Advocacy & Safety - How to advise a police officer / cyclist / bicycle safety instructor

A fellow CAN-BIKE (http://www.canbike.net/cca_pages/index.htm) instructor, and a police officer (obviously a cyclist) here in Halifax, Nova Scotia had sent myself and a fellow CAN-BIKE National Examiner the email below:

On 7-Oct-10, at 8:16 PM, Steve <snip> wrote:

Question for you to ponder. We are trying to come up with traffic calming-share the road ideas and need some input, Our main road of concern is the Waverley Road -very popular with cyclists, with club riders in groups 6-10 usually Saturday mornings. The road is 50 km, very rolling and curvy making it very difficult for motorists to pass the group...it increases to 60 then 80.

Question...Do you think clubs should limit the pack size to under 6 to allow safe passing? There are several schools of thought.

cheeers,

Steve

What I am getting from Steve's email is that the length of the pack is so long that a vehicle cannot pass safely and in enough time to clear past the pack and pull back into the lane before the next blind hill or curve. Thus a vehicle, or vehicles, are waiting in line behind the pack, the motorist is getting impatient and eventualy will do a bone-head move putting the on-coming traffic and the cyclists in the pack in danger.

Although he does not say this, I suspect that the police have been getting complaints from motorists who frequent this particular road about the number of cyclsts on it. He emailed us for advice, since we are the CAN-BIKE leaders in our province. A national examiner is one who trains new instructors.

I thought I would throw this out to all y'all for comment on how to advise the local police to deal with both cyclist and motorist.

In my mind, yes, splitting the cycling group into smaller packs of 6 or less would be a good idea. However, this would require EXTREME co-operation and co-ordination of ALL cyclists. Obviously, the "fast" group would go first, followed by the next and then the least experienced group would bring up the rear. As you know, cyclists come in varying fitness and experience levels. Even a very fit and experienced cyclist will vary in his energy level from one ride to the next. So, even if these groups were assigned, they may splinter or seperate, thus anyone not able to keep up with their assigned group would have to fall back to the next group.

This eventually happens anyway as the ride begins to move and people find their "niche" or group with those of a same fitness / experience / energy level. Unfortuneatly we are dealing with humans and well...I doubt they would be organized enough to co-ordinate such small(er) groups amoung themselves without being (constantly) told.

This road is quite narrow and curvy with many blind hills. If a cyclist give him/herself a buffer zone of roughly 2-3 feet from the road edge, well, you're pretty much in the middle of the road.

Thoughts?
Digger

That's a tough one. A narrow road with a lot of cyclists is going to pose problems for motorists no matter what they do, just as a road crowded with cars is a problem for cyclists.

What's the speed limit on this road?

It sounds to me like traffic congestion is the problem, of which cyclists are a part. I suggest start by lowering the speed limit.

I recommend closing the entire road to car traffic for 2-4 hours every Saturday morning.

The day I see the motorists coordinate their travels to facilitate my passing them or otherwise improving my rate of travel, especially during their daily critical mass drives, is the day I worry about coordinating cyclists to facilitate driving. Think about what you are asking for here. You want cyclists to go out of their way in an effort to keep some idiot from driving dangerously. Maybe what is called for is a better police presence to cite or arrest those who break the law and for the police department to explain the law to the complainers when they call in.

Question for you to ponder. We are trying to come up with traffic calming-share the road ideas and need some input, Our main road of concern is the Waverley Road -very popular with cyclists, with club riders in groups 6-10 usually Saturday mornings. The road is 50 km, very rolling and curvy making it very difficult for motorists to pass the group...it increases to 60 then 80.

These videos give an idea of that road. I occasionally rode there well over a decade ago and thought it was unpleasant. Going out along Herring Cove rd to Sambro and back via the Old Sambro rd was much more my speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_n9BWRNfKI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lATGtPMLa4M



Question...Do you think clubs should limit the pack size to under 6 to allow safe passing? There are several schools of thought.


The idea being that 6 single-file is about the length of a tractor-trailer that should be passable by a competent motorist? I can see a couple of problems with that:

How far apart do the groups of 6 have to be in order to allow the overtaking motorist to find a space between each group?

Will the theoretical impatient overtaker actually get more enraged by having to pass clusters of cyclists again and again and again?

