Every day I ride my bike down Bayers Road through the Connaught intersection in rush hour traffic. Traffic is always stopped or crawling, and I easily scoot past on the right. Once in awhile some dickwad will ride the curb in an obviously deliberate effort to block me. Yesterday you, Mr. Dickwad of the Day, caught up with me three times when traffic started moving for a moment, only to have me pass you again despite your attempts to block me. On the third pass I waved at you cheerfully as I rode by. The next time you caught up with me you rolled down your window to bitch me out for “illegally” passing on the right. So here, for your edification, is Section 114 (2) of the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act: 114 (2) Notwithstanding Section 85 and clause (1)(a), a cyclist operating on the far right side or the right-hand shoulder of the roadway may pass to the right of the overtaken vehicle if it is safe to do so. R.S., c. 293, s. 114; 2010, c. 59, s. 4. I think I’m going to print this out and carry it around with me. —Speedy Gonzalez
This article appears in Nov 22-28, 2012.
Wow, I could have written this bitch, except for a different intersection.
Great bitch! Good job OB!
??? how could someone NOT know that bicyclists can pass on the right? make ’em go back to driver ed.
the crankster rides again
Ha! Not this cat, but ya, fuck that asshole. Why the fuck do people have to hug the curb in the first place. Anyways, heres a morning smile for you. Fucker gets charged. Fuck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe…
Hahaha oh my goodness we need more people like you! SO many drivers do not have a clue as to the rules of the road with cyclists. Seriously, keep that paper with you, it will serve you well:D
good bitch. I pass cars even in my CAR when I’m in the right lane.. if those idiots are in the PASSING lane going under the limit then I’m passing them. Some people just shouldn’t drive, straight up
He must’ve been confused by the guys who drive their bikes in the middle of the road pretending they’re in cars even though they usually can’t accelerate as safely/quickly as a car when the time comes. I agree with you (and the law) the side of the road – as close as safely possible is where bikes belong.
So many stupid drivers in this province.
It’s funny 2 weekends ago I was watching Canada’s Worst Drivers and according to the show and their statistics, Nova Scotia is the most dangerous place to drive in Canada.
Season 8 but not sure which episode. I think either 3, 4 or 5.
@ Whiskey Tango: Unless the cyclist is making a left turn of course. Or going straight when there’s a dedicated right turn lane. Or going straight through an intersection where some of the traffic will be turning right. Or if there isn’t room to ride on the right due to parked cars etc. Then he has to be in the middle of the road. You know that, right?
Cranky, that would be the mildest form of vehicle/bicyclist clashing I would have expected.
Noise pollution at best.
I wonder if any cyclists out there have printed the bill out on a shirt to wear as they ride….
If I had a bicycle, that’s probably what I’d do.
And the winner of the Best Avatar of the Day goes to Santa’s Little Helper.
Frickin’ hilarious. The bear’s expression is perfect.
Christ, I’m still chuckling here. lol
dear speedy, watch out for that big white mercury, that will cream you tomorrow.
Key words, “if it’s safe to do so”. I presume if a vehicle must give 1 meters clearance to a cyclist to be “safe”, the same rule must apply for cyclists passing my vehicle on the right. You wouldn’t believe how many stupid cyclists try and sneak by my truck with wide load signs, lights flashing, flags up, etc… go ahead, try your luck dumbasses. When you smack into an excavator track trying to sneak by with 3 inches clearance, don’t come a whining to me!!
“if it’s safe to do so” good advice to live by
“… if it is safe to do so” – i.e. if car is -not- moving. At least that’s my interpretation.
Your interpretation would be wrong, canned. The section of the MVA quoted deals with moving traffic. SHITD’s interpretation is also wrong. The 100 m rule does not go both ways. Again, the MVA is specific. Every serious cyclist who regularly rides in traffic has read the Act carefully, whereas many bicycle hating motorheads simply pull support for their car-good-bicycle-bad opinions directly out of their asses.
Oh, and BM, that sounded like a threat. Do you mean to go out in your big white mercury and deliberately assault a cyclist? Do you need to be reported for making threats of violence on here?
Sorry, 1 m. Not 100 m. I plead undercaffeination.
SLH, get off your high horse. I cycle everyday, not a motorhead cyclist-hater. I have to admit that I haven’t read the act carefully. However, I know about signaling, stopping, controlling lanes with parked cars/dedicated turning lanes, etc.
OB clearly wrote the relevant portion of the legislation:
“Notwithstanding Section 85 and clause (1)(a), a cyclist operating on the far right side or the right-hand shoulder of the roadway may pass to the right of the overtaken vehicle if it is safe to do so.”
Key phrase ‘if it safe to do so’. Unless the Act provides a definition of what is or isn’t safe, I am pretty sure this is up to the discretion of the cyclist. As a cyclist, I’ll use my discretion and only pass on the right when cars are stopped. Why? Because I don’t trust motorists and I don’t want to end up underneath or on top of a metal box.
“Every serious cyclist who regularly rides in traffic has read the Act carefully, whereas many bicycle hating motorheads simply pull support for their car-good-bicycle-bad opinions directly out of their asses.”
I don’t suppose you have a survey or anything to back up that claim. I seriously doubt your claim that every serious everyday cyclist has read the Act carefully. I am one of them and I know many others who haven’t. So this must be a random opinion you pulled directly out of your ass.
In any event, there are good and bad cyclists and good and bad motorists. You may be a good cyclist (congratulations), but you’re a terrible advocate for cycling in general.
Sorry canned. You are correct. I should have said “every serious cyclist who regularly rides in traffic SHOULD read the act carefully.” I have done so and so have all my cycling friends, but obviously I don’t know every cyclist. My bad. I also agree that what is safe is up to the individual cyclist. I took your comment to mean that was your interpretation of the act, not your interpretation of what is safe. I misunderstood.
No worries, sorry for the semi-hostile response. I just wish cyclists and motorists would stop being so quick to generalize each other and learn to happily coexist (the roads are wide enough).
Thanks. And I didn’t mean to generalize about drivers. Most drivers share the road just fine. But no matter how safely you ride, or how strictly you follow the law, some drivers begrudge every inch of road you take up. There’s some real hostility out there, as Cranky’s video shows. And there are some drivers who actively wish us harm. This Blow Me guy seems to be one of them. They probably wouldn’t actually try to harm us themselves, but they think about it. And I think some of them would if they were sure they could get away with it.
Why doesn’t it go both ways, SLH? If you need a meter, you need a meter. Why all of a sudden, when someone suggests that if you need a meter to be safe for a cyclist passing on the right, it’s an “interpretation”? Just because you read a book and consider yourself an authority on everything cycling related does not make you invincible, nor does it excuse you from obeying ALL traffic laws ie: HAND SIGNALS (which seem to be non existant in the cycling community in Halifax), lights at night, actually obey stop signs (actually waiting your turn at 4 way stops), waiting for lights to change (not just waiting for a break in traffic, then bolting) not riding on the sidewalk, not riding your bike in crosswalks, not wearing ear buds, etc… Those are just some of the things I have seen many cyclists do on a number of occasions, that really makes me pissed off with their total disregard for their, and everyone elses safety.
Your sense of entightlement is obvious, as your attitude seems to point the finger at other drivers, making YOUR safety everyones responsibility BUT your own. Drivers make mistakes, !00% of accidents are in some way due to human error.
Here’s the thing with passing on the right… If you pass 25 cars on the right while they’re waiting for the light, you are going to force all of those 25 cars to repass you when the light turns green. By my count, that’s 25 more chances to get smoked. If you’re playing a game of odds, your the loser every time!!
slh, you are an idiot. did you read me saying thatI would go out and run over someone? no, you did not. i merely made a comment about the possiblity of them getting run over by a big white mercury, could have been a pink caddy, as far as that goes. fuck, you are stupid.
signals? HAND signals??? Most drivers of anything wheeled in this city don’t signal. And while we’re bitchin about drivers, another little known fact….all intersections are to be considered crosswalks, whether or not they are marked as such, including those off the Bay Rd. Just sayin to the fucktard who yelled at me for daring to cross.
SHITD,
1) It doesn’t go both ways because the legislation puts the onus on the driver, not the cyclist, to provide one meter when passing. If a motorist is being passed, they are not passing, thus 1 meter is not required.
2) Yes, some cyclists don’t use signaling, don’t use lights, etc. But what of the motorists who don’t use signal lights (much easier than hand signaling), speed through yellow lights, speed in general, roll through stop signs, etc.
3) No matter how many times a motorist passes or repasses a cyclist the onus is on them to pass safely. Of course someone risks getting hit again but if we made decisions based on risks to personal safety we would all be reclusive hermits.
Soooo…. Your arguement for not bothering to obey traffic laws is that motorists don’t so why should we bother? That’s mature!!!
The onus should not ALWAYS be on the motorist, and leaving what the motorist is not responsible for up to the cyclists disgression (which puts the responsibility on the motorist no matter what). Seems to me like the deck is stacked for the person who pays absolutely nothing to use the roads. No registration, no gas taxes (which pay for upkeep and new infrastructure, etc…), no insurance, and have no identifier other than a vague description… I wonder why some motorists have an attitude toward cyclists.
I personally don’t have a problem with cyclists that respect the fact that they are sharing a roadway with two ton vehicles. It really annoys me when cyclists act like I owe them absolute control in any situation.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/tran/roadsafety/oneme…
That’s not my argument. I’m just saying you can’t point out the faults of one group of road users (cyclists) while ignoring those of another (motorists). I drive and cycle and I see idiots on both sides. But complaints about cyclists are disproportionately represented on the internet.
The onus isn’t always on motorists, but it is when they are passing a cyclist. The onus is on them to pass safely subject to the one meter rule. Cyclists, on the other hand, must also pass safely but are not subject to the one meter rule. What part of this can you not get through your thick skull?
“Seems to me like the deck is stacked for the person who pays absolutely nothing to use the roads. No registration, no gas taxes (which pay for upkeep and new infrastructure, etc…), no insurance, and have no identifier other than a vague description.”
1) Road infrastructure is financed through general revenues, not licensing fees and fuel taxes. Insurance expenditures go to for-profit private insurance companies; they are not used to finance road construction and repair.
2) Many cyclists pay consumer and income taxes, thus contributing to the general pool of revenues used to finance road infrastructure. Many other cyclists also drive cars and thus also contribute to car-related tax revenues.
3) Cyclists actually make road use easier by reducing road congestion. They also increase the lifetime of a road since bicycles exert less wear and tear on roads compared to cars. Thus, even if cyclists should pay, their fair share of the cost should be lower.
4) I empathize with the idea of introducing licensing and insurance for cyclists but the costs of such a program (reduced cycling/more road congestion, enforcement and administration costs) would, IMO, outweigh its benefits (additional revenue, easier detection of cycling infractions).
1+2+3+4 ==> you’re a complete fucking moron.