Advocacy & Safety - Driver Hits a Group ride in Victoria BC

I didn't see this posted yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/03/09/bc-victoria-bike-club-accident.html

RCMP are investigating a strange accident in Sidney in which a passing vehicle apparently crashed into a group of about 20 cyclists from a Victoria-area riding club.

The cyclists were biking along Lands End Road, north of Victoria, when the car attempted to go around them, but a second vehicle turned onto the same road, sideswiping the first one, said police in a statement released on Sunday morning.

Several of the cyclists sustained minor injuries and two were treated in hospital and later released.

Neither driver suffered any injuries, but substantial property damage occurred to both the vehicles and many of the bicycles.

RCMP were continuing their investigation into the collision, but pointed out that under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, a cyclist must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway.

RCMP were continuing their investigation into the collision, but pointed out that under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, a cyclist must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway.

I'm glad to hear that no-one appears to have been seriously hurt, but I question this law when it comes to group rides. I did the Ride to Conquer Cancer last year, where we had 3500 cyclists on a two day ride. In such circumstances, riding single file would mean that a car waiting at an intersection with a stop sign might have to let 7km of bicycles by before they could get onto the street.

Of course we had marshalls at many of the intersections, but reason suggests that bikes should be able to pass each other at the very least, and when there are significant numbers of bikes on the road (say 5-10/minute or so) it would cause everybody headaches if there was no side by side riding.

IMHO the issue here is someone was passing without have a clear line of sight on the opposite lane - a dangerous manouver indeed.

Yup yet again, along comes an impatient motorist...

in typical fashion, the comments from drivers complaining about cyclists roll in.

To up is allowed in the UK, though many drivers are unaware of this and give us stick about it. But I feel it's much safer- the group becomes much shorter and the motorists behind are more easily aware that there are a lot of cyclists there, which they need to overtake as they would any other vehicle. In single file most will just push past, buzzing you if the opposite lane is in use. I'd rather have the angry arsehole honking at me and waiting his turn than the people buzzing me any day.

How many cyclist were riding abreast is likely irrelevant if the lane was not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass a single file line of cylists without going over the roadway centerline. Even if it was wide enough it is not what caused the accident.

In the US it is illegal to drive on the left side of the roadway (pass):
1. When approaching the crest of a grade or on a curve in the highway where the driver's view is obstructed within such distance as to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction.
2. When approaching within one hundred feet of or traversing any intersection or railroad grade crossing or where appropriate signs or markings have been installed to define a no passing zone.
3. When the view is obstructed on approaching within one hundred feet of any bridge, viaduct or tunnel

In most cases intersection approaches are marked (with signs and/or centerline striping) as no passing zones.

The other cause is the 2nd driver who pulled into the roadway should not (by US law) enter the roadway if vehicles "are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard"

Of course these are US laws, but very likely similar ones apply.

How many cyclist were riding abreast is likely irrelevant if the lane was not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass a single file line of cylists

This is true generally, but NOT in the context of the accident. I'm assuming a car turned right into the oncoming lane, and if the cyclists were single file, the cars could have squeezed past (two cars and a bike can definitely fit if the 3-foot clause is ignored).

as for passing within 100 feet of an intersection - in dense urban areas, does that mean no passing at all?

I did the Ride to Conquer Cancer last year, where we had 3500 cyclists on a two day ride. In such circumstances, riding single file would mean that a car waiting at an intersection with a stop sign might have to let 7km of bicycles by before they could get onto the street.

I suspect that your "group ride" was rather different than the "group ride" in the BC case. I'd expect that the "Ride to Conquer Cancer" was organized with the explicit cooperation of the police. That is, the "Ride to Conquer Cancer" was conducted in a way so that it was allowed to not adhere to some of various requirements of the law.

It's not clear that the BC group ride was anything more than 20 people riding together.

"RCMP are investigating a strange accident in Sidney in which a passing vehicle apparently crashed into a group of about 20 cyclists from a Victoria-area riding club."


but reason suggests that bikes should be able to pass each other at the very least
Passing isn't really "side by side" riding in the way the BC law intends since it's temporary and performed when it's appropriate/safe to pass. Keep in mind that the person passing (whether in a car or on a bicycle) has the largest responsibility with respect to safety. (Note that cars are not allowed to drive side-by-side but they are allowed to pass.)

there is a small problem with not letting a group of cyclists double up. Namely, it is a lot more difficult to pass a single line of 20 than a double line of 20. The motorist was probably catastrophizing and didn't want to be stuck behind the group forever.

there is a small problem with not letting a group of cyclists double up. Namely, it is a lot more difficult to pass a single line of 20 than a double line of 20.

+1

Doubling up is a good idea in many cases.

Furthermore, I pass other cyclists (or get passed myself) regularly on my short (about 2 km) commute. Does that constitute 'doubling up'?

Furthermore, I pass other cyclists (or get passed myself) regularly on my short (about 2 km) commute. Does that constitute 'doubling up'?
No (obviously). It's just passing because you are overtaking the other cyclist. If you are side by side and not overtaking, it's "doubling up" (or riding abreast).

====================

Side-by-side (two abreast) riding is legal in WA and MA (at least). And in Vancouver.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/laws.htm

http://www.massbike.org/bikebill/index.htm

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/bike.asp?menuid=10466&submenuID=23027&itemID=23514#23559

Pfft. How nice of the article and RCMP to mention the two abreast law, but fail to mention that the car was overtaking illegally due to the lines on the road.

Pfft. How nice of the article and RCMP to mention the two abreast law, but fail to mention that the car was overtaking illegally due to the lines on the road.

Its illegal to pass a bicycle over a double yellow?

Its illegal to pass a bicycle over a double yellow?
I suspect that it is illegal to cross the double yellow line.

Let's just say that in my video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4uHqPPU2tY), basically every single driver crossed over the double yellow while passing, and I consider that a good thing.

Let's just say that in my video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4uHqPPU2tY), every single driver crossed over the double yellow while passing, and I consider that a good thing.

Good or bad, it's an illegal thing. At least the cars crossing the line have the option of moving back into the lane if there is on coming traffic when passing a bicycle. I doublt that many cops would ticket a driver who crossed the line (a bit) when passing a bicyclist. Note that you can get a ticket for crossing the solid line even when you aren't passing anybody!

At least in Ohio (where I live), a motorist can cross the double yellow when the following are true:


(1) The slower vehicle is proceeding at less than half the speed of the speed limit applicable to that location.
(2) The faster vehicle is capable of overtaking and passing the slower vehicle without exceeding the speed limit.
(3) There is sufficient clear sight distance to the left of the center or center line of the roadway to meet the overtaking and passing provisions of section 4511.29 of the Revised Code, considering the speed of the slower vehicle.

I find it rather amusing that nobody has since realized that the result of the accident would have been the same regardless of whether the cyclists were riding two abreast or single file.

A few feet farther right on the part of the passing motorist would not have prevented the other vehicle from shoving said passing vehicle into the paceline. No difference.

-Kurt

The car was passing in an unsafe and probably illegal manner if he went over the line and didn't allow for traffic pulling onto the road.
Also, the car pulling out didn't look both ways before pulling out. He pulled out when someone was passing on the wrong side of the road.
The car or cars were at fault here, not the bikes.
dc

The car was passing in an unsafe and probably illegal manner if he went over the line and didn't allow for traffic pulling onto the road.
Also, the car pulling out didn't look both ways before pulling out. He pulled out when someone was passing on the wrong side of the road.
The car or cars were at fault here, not the bikes.
dc

Agreed... but the RCMP is working to try to charge the cyclists...

The car was passing in an unsafe and probably illegal manner if he went over the line and didn't allow for traffic pulling onto the road.
Also, the car pulling out didn't look both ways before pulling out. He pulled out when someone was passing on the wrong side of the road.
The car or cars were at fault here, not the bikes.
dc

The passing vehicle has the burden of passing safely. That is, they can only pass if it's safe to do so. Even if the person you are passing is doing something illegal, that fact does not give the passing vehicle any special rights (ie, the passing vehicle still has the obligation to avoid collisions/accidents/etc).

That is (unless there were some visibility issues), the cyclists did not cause the accident (in my opinion).


I find it rather amusing that nobody has since realized that the result of the accident would have been the same regardless of whether the cyclists were riding two abreast or single file.

It's not really surprising. The people here are looking at it from the cyclist's perspective (not unreasonably). The cyclists have no control over what the driver does; They can only control what they do. Ignoring any safety issues, one's defence is strong if one doesn't do anything illegal.


Agreed... but the RCMP is working to try to charge the cyclists...
Is there any support for this statement? The article/link doesn't support it. (It merely reiterates the law at the bottom.)

Good or bad, it's an illegal thing. At least the cars crossing the line have the option of moving back into the lane if there is on coming traffic when passing a bicycle. I doublt that many cops would ticket a driver who crossed the line (a bit) when passing a bicyclist. Note that you can get a ticket for crossing the solid line even when you aren't passing anybody!

Most states in the US have exceptions for temporarily breaching the double yellow to pass a narrow or "slow moving vehicle" like a bicycle or farm tractor. I don't know about Canada.

Most states in the US have exceptions for temporarily breaching the double yellow to pass a narrow or "slow moving vehicle" like a bicycle or farm tractor. I don't know about Canada.

It didn't happen without references!

You haven't established that it is legal in any state let alone "most" of them.

http://www.njtrafficlawcenter.com/imp_pass.htm

"Finally, a driver must not cross a “No Passing” solid line on the highway unless directed to do so by a traffic or police officer."

Heck, it isn't even legal in VA!

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/vadm/vadm2-7.asp

=======

Note that it's quite possible that at least one state allows it. But, in terms of a general discussion of the law, if it's illegal in at least one state, it's safer to assume it's illegal in all states. That is, if something is legal in some places and illegal in others, it's better to error on the side of stuff being illegal in forum discussions whose participants are from all over!

People should keep in mind that there can be differences in the law in different locations and it's the responsibility of people to know the law in their particular location.

Most states in the US have exceptions for temporarily breaching the double yellow to pass a narrow or "slow moving vehicle" like a bicycle or farm tractor. I don't know about Canada.

I think you are thinking of crossing a dashed line with a solid yellow... which is indicitive of a safe passing area... this is different from a solid double yellow.

If a motorist is trying to pass you in a solid double yellow area, they are in the WRONG.

I think you are thinking of crossing a dashed line with a solid yellow... which is indicative of a safe passing area... this is different from a solid double yellow.

Nah, he's just wrong. He's clearly talking "most" states having "exceptions" for "breaching" the "double yellow".

There is no ambiguity in his statement. There is nothing that indicates that he's "thinking" of something else!

I don't think there is any state that treats dashed lines any different (ie, it isn't "most" states).