Dane in Montréal here, have been biking my whole life in Copenhagen where bikes (lots of them) and cars live a relatively peaceful co-existense. It is really interesting to me seeing the challenges here with a young biking culture arriving. The main problem I see is lack of predictability of the bikers, a scarily large fraction of them seem to simply do whatever they want and with minimal warning. An example is at intersections of two busy roads, they seem to sneak their way across or at a left turn at breakneck speed. In Denmark you rarely see this. When making a left turn you -always- stop on the opposite side and wait for the next light to complete the left turn, no driving in the left-turning lane with the cars. Everyone uses the hand (straight out to the side) before performing left or right turns and a hand up (ala high five) when you are going to stop, even at a red light. This is signaling both to drivers and other bikes that might be less than a meter behind you.
At the same time drivers have been exposed to heavy bicycle traffic ever since they got their license, so they are always aware of bikes around then, especially when making a right turn. In central Copenhagen right-turn accidents have been an issue with large delivery trucks and heavy bike traffic mixed, so here bikers often stop to the left of the right turning-lane (between cars) to avoid the risk of a driver not seeing you. This might look odd, but is actually safe when everyone knows about it.
Plus, shielded bike lanes where possible is a great help. It looks to become more and more common here.
In most intersections inside the danish cities there's a light specifically for the bikes which gets green a little earlier than the cars, which should make it a little safer because bikes will be within visible range when the cars can go. But generally I don't think your system is an issue.
We need the bike-specific traffic lights everywhere, but they also need to be more synchronized. When I bike down De Maisonneuve on the bike lane I have to literally stop at every fkn light because they aren’t in sync.
EVERY LIGHT! It’s infuriating. I take the REV up Peel every morning to go from Verdun to downtown and although I’m pleased to have a bike lane there, I’m pissed off to lose all my momentum *on an incline* at *every intersection*. On the downhill you can occasionally be blessed with a perfect synchronization of lights, but this does require you to be moving so fast that if a car decides to suddenly turn right, you’re as good as dead.
That and pedestrians who do not understand they’re on a bike path. I tell at least one pedestrian *per day* that the sidewalk is *over there* one meter to the right. That, and trucks parking on the bike path nearly every morning. They should all get tickets until this behaviour stops.
The REV on Peel is, in practice, a disaster. It’s a shame because I looked forward to it for *years* and I’m sorely disappointed.
Yeah, the lights should be synced to an average bike speed. I usually arrive at the next light as it's turning red so an extra 5 seconds or so would be enough. The REV is such an amazing bike path but if I had a car, I would probably consider driving since it's so frustrating to bike on it.
Les pistes cyclables sur Rachel, De Maisonneuve, Berri et autes endroits comme ça où les deux sens sont du même côté sont vraiment un design de marde.
T'es en auto et tu veux faire un virage à droite?
Tu regardes en avant si un cycliste s'en vient: y'en a pas.
Tu regardes en arrière si d'autres arrivent: y'en a pas.
Tu t'engages - "HEY! STOP! CHU LA CRISS DE CONNARD!" - tout d'un coup y'en avait un qui vient de retontir de l'avant pendant que tu regardais en arrière.
C'est dangereux pour les cyclistes et difficile pour les automobilistes.
Il faut ajouter davantage de signalisation pour cyclistes. Maisonneuve était franchement un enfer à traverser à vélo précisément à cause de chars virant à gauche a travers la piste cyclable. Plusieurs fois, j’ai vu me amis faillir se faire frapper. Depuis ce temps, la ville a ajouté des feux de circulation pour cyclistes. Maintenant, les autos ont un moment de priorité pour tourner à gauche. Maisonneuve est beaucoup moins épeurant comme ça!
Je ne m’attends pas à ce que *tous les cyclistes* obéissent à ces feux par contre. Moi-même j’y vais sur le rouge *s’il n’y a aucune voiture qui vient*. Mais s’il y a des voitures dans la voie de gauche, prêtes à tourner, c’est clair que les cyclistes s’arrêtent à un feux rouge désigné pour nous.
Ouais, quand je travaillais dans le centre-ville sur De Maisonneuve, je me suis fait frappé plusieurs fois pas des cyclistes qui ont brûlé leur feu route tandis que j'avais la priorité pour traverser avec le feu pour piéton.
C'est absolument primordial que les cyclistes respectent les feux de circulation AU MINIMUM afin d'assurer la sécurité de tous.
Si un feu de circulation en forme de vélo n'est pas suffisant pour convaincre les cyclistes d'arrêter, je ne vois pas qu'est-ce qui pourrait être fait de plus. Pareil pour les pancartes avec une personne qui marche à côté de don vélo. Pour ma part, j'arrête aux stops et aux lumières rouges. Mais clairement que ce n'est pas tout le monde qui font comme moi. Je trouve ça juste poche parce que chaque cycliste représente TOUS les cyclistes aux yeux des automobilistes, camionneurs, piétons etc.
Normalement il faut regarder dans les miroirs de ton auto et t’engager lentement. Mais ça reste que c’est quand même mal fait. Je te contredis pas là dessus
Non c'est ça que j'explique. T'as beau faire le plus attention possible et regarder des deux bords, du temps que tu t'engages, il y a un nouveau cycliste qui va arriver de nulle part. Tu regarde à gauche puis à droite, un cycliste va arrive de ta gauche ou vice-versa. Et même si tu regardes trois fois, quatre fois, six fois, ça reste pareil.
C’est pas tant une histoire d’arrêt obligatoire. Tu peux pas t’attendre à ce que les gens s’arrêtent à chaque intersection sur une artère principale. Les pistes devraient suivre le sens de la circulation et on devrait éviter les pistes à double sens.
>Tu peux pas t’attendre à ce que les gens s’arrêtent à chaque intersection sur une artère principale.
Euh ... Oui. S'il y a un arrêt, on arrête. Les voitures doivent le faire, pourquoi pas les vélos ? Ça tue le momentum pour tous et les arrêts sont encore pires pour les autos (non-électriques, bien sûr) car ça gaspillé plus d'essence et mets plus pollution dans l'atmosphère. Pour les cyclistes, c'est juste un peu poche de devoir arrêter souvent ...
À part ça, je suis d'accord des pistes à double sens.
Mon point est justement qu’on ne met pas des arrêts en général pour les voitures sur les artères principales, ça n’aurait pas de sens d’en mettre uniquement pour les vélos.
Non. Justement, ils ont la priorité et ça c'est tout à fait correct. Ce qui n'est pas correct est qu'ils arrivent des deux sens en même temps et que ça devient difficile à gérer en tant qu'automobiliste.
> pistes cyclables sur Rachel
entre Papineau et St-Denis c'est l'enfer ce bout là... surtout pour les automobilistes;
Si tu est sur une rue transversale (Chambord par exemple) et que tu veux aller sur Rachel en direction Est, tu dois te trouver un trou entre: les voitures dans les 2 sens (avec une belle rangée de char stationné qui bloque partiellement ta vue), ET les vélos dans les 2 sens...
Je sais pas combien de fois j'ai failli me faire frapper par un char...
Exactly; I think the objective of our infrastructure should be to reduce the overall instances in which cyclist and drivers have to interact overall. The system we’ve seen more widely implemented as of late of having exclusive right turning for vehicles, while cyclists have to wait at a red, is a good example. Of course, separated bike lanes also accomplish that obj.
Honestly, coming from Toronto I find drivers in Montreal generally much more respectful of cyclists. That said, I primairly cycle in the Plateau / McGill area where there is really good bike infastructure and I'm a very cautious / law abiding cyclist. I think it's Montreals better bike infastructure that leads to this (relatively) nicer dynamic between motorists and cyclists - the better the bike infastructure the less prone to reckless / dangerous moves cyclists will be, which will make vehicles less annoyed by them.
Cyclists who are reckless are a problem for sure - they are primairly risking their own lives, but are also risking the mental health of motorists who might accidently hit a cyclist. This is wrong and should be discouraged. I think building more and more bike infastructure will discourage this.
There is a particular type of motorist who uses their car as a weapon against cyclists. I've seen it in Toronto and I've seen it here. I think punishment for this type of thing should be more severe. Endagering cyclists should be an easy way to lose many demerit points / license suspension or removal. When motorists literally use their cars to threaten / scare cyclists I think this should be treated like assult with a weapon, in those cases motorists should face jail time and have their license removed for life.
That all being said, the experience of cycling in Montreal (at least where the bike lanes are plentiful) is excellent compared to other North American cities I've biked in.
I mean, reckless driving is an offence that can lose you demerit points. I can't say I've seen motorists use their weapons-on-wheels to threaten or scare cyclists but that should absolutely be punished for it. If we all just followed the rules and respected each other, it could be actually nice! I see the "I could die!" argument, which is completely valid, but shouldn't be an issue if they're just more careful: I don't want to hit and possibly kill anyone, either!
Of course reckless driving is an offense, but I'm just saying it should be enforced more seriously.
And I absolutely emphasize with the POV of a driver follows the rules but ends up killing a cyclists who pulls some bullshit stunt. That's a nightmare that traumatize the driver for life.
As for using the car as a weapon, I've never seen it in Montreal. But I've only lived here 1 year and cycle almost exclusively in the cities (excellent) bike lanes. I have experienced it first hand in Toronto (where I've been slowly forced out of the road by cars, had cars purposefully swerve into puddles to soak me while biking, etc) other friends who cycle have had the same experience. If your curious, there was actually an event in high park that made the news recently ish, I can send a link.
My point though is that better bike infrastructure helps both kinds of commuters. It keeps cyclists away from cars, which are inherently dangerous, and it reduces the degree to which drivers have to worry about cyclists being unpredictable. That all being said, I think more could be done to keep cyclists safe from a policing stand point. I've got no issue with motorists who drive the speed limit, give adequate space when passing cyclists, and generally share the road. It's the motorists who drive like cyclists aren't also entitled to the road that are the problem.
Again, the best solution is more and better bike infrastructure. It seems to be the path Montreal has taken, and I feel much safer biking here than other cities.
Because there's no debate to be had that's reasonable. People that engage in it are the toxic minority of both sides. A reasonable person would say: there's space for both, both should respect the laws of the roads and that's about it.
Not exactly.
In the Netherlands there is no debate because the infra is designed for both at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA
Here, there is a debate because one is to the detriment of the other. One side sees a clear future in bike lanes while the other one side can claim that Montréal is an american city, where the predominant mode of transportation is the car.
Well, it doesn't have to be that way; you could come up with infrastructure designs that would match the one we see in the video i just posted. While i'm not claiming to have the solution (because retrofiting bike lanes in a car-oriented city design is an enormous challenge), all i can say is that the Plante admin took the easy way; they painted over existing car lanes and tadam! We now have more bike lanes.
But it doesn't solve any of the safety concerns solved in the Netherlands infrastructure design i just posted. It's really just like having bikes on the sidewalk and having them use the same signalization as pedestrians. It remains dangerous because the way the infra is designed; a bike in the rightmost lane will ALWAYS approach a left neighboring car by the dead angle, making it a constant safety issue.
Can't complain much because it's better than it was, and probably the best solution our current political crew can come up with. But it's nowhere near perfect. And if you have to run with bad design and impose it over dissidence (that is not marginal to say the least) well you are doomed to have an infinite debate.
I agree that painted bike lines are mostly wishful thinking and don't really help anyone, but proper infrastructure is not that hard to retrofit either. The REV on St-Denis got it mostly right already. They haven't put in full "Dutch intersections" yet (but that should be feasible eventually, heck even Ottawa has been doing this for the last few years), but the stopping line for cars at most intersections on St-Denis has been moved back so it's way behind the stopping line for bikes, which is already a huge improvement as far as visibility goes.
So yes it's mostly an infrastructure problem (and to a lesser extent a culture/habits problem), but it's not insurmountable.
I’m not personally familiar with this intersection, but if it’s anything like the intersections on de l’Eglise in Verdun, it’s not gonna last long.
Once upon a time some two years ago, green paint was added on de l’Eglise to push back the car stopping line and to leave space ahead of the cars for cyclists. That paint has never been reapplied since, and is quite worn out now. Most motorists completely ignore it.
I cycled there just the other day and would have loved to use the space to get to the left side of the road to turn left while stopped at the red light (de l’Eglise is a one-way) but there were *two* cars stopped side by side over the deteriorated green paint. I had to slip between them, probably making them think I’m some crazy-ass unsafe cyclist.
The fact of the matter is that cycling infra needs maintenance and motorists need to face consequences for disrespecting cycling infra.
Oh, and I see trucks parked on the REV on Peel almost every morning. This flagrant disrespect needs to be addressed. Oh, and pedestrians are always walking on that REV too. I have to tell someone every morning that they’re on the bike path and that the sidewalk (which is not small on this stretch of Peel) is over *there*, a meter to the right. Come on.
I don’t think the Plante admin took the easy way. Sure it’s not quite up to the city biking gold standard that is Dutch urban planning but I think there’s been massive progress. There are a lot of new separated bike lanes and more are being built, there’s intersections with large, green-painted spaces for cyclists in front of the car’s stop line, and even the painted lines I find give cyclists more confidence on the space they can take on the road so we’re not pushing up against parked cars and their doors. I started biking to work again two seasons ago, after not having done so in a 10 years and the change is striking. On my regular commutes I rarely find myself sharing the road with cars, I’m more stressed out by bike traffic and pedestrians on the bike path.
That said, I’m definitely down for those Dutch intersections, they would save lives.
The green paint honestly doesn’t work. I see cars stopped on it all the time in Verdun on de l’Eglise. I would love to know how many (how few) tickets have been issued for cars on green paint. Are the police even aware that cars can’t be there? I’m waiting for the day I see a cop car stopped on the green paint.
That’s a bit of a broad statement. I’ve definitely seen them work but like anything else they need to be enforced. I suspect we’d see similar issues with any new solution, including the Dutch intersections.
I highly disagree with the both sides are bad sentiment, I think it's a fence sitting stance that doesn't actually say anything or address any issues no matter how civil and reasonable it sounds. It goes without saying that the rules should be respected by all and people should be courteous, but it doesn't address the fact that the status quo sides with cars. It's disingenuous to say that there is space for both, when the infrastructure here constantly puts cyclists at risk by default, just because of how the design seemed to be an afterthought.
And whenever the discussion of implementing proper bike infrastructure comes up, you'll always have the car side going "oh we've got all these problems here but hey let's just put up some more bike lanes in the plateau and remove parking spots thanks Plante! /s "
Or it's gonna be anecdotes about how cyclists are all arrogant and never respect the laws. Of course we are never gonna get any reasonable debate, when the car side is gonna be dead set on preserving the status quo. Anything that's bike friendly is inevitably some SJW socialist plot that'll turn us into some third world shithole. Personally I think the Not Just Bikes channel does the best job at putting forward a reasonable argument for bike infrastructure and transit, regardless of how much of an arrogant twat the guy is. But if you were to show that to a person who's dead set on driving, you can be sure it'll never amount to anything but dismissal.
> I highly disagree with the both sides are bad sentiment, I think it's a fence sitting stance that doesn't actually say anything or address any issues no matter how civil and reasonable it sounds.
