General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[the lemur]

The point is that this type of accident can't possibly be prevented by bike lanes. I don't know the details but the accident on Jarvis sounds like a right-angle collision where someone must have gone through a red light. The laws of physics are such that if a bike (or pedestrian) is hit by a car, the bicyclist or pedestrian will get seriously hurt and the driver will walk away.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2670789/cyclist-in-serious-condition-after-being-struck-in-west-toronto/ And there was another bike accident today near Dufferin & Bloor.

I think that the only thing that is going to prevent all these serious bike accidents is for people to stop riding bikes, and for city council to stop encouraging people to ride bikes. There have been a lot of accidents on College St and other roads with bike lanes.

Keep in mind that statistically riding a bike in Toronto is far more dangerous than being a pedestrian or driving a car. I know that serious car accidents happen all the time as do pedestrian accidents, but driving or walking are still a lot safer than riding a bike simply because the number of people who drive or walk are orders of magnitude higher.

You don't know the details, so you just invent a scenario that suits your point.

The type of bike lane that prevents collisions more than anything is SEPARATED bike lanes. The city needs to build better ones. Assuming that driving is safer and should be encouraged does nothing for congestion, and walking actually seems more dangerous than biking at the moment.

 

[ADRM]

The point is that this type of accident can't possibly be prevented by bike lanes. I don't know the details but the accident on Jarvis sounds like a right-angle collision where someone must have gone through a red light. The laws of physics are such that if a bike (or pedestrian) is hit by a car, the bicyclist or pedestrian will get seriously hurt and the driver will walk away.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2670789/cyclist-in-serious-condition-after-being-struck-in-west-toronto/ And there was another bike accident today near Dufferin & Bloor.

I think that the only thing that is going to prevent all these serious bike accidents is for people to stop riding bikes, and for city council to stop encouraging people to ride bikes. There have been a lot of accidents on College St and other roads with bike lanes.

Keep in mind that statistically riding a bike in Toronto is far more dangerous than being a pedestrian or driving a car. I know that serious car accidents happen all the time as do pedestrian accidents, but driving or walking are still a lot safer than riding a bike simply because the number of people who drive or walk are orders of magnitude higher.

I don't think anyone would refute the assertion that riding a bike is more dangerous than walking or driving, but I think any of the next logical leaps are where you're losing people. I don't totally follow the logic, myself—are you maintaining that people shouldn't ride bikes because it's the most dangerous form of transportation? If so, that's unreasonable to suggest because it'll never happen, and you can't plan cities or policy around scenarios that will never come to pass.

If the assertion is that the fact that cycling is more dangerous than other forms of transportation means we shouldn't spend money on infrastructure to mitigate the dangers, I would argue that the same assertion proves exactly the opposite, the logic being that people are going to ride bikes and it's dangerous so we ought to make it safer for them to do so.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing the argument or missing the point entirely.

 

[the lemur]

I don't think anyone would refute the assertion that riding a bike is more dangerous than walking or driving, but I think any of the next logical leaps are where you're losing people. I don't totally follow the logic, myself—are you maintaining that people shouldn't ride bikes because it's the most dangerous form of transportation? If so, that's unreasonable to suggest because it'll never happen, and you can't plan cities or policy around scenarios that will never come to pass.

If the assertion is that the fact that cycling is more dangerous than other forms of transportation means we shouldn't spend money on infrastructure to mitigate the dangers, I would argue that the same assertion proves exactly the opposite, the logic being that people are going to ride bikes and it's dangerous so we ought to make it safer for them to do so.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing the argument or missing the point entirely.

When cars first started to become popular, people thought they were insanely dangerous ... and they were partly right. But they worked to improve safety and pass laws rather than asking for driving to be banned or discouraged.

 

[rbt]

When cars first started to become popular, people thought they were insanely dangerous ... and they were partly right. But they worked to improve safety and pass laws rather than asking for driving to be banned or discouraged.

We could get a lot of mileage out of a driver training/licensing program like Denmark's or Japan's. Their standards would bring down death/injury rates both of drivers and those unlucky to be around them at the wrong time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile, in a non-world class city like New York City...

From this link:
The Pulaski Bridge Protected Bike Path Is (Finally) Open!

Today was a milestone for traveling between Brooklyn and Queens, as NYC DOT opened the Pulaski Bridge bike path to lots of cheers with a celebratory ride.

Before today, the Pulaski Bridge walking and biking path was dangerously congested, with more pedestrians and cyclists crammed on to its narrow right-of-way every year. The solution? Convert one lane of the roadway to a two-way bike lane, making the original path exclusively for walking. Read up on the project in Streetsblog's coverage of the grand opening.

If a lane of the Pulaski can be taken from cars and given to active transportation, the same can be done on other bridges. One place I'd love to see NYC DOT tackle next? The insanely crowded bike-pedestrian path on the Brooklyn Bridge is begging for a solution like this.
​

Unfortunately, Toronto has anti-bicycling bureaucrats and Councillors who would find a way to reverse this, like they did on Jarvis Street.

Would like to see them take a lane away from the 401 to build a protected bicycle lane between Avenue Road and Yonge Street, where the Yonge Boulevard Viaduct used to be. Or at the very least, build a new bridge just for bicycles and another for pedestrians between Avenue Road and Yonge Street.

 

[LNahid2000]

Some sort of bike infrastructure is needed to get past the Yonge/401 interchange. I've biked all over the city, and this was the worst intersection for biking I've experienced in Toronto. The combination of the hills, multiple onramps/offramps, and all the traffic make it pretty dangerous on a bike. I biked from Bloor to Finch on Yonge almost everyday for 4 months, and am surprised I survived!

 

[typezed]

When people learned I had biked from Scarborough to downtown they'd often ask something like, "Isn't it dangerous, aren't you afraid of being hit by a car, do you wear a helmet?". But when I would arrive by car they never asked, "Aren't you afraid of hitting and killing someone?". Always seemed backwards to me. With the speeds travelled, the force of the vehicle, distractions, blindspots, weather, the impatience of other drivers, disaster from a moment's miscalculation always feels a possibility when driving. The solution for many? Buy the bigger vehicle, so the other guy's the loser. It's a sickness.

 

[Armour]

When people learned I had biked from Scarborough to downtown they'd often ask something like, "Isn't it dangerous, aren't you afraid of being hit by a car, do you wear a helmet?". But when I would arrive by car they never asked, "Aren't you afraid of hitting and killing someone?". Always seemed backwards to me. With the speeds travelled, the force of the vehicle, distractions, blindspots, weather, the impatience of other drivers, disaster from a moment's miscalculation always feels a possibility when driving. The solution for many? Buy the bigger vehicle, so the other guy's the loser. It's a sickness.

It's a sickness?

At least if one is in a vehicle and get into an accident, they have a better chance of surviving. If you're on a bike and a car hits you, it's bye bye for the cyclist.

 

[the lemur]

It's a sickness?

At least if one is in a vehicle and get into an accident, they have a better chance of surviving. If you're on a bike and a car hits you, it's bye bye for the cyclist.

"Accident" ... so I guess we should all drive and assume collisions are inevitable. The survivability of a collision depends on speed, same as with pedestrians vs cars. Protected lanes would help. As it is, I find biking involves a higher level of alertness in any case.

 

[ShonTron]

Some sort of bike infrastructure is needed to get past the Yonge/401 interchange. I've biked all over the city, and this was the worst intersection for biking I've experienced in Toronto. The combination of the hills, multiple onramps/offramps, and all the traffic make it pretty dangerous on a bike. I biked from Bloor to Finch on Yonge almost everyday for 4 months, and am surprised I survived!

The City owns the Don Valley Golf Course. I think a multi-use trail, connecting to Earl Bales Park, would be a great first step. There are ways of making a multi-use trail through a golf course safe for everyone -- Hamilton does this through a municipal golf course to connect the Hamilton-Brantford trail through to Downtown, avoiding a dangerous section of Aberdeen Avenue by the TH&B/CP yards.

 

[David Brake]

The Bloor bike lanes campaign just asked its supporters to phone John Tory's office today to show their support. What do you think? I would have thought this would just annoy hizzoner. The vote ICYMI is Wednesday...

 

[ADRM]

The Bloor bike lanes campaign just asked its supporters to phone John Tory's office today to show their support. What do you think? I would have thought this would just annoy hizzoner. The vote ICYMI is Wednesday...

Yeah, I'm always all for optimistic civic mindedness but that seems an odd advocacy choice for me—why not "here's the link to figure out who your councillor is; call her or him and talk some sense into them"?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The big problem are the suburban auto-centric Councillors, who are addicted to the automobile. Today, that would include Denzil Minnan-Wong and others in his clique. In the past, that would have included the Fords.

They ignore the fact that roads were originally built for people and horses. Then came streetcars and bicycles. Last were the automobiles, who expropriated the roads for only themselves.

 

[salsa]

The Bloor bike lanes campaign just asked its supporters to phone John Tory's office today to show their support. What do you think? I would have thought this would just annoy hizzoner. The vote ICYMI is Wednesday...

I thought Tory already supports the bike lanes, so I don't see the need to have to call his office.

 

[ADRM]

It's been an extremely tepid show of support from him and, at nearly every corner, he's been very quick to point out that he'll advocate for their swift removal if the pilot is unsuccessful. I imagine the strategy is also intended to firm up his support in such a way that he'd spend some political capital trying to get fence-sitting councillors or those tepidly opposed to the pilot to support it, but I'm quite skeptical that'd happen.