Cycling in the land of Sir Ridesalot

[Andrew Chaplin]

<http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>

Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Duane]

On 23/08/2016 6:53 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> <http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
> in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>
>
> Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.
>

Someone is about to pipe up that the cyclist should have been directly
in front of the asshole taxi driver taking the lane for protection.

I will be curious to find out what happens to the taxi driver. The
cyclist is right, this is assault.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

goo.gl/YPmEfh

[ab.ch...@rogers.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:55:46 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:

> Someone is about to pipe up that the cyclist should have been directly
> in front of the asshole taxi driver taking the lane for protection.
>
> I will be curious to find out what happens to the taxi driver. The
> cyclist is right, this is assault.

It appears the taxi driver didn't get the memo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking

[Duane]

Ontario has safe passing distance laws as far as I know. Even without
the lane marking, it didn't look like the taxi was 1 meter from the cyclist.

We had a young woman killed yesterday in Montreal.
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-killed-in-rosemont-collision-1.3038919

The police say that no one was at fault. It's hard to see how you can
have an accident between a truck and a car and have no one at fault.

With all the construction here now the traffic is horrible and drivers
are upset. It doesn't help to have these trucks everywhere either.

This one was used to get the min passing distance law in Quebec passed:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-cycling-report-deaths-injuries-2016-1.3556989

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 8:55 AM, Duane wrote:
> On 23/08/2016 6:53 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> <http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
>>
>> in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>
>>
>> Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.
>>
>
> Someone is about to pipe up that the cyclist should have been directly
> in front of the asshole taxi driver taking the lane for protection.

??? And you DISPUTE that???

This has been discussed on other forums.

The lane is at most 9 feet wide; probably closer to 8 feet. The
cyclists is moving the same speed as the motor vehicle traffic. He
should _definitely_ been in the center of the lane.

And as pointed out on other forums, the sharrows are very badly placed.
They should have been at lane center. There's no point in instructing
cyclists "ride here off to the side, to tempt motorists to squeeze by
you with inches to spare."

> I will be curious to find out what happens to the taxi driver. The
> cyclist is right, this is assault.

Absolutely.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Linked from one of those pages is this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-cycling-groups-wirry-highway-safety-code-modernization-delayed-1.3519434

So it sounds like your advocacy groups are finally working to remove or
modify the blanket "far right" requirement for cyclists. There's hope!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 9:54 AM, Duane wrote:
>

> We had a young woman killed yesterday in Montreal.
> http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-killed-in-rosemont-collision-1.3038919
>
> The police say that no one was at fault. It's hard to see how you can
> have an accident between a truck and a car and have no one at fault.

There's not enough information on that case, but here's one way they
reach that conclusion:

1) They put a bike lane at the curb, to make cyclists feel safe. They
may even paint it green, to make cyclists feel really, really safe.

2) A cyclist and a trucker approach an intersection, or are perhaps
stopped at the intersection. The "safe" cyclist is riding where he's
told to ride by the bike lane, and is totally invisible to the truck driver.

3) The truck driver commences a turn toward the curb. If the cyclist is
moving, he can't stop in time. And whether moving or stationary, he
can't get out of the way. He gets run over by the rear wheels of the
truck or its trailer.

And it's "nobody's fault" because the trucker actually did try hard to
look back, but it was physically impossible to see the cyclist. The
cyclist was just following the propaganda that told him a bike lane
makes him safe. The designers were just following the examples in the
NACTO manual, which essentially says "any bike facility is a good bike
facility" and "we need to try _innovative_ designs! The politicians who
allowed NACTO as a standard were just caving in to what bike advocacy
organizations were demanding.

Maybe it was really the fault of those people who were saying "This is
nuts! You can't put straight-ahead vehicles to the right of right
turning vehicles! Teach cyclists to stay out of trucker blind spots!"

It's their fault because they couldn't get anybody to listen. Because
everyone knows cyclists always belong far to the right. Even if it
kills them.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Are we all watching the same video? Yes, that was an assault. This is not a case where we even need to discuss sinage, bike lanes, AFRAP, etc., etc. This was an assault by a cab driver in retaliation for being delayed, annoyed, disrespected or some other heinous conduct by a bike messenger. The driver should go to jail.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Jail? Like maybe a four-day weekend's worth of it for the
cyclist's scraped knee?

Intentional homicide[1] aggravated by fleeing the scene[2]
only gets you one year if it's a mere cyclist:

http://ktla.com/2016/08/22/driver-gets-1-year-in-jail-in-hit-and-run-crash-that-killed-55-year-old-cyclist-in-laguna-beach/

[1] Police report, "swerved into the cyclist"
[2] This was once a serious crime, maybe no longer? Heck
half the citizenry drives too high to notice a crash, so we
seem to have moved on. There was also at one time 'failure
to render aid' not sure if that stands now either.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

One can always dream. I look forward to Uber/Lyft destroying the taxi industry. I deal with those guys frequently, and they don't give a sh** about anything. They'll hook you while looking you in the eye.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

My point exactly. Being in front of him would have just provided a
better target. This is assault with a deadly weapon IMO.

[Duane]

This had nothing to do with anything about hooks or eye contact. This
guy pointed his car at the rider and tried to knock him down.

[Frank Krygowski]

As I said, it absolutely was an assault. But that does not mean the
cyclist should not have been at lane center. The two ideas are not
mutually exclusive. If the cyclist were at lane center, the event would
not have occurred.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

If the cyclist were at lane center, the cab driver would have stayed
behind him. He'd have had no practical alternative. I make that move
daily, and I've never been attacked.

The details apparent from the video are these: The cyclist hugged the
curb, just as so many do, whether out of timidity, excessive deference,
or just ignorance of safety principles and their rights.

The cab squeezed alongside with far less than appropriate clearance.

The cyclist touched or slapped the cab, probably because he was too
close. (If a motorist is giving adequate safe clearance, a cyclist
wouldn't be able to slap his car.)

The cab driver responded with assault.

If the cyclist were at lane center, the cab driver might have been
irritated, but he'd have stayed back.

> This is assault with a deadly weapon IMO.

On that we agree.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2014/07/a-43-year-old-man-was-taken-to-hospital-in-serious-condition-wednesday-afternoon.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

[jbeattie]

Maybe, but I'm not going to blame a cyclist for riding legally and getting assaulted. And riding lane center doesn't mean the taxi wouldn't have dropped in on him and taken him to the curb. That happens to me with buses quite frequently -- and that's why I'm lane center to begin with.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

What maybe? There's no reason to think this lunatic would not have just
hit the guy from behind. This was NOT an accident caused by visibility
or whatever. It was an intentional attack.

[AMuzi]

On 8/23/2016 1:50 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2014/07/a-43-year-old-man-was-taken-to-hospital-in-serious-condition-wednesday-afternoon.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1
>

A nice example of "eating the lane"

[AMuzi]

One might argue (I would not, but it is a reasonable case)
that had the taxi not strayed into the special use lane and
edged the cyclist, rider would not have thumped the door
(scary - I do that a lot myself) which pissed the taxi
driver to irrationality. Therefore had the cyclist blocked
from the start this would not have happened.

One might also argue that the taxi driver had some prior
frustration and would have run down this guy or any other
random cyclist, half lane or full, and that the door thump
is incidental to the taxi driver's unbalanced mental state.

And so on. Coulda woulda shoulda basically. We weren't there
and we certainly do not know the taxi driver's mental state
or ideation or criminal intent or whatever.

[Duane]

My comment was that I would like to know what happens to the driver.
The only thing that I would argue is that the driver should be in jail
and not driving. More so since the driver drives professionally. At the
least his hack license should be taken away.

The comment that this would become a 'take the lane' issue was just a
side note.

[Frank Krygowski]

Taking your comments out of order:

"And riding lane center doesn't mean the taxi wouldn't have dropped in

on him and taken him to the curb." Yes, that's a common thought - a
variation on "If I leave the gutter, I'm going to get run over!" But
those of us that have actually left the gutter (permanently) don't get
run over.

"That happens to me with buses quite frequently -- and that's why I'm

lane center to begin with." Yes, buses can be a problem. My riding has
never involved lots of bus traffic, but a good friend did have such an
incident. She raised a stink about it with the transit company. I
think if it happened quite frequently, a bike advocacy organization
should make it a priority issue. But don't you think it would happen
even more if you were not at lane center?

"I'm not going to blame a cyclist for riding legally and getting

assaulted." I understand. Certainly, far greater fault is on the taxi
driver, and victim blaming is always a bit distasteful.

But on the other hand, someone somewhere needs to get the word out that
there is a better way to ride. Sports teams and fans watch videos and
discuss what should have been done in a game. Musicians, teachers and
critics discuss musical performances. Military strategists discuss
battles. Why should we not learn from others' mistakes, instead of
making all our own mistakes?

And there certainly are plenty of cyclists who do need to learn that the
gutter is not the best place to ride.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

BTW, FRAP is not "the gutter." I don't think I have the skill to ride in the gutter without hitting my pedal on the curb.

It appears that the cabs usually just go around. http://tinyurl.com/jnqecxd I know what you're saying, but if a car can pass safely in the next lane over, perhaps local law prohibits taking the lane. No matter what, "comparative fault" is not a defense in an assault case.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

+1.

Motive, intent and action are all clearly shown on that video of an assault with a blunt instrument, to wit an automobile.

Andre Jute
Jail the thug, take away his taxi license, get him off the road

[Andre Jute]

We don't need to know the taxi-driver's state of mind. We can see his actions on the film.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with Frank's viewpoint here. That cyclist was in a dangerous position from the start, and it is possible that if he took the lane, the taxi driver would not have come so close to him, he would not have hit the window in protest, and the taxi driver would not have assaulted him. As Jay says, however, none of this exonerates the taxi driver for driving dangerously and illegally nor for committing an assault. His ass should be flung in jail for the maximum the relevant statute permits.

Do you sell the Abus 54 Granit X, Andrew? This is probably the best U-lock you can buy that isn't too heavy to carry on a bike. I don't use it to lock my bike (I have a steering column lock, like on a car, that disables the bike). I carry the 300mm U-lock though, because as an optional extra for it you can buy a quick release clip that fits just under the saddle, and can be arranged so that your hand falls naturally on the release button with your fingers in the curve of the U, and the heavy head already swinging as it comes clear of the clip. It's a very effective three-pound hammer.

Also, if you live in a small community, it is worth making it known that you don't forgive and forget, that if someone knocks you off your bike, you will trash their lives, forever.

Jay will understand why I don't on a public forum offer specific examples of how this works.

Andre Jute
I may be a cyclist but there's nothing submissive about me

[Sir Ridesalot]

If that bicyclist had beeb in front of that taxi the outcome would have been far worse because it would have been a direct impact from straight behind instead of the deflection that it was. had the bicyclist been directly in front of that taxi the taxi would most likely have run right over him. Franik can NOT conceive or understand that sometimes some drivers will NOT slow or stop for a vehicle or bicycle directly in front of them.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

Isn't it amazing tat Frank knows beyond any shadow of a doubt what that taxi driver was thinking and what that taxi driver would have done if the bicyclist had been directly in front of the taxi? I'm willing to bet that the taxi would at least have hit the bicycle from behind had the bicyclist been in front of the taxi rather that at the side. Frank should note thatthe video shows thatthe taxi driver DELIBERATELY aimed his taxi atthe bicycle and knocked it over. Had the bicyclist been infront of that taxi the taxi driver most likely woukld have hit the bicyclist from behind and possible even run him over.

Gads, but I hope Frank never sits on a jury.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 5:47 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:03:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> And there certainly are plenty of cyclists who do need to learn that the
>> gutter is not the best place to ride.
>
> BTW, FRAP is not "the gutter."

Oh, I know! But it's quite common to see people riding literally in the
gutter - that is, on the concrete gutter plan. On certain suburban
streets that have no curb, I regularly see riders in the gravel that's
just off the edge of the pavement, and so on.

> I don't think I have the skill to ride in the gutter without hitting my pedal on the curb.
>
> It appears that the cabs usually just go around. http://tinyurl.com/jnqecxd I know what you're saying, but if a car can pass safely in the next lane over, perhaps local law prohibits taking the lane.

? I don't understand that statement.

In any case, in many states, if a car _cannot_ pass within the lane (and
give, say, three feet of clearance) then the law says a cyclist can take
the lane. What's usually lacking is the cyclist's knowledge that he
_should_ take the lane.

> No matter what, "comparative fault" is not a defense in an assault case.

Right. And I'm not in any way trying to defend the motorist. I'd just
like to improve the behavior of, and thus the conditions for, the cyclists.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 10:12 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Had the bicyclist been infront of that taxi the taxi driver most likely woukld have hit the bicyclist from behind and possible even run him over.
>

:-) Isn't it amazing that "Sir" knows what the taxi driver would have
committed deliberate murder, in the presence of witnesses, if the
cyclist had ridden properly?

Gutter bunnies have rich fantasy lives. Their riding is an unending
series of tragedies narrowly averted. My riding on trafficky suburban
roads is so boring by comparison!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 5:52 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> Motive, intent and action are all clearly shown on that video of an assault with a blunt instrument, to wit an automobile.
>
> Andre Jute
> Jail the thug, take away his taxi license, get him off the road

Let the record show that I do agree with Mr. Jute!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Many states have statutes providing that a bicyclist may take the lane to prevent unsafe passing. When there is a second lane, it seems unreasonable to assume that cars will not pass unsafely. Rather, they will get into the other lane. So, what I am saying is that local law may require the cyclist in the video to ride AFRAP -- which is what he was doing before getting whacked. It may have been a violation of local law to take the lane.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 10:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>>> It appears that the cabs usually just go around. http://tinyurl.com/jnqecxd I know what you're saying, but if a car can pass safely in the next lane over, perhaps local law prohibits taking the lane.
>>
>> ? I don't understand that statement.
>>
>> In any case, in many states, if a car _cannot_ pass within the lane (and
>> give, say, three feet of clearance) then the law says a cyclist can take
>> the lane. What's usually lacking is the cyclist's knowledge that he
>> _should_ take the lane.
>>
>

> Many states have statutes providing that a bicyclist may take the lane to prevent unsafe passing. When there is a second lane, it seems unreasonable to assume that cars will not pass unsafely.

Did you drop an extra negative into that sentence/

> Rather, they will get into the other lane. So, what I am saying is
that local law may require the cyclist in the video to ride AFRAP --
which is what he was doing before getting whacked. It may have been a
violation of local law to take the lane.

OK. But in my experience, and in the experience of most other
non-gutter riders, riding further left causes most motorists to change
lanes. Riding further right causes many to squeeze by, even though it's
no real trouble to change lanes. Apparently, that motion of the
steering wheel is too much labor for lots of drivers.

This is real. I used it today:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/



--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:03:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/23/2016 8:55 AM, Duane wrote:
>> On 23/08/2016 6:53 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>>> <http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
>>>
>>> in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>
>>>
>>> Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.
>>>
>>
>> Someone is about to pipe up that the cyclist should have been directly
>> in front of the asshole taxi driver taking the lane for protection.
>
>??? And you DISPUTE that???
>
>This has been discussed on other forums.
>
>The lane is at most 9 feet wide; probably closer to 8 feet. The
>cyclists is moving the same speed as the motor vehicle traffic. He
>should _definitely_ been in the center of the lane.
>
>And as pointed out on other forums, the sharrows are very badly placed.
>They should have been at lane center. There's no point in instructing
>cyclists "ride here off to the side, to tempt motorists to squeeze by
>you with inches to spare."
>
>> I will be curious to find out what happens to the taxi driver. The
>> cyclist is right, this is assault.
>
>Absolutely.

Are we watching the same Video? What I saw was a cyclist bang on the
side of a taxi with his fist and the taxi immediately turned into the
curb.

Agreed that banging on the side of a car isn't justification for
running down a bicycle but I can certainly see how the response might
occur.

In fact, had the taxi driver immediately jumped out and run around the
front of the taxi and kicked the cyclist a couple of time I wouldn't
have thought that was an extremely unusual reaction.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The amazing thing is that in the Video the cyclist is left on the
ground, perhaps broken and bleeding and perhaps dead. The taxi driver
doesn't seem to be injured at all.

And no one seems to draw any inference at all from those facts.

--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 10:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> >>> It appears that the cabs usually just go around. http://tinyurl.com/jnqecxd I know what you're saying, but if a car can pass safely in the next lane over, perhaps local law prohibits taking the lane.
> >>
> >> ? I don't understand that statement.
> >>
> >> In any case, in many states, if a car _cannot_ pass within the lane (and
> >> give, say, three feet of clearance) then the law says a cyclist can take
> >> the lane. What's usually lacking is the cyclist's knowledge that he
> >> _should_ take the lane.
> >>
> >
> > Many states have statutes providing that a bicyclist may take the lane to prevent unsafe passing. When there is a second lane, it seems unreasonable to assume that cars will not pass unsafely.
>
> Did you drop an extra negative into that sentence/

Yes. Ooops.

>
> > Rather, they will get into the other lane. So, what I am saying is
> that local law may require the cyclist in the video to ride AFRAP --
> which is what he was doing before getting whacked. It may have been a
> violation of local law to take the lane.
>
> OK. But in my experience, and in the experience of most other
> non-gutter riders, riding further left causes most motorists to change
> lanes. Riding further right causes many to squeeze by, even though it's
> no real trouble to change lanes. Apparently, that motion of the
> steering wheel is too much labor for lots of drivers.
>
> This is real. I used it today:
> http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/

Again, I'm just talking about what is legally allowed. Taking the lane just to take the lane may not be allowed on a two lane each way road. I have no idea what the law is in the Canadian provinces.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

The law in Quebec is that the driver has to change lanes if he can't pass
safely, which is now 1 meter up to 50k/h speed limit and 1.5 above that.
The driver has the right to cross a solid line to do this if necessary even
though this is generally prohibited. If the driver can't change lanes he
has to wait until it is safe to do so. The cyclist is required to ride on
the extreme right unless there is an obstacle in his path or he wants to
turn left. We are not even allowed to ride double.

