Filip
Senior Member
He will ask you for your correct name and address not ask you to produce a government issued license which has your real particulars.
Aka you can be Art Vandelay to the cop
|
|
|
General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)
- Thread starter rp07
- Start date
Aka you can be Art Vandelay to the cop
steveintoronto
Superstar
Filip
Senior Member
Ya. I'm still not following... How would the cop know you're giving him your real name?
It's all fine and dandy to say it's illegal to lie and you're subject to an additional fine - but how is that verified? It can't be. Just use your judgment and provide a name and address that sound real.
Car drivers don't have that luxury.
It's all fine and dandy to say it's illegal to lie and you're subject to an additional fine - but how is that verified? It can't be. Just use your judgment and provide a name and address that sound real.
Car drivers don't have that luxury.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Do you really think we should mandate that everyone needs to carry ID then? Because there are many offences you can commit without using a car or bicycle.
steveintoronto
Superstar
How do they know that smell in the car is pot? The Law defines "reasonable suspicion".
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
Then they don't know; until they find out. If they do find out then an obstruction of justice charge, in addition to whatever other fine, will apply.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Indeed, and if the cops have a suspicion it's not real, like in your stating "My name is Art Vandelay", they have every right, if not responsibility to call the name in to check for authenticity. If there is no record of such a person, they can then ask for some way to authenticate the veracity of the name given. Failing that, they can take the person into custody if they have committed an offence under the HTA until such time as they are satisfied that the person is identified to lay the charge.
Filip's initial claim of (gist) "Cyclists don't have to abide by the law like we motorists" is baseless, and the claim becomes tedious and stale. As stale as the "cyclists don't pay taxes" spiel.
I'm one of the first to lambaste errant cyclists, but that doesn't mean for a moment that I don't do same for motorists. The bottom line is we *all* have to follow the intent of the law, if not the detail.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I'd like to get the take on an event today from other posters, many of you are responsible and thinking people.
I'm headed south on Ronces about 5:00 PM, doing a fair clip on the stretch in front of the library, and then due to an altercation with a motorist, I had to brake medium hard, just back wheel, no skidding, not a panic stop, but my machine is a well-tuned device and stops in short distance. Cyclist behind me starts yelling at me: "Signal if you're going to stop, you &^%#$". I lost it with the guy, and told him to get the F%^$ off my tail. "If you can't stop in time, you're too close". Long story short, he had second thoughts about sticking around to argue...lol...but it's yet one more instance of cyclists not having a clue as to what the law and protocol requires. If you are a motorist, and you have to stop suddenly due to an event, and you get rear-ended, the fault is the driver behind who's too close. The required distance between vehicles is measured by your speed and distance to stop.
Why is that so impossible for so many cyclists to understand? I also got "cut under" (as the Brits say) on College today, an idiot cyclist who passed me on the *curb side* behind a parked car just as I was accelerating away next to a streetcar I'd stopped beside as required by law (and common sense). I continued to be appalled as to how many truly awful cyclists there are in this city. The irony is that I could blow them away on a racetrack. But the road is NOT a racetrack. It's linear Russian Roulette.
But back to the following too close: Anyone think that it doesn't apply to cyclists, and why not?
I'm headed south on Ronces about 5:00 PM, doing a fair clip on the stretch in front of the library, and then due to an altercation with a motorist, I had to brake medium hard, just back wheel, no skidding, not a panic stop, but my machine is a well-tuned device and stops in short distance. Cyclist behind me starts yelling at me: "Signal if you're going to stop, you &^%#$". I lost it with the guy, and told him to get the F%^$ off my tail. "If you can't stop in time, you're too close". Long story short, he had second thoughts about sticking around to argue...lol...but it's yet one more instance of cyclists not having a clue as to what the law and protocol requires. If you are a motorist, and you have to stop suddenly due to an event, and you get rear-ended, the fault is the driver behind who's too close. The required distance between vehicles is measured by your speed and distance to stop.
Why is that so impossible for so many cyclists to understand? I also got "cut under" (as the Brits say) on College today, an idiot cyclist who passed me on the *curb side* behind a parked car just as I was accelerating away next to a streetcar I'd stopped beside as required by law (and common sense). I continued to be appalled as to how many truly awful cyclists there are in this city. The irony is that I could blow them away on a racetrack. But the road is NOT a racetrack. It's linear Russian Roulette.
But back to the following too close: Anyone think that it doesn't apply to cyclists, and why not?
BurlOak
Senior Member
I got hit from behind (car on car) - about $5k damages. When the police arrived, the first thing they did was ask me to get in the car and step on brake. Presumably, if my brake lights didn't work (and maybe the driver behind says the same), then it would be my fault for not signaling a stop.
Is it not require for all vehicles to signal turns and stops?
Is it not require for all vehicles to signal turns and stops?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
As a former CAN-Bike instructor, I'm a pretty by-the-book cyclist, but I don't think I've ever signaled to stop on a bike outside of class. At a routine stop like a stop/yield sign, open streetcar, or red signal, it's obvious I'd stop so there's no point of signalling. And in a non-routine situation like the one you described, the last thing you'd want to do is take a hand off the handlebars. I do signal when I'm pulling over, but in that case I use a left or right signal rather than a stop signal, to avoid any confusion (people often get "right" and "stop" mixed up).
However, HTA Section 142(8) does technically require all vehicles (including bicycles) to signal stops:
Interestingly, you only need to signal turns when there are other people around who might be affected:
I have considered wiring up brake lights on my bike, though I haven't done so because I doubt i could make it waterproof enough to withstand day-to-day use. The wiring would be pretty easy: connect one end of the circuit to the handle and the other end to the handlebar just under the handle, so that when the handle is pulled it completes the circuit.
Last edited:
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Signalling is also required for lane changes, but most road users don't seem to bother.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Looks like I've hit on an interesting point.
My quick check (far from thorough, I'll keep digging) shows this from MTO:
No mention of signalling a stop there or at the end listing applicable signalling and other aspects of the HTA pertinent to cyclists.
The Ontario HTA does stipulate "headway" and "following too close". But I'm now trying to determine if that applies to bicycles (I find the terms "motor vehicle or streetcar"). I suspect that in an emergency stop, a cyclist would be exempt from having to signal, in any manner, "coming to a safe stop" would trump all other stipulations, and the onus would be on those following to leave enough distance to also stop. But still digging.
Edit to Add: Slogging through the HTA, from my read, Reaper's quoted clause above is not applicable to bicycles, that section is aimed at motor vehicles, and a note below the section adds in "streetcars", but makes no mention of bicycles. This might be a legal loophole, I'll continue digging tomorrow, but did trip across this, ostensibly not yet proclaimed:
Interesting, in a number of ways...
My quick check (far from thorough, I'll keep digging) shows this from MTO:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/pdfs/cycling-skills.pdf
No mention of signalling a stop there or at the end listing applicable signalling and other aspects of the HTA pertinent to cyclists.
The Ontario HTA does stipulate "headway" and "following too close". But I'm now trying to determine if that applies to bicycles (I find the terms "motor vehicle or streetcar"). I suspect that in an emergency stop, a cyclist would be exempt from having to signal, in any manner, "coming to a safe stop" would trump all other stipulations, and the onus would be on those following to leave enough distance to also stop. But still digging.
Edit to Add: Slogging through the HTA, from my read, Reaper's quoted clause above is not applicable to bicycles, that section is aimed at motor vehicles, and a note below the section adds in "streetcars", but makes no mention of bicycles. This might be a legal loophole, I'll continue digging tomorrow, but did trip across this, ostensibly not yet proclaimed:
Interesting, in a number of ways...
Last edited:
Because you can't always use your hand to signal, I always call out "stopping" when doing so
W. K. Lis
Superstar
There are accessories for a bicycle brake light.
steveintoronto
Superstar
There's a few rear "brake lights" available, but I'm not sure it addresses the problem. The guy was right on my tail, and may not even have been looking. A brake light wouldn't have made any difference. He might have been drafting me, a very dangerous and probably illegal offence as defined when cyclists do it with vehicles. (can't even find that defined in the HTA, "following too close" applies to "motor vehicles and streetcars". )
Lucy's point gets very close to the issue though. I have a bell on my machine, but be damned if I'm got to waste precious milliseconds in an emergency stop....I do similar to Lucy: I fffing scream for forward situations. It's reflexive and far louder than a bell...which in practice, is a bit of an absurdity save for courtesy when passing pedestrians on shared paths, or for the litany of idiot drivers who step right into your path to open their doors on you. If they don't respond to the bell, umm...more severe measures are taken.
I'll keep digging, but every tag I've used to search hasn't rendered a result yet. There must be some court case precedents.
Quick Edit to Add: Now that downtown lanes are getting packed, you see it all the time, I've seen posters in this forum talk of (gist) "six or seven of us in a snake". Someone is going to get seriously hurt (or I'm sure, already has been) by doing that on roads with sewer grates misaligned and potholes. It's a very dangerous practice, even on velodromes, albeit in proper racing, the risks are known and accepted, and people do get seriously hurt. But the roads are not a place to do that. Ditto with passing. There's been many times I've held back from blasting past the person in front because it's just not safe to do so, and then a number of idiot cyclists go flying by in the main lane of traffic almost getting clipped, putting themselves and others in danger doing it.
It's idiotic if you're a motorist, and absolutely no better if you're a cyclist. In the event, I pass all the idiots later when safe to do so. I'm a powerful cyclist.
Late Edit to Add: Interesting article in the UK Guardian on drafting. Bear in mind the context assumes other cyclists doing this being aware of each other and of protocol, somewhat idealistic when dealing with Toronto cyclists. The reader comments are far more realistic and well considered. (click on the 'view more comments' button)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/25/cycling-commuter-drafting-etiquette
Last edited: