North Saanich RCMP puts cyclists on notice

[Andrew]

http://bit.ly/RideSafeSaanichSidney

[sailor]

http://m.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/07 ... -yesterday

[Paul C.]

I think this post by sailor, whoever this is. ....is bad timing and inappropriate.

[Lund]

Paul...why? It makes a very good point. When the police in SF decided to crack down on cyclists who do the "Idaho stop", cyclists set out to demonstrate that some of our renegade practices actually serve impatient motorists' best interests. If we all ride single file, the challenge of passing us (safely) doubles. If we all take turns coming to full stops at four-way stops, motorists will suddenly face long, unwanted backlogs.

I'm not suggesting that we flout the laws or flagrantly disregard this edict from the North Saanich Mounties, but some tactful correspondence with Cpl Fraser and S Sgt Mallard WRT safe and smart cycling practices that don't align perfectly with Part 3 Section 183 might be in order.

SL

PS • http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/ ... -stop-sign

[Bosie]

I tend to agree with Steve- while I appreciate the need for obeying laws and respecting the motorists we share the road with, I feel much safer in a group when a motorist actually has to pull out into the oncoming traffic to pass.
I am regularly reminded on my daily commute in the dark how "unsafe" riding on your own on the side of the road is as cars often try and "squeeze" past while staying in their lane.
The "Shit cyclists of Victoria" FB site seems to have coincided with an increase in aggressive behaviour from motorists who now seem empowered to wave fists and swear at cyclists. (particularly Saturday and Sunday rides).
None of this is good for Cyclists or Motorists.
Is it time to engage with the RCMP and other civic leaders to have a reasonable debate on the pros and cons of riding practices? Technically a pace line is legal, but it is also riding 2 abreast.
Riding is becoming more popular and crashes more common. Instead of getting defensive and angry, perhaps we should use this as an opportunity to engage the RCMP and get some dialogue going with them and the public?

[sailor]

Paul,

Sorry, I am not trying to hide behind a avatar, it is me Tim Gijzen. I think Steve and Bosie sum up the point I was making in posting the link pretty well. I am certainly not blaming the local RCMP who are doing the right thing by reaching out to the cycling community, and I understand they are somewhat hands-tied by having to enforce the law as written, however this does not mean the laws as written are perfect. Look to Ontario and other places where they are changing the traffic laws to make more sense when it comes to bikes. I drive a car as well, so am not some bike evangelist, but if the police did enforce the law as written at all times they would most likely have to pull over some 80% of drivers for exceeding the speed limit. What they choose to enforce and put their limited resources towards also tells a story.

A good topic for debate over a coffee some time.

Tim

[Rolf]

Lying at the heart of this exchange is BC's Motor Vehicle Act, which the RCMP are of course required to enforce.

There is one (and only one, that I'm aware of!) group seeking legislative changes to the Act in favour of cyclists. They're called the Road Safety Law Reform Group and they are finalizing a list of recommendations for changes and clarifications to the Act. The Group is made up of the BC Cycling Coalition, the BC Trial Lawyers Association, and HUB (Vancouver's equivalent to the GVCC). They expect to submit the list to government this month. Among their recommendations are the following:

1. Minimum passing distances
In progressive cycling jurisdictions, such as the U.S. and throughout Europe, you must give cyclists a 1 - 1.5 metres of space. B.C.'s law, however, is silent on minimum passing distances. 23 states in the U.S. have already established similar minimum distances for vehicles when passing cyclists. Ontario just passed this law in June 2015.

2. Passing on the right
It happens all the time. Traffic is congested and cyclists overtake on the right. The current statute prohibits that conduct, except in limited circumstances. Hay says the definition of those circumstances remains ambiguous and should be clarified. While prohibiting passing on the right makes sense for motor vehicles, it doesn’t for cyclists who regularly use the shoulder to pass because when there is adequate shoulder space, it’s safer than passing on the left.

