Topic: One meter rule

[mmret]

Cyclists do pay income tax, property tax, etc which all pay for roads. Cycles do not operate on highways, which I'm pretty sure gas taxes would hardly cover maintaining.

Sure cyclists can duck responsibility, but so can drunk drivers, pedestrians, and anyone associated with the police force.

Downtown, especially in Toronto, the issue is that there is too much real estate allowed to single occupant cars with insufficient bike infrastructure. This slows down cyclists and transit users who can use the space more efficiently. As much as I love cars ( we're on a car forum!), motorists do not cover the cost of infrastructure. A mild inconvenience to those sitting on their asses in a climate controlled controlled box doesn't seem reason enough to ban cyclists on the streets.

Re the 1m rule meet: the whole point of the gap is to allow the cyclist some space to swerve, be it to avoid a chipmunk or pothole

This is a lot of speculation so I'll give you some of my own. The typical Toronto cyclist pays far less in taxes than the typical Toronto motorist. They simply have different levels of income on average.

As for swerving? Why not just stop and wait. Like they expect the cars to stop and wait. Why is the onus always on the driver? (A bit part of the answer is the difficulty in enforcing rules upon cyclists but that's a stupid reason.)

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[quadzilla]

This is a lot of speculation so I'll give you some of my own. The typical Toronto cyclist pays far less in taxes than the typical Toronto motorist. They simply have different levels of income on average.

I know my population sample is different but the people I rode with in TO had very good double incomes, house(s), two or three cars and bikes that cost quit a bit of money ($4-10K). Some even wore Rapha clothing

The people I ride with here in Cambridge are teachers, lawyers, doctors, professionals, etc.

[mmret]

This is a lot of speculation so I'll give you some of my own. The typical Toronto cyclist pays far less in taxes than the typical Toronto motorist. They simply have different levels of income on average.

I know my population sample is different but the people I rode with in TO had very good double incomes, house(s), two or three cars and bikes that cost quit a bit of money ($4-10K). Some even wore Rapha clothing

The people I ride with here in Cambridge are teachers, lawyers, doctors, professionals, etc.

Those guys are probably not the types to ride the wrong way down a one way street while lane splitting, though, or weave around between lanes without holding onto the handle bars and without a helmet.

Different categories. As I mentioned earlier I feel there are two classes of cyclists - those who do it for enjoyment (often who live in the burbs) and those who live in the core and use it as a form of rapid + cheap transportation (DIRTY HIPPIES )

[Triple Bob]

This is a lot of speculation so I'll give you some of my own. The typical Toronto cyclist pays far less in taxes than the typical Toronto motorist. They simply have different levels of income on average.

I know my population sample is different but the people I rode with in TO had very good double incomes, house(s), two or three cars and bikes that cost quit a bit of money ($4-10K). Some even wore Rapha clothing

The people I ride with here in Cambridge are teachers, lawyers, doctors, professionals, etc.

I have to agree, what a ridiculous amount of assumption in this thread.  Everyone I ride with has six figure incomes.  Who cares who pays what taxes, we should be able to share the roads.

[Ex-airbalancer]

A person can be jerk , no matter what income they have

[OliverD]

A person can be jerk , no matter what income they have

Or what kind of vehicle they're driving.

[pi314]

If a car is behind a bike and needs to pass, the onus is on the driver behind to pass safely. I think the one meter rule helps define 'safely'. Once a car is in front (assuming a safe pass was executed) It makes sense the bicycle behind must yield.

Bicycles are also allowed to occupy an entire lane, which is something inpatient  drivers have a problem with  . But in downtown situations where there is no bike lane it makes sense to do so - how much faster than 30km/h does traffic really move in rush hour?

http://www.bikeottawa.ca/index.php/safe-cycling/46-cycling-and-the-highway-traffic-act-in-ontario

I agree that people driving the wrong way, etc should get ticketed. They do that a lot in Montreal. In fact, in Québec demerit points wait for you, even if you don't have a driver license yet.

I also don't think we really disagree on anything, except you seem to run into a lot more idiot cyclists. I don't really drive that much in downtown Toronto but in Montreal  I've found the cyclists to be fine. Same with Ottawa. Again,r his is generally speaking.

