Advocacy & Safety - Stunned!

I just found out The British Columbia Automobile Association has a policy of recomending bicycles should be separated from motor vehicle traffic.


Excerpt from BCAA 20052006 Statement of Policy (page 5):

Policy 1.12
Bicycling
In the interest of safety, bicycle traffic should be separated from
motor vehicle traffic, where feasible.

Recommendation 1.12.1
Bicycling
Governments and police services are urged to enact and enforce uniform
laws governing use of, and design and equipment standards for, bicycles,
and to cooperate in the development of facilities to separate bicycle
traffic from motor vehicle traffic, where feasible.
-
http://www.bcaa.com/ilwwcm/resources/file/eb08410f9cf66e6/05-06CAAStatementPolicy.pdf

Were not roads first paved for bicycles, not cars, and were not bicycles also the reason most of our right-of-way rules exist?

I'm stunned by this policy from such a large advocate entrenched in established legalities.

I just found out The British Columbia Automobile Association has a policy of recomending bicycles should be separated from motor vehicle traffic.


Excerpt from BCAA 20052006 Statement of Policy (page 5):

Policy 1.12
Bicycling
In the interest of safety, bicycle traffic should be separated from
motor vehicle traffic, where feasible.

Recommendation 1.12.1
Bicycling
Governments and police services are urged to enact and enforce uniform
laws governing use of, and design and equipment standards for, bicycles,
and to cooperate in the development of facilities to separate bicycle
traffic from motor vehicle traffic, where feasible.
-
http://www.bcaa.com/ilwwcm/resources/file/eb08410f9cf66e6/05-06CAAStatementPolicy.pdf

Were not roads first paved for bicycles, not cars, and were not bicycles also the reason most of our right-of-way rules exist?

I'm stunned by this policy from such a large advocate entrenched in established legalities.


They're an automotive group, they no doubt want everything outta the way so they can "Zoom Zoom."

No hidden agenda, there.

"in the interest of safety..." :rolleyes:

yeah, right...

An organization so entrenched in the history, realities and legalities of the road as AA has to see there is not only no hope in acheiving this, they'll alienate people who have such a narrow focus as to be in favor of it.

Provincially, there was a law that did restict cyclists to existing bike lanes where they were avalible, but it was thrown out back in '96.

BCAA is a full-service insurance agency. They likely feel it is in their best interest to completely seperate bicycle/auto traffic as it could lead to a reduction in claims. Especially if BC has any no-fault rules.

I just found out The British Columbia Automobile Association has a policy of recomending bicycles should be separated from motor vehicle traffic.

Did the BCAA indicate where they intend to put all those cars?

This attitude is pretty prevalent among motorists. Most are surprised to find that legally cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities that they do. I guess this has always been the case (see the "history" thread) at least since 1894, based on old case law. If I keep thinking like this, pretty soon I will be a full fledged VC advocate, railing against those segregationists. Maybe this is a fight that still needs fighting?

There must be an argument based on public use. I mean, take a public library. This is a public facility. There is no prohibition against slow readers. Also, it seems to ban cyclists is putting an economic barrier to use of public roads because it is so costly to own and maintain a motor vehicle. Scary.

Also, it seems to ban cyclists is putting an economic barrier to use of public roads because it is so costly to own and maintain a motor vehicle. Scary.

yep. and if they propose to ban cycling on certain roads are they also going to propose increased public transportation at the same time? somehow i highly doubt it.

Motoring organizations have always been the primary advocates for banning bicycles from roadways.

Note that banning bicycles from roadways means increased sidewalk-type cycling, which has higher car-bike collision rates, so it has nothing to do with safety. Roadway bicycling bans can only reduce absolute crash numbers if they greatly reduce cycling miles traveled by 50-75% or more.

BCAA is a full-service insurance agency.

The British Columbia Automobile Association [BCAA] is a not-for-profit member services organization with more than 750,000 members in British Columbia and the Yukon.

BCAA is affiliated with the Canadian Automobile Association [CAA] and the American Automobile Association [AAA].

It does sell insurance but is also a travel agency and advocate for road use safety and education.

someone should draft up a letter with a counter argument and send it.

A few years ago a letter appeared in the spring edition of "Westworld" - the quarterly magazine for BCAA members - complaining of cyclists on the road. The main point was that cyclists didn't buy insurance so they had no right to use the roads.

I sent in a letter complaining that BCAA was doing a disservice to it's members by printing such a letter because it was speading misinformation on the subject and that BCAA had an obligation to not misinform members about how the right to use roads is public and the methods of financing the road system is not through insurance.

They never printed it, of course. I think I now see why.

I just found out The British Columbia Automobile Association has a policy of recomending bicycles should be separated from motor vehicle traffic.

This attitude is pretty prevalent among motorists.

This attitude is, sadly, also pretty prevalent among bike forum members. The bike lanes and "preferred" velotransit facilities which they favor is exactly what the BCAA means when it says, "bicycle traffic should be separated from motor vehicle traffic, where feasible."

Motoring advocacates and bike lane advocates... peas in a pod... flip sides of the same coin...

Did the BCAA indicate where they intend to put all those cars?

Hahaha. I like this one.


The CAA in Ontario thinks the best use of the Toronto waterfront would be entrance ramps for off-shore expressways in Lake Ontario.

I'm not making this up. They were really lobbying for it a while back.

They are all stuck in the 1960s.

...They are all stuck in the 1960s.

That's just it. I don't think they are. I've read a lot of what BCAA puts out and they're not all that bad. They do advocate for the motoring public of course, but this stance flys in the face of what is considered reasonable and pudent road use management.

Local laws and policing all encourage cycling on public roads using the same rules and rights as motorists.

BCAA is way out of step with just about any organization that works in this field. That's why I'm stunned.

I'm sorry but velotransit doesn't separate bicycles from motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle paths do that.

And if you think about it, it's gotta be a lot harder to get hurt in a car accident riding a bike on a bike path than on the street. So why would they not think it's safer. Less convenient, more prone to an accident in general, but like how roundabouts don't reduce accidents, they only reduce accident severity, bike paths also do the same. So yes, separating bicycles from motor vehicle traffic is going to be safer, and people for whom safety is the top concern, are going to seek that solution.

...but all cyclists are only involved in 1% of traffic accidents in BC, yet commuter cyclists (approximately only 5% of all cyclists) make up 2% of traffic. Further, fatalities rates are higher for both motorists (barely higher) and pedestrians (much higher).

It isn't dangerous to ride a bike on the streets of BC, and the policy statement wants to get bikes off the street. Not just onto bikelanes. Off the street. Or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. If it is just to develop bikelanes, there is still the largest factor for collisions to contend with, and that's the intersections all users of bikelanes have to deal with. That's why I think BCAA wants separate facilities, like trails, etc. Routes away from autos.

There was a similar proposal when comments were invited for the new edition of the UK's Highway Code. the Driving Standards Agency ( a body whose cycing expertise had previously been unsuspected), called for all cyclists to use cycling facilities where they existed.

The BBC made use of the Warrington cycle lane of the month website photos in reporting this to general merriment and the CTC got an "email your MP" programme going which resulted in them (MPs) receiving over 11,000 repsonses from cyclists. The proposal was thrown out. It was, almost certainly the fastest and most effective cycling lobbying action in UK history.

Can I suggest that canadian cyclists get as many photos of crappy cycle lanes/paths/facilities together as possible and inundate their legislators and the press with the absurdity of BCAA's proposal

You know it works

Motor vehicle speed is the purpose of bike lanes and segregated paths, first and foremost. Safety is far down on the list of reasons for bicycle facilities.

Everybody knows that, except for the members of this forum.

The BCAA should realize that the League of American Bicyclists might just support the proposal.

yep. and if they propose to ban cycling on certain roads are they also going to propose increased public transportation at the same time? somehow i highly doubt it.

I don't know about Canada, but cycling is already banned on certain roads in the United States. They're called limited access highways.

I'm sorry but velotransit doesn't separate bicycles from motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle paths do that.

And if you think about it, it's gotta be a lot harder to get hurt in a car accident riding a bike on a bike path than on the street. So why would they not think it's safer. Less convenient, more prone to an accident in general, but like how roundabouts don't reduce accidents, they only reduce accident severity, bike paths also do the same. So yes, separating bicycles from motor vehicle traffic is going to be safer, and people for whom safety is the top concern, are going to seek that solution.

To anyone whom road safety is the "top concern": Why not further restrict the use of cars instead of bicycles? Cars are a much greater danger to road users in general than bicycles are. If you are only interested in restricting vehicles that you believe are dangerous to their operators without regard for other road users, consider motorcycles. Motorcycles are by far the most dangerous vehicles to operate.

I don't know about Canada, but cycling is already banned on certain roads in the United States. They're called limited access highways.

Transportation is under provincial control. In Ontario 400-series highways do not allow bikes (not that a cyclist could keep up with the 60km/hr minimum speed limit) and municipalities have the authority to ban bikes from any road. In Ottawa there are exactly two roads than ban bikes, one of them the 417 and the other is highway 174, which is essentially an extension of the 417 with the same max/min speed limits.

(I'm not including bus-only roads and lanes here, which exclude bikes and all other vehicles).

...The bike lanes and "preferred" velotransit facilities which they favor is exactly what the BCAA means when it says, "bicycle traffic should be separated from motor vehicle traffic, where feasible."...

I'd like to see this verified.

It's possible that's what they mean, but it is just as possible that they mean, off the street and onto paths away from streets where a cyclist would have to dismount and walk the bike where the path intersects with traffic.

I think you're guessing.

I emailed BCAA and asked for someone to explain this.

