City pulls Cycling Safety Handbook

Submitted by Richard Z on

The City has removed their 2006 Cycling Safety Handbook from their site. It's not exactly clear why, although I've heard it had some problems.  For reference, here it is, FWIW.

Forums: 

AttachmentSize
cycling_safety_handbook.pdf603.65 KB

Section of my email regarding it

Submitted by dogmelissa on

In March and again in April I emailed the City's Cycling email with a long list of issues that I had with things on their pages. Not long after my first email, I noticed that the Cycling Safety Handbook was no longer up on their site. Because of what I said? Not sure. But here is what I said about it:

There is also some confusion regarding the “On Street Cycling Safety” handbook which shows the “alternate” right hand signal, for starters. This signal, while commonly used, is not technically legal. This is the signal with the right arm extended straight out. There has been some discussion among some cycling experts regarding the statement: “When lane width is less than 3.5m, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of the lane.” (pg 6) By which law does a cyclist’s right to an entire lane mention lane width? I understand the sentiment behind this statement, but it combined with the 2 statements following, it suggests that a cyclist travelling less than the speed of other traffic can only use the entire lane when it is a narrow lane. This is contrary to the Alberta law, which allows cyclists the full use of a lane at anytime. Yes, logically a cyclist wants to allow faster, larger vehicles to pass in a wide lane when it is safe to do so, but this statement suggests that a cyclist may not use the entire lane at any time, including when changing lanes, setting up for a left turn, or when their destination is on the left-side of a one-way street. On page 7, there is a very scary suggestion for changing lanes: shoulder check, signal, go. If a cyclist does not repeat the shoulder check before changing lanes, how will they know if the opening is still there, or if the motorist in the next lane has eased up to allow them to move safely? Throwing a signal does not automatically grant you the right to change lanes, and doing so in a motor vehicle is likely to cause a crash that the lane-changer is at fault for. This scenario is repeated on page 8 and page 10 as well. Page 13 discusses riding on the sidewalk. There is no mention of the City bylaw which prohibits riding on the sidewalk once a cyclist reaches the age of 14. Pages 15 and 20 again mentions the use of a blinking front light – it should be suggested that a blinking light only be used in the rear. Page 18 shows the “alternate right” signal again. It should be omitted or noted that it is not technically legal. Page 21 should also make a mention of the fact that a helmet is required for any cyclist under the age of 18, by Alberta law.

 

If you want me to share the rest of the email, I'd be happy to do so. There are a number of serious issues on the City's cycling-related webpages, IMO.

 

Melissa Malejko

Certified CAN-BIKE Instructor

Owner of Safer Cycling Calgary

Legality of taking the lane

Submitted by DarrenB on

I actually questioned the City regarding the legality of their statement in the handbook directly, and after some circulation among their engineers and planners, they came back to me to say that their was no legal basis to the statement and that it was in fact an error on their part.  That was about a year ago, and they mentioned they were revising the handbook for a new release to make this and other corrections.  Hopefully it is near completion and will be available again soon.

Legally, left-hand up

Submitted by DarrenB on

To comply with the law, one must signal a right turn with their left arm (hand extended upwards).  However, some argue that most motorists don't know what this means, so to be safe some advocate signalling a right turn by using the right arm and hand to point in the direction of the turn, which has a more intuitive meaning to some.

Right turn, which arm?

Submitted by RichieRich on

 

As pointed out before, many motorists are unclear about the left arm out pointing upwards to indicate a right turn.  The right arm out is quite clear to most people, although it is not the prevelant method of indicating. 

Another more personal issue is that I have damaged my left rotator cuff multiple times and hence the requirement of left arm out/hand up does not physically work well for me.  ie on a road bike in aggressive riding position about the best I can do is left arm out/hand point FORWARD.  doesn't help anyone much.  right arm out works every time for me, given my restrictions.  There is indeed more than 1 way to clearly state your intentions.

Confusion?

Submitted by ivan on

If you have an Alberta Drivers license then there is no excuse. If you have a license, no matter if you are driving a car or riding a bicycle there should not be any confusion. If there is confusion then shame on the the person that is signalling as there is no excuse for not doing it properly. If signalling is done correctly then there is no excuse not to under stand it.

Not the point

Submitted by DarrenB on

From an idealist's point of view, I agree.  The reality is, however, that cyclists are forced to make decisions to protect their safety that sometimes put them in conflict with the law.  KNOWING that many motorists don't understand or remember the rules of the road, should one do the 'legally correct' thing or behave in a manner that keeps them safe?  It will not be much comfort to my family that I followed the rules of the road to the letter and that the motorist was clearly at fault in the collision that killed me.

I think the right arm is legal

Submitted by winterrider on

It is my understanding that the left arm signal is only a requirement when driving a car/truck etc, because no one can see your right arm when its in the car.

On a bike the right arm is legal and preferred as it is much more obvious what is going on.

Now I may be mistaken on this, but I'm sure if anyone actually knows that I'm wrong they'll be able to point out the traffic law that prohibits a right arm signal.

When in doubt

Submitted by ivan on

When in doubt refer to the Albert Traffic Safety Act  and the Rules of the Road both availble on the the government's web page. 

I do believe that the left arm signal is correct asl that is what is in the Alberta Drivers hand book.

Okdokay

Submitted by ivan on

I just hope that every body does not feel the same way. I see cars that do not signal I see cyclists that  do not signal. Cars have signal lights. Cyclist have arms. If you do not use proper signals then you have no defense if there is ever a problem. One must remember that respect is earned not demanded.

I was Canbike-trained to be ambidextrous

Submitted by goforstars on

I took the CANBIKE course hmmmm.....18 yrs. ago (!) in Toronto. We were taught to try to signal with either left or right arm.  But some of us couldn't properly balance hanging on handlebar on left-hand and signalling with right.  I actually cannot do it that well (and now worse, because my arm is still sore from falling off the bike on ice a few wks. ago.)

Right arm, right signal

Submitted by dogmelissa on

I have searched through all the Alberta traffic law, including the new driver's handbook and the motorcycle operators handbook. No where is there any mention of the right arm being used to signal a right turn: implying that this is not legal. Regardless of legality, it isn't the safest choice as standard bikes & motorcycles have the rear brake on the right. If you are signalling with your right arm and suddenly have to brake, you will only be able to activate the front brake - which is going to throw you every time.

CAN-BIKE in Calgary teaches only the left arm signals, and during a course, we require that students use their left arm only to signal. When cyclists are on their own, while I do agree that it is often more intuitive and sometimes more visible to signal with the right, it isn't technically legal and could result in a ticket.

Melissa

Agree to disagree, somewhat

Submitted by winterrider on

You are seemingly correct on the legalities. I went and looked at the alberta traffic laws and they clearly state the left arm signals. I say seemingly as I never know what I might have missed.

What is telling though is that they also clearly state that the left arm must be extended far enough left out of the vehicle so as to be visible from behind. What is this telling of? That the only reason we use left signals is due to the nature of cars.

On my bike the right arm is much more intuitive and meaningful to traffic around me. I will risk the ticket happily if I feel (which I do) that my communication with drivers around me is improved. Case in point, my commute ends when I ride off the street and onto a curb by my building, I use the ramp at the corner to perform this manouver, and I routinely point in my intended direction of travel to get cars who are waiting to turn right on a read light (I am proceeding through the intersection on green) to stop there turn and let me on to the curb. I can't imagine the uselessness of signaling my intentions using the left arm up signal.

So far as braking goes, if it is really an emergency breaking situation I would be using the front brake anyway as it has more braking power. It does not throw me everytime, in fact I have never been thrown off a bike while using the front brake. Do you teach appropriate braking technique in CAN-BIKE? If all you teach is rear braking, then your students are missing an important tool in emergency situations.

Leftie/Rightie

Submitted by amf673 on

Left hand signals make sense for a cyclist b/c:

It is consistent with drivers.

Typically you are on the right hand side of the road. Sticking your arm out to the left is more visible. (Someone pointed out earlier that drivers may not know the arm up right turn signal, but they are supposed to have learned that to pass the test).

As a right handed person I like to keep my right hand on the bars. Don't know were this leaves the left-handers out there!

The front brake is the main brake as it will stop you quicker. I have my bikes set up with front brake on the right. This means my stronger, more agile hand will work the more important brake, and I will have my hand on that bar, even when signalling. (I use the front brake almost exclusively and I've never gone over the bars. When it is slippery or rough the rear brake comes into play cuz I don't want to skid the front wheel!).

Having said all that, sometimes I signal with my right, usually when I am trying to merge to the right as that is more visible to the guy I am trying to merge in front of. (Like the scenario you describe above.) And sometimes I don't signal at all, if I feel that I need both hands on the bars (icy, steep hill), which is legal also.

Emergency braking

Submitted by DarrenB on

Perhaps you should consider taking the Can-Bike course, as it will teach you a better way to perform emergency braking: using BOTH front and back brakes to prevent a skid or fall.  You actually do drills to practice how much you can get out of each simultaneously (particularly the front) to maximize stopping power.

Also, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a "winterrider" is suggesting that one always use their front brake for emergency stopping? (Ice?)  Sorry man, couldn't resist!

 

LOL

Submitted by DarrenB on

LOL. Cheap shot, I know.  After reading my response again, I see it came across a bit snarky too.  Apologies, and glad you took it in good humour.

I do recall in motorcycle

Submitted by ChrisD on

I do recall in motorcycle training (Too Cool), the front brake is used for the power and the rear is for stability. "Like the feathers on an arrow" was the analogy used. Both are important.


I had actually been using the right hand straight out signal on the assumption that it WAS legal, based on seeing it on the City's website. I do feel it is more clear for a cyclist.

Login to Post Comments

May

M T W T F S S
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 

Sponsors

Alliance for Biking and Walking Member

RSS news feed

Subscribe to Syndicate