Everything Bicycles | Winnipeg

[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.

[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.

[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 Authentic_City

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.

You are correct. It isn't a DUI, but you can be given tickets and fines. So still not legal in the technical sense.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by drew

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".

But why should cyclists have to put themselves in positions where they are uncomfortable because of the actions of drivers. And yes, it it a dangerous environment because of drivers. If you think it's because of cyclists, you're completely delusional. How many of the cyclist fatalites in car-bike collisions have been the fault of cyclists? 0

Originally Posted by drew

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.

How many of those actually endanger you as a driver? 0.

Originally Posted by drew

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.

So you care because a bike is bigger and pedestrians are at a disadvantage ( what does that even mean?), but your logic doesn't hold wrt car-bike interractions

Originally Posted by drew

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

Experience? Or perception? If you're a pedestrian, at walking speed, you would perceive cyclists to be speeding by you, not because they are, but because of the difference of speed. If I pass a pedestrian at 15 km/hr, they probably think I am speeding past them, as opposed to the reality of me having dropped my speed by at 10 km/hr as I pass them.

[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.

[esquire]

^ Is that all? Doesn't seem like a particularly ambitious construction timetable.

[Authentic_City]

^At least it's something I guess. Would be nice to see it built and connected to the new bridge over the Assiniboine River: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...town-1.4474688.

Also, I would like to seem some connections from Downtown to the West End. The city is planning to route bikes from Omand's Creek to St. Matthews (along Empress). But St. Matthews doesn't really connect to downtown. Wonder if there is a long term plan here?

[tree]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Is that all? Doesn't seem like a particularly ambitious construction timetable.

Do you mean the finished product isn't ambitious or the timetable / construction details are lacking? If the latter - I don't know but it seemed all last year the bike paths were just forgotten so glad to see acknowledgement. I recall the Garry st water work was done as mentioned in 2017 so seemingly they are on schedule.

As for current project - its a start and I think the bike paths on Sherbrook are pretty great. Still wish they would do 1-way bike paths on Garry AND Fort instead of the 2-way bike path on the 1-way Garry street but I guess for sake of minimal disruption I'm thinking they went with this. I'm hopeful that in a few years they will do the Northbound 1-way on Fort.

We need more absolutely but this will be a major artery - if they make Graham or St.Mary the East-West bike corridor ("the portage ave of bikes") and Garry the North-South corridor ("the main street of bikes") then they only need one more or two to the North (from plan looks like maybe Notre Dame but not sure) and one more to the West (Memorial/Colony seem easy options here) to have something resembling a connected grid that serves MOST of the core area. (Assiniboine kind of the "Broadway" of bikes for the south)

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

^At least it's something I guess. Would be nice to see it built and connected to the new bridge over the Assiniboine River: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...town-1.4474688.

Nice thing about this route is since it terminates in the south at Assiniboine it will automatically access the new bridge via that bike lane. Will be possible to bike from Exchange to Osborne almost entirely protected.

Also, I would like to seem some connections from Downtown to the West End. The city is planning to route bikes from Omand's Creek to St. Matthews (along Empress). But St. Matthews doesn't really connect to downtown. Wonder if there is a long term plan here?

I'm not aware of full plan at all for St. Matthews but thinking about it now it does make a lot of sense if they can run the bike lanes all the way down to where St. Matthews terminates at Maryland. By the time you're at Maryland you're minutes (seconds by bike) from UW and UW will be a major connection point for this infrastructure - so its close enough to downtown to make sense.



Looking at the map its a very easy connection to Sherbrook, UW and from there relatively close to some of the other downtown bike infrastructure.

I despise the 'construction pole' bike Paths on St Matthews around St.James (Winnipeg half-assedness at its finest) but if its temporary until they can make real bike lanes then i'll take it for now. I'm not hugely familiar with bike infrastructure in other major cities so its possible too I'm just being greedy by wanting everything to be nice bikelanes like we see on Sherbrook and Assiniboine lol.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by tree

Do you mean the finished product isn't ambitious or the timetable / construction details are lacking? If the latter - I don't know but it seemed all last year the bike paths were just forgotten so glad to see acknowledgement. I recall the Garry st water work was done as mentioned in 2017 so seemingly they are on schedule.

As for current project - its a start and I think the bike paths on Sherbrook are pretty great. Still wish they would do 1-way bike paths on Garry AND Fort instead of the 2-way bike path on the 1-way Garry street but I guess for sake of minimal disruption I'm thinking they went with this. I'm hopeful that in a few years they will do the Northbound 1-way on Fort.

We need more absolutely but this will be a major artery - if they make Graham or St.Mary the East-West bike corridor ("the portage ave of bikes") and Garry the North-South corridor ("the main street of bikes") then they only need one more or two to the North (from plan looks like maybe Notre Dame but not sure) and one more to the West (Memorial/Colony seem easy options here) to have something resembling a connected grid that serves MOST of the core area. (Assiniboine kind of the "Broadway" of bikes for the south)



Nice thing about this route is since it terminates in the south at Assiniboine it will automatically access the new bridge via that bike lane. Will be possible to bike from Exchange to Osborne almost entirely protected.



I'm not aware of full plan at all for St. Matthews but thinking about it now it does make a lot of sense if they can run the bike lanes all the way down to where St. Matthews terminates at Maryland. By the time you're at Maryland you're minutes (seconds by bike) from UW and UW will be a major connection point for this infrastructure - so its close enough to downtown to make sense.



Looking at the map its a very easy connection to Sherbrook, UW and from there relatively close to some of the other downtown bike infrastructure.

I despise the 'construction pole' bike Paths on St Matthews around St.James (Winnipeg half-assedness at its finest) but if its temporary until they can make real bike lanes then i'll take it for now. I'm not hugely familiar with bike infrastructure in other major cities so its possible too I'm just being greedy by wanting everything to be nice bikelanes like we see on Sherbrook and Assiniboine lol.

IIRC UofW's plan was to create a path from where St. Matthew's ends at Maryland right into the heart of the campus near the RecPlex. If you look on Google maps you can see where it would go, cutting north through some parking lots to connect with Furby Place/Richardson Corridor. Essentially it would extend St. Matthews into the campus, but for AT only. I believe the do own most of the (empty) lots in that area, so it might not be that far off.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by buzzg

IIRC UofW's plan was to create a path from where St. Matthew's ends at Maryland right into the heart of the campus near the RecPlex. If you look on Google maps you can see where it would go, cutting north through some parking lots to connect with Furby Place/Richardson Corridor. Essentially it would extend St. Matthews into the campus, but for AT only. I believe the do own most of the (empty) lots in that area, so it might not be that far off.

Looking at the map, I can see what looks like a potential route, but it would require some sort of crossing infrastructure at Maryland and Sherbrook. Also, there have been some recent safety concerns and incidents along the path between UW's main campus and the Science Building on Langside and Portage. To connect with St. Matthews, you would basically extend this route further west through some other dodgy areas. I think the folks at UW may not be so keen to do this, especially since they no longer have students housed at Lions Manner.