A colleague of my wife was commuting to work Thursday morning. He reached the intersection of The Goose and Harbour Road (Cafe Fantastico). When he went to ride across the crosswalk to reach the bike lane on the right hand side, a taxi-cab failed to stop at the stop sign, struck her colleague, and threw him several metres (word on the street is) off his bike. He was pretty banged up, including a mild concussion, but he was back in the office today. He told my wife that the police officer determined they were both at fault. The taxi-cab for not stopping (obviously), and her colleague for not walking his bike across the crosswalk (supposedly the law???).
The police officer told her colleague that he should be walking his bike across every crosswalk along The Goose. I laughed. Not only is this insane but very dangerous. Isn't there like 8 crosswalks between Harbour Road and The Switch? Can you imagine repeating the dismount/mount process eight times in that distance? The change of pace alone is sketchy. In my experience, that part of The Goose always feels the most comfortable when everyone is travelling at the same pace.
1) Is it really illegal to ride your bike, in a controlled fashion, across a crosswalk?
2) Has anyone actually walked their bike across a crosswalk along The Goose?
Cheers,
Mark
To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
Moderator: mfarnham
-
mtsmith439
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:51 pm
-
leftcoaster
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:12 pm
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
Not being a lawyer (we'll have to wait until one of them respond), I believe
1) if you wish to have the right of way, you are supposed to walk your bike across an intersection with the white lines, if there are no other traffic signs;
2) On the goose, almost all the intersections are controlled intersections and have a stop sign for motorists which takes precedence, while the goose does not have stop signs, and you don't have to stop. The Harbour Road crossing has no markings for motorists other than the white pedestrian lines.
1) if you wish to have the right of way, you are supposed to walk your bike across an intersection with the white lines, if there are no other traffic signs;
2) On the goose, almost all the intersections are controlled intersections and have a stop sign for motorists which takes precedence, while the goose does not have stop signs, and you don't have to stop. The Harbour Road crossing has no markings for motorists other than the white pedestrian lines.
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
compete: 1620, from Fr. compéter "be in rivalry with"
-
stevierooks
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:37 am
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
My opinion is that this collision scenario should be deemed 100% the motorist's fault.
Blowing a stop sign is a highly negligent and dangerous act. The cross traffic at this intersection just happens to include cyclists on bikes as well as pedestrians. It makes no difference here that the cyclist is riding their bike as this is the acceptable, predictable norm to expect here. If a motorist completely misses a stop sign and hits the traffic that has the right of way, then the fault is all on them for that act. I would also say that the public's general bias against cyclists may play a part in assigning blame here.
Further into my opinion, driving a car carries a much larger responsibility than riding a bike does. I say this because of the constant stream of deaths and injuries that these massive machines cause every day on our roads. Compare what happens when a car blows a stop sign to what happens when a cyclist blows a stop sign. Cyclists are more annoying (like a mosquito) than dangerous (like an elephant).
"With great power comes great responsibility" (according to Spiderman's Uncle).
Unfortunately because the horrible deaths, injuries and damage that people cause with their cars are so common and frequent, it is just accepted as normal and we call them "accidents". I really dislike how the term "accident" is used to replace "crash" or "collision" as a way of letting a driver out of the huge responsibility of operating these machines in public. The phrase "It was just an accident" helps people avoid the full inherent responsibility when they make a bad or illegal move.
The police, motor vehicle department and public in general, do not assign the proper weight of responsibility to the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. As a result, we have inattentive, incompetent and reckless drivers killing and injuring the public and causing damage at a level that is far too high for this writer to accept as "just an accident".
Because of the way that blame was assigned in this scenario, it appears that this crash will not be followed up properly with the courts or licensing board now and will be just brushed aside by all parties. That seems like a shame to me because someone could get killed at this intersection - and it won't be the motorist.
Feel free to blast my 2 cents apart as I am not a lawyer either - it's just my opinion.
Rooks
Blowing a stop sign is a highly negligent and dangerous act. The cross traffic at this intersection just happens to include cyclists on bikes as well as pedestrians. It makes no difference here that the cyclist is riding their bike as this is the acceptable, predictable norm to expect here. If a motorist completely misses a stop sign and hits the traffic that has the right of way, then the fault is all on them for that act. I would also say that the public's general bias against cyclists may play a part in assigning blame here.
Further into my opinion, driving a car carries a much larger responsibility than riding a bike does. I say this because of the constant stream of deaths and injuries that these massive machines cause every day on our roads. Compare what happens when a car blows a stop sign to what happens when a cyclist blows a stop sign. Cyclists are more annoying (like a mosquito) than dangerous (like an elephant).
"With great power comes great responsibility" (according to Spiderman's Uncle).
Unfortunately because the horrible deaths, injuries and damage that people cause with their cars are so common and frequent, it is just accepted as normal and we call them "accidents". I really dislike how the term "accident" is used to replace "crash" or "collision" as a way of letting a driver out of the huge responsibility of operating these machines in public. The phrase "It was just an accident" helps people avoid the full inherent responsibility when they make a bad or illegal move.
The police, motor vehicle department and public in general, do not assign the proper weight of responsibility to the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. As a result, we have inattentive, incompetent and reckless drivers killing and injuring the public and causing damage at a level that is far too high for this writer to accept as "just an accident".
Because of the way that blame was assigned in this scenario, it appears that this crash will not be followed up properly with the courts or licensing board now and will be just brushed aside by all parties. That seems like a shame to me because someone could get killed at this intersection - and it won't be the motorist.
Feel free to blast my 2 cents apart as I am not a lawyer either - it's just my opinion.
Rooks
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
I rode by that accident shortly after it happened, saw the guy sitting on the ground and the taxi cab waiting.
That's a really good question. I've grew up being taught that if you cross on a crosswalk you should dismount and walk but this is not an ordinary crosswalk. In my opinion, it's an extension of the shared bike/pedestrian path. I can not see how you could reasonably expect cyclists to dismount at this location.
I also think that the police officer's opinion as to who is to blame is not final. If it were me, I would get a lawyer and take it up through ICBC. The car went through a stop sign and hit someone, seems pretty clear to me who's at fault.
Mark, it would be great if you could keep us informed as to the final decision down the road. I take this route regularly, it would be nice to know if I'm legally expected to do something that I never do.
That's a really good question. I've grew up being taught that if you cross on a crosswalk you should dismount and walk but this is not an ordinary crosswalk. In my opinion, it's an extension of the shared bike/pedestrian path. I can not see how you could reasonably expect cyclists to dismount at this location.
I also think that the police officer's opinion as to who is to blame is not final. If it were me, I would get a lawyer and take it up through ICBC. The car went through a stop sign and hit someone, seems pretty clear to me who's at fault.
Mark, it would be great if you could keep us informed as to the final decision down the road. I take this route regularly, it would be nice to know if I'm legally expected to do something that I never do.
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
I think that cop has it wrong, which is often the case with cops and bike traffic laws.
http://www.saanich.ca/living/mayor/boar ... inutes.pdf
Page 4 of these meeting minutes from SAANICH BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE states that bikes have right of way along all the downtown crosssings south of switch bridge with stop signs and DO NOT have to stop and dismount.
http://www.saanich.ca/living/mayor/boar ... inutes.pdf
Page 4 of these meeting minutes from SAANICH BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE states that bikes have right of way along all the downtown crosssings south of switch bridge with stop signs and DO NOT have to stop and dismount.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
-
Lister Farrar
- Posts: 3093
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:19 pm
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
I agree Rooks. And Josh re officers not always knowing the laws re bikes.stevierooks wrote:My opinion is that this collision scenario should be deemed 100% the motorist's fault.
Blowing a stop sign is a highly negligent and dangerous act. The cross traffic at this intersection just happens to include cyclists on bikes as well as pedestrians. It makes no difference here that the cyclist is riding their bike as this is the acceptable, predictable norm to expect here. If a motorist completely misses a stop sign and hits the traffic that has the right of way, then the fault is all on them for that act. I would also say that the public's general bias against cyclists may play a part in assigning blame here.