Personally I think the club should ride in a big group if that's what makes them happy: provided they all pull in to the side if more than 5 or so vehicles are backed up behind. The provincial police should be looking at making their presence more visible to "calm" more excitable motorists who should be on the 118 if they're in such a rush.

Riding Waverley was always unpleasant for me. I can't think why people would want to do it in a group.

Good luck.

Share the road-I can appreciate that. HOWEVER, (most) state laws require that whatever is on the road, be it farm equipment, bicyclist or anything that is not your typical car, truck, van, SUV or motorcycle....state law requires that you cannot IMPEDE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIth that said, basically if you can't maintain a minimum speed limit, than you're likely impeding the flow of traffic and in violation of the law. I single cyclist or two is likely not going to cause this problem, however, with a big pack like has been described here, I can understand the complaint of motorists.

WIth that said, basically if you can't maintain a minimum speed limit, than you're likely impeding the flow of traffic and in violation of the law..

No. It's essentially the same provision as for most US states: slow moving traffic is entitled to be on the road but is expected to keep right as far as is practicable and is expected to pull-over to allow blocked traffic to pass. For reference see e.g. the second paragraph of p.47 http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/rmv/handbook/DH-Chapter2.pdf

Where this becomes ambiguous is just how many vehicles have to be behind you before it becomes reasonable to pull over.

What's the speed limit on this road?

It sounds to me like traffic congestion is the problem, of which cyclists are a part. I suggest start by lowering the speed limit.

As Steve stated it is 50km/hr (30mph) then increass to 60 then 80 km/hr (40 mph to 50 mph).

Lowering the speed limit is an idea I will pass on. It won't go over well with the people who live on that road.

I recommend closing the entire road to car traffic for 2-4 hours every Saturday morning.

Err, well, many people live along this road which is largely rural. That won't happen.

The day I see the motorists coordinate their travels to facilitate my passing them or otherwise improving my rate of travel, especially during their daily critical mass drives, is the day I worry about coordinating cyclists to facilitate driving. Think about what you are asking for here. You want cyclists to go out of their way in an effort to keep some idiot from driving dangerously. Maybe what is called for is a better police presence to cite or arrest those who break the law and for the police department to explain the law to the complainers when they call in.

That was going to be my only suggestion really.

Share the road-I can appreciate that. HOWEVER, (most) state laws require that whatever is on the road, be it farm equipment, bicyclist or anything that is not your typical car, truck, van, SUV or motorcycle....state law requires that you cannot IMPEDE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIth that said, basically if you can't maintain a minimum speed limit, than you're likely impeding the flow of traffic and in violation of the law. I single cyclist or two is likely not going to cause this problem, however, with a big pack like has been described here, I can understand the complaint of motorists.

USA state law would not apply here in Canada.

The Motor Vehicle Act here in Nova Scotia does not state that. It states, "extreme right hand of the main traveled portion of the high way as far as practicable". No where does it state that slower moving vehicles are required to move off the road. This would indicate that speed is king and that faster traffic ALWAYS has right of way. Slow(er) moving vehicles have as much right to travel as fast(er) moving vehicles. The speed limiot signs here in Canada have a word over them in capital letters; "MAXIMUM". This is the MAXIMUM speed legally allowed on that section of road, any speed up to that is perfectly legal. There are a select few roads here in Nova Scotia that are off limits to cyclists, but not backhoes......

I always pull over and stop for large trucks and for people towing large trailers. However, I am of 2 minds by doing this; it is a "share the road" practice that allows traffic to move as freely and safetly as possible, BUT I worry that it also gives the impression that cyclists do NOT belong and are required to "get out of the way" at all costs.

The MVA is written with the assumption that people are resonable and that cyclists willl stay right to help over taking traffic to pass safely and that a motorist will W.A.I.T and only pass when safe. However, the "share the road" campaign or mantra is to help educate those who are none too bright, impatient or with anger issues (both motorist and cyclist). Our North American culture defines everything by one measurement; speed.

if you can't maintain a minimum speed limit, than you're likely impeding the flow of traffic and in violation of the law.

What you say is not true. Please look up and read the Trotwood vs Selz case. Any vehicle which is traveling at a reasonable speed for that vehicle can't be charged with impeding traffic. Basically, you're only impeding traffic if you are intentionally driving at a slower speed than you and your vehicle are capable of. A bicycle going 20 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is not legally "impeding traffic."

And as others have said, OP is in Canada anyway, state law doesn't apply. And even if he were in the US, what state are you talking about?

Please look up and read the Trotwood vs Selz case.... which, again, was a case in Ohio, and only sets precedent for the courts under the appeals court that heard that case. Beyond that, it's merely another court case in another place -- another place that likely (if not in Ohio) has other laws. It's a good ruling, yes, but it's *not* the law of the land if your land isn't that part of Ohio.


And as others have said, OP is in Canada anyway, state law doesn't apply. And even if he were in the US, what state are you talking about?Indeed. Trotwood vs Selz is only directly relevant in Ohio -- and even only the part of Ohio covered by that appeals court.

If the same situation that lead to Trotwood vs Selz happened somewhere else, it could lead to another verdict. That ruling was a good one and is often referenced (usually by those who like it), but it's not a guarantee that different ruling can't happen elsewhere.

Do large groups of cyclists on that road tend to thin out and ride single-file? It might be more safe for a pack of cyclists to bunch up, making it so a car can pass them all in one motion. Signage along the road allowing them to do so would help, as the system might be counter-intuitive.

I assume the road is too narrow for many passing lanes or paved zones to pull off the road?

Do large groups of cyclists on that road tend to thin out and ride single-file? It might be more safe for a pack of cyclists to bunch up, making it so a car can pass them all in one motion. Signage along the road allowing them to do so would help, as the system might be counter-intuitive.

I assume the road is too narrow for many passing lanes or paved zones to pull off the road?

Well, it would depend on the ride and/or club. The racing clubs tend to stick together and even if they are broken up, would tend to stick together in small packs.

The rec rides would be spread out, some in groups, some singlely and those in groups may very well ride 2 or more abreast to chat, and of those that do ride 2 or more abreast, some would single up as a car appraches, some not.

I can see imparting some rules to the racing clubs as they typically all know each other and have closer communication. The rec rides or charity rides (i.e. MS Ride) are a free-for-all, as you may be riding with someone you do not know OR see rarely. As you know, riding in a pace line/peleton with strangers is not wise, as you do not know their abilities.

People who are just out on their own for rec or training rides, can't be expected to "buddy up" with a stranger or strangers to form a pack. I wouldn't....

Sounds totally like a driver expectation problem. I agree with some previous posters, when the drivers call, tell them that the cyclists have an equal right to the road, and that they should pass with care only when safe.

Not sure if there's any equivalent to the "Bikes may use full lane" sign. Signage that lets drivers know that cyclists are likely to be on the road, and that they have every right to be there would be good.

Since the travel lanes in question are narrow, passing is actually made easier by cyclists riding two abreast, since this shortens the pack and thus reduces the distance required to pass.

A local NC grassroots group cyclist advocacy organization I'm involved in, The Peloton Project, is advocating that cyclists voluntarily break up into small platoons, but ride two abreast if the lanes are too narrow for safe same-lane passing. Here the packs tend to get very large but the sight distances are longer than for the road in the OP, so we are trying to cut the pack sizes down from over two dozen riders to less than a dozen per platoon. With shorter sight lines, a half dozen should work better.

They won't like it, but lowering the speed limit on the road and enforcing it will make it easier to pass. They won't have to worry about oncoming traffic doing 80.

I think lowering group size is also helpful. Anything under 10 shouldn't be that bad. I would instruct riders to stick to the right half of the lane (no echeloning), for good visibility, and ride 2 abreast to compress the group.

That was going to be my only suggestion really.

It's the only sane one really. It's a narrow road, cyclists have a right to use it. If motorists are in a big hurry there are other higher speed roads with better sight lines.

So, essentially, what I am reading here is that, excluding the option of widening the road or banning cyclists from using this road, there is little option for a motorist to maintain at least the speed limit and reduce delay when overtaking a cyclist.

The cyclists can:
1) all ride single file and move right as far as possible to create more of an opening in the lane. However, this opening on a narrow road, would only create a slightly wider opening inviting an unsafe pass by the motorist thus either conflicting with oncoming traffic or passing cyclists much too close to allow an acceptable buffer zone of error (thus endangering the cyclist) or both.

2) all ride in very small groups so that a motorist can "nest" in between the groups. However, this would require EXTREME co-ordination in the club or event ride and the problem of how much space to allow between groups or causing even more motorist anguish, by having motorists passing small groups again and again.

