▲ 23 ▼ Video showing Toronto police tackling cyclist after alleged traffic violation sparks outcry (www.cbc.ca) submitted 5 months ago by Wudi@feddit.uk to c/toronto@lemmy.ca 7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (5 children) Ticket was justified, tackling wasn't. permalink fedilink source hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) I would argue the ticket wasn't justified either. Many places have implemented the "Idaho stop" where cyclists can treat a stop sign like a yield which makes a lot of sense. In illinois, a law just went into effect that did that and let cyclists treat red lights like stop signs, and go the wrong way down a one way. I think the law isn't justified. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Not Ontario, it's the same as any other vehicle on the road. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) I understand that's the law. I just think it doesn't make sense. Like much of traffic infrastructure and rules, they are designed for the smooth flow and convenience of car traffic and don't consider safety or convenience of bike traffic at all. The reason the Idaho stop was first implemented was due to safety issues when a bike did follow stop sign rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) It's for pedestrian safety not car safety. A car hitting a bike doesn't destroy the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) I would argue the ticket wasn't justified either. Many places have implemented the "Idaho stop" where cyclists can treat a stop sign like a yield which makes a lot of sense. In illinois, a law just went into effect that did that and let cyclists treat red lights like stop signs, and go the wrong way down a one way. I think the law isn't justified. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Not Ontario, it's the same as any other vehicle on the road. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) I understand that's the law. I just think it doesn't make sense. Like much of traffic infrastructure and rules, they are designed for the smooth flow and convenience of car traffic and don't consider safety or convenience of bike traffic at all. The reason the Idaho stop was first implemented was due to safety issues when a bike did follow stop sign rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) It's for pedestrian safety not car safety. A car hitting a bike doesn't destroy the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Not Ontario, it's the same as any other vehicle on the road. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) I understand that's the law. I just think it doesn't make sense. Like much of traffic infrastructure and rules, they are designed for the smooth flow and convenience of car traffic and don't consider safety or convenience of bike traffic at all. The reason the Idaho stop was first implemented was due to safety issues when a bike did follow stop sign rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) It's for pedestrian safety not car safety. A car hitting a bike doesn't destroy the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) I understand that's the law. I just think it doesn't make sense. Like much of traffic infrastructure and rules, they are designed for the smooth flow and convenience of car traffic and don't consider safety or convenience of bike traffic at all. The reason the Idaho stop was first implemented was due to safety issues when a bike did follow stop sign rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) It's for pedestrian safety not car safety. A car hitting a bike doesn't destroy the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) It's for pedestrian safety not car safety. A car hitting a bike doesn't destroy the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 point 5 months ago A pedestrian and a bike don't require rules for flow control. Unlike cars and pedestrians, bikes and pedestrians are pretty compatible in the same spaces. It's trivial to roll through a stop sign and go around a pedestrian crossing the street. permalink fedilink source parent