There is no law that a cyclist can take the lane to avoid unsafe passing.
The restriction on the driver serves to protect the cyclist. This of
course is all theoretical and I would do what I need to do to protect
myself but I would not be protected by law if I took the lane out of fear
of a close pass. I am not sure what the laws are in Ontario, other than
they also have a 1 meter safe passing requirement which the taxi driver was
clearly breaking before he decided to attempt murder.

But again I will point out that this was an assault and not a case of the
cyclist being seen.

--
duane

[jbeattie]

I agree, but Frank also has a point that if the driver was not given an opportunity to share the lane, the assault would not have occurred (maybe -- subject to your prior observations). I would just dismiss Frank as engaging in his usual rant about taking the lane except that I do take the lane to herd buses and some vehicles in similar situations where bad interactions are common -- bus zones, taxi zones, etc. There is one place where I probably should take the lane but I don't. It's too scary even for a guy with 40+ years of commuting experience. There are other places where I don't take the lane and Frank would simply because I don't need to, and it would be illegal. Being "prominent" is not one of the reasons a person may take a lane under the UVC.
-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/24/2016 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> There are other places where I don't take the lane and Frank would
simply because I don't need to, and it would be illegal. Being
"prominent" is not one of the reasons a person may take a lane under the
UVC.

I'm curious about where you think I'd take the lane illegally. As I've
said, I do share the lane when it's safe to share.

For me, the more difficult decision occurs on lanes that are about 11 or
12 feet wide. I'll usually share those with something like a Geo Metro.
I won't share those with a dump truck, and the math is pretty easy.
But nowadays I usually default to lane center or thereabouts on those
roads, because I've had too many incidents when I chose to be extra nice
(i.e. excessively deferent) and suffered stupidly close passes.

BTW, I notice that if the first car in a platoon changes lanes at least
partially, then the following cars will do that as well. That gives me
more incentive to ride at lane center as a platoon of cars approaches.

Oh, and the "control and release" thing works really well, too. I
suspect most motorists don't realize I have a mirror. If, in those
marginal lane widths, they have to slow down a bit and then they see me
move a bit rightward, I think the politeness of the rightward move
sticks in their memory more than the very slight delay.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 08-24-2016 05:12, Duane wrote:
> has to wait until it is safe to do so. The cyclist is required to ride on
> the extreme right unless there is an obstacle in his path or he wants to

I would wonder about the definitions of "obstacle" and "path." If
"path" means fifteen centimeters either side of my wheels, then a gust
of wind could make me strike a curb (or an obstacle).

And if a patch of flat gravel (which can lay me down if I'm on a curve)
is not considered an "obstacle" ...

I once made a poster of a truck and a bicycle.
On the truck: "caution—may swerve to avoid cattle"
On the bike: "caution—may swerve to avoid shiny things"

--
Wes Groleau

[Sir Ridesalot]

The problem is that if a driver is suffering a severe case of road rage as the case seems to be here it wouldn't matter one bit where on the road or in the lane the bicyclist was; the driver would still use his vehicle to assault the bicyclist. That's what some people have so much trouble understanding. The angry driver runs into or over a bicyclist or bicyclists and then uses the "I didn't see him defense". That seems to be the case in a lot of those hit from behind assaults on bicyclists where the bicyclist(s) are either severely injured or killed. And that seems to be happening more often. Fortunately in this case there is strong video evidence showing that the driver deliberately ran into that bicyclist. Plus the bicyclist was riding according to the laws and bylaws of Toronto.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

IIRC a bicyclist is allowed to ride 3 feet from the curb. Only an idiot would ride just 15 cm/ 6 inches from any curb. Is that a strawman argument you're making there?

Cheers

[Duane]

My comment about taking the lane was only a note that I knew where this
would go. The issue here was the attack.

[Duane]

On 24/08/2016 12:57 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
> On 08-24-2016 05:12, Duane wrote:
>> has to wait until it is safe to do so. The cyclist is required to
>> ride on
>> the extreme right unless there is an obstacle in his path or he wants to
>
> I would wonder about the definitions of "obstacle" and "path." If
> "path" means fifteen centimeters either side of my wheels, then a gust
> of wind could make me strike a curb (or an obstacle).
>
> And if a patch of flat gravel (which can lay me down if I'm on a curve)
> is not considered an "obstacle" ...

If I ride 15 cm from a curb I think my pedals would hit it. I'm usually
2-3 feet from the curb and gravel is an obstacle in my opinion. I've
never been bothered by cops for avoiding gravel.

>
> I once made a poster of a truck and a bicycle.
> On the truck: "caution—may swerve to avoid cattle"
> On the bike: "caution—may swerve to avoid shiny things"
>

:-)

[Frank Krygowski]

If a motorist is in a truly murderous road rage - which is what you
often seem to be imagining - being off to the side isn't going to help.
But motorists murdering cyclists is more rare than lightning killing
cyclists. Especially in a situation like that, with tons of witnesses.

Again, look at the traffic situation in that video. Very narrow lane,
traffic moving at bicycle speed. Under those conditions, I never, ever
ride anywhere but lane center. That's been true for many decades.
Despite your dire fears, I've not been murdered.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

In Quebec the law says "extreme right" but as I've said, I take that to
mean 3 feet. I've never had a problem with the police either here or in
Ontario.

I have had them stop me when one of our group was outrigging. And I've
heard of people getting stopped when they were doing a rotation and they
had to explain that to the police.

[Frank Krygowski]

On

>
> IIRC a bicyclist is allowed to ride 3 feet from the curb.

Citation? Just curious. That may be in Ontario law, but it's not in
any U.S. state law that I've yet encountered.

>Only an idiot would ride just 15 cm/ 6 inches from any curb. Is that a
strawman argument you're making there?

Please! Just 45 minutes ago I passed yet another cyclist riding facing
traffic. There's no shortage of idiots, and there's certainly no
shortage of gutter bunnies.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/sqeeze-bike-500x282.jpg

https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/transportation/2013/05/29/ontario_bike_policy_needs_tuneup_says_transportation_minister_glen_murray/cycling_1_metre_rule.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x671.jpg

http://images.greatergreaterwashington.org/images/201309/260014-1.png

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtGCPwyxNteWBZmPCQCbgnI16r5kRspvMiKqCprP6HPyyGP-Iq

http://www.labreform.org/blunders/gutter-bunny.jpg

Some of those are not literally 6" from the curb at the moment of the
photo. But I don't doubt that they were all within 6" of the curb, or
the road's edge, at some point in their ride.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[W. Wesley Groleau]

Duane said "extreme right." If three feet away is extreme right, maybe
I should have added "extreme" to my list of words that require definition.

Definitions are important when enforcing laws.

--
Wes Groleau

[Duane]

The Québec Highway Code says extreme right. I interpret that to mean 2-3
feet from the curb. I've never had a cop give me an issue with that.
Given that the driver has to allow me 1 meter that works fine. Of course
that's a in a perfect world. On this planet YMMV and you do what you need
to do. In any case, 6 inches from the curb would not be reasonable for me
as my pedals would hit the curb.

--
duane

[Sir Ridesalot]

hey Duane. i found the Ontario government regulations for bicyclists.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/pdfs/cycling-skills.pdf

3 Riding in Traffic

The Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA) defines the bicycle as a vehicle that belongs on the road. Riding on the road means riding with other traffic. This is only safe when all traffic uses the same rules of the road.

When everyone follows the same rules, actions become more predictable.
Drivers can anticipate your moves and plan accordingly. Likewise, you too can
anticipate and deal safely with the actions of others.

Where do you ride?

Because bicycles usually travel at a lower speed, there are two rules of the road to which cyclists must pay special attention:

1. slower traffic stays right

2. slower traffic must give way to faster traffic when safe and practical
Accordingly, cyclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that it says ONE METER from the curb not 15 cm or 6inches?

Cheers

[jbeattie]

Frank means that these people are not riding lane-center. The true "gutter bunny" is mostly a myth, although some do exist. You can find cyclists doing all sorts of odd things.

Riding lane center is permitted under certain circumstances (as you know), and it has its place. It is not a guaranty of safety, however. I've ridden on the center-line to prevent an SUV from passing on a narrow, twisting road, and it still passed -- in a downhill turn when I pulled slightly to the right. F****** amazing. Some people just don't give a sh**. That was not an isolated event.

That's the deal with riding lane-center. It prevents people from passing unsafely, but the people it prevents are often the same people who would give you three feet and who would not pass unsafely. The unsafe people often pass anyway, and sometimes very closely and aggressively -- as punishment for your taking the lane.

The crazy cab driver could have swooped in from the second lane over and just pushed that cyclist to the curb -- or, as Frank suggests, simply tried to squeeze into the same lane with the cyclists, which could have been thwarted by riding lane-center. The scenario would have then morphed into this -- cab honking for cyclist to get out of the way, and then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYz_yBmbIw8 Those cyclists should have been lane center . . . oh, wait. You just can't protect against crazy people.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

red herring

lettus know what happens to the cabbie wudja ?

he had missed the bike lane idea....

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/24/2016 7:42 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
>
> hey Duane. i found the Ontario government regulations for bicyclists.
>
> http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/pdfs/cycling-skills.pdf
>
> 3 Riding in Traffic
>
> The Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA) defines the bicycle as a vehicle that belongs on the road. Riding on the road means riding with other traffic. This is only safe when all traffic uses the same rules of the road.
>
> When everyone follows the same rules, actions become more predictable.
> Drivers can anticipate your moves and plan accordingly. Likewise, you too can
> anticipate and deal safely with the actions of others.
>
> Where do you ride?
>
> Because bicycles usually travel at a lower speed, there are two rules of the road to which cyclists must pay special attention:
>
> 1. slower traffic stays right
>
> 2. slower traffic must give way to faster traffic when safe and practical
> Accordingly, cyclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Note that it says ONE METER from the curb not 15 cm or 6inches?

Actually, those are not the Ontario government regulations for bicycles.
That's a document consisting of riding advice, some of which may be
good, some bad.

The government regulations are those in the applicable laws, which I
suppose are those in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. Looking there, I see:

"Slow vehicles to travel on right side

"147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal
speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be
driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic OR as close as
practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990,
c. H.8, s. 147 (1)." (Note the "OR" (which I emphasized), not "and.")

I see that in section 156, a bicycle may be ridden on the shoulder; but
there is nothing requiring a bicycle to ride on a shoulder.

But back to your Cycling Skills document, I see that it says:

"Accordingly, cyclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to
the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are

turning left, going faster than other vehicles OR IF THE LANE IS TOO
NARROW TO SHARE."

And: "Stay AT LEAST one metre from curbs in residential areas so that
drivers about to enter the road can see you, and you can see them.
At intersections, IT IS USUALLY BETTER TO TAKE THE LANE before the
intersection so that right-turning motorists stay behind you." (Again,
emphasis is mine.)

Elsewhere, that document says "You may occupy any part of a lane when
your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety for the
convenience of a motorist behind you."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes, I've had people pass in bad circumstances even when I took the
lane. In fact, last Friday on a club ride we had a cop car pass us (no
lights, no siren) in the oncoming lane even though we were lane center.
An oncoming car pulled over to avoid him. There are some jerks out there.

But far, far more often I've had people wait behind until it was safe to
pass, and they've almost never indicated displeasure - maybe 1% of the
time. The VERY few times that someone passed when it wasn't safe and
began to move rightward too soon, my lane center position gave me room
to evade.

I figure those last dolts would have passed me too close if I were near
the curb, and then I'd have had nowhere to go. Especially if a pothole
appeared.

Really, guys, there are reasons that Sir's "Cycling Skills" document
teaches what I'm saying. So does the LAB's bike course. So does the
American Bicycle Education Association's course and the CANBike course.
So does "Street Smarts" and "Effective Cycling" and "Cyclecraft" and...

Well, you get the idea. Or you certainly should!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

Thanks. So it's allowed to take the lane when it's not wide enough to
share. Good to know.

--
duane

[Duane]

No kidding. Saw a guy taking the lane yesterday on my way home by car.
Odd thing is he was coming toward me. Riding against traffic.

> Riding lane center is permitted under certain circumstances (as you
> know), and it has its place. It is not a guaranty of safety, however.
> I've ridden on the center-line to prevent an SUV from passing on a
> narrow, twisting road, and it still passed -- in a downhill turn when I
> pulled slightly to the right. F****** amazing. Some people just don't
> give a sh**. That was not an isolated event.
>

According to Sir's link it's legal to take the lane in Ontario under
certain conditions. I don't think it is here in Quebec except when turning
left. At least not according to the Quebec Highway Safety Code. You do
what you have to though.

> That's the deal with riding lane-center. It prevents people from passing
> unsafely, but the people it prevents are often the same people who would
> give you three feet and who would not pass unsafely. The unsafe people
> often pass anyway, and sometimes very closely and aggressively -- as
> punishment for your taking the lane.
>

Yeah, that's pretty much my experience as well. And now you have to
consider the texters and Pokemon hunters.

> The crazy cab driver could have swooped in from the second lane over and
> just pushed that cyclist to the curb -- or, as Frank suggests, simply
> tried to squeeze into the same lane with the cyclists, which could have
> been thwarted by riding lane-center. The scenario would have then
> morphed into this -- cab honking for cyclist to get out of the way, and
> then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYz_yBmbIw8 Those cyclists should
> have been lane center . . . oh, wait. You just can't protect against crazy people.
>

And carrying weapons is illegal here.


--
duane

[AMuzi]

On 8/24/2016 4:41 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
> On 08-24-2016 14:04, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 12:57:40 PM UTC-4, W.
>> Wesley Groleau wrote:
>>> On 08-24-2016 05:12, Duane wrote:
>>>> has to wait until it is safe to do so. The cyclist is
>>>> required to ride on
>>>> the extreme right unless there is an obstacle in his
>>>> path or he wants to
>>>
>>> I would wonder about the definitions of "obstacle" and
>>> "path." If
>>> "path" means fifteen centimeters either side of my
>>> wheels, then a gust
>>> of wind could make me strike a curb (or an obstacle).
>>>
>>> And if a patch of flat gravel (which can lay me down if
>>> I'm on a curve)
>>> is not considered an "obstacle" ...
>>>
>>> I once made a poster of a truck and a bicycle.

>>> On the truck: "caution—may swerve to avoid cattle"
>>> On the bike: "caution—may swerve to avoid shiny things"

>>>
>>> --
>>> Wes Groleau
>>
>> IIRC a bicyclist is allowed to ride 3 feet from the curb.
>> Only an idiot would ride just 15 cm/ 6 inches from any
>> curb. Is that a strawman argument you're making there?
>
> Duane said "extreme right." If three feet away is extreme
> right, maybe I should have added "extreme" to my list of
> words that require definition.
>
> Definitions are important when enforcing laws.
>

Correct, as in "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

--
Andrew Muzi
<extreme right >

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

the malhuerians an excellent example

[Duane]

The code says:

487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.
1986, c. 91, s. 487; 1990, c. 83, s. 176; 2010, c. 34, s. 69.

Everywhere in the code they use "extreme" left or right when describing
vehicular behavior. I'm not sure, but maybe this is due to the
translation from the original French version:

487. Le conducteur d’une bicyclette doit circuler à l’extrême droite de
la chaussée et dans le même sens que la circulation, sauf s’il s’apprête
à effectuer un virage à gauche, s’il est autorisé à circuler à
contresens ou en cas de nécessité.
1986, c. 91, a. 487; 1990, c. 83, a. 176; 2010, c. 34, a. 69.

And "a l'extreme droite" has some implied meaning that doesn't
translate. I don't think so though.

The S.A.A.Q is the group that enforces this code and their info page
uses the expression "far right" with just a little definition as to what
it means. Like I said, I've never been bothered by the cops for riding

2-3 feet from the curb.

https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says/

But the bit about how you can move left to avoid dooring is something
that is newly specified.

[Duane]

"with just AS litttle definition..."

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

phrase suggests apply intelligence on the ground for the 'extreme' position.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:12:20 PM UTC-4, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> phrase suggests apply intelligence on the ground for the 'extreme' position.

nether messenger nor cabbie appear particularly adroit here......

idea banging on a cabbie's window is a useful method of getting his attention is somewhat farfetched. no more than the retards making turns directly in front of me .....and running stop signs. yeah yeah yeah I should see you...maybe not dimbulb.

[Duane]

Cabbie is supposed to give him 1 meter. I would do the same thing.

[ab.ch...@rogers.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6:53:47 AM UTC-4, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> <http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
> in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>
>
> Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.

They have charged the taxi driver: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-driver-faces-charges-after-video-of-cab-hitting-cyclist-goes-viral-1.3736231.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO

[Duane]

On 26/08/2016 10:20 AM, ab.ch...@rogers.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6:53:47 AM UTC-4, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> <http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
>> in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>
>>
>> Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.
>
> They have charged the taxi driver: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-driver-faces-charges-after-video-of-cab-hitting-cyclist-goes-viral-1.3736231.
>

Good.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

uh sez 'prior altercation' ? as the cabbie is chasing the cyclist ? nutto cabbie....

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/26/2016 10:20 AM, ab.ch...@rogers.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6:53:47 AM UTC-4, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> <http://news.nationalpost.com/news/taxi-knocks-bike-courier-to-the-pavement-
>> in-downtown-toronto-clash-caught-on-video>
>>
>> Note the stenciled "sharrow" marks on the roadway.
>
> They have charged the taxi driver: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-driver-faces-charges-after-video-of-cab-hitting-cyclist-goes-viral-1.3736231.

Excellent - as long as there is a conviction and a significant penalty.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

For fans of instructional videos: https://vimeo.com/122141423


--
- Frank Krygowski