Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

In article ,
Opus writes:
What nobody has been talking about, were the laws they were handing
out tickets for. One in particular makes it illegal to stand on the
pedals, or at least that is the way the law was interpreted. You can't
stand on the pedals to get going at an intersection, or to climb a
hill, or for any reason except to go from standing beside the bike to
putting your butt on the seat.

Actually there's no physical way a recumbent rider could sit or
stand astride the seat and still make the bike go. So this
law effectively outlaws recumbent bicycles.

I'm in favor of laws that make things
safer, but this just makes things more dangerous.

I don't think laws in and of themselves make anything safer.
That comes from our collective personal conduct. Laws may
however serve as reminders or guidelines.

The car equivalent would be outlawing putting your foot on the gas.

Y'know how physicists refer to laser light as "coherent"?
Some idealists figure traffic movements should be equally
coherent, and traffic law is The Way to effect that. But,
especially in urban environments, there are always ... oh,
heck, there's certain a scientific word that escapes me:
it describes the effect of introducing substances to "dope"
semiconductors. Oh, well. Anyways, there are always dopes
around to make sure traffic doesn't go coherently. And
following the law to the letter doesn't make the dopes go away.
Sometimes it just provokes 'em.

Mostly for the benefit of Tom Sherman:
Dealing with a densely populated urban area brings, not new
considerations to bear, but a whole bunch of the same old ones,
but all flooding in at once, rapidfire. It's like the
difference between cooking for two, and cooking for fifty.
The proportions of the ingredients change. Some of the
ingredients themselves might change. For example, a
recumbent bike probably won't fit on a front-mounted
public transit city bus's bike rack (yes, we have those
in Vancouver.)

City riding is not especially difficult, but it is most
definitely a different take than the open road.

I'll furthermore declare that so-called Vehicular Cycling
is an arbitrary & dogmatic extrapolation of John Forester's
/Effective/ Cycling, not even intended by Forester himself.
There seems to be some confusion between (definitions of)
Effective Cycling and Vehicular Cycling, transcending
syntax or context. Forester is about Effective Cycling,
not Vehicular Cycling. It's kind of like: Queen Victoria
herself was not a Victorian prude. And Charles Darwin
was not a sociologist.

Maybe you'd be better off being an Effective Cyclist
than a Vehicular Cyclist.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Peter Cole writes:
Opus wrote:
What nobody has been talking about, were the laws they were handing
out tickets for. One in particular makes it illegal to stand on the
pedals, or at least that is the way the law was interpreted. You can't
stand on the pedals to get going at an intersection, or to climb a
hill, or for any reason except to go from standing beside the bike to
putting your butt on the seat. I'm in favor of laws that make things
safer, but this just makes things more dangerous.

The car equivalent would be outlawing putting your foot on the gas.

It's not clear whether pedaling standing is an actual violation, or has
even ever been interpreted as such. The actual statute says must ride
"on or astride a regular seat". I would think pedaling standing would
clearly be "astride". The last 2 rules sound much more abusable. Here's
the list (copied from a ticket form, I believe):


"Some cycling offences

Offence Ticket amount

Cycle without helmet $29

Ride cycle on sidewalk $109

Ride two abreast on roadway $109

Ride while not astride seat $109

Carry passengers on cycle $109

Ride while attached to vehicle $109

Ride without hands on handlebar $109

Cycle without due care $109

and attention

Cycle without reasonable $109

consideration

Source: Vancouver Police Department Information Ticket
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun"

A bunch of the rules & regs we have to deal with involve
riding technique & accessories, rather than downright
"Rules Of The Road," as in conventions to deal with ROW.

It's not about "same roads, same rules."
It's about using The Law to encumber and
limit cyclists. And now the cops are
threatening to lower the boom on us, 'cuz
we're such a bunch of bad boyz 'n grrls.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Jun 9, 7:23*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

The "Cyclists fare best..." yadda, yadda, is the core of his position. I
disagree with the core principle. I don't think cyclists "fare best" his
way at all. Forester is a throwback to a time and place where cyclists
were taken as people playing in the streets.

That time has not ended. *When was the last time you were told to keep
out of the way of a car? *For me it was about five days ago - and it
wasn't one brief shout. *It was a running lecture from a car driver
motoring along next to me.

VC really ****es motorists off, it's the dark side of the force.

The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a
nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two
blocks later.

Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this
specific case: What non-VC technique would you use instead? The
three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite
lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or
stop riding until he passed.

(* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.)