Further into my opinion, driving a car carries a much larger responsibility than riding a bike does. I say this because of the constant stream of deaths and injuries that these massive machines cause every day on our roads. Compare what happens when a car blows a stop sign to what happens when a cyclist blows a stop sign. Cyclists are more annoying (like a mosquito) than dangerous (like an elephant).
"With great power comes great responsibility" (according to Spiderman's Uncle).
Unfortunately because the horrible deaths, injuries and damage that people cause with their cars are so common and frequent, it is just accepted as normal and we call them "accidents". I really dislike how the term "accident" is used to replace "crash" or "collision" as a way of letting a driver out of the huge responsibility of operating these machines in public. The phrase "It was just an accident" helps people avoid the full inherent responsibility when they make a bad or illegal move.
The police, motor vehicle department and public in general, do not assign the proper weight of responsibility to the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. As a result, we have inattentive, incompetent and reckless drivers killing and injuring the public and causing damage at a level that is far too high for this writer to accept as "just an accident".
Because of the way that blame was assigned in this scenario, it appears that this crash will not be followed up properly with the courts or licensing board now and will be just brushed aside by all parties. That seems like a shame to me because someone could get killed at this intersection - and it won't be the motorist.
Feel free to blast my 2 cents apart as I am not a lawyer either - it's just my opinion.
Rooks
Another example was last year when Brenna got doored on tyee on her way out to the track. It was right in front of a police officer. When I asked him to charge the driver, he said it was 'just an an accident'.
Brenna's mum pursued it with the chief of police and i understand he reminded his officers that it is an offence to open a door into traffic.
But it might be worth noting this in case it happens to you. And always get the other driver's license number and name so ICBC can pursue, even if the officer disagrees. In Brenna's case the officer dismissed the driver, did not record the name, and when I went back get it, the driver and vehicle was gone. So no chance to make an icbc claim for the wrecked clothes, brake levers and shoes.
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC ... e%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%20318/00_Act/96318_05.xml#section203
When opening door prohibited
203 (1) A person must not open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so.
(2) A person must not leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for longer than is necessary to load or unload passengers.
Lister
"We're jammin', jammin',
And I hope you like jammin', too."
(Bob Marley)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdwYY9rZL4
"We're jammin', jammin',
And I hope you like jammin', too."
(Bob Marley)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdwYY9rZL4
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
We need to recruit more cops.
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
I was just thinking about this old post. Any word on the final assignment of blame? Since I take this route almost everyday, I'm curious to know if I would be at fault if I got hit riding my bike over this crossing.
-
stevierooks
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:37 am
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
Well I have an update on this crosswalk. Just before Xmas 2014, I rode through there on the way to the TS food drive. A driver rolled up and slowed, I thought he was stopping for me, but then he hit the gas... and me. I was riding across. The cop who attended had the same take as previous and was of no help to me. ICBC however did deem the driver in my case 100% at fault. They are in the process of making me whole for my injuries and damages.
Rooks
Rooks
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
Related story in today's T-C about that cool UVic bike maps project:
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local ... -1.1823801
It's great that a Geography professor is launching a safety study about Goose collisions, but I'd prefer it was the CRD or local municipalities with the ability to change signage and bylaws that took the lead.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local ... -1.1823801
It's great that a Geography professor is launching a safety study about Goose collisions, but I'd prefer it was the CRD or local municipalities with the ability to change signage and bylaws that took the lead.
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
Wow Rooks, I'm sorry to hear. I hope your recovery goes well if not yet already. Thanks for sharing.
Re: To walk or not to walk across the crosswalk
@ Rolf- thanks for sharing the TC article, though have to talk to Sgt Price about paraphrasing my line "“It’s better to slow down and be alive, than to be dead right,” . I suspect I'm not that clever and probably picked it up via osmosis.