this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
49 points (81.0% liked)

Canada

10685 readers
611 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The title is a bit clickbait-y. I went into this one feeling strongly opposed it. Afterwards I'm still not sure, but I get that there's some nuance to it.

Relevance:

In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.

Author: Steve Lorteau | Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Excerpts:

Interactions between different users on roads are often a source of frustration, the most prominent being those between motorists and cyclists.

For example, many motorists are frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without coming to a complete stop, which drivers are required to do.

As a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who specializes in urban law issues, I have studied various regulatory approaches that have been adopted around the world, each with different advantages and disadvantages.

The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of equality.

On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.

Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over discourages people from cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.

Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favouring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.

Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.

In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.

It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.

(page 2) 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fourish@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Bike how you want, but if you fail to follow the established rules for vehicles on the road and get injured, it’s totally on you.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago

Read the article before posting.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] chrizzowski@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So here's another angle. I'll run reds on my bike when traffic is light, but I do it for the sake of the drivers. Surprisingly in Kelowna we have decent bike infrastructure, so in a lot of places I could just hit the button to change the lights immediately and give myself the right of way. Then I feel like an ass when three cars queue up at the red when I'm long gone. I'd rather just treat the red as a stop sign If it's safe to do so.

I think it's the nuanced case by case decision making that lower speeds and overall defensive nature of cycling offer isn't understood by people who don't bike regularly. Not sure what the solution is there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aneb@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

In my city as a bike if try stopping at stop signs for a car they give me right of way, usually. So sometimes I don't stop at signs and then those drivers think I'm in the wrong. Patience is a huge factor because most people lack it

[–] Syun@retrolemmy.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As a cyclist, there are a HANDFUL of corner cases where streets are set up in a certain way where it's actually safer to disobey lights so that you can actually maintain visual awareness of what's going on around you. I encountered this in Boston, which is about the craziest kind of street layout possible, and lots of times the only sane thing to do while driving a car is also illegal, and everyone just kind of understands that and lets things slide.

But outside of those edge cases, no. We're not fucking special, if we're gonna use the road, we have to use the road correctly. Most of this entitlement to different rules comes down to a segment of cyclists thinking they're better than everyone else for not driving. Piss on that.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Read the article before posting.

There is no entitlement, and it's not edge cases. The Idaho stop rules make sense in all cases.

[–] Syun@retrolemmy.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're pissing on the wrong leg. Don't mistake disagreement for ignorance of the article. I live in entitled cyclist central, and I've even been shot at while driving by one who got pissed at me for not seeing him wearing all black riding at night with no lights running a red. I got no time for cyclists' bullshit, even being one. We can follow the same rules as everyone else, and should. You have no idea how many times I've heard/seen/read cyclists saying that they're better people than car drivers so shouldn't have to follow the rules. It's a LOT. I currently live in one of those states with "similar laws". It's a nightmare, and cycling culture has devolved in part because of it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah and pedestrians can follow the same rules too, it's just fucking asinine to make them do so because it's drawing a false equivalency between two things that aren't equivalent.

All the egregious cyclists behaviour you're bitching about is still illegal with the Idaho stop rules.

[–] Syun@retrolemmy.com 0 points 1 week ago

False equivalency, eh? No. And you're looking right past my point, which is that giving cyclists an inch leads them to take a mile. Pedestrians who don't walk in the street following the same rules... talk about asinine arguments. The Idaho rules and their derivatives absolutely open the door to the very egregious behavior I mentioned, save for the gunshots.

So, I'll break down why the article is nonsense. The author of the article's premise is basically "First off, I am very smart. See? I'm an academic. That said, bikes shouldn't have to follow the same rules. Why? I have two reasons. The first is that having to stop and start is a drag. The second is that if a bike hits a car, it doesn't matter".

It's also a drag to have to stop when you're driving. Inconvenience is irrelevant. The bike hitting a car thing, that's absolute crap. First, a cyclist might not be hitting a car. Maybe another cyclist. Maybe a motorcycle rider. Second, depending on the nature of the crash, that car could be totalled depending on any number of factors. Considering that cyclists don't have to carry insurance, and a whole lot of people can only afford basic liability insurance, a cyclist hitting a car could well mean some poor person having to pay out of pocket and not being able to afford it, losing their car, and that unraveling all kinds of things in their life. Lives are ruined every day in the US by people losing their transportation. Or it could just be that some asshole runs into your car, puts a dent in it and fucks your paint up, and you have to pay out of pocket because this dickhead whose judgement is missing happens to be no worse for the wear and decides to scoot rather than deal with a problem that's "not his". Or it gets reported properly and you have to sue this dude to get the money to fix your car before the scrapes start rusting.

I call that "it's no big deal" attitude entitled.

But what's more, it's a traffic incident. It means police getting involved, it means insurance companies and the potential for the driver's rates to go up through no fault of their own, and if the cyclist is seriously hurt or worse, it means a lot of heartache and trauma for everyone involved, maybe more people than that. Discounting the realities of how disruptive, expensive, or downright bad it can be even if it's the cyclist running into a vehicle or the incident just being their fault is irresponsible at best and a bad faith argument.

Going back to the idaho rules specifically, those same rules would make perfect sense for a car, too. We've all been stuck at a red light at night with nobody coming for blocks. If the coast is clear to go, it's clear to go, right? Well, no, the rules are in place because capital P People are a bunch of idiots, and they'd be crashing cars more than they already do if those rules weren't there even when they don't seem to make sense in the moment. The same is true for cyclists. As many times as cyclists have blown through their red light into my green light, I've seen them do that to others even more. Same of cyclists shooting in between me and my parking spot while I'm very obviously parallel parking, backing up with my blinker on and moving.
Different sets of rules for different vehicles sharing the same space are a bad idea, full stop.

I have spoken.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The unfairness problem imo is a problem because many places don't have exclusions for bikes. I'm not Canadian so idk if that's true there.

Both cars and bikes have to obey the rules, even in situations where it is obvious that not obeying them would be better (for example running a red light in the middle of nowhere where you have clear visibility that there are no humans around).

And there are some rules that are obviously thought only for cars, so the bikes think that they can break them.

As a car this is seems as unfair because they can't break the rules even if they think there's no danger.

If the rule just says "this rule doesn't apply to bikes" imho it would be seen as fair-er by cars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brax@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.

The fuck? They may not cause the same degree of damage, but they're gonna get fucked up by a car that is following the law and has a green light if the two meet in an intersection...

This whole thing seems like it's less a case of "bikers should run lights" and more a case of "cities need to be reviewed and many intersections should be updated with yield signs or traffic circles."

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago

No, they're not. Have you never followed a yield sign before?

[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No. Be predictable. Fuck this noise.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

I did, thanks. I decline to agree with it's premise, based on other articles I have also read.

Be.

Fucking.

Predictable.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›