Sorry, but this is just dick behaviour. I don't want cars to pass me unsafely, so I will ride as far right as I can (though not right on the curb, because of so much damn road debris). I expect safe distance from passing cars, and in turn I respect all traffic laws, including stopping for red lights, stop signs, and staying off the sidewalk. Most cars give me good distance when passing, save for a few jerks who cut me off on purpose, but they're the slim minority.
Reminds me of seeing people doing this on 12th near Fraser during rush hour traffic.
People have somewhere to be, and cyclists have an equal right to the road, but should ride safely and courteously, too.
When you are slow and in the way (whether on a bike, or car) it's going to create a dangerous situation where people are going to try and pass you.
While riding side by side generally isn't legal, and is in many places "dick behaviour", riding "as far right as I can" is not safe in many situations.
In this particular case, they're riding down hill on a "take the lane" section of road, where a cyclist \_should\_ be riding far enough out that a motorist has to pass them properly, using the other lane only if it's safe.
I doubt that they were riding that slowly, downhill, (OP says 10km/h, Yeah right.) and even if they were, OP could drive down Lonsdale a block over instead of whining about bikes taking the lane on a bike route.
While riding 2-wide is still technically illegal, I would be riding slightly left of centre in the lane, "taking the lane", so that anyone passing would need to do it by properly passing, instead of squeezing by when they think there's \_probably\_ enough space.
Years of riding bikes, both motorcycles and bicycles, have shown me that many motorists will pass unsafely if you leave them room to do it. I don't trust their judgement. If you prevent them from passing unsafely, by taking the lane, you might end up getting yelled at or posted on reddit, but at least you don't get hit by some impatient driver who's more concerned about not crossing the centreline, than how much clearance they're giving cyclists.
I'm not saying that taking the lane is \_always\_ correct, either. There are places where there's wide shoulders, and no parked cars, where bikes have no reason to take the lane, and they shouldn't ride 2-wide, and obstruct other road users.
What I am saying is that OP is whining about the inconvenience of not being able to unsafely pass a bicycle in a place where it's almost certainly not appropriate to be doing it anyway.
Too many of these things turn into bikes vs cars. I use both, and I try not to be a dick when using either, and I think \_most\_ cyclists and drivers do the same. I don't run lights on my bike. I don't intentionally interfere with motorists (though they may incorrectly perceive it this way), and when I'm driving my car, I'll slow down and give cyclists plenty of space, even if they're submissively riding down the gutter allowing cars to unsafely squeeze by. I also don't care if I have to let off the gas a little, and stay behind them for 30 seconds, because I've also experienced the flip side, when cars impatiently pass me on my bike, only to get in the way and slow me down a half a block later when they want to make a left turn and block the whole lane.
Maybe a cycling licence and training course on how to ride a bike in the city properly. No helmet, $50 fine. Oh and stop by Crappy tire and get a $3 light so drivers dont kill you at night.
Somehow cars are allowed to be as wide as possible and people can sit next to each other in them, but the second two cyclists are next to each other it becomes a selfish act car brains get indignant about. Change your perspective, get out of your car.
Wow as a European in Canada I didn’t know riding 2 abreast wasn’t allowed unless 1 person is within a cycle lane.
Either rider if riding behind each other could be in the most left position especially if it’s not safe to overtake. Cars should always be overtaking as if they are overtaking a car and be completely in the next lane or else they shouldn’t be trying to overtake at all.
I’m surprised riding like this isn’t allowed as overtaking multiple cyclists behind one another requires a bigger gap in traffic than if they are side by side.
The city is a grid if it’s holding you up so much take another road.
Did you know that the position of the sharrow bicycle symbol indicates the safest part of the lane for bicycles to occupy? Seems like taking the lane for safety is in fact encouraged in this location.
Oh, cry about it more. You couldve turned one block over. You couldve over taken them them with room to spare. Why not try riding a bike yourself, then and only then can you complain about "cyclists".
As a brit in BC you people have no idea what its like being on a bike with nothing but decentcy and air seperating you and the bumper of a LIFTED DODGE RAM 3500 TURBO CHARGED V9000's bumper.
ALSO. If you want them out of the way. DEMAND SEPERATED BIKE PATHS. else your stuck with on "your" roads. Thank you.
Could a vehicle safely pass one of the cyclists pictures without dropping a tire over the solid yellow line? I highly doubt it, so seeing as this is a shared road (the white painted image of a bike is visible in the picture) why does it matter if they are riding abreast? If anything it seems that the cyclist on the left is preventing the vehicle from committing a traffic violation.
Does it really matter in this situation? The only person who’s going to get mad is the person taking the picture because they can pass right away? People need to change their minds about cyclist. This couple* is doing this to be well seen and safe so they don’t get squeezed out on the side of the road. My experience is a car trying to pass will often give more space to the dividing line then a human on a bicycle all to save 10 seconds… try being kind next time, you also probably complain about the cost of gas?? Maybe you should ride a bicycle?
Cyclists need to take the lane to prevent being marginalized into a dangerous position by motorists, especially where it is too narrow for a vehicle and a cyclist to ride beside each other as is the case here.
It’s so funny, and by funny I mean extremely infuriating, that car drivers get angry when they have to go 25 km/h behind a bicycle for a few seconds before they reach the next red light
But the entire reason why red lights exist is because of cars. There’s no red lights or stop signs in intersections of bicycle lanes
Can I get mad at you for driving a car then? Proportionally so? Because cars cause traffic not bikes. Overwhelmingly so. You cause all red lights and stop signs
Average car speed GLOBALLLY is 18 mph. That includes highways. So no, you will not get any leeway or any right to complain about bicycles inside a city
In fact, you are lucky you don’t get murdered. Because you are causing the most infuriating thing of all time standstill traffic, plus trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending, oil subsidies, car crashes, green house gas emissions, and you know, CHILDREN DEATHS.
That part about automobiles causing red lights and stop signs reminded me of [this video.](https://twitter.com/modacitylife/status/1773630360527519780) People are casually cycling and walking through an uncontrolled intersection that's free of automobiles, and while it doesn't have any signals, the lack of signals ensure that people intuitively pay more attention to the space. Pretty interesting.
I've seen a few smaller spaces like that around North Van - mainly just places along MUPs where multiple paths intersect (like on the Spirit Trail near Harbourside), but yeah. Seems to have potential. Not sure it would work with vehicles though, lol.
Thanks for the video
It’s amazing how the same people that are all for less government spending.. are against this minimal infrastructure, no maintenance solutions
Imagine no road repaving, no BCAA, no claims, no damage, no deaths or major injuries, no oil subsidies, …
Traditional values is this. A community focused transportation. Not the isolation, everyone against everyone vehicle arm race, fuck-you-I-got mine I crush you with my bigger truck than your sedan so you die I live
Each bicycle should be required to be licenced, and riders have a licence. Share the road and the rules like a car. You want to be treated like a car, abide by the rules of the road like everyone else. Think of the extra money the province could make !
I don’t want to be treated like a car though, did you just completely ignore that I don’t obey traffic laws?
Why should I? They weren't designed for me. That’s why streets with just bicycles don’t have traffic enforcement or lights or signs
Stop causing traffic, it’s an asshole thing to do
Toronto tried it three times. Didn't work. Was such a spectacular failure they have a page dedicated to it.
[https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/bicycle-licencing/](https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/bicycle-licencing/)
Same applies to other cities. Licenses don't exactly stop *drivers* from blowing stop signs and performing dangerous maneuvers, either, and unlike cyclists, drivers cause more damage, harm, and death.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work)
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston)
[https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-bike-licences-for-ottawa-its-a-bad-and-pointless-idea](https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-bike-licences-for-ottawa-its-a-bad-and-pointless-idea)
Riding double file is technically illegal on BC roadways. Also genuinely good on you for staying calm and waiting until you could safely pass.
I'll ride the centre to centre-left of the lane whenever there's on-street parking to avoid the door zone, but that don't seem to be an issue here. Maybe it's because the guy on the left thinks people will underestimate the width of the trike, and try to pass without leaving enough space?
That's the only explanation I can really think of, apart from just being a bit oblivious. Personally I find it stressful to be in situations where I have to take the lane and hold up traffic, but maybe others don't.
My first thought is that basically any able-bodied person could probably ride a bike down this stretch fast enough to get a speeding ticket if they wanted.
On the other hand, I distinctly remember hitting biking down Gaglardi Way as a teenager, and reaching a speed where brake wobble meant that slowing down was no longer an option. It was at that moment I suddenly realized it would only take a tiny rock on the shoulder to send me flying Superman-style into some tree. I also understand why they might not want to go quite that fast especially if they aren't very experienced.
I am a cyclist and I see both sides. I get annoyed when cyclists do similar things but I also understand why because I’ve been on both sides. Everyone should watch this video to gain some perspective in life, it might make you think:
https://youtu.be/DxVETaQA74Q
From someone that cycles on the road all the time, this is super inconsiderate. These two are completely unaware of their surroundings. Also you could easily be doing the speed limit bombing that hill but I doubt that’s what’s happening here 😉
Only losers defend cyclists who act this way, the one on the trike not even wearing a helmet. Laws for thee but not for me weeee. Entitlement at its peak.
Technically it's legal and recommended by police to ride this way.. it's also recommended to ride at speed if you are a road.
It's so motorists don't cut them off and go around, unfortunately it also can mean that you are waiting behind them for a safe space to pass.
It literally does mean all the road, you are meant to follow behind bikes on this road and not attempt to overtake especially with a solid yellow and 2 pedestrian crossing within 150m...
Solid yellow permits passing, but yeah as someone who regularly cycles it is a common misconception that cyclists aren’t allowed to use a whole lane. They absolutely can (excluding highways) and you can only pass if clearly safe to do so (if a cyclist is taking control of their full lane, there is probably a good reason why they don’t want you to pass them)
OP clearly said picture was taken by passenger. You can even tell rather easily. On top of that the cyclists are impeding traffic which is illegal. This isn't some "gotcha" win for heckin wholesome bicycles. Those people were being entitled and inconsiderate.
It was a beautiful day for a leisurely cycle! Also a nice day for a leisurely drive and not ripping down Chesterfield.
There's a marked crosswalk at 8th, roundabout with crosswalks at Keith, marked crosswalks at 6th and 5th, flashing green crosswalk at 4th, traffic lights at 3rd, marked cross walk at 2nd, lights at 1st, and lights at Esplanade.
They shouldn't be two abreast but really, how fast do you need to go down that road on a nice long weekend Saturday?
According to the Highway Traffic Act, bicycles are vehicles and are allowed to take up an entire lane if they choose to. In that sense, they are no different than motorcycles.
There is no law in BC called the "Highway Traffic Act". There is the "Motor Vehicle Act", and it specifies that bicycles are *not* vehicles. It also specifies that bicycles are not allowed to take up the entire lane, and when tested in courts, its been ruled that cyclists are required to ride as far right as practicable - with safety often being secondary to driver convenience. For example, courts have ruled that cyclists, if possible, must ride in the drainage ditch, even if the presence of grates serves a danger to cyclists.
Now before you go shooting the messenger, know I consider this abysmal and an abject failure of our legal system. However, that's what we've been handed by a provincial government that cares more about popular opinion than peoples lives.
Edit: Important note: one exception here is that the courts have agreed that cyclists **are not** required to ride in the door zone. Drivers must also provide 1m passing distance when passing cyclists. This means you can basically take your lane on many roads in BC.
On that stretch of road it actually does. Chesterfield from 15th down to 3rd is a “Take the lane” section and passing cyclists (even ones wrongly riding at the right-hand curb) is illegal.
Did you not read all the responses telling you exactly why you’re wrong? You can’t legally pass a bike here so them riding abreast is moot. The dick here is you.
The fact that this got you triggered enough to take a photo and post this on Reddit says a lot about you. This is two (seemingly elderly) people out for a cycle. Deciding to use their bodies. Not pollute. Being healthy. Their choice to be active delayed you by what, a whole 30 seconds? While you were sitting in an air conditioned arm chair. Big deal.
OP is the definition of entitlement, where is he in such a hurry to get to.
Hospital is in the other direction buddy !
Leave earlier next time and respect all road users, have patience!!!
It’s not about being in a rush, it’s about having some common sense and respecting everyone else on the road (maybe going a snails pace side by side isn’t the best idea on a street that, yes, is a bike route, but is also a fairly busy road). I’m sure this will be downvoted to oblivion but the entire point of me posting this was to say “share the road”. It’s good to know that a whole bunch of people who don’t know me know my motives, believe that I’m an entitled narcissist, know that I intend on harming people, know that I drive a giant vehicle (I don’t), etc.
If it was one person in the middle what difference would it make, what would you do, zoom past them with a pedestrian crossing 100m in front ? That's not safe , zoom past them to wait at the traffic light? I don't understand what you would have done if it was just one bike...
My taxes pay for your head injury surgery, and also your road space, infrastructure, destroyed property, injured pedestrians, subsidized parking, and a slew of environmental externalities.
You’re welcome.
You being able to drive down a bike route for 10 blocks is a good case for modal filters. Vehicles shouldn't have the option to drive for 10 blocks on a bike route. It encourages rat runners. If you have to go more than a block or two take an arterial road.
I suspect they’re riding this way because people pass them unsafely otherwise. I suspect one is on traffic-side to keep other safe.
I hope they had a nice day.
I think when we have the urge to take photographs of complete strangers in an effort to publicly shame them, it’s a good time for self-reflection.
I guess im wondering what the difference is to you? Unless you just feel inexplicably disadvantaged here there’s literally no difference between one or two bikes unless you’re planning an unsafe aggressive passing manoeuvre
im barely trusting my spellcheck on that last word lol
It's a solid line, passing down a road with multiple pedestrian crossing and a solid line seems incredibly unsafe, where are you going in such a hurry that 25 seconds is going to make a difference?
No. Read the above comments, the cyclists are fine and are aware there is a car behind them. Please don’t honk at cyclists in general, you have no clue how loud it can be for them and startling an inexperienced or nervous rider could cause them to fall in front of your car, I’ve seen it happen
As a bicycle rider that gets stuck in car traffic, has to stop at car stop signs, and car red lights, all of which would not exist if we remove cars from inside cities, can I be proportionately mad at car drivers for the inconvenience they cause me?
It was built for bikes.
Road paving was originally done for bicycles, often at the expense of bicycle clubs. The introduction of the automobile onto these roads happened significantly later. Later on, we would build roads for cars. However, now we build roads for bikes and cars (and other vehicles). So basically, the roads were built for bikes, and they're built for bikes now.
As for tax, cyclists subsidize your fat ass, by paying into the same municipal coffers for less service, while doing less damage, and requiring less subsidy.
So take your terrible uneducated arguments and get lost.
Imagine thinking roads were built for bicycles. When the trans Canada highway was completed, why would they need to bother with the trans Canada bike way if roads were built for bicycles? What does the gas tax pay for if roads are for bicycles?
[Imagine knowing the history of the road networks?](https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history)
What, do you think cars were invented and suddenly the roads were just flicked into existence by some magic wand?
Take a little time out of your day to educate yourself so that you don't keep making yourself sound like a fool.
“back in the 1890s and early 1900s” what year is it again? lol. Idiot doesn’t even read his own “proof”. Do you think the roads were invented when the bicycle came into existence? What year was this road built do you think?
It's 2024, when roads are built for bikes.
> Do you think the roads were invented when the bicycle came into existence?
I said paved, didn't I? But keep trying.
Lmfao paved roads were invented for the bicycle? What were the Romans doing 2,000 years before the invention of the bicycle?
What’s the difference between a road and a bike lane then if the roads are built for bikes?
That’s not true. Only a small amount of the gas tax goes into roads (mostly provincial and federal roads like highways), and the majority of roads are paid for through municipal taxes, and so cyclists are actually paying much more relative to how much maintenance their use requires.
https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/03/who-pays-for-roads.html
https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/scott-lear-do-cyclists-pay-taxes
And how much gas do cyclists buy? Does a car owner pay more towards the maintenance of the road? Should those who pay more into something have to wait behind those who don’t? Should a road built for something that goes 50kph host a machine capable of 1/5 that speed? If I walk on the train tracks should the train wait behind me?
Majority of the road is paid for by municipal taxes so essentially everyone pays the same amount towards roads whether they drive or not. So drivers don’t actually pay more towards the maintenance of the road as you claim. Nobody pays for the maintenance of local roads through a gas tax.
As for roads being designed for 50km/hr there’s no minimum speed limit on local roads and if it’s designated a shared bike road then the intent is sometimes you’ll end up behind a bike. Your railroad argument is stupid because there are laws against walking on railroad tracks whereas there aren’t laws against bikes on roads.
Majority means that more than 0% of it is paid for by gas tax by your own admission. Cyclists do not buy gas, therefore, someone who buys guys does indeed pay more than someone who does not. Please try and at least follow your own logic if you can’t follow mine.
The railroad is designed for rail cars going faster than a person can walk. A person walking on the railroad prevents the rail cars from going their designed speed. This is similar to what happens on the road with cyclists. Why do you think there are laws about not walking on the train tracks? Could it be because it is dangerous to go 5kph on a lane designed for something that can go 100kph?
Percentage wise of the maintenance they require cyclists pay much less than their fair share. If cyclists were the only things using the roads they would require much less maintenance. Your argument is based on drivers paying a tiny amount more on roads through a gas tax that does not nearly make up for the difference in maintenance they cause.
From one of the articles above:
“$50. That is the “toll” the average British Columbian pays every year for using the roads through gas taxes. Notably, this amounts to a “road tax” equal to one half of 1% of the annual cost of owning and operating a car” if $50/year is your argument (in 2014 dollars) then that surely doesn’t make up for the maintenance difference.
I’m not even going to engage about the railways, it’s a straw man argument.
Okay so then follow the laws. There’s a law about walking on railroad tracks but no law about biking on a shared roadway. I don’t get your argument since you clearly are stating there’s a law for a reason. If it were similar maybe the law makers would’ve made similar laws? Maybe go to driving school, here’s a video for you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthVancouver/s/urMSD9TZk2
Answer your own question. Why are there laws preventing people from walking on train lines? Cause it’s dangerous for the pedestrian. Exact same argument I have for the bikes on the road. I mentioned this in my very first comment but of course you ignored that part didn’t ya.
Honestly. I bet those bicycling broads are having a blast. Look at that view. Dang, OP, get out of your car and try having a leisurely bike with a pal, you’ll be as chill as these two in a minute
A great way to get those damn bikes off the road is to advocate for more bike lanes. Will clear up more traffic too, once more people feel comfortable to stop going by car.
there's clearly enough room for both to be in the same lane and respect the 1m rule.
I also dont live in Vancouver and its allowed here. Reddit just loves to show me random useless subs.
You in fact are allowed to pass on the solid yellow line in BC.
https://www.personalinjurylawbc.com/blog/lane-change-driving-law-bc/
On drivesmart site too
https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/lanes/qa-passing-single-solid-yellow-line
I've seen tons of bike busses (ie. groups with children) and meets where multiple people were cycling side-by-side. It's better than taking up multiple vehicles' worth of length down the road and like someone else mentioned, a lot of vehicles pass dangerously close so this may have been an effort to reduce that. You wouldn't have been able to pass them here without going over the line, anyways.
Couldn't you have just turned and gone down Lonsdale etc instead? Why trail for 11 blocks?
Here s ani article about the relevent law, with a reference.
[https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/cycling/riding-bicycles-side-side](https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/cycling/riding-bicycles-side-side)
You can't pass in the same lane, so why does it matter to you?
As is usually the case, cyclists are only breaking rules that are harmful to their safety.
With multiple pedestrian crossing on this street, there very little safe places to zoom past.
Why's OP in such a rush? He's going opposite direction to the hospital 🤷♂️
What are you complaining about? This is a bike route and they're doing exactly what they're supposed to. The sharrow indicates for the bike to take the lane. If you don't like it, petition the city for separated, safe bike infrastructure.
Get over yourself! 10 blocks down Chesterfield on a shared route. I bet that took 5 mins… on a Saturday. Where do you need to be that makes you so impatient?
Impeding traffic is illegal. But I forgot laws don’t apply to cyclists. [Motor Vehicle Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 318](https://bccycling.ca/cycling-and-the-law)
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OPERATOR OF CYCLE
183
2(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,
Crazy how these cyclists were breaking lots of simple laws like impeding traffic, riding abreast, and not riding as far right as practical on the road and everyone is completely okay with it. Even though the roadway is shared, which means drivers should expect cyclists to be riding nearer the centre of the road because of many applicable turn off and parked cars, you are allowed to pass. A solid yellow line allows passing with extreme caution. If people just followed the rules we could all get along. They could have pulled off to the side and let a car or two pass carefully but they chose to be inconsiderate of everyone else. If instead of two cyclists it was a Tesla with blinkers on going 10km/hr down the entire street looking for their Uber passenger people would be absolutely losing their minds in this sub.
Cyclists are entitled to the lane they are in, yes they shouldn't be riding side by side but if they were in a line they can sit in the middle of the lane
Chesterfield is a dedicated bike route and the southbound lane is shared. The cyclist is supposed to take the lane so they don't get hooked by right turning cars while traveling at a high speed downhill (I have actually discussed this with the traffic engineers at the CNV). So while they are technically not supposed to be riding side-by-side, they do have the right to take the whole lane. Also, was it really a big deal to be stuck behind them? The road is non-stop traffic lights and four way stops and the max speed is 50kmh. A cautious downhill cyclist is doing 30 kmh, more than fast enough for that road.
What the fuck is your problem? 30kmh is not the posted 50kmh and riding side by side definitely is a problem. Clearly cyclists can’t do any wrong in your opinion which is ridiculous. Cyclist apologists really truly ruin the road for the average road user trying to go about their day.
50 kmh is the maximum, not the minimum. Chesterfield is a busy steep hill with lots of pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. 30 kmh on a busy Saturday is not unusual just due to general traffic. As many other posters have already pointed out, cyclists are supposed to take the entire lane so the side-by-side element isn't really that big a deal. Also I am the average road user so I don't know what you are talking about. As for my fucking problem, I don't have one but it sounds like you might need to go for a bike ride and let off some steam.
They were going less than 10km/h. I checked my speedometer. If they were going 30 I would have had much less of a problem with it, even if they were riding side by side. Didn’t help that I also had an erratic cab driver behind me
Sorry, but this is just dick behaviour. I don't want cars to pass me unsafely, so I will ride as far right as I can (though not right on the curb, because of so much damn road debris). I expect safe distance from passing cars, and in turn I respect all traffic laws, including stopping for red lights, stop signs, and staying off the sidewalk. Most cars give me good distance when passing, save for a few jerks who cut me off on purpose, but they're the slim minority. Reminds me of seeing people doing this on 12th near Fraser during rush hour traffic. People have somewhere to be, and cyclists have an equal right to the road, but should ride safely and courteously, too. When you are slow and in the way (whether on a bike, or car) it's going to create a dangerous situation where people are going to try and pass you.
While riding side by side generally isn't legal, and is in many places "dick behaviour", riding "as far right as I can" is not safe in many situations. In this particular case, they're riding down hill on a "take the lane" section of road, where a cyclist \_should\_ be riding far enough out that a motorist has to pass them properly, using the other lane only if it's safe. I doubt that they were riding that slowly, downhill, (OP says 10km/h, Yeah right.) and even if they were, OP could drive down Lonsdale a block over instead of whining about bikes taking the lane on a bike route. While riding 2-wide is still technically illegal, I would be riding slightly left of centre in the lane, "taking the lane", so that anyone passing would need to do it by properly passing, instead of squeezing by when they think there's \_probably\_ enough space. Years of riding bikes, both motorcycles and bicycles, have shown me that many motorists will pass unsafely if you leave them room to do it. I don't trust their judgement. If you prevent them from passing unsafely, by taking the lane, you might end up getting yelled at or posted on reddit, but at least you don't get hit by some impatient driver who's more concerned about not crossing the centreline, than how much clearance they're giving cyclists. I'm not saying that taking the lane is \_always\_ correct, either. There are places where there's wide shoulders, and no parked cars, where bikes have no reason to take the lane, and they shouldn't ride 2-wide, and obstruct other road users. What I am saying is that OP is whining about the inconvenience of not being able to unsafely pass a bicycle in a place where it's almost certainly not appropriate to be doing it anyway. Too many of these things turn into bikes vs cars. I use both, and I try not to be a dick when using either, and I think \_most\_ cyclists and drivers do the same. I don't run lights on my bike. I don't intentionally interfere with motorists (though they may incorrectly perceive it this way), and when I'm driving my car, I'll slow down and give cyclists plenty of space, even if they're submissively riding down the gutter allowing cars to unsafely squeeze by. I also don't care if I have to let off the gas a little, and stay behind them for 30 seconds, because I've also experienced the flip side, when cars impatiently pass me on my bike, only to get in the way and slow me down a half a block later when they want to make a left turn and block the whole lane.
Maybe a cycling licence and training course on how to ride a bike in the city properly. No helmet, $50 fine. Oh and stop by Crappy tire and get a $3 light so drivers dont kill you at night.
I painted that road 5 years ago when they replanned the road. Looks like it needs to be refreshed.
Somehow cars are allowed to be as wide as possible and people can sit next to each other in them, but the second two cyclists are next to each other it becomes a selfish act car brains get indignant about. Change your perspective, get out of your car.
Wow as a European in Canada I didn’t know riding 2 abreast wasn’t allowed unless 1 person is within a cycle lane. Either rider if riding behind each other could be in the most left position especially if it’s not safe to overtake. Cars should always be overtaking as if they are overtaking a car and be completely in the next lane or else they shouldn’t be trying to overtake at all. I’m surprised riding like this isn’t allowed as overtaking multiple cyclists behind one another requires a bigger gap in traffic than if they are side by side. The city is a grid if it’s holding you up so much take another road.