3) the group can pull over each time overtaking traffic accumulates behind them of say, at least five motor vehicles. On this road, that would be very frequent. Thus, this would again require EXTREME co-ordination of the group, many stops and starts and I wonder about the safety of pulling BACK into the lane with so many blind spots and curves, especially as traffic speed increases from 50kph, to 60 then 80 kph.

4) pull over for select larger vehicles, such as dump truck size or vehicles pulling large trailers, that simply cannot pass in time before the next blind curve or hill.

5) avoid the road

The motorist can:
1) W.A.I.T until it is S.A.F.E to pass

2) avoid the road

3) T.A.P on the horn to make the cyclist aware of their presence, perhaps then the cyclist will wave their right-of-way and let you pass if they deem it safe for them, if not then W.A.I.T

In short, this issue is once again the attitude that a motorist has the right-of-way no matter what because they are able to attain much higher speed. When, in fact, a vehicle that is travelling in the lane and is overtaken by faster moving traffic, that cyclist has the right-of-way, not the faster moving vehicle. Correct?

... which, again, was a case in Ohio, and only sets precedent for the courts under the appeals court that heard that case. Beyond that, it's merely another court case in another place -- another place that likely (if not in Ohio) has other laws. It's a good ruling, yes, but it's *not* the law of the land if your land isn't that part of Ohio.

I didn't intend to say that it was the law of the land, though it probably sounded that way. I intended to indicate that the other poster was at least equally as wrong in saying flat out that state law would say that a bicyclist that's going under the speed limit and has a car behind him is ALWAYS breaking the law by impeding traffic. That's simply not true.

Personally if the road is too narrow to allow an in-lane pass to happen safely, I think the most courteous thing that cyclists can do is to ride two abreast, to give the cars a shorter group to pass when they get a chance. Two abreast riding in narrow lanes is also probably safer since it will discourage dangerous passes, though it may encourage hotheads to do things equally as dangerous.

What our club recommends is to call "car back" and the pack should go single file on the right side of the roadway. If the motorist stall has a hard time passing, create gaps between groups of 3-4 riders so the motorist can "leap-frog" through the group.

Can the shoulder be paved and turned into a bike lane?

Beat me to it, doc0c......Widen the road and put in a dedicated bike lane......problem solved.

:)

Cyril

Seriously, whenever traffic on a road exceeds road capacity the road is usually widened to accommodate the excess amount of traffic. No one asks the "extra" users to avoid the road or to use the road in a particular fashion......unless the "extra" traffic are bicycles......hmmmm......what a double standard!

Sorry, bicycles ARE traffic.....widen the road.

IMO

Cyril

If you're going to widen the road to accomodate cars that want to go fast, put a bike lane in.

If you want to accomodate both bikes and cars, including the club rides, 4 lane the road and forget the bike lane.

I recommend closing the entire road to car traffic for 2-4 hours every Saturday morning.

That is my recommendation. They do that on West River Drive in Philadelphia on Sundays. If they can do that in the 5th largest city in America, surely they can do it in Nova Scotia.

Seriously, whenever traffic on a road exceeds road capacity the road is usually widened to accommodate the excess amount of traffic. No one asks the "extra" users to avoid the road or to use the road in a particular fashion......unless the "extra" traffic are bicycles......hmmmm......what a double standard!

Sorry, bicycles ARE traffic.....widen the road.

IMO



Cyril

Not True. We have road closures to car traffic to accommodate cyclists and other users like rollerbladers and runners.

Do large groups of cyclists on that road tend to thin out and ride single-file? It might be more safe for a pack of cyclists to bunch up, making it so a car can pass them all in one motion. Signage along the road allowing them to do so would help, as the system might be counter-intuitive.

I assume the road is too narrow for many passing lanes or paved zones to pull off the road?

Judging from the video posted the road varies, in 'town' plenty wide enough that there should be no problem if cyclists stay to the right (but narrow enough an pack would naturally creep 'too far' to the left) in the countryside a lot of it is narrow enough that even passing a single cyclist who is hugging the farthest right would require significant movem,ent into the oncoming lane.

Oh and add in that the road is in far from pristine condition.

Beat me to it, doc0c......Widen the road and put in a dedicated bike lane......problem solved.

