Everything Bicycles | Winnipeg

[esquire]

Originally Posted by windypeg

I love how there's always somebody just champing at the bit to go off on the whole "cyclists never follow the rules" thing. There's shitty cyclists and there's good ones, just like drivers. Can you imagine if every time we tried to talk about road infrastructure we got derailed because somebody needed to rant about all the people they see speeding and not using their turn signals?

Ha. Good point. I doubt you could drive a kilometre in this city without seeing at least one infraction that would result in a failed driver's test. Cancel Chief Peguis Trail extensions until drivers learn the rules!!!!

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

That actually makes some rare sense from city hall. They really need to figure out the rapid transit route from downtown to Polo Park/Airport before they make anymore changes to the main east-west corridors.

In terms of methods of transportation, buses behave in a very predictable manner and rarely are in the wrong with the rare exception being when they block intersections to cross traffic for complete light cycles. Other non-bike vehicles on the road, as much as they may break traffic laws, mostly behave in a predictable manner. You aren't going to see a car from the back of the pack suddenly appear at the front of the pack and run through a red light. Cyclists though, and based on my travels in the city, I would say behave in an unpredictable manner in excess of 50% of the time. That is a lot of bad cyclists out there. The other group that is bad and unpredictable are pedestrians.

As someone that walks a lot on public sidewalks the #1 nuisance is bad cyclists and that clocks in even ahead of aggressive panhandlers and public intoxication in downtown. Sure "cyclists don't kill people" but a bad cyclists v pedestrian can still result in life changing injuries for the pedestrians. It's time to put the "cyclists don't kill people" rhetoric out to pasture where it belongs. Respect needs to be a mutual thing and that means following the rules regardless of what other people and other methods of travel are doing. Sure a cyclists running a red light might not kill anyway but did they take time to make sure a pedestrians with the right of way wasn't there?

Not saying anyone is flawless here but if cyclists want more respect they need to clean up their own act and demonstrate that same level of respect to other citizens. That means if your dedicated pathway ends and your choice is road or sidewalk if you want to keep riding it is never on the sidewalk. The pedestrians using that sidewalk are no more to blame for the poor design than the cyclist facing that poor choice and deserve an equal amount of respect. This summer I have had several close calls with cyclists being overly aggressive while riding on crowded sidewalks while I was a pedestrian, sometimes even on roads with dedicated bike lanes. If cyclists want the infrastructure you need to put your tires behind those demands.

Frick. Spreading the spew every forum you go to, huh?

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

A pedestrian on a sidewalk should never need to move out of the way of a cyclist and that has definitely not be the reality this summer in Winnipeg and it is not just me either.

Of course they should. If you have 3 pedestrians walking side by side the same direction blocking the entire space on a section like, oh......west side of main between Assiniboine and QEW, then yes they should move, just as they should move if there were pedestrians coming the other direction.

People should be walking on a sidewalk in such a manner that there is no problem for: a faster pedestrian to pass them, pedestrians coming the other way, wheelchair, skateboard and (OH MY GOD) a bike to get by.

If you're walking in the middle of the sidewalk in a way that nobody can get by and then bitch because you had to move for someone else to get by regardless of pedestrian, cyclist, etc. That's on you.

[drew]

^ bikes aren't allowed on sidewalks. From an operational standpoint a bike is basically equal to a motorcycle. And neither should be on the sidewalk.

Similar to what CoryB has experienced, I walk down Portage avenue everyday. There are numerous instances of people riding bikes on the sidewalk that is just flat out dangerous.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by drew

^ bikes aren't allowed on sidewalks. From an operational standpoint a bike is basically equal to a motorcycle. And neither should be on the sidewalk.

Similar to what CoryB has experienced, I walk down Portage avenue everyday. There are numerous instances of people riding bikes on the sidewalk that is just flat out dangerous.

Aren't there certain sections of sidewalk that are also bike paths? I'm thinking of Jubilee near BDI and the stretch of Main or QEW (whatever it's called at that point) right by the Forks.

[drew]

^ there are bikepaths that sometimes run parallel to a sidewalk, but as a general rule, sidewalks are not bikepaths.

[esquire]

Quite often pinch points like older bridges and underpasses will have sidewalks that double as cycle paths... those are usually clearly marked and tend to be fairly short exceptions to the general rule.

[Authentic_City]

^There are points of convergence and confusion between the road, bike path and sidewalk on Assiniboine Ave behind the legislative bldgs. I try very carefully to stay on the path designated for bikes, but there are "pinch points" where the two converge and the signs can be unclear.

Interesting comment about a bike being operationally similar to a motorcycle. In fact, they are regulated very differently legally. There is no licence required to operate a bike, and no vehicle registration. There is no age minimum to ride a bike (yes, small kids ride bikes, often on sidewalks), they differ greatly in terms of top speed and weight. One is legally classified a 'motor vehicle' and one is not (you can be charged with impaired driving on a ride-on lawn tractor, but not a horse or bike). Operationally, a horse and motorcycle are similar too, but the differences are significant, and quite obvious to see.

I am rarely bothered by bikes on the sidewalk. Especially on high traffic corridors like Main or Portage with very wide paved sidewalks.

[esquire]

^ Yes, I can't say that I've ever really had a negative encounter with bikes on the sidewalk. As long as the cyclist is being reasonably courteous it doesn't bother me and despite what the law says, I can certainly understand why many of them opt for the sidewalk. This is particularly so once you get outside of central areas where road traffic is treacherous and the sidewalks are very lightly used.

[bomberjet]

The Cities new pedestrian and cycling core pathways are 4.5m wide. 1.5m of that is for pedestrians (equal to a normal sidewalk), and 3.0m of that is for 2-way cycling. So 1.5m cycling lane each way. There is either a rumble strip or painted line (maybe both) to separate pedestrian and cyclists. That is the standard.

The also have 3.0m wide pathways which are not core routes and is the older standard. Essentially they added a sidewalk width to the bike paths to make it 4.5m.

Of course this is only feasible where you have the space.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

^There are points of convergence and confusion between the road, bike path and sidewalk on Assiniboine Ave behind the legislative bldgs. I try very carefully to stay on the path designated for bikes, but there are "pinch points" where the two converge and the signs can be unclear.

Interesting comment about a bike being operationally similar to a motorcycle. In fact, they are regulated very differently legally. There is no licence required to operate a bike, and no vehicle registration. There is no age minimum to ride a bike (yes, small kids ride bikes, often on sidewalks), they differ greatly in terms of top speed and weight. One is legally classified a 'motor vehicle' and one is not (you can be charged with impaired driving on a ride-on lawn tractor, but not a horse or bike). Operationally, a horse and motorcycle are similar too, but the differences are significant, and quite obvious to see.

I am rarely bothered by bikes on the sidewalk. Especially on high traffic corridors like Main or Portage with very wide paved sidewalks.

Straight from MPI website:

It is illegal and dangerous to cycle on sidewalks. Leaving the sidewalk to travel across a roadway poses a significant risk.

145 (8) Bicycles on sidewalks- Subject to subsection (9), no person shall operate on a sidewalk a bicycle with a rear wheel the diameter of which exceeds 410 mm.

Cyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists, so both groups need to know and follow the rules of the road and safe practices to ensure the safety of all.

145(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (6), a person operating a bicycle or power-assisted bicycle on a highway or bicycle facility has the same rights and duties as a person driving a motor vehicle on a highway and shall obey all signs and traffic control devices, and all directions of a peace officer.

Just as when driving a motor vehicle, you must not operate a bicycle when you have been drinking.

227(1) No person

a. who is in charge of a vehicle other than a motor vehicle or bicycle, or of a horse or other animal, used as a means of conveyance; and

b. who is, through drunkenness, unable to drive or ride it with safety to other persons who are on a highway or bicycle facility;

shall drive or ride the vehicle, bicycle or animal on a highway or bicycle facility.

I am almost certain you can be charged with a DUI while riding a bicycle.

So basically, once your bike has a wheel diameter larger than 16" - it can't be on the sidewalk, and since it can't be on the sidewalk, you must operate is the same as any car or motorcycle.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by drew

^ there are bikepaths that sometimes run parallel to a sidewalk, but as a general rule, sidewalks are not bikepaths.

It's signage that dictates. And there are quite a few sidewalks that look like they are not a wide MUP, but according to signage are actually multi-use pathways.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Interesting comment about a bike being operationally similar to a motorcycle. In fact, they are regulated very differently legally.

And operationally. I take up the same space on the road regardless if I am on my motorcycle or bicycle. But on only one of them do drivers afford me the full lane that I occupy.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yes, I can't say that I've ever really had a negative encounter with bikes on the sidewalk. As long as the cyclist is being reasonably courteous it doesn't bother me and despite what the law says, I can certainly understand why many of them opt for the sidewalk. This is particularly so once you get outside of central areas where road traffic is treacherous and the sidewalks are very lightly used.

I walk up and down Portage Ave from Wolseley to downtown to work every day. Without exception.

I have at a minimum 1 or 2 close calls with bikes whizzing up behind me and passing me per week. The kind of close passing maneuver where if I for whatever reason decided to abruptly step to one side, I would be seriously hurt.

That's just the dangerous stuff. The annoying bike riders are there each and every day (weather permitting of course).

[StNorberter]

Why do cyclists ride on the sidewalk? Because the feel that riding on the street is to dangerous. Given the attitudes of many in this city, hard to blame them.

Signage and implementation is also problematic. Coming off the pathway by BRT and crossing Jubilee, the sidewalk on Jubilee is labelled as MUP. Problem is that the sign is 50' from the crosswalk. Does that mean that the section between the crosswalk and the sign is not an MUP even though there is no physical difference? Of course not. No reasonable person would ( or expect someone else) to dismount, wak and then remount and ride where there is no difference except for the location of a sign.

[drew]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Why do cyclists ride on the sidewalk? Because the feel that riding on the street is to dangerous. Given the attitudes of many in this city, hard to blame them.

Signage and implementation is also problematic. Coming off the pathway by BRT and crossing Jubilee, the sidewalk on Jubilee is labelled as MUP. Problem is that the sign is 50' from the crosswalk. Does that mean that the section between the crosswalk and the sign is not an MUP even though there is no physical difference? Of course not. No reasonable person would ( or expect someone else) to dismount, wak and then remount and ride where there is no difference except for the location of a sign.

I completely understand. However I am pointing out that it is technically illegal, and the choice of someone to ride on the sidewalk puts pedestrians at increased risk.

There is no doubt that the cycling infrastructure sucks - but that is no excuse. If you want to commute in the City using your bike, you have to suck it up and stay off the sidewalks.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

Aren't there certain sections of sidewalk that are also bike paths? I'm thinking of Jubilee near BDI and the stretch of Main or QEW (whatever it's called at that point) right by the Forks.

Yup, and on Main Street, and St. Mary's, and numerous other places where it's clearly a sidewalk, but there's no safe place for a bike, so the City doesn't want to make a decision either way and throws up cyclist yield signs so no one is ever right or wrong, and no one knows if they're actually on an AT path.

Originally Posted by drew

^ there are bikepaths that sometimes run parallel to a sidewalk, but as a general rule, sidewalks are not bikepaths.

Except the city doesn't follow those logical rules.

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Why do cyclists ride on the sidewalk? Because the feel that riding on the street is to dangerous. Given the attitudes of many in this city, hard to blame them.

Signage and implementation is also problematic. Coming off the pathway by BRT and crossing Jubilee, the sidewalk on Jubilee is labelled as MUP. Problem is that the sign is 50' from the crosswalk. Does that mean that the section between the crosswalk and the sign is not an MUP even though there is no physical difference? Of course not. No reasonable person would ( or expect someone else) to dismount, wak and then remount and ride where there is no difference except for the location of a sign.

I've been saying for YEARS that the city needs a complete overhaul of the way it handles cycling and AT signage. Even with the new lanes on Pembina there's nothing other than painted bike logos in the lanes (even though 6 months they're invisible) which only signals to bikes that they're in a bike lane. They need to be more clearly marked to motorists, as well as pedestrians - ESPECIALLY at the bus stops.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by drew

I completely understand. However I am pointing out that it is technically illegal, and the choice of someone to ride on the sidewalk puts pedestrians at increased risk.

There is no doubt that the cycling infrastructure sucks - but that is no excuse. If you want to commute in the City using your bike, you have to suck it up and stay off the sidewalks.

But why? Why should the onus be on cyclists? It's not a dangerous environment because of the actions of cyclists, it's a dangerous environment because of the actions of drivers. Why should cyclist have to accommodate?

If someone is biking on the sidewalk, slowing down as they pass pedestrians and giving them room, who really cares?

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by drew

I am almost certain you can be charged with a DUI while riding a bicycle.

You are quoting from a provincial statute, not the criminal code.

You can't be charged with impaired driving under the Criminal Code , unless you are operating a motor vehicle:

Operation while impaired

253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not.

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

The Criminal Code is different than the Provincial Statute. I haven't seen any recent case law related to charges under the MB Act, but the language seems pretty vague: "No person... who is, through drunkenness, unable to drive or ride it with safety to other persons who are on a highway or bicycle facility..." There is no quantum of blood alcohol specified, therefore open to wide interpretation. I'd doubt there are any charges under the statute. I suppose you could be fined, but it would not be a criminal charge any more than a traffic ticket is.

[drew]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

But why? Why should the onus be on cyclists? It's not a dangerous environment because of the actions of cyclists, it's a dangerous environment because of the actions of drivers. Why should cyclist have to accommodate?

If someone is biking on the sidewalk, slowing down as they pass pedestrians and giving them room, who really cares?

The onus is on the cyclist because they are considered the same as motor vehicles. And I disagree that it is only a "dangerous environment because of drivers".

How many cyclists do you see that actually observe and follow general traffic rules? There are some for sure, but now how often do you see bikes weaving in and out of streets using the sidewalk when convenient, slipping up between lanes of traffic or between cars and the curb at stop lights? People driving cars can definitely be dangerous to cyclists, but a lot of the time, cyclists aren't exactly angels either, so let's not pretend otherwise.

As for "who really cares?" I do. Just as a bike is at a severe disadvantage to a car, a pedestrian is at a severe disadvantage to a bike.

"Slowing down as they pass pedestrians and giving them room". That's funny, it's certainly not been my experience.