July 28, 2016

Modern Cycling: Issues

Should there be a prohibition on reading and texting while cycling?
Modern cycling (Large)

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

Leave a Reply to Arnie CarnegieCancel Reply

    1. Being negligent and being a dangerous driver (and being an asshat pedestrian) are already banned … biking while texting should only be so if:
      1) there is a plan to enforce it
      2) there is actually (rather than perceived) harm caused by it
      Until you can ticket every pedestrian for doing the same, and every roller blader, skateboarder, scooter rider (I mean 2 wheeled push scooters), roller skater … etc … does it really make sense to split hairs and say bikes can’t do it? Where do you draw a line?
      Rely on existing rules against asshattery … don’t need to invent new ones.

      1. According to the CAA you are 23 times more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle crash while texting (and note not all distracted driving is created equal. Texting require a great deal more concentration than speaking on a cellphone, for example). I think it’s safe to assume we can extrapolate that onto cycling.
        http://distracteddriving.caa.ca/education/crash-odds.php
        Even if rarely enforced, laws unto themselves have an inherent deterrent effect. Yes, there will always be Darwin Award nominees who will ignore them, but quite a few will change their behaviour.
        I see no harm or threat to my civil liberty in such a law.

        1. If you are distracted while driving, you are likely to kill others.
          If you are distracted while biking, you likely being an asshat but will unlikely murder anyone.

        2. Oh, well when you put it that way…sure you got a broken limb, or dislocated shoulder, or slipped disc, or a cut on your face, or a bad bruise. But at least you’re not dead, so suck it up, buttercup.
          The evidence is pretty clear that texting is an activity that requires too much of your brain for you to do much else successfully. If it was just you that was going to be hurt I wouldn’t have any problem. But third parties will likely be involved and that does concern me.
          And honestly, if you are going to be “discouraged from cycling” because you can’t text while doing so, I don’t want you on the road, period.

        3. I think his point was that it’s not different than texting while walking or scooting or any of the other things he mentioned.
          And that’s kind of the problem with the current discussion around cycling: we keep comparing it to driving and extrapolating driving dangers onto it (real or perceived) instead of comparing it to other non-dangerous activities.
          Or, heaven forbid, we could measure and analyze the actual dangers of cycling themselves instead of extrapolating…

  1. I say no. A bike cannot cause any real harm so not a danger to others.
    But cycling while wearing a man-bun, that’s another thing altogether.

  2. As a general rule, I think creating special categories of acting like an idiot is problematic as public policy. The “driving while texting”, and before it “driving with a cell phone at your ear”, restrictions are moral-panic responses to emerging trends when the Motor Vehicle Act already had clear provisions around “distracted driving” and “undue care and attention”. It is now more illegal to look at my phone while at at a stop light than it is to apply makeup or munch on an Egg McMuffin while going through an intersection?
    Of course, these special categories are created to make the job of police easier, and to make things run smoother through the court system, but I’m, not sure we are using the right tool to manage those issues.

  3. Pretty obviously not. There is no evidence to suggest that this is a serious problem. All this would do is distract police from the real road safety issues that are injuring thousands of people every year. The result would be more injuries and fatalities.

    1. The distracted driving law and the new section on electronic devices specifically targets operators of motor vehicles, and doesn’t mention cyclists at all.
      The section on obligations of a cyclist does have a clause about due care and attention, but doesn’t call out electronic devices.

      1. Rule does apply to cyclists via the catch-all:
        183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.
        However it does not apply to off-road paths.

      2. One would assume that the law would not have to “call out electronic devices,” being obvious distractions to thinking individuals, but apparently some cyclists believe that the law does not apply to them.

        1. Two different laws, susan. Operating a cycle without due care and attention is against the law, as I believe it should be. The no electronic devices law applies to motor vehicles.
          I fully agree with you that the due care and attention law for cycles doesn’t need to mention electronic devices, the current law addresses the risk. Thank you for supporting this common sense approach.

        2. No Jeff,
          I fully support an additional law for cyclists that specifically prohibits the use of distracting electronic devices, and I fully support a set of new laws for cyclists to prohibit their erratic and dangerous antics on the road that place pedestrians and motorists at risk.

        3. You don’t think 250lbs of person, bike and cargo could hurt a pedestrian travelling at 30km/h?
          Heck even without that justification, we have socialized medicine. Society has a right to tell people not to do something so obviously stupid because healthcare costs are about half the entire provincial budget. Why do you think we have helmet laws?
          People can’t multi-task. That is a fact repeated over and over again. Despite everything you think, you suck at multitasking. You can’t judge distances to trees, cars and pedestrians while sending messages to your tinder honey without one of those two tasks getting screwed up.
          Because my motorcycle is less likely to kill else someone than my car should I be allowed to drive twice as fast or text message at the same time? That’s just plain silly.

        4. It’s rare that someone has ever hit a pedestrian when cycling. It’s mostly an inconvenience thing where quiet things are rushing past you when you don’t expect it.
          It is not equivalent to someone driving on a sidewalk. (Just putting things in perspective.)
          And when has anyone ever travelled at 30 kh/h on a sidewalk?
          We have helmet laws in order to sell cars. There is no need for them outside of racing. We have been lied to and continue to be lied to about their supposed necessity.
          I’m not saying people should text and cycle, I’m saying that in the worst of cases it really wouldn’t be much of a problem. Certainly not equivalent to texting while driving.
          Cycling is a very safe activity both to the people doing it and to others around them.

        5. I’ve never seen somebody on a bicycle texting at 30km/h. Have you? 30 is a pretty tough speed to maintain with both hands on the bars.
          I don’t know why we have helmet laws. They haven’t reduced serious injuries.

        6. 30km/h isn’t very fast. Unless you’re riding a 45lb downhill rig, you should easily be able to hit and maintain 30 on flat level ground.
          For pedestrian cyclist interactions it’s usually a failure to yield at crosswalks and the like that are more an issue.
          Most people on the Union bikeway are doing between 20 and 30km/h. Of course I’ve seen people texting at speed, especially on the gentle down pitches.

  4. Is anyone really surprised? There has been more than a fair share on this blog of posts telling cyclists that rules don’t apply to them. Helmets ? Don’t need ’em. Stop signs? Just a guideline! Lights? Oh we’re all home before dark.

    1. Speeding in my car? Everyone does it! Rolling through stop signs? It saves gas! Stopping in bike lanes? There’s never a place to pullover! Passing too close to cyclists? If they weren’t so damned slow! Texting? I can multitask!

      1. But you have never seen any motorists advocating here for that. On the other hand there have been many cyclists here encouraging the attitude that rules don’t apply to them.

        1. I don’t think it would be difficult to find a motorist advocating for ignoring rules they find problematic (or giving us real-world examples of same). Just because it doesn’t occur in this small, self-selected slice of road users taking the time to comment on a blog means almost nothing IMO.

        2. Incorrect!
          There have been many cyclists explaining the failure(s) of helmet legislation. I do feel that particular law does not apply to me because it has failed to do what it was supposed to do. It shouldn’t apply to anyone including motorists and pedestrians who almost always fail to wear a helmet. (I have seen people grocery shopping with helmets on because, well, y’know, those floors can sometimes be slippery.)
          But there has not been, to my knowledge, anybody saying cyclists should ignore the rules of the road – although there have been people questioning those rules and whether they should always apply to cyclists.
          In a few jurisdictions it is legal for cyclists to (safely) roll through stop signs for example.

  5. Absolutely no need to ban this. We should actually celebrate it and enable it. Possibly even teach this type of behavior in schools too.

