General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[innsertnamehere]

One can be hopeful. The experience with the Adelaide/Richmond lanes was that despite losing a lane for cars, their travel times remained about the same or even better!

one could argue however that there was a road capacity reduction of 1/4 for Richmond / Adelaide (4 to 3 lanes), while Bloor will see a capacity reduction of 1/2...

 

[the lemur]

I have to say, I'm disappointed by the timidity of the options presented for the Bloor bike lane pilot. The biggest issue is that the lanes need to be physically separated. Not on one side, but on both sides. Anyone from age eight to eighty should feel safe riding there. For many people, with nothing but a painted line separating them from a car lane, they may as well be riding on the 401. I talked to some staff at the open house and they acknowledged that they disqualified the "no street parking" option because they didn't think it would fly at council. (Which is pretty sad, considering that only 10% of shoppers in the Annex come by car.)

Staff also suggested that properly separated bike lanes might be possible after the pilot, once retailers are reassured that the sky isn't falling.

I continue to amazed that the city seems to think we need pilot projects every time to explore the 'possibilities' of things that we already know don't work. Paint is not separation. (I told them as much in the survey). The proportion of those 10% that shop in the Annex by car that also park right in front of the store where they need to be must be infinitesimal.

 

[muller877]

one could argue however that there was a road capacity reduction of 1/4 for Richmond / Adelaide (4 to 3 lanes), while Bloor will see a capacity reduction of 1/2...

And the busiest areas of Richmond and Adelaide were already at 2 or 3 lanes for the longest time due to construction. So a bad base-line to compare it to

 

[the lemur]

And the busiest areas of Richmond and Adelaide were already at 2 or 3 lanes for the longest time due to construction. So a bad base-line to compare it to

Also different from Bloor in that Richmond and Adelaide are one-ways. Their capacity might have been reduced, but their throughput not as much. Before the bike lanes went in, they were the kind of one-way streets where drivers would repeatedly change lanes just for the illusion of going faster, with no discernible difference. That suggests their capacity was slightly more than absolutely necessary.

 

[LNahid2000]

Beck Taxi wants the city to enforce the law regarding Uber, but won't obey the law regarding bike lanes.

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/12/05/b...ter-line-of-cabs-caught-parking-in-bike-lane/

 

[PinkLucy]

They flout laws constantly.

 

[nfitz]

They flout laws constantly.

Nothing new there. Was crossing the street when the light turned green the other day, and I had a Becks cab trying to turn left on red across my path - he entered the intersection about the same time I did (long after his green turn light disappeared) and then started honking at me, because he had no intention of stopping. Nor did he, while I stood there in the middle of a 4-lane street! Disturbingly exactly the same (other than the taxi bit) happened the previous time I tried crossing the same intersection a couple of weeks ago - but it was TWO cars that time. Something about the Kingston/Woodbine intersection, that makes cars ignore pedestrians and streetcars. I have no idea how bikes survive on a road like that, trying to share it with these fordwits.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I want to address two issues here:

1) Cycling advocates are often advocating for the greater physical separation options but I question if they are safer. I primarily drive now but I have 15 years of cycling experience in this city and 10 years of downtown driving experience. Proximity to traffic is not the most dangerous issue in my opinion. The greater issue is visibility and merging/turning vehicles. Bi-directional and parked vehicle separated lanes reduce visibility and confuse drivers especially if they are not local drivers and not used to these modes. If the purpose of bike lanes is to make cycling safer than be careful what you wish for in these configurations.

I personally think it is illogical to use bike safety as an argument for bike lane infrastructure. The purpose of bike lanes is to encourage cycling as a mode of transportation. A worthy goal. If there are more cyclists on the roads and more cyclist who are uncomfortable cycling in mixed traffic (the supposed purpose of the lanes) accidents and injuries will rise regardless of the separation of the cyclists from mixed traffic would they not?

2) I'm surprised at the number of cycling advocates who are trying to tell business owners how they run and how to run their businesses. We may decide that the needs of bike lane infrastructure supersede their interests but have you ever run a business? Buildings and businesses have servicing and logistical (delivery etc.) transportation and parking needs beyond customers. The Annex section of Bloor Street for instance has a reasonable amount of off-street parking and rear lanes servicing that can work; however the further West you go on Bloor the less this is the case. Added costs matter. You may actually find that the addition of bike lanes will have a long-term influence on the kind of stores that exist in these areas. You're going to tell a retail owner grinding out $40,000 a year with no rear lane service shut up and don't complain we deserve bike lanes so you need to eat $4000 in extra costs? Who is progressive now?

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are "those people" who still want bicyclists to be licensed. See link to Toronto Sun. A thumbs down from me.

Toronto’s debate on whether to license bikes is turning into a vicious cycle.

City council has looked at creating a licensing system for cyclists at least four times over the past three decades — in 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2009.

Each time, council rejected it for a variety of reasons, including concerns about unsustainable administrative costs and doubts that it would change poor cycling habits.

But one woman is determined to bring the discussion back to the table.

