Velocipedes, always controversial
The Patrimoine blog has a collection of velocipede pieces which chimes well with a recent story asking the question why, if a cyclist gets a ticket, they also lose demerit points off their drivers’ licence if they have a licence.
Ephraim 13:06 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Bigger question… why don’t all bicyclists over the age of 16 have to have a licence and know the rules of the road. Maybe it will lead to less accidents?
Kate 13:14 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Is that kind of thing mandatory anywhere?
Bert 13:18 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Why should we base our laws on what other people do?
I think that it is only right that someone earn the right to use the roads. Using the roads is a privilege, not a right. Further, if cyclists require licenses, perhaps they should also pay a licensing fee to put a bike on the road and pay for insurance covering property and personal damages.
Robert J 13:20 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
My driving instructor explained to me that demerit points earned by cyclists over 16 are kept on reserve even when they don’t have a license, then added immediately when they get a learner’s permit (which often causes them to have to immediately retake the exam, because demerit point are doubled for learners!).
I think they should have separate legislation for cyclists. There should be heavy fines, not demerit points. Bikes don’t weigh a ton and roll at 50 km/h. And there are enough barriers for people wanting to cycle in the city.
Kate 13:52 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
And what about pedestrians? Surely people should get some kind of permit before being allowed to cross at Montreal’s intersections. Pedestrians have even been known to cause motorists to run into them, and sometimes they bump into other pedestrians! There should be heavy fines AND demerits for anyone caught crossing the street without a pedestrian licence!
David Tighe 14:11 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Of course there should be at least some modifications of driving rules for cyclists. For example, allow right turns at red lights when it can be done safely. This will enable us to get out of the way of turning vehicles, especially trucks and buses.
Ian 14:53 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
I’d be happy to see the police simply enforcing the existing rules, ticketing jaywalkers, cyclists on the sidewalk, drivers that talk on their cellphones… We don’t need new rules if we aren’t even enforcing the existing ones.
Bert 15:33 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Kate, of course pedestrians should have permits. Of course, the cost of these would be less since less of the roadway is used, due to the relative surface area of the person and that less of the overall roadway is used, i.e. sidewalk usage.
Ian, I think your idea is quite levelheaded and comes right to the point.
William 15:38 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Man, I’m so tired of these “I’m a road user and I’m a victim” stories.
Alex L. 15:51 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Idem William. Get over it people. Cyclists have been around before cars, and I bet they’re there to stay.
John B 16:07 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
@Bert: While we’re at it, let’s make the price of the pedestrian permit relative to the size of the pedestrian.
Matt 16:17 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
There are irresponsible drivers and cyclists. I ride my bike according to the rules of the road and it irks me when I see other cyclists riding in the wrong direction and burning red lights (without slowing down to check, ahem). What irks me even more is when an angry motorist behaves with a guy on a bike like he would with a guy in a Range Rover.
Steph 17:29 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Robert is right, demerit points given to someone without a drivers license will carry and be deducted when the ticketed person finally does get a drivers license. I’m not sure they count double but I do know that someone with a new license has a probation license and they only get 3 points to start off with, add a pre-existing ticket and can leave that person with 1 point when they get their license.
I personally don’t understand anyone taking issue with the police ticketing citizens for existing laws. Considering I find it easy to follow the rules of the road, I’m happy that those that can’t fill the purse of the city & government; less taxes for me.
Chris 20:50 on 2012/02/24 Permalink
Kate, you took the words out of my mouth. Bert, you’re kidding right?
A cyclist running a stop/red is not the same as a motorist doing so. Both are wrong, but the damage to society is greater in the latter case, and as such the punishment should be greater. The punishment now is equal, which is nuts.
Drivers get away with murder. Just yesterday a driver killed a pedestrian (crossing on green) and no charges are being laid!!! Yet cyclists get demerits for running a stop?!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/02/23/montreal-papineau-pedestrian.html
jeather 11:54 on 2012/02/25 Permalink
I am all for cyclists getting fined while biking the wrong way in the middle of a one way street, or on the sidewalk. I am all for reasonable rules for cyclists about red lights and stop signs, and cyclists getting fined for not following them. (I assume we could find some reasonable rules in a cycling culture, perhaps the Netherlands.) But I don’t understand how this affects your driver’s license; as far as I know, crossing on a red light as a pedestrian doesn’t give me demerit points, though it’s also thesame action.
ant6n 12:27 on 2012/02/25 Permalink
“I think that it is only right that someone earn the right to use the roads.”
Road spaces are public spaces and for everyone;
What you have to earn is the right to drive a 1-ton vehicle at 50km/h 1m past cyclists in an urban area.
Michael Black 12:41 on 2012/02/25 Permalink
Do people really want car drivers out there who don’t obey the rules?
That’s what this is about. Most people have driver’s licenses, yet somehow when they get on their bicycles it’s okay to break the laws. That 16 year old on his bike will learn bad driving before he gets his license. Not just ignoring specific rules, but deciding to pick and choose what rules to follow.
This isn’t about the rules, it’s about breaking the rules. That guy riding on the sidewalk when I step out of a store and almost get hit by him, he’s not breaking the law to change the rules, he’s just breaking the law for his own advantage. That car parked on the sidewalk on Park Avenue in rush hour, forcing me to step onto the street, almost in front of a bus rushing up the reserved lane, he’s not trying to change the rules, he’s just breaking them, thinking it’s more acceptable to block the sidewalk than block the street.
I don’t, but I could rack up endless demerit points, and it wouldn’t mean a thing, since I’ve never had a driver’s license, never will have one. The demerit points only matter to people who drive cars. And all the ridiculous reasoning for ignoring the laws when a cyclist, that applies to car drivers too. Why should they stop at a red light when nobody’s around? Why shouldn’t they dip into a one way street to make a u-turn (maybe no reason at all, except it’s happened too many times when I’m crossing that one way street). They can park at intersections, they can park on the sidewalk, or drive along that sidewalk.
Yet that’s exactly what cyclists keep repeating, “the lights aren’t fair to cyclists”, “the street isn’t safe or plowed, so I’ll ride on the sidewalk”. I’ve yet to see an explanation for no light at night, or how someone can justify riding at night, with no light, going through a red light, and moving up from between cars stopped at the red light. Or the time a cyclist sailed through a red light, and I couldn’t see him until I had almost stopped in front of him, because a bus was stopped at that intersection, blocking the view. I couldn’t see him until I was almost in front of him, he couldn’t see me until I was almost in front of him, yet he thought it was perfectly acceptable to go through the red light. Not any different from the time I was crossing a street and some car driver turns in front of a bus going straight; he was turning before he could see what was there, not only could he have been hit by the bus, but by worrying about that bus, he ignored the fact that there might have been pedestrians there.
Laws are a reasonable attempt at making things safe. Too often they aren’t enforced, and too often then other things are brought in to remedy the lack of enforcement. They can’t make things perfectly safe, but if people obey the rules, a lot of the accidents don’t happen.
But rules are also a common language. If I’m crossing a street and that car isn’t signalling to turn, then I’m not expecting him to turn. If I’m crossing on a green light, I have the expectation that nobody will be coming from the direction of the red light. if I’m walking with a small child on the sidewalk, we shouldn’t have to be worried about some cyclist speeding along the sidewalk. The rules forbid such things, but they also inform me of what I can expect. As a pedestrian, I’ve made a point of wondering why, for instance, there’s no parking in front of a school, and then actually read up on the rules. It seems to me that many people don’t, if they know the rules they just follow or ignore as they see fit, without grasping why doing that might not be a good thing.
For the record, I don’t cross on red lights either. I expect car drivers and cyclists to obey the
laws, and the only way I can bring force to that is to obey the laws myself. Something I figured out when I was about ten years old.
If you don’t like the rules, then work on changing them, instead of lazily doing as you please.
Because until cyclists are actually trying to change the rules, they are just lawbreakers, and if they translate that to when they drive a car, then they get what they deserve. That’s why they get demerit points.
For people whining about “unfairness”, cyclists already get a discount, the fines aren’t particularly high. I was fined more for yelling at that cyclist riding on the sidewalk over a decade ago than that cyclist would have been fined for riding on the sidewalk.
Michael
Chris 03:20 on 2012/02/26 Permalink
Michael, do you have any data to actually support your implication that cyclists breaks rules more often than pedestrians or motorists? It’s a widely held view, and I’d really be interested to see any supporting evidence. Also some answers to some of your questions are here: http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/07/the-myth-of-the.html
JaneyB 09:58 on 2012/02/26 Permalink
I drive and (in other cities) have cycled on the street. I think cyclists should be allowed much greater leeway than cars. The physical dynamics of cycling are completely different plus the condition of the roads here is perilous. Cyclists must be allowed to improvise as needed. The ‘future demerit policy’ is dumb and spiteful and should be shelved.
I do think, however, that everyone should have to get a driver’s license – just so that they know what drivers are probably thinking. Only a non-driving cyclist would go the wrong way down a one-way street hugging the right side, for example. There are safer ways to break the rules! (And I trust Montrealers to find them!) Yeah, I know and while I’m daydreaming, we should make the drivers do some road cycling so they know why cyclists do what they do….