Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

[Cobra]

I agree with changing the thread name. Like him, hate him or despise him, the man is dead. He didnt dismantle the network despite his dislike of it. Time to move on.

 

[the lemur]

Well, taken at face value (which is about as inaccurate as it gets, but I will humour it for soundbite), it is "responsible" for 1/3 of the accidents. How about the other 2/3s? Scrap the car, save the cyclist?

It would do well from someone employed by an org whose mantra is "scrap the creditor, save the paper".

AoD

Strobel is basically an Internet comment board troll given his own column.

 

[the lemur]

Its not just drivers, its pedestrians.

I've seen on several occasions pedestrians get insanely close to the streetcars as they pass.

There should be a simple and light fence separating the streetcar system from the pedestrian walkway next to it.

They also don't seem to realize that when cyclists have a green light, they will go through that green light. And if you walk across the cycle track, especially without looking, you will get hit.

 

[aquateam]

That entire articles sounds sarcastic to me.

And isn't there a study that say a good portion of cyclist accidents are at the fault of cyclists?

Yes, the article is tongue-in-cheek.

According to this study of collisions in Vancouver, the overwhelming majority of the time that fault was determined, it belonged to the driver. However, doorings were responsible for many of those collisions, which may have brought up the numbers. This study, in the UK, covers a broader range of areas and assigns blame to cyclists in ~20% of the cases. This study, from Hawaii, assigns blame to cyclists in 17% of the cases.

How about licensing cycling in Toronto? If they're going to share the road with licensed car drivers, they should learn the traffic rules too.

The city actually used to license bikes. They stopped in 1957 because it was impractical.

The real question is: what benefit does licensing bicycles have when compared to the enormous cost of instituting the necessary bureaucracy. The police can already ticket/fine/arrest cyclists based on their drivers licenses or health card. And cyclists can register their bikes in case they get stolen.

Any fiscal conservative should oppose bicycle licensing on the grounds that it is a nanny-state expansion of government bureaucracy in a province with the largest sub-sovereign debt in the world.

When was the last time you saw a bike properly stop at a stop sign, or not dangerously pass right turning cars on the right at intersections.

In many jurisdictions, like (soon) Quebec, bikes are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs. It's called the "Idaho stop". Since the main purpose of most stop signs is to slow cars in residential areas, it makes sense to allow cyclists to treat them as yield signs, since they already travel slowly and are not going to kill any pedestrians by colliding with them at high speeds. A study on the Idaho stop showed that cyclist fatalities dropped 14% following the law's adoption, the reason given being that cyclists started choosing residential routes instead of the faster but more accident-prone arterial routes.

As for the passing cars on the right at intersections, that's actually what the law requires cyclists to do, since they are supposed to remain within a meter of the curb unless there is an obstruction. The cyclist has right of way in that circumstance, just like a pedestrian crossing would.

 

[the lemur]

As for the passing cars on the right at intersections, that's actually what the law requires cyclists to do, since they are supposed to remain within a meter of the curb unless there is an obstruction. The cyclist has right of way in that circumstance, just like a pedestrian crossing would.

I'm pretty sure the intent of the 'within 1 m of the curb' rule is not for cyclists to be between the curb and right-turning cars. The right-of-way that a cyclist has over a right-turning car at an intersection is subject to the order in which both arrive at the intersection. It doesn't mean go in front of the car that's turning, for one thing.

 

[aquateam]

I'm pretty sure the intent of the 'within 1 m of the curb' rule is not for cyclists to be between the curb and right-turning cars. The right-of-way that a cyclist has over a right-turning car at an intersection is subject to the order in which both arrive at the intersection. It doesn't mean go in front of the car that's turning, for one thing.

So I looked this up. My logic was that, at a green light before making a right turn the car has to make sure that no pedestrians or cyclists are either in the intersection or about to enter the intersection.

According to Ontario Transportation Ministry spokesperson Bob Nichols:

There are responsibilities placed both on drivers when making right turns and on cyclists when passing a vehicle to the right. Requirements for motorists or cyclists to yield depend on the particular circumstances encountered.

The rules-of-the-road state that when a motor vehicle driver plans to turn right, they must signal and only make the movement when safe to do so, using due care and attention to avoid a collision. For the turn to be safe, a driver should check for other motor vehicles as well as cyclists and pedestrians who could potentially enter the path of their turn.

The cyclist should also follow the law. Passing on the right is allowed where there is unobstructed pavement for two vehicles to pass. The pass must only be made when safe to do so. Therefore, a cyclist passing a vehicle ahead that is clearly signaling a right turn ? which might block their path at any time ? would not be making a ?pass in safety.?

Municipal bylaws govern bike lane use. Most municipalities follow the Transportation Association of Canada’s guidelines for bicycle lane design. At an intersection, the solid line of the bicycle lane becomes a dashed line to warn motorists they are crossing into the bicycle lane. The dashed line also serves to alert cyclists that there may be turning vehicles crossing their path.

The context that I normally bike in, though, is that there is a bike lane on the right, so when cars come to a stop to the left of it, turning right is similar to cutting off a lane of through traffic. Same situation for cars turning left with a left-lane cycle track (like on de Maisonneuve).

So in that context, until the driver has "taken control" of the bike lane (i.e. moved into the bike lane) to make a right turn, they should give priority to the straight traffic to their right.

The last time I saw a collision between a car turning right on a green (my taxi) and a cyclist was at Scarlett and Eglinton, where the bike lane is part of the marked crossing.

But I was wrong for contexts where there is only a general traffic lane on the right. I normally pass left there too if there isn't much space, but I thought I was breaking the rules by doing that.

 

[Zach6668]

That's true for basic bike lanes when they are dashed at intersections. Cycle tracks (Richmond, Adelaide, Sherbourne, etc), the driver has to yield to cyclists approaching from the rear.

It's also true for off-street MUP crossings which are signalized and striped, which are treated similar to the pedestrian crossing. Cars must give the ROW.

 

[nfitz]

Really?

That was 88 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that means little to nothing to people schleping on a streetcar today.

Au contraire. The streetcar service on my street has changed little since then. Not everyone only rides the 510 ...

As for the thread title - thread really should be closed. It was a 2010 election thread. There's other threads.

 

[DSC]

Au contraire. The thread title - thread really should be closed. It was a 2010 election thread. There's other threads.

Agreed! It was a nightmare era and is over, until the next time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Ford Nation (maybe not in name, but in thought) still wants to rule that the bus is superior to the streetcar, when it's not.

 

[TransitBart]

We should move on. Even Rob Ford has moved on. This is a tired ad hominem argument and we are all smaller for continuing the discussion. His mayoralty ended two years ago and sadly his life four months ago regardless of what we thought of his policies or lack of them.

The challenge is on to seize the moment and create a brighter transit future for this great city after years of politicking and lack of decision making. May the best ideas prevail. May there be vision.

Remember, perfect is the enemy of good. If we all feel we have compromised somewhere, then we have a solution that is probably good.

Remember also Chancellor Otto von Bismark's comment - "Politics is the art of the possible." In this regard, in Toronto, never have truer words been spoken.

 

[TransitBart]

That's true for basic bike lanes when they are dashed at intersections. Cycle tracks (Richmond, Adelaide, Sherbourne, etc), the driver has to yield to cyclists approaching from the rear.

It's also true for off-street MUP crossings which are signalized and striped, which are treated similar to the pedestrian crossing. Cars must give the ROW.

What is a MUP crossing? Please explain.

 

[drum118]

Au contraire. The streetcar service on my street has changed little since then. Not everyone only rides the 510 ...

As for the thread title - thread really should be closed. It was a 2010 election thread. There's other threads.

I agreed with the locking of the thread since Ford is no longer with use and there are a number of other threads where things can be posted related to streetcars. There are other threads for other things as well that are being posted here.

 

[Johnny Au]

I agreed with the locking of the thread since Ford is no longer with use and there are a number of other threads where things can be posted related to streetcars. There are other threads for other things as well that are being posted here.

The thread served its course. As much as I don't like him, he is dead and streetcars still run in Toronto, right down to the TTC opening a new streetcar line shortly after his death.

In short, Rob Ford's life is finished and this thread is too.

 

[Zach6668]

What is a MUP crossing? Please explain.

MUP means Multi-use path.

Think of the one along Lakeshore in the east, where it's off-road, but crosses streets like Leslie parallel to the crosswalk. It's called something like elephant feet crossing.... Looks. Here it is next to a pedestrian crossing:

Those are typically controlled with bicycle-only lights. Drivers have to yield the right of way in these scenarios, just like they would to pedestrians.