Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

http://tinyurl.com/kspv93

preview:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kspv93

full URL:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...socialcomments


from the above URL:

"Police are calling the first stage of the campaign an 'education period,'
during which verbal warnings will be given instead of traffic tickets.

Beginning in July, however, police officers will vigilantly hand out tickets
for cycling offences to people who don't obey the laws, Ballard said.

'The fines range from $29 under the Motor Vehicle Act for not wearing a
helmet to $109 for most of the other operational offences,' he said.

Cyclists who fail to stop at a stop sign, run a red light or fail to yield
to pedestrians will be fined $167, he said."


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:
(Tom Keats) considered Fri, 29 May 2009
21:10:14 -0700 the perfect time to write:

http://tinyurl.com/kspv93

preview:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kspv93

full URL:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...socialcomments


from the above URL:

"Police are calling the first stage of the campaign an 'education period,'
during which verbal warnings will be given instead of traffic tickets.

Beginning in July, however, police officers will vigilantly hand out tickets
for cycling offences to people who don't obey the laws, Ballard said.

'The fines range from $29 under the Motor Vehicle Act for not wearing a
helmet to $109 for most of the other operational offences,' he said.

How can a "Motor Vehicle Act" apply to cyclists?
Someone needs English lessons.

The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act does not legally
recognize bicycles as vehicles, but nevertheless assigns
the same rights and duties of drivers of vehicles to cyclists.

http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/links/motorvehicleact.shtml

I suppose it's legally expedient to piggyback bicycle legislation
on motor vehicle legislation. It doesn't do much for the
cyclists' cause though, does it?


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:
(Tom Keats) considered Fri, 29 May 2009
21:10:14 -0700 the perfect time to write:

http://tinyurl.com/kspv93

preview:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kspv93

full URL:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...socialcomments


from the above URL:
"Police are calling the first stage of the campaign an 'education period,'
during which verbal warnings will be given instead of traffic tickets.

Beginning in July, however, police officers will vigilantly hand out tickets
for cycling offences to people who don't obey the laws, Ballard said.

'The fines range from $29 under the Motor Vehicle Act for not wearing a
helmet to $109 for most of the other operational offences,' he said.

How can a "Motor Vehicle Act" apply to cyclists?
Someone needs English lessons.

The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act does not legally
recognize bicycles as vehicles, but nevertheless assigns
the same rights and duties of drivers of vehicles to cyclists.

http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/links/motorvehicleact.shtml

I suppose it's legally expedient to piggyback bicycle legislation
on motor vehicle legislation. It doesn't do much for the
cyclists' cause though, does it?


cheers,
Tom


My sentiments, exactly. I don't know about Vancouver, but here in
Massachusetts, the leading cyclist advocacy group has lobbied for years,
and finally won, legislation based on the "same roads, same rules" model
of "vehicular cycling". The idea is that to be "taken seriously",
cyclists must conform to a uniform vehicle code.

I consider the argument to be seriously flawed from a number of angles.
First, there's the basic legal principal that punishment should fit the
crime. Bicycle "negligence" presents risks to the populace far below
those from autos. Second, given that the presumed increase in risk from
these behaviors applies to the cyclists themselves primarily, these,
like MHL's are "nanny laws". Third, the real impetus of these laws is to
get cyclists to conform to a system that's designed for motorized
vehicles. This particular solution for safety conflicts places the
burden on the more vulnerable group. It's typical of auto-centric
thinking, and reflects priorities that put motorist speed and
convenience ahead of all other considerations. It's just one of a
spectrum of possible ways to address very real safety issues, and it
tends to the extreme of coercing cyclists to conform to motorists rather
than the other way around. It's regressive at a time where the emphasis
should be on developing alternatives to the auto rather than deepening
social commitment to it. Lastly, on a pragmatic level, it gives cops,
who generally don't have positive attitudes towards cyclists, the
sanction to target them, and sends a message to the general public that
cyclists are a problem that needs to be solved by a police crackdown.

This is the cycling equivalent of a "poll tax". Reasonable arguments can
be made to justify it, but it's really just a form of covert
discrimination. Cyclists who buy into it are our version of "Uncle Tom".
I was not particularly happy with the local cycling status quo, but the
recent "same roads, same rules" "victory" has pushed me over the edge. I
think it's time to join Critical Mass and participate in the civil
disobedience.

