Advocacy & Safety - Some buddies trying to do good....

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/129189/

These are some of the nicest guys/gals I know who devote plenty of time to helping those in need and have spent the last few years running a bike co-op as well as running food from the local co-op to a shelter even when it is -20F out. Normally not a A&S poster, but this grinds my gears.

Why am I not surprised?

Attention ardent supporters of the bicycling FRAP law: Here's yet another case showing that misguided enforcement of this law is unfair and discriminatory to cyclists. Just as inevitable will be your same old, worn-out, feeble arguments attempting to justify it.

Attention ardent supporters of the bicycling FRAP law: Here's yet another case showing that misguided enforcement of this law is unfair and discriminatory to cyclists. Just as inevitable will be your same old, worn-out, feeble arguments attempting to justify it.

Hi HighRoller,

I debated whether or not to wade in as I really do not want a pissing match with you, but perhaps your opinion would shed some light on the VC debate that I read in A&S - as I am not sure what "strickly VC" is.

I am a CAN-BIKE (CB) instructor here in Nova Scotia. CB is not unlike Effective Cycling (EC) in the USA. I am unsure of the EC curriculum but with CB the "as far right as practicable" mantra is what we teach.

Our Motor Vehicle Act states "as far right as practicable" and cyclists are required to follow this law. However, I tell my students that the important word here is "practicable" - this word, in a sense, allows a cyclist to determine what is safe - they must decide where it is safe to ride based on conditions.

HOWEVER, with CB, the FRAP mantra is based on road width. In a nutshell, CB divides the road into 3 differant widths:

- Regular lane (about 14 feet) - we teach that one should ride about 1 metre (3 feet) from the curb.

- Narrow lane - we teach that a cyclist should "take the lane", typically (not always) these narrow lanes
are in the downtown core and hence slower traffic. This makes it much more possible
for a cyclist to mix well with motor vehicle traffic.

- Extra-wide lane - we teach to move out from the curb, more toward the traffic lane, say about 1 meter
from the flow of traffic. Of course, this is a little bit more grey because, well, where
is the "traffic lane"? Point is, if you are too far right in an extra-wide
lane then you may not be seen and run the risk of overtaking traffic turning right
in front of you and oncoming traffic turning left in front of you.

This is not the be all and end all of cycling on-road. Many roads will widen and narrow up along it's length, the point is, they have to be aware of this and adjust their position accordingly taking into consideration the dynamics of the road at the time. They must also communicate their intentions when moving laterally in the lane (such as arm signal or a head turn) when adjusting their lane position.

It's just a tool to help them make better decisions or judgement when cycling.

In CB we do not state that cyclist should "take the lane at all times" (that's not to say that you said that) but rather my point is we are required to follow the FRAP...."law" using "praticable" as a means to justify road position. Certainly, most non-cyclist do not understand this, but with proper communication, it usually goes well.

In regard to the article;
I tend to agree that the Police can be a bunch of COUGH pricks COUGH as my uncle is an Ontario Police officer and another uncle of mine is RCMP. I can tell you BOTH of them certainly do not like black people and have been a little....rough when arresting a person of colour.

So I CAN see that it is possibly a discriminatory action of the police against these cyclists.

On the other hand, the issue is riding in the traffic lane, slowing (obstructing) traffic, but from what I understand they had no other choice but to ride there. So the officers point is they were not "as far right as practicable".

I'd fight the tickets but would have to make sure my research is done and my argument compelling. Citing the road condition, width, traffic volume, passing distance if "hugging the curb", etc.

Take care.

Digger

Hi, Digger.

No need for a pissing match. Your instruction to your students is sound advice for defensive cycling. The point is that under most circumstances, the cyclist must be the one to evaluate and determine the "practicable" position, and mis-interpretation of the bicycle-specific FRAP law has resulted in discriminatory treatment of cyclists by the public, by law enforcement, and by the courts.

Hi, Digger.

No need for a pissing match. Your instruction to your students is sound advice for defensive cycling. The point is that under most circumstances, the cyclist must be the one to evaluate and determine the "practicable" position, and mis-interpretation of the bicycle-specific FRAP law has resulted in discriminatory treatment of cyclists by the public, by law enforcement, and by the courts.

Ah see what you're saying. I don't disagree. I think it is changing though. I know that the Halifax Regional Police have many CAN-BIKE instructors on their force. Three of which had taken the CB training with me.

Ergo, I would imagine that the FRAP law is more understood in our courts here, but I don't know for sure.

What is missing is non-cyclists (motorists) understanding of why a cyclist may position themselves in the centre lane. Typically, it is for a short duration.

EDIT: Just another note on what I originally wrote;
Essentially what I am saying in my CB couses is that a bicycle is a slow moving vehicle and is required to stay right according the the MVA. HOWEVER, when it is not practicable to do so the cyclist may adjust their road position for their safety - they have the legal right to do so. They MUST NOT unnecessarily obstruct traffic.
Faster moving traffic must submit to this and only pass when safe to do so.

