cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/30050658
“They are not safe. They are anything but for safety,” said a woman who added vehicles in the two-block section sometimes drive in the middle of Springbrook to avoid the bollards.
Oh, so drivers behind of the wheel of an automobile are the danger. Why remove the bike lanes rather than the car lanes?
I heard that Etobicoke’s NIMBYs are insane, but this is a new level of stupidity from Richmond Hill.
I think what they’re actually trying to say is that you have some observational bias, not that two wrongs make a right.
I also kinda want to point out that bikes rolling stop signs isn’t dangerous (for a few reasons that we can get into if people want), but that’s why some places allow “Idaho Stops” which allow bikes to yield at stop signs instead of stopping. But either way, bikes should have to obey their regional laws.
I don’t think it’s a bias. The issue here is that if a car causes a low speed collision with another car, as bad as it is, there is a good chance the “worst” damage is property damage. If a cyclist is involved, on the other hand, there is a HUGE risk of bodily harm or death.
It is incredibly if they are going straight on the same road a car is turning right.
I DO see a bigger problem if a cyclist runs a Stop sign, not because it’s a worse road infraction but because the risk they are taking is orders of magnitude greater. And to boot, if I as a driver see a pedestrian, I assume they will follow pedestrian rules, if I see a car I assume they will behave as a car. Cyclist on the other hand usually follow a hybrid pattern, they may jump on or off the road as they please, they may or may not stop at signs of red lights, they may or may not signal turns (yes, I know, car drivers do the same but I know a car cannot turn where there is no road, a cyclist can turn whenever)
The problem is that if you simply ask a question here, it immediately goes “car bad, bike good” and a conversation cannot take place
The Idaho Stop says they must yield, I’m not saying that a bike going 40kmph can safely run a stop sign. I specifically said “roll” a stop sign. And yeah, the data shows that it is safe (just not legal everywhere).
But to your point about car turning and bike going straight, this situation is actually dangerous whether the bike stops or rolls. The car needs to see the bike or the bike needs to wait in order to not be ran over. There are multiple intersections of this exact make on my daily commute. It’s always scary. Stopping or rolling doesn’t change if I’m seen though. I always have to wait to go until it’s safe. To be clear, rolling doesn’t mean not waiting for your turn at a 4 way stop or anything. It just means you don’t have to come to a complete stop.
You can read about the safety of Idaho Stops here: Understanding the Idaho Stop/Stop-as-Yield Law.
This is totally true and definitely a safety concern. Driving (or biking) predictably is always safest. It’s something taught to motorcycles too. But yeah sometimes a bike has to move from the bike path into the road. It often happens at intersections and it’s not really possible to predict. Mind you, tons and tons of bike paths abruptly end, forcing this situation. I don’t really know what the solution is. I do think it’s an exaggeration to say that bikes regularly jump on or off the road though (not that you specified frequency).
I still do not believe your question was a good faith one. Maybe it was, but you just refuse to accept any answers. Like I mentioned in other comments, I gave some answers and perspective, but the goal post has shifted. Feels to me more like you simply just wanted to complain about bikes on the road. As if there could be no reason for it when a bike path exists. Hoping you have time to watch the video I linked in another comment. Your opinions are not unique, but even though lots of drivers share them, doesn’t mean they carry much weight. But undoubtedly I could go on for hours on why cars are bad and bikes are good. That’s a joke, but it’s also not.