January 11, 2015

“An act of self-defense” – Why cyclists go through red lights

Sure to get a discussion going.  From the Washington Post, by Emily Badger:

.

Let’s talk seriously about why cyclists break traffic laws

.

In full disclosure, I have scoffed the law while cycling. In my neighborhood at night, when there’s no one around, I have rolled through a stop sign. I have paused at an intersection, “no turn on red,” and then done exactly that on a bike. I do these things … occasionally.

“I do, too,” says Wesley Marshall, now that we’re confessing. “If I’m sitting at a red light next to a bunch of cars, and there are no cars crossing, I’ll go through the red light to establish myself in the street in the next block, because I feel like I’m safer doing that.”

I have done this, too, and for the same reason: because it feels less dangerous to get out ahead of traffic than to fight for space on a road with no bike lane at the moment when the light turns green. Marshall, an assistant professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Denver, suspects, though, that many drivers may not understand this thought process — that seemingly bad biking behavior is sometimes an act of self-defense.

Perhaps that’s because we don’t really understand — and we definitely don’t talk about — the behavioral psychology of cycling all that well. …

If some of us violate traffic rules to stay safe, would we be more law-abiding if cities created safer spaces for us? (By this, I do not mean a separate network of biking roads in the woods, but more protected bike lanes and dedicated signals that would allow cars and cyclists to share the road on their way to the same places.)

These questions about sociology and infrastructure point to a more nuanced picture of what’s happening on city streets than most heated rhetoric — darn law-breaking bikers! — allows. Marshall, who co-directs the Active Communities Transportation Research Group with Kevin Krizek, wants to research this scofflaw behavior, why people say they do it (drivers and cyclists alike), and when they don’t.

As part of this research project, they and Ph.D. student Aaron Johnson and Savannah State’s Dan Piatkowski are running a survey that they hope will gather broad data on all of our behavior (go ahead and help science out here, even if you’re not a cyclist yourself).  …

More data on the scofflaws inside all of us could potentially help create safer streets, even, Marshall imagines, more productive public debate about how cars and cyclists coexist. There is some evidence, for instance, that cyclists may be less likely to ride the wrong way down one-way streets and more likely to wait at red lights when they’re given dedicated bike paths. This would make sense for a number of reasons.

“You’re treating the bikers well, you’re giving them a place they should be,” Marshall says. “You’re giving them respect in the transportation system.”

Maybe that makes cyclists more likely to respect the laws of that system in return. Or perhaps, by giving cyclists their own safe space, they don’t feel the need to head down one-way streets to bypass busy roads, or to blow through red lights to stay ahead of traffic.

Infrastructure influences how we think about our own roles in public space (“the system isn’t looking out for me, so I have to do whatever necessary to look out for myself”). Infrastructure also physically shapes our behavior. On the protected bike lane in front of the Washington Post office, for instance, it’s near impossible to run through a red light. That’s because bike traffic cues up at the intersection in its own restricted lane the same way cars do.

“You’re putting people on bikes in transportation systems that are entirely built for cars. If that seems to be one of the reasons why people are behaving this way, that would lend an argument to better bike infrastructure,” Marshall says. “If people are [being scofflaws] because they like risky behavior, that’s something different. If that’s the answer we find — bicyclists are just riskier than everybody else — that would lead to different solutions.” …

.

Full column here.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

  1. Many reasons indeed. I see bikers breaking the rules all the time. Perhaps because they are usually male in their late teens to mid thirties with too much testerone. Or perhaps because independent traffic lights or bike lanes do not exist to the same degree as in Europe. Or perhaps because some stop signs or red lights are indeed silly, or created only with cars in mind. Or perhaps because bikers sense the space better than in a sheltered car, and as such decide to cross a stop sign or red light is indeed not that dangerous. Perhaps because bikers have an attitude: greener than a car, faster than pedestrians .. so they are special.

    I just don’t know why.

    Why, biker guys ? Why ?

    1. Not wanting to contribute to a sense of public disorder, I don’t run red lights with one regular exception–a demand actuated light in the very early morning when there a very few cars around. Most loop detectors are sensitive enough to pickup a bike, but this one apparently isn’t. If there isn’t a car there to trip the light, it’ll just stay red indefinitely.

