News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 732     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 890     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 627     0 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

andrewpmk said:
If we want to improve safety we should build more subway lines because serious and fatal accidents on subways are extremely rare
Click to expand...
lol...I don't know who on staff is writing this, but it is boosting the response numbers to this forum.

But besides that, yes, cycling along subway tunnels would be an excellent way to reduce the accident numbers.
 
steveintoronto said:
Mandatory helmets would be a good place to start for motorists and passengers. For pedestrians too.
Click to expand...

Bubble wrap for all pedestrians or reflective suits.

187770075c7966560814b4206d035404.jpg


228970.jpg
 
Nothing is safe. We need to just all stay at home in our bubbles. Until they burst, and then we're really in trouble.
 
If suits of armour aren't your preferred flavour of bike apparel, and if you cycle in and around the Queen West neighbourhood, you may soon be (semi) in luck. From Cressy's latest newsletter:

Bellevue-Denison Contraflow Bike Lane - public meeting
As part of the Toronto's Cycling Network Plan, City staff are introducing a contraflow bike lane on Bellevue Avenue / Denison Avenue. They are holding a community consultation on November 21 to explain the proposal and get feedback.

Date: Monday, November 21, 2016
Time: 7-8pm (Open House), 8-9pm (Staff presentation and Q&A)
Location: Ryerson Community School, Gymnasium

For all the details, please see the meeting notice here. Look forward to seeing you there!

And from Google Maps:

upload_2016-11-17_13-37-37.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-11-17_13-37-37.png
    upload_2016-11-17_13-37-37.png
    176.1 KB · Views: 480
andrewpmk said:
I think the total number of accidents is what matters. An increase of 6 accidents is a very undesirable outcome. People are ignoring the fact that bicycling is a dangerous activity. These separated bike lanes might be marginally safer than no bike lanes but they are still dangerous and if they result in an increase in the number of bicyclists that ends up cancelling out any small improvement in safety. Hence you get alarming statistics like the fact that the de Maisonneuve bike lane in Montreal has the 2nd highest number of bike accidents of any road in Montreal, or the large number of serious and fatal accidents on separated bike lanes in Ottawa in the last few months.

If we want to improve safety we should build more subway lines because serious and fatal accidents on subways are extremely rare (especially on newer lines with platform screen doors). I really don't understand why city council wants to encourage bicycling given how dangerous it is. I strongly suspect that walking is significantly safer than riding a bike in separated bike lanes for instance.
Click to expand...

8owskFU.gif
 
I wonder what your take is on this issue: Safety versus the illusion of safety. I drive the new Bloor Street Bike lane corridor every day and I find the bike lanes separated by parked cars somewhat dangerous. They may give cyclists the illusion of safety; however, I find it stressful to turn at non-stop-light intersections because the site lines are so poor, especially in heavy rush-hour traffic. If I can't see the cyclists and am stressed as a driver how is this a safe configuration for cyclists? This is in contrast to the Harbord bike lanes where the parking is curb side and I find the visibility fine. Cyclists feel safer with the separated configuration; however are they? Also, will this encourage more cyclists (which is the main point of the lanes) who are not comfortable riding in mixed traffic? I can't see this increasing safety as any urban cyclist should be comfortable in mixed traffic as a minimum standard of cycling competency. For the record I am reflecting here from real world not theoretical experience. I have 17 years of cycling experience in the city including 8 years where this was my primary mode of transportation.
 
TrickyRicky said:
I wonder what your take is on this issue: Safety versus the illusion of safety. I drive the new Bloor Street Bike lane corridor every day and I find the bike lanes separated by parked cars somewhat dangerous. They may give cyclists the illusion of safety; however, I find it stressful to turn at non-stop-light intersections because the site lines are so poor, especially in heavy rush-hour traffic. If I can't see the cyclists and am stressed as a driver how is this a safe configuration for cyclists? This is in contrast to the Harbord bike lanes where the parking is curb side and I find the visibility fine. Cyclists feel safer with the separated configuration; however are they? Also, will this encourage more cyclists (which is the main point of the lanes) who are not comfortable riding in mixed traffic? I can't see this increasing safety as any urban cyclist should be comfortable in mixed traffic as a minimum standard of cycling competency. For the record I am reflecting here from real world not theoretical experience. I have 17 years of cycling experience in the city including 8 years where this was my primary mode of transportation.
Click to expand...
You completely 'get it' in the opinion of a minority of the posters.

My very first opinion of Bloor Street lanes was "this is freakin' dangerous". It's like riding a tightrope. Sightlines are terrible, turn outs for cars are not segued, the width of the lanes isn't sufficient, and a lot of cyclists, as well as motorists, drive with abandon along the lanes, not to mention motorists parking *into* the lanes between the bollards such that passengers disgorge into the bike lane. Passengers are even less aware than drivers!

The irony is that the average unaware cyclist thinks it's heaven. These are the cyclists that don't look behind before pulling out to pass, don't signal, don't stop at red lights and stop signs, and many wear a helmet as if that protects them from everything including Satan. I have been a cyclist in three nations and many more cities, and cycling distance for over forty years. (I do up to 150km on a good day in Summer, on Rail Trails mostly)

The Bloor lanes are an embarrassment by proper cycle infrastructure standards, and this is the 'model to be judged' by the City for more bike lanes? It's beyond a freakin' joke. The Bloor Lanes violate even the most basic of tenets for safe cycling design.

And in case I seem too harsh on Toronto, there are examples in this City that are vastly superior to the Bloor lanes (stretches of Hoskin and elsewhere with actual concrete barriers separating bikes from cars).
 
The only possible conclusion I can posit from the Bloor lanes example is exactly that: No parking, nada.

The proof is to be had in the very central core, Bloor between Avenue and Sherbourne. Other than a few bays to the side of the street, there is no parking, and even without bike lanes, it is vastly safer to cycle through there than along the Bloor bike lanes proper.

Is it dangerous? Absolutely, but far more *predictable* and thus safer than the so-called 'protected' lanes. Imagine a Waltz, and everyone in time to the music, dancing, swirling, joining, leaving...and yet if everyone does the dance well, the tiniest woman and the largest man don't step on each others' toes.

What the Bloor lanes lack abjectly, is choreography.

As to "No Parking"...that will come down to the local merchants. Other than a few early objectors, that's actually looking good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top