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:23 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
The "Cyclists fare best..." yadda, yadda, is the core of his position. I
disagree with the core principle. I don't think cyclists "fare best" his
way at all. Forester is a throwback to a time and place where cyclists
were taken as people playing in the streets.
That time has not ended. When was the last time you were told to keep
out of the way of a car? For me it was about five days ago - and it
wasn't one brief shout. It was a running lecture from a car driver
motoring along next to me.
VC really ****es motorists off, it's the dark side of the force.

The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a
nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two
blocks later.

There ya go.


Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this
specific case: What non-VC technique would you use instead? The
three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite
lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or
stop riding until he passed.

(* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.)

- Frank Krygowski

Sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists and that's that. It
has nothing to do with "vehicular cycling", it's just using the road.

Forester's issue was "legitimatizing" cycling. His approach was to argue
that bikes were vehicles, and, since vehicles belong in the street,
cyclists belong in the street. I know, he split hairs with "treated as
vehicles", rather than "are vehicles", but that's just word play.

I think that "vehicular" cycling in principle erodes civic freedom. I
don't want to contort myself into "vehicular" status just to be allowed
on the street. That argument supports the premise that the street is for
vehicles, which I think is a suburban, auto-era mindset. I loathe the
very concept.

"Effective" cycling, as Tom Keats points out, is a bit of a different
slant on the theme. It basically holds that there are rules of the road,
and to fit in and be safe, one should follow them. That's relatively
benign in theory, but in fact, it gets restricting and coercive.

The distinction I make between cyclists and vehicle operators is both
historical and physical. Vehicle operators represent significant social
hazards and so, have been appropriately (in principle if not always in
degree) regulated. While it's true that observing conventions (for right
of way, etc.) is both convenient and polite, putting cyclists with their
30lb vehicles on the same legal footing as 3,000lb+ vehicles, crosses a
line into nonsense. I can go up an escalator the wrong way, elbow my way
through a crowd, or cut in lines, and I'm being rude, but that's all,
there's no law against it, nor should there be.

Yes, a cyclist can obtain lethal (to a pedestrian) velocity, under some
circumstances, so can a roller skater or a runaway baby buggy for that
matter. These are exceptional situations covered by laws for exceptional
situations. I deeply oppose categorizing bicycles as "vehicles",
particularly as merely a tactic to justify presence in the street. That
was a right, determined by historical precedence, only periodically
attempted to be withheld under pressure from automotive interests.
Accepting "vehicular" status is just a caving in to that pressure, and
in doing so, undermines the rights of other non-motorist, non-cycling,
citizens, and reinforces the idea that streets are for vehicles exclusively.

When I ride my bicycle, I try to maximize my own convenience where not
in conflict with courtesy. I'll observe conventions accordingly. When
courtesy is not a concern, I'll ride any way I want. I am not a
"vehicular" cyclist, nor an "effective" cyclist, I'm a polite cyclist. I
have not found a conflict between courtesy and safety, either my own or
that of others. On the other hand, you can't regulate courtesy. Emphasis
on law over courtesy only results in rude, but legal, behavior, examples
abound. With the operation of routinely lethal equipment, courtesy is
not sufficient, nor is convention, hence the need to regulate, by law
and penalty if no other method is effective. This is not reasonable for
cycling. It is wrong to accept it and worse to ask for it.

On Jun 10, 10:16*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a
nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two
blocks later.

Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this
specific case: *What non-VC technique would you use instead? *The
three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite
lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or
stop riding until he passed.

(* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.)

- Frank Krygowski

Sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists and that's that. It
has nothing to do with "vehicular cycling", it's just using the road....

When I ride my bicycle, I try to maximize my own convenience where not
in conflict with courtesy. I'll observe conventions accordingly. When
courtesy is not a concern, I'll ride any way I want. I am not a
"vehicular" cyclist, nor an "effective" cyclist, I'm a polite cyclist. I
have not found a conflict between courtesy and safety, either my own or
that of others. On the other hand, you can't regulate courtesy. Emphasis
on law over courtesy only results in rude, but legal, behavior, examples
abound. With the operation of routinely lethal equipment, courtesy is
not sufficient, nor is convention, hence the need to regulate, by law
and penalty if no other method is effective. This is not reasonable for
cycling. It is wrong to accept it and worse to ask for it.

I note your steadfast refusal to provide any specifics; for example,
to respond to my direct question above.

Seem you're either ashamed of your riding style, or you're unwilling
to admit the degree to which you operate as a vehicle operator. I
can't guess which.

Should I have pulled off the road to be "courteous"?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:16 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a
nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two
blocks later.

Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this
specific case: What non-VC technique would you use instead? The
three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite
lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or
stop riding until he passed.
(* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.)
- Frank Krygowski
Sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists and that's that. It
has nothing to do with "vehicular cycling", it's just using the road....

