This article is crazy. We've talked about the issue of whether or not a bike is a vehicle, which determines the level of responsibility that would be legally required. On the other side, I think it's important to look at the benefits of a car v. a bike (and I use the term 'benefits' rather loosely). My point is, at the base of it, cyclists are really just trying to suvive on roads that are built with only motorists in mind. Don't get me wrong, I'll run a red light as much as the next guy. The thing that bothers me is that motorists get all hight and mighty, as if they never break traffic laws.

I agree that education is the most important and most effective way of diminshing these problems. But at the same time, both motorists and cyclists just need to learn to give each other the benefit of the doubt!!

Great job! There's one typo: Many are not aware that a cyclist has the rite to “take the lane”
(although actually you might consider a clever slip :)

I disagree mildly on the licensing response - the poster who said "because it's not the law" gets my vote, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. Interesting why this is so -- when I was growing up (in Arlington, Va), we had to get bicycle license plates, although I don't think they were particularly effective other than in returning a few abandoned bikes.

Ironically, bicycles were a major impetus for "road improvement" projects around the turn of the century when there was a bicycle boom and cars hadn't yet become ubiquitous.

Actually, you also made reference to the rite to life as well.

d-oh... stoopid inglish :)

The writer seems to be confused about what constitutes a vehicle. I doubt that lights, horns, and licenses are included in any definition of a vehicle. I think Karldar defined it most succinctly and correctly:


The trouble is, the government creates its own definitions. In my state of California, the vehicle code provides this one:


So, by this definition, a bicycle is not a vehicle (nor is a train for that matter). So, what is it then? According to the vehicle code, it is this:

I know what you mean... according to the City of Saskatoon bylaws...
"bicycle" means any muscular propelled, chain-driven wheeled device in, on, or by which a person is or may be transported or drawn"

By this definition, shaft-driven bikes are not bicyles.

Yes, context is everything. I am constantly disappointed that our government(s) cannot simply rely upon established definitions of words(English or otherwise) rather than creating their own. It's no wonder that legal codes are almost incomprehensible.

[edit] Forgot to mention that your reply looks pretty good, clevernamehere. I think that should get the point across without ruffling too many feathers.

Well, the letter is now in the hands of the Star Phoenix editor (gulp).

Thank you all so much for your feedback!

I'll let you know if they print it or not.

Good luck! I think that you did a very nice job with your letter. Please, let us know if it's published and what responses you get.

quote edited to add item numbers to the article:

1) lights are availble for bikes, and are quite common amongst those who know they are required for night riding.

2) horns on bikes are usually grossly inadequate in terms of volume. Plus in the majority of commuter instances it is the car creeping up on the bike, not the other way around, so would a horn blast after the fact do anything? There is one horn that is rather good, but it relies on pressurized air canisters...which I find to be rather shaky ground in terms of safety.

3) cars are subsidized down to the sales tax level. Your registration is to cover environmental and road damage caused by your vehicle...a bike does no environmental damage and is far less wear/tear on a road. Plus we pay sales tax as well, so we do pay for the road!

4) I see this with car drivers too, bad drivers come in all forms.

5) many states have laws that already do this, maybe you just need to make it known that the police in your area should be enforcing it? Make sure there are bike laws in your vehicle code first though.

...as far as deciding to not share the road, that will just put you in the wrong...bikes do have a legal right to the road in most states, all that needs to be done is better code enforcement by police, and better programs to ensure bikers have the proper gear such as lights.

Another way is to write on how well all road users not just cyclists & motorists can share the road when they respect each other & behave appropriately.

The OP is not a member any longer on top of the post being 17 years old. Might not even be able to dig back that far for online records to the paper considering the state of the net at that time.

Did you dredge this thread with a back hoe?