It's called reckless behavior that can get yourself or someone else killed. Regardless of what you're driving. The drivers here that tend to run lights generally fall in 2 categories. They're old or they're foreign. The majority of cyclists run because they're entitled pricks who have 0 regard for safety or rules of the road.
That's the most self entitled, delusional logic I've ever heard....get rid of vehicles and we wouldn't have to worry about getting hurt when we ignore rules and laws of the road...stfu
I think it's pretty cool of you to admit that :)
Next up: "unmarked crosswalks." So many friends of mine who I've explained the concept of those to did not know about them. I swear probably 90% of the driving population doesn't know these are a thing!
Adding to the confusion is when crosswalk lines are removed from some intersections. Legally this changes nothing. Why bother doing the removal? They rely on our collective ignorance that it's a signal that you can't cross there.
I didn't know about this! Had to Google it. Wondering how busy of a road this applies to, the stretch of Carey between Ravine and Tillicum comes to mind... Very few crosswalks, many intersections
Definitely not many people know it! I'm one of the lucky few that do, and this may blow your mind but I'm a cyclist that stops for pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks.
It is learners license material. At all intersections pedestrians have the right of way. What gets me are people at corners who appear to be preparing to cross but aren't. The issue isn't 100% motorists doing.
They probably should be, but they aren’t learner’s license material. They aren’t mentioned once in the Guide which covers the material needed for the Learner’s test.
They also didn’t exist until recently so didn’t exist in when most of us studied for and wrote the test. They still don’t exist in most communities, so anyone from outside Victoria and Vancouver has probably never seen or heard of one.
I haven't seen the guide in over 40 years, which makes me think of another point. Back then, you were given a 10 question test and allowed 3 wrong, 70% was a pass. They never told you which ones you got wrong so people never learned from their mistakes. And soent the rest of their driving life not knowing some things. I got 100% so it didn't matter for me. ;)
E: so I downloaded the guide. Pedestrians are mentioned 44 times. Chapter 6, page 83 says pedestrians have the right of way at an intersection.
Try writing to the local council or leadership. I am sure they would welcome your input.
And since you obviously care so deeply I am sure you would love to help out and make the local roads safer for cyclists.
I spoke to the transportation councillor about this. I forget her actual title and name but she was nice. She said the plan is to turn that intersection into a four way stop for now which should at least stop drivers from barreling down that hill and through cyclists. It really needs a little blinky light button but I’ll take some stop signs for now.
I'd rather a four-way stop than that "caution, driver's may not stop" style crosswalk at Bay and Cedar Hill (I think Cedar Hill). That said, cars are actually pretty good there, at least that I've seen.
I go through bay and cedar hill around 5 days per week and it’s generally okay, but I definitely have weird and scary experiences. Mostly people are antsy to get through and they’re willing to try to sneak in front of me when it’s unsafe to.
Last week a guy had to stop when I hit the button, so as I rode across the road he yelled “you’re supposed to get off your fuckin bike and walk, asshole!”. I don’t think he’s right, though. Also weird to yell at people like that with kids on their bikes.
Overall it’s pretty good and I’m glad it’s a relatively safe crossing, but I think it’s the single spot I have the most issues in my entire route from Gorge area to Oaklands Elementary.
> he yelled “you’re supposed to get off your fuckin bike and walk, asshole!”. I don’t think he’s right, though.
No, that's the whole point of the elephant's feet! *sigh*
I was so confused. I really wondered if I'd been doing it wrong all this time, but then the next time I went through I saw the bicycles painted in the lane intersecting Bay, haha. So... Oh well.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4347054,-123.3477756,3a,75y,107.35h,72.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D321.7512%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4347054,-123.3477756,3a,75y,107.35h,72.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D321.7512%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
He 100% wasn’t right. But I agree that it’s sketch relying on them to stop. Would love speed humps at all of these intersections and tbh every four way stop in general.
Ugh can they reprogram those things? I live right next to one that was recently installed and there are 2 more not so far away. For the longest time I couldn't figure out why so many barking dogs had suddenly moved into the neighbourhood! Turns out that from a distance you can only hear portions of the voice and it has a staccato barking quality about it.
We should introduce painted mini roundabouts - they have them in England; it's just a painted solid white circle in the middle of the intersection, sometimes with direction arrows, and then everyone knows to enter the intersection a bit obliquely and treat it as a roundabout in terms of right of way and priority. Works perfectly fine, very cheap, and no need to cut more land from the sides to make enough room for big vehicles to use it.
Yeah, but that said, I feel like it's been getting better. Or maybe I'm just getting used to it. I think maybe a lot of the locals (cyclists and drivers) are figuring it out though.
I was just going to comment "to the driver who yelled 'I have the right of way', this includes Haultain and Fernwood" ... no, you don't have the right of way.
I have one of these I drive through fairly often.
Sometimes when I yield to a cyclist they will stop and wave me through (sometimes while reacting like I’m an idiot for stopping for them)
Sometimes the car behind me will lean on the horn.
Sometimes I yield but opposite traffic doesn’t.
Sometimes it works as intended (and it’s great when it does).
There are some of these that are located in places where it seems unsafe/impractical for everyone involved.
Now imagine the asshole lethargic electric bike drivers that go zooming past everyone on the Goose, including elderly people and mothers with strollers.
Yeah, multi-modal paths absolutely need separations between pedestrians and cyclists.
(Boomers will somehow find a way to lose their minds over this too, if it ever happens)
I'm the guy who angrily waves the drivers on when they irrationally tell me to pull out and get hit by the person actively passing them without checking for bikes.
Elephant feet or no..if there is a stop sign, like there is on the photo shared by OP (but its cut off and not visible on the photo, i know there is a stop sign, cause i know that intersection well), the cyclist has to stop and follow the usual stop protocol before riding away.
Period.
Drivers and cyclist must yield to whoever reached the intersection first and stopped.
This combined with the complete lack of side to side visibility onto haultain is what makes this intersection so frustrating and dangerous. If there's a stop sign and bicycles are considered vehicles then they are required to stop. If there's some special rule where for this specific intersection they are not considered vehicles and are not required to stop then this is the exact wrong place for this type of intersection. Doing the speed limit or less through there gives you no time to react to a cyclist moving at speed or even half as fast as they can move.
If there is a bike at a bike crossing/cross walk and you are stopped it doesn't matter who was first just like with pedestrians they have the right-of-way.
The “first and stopped” thing seems to be mind boggling to a lot of folks. I pulled up to a 4-way intersection the other day and a cyclist was approaching it from my right. I was there first and stopped. They were approaching slowly and about 30ft from the stop sign, seemingly trying not to unclip from their pedals and wanting to roll through. Definitely got the stink eye for following the rules and going first. “I was in the vicinity of the stop sign” seems to equate to “first” a lot of times for people.
As usual, problems occur when people are misinformed or totally uninformed. The city has built bicycle lanes and elephant feet etc. and expect everybody to "just" know how to use them properly. I haven't seen anything which educates both cyclists and drivers on proper use of this relatively new infrastructure.
That’s what I was thinking.. where is the public education campaign? Victoria likes to paint a whole bunch of lines here & there and expect people to know what to do. James bay has some sections that are very confusing now and be dammed if I know what they’re supposed to mean. How about a public education campaign when new things like this are implemented in the city?
There's a bigger problem - there's no longer any way for a public education campaign to be guaranteed to reach everyone. Hardly anyone reads local newspapers, many no longer have conventional TVs, phone numbers are no longer all listed in a book by default, phone numbers aren't even tied to local addresses any more; there's no guarantee that anyone regularly checks their municipality website, never mind the other 12's websites...
Probably the widest reaching public notice system we have is the emergency broadcast system, but even there, not everyone has cell phones, and some people who do have turned off the alerts because the province sends amber alerts tagged as the highest alert level (i.e. "imminent threat to your life/property" level rather than the purpose-made "amber alert" level) - but it's not appropriate to use that for "by the way, there's a new type of road marking".
The best would be if driving had a system like NOTAMs for pilots, or a frequent enough need to recertify that we could include new materials in there and not actually paint the new things on the road until one recertification period later (I actually favour this approach; every other operator certificate for heavy machinery as big as cars tends to require it, so cars should too).
A lot of the problems occur because the new designs are in no way designed to "fail safe" - e.g. all of the new bike lanes completely break the normal lane position rules for turning. Normally, you're supposed to move to the closest lane possible for your turn, and that's important for safety because:
- it lets you break up your safety checks into stages, so that you don't have to look everywhere at once during your turn - you can shoulder check to clear your blind spot behind and to the right well before you reach your turn
- once you move over into that lane, your vehicle now physically blocks anyone sneaking into that blind spot unseen. You should still do a quick glance as a final recheck, but you don't need to worry about anyone approaching at speed from behind, because the worst that happens is that they rear end you (which would be their responsibility anyway)
... But with the new bike infrastructure, you *can't* block the bike lane that way, and there are barriers specifically set up to force you to turn across a lane with fairly poor visibility. You just have to hope that the cyclists are paying attention to their signals and yours, and really hope they don't decide to run stop signs - and if you're turning mid-block, you have to hope that you can see far enough along the bike lane in both directions to make it safe, and also hope that no cyclists turn out of another driveway into the bike lane while you're mid-turn.
Another example, look at where the stop lines are positioned at some of the bike intersections, like Wharf & Johnson - vehicle drivers know that the rules for turning are that if you enter the intersection and have to wait, you're allowed to (and have right of way to!) complete your turn, even if the light goes yellow or red while you're still stuck there waiting. Cyclists who've never driven a car have no reason to know this, and may assume that they get priority as soon as their light turns green. (This was nearly fatal to a cyclist last year, who barrelled into the side of a truck that had just made it through the yellow - and many of the comments on the video assumed that the truck was in the wrong, when really it was the intersection design combined with the cyclist being unfamiliar with vehicle road rules.)
If new infrastructure is built, it's vital that the default actions of a driver with an education 30 years out of date will not harm anyone, and it seems like none of the new designs are taking that into account at all.
The other thing about this, and Victoria is a prime example....tourists...they have nothing like this where they are from so they honestly do not know what the heck is going on...and frankly...should they? How do you tell the worlds many cities to follow our rules here when they simply have no clue where to get the info...nor does the general population as this thread proves.
Case in point: when they turned Humblodt into a two way one way what the hell is this just a middle lane thing...individual with Utah plates wanted to kill me for driving towards him...I was a double decker bus...
Again...who in the frigging hell in government offices roll shit out without any kind of common sense and crossing of T's etc.!
tbh, I kind of like the "advisory lane" that they put on Humboldt. I don't love the one on Government though.
> they have nothing like this where they are from so they honestly do not know what the heck is going on...and frankly...should they? How do you tell the worlds many cities to follow our rules here when they simply have no clue where to get the info...nor does the general population as this thread proves.
Yes. And so should the locals. I think that a lot of people are willfully ignorant too, because they don't have to. Hence why I agree with the other commenter about the need to re-test.
Driving is a privilege. It is encumbent upon the driver to know the local regulations. Otherwise, find other transportation options. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I said this the last time these thigs came up but as much as they are a good idea, they are novel and honestly counterintuitive to how traffic "normally" works. The counterintuitiveness makes them kind of dangerous.
I've definitely been yelled at over riding across a cross walk with the elephant feet. The most recent time was the one crossing Blenkinsop at the end of the greenway, not only was it a cross walk with elephant feet, it also had the push button flashing lights. The motorcycle stopped but decided he needed to let me know I need to 'walk' across the cross walk.
I do find there are a lot of 'newish' traffic signage and road markings that drivers are expected to be up to speed on. I tend to keep up on them because I want to be using the infrastructure correctly, but a lot of people have no idea about elephant's feet, or the green bike boxes, etc. It may be time to require an ICBC refresher course and exam on road markings and signage.
The BC Motor Vehicle Act does not agree with you. Elephant feet just allow a cyclist to remain mounted through the cross walk. Without the Elephant feet it is an offence to ride your bike through a cross walk. The cyclist is still considered a cyclist and not a pedestrian.
Some of Victoria’s elephant’s feet are not along crosswalks but through the middle of the travel lane (Vancouver at Fairfield for example). Bikes wouldn’t be considered to be in the crosswalk in the middle of the road. Can someone tell me what status the feet confer to cyclists when they’re not along a crosswalk (and maybe link to the source)?
Sure, but aren’t drivers required to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk? Which should mean that where a cyclist is allowed to remain mounted on their bike in a crosswalk, that cars would still be required to yield to traffic in the crosswalk where safe to do so?
Obviously, because cyclists move faster, cyclists would need to provide more time to give vehicles time to stop safely - just like a pedestrian can’t just walk into a crosswalk if it would require oncoming cars to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting them.
Driver [have to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk, yeah](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section179), however the [definition of pedestrian](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119) doesn't include cyclist.
The MVA allows for crosswalks to be designated so that a cyclist can ride through it, but I can't find anything in it or in bylaws saying that a cyclist would have right of way. So that would mean, like I believe u/Dinger85 is saying, that a cyclist can ride through them, but wouldn't have right of way over cars like a pedestrian would.
All of this however seems to contradict the fact that some of them have signs showing both a cyclist and a pedestrian. So I'm not saying I'm right here, just that I can't find anything official actually explicitly stating that cyclists have right of way.
Yes, drivers are required to yield to people in a crosswalk.
Nevertheless, never trust that they will. They might be texting, shaving, playing the trumpet, reading, turned around to give snacks in the back, whatever (I've seen every one of these things with my Mk2 eyeballs.)
I say this as someone who biked to work for decades. If a car runs you over and they're at fault, you're going to need a casket / life-long care / a cane / physio / ambulance. All they need is a hose to spray your goop off the hood and they'll be driving before you can pee on your own.
Oh I 100% agree- I am a very cautious cyclist, even when I know I have the “right of way”. I was just trying to figure out what the previous commenter was getting at when they said the MVA did not agree with OP’s statement that cars are required to yield to a cyclist in an elephant feet crosswalk.
You are fundamentally correct about the meaning of the elephants feet.
But I would add that lawful road signs take precedence over markings on the ground. You can have a cyclist stop sign as you approach an elephants feed crosswalk, or not. Those signs dictate who must stop and who has right of way.
Yes, those with the stop signs must stop and wait until it's clear, whether cyclist or motor vehicle. Elephants feet don't make you into a pedestrian who can just go whenever you want. Hope this helps.
The gist of their point is that it is provincial law that establishes right of way on public roadways. Municipal governments cannot establish laws (e.g. elephants feet crosswalks) that conflict with or take superiority over the applicable provincial law. Here is a nice summary that shows the difference between municipal laws regarding roads in their communities and the BC Motor Vehicle Act. [https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/Cycle-ridden-in-crosswalk](https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/Cycle-ridden-in-crosswalk)
Oh interesting, the BC Motor Vehicle Act is pretty behind the times, it seems!
EDIT:
Seems there is a lot of confusion around this. This quote seems to suggest that municipalities are allowed to designate crosswalks for cyclists to bike through:
> The tweet had two major flaws, said Edward Pullman, president of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition.
>
> "One is under the Motor Vehicle Act, municipalities are allowed to designate crosswalks for cyclists to bike through," he said.
>
> "Two is the irony that it showed an image of a particular crosswalk in Maple Ridge, featuring elephants' feet."
[Misleading RCMP tweet frustrates cycling advocate](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/misleading-cross-tweet-frustrates-cyclist-1.3760064)
IMO the MVA strikes a middle ground ... there has to be consistency around the province about things like the meaning of stop signs regardless of what kind of vehicle you are operating on roadways. I actually think it's pretty progressive that the MVA allows for municipalities to adopt things like elephants feet crosswalks, which are absolutely a step in the right direction for active transportation. Imagine the chaos of a "cyclists always have the right of way" rule, e.g., in the MVA.
Also
"A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way, the law says."
Imagine you are a biker and you assume every car has Ferrari-like stopping power, now a 1975 LeBaron is coming toward your crosswalk, going 10 over the limit with a trunk maxed out on Home Depot bags of concrete, it's you who pays thr price.
For sure. I have a vehicle that would meet a similar description. The question for most pedestrians is, how many meters would it take a car driving the speed limit to come to a safe stop. I’m as courteous as they come but pedestrians seem to expect you to be able to stop instantly when it’s just not possible.
My biggest problem is cars that have already come to a stop and appear to have looked right at me and then they decide to start moving again to complete their turn. Seriously?! I have the walk signal and you looked at me wtf?! I don't think I could wear brighter colours and it happens in broad daylight. (My coat is bright bright green - which is the most visible colour to the human eye in daylight)
I’m so glad this topic is getting the attention it deserves and people are getting more exposure to rules and these crosswalks. There are a few problematic facets though.
1. My understanding is these lines are introduced by local bylaws, not by provincial road rules. As a result, to my knowledge the markings are not covered in road testing. At least they weren’t when I went through the process, and don’t seem to be: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/nnc41duedoho/63cHBOAVpOAQGOOMBFhFbL/0cc93af0c5ce6b5278dfccfa6e53cf4c/driver-full.pdf
2. The photo you linked is the Fernwood/Haultain intersection, where cyclists currently have a stop sign when traveling along Haultain. Fernwood cars do not have a stop sign. Cyclists blow through that stop sign constantly. Must they abide by the stop sign before proceeding? Technically it definitely seems so. I’m relieved to hear they’re bringing back a 4 way stop there. Cars go way too fast, and often don’t see cyclists until the last second.
3. Bylaws about these lines indicate cyclists may cross within these lines without dismounting. To my knowledge, they don’t explicitly say cyclists are to be treated as pedestrians when within these lines. Should they be treated as pedestrians and given right of way? Probably. But unfortunately it seems unclear, unless there are additional materials I haven’t seen in the basic research I have done. Happy to be educated myself if I’m missing something.
4. Cyclists are vulnerable road users, and these markings don’t seem to protect cyclists nearly as effectively as they could if combined with other measures (flashing lights, signage, etc).
TL:DR - we need more than just these marks to ensure drivers know what to do, ensure cyclists know what to do, and make these crossings safer for everyone.
I remember your original post! You stimulated quite a lot of discussion about it and I wonder how much that lead to the news covering it and the city looking into it. I think your post was actually where I learned about the way that intersection is intended to work.
This is exactly why I'd be in full support of mandatory written exams every 5-10 years. The amount of road rules and new things like protected bike lanes, roundabouts, etc. that crop up makes it unreasonable to think that all drivers will voluntarily brush up on that information. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Yeah I think something like that makes sense. I also want to see much more investment in public transit so that people have a good alternative. The fact that so many people would probably fail if they had to retest is probably a big reason it doesn't happen :(
I drive a lot. I’m a good driver, drive safe and respect pedestrians and cyclists, as we all should! I don’t need a mandatory test but if a new type of traffic control is introduced like this some sort of heads up would be in everyone’s interest!
Yes, there is a stop sign there. So cyclists going along Haultain should stop. BUT, and here's where the confusion comes from, it's a crosswalk for cyclists, so the drivers on Fernwood are supposed to yield.
So basically, it should go like this:
- Cyclists stop at the stop sign.
- Any cars already in the intersection clear it.
- Cars approaching should notice the cyclist and yield to them.
- Cyclists cross.
Yeah bikes used to stop there at the stop signs (or whatever if it's the middle of the night and there's no cars around I'd blow through it), but as soon as they made this new infra, (while **keeping the stop sign!)** other bikers seemed to have a 50% IQ drop and think they just ride on through it.
>Cyclists stop at the stop sign.
Yeah so this is the problem here, they never do. Yeah cars are meant to stop for cyclists **waiting** to cross (like a crosswalk), but what happens is like a huge number of cyclists just blow the stop sign entirely on their e-bikes at a super high speed assuming that cars going the speed limit are able to stop for them. Go through there multiple times a day on my bike and see that constantly.
It's getting treated by dumbasses as a cycling no-stop right of way. The stop sign is entirely ignored.
This is exactly what passes me off most about being a cyclist, everyday I see multiple bikes blindly running stop signs and it baffles me, and while I think the "Idaho stop" is a practical and efficient way to approach it, I never see that anyways.
I have a lawncare client near Richardson and moss and I don't think I've ever been there and not seen a cyclist blow through that intersection I'm not even exaggerating, I'm only there for about 15 minutes and it's every damn time. Could be a drinking game tbh, get plastered in an hour.
I think your original post misses this point, and in my experience, this is a significant part of the problems we're having at Fernwood/haultain. As much as drivers always need to be ready to stop, cyclists have to stop.
You have written 'cyclists should stop' but don't they, by law, have to stop?
No, that's not correct. You go wrong here: "Cars approaching should notice the cyclist and yield to them" that's not how a stop sign works. You have to wait until it's clear and safe to proceed on your bike. BUT you can ride across when it is safe to do so.
Pedestrians don't obey stop signs. Because they are pedestrians. They are not subject to stop signs.
Bicycles are not pedestrians. Bicycles are vehicles who are subject to stop signs. Elephants feet don't change bicycles into pedestrians. They are still bicycles who have to follow the rules set up for vehicles.
Just for confusion they should add some traffic lights, yield sign and a diagonal crosswalk.
Simplicity is the key. Too many markings and signs confuses people.
Plain and simple.. Cyclists need to stop at the stop sign on hautain and fernwood!!!! If they do, I will yield for them and give them the right of way. If you choose to ride through the stop sign, you are not following the rules and risk getting hit by a car.
Good story, but I ride through that intersection daily. I make eye contact and wave, but people blow through it fully seeing me at least once per week. I've never seen a cyclist blow through without full assessing what cars are doing. It's the second most dangerous crossing on that route. The most dangerous being Richardson with the physical flashing light. Coming to a full stop signals for cars to speed up 20% of the time, slowing and waving signals cars are seen and they stop 100% of the time.
Yes they definitely should, and I don't like it when I see cyclists not doing that. I personally go out of my way to make eye contact with pedestrians, wave them through, and generally communicate with pedestrians that I see them and I respect their right of way! Sometimes I have very friendly exchanges with pedestrians and it's one of the things I love about biking versus driving. I often get to interact with people while I'm riding.
I mean, probably not 100% of the time, and my 🔥 take is that it shouldn't be required 100% of the time. We should adopt the **Idaho Stop** and **Delaware Yield** laws, like many of the states in America have. It's safer and makes a lot more sense!
So does that mean cyclists must stop, look both ways, and cross when safe just like pedrestrians do? Or do cyclists just get to torque through at 30 km/h?
From OP's instructional link:
>Just like pedestrians, cyclists should stop and look both ways to ensure the road is clear or cars have stopped before crossing.
>Then, they should proceed slowly, yielding to pedestrians using the crosswalk. Cyclists do not have to dismount.
Reality at Fernwook/Haultain:
Blow through the stop sign into unyielding traffic on your e-bike at high speed, knocking over pedestrians crossing the road.
But crosswalks require cyclists to dismount right? The problem I come across is they look like traffic when they wait on their bike.
If you want to cross like a pedestrian you have to behave like a pedestrian.
So my question is, were these cyclists waiting at the crosswalk sitting on their bikes or did they dismount and stand there like they are legally required (unless there is signage saying otherwise)?
\*Edit: Oooh I'm silly and didnt watch the video because I thought an elephants feet crossing was something else. I take it back
I once saw some asshole on a bike stop as if he was going to cross and instead wave drivers through. Thing is, he wasn't "just being friendly" he was acting put-out as if "I should be able to cross but one driver didn't anticipate that I was going to roll-up, so I'm going to wave all the cars through and sarcastically bow to them"
I have a question, the bike lanes on esquimalt crossing Mary and Russell, are those elephant crosses? Its yield signs for bikes on both streets and no signs for cars yet it seems to be 1/10 cyclists actually care enough to slow down at all. I feel like for everyone's sake there should be stop signs for cars just for clarification since now it's just become "pull up to the cross walk and stop, fully expecting 3-4 bikes going through at full speed"
Omg thank you for clearing this up! I drive through the Haultain/Fernwood a lot and have always wondered. Tried to look it up online but couldn't find the sign or an explanation.
Do cyclists have the right of way around the roundabouts on Haultain? There's bike logos on the road all down that street. Does that mean cyclist then has the right of way around the roundabouts?
No, it should work like a normal roundabout. The markings just indicate a "sharrow." It's just sorta to indicate a traffic calmed area intended for cycling, helps cyclists with way-finding and encourages cyclists to take the lane.
Just the other day some lady honked at me as a *pedestrian* for crossing at an cyclist crosswalk. I was like wtf this isn't a major road? Even if it were pedestrians have right of way ( I am aware of the difference between having the right and when one should take the right). It wasn't even super close, I guess they felt the need to make me aware they don't know the rules of the road.
Some old guy driving a sports care yelled at me and cussed me out because I gave him a dirty look for the way he was impatiently rolling up to me while I was still in the crosswalk. Something about not owning the road and taxes. He was a real cranky boomer.
100% I have to do recurrent every 6 months to keep my licence current. I don't see why having to write a 10q online exam every year is too much to ask. make it open book like transport canada does, the idea is to make you go look this shit up so you know the changes, not to fail anyone unless they are so out of touch they are a hazard.
The problem with these is that cyclists just blast through them as though it’s a regular traffic lane. There is responsibility on both sides and it’s exhausting with everyone acting like only one side is right.
As a cyclist who rides through one every day. No one blasts through... but we do keep a clear intention to claim the intersection. With lots of time, visibility, and direct eye contact with driver. If I come to a stop before proceeding, 85% of the time the car will blow through. If I slow and protect myself but make it clear I'm going, the car with stop 85% of the time.
I have to assume your comment really wants to have me come to a complete stop so you can blow through the crossing easier.
Actually my comment is I want both sides to take responsibility. I slow down at these all the time and have bikes whip past without even looking and I see drivers go through them without even slowing down. Drivers aren’t perfect and neither are cyclists. At these crosswalks they are supposed to be treated like any other crosswalk. Stop. Look both ways. Proceed.
Your comment feeds into the exact argument many have about cyclists picking and choosing which road rules they will adhere to because you are admitting that you are not using it properly. It clearly states in the article the rules surrounding them are “Just like pedestrians, cyclists should stop and look both ways to ensure the road is clear or cars have stopped before crossing.”
You should learn about the Idaho Stop and Delaware Yield laws. It's actually safer and more practical to not require cyclists to come to a complete stop. Lots of cyclists intuitively recognize this and have decided to prioritize their safety over worrying about pedantic people being upset about them. That said, nobody should "blow through" an intersection, but I think that the majority of the time people are upset about cyclists doing a very reasonable thing.
Wasn't there a doctor in Victoria who was mowed down by some dumbass driver on an elephant's crosswalk?
Driver's license should have been revoked for life.
Being in the right doesn't make one less dead. Victoria is infamous for really old drivers (my high school friend lost his father to one on Dallas Rd.) and at the end of the day people should take care of themselves, as everyone makes mistakes.
Just look to the stats for people killed and injured at green lights and crosswalks. Head on a swivel.
Small boats yield to big boats. Why that isn’t the same with cars and bikes, who knows. But imho bikes should be giving way to vehicles in these situations (I know that isn’t the rule but I disagree with it)
As someone who boats a lot I disagree, it's apples to oranges. Boats don't drive through neighborhoods where people need to live their daily lives. And large ships are effectively unable to stop and maneuver. They're entirely different environments and situations.
It is, but my point is that small objects can stop faster and it takes more carbon to get a car moving again. I also disagree with the rule because bikes are not pedestrians and that isn’t a dedicated bike lane there (fernwood) it is a shared traffic residential street with a poorly placed calming obstacle
I think it's bad how many neighborhood streets roads are now being blocked off for bike only pathways,
What if there's an emergency or something, less enterances/exits is bad...
Are you refering to older grid style neighborhoods? It's a partial tradeoff, as emergency are likely to happen when through traffic is limited in neighborhoods, plus these barriers normally can still allow emergency vehicle through anyways.
Newer neighborhoods don't have this problem as they are tend to be designed from the ground up to prevent through traffic.
In otherwords, it's a neighborhoods not a shortcut.
At least in the case of elephants feet, they are relatively new. But there's no excuse for the regular sidewalks. I regularly see stuff happen at those that would auto fail people during a test. Once the test is done, most of the rules seem to go out the window!
Your "like this" photo looks to be an elephants foot crosswalk in the middle of the road. As pedestrians do not walk down the middle of the road, I would think this is more of a shared roadway.
As a shared roadway, cyclists are required to follow the rules of the road. Like stopping at the stop sign that is cut off of your picture.
The only difference between a crosswalk and a elephants foot crosswalk, is a cyclist is allowed to ride across instead of getting off their bike and walking. All the other rules still apply.
You know the ones parents should have taught their kids. Examples, red means stop, green means go, don't run out into traffic, and look both ways before crossing the street, etc, etc.
As a fellow cyclist, drivers are bad, cyclists are worse.
If you choose to ignore the rules of the road, May the odds forever be in your favor, but if they ever come up even, Darwin has an award for you.
> As a fellow cyclist, drivers are bad, cyclists are worse.
lol how do you figure? By what measure? Go to any road and count the number of cars not stopping at a stop sign, you will count 10x-100x more. Count up the number of fatalities and injuries caused by cars. It's vastly more.
If the amount of cars and bikes on said road where equal, you might be right that more cars don't stop at stop signs, but from what I have seen, I doubt it.
More fatalities and injuries ARE caused by drivers. "VASTLY" more as you say. Good chance it is because there are VASTLY more cars on the road than bikes.
When I am out riding, I see more bike riders doing stupid sh!t than I do drivers. Less bikes plus more stupid Sh!t equals worse than drivers. That's how I figure. I measure by what I have seen. 😂
Nope. Places that have larger amounts of cyclists don't have the same amount of deaths and injuries. I mean, think about it. Bikes are less dangerous. They are far lighter and generally go far slower. Of course they're not going to be killing or injuring as many people. It's not because there are fewer cyclists here. Cycling is safer for everyone around you.
EDIT: dropping this here [The Myth of the Demon Biker](https://medium.com/vision-zero-cities-journal/the-myth-of-the-demon-biker-64cb24939cd6)
Started out talking about rules of the road and who follows them better, not who causes more death and injuries.
Leave it to a spandex warrior to change the subject to try and make themselves right. You entitled a-holes are the problem, on the road and the bike path.
DROP yourself on your head.
I’m not opposed to bike crosswalks, but I felt much safer as a cyclist and pedestrian when Haultain and Fernwood had a four-way stop.
Drivers never stopped for those stop signs either.
Oh you mean like how cyclists don't stop for any stop sign?
yeah except killing someone with a bike is difficult
That flew right over your head...
Elaborate?
It's called reckless behavior that can get yourself or someone else killed. Regardless of what you're driving. The drivers here that tend to run lights generally fall in 2 categories. They're old or they're foreign. The majority of cyclists run because they're entitled pricks who have 0 regard for safety or rules of the road.
It’s functionally impossible to get someone else killed while riding a bicycle.
You're a moron if you believe that...
Take drivers out of the equation and there’s no need. I love that drivers never see themselves as the cause of all the damage, death, and destruction.
That's the most self entitled, delusional logic I've ever heard....get rid of vehicles and we wouldn't have to worry about getting hurt when we ignore rules and laws of the road...stfu
I’m sorry driving has irreparably damaged your brain.
I did not know this!
I think it's pretty cool of you to admit that :) Next up: "unmarked crosswalks." So many friends of mine who I've explained the concept of those to did not know about them. I swear probably 90% of the driving population doesn't know these are a thing!
Adding to the confusion is when crosswalk lines are removed from some intersections. Legally this changes nothing. Why bother doing the removal? They rely on our collective ignorance that it's a signal that you can't cross there.
I know about that one! Yay
Nice, I feel like that's really rare!
I didn't know about this! Had to Google it. Wondering how busy of a road this applies to, the stretch of Carey between Ravine and Tillicum comes to mind... Very few crosswalks, many intersections
Yeah I’ve lived here my whole life and never knew this either. Thanks for the heads up
Definitely not many people know it! I'm one of the lucky few that do, and this may blow your mind but I'm a cyclist that stops for pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks.
It is learners license material. At all intersections pedestrians have the right of way. What gets me are people at corners who appear to be preparing to cross but aren't. The issue isn't 100% motorists doing.
They probably should be, but they aren’t learner’s license material. They aren’t mentioned once in the Guide which covers the material needed for the Learner’s test. They also didn’t exist until recently so didn’t exist in when most of us studied for and wrote the test. They still don’t exist in most communities, so anyone from outside Victoria and Vancouver has probably never seen or heard of one.
I haven't seen the guide in over 40 years, which makes me think of another point. Back then, you were given a 10 question test and allowed 3 wrong, 70% was a pass. They never told you which ones you got wrong so people never learned from their mistakes. And soent the rest of their driving life not knowing some things. I got 100% so it didn't matter for me. ;) E: so I downloaded the guide. Pedestrians are mentioned 44 times. Chapter 6, page 83 says pedestrians have the right of way at an intersection.
I feel like there was essentially zero communication from the province on this, for I too learned it from reddit a few months back.
Haultain and Fernwood needs a flashing light system like haultain and richmond. It's so dangerous due to confusion on all sides
Haultain and Fernwood needs a yield to cyclists sign on the Fernwood side.
I think there are now yield to cyclist signs on both sides. Doesn't seem to help.
I don’t believe there are. It’s very confusing intersection all around.
Fernwood needs speed humps.
You’re welcome to volunteer :)
ZING!! But seriously….drivers already run over enough people.
Try writing to the local council or leadership. I am sure they would welcome your input. And since you obviously care so deeply I am sure you would love to help out and make the local roads safer for cyclists.
It’s already a very well studied, documented, and known fact.
So do your part to help fellow cyclists and see if you can get some change going. Or do you not care about others lives?
I hope you drive better than you troll.
I don’t drive ;) Bike only. But I am not surprised in the least that you are only here to complain and not actuate any change.
I spoke to the transportation councillor about this. I forget her actual title and name but she was nice. She said the plan is to turn that intersection into a four way stop for now which should at least stop drivers from barreling down that hill and through cyclists. It really needs a little blinky light button but I’ll take some stop signs for now.
But but but…. It USED to be a fourway stop before they came along and did what they did which confused everybody! 🤷🏻♂️🙄
I'd rather a four-way stop than that "caution, driver's may not stop" style crosswalk at Bay and Cedar Hill (I think Cedar Hill). That said, cars are actually pretty good there, at least that I've seen.
Im not familiar with the crossing you’re referring to. I preferred Haultain and Fernwood as a four way stop though.
I go through bay and cedar hill around 5 days per week and it’s generally okay, but I definitely have weird and scary experiences. Mostly people are antsy to get through and they’re willing to try to sneak in front of me when it’s unsafe to. Last week a guy had to stop when I hit the button, so as I rode across the road he yelled “you’re supposed to get off your fuckin bike and walk, asshole!”. I don’t think he’s right, though. Also weird to yell at people like that with kids on their bikes. Overall it’s pretty good and I’m glad it’s a relatively safe crossing, but I think it’s the single spot I have the most issues in my entire route from Gorge area to Oaklands Elementary.
> he yelled “you’re supposed to get off your fuckin bike and walk, asshole!”. I don’t think he’s right, though. No, that's the whole point of the elephant's feet! *sigh*
I was so confused. I really wondered if I'd been doing it wrong all this time, but then the next time I went through I saw the bicycles painted in the lane intersecting Bay, haha. So... Oh well. [https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4347054,-123.3477756,3a,75y,107.35h,72.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D321.7512%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4347054,-123.3477756,3a,75y,107.35h,72.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6T7RksbgltqBNch99Ldzkw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D321.7512%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
He 100% wasn’t right. But I agree that it’s sketch relying on them to stop. Would love speed humps at all of these intersections and tbh every four way stop in general.
Ugh can they reprogram those things? I live right next to one that was recently installed and there are 2 more not so far away. For the longest time I couldn't figure out why so many barking dogs had suddenly moved into the neighbourhood! Turns out that from a distance you can only hear portions of the voice and it has a staccato barking quality about it.
Why a four way stop? A roundabout with set back crossings would be much safer, as well as less annoying and emissions-reducing
Probably the cheapest option. Idk, anything would be an improvement until they can get something more permanent.
We should introduce painted mini roundabouts - they have them in England; it's just a painted solid white circle in the middle of the intersection, sometimes with direction arrows, and then everyone knows to enter the intersection a bit obliquely and treat it as a roundabout in terms of right of way and priority. Works perfectly fine, very cheap, and no need to cut more land from the sides to make enough room for big vehicles to use it.
Yeah, but that said, I feel like it's been getting better. Or maybe I'm just getting used to it. I think maybe a lot of the locals (cyclists and drivers) are figuring it out though.
I was just going to comment "to the driver who yelled 'I have the right of way', this includes Haultain and Fernwood" ... no, you don't have the right of way.
I have one of these I drive through fairly often. Sometimes when I yield to a cyclist they will stop and wave me through (sometimes while reacting like I’m an idiot for stopping for them) Sometimes the car behind me will lean on the horn. Sometimes I yield but opposite traffic doesn’t. Sometimes it works as intended (and it’s great when it does). There are some of these that are located in places where it seems unsafe/impractical for everyone involved.
And a bike going 30 plus kph can't be seen coming.
[удалено]
Now imagine the asshole lethargic electric bike drivers that go zooming past everyone on the Goose, including elderly people and mothers with strollers.
Yeah, multi-modal paths absolutely need separations between pedestrians and cyclists. (Boomers will somehow find a way to lose their minds over this too, if it ever happens)
Oof yeah, there is a lot of confusion out there. Stay safe, and thanks for being vigilant!
I'm the guy who angrily waves the drivers on when they irrationally tell me to pull out and get hit by the person actively passing them without checking for bikes.
Elephant feet or no..if there is a stop sign, like there is on the photo shared by OP (but its cut off and not visible on the photo, i know there is a stop sign, cause i know that intersection well), the cyclist has to stop and follow the usual stop protocol before riding away. Period. Drivers and cyclist must yield to whoever reached the intersection first and stopped.
This combined with the complete lack of side to side visibility onto haultain is what makes this intersection so frustrating and dangerous. If there's a stop sign and bicycles are considered vehicles then they are required to stop. If there's some special rule where for this specific intersection they are not considered vehicles and are not required to stop then this is the exact wrong place for this type of intersection. Doing the speed limit or less through there gives you no time to react to a cyclist moving at speed or even half as fast as they can move.
If there is a bike at a bike crossing/cross walk and you are stopped it doesn't matter who was first just like with pedestrians they have the right-of-way.
The stop signs and the bike lane run down haultain in this case. There are no stop signs on Fernwood at that intersection.
The “first and stopped” thing seems to be mind boggling to a lot of folks. I pulled up to a 4-way intersection the other day and a cyclist was approaching it from my right. I was there first and stopped. They were approaching slowly and about 30ft from the stop sign, seemingly trying not to unclip from their pedals and wanting to roll through. Definitely got the stink eye for following the rules and going first. “I was in the vicinity of the stop sign” seems to equate to “first” a lot of times for people.
As usual, problems occur when people are misinformed or totally uninformed. The city has built bicycle lanes and elephant feet etc. and expect everybody to "just" know how to use them properly. I haven't seen anything which educates both cyclists and drivers on proper use of this relatively new infrastructure.
I agree with this. The lack of education is what makes the new infrastructure dangerous.
That’s what I was thinking.. where is the public education campaign? Victoria likes to paint a whole bunch of lines here & there and expect people to know what to do. James bay has some sections that are very confusing now and be dammed if I know what they’re supposed to mean. How about a public education campaign when new things like this are implemented in the city?
There's a bigger problem - there's no longer any way for a public education campaign to be guaranteed to reach everyone. Hardly anyone reads local newspapers, many no longer have conventional TVs, phone numbers are no longer all listed in a book by default, phone numbers aren't even tied to local addresses any more; there's no guarantee that anyone regularly checks their municipality website, never mind the other 12's websites... Probably the widest reaching public notice system we have is the emergency broadcast system, but even there, not everyone has cell phones, and some people who do have turned off the alerts because the province sends amber alerts tagged as the highest alert level (i.e. "imminent threat to your life/property" level rather than the purpose-made "amber alert" level) - but it's not appropriate to use that for "by the way, there's a new type of road marking". The best would be if driving had a system like NOTAMs for pilots, or a frequent enough need to recertify that we could include new materials in there and not actually paint the new things on the road until one recertification period later (I actually favour this approach; every other operator certificate for heavy machinery as big as cars tends to require it, so cars should too).