When I ride my bicycle, I try to maximize my own convenience where not
in conflict with courtesy. I'll observe conventions accordingly. When
courtesy is not a concern, I'll ride any way I want. I am not a
"vehicular" cyclist, nor an "effective" cyclist, I'm a polite cyclist. I
have not found a conflict between courtesy and safety, either my own or
that of others. On the other hand, you can't regulate courtesy. Emphasis
on law over courtesy only results in rude, but legal, behavior, examples
abound. With the operation of routinely lethal equipment, courtesy is
not sufficient, nor is convention, hence the need to regulate, by law
and penalty if no other method is effective. This is not reasonable for
cycling. It is wrong to accept it and worse to ask for it.

I note your steadfast refusal to provide any specifics; for example,
to respond to my direct question above.

Seem you're either ashamed of your riding style, or you're unwilling
to admit the degree to which you operate as a vehicle operator. I
can't guess which.

Should I have pulled off the road to be "courteous"?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think you're picking a fight. I can't say exactly what I would
have done in that specific circumstance. My general guideline is to be
courteous. Sometimes I'll pull over as far as I can and even wave a
driver by, other times I'll hold my ground and even return the abuse.
It's not simply a matter of mood, but likewise it isn't a matter of
dogma. I adapt to time and place, with perhaps a big dollop of mood
thrown in. In that vein, I think I answered your question as best I
could by saying "sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists,
and that's that". If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I was willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't unnecessarily
inconveniencing the driver, and understood, from many similar incidents,
that motorists often don't see things that way.

I would be unwilling to admit that I "operate as a vehicle operator",
because, besides the strange circular reference, I don't think of my
bike as a vehicle any more than I do my sneakers. I am not ashamed of
the way I ride, I don't think courtesy is shameful -- OK, I get a little
embarrassed by my language sometimes, but that's not too often. I am
famous in my bike club for chasing down motorists and giving them a
piece of my mind (usually in a non-abusive way). I have gotten into more
than one heated exchange with an office of the peace to the point of
once being threatened with arrest. So, I'm outspoken perhaps, but not
discourteous or rigid.

To get back to the subject of this thread, I'd say that I'm against
every one of those listed bike infractions. That doesn't mean I would do
all of them regularly, it also doesn't mean I wouldn't do any of them
sometimes. Forester waffles about being treated as a vehicle operator
without actually operating a vehicle (or something like that, it's too
convoluted for me to say for sure). That tangle represents the inherent
contradictions. If you're a vehicle operator, you get thrown in the
category, and then all kinds of rules that apply to motor vehicle
operation start being applied. Yes, you shouldn't drive a truck "no
hands", nor a car on the sidewalk. There is no safe speed or set of
circumstances for those behaviors. Bikes are different.

I can appreciate the motives of vehicular cycling proponents. They see
vehicular status as some sort of assurance of cycling legitimacy
(vehicle means not a toy). I can also understand your resistance (and,
like you, be surprised by the lack of resistance among some advocates)
for segregated solutions like lanes & sidepaths. While I'm mildly
opposed myself, I'm vehemently opposed to mandatory lanes and sidepaths,
but I can see how the first can easily morph to the second.

From my POV, vehicular cycling is a Faustian deal. You may get some
protection under the law, but you also get the full burden of the law,
which, like the military, is a blunt tool, to say the least. Inevitably,
you wind up with crackdowns like Vancouver. Just as you can't segregate
your way to safety, you can't legislate your way to courtesy. Cycling
should fall under the rules of courtesy, not civic responsibility.

I'm not usually shy about expressing my irritation with rude behavior in
public. There are lots of people less inhibited (and more expressive)
than I. When I do get honked or yelled at, I try to honestly evaluate if
I was out of line. Nearly 100% of the incidents were, like yours, cases
where some one felt obstructed, in a "take the lane" situation or
otherwise. I usually won't take the lane to prevent a passing attempt
unless it's a blatantly unsafe situation. I will change my "sharing"
position depending on how close I'm being passed, that's a judgment
thing I learned long before I ever heard of vehicular cycling. I don't
find that particular constant "negotiation" to be all that relaxing, so
I tend to avoid streets where it's likely.

In urban gridlock, I'll pass lines of cars on the right or left. I'll
ride on the sidewalks or contra-flow for short distances sometimes, I'll
ride in crosswalks. I treat stops as yields and reds as stops,
generally. I'll break speed limits where I can, but switch to walking
speed around peds and dismount in crowds. I never play chicken or force
my right of way, whether I legally have it or not. I don't assume people
will yield, eye contact or not. I don't trust motorists to stop on
signals, look before opening doors, or use turn signals. I don't expect
pedestrians to look before crossing or use crosswalks. I don't take more
of a lane than I absolutely need, but won't ride on even a wide shoulder
if there's any debris. I watch out for cyclists, particularly wrong way
& unlit ones. Ditto for walkers and runners in the street. I believe I
ride courteously and safely, though rarely strictly legally. I have
taught my children to ride the way I ride.

Next town over is Cambridge, MA. The bike committee there has been very
active. They've installed absolutely lethal bike lanes and lobbied for
crackdowns on scofflaw cyclists (which the cops have been only too happy
to oblige). I used to like to ride in Cambridge, now I avoid it as much
as possible.

On Jun 10, 4:42*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:16 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I note your steadfast refusal to provide any specifics; for example,
to respond to my direct question above.

Seem you're either ashamed of your riding style, or you're unwilling
to admit the degree to which you operate as a vehicle operator. *I
can't guess which.

Should I have pulled off the road to be "courteous"?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think you're picking a fight.

I'm not trying to. I'm trying to understand your views, which I can't
do without some description of your riding style.

I see you've now done that below. While I won't necessarily agree
with all of your riding style, I can at least visualize what you have
in mind when you criticize vehicular cycling.

I'm not usually shy about expressing my irritation with rude behavior in
public. There are lots of people less inhibited (and more expressive)
than I. When I do get honked or yelled at, I try to honestly evaluate if
I was out of line. Nearly 100% of the incidents were, like yours, cases
where some one felt obstructed, in a "take the lane" situation or
otherwise. I usually won't take the lane to prevent a passing attempt
unless it's a blatantly unsafe situation. I will change my "sharing"
position depending on how close I'm being passed, that's a judgment
thing I learned long before I ever heard of vehicular cycling. I don't
find that particular constant "negotiation" to be all that relaxing, so
I tend to avoid streets where it's likely.

In urban gridlock, I'll pass lines of cars on the right or left. I'll
ride on the sidewalks or contra-flow for short distances sometimes, I'll
ride in crosswalks. I treat stops as yields and reds as stops,
generally. I'll break speed limits where I can, but switch to walking
speed around peds and dismount in crowds. I never play chicken or force
my right of way, whether I legally have it or not. I don't assume people
will yield, eye contact or not. I don't trust motorists to stop on
signals, look before opening doors, or use turn signals. I don't expect
pedestrians to look before crossing or use crosswalks. I don't take more
of a lane than I absolutely need, but won't ride on even a wide shoulder
if there's any debris. I watch out for cyclists, particularly wrong way
& unlit ones. Ditto for walkers and runners in the street. I believe I
ride courteously and safely, though rarely strictly legally. I have
taught my children to ride the way I ride.

When you've described extra-legal behavior, you've done a good job of
inserting qualifiers like "generally" or "sometimes" etc. Since all
of us are certain to do some of those things in at least extreme
situations, I think many readers would be inclined to say "Oh, me
too." I won't pursue the issue of how often, under what
circumstances, etc. those extra-legal move occur.

I'll also note that everything from "I don't assume people will yield"
to "runners in the street" is absolutely normal for the vast majority
of vehicular cyclists, so there's certainly no conflict there.

I think if there is a disagreement, it would be with your statement "I
never ... force my right of way, whether I legally have it or not."
If I rode by that principle, I'd have to walk my bike to get out of
town, and I would have had to pull over and stop to let that rude
motorist I described get by me. That strategy doesn't work in my
world.

Since I'm legally entitled to use the road, I use it as the law
allows. Any other strategy makes my cycling far worse. This, if
anything, is the most fundamental principle of vehicular cycling; and
I'm quite committed to it. The rest is details.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

When you've described extra-legal behavior, you've done a good job of
inserting qualifiers like "generally" or "sometimes" etc. Since all
of us are certain to do some of those things in at least extreme
situations, I think many readers would be inclined to say "Oh, me
too." I won't pursue the issue of how often, under what
circumstances, etc. those extra-legal move occur.

Of course I qualify, since my practices vary depending on circumstance,
consistent with my criteria of being polite and my own convenience.

An explicit example is traveling in urban traffic, where "platooning" of
vehicles is common from traffic lights, and, depending on traffic speed
and light timing, you can find yourself either being constantly passed
by the same drivers, or ride in mostly empty streets ahead of the
platoon. Both involve "jumping" the light (treating it like a stop
sign), while one is actually polite, the other is not. Typically, the
impolite option doesn't gain any convenience, either. If it's
discourteous or unproductive, there's no reason to do it, & I won't.


I think if there is a disagreement, it would be with your statement "I
never ... force my right of way, whether I legally have it or not."
If I rode by that principle, I'd have to walk my bike to get out of
town, and I would have had to pull over and stop to let that rude
motorist I described get by me. That strategy doesn't work in my
world.

Since I'm legally entitled to use the road, I use it as the law
allows. Any other strategy makes my cycling far worse. This, if
anything, is the most fundamental principle of vehicular cycling; and
I'm quite committed to it. The rest is details.

I know I'm legally entitled to use the road, but I'm not defensive about
it. I don't have Forester's & other's fear that cyclists will be kicked
off the road. I don't claim my "right" to be a vehicle, my right is to
be in the street, walking, jogging, roller skating or dancing the mambo,
and I'm not going to let that be infringed upon without a fight. I'm not
going to go around picking fights, either.

By "forcing my right of way" I meant forcing the other person to yield.
In the case of being followed as you were, I wouldn't call that forcing
my right of way, but I don't mean to split hairs. I may not yield in
that situation, or I may, it's a gray area. The law is usually vaguely
worded ("as far to the right as practicable" is what we have), so even
the law is fuzzy.

Again, my main point is that I don't think cyclists and motorists should
both be equally subject to a uniform vehicle code. I think bicycle
behavior based on courtesy and convention is sufficient to protect
public safety and convenience. If cyclists flagrantly violate that
principle there are plenty of ways to charge them under non-traffic
laws. Asking for "same rules, same roads" in a legal sense, even if only
trying to protect bicycle access, is a dangerous game where the
consequences outweigh the benefits. Not the least of which are the
inevitable harassments so induced as described by this thread's title.

The convention for behavior can be established by using statutes with
effectively no penalty. An example of this is "jaywalking" in Boston --
illegal, but a $1 fine. The convention is established, but it is
accepted that it won't be universally followed or vigorously enforced. A
cop is still free to give a lecture and even write a ticket, especially
for flagrant violations, but it's a legal way of saying "This is the
official policy, but as long as you use judgment, you can ignore it".
That was the same attitude towards cyclists historically. The official
position was essentially that cyclists should obey traffic signals in
the same manner as motorists, but since the fines were minuscule, it was
assumed there was a tolerance for infractions as long as they weren't
flagrant. It was a compromise position, establishing convention formally
while at the same time allowing for adaptive, realistic behavior.

Such compromises are common, only Idaho went so far as to actually
formally define substantially different rules for cyclists, essentially
recognizing a sensible modification and formalizing what was typically
the unwritten law most other places. Changing this unwritten
arrangement, whether by dramatically increasing the fines, enforcement
level or both, may not have come from the lobbying of cycling
"advocates" in Vancouver, I don't really know, but it did in
Massachusetts. It was specifically cited in the "same rules, same roads"
context.

It's been my experience that some cyclists take the complaints of
motorists seriously -- the "wild in the streets" argument. Such
motorists are not supporters of cyclists, lawful or not. They pounce on
any justification to express their dislike for cyclists, attempting to
build arguments to restrict or ban cycling. Trying to mollify those
critics by accepting, or worse, calling for crack downs, just
strengthens their position as it blesses the "it's a jungle out there"
premise. Cyclists who buy into it are dupes. The "it's because of
cyclists like you that motorists hate us" reproach divides cyclist
against cyclist besides being utter nonsense. The reality is those
motorists who hate cyclists do so because they get in the way. Those
motorists do not want to "share the road" no matter how many signs you
put up. Trying to appease them is a symptom of true "cyclist inferiority
complex".

On Jun 11, 2:08*pm, Peter Cole wrote:...
lots!

I think we've thoroughly exhausted the topic, at least for now.

But your posts have made me curious about one last thing: Their
length!

Do you just type extremely fast, or do you use voice recognition
software like Dragon Naturally Speaking?

Just curious. (Seriously!)

- Frank Krygowski

I wrote:

I wouldn't even describe myself as "generally disagreeing"
with most of their stance on advocacy. The little bit that I
wasn't in lockstep with that they absolutely would not accept.

Frank Krygowski replied:

We'll need some specifics to evaluate what you're talking
about. For all I know, the VCs were telling you not to ride
facing traffic, and you're offended they wouldn't see things
your way.

=v= I saw this as flamebait and decided to drop the thread,
but I've changed my mind. I hope everyone reads that, because
it perfectly illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. This
absurd scenario in which I would be so extremely in the wrong
is the first thing that jumps to his belittling, condescending
keyboard. That's *precisely* the attitude I'm referring to.

=v= That's just not the way to build a coalition.
_Jym_