Peter Cole wrote:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:
(Tom Keats) considered Fri, 29 May 2009
21:10:14 -0700 the perfect time to write:

http://tinyurl.com/kspv93

preview:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kspv93

full URL:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...socialcomments



from the above URL:
"Police are calling the first stage of the campaign an 'education
period,'
during which verbal warnings will be given instead of traffic tickets.

Beginning in July, however, police officers will vigilantly hand out
tickets
for cycling offences to people who don't obey the laws, Ballard said.

'The fines range from $29 under the Motor Vehicle Act for not wearing a
helmet to $109 for most of the other operational offences,' he said.

How can a "Motor Vehicle Act" apply to cyclists?
Someone needs English lessons.

The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act does not legally
recognize bicycles as vehicles, but nevertheless assigns
the same rights and duties of drivers of vehicles to cyclists.

http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/links/motorvehicleact.shtml

I suppose it's legally expedient to piggyback bicycle legislation
on motor vehicle legislation. It doesn't do much for the
cyclists' cause though, does it?


cheers,
Tom


My sentiments, exactly. I don't know about Vancouver, but here in
Massachusetts, the leading cyclist advocacy group has lobbied for years,
and finally won, legislation based on the "same roads, same rules" model
of "vehicular cycling". The idea is that to be "taken seriously",
cyclists must conform to a uniform vehicle code.

Indeed that is true. Every cyclist riding like a child and ignoring the
rules of right-of-way reinforces the motorists' opinion that bicycles do
not belong on the road, and make it more difficult for those who
practice vehicular cycling.

I consider the argument to be seriously flawed from a number of angles.
First, there's the basic legal principal that punishment should fit the
crime. Bicycle "negligence" presents risks to the populace far below
those from autos. Second, given that the presumed increase in risk from
these behaviors applies to the cyclists themselves primarily, these,
like MHL's are "nanny laws". Third, the real impetus of these laws is to
get cyclists to conform to a system that's designed for motorized
vehicles. This particular solution for safety conflicts places the
burden on the more vulnerable group. It's typical of auto-centric
thinking, and reflects priorities that put motorist speed and
convenience ahead of all other considerations. It's just one of a
spectrum of possible ways to address very real safety issues, and it
tends to the extreme of coercing cyclists to conform to motorists rather
than the other way around. It's regressive at a time where the emphasis
should be on developing alternatives to the auto rather than deepening
social commitment to it.

Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In the
real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).

Lastly, on a pragmatic level, it gives cops,
who generally don't have positive attitudes towards cyclists, the
sanction to target them, and sends a message to the general public that
cyclists are a problem that needs to be solved by a police crackdown.

Copenhagen is often cited as a very good place (for a major city) to
ride a bicycle. From way back (pre WW2) the police have enforced the
rules on cyclists. If children in Denmark ride the way that USian
children do (i.e. treating the bicycle as a toy similar to a
skateboard), their bicycles would be confiscated until the parents paid
a fine.

This is the cycling equivalent of a "poll tax". Reasonable arguments can
be made to justify it, but it's really just a form of covert
discrimination. Cyclists who buy into it are our version of "Uncle Tom".

Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a
bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just
admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.

I was not particularly happy with the local cycling status quo, but the
recent "same roads, same rules" "victory" has pushed me over the edge. I
think it's time to join Critical Mass and participate in the civil
disobedience.

Yes, ****ing off the majority with irresponsible behavior is the way to
go here. Civil disobedience only works when addressing a moral wrong.
"Same roads, same rules" is morally just, so protesting is just being a
spoiled brat.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

My sentiments, exactly. I don't know about Vancouver, but here in
Massachusetts, the leading cyclist advocacy group has lobbied for
years, and finally won, legislation based on the "same roads, same
rules" model of "vehicular cycling". The idea is that to be "taken
seriously", cyclists must conform to a uniform vehicle code.

Indeed that is true. Every cyclist riding like a child and ignoring the
rules of right-of-way reinforces the motorists' opinion that bicycles do
not belong on the road, and make it more difficult for those who
practice vehicular cycling.

You'd probably love Singapore.

I don't give a damn about motorist's opinion.

I oppose "vehicular cycling", so I'm only too happy to "make it more
difficult", although I doubt I can.

Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In the
real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).

"Repressing"? Curious word to use. "Inconveniencing" might be more apt.
I *do* think that motorists should be more inconvenienced by cyclists,
pedestrians and other non-motorized road users. I put motorist
convenience very low on my priority list. I put the safety of other,
more vulnerable, users at the top, with their convenience ahead of
motorists as well.

Lastly, on a pragmatic level, it gives cops, who generally don't have
positive attitudes towards cyclists, the sanction to target them, and
sends a message to the general public that cyclists are a problem that
needs to be solved by a police crackdown.

Copenhagen is often cited as a very good place (for a major city) to
ride a bicycle. From way back (pre WW2) the police have enforced the
rules on cyclists. If children in Denmark ride the way that USian
children do (i.e. treating the bicycle as a toy similar to a
skateboard), their bicycles would be confiscated until the parents paid
a fine.

From http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pu...resistible.pdf

You'll notice that cracking down on cyclist "scofflaws" isn't even
mentioned.

"Table 1. Key policies and innovative measures used in Dutch, Danish and
German cities to promote safe and convenient cycling

Extensive systems of separate cycling facilities

• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle
streets in cities and surrounding
regions
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages
through dead-ends for cars
Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike
lanes facilitate safer and
quicker crossings and turns
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and
exemption from red traffic
signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing
intersections
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring
consecutive green lights for cyclists
(green wave)
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the
right speed to reach the next
intersection at a green light

Traffic calming

• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30
km/hr) and physical
infrastructure deterrents for cars
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars
• ‘Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to
pedestrians and cyclists using
the road

Bike parking

• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often
featuring guards, video-surveillance
and priority parking for women
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit
stops, paid for by the minute
and left at any busy intersection in the city
• Bike rentals at most train stations
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with
video-surveillance, special lighting,
music, repair services and bike rentals

Traffic education and training

• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school
children with test by traffic
police
• Special cycling training test tracks for children
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists
and avoid hitting them

Traffic laws

• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists
• Motorists assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with
cyclists
• Strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts"


This is the cycling equivalent of a "poll tax". Reasonable arguments
can be made to justify it, but it's really just a form of covert
discrimination. Cyclists who buy into it are our version of "Uncle Tom".

Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a
bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just
admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.

I'm against the bias and dominance ceded to motor vehicles, yes. They've
crowded out alternatives. Motor vehicles must be pushed back and other
road users accommodated if cycling is ever going to become a practical
alternative. That's the lesson from countries that have conducted the
experiment for 30-40 years now (see above).

You live in a fool's paradise if you think further accommodation to the
convenience of motor vehicles will improve things.

I was not particularly happy with the local cycling status quo, but
the recent "same roads, same rules" "victory" has pushed me over the
edge. I think it's time to join Critical Mass and participate in the
civil disobedience.

Yes, ****ing off the majority with irresponsible behavior is the way to
go here. Civil disobedience only works when addressing a moral wrong.
"Same roads, same rules" is morally just, so protesting is just being a
spoiled brat.

Call names if you will, but civil disobedience is a time tested method
of accomplishing change and raising awareness. The wrong does not have
to be "moral", it can be ethical. In this case, it's at least ethically
wrong to refuse accommodation to non-motorists. There are very real
safety, convenience, economic and social issues at stake. The "vehicular
cyclists" are pursuing a course of further accommodation and
marginalization. That's not what changed things in the (few) societies
where things actually have changed.

Peter Cole wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

My sentiments, exactly. I don't know about Vancouver, but here in
Massachusetts, the leading cyclist advocacy group has lobbied for
years, and finally won, legislation based on the "same roads, same
rules" model of "vehicular cycling". The idea is that to be "taken
seriously", cyclists must conform to a uniform vehicle code.

Indeed that is true. Every cyclist riding like a child and ignoring
the rules of right-of-way reinforces the motorists' opinion that
bicycles do not belong on the road, and make it more difficult for
those who practice vehicular cycling.

You'd probably love Singapore.

I don't give a damn about motorist's opinion.

You don't give a damn when a motorist violates your right-of-way
endangering your life because he/she views bicycles only as toys and not
real transportation? OK.

I oppose "vehicular cycling", so I'm only too happy to "make it more
difficult", although I doubt I can.

Good. We need less anti-social cyclists.

Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In
the real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).

"Repressing"? Curious word to use. "Inconveniencing" might be more apt.
I *do* think that motorists should be more inconvenienced by cyclists,
pedestrians and other non-motorized road users. I put motorist
convenience very low on my priority list. I put the safety of other,
more vulnerable, users at the top, with their convenience ahead of
motorists as well.

Inconveniencing of motorists should be done by a combination of higher
user fees, taxes and restricted areas - not by random behavior of people
in the street. The latter chaos endangers cyclists and pedestrians even
in the absence of motor vehicles.

Lastly, on a pragmatic level, it gives cops, who generally don't have
positive attitudes towards cyclists, the sanction to target them, and
sends a message to the general public that cyclists are a problem
that needs to be solved by a police crackdown.

Copenhagen is often cited as a very good place (for a major city) to
ride a bicycle. From way back (pre WW2) the police have enforced the
rules on cyclists. If children in Denmark ride the way that USian
children do (i.e. treating the bicycle as a toy similar to a
skateboard), their bicycles would be confiscated until the parents
paid a fine.

From http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pu...resistible.pdf

You'll notice that cracking down on cyclist "scofflaws" isn't even
mentioned.

Know anyone who grew up cycling in Denmark? Ask them about how they were
taught from an early age that they needed to obey the rules. The reason
that cracking down on "scofflaws" is not mentioned is this behavior is
so rare (unlike the US) that it is not a problem.

"Table 1. Key policies and innovative measures used in Dutch, Danish and
German cities to promote safe and convenient cycling

Extensive systems of separate cycling facilities

• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle
streets in cities and surrounding
regions
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages
through dead-ends for cars
Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike
lanes facilitate safer and
quicker crossings and turns
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and
exemption from red traffic
signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing
intersections
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring
consecutive green lights for cyclists
(green wave)
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the
right speed to reach the next
intersection at a green light

Traffic calming

• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30
km/hr) and physical
infrastructure deterrents for cars
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over
cars
• ‘Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to
pedestrians and cyclists using
the road

Bike parking

• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often
featuring guards, video-surveillance
and priority parking for women
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit
stops, paid for by the minute
and left at any busy intersection in the city
• Bike rentals at most train stations
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with
video-surveillance, special lighting,
music, repair services and bike rentals

Traffic education and training

• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school
children with test by traffic
police
• Special cycling training test tracks for children
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists
and avoid hitting them

Traffic laws

• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists
• Motorists assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with
cyclists
• Strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts"


This is the cycling equivalent of a "poll tax". Reasonable arguments
can be made to justify it, but it's really just a form of covert
discrimination. Cyclists who buy into it are our version of "Uncle Tom".

Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on
a bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists.
Just admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.

I'm against the bias and dominance ceded to motor vehicles, yes. They've
crowded out alternatives. Motor vehicles must be pushed back and other
road users accommodated if cycling is ever going to become a practical
alternative. That's the lesson from countries that have conducted the
experiment for 30-40 years now (see above).

So start by raising fuel taxes, vehicle licensing fees, implementing
congestion charges and having motor vehicle free areas. Allowing
cyclists to act in a chaotic manner may please you personally, but does
nothing but create danger for everyone.

You live in a fool's paradise if you think further accommodation to the
convenience of motor vehicles will improve things.

Vehicular cycling is not further accommodation. Which accommodates
motorists more - taking the lane as a vehicular cyclist or riding on the
sidewalk or the wrong way in the gutter? Sheesh!

I was not particularly happy with the local cycling status quo, but
the recent "same roads, same rules" "victory" has pushed me over the
edge. I think it's time to join Critical Mass and participate in the
civil disobedience.

Yes, ****ing off the majority with irresponsible behavior is the way
to go here. Civil disobedience only works when addressing a moral
wrong. "Same roads, same rules" is morally just, so protesting is just
being a spoiled brat.

Call names if you will, but civil disobedience is a time tested method
of accomplishing change and raising awareness. The wrong does not have
to be "moral", it can be ethical. In this case, it's at least ethically
wrong to refuse accommodation to non-motorists.

That is not what is being advocated. Try to see beyond your hatred for a
moment.

There are very real
safety, convenience, economic and social issues at stake. The "vehicular
cyclists" are pursuing a course of further accommodation and
marginalization.

Bull Crap.

That's not what changed things in the (few) societies
where things actually have changed.

Yes, the societies in Western Europe have reduced motoring by chaotic
behavior of cyclists and pedestrians. NOT! Lets be real here.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° writes:

My sentiments, exactly. I don't know about Vancouver, but here in
Massachusetts, the leading cyclist advocacy group has lobbied for years,
and finally won, legislation based on the "same roads, same rules" model
of "vehicular cycling". The idea is that to be "taken seriously",
cyclists must conform to a uniform vehicle code.

