No reason

[james_davis_nicoll]

[Poll #1728245]

Comments

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Where "should" = They already are and I find this sensible.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I don't think it works well to actually treat bicycles exactly like cars when they're mixed on roads. I haven't biked enough in the city, let alone in a variety of cities with better bicycle provisions than Minneapolis, to have a clear-cut idea of what works best, though.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Those who do know that treating bicycles as anything but vehicles has nasty consequences.

Nothing wrong with well-designed completely off-road paths, of course (as long as you recognize the dangers of pedestrians, skateboarders, inline skaters, gonzo cyclists, cyclists who ride two abreast, pedestrians who walk four abreast, dogs, dog owners who let their leashes extend right across the path... etc. Oh, and rapists and murderers who take advantage of isolated spots.)

Seriously, I ride on both the road and paths and manage to get along just fine with other traffic users. The only problem is with motorists who think I should get out of their way when it's not safe to do so and they might get to the red light two blocks away a whole 15 seconds faster.

Any reason why you're asking this, James?

[jazzfish]

Anywhere else this would seem like exactly the sort of thing where one /shouldn't/ see the comments.

[chomiji]

Mind you, when they ride on the sidewalks around here, I wish they were considered vehicles and licensed/ticketed the same way as cars.

[maruad.livejournal.com]

Bicyclists do get ticketed when they ride on sidewalks here.

[oh6.livejournal.com]

I would prefer (even) more nuanced legislation, but as vehicles makes more sense than as pedestrian, say.

[rwpikul.livejournal.com]

The Traffic Act, (and its associated regulations), does include special provisions for certain kinds of vehicles.

Such as bicycles.

[agoodwinsmith.livejournal.com]

I just wish people who drive bicyles anywhere would realize that people using canes to assist locamotion are not going to walk in a straight line - or even consistenly predictably in any direction - and I can't hear them fuckers swishing up behind me on their soft little tires, either. Humph.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

As a cyclist, I wish to stay as far away as possible from someone with a cane (because of sympathy but also because *I* don't want to be near unpredictable walkers). So I will pass you on a path with LOTS of space, even going on the grass if necessary. And I don't ride on the sidewalks. And at intersections you get the right of way regardless: you've got the added pain and annoyance and I don't need to add to that.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

This is why it's legally required to have a bell on your bike, and to use it when intending to pass.

(And also why you give a WIDE FUCKING BERTH to anyone you can, and you slow way the fuck down for anyone you can't go wide around. Hop off and jog beside the bike if you have to!)

[martinl-00.livejournal.com]

Treating them the same as motor vehicles will have odd consequences sometimes. (Yearly emissions inspections?) Treat them as a special category.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

No, you just apply emissions tests to motor vehicles only, and the general rules of the road to all vehicles. It works just fine.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

What is the alternative to vehicles - cats?

[rgovrebo.livejournal.com]

They're about equally predictable in their behaviour.

[maruad.livejournal.com]

I don't remember a time in my life when bicycles were not considered vehicles in Manitoba.

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

Same here in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

[drcuriosity]

This set of rules seems to make sense:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section5.0.shtml

It's also quite close to our rules for the same, as it happens.

Following the principle of "keep simple things simple, and manage complexity where it arises", treating a bicycle as a vehicle by default would seem to make sense. There are considerably fewer exceptions than there are common rules. Having a totally new set of laws to define something already mostly covered elsewhere seems pointless.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"Already are" and "Should be treated as cats."

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Is this a prelude to another anti-bicycle rant?

[radargrrl.livejournal.com]

Cyclists already have the same rights on Ontario highways as motorists. They also have the same responsibilities, which many of them forget.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

This.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

Are there bicycles on Ontario highways? And if so, what does this mean for the speed of traffic that they can blend in?

Also, Cats.

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

Some highways have "no bicycles" signs. Otherwise, bicycles are generally expected to be travelling on the side of the road rather than occupying a lane; IIRC, by law, vehicles can't travel too much *below* the posted speed limit, because they'd be obstructing traffic.

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

Treat them as Vehicles, and you get idiotic things like people getting arrested for drunken bicycling and bicycling on an expired/revoked/suspended license.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

What's idiotic about people getting arrested for drunken bicycling?

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

Yes, with the caveat that it should be legal to treat a stop sign as a yield sign when on a bicycle.