Bicycle Traffic Laws Need Changing
Wheel Life column - 20 February, 1999
by Todd Litman and Suzanne Kort - Victoria Transport Policy Institute

The law is wrong, and its up to us to change it.

The problem is that current provincial traffic laws focus on what you ride, rather than how you ride, which fails to recognize the huge range of cyclists, and road conditions that we face.

It is what engineers call a "prescriptive" standard. Such standards tend to be inefficient and unfair because they are inevitably inappropriate in many situations. A far superior approach is to use "performance" based standards that define which impacts or behaviors are prohibited. This approach tends to solve problems more effectively and equitably.

Provincial law states that "a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." The law then specifies:

"The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

A person must not drive a motor vehicle at so slow a speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law."

That's simple enough. Cyclists just need to learn and practice the same traffic laws as other vehicle operators. When we are traveling slower than traffic we ride as far to the right side of the roadway as practicable (practical), the same as any slow vehicle: a truck, a tractor, or your great uncle's car.

But then the law complicates things. It states that a person operating a cycle must "ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway." This provision was written with the assumption that cyclists are always slower than traffic, and that the traffic lane is wide enough that riding on the right edge allows other vehicles to pass.

Yet, safe bicycling, as taught by Can-Bike instructors and other traffic safety experts, sometimes requires cyclists to forego the right edge of the roadway. It is appropriate to "take a lane" when you are cycling as fast as other traffic, or in certain road conditions. For example, when riding past parallel parked cars it is essential to leave 1.5 metres of clearance to avoid the risk of hitting a suddenly opening door.

The law creates confusion because it suggests that the law specific to cyclists takes precedence over the general law that applies to any slower vehicle. It places the onus on cyclists to prove that we have a right to use public roads, a right that is hardly ever questioned for other vehicle categories.

This is not just a theoretical issue. Local cyclist Julie Newton was recently found guilty of failing to ride as far to the right as "practicable" while riding on Blanshard Street. Newton insists that she needed to ride in the lane, rather than in the gutter, for her safety.

The judge found Newton was guilty of "holding up traffic." Newton reponds, "As a cyclist I am traffic."

Blanshard Street in downtown Victoria, where Newton was cited, has narrow right-hand lanes, parallel-parked cars, and dense vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It would be inappropriate for any vehicle to drive fast.

These are conditions in which cyclists may be safest taking a lane, to avoid being hit by an opening car door or a turning vehicle. In fact, this is recognized in the City of Victoria bicycle plan, which considers Blanshard a "bike route," although bike lanes end at the edge of downtown, on the assumption that cyclists should merge into the traffic stream there.

In fairness to the legal system, both the police and the courts seem to recognize that there are some situations when cyclists should be able to "take a lane." However, current law places the onus on cyclists to prove that they do not violate the specific requirement to stay as far to the right as practicable, rather than the more general requirement that any slower vehicle stay toward the right.

Last Wednesday night the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition discussed these problems and established a cyclists legal defense program that will work to develop laws that are consistent with bicycle safety and fair access to public roads. For information on this project call the GVCC at 480-5155. [Editor: There is now a section on this website devoted to legal education for cyclists]