Indeed that is true. Every cyclist riding like a child and ignoring the
rules of right-of-way reinforces the motorists' opinion that bicycles do
not belong on the road, and make it more difficult for those who
practice vehicular cycling.

I'm all for the rules of right-of-way. In Idealtopia they'd
be sufficient, and we could dispense with all these
information-overloading traffic controls and signage.
Trouble is, the right-of-way rules only really work when
they're universally understood and adhered-to, especially
by drivers. But drivers are simply trained to obey (even
though they often don't) each sign and signal as they
encounter them, one by one, in a "connect the dots" manner.
So drivers often make it impractical if not impossible
for cyclists to go by the right-of-way rules.

I consider the argument to be seriously flawed from a number of angles.
First, there's the basic legal principal that punishment should fit the
crime. Bicycle "negligence" presents risks to the populace far below
those from autos. Second, given that the presumed increase in risk from
these behaviors applies to the cyclists themselves primarily, these,
like MHL's are "nanny laws". Third, the real impetus of these laws is to
get cyclists to conform to a system that's designed for motorized
vehicles. This particular solution for safety conflicts places the
burden on the more vulnerable group. It's typical of auto-centric
thinking, and reflects priorities that put motorist speed and
convenience ahead of all other considerations. It's just one of a
spectrum of possible ways to address very real safety issues, and it
tends to the extreme of coercing cyclists to conform to motorists rather
than the other way around. It's regressive at a time where the emphasis
should be on developing alternatives to the auto rather than deepening
social commitment to it.

Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists.

The "same roads, same rules" mantra always imposes some extra,
onerus rules on cyclists. In Vancouver you could be fined $109
for not having a bell on your bike. You could be fined $109
for not riding astride your seat.
http://tinyurl.com/mbrs7l
That would render recumbent riders "scofflaw cyclists."

The good news is: here the fine is only $29 for not
wearing your mandatory helmet.

If it really was "same roads, same rules," then drivers
here should also be subject to a mandatory helmet law,
under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act.

I understand some other jurisdictions in North America
have mandatory sidepath laws.

Same roads, same rules, my foot.

Then there's the ol' stop sign running bugaboo.
Of course drivers should proceed extra carefully at
stop sign-controlled intersections, because of the
physical configuration of cars -- there's often a
whole bunch of hood in front of a driver for him
to peer over, a whole bunch of machinery in front
of him to poke into the cross street before he can
see if anyone's coming. But a cyclist is better
enabled to roll up ahead of the stop line and quickly
ascertain the need to yield to any cross-traffic.
If there is no such need, why stop? It's as incongruous
to impose car drivers' regulations on cyclists, as it
is to impose airline pilot regulations on car drivers.

In the
real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).

I don't see where Peter suggests a free-for-all for
cyclists. Maybe less of a free-for-all for drivers.

Of course cycling should be reasonably and appropriately
regulated -- while bearing in mind that bicycles are not
motor vehicles.

Lastly, on a pragmatic level, it gives cops,
who generally don't have positive attitudes towards cyclists, the
sanction to target them, and sends a message to the general public that
cyclists are a problem that needs to be solved by a police crackdown.

The old Vagrancy laws were a convenient catch-all for the
cops too. But when Canadians finally got our Constitution,
those laws went out the window.

I find it interesting to note this particular pogrom- erm --
crackdown coincidentally comes hard on the heels of a recently
won cycling advocacy battle to have a bike lane installed on
our Burrard St. Bridge, much to the chagrine of many local drivers.
I should say: "partially won" as the orignal desire was for
two bike lanes, one in each direction.

Copenhagen is often cited as a very good place (for a major city) to
ride a bicycle. From way back (pre WW2) the police have enforced the
rules on cyclists.

Would those rules be car rules, or bicycle rules?


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On May 30, 12:10*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/kspv93

preview:http://preview.tinyurl.com/kspv93

full URL:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/29/bc-bicycle...

from the above URL:

"Police are calling the first stage of the campaign an 'education period,'
*during which verbal warnings will be given instead of traffic tickets.

*Beginning in July, however, police officers will vigilantly hand out tickets
*for cycling offences to people who don't obey the laws, Ballard said.

*'The fines range from $29 under the Motor Vehicle Act for not wearing a
*helmet to $109 for most of the other operational offences,' he said.