3. Increased fines for dangerous behaviour
Ontario has recently increased fines for drivers opening doors onto cyclists to between $300 to $1,000, plus three demerit points. Hay says that is one way of recognizing that we need to move traffic through the city by accommodating the growing population of cyclists. Dooring has recently been shown as the most common collision type in the city of Vancouver, and consequences can be serious injury or death.
Fines should also be increased for harassment of people on bicycle, for theft or tampering with bicycles, aggressive driving, and motorist negligence causing injury or death of vulnerable road user.

4. Vulnerable Road User Protection: Reverse the burden of proof
In B.C., in a collision between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, the cyclist has the onus of establishing the driver’s negligence to recover damages from the driver’s policy. In many Canadian provinces and places in Europe, the driver has to disprove negligence. This makes sense because the more vulnerable road user begins with a disadvantage of being smaller and less protected, and usually has more severe memory loss so cannot present evidence equitably.

5. Cyclists riding side by side
Cyclists are prohibited from riding side by side if it impedes the flow of traffic, but we would like to see more clarity on when it could be allowed if traffic isn't impeded. In European jurisdictions, it's recognized that it's safer to be in numbers. Cyclists are more visible that way.

6. Update the name of the Act to Road Safety Act
The current name is exclusive and confusing, because people cycling are also under its jurisdiction. The improved Act would clearly promote safety and rules clarity for everyone.

7. Grant the power to municipalities to enforce blanket speed limits and create a default speed limit of 30 km/h on local streets with no centre line
Right now a municipality has to sign each block of specialized speed limits, which is costly. Granting blanket speed limit rights to municipalities allows for all bike routes to be 30km/h for example. This change is supported by the UBCM. Allowing lower speed limits will increase safety for cyclists (and others) using local streets.

8. e-Bikes: Clarify kinds of electric-assist bikes that are permitted to use cycling infrastructure
Currently there is confusion about what types of e-bikes and scooters are allowed to use cycling infrastructure. Clarity to restrict speeds, weights and motor size of e-bikes will keep road users safer.

For more details and to support this initiative, please see the HUB website: https://bikehub.ca/about-us/cycling-pri ... provements

Some recent press on the initiative: here and here

[Claire]

Wow, wouldn't that be wonderfully clear-sighted and refreshing if BC were to adopt even half of those regulatory changes/clarifications. I sincerely hope that this movement is successful and will look into how I can put my support behind it. Thanks for posting.

[Paul C.]

Thanks Steve, Tim and others. In principle I agree. However as we advocate for change.... I like to work with how things are..
..and how we want them to be.

Why do we have so many docs,lawyers and profs in. The Club but no city police or rcmp?? I am currently recruiting .

Safe riding. Cheers p.c.

[sailor]

Looks like the only regular ride (stress on regular) affected is the Saturday sufferfest. My question now is what will be the the club's approach regarding this? As the island's largest cycling club we should probably come back with some form of formal response I think.
Tim

[Curran]

Some rationale from UK where 2-up is legal
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... deo-187215

And some explanations
http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/04/why-c ... o-abreast/

[Paul C.]

Doing some early morning reading here.

I just re-read everyones posts about the R.C.M.P letter and previous posts about recent crashes and road saftey , such as using bright lights.

A fee thoughts:

1.Thank you to Rolf ( a long time member, lawyer and occasionaly a Tripleshot rider )
This report and other Motor Vehicle regulations are good information.

2. A few people referr to us, Tripleshot,about being proactive regarding the warning from R.C.M.P. How do we make this happen.? I would be willing to set up a meeting with them and us. I would think including an executive member and one of our lawyers would be appropriate.

Any other suggestions?

This road challenge is not going to go away.

Regards, Paul C.

[John D]

We've been over this topic before....in fact, it seems to come up in some form every year or two.

Simply put, there is no point in setting up a meeting with the RCMP or any other local police force until such time that the province changes its Highways Act to allow two-up riding, rolling stops, etc., as has been done in certian other jurisdictions.

It is the job of the police to enforce the existing laws, not to make new laws.

J.

[Paul C.]

John...point well taken.Re RCMP and bike laws.
In the short term I guess the best thing we can all do is follow the laws the best we can, watch out for each other and ride safe.

As a wise man named Lawless once said " ride smart and don't be a jack***.