:)

Cyril

Well, yes this would be true but 2 things are happening here:
1) Although the local municipal govt is installing bike lanes on new roads or roads that are being redone, they often resist in many cases. I had tried to get them to install a paved shoulder on another rural road, but they gave me some nonsense abotu havign to move the ditching and power lines. When in fact, all they need to do is paved the UNPAVED shoulder.

2) However, in this case the argument above would be quite justified. This road has a steep drop-off one one side to the lake, and a steep cliff on the other side. So, there is not much room to add such a lane. Mind you, these conditions don't exist the whole way along this road, but a significant part of it.

It would be expensive to add a bike lane here.

Judging from the video posted the road varies, in 'town' plenty wide enough that there should be no problem if cyclists stay to the right (but narrow enough an pack would naturally creep 'too far' to the left) in the countryside a lot of it is narrow enough that even passing a single cyclist who is hugging the farthest right would require significant movem,ent into the oncoming lane.

Oh and add in that the road is in far from pristine condition.

THAT is one of our BETTER roads! :-)

Yes, the in-town portion is quite wide, it is the rural portion that is the problem - narrow with many blind hills and curves.

Widening or bike lane would not be possible, as I have mentioned in another post, on much of this road. I can't see them closing it down for a certain time-period as this road is filled with houses on either side. TPeople have to come and go from their houses.

No, it comes down to trying to get the cyclist and non-cyclist to somehow come to an agreement and acceptance. The best thing, would be to get rid of all the jerks.....but then there wouldn't be anyone to use the road. :-)

The best solution would be to make that entire road the first ever HPV-only road. Of course they'd have to build a car park at each end where the residents could leave their cars and ride to their homes. Delivery and other such vehicles would have to get prior permission to use the road for each specific visit, and limit their speed to, say, 15mph, and the drivers be made aware that HPV's have the absolute right of way.

As Steve stated it is 50km/hr (30mph) then increass to 60 then 80 km/hr (40 mph to 50 mph).

Saw that but it wasn't clear that is the speed limit and not something else. I'd suggest making the whole road 50 km/h.

A fellow CAN-BIKE (http://www.canbike.net/cca_pages/index.htm) instructor, and a police officer (obviously a cyclist) here in Halifax, Nova Scotia had sent myself and a fellow CAN-BIKE National Examiner the email below:

On 7-Oct-10, at 8:16 PM, Steve <snip> wrote:

Question for you to ponder. We are trying to come up with traffic calming-share the road ideas and need some input, Our main road of concern is the Waverley Road -very popular with cyclists, with club riders in groups 6-10 usually Saturday mornings. The road is 50 km, very rolling and curvy making it very difficult for motorists to pass the group...it increases to 60 then 80.

Question...Do you think clubs should limit the pack size to under 6 to allow safe passing? There are several schools of thought.

cheeers,

Steve

What I am getting from Steve's email is that the length of the pack is so long that a vehicle cannot pass safely and in enough time to clear past the pack and pull back into the lane before the next blind hill or curve. Thus a vehicle, or vehicles, are waiting in line behind the pack, the motorist is getting impatient and eventualy will do a bone-head move putting the on-coming traffic and the cyclists in the pack in danger.

Although he does not say this, I suspect that the police have been getting complaints from motorists who frequent this particular road about the number of cyclsts on it. He emailed us for advice, since we are the CAN-BIKE leaders in our province. A national examiner is one who trains new instructors.

I thought I would throw this out to all y'all for comment on how to advise the local police to deal with both cyclist and motorist.

In my mind, yes, splitting the cycling group into smaller packs of 6 or less would be a good idea. However, this would require EXTREME co-operation and co-ordination of ALL cyclists. Obviously, the "fast" group would go first, followed by the next and then the least experienced group would bring up the rear. As you know, cyclists come in varying fitness and experience levels. Even a very fit and experienced cyclist will vary in his energy level from one ride to the next. So, even if these groups were assigned, they may splinter or seperate, thus anyone not able to keep up with their assigned group would have to fall back to the next group.

This eventually happens anyway as the ride begins to move and people find their "niche" or group with those of a same fitness / experience / energy level. Unfortuneatly we are dealing with humans and well...I doubt they would be organized enough to co-ordinate such small(er) groups amoung themselves without being (constantly) told.

This road is quite narrow and curvy with many blind hills. If a cyclist give him/herself a buffer zone of roughly 2-3 feet from the road edge, well, you're pretty much in the middle of the road.

