Tripleshot Cycling

Hi everyone,

There was a frightening accident on the Oak Bay ride this morning. The group split into two at Sydney, with about 20 leaving the pee break first and approx. the same number 5 min behind. We (Peter, Bill, Kim, and Joe) were in the second group.

We came across two wrecked cars and bikes all over the road on the Penninsula just past the ferry terminal: While passing the 1st peloton a car was hit by a another car entering the main road from the opposite side. This redirected the passing vehicle right into the bunch. Bob Cameron was at the front of the group yet was hit from behind by this car. Thinking about how that could happen is chilling. Bob's leg was run over but did not appear to have been broken. His Orbea Orca was still under the car when we left - not a pretty sight. Bob and another rider were taken away in ambulances. Quite a few other people hit the ground and many beautiful bikes (incl. a brand new Pinerello Prince) were wrecked.

I don't know if there are any lessons for us from this. Perhaps we could attempt to play a more active role in guiding cars around us - moving over quickly when it's safe for them to to pass and discouraging passing when it isn't (curves, hills). Our early start time is probably our best defense.

Anyway, speedy recovery Bob!

JT

Nasty. I had heard about the crash from Dave. Glad everybody is relatively ok.

Ouch. That's horrible. Mend well Bob.

Good thoughts John. I often think drivers feel compelled to pass, but might wait if someone noticed them, gave them an appropriate signal to wait, then waived them on.

Well it was pretty awful. If you want to see some photos they can be found at: http://gallery.northsaanich.ca/gallery/album70

I heard that Bob was treated & released and have spoken with Brian who also went to the hospital and he is just stiff & sore.

Thankfully it seems that the bikes & the cars bore the brunt of the damage

on a second note I am not sure that we ought to be directing traffic to pass us. Maybe its a good idea but I would worry that if we had (for example) waved the passing car "ok to pass" on Saturday we woud have effectively directed him into the path of the second car - not something we would want to do. I think it bears more discussion though.

Finally, I am setting out the relevant section of the Motor Vehicle Act with select sections in bold if anyone cares...

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.

(4) Despite section 165, a person operating a cycle who intends to turn it to the left at an intersection where there is more than one lane from which left turns are permitted must

(a) cause the cycle to approach the intersection in the lane closest to the right side of the highway from which a left turn is permitted,

(b) keep the cycle to the right of the line that divides the lane referred to in paragraph (a) from the lane immediately to the left of that lane,

(c) after entering the intersection, turn the cycle to the left so that it will leave the intersection to the right of the line referred to in paragraph (b), and

(d) when practicable, turn the cycle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

(5) A person must not ride a cycle, skate board, roller skates, in-line roller skates, sled, play vehicle or other similar means of conveyance when it is attached by the arm and hand of the rider or otherwise to a vehicle on a highway.

(6) A cycle operated on a highway between 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before sunrise must have the following equipment:

(a) a lighted lamp mounted on the front and under normal atmospheric conditions capable of displaying a white light visible at least 150 m in the direction the cycle is pointed;

(b) a red reflector of a make or design approved by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the purposes of this section;

(c) a lighted lamp, mounted and visible to the rear, displaying a red light.

(7) Despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, a cycle may be equipped with a flashing red light that is of a make or design approved by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the purposes of this section.

(8) A cycle operated on a highway must be equipped with a brake that will enable the person operating the cycle to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level and clean pavement.

(9) If an accident occurs by which a person or property is injured, directly or indirectly, owing to the presence or operation of a cycle on a highway or a sidewalk, the person in charge of the cycle must

(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident,

(b) render all possible assistance, and

(c) give to anyone sustaining loss or injury his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of the cycle, and if the cycle has been licensed and registered, the licence or registration number of the cycle.

(10 to 13) [Repealed 2008-42-83.]

(14) A person must not operate a cycle

(a) on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(b) on a sidewalk without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the sidewalk.

(15) If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of his or her riding or operating a cycle, the court may, in addition to or in place of any penalty otherwise prescribed, order the cycle seized, and on the expiry of that period the person entitled to it may again have possession of the cycle.