*Cyclists who fail to stop at a stop sign, run a red light or fail to yield
*to pedestrians will be fined $167, he said."


The MHL laws are an embarrassment and an example of tokenist forced
behavior overriding the reality of urban cycling.

The fines are also out of line considering the consequences of a
bicycle misbehaving compared to a two ton vehicle driving willy nilly.

If I lived in BC, I'd probably consider moving. When a Swede thinks a
government has gone overly nanny, it's overly nanny. Blech.

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° writes:

My sentiments, exactly. I don't know about Vancouver, but here in
Massachusetts, the leading cyclist advocacy group has lobbied for years,
and finally won, legislation based on the "same roads, same rules" model
of "vehicular cycling". The idea is that to be "taken seriously",
cyclists must conform to a uniform vehicle code.

Indeed that is true. Every cyclist riding like a child and ignoring the
rules of right-of-way reinforces the motorists' opinion that bicycles do
not belong on the road, and make it more difficult for those who
practice vehicular cycling.

I'm all for the rules of right-of-way. In Idealtopia they'd
be sufficient, and we could dispense with all these
information-overloading traffic controls and signage.
Trouble is, the right-of-way rules only really work when
they're universally understood and adhered-to, especially
by drivers. But drivers are simply trained to obey (even
though they often don't) each sign and signal as they
encounter them, one by one, in a "connect the dots" manner.
So drivers often make it impractical if not impossible
for cyclists to go by the right-of-way rules.

Then the behavior of the motorists needs to be modified. Having cyclists
behaving randomly will not do that in a positive manner.

I consider the argument to be seriously flawed from a number of angles.
First, there's the basic legal principal that punishment should fit the
crime. Bicycle "negligence" presents risks to the populace far below
those from autos. Second, given that the presumed increase in risk from
these behaviors applies to the cyclists themselves primarily, these,
like MHL's are "nanny laws". Third, the real impetus of these laws is to
get cyclists to conform to a system that's designed for motorized
vehicles. This particular solution for safety conflicts places the
burden on the more vulnerable group. It's typical of auto-centric
thinking, and reflects priorities that put motorist speed and
convenience ahead of all other considerations. It's just one of a
spectrum of possible ways to address very real safety issues, and it
tends to the extreme of coercing cyclists to conform to motorists rather
than the other way around. It's regressive at a time where the emphasis
should be on developing alternatives to the auto rather than deepening
social commitment to it.
Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists.

The "same roads, same rules" mantra always imposes some extra,
onerus rules on cyclists. In Vancouver you could be fined $109
for not having a bell on your bike. You could be fined $109
for not riding astride your seat.
http://tinyurl.com/mbrs7l
That would render recumbent riders "scofflaw cyclists."

The good news is: here the fine is only $29 for not
wearing your mandatory helmet.

If it really was "same roads, same rules," then drivers
here should also be subject to a mandatory helmet law,
under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act.

I understand some other jurisdictions in North America
have mandatory sidepath laws.

Same roads, same rules, my foot.

Then there's the ol' stop sign running bugaboo.
Of course drivers should proceed extra carefully at
stop sign-controlled intersections, because of the
physical configuration of cars -- there's often a
whole bunch of hood in front of a driver for him
to peer over, a whole bunch of machinery in front
of him to poke into the cross street before he can
see if anyone's coming. But a cyclist is better
enabled to roll up ahead of the stop line and quickly
ascertain the need to yield to any cross-traffic.
If there is no such need, why stop? It's as incongruous
to impose car drivers' regulations on cyclists, as it
is to impose airline pilot regulations on car drivers.

In the
real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).

I don't see where Peter suggests a free-for-all for
cyclists. Maybe less of a free-for-all for drivers.

If you had read Peter Cole's past postings on RBT, you would likely come
to a different conclusion.

Of course cycling should be reasonably and appropriately
regulated -- while bearing in mind that bicycles are not
motor vehicles.

Agreed.

Lastly, on a pragmatic level, it gives cops,
who generally don't have positive attitudes towards cyclists, the
sanction to target them, and sends a message to the general public that
cyclists are a problem that needs to be solved by a police crackdown.

The old Vagrancy laws were a convenient catch-all for the
cops too. But when Canadians finally got our Constitution,
those laws went out the window.