  2. Good question Thomas. Why? Having recently been nearly run over by a cyclist while I was walking on the sidewalk down the Davie St. hill I ask why, why, why? There is a perfectly good, brand new, rarely used bike lane two blocks over. But this jerk was flying down the hill. The traffic was noisy soI didn’t hear him until he whooshed past. A step to the left and I would have been a gonner.

    1. You will have to ask that one individual that question because all the other people cycling did not do that to you. Only he did.

  3. There are only a couple of red light locations that I can recall riding through, and always after stopping fully first. In both cases it was because the light trigger in the roadway didn’t sense my presence, and I got tired of waiting. No cars in sight. At the same two lights, if there is a car present, I wait. The car will be sensed and cause the light to change. And if I go ahead I give the motorist a reason to resent bikes.

    I don’t blow through stop signs, but if I come to a stop sign, slow and check for it being clear, and determine it is safe, I generally proceed without a full stop. Saves unclipping, less wear on the cleats.

    If I got a ticket for the above, I would just pay it. I was wrong. But some rules of the road are a little silly.

    When I see a cyclist going the wrong way up a one way street, or riding on a sidewalk where it is not permitted, I cringe.

    1. I agree that aggressive cycling on a sidewalk should be discouraged, however police are too busy ticketing cyclists for not wearing a helmet. I also roll through stop signs unless there is other traffic. I also yield right of way to pedestrians, which few cyclists or drivers do. What I find really annoying is cyclists who roll through a stop sign where I am yielding to cross traffic and they blow through the stop sign forcing both of us to wait. Also annoying is cyclists who do not yield right of way when I arrive first at a 4-way stop. With regard to running reds, I rarely do that. The good news is that bike boxes and advanced green for cyclists/peds do help and these should be used more. A good example is Main/Union for westbound cyclists.

      I occasionally go the wrong way on a one way street. In many European cities, cyclists are often allowed by signage to go counterflow in a one-way street. In England, some municipalities are introducing bylaws that all one way streets are two way for cyclists. I can think of only one street in Vancouver without bike lanes where cyclists are allowed to go counterflow on a one way street and that is 5th Ave between Cambie and Yukon.

      If I were in charge, I would repeal the helmet law, implement the Idaho Stop Law (which allows cyclists to treat stop sign as yield and red light as a stop sign), and I would allow counterflow cycling on one way streets where this makes sense. Also, more advanced green for peds/cyclists. I would also have police focus on aggressive cyclists who break the law, especially the ones who fail to give me the right of way when required and those who ride aggressively on a sidewalk.

    2. The last wrong way cyclist I saw was going north on Richards. In the bike lane. When he got to Drake he ran the light, but I guess technically he didn’t run it since there isn’t a northbound light.

      I agree with Arno’s list.

      One issue with advance greens is they enrage some motorists who don’t understand the reason for them in terms of safety. I was travelling west on 1st and crossed Ontario, stopping in the bike box to head south on Ontario. A car waiting at the light behind me honked, and waved for me to move. I didn’t, as the light was still red. He was heading south, not turning right. He pulled around me aggressively, and blocked me. Parked in the bike box. He wouldn’t make eye contact. These drivers won’t deal well with advance greens.

  4. One thing cyclists don’t do, is stop at pedestrian crosswalks. I’ve been at a mid-block crosswalk, with cars stopped in both directions, and had a group of cyclists blow past me without even an attempt to slow down. When I yell at them, the trailing cyclist turns, and gives me the finger.

    1. I always yield to pedestrians whether driving or cycling. What I do notice is that hardly anyone else does – neither drivers or cyclists. I have a video of attempting to cross Kingsway at Perry on foot and 17 drivers failed to yield the right of way before I crossed!

      1. Expecting drivers on a major thoroughfare to stop when there’s no lights and no marked crosswalk is a gamble I wouldn’t be willing to take. Yes, pedestrians have the right of way to cross at any intersection, but you won’t find many drivers in Vancouver who understand that.

  5. Abaolutely it makes sense to get out of an intersection if there are no risks to others. For example, it makes sense to blur the dividing line between cyclists and pedestrians when an advanced ped signal will get you through a left turn where you’d otherwise be pretending to be a car (minus the armour) with traffic in front and behind.

    Bicyclists have better visibility, quicker and shorter stopping, and frankly they present less of a hazard to others. The caveat here is that you also have to be conscious of leading a car driver to follow blindly as some are apt to do. One can signal that they’re going to jump early, or ‘scooter’ their bike through, quasi-pedestrian-like, or do the ‘slow guilty roll’.

