who's wrong? the cyclist or the car?

It's kind of a weird situation in Vancouver when it comes to intersections in which the larger street gets traffic lights and the secondary street gets stop signs.

If the light turns red, people treat the stop signs as a "green light" and just go straight through, ignoring who got to a stop sign first. Doesn't matter if its cars or cyclists.

Bike routes in Vancouver have tons of these intersections and it seems like almost everybody is on the same page when it comes to this.

Though there are no traffic lights in the video, there seems to be some overlap of this mentality.

because the rider was making a left turn, I think he should have held his signal longer to let the driver (who lacks x-ray vision), know his intention of going left.

so the argument here is that the cyclist entered the intersection at the same time as the van, yeilded to the van and then proceded to make his turn which was correct. the driver of the video car though rolled through the stop sign on the tails of the van and entered the intersection before he was supposed to thereby putting him in the wrong. so the cyclist had the right of way. even though he had the right of way over the car, yes it was still not a smart move to turn left in front of the car like that.

Bingo. No one can tell from the video whether or not the cyclist signaled stopped or what. But video driver did not come to a stop at the stop line just tailed it through. If there had been a car instead of the rider, what would be the correct thing? Video guy would not have been able to see the oncoming turning car because he can't see through the van. One can assume that he was able to see the break in traffic and because he wanted to get through the intersection proceeded without being able to see traffic in the intersection properly. Let's assume the cyclist was also waiting like the Fining van, saw the gap and got on the pedals to cross and turn behind the van. Kind of need two hands on the bars to accelerate across properly so another signal assuming he signaled in the first place would have been wise but maybe not easy to do. One should be able to do what the cyclist did whether in a car on a motorcycle or bike. If video car driver actually stopped until he could see on coming traffic, there would probably not been any issue.

Bike guy could probably see the side of the car though as it waited. Or he should have moved over to see if there was a vehicle behind the van. Made eye contact with the video car driver. This is one reason why right hand drive vehicles need to be outlawed.

What's this nonsense about people being at the intersection first having the right of way and "waiting their turn" I was taught that it depends on your position at the intersection and how the person to the right always has the "right of way". Maybe that's an Ontario thing, but deciding who gets to go based off of " I was here first" often times causes problems.
Generally speaking when cars roll through stop signs and almost hit me, I get pretty pissed too. Drivers want to complain about us not following laws? I need a helmet cam because I see people speed, make illegal turns, not use signals, drive wrexklessly - every single day. Smh.

what's interesting and frightening here is the number of people who don't seem to know all the rules around the use of stop signs.

what's interesting and frightening here is the number of people who don't seem to know all the rules around the use of stop signs.

If you're implying me, I'd like (if you could) a proper explanation for four way stops in BC. Maybe I'm wrong and we are all supposed to fight over whobwas there first and everything? Seems backwards though because a traffic accident investigator would have no concrete evidence to rely on if that were to be the rule.

proper explanation for four way stops in BC

First to stop, first to go, boss!
(That right-hand stuff is only 4-way stop iff they both stop at the same time.)

Smh.

:stupid:

First to stop, first to go, boss!
(That right-hand stuff is only 4-way stop iff they both stop at the same time.)

:stupid:

regardless of the rules, it all go's to shit as soon as someone doesnt signal, or you find yourself in richmond.

If you're implying me, I'd like (if you could) a proper explanation for four way stops in BC. Maybe I'm wrong and we are all supposed to fight over whobwas there first and everything? Seems backwards though because a traffic accident investigator would have no concrete evidence to rely on if that were to be the rule.

no not implying you.

- at four way stops the first person to the intersection has the right of way
- if two cars opposing each other arrive at the same time they can both go
- if two cars opposing each other arrive at the same time and one person is turning left, the turner must yeild to the car going straight thru
- if two cars perpendicular to each other arrive at the same time the car to the right has the right of way whether they are going straight thru or turning

typically tho at 4-way stops the opposing traffic will cross at the same time and the left turner will yield to the car going straight thru. this is far more efficient than one car at a time.

at a two way stop the car going straight thru has the right of way. however, a car turning left can enter the intersection at the same time and complete the left turn after the car going straight thru has cleared the intersection. in essence, what the cyclist in the video did; he entered the intersection at the same time as the white van, yielded to the van and then completed the turn after the van had cleared.

no not implying you.

- at four way stops the first person to the intersection has the right of way
- if two cars opposing each other arrive at the same time they can both go
- if two cars opposing each other arrive at the same time and one person is turning left, the turner must yeild to the car going straight thru
- if two cars perpendicular to each other arrive at the same time the car to the right has the right of way whether they are going straight thru or turning

typically tho at 4-way stops the opposing traffic will cross at the same time and the left turner will yield to the car going straight thru. this is far more efficient than one car at a time.

at a two way stop the car going straight thru has the right of way. however, a car turning left can enter the intersection at the same time and complete the left turn after the car going straight thru has cleared the intersection. in essence, what the cyclist in the video did; he entered the intersection at the same time as the white van, yielded to the van and then completed the turn after the van had cleared.

What's far more efficient is to make as many four-way stops as possible into roundabouts. Seems to work great on every other continent on the planet!

Car was wrong. IMHO always give the smaller object right of way,but the law even says Im right.

Car was wrong. IMHO always give the smaller object right of way,but the law even says Im right.

That's why you are King of the Road in a Fiat Abarth or better still, on a longboard!

I think everyone in that video is wrong. For starters, the guy in the Finning van should jumped out of his van and ran into the middle of the intersection screaming about how much he hates his job.

What's far more efficient is to make as many four-way stops as possible into roundabouts. Seems to work great on every other continent on the planet!

You apparently havent ridden on any of the Vancouver bike routes that have 'roundabouts'. They are far more dangerous than any 4-way stop when encountered by Vancouver drivers as well as the bikers. Ever hear of right of way goes to the car/bike on the RIGHT (assuming they arrive at the same time). They seem to function as a traffic free-for-all with people planting tall trees in the middle of them to obscure the sight lines through the intersection. They are a big fail here in Vancouver.

It's kind of a weird situation in Vancouver when it comes to intersections in which the larger street gets traffic lights and the secondary street gets stop signs.

If the light turns red, people treat the stop signs as a "green light" and just go straight through, ignoring who got to a stop sign first. Doesn't matter if its cars or cyclists.

Bike routes in Vancouver have tons of these intersections and it seems like almost everybody is on the same page when it comes to this.

Though there are no traffic lights in the video, there seems to be some overlap of this mentality.

What's the actual rule on these? 95% of people treat them as a green light, for example Kingsway [HTML_REMOVED] East 10th Ave Bike Way, when the Kingsway light goes red and traffic stops, cyclists and cars on 10th treat it as a green light and roll through unless turning. Some dick yelled at my wife for doing this last week, was he actually right? Tried to look it up in the MVA but couldn't find the right section.