The article states that they ride this route often towing a trailer and ride in the manner described. I suspect someone complained and the cyclists where ticketed. So question is, where they unnecessarily obstructing traffic?

Yes - if there was a paved shoulder available that they could use.

No - if the road was narrow, or a wall or barrier existed to the right, or an outside lane was available for traffic to pass.

I've never ridden the road, so I have no idea of the conditions.

Ya that grinds my gears as well. Police: weaving in and out of parked cars is not a safety hazard.:notamused:

Is it possible for someone to cut and paste that article please?

I would like to reread it, but the link is asking for a username and password.

Thanks!
Digger

check out the comments section... pretty much sums up the attitude towards cyclists in our town.

The volunteer bike-riders who pull a trailer load of donated food to the Damiano Center each week are willing to deal with bad weather, Duluth hills and dangerous brushes with cars.
But they draw the line at traffic tickets.
“We take it as an issue of discrimination,” said Alex Strachota, 22, who graduated from the College of St. Scholastica last year with a degree in biology.
To the Duluth police, it’s an issue of public safety.
Police officers have ticketed Strachota, Greg Schultz and Sadie Sigford twice for impeding traffic.
Every Friday and Saturday for the past two years, Strachota, Schultz and Sigford have ridden bikes up from their home at the Dorothy Day House in the Endion neighborhood to the Whole Foods Co-op on Fourth Street, picked up about 100 pounds of food that otherwise would be thrown away, and taken it to the Damiano soup kitchen to donate.
Even if the thermometer reads 20 below zero, they’ve never had problems on the route, the three say. That is until July 31, when they were riding back from the Damiano Center and were given a traffic ticket.
Two weeks later they again were stopped and ticketed. They say they plan to fight the tickets, alleging their civil rights were violated.
But the police say the bicyclists were riding in the regular lane of traffic and that their slow speed was a safety hazard.
“They were impeding traffic,” police spokesman Brad Wick said. “In both instances there was an opportunity to move to the right, and they did not.”
The volunteers don’t deny riding in the traffic lane, but they say they have the legal right to do so.
The problem stems in part from the route they take to deliver the food, Fourth Street, which, though it’s designated as a bike route and directly connects the Co-op to the Damiano, is a difficult ride because it’s a single-lane traffic and filled with parked cars along the streets.
Compounding the problem for the three riders is that their rig to tow the food takes up almost two bike-widths. To keep that rider safe from being rammed from behind, the other two follow behind two abreast.
Though they say they ride 10 to 15 mph, cars still back up behind them.
“It would be illegal for any car to pass us,” Sigford acknowledges.
So why not take another mode of transportation?
For starters, the three have no cars and use bikes as their way to get around, including to school and work. And they say they’re following bike statutes, which includes riding 3 feet away from parked cars. On Fourth Street, that means riding into the traffic lane.
“It may seem like hyperbole and we’re being over the top comparing what’s happened to us to the civil rights movement,” Strachota said. “But we feel very much marginalized when we ride on our bikes.”
Adds Schultz: “It’s not a stretch to consider ourselves as second-class citizens in regards to transportation.”
Ironically, when they got their tickets on July 31, a friend visiting from out of town, Erin Cartwright, was riding illegally — too close to a parked car — when she got “doored” — someone opened their car door and she was sent flying.
She wasn’t injured, but a block after the accident she was pulled over by a Duluth police officer, who later called for two additional squads as backup. Not to check on Cartwright, but to give Schultz and Sigford tickets.
According to the report filed by Officer S.R. Peterson, he gave the tickets because he believed the bicyclists weren’t following state statutes and they needed to follow the right side of the road and weave into empty parking spaces when possible to let cars pass.
“My intent was to educate the riders keep them from impeding traffic in the future,” Peterson wrote.
But the three insist that what Peterson recommended is unsafe — and illegal.
Which is why two weeks later, the three were riding home again from the Damiano Center in the traffic lane of Fourth Street when they were stopped by an officer who had been called for backup on the first incident. In his report, Officer Scott Williams noted that 12 cars were backed up behind the riders.
So who’s right? State statute has some gray area on this, saying that bike riders should ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible, except when it’s “reasonably necessary” to avoid cars or other conditions that “make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.”
Generally, said James Gittemeier, a planner for the Arrowhead Regional Development Council who has designed bike routes, said bike riders have the same rules of the road as a car and can ride in a traffic lane — and riders shouldn’t weave in and out of parked cars.
But if they’re backing up traffic, should they move out of the way?
“Common courtesy says they should, but they don’t have to,” he said.

F the Duluth police; the real problem here.

City council as well as other leaders are also doing a horrible job... Known as the city clowncil to many of us.

I started a thread on bikelove.

http://mplsbikelove.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13627

check out the comments section... pretty much sums up the attitude towards cyclists in our town.

To be honest in two years of commuting in this town I've only had like two or three incidents with motorists.