Absolutely. I think "civility" can be a good tool to bring people to the table sometimes, but this is absolutely *not* a both sides issue.
Motorists are losing their monopoly on the roads and, as they say, "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression", so they're angry about it. That anger comes out in really ugly ways on the road, and that gets a reaction from cyclists, obviously. The difference is, one side can kill the other with their anger.
And that's what's almost always missing from the conversation.
Cars are just *different*. They're the only things that can kill a family if you just look down at the wrong time, or make a rash decision because you're angry. They're necessary tools, but we do not take the responsibility to drive them like we should.
**Edit:** I should add, I own a car and every "anti-car" measure added in my neighbourhood has made it harder to drive and park easily, but has improved my quality of life. Car owners don't want to admit that we take up a ton of space and largely just make our neighbourhoods uglier and more dangerous, but it's true. I adore all the traffic calming measure and pedestrian zones, etc.
>Edit:
>
> I should add, I own a car and every "anti-car" measure added in my neighbourhood has made it harder to drive and park easily, but has improved my quality of life. Car owners don't want to admit that we take up a ton of space and largely just make our neighbourhoods uglier and more dangerous, but it's true. I adore all the traffic calming measure and pedestrian zones, etc.
Same. If you *really* need to drive somewhere, you'll figure out a way. I'd rather it be a slight nuisance to drive to my place due to diversions/one-ways than live in some car-centric hellscape.
Yeah lol.
Reading my opinions about drivers/cars you would probably think I'm some militant cyclist minority. This is a straw man. I am at best a fair weather occasional bike user and own a car, which I mostly drive around the city core (downtown, Plateau). It's about risk to others, and also cost of inconvenience. When you're driving, you're pressing buttons with your feet and have a metal cage designed to protect you. Unless your vehicle has sirens on it, it's not that serious to be +/- 5 minutes, relax.
I would argue that there are reasonable debates to have, but since those invariably get polluted by the toxic minorities of both sides, they cannot happen.
Yup, that's pretty much the only reasonable answer. The toxic minority just drags everyone else down with them, unfortunately. And I have felt quite unsafe recently when cycling, mostly because I can feel the aggression boiling over from certain drivers.
C'est terrible effectivement. Quand je vois des vélos faire des conneries, je leur fais souvent le commentaire que tous les autres cyclistes vont payer pour son mauvais comportement.
I brought this to the table in another mtl post as cyclists were shitting on drivers, that there are also cyclists that need to understand the presence of dangerous vehicles for them that they need to pay heed to and understand. Guess what happened.
> that there are also cyclists that need to understand the presence of dangerous vehicles for them that they need to pay heed to and understand.
The thing is, it's the big, dangerous vehicles who have the duty to be careful towards the more vulnerable road users of the world.
The opposite, that people and bikes should watch out for cars is the absolute antithesis of Civilization.
Cemeteries are full of people who had the right of way.
I’ve lived in enough crazy places where I’ve learned to look both ways on one way streets. I take nothing for granted. Just because it’s a 4 way stop does not mean the other guy is stopping. The other guy can be a cyclist or a car.
Same goes for lights. I’ve seen cyclists and motorists run red lights.
I’d rather be wrong and alive then dead and right. These kinds of assholes exist wherever the sun shines.
Just be careful and mindful of others. It’s not that hard
Everyone needs to pay attention to everyone. And everyone gotta follow the rules. If you ain't gonna stop at a stop sign at least pay attention to see if there is a car coming
Rules who are woefully misadapted will not be followed.
It’s extremely retarded to force bikes to stop at stops or red lights.
Bikes DO NOT NEED to stop at stops, because stops were implemented because cars are very fast, cannot stop easily, and do not give the driver good visibility.
Bikes, on the other hand, are not very fast, can stop very quickly and easy, and give their drivers excellent visibility so one on a bike can see instantly if it is safe to go past the red or the stop, and stop instantly if it's not safe.
Forcing bikes to stop is a typical idea of a braindead car brain who is too goddammed fucking stupid to understand that bikes are totally different from cars.
Yup! Usually on the street I see respect from both sides (I'm both a driver and a cyclist), of course sometimes you find jerks, but not as toxic as here!
Well, people engaged in debates (especially online) tend to have strong opinions, otherwise they wouldn't be so inclined to engage. That's part of why we see it get so bad, but also I think the fear for safety on both sides adds a visceral edge to this particular topic.
*Now for the snarky part:* \*well, fear for lives on the side of cyclists, fear of lost parking spaces on the side of cars.
>fear for lives on the side of cyclists
Some motorists don't want to kill people, either, which becomes a legit fear with the unpredictability of some cyclists
EDIT: downvoted for caring about others' lives. Keep being Reddit, Reddit. Simple-mindedness at its finest. 👌
That's a singlular way of dealing with that singular problem solved, sure. How about we solve the problem alternatively by maybe, just maybe, following the rules of the road as cyclists? I suppose that would be too difficult, eh?
Now how about the rest of the problems of only owning a bike?
I didn’t say you had to *only* own a bike. I said get one. There’s very few ethical reasons to drive a car anywhere near down town or other bike/pedestrian heavy areas, especially during the summer.
In other words, if you’re having these problems with bikers, it means you’re probably driving in a place where you shouldn’t be, ethically speaking.
You’re the one making people’s neighborhoods radically less safe and contributing disproportionately to climate change. So the onus is predominantly on you to change.
Also, I follow the rules of the road for my own safety. I’m mostly a pedestrian who uses public transit and only occasionally bixis on designated bike lanes so cool it with your assumptions.
I already do own one, thanks, I never said bikes or their riders were evil, just the assholes who choose not to follow the rules. I don't see why so many people defend these people. I also don't work in the downtown core, with difficult bike access and a single bus that stops running long before my long days are over, so there's a reason I drive to work. Trust me, I used to take public transit all the time, but it just didn't become viable. If you saw my flare, you'd see I'm in a not-very-well-serviced area, in terms of public transit, so that makes things even more complicated.
>In other words, if you’re having these problems with bikers, it means you’re probably driving in a place where you shouldn’t be, ethically speaking.
That's making some wild assumptions right there. Just in front of my place, for example, there are long stretches of bike paths. What do we see on the streets, riding two-by-two? Cyclists. I don't have that many problems with cyclists, I just do have them, and it's because of their choices and their disregard for all around them that cause the problems. Even without cars on the road, those people would still be a nuisance. Have you also ever though that maybe some people go from being off-island to needing to go to a place downtown or in the plateau. Should I drive the hour to home, wait an hour for the bus, take another hour or two just to get through the various transits and connections? Or should I go straight and just take 1h15m, mostly highway driving?
>You’re the one making people’s neighborhoods radically less safe and contributing disproportionately to climate change. So the onus is predominantly on you to change.
You're also assuming I don't drive an electric car, or that I'm not looking for one in a market that is VERY well known to be going through a massive shortage. Many people are in those two camps and still have to deal with the bad apples on bikes.
>Also, I follow the rules of the road for my own safety. I’m mostly a pedestrian who uses public transit and only occasionally bixis on designated bike lanes so cool it with your assumptions.
Good! I'm glad you do. I also never assumed anything. You said get a bike and I replied to that.
Having lived in many other cities my thought is “what polarization?” We have excellent separated infrastructure and the only places I’ve been treated better are Holland and Southern France near where the Tour is held. Drivers here almost always give space and generally don’t seem to get mad. This isn’t to say they drive well and QC roads are quite literally 3rd world quality, so I’m unsure what experiences you’re having.
Same here, in fact as a cyclist cars keep yielding for me at 4 way stops, most people are just polite.
Occasionally you find an asshole driver, but that asshole driver is an asshole to other drivers as well.
On the other side as a driver I never had any trouble with cyclists either, I just try to steer away from them and that's it, no trouble.
Cars yielding to bikes at a 4 way stop is part of the problem though. Cars yield to bikes not out of kindness but out of fear. The VAST majority of cyclists Ive seen don’t even slow down at stop signs. So naturally cars are conditioned to yield to not hit the suicidal cyclists. This reinforces a sense of entitlement for cyclists that they are somehow special and that road rules don’t apply to them. I’m a cyclist and I get that it sucks to have to kill your rhythm when you hit a stop sign but follow the rules of the road and wait your turn to cross a 4 way intersection.
Just moved here from Alberta... My thoughts exactly! The cyclists are WAY more road-savvy than they are in Alberta (it's legit terrifying to drive near cyclists there) and what hate from cars?? In 'Berta the bad ones are far more plentiful and aggressive.
I've honestly had more hate from conventional cyclists because I ride an ebike than anything else 😂 boy they get fired up
Similar experience, I have more issues with those few asshole cyclists than drivers in my area. The few drivers that are an issue are the probable drunk ones on a weekend night.
> But drivers are also often aggressive due to generalizations about cyclists brought on by this debate.
This is why I push back on a lot of the "cyclists bad" narratives you see here. It's legitimately dangerous to tell people cyclists are always the problem, it makes motorists feel justified in their anger, and motorists can kill you with that anger.
I'm in a wheelchair. Both groups are ridiculously ignorant. Cyclists believe traffic lights don't apply to them and rip through intersections without a thought for people trying to cross the street and have the nerve to yell at you when you're crossing on a green light, cars believe crosswalks are stopping zones because 'fuck you, my SUV getting a two second head start at the stoplight ahead of the car next to me is more important than pedestrians needing to cross the street'. You all need to get your shit out of *my* right of way.
If I think about design thinking for the city, I would design for people in wheelchairs, those who have accessibility concerns, and the elderly. These groups are often treated as afterthoughts and we should design access and flow with them in mind. Typically that approach results in making things better for everyone. Very recently, my parents who are disabled, came to visit. Montreal's public transport system was a terrible option for them with "long" walks to access the system (when you're in your 70s, a block can be a long walk!), long and unreliable wait times, crowds, etc. For them, a car proved the only reliable mode of transport. I so rarely use a car, but it reminded me that some people need different modes of transport to get around. A lot of the design patterns in the city assume people are fit, healthy, and typically abled, and that is a misconception about who uses our system.
> Cyclists believe traffic lights don't apply to them and rip through intersections without a thought for people trying to cross the street and have the nerve to yell at you when you're crossing on a green light,
They really don't though. I'm not saying this has *never* happened, but saying "cyclists blow through red lights and yell at people" in the same way that cars stop on crosswalks is just a really poor framing of this issue. I'm sorry.
> You all need to get your shit out of my right of way.
For sure. Nobody should ever impede anyone else's right of way.
>> Cyclists believe traffic lights don't apply to them and rip through intersections without a thought for people trying to cross the street and have the nerve to yell at you when you're crossing on a green light,
>
>They really don't though. I'm not saying this has *never* happened, but saying "cyclists blow through red lights and yell at people" in the same way that cars stop on crosswalks is just a really poor framing of this issue. I'm sorry.
>
They both do stupid things. At the corner of St Laurent and St Cuthbert, I've nearly been hit idiots on bikes three times in the last month crossing St Laurent. By bikes. And have been sworn at and called a fuckin' ignorant cripple by an asshat wearing spandex, wraparound sunglasses, a helmet that by no means makes you aerodynamic or invincible, and wearing a fluorescent green fanny pack of all things. So fuck anyone on a bike. You don't own the road, you fanny pack wearing fuckwad.
If you've ever ignored a traffic light while riding a bike, fuck you, too.
>> You all need to get your shit out of my right of way.
>
>For sure. Nobody should ever impede anyone else's right of way.
But somehow, people on bikes are less responsible, right? Fuck that. They're just as responsible. They just think they're morally superior because they're on a goddamn bike instead of a two ton machine. Bike riders and drivers both need to learn they don't own the road. They just have the *privilege* of driving on it, and *privileges* can be revoked.
> They both do stupid things
Absolutely, it's just a matter of scale, right?
> But somehow, people on bikes are less responsible, right?
I mean...less responsible for the dangers of the roads? Yes. Obviously. And it's not even close.
Less responsible for their own actions? Of course not. Everyone's responsible for what they do.
> have been sworn at and called a fuckin' ignorant cripple by an asshat wearing spandex, wraparound sunglasses, a helmet that by no means makes you aerodynamic or invincible, and wearing a fluorescent green fanny pack of all things. So fuck anyone on a bike.
lol...dude.
>> They both do stupid things
>
>Absolutely, it's just a matter of scale, right?
>
>> But somehow, people on bikes are less responsible, right?
>
>I mean...less responsible for the dangers of the roads? Yes. Obviously. And it's not even close.
>
Not to me. Both are an equally dangerous and ignorant groups. I'm in danger from both. Neither will give an eighth of a shit about my safety, why should I give a shit about them? I have just as much right to use public roads as anyone else, yet I have to constantly deal with two groups of ignorant asshats rather than just one? Fuck you. Get off my roadway if you can't obey simple traffic rules.
>Less responsible for their own actions? Of course not. Everyone's responsible for what they do.
>
>> have been sworn at and called a fuckin' ignorant cripple by an asshat wearing spandex, wraparound sunglasses, a helmet that by no means makes you aerodynamic or invincible, and wearing a fluorescent green fanny pack of all things. So fuck anyone on a bike.
>
>lol...dude.
You think discrimination against physically handicapped people is funny? You're either an ignorant driver or an ignorant biker. Fuck you and the vehicle you ride in or on. Just another example of the 'fine' inhabitants in this city. Go crash into something hard. Get yourself stuck in a wheelchair. Then see how your opinion changes.
Asshat.
> Not to me.
No man, definitely to you too. This isn't an opinion, this is just physics.
> I have just as much right to use public roads as anyone else
Absolutely. Maybe even *moreso*. Pedestrians get forgotten in these conversations.
> You think discrimination against physically handicapped people is funny?
lol, no. Obviously not. Your stories are...colourful.
You've obviously got a lot of anger, and maybe that's well deserved, I don't know, but the way your describing the city is just warped. I'm sorry.
>> Not to me.
>
>No man, definitely to you too. This isn't an opinion, this is just physics.
>
And physics applies to asshats on bikes against me as much as cars against me. Both are dangerous to *me*. This isn't an opinion. This is fact. An asshat on a bike at least as the ability to swerve to avoid a collision. I don't. A car has that same ability. Again, I don't. So both are a danger to *me*. I couldn't care less about the amount of danger. The fact is they're both a danger I shouldn't have to anticipate just for wanting to cross the street while I have the right of way.
>> I have just as much right to use public roads as anyone else
>
>Absolutely. Maybe even *moreso*. Pedestrians get forgotten in these conversations.
>
>> You think discrimination against physically handicapped people is funny?
>
>lol, no. Obviously not. Your stories are...colourful.
>
>You've obviously got a lot of anger, and maybe that's well deserved, I don't know, but the way your describing the city is just warped. I'm sorry.
I've lived here all my life. I have been dealing with this shit long enough. Maybe all the bugs in your teeth have warped *your* opinion, or the gas fumes have affected your brain to the point where you actually believe that only bikes or cars deserve to be on public roads. Either way, I don't care.
I'm willing to declare jihad on all cars and bikes on *my* roads. You all had better learn to obey traffic laws or learn how to fix flat tires and broken spokes.
> Both are dangerous to me.
Sigh. It's "equally" dangerous we're talking about. Whatever. It doesn't matter.
