Bike Safe BC

[Loed]

Bikes don't deserve the same rights as vehicles when they are on the road way, and it should be more-so up to them in regards to their safety.

??????

Really? Like a week later you come back just to bump that?

"Bikes shouldn't have the same rights as vehicles and should be treated like a pedestrian with the capability of a higher rate of travel. They should not be placed so close to large machines that do not have the ability to perceive tiny objects that do not follow the rules of the road. I could go on and on about this but my point has been made many times already. For clarification; Bikes should be treated more akin to pedestrians, rather than cars. It would be safer for everyone involved if bikes were taken off the roads, and if choosing to use the road as a path on a bike you chuck your "rights" out the window."

I'm sorry I used terrible wording earlier.

[wthwyt]

Bikes don't deserve the same rights as vehicles when they are on the road way, and it should be more-so up to them in regards to their safety.

??????

Really? Like a week later you come back just to bump that?

"Bikes shouldn't have the same rights as vehicles and should be treated like a pedestrian with the capability of a higher rate of travel. They should not be placed so close to large machines that do not have the ability to perceive tiny objects that do not follow the rules of the road. I could go on and on about this but my point has been made many times already. For clarification; Bikes should be treated more akin to pedestrians, rather than cars. It would be safer for everyone involved if bikes were taken off the roads, and if choosing to use the road as a path on a bike you chuck your "rights" out the window."

I'm sorry I used terrible wording earlier.

So sidewalks should now be used by pedestrians, wheelchairs(motorized), scooter, cyclists Oh I guess motorcycles as well right Loed. Would like them to be safe as well and remove their rights.

Good thing there is this and not you.

So as a driver you will have to keep alert for those who have a right to use roadways, as yourself. Learn to share...

[Loed]

So sidewalks should now be used by pedestrians, wheelchairs(motorized), scooter, cyclists Oh I guess motorcycles as well right Loed. Would like them to be safe as well and remove their rights.

Good thing there is this and not you.

So as a driver you will have to keep alert for those who have a right to use roadways, as yourself. Learn to share...

Thanks for your addition to this topic. I'm sure your input will be a valuable and well tak... oh wait, all you're doing is being sarcastic and posting the current laws. Never mind, door is that way...

If you had read my input in this thread and other bike threads you would realize that I am mainly a cyclist, and that this point of view is mine FROM a cyclists POV.

I'm talking about change. I understand what the current laws are, and I also understand how they don't quite work in current application. They actually end up creating some dangerous situations out there at times. Case in point; when a cyclist is passing on the right along side a stop line of cars and pushing 50kmph while doing so. This creates a dangerous situation for both cyclists AND motorists.

Scooters should be classified the same as bikes, and should be included in thoughts towards the future if any changes were to be made.

What you've been ignorant enough to miss is that I'm not talking about removing rights, I'm talking about changing rights and habits.

Next time read a few posts before involving your emotional out-bursts please.

[wthwyt]

Changing the laws can cause very large costs. Removing cyclist & scooters off the roads would mean changing the infrastructure to accommodate alternative routes for their use. Which would be more money than BC could afford, plus were could these routes be place.
These routes would need to be in place before changing the laws.

[Loed]

Changing the laws can cause very large costs. Removing cyclist & scooters off the roads would mean changing the infrastructure to accommodate alternative routes for their use. Which would be more money than BC could afford, plus were could these routes be place.
These routes would need to be in place before changing the laws.

No, they wouldn't need to be.

Changing things for the better can sometimes be costly. If a study were present reaping the benefits, instead of just speculation, would this color your view differently? Would you care about the cost of change if it were estimated to save, on average, 10-12 lives per year, with that number growing exponentially each year due to an ease of use and increased availability?

Would the cost matter then?

Things change all the time, it's just how life goes.

[wthwyt]

Changing the laws can cause very large costs. Removing cyclist & scooters off the roads would mean changing the infrastructure to accommodate alternative routes for their use. Which would be more money than BC could afford, plus were could these routes be place.
These routes would need to be in place before changing the laws.

No, they wouldn't need to be.

Changing things for the better can sometimes be costly. If a study were present reaping the benefits, instead of just speculation, would this color your view differently? Would you care about the cost of change if it were estimated to save, on average, 10-12 lives per year, with that number growing exponentially each year due to an ease of use and increased availability?

Would the cost matter then?

Things change all the time, it's just how life goes.

I personally would not have problem to have tax increase to pay for the needed changes. What changes are you suggesting on how cyclist & scooters move about cities, towns & highways of BC ?

[cv23]

Bikes don't deserve the same rights as vehicles when they are on the road way, and it should be more-so up to them in regards to their safety.

??????

Really? Like a week later you come back just to bump that?

"Bikes shouldn't have the same rights as vehicles and should be treated like a pedestrian with the capability of a higher rate of travel. They should not be placed so close to large machines that do not have the ability to perceive tiny objects that do not follow the rules of the road. I could go on and on about this but my point has been made many times already. For clarification; Bikes should be treated more akin to pedestrians, rather than cars. It would be safer for everyone involved if bikes were taken off the roads, and if choosing to use the road as a path on a bike you chuck your "rights" out the window."

I'm sorry I used terrible wording earlier.

Nice try at back pedalling , pun intended.