I find it interesting to note this particular pogrom- erm --
crackdown coincidentally comes hard on the heels of a recently
won cycling advocacy battle to have a bike lane installed on
our Burrard St. Bridge, much to the chagrine of many local drivers.
I should say: "partially won" as the orignal desire was for
two bike lanes, one in each direction.

The crackdown should be on ALL improper road users.

Copenhagen is often cited as a very good place (for a major city) to
ride a bicycle. From way back (pre WW2) the police have enforced the
rules on cyclists.

Would those rules be car rules, or bicycle rules?

General rules of obeying right-of-way, signaling turns and having proper
equipment.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

There are very real safety, convenience, economic and social issues at
stake. The "vehicular cyclists" are pursuing a course of further
accommodation and marginalization.

Bull Crap.

That's not what changed things in the (few) societies where things
actually have changed.

Yes, the societies in Western Europe have reduced motoring by chaotic
behavior of cyclists and pedestrians. NOT! Lets be real here.

I used to be a believer in vehicular cycling ala Forester as a cure-all.
The basic premise is that, by behaving like motorized vehicles,
non-motorized vehicles will better blend into traffic. That idea is
fine, as far as it goes. In that vein, it's entirely reasonable and
consistent to heavily promote & enforce identical behavior at both
intersections and through roads. It's a "one size fits all solution",
where the "same rules, same roads" motto makes sense. Not surprisingly,
advocates of vehicular cycling tend to oppose segregated facilities.

There are many valid reasons for cyclists to view segregated facilities
with skepticism. Often, these facilities are sub-standard, either in
construction, maintenance, or both. This may provide lower convenience
and safety than the alternate road routes, which may become unavailable
due to mandatory sidepath rules.

The vehicular cycling idea isn't particularly new, I've seen it well
described in videos from the 50's -- "Hey kids, *drive* your bike to
school!". Both the vehicular cycling approach and the segregated
facility approach have been derided as automobile lobby attempts to
marginalize cycling.

My major complaint about the auto isn't that it enabled sprawl and low
density development, but that it degraded quality of life in
pre-existing high density areas. I won't beat the latter subject to
death, it's been extensively written about and I don't think it's
particularly controversial.

It may seem arbitrary to promote cycling as an alternative to motor
transport, but inasmuch as cycling is a viable method of utility
transportation realistically only in relatively short trip scenarios,
the quality of life issues in high density neighborhoods and convenience
and safety of low speed, human powered, transport become intertwined. My
opinions on cycling policy, law enforcement, etc, are strictly within
that context. Rural and suburban cycling are outside of my interest.

Having ridden primarily in high density neighborhoods (Boston area) for
decades, I've made the following observations: Cycling has been pretty
anarchistic, both in practice and theory. By the latter I mean that only
lip service was given to vehicular status for cyclists. Moving violation
penalties existed, and for the most part laws were identical for motor
traffic, but were capped at trivial amounts and virtually never
enforced. Cops, in my experience, were as likely to yell at cyclists for
stopping at red lights (obstructing traffic) as for ignoring them, for
instance. Likewise, motorists seemed to assume, and expect, that
behavior, which in my experience never generated the animosity that some
vehicular cycling, particularly lane taking, did. Like many, I adopted a
"bike messenger" style of urban riding -- no quarter asked, none given,
which in many ways suited the environment. Parenthetically I'd add that
once out of dense areas, I'd typically revert to by-the-book vehicular
style, which I have no quibble with, which is why I'm restricting my
remarks to the urban context. I'd also point out that older city (like
Boston & Europe) environments are much different than Midwest and
particularly Sunbelt cities, which to my eye, although I haven't ridden
them, seem much more suburban, so my opinions should be so qualified.

The experience of those countries that have achieved significant
non-motor utility transportation seem to indicate that the success has
in large part been from protecting and promoting high density, mixed
use, neighborhoods, which provide the fertile ground for utility
cycling. So, urban planning in the broadest sense is a prerequisite for
transportation planning. The central idea in the paper whose link I
posted earlier: http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pu...resistible.pdf
is that planners should make cycling more appealing, rather than the
alternatives less so as a winning strategy. This means making utility
cycling a superior mode, both enjoyable and practical. This means making
the accommodation of cyclists the primary strategy, rather than the
dis-accommodation of motorists, yet if the conflict can't be resolved
mutually, favoring the cyclist.

