Cycling laws

[Bosie]

For those interested, a fairly interesting case concluded in the courts this week.

My colleague on the Cycling BC Board has an excellent editorial on it:

http://rosekeith.bc.ca/rules-for-cyclis ... -a-change/

Be careful out there!

Craig

[JohnT]

I agree with the Court of Appeals on this one. When I pass on the right I do not assume I am in a legal lane.

JT

[mfarnham]

I think you can agree with the Appeals Court (i.e., that they interpreted the law correctly) but also agree with the editorial that there's a good argument for changing the law.

Martin

[Marcus]

Paved shoulders should be a bicycle lane in law, otherwise unnecessary collisions, impractical cycling behaviour and questionable legal results occur. In my view, the trial judge who was privvy to all the facts, including I think the fact that this collision occurred on the missing portion of the E & N rail trail which results in cyclists being forced to ride on a paved shoulder and which is the reason why riding on the shoulder at that location is commonplace, reached the more reasonable decision. To me it looks like the Court of Appeal applied a too narrow view of the law which I have always felt should be interpreted in light of the facts presented (palm tree justice?). However, I would like to know if the cyclist touched his brakes at all, albeit at a very minor T intersection. If not, I would hold him 25% responsible. And like JohnT (is T for traitor?) I never assume I have the right of way (anywhere).