Great
idea re setting an example Ann.
Some things we might need clarified by agreement with Police
Services:
-Does the Highway Traffic Act require that we ride single-file in any and all traffic
conditions? I’m sure a lot of police officers would say that,
strictly speaking, we are required to ride single file. Not a lot of fun on a
group ride. I’m also sure that most police officers (OPP and local) would not
enforce this as long as we’re not impeding traffic or otherwise creating
hazards. Do we go by the law or by the way it’s applied?
What
would constitute “impeding traffic”?
-The Highway Traffic Act requires that bikes be ridden “as close as practibale to the right hand curb or edge of the
roadway”. Most Police Services interpret this to mean you can be
far enough out to avoid gutter drains. It would be great if all of us and all
the police officers had the same understanding so we could set that example.
-The HTA also requires that bikes
being overtaken “turn out to the right” to allow the other vehicle
to pass. Does that mean going right to the curb, or
what?
- I can’t find it in the Act right now, but I’m sure the HTA allows a
cyclist to “take the lane” when
safety requires that. Do we have a common understanding of when
safety requires taking the lane? Some would say that includes any time there
is no separate bike lane provided. Most police officers would consider it
permissible only under more specific
circumstances.
-Again, I can’t find in the HTA what
constitutes a full stop by a bicycle? In some jurisdictions you are
required to shift your weight to a foot on the ground. We’ve talked to CK
Police about getting a change in law allowing what’s called the
“Idaho stop”
– that is a rolling stop. CKPS would support that as a
recognition of the cyclist’s need for momentum. In the meantime, what
do we do? Are we all really going to come to a standing stop (track stands
don’t count) at every stop sign?
-Bikes on sidewalks: The
CK bylaw requires that all bikes with wheel circumference greater than 50
cms (just under 20”) stay off sidewalks, but many of
our main streets (Grand, Lacroix, McNaughton, Queen,
Richmond, Keil, Park Ave, etc) are by Ministry of
Transport standards and also in the opinion of many citizens unsafe for bikes.
This may not be an issue for most of us, but would you encourage a
ten-year-old with his new 26” cruiser or granny with her shopping tricycle to
ride in traffic on those streets? On the other hand we have recently had pedestrians iinjured by bike on
sidewalks. We have proposed a new bylaw that would allow bikes on sidewalks on
streets that don’t have cycling-supportive road infrastructure, with
provisions to protect pedestrians sharing the sidewalk. Police Services
accepts this idea as recognition of realities, but Traffic Engineering flatly
rejects it. What do we do?
-Passing too close: A
meter’s clearance (three feet in the
USA) is
generally considered a minimum safe passing clearance for motor vehicles
passing bikes. A private member’s bill was introduced in the
Ontario
legislature a few months ago to make this law in
Ontario, but
like most private member’s bills I think it got lost
in the shuffle. We could all wear jerseys with a logo on the back saying “Give
Me a Meter” with an arrow pointing left (they are available on the internet)
but is Police Services prepared to support that
standard?
You can probably think of other examples that need
clarification.
The official police
position has to be that they enforce the laws they are
given.
That’s
their legislated requirement. Operationally, they expect officers to exercise
judgment in that enforcement. That’s great, but it leaves you subject to the
judgment of whatever officer happens to be on the scene. What is let pass a
hundred times can be called and prosecuted time
101.
We’ll never get rid of all ambiguities in this situation, but we can
clear up misunderstandings and find a lot of common ground by sorting out these questions with Police Services,
and then following Ann’s good suggestion of setting an
example
Regards
John
Sigurjonsson
Member
Services
Cycle
Chatham-Kent
519-352-0883
-----Original
Message-----
From:
ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca [mailto:ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Ann McKenzie
Sent: Friday, July 30,
2010 7:39
PM
To: Chatham-Kent Commmunity Cycling
Group
Subject: Re: [CKcycle]
Moving Forward.
I'd like to suggest that
we can move the educational process along ourselves. We can be proactive
by setting an example for our fellow cyclist and motorist. We are a very
visible presence in our community, going out in numbers as high as 30,
sometimes more. We have the opportunity to teach by example. By
being consistent in how we conduct ourselves on the road, weither we are in a
group or cycling on our own , can educate the public. And we can do it
without red tape.
Follow the rules of the
road, consistently. People will learn far more by seeing the process in
action then they will ever learn from a poster. Public Education,by the
city, wll eventually catch up with us. Unless we can ride faster
:)
From: James
Lively <jalively@cogeco.ca>
To: ckcycle@lists.ncf.ca
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 10:02:50
AM
Subject: [CKcycle] Moving
Forward.
Which came first, the chicken
or the egg? Because this is the discussion
we're having.
Do we need bike
lanes, do we need bike racks, do we need education? Yes, yes
and yes but
which should come first?
And it all depends on the rider and their
purpose.
For the Active Transportation cyclist, safe and secure parking is
essential.
However, if the rider doesn't feel safe on the road, the racks
will go
unused as no one will ride. Likewise, if the rider can't find a
safe and
secure place to park, the lanes won't get used.
John,
despite you assertions about where the Tues, Weds, Sun groups ride,
many of
us ride to and from the departure point through the urban setting,
as well
as riding to and from work. Doesn't this constitute AT? Likewise
our
recreational routes take us through the urban setting, for example the
full
length of King Street. So when it comes to roadways, there is no
distinction
between an active transportation cyclist and a recreational
cyclist. Why
we're riding on the road is irrelevant. The fact is we're
there and we have
to provide for everyone's safety, pedestrian, cyclist and
motorist.
And in all of this education, for cyclist and motorist alike
is essential.
Maybe the ACSC has been a little slow in getting this of the
ground, but
we're also dealing with funding issues requiring us to get
approval from
City Council before we spend any funds. The large displays
are just the
start of the education process. But I would ask that in your
conversations
with CKPS, you ask them to be part of this process. If they
see a cyclist
disobeying the traffic rules, they should stop and educate
them. Maybe in a
few months, they could then start issuing tickets. The
same scenario as the
cell phone ban. I know people still use them while
driving, and many
cyclists will continue to disobey the rules, but that
shouldn't be an excuse
for doing nothing. And if they see someone riding
wreaklessly, on the road
or sidewalk putting others in danger, no
questions, issue the ticket.
And finally, as I have pointed out many a
time, the comparison with Europe
is comparing apples to cabbages. When gas
hits $3/litre, when the annual
road tax hits $500 (that's what my
father-in-law just paid in the UK), when
it takes 1 hour to travel the full
length of Lacroix, Sandy's, Orangewood
because of traffic congestion, when
parking is at a premium due to lack of
space then you'll have a fair
comparison. If you look at Canada's major
cities which are investing
heavily to encourage cycling as an alternative;
Toronto, Montreal,
Vancouver, you see that the last two issues, congestion
and lack of parking
are the case.
And fixing Chatham-Kent is going to take time. We're 10
to 20 years behind,
we're not going to fix it in 10 weeks. You know the
plan is a 20 year plan.
Now we've started, we've got to keep moving
forward. Arguing which should
have come first, the chicken or the egg, is
not the way to do it!
Discussing what comes next, bearing in mind everyone
has a different opinion
for different reasons and respecting those
opinions, is.
James.
-----Original Message-----
From: ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca]
On
Behalf Of Daniel Brousseau
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:32 PM
To:
Chatham-Kent Commmunity Cycling Group
Subject: Re: [CKcycle] pull up
display
John,
Sorry to say but I don't agree with all your
statements...
As stated in the meeting where Matt, James and I where...
a Bike Rack is
the least of the riders concerns. It's all about education
as with no
education they won't come out.
The police department here in
Chatham is just a joke in their dealing
with the rules of the road with
cyclists and cars...
The LAWS are there already in place to enforce
SAFE Cycling but they
just opt to ignore them and only enforce them at
their discretion.
Also note that our Sunday/Wednesday rides do not
consist of just
starting and leaving from one location... we do stop at
various
locations and sometimes leave our bikes leaning against a wall.
This
does not stop us cause there is no bike racks.
So again, Bike
Racks & Bike Lanes/Paths will not get more people out if
they feel
unsafe to even be on the road/sidewalk(Kids Only) so they can
get to them.
Don't forget there are MANY EMPTY Bike Racks here in the
Chatham area. So
putting more in won't help on getting more cyclists
out.
Also this
discussion is about the poster in it self and where they
should be placed.
This is where the Cyclist of this group come into play
as you would be
surprised how many also cycle as a mode of
transportation but also drive a
vehicle. So we know both side of the
coin on this topic.
I know John
you have this great envision of what Chatham-Kent should
turn into but it
won't happen over night. That is why Education is your
most important
factor in this planing... Mostly when your local police
force is just a
farce on enforcement of the Moving Violations.
When I got pulled over
on Grand Ave early summer for "Going to fast"
then changed to "Taking to
much room on the road". I was hopping he
would try and fine me... this way
it would of been a foot in the door to
show them local officers that the
law is the law and can't just apply it
at their discretion.
Yes it
can take as much time to fine a cyclist just as a automotive
driver... but
still the rules are the same for both.
Same Roads, Same Rules, Same
Rights
John Sigurjonsson wrote:
Some super ideas in this
discussion of driver/rider education and its
great to see CK Cycle
Community take an interest in cycling advocacy.
There is unspent budget
from a grant for the educational program in 2010
so a lot of ideas are
affordable this year but may not be next year.
When considering what
should be done to promote cycling in Chatham-Kent
be aware that the primary
community benefit from Active Transportation
comes from replacing motorized
trips with people-powered trips. So the
ACSC needs to create conditions
that attract cyclists ranging from the
ten year old commuting to school
(instead of being Chauffeured by mom)
to granny with her shopping tricycle.
These cyclists are very different
from the average member of ckcycle. For
example:
Their cycle routes are
urban, not the rural roaming ckcycle
does on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings
and Sunday mornings..
The
purpose of their trip is utilitarian - get from A to B
to work, shop, play,
etc.. They enjoy the ride but the primary purpose
of the ride isn't
recreational. So they want direct routes to their
destination without
having to make detours to find low-traffic routes.
They are not comfortable in traffic. They need bike lanes
or
paths separated from motor vehicles. We're trying to get those
built.
They need end-of-trip
facilities (e.g. secure bike racks).
It might be nice if your Sunday
breakfast stop had decent secure racks,
but otherwise it's probably not an
issue for your recreational rides
that basically begin and end at home. For
utilitarian riders who are
going to park the bike where they work, shop,
play tennis, attend
classes etc secure parking is an issue.
If these
folks in Chatham made the same percentage of their trips by
bike as is done
in some European cities, we would have about 10,000
bikes on Chatham
streets at rush hours. Wouldn't that be something to
see!
Regards
John Sigurjonsson
Member Services
Cycle
Chatham-Kent
519-352-0883
-----Original Message-----
From: ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ckcycle-bounces@lists.ncf.ca]
On
Behalf Of Josette deBrouwer
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:27 PM
To:
Chatham-Kent Commmunity Cycling Group
Subject: Re: [CKcycle] pull up
display
They should be visible at all municipal info centres and other
municipal
properties, especially arenas. Also, how about the drivers
licence
bureau (whatever that is called) and car dealerships? Like Geoff, I
had
three incidents on one ride along hwy 3 west of Blenheim on Sunday.
Not
fun.
On 10-07-26 4:12 PM, "James Lively" <jalively@cogeco.ca> wrote:
As we
were riding along on Sunday, I was asked about the bike signs on
the roads.
Here's the first information going out to the public. Let me
know what you
think as this is a first go, and I'll take your comments
back to the Active
Communities Committee.
Thanks
James.
Hello everyone.
This pull up display (x2) will be placed in the
Wallaceburg and Chatham
Libraries for the month of August. (a bit too
large for the other
Libraries), then they can be relocated elsewhere as
needed. There
will also be a similar, accompanying poster on the wall -
with the
informational tear off sheets. Please advise if anything needs
to be
changed. We wanted to keep it light(meaning not too many words)
-
focused on the Share the Road and the two different road signs. It
is
intended for an adult audience.
_____
_______________________________________________
CKcycle mailing
list
CKcycle@lists.ncf.ca
http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle
_____
_______________________________________________
CKcycle
mailing list
CKcycle@lists.ncf.ca
http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ncf.ca/pipermail/ckcycle/attachments/20100729/471745d7/attachm
ent.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CKcycle
mailing list
CKcycle@lists.ncf.ca
http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle
End
of CKcycle Digest, Vol 13, Issue
34
***************************************
_______________________________________________
CKcycle
mailing list
CKcycle@lists.ncf.ca
http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle