Important piece on cycling in the Sun by Kelly Sinoski: Cyclists try to veer away from their collision course with drivers
Including something I didn’t realize:
Cyclists are expected to stay close to the right-hand curb yet aren’t technically allowed to pass on the right.
This causes a lot of confusion … while one of the biggest threats to cyclists comes from drivers turning right while the cyclists are going straight ahead.
A dilemma created when cyclists and drivers are thrown in together. What is everyone – cyclist and driver – supposed to do that’s realistic?
In street design, ambiguity kills. Streets must be completed in order avoid these conflicts. In these days of youtube and google maps, ignorance is no excuse: copy street designs from cities without this problem. Every child that dies on Vancouver’s streets is the victim of a poor engineering decision.
As for what to do now that’s realistic? Cyclists are supposed to travel as far to the right “as is safe”: in my mind that means a good three or four feet from the curb, taking the lane. Drivers, like all citizens, are supposed not to kill people. Check your mirrors before turning right. Lose your license if you prove unable to control a deadly vehicle.
I really disliked this article for its confusion of sport and transport cycling, and its insistence of equal responsibility between a 2000 pound car and a 200 pound pedestrian/cyclist.
Also, what was the news?
As usual, I find the Sun article refers to bad cyclist habits far more often than bad motorist habits – slant-by-omission in my opinion. However, at least it’s coverage I suppose.
As for the subjects raised, or not raised:
Approaching intersections, I often take the centre of the lane to prevent people from trying to pass, either to turn right or to jump past cars on the left. As far as I’m concerned, this is legal in that I am riding “as far to the right as is practicable”, as I believe the law directs. Practicability is somewhat subjective, but as long as safety, and not simply obnoxious entitlement, is the goal I find it hard to believe that a judge would disagree with it (and I’ve been clipped by mirrors often enough to find this a justifiable action). I also take the lane away from intersections when it is less likely due to lane width that I can be passed safely.
I’d dispute this accepted idea of “traffic calming.” Switching to a different kind of frenzy is more like it. I still see cars and cyclists go the wrong way around traffic circles frequently. Many seem to race into the circles in order to ensure being the first in, which sort of defeats the purpose. And then there’s this 30km/h speed limit on bike routes. I think this is a complete waste of money which would be better spent on structural impediments than signs that will be ignored and laws that can’t possibly be enforced. If speeds cannot be enforced in any meaningful way on any other streets in the city (including school and playground zones), why will a slower limit make any difference on a bikeway? All this is doing is further criminalising all civic behaviour. No lives will be saved – rather, it will make it easier for authorities to assign culpability *after* a death or injury. Surely we can do better than that?
And, they can’t really be seriously considering a traffic light at Union and Hawkes? It’s a three-way intersection on quiet streets with very little car traffic. If pedestrian safety is an issue, spend the money removing that tiny mini-park that has no neighbourhood function beyond greenery and make it a regular intersection. If they feel compelled to spend money on a traffic light, put one at Adanac and Renfrew where trying to cross Renfrew is a far more death-defying adventure.
I’m going to post twice, once with the legalese and again with how I apply it. Full disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and these are my opinions and interpretations, not those of my employer.
The quote is an oversimplification, the BC MVA clauses are:
(Cyclists keep right)
183.2.c must…ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway
(Don’t pass on right: applies to everyone)
158 (1) The driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle, except
(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn,
(b) when on a laned roadway there is one or more than one unobstructed lane on the side of the roadway on which the driver is permitted to drive, or
(c) on a one way street or a highway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and is of sufficient width for 2 or more lanes of moving vehicles.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05
—–
The cyclists keep right clause is troublesome, in that there is no definition of what constitutes “practicable.” For example the BikeSense manual (but note that this is not official legal documentation):
“If there is no shoulder or bike lane and the curb lane is narrow (i.e. when the right wheel track of most traffic is less than a metre from the curb), cyclists may choose to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it. This can be safer than riding near the curb, which may encourage motorists to squeeze by where there is not sufficient room. You should also consider taking the lane when you are travelling at the same speed as other traffic.
…
It is important to know that there is currently no concrete legal definition of ‘as near as practicable to the right side of the highway’, so the cyclist should use discretion to decide whether to take the lane or how far to the right to ride. It is often safer to ride in the manner detailed in this guide. However, this issue is still undecided and it is possible that a police officer could issue you a ticket. ”
http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/ch4.htm
—-
In other jurisdictions, like California, you will see it spelled out. To whit, CVC 21202:
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
—–
ICBC’s driver handbook does, however, cover some of the same ground, which I understand to be commonly read into the law:
• Be aware that cyclists don’t always stay on the right. To make a left turn, for instance, they need to move over to the left lane. If the lane is narrow, or if there is glass or a pothole on the right, a cyclist has the right to move out toward the middle for safety.
Further instructions to drivers include “On a multi-lane road, change lanes rather than risk crowding the cyclist.” and a diagram showing passing with an arrow marked “at least 1 metre.”
http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/Getting-licensed/drivers6.pdf page 86
So let’s put this into practice, just to illustrate how confusing it is to ride safely and legally, even and especially if you obsess over the tiny details. I’m letting this be hilariously long to try to prove my point.
On my daily commute, I ride eastbound on Robson, and westbound on Smithe.
This is certainly not the only interpretation, and people who don’t like sprinting up to 30 kmh only to slam on the brakes every other block (i.e. wasting energy like you were in a car) aren’t necessarily going to find this comfortable.
—
1) Until just past Thurlow, Robson has a parking ban in the curb lane during peak hours. Since the lane is only ten feet, it is impossible to ride a metre from the curb, leave a metre for my handle bars, and be passed by another metre – that’s the entire lane! In other words, I take the lane.
Is this “as far right as practicable?” Sure better be. Note that if I were to pass a car on the right here (it happens sometimes), I would be fine because I am in a separate lane.
—
2) At Thurlow, there are loading zones, taxi stands, etc. that obstruct the curb lane. If you observe the door zone at all, it doesn’t even take a metre before you’re riding along the dotted white line. By my reading of the letter of the law, wavering back and forth across this line is technically changing lanes and requires signalling. It’s also not a great place to be, because the space available for (2) when a car door open isn’t any larger than for (1). Following the same logic, then, I change lanes to the only remaining lane and take it. Luckily the timing of the lights does not make this terribly uncomfortable.
Is this “as far right as practicable?” This is less clear, but I am far more scared to ride otherwise than of other potential interpretations the law. Note that if I were to pass a car on the right here (which would mean I was not taking the lane), it probably wouldn’t fall under the same 158 (1) (b) because there isn’t a clear second lane to use. It’s not much more dangerous than being passed by a car if you’re between intersections, but if you’re at an intersection, you’re just asking for a right hook.
—
3) Through Robson Square there’s only a single lane, making it a combination of (1) and (2). Take the lane.
—
4) Approaching Seymour there are two clear lanes. However, there are always parked cars in the curb lane on the other side. Driving a car, the law is clear: use the left lane, unless there is a car stuck turning left, in which case pass with care and return to the left lane (so as not to run into the parked cars).
Is this (using the left lane if there’s no turning traffic) “as far right as practicable?” Good question. It’s the only way to end up taking the lane on a section that operates like (2) without changing lanes in the intersection – not actually illegal by the way. My rule of thumb is that “as far right as practicable” gets mentally stacked on top of all the other laws and predictability considerations, so yes.
—
5) From Seymour to Beatty, there is almost always at least one parked car per block. This is where is gets dicey, and is usually a judgement call. If there’s tons of room in the right lane I’ll sometimes move over, but because the lights are timed to hit reds the whole way down, I always end up right behind the car that passed me. If you don’t have the patience not to pass them back (and thereby violate MVA 183), you’re playing a dangerous game, my friend.
Taking the left lane here is actually kind to drivers, though they may not see it, since it lets them make right turns on red as if I weren’t there at all.
Troublingly, I will sometimes be passed on my right by drivers even where there’s a car parked in the curb lane immediately past the intersection – and this means they practically have to jump the light because I accelerate faster than cars ordinarily do for at least as long as it takes to get through the intersection. MVA 183, folks, it applies to you too.
—
Going to have to come back to Smithe, the mind games are even more ridiculous when typed out fully. This is all just to try to do the right thing!
Brian,
If your goal is to be kind to motorists, try this approach for 5. If you are first person to the intersection, stop a car length from the line, right by the curb, to let people past. Once the left lane begins filling up, move up to the line in the centre of the right lane. If there was already a car in the left lane, simply move up to the line in the centre of the right lane immediately. If a motorist approaches with the right-turn signal on, move over to the left to let that car turn and then return to your previous position. Repeat as needed until the signal is about to turn green. At that point, stay in the centre of the right lane until you can proceed.
I might understand this where there are two clear lanes, but (5) always has some number of parked cars in the curb lane ahead, so that’s not where I’m ultimately going to want to be anyway.
It also seems that there’s a lot of moving about in what you’re suggesting, and frankly while I might be willing to try to make it work every once in a while, this might be a bit of a bad precedent to set. The cynical part of my brain is also thinking that letting a right turner through in this situation is just going to eliminate that nice cushion it would otherwise created by holding up traffic behind it.
I have been known to stay to the left while waiting in a wide curb lane though.
