Sledbikes

https://www.vancouversun.com/sports/P...803/story.html

gerald_g 

I didn't see any thing about a trail-a-bike in the article ?

What did I miss ?

WCoastPeddler

Some of it's pretty ridiculous.

$109 fine for standing on pedals to get up a hill

$109 fine for riding with no hands on handlebars


What a great place I live in.

Sledbikes

3rd paragraph

Mr Danw

If there were no laws most people would be living in trees flinging crap at each other. Passing out copies of cycling laws to cyclists is a favor and in no way an infringement on anyone's rights.

gerald_g 

"Forget doubling your kid on the back; that's another $109. And no, you can't grab on to the back of a car for a free tow. Nor can you stand up on your pedals to get up that hill -- if you don't have your butt in the seat, that's another $109."

This bit ??

I've not read up on BC laws, but in AB, the law says, "no passengers on a bike not designed for passengers" Since a "trail-a-bike" is designed for carrying a passener (as is a tandem), then in Alberta at least, it would be legal.

The law is to discourage having a passenger on the handlebar, or the BMX foot pegs, etc.

... edit....

Actually I did a quick google, I didn't find the actual act word for word, but this site called "Victoria Cycling Coalition" says that the law is similar to AB.

"must not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped"

droptop

how is standing while pedaling a crime? the others, while somewhat absurd, have a thread of relevance towards safety. but not being able to stand on the bike????

Mr Danw

To be "astride" the saddle one only needs a leg over each side of the saddle. On and astride mean two different things.

Santaria

Can't stand to finish off a big mash up a hill there? Yeesh, so you guys can't even push a gear. If your butt isn't sitting and spinning, you're getting a fine.

Glad I don't have to deal with crap rules that have zero to do with bike safety like that.

politicalgeek

I did a quick Google as well. Trailers, child seats, trail a bikes and the like are approved for carrying passengers. Which leaves me wondering where the xtracycle and other similar bikes enter the picture.

gerald_g 

I wondered as well. If the back is considered a "seat" with a place to put feet by the manufacturer, than it might be OK. Putting kids in a dutch cargo bike, wheelbarrow shaped cargo area, would likely be on the wrong side of this law.

politicalgeek

Which is the problem, in general, with cycling laws-and I guess all laws in general-is that they don't keep up with current technology or industries.

CB HI

So YOU need someone else to tell you what good behavior is, so YOU will not be flinging crap around. I am glad I am not your neighbor.

CB HI

I am also glad I do not live in Vancouver. I don’t want a bell on my bike, I also prefer a lights over a reflector, and I stand on the pedals when climbing or starting a sprint.

If I did live in Vancouver, I think I would take Bike Month off from riding.

Mr Danw

Hello CB, let me thank you for being the first poo flinger. I don't need someone to tell me cycling laws that I already know, however, there are many cyclists who have no idea of laws governing cycling. If an officer pulls a cyclist over and asks the ever popular question, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Chances are greater than not that the answer they will receive will be "I don't know". This would be the reason for passing out copies of cycling laws. This also keeps law enforcement officers aware of cycling laws that are actually on the books instead of harassing cyclists with what they think are laws. This may prevent law enforcement from ticketing for non-offenses and prevent loss of wages for those who choose to fight these in court.

Now if you read the article you will see there is a list of laws and fines. These are listed after the authors interpretation of the below listed laws. There is no mention of trail-a-bikes period. The law does not state that you cannot stand to pedal. The law does not state "ON" the saddle. It states "ASTRIDE" the saddle. Which basically means over the saddle with one leg to each side of the saddle. You can sit or stand astride the saddle.

It is popular among news media to give opinion first to cloud fact. The article gives theory and conjecture first to skew your view of the later given facts. This is the tool the media uses to cause controversy. Controversy sells papers, gains a larger audience, and sells more advertising space.

