Cyclists want one-metre law: Drivers must keep their distance: lobby group

By JOYANNE PURSAGA, WINNIPEG SUN

The push to force drivers to give cyclists more space is based on the best of intentions.

Clearly, its supporters hope to protect vulnerable bikers from contact with several-thousand-pound vehicles that could easily hurt or kill them.

The concern itself is valid. At least two cyclists were hospitalized with injuries and another one was killed after Winnipeg crashes with vehicles over the past 12 months. Bike couriers say minor hits and near misses are also alarmingly frequent.

Nova Scotia approved a law to force drivers to allow at least one metre between their vehicles while passing cyclists in December and more than a dozen U.S. states have banned cars from coming within an equitable three feet of bike riders.

Now the local group Bike to the Future is pushing Manitoba to do the same.

The problem is this trendy law might prove all but useless in this province.

Of course, it would be courteous and thoughtful for drivers to move over and voluntarily share the road.

But enforcing such a law would be difficult at best, since gauging the distance between bikes and cars could be tough for police. Unless a cyclist is actually hit or a near miss is caught on video, it would be tough to objectively prove when this crime has occurred.

Plus, Manitoba’s Highway Traffic Act already requires drivers to leave “a safe distance” when passing cyclists, so tacking on an exact measurement for that distance is unlikely to solve the problem.

A redundant new law likely won’t convince scofflaws to change their ways.

As a Winnipeg bus driver told the Sun, there’s doubt some Winnipeg road lanes can even accomodate both a bus or other large vehicle, a cyclist and the one-metre buffer zone all at once. Depending on a cyclist’s exact path, drivers may not always have time or clearance enough to change lanes and create that space.

We also can’t overlook the fact some law-breaking cyclists regularly weave through tiny gaps in traffic lanes to pass vehicles, putting themselves in peril.

With that in mind, a one-sided law for driver-controlled distances can only go so far.

There’s got to be a better way to make the road safer for everyone who uses it.

As the tiny bike routes sketched out within existing traffic lanes show, there’s clearly a shortage of space for bike riders to carry out their commutes.

Cyclists have a valid, healthy and environmentally savvy mode of transportation that the city must continue to address.

In an ideal world of limitless budgets, this would be done by expanding routes to add bikes paths of a realistic size, preferably with raised buffers to block out cars. In the real world, where infrastructure needs already drain the City of Winnipeg’s budget, we may have no better option than to allow cyclists to ride on the sidewalk.

Like it or not, the risk cyclists pose to pedestrians is simply not that great. A cyclist has a much shorter stopping distance than a car and can more easily swerve around a person on foot. Even if a collision occurs, the damage inflicted by a bicycle on a pedestrian would most likely result in bumps and bruises, not the potentially life-threatening injuries vehicles cause cyclists.

Perhaps we could revamp sidewalks to designate certain paths, or at least parts of them, for bicycles only. This seems to work quite well on combined running and cycling trails already in several parts of the city.

The only sure way to protect cyclists is not to force them to compete with cars for space.

joyanne.pursaga@sunmedia.ca

Bibbly wrote:This is a silly proposition that shouldn't have been so publicly acknowledged.

Winklovic wrote:I wish cyclists would give me one metre of clearance when they pass me on the sidewalk.

JTF wrote:Ahhhh.....with the slight increase in our population, there shouldn't be any noticable increase.

I believe it's just plain lobbying that has done it...and the aforesaid justifications.

Freeman wrote:My own impression is that the number oc cyclists is increasing, but I just don't understand why a group, who make no contribution to the maintenance of infrastructure, demand, yes DEMAND, that countless $$'s be spent on them.

Why not just exercise simple common sense and courtesy and enjoy the ride?