    Laws can be amended to privlidge cyclists. The City of London for example provides filter bike lanes that lead to “bike boxes” at the front of the queue at traffic lights, keeping cars behind. Why should a “human engine” have to suck the direct exhaust of automobiles? Plus, giving cyclists a head start keeps car drivers disciplined and alert to be fact that we’re there and it reduces the number of potential conflicts where cars turn through an intersection and cut off (and down!!) those unfortunates who don’t register in their side mirrors. It’s simple maths!! Besides, if London did not seriously begin addressing this, there would be anarchy – cyclists are now 25% of peak hour vehicles in Central London. Imagine the Critical Mass potential in the heart of a metro with almost 9m people!!! BTW, London has miles and miles to go to properly accommodate cyclists.

    Cheers
    Michael Mortensen
    Your Vancouverite London Correspondent!

  6. Being left out of any system as a class, for whatever reason – race, age, sexual orientation, mode of transportation, etc, leaves anyone with a sense of it not mattering what you do. You’re already damned so why bother going along with the system especially if the system does not work for you. In fact it’s your duty in a way to destroy that system so you can have a better future.
    And just like other minorities or races or sexual orientations, whenever there’s a tiny sliver of the pie given to the previously outcast minority, it is said that they are undeserving of it and examples are given of some wretched individual who did something bad one time.

    It’s all pretty classic and predictable. I’d really like all of us to get past it so that we can pick on someone else.

  7. In general I do try to obey the law, so I always wear a helmet, use lights at night, have a bell on my bike, etc. But I often break the strict letter of the law when I feel it’s safer or more sensible to do so. I understand the illegality of what I’m doing but as long as I’m not causing grief for anyone else I consider it a victimless crime.

    There are some places where I ride on the sidewalk because I don’t feel safe riding on the street. Those are typically fairly short sections of major roads that don’t have an alternative quieter approach available. When I’m on the sidewalk I always respect and yield to pedestrians, pulling to the side and stopping to let them pass or dismounting when necessary.

    I often go through an intersection with a cyclist-activated signal without activating it because rather than forcing the cross traffic to stop I think it’s better to wait for a break in the traffic so that a whole bunch of people don’t waste gas by stopping for me and then starting up again.

    I only come to a full stop at stop signs if there is conflicting traffic, although I am always able to stop if something unexpected happens.

    I have the naive belief that I won’t be ticketed as long as I don’t do something stupid, and so far that’s held true.

    Regarding drivers who “don’t get” why cyclists are doing what they’re doing: I strongly believe that all high school students should be given a course in cycling (the availability of a bike share system would make easy to do). This would have three benefits: (a) it would show future cyclists how they are supposed to behave, (b) it would show everyone that cycling is a viable mode of transportation, and (c) it would give drivers a few miles in the “other guy’s shoes” so they could perhaps better appreciate their point of view.

  8. Love this thread. Can’t wait for the equivalent ‘driving’ post! Walking would be nice too, but probably shorter. Here comes my cycling confession (and rationalizations):

    I definitely brake the law as ‘an act of self defence’, although this only makes up a small portion of my lawlessness. For the non-regular cyclists, a good example would be WB Chancellor, where it goes from 2 WB lanes to 1 WB lane with bike lane, but in between it actually narrows to one lane without bike lane and a painted ‘dead zone’, followed by a right turn lane that does not make an exemption for cyclists going straight. Following the law by avoiding the dead space and the right turn lane will aggravate drivers and lead to aggressive and very dangerous behaviour by drivers. I have tried it at first, it’s suicidal to follow the law there. https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.273345,-123.239539,3a,75y,301.86h,80.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sey17eZxbNxlqngWU_Fu-3w!2e0

    Then there are the times where cyclists have been ‘forgotten’. The traffic lights that don’t pick up cyclists (MOTI does not even have a bike to test their lights, they ask me to bring in my own and meet them when I complained about lights not picking up cyclists). The ubiquity of 4-way stops is a clear sign of roads only designed for cars and paying no attention to cyclists. I generally treat stop signs as yield signs when cycling. And of course the grotesque situations where roads or paths are marked as ‘bike routes’ on maps, but where signage indicates that cycling is illegal (although that seems to be particular to UCB campus, CoV is pretty good at adding the appropriate ‘except cyclist’ signs).

    Most of my other scofflaw cycling consists of cycling on the sidewalk on as I am accessing stores or bike racks there. And sometimes to shortcut. In many of these cases I walk my bike, but sometimes I am cycling, sometimes ‘shluffing’. And I often don’t stop at a red light before making a right turn. I wear a helmet during almost all trips and always have good lights. I don’t salmon up one-way streets and don’t filter up past stopped cars, except if there are a lot of them (more than 5 or so). I only signal my turns when I feel that either I or someone else has a clear benefit from me doing so. Just the laziness in signalling probably means I break the law on every single bike trip.

    In my mind most of that is irrelevant though. To me the real test of a cyclist is not whether or not he or she breaks the law, but how he or she acts when even more vulnerable road/path/sidewalk users are around. When a pedestrian errs into the bike path (Seawall!), do I pass at breakneck speed with only an inch to spare just like the car did to me a minute before, or do I break and give them space? When there are kids near the bike path, do I just continue as normal or do I slow down a bit and stay alert in case they suddenly run off into the bike path? When pedestrians are standing in the bike lane when waiting for a green light, do I merge into the travel lane (and potentially draw the wrath of drivers) or do I pass really close because they ‘had it coming’ for them? When I ride on a shared path (or break the law by riding on the sidewalk), do I simply make sure that I don’t bump into people or do I also make sure that people are comfortable?

  9. I wish that obeying the law to the letter resulted in no longer being accused of breaking it but unfortunately it doesn’t. Several times I’ve been blamed for breaking the law when I was not.
    This is what David Hembrow refers to as being considered part of an “Out-group”.
    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/10/a-toot-and-wave-dutch-cyclists-are-not.html
    Being put into an out-group by the majority you are, as a class of people, subjected to what is called “out-group homogeneity bias”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity

    What this means on the street is that someone can go through a red light when driving a car and while it’s frowned upon it doesn’t result in all the other car drivers in the world being guilty of that one person’s actions yet when someone goes through a red light on a bike, because at this point in time in this part of the world, someone cycling is seen to be part of an out-group, all the cyclists in the world therefore are guilty of doing it too.

  10. Frankly I don’t give a damn for road rules except giving way to pedestrians. One should always think of others and the flow of traffic whether on a bike, in a car or a truck, one should try your best to not have a negative impact on others. In doing this, I run red lights, ride the wrong way up 1 way streets, ride on the foot path and do anything if it is safe to do so. I also don’t ride 2 abreast or sit in the middle of the road when turning holding up the flow of traffic, I don’t want or expect cars to give me the whole lane, I ride as close to the gutter as I can so cars can easily pass me. I hate seeing MAMIL on a Sunday ride, chatting to each other while holding up the traffic using a whole lane. They usually stop at lights even when there is no cross traffic and wait for the light to change so they can continue to hold up traffic, that sort of riding gives cyclists a bad name and infuriate drivers.
    Drivers complaining about cyclists breaking rules, is just plain jealousy. How does it affect them? Who does it hurt? When a bikes run red lights, who are they endangering, just themselves. It’s not quite the same as a SUV with a bull bar, of course you can’t run a red light, you could kill an entire family without even scratching yourself.
    There are so many drawbacks to riding bikes, surely there should be some perks other than the satisfaction of reducing greenhouse gases. If drivers what the same perks, get a bike and put up with the rain, the cold, the dirt, the sweat and the danger of riding a bike on roads with cars.

    1. Grei wrote: “I hate seeing MAMIL on a Sunday ride, chatting to each other while holding up the traffic using a whole lane. ”

      I don’t consider myself a MAMIL, but there are times when I claim a lane because not doing so feels unsafe. I refuse to ride closer than about 2-3 feet from parked cars due to the risk of being doored. There are places where that doesn’t leave enough room for a car to get by me in the remaining width of the lane. When that happens, I move far enough into the lane to eliminate any risk of the driver getting the idea that they might be able to just “squeeze by”.

      That sort of thing doesn’t happen very often because I avoid riding on the streets where it’s an issue. It happens to me most frequently on bike routes that use side streets – several of these are simply not wide enough when cars are parked on both sides of the street. When two opposing cars meet on one of these kinds of streets, one or the other pulls over, but boy, that never seems to happen when a car meets a cyclist. So I go right down the middle to circumvent any passing urges until I get to a spot to pull over. It’s usually only a few seconds, and I feel the pressure of delaying people – but I’d rather be safe than sorry.

