Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

... 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".

=v= Dogmatic adherence to that ideology has rendered that group
ineffective and unpopular. I found the group unbearable when
I lived in Massachusetts, though there are newer members who
have clamored for a more flexible approach to matters based on,
you know, the way things really actually happen in the streets.

=v= You may have heard about a little something called the Big
Dig? Massive boondoggle, gazillions of dollars over budget,
years and years behind schedule, and radically transforming
ground transportation in Boston for at least the next century.
In all that, not a single fraction of a second's thought was
given to bicycles. MassBike saw no need to have anything to
do with it, instead reciting their mantra about how cyclists
fare-best-when-they-act-and-are-treated-as-drivers-of-vehicles.
(For best results, drone that repetitively, in a monotone.)

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.

=v= Online snot-nosed pedants will, of course, point out that
cars-only highways get a pass because they aren't the "same
roads." I've never quite understood how bike lanes and paths,
which they label "segregated," get them all hot and bothered
and send them off to the Internet, typing up their objections,
but cars-only highways don't bother them in the slightest.

I think it's time to join Critical Mass and participate in
the civil disobedience.

=v= Good idea, though it isn't necessarily civil disobedience.
CM is a monthly celebration of our rights to the road, even
if the VCers (and sometimes the police) don't see it that way.
_Jym_

In article ,
landotter writes:
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.

It's really not such a bad riding environment here, at least
in Vancouver (Proper,) despite the more draconian regulations
about cycling. Enforcement of the MHL and other cycling-related
regs has hitherto been lax. In fact our ridership has been ever
increasing, and I *speculate* therein lies the rub. Vancouver
cyclists have become more of a societally visible presence, while
simultaneously becoming more politically vocal: not only through
participation in CM, but also directly through formal City Hall
channels, supporting (officially sanctioned) events such as Car
Free Days, etc. I consider all this generally a good thing, but
it seems as a consequence it's no longer so easy to "fly under
the radar." We're under scrutiny now.


cheers,
Tom

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

Jym Dyer wrote:
... 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".

=v= Dogmatic adherence to that ideology has rendered that group
ineffective and unpopular. I found the group unbearable when
I lived in Massachusetts, though there are newer members who
have clamored for a more flexible approach to matters based on,
you know, the way things really actually happen in the streets.

Yeah, I got that. Haven't been a dues paying member in a decade, but
participated in their list. Got blown off too many times for suggesting
ideas or questioning dogma. Stopped bothering with it.

=v= You may have heard about a little something called the Big
Dig? Massive boondoggle, gazillions of dollars over budget,
years and years behind schedule, and radically transforming
ground transportation in Boston for at least the next century.
In all that, not a single fraction of a second's thought was
given to bicycles. MassBike saw no need to have anything to
do with it, instead reciting their mantra about how cyclists
fare-best-when-they-act-and-are-treated-as-drivers-of-vehicles.
(For best results, drone that repetitively, in a monotone.)

Yeah, big dig indeed. $15B+ to bury all that old 50's elevated highway &
nobody has a clue what to do with the reclaimed space.

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.

=v= Online snot-nosed pedants will, of course, point out that
cars-only highways get a pass because they aren't the "same
roads." I've never quite understood how bike lanes and paths,
which they label "segregated," get them all hot and bothered
and send them off to the Internet, typing up their objections,
but cars-only highways don't bother them in the slightest.

I think it's time to join Critical Mass and participate in
the civil disobedience.

=v= Good idea, though it isn't necessarily civil disobedience.
CM is a monthly celebration of our rights to the road, even
if the VCers (and sometimes the police) don't see it that way.
_Jym_


That's good enough for me. It took me a while, but with the help of the
good folks at MassBike, I've become radicalized.

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° writes:
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.

Our local constabulary is nevertheless focusing on altering
the behaviour of cyclists, whose behaviour is largely adapted
to, and dictated by, much larger volumes of motorized traffic.

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.

Wayne Pein often gets misinterpreted, too.

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.

Transportation in Vancouver is more about streets than roads.
So the crackdown/wrist-slapping/finger-wagging should be on
all inconsiderate and socially inept ~street~ 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.

Vancouver ain't Copenhagen, nor is it Portland, OR. But
it ~is~ Vancouver, where tempests within our urban "teapot"
have historically abated as quickly as they've arisen.
If our cops remain true to form, they'll enjoy this blitz
of theirs for a month, and then change their focus onto
the next thing -- maybe commercial trucks in poor mechanical
condition. Anything but going after inconsiderate and
socially inept car drivers.

But if they persistently and high-handedly enforce the
cycling regulations, I predict the chow mein's gonna
hit the fan. Especially if they target our plethora
of riders who unlawfully use the sidewalks. But of
course they won't do that, because they'll figure those
riders at least are off the streets and out of the ways
of cars. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donut holes
that many Vancouver cops aren't even aware that
sidewalk riding is generally unlawful in Vancouver.


cheers,
Tom

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

Tom Keats wrote:
But if they persistently and high-handedly enforce the
cycling regulations, I predict the chow mein's gonna
hit the fan. Especially if they target our plethora
of riders who unlawfully use the sidewalks. But of
course they won't do that, because they'll figure those
riders at least are off the streets and out of the ways
of cars. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donut holes
that many Vancouver cops aren't even aware that
sidewalk riding is generally unlawful in Vancouver.


cheers,
Tom

This one sort of hits me now. I was riding on an off road private
sidewalk at my doctors' office to look for a bicycle parking and almost
ran into a guy coming out, bouncing myself off a steel rail and then the
building's stucco, losing some skin before regaining my composure. 50
feet and I have this happen at 3 MPH!!!
He did come out of a blind exit, so this would not happen on a regular
sidewalk, but hey, it got me thinking.

Bill Baka

On May 31, 12:29*pm, Jym Dyer wrote:
... 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".

=v= Dogmatic adherence to that ideology has rendered that group
ineffective and unpopular. *I found the group unbearable when
I lived in Massachusetts, though there are newer members who
have clamored for a more flexible approach to matters based on,
you know, the way things really actually happen in the streets.

Yep. When you generally disagree with a group, it's always helpful to
portray that group as completely monolithic, then misinterpret their
views. Saves lots of difficult "thinking"!

=v= Online snot-nosed pedants...

.... Oh, and call them names while you're at it. Guaranteed to lead to
greater understanding!

will, of course, point out that
cars-only highways get a pass because they aren't the "same
roads."

I'm a vehicular cyclist who's long complained about the fact that
"cars only" roads bisect and segregate cities and reduce
transportation options for non-motorized folks. I was on TV and in
the paper about a month ago, talking about that specific issue. I'm
also a member of a cycling advocacy organization that's trying to get
cyclist access to our freeways. Based on that, I don't know who's
giving that "free pass" you're talking about.

*I've never quite understood how bike lanes and paths,
which they label "segregated," get them all hot and bothered
and send them off to the Internet, typing up their objections,
but cars-only highways don't bother them in the slightest.

After all the discussion we've had in these forums, I'm surprised
anyone still doesn't understand. But to list a few points:

Bike lanes don't add any room that wouldn't be there without the
stripe.

It's been pretty clearly shown that motorists pass cyclists _closer_
when the cyclists are in bike lanes, although many dim bicyclists
believe otherwise.

In many places, bike lanes are run to the right of right turning
vehicles. Fatalities happen there.

Other dangerous bike lanes are ones in door zones, or two-way ones on
one side of the road.

Bike lanes almost always contain much more gravel, trash and broken
glass than the same piece of pavement with no bike lanes.

Many motorists and cyclists get the false idea that cyclists are not
allowed to leave the bike lanes. Even for their own safety. Even to
make a proper left turn. And sometimes, they're correct, since some
states have ridiculous mandatory use laws. (I read of a Portland
employee who was prosecuted for leaving a dangerous, door zone bike
lane!)

I could go on, and do the same for separate parallel paths. Which
parts don't you understand?

- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
Bill Baka writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
But if they persistently and high-handedly enforce the
cycling regulations, I predict the chow mein's gonna
hit the fan. Especially if they target our plethora
of riders who unlawfully use the sidewalks. But of
course they won't do that, because they'll figure those
riders at least are off the streets and out of the ways
of cars. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donut holes
that many Vancouver cops aren't even aware that
sidewalk riding is generally unlawful in Vancouver.


cheers,
Tom

This one sort of hits me now. I was riding on an off road private
sidewalk at my doctors' office to look for a bicycle parking and almost
ran into a guy coming out, bouncing myself off a steel rail and then the
building's stucco, losing some skin before regaining my composure. 50
feet and I have this happen at 3 MPH!!!
He did come out of a blind exit, so this would not happen on a regular
sidewalk, but hey, it got me thinking.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's good.

It's hard to articulate this thought without coming
off as some kind of officious, "thou shalt not"
finger-wagger, but it really is best not to ride
where pedestrian traffic predominates. Better to
dismount and hoof it, and be one of what we /all/
ultimately a pedestrians.

I realize there's a natural impetus to stay on the
bike and keep going, going, going. Maybe it's a
good exercise in self-control a la martial arts to
occasionally decide to dismount and walk.

Lately my urban riding style has been just that.
I enjoy riding to various urban communities and
neighbourhoods, and then walking around them,
savouring all the good stuff they have to offer.
When I'm done, I mount up again and ride off to
the next. I enjoy the best of both cycling and
peripatetic worlds.

So rather than bawlin' ya out for riding on a
pedestrian way, I'm encouraging you (and others)
to combine riding & walking in urban environments.
Riding gets you there, and walking around lets you
drink it all in, on a more intimate level than
possible when blasting through on a vehicle.