A bicycle by definition is a vehicle so belongs either in a bicycle lane where provided or on the roadway with all the other vehicles. Endangering pedestrians by encouraging any vehicles, even bicycles, on the sidewalks is as dangerous an idea as encouraging pedestrians to use the roadways and not the sidewalk or shoulder where no sidewalk exists.
Pedestrians do not have the same rights as vehicles when on the roads except in designated pedestrian crosswalks. This is why jaywalking is illegal.

[OffRoad]

This is why jaywalking is illegal.

Is jaywalking illegal?

Crossing at other than crosswalk
180  When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.

Regardless, bicycles do not belong on sidewalks.

[Loed]

Bikes don't deserve the same rights as vehicles when they are on the road way, and it should be more-so up to them in regards to their safety.

??????

Really? Like a week later you come back just to bump that?

"Bikes shouldn't have the same rights as vehicles and should be treated like a pedestrian with the capability of a higher rate of travel. They should not be placed so close to large machines that do not have the ability to perceive tiny objects that do not follow the rules of the road. I could go on and on about this but my point has been made many times already. For clarification; Bikes should be treated more akin to pedestrians, rather than cars. It would be safer for everyone involved if bikes were taken off the roads, and if choosing to use the road as a path on a bike you chuck your "rights" out the window."

I'm sorry I used terrible wording earlier.

Nice try at back pedalling , pun intended.


A bicycle by definition is a vehicle so belongs either in a bicycle lane where provided or on the roadway with all the other vehicles. Endangering pedestrians by encouraging any vehicles, even bicycles, on the sidewalks is as dangerous an idea as encouraging pedestrians to use the roadways and not the sidewalk or shoulder where no sidewalk exists.
Pedestrians do not have the same rights as vehicles when on the roads except in designated pedestrian crosswalks. This is why jaywalking is illegal.

Take your uninformed tripe elsewhere please and quit trying to troll me.

We all know what the current laws are, and we have been discussing different ways to handle the situations.

[wthwyt]

So Loeb I will ask again:

What changes are you suggesting on how cyclist & scooters should move about cities, towns & highways of BC ?

[kgcayenne]

The attachment says it all.

What's the rule here?

[SurplusElect]

They actually end up creating some dangerous situations out there at times. Case in point; when a cyclist is passing on the right along side a stop line of cars and pushing 50kmph while doing so. This creates a dangerous situation for both cyclists AND motorists.

As KC pointed out, biking would be safe if motorists actually stayed in their lane and shoulder checked.

Why would a bike passing a line of cars on the right be unsafe if every driver who decided to pull out and sneak into the bike lane to make that right turn looked over their shoulder before they pulled out - or - a novel idea - didn't cross the solid white line on the road in the first place.

[coolworx]

Too many people flaunt the rules when it comes to Cycling on ours roads.

Ohhh great!
Another bicycle bytchfest!

Wake the F up. EVERY MOTORIST flaunts the rules of the road. They ALL speed on surface streets - rushing to the next red light.

[Giardinera1]

Okay as a driver and a cyclist I am all for cyclists using the sidewalk when biking on HWY 97 or HWY 33.
Given that there's no bike lane, no shoulder, no extra space at all, it makes no sense to have cyclists use either HWY. (which is a pain in the *bleep* as a cyclist, but such is the price to coming home in one piece!)
There's just no room for cyclists the way those highways have been built.

I think the city has done a good job of alternate routs for cyclists. I also appreciate Google Maps option for "cyclist". Great way to plan out a cycling route that won't get me killed or ruin traffic!

This is a good point. I think I am a pretty safe cyclist, but sometimes it is impossible to follow every rule while trying to patronize some of the business along the main highways. Traveling many extra blocks get to an intersection, so you can cross to the right side of the highway isn't as easy for a cyclist weighed down with provisions. Crossing lanes during rush hour to turn left is something I'm still too scared to do. I rarely ride along Harvey or 33, but once in awhile there's an errand that can't be avoided, and along those stretches is one of the rare times I use the sidewalk. It's rare that there are any pedestrians strolling along the busiest stretches of highway anyways though. I've yet to encounter a group of moms leisurely walking their strollers here, or dogs. On the rare occasion I see someone, I just get off, go on the grass or down to the sidewalk, of if there's room along the shoulder and it seems safe, I go there. Unlike city or residential traffic, there aren't tricky side alleys, driveways or crossroads where pedestrians could be mowed down accidently. It may be against the rules, but common sense wise, it's 100% harmless to anyone. Kelowna is still such a driving town, these pedestrians everyone fears for a very small minority.

Honestly, I feel the debate on the subject of bikes vs cars tends to stray too far into generalities and legalistic quoting of rules, and everyone breaks off into car vs. bike camps, when it would better to address specific areas in our city with high risks of car-bike collisions. I would like to see less bickering, and more dialogue about solutions and compromises that best suit everyone, so that neither cars or bikes are forced to break rules because they're forced into a situation where the law prevents them from doing what is the safest for everyone on the road. Sometimes rules need exceptions. For example, in the winter I can't ride in the bike path because the plows pile snow over them. When I wake up after a heavy snowfall, I've never seen the designated bike paths like Clement plowed or salted , so they are not an option trying to get to work early in the morning. I promise you, during the coldest early winter mornings, there are absolutely zero pedestrians on my bike ride to work. The roads are often so icy aside from the middle strip. Even with my studded tires, I can slip sideways very easily into a car. And honestly, I am not flying. I am rolling along cautiously, hanging on for dear life. Pretty sure I would knock someone over worse by speed walking to the office, or on my morning jog.

Anyways, I know trying to understand one another is hard. In reality, lanes separating bikes and car would be ideal.