Good use of police resources.....

St Norberter wrote:

Jondo wrote:We can't have bikes consuming the curb lane for obvious reason - including your own safety. I live on a 2-lane road with no shoulder and the regular bike teams seem to think they have a right to go three-wide while cars pile up behind them and pass dangerously on this very busy stretch. Everybody in the area has complained and now the RCMP patrol it regularly and ticket them for this dangerous behavior. I recently saw a bike pedalling on the centre of the median lane at rushour on Pembina. One would think that the hundred honks and verbage would have wised that fool up. Common sense should apply if the law doesn't. I'm guessing you were a foot or more from the curb - in which case you might as well have put up a pylon and closed the lane to traffic.

Actually the HTA says " as close as reasonable practicable', which means I get to choose where I go in the lane.
Generally for me " as close as reasonably practicable" means in the right tire mark or about 1m from the curb. in this case I was further out to avoid some potholes and moving to the middle of the lane at the light ( which is the recommended procedure).

AFAIAC, if a car can pass me in my lane without having to go into the other lane, I'm too close to the curb.

Don't like it? You still have 2 other lanes. And yes I do ride in the median lane, but only when it's the proper lane to be in. I behave like a vehicle, I should be treated as a vehicle by other drivers.

I have no problem with what you say, I say good for you. I do have a problem with this on a very different level.
If you behave like a vehicle, and want to be treated as a vehicle then you should also be required to have insurance like a vehicle. Since the potential for catastrophic injury is very high on a bike in trafic. Just imagin what the rates would be like... Obviously car insurance wont subsidize you, they dont for motor cycles.
off on a tangent...
I would love to be able to ride a motor cycle to work and back every day, It would require way less gasoline. But the insurance rates are so prohibitive. I wonder why? maybe it is a conspiracy?
Jack rates up so high that people drive cars only and burn more gas, more gas burnt = more double taxes we pay = more polution. Therefor the NDP government and their public insurance monopoly = Non green, Non progressive, archaic - pro commie bastages.

Miz point wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

Miz point wrote:Not all of us.....what I do if I am not turning is ensure that I am behind the turning vehicle, more or less near the centre of the rear and after he executes his right turn then I can blast forwards whilst moving to the right to allow the faster traffic to go past me.....makes sense to me, takes a bit of coordination but worth the effort. Of course there will always be knob motorists who could not care less if I or any other responsible cyclist is following the rules.

But you're not following the rules Blanche. You'd be dead wrong. It is illegal to pass on the right. It is illegal to go straight in a turning lane. It is illegal to change lanes in an intersection.

You should not be in the turning lane at all!

Ummm, who's the knob in this case?

You are for the simple fact that you are assuming wrongly what I was discussing. I was discussing defensive cycling from the POV of not being hit by a car making a right turn when I am going straight. I did not say I was in a turning lane. Christ. I never said I was passing on the right either but I have certainly had many motorists do that to me when I was rightfully occupying whatever lane it was that i needed at a specific time.

Wrong again sweetie.

In MY discourse the behavior I was talking about occurred in a turning lane. In your discourse you did not change the scenario. Not being a mind-reader of discourse I'd have no idea that you'd changed the scenario in your discourse.

Then you went on to suggest that you do not pass on the right. To that I say BS.

Passing on the right is illegal. That is not allowed. Just because one can does not mean one should. That is the problem with most cyclists today. They think that because they can-do some things they should, and then they throw hissy-fits when someone deigns LEGALLY pass on the left.

So I then transfer the mantle of knob to every cyclist that passes on the right, period.

Remember the next time you approach a long string of cars in the right lane, stop at the last car in the string and wait your turn...

Remember the next time you approach a long string of cars in the right lane, stop at the last car in the string and wait your turn...

Heh...like that's ever gonna happen....one of my pet peeves is having to re-pass cyclists...commie bastards should stay at the back of the pack.

I did not pass on the right.....I positioned myself behind the vehicle that was gonna execute the turn. It is patently obvious GOM that other than not walking you do not cycle either. There are many of us who do follow the rules as there are many conscientious drivers too but when it comes to the knob factor the operators of four-wheelers far outnumber any boner cyclists out there!

Asking a cyclist to wait for all traffic to pass before proceeding forward has to be about the dumbest thing I have seen mentioned here.

So I now suppose that in the estimation of some of you that wanting to maintain a modicum of physical fitness is a commie activity as well? Well, it's a good thing we have free health care so that those who develop coronary issues from inactivity are looked after. Right "Sweetie"?

Miz point wrote:

Asking a cyclist to wait for all traffic to pass before proceeding forward has to be about the dumbest thing I have seen mentioned here.

