Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[LNahid2000]

You're the one with attitude. The trouble is, many cyclists don't realize how bad their cycling is, because they act like one of the mob. I don't claim to be perfect, never have, save for in your and a few others' opinions.

My attitude comes from being tired of seeing your posts over and over in this forum where you claim to be holier than thou. That says nothing about my cycling habits.

 

[steveintoronto]

My attitude comes from being tired of seeing your posts over and over in this forum where you claim to be holier than thou. That says nothing about my cycling habits.

You're right. It says everything about your inability to assess others' observations. If your cycling is so perfect (and now who's wearing the pink cycling boots?), then you should be outraged that the loonies are spoiling it for the majority of us who are conscientious cyclists, but instead, turn a blind eye (or both) to what everyone who isn't a cyclist sees.

Are you're now claiming I didn't see what I posted earlier? That's the issue in your mind, and so you make it personal. You can't take objective observation. The most flagrant example in today's 'procession of the damned' was on Richmond, westbound of course, where it meets Bathurst. The lane turns to sharrows at that point, and vehicles must turn. Many of them, and *perfectly legally* (with caveats of looking before crossing lanes) turn across the marked sharrows. When one does, the *vast majority* of cyclists at that time swung around into the left turn lane, not even one looking, to go around the car turning right. They're out of their freakin' minds, let alone a danger to others on the road. But of course, according to you, things like that don't happen. That was just one a litany of occurrences I witnessed of *frantic* cycling.

I'm wondering if *any* design of bike lanes can accommodate that type of behaviour? And should it? But of course, you see no evil, speak no evil (save to others who see and hear it) and are unaware of any evil.

Fascinating...

Here's what got you so upset, and then to claim I was being "Holier than Thou":

I just cycled from Union to the Junction, (just got in from a Rail-Trail jaunt, detail later), and coming along Richmond, realized it has glaring design problems too, mostly as that relates to how vehicles turning right across the lane aren't given the chance to assume it before turning (solid white line breaks for two car lengths), saw a lot of very close calls. No shortage of idiot drivers, vehicular and cyclist, alike. I just stop and let the cars turn if it appears to be out of control, all the cyclists then start dinging their bells. And then they all swing around the turning car, not letting it complete the turn safely, into other lanes, none of them look. Or even care.

It does not bode well at all for this city ever achieving the finesse and protocol of the American cities, let alone the Dutch or Danes.

So let's distill that down to this, the only possible quibble you might have:
[ I just stop and let the cars turn if it appears to be out of control, all the cyclists then start dinging their bells. And then they all swing around the turning car, not letting it complete the turn safely, into other lanes, none of them look. Or even care.]
That's a fact. You have a problem with that?

I did a sensible and rational thing, I stopped to let the car *take his legal course* and the others not only wouldn't stop, they rang their bells and swerved into the left turn lane with traffic moving, without even a glance over their shoulders.

And that's all about my ego? C'mon, you're a feakin' loser who not only doesn't know the rules of the road, you're blind to those that do.

 

[LNahid2000]

No time to read your latest essay...I'm enjoying my weekend. Briefly skimmed it and found your last paragraph hilarious considering you know nothing about me. I guess I'll just ignore your posts from now on.

 

[steveintoronto]

No time to read your latest essay...I'm enjoying my weekend. Briefly skimmed it and found your last paragraph hilarious considering you know nothing about me. I guess I'll just ignore your posts from now on.

lol...and not an answer on what I observed. In your mind, these things don't happen. You make that point clearly. I observe it happening on many cycle lanes, which brings us back to Bloor. It's a poor design, and it *exacerbates* the behaviour that 2000 refuses to agree occurs, let alone discuss.

Which raises a technical legal question on solid white lines that denote cycle lanes: If it is illegal for motorized vehicles to cross them (exceptions being municipal, emergency and delivery vehicles), does same apply to cyclists in their lanes? Is crossing that white line, except where broken, an offence? Because that is rampant, especially in the constrained Bloor lanes.

It's yet another legal conundrum the City is going to have to address.

This if for BC, but the Ont HTA states much the same:

The average driver is often mystified by the most basic traffic guidelines: painted pavement lines.

Here are some basic rules and some not-so-well understood meanings of traffic-line law.

White lines separate traffic travelling in the same direction.

When the white line separating traffic lanes is solid, it is not legal to cross such a line to change lanes. These solid white lines often precede an intersection with a marked crosswalk. Vehicular traffic is forbidden to change lanes for the protection and safety of the pedestrians wishing to cross the street in the crosswalk.

These solid lines also discourage lane-changing in an intersection, which is not technically illegal, but unsafe all the same. It is very important for vehicle drivers to stay in their lane when crossing an intersection. Visibility for left turners is often limited and vehicles that pass on the right side in particular are hidden from oncoming cars, bikes and pedestrians. Solid white lines are also painted on dramatic road curves to prevent blind-corner passes and lane changes.

When a white solid line separates the through lane from the road shoulder, drivers are not permitted to pass other traffic on the right. Where no such white solid line exists, separating through traffic from the road shoulder, all traffic is legally permitted to pass on the right, if obstructed or delayed by a left turning vehicle, provided it does not leave the normal paved portion of the road. It is legal but unsafe, except at a greatly reduced speed.

Drivers are not permitted by law to merge onto a highway by crossing a solid white line, or in other words merge earlier than coming to a broken or dashed white line. The same rule applies when leaving a freeway.

Drivers are not permitted to exit the freeway until there is a broken line or there is a clearly visible exit lane. Drivers are also not legally able to infringe on a bike lane designated by parallel white solid lines except to enter or exit a parking space. They must wait until there is a dashed white line formation in order to turn or change lanes, enter or leave the road.[...]

http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/how-many-know-what-those-road-lines-mean-2

 

[steveintoronto]

Lis: As I've stated a number of times, I'm highly envious not only of the Dutch (and Danish) infrastructure, but also how the Dutch comport themselves on the lanes and the roads. The more I think about Toronto's (and much of Canada's) urban cycling infrastructure and cyclists' habits, I'm starting to wonder if cycle lanes, especially like those on Bloor, are inherently incompatible with motorized vehicles.

I kept looking at your pic posted. In my visits back to the UK over the decades, I 'lost my nerve' using the roundabouts. The Anglo drivers themselves have lost the ability (for the most part) to do what's necessary to make them work, and what's absolutely necessary is signalling every intention. It just doesn't happen the way it used to, and any cyclist using the roundabouts is at high risk of getting hit, through absolutely no fault of their own.

So I started digging on Dutch cycling law, you'd posted earlier on 'Dutch cycling signs', and lo and behold:

[...]
Traffic regulations for cyclists
What side of the road do I cycle on?
Like all traffic, cyclists have to keep to the right side of the road.

Must I always cycle on the cycle path?
No, you don’t always have to cycle on the cycle path. There are cycle paths that are compulsory and there are cycle paths that are optional. They are signed with different road signs. Cycle lanes are always compulsory.

'Fietspad' is the Dutch word for cycle path. Left: road sign for a compulsory cycle path. Right: road sign for an optional cycle path. Photos © Holland-Cycling.com
[...]

http://www.holland-cycling.com/tips-and-info/safety/traffic-rules-and-regulations-for-cyclists

That site has a link to attached file. There's a lot of reading to do there, but it's clear: In Holland (and I would presume Denmark and other nations too) it's not just the infrastructure that enhances good cycling, it's the social adaptation to the whole concept of cycling.

Just watching your linked vid now. It's exactly on that point! In fact, they illustrate the problem with the North Am practices (it appears to be New York shown), and how *prone* they are to causing accidents.

More reference later.

 

[steveintoronto]

Cycled the Bloor lanes out and back an hour ago. I almost got doored twice (had to swerve to the sidewalk to miss them, thank God for fast reflexes). Bollards aren't going to work, even if they do install the rest. Drivers are *still* parking well inside of the buffer, and many are jockeying *between* the bollards, which are spaced more than a car-length apart, to park on or over the inside line: On the cycle lane. Even those up against the bollards swing their doors out suddenly onto the bike lane.

It's got to be concrete curbs, albeit with spaces every so often to allow wheelchairs and cycles to cross over the street. If the City insists on bollards, then at least double the number of them, halve the interval such that cars can't jockey to park between them at each end.

 

[reaperexpress]

I rode the Bloor lanes a few times this week, and the general premise is really good, but I found two main issues.

1. The parking lane is not wide enough for a car to park in. As a result, where there are no bollards, drivers park into the buffer and consequently their doors can infringe on the bike lane. Even where there are bollards they still park a bit beyond the demarcated parking space.

2. West of Spadina, the bike lanes are also way too narrow for overtaking, which results in queues building up behind slower riders until intersections where people overtake using the absence of bollards in the buffer zone. It seems to me that that's the least safe place to be overtaking since there's other stuff to be watching out for.

Both of these issues would be resolved by a simple change: eliminate the buffer and bollards on the side of the street without parking, and reallocate the freed-up space to the bike lane and parking lane on the other side of the street. The side of the street without parking would now have the opportunity to overtake in any gap in traffic and the loss of separation isn't really a comfort issue since traffic on Bloor tends to move slowly anyway. Meanwhile, the side with parking would be wide enough for overtaking within the protected lane, and there would be less risk of car doors infringing into

Current (estimated dimensions)

My proposal:

 

[steveintoronto]

Both of these issues would be resolved by a simple change: eliminate the buffer and bollards on the side of the street without parking, and reallocate the freed-up space to the bike lane and parking lane on the other side of the street. The side of the street without parking would now have the opportunity to overtake in any gap in traffic and the loss of separation isn't really a comfort issue since traffic on Bloor tends to move slowly anyway. Meanwhile, the side with parking would be wide enough for overtaking within the protected lane, and there would be less risk of car doors infringing into

Reaper:
Excellent observations. I'm too tired to offer an objective critique of your details, will do so tomorrow, but subjectively, we entirely agree. So do some others I've spoken with.

There's not much space to work with on Bloor, and frugality in one area produces more for the other where it's needed more.

I talked to Cycle Toronto people at Yonge and Shuter today, no-one really knew how to access the hierarchy of accountability for feedback, and there's issues, even though the City's web blurb says will be addressed later, that *must* be addressed now, or this becomes a failure.

Some posters seem to think it's being negative to state observations of serious shortcomings. It isn't, it's creative criticism to get this right, and hopefully before anyone is seriously hurt.

More tomorrow. One quick point: The bollards, as is, aren't working. A curb is needed, but City's website (I'll link tomorrow) discounts that possibility. They're going to have to think again! And soon. In ways, it's more dangerous now than it was before.

I'm contacting Cressy's office tomorrow.

 

[salsa]

eliminate the buffer and bollards on the side of the street without parking, and reallocate the freed-up space to the bike lane and parking lane on the other side of the street. The side of the street without parking would now have the opportunity to overtake in any gap in traffic and the loss of separation isn't really a comfort issue since traffic on Bloor tends to move slowly anyway.

It's not just a comfort issue. Separation is also supposed to stop this from happening:

 

[reaperexpress]

It's not just a comfort issue. Separation is also supposed to stop this from happening:

Yes, that is the obvious tradeoff. But I think the situation on the other side of the street is so unacceptable that the risk of increased infringement on this side is worth it, especially when you consider the other issues it eliminates regarding bollards on a narrow bike lane.

 

[PinkLucy]

If only we could get rid of on street parking.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes, that is the obvious tradeoff. But I think the situation on the other side of the street is so unacceptable that the risk of increased infringement on this side is worth it,

No matter what is done, there's large trade-offs, but I agree fully with Reaper on this. I might yet disagree on width of parking, going to have to have a close look at that, but considered that first time I cycle the length, and then thought there was adequate width there, if not ample.

The psychology of the parking side lane with bollards is that 'you are safe from getting doored'. Far from it! It actually sets you up to be *more likely to be doored* since you are channeled in a single lane of minimum width, much of the gutter is in poor condition, you tend to centre in the lane, concentration is focused on navigating it, and it takes an *undue effort* to also watch for some bimbo throwing their passenger side doors open, or more likely, a child or person of less competence even than a driver. The driver has a responsibility when opening their door onto traffic (whether complied with or not is another matter) and passengers have a much less defined responsibility under the HTA, and just plain common sense. The way to address that characteristic is to *guarantee the cycle lanes can't be impinged by opening doors*. I almost got doored twice in one stretch a few days back. All that saved me was my sixth sense being on edge.

There's also a problem of pedestrians stepping off the curb nonchalantly, but at least you can see them approaching to do that in most cases. Doors fly open in less than a second in many cases. There's no defence in many instances.

There are many technical glitches with the lanes, but *by far* the worst is the awful parking by many drivers who don't know the perimeter of their cars, or just don't care. *At the very least*....the City can install more bollards, suffice that it makes it impossible to jockey in between them as is now happening (where the bollards even are, they still haven't installed them all). Drives assume they're markers to park between. They're not, as we all know.

A second major flaw is the vehicle turning gaps in the solid white line. Note in Salsa's pic above the absurdity of the amount of broken line to allow the vehicle to turn. What is interesting is the 'Yield' aspect of the sign on the post. That's new! Or if it isn't, I haven't noticed them, and sure as hell, motorists haven't and aren't either. Some drivers are inherently skilled, and know the protocol for crossing lanes, most aren't. (Albeit this and all the other intersections marked similar are legal absurdities under the HTA. The bike lane is a *LANE* in all legal senses, something I'll discuss with Cressy if I get a one-on-one discussion with him. Toronto is far from the first municipality to get this so wrong. A change in the Act is necessary to make Toronto and others conform. I doubt anyone has discussed this with Queen's Park)

In my discussion with Cycle Toronto's rep yesterday, he had little idea of the legal implications of a 'Solid White Line' and what it means for both motorists and cyclists. I'll post that again later.

The use of curbs appears to be something that the City is going to have to consider, and not just the regular bolt-down ones, but asymmetrically contoured ones, so that if a cyclist has to do an emergency swerve to avoid a pedestrian lunging into the lane from the sidewalk, the cyclist is launched over the curb, not tripped.

As it stands, every aspect of this 'experiment' is a compromise. As to why something so inherently compromised is used as "the example for future lanes" is beyond troubling. It's an experiment doomed to fail.

The very least they can do is double the amount of bollards, erect (even if temporary) larger signs instructing drivers of what is expected of them, and start fine-tuning the design *now*...not after someone's life is forever altered by being set-up to get doored.

 

[LNahid2000]

It's pretty obvious that it being illegal to cross the solid white line does not apply to cyclists. If it did, cyclists wouldn't be able to make a left turn onto many streets that intersect with Bloor. Examples when going westbound include Devonshire Pl, Major St, and Montrose Ave. Cyclists also would not be able to make a vehicular left turn (by using the left turn lane) at many intersections since the solid white line extends to the intersection. All city of Toronto documentation regarding bike lanes also only mentions that motorists should not cross the solid white line, and says nothing about cyclists crossing the solid white line.

 

[steveintoronto]

All city of Toronto documentation regarding bike lanes also only mentions that motorists should not cross the solid white line, and says nothing about cyclists crossing the solid white line.

Just mentioned that in an eml to Cnclrs Cressy and Layton.

What the City says is irrelevant under the HTA! The City (and Toronto is far from being alone) had best communicate with Queen's Park to get you, many cyclists and drivers to understand exactly what the law is and who sets it.

A *cycle lane* is a *LANE* in every sense of the word under the Hwy Traffic Act.

The sooner that is understood by all, the sooner we can get some compliant safety happening.

Rules of the road
As a cyclist, you must share the road with others (e.g., cars, buses, trucks, motorcycles, etc.).

Under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA), a bicycle is a vehicle, just like a car or truck.

Cyclists:

• must obey all traffic laws
• have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers
• cannot carry passengers - if your bicycle is only meant for one person

[...]
New Cycling Changes
Q1: What are the new cycling changes following the passing of Bill 31- Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015

Effective September 1, 2015

• All drivers of motor vehicles are required to maintain a minimum distance of one metre, where practical, when passing cyclists on highways;
• Persons who improperly open or leave opened the doors of motor vehicles on highways face increased penalties (commonly known as “dooring”).
• The fine for non-compliance with bicycle light, reflector and reflective requirements will increase; and
• Cyclists are permitted to use lamps that produce intermittent flashes of red light.

New One-Metre Passing Law
Q1: What is the penalty to drivers for not leaving a minimum of one-metre distance when passing a cyclist?

The penalty for not leaving a minimum one-metre passing distance is a set fine of $85.00 plus a $5 court fee plus a $20 victim surcharge fine for a total payable of $110.00.

Drivers who contest their ticket by going to court may face a fine of up to $500 if found guilty (fine range is $60 to $500). Upon conviction, two demerit points will also be assigned against the individual’s driver record.

Q2: Will cyclists also be required to leave a minimum one-metre distance when passing a vehicle?

Cyclists are not required to leave a specific one-metre space; however, they are required to obey all the rules of the road. Cyclists who are being overtaken should turn out to the right to allow the vehicle to pass.

Q3: What if there isn’t enough room to allow for a one-metre passing distance? Can a vehicle cross the centre median line to pass the cyclist?

A motorist may, if done safely, and in compliance with the rules of the road, cross the centre line of a roadway in order to pass a cyclist. If this cannot be done, he or she must wait behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass.

Dooring
Q1. What are the new increased penalties for “dooring” offenses?

The new penalties for improper opening of a vehicle door (for driver or passenger) are a set fine of $300.00 upon conviction and 3 demerit points. The total payable fine is $365.00 ($set fine plus $60 victim fine surcharge and $5 court costs).

The current HTA set fine for “dooring” offence is $85.00 upon conviction and the total payable fine is $110 ($set fine plus $20 victim fine surcharge and $5 court fees). Additionally a conviction results in 2 demerit points being added to the individual’s driver record.

Q2. Does the “dooring” law only apply to cyclists?

Although cyclists may be the most commonly perceived road user affected by this behaviour, the “dooring” law applies to all road users and is not specific to cyclists.

The government is committed to helping ensure the safety of not only cyclists but all road users.

Increasing the Fine for Cyclists for Non-Compliance with Light, Reflector and Reflective Material Requirements
Q1. Why is the government increasing the fines for cyclists with improper light, reflector and reflective tape?

Currently, the fine for non-compliance with bicycle light, reflector and reflective requirements, carries a maximum fine of $20 which is less than the majority of set fines for motorists and cyclists.

Increasing this fine will put this violation in line with all other cycling violations.

Allowing Cyclists to use Intermittent Flashing Red Lights
Q1. Why is the government allowing cyclists to use a red flashing light? Won’t this be distracting to other road users?

Red flashing lights were previously not allowed under the Highway Traffic Act even though the majority of cyclists were already using rear lamps that produce intermittent flashes of red lightto make themselves more visible to others.

Considering the safety benefits from the use of these lights, and to prevent cyclists from potentially being charged, the Highway Traffic Act was amended to allow bicycles to use lamps that produce intermittent flashes of red lights.

A motorist may, if done safely, and in compliance with the rules of the road, cross the centre line of a roadway in order to pass a cyclist. If this cannot be done, he or she must wait behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/bicycle-safety.shtml

Obviously the line of discussion on Dutch cycling laws was missed by you. In Holland, there are *separate* rules for "dedicated cycle lanes", and dedicated signs.

Not in Ontario, or any North Am (or Anglo) jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Cyclists on a public roadway are covered by *all aspects of the HTA* except where specifically noted otherwise in the section or clause.

• 
  

 

[LNahid2000]

So as a cyclist I'm not allowed to make a left turn onto many streets that intersect Bloor then? Should I just use the general traffic lane and have motorists honk at me instead? Or am I supposed to make a dangerous u-turn when the lines become dashed? What about when a car parks in the bike lane? Am I not allowed to cross the solid line either?