This past weekend I was driving my 2 year old around the quiet streets of Oak Bay at around 6am to help him get a couple extra hours of needed rest. I came up on a large group around Oak Bay Beach Hotel. I gave the group plenty of time to thin out so that I could get by. After not receiving any reaction I went into the oncoming lane to make my way past. Unfortunately there were a couple oncoming vehicles that cause me to come back into my lane. This should not have been a problem except for the groups reluctance to help me get by. After one of the cyclist pounded on my car to let me know their frustration I asked him to simply be respectful of the situation and act accordingly. The cyclist didn't seem to understand my position and the bunch yelled for me to "get outta here!!". And fair enough, descending the hill along the Victoria Golf Club is not the best time to have this conversation.
As a cyclist I think it is important to bring these incidents up. I have also got caught up acting as though the streets were built for me and my pack. However it is this type of pack mentally that causes altercations, and sometimes accidents to occur. The more respectful we are to traffic, the more support we will receive from the community. Even if this means going single file (which happens to be the law in narrow sections) to avoid pissing off drivers.
Sharing the road
Moderator: mfarnham
Re: Sharing the road
Hi Tommy,
Thanks for your constructive post. I wasn't there on Friday but I'm trying to gather a bit of information from the perspective of riders who were there before getting back to you. You will get a response here...might take me a day or so though.
As a club, we do take driver-cyclist harmony (or at least pleasant co-existence) seriously. In that spirit I sincerely appreciate the constructive tone of your post. Sounds like tempers flared a bit on Friday, but now that we're all off the road and out of the moment, hopefully we can talk through what happened and any disagreements constructively. Your post is a great invitation to that conversation. So again, thanks and you'll hear more from me (and possibly others) later.
Sincerely,
Martin Farnham
(club president)
p.s. Could any riders who witnessed this incident please pm or email me with details? I'm not looking to put anyone (riders or driver) on trial...more just a debrief of what happened from your vantage point, was there anything we could have done better, ways the driver could have helped us, etc. Thanks!
Thanks for your constructive post. I wasn't there on Friday but I'm trying to gather a bit of information from the perspective of riders who were there before getting back to you. You will get a response here...might take me a day or so though.
As a club, we do take driver-cyclist harmony (or at least pleasant co-existence) seriously. In that spirit I sincerely appreciate the constructive tone of your post. Sounds like tempers flared a bit on Friday, but now that we're all off the road and out of the moment, hopefully we can talk through what happened and any disagreements constructively. Your post is a great invitation to that conversation. So again, thanks and you'll hear more from me (and possibly others) later.
Sincerely,
Martin Farnham
(club president)
p.s. Could any riders who witnessed this incident please pm or email me with details? I'm not looking to put anyone (riders or driver) on trial...more just a debrief of what happened from your vantage point, was there anything we could have done better, ways the driver could have helped us, etc. Thanks!
Re: Sharing the road
I have seen cars trying to pass the group (more often in non Tripleshot rides) and all too often someone is riding 3 abreast ahead. "Car back" should mean we get in line quickly (can be done- no problem on Tuesday turning on to Landsdown or Cedar Hill X Road). One problem is that a large group riding single file is even more difficult for drivers to pass. Should there be a maximum group size?
Gerry
Applicable laws:
Rights and duties of operator of cycle
183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.
(2) A person operating a cycle
(a) must not ride on a sidewalk unless authorized by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(b) must not, for the purpose of crossing a highway, ride on a crosswalk unless authorized to do so by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(c) must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,
(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,
(e) must keep at least one hand on the handlebars,
(f) must not ride other than on or astride a regular seat of the cycle,
(g) must not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped, and
(h) must not ride a cycle on a highway where signs prohibit their use.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (c) requires a person to ride a cycle on any part of a highway that is not paved.
Gerry
Applicable laws:
Rights and duties of operator of cycle
183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.
(2) A person operating a cycle
(a) must not ride on a sidewalk unless authorized by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(b) must not, for the purpose of crossing a highway, ride on a crosswalk unless authorized to do so by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(c) must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,
(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,
(e) must keep at least one hand on the handlebars,
(f) must not ride other than on or astride a regular seat of the cycle,
(g) must not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped, and
(h) must not ride a cycle on a highway where signs prohibit their use.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (c) requires a person to ride a cycle on any part of a highway that is not paved.
Re: Sharing the road
First off, I offer my sympathy to you, Tommy J., for your sleep deprivation and need to drive around a toddler who won't sleep. I was in that place for many years and they were trying times.
Without knowing more than what you've written, it sounds like emotions flared on all sides and mistakes were made. The roads are indeed not built just for cyclists and their packs, they're built for all legitimate users, including drivers and cyclists. The good thing is you've got us talking and thinking about how we can ride more safely.
On the legal front, Gerry sets out above the current law addressing riding two abreast in B.C. But is this what it should be?
On July 1, 2016, a coalition of cycling and legal reform organizations called the Road Safety Law Reform Working Group of B.C. released an excellent advocacy report called Modernizing the BC Motor Vehicle Act. The report's recommendations were endorsed earlier this month by Victoria City Council. I recommend the entire document to anyone who has the time to read it, but I set out a relevant portion below.
If you just want to read a summary of a great alternative to the current law on riding abreast, click on the bulleted link below for Ontario's new law, introduced just two years ago.
Neil: before you give me stick for slacking off on the forum all day, I'm home sick! 
Without knowing more than what you've written, it sounds like emotions flared on all sides and mistakes were made. The roads are indeed not built just for cyclists and their packs, they're built for all legitimate users, including drivers and cyclists. The good thing is you've got us talking and thinking about how we can ride more safely.
On the legal front, Gerry sets out above the current law addressing riding two abreast in B.C. But is this what it should be?
On July 1, 2016, a coalition of cycling and legal reform organizations called the Road Safety Law Reform Working Group of B.C. released an excellent advocacy report called Modernizing the BC Motor Vehicle Act. The report's recommendations were endorsed earlier this month by Victoria City Council. I recommend the entire document to anyone who has the time to read it, but I set out a relevant portion below.
If you just want to read a summary of a great alternative to the current law on riding abreast, click on the bulleted link below for Ontario's new law, introduced just two years ago.
As for which U.S. states permit riding two abreast, apparently only two require single-file at all times: Nebraska and Hawaii. The rest are either the same as Ontario, or allow two-up even if impeding traffic. Click on the following map to read the legend [source]:Riding Abreast — Recommendation 16
Paragraph 183(2)(d) be amended to permit cycles to be operated side-by-side where
appropriate for cycling safety.
Rationale
The original rule against riding abreast in the 1943 legislation made an exception for passing. The present rule, set out in s. 183(2)(d), simply prohibits riding abreast of another person cycling on the roadway. The present rule is therefore both ambiguous as to whether a cyclist may pass another cyclist and contrary to safer cycling practices.
The rule has rarely been a litigation issue in BC. In the only known case, the defendant motorist attempted to apportion liability to an elderly cyclist. The defendant had pursued and harassed the cyclist riding abreast with his son. The defendant ultimately caused the cyclist to fall and suffer injury. The cyclists happened to have been in a designated use lane for cyclists only, and the Court rejected the defendant’s argument and held “the legislature intended to only prohibit cyclists from riding abreast on parts
of the highway that are used by vehicles, namely, in roadways.”
Cycling side-by-side in a lane may improve safety where they may be easier for motor vehicles to see and to safely pass, as opposed to a longer single-file line of cycles. In cases where the through-lane is not wide enough to allow a vehicle to safely pass, two cyclists may continue to hold their space side-by-side until the lane widens or a shoulder or bike lane emerges that is safe to cycle on.
In addition, cycling side-by-side provides more comfortable and safe riding circumstances to a parent riding with a child. The parent is able to monitor the child’s cycling more easily than if riding in front of the child and communicate more easily than if riding in front of or behind the child.
Prior to 1943, cyclists were historically permitted to ride abreast in BC. Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast in many jurisdictions around the world including:
[Note: I've amended most of the links above, as those that appeared in the report were outdated.]
- Ontario
- Europe [various countries]
- US - Cyclists in 39 states are specifically allowed to ride two-abreast [Note: this has likely increased. See graphic below.]
- Oregon
- Kansas
- The UK (see Rule 66)
- South Australia
The recommended amendment would provide for cyclists to ride abreast, allowing them to so do in order to pass and where it provides a safety benefit.
Last edited by Rolf on Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Sharing the road
Hi Tommy,
I’ve talked to six people who were there on Friday morning. While not everyone agrees on every detail of what happened, the stories I heard, taken together, tell me we should have done better. No one should have hit your car or yelled at you, and we should have done a better job promptly getting over to the right. This isn't just my assessment. There was substantial agreement on both points across the people I spoke with. And most people I spoke with noted that others on the ride had "yelled at the yeller" to knock it off.
From what I gather, the interaction started just past the marina (narrow windy uphill section) and ended about 1.5 kms up the road, most of the way past the golf course (on the downhill section).
It sounds like people at the front of the group didn’t hear the “car back” call (our standard call to tighten up to the right) until near the end of the interaction. This suggests we didn’t do a good enough job getting that message passed forward, which delayed getting the group moved to the right. Some people at the front didn't even realize there was an issue until near the end of the golf course.
A couple riders did feel like you were too close to the group at times during your pass. Two said that you got within 1 meter, which is legally “too close” in many jurisdictions (though not BC, to my understanding). As a cyclist yourself, you probably realize that it can be nerve wracking (even temper enlivening?) to have a couple tons of steel travelling fast and close to you for an extended period of time, especially if you think the driver is angry with you. Your intent may have been to have a civil conversation, but cyclists don’t tend to expect that from a truck driving alongside them with the window down in winter.
The best passes by vehicles are done quickly and wide (on a straight stretch of road with clear visibility—like Beach along the golf course—you can completely clear the yellow line, and once you’re a meter over you may as well be all the way over).
That said, two people I spoke to said they had a good view and “the driver did nothing wrong.” One went so far as to say
“He did a great job of holding a constant speed and didn't do any quick change of directions (his driving actions were safe and predictable). I think it was [name withheld] who said that Tommy did a great job safely picking his time to complete the pass of our group. I said that it seemed like he was a cyclist himself considering his driving.“
As you note, driving/riding downhill at speed on Beach is probably not the best place for extended discourse on good cycling and driving practices. I’d buy coffee if you want to meet and discuss this more sometime. Or better yet, come and join us for a ride and coffee, when your little one lets you. Tripleshot was actually started, in part, by parents like Rolf who found 6am was a pretty good time to slip out of the house and get in a quick ride before the chaos of the day hit. Either way, I hope our next interaction on the road goes more smoothly. Thanks for raising your concerns.
Sincerely,
Martin
p.s. What’s the take away for cyclists?
1) Rapping on a car is virtually never safety-enhancing, unless you believe the car is unaware of your presence and therefore at risk of hitting you (this might happen in urban riding, but probably never happens in the case of a lit-up group ride and a car approaching from behind). In 99 out of 100 situations it’s just going to put you and the people around you at greater risk by aggravating the driver or causing someone to bounce off the car and tumble into the group. I admit, I’ve done it myself, but it’s not a good idea and it doesn’t even feel particularly satisfying afterwards.
2) Yelling is probably only marginally more useful than rapping. If the car knows you’re there, it’s probably just going to aggravate them. It might make you feel better in the moment, but think how you'd feel if it led to someone else getting hurt. The laws of physics aren't on our side here.
3) “Car back” means “move right and pronto” (here’s Alex MacLennan’s award-winning post of the year for a primer on this: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7142
4) Warnings about cars back *need to get passed up the line the first time every time*. Some people’s voices only carry a couple riders forward. Just because you heard it, doesn’t mean the rider in front of you heard it. If word gets passed forward, it’ll keep us safer and drivers happier. We know we’re decent folk, but it’s hard for drivers to know that if they just see us apparently not caring about holding them up, when really we’re just communicating badly.
See you on the road. Ride safe.
I’ve talked to six people who were there on Friday morning. While not everyone agrees on every detail of what happened, the stories I heard, taken together, tell me we should have done better. No one should have hit your car or yelled at you, and we should have done a better job promptly getting over to the right. This isn't just my assessment. There was substantial agreement on both points across the people I spoke with. And most people I spoke with noted that others on the ride had "yelled at the yeller" to knock it off.
From what I gather, the interaction started just past the marina (narrow windy uphill section) and ended about 1.5 kms up the road, most of the way past the golf course (on the downhill section).
It sounds like people at the front of the group didn’t hear the “car back” call (our standard call to tighten up to the right) until near the end of the interaction. This suggests we didn’t do a good enough job getting that message passed forward, which delayed getting the group moved to the right. Some people at the front didn't even realize there was an issue until near the end of the golf course.
A couple riders did feel like you were too close to the group at times during your pass. Two said that you got within 1 meter, which is legally “too close” in many jurisdictions (though not BC, to my understanding). As a cyclist yourself, you probably realize that it can be nerve wracking (even temper enlivening?) to have a couple tons of steel travelling fast and close to you for an extended period of time, especially if you think the driver is angry with you. Your intent may have been to have a civil conversation, but cyclists don’t tend to expect that from a truck driving alongside them with the window down in winter.
The best passes by vehicles are done quickly and wide (on a straight stretch of road with clear visibility—like Beach along the golf course—you can completely clear the yellow line, and once you’re a meter over you may as well be all the way over).That said, two people I spoke to said they had a good view and “the driver did nothing wrong.” One went so far as to say
“He did a great job of holding a constant speed and didn't do any quick change of directions (his driving actions were safe and predictable). I think it was [name withheld] who said that Tommy did a great job safely picking his time to complete the pass of our group. I said that it seemed like he was a cyclist himself considering his driving.“
As you note, driving/riding downhill at speed on Beach is probably not the best place for extended discourse on good cycling and driving practices. I’d buy coffee if you want to meet and discuss this more sometime. Or better yet, come and join us for a ride and coffee, when your little one lets you. Tripleshot was actually started, in part, by parents like Rolf who found 6am was a pretty good time to slip out of the house and get in a quick ride before the chaos of the day hit. Either way, I hope our next interaction on the road goes more smoothly. Thanks for raising your concerns.
Sincerely,
Martin
p.s. What’s the take away for cyclists?
1) Rapping on a car is virtually never safety-enhancing, unless you believe the car is unaware of your presence and therefore at risk of hitting you (this might happen in urban riding, but probably never happens in the case of a lit-up group ride and a car approaching from behind). In 99 out of 100 situations it’s just going to put you and the people around you at greater risk by aggravating the driver or causing someone to bounce off the car and tumble into the group. I admit, I’ve done it myself, but it’s not a good idea and it doesn’t even feel particularly satisfying afterwards.
2) Yelling is probably only marginally more useful than rapping. If the car knows you’re there, it’s probably just going to aggravate them. It might make you feel better in the moment, but think how you'd feel if it led to someone else getting hurt. The laws of physics aren't on our side here.
3) “Car back” means “move right and pronto” (here’s Alex MacLennan’s award-winning post of the year for a primer on this: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7142
4) Warnings about cars back *need to get passed up the line the first time every time*. Some people’s voices only carry a couple riders forward. Just because you heard it, doesn’t mean the rider in front of you heard it. If word gets passed forward, it’ll keep us safer and drivers happier. We know we’re decent folk, but it’s hard for drivers to know that if they just see us apparently not caring about holding them up, when really we’re just communicating badly.
See you on the road. Ride safe.
Re: Sharing the road
Martin,
Excellent Post - and sterling work as our Club President.
I very much appreciate the thoughtful and constructive discussion designed to ensure we (cyclists, drivers, etc.) can all safely co-exist. I particularly appreciate Tommy getting onto the Forum and challenging us (politely and constructively) to consider how we can better deal with incidents in the moment and then, through this forum, incorporate that learning/reminder into our daily riding activities.
Thanks to all and best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.
Michael
Excellent Post - and sterling work as our Club President.
I very much appreciate the thoughtful and constructive discussion designed to ensure we (cyclists, drivers, etc.) can all safely co-exist. I particularly appreciate Tommy getting onto the Forum and challenging us (politely and constructively) to consider how we can better deal with incidents in the moment and then, through this forum, incorporate that learning/reminder into our daily riding activities.
Thanks to all and best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.
Michael
Re: Sharing the road
Thank you Martin for following up. I wrote this post not realizing that it would elicit such a constructive response. This speaks volumes of the clubs character.