11042 replies to this topic

[rjag]

I reiterate comments I made earlier, I have no problem with bikes but in our region we need to solve the larger problem of housing affordability and density. If someone lives in the Cook St Village and works downtown and their kids go to school at Margaret Jenkins, then I can see a compelling argument that walking and biking would work for them as the majority of the commute is less than 5km and relatively flat.

However when the young couple that wants to own real estate can only afford to buy a house in Langford and one partner works downtown and the other works at the Ferry terminal then I would imagine that cycling doesnt quite work for them.

There is no square peg to fit in this hole....for some bikes work great and for others not so much. I would imagine that the vast majority of folks fall under the second category. There has to be allowances for bike paths and trails and bike lanes....but do we inconvenience 100 vehicle commuters and spend millions of taxpayer $'s for the sake of 1 cyclist in the hope that this can be increased by 2 or 3 more?

I think there are reasonable arguments to look at improving cycling infrastructure throughout the region and a regional strategy and approach should be made so that they all link up but people drive cars and they should also have a say

[Benezet]

Here's a link to section 183, for your bookmarking convenience:

http://www.bclaws.ca....xml#section183


Parts 1 and 2 certainly have lots of food for thought.......

183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.

(2) A person operating a cycle
(a) must not ride on a sidewalk unless authorized by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
(b) must not, for the purpose of crossing a highway, ride on a crosswalk unless authorized to do so by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,
© must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,
(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,
(e) must keep at least one hand on the handlebars,
(f) must not ride other than on or astride a regular seat of the cycle,
(g) must not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped, and
(h) must not ride a cycle on a highway where signs prohibit their use.

[SamCB]

Here's a thought. Instead of the (pro bike+anti car) folks chastising us car drivers for choosing to drive around instead of biking around and insisting that the city dump millions of dollars into cycling infrastructure that both makes it easier for cyclists and harder for drivers to move about, why not move to a place that already has communities built around biking?

Instead of moving to a city and trying to make it what you want it to be, move to a city that is already set up for the lifestyle you want to have.

They already have. Victoria is widely regarded as one of the best cycling cities in Canada. It regularly comes out on top of 'most bikeable city in Canada'-type lists.

[sebberry]

Well, there you go then. What's there to complain about? Waging war on the car for the sake of waging war isn't a good way to get car drivers to support the cyclist's cause.

[Bingo]

Ditto

[Hotel Mike]

Unfortunately many of our local politicians and traffic planners hate cars. If you were to suggest to them that moving cars as efficiently as possible should be a goal, they would scoff. If there is a way to make driving more of a chore, they will do so...simply because they want to see bicycling proliferate, and they want to punish drivers. And in doing so, they actually cause more air pollution, the reduction of which is their stated goal. Go figure!

It's become almost a madness. And those of us of good will towards cycling, such as Rjag, Seb, Bingo,myself and others, are turned off by the vitriol directed towards drivers. The Galloping Goose is fantastic! Let's build more separated bike trails and paths, when our budget allows. But let's not make motorists suffer, just because you can.

[Bob Fugger]

183.2© "must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,"

LOL, I read and re-read that section at least three times and I swear I didn't see it! And I read legislation - specifically, the MVA - for a living. Wow, I suck!

I guess I have no choice but to resign when I get back to work after summer vacation.

[jklymak]

LOL, I read and re-read that section at least three times and I swear I didn't see it! And I read legislation - specifically, the MVA - for a living. Wow, I suck!

I guess I have no choice but to resign when I get back to work after summer vacation.

Well, if one is on vacation...

I'd be curious to know how "as practical" is interpreted in case law...

[Dimitrios]

It's become almost a madness. And those of us of good will towards cycling, such as Rjag, Seb, Bingo,myself and others, are turned off by the vitriol directed towards drivers. The Galloping Goose is fantastic! Let's build more separated bike trails and paths, when our budget allows. But let's not make motorists suffer, just because you can.

I agree. This is my problem with the whole protest movement (Occupy, most political protests, striking workers, etc.). The rhetoric quickly turns the issue into a war - us vs them, with us or against us, the 'other' is demonized, etc. No one is convinced of anything, and instead existing positions become more entrenched and we all look like snitty children.

Instead, I say - join us! We're having fun, we're feeling healthy,not depleting energy resources, saving money. You can too! Of course most cyclists have cars and understand the tradeoffs. I wish they were all polite to drivers whenever possible, as that certainly makes a better case for change than a swear word or yelling (but sometimes it's hard when your safety is threatened).

And as great as Victoria is for cycling, well, the quick transition won't work for everyone. If you've bought a place in Cobble Hill and drive downtown every day, and haven't been on a bike in 20 years, you're not going to suddenly become a daily bike commuter. But for others for whom the distances aren't that great, or who already have a decent bike, maybe they could start with one day a week doing a 'park & bike', or whatever works for their situation. I do think the cities of greater Vic. could be thinking out of the box a bit more with this stuff. The end result is undeniably great, but the transition is tricky for many.

[Barra]

Driving hme this afternoon along Wharf St ahead of me I see a low slung something or other with a dog running along on each side When I got close I realized that it was a recumbent bike - a very low one - buddy is pedaling along with big ear muff ear phones on, holding a leashed dog on each side. I gave him lots of clearance and hoped that other drivers would be equally careful. What an idiot. Presumably he loves his dogs (looked like pit bulls) so why would he risk their safety by running them in busy traffic?

[SamCB]

Driving hme this afternoon along Wharf St ahead of me I see a low slung something or other with a dog running along on each side When I got close I realized that it was a recumbent bike - a very low one - buddy is pedaling along with big ear muff ear phones on, holding a leashed dog on each side. I gave him lots of clearance and hoped that other drivers would be equally careful. What an idiot. Presumably he loves his dogs (looked like pit bulls) so why would he risk their safety by running them in busy traffic?

Presumably because it's his right.
hmm, video's not embedding. Here it is
http://youtu.be/V3nMnr8ZirI

[Sparky]

^ That was very funny. Thanks for that.

[weirdie]

Here's a link to section 183, for your bookmarking convenience:

Motor Vehicle Act


Parts 1 and 2 certainly have lots of food for thought.......

183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.

(2) A person operating a cycle
(a) must not ride on a sidewalk unless authorized by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,

(14) A person must not operate a cycle
(a) on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(b) on a sidewalk without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the sidewalk.

I've always found the contradiction in this section of the MVA to be amusing. Does anyone know if you can be ticketed for riding on the sidewalk, and if so, how much?

[Sparky]

City of Victoria bylaw, not part of the MVA

Bicycles on sidewalks, bicycle helmets

114 (1) In this section, "bicycle safety helmet" means a helmet that

(a) is designated as an approved bicycle safety helmet under section 184 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, or
(b) meets the standards and specifications prescribed under section 184 of
the Motor Vehicle Act.

This bylaw may or may not contain the latest amendment(s). It is provided for convenience only and should not be used in place of
the actual bylaw. The latest version can be obtained from Legislative Services, City Hall, (250) 361-0571.
6 1

(2) A person must not ride or operate a bicycle on or across
(a) a sidewalk, or
(b) a street or path in a public place where signs are displayed stating that
the street or path is for pedestrian traffic only.


The fine is listed in schedule X and it varies depending on when you pay it.

Ride/operate bicycle in
unauthorized area
12(1)(n) $125.00 $75.00 ($75 if you pay it in 30 days)

[Nparker]

OMG! The city of Victoria could retire its debt in about a week if it enforced the fines for riding bikes on sidewalks.

[jklymak]

(14) A person must not operate a cycle
(a) on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(b) on a sidewalk without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the sidewalk.

I've always found the contradiction in this section of the MVA to be amusing. Does anyone know if you can be ticketed for riding on the sidewalk, and if so, how much?

Which motor vehicle act is that from. Certainly not the BC one:

Change of address or name
14 (1) If the address of the owner of a vehicle licensed under this Act is changed from the address stated in the application on which the licence was issued or as shown on the licence, the owner must, within 10 days of the change of address, notify the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in writing or by some other means approved by the corporation of the owner's old and new address.

(2) In case of a change of name, by marriage or otherwise, of the owner of a vehicle licensed under this Act, the owner must within 10 days notify the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in writing of the former name and the new name in full.

[weirdie]

Which motor vehicle act is that from. Certainly not the BC one:

It came from MVA in the link I quoted.

[weirdie]

OMG! The city of Victoria could retire its debt in about a week if it enforced the fines for riding bikes on sidewalks.

Personally, I don't have a problem with cyclists riding on the sidewalk short distances and in situations where it would be more hazardous to ride on the road (some portions of Bay and most of Shelbourne) provided that the cyclist a) go slowly b) yield the right of way to pedestrians and c) just don't be a jerk about it.

[Dimitrios]

Personally, I don't have a problem with cyclists riding on the sidewalk short distances and in situations where it would be more hazardous to ride on the road (some portions of Bay and most of Shelbourne) provided that the cyclist a) go slowly b) yield the right of way to pedestrians and c) just don't be a jerk about it.

Agreed. Sidewalks are where pedestrians should have right of way. Of course, there are many sidewalks or times of day where no pedestrians are to be found, and it is silly to restrict cycling in these places/times, as it can be safer and less disruptive. I find going up hills to be a time when I often prefer to bike on the sidewalk (assuming it is clear), as the speed difference with vehicle traffic is just too great. Going north on Cook from Hillside is one place where I'm often on the sidewalk for a couple of blocks.

[Bob Fugger]

Which motor vehicle act is that from. Certainly not the BC one:

It is actually from the MVA: the correct citation is s.183(14)(b) - not s.14(b). It's interesting in that MVA, as written, does allow for one to ride their bicycle on the sidewalk, provided it is with due care and attention. However, one would by contravening a municipal bylaw (in Victoria) if one rode their bicycle on the sidewalk and was caught by a bylaw officer...or even a police officer. To carry it further, if one was issued a Violation Ticket for a contravention of MVA s.183(14)(b) and NOT the municipal bylaw, the burden of proof is on the enforcement officer to prove that you were riding on the sidewalk with undue care, rather than merely being on there (the municipal threshold).