Re: [CKcycle] Moving Forward.

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(a)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. Well Written James: Moving Forward.... So what can we do? 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 :) Ann _____ From: James Lively <jalively(a)cogeco.ca&gt; To: ckcycle(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)cogeco.ca&gt; 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(a)lists.ncf.ca http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle _____ _______________________________________________ CKcycle mailing list CKcycle(a)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/att achm ent.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CKcycle mailing list CKcycle(a)lists.ncf.ca http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle End of CKcycle Digest, Vol 13, Issue 34 *************************************** _______________________________________________ CKcycle mailing list CKcycle(a)lists.ncf.ca http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ckcycle