homeless in ca.

Anyone else do this?

I was out for a ride and a delivery car belonging to a local restaurant chain was parked in the bike lane. The car was literally parked on top of the bicycle pictogram, next to two no stopping signs and a sign indicating bike lane. Since I didn't have my action camera on I whipped out my phone and took a few pictures. The driver was walking back to the car so I got him in the frame unintentionally. But oh well I told him not to park in the bike lane and posted it on the restaurants Google maps page.

I've done this a few times before. If I see somebody doing something I don't like or catch some road raging maniac on my dashcam and there's a company name on the side of his pickup it's going on Google.

Koyote

Maybe it would be better to call the driver's employer?

homeless in ca.

I've done that when the company wasn't listed on Google. They don't even respond.

livedarklions

So what happens when you post on Google? I'd be worried that people who want fast delivery might actually like the fact that the drivers will park there.

indyfabz

Was there a sign prohibiting stopping? Here in Philly, it’s legal to stop (versus park) in many bike lanes. You have to be there for about 15 minutes to be considered parked.

AdkMtnMonster

Reading is fundamental.

jack pot 

now we got bicyclists acting like hyper active meter maids ... option 1 > ride around the parked car option 2 > leave a noteoption 3 > verbally confront the driver option 4 > use your U lock NYC style (not recommended).

homeless in ca.

indyfabz

Unless I am interpreting the signs incorrectly, they prohibit stopping except in the case of buses in the zone where the delivery car is stopped.

The reason I asked the question is because the other day there was a discussion about cars in buke lanes on a local FB group. One person claimed that he puts stickers on car windows that are parked in bike lanes. I pointed out that such behavior is not always a traffic violation (i.e., it's legal). I am not sure someone who would vandalize cars really cares if they target people acting legally, but I felt compelled to clue him in just in case.

homeless in ca.

Google Maps street view

I make service calls and would have parked my pickup in the driveway between buildings 2310 and 2300.

homeless in ca.

You are correct, stopping is prohibited except for buses.

https://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/C-24.2?langCont=en#se:386


386. Except in cases of necessity or where another provision of this Code permits it, no person may stop a road vehicle
(1) on a sidewalk or the median strip of a roadway;
(2) less than 3 m from a fire hydrant;
(3) less than 5 m from a police or fire station, or less than 8 m from such a building and on the opposite side of the street;
(4) at an intersection, on a pedestrian crosswalk or bicycle crossing identified by means of proper signs or signals and on a level crossing or less than 5 m therefrom;
(4.1) in a traffic circle;
(5) in a loading and unloading zone or a zone reserved exclusively for road vehicles assigned to public transportation, and clearly identified as such;
(6) on an elevated lane, a bridge or a viaduct, or in a tunnel;
(7) on a limited access highway, at an entrance to or exit from such a highway or on an access ramp;
(7.1) in a traffic lane reserved exclusively for certain vehicles;
(8) in front of a sidewalk ramp specially built for handicapped persons;
(9) at any place where parking is prohibited by a sign erected in accordance with this Code.

bikemig 

It's been a tough time for everyone during the pandemic. I would have given the driver a break and just ridden around the car.

livedarklions

That code explicitly distinguishes between bicycles and vehicles. Only powered bicycles are classified as "road vehicles". Bicycles are not classified as any type of vehicle so I don't think (7.1) applies..
It's pretty clear--the correct provision is (9) at any place where parking is prohibited by a sign erected in accordance with this Code. Also (5) in a loading and unloading zone or a zone reserved exclusively for road vehicles assigned to public transportation, and clearly identified as such;

Daniel4

I've written to Fedex with pictures showing the driver doing a dangerous move in traffic, sent photos to Beck Taxi showing the taxi blocking both the bicycle lane and pedestrians crossing, Budget Trucks showing one of their customer parked in the bike lane when there were plenty of parking if he'd only turn right.

It doesn't matter if they don't respond. The motor-vehicle public has to be aware of their own violations instead of complaining about bicycles all the time.

homeless in ca.

The Quebec code distinguishes between bicycles and "road vehicles". The general term "vehicle" is not defined.

livedarklions

The code defines several types of vehicles. "Bicycles" are not listed within any vehicle classification. The general term "bicycle" is also not defined.

It's quite clear that "vehicles" does not include "bicycles" in that code. I was surprised to find that, but it's obvious.

By the way, the sign thing works fine because under the code:

295.The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may, by means of the proper signs or signals,

(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;

homeless in ca.

The code doesn't define vehicles.

Daniel4

I wonder what trouble this will cause once Magna fully allows drivers to reclaim the bike lanes.

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/sci...1_5397396.html

"“Sarit,” an electric single-seat vehicle with three wheels that’s small enough to take advantage of city bike lanes."

"Stronach believes the Sarit would be safer than a bike..."

livedarklions

It also doesn't define automobiles, so by your logic a bicycle might be an automobile. Should we list all of the things with wheels it doesn't define?

Again, the code does not define vehicles, it lists all of the categories of vehicles, and defines the categories by listing ALL of the types of vehicles in those categories. Bicycles do not appear on ANY of those lists and are therefore not vehicles. The code explicitly lays out which statutes apply to bicycles and which do not.

BTW, the code does specify that an adult tricycle is a bicycle.
​​​​​​

homeless in ca.

That is incorrect. The code does not say this is a complete list of vehicles. Section 4 just defines certain terms used in the code among them different classes of vehicle. For whatever reason the legislature didn't include a definition for "bicycle" even though the word is used frequently.


A bicycle is a vehicle. Parking a car in a lane reserved for bicycles is a violation of section 386, paragraph 7.1.

gear64

I'm not a fan of shaming culture. You could call the police, but they likely have better things to do. You could confront them, but is it really worth losing your life over if they have serious anger management issues and can out man you or out gun you. You can't fix ignorance. At least not in the moment. The sad fact is people are a little less respectful of other people with every passing year. In my city surrounding metro included it feels like there's at least one gun killing a day in the crime section, often mutiples; especially weekends. It's not just the so called seedy areas any more either. Even cyclists are disrespectful of other cyclists. Recently a cyclist was lounging in and perpendicular to the the bike lane shooting the **** with his buddies after some event. Looked right at me then went right back to chatting didn't move an inch even though it meant me swerving into oncoming traffic. In the flash of second I thought I could t-bone him and ruin both our days or let it go. I let it go finishing an otherwise great ride in a happy state.

livedarklions

You're being ridiculous. I showed there were 2 provisions that specifically applied to the enforceability of parking bans in traffic lanes reserved for bicycles and you're so wedded ideologically to the "bikes are vehicles" rhetoric that you choose to ignore them. Keep repeating the same nonsense, maybe it'll sound better the fourth time.

We agree that the law prohibits parking or stopping in a marked bike lane . If you want to insist on being wrong about why because you don't approve of the way the law is drafted, I really don't care.

njkayaker

??? It only uses the word "bicycle" as part of "bicycle crossing".

Incorrect.

"Powered bicycles" isn't in the law. "Power-assisted bicycles" is. And they are not "road vehicles".

"Road vehicles" have motors.

Légis Québec

======================

A bicycle lane is some sort of "traffic lane", it's "reserved exclusively for certain" somethings, and those somethings is a set that includes things in addition to motor/road vehicles.

That strongly suggests that it's just taken for granted that bicycles are vehicles.

Also, there is nothing that makes it clear that bicycles are not vehicles.

======================

This is all sorts of wrong.

The definition of "motor vehicle" and "road vehicle" covers automobiles and excludes bicycles ("power-assisted" or not).

No, this is wrong.

While it doesn't explicitly define bicycles as vehicles, it doesn't explicitly define bicycles as not vehicles either.

livedarklions

As usual, you're wrong:


"295.The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may, by means of the proper signs or signals...

(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;"

"Bicycles" is explicitly a separate classification other than "certain classes of road vehicles". If you want to argue that bicycles under the code are vehicles but not "road vehicles", I think you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you prefer "off-road" or "toy"?

You want to nitpick between "powered" and "power-assisted", fine, but I didn't confuse them. I was using the phrase "powered bicycles" to refer to mopeds and motorcycles, both of which are explicitly defined as "vehicles" under the code. You are correct that the phrase "powered bicycles" does not appear in the code, but I have no idea what the relevance of that is supposed to be. I didn't claim it did.

Again, I'm sure you will just restate the same wrong points in an endless loop no matter what I say, so feel free to get the last incorrect word in. Y'all can try to rewrite the Quebec traffic code to suit the ghost of John Forrester all you want, just don't expect anyone in authority in Canada to salute.

BTW, one of us actually has to read and apply statutes for a living, and it's not you.

And yes, I know I've been successfully trolled into responding to you. Mazel tov.

njkayaker

Where does that define bicycle? (It doesn't define "bicycle" at all.)

Bicycles are not "road vehicles". "Road vehicles" have motors (the law is explicit about that).

That bicycles are not "road vehicles" does not mean they are not vehicles.

This law is talking about "vehicles" (not "road vehicles" specifically).

It's weird to refer to these things as "bicycles" of any sort.

No, that's incorrect.

It says these are "passenger vehicle". "passenger vehicle" is a "motor vehicle" and "road vehicle" that carries passengers.

A bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" or a "road vehicle" or a "passenger vehicle" because it has no motor. That does not mean it's not a vehicle.

=======================

But you are so terrible at it!