Cyclists want one-metre law: Drivers must keep their distance: lobby group

Deank wrote:need to eat more to power your legs when using them, then when not using them

note the "extra" part of extra calories.

Given the physical proportions of most I see on a bus, they wouldn't need to start eating more calories for at least 6 months after they started cycling. They could live off their excess fat stores until then.

Posted this as my first comment on the Free Press article.
Am I supposed to feel this dirty?

Drivers will always be pissed off with cyclists.
Cyclists will always be pissed off with drivers.

Can we finally get past this juvenility?


As a cyclist in both the winter and summer, there is nothing that bugs me more than watching cyclists hug the curb and pass vehicles, coast through all stop areas/traffic, and create many problems that exist on the streets.

Abiding by the rules of the road needs to exist in all forms of transportation.

I wait my turn at red lights as anyone on the road should. There is no priority system that allows cyclists to do what they want. There are as many terrible cyclists as there are drivers and I have always lobbied that a Bicycle license and/or valid Drivers license should be enforced on cyclists as they are enforced for anything else travelling on the street.

You cannot simply regulate one half of the problem. Cyclists need to be responsible for their negligence just as drivers are.

Heh. To get around in Montreal or Toronto, you need a huge backpack and at least a week's supply of food and water...
Going up Yonge Street is like going to Gimli.

HEY GT...mostly not bad...until you got to the whole "licensing cyclists" garbage.

The MORE regulations imposed, the LESS likely people are to learn anything, because they will feel complacent in letting the "authorities" handle those who won't follow the rules.

Plus, how do you enforce this on an 8-year-old who rides his bike to school every day?

It's not the kids. It's the bike couriers/hipsters/etc. that should know better.

I concur 100% with GT's sentiments.

I hate bad cyclists as much as if not more than bad drivers.

There is one cyclist - a 50ish older guy - salt & pepper beard that rides part of my route. I think the next time I see him, I'm going to track him down and clothesline him off his bike. I'm fricken tired of his weaving between lanes, jumping to the sidewalk to skip red lights and generally act like a stupid idiot. There are enough bad drivers on the road, I don't need him making it any worse!

Bets he gets fired or reprimanded?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2011/02/10/17232871.html

That's what I mentioned before though...that more than 90% of all vehicle/bicycle incidents involve ADULT riders.

I still don't think licensing is the answer...though it may be the only way to hold riders accountable.

I just know it will deter the "casual" riders from bothering to use their bikes, if they have to go through the hassle of licensing and registration just to ride a couple times per year.

I think the more important and effective way of dealing with the issue is a massive education campaign. And proper signage along the roadways indicating where bikes should be (ON THE ROAD...NOT THE SIDEWALK)...which drivers may take notice and give yield.

We DON'T need to go painting lines and "lanes" for cyclists...because it will only harbor more problems, as a cyclist is ENTITLED to be in any lane required for riding...so if a cyclist is to make a left turn, they must be in the left lane. But with those stupid lines on the roads...motorists will make the assumption that the cyclist must remain in the "bike lane", and quite possibly try and force the cyclist out of the left lane dangerously and illegally.

Deank wrote:Bets he gets fired or reprimanded?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2011/02/10/17232871.html

Well - he has only been driving a bus for 2 years. Bet he's one of the 'crappy' bus drivers too!

Most bus drivers are good. I've had some motion to me that I should be on the sidewalk, and for the most part I will yield or hang back for buses to go ahead.

The worst though is the 60. It's constant leapfrog. Express buses - no problem, but regular buses stop at every stop, so at every stop I'm passing the bus, then it is passing me before it gets to the next stop. Solution - if the bus driver would hang back behind me from only one stop to another it would give me enough distance that he wouldn't catch up to me, and we wouldn't play leapfrog. And it would only cost the bus 10 sec. max.

Deank wrote:Bets he gets fired or reprimanded?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2011/02/10/17232871.html

Either one would be a travesty. Dude offered up some rational thought. And did from a perspective we've not yet heard.

Wayne is mostly correct. The ID thing is off...but a bicycle is indeed a vehicle according to both the HTA and MPI.
The MPI website has entire sections dedicated to bicycles and the rules surrounding them.
There are exemptions for kids, actually for bicycles with tires 16" or smaller...they are permitted to ride on the sidewalks, but must give yield to pedestrians.

The fact is, a bicycle is a vehicle and is entitled (actually REQUIRED) to be on the road the same as any motorized vehicle. Anyone riding their bicycle on the sidewalk should be immediately stopped, fined, and the bike impounded.

As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

St Norberter wrote:
The worst though is the 60. It's constant leapfrog. Express buses - no problem, but regular buses stop at every stop, so at every stop I'm passing the bus, then it is passing me before it gets to the next stop. Solution - if the bus driver would hang back behind me from only one stop to another it would give me enough distance that he wouldn't catch up to me, and we wouldn't play leapfrog. And it would only cost the bus 10 sec. max.

The other alternative is you could hang back 10 seconds to let the bus get ahead of you.
Since there may be 60 people on the bus and only you on the bike.
The real head-scratcher is WHY you would want to play leapfrog with a 50,000 pound bus in the first place
Its not like the bus can stop on a dime if you fell off the bike under the wheels.
Even if the driver did see you fall. .

grumpy old man wrote:

Deank wrote:Bets he gets fired or reprimanded?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2011/02/10/17232871.html

Either one would be a travesty. Dude offered up some rational thought. And did from a perspective we've not yet heard.

What perspective? That he's an idiot? and doesn't know the law? or apparently how to drive if he's trying to pass cyclists from stop to stop?

"“We’re on a schedule, so what’s more important? One person on a bike in front of us or 60 people on a bus?”"

The answer is c) no one is more important.

I can understand his frustration, but reading the article makes me believe he is one of those bus drivers that is aggressive towards cyclists:

"Precourt has been driving city buses for nearly two years. He says
some streets are so narrow that a one-metre buffer wouldn’t work.

“I would have to be completely in the other lane,” he said, adding
that driving behind a bike would slow a bus and its passengers down."

Dude - you're driving a fricken bus, you can't safely pass a cyclist without going into another lane. You wouldn't pass a car in the same lane.

“We’re on a schedule, so what’s more important? One person on a bike in front of us or 60 people on a bus?”

That's the same argument that Taxi drivers use for being able to drive in Bus lanes. Bet he'd love it if he had to contend with taxis in his diamond lanes.

“I think it’s going to make our job a lot harder, because we have a hard
enough time passing bicycles as it is,” he said, adding his views are
his own, not that of Winnipeg Transit.

See my point above about holding back and giving cyclists lead off.

And should be reprimanded? Yup. If for no other reason, did he have permission of transit to have his picture taken and published in his uniform sitting in a bus?

AGEsAces wrote:
As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

Doesn't the bus drivers job actually depend on him being able to keep his schedule?

[quote="Outsider"]

St Norberter wrote:

The other alternative is you could hang back 10 seconds to let the bus get ahead of you.

Because I still end up passing the bus two stops later. I'm not riding at 10 km/h

Outsider wrote:The real head-scratcher is WHY you would want to play leapfrog with a 50,000 pound bus in the first place
Its not like the bus can stop on a dime if you fell off the bike under the wheels.
Even if the driver did see you fall. .

Ahhh okay.....the act like a car, but not when it inconveniences me argument. Why would a vehicle not pass a stopped vehicle if it is safe to do so?

As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

That's actually a really stupid statement. Buses are all about schedules for chrissake!!

To put cyclists and buses in the same lane is insane....but no one has caught on.

Outsider wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:
As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

Doesn't the bus drivers job actually depend on him being able to keep his schedule?

There is enough buffer built into schedule that I can't see how passing cyclists would impact timing. Traffic lights have a much bigger effect on their schedules.

JTF wrote:

As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

That's actually a really stupid statement. Buses are all about schedules for chrissake!!

To put cyclists and buses in the same lane is insane....but no one has caught on.

So what? you want buses in the center lane? Then you'll be bitching about driving behind a bus.

AGEsAces wrote:HEY GT...mostly not bad...until you got to the whole "licensing cyclists" garbage.

The MORE regulations imposed, the LESS likely people are to learn anything, because they will feel complacent in letting the "authorities" handle those who won't follow the rules.

Plus, how do you enforce this on an 8-year-old who rides his bike to school every day?

Yeah, but how often do you see 8-year olds riding on the street? Either way they shouldn't be. Socio-economics will always exist and certain areas are different from certain areas, but I don't think the argument can be made about 8 year olds when it simply does not happen often. There is enough room on the sidewalk for youngsters and I think everyone would feel better allowing them room.

I don't know what the best way to tackle this problem is.. but I have always argued that bicylists should have a valid drivers license to be able to understand the street better.

That or do a one day program that costs a little amount as a Cyclist Safety Course that certifies bikers on the rules and regulations that should exist in print. Having authority over cyclists is practicly impossible unless there are obvious legality issues being broken.

Biking will exist with or without regulation.. I really don't think it is too much to educate a system that is completely uneducated right now.

Outsider wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:
As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

Doesn't the bus drivers job actually depend on him being able to keep his schedule?

I can say "NO"

And that's from a friend who works for them.

There is an expectation of keeping a schedule, but traffic, weather, equipment failure, etc. are all documented as delays, and cannot be held against the driver or his schedule.

If there's a bicycle which is delaying buses, that would be considering traffic...and leapfrogging cyclists puts his passengers at risk because of the unnecessary movement into other traffic.

When I ride my bike...on Portage from Main to about Century (or just past the UofW) there is NO reason for a bus to pass me, as their next stop is too close. Add to that, MOST cyclists will be riding at 20-30kmh...and the buses are barely hitting that speed before they have to stop ANYWAY.

Further down Portage where the stops start spreading out...it may be reasonable to pass a bike...as I know with me (and I like to get my speed up)...I'm usually approaching the back of the bus just as they are pulling out from the stop.

JTF wrote:

As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

That's actually a really stupid statement. Buses are all about schedules for chrissake!!

To put cyclists and buses in the same lane is insane....but no one has caught on.

And what about the part where the taxpayers have spent 23 million freaken dollars so the bikes would not be on the same streets as the buses

Outsider wrote:

JTF wrote:

As for the article above, this bus driver is obviously an idiot, and needs to learn the rules of the road and stop worrying about his schedule.

That's actually a really stupid statement. Buses are all about schedules for chrissake!!

To put cyclists and buses in the same lane is insane....but no one has caught on.

And what about the part where the taxpayers have spent 23 million freaken dollars so the bikes would not be on the same streets as the buses

Umm...where is this?

Are you talking about the BST? You DO know those are for cyclists too right?

Actually they did not spend 23 Million so that cyclists wouldn't be on the same street as buses.

They spent 23 Million so that cyclists would not be on the same sidewalk as pedestrians.

Go digging into the city's AT material on the website and you see who the AT improvements were designed for ( and it ain't ME or AA)

St Norberter wrote:Actually they did not spend 23 Million so that cyclists wouldn't be on the same street as buses.

They spent 23 Million so that cyclists would not be on the same sidewalk as pedestrians.

Go digging into the city's AT material on the website and you see who the AT improvements were designed for ( and it ain't ME or AA)

So are you saying the money was wasted?
Since bicycles are actually vehicles.
And vehicles are not supposed to be on the sidewalk in the first place.
And by the way WHY do I see cyclists using the sidewalk to leap frog the automobile traffic where the automobiles are stopped for a red light?

No, I'm saying if you read the information on the city's website you see that the target audience for the majority of these improvements aren't cyclists that already ride on streets and in traffic, it's the ones that ride on the sidewalk.

As for your last question - 'cause those cyclists are frickin idiots. See my earlier comment about wanting to clothesline one of those guys.