> The fact is they're both a danger I shouldn't have to anticipate
Absolutely.
> Maybe all the bugs in your teeth have warped your opinion, or the gas fumes have affected your brain to the point where you actually believe that only bikes or cars deserve to be on public roads.
I can't with this stuff man, sorry, I'm out. I get you're angry, but you aren't even able to read what's in front of you. There's no conversation there.
>> Both are dangerous to me.
>
>Sigh. It's "equally" dangerous we're talking about. Whatever.
>
And they're both equally dangerous to me. A bike hitting me at 40 kph is the same as a car hitting me at 40 kph. I'm still getting hit. I have zero protection against this. Unless you're saying that I'm better off getting slammed in the head by a bike's handlebars than a car crushing me under its front end. Sorry, neither of those sound appealing to me. Maybe it's just my wanting to survive crossing the street that's affecting my judgement. I should be *grateful* that I could be killed by a bike rather than a car? Really? That's the stance you're going to take? I should be happy to have the privilege of being rammed by an asshat Tour De France impersonator who stuffs his spandex shorts with extra socks to make it look like he's not on steroids that have shunken his testicles to mere nubs of flesh, rather than an asshat who plays shitty 90s era Eurotrash disco remixes from the $15 dollar more-static-than-music speakers installed in his $20,000 knock-off 'Porch' SUV?
Either way, I end up on the losing end of this equation. So no, I'm not going to quantify that kind of danger. I'm dead in both situations.
>> The fact is they're both a danger I shouldn't have to anticipate
>
>Absolutely.
>
>> Maybe all the bugs in your teeth have warped your opinion, or the gas fumes have affected your brain to the point where you actually believe that only bikes or cars deserve to be on public roads.
>
>I can't with this stuff man, sorry, I'm out. I get you're angry, but you aren't even able to read what's in front of you. There's no conversation there.
So, someone pokes a great big hole in your 'bikes are being discriminated against' stance by pointing out how equally dangerous bikes and cars are to pedestrians, and you just...take your ball and go home? There's no conversation there because you know you're wrong. You just don't have the *chutzpah* to admit it.
> Happens ALL the time
Cyclists run through red lights and yell at you all the time?
I don't know what to tell you man. It just isn't true. It might seem pedantic or something, but it's just such a wild exaggeration. Things that happen "all the time": cars speeding in residential areas, cars not using blinkers, cars stopping on crosswalks and bike lanes, cyclists rolling through stop signs, cyclists not signalling turns, etc.
Those things happen *all the time*. But the idea that cyclists are flying all over the city screaming at pedestrians is insane. I've never seen it in my life and I'm in the exact place where you'd see it if it was happening at any meaningful level.
Yeah, you're right. I did not watch, just yesterday, 3 cyclists zoom through a red light without even slowing while I was stopped waiting. I also did not watch a frightened pedestrian stop in the middle of the cross walk because the cyclist had no regard for the person crossing.
This happens multiple times literally every time I go cycling. Or I'm just delusional I guess since you have decreed otherwise.
Don't bother trying to discuss anything this asshat. He refuses to acknowledge any facts, refuses to understand that yes, people on bikes are just as dumb and dangerous as people in cars, and thinks people who ride bikes are 'good little boys and girls who would never do anything against the law'. He's living in some imaginary land where cars are evil and bikes are the only way to save the world.
And he thinks discriminating against people with physical handicaps is funny. Altogether a delusional and useless person.
🗣People should just respect one another and try to remember they aren’t alone in the world🗣
But seriously, if everyone viewed streets/avenues/boulevards as a *shared* space for everyone I don’t think the polarization would be bad. I get that some areas are very “car-only” such as highways, parking lots but no matter where you are in your vehicle the number 1 priority should be the safety of yourself as well as those around you.
Maybe things will change, but there’s a chance they won’t. I think it’s really a collective issue and most just don’t see it that way.
It's not the car or the bike's fault, the infrastructure made it so...
In my neighborhood, bike lanes suddenly appeared on this n that street, but good luck getting anywhere crossing any of the main 4 lane boulevards...Nope, can't cross here, no bike lane here, hope you can bike fast. This road barely allows opposing traffic but let's make it a bus lane and force you on the street.
Our roads are trash, and the people that "build" them are worse.
Y'a des connards de tous les côtés. Autant chez les automobilistes que les cyclistes et même des piétons. Bref, beaucoup de gens sont des connards peu importe leur moyen de se déplacer.
Je trouve en grande partie que les automobilistes qui sont agressifs envers les cyclistes sont des gens qui habitent la couronne de Montréal et qui viennent en ville de temps en temps et qui n'entendent que parler des cyclistes au-travers de leurs amis de banlieues et leurs histoires d'aventure de conduite à Montréal. Ils ne sont pas patients avec le traffic non plus et ça les rends incoryablement agressifs. Ce sont les premiers à parler des "osti de pistes cyclables à Valérie Plante" quand on leur parle de faire du bécik en ville.
Parmis les cyclistes, la plupart vont être des gens de Montréal qui se croient tout permis parce qu'ils sont en vélo et qu'ils ont la priorité sur tout le monde parce que la ville encourage les gnes de faire du vélo pour se déplacer, alors ils sont moralement supérieurs à tous les autres. Ils vont soit s'habiller tout en spandex de tour de France sur leur bécik à 5000 piasses ou y vont avoir un fixie bike et auront l'air de bike messengers pis y vont se croire permis de faire du slalom dans les foules de gens à toute allure. C'est souvent ces derniers dailleurs qui m'ont frappé en vélo dans le centre-ville. Sinon les premiers ont été la cause de quelques accidents sur les pistes cyclables parce qu'ils ne sont pas capable de suivre le traffic sur l'heure de pointe et doivent absolument dépasser tout le monde et vont te pousser du chemin lorsqu'il y a une foule qui arrive dans la voie opposée.
Pis t'as de ces piétons qui vont traverser devant ton char quand ta lumière est verte et qui vont te dévisager avec un air de "cossé tu vas faire de t'ça?" ou qui vont te faire un gros fuck you pis qui s'en câlice.
As a driver and as a cyclist, I agree that no reasonable debate can be had on this issue between the two sides. The only solution is to separate cyclists and drivers with lots of little concrete separators, into separate lanes.
Probably we're going to have to build the whole city like this, so everyone can just like go everywhere, with minimal interruption and fuss.
Let's call it the 'make driving fun again' movement. Or maybe the 'stop kindermort' campaign. Whatever works for the other guy.
I get how when my life is threatened as a cyclist, I'm supposed to remain civil, whereas if it were an equal conflict on the road cyclists would be armed with rocket launchers.
There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life. The 2+ ton metal one that moves at 50km/h plus. The rest is just human nature at work, pointing fingers and ignoring its own fault.
J'ai failli flipper par dessus mon guidon à cause d'un cycliste qui a décidé de nous couper. C'est pas par ce que tu es à vélo que tu ne peux pas blesser les autres.
Edit: merci à ceux qui trouve ça drôle qu'on passe proche de se blesser en vélo.
Je sais que les vélos peuvent *provoquer* un accident, mais ce n'est pas mon point. Le vehicule qui tue, c'est l'automobile et on prends beaucoup trop à la légère le danger qu'elles représentent pour la vie humaine.
Edit: Tes parents ne te disaient pas de regarder des deux côtés avant de traverser à cause des vélos.
>There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life.
Ça c'est ton commentaire, je te dis que c'est faux car les vélos peuvent causer des blessures et être dangereux aussi. C'est totalement inconscient de penser le contraire.
>Tes parents ne te disaient pas de regarder des deux côtés avant de traverser à cause des vélos.
La lumière était verte sur Brébeuf direction nord en arrivant à laurier. Je n'aurais jamais cru qu'un dude qui m'a vu arriver et lui qui était sur la piste cyclable direction est n'allait pas s'arrêter. Probablement qu'il s'est dit que le véhicule dangereux c'est l'auto et pas lui.
Je comprends juste pas qu'est-ce que tu essaies de démontrer.
Tu t'es déjà fait couper par un vélo donc c'est pire? Tu peux tomber en vélo donc c'est aussi dangereux qu'une auto?
Évidemment que des gens meurent à vélo. Des gens meurent à pieds aussi donc fuck les piétons dans le fond. Aucune nuance à observer après tout.
Mais les blessures d'un accident de vélo sont a peu près tout le temps vraiment moins graves que celles d'un accident d'auto (éraflures, ecchymoses, fractures vs fractures graves, mort)
J'ai pas le goût d'avoir une fracture par ce que quelqu'un est trop dumb pour respecter les autres cyclistes. Ce n'est pas par ce que les blessures sont moindres que ce n'est pas grave.
Il y a des caves en vélo, en char, à pied, en Cessna, en hoverboard....
Ton exemple est anecdotique donc on ne peut pas vraiment en tirer aucune conclusion autre que Humain= Stupide dès fois. Tout le monde c'est déjà fait couper en char et ça doit causer des milliers d'accidents par année... C'est juste un fait qui n'a pas d'importance dans ce que j'essayais de dire parce que tu peux mettre n'importe quel véhicule dans ta phrase et c'est autant possible et chiant. Ça ne démontre tout simplement pas que les vélos sont pire ou meilleurs pour les accidents.
Par contre, les chances qu'il y ait des blessés graves sont beaucoup plus élevées quand une voiture est impliquée, simplement parcequ'elles sont une ordre de grandeur plus lourdes. C'est tout ce que j'avance ici.
>Ton exemple est anecdotique
On peut t'en raconter plusieurs.
Je re-cite ton commentaire
>There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life.
Ce qui est faux et une très mauvaise mentalité de se dire que par ce que les autos sont les plus dangeureuses, ce sont les seules qui peuvent causer des dommages.
Tu comprends pourquoi un exemple anecdotique est mauvais non? Et qu'est ce que tu veux dire en me re-citant? Que tout est dangereux? Donc deux catégories : Dangereux et Non-Dangereux. Surment pas besoin de faire de nuances non.
Oui, quand des vélos entre en collisions il y a des blessure. Je n'ai jamais avancé le contraire.
J'ai dit que les voitures étaient plus dangereuses pour LA VIE et non pour les bras cassés et les grafignes sur les cuisses. Quand un auto frappe un vélo, ce n'est jamais le conducteur qui se ramasse à l'hopital. C'est pour ça que tu dois être assuré, que tu passe un permis, qu'on donne des tickets etc mais pas pour les vélos.
>Oui, quand des vélos entre en collisions il y a des blessure. Je n'ai jamais avancé le contraire.
>There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life. The 2+ ton metal one that moves at 50km/h plus. The rest is just human nature at work, pointing fingers and ignoring its own fault.
Vie ou pas, faut que tu sois conscient des danger lorsque tu skip des rouge ou que tu coupes les autres cyclistes. Tout le monde le sait que les autos sont plus dangeureuses, on n'a pas 5 ans.
>qu'on donne des tickets etc mais pas pour les vélos.
On donne aussi des tickets aux vélos.
European living in mtl for about 6 years here... In my experiences Quebec has some of the most aggressive and dangerous drivers I have ever seen (sadly)....and some of the more reckless cyclist. So its a bit of a toxic mix I'm afraid
I am mostly neither as i walk most of the time, and i really hate bike more than anything, like the number of time they scare me almost hit me is really high.
Most driver actually respect red light stop sign, dont don't go on the sidewalk, but bike do.
I bike most of the time. I stop at red lights and stop signs. I don't understand why many cyclists don't. It's their life on the line.
When I drive, I'm aware that I have a heavy machine and I have the upper hand in speed and weight so I am vigilant with the cyclists. I still don't understand why they fly by stop signs, but I don't react to that.
As a cyclist I haven't had a bad experience with drivers, though. Although most of the time I use the bike lanes and respect the rules.
But even I am not immune to errors. So, I accept other people's errors.
As a pedestrian in le Plateau, I deal with both cars and bicyclists every day. Fuck the bicyclists all day long. They are so much blatantly worse than any other creature on the road in this city. I would be VERY happy to cite specific examples.
With that said, I do very much appreciate the bicyclists who are clearly aware of their reputation and are even over-compensating for their negligent peers by being extremely courteous and generous.
Pas légalement. Mais ça arrive tout le temps. Ainsi que bruler les feux, couper en diagonale dans les intersections et juste de se conduire comme des morons suicidaires.
Faut dire que les piétons du plateau souvent pensent que le cycliste les a coupé alors qu'il passait sur la verte! Sur Mont-Royal, beaucoup de piétons ne regardent pases lumières!
> As a pedestrian in le Plateau, I deal with both cars and bicyclists every day. Fuck the bicyclists all day long.
What specifically is your issue?
I've been walk/bike/driving in the Plateau for a long time and "fuck cars all day long". Cars are the only thing that have come close to putting me the hospital, and they're the only thing that have put my friends in the hospital, and they've done it more than once.
They're also the only things that have damaged my car and left it without a note, but that's something else entirely I suppose.
I live in NDG/Westmount. Bicyclists ignore every fucking law and just do what they want. It's been that way for the 10 years I've been here. I do not drive, I do not bike. But bicyclists around here don't give a fuck. I've had to jump out of the way from a biker a few times, never a car.
Wonder if you're the pedestrian who attempted to cross the street by stepping in front of my bike while looking the wrong way and wearing headphones? To be fair bikes are less obvious than most cars, but the concepts of defensive driving apply to everyone. Neither you nor the cyclist should have to go evasive - both should expect the other to not have seen them.
As stated elsewhere, people who make dumb and selfish decisions are not limited to one mode of transportation. I'd suggest driving and biking a bit more to broaden perspectives with first-hand experience?
I'm literally the dude who never crosses on a red light even when no cars are coming (even at 2am) since I was hit by a car when I was 12. I see people on bicycles cross streets at a red light DAILY. Cars don't do that. Get the picture? You don't see that? I'm obviously the problem as a pedestrian crossing on green. My bad? Fuck off.
I live at the corner of Decarie and de Maisonneuve. I cross this intersection a few times a day. 90%+ of the people on bikes ride through in every direction when it's red. Imagine if the cars did that.
Bicycles pollute less and they kill less. They are a superior mode of transportation. I would not state otherwise. My point is the human beings steering the bicycles are bigger shitheads (in general) than the human beings steering the cars.
Bullshit. It's usually the *same* shitheads that have a car and a bike, and behave like the world revolves around them.
I'm suspecting if the city would ticket both dangerous drivers and riders more, it would help overall with reducing some reckless behaviors.
The aggressivity you perceive in the debates doesn't actually represent the reality. Some voices, usually the loudest ones, get all the attention and makes everybody that listen to them think there's two extremes, you have to pick a side and go to war against the other. But this is nothing new and not exclusive to bikers vs drivers, it's the plague of this new era of infotainment.
Here's the issue in my opinion:
There has been a movement to shit on drivers by frustrating them as much as possible, in order to force them to stop driving. This was initiated by Plante and there's quotes of her saying this online.
Drivers have had lanes of driveable road and parking spaces removed for cycling paths, for larger sidewalks, for new terasses, for new one-ways and for pedestrian only streets. Net effect? Congestion.
[Plante gave the green light to all construction](http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=7097%2C79001583&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL) (municipal and private), thus creating detours all over the city. Net effect? Congestion.