Oh, please. For someone who contends, "bicycle traffic should be separated from motor vehicle traffic, where feasible", clearly bike lanes are clearly better than no bike lanes, and separate bike paths completely off the road are even better.

You're just assuming.

The whole thing smells funny because there are long standing answers to the statement of policy.

TAC establishes standards for facilities for bicycles (ie: bikelanes), CSA establishes equipment standards for bicycles, and the Motor Vehicle Act establishes uniform laws governing cyclists on the roads.

Bike lanes and bike trails have been around because of demand from citizens of communities (and govenment is trying to get more people bikes through these) but cyclists are not required to use the trails or paths.

What would stink is if BCAA wants to try to promote legislation that would ban cyclists from roads to separate facilities, where feasible. There was a lot of hard work to remove the previous legislation that demanded this and collision and injury rates have dropped since it was.

It reminds me of calls for tougher sentencing for criminals to reduce crime when the crime rates have been falling for years with the "softer" sentences.

I just contacted BCAA and they say they are simply in favor of bike lanes and trails. They are not in favor of legislation requiring cyclists to use lanes and trails where avalible.

I suggested cycling is pretty safe as it is but to improve safety further, maybe they could support education and Can-Bike courses rather than promoting lanes and trails.

I just contacted BCAA and they say they are simply in favor of bike lanes and trails. They are not in favor of legislation requiring cyclists to use lanes and trails where avalible.

I suggested cycling is pretty safe as it is but to improve safety further, maybe they could support education and Can-Bike courses rather than promoting lanes and trails.
Good job. I wonder how many calls it would take for them to look into it? Probably not that many.

I don't know about Canada, but cycling is already banned on certain roads in the United States. They're called limited access highways.BTW, in N.C. (and some other states in the U.S.) cyclists are banned (http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/dawson/roads/nc_roads.htm) from interstates and other fully controlled access highways, but not from limited access highways
NC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19A NCAC 02E
.0409 OPERATING NONMOTORIZED VEHICLES
"It is unlawful for any person to ... to operate a bicycle ... on any interstate or other fully controlled access highway."

Motoring organizations have always been the primary advocates for banning bicycles from roadways.
Any credible references for this information/observation/guess about the "history" of advocacy efforts for banning bicycles from roadways?

I just received an additional email from BCAA that thanked me for the bike info I gave them and they mentioned that ICBC has found data tells them that new drivers who take driver training actually get in more crashes than those who don't.

I guess a simple course doesn't do as much good as it seems as it would.

I just received an additional email from BCAA that thanked me for the bike info I gave them and they mentioned that ICBC has found data tells them that new drivers who take driver training actually get in more crashes than those who don't. . . .
I'd only believe that if I saw the study and the numbers. The result is probably because driver training is often used by people to avoid paying fines or increased insurance after accidents. So you have a group of people who have already proven themselves to be more dangerous. If the study didn't control for that, it's not all that helpful.

This particular driver training that BCAA and ICBC are talking about is part of the graduated licencing program.

New learning drivers can take the road test (for an "N" -new- driver, unaccompanied, but still with restrictions) a couple of months sooner if that person takes an approved drivers education course (a good, proper 12 week course). It's an incentive to get your licence sooner than others.

I suggested if potential drivers wanted to get thir learners licence sooner, an incentive could be to have theose people take and pass a proper Can-Bike course to get their learners licence sooner than those that don't.

We're talking about people who have never driven before. I think time and experience along with education and a good attitude helps. Maybe most of these people are still just kids doing kid things with limited perspective and anticipation of potential road developments because they have limited experience.

...clearly bike lanes are clearly better than no bike lanes

True.


...and separate bike paths completely off the road are even better.

Depends what your definition of "bike path" is. I detest the common, shoddily-built, so-called 'trails' for the beach-cruiser genere of rider, but I'm all for cycle highways, that is, an actual multi-lane highway for cyclists, properly paved, striped, graded, and complete with traffic lights. Of course, I'm pretty much dreaming here...

Take care,

-Kurt

I'd only believe that if I saw the study and the numbers. The result is probably because driver training is often used by people to avoid paying fines or increased insurance after accidents. So you have a group of people who have already proven themselves to be more dangerous. If the study didn't control for that, it's not all that helpful.
I agree with your skepticism, but will inform you that driver training is not used to avoid paying fines or increased insurance in BC. In fact, most people only take driver training as new drivers. This doesn't mean the study wasn't skewed though. From what I've read, the graduated licencing program, introduced in 1998, has been "successful."

Also, I should take a photo of a "bike lane" that was put in with a new bridge on my commute. There is a sign that directs bicycles to ride on the sidewalk and yield to pedestrians, even though the lanes are plenty wide enough for a bike and a car (the bridge being only a couple years old). The exit from said "bike lane" is absolutely treacherous, with no easily accessible crosswalk button. I disregard the sign and ride the road, as I turn left only 50m after the bad entrance, and don't want to cross two lanes of traffic from the sidewalk.