Sharing the road — a cyclist’s perspective

Editor’s note: The following guest article is written in response to an Oct. 24 column by Daily News editor Mel Rothenburger entitled Can’t Cyclists, Motorists Just All Get Along?

I have long personally held the view that if motorists and cyclists both could see each others’ perspectives there might be more respect on the roadways and subsequently safer roads.

As a person who has a driver’s licence, is an active cyclist and a Can-Bike instructor (the national standard for cycling safety), I thought I may be helpful for me to explain for motorists from the cyclists’ perspective why we do some of the things that bug them and why the top five things you listed that motorists do annoy us so much.

From your list of top five annoyances three are legitimate motorist complaints:

2) a cyclist leaning on an adjacent stopped car;

3) more than one cyclist in a lane, although it is acceptable, and encouraged, for cyclists to double up when waiting for a light to change in their favour and they do need to proceed individually through the intersection;

4) Skipping a red light – it is not clear if you mean the cyclist is entering the intersection on a red light or is cycling up next to the waiting cars to get to the front of the line – either case is illegal and dangerous.

So, in response to your question “but is it just possible that sometimes a cyclist is at fault?” the answer is yes. But I agree with the other writer who implies that further lessons in the Motor Vehicle Act may be helpful, specifically sections 183 and 184 that pertain to cyclist’s rights and responsibilities. I say this because the remaining two motorists’ complaints, 1) cycling in the middle of the road, and 5) cycling slowly when there is no room to overtake (the cyclist), would benefit from a cyclist’s perspective.

Here are possible explanations of cyclist behaviour from a behind-the-bars perspective and why motorists do not have valid complaints in these two situations:

Cycling in the middle of the road (lane): A cyclist is required by law to cycle in the right-most lane for her destination. The cyclist is entitled to full use of the lane – the law does not require the cyclist to limit her use to the only the right most portion of it.

There is an important reason why the law is structured this way: safety. Many decisions will affect a cyclist’s position in a lane: cyclist’s speed, cyclist’s destination, road conditions, speed of other traffic, and traffic volume. For example, a cyclist may be riding closer to the centre of lane because:

* The lane may be narrow (defined as 12 feet or less in width, excluding parking) and therefore the lane can not safely accommodate the use of two vehicles (motored or otherwise) within the lane — cycling in a far-right lane position within the lane conveys the incorrect message to motorists that there is enough room for both vehicles (which may result in a “Close Shave” see cyclists’ complaints below;

* There may be adjacent parked cars creating a potential hazard for a cyclist to be doored by cycling too close (1 metre or less) when a motorist or passenger opens the door without looking;

* There could be debris on the road or potentially hazardous surfaces (rain slicked service covers, puddles – which can hide potholes, wet leaves, etc) which a cyclist needs space to avoid and thereby prevent an accident.

* As well, it can be dangerous for a cyclist to cycle too far to the right in a wider lane as it can put her out of the line of sight of adjacent motorists and potentially result in a motorist’s “Rude Right.” Whereas a cyclist who is positioned more into the lane is much more visible and therefore avoidable, even if potentially annoying to the motorist, as it requires a signal, shoulder check and then lane change.

In summary, cyclists have legal right and valid safety reasons for “cycling in the middle of the road.”

In regards to motorists’ annoyance number five: cycling slowly when there is no opportunity for a motorist to overtake. If there is not a safe opportunity for the motorist to pass the cyclist then I suspect the cyclist is most likely going as fast a possible (i.e. in a narrow lane going up a hill). Again for the safety of all road users the best possible position for the cyclist is in the middle of the lane where other road users can see him and therefore adjust their speed, etc. Cyclists in this position who notice a build-up of traffic behind them are encouraged to occasionally pull over and let the built-up traffic pass by.

Situations such as the one above could arise where planning is poor – for example the Summit Connector is a popular route for cyclists wanting to get up the hill to TRU, but with some of the recent construction on it, the shoulder on the route heading south, used by cyclists and pedestrians, was closed along with the adjacent motorists’ lane, which meant that a cyclist would need to move into the sole remaining available lane.

Then, to avoid the metal support struts of the worksite fencing, he would need to move out further into the lane and thereby restrict passing options. In this case the annoyance should rightly be placed with the City for not providing a viable alternative on this popular route for cyclists.

In both of the above situations, motorists complaint is aided by a lack of understanding of the rules of the road as they apply to cyclists, and thereby affects motorists’ expectations of how, where and when a cyclist should be on the roadway.

Should the motorist be referred to as a “Ms. Idiot” or “Ms. Having a Bad Day” because her expectations are falsely informed? I do not believe so. I do believe it would be accurate to call her ignorant of the rules of the road – but, fortunately, ignorance can be remedied by education.

Of the top five listed motorist behaviours which cyclists complain about, I can say the following – in all of the examples cited the motorists are driving unsafely and breaking the rules of the road. In detail:

1) Rude Right – the motorist has unsafely overtaken and turned right over another vehicle (a bicycle is considered vehicle under Sect 183 & 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act) in the same lane. Turning right over a cyclist accounts for more than 26 per cent of motorist-cyclist accidents (2007 ICBC statistics)

2) Close Shave — A Close Shave is unsafe passing of another vehicle. Some motorist behaviour in this situation can be influenced by the cyclist changing her lane position by moving more to the centre of the lane so she is more visible to other road users; if the cyclist is already in this position then the motorist is being aggressive (would add aggressive driving to the infractions) and I wonder if the motorist would exhibit this behaviour to another motorist, or if he believed a loved one was on the bicycle. If he is not able to drive rationally, should he be driving at all?

3) The Loony Left – accounts for more than 17 per cent of motorist-cyclist accidents. Many motorists underestimate the speed at which a cyclist can travel and mistakenly believe they have time to make the turn when they do not. The only things a cyclist can do in this situation is be aware that it is a significant cause of motorist-cyclist accidents and to mitigate the impact be prepared to make either a quick turn to his right or a quick stop;

4) The Bike Blockade – parking in bike lanes. It is illegal to park on bike pathways / lanes – see City of Kamloops Traffic By-law 23-30 Part III - 318. (1) – the reason for the bylaw is because it forces the bike-lane traffic on to the roadway – e.g. the Baker Street exit is a one-way off Fortune towards Schubert Drive – it has bike lanes on it on both sides, but frequently there are vehicles parked on the west side, where a cyclist would be heading south, thereby forcing bicycle traffic into a position of being on the roadway with oncoming traffic exiting Fortune at fairly high (and illegal) speeds;

5) Attempting to pass a cyclist when visibility is poor – this simply is passing a vehicle in an unsafe manner and again a failure of the motorist to follow the rules of the road. Rightly, the motorist may be annoyed at a particular situation, such as in response to motorists’ complaint number five above, but that does not justify unsafe road behaviour.

In all of these situations the cyclists have valid concerns about motorists’ behaviour. As Mel Rothenburger has mentioned before, cyclists tend to be on the losing end of motorist-cyclist collisions and this fact is why these top five complaints from cyclists are so very important.

In situations where motorists make errors in judgment that result in a motorist-cyclist collision it will be the cyclist who ultimately pays.

I hope this input aids in creating a productive dialogue between motorists and cyclists. We should stop calling each other names and instead focus on creating safer roadways for all road users.

If anyone wishes to learn more about cycling safely and cyclists’ rights and responsibilities a good source is to check out bikesense.bc.ca – the guide was originally developed in cooperation with ICBC and is published by the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition.

Hard copies can be obtained by contacting the Thompson Rivers Area Cycling Coalition at 250-376-4723 or email GET.ON.TRACC@gmail.com.