[UncleWede]

The above example is the very definition of failure to yield, certainly violates the 4 Ss. What say you, Sedan_Clan ?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Cyclists are unbearable in my area, they use bust roads and are NEVER in single file, EVER. no way to go around them and traffic snarls to a halt.

Bunch of cocks, all of them.

Originally Posted by Alfisti

I am talking on lakeshore between say Brown's Line and Port Credit, amazing the attitude they have considering they pay for none of the road use. A blight on the area, the lot of them.

They are going to get killed one day because they REFUSE to go single file, eventually someone will try to pass them when they shouldn't, will realise this and swerve back to the left to miss oncoming traffic and will mow the bike riders down.

Mark my words.

Wow, not sure how i missed seeing these. These posts smack of the Facebook page belonging to the hate filled man who killed the 5 cyclists.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I'm trying to envision this...so are you saying that a driver passed you, basically then cut in front of you and immediately slammed on his brakes to make a right, say 15 ft in front of you? Like, if you were a car, you would have rear-ended him?

Yes.

And not "like" he would have hit them, he did hit them, while on his bike.

According to the OP of the tread that is.

Road bikes don't have fantastic brakes. And while they are sufficient for normal use, emergency braking is almost nil because of the microscopic amount of tire contact patch. There just isn't enough contact with the pavement to provide any aggressive stopping.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

This is the reason I asked my first question. So, what you are saying is that if someone in the lane two your left starts slowing down and signals a turn across your lane (on his right) it is your job to slam on the brakes and let him turn across your lane? It sounds like your assertion is that the bike lane is not a "lane".

If you want to go with "isn't a lane", then who has right of way when someone is on the sidewalk. Does the car mow him down, or is the pedestrian's job to stop and wave the car on before crossing.

Your position is confusing.

I guess the way I would look at it is whether there is a defined bike lane or shoulder that a cyclist is riding in or if they are riding in the same lane with automobile traffic. If I am on a road with a bike lane or shoulder and need to make a right turn, I will yield to the cyclist. If a cyclist "takes the lane" as mentioned and is riding behind me, they are riding in the same lane of traffic and should see when I signal to make a turn and slow down if necessary as I make the turn. In this situation, the cyclist should not be shooting around the right side of the car before it has made its turn.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

I guess the way I would look at it is whether there is a defined bike lane or shoulder that a cyclist is riding in or if they are riding in the same lane with automobile traffic. If I am on a road with a bike lane or shoulder and need to make a right turn, I will yield to the cyclist. If a cyclist "takes the lane" as mentioned and is riding behind me, they are riding in the same lane of traffic and should see when I signal to make a turn and slow down if necessary as I make the turn. In this situation, the cyclist should not be shooting around the right side of the car before it has made its turn.

Excellent point.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I'm trying to envision this...so are you saying that a driver passed you, basically then cut in front of you and immediately slammed on his brakes to make a right, say 15 ft in front of you? Like, if you were a car, you would have rear-ended him?

I ask, because this scenario is difficult for me to envision anyone doing (nor have I seen it). If you are that close to your turn, why pass in the first place? But if this is the case, I totally agree with you - that shouldn't happen.

On the other hand, if he was braking say 100 ft up the road to make his turn (and I could see why he would pass in this case) - then I don't see why he has to yield to a cyclist - they should yield to him if they consider themselves to have a right to the road. Simple thing - if you feel you have rights to the road, then respect other people's right of way too and stop...even if that means more energy expended to get going again.

Because this is my pet peeve - seems like most cyclists I see think that no rules of the road apply to them, but they definitely want all the rights of the road.

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

This is the reason I asked my first question. So, what you are saying is that if someone in the lane two your left starts slowing down and signals a turn across your lane (on his right) it is your job to slam on the brakes and let him turn across your lane? It sounds like your assertion is that the bike lane is not a "lane".

If you want to go with "isn't a lane", then who has right of way when someone is on the sidewalk. Does the car mow him down, or is the pedestrian's job to stop and wave the car on before crossing.

Your position is confusing.

Hmm, I've re-read what I wrote, but I'm still not sure where I was unclear enough for you to draw the conclusion you have. So first let me explain my post in a different way.

In my first paragraph, I'm saying if someone cuts in front of a bicyclist (in this case, though it really doesn't matter whether it was a bike, vehicle, or person) and immediately makes a turn, then they are wrong. I suspect we can all agree on this. If a car made a right from the left lane beside you directly in front of you, it would be considered his fault.

However (second paragraph), if same said car passes same said object, merges over, and decides to make a right hand turn say 100ft in front of the cyclist, then I am saying that the cyclist does not have the right of way to keep on going straight. Because every vehicle (and a bicycle is really a vehicle in essence) is required to stop when the vehicle in front of it is stopping to make a turn. So in this case, I'm saying it is the cyclist duty to stop and yield, not the motorists.

I'm not sure if that makes it clearer or muddles it further...hopefully clearer.

To address your post, the scenario where I live and therefore where I'm coming from (I live more out in the country and where I see cyclists there are no separate bike lanes - its just a road that we share, even in the city this is true) - it is a lane, but it is a lane that we share. They are in front of me, so I yield to them until I can safely pass, and then they must yield to me if I'm in front of them (again, not a scenario where I cut them off to make a turn 10 ft in front of them - I'm talking common lane changes executed by drivers in a normal situation). So it is a lane, but it is shared. And they ought to have the same rules of the road apply to them as every other driver obeys.

Edit: Thinking about this more, maybe you have dedicated bike lanes where you are from? Because I could start to see what you are saying if there are separate dedicated bike lanes they ride in...I just don't have the same where I live, so my way of looking at things would be different.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Wow, not sure how i missed seeing these. These posts smack of the Facebook page belonging to the hate filled man who killed the 5 cyclists.

Really?

The law clearly states they are to cycle in single file so drivers can safely pass. They never do, forcing motorists to either sit there at a snail's pace and hear the honks from the growing line up behind them or they are forced into passing when it's not really on.

How on earth is that my issue?

Cyclists are right up there with teachers in this province, totally out of control.

[Joekerr]

Hmm, while I was typing out my little essay above, I see JasonCSU summarized basically what I was trying to say, I think he and I are basically saying the same thing.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Really?

The law clearly states they are to cycle in single file so drivers can safely pass. They never do, forcing motorists to either sit there at a snail's pace and hear the honks from the growing line up behind them or they are forced into passing when it's not really on.

How on earth is that my issue?

Cyclists are right up there with teachers in this province, totally out of control.

I don't know the laws where you are.

In the US, that is not a law. It's not a law because it creates a dangerous situation.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Hmm, while I was typing out my little essay above, I see JasonCSU summarized basically what I was trying to say, I think he and I are basically saying the same thing.

Yeah, I had a feeling that is what you were saying.

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

Yeah, I had a feeling that is what you were saying.

Thanks for clarifying. It all makes sense now. Joekerr , I get it. Yes, if you are in the same lane, no way should they essentially try to "go around you" or "pass on the shoulder", which is how I would be seeing this.

Sorry... couldn't see what you were saying. Got it!