(16) For the purpose of seizing and impounding a cycle under an order made under subsection (15), a peace officer may enter any place or building in which the cycle is located.

(17) A person operating a cycle on a highway must signify

(a) a left turn by extending the person's left hand and arm horizontally from the cycle,

(b) a right turn by doing either of the following:

(i) extending the person's left hand and arm out and upward from the cycle so that the upper and lower parts of the arm are at right angles;

(ii) extending the person's right hand and arm horizontally from the cycle, and

(c) a stop or decrease in speed by extending the person's left hand and arm out and down from the cycle.

Plawless wrote: on a second note I am not sure that we ought to be directing traffic to pass us. Maybe its a good idea but I would worry that if we had (for example) waved the passing car "ok to pass" on Saturday we woud have effectively directed him into the path of the second car - not something we would want to do. I think it bears more discussion though.

Finally, I am setting out the relevant section of the Motor Vehicle Act with select sections in bold if anyone cares...

If I understand, you might be suggesting the riders would bear some responsibility for directing the following driver. But wouldn't it be the same as flashing your lights to let a bus into traffic, or waving a driver out from a side street in busy traffic? Would the driver bear responsiblity if those drivers then did something wrong?

The two abreast thing is more difficult than it sounds. 20 or 30 riders in single file is almost 100 metres, unpassable in all but the longest stretches of straight road.

And I believe the act is silent on whether cyclists have the right to ride in groups. Two abreast is less obstructing than huge groups of motor vehicles, like rush hour, convoys of RV's, slow trucks on hills or farm vehicles.

It seems to me that many drivers are driven to pass at any cost. See the article in this weekend's TC about the 42 year old female driver driver with 18 convictions, who killed a motorcyclist head on by passing on the wrong side of the road, on a double yellow. She even had another conviction while awating trial. $1500 fine and 4 months suspended license. Bob told me the police officer was blaming the cyclists in part for the accident. The car is king.

Lister Farrar wrote: And I believe the act is silent on whether cyclists have the right to ride in groups. Two abreast is less obstructing than huge groups of motor vehicles, like rush hour, convoys of RV's, slow trucks on hills or farm vehicles.

The Act is not silent. In fact it is very clear that 2 abreast is prohibited.

(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,

And yes I am suggesting the cyclist who waves a car "its ok to pass" is assuming some degree of responsibility for what ensues. It may seem crazy and I am happy to be wrong (any lawyer want to weigh in on this?) . To be fair I probably take a very cautions view of liability as it seems to me more prudent to do so but.....

Plawless wrote:
The Act is not silent. In fact it is very clear that 2 abreast is prohibited.

(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,

And yes I am suggesting the cyclist who waves a car "its ok to pass" is assuming some degree of responsibility for what ensues. It may seem crazy and I am happy to be wrong (any lawyer want to weigh in on this?) . To be fair I probably take a very cautions view of liability as it seems to me more prudent to do so but.....

The act mentions two abreast, but it doesn't mention any ban on groups. My point was that if 30 cyclists are allowed to ride together, as they appear to be, two abreast is safer and more convenient for other road users than single file. So yes, 2 abreast maybe be against the letter of the act, but it is rational and safer.

PS I wonder how the cops for cancer manage two abreast? Because they have escorts? No wonder, with nutbars like the lexus driver passing on a solid line, and the other driver 'forgetting' Mom's advice to look BOTH ways.

PPS I wonder how charity rides will manage when they ban "groups"?

PPPS 'Can't wait for the study that shows buses, trucks, farm vehicles, cars with one driver during rush hour, slow traffic more than groups of cyclists do.

Two abreast is definitely illegal. Despite that (I'm assuming this pack was perhaps riding two abreast), this is still the passing driver's fault. Passing on a solid yellow line is not particularly a problem in the CRD, as there's not a lot of thought put into where they are and are not placed. However, the line is entirely missing adjacent the private(?) road there, indicating that that is an intersection. The MVA specifically prohibits passing in an intersection, and THERE ARE NO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR PASSING CYCLISTS IN THIS MANNER.

