Two cyclist injuries; two legal outcomes.
In the case from last Friday, a motorist has been charged with an unsafe turn after a motorist turned left into a cyclist on King Street North in Waterloo.
And in this case, a cyclist has been charged after being in collision with a truck today in Waterloo.
The difference? The cyclist today was riding through a crosswalk, which is a Highway Traffic Act offence, punishable by a $110 ticket. If you are going to ride your bikes on the sidewalks, you must dismount to use a crosswalk at an intersection. As yet, no charges against the motorist
This really gets me hot under the collar.
There are a *lot* of cyclists crossing the expressway on Lexington. Most of them stick to the sidewalk because... well, have you seen Lexington? I have begged, ranted, pleaded, hoped and been (so far) disappointed with the city for failing to pull the trigger on improvements to this corridor specifically for cycling.
The cyclist was in the wrong by biking the sidewalk and crosswalk... legally speaking. Morally speaking, if you have a critical corridor where cars speed and there is no space on the road for bikes, it's a lot more ambiguous.
Let's hope the city council comes to its senses in the fall and approves cycling improvements along Lexington.
Posted by: Chris | July 24, 2012 at 03:16 PM
And to think Waterloo City Council dithered on the Lexington Road diet. Let's not let them forget this in September when it comes up again.
On a related note, why does the Region design other intersections inviting this sort of thing to happen? I'm thinking specifically of the multi-use trail on Fischer Hallman. We need properly marked bike crossings on our trails.
Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2012 at 03:35 PM
It's about time a cyclist breaking the law has been fined. Too bad it didn't happen more often. Better yet triple the fines maybe then these cyclists who think they're "untouchable" because they're on two wheels instead of four will get the hint and cycle safer. I have no sympathy for these people, they make those of us who do obey the law look bad.
Posted by: Steve Grummett | July 24, 2012 at 04:18 PM
A reminder that the mixed approach to cycle-ways (some sidewalks, some trails, some multi-paths, some roads) is a recipe for confusion. And while I know that I should dismount and walk my bike through a crosswalk, I have rarely done so when forced into that situation by circumstances. A good example of those circumstances is where the Iron Horse Trail crosses the intersection of Courtland and Stirling in Kitchener. You are practically forced to use the crosswalk.
Posted by: Bill | July 24, 2012 at 05:10 PM
When are we going to force motorists to get out of their cars and push them through intersections?
Posted by: Gary | July 24, 2012 at 07:29 PM
To Steve Grummett, more car drivers break laws like this every day. I watch countless cars roll through stop signs, not signal turns and lane changes, speed incessantly, the list really goes on and on. It's automobile operators that drive like they are above the law, despite the fact that it's pretty easy to kill and maim with a car... much more difficult to do so on a bicycle but it does happen on sidewalks.
Which is why so many people are advocating for a small fraction of infrastructure spending be devoted to some key cycling corridors. Most cyclists could get around this town on back roads if they were mapped and signed, but there are some places that geography and stupid expressway design block off the city. I don't think blaming the victim for seeking refuge from 80km/h traffic is really all that appropriate, despite the technical illegality of it.
I would imagine fighting the ticket in court could at least get a reduction with some pleading... lots of drivers get out of tickets too.
Posted by: clasher | July 24, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Yes the cyclist riding in the crosswalk is wrong but so is the motorist for hitting her in that crosswalk on a green light. She could have been jogging in that crosswalk and hit by that truck.
Posted by: motorist/cyclist | July 24, 2012 at 09:40 PM
Hey Steve, you know what makes "cyclists" look bad? Crap infrastructure and policy that makes it difficult for normal people to feel comfortable cycling in accordance with the rules. And then all the blame that falls upon those people in any circumstance whatsoever.
I would submit that feeling smug about "these people" (and you really are projecting here) is not constructive, and improves cycling none.
Posted by: Michael D | July 24, 2012 at 10:39 PM
It'd be nice to see one "test case" where a road crosses the Iron Horse trail. Sign the ped/cyclist traffic for right of way, and sign the road for "motorist dismount and walk/push".
Posted by: AlanM | July 25, 2012 at 06:02 AM
While I agree with Mike that bad cyclists make us all look bad, he implies this particular cyclist is bad for using the sidewalk. I for one would gladly pay triple fines if I felt I had a better chance of preserving my life doing so. It may be currently illegal but the law is there to serve the people not vice versa. I think with the increasing social shift to "green-ness" and more people choosing to cycle instead of drive when they can that it's about time the Highway Traffic Act was updated to contain more than just a paragraph or two about bikes.
Posted by: Edwin_vane | July 25, 2012 at 09:45 AM
Hi Bill
thought I would pass this along to you, Region of Peel looking for cyclists to carry GPS for 2 week study over the next 6 weeks to track cycling
http://www.peelregion.ca/news/archiveitem.asp?year=2012&month=6&day=20&file=2012620a.xml
Posted by: Joe Arruda | July 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM
>> When are we going to force motorists to get out of their cars and push them through intersections?
Maybe when they start riding on the sidewalks?
I did a right-turn on green from Wilson to Fairway the other day and got a very rude stare from the 6 mounted cyclists on the sidewalk who were just getting ready to tear across the crosswalk. Sorry folks, that pedestrian signal was still showing the hand -- so that's two wrongs. (Crossing against the signal, and riding your bike on the crosswalk.)
Posted by: Matt | July 25, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Does a cyclist need to dismount in order to cross Union st from the Iron Horse Trail?
Posted by: motorist/cyclist | July 25, 2012 at 08:00 PM
@motorist/cyclist I suppose it matters whether that crossing is a "crosswalk." It is marked with painted dots. I'd have to ask an expert, and will. Having said that, I can only think of a few occasions when I have seen cyclists walking their bikes through there -- usually when there are children involved.
Posted by: Bill | July 25, 2012 at 08:35 PM
We build isolated subdivisions built entirely around drivers on the sides of busy near-highway streets, and then cyclists ride on sidewalks and we are surprised. This is the logic of our society.
Posted by: Peter Parker | July 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM
...speaking of children and cycling, is it illegal for children to ride on the sidewalk? I was out with 3 little munchkins yesterday and it got me thinking! We certainly will dismount at major crossings for safety/visibility purposes, but there is absolutely no way I'd have them riding on the road. Yet, am I supposed to??
Posted by: teresa | July 26, 2012 at 11:34 PM
It varies from community to community, but usually, wheel size or age determine if you can ride on the sidewalk. Just to show how diverse those municipal rules can be, check this post from 2009: http://therecord.blogs.com/take_the_lane/2009/10/heres-what-you-said-about-sidewalk-cycling.html
Posted by: Bill | July 27, 2012 at 12:27 AM