Discussion:
To be clear
(too old to reply)
DiscoDuck
2005-11-01 00:19:23 UTC
Permalink
I see no problem with guidelines, suggestions etc for cysling And I do
think some people need a more strict guideline than others. The
problem is those who are the worst cyclers are the ones who try and
insist everyone should cycle "their" way (rules, laws, helmets, etc).
The reason for this is, is they recognize how "risky" thier own cycling
behavior is and then project that on the majority. But instead of
recongizing thier own shortcomings, they insist everyone should cycle
as they do.
The only people who should "abide" by those rules are the ones
insisting ALL should abide by them.
Colin B.
2005-11-01 02:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Disco,

So, what rules should cyclists abide by?

Please enlighten us as to what are Discos Cyclist Vehicle Act's
guidelines and suggestions for safe cycling.
Post by DiscoDuck
I see no problem with guidelines, suggestions etc for cysling And I do
think some people need a more strict guideline than others. The
problem is those who are the worst cyclers are the ones who try and
insist everyone should cycle "their" way (rules, laws, helmets, etc).
The reason for this is, is they recognize how "risky" thier own cycling
behavior is and then project that on the majority. But instead of
recongizing thier own shortcomings, they insist everyone should cycle
as they do.
The only people who should "abide" by those rules are the ones
insisting ALL should abide by them.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-01 02:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
Disco,
So, what rules should cyclists abide by?
Please enlighten us as to what are Discos Cyclist Vehicle Act's
guidelines and suggestions for safe cycling.
It's exactly what most people are doing now-use common sense. Keep out
of a cars way, move safely along a crosswalk (yes, this can be done
while ON the bike), etc.

There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.

As a matter of fact, today I jay walked several times.

boy though, it sure seems to bother some, that I don't cycle like them
(hence my point they advocate laws mandating such).

You're welcome.
Post by Colin B.
Post by DiscoDuck
I see no problem with guidelines, suggestions etc for cysling And I do
think some people need a more strict guideline than others. The
problem is those who are the worst cyclers are the ones who try and
insist everyone should cycle "their" way (rules, laws, helmets, etc).
The reason for this is, is they recognize how "risky" thier own cycling
behavior is and then project that on the majority. But instead of
recongizing thier own shortcomings, they insist everyone should cycle
as they do.
The only people who should "abide" by those rules are the ones
insisting ALL should abide by them.
Colin B.
2005-11-01 03:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Sure is a wonderful world in which we live, as now we just have to
follow common sense and we will all be safe! Cities can now save
millions of $$$, as we no longer require stop signs, traffic lights,
traffic circles etc., as common sense will prevail and we now will all
live happily ever after, safely!


Colin
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Colin B.
Disco,
So, what rules should cyclists abide by?
Please enlighten us as to what are Discos Cyclist Vehicle Act's
guidelines and suggestions for safe cycling.
It's exactly what most people are doing now-use common sense. Keep out
of a cars way, move safely along a crosswalk (yes, this can be done
while ON the bike), etc.
There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.
As a matter of fact, today I jay walked several times.
boy though, it sure seems to bother some, that I don't cycle like them
(hence my point they advocate laws mandating such).
You're welcome.
Post by Colin B.
Post by DiscoDuck
I see no problem with guidelines, suggestions etc for cysling And I do
think some people need a more strict guideline than others. The
problem is those who are the worst cyclers are the ones who try and
insist everyone should cycle "their" way (rules, laws, helmets, etc).
The reason for this is, is they recognize how "risky" thier own cycling
behavior is and then project that on the majority. But instead of
recongizing thier own shortcomings, they insist everyone should cycle
as they do.
The only people who should "abide" by those rules are the ones
insisting ALL should abide by them.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-01 07:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
Sure is a wonderful world in which we live, as now we just have to
follow common sense and we will all be safe! Cities can now save
millions of $$$, as we no longer require stop signs, traffic lights,
traffic circles etc., as common sense will prevail and we now will all
live happily ever after, safely!
That's dumb thinking and you likely know it (although based on your
previous posts, it's hard to be certain). The FACT is most cyclists do
not obey your laws. They use common sense and it gets everyone by just
fine.

How you can equate machines that weigh tonnes and go many many times
faster than any bicycle is an example of my previous point about
ego-you know you're wrong but have trouble admitting it. Cycling is a
safe activity when riding without a helmet and riding across crosswalks
safely. And yes, coasting along a sidewalk is safe too. I did it
today purposely to come back here to prove you wrong (yet someone here
will post soon about a "near death" or accident experience tomorrow or
later this week). It just is safe and the majority of cyclists prove
it EVERYDAY without incident.
I find it entertaining though how so many people have a "story" of a
"close call" to prove how dangerous it is, here in Vancouver (likely
reluctant to say an actual accident occurred as it is too easy to
verify such a claim. So they use a "close call" as those are not
reported.
Colin B.
2005-11-02 05:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
Sure is a wonderful world in which we live, as now we just have to
follow common sense and we will all be safe! Cities can now save
millions of $$$, as we no longer require stop signs, traffic lights,
traffic circles etc., as common sense will prevail and we now will all
live happily ever after, safely!
That's dumb thinking and you likely know it.
Thank you for saying that and for helping me make my point. You are
saying not following the rules and using common sense works for
cyclists, so I am just extending your thinking to say, if it works for
cyclists, then following your logic, then it should also work for
motor vehicles. Now, tell us why you think it works for cyclists and
wouldn't work for motor vehicle operators.
The FACT is most cyclists do
not obey your laws.
My laws? Huh? They are the laws of the Province of BC, passed by our
elected officials. If I had any say, I would make changes to them, in
fact I have had my say and made presentations to the government and
ICBC on suggested changes, which believe it or not, don't include any
of your suggestions.
They use common sense and it gets everyone by just fine.
From what I have seen, common sense isn't so common these days and
even if followed, it doesn't get everybody by fine, which is why we
have traffic laws that for the most part work quite well for all
modes. If you did a bit of research and reading, you would know this.


Colin
DiscoDuck
2005-11-02 07:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
Post by Colin B.
Sure is a wonderful world in which we live, as now we just have to
follow common sense and we will all be safe! Cities can now save
millions of $$$, as we no longer require stop signs, traffic lights,
traffic circles etc., as common sense will prevail and we now will all
live happily ever after, safely!
That's dumb thinking and you likely know it.
Thank you for saying that and for helping me make my point. You are
saying not following the rules and using common sense works for
cyclists, so I am just extending your thinking to say, if it works for
cyclists, then following your logic, then it should also work for
motor vehicles. Now, tell us why you think it works for cyclists and
wouldn't work for motor vehicle operators.
You asked the question, therefore the for the 20th time (approx) I will
explain why. Because cars and bicycles are different-different in
mass, in agility, etc. A car cannot ride on a sidewalk-a bike can. A
car cannot easily coast along a crosswalk to make a left-a bike can.
The consequences of a car accident are far more severe than a bicycle
accident. People are killed daily from car accidents in this country.
They are not from cycling. There are many more cars on the road than
bicycles.
Now I've answered your question with FACTS-not opinions. However I am
sure you will choose to ignore that and pretend that cycling is
dangerous therefore must use the same rules as cars.
Post by Colin B.
The FACT is most cyclists do
not obey your laws.
My laws? Huh? They are the laws of the Province of BC, passed by our
elected officials. If I had any say, I would make changes to them, in
fact I have had my say and made presentations to the government and
ICBC on suggested changes, which believe it or not, don't include any
of your suggestions.
I am sure they don't because you feel coasting safely on the sidewalk,
unsafe. Riding without a helmet, unsafe. Coasting along a corsswalk
unsafe. Yet most cyclists do these things EVERYDAY proving it is safe.
I'm sure your rules include making MORE RULES to be "safer". But
humour me, what changes would you make?
But it makes me laugh that you have lobbied government to impose your
preferences on others-proving my theory again that it is ego, not
safety or money that is your motive. To make people ride as YOU ride.
Post by Colin B.
They use common sense and it gets everyone by just fine.
From what I have seen, common sense isn't so common these days and
even if followed, it doesn't get everybody by fine, which is why we
have traffic laws that for the most part work quite well for all
modes. If you did a bit of research and reading, you would know this.
I have done research and KNOW otherwise. Do you? IT seems not, Colin.
Correct that not everybody gets by fine-but those are exceptions. We
could impose your "suggestions" and still not EVERYBODY would get by
fine. But the point is, the vast vast majority of cyclists do NOT obey
the rules you claim they all should, and do get by fine. Any serious
accident is rarity-a fluke and not representative of the risk involved
in cycling. IT is a perfectly safe activity without the law.
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-06 04:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Colin B.
Thank you for saying that and for helping me make my point. You are
saying not following the rules and using common sense works for
cyclists, so I am just extending your thinking to say, if it works
for cyclists, then following your logic, then it should also work
for motor vehicles. Now, tell us why you think it works for
cyclists and wouldn't work for motor vehicle operators.
You asked the question, therefore the for the 20th time (approx) I
will explain why. Because cars and bicycles are different-different
in mass, in agility, etc.
That doesn't answer the question. What is the intrisic difference
betweena car and a bike that makes people unable to use common sense
when using a car but capable of using it when using a bike?
Post by DiscoDuck
A car cannot ride on a sidewalk-a bike can.
That depends on the size of the sidewalk and the size of the car. A
Smart can fit on an awful lot of sidewalks.
Post by DiscoDuck
A car cannot easily coast along a crosswalk to make a left-a bike
can.
Sure it can, it's just not allowed to. Even if you're going to claim it
can't a motorcycles can, so should motorcyclists not have to follow the
law?
Post by DiscoDuck
The consequences of a car accident are far more severe than a bicycle
accident.
Either can result in death or permanent injury.
Post by DiscoDuck
People are killed daily from car accidents in this country.
Who are these people? I would have thought that once they were killed on
one day it would be pretty difficult to kill them again the next day.
Post by DiscoDuck
They are not from cycling.
I'm sure there are some people who die from heart attacks etc. while
cycling, but I would assume many more people die from accidents while
cycling then die from cycling.
Post by DiscoDuck
There are many more cars on the road than bicycles.
So?
Post by DiscoDuck
Now I've answered your question with FACTS-not opinions. However I
am sure you will choose to ignore that and pretend that cycling is
dangerous therefore must use the same rules as cars.
Cycling is dangerous, particularily when you're cycling with other
vehicles and peds. That's why you need to pay attention and take care
while riding. It's not overly dangerous, of course no one has been
saying it is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Colin B.
My laws? Huh? They are the laws of the Province of BC, passed by
our elected officials. If I had any say, I would make changes to
them, in fact I have had my say and made presentations to the
government and ICBC on suggested changes, which believe it or not,
don't include any of your suggestions.
I am sure they don't because you feel coasting safely on the
sidewalk, unsafe.
Doing anything safely is not unsafe, QED.
Post by DiscoDuck
Riding without a helmet, unsafe.
A helmet makes no difference to riding, it can make a difference if your
head hits a solid surface though.
Post by DiscoDuck
Coasting along a corsswalk unsafe.
The level of danger is dependant on the number of peds and the size of
the sidewalk.
Post by DiscoDuck
Yet most cyclists do these things EVERYDAY proving it is safe.
I'm sure you know this and are just ignoring it for the sake of argument
but I'll state it anyway. Saying that Action-X is safer than Action-Y
does not even imply that Action-Y is unsafe. To illustrate: Saying Bill
Gates is richer than Paul Allen doesn't imply that Paul Allen isn't rich.
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm sure your rules include making MORE RULES to be "safer". But
humour me, what changes would you make? But it makes me laugh that
you have lobbied government to impose your preferences on
others-proving my theory again that it is ego, not safety or money
that is your motive. To make people ride as YOU ride.
I would propose no new rules for cyclists, as has been said, cyclists
should follow the same rules as everyone else who is using the road with
them.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-06 21:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Colin B.
Thank you for saying that and for helping me make my point. You are
saying not following the rules and using common sense works for
cyclists, so I am just extending your thinking to say, if it works
for cyclists, then following your logic, then it should also work
for motor vehicles. Now, tell us why you think it works for
cyclists and wouldn't work for motor vehicle operators.
You asked the question, therefore the for the 20th time (approx) I
will explain why. Because cars and bicycles are different-different
in mass, in agility, etc.
That doesn't answer the question. What is the intrisic difference
betweena car and a bike that makes people unable to use common sense
when using a car but capable of using it when using a bike?
Of course it answers the question. The difference is ins size, risk,
speed, etc.
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
A car cannot ride on a sidewalk-a bike can.
That depends on the size of the sidewalk and the size of the car. A
Smart can fit on an awful lot of sidewalks.
Yeah, right. This is the mentality I'm speaking of. Ego gets in the
way of "letting go" that you are wrong about cycling risks.
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
A car cannot easily coast along a crosswalk to make a left-a bike
can.
Sure it can, it's just not allowed to. Even if you're going to claim it
can't a motorcycles can, so should motorcyclists not have to follow the
law?
Motorcycles weigh many times more, and do not have the same agility of
a bicycle.
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
The consequences of a car accident are far more severe than a bicycle
accident.
Either can result in death or permanent injury.
More occur from car accidents (i'm sure you'll have a rebuttal for
that, though)
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
People are killed daily from car accidents in this country.
Who are these people? I would have thought that once they were killed on
one day it would be pretty difficult to kill them again the next day.
What are you one about?
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
They are not from cycling.
I'm sure there are some people who die from heart attacks etc. while
cycling, but I would assume many more people die from accidents while
cycling then die from cycling.
Post by DiscoDuck
There are many more cars on the road than bicycles.
So?
Post by DiscoDuck
Now I've answered your question with FACTS-not opinions. However I
am sure you will choose to ignore that and pretend that cycling is
dangerous therefore must use the same rules as cars.
Cycling is dangerous, particularily when you're cycling with other
vehicles and peds. That's why you need to pay attention and take care
while riding. It's not overly dangerous, of course no one has been
saying it is.
INcorrect, cycling is NOT dangerous. It is FAR less risk that what
manhy would (including you) have you beleive. I bet you wear a neon
vest too, don't you?!
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Colin B.
My laws? Huh? They are the laws of the Province of BC, passed by
our elected officials. If I had any say, I would make changes to
them, in fact I have had my say and made presentations to the
government and ICBC on suggested changes, which believe it or not,
don't include any of your suggestions.
I am sure they don't because you feel coasting safely on the
sidewalk, unsafe.
Doing anything safely is not unsafe, QED.
Post by DiscoDuck
Riding without a helmet, unsafe.
A helmet makes no difference to riding, it can make a difference if your
head hits a solid surface though.
Can, yes but VASTLY oever rated. Should be choice.
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
Coasting along a corsswalk unsafe.
The level of danger is dependant on the number of peds and the size of
the sidewalk.
I and others prove it daily, that it is safe.
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by DiscoDuck
Yet most cyclists do these things EVERYDAY proving it is safe.
I'm sure you know this and are just ignoring it for the sake of argument
but I'll state it anyway. Saying that Action-X is safer than Action-Y
does not even imply that Action-Y is unsafe. To illustrate: Saying Bill
Gates is richer than Paul Allen doesn't imply that Paul Allen isn't rich.
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm sure your rules include making MORE RULES to be "safer". But
humour me, what changes would you make? But it makes me laugh that
you have lobbied government to impose your preferences on
others-proving my theory again that it is ego, not safety or money
that is your motive. To make people ride as YOU ride.
I would propose no new rules for cyclists, as has been said, cyclists
should follow the same rules as everyone else who is using the road with
them.
On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
turn right, but not cyclist. Different rules for different vehcles.
PROVING the law accepts there are differences.-Regardless I turned
right anyway breaking the law again.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-01 04:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.
Well even cyclists and pedestrians ARE covered under the MVA
Post by DiscoDuck
As a matter of fact, today I jay walked several times.
Jay walking is a misused term. Mid block crossing are legal.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-01 07:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.
Well even cyclists and pedestrians ARE covered under the MVA
If so, it goes to show the lunacy of the law.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
As a matter of fact, today I jay walked several times.
Jay walking is a misused term. Mid block crossing are legal.
So "jay walking" is legal?
Peter McNichol
2005-11-03 19:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.
Well even cyclists and pedestrians ARE covered under the MVA
If so, it goes to show the lunacy of the law.
So are you saying we do not need laws for everyone? Should the rich or the
poor have a different set of laws or not be required to follow any laws?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
As a matter of fact, today I jay walked several times.
Jay walking is a misused term. Mid block crossing are legal.
So "jay walking" is legal?
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a street
carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic regulations."

The law is silent on mid block crossings.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-03 20:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.
Well even cyclists and pedestrians ARE covered under the MVA
If so, it goes to show the lunacy of the law.
So are you saying we do not need laws for everyone? Should the rich or the
poor have a different set of laws or not be required to follow any laws?
Where did you read that? I never said such thing. I DO agree some
cyclists are less capable than others. They are the ones that usually
lobby for laws (for example, you) While I think you should be extra
cautious I truthfully think the laws should NOT apply to everyone
equally. That is, GET RID OF THE CYCLING LAWS. The minority follow
them, proving cycling is safe without the law. All it does is set
arbitrary punishment depending the type of cop, or mood he/she is in.

IN regards to your "rich vs. poor" comment, the law already does not
apply as much to the rich. Nor does it apply to law enforcement
officers (speeding, no parking tickets, etc. even when off duty,
beating civilians. This week a BC officer shot someone in the head for
drinking at a hockey game. If you or I shot someone in the head, we
would be charged with murder).
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
As a matter of fact, today I jay walked several times.
Jay walking is a misused term. Mid block crossing are legal.
So "jay walking" is legal?
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a street
carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic regulations."
The law is silent on mid block crossings.
Therefore people how claim to have been ticketed for jay-walking are
lying? A good friend claimed he was ticketed for such.
Király
2005-11-03 21:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Where did you read that? I never said such thing. I DO agree some
cyclists are less capable than others.
Which is why we have laws, so that they are accountable when they do
something stupid that causes an accident.
Post by DiscoDuck
They are the ones that usually lobby for laws (for example, you)
Now that's a laugh!
Post by DiscoDuck
While I think you should be extra
cautious I truthfully think the laws should NOT apply to everyone
equally. That is, GET RID OF THE CYCLING LAWS. The minority follow
them, proving cycling is safe without the law.
Now that is just plain silly. The motor vehicle act provides for
hundreds of situations for how vehicles should be operated on public
highways. Are you saying that most cyclists ignore most or all of them?
Post by DiscoDuck
All it does is set arbitrary punishment depending the type of cop, or
mood he/she is in.
Paranoid, paranoid, paranoid.

If the laws were removed for cyclists, cyclists could get away with
anything and be immune from any legal consequenses. Under your system, a
cyclist could run a stop sign, collide with a car who had the right of
way, and it would be the car's fault. Yes I can completely understand
why you would want such a system. As for the rest of us, no thanks!

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-03 22:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Where did you read that? I never said such thing. I DO agree some
cyclists are less capable than others.
Which is why we have laws, so that they are accountable when they do
something stupid that causes an accident.
Post by DiscoDuck
They are the ones that usually lobby for laws (for example, you)
Now that's a laugh!
Why do you find that funny? Laughing at the irony that you know it is
true? Must be.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
While I think you should be extra
cautious I truthfully think the laws should NOT apply to everyone
equally. That is, GET RID OF THE CYCLING LAWS. The minority follow
them, proving cycling is safe without the law.
Now that is just plain silly. The motor vehicle act provides for
hundreds of situations for how vehicles should be operated on public
highways. Are you saying that most cyclists ignore most or all of them?
Yes, I am saying that.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
All it does is set arbitrary punishment depending the type of cop, or
mood he/she is in.
Paranoid, paranoid, paranoid.
Paranoid means you have no evidence to feel the way you do. It is a
fact police have discretion in enforcing their powers and most police
leave law breaking cyclists alone since they recognize it is not
dangerous. It explains why MOST cops leave me and others alone. But
some poor cops who have control issues do bother some cyclists.
Because of this I try to avoid all cops as I can't identify the poor
from the good intentioned.
Post by Király
If the laws were removed for cyclists, cyclists could get away with
anything and be immune from any legal consequences. Under your system, a
cyclist could run a stop sign, collide with a car who had the right of
way, and it would be the car's fault. Yes I can completely understand
why you would want such a system. As for the rest of us, no thanks!
Now THAT is paranoid. Cyclists would start running red lights? What a
joke. No, they would not. I don't (and you know how I feel about all
the stupid rules) but not because it is the law. I don't because it is
safer not to do so. Predictability is important for safety and running
a red light would not be predictable for opposing traffic. However
cycling on sidewalks, crosswalks and without a helmet are safe. I and
the majority of cyclists prove it daily ( I know you say no amount of
evidence will convince you-a sign you cannot admit you are wrong which
proves my point about ego, not safety being your motive for arguing
here and wanting these silly laws: helmet, no cycling on crosswalks,
etc).

Tell you what though, since you are stating you are right and I am
wrong, why don't you post here daily the accidents involving cycling
here every day? After all according to you it is very dangerous so
there must be lots of them reported in the media daily? Weekly? The
Police would also be a good source. Post them here and I will confirm
them. I've noticed a tendancy for cycling law proponants to lie
thinking they are proving thier point.
Király
2005-11-04 01:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
[less capable cyclists] are the ones that usually lobby for laws (for
example, you)
Now that's a laugh!
Why do you find that funny? Laughing at the irony that you know it is
true? Must be.
Okay, DD, what laws to "less capable cyclists" lobby for? Once you name
one, show how advocates are less capable cyclists.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Now that is just plain silly. The motor vehicle act provides for
hundreds of situations for how vehicles should be operated on public
highways. Are you saying that most cyclists ignore most or all of them?
Yes, I am saying that.
Okay DD, the MVA says that, among other things, vehicles should do this:

-turn right from the rightmost lane unless otherwise marked,
-go the indicated direction on one way streets,
-do not proceed through an intersection when the light is red,
-yield to emergency vehicles,
-yield the right-of-way to cross traffic when at a 2-way stop sign,
-yield the right-of-way to whoever was there first at a 4-way stop sign,
-etc, etc, etc.

Most cyclists I have ever seen follow these just fine. You ignore all of
these and claim most others do too?
Post by DiscoDuck
some poor cops who have control issues do bother some cyclists.
Because of this I try to avoid all cops as I can't identify the poor
from the good intentioned.
Disco, other than in the Downtown Eastside, or on Granville Mall at bar
closing time, I can't remember the last time I saw a cop on foot or
bike patrol in Vancouver. Nearly all cops I see are comfortably in
their cruisers. And I have never, never seen a cyclist pulled over by
cops in a cruiser. Simply the fact that you are scared of getting
stopped by a cop with a bone to pick, and that you are scared to the
degree that you've actually learned what shifts certain cops work for the
purpose of avoiding them, shows how you are overly paranoid.
Post by DiscoDuck
Now THAT is paranoid. Cyclists would start running red lights? What a
joke. No, they would not. I don't (and you know how I feel about all
the stupid rules) but not because it is the law. I don't because it is
safer not to do so.
I never said that I thought there would be an increase in cyclists doing
stupid things if the laws were removed. I agree that there would
probably be little effect on the number of bike accidents. But when
there is an accident that is the cyclist's fault (and yes, Disco, it
DOES happen), it is important that the law be there so that the cyclist,
and not the innocent party, has to suffer the consequences.
Post by DiscoDuck
Tell you what though, since you are stating you are right and I am
wrong, why don't you post here daily the accidents involving cycling
here every day? After all according to you it is very dangerous so
I never said it was very dangerous. You keep putting words in other
people's mouths.
Post by DiscoDuck
there must be lots of them reported in the media daily? Weekly? The
Police would also be a good source. Post them here and I will confirm
them. I've noticed a tendancy for cycling law proponants to lie
thinking they are proving thier point.
The most recent statistics I have are from 2003.

There were 933 collisions involving bicycles in B.C. in 2003; that's
over 2.5 per day when averaged over the year. One of these cyclists was
unhurt, six were killed, and the rest were injured.

When the cyclist was found at fault, the top five reasons were:
1. Driving without due care (15.3%)
2. Failing to yield to right of way (12.9%)
3. Driving on the wrong side of the road (11.0%);
4. Ignoring traffic control device (5.9%);
5. Alcohol involvement (3.9%).

It took me about a minute to find those numbers. If you can't verify
them yourself like you claim to be able, say so and I'll gladly share the
source URL with you.

I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault. But, even if it was only 10% of the total, that's
93 collisions in BC caused by boneheaded cyclists annually. That's 93
too many. But I estimate the actual number to be more like 50% because
I don't believe cyclists to be any more or less accident-prone than
drivers of motor vehicles. If you can find any actual numbers I'd be
glad to see them.

BTW, to followup to an earlier post of yours in this thread, "accidents"
are almost always caused by somebody doing something stupid. "Freak
accidents," where nobody is at fault because neither party could have
done anything to prevent the accident, are exremely rare.

K.
Colin B.
2005-11-04 01:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault. But, even if it was only 10% of the total, that's
93 collisions in BC caused by boneheaded cyclists annually. That's 93
too many. But I estimate the actual number to be more like 50% because
I don't believe cyclists to be any more or less accident-prone than
drivers of motor vehicles. If you can find any actual numbers I'd be
glad to see them.
The stats I have seen show that cyclists are at fault in just over 50%
of car/bike accidents and if you factor out those under 16 (legal
driving age), then cyclists are less than 50% at fault.

The bottom line is that both motorists and cyclists have to
drive/cycle defensively.
Post by Király
BTW, to followup to an earlier post of yours in this thread, "accidents"
are almost always caused by somebody doing something stupid. "Freak
accidents," where nobody is at fault because neither party could have
done anything to prevent the accident, are exremely rare.
That would be where one or more of the vehicles had a mechanical
failure and there was nothing the other person could do to prevent it.
Most accidents could have been prevented by either party, even though
in general, only one party is to blame.


Colin
Zoot Katz
2005-11-26 21:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
The stats I have seen show that cyclists are at fault in just over 50%
of car/bike accidents and if you factor out those under 16 (legal
driving age), then cyclists are less than 50% at fault.
ICBC's statistics are weighted in drivers' favour.

I was backed into by a stunned scud jockey at a stop sign. I was
directly behind him and he looked right through me in broad daylight.
The lying fukin' puke said I ran into him. Without a witless,
itchy-bitchy bought his story and assigned fault to me.

CARS SUCK!
Colin B.
2005-11-27 01:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zoot Katz
Post by Colin B.
The stats I have seen show that cyclists are at fault in just over 50%
of car/bike accidents and if you factor out those under 16 (legal
driving age), then cyclists are less than 50% at fault.
ICBC's statistics are weighted in drivers' favour.
Not surprising, as it is in their best interest to find those not
insured by ICBC at fault, as that way they have to pay out less.
Zoot Katz
2005-11-27 04:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
Post by Zoot Katz
Post by Colin B.
The stats I have seen show that cyclists are at fault in just over 50%
of car/bike accidents and if you factor out those under 16 (legal
driving age), then cyclists are less than 50% at fault.
ICBC's statistics are weighted in drivers' favour.
Not surprising, as it is in their best interest to find those not
insured by ICBC at fault, as that way they have to pay out less.
It is my understanding that everyone who holds a valid BC driver's
license, as I do, is insured by ICBC. They'd cover the creamed
pedestrian were I so unfortunate to actually hit one.
Colin B.
2005-11-28 00:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zoot Katz
Post by Colin B.
Not surprising, as it is in their best interest to find those not
insured by ICBC at fault, as that way they have to pay out less.
It is my understanding that everyone who holds a valid BC driver's
license, as I do, is insured by ICBC. They'd cover the creamed
pedestrian were I so unfortunate to actually hit one.
Only if the pedestrian was not at fault. In the example of the
cyclist, if they were at fault, the collect nothing and might even get
a nice bill to pay for any damages to the motor vehicle.

DiscoDuck
2005-11-04 03:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
[less capable cyclists] are the ones that usually lobby for laws (for
example, you)
Now that's a laugh!
Why do you find that funny? Laughing at the irony that you know it is
true? Must be.
Okay, DD, what laws to "less capable cyclists" lobby for? Once you name
one, show how advocates are less capable cyclists.
OK, here is one-riding your bike along a crosswalk. Most cyclists do
this ( I see it dozens of times, daily). Yet you and people like you
adamantly argue against it. Yet it is perfectly safe.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Now that is just plain silly. The motor vehicle act provides for
hundreds of situations for how vehicles should be operated on public
highways. Are you saying that most cyclists ignore most or all of them?
Yes, I am saying that.
-turn right from the rightmost lane unless otherwise marked,
-go the indicated direction on one way streets,
-do not proceed through an intersection when the light is red,
-yield to emergency vehicles,
-yield the right-of-way to cross traffic when at a 2-way stop sign,
-yield the right-of-way to whoever was there first at a 4-way stop sign,
-etc, etc, etc.
Most cyclists I have ever seen follow these just fine. You ignore all of
these and claim most others do too?
Correct. Most cyclists ignore (from your list above)
Post by Király
-turn right from the rightmost lane unless otherwise marked,
-go the indicated direction on one way streets,
-yield to emergency vehicles,
-etc, etc, etc.
I have gone through red lights (often) when I can clearly see no
traffic is coming
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
some poor cops who have control issues do bother some cyclists.
Because of this I try to avoid all cops as I can't identify the poor
from the good intentioned.
Disco, other than in the Downtown Eastside, or on Granville Mall at bar
closing time, I can't remember the last time I saw a cop on foot or
bike patrol in Vancouver. Nearly all cops I see are comfortably in
their cruisers.
According to you, the police do stop cyclists and enforce these things,
yet you feel they should be illegally? Can you hear what you are
saying? Anyway, Police in cruisers DO stop cyclists. I've been
ticketed twice by cruiser cops.


And I have never, never seen a cyclist pulled over by
Post by Király
cops in a cruiser. Simply the fact that you are scared of getting
stopped by a cop with a bone to pick,
So me avoiding Police is a bone to pick? Me trying to avoid hassles
with Police is a bone to pick? You are more of an idiot than I thought
if that is what you think. Me trying to avoid trouble is picking a
bone. Nice logic Einstien.
Post by Király
and that you are scared to the
degree that you've actually learned what shifts certain cops work for the
purpose of avoiding them, shows how you are overly paranoid.
Please show where I said I am learning what shifts CERTAIN cops are
working. You're either lying or mistaken as I never said that. I DO
AVOID ALL COPS because I have been hassled both in Victoria and
Vancouver. I HAVE been issued tickets by Police. I do not have the
resources to find who is working when. And if I asked I doubt they
would tell me.

How you can say that I am paranoid when IT HAPPENS is beyond logical
thinking.
IF you don't see Police stopping cyclists then you're not looking
probably because you have "nothing to fear" since your a "good little
cyclist."
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Now THAT is paranoid. Cyclists would start running red lights? What a
joke. No, they would not. I don't (and you know how I feel about all
the stupid rules) but not because it is the law. I don't because it is
safer not to do so.
I never said that I thought there would be an increase in cyclists doing
stupid things if the laws were removed.
yes you did. here you go: Your last post you said:
"If the laws were removed for cyclists, cyclists could get away with
anything and be immune from any legal consequences. Under your system,
a
cyclist could run a stop sign, collide with a car who had the right of
way, and it would be the car's fault. Yes I can completely understand
why you would want such a system. As for the rest of us, no thanks! "
Post by Király
I agree that there would
probably be little effect on the number of bike accidents. But when
there is an accident that is the cyclist's fault (and yes, Disco, it
DOES happen),
Where did I even suggest it doesn't happen? Of course it does. I did
one about 4 years ago. I hit a lady's side mirror. I stopped,
apologized to the driver and seeing as there was no damage I carried
on. Oddly enough she was more angry about my not wearing a helmet
which goes to show it's more of a pet peeve than a rationale for safety
or tax dollars. IT was TOTALLY irrelvant to the issue. Must have been
you.

So now, however, you suggesting I said there are no accidents where the
cyclist is at fault, is a lie. You are now resorting to lying to try
and "prove" some point.

it is important that the law be there so that the cyclist,
Post by Király
and not the innocent party, has to suffer the consequences.
Post by DiscoDuck
Tell you what though, since you are stating you are right and I am
wrong, why don't you post here daily the accidents involving cycling
here every day? After all according to you it is very dangerous so
I never said it was very dangerous. You keep putting words in other
people's mouths.
No I don't (put words in mmouths). You are for the laws. Are you for
the laws just to have laws? OR is it because you feel it is Dangerous?
WHy then do you want the laws?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
there must be lots of them reported in the media daily? Weekly? The
Police would also be a good source. Post them here and I will confirm
them. I've noticed a tendancy for cycling law proponants to lie
thinking they are proving thier point.
The most recent statistics I have are from 2003.
There were 933 collisions involving bicycles in B.C. in 2003; that's
over 2.5 per day when averaged over the year. One of these cyclists was
unhurt, six were killed, and the rest were injured.
Ooooh, Injured. What does that mean? I cut my shin while cycling.
Is THAT an unjury? please define what they consider an injury. You do
realize they consider superficial scrapes injuries?, right?
Post by Király
1. Driving without due care (15.3%)
That's rather ambiguous, isn't it?
Post by Király
2. Failing to yield to right of way (12.9%)
3. Driving on the wrong side of the road (11.0%);
4. Ignoring traffic control device (5.9%);
5. Alcohol involvement (3.9%).
Using YOUR statistics 6 were killed from cycling. That is less than 1
per "cause" you listed above? 6 a year. Wow! Yet you also state even
if the laws were revoked you doubt there would be change in cycling
related accidents.
Post by Király
It took me about a minute to find those numbers. If you can't verify
them yourself like you claim to be able, say so and I'll gladly share the
source URL with you.
I'm concerned why you didn't already. Please share the url.
Post by Király
I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault.
You just said above, those were deemed the cyclists fault? Get it
straight, will you?

But, even if it was only 10% of the total, that's
Post by Király
93 collisions in BC caused by boneheaded cyclists annually. That's 93
too many. But I estimate the actual number to be more like 50% because
I don't believe cyclists to be any more or less accident-prone than
drivers of motor vehicles. If you can find any actual numbers I'd be
glad to see them.
Because cyclists are far more agile than a car, it would be MUCH less.
They can avoid accidents far easier than cars. That is why there are
more car accidents than bike accidents.
Post by Király
BTW, to followup to an earlier post of yours in this thread, "accidents"
are almost always caused by somebody doing something stupid.
"Freak accidents," where nobody is at fault because neither party could
have
Post by Király
done anything to prevent the accident, are exremely rare.
Uhm, I think you're mistaking posters. While I do refer to freak
accidents I never said what you stated above.
Király
2005-11-04 10:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Okay, DD, what laws to "less capable cyclists" lobby for? Once you name
one, show how advocates are less capable cyclists.
OK, here is one-riding your bike along a crosswalk. Most cyclists do
this ( I see it dozens of times, daily). Yet you and people like you
adamantly argue against it. Yet it is perfectly safe.
What do you mean by "across"? Is it the same as "in"?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Most cyclists I have ever seen follow these just fine. You ignore all of
these and claim most others do too?
Correct. Most cyclists ignore (from your list above)
Simply not true, DD. Most cyclists do turn right from the rightmost
lane. Most do go the correct way on one way streets. Most do stop at the
red light. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Post by DiscoDuck
I have gone through red lights (often) when I can clearly see no
traffic is coming
It's your call, but remember whose fault it would be should a collision
happen.
Post by DiscoDuck
According to you, the police do stop cyclists and enforce these things,
yet you feel they should be illegally? Can you hear what you are
saying?
I can hear clearly what I am saying, but your previous sentence makes no
sense. Could you reword it please?
Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway, Police in cruisers DO stop cyclists. I've been ticketed twice
by cruiser cops.
Sorry to hear that, Disco, bad luck for you I guess.
Post by DiscoDuck
So me avoiding Police is a bone to pick? Me trying to avoid hassles
with Police is a bone to pick? You are more of an idiot than I thought
if that is what you think. Me trying to avoid trouble is picking a
bone. Nice logic Einstien.
Read it again, Disco. I said the COP had a bone to pick, NOT YOU. I'm
getting a little irritated with your poor reading comprehension.
Post by DiscoDuck
Please show where I said I am learning what shifts CERTAIN cops are
working. You're either lying or mistaken as I never said that.
A few weeks ago, you said this:

| You learn to avoid certain cars (cops) at certain times.

So, other than learning the shifts, how do you know what cars (cops) are
out at what times?
Post by DiscoDuck
How you can say that I am paranoid when IT HAPPENS is beyond logical
thinking. IF you don't see Police stopping cyclists then you're not
looking probably because you have "nothing to fear" since your a "good
little cyclist."
No, I think that me not seeing it has more to do with me not being obsessed
with the police.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said that I thought there would be an increase in cyclists doing
stupid things if the laws were removed.
"If the laws were removed for cyclists, cyclists could get away with
anything and be immune from any legal consequences. Under your system, a
cyclist could run a stop sign, collide with a car who had the right of
way, and it would be the car's fault. Yes I can completely understand
why you would want such a system. As for the rest of us, no thanks! "
Once again you show you have poor reading comprehension. Nowhere in
what you just quoted did I claim that removing the laws would increase
the likelihood of cyclists doing stupid things.
Post by DiscoDuck
So now, however, you suggesting I said there are no accidents where the
cyclist is at fault, is a lie. You are now resorting to lying to try
and "prove" some point.
Never made that claim, Disco; saying "it DOES happen" is not accusing you
of saying otherwise.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said it was very dangerous. You keep putting words in other
people's mouths.
No I don't (put words in mmouths).
I'm afraid so, DD. You said "according to you [me] it is very
dangerous", when I never made any such claim.
Post by DiscoDuck
You are for the laws. Are you for the laws just to have laws? OR is
it because you feel it is Dangerous? WHy then do you want the laws?

Well, you did not respond to this when I posted it before, so here it is
again: It is important that the law be there so that the innocent party
is protected from liability when a cyclist does something stupid that
causes a collision.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
There were 933 collisions involving bicycles in B.C. in 2003; that's
over 2.5 per day when averaged over the year. One of these cyclists was
unhurt, six were killed, and the rest were injured.
Ooooh, Injured. What does that mean? I cut my shin while cycling.
Is THAT an unjury? please define what they consider an injury. You do
realize they consider superficial scrapes injuries?, right?
Oh, I don't know, Disco, who cares? What kind of injury is satisfying
to you as being significant and relevant?

In 1997 I was in a collision with a car while biking (100% car driver's
fault), and yes I got a scrape on my knee and nothing more. So I was
one of those "superficial scrape" statistics. But my bike was totalled
and I had to take time off work to deal with ICBC to get it replaced.
This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics. A scrape I can
handle but the rest of the crap is something I'd rather not have to go
through again.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
1. Driving without due care (15.3%)
That's rather ambiguous, isn't it?
Sure. Your point?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
2. Failing to yield to right of way (12.9%)
3. Driving on the wrong side of the road (11.0%);
4. Ignoring traffic control device (5.9%);
5. Alcohol involvement (3.9%).
Using YOUR statistics 6 were killed from cycling. That is less than 1
per "cause" you listed above? 6 a year. Wow!
I agree. Six is way too many. It should be zero. Better education on
proper road safety should help to lower that number.
Post by DiscoDuck
Yet you also state even if the laws were revoked you doubt there would
be change in cycling related accidents.
Correct. But if a cyclist collides with me and it is his fault, I want
the law there to protect me from liability. That's what the law is there
for.
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm concerned why you didn't [share the URL] already. Please share the
url.
Well Disco, I didn't share it because you claimed to have the numbers
already. But here you go, there are in a 6MB .PDF file so I hope you have
broadband: http://tinyurl.com/95rkk
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault.
You just said above, those were deemed the cyclists fault? Get it
straight, will you?
You are showing your poor reading comprehension again. Read it again.
Colin seemed to understand me.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
But, even if it was only 10% of the total, that's
93 collisions in BC caused by boneheaded cyclists annually. That's 93
too many. But I estimate the actual number to be more like 50% because
I don't believe cyclists to be any more or less accident-prone than
drivers of motor vehicles. If you can find any actual numbers I'd be
glad to see them.
Because cyclists are far more agile than a car, it would be MUCH less.
They can avoid accidents far easier than cars. That is why there are
more car accidents than bike accidents.
Colin found some numbers, and it is less than 50% for adult cyclists, but
he didn't say how much less. Since you seem to like statistics, why don't
you try to find some?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
BTW, to followup to an earlier post of yours in this thread, "accidents"
are almost always caused by somebody doing something stupid.
"Freak accidents," where nobody is at fault because neither party could
have done anything to prevent the accident, are exremely rare.
Uhm, I think you're mistaking posters. While I do refer to freak
accidents I never said what you stated above.
Right here, you said:

| Any serious accident is rarity-a fluke and not representative of the
| risk involved in cycling

Not at all Disco; serious accidents may be a rarity but are certainly not
flukes. Accidents are almost always caused by somebody doing something
stupid. True flukes, in which nobody is at fault because the accident
could not have been avoided, are exceedingly rare. And in case of serious
cycling accidents, which are themselves rare, serious cycling accidents
which are also true flukes are probably close to non-existant.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-07 04:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Okay, DD, what laws to "less capable cyclists" lobby for? Once you name
one, show how advocates are less capable cyclists.
OK, here is one-riding your bike along a crosswalk. Most cyclists do
this ( I see it dozens of times, daily). Yet you and people like you
adamantly argue against it. Yet it is perfectly safe.
What do you mean by "across"? Is it the same as "in"?
yes (but what difference does it make, since if not "in", then
you're "running a red light")
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Most cyclists I have ever seen follow these just fine. You ignore all of
these and claim most others do too?
Correct. Most cyclists ignore (from your list above)
Simply not true, DD. Most cyclists do turn right from the rightmost
lane. Most do go the correct way on one way streets. Most do stop at the
red light. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
You missed what laws that I was speaking of (when I edited from your
list to show which laws most cyclists do not follow). Bottom line is
most cyclist do not follow the letter of the law like the proponents
here suggest they should. And they get by JUST fine. Fine. Fine.
I'll break the law again tomorrow, and the next day and next week and
so will the majority of cyclist.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I have gone through red lights (often) when I can clearly see no
traffic is coming
It's your call, but remember whose fault it would be should a collision
happen.
OK. I'll remember.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
According to you, the police do stop cyclists and enforce these things,
yet you feel they should be illegally? Can you hear what you are
saying?
I can hear clearly what I am saying, but your previous sentence makes no
sense. Could you reword it please?
Sorry, my typing is very poor there I agree. See I can admit when I
am wrong. Can you (or other here. no)? Anyway my intent to point out
that you said police DON'T stop cyclists so what was the big deal.
That suggested you felt they shouldn't. But then later you said
state the rules are very important.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway, Police in cruisers DO stop cyclists. I've been ticketed twice
by cruiser cops.
Sorry to hear that, Disco, bad luck for you I guess.
Yes, so therefore I avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance. Many Police
are not the virtuous citizens they want you to think they are. Many
have control issues. Last week a young man was shot in the head my a
police officer. Guess what he did to get the death penalty? Drinking
in public. Did the punishment fit the crime? I think not. When you
have such petty laws, officer pick and choose which laws to enforce
(Which is why most police leave me alone in regard to helmet if they
happen to see me) and the pettiest of officers will take exception to a
civilian defending himself. IT is bound to esculate until someone is
hurt and in this case-dead.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
So me avoiding Police is a bone to pick? Me trying to avoid hassles
with Police is a bone to pick? You are more of an idiot than I thought
if that is what you think. Me trying to avoid trouble is picking a
bone. Nice logic Einstien.
Read it again, Disco. I said the COP had a bone to pick, NOT YOU. I'm
getting a little irritated with your poor reading comprehension.
You know something, YOU'RE RIGHT. I AM WRONG. I mis-read your
initial post. My apo0ligies. There you have it. I admitted it again.
I don't mind admitting when I am wrong but most proponents of
cycling laws cannot (actually most people in general cannot)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Please show where I said I am learning what shifts CERTAIN cops are
working. You're either lying or mistaken as I never said that.
| You learn to avoid certain cars (cops) at certain times.
So, other than learning the shifts, how do you know what cars (cops) are
out at what times?
I don't. I just avoid ALL Police as much as possible. Even if not
riding. After all, too many have attitudes and who know which will do
what to me. I'm liable to be shot in the head like that poor fellow
in Houston, BC.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
How you can say that I am paranoid when IT HAPPENS is beyond logical
thinking. IF you don't see Police stopping cyclists then you're not
looking probably because you have "nothing to fear" since your a "good
little cyclist."
No, I think that me not seeing it has more to do with me not being obsessed
with the police.
So then you believe me and believe what I say to be true. Good. Not
work towards minimizing the laws.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said that I thought there would be an increase in cyclists doing
stupid things if the laws were removed.
"If the laws were removed for cyclists, cyclists could get away with
anything and be immune from any legal consequences. Under your system, a
cyclist could run a stop sign, collide with a car who had the right of
way, and it would be the car's fault. Yes I can completely understand
why you would want such a system. As for the rest of us, no thanks! "
Once again you show you have poor reading comprehension. Nowhere in
what you just quoted did I claim that removing the laws would increase
the likelihood of cyclists doing stupid things.
Post by DiscoDuck
So now, however, you suggesting I said there are no accidents where the
cyclist is at fault, is a lie. You are now resorting to lying to try
and "prove" some point.
Never made that claim, Disco; saying "it DOES happen" is not accusing you
of saying otherwise.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said it was very dangerous. You keep putting words in other
people's mouths.
No I don't (put words in mmouths).
I'm afraid so, DD. You said "according to you [me] it is very
dangerous", when I never made any such claim.
Post by DiscoDuck
You are for the laws. Are you for the laws just to have laws? OR is
it because you feel it is Dangerous? WHy then do you want the laws?
Well, you did not respond to this when I posted it before, so here it is
again: It is important that the law be there so that the innocent party
is protected from liability when a cyclist does something stupid that
causes a collision.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
There were 933 collisions involving bicycles in B.C. in 2003; that's
over 2.5 per day when averaged over the year. One of these cyclists was
unhurt, six were killed, and the rest were injured.
Ooooh, Injured. What does that mean? I cut my shin while cycling.
Is THAT an unjury? please define what they consider an injury. You do
realize they consider superficial scrapes injuries?, right?
Oh, I don't know, Disco, who cares? What kind of injury is satisfying
to you as being significant and relevant?
Something that is life altering (death, paralysis, etc). IT is
important because people are using superficial injuries (cuts, scrapes,
etc) in statistics to try an increase the number of "injuries"
people incur to try and suggest cycling is dangerous, when it simply
isn't.
Post by Király
In 1997 I was in a collision with a car while biking (100% car driver's
fault), and yes I got a scrape on my knee and nothing more. So I was
one of those "superficial scrape" statistics. But my bike was totalled
and I had to take time off work to deal with ICBC to get it replaced.
This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics. A scrape I can
handle but the rest of the crap is something I'd rather not have to go
through again.
Actually I bet you it WAS included.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
1. Driving without due care (15.3%)
That's rather ambiguous, isn't it?
Sure. Your point?
Meaning it there is no definition of "due care." It's a nice
little phrase so that people can apply blame how they see fit.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
2. Failing to yield to right of way (12.9%)
3. Driving on the wrong side of the road (11.0%);
4. Ignoring traffic control device (5.9%);
5. Alcohol involvement (3.9%).
Using YOUR statistics 6 were killed from cycling. That is less than 1
per "cause" you listed above? 6 a year. Wow!
I agree. Six is way too many. It should be zero. Better education on
proper road safety should help to lower that number.
Zero? Then ban cycling. IT is the only way to get that number you'd
like Otherwise you will never get to zero.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Yet you also state even if the laws were revoked you doubt there would
be change in cycling related accidents.
Correct. But if a cyclist collides with me and it is his fault, I want
the law there to protect me from liability. That's what the law is there
for.
With a red light, sure I'd agree with that. But as far as
crosswalks, sidewalks, etc, nonsense, helmets, nah.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm concerned why you didn't [share the URL] already. Please share the
url.
Well Disco, I didn't share it because you claimed to have the numbers
already. But here you go, there are in a 6MB .PDF file so I hope you have
broadband: http://tinyurl.com/95rkk
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault.
You just said above, those were deemed the cyclists fault? Get it
straight, will you?
You are showing your poor reading comprehension again. Read it again.
Colin seemed to understand me.
Here you go where you contradictated you self:

Above you said : "I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of
the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault."

But when stating your list you said "When the cyclist was found at
fault,"

So I think your writing skills need work, not my reading.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
But, even if it was only 10% of the total, that's
93 collisions in BC caused by boneheaded cyclists annually. That's 93
too many. But I estimate the actual number to be more like 50% because
I don't believe cyclists to be any more or less accident-prone than
drivers of motor vehicles. If you can find any actual numbers I'd be
glad to see them.
Because cyclists are far more agile than a car, it would be MUCH less.
They can avoid accidents far easier than cars. That is why there are
more car accidents than bike accidents.
Colin found some numbers, and it is less than 50% for adult cyclists, but
he didn't say how much less. Since you seem to like statistics, why don't
you try to find some?
I just wrote some stats for you but I suspect you'll not beleive me.
But here is some
In Ontario (found here http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/):
49% Motor vehicle involvement - including pedestrians but excluding
cyclists
35% Falls
6% Homicide
2% Suicide
2% Cycling
6% Other

So why not advocate helmets for Motor vehicle's People to minminze
homicides? How about "Other" as it is a whopping three times more
than cycling.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
BTW, to followup to an earlier post of yours in this thread, "accidents"
are almost always caused by somebody doing something stupid.
"Freak accidents," where nobody is at fault because neither party could
have done anything to prevent the accident, are exremely rare.
Uhm, I think you're mistaking posters. While I do refer to freak
accidents I never said what you stated above.
| Any serious accident is rarity-a fluke and not representative of the
| risk involved in cycling
Not at all Disco; serious accidents may be a rarity but are certainly not
flukes. Accidents are almost always caused by somebody doing something
stupid. True flukes, in which nobody is at fault because the accident
could not have been avoided, are exceedingly rare. And in case of serious
cycling accidents, which are themselves rare, serious cycling accidents
which are also true flukes are probably close to non-existant.
I'm not sure what you trying to say here, but it seems to emphasize
my point therefore I thank you. Fluke, Rarity? Same thing to me (I
suspect an argument about symantics is about to start?) but you want
laws to apply some sort of blame. Unless EXTREME I do not. When that
starts then cyclists will also require insurance. Another step towards
discouraging cycling.
Király
2005-11-07 11:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
What do you mean by "across"? Is it the same as "in"?
yes (but what difference does it make, since if not "in", then
you're "running a red light")
Riding in a crosswalk is risky because you risk hitting a pedestrian who
does not see you and walks into your path without warning. This happens
often even whem clearly marked lanes separating bike and ped traffic are
present (Burrard Bridge, Stanley Park seawall, etc.) The peds don't pay
attention and wander into the bike lane. In the case of a crosswalk a
collision is even more likely because the pedestrian is not thinking to
watch out for bikes at all.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Simply not true, DD. Most cyclists do turn right from the rightmost
lane. Most do go the correct way on one way streets. Most do stop at the
red light. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
You missed what laws that I was speaking of (when I edited from your
list to show which laws most cyclists do not follow).
No, DD. What I wrote above was taken right from your edited list.
Post by DiscoDuck
Bottom line is
most cyclist do not follow the letter of the law like the proponents
here suggest they should. And they get by JUST fine. Fine. Fine.
I'll break the law again tomorrow, and the next day and next week and
so will the majority of cyclist.
I guess the cyclists you observe are not the same ones I observe.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I can hear clearly what I am saying, but your previous sentence makes no
sense. Could you reword it please?
Sorry, my typing is very poor there I agree. See I can admit when I
am wrong. Can you (or other here. no)?
Sure, refer back to the thread we duked it out in a few weeks ago, when I
did at least twice.
Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway my intent to point out that you said police DON'T stop cyclists
so what was the big deal.
I never said that police don't stop cyclists. I said that I had never
seen cops in cruisers stop cyclists.
Post by DiscoDuck
That suggested you felt they shouldn't.
Where did you get that idea from?
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, so therefore I avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance.
I guess you won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten,
your car stolen, etc?
Post by DiscoDuck
Many Police are not the virtuous citizens they want you to think they
are. Many have control issues. Last week a young man was shot in the
head my a police officer. Guess what he did to get the death penalty?
Drinking in public. Did the punishment fit the crime? I think not.
When you have such petty laws, officer pick and choose which laws to
enforce (Which is why most police leave me alone in regard to helmet if
they happen to see me) and the pettiest of officers will take exception
to a civilian defending himself. IT is bound to esculate until someone is
hurt and in this case-dead.
Oh, cut out the melodrama, Disco. Yes this incident is a tragedy but
it is not comparable to a cop stopping you for riding in a crosswalk.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
So, other than learning the shifts, how do you know what cars (cops) are
out at what times?
I don't. I just avoid ALL Police as much as possible. Even if not
riding. After all, too many have attitudes and who know which will do
what to me. I'm liable to be shot in the head like that poor fellow
in Houston, BC.
Okay, so you admit that your original claim that you learned to avoid
certain cars (cops) at certain times was just a fish story, then? You
are losing credibility fast.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Oh, I don't know, Disco, who cares? What kind of injury is satisfying
to you as being significant and relevant?
Something that is life altering (death, paralysis, etc). IT is
important because people are using superficial injuries (cuts, scrapes,
etc) in statistics to try an increase the number of "injuries"
people incur to try and suggest cycling is dangerous, when it simply
isn't.
What would be the intent of anybody who tries to paint cycling as more
dangerous than it really is? What's the point? What's for them to gain?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
In 1997 I was in a collision with a car while biking (100% car driver's
fault), and yes I got a scrape on my knee and nothing more. So I was
one of those "superficial scrape" statistics. But my bike was totalled
and I had to take time off work to deal with ICBC to get it replaced.
This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics. A scrape I can
handle but the rest of the crap is something I'd rather not have to go
through again.
Actually I bet you it WAS included.
Your poor reading comprehension is showing again, Disco. I never claimed
that that accident was not included in the statistics as an injury. My
claim is that there's a lot more that goes on, beyond injuries (lost
wages because of having to deal with ICBC, etc), that is not reported in
the accident statistics. Stuff that you have to deal with as the result
of a collision that isn't just about injuries.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
1. Driving without due care (15.3%)
That's rather ambiguous, isn't it?
Sure. Your point?
Meaning it there is no definition of "due care." It's a nice
little phrase so that people can apply blame how they see fit.
Read it again, Disco. The blame had ALREADY been assigned. The cyclist
caused the accident, it was his fault, and the reason was that he was
riding without due care. Riding without due care could mean any number
of things, but it has nothing to do with who was to blame. The cyclist
*was at fault* in those cases.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I agree. Six is way too many. It should be zero. Better education on
proper road safety should help to lower that number.
Zero? Then ban cycling. IT is the only way to get that number you'd
like Otherwise you will never get to zero.
So then we should not bother with education on proper road safety? If we
can't get it to zero then there's no point in trying?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Correct. But if a cyclist collides with me and it is his fault, I want
the law there to protect me from liability. That's what the law is there
for.
With a red light, sure I'd agree with that. But as far as
crosswalks, sidewalks, etc, nonsense, helmets, nah.
Yes, Disco, I can totally understand where you are coming from. You ride
on crosswalks and sidewalks. With the law removed, you won't have to
take responsibility if you collide with and injure a pedestrian. You are
completely removed from liability even if the accident is your fault.
I can completely understand why you would want such a system.
Post by DiscoDuck
Above you said : "I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of
the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault."
But when stating your list you said "When the cyclist was found at
fault,"
So I think your writing skills need work, not my reading.
Oh, my God, Disco. Your reading comprehension is even worse than I
thought. If you are saying I contradicted myself, then point it out. If
the number of the 933 collisions that were the cyclist's fault was
included in any of the stats that I posted, then please repost it. But
you won't be able to, because that figure IS NOT THERE. It does not say
anywhere in the stats that I posted what proportion of the collisions
could be attributed to the fault of the cyclist.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Colin found some numbers, and it is less than 50% for adult cyclists, but
he didn't say how much less. Since you seem to like statistics, why don't
you try to find some?
I just wrote some stats for you but I suspect you'll not beleive me.
But here is some
49% Motor vehicle involvement - including pedestrians but excluding
cyclists
35% Falls
6% Homicide
2% Suicide
2% Cycling
6% Other
LOL, those stats are the causes of *head injuries*! I asked you to find
out what proportion of collisions involving bicycles were the fault of
the cyclist rather than the other party. And you bring up head injury
statistics!
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
could not have been avoided, are exceedingly rare. And in case of serious
cycling accidents, which are themselves rare, serious cycling accidents
which are also true flukes are probably close to non-existant.
I'm not sure what you trying to say here, but it seems to emphasize
my point therefore I thank you. Fluke, Rarity? Same thing to me (I
suspect an argument about symantics is about to start?
Semantics, Schemantics. A fluke and a rarity are not the same thing at
all. A rarity is something that happens infrequently. A fluke, in this
context, is something that cannot be avoided. I know you know the
difference, because you posted this today in another thread:

| The point is most cycling accidents are a fluke. Yes of course some
| accidents are a result of someone's mistake (driver or bicyclist).

That is complete nonsense. Almost ALL accidents are caused by somebody
making a stupid mistake. Flukes, like a tree falling on you, are
exceedingly rare. A collision between a bike and another vehicle or
pedestrian is almost never a fluke, it is caused by somebody doing
something stupid.
Post by DiscoDuck
but you want laws to apply some sort of blame. Unless EXTREME I do
not. When that starts then cyclists will also require insurance.
Another step towards discouraging cycling.
It's happening now, Disco; laws regarding safe opration of bicycles are
in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA, at the least. And
required insurance for bicyclists is not in effect in any of those
jurisdictions. Quit being so paranoid.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-07 21:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
What do you mean by "across"? Is it the same as "in"?
yes (but what difference does it make, since if not "in", then
you're "running a red light")
Riding in a crosswalk is risky because you risk hitting a pedestrian who
does not see you and walks into your path without warning. This happens
often even whem clearly marked lanes separating bike and ped traffic are
present (Burrard Bridge, Stanley Park seawall, etc.) The peds don't pay
attention and wander into the bike lane. In the case of a crosswalk a
collision is even more likely because the pedestrian is not thinking to
watch out for bikes at all.
Stop being so paranoid, Then as a cyclist look out for pedestrians.
It's that easy.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Simply not true, DD. Most cyclists do turn right from the rightmost
lane. Most do go the correct way on one way streets. Most do stop at the
red light. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
You missed what laws that I was speaking of (when I edited from your
list to show which laws most cyclists do not follow).
No, DD. What I wrote above was taken right from your edited list.
uhm no, you included the red light one, when I did not.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Bottom line is
most cyclist do not follow the letter of the law like the proponents
here suggest they should. And they get by JUST fine. Fine. Fine.
I'll break the law again tomorrow, and the next day and next week and
so will the majority of cyclist.
I guess the cyclists you observe are not the same ones I observe.
IN a city of this size (assuming your in Vancouver) then doubtful. But
the point remains the same. But I find it interesting that you notice
cyclists but in a earlier post you said you're not obsessed with ops
therefore don't notice them. Yet you notice all these cyclist that
obey the rules you claim we need? I call bull.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I can hear clearly what I am saying, but your previous sentence makes no
sense. Could you reword it please?
Sorry, my typing is very poor there I agree. See I can admit when I
am wrong. Can you (or other here. no)?
Sure, refer back to the thread we duked it out in a few weeks ago, when I
did at least twice.
To what?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway my intent to point out that you said police DON'T stop cyclists
so what was the big deal.
I never said that police don't stop cyclists. I said that I had never
seen cops in cruisers stop cyclists.
And they do. It's happened to me about 10 times, for which I was
ticketed twice. Therefore I now avoid all police in all circumstance.
Otherwise I'm liable to be shot in the head if I defend myself.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
That suggested you felt they shouldn't.
Where did you get that idea from?
From you. Why don't state a clear opinion (preferably yours) in
your next post.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, so therefore I avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance.
I guess you won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten,
your car stolen, etc?
What does one have to do with the other? Who should I call then? This
is my point about ego. When you're critical of the police then your
automatic response is "don't call them then."

But maybe you're right and I shouldn't. When my wallet was stolen
they did nothing and I did most of the work calling the place were the
cc was used, etc for a video of the thieves (Which they had). I found
it but the police were not interested. Too busy busting people on
bicycles and eating donuts. OF course they have to make time for
shooting kids in the head.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Many Police are not the virtuous citizens they want you to think they
are. Many have control issues. Last week a young man was shot in the
head my a police officer. Guess what he did to get the death penalty?
Drinking in public. Did the punishment fit the crime? I think not.
When you have such petty laws, officer pick and choose which laws to
enforce (Which is why most police leave me alone in regard to helmet if
they happen to see me) and the pettiest of officers will take exception
to a civilian defending himself. IT is bound to esculate until someone is
hurt and in this case-dead.
Oh, cut out the melodrama, Disco. Yes this incident is a tragedy but
it is not comparable to a cop stopping you for riding in a crosswalk.
It shows how police are motivated by control and not doing good. They
aren't interested in catching bad guys and preventing crime so much
as exercising they're ego.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
So, other than learning the shifts, how do you know what cars (cops) are
out at what times?
I don't. I just avoid ALL Police as much as possible. Even if not
riding. After all, too many have attitudes and who know which will do
what to me. I'm liable to be shot in the head like that poor fellow
in Houston, BC.
Okay, so you admit that your original claim that you learned to avoid
certain cars (cops) at certain times was just a fish story, then? You
are losing credibility fast.
No, I don't admit that. I admit that you learn patterns out of
observation. But your claim I learn shifts of officers in a lie (and
you know it)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Oh, I don't know, Disco, who cares? What kind of injury is satisfying
to you as being significant and relevant?
Something that is life altering (death, paralysis, etc). IT is
important because people are using superficial injuries (cuts, scrapes,
etc) in statistics to try an increase the number of "injuries"
people incur to try and suggest cycling is dangerous, when it simply
isn't.
What would be the intent of anybody who tries to paint cycling as more
dangerous than it really is? What's the point? What's for them to gain?
To get people to cycle like them. Ego. Same as police. IT makes them
feel big tough if they can force their will on others. That is why.
IT's about forcing others to do as THEY would do.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
In 1997 I was in a collision with a car while biking (100% car driver's
fault), and yes I got a scrape on my knee and nothing more. So I was
one of those "superficial scrape" statistics. But my bike was totalled
and I had to take time off work to deal with ICBC to get it replaced.
This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics. A scrape I can
handle but the rest of the crap is something I'd rather not have to go
through again.
Actually I bet you it WAS included.
Your poor reading comprehension is showing again, Disco. I never claimed
that that accident was not included in the statistics as an injury. My
claim is that there's a lot more that goes on, beyond injuries (lost
wages because of having to deal with ICBC, etc), that is not reported in
the accident statistics. Stuff that you have to deal with as the result
of a collision that isn't just about injuries.
You wrote "This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics"
after talking about your injury when we were discussing injuries.
Doesn't get clearer than that. So really you need to be clearer in
your writing.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
1. Driving without due care (15.3%)
That's rather ambiguous, isn't it?
Sure. Your point?
Meaning it there is no definition of "due care." It's a nice
little phrase so that people can apply blame how they see fit.
Read it again, Disco. The blame had ALREADY been assigned. The cyclist
caused the accident, it was his fault, and the reason was that he was
riding without due care. Riding without due care could mean any number
of things, but it has nothing to do with who was to blame. The cyclist
*was at fault* in those cases.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I agree. Six is way too many. It should be zero. Better education on
proper road safety should help to lower that number.
Zero? Then ban cycling. IT is the only way to get that number you'd
like Otherwise you will never get to zero.
So then we should not bother with education on proper road safety? If we
can't get it to zero then there's no point in trying?
Education is great, laws out of paranoia is bad. So yes, lets keep
trying though education but not through making more petty laws giving
petty cops the right to exercise their power in the pettiest way (and
eventually shooting someone in the head)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Correct. But if a cyclist collides with me and it is his fault, I want
the law there to protect me from liability. That's what the law is there
for.
With a red light, sure I'd agree with that. But as far as
crosswalks, sidewalks, etc, nonsense, helmets, nah.
Yes, Disco, I can totally understand where you are coming from. You ride
on crosswalks and sidewalks. With the law removed, you won't have to
take responsibility if you collide with and injure a pedestrian. You are
completely removed from liability even if the accident is your fault.
I can completely understand why you would want such a system.
Talk about paranoid. I DON'T have liability now and neither do they.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Above you said : "I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of
the 933 collisions were
the cyclist's fault."
But when stating your list you said "When the cyclist was found at
fault,"
So I think your writing skills need work, not my reading.
Oh, my God, Disco. Your reading comprehension is even worse than I
thought. If you are saying I contradicted myself, then point it out. If
the number of the 933 collisions that were the cyclist's fault was
included in any of the stats that I posted, then please repost it. But
you won't be able to, because that figure IS NOT THERE. It does not say
anywhere in the stats that I posted what proportion of the collisions
could be attributed to the fault of the cyclist.
I've already pointed it out. You really need to accept you wrote
wrong here.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Colin found some numbers, and it is less than 50% for adult cyclists, but
he didn't say how much less. Since you seem to like statistics, why don't
you try to find some?
I just wrote some stats for you but I suspect you'll not beleive me.
But here is some
49% Motor vehicle involvement - including pedestrians but excluding
cyclists
35% Falls
6% Homicide
2% Suicide
2% Cycling
6% Other
LOL, those stats are the causes of *head injuries*! I asked you to find
out what proportion of collisions involving bicycles were the fault of
the cyclist rather than the other party. And you bring up head injury
statistics!
We were talking injuries in general . Do head injuries not fall under
that? Therefore I provided them
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
could not have been avoided, are exceedingly rare. And in case of serious
cycling accidents, which are themselves rare, serious cycling accidents
which are also true flukes are probably close to non-existant.
I'm not sure what you trying to say here, but it seems to emphasize
my point therefore I thank you. Fluke, Rarity? Same thing to me (I
suspect an argument about symantics is about to start?
Semantics, Schemantics. A fluke and a rarity are not the same thing at
all. A rarity is something that happens infrequently. A fluke, in this
context, is something that cannot be avoided. I know you know the
See? Told you we'd start to argue about that.
Post by Király
| The point is most cycling accidents are a fluke. Yes of course some
| accidents are a result of someone's mistake (driver or bicyclist).
That is complete nonsense. Almost ALL accidents are caused by somebody
making a stupid mistake. Flukes, like a tree falling on you, are
exceedingly rare. A collision between a bike and another vehicle or
pedestrian is almost never a fluke, it is caused by somebody doing
something stupid.
Paranoid indeed. WE need laws to allocate blame. Perhaps we should
have that for pedestrians too? What if a jogger hits a walker? Vica
versa? What if someone walking in the right bumps into someone on the
same side breaking his/her nose? Lets have more laws so we can
allocate blame and not refer to them ass accidents but rather someone
doing something stupid?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
but you want laws to apply some sort of blame. Unless EXTREME I do
not. When that starts then cyclists will also require insurance.
Another step towards discouraging cycling.
It's happening now, Disco; laws regarding safe opration of bicycles are
in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA, at the least. And
required insurance for bicyclists is not in effect in any of those
jurisdictions. Quit being so paranoid.
I'm paranoid!!??, and I'm the one NOT wanting all these little
bizarre rules to allocate blame, like you do.? That's a laugh. But
at least you acknowledge it's affect on discouraging cycling (your
opening "It's happening now" comment)
Király
2005-11-10 10:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Riding in a crosswalk is risky because...
Stop being so paranoid, Then as a cyclist look out for pedestrians.
It's that easy.
It isn't paranoid, you can look out for pedestrians all you want, but if
they aren't looking out for you, you risk running into one when he walks
into your path without notice.

Consider the users of crosswalks: "pedestrians, joggers, in-line
skaters, dog owners, and others, all of whose lateral motion is
incompatible with the forward momentum of a bicycle. Collisions are
inevitable."

Where did I get that quote from? From the "excellent cycling helmet
website" you recently posted about in the thread of the same name.
There's a whole lot more on that website than just helmet information.
You should read it.
Post by DiscoDuck
No, DD. What I wrote above was taken right from your edited list.
uhm no, you included the red light one, when I did not.
Oh, well excuse me. My mistake. I still don't agree, though, I see more
cyclists stopping at the red light than running through it.
Post by DiscoDuck
the point remains the same. But I find it interesting that you notice
cyclists but in a earlier post you said you're not obsessed with ops
therefore don't notice them. Yet you notice all these cyclist that
obey the rules you claim we need? I call bull.
Like I said earlier, I only see cops walking a beat or on bike patrol
in the Downtown Eastside and on Granville Mall at night. Okay, to add
one more, at special events where there are large crowds like at the
summer fireworks. Other than that I only see them in their cars. And I
have never seen a cop in a cruiser pull over a cyclist. But people
riding bikes, and following the rules on how to ride them safely on
public roads? Yes, I see them all over the place. I don't know why you
find that so hard to believe.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
am wrong. Can you (or other here. no)?
Sure, refer back to the thread we duked it out in a few weeks ago, when I
did at least twice.
To what?
Oh, Disco, I can't believe you have forgotten already, after I reminded
you at least six or seven times in that thread. Remember? At first I
said that hugging the curb when stopped at a red light was "an accident
waiting to happen." Then I retracted that and said it was "safe."
Then, in the same thread, I claimed that nobody said to block right-turning
traffic, and then you showed me a post by Jim Garnett where he appeared
to have said that. I conceded that to you as well. Your memory is worse
than your reading comprehension.
Post by DiscoDuck
I never said that police don't stop cyclists. I said that I had never
seen cops in cruisers stop cyclists.
And they do. It's happened to me about 10 times, for which I was
ticketed twice. Therefore I now avoid all police in all circumstance.
Otherwise I'm liable to be shot in the head if I defend myself.
Oh, please. You have a bigger chance of being struck by lightning.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
That suggested you felt they shouldn't.
Where did you get that idea from?
From you. Why don't state a clear opinion (preferably yours) in
your next post.
Okay, here it is. I don't see cops stopping cyclists and issuing them
tickets (other than at the times and locations I posted above.) That
doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be doing that; I am just saying
that I don't see it. Clear enough?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, so therefore I avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance.
I guess you won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten,
your car stolen, etc?
What does one have to do with the other? Who should I call then?
This is my point about ego. When you're critical of the police then your
automatic response is "don't call them then."
I never told you to not call them. You said that you avoid all cops in
all circumstances. I'm just wondering what you would do if what you
claim is really true.
Post by DiscoDuck
It shows how police are motivated by control and not doing good. They
aren't interested in catching bad guys and preventing crime so much
as exercising they're ego.
There are a few bad apples in the cops, yes of course; just like there
are in any profession. I'm no fan of the Vancouver cops, in case you
were wondering. They've got big problems in the force they have to deal
with. But to make a blanket statement like the above, which simply isn't
true, is not going to help make things get any better.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
So, other than learning the shifts, how do you know what cars (cops) are
out at what times?
I don't. I just avoid ALL Police as much as possible. Even if not
riding. After all, too many have attitudes and who know which will do
what to me. I'm liable to be shot in the head like that poor fellow
in Houston, BC.
Okay, so you admit that your original claim that you learned to avoid
certain cars (cops) at certain times was just a fish story, then? You
are losing credibility fast.
No, I don't admit that. I admit that you learn patterns out of
observation. But your claim I learn shifts of officers in a lie (and
you know it)
First you claimed that you learned to "avoid certain cars (cops) at
certain times." I assumed you meant that you leaned the shifts. You
claimed that you didn't. So then what patterns did you learn? All the
cruisers look the same. Don't tell me you memorized licence plate
numbers and times those cars are out. What other patterns are there?
Post by DiscoDuck
You wrote "This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics"
after talking about your injury when we were discussing injuries.
Doesn't get clearer than that. So really you need to be clearer in
your writing.
Okay, in case it wasn't clear before, I said it was the non-injury stuff
(wages lost dealing with ICBC) that doesn't make it into the statistics.
But it *was* perfectly clear, Disco, because I said exactly this: "So I
was one of those 'superficial scrape' statistics." Nothing is unclear
about that. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Post by DiscoDuck
Education is great, laws out of paranoia is bad. So yes, lets keep
trying though education but not through making more petty laws giving
petty cops the right to exercise their power in the pettiest way (and
eventually shooting someone in the head)
I agree that there should not be any more laws. What we have now is
sufficient.
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, Disco, I can totally understand where you are coming from. You ride
on crosswalks and sidewalks. With the law removed, you won't have to
take responsibility if you collide with and injure a pedestrian. You are
completely removed from liability even if the accident is your fault.
I can completely understand why you would want such a system.
Talk about paranoid. I DON'T have liability now and neither do they.
Sure you (and they) do. If you collide with a pedestrian in a crosswalk
and it is your fault, you are liable because you broke the law. If a
pedestrian wanders into the bike lane on the Burrard Bridge and causes a
collision, then it is the pedestrian's fault and he is liable.
Post by DiscoDuck
Oh, my God, Disco. Your reading comprehension is even worse than I
thought. If you are saying I contradicted myself, then point it out. If
the number of the 933 collisions that were the cyclist's fault was
included in any of the stats that I posted, then please repost it. But
you won't be able to, because that figure IS NOT THERE. It does not say
anywhere in the stats that I posted what proportion of the collisions
could be attributed to the fault of the cyclist.
wrong here.
Disco, you are pathetic.

There were 933 collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in 2003.
Some of those were the fault of the cyclist. We don't know how many.
The ones that were the fault of the cyclist had several contributing
factors to the cause of the collision.

NOWHERE in the numbers I posted, or in the source document, does it say
HOW MANY or WHAT PERCENTAGE of the 933 were the cyclist's fault.

If you really think that the information is there, here's a challenge for
you. I will estimate that 450 of the 933 collisions were the cyclist's
fault. If that number is wrong, and the correct number can be extracted
from what I posted, or from the source document, then you are welcome to
correct it. I'm curious to see what that number actually is.
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL, those stats are the causes of *head injuries*! I asked you to find
out what proportion of collisions involving bicycles were the fault of
the cyclist rather than the other party. And you bring up head injury
statistics!
We were talking injuries in general . Do head injuries not fall under
that? Therefore I provided them
When were we talking about injuries in general? We were talking about
what number of the 933 collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in BC
were the fault of the cyclist.
Post by DiscoDuck
That is complete nonsense. Almost ALL accidents are caused by somebody
making a stupid mistake. Flukes, like a tree falling on you, are
exceedingly rare. A collision between a bike and another vehicle or
pedestrian is almost never a fluke, it is caused by somebody doing
something stupid.
Paranoid indeed. WE need laws to allocate blame. Perhaps we should
have that for pedestrians too? What if a jogger hits a walker? Vica
versa? What if someone walking in the right bumps into someone on the
same side breaking his/her nose?
You are being ridiculous.
Post by DiscoDuck
It's happening now, Disco; laws regarding safe opration of bicycles are
in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA, at the least. And
required insurance for bicyclists is not in effect in any of those
jurisdictions. Quit being so paranoid.
I'm paranoid!!??, and I'm the one NOT wanting all these little
bizarre rules to allocate blame, like you do.? That's a laugh.
Did you not read what I wrote? Laws regarding safe opration of bicycles
are in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA and they have
been for years. You claimed that when that happened, then insurance will
also be required for cyclists. Well, it has been decades, and insurance
is required in NONE of those jurisdictions. It hasn't happened already,
and there is no evidence it will ever happen. Check this fact with your
own definition of paranoid, posted earlier in this thread:

| Paranoid means you have no evidence to feel the way you do.

Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-11 00:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Riding in a crosswalk is risky because...
Stop being so paranoid, Then as a cyclist look out for pedestrians.
It's that easy.
It isn't paranoid, you can look out for pedestrians all you want, but if
they aren't looking out for you, you risk running into one when he walks
into your path without notice.
Well considering I've been doing it for decades, it must be a
minuscule risk. It's amazing what using just little bit of care and
caution can do. Maybe you don't which is why you oppose it so
strongly?
Post by Király
Consider the users of crosswalks: "pedestrians, joggers, in-line
skaters, dog owners, and others, all of whose lateral motion is
incompatible with the forward momentum of a bicycle. Collisions are
inevitable."
Where did I get that quote from? From the "excellent cycling helmet
website" you recently posted about in the thread of the same name.
There's a whole lot more on that website than just helmet information.
You should read it.
While a good website about helmet issues, I doesn't mean I agree with
EVERYTHING it says. Having said that, collisions are inevitable no
matter how many rules you have.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
No, DD. What I wrote above was taken right from your edited list.
uhm no, you included the red light one, when I did not.
Oh, well excuse me. My mistake. I still don't agree, though, I see more
cyclists stopping at the red light than running through it.
More, perhaps, but that wasn't the issue we began arguing, was it.
It was most rules. For example more cyclists coast along a crosswalk,
coast along a sidewalk, etc.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
the point remains the same. But I find it interesting that you notice
cyclists but in a earlier post you said you're not obsessed with ops
therefore don't notice them. Yet you notice all these cyclist that
obey the rules you claim we need? I call bull.
Like I said earlier, I only see cops walking a beat or on bike patrol
in the Downtown Eastside and on Granville Mall at night. Okay, to add
one more, at special events where there are large crowds like at the
summer fireworks. Other than that I only see them in their cars. And I
have never seen a cop in a cruiser pull over a cyclist. But people
riding bikes, and following the rules on how to ride them safely on
public roads? Yes, I see them all over the place. I don't know why you
find that so hard to believe.
I DO believe you, but I think you are blind to those that don't and
don't want to admit that most don't follow the rules but still get
by just fine.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
am wrong. Can you (or other here. no)?
Sure, refer back to the thread we duked it out in a few weeks ago, when I
did at least twice.
To what?
Oh, Disco, I can't believe you have forgotten already, after I reminded
you at least six or seven times in that thread. Remember? At first I
said that hugging the curb when stopped at a red light was "an accident
waiting to happen." Then I retracted that and said it was "safe."
Then, in the same thread, I claimed that nobody said to block right-turning
traffic, and then you showed me a post by Jim Garnett where he appeared
to have said that. I conceded that to you as well. Your memory is worse
than your reading comprehension.
No it isn't. I just don't take you that seriously therefore
perhaps forget some of what you say.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I never said that police don't stop cyclists. I said that I had never
seen cops in cruisers stop cyclists.
And they do. It's happened to me about 10 times, for which I was
ticketed twice. Therefore I now avoid all police in all circumstance.
Otherwise I'm liable to be shot in the head if I defend myself.
Oh, please. You have a bigger chance of being struck by lightning.
Likewise with being injured if you don't follow the rules of the road
as a cyclist.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
That suggested you felt they shouldn't.
Where did you get that idea from?
From you. Why don't state a clear opinion (preferably yours) in
your next post.
Okay, here it is. I don't see cops stopping cyclists and issuing them
tickets (other than at the times and locations I posted above.) That
doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be doing that; I am just saying
that I don't see it. Clear enough?
Sure, but it does happen. Why don't you try riding without a helmet
and breaking the rules. I bet you get pulled over by a cop.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, so therefore I avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance.
I guess you won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten,
your car stolen, etc?
What does one have to do with the other? Who should I call then?
This is my point about ego. When you're critical of the police then your
automatic response is "don't call them then."
I never told you to not call them. You said that you avoid all cops in
all circumstances. I'm just wondering what you would do if what you
claim is really true.
Don't be silly, that is exactly what you meant by "I guess you
won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten, your car
stolen, etc?" But tell me, if not them, who should I call?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
It shows how police are motivated by control and not doing good. They
aren't interested in catching bad guys and preventing crime so much
as exercising they're ego.
There are a few bad apples in the cops, yes of course; just like there
are in any profession. I'm no fan of the Vancouver cops, in case you
were wondering. They've got big problems in the force they have to deal
with. But to make a blanket statement like the above, which simply isn't
true, is not going to help make things get any better.
Like I said, MOST don't bother me. But the problem is you can't
visibly differentiate the bad "apples" from the good ones.
Therefore I do what I can to make my life easier-and that is avoid all
Police. Until they have to wear a different coloured uniform depending
on attitude I have no other way to avoid them.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
So, other than learning the shifts, how do you know what cars (cops) are
out at what times?
I don't. I just avoid ALL Police as much as possible. Even if not
riding. After all, too many have attitudes and who know which will do
what to me. I'm liable to be shot in the head like that poor fellow
in Houston, BC.
Okay, so you admit that your original claim that you learned to avoid
certain cars (cops) at certain times was just a fish story, then? You
are losing credibility fast.
No, I don't admit that. I admit that you learn patterns out of
observation. But your claim I learn shifts of officers in a lie (and
you know it)
First you claimed that you learned to "avoid certain cars (cops) at
certain times." I assumed you meant that you leaned the shifts. You
claimed that you didn't. So then what patterns did you learn? All the
cruisers look the same. Don't tell me you memorized licence plate
numbers and times those cars are out. What other patterns are there?
I remember every cop that hassled me. IF I am on foot, I avoid them.
That is one method. Another is I have friends on the force. He is
kind enough to give me heads up as to some of the "Nazi's", and
where they are working. As a cop himself he's disgusted with some of
them.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You wrote "This kind of stuff doesn't make it into the statistics"
after talking about your injury when we were discussing injuries.
Doesn't get clearer than that. So really you need to be clearer in
your writing.
Okay, in case it wasn't clear before, I said it was the non-injury stuff
(wages lost dealing with ICBC) that doesn't make it into the statistics.
But it *was* perfectly clear, Disco, because I said exactly this: "So I
was one of those 'superficial scrape' statistics." Nothing is unclear
about that. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
No, you need to learn how to write clearer. Why you even brought up
wages lost dealing with ICBC, is curious. It had nothing to do with
what we were discussing.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Education is great, laws out of paranoia is bad. So yes, lets keep
trying though education but not through making more petty laws giving
petty cops the right to exercise their power in the pettiest way (and
eventually shooting someone in the head)
I agree that there should not be any more laws. What we have now is
sufficient.
It's overkill.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, Disco, I can totally understand where you are coming from. You ride
on crosswalks and sidewalks. With the law removed, you won't have to
take responsibility if you collide with and injure a pedestrian. You are
completely removed from liability even if the accident is your fault.
I can completely understand why you would want such a system.
Talk about paranoid. I DON'T have liability now and neither do they.
Sure you (and they) do. If you collide with a pedestrian in a crosswalk
and it is your fault, you are liable because you broke the law. If a
pedestrian wanders into the bike lane on the Burrard Bridge and causes a
collision, then it is the pedestrian's fault and he is liable.
We were talking is sense of insurance for cyclists. Having said that,
you still don't get held "accountable" for accidents-especially
fluke ones.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Oh, my God, Disco. Your reading comprehension is even worse than I
thought. If you are saying I contradicted myself, then point it out. If
the number of the 933 collisions that were the cyclist's fault was
included in any of the stats that I posted, then please repost it. But
you won't be able to, because that figure IS NOT THERE. It does not say
anywhere in the stats that I posted what proportion of the collisions
could be attributed to the fault of the cyclist.
wrong here.
Disco, you are pathetic.
If by pathetic you mean RIGHT!, then yes, I am.
Post by Király
There were 933 collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in 2003.
Some of those were the fault of the cyclist. We don't know how many.
The ones that were the fault of the cyclist had several contributing
factors to the cause of the collision.
NOWHERE in the numbers I posted, or in the source document, does it say
HOW MANY or WHAT PERCENTAGE of the 933 were the cyclist's fault.
But you wrote (and I quote) "When the cyclist was found at fault, the
top five reasons were:" Therefore 100% of what you were stating, WAS
THE CYCLIST's FAULT (by the way, only add up to 49%. Considering you
were a breakdown of "When the cyclist was found at fault", they
should add to 100%). Why you can't see that, I do not know except
your reading comprehension need help (not to mention math).
Post by Király
If you really think that the information is there, here's a challenge for
you. I will estimate that 450 of the 933 collisions were the cyclist's
fault. If that number is wrong, and the correct number can be extracted
from what I posted, or from the source document, then you are welcome to
correct it. I'm curious to see what that number actually is.
Maybe if I can be bothered. Right now I can't. But 450 is a bit
brown, presumably because you're pulling it out of your ass.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL, those stats are the causes of *head injuries*! I asked you to find
out what proportion of collisions involving bicycles were the fault of
the cyclist rather than the other party. And you bring up head injury
statistics!
We were talking injuries in general . Do head injuries not fall under
that? Therefore I provided them
When were we talking about injuries in general? We were talking about
what number of the 933 collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in BC
were the fault of the cyclist.
Post by DiscoDuck
That is complete nonsense. Almost ALL accidents are caused by somebody
making a stupid mistake. Flukes, like a tree falling on you, are
exceedingly rare. A collision between a bike and another vehicle or
pedestrian is almost never a fluke, it is caused by somebody doing
something stupid.
Paranoid indeed. WE need laws to allocate blame. Perhaps we should
have that for pedestrians too? What if a jogger hits a walker? Vica
versa? What if someone walking in the right bumps into someone on the
same side breaking his/her nose?
You are being ridiculous.
And so is this worry about cyclist hurting non-cyclists. More injuries
occur in the home-lets make laws holding people accountable.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
It's happening now, Disco; laws regarding safe opration of bicycles are
in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA, at the least. And
required insurance for bicyclists is not in effect in any of those
jurisdictions. Quit being so paranoid.
I'm paranoid!!??, and I'm the one NOT wanting all these little
bizarre rules to allocate blame, like you do.? That's a laugh.
Did you not read what I wrote? Laws regarding safe opration of bicycles
are in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA and they have
been for years. You claimed that when that happened, then insurance will
also be required for cyclists. Well, it has been decades, and insurance
is required in NONE of those jurisdictions. It hasn't happened already,
and there is no evidence it will ever happen. Check this fact with your
Actually there are people lobbying for that. IT's just a matter of
time as the anti-cycling movement grows.
Post by Király
| Paranoid means you have no evidence to feel the way you do.
Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?
No, I am calling you paranoid.
Király
2005-11-16 17:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never told you to not call them. You said that you avoid all cops in
all circumstances. I'm just wondering what you would do if what you
claim is really true.
Don't be silly, that is exactly what you meant by "I guess you
won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten, your car
stolen, etc?" But tell me, if not them, who should I call?
I don't know, Disco, that's what *I* was asking *you*. Why are you
asking me?
Post by DiscoDuck
I remember every cop that hassled me. IF I am on foot, I avoid them.
That is one method. Another is I have friends on the force. He is
kind enough to give me heads up as to some of the "Nazi's", and
where they are working. As a cop himself he's disgusted with some of
them.
I'm not sure what to believe from you anymore, Disco. You keep changing
your story. First you denied knowing any of the shifts. Now you are
saying you do know some because your friend on the force tips you off.
Your stance towards cycling laws seems to change a lot too. First you
said you wanted to add to the number of laws, then you wanted them all
revoked, and then you say that some are okay. Where do you really stand?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Okay, in case it wasn't clear before, I said it was the non-injury stuff
(wages lost dealing with ICBC) that doesn't make it into the statistics.
But it *was* perfectly clear, Disco, because I said exactly this: "So I
was one of those 'superficial scrape' statistics." Nothing is unclear
about that. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
No, you need to learn how to write clearer.
You thought I was claiming that my injury was not included in the
statistics, when I wrote "So I was one of those 'superficial scrape'
statistics." How can I make it clearer than that?
Post by DiscoDuck
Why you even brought up wages lost dealing with ICBC, is curious. It
had nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Sure it did. Your claim was that the collision stats include minor
injuries, and if a collision does not result in a life-changing injury
then what's the big deal. My point is that there are more consequenses of
a collision that just injuries, so I gave an example.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Sure you (and they) do. If you collide with a pedestrian in a crosswalk
and it is your fault, you are liable because you broke the law. If a
pedestrian wanders into the bike lane on the Burrard Bridge and causes a
collision, then it is the pedestrian's fault and he is liable.
We were talking is sense of insurance for cyclists. Having said that,
you still don't get held "accountable" for accidents-especially
fluke ones.
Insurance? We were we ever talking about liability, not insurance. And
of course you get held accountable for non-fluke accidents. It is
spelled out right in the MVA.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
NOWHERE in the numbers I posted, or in the source document, does it say
HOW MANY or WHAT PERCENTAGE of the 933 were the cyclist's fault.
But you wrote (and I quote) "When the cyclist was found at fault, the
top five reasons were:" Therefore 100% of what you were stating, WAS
THE CYCLIST's FAULT
Yes, Disco, I know. Do you not understand what you even write, on top of
not understanding what you read? What you are saying is that 100% of the
collisions that are the cyclist's fault are the cyclist's fault. That
kind of statistic should be reported to the Department of Redundancy
Department.
Post by DiscoDuck
(by the way, only add up to 49%. Considering you
were a breakdown of "When the cyclist was found at fault", they
should add to 100%). Why you can't see that, I do not know except
your reading comprehension need help (not to mention math).
Neither my reading comprehension nor math skills need help. I only
listed the top 5, and said so when I posted them. There are about 20
factors listed in the report, and they of course all add up to 100% when
you count them all.

Here's another summary, in case your math skills are better than your
reading:

Total collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in 2003: 933.
Collisions that are the cyclist's fault: x.
Collisions that are the motor vehicle's fault: 933-x.
Collisions caused by cyclist driving without due care: 0.153(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist failing to yield right of way: 0.129(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist riding on wrong side of road: 0.110(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist ignoring traffic control device: 0.059(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist and lcohol involvement: 0.039(x)
Total cyclist-caused collisions resulting from the top 5 factors I
posted: 0.49(x)
Total cyclist-caused collisions resulting from the rest of the factors I
didn't post: 0.51(x)

But NOWHERE does it say how many of the 933 collisions are the fault of
the cyclist rather than of the motor vehicle. Nowhere. In other
words, it is impossible to calculate x from the data presented. Other
readers of this thread understood me perfectly well (Colin, Gordon) but
you just don't seem to get it.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
If you really think that the information is there, here's a challenge for
you. I will estimate that 450 of the 933 collisions were the cyclist's
fault. If that number is wrong, and the correct number can be extracted
from what I posted, or from the source document, then you are welcome to
correct it. I'm curious to see what that number actually is.
Maybe if I can be bothered. Right now I can't.
Lame, lame, lame, Disco. You can't because the data is not there; it's
impossible with the data that I presented. Your claim that you can do
it but can't be bothered is lame and pathetic.
Post by DiscoDuck
But 450 is a bit brown, presumably because you're pulling it out of
your ass.
Sure I did. I said so myself. I challenged you to find the real
number. Can you?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Did you not read what I wrote? Laws regarding safe opration of bicycles
are in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA and they have
been for years. You claimed that when that happened, then insurance will
also be required for cyclists. Well, it has been decades, and insurance
is required in NONE of those jurisdictions. It hasn't happened already,
and there is no evidence it will ever happen. Check this fact with your
Actually there are people lobbying for that. IT's just a matter of
time as the anti-cycling movement grows.
Bull. Give ONE reference to a lobbying effort anywhere in Canada
or the USA advocating requiring insurance for cyclists on public
highways. It does not exist. There is absolutely no reason to fear
mandatory insurance because the threat does not even exist. The fact
that you are scared it will happen makes you paranoid by your own
definition.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-16 22:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never told you to not call them. You said that you avoid all cops in
all circumstances. I'm just wondering what you would do if what you
claim is really true.
Don't be silly, that is exactly what you meant by "I guess you
won't call the cops then when you get robbed, mugged, beaten, your car
stolen, etc?" But tell me, if not them, who should I call?
I don't know, Disco, that's what *I* was asking *you*. Why are you
asking me?
But you asked as if I shouldn't call. You know it and so do I, and
so does anyone else bothering to read this thread. But to humour you
I'll answer just in case you really retarded-If I was in the process
of being murdered or saw a rape or car theft in progress then I would
call the police. That is suppose to their job instead of this warped
sense of "law enforcement" that many do as they stop cyclists for
idiotic law violation.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I remember every cop that hassled me. IF I am on foot, I avoid them.
That is one method. Another is I have friends on the force. He is
kind enough to give me heads up as to some of the "Nazi's", and
where they are working. As a cop himself he's disgusted with some of
them.
I'm not sure what to believe from you anymore, Disco. You keep changing
your story. First you denied knowing any of the shifts. Now you are
saying you do know some because your friend on the force tips you off.
Your stance towards cycling laws seems to change a lot too. First you
said you wanted to add to the number of laws, then you wanted them all
revoked, and then you say that some are okay. Where do you really stand?
Oh man, your lies are getting more desperate. I've never asked for
MORE laws for cycling. I've never claimed to know the shifts of
police officers. You DO learn patterns of certain cops yes. AND my
friend tips me off if he knows of certain cops are in certain areas, so
I can stay clear. It's that simple.
All cycling laws revoked? Again you're lying.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Okay, in case it wasn't clear before, I said it was the non-injury stuff
(wages lost dealing with ICBC) that doesn't make it into the statistics.
But it *was* perfectly clear, Disco, because I said exactly this: "So I
was one of those 'superficial scrape' statistics." Nothing is unclear
about that. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
No, you need to learn how to write clearer.
You thought I was claiming that my injury was not included in the
statistics, when I wrote "So I was one of those 'superficial scrape'
statistics." How can I make it clearer than that?
Now you're clear. Your initial phrasing was not.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Why you even brought up wages lost dealing with ICBC, is curious. It
had nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Sure it did. Your claim was that the collision stats include minor
injuries, and if a collision does not result in a life-changing injury
then what's the big deal. My point is that there are more consequenses of
a collision that just injuries, so I gave an example.
No, you put it in to change the argument-and it worked. We are now
arguing about many more things than the initial issues
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Sure you (and they) do. If you collide with a pedestrian in a crosswalk
and it is your fault, you are liable because you broke the law. If a
pedestrian wanders into the bike lane on the Burrard Bridge and causes a
collision, then it is the pedestrian's fault and he is liable.
We were talking is sense of insurance for cyclists. Having said that,
you still don't get held "accountable" for accidents-especially
fluke ones.
Insurance? We were we ever talking about liability, not insurance. And
of course you get held accountable for non-fluke accidents. It is
spelled out right in the MVA.
But you were concerned with accountability and most people think of
financial accountability when it comes to these accidents you're so
pre-occupied with.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
NOWHERE in the numbers I posted, or in the source document, does it say
HOW MANY or WHAT PERCENTAGE of the 933 were the cyclist's fault.
But you wrote (and I quote) "When the cyclist was found at fault, the
top five reasons were:" Therefore 100% of what you were stating, WAS
THE CYCLIST's FAULT
Yes, Disco, I know. Do you not understand what you even write, on top of
not understanding what you read? What you are saying is that 100% of the
collisions that are the cyclist's fault are the cyclist's fault. That
kind of statistic should be reported to the Department of Redundancy
Department.
Yes you were redundant and again unclear.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
(by the way, only add up to 49%. Considering you
were a breakdown of "When the cyclist was found at fault", they
should add to 100%). Why you can't see that, I do not know except
your reading comprehension need help (not to mention math).
Neither my reading comprehension nor math skills need help. I only
listed the top 5, and said so when I posted them. There are about 20
factors listed in the report, and they of course all add up to 100% when
you count them all.
Here's another summary, in case your math skills are better than your
Total collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in 2003: 933.
Collisions that are the cyclist's fault: x.
Collisions that are the motor vehicle's fault: 933-x.
Collisions caused by cyclist driving without due care: 0.153(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist failing to yield right of way: 0.129(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist riding on wrong side of road: 0.110(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist ignoring traffic control device: 0.059(x)
Collisions caused by cyclist and lcohol involvement: 0.039(x)
Total cyclist-caused collisions resulting from the top 5 factors I
posted: 0.49(x)
Total cyclist-caused collisions resulting from the rest of the factors I
didn't post: 0.51(x)
But NOWHERE does it say how many of the 933 collisions are the fault of
the cyclist rather than of the motor vehicle. Nowhere. In other
words, it is impossible to calculate x from the data presented. Other
readers of this thread understood me perfectly well (Colin, Gordon) but
you just don't seem to get it.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
If you really think that the information is there, here's a challenge for
you. I will estimate that 450 of the 933 collisions were the cyclist's
fault. If that number is wrong, and the correct number can be extracted
from what I posted, or from the source document, then you are welcome to
correct it. I'm curious to see what that number actually is.
Maybe if I can be bothered. Right now I can't.
Lame, lame, lame, Disco. You can't because the data is not there; it's
impossible with the data that I presented. Your claim that you can do
it but can't be bothered is lame and pathetic.
What did I claim I can do? I didn't claim I could do anything,
related to your paragraph above. You asked me to find some stats and I
said I can't be bothered. But now you're trying to lie (again) by
putting words in my mouth? Desperate indeed.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
But 450 is a bit brown, presumably because you're pulling it out of
your ass.
Sure I did. I said so myself. I challenged you to find the real
number. Can you?
Like I said I can't be bothered right now. And again I never claimed
I would (although you CLAIMED I said I could).
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Did you not read what I wrote? Laws regarding safe opration of bicycles
are in effect in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA and they have
been for years. You claimed that when that happened, then insurance will
also be required for cyclists. Well, it has been decades, and insurance
is required in NONE of those jurisdictions. It hasn't happened already,
and there is no evidence it will ever happen. Check this fact with your
Actually there are people lobbying for that. IT's just a matter of
time as the anti-cycling movement grows.
Bull. Give ONE reference to a lobbying effort anywhere in Canada
or the USA advocating requiring insurance for cyclists on public
highways. It does not exist. There is absolutely no reason to fear
mandatory insurance because the threat does not even exist. The fact
that you are scared it will happen makes you paranoid by your own
definition.
Uhm, anti-cycling people are always bringing that up. I hear it almost
monthly "They SHOULD have to have insurance!!!" I don't believe
you haven't heard that. IF you say you haven't, I think you're
lying. But THAT is nothing new. You've lied here many times.
But to humour you, here you go: From one quick google search in less
than 20 seconds I found this from here:
http://tony.chattablogs.com/archives/018261.html

"Bicycle riders must carry liability insurance, this includes the
recent popularity in motor electric and gas scooters. Purchase and/or
register said cycle(s) with a tag plate number displayed or carry a
number."

That's just a quick example of how some people (albeit anti-cycling)
people WANT THIS and will eventually happen.
Király
2005-11-17 01:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
But you asked as if I shouldn't call. You know it and so do I, and
so does anyone else bothering to read this thread.
No, Disco, you didn't read it very carefully. You claimed you avoided
"ALL Police in ALL circumstance." I didn't really believe you, so I ASKED
you for clarification: "I guess you won't call the cops then when you
get robbed, mugged, beaten, your car stolen, etc?" So now that you
*have* clarified that you *will* call the cops in such a case, I
guess you didn't really mean "avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance," did
you?
Post by DiscoDuck
Oh man, your lies are getting more desperate. I've never asked for
MORE laws for cycling.
On October 6th, you claimed to have wanted this one:

| [cyclists] BLOCKING traffic by centering should be illegal
| however as it is inconsiderate and causes problems for traffic,
| cyclists and drivers.

...forgot that one? Speaking of lies, you really do post a lot of BS in
this group, such as this gem:

| On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
| turn right, but not cyclist.

Complete bull. There is no such restriction at that intersection, or at
any other intersection that I know of.
Post by DiscoDuck
I've never claimed to know the shifts of
police officers. You DO learn patterns of certain cops yes. AND my
friend tips me off if he knows of certain cops are in certain areas, so
I can stay clear. It's that simple.
Okay, Disco, so you don't know what shifts certain cops work, but you do
know when those cops are in certain areas in certain times. But you
don't know the shifts. Okay Disco, fine.
Post by DiscoDuck
All cycling laws revoked? Again you're lying.
On October 31st, you said this:

| There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
| rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.

The MVA is the only act that governs operation of bikes on public
roadways. So if you want bikes removed from the MVA; then you want all
cycling laws revoked. If that's not what you meant by saying that, what
did you mean?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
You thought I was claiming that my injury was not included in the
statistics, when I wrote "So I was one of those 'superficial scrape'
statistics." How can I make it clearer than that?
Now you're clear. Your initial phrasing was not.
LOL, my initial phrasing was exactly the same. I was quoting myself
word-for-word. Go back and read it again if you don't believe me.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Yes, Disco, I know. Do you not understand what you even write, on top of
not understanding what you read? What you are saying is that 100% of the
collisions that are the cyclist's fault are the cyclist's fault. That
kind of statistic should be reported to the Department of Redundancy
Department.
Yes you were redundant and again unclear.
How was I redundant or unclear?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Lame, lame, lame, Disco. You can't because the data is not there; it's
impossible with the data that I presented. Your claim that you can do
it but can't be bothered is lame and pathetic.
What did I claim I can do? I didn't claim I could do anything,
related to your paragraph above. You asked me to find some stats and I
said I can't be bothered. But now you're trying to lie (again) by
putting words in my mouth? Desperate indeed.
Okay, you didn't claim that you could do it; you are right. But you said
that the information was there; which it isn't. You have argued over and
over that the information (number of cyclist-at-fault collisions in 2003) is
included in what I posted, when it has never been. Claiming data is
there, over and over, when it is not there at all, is still lame and
pathetic. Either admit that the data is not there, or put your money
where your mouth is and post the number. If you refuse to do either then
you are just making a fool out of yourself.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Bull. Give ONE reference to a lobbying effort anywhere in Canada
or the USA advocating requiring insurance for cyclists on public
highways. It does not exist.
Uhm, anti-cycling people are always bringing that up. I hear it almost
monthly "They SHOULD have to have insurance!!!" I don't believe
you haven't heard that.
Sure I've heard it, from various nutcases, and mostly nutcases on
Usenet. They are a few isolated kooks and any attempt to call them
lobbyists is laughable; nobody really takes them seriously. Except for
you, it seems.
Post by DiscoDuck
But to humour you, here you go: From one quick google search in less
http://tony.chattablogs.com/archives/018261.html
"Bicycle riders must carry liability insurance, this includes the
recent popularity in motor electric and gas scooters. Purchase and/or
register said cycle(s) with a tag plate number displayed or carry a
number."
Oh, please. Is that the best you can do? That's just one of the kooks I
was talking about. He seems to be some high school kid rambling in his blog
about what he would do if he were old enough to run for office. Calling
it a lobbying effort is ridiculous. There is no real lobbying going on for
mandatory insurance for cyclists. Quit being so paranoid; you have
nothing to worry about.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-17 02:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
But you asked as if I shouldn't call. You know it and so do I, and
so does anyone else bothering to read this thread.
No, Disco, you didn't read it very carefully. You claimed you avoided
"ALL Police in ALL circumstance." I didn't really believe you, so I ASKED
you for clarification: "I guess you won't call the cops then when you
get robbed, mugged, beaten, your car stolen, etc?" So now that you
*have* clarified that you *will* call the cops in such a case, I
guess you didn't really mean "avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance," did
you?
IN all circumstance where I can. Correct. IF you took that too mean
when someone is being murdered, raped, theft in progress, then you're
truly stupid. I knew you would seek to pick fights where ever
semantics COULD possible be an issue and here is another example of
that
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Oh man, your lies are getting more desperate. I've never asked for
MORE laws for cycling.
| [cyclists] BLOCKING traffic by centering should be illegal
| however as it is inconsiderate and causes problems for traffic,
| cyclists and drivers.
...forgot that one? Speaking of lies, you really do post a lot of BS in
But that isn't insisting on more STUPID laws, is it now. What a sad
state you are in.
Post by Király
| On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
| turn right, but not cyclist.
Complete bull. There is no such restriction at that intersection, or at
any other intersection that I know of.
OK Király, would you like me to email it to you? It's there, plain
as day.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I've never claimed to know the shifts of
police officers. You DO learn patterns of certain cops yes. AND my
friend tips me off if he knows of certain cops are in certain areas, so
I can stay clear. It's that simple.
Okay, Disco, so you don't know what shifts certain cops work, but you do
know when those cops are in certain areas in certain times. But you
don't know the shifts. Okay Disco, fine.
Post by DiscoDuck
All cycling laws revoked? Again you're lying.
| There is no reason for bikes to be covered by the MV Act, anymore than
| rollerbladers, or pedestrians should be.
The MVA is the only act that governs operation of bikes on public
roadways. So if you want bikes removed from the MVA; then you want all
cycling laws revoked. If that's not what you meant by saying that, what
did you mean?
Beyond redicilous. Cycling isn't a MV anymore than a pedestrian or
roller blader is. But there are still rules OUTSIDE of the MVA
covering those.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
You thought I was claiming that my injury was not included in the
statistics, when I wrote "So I was one of those 'superficial scrape'
statistics." How can I make it clearer than that?
Now you're clear. Your initial phrasing was not.
LOL, my initial phrasing was exactly the same. I was quoting myself
word-for-word. Go back and read it again if you don't believe me.
It's clear in this context. You did not write before "You thought
I was claiming that my injury was not included in the
statistics, when I wrote "So I was one of those 'superficial scrape'
statistics." How can I make it clearer than that?"
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Yes, Disco, I know. Do you not understand what you even write, on top of
not understanding what you read? What you are saying is that 100% of the
collisions that are the cyclist's fault are the cyclist's fault. That
kind of statistic should be reported to the Department of Redundancy
Department.
Yes you were redundant and again unclear.
How was I redundant or unclear?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Lame, lame, lame, Disco. You can't because the data is not there; it's
impossible with the data that I presented. Your claim that you can do
it but can't be bothered is lame and pathetic.
What did I claim I can do? I didn't claim I could do anything,
related to your paragraph above. You asked me to find some stats and I
said I can't be bothered. But now you're trying to lie (again) by
putting words in my mouth? Desperate indeed.
Okay, you didn't claim that you could do it; you are right.
Atta girl. Finally.

But you said
Post by Király
that the information was there; which it isn't. You have argued over and
over that the information (number of cyclist-at-fault collisions in 2003) is
included in what I posted, when it has never been. Claiming data is
there, over and over, when it is not there at all, is still lame and
pathetic. Either admit that the data is not there, or put your money
where your mouth is and post the number. If you refuse to do either then
you are just making a fool out of yourself.
You were claiming that these were not fault of the cyclists and yet I
referred to two yof you sentences (twice) showing what you wrote.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Bull. Give ONE reference to a lobbying effort anywhere in Canada
or the USA advocating requiring insurance for cyclists on public
highways. It does not exist.
Uhm, anti-cycling people are always bringing that up. I hear it almost
monthly "They SHOULD have to have insurance!!!" I don't believe
you haven't heard that.
Sure I've heard it, from various nutcases, and mostly nutcases on
Usenet.
Yet, you said No body was. Good, another admission. But I do agree
they are nut cases.

They are a few isolated kooks and any attempt to call them
Post by Király
lobbyists is laughable; nobody really takes them seriously. Except for
you, it seems.
No body tool the idea of helmets laws seriously either, and now we are
here. IT took decades but the law is here.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
But to humour you, here you go: From one quick google search in less
http://tony.chattablogs.com/archives/018261.html
"Bicycle riders must carry liability insurance, this includes the
recent popularity in motor electric and gas scooters. Purchase and/or
register said cycle(s) with a tag plate number displayed or carry a
number."
Oh, please. Is that the best you can do?
No, I can do better and when I can bother, I will.

That's just one of the kooks I
Post by Király
was talking about. He seems to be some high school kid rambling in his blog
about what he would do if he were old enough to run for office. Calling
it a lobbying effort is ridiculous. There is no real lobbying going on for
mandatory insurance for cyclists. Quit being so paranoid; you have
nothing to worry about.
Again, it took decades for the lobby group to be successful for a
helmet law. I expect the lobby for bike insurance will be similar.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-17 03:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Uhm, anti-cycling people are always bringing that up. I hear it almost
monthly "They SHOULD have to have insurance!!!" I don't believe
you haven't heard that.
Sure I've heard it, from various nutcases, and mostly nutcases on
Usenet.
Yet, you said No body was. Good, another admission. But I do agree
they are nut cases.
They are a few isolated kooks and any attempt to call them
Post by Király
lobbyists is laughable; nobody really takes them seriously. Except for
you, it seems.
No body tool the idea of helmets laws seriously either, and now we are
here. IT took decades but the law is here.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
But to humour you, here you go: From one quick google search in less
http://tony.chattablogs.com/archives/018261.html
"Bicycle riders must carry liability insurance, this includes the
recent popularity in motor electric and gas scooters. Purchase and/or
register said cycle(s) with a tag plate number displayed or carry a
number."
Oh, please. Is that the best you can do?
Here is another.from
http://www.transalt.org/press/testimony/980210delivery.html

It seems in '98 there was an attempt to pass a law that would require
cyclists to have insurance in New York.

"Secondly, the proposed legislation carries excessive insurance
requirements that are absurd for bicycles. The bill's minimum insurance
requirements for business owners far outstrip the minimum insurance
requirements for automobiles, including taxis, in New York City.

Where state law requires $10,000 minimum for property damage insurance
for an automobile or taxi, the proposed legislation would require
commercial bicycles to be insured for $50,000.
Where state law requires $25,000 minimum insurance for injuries to or
death of one individual caused by an automobile or taxi, the proposed
legislation would require commercial bicycles to be insured for $50,000
-- double that amount.
And, where state law requires $50,000 minimum insurance for injuries to
or death of more than one person caused by an automobile or taxi, the
bill would require commercial bicycles to be insured for $100,000 --
again, twice that amount.
Common sense as well as accident statistics tell us that such insurance
requirements are egregiously out of proportion to threat of damage from
a bicycle.

Thirdly, the proposed legislation includes a helmet requirement that
would discourage the use of bicycles for commercial purposes and that
would make commercial cyclists targets of harassment......"
Király
2005-11-17 06:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Here is another.from
http://www.transalt.org/press/testimony/980210delivery.html
It seems in '98 there was an attempt to pass a law that would require
cyclists to have insurance in New York.
Thanks, Disco, that was an interesting read. But it is not really
relevant. It was only to apply to cyclists who use their bikes for
commercial purposes; i.e. bike couriers. There was never any attempt to
force mandatory insurance on non-commercial users of bikes. You'll have
to better than that to convince me that there's a threat of mandatory
cycling insurance on the horizon. I won't hold my breath waiting,
though; I've googled it myself and nothing is coming up.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-17 08:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Here is another.from
http://www.transalt.org/press/testimony/980210delivery.html
It seems in '98 there was an attempt to pass a law that would require
cyclists to have insurance in New York.
Thanks, Disco, that was an interesting read. But it is not really
relevant. It was only to apply to cyclists who use their bikes for
commercial purposes; i.e. bike couriers. There was never any attempt to
force mandatory insurance on non-commercial users of bikes. You'll have
to better than that to convince me that there's a threat of mandatory
cycling insurance on the horizon. I won't hold my breath waiting,
though; I've googled it myself and nothing is coming up.
K.
First you say no such thing exists, now you're saying it only applies
to commercial bikes.
Do you think these things come all at once? Like the erosion of
freedoms they come slowly (ish).
It's only a matter of time. How you can;t see that suggests you are
blind.
Király
2005-11-18 01:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
First you say no such thing exists, now you're saying it only applies
to commercial bikes.
Do you think these things come all at once? Like the erosion of
freedoms they come slowly (ish).
It's only a matter of time. How you can;t see that suggests you are
blind.
Oh, spare me.

In Europe, you can drink alcohol on public beaches. I did so myself at
Lake Balaton in Hungary this past summer. Here in BC, there is a stupid
law against that. Do I think that the stupid law is the beginning of a
slippery slope towards full blown alcohol prohibition? Of course not.
That would be paranoid to believe that.

Your worry that there is a movement towards mandatory cycling insurance,
and that it is only a matter of time before it's here, is equally
paranoid. Hyper-paranoid, to use one of your terms. There is no
evidence that any such movement is alive and kicking. Chill out and relax.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-18 02:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
First you say no such thing exists, now you're saying it only applies
to commercial bikes.
Do you think these things come all at once? Like the erosion of
freedoms they come slowly (ish).
It's only a matter of time. How you can;t see that suggests you are
blind.
Oh, spare me.
In Europe, you can drink alcohol on public beaches. I did so myself at
Lake Balaton in Hungary this past summer. Here in BC, there is a stupid
law against that. Do I think that the stupid law is the beginning of a
slippery slope towards full blown alcohol prohibition? Of course not.
That would be paranoid to believe that.
Your worry that there is a movement towards mandatory cycling insurance,
and that it is only a matter of time before it's here, is equally
paranoid. Hyper-paranoid, to use one of your terms. There is no
evidence that any such movement is alive and kicking. Chill out and relax.
K.
No, I won't spare you "K". People use to think EXACTLY what you think
about the bicycle helmet law. Then one day, because no one thought it
would happen, IT HAPPENNED.
If you want to prevent it, then simply and LOUDLY speak out against it
next time you hear someone want it.

I'm not worried about right now because the "cause" is barely in its
infancy. So it will be many years before it happens if it does (Which
I think it will, no matter how asinine it is). However it only takes
one or two high profile cases to jump start such a cause. Again, that
is what happened with the helmet law. Anytime someone was in an
accident the media would say "a helmet would have saved them" or a
helmet DID save them when no such evidence existed.
Just a matter of time oh paranoid one, K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-17 18:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Thanks, Disco, that was an interesting read. But it is not really
relevant. It was only to apply to cyclists who use their bikes for
commercial purposes; i.e. bike couriers. There was never any attempt to
force mandatory insurance on non-commercial users of bikes. You'll have
to better than that to convince me that there's a threat of mandatory
cycling insurance on the horizon. I won't hold my breath waiting,
though; I've googled it myself and nothing is coming up.
How very strange, as things come up when I google.
Király
2005-11-18 01:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Thanks, Disco, that was an interesting read. But it is not really
relevant. It was only to apply to cyclists who use their bikes for
commercial purposes; i.e. bike couriers. There was never any attempt to
force mandatory insurance on non-commercial users of bikes. You'll have
to better than that to convince me that there's a threat of mandatory
cycling insurance on the horizon. I won't hold my breath waiting,
though; I've googled it myself and nothing is coming up.
How very strange, as things come up when I google.
Oh really? Well why don't you share them then? Please post examples of
REAL lobbying efforts towards mandatory insurance for cyclists, not
kids writing in blogs or irrelevant 8-year-old dead initiatives having to do
with commercial cyclists only.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-18 01:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Thanks, Disco, that was an interesting read. But it is not really
relevant. It was only to apply to cyclists who use their bikes for
commercial purposes; i.e. bike couriers. There was never any attempt to
force mandatory insurance on non-commercial users of bikes. You'll have
to better than that to convince me that there's a threat of mandatory
cycling insurance on the horizon. I won't hold my breath waiting,
though; I've googled it myself and nothing is coming up.
How very strange, as things come up when I google.
Oh really? Well why don't you share them then? Please post examples of
REAL lobbying efforts towards mandatory insurance for cyclists, not
kids writing in blogs or irrelevant 8-year-old dead initiatives having to do
with commercial cyclists only.
In less than 60 seconds of trying I came up with TWO examples after
you said NO SUCH THING exists. Then when I show you examples you say
they are not good enough. WHy can't you just admit your're wrong?
Some nuts want it, and eventually, just like the nuts who wanted helmet
laws (which people scoffed at years ago) it will be come a real issue
and just like today with helmets, some places will mandate it through
law.
Colin B.
2005-11-18 05:44:48 UTC
Permalink
For the record, my home insurance covers me for liability while
cycling at no additional charge, so I am one insured cyclist. I
suspect that there are many more who are insured and don't realize it.


Colin
Király
2005-11-17 06:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
*have* clarified that you *will* call the cops in such a case, I
guess you didn't really mean "avoid ALL Police in ALL circumstance," did
you?
IN all circumstance where I can. Correct.
Thanks for clarifying, Disco. I'm glad you would call the cops in such a
case. Maybe a life could be saved.
Post by DiscoDuck
IF you took that too mean when someone is being murdered, raped, theft
in progress, then you're truly stupid. I knew you would seek to pick
fights where ever semantics COULD possible be an issue and here is
another example of that
Well, Disco, arguing over semantics Is pointless when the semantics don't
make a difference to the point that is being made. But in your case, the
wording makes a big difference. Making comments like cops could blow
your head off with no justification or that it's not worth it to report
a stolen wallet, and then claiming that you "avoid ALL police in ALL
circumstances" really had me wondering if you would call the cops for
something like a murder or theft at all. "I avoid ALL police in ALL
circumstances" is significantly more different than "I avoid all
police in all circumstances except when a murder, rape, or theft is in
progress." Saying one thing and expecting others to assume you mean
something else causes credibility problems for you.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
| [cyclists] BLOCKING traffic by centering should be illegal
| however as it is inconsiderate and causes problems for traffic,
| cyclists and drivers.
But that isn't insisting on more STUPID laws, is it now.
Sure it is. That's a stupid law if I ever heard one. Besides, you
claimed to have never wanted more laws, period; stupid or not. Obviously a
bogus claim when you look at the evidence.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
| On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
| turn right, but not cyclist.
Complete bull. There is no such restriction at that intersection, or at
any other intersection that I know of.
OK Király, would you like me to email it to you? It's there, plain
as day.
A photo? Sure. Rather than e-mail; could you post it to a
binaries group, like alt.pictures.misc, or upload it to a web server
somewhere, and let me know when it's there? I gotta see this.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
The MVA is the only act that governs operation of bikes on public
roadways. So if you want bikes removed from the MVA; then you want all
cycling laws revoked. If that's not what you meant by saying that, what
did you mean?
Beyond redicilous. Cycling isn't a MV anymore than a pedestrian or
roller blader is.
So? Merely the fact the the MVA contains the word "motor" in its title
is what irks you? You are on record for saying you want bikes taken out
of the MVA (way back, and again just now), but you deny that you want
all cycling laws removed. Come clean and state your opinion, please.
You are all over the map on this one.
Post by DiscoDuck
But there are still rules OUTSIDE of the MVA covering those.
For bikes? Where?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
LOL, my initial phrasing was exactly the same. I was quoting myself
word-for-word. Go back and read it again if you don't believe me.
It's clear in this context. You did not write before "You thought
I was claiming that my injury was not included in the
statistics, when I wrote "So I was one of those 'superficial scrape'
statistics." How can I make it clearer than that?"
Here's the entirety of what I first posted on the subject, in the
original context:

| In 1997 I was in a collision with a car while biking (100% car driver's
| fault), and yes I got a scrape on my knee and nothing more. So I was
| one of those "superficial scrape" statistics.

Nothing is unclear about that, Disco, you just didn't read it carefully.
You seemed to think I was saying the opposite. I guess you read my "was"
as a "wasn't."
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
But you said
that the information was there; which it isn't. You have argued over and
over that the information (number of cyclist-at-fault collisions in 2003) is
included in what I posted, when it has never been. Claiming data is
there, over and over, when it is not there at all, is still lame and
pathetic. Either admit that the data is not there, or put your money
where your mouth is and post the number. If you refuse to do either then
you are just making a fool out of yourself.
You were claiming that these were not fault of the cyclists and yet I
referred to two yof you sentences (twice) showing what you wrote.
Bull. You quoted me saying that some proportion of the accidents caused
by the cyclist could be broken down into the major contributing factors.
That wasn't the issue; the issue was the TOTAL number of accidents that
were caused by the cyclist as opposed to the motor vehicle driver. You
have claimed, multiple times, that that number is there, when is isn't;
and you have supplied completely irrelevant information to back up your
preposterous claim.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Uhm, anti-cycling people are always bringing that up. I hear it almost
monthly "They SHOULD have to have insurance!!!" I don't believe
you haven't heard that.
Sure I've heard it, from various nutcases, and mostly nutcases on
Usenet.
Yet, you said No body was. Good, another admission.
I said nobody was LOBBYING for it. There is a huge difference between
an organized effort to influence politicians (that's what lobbying is)
and some kook in a Usenet group spouting off his mouth. The two aren't
even remotely comparable.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
They are a few isolated kooks and any attempt to call them
lobbyists is laughable; nobody really takes them seriously. Except for
you, it seems.
No body tool the idea of helmets laws seriously either, and now we are
here. IT took decades but the law is here.
Yes it took decades of organized LOBBYING, something that is simply not
happening with mandatory insurance for bikes. If and when the lobbying
starts, THEN you can worry. Until then, chill. It is paranoia to be
worrying about it it all; there's no evidence that it will EVER happen.

K.
Király
2005-11-17 23:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Disco wrote:

| On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
| turn right, but not cyclist.
Post by Király
Complete bull. There is no such restriction at that intersection, or at
any other intersection that I know of.
DiscoDuck offered:

| OK Király, would you like me to email it to you? It's there, plain
| as day.

I've beaten you to it, Disco. I went right by there today so I grabbed
my camera and snapped a photo. Look at it. It proves you are wrong.
There is no restriction at that intersection preventing cyclists from
turning right.

http://tinyurl.com/danrg

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-17 23:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
| On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
| turn right, but not cyclist.
Post by Király
Complete bull. There is no such restriction at that intersection, or at
any other intersection that I know of.
| OK Király, would you like me to email it to you? It's there, plain
| as day.
I've beaten you to it, Disco. I went right by there today so I grabbed
my camera and snapped a photo. Look at it. It proves you are wrong.
There is no restriction at that intersection preventing cyclists from
turning right.
http://tinyurl.com/danrg
Horsecrap, it's there. I'll snap a shot for you as soon as I get
chance.

By the way, your http://tinyurl.com/danrg does not work
DiscoDuck
2005-11-18 00:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
| On 16th and Laurel in Vancouver, there is a sign that permits cars to
| turn right, but not cyclist.
Post by Király
Complete bull. There is no such restriction at that intersection, or at
any other intersection that I know of.
| OK Király, would you like me to email it to you? It's there, plain
| as day.
I've beaten you to it, Disco. I went right by there today so I grabbed
my camera and snapped a photo. Look at it. It proves you are wrong.
There is no restriction at that intersection preventing cyclists from
turning right.
http://tinyurl.com/danrg
LOL. Got it to work. Now, what part of what I said is wrong? The
sign clear states you must turn right "EXCEPT BICYCLES".
Király
2005-11-18 01:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Got it to work. Now, what part of what I said is wrong? The
sign clear states you must turn right "EXCEPT BICYCLES".
Exactly. The green circle around the arrow means that all vehicles MUST
turn right. The "except bicycles" sign means that the restriction does
not apply to cyclists. That means that bicycles may turn left, may go
straight, OR MAY TURN RIGHT. It does NOT mean that cyclists cannot turn
right.

But I guess you didn't know that, so I can't really accuse you of having
lied about it. So I take that back. Now I simply accuse you of being
totally clueless.

K.
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-06 05:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Anyway, Police in cruisers DO stop cyclists. I've been ticketed
twice by cruiser cops.
I've never been stopped by a cop while on a bike, I wonder what
outrageous actions you had to pull to get a cop to pull you over...

Not that I expect you to tell us.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said that I thought there would be an increase in cyclists
doing stupid things if the laws were removed.
"If the laws were removed for cyclists, cyclists could get away with
anything and be immune from any legal consequences. Under your
system, a cyclist could run a stop sign, collide with a car who had
the right of way, and it would be the car's fault. Yes I can
completely understand why you would want such a system. As for the
rest of us, no thanks! "
That doesn't say what you say it says. He is saying that cyclist would
be "immune from any legal consequences", no that there would be
increase in cyclists doing stupid things.
Post by DiscoDuck
Where did I even suggest it doesn't happen? Of course it does. I
did one about 4 years ago. I hit a lady's side mirror. I stopped,
apologized to the driver and seeing as there was no damage I carried
on. Oddly enough she was more angry about my not wearing a helmet
which goes to show it's more of a pet peeve than a rationale for
safety or tax dollars. IT was TOTALLY irrelvant to the issue. Must
have been you.
So now, however, you suggesting I said there are no accidents where
the cyclist is at fault, is a lie. You are now resorting to lying to
try and "prove" some point.
You have said that cycling is totally safe and any accident is a freak
accident. Way to change your mind.
Post by DiscoDuck
Using YOUR statistics 6 were killed from cycling. That is less than
1 per "cause" you listed above? 6 a year. Wow! Yet you also state
even if the laws were revoked you doubt there would be change in
cycling related accidents.
The number would go down if more people rode according to the rules of
the road.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I couldn't find any numbers on what proportion of the 933
collisions were the cyclist's fault.
You just said above, those were deemed the cyclists fault? Get it
straight, will you?
You're reading comprehension is horrid. I guess I should rephrase that
for you: You no read good.
Post by DiscoDuck
Because cyclists are far more agile than a car, it would be MUCH
less. They can avoid accidents far easier than cars. That is why
there are more car accidents than bike accidents.
There are more car accidents because there are more cars. When adjusted
for level of use the accident rates are pretty much the same.
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-06 05:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
The most recent statistics I have are from 2003.
There were 933 collisions involving bicycles in B.C. in 2003; that's
over 2.5 per day when averaged over the year. One of these cyclists
was unhurt, six were killed, and the rest were injured.
Does this include statistics for cycling accidents that don't involve a
motor vehicle?
Király
2005-11-06 07:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Does this include statistics for cycling accidents that don't involve a
motor vehicle?
No. Only bicycle collisions that involved at least one motor vehicle
were included in those statistics. The source for those stats was ICBC;
ICBC does not get involved in bike/ped or bike/bike collisions. I would
imagine the majority of bike collisions not involving a motor vehicle are
not reported at all.

K.
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-06 04:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Where did you read that? I never said such thing. I DO agree some
cyclists are less capable than others. They are the ones that
usually lobby for laws (for example, you) While I think you should
be extra cautious I truthfully think the laws should NOT apply to
everyone equally. That is, GET RID OF THE CYCLING LAWS. The
minority follow them, proving cycling is safe without the law. All
it does is set arbitrary punishment depending the type of cop, or
mood he/she is in.
Then we should also get rid of the motor vehicle laws, only the minority
follow them proving that driving a motor vehicle is safe without them.
Post by DiscoDuck
Therefore people how claim to have been ticketed for jay-walking are
lying? A good friend claimed he was ticketed for such.
Jay wallking is not illegal according to federal or provincal law. It
may be illegal according to municipal law. Plus your "freind" (who I
imagine is imaginary) may be lying to you.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-07 02:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Jay wallking is not illegal according to federal or provincal law. It
may be illegal according to municipal law. Plus your "freind" (who I
imagine is imaginary) may be lying to you.
Imaginary? LOL. er, uh no. He exists alright. AND according to your
notes below he indeed could have received a ticket for such an offense.
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-06 04:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
So "jay walking" is legal?
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a street
carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic regulations."
The law is silent on mid block crossings.
No it's not, specificially section 180 "When a pedestrian is crossing a
highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the
right of way to a vehicle."

So (in BC) it's completely legal but you can be ticketed for failing to
yield. They may be municipal laws in effect if different municipalities
Peter McNichol
2005-11-06 21:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
So "jay walking" is legal?
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a street
carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic regulations."
The law is silent on mid block crossings.
No it's not, specificially section 180 "When a pedestrian is crossing a
highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the
right of way to a vehicle."
So (in BC) it's completely legal but you can be ticketed for failing to
yield. They may be municipal laws in effect if different municipalities
Which is what I was said.

People insist that you are jaywalking if you are crossing mid block.
As long as you look and yield you are not breaking the law.

Thus jaywalking is misinterpreted.
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-06 22:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
So "jay walking" is legal?
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a
street carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic
regulations."
The law is silent on mid block crossings.
No it's not, specificially section 180 "When a pedestrian is
crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian
must yield the right of way to a vehicle."
So (in BC) it's completely legal but you can be ticketed for
failing to yield. They may be municipal laws in effect in different
municipalities
Which is what I was said.
You said the law is silent on mid-block crossing and it isn't, Section
180 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act details the Provincial regulations on
mid-block crossing.
Post by Peter McNichol
People insist that you are jaywalking if you are crossing mid block.
As long as you look and yield you are not breaking the law.
Thus jaywalking is misinterpreted.
You are not breaking Provincial Law. You are breaking municipal law if
you do it in Vancouver, for example. The applicable bylaw (for
Vancouver) is below:

12. Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks.
(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than
within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at
an intersection, shall give the right-of-way to all vehicles
upon the roadway.
(2) No pedestrian shall jaywalk on City streets. For the purpose
of this subsection a lane shall not be considered to be a
street.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, every driver
of a vehicle shall exercise due care for the safety of
pedestrians and shall give warning by sounding the horn when
necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing
any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.

Jaywalk is defined in the definitions section thusly:

"Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than one
block from an intersection at which traffic control signals
are in operation.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-07 18:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
So "jay walking" is legal?
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a
street carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic
regulations."
The law is silent on mid block crossings.
No it's not, specificially section 180 "When a pedestrian is
crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian
must yield the right of way to a vehicle."
So (in BC) it's completely legal but you can be ticketed for
failing to yield. They may be municipal laws in effect in different
municipalities
Which is what I was said.
You said the law is silent on mid-block crossing and it isn't, Section
180 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act details the Provincial regulations on
mid-block crossing.
Post by Peter McNichol
People insist that you are jaywalking if you are crossing mid block.
As long as you look and yield you are not breaking the law.
Thus jaywalking is misinterpreted.
You are not breaking Provincial Law. You are breaking municipal law if
you do it in Vancouver, for example. The applicable bylaw (for
12. Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks.
(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than
within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at
an intersection, shall give the right-of-way to all vehicles
upon the roadway.
(2) No pedestrian shall jaywalk on City streets. For the purpose
of this subsection a lane shall not be considered to be a
street.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, every driver
of a vehicle shall exercise due care for the safety of
pedestrians and shall give warning by sounding the horn when
necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing
any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.
"Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than one
block from an intersection at which traffic control signals
are in operation.
Well you are putting the law into the definition and the definition should
stand on its own.

Where it is legal to cross mid block it is not jaywalking.

I would also like to make a distinction between crossing against the light
at an intersection and crossing mid block while yielding to cross traffic.

One must also consider specific locations where crossing is prohibited
(crossing on one side only). Then again you are breaking a specific
regulation.

A cyclists or a motorist can cross midblock, why should a pedestrian be
denied?
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
"Jaywalking", in Merrian-Webester, is defined as "to cross a
street carelessly without regard to [traffic or] traffic
regulations."
Gordon Mulcaster
2005-11-07 23:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
You are not breaking Provincial Law. You are breaking municipal law if
you do it in Vancouver, for example. The applicable bylaw (for
12. Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks.
(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than
within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk
at an intersection, shall give the right-of-way to all
vehicles upon the roadway.
(2) No pedestrian shall jaywalk on City streets. For the
purpose of this subsection a lane shall not be considered
to be a street.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, every
driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care for the safety
of pedestrians and shall give warning by sounding the horn
when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon
observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person
upon a roadway.
"Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than
one block from an intersection at which traffic control
signals are in operation.
Well you are putting the law into the definition and the definition
should stand on its own.
What? The definition is _part_ of the law. In the bylaw there is a
section that defines what is ment by various terms, including "Jaywalk",
when they are used in the rest of the statute.
Post by Peter McNichol
Where it is legal to cross mid block it is not jaywalking.
Duh! That's what part 1 of section 12 says! In the City of Vancouver if
there isn't a traffic light at one or both ends of the block, crossing
mid-block is not considered jaywalking, and is thus legal (provided you
yield the right of way to any vehicles).
Post by Peter McNichol
I would also like to make a distinction between crossing against the
light at an intersection and crossing mid block while yielding to
cross traffic.
Crossing against the light is covered in the BC Motor Vehicles Act (I'll
look it up later if you want).
Post by Peter McNichol
One must also consider specific locations where crossing is
prohibited (crossing on one side only). Then again you are breaking a
specific regulation.
Such restrictions are covered in the BC Motor Vehicles Act (I'll look it
up later if you want).
Post by Peter McNichol
A cyclists or a motorist can cross midblock, why should a pedestrian
be denied?
How are you crossing mid block in a car? Driveway to driveway? Depending
on the striping I'm not sure that's legal.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-10 03:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
You are not breaking Provincial Law. You are breaking municipal law if
you do it in Vancouver, for example. The applicable bylaw (for
12. Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks.
(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than
within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk
at an intersection, shall give the right-of-way to all
vehicles upon the roadway.
(2) No pedestrian shall jaywalk on City streets. For the
purpose of this subsection a lane shall not be considered
to be a street.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, every
driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care for the safety
of pedestrians and shall give warning by sounding the horn
when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon
observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person
upon a roadway.
"Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than
one block from an intersection at which traffic control
signals are in operation.
Well you are putting the law into the definition and the definition
should stand on its own.
What? The definition is _part_ of the law. In the bylaw there is a
section that defines what is ment by various terms, including "Jaywalk",
when they are used in the rest of the statute.
You are referring to Vancouver. I am not.

The legal definition is part of the law. However the legal definition will
vary from location to location. The dictionary definition will remain constant
and stands on its own.
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
Where it is legal to cross mid block it is not jaywalking.
Duh! That's what part 1 of section 12 says! In the City of Vancouver if
there isn't a traffic light at one or both ends of the block, crossing
mid-block is not considered jaywalking, and is thus legal (provided you
yield the right of way to any vehicles).
Once again you are restricting to the definition to the location.
Once again the distinction is not location specific. You said only certain
municipalities have made it illegal. Therefore it is not illegal everywhere.
Thus midblock crossing is legal in areas where it is allowed.

Therefore mid block crossing is not illegal where is is legal and thus
not jaywalking where it is legal. Duh!
Post by Gordon Mulcaster
Post by Peter McNichol
I would also like to make a distinction between crossing against the
light at an intersection and crossing mid block while yielding to
cross traffic.
Crossing against the light is covered in the BC Motor Vehicles Act (I'll
look it up later if you want).
Post by Peter McNichol
One must also consider specific locations where crossing is
prohibited (crossing on one side only). Then again you are breaking a
specific regulation.
Such restrictions are covered in the BC Motor Vehicles Act (I'll look it
up later if you want).
Post by Peter McNichol
A cyclists or a motorist can cross midblock, why should a pedestrian
be denied?
How are you crossing mid block in a car? Driveway to driveway? Depending
on the striping I'm not sure that's legal.
Driveway to Driveway is done all the time.

Are you saying one would have to drive around the block just to cross the road?

What does striping have to do with it?

==============

Disco Duck when you say you see jaywalk what specifically according to
BC/Vancouver laws are you talking about?

a) crossing against the light
b) crossing where specifically prohibited
c) crossing mid block

==============
DiscoDuck
2005-11-10 07:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Disco Duck when you say you see jaywalk what specifically according to
BC/Vancouver laws are you talking about?
a) crossing against the light
b) crossing where specifically prohibited
c) crossing mid block
Any, and all of the above.

DD
Peter McNichol
2005-11-11 14:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Disco Duck when you say you see jaywalk what specifically according to
BC/Vancouver laws are you talking about?
a) crossing against the light
b) crossing where specifically prohibited
c) crossing mid block
d) failing to yield to vehicles when not crossing at a legal crossing
Post by DiscoDuck
Any, and all of the above.
DD
Insufficient answer.

What percentage would you put to each of the above?
DiscoDuck
2005-11-11 18:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Disco Duck when you say you see jaywalk what specifically according to
BC/Vancouver laws are you talking about?
a) crossing against the light
b) crossing where specifically prohibited
c) crossing mid block
d) failing to yield to vehicles when not crossing at a legal crossing
Post by DiscoDuck
Any, and all of the above.
DD
Insufficient answer.
What percentage would you put to each of the above?
Are you joking? Why do you need a percentage?
Why did you add "d)" above? That I never do as I am considerate when I
do it.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-17 18:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Someone was suggesting j-walking technically did not exist.
According to the Vancouver Police, there is a section in the Vancouver
street and traffic bylaw 2849 with does not allow J-walking. J-walking
means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place which is not
within a crosswalk and which is less than one block from an
intersection at which traffic control signals are in operation.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-19 18:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Someone was suggesting j-walking technically did not exist.
According to the Vancouver Police, there is a section in the Vancouver
street and traffic bylaw 2849 with does not allow J-walking. J-walking
means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place which is not
within a crosswalk and which is less than one block from an
intersection at which traffic control signals are in operation.
That is a Vancouver bylaw. That is not the English definition.

It does not apply to all parts of BC, let alone Canada.

Mid block crossing is quite legal in many places.

Everybody does it when they walk across their city street
to talk to their neighbour.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-19 18:52:35 UTC
Permalink
The question was, is it illegal (i'm not sure what you are going on
about, the "English definition")? It is in Vancouver where most of the
posters here, are from.

So to understand you correctly it does not apply to other parts of BC,
and/or Canada?

Would you mind proving a specific example of where it IS legal? Where
no law covers such?
Király
2005-11-19 19:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
The question was, is it illegal (i'm not sure what you are going on
about, the "English definition")? It is in Vancouver where most of the
posters here, are from.
This is a bc.* newsgroup, so it is a good idea to keep a provincewide
perspective when writing in here.
Post by DiscoDuck
So to understand you correctly it does not apply to other parts of BC,
and/or Canada?
Correct. The Vancouver bylaw only applies in the City of Vancouver.
Any rule against jaywalking would be passed by a municipality and would
only be valid within the boundaries of that municipality. There is no
jaywalking law that applies provincewide or nationwide.
Post by DiscoDuck
Would you mind proving a specific example of where it IS legal? Where
no law covers such?
Any municipality where there has been no bylaw passed against it (I'm not
sure of any specific examples), or any area where there is no governing
incorporated municipality; such as between Chilliwack and Hope, or UBC.
The entire community of Westbank is also in an unincorporated area, so
presumably there is no anti-jaywalking bylaw there either. But maybe the
regional district has the authority to pass such bylaws in the case of
Westbank; I don't really know for sure.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-19 19:49:50 UTC
Permalink
I bet you the majority of cities and municaplities have such a law. I
really find it hard to believe that many do not. IF any exist it would
be an exception. That is why asked for an example, as if it ISN'T an
exception it would be easy to find.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-20 23:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
I bet you the majority of cities and municaplities have such a law. I
really find it hard to believe that many do not. IF any exist it would
be an exception. That is why asked for an example, as if it ISN'T an
exception it would be easy to find.
No not the case. Ottawa Ontario has no law. Not in BC but I am sure other
BC locations too.

Further in Ontario you are not required to identify yourself for
pedestrian infractions.

Lastly for those that propose that helmets should not be mandated
should be saying the same for mid block crossings. DD.

Finally everyone crosses mid block to talk to their neighbour
across the street. It makes no sense to make this illegal.

Running out in front of a car yes, but looking first no way!
DiscoDuck
2005-11-21 01:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
I bet you the majority of cities and municaplities have such a law. I
really find it hard to believe that many do not. IF any exist it would
be an exception. That is why asked for an example, as if it ISN'T an
exception it would be easy to find.
No not the case. Ottawa Ontario has no law. Not in BC but I am sure other
BC locations too.
What do you mean, "not in BC." I just quoted the Vancouver police who
said such a law did exist. Last time I checked, Vancouver was in BC.
Post by Peter McNichol
Further in Ontario you are not required to identify yourself for
pedestrian infractions.
Why would pedestrian infractions be an exception? In BC, you must
identify yourself to police when asked, REGARDLESS of offence.
Post by Peter McNichol
Lastly for those that propose that helmets should not be mandated
should be saying the same for mid block crossings. DD.
The issue was whether such laws existed, not whether you support them
or not.
It is an interesting point that you make that leap that I do support
such a law when I made no comment to that effect.

IT should be noted there are differences between the two. With
J-walking laws, you do NOT have to wear something on your head or any
other protective piece of equipment. You are not PROHIBITED from doing
so, though. You have the choice whether to wear a helmet or not, while
walking (including while j-walking). However such a law would not
likley discourage walking, like the helmet law did for cycling.
Post by Peter McNichol
Finally everyone crosses mid block to talk to their neighbour
across the street. It makes no sense to make this illegal.
Agreed. Yet in some areas, it is.
Post by Peter McNichol
Running out in front of a car yes, but looking first no way!
I don't understand what you are trying to get across here.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-21 15:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
I bet you the majority of cities and municaplities have such a law. I
really find it hard to believe that many do not. IF any exist it would
be an exception. That is why asked for an example, as if it ISN'T an
exception it would be easy to find.
No not the case. Ottawa Ontario has no law. Not in BC but I am sure other
BC locations too.
What do you mean, "not in BC." I just quoted the Vancouver police who
said such a law did exist. Last time I checked, Vancouver was in BC.
Vancouver is just that Vancouver. It is not all of BC.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Further in Ontario you are not required to identify yourself for
pedestrian infractions.
Why would pedestrian infractions be an exception? In BC, you must
identify yourself to police when asked, REGARDLESS of offence.
A cop must have a reason for asking for id. This is not a police state.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Lastly for those that propose that helmets should not be mandated
should be saying the same for mid block crossings. DD.
The issue was whether such laws existed, not whether you support them
or not.
It is an interesting point that you make that leap that I do support
such a law when I made no comment to that effect.
IT should be noted there are differences between the two. With
J-walking laws, you do NOT have to wear something on your head or any
other protective piece of equipment. You are not PROHIBITED from doing
so, though. You have the choice whether to wear a helmet or not, while
walking (including while j-walking). However such a law would not
likley discourage walking, like the helmet law did for cycling.
The point it is it makes someone a criminal for walking across the street.

So I guess you do not support some stupid laws but do support other ones?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Finally everyone crosses mid block to talk to their neighbour
across the street. It makes no sense to make this illegal.
Agreed. Yet in some areas, it is.
Post by Peter McNichol
Running out in front of a car yes, but looking first no way!
I don't understand what you are trying to get across here.
The point the law in Vancouver covers cases where it is perfectly
safe to cross the road but makes one a criminal for doing so.

In Vancouver one can cross a lane way in their back yard, but one cannot
cross the quiet residential street in their front yard to visit a friend.

And this is not restrictive. Think again.
Király
2005-11-21 17:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
In Vancouver one can cross a lane way in their back yard, but one cannot
cross the quiet residential street in their front yard to visit a friend.
Not so. Consult the city's definition of jaywalk, which you posted
yourself:

| "Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
| which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than one block from
| an intersection at which traffic control signals are in operation.

According to the bylaw, walking across Knight Street mid-block between
40th and 41st Avenues would be jaywalking. However, walking across
Knight Street mid-block between 39th and 40th avenues would not be
jaywalking and therefore not illegal. The bylaw makes crossing mid-block
illegal in most of downtown, where there are traffic control signals at
most intersections, and heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on many
streets.

But in the rest of the city, and in nearly all residential areas, you can
completely legally walk mid-block across all streets, as long as you are
more than a block away from intersections with traffic control lights.

K.
Peter McNichol
2005-11-22 14:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by Peter McNichol
In Vancouver one can cross a lane way in their back yard, but one cannot
cross the quiet residential street in their front yard to visit a friend.
Not so. Consult the city's definition of jaywalk, which you posted
| "Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
| which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than one block from
| an intersection at which traffic control signals are in operation.
I did not post it. It appeared in my reply that others had posted to me.
Post by Király
According to the bylaw, walking across Knight Street mid-block between
40th and 41st Avenues would be jaywalking. However, walking across
Knight Street mid-block between 39th and 40th avenues would not be
jaywalking and therefore not illegal. The bylaw makes crossing mid-block
illegal in most of downtown, where there are traffic control signals at
most intersections, and heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on many
streets.
But in the rest of the city, and in nearly all residential areas, you can
completely legally walk mid-block across all streets, as long as you are
more than a block away from intersections with traffic control lights.
K.
And your point.

Crossing mid block is legal for motorists and cyclists, but not for pedestrians.

Why? Why? Why?

My initial reason for posting here was to clear up confusion that mid-block
crossing is not always jaywalking. You have just substantiated that.

My second reason for posting in that prohibiting mid block crossing is a stupid
law protecting those that cannot look out for themselves but disadvantaging the
rest.

Jaywalking in the english dictionary is just the act of breaking pedestrian
bylaws.

It may include other acts, such as:

a) crossing against a traffic signal
b) crossing against a pedestrian signal
c) crossing outside the crosswalk zone
d) crossing where specifically prohibited by sign
d) crossing without regard for traffic

Originally DD in his claim about common cycling practices being safe stated
that he saw jaywalking and may have even done it himself.

My point to him was. What type of law breaking did he see? He failed to
clarify that.
DiscoDuck
2005-11-22 23:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Király
Post by Peter McNichol
In Vancouver one can cross a lane way in their back yard, but one cannot
cross the quiet residential street in their front yard to visit a friend.
Not so. Consult the city's definition of jaywalk, which you posted
| "Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place
| which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than one block from
| an intersection at which traffic control signals are in operation.
I did not post it. It appeared in my reply that others had posted to me.
Correct, I posted it (DD) and it is a quote from the Vancouver police
department.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Király
According to the bylaw, walking across Knight Street mid-block between
40th and 41st Avenues would be jaywalking. However, walking across
Knight Street mid-block between 39th and 40th avenues would not be
jaywalking and therefore not illegal. The bylaw makes crossing mid-block
illegal in most of downtown, where there are traffic control signals at
most intersections, and heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on many
streets.
But in the rest of the city, and in nearly all residential areas, you can
completely legally walk mid-block across all streets, as long as you are
more than a block away from intersections with traffic control lights.
K.
And your point.
Crossing mid block is legal for motorists and cyclists, but not for pedestrians.
Why? Why? Why?
Because! Because! Because!
Post by Peter McNichol
My initial reason for posting here was to clear up confusion that mid-block
crossing is not always jaywalking. You have just substantiated that.
My second reason for posting in that prohibiting mid block crossing is a stupid
law protecting those that cannot look out for themselves but disadvantaging the
rest.
Jaywalking in the english dictionary is just the act of breaking pedestrian
bylaws.
a) crossing against a traffic signal
b) crossing against a pedestrian signal
c) crossing outside the crosswalk zone
d) crossing where specifically prohibited by sign
d) crossing without regard for traffic
Originally DD in his claim about common cycling practices being safe stated
that he saw jaywalking and may have even done it himself.
My point to him was. What type of law breaking did he see? He failed to
clarify that.
It is safe for you to assume I have done all of the above (even 'd',
which you added after the fact. However that would be a rare
accidental occurance and I wave an apology to the driver)
Loading...