Sorry, but I've got to go with the officer who wrote the summons and say that it was in fact unsafe... to others. If he was "operating" his vehicle in traffic then it was no doubt unable to keep up with the flow of traffic and as such was an obstruction.

Other vehicles could easily have easily rear-ended him and his friends, or caused other accidents when out of frustration they attempted to change lanes and bypass his vehicle.

It's not just about him, and if someone is planning on making a "statement" then they need to do so in a way that's not a hazard to others.

It those that ride the mini fuel efficient Yaris's and such that will feel the impact (get it?) as it rear-ends this 'statement'. Three tons of bricks on four wheels isn't a car either, but I can't ride it down the road. State your point by zipping past all the cars stuck in traffic on a bike - laughing.

i don't think that makes much sense mike.

how's this thing any different than a bike? they can't keep up with the "flow of traffic" and they're not obstructions (from at least a legal standpoint).

and the dangers you describe are other people fucking up. someone rear ending him? that's their fault. someone doing a haphazard lane change? also their fault.

you're forgetting the critical mass creed: we aren't disrupting traffic, we are traffic. point being, it's something on the road trying to get to point B; why does it only become traffic when it's going a certain speed or looks a certain way?

I like how someone else's impatience and resulting poor decision (attempting to change lanes and bypass traffic) becomes the responsibility of the Buick.

Cars are inherently dangerous, they kill more people than guns, the war in Iraq and Aids...yet no one is protesting, marching, or running marathons against them.

I have to disagree with the above comment. If there is no posted minimum speed, then there are no restrictions as to pedaled vehicle road access. There is no inherent right to drive at the posted maximum speed.

As far as traffic goes, one would have to pass this vehicle much like one passes buses, tractors or any other slow moving vehicle. Legally, the responsibility is on the vehicle in the rear.

YES!!! This is my all time favorite Treehugger story. In the states, there are a few traffic infractions I can think of that apply, but nothing worse than j-walking. In fact, with one of those red reflective "slow vehicle" triangle things on the back (like on Amish buggies), I think it would be legal. TOTALLY WORTH IT ! ! ! ! !

ML wrote: "Other vehicles could easily have easily rear-ended him and his friends, or caused other accidents when out of frustration they attempted to change lanes and bypass his vehicle." - (like they do with other cyclists)

That is correct Micheal Long;

Indeed other vehicles could have rear-ended this human powered vehicle! After all, without an exhaust plume this car must have been nearly invisible! How are drivers supposed pay attention to subtle details such as that AND talk on their cell phones?!

Pity those poor drivers with a keen enough eye to actually spot the pedal-powered Buick! How could they NOT be forced to road-rage and careen into oncoming traffic or perhaps up onto the sidewalk?! They certainly wouldn't be to blame, since Michel de Broin clearly must be solely responsible for the actions of all other vehicle operators around him!

Honestly I believe the only thing Michel de Broin failed to do to meet the requirements of the Ontario traffic act was to hang a slow moving vehicle sign on the back of the car. http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/smvs.htm It's really no different than horse drawn carriages which are allowed to operate on public roads.

I have to disagree with Michael's point. The HTA clearly declares several points towards the operation of slow moving vehicles on the roadways. This includes Horses, Bicycles, and Automobiles. The operators of these slow moving vehicles do have right of way over the entire lane of traffic and should move to the right only when they deem its safe to do so. This is why we (theoretically) have a maximum speed limit - we're allowed to operate within that limit.

When you operate a vehicle at a higher rate of speed you are responsible for passing safely.

I'm not sure that this is really "safe" as safety is kind of a relative term, but to say it's unsafe since it doesn't go with the flow of traffic is to say waling and bicycles are unsafe and create a hazard to drivers.

any body that rear ends a car the size of a Buick needs to have their license revoked since they obviously weren't paying attention

Last time I checked with GM, a Buick was a motor vehicle, and if that Buick had it's motor removed, that would make it an unsafe vehicle, and I don't know how it could be insured?

Unnecessary slow driving prohibited

132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1).

Well at least the judge possessed common sense. And the officer who stopped them was surprisingly polite about it too. All in all it seemed to end well for both artist and environment =)

As far as the motor vehicle point, it does not state what type of motor it has to be, so they removed the internal combustion motor which used gasoline and replaced it with a smaller motor which used gears and pedaling.

I believe it was down a regular street, look in the picture, it looks like a group of bicyclists are coming down the street in the opposite direction. They are probably traveling in a wider line than a car, why isn't that cop going to stop them? Probably like the US, a highway is a different kind of road which posts a minimum speed limit.

Too funny!

Seriously though a lighter version would be great for group commuting in the winter.