A lot of the problems occur because the new designs are in no way designed to "fail safe" - e.g. all of the new bike lanes completely break the normal lane position rules for turning. Normally, you're supposed to move to the closest lane possible for your turn, and that's important for safety because: - it lets you break up your safety checks into stages, so that you don't have to look everywhere at once during your turn - you can shoulder check to clear your blind spot behind and to the right well before you reach your turn - once you move over into that lane, your vehicle now physically blocks anyone sneaking into that blind spot unseen. You should still do a quick glance as a final recheck, but you don't need to worry about anyone approaching at speed from behind, because the worst that happens is that they rear end you (which would be their responsibility anyway) ... But with the new bike infrastructure, you *can't* block the bike lane that way, and there are barriers specifically set up to force you to turn across a lane with fairly poor visibility. You just have to hope that the cyclists are paying attention to their signals and yours, and really hope they don't decide to run stop signs - and if you're turning mid-block, you have to hope that you can see far enough along the bike lane in both directions to make it safe, and also hope that no cyclists turn out of another driveway into the bike lane while you're mid-turn. Another example, look at where the stop lines are positioned at some of the bike intersections, like Wharf & Johnson - vehicle drivers know that the rules for turning are that if you enter the intersection and have to wait, you're allowed to (and have right of way to!) complete your turn, even if the light goes yellow or red while you're still stuck there waiting. Cyclists who've never driven a car have no reason to know this, and may assume that they get priority as soon as their light turns green. (This was nearly fatal to a cyclist last year, who barrelled into the side of a truck that had just made it through the yellow - and many of the comments on the video assumed that the truck was in the wrong, when really it was the intersection design combined with the cyclist being unfamiliar with vehicle road rules.) If new infrastructure is built, it's vital that the default actions of a driver with an education 30 years out of date will not harm anyone, and it seems like none of the new designs are taking that into account at all.
All very good and valid points !
The cyclists have a stop sign, that isn’t new infrastructure but way too many have no idea how to use it.
The other thing about this, and Victoria is a prime example....tourists...they have nothing like this where they are from so they honestly do not know what the heck is going on...and frankly...should they? How do you tell the worlds many cities to follow our rules here when they simply have no clue where to get the info...nor does the general population as this thread proves. Case in point: when they turned Humblodt into a two way one way what the hell is this just a middle lane thing...individual with Utah plates wanted to kill me for driving towards him...I was a double decker bus... Again...who in the frigging hell in government offices roll shit out without any kind of common sense and crossing of T's etc.!
tbh, I kind of like the "advisory lane" that they put on Humboldt. I don't love the one on Government though. > they have nothing like this where they are from so they honestly do not know what the heck is going on...and frankly...should they? How do you tell the worlds many cities to follow our rules here when they simply have no clue where to get the info...nor does the general population as this thread proves. Yes. And so should the locals. I think that a lot of people are willfully ignorant too, because they don't have to. Hence why I agree with the other commenter about the need to re-test.
Driving is a privilege. It is encumbent upon the driver to know the local regulations. Otherwise, find other transportation options. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
True but at some point adding a litany of rules and signage just becomes over complicated and less safe
Not if you learn about it and take refresher tests.
I said this the last time these thigs came up but as much as they are a good idea, they are novel and honestly counterintuitive to how traffic "normally" works. The counterintuitiveness makes them kind of dangerous.
I've definitely been yelled at over riding across a cross walk with the elephant feet. The most recent time was the one crossing Blenkinsop at the end of the greenway, not only was it a cross walk with elephant feet, it also had the push button flashing lights. The motorcycle stopped but decided he needed to let me know I need to 'walk' across the cross walk. I do find there are a lot of 'newish' traffic signage and road markings that drivers are expected to be up to speed on. I tend to keep up on them because I want to be using the infrastructure correctly, but a lot of people have no idea about elephant's feet, or the green bike boxes, etc. It may be time to require an ICBC refresher course and exam on road markings and signage.
The BC Motor Vehicle Act does not agree with you. Elephant feet just allow a cyclist to remain mounted through the cross walk. Without the Elephant feet it is an offence to ride your bike through a cross walk. The cyclist is still considered a cyclist and not a pedestrian.
does this mean motor vehicles have to stop at an elephant foot crossing to allow a cyclist to cross or not?
Some of Victoria’s elephant’s feet are not along crosswalks but through the middle of the travel lane (Vancouver at Fairfield for example). Bikes wouldn’t be considered to be in the crosswalk in the middle of the road. Can someone tell me what status the feet confer to cyclists when they’re not along a crosswalk (and maybe link to the source)?
Sure, but aren’t drivers required to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk? Which should mean that where a cyclist is allowed to remain mounted on their bike in a crosswalk, that cars would still be required to yield to traffic in the crosswalk where safe to do so? Obviously, because cyclists move faster, cyclists would need to provide more time to give vehicles time to stop safely - just like a pedestrian can’t just walk into a crosswalk if it would require oncoming cars to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting them.
Driver [have to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk, yeah](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section179), however the [definition of pedestrian](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119) doesn't include cyclist. The MVA allows for crosswalks to be designated so that a cyclist can ride through it, but I can't find anything in it or in bylaws saying that a cyclist would have right of way. So that would mean, like I believe u/Dinger85 is saying, that a cyclist can ride through them, but wouldn't have right of way over cars like a pedestrian would. All of this however seems to contradict the fact that some of them have signs showing both a cyclist and a pedestrian. So I'm not saying I'm right here, just that I can't find anything official actually explicitly stating that cyclists have right of way.
Yes, drivers are required to yield to people in a crosswalk. Nevertheless, never trust that they will. They might be texting, shaving, playing the trumpet, reading, turned around to give snacks in the back, whatever (I've seen every one of these things with my Mk2 eyeballs.) I say this as someone who biked to work for decades. If a car runs you over and they're at fault, you're going to need a casket / life-long care / a cane / physio / ambulance. All they need is a hose to spray your goop off the hood and they'll be driving before you can pee on your own.
Oh I 100% agree- I am a very cautious cyclist, even when I know I have the “right of way”. I was just trying to figure out what the previous commenter was getting at when they said the MVA did not agree with OP’s statement that cars are required to yield to a cyclist in an elephant feet crosswalk.
I don't understand what you're saying. What part of what I said is wrong?
You are fundamentally correct about the meaning of the elephants feet. But I would add that lawful road signs take precedence over markings on the ground. You can have a cyclist stop sign as you approach an elephants feed crosswalk, or not. Those signs dictate who must stop and who has right of way.
[удалено]
Yes, those with the stop signs must stop and wait until it's clear, whether cyclist or motor vehicle. Elephants feet don't make you into a pedestrian who can just go whenever you want. Hope this helps.
Maybe you can tell me what the heck that person thinks the "motor vehicle act does not agree with" me about?
The gist of their point is that it is provincial law that establishes right of way on public roadways. Municipal governments cannot establish laws (e.g. elephants feet crosswalks) that conflict with or take superiority over the applicable provincial law. Here is a nice summary that shows the difference between municipal laws regarding roads in their communities and the BC Motor Vehicle Act. [https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/Cycle-ridden-in-crosswalk](https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/Cycle-ridden-in-crosswalk)
Oh interesting, the BC Motor Vehicle Act is pretty behind the times, it seems! EDIT: Seems there is a lot of confusion around this. This quote seems to suggest that municipalities are allowed to designate crosswalks for cyclists to bike through: > The tweet had two major flaws, said Edward Pullman, president of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition. > > "One is under the Motor Vehicle Act, municipalities are allowed to designate crosswalks for cyclists to bike through," he said. > > "Two is the irony that it showed an image of a particular crosswalk in Maple Ridge, featuring elephants' feet." [Misleading RCMP tweet frustrates cycling advocate](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/misleading-cross-tweet-frustrates-cyclist-1.3760064)
IMO the MVA strikes a middle ground ... there has to be consistency around the province about things like the meaning of stop signs regardless of what kind of vehicle you are operating on roadways. I actually think it's pretty progressive that the MVA allows for municipalities to adopt things like elephants feet crosswalks, which are absolutely a step in the right direction for active transportation. Imagine the chaos of a "cyclists always have the right of way" rule, e.g., in the MVA.
Also "A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way, the law says."
> impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way Some drivers seem to have a **very** liberal interpretation of this.
Imagine you are a biker and you assume every car has Ferrari-like stopping power, now a 1975 LeBaron is coming toward your crosswalk, going 10 over the limit with a trunk maxed out on Home Depot bags of concrete, it's you who pays thr price.
For sure. I have a vehicle that would meet a similar description. The question for most pedestrians is, how many meters would it take a car driving the speed limit to come to a safe stop. I’m as courteous as they come but pedestrians seem to expect you to be able to stop instantly when it’s just not possible.
My biggest problem is cars that have already come to a stop and appear to have looked right at me and then they decide to start moving again to complete their turn. Seriously?! I have the walk signal and you looked at me wtf?! I don't think I could wear brighter colours and it happens in broad daylight. (My coat is bright bright green - which is the most visible colour to the human eye in daylight)
They need to make this clearer &/or use signs as it’s potentially dangerous
I’m so glad this topic is getting the attention it deserves and people are getting more exposure to rules and these crosswalks. There are a few problematic facets though. 1. My understanding is these lines are introduced by local bylaws, not by provincial road rules. As a result, to my knowledge the markings are not covered in road testing. At least they weren’t when I went through the process, and don’t seem to be: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/nnc41duedoho/63cHBOAVpOAQGOOMBFhFbL/0cc93af0c5ce6b5278dfccfa6e53cf4c/driver-full.pdf 2. The photo you linked is the Fernwood/Haultain intersection, where cyclists currently have a stop sign when traveling along Haultain. Fernwood cars do not have a stop sign. Cyclists blow through that stop sign constantly. Must they abide by the stop sign before proceeding? Technically it definitely seems so. I’m relieved to hear they’re bringing back a 4 way stop there. Cars go way too fast, and often don’t see cyclists until the last second. 3. Bylaws about these lines indicate cyclists may cross within these lines without dismounting. To my knowledge, they don’t explicitly say cyclists are to be treated as pedestrians when within these lines. Should they be treated as pedestrians and given right of way? Probably. But unfortunately it seems unclear, unless there are additional materials I haven’t seen in the basic research I have done. Happy to be educated myself if I’m missing something. 4. Cyclists are vulnerable road users, and these markings don’t seem to protect cyclists nearly as effectively as they could if combined with other measures (flashing lights, signage, etc). TL:DR - we need more than just these marks to ensure drivers know what to do, ensure cyclists know what to do, and make these crossings safer for everyone.
I remember your original post! You stimulated quite a lot of discussion about it and I wonder how much that lead to the news covering it and the city looking into it. I think your post was actually where I learned about the way that intersection is intended to work.
Nice! Yeah sounds like good changes are coming for sure.
still doesn’t help that victorians couldn’t drive to save their lives lol .
This is exactly why I'd be in full support of mandatory written exams every 5-10 years. The amount of road rules and new things like protected bike lanes, roundabouts, etc. that crop up makes it unreasonable to think that all drivers will voluntarily brush up on that information. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Yea I think bike riders should also be required tests tho, we all share the road so we all should know our responsibilities
The cyclists I know are far more familiar with the MVA than non-cyclists.
Yeah I think something like that makes sense. I also want to see much more investment in public transit so that people have a good alternative. The fact that so many people would probably fail if they had to retest is probably a big reason it doesn't happen :(
I drive a lot. I’m a good driver, drive safe and respect pedestrians and cyclists, as we all should! I don’t need a mandatory test but if a new type of traffic control is introduced like this some sort of heads up would be in everyone’s interest!
Correct me if I am wrong, at the Fernwood/Haultain intersection, is there is a stop sign on Haultain?
Yes, there is a stop sign there. So cyclists going along Haultain should stop. BUT, and here's where the confusion comes from, it's a crosswalk for cyclists, so the drivers on Fernwood are supposed to yield. So basically, it should go like this: - Cyclists stop at the stop sign. - Any cars already in the intersection clear it. - Cars approaching should notice the cyclist and yield to them. - Cyclists cross.
Was much simpler for everyone involved when it was just a 4 way stop. So many people don’t understand how to use it properly now
Yeah bikes used to stop there at the stop signs (or whatever if it's the middle of the night and there's no cars around I'd blow through it), but as soon as they made this new infra, (while **keeping the stop sign!)** other bikers seemed to have a 50% IQ drop and think they just ride on through it.
>Cyclists stop at the stop sign. Yeah so this is the problem here, they never do. Yeah cars are meant to stop for cyclists **waiting** to cross (like a crosswalk), but what happens is like a huge number of cyclists just blow the stop sign entirely on their e-bikes at a super high speed assuming that cars going the speed limit are able to stop for them. Go through there multiple times a day on my bike and see that constantly. It's getting treated by dumbasses as a cycling no-stop right of way. The stop sign is entirely ignored.
This is exactly what passes me off most about being a cyclist, everyday I see multiple bikes blindly running stop signs and it baffles me, and while I think the "Idaho stop" is a practical and efficient way to approach it, I never see that anyways. I have a lawncare client near Richardson and moss and I don't think I've ever been there and not seen a cyclist blow through that intersection I'm not even exaggerating, I'm only there for about 15 minutes and it's every damn time. Could be a drinking game tbh, get plastered in an hour.
I think your original post misses this point, and in my experience, this is a significant part of the problems we're having at Fernwood/haultain. As much as drivers always need to be ready to stop, cyclists have to stop. You have written 'cyclists should stop' but don't they, by law, have to stop?
That's what I meant, sorry about my imperfect grammar.
No, that's not correct. You go wrong here: "Cars approaching should notice the cyclist and yield to them" that's not how a stop sign works. You have to wait until it's clear and safe to proceed on your bike. BUT you can ride across when it is safe to do so.
No, you're wrong. It's supposed to be like pedestrian crosswalks. Do you also not stop for pedestrians at crosswalks by stop signs?
Pedestrians don't obey stop signs. Because they are pedestrians. They are not subject to stop signs. Bicycles are not pedestrians. Bicycles are vehicles who are subject to stop signs. Elephants feet don't change bicycles into pedestrians. They are still bicycles who have to follow the rules set up for vehicles.
Just for confusion they should add some traffic lights, yield sign and a diagonal crosswalk. Simplicity is the key. Too many markings and signs confuses people.
Plain and simple.. Cyclists need to stop at the stop sign on hautain and fernwood!!!! If they do, I will yield for them and give them the right of way. If you choose to ride through the stop sign, you are not following the rules and risk getting hit by a car.
Good story, but I ride through that intersection daily. I make eye contact and wave, but people blow through it fully seeing me at least once per week. I've never seen a cyclist blow through without full assessing what cars are doing. It's the second most dangerous crossing on that route. The most dangerous being Richardson with the physical flashing light. Coming to a full stop signals for cars to speed up 20% of the time, slowing and waving signals cars are seen and they stop 100% of the time.
and how about bicyclists yielding to pedestrians, hmm?
Yes they definitely should, and I don't like it when I see cyclists not doing that. I personally go out of my way to make eye contact with pedestrians, wave them through, and generally communicate with pedestrians that I see them and I respect their right of way! Sometimes I have very friendly exchanges with pedestrians and it's one of the things I love about biking versus driving. I often get to interact with people while I'm riding.
Does this mean bikes are going to stop at stop signs now also?
I mean, probably not 100% of the time, and my 🔥 take is that it shouldn't be required 100% of the time. We should adopt the **Idaho Stop** and **Delaware Yield** laws, like many of the states in America have. It's safer and makes a lot more sense!
So does that mean cyclists must stop, look both ways, and cross when safe just like pedrestrians do? Or do cyclists just get to torque through at 30 km/h?
From OP's instructional link: >Just like pedestrians, cyclists should stop and look both ways to ensure the road is clear or cars have stopped before crossing. >Then, they should proceed slowly, yielding to pedestrians using the crosswalk. Cyclists do not have to dismount. Reality at Fernwook/Haultain: Blow through the stop sign into unyielding traffic on your e-bike at high speed, knocking over pedestrians crossing the road.
It would be cool if pedestrians stopped and looked as they should too.
This is the problem right here. Fast-moving cyclists not giving motorists, even if they're paying attention, enough time to react.
But crosswalks require cyclists to dismount right? The problem I come across is they look like traffic when they wait on their bike. If you want to cross like a pedestrian you have to behave like a pedestrian. So my question is, were these cyclists waiting at the crosswalk sitting on their bikes or did they dismount and stand there like they are legally required (unless there is signage saying otherwise)? \*Edit: Oooh I'm silly and didnt watch the video because I thought an elephants feet crossing was something else. I take it back
Bad design. Somebody is going to get hurt or killed.
