Excellent cycling helmet website

[DiscoDuck]

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/

While referenced here several times I wanted to ensure people were
aware of it.

[DaveFHPA]

Post by DiscoDuck
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
While referenced here several times I wanted to ensure people were
aware of it.

[Király]

Post by DiscoDuck
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
While referenced here several times I wanted to ensure people were
aware of it.

I like the masthead that appears at the top of every page. "Cyclists
fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I fully
agree.

[DiscoDuck]

But they ARE different. That is why today I saw a street that
prohibited cars. The sign said "No motor vehicles, except bicycles."

No matter how you slice it there are more differences.

Post by Király

Post by DiscoDuck
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
While referenced here several times I wanted to ensure people were
aware of it.

I like the masthead that appears at the top of every page. "Cyclists
fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I fully
agree.

[Király]

Post by DiscoDuck
But they ARE different. That is why today I saw a street that
prohibited cars. The sign said "No motor vehicles, except bicycles."

Bikes ARE different from cars, yes. But they are not different from
vehicles; they ARE vehicles. The website specifically says vehicles, not
cars.

K.

[DiscoDuck]

GOod, then we argree (finally) that they are NOT Cars in no way, manner
or form).

[DiscoDuck]

By the way, are scooters vehicles? Roller blades? Child bike with
training wheels?

[Király]

Post by DiscoDuck
By the way, are scooters vehicles? Roller blades? Child bike with
training wheels?

It depends on who you ask. By any dictionary definition I have ever
seen, yes all of the above things could be considered vehicles.

"vehicle n. 1) A device, such as a car or sled, for carrying passengers,
goods, or equipmentl; conveyance." That's out of the dictionary that I
pulled out of my bookshelf. The online Oxford American Dictionary's
definition is similar. All of the above things you mentioned
would fit this description, with roller blades possibly being arguable.

On the other hand, the *legal* definition of a vehicle in BC does *not*
include bicycles or any of the above other stuff:

"'vehicle' means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may
be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include a device
designed to be moved by human power, a device used exclusively on
stationary rails or tracks or a motor assisted cycle." (BC Motor Vehicle
Act, Section 318.1)

However, section 183.1 of the same act states: "In addition to the
duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway
has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle."

So while a bike is not technically a vehicle in the B.C. legal sense,
there is no practical difference between a bike and a vehicle when
operating either on public roads.

K.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Király
So while a bike is not technically a vehicle in the B.C. legal sense,
there is no practical difference between a bike and a vehicle when
operating either on public roads.

But of course we all know there are difference (whether the law accepts
this difference, or not). For example if I come across a red light
when wanting to turn left while cycling, I'll cruise my bike along the
crosswalk (either on or walking the bike) then proceed on my merry way
while the other "vehicles" are still stopped at the red light. This is
easily and safely done as I do it almost every time I cycle (several
times). With a car you could not do this. It is not even possible.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by DiscoDuck
GOod, then we argree (finally) that they are NOT Cars in no way,
manner or form).

No Bicycles are not cars. They are also not vans, trucks, tractors,
semi-trailers, buses, or motorcycles. But they are vehicles, just like
eveything else listed above.

[DiscoDuck]

So then we can agree, "vehicle" is an umbrella term, covering anything
that can transport a person from point a to b, to c, etc. A bike ,
blades, etc actually takes exercise to use, no polution, etc. therefore
we should encourage its use. Other vehicles do not. It's unfortunate
we seem to be trying to discourage cycling though many laws, paranoid
rules, etc.

[Colin B.]

Post by DiscoDuck
It's unfortunate
we seem to be trying to discourage cycling though many laws, paranoid
rules, etc.

such as?

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Colin B.

Post by DiscoDuck
It's unfortunate
we seem to be trying to discourage cycling though many laws, paranoid
rules, etc.

such as?

The helmet law for bicycles. This one law in of itself has done more
to dissuade cycling than anything else. By removing the choice for
people they have done two things: Suggested it is far more dangerous
than it really is, and discouraged those who do not wish to wear a
helmet from riding. There are a group of zealots that get VERY angry
at the idea of giving choice back. Quite bizarre (which suggests ego
is more a motive than medical dollars or saving lives). Despite the
evidence proving that the law is based on erroneous study, they STILL
insist people should be mandated to wear a helmet (I won't even get
into the hypocrisy of helmet law proponants).

AND, The idea that bicycles should act like cars on the road (i.e. do
not cycle across crosswalks, take up entire lanes in traffic to block
cars, blocking right turning vehicles at red lights, etc).

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by DiscoDuck
So then we can agree, "vehicle" is an umbrella term, covering
anything that can transport a person from point a to b, to c, etc. A
bike , blades, etc actually takes exercise to use, no polution, etc.
therefore we should encourage its use. Other vehicles do not. It's
unfortunate we seem to be trying to discourage cycling though many
laws, paranoid rules, etc.

Vehicle is a legal term defined by the government and their operation on
public property is governed by specific laws. Bicylces are vehicles (as
defined in the law) and must therefore follow the same rules as other
vehicles (as defined in the law) when using the highways (as defined in
the law). A cyclist should not only follow all of the laws regarding
vehicle operation because it's the law, they should do it because it's
the safest way to ride.

[DiscoDuck]

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I cycle I
break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is wrong in this case
(the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get some to admit it, is another
matter).

The fact the law defines a bike as a vehicle, does not mean it is the
same as a car. Even part of this "law" some hold so dear recognizes
this. For example the roads prohibiting cars, but permitting bicycles.
Why? Because there are differences.
I will continue to prove the law wrong by breaking cycling laws, and
proving (yet again) how safe it is to cycle despite what many law
proponents will have you believe.
Those of you who wish to cycle according to the law, feel free to do
so. But we know there is more to this than supposed safety-it's ego.
Trying to FORCE others to cycle as you would is a form of intolerance.
Cycling is safe despite what the law demands of cyclists.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I cycle I
break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is wrong in this
case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get some to admit it, is
another matter).

What?

The fact the law defines a bike as a vehicle, does not mean it is the
same as a car. Even part of this "law" some hold so dear recognizes
this. For example the roads prohibiting cars, but permitting
bicycles. Why? Because there are differences.

There are bus only lanes too, so what? Bicycles are vehicles and are
safest when they are operated in the same manner as all of the other
vehicles they are sharing the roadway with.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I cycle I
break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is wrong in this
case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get some to admit it, is
another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right? They forget
the law is "inspired" by people, and both are often flawed and wrong
(but again, how people do you know will admit they are wrong?)

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

The fact the law defines a bike as a vehicle, does not mean it is the
same as a car. Even part of this "law" some hold so dear recognizes
this. For example the roads prohibiting cars, but permitting
bicycles. Why? Because there are differences.

There are bus only lanes too, so what? Bicycles are vehicles and are
safest when they are operated in the same manner as all of the other
vehicles they are sharing the roadway with.

Using that logic, then bikes SHOULDN'T be permitted down ANY roads that
prohibit cars. After all, both are VEHICLES! Right? Why then,
drivers of cars would have to wear helmets (which would save approx 25
x money and injuries, then cycling head injury related accidents). But
the simple fact of the matter is, there are differences. IT is
perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk, to cruise
carefully down a sidewalk (considerate of pedestrians), to turn left
where cars cannot. I and millions of cyclist's prove this daily.
But again most "passionate" cyclists won't admit this since it would be
admitting they were wrong-yet proved every week by the majority of
cyclists.

[Király]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
There are bus only lanes too, so what? Bicycles are vehicles and are
safest when they are operated in the same manner as all of the other
vehicles they are sharing the roadway with.

Using that logic, then bikes SHOULDN'T be permitted down ANY roads that
prohibit cars. After all, both are VEHICLES!

I don't understand where that logic comes from, Disco.

A bus, a car, a bike, and a semi are all vehicles. Some roads allow
buses and cars and semis, but not bikes. Some allow buses and bikes, but
not cars or semis. Some allow buses and bikes and cars, but not semis.
The authority with jurisdiction over the road in question may put
restrictions on what types of vehicles are permitted on the road. Why
does a road that bans a car have to also ban a cyclist who chooses to
operate his bike like he would a car?

K.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I cycle I
break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is wrong in this
case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get some to admit it, is
another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right?

That's not a question...

Post by DiscoDuck
They forget the law is "inspired" by people, and both are often
flawed and wrong (but again, how people do you know will admit they
are wrong?)

Traffic laws are all pretty much arbitrary, there is no "moral" reason
to drive on the right. An arguement can be made that certain traffic
laws are less then optimum, but everyone obeying the current laws is
safer than people disobeying which ever laws they don't personally like.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
There are bus only lanes too, so what? Bicycles are vehicles and
are safest when they are operated in the same manner as all of the
other vehicles they are sharing the roadway with.

Using that logic, then bikes SHOULDN'T be permitted down ANY roads
that prohibit cars.

No it doesn't. Certain classes of vehicles are prevented from using
certain roads all over the place.

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk, [slight
edit to organize the response, not to change the meaning] to turn
left where cars cannot.

No it's not. Ignoring the issue of peds you are just begging for someone
turning the corner to not notice you and take you out.

Post by DiscoDuck
to cruise carefully down a sidewalk (considerate of pedestrians),
[this was taken out of the middle of the preceeding sentence]

You should never be riding on a sidewalk/crosswalk with peds, period.
Peds are too unpredicable, they tend to change direction, stop, etc.
without warning or signalling. If you need to use the sidewalk/crosswalk
get off your bike and walk it.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I cycle I
break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is wrong in this
case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get some to admit it, is
another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right?

That's not a question...

Then what was the question?

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
They forget the law is "inspired" by people, and both are often
flawed and wrong (but again, how people do you know will admit they
are wrong?)

Traffic laws are all pretty much arbitrary, there is no "moral" reason
to drive on the right. An arguement can be made that certain traffic
laws are less then optimum, but everyone obeying the current laws is
safer than people disobeying which ever laws they don't personally like.

It's not about what I like or don't like. It's about being reasonable.
Dictating bikes behave likes cars is unreasonable and paranoid.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
There are bus only lanes too, so what? Bicycles are vehicles and
are safest when they are operated in the same manner as all of the
other vehicles they are sharing the roadway with.

Using that logic, then bikes SHOULDN'T be permitted down ANY roads
that prohibit cars.

No it doesn't. Certain classes of vehicles are prevented from using
certain roads all over the place.

Correct, proving there are BIG differences between bikes and cars.
Good we agree.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk, [slight
edit to organize the response, not to change the meaning] to turn
left where cars cannot.

No it's not. Ignoring the issue of peds you are just begging for someone
turning the corner to not notice you and take you out.

Then why haven't I hit been hit by any pedestrian? Because I use a
reasonable amount of caution. As a matter of fact I have had more
people hit me while I WAS WALKING. When riding I use more care (more
distance, etc). IT is that simple.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
to cruise carefully down a sidewalk (considerate of pedestrians),
[this was taken out of the middle of the preceeding sentence]

You should never be riding on a sidewalk/crosswalk with peds, period.
Peds are too unpredicable, they tend to change direction, stop, etc.
without warning or signalling. If you need to use the sidewalk/crosswalk
get off your bike and walk it.

This kind of thinking is what leads to dumb paranoid laws. As pointed
out above, I use a reasonable amount of care and caution. I don't zip
down at 30 KM an hour on the sidewalk.

As for riding across the cross walk, it is SUPER paranoid to suggest to
walk it. Maybe you do not have the simple skill set to ride it across
the crosswalk, but most people are perfectly capable doing so (and do
so). I will not walk my bike across the crosswalk-never. Most
cyclists don't and prove it is safe not to do so.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I
cycle I break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is
wrong in this case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get
some to admit it, is another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right?

That's not a question...

Then what was the question?

I don't know, the statement "The point is some people think the law is
always right" isn't a question, even if you stick a questionmark on the
end of it.

Post by DiscoDuck
It's not about what I like or don't like. It's about being
reasonable. Dictating bikes behave likes cars is unreasonable and
paranoid.

No, it's being rational and pragmatic. Bikes, cars and all other
vehicles are operating on the same piece of land. They are _sharing the
road_, when they *all* operate in the same fashion their operation is
predicable and being predictable is one of the key factors to safely
operating a vehicle. To put it plainly, if the other road users know
what you're going to do they can better avoid colliding with you.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
No it doesn't. Certain classes of vehicles are prevented from using
certain roads all over the place.

Correct, proving there are BIG differences between bikes and cars.
Good we agree.

Of course there are physical differences, that doen't mean they should
be operated differently.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk,
[slight edit to organize the response, not to change the meaning]
to turn left where cars cannot.

No it's not. Ignoring the issue of peds you are just begging for
someone turning the corner to not notice you and take you out.

Then why haven't I hit been hit by any pedestrian?

Luck?

Post by DiscoDuck
Because I use a reasonable amount of caution. As a matter of fact I
have had more people hit me while I WAS WALKING. When riding I use
more care (more distance, etc). IT is that simple.

Last night, I was driving East down Boradway and while waiting at the
red light watched a cyclist illegally turn left (North) at the Main St.
intersection and almost get hit by a van who was making a legal left
hand turn West onto Broadway. By "almost hit" I mean the van had to lock
up his brakes and swerve to avoid hitting the cyclist.

Then a few blocks later (I think it was the Clarke Dr. intersection) As
I was pulling up to the intersection in the curb lane (I was about 40 ft
from the intersection and had a red light) a cyclist hopped off the curb
about 10 feet in front of me, cut kitty-corner across my lane and the
lane beside me and headed North across the intersection (in the
crosswalk). It was dark and raining and I was easily able to avoid
hitting the cyclist because I was paying attention, but if I had looked
away for "just a moment" or lost traction on the slippery street I would
have hit him.

I'm sure both of them thought they were operating their bikes in a safe
manner.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
You should never be riding on a sidewalk/crosswalk with peds,
period. Peds are too unpredicable, they tend to change direction,
stop, etc. without warning or signalling. If you need to use the
sidewalk/crosswalk get off your bike and walk it.

This kind of thinking is what leads to dumb paranoid laws. As pointed
out above, I use a reasonable amount of care and caution. I don't zip
down at 30 KM an hour on the sidewalk.

Peds are too unpredicable to be riding around, period. You should never
share the path with peds.

Post by DiscoDuck
As for riding across the cross walk, it is SUPER paranoid to suggest
to walk it. Maybe you do not have the simple skill set to ride it
across the crosswalk, but most people are perfectly capable doing so
(and do so). I will not walk my bike across the crosswalk-never.
Most cyclists don't and prove it is safe not to do so.

See the above two examples of near accidents I witnessed last night.
It's not safe.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I
cycle I break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is
wrong in this case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get
some to admit it, is another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right?

That's not a question...

Then what was the question?

I don't know, the statement "The point is some people think the law is
always right" isn't a question, even if you stick a questionmark on the
end of it.

Post by DiscoDuck
It's not about what I like or don't like. It's about being
reasonable. Dictating bikes behave likes cars is unreasonable and
paranoid.

No, it's being rational and pragmatic. Bikes, cars and all other
vehicles are operating on the same piece of land. They are _sharing the
road_, when they *all* operate in the same fashion their operation is
predicable and being predictable is one of the key factors to safely
operating a vehicle. To put it plainly, if the other road users know
what you're going to do they can better avoid colliding with you.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
No it doesn't. Certain classes of vehicles are prevented from using
certain roads all over the place.

Correct, proving there are BIG differences between bikes and cars.
Good we agree.

Of course there are physical differences, that doen't mean they should
be operated differently.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk,
[slight edit to organize the response, not to change the meaning]
to turn left where cars cannot.

No it's not. Ignoring the issue of peds you are just begging for
someone turning the corner to not notice you and take you out.

Then why haven't I hit been hit by any pedestrian?

Luck?

nope. Statistically speaking if you are hit by a cyclist or pedestrian
you are UNLUCKY! You stating I am lucky suggests most people are in
such accidents. That such accidents are the norm and if you
aren't-then you're lucky. Not so.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
Because I use a reasonable amount of caution. As a matter of fact I
have had more people hit me while I WAS WALKING. When riding I use
more care (more distance, etc). IT is that simple.

Last night, I was driving East down Boradway and while waiting at the
red light watched a cyclist illegally turn left (North) at the Main St.
intersection and almost get hit by a van who was making a legal left
hand turn West onto Broadway. By "almost hit" I mean the van had to lock
up his brakes and swerve to avoid hitting the cyclist.

Interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left with NO issues
whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far) (rode most of the day).
This is not including myself.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Then a few blocks later (I think it was the Clarke Dr. intersection) As
I was pulling up to the intersection in the curb lane (I was about 40 ft
from the intersection and had a red light) a cyclist hopped off the curb
about 10 feet in front of me, cut kitty-corner across my lane and the
lane beside me and headed North across the intersection (in the
crosswalk). It was dark and raining and I was easily able to avoid
hitting the cyclist because I was paying attention, but if I had looked
away for "just a moment" or lost traction on the slippery street I would
have hit him.

Again that is interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left
with NO issues whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far).

Plus it should go noted that you spoke of 'near' accidents. None
occurred (apparently due to your superior driving skills).


Plus this evening I am out and about and plan on cycling. I'll let you
know how I fare but I suspect it will be unscathed.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
I'm sure both of them thought they were operating their bikes in a safe
manner.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
You should never be riding on a sidewalk/crosswalk with peds,
period. Peds are too unpredicable, they tend to change direction,
stop, etc. without warning or signalling. If you need to use the
sidewalk/crosswalk get off your bike and walk it.

This kind of thinking is what leads to dumb paranoid laws. As pointed
out above, I use a reasonable amount of care and caution. I don't zip
down at 30 KM an hour on the sidewalk.

Peds are too unpredicable to be riding around, period. You should never
share the path with peds.

You can if you're reasonable about. Looking out my window at any given
point I see cyclists doing this all the time. As a matter of fact
think I'll whip down to the store right now on my bike using the
sidewalk.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
As for riding across the cross walk, it is SUPER paranoid to suggest
to walk it. Maybe you do not have the simple skill set to ride it
across the crosswalk, but most people are perfectly capable doing so
(and do so). I will not walk my bike across the crosswalk-never.
Most cyclists don't and prove it is safe not to do so.

See the above two examples of near accidents I witnessed last night.
It's not safe.

IT is safe. Any accidents that happen are bad luck-plain an simple.
Fluke accidents can never be avoided no matter how many laws or rules
you impose or how unsafe you want to think cycling is. IT is safe-just
use caution and be aware of your surroundings. Also be considerate of
cars, pedestrians and other cyclists alike. It's all that simple.

[smn]

DD said Fluke accidents can never be avoided no matter how many laws or
rules

Post by DiscoDuck
you impose or how unsafe you want to think cycling is. IT is safe-just

So in case anybody does have a freak accident, doing it with no rules and
without a helmut, like say a semi goes through a red light and you were not
expecting that kind of errant behavior because of a coverup by inside lanes,
you think the fellow would fair better without a helmut when there in a
situation no one not even God could forsee? Picture a semi fully loaded
barrelling through an already red light hidden by inside lane traffic and
the biker gets knocked over by the surprise, wind force or shock. without a
helmut, anything other than an instant kill.
If you do not have a helmut ICBC will not pay your medical bills or funeral
costs and the driver will not go to jail most likely. Because he would not
have died if he had a helmut. (that would be the slant, right or wrong)
Bikers have slim rights in court against drivers you know. That is the
slant anyway. Go to court and find out.
So I will keep wearing a helmut not because I am not cautious ( I am 1000%
the opposite) I will do it for the m.f. drivers that can get away with
killing people because of the predjudice against cyclists.
Only the facts ma'm.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

In article

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I
cycle I break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is
wrong in this case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get
some to admit it, is another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right?

That's not a question...

Then what was the question?

I don't know, the statement "The point is some people think the law is
always right" isn't a question, even if you stick a questionmark on the
end of it.

Post by DiscoDuck
It's not about what I like or don't like. It's about being
reasonable. Dictating bikes behave likes cars is unreasonable and
paranoid.

No, it's being rational and pragmatic. Bikes, cars and all other
vehicles are operating on the same piece of land. They are _sharing the
road_, when they *all* operate in the same fashion their operation is
predicable and being predictable is one of the key factors to safely
operating a vehicle. To put it plainly, if the other road users know
what you're going to do they can better avoid colliding with you.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
No it doesn't. Certain classes of vehicles are prevented from using
certain roads all over the place.

Correct, proving there are BIG differences between bikes and cars.
Good we agree.

Of course there are physical differences, that doen't mean they should
be operated differently.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk,
[slight edit to organize the response, not to change the meaning]
to turn left where cars cannot.

No it's not. Ignoring the issue of peds you are just begging for
someone turning the corner to not notice you and take you out.

Then why haven't I hit been hit by any pedestrian?

Luck?

nope. Statistically speaking if you are hit by a cyclist or pedestrian
you are UNLUCKY! You stating I am lucky suggests most people are in
such accidents. That such accidents are the norm and if you
aren't-then you're lucky. Not so.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
Because I use a reasonable amount of caution. As a matter of fact I
have had more people hit me while I WAS WALKING. When riding I use
more care (more distance, etc). IT is that simple.

Last night, I was driving East down Boradway and while waiting at the
red light watched a cyclist illegally turn left (North) at the Main St.
intersection and almost get hit by a van who was making a legal left
hand turn West onto Broadway. By "almost hit" I mean the van had to lock
up his brakes and swerve to avoid hitting the cyclist.

Interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left with NO issues
whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far) (rode most of the day).
This is not including myself.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Then a few blocks later (I think it was the Clarke Dr. intersection) As
I was pulling up to the intersection in the curb lane (I was about 40 ft
from the intersection and had a red light) a cyclist hopped off the curb
about 10 feet in front of me, cut kitty-corner across my lane and the
lane beside me and headed North across the intersection (in the
crosswalk). It was dark and raining and I was easily able to avoid
hitting the cyclist because I was paying attention, but if I had looked
away for "just a moment" or lost traction on the slippery street I would
have hit him.

Again that is interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left
with NO issues whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far).
Plus it should go noted that you spoke of 'near' accidents. None
occurred (apparently due to your superior driving skills).
Plus this evening I am out and about and plan on cycling. I'll let you
know how I fare but I suspect it will be unscathed.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
I'm sure both of them thought they were operating their bikes in a safe
manner.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
You should never be riding on a sidewalk/crosswalk with peds,
period. Peds are too unpredicable, they tend to change direction,
stop, etc. without warning or signalling. If you need to use the
sidewalk/crosswalk get off your bike and walk it.

This kind of thinking is what leads to dumb paranoid laws. As pointed
out above, I use a reasonable amount of care and caution. I don't zip
down at 30 KM an hour on the sidewalk.

Peds are too unpredicable to be riding around, period. You should never
share the path with peds.

You can if you're reasonable about. Looking out my window at any given
point I see cyclists doing this all the time. As a matter of fact
think I'll whip down to the store right now on my bike using the
sidewalk.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
As for riding across the cross walk, it is SUPER paranoid to suggest
to walk it. Maybe you do not have the simple skill set to ride it
across the crosswalk, but most people are perfectly capable doing so
(and do so). I will not walk my bike across the crosswalk-never.
Most cyclists don't and prove it is safe not to do so.

See the above two examples of near accidents I witnessed last night.
It's not safe.

IT is safe. Any accidents that happen are bad luck-plain an simple.
Fluke accidents can never be avoided no matter how many laws or rules
you impose or how unsafe you want to think cycling is. IT is safe-just
use caution and be aware of your surroundings. Also be considerate of
cars, pedestrians and other cyclists alike. It's all that simple.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by smn
DD said Fluke accidents can never be avoided no matter how many laws or
rules

Post by DiscoDuck
you impose or how unsafe you want to think cycling is. IT is safe-just

Correct-you could mandate helmets in cars (which have a mich higher
accident and cost rate) and pedestrians and you would STILL have such
accidents.

Post by smn
So in case anybody does have a freak accident, doing it with no rules and
without a helmut, like say a semi goes through a red light and you were not
expecting that kind of errant behavior because of a coverup by inside lanes,
you think the fellow would fair better without a helmut when there in a
situation no one not even God could forsee? Picture a semi fully loaded
barrelling through an already red light hidden by inside lane traffic and
the biker gets knocked over by the surprise, wind force or shock. without a
helmut, anything other than an instant kill.

What kind of rambling nonsense is this. Your "example" make no sense
whatsoever. Comparing cycling safely to a semi-truck running a red
light? Uhm, non-sensical.

Post by smn
If you do not have a helmut ICBC will not pay your medical bills or funeral
costs

I get the impression you are not from BC. From the sounds of it, not
even Canada. ICBC does not pay medical or funeral costs-ever. They
offer no such coverage.

and the driver will not go to jail most likely. Because he would not

Post by smn
have died if he had a helmut. (that would be the slant, right or wrong)
Bikers have slim rights in court against drivers you know. That is the
slant anyway. Go to court and find out.

You are wrong-all Canadians (and non Canadians) are covered by the
social medical system many claim to cherish, regardless of risk factors
or income level. That is the point of a socialized medical system (of
course some want to pick and choose now who is covered and who isn't).

Post by smn
So I will keep wearing a helmut not because I am not cautious ( I am 1000%
the opposite) I will do it for the m.f. drivers that can get away with
killing people because of the predjudice against cyclists.
Only the facts ma'm.

You haven't stated on fact-not one. But here is one fact for you. No
driver in Canada has purposely murdered a cyclist. As a matter of
fact, the number of fatalities involving cycling is very rare
throughout the country. But cycling "zealots' would have you believe
otherwise.
But this "prejudice" is in part to inconsiderate cyclists (i.e. keeping
centered in a lane blocking cars). Yes there are crazy people out
there who hate cyclists, and drivers (you, for example being one of
them but your statement "I will do it for the m.f. drivers that can get
away with killing people because of the predjudice against cyclists."

Any guesses to the number of cycling fatalities, people? Number of
Head injuries country wide? How about comparing it to the number
before and AFTER the helmet law was passed? Now, lets talk about facts
(although those proven wrong will either ignore the post or start lying
themselve to try and prove their point)

Any takers?

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Last night, I was driving East down Boradway and while waiting at
the red light watched a cyclist illegally turn left (North) at the
Main St. intersection and almost get hit by a van who was making a
legal left hand turn West onto Broadway. By "almost hit" I mean the
van had to lock up his brakes and swerve to avoid hitting the
cyclist.

Interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left with NO issues
whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far) (rode most of the
day). This is not including myself.

The number you saw or didn't see doesn't in any way negate the two close
calls I witnessed.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Then a few blocks later (I think it was the Clarke Dr.
intersection) As I was pulling up to the intersection in the curb
lane (I was about 40 ft from the intersection and had a red light)
a cyclist hopped off the curb about 10 feet in front of me, cut
kitty-corner across my lane and the lane beside me and headed North
across the intersection (in the crosswalk). It was dark and raining
and I was easily able to avoid hitting the cyclist because I was
paying attention, but if I had looked away for "just a moment" or
lost traction on the slippery street I would have hit him.

Again that is interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left
with NO issues whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far).

See above. Restating your case doesn't change it's inherent fallacy.

Post by DiscoDuck
Plus it should go noted that you spoke of 'near' accidents. None
occurred (apparently due to your superior driving skills).

The first didn't occur because the van driver was able to emergency stop
in time. The second didn't happen because I was paying attention, if my
attention had turned away for a couple of seconds (as it does for all of
us from time to time) I would have hit him.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Peds are too unpredicable to be riding around, period. You should
never share the path with peds.

You can if you're reasonable about. Looking out my window at any
given point I see cyclists doing this all the time. As a matter of
fact think I'll whip down to the store right now on my bike using the
sidewalk.

Perhaps you should look up the words "should" and "can" on
http://www.dictionary.com, but I suspect you delight in the argument and
won't bother with little things like logic and reason.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
As for riding across the cross walk, it is SUPER paranoid to
suggest to walk it. Maybe you do not have the simple skill set
to ride it across the crosswalk, but most people are perfectly
capable doing so (and do so). I will not walk my bike across the
crosswalk-never. Most cyclists don't and prove it is safe not to
do so.

See the above two examples of near accidents I witnessed last
night. It's not safe.

IT is safe. Any accidents that happen are bad luck-plain an simple.

That is completely untrue. Almost all accidents are avoidable and the
result of driver error (incuding the mistake of operating a mechanically
unsafe vehicle).

Post by DiscoDuck
Fluke accidents can never be avoided no matter how many laws or rules
you impose or how unsafe you want to think cycling is.

Getting whacked by a space station toilet seat after its reentry is a
fluke accident. Getting run over because you're turning left in a
crosswalk is not.

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is safe-just use caution and be aware of your surroundings. Also
be considerate of cars, pedestrians and other cyclists alike. It's
all that simple.

It is *safer* to do it acccording to the rules of the road.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Last night, I was driving East down Boradway and while waiting at
the red light watched a cyclist illegally turn left (North) at the
Main St. intersection and almost get hit by a van who was making a
legal left hand turn West onto Broadway. By "almost hit" I mean the
van had to lock up his brakes and swerve to avoid hitting the
cyclist.

Interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left with NO issues
whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far) (rode most of the
day). This is not including myself.

The number you saw or didn't see doesn't in any way negate the two close
calls I witnessed.

No but proves my point about stats. That is cycling is very safe and
all these "near" accident that people speak of are just speculation as
to what "would have happened" if this, that or the other thing did not
happen.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Then a few blocks later (I think it was the Clarke Dr.
intersection) As I was pulling up to the intersection in the curb
lane (I was about 40 ft from the intersection and had a red light)
a cyclist hopped off the curb about 10 feet in front of me, cut
kitty-corner across my lane and the lane beside me and headed North
across the intersection (in the crosswalk). It was dark and raining
and I was easily able to avoid hitting the cyclist because I was
paying attention, but if I had looked away for "just a moment" or
lost traction on the slippery street I would have hit him.

Again that is interesting as I watched about 12 yesterday turn left
with NO issues whatsoever, and today about another 15 (so far).

See above. Restating your case doesn't change it's inherent fallacy.

Uhm, no fallacy. Proving it daily PROVES it is not a fallacy.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
Plus it should go noted that you spoke of 'near' accidents. None
occurred (apparently due to your superior driving skills).

The first didn't occur because the van driver was able to emergency stop
in time. The second didn't happen because I was paying attention, if my
attention had turned away for a couple of seconds (as it does for all of
us from time to time) I would have hit him.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Peds are too unpredicable to be riding around, period. You should
never share the path with peds.

You can if you're reasonable about. Looking out my window at any
given point I see cyclists doing this all the time. As a matter of
fact think I'll whip down to the store right now on my bike using the
sidewalk.

Perhaps you should look up the words "should" and "can" on
http://www.dictionary.com, but I suspect you delight in the argument and
won't bother with little things like logic and reason.

I'm not the one arguing for the rules. I am arguing for being
reasonable. Ticketing people for no helmet, or carefully riding on a
sidewalk, or across a crosswalk is NOT reasonable. IT just erodes
police credibility.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
As for riding across the cross walk, it is SUPER paranoid to
suggest to walk it. Maybe you do not have the simple skill set
to ride it across the crosswalk, but most people are perfectly
capable doing so (and do so). I will not walk my bike across the
crosswalk-never. Most cyclists don't and prove it is safe not to
do so.

See the above two examples of near accidents I witnessed last
night. It's not safe.

IT is safe. Any accidents that happen are bad luck-plain an simple.

That is completely untrue. Almost all accidents are avoidable and the
result of driver error (incuding the mistake of operating a mechanically
unsafe vehicle).

The point is most cycling accidents are a fluke. Yes of course some
accidents are a result of someone's mistake (driver or bicyclist).
Absolutely. I'll even agree that SOME rules are necessary for
liability sake, but the rules have got out of hand and made cycling
like it was more dangerous than it really it. People now say to me
they don't cycle as they now feel because of the all the awareness
that it is simply dangerous and no helmet will help them. So they
don't cycle at all. THAT is what all this "awareness" has done.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
Fluke accidents can never be avoided no matter how many laws or rules
you impose or how unsafe you want to think cycling is.

Getting whacked by a space station toilet seat after its reentry is a
fluke accident. Getting run over because you're turning left in a
crosswalk is not.

I'll agree your first example is a fluke, but so is your second. Both
happen about as often. I have turned left literally THOUSANDS of times
and have yet to be in or cause an accident.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is safe-just use caution and be aware of your surroundings. Also
be considerate of cars, pedestrians and other cyclists alike. It's
all that simple.

It is *safer* to do it acccording to the rules of the road.

Again, too many rules and arbitrarily punishing some discourages
cycling as it suggests it is more dangerous than it really it.

[smn]

That is damn right. Seems around here whether it is cyclists on sidewalks
or cars trying to get by you closer and faster,all they think they have to
do is go faster so they will not get caught and your left with your heart
jammed in your mouth because you think the law is for safety reasons and you
would be right. Same as car drivers that think they are always right
because they have a horn and you do not. What is that? equivalent to having
a gun in the States. I assume all drivers are dumb asses and ride
accordingly.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Thanks for emphasising my point about paranoia. Every time I cycle I
break the law proving that doing so is safe. The is wrong in this
case (the law is OFTEN wrong but try to get some to admit it, is
another matter).

What?

The point is some people think the law is always right?

That's not a question...

Post by DiscoDuck
They forget the law is "inspired" by people, and both are often
flawed and wrong (but again, how people do you know will admit they
are wrong?)

Traffic laws are all pretty much arbitrary, there is no "moral" reason
to drive on the right. An arguement can be made that certain traffic
laws are less then optimum, but everyone obeying the current laws is
safer than people disobeying which ever laws they don't personally like.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
There are bus only lanes too, so what? Bicycles are vehicles and
are safest when they are operated in the same manner as all of the
other vehicles they are sharing the roadway with.

Using that logic, then bikes SHOULDN'T be permitted down ANY roads
that prohibit cars.

No it doesn't. Certain classes of vehicles are prevented from using
certain roads all over the place.

Post by DiscoDuck
IT is perfectly safe to ride your bike across a crosswalk, [slight
edit to organize the response, not to change the meaning] to turn
left where cars cannot.

No it's not. Ignoring the issue of peds you are just begging for someone
turning the corner to not notice you and take you out.

Post by DiscoDuck
to cruise carefully down a sidewalk (considerate of pedestrians),
[this was taken out of the middle of the preceeding sentence]

You should never be riding on a sidewalk/crosswalk with peds, period.
Peds are too unpredicable, they tend to change direction, stop, etc.
without warning or signalling. If you need to use the sidewalk/crosswalk
get off your bike and walk it.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

I assume all drivers are dumb asses and ride accordingly.

Absolutely, that's called defensinve driving. It's how I ride and how I
drive.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Király

Post by DiscoDuck
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
While referenced here several times I wanted to ensure people
were aware of it.

I like the masthead that appears at the top of every page.
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of
vehicles." I fully agree.

But they ARE different. That is why today I saw a street that
prohibited cars. The sign said "No motor vehicles, except bicycles."
No matter how you slice it there are more differences.

Bicycles are vehicles.
Bicycles are not motor vehicles.

Can you see the difference?

Cyclists are safest when they act like and are treated like the vehicle
drivers that they are.

[Peter McNichol]

Actually since bicycles are not motor vehicles a sign prohibiting
motor vehicles would not apply to bicycles, with or without the
exception.

In Ottawa, Ontario the sign is the red circle with horizontal bar,
meaning "no entry". The sign then has a tab that excepts bicycles.

Post by DiscoDuck
But they ARE different. That is why today I saw a street that
prohibited cars. The sign said "No motor vehicles, except bicycles."
No matter how you slice it there are more differences.

Post by Király

Post by DiscoDuck
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
While referenced here several times I wanted to ensure people were
aware of it.

I like the masthead that appears at the top of every page. "Cyclists
fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I fully
agree.

[Király]

Post by Peter McNichol
Actually since bicycles are not motor vehicles a sign prohibiting
motor vehicles would not apply to bicycles, with or without the
exception.

I think Disco is hallucinating; despite both of us living and cycling in the
same city I have never seen a sign with the wording he described.

Post by Peter McNichol
In Ottawa, Ontario the sign is the red circle with horizontal bar,
meaning "no entry". The sign then has a tab that excepts bicycles.

This is exactly what we have in Vancouver too, on many many designated
bike routes; an example being southbound Cypress Street midway between 4th
and 5th Avenues. This type of signage is probably what Disco is
misdescribing.

K.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Király

Post by Peter McNichol
Actually since bicycles are not motor vehicles a sign prohibiting
motor vehicles would not apply to bicycles, with or without the
exception.

I think Disco is hallucinating; despite both of us living and cycling in the
same city I have never seen a sign with the wording he described.

Are you joking? You quoted someone else. Anyway, are you trying to
argue about semantics now? The point remains the same (and thank you
for proving mine). There are more differences between cars and bikes,
than similarities

Post by Király

Post by Peter McNichol
In Ottawa, Ontario the sign is the red circle with horizontal bar,
meaning "no entry". The sign then has a tab that excepts bicycles.

This is exactly what we have in Vancouver too, on many many designated
bike routes; an example being southbound Cypress Street midway between 4th
and 5th Avenues. This type of signage is probably what Disco is
misdescribing.

And why do they exempt bikes, when apparently they are the same as
cars?

[Király]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Király
I think Disco is hallucinating; despite both of us living and
cycling in the same city I have never seen a sign with the wording he
described.

Are you joking? You quoted someone else.

I wasn't talking to you, Disco. I was talking to Peter about what you

Post by DiscoDuck
The sign said "No motor vehicles, except bicycles."

...and then Peter explained how similar signs look in another city.

Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway, are you trying to argue about semantics now?

No argument on anything at all, I was just pointing out to Peter how
there really isn't a difference in the signage in Vancouver vs. in
Ottawa.

Post by DiscoDuck
The point remains the same (and thank you for proving mine). There are
more differences between cars and bikes, than similarities

Do you mean differences in how each should be operated on public
highways (which was what we were talking about)? Or simply differences in
their design and construction?

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Király
This is exactly what we have in Vancouver too, on many many designated
bike routes; an example being southbound Cypress Street midway between 4th
and 5th Avenues. This type of signage is probably what Disco is
misdescribing.

And why do they exempt bikes, when apparently they are the same as
cars?

Nobody has said a bike was the same as a car, that I can find by
re-reading this thread.

Bikes are exempt from the prohibition because that roadway has been
designated by the appropriate authority (in this case, city hall) as being
for a specific type of vehicle only; namely a bicycle.

There are many other examples of public roadways being restricted
to certain types of vehicles, to the exclusion of others.

K.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Király

Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway, are you trying to argue about semantics now?

No argument on anything at all, I was just pointing out to Peter how
there really isn't a difference in the signage in Vancouver vs. in
Ottawa.

my apoligies. It appears I jumped the gun there.

DD

PS: See I can admit when I am wrong. Too bad most people can't.