Bikes..are they pedestrians or Vehicles?

[drone]

I drive a great deal downtown, for my job. I encounter bikes all over city streets. I always try and treat bikes as another car, I give them the right of way when applicaple. I expect them to stop at red lights, crosswalks etc. I am not coming down on any bikers here, but, I can't help but notice very few bikes stop at stop signs, or even signal for that matter. So, is it expected that bikes are to be treated as pedestrians? I have no problem doing that, I just want to know their proper designation on the road.

 

[bAuHaUs]

Let's be clear that bikes on public roads are vehicles and should be treated as such; this includes licensing, registration, testing, ticketing, proper equipment, etc. Now, if cyclists wish to ride on trails and bike paths, then this is a totally different matter and most of the above shouldn't apply, except for proper equipment. This is why we don't allow motorized vehicles on bike paths, and urban trails. It's important to separate the modes of transport when necessary; however when they share the same road then they should be equal in every respect. So, bikes aren't pedestrians. I would also stress that I don't think bikes should be on our roads with cars, trucks, street cars, buses, etc. We need to design urban commuter paths/trails soley for bikes that are 100% separate from our surface routes; that at present aren't designed for bikes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Bicycles are both.

When on the road, they are vehicles. As such, should be treated as such. The city roads were originally paved because of the bicycle. Muddy York was called muddy for a reason. However, the roads were taken over by motor vehicles, but the road should still be shared with the bicycle.

They are also pedestrian. When moving at a walking speed, they become pedestrian, like walkers or scooters used by the handicapped or seniors. And so, if you give granny a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign in her scooter, you can give a bicyclist a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign.

 

[Team Me]

Let's be clear that bikes on public roads are vehicles and should be treated as such; this includes licensing, registration, testing, ticketing, proper equipment, etc. Now, if cyclists wish to ride on trails and bike paths, then this is a totally different matter and most of the above shouldn't apply, except for proper equipment. This is why we don't allow motorized vehicles on bike paths, and urban trails. It's important to separate the modes of transport when necessary; however when they share the same road then they should be equal in every respect. So, bikes aren't pedestrians. I would also stress that I don't think bikes should be on our roads with cars, trucks, street cars, buses, etc. We need to design urban commuter paths/trails soley for bikes that are 100% separate from our surface routes; that at present aren't designed for bikes.

Bikes are neither pedestrians nor cars. That's like asking "Are people bikes or cars?" Bikes are a completely different form of transportation than walking or a motor vehicle, and therefore need rules that are suited to them. Asking a 60-lb, 2-foot wide, self-propelled vehicle that can stop in 5 feet to follow the same rules of the road (including licensing) as a 2000-lb, 5 foot wide motorized vehicle that can kill in an instant is ludicrous. The reason so many bikes bend the rules is that the rules of the road are created for cars...and not them.

If rules of the road for bikes are created that are more suitable, more cyclist will follow the rules. And trust me, the second a bike consumes an entire single lane riding at a normal cycling speed so no drivers can pass, drivers would not want cyclists to be treated like motor vehicles.

If we change cycling laws so they properly suit the form of transportation, and then hold cyclists to those rules, we'll all be much better off.

 

[bAuHaUs]

Let's be clear, bikes and motorized vehicles shouldn't share the "same" road because they aren't the same. What this means is that in order for cyclists to move safely across our cities they need to be separated and must have their own road system. One quick fix would be to isolate cyclists with barriers from the existing vehicular flow; merely marking the pavement in my view is not adequate and short-sighted. Once cyclists have been properly isolated then we can (a) opt to regulate them since now they are all equal machines before the law or (b) perhaps more appropriately, leave them completely to their own devices and they can self-regulate themselves.

 

[confusion]

"Bikes..are they pedestrians or vehicles?"

They are neither, they are bikes.

The following statements are how I believe the laws should be. Unfortunately for the safety of cyclists, they are currently equals with cars with less rights according to the HTA (Highway Traffic Act).

Pedestrians should never have to yield to anyone, unless intentionally blocking a roadway. Kensington got it right, streets are first and foremost for people.

Bikes should only have to yield to pedestrians. Any cyclist that hits a pedestrian should receive serious fines.

Cars should have to yield to bikes. This one may be debated by many forum members, but in my opinion if you put 2 tons up against 40 lbs, it is straight-forward who should have to yield to who.

 

[wonderboy416]

Which brings us to another distinction that has to be made, motorized bikes with pedals that require no licensing or driver training to be on the road... Should THEY be on the sidewalk?

 

[kettal]

Are airplanes pedestrians or cars? I don't know cause sometimes I'm waiting at a stop sign and I see an airplane and he doesn't even stop!

 

[drone]

I know the title of the thread is off, but it caught your eye. I think it's rather clear that I am asking what rules of the road apply to them. It seems rather odd that a bike can have the right of way as a pedestrian at one moment, and then another moment they are to be treated as a vehicule? It's my assumption that driving, walking and biking are safer and easier when all involved respect and KNOW the others right and place in traffic. Commuters have a right to be able to predict the others response at a given intersection. When do we know that a bike has suddenly changed it's status to pedestrian? Is there some hand gesture?? LOl...

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

The Star did an article on this a while ago.
Interestingly, it was found to be safer if cyclists do NOT stop at an all way stop

 

[drone]

fine by me, make it law then.

I just want clarity, and to see motorists and cyclists respect the rules of the road. But, when, as is evident above, nobody seems to have a solid answer on which rules apply when and where etc...there will continue to be confusion, resulting in accidents

 

[kettal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UIHFzb7S5o

 

[benii]

Whenever I'm at a stop sign and a bike whizzes by on the road without stopping, I fear for their life! Technically, they can do that, but dang that seems mighty dangerous...

 

[dunkalunk]

The Star did an article on this a while ago.
Interestingly, it was found to be safer if cyclists do NOT stop at an all way stop

If you can find the link to this article, It would be interesting to read.
Would the increased safety of a rolling stop have something to do with motion being more visible in a person's peripheral vision than being idle?

IMO, cyclists have every right to use the road as car drivers do, but it is important for both groups to use common sense and to have predictable behaviour. IE: keep to your lane, avoid sudden movements, signal lane changes and turns, use lights, ect. I also beleive that a rolling stop a stop sign is sufficient, as long as you don't cut off pedestrians in the process, and that all vehicles should obey traffic lights. The moment any vehicle user starts driving recklessly, they are putting the lives of themselves and others at risk. While especially true for auto drivers, common safety should not be ignored by cyclists.

And while I do beleive that motor and vehicles and bicycles should share the road, some dedcated bike routes on Richmond, Adelaide, and Bay (or any other North-South Corridor) a la Boulevard de Maisonneuve would cetrainly be appreciated and well used.

 

[kettal]

The Star article used Idaho as an example. Idaho changed their traffic laws to make rolling stops legal for bikes, and accidents have gone down. There's little evidence of causation, and nowhere in Idaho is comparable to Toronto.

Rolling stops are illegal here. I do slow rolling stops on my bike, and I stop fully when another vehicle or pedestrian has the right of way. Police seem to be understanding that slowing down is different from blowing through the stop sign at full speed.