The problem with current approaches to urban traffic segregation in the
US, in my view, is the reliance on the bike lane exclusively, without
much otherwise changing conditions. Other than giving up a little real
estate (often essentially voluntarily), motorists make no sacrifices.
Often, these bike lanes are worse than nothing as a result. Motorists
must give up more, not in an effort to penalize, but to enhance cycling
through facilitation. It takes more than paint stripes, a lot more.

Categorically, from the paper, we have: traffic calming, bike parking,
coordination with public transport, education & training (both ways),
and protective laws.

Where cycling interests overlap with all non-motorized traveler
interests as well as general (urban) quality of life issues is in
traffic calming, education and improved legal protection. They should be
non-controversial and have the highest priority since they are universal
"goods". The only resistance to these changes comes from selfish
individuals protecting the (unfair, uneconomical, unhealthy, unsafe)
status quo. I have no tolerance for this.

By the way of comparison, helpful because it's somewhat less
complicated, is the issue of "jaywalking" and pedestrian movement in an
urban setting. The standard approach has been to provide crosswalks, and
insist, at least formally, that pedestrians use them. Pedestrians
generally have segregated facilities (sidewalks) and some accommodation
at traffic signals ("walk" cycles). Despite all this, "jaywalking" is
common in many cities. There have been frequent, highly publicized, yet
often unsuccessful, attempts to coerce lawful behavior via increased
penalties and enforcement. In this circumstance, I think it's clear that
the interests of pedestrians aren't being served, and the benefit of
increased compliance is to facilitate smooth and predictable motor
traffic. The safety issue is frequently cited as a rationalization, but
the obvious alternative -- restricting vehicle speeds to inherently safe
levels is generally dismissed out of hand. In the end, the convenience
of the motorist takes precedence over the convenience of the pedestrian,
often in areas where pedestrians are the majority of the travelers.

Increasing fines and enforcement levels for cycling infractions in urban
environments in order to promote "safety" is exactly like "jaywalking"
crackdowns. Anarchy in the streets, whether pedestrian or cycle isn't
the result of willful selfishness, it's a symptom that the practical
needs of a given group of road users aren't being met. In countries
where utility cycling has undergone a renaissance, it's because these
needs have been addressed. There is no need for coercion if the
environment is sufficiently accommodating. A similar principal is often
applied in setting speed limits -- simply post the speed that most
people find comfortable and safe -- why? Because attempting to coerce
lower speeds doesn't work. Bad laws (like prohibition) turn everyone
into law breakers -- human nature 101.

Paint stripes and crackdowns won't improve the dismal state of utility
cycling in the US. Real accommodations to the needs of non-motor road
user must be made. In some cases this means rolling back some of the
unilateral privileges motorists have enjoyed. There will be widespread
resistance. Pricing out private motor transport through access and
parking fees, excise and fuel taxes, may reduce some congestion, but
it's regressive, and still does little to address the real needs of
existing non-motorists or generate much positive attitude change in
those who might convert. Making cycling better is a more attractive
alternative than making motoring worse. Forcing people to ride bikes by
making driving too expensive or inconvenient isn't the way forward.

Vehicular cycling has proven to be a failure as a solution to declining
utility cycling. It solves the wrong problem. It does improve the
coexistence of bikes and cars under the current ground rules but says
nothing about changing those rules. It's the rules that must be changed,
not the improvement of conformance to the existing ones. Increasing the
accommodation of non-motoring travelers is sensible, fair, and in
society's best interest. That is the clear lesson of the countries that
have had some success at this. Vehicular cyclists aren't wrong, they're
just barking up the wrong tree. A tone-deaf or draconian approach to
either motorists or cyclists won't win any converts. A real solution is
one you shouldn't have to force people to use -- the appeal and
advantages should be obvious and tangible.

I oppose crackdowns on cyclists and the organizations that support them
not because I'm an anarchist, or selfish, but because I believe they add
insult to injury. They are regressive in that they unfairly penalize
monetarily, and they seek to preserve a status quo that under-serves a
class of citizens. Cyclist non-compliance to existing laws, particularly
in urban environments, says much more about the character of those laws
than the character of the cyclists. I will also "jaywalk", crossing a
street at mid-block rather than going the long way to a crosswalk. The
fine is $1 and never enforced. It's not a law that represents some
universal human truth, it's just a compromise that's been reached over
the years by wrangling between two (opposed) groups. Funny, there isn't
any group of *pedestrian* "advocates" pushing for the raising of that
fine and/or an enforcement crackdown. Cycling, at times, seems to be a
collection of eccentrics with the strangest ideas.