Blue Order

I doubt it is; I think it's far more likely that the writer is misinformed.

pedalpedalpedal

Not all laws are necessary. And I think your view on human nature is pretty condescending... if there weren't police around giving people tickets and arresting people, it's not like everyone will commit all sorts of crimes all the time. Most people have common sense, or at least need to be informed a bit, but they are not savages being restrained by the law.

Would you smash car windows and murder senior citizens if you knew you wouldn't go to prison? No, and most other people wouldn't either.


EDIT: To be on topic, the next time I bike past a member of the VPD I'll stand on my pedals and coast slooooowly past them

Blue Order

Reporters often rephrase things for journalistic style; the problem with doing that when rephrasing the law is they get the law wrong.

Bikepacker67

Dude... ya oughta read the link before getting all self-righteous. I learned my lesson

These "cycling laws" are ridiculous, and if the car-equivalent was "passed put" to motorists, I can just imagine the reaction.

CB HI

You make a stupid statement which I simply point out the stupidity of and then you respond as if I did not read the article.

Maybe you are so foolish and rude because you do not believe citizens have a right to disagree with bell laws or you disagree with those who prefer lights over a reflector.

closetbiker

and sometimes the law is written not as well as it could have been.

I should ask about this but what my first guess would be is it's not standing on the pedals (as when you're climbing or starting up in a high gear) that's the issue, but rather that they don't want people doing any fancy tricks while riding down the the street like having on foot on the seat and another on the handlebars (or some such trickery)

closetbiker

And isn't that the big problem?

Advocates do all they can to entice people out onto their bikes and then they get the idea that the cops are going to give them multiple tickets eliminating much of the work the bicycle promotions groups have been working on all winter long.

In the other thread on this same topic. I posted a clip from the evening news on the story

https://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

and in it, a cyclist said he hadn't been on his bike in years and he ends up getting pulled over for no helmet. I wonder if he's thinking he's going to get on his bike again knowing he can get ticketed for hundreds of dollars if he does so?

I think it's a good idea to make people aware that they can be fined if they break the law and by having publicity about the campaign (and not giving out actual fines) the sooth the predictable and annual complaints from drivers who complain about those cyclists who break the law, but wouldn't it be much better if, during Bike Month, cops stood at intersections and pulled over drivers who break the law by not giving a cyclist riding through an intersection their right of way?

Most collisions happen at intersections and it's drivers who cut off a cyclist by turing either left or right when the cyclist has the right of way. It also would be good to have a cop at mid block to catch drivers who pass a cyclist without safe clearance.

Now that would be a safety campaign for Bike Month advocates and cyclists would love.

Motorists would hate it though and that's what's driving this. Motorists who do the most damage, complaining about those that cause the least damage.

Yeah! It's Bike Month (NOT)!

JRA

The Vancouver police obviously don't like bicycling. Their idea of a Bike Month project is to stop bicyclists and hassle them by giving them a list of fines they may face if they ride a bicycle. "You better watch out, bicyclists. We, your friendly Vancouver cops, are gonna get you."

The police department is simply thumbing its nose at the idea of a Bike Month.

Would they stop motorists to give them a list of fines they may face if they drive a car? Of course they wouldn't because there'd be too much of an uproar.

If they're stopping bicyclists for no other reason than to give them a fake ticket when no violation has occurred, is that even a legal stop?

Mr Danw

Motor vehicle laws are passed out to potential motorists before they are allowed the privilege of driving.

Mr Danw

No, I believe you read it in the manner the author intended you to, as anti-cycling propaganda. As an advocate I'm almost sure you would rather have to deal with law abiding cyclists rather than wrong way ninjas and stop sign runners impeding your progress.

Police passing out copies of cycling law is a double edged sword. Sure they can ticket you for breaking a law, but they can no longer try to ticket you for breaking a cycling rule passed on to then by their ill-informed parents. If law enforcement tries to ticket you for operating within the law all one needs to do is whip out their police issued copy of cycling laws and ask the officer to show the rider where the violation is in their own publication. These published rules are a good defense for any cyclist wrongfully ticketed in Vancouver.