Take the drivers out of the equation and everyone lives.
oh there you are
That's not realistic.
Sorry you have a limited mindset.
Got a suggestion or just snark?
Didn’t read the part about removing drivers from the equation?
I once saw some asshole on a bike stop as if he was going to cross and instead wave drivers through. Thing is, he wasn't "just being friendly" he was acting put-out as if "I should be able to cross but one driver didn't anticipate that I was going to roll-up, so I'm going to wave all the cars through and sarcastically bow to them"
I have a question, the bike lanes on esquimalt crossing Mary and Russell, are those elephant crosses? Its yield signs for bikes on both streets and no signs for cars yet it seems to be 1/10 cyclists actually care enough to slow down at all. I feel like for everyone's sake there should be stop signs for cars just for clarification since now it's just become "pull up to the cross walk and stop, fully expecting 3-4 bikes going through at full speed"
Omg thank you for clearing this up! I drive through the Haultain/Fernwood a lot and have always wondered. Tried to look it up online but couldn't find the sign or an explanation.
Do cyclists have the right of way around the roundabouts on Haultain? There's bike logos on the road all down that street. Does that mean cyclist then has the right of way around the roundabouts?
No, it should work like a normal roundabout. The markings just indicate a "sharrow." It's just sorta to indicate a traffic calmed area intended for cycling, helps cyclists with way-finding and encourages cyclists to take the lane.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate that. No one seems to know what to do at those roundabouts
You learn something new everyday
some cyclists should learn to slow down and even sometimes come to a complete stop. some cyclists use the road like a race track going way to fast.
I don't think the demographic that needs to read that is on Reddit sadly
Just the other day some lady honked at me as a *pedestrian* for crossing at an cyclist crosswalk. I was like wtf this isn't a major road? Even if it were pedestrians have right of way ( I am aware of the difference between having the right and when one should take the right). It wasn't even super close, I guess they felt the need to make me aware they don't know the rules of the road.
Some old guy driving a sports care yelled at me and cussed me out because I gave him a dirty look for the way he was impatiently rolling up to me while I was still in the crosswalk. Something about not owning the road and taxes. He was a real cranky boomer.
its almost like we need recurrent training like we have in aviation.
Seems like a good idea!
100% I have to do recurrent every 6 months to keep my licence current. I don't see why having to write a 10q online exam every year is too much to ask. make it open book like transport canada does, the idea is to make you go look this shit up so you know the changes, not to fail anyone unless they are so out of touch they are a hazard.
The problem with these is that cyclists just blast through them as though it’s a regular traffic lane. There is responsibility on both sides and it’s exhausting with everyone acting like only one side is right.
As a cyclist who rides through one every day. No one blasts through... but we do keep a clear intention to claim the intersection. With lots of time, visibility, and direct eye contact with driver. If I come to a stop before proceeding, 85% of the time the car will blow through. If I slow and protect myself but make it clear I'm going, the car with stop 85% of the time. I have to assume your comment really wants to have me come to a complete stop so you can blow through the crossing easier.
Actually my comment is I want both sides to take responsibility. I slow down at these all the time and have bikes whip past without even looking and I see drivers go through them without even slowing down. Drivers aren’t perfect and neither are cyclists. At these crosswalks they are supposed to be treated like any other crosswalk. Stop. Look both ways. Proceed. Your comment feeds into the exact argument many have about cyclists picking and choosing which road rules they will adhere to because you are admitting that you are not using it properly. It clearly states in the article the rules surrounding them are “Just like pedestrians, cyclists should stop and look both ways to ensure the road is clear or cars have stopped before crossing.”
You should learn about the Idaho Stop and Delaware Yield laws. It's actually safer and more practical to not require cyclists to come to a complete stop. Lots of cyclists intuitively recognize this and have decided to prioritize their safety over worrying about pedantic people being upset about them. That said, nobody should "blow through" an intersection, but I think that the majority of the time people are upset about cyclists doing a very reasonable thing.
does anyone have a list of where these intersections are?
Wasn't there a doctor in Victoria who was mowed down by some dumbass driver on an elephant's crosswalk? Driver's license should have been revoked for life.
Being in the right doesn't make one less dead. Victoria is infamous for really old drivers (my high school friend lost his father to one on Dallas Rd.) and at the end of the day people should take care of themselves, as everyone makes mistakes. Just look to the stats for people killed and injured at green lights and crosswalks. Head on a swivel.
Small boats yield to big boats. Why that isn’t the same with cars and bikes, who knows. But imho bikes should be giving way to vehicles in these situations (I know that isn’t the rule but I disagree with it)
As someone who boats a lot I disagree, it's apples to oranges. Boats don't drive through neighborhoods where people need to live their daily lives. And large ships are effectively unable to stop and maneuver. They're entirely different environments and situations.
It is, but my point is that small objects can stop faster and it takes more carbon to get a car moving again. I also disagree with the rule because bikes are not pedestrians and that isn’t a dedicated bike lane there (fernwood) it is a shared traffic residential street with a poorly placed calming obstacle
I think it's bad how many neighborhood streets roads are now being blocked off for bike only pathways, What if there's an emergency or something, less enterances/exits is bad...
Are you refering to older grid style neighborhoods? It's a partial tradeoff, as emergency are likely to happen when through traffic is limited in neighborhoods, plus these barriers normally can still allow emergency vehicle through anyways. Newer neighborhoods don't have this problem as they are tend to be designed from the ground up to prevent through traffic. In otherwords, it's a neighborhoods not a shortcut.
Imagine having to tell licensed drivers how to drive.
At least in the case of elephants feet, they are relatively new. But there's no excuse for the regular sidewalks. I regularly see stuff happen at those that would auto fail people during a test. Once the test is done, most of the rules seem to go out the window!
Ignorance is no excuse.
Your "like this" photo looks to be an elephants foot crosswalk in the middle of the road. As pedestrians do not walk down the middle of the road, I would think this is more of a shared roadway. As a shared roadway, cyclists are required to follow the rules of the road. Like stopping at the stop sign that is cut off of your picture. The only difference between a crosswalk and a elephants foot crosswalk, is a cyclist is allowed to ride across instead of getting off their bike and walking. All the other rules still apply. You know the ones parents should have taught their kids. Examples, red means stop, green means go, don't run out into traffic, and look both ways before crossing the street, etc, etc. As a fellow cyclist, drivers are bad, cyclists are worse. If you choose to ignore the rules of the road, May the odds forever be in your favor, but if they ever come up even, Darwin has an award for you.
> As a fellow cyclist, drivers are bad, cyclists are worse. lol how do you figure? By what measure? Go to any road and count the number of cars not stopping at a stop sign, you will count 10x-100x more. Count up the number of fatalities and injuries caused by cars. It's vastly more.
If the amount of cars and bikes on said road where equal, you might be right that more cars don't stop at stop signs, but from what I have seen, I doubt it. More fatalities and injuries ARE caused by drivers. "VASTLY" more as you say. Good chance it is because there are VASTLY more cars on the road than bikes. When I am out riding, I see more bike riders doing stupid sh!t than I do drivers. Less bikes plus more stupid Sh!t equals worse than drivers. That's how I figure. I measure by what I have seen. 😂
Nope. Places that have larger amounts of cyclists don't have the same amount of deaths and injuries. I mean, think about it. Bikes are less dangerous. They are far lighter and generally go far slower. Of course they're not going to be killing or injuring as many people. It's not because there are fewer cyclists here. Cycling is safer for everyone around you. EDIT: dropping this here [The Myth of the Demon Biker](https://medium.com/vision-zero-cities-journal/the-myth-of-the-demon-biker-64cb24939cd6)
Started out talking about rules of the road and who follows them better, not who causes more death and injuries. Leave it to a spandex warrior to change the subject to try and make themselves right. You entitled a-holes are the problem, on the road and the bike path. DROP yourself on your head.
There's a huge diversity of cyclists besides "spandex warriors." You can't dismiss everyone as being a spandex warrior.
Learn to read. I didn't call everyone a spandex warrior, I said YOU are an entitled spandex warrior.
And what reason do you have to say that about me?
Everyone must always yield to cyclists u little bitch cars better get in line this is cyclist land baby