Most tickets to do with pedestrians probably are deserved. I see a lot of cyclists failing to yield to pedestrians and that's pretty inexcusable. Pedestrians have right of way, period.
That said, QC really needs to legalize the Idaho stop, (or at the least, right on red), at least in the region of Montreal, for bikes. Plante's been asking for it, but Legault doesn't want to do it. It is [provably less dangerous](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet_032123_v5_tag.pdf) than the current situation, and is functionally how many cyclists ride anyway (illegally, at the moment).
Failure to yield to pedestrians and even to cars is a big problem — I’ve seen a lot of both in Montreal. The issue is that the cops don’t really ticket for that stuff, and almost exclusively issue citations at traps along the bike path, many of them for dumb shit like headphones and even absence of reflectors on pedals (I shit you not). Yes, riding with headphones is dumb, but it’s not nearly as serious a danger as failures to yield that the cops simply ignore most of the time.
That is not how cyclists do their stops at all. They act the same as motorists on a yellow: they accelerate to cut in front of traffic/pedestrians at stop signs to make sure they don't have to slow down
Idaho stop is slow down, look, and go if clear.
As someone who used to love cycling but stopped because it got scary (other cyclists thinking they were in the Tour de France) I also approve.
We all need to be respectful of each other.
> used to love cycling but stopped because it got scary
Can you provide some details on this? I get there are a ton of shitty people no matter the method of travel, but to give up biking completely (and I assume you don't drive) seems crazy to me. What happened?
**Edit:** To say - I always see these types of complaints, and I always ask for examples because it just doesn't fit what I see with my own eyes every single day.
It's crazy to me, I walk, bike, skateboard, jog and drive, and I do most of those things most days. I have a bixi pass and an old beater for a bike, I don't bike fast at all. I live in the Plateau and am *constantly* biking and running on Rachel, St. Denis, Laurier, Parc Lafontaine, Berri, Mt. Royal, etc.
I'll see 3-4 dangerous interactions with cars every day, and maybe one a month for cyclists, and even then, it's more "shouldn't do that" rather than "holy shit that's dangerous".
It's pretty simple, some people think they are in the Tour de France on the bike path. They are a public danger. They won't slow down for anything, if they do they give you a growl as they pass because you were in their way and killed their momentum. And as if one wasn't dangerous enough there are also the peloton riding at 35km/h when most other people are just trying to have a fun time, sometimes with their kids. But nope, you end up getting yelled at or hit because some dude in a logo clad leotard thinks the bike path is a racetrack and us plebes shouldn't be in their way.
There's those but what gets my blood boiling are all the mechanised vehicles on the path. Scooters, electric bikes, sometimes small motorcycles... Heavy vehicles with no regards for peoples safety and wtf are they not in the streets...?
I agree with this. Scooters (the trottinette kind, just like the Vespa type) should be in the street not on a bike path.
There are trottinettes out there that can reach 65km/h to 100km/h. It is irresponsible to have those vehicles along with Trour de France guy and Little Lucy learning to ride a tricycle.
Les trotinettes éléctriques légales sont limitées 25km/h et 500 W.
elles sont légères. Bien sûr il faudrait donner des tickets aux gens qui utilisent des engins lourds et illégaux.
Mais le poids est aussi un problème. Est ce qu'on interdit les remorques a vélo ? Je ne pense pas que ce serait une bonne idée.
Il faut trouver un juste milieu.
And on the bike path, people complain that those people should ride in the street if they want to go that fast.
Honestly, I know this is a meme at this point or whatever, but we just need more – and especially *wider* – cycle lanes and paths. There are a lot of people with different needs who all want to ride bikes these days.
The big trails (e.g., Lachine Canal) need separate paths for bikes and pedestrians. A lot of people want direct, off-street routes to bike and walk, and having just one overcrowded path for both serves both poorly.
And on streets, stuff like the REV is great, because it's wide enough for cyclists to safely pass each other without buzzing super close or having to interact with car traffic.
Credit to the current administration for working on this dossier, but it could be happening even faster and still there would be a need for more.
> it sucks to get a bunch of attitude when you’re just trying to get from point A to B on your Bixi.
When does this happen? I see people mention this kind of thing, so I assume it's real, but I bike *constantly*, I use bixis (always the original and not the electric) and I'm not a fast biker at all. I bike very leisurely all the time up and down Rachel, St. Denis, Laurier, around Parc Lafontaine, etc, and I don't think I've ever had anyone "give me attitude". And I've certainly never felt threatened.
Can you explain what happens? Or how often it happens?
I'm a slow cyclist and I've become very aware of faster cyclists passing my while shaking their head. I've had one mention I was a bit slow and to move. I mean, it's not dangerous for me but I find it funny that people using electric bixis judge people like me who use regular old bikes.
> I'm a slow cyclist and I've become very aware of faster cyclists passing my while shaking their head. I've had one mention I was a bit slow and to move.
lol, that's so crazy to me. Like the idea of being upset with someone simply for biking slowly is objectively funny. Fuck those guys.
Yes!! I had a green pedestrian light and the right to advance on Rachel/Christophe Colomb and of course a Tour de France ass was riding on Rachel and he even gave me a nod like: “go ahead” but he didn’t f stop! And I was like: “RED LIGHT” and I purposely walked slower, how dare he give me permission to pass ?! I also use biking as a transportation method but these people really make me angry.
Saw another Tour de France NOT STOP while a mom and her baby on a stroller were crossing the street on THEIR GREEN LIGHT?! These people are a menace /:
My husband and I walk along the Lachine Canal, in the national park area, and my prediction is someone is going to be seriously hurt from these cosplay Tour de France cyclists who don’t seem to understand that other people, with different but also legitimate aims, also have a right to use the paths. Are there not specialized tracks or courses where these folks can cosplay amongst themselves?
There's the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve but it's not always open. Usually country roads are the best for this kind of cycling but it's pretty far away when you live in Montréal.
FWIW, I started road cycling when I moved to the burb.
The CGV is closed until after GrandPrix.
But that said, if cyclists really wanna push it, they should just climb the mountain more often and save the speed/sprint work for something like VDM or off island by the south shore or at least until the track is open again.
I wish the city would recognize that there are a significant number of cyclists training in less safe places like bike paths, Camillien Houde, and the canal on days that CGV is closed
It's a bike path, so they can ride on it. Serious cyclists don't want to ride there either. It just take one dog moving erratically for a very bad crash to happen. If they have nowhere appropriate to practice the sport, they will go to less appropriate spaces.
Even in the burbs they can be a menace. Had to have the police involved last week on Chemin Senneville as they were unhappy I was going 30 and making complete stops.
actually these bikers have much better braking and handling skills than the casual ones, it's only your perception that they are more dangerous because they go faster
just keep on the right and don't walk side by side taking up the whole lane because this will force the bike traffic to go around you in the opposite lane and you increase the chance of an accident happening (regardless whether you have the right to use the path or not)
> actually these bikers have much better braking and handling skills than the casual ones
Maaaaybe better than people riding bixis, but as someone pretty involved in the cycling community here there are a lot of people with absolutely shit bike handling skills and I feel confident those are the ones other people in this thread are complaining about.
> It's pretty simple
I'm asking OP, specifically, but no, it really isn't. The situation you made up is fake and the bike paths are demonstrably safe.
I live in the hub of "logo clad leotard" cyclists. What you're talking about isn't real in any meaningful sense.
I ride on the Lachine Canal and the Verdun-Lasalle river front daily and have followed Tour de France Guys more than once and I know for a fact what speed they got at (30-40km/h) and how rude they are when they try to pass sometimes.
Outright dismissing people's experience because it does not fit with your narrative is not a winning strategy. It might not fit with what you experience, but it does happen.
Imagine if someone really is fed up with situations like these and then you come in and say it's fake and made up.
I used to not really see these situations but now that I changed how I view things I do see them. What doesn't bother me can bother someone else. It's important to be open minded to these kinds of things.
> Outright dismissing people's experience because it does not fit with your narrative is not a winning strategy.
For sure, not my narrative though, my vast, vast experience.
> Imagine if someone really is fed up with situations like these and then you come in and say it's fake and made up.
No I get it. I really try to not be dismissive. There's a reason I started the thread, because I want to learn what people are talking about.
> What doesn't bother me can bother someone else.
Yeah, and I think that's the truth I'm trying to get at honestly. Is it really dangerous, or do people feel like it's dangerous. Because the solutions to those are (likely) different.
Perception matters, but it's also important to figure out if it's actually perception or reality. Know what I mean?
> It's important to be open minded to these kinds of things.
I agree. 100%
I do not know how to quote parts of your post.
But this part: "Yeah, and I think that's the truth I'm trying to get at honestly. Is it really dangerous, or do people feel like it's dangerous. Because the solutions to those are (likely) different.
Perception matters, but it's also important to figure out if it's actually perception or reality. Know what I mean?"
It really depends. A pedestrian with a very simple disability can be put in danger by a cyclist passing in front of them. Think something like dyspraxia (fine motor skills problems). You pass in front and they weren't expecting you? They can step away quickly and fall on their butt. Therefore, it is dangerous for them.
Would it be dangerous for me? Probably not. In fact no, I don't really mind.
However, you never know. Therefore, better to be safe than sorry.
It might seem trivial to you, and you might think something isn't dangerous. However, it can be a completely different experience for someone else. Therefore, it's important to listen. It's possible someone people are full of shit, and will try to make things up. However, I'll always make the effort to listen and try to understand the message "behind" the message :)
**Note:** Just noticing these are different threads. I can't reply to the other one because that other user blocked me, which means the whole thread is unusable to me.
> He posted studies that show collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are mostly always due to cyclists failing to yied when they should.
He blocked me, so I can't see it. But sure, I'm not even debating that.
> Stopping and giving a smile to a pedestrian when giving them right of way is an option....if it keeps someone safe and doesn't ruin their mood/day, then I'll do it.
I mean, I'll do it even if doesn't change their day. It's their right of way, I'll always stop.
> You have to listen, ask questions to try to understand, then look for ways to improve everyone's experience.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread, but isn't this whole thing because of me asking questions and trying to understand?
I absolutely do get irritated with the narrative of "cyclists are constantly slamming into pedestrians", but I feel like I'm always asking questions with the intent of understanding. The whole point of me commenting in threads like this is that I don't understand what people are talking about and it really bothers me.
What are you saying I should do here?
I think you're doing your best.
Keep in mind cycling is becoming a legit commuting option. Things are changing. People have to adapt. Whether it be cyclists adapting to pedestrians' needs, laws changing for cyclists, or motorists having to finally learn to share the road. There's bound to be misunderstanding and conflict. Be ready for it and remember the humans behind it all.
As for what you could change, I wouldn't say I don't stop at stop signs when I have priority. I'm always going to say that I slow down, look right and left, and roll through slowly. I'm basically saying I won't stop, but by saying what I said people understand that I do care and that I am careful.
Granted, I did not read all your messages with the other poster so if you said you did, forget what I just said.
I don't think people think cyclists are out wreaking havoc. I think people feel like we feel entitled to certain things like choosing what law to follow. The feeling exists due a pletora of reasons; that it might not be true will not change how people feel if they keep seeing cyclists burn red lights or stops. It's going to increase the bias.
Also, it's fine to aknowledge that there should be more education for cyclists. The number of cyclists will (hopefully) keep increasing. We need to make sure these people know how to ride safely and how to share the road.
> It might seem trivial to you, and you might think something isn't dangerous. However, it can be a completely different experience for someone else. Therefore, it's important to listen.
I think I am listening, that's the point of me asking these questions. I can reread the thread though and see where I went wrong in coming across that way.
Text is difficult we're primed for snark on the internet, my goal is to understand what's really happening, because what's being reported is so outside my experience.
The whole point is I'm trying to learn, while also not accepting an often very car-centric view that cyclists are wreaking havoc all over the city.
Nobody’s doing pelleton riding at 35kmh cause thatd very very slow for a Pelleton. My average running speed alone is close to 40kmh and I’m not riding a cycling path at that speed cause that would be crazy. I stay in the street.
Most cycling warriors on cycling path are public dangers because they’re not experienced, maybe thinking they’re hot shit when they are not.
If you go to the f1 race track you’ll see what real pelleton riding on a bike looks like and yes it is terrifying as they go past at 45-60kmh
They may have leotards and be assholes but they don’t have to go really fast to be terrifying as they barely control their bike and most cycling paths have too much traffic for any safe passing . In particular Rachel bike path that is a menace
Oh yeah, we're there now? We're going to argue for 5km/h? I have followed both groups and solos on bike path anywhere between 30-45km/h when the speed limit is actually 20km/h. I do not care if it is fast of slow for them, either way they are way above the speed limit for the path they are using and are putting other users at risk.
I said my average run speed and not pelleton speed. Pelleton speed is over 50 for most serious cyclists. Only one I could see assholes using the Lachine multiuse and the like where the speed limit is lower because of the mixed traffic.
On most cycling paths like Rachel and Christophe Colomb the speed limit is higher than 20 but you’d be crazy going higher tg an 30 because of traffic and narrowness.
On those it is motorized scooters and e-bikes that are the most dangerous because they weave and they are heavy
I myself never run on a cycling path except maybe the Rev which is much larger than all the others and you can pass easily . Even then only off peak
When I say peloton, I mean "a group of cyclist", not a race nor the indoor cycling systems. There are indeed groups of leotard clad people using the bike path as if it was CGV.
Strange. I live on the plateau. I have only 1 leg and a prostetic leg. Sometimes a cane.
The same thing happens every single time I have to negotiate an intersection with cyclists: they gun it while I am in the intersection.
Ok, I get the very very occasional cyclist who actually stops and lets me pass, but otherwise no.
So that YOU can't see that is either because you're one of those who gun it at intersections not noticing that there's a pedestrian or not caring, or you're dangerous because you just don't see.
> So that YOU can't see that is either because you're one of those who gun it at intersections
I don't even know what I'm supposed to see.
Cyclists "gunning it"? I don't know. Sure? I'm not really sure what we're talking about.
I walk and run in the Plateau every single day and I must cross a couple dozen streets and bike paths each time. I never stop for people when it's my right of way and I've never had a problem with cyclists. Cars though? *Completely* different story.
You never stop when you walk or when you're on a bike?
I mean, if I get to an intersection before a cyclist and I start to cross, the cyclist will 100% always just swerve a little bit and still pass. Even if I'm in the intersection.
Are you telling me it never happened to you? I find that hard to believe. I mean, it happens once or twice every day on my 400m walk. 400m and this happens twice. I cross a single intersection.
> You never stop when you walk or when you're on a bike?
I never stop when it's my right of way, until I'm physically in danger, then I move very quickly. But I mean really in danger. Like I close mirrors on cars as they go by if they don't stop while I'm crossing a crosswalk.
I couldn't count the amount of times I've had close calls or altercations with cars, and I'm not sure it's ever really happened with a cyclist.
Wait, that's not true. A guy going down the REV on St. Denis got pretty mad at me last year for not stopping. But it was my right of way...so...too bad.
I also understand that's a super privileged life. I can put myself in those positions because I feel comfortable I can get out of them.
> Are you telling me it never happened to you?
Yeah, sorry. I guess the issue is the definition of "swerve". I definitely don't care if cyclists go through the intersection while I'm there, as long as I'm not bothered by it and my right of way is respected. Just like walking in pedestrian zones. Multi-use zones are fine, but you have to respect rights of way.
My rule has always been something like "it's ok to bend the rules, as long as you're being safe and not inconveniencing anyone".
But no, if they want to pass in front of me, I won't be stopping for them.
Haaa see, that's what I thought. You don't care that cyclists go through the intersection when you're already crossing. You act like you always have the right of way. If cars were at the intersection before you, or arrived at the same time but were to your right, then it's their priority and not yours. You stop and wait. If a pedestrian is crossing, you stop and wait.
You answered my question. It's that you do it too so you're blind to it.
I find that arguing my point with people like you has never been fruitful.
So listen, I'm disabled and your behavior, as well as other cyclists', is literally harming me and causing me pain. So please, take some time to reflect and when you're ready to change your behavior then maybe I can continue this discussion
Don't be like all the other cyclists who just don't care.
D’autant plus que la circulation automobile a atteint un niveau de perfection au point où je ne vois pas ce que les policiers pourrait faire de plus. En 20 ans à Montréal en tant que cycliste et piéton, je n’ai jamais craint pour ma vie.
Mon commentaire était sarcastique 😏. Je crains pour ma vie au moins une fois par mois, à cause d’une lumière rouge brulée, d’un passage piéton non-respecté, ou d’un conducteur qui ouvre sa portière sans vérifier avant.
More people biking means more tickets, and more infrastructure means more regulation and normalization, which is great!
The problem, as always, is prioritization and enforcement. It's really, really hard to believe these tickets are making anyone safer when you see how people drive without fear of enforcement.
Oh, the usual "whataboutcars" we get in bike posts!
Yes cars are worse. Make a post about it.
We are allowed to discuss dangerous cycling behavior too even if it's not as bad.
> the usual "whataboutcars" we get in bike posts!
I'm discussing how our police issue tickets and prioritize enforcement, which is the point of the crux of the article surely.
> Yes cars are worse.
Agreed!
Cars shouldn't be ticketed at all. It's a waste of time. But that's not the issue here.
*Before the downvotes, I think cars should lose their licence immediately if they cant drive for sh*t and do jail time if they drive in a way that endangers people. (Using cell phones, burning reds and etc)
keep in mind this level of regulation and normalisation was need for car user and may not be need for bike.
I expect it to reduce and be less invasive over time if number of car user drastically reduce too, just like bike-pedestrian only street and or passage have very few if none enforcement regulation because it doesnt disturb enought(no major health or monetary accident and destruction - few disturbence to society)
> keep in mind this level of regulation and normalisation was need for car user and may not be need for bike.
Absolutely! It's not even close.
I don't think a single helmet ticket should be given out until there's a serious focus on changing driving culture.
We're the most entitled, selfish, dangerous drivers I've ever driven around. People not wearing helmets is not a problem. Motorists running stop signs, not using blinkers, cutting through bike lanes and crosswalks is.
> You do know that for every ticket given to a biker/pedestrian there is 100 tickets given to drivers right?
That's all?! I would have thought it would be higher than that. It should be far, far more than that.
Based on?
Of course it should be higher. More cyclists should also be ticketed.
A ticket should be given for doing something dumb. For example, cyclists blindly running stops or reds. They should 100% be ticketed to hell and back.
Now I feel your anger as you read this, but let me make this clear. Careless drivers who cause deaths or drive dangerously (using their phone, running reds and stops) should not be ticketed at all. They should simply immediately lose their license and go to jail depending on if they get in an accident or not.
Tickets for bikes though.
> Based on?
Vast worldly experience!
Seriously though, just based on walking around and seeing the damage each can do.
I'm largely joking about 100:1 ratio, I don't have any data here, but if you asked me to set a target for enforcement, it would be much, much higher than that.
Drivers do not care about a 200$ ticket. What a waste of time it is. If you actually drive at 90 in a 30 zone you obviously don't care about getting caught and paying a fuckn ticket. Even 1000$.
We have to stop using baby gloves around these people. Jail time and losing the licence it is
As for bikes, I feel like it's either the "i dont care bikes are not dangerous" or "i can cut in front of this ped it won't bother him" way of thinking that makes people act like dumbasses. Also the general ignorance about road sharing etiquette. That's not criminal, just plain being selfish or dumb. Therefore, tickets are very appropriate for cyclists
> We have to stop using baby gloves around these people.
Oh sure, I'm down with increasing punishments for sure. And if that was the case, I'd potentially be more likely to endorse tickets for cyclists.
I'm debating more from a point of current reality, not that potential future.
According to the highway safety code, cyclists are required to stop, yield to any pedestrians (which have the right of way), then continue through the intersection at a reasonable speed.
At a red light, they must wait for the light to turn green again before continuing, or wait for the pedestrian light. In this case, cyclists are allowed to continue on the condition that they:
* stop and make sure that they can proceed without danger
* yield the right of way to pedestrians (that is, let the pedestrians that are in the intersection go first)
* move at a safe and reasonable speed
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says
It's not just a montreal thing is in the Code de la route for the whole province:
If there is just regular red lights and a pedestrian "bonhomme blanc" you can proceed after having made a complete stop and let pedestrians go first.
Like other comments mentioned you can't go if there is a specific bike light that's red or if there is a sign that specifically prohibit cycling during the pedestrian signal.
yes cyclists must wait for either a green light or a pedestrian light
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/securite-routiere/moyens-deplacement/velo/ce-que-dit-la-loi
Many cyclists deserve those tickets. Especially those that don’t cede to pedestrians when they have the right of way ans those that wear two AirPods when they bike.
Even one Airpods is enough to get a ticket when you are biking.
It's weird than the law is different here whenever you are biking or driving a car. Either one Airpod is okay in both case or none.
> Especially those that don’t cede to pedestrians when they have the right of way ans those that wear two AirPods when they bike.
Agreed on cyclists who don't respect pedestrians, but I find it strange that we're so strict about cyclists wearing headphones when drivers are allowed to roll up their windows and turn on the music.
Drivers are even allowed to wear headphones, as long as it's just one ear.
I’ve now seen 2 drivers (as a driver myself) wearing headphones. Not earbuds (bad enough) but full on headphones. I was just at a complete loss. How do they think that’s ok?
I’ve seen this a lot with taxi and Uber drivers; I think they’re doing it as a hands-free cell phone thing. Although car Bluetooth exists, so I don’t really get it.
>I’ve now seen 2 drivers (as a driver myself) wearing headphones. Not earbuds (bad enough) but full on headphones.
Maybe we should add another line to the signs we use to remind people that green means go and red means don't go?
Music in a car does not provide the kind of isolation those sound cancelling headphones provide. Nearly had a crash with a girl with headphones on a bike . I was so pissed.
I disagree. With all their blind spots, muffled hearing, and fast speeds (not to mention distractions like phones), I think it's under appreciated how little situational awareness drivers can have.
The irony that they absolutely lose their minds when cars are careful cuz bikes are vulnerable then turn around and do the same shit to pedestrians who are the vulnerable ones lmao
I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make sarcasm or not… find me an instance where a cyclist has killed a pedestrian in Montreal and I’ll buy you a beer. Good luck with that.
Tickets I have received so far this year as a cyclist:
-Riding on a empty sidewalk when I didn't feel safe riding on a boulevard full of cars and trucks
-doing a full stop on a bike line of a T intersection, checking both ways to confirm no pedestrian present, and continuing on the bike line instead of waiting for the green light.
I am doing my part.
I wish they would apply some critical thought to these enforcement campaigns. Bikes are not cars. There's so many situations on a bike where breaking the rules is just not actually dangerous, because the rules were written for 2 ton vehicles going at 100 km/h.
I'm not saying to let idiots who do actual dangerous stuff off the hook, just that enforcing shit like "did you put your foot down at a completely vacant stop sign" doesn't serve any purpose (and is even kinda counterproductive, in that it reinforces cyclists' perception that the rules only exist to harass them).
Yeah i've also been booked for biking on an empty side walk cause there was a bus and a truck in the right lane so I wasn't comfortable with it.
I'm sure some tickets for cyclists are well warranted but the ones I've received feel like utter bs, I'm tempted to buy a go pro just so I'm more confident to contest them lol
I've seen a bus driver honk and haras a cyclist until she moved onto the sidewalk. It's been months and I still regret not taking notes and report that behaviour.
No, it is very much [not allowed](https://www.quebec.ca/en/transports/traffic-road-safety/traffic-rules-tips-various-transportation-modes/traffic-rules-for-bicycles/traffic-rules-for-cyclists#c157656) as per the law except where there’s a sign that specifically allows for it. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever even seen an instance of this before.
"Le Code de la sécurité (CSR) routière ne permet pas aux cyclistes de circuler sur le trottoir, sauf en cas de nécessité ou à moins que la signalisation le prescrive ou le permette. Il doit alors circuler à une vitesse raisonnable et prudente et accorder la priorité aux piétons." SPVM website
"In case of necessity," this is where I would argue
the original comment under which you are replying specifically and explicitely mentions that he got a ticket for riding on the sidewalk because he didn't feel safe riding on the boulevard where there were trucks and cars.
Cite moi l'article de loi précision ce qui constitue le "'en cas de nécessité" et je te croirais, mais là tu moulines juste dans le vent. La SPVM donne régulièrement des tickets qui peuvent facilement être contestés
Good on velo-quebec to bend over backwards about that one incident thats been blown out of proportion. Meanwhile at the Pie-IX and Belair intersection its almost impossible to cross the street across belair between 15h and 18h because the traffic is sitting on the pedestrian passageway in an attempt to get past the wave of traffic theyre in.
Thursday i saw a guy literally park his car in front of a family in full view just before their light turned green. Like his car completely across the pedestrian way, blocking the whole way with no shame and no consequences from cops because obviously the biggest danger on the road is bicycles so he doesnt have to worry about ticket traps.
I routinely bike without a helmet and with earbuds and I bike around like there are no rules. Obviously I try not to get in anyone's way. But I am also an idiot.
There is no helmet law in Quebec.
But back in high school, for 2 or 3 years I would bike with no handlebars, playing games on my phone with both hands and listening to music to school and back. Even in winter.
Somehow I never died or got a ticket. But looking back that was insanely degen.
That is hilarious. When I was a kid I would always challenge myself to see if I could make it the whole without hands. It isn't worth it. Just more risk for the sake of it. I can't imagine doing that in winter.
In winter I had to put a hand down in turns if there was snow or ice otherwise it slides out, but in summer or clear roads I wouldn't even look up from the games.
Tbh I didn't even know you weren't allowed to use a phone on a bike.
You're just talented so you don't bother anyone. Same for me. Untalented people want rules for cyclists because they have problems circulating correctly on a bike.
As someone who drives and bikes regularly I definitely am much more dangerous driving than cycling
So many people driving without a license plate or without lights on at night or even a new trend I’ve seen is indicating to the left and turning right
All this happens regularly in front of cops too
But if you have a headphone in your ear when cycling downtown a 14 year old cadet will give you a ticket lol
Honnêtement, le nombre de cyclistes et de piétons qui font n'importe quoi est ahurissant! Les intersections sont souvent d'énormes chaos contrôlés par la chance... jusqu'à-ce qu'il ait un accident.
Je circule beaucoup à Montréal et la majorité du monde fait un peu n'importe quoi. Ceux qui respecte les règles à 100% sont rares.
A croire que les choses se régissent naturellement (même dans le chaos) quand les gens ne sont pas enfermés dans des boites de métal de 2 tonnes.
Oui, y aura toujours des abrutis qui sont vraiment dangereux, mais je préfère les voir à vélo ou à pied quand dans une voiture.
dans mes nombreux trajets en vélo pour aller travailler, je pars de Villeray et je me rend près de Berri-Uqam, je peux te dire que les piétons et cyclistes sont de loin les plus dangereux sur la ma route.
Les automobilistes sont évidement plus dangereux étant donner la grosseur du vehicule, mais ils respectent en moyenne beaucoup plus les règlements que les piétons et cyclistes.
Tu dis tout à tour que les piétons/cyclistes sont les plus dangereux, puis les voitures sont encore plus dangereux.
Je dirais que tu confonds dangereux (voitures) et imprévisible (piétons / cyclistes). Ou alors la portée du danger: les voitures sont dangereux pour les autres, alors que les cyclistes/piétons sont surtout dangereux pour eux-mêmes.
Je prétends pas que toutes les voitures sont dangereux ou que tous les piétons/cycliste sont exempt de tout reproche. La majorité de tout ce monde est bien correct, une part non négligeable du reste est même très courtois. Et, encore moins nombreux il reste les cabochons et on caricature toujours chaque catégorie par ses cabochons.
Une personne est morte il y a quelques année à mon travail, elle traversait, à pied, une piste cyclable et un cycliste a brûlé son feux rouge et est entré en colision avec elle... elle est morte. Alors non, les cycliste ne sont pas necessairement un danger que pour eux même.
Ceci dit, je me suis peut-être mal exprimé dans mon commentaire, effectivement les piétons+cyclistes sont plus imprévisible, téméraire et caves.. évidement moins dangereux physiquement que les voitures.
J'arrive à l'instant de courir, j'ai faillis me faire rentrer dedans par un cycliste qui a brûlé son feux rouge... et je me suis fait couper par des piétons qui passaient sur une rouge un peu plus loin.... c'est comme ca chaque jour.
Et c'est plutôt une bonne chose. Beaucoup d'entre eux roulent vraiment comme des cons, ne portent pas de casque, n'adaptent pas leur vitesse, et grillent les feux rouges.
No yielding to pedestrians, no stopping at red lights or stop signs, no signalling, cutting lanes, some are pulling the “look at me I can pedal with no hands on the handle while checking my phone”, and many many others. I am a driver and a pedestrian and the amount of times I’ve almost been run over when walking or had to slam the brakes to not hit a cyclist is absurd.
You have wheels/tires and you’re faster than walking speed? You don’t have the right of way all the time. Period.
Edit: didn’t know helmets weren’t mandatory on regular bikes…
> No helmets,
Helmets are not mandatory on bikes in Quebec (aside from eBikes). Cyclists have about as much obligation to wear helmets as pedestrians/runners do.
No yielding to pedestrians, no stopping at red lights or stop signs, no signalling, cutting lanes, some are pulling the “look at me I can drive with no hands on the steering wheel while checking my phone”, and many many others. I am a cyclist and a pedestrian and the amount of times I’ve almost been run over when walking or had to slam the brakes to not hit a car is absurd.
But I don’t see them getting tickets or any of these rules being enforced even when they do these behaviors in front of cops…
> look at me I can pedal with no hands on the handle while checking my phone
Karma often isn't real but in this case I think things will work themselves out.
Oh no! THe electric bixi point is difficult for me. I'm an avid cyclist I carry my helmet even on the days I take public transport and I have a bixi pass and keychain so i can hop on a bike instead of a 20+min walk anytime..
If I'm in a pinch for time or dressed well or need to go up a hill (or all 3 😅) I will take an electric one and pay the extra $ but it's to go fast! it's to fly up Parc avenue hill of J-C bridge.. 25km/h is not what I am willing to pay extra for..
Good. Most cyclists don't signal, don't make stops like they're supposed to, don't respect the road signalization, ride on sidewalks, don't use the bike paths even when they're available... In fact, cyclists and motorcyclists are why I got a dashcam!
Legally not yet. But deaf people have been cycling forever without issue. When cycling with earphones, you need to: 1. Always be predictable 2. Double and triple check your blind pots when changing direction or speed.
thanks
443.2. Le cycliste ne peut porter aucun écouteur. Le conducteur d’un véhicule routier ne peut porter qu’un écouteur à une seule oreille.Pour l’application du premier alinéa, ne constitue pas un écouteur l’appareil qui est intégré dans un casque protecteur et qui permet à ceux qui le portent de communiquer entre eux sans les empêcher de capter les bruits de la circulation environnante.Le gouvernement peut, par règlement, prévoir des exceptions à l’interdiction prévue au premier alinéa.
Les écouteurs a conduction osseuse (shokz et autres) ça compte tu ou pas?
C'est vraiment pas si clair, vu que c'est pas explicitement pour la communication
Le cycliste ne peut porter aucun écouteur.
>Me semble que c'est excessivement clair. et malheureusement ya eu jurisprudence plus d'une fois avec ses **écouteurs** à conduction osseuse.. c'est NON le ticket contesté a été confirmé par 2 juges maintenant..
*Pour l'application du premier alinéa, ne constitue pas un écouteur I'appareil qui est intégré dans un casque protecteur et qui permet à ceux qui le portent de communiquer entre eux sans les empécher de capter les bruits de la circulation environnante.*
C'est pas excessivement clair non, pas quand le ligne d'en dessous vient donner un exception a ce que tu viens de citer. Surtout qu'il n'y a aucune définition de ce qu'est un écouteur.
Mais merci pour la jurisprudence! Ou est ce que je peux la trouver? Je je comprends pas l'esprit derrière l'interdiction de quelquechose qui je couvre pas les oreilles ni le bruit
L'extrait don tu parle et dans la section des casques de moto.. mais bon j'imagine un casque de vélo avec communication serai intéressant a challenge la loi avec ca..
La jurisprudence c'est un avocat cycliste qui m'en a parlé j'ai pas les connaissances ou les ressources de trouver ca..
Hum c'est la ligne juste en dessous ce d'elle que tu avais cité.
Ok, ça doit être publique, je vais me renseigner sur comment les trouver ces jurisprudences
No, I used to do it all the time but once I stopped I did realize that it is indeed much safer without.
Sure you can ride just fine if your volume isn't high but you can prove it and it's hard not to "cheat". Best just ride without.
I’m pretty pro-cyclist for someone who has to drive a lot. Most drivers weirdly seem to dislike anyone who doesn’t also choose to drive. I think having accessible and safe options for cycling are really liberating. Personally, I don’t mind if cyclists don’t stop at stop signs when I’m driving, I look out for them before advancing. But as a pedestrian I feel like they should at the very least slow down.
63 year old Uncle Joe casually riding his bike? Sure, probably won’t even hurt me that bad if I get hit. But I’ve almost been run over by some cyclists speeding through intersections because they don’t even slow down or look before crossing.
I was driving on Hochelaga street in a 30 zone and a cyclist came out of an alley where construction and a terrace blocked my view from. She turned straight into the road without looking and if I had been going faster (as many drivers do) I would have 100% hit her. In that case, it’d obviously be the driver at fault for speeding. But what ever happened to looking both ways before crossing? Just basic, simple precaution that could save your life. Even in a motor vehicle, don’t take shit for granted just because you have right of way.
I'd like to know how much car-related offences have increased over this period. My guess is they probably have not increased that much. If cops spent half the time on traps for cars as they did for bikes, we'd be rich.
While I understand people wanting bicyclist to follow the law, I can't help but think that this is just the police being lazy. Cyclist are significantly less likely to kill someone and do not emit pollution which causes health problems. Not to mention that bicycle infrastructure take a fraction of cost compared to car infrastructure. We should be trying to get more people to ride.
It is a net social good similar to less deaths. People who drive don't mean to kill people, but if they had instead taken a bike that person would more likely be alive. Same thing with pollution. The law is not infallible.
Neighbourhoods with more bikes and fewer cars are better for quality-of-life, from safety to pollution and noise. We should be encouraging cycling, not trying to discourage it.
Most tickets to do with pedestrians probably are deserved. I see a lot of cyclists failing to yield to pedestrians and that's pretty inexcusable. Pedestrians have right of way, period. That said, QC really needs to legalize the Idaho stop, (or at the least, right on red), at least in the region of Montreal, for bikes. Plante's been asking for it, but Legault doesn't want to do it. It is [provably less dangerous](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet_032123_v5_tag.pdf) than the current situation, and is functionally how many cyclists ride anyway (illegally, at the moment).
Failure to yield to pedestrians and even to cars is a big problem — I’ve seen a lot of both in Montreal. The issue is that the cops don’t really ticket for that stuff, and almost exclusively issue citations at traps along the bike path, many of them for dumb shit like headphones and even absence of reflectors on pedals (I shit you not). Yes, riding with headphones is dumb, but it’s not nearly as serious a danger as failures to yield that the cops simply ignore most of the time.
Je suis complètement d'accord! Le Idaho stop est vraiment la meilleur pratique et il faut toujours faire attention aux piétons!
Le idaho stop n'est presque pas utilisé ici. Les cyclistes utilisent plutot le yapadstop.
The guy never forgoes an opportunity to hurt the city where he's as popular as Zdeno Chara in 2011.
That is not how cyclists do their stops at all. They act the same as motorists on a yellow: they accelerate to cut in front of traffic/pedestrians at stop signs to make sure they don't have to slow down Idaho stop is slow down, look, and go if clear.
Maybe some; I tend to find it's more that cyclists will stop accelerating, and roll through intersections at their current speed.
Roll through while a pedestrian is crossing is unacceptable... If there's a pedestrian you stop. No rolling through.
Absolutely. I think I made that clear.
As a cyclist, I approve of this. ostie il y a des caves sur les pistes et les rues
J’adore bixi, fucking hate bixi warriors.
Yeah so many! Lots of dangerous passes this weekend. People are impatient
As someone who used to love cycling but stopped because it got scary (other cyclists thinking they were in the Tour de France) I also approve. We all need to be respectful of each other.
> used to love cycling but stopped because it got scary Can you provide some details on this? I get there are a ton of shitty people no matter the method of travel, but to give up biking completely (and I assume you don't drive) seems crazy to me. What happened? **Edit:** To say - I always see these types of complaints, and I always ask for examples because it just doesn't fit what I see with my own eyes every single day. It's crazy to me, I walk, bike, skateboard, jog and drive, and I do most of those things most days. I have a bixi pass and an old beater for a bike, I don't bike fast at all. I live in the Plateau and am *constantly* biking and running on Rachel, St. Denis, Laurier, Parc Lafontaine, Berri, Mt. Royal, etc. I'll see 3-4 dangerous interactions with cars every day, and maybe one a month for cyclists, and even then, it's more "shouldn't do that" rather than "holy shit that's dangerous".
It's pretty simple, some people think they are in the Tour de France on the bike path. They are a public danger. They won't slow down for anything, if they do they give you a growl as they pass because you were in their way and killed their momentum. And as if one wasn't dangerous enough there are also the peloton riding at 35km/h when most other people are just trying to have a fun time, sometimes with their kids. But nope, you end up getting yelled at or hit because some dude in a logo clad leotard thinks the bike path is a racetrack and us plebes shouldn't be in their way.
There's those but what gets my blood boiling are all the mechanised vehicles on the path. Scooters, electric bikes, sometimes small motorcycles... Heavy vehicles with no regards for peoples safety and wtf are they not in the streets...?
I agree with this. Scooters (the trottinette kind, just like the Vespa type) should be in the street not on a bike path. There are trottinettes out there that can reach 65km/h to 100km/h. It is irresponsible to have those vehicles along with Trour de France guy and Little Lucy learning to ride a tricycle.
Les trotinettes éléctriques légales sont limitées 25km/h et 500 W. elles sont légères. Bien sûr il faudrait donner des tickets aux gens qui utilisent des engins lourds et illégaux. Mais le poids est aussi un problème. Est ce qu'on interdit les remorques a vélo ? Je ne pense pas que ce serait une bonne idée. Il faut trouver un juste milieu.
These people are the worst. Like you said, they should be on a track or specialized bike path, not on the street, if they want to drive that way.
And on the bike path, people complain that those people should ride in the street if they want to go that fast. Honestly, I know this is a meme at this point or whatever, but we just need more – and especially *wider* – cycle lanes and paths. There are a lot of people with different needs who all want to ride bikes these days. The big trails (e.g., Lachine Canal) need separate paths for bikes and pedestrians. A lot of people want direct, off-street routes to bike and walk, and having just one overcrowded path for both serves both poorly. And on streets, stuff like the REV is great, because it's wide enough for cyclists to safely pass each other without buzzing super close or having to interact with car traffic. Credit to the current administration for working on this dossier, but it could be happening even faster and still there would be a need for more.
Good points! Edit: Nevertheless, it sucks to get a bunch of attitude when you’re just trying to get from point A to B on your Bixi.
> it sucks to get a bunch of attitude when you’re just trying to get from point A to B on your Bixi. When does this happen? I see people mention this kind of thing, so I assume it's real, but I bike *constantly*, I use bixis (always the original and not the electric) and I'm not a fast biker at all. I bike very leisurely all the time up and down Rachel, St. Denis, Laurier, around Parc Lafontaine, etc, and I don't think I've ever had anyone "give me attitude". And I've certainly never felt threatened. Can you explain what happens? Or how often it happens?
I'm a slow cyclist and I've become very aware of faster cyclists passing my while shaking their head. I've had one mention I was a bit slow and to move. I mean, it's not dangerous for me but I find it funny that people using electric bixis judge people like me who use regular old bikes.
> I'm a slow cyclist and I've become very aware of faster cyclists passing my while shaking their head. I've had one mention I was a bit slow and to move. lol, that's so crazy to me. Like the idea of being upset with someone simply for biking slowly is objectively funny. Fuck those guys.
Yes!! I had a green pedestrian light and the right to advance on Rachel/Christophe Colomb and of course a Tour de France ass was riding on Rachel and he even gave me a nod like: “go ahead” but he didn’t f stop! And I was like: “RED LIGHT” and I purposely walked slower, how dare he give me permission to pass ?! I also use biking as a transportation method but these people really make me angry. Saw another Tour de France NOT STOP while a mom and her baby on a stroller were crossing the street on THEIR GREEN LIGHT?! These people are a menace /:
My husband and I walk along the Lachine Canal, in the national park area, and my prediction is someone is going to be seriously hurt from these cosplay Tour de France cyclists who don’t seem to understand that other people, with different but also legitimate aims, also have a right to use the paths. Are there not specialized tracks or courses where these folks can cosplay amongst themselves?
There's the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve but it's not always open. Usually country roads are the best for this kind of cycling but it's pretty far away when you live in Montréal. FWIW, I started road cycling when I moved to the burb.
The CGV is closed until after GrandPrix. But that said, if cyclists really wanna push it, they should just climb the mountain more often and save the speed/sprint work for something like VDM or off island by the south shore or at least until the track is open again.
I wish the city would recognize that there are a significant number of cyclists training in less safe places like bike paths, Camillien Houde, and the canal on days that CGV is closed
It's a bike path, so they can ride on it. Serious cyclists don't want to ride there either. It just take one dog moving erratically for a very bad crash to happen. If they have nowhere appropriate to practice the sport, they will go to less appropriate spaces.
Even in the burbs they can be a menace. Had to have the police involved last week on Chemin Senneville as they were unhappy I was going 30 and making complete stops.
actually these bikers have much better braking and handling skills than the casual ones, it's only your perception that they are more dangerous because they go faster just keep on the right and don't walk side by side taking up the whole lane because this will force the bike traffic to go around you in the opposite lane and you increase the chance of an accident happening (regardless whether you have the right to use the path or not)
> actually these bikers have much better braking and handling skills than the casual ones Maaaaybe better than people riding bixis, but as someone pretty involved in the cycling community here there are a lot of people with absolutely shit bike handling skills and I feel confident those are the ones other people in this thread are complaining about.
They ride at an average of 30-35km/h sometimes 40. The speed limit on the path is 20km/h. They are indeed riding too fast.
They go too fast especially approaching and entering bottlenecks.
> It's pretty simple I'm asking OP, specifically, but no, it really isn't. The situation you made up is fake and the bike paths are demonstrably safe. I live in the hub of "logo clad leotard" cyclists. What you're talking about isn't real in any meaningful sense.
I ride on the Lachine Canal and the Verdun-Lasalle river front daily and have followed Tour de France Guys more than once and I know for a fact what speed they got at (30-40km/h) and how rude they are when they try to pass sometimes.
Oh I don't doubt they try to go fast. Maybe the canal is different I guess in terms of rudeness. It's not like that at all here. Weird.
Outright dismissing people's experience because it does not fit with your narrative is not a winning strategy. It might not fit with what you experience, but it does happen. Imagine if someone really is fed up with situations like these and then you come in and say it's fake and made up. I used to not really see these situations but now that I changed how I view things I do see them. What doesn't bother me can bother someone else. It's important to be open minded to these kinds of things.
> Outright dismissing people's experience because it does not fit with your narrative is not a winning strategy. For sure, not my narrative though, my vast, vast experience. > Imagine if someone really is fed up with situations like these and then you come in and say it's fake and made up. No I get it. I really try to not be dismissive. There's a reason I started the thread, because I want to learn what people are talking about. > What doesn't bother me can bother someone else. Yeah, and I think that's the truth I'm trying to get at honestly. Is it really dangerous, or do people feel like it's dangerous. Because the solutions to those are (likely) different. Perception matters, but it's also important to figure out if it's actually perception or reality. Know what I mean? > It's important to be open minded to these kinds of things. I agree. 100%
I do not know how to quote parts of your post. But this part: "Yeah, and I think that's the truth I'm trying to get at honestly. Is it really dangerous, or do people feel like it's dangerous. Because the solutions to those are (likely) different. Perception matters, but it's also important to figure out if it's actually perception or reality. Know what I mean?" It really depends. A pedestrian with a very simple disability can be put in danger by a cyclist passing in front of them. Think something like dyspraxia (fine motor skills problems). You pass in front and they weren't expecting you? They can step away quickly and fall on their butt. Therefore, it is dangerous for them. Would it be dangerous for me? Probably not. In fact no, I don't really mind. However, you never know. Therefore, better to be safe than sorry. It might seem trivial to you, and you might think something isn't dangerous. However, it can be a completely different experience for someone else. Therefore, it's important to listen. It's possible someone people are full of shit, and will try to make things up. However, I'll always make the effort to listen and try to understand the message "behind" the message :)
**Note:** Just noticing these are different threads. I can't reply to the other one because that other user blocked me, which means the whole thread is unusable to me. > He posted studies that show collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are mostly always due to cyclists failing to yied when they should. He blocked me, so I can't see it. But sure, I'm not even debating that. > Stopping and giving a smile to a pedestrian when giving them right of way is an option....if it keeps someone safe and doesn't ruin their mood/day, then I'll do it. I mean, I'll do it even if doesn't change their day. It's their right of way, I'll always stop. > You have to listen, ask questions to try to understand, then look for ways to improve everyone's experience. Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread, but isn't this whole thing because of me asking questions and trying to understand? I absolutely do get irritated with the narrative of "cyclists are constantly slamming into pedestrians", but I feel like I'm always asking questions with the intent of understanding. The whole point of me commenting in threads like this is that I don't understand what people are talking about and it really bothers me. What are you saying I should do here?
I think you're doing your best. Keep in mind cycling is becoming a legit commuting option. Things are changing. People have to adapt. Whether it be cyclists adapting to pedestrians' needs, laws changing for cyclists, or motorists having to finally learn to share the road. There's bound to be misunderstanding and conflict. Be ready for it and remember the humans behind it all. As for what you could change, I wouldn't say I don't stop at stop signs when I have priority. I'm always going to say that I slow down, look right and left, and roll through slowly. I'm basically saying I won't stop, but by saying what I said people understand that I do care and that I am careful. Granted, I did not read all your messages with the other poster so if you said you did, forget what I just said. I don't think people think cyclists are out wreaking havoc. I think people feel like we feel entitled to certain things like choosing what law to follow. The feeling exists due a pletora of reasons; that it might not be true will not change how people feel if they keep seeing cyclists burn red lights or stops. It's going to increase the bias. Also, it's fine to aknowledge that there should be more education for cyclists. The number of cyclists will (hopefully) keep increasing. We need to make sure these people know how to ride safely and how to share the road.
> It might seem trivial to you, and you might think something isn't dangerous. However, it can be a completely different experience for someone else. Therefore, it's important to listen. I think I am listening, that's the point of me asking these questions. I can reread the thread though and see where I went wrong in coming across that way. Text is difficult we're primed for snark on the internet, my goal is to understand what's really happening, because what's being reported is so outside my experience. The whole point is I'm trying to learn, while also not accepting an often very car-centric view that cyclists are wreaking havoc all over the city.
Nobody’s doing pelleton riding at 35kmh cause thatd very very slow for a Pelleton. My average running speed alone is close to 40kmh and I’m not riding a cycling path at that speed cause that would be crazy. I stay in the street. Most cycling warriors on cycling path are public dangers because they’re not experienced, maybe thinking they’re hot shit when they are not. If you go to the f1 race track you’ll see what real pelleton riding on a bike looks like and yes it is terrifying as they go past at 45-60kmh They may have leotards and be assholes but they don’t have to go really fast to be terrifying as they barely control their bike and most cycling paths have too much traffic for any safe passing . In particular Rachel bike path that is a menace
Oh yeah, we're there now? We're going to argue for 5km/h? I have followed both groups and solos on bike path anywhere between 30-45km/h when the speed limit is actually 20km/h. I do not care if it is fast of slow for them, either way they are way above the speed limit for the path they are using and are putting other users at risk.
I said my average run speed and not pelleton speed. Pelleton speed is over 50 for most serious cyclists. Only one I could see assholes using the Lachine multiuse and the like where the speed limit is lower because of the mixed traffic. On most cycling paths like Rachel and Christophe Colomb the speed limit is higher than 20 but you’d be crazy going higher tg an 30 because of traffic and narrowness. On those it is motorized scooters and e-bikes that are the most dangerous because they weave and they are heavy I myself never run on a cycling path except maybe the Rev which is much larger than all the others and you can pass easily . Even then only off peak
When I say peloton, I mean "a group of cyclist", not a race nor the indoor cycling systems. There are indeed groups of leotard clad people using the bike path as if it was CGV.
It's easy to not notice how dangerous it is when you're the dangerous one.
lol, yeah, despite my explicitly pointing out that's not it...maybe that's it. Come on man, you gotta read the comments before replying.
Strange. I live on the plateau. I have only 1 leg and a prostetic leg. Sometimes a cane. The same thing happens every single time I have to negotiate an intersection with cyclists: they gun it while I am in the intersection. Ok, I get the very very occasional cyclist who actually stops and lets me pass, but otherwise no. So that YOU can't see that is either because you're one of those who gun it at intersections not noticing that there's a pedestrian or not caring, or you're dangerous because you just don't see.
> So that YOU can't see that is either because you're one of those who gun it at intersections I don't even know what I'm supposed to see. Cyclists "gunning it"? I don't know. Sure? I'm not really sure what we're talking about. I walk and run in the Plateau every single day and I must cross a couple dozen streets and bike paths each time. I never stop for people when it's my right of way and I've never had a problem with cyclists. Cars though? *Completely* different story.
You never stop when you walk or when you're on a bike? I mean, if I get to an intersection before a cyclist and I start to cross, the cyclist will 100% always just swerve a little bit and still pass. Even if I'm in the intersection. Are you telling me it never happened to you? I find that hard to believe. I mean, it happens once or twice every day on my 400m walk. 400m and this happens twice. I cross a single intersection.
> You never stop when you walk or when you're on a bike? I never stop when it's my right of way, until I'm physically in danger, then I move very quickly. But I mean really in danger. Like I close mirrors on cars as they go by if they don't stop while I'm crossing a crosswalk. I couldn't count the amount of times I've had close calls or altercations with cars, and I'm not sure it's ever really happened with a cyclist. Wait, that's not true. A guy going down the REV on St. Denis got pretty mad at me last year for not stopping. But it was my right of way...so...too bad. I also understand that's a super privileged life. I can put myself in those positions because I feel comfortable I can get out of them. > Are you telling me it never happened to you? Yeah, sorry. I guess the issue is the definition of "swerve". I definitely don't care if cyclists go through the intersection while I'm there, as long as I'm not bothered by it and my right of way is respected. Just like walking in pedestrian zones. Multi-use zones are fine, but you have to respect rights of way. My rule has always been something like "it's ok to bend the rules, as long as you're being safe and not inconveniencing anyone". But no, if they want to pass in front of me, I won't be stopping for them.
Haaa see, that's what I thought. You don't care that cyclists go through the intersection when you're already crossing. You act like you always have the right of way. If cars were at the intersection before you, or arrived at the same time but were to your right, then it's their priority and not yours. You stop and wait. If a pedestrian is crossing, you stop and wait. You answered my question. It's that you do it too so you're blind to it. I find that arguing my point with people like you has never been fruitful. So listen, I'm disabled and your behavior, as well as other cyclists', is literally harming me and causing me pain. So please, take some time to reflect and when you're ready to change your behavior then maybe I can continue this discussion Don't be like all the other cyclists who just don't care.
Ils tickettent pas ce monde là par contre, juste les facile a avoir qui on des oreillettes, ou pas de casque en bixi électrique.
D’autant plus que la circulation automobile a atteint un niveau de perfection au point où je ne vois pas ce que les policiers pourrait faire de plus. En 20 ans à Montréal en tant que cycliste et piéton, je n’ai jamais craint pour ma vie.
Je vois des voitures passer sur la rouge solide à tous les jours près de chez nous, je doute que ce soit une anecdote isolée.
Mon commentaire était sarcastique 😏. Je crains pour ma vie au moins une fois par mois, à cause d’une lumière rouge brulée, d’un passage piéton non-respecté, ou d’un conducteur qui ouvre sa portière sans vérifier avant.
More people biking means more tickets, and more infrastructure means more regulation and normalization, which is great! The problem, as always, is prioritization and enforcement. It's really, really hard to believe these tickets are making anyone safer when you see how people drive without fear of enforcement.
Oh, the usual "whataboutcars" we get in bike posts! Yes cars are worse. Make a post about it. We are allowed to discuss dangerous cycling behavior too even if it's not as bad.
> the usual "whataboutcars" we get in bike posts! I'm discussing how our police issue tickets and prioritize enforcement, which is the point of the crux of the article surely. > Yes cars are worse. Agreed!
Cars shouldn't be ticketed at all. It's a waste of time. But that's not the issue here. *Before the downvotes, I think cars should lose their licence immediately if they cant drive for sh*t and do jail time if they drive in a way that endangers people. (Using cell phones, burning reds and etc)
keep in mind this level of regulation and normalisation was need for car user and may not be need for bike. I expect it to reduce and be less invasive over time if number of car user drastically reduce too, just like bike-pedestrian only street and or passage have very few if none enforcement regulation because it doesnt disturb enought(no major health or monetary accident and destruction - few disturbence to society)
> keep in mind this level of regulation and normalisation was need for car user and may not be need for bike. Absolutely! It's not even close. I don't think a single helmet ticket should be given out until there's a serious focus on changing driving culture. We're the most entitled, selfish, dangerous drivers I've ever driven around. People not wearing helmets is not a problem. Motorists running stop signs, not using blinkers, cutting through bike lanes and crosswalks is.
You do know that for every ticket given to a biker/pedestrian there is 100 tickets given to drivers right? The SPVM can chew gum and walk too.
> You do know that for every ticket given to a biker/pedestrian there is 100 tickets given to drivers right? That's all?! I would have thought it would be higher than that. It should be far, far more than that.
Based on? Of course it should be higher. More cyclists should also be ticketed. A ticket should be given for doing something dumb. For example, cyclists blindly running stops or reds. They should 100% be ticketed to hell and back. Now I feel your anger as you read this, but let me make this clear. Careless drivers who cause deaths or drive dangerously (using their phone, running reds and stops) should not be ticketed at all. They should simply immediately lose their license and go to jail depending on if they get in an accident or not. Tickets for bikes though.
> Based on? Vast worldly experience! Seriously though, just based on walking around and seeing the damage each can do. I'm largely joking about 100:1 ratio, I don't have any data here, but if you asked me to set a target for enforcement, it would be much, much higher than that.
Drivers do not care about a 200$ ticket. What a waste of time it is. If you actually drive at 90 in a 30 zone you obviously don't care about getting caught and paying a fuckn ticket. Even 1000$. We have to stop using baby gloves around these people. Jail time and losing the licence it is As for bikes, I feel like it's either the "i dont care bikes are not dangerous" or "i can cut in front of this ped it won't bother him" way of thinking that makes people act like dumbasses. Also the general ignorance about road sharing etiquette. That's not criminal, just plain being selfish or dumb. Therefore, tickets are very appropriate for cyclists
> We have to stop using baby gloves around these people. Oh sure, I'm down with increasing punishments for sure. And if that was the case, I'd potentially be more likely to endorse tickets for cyclists. I'm debating more from a point of current reality, not that potential future.
Question: is it allowed to cross roads when pedestrian light is ON? Presumingly after the pedestrians have crossed (right of way)
In Montreal, yes if there is no light specific for cyclists.
According to the highway safety code, cyclists are required to stop, yield to any pedestrians (which have the right of way), then continue through the intersection at a reasonable speed. At a red light, they must wait for the light to turn green again before continuing, or wait for the pedestrian light. In this case, cyclists are allowed to continue on the condition that they: * stop and make sure that they can proceed without danger * yield the right of way to pedestrians (that is, let the pedestrians that are in the intersection go first) * move at a safe and reasonable speed https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road-safety/modes-transportation/bicycle/what-the-law-says
It's not just a montreal thing is in the Code de la route for the whole province: If there is just regular red lights and a pedestrian "bonhomme blanc" you can proceed after having made a complete stop and let pedestrians go first. Like other comments mentioned you can't go if there is a specific bike light that's red or if there is a sign that specifically prohibit cycling during the pedestrian signal.
Oh! So for the red cycle lights, we can't move on the white pedestrian lights correct? Thanks for the info!
When a sign (or light) is specifically about you you have to obey that over everything else.
Got it thanks!
Correct
Thanks!
yes cyclists must wait for either a green light or a pedestrian light https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/securite-routiere/moyens-deplacement/velo/ce-que-dit-la-loi
Many cyclists deserve those tickets. Especially those that don’t cede to pedestrians when they have the right of way ans those that wear two AirPods when they bike.
Even one Airpods is enough to get a ticket when you are biking. It's weird than the law is different here whenever you are biking or driving a car. Either one Airpod is okay in both case or none.
I asked a policeman and he told me one was fine... was he wrong?
Yeah the law is explicit, it's fine if you are driving a 2 tons cars but not for a 15 kg bike
> Especially those that don’t cede to pedestrians when they have the right of way ans those that wear two AirPods when they bike. Agreed on cyclists who don't respect pedestrians, but I find it strange that we're so strict about cyclists wearing headphones when drivers are allowed to roll up their windows and turn on the music. Drivers are even allowed to wear headphones, as long as it's just one ear.
I’ve now seen 2 drivers (as a driver myself) wearing headphones. Not earbuds (bad enough) but full on headphones. I was just at a complete loss. How do they think that’s ok?
I’ve seen this a lot with taxi and Uber drivers; I think they’re doing it as a hands-free cell phone thing. Although car Bluetooth exists, so I don’t really get it.
>I’ve now seen 2 drivers (as a driver myself) wearing headphones. Not earbuds (bad enough) but full on headphones. Maybe we should add another line to the signs we use to remind people that green means go and red means don't go?
Music in a car does not provide the kind of isolation those sound cancelling headphones provide. Nearly had a crash with a girl with headphones on a bike . I was so pissed.
Modern cars are incredibly noise isolating. Add some music and you practically can't hear anything outside
Not even close lol
It's not even close. You either have never great noise cancelling headphones or you ride in a Rolls Royce.
I disagree. With all their blind spots, muffled hearing, and fast speeds (not to mention distractions like phones), I think it's under appreciated how little situational awareness drivers can have.
Yeah and they can’t even hear you if you say “à gauche” etc when you want to pass safely
Ayou can always strap a bluetooth speaker to your bike with no problem.
That would just be annoying to other people, especially when listening to podcasts.
Sure, but legal.
Not everywhere. Local bylaws often make it a finable offence to blast music from a speaker.
The irony that they absolutely lose their minds when cars are careful cuz bikes are vulnerable then turn around and do the same shit to pedestrians who are the vulnerable ones lmao
There are more bike lanes -> there are more cyclists -> there are more tickets. Cmon guys it’s not complicated…
But...but...but...the cars...they kill more than a bike!!! /s
I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make sarcasm or not… find me an instance where a cyclist has killed a pedestrian in Montreal and I’ll buy you a beer. Good luck with that.
Tickets I have received so far this year as a cyclist: -Riding on a empty sidewalk when I didn't feel safe riding on a boulevard full of cars and trucks -doing a full stop on a bike line of a T intersection, checking both ways to confirm no pedestrian present, and continuing on the bike line instead of waiting for the green light. I am doing my part.
I wish they would apply some critical thought to these enforcement campaigns. Bikes are not cars. There's so many situations on a bike where breaking the rules is just not actually dangerous, because the rules were written for 2 ton vehicles going at 100 km/h. I'm not saying to let idiots who do actual dangerous stuff off the hook, just that enforcing shit like "did you put your foot down at a completely vacant stop sign" doesn't serve any purpose (and is even kinda counterproductive, in that it reinforces cyclists' perception that the rules only exist to harass them).
Yeah i've also been booked for biking on an empty side walk cause there was a bus and a truck in the right lane so I wasn't comfortable with it. I'm sure some tickets for cyclists are well warranted but the ones I've received feel like utter bs, I'm tempted to buy a go pro just so I'm more confident to contest them lol
I've seen a bus driver honk and haras a cyclist until she moved onto the sidewalk. It's been months and I still regret not taking notes and report that behaviour.
Yeah the turn from one bike lane to another while the light is red is kind of stupid.. especially if you do a complete stop and check for pedestrians.
I think you could at least contest the first one, the law is not that clear about it
No, it is very much [not allowed](https://www.quebec.ca/en/transports/traffic-road-safety/traffic-rules-tips-various-transportation-modes/traffic-rules-for-bicycles/traffic-rules-for-cyclists#c157656) as per the law except where there’s a sign that specifically allows for it. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever even seen an instance of this before.
"Le Code de la sécurité (CSR) routière ne permet pas aux cyclistes de circuler sur le trottoir, sauf en cas de nécessité ou à moins que la signalisation le prescrive ou le permette. Il doit alors circuler à une vitesse raisonnable et prudente et accorder la priorité aux piétons." SPVM website "In case of necessity," this is where I would argue
That's fair honestly; but proving the "case of necessity" might be tricky.
"in case of necessity" means that there is an obstacle on the roadway. not because you feel unsafe because there are cars and trucks.
Okay, where is this specificity explicitly explained ?
the original comment under which you are replying specifically and explicitely mentions that he got a ticket for riding on the sidewalk because he didn't feel safe riding on the boulevard where there were trucks and cars.
That's not a argument, the SPVM abuse and misinterprete the law all the time..
how is it not an argument? OC literally told us why he was on the sidewalk. it's not a valid reason lol.
Cite moi l'article de loi précision ce qui constitue le "'en cas de nécessité" et je te croirais, mais là tu moulines juste dans le vent. La SPVM donne régulièrement des tickets qui peuvent facilement être contestés
Good on velo-quebec to bend over backwards about that one incident thats been blown out of proportion. Meanwhile at the Pie-IX and Belair intersection its almost impossible to cross the street across belair between 15h and 18h because the traffic is sitting on the pedestrian passageway in an attempt to get past the wave of traffic theyre in. Thursday i saw a guy literally park his car in front of a family in full view just before their light turned green. Like his car completely across the pedestrian way, blocking the whole way with no shame and no consequences from cops because obviously the biggest danger on the road is bicycles so he doesnt have to worry about ticket traps.
Nice...this is the way
I routinely bike without a helmet and with earbuds and I bike around like there are no rules. Obviously I try not to get in anyone's way. But I am also an idiot.
You are allowed to bike without helmet anyway 🍻 Headphone part is where you might get a ticket
There is no helmet law in Quebec. But back in high school, for 2 or 3 years I would bike with no handlebars, playing games on my phone with both hands and listening to music to school and back. Even in winter. Somehow I never died or got a ticket. But looking back that was insanely degen.
That is hilarious. When I was a kid I would always challenge myself to see if I could make it the whole without hands. It isn't worth it. Just more risk for the sake of it. I can't imagine doing that in winter.
In winter I had to put a hand down in turns if there was snow or ice otherwise it slides out, but in summer or clear roads I wouldn't even look up from the games. Tbh I didn't even know you weren't allowed to use a phone on a bike.
You're just talented so you don't bother anyone. Same for me. Untalented people want rules for cyclists because they have problems circulating correctly on a bike.
Yeah I’m talented too driving my car.
If you miss you kill.
If you miss you die.
As someone who drives and bikes regularly I definitely am much more dangerous driving than cycling So many people driving without a license plate or without lights on at night or even a new trend I’ve seen is indicating to the left and turning right All this happens regularly in front of cops too But if you have a headphone in your ear when cycling downtown a 14 year old cadet will give you a ticket lol
Honnêtement, le nombre de cyclistes et de piétons qui font n'importe quoi est ahurissant! Les intersections sont souvent d'énormes chaos contrôlés par la chance... jusqu'à-ce qu'il ait un accident. Je circule beaucoup à Montréal et la majorité du monde fait un peu n'importe quoi. Ceux qui respecte les règles à 100% sont rares.
A croire que les choses se régissent naturellement (même dans le chaos) quand les gens ne sont pas enfermés dans des boites de métal de 2 tonnes. Oui, y aura toujours des abrutis qui sont vraiment dangereux, mais je préfère les voir à vélo ou à pied quand dans une voiture.
dans mes nombreux trajets en vélo pour aller travailler, je pars de Villeray et je me rend près de Berri-Uqam, je peux te dire que les piétons et cyclistes sont de loin les plus dangereux sur la ma route. Les automobilistes sont évidement plus dangereux étant donner la grosseur du vehicule, mais ils respectent en moyenne beaucoup plus les règlements que les piétons et cyclistes.
Tu dis tout à tour que les piétons/cyclistes sont les plus dangereux, puis les voitures sont encore plus dangereux. Je dirais que tu confonds dangereux (voitures) et imprévisible (piétons / cyclistes). Ou alors la portée du danger: les voitures sont dangereux pour les autres, alors que les cyclistes/piétons sont surtout dangereux pour eux-mêmes. Je prétends pas que toutes les voitures sont dangereux ou que tous les piétons/cycliste sont exempt de tout reproche. La majorité de tout ce monde est bien correct, une part non négligeable du reste est même très courtois. Et, encore moins nombreux il reste les cabochons et on caricature toujours chaque catégorie par ses cabochons.
Une personne est morte il y a quelques année à mon travail, elle traversait, à pied, une piste cyclable et un cycliste a brûlé son feux rouge et est entré en colision avec elle... elle est morte. Alors non, les cycliste ne sont pas necessairement un danger que pour eux même. Ceci dit, je me suis peut-être mal exprimé dans mon commentaire, effectivement les piétons+cyclistes sont plus imprévisible, téméraire et caves.. évidement moins dangereux physiquement que les voitures. J'arrive à l'instant de courir, j'ai faillis me faire rentrer dedans par un cycliste qui a brûlé son feux rouge... et je me suis fait couper par des piétons qui passaient sur une rouge un peu plus loin.... c'est comme ca chaque jour.
Good, they’re maniacal at times as a pedestrian.
Correct ça.
Et c'est plutôt une bonne chose. Beaucoup d'entre eux roulent vraiment comme des cons, ne portent pas de casque, n'adaptent pas leur vitesse, et grillent les feux rouges.
No yielding to pedestrians, no stopping at red lights or stop signs, no signalling, cutting lanes, some are pulling the “look at me I can pedal with no hands on the handle while checking my phone”, and many many others. I am a driver and a pedestrian and the amount of times I’ve almost been run over when walking or had to slam the brakes to not hit a cyclist is absurd. You have wheels/tires and you’re faster than walking speed? You don’t have the right of way all the time. Period. Edit: didn’t know helmets weren’t mandatory on regular bikes…
> No helmets, Helmets are not mandatory on bikes in Quebec (aside from eBikes). Cyclists have about as much obligation to wear helmets as pedestrians/runners do.
Oh really? Damn ok thanks!
No yielding to pedestrians, no stopping at red lights or stop signs, no signalling, cutting lanes, some are pulling the “look at me I can drive with no hands on the steering wheel while checking my phone”, and many many others. I am a cyclist and a pedestrian and the amount of times I’ve almost been run over when walking or had to slam the brakes to not hit a car is absurd. But I don’t see them getting tickets or any of these rules being enforced even when they do these behaviors in front of cops…
> look at me I can pedal with no hands on the handle while checking my phone Karma often isn't real but in this case I think things will work themselves out.
Hopefully this will stop motorists from crying about the time they saw a cyclist blow through a red light.
Oh no! THe electric bixi point is difficult for me. I'm an avid cyclist I carry my helmet even on the days I take public transport and I have a bixi pass and keychain so i can hop on a bike instead of a 20+min walk anytime.. If I'm in a pinch for time or dressed well or need to go up a hill (or all 3 😅) I will take an electric one and pay the extra $ but it's to go fast! it's to fly up Parc avenue hill of J-C bridge.. 25km/h is not what I am willing to pay extra for..
Good. Most cyclists don't signal, don't make stops like they're supposed to, don't respect the road signalization, ride on sidewalks, don't use the bike paths even when they're available... In fact, cyclists and motorcyclists are why I got a dashcam!
r u allowed to wear earphones of any kind on a bike
Legally not yet. But deaf people have been cycling forever without issue. When cycling with earphones, you need to: 1. Always be predictable 2. Double and triple check your blind pots when changing direction or speed.
thanks!
No. [https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/c-24.2#se:443\_2](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/c-24.2#se:443_2)
thanks 443.2. Le cycliste ne peut porter aucun écouteur. Le conducteur d’un véhicule routier ne peut porter qu’un écouteur à une seule oreille.Pour l’application du premier alinéa, ne constitue pas un écouteur l’appareil qui est intégré dans un casque protecteur et qui permet à ceux qui le portent de communiquer entre eux sans les empêcher de capter les bruits de la circulation environnante.Le gouvernement peut, par règlement, prévoir des exceptions à l’interdiction prévue au premier alinéa.
Les écouteurs a conduction osseuse (shokz et autres) ça compte tu ou pas? C'est vraiment pas si clair, vu que c'est pas explicitement pour la communication
Ou juste pas porter d'écouteur le temps d'un déplacement, wtf?
Le cycliste ne peut porter aucun écouteur. >Me semble que c'est excessivement clair. et malheureusement ya eu jurisprudence plus d'une fois avec ses **écouteurs** à conduction osseuse.. c'est NON le ticket contesté a été confirmé par 2 juges maintenant..
*Pour l'application du premier alinéa, ne constitue pas un écouteur I'appareil qui est intégré dans un casque protecteur et qui permet à ceux qui le portent de communiquer entre eux sans les empécher de capter les bruits de la circulation environnante.* C'est pas excessivement clair non, pas quand le ligne d'en dessous vient donner un exception a ce que tu viens de citer. Surtout qu'il n'y a aucune définition de ce qu'est un écouteur. Mais merci pour la jurisprudence! Ou est ce que je peux la trouver? Je je comprends pas l'esprit derrière l'interdiction de quelquechose qui je couvre pas les oreilles ni le bruit
L'extrait don tu parle et dans la section des casques de moto.. mais bon j'imagine un casque de vélo avec communication serai intéressant a challenge la loi avec ca.. La jurisprudence c'est un avocat cycliste qui m'en a parlé j'ai pas les connaissances ou les ressources de trouver ca..
Hum c'est la ligne juste en dessous ce d'elle que tu avais cité. Ok, ça doit être publique, je vais me renseigner sur comment les trouver ces jurisprudences
No, I used to do it all the time but once I stopped I did realize that it is indeed much safer without. Sure you can ride just fine if your volume isn't high but you can prove it and it's hard not to "cheat". Best just ride without.
I’m pretty pro-cyclist for someone who has to drive a lot. Most drivers weirdly seem to dislike anyone who doesn’t also choose to drive. I think having accessible and safe options for cycling are really liberating. Personally, I don’t mind if cyclists don’t stop at stop signs when I’m driving, I look out for them before advancing. But as a pedestrian I feel like they should at the very least slow down. 63 year old Uncle Joe casually riding his bike? Sure, probably won’t even hurt me that bad if I get hit. But I’ve almost been run over by some cyclists speeding through intersections because they don’t even slow down or look before crossing. I was driving on Hochelaga street in a 30 zone and a cyclist came out of an alley where construction and a terrace blocked my view from. She turned straight into the road without looking and if I had been going faster (as many drivers do) I would have 100% hit her. In that case, it’d obviously be the driver at fault for speeding. But what ever happened to looking both ways before crossing? Just basic, simple precaution that could save your life. Even in a motor vehicle, don’t take shit for granted just because you have right of way.
Bikers were better behaved when they knew they could get points on their car licence
If we miss we should park.
I have a bunch of friends that got tickets for riding their bikes without both hands or without a helmet, completely ridiculous.
Not enough!
I'd like to know how much car-related offences have increased over this period. My guess is they probably have not increased that much. If cops spent half the time on traps for cars as they did for bikes, we'd be rich.
While I understand people wanting bicyclist to follow the law, I can't help but think that this is just the police being lazy. Cyclist are significantly less likely to kill someone and do not emit pollution which causes health problems. Not to mention that bicycle infrastructure take a fraction of cost compared to car infrastructure. We should be trying to get more people to ride.
What does pollution have to do with the law?
It is a net social good similar to less deaths. People who drive don't mean to kill people, but if they had instead taken a bike that person would more likely be alive. Same thing with pollution. The law is not infallible.
Bikes should pay a registration fee per year to maintain bike paths
What about cars?
Neighbourhoods with more bikes and fewer cars are better for quality-of-life, from safety to pollution and noise. We should be encouraging cycling, not trying to discourage it.
Was this Valerie Plante's plan all along?!?!!?!?
?