This is, as described by many here, a case of compulsive cyclist-passing -- something I have asked Saanich repeatedly to enforce after TWO cyclists were struck from behind this winter -- a request they have, from everything I have seen, ignored in favour of continued speed traps and other low-hanging-fruit activities.

As for riding two abreast, maybe it would help if cops set a better example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2894805711/ (Thanks, John!) Perhaps, then, it IS acceptable to ride two abreast for special events, like "being a cop".

As to controlling vehicles passing, and riding "as far to the right as practicable", I take this clause quite literally, and see the two as related: It is NOT practicable to ride far enough to the right on a narrow roadway that stupid people will decide that they can squeeze past you, when they in fact cannot do so safely. I commute Shelbourne every day, and have seen a reduction to almost zero problems with people passing me unsafely since switching to riding in a position -almost- in the centre of the righthand lane, rather than as far to the right as I am limited to riding -solely by the roadway itself-. This takes an ambiguous situation (at least for stupid people) and makes it an unambiguous one.

phox wrote:Two abreast is definitely illegal. Despite that (I'm assuming this pack was perhaps riding two abreast), this is still the passing driver's fault. Passing on a solid yellow line is not particularly a problem in the CRD, as there's not a lot of thought put into where they are and are not placed. However, the line is entirely missing adjacent the private(?) road there, indicating that that is an intersection. The MVA specifically prohibits passing in an intersection, and THERE ARE NO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR PASSING CYCLISTS IN THIS MANNER.

This is, as described by many here, a case of compulsive cyclist-passing -- something I have asked Saanich repeatedly to enforce after TWO cyclists were struck from behind this winter -- a request they have, from everything I have seen, ignored in favour of continued speed traps and other low-hanging-fruit activities.

As for riding two abreast, maybe it would help if cops set a better example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2894805711/ (Thanks, John!) Perhaps, then, it IS acceptable to ride two abreast for special events, like "being a cop".

As to controlling vehicles passing, and riding "as far to the right as practicable", I take this clause quite literally, and see the two as related: It is NOT practicable to ride far enough to the right on a narrow roadway that stupid people will decide that they can squeeze past you, when they in fact cannot do so safely. I commute Shelbourne every day, and have seen a reduction to almost zero problems with people passing me unsafely since switching to riding in a position -almost- in the centre of the righthand lane, rather than as far to the right as I am limited to riding -solely by the roadway itself-. This takes an ambiguous situation (at least for stupid people) and makes it an unambiguous one.

You're letting the guy that apparently blew the stop sign off the hook. The lexus was hit side-on; 'T-boned', if you will. (See the photos.) There is no damage to the front of the Lexus. The other driver could not have even slowed down or he would have seen the car, or hit it head on after s/he turned right. The crease down the side of the Lexus suggests it was hit from the side, as does the finishing position of the dark car.

I also don't think it's helpful to criticize the police for riding two abreast. In fact, police riding two abreast shows that riding two abreast is the sensible thing to do in certain cases. What we need is a clause that allows two abreast unless unduly impeding traffic, and a few good hard penalties to the bull-like drivers who see us as the red cape of a matador.

The driver of the black car was not driving defensively. OTOH, the driver of the silver car was -actually- breaking the law, and one of the more sensible laws, at that.

Cops (although I'll say I've seen a lot less of it now than 5 years ago, to their credit) ride two abreast on packed downtown streets -- how is this an example of riding two abreast being a sensible thing to do?

We usually expect cars to pass us when there are no on-coming cars, so we shouldn't be too critical of the Lexus/Avalon driver for crossing the yellow line.

Bad luck that his move placed him in the path of the Focus that, as someone else concluded, could not have stopped at the stop sign. On the other hand, I think most of us can imagine the surprise that the Focus driver must have felt: All clear on the left, I'll turn right. SHIT! It's like making a right at a red light downtown only to have a pedestrian step off the curve at the last minute .... only it was in the middle of nowhere.

Maybe we push the two-abreast detail and ride somewhat staggered. Then we can chat to two other people instead of one , single-up faster, and maybe avoid tickets.

Nothing in that list of instructions/laws (thanks Peter) about occupying the whole road if we're travelling at the speed limit. Too bad.

JT

phox wrote: Cops (although I'll say I've seen a lot less of it now than 5 years ago, to their credit) ride two abreast on packed downtown streets -- how is this an example of riding two abreast being a sensible thing to do?

Packed streets don't move that fast. Why not go two abreast? They can talk, and alert one another to things they see. And for selfish reasons as a cyclist, it shows that riding two abreast isn't the end of the world to everyone else.

In the photo, there are no cars backed up behind them. Why should they move over? This argument reminds me of motorists who get all bent out of shape when a cyclist doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, when there is no traffic.

We too had a negative experience of 'DRIVER MUST PASS AGGRESSION' at the corner of Oak Bay Ave. and Foul Bay Rd. on Sunday. Driver in large SUV pulled up behind us (3 riders) at the light and was very agitated for some unknown reason. Scary and violent gestures, racing up behind us, speeding by us after we made our turn (all of us signaling of course). This, to me, is the most frightening kind of car driver aggression. You just don't know what they want or what they mean to do- I am thinking that driver/cyclist education is somehow lacking in this province. Not just policing...

Lister Farrar wrote:

phox wrote: Cops (although I'll say I've seen a lot less of it now than 5 years ago, to their credit) ride two abreast on packed downtown streets -- how is this an example of riding two abreast being a sensible thing to do?

Packed streets don't move that fast. Why not go two abreast? They can talk, and alert one another to things they see. And for selfish reasons as a cyclist, it shows that riding two abreast isn't the end of the world to everyone else.

In the photo, there are no cars backed up behind them. Why should they move over? This argument reminds me of motorists who get all bent out of shape when a cyclist doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, when there is no traffic.

This is an entirely asinine thing to say; If you could actually see cars behind the cops in the photo, they would be JUST ABOUT TO HIT THE COPS. Only one lane is open, and this is a construction zone (have you noticed how traffic fines double in construction zones on most of this continent?).

And no, downtown Victoria is almost never packed enough that it's moving as slow as cops on mountain bikes. The speed limit is 50 km/h, and they're rarely doing much over half of that.

Citing cyclists' rolling stops is also silly here: You're attempting to draw an analogy between actions that are safe and make sense, and ones that aren't, on the basis of the "emotional reactions" to them being similar. Rolling stops on a bike make sense -- riding two abreast in the downtown core doesn't, unless perhaps you're riding fast enough that you should be taking the lane anyways (you know, to avoid being in the Door Zone at 45km/h).

phox wrote: This is an entirely asinine thing to say; If you could actually see cars behind the cops in the photo, they would be JUST ABOUT TO HIT THE COPS. Only one lane is open, and this is a construction zone (have you noticed how traffic fines double in construction zones on most of this continent?).

And no, downtown Victoria is almost never packed enough that it's moving as slow as cops on mountain bikes. The speed limit is 50 km/h, and they're rarely doing much over half of that.

Citing cyclists' rolling stops is also silly here: You're attempting to draw an analogy between actions that are safe and make sense, and ones that aren't, on the basis of the "emotional reactions" to them being similar. Rolling stops on a bike make sense -- riding two abreast in the downtown core doesn't, unless perhaps you're riding fast enough that you should be taking the lane anyways (you know, to avoid being in the Door Zone at 45km/h).

Make up your mind. Are the streets packed or not? If they're packed, traffic's not doing 50 k/h. If traffic's doing 50 k/h, show me a picture of police holding up traffic and I'll agree with you. In the picture you showed, there was no traffic behind them. My point is that stupid rules end up provoking drivers like Saturday's incident; joe hothead thinks every cyclist is a scofflaw and an impediment, no, worse a provocation to 'solid citizen drivers', must be passed immediately, and deserves a nice close call. A few cops riding around side by side is fine with me, and it legitimizes bicycles. In fact, the cops for cancer and cops on bicycles have done more to legitimize cycling in the eyes of the public than anything else I can think of, besides maybe facilities.

And lighten up with the name calling. You make me want to join critical mass, and I never thought I'd say that.

Well, for what it is worth, my view is that this forum topic was about people wanting to know what happened and expressing concern over some fellow cyclists (including one who rides with us) who were involved in a nasty accident.

I do not feel, upon reflection, that this topic, or indeed the Tripleshot Forum is the place to debate traffic laws, rules or their enforcement or implementation. Having said that I think it is fine to provide info to folks but I am not sure that this is the right forum (nice double entendre Peter!) to debate this stuff....

Anyway get well Bob & Brian. I hope you guys are on the road in a week or two.

Peter

Lister Farrar wrote: Make up your mind. Are the streets packed or not? If they're packed, traffic's not doing 50 k/h. If traffic's doing 50 k/h, show me a picture of police holding up traffic and I'll agree with you. In the picture you showed, there was no traffic behind them. My point is that stupid rules end up provoking drivers like Saturday's incident; joe hothead thinks every cyclist is a scofflaw and an impediment, no, worse a provocation to 'solid citizen drivers', must be passed immediately, and deserves a nice close call. A few cops riding around side by side is fine with me, and it legitimizes bicycles. In fact, the cops for cancer and cops on bicycles have done more to legitimize cycling in the eyes of the public than anything else I can think of, besides maybe facilities.

Well, no, packs of traffic do still end up doing the speed limit.

But anyways... yes, that's exactly the problem, although I'd argue that "IMPORTANT citizen drivers" is more the perception they have of themselves. *THEY* are *GOING SOMEWHERE*. We're... uh, whatever we're doing. But we're not going somewhere, or important, or whatever. And it's not just passing; If you're pacing the car in front of you, incompetent drivers will still either tailgate you or attempt to drive beside you within a single lane. Apparently if you're only in front of someone's right headlight, they're not tailgating you.

I do, however, disagree with the idea that Cops for Cancer and bike cops have done much to make the public more er... tolerant of us. Cops for Cancer (and similar events) seem to perpetuate the idea that cycling is something to be relegated to backroads and for special events only. Bike cops, as I've pointed out, often aren't model cyclists themselves, and aren't really perceived as part of the "cyclist" demographic, anyways -- they're just doing their job, unlike us.

JohnT: We should be critical of the Toyota driver, as they were passing in an intersection, and that's illegal for precisely this reason.

And as for occupying the entire road (lane), I would argue tooth and nail that the spirit of the law is that cyclists WHO ARE DOING LESS THAN THE SPEED LIMIT need to be out of the way -- obviously, if I'm doing the speed limit nobody has any business passing me, so there is no problem, and the spirit of the law is unquestionably only to resolve problems that exist, unless some big car advocate wants to stick their neck into that trap .

Requiring that I be closer to the side of the road and thus to debris, people pulling out/turning, The Door Zone, etc, than someone in a motor vehicle be required to be when traveling at the same speeds -is- discrimination and is of course made worse by the fact that my bike and I don't have a safe crumple zone, or the necessary mass to partially move an offending vehicle out of the way. For example, I ride -out- of the bike lane when riding down the hill on Foul Bay from Lansdowne.

Phox,

Who are you? Do you ride with us?

I wonder if perhaps this debate is better suited for the forum at Canadian Cyclist? It ccertainly seems to have moved away from concern for one of our members.......

Peter Lawless

Am glad that all are well now!

Scott Rusnak

Peter,

Funny you should ask who I ride with. I live in Victoria, but strangely I've found that my primary club riding (and any sort of distance riding, really) happens in Portland of all places, almost precisely because of this sort of situation. I know most of the CRD very well, but I cannot think of a route around it that doesn't include lots of stretches of "arterial traffic jammed through something barely wide enough for 2 cars at a time" roadways, or piles of equally sketchy intersections, or whatever.

I found my way over from a GVCC list post -- my apologies for continuing to sidetrack this post (although of course I must point out who pasted the big chunk of the MVA You should also check out the bits that require your brakes to not be anti-lock, and other anachronisms).

Perhaps I'll find my way onto an OBB ride sometime soon.