  6. You’d be hard pressed to find someone that has cycled more than me.
    In all those years of cycling, I had a brief flirtation with helmet use – when the inane law was enacted (thanks largely to bogus studies by helmet manufacturers – a product almost as profitable as bottled water).
    At that point in time the Uniforms were antsy to enforce – like bully pulpit preachers hell-bent on showing unbelievers the error of their ways. Now it’s pretty rare.
    It would be easier to prove that helmet use is dangerous – to cyclists, and pedestrians – but there’s no money for that study.
    To draw an analogy: equip a hockey player with all the gear and he will plow through you. He becomes a scary dude. None of the images provided by Desmond (hats off to you) have scary dudes – just nice people engaged in one of the best activities ever.
    I have found many helmet heads to be aggressive riders – treating the Seawall like a velodrome. I’ve seen a sting operation there, but instead of ticketing cyclists for speeding, or dangerous and imprudent riding, the Uniforms contribute to the problem by erroneous enforcement of helmet use.
    I do crazy things on my bicycle – like ride to the store and buy groceries. Odds are motorists won’t even see me. I stay off those streets. There are brief unpleasant interfaces – can’t avoid motordom completely. If the intersection is too dicey, I’ll walk the bike.
    Motorists are a seething bunch – I might have Roadsafe, but I’m no sweetheart. I drive like a German – hyper vigilant. You might hate me on my bicycle, but would you rather have me filling the road with my car?
    I cycle regularly with my two kids. I make them wear helmets even though it makes me feel like a hypocrite and a bad parent – just to avoid being bothered by those who don’t know any better. We’ve never been accosted by the Uniforms.
    I do recommend wearing a cap when cycling. The ideal is a white cap with a black brim. The white is visible and deflects the sun; the black brim protects against glare. In colder, or rainy weather, esp. if you wear glasses, the cap is a necessity. I always wear a cap except when I’m overheated and climbing. The hat comes off and is hooked on my mirror. I do recommend a mirror.
    My mountain bike has a loud bell that I love – easy access. My touring/shopping bike has a bell on the stem. It’s too awkward to get at – better to yell.
    There are two exemptions to helmet use: medical, or if you wear a turban. A cap is safer than a turban. Re. the medical – it’s temporary with the say so of a middle man, i.e., a doctor.
    If I am subjected to glare, I get a migraine. If I get rain on my glasses I can’t see a damn thing – it’s deathly dangerous. I don’t need a doctor to state the obvious. To date, no Uniform has stopped me. Hopefully, if they do, they won’t be gung ho rookies, or one with a bully bad attitude that particular day.

    1. Good post! There are other helmet law exemptions – Those riding on Pedicabs or Quadricycles. There used to be an exemption if one’s head was too big for any manufactured helmet but this one was removed. And medical exemption need not be temporary. I know someone who has a permanent exemption due to overheating problems.

      1. And then there’s also the “Barehead Bike Church” who must have a bare head to connect to the Deity while cycling since cycling is an act of prayer.
        (I’m not making this up.)

    2. Motorists definitely are a seething bunch Arnie.
      I drove in from the interior the other day. Between Hope and Langley I tried to stick to the 110km/h limit. I passed 2 campers, a semi, a 5 tonne truck and a pickup pulling a trailer full of horses. I was passed by hundreds.
      When I got to 200th Street where the road expands to 8 lanes things got worse. The limit there is 100 and I was doing about 104-108 so technically I was speeding a bit. Every vehicle on the road was going faster. There wasn’t a big truck, bus, van or light vehicle behind me that didn’t eventually go past. Most went past quickly so they had to be doing at least 120.
      In Coquitlam/Burnaby where the limit is just 90 things got worse again. Feeling pressure from behind I drove at a steady 100 and every vehicle in every lane went zipping past like I was standing still. Probably half the vehicles on the road were doing more than 30km/h above the limit.
      Photo radar on a few Highway 1 overpasses could bring in over $100,000 per hour in speeding tickets.
      Why talk about $1 bridge tolls when there’s that kind of money waiting to be taken from the pockets of impatient drivers?
      Oh yeah I should say something truly on-topic. I think existing distracted driving laws apply to cyclists. The guy in the picture should, if seen by police, be ticketed for lack of due care and attention. He’s mostly a danger to himself, but our health care system has to deal with all crashes.
      I think helmets should be optional, but I will continue to wear one myself. I’ve sustained 3 bumps on the head from cycling accidents.

      1. Those drivers are not impatient. Traffic moves at the speed most comfortable for the vehicles, the volume of traffic and the road conditions.
        Drivers that are constantly nervously monitoring their speedometers are fortunately the exception. This is why it is not uncommon to sometimes have minimum speed requirements.

        1. In other words… you don’t oppose motorists breaking the law as long as they have an excuse: Everybody was doing it.

        2. No, it’s not like that. All over the world traffic control authorities are primarily concerned with the smooth, safe flow of vehicles on the roadways. It is expected that posted speed limits will be exceeded when vehicles are overtaking on many roads. It is safer than slowly crawling past.
          Discussion on the letter of the law, as opposed to the common practice of the spirit of the law, goes back to Shakespeare and the Bible. Montesquieu and Catherine the Great also studied and wrote extensively on this in the 18th Century.
          We have fortunately evolved past the time when public officials were judge, jury and the executioner. Hence nuance, context and practicality. ie. the spirit of the law.

        3. I agree.Though should a cyclist be involved in an accident while using a mobile device, then they should be fully responsible for the consequences, including financial, as well as charged with appropriate infractions.

  7. I think texting on bikes is crazy. I’m not so worried about a texting cyclist hurting people (although, they very well could). This guy in the picture could wander out of his lane, not see a pot hole, not notice a red light, etc. And, he’d kill himself.
    My point is that if he’s “legally allowed” to be reckless with his own life while on the road, then why have ANY traffic laws apply to cyclists. If the argument is that a bike crash only hurts the rider, why not argue that NO laws should apply to cyclists? It’d turn our streets into those crazy YouTube traffic videos from China! We have to have some sense of order. Am I the only one that thinks that?

    1. I think texting while riding is stupid. I think existing MVA regulations covering due care and attention for operators of cycles address it. I am not convinced that the MVA electronic devices law recently brought in applies to people on bikes, as it is restricted to motor vehicles. If they wanted it to apply to people on bikes they should have written it to cover vehicles, plus cycles (which aren’t classed as vehicles).
      I don’t think a new electronic device law is required for bikes, unless we have data showing that it is a problem. I think the due care and attention law is enough. It isn’t that he is “legally allowed to be reckless,” that is what the due care and attention laws are about.
      I don’t think that on the roads, where the MVA applies, the distracted cyclist is going to pose much of a risk to pedestrians. Perhaps in crosswalks. At least not as much risk as there is on shared paths; in those cases I see more of a risk of injury to others. And the MVA doesn’t apply there, we would need a City bylaw presumably.
      I come along the seawall near Marinaside most days. I don’t worry about people texting on bikes, there it is Pokémon Go, with crowds of pedestrians chasing something or other.

      1. Jeff, your words: ”I don’t think a new electronic device law is required for bikes, unless we have data showing that it is a problem.”
        For clarification, how many deaths exactly would you, Jeff, consider sufficient ”data” to show that ”it is a problem,” because without this clarification, your comment lacks meaning and, by extension, validity, similar to the oxymoron illegality ”approved in principle.”

        1. You miss the point, susan. Cyclists have a requirement for due care and attention, in the Motor Vehicle Act. The person in the photo was recently on the roadway, and so the MVA would have applied, at least until he entered the off street path.
          You don’t need deaths, you need data that shows it is a problem (crash stats would be good), as well as data that shows the current law can not deal with it, as well as and data that shows an additional law referencing electronic devices would help.
          Show us your data.

        2. Jeff,
          So glad to hear that you think deaths are not required for more safety laws to be applied to cyclists. Now, show me your data that determines that texting while cycling is not a problem.

      2. Jeff, If the distracted driving rule does not apply to those cycling, then the Due Care and Attention rule also does not apply:
        Careless driving prohibited
        144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
        (a) without due care and attention,

        1. Arno, I agree that 144(1) does not apply to those cycling. But there is 183:.
          183 (14) A person must not operate a cycle
          (a) on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
          (b) on a sidewalk without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the sidewalk.

  8. Not only is this cyclist texting and is without helmet, he is also crossing through the intersection of Alma and Point Grey Road, where the low medians without reflectors that were installed by City engineers as part of Phase 1 in 2014 (the bike route) have already caused numerous accidents, personal injury, cyclist collisions and vehicle damage because the engineers removed the pedestrian crossing lights and crosswalks that were there. It is an engineering design fiasco. That intersection is a daily nightmare, which has been duly reported ad infinitum to the City by residents and others, and nothing has been done about it, including no enforcement. We await the imminent deaths and subsequent lawsuits against the City, which is what it will take for the City to even acknowledge the problem that they caused, let alone fix it. Phase 2 will only compound the safety hazards at this intersection, and along the full length of the road: mark my words.

    1. susan claims that there are no reflectors at the intersection of Point Grey Road and Alma. Apparently the retroreflective yellow and black sign that informs motorists that they must turn and not drive straight through the intersection over the concrete island doesn’t count, even though it is positioned directly in front of eastbound vehicles.
      http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Alma%20and%20Point%20Grey%20Road_zpsvuszbmyx.jpg
      See the BC Standard Manual of Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings.

      1. No, Jeff, that is not what I said. I said that the low medians do not have reflectors on them; I am not talking about the sign above the median. The concrete medians are low to the ground and are not painted with any reflective material; they blend in with the road, especially at twilight, because of their low height and lack of colour. Users of the road have trouble seeing them, especially their dimensions, so cars are regularly striking them and running over them.

        1. Indeed, I support much more signage, including “Cyclists Keep to the Right,” on Point Grey Road for safety of all users, in addition to reflective paint on the low-rise medians.

        2. If cars are regularly striking them, it says more about those car drivers than it does the design.
          Roads are designed and marked according to standards, for obvious reasons. Read the linked manual of BC road signs and pavement markings, and point out which design you are requesting. I didn’t find one in 244 pages. But if you are a traffic engineer, perhaps you have more insight.
          http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/electrical/most_pm.pdf

        3. What do these drivers do about sidewalks and medians and other concrete road items that are not reflective? Their cars must be in rough shape from constantly hitting things.

        4. When a road does not have enough width to ride on the side then the proper place for someone to cycle is in the middle of the lane. This both makes sense from a safety perspective and is also what the law requires. If someone behind them is impatient then they’ll have to just muster up some patience. It’s no different than if a tractor was in front of them.

  9. “why not argue that NO laws should apply to cyclists?”
    Seems a bit like a blanket statement, but…
    IMO, much like motoring rules, the sensible laws are in place to protect others from inattention, lack of skill, or disregard for public safety. I think the seatbelt law is the only law designed for the express safety of the vehicle operator, and it’s a poor comparison to helmet regulation in terms of having a positive impact on fatalities.

    1. Logic dictates that with the increase in new bike infrastructure in the City, and subsequently the increase in ridership, new laws for cyclists are inevitable and essential to maintain order, safety and functionality of the cyclist network as it crosses and runs parallel to motorist traffic and pedestrian walkways. There will also have to be increased enforcement and accountability for cyclists and their unsafe behaviour to protect other road users and to educate cyclists to accept responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, bike infrastructure should not be implemented if it is not going to be responsibly managed.

      1. Logic dictates no such thing. More km of bike infrastructure of a standard design does not require more laws. And if it is a new design of infrastructure, the laws generally come first, see the highway design manuals. When we build new roads, do we pass new laws?
        It seems like you could have saved that typing and just included a portion of your final point, “bike infrastructure should not be implemented” if that is how you feel.

        1. Jeff, nonsense; laws are added, revised, redacted, and further specified regularly as society and its needs change. Study the history of law. New designs of infrastructure require technical studies that result in new laws before and after their implementation; you should know that as an engineer (despite being a mechanical not transportation engineer). Standards have to be adjusted to address the specific conditions of a specific roadwayand neighbourhood. Point Grey Road is a perfect example of this.

        2. So you don’t want published, accepted, tested, and proven standards applied to the transportation infrastructure installed on Point Grey Road, you want them changed (adjusted) to address your unique road. Doesn’t sound like standards at all. How safe would our roads be if every road was built to different standards? Different pavement markings? Different signs? Different geometric layout?
          Meanwhile, you criticize transportation engineers, claiming that you know better.

    2. ”Seems a bit like a blanket statement” — actually, Chris, ”NO laws should apply to cyclists ” IS a blanket statement, and sarcasm as such.

      1. I think I’ll leave it to Kirk to expand or respond on his comment Susan. I don’t find you to be a very good debater and prefer not to engage in your silly word games.
        “So glad to hear that you think deaths are not required”
        Absolutely not what was said by Jeff. You’ve deliberately misrepresented his statement to bolster your own personal vendetta against the work being done on Point Grey Road. You want data. Show us your data that shows… anything really. Most of your comments are devoid of anything resembling strong arguments backed by real world examples.

      2. I’m wary of treading into this but I think a better term would be “Different laws should apply to cycling”.

        1. Exactly. BC Cycling Coalition has been working with the Trial Lawyers Association of BC and others and have presented a proposal to government to update the Motor Vehicle Act to be more cycling positive. There are already rules in the act specific to cycling but they are mostly cycling negative.

        2. There are many laws that were developed to curtail the harm of motor vehicles. By default they got applied to bicycles even though bicycles don’t have the same effect on their surroundings. (It might also have been intentional by the auto industry to discourage alternatives to their product.)
          We should have laws reflect the reality of the different characteristics of each type of vehicle. We already do that with large trucks and motorcycles.
          After cycling for awhile you learn that so many of the rules don’t make sense when cycling so people end up ignoring them. (This has the effect of ignoring the ones that do make sense too.) This should not be considered a reflection of peoples’ personalities but instead of normal human nature when trying to make your way inside an unfair system.

  10. Lots of good discussion.
    I have come to the realization that laws are primarily established to prevent one person from harming another. A traffic law should only be put in place if evidence clearly shows that it adheres to this goal. Furthermore, existing laws should be frequently reviewed and jf they fail this standard, then they should be repealed. Australia is currently reviewing many of their laws and are looking at weeding out some of their “nanny state” laws like the mandatory cycling helmet law.
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-laws-do-more-harm-than-good-senate-hears
    Another law which fails the “nanny state” filter is the law requiring those on bikes to stop at stop signs. This law was repealed in Idaho in the 1980s and research shows that this improved the safety of all road users.
    Still not sure whether the distracted driving law applies to those cycling on roads, but even if it does, it would be a waste of police resources to enforce it for those cycling since this would distract them from addressing the behaviour of those operating the real killing machines. The distracted driving law certainly does not apply to those cycling or walking on paths and I would be against introducing new laws to legislate behaviour on paths, since there is already a basic rule that one person should not cause harm to another. This basic rule should suffice.

  11. No, Jeff,
    The issue is not solely in regard to Point Grey Road, just the opposite: with the City increasing its infrastructure to provide bike lanes, bike routes, and pedestrian promenades city-wide, the City is going to have to manage differences in area needs, road configurations, grades, driveways, boulevards, different modes of traffic volumes, green spaces, and a myriad of other factors that are simply not standard in every locale. Indeed, soil contamination exists in some areas but not all, including different kinds and different levels of contamination. These are unpredictable factors that have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. It is not a one-size-fits all scenario, much as you would like to fabricate it.

    1. susan
      You are describing engineering, not backing up your claim, just above, that “new laws for cyclists are inevitable and essential to maintain order, safety….”

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