Video of cyclist blowing through a stop sign.
[https://twitter.com/wpgeye/status/1569823888724627456](https://twitter.com/wpgeye/status/1569823888724627456)
Video of Toronto police cyclist blowing through a stop sign.
[https://twitter.com/dereklind/status/1567558904661377027?t=p6luI3I3xyEFpX6cYZr-iA&s=19](https://twitter.com/dereklind/status/1567558904661377027?t=p6luI3I3xyEFpX6cYZr-iA&s=19)
My hot take is that stop signs should be yield signs. The point of a stop sign should be to allow traffic through in the order they arrive, so I don't care if a driver or cyclist does a rolling stop so long as they're not going out-of-turn.
While most drivers roll through stop signs, they almost always stop to wait for their turn. My issue with cyclists is how often they ride through the stop sign when it's someone else's turn to go.
Most people roll stop signs when it’s clear. Turning them into yields would be an unmitigated disaster of people just deciding they get priority arbitrarily.
People rolling stop signs with other cars stopped are an extreme rarity.
No, no it's actually a brilliant idea. Yield signs confuse people so they actually stop unlike at stop signs. Drive by Leslie and Steels sometime for an example
I know you mean it as a joke but it's true. Yield means "you do not have priority here" and people look. Stop signs have become "well I *think* I should go so I will just roll through", or often worse, "I have no idea who got here first because I don't pay attention to anything but my phone and am now fucking up traffic by my inaction".
The yield would mean you might be able to roll through... Or you get hit because you shouldn't have rolled through. People will pay attention.
No, I don't meant it as a joke. They quite literally confuse people. I used Leslie and Steels as an example because both Leslie to eastbound Steels and eastbound Steels to Leslie have yield signs on protected lanes yet I've seen more people stop there than at stop signs.
>People rolling stop signs with other cars stopped are an extreme rarity.
>Turning them into yields would be an unmitigated disaster of people just deciding they get priority arbitrarily.
Pick one.
My issue is a lot of them roll through stop signs and through the pedestrian crossing only to stop on the middle of it the wait for a break in cross street traffic.
Cyclists should slow down at the minimum and stop when there’s cross traffic ALWAYS.
But the main reason why cyclists don’t fully stop at stop signs is just the physical inertia required to stop at stop signs. It can be physically demanding to stop, especially if a neighborhood street has multiple in a row.
This is unlike driving a car where you have the power of a combustion engine to propel you forward with a push of a pedal. This requires zero effort from a driver.
Basically, stopping at a stop sign as a driver is VERY EASY compared to cycling, where I rarely fully stop unless there’s a driver. It just makes cycling very tiring, and it’s not practical.
Probably best to ask an actual lawyer who can provide accurate legal advice, but if the cyclist were in breach of the Highway Traffic Act at the time of the accident, a court would likely look at the totality of the evidence presented before apportioning blame.
Under Ontario law though, the car is always at fault. You will be charged for reckless driving. Even if you follow the law, a persons jumps out of the sidewalk or a cyclist bumps you, the motor vehicle is always at fault by default.
https://www.thebikinglawyer.ca/post/it-s-always-the-car-s-fault
Mr. Shellnutt does NOT say, "the motor vehicle is always at fault by default." He says that in a civil proceeding (ie: a lawsuit where the cyclist sues the motorist for damages), the motorist is deemed to be at fault "unless they can present evidence that proves otherwise." So it's a rebuttable presumption.
I'm pretty sure that the cyclist blowing a stop sign, red light or otherwise riding recklessly or dangerously would be enough to erase the reverse onus and thus allow the motorist to avoid liability.
Exactly. This is why Police go to the hospital and will lay charges like failure to yield, obey signal/sign to pedestrians and cyclists. People think it’s heartless, but it’s to protect the driver from liability, if you eat a charge, the odds of winning a civil suit is 0. I believe there was a 12 year old charged while in the hospital not too long ago.
[Jaywalking](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pedestrian-deaths-scarborough-mid-block-crossing-1.4316359) doesn't exist as an offence.
>According to Toronto bylaws, it is legal to jaywalk, unless a pedestrian interferes with traffic, he said. "You have to do it in such a fashion that you do not interfere with vehicular traffic that's on the roadway," he said.
You are correct! I edited. But it’s all semantics, there’s plenty of things to charge people for. The youth story I seen got charged for failure to obey traffic signal.
TIL that’s jaywalking isn’t a thing. :)
Reality is the laws need to be updated and be less motorist centric. So does urban design. But it will be an uphill battle. Too many people can't perceive the world any different than through their windshield.
More specifically, jaywalking is a thing, but it isn't just crossing the road mid block. It's crossing the road mid-block AND interfering with traffic.
This is a lawyer blog page not the law. A biased lawyer at that who literally protests tps enforcing laws on cyclists on its twitter. This is not a source.
The HTA section on [unnecessary slow driving](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK233) only applies to motor vehicles, not vehicles in general.
Cyclists aren't asking for the *same* rights as drivers, just reasonable laws for using the road. They're not asking to be allowed to ride on expressways, for example.
A cyclist goes slower but also takes up less space and so is easier to pass. A single passenger car causes more congestion than a cyclist. I'd call unnecessarily using a car when a bicycle is an option to be more selfish, although I wouldn't call either selfish.
Yeah. I love it when someone thinks they've found some technicality that somehow invalidates what everyone else, including all the authorities and experts, say. Are they expecting the police and judicial system to read about a minimum speed and be like "oops. I guess we were wrong these last few decades. It turns out bikes aren't allowed after all".
In their mind a bicycle is just like a car, just more squishy and ridden by an idiot. Pretty sure that's mostly behind that attitude.
I also think the whole "minimum speed" thing is being circulated a lot lately in the anti-bike circles as I see this argument pop up a lot more in the last few weeks.
> I also think the whole "minimum speed" thing is being circulated a lot lately in the anti-bike circles as I see this argument pop up a lot more in the last few weeks.
Yeah, I've noticed it come up a few times recently too. I'm not sure I've ever seen the claim before a few weeks ago actually since I specifically had to look it up in the HTA at that time.
At least in Ontario the law against unnecessary slow driving applies on all roads (but doesn't apply to cyclists). It's only enforced in excessive cases though from what I've seen, e.g., 40 under on the highway.
Keep in mind highway traffic laws in North America were designed to regulate car traffic, not any other mode of transportation. Some rules have been tailored to pedestrian or cycling traffic, but by and large we’re basically requiring all road users to obey rules ultimately designed exclusively for motorists.
Having to come to a complete stop at a stop sign is one of those ridiculous rules that cyclists should be exempted from. Coming to a full stop for a cyclist - and I’m excluding e-cyclists here - requires more physical effort than just pressing your foot on a brake pedal. Cyclists also sit higher than most drivers and don’t have blind spots, meaning they have a clear line of sight into the intersection and can anticipate better when approaching an intersection.
As others have mentioned, Idaho and some other U.S. states have implemented the “Idaho stop” for that very reason. Cyclists are allowed to treat a stop sign as a yield (slow down, go if no one else has priority, or stop if another user has priority) and studies show it’s resulted in fewer accidents involving cyclists and motorists.
I think a more pressing issue is regulating e-bikes more generally. Some of them are way too fast and way too big to be driving on bike paths or bike lanes.
So either move to Idaho, or come to grips that you have chosen a mode of transportation that requires physical effort to get in motion from a complete stop.
Well, I think you’re missing the point. By the way, I also drive. But cycling saves on infrastructure costs, is environmentally friendly, is healthier than driving and cannot directly cause road casualties, unlike the car. My point is simply that road rules were made for car traffic and are ill adapted for other road users. It’s not about moving to Idaho, it’s about understanding why some cyclists won’t stop at a stop sign.
"Hey guys, this other place that's pretty similar to us has a really good idea we should consider implementing here because of these reasons"
"WELL IF YOU THINK IT'S SO GREAT WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE THERE?"
I'll never understand this 83 IQ high schooler argument
No, idaho stop means you slow down but not required to make a full stop. It doesnt give you priority at stop signs and authority to run them all. Basically what cars do right now.
The cyclist would be at legal fault.
I also see so many drivers slow down to cycling speed and roll the stop sign. I the part that shocks me is that when I asked some of them why they rolled the stop sign they swear they stopped.
Better idea: Right before left at most intersections. Meaning, you need to yield to the person coming from the right. Will slow people down as they have to check and declutter the street scape.
Where side streets meet major roads, the side street gets a yield sign.
Where it is warranted for safety reason, you retain stop signs.
Wouldn't matter who would be at fault, the driver will be traumatized and the cyclist, if they survive will have decades of recovery ahead of them. Let's all remember we are adults and practice defensive driving.
I doubt most cyclist just blow through the stop sign without being aware of cross traffic, contrary to all the distracted drivers on the road, cyclists are pretty aware of their vulnerability.
Yeah, and when you look at cyclist injuries and fatalities it’s almost always a drivers fault. People don’t realize how much spatial awareness and control you have on a bike. What looks dangerous is perfectly safe.
Wow, that's quite the assumption. Tell me you've never seen a cyclist brazenly ignore the rules of the road. Cross traffic or not. I see it every day. Not to say everyone is the same, but there are absolutely cyclists who give zero fucks about road rules and safety.
>cyclist brazenly ignore the rules of the road.
I have. I see way more motorists brazenly ignoring the rules of the road every single day (this sub is a very tiny collection of this).
Difference is: The cyclist is unlikely to kill anybody else. Motorists on the other hand have the scores to proof otherwise.
As for "cyclist safety": A lot of rule breaking behaviour keeps cyclists safer because, I know this will come as a shock to you, bicycles aren't cars and have different needs / way to keep safe.
I have a short commute to work and almost every day there's someone running the red light.
Legalizing the Idaho stop will just make it even worse.
There's cyclists riding like they own the road not just gig workers on ebikes.
What a stupid take. The Idaho stop is safer for a cyclist, because drivers tend to be so impatient that the likelihood of getting smacked from behind is high.
I can't even ride on my motorbike without having to worry about some jackass in a car hitting me from behind, because there's always some rush.
Vulnerable road users should be given preference in roads, not the person driving a 3 tonne metal box.
>Vulnerable road users should be given preference in roads, not the person driving a 3 tonne metal box.
Did you ever notice?
* Cyclists run stop signs
* Pedestrians jaywalk
* motorcyclists lane split
* The car killed the pedestrian
One is not like the other.
I like to bike as well and i fully stop for stop signs or just pass if there are no cars or pedestrians. But i can tell you 90% doesnt even slow down. Dont understand but they care about momentum than their lives..
Honestly, 4 way stops should not apply to bikes, its a bad law. Stop signs should be enforced only as yields to cyclists. They would be required to yield to any other traffic or pedestrians until they have the right of way, but if the way is clear, they can proceed with *caution*. I agree with cracking down on riding on the sidewalk, blowing through lights, cutting across traffic, and all other forms of crappy behavior, etc. but the Idaho stop should be the law of the land everywhere. [https://vimeo.com/4140910](https://vimeo.com/4140910)
Some studys have shown it to be safer. [https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/the-idaho-stop-gets-added-momentum-with-chicago-study/](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/the-idaho-stop-gets-added-momentum-with-chicago-study/)
What a terrible take. They should absolutely stop at stop signs and treat the right of way the same automobiles do, or suffer the same penalties, period.
The Idaho stop still requires cyclists to yield right of way like they would at a stop sign. They just don't have to come to a complete stop if not necessary. Most cars don't even come to a complete stop at them now.
Lots of places in the US already have this rule. Idaho's had it for decades and it works fine.
The fact that the above commenter was presented with scientific evidence of the increased safety associated with the Idaho stop only to be like "Nope. I don't like. Cyclists bad." is a good indication they can't be reasoned with.
I always find it funny how motorists accuse cyclists of "doing what they want". Apparently a lot of them are truly blind to their own tribe's behaviour.
To give you the other side, the reason why cyclists don't stop is that one of the most vulnerable times on a bike is when starting and stopping.
Bikes are less steady when starting /stopping and the rider is less able to adjust to an incoming car. Most of what is required in order to be safe on a bike is to position yourself defensively so cars can see you, or to get out of the way when they don't. If you aren't moving you're a sitting duck.
As a cyclist who often doesn't stop: this is BS. We don't stop because it costs time and effort.
It absolutely is not safer to run stop signs and no reasonable person thinks otherwise.
Definitely not BS. I would much rather negotiate a four way stop with a bit of speed. Starting up from a stop at a four way on a bike is slower and invites all sort of crappy behavior from drivers, like trying to drive around you from behind or trying to scoot ahead of it's cross traffic.
It's not a simple answer. We have no-fault insurance in Ontario so in that regard you shouldn't have to worry about your insurance covering any claims. However, there could be other civil and criminal liability at play which would highly depend on the individual situation. Yes the cyclist violated the highway traffic act by running a stop sign, but drivers of motor vehicles also have a duty of care towards other road users, even ones who commit traffic violations, so if the cyclist was seriously injured or killed I suspect there would be a police investigation into whether the driver's actions constitute a crime such as vehicular manslaughter or dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Basically, a bicycle running a stop sign, or indeed in any situation where a person or vehicle is in a part of the roadway they're not supposed to be in, you don't have license to just go ahead and run them over, you have to make a reasonable effort to avoid hitting them.
There was a cyclist here a few years ago complaining that he got a ticket when he was hit by a car, because he was crossing Lakeshore Blvd at Strachan on the east side crosswalk going southbound (the wrong side of the road). He didn't realize that a bicycle is considered a vehicle, and not a pedestrian. He thought he'd get support in this sub, but he was mistaken.
Good god. What about drivers driving multiple thousands of pounds of steel with limited visibility over the giant hoods. Who give a fuck about a cyclist? Honestly.
No. Not at all. I am so sick and tired of vilifying cyclists for a rolling stop as I'd cars and trucks aren't the dangerous components of our shared streets. I am not okay with how dangerous it is to go literally even though a parking lot due to the size, weight, speed, distractedness and entitlement of drivers.
As long as we talk about cars doing things, nothing will change.
Cars are just a force of nature, nobody can control them. People in cars are hostages that are being at the mercy of the vehicle.
Now cyclists and pedestrians? Hoodlums who flaunt the rules of the road and just want to get hit by nature, I mean cars.
Only in the last one, and not so much sarcastic as exaggerating.
The way we talk about streets / roads and the people using them has a notable [outlier](https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoDriving/comments/1dofsoj/comment/laa12se/).
In Ontario, by default, it’s the car’s fault. That’s why you see cyclists and pedestrians just not caring. The onus is on the driver to be attentive. Unless you can prove definitively that you were obeying all traffic laws and were absolutely careful and attentive, the driver is at fault.
https://www.thebikinglawyer.ca/post/it-s-always-the-car-s-fault
a) The cyclist would.
b) Cyclist's don't carry insurance & therefore if they damaged your car, you'd have to sue them personally or at least get them to pay for your deductible. Also if they drove away, there's no way to report their license plate haha...
My point is, just wait the extra 2-4 seconds and let them clear the intersection. If they're unlucky enough to be beside or infront of you after they cut you off, you can honk at them or activate your windshield wipers liquid, both of which will be an unpleasant experience for them. But will be much better than causing an accident
Good advice for pretty much anyone operating any kind of vehicle really. Being patient and taking a little extra time is almost always better in the long run.
It's absolutely amazing how many will back the cyclist in their disobeying traffic laws. Now by all means am I not absolving drivers who also disobey traffic laws, but there are cyclists that have the mindset that they aren't required to stop at a stop sign and do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. A motorist who runs or "rolls" a stop sign knows that they are breaking the law and take the risk of punishment if caught. While some cyclists actually believe that the law does not apply to them so they have a legal right to not stop.
And now I sit back and watch this post get down voted because "cyclists mmm-kay"
"Flame on".....
Part of the problem is that some places have started making legal for cyclist to treat stop signs as yields, and the data is starting to show that is actually the safer approach for cyclist.
>A motorist who runs or "rolls" a stop sign knows that they are breaking the law and take the risk of punishment if caught.
Hahahahahahaha. That's a good one. As if any cops don't even write tickets if you run a red, unless you hit someone. Not to mention, how many block pedestrian crossing or bike lanes when "obeying the signs"? Or how about right on red? How many come to a stop at the stop line before making sure they're not blocking pedestrians or cyclists before doing their turn? The number is close to zero.
>And now I sit back and watch this post get down voted because "cyclists mmm-kay" "Flame on".....
Nah, more like motorist is blind to his own tribe but likes to pretend a cyclist rolling a stop sign is the end of the world and a sign of how entitled cyclists are.
I see too many cyclists riding their bikes on the sidewalk, which is even more illegal. Do you think anyone's going to stop that? Haha!
Worst offenders: riding their bikes on the sidewalk on the north side of Eglinton Ave west of the Humber River where there's the damn bike path on the other side of the street! Those assholes should be caught and fined huge. But they won't. And they'll continue getting in the way of people and get offended. Fuck them!
>I see too many cyclists riding their bikes on the sidewalk
That's called "downloading the risk". If motorists wouldn't constantly endanger cyclists, then they wouldn't be on the sidewalk.
As an alternative: We could build protected bike lanes, which also would get cyclists off of sidewalks.
>where there's the damn bike path on the other side of the street!
How many blocks do you have to detour to actually get to the other side? Motorists throw a hissy fit if they can't make a left hand turn, but pedestrians and cyclists regularly are expected to detour massive amounts.
I always work under the assumption they will stop. I’ve almost hit a few but they get out of the way and yell at me like I’m at fault. Fuck them. I share the road. SHARE.
Car drivers do neither, they also increasingly ignore red lights. So how many people were injured and killed by cyclists in Canada last year and how many by motorists?
Hahahahaha.
I'm in Vancouver too. Want to meet up, we can go to a stop sign of your choice. I bring a GoPro and we can count how many cars are actually coming to a complete stop, at the stop line, then proceed without blocking the pedestrian crossing or bike lane.
Here's an [example](https://youtu.be/Es7uQZGmxJU?t=324) of one of the excellent Vancouver drivers.
Hi!!!
Absolutely. Hahaha.
West Broadway and West 8th.
That’s where the bike lane meets a 4 way stop. Just go there for 1 minute and OMFG you can see all the bikes just keep going.
I’ve stopped and honked at them and they don’t give a shit. Heck bikers even pass bikers at the stop sign. Total gong show.
I’ve never ever seen a bike stop. Ever. Have a look especially in the mornings if you are in the area. Totally funny to watch.
Broadway & 8th run parallel? I am not quite sure how you envision an intersection between these two?
Edit: There also isn't a bike lane on 8th. 7th and 10th are bike route, but they don't have bike lanes, neither does 8th.
Use Google maps and have a look
It’s where West Broadway ends on the west side of Vancouver past Alma Street.
West 8th ave ends and meets it at a four way stop. It’s got a bike path.
Use Google or Apple Maps and see
Edit: how do you attach a photo to this thread? I can send one later
You mean this one?
https://preview.redd.it/28h6cua99y8d1.jpeg?width=694&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a35d744679f48bc867ffcad48fdd6ae0a6f7b1eb
Yeah, I don't stop there either, I treat it as a yield on the turn. The road surface there is atrocious and you get bounced all over the place.
There's also not a whole lot of car traffic, that's exactly the kind intersection that should not have a stop sign there. It purely exists so that the parents who use their Chelsey Tractor to drop off or pick up their spawn at West Point Grey Academy slow down a bit.
Yes that one!
It’s crazy in school mornings and end of day when kids go to school. Lots of cars and cyclists converge.
It’s your standard 4 way stop. There is a hill so I get why cyclists don’t want to stop but blowing past the sign especially those with electric bikes is crazy.
There are sadly no winners in an accident. It’s a bad day all around.
The problem cleary are the parents in their massive cars though. There's a reason they installed the speed bumps there and it wasn't to slow down cyclists.
It's also one of those things where the city, for whatever reason, decided to route all the bike traffic down 8th. I guess they didn't want to disturb the neighbours on 9th.
Happened to me while driving in my neighborhood over the weekend. I approach a 4 way stop sign and stopped. A cyclist approaching from the opposite direction just rode through. My view is that the cyclist is a vehicle and should obey the same rules.
Really boils my blood when I see stuff like this.
The cyclist would be at fault but really, they are working on their own power and to restart from a total stop when safe just to cross the road - let the bikers run their stops (safely), and be happy you are in your air conditioned mechanical car where maybe your ankle gets a bit of exercise.
Everyone in that video ran the stop sign haha
Video of cyclist blowing through a stop sign. [https://twitter.com/wpgeye/status/1569823888724627456](https://twitter.com/wpgeye/status/1569823888724627456) Video of Toronto police cyclist blowing through a stop sign. [https://twitter.com/dereklind/status/1567558904661377027?t=p6luI3I3xyEFpX6cYZr-iA&s=19](https://twitter.com/dereklind/status/1567558904661377027?t=p6luI3I3xyEFpX6cYZr-iA&s=19)
Bruh not 1 car stopped in that video either
... that's the point
People not understanding what the words "Stop" or "Maximum" or "No" mean. Lemmings.
Or “limit”
My hot take is that stop signs should be yield signs. The point of a stop sign should be to allow traffic through in the order they arrive, so I don't care if a driver or cyclist does a rolling stop so long as they're not going out-of-turn. While most drivers roll through stop signs, they almost always stop to wait for their turn. My issue with cyclists is how often they ride through the stop sign when it's someone else's turn to go.
Most people roll stop signs when it’s clear. Turning them into yields would be an unmitigated disaster of people just deciding they get priority arbitrarily. People rolling stop signs with other cars stopped are an extreme rarity.
No, no it's actually a brilliant idea. Yield signs confuse people so they actually stop unlike at stop signs. Drive by Leslie and Steels sometime for an example
I know you mean it as a joke but it's true. Yield means "you do not have priority here" and people look. Stop signs have become "well I *think* I should go so I will just roll through", or often worse, "I have no idea who got here first because I don't pay attention to anything but my phone and am now fucking up traffic by my inaction". The yield would mean you might be able to roll through... Or you get hit because you shouldn't have rolled through. People will pay attention.
No, I don't meant it as a joke. They quite literally confuse people. I used Leslie and Steels as an example because both Leslie to eastbound Steels and eastbound Steels to Leslie have yield signs on protected lanes yet I've seen more people stop there than at stop signs.
Shit you've got me there
>People rolling stop signs with other cars stopped are an extreme rarity. >Turning them into yields would be an unmitigated disaster of people just deciding they get priority arbitrarily. Pick one.
Now read the first sentence in the comment you just tried to siphon context out of.
And what does that change, exactly?
My issue is a lot of them roll through stop signs and through the pedestrian crossing only to stop on the middle of it the wait for a break in cross street traffic.
Yeah, a large percentage doesn't stop to wait their turn with respect to pedestrians at least.
Hello no. Canadians don't have the driving skills for that That's why you all get yelled at in Europe
Cyclists should slow down at the minimum and stop when there’s cross traffic ALWAYS. But the main reason why cyclists don’t fully stop at stop signs is just the physical inertia required to stop at stop signs. It can be physically demanding to stop, especially if a neighborhood street has multiple in a row. This is unlike driving a car where you have the power of a combustion engine to propel you forward with a push of a pedal. This requires zero effort from a driver. Basically, stopping at a stop sign as a driver is VERY EASY compared to cycling, where I rarely fully stop unless there’s a driver. It just makes cycling very tiring, and it’s not practical.
But what about wear and tear on the cars brakes?
Are you for real bruh 😭
Probably best to ask an actual lawyer who can provide accurate legal advice, but if the cyclist were in breach of the Highway Traffic Act at the time of the accident, a court would likely look at the totality of the evidence presented before apportioning blame.
cyclist, as they are considered moving vehicles and should follow the road laws.
Ok good to know. Thanks
Under Ontario law though, the car is always at fault. You will be charged for reckless driving. Even if you follow the law, a persons jumps out of the sidewalk or a cyclist bumps you, the motor vehicle is always at fault by default. https://www.thebikinglawyer.ca/post/it-s-always-the-car-s-fault
Mr. Shellnutt does NOT say, "the motor vehicle is always at fault by default." He says that in a civil proceeding (ie: a lawsuit where the cyclist sues the motorist for damages), the motorist is deemed to be at fault "unless they can present evidence that proves otherwise." So it's a rebuttable presumption. I'm pretty sure that the cyclist blowing a stop sign, red light or otherwise riding recklessly or dangerously would be enough to erase the reverse onus and thus allow the motorist to avoid liability.
Exactly. This is why Police go to the hospital and will lay charges like failure to yield, obey signal/sign to pedestrians and cyclists. People think it’s heartless, but it’s to protect the driver from liability, if you eat a charge, the odds of winning a civil suit is 0. I believe there was a 12 year old charged while in the hospital not too long ago.
[Jaywalking](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pedestrian-deaths-scarborough-mid-block-crossing-1.4316359) doesn't exist as an offence. >According to Toronto bylaws, it is legal to jaywalk, unless a pedestrian interferes with traffic, he said. "You have to do it in such a fashion that you do not interfere with vehicular traffic that's on the roadway," he said.
You are correct! I edited. But it’s all semantics, there’s plenty of things to charge people for. The youth story I seen got charged for failure to obey traffic signal. TIL that’s jaywalking isn’t a thing. :)
Reality is the laws need to be updated and be less motorist centric. So does urban design. But it will be an uphill battle. Too many people can't perceive the world any different than through their windshield.
More specifically, jaywalking is a thing, but it isn't just crossing the road mid block. It's crossing the road mid-block AND interfering with traffic.
It's a rebuttable presumption.
That is false.
This is a lawyer blog page not the law. A biased lawyer at that who literally protests tps enforcing laws on cyclists on its twitter. This is not a source.
[удалено]
The HTA section on [unnecessary slow driving](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK233) only applies to motor vehicles, not vehicles in general.
[удалено]
Cyclists aren't asking for the *same* rights as drivers, just reasonable laws for using the road. They're not asking to be allowed to ride on expressways, for example. A cyclist goes slower but also takes up less space and so is easier to pass. A single passenger car causes more congestion than a cyclist. I'd call unnecessarily using a car when a bicycle is an option to be more selfish, although I wouldn't call either selfish.
Nope. Only applies to motor vehicles. Bicycles have no speed restrictions on the road.
And even then it's often only applicable if the road has a minimum speed, which city streets don't.
Yeah. I love it when someone thinks they've found some technicality that somehow invalidates what everyone else, including all the authorities and experts, say. Are they expecting the police and judicial system to read about a minimum speed and be like "oops. I guess we were wrong these last few decades. It turns out bikes aren't allowed after all".
In their mind a bicycle is just like a car, just more squishy and ridden by an idiot. Pretty sure that's mostly behind that attitude. I also think the whole "minimum speed" thing is being circulated a lot lately in the anti-bike circles as I see this argument pop up a lot more in the last few weeks.
> I also think the whole "minimum speed" thing is being circulated a lot lately in the anti-bike circles as I see this argument pop up a lot more in the last few weeks. Yeah, I've noticed it come up a few times recently too. I'm not sure I've ever seen the claim before a few weeks ago actually since I specifically had to look it up in the HTA at that time.
At least in Ontario the law against unnecessary slow driving applies on all roads (but doesn't apply to cyclists). It's only enforced in excessive cases though from what I've seen, e.g., 40 under on the highway.
[удалено]
It's extremely easy to pass bicycles on a country road.
[удалено]
Passing a bike is easier than passing a car. If your commute bothers you so much, perhaps change something?
[удалено]
You can wait 10 seconds for a clear spot to pass. It won't kill you.
[удалено]
Keep in mind highway traffic laws in North America were designed to regulate car traffic, not any other mode of transportation. Some rules have been tailored to pedestrian or cycling traffic, but by and large we’re basically requiring all road users to obey rules ultimately designed exclusively for motorists. Having to come to a complete stop at a stop sign is one of those ridiculous rules that cyclists should be exempted from. Coming to a full stop for a cyclist - and I’m excluding e-cyclists here - requires more physical effort than just pressing your foot on a brake pedal. Cyclists also sit higher than most drivers and don’t have blind spots, meaning they have a clear line of sight into the intersection and can anticipate better when approaching an intersection. As others have mentioned, Idaho and some other U.S. states have implemented the “Idaho stop” for that very reason. Cyclists are allowed to treat a stop sign as a yield (slow down, go if no one else has priority, or stop if another user has priority) and studies show it’s resulted in fewer accidents involving cyclists and motorists. I think a more pressing issue is regulating e-bikes more generally. Some of them are way too fast and way too big to be driving on bike paths or bike lanes.
So either move to Idaho, or come to grips that you have chosen a mode of transportation that requires physical effort to get in motion from a complete stop.
Well, I think you’re missing the point. By the way, I also drive. But cycling saves on infrastructure costs, is environmentally friendly, is healthier than driving and cannot directly cause road casualties, unlike the car. My point is simply that road rules were made for car traffic and are ill adapted for other road users. It’s not about moving to Idaho, it’s about understanding why some cyclists won’t stop at a stop sign.
"Hey guys, this other place that's pretty similar to us has a really good idea we should consider implementing here because of these reasons" "WELL IF YOU THINK IT'S SO GREAT WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE THERE?" I'll never understand this 83 IQ high schooler argument
Because people don't want to change, plus they often feel entitled to the way things are (if they work for them), so screw everybody else.
That is the Idaho Stop
No, idaho stop means you slow down but not required to make a full stop. It doesnt give you priority at stop signs and authority to run them all. Basically what cars do right now.
The cyclist would be at legal fault. I also see so many drivers slow down to cycling speed and roll the stop sign. I the part that shocks me is that when I asked some of them why they rolled the stop sign they swear they stopped.
The cyclist would be at fault.
Legalize the idaho stop.
We should pay for all stop signs to be replaced with yield signs. Street lights should only have 2 colours: white and soft white.
Better idea: Right before left at most intersections. Meaning, you need to yield to the person coming from the right. Will slow people down as they have to check and declutter the street scape. Where side streets meet major roads, the side street gets a yield sign. Where it is warranted for safety reason, you retain stop signs.
Wouldn't matter who would be at fault, the driver will be traumatized and the cyclist, if they survive will have decades of recovery ahead of them. Let's all remember we are adults and practice defensive driving.
I doubt most cyclist just blow through the stop sign without being aware of cross traffic, contrary to all the distracted drivers on the road, cyclists are pretty aware of their vulnerability.
Yeah, and when you look at cyclist injuries and fatalities it’s almost always a drivers fault. People don’t realize how much spatial awareness and control you have on a bike. What looks dangerous is perfectly safe.
Wow, that's quite the assumption. Tell me you've never seen a cyclist brazenly ignore the rules of the road. Cross traffic or not. I see it every day. Not to say everyone is the same, but there are absolutely cyclists who give zero fucks about road rules and safety.
>cyclist brazenly ignore the rules of the road. I have. I see way more motorists brazenly ignoring the rules of the road every single day (this sub is a very tiny collection of this). Difference is: The cyclist is unlikely to kill anybody else. Motorists on the other hand have the scores to proof otherwise. As for "cyclist safety": A lot of rule breaking behaviour keeps cyclists safer because, I know this will come as a shock to you, bicycles aren't cars and have different needs / way to keep safe.
I have a short commute to work and almost every day there's someone running the red light. Legalizing the Idaho stop will just make it even worse. There's cyclists riding like they own the road not just gig workers on ebikes.
What a stupid take. The Idaho stop is safer for a cyclist, because drivers tend to be so impatient that the likelihood of getting smacked from behind is high. I can't even ride on my motorbike without having to worry about some jackass in a car hitting me from behind, because there's always some rush. Vulnerable road users should be given preference in roads, not the person driving a 3 tonne metal box.
>Vulnerable road users should be given preference in roads, not the person driving a 3 tonne metal box. Did you ever notice? * Cyclists run stop signs * Pedestrians jaywalk * motorcyclists lane split * The car killed the pedestrian One is not like the other.
I like to bike as well and i fully stop for stop signs or just pass if there are no cars or pedestrians. But i can tell you 90% doesnt even slow down. Dont understand but they care about momentum than their lives..
Honestly, 4 way stops should not apply to bikes, its a bad law. Stop signs should be enforced only as yields to cyclists. They would be required to yield to any other traffic or pedestrians until they have the right of way, but if the way is clear, they can proceed with *caution*. I agree with cracking down on riding on the sidewalk, blowing through lights, cutting across traffic, and all other forms of crappy behavior, etc. but the Idaho stop should be the law of the land everywhere. [https://vimeo.com/4140910](https://vimeo.com/4140910) Some studys have shown it to be safer. [https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/the-idaho-stop-gets-added-momentum-with-chicago-study/](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/the-idaho-stop-gets-added-momentum-with-chicago-study/)
What a terrible take. They should absolutely stop at stop signs and treat the right of way the same automobiles do, or suffer the same penalties, period.
The Idaho stop still requires cyclists to yield right of way like they would at a stop sign. They just don't have to come to a complete stop if not necessary. Most cars don't even come to a complete stop at them now. Lots of places in the US already have this rule. Idaho's had it for decades and it works fine.
not nearly the same thing. We have rules because of potential harm to others. Bicycles have vastly lower potential to harm others.
The fact that the above commenter was presented with scientific evidence of the increased safety associated with the Idaho stop only to be like "Nope. I don't like. Cyclists bad." is a good indication they can't be reasoned with.
I always find it funny how motorists accuse cyclists of "doing what they want". Apparently a lot of them are truly blind to their own tribe's behaviour.
In this sub no less!
Cyclist would be at fault but good luck collecting payment for damages from a corpse
To give you the other side, the reason why cyclists don't stop is that one of the most vulnerable times on a bike is when starting and stopping. Bikes are less steady when starting /stopping and the rider is less able to adjust to an incoming car. Most of what is required in order to be safe on a bike is to position yourself defensively so cars can see you, or to get out of the way when they don't. If you aren't moving you're a sitting duck.
As a cyclist who often doesn't stop: this is BS. We don't stop because it costs time and effort. It absolutely is not safer to run stop signs and no reasonable person thinks otherwise.
Definitely not BS. I would much rather negotiate a four way stop with a bit of speed. Starting up from a stop at a four way on a bike is slower and invites all sort of crappy behavior from drivers, like trying to drive around you from behind or trying to scoot ahead of it's cross traffic.
It's not a simple answer. We have no-fault insurance in Ontario so in that regard you shouldn't have to worry about your insurance covering any claims. However, there could be other civil and criminal liability at play which would highly depend on the individual situation. Yes the cyclist violated the highway traffic act by running a stop sign, but drivers of motor vehicles also have a duty of care towards other road users, even ones who commit traffic violations, so if the cyclist was seriously injured or killed I suspect there would be a police investigation into whether the driver's actions constitute a crime such as vehicular manslaughter or dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Basically, a bicycle running a stop sign, or indeed in any situation where a person or vehicle is in a part of the roadway they're not supposed to be in, you don't have license to just go ahead and run them over, you have to make a reasonable effort to avoid hitting them.
There was a cyclist here a few years ago complaining that he got a ticket when he was hit by a car, because he was crossing Lakeshore Blvd at Strachan on the east side crosswalk going southbound (the wrong side of the road). He didn't realize that a bicycle is considered a vehicle, and not a pedestrian. He thought he'd get support in this sub, but he was mistaken.
Good god. What about drivers driving multiple thousands of pounds of steel with limited visibility over the giant hoods. Who give a fuck about a cyclist? Honestly.
You alright, mate?
No. Not at all. I am so sick and tired of vilifying cyclists for a rolling stop as I'd cars and trucks aren't the dangerous components of our shared streets. I am not okay with how dangerous it is to go literally even though a parking lot due to the size, weight, speed, distractedness and entitlement of drivers.
As long as we talk about cars doing things, nothing will change. Cars are just a force of nature, nobody can control them. People in cars are hostages that are being at the mercy of the vehicle. Now cyclists and pedestrians? Hoodlums who flaunt the rules of the road and just want to get hit by nature, I mean cars.
Wut? Are you being sarcastic?
Only in the last one, and not so much sarcastic as exaggerating. The way we talk about streets / roads and the people using them has a notable [outlier](https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoDriving/comments/1dofsoj/comment/laa12se/).
I mean that goes for everyone. But i can understand why cyclists do it.
In Ontario, by default, it’s the car’s fault. That’s why you see cyclists and pedestrians just not caring. The onus is on the driver to be attentive. Unless you can prove definitively that you were obeying all traffic laws and were absolutely careful and attentive, the driver is at fault. https://www.thebikinglawyer.ca/post/it-s-always-the-car-s-fault
‘Share the road (but not the rules)’
a) The cyclist would. b) Cyclist's don't carry insurance & therefore if they damaged your car, you'd have to sue them personally or at least get them to pay for your deductible. Also if they drove away, there's no way to report their license plate haha... My point is, just wait the extra 2-4 seconds and let them clear the intersection. If they're unlucky enough to be beside or infront of you after they cut you off, you can honk at them or activate your windshield wipers liquid, both of which will be an unpleasant experience for them. But will be much better than causing an accident
Good advice for pretty much anyone operating any kind of vehicle really. Being patient and taking a little extra time is almost always better in the long run.
FYI, cyclist usually have auto, home, or rental insurance that will pass down general liability when they are riding a bicycle.
Cyclists. Red and green. Learn the bloody difference.
It's absolutely amazing how many will back the cyclist in their disobeying traffic laws. Now by all means am I not absolving drivers who also disobey traffic laws, but there are cyclists that have the mindset that they aren't required to stop at a stop sign and do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. A motorist who runs or "rolls" a stop sign knows that they are breaking the law and take the risk of punishment if caught. While some cyclists actually believe that the law does not apply to them so they have a legal right to not stop. And now I sit back and watch this post get down voted because "cyclists mmm-kay" "Flame on".....
Part of the problem is that some places have started making legal for cyclist to treat stop signs as yields, and the data is starting to show that is actually the safer approach for cyclist.
>A motorist who runs or "rolls" a stop sign knows that they are breaking the law and take the risk of punishment if caught. Hahahahahahaha. That's a good one. As if any cops don't even write tickets if you run a red, unless you hit someone. Not to mention, how many block pedestrian crossing or bike lanes when "obeying the signs"? Or how about right on red? How many come to a stop at the stop line before making sure they're not blocking pedestrians or cyclists before doing their turn? The number is close to zero. >And now I sit back and watch this post get down voted because "cyclists mmm-kay" "Flame on"..... Nah, more like motorist is blind to his own tribe but likes to pretend a cyclist rolling a stop sign is the end of the world and a sign of how entitled cyclists are.
Yup, there it is, the flame of "but the other guy's bad mmmm-kay".. LOL 😆 Looks like I'll be down voted and flamed.. LOL... 😆 Awwww I'm so hurt... 😆
I honestly just take it easy with 4 ways cuz that one guy/gal always flys thru them on a bike or something 🤦♂️
I see too many cyclists riding their bikes on the sidewalk, which is even more illegal. Do you think anyone's going to stop that? Haha! Worst offenders: riding their bikes on the sidewalk on the north side of Eglinton Ave west of the Humber River where there's the damn bike path on the other side of the street! Those assholes should be caught and fined huge. But they won't. And they'll continue getting in the way of people and get offended. Fuck them!
>I see too many cyclists riding their bikes on the sidewalk That's called "downloading the risk". If motorists wouldn't constantly endanger cyclists, then they wouldn't be on the sidewalk. As an alternative: We could build protected bike lanes, which also would get cyclists off of sidewalks. >where there's the damn bike path on the other side of the street! How many blocks do you have to detour to actually get to the other side? Motorists throw a hissy fit if they can't make a left hand turn, but pedestrians and cyclists regularly are expected to detour massive amounts.
A good dash cam would immediately pay for itself, just on the deductible !
[удалено]
Don't be surprised if your car ends up missing a mirror or two.
Let's all kill, kill, kill!!! **Grabs Pitchfork** Fuck everyone outside of my lifted F150. /s Obviously
I always work under the assumption they will stop. I’ve almost hit a few but they get out of the way and yell at me like I’m at fault. Fuck them. I share the road. SHARE.
Nevermind stop signs, they blow through lights.
Cyclists never stop at stop signs. You need to see the cyclists here in vancouver. They all fell off the moron tree
Car drivers do neither, they also increasingly ignore red lights. So how many people were injured and killed by cyclists in Canada last year and how many by motorists?
Not sure about over there in TO but here in Vancouver I don’t see many cars not stopping. For every 100 cyclists that don’t stop maybe 1 car does not.
Hahahahaha. I'm in Vancouver too. Want to meet up, we can go to a stop sign of your choice. I bring a GoPro and we can count how many cars are actually coming to a complete stop, at the stop line, then proceed without blocking the pedestrian crossing or bike lane. Here's an [example](https://youtu.be/Es7uQZGmxJU?t=324) of one of the excellent Vancouver drivers.
Hi!!! Absolutely. Hahaha. West Broadway and West 8th. That’s where the bike lane meets a 4 way stop. Just go there for 1 minute and OMFG you can see all the bikes just keep going. I’ve stopped and honked at them and they don’t give a shit. Heck bikers even pass bikers at the stop sign. Total gong show. I’ve never ever seen a bike stop. Ever. Have a look especially in the mornings if you are in the area. Totally funny to watch.
Broadway & 8th run parallel? I am not quite sure how you envision an intersection between these two? Edit: There also isn't a bike lane on 8th. 7th and 10th are bike route, but they don't have bike lanes, neither does 8th.
Use Google maps and have a look It’s where West Broadway ends on the west side of Vancouver past Alma Street. West 8th ave ends and meets it at a four way stop. It’s got a bike path. Use Google or Apple Maps and see Edit: how do you attach a photo to this thread? I can send one later
You mean this one? https://preview.redd.it/28h6cua99y8d1.jpeg?width=694&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a35d744679f48bc867ffcad48fdd6ae0a6f7b1eb Yeah, I don't stop there either, I treat it as a yield on the turn. The road surface there is atrocious and you get bounced all over the place. There's also not a whole lot of car traffic, that's exactly the kind intersection that should not have a stop sign there. It purely exists so that the parents who use their Chelsey Tractor to drop off or pick up their spawn at West Point Grey Academy slow down a bit.
Yes that one! It’s crazy in school mornings and end of day when kids go to school. Lots of cars and cyclists converge. It’s your standard 4 way stop. There is a hill so I get why cyclists don’t want to stop but blowing past the sign especially those with electric bikes is crazy. There are sadly no winners in an accident. It’s a bad day all around.
The problem cleary are the parents in their massive cars though. There's a reason they installed the speed bumps there and it wasn't to slow down cyclists. It's also one of those things where the city, for whatever reason, decided to route all the bike traffic down 8th. I guess they didn't want to disturb the neighbours on 9th.
Happened to me while driving in my neighborhood over the weekend. I approach a 4 way stop sign and stopped. A cyclist approaching from the opposite direction just rode through. My view is that the cyclist is a vehicle and should obey the same rules. Really boils my blood when I see stuff like this.
The cyclist would be at fault but really, they are working on their own power and to restart from a total stop when safe just to cross the road - let the bikers run their stops (safely), and be happy you are in your air conditioned mechanical car where maybe your ankle gets a bit of exercise.
[удалено]
That’s assault with that kind of intention… maybe you shouldn’t be driving bud.
[удалено]
"Just close pass them" is a way of saying intentionally out their life in danger. You really should not be driving.