Cyclists do pay income tax, property tax, etc which all pay for roads. Cycles do not operate on highways, which I'm pretty sure gas taxes would hardly cover maintaining.

Sure cyclists can duck responsibility, but so can drunk drivers, pedestrians, and anyone associated with the police force.

Downtown, especially in Toronto, the issue is that there is too much real estate allowed to single occupant cars with insufficient bike infrastructure. This slows down cyclists and transit users who can use the space more efficiently. As much as I love cars ( we're on a car forum!), motorists do not cover the cost of infrastructure. A mild inconvenience to those sitting on their asses in a climate controlled controlled box doesn't seem reason enough to ban cyclists on the streets.

Re the 1m rule meet: the whole point of the gap is to allow the cyclist some space to swerve, be it to avoid a chipmunk or pothole

This is a lot of speculation so I'll give you some of my own. The typical Toronto cyclist pays far less in taxes than the typical Toronto motorist. They simply have different levels of income on average.

As for swerving? Why not just stop and wait. Like they expect the cars to stop and wait. Why is the onus always on the driver? (A bit part of the answer is the difficulty in enforcing rules upon cyclists but that's a stupid reason.)

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[mmret]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Fobroader]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

As always....its always the cars fault....

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[tenpenny]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

If a doctor is mowing his lawn when a meteorite hits the neighbor's SUV, causing a fire that evacuates a small village, who is at fault?




Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[pi314]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

If you pass a tractor, and it collides with you, isn't it at fault? The same rules apply, except you can pass closer to one

In my eyes, unless the reason the cyclist swerves and collides would have made the pass an unsafe one, the cyclist would be at fault.

Tenpenny's answer also works :p

The entire scenario is rather unlikely but that's what my understanding of the rules are.

Question for the masses: With no fault insurance in Ontario, in mmret's scenario would the  insurance company pay for the car damage and then go after the cyclist's family?

[mmret]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

If you pass a tractor, and it collides with you, isn't it at fault? The same rules apply, except you can pass closer to one

In my eyes, unless the reason the cyclist swerves and collides would have made the pass an unsafe one, the cyclist would be at fault.

And what reasons would those be ? Cyclist swerves to avoid a squirrel or a pothole and now it's the driver's fault? Are drivers now responsible for the actions of squirrels?

In the aftermath of the Darcy whatever / Michael Bryant debacle there were op eds in the Globe of all places saying words to the effect that "in these situations, the car is always at fault, because it is bigger" . moronic. But I strongly suspect this is the inherent view of many. 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Triple Bob]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

If you pass a tractor, and it collides with you, isn't it at fault? The same rules apply, except you can pass closer to one

In my eyes, unless the reason the cyclist swerves and collides would have made the pass an unsafe one, the cyclist would be at fault.

moronic.   

Like many of the questions and answers in this thread.

[mmret]

Just answer me this question. Assume a driver is passing a cyclist. Driver gives the cyclist the required 1m and passes at a reasonable speed (say 10km/h faster). While the pass is in progress, the cyclist swerves left (reason unknown). The driver is unable to react as they are out of space, and in any case the situation happened too quickly for the driver to reasonably react especially given that the cyclist was in the driver's blind spot by that time. A collision occurs aa the cyclist collides into the car, gets knocked off and hits his head and dies from brain trauma.

Who is at fault ?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

If you pass a tractor, and it collides with you, isn't it at fault? The same rules apply, except you can pass closer to one

In my eyes, unless the reason the cyclist swerves and collides would have made the pass an unsafe one, the cyclist would be at fault.

moronic.   

Like many of the questions and answers in this thread.

I assume you are referring to my hypothetical scenario.

In that case, dear Bob, how is this rule to be applied? How is it to be governed? What are the responsibilities of drivers? What are the responsibilities (assuming there are any, which doesn't seem to be the case) of cyclists?

pi314 asserts that there is a scenario where a pass that begins as a safe pass can be made unsafe at the fault of the driver due to the movement of the cyclist. What is this scenario? What are the principles that govern fault in such a scenario and can we generalize them to an overall framework of fault determination?

