Letter to the Editor

Cycling News

Letter to the Editor,
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix
May 23, 1996
Dear Sir:

For the life of me (or unfortunately one day for a cyclist) I can't figure out why Art Robinson thinks that cyclists should endanger their safety for the convenience of those who don't know the law or don't care to follow it.

A bicycle, as with any other vehicle, belongs on the road. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. That is why the Canada Safety Council and any other agency promoting safety and injury prevention recommends that cyclists know and follow the rules of the road.

The Saskatoon bicycle bylaw (Bylaw No. 6884) does not require cyclists to ride as close to the curb as possible. What it actually says is:

"Every person operating a bicycle shall utilize only that portion of the street as is intended for the passage of motor vehicles and shall be so positioned thereon as to be as close as is reasonably practicable to the right hand curb."

By any competent interpretation of this and similar laws throughout North America, cyclists are permitted to ride as close to side of the usable roadway as their safety allows. In general, this means riding in a straight line about one metre out from the curb, where you can avoid road edge hazards. The Highway Traffic Act allows you to occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it, such as when a lane is narrow or obstructed.

Under normal circumstances, as a matter of courtesy to passing cars, cyclists travelling north on Spadina Crescent would be able to ride slightly closer to the right hand curb without compromising their safety. Unfortunately, in many places the rightmost portion of the roadway has become so severely deteriorated, potholed and cracked as to pose a serious safety hazard to anyone who ventures to cycle less than a metre from the curb.

As for riding side-by-side, people may find the wording of the bylaw a little strange, but should have no difficulty understanding the intent:

"Except as is necessary for the purpose of passing, no person shall operate a bicycle on the left side of any two other bicycles being operated abreast." (My guess is that the wording determines who gets the ticket when cyclists drive more than two abreast.)

In any situation in which a single cyclist cannot safely share a lane with motorized traffic, two cyclists riding side-by-side increase their safety by discouraging unsafe passing within the lane and by becoming more visible in the traffic flow. On a roadway such as Spadina Crescent, you're better off riding single file.

How can anyone suggest that cyclists would be better off on the multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway? So-called bike paths are indisputably among the most dangerous places for cyclists to ride.

There are no "rules of the road" for users to follow, making travel unpredictable and perilous. Pedestrians do not expect high-speed vehicle traffic on such facilities and are at risk of injury themselves as well as posing a risk to cyclists. In-line skaters, pets and sightseers add to the hazard.

Bike paths seldom are constructed to even the most minimal standards needed for transportation use, increasing your chances of crashing while using them. They're designed for recreational use, at low speeds (about twice walking speed is considered the safe maximum for bicycle traffic).

Sooner or later, every bike path crosses or connects to a roadway, driveway or lane. Bike paths actually contribute to the most common and most serious car-bike collisions: motorists crossing the paths of cyclists, cyclists crossing the paths of motorists, and right of way errors where cyclists' and motorists' paths merge.

Cyclists are a lot safer on the roadway.

Yours sincerely,

Darrell Noakes
CAN-BIKE National Examiner
Vice-President, Recreation and Transportation, Saskatchewan Cycling Association

News index page

Borealis Outdoor Adventure
Home Page

Cycling News
Letter to the Editor, Saskatoon Star-Phoenix May 23, 1996 Dear Sir: For the life of me (or unfortunately one day for a cyclist) I can't figure out why Art Robinson thinks that cyclists should endanger their safety for the convenience of those who don't know the law or don't care to follow it. A bicycle, as with any other vehicle, belongs on the road. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. That is why the Canada Safety Council and any other agency promoting safety and injury prevention recommends that cyclists know and follow the rules of the road. The Saskatoon bicycle bylaw (Bylaw No. 6884) does not require cyclists to ride as close to the curb as possible. What it actually says is: "Every person operating a bicycle shall utilize only that portion of the street as is intended for the passage of motor vehicles and shall be so positioned thereon as to be as close as is reasonably practicable to the right hand curb." By any competent interpretation of this and similar laws throughout North America, cyclists are permitted to ride as close to side of the usable roadway as their safety allows. In general, this means riding in a straight line about one metre out from the curb, where you can avoid road edge hazards. The Highway Traffic Act allows you to occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it, such as when a lane is narrow or obstructed. Under normal circumstances, as a matter of courtesy to passing cars, cyclists travelling north on Spadina Crescent would be able to ride slightly closer to the right hand curb without compromising their safety. Unfortunately, in many places the rightmost portion of the roadway has become so severely deteriorated, potholed and cracked as to pose a serious safety hazard to anyone who ventures to cycle less than a metre from the curb. As for riding side-by-side, people may find the wording of the bylaw a little strange, but should have no difficulty understanding the intent: "Except as is necessary for the purpose of passing, no person shall operate a bicycle on the left side of any two other bicycles being operated abreast." (My guess is that the wording determines who gets the ticket when cyclists drive more than two abreast.) In any situation in which a single cyclist cannot safely share a lane with motorized traffic, two cyclists riding side-by-side increase their safety by discouraging unsafe passing within the lane and by becoming more visible in the traffic flow. On a roadway such as Spadina Crescent, you're better off riding single file. How can anyone suggest that cyclists would be better off on the multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway? So-called bike paths are indisputably among the most dangerous places for cyclists to ride. There are no "rules of the road" for users to follow, making travel unpredictable and perilous. Pedestrians do not expect high-speed vehicle traffic on such facilities and are at risk of injury themselves as well as posing a risk to cyclists. In-line skaters, pets and sightseers add to the hazard. Bike paths seldom are constructed to even the most minimal standards needed for transportation use, increasing your chances of crashing while using them. They're designed for recreational use, at low speeds (about twice walking speed is considered the safe maximum for bicycle traffic). Sooner or later, every bike path crosses or connects to a roadway, driveway or lane. Bike paths actually contribute to the most common and most serious car-bike collisions: motorists crossing the paths of cyclists, cyclists crossing the paths of motorists, and right of way errors where cyclists' and motorists' paths merge. Cyclists are a lot safer on the roadway. Yours sincerely, Darrell Noakes CAN-BIKE National Examiner Vice-President, Recreation and Transportation, Saskatchewan Cycling Association News index page

Borealis Outdoor Adventure Home Page