the next 3 months picking gravel outta your *bleep* and being sponge bathed.

The only way this can be different is if every automobile driver and every cyclist arrive at a collective common sense epiphany and suddenly everyone is yielding to everyone else saying "no I insist, after you" while smiling idiotically with their eyes glazed over while no one goes anywhere.

It may be of benefit to cyclcists to understand that the above two ruels are derived from the little known science which is a close cousin to gravity and is called the "right of weight" It is the same rule I observe when deciding whether or not to turn in front of the loaded trator trailer who is making an ill advised and illegal turn in front of me leaving me in the right and thankfully, alive.

Cuz you know, there's "right" and there's dead right".

Just sayin.

Pretty much every cyclist can relate to those physics ... heard it over and over again from the "might makes right" crowd ... might as well go back a feudal society where the biggest sword wielder gets to be king and everyone else grovels for scraps

The painful hierarchy ends with pedestrians at the bottom of the pile ... literally under the car at times sadly ... does that make it right for cars to do what they want to people on foot too?

Cyclists are always looking out for their safety (there are very few exceptions) ... but they also expect drivers to know how to drive and to be aware of other road users ... the "defensive" riding you are demanding of cyclists is the same thing that has been taught to drivers for years, just because you have a metal cage and seatbelt doesn't mean you can't get seriously injured if a car hits you ... whether you're on two wheels or four, you get the respect you give ... my daughter knows how to give the right-of-way to a driver when that makes her feel safer ... and she's also not impatient to demand the right-of-way in the way I see many drivers do

The majority of drivers on the road are good and aware ... just had one wave me through a stop sign after I signaled to turn left and waved them through ... but I know it only takes one person behind a wheel to kill me if I'm not vigilant enough ... and the odds are more against me since there are more drivers out there than cyclists ...

[GordonH]

^^^ Kelowna has 3 basic types of cyclist:
1) this type I have absolutely no problem with, they are the ones who ride according to the rules.
Are a pleasure to drive along side
2) this type I don't come into contact to much, they are the ones who ride 2, 3 + aside each other. Don't really give a damn if there actions are causing problems, they consider themselves entitled.
3) are just a bonehead cyclist who ride wherever & however they want in & out of traffic..... crossing traffic/road.... usually unsafely. True pain in the as on the road to those driving a vehicle.

Lately I'm seeing fewer of the #1 and more of the #3, most likely due to warmer temps.

[khutchi]

I am definitely not defending this guy's behaivour.... he acted like a complete tool. But as an avid cycler just want to remind everyone that, depending on your experience level, riding a bike in this city is pretty tough. We are car nation of canada. In fact we are #2 behind guelph for per capita mode share of private vehicle trips

http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualco ... ipathi.pdf

"Kelowna is one of the most car-dependent cities in Canada; it has the second highest per-capita carbon footprint attributed to on-road transportation in BC"

There are few bike lanes and the ones that exist are always covered in gravel. If you are riding on 25mm tires like me thats a big problem so i have take crazy detours in and out of traffic, up on the sidewalk what have you. Just this morning i rode down water street and its all torn up for roundabount construction. I simply cannot ride on the rode like that. So I panicked and got the honk too this morning. I said sorry and waved but it can be a little infuriating to always be made out to be the bad guy when you are trying your best to be sustainable but follow the rules too.

[LTD]

so instead of having proper tires on your bike you choose to ride in and out of traffic up on the sidewalk and be a hazard in general, well done

[spooker]

so instead of having proper tires on your bike you choose to ride in and out of traffic up on the sidewalk and be a hazard in general, well done

Proper tires? Like a nice set of 37X12.50R20Es?

I run a set of 700x32 Marathon Plus tires on my bike and the temporary roundabout is horrible ... took it once and will avoid it until they complete the job, even if I'm on my 27.5x2.1s ... but just like the 6-laning took out the ability to have a straightforward route from Kelowna to UBCO the contractors don't think about all the users ... and don't get me started on any bike lanes next to soaker strip parking (i.e. south of Cadder on Richter) ... there is about 4" of clear pavement in the bike lane to ride on most of the time ...

The idea that cycling is not a valid mode of transportation is changing, but slowly ... those of us who have been riding responsibly for years are getting frustrated ... the City has a habit of doing something good while at the same time doing something that makes no sense ... and then drivers don't get a clear message either ... so we end up with issues such as this

[LTD]

I never said it wasn't a valid mode of transportation good for you I'm glad you enjoy riding your bike and I have no problem with bikes but if your tires cant handle a little gravel then your running the wrong tires period theres no excuse for weaving into traffic and onto sidewalks because your tires cant handle some gravel

[holdin]

Have a question---Is it legal to ride two abreast in a designated bike lane?

[36Drew]

Have a question---Is it legal to ride two abreast in a designated bike lane?

No.

[What_the]

You know, I said this basically from the beginning.

The only people that are "cut off" are those that aren't anticipating that they will be.

All this arguing about letter of the law and bicycles are for people that don't understand simple physics. Mass times velocity