In other words does this policy hold up from an ethical and logical perspective, or is it ultimately just convenience and politics?

[HeliDriver]

^^ Not sure why it has to be black and white as far as who's at fault. If there's a serious accident, insurance companies and the courts will fight over how the blame is assigned.

If you only give the cyclist a bare minimum 1m clearance, and he swerves for a squirrel and dies, then, yeah, I think the car driver should possibly share some percentage (10-20-30%?) of fault. Pretty sure that's how these things work in the real world.

[Fobroader]

^^ Not sure why it has to be black and white as far as who's at fault. If there's a serious accident, insurance companies and the courts will fight over how the blame is assigned.

If you only give the cyclist a bare minimum 1m clearance, and he swerves for a squirrel and dies, then, yeah, I think the car driver should possibly share some percentage (10-20-30%?) of fault. Pretty sure that's how these things work in the real world.

Yeah but if you swerve into another car in your car because you are trying to get around a squirrel, you would be 100% at fault.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^^ Not sure why it has to be black and white as far as who's at fault. If there's a serious accident, insurance companies and the courts will fight over how the blame is assigned.

If you only give the cyclist a bare minimum 1m clearance, and he swerves for a squirrel and dies, then, yeah, I think the car driver should possibly share some percentage (10-20-30%?) of fault. Pretty sure that's how these things work in the real world.

Yeah but if you swerve into another car in your car because you are trying to get around a squirrel, you would be 100% at fault.

A car passing a car, or motorcycle for that matter, has to pass by moving completely into the other lane. In this instance, the bicycle and the car are sharing the same lane, and this legislation is specifying a minimum distance to safely make that pass.

[HeliDriver]

^^ Not sure why it has to be black and white as far as who's at fault. If there's a serious accident, insurance companies and the courts will fight over how the blame is assigned.

If you only give the cyclist a bare minimum 1m clearance, and he swerves for a squirrel and dies, then, yeah, I think the car driver should possibly share some percentage (10-20-30%?) of fault. Pretty sure that's how these things work in the real world.

Yeah but if you swerve into another car in your car because you are trying to get around a squirrel, you would be 100% at fault.

Maybe, although I bet a good lawyer could get that percentage reduced for you. 

An acquaintance once rear ended a car on the highway because the driver in front braked to a full stop for a squirrel. Guess who was found 100% at fault for that?

[Fobroader]

^^ Not sure why it has to be black and white as far as who's at fault. If there's a serious accident, insurance companies and the courts will fight over how the blame is assigned.

If you only give the cyclist a bare minimum 1m clearance, and he swerves for a squirrel and dies, then, yeah, I think the car driver should possibly share some percentage (10-20-30%?) of fault. Pretty sure that's how these things work in the real world.

Yeah but if you swerve into another car in your car because you are trying to get around a squirrel, you would be 100% at fault.

Maybe, although I bet a good lawyer could get that percentage reduced for you. 

An acquaintance once rear ended a car on the highway because the driver in front braked to a full stop for a squirrel. Guess who was found 100% at fault for that?

Breaking on a highway for a squirrel fully deserves that moron to be at fault.....sorry Chip, or Dale, you are going down.

[HeliDriver]

^^ Not sure why it has to be black and white as far as who's at fault. If there's a serious accident, insurance companies and the courts will fight over how the blame is assigned.

If you only give the cyclist a bare minimum 1m clearance, and he swerves for a squirrel and dies, then, yeah, I think the car driver should possibly share some percentage (10-20-30%?) of fault. Pretty sure that's how these things work in the real world.

Yeah but if you swerve into another car in your car because you are trying to get around a squirrel, you would be 100% at fault.

Maybe, although I bet a good lawyer could get that percentage reduced for you. 

An acquaintance once rear ended a car on the highway because the driver in front braked to a full stop for a squirrel. Guess who was found 100% at fault for that?

Breaking on a highway for a squirrel fully deserves that moron to be at fault.....sorry Chip, or Dale, you are going down.

Right, but the guy behind is actually the one at fault. You're always supposed to maintain a safe following distance and be prepared for the people around you to do moronic and unpredictable things.