    2. So, you are advocating for a two class society ? Those that should adhere to laws and others that do not ? Or are you merely suggesting the current laws are inadequate ie overly car-friendly and as such red lights, stop signs or sideWALKS need to have new laws that are different for bikers ?

      1. New law would be nice but it’s highly unlikely to happen. I just think the laws are for cars, with bikes there is a lot of incentive not to have an accident, it hurts, you usually learn this at a very early age and it sticks with you for the rest of your life. Look at the tour de France, do they have rules, they don’t appear to but they certainly try bloody hard to avoid crashing. It’s self preservation. I went to China back in the ’80, so many bikes, no laws and didn’t see accidents, recently I went the Vietnam, so many scooters and bikes, most breaking rules and the only accidents I saw involved car. You don’t try as hard to avoid collisions when you have armour.

    3. In a lot of these cases I feel that the laws are there to mediate conflict, and that’s an important and necessary function. When 2 cars arrive at an intersection at the same time the laws insure everyone knows what to do and if (heaven forbid) an accident happens you can assign blame. But when there’s only 1 car at the intersection, no obstacles to visibility and no other conflicts, who is really being harmed if that car doesn’t come to a full stop?

      If you take care and show courtesy and respect for others, I (perhaps naively) feel that you are unlikely to be charged even if you do break the letter of the law. And I’d certainly much rather violate a law with relatively minor penalties (a few hundred bucks) than place myself at a risk I consider to be unreasonable.

      I’m not suggesting that I get to bend the law and everyone else doesn’t, I’m suggesting that everyone should be sensible enough not to get upset when a person who’s showing care and courtesy does something that may technically be illegal as long as it doesn’t cause problems for anyone else.

      1. So, you are saying laws ought to change, i.e. a red light is only “red” sometimes and a stop sign really means “stop” sometimes ?

        1. We need the laws – as I said: “In a lot of these cases I feel that the laws are there to mediate conflict, and that’s an important and necessary function.”

          I’m just arguing for sensible enforcement and people not to have veins popping out of their head when they see a law being broken that really, in the grand scheme of things, hurts nobody. That’s why we have judges, after all.

  11. How about sometimes the light just won’t change because it is able to sense that a cyclist is there and a cyclist doesn’t want to wait 5 minutes for a vehicle to finally show up. I go routinely through a light because it will never change with just me there and there will be long periods of no cars. A stop sign would suffice in this location except during morning rush hour.

    1. Tim and others, if a loop detector doesn’t detect bicycles, it should be reported to the local authority in charge. I have reported several over the years and they have always been dealt with quickly. If they fail to respond, I would report the broken signal to the local police letting them know the signal isn’t functioning, so cyclists will be crossing against the red, until it is fixed. What the BC Motor Vehicle act requires:

      Traffic control signals inoperative
      125.1 (1) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection that has traffic control signals that are inoperative must stop before entering the intersection.

      (2) If 2 vehicles have come to a stop at an intersection described in subsection (1) from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to the vehicle that is on the right of the vehicle that he or she is driving, but if one of the vehicles is already entering the intersection, the driver of the other vehicle must stop and yield the right of way to the entering vehicle while it is proceeding into or across the intersection.

      So, you must stop, yield to other traffic and then are allowed to cross when safe when a signal is not responding.

      1. Colin, that how it should work in principle, but the reality is quite different. When I first moved here, that’s the approach I tried and it took me two months and lots of time to get two inoperable lights to function. First reported to UBC planning, but they wanted nothing to do with lights on campus and asked me to call MOTI. It took some back and forth to get a response from MOTI, who finally agreed to come out and fix the lights. But they didn’t (and probably still don’t) have a bike to test the loops. So they asked me to come out with my bike to help them out. Some more emails and scheduling later I meet finally met them on site and helped them set their lights. Bottom line: unless you have endless time on your hands, just ignore MOTI lights. They don’t even try to make them work for cyclists, unless you sent a barrage of emails and commit your own time.

        CoV is probably better, never tried and haven’t had a problem with their lights yet.

        1. Thanks Jens, that explains your situation. If that wasn’t so absurd, it would be funny. Wow! UEL, the roads that MOTI pretends it doesn’t own. No wonder you ran into issues. The times I have called in were in Richmond and Vancouver and in both cases, they were fixed by the next morning. An engineer from Richmond actually called me to say the work had been done and to let him know if there were still problems. He also went on to explain that it is tricky to set them, as they don’t want them to be accidentally triggered by adjoining lanes.

          I have only heard and had horror stories when dealing with MOTI. Another absurd example was when they did the work to widen the Lions Gate Bridge, they had a shuttle for cyclists and banned cyclists from the bridge. So, they put up a sign on the overpass from Marine Drive from North Vancouver banning cycling. When the work was completed, they should have removed the sign, but it stayed up for about two years afterwards. I brought (and others) brought it to their attention in face to face meetings and in phone calls and e-mails and it was one excuse after another. One of my coworkers was threatened with a ticket for using the overpass. I even thought about removing it myself and sending it back to them. I even went so far as to look at it the feasibility of doing it myself, which would not have been hard. However, they did eventually remove it. Every time I have emailed the minister, it has taken over four months for a response. I have heard them referred to as the ministry of cars and trucks for good reason. Surely, if they can find the billions for the gateway project, they can find the money to buy a bicycle for testing signals. Good grief! BTW, you should have been paid by them for your consulting work.

  12. Curious how many cyclists in general are aware of BC Motor Vehicle Act Section 183 – Rights and duties of operator of cycle, that is supplemental to MVA applicable to all BC road users, including cyclists and pedestrians?

    http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/–%20M%20–/47_Motor%20Vehicle%20Act%20%5BRSBC%201996%5D%20c.%20318/00_Act/96318_05.xml#section125

    Suggest what is really necessary is better public education for all who use public thoroughfares that would ultimately reduce death and injury. As part of road safety program, I was involved in the initiation of the Counter Attack program some decades ago to deal with impaired driving that has been highly effective – same is needed for everyone to better understand the rules for achieving better use of public mobility spaces now that we have more complex traffic patterns.

    With regards to sensors that do not detect cyclists, please review: Traffic control signals inoperative – 125.1 (1) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection that has traffic control signals that are inoperative must stop before entering the intersection. As long as the cyclist comes to a stop, ensures that it is safe to proceed, does not interfere with movement of other vehicles and pedestrians, then 125.1 may be applicable.

    ps…in Canada, the attempted defence that you were ignorant of the law cannot be claimed – you are obliged to understand ALL laws applicable to your conduct. And check out Criminal Code of Canada, Sec 19 for more clarity, as some actions a cyclist might take on the road could fall under the Criminal Code, e.g. purposefully striking someone with your bicycle while riding with undue care and attention such as along a confined space like the Seawall, and remember pedestrians ALWAYS have the right-of-way, except where a traffic control device is in place.

    1. Joe wrote: “Suggest what is really necessary is better public education for all who use public thoroughfares that would ultimately reduce death and injury” … “you are obliged to understand ALL laws applicable to your conduct”

      Personally I think what’s needed is a little more common sense and courtesy. If there was enough of that to go around then we could spend a lot less time haggling about what’s legal and what isn’t.

  13. Pedestrians always have the right of way, but sometimes they’re really arrogant/stupid about it. They have a 20′ sidewalk on Hornby, but still walk or stand and hold conversations in the bike lane. I’ve had pedestrians step into the bike lane just 3m in front of me without looking either way. It’s truly bizarre, but the more visible I am (bright colours, lights on) the more often it happens.

    I try to ride and drive with regard for those around me. I plan my route ahead of time and try to avoid making left turns that hold up anyone else. I’ll take a different route or turn a block early or late just so I don’t block the left lane, but most seem determined to turn at “their” street regardless of conditions. Hey buddy, there was a break in traffic 1 block back, why didn’t you turn there? I try to avoid parallel parking on arterials because it blocks an entire lane. It feels arrogant to make everyone else wait while I park so I usually park on side streets or in off-street lots.

    Making efficient left turns on a bike requires a little stretching of the rules. I would never act like a car and sit in the left lane at a red light. Although perfectly legal it’s also obnoxious. The city seems to expect us to wait at the red in the curb lane, proceed on green and then wait on the cross street for the light to change. Where the signals change automatically this is slow, but reasonable. Where it’s a pedestrian activated signal I consider it rude to make an arterial come to a halt just for me if I can find a more efficient way. So sometimes I bend the rules a bit and ride in the crosswalk and then, if safe, do a bit of diagonal riding on the side street. Recently I’ve tried to avoid one such intersection entirely by turning a block early, but doing that requires moving into the left lane and acting like a car. Most days there’s too much traffic to make that a sensible and safe option.

    Whether in the saddle or behind the wheel I treat the requirement to stop at intersections on a case by case basis, always trying to employ a safety first common sense mentality. If there’s nobody else around why come to a full stop? So far I have one traffic ticket for a rolling stop at an otherwise unoccupied 4-way stop. The traffic mess created when the police pulled me over a couple of blocks later was infinitely worse than what I’d done, but I paid my fine and got on with life.

    I fully support building AAA cycling facilities, but my experiences suggest that such facilities aren’t the panacea that some pretend they are. Like most of us here I had a number of near misses in 2014 (cars turning, other bikes turning, pedestrians stepping out directly in front of me, etc.) and every one of them happened at a location where a separated bike lane exists. Coincidence? I’ll see how things go in 2015.

    1. David, I agree about some pedestrians. I have had people step into the Dunsmuir bike lane in front of me (even though they have a red light) and when I yell “watch it”, I have been yelled at by others that I am going to fast. WTF? Also, what about the sidewalk hogs walking down the sidewalk 4 or 5 abreast totally oblivious of others. I often just stop, as I am not going to climb a tree to get out of their way and often they pretty well walk into me. Crosswalks are another pedestrian disaster, where two walls of people walk towards each other and neither wanting to give way. Believe it or not, there is a clause in the City of Vancouver’s bylaws that pedestrians are to keep as far right as they can in crosswalks.

      I am not trying to pick on pedestrians, but just trying to show it is not just cyclists or drivers. As the article indicates cyclists aren’t necessarily the worst offenders, just the most noticed.

    2. I tend to stay on Burrard STREET rather than the Hornby Bike lane, regardless of the time of day, simply because I don’t trust what pedestrians are liable to do. I quickly figured out that many pedestrians just don’t understand walking into the bike lane without paying any attention, as they are want to do, is too dangerous for me. I’d rather stick to the road.

  14. I find that there are bad cyclists and good cyclists; bad drivers and good drivers, bad dentists and good dentists, bad cops/good cops.

    I also find that if someone has strong affinity to one group (drivers, bikers, walkers), they tend to have disproportionate enmity against others.

    Good thing, is that if you pay attention, they’re easy to spot, and you can see them coming.

  15. Colin B – totally agree. Vancouver’s sidewalk civility and culture is, if anything, much worse than other modes of travel, biking included. Add to your short list the smart phone blindness and general trashy appearance ( and, yes, panhandling), you have described much of what the walking experience has come to in recent years.

  16. One of my pet peeves about cycling in this city are the pedestrian controlled crossing lights. These are fine and dandy when a pedestrian is actually using them, but I notice that they often go off on their own program when there are no pedestrians around anywhere. I think these lights are being used by COV engineering to deliberately slow down traffic. 16th street heading out to UBC is an example of this. I can understand the need to slow down car traffic on some of these roads, but if you are a cyclist, these lights suck. Cyclists go slower, and have better visibility than cars, so if I don’t see pedestrians using the crosswalk, or a car sitting at the stop sign waiting to enter the intersection, I’m going to blow that light every time. With regards to cycling on the side walk, there I are times when I have to do this when I am at my destination, I think it’s ok to do this, provided you go no faster than the pedestrian flow. Somebody on a bike takes up far less sidewalk space than someone dismounted walking a bike.

    1. I’ve often seen cyclists push the button, then realize there’s no traffic and scoot on through. By the time the light changes, there’s nobody to be seen. This annoys me immensely. By contrast when I cycle I try to get across the screen without pushing the button at all by waiting for a break in the traffic so that I don’t have to stop anyone.

    2. I don’t believe COV is using ped signals as a way to slow traffic. However I believe they have “loosened” up on their installation criteria and do install them excessively for any number of reasons. While they slow traffic they also add to driver frustration. For example, I lost count the number of ped signals I had to stop at on 4th Avenue between Burrard and Alma this morning. I have also been known to ride thru red ped signals after slowing or stopping to make sure there’s no peds or vehicle traffic that often tend to (illegally) blow thru ped signals without stopping or even slowing.

      1. When I lived in that area in the early 2000s there were still quite a few streets without a ped-activated signal, but I believe it’s just Larch and Waterloo now. Don’t blame pedestrians or cyclists: the last batch went in to help drivers trapped by the closure of Point Grey Road.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles