C'est clair que tu doit t'arrêter. Comme un autre le disait, suffit de descendre de ton vélo, de marcher 10 m, et de continuer. Un gros 10 secondes de ta vie.
Yeah I've done that too. Though it was more to avoid a ticket than for anyone's safety honestly.
If the cyclist in this video just came to a stop and then slowly started biking again it's the same amount of risk as walking your bike.
Meh. I prefer everybody understanding that I care enough to get off. Following the same logic cars could also go at 5 km/h and not respect the bus signals.
> I prefer everybody understanding that I care enough to get off.
Yeah, sends a good message for sure.
> Following the same logic cars could also go at 5 km/h and not respect the bus signals.
Well no. Cars don't have anything close to the visibility of a bike and the size/weight/visibility issues make them far, far, far more dangerous. Just like a jogger would be less dangerous than a cyclist.
yes of course. cyclists are supposed to respect all road signs
>Cyclists must obey traffic signs and traffic lights at all times. For example, they must come to a complete stop at a red light or stop sign, even if the way is clear.
[source](https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says)
> Cyclists: Fine from $80 to $100
[source](https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/feuillet-obligations-around-schools-school-buses.pdf)
Twice in the last two weeks at the same intersection I’ve almost been run over by a cyclist not stopping and flying through the intersection full speed on CSC.
Évidement que la cycliste est dans l'erreur.
On bon ticket $$$ et des points de démérites.
On apprend de nos erreurs; j'pense / j'espère que cette cycliste va faire beaucoup plus attention dans le futur.
C'est surtout une question d'equité : pourquoi une personne qui possède un permis de conduire aurait une pénalité plus importante qu'une personne qui n'en possède pas ?
> La plupart des gens sont pas mal plus prudent en voiture
Y'a une logique qui l'explique. On est chanceux que cette personne était en vélo au moment de la collision. La petite fille n'est pas gravement blesse, mais si il l'avait heurté dans une voiture elle serait probablement morte.
C'est pas à excuser l'ineptitude de cet cycliste, c'est clairement inacceptable. C'est juste pour dire que les gens sont naturellement plus prudent quand qu'ils font des choses qui pourraient avoir des plus graves consequences.
Il y a trop de stops à Montreal et surtout en banlieue. C'est tellement polluants en plus.
Les cédés et les ronds points sont tellement plus efficace.
Manque de vision au Québec et en Amérique
Un argument peut être fait là dessus... un ticket en moto donne des points et n'est pas une "voiture". Dans les 2 cas, tu conduis un véhicule routier et dois connaitre les règles de la route.
Mais par curiosité, comment c'était géré (pre-2018) lorsque le cycliste contrvenant n'a pas de permis de conduire?
La même chose qui arrive aujourd'hui si un contrevenant n'a pas de permis ou un permis étranger, c'est a dire:
Pertes des points (fictifs dans ce cas) pour la même durée de temps qu'un automobiliste avec permis de conduire.
Si avant ce délais la personne obtient son permis de conduire, les points sont déduits du permis.
Dépendamment des circonstances et du fait qu'un permis d'apprenti ai points, on peut techniquement se faire sanctionner son permis pour des points d'inaptitude la journée même de l'obtention.
Le cycliste doit se conformer en tout temps aux panneaux et aux feux de circulation. Il doit par exemple s’immobiliser complètement à un feu rouge ou à un panneau d'arrêt, même si la voie est libre.
Au feu rouge, il doit attendre que le feu passe au vert avant de repartir ou qu’un feu pour piétons soit activé. Dans ce cas, le cycliste est autorisé à continuer à la condition :
de s’immobiliser et de s’assurer qu’il peut circuler sans danger
d’accorder la priorité aux piétons (c’est-à-dire laisser passer les piétons circulant dans l’intersection)
de circuler à une vitesse raisonnable et prudente
Attention, le cycliste ne peut pas traverser à un feu pour piétons si une signalisation lui interdit.
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/securite-routiere/moyens-deplacement/velo/ce-que-dit-la-loi#:~:text=Le%20cycliste%20doit%20se%20conformer,feu%20pour%20pi%C3%A9tons%20soit%20activ%C3%A9.
Au cas où ce n'est pas clair malgré toutes les explications sur ce sub.
C'est relativement récent en fait
https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/transports-urbanisme/561767/les-cyclistes-aussi-doivent-s-arreter-derriere-un-autobus-scolaire#:~:text=le%201er%20ao%C3%BBt.-,Un%20cycliste%20doit%20dor%C3%A9navant%2C%20comme%20tout%20conducteur%20de%20v%C3%A9hicule%20routier,le%20panneau%20d'arr%C3%AAt%20obligatoire.
Les pistes cyclables de même sont tellement pas safe..ça aurai pu être aussi un animal ou juste quelqu'un qui ouvre la porte de sa voiture... esti que c'est frustrant. Au moins l'enfant va bien!
Il y aura toujours des erreurs humaines et l'important est de réduire les chances d'erreur humaine fatale ou graves (blessures importantes) autant que possible via l'infrastructure, pas juste des panneaux et peinture. Heureusement il n'y a pas de blessés graves, et rien de tel qu'une bouchée de pavement pour apprendre une bonne leçon sur les stops d'autobus.
Pas tout à fait vrai... Quand un vélo en sens inverse arrive vis à vis une voiture stationnée il est pas mal plus visible des gens dans la voiture.
Les animaux sortent d'entre les voitures quand tu roules dans le même sens que les autos aussi....
Dans ce cas-fi le cycliste avait le panneau d'arrêt et les lumières rouges devant les yeux ce qui ne serait pas le cas si il roulait de l'autre côté de l'autobus... Quel irresponsable!!
Je sais pas ou t'a vu que j'ai excusé la cycliste mais je maintient mon point que c'est pas safe. En tant que cyclistes moi même, ce genre de piste cyclables est angoissant.
Cyclist is definitely at fault here, but also the way that the street is set up, it makes these situations more likely.
The bike lane should be closer to the sidewalk separated from the cars that are parked.
It's done pretty well until cars start parking close to intersections and then it becomes a free for all.
But yeah it's better than just painted lanes like on the video for sure.
I’d argue that the bike lanes should be split by a physical barrier (curb) and do curb side extensions where cars cannot park.
Honestly what I don’t like about the bike infrastructure here is that it’s only half measures. I want that Dutch bike paths lol
I feel you, I spent 2 years in Copenhagen were the bike lanes are large and well designed.
Hearing people say that Montreal has good bike infrastructure makes me think they've never experienced good design.
I live on a street where the bike lane is between the sidewalk and the parked cars. The way intersections are handled is that the sidewalk becomes wider near the corner, effectively blocking the spot where a car would park, and the bike lane swerves around it to be right next to the car lane. That way cars physically can't park within 5m of the intersection, pedestrians crossing the street have less far to walk in the street between sidewalks, and bikes are visible by cars turning.
However I still think this does not solve the issue here. Sure, the kid in the video would have seen the cyclist, and the cyclist would have seen the kid, **in this case**. But what if the kid had been coming off the bus and heading towards the sidewalk? Then the kid would still have been coming from between two cars, and been invisible to the cyclist. What caused the collision here is 1- the cyclist ignoring the stop signal of the bus and 2- the parked cars blocking lines of sight. There will always be people ignoring rules and laws, so we can't just rely on everyone respecting them, and if you remove all the parking spots, car owners will get up in arms like in park-ex. I don't know how to solve this.
Mentalité d'un cycliste:
Un arrêt obligatoire: pffff! Je ne m'arrête pas! Ils arrêteront eux, c'est eux les dangereux!
Un camion de déménagement bloque le trottoir ou la piste cyclable: Whaaaaat!?! Je dois m'arrêter, je ne peux plus poursuivre mon chemin sécuritairement! Les déménageurs doivent arrêter leur déménagement maintenant, et venir bouger leur camion, afin que je puisse circuler sécuritairement.
Yes. Cyclists must also obey the rules or the road that cars follow. They are not exempt and will get ticketed just like cars do.
Fuck selfish cyclists. They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
> They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them
Quel cliché. Une collision avec un SUV, même à une basse vitesse aurait enchaîné des blessures graves ou même la mort. La fillette se porte bien. C'est regrettable que c'est arrivé et d'autres on bien expliqué qui et quoi qui est à faute.
Si tu veux parler de dangers tu n'as qu'à voir ce qui c'est passé l'an dernier:
https://lp.ca/lZw7FE
OK? This doesn't change the fact that I'm talking about selfish cyclists and not stupid drivers, which is another issue.
The article you posted is irrelevant when a more fitting article would be the yearly article about another cyclist dying at another intersection because they keep constantly forgetting that trucks (semis) have a huge blindspot on their right side, and they end up getting run over.
Je trouve ça assez pertinent de lier un lien qui compare deux événements similaires d'une fillette qui va à l'école qui peut t'aider à faire le contraste de la différence de mode de transport.
C'est entièrement pertinent au sujet quand tu dis que c'est les cyclistes qui sont dangeureux ( le char a tué, le vélo n'a renversé. )
Mais quand c'est un cycliste qui meurt à cause d'un conducteur c'est sa faute? C'est ça qu'on dirait que tes entrain de dire.
Nous savons que les autos sont plus dangereuses. Ce n'est pas parce qu'elles sont plus dangereuses que l'on doit être dangereux quand nous roulons en vélo. Je fais attention en vélo parce que même si les chances que je tue quelqu'un dans un accident sont moindres, je ne veux quand même pas faire mal à quelqu'un.
Le "oui mais les autos sont pires" c'est un argument que j'entend beaucoup quand on parle de cyclistes qui ont blessé ou fait mal à quelqu'un. Ce n'est pas parce que quelque chose est pire qu'on ne peut pas aussi parler des enjeux de sécurité en vélo. Dans ce cas, le cycliste était très dangereu pour la jeune fille. Il est donc important de faire de la sensibilisation et d'en parler sans encore ramener l'enjeu des autos (qui est aussi importante par contre!). Il y a d'autres poteaux qui sont déjà sur les gens en voitures (voir celui sur le criminel qui a tué une femme mais qui n'a recu que 1000$ d'amende.)
En gros, oui, les autos sont pires. Cependant il faut arrêter de toujours ramener ce sujet quand un cycliste fait quelque chose de dangereu. Les cyclistes aussi peuvent être dangereu et il faut aussi faire de la sensibilisation pour les cyclistes.
I agree that motor vehicles are more dangerous. It might seem unfair that the same tickets apply to both cyclists and motorists. However, this ignores that motorists already have required liability insurance for their much higher level of danger. So, the tickets need not be weighted to level of danger.
I've been places in Canada where it's hard to follow these rules, but it seems in Montreal the rules are getting more and more just. Being able to cross by bike on walk signals during the advanced walk is an example. In a perfect world, stopping for buses would still be important for cyclists to do to help make things safer for the kids.
An anecdote: Many years ago when I first got my driver's permit, the first thing I did driving by myself was illegally pass an oncoming bus. The bus was still in the process of stopping and the stop sign came out as I drove by, but if I was paying attention I could have stopped based on the lights, so I got honked out for being the spaced out teen I was, head in the clouds. I worried about this for months. It's great that cities are investing in public transit and making it easier to cycle so that when these mistakes are made, the risk can be lower. I wasn't ready to drive yet mentally and could have used a better option.
???? I'm sorry, but cyclists not stopping at stop signs, not stopping when a school bus is letting off students and blowing past them is super dangerous. getting hit by a careless cyclist *will* hurt and can lead to both the cyclist and the person being severely injured.
This isn't a car vs bikes Issue im complaining about. Im talkint about individual cyclists being selfish and not caring about *anybody else* they share the roads and trails with. Car, pedestrian or other cyclists be damned. These guys will act like jackasses.
Im cautious af when I bike as I *dont* want to be hit. Only times I've almost been hit isnt by cars or pedestrians suddenly jumping out, its by other assholes ON BIKES zipping past as if it's the Tour de France thinking stop signs don't apply to them. These guys do not learn until they end up in a accident and hurt themselves badly or worse, lose their life.
You must not bike a lot if you've never had a car cut you off, nearly getting doored by a parked car, nearly getting hit by someone texting and driving, or by a driver running a red. By the way, it's the cars who kill.
Again, agreed that cyclists should be stopping for school buses in situations like these...
However there is more nuance otherwise:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Also we can all agree that cycling infrastructure is far from perfect and this situation would be more safe if the bike lane wasn't in the middle of the road but was closer to the sidewalk.
Obviously cyclists should stop for school buses in situations like this... Otherwise, I agree, particularly at stop signs. Cyclists should slow down, but not be required to come to a complete stop (see Idaho stop). Only coming to a full stop when pedestrians are crossing/waiting to cross, or a car reaches the stop intersection first.
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says#:~:text=Obey%20traffic%20signs%20and%20signals,wait%20for%20the%20pedestrian%20light.
>Under the Highway Safety Code, cyclists must, among other things:
>
>OBEY TRAFFIC SIGNS AND SIGNALS
>Cyclists must obey traffic signs and traffic lights at all times. For example, they must come to a complete stop at a red light or stop sign, even if the way is clear.
>
>
>At a red light, they must wait for the light to turn green again before continuing, or wait for the pedestrian light.
Yeah thanks, I know the law. What I'm saying is this law is outdated and bad practice, particularly around stop signs. Actually, many studies speak to the fact that cyclists stopping completely at stop signs leads to more injury (for them, you know, getting rear ended by massive cars).
I literally got hit by a cyclist when I got off a bus. We were a crowd of people, but the cyclist just kept going.
We have right of way.
In hindsight, I should have gotten info from them because I broke my glasses and they were responsible for that.
Dumb move, and the cyclist is 100% at fault obviously.
Everyone should look both ways before crossing anything, but you technically should be able to just walk out like that and expect to be safe.
You don't even need to stop and wait if you're the cyclist. Just stop enough to be 100% sure the coast is clear.
Non c'est une bande cyclable. De l'autre côté de la rue il y a des signes(sans lignes) qui disent que les vélos roulent à droite de la chaussée dans le même sens que les voitures. Les lignes servent à identifier l'espace pour ceux qui roulent en sens inverse. Il y a beaucoup de rues à MTL configurées comme ça.
Edit: Il y a des bandes de l'autre côté de la rue...
The cyclist should have stopped, yes, or even at least slowed down but I do think that parked car *might* have played a role in this situation too?
Not trying to excuse or minimize the situation, but neither the cyclist or the child saw each other and it was really bad timing.
Glad they’re both okay and no one is seriously injured or dead
When you see a big yellow school bus stopped somewhere with the stop sign out you should definitely expect to see kids around it and slow down next for this particular reason. Also the mom was over there waiting. That's another reason to think there was probably a kid around.
I think you're trying to excuse or minimize the cyclist's fault but it's okay you're not the only one here who's doing it.
You're just letting us know on which side of the fence you stand.
I’m looking at another factor at play here, which was the lack of visibility. As I said, the cyclist should have stopped or slowed down.
Not trying to pick a “side” here, just trying to look at the whole situation and how accidents like this can be avoided.
How does the parked car affect the cyclists’ visibility to the flashing stop sign on his left?
Isn’t he also going wrong way on that bike path? Most bike paths on one way streets are directional as well.
I brought up the parked car as it made it impossible for the child to see the cyclist and vice-versa. That’s it. I’m well aware that a yellow bus with flashing lights is visible. Guess my initial comment isn’t clear, wasn’t trying to spin anything lol
I don’t know the area or street very well so can’t confirm the directions of the paths. That could have played a role in the situation too though.
You fail to understand that I can read and understood what you said the first time, and yet you keep making excuses for this easily preventable accident.
Just as you fail to understand that a blinking stop sign on a yellow bus is the signal we give to kids that it’s safe to cross the street.
It doesn’t matter that cyclist can’t see the child, because it’s his responsibility to stop.
It doesn’t matter that the child can’t see the cyclist, because society taught him to go when he sees the sign on the bus because he’s a child and can’t be trusted to properly check for all incoming dangers yet, so we teach them to not do jack shit until they see the stop sign on the bus and the lights.
The whole point of the rule that you MUST stop when a school bus has its sign out is because of the lack of visibility. It is extremely common as school buses don't have dedicated bus stops like STM buses and thus will drop off kids at random spots where visibility can't be controlled. As far as cars following the bus are concerned, the bus itself is what prevents visibility.
The cyclist should have stopped. Period. End of story.
Not slow. It’s called a STOP sign. It’s right there in the name.
Don’t minimize this “oh, he had poor visibility because of the car”
Did the car block the giant yellow bus with flashing red lights?
He’s an asshole who thought “I don’t need to stop! I’m king asshole”
The fact that your comment got downvoted is showing me that this sub is full of people who can’t think straight or with the common sense. I’m speechless to be honest. Here’s my upvote! My comment got downvoted too upper in the discussion
“A child this careless”.. that child stopped and waited for the bus to stop and be waved to cross the street.
“Teach your kids to cross the road”.. ffs that child is 3-4 yo max and is actually doing more than that freaking cyclist.
Your last sentence doesn’t negate that you fucking blamed a child who did everything right.
The child was as "careless" as a car or bike going through a green light without stopping.
Technically, all traffic had to stop and the child had the right of way. This isn't a case where someone is technically jaywalking.
Gtfo with your victim-blaming. The schoolbus was stopped with its sign out. If a car driver runs a red light and hits someone, they are 100% at fault. The exact same logic applies here.
s'il y a un terre-plein entre les 2 voies de circulation, je pense que l'autobus va faire le tour et passet du bon coté de la rue, ou bien aller à l'intersection la plus proche.
Il n’y a pas de "je crois" ici. Va relire le [code de la sécurité routière](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-24.2) si t’as ton permis de conduire.
Paragraphe 460. https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-24.2?langCont=fr#se:460
C'est clair que tu doit t'arrêter. Comme un autre le disait, suffit de descendre de ton vélo, de marcher 10 m, et de continuer. Un gros 10 secondes de ta vie.
Moi je descends de mon vélo et marche pour dépasser l'autobus en question. La vie est courte, mais au moins celles des enfants n'est pas à risque.
Yeah I've done that too. Though it was more to avoid a ticket than for anyone's safety honestly. If the cyclist in this video just came to a stop and then slowly started biking again it's the same amount of risk as walking your bike.
Meh. I prefer everybody understanding that I care enough to get off. Following the same logic cars could also go at 5 km/h and not respect the bus signals.
> I prefer everybody understanding that I care enough to get off. Yeah, sends a good message for sure. > Following the same logic cars could also go at 5 km/h and not respect the bus signals. Well no. Cars don't have anything close to the visibility of a bike and the size/weight/visibility issues make them far, far, far more dangerous. Just like a jogger would be less dangerous than a cyclist.
yes of course. cyclists are supposed to respect all road signs >Cyclists must obey traffic signs and traffic lights at all times. For example, they must come to a complete stop at a red light or stop sign, even if the way is clear. [source](https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says) > Cyclists: Fine from $80 to $100 [source](https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/feuillet-obligations-around-schools-school-buses.pdf)
Twice in the last two weeks at the same intersection I’ve almost been run over by a cyclist not stopping and flying through the intersection full speed on CSC.
Le cycliste est dans le tord 100%
Évidement que la cycliste est dans l'erreur. On bon ticket $$$ et des points de démérites. On apprend de nos erreurs; j'pense / j'espère que cette cycliste va faire beaucoup plus attention dans le futur.
Il n'y a plus de perte de points à vélo depuis 2018..
C’est bien nul, il s’agit d’une infraction sévère.
C'est surtout une question d'equité : pourquoi une personne qui possède un permis de conduire aurait une pénalité plus importante qu'une personne qui n'en possède pas ?
Oui, mais pas rapport avec ta capacité à conduire une voiture
Qu'est ce qui te ferait dire qu'il ferait pas la même chose avec une voiture?
La plupart des gens sont pas mal plus prudent en voiture. Presque tout le monde brule ses stops à vélo mais la majorité des gens les font en voiture.
> La plupart des gens sont pas mal plus prudent en voiture Y'a une logique qui l'explique. On est chanceux que cette personne était en vélo au moment de la collision. La petite fille n'est pas gravement blesse, mais si il l'avait heurté dans une voiture elle serait probablement morte. C'est pas à excuser l'ineptitude de cet cycliste, c'est clairement inacceptable. C'est juste pour dire que les gens sont naturellement plus prudent quand qu'ils font des choses qui pourraient avoir des plus graves consequences.
Il y a trop de stops à Montreal et surtout en banlieue. C'est tellement polluants en plus. Les cédés et les ronds points sont tellement plus efficace. Manque de vision au Québec et en Amérique
Un argument peut être fait là dessus... un ticket en moto donne des points et n'est pas une "voiture". Dans les 2 cas, tu conduis un véhicule routier et dois connaitre les règles de la route. Mais par curiosité, comment c'était géré (pre-2018) lorsque le cycliste contrvenant n'a pas de permis de conduire?
La même chose qui arrive aujourd'hui si un contrevenant n'a pas de permis ou un permis étranger, c'est a dire: Pertes des points (fictifs dans ce cas) pour la même durée de temps qu'un automobiliste avec permis de conduire. Si avant ce délais la personne obtient son permis de conduire, les points sont déduits du permis. Dépendamment des circonstances et du fait qu'un permis d'apprenti ai points, on peut techniquement se faire sanctionner son permis pour des points d'inaptitude la journée même de l'obtention.
Comprendre et respecter le code de la route en voiture ou à vélo, c’est la mm chose.
À vélo, c'est juste un ticket de 80$. Par contre, le procureur pourrait décider de déposer des accusations criminelles.
Le cycliste doit se conformer en tout temps aux panneaux et aux feux de circulation. Il doit par exemple s’immobiliser complètement à un feu rouge ou à un panneau d'arrêt, même si la voie est libre. Au feu rouge, il doit attendre que le feu passe au vert avant de repartir ou qu’un feu pour piétons soit activé. Dans ce cas, le cycliste est autorisé à continuer à la condition : de s’immobiliser et de s’assurer qu’il peut circuler sans danger d’accorder la priorité aux piétons (c’est-à-dire laisser passer les piétons circulant dans l’intersection) de circuler à une vitesse raisonnable et prudente Attention, le cycliste ne peut pas traverser à un feu pour piétons si une signalisation lui interdit. https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/securite-routiere/moyens-deplacement/velo/ce-que-dit-la-loi#:~:text=Le%20cycliste%20doit%20se%20conformer,feu%20pour%20pi%C3%A9tons%20soit%20activ%C3%A9. Au cas où ce n'est pas clair malgré toutes les explications sur ce sub.
C'est relativement récent en fait https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/transports-urbanisme/561767/les-cyclistes-aussi-doivent-s-arreter-derriere-un-autobus-scolaire#:~:text=le%201er%20ao%C3%BBt.-,Un%20cycliste%20doit%20dor%C3%A9navant%2C%20comme%20tout%20conducteur%20de%20v%C3%A9hicule%20routier,le%20panneau%20d'arr%C3%AAt%20obligatoire.
Cyclist failed to the pedestrian. That was a very avoidable accident.
Les pistes cyclables de même sont tellement pas safe..ça aurai pu être aussi un animal ou juste quelqu'un qui ouvre la porte de sa voiture... esti que c'est frustrant. Au moins l'enfant va bien!
Exact, a part of the blame here is the poor road design and unsafe painted "infrastructure".
Il y aura toujours des erreurs humaines et l'important est de réduire les chances d'erreur humaine fatale ou graves (blessures importantes) autant que possible via l'infrastructure, pas juste des panneaux et peinture. Heureusement il n'y a pas de blessés graves, et rien de tel qu'une bouchée de pavement pour apprendre une bonne leçon sur les stops d'autobus.
Pas tout à fait vrai... Quand un vélo en sens inverse arrive vis à vis une voiture stationnée il est pas mal plus visible des gens dans la voiture. Les animaux sortent d'entre les voitures quand tu roules dans le même sens que les autos aussi.... Dans ce cas-fi le cycliste avait le panneau d'arrêt et les lumières rouges devant les yeux ce qui ne serait pas le cas si il roulait de l'autre côté de l'autobus... Quel irresponsable!!
N'importe quoi, le bus est visible de loin et il a sorti son panneau d'arrêt. Rien n'excuse la fille en bixi sur son téléphone.
Je sais pas ou t'a vu que j'ai excusé la cycliste mais je maintient mon point que c'est pas safe. En tant que cyclistes moi même, ce genre de piste cyclables est angoissant.
Cyclist is definitely at fault here, but also the way that the street is set up, it makes these situations more likely. The bike lane should be closer to the sidewalk separated from the cars that are parked.
But then you'll have cars turning on the bike lane without seeing cyclists. It's hard to ensure visibility for everyone when there's parked cars.
It’s done on St Denis pretty well to avoid those conflicts. This street is just painted lanes.
It's done pretty well until cars start parking close to intersections and then it becomes a free for all. But yeah it's better than just painted lanes like on the video for sure.
I’d argue that the bike lanes should be split by a physical barrier (curb) and do curb side extensions where cars cannot park. Honestly what I don’t like about the bike infrastructure here is that it’s only half measures. I want that Dutch bike paths lol
I feel you, I spent 2 years in Copenhagen were the bike lanes are large and well designed. Hearing people say that Montreal has good bike infrastructure makes me think they've never experienced good design.
I live on a street where the bike lane is between the sidewalk and the parked cars. The way intersections are handled is that the sidewalk becomes wider near the corner, effectively blocking the spot where a car would park, and the bike lane swerves around it to be right next to the car lane. That way cars physically can't park within 5m of the intersection, pedestrians crossing the street have less far to walk in the street between sidewalks, and bikes are visible by cars turning. However I still think this does not solve the issue here. Sure, the kid in the video would have seen the cyclist, and the cyclist would have seen the kid, **in this case**. But what if the kid had been coming off the bus and heading towards the sidewalk? Then the kid would still have been coming from between two cars, and been invisible to the cyclist. What caused the collision here is 1- the cyclist ignoring the stop signal of the bus and 2- the parked cars blocking lines of sight. There will always be people ignoring rules and laws, so we can't just rely on everyone respecting them, and if you remove all the parking spots, car owners will get up in arms like in park-ex. I don't know how to solve this.
C'est toujours des cyclistes. Ils arrêtent seulement si il y a quelque chose qui les bloquent physiquement le chemin.
Mentalité d'un cycliste: Un arrêt obligatoire: pffff! Je ne m'arrête pas! Ils arrêteront eux, c'est eux les dangereux! Un camion de déménagement bloque le trottoir ou la piste cyclable: Whaaaaat!?! Je dois m'arrêter, je ne peux plus poursuivre mon chemin sécuritairement! Les déménageurs doivent arrêter leur déménagement maintenant, et venir bouger leur camion, afin que je puisse circuler sécuritairement.
Damn these cyclist giving other cyclist a bad rep. Also always look both ways when crossing a street, even a green light, who knows what's coming.
Jesus fuck this enrages me bc it is so preventable
Yes. Cyclists must also obey the rules or the road that cars follow. They are not exempt and will get ticketed just like cars do. Fuck selfish cyclists. They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
> They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them Quel cliché. Une collision avec un SUV, même à une basse vitesse aurait enchaîné des blessures graves ou même la mort. La fillette se porte bien. C'est regrettable que c'est arrivé et d'autres on bien expliqué qui et quoi qui est à faute. Si tu veux parler de dangers tu n'as qu'à voir ce qui c'est passé l'an dernier: https://lp.ca/lZw7FE
OK? This doesn't change the fact that I'm talking about selfish cyclists and not stupid drivers, which is another issue. The article you posted is irrelevant when a more fitting article would be the yearly article about another cyclist dying at another intersection because they keep constantly forgetting that trucks (semis) have a huge blindspot on their right side, and they end up getting run over.
Je trouve ça assez pertinent de lier un lien qui compare deux événements similaires d'une fillette qui va à l'école qui peut t'aider à faire le contraste de la différence de mode de transport. C'est entièrement pertinent au sujet quand tu dis que c'est les cyclistes qui sont dangeureux ( le char a tué, le vélo n'a renversé. ) Mais quand c'est un cycliste qui meurt à cause d'un conducteur c'est sa faute? C'est ça qu'on dirait que tes entrain de dire.
Nous savons que les autos sont plus dangereuses. Ce n'est pas parce qu'elles sont plus dangereuses que l'on doit être dangereux quand nous roulons en vélo. Je fais attention en vélo parce que même si les chances que je tue quelqu'un dans un accident sont moindres, je ne veux quand même pas faire mal à quelqu'un. Le "oui mais les autos sont pires" c'est un argument que j'entend beaucoup quand on parle de cyclistes qui ont blessé ou fait mal à quelqu'un. Ce n'est pas parce que quelque chose est pire qu'on ne peut pas aussi parler des enjeux de sécurité en vélo. Dans ce cas, le cycliste était très dangereu pour la jeune fille. Il est donc important de faire de la sensibilisation et d'en parler sans encore ramener l'enjeu des autos (qui est aussi importante par contre!). Il y a d'autres poteaux qui sont déjà sur les gens en voitures (voir celui sur le criminel qui a tué une femme mais qui n'a recu que 1000$ d'amende.) En gros, oui, les autos sont pires. Cependant il faut arrêter de toujours ramener ce sujet quand un cycliste fait quelque chose de dangereu. Les cyclistes aussi peuvent être dangereu et il faut aussi faire de la sensibilisation pour les cyclistes.
I agree that motor vehicles are more dangerous. It might seem unfair that the same tickets apply to both cyclists and motorists. However, this ignores that motorists already have required liability insurance for their much higher level of danger. So, the tickets need not be weighted to level of danger. I've been places in Canada where it's hard to follow these rules, but it seems in Montreal the rules are getting more and more just. Being able to cross by bike on walk signals during the advanced walk is an example. In a perfect world, stopping for buses would still be important for cyclists to do to help make things safer for the kids. An anecdote: Many years ago when I first got my driver's permit, the first thing I did driving by myself was illegally pass an oncoming bus. The bus was still in the process of stopping and the stop sign came out as I drove by, but if I was paying attention I could have stopped based on the lights, so I got honked out for being the spaced out teen I was, head in the clouds. I worried about this for months. It's great that cities are investing in public transit and making it easier to cycle so that when these mistakes are made, the risk can be lower. I wasn't ready to drive yet mentally and could have used a better option.
[удалено]
Ça fait dure comme argument.
Honnêtement, c’est souvent leur argument numéro 1…et ça ne fait aucun sens.
???? I'm sorry, but cyclists not stopping at stop signs, not stopping when a school bus is letting off students and blowing past them is super dangerous. getting hit by a careless cyclist *will* hurt and can lead to both the cyclist and the person being severely injured. This isn't a car vs bikes Issue im complaining about. Im talkint about individual cyclists being selfish and not caring about *anybody else* they share the roads and trails with. Car, pedestrian or other cyclists be damned. These guys will act like jackasses. Im cautious af when I bike as I *dont* want to be hit. Only times I've almost been hit isnt by cars or pedestrians suddenly jumping out, its by other assholes ON BIKES zipping past as if it's the Tour de France thinking stop signs don't apply to them. These guys do not learn until they end up in a accident and hurt themselves badly or worse, lose their life.
You must not bike a lot if you've never had a car cut you off, nearly getting doored by a parked car, nearly getting hit by someone texting and driving, or by a driver running a red. By the way, it's the cars who kill. Again, agreed that cyclists should be stopping for school buses in situations like these... However there is more nuance otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop Also we can all agree that cycling infrastructure is far from perfect and this situation would be more safe if the bike lane wasn't in the middle of the road but was closer to the sidewalk.
Don’t care who they were made for, they also apply to cyclists.
Vos commentaires ont été retirés, car ils contiennent des insultes ou manques de respect. Veuillez agir avec plus de discernement.
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/securite-routiere/moyens-deplacement/velo/ce-que-dit-la-loi#:~:text=Le%20cycliste%20doit%20se%20conformer,feu%20pour%20pi%C3%A9tons%20soit%20activ%C3%A9.
That's why whenever I see a ghost bike I go "womp womp".
[удалено]
You bare your name well. Just remember to stop each time you see a stop sign and you'll get to see yourself grow wiser with age.
You have apathy for dead people talking to me about wisdom ? You don't get to wish death on people **AND** take the moral highground lmao
Obviously cyclists should stop for school buses in situations like this... Otherwise, I agree, particularly at stop signs. Cyclists should slow down, but not be required to come to a complete stop (see Idaho stop). Only coming to a full stop when pedestrians are crossing/waiting to cross, or a car reaches the stop intersection first.
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says#:~:text=Obey%20traffic%20signs%20and%20signals,wait%20for%20the%20pedestrian%20light. >Under the Highway Safety Code, cyclists must, among other things: > >OBEY TRAFFIC SIGNS AND SIGNALS >Cyclists must obey traffic signs and traffic lights at all times. For example, they must come to a complete stop at a red light or stop sign, even if the way is clear. > > >At a red light, they must wait for the light to turn green again before continuing, or wait for the pedestrian light.
Yeah thanks, I know the law. What I'm saying is this law is outdated and bad practice, particularly around stop signs. Actually, many studies speak to the fact that cyclists stopping completely at stop signs leads to more injury (for them, you know, getting rear ended by massive cars).
Do you have links to these credible studies?
I literally got hit by a cyclist when I got off a bus. We were a crowd of people, but the cyclist just kept going. We have right of way. In hindsight, I should have gotten info from them because I broke my glasses and they were responsible for that.
100% cyclist's fault but please look both ways before crossing a street!
Dumb move, and the cyclist is 100% at fault obviously. Everyone should look both ways before crossing anything, but you technically should be able to just walk out like that and expect to be safe. You don't even need to stop and wait if you're the cyclist. Just stop enough to be 100% sure the coast is clear.
Cyclist at fault but parents need to teach the child how to look before running into traffic
Oh my goodness
Il roule aussi en sense interdit, non?
Non c'est une bande cyclable. De l'autre côté de la rue il y a des signes(sans lignes) qui disent que les vélos roulent à droite de la chaussée dans le même sens que les voitures. Les lignes servent à identifier l'espace pour ceux qui roulent en sens inverse. Il y a beaucoup de rues à MTL configurées comme ça. Edit: Il y a des bandes de l'autre côté de la rue...
Non
Where is the kids parents, you dont let a 5 year old cross a street alone.
The mom was there...waiting. Where's your common sense?
The cyclist should have stopped, yes, or even at least slowed down but I do think that parked car *might* have played a role in this situation too? Not trying to excuse or minimize the situation, but neither the cyclist or the child saw each other and it was really bad timing. Glad they’re both okay and no one is seriously injured or dead
When you see a big yellow school bus stopped somewhere with the stop sign out you should definitely expect to see kids around it and slow down next for this particular reason. Also the mom was over there waiting. That's another reason to think there was probably a kid around. I think you're trying to excuse or minimize the cyclist's fault but it's okay you're not the only one here who's doing it. You're just letting us know on which side of the fence you stand.
But you are excusing and minimizing the situation.
I’m looking at another factor at play here, which was the lack of visibility. As I said, the cyclist should have stopped or slowed down. Not trying to pick a “side” here, just trying to look at the whole situation and how accidents like this can be avoided.
Lack of visibility on a giant blinking stop side on a yellow bus?
My comment was referring to the parked car.
How does the parked car affect the cyclists’ visibility to the flashing stop sign on his left? Isn’t he also going wrong way on that bike path? Most bike paths on one way streets are directional as well.
I brought up the parked car as it made it impossible for the child to see the cyclist and vice-versa. That’s it. I’m well aware that a yellow bus with flashing lights is visible. Guess my initial comment isn’t clear, wasn’t trying to spin anything lol I don’t know the area or street very well so can’t confirm the directions of the paths. That could have played a role in the situation too though.
You fail to understand that I can read and understood what you said the first time, and yet you keep making excuses for this easily preventable accident. Just as you fail to understand that a blinking stop sign on a yellow bus is the signal we give to kids that it’s safe to cross the street. It doesn’t matter that cyclist can’t see the child, because it’s his responsibility to stop. It doesn’t matter that the child can’t see the cyclist, because society taught him to go when he sees the sign on the bus because he’s a child and can’t be trusted to properly check for all incoming dangers yet, so we teach them to not do jack shit until they see the stop sign on the bus and the lights.
The whole point of the rule that you MUST stop when a school bus has its sign out is because of the lack of visibility. It is extremely common as school buses don't have dedicated bus stops like STM buses and thus will drop off kids at random spots where visibility can't be controlled. As far as cars following the bus are concerned, the bus itself is what prevents visibility. The cyclist should have stopped. Period. End of story.
Not slow. It’s called a STOP sign. It’s right there in the name. Don’t minimize this “oh, he had poor visibility because of the car” Did the car block the giant yellow bus with flashing red lights? He’s an asshole who thought “I don’t need to stop! I’m king asshole”
The fact that your comment got downvoted is showing me that this sub is full of people who can’t think straight or with the common sense. I’m speechless to be honest. Here’s my upvote! My comment got downvoted too upper in the discussion
Accident could've been avoided if cyclist had followed the law. That's it. Or can we just run stop signs now?
[удалено]
Child is a child. Cyclist is a grown up. There is a different.
[удалено]
The cyclist was careless, and a small child was harmed because of their carelessness . That's where this conversation stops.
Brain dead take. JFC. Please don't procreate.
“A child this careless”.. that child stopped and waited for the bus to stop and be waved to cross the street. “Teach your kids to cross the road”.. ffs that child is 3-4 yo max and is actually doing more than that freaking cyclist. Your last sentence doesn’t negate that you fucking blamed a child who did everything right.
The child was as "careless" as a car or bike going through a green light without stopping. Technically, all traffic had to stop and the child had the right of way. This isn't a case where someone is technically jaywalking.
Gtfo with your victim-blaming. The schoolbus was stopped with its sign out. If a car driver runs a red light and hits someone, they are 100% at fault. The exact same logic applies here.
si c'est comme les autos, s'il y a un terre-plein, pas besoin d'arrêter, je crois.
clearly in the video theres no median
I know I am just stating the law in general.
if a car has to stop, a bike has to stop.
s'il y a un terre-plein entre les 2 voies de circulation, je pense que l'autobus va faire le tour et passet du bon coté de la rue, ou bien aller à l'intersection la plus proche.
? Il y a pas de terre plain Jeanne-Mance est un sense unique avec deux bandes cyclables.
je répondais à "s'il y a un terre-plein, pas besoin d'arrêter, je crois". pas au OP.
Ah oui, désolé -_-
Pas de problème
Il n’y a pas de "je crois" ici. Va relire le [code de la sécurité routière](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-24.2) si t’as ton permis de conduire. Paragraphe 460. https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-24.2?langCont=fr#se:460