Bicycle issues in Winnipeg

[quote="AGEsAces"]

IG Guy wrote:

Bicycles on the roadway have the right-of-way the same as any other vehicle out there. DRIVERS who don't accept that...are the ones who should be turning their license in.

For those cyclists blowing red lights, and violating other rules...I agree that they should be ticketed and/or have their bike confiscated as well...but the rules are simple...a bicycle is a VEHICLE...and have the same rules to follow as everyone else.

If a cyclist is switching lanes and dodging in and out of traffic... even another motorist for that matter, I am not gonna give them respect on the road. I am not gonna go out of my way to harass them, but I am not gonna accomidate them either. If you are a douche on the road (again either cyclist or motorist) you will treated as a douche! I just notice that more and more cyclist seem to think that the road way is all their's and they do not need to follow the most basic traffic laws! I wish bicycles had lisince plates so these people could be reported!

And are bicycles aloud on the Disreali? given that it is technically a freeway?

AGEsAces wrote:No...the law is in place to protect the kids.

To keep the 8-year-old from riding out in traffic where he/she hasn't learned the rules...and because they may be too small to see.

If it was reasonable to keep the kid off the sidewalk, the rule would be there...but it's not.

That 28-year-old...whether they have a license or not...can be seen, and can learn the rules.

If the law was there to protect kids, it would prohibit them from riding on the street, which it doesn't.

It's an absurd law.

JTF wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:No...the law is in place to protect the kids.

To keep the 8-year-old from riding out in traffic where he/she hasn't learned the rules...and because they may be too small to see.

If it was reasonable to keep the kid off the sidewalk, the rule would be there...but it's not.

That 28-year-old...whether they have a license or not...can be seen, and can learn the rules.

If the law was there to protect kids, it would prohibit them from riding on the street, which it doesn't.

It's an absurd law.

Actually...it's a non-law.

The law just says that any wheeled vehicle with wheels larger than 18" must stay off the sidewalks. It's to allow a vague window for kids riding, vs. adults riding.

I don't know how old that is...when was the Highway Traffic Act created? (it's in there). So we'd have to ask the politicians who created it...what they were thinking at the time.

dont forget about the upcoming bicycle auction!
http://www.winnipeg.ca/cms/license_branch/bicycle_auction.stm

LOL...a non-law eh?

There's a law about tire size and sidewalks that is absurd.

AGEsAces wrote:

JTF wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:No...the law is in place to protect the kids.

To keep the 8-year-old from riding out in traffic where he/she hasn't learned the rules...and because they may be too small to see.

If it was reasonable to keep the kid off the sidewalk, the rule would be there...but it's not.

That 28-year-old...whether they have a license or not...can be seen, and can learn the rules.

If the law was there to protect kids, it would prohibit them from riding on the street, which it doesn't.

It's an absurd law.

Actually...it's a non-law.

The law just says that any wheeled vehicle with wheels larger than 18" must stay off the sidewalks. It's to allow a vague window for kids riding, vs. adults riding.

I don't know how old that is...when was the Highway Traffic Act created? (it's in there). So we'd have to ask the politicians who created it...what they were thinking at the time.

so if I got a Mini Cooper with 13" wheels... I to can use the sidewalks? j/k but it would be awesome to see some one try that saying the wheels are only 13"!

Here's another absurd one for ya.

We've spent millions of dollars over the years doing curbs to accomodate wheelchairs. However, it is perfectly legal for a wheelchair, manual or motorized, to ride on the street.

They are not restricted to the sidewalks....which is absurd, imho.

AGEsAces wrote:

holly golightly wrote:the lights at Logan. I am travelling north bound on McPhillips and for those of us who travel this stretch know, the curb lane at Logan is right turn only. So for this instance, as the laws of the road state, if I am not turning right I must be in the middle lane to travel straight.

Actually Holly...this isn't true.

Those diamond lanes ALL say "Right Turn only EXCEPT buses & cyclists". So you (as a cyclist) can go straight without any problems (as can buses).

.

Ages, The diamond lanes on McPhillips don't start until Selkirk northbound. So at Logan it is not a diamond lane for bikes and buses, the right turn only applies to all vehicles (including bikes) except for buses. I have asked the question of the traffic division of the police department and they agree, as a cyclist, I must be in the median lane to go straight through, if I am close to the curb in the right hand lane I must make the right hand turn. If this section of McPhillips were part of the diamond lane section then yes, I would not have to turn right at each intersection.

Pavolo wrote:Well I agree with the bikers rights why can you not take the quieter side street one over from the busy route and enjoy the ride . Many times the side street one over or the back route is faster and much safer . leave all us idiots on the main drags to kill our selves .

Because in most cases there isn't a quieter side street. Granted going west there is wellington cr, corydon, grant, and taylor.

But what about going south? There isn't much suitable that paralells Pembina or St. mary's for that matter.

You could take the side streets, but that would add time and distance. Nobody does that in their cars, why is it okay to expect cyclists to do that?

I'll occasionally take trails and side road, but that adds another 10km to my round trip and really take me off the direct route (Pembina).

raised bike trails is the only way to go. 20 feet above the roadway. minimum of one east west ( portage ave and equiv into transcona ) and several north south
main street,, mcphillips. route 90, pembina, st mary.. etc.

Ok, I'll weigh in...

While I know the message clear as day, that the sidewalk is illegal for cyclists (with exceptions) I am totally guilty of riding my bike on the sidewalk. Lock me up.

I pick and choose the safest option every time. My route in to downtown involves the Louise Bridge and Higgins...which then connects to a trail that goes down Waterfront. The sidewalk that I use is along Higgins....and if you've ever ridden your bike down Higgins along that stretch, I think you'd understand. Then again, maybe not. But if a cop want's to give me a ticket for that, then I'm more than willing to pay the fine. It's much better than being clipped or smashed by a huge truck or something else down that narrow roadway.

The other challenge to my commute is the Louise Bridge on my way home....going northbound over the bridge, I have the option of riding on the roadway, which I have tried and vowed never again to do. If your familiar with that wacky intersection, at the end of the bridge, the traffic has a light, and can either take a right turn onto Narin, or move over to the left slightly and wait for the light in order to proceede straight through. I need to go strait at that intersection, so that means that I have to move over to the left side, and the lanes arn't quite as indicated as they could be. The traffic coming up behind me, doens't slow down near the end of the bridge when they are making the turn, and come very close to clipping me while I'm stopped. The traffic that wants to go the same direction as me, usually attempts go around me while I'm stopped, and has actaully yelled at me to get off the road/threatened me.

So, I have attempted to oblige...using the east side of the bridge, so as to stay on the proper side of the road after the bridge. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, due to the crossing location at the end of the bridge. The right turning traffic off the bridge usually doesn't have a red light. It's usually allowed to proceede unimpeeded. The pedestrian crossing is pretty dangerous as the right turning traffic can't really see pedestrains or cycalists crossing Narin even when they have a green light and the walk signal is lit. I've seen a number of close calls, and actaully had pretty much the same thing happen to me when using that crosswalk...vehicle traffic attempting to hit me and/or threaten physical harm for using the crosswalk. Many times I've seen the same thing for pedestrians....

Anyway...by sharing this I've opened myself up to flamming....so falme on!

Ever thought of riding on the opposite side of the street's sidewalk? The cops can't really stop you as they're going in the opposite direstion, and at that crazy intersection you can go around it all on the opposite side I think.

But, you're right, with the number of pedestrians around, it's safer for both cyclists and motorists, to use the sidewalk imo.

Estoban,
I know that route well and I too stick to the side walk on the bridge because it is so narrow. I also stick to the sidewalk on the Redwood Bridge for the same reason, narrow roadway. Although I do not use the sidewalks on a regular basis, if it is more dangerous to my safety to ride on the road than the sidewalk, I will choose the sidewalk each time. But as a rule, I ride on the road.
For example my main commute as I have said is down McPhillips. When I am at the underpass between Logan and Jarvis I ride on the sidewalk as opposed to the roadway for one reason: when you are in the underpass, regardless of how well lit you and your bike are, the vehicles still have a hard time seeing you during daylight hours as for the most part your eyes don't adjust to the darkness before you are back into the light again. So for my own personal safety, knowing this I stick to the sidewalk.

I have attempted to ride the opposite sidewalk (the west side) and it's very difficult to get to that side of the street in order to do so during rush hour. Not only that, but to be able to get back to Stadacona to continue northward home, is again, extremely difficult to do as the intersection at Talbot is a blind corner as well....

One of the things I forgot to mention about using the roadway leading up to the Louise, would be the train underpass. The traffic gets congested after the underpass, leading up to the incline to get onto the narrow bridge. Usually that means that if your riding your bike, you get stuck at the bottom of the underpass, and no matter how good of a rider you are, it's diffacult to not slow down the traffic behind you as you try and get your bike going again to climb the hill to get on the bridge. And that's assuming that your in the left lane, which is the through lane onto the bridge. The right lane, has to merge with the traffic on the left. I don't think I need to explain the challenges of being a cyucalist trying to merge into the left lane of traffic going onto a narrow bridge.

As a rule, I try and ride on the road as much as I can. I even have a helmit mounted mirror so I can see what's going on behind me. It's actaully a great investment, much like a rear view mirror in a car.

And both of you...STAY OFF THE SIDEWALKS!!!

You are a vehicle...plain and simple. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!

If the idiots in the cars don't know how to drive...that's there problem.

If you're so concerned about your safety...then get in the middle of the lane...it's YOUR lane. If the cars have to poke along behind you...too bad. If they're morons and start honking or yelling...too bad. You can laugh at them...cause you're in the right.

But the second you put your bike on the sidewalk because you THINK it's safer...you make an excuse for not following the rules. You make those who cry about cyclists blowing through lights and running over pedestrians that much more "correct". You undermine the process of trying to enforce the rules and make cycling in the city safer for everyone.