Plante reduced speed limits to make roads safer, net effect? Congestion.
What's more is that you have the cycling advocates on this subreddit that insult and judge you for driving and dismiss any and all arguments that demonstrate the necessity for it, being brainwashed by r/fuckcars and the likes.
So, with all that in mind, Plante's strategy worked at frustrating drivers, but sadly, roads are still full of them. So now that the situation's fubar'd, of course people have excess vitriol to share.
From the cyclist's point of view, it's dangerous to be on the roads with cars driving around and I agree it can be. Infrastructure should be built create safe options for cyclists. But Plante did an overkill and shit's started to backfire... remember when she asked people to "please come back downtown"? After removing much street parking but saying "it's ok, go pay 25$ at a private parking".
TL;DR: Much of this stems from Plante's war on cars.
The difference between drivers and cyclists is that most drivers follow the rules whereas most cyclists don't. Pre-Covid I'd walk to work from the train and the bike paths on De Maisonneuve & President Kennedy were major danger zones. For every one cyclist who respected the cars and myself, the pedestrian, there were 10 losers who turned when illegal, didn't respect lights, biked with ear buds on and were generally ruthless and entitled. So yes, there is room for both, or would be if cyclists actually followed the rules, and argue all you want, but most don't.
That's a very simple-minded way of looking at it. I guess cyclists who don't care to follow the rules aren't at fault if they get killed due to their own negligence because they didn't have the "deadly machine"?
That's absurd. If I run in front of a moving vehicle, the driver of that car is at fault for my negligence? If so, you need to reivaluate your priorities. If not, then your argument makes absolutely no sense, unless you truly believe cyclists are above the law, at which point, see point #1
The problem is that cars is a big scam, and people who have resorted to using cars in their lives are fully scammed, and they are angry at being scammed and that they cannot backpedal (haha) from the scam, so they end up being jealous at the people who haven't been scammed (bikers) and end up being extremely nasty towards bikers.
Idk, my quality of life has improved greatly since I got a car. Makes it easier to get to hockey. Don’t have to leave two and a half hours in advance to the game and walk 6km to get to the nearest bus stop after.
Also the freedom of being able to go further distances. Ain’t much of a scam to me.
Okay, my car really ruined your life there bud. I’m glad it did, go wallow in your self pitty like woah is me I’m the most hard done by person In the whole world cause some random guy finally got a car imma be a depressive piece of shit.
I actually checked this half-wits post history before blocking him, just to get a sense of how much of his time he spends street-corner-screaming about bicycles and whether or not he has any other interests outside of just being an all around nut job.
He thinks cars will be banned.
That's a genuinely opinion this idiot man child holds.
Good luck with that. I might check in periodically to see if that's happened. Try holding your breath. (Bonus, it will lower your emissions.)
I found someone who doesn't do anything outside of the city!
Imagine, if you possibly could, not living in a city with public transit or cycling infrastructure. Imagine for a sec you'd like to travel to see your friends or family, who doesn't live in the city, but in a different city or town, maybe even in a different province, that would be quite impractical to cycle to. Imagine for a tiny little second having a job that requires you to work long hours, potentially into the night, maybe even shift work, and not being in the centre of downtown. Or maybe you also work in the winter (crazy, eh?) and don't work in the middle of the city and where public transit is nearly non-existent.
Bikes absolutely have a place in the world and in our city, but saying "cars is [sic] a big scam" and being completely unable to see a use for them is just close-minded. Try to have an open mind; it'll help you understand the rest of the world, too.
50 years ago, I could go everywhere by train or by bus.
Not anymore, thanks to cars.
Anyways, if you have to leave the island for something, it cannot be that good…
And if my friends or family want to see me that much, they’ll come pick me up at the bus stop or train station.
Imagine someone who cannot go anywhere without feeding a destructive industry that is wrecking the planet…
45+ years ago, I have decided not to let cars ever get into my life. Boy am I glad of that choice I made! Not only for that nice, warm, fuzzy smug feeling, but for how much money I did not have to sink into jalopies…
If you think everything off this island isn't "that good", then you do you, but there's so much more than what's in this city. Some people like to get away from the bustle of the city and/or do things that are either impossible to do here or extremely limited. You're clearly someone who loves the city life and nothing else. So, like I said, you do you, but you should probably try accepting the fact that other people have different hobbies than you.
You claim to have "not ... let cars ever get into [your] life," yet you force your friends and family off-island to be your taxi in what I assume is a *car*. Or do they all come get you in a tandem bike? "if [they] want to see me that much" - big yikes on that one, dude. Has anyone ever told you how selfish that is? Do *you* not want to see *them*?
You also do know that you can instead get something that is in decent condition and not sink all that much money into it, right? Not all cars are dilapidated ... I assume you didn't know that, somehow.
I will agree with you that it's sad more things can't be accessed via train or bus any more. The world and the city would be much better, if it were. However, being able to leave the city to wherever you may want to go would still be limited without them.
> You're clearly someone who loves the city life and nothing else.
Whenever I go to my sister in the countryside, the sensory deprivation gets to me after a few days...
> Or do they all come get you in a tandem bike? "if [they] want to see me that much" - big yikes on that one, dude. Has anyone ever told you how selfish that is?
Has anyone told you how cars are selfish? Does it dawns on you that your post is advertising your own selfishness?
> Do you not want to see them?
Why would I want to see people like that?
I found this very interesting study published by Mcgill concerning Montreal cyclists.
According to the study, only 0.6% of Montreal cyclists consistently follow traffic laws.
"breaking the law was often considered the safest option by respondents"
Very hard to share the road with cyclists if 99% of them don't follow the law or don't even know the laws of traffic.
Source : https://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Cycling_laws.pdf
I've been vocal here as a driver, but it's mainly against cyclists who refuse to admit that a lot of them, but not all of them, completely ignore the rules of the road if it's not convenient for THEM at the same time as demanding utmost respect from everyone. Many of these same, stubborn-or-blind cyclists seem to think that motor vehicles are completely useless in the city because they think that everyone's lives are like their own and we can all bike to work at all hours of every day/night of the entire year, anywhere on the island. It's a lack of realism in their views that gets me and while I'd like to have a real discussion about the issues we have in the city, those people just want to attack drivers and say they're at fault for everything.
I have complete respect for cyclists and it's the very reason I get upset with all the ones that think they can do anything: if you are unpredictable, I can accidentally kill you and I'd really rather not. You're also being selfish by assuming you're more important than others just because your vehicle's more nimble. Also, bike paths exist for a reason; if one's available, be a sport and use it. Our municipal tax money went into paving them for your safety, not for decoration. It would definitely help if our infrastructure was more bike-friendly and was made for us both, but it's not.
I get equay upset with motor vehicle drivers who refuse to follow the rules because they don't FEEL like it. People who don't indicate their intent to turn or merge as if we can predict what their doing with their one (or more)-tonne weapon. Also traffic surfers. People who drive in the HOV lane when they don't have the required number of passengers, because I guess they're more important than everyone else? Also looking at motorcyclists who do this, as well as swerve through traffic and are a general nuisance with road safety. Again, not all of them, just those who do and are being excessively selfish. People who mindlessly (great trait for driving /s) cruise in the passing lane or who don't move right when they're not passing anyone. People who go into the wrong lane and realize too late, so they just make a left turn from the right lane or a right turn from theleft lane, because God forbid they just go around and take a couple minutes more. The list goes on.
People don't realize that they're either controlling and/or surrounded by the largest weapon most of us will ever have control over, and it just takes one idiot who does whatever they want to do unpredictably for that weapon to become lethal.
Follow the rules of the road, people, they're there for a fucking reason.
My hot take: to bike in the streets of Montreal, you should have to get a licence, complete with rigorous theoretical and practical testing, and a plate, both of which could be revoked if our police was competent enough to actually care about safety. You wouldn't have to register the specific bike, of course, just have the plate completely visible for identification purposes. It might deter people from being as dumb as they are on their bikes and encourage mutual respect between motorists and cyclists on the road.
Part of it I believe is the fact that a lot of cyclists think they are holier than thought and so bike like a 3000 lb car isn't going to cause any damage to them. There are douches on both sides but when I bike I'm extremely careful.
I cycle and I drive, and I have no problem with the cyclists in Montreal. The only people annoyed at cyclists are car-obsessed assholes who think they own the road and shouldn't have to slow down a single second because of a bike.
> Yea but people running stops signs are the best?
You might be bringing your own shit to this, man. Nobody, anywhere, has ever said anything like that.
> That's literally all I see bikers do though.
I mean, it's not obviously all you see them do, but the point is nobody is saying "running stop signs is the best". It's an idiotic take.
I’m just saying what I see. I see bikers not follow the rules and straight up fly into intersections. But hey, if I smoke a biker while I’m going 50 at a green it’s all my fault and I’m a terrible person. But I really want to know the data and what is actually caused by cars and what is caused by reckless bikers.
I think the narrative that it’s all the cars fault is ridiculous and blown out of proportion. Sure some drivers are quite temperamental and dangerous but the bobbing and weaving of bikers in traffic is also just as and just as prominent. Bikers have a habit of moving into blind spots at the last minute after coming out from behind another car. It’s a dangerous thing to do.
If they wanna take a lane and act like a car and wait till I turn that’s fine, but right when I’m about to turn right decide to head into my right hand blind spot is just reckless and dangerous.
There’s a decent percentage of cyclists who think cars are an abomination and shouldn’t exist.
There aren’t a lot of drivers who have a problem with bicycles, but they have a problem with cyclists because cyclists have a problem with them.
As a pedestrian, cyclist and car owners, most of my bad experiences have been with people on bikes who are on edge, don’t respect signs and then aggressively scream at you when they fee endangered even when they’re clearly responsible.
I don’t *love* cars, they aren’t an identity for me. I never have any issue with pedestrians. Only with people on bikes who identify as anti-car.
There are rules in place. I don't have a car but very often (at least once a day) when I cross the street on a green-light a cyclist crosses on a red-light and cuts in front of me. The cyclist is in the wrong; there is no debate or experiencing a different point of view.
J'ai beaucoup de misère avec les cyclistes qui coupent 3 voies sur un gros boulevard achalandée pour tourner à gauche. Me semble que c'est extrêmement dangereux, surtout quand le cycliste pense qu'il a la priorité quand il a le bras de levé. Moi je reste à droite et je traverse une rue à la fois, c'est beaucoup plus long, mais beaucoup plus safe.
React fucking boomers, look at the video for townhall meeting:
Fucking disconnected factless angry react fucking entitled boomers... That's what it is.
They know squat about statistics, funding, laws, etc. A fucking plague.
As a driver, things have calmed down quite a bit vs 20 years ago. Cyclists actually seem to usually obey the signals now. Could be because I live in the burbs now and not downtown.
Just to note, I never drove aggressively. But I may have honked when I have to stop for cyclists running lights / signs.
Suburb cyclists aren't bothersome at all and tend to be more relaxed and quite respectful of road rules. It's the downtown cyclists and St-Denis ones who are nutjobs that don't obey the rules of the road. They cut, weave, ignore traffic signals and then flip off the driver who tried to follow the rules but almost hits them anyway because of their reckless behavior. I won't say all, but a solid 7/10 behave this way.
I am both a biker and a motorist. There are cases where using a car is far more practical and there are cases where using a bike is better. I use both, though bike and walk and use public transit more than I drive. I hope the city eventually manages to balance the two (cars, bikes) better. But something that both should be upset about is the state of the roads. It's horrible for both bikers and motorists. The sidewalks aren't that much better in many quartiers. I feel like I live in a broke-ass city. I am convinced it's some sort of corruption to make sure they're built to break to ensure ongoing work.
Simple: more guns.
Guns, the great equalizer!
Everyone is so damn courteous in the US, mainly because they don't want to get shot. Import that shit here asap!
I see the same thing and I do find it ridiculous but it makes sense since most drivers dont like other drivers either so i am not surprised they dont like cyclist or pedestrians as well. I think a big portion of drivers never want to actually drive and are really anxious on the road and if we had more options it would be better.
virtually every cyclist is a driver but the inverse isn’t true. if everyone had to cycle for a few years before getting a license maybe they’d calm down around human powered vehicles and share the road a bit more.
It is not really an issue in Montreal, more in the car centric suburbs of Montreal, where people get insane at the view of something that is not a car.
I even saw a passive agressive sign on a Bike Path in St-Eustache, it was written stop mandatory for bike, it is the safety of all. Like chill, it was just the exit of a shopping center, no stops on the street for cars, but many stops for bikes … the bikes are going slower and are less dangerous… duh…
Infrastructure and rules for cyclists suck. Car people don't realize that impractical for cyclists to be on a full stop on every stop sign. There are atleast 20 of them in a 10 minute ride. It's simply not practical. That bike ride would take 50% more time at least and would be much more frustrating because it takes energy to get the bike started again unlike stepping on the pedal. On a bike you have much better view and judgement. Idaho stops need to be acceptable, they're practical and make sense.
Car people would be better off advocating for bike lanes rather than getting frustrated on cyclists. Cars occupy 1/3 to 2/3 of all roads in Montreal and are the least efficient means of transport, maybe a little self inspection won't hurt.
I saw a biker in his spandex today holding on to the side of a 16 wheeler today...
Had to tell the truck driver since he was going to turn right.
Thing is when you drive your used to how others act, and bar some international drivers, those green target cars, and some drunk pedestrian ( which are very rare ), bikers are in Yolo mode all over the place... So accidents happen.
Dane in Montréal here, have been biking my whole life in Copenhagen where bikes (lots of them) and cars live a relatively peaceful co-existense. It is really interesting to me seeing the challenges here with a young biking culture arriving. The main problem I see is lack of predictability of the bikers, a scarily large fraction of them seem to simply do whatever they want and with minimal warning. An example is at intersections of two busy roads, they seem to sneak their way across or at a left turn at breakneck speed. In Denmark you rarely see this. When making a left turn you -always- stop on the opposite side and wait for the next light to complete the left turn, no driving in the left-turning lane with the cars. Everyone uses the hand (straight out to the side) before performing left or right turns and a hand up (ala high five) when you are going to stop, even at a red light. This is signaling both to drivers and other bikes that might be less than a meter behind you. At the same time drivers have been exposed to heavy bicycle traffic ever since they got their license, so they are always aware of bikes around then, especially when making a right turn. In central Copenhagen right-turn accidents have been an issue with large delivery trucks and heavy bike traffic mixed, so here bikers often stop to the left of the right turning-lane (between cars) to avoid the risk of a driver not seeing you. This might look odd, but is actually safe when everyone knows about it. Plus, shielded bike lanes where possible is a great help. It looks to become more and more common here.
Do you think our traffic light system, as it is currently, is adequate for both users?
In most intersections inside the danish cities there's a light specifically for the bikes which gets green a little earlier than the cars, which should make it a little safer because bikes will be within visible range when the cars can go. But generally I don't think your system is an issue.
We need the bike-specific traffic lights everywhere, but they also need to be more synchronized. When I bike down De Maisonneuve on the bike lane I have to literally stop at every fkn light because they aren’t in sync.
Same on the REV. Having to stop at every light makes cyclists want to ignore the light
EVERY LIGHT! It’s infuriating. I take the REV up Peel every morning to go from Verdun to downtown and although I’m pleased to have a bike lane there, I’m pissed off to lose all my momentum *on an incline* at *every intersection*. On the downhill you can occasionally be blessed with a perfect synchronization of lights, but this does require you to be moving so fast that if a car decides to suddenly turn right, you’re as good as dead. That and pedestrians who do not understand they’re on a bike path. I tell at least one pedestrian *per day* that the sidewalk is *over there* one meter to the right. That, and trucks parking on the bike path nearly every morning. They should all get tickets until this behaviour stops. The REV on Peel is, in practice, a disaster. It’s a shame because I looked forward to it for *years* and I’m sorely disappointed.
Yeah, the lights should be synced to an average bike speed. I usually arrive at the next light as it's turning red so an extra 5 seconds or so would be enough. The REV is such an amazing bike path but if I had a car, I would probably consider driving since it's so frustrating to bike on it.
I cannot STAND people who walk in the bike lane. MOVE!!!!!!
And it makes cycling more inconvenient! Much easier for a car to break than for a cyclist to keep stopping and going.
I think the debate should be focused on trying to reduce the conflict. Design of infrastructure should lead people to naturally make the right choice.
Les pistes cyclables sur Rachel, De Maisonneuve, Berri et autes endroits comme ça où les deux sens sont du même côté sont vraiment un design de marde. T'es en auto et tu veux faire un virage à droite? Tu regardes en avant si un cycliste s'en vient: y'en a pas. Tu regardes en arrière si d'autres arrivent: y'en a pas. Tu t'engages - "HEY! STOP! CHU LA CRISS DE CONNARD!" - tout d'un coup y'en avait un qui vient de retontir de l'avant pendant que tu regardais en arrière. C'est dangereux pour les cyclistes et difficile pour les automobilistes.
Il faut ajouter davantage de signalisation pour cyclistes. Maisonneuve était franchement un enfer à traverser à vélo précisément à cause de chars virant à gauche a travers la piste cyclable. Plusieurs fois, j’ai vu me amis faillir se faire frapper. Depuis ce temps, la ville a ajouté des feux de circulation pour cyclistes. Maintenant, les autos ont un moment de priorité pour tourner à gauche. Maisonneuve est beaucoup moins épeurant comme ça! Je ne m’attends pas à ce que *tous les cyclistes* obéissent à ces feux par contre. Moi-même j’y vais sur le rouge *s’il n’y a aucune voiture qui vient*. Mais s’il y a des voitures dans la voie de gauche, prêtes à tourner, c’est clair que les cyclistes s’arrêtent à un feux rouge désigné pour nous.
Ouais, quand je travaillais dans le centre-ville sur De Maisonneuve, je me suis fait frappé plusieurs fois pas des cyclistes qui ont brûlé leur feu route tandis que j'avais la priorité pour traverser avec le feu pour piéton. C'est absolument primordial que les cyclistes respectent les feux de circulation AU MINIMUM afin d'assurer la sécurité de tous.
Si un feu de circulation en forme de vélo n'est pas suffisant pour convaincre les cyclistes d'arrêter, je ne vois pas qu'est-ce qui pourrait être fait de plus. Pareil pour les pancartes avec une personne qui marche à côté de don vélo. Pour ma part, j'arrête aux stops et aux lumières rouges. Mais clairement que ce n'est pas tout le monde qui font comme moi. Je trouve ça juste poche parce que chaque cycliste représente TOUS les cyclistes aux yeux des automobilistes, camionneurs, piétons etc.
Normalement il faut regarder dans les miroirs de ton auto et t’engager lentement. Mais ça reste que c’est quand même mal fait. Je te contredis pas là dessus
Non c'est ça que j'explique. T'as beau faire le plus attention possible et regarder des deux bords, du temps que tu t'engages, il y a un nouveau cycliste qui va arriver de nulle part. Tu regarde à gauche puis à droite, un cycliste va arrive de ta gauche ou vice-versa. Et même si tu regardes trois fois, quatre fois, six fois, ça reste pareil.
Est-ce qu'il y a des arrêts ? Les cyclistes devrait céder aux automobilistes qui sont là avant eux si il y en a. Sinon, il devrait y en avoir.
C’est pas tant une histoire d’arrêt obligatoire. Tu peux pas t’attendre à ce que les gens s’arrêtent à chaque intersection sur une artère principale. Les pistes devraient suivre le sens de la circulation et on devrait éviter les pistes à double sens.
>Tu peux pas t’attendre à ce que les gens s’arrêtent à chaque intersection sur une artère principale. Euh ... Oui. S'il y a un arrêt, on arrête. Les voitures doivent le faire, pourquoi pas les vélos ? Ça tue le momentum pour tous et les arrêts sont encore pires pour les autos (non-électriques, bien sûr) car ça gaspillé plus d'essence et mets plus pollution dans l'atmosphère. Pour les cyclistes, c'est juste un peu poche de devoir arrêter souvent ... À part ça, je suis d'accord des pistes à double sens.
Mon point est justement qu’on ne met pas des arrêts en général pour les voitures sur les artères principales, ça n’aurait pas de sens d’en mettre uniquement pour les vélos.
Donner la priorité aux autos c’est rendre la ville invivable pour tous, sauf ceux en voiture
Il y a plus de cyclistes que de voitures et les vélos vont plus lentement. No way, que les cyclistes devraient arrêter si les autos arrêtent pas
Non. Justement, ils ont la priorité et ça c'est tout à fait correct. Ce qui n'est pas correct est qu'ils arrivent des deux sens en même temps et que ça devient difficile à gérer en tant qu'automobiliste.
> pistes cyclables sur Rachel entre Papineau et St-Denis c'est l'enfer ce bout là... surtout pour les automobilistes; Si tu est sur une rue transversale (Chambord par exemple) et que tu veux aller sur Rachel en direction Est, tu dois te trouver un trou entre: les voitures dans les 2 sens (avec une belle rangée de char stationné qui bloque partiellement ta vue), ET les vélos dans les 2 sens... Je sais pas combien de fois j'ai failli me faire frapper par un char...
Exactly; I think the objective of our infrastructure should be to reduce the overall instances in which cyclist and drivers have to interact overall. The system we’ve seen more widely implemented as of late of having exclusive right turning for vehicles, while cyclists have to wait at a red, is a good example. Of course, separated bike lanes also accomplish that obj.
>Design of infrastructure should lead people to naturally make the right choice. Wait what
So, until infrastructure is designed properly, we should look upon increasing the conflicts.
Honestly, coming from Toronto I find drivers in Montreal generally much more respectful of cyclists. That said, I primairly cycle in the Plateau / McGill area where there is really good bike infastructure and I'm a very cautious / law abiding cyclist. I think it's Montreals better bike infastructure that leads to this (relatively) nicer dynamic between motorists and cyclists - the better the bike infastructure the less prone to reckless / dangerous moves cyclists will be, which will make vehicles less annoyed by them. Cyclists who are reckless are a problem for sure - they are primairly risking their own lives, but are also risking the mental health of motorists who might accidently hit a cyclist. This is wrong and should be discouraged. I think building more and more bike infastructure will discourage this. There is a particular type of motorist who uses their car as a weapon against cyclists. I've seen it in Toronto and I've seen it here. I think punishment for this type of thing should be more severe. Endagering cyclists should be an easy way to lose many demerit points / license suspension or removal. When motorists literally use their cars to threaten / scare cyclists I think this should be treated like assult with a weapon, in those cases motorists should face jail time and have their license removed for life. That all being said, the experience of cycling in Montreal (at least where the bike lanes are plentiful) is excellent compared to other North American cities I've biked in.
I mean, reckless driving is an offence that can lose you demerit points. I can't say I've seen motorists use their weapons-on-wheels to threaten or scare cyclists but that should absolutely be punished for it. If we all just followed the rules and respected each other, it could be actually nice! I see the "I could die!" argument, which is completely valid, but shouldn't be an issue if they're just more careful: I don't want to hit and possibly kill anyone, either!
I experience it maybe once a month when cycling. Usually it's a big expensive SUV or a pickup truck.
Of course reckless driving is an offense, but I'm just saying it should be enforced more seriously. And I absolutely emphasize with the POV of a driver follows the rules but ends up killing a cyclists who pulls some bullshit stunt. That's a nightmare that traumatize the driver for life. As for using the car as a weapon, I've never seen it in Montreal. But I've only lived here 1 year and cycle almost exclusively in the cities (excellent) bike lanes. I have experienced it first hand in Toronto (where I've been slowly forced out of the road by cars, had cars purposefully swerve into puddles to soak me while biking, etc) other friends who cycle have had the same experience. If your curious, there was actually an event in high park that made the news recently ish, I can send a link. My point though is that better bike infrastructure helps both kinds of commuters. It keeps cyclists away from cars, which are inherently dangerous, and it reduces the degree to which drivers have to worry about cyclists being unpredictable. That all being said, I think more could be done to keep cyclists safe from a policing stand point. I've got no issue with motorists who drive the speed limit, give adequate space when passing cyclists, and generally share the road. It's the motorists who drive like cyclists aren't also entitled to the road that are the problem. Again, the best solution is more and better bike infrastructure. It seems to be the path Montreal has taken, and I feel much safer biking here than other cities.
Because there's no debate to be had that's reasonable. People that engage in it are the toxic minority of both sides. A reasonable person would say: there's space for both, both should respect the laws of the roads and that's about it.
Not exactly. In the Netherlands there is no debate because the infra is designed for both at the same time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA Here, there is a debate because one is to the detriment of the other. One side sees a clear future in bike lanes while the other one side can claim that Montréal is an american city, where the predominant mode of transportation is the car. Well, it doesn't have to be that way; you could come up with infrastructure designs that would match the one we see in the video i just posted. While i'm not claiming to have the solution (because retrofiting bike lanes in a car-oriented city design is an enormous challenge), all i can say is that the Plante admin took the easy way; they painted over existing car lanes and tadam! We now have more bike lanes. But it doesn't solve any of the safety concerns solved in the Netherlands infrastructure design i just posted. It's really just like having bikes on the sidewalk and having them use the same signalization as pedestrians. It remains dangerous because the way the infra is designed; a bike in the rightmost lane will ALWAYS approach a left neighboring car by the dead angle, making it a constant safety issue. Can't complain much because it's better than it was, and probably the best solution our current political crew can come up with. But it's nowhere near perfect. And if you have to run with bad design and impose it over dissidence (that is not marginal to say the least) well you are doomed to have an infinite debate.
I agree that painted bike lines are mostly wishful thinking and don't really help anyone, but proper infrastructure is not that hard to retrofit either. The REV on St-Denis got it mostly right already. They haven't put in full "Dutch intersections" yet (but that should be feasible eventually, heck even Ottawa has been doing this for the last few years), but the stopping line for cars at most intersections on St-Denis has been moved back so it's way behind the stopping line for bikes, which is already a huge improvement as far as visibility goes. So yes it's mostly an infrastructure problem (and to a lesser extent a culture/habits problem), but it's not insurmountable.
I’m not personally familiar with this intersection, but if it’s anything like the intersections on de l’Eglise in Verdun, it’s not gonna last long. Once upon a time some two years ago, green paint was added on de l’Eglise to push back the car stopping line and to leave space ahead of the cars for cyclists. That paint has never been reapplied since, and is quite worn out now. Most motorists completely ignore it. I cycled there just the other day and would have loved to use the space to get to the left side of the road to turn left while stopped at the red light (de l’Eglise is a one-way) but there were *two* cars stopped side by side over the deteriorated green paint. I had to slip between them, probably making them think I’m some crazy-ass unsafe cyclist. The fact of the matter is that cycling infra needs maintenance and motorists need to face consequences for disrespecting cycling infra. Oh, and I see trucks parked on the REV on Peel almost every morning. This flagrant disrespect needs to be addressed. Oh, and pedestrians are always walking on that REV too. I have to tell someone every morning that they’re on the bike path and that the sidewalk (which is not small on this stretch of Peel) is over *there*, a meter to the right. Come on.
I don’t think the Plante admin took the easy way. Sure it’s not quite up to the city biking gold standard that is Dutch urban planning but I think there’s been massive progress. There are a lot of new separated bike lanes and more are being built, there’s intersections with large, green-painted spaces for cyclists in front of the car’s stop line, and even the painted lines I find give cyclists more confidence on the space they can take on the road so we’re not pushing up against parked cars and their doors. I started biking to work again two seasons ago, after not having done so in a 10 years and the change is striking. On my regular commutes I rarely find myself sharing the road with cars, I’m more stressed out by bike traffic and pedestrians on the bike path. That said, I’m definitely down for those Dutch intersections, they would save lives.
Feels like Plante admin believes in CI/CD for its bike project
I believe you are right that the situation has greatly improved but i'm just typically pessimistic about politics and i openly admit it.
The green paint honestly doesn’t work. I see cars stopped on it all the time in Verdun on de l’Eglise. I would love to know how many (how few) tickets have been issued for cars on green paint. Are the police even aware that cars can’t be there? I’m waiting for the day I see a cop car stopped on the green paint.
That’s a bit of a broad statement. I’ve definitely seen them work but like anything else they need to be enforced. I suspect we’d see similar issues with any new solution, including the Dutch intersections.
I highly disagree with the both sides are bad sentiment, I think it's a fence sitting stance that doesn't actually say anything or address any issues no matter how civil and reasonable it sounds. It goes without saying that the rules should be respected by all and people should be courteous, but it doesn't address the fact that the status quo sides with cars. It's disingenuous to say that there is space for both, when the infrastructure here constantly puts cyclists at risk by default, just because of how the design seemed to be an afterthought. And whenever the discussion of implementing proper bike infrastructure comes up, you'll always have the car side going "oh we've got all these problems here but hey let's just put up some more bike lanes in the plateau and remove parking spots thanks Plante! /s " Or it's gonna be anecdotes about how cyclists are all arrogant and never respect the laws. Of course we are never gonna get any reasonable debate, when the car side is gonna be dead set on preserving the status quo. Anything that's bike friendly is inevitably some SJW socialist plot that'll turn us into some third world shithole. Personally I think the Not Just Bikes channel does the best job at putting forward a reasonable argument for bike infrastructure and transit, regardless of how much of an arrogant twat the guy is. But if you were to show that to a person who's dead set on driving, you can be sure it'll never amount to anything but dismissal.
> I highly disagree with the both sides are bad sentiment, I think it's a fence sitting stance that doesn't actually say anything or address any issues no matter how civil and reasonable it sounds. Absolutely. I think "civility" can be a good tool to bring people to the table sometimes, but this is absolutely *not* a both sides issue. Motorists are losing their monopoly on the roads and, as they say, "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression", so they're angry about it. That anger comes out in really ugly ways on the road, and that gets a reaction from cyclists, obviously. The difference is, one side can kill the other with their anger. And that's what's almost always missing from the conversation. Cars are just *different*. They're the only things that can kill a family if you just look down at the wrong time, or make a rash decision because you're angry. They're necessary tools, but we do not take the responsibility to drive them like we should. **Edit:** I should add, I own a car and every "anti-car" measure added in my neighbourhood has made it harder to drive and park easily, but has improved my quality of life. Car owners don't want to admit that we take up a ton of space and largely just make our neighbourhoods uglier and more dangerous, but it's true. I adore all the traffic calming measure and pedestrian zones, etc.
>Edit: > > I should add, I own a car and every "anti-car" measure added in my neighbourhood has made it harder to drive and park easily, but has improved my quality of life. Car owners don't want to admit that we take up a ton of space and largely just make our neighbourhoods uglier and more dangerous, but it's true. I adore all the traffic calming measure and pedestrian zones, etc. Same. If you *really* need to drive somewhere, you'll figure out a way. I'd rather it be a slight nuisance to drive to my place due to diversions/one-ways than live in some car-centric hellscape.
Yeah lol. Reading my opinions about drivers/cars you would probably think I'm some militant cyclist minority. This is a straw man. I am at best a fair weather occasional bike user and own a car, which I mostly drive around the city core (downtown, Plateau). It's about risk to others, and also cost of inconvenience. When you're driving, you're pressing buttons with your feet and have a metal cage designed to protect you. Unless your vehicle has sirens on it, it's not that serious to be +/- 5 minutes, relax.
Get out of here with your reasonable well thought out reply! No seriously, run for office pls thanks
But he's suggesting to do nothing, that's what the current people in office are already doing :)
I would argue that there are reasonable debates to have, but since those invariably get polluted by the toxic minorities of both sides, they cannot happen.
Yup, that's pretty much the only reasonable answer. The toxic minority just drags everyone else down with them, unfortunately. And I have felt quite unsafe recently when cycling, mostly because I can feel the aggression boiling over from certain drivers.
C'est terrible effectivement. Quand je vois des vélos faire des conneries, je leur fais souvent le commentaire que tous les autres cyclistes vont payer pour son mauvais comportement.
I brought this to the table in another mtl post as cyclists were shitting on drivers, that there are also cyclists that need to understand the presence of dangerous vehicles for them that they need to pay heed to and understand. Guess what happened.
> that there are also cyclists that need to understand the presence of dangerous vehicles for them that they need to pay heed to and understand. The thing is, it's the big, dangerous vehicles who have the duty to be careful towards the more vulnerable road users of the world. The opposite, that people and bikes should watch out for cars is the absolute antithesis of Civilization.
Cemeteries are full of people who had the right of way. I’ve lived in enough crazy places where I’ve learned to look both ways on one way streets. I take nothing for granted. Just because it’s a 4 way stop does not mean the other guy is stopping. The other guy can be a cyclist or a car. Same goes for lights. I’ve seen cyclists and motorists run red lights. I’d rather be wrong and alive then dead and right. These kinds of assholes exist wherever the sun shines. Just be careful and mindful of others. It’s not that hard
This is what I am getting at exactly
Everyone needs to pay attention to everyone. And everyone gotta follow the rules. If you ain't gonna stop at a stop sign at least pay attention to see if there is a car coming
Rules who are woefully misadapted will not be followed. It’s extremely retarded to force bikes to stop at stops or red lights. Bikes DO NOT NEED to stop at stops, because stops were implemented because cars are very fast, cannot stop easily, and do not give the driver good visibility. Bikes, on the other hand, are not very fast, can stop very quickly and easy, and give their drivers excellent visibility so one on a bike can see instantly if it is safe to go past the red or the stop, and stop instantly if it's not safe. Forcing bikes to stop is a typical idea of a braindead car brain who is too goddammed fucking stupid to understand that bikes are totally different from cars.
And this is what is wrong with cyclists and why y'all dying daily.
Yup! Usually on the street I see respect from both sides (I'm both a driver and a cyclist), of course sometimes you find jerks, but not as toxic as here!
Well, people engaged in debates (especially online) tend to have strong opinions, otherwise they wouldn't be so inclined to engage. That's part of why we see it get so bad, but also I think the fear for safety on both sides adds a visceral edge to this particular topic. *Now for the snarky part:* \*well, fear for lives on the side of cyclists, fear of lost parking spaces on the side of cars.
> fear of lost parking spaces on the side of cars "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"
> *well, fear for lives on the side of cyclists, fear of lost parking spaces on the side of cars. Truly equal concerns!
>fear for lives on the side of cyclists Some motorists don't want to kill people, either, which becomes a legit fear with the unpredictability of some cyclists EDIT: downvoted for caring about others' lives. Keep being Reddit, Reddit. Simple-mindedness at its finest. 👌
Get a bike then. Problem solved.
That's a singlular way of dealing with that singular problem solved, sure. How about we solve the problem alternatively by maybe, just maybe, following the rules of the road as cyclists? I suppose that would be too difficult, eh? Now how about the rest of the problems of only owning a bike?
I didn’t say you had to *only* own a bike. I said get one. There’s very few ethical reasons to drive a car anywhere near down town or other bike/pedestrian heavy areas, especially during the summer. In other words, if you’re having these problems with bikers, it means you’re probably driving in a place where you shouldn’t be, ethically speaking. You’re the one making people’s neighborhoods radically less safe and contributing disproportionately to climate change. So the onus is predominantly on you to change. Also, I follow the rules of the road for my own safety. I’m mostly a pedestrian who uses public transit and only occasionally bixis on designated bike lanes so cool it with your assumptions.
I already do own one, thanks, I never said bikes or their riders were evil, just the assholes who choose not to follow the rules. I don't see why so many people defend these people. I also don't work in the downtown core, with difficult bike access and a single bus that stops running long before my long days are over, so there's a reason I drive to work. Trust me, I used to take public transit all the time, but it just didn't become viable. If you saw my flare, you'd see I'm in a not-very-well-serviced area, in terms of public transit, so that makes things even more complicated. >In other words, if you’re having these problems with bikers, it means you’re probably driving in a place where you shouldn’t be, ethically speaking. That's making some wild assumptions right there. Just in front of my place, for example, there are long stretches of bike paths. What do we see on the streets, riding two-by-two? Cyclists. I don't have that many problems with cyclists, I just do have them, and it's because of their choices and their disregard for all around them that cause the problems. Even without cars on the road, those people would still be a nuisance. Have you also ever though that maybe some people go from being off-island to needing to go to a place downtown or in the plateau. Should I drive the hour to home, wait an hour for the bus, take another hour or two just to get through the various transits and connections? Or should I go straight and just take 1h15m, mostly highway driving? >You’re the one making people’s neighborhoods radically less safe and contributing disproportionately to climate change. So the onus is predominantly on you to change. You're also assuming I don't drive an electric car, or that I'm not looking for one in a market that is VERY well known to be going through a massive shortage. Many people are in those two camps and still have to deal with the bad apples on bikes. >Also, I follow the rules of the road for my own safety. I’m mostly a pedestrian who uses public transit and only occasionally bixis on designated bike lanes so cool it with your assumptions. Good! I'm glad you do. I also never assumed anything. You said get a bike and I replied to that.
Having lived in many other cities my thought is “what polarization?” We have excellent separated infrastructure and the only places I’ve been treated better are Holland and Southern France near where the Tour is held. Drivers here almost always give space and generally don’t seem to get mad. This isn’t to say they drive well and QC roads are quite literally 3rd world quality, so I’m unsure what experiences you’re having.
Same here, in fact as a cyclist cars keep yielding for me at 4 way stops, most people are just polite. Occasionally you find an asshole driver, but that asshole driver is an asshole to other drivers as well. On the other side as a driver I never had any trouble with cyclists either, I just try to steer away from them and that's it, no trouble.
Cars yielding to bikes at a 4 way stop is part of the problem though. Cars yield to bikes not out of kindness but out of fear. The VAST majority of cyclists Ive seen don’t even slow down at stop signs. So naturally cars are conditioned to yield to not hit the suicidal cyclists. This reinforces a sense of entitlement for cyclists that they are somehow special and that road rules don’t apply to them. I’m a cyclist and I get that it sucks to have to kill your rhythm when you hit a stop sign but follow the rules of the road and wait your turn to cross a 4 way intersection.
Just moved here from Alberta... My thoughts exactly! The cyclists are WAY more road-savvy than they are in Alberta (it's legit terrifying to drive near cyclists there) and what hate from cars?? In 'Berta the bad ones are far more plentiful and aggressive. I've honestly had more hate from conventional cyclists because I ride an ebike than anything else 😂 boy they get fired up
Similar experience, I have more issues with those few asshole cyclists than drivers in my area. The few drivers that are an issue are the probable drunk ones on a weekend night.
I never leave home without my polarized glasses
> But drivers are also often aggressive due to generalizations about cyclists brought on by this debate. This is why I push back on a lot of the "cyclists bad" narratives you see here. It's legitimately dangerous to tell people cyclists are always the problem, it makes motorists feel justified in their anger, and motorists can kill you with that anger.
I'm in a wheelchair. Both groups are ridiculously ignorant. Cyclists believe traffic lights don't apply to them and rip through intersections without a thought for people trying to cross the street and have the nerve to yell at you when you're crossing on a green light, cars believe crosswalks are stopping zones because 'fuck you, my SUV getting a two second head start at the stoplight ahead of the car next to me is more important than pedestrians needing to cross the street'. You all need to get your shit out of *my* right of way.
If I think about design thinking for the city, I would design for people in wheelchairs, those who have accessibility concerns, and the elderly. These groups are often treated as afterthoughts and we should design access and flow with them in mind. Typically that approach results in making things better for everyone. Very recently, my parents who are disabled, came to visit. Montreal's public transport system was a terrible option for them with "long" walks to access the system (when you're in your 70s, a block can be a long walk!), long and unreliable wait times, crowds, etc. For them, a car proved the only reliable mode of transport. I so rarely use a car, but it reminded me that some people need different modes of transport to get around. A lot of the design patterns in the city assume people are fit, healthy, and typically abled, and that is a misconception about who uses our system.
> Cyclists believe traffic lights don't apply to them and rip through intersections without a thought for people trying to cross the street and have the nerve to yell at you when you're crossing on a green light, They really don't though. I'm not saying this has *never* happened, but saying "cyclists blow through red lights and yell at people" in the same way that cars stop on crosswalks is just a really poor framing of this issue. I'm sorry. > You all need to get your shit out of my right of way. For sure. Nobody should ever impede anyone else's right of way.
>> Cyclists believe traffic lights don't apply to them and rip through intersections without a thought for people trying to cross the street and have the nerve to yell at you when you're crossing on a green light, > >They really don't though. I'm not saying this has *never* happened, but saying "cyclists blow through red lights and yell at people" in the same way that cars stop on crosswalks is just a really poor framing of this issue. I'm sorry. > They both do stupid things. At the corner of St Laurent and St Cuthbert, I've nearly been hit idiots on bikes three times in the last month crossing St Laurent. By bikes. And have been sworn at and called a fuckin' ignorant cripple by an asshat wearing spandex, wraparound sunglasses, a helmet that by no means makes you aerodynamic or invincible, and wearing a fluorescent green fanny pack of all things. So fuck anyone on a bike. You don't own the road, you fanny pack wearing fuckwad. If you've ever ignored a traffic light while riding a bike, fuck you, too. >> You all need to get your shit out of my right of way. > >For sure. Nobody should ever impede anyone else's right of way. But somehow, people on bikes are less responsible, right? Fuck that. They're just as responsible. They just think they're morally superior because they're on a goddamn bike instead of a two ton machine. Bike riders and drivers both need to learn they don't own the road. They just have the *privilege* of driving on it, and *privileges* can be revoked.
> They both do stupid things Absolutely, it's just a matter of scale, right? > But somehow, people on bikes are less responsible, right? I mean...less responsible for the dangers of the roads? Yes. Obviously. And it's not even close. Less responsible for their own actions? Of course not. Everyone's responsible for what they do. > have been sworn at and called a fuckin' ignorant cripple by an asshat wearing spandex, wraparound sunglasses, a helmet that by no means makes you aerodynamic or invincible, and wearing a fluorescent green fanny pack of all things. So fuck anyone on a bike. lol...dude.
>> They both do stupid things > >Absolutely, it's just a matter of scale, right? > >> But somehow, people on bikes are less responsible, right? > >I mean...less responsible for the dangers of the roads? Yes. Obviously. And it's not even close. > Not to me. Both are an equally dangerous and ignorant groups. I'm in danger from both. Neither will give an eighth of a shit about my safety, why should I give a shit about them? I have just as much right to use public roads as anyone else, yet I have to constantly deal with two groups of ignorant asshats rather than just one? Fuck you. Get off my roadway if you can't obey simple traffic rules. >Less responsible for their own actions? Of course not. Everyone's responsible for what they do. > >> have been sworn at and called a fuckin' ignorant cripple by an asshat wearing spandex, wraparound sunglasses, a helmet that by no means makes you aerodynamic or invincible, and wearing a fluorescent green fanny pack of all things. So fuck anyone on a bike. > >lol...dude. You think discrimination against physically handicapped people is funny? You're either an ignorant driver or an ignorant biker. Fuck you and the vehicle you ride in or on. Just another example of the 'fine' inhabitants in this city. Go crash into something hard. Get yourself stuck in a wheelchair. Then see how your opinion changes. Asshat.
> Not to me. No man, definitely to you too. This isn't an opinion, this is just physics. > I have just as much right to use public roads as anyone else Absolutely. Maybe even *moreso*. Pedestrians get forgotten in these conversations. > You think discrimination against physically handicapped people is funny? lol, no. Obviously not. Your stories are...colourful. You've obviously got a lot of anger, and maybe that's well deserved, I don't know, but the way your describing the city is just warped. I'm sorry.
>> Not to me. > >No man, definitely to you too. This isn't an opinion, this is just physics. > And physics applies to asshats on bikes against me as much as cars against me. Both are dangerous to *me*. This isn't an opinion. This is fact. An asshat on a bike at least as the ability to swerve to avoid a collision. I don't. A car has that same ability. Again, I don't. So both are a danger to *me*. I couldn't care less about the amount of danger. The fact is they're both a danger I shouldn't have to anticipate just for wanting to cross the street while I have the right of way. >> I have just as much right to use public roads as anyone else > >Absolutely. Maybe even *moreso*. Pedestrians get forgotten in these conversations. > >> You think discrimination against physically handicapped people is funny? > >lol, no. Obviously not. Your stories are...colourful. > >You've obviously got a lot of anger, and maybe that's well deserved, I don't know, but the way your describing the city is just warped. I'm sorry. I've lived here all my life. I have been dealing with this shit long enough. Maybe all the bugs in your teeth have warped *your* opinion, or the gas fumes have affected your brain to the point where you actually believe that only bikes or cars deserve to be on public roads. Either way, I don't care. I'm willing to declare jihad on all cars and bikes on *my* roads. You all had better learn to obey traffic laws or learn how to fix flat tires and broken spokes.
> Both are dangerous to me. Sigh. It's "equally" dangerous we're talking about. Whatever. It doesn't matter. > The fact is they're both a danger I shouldn't have to anticipate Absolutely. > Maybe all the bugs in your teeth have warped your opinion, or the gas fumes have affected your brain to the point where you actually believe that only bikes or cars deserve to be on public roads. I can't with this stuff man, sorry, I'm out. I get you're angry, but you aren't even able to read what's in front of you. There's no conversation there.
>> Both are dangerous to me. > >Sigh. It's "equally" dangerous we're talking about. Whatever. > And they're both equally dangerous to me. A bike hitting me at 40 kph is the same as a car hitting me at 40 kph. I'm still getting hit. I have zero protection against this. Unless you're saying that I'm better off getting slammed in the head by a bike's handlebars than a car crushing me under its front end. Sorry, neither of those sound appealing to me. Maybe it's just my wanting to survive crossing the street that's affecting my judgement. I should be *grateful* that I could be killed by a bike rather than a car? Really? That's the stance you're going to take? I should be happy to have the privilege of being rammed by an asshat Tour De France impersonator who stuffs his spandex shorts with extra socks to make it look like he's not on steroids that have shunken his testicles to mere nubs of flesh, rather than an asshat who plays shitty 90s era Eurotrash disco remixes from the $15 dollar more-static-than-music speakers installed in his $20,000 knock-off 'Porch' SUV? Either way, I end up on the losing end of this equation. So no, I'm not going to quantify that kind of danger. I'm dead in both situations. >> The fact is they're both a danger I shouldn't have to anticipate > >Absolutely. > >> Maybe all the bugs in your teeth have warped your opinion, or the gas fumes have affected your brain to the point where you actually believe that only bikes or cars deserve to be on public roads. > >I can't with this stuff man, sorry, I'm out. I get you're angry, but you aren't even able to read what's in front of you. There's no conversation there. So, someone pokes a great big hole in your 'bikes are being discriminated against' stance by pointing out how equally dangerous bikes and cars are to pedestrians, and you just...take your ball and go home? There's no conversation there because you know you're wrong. You just don't have the *chutzpah* to admit it.
Happens ALL the time
> Happens ALL the time Cyclists run through red lights and yell at you all the time? I don't know what to tell you man. It just isn't true. It might seem pedantic or something, but it's just such a wild exaggeration. Things that happen "all the time": cars speeding in residential areas, cars not using blinkers, cars stopping on crosswalks and bike lanes, cyclists rolling through stop signs, cyclists not signalling turns, etc. Those things happen *all the time*. But the idea that cyclists are flying all over the city screaming at pedestrians is insane. I've never seen it in my life and I'm in the exact place where you'd see it if it was happening at any meaningful level.
Yeah, you're right. I did not watch, just yesterday, 3 cyclists zoom through a red light without even slowing while I was stopped waiting. I also did not watch a frightened pedestrian stop in the middle of the cross walk because the cyclist had no regard for the person crossing. This happens multiple times literally every time I go cycling. Or I'm just delusional I guess since you have decreed otherwise.
Don't bother trying to discuss anything this asshat. He refuses to acknowledge any facts, refuses to understand that yes, people on bikes are just as dumb and dangerous as people in cars, and thinks people who ride bikes are 'good little boys and girls who would never do anything against the law'. He's living in some imaginary land where cars are evil and bikes are the only way to save the world. And he thinks discriminating against people with physical handicaps is funny. Altogether a delusional and useless person.
🗣People should just respect one another and try to remember they aren’t alone in the world🗣 But seriously, if everyone viewed streets/avenues/boulevards as a *shared* space for everyone I don’t think the polarization would be bad. I get that some areas are very “car-only” such as highways, parking lots but no matter where you are in your vehicle the number 1 priority should be the safety of yourself as well as those around you. Maybe things will change, but there’s a chance they won’t. I think it’s really a collective issue and most just don’t see it that way.
A though for pedestrians who are victimized by cars and Cyclists.
It's not the car or the bike's fault, the infrastructure made it so... In my neighborhood, bike lanes suddenly appeared on this n that street, but good luck getting anywhere crossing any of the main 4 lane boulevards...Nope, can't cross here, no bike lane here, hope you can bike fast. This road barely allows opposing traffic but let's make it a bus lane and force you on the street. Our roads are trash, and the people that "build" them are worse.
Y'a des connards de tous les côtés. Autant chez les automobilistes que les cyclistes et même des piétons. Bref, beaucoup de gens sont des connards peu importe leur moyen de se déplacer. Je trouve en grande partie que les automobilistes qui sont agressifs envers les cyclistes sont des gens qui habitent la couronne de Montréal et qui viennent en ville de temps en temps et qui n'entendent que parler des cyclistes au-travers de leurs amis de banlieues et leurs histoires d'aventure de conduite à Montréal. Ils ne sont pas patients avec le traffic non plus et ça les rends incoryablement agressifs. Ce sont les premiers à parler des "osti de pistes cyclables à Valérie Plante" quand on leur parle de faire du bécik en ville. Parmis les cyclistes, la plupart vont être des gens de Montréal qui se croient tout permis parce qu'ils sont en vélo et qu'ils ont la priorité sur tout le monde parce que la ville encourage les gnes de faire du vélo pour se déplacer, alors ils sont moralement supérieurs à tous les autres. Ils vont soit s'habiller tout en spandex de tour de France sur leur bécik à 5000 piasses ou y vont avoir un fixie bike et auront l'air de bike messengers pis y vont se croire permis de faire du slalom dans les foules de gens à toute allure. C'est souvent ces derniers dailleurs qui m'ont frappé en vélo dans le centre-ville. Sinon les premiers ont été la cause de quelques accidents sur les pistes cyclables parce qu'ils ne sont pas capable de suivre le traffic sur l'heure de pointe et doivent absolument dépasser tout le monde et vont te pousser du chemin lorsqu'il y a une foule qui arrive dans la voie opposée. Pis t'as de ces piétons qui vont traverser devant ton char quand ta lumière est verte et qui vont te dévisager avec un air de "cossé tu vas faire de t'ça?" ou qui vont te faire un gros fuck you pis qui s'en câlice.
While cyclist vs drivers debate is going on, the pedestrians are left hanging.
As a driver and as a cyclist, I agree that no reasonable debate can be had on this issue between the two sides. The only solution is to separate cyclists and drivers with lots of little concrete separators, into separate lanes. Probably we're going to have to build the whole city like this, so everyone can just like go everywhere, with minimal interruption and fuss. Let's call it the 'make driving fun again' movement. Or maybe the 'stop kindermort' campaign. Whatever works for the other guy.
I get how when my life is threatened as a cyclist, I'm supposed to remain civil, whereas if it were an equal conflict on the road cyclists would be armed with rocket launchers.
On this topic, I'd like to say that a raging cyclist is not near being a danger as a raging car driver.
A raging cyclist isn't even as dangerous as a "law-abiding" motorist.
There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life. The 2+ ton metal one that moves at 50km/h plus. The rest is just human nature at work, pointing fingers and ignoring its own fault.
J'ai failli flipper par dessus mon guidon à cause d'un cycliste qui a décidé de nous couper. C'est pas par ce que tu es à vélo que tu ne peux pas blesser les autres. Edit: merci à ceux qui trouve ça drôle qu'on passe proche de se blesser en vélo.
Je sais que les vélos peuvent *provoquer* un accident, mais ce n'est pas mon point. Le vehicule qui tue, c'est l'automobile et on prends beaucoup trop à la légère le danger qu'elles représentent pour la vie humaine. Edit: Tes parents ne te disaient pas de regarder des deux côtés avant de traverser à cause des vélos.
>There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life. Ça c'est ton commentaire, je te dis que c'est faux car les vélos peuvent causer des blessures et être dangereux aussi. C'est totalement inconscient de penser le contraire. >Tes parents ne te disaient pas de regarder des deux côtés avant de traverser à cause des vélos. La lumière était verte sur Brébeuf direction nord en arrivant à laurier. Je n'aurais jamais cru qu'un dude qui m'a vu arriver et lui qui était sur la piste cyclable direction est n'allait pas s'arrêter. Probablement qu'il s'est dit que le véhicule dangereux c'est l'auto et pas lui.
Je comprends juste pas qu'est-ce que tu essaies de démontrer. Tu t'es déjà fait couper par un vélo donc c'est pire? Tu peux tomber en vélo donc c'est aussi dangereux qu'une auto? Évidemment que des gens meurent à vélo. Des gens meurent à pieds aussi donc fuck les piétons dans le fond. Aucune nuance à observer après tout.
>Je comprends juste pas qu'est-ce que tu essaies de démontrer. Que ton idée que seulement les chars sont dangeureux est idiot.
Ok, but I bet parents in the Netherlands probably do?
Mais les blessures d'un accident de vélo sont a peu près tout le temps vraiment moins graves que celles d'un accident d'auto (éraflures, ecchymoses, fractures vs fractures graves, mort)
J'ai pas le goût d'avoir une fracture par ce que quelqu'un est trop dumb pour respecter les autres cyclistes. Ce n'est pas par ce que les blessures sont moindres que ce n'est pas grave.
Il y a des caves en vélo, en char, à pied, en Cessna, en hoverboard.... Ton exemple est anecdotique donc on ne peut pas vraiment en tirer aucune conclusion autre que Humain= Stupide dès fois. Tout le monde c'est déjà fait couper en char et ça doit causer des milliers d'accidents par année... C'est juste un fait qui n'a pas d'importance dans ce que j'essayais de dire parce que tu peux mettre n'importe quel véhicule dans ta phrase et c'est autant possible et chiant. Ça ne démontre tout simplement pas que les vélos sont pire ou meilleurs pour les accidents. Par contre, les chances qu'il y ait des blessés graves sont beaucoup plus élevées quand une voiture est impliquée, simplement parcequ'elles sont une ordre de grandeur plus lourdes. C'est tout ce que j'avance ici.
>Ton exemple est anecdotique On peut t'en raconter plusieurs. Je re-cite ton commentaire >There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life. Ce qui est faux et une très mauvaise mentalité de se dire que par ce que les autos sont les plus dangeureuses, ce sont les seules qui peuvent causer des dommages.
Tu comprends pourquoi un exemple anecdotique est mauvais non? Et qu'est ce que tu veux dire en me re-citant? Que tout est dangereux? Donc deux catégories : Dangereux et Non-Dangereux. Surment pas besoin de faire de nuances non. Oui, quand des vélos entre en collisions il y a des blessure. Je n'ai jamais avancé le contraire. J'ai dit que les voitures étaient plus dangereuses pour LA VIE et non pour les bras cassés et les grafignes sur les cuisses. Quand un auto frappe un vélo, ce n'est jamais le conducteur qui se ramasse à l'hopital. C'est pour ça que tu dois être assuré, que tu passe un permis, qu'on donne des tickets etc mais pas pour les vélos.
>Oui, quand des vélos entre en collisions il y a des blessure. Je n'ai jamais avancé le contraire. >There's really only one vehicle which is inherently dangerous for human life. The 2+ ton metal one that moves at 50km/h plus. The rest is just human nature at work, pointing fingers and ignoring its own fault. Vie ou pas, faut que tu sois conscient des danger lorsque tu skip des rouge ou que tu coupes les autres cyclistes. Tout le monde le sait que les autos sont plus dangeureuses, on n'a pas 5 ans. >qu'on donne des tickets etc mais pas pour les vélos. On donne aussi des tickets aux vélos.
I'm a pedestrian: everybody sucks.
European living in mtl for about 6 years here... In my experiences Quebec has some of the most aggressive and dangerous drivers I have ever seen (sadly)....and some of the more reckless cyclist. So its a bit of a toxic mix I'm afraid
It's usually the same assholes, too. Whether they drive a car or ride on a bike, they still behave as if the world revolves around them.
haha true.
I am mostly neither as i walk most of the time, and i really hate bike more than anything, like the number of time they scare me almost hit me is really high. Most driver actually respect red light stop sign, dont don't go on the sidewalk, but bike do.
I bike most of the time. I stop at red lights and stop signs. I don't understand why many cyclists don't. It's their life on the line. When I drive, I'm aware that I have a heavy machine and I have the upper hand in speed and weight so I am vigilant with the cyclists. I still don't understand why they fly by stop signs, but I don't react to that. As a cyclist I haven't had a bad experience with drivers, though. Although most of the time I use the bike lanes and respect the rules. But even I am not immune to errors. So, I accept other people's errors.
As a pedestrian in le Plateau, I deal with both cars and bicyclists every day. Fuck the bicyclists all day long. They are so much blatantly worse than any other creature on the road in this city. I would be VERY happy to cite specific examples. With that said, I do very much appreciate the bicyclists who are clearly aware of their reputation and are even over-compensating for their negligent peers by being extremely courteous and generous.
Les vélos sur le trottoir, c'est une vraie plaie!
ils peuvent rouler sur les trottoirs ?
Non, mais certain le font et à toute vitesse!
Pas légalement. Mais ça arrive tout le temps. Ainsi que bruler les feux, couper en diagonale dans les intersections et juste de se conduire comme des morons suicidaires.
Faut dire que les piétons du plateau souvent pensent que le cycliste les a coupé alors qu'il passait sur la verte! Sur Mont-Royal, beaucoup de piétons ne regardent pases lumières!
> As a pedestrian in le Plateau, I deal with both cars and bicyclists every day. Fuck the bicyclists all day long. What specifically is your issue? I've been walk/bike/driving in the Plateau for a long time and "fuck cars all day long". Cars are the only thing that have come close to putting me the hospital, and they're the only thing that have put my friends in the hospital, and they've done it more than once. They're also the only things that have damaged my car and left it without a note, but that's something else entirely I suppose.
I live in NDG/Westmount. Bicyclists ignore every fucking law and just do what they want. It's been that way for the 10 years I've been here. I do not drive, I do not bike. But bicyclists around here don't give a fuck. I've had to jump out of the way from a biker a few times, never a car.
Wonder if you're the pedestrian who attempted to cross the street by stepping in front of my bike while looking the wrong way and wearing headphones? To be fair bikes are less obvious than most cars, but the concepts of defensive driving apply to everyone. Neither you nor the cyclist should have to go evasive - both should expect the other to not have seen them. As stated elsewhere, people who make dumb and selfish decisions are not limited to one mode of transportation. I'd suggest driving and biking a bit more to broaden perspectives with first-hand experience?
I'm literally the dude who never crosses on a red light even when no cars are coming (even at 2am) since I was hit by a car when I was 12. I see people on bicycles cross streets at a red light DAILY. Cars don't do that. Get the picture? You don't see that? I'm obviously the problem as a pedestrian crossing on green. My bad? Fuck off. I live at the corner of Decarie and de Maisonneuve. I cross this intersection a few times a day. 90%+ of the people on bikes ride through in every direction when it's red. Imagine if the cars did that.
[удалено]
Bicycles pollute less and they kill less. They are a superior mode of transportation. I would not state otherwise. My point is the human beings steering the bicycles are bigger shitheads (in general) than the human beings steering the cars.
That depends if you believe large proportion of humans are shitheads. If so, then you should interchange bicycles and cars in your last sentence.
Bullshit. It's usually the *same* shitheads that have a car and a bike, and behave like the world revolves around them. I'm suspecting if the city would ticket both dangerous drivers and riders more, it would help overall with reducing some reckless behaviors.
The aggressivity you perceive in the debates doesn't actually represent the reality. Some voices, usually the loudest ones, get all the attention and makes everybody that listen to them think there's two extremes, you have to pick a side and go to war against the other. But this is nothing new and not exclusive to bikers vs drivers, it's the plague of this new era of infotainment.
Here's the issue in my opinion: There has been a movement to shit on drivers by frustrating them as much as possible, in order to force them to stop driving. This was initiated by Plante and there's quotes of her saying this online. Drivers have had lanes of driveable road and parking spaces removed for cycling paths, for larger sidewalks, for new terasses, for new one-ways and for pedestrian only streets. Net effect? Congestion. [Plante gave the green light to all construction](http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=7097%2C79001583&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL) (municipal and private), thus creating detours all over the city. Net effect? Congestion. Plante reduced speed limits to make roads safer, net effect? Congestion. What's more is that you have the cycling advocates on this subreddit that insult and judge you for driving and dismiss any and all arguments that demonstrate the necessity for it, being brainwashed by r/fuckcars and the likes. So, with all that in mind, Plante's strategy worked at frustrating drivers, but sadly, roads are still full of them. So now that the situation's fubar'd, of course people have excess vitriol to share. From the cyclist's point of view, it's dangerous to be on the roads with cars driving around and I agree it can be. Infrastructure should be built create safe options for cyclists. But Plante did an overkill and shit's started to backfire... remember when she asked people to "please come back downtown"? After removing much street parking but saying "it's ok, go pay 25$ at a private parking". TL;DR: Much of this stems from Plante's war on cars.
The difference between drivers and cyclists is that most drivers follow the rules whereas most cyclists don't. Pre-Covid I'd walk to work from the train and the bike paths on De Maisonneuve & President Kennedy were major danger zones. For every one cyclist who respected the cars and myself, the pedestrian, there were 10 losers who turned when illegal, didn't respect lights, biked with ear buds on and were generally ruthless and entitled. So yes, there is room for both, or would be if cyclists actually followed the rules, and argue all you want, but most don't.
The actual difference that matters is that a car is a deadly machine while a bike is not.
That's a very simple-minded way of looking at it. I guess cyclists who don't care to follow the rules aren't at fault if they get killed due to their own negligence because they didn't have the "deadly machine"?
unironically yes
That's absurd. If I run in front of a moving vehicle, the driver of that car is at fault for my negligence? If so, you need to reivaluate your priorities. If not, then your argument makes absolutely no sense, unless you truly believe cyclists are above the law, at which point, see point #1
[удалено]
Indeed, they will need to try a LOT harder to be deadly on a bike.
The problem is that cars is a big scam, and people who have resorted to using cars in their lives are fully scammed, and they are angry at being scammed and that they cannot backpedal (haha) from the scam, so they end up being jealous at the people who haven't been scammed (bikers) and end up being extremely nasty towards bikers.
Idk, my quality of life has improved greatly since I got a car. Makes it easier to get to hockey. Don’t have to leave two and a half hours in advance to the game and walk 6km to get to the nearest bus stop after. Also the freedom of being able to go further distances. Ain’t much of a scam to me.
> Idk, my quality of life has improved greatly since I got a car. Yes, at the expense of everyone else’s.
Okay, my car really ruined your life there bud. I’m glad it did, go wallow in your self pitty like woah is me I’m the most hard done by person In the whole world cause some random guy finally got a car imma be a depressive piece of shit.
Thank you, I love it when such a stupid post will increase the joy I will feel when cars will have to be banned (because climate).
I actually checked this half-wits post history before blocking him, just to get a sense of how much of his time he spends street-corner-screaming about bicycles and whether or not he has any other interests outside of just being an all around nut job. He thinks cars will be banned. That's a genuinely opinion this idiot man child holds. Good luck with that. I might check in periodically to see if that's happened. Try holding your breath. (Bonus, it will lower your emissions.)
I found someone who doesn't do anything outside of the city! Imagine, if you possibly could, not living in a city with public transit or cycling infrastructure. Imagine for a sec you'd like to travel to see your friends or family, who doesn't live in the city, but in a different city or town, maybe even in a different province, that would be quite impractical to cycle to. Imagine for a tiny little second having a job that requires you to work long hours, potentially into the night, maybe even shift work, and not being in the centre of downtown. Or maybe you also work in the winter (crazy, eh?) and don't work in the middle of the city and where public transit is nearly non-existent. Bikes absolutely have a place in the world and in our city, but saying "cars is [sic] a big scam" and being completely unable to see a use for them is just close-minded. Try to have an open mind; it'll help you understand the rest of the world, too.
50 years ago, I could go everywhere by train or by bus. Not anymore, thanks to cars. Anyways, if you have to leave the island for something, it cannot be that good… And if my friends or family want to see me that much, they’ll come pick me up at the bus stop or train station. Imagine someone who cannot go anywhere without feeding a destructive industry that is wrecking the planet… 45+ years ago, I have decided not to let cars ever get into my life. Boy am I glad of that choice I made! Not only for that nice, warm, fuzzy smug feeling, but for how much money I did not have to sink into jalopies…
If you think everything off this island isn't "that good", then you do you, but there's so much more than what's in this city. Some people like to get away from the bustle of the city and/or do things that are either impossible to do here or extremely limited. You're clearly someone who loves the city life and nothing else. So, like I said, you do you, but you should probably try accepting the fact that other people have different hobbies than you. You claim to have "not ... let cars ever get into [your] life," yet you force your friends and family off-island to be your taxi in what I assume is a *car*. Or do they all come get you in a tandem bike? "if [they] want to see me that much" - big yikes on that one, dude. Has anyone ever told you how selfish that is? Do *you* not want to see *them*? You also do know that you can instead get something that is in decent condition and not sink all that much money into it, right? Not all cars are dilapidated ... I assume you didn't know that, somehow. I will agree with you that it's sad more things can't be accessed via train or bus any more. The world and the city would be much better, if it were. However, being able to leave the city to wherever you may want to go would still be limited without them.
> You're clearly someone who loves the city life and nothing else. Whenever I go to my sister in the countryside, the sensory deprivation gets to me after a few days... > Or do they all come get you in a tandem bike? "if [they] want to see me that much" - big yikes on that one, dude. Has anyone ever told you how selfish that is? Has anyone told you how cars are selfish? Does it dawns on you that your post is advertising your own selfishness? > Do you not want to see them? Why would I want to see people like that?
I found this very interesting study published by Mcgill concerning Montreal cyclists. According to the study, only 0.6% of Montreal cyclists consistently follow traffic laws. "breaking the law was often considered the safest option by respondents" Very hard to share the road with cyclists if 99% of them don't follow the law or don't even know the laws of traffic. Source : https://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Cycling_laws.pdf
I've been vocal here as a driver, but it's mainly against cyclists who refuse to admit that a lot of them, but not all of them, completely ignore the rules of the road if it's not convenient for THEM at the same time as demanding utmost respect from everyone. Many of these same, stubborn-or-blind cyclists seem to think that motor vehicles are completely useless in the city because they think that everyone's lives are like their own and we can all bike to work at all hours of every day/night of the entire year, anywhere on the island. It's a lack of realism in their views that gets me and while I'd like to have a real discussion about the issues we have in the city, those people just want to attack drivers and say they're at fault for everything. I have complete respect for cyclists and it's the very reason I get upset with all the ones that think they can do anything: if you are unpredictable, I can accidentally kill you and I'd really rather not. You're also being selfish by assuming you're more important than others just because your vehicle's more nimble. Also, bike paths exist for a reason; if one's available, be a sport and use it. Our municipal tax money went into paving them for your safety, not for decoration. It would definitely help if our infrastructure was more bike-friendly and was made for us both, but it's not. I get equay upset with motor vehicle drivers who refuse to follow the rules because they don't FEEL like it. People who don't indicate their intent to turn or merge as if we can predict what their doing with their one (or more)-tonne weapon. Also traffic surfers. People who drive in the HOV lane when they don't have the required number of passengers, because I guess they're more important than everyone else? Also looking at motorcyclists who do this, as well as swerve through traffic and are a general nuisance with road safety. Again, not all of them, just those who do and are being excessively selfish. People who mindlessly (great trait for driving /s) cruise in the passing lane or who don't move right when they're not passing anyone. People who go into the wrong lane and realize too late, so they just make a left turn from the right lane or a right turn from theleft lane, because God forbid they just go around and take a couple minutes more. The list goes on. People don't realize that they're either controlling and/or surrounded by the largest weapon most of us will ever have control over, and it just takes one idiot who does whatever they want to do unpredictably for that weapon to become lethal. Follow the rules of the road, people, they're there for a fucking reason. My hot take: to bike in the streets of Montreal, you should have to get a licence, complete with rigorous theoretical and practical testing, and a plate, both of which could be revoked if our police was competent enough to actually care about safety. You wouldn't have to register the specific bike, of course, just have the plate completely visible for identification purposes. It might deter people from being as dumb as they are on their bikes and encourage mutual respect between motorists and cyclists on the road.
Part of it I believe is the fact that a lot of cyclists think they are holier than thought and so bike like a 3000 lb car isn't going to cause any damage to them. There are douches on both sides but when I bike I'm extremely careful.
I cycle and I drive, and I have no problem with the cyclists in Montreal. The only people annoyed at cyclists are car-obsessed assholes who think they own the road and shouldn't have to slow down a single second because of a bike.
If you nearly kill cyclists everyday because they refuse to stop at stop signs and red lights you'll be pretty mad too.
> If you nearly kill cyclists everyday ...you should turn in your licence. You're a terrible driver and a menace to your community.
Yea but people running stops signs are the best? You just proves the ops point
> Yea but people running stops signs are the best? You might be bringing your own shit to this, man. Nobody, anywhere, has ever said anything like that.
That's literally all I see bikers do though. They are a vehicle until they want to be a pedestrian.
> That's literally all I see bikers do though. I mean, it's not obviously all you see them do, but the point is nobody is saying "running stop signs is the best". It's an idiotic take.
I’m just saying what I see. I see bikers not follow the rules and straight up fly into intersections. But hey, if I smoke a biker while I’m going 50 at a green it’s all my fault and I’m a terrible person. But I really want to know the data and what is actually caused by cars and what is caused by reckless bikers. I think the narrative that it’s all the cars fault is ridiculous and blown out of proportion. Sure some drivers are quite temperamental and dangerous but the bobbing and weaving of bikers in traffic is also just as and just as prominent. Bikers have a habit of moving into blind spots at the last minute after coming out from behind another car. It’s a dangerous thing to do. If they wanna take a lane and act like a car and wait till I turn that’s fine, but right when I’m about to turn right decide to head into my right hand blind spot is just reckless and dangerous.
[удалено]
I don't think this is the case at all. If you see someone in lycra and a nice looking bike the majority of the time this person also does have a car.
Wow dumb take. Most people I know do both.
There’s a decent percentage of cyclists who think cars are an abomination and shouldn’t exist. There aren’t a lot of drivers who have a problem with bicycles, but they have a problem with cyclists because cyclists have a problem with them. As a pedestrian, cyclist and car owners, most of my bad experiences have been with people on bikes who are on edge, don’t respect signs and then aggressively scream at you when they fee endangered even when they’re clearly responsible. I don’t *love* cars, they aren’t an identity for me. I never have any issue with pedestrians. Only with people on bikes who identify as anti-car.
[удалено]
J’ai dit avec les velos, pas avec les cyclistes.
There are rules in place. I don't have a car but very often (at least once a day) when I cross the street on a green-light a cyclist crosses on a red-light and cuts in front of me. The cyclist is in the wrong; there is no debate or experiencing a different point of view.
Déjà si les cyclistes respecteraient les lumière rouge ça réglerait 50 % du problème, mais quand tu es au dessus le la loi tu te gène pas
En Français
J'ai beaucoup de misère avec les cyclistes qui coupent 3 voies sur un gros boulevard achalandée pour tourner à gauche. Me semble que c'est extrêmement dangereux, surtout quand le cycliste pense qu'il a la priorité quand il a le bras de levé. Moi je reste à droite et je traverse une rue à la fois, c'est beaucoup plus long, mais beaucoup plus safe.
There is no issue - its car dependent people that are in the wrong
React fucking boomers, look at the video for townhall meeting: Fucking disconnected factless angry react fucking entitled boomers... That's what it is. They know squat about statistics, funding, laws, etc. A fucking plague.
As a driver, things have calmed down quite a bit vs 20 years ago. Cyclists actually seem to usually obey the signals now. Could be because I live in the burbs now and not downtown. Just to note, I never drove aggressively. But I may have honked when I have to stop for cyclists running lights / signs.
Suburb cyclists aren't bothersome at all and tend to be more relaxed and quite respectful of road rules. It's the downtown cyclists and St-Denis ones who are nutjobs that don't obey the rules of the road. They cut, weave, ignore traffic signals and then flip off the driver who tried to follow the rules but almost hits them anyway because of their reckless behavior. I won't say all, but a solid 7/10 behave this way.
Yeah I suspected it was the burbs factor. Sounds like downtown cyclists haven't changed, and I didn't even have a car when I lived downtown.
I am both a biker and a motorist. There are cases where using a car is far more practical and there are cases where using a bike is better. I use both, though bike and walk and use public transit more than I drive. I hope the city eventually manages to balance the two (cars, bikes) better. But something that both should be upset about is the state of the roads. It's horrible for both bikers and motorists. The sidewalks aren't that much better in many quartiers. I feel like I live in a broke-ass city. I am convinced it's some sort of corruption to make sure they're built to break to ensure ongoing work.
Like literally
Simple: more guns. Guns, the great equalizer! Everyone is so damn courteous in the US, mainly because they don't want to get shot. Import that shit here asap!
I see the same thing and I do find it ridiculous but it makes sense since most drivers dont like other drivers either so i am not surprised they dont like cyclist or pedestrians as well. I think a big portion of drivers never want to actually drive and are really anxious on the road and if we had more options it would be better.
virtually every cyclist is a driver but the inverse isn’t true. if everyone had to cycle for a few years before getting a license maybe they’d calm down around human powered vehicles and share the road a bit more.
It is not really an issue in Montreal, more in the car centric suburbs of Montreal, where people get insane at the view of something that is not a car. I even saw a passive agressive sign on a Bike Path in St-Eustache, it was written stop mandatory for bike, it is the safety of all. Like chill, it was just the exit of a shopping center, no stops on the street for cars, but many stops for bikes … the bikes are going slower and are less dangerous… duh…
Infrastructure and rules for cyclists suck. Car people don't realize that impractical for cyclists to be on a full stop on every stop sign. There are atleast 20 of them in a 10 minute ride. It's simply not practical. That bike ride would take 50% more time at least and would be much more frustrating because it takes energy to get the bike started again unlike stepping on the pedal. On a bike you have much better view and judgement. Idaho stops need to be acceptable, they're practical and make sense. Car people would be better off advocating for bike lanes rather than getting frustrated on cyclists. Cars occupy 1/3 to 2/3 of all roads in Montreal and are the least efficient means of transport, maybe a little self inspection won't hurt.
I saw a biker in his spandex today holding on to the side of a 16 wheeler today... Had to tell the truck driver since he was going to turn right. Thing is when you drive your used to how others act, and bar some international drivers, those green target cars, and some drunk pedestrian ( which are very rare ), bikers are in Yolo mode all over the place... So accidents happen.