Here's a posting of near daily cycling news from across the country, and sometimes interesting things from around the world. If I missed a worthy piece, please pass it on to me. As always, comments welcome.
Regional
- City sheds light on safe cycling (Press Release, Ottawa, Sep 13)]
Some cities give away free lights, some heavily ticket offenders, Ottawa gently reminds us with a press release.
Canada
- Abby’s easing into bike lanes (Aldegrove Star, BC, Sep 13)
- Metal Cowboy to help Ride the Lobster (ChronicleHerald.ca, Halifax NS, Sep 14)
Away
- The bicycle thief (Salon.com, Sep 13)
- Bike Happening: Hundreds of crazed cyclists cruise Farmer's Market streets (KSBY, CA, Sep 13) Bad headline, but the event sounds like fun!
- Virginia-Highland sunken manholes a danger to cyclists (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta GA, Sep 13) Something like the Star's fixer
- ‘Ride of Silence’ honors slain cyclists (Gulf Coast Newspapers, AL, Sep 13)
- Great River Ride takes cyclists across Illinois(Springfield State Journal Register, IL, Sep 14)
- Compulsory helmet decision gives electric bicycle sales a jolt (VietNamNet Bridge, Vietnam, Sep 14)
- Mayor Hau leads bicycle tour in Car Free Day (The China Post, Taipei Taiwan, Sep 14)
- Cyclist rides to bring out Best (The Tribune-Democrat, PA, Sep 14)
Comments
geoffrey (not verified)
Ottawa's 1m or CANBIKE'S TAKE THE LANE
Fri, 09/14/2007 - 15:33in http://ottawastart.com/story/6658.php the city of ottawa recommends riding in the "passing fender tag zone"
who writes this crap if not a motorist?
herb
confusion about CAN-BIKE
Fri, 09/14/2007 - 17:03I think you're a bit confused, Geoff, about what CAN-BIKE says about lane position. CB says it depends on the road width and other factors. On a regular width city lane the CB recommendation is to ride about 1 metre out from the curb, or other obstructions. On a wide lane the cyclist will move further to the left so that they measure their position 1 metre away from the motor traffic. And in a narrow lane, defined as a lane where there is not enough room to fit your bike, a car and a metre of space on either side of you, then a cyclist should take the lane.
CB does NOT recommend taking the lane in each and every situation. That is seen as disruptive and dangerous, and against the Highway Traffic Act.
By the way, just what the heck is "passing fender tag zone"?? It's not in the original article so it must be something you made up. Please illuminate us.
The EnigManiac
Taking the Lane against the HTA?
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 03:22I'd be curious to see how taking the lane (1/3 to middle of the lane) is against the Highway Traffic Act. My research found that the HTA states bicycles must be as far to the right as practicable and it may be practicable to take the lane in some or even many instances. If cars are invited to pass me within inches by remaining too far to the right, then it is practicable to 'take the lane.' If there is debris, uneven or broken road-surface, manholes or grates or other obstacles then it may be practicable to 'take the lane,' even if they hazards are spaced apart. I mean, otherwise I'm in and out and weaving in and out from the curb isn't recommended either. If I happen to move back toward the curb and get crowded when I encounter one of these obstacles, I endanger myself needlessly, so it is 'practicable' to maintain a straight line. Does the HTA say that I must stay an inch off the curb or something, maybe a foot? I know 'practicable' is indistinct and relative, after all, a rather interpretive and ambiguous description, so if that's not what they mean, they should be more definitive. But if they want us to allow cars to pass us within inches, why don't they just demand we all shoot ourselves. because if we do that, we're dead. Most cops are as ill-informed as most motorists when it comes to bicycles and the road so they're likely unaware of where a cyclist should be positioned anyway, but if you could provide a link to the HTA statute, I'd be interested in reading it. Maybe I'm wrong in my thinking.
Darren_S
Taking the lane nonsense
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 07:48Unless you have a fixed lane width (construction pylons, one-way streets, etc) exactly how to do you 'take the lane'? At best a cyclist is a metre wide. You may be able to give yourself a wide berth to the right but nothing is stopping a motor vehicle from passing you on the left. If they did pass you on the left without hitting you or causing you to veer ( you do not need to have contact to be charged for a collision) it is probably done legally as that passing distance is subjective.
S.148 (6) of the HTA
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian traveling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6). -- notice that any reference to 'safety' is removed from turn out right.
There is also some suggestion that you change driver behaviour by "taking a lane'. As much study there is to support it there is an equal amount to debunk it.
That said, I support riding no less than a metre from the curb/parked cars. Before anyone spoke of CanBike that space used to be referred to as a bail out zone. A place you could fall or correct after being hit.
anthony
HTA 147 and 148 - overtaking
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 08:43from HTA Ontario
Slow vehicles to travel on right side
147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).
(Italics are mine, this is where bicycles may take the lane)
Overtaking and passing rules
Passing meeting vehicles
148. (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (1).
Vehicles meeting bicycles
(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).
In otherwords, if a motorist hits you whilst overtaking, he/she should be concidered guilty until proven otherwise for failing HTA 148.(4)
Darren_S
HTA 147 and 148
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 11:13Seems like the two sections are conflicted without any clear interpretation. It would seem 147(1) would be trumped by 148(6). R. v. Primmer touches on a similar conflict in the NFLD HTA that makes reference to passing and safety. Sadly most interpretations on traffic law is done before the '80s and not readily available on-line. Even worse, it is all just words until there is an application, like getting a ticket for taking the lane.
herb
CB interprets the vagueness in the HTA
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 14:20The CAN-BIKE manual provide an interpretation of the HTA in what is meant by as far to the right as is "practicable". I don't want to give the impression that these are my opinions; I'm recalling what I teach as a CB instructor.
CB differentiates between the three general lane widths and what to do in each situation (as I explained in my previous comment). I can't recall what are the exact dimensions, but I could give some examples:
As always, CB encourages students to use their own judgment on when it is safe and appropriate to take the lane or to stick to the curb. CB says that in urban settings you should always give yourself at least 1 metre of room on the right from obstacles. In rural settings it states that the speed of traffic is too high for 1 metre so it recommends to stay as close to the side of the road as possible, absorbing any debris and potholes rather than swerving into traffic.
There's no requirement to follow CB, but it may help you out in court if you do, and the course have been well thought out by experienced cyclists across the country. It has served me well.
The EnigManiac
Absorbing debris?
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 17:53I can't argue with the 1 meter suggestion taught by CB, but I prefer 1.5m, personally. Being an urban cycling commuter for more than 25 years with a number of close-calls, but never an accident, I feel I can offer realistic observations and experienced opinions. Remaining too far right invites and encourages impatient, reckless, selfish and aggressive motorists to force cyclists into dangerous situations, so I don't recomment being too close to the curb and if CB is suggesting that, they are advocating a potentially calamitous situation.
On major routes with parking, such as Bloor St., riding just to the left of the dotted line is generally a safe area, keeping cyclists out of the door-zone, particularly from cars who are out from the curb a fair distance or wide trucks and allowing for adequate room for cars to pass in the adjacent lane. Depending upon traffic conditions (rush-hour, for example), the cyclists speed is more important than position. Cyclists will get squeezed, no matter what they do, but proceeding at a speed where one can stop within 30-60mm pretty much guarantees one won't be struck.
Being aware of traffic behind, in front and approaching from the side at all times is vital to a cyclists safety. Putting an arm out with an open backward-facing palm, advising approaching motorists from the rear to slow as you swing left to go around obstacles is usually very effective in avoiding hazards, slowing and even stopping are good ideas too, but suggesting cyclists absorb pot holes and other debris is, in my opinion, insane. Cars and trucks don't plow right through logs or tree branches, why should I risk life and limb because some motorist doesn't want to---or doesn't know that he is supposed to---allow me adequate space to maneuver around pot-holes, deep cracks, etc.? I have a semi-recumbent with a 16" front wheel. If I hit one of those, I'm going for a spill, a nasty one. I haven't ridden as long as I have to start having crashes now. Sorry, I know what works for me and I know what's safe and respectful of other users, and absorbing debris is not on the list of things I'll ever do.
herb
yes, "absorb" debris
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 02:43I swear you're reading every other word, EnigManiac. The reference to absorbing debris is my paraphrasing of a whole section of CB that deals with cyclists riding on country roads with fast traffic. In this situation a cyclist does not want to swerve out into traffic that is coming from behind at 100 km/hr. It is then best to try to absorb the shock of going over a pothole, exploded tire, branch rather than get hit from behind. We show students how they can then try to get quickly off the roadway so they don't end up spilling their guts on the road.
CB is explicit that the high speed situations like this require a different set of strategies as urban streets. I said as much in my comment.
As for my very brief summary of CB, you get what you see. If you want to know what CAN-BIKE really has to say on this and other subjects then take the course, or take me out for a beer. Otherwise you are going to tend to make misinterpretations.
By the way, just who stops in 30-60 mm?? Is that millimetres? As in 3-6 cm? You must be going a top speed of 3 km/hr.
The EnigManiac
Aren't We Just So Full Of Ourselves?
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 05:04There is a certain smug arrogance about CM that smacks of elitism, as if it suggests that its way---right or wrong---is the only way.
Your previous comment made rather brief mention of rural roads but not 100 km/h traffic. Those are freeway speeds, my friend, not rural road speeds. Or is the government conceding that every vehicle on 60-80km/h roads far exceeds the speed limit and accepts that they do? They are liable, therefore, for any injury or death that occurs as they have the authority to and means of controlling the speed of travellers but choose to allow reckless chaos to ensue on those roads. Are motorists not required to slow down depending upon traffic conditions or are they simply, as you seem to suggest, allowed to barrel on through at whatever speeds they feel are okay no matter who or what may be occupying the road in front of them? Motorists are expected to anticipate different conditions on rural roads than they would in the city, but since bicycles are permitted on rural highways (max 80 km/h), it is the responsibility of motorists to manage the encounter safely. If they should continue at illegal speeds in spite of seeing cyclists from a long distance away and know that the freakin' lane is the cyclists and they should pass safely, then they are at fault. I find it offensive that I must kill myself on a rural road for the sake of inconveniencing a motorist. How about you educate THEM. What if the slow-moving vehicle is a tractor? Would the motorist see the threat any differently? Or is it just rural cyclists that are allowed, by government or CB decree, to be mangled and killed?
Damn few of us encounter those kinds of conditions, but it's nice to know CB pays so much attention to the kinds of situations perhaps 1-2% of cyclists encounter. In the city, I'll put my technique up against anyone's any day. Maybe it's identical or, at least similar, to CB's anyway. I am aggressive when I need to be, respectful always, and yielding when appropriate, but I won't foolishly endanger myself or others and I can't believe CB would endorse voluntary catastrophic behaviour rather than insit that cars OBEY THE RULES OF THE ROAD on a rural highway or urban street. Or is it just on 100 km/h rural roads that I'm supposed to kill myself on?
And I apologize for my typo. I meant to say 'cm' not 'mm.' I hope you'll forgive the minor transgression.
Yet I hardly read every other word. Rather, I read between the lines and see the real message.
But yes, at times, it is appropriate to be travelling at 5-10 km/h even if you have the capacity to go much faster. 2-3 hrs per day every day almost all year round for almost 30 years has taught me when to go fast and when to go slow and since I haven't had an accident in 28 years, I think I know what I'm doing. Not many of you can claim a similar safety record, I would bet.
The roads were and remain naturally free to cycists---with rules, of course---and since it seems motorists are the real fly in the ointment, the real dnager, the killers, if you will, maybe it's time we simply revoke their PRIVELEGE and special permission of being guests upon our roads. Seems that would solve the danger issues, wouldn't it.
Darren_S
Apples vs. Oranges vs. CB
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 08:25Respectively EnigManiac, I think you are mixing different issues. CB is a manual about keeping yourself alive in the face of immediate harm, the state is not responsible for that. The state is responsible for keeping safe roads, though you are right it does a poor job of managing speeds. CB deals with the here and now (ie what to do with the guy barreling up your ass at a 100kmh) and the state thinks about what to do over the long term (ie how do we discourage this dangerous behaviour, more enforcement, better design, etc).
The EnigManiac
That's the real issue, isn't it.
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 15:48Thanks Darren. Maybe I was mixing issues, but you illustrate the real issue and that is 'speed.' It has always confounded me that there are speed limits on EVERY road, street, avenue, highway and freeway, yet manufacturers have never been asked to restrict the speed capability of their products. They are free to make their cars, motorcycles and trucks as powerful as they can possibly be. There's even a 1001bhp super car on the market now. The government only restricts manufacturers from promoting lawless or reckless driving habits, but they push the envelope on that restriction, don't they. Car manufacturers extol the virtues of their product getting from 0-60 and 0-100 in a mere few seconds and show closed-course professionals racing at high speeds. Why? To entice drivers to speed. And speed kills.
The problem with quick acceleration is that most---and I am talking about 98% of motorists---use that speed on 20km/h, 40km/h and 60km/h streets, not just on the freeway. Only when streets are congested do we see motor vehicles travelling at or below the speed limit. An open road is an open invitation for everyone from the respectable and law-abiding minister to the account manager to the advertising rep to the sales agent to the store clerk to the middle-manager to the school teacher to the lawyer to the politician to exceed the limit by 10 or 20km/h and more without even noticing. Why bother having limits at all if they're neither going to be obeyed nor enforced?
For a hundred years now the motoring public has been asked to obey the speed. But they rarely do. Step outside your home right now and count how many of the cars are actually going the speed limit or under. No other product available to the consumer would be allowed on the market that so inherently invited abuse, was designed to exceed all legal and safety limitations or made so that it can so easily and effortlessly exceed all legal safety parameters.
None. But cars are. And still, all those fine people mentioned above are expected to not speed even though the car is begging to be driven fast.
Most motorists cringe at the very thought of being forced to observe the speed limit and they cite some odd justifications for the...ahem...right to speed, which is like saying they have the right to commit murder. They say sometimes one has to speed up to avoid an accident. Nope. Sorry. That doesn't fly. If everyone had been observing the speed limit, chances are there wouldn't be many accidents at all that couldn't be avoided by proper steering control and braking. Making a situation more dangerous is rarely, if ever, the correct answer. And, if everyone's car is involuntarily controlled, speeding won't be possible, whether it's on a 10km/h laneway or a 100 km/h and those dangerous situations where speeding MORE than the dangerous speeder to avert the collision would have been necessary. It's a lame excuse at best considering the rare instances where speeding might be a way of avoiding trouble. No, the real reason most folks don't want to be controlled is they like the feeling of power, the freedom to go as fast as they can when they think it's appropriate or when they feel they won't get caught. Ah, but how many deaths have resulted when the driver thought there wasn't any danger?
Car manufacturers have carte blanche when it comes to the power-plant they install under the hood. But should they? Is it morally right? With thousands of people dying and incurring injuries on the roads every year due to speeding, shouldn't car manufacturers and the government bodies that should be protecting citizens and policing the indstry be held partly responsible for the carnage they cause? Every other product manufacturer has technology or safe-guards that prevent the user from having the 'free will' of abusing or misusing the product and when the safe-guards fail, they are sued. Why not car manufacturers? They kill more people than any other consumer product---with the exception perhaps of alcohol and tobacco (both of which have legal restrictions regarding how strong they can be)---so is it pure negligence, purposeful and willful conspiracy or just that no-one has the power to go up against the mighty car companies?
I submit that you and I and everyone else who might one day be a victim of a speeder has the obligation of suing the car manufacturer AND the federal and provincial levels of government that are supposed to regulate their actions. Until they install the technology---and it already exists and is relatively inexpensive---that controls their speeds, cyclists, pedestrians, children and family pets as well fellow motorists are all at tremendous unnecessary risk.
Darren_S
CAN-BIKE'S interpretation
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 22:54CAN-BIKE'S interpretation is just that, its interpretation. I have questioned both police and prosecutors on information the Ministry of Transportation/City of Toronto/TPS presents on their website parts of which references CAN-BIKE. I got anything from laughter to "you better be prepared to support it". They are not saying CAN-BIKE is wrong, just that they would not rely on it... just in the same way they would not rely on similar info written by the CAA with respect to driving.
A lot of cops apply "one vehicle, one lane theory", especially in collisions, usually to the detriment of the cyclist. The Star ran a classic example of this last year. Slow heavy traffic in the left lane on Bloor, cyclist uses right lane with parked cars to pass, she gets hit by car traversing from the left lane, she is found at fault.
anthony
as far right as practicable
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 00:35There used to be a section in the HTA that specifically mentioned that bicycles had to ride as far to the right as practicable.
It's not there any more.
herb
as close as practicable
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 02:28It's right there under your nose, Anthony, under 147 in the HTA: "as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway."
anthony
Yes. No, not not that one.
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 08:54There was an entry specific for bicycles.
147 is for all vehicles.
TanyaQ (not verified)
at *least* one metre from the curb
Sat, 09/15/2007 - 01:37I interpreted that article as saying riding one metre from the curb as opposed to hugging it, not opposed to taking the lane. If the lane is too narrow, then take the lane. To me the minimum sharable lane is 13 feet wide - 7 foot wide hummer + 3 feet of passing clearance + 3 feet between you and the curb. And that's still assuming you are negligible width as a cyclist which you aren't. My Can-bike instructor told me I was likely to be cited for obstructing traffic for taking the lane on Spadina which I think only has a 11 feet wide curb lane. I don't know what you mean about standard width curb lane Herb, but IMO, almost any downtown road is too narrow to share a lane safely.
Tom Trottier (not verified)
You read wrong
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 14:10It says, "ride1m from the curb" - Ottawa and the province all recommend riding 1m from the curb or parked cars. Not "within 1m"
tOM
geoffrey (not verified)
I smell a fire
Sun, 09/16/2007 - 18:44http://www.cyclingdude.com/2007/09/arizona-cyclist.html
"Move over. If you're riding so slowly that you're blocking or impeding traffic, move to the right to let the motor vehicles pass safely. And, if you have no room on the right to ride, then get off your bike and walk it."
...
"Stay the course, until I can safely move right, or if there are no cars, but no place to ride, move as far right as possible, and stop until traffic passes, or move as far right as possible, and walk the bike, until safe to resume riding."
Do neither of these people commute by bicycle? Do they not understand there are not always alternative routes? Municipal/regional/township boundaries are among the worst to attempt to cross at the best of times because less roads traverse these as opposed to communities. Alternatives tend to be few and far between. What of those touring? They should cease when the local motormanufacturer does a shift change?
Not being late getting home to take in a Simpson's rerun gives a motorist priority over a cyclist who may be on their way to work or getting groceries or journeying to their mothers in a distant community?
One CAN push local cyclists onto sidestreets with "bikeplans" highlighting sidestreets but this won't help a bike traveller on their way through town who just wants a route. Burying the bikeroutes on sidestreets makes life more dangerous for the traveller.