Unless I misread, I don't think he said wait for them to pass. I think he said wait your turn. Follow the same rules as every other vehicle on the road, no matter the size.

LivingDead wrote:

St Norberter wrote:

Jondo wrote:We can't have bikes consuming the curb lane for obvious reason - including your own safety. I live on a 2-lane road with no shoulder and the regular bike teams seem to think they have a right to go three-wide while cars pile up behind them and pass dangerously on this very busy stretch. Everybody in the area has complained and now the RCMP patrol it regularly and ticket them for this dangerous behavior. I recently saw a bike pedalling on the centre of the median lane at rushour on Pembina. One would think that the hundred honks and verbage would have wised that fool up. Common sense should apply if the law doesn't. I'm guessing you were a foot or more from the curb - in which case you might as well have put up a pylon and closed the lane to traffic.

Actually the HTA says " as close as reasonable practicable', which means I get to choose where I go in the lane.
Generally for me " as close as reasonably practicable" means in the right tire mark or about 1m from the curb. in this case I was further out to avoid some potholes and moving to the middle of the lane at the light ( which is the recommended procedure).

AFAIAC, if a car can pass me in my lane without having to go into the other lane, I'm too close to the curb.

Don't like it? You still have 2 other lanes. And yes I do ride in the median lane, but only when it's the proper lane to be in. I behave like a vehicle, I should be treated as a vehicle by other drivers.

I have no problem with what you say, I say good for you. I do have a problem with this on a very different level.
If you behave like a vehicle, and want to be treated as a vehicle then you should also be required to have insurance like a vehicle. Since the potential for catastrophic injury is very high on a bike in trafic. Just imagin what the rates would be like... Obviously car insurance wont subsidize you, they dont for motor cycles.
off on a tangent...
I would love to be able to ride a motor cycle to work and back every day, It would require way less gasoline. But the insurance rates are so prohibitive. I wonder why? maybe it is a conspiracy?
Jack rates up so high that people drive cars only and burn more gas, more gas burnt = more double taxes we pay = more polution. Therefor the NDP government and their public insurance monopoly = Non green, Non progressive, archaic - pro commie bastages.

That's fine. But I should be able to choose my insurer. I shouldn't have to subsidize bad cyclists. And since the pool of cyclists compared to motorists is quite small, the effect of subsidization would be huge.

JTF wrote:

Remember the next time you approach a long string of cars in the right lane, stop at the last car in the string and wait your turn...

Heh...like that's ever gonna happen....one of my pet peeves is having to re-pass cyclists...commie bastards should stay at the back of the pack.

Actually I do stop behind the last car ( in the middle of the lane) and wait my turn. Because if I filter along the right to the front of the line, really what is it going to accomplish? I'm probably going to get through on the next light anyway - If I'm not then I get to enjoy the beautiful weather and sights for another 30sec, and all it does is piss off the motorists that I pass.

One of my pet peeves is having to re-pass non express buses ( like the 60). If they actually followed behind me from just one stop to another, I'd gain enough time and space on them and we wouldn't have to play leap frog all the way down Pembina.

That would be proper - demand your right to have to be insured for that high-risk activity - like the rest of the "vehicles" are required to do.

Jondo wrote:That would be proper - demand your right to have to be insured for that high-risk activity - like the rest of the "vehicles" are required to do.

That's false.

High Risk? Not because of my actions. The additional costs of the risk should be borne by those that create the risk. In my experience that's not me, that's the drivers I have to deal with every day.

Miz point wrote:I did not pass on the right.....I positioned myself behind the vehicle that was gonna execute the turn. It is patently obvious GOM that other than not walking you do not cycle either. There are many of us who do follow the rules as there are many conscientious drivers too but when it comes to the knob factor the operators of four-wheelers far outnumber any boner cyclists out there!

Asking a cyclist to wait for all traffic to pass before proceeding forward has to be about the dumbest thing I have seen mentioned here.

So I now suppose that in the estimation of some of you that wanting to maintain a modicum of physical fitness is a commie activity as well? Well, it's a good thing we have free health care so that those who develop coronary issues from inactivity are looked after. Right "Sweetie"?

Hey, don't make this too personal eh? I've both cycled and driven. I can imagine how you'd respond if I made such a patently personal observation about you.

I think I am a conscientious driver who respects cyclists. There are knobs in both camps. It's just that with so few cyclists on the roads the knobs amoungst them really stick out.

Today, during my commute, I might have encountered a dozen cyclists. All but one were on the sidewalk. I repeat: "all but one were on the sidewalk".

The one on the road was given wide berth by every car in front of me. We all then arrived at the light and watched as she rode up along the right hand side of the line of cars. And every single one of us had to pass her again. Giving the same wide berth.

That happens each and every time. I think St. Norberter and one other Winnipegger do the right thing.

St Norberter wrote:

Jondo wrote:That would be proper - demand your right to have to be insured for that high-risk activity - like the rest of the "vehicles" are required to do.

That's false.

High Risk? Not because of my actions. The additional costs of the risk should be borne by those that create the risk. In my experience that's not me, that's the drivers I have to deal with every day.

Not being in the insurance game, I assume they produce a rate schedule where the average risk is shared by every driver.

The high risk group (the multiple offenders, drunk drivers...) stand on their own except they pay a premium.

Then there are the riskier to insure because of their mode of transport (motorcyclists). Even if you are the most skilled rider if you fall off your bike the medical costs are most often obscene. That is why their rates are so high.

If cyclists were to carry insurance, the rates to cover them for the damage they might cause would likely be very low. But when they get hit they are high risk for injury. That would cause their rates to skyrocket.

Based on the Motor Cycle driving rates, normal cyclist rates would be about $5000 per year, maybe more?

grumpy old man wrote:



Then there are the riskier to insure because of their mode of transport (motorcyclists). Even if you are the most skilled rider if you fall off your bike the medical costs are most often obscene. That is why their rates are so high.

Not just medical, but mechanical. Far easier to write off a motorcycle than a car.
I don't like what I pay, but I get it.

The skilled riders rarely "fall off" though. They get taken down by the less careful people in other vehicles.

grumpy old man wrote:

Miz point wrote:I did not pass on the right.....I positioned myself behind the vehicle that was gonna execute the turn. It is patently obvious GOM that other than not walking you do not cycle either. There are many of us who do follow the rules as there are many conscientious drivers too but when it comes to the knob factor the operators of four-wheelers far outnumber any boner cyclists out there!

Asking a cyclist to wait for all traffic to pass before proceeding forward has to be about the dumbest thing I have seen mentioned here.

So I now suppose that in the estimation of some of you that wanting to maintain a modicum of physical fitness is a commie activity as well? Well, it's a good thing we have free health care so that those who develop coronary issues from inactivity are looked after. Right "Sweetie"?

Hey, don't make this too personal eh? I've both cycled and driven. I can imagine how you'd respond if I made such a patently personal observation about you.

I think I am a conscientious driver who respects cyclists. There are knobs in both camps. It's just that with so few cyclists on the roads the knobs amoungst them really stick out.

Today, during my commute, I might have encountered a dozen cyclists. All but one were on the sidewalk. I repeat: "all but one were on the sidewalk".

The one on the road was given wide berth by every car in front of me. We all then arrived at the light and watched as she rode up along the right hand side of the line of cars. And every single one of us had to pass her again. Giving the same wide berth.

That happens each and every time. I think St. Norberter and one other Winnipegger do the right thing.

yeah, me......and you are saying the same thing I have been saying in that there are knobs in both camps.....give some credit here where credit is bloody well due. thank you. Now I can go back to the other healthy activity called gardening.

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest drivers "just fall off their bikes". I was sorta sayin' if you DO fall off the costs are stoopid.

grumpy old man wrote:

St Norberter wrote:

Jondo wrote:That would be proper - demand your right to have to be insured for that high-risk activity - like the rest of the "vehicles" are required to do.

That's false.

High Risk? Not because of my actions. The additional costs of the risk should be borne by those that create the risk. In my experience that's not me, that's the drivers I have to deal with every day.

Not being in the insurance game, I assume they produce a rate schedule where the average risk is shared by every driver.

The high risk group (the multiple offenders, drunk drivers...) stand on their own except they pay a premium.

Then there are the riskier to insure because of their mode of transport (motorcyclists). Even if you are the most skilled rider if you fall off your bike the medical costs are most often obscene. That is why their rates are so high.

If cyclists were to carry insurance, the rates to cover them for the damage they might cause would likely be very low. But when they get hit they are high risk for injury. That would cause their rates to skyrocket.

That's why the motorcyclists are up in arms and the system for them is flawed. MPI assigns the costs related to any accident involving a motorcycle to the motorcycle class, even if the accident was caused by a car/truck/bus. And then they say that the costs related to motorcycle insurance is higher. If they factored out those costs related to accidents involving motorcycles that were not caused my the motorcyclists, then motorcycle insurance should decrease significantly. Right now, motorcyclists are paying more insurance because of their choice of transport, not because the motorcyclists are responsible for more accidents or more accident costs.

Look at sask vs mb: Sask costs $250 to insure a motorcycle , mb $1200. 15 years ago there were 15,000 registered motorcycles int he province, now there are 2,000. And because MPI calculates those premiums improperly, it's a downward death spiral. Increasing costs mean less people insure motorcycles. Less people insuring motorcycles means increasing costs.

Seems like there is an argument that MPI is making a social engineering decision to drive motorcycles off the road in this province.

Miz point wrote:yeah, me......and you are saying the same thing I have been saying in that there are knobs in both camps.....give some credit here where credit is bloody well due. thank you. Now I can go back to the other healthy activity called gardening.

What bloody credit are you bloody looking for?

Look at Ontario to see what their motorcycle rates are like. Sask Insurance is behind the times IMO.

Mr. St. Norberter, you, a beener, are taking a very surprising approach when looking at how insurance rates are calculated.

Even though a motorcyclist may not be at fault, the very fact they drive such a risky vehicle means their costs to the system are much higher.

That said, I suspect that were they to divorce motorcyclist at fault rates from motorcyclist not at fault rates you be very surprised at how high their rates would still be.

I seem to remember most motorcyclist accidents are speed caused when the rider drove way too fast and lost control. Just my selective memory at work is all I'm sayin'.

I'll consider the cycling argument only when they pay like the rest of the vehicles on the road that they constantly compare themselves to. The "I pay taxes too" argument doesn't fly. We all pay taxes however only insured drivers can drive their vehicles on "our" roads.

grumpy old man wrote:Look at Ontario to see what their motorcycle rates are like. Sask Insurance is behind the times IMO.

Mr. St. Norberter, you, a beener, are taking a very surprising approach when looking at how insurance rates are calculated.

Even though a motorcyclist may not be at fault, the very fact they drive such a risky vehicle means their costs to the system are much higher.

That said, I suspect that were they to divorce motorcyclist at fault rates from motorcyclist not at fault rates you be very surprised at how high their rates would still be.

I seem to remember most motorcyclist accidents are speed caused when the rider drove way too fast and lost control. Just my selective memory at work is all I'm sayin'.

If that's the case and costs to insure motorcycles are still high then fine. But right now the system is flawed. A car runs through a red light and slams into a motorcycle. Motorcycle is toast, rider is in hospital for 6 wks, off work for a year and another year of rehab. Where do those costs get assigned? Against all motorcycles.

Do you believe that is correct? If so do you also believe that insurance costs should be inversely proportional to the size of a vehicle? Surely a big SUV will provide more protection than a sub compact?

Jondo wrote:I'll consider the cycling argument only when they pay like the rest of the vehicles on the road that they constantly compare themselves to. The "I pay taxes too" argument doesn't fly. We all pay taxes however only insured drivers can drive their vehicles on "our" roads.

Hmmmm.......

You sound exactly like one the ' cyclists should be right up against the curb' drivers. And why I have to take the full lane at times.

You wanna charge insurance on cyclists? Okay, but while were at it, lets put all costs where they should be. That means you have to pay much much more as a driver than I do as a cyclist because your vehicle causes much, much more wear and tear on the roads than my bike does.

Jondo wrote:I'll consider the cycling argument only when they pay like the rest of the vehicles on the road that they constantly compare themselves to. The "I pay taxes too" argument doesn't fly. We all pay taxes however only insured drivers can drive their vehicles on "our" roads.

What argument ? That the HTA allows them to be on the road.

So you disregard laws as you see fit?

motorcycle accidents are about 48% caused by motorcyclists and 52% caused by other drivers. ( from USA study done in 92)


If we are saying motorcyclist should be nailed for more because their mode of transportation is risky... Then why dont we charge people who walk more?

Deank wrote:motorcycle accidents are about 48% caused by motorcyclists and 52% caused by other drivers. ( from USA study done in 92)


If we are saying motorcyclist should be nailed for more because their mode of transportation is risky... Then why dont we charge people who walk more?

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

And from the above stat it's not the motorcyclists that make their mode of transportation riskier.

Because people don't walk on traffic lanes - unless they're crossing at marked locations. If they fail to properly do so - and get hit by a vehicle - there is a charge for that. That should also properly come with costs of same. Bikes to me are no different. Maybe I'll take my electric golf cart downtown today. Those damn cars had better respect my space and my right to do so - apparently.

St Norberter wrote:

Jondo wrote:I'll consider the cycling argument only when they pay like the rest of the vehicles on the road that they constantly compare themselves to. The "I pay taxes too" argument doesn't fly. We all pay taxes however only insured drivers can drive their vehicles on "our" roads.

What argument ? That the HTA allows them to be on the road.

So you disregard laws as you see fit?

So Jondo, what's the argument?