Commodus

Plus the fact that it is actually impossible. The day I can tool along at 25km/h on whatever highway or bridge I want is the day I'll support all this 'same rights same rules' nonsense.

MMACH 5

Good point.

MMACH 5

Not sure about the laws in Burnaby, but here in Texas, the only roads that have minimal speed laws applied are toll roads and they don't allow cyclists to ride on those.

The point of "same rights, same rules" is for predictability. Vehicles sharing space goes much smoother when those participating follow the same rules and thus react predictably in a given situation.

bhtooefr

Here in Ohio, impeding traffic is illegal for motor vehicles.

Bicycles are vehicles, but are not motor vehicles.

Keith99

I want to know what is ment by "Actively".

If it means specifically dedicating resources to ticket for something then none I can think of. I can think of some where I'd like it IF the problem was pervasive. Like Salmoning in the bike lane portion of the Beach Bike Path. But such are few and far between (Perhaps becaseu where 20 other bikes are coming the other way right at you even the near brain dead figure it out.

If actively means Happen to see it issue a ticket then pretty much everything if an egerious violation. E.g. not ticketing for a rolling stop.

For potentially dangerous actions that could be the result of ignorance I'd prefer officers going in planing on a lecture and warning. If a cyclist is a jerk about it then the ticket is on his head. (Of course I want the officers to understand just what is dangerous and what the law actually say).

sauerwald

I would support more aggressively ticketing all road users who are doing something that makes the roads more dangerous to other users. The problem is that many of the laws are poorly written when it comes to bicycles, and most LEOs do not have a good grasp of either bicycle related laws or the operating characteristics of a bicycle. For example, although driving at 30mph in a 25mph speed zone is liable to never result in a ticket, statistically it massively increases the risk of serious injury or death to pedestrians and cyclists who share that road. Because of the characteristics of a bicycle, it is far harder for a cyclist to engage in any behavior that endangers others more than it does to the cyclist.

Because a cyclist is better able to control the bicycle when rolling (at even a very slow speed), I believe that in many cases, coming to a complete stop at a stop sign is more dangerous that slowing, and rolling through the intersection if it is clear - this is activity that should never be ticketed.

Riding without lights, without brakes, etc. is stupid, and endangers the cyclist, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to issue a ticket, but the penalty should not be super-harsh.

gcottay

Given the different potentials for death and destruction, I'd focus on MV traffic and only ticket the extreme kamikaze riders.

If, on the other hand, I get a ticket for one of my mild offenses my bleats of complaint will be very soft.

I-Like-To-Bike

Given your first sentence, would you recommend that some cyclists get a ticket for coming to a full stop instead of rolling through an intersection? After all, in your construct it is more dangerous to stop.

noisebeam

For traffic law violations but with the same , not more stringent, criteria as applied to motor vehicle drivers.

28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders
A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.

genec

For the sake of argument, what other laws can you think of that tend to apply primarily to motor vehicles, that make little sense to cyclists?

GrouchoWretch

Pollution emissions standards (usually).

cderalow

i occasionally cause some nasty pollution while riding

I would think the obvious ones would be:

seat belts & air bags/safety features
emissions/pollution
some of the specifics for vehicle equipment (windscreen, mirrors, lighting, vehicle dimension restrictions)

i think that states should follow similar requirements of cyclists as they do of motorcyclists for safety equipment and operation standards

genec

These are primarily equipment laws... I was thinking more along the line of road use law such as the need to keep right, no sharing of lanes, the need to not impede other traffic...

bhtooefr

Mind you, motorcycles are required to have speedometers, lighting (although, Germany requires lighting for all but the lightest bicycles), and even control layout to an extent (and mandating motorcycle control layout for a bicycle would essentially mandate coaster brakes, so that the right pedal can act as a brake).

steve0257

My main two are lighting and failure to yield.

I don't care if a bike runs a stop sign, but if somebody has to brake because of the cyclist running the stop sign the cyclist failed to yield and should be ticketed.

And for God's sake, put some decent lights on the bikes.

CB HI

I think all bent riders should be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt.

CB HI

Reading that, it appears that motorist are allowed to drive on the shoulder. Is that true, or are cyclist actually treated differently with respect to shoulders. Otherwise, it seems cyclist should be ticketed for driving on the shoulder, just the same as motorist, right?

CB HI

So in MHL states, cyclist should have to wear DOT approved motorcycle helmets, PLUS have brake lights, amber turn signal lights, horns of ***dBa, license plates, registration, vehicle insurance, require a drivers license, annual vehicle inspection, etc.?

Six jours

For impersonating Winston Churchill.

B. Carfree

If I break a law while riding, I won't whine about receiving a ticket. It was my choice to break the law and the cop who writes me up is doing his job. However, I don't care to see other cyclists cited. Sure, I see riders running stop signs and red lights, even creating conflicts with cross traffic that has the right-of-way, and it just doesn't concern me. I'm happy they're riding and I assume they drive in a similar fashion since I regularly see motorists behave the exact same way but with much more momentum to transfer.

That said, I am convinced that the only way to make the roads safe enough for large numbers of people to leave their motorized padded cells behind is to have vigorous, aggressive traffic law enforcement. I've seen it work in the past and I believe it will work again if any jurisdiction ever tries it. It will be difficult to get traffic law enforcement to happen if cyclists are perceived to be receiving a free ride. I would accept citations for all cycling moving violations in the context of motorists receiving similar treatment because I think it will make the roadways so safe that the majority of able-bodied people will walk and ride instead of driving. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Myosmith

I completely disagree with the no harm, no foul ideology. I'm not for ticketing every little infraction, but same offense = same fine. Damages from causing harm are a civil matter, not a matter for traffic or criminal law. No harm, no foul is like saying I should be able to drive my car at 100 mph through a school zone as long as I don't hit anyone. Reasonable deterence to blatant disregard for public safety, regardless of outcome of the action, should be the goal of ticketing motorists, cyclists, or even pedestrians. If you apply the no harm, no foul ideology across the board, that would mean that motorists should be able to pass cyclists as close and as fast as they want as long as they don't make contact, drive in bike lanes and make blind right hook turns as long as we don't actually get hit.

IMHO tickets should be issued for blatant disregard of public safety with officers having the discretion to issue warnings for lesser offenses or offenses in low risk situations ie. slow-n-go a stop sign in a quiet residential area with no cross traffic = blip on the siren and a finger shake; blow a stop sign without looking with no cross traffic = stop and warn; blow through stop light in traffic resulting in cross traffic having to brake and narrowly missing pedestrians in crosswalk = ticket.

I'm also all for law enforcement protecting the rights and safety of cyclists and other non-motorized traffic/pedestrians through warnings and ticketing for actions which put cyclists at risk or for intentional harrassment.

Matariki

It's not as simple as same offense = same fine because one can make a bunch of different interpretations of "offense". Violating the letter of the law is quite a bit different than flaunting the intent of the law. A cyclist rolling through a stop at 6AM after verifying through observation that there is no likelihood of other vehicles or pedestrians has satisfied the intent of the law, which is to ensure that collisions will not take place. The same would hold for a car (if they could really do a verifying observation given their isolation). On the other hand, aggressive enforcement and appropriate punishment are necessary for actions that could be reasonably anticipated to have a negative outcome (like your example of driving at 100 mph in a school zone as well as close passing, etc.).

My feeling is that since the laws are intended to regulate the behavior of motor vehicles, they should not be applied to cyclists in the same way. Especially when a cyclist breaks a law intentionally for safety reasons. For example, on my morning commute I intentionally ride about a half mile the wrong way on a one-way street. I choose to do this because this street is sedate with no traffic in the early morning (I encounter a car only 3-4 times a year). My only other options are to take one of two parallel streets that are highly trafficked, have narrow lanes, and upon which I have had some scary encounters. If cited, would I be able to convince the court in my favor? I'd say there is at least a 50/50 chance that the judge would dismiss.

alhedges

I actually wish we had a different ticketing regime for bikes than for cars - I'd prefer that most traffic infractions committed on a bike have lower fines, but be enforced more frequently.

I.e., a traffic violation where I live costs $150. That seems fine if I'm speeding in my car, but it seems excessive if I go through a light on my bike when nothing is coming - in that context, I think a $20 fine would be more reasonable because you don't, generally, endanger others with a bike the way that you do with a car (even though of course you *can* endanger others).

Under current laws, though, I'd prefer that cops reserve tickets for the most dangerous behavior. I'd put riding at night on streets with no lights on the top of that list. Blowing a light or stop sign when another vehicle has the right of way would go second. Salmoning into traffic would probably be third, although I don't think that doing this for a short distance on a one-way street should necessarily be ticketed if there is no traffic.

Myosmith

Please allow me to clarify my position, I didn't intend my statement to mean that fines should be the same for cars and bikes or that all offenses deserved the same punishment. What I did intend is that the same offense should receive the same punishment whether or not injury occurred. For example. Two cyclists riding side by side at high speed blow a stop light and fly through a crowded crosswalk. One rider narrowly misses a pedestrian while his riding partner clips her knocking her to the ground causing an injury (broken wrist for argument's sake). Both riders blew the same stop light and put the same pedestrians at risk but only one actually made contact. Should the rider who missed the pedestrian by an inch by pure luck get off scott free while is partner gets the book thrown at him? IMHO, No, the action and intent was the same for both riders and both showed blatant disregard for the safety of the pedestrian, so both should be ticketed under traffic/criminal law. Civil court will decide who is responsible for the injured party's lost wages, medical bills, and pain and suffering.

Other side of the coin: Should the motor vehicle passenger who throws a beer bottle at the head of a cyclist and misses receive less of a ticket than a passenger who throws and hits his mark? Same offense = Same punishment, or at least it should.

I agree with you that there are degrees of offense and if you re-read my post you will see that I support discretion being applied based on the actual severity of the infraction and the amount of disregard for public safety. Low risk but technically illegal actions taken with reasonable regard for the safety of others get the stern look and a finger shake. I also agree that you can't universally apply rules intended for motor vehicles to bicycles and a I believe most states make that distiction.

CB HI

So you favor the death penalty for attempted murder, same a first degree murder?