Hacker News Reader

Comment by slededit | Hacker News Reader

I've had more near misses with cyclists than with cars in Toronto. While I'm a huge fan of tolling the QEW to encourage more transit - Toronto roads are already pretty hostile to vehicles. Driving downtown is a high stress activity, and I don't see how increasing that even more will lead to fewer road deaths.

Increases in GO service are having an impact, we need to double down there and add congestion tolls to make it even more attractive.

View on HN

This is the attitude discussed in the article. Driver's feel ownership of the road and unfairly blame cyclists and pedestrians for conflicts. This needs to change. Several studies have shown that drivers are at fault in the majority of car/bike collisions.

It's concerning that you've had more near misses with cyclists than cars; those easily turn into deaths. Getting cars to slow down and and share the road on dense urban streets isn't being hostile to cars, it's trying to stop avoidable deaths though good design.

As someone who lives in Toronto, there are some very aggressive cyclists here who do not follow the rules. They run through red lights and stop signs without stopping, weave in and out of traffic, try to bike by cars on the shoulder and freak out on drivers if they happen to have not left enough room for a cyclist to zip past. Not all cyclists in Toronto are like this of course, but I've seen a lot of cyclists who just do whatever they want on the road and get upset when the cars can't anticipate their actions.

With all that said I think it would be a good idea to lower speed limits and install some speeding cameras. I feel there has been an uptick in the number of cyclists on the streets in the past few years and we should keep them safe. Police should also be ticketing the unsafe cyclists as it is clear that they really have no interest in sharing the road with cars. Perhaps police are already ticketing these people at a good rate, but if they are, I've never heard about it. I feel these aggressive cyclists are probably the main contributers to the anti-cyclist sentiment you see among many drivers in Toronto. Showing cyclists and drivers that we aren't going to tolerate that level of irresponsibility would probably help shift public opinion on cyclists in Toronto.

As someone who lives in Toronto, there are some very aggressive drivers here who do not follow the rules. 4 days ago I was clipped by a driver that ran a red light and drove straight into the bike lane without stopping or looking. He then gave me the finger and took off. Not all drivers are like this of course, but I've almost been killed by quite a few.

That being said, I think we should keep anecdotal evidence and personal biases out of the discussion about how to save lives, and stick to the stats, which are abundant and clear.

And this sort of response is why we can never have a real conversation about this topic in Toronto. Not once did I ever say that there aren't terrible drivers in Toronto putting cyclists in danger. I thought this was a pretty clear conclusion just from reading the article. I agree we should change things to make things safer for cyclists. I just wanted to offer my own perspective on where the anti-cyclist sentiment may be coming from in the first place, given how many people I know have complained about aggressive cyclists. The reason these people all hate aggressive cyclists is because they don't want to hurt or kill someone with their car, not because they hate bikes.

I literally gave you the other point of view in the exact format you presented your ideas. If you find that an unreasonable format (and you should), that's on you.

And related: the reason these people all hate aggressive drivers is because they are literally killing scores of people.

I don't really see why the format is unreasonable (when either you or I used it) and I don't disagree with your points on aggressive drivers killing people. That is obviously part of what is happening. I feel we should be implementing rules that make everyone safer. I was only offering another side to the story that the article omitted as it seemed to be slanted against drivers.

You criticized me for using it. It seems you think something about my response is unreasonable.

If you need it spelled out, the disturbing thing about your response if you used anecdotal examples to perpetuate and justify a negative sentiment towards a marginalized group that's being killed. It was in response to an article discussing how anti-cyclist sentiment is dangerous, and how it is killing people. Further, you generalized an entire population based on the actions of a few.

It's a common tactic to pivot every conversation about cyclist and pedestrian deaths into a conversation about how they are aggressive and don't follow rules. This tactic is one of the things preventing a real reduction in deaths in our streets. It's especially frustrating when that's been disproved repeated by studies.

I didn't criticize the format. I was criticizing the fact you're taking a side on the issue, when clearly the issue is more complicated and we need to address both sides if the city is going to come to a solution that is viable. I don't see how anecdotes are off the table for a discussion forum. Maybe if we were using this discussion to draft legislation, sure, let's do some controlled studies. But we are not drafting legislation here. We're talking about peoples opinions: the anti-cyclist sentiment in the city of Toronto. This sentiment is entirely based on the collective personal anecdotes of people who drive in Toronto. I shared a small subset of those anecdotes.

Cyclists are hardly marginalized in Toronto. To be marginalized is to be treated as insignificant. I'm pretty sure no one in Toronto, both drivers and non-drivers, could agree with that statement given the amount of attention cyclists have got over the years in Toronto press and city council.

I also made a point of not generalizing the entire population on the actions of a few. I specifically said, "not all cyclists in Toronto are like this".

There is no tactic being deployed here. I'm on the side of making things safer for everyone, including cyclists, and I feel that means lowering speed limits for drivers and coming down on unsafe cyclists. You want to turn this in to a victim-oppressor type situation when it is clearly not. And this is the problem I have with this whole conversation about cyclists in Toronto.

What attitude? No one has a perfect 360 view all the time while driving. If you are on bike you are part of the traffic, take care accordingly

As a long time resident and a daily pedestrian in downtown Toronto, I have seen far far more cyclists ignoring traffic regulations than car drivers. They feel they own the road and rules don't apply to them - ignoring stop signs, bus/streetcar stops and the safety of pedestrians, expecting everyone including pedestrians to yield to them. But when they are inconvenienced by a car they yell.

When a streetcar stops, you must stop, like all the other vehicles to let the passengers to get on/off, and not try to bully your way through.

If there is a stop sign or it's a red light, you must stop, period. Don't pretend you are just a pedestrian trying to "jaywalk" across.

If cyclists want to use the road, they need to obey the same rules like everyone else. They are not above pedestrians and cars as they think entitled to.

Not stopping at a stop sign is called the “Idaho Stop”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

It is legal elsewhere. Two studies argue that it seems to increase safety on the road.

Stopping when street cars stop is a must, however.

We are talking about Toronto here. Your laws don't automatically apply.

I was speaking as a pedestrian not as a motorist. The cyclists don't stop for pedestrians and will try and weave around you. They also don't follow any of the signage or stoplights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com