Police demanding bicyclists abandon roadway and use sidewalk on Queen E/B E of Bathurst

I should add that I did remind the 14 division officer that the HTA defines bicycles as vehicles. The dialogue went downhill quickly from there.

If only we could get some 'raging grannies' to lead City Council in a chorus of Freddy Mercury's "Bicycle".
Bicycle. Bicycle. I want to walk my bicycle. ..

Negative interaction eh? Why not write up some letter... "cyclists banned from queen st"

Let's assume the cop has the authority to ask you to walk your bike on the side walk - I am sure there is somewhere in some law a thing that says he can direct traffic in such a way its' safe (and he'll decide what's safe, of course).

So you walk your bike 20 ft to be out of his reach, and then continue cycling. Knowing cyclists in downtown, that's what most folks would do.

Looks like the construction folks didn't feel strong enough to put up a sign spelling it out - I have seen permanent signs like that asking cyclists to dismount (one at a narrow bridge in Scarberia) but I am not sure what the cop would charge you with if you disobeyed. I don't recall a fine for "failing to dismount".

Back to Queen St: I'd love to hear from anyone with good legal knowledge how to deal with this miscarriage of policing - and I'd hate being the test case to find out what actually would happen if one was going to challenge the cop to the point of being fined.

So now construction managers are who decides on riding a bike in the city. Toronto is condo city, we build more than anyother jurisdiction in North America. But why should their influence extend to roads?

The Police Officer was wrong. Under Provincial law, your bike is a vehicle. He had no right to do it. Won't get you anywhere if you complained. Essentially it would come down to your word against his. Police almost always win at that point.

Let's assume you get a ticket and go before the judge: what's the offense?

I contacted Dan Egan of Bicycle Manager of Transportation Services after a similar incident that happened to a friend on Queen near Bathurst, and he replied:

Cyclists are not required to dismount and walk through construction zones. Cyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act - they can legally ride in the centre of the lane if it's too narrow to share. This sounds like an overzealous and misinformed paid-duty officer. We do not use the "cyclist dismount" sign unless the roadway is closed and cyclists are using the sidewalk.

I have forwarded this on to our Surface Maintenance Group ( I think it's their contractor) asking them to advise the contractor to advise their paid-duty officer to desist in asking cyclists to dismount.

Three thumbs up! And Thanks, Herb!

At least Egan has his head screwed on right - and you can't rely on the cops, as usual...

I was told to go on the sidewalk today also. So I rode on the sidewalk. Its losers like you that make cops turn into dicks.

Maybe, it's people like you who let dumb cops get away with acting beyond the law thus ruining the reputation of good cops.

Hmm..

maybe Critical Mass should be doing a ride through that area in November ???

maybe Critical Mass can do a bike ride through there in November ?

The message from Dan Egan hasn't gotten through yet.

Construction at Queen and Bathurst. From my vantage point cycling west, I saw a construction worker insist an eastbound cycling dismount and walk her bike on the sidewalk. This was reinforced by the eastbound police 'pylon'. I challenged the worker saying that a bicycle is a vehicle and if cars can drive through then so can a bicycle. He replied that it wasn't safe. I said: a cyclist has the right to take the centre of the lane.

The funny thing is the westbound police 'pylon' on my side told me to ride through, and stay in the centre of the lane till the end of the construction.

Seems like the message got through on one side of the street only!

You guys are a bunch of whack jobs. just dismount the bloody bike and move on. If a cop tells a driver what to do, the driver does it. He doesn't get in an arguement about his rights.

Why is everything a battle with cyclists? No wonder they want to shut down Jarvis Street bike lanes.

The point is that we have rights and when they are taken away it is our duty to stand up to them. You cant trust people with guns, especially cops! Just do what they say? How far does it go?

Why are you such a chicken shit random cyclist.

If cars are going through i'm going through, this isn't the 401 it's queen st.

I at least need a legitimate reason not a private company told me to kick you off the road because they're failing to make is passable while constructing.

@Random cyclist: We have rights precisely because of people who "get in arguments" about our rights. If a construction manager decided he didn't want cyclists on the roadway beside "his" construction site, communicates that to the officer, and both, without citing any statutory authority, issue arbitrary orders that cyclists dismount, that compromises cyclists' right to use the roads. In fact, in the process, it compromises everyone's rights as well. We seldom think about how authoritarian a traffic control regime the car has given us.

See section 134 of the HTA:

Direction of traffic by police officer

1. (1) Where a police officer considers it reasonably necessary,

(a) to ensure orderly movement of traffic;

(b) to prevent injury or damage to persons or property; or

(c) to permit proper action in an emergency,

he or she may direct traffic according to his or her discretion, despite the provisions of this Part, and every person shall obey his or her directions.

http://canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-1990-c-h8.html

Nowhere do I see the authority in section 134 delegated to construction managers. It seems pretty clear that the direction in this case came from the construction manager to the police. Also, I don't see a basis here for ordering all cyclists to dismount. The statute gives the police discretion, but it clearly limits that discretion. Forbidding cyclists to take the lane will not contribute to the orderly movement of traffic, it will certainly not decrease any risk of damage to persons or property, and the requirement to permit proper action in an emergency does not apply in this case.

In any case, I consider section 134 unacceptably broad, part of an attitude toward road users in general and motorists in particular that contributes to the horrendous safety record of North American roads. Specifically, both in statute and in practice, the current traffic control regime treats road users as irresponsible, under the control of the authorities at all times, and accordingly fails to hold them (us) accountable for our actions. This combination of lenience and authoritarianism helps account for the road death toll, which exceeds the casualty rate in just about every mode of transportation, including modes, such as aviation, which operate in far more complex and hostile environments. If we want to bring the accidental death rate on our roads to an acceptable level, I would suggest three things: making motor vehicle licenses harder to get and easier to lose, making safety the unambiguous and ultimately the only priority, and making each operator ultimately responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle, with the corresponding final authority. The maritime and aviation communities do that, and it works.

One other possible scenario:

If the roadway was part of a "construction" site, then it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure the safety for all who enter that area - usually in the form of protective equipment.

If there was the potential for falling objects, and if the roof of a car would provide reasonable protection from these specific objects, then an unprotected cyclist would be at risk, and therefore would have to dismount and take the safe route along the covered sidewalk with pedestrians.

Or you could simply obey the direction of the police instead of challenging their authority; an advisable course of action unless you are willing to bet it all on the fact that you are right and the police are wrong,

Haha... oh seymore try harder! :)

It remains to be seen if the constable in question had any authority in this matter or was abusing his authority telling all the cyclists to get off the road. Hmm! Could it be this was being done so motorists could floor it through the construction zone and traffic(cyclists aren't) wouldn't get backlogged by a cyclists riding down the middle of the lane.

At any rate..

I would certainly ask "Why can't i go ahead?" - It is a polite enough question.

@Seymore bikes: I think your specific scenario of overhead hazards has some problems: I certainly have never seen a construction site at which police turned back convertibles.

On the larger question, whether cyclists should consider this a battle worth fighting, I would answer a definite yes. These "cyclists dismount" signs set a precedent. If we accept them, everyone with a claim to some authority who doesn't like cyclists will realize they too can make a case for a "cyclists dismount" sign, and severely curtail cyclists' freedom. As to whether we should do it by questioning an individual police officer's authority, I would say no. We should make a critique of the whole system, starting with the argument that we give the government unprecedented authority over the roads, and the government does not deliver the safety they promise. I would add that questioning a police officer's authority should not require a willingness to "bet it all".

As a cyclist, I object to the car culture. I object to the servility before authority it promotes, and also to the adolescent defiance and irresponsibility it promotes whenever the police drive away. I object to the lax and indulgent way the courts deal with motorists, the cases in which even drivers who have wiped out virtually whole families in drunk driving accidents still have not receive lifetime prohibitions on driving. I object, above all, to the moral effect that accepting about fifty thousand road deaths every year in North America alone as just the routine cost of business on the roads. And as a motorist, and a parent, I object to exactly these same bugs in the system.

If the police and road authorities want to claim they need to restrict our freedom in order to make us safe, we have every reason to reply that they have restricted our freedom for a long time now, and they have yet to deliver meaningful safety.

Whether you agree or disagree with the law, and the way the officer has chosen to exercise his authority under it, I don't think that you can deny that the officer had the authority to direct traffic as he did.

You'll notice that the officer's authority turns on what the officer "considers reasonably necessary" - not necessarily whether it is, in fact, reasonably necessary. You can say you don't like the law - fine - but you can't deny that it exists.

Whatever Dances - I'm just trying to show that there are other possible reasons for the Police to direct a cyclist off a roadway. There is a great deal of discretion afforded to the police - sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not.

Either way, I'd exhaust all other possibilities before I made the assumption that the officer was wrong.

@anonymous: still no sale. Because the construction company had clearly provided, in advance, signs ordering cyclists to dismount, I simply don't believe that directive arose from the officer's discretion as the law requires. I simply don't believe that the drafters of section 134 intended to allow anyone able to have a paid-duty or even an off-duty police officer available should have the ability to rewrite the highway traffic act to suit themselves. If a police officer decides, in an accident or complex construction situation, that I as an individual cyclist should walk my bike I may not agree with that judgment, but I will defer to it. But if the employer of a paid duty officer has decided they do not want cyclists operating in "their" construction zone, then when such an officer orders me to dismount, the order doesn't come from their assessment of the traffic situation, it comes from their employers, and has no validity under section 134.

This does not mean I recommend challenging a police officer. Calling Dan Egan to set the construction companies straight makes the most sense here. I also, however, insist that asking paid duty police officers to use their traffic direction authority to effectively change the laws abuses the intent of section 134.

The constable may only exercise authority when the law gives it to him as such. Given the recent g20 actions i recognize your desire to roll over and submit to inspection.. but police are trying to make nice now. Obviously the odds of being beat on the head with a baton for asking questions about policing in Toronto went up significantly in our recent past.

Regarding those directions of traffic - The constable has no authority under the law to simply force you off the bicycle(same as you in the car or motorcycle) without cause - say a sketchy traffic stop or criminal investigation. Certainly he may turn you around or direct you otherwise. Not what was happening here.

I appreciate what you're saying Seymore, but you're REAAAALLY fishing here.

I merely suggested a possible scenario that would fit the situation.

I don't "roll over", in case I gave that impression. I have challenged the Police when I knew I was right, I was civil and it ended well; otherwise I shut up.

Fair enough, Seymore, i was only responding to anonymous who said we should just Obey and quit making a stink.

I get your scenario, but it seems like a stretch... I wasn't there, but would motorcyclists and moped drivers be told to exit their vehicles and walk them to the other side? To me the most likely scenario is the construction company is over zealous in it's direction to the police officer to "keep traffic moving" which means unless your bicycle can speed through the construction zone you're on the sidewalk.

On a sidenote, i've seen cyclists accommodated through construction zones in places like denmark and the netherlands, now i hate to be all dutch is better because i know that is pretentious, but they might have it right.

I certainly didn't suggest that you "obey"

All I did was put the law in front of you. Like many cyclists you believe that it doesn't apply to you. You produce convoluted explanations to support your position. Maybe they'll work.

Once you are charged, please let me know what a Justice of the Peace thinks of your argument. Not that even a conviction could change your belief in how right you are.

"Like many cyclists you believe that it doesn't apply to you. You produce convoluted explanations to support your position."

I don't believe what, that HTA doesn't apply? It certainly does and that is why i'm not going to forced to abandon the roadway without cause.

Cyclists are not required to dismount and walk through construction zones. Cyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act - they can legally ride in the centre of the lane if it's too narrow to share. This sounds like an overzealous and misinformed paid-duty officer. We do not use the "cyclist dismount" sign unless the roadway is closed and cyclists are using the sidewalk.

The constables explanation is going to be the convoluted one since we have already established his direction of traffic as such is unlawful. You can just Obey, maybe you like the indignity of the sidewalk, but it's quite senseless given we've already established this constable is dead wrong.

@anonymous: (yawn) maybe you could look past the cliches here. Nobody said the law did not apply to cyclists. In fact, I think few cyclists believe the law does not apply to us. When we break the law, we either (a) intend to obey it and make a simple mistake, or (b) calculate that the benefits to us of breaking a traffic law outweigh the risk of punishment. In short, we break the law for just about the same reasons motorists do.

Section 134 of the HTA, as quoted, doesn't apply because the law refers to a police officer's judgment, not a contractor's desire to ban bicycles from their construction zone. This logic has nothing convoluted about it. Nor does this have anything to do with cyclists' supposed perception of ourselves as "special"; it applies equally to everyone. I can't hire a police officer to "direct" cars, trucks, pedestrians, or black Saab convertibles away from my street. That use of a police officer's services clearly abuses the discretion given by section 134.

Well, I can totally understand being under attack in Toronto and perceiving that the system is against you (because presently it is) but it's probably better to just assume that the officer knows more of what dangers there might be than someone who just came along. Better to cooperate and take notes and then call someone at the police and city hall and provincial legislature and ask about the situation and what the law is. The police are just doing their jobs and if they get different orders from above they'll follow them.
Also why fight a single battle only to do it again in the future. It's better that there's a policy figured out and that the authorities know what it is.
For cyclists in North America and Toronto in particular, we must look at the longer term picture. In the future when there's good cycling infrastructure there will still be police enforcing laws and still be times when you'll have to wait or detour around something and still be cars going down the road.

Incidentally this is so different than what is done in the Netherlands at a construction site. Check this out:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/08/cycling-in-large-building-site.html

its funny becase the other day the cop rtied to write me 3 tickets for not wearing a helmet having no brakes and riding on the sidewalk! he said bikes are considered vehicles so to ride in the streets wow is this harassment?

Riding on the sidewalk is illegal, not having brakes is illegal. Not wearing a helmet is not illegal. Nice try.

However, should he have been riding a bike with small wheels of 61 centimetres or less in diameter, that would have not been illegal. There are at least a couple of types of adult bikes that could fit the bill.