Things People Say Fridays #17: It's Illegal for Cyclists to Ride in Tunnels!

Hey everybody, I hope your week hasn't been too much of a grind, but if it has, it is now Friday! For those who work on the weekend, I am so sorry. I would take my comments back if I could, but the backspace key is so far away and I'm so tired. Anyway, as the post title suggests, this writing marks the long awaited return of the "Things People Say Fridays" series here on R A N T W I C K. When I say long awaited, I am referring to myself, of course. Nobody "awaits" anything from me; if you do I'm afraid you need to get a life, my friend.

In this installment, I am informed of a law that does not exist, second hand from someone who should have been a traffic authority...

Now, there are undoubtedly some tunnels where it might be very dangerous to ride a bicycle. Dark, narrow,  and/or high-speed tunnels can be some of the scariest places in the world for a cyclist, and I would never recommend riding in them, technically legal or not. In some cases these tunnels may have signage declaring "no bicycles permitted", which indeed makes it illegal to ride there.

On the other hand, there are many tunnels and underpasses that are perfectly well suited to cycling, like the one I rode through. The speed limit is 50km/h. It is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in my city and the sidewalks in that area are busy with pedestrians. The only danger to anyone in that situation would have been if I rode to the right instead of controlling the lane.

This is just a theory, but I think cyclists are so unwelcome in tunnels because their presence may extend the amount of time a driver feels like they are underground; I think there is a natural subconscious desire to be in and out of a tunnel as quickly as possible.

I wish the dissemination of imaginary, often self-serving laws when it comes to cyclists were something new or different, but it ain't. I, like many cyclists, have been informed of such imaginary laws lots of times.

Using the logic that things we find inconvenient or annoying can be re-stated as laws is really going to be really liberating I think! I'll bet you've got some suggestions for new laws... lay 'em on me in the comments section, and have a super weekend!

Yer Pal,

R A N T W I C K

PS - For a summary of cycling and laws governing it in Ontario, follow this link: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/pdfs/cycling-skills.pdf 

PPS - In an effort to cover my ass on this one I looked pretty hard for any legislation governing cyclists and tunnels in Ontario and found nothing at all. If you know of some stupid law that will prove me wrong, please point me to it and I will happily eat crow in a follow-up post.

PPS - If it is indeed illegal to ride through a tunnel where you live but not where I do, tell me about that too!

On Yer Left

I recently read an article from the Bikesnob in Outside magazine called "The Politics of Passing" in which he goes through the various ways in which a cyclist can alert pedestrians to their presence and ultimately the no-win situation we often face.

I rode another piece of the Thames Valley Parkway yesterday and captured the video I'll need to put together another tour; that will be coming sometime soon. This part of the TVP on a sunny Sunday is crowded with people on foot. It made me want to offer my two cents on this inexhaustible topic.

Waiting my turn on yesterday's ride

As much as people talk about bike bells being a happy sound, I think they take on an annoying, almost self-important character when repeatedly used by multiple cyclists navigating lots of people walking on a path. I have a bell, but I use it very rarely.

Today helped me decide once and for all how I prefer to govern myself in overtaking situations. Here are the guidelines I currently use:

1) If it is a busy place where people pretty much expect to be passed by bicycles, I say nothing, use lots of caution and pass only when there is room to do so without anybody feeling like they've been "buzzed".

2) If it is a situation where I think people might be startled, I prefer to loudly say "Bike comin' up", sooner than one would think necessary. My phraseology here has evolved from "On yer left" to "Bike on yer left" to "Bike comin' up". My rationale is that when processing an unexpected message, people (myself included) kind of freeze up or even dart the wrong way when they need to quickly process the word "left" (wait, which left)? Adding Bike to the front of the phrase helped to quickly identify the "threat" and "Bike comin' up" seems like all the info I would want or need in order to react properly were I the one on foot.

3) Sometimes I just get a gut feeling that saying anything at all will cause a pedestrian freak out. In these cases I slow down and give as much room as feasible. When people startle anyway, I feel bad, but most times (and with most things, many of which are infinitely more important than bike path passing) trusting ones gut works out.

4) Runners are an exception. I may well say "on yer left" when approaching a runner or runners, because I think there's a good chance they invented it. In any case, they always respond quickly and well. I love runners; they get how the path works, or should work.

What works best for you? Rather than something like the ;^%$!#@ helmet debate, this is one topic I could talk about all day!

Yer Pal,

R A N T W I C K

PS - One final note: I have zero tolerance for the pathletes who put people at risk or get pissed off or both in situations like the ones above. If you're chasing a Strava KOM or a personal best or need to train HARD, don't hit the multi-use pathway in prime time. Just don't. Idiots. I'm angry at them right now even thought I didn't see too many stupid moves yesterday. Grrrr.