When you ride on the sidewalk for your "safety"...you present the argument for those moronic drivers that the cyclists have somewhere to ride. When you ride in the lane where you belong...you provide arguments for creating bicycle lanes and paths to help reduce the risks for everyone else. And when city council goes to assign money for the lanes & the paths, and they are inundated with arguments from DRIVERS about the bikes on the roads...they are more likely to find the funding, than if they are only hearing from the handful of cyclists who they listen to crying all the time.

So I say again...STAY OFF THE SIDEWALKS!!!

There's no excuses...no reasons...to be on them. You are driving a vehicle...treat it as such and take the lane...take ALL of the lane.

I guess you'd be really pissed if I told you that I drove on sidewalks with my car eh? Just kidding.

But what about those motorized wheelchairs? Some of those suckers can really move, and they're legal on the sidewalk.

JTF wrote:I guess you'd be really pissed if I told you that I drove on sidewalks with my car eh? Just kidding.

But what about those motorized wheelchairs? Some of those suckers can really move, and they're legal on the sidewalk.

And their wheels are smaller than 18" )

I have a truck that I drive daily. But in the summer I bike ride maybe 3 or 4 times a week for fun and exercise. I ride my bike on the sidewalk sometimes too, if it is safer. I always drive slow on the sidewalk and when there's people walking on it I will always ride onto the road or grass and let them have the right of way. No amount of bold caps locked text is going to get me to stop riding on the sidewalk. I value my life and prefer to not be a quadriplegic from some idiotic driver.

Bartron wrote: No amount of bold caps locked text is going to get me to stop riding on the sidewalk. I value my life and prefer to not be a quadriplegic from some idiotic driver.

Don't worry about the bold caps.

Worry about the police who will be issuing the tickets for violators.

Worry about the impound of your bicycle.

And worry about the pedestrians who will be knocking you off your bike as you ride by on the sidewalk.

Most of all...worry about the impression you're making on the kids and people around you, as to what kind of an idiot you are for breaking the law because you think it's safer to ride on the sidewalk and risking other people's welfare and safety.

When I see people riding on the sidewalk...it gives me the same impression as you might seeing someone riding their motorcycle down the sidewalk. It's no different!!!

Here's the thing, where safety is concerned, generally I'm okay with youse guy's using the sidewalk. Just lose the self-righteous attitude on all laws conveniently ignored by most cyclists I cross paths with...

AGEsAces wrote:

Bartron wrote: No amount of bold caps locked text is going to get me to stop riding on the sidewalk. I value my life and prefer to not be a quadriplegic from some idiotic driver.

Don't worry about the bold caps.

Worry about the police who will be issuing the tickets for violators.

Worry about the impound of your bicycle.

And worry about the pedestrians who will be knocking you off your bike as you ride by on the sidewalk.

Most of all...worry about the impression you're making on the kids and people around you, as to what kind of an idiot you are for breaking the law because you think it's safer to ride on the sidewalk and risking other people's welfare and safety.

When I see people riding on the sidewalk...it gives me the same impression as you might seeing someone riding their motorcycle down the sidewalk. It's no different!!!

Well the police have driven past me on the sidewalk numerous times, and haven't ever said anything.

Also what part of driving slowly and going around people on the sidewalk can't you understand? How is the risking pedestrian safety?

And there's no difference between a motorcycle and a bike?? Are you for real? How about 500 pounds and about 200 kmph!

Pedestrians knocking me off my bike? LOL ..... TRY IT. You condone enforcing petty bylaws with assault?? I think assault is a little more serious of a crime.

yeah like I said the cops will normally only target the people that actually need targetting when it comes to bikes on sidewalks.

I understand AGEs\' message and his point. That doesn\'t mean I totally agree, or that I\'m going to stop doing what I\'m doing.

I plan on getting to work, and returning home uninjured, and if that means calling an audible on riding on the sidewalk, then so be it.

When I\'m riding on the street, which is 95% of the time, I stop at stop signs, use my turn signals (hand signals, which is more than I can say for a lot of the cars and trucks I see) and I try to make sure that vehicles can go around me without issue.

I shouldn't need to, nor do I plan on riding around with body amour.

Last year while riding into work I was actually hit by a cyclist while I was riding on the street! It was at one of the roundabout\'s on Waterfront....he came up to Waterfront from the Juba park side...and came out from behind a tree, trying to enter onto the roadway and crashed into me! WoW that\'s a special kind of stupid.

Chill Bartron... Why so antagonistic?

Gotta say if you are slowing down and carefully riding around pedestrians you might be the exception. Too frequently the cyclists I've observed are riding down the middle of the sidewalk at a high rate of speed.

No matter how careful you might be pedestrians will always come in second best versus a bike.

Lastly is it fair to compare a bike with a car and a pedestrian with a bike? Seems some cyclists believe cars don't treat cyclists fairly yet cyclists want to impose the same unfair treatment on pedestrians? How do we reconcile this?

kill all the pedestrians?

no wait..the cyclists..

no wait.. ummm...