Glad (?) to see I’m not the only one to obsess over this. And hey, part of the issue is that there’s no right answer here – what works for me and what works for you are going to be different, but on the other hand they’re both awkward in one way or another.
Finally, to Smithe, starting from the Cambie Bridge (which is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish since it’s not clear whether the multi-use path ends at the crosswalk across Pacific, the change from concrete (bridge) to asphalt (sidewalk??), or somewhere in between because there just aren’t any signs.
—
6) Between Pacific and Beatty, there are four general lanes and a bike lane on the right. This bike lane is purely to connect to Beatty, because the space for one disappears on the other side of Beatty. If you want to continue up Smithe, you either change lanes in the intersection (not really a great idea, but arguably the letter of the law as long as you’re not “cutting off” a car), or, more likely, get out of the lane early because it’s plugged with cars turning right anyway.
If the cars follow the law and pull into the bike lane to make their right, there’s room to pass them on the left in what’s left of that right hand general lane. If they do what seems like the right thing to do and avoid the bike lane like the plague, chances are there’s no way to safely get around them, so time to wait. Sadly, they invite people to try to pass them on the right, which is a terrible idea legally and safety-wise (luckily the concepts are in sync here).
—
7) Between Beatty and somewhere around Richards, there are four clear lanes. There’s often a bus crawling up the hill until Cambie, and cars flying over into every alley and cross street to the right. Taking the lane isn’t comfortable, but it isn’t any wider than (1) and full of potholes. I feel sorry for those who don’t have the legs to make a decent pace up the hill, but hugging the curb isn’t a great option either.
—
8) At around Richards it gets dicey because the parked cars start showing up. Worse yet, at Seymour there are a horde of cars in the second lane from the right (to get around the parked cars) that swing over to make the right turn onto Seymour. If you ride up the clear curb lane up to Richards, you either have to try to cut into that horde of cars to find a lane to take, or squeeze next to the parked cars (which seems “polite”) only to have to dodge the right hooks.
It’s actually so bad that I’ll sometimes change over to the second lane /from the left/ here, simply because it’s less used up until around Granville. It’s also, and I’ll get to this, the lane that you legally need to be in to cross Burrard. I can generally keep up with traffic with the help of congestion and light changes, but safe and legal or not, it’s not for the faint-of-heart. I’m fast enough to have never been honked at, since I’m never in anyone’s way (law or no law).
—
9) By around Granville, even if I’m in the second land from the right, I’m starting to panic about getting over in preparation for crossing Burrard. Woe betide you if you’re still in the curb lane at Hornby, which is a forced right turn – let alone “sharing” the curb lane – or what replaces it as the curb lane at Burrard.
Wide as that curb lane at Burrard might be, it’s a right turn lane. Not only does this mean that you shouldn’t be riding down the right side of the lane (right hook by turning cars), you shouldn’t be riding down the left or centre either if you’re planning to go straight through, since, well, it’s a right turn lane. Doesn’t matter how inviting it looks, there’s case law that will help find you liable in a collison.
But, and here’s the tricky bit, all the non-legal logic in the world is going to tell you that there’s plenty of pavement over there to avoid having to squeeze in with the drivers. That’s likely what the drivers are thinking if you do anything else, and let’s be realistic – most cyclists are going to continue in the curb lane because…
—
10) …past Burrard the lane is finally wide enough to share comfortably. For the first third of the block, it’s relatively fine, as cars are usually still moving and you’re not passing them on the right. By the middle third of the block, the cars are often backed up, but there’s a second lane worth of pavement, which I’ve seen confused or anti-social drivers try to use to cut ahead in – but there’s no problem if you’re on a bike. By the last third of the block, though, it tightens up significantly.
So here’s the question: do you
a) try to merge in with the cars at some point, making nobody happy
b) stay to the right of the cars, but follow one interpretation of the letter of the law and stop when the cars are stopped, even if there’s room to ride, or
c) go with 158 (1) (a) and pass them on the right because legally they need to make a left turn at Thurlow
—
What if it’s not a forced left, though? Can we really expect cyclists to both take whatever scrap of pavement is available to the right side of the lane, and then not use it just because the car they’re playing leapfrog with is stuck in traffic?
Picture riding along in a fourteen or so foot lane. Car to your left is taking up nine feet or so, and cruising along nicely. Probably didn’t even feel the need to move over when they passed you. Traffic slows down, then stops. You, following the “no passing on the right” to the letter, then do what? Stop immediately even with clear pavement ahead?
Gordon asks, “What is everyone – cyclist and driver – supposed to do that’s realistic?” I’m not sure that “supposed to” and “realistic” are compatible here.
—
Disclaimer addendum: this makes me sound like a vehicular cyclist (by content as much as the volume), which I don’t want to be. I just ride like this when it’s the only safe and sane way.
And back to Gordon’s question: this doesn’t meet the realistic test if your definition of realistic includes comfortable. Yet it’s what our roads and laws often asks of us.
Sorry for clogging your blog, Gord.
Edward, cyclists and pedestrian advocates have been pushing for a 30 km/h speed on many auto routes. Why would you want to raise this for cyclists? A cyclist colliding with a pedestrian at above that can do some serious damage to both. Case in point: my walks take me frequently along Ontario between 20th and 16th. Cyclists come screaming down that hill northbound where it doglegs around the small park at 18th. I’m surprised nobody has been killed yet.
I see a lot of cyclists trying to follow the lane markers beside parked cars on arterials. This position is dangerous for a few reasons, and I vaguely recall that case law makes drivers not liable for hitting cyclists who are riding between lanes. The second lane is not wide enough for both a bicycle and a car. So as far as I’m aware, the right-most practicable position for a cyclist going straight on an arterial with parking is the middle of the right-most travel lane.
I see a lot of cyclists acting like a pedestrian and using two crosswalks for left turns. They do this because it seems safe compared to the hook turn, and it saves a light cycle of waiting. In practice, the hook turn is often blocked by cars turning right on red or stopped in front of the stop line, making that option dangerous. In general, cyclists in Vancouver are forced to make a decision between safe and legal depending on traffic conditions whenever they make a left turn on a busy street. In the Netherlands, left turns are incorporated into the road/cycle path design and the cyclist does the obvious thing.
I see a lot of cars parked within 9 metres of intersections or 6 metres from sidewalks at intersections. These illegally stopped/parked cars reduce visibility and make cycling on bikeways either dangerous or slow, which pushes time-sensitive, safety-conscious cyclists onto the arterials. This is especially a problem at intersections with roundabouts.
I would love to see any record of the case law you refer to. I could see how it might be legally akin to lane splitting in BC* (in that it’s not explicitly illegal in the MVA, but rumor has it you can be nailed essentially for the infinite lane changes riding down the line entails), but this certainly isn’t the common understanding.
*That’s a trick I had to leave behind in California.
If riding in that position is indeed illegal, it would seem there’s no alternative but taking the next lane over.
Here’s a link to a blog about it:
http://momentummag.com/articles/neither-here-nor-there
From the blog:
“The court found fault with the cyclist for ‘riding between what were effectively two lanes of travel before entering the Laurel Drive intersection.’ The Court of Appeal held that the Motor Vehicle Act did not authorize the cyclist to ride between two lanes of traffic and, thereby, that he had dangerously positioned himself alongside a vehicle to his left. The court stated:
‘This case does not mandate that a cyclist must always take the lane when proceeding through an intersection. Given the idiosyncrasies of this roadway and its traffic patterns, the court found that once the cyclist moved from a position as near to the right as practicable, he needed to then establish himself in a lane so as to avoid the inherent danger of being neither here nor there on the roadway.'”
My interpretation is that the cyclist needs to be in a lane, either sharing it or in the middle of it, but not on the lane markings.
That’s actually the case I was trying to find, but I was going to use it to remind people that the appropriate lane to take isn’t necessarily the right hand lane, if the right hand lane is a turn lane, etc.
It definitely speaks to the dangers of lane splitting; however, I’m hesitant to conclude that they’re the same thing because there’s nothing in the MVA that really clarifies what the status of a lane is when it has parked cars in it. Is it still technically a second lane (in which case yes, I could see that as being lane splitting of a sort) or is it just folded in with the remaining drive lane?
None of this changes where the safe place is to ride, but legally in terms of taking the lane permitted vs. required…
@Bob, it’s not that I want to raise it for cyclists, or anyone else, but that I see no point in going to the expense of signing a reduced speed in the first place, if the speed isn’t going to be enforced in any significant way as to cause a general obedience of the law. If citizens aren’t willing to obey speed limits, and police are unable to enforce them beyond occasional blitzes that cause no significant change in behaviour (as is the case on every other type of roadway in town), then we’re wasting money reproducing a failed model on bike routes. That money could be far better spent on something that actually saves lives rather than simply provides cyclists and pedestrians with a false impression of increased safety. I can see no evidence that the 30km/h limits have changed the behaviour of anyone, nor do I expect it to.
I sort of like the false sense of security I get from riding on streets signed for 30 km/h. I can be twice as self-righteous.when someone blows by at 70 km/h.
One thing they do on side streets in Copenhagen is they put bollards up blocking the street mid-block. They block the streets half way between arterials, and they do it on every street except the arterials. It’s a cheap way to do traffic calming, and it’s completely effective at keeping the rat runners out.