Open Letter to Cyclists.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by WhiteTom

If you are riding your bike through a crosswalk you are immediately a motor vehicle and no longer a pedestrian.

Excerpt from the Cycling Safety Handbook which directly references the Alberta Traffic Safety Act:

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...y_handbook.pdf

Which, if true, creates a lot of grey areas in the rules - such as, who gets they right of way in certain areas, etc. Drivers would have to watch more places for bikers that may have the right of way.

Basically, it doesn't make much sense, and thus as practical rules, pretty much unuseable.

Plus, another reason why it doesn't make sense is that If I become a vehicle as soon as I ride across a crosswalk, then nothing has changed, as (if there is a walk signal) I have the right of way to continue straight through the intersection without stopping. The traffic turning left (crossing the crosswalk) also has right of way, (but would then technically not have the right of way, becasue the roadway would then not be clear).

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Habby, you are in the NE - what is your general route to get to work and back? I've considered riding to work, but the traffic on 36th or 52nd, especially crossing 16th, has me scared to even try.

I'm in the NE, but west of Deerfoot. I either ride a combination of centre St and 4th street or I take the path along Deerfoot all the way to the zoo and into downtown. Where abouts in the NE are you?

My in-laws live in Whitehorn, I've ridden a little in that area. 44Ave to Whitefield Drive isn't too bad. You cross the C train tracks and it turns into 39 Ave. Take that all the way across Barlow and head south on 19th St. Turn right on 27th Ave and go to the Calgary Sun building. You can get to the bike path from there.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Plus, another reason why it doesn't make sense is that If I become a vehicle as soon as I ride across a crosswalk, then nothing has changed, as (if there is a walk signal) I have the right of way to continue straight through the intersection without stopping. The traffic turning left (crossing the crosswalk) also has right of way, (but would then technically not have the right of way, becasue the roadway would then not be clear).

If you're on a bike you're a vehicle. Pretty simple.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Which, if true, creates a lot of grey areas in the rules - such as, who gets they right of way in certain areas, etc. Drivers would have to watch more places for bikers that may have the right of way.

Basically, it doesn't make much sense, and thus as practical rules, pretty much unuseable.

Plus, another reason why it doesn't make sense is that If I become a vehicle as soon as I ride across a crosswalk, then nothing has changed, as (if there is a walk signal) I have the right of way to continue straight through the intersection without stopping. The traffic turning left (crossing the crosswalk) also has right of way, (but would then technically not have the right of way, becasue the roadway would then not be clear).

how is it a grey area? If you ride through a crosswalk you're breaking a law. It's pretty simple: get off the bike and walk or prepare to get hammered by insults and close calls with pissed off motorists.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Which, if true, creates a lot of grey areas in the rules - such as, who gets they right of way in certain areas, etc. Drivers would have to watch more places for bikers that may have the right of way.

Basically, it doesn't make much sense, and thus as practical rules, pretty much unuseable.

Plus, another reason why it doesn't make sense is that If I become a vehicle as soon as I ride across a crosswalk, then nothing has changed, as (if there is a walk signal) I have the right of way to continue straight through the intersection without stopping. The traffic turning left (crossing the crosswalk) also has right of way, (but would then technically not have the right of way, becasue the roadway would then not be clear).

There is no grey area. You are not allowed to use a crosswalk while riding your bike. When you are on your bike you are a vehicle. Vehicles are not allowed to use crosswalks or sidewalks.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

If you're on a bike you're a vehicle. Pretty simple.

And what I'm saying, is that, if I'm in a crosswalk that is showing the walk signal (basically a green light), then I have the right of way to continue riding. So, basically what we end up with is that everything is the same as before.

If someone can show me otherwise, show me, as I'm interested.

If anyone can find out the law regarding how right of ways work with bicycles in crosswalks as vehicles, I'd certainly like to see them.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Burninator

There is no grey area. You are not allowed to use a crosswalk while riding your bike. When you are on your bike you are a vehicle. Vehicles are not allowed to use crosswalks or sidewalks.

We damn well should be able to. That would be a whole 2 extra lanes during rush hour.

Could you imagine how funny it would be if someone drove onto the sidewalk and across a crosswalk when that walk sign was flashing than back onto the road. We should start doing that. Problem solved. EVERYONE IS A PEDESTRIAN.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

And what I'm saying, is that, if I'm in a crosswalk that is showing the walk signal (basically a green light), then I have the right of way to continue riding. So, basically what we end up with is that everything is the same as before.

If someone can show me otherwise, show me, as I'm interested.

If anyone can find out the law regarding how right of ways work with bicycles in crosswalks as vehicles, I'd certainly like to see them.

The situation I was talking about in the OP was a biker coming perpendicular of me at a 4-way stop in the cross walk when it was my turn to go, which is very much illegal and stupid.

[habernac]

The law for bicycles in crosswalks is simple. Get off and walk. It's illegal to ride on sidewalks. If you're crossing a road from a designated multi use path (bike path) you are required to get off your bike and walk it. there are signs that actually tell you to do that.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

And what I'm saying, is that, if I'm in a crosswalk that is showing the walk signal (basically a green light), then I have the right of way to continue riding. So, basically what we end up with is that everything is the same as before.

If someone can show me otherwise, show me, as I'm interested.

If anyone can find out the law regarding how right of ways work with bicycles in crosswalks as vehicles, I'd certainly like to see them.

Vehicles cannot use crosswalks, what are you not getting here? If you want to cross using the crosswalk you need to walk your bike. That is the law, someone has already linked it.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by habernac

how is it a grey area? If you ride through a crosswalk you're breaking a law. It's pretty simple: get off the bike and walk or prepare to get hammered by insults and close calls with pissed off motorists.

The way I ride, like I said, they only way I'd be getting insults from drivers, is if THEY did something wrong. I fail to see how me getting out of their way faster is going to cause them to throw insults at me.

And again, it's a rule that seriously discourages bike use. I want to use the bike path, as it's much safer then riding in traffic (and that's what it's there for), but the idea is totally useless If I have to stop, get of my bike, walk across, get back on my bike, every single block when I come to an intersection. I'd just about get there faster walking.

Surely the law isn't intended to have that outcome.

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Vehicles cannot use crosswalks, what are you not getting here? If you want to cross using the crosswalk you need to walk your bike. That is the law, someone has already linked it.

Exactly right.

I've heard this straight from the mouth of a police officer.
If you ride your bike across a crosswalk, get hit by a car and break your legs, That is your fault and nobody elses.

[Hakan]

The age old struggle between drivers and cyclists.

I'm a cyclist so I come down on their side of the fence.

My point would be that often when cyclists are not adhering to the 'rules' of the road it is because they are looking out for their own safety. The rules of the road were written with cars in mind so it's kind of stupid to just superimpose those rules onto cyclists as a means of giving you some type of moral superiority. Many times these rules just aren't adequate and don't acknowledge some fundamental differences between a bicycle and a car.

For example, at a red light, cyclists often move to the front of the line first because they don't want to breath in your noxious fumes, second because they have increased visibility to the other cars and third because they can start out infront without being sandwiched by other cars. There's nothing really wrong with that except for the impatient driver who thinks that someone has butted infront of him. The cyclists always stick to the right so you just pass them, you're going to get home at EXACTLY the same time you have have otherwise.

Besides, when cyclists move in and out of traffic they are greasing the wheels and being more efficient for the total traffic situation. They can dart in and out because they aren't in a 2000lbs death machine.

My two cents.

edit: just so you know I'm not saying that cyclists should cross at crosswalks or anything like that. That's a sure-fire way to seriously injure yourself.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The way I ride, like I said, they only way I'd be getting insults from drivers, is if THEY did something wrong. I fail to see how me getting out of their way faster is going to cause them to throw insults at me.

And again, it's a rule that seriously discourages bike use. I want to use the bike path, as it's much safer then riding in traffic (and that's what it's there for), but the idea is totally useless If I have to stop, get of my bike, walk across, get back on my bike, every single block when I come to an intersection. I'd just about get there faster walking.

Surely the law isn't intended to have that outcome.

which crappy bike path do you ride? My ride is 18km on the paths and I walk through a total of two crosswalks. If yours is worse, well that's a bummer. Riding through crosswalks or on sidewalks is a great way to die. Like the woman who did exactly that in the NW in the Crowfoot area and got nailed by a garbage truck.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The way I ride, like I said, they only way I'd be getting insults from drivers, is if THEY did something wrong. I fail to see how me getting out of their way faster is going to cause them to throw insults at me.

And again, it's a rule that seriously discourages bike use. I want to use the bike path, as it's much safer then riding in traffic (and that's what it's there for), but the idea is totally useless If I have to stop, get of my bike, walk across, get back on my bike, every single block when I come to an intersection. I'd just about get there faster walking.

Surely the law isn't intended to have that outcome.

Are you talking about riding on the sidewalk downtown as well? Because if so, that is illegal as well...

I am a biker, but I prefer to do it in the mountains since I am scared to drive a car on the streets in this city sometimes. I would rather get my thrills biking from ripping mach chicken down a hill, not avoiding traffic.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by habernac

I'm in the NE, but west of Deerfoot. I either ride a combination of centre St and 4th street or I take the path along Deerfoot all the way to the zoo and into downtown. Where abouts in the NE are you?

My in-laws live in Whitehorn, I've ridden a little in that area. 44Ave to Whitefield Drive isn't too bad. You cross the C train tracks and it turns into 39 Ave. Take that all the way across Barlow and head south on 19th St. Turn right on 27th Ave and go to the Calgary Sun building. You can get to the bike path from there.

I'm in Taradale and need to get down to Franklin, so I need to go south. Most of the neighbourhoods in that area seem planned to get people out to 68th/52nd/36th then allow traffic to flow north/south. I suppose McKnight and 16th sort of dictate that to reduce the number of lights.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm in Taradale and need to get down to Franklin, so I need to go south. Most of the neighbourhoods in that area seem planned to get people out to 68th/52nd/36th then allow traffic to flow north/south. I suppose McKnight and 16th sort of dictate that to reduce the number of lights.

yeah, sorry, don't know any routes going that way, I've never ridden over there. Try scouting out something on the weekends.

[WhiteTom]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm in Taradale and need to get down to Franklin, so I need to go south. Most of the neighbourhoods in that area seem planned to get people out to 68th/52nd/36th then allow traffic to flow north/south. I suppose McKnight and 16th sort of dictate that to reduce the number of lights.

Not sure if you've seen this, but it may help.

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...thways_map.pdf

[You Need a Thneed]

Another question if the law is that one must walk across crosswalks (which the law definately does say): What are rollerbladers to do when they come to a crosswalk? By law, they must stop, remove their rollerblades, walk across the crosswalk, then put their rollerblades back on.

My current ride isn't doesn't have a lot of crosswalks, but the route I used last summer from my old house would have required me to get off my bike 10-12 times in a 12-15 minute bike ride. Getting off 10-12 times would probobly have made the ride 18-20 minutes long.

[lambeburger]

This thread reminded me of this picture I saw in the paper today: