HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:29 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 1297
Drunk bitch hits cyclist, not the cyclists fault at all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 443
Mr.Peppermint wrote:
smith wrote:
If vehicles are unable to pass a bicycle safely without having to drive into the oncoming lane, then that bicycle is impeding the flow of traffic, logically speaking.
Cycling should not be legal on roads that don't have enough space for vehicles to safely pass without going into the oncoming lane.


If you think this is logical then you really need help
By this same logic any other vehicle that drives slower than you is impeding traffic and can be pushed off the road

Passing anyone on a road should not be attempted unless it is safe to do so
Speeding at night while drunk is not safe and if this bicycle had been any other vehicle then results would still have been an accident


Perhaps you don't understand the definition of impeding traffic. Take this as an opportunity to become more educated about this subject. Impeding the flow of traffic means:

Quote:
Impeding traffic is typically defined when not operating a vehicle reasonably, so as to block the normal flow of traffic. It typically is used in cases where a person is blocking an intersection or driving too slow and causing a log jam. Laws vary by jurisdiction, but are generally follow a standard of "reasonable operation".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 443
nspace wrote:
This is what I don't get either. They are preventing you from getting to your destination at the rate in which you would prefer. The situation only becomes unsafe when your own impatience causes you to make a bad judgement call to pass in an unsafe manner.

So you would prefer we didn't have laws about impeding traffic? Perhaps you'd like it if people were allowed to drive a horse and carriage down the 401 at 15km/h during rush hour.
prickly_pete wrote:
How is a bicycle preventing you from safely using the road?
You can easily pass safely if you slow down. I know, that would mean the hardship of moving your foot 4" to the left, applying the brakes, then moving your foot AGAIN to accelerate. Ain't nobody got time for that - I think you have a point!

ROFL. :lol: This whole discussion was about roads where there isn't room to safely pass without going into the oncoming lane. If there's a lot of traffic, passing is often not safely possible, yet people end up doing it anyway, and this creates a very unsafe situation for everyone, including those in the oncoming lane. So you end up with either a very unsafe situation, or a massive traffic jam cause by one lycra wearer.
glocklover wrote:
Drunk bitch hits cyclist, not the cyclists fault at all.

Things are not black and white. If a "drunk bitch" is driving down the road in her lane and a pedestrian jumps in front of her car at the last moment, who is at fault? It's hard to know the degrees of fault for each party to this accident without knowing exactly what happened and how intoxicated she was.
nspace wrote:
We are living in a time where we are tying to have less cars on the road?

In the minds of progressives and fabian socialists, sure.
nspace wrote:
Are you implying that cyclists don't pay to keep roads up kept? (Because I will destroy that notion at your leisure, just ask).

Cyclists make up a tiny minority of property tax payers, and they don't pay the gas tax for cycling. So yeah, their contribution to roads is negligible.


Last edited by smith on Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:03 am
Posts: 934
There is always a good/safe place to pass if you wait. A driver ends up doing something unsafe due to lack of patience, and it is the cyclists fault for using the road? Your definition of a road that is unsafe for cyclists is pretty much most roads. And from a recreational cyclist perspective (not commuter) that is like 100% of roads that cyclists actually want to ride on. Quiet 2 lane country roads.

We do have laws to prevent this. Are bikes and horse carriages allowed on 400 series highways?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 3309
Location: phase 11
smith wrote:
Things are not black and white. If a "drunk bitch" is driving down the road in her lane and a pedestrian jumps in front of her car at the last moment, who is at fault? It's hard to know the degrees of fault for each party to this accident without knowing exactly what happened and how intoxicated she was.


I'm sure there is a semantics game that can go on all day on this part of the discussion, but the drunk driver should have never been behind the wheel. Once that person starts to drive, they pretty much assume all risks (black, white and shades of grey too) and blame for what ifs.

For all we know the car behind the drunk might have done the same as a sober driver... but they didn't. The drunk did.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 443
nspace wrote:
There is always a good/safe place to pass if you wait. A driver ends up doing something unsafe due to lack of patience, and it is the cyclists fault for using the road? Your definition of a road that is unsafe for cyclists is pretty much most roads. And from a recreational cyclist perspective (not commuter) that is like 100% of roads that cyclists actually want to ride on. Quiet 2 lane country roads.

Ok, so you think it's ok for a traffic jam to be created on a road like First Line by a single cyclist at rush hour. Glad to know where you stand on this. My position is that it meets every definition of impeding the flow of normal traffic, and shouldn't be permitted.

nspace wrote:
We do have laws to prevent this. Are bikes and horse carriages allowed on 400 series highways?

Why do we have laws against that?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
smith wrote:
So you would prefer we didn't have laws about impeding traffic? Perhaps you'd like it if people were allowed to drive a horse and carriage down the 401 at 15km/h during rush hour.

nspace wrote:
We do have laws to prevent this. Are bikes and horse carriages allowed on 400 series highways?

Why do we have laws against that?


The law for impeding traffic is for MOTORIZED VEHICLES ON HIGHWAYS
Tremaine (contrary to what asses like yourself seem to think) is not meant for 100KM/H

Just when I think we hit bedrock some moron digs even deeper
Feel free to read rules about overtaking bikes or slower vehicles again


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:03 am
Posts: 934
smith wrote:
nspace wrote:
There is always a good/safe place to pass if you wait. A driver ends up doing something unsafe due to lack of patience, and it is the cyclists fault for using the road? Your definition of a road that is unsafe for cyclists is pretty much most roads. And from a recreational cyclist perspective (not commuter) that is like 100% of roads that cyclists actually want to ride on. Quiet 2 lane country roads.

Ok, so you think it's ok for a traffic jam to be created on a road like First Line by a single cyclist at rush hour. Glad to know where you stand on this. My position is that it meets every definition of impeding the flow of normal traffic, and shouldn't be permitted.


That person is using the road like anyone else. He could be trying to get home from work like the rest of the people in cars. So what your saying is: everyone who wants to walk/ride a bike/an ebike is simply not entitled to use those roads without driving a motorized vehicle?

I've never seen a full on "traffic jam" get caused by a cyclist to be honest. I've seen slow downs for brief moments in time, but never a situation where I've been stuck behind a guy on a bike for 20 minutes. Also, you specify single cyclist, is that a relevant detail? Does your opinion change if its a peloton of 20-40 ppl riding their bikes? Something tells me you would be just as pissy and impatient?

Some of these arguments make as much sense as that Washington state lawmaker who said cyclists are causing pollution because they exhale more CO2 than people driving cars!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:49 am
Posts: 314
nspace wrote:
smith wrote:
nspace wrote:
There is always a good/safe place to pass if you wait. A driver ends up doing something unsafe due to lack of patience, and it is the cyclists fault for using the road? Your definition of a road that is unsafe for cyclists is pretty much most roads. And from a recreational cyclist perspective (not commuter) that is like 100% of roads that cyclists actually want to ride on. Quiet 2 lane country roads.

Ok, so you think it's ok for a traffic jam to be created on a road like First Line by a single cyclist at rush hour. Glad to know where you stand on this. My position is that it meets every definition of impeding the flow of normal traffic, and shouldn't be permitted.


That person is using the road like anyone else. He could be trying to get home from work like the rest of the people in cars. So what your saying is: everyone who wants to walk/ride a bike/an ebike is simply not entitled to use those roads without driving a motorized vehicle?

I've never seen a full on "traffic jam" get caused by a cyclist to be honest. I've seen slow downs for brief moments in time, but never a situation where I've been stuck behind a guy on a bike for 20 minutes. Also, you specify single cyclist, is that a relevant detail? Does your opinion change if its a peloton of 20-40 ppl riding their bikes? Something tells me you would be just as pissy and impatient?

Some of these arguments make as much sense as that Washington state lawmaker who said cyclists are causing pollution because they exhale more CO2 than people driving cars!


All of these arguments are invalid because even if the cyclist has done everything right and the automobile traffic has broken every rule in the book, it is the cyclist, who in the end will suffer the worst consequences in an accident. In other words you can be dead and right at the same time. Is it not the individual's responsibility to decide whether he wishes to expose himself to these high risks conditions regardless if the law's on his side.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 181
The laws of physics are absolute. Instituting the death penalty for a DUI will not A.) Stop the monkies from drinking and driving and B.) Nullify the fact that mass times acceleration can be a mortal bitch.

RIP brave soul.

Life is priceless right?... Except when you don't own a bike and your tax dollar is on the line (read: dedicated bike paths).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:25 am
Posts: 335
Location: Lot 2 NS Trafalgar
Mostly agree with nspace, we have to share the road. In general taking your foot out of the gas for 15 seconds makes absolutely no difference to the length of your trip. I have never been a cycling enthusiast, but relied on a bike to get around while growing up. I live in the lower base line area so I get to interact with cyclists regularly. I find it a little curious that if I drove around cyclists the way many cyclists drive around me I would end up killing them on a regular basis. You would think more cyclists would have a little more respect for the rules of the road since they get the worst of it in a collision.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 443
shawnrk1 wrote:
The law for impeding traffic is for MOTORIZED VEHICLES ON HIGHWAYS
Tremaine (contrary to what asses like yourself seem to think) is not meant for 100KM/H

Just when I think we hit bedrock some moron digs even deeper
Feel free to read rules about overtaking bikes or slower vehicles again


You think you're real smart, huh? My IQ is 140+, what's yours?

Who said anything about 100 km/h? No one said anything about the speed the driver was going when this cyclist was killed. "Highway" under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act refers to any public road, including residential streets.

I'm not sure why you think the HTA doesn't apply to bicycles, because it does. Go ride a bicycle down the middle of a lane on Derry Rd at 20 km/h and see what the police do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 443
nspace wrote:
That person is using the road like anyone else. He could be trying to get home from work like the rest of the people in cars. So what your saying is: everyone who wants to walk/ride a bike/an ebike is simply not entitled to use those roads without driving a motorized vehicle?

Whether or not someone is using a road has nothing to do with whether they're using it in accordance with rules, common sense, safety, or anything else. And no, I do not think bicycles should be allowed on roads where there isn't room for cars to safely pass them.
nspace wrote:
I've never seen a full on "traffic jam" get caused by a cyclist to be honest.

On First Line south of LSL? I've seen the start of one numerous times, until someone decides to dangerously pass into oncoming traffic. Numerous times I've had to veer onto the shoulder because of someone doing this.
nspace wrote:
I've seen slow downs for brief moments in time, but never a situation where I've been stuck behind a guy on a bike for 20 minutes. Also, you specify single cyclist, is that a relevant detail? Does your opinion change if its a peloton of 20-40 ppl riding their bikes? Something tells me you would be just as pissy and impatient?

Well, I have seen 20 lycra wearers riding 5 abreast on roads like First Line, Appleby, and so on. And yeah, I'd like to see them fined and removed from the road.
nspace wrote:
Some of these arguments make as much sense as that Washington state lawmaker who said cyclists are causing pollution because they exhale more CO2 than people driving cars!

Except, that doesn't make sense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:03 am
Posts: 934
But they are following the rules of the road? They just aren't adhering to what you think the rules of the road should be, or whatever your interpretation of them is.

You're also adding in details that change the scenario. Most cyclists (sensible ones) are going to be as far right as it is safe to ride. Sometimes due to lack of street cleaning where there is debris/glass and poorly maintained sewer drains you need to move out to the left a bit, but generally speaking that is where the cyclist is riding. So yes, if you want to add in that they are in now the centre of the lane at 20km/h then I wouldn't be surprised if they get a ticket as they could be riding just as safe and giving drivers more room to pass.

I call BS on the 5 abreast. I've ridden in A LOT of groups, and I've never once in my life seen people ride 5 abreast in a lane. You can't even fit that many people beside each other in a lane without compromising you and the groups safety.

Almost all groups I've ridden with will keep an eye out for cars approaching at back of the group. They will yell "Car back" to alert all riders. At that point depending on the road, riders will go from 2x2 to single file or get in a more compact formation on the right side of the road and someone at the front of the group who can see further down the road will wave the car through when it is safe for everyone.

Anyways, this is really sad and I am super bummed the more I learn about this guy. My condolences to his wife and 5 kids. I can't imagine what she would have been going through arriving at the scene of the accident when she went out looking for him and finding out there :(
http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/ ... -teaching/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 10:02 pm
Posts: 993
smith wrote:
You think you're real smart, huh? My IQ is 140+, what's yours?

I'm not sure why you think the HTA doesn't apply to bicycles, because it does. Go ride a bicycle down the middle of a lane on Derry Rd at 20 km/h and see what the police do.


You are just trying to troll people at this point
As has been pointed out multiple times a bike is legally allowed to use half the road under the law
Doing so is not impeding traffic

If some loser gets drunk, then impatient about a slow moving bike, and is involved in an accident there is no black and white
The driver is guilty 100% of the time

From this thread I am skeptical your IQ is anywhere near 140 but whatever makes you happy I suppose

_________________
There is no reasoning with Tru-Anon people, it really is cult-like


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.018s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]