On foot you get to notice good & interesting stuff
you might otherwise miss, like cottage industry
shops purveying stuff like amateur astronomy telescopes,
hand-crafted guitars, all kinds of horticulturals,
garage sale junk, or budgies & canaries.

Stucco walls at least teach one to maintain a
straight line.


cheers,
Tom

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

Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
After all the discussion we've had in these forums, I'm surprised
anyone still doesn't understand. But to list a few points:

Bike lanes don't add any room that wouldn't be there without the
stripe.

It's been pretty clearly shown that motorists pass cyclists _closer_
when the cyclists are in bike lanes, although many dim bicyclists
believe otherwise.

In many places, bike lanes are run to the right of right turning
vehicles. Fatalities happen there.

Other dangerous bike lanes are ones in door zones, or two-way ones on
one side of the road.

Bike lanes almost always contain much more gravel, trash and broken
glass than the same piece of pavement with no bike lanes.

Many motorists and cyclists get the false idea that cyclists are not
allowed to leave the bike lanes. Even for their own safety. Even to
make a proper left turn. And sometimes, they're correct, since some
states have ridiculous mandatory use laws. (I read of a Portland
employee who was prosecuted for leaving a dangerous, door zone bike
lane!)
[...]

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner on bicycle farcilities (sic)!

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

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
But if they persistently and high-handedly enforce the
cycling regulations, I predict the chow mein's gonna
hit the fan. Especially if they target our plethora
of riders who unlawfully use the sidewalks. But of
course they won't do that, because they'll figure those
riders at least are off the streets and out of the ways
of cars. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donut holes
that many Vancouver cops aren't even aware that
sidewalk riding is generally unlawful in Vancouver.


cheers,
Tom

This one sort of hits me now. I was riding on an off road private
sidewalk at my doctors' office to look for a bicycle parking and almost
ran into a guy coming out, bouncing myself off a steel rail and then the
building's stucco, losing some skin before regaining my composure. 50
feet and I have this happen at 3 MPH!!!
He did come out of a blind exit, so this would not happen on a regular
sidewalk, but hey, it got me thinking.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's good.

It's hard to articulate this thought without coming
off as some kind of officious, "thou shalt not"
finger-wagger, but it really is best not to ride
where pedestrian traffic predominates. Better to
dismount and hoof it, and be one of what we /all/
ultimately a pedestrians.

I realize there's a natural impetus to stay on the
bike and keep going, going, going. Maybe it's a
good exercise in self-control a la martial arts to
occasionally decide to dismount and walk.

Even if not on the bike I would have ran (I run on sidewalks too) into
him, quite literally. I hate being mundane. Truth be told I would have
slowed to enter the building.

Lately my urban riding style has been just that.
I enjoy riding to various urban communities and
neighbourhoods, and then walking around them,
savouring all the good stuff they have to offer.
When I'm done, I mount up again and ride off to
the next. I enjoy the best of both cycling and
peripatetic worlds.

Why drag the bike with you?? It seems kind of silly to ride it there and
then have to walk it. I just pedal slowly and check out the occasional
yard sale or B.S. with someone about his car.

So rather than bawlin' ya out for riding on a
pedestrian way, I'm encouraging you (and others)
to combine riding & walking in urban environments.
Riding gets you there, and walking around lets you
drink it all in, on a more intimate level than
possible when blasting through on a vehicle.

As I have mentioned I rarely ride or drive in a car unless it is with
someone else who is not inclined to exercise. If I take a long walk I
usually acquire a grandchild or two before I get out of sight of my house.

On foot you get to notice good & interesting stuff
you might otherwise miss, like cottage industry
shops purveying stuff like amateur astronomy telescopes,

I have both a refractor and a larger 'flector, plus about $500 of
lenses, tripods, and camera adapters.

hand-crafted guitars, all kinds of horticulturals,
garage sale junk, or budgies & canaries.

Antique electronics and books will get me every time.

Stucco walls at least teach one to maintain a
straight line.

That they do.


cheers,
Tom

Ditto,
Bill

In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

Lately my urban riding style has been just that.
I enjoy riding to various urban communities and
neighbourhoods, and then walking around them,
savouring all the good stuff they have to offer.
When I'm done, I mount up again and ride off to
the next. I enjoy the best of both cycling and
peripatetic worlds.

Why drag the bike with you?? It seems kind of silly to ride it there and
then have to walk it.

Done right, it's not a matter of "drag". Push the bike
along with one hand on the saddle. It's easy enough
to steer around once you get the hang of it.

It's kinda like walking down the street with your
hand in the back pocket of yer wife's or girlfiend's
[sic] jeans which so reveal her coltish curvatures.
(Nod, nod, wink, wink.)

If you drove a car to those places, you'd have to
park it and probably have to feed a parking meter.

A bike, you get to take along with you, when you
know how to comfortably do so. And then you don't
have to walk back to where you parked it.


cheers again,
Tom


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