Thoughts?
Digger

Quite frankly, the only reason for a motorist to get justifiably pushy about a cyclist being in front of them is, in an emergency. But, For a motorist to want to pass, because they have to go slower than usual. Is downright ignorance about what their car emissions are doing to the environment and, selfish about getting someplace fast.:rolleyes::mad::notamused:

Since the travel lanes in question are narrow, passing is actually made easier by cyclists riding two abreast, since this shortens the pack and thus reduces the distance required to pass.

I don't buy that for a second. My experience as a cyclist and driver is contrary to your assertion. Cyclists do everyone a favor by going single-file to enable easier passing when faster traffic approaches.

I don't buy that for a second. My experience as a cyclist and driver is contrary to your assertion. Cyclists do everyone a favor by going single-file to enable easier passing when faster traffic approaches.

It really depends. For less than a dozen or so cyclists, it really probably doesn't matter. And for wide lanes where it's safe to pass within the lane, single file is a great idea. But on narrow lanes where the car has to go into the oncoming lane anyway, and combined with lots of riders, you really want the riders to be bunched up as much as possible, and it's a BAD idea for a long line of cyclists to ride single file in that case - because you KNOW that drivers will start to pass you if they think they can sneak by, just edging into the oncoming lane, and when they encounter an oncoming car and they haven't passed the whole line yet, what are they gonna do? They're going to run the cyclists they happen to be next to off the road.

If the pack is long enough that it's physically impossible for a motorist to pass safely, I'd recommend splitting it up into (roughly) tractor-sized packs. A car is most certainly not able to safely pass what is essentially a semi truck going 15mph on a twisty road.

I'd recommend splitting it up into (roughly) tractor-sized packsI seem to recall the law permitting passing only one vehicle at a time when you have to cross the yellow line to do so.

Looking at the Texas laws, I'm not finding this, though it always talks about the vehicle (singular) that you're passing, not vehicles (plural). Perhaps other laws have this, or it's just a good idea that isn't actually in the law? If it is in the law somewhere, I wonder how it affects passing more than one cyclist at a time ...

Question...Do you think clubs should limit the pack size to under 6 to allow safe passing? There are several schools of thought.[/I]



I'd begin by doing some Saturday morning drives to determine the existence/extent of a problem.

This thread is getting a little long (which is good) but just to redirect a bit:

The gentlemen (Steve) who sent me the email for advice is a police officer and cyclist. I know Steve from our own CAN-BIKE instructor training, emails we have had back and forth on courses and running into him (pardon the pun) at various events or bicycle related meetings.

Although I have only ridden this road just a few times I can understand the dilemma he describes. I have never ridden with Steve or his group, but I am confident that he is aware that a problem exists and the extent of it.

Since this route is very scenic and thus popular with cyclists, Officer Steve is trying to find a way to reduce conflict between cyclist and motorist. He has one idea thus asked for my advice on it - reducing pack size to (approximately) 6 and spacing them to allow a nest for passing cars. No doubt he has been the receipt of complaints when cycling and, most likely, complainers who call into the police, were likely passed over to Officer Steve to address them, because he is a cyclist.

I can see how splitting up into smaller groups (or perhaps riding 2 abreasT) with a "nest" area for passing cars could work for close-knit cycling groups. However, in some clubs (the rec clubs for example) or during some events, there are a myriad of cyclists with differant skills and abilities. I cannot possibly see how one could coordinate such groups as this. It would be impossible.

So, in my mind, barring
1) widening the road
2) better police presence
3) educational campaign (for motorist and cyclist) which is, kinda...sorta happening.
the idea of smaller packs seems to be the only choice. But would only provide a solution for cycling groups that know each other well.

I guess Steve is looking for other options to try and provide better mitigation overall rather than a select few.

This thread is getting a little long (which is good) but just to redirect a bit:

The gentlemen (Steve) who sent me the email for advice is a police officer and cyclist. I know Steve from our own CAN-BIKE instructor training, emails we have had back and forth on courses and running into him (pardon the pun) at various events or bicycle related meetings.

Although I have only ridden this road just a few times I can understand the dilemma he describes. I have never ridden with Steve or his group, but I am confident that he is aware that a problem exists and the extent of it.

Since this route is very scenic and thus popular with cyclists, Officer Steve is trying to find a way to reduce conflict between cyclist and motorist. He has one idea thus asked for my advice on it - reducing pack size to (approximately) 6 and spacing them to allow a nest for passing cars. No doubt he has been the receipt of complaints when cycling and, most likely, complainers who call into the police, were likely passed over to Officer Steve to address them, because he is a cyclist.

I can see how splitting up into smaller groups (or perhaps riding 2 abreasT) with a "nest" area for passing cars could work for close-knit cycling groups. However, in some clubs (the rec clubs for example) or during some events, there are a myriad of cyclists with differant skills and abilities. I cannot possibly see how one could coordinate such groups as this. It would be impossible.

So, in my mind, barring
1) widening the road
2) better police presence
3) educational campaign (for motorist and cyclist) which is, kinda...sorta happening.
the idea of smaller packs seems to be the only choice. But would only provide a solution for cycling groups that know each other well.

I guess Steve is looking for other options to try and provide better mitigation overall rather than a select few.


My suggestion of just closing the road for a finite period of time on certain days seems to be ignored. Why? It is a real solution that it is used in many cities.

My suggestion of just closing the road for a finite period of time on certain days seems to be ignored. Why? It is a real solution that it is used in many cities.

No, I haven't ignored it and my apologies if it has come accross that way.

I can see MANY issues with your suggestion:
This road is filled with residential housing, with some businesses (convienence stores, salons, etc) and yes, it does disipate somewhat has the road becomes more rural. Closing the road will prevent those homeowners from driving on this road at those times.

As you know, humans are complainers and those that are not cyclists will complain bitterly that they pay taxes for these roads and cannot access their home via their vehicle. Nova Scotia is still very "rednecky" I think we are over 20 years from even considering that idea.

But what about the elderly and those with physical limitations that cannot access this road? Provide special access for them? Ok, then EVERYONE will have some sort of limitation. It'll be a tax sink as well to administer and police this.

Without getting into it (and typing too much), your suggestion would be impossible on this road. Yes, it is very possible in say on some streets with no residential housing and is actually being talked about for one particular road - Spring Garden Road.

Hey, I'm all for it and open-minded about it, but most are not.

Do you have examples of single access, rural type roads that are shut-down at certain times to motor vehicle traffic that I could look at?

I don't buy that for a second. My experience as a cyclist and driver is contrary to your assertion. Cyclists do everyone a favor by going single-file to enable easier passing when faster traffic approaches.

As ItsJustMe said, if the lane is wide enough for reasonably safe same-lane passing, or if a wide, clean shoulder provides the same performance, then sure, riding single file makes passing easier. But if the cyclists are riding in a narrow lane, then the driver shouldn't attempt to pass within the same lane, and cyclists can help the driver complete the pass by requiring as little time as possible in the opposite lane. Bunching up or riding two abreast helps accomplish this. I do encourage cyclists to leave a couple of feet near the centerline clear to improve sight lines, however.

Lots of motorists prefer cyclists to ride single file on narrow-2-lane roads so the motorist can more easily force their way back into the narrow lane in the middle of the pack when they misjudge the clear distance ahead and face oncoming traffic. Most of the time the cyclists getting squeezed can drop back behind the car, but other times they get squeezed off the roadway entirely. A much better way to accommodate motorists moving back into the narrow travel lane is for cyclists to leave gaps between smaller platoons of cyclists.

You mentioned that the road cannot be widened. Could there be spots that turnouts could be installed to ease passing?

You mentioned that the road cannot be widened. Could there be spots that turnouts could be installed to ease passing?

That's possible, how many I'm not sure. This does require a motorist to wait though, as you know, they do not want to wait.

I'll pass it on.

That's possible, how many I'm not sure. This does require a motorist to wait though, as you know, they do not want to wait.

I'll pass it on.

Everyone needs to get along. Motorists will need to wait to the next turnout if they can't pass, cyclists will need to be encouraged to use the turnouts. I can see it from both people's perspectives, and the long and short of it is that they both need to coexist somehow. Everyone's got to give a little.

Everyone needs to get along. Motorists will need to wait to the next turnout if they can't pass, cyclists will need to be encouraged to use the turnouts. I can see it from both people's perspectives, and the long and short of it is that they both need to coexist somehow. Everyone's got to give a little.

Of course, I agree. The thing is, there are those who do not on both sides. However, the motorist, having the advantage of intimidation will use it, maybe with no intention to harm, but all to often, they misjudge.