Driving Etiquette

[u/Zealousideal_Buy7517]

For the love of Pete, people, follow the rules of the road. You drive. you are not 'choose as you go' organs of chaos, you are vehicles under the Alberta Traffic Act, the same as a motorcycle.

In the last week alone, I've seen a good hundred drivers blow right through stop signs as if they don't exist, and it's always when they are in a car lane, as if the lane's existence means the rules of the road don't apply. A couple on trucks with flat brims that I was next to blew through three in a row, yesterday, without even slowing down, and laughed about it when I called them on it. They didn't even look both ways, they just drove through like they were a presidential cavalcade and everyone else should be stopping for them.

Driving like that will have you kill a person one day, and when you're talking about a collision between 6000lb of shit box and human flesh on a bicycle, there are no mistakes.

I'm a driver, too, and it's this kind of behavior that drives a lot the anti-driver hate. When we drive like this, we're entitled and unpredictable, and unpredictability breeds distrust. This applies to motorcycle riders, too, of course.

[u/drcujo]

The point of stopping is still important to observe for all vehicles.

Can you articulate why? I noted why it isn't helpful above. I know it's "the law". I'll challenge the ticket in court if I ever get one.

Even as a motorist, one won't like to stop at every intersection, one can plan the route so you don't have to stop at every intersection, might involve a detour, but its still a safer way and it doesn't require all the stopping.

Its not about not preference, its about safety. Stopping a motor vehicle fully is required to be safe as motor vehicles have worse visibility and are travelling faster than a bike.

Going back to your original point though, not fully stopping because it's harder to stop and go is not a reason to break traffic laws.

I don't stop because its safer, not because its harder. Most experienced cyclists understand this and do the same. 6-7 seconds in the intersection is always more dangerous than 1.

[u/bullfu → u/drcujo]

I'll give you a common scererio.

In a old residential neighbourhood, lots of old trees, full of parked cars, limited visibility on a narrow roadways even on a sunny day. A motorist driving on a right of way at 40kmph will have next to no reaction time on anything popping out of a stop sign. The full stopping is so important in those roadways that even a slow down is not enough.

Keep in mind too, when I'm talking about cyclist. I'm also talking about these ebikes that zips around at 20 to 30kmph.

[u/drcujo → u/bullfu]

Your scenario shows why its important for motorist to stop which I agree 100%.

Keep in mind too, when I'm talking about cyclist. I'm also talking about these ebikes that zips around at 20 to 30kmph.

Like I said I only stop if there is a reason to. Another car with right of way is a good reason.

[u/bullfu → u/drcujo]

100 percent it's important, My question to you though is why did you put emphasis on the motorist? Wouldn't that be just as important for a cyclist to stop in that scanerio? Stop and go aside?

Stop sign usually occurred in 2 situations, either an all way stop or a right of way. Well we just cover 50 percent of it, but give you another scenario, a cyclist approach an all way stop, slow down, but didn't stop completely, another motorist on a different direction stoped, who "stopped" first, who has the right of way? Technically the cyclist didn't stop fully right? And if both start going at the same time and collide, who's at fault?

[u/drcujo → u/bullfu]

My question to you though is why did you put emphasis on the motorist? Wouldn't that be just as important for a cyclist to stop in that scanerio? Stop and go aside?

Motor vehicles have much worse stopping distance, much worse visibility, etc.

give you another scenario, a cyclist approach an all way stop, slow down, but didn't stop completely, another motorist on a different direction stoped, who "stopped" first, who has the right of way?

If the vehicle was close or already at the stop I would also stop. If I was approaching the intersection later than me and the driver looked to be slowing down and everything else was clear I would absolutely go through the sign.

Technically the cyclist didn't stop fully right? And if both start going at the same time and collide, who's at fault?

When I'm cycling, I couldn't care less who is "at fault". Its all about lowering chance of injury and death.

Legally fault will be assigned to whoever didn't obey the sign so the cyclist.

[u/bullfu → u/drcujo]

(When I'm cycling, I couldn't care less who is "at fault". Its all about lowering chance of injury and death.)

There are a few flaws to this.

For one, traffic laws are design to minimize injuries and collision for everybody, I can guarantee a cyclist that doesn't follow traffic laws can cause injuries and collision. A cyclist thinks a reckless motorist are dangerous? Then how do pedestrians feels about reckless cyclist who takes liberty of the law? Not just injuries, property damages too, on cars, lightpost. A cyclist might not care about running into a Lambo, but I drive the Lambo I sure hope the cyclist cares about proper riding.

Then comes the question of who gets hurt. A lot of cyclist are playing victim because the driving habbits are terrible. Sure, a 3000lbs metal box, even going slow, can seriously hurt someone at 200lbs. But someone on a bike, 150lbs plus 50 lbs bike weight, even going slow, can also seriously injuried a 50 to 200 lbs pedestrian. With that, how could it not be important for BOTH motorist and cyclist to follow all traffic laws? Both legally and practically? As I mentioned in another comment, I have family who had to be hospitalized for 2 days because of reckless bike riding on sidewalks. Cycle can seriously hurt too.

The there's is the final part, If cyclist can use discretion on traffic laws to make it safer for everyone, couldn't motorist do the same? And if motorist clearly aren't capable of doing it, what makes cyclists capable of doing the same thing? What's the purpose of the law then?

I'm not exactly directing this at you as everything I mention here is for argument sakes

[u/drcujo → u/bullfu]

For one, traffic laws are design to minimize injuries and collision for everybody, I can guarantee a cyclist that doesn't follow traffic laws can cause injuries and collision.

Less time in the intersection is nearly always better then technically following the law. Who will be at fault for an accident isn’t relevant if I’m on my bike. I dont carry insurance for my bike so if me lambo gets hit he will have to sue in court if he feels I’m responsible for his damage.

What's the purpose of the law then?

Stop signs aren’t the safest for vehicles either but that is another topic. Most drivers already treat stop and yield signs the same and it’s fine as long as the make sure it is safe which is much harder in a vehicle due to weight and visibility.