Road Rats in South OK and Similk.

[cv23]

If you are inferring that it isn't a wise idea, or legal, to ride, operate a vehicle, or even walk, in the opposing lane of traffic then that is indeed common sense which certain members of any/every group can be accused of lacking at times.

Explain please it not being common sense or legal to walk opposing traffic.

Brian T.

Please take particular note of the word "in" within the quote
If you feel it is common sense to walk IN the opposing lane of traffic then you are possibly a candidate for this years Darwin Awards

[twobits]

removed*

[Steve-O]

I would think that a "professional" driver would have no problem getting around the occasional cyclist. I would think that a "professional" driver operating in the south Okanagan would set out expecting that he may encounter some road cyclist as this area is a bit of a hot spot for them and be mentally prepared to work around them.

I would think cyclist that feel the need to ride in tandem along a narrow road need a cuff up back of the head to smarten up.

I wold think griping about an issue like this on an internet forum is only going to bring out the trolls and raise your blood pressure before anything constructive actually comes of it.

[twobits]

I would think that a "professional" driver would have no problem getting around the occasional cyclist. I would think that a "professional" driver operating in the south Okanagan would set out expecting that he may encounter some road cyclist as this area is a bit of a hot spot for them and be mentally prepared to work around them.

I would think cyclist that feel the need to ride in tandem along a narrow road need a cuff up back of the head to smarten up.

I wold think griping about an issue like this on an internet forum is only going to bring out the trolls and raise your blood pressure before anything constructive actually comes of it.

You might think different if you rode with a professional driver in the South Okanagan a few times and see what they are up against. The fact that you even say "occasional cyclists" speaks volumes as to your knowledge of what is actually happening on our hwy's and secondary hwy's now! It is getting worse ever year that passes.
And mentally prepared?? How is a driver to mentally prepare when they have no idea of when these social cycle groups decide to go for a ride? These groups can number anywhere from 8 or 10 too over 100 complete with support vehicles that hopscotch the planned route with water and spare parts. These groups will cover 5 to 10 k of hwy because of varied abilities of the riders. Most parts are two lane opposing traffic. And with the increased traffic volume due to summer months, it is an absolute and unmitigated cluster F out there.
I would love to measure your heart rate and blood pressure while hauling 50,000 lbs in a 45 or 53 foot trailer that has one foot to spare trying to stay in the designated lane when you come up against "the bike club" spread out over 5 km and continuous opposing traffic. Am pretty sure that even as a passenger, your stained shorts would change your......"you would think"....attitude.
Professional drivers whose primary routes are hwy's, not freeways, biggest concern used to be inclement and winter road conditions. Spandex from May to Oct will soon be the biggest concern unless rules change or the infrastructure is put in place for safe co-existence.

[Donald G]

I guess the bottom line is that, like them or hate them, cyclists are part of todays reality on our roads.

Knowledge of the present rules of the road by both cyclists and moror vehicle drivers would help. According to some of the comments on this thread knowledge is lacking in that area.

[twobits]

I guess the bottom line is that, like them or hate them, cyclists are part of todays reality on our roads.

Knowledge of the present rules of the road by boty cyclists and moror vehicle drivers would help. According to some of the comments on this thread knowledge is lacking in that area.

And what are the present rules Donald? You have posted MVA information that says they have a right to the road but are also subject to the same rules as a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act. My interpretation of that is that if impeding traffic, you show the appropriate courtesy and defer to those you are impeding and pull over at the nearest safe place to do so. On a bike, the nearest safe place to do so is pretty much immediately cuz they they need little room to do so as compared to a car or truck.
Some on here lament having to follow the "big rig" for miles. And yes that is true. The difference is that professional drivers will pull over as soon as safe to do so but their need for that safe space to do so is magnitudes higher than a cyclist. Anyone that cannot grasp the difference between the two, is an absolute moron who's concept of "share the road" is devoid of any other user of the roads needs and limitations.
The only thing I see club coloured spandex butts defer to is pedestrians.......barely and not always. And I am sure that they wouldn't even do that if the MVA wasn't perfectly clear that the pedestrian always has the right of way on shoulders and crosswalks.
Never seen spandex weave thru traffic, cut lanes, ride across a crosswalk, go thru a red light? Yet we have to accept them on our roads? Entitled rats.
It is high time that these cyclist social clubs have some serious meetings and stress the need to comply with the MVA and actually police themselves. Licencing and identification would be a first big step so that individuals can be identified. Then maybe the bike club could say "don't wear our jersey anymore".

[ToddT]

Here's a valid question regarding passing on the right. A cyclist was struck yesterday at the intersection of Government and Warren. I don't have an official police report but it appeared the vehicle and cyclist were both traveling South on Government when the vehicle made a right turn West onto Warren. The cyclist continued through the intersection and got nailed pretty good.

Who's at fault here?

The motorist clearly didn't shoulder check, but should she be expected to see someone coming at possibly 30km +?

The cyclist on the other hand broke a pretty big rule which is passing on the right (due to the bike lane).

Here's another few questions: is the cyclist not supposed to dismount and walk his bike across the intersection or is that something they just taught us as kids? Do the bike lanes void that rule? Who has the right of way?

If you ask me, it seems the the bike lanes should almost be running opposite the yellow line. (or we could just get rid of them.)

In my view, the cyclist is 100% at fault here, for passing on the right and continuing to pass through the intersection while not yielding to what became oncoming traffic.

[Donald G]

To twobits ...

I think you are still not recognizing the significant difference between the words vehicle and motor vehicle.

As in a cyclist has the same duties and rights AS A VEHICLE. The word MOTOR does not appear in that clause.

Hopefully a traffic "guru" with the latest interpretation of the issue will comment in regard to a bicycle "obstructing" the normal flow of traffic.

[jamapple]

Here's a valid question regarding passing on the right. A cyclist was struck yesterday at the intersection of Government and Warren. I don't have an official police report but it appeared the vehicle and cyclist were both traveling South on Government when the vehicle made a right turn West onto Warren. The cyclist continued through the intersection and got nailed pretty good.

Whose at fault here?

The motorist clearly didn't shoulder check, but should she be expected to see someone coming at possibly 30km +?

The cyclist on the other hand broke a pretty big rule which is passing on the right (due to the bike lane).

Here's another few questions: is the cyclist not supposed to dismount and walk his bike across the intersection or is that something they just taught us as kids? Do the bike lanes void that rule? Who has the right of way?

If you ask me, it seems the the bike lanes should almost be running opposite the yellow line. (or we could just get rid of them.)

In my view, the cyclist is 100% at fault here, for passing on the right and continuing to pass through the intersection while not yielding to what became oncoming traffic.

I see a few things here. Firstly, not understanding the part about the cyclist passing on the right. If there is a bike lane,(as you say), the cyclist was where he was supposed to be.
You are supposed to walk your bike across crosswalks, not intersection. If the light is green, and you are coming up on the intersection, you do not have to disembark your bike and walk it across.
If the driver clearly didn't shoulder check, that involves fault. You HAVE to shoulder check, any yes, they are to expect someone doing 30km/hr. By your account, the driver had to have passed the cyclist if you say he didn't shoulder check and see the cyclist. And that pass would have been pretty close to the intersection, so, yes, he should have even have KNOWN the cyclist was coming.

[ToddT]

So passing on the right is ok, as long as you are a cyclist? That seems like a double standard to me.

[Pookybear]

Here's a valid question regarding passing on the right. A cyclist was struck yesterday at the intersection of Government and Warren. I don't have an official police report but it appeared the vehicle and cyclist were both traveling South on Government when the vehicle made a right turn West onto Warren. The cyclist continued through the intersection and got nailed pretty good.

Whose at fault here?

The motorist clearly didn't shoulder check, but should she be expected to see someone coming at possibly 30km +?

The cyclist on the other hand broke a pretty big rule which is passing on the right (due to the bike lane).

Here's another few questions: is the cyclist not supposed to dismount and walk his bike across the intersection or is that something they just taught us as kids? Do the bike lanes void that rule? Who has the right of way?

If you ask me, it seems the the bike lanes should almost be running opposite the yellow line. (or we could just get rid of them.)

In my view, the cyclist is 100% at fault here, for passing on the right and continuing to pass through the intersection while not yielding to what became oncoming traffic.

This actually does bring up a good point. If the "road rat" is biking down a road that doesn't have a bike lane and they and their buddies feel they have a right to the road then in the same situation would they not be at fault? I think bikers in the bike lanes should not get an automatic pass to go around a car turning right as they can move quickly and come out of no where.

[Donald G]

I think the bike lane has to be designated AND MARKED as a bike lane before it imposes "lane changing" duties on a motor vehicle driver in the right hand vehicle lane intent on making a right hand turn. It sounds like the accident described took place within Organized territory and thus may be subject to by-laws as well as the Provincial MVAct.

[Donald G]

I would expect that the bicycle "passing on the right" would be fully acceptable and legal IF the lane is designated as a bicycle lane. The same as motor vehicles on a two lane (each way) highway. If NOT designated as a bicycle lane I expect that any cyclist would be "risking the outcome", especially if the shoulders were not marked and paved.

[ToddT]

Here's the catch. The bike lane does not continue into the intersection past the stop line, however, the stop line intersects the bike lane. It is clear now, the bike has to stop at the stop line before passing through the intersection. Even on a Green light. That's how I see it.

[Donald G]

To ToddT ...

In Kelowna most of the bicycle lanes have a stop LINE at intersections but that stop line, like that for a motor vheicle, only applies in the event that a stop is required FOR OTHER REASONS. Like a red light.

If all of the bike lanes in your town have a STOP sign or signal (painted or upright) at intersecions it is the first one I have ever heard of. But as I said Organized Areas have the right to impose "local" bicycle by-laws that are enforceible in their areas.

Please clarify if is a line on the pavement that marks a crosswalk or something that actually conveys that a bicycle travelling in that bicycle lane should stop, regardless of the color being displayed by the traffic signal.