It is incredibly if they are going straight on the same road a car is turning right.

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.

not because it’s a worse road infraction but because the risk they are taking is orders of magnitude greater

You can read about the safety of Idaho Stops here: Understanding the Idaho Stop/Stop-as-Yield Law.

Cyclist on the other hand usually follow a hybrid pattern

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).

The problem is that if you simply ask a question here, it immediately goes “car bad, bike good” and a conversation cannot take place

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.

I am starting to think you’re trolling. We’ve gone in a few circles… Could be a communication issue on my part, but it feels more like dishonest debating on your part, to me… Benefit of the doubt and all that though:

No, I am trying to understand why they are not used when they are, by far, the safest option.

I gave reasons why I sometimes don’t use the bike path, hopefully you understood those reasons. If not, just say so and I can try to explain better. Unfortunately I can’t say why some bikers don’t use your specific 3k section, but feel free to ask them I guess. But I do still think “In Ottawa, bike lanes mean nothing” is rhetoric against bike lanes/paths. Even if your next statement is that you don’t understand why bikes are still in the road.

A bit unrelated but a bike lane (or even just the car lane) is sometimes safer than a bike path due to visibility at crosswalks (probably not in your 3k bike path situation though).

So it’s a surprise to you that erratic behaviour on the road may lead to more accidents?! …

I… actually didn’t say that though… So who is assigning opinions? I pointed out that what you said implies that another’s behavior may not justify your extra caution if they’re doing something illegal. The correct drunk driving example would be this statement:

I always give drunk drivers extra space, even if drunk driving is against the law

See how the “even if” part suggest they might not deserve your goodwill? As if you’d be more inclined to give space to bikes if they never broke the law. Maybe my interpretation of your statement isn’t what you actually meant? (Side note, just checked your original comment and it actually said “even though” - doesn’t change anything I think).

It turns out, people like you rather put themselves in danger and blame everyone else for, <checks notes> saving a few minutes in commute

This is kinda rich. Because while I did say that the road is more dangerous than a separated bike path, I didn’t suggest that I blamed cars or others for the increased risk I take when I chose the road over the bike path. I weigh the risks and chose convenience. If I had it my way, bike infrastructure would just meet my needs on a bike better than road infrastructure so that I never wanted/needed to be in the road. So then is this a moot point? Maybe even a strawman? You’ve accused me of a few strawmans but I’m starting to think you either don’t know what that means, or just don’t hold yourself to a similar standard.

Also, all people in all parts of life do dangerous things for convenience? Cars speed, or maintenance is ignored, actually just driving at all is likely the most dangerous thing anyone does in their life on a regular basis. Biking and walking are safer without cars around, but around cars, cars disproportionately endanger bikes and pedestrians. Most people don’t care (because of personal convenience at the expense of others), but I think it could make a legitimate argument for the need for safer biking and walking infrastructure.

As far as I’m concerned those sarcastic comments of mine are still your opinion.

Oh so you issue an opinion, assign it to me and then attack me for it?.. well that’s a new level of strawmaning

This actually kind of is the fault of me - I was thinking you never answered my question of ~“so then what nefarious reason are bikes in the road when a bike path exists?” But you actually did clarify that you don’t know and don’t think the answer has to be nefarious. Where I got confused is that my base claim is that <they probably have a reason, and it probably isn’t to make cars angry> and since it felt like you didn’t accept my claim, it led me to believe that you hold <they don’t have a good reason, or the reason could be to make cars angry>. So I guess maybe we agree here, and maybe we don’t. I’d appreciate some clarity though

Edit: I also want to throw in that your original claim was for Ottawa but the goal post has shifted to your 3k section of bike path. Yet you haven’t specified that you’re only confused about the actions of cyclists at your 3k section of bike path. But since I’ve sort of exhausted any input for your 3k section, here’s a video that may give you some clarity: Why Don’t Cyclists Use Bike Lanes?

The mentality here is that this is a car problem and if cyclists break rules well so do car drivers so two wrongs make a right and all is good?

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.

Yeah that bike path looks sweet, not sure why a cyclist would go in the road. But lets not pretend the reason is nefarious (unless, again, you have a good reason to think so). I’ll also mention that kid carriers are often used for cargo and not just for kids - I wouldn’t want to bring my kid on a road with cars while biking - but maybe some do.

mad for no reason | In Ottawa, bike lanes mean nothing

Mate, you are advocating against some of the infrastructure I care about most, and that saves lives, and your reasoning is literally just that some bikes are still on the road. Bad opinions that disagree with my own (hopefully justified ones) are frustrating. Feel free to help me see your point of view, but you aren’t any more right just because you claim I’m mad.

Did you get that from the part I said I do everything possible to give them space

No, I got if from the part I quoted… :

I do my best to give as much space and look after cyclist even though

It’s the “even though” part. That rhetoric suggests that you’d be in the right to not give space or something

The strawman was the sarcastic comment about how cyclists “just don’t want” to use the road… you can’t even keep your argument straight

As far as I’m concerned those sarcastic comments of mine are still your opinion. I did ask for clarification. It’s in bold lol. This doesn’t mean my argument isn’t straight - at least as far as I’m concerned. But please feel free to clarify…

None of what you claim takes place in the area I am referring to

Ah yes, I’m sure no bikes have to take a left around you. I’m sure you even spoke with the cyclists and found out first hand that they do in fact not want bike paths and prefer to share the road with cars… Like how am I supposed to believe this? Of course there’s a reason they chose to ride in the road. Maybe it is to piss off cars, but you would probably be surprised to learn that cyclists don’t hate cars the way drivers hate bikes. Most of us cyclists actually own and use a car. We just prefer not to when possible.

…even though they seem to want to share the road but never respect road rules (like stop signs or red lights)

I like how the connotation of this is that you have some sort of valid excuse to endanger their lives. Anyway, I believe bikes should have to obey all laws. I’m positive that most of the bikes around you do obey laws and that your opinion is the result of observational bias. I’m sure you also see cars break laws all the time (I sure do), but i don’t pretend all drivers are anarchist-suicidal-menaces lol.

… strawman

I like how I gave real reasons that I personally occasionally don’t use a bike lane and pointed out that you don’t know why a cyclist might chose to be in the road instead but you’re just like, “not ah, strawman!” Like I for real don’t know what part of my response you think was a strawman, except maybe my sarcastic final paragraph, but you seem to agree with the sentiment, so then I don’t see how I could be misrepresenting you… But here, I’ll give you another chance; what nefarious reason might bikes chose the road over the bike path?

…accurately highlighting you just had no other way to turn this bad cyclist behaviour on me

Where I live a cyclist may take the lane for any reason. They don’t have to prove a need or anything like that. So how is this bad behavior? Just because you don’t like it? The bike infrastructure simply doesn’t always meet the needs of a commuter on a bike.

Imagine if anyone came here claiming they ride the shoulder regularly because it’s less bumpy and saves some time… then insult anyone asking why are people driving on the shoulder

Yes imagine if busy roads caused cars to choose routes through neighborhoods instead of larger throughput roads; or if cars went into the other lane to avoid potholes; or went around speed bumps; or even went off road to avoid large bumps (common where I live on dirt roads). Like all those things really happen and I’m not criticizing it. But you pretend to be criticizing it to say a bike shouldn’t be allowed in the road to avoid a bumpy bike lane. Sorry, but bikes simply are allowed in the road. No matter how unjust you feel it is, it’s allowed. Meanwhile plenty of those car examples probably would result in a citation.

Some of what I’ve said comes off as hot headed, I don’t mean to be insulting. At least not overly insulting. But I think you lack perspective. I think if you got on a bike for a while you’d realize how much bike infrastructure is missing. How often you have to get in the road to get to your destination. And how scary it is to share the road with cars. Ain’t no one sharing the road for no reason.

There are two sections on my commute where I take the road over the bike path. The first section is because the bike lane is so bumpy that I’d have to be on a mountain bike. It’s actually insane and saves a ton of time and comfort to take the road. There’s actually another benefit to taking the road at this spot though; there is almost no visibility for cars of the crosswalks over the bike lane due to a lot of trees so I’m way less likely to be ran over in the road than the bike lane crosswalks at this section.

The second section is on a quiet street with 3 lights in a row that are almost always green. And the cross walk sign is always red (button has to be pressed to get a walk sign). So three times in a row you have to wait a full light cycle while barely traveling any distance. It saves sooooo much time to just take the road (which has a painted bike lane) here.

Sometimes bikes also just need to turn left. Or the bike path is just on one side of the road and a persons destination isn’t on that side

But no I’m sure the bikes around you just do it to annoy cars, or because they don’t even want the bike infrastructure to begin with, or to feel less safe. Get out of here lol.

Game: Halo 3 Book: The Kingkiller Chronicles Movie: Harry Potter series (yes, I hate Rowling, but I can’t move on yet) Show: Doctor Who. Been rewatching nuwho with my wife and it’s like I’ve become insatiable for more. Been reading the books, comics, and audio plays. Gonna try Torchwood after

Years ago I finally nuked my Windows dual boot after one of their updates broke it. I still remember my laptop booting into Windows and being so confused. Haven’t missed it once.

IMO the Windows Store is why valve has invested heavily into gaming on Linux. Windows Store could easily become a huge Steam Store competitor if Microsoft were an effective company. So Valve wants to enable devices that don’t run Windows. Numerous other benefits for something like the Steam Deck as well, but I’d bet we see another Steam Machine someday - probably after they convince more companies to support Linux

I added a front basket to my commuter and I thought I could carry anything

That’s golden hahaha

Both my brother in laws have huge modified trucks, both live in cities, both complain that the road infrastructure and parking doesn’t cater to their large vehicles… Also both have (probably) never used the truck bed.

They are so huge, tons of room in the cab. Feels like driving in a living room. Have to ride over curbs to get out of parking lots though

It’s a bit complicated, but the answer is it is sort of possible for anyone who is dead and didn’t have their ordinances done to get to the highest kingdom. Mormons famously baptize dead people, they also do other ordinances for dead people. The belief is that it allows the dead person to then accept or deny the ordinances. They believe that in the afterlife before resurrection there is still the opportunity to be taught the Mormon gospel. That combined with someone doing your ordinances for you and you’re good.

They believe dead people are doing missionary work to other dead people in the spirit world before resurrection (which I think happens after the second coming). I’ve heard that the second coming won’t happen until everyone (alive and dead) has had the opportunity to accept the Mormon truth.

Haha, I see. There’s some really good ex-Mormon jokes about how the highest tier of heaven (Celestial Kingdom) is boring and white and reverent and then the third tier (Telestial Kingdom) is a 24/7 rave. If given a choice on where I want to spend my afterlife, I’d probably consider the company I’d end up spending eternity with.

General connotation of Hell though is that it’s a miserable place

Haha, I love this idea. Unfortunately with more context on the religion, it’s obvious why none of them would come to this conclusion. So there’s actually 3 tiers of Heaven (and then Hell which is called “outer darkness”). Only by knowing “the truth” and completing all your ordinances on Earth, can you get into the top tier (the “Celestial kingdom”). Without those things, you can only get into the second tier by being a good person, no higher. Everyone else gets tier 3 - which is said to be such a paradise that if we knew how great it was we’d opt out of life early to get there. But also in the lower levels we’re supposed to have eternal regret for not being worthy of better.

So Mormons believe that by spreading the truth they’re enabling a person to achieve a higher tier afterlife. Outer Darkness isn’t really a concern because “why would anyone ever deny the one true religion and one way to have true happiness on Earth, after they’ve received it.” When I was taught these lessons, I was even told that sons of perdition were exceptionally rare because almost no one ever leaves the church. Never expected to become one myself! The internet has not been good for the Mormon church and in recent years they’ve been bleeding members and trying to rebrand.

I guess you could say that I came to your conclusion, but in reality I just don’t believe the religion is true and see parts of it as harmful so not really… I’ll probably joke around with my siblings with your idea though

Not saying anyone deserves eternal punishment for finite sins, but I do believe I’m more moral than Hitler - so it seems a but unfair to me. And silly for them to believe it’s true.

I was raised Mormon (LDS) and there are parallels; basically they believe Mormonism is the one true and complete denomination of Christianity and once you learn this, you need to spread that truth (mandatory 2 year missions for men, and a STRONG culture of missionary work through life), also, no one goes to hell in Mormonism except those who learned this truth and then later denied it/left it (called a son of perdition).

So my parents believe I’ll go to hell without the likes of Hitler because he never was taught “the truth” lol

Only thing historically significant about the 10 commandments is that the founding fathers didn’t want them in classrooms

Probably gonna have a season pass and battle royale mode

Legal where I live and it’s fantastic. Love being first in line at every intersection and not having to worry about getting ran over.

Buuut… there is a fair number of drivers who like to yell at me to not cut in line… had one person drive on the sidewalk and around me onto the crosswalk and said “if you can cut, so can I.” Super scary.

I usually just say, “it’s legal, learn to drive” but the “learn to drive” part makes a certain kind of driver so mad that it’s not worth risking the road rage