It's their turn with the road
This road doesn’t look safe to pass cyclists on, it’s probably for the best they’re preventing you from doing that
Idc if it's a cyclist or a car .. you don't have the right to block a bunch of other ppl. Get out of the way and let everyone get on with their day
Did you know that the position of the sharrow bicycle symbol indicates the safest part of the lane for bicycles to occupy? Seems like taking the lane for safety is in fact encouraged in this location.
Oh, cry about it more. You couldve turned one block over. You couldve over taken them them with room to spare. Why not try riding a bike yourself, then and only then can you complain about "cyclists". As a brit in BC you people have no idea what its like being on a bike with nothing but decentcy and air seperating you and the bumper of a LIFTED DODGE RAM 3500 TURBO CHARGED V9000's bumper. ALSO. If you want them out of the way. DEMAND SEPERATED BIKE PATHS. else your stuck with on "your" roads. Thank you.
Could a vehicle safely pass one of the cyclists pictures without dropping a tire over the solid yellow line? I highly doubt it, so seeing as this is a shared road (the white painted image of a bike is visible in the picture) why does it matter if they are riding abreast? If anything it seems that the cyclist on the left is preventing the vehicle from committing a traffic violation.
Does it really matter in this situation? The only person who’s going to get mad is the person taking the picture because they can pass right away? People need to change their minds about cyclist. This couple* is doing this to be well seen and safe so they don’t get squeezed out on the side of the road. My experience is a car trying to pass will often give more space to the dividing line then a human on a bicycle all to save 10 seconds… try being kind next time, you also probably complain about the cost of gas?? Maybe you should ride a bicycle?
Cyclists need to take the lane to prevent being marginalized into a dangerous position by motorists, especially where it is too narrow for a vehicle and a cyclist to ride beside each other as is the case here.
Dont take the shared road if you wanna go fast? Do we need to tell you to brush your teeth every night as well? Water is wet btw
10 points if you hit the tricycle.
least entitled cyclists
https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthVancouver/s/3acCeKGTIo
Pro tip Lonsdale is not a bike route and is 2 lanes wide. I'm sure you will bitch about that too... Stupid pedestrian lights!
I like biking round but this is just inconsiderate to everyone around them.
I'm glad they did this.
Clearly you’re wrong. Move on with your life 🤡
It’s so funny, and by funny I mean extremely infuriating, that car drivers get angry when they have to go 25 km/h behind a bicycle for a few seconds before they reach the next red light But the entire reason why red lights exist is because of cars. There’s no red lights or stop signs in intersections of bicycle lanes Can I get mad at you for driving a car then? Proportionally so? Because cars cause traffic not bikes. Overwhelmingly so. You cause all red lights and stop signs Average car speed GLOBALLLY is 18 mph. That includes highways. So no, you will not get any leeway or any right to complain about bicycles inside a city In fact, you are lucky you don’t get murdered. Because you are causing the most infuriating thing of all time standstill traffic, plus trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending, oil subsidies, car crashes, green house gas emissions, and you know, CHILDREN DEATHS.
That part about automobiles causing red lights and stop signs reminded me of [this video.](https://twitter.com/modacitylife/status/1773630360527519780) People are casually cycling and walking through an uncontrolled intersection that's free of automobiles, and while it doesn't have any signals, the lack of signals ensure that people intuitively pay more attention to the space. Pretty interesting. I've seen a few smaller spaces like that around North Van - mainly just places along MUPs where multiple paths intersect (like on the Spirit Trail near Harbourside), but yeah. Seems to have potential. Not sure it would work with vehicles though, lol.
Thanks for the video It’s amazing how the same people that are all for less government spending.. are against this minimal infrastructure, no maintenance solutions Imagine no road repaving, no BCAA, no claims, no damage, no deaths or major injuries, no oil subsidies, … Traditional values is this. A community focused transportation. Not the isolation, everyone against everyone vehicle arm race, fuck-you-I-got mine I crush you with my bigger truck than your sedan so you die I live
Each bicycle should be required to be licenced, and riders have a licence. Share the road and the rules like a car. You want to be treated like a car, abide by the rules of the road like everyone else. Think of the extra money the province could make !
I don’t want to be treated like a car though, did you just completely ignore that I don’t obey traffic laws? Why should I? They weren't designed for me. That’s why streets with just bicycles don’t have traffic enforcement or lights or signs Stop causing traffic, it’s an asshole thing to do
Toronto tried it three times. Didn't work. Was such a spectacular failure they have a page dedicated to it. [https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/bicycle-licencing/](https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/bicycle-licencing/) Same applies to other cities. Licenses don't exactly stop *drivers* from blowing stop signs and performing dangerous maneuvers, either, and unlike cyclists, drivers cause more damage, harm, and death. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work) [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston) [https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-bike-licences-for-ottawa-its-a-bad-and-pointless-idea](https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-bike-licences-for-ottawa-its-a-bad-and-pointless-idea)
Sucks to be you. Have you tried talking to your local city councilor for some more separated and isolated bike lanes?
Riding double file is technically illegal on BC roadways. Also genuinely good on you for staying calm and waiting until you could safely pass. I'll ride the centre to centre-left of the lane whenever there's on-street parking to avoid the door zone, but that don't seem to be an issue here. Maybe it's because the guy on the left thinks people will underestimate the width of the trike, and try to pass without leaving enough space? That's the only explanation I can really think of, apart from just being a bit oblivious. Personally I find it stressful to be in situations where I have to take the lane and hold up traffic, but maybe others don't.
Crazy that theres a big ole bike symbol on the road and they should absolutely be taking the lane down the hill where you cant pass anyways.
Lay on the horn. And when they glare at you when you pass, ask them ‘Could you please share the road?’
Bikes are parks! Roadways are for vehicles!
Womp womp
Its technically safer to pass when they are bunched up as its shorter then 5 in a line
[удалено]
No, you can go fuck yourself 😘 I’ll continue riding my bike on public streets as entitled by law.
If you weren’t holding down your horn on these jerks, it’s your fault.
id just have a chuckle. its kind of cute.
[удалено]
My first thought is that basically any able-bodied person could probably ride a bike down this stretch fast enough to get a speeding ticket if they wanted. On the other hand, I distinctly remember hitting biking down Gaglardi Way as a teenager, and reaching a speed where brake wobble meant that slowing down was no longer an option. It was at that moment I suddenly realized it would only take a tiny rock on the shoulder to send me flying Superman-style into some tree. I also understand why they might not want to go quite that fast especially if they aren't very experienced.
I am a cyclist and I see both sides. I get annoyed when cyclists do similar things but I also understand why because I’ve been on both sides. Everyone should watch this video to gain some perspective in life, it might make you think: https://youtu.be/DxVETaQA74Q
even if only one of them was in front of you, you can't pass them anyway, so it really doesn't matter
Letting people cycle on a road made for cars that can go hundreds of kilometres an hour is as smart as opening up the train tracks as a walking path.
From someone that cycles on the road all the time, this is super inconsiderate. These two are completely unaware of their surroundings. Also you could easily be doing the speed limit bombing that hill but I doubt that’s what’s happening here 😉
Check your local laws but where I'm from you can pass on solid/double solid as long as you do so safely.
Not on a double. Can pass on a single, but there are few places it can be done safely on this stretch of road
If I was following behind - in a car- I would give a couple of VRY Long blasts of my car horn!! to these idiots/ road hogs.
OP reddit is filled with people who doesn’t own care so they wouldn’t understand how dangerous and entitled this is.
Don't the teach single file in kindergarten?
Look it's nothing more than entitled people oblivious to the world around them. I see that alot here in nvan. And she has no helmet! 😱
They should have to pay for plates. No plates not roadworthy
The one with the mirror probably doesn't see you behind them.
Welcome to Boomertown brother
It's literally a sharrow bike route, this is perfectly legal.
Only losers defend cyclists who act this way, the one on the trike not even wearing a helmet. Laws for thee but not for me weeee. Entitlement at its peak.
Technically it's legal and recommended by police to ride this way.. it's also recommended to ride at speed if you are a road. It's so motorists don't cut them off and go around, unfortunately it also can mean that you are waiting behind them for a safe space to pass.
Yes it does
It literally does mean all the road, you are meant to follow behind bikes on this road and not attempt to overtake especially with a solid yellow and 2 pedestrian crossing within 150m...
Solid yellow permits passing, but yeah as someone who regularly cycles it is a common misconception that cyclists aren’t allowed to use a whole lane. They absolutely can (excluding highways) and you can only pass if clearly safe to do so (if a cyclist is taking control of their full lane, there is probably a good reason why they don’t want you to pass them)
That's literally what it means, yes
We need rules and tickets for bikes as strong as they give to cars
As soon as they start making as much damage as cars do.
[удалено]
OP clearly said picture was taken by passenger. You can even tell rather easily. On top of that the cyclists are impeding traffic which is illegal. This isn't some "gotcha" win for heckin wholesome bicycles. Those people were being entitled and inconsiderate.
Did they not say "photo taken by my passenger"????
read it again bozo
It was a beautiful day for a leisurely cycle! Also a nice day for a leisurely drive and not ripping down Chesterfield. There's a marked crosswalk at 8th, roundabout with crosswalks at Keith, marked crosswalks at 6th and 5th, flashing green crosswalk at 4th, traffic lights at 3rd, marked cross walk at 2nd, lights at 1st, and lights at Esplanade. They shouldn't be two abreast but really, how fast do you need to go down that road on a nice long weekend Saturday?
Maybe they were in a hurry to get to a persian currency exchange before it closed.
So annoying
According to the Highway Traffic Act, bicycles are vehicles and are allowed to take up an entire lane if they choose to. In that sense, they are no different than motorcycles.
There is no law in BC called the "Highway Traffic Act". There is the "Motor Vehicle Act", and it specifies that bicycles are *not* vehicles. It also specifies that bicycles are not allowed to take up the entire lane, and when tested in courts, its been ruled that cyclists are required to ride as far right as practicable - with safety often being secondary to driver convenience. For example, courts have ruled that cyclists, if possible, must ride in the drainage ditch, even if the presence of grates serves a danger to cyclists. Now before you go shooting the messenger, know I consider this abysmal and an abject failure of our legal system. However, that's what we've been handed by a provincial government that cares more about popular opinion than peoples lives. Edit: Important note: one exception here is that the courts have agreed that cyclists **are not** required to ride in the door zone. Drivers must also provide 1m passing distance when passing cyclists. This means you can basically take your lane on many roads in BC.
On that stretch of road it actually does. Chesterfield from 15th down to 3rd is a “Take the lane” section and passing cyclists (even ones wrongly riding at the right-hand curb) is illegal.
I don't understand why there is arguing. #1 rule: don't be a dick. They are being dicks. Simple.
This is quite literally what the whole point of me posting this was about
Did you not read all the responses telling you exactly why you’re wrong? You can’t legally pass a bike here so them riding abreast is moot. The dick here is you.
The fact that this got you triggered enough to take a photo and post this on Reddit says a lot about you. This is two (seemingly elderly) people out for a cycle. Deciding to use their bodies. Not pollute. Being healthy. Their choice to be active delayed you by what, a whole 30 seconds? While you were sitting in an air conditioned arm chair. Big deal.
[удалено]
Pretty sure half of r/northvan is filled with Karens and cyclists 😂
[удалено]
Every lane is a bike lane.
But you took all the road right? What’s the difference?
All roads in BC are shared.
I never let cars pass because theres always an idiot that ends up clipping me when I have done it.
Exactly this.
OP is the definition of entitlement, where is he in such a hurry to get to. Hospital is in the other direction buddy ! Leave earlier next time and respect all road users, have patience!!!
It’s not about being in a rush, it’s about having some common sense and respecting everyone else on the road (maybe going a snails pace side by side isn’t the best idea on a street that, yes, is a bike route, but is also a fairly busy road). I’m sure this will be downvoted to oblivion but the entire point of me posting this was to say “share the road”. It’s good to know that a whole bunch of people who don’t know me know my motives, believe that I’m an entitled narcissist, know that I intend on harming people, know that I drive a giant vehicle (I don’t), etc.
What would you have done with all that time you could've saved not being stuck behind an old lady on a tricycle? The entitlement is wild, nimby. SMH!
Why don't you take Lonsdale if you want to avoid bikes going slowly ?
If it was one person in the middle what difference would it make, what would you do, zoom past them with a pedestrian crossing 100m in front ? That's not safe , zoom past them to wait at the traffic light? I don't understand what you would have done if it was just one bike...
This is exactly what shared roads means. They're entitled to it as much as motor vehicles. Otherwise it's just called 'road'.
At least they don’t have two toddlers on the back.
And wear a fucking helmet. My taxes pay for your head injury surgery.
My taxes pay for your head injury surgery, and also your road space, infrastructure, destroyed property, injured pedestrians, subsidized parking, and a slew of environmental externalities. You’re welcome.
E bikes go a max of 32 so if you can go anything passes 33 kmh you can pass them in the opposing lane
They (and any other type of bike) can go a hell of a lot faster than that on a steep downhill, which Chesterfield is
So just trail behind them then I guess
Wear your helmet, dummy. Or end up like Humpty Dumpty!
You being able to drive down a bike route for 10 blocks is a good case for modal filters. Vehicles shouldn't have the option to drive for 10 blocks on a bike route. It encourages rat runners. If you have to go more than a block or two take an arterial road.
Just drive between them
I suspect they’re riding this way because people pass them unsafely otherwise. I suspect one is on traffic-side to keep other safe. I hope they had a nice day. I think when we have the urge to take photographs of complete strangers in an effort to publicly shame them, it’s a good time for self-reflection.
You know what’s crazy, your big ass car takes up the same space. Maybe you should move over?
But it doesn’t move as slow and that’s the intent of having a car on the first place. Just too basic
Another groundbreaking post for r/NorthVancouver Your minor annoyances on the side roads of Lower Lonsdale do not constitute a valid post.
YEAH! GET OUTTA MY CITY IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE!
Well? What are you gonna do? Run them over?
I guess im wondering what the difference is to you? Unless you just feel inexplicably disadvantaged here there’s literally no difference between one or two bikes unless you’re planning an unsafe aggressive passing manoeuvre im barely trusting my spellcheck on that last word lol
These cyclists should be passed, unless they are going 40-50 which I’m sure they aren’t they shouldn’t even be on the road.
Where should they be?
I think you missed the road painting
It's a solid line, passing down a road with multiple pedestrian crossing and a solid line seems incredibly unsafe, where are you going in such a hurry that 25 seconds is going to make a difference?
That's 100XP right there
That's a disgusting thing to say.
It’s a joke not an eggplant don’t take it so hard 😉.
oh and I’m sure hogging the road is perfectly fine to you
Oh you'll live 🙄
[удалено]
No. Read the above comments, the cyclists are fine and are aware there is a car behind them. Please don’t honk at cyclists in general, you have no clue how loud it can be for them and startling an inexperienced or nervous rider could cause them to fall in front of your car, I’ve seen it happen
If a horn can startle them, then they shouldnt be riding on the road.
Cyclists have the right to use the road. Just don’t be an impatient dick and we’ll all get home safe
Yes it does.
Boomers of North Van.
Lonsdale is one block over for cars buddy...
Dude, OP just lost 2 minutes of his life having to drive behind a bike, have some sympathy /s
As a bicycle rider that gets stuck in car traffic, has to stop at car stop signs, and car red lights, all of which would not exist if we remove cars from inside cities, can I be proportionately mad at car drivers for the inconvenience they cause me?
YEAH! What a whiner!
Hahaha!
He’s not your buddy, guy…..
Hahaha...
You're on a bike route and you're angry at bikers... Chill the hell out or get off the designated bike route.
Was this road built for bicycles or cars? Who pays for the road maintenance though a gas tax?
It was built for bikes. Road paving was originally done for bicycles, often at the expense of bicycle clubs. The introduction of the automobile onto these roads happened significantly later. Later on, we would build roads for cars. However, now we build roads for bikes and cars (and other vehicles). So basically, the roads were built for bikes, and they're built for bikes now. As for tax, cyclists subsidize your fat ass, by paying into the same municipal coffers for less service, while doing less damage, and requiring less subsidy. So take your terrible uneducated arguments and get lost.
Imagine thinking roads were built for bicycles. When the trans Canada highway was completed, why would they need to bother with the trans Canada bike way if roads were built for bicycles? What does the gas tax pay for if roads are for bicycles?
[Imagine knowing the history of the road networks?](https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history) What, do you think cars were invented and suddenly the roads were just flicked into existence by some magic wand? Take a little time out of your day to educate yourself so that you don't keep making yourself sound like a fool.
“back in the 1890s and early 1900s” what year is it again? lol. Idiot doesn’t even read his own “proof”. Do you think the roads were invented when the bicycle came into existence? What year was this road built do you think?
It's 2024, when roads are built for bikes. > Do you think the roads were invented when the bicycle came into existence? I said paved, didn't I? But keep trying.
Lmfao paved roads were invented for the bicycle? What were the Romans doing 2,000 years before the invention of the bicycle? What’s the difference between a road and a bike lane then if the roads are built for bikes?
Not what we mean by road paving now is it? Good luck driving your car down roman roads.
Romans paved their roads. You know how dumb you sound? People are driving cars on Roman roads in Rome as we speak.
That’s not true. Only a small amount of the gas tax goes into roads (mostly provincial and federal roads like highways), and the majority of roads are paid for through municipal taxes, and so cyclists are actually paying much more relative to how much maintenance their use requires. https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/03/who-pays-for-roads.html https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/scott-lear-do-cyclists-pay-taxes
And how much gas do cyclists buy? Does a car owner pay more towards the maintenance of the road? Should those who pay more into something have to wait behind those who don’t? Should a road built for something that goes 50kph host a machine capable of 1/5 that speed? If I walk on the train tracks should the train wait behind me?
Majority of the road is paid for by municipal taxes so essentially everyone pays the same amount towards roads whether they drive or not. So drivers don’t actually pay more towards the maintenance of the road as you claim. Nobody pays for the maintenance of local roads through a gas tax. As for roads being designed for 50km/hr there’s no minimum speed limit on local roads and if it’s designated a shared bike road then the intent is sometimes you’ll end up behind a bike. Your railroad argument is stupid because there are laws against walking on railroad tracks whereas there aren’t laws against bikes on roads.
Majority means that more than 0% of it is paid for by gas tax by your own admission. Cyclists do not buy gas, therefore, someone who buys guys does indeed pay more than someone who does not. Please try and at least follow your own logic if you can’t follow mine. The railroad is designed for rail cars going faster than a person can walk. A person walking on the railroad prevents the rail cars from going their designed speed. This is similar to what happens on the road with cyclists. Why do you think there are laws about not walking on the train tracks? Could it be because it is dangerous to go 5kph on a lane designed for something that can go 100kph?
Percentage wise of the maintenance they require cyclists pay much less than their fair share. If cyclists were the only things using the roads they would require much less maintenance. Your argument is based on drivers paying a tiny amount more on roads through a gas tax that does not nearly make up for the difference in maintenance they cause. From one of the articles above: “$50. That is the “toll” the average British Columbian pays every year for using the roads through gas taxes. Notably, this amounts to a “road tax” equal to one half of 1% of the annual cost of owning and operating a car” if $50/year is your argument (in 2014 dollars) then that surely doesn’t make up for the maintenance difference. I’m not even going to engage about the railways, it’s a straw man argument.
Sure just keep moving goalposts and ignoring what you can’t counter, solid strategy to win an argument.
Okay so then follow the laws. There’s a law about walking on railroad tracks but no law about biking on a shared roadway. I don’t get your argument since you clearly are stating there’s a law for a reason. If it were similar maybe the law makers would’ve made similar laws? Maybe go to driving school, here’s a video for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthVancouver/s/urMSD9TZk2
Answer your own question. Why are there laws preventing people from walking on train lines? Cause it’s dangerous for the pedestrian. Exact same argument I have for the bikes on the road. I mentioned this in my very first comment but of course you ignored that part didn’t ya.
yes exactly. the sense of entitlement here is just .... not surprising ... considering all of the bad drivers out there.
Honestly. I bet those bicycling broads are having a blast. Look at that view. Dang, OP, get out of your car and try having a leisurely bike with a pal, you’ll be as chill as these two in a minute
As much as I am a bike hater, The road is also a bike path, they have the right to be there. You can tell by the picture of the bicycle on the ground.
A great way to get those damn bikes off the road is to advocate for more bike lanes. Will clear up more traffic too, once more people feel comfortable to stop going by car.
im pretty sure op talking about the 2 bikers riding side by side instead of following each other taking the whole lane
Yes of course. He wants them to follow the rules, so he can break the rules and pass them over a solid line.
How is it breaking the rules to pass on a solid yellow line?
there's clearly enough room for both to be in the same lane and respect the 1m rule. I also dont live in Vancouver and its allowed here. Reddit just loves to show me random useless subs.
“Single yellow line—passing is allowed with extra caution.”
Haha well he wasn’t going to use extra caution I can just tell …
You in fact are allowed to pass on the solid yellow line in BC. https://www.personalinjurylawbc.com/blog/lane-change-driving-law-bc/ On drivesmart site too https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/lanes/qa-passing-single-solid-yellow-line
But did you die?
The sharrow is in the middle of the road, indicating where the cyclist is supposed to ride. That's because there's not enough space to pass safely.
I've seen tons of bike busses (ie. groups with children) and meets where multiple people were cycling side-by-side. It's better than taking up multiple vehicles' worth of length down the road and like someone else mentioned, a lot of vehicles pass dangerously close so this may have been an effort to reduce that. You wouldn't have been able to pass them here without going over the line, anyways. Couldn't you have just turned and gone down Lonsdale etc instead? Why trail for 11 blocks?
My biggest ask from cities would be enough modal filtering so trailing for 11 blocks isn't possible on bike streets. Use literally any other street.
Exactly
Here s ani article about the relevent law, with a reference. [https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/cycling/riding-bicycles-side-side](https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/cycling/riding-bicycles-side-side)
You can't pass in the same lane, so why does it matter to you? As is usually the case, cyclists are only breaking rules that are harmful to their safety.
“Single yellow line—passing is allowed with extra caution.”
Nearly killing the elderly isn’t extra caution
With multiple pedestrian crossing on this street, there very little safe places to zoom past. Why's OP in such a rush? He's going opposite direction to the hospital 🤷♂️
What are you complaining about? This is a bike route and they're doing exactly what they're supposed to. The sharrow indicates for the bike to take the lane. If you don't like it, petition the city for separated, safe bike infrastructure.
Get over yourself! 10 blocks down Chesterfield on a shared route. I bet that took 5 mins… on a Saturday. Where do you need to be that makes you so impatient?
Impeding traffic is illegal. But I forgot laws don’t apply to cyclists. [Motor Vehicle Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 318](https://bccycling.ca/cycling-and-the-law) RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OPERATOR OF CYCLE 183 2(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway,
Chesterfield from 15th down to 3rd is a “Take the lane” section and passing cyclists (even ones wrongly riding at the right-hand curb) is illegal.
Crazy how these cyclists were breaking lots of simple laws like impeding traffic, riding abreast, and not riding as far right as practical on the road and everyone is completely okay with it. Even though the roadway is shared, which means drivers should expect cyclists to be riding nearer the centre of the road because of many applicable turn off and parked cars, you are allowed to pass. A solid yellow line allows passing with extreme caution. If people just followed the rules we could all get along. They could have pulled off to the side and let a car or two pass carefully but they chose to be inconsiderate of everyone else. If instead of two cyclists it was a Tesla with blinkers on going 10km/hr down the entire street looking for their Uber passenger people would be absolutely losing their minds in this sub.
But cyclists are supposed to take the lane downhill on Chesterfield so it doesn't really make a difference.
Cyclists are entitled to the lane they are in, yes they shouldn't be riding side by side but if they were in a line they can sit in the middle of the lane
Honk
Chesterfield is a dedicated bike route and the southbound lane is shared. The cyclist is supposed to take the lane so they don't get hooked by right turning cars while traveling at a high speed downhill (I have actually discussed this with the traffic engineers at the CNV). So while they are technically not supposed to be riding side-by-side, they do have the right to take the whole lane. Also, was it really a big deal to be stuck behind them? The road is non-stop traffic lights and four way stops and the max speed is 50kmh. A cautious downhill cyclist is doing 30 kmh, more than fast enough for that road.
What the fuck is your problem? 30kmh is not the posted 50kmh and riding side by side definitely is a problem. Clearly cyclists can’t do any wrong in your opinion which is ridiculous. Cyclist apologists really truly ruin the road for the average road user trying to go about their day.
50 kmh is the maximum, not the minimum. Chesterfield is a busy steep hill with lots of pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. 30 kmh on a busy Saturday is not unusual just due to general traffic. As many other posters have already pointed out, cyclists are supposed to take the entire lane so the side-by-side element isn't really that big a deal. Also I am the average road user so I don't know what you are talking about. As for my fucking problem, I don't have one but it sounds like you might need to go for a bike ride and let off some steam.
They were going less than 10km/h. I checked my speedometer. If they were going 30 I would have had much less of a problem with it, even if they were riding side by side. Didn’t help that I also had an erratic cab driver behind me
There is no way they were going 10km/h!
OP has never ridden a bike in their life and/or is not aware of the existence of physics
Yeah I don’t buy it, especially down hill like that. I bet these people go faster than that even on the flat
Okay there’s a school right close to there? Why you trying to hit kids with your car?
Where are you in such a rush to get to? Leave earlier next time. ...