A week ago, Tracy Chong launched a Change.org petition to “Make Cyclists Accountable on Toronto Roads.” With only 15 supporters so far, it’s clear her campaign faces a steep uphill climb.

“The petition started out based on frustration after my 67-year-old mom was knocked down by a cyclist two weeks ago,” said the 46-year-old, who works in marketing. “They just came up on the sidewalk. No injuries, but really shaken up. I had a situation where a cyclist ran into the back of my car because he was trying to accelerate into my lane. There just seems to be this sense of flagrant disrespect for the laws.”

Chong says cyclists should have to wear helmets — for the same reason drivers and passengers must wear seatbelts — and pass a road test before hopping on their two wheels. She also says the city should create a licensing system — not unlike the one in place for animals.

“If you can license 250,000 dog owners every year, 50,000 cyclists would not be that hard,” she said.

Chong says drivers and cyclists have a responsibility to each other and pedestrians.

“We are handling vehicles that can cause harm to others. I saw a mother with a stroller almost have a speeding bike bash into her at a crosswalk where she clearly had the right-of-way. Another cyclist made an illegal left-hand turn from the right lane and cut off a car. This needs to stop.”

Chong says she supports bikes and the lanes that keep them safer, but she also wants shared accountability on the road.

“If you are sharing a resource that requires you to follow the laws, then there should be enforcement that allows the law to penalize.”

**********

CYCLE TORONTO

Cycle Toronto executive director Jared Kolb says bikes are simply not in the same category as motor vehicles and don’t require licensing. He says there are already enough measures in place to penalize cyclists with poor road etiquette. Education is the key, he says, which is why his group’s Toronto Cyclists Handbook is translated into 17 languages.

WITHOUT LICENSING, HOW ARE CYCLISTS HELD RESPONSIBLE?

“Police already have that power. If you run a stop sign on a bicycle, that’s a $110 fine. If you run a stop light, that’s a $360 fine. I know people who have gotten those fines. I know people who have changed their behaviour because of those fines. Enforcement matters ... Often people ride bicycles on sidewalks because they don’t feel safe.”

BUT IF A CYCLIST IS ON THE SIDEWALK, THAT JEOPARDIZES THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS.

“If you see someone riding on the sidewalk, it’s a good sign that we have to build infrastructure in the city ... If they’re going to ride on the sidewalk, you have to go very slowly and you have to use great etiquette. You can’t blitz down the sidewalk.”

WHY WOULDN’T LICENSING WORK?

“A bicycle licence is not practical ... Education and enforcement of existing laws is totally sufficient.”

WHY AREN’T BIKES THE SAME AS CARS? WHAT ABOUT CASES WHERE BIKES HAVE STRUCK AND KILLED PEDESTRIANS?

“Every once in a while this happens, but we’re talking about 50 to 60 road users that are killed every year by motor vehicles and that is the root of the issue ... There is a risk ratio that is very important to identify. There’s a big difference between someone driving at 100 km/h with a tonne of steel vs. someone who is on a 20-pound bicycle travelling at 20 km/h.”

POLICE

Toronto Police ran a two-week crackdown in June and charged 1,151 cyclists with offences in 19 different categories. The most common was the 257 cyclists who failed to stop at a red light. Traffic services Const. Clint Stibbe said cyclists who don’t feel responsible for bad habits on the road should be aware of how police can enforce the laws.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BREAK THE RULES OF THE ROAD ON A BIKE?

“If you are convicted (under the Highway Traffic Act), it goes on your driver’s licence. If you don’t have one, police will generate a number — kind of like an account number. Also, if you get stopped and provide false information, even if you don’t have a driver’s licence, that is an arrestable offence. A lot people don’t realize that.”

HOW MUCH OF A PRIORITY IS TICKETING CYCLISTS?

“Is it something that’s done every day? Absolutely. Can I tell you that x number of tickets occurred every day? No, I can’t. But we do see offences occur all the time and it’s surprising some of the individuals you stop ... their response is, ‘So?’ As if they’re not responsible or don’t have to worry about it. Problem is, you do. Because you are a vehicle, just like a person driving a car. Problem is if there’s a collision with a car, you’re not going to do so well.”

HOW DO POLICE FEEL ABOUT LICENSING?

“As police can only enforce the laws that are in place, it’s up to the government to decide if it’s necessary, but I think the public has to realize that when they operate a bicycle they are still under those same rules as a driver.”

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO GET THE MESSAGE ACROSS?

“There’s an education portion and there’s a compliance portion from the community, because realistically, an officer could be on every street corner and if someone breaks a rule between that street corner and the next one, you can’t be everywhere.”

**********

Jacquelyn Hayward Gulati, manager of cycling infrastructure and programs:

• The city used to license bikes, beginning in 1935, but repealed the law in 1957 “because it often results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age.”
• In 1989, the city asked the province to amend the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) to require cyclists to identify themselves when stopped by police.
• A driver’s licence isn’t required in order for a cyclist to be charged under the HTA or a municipal bylaw.
• There’s a perception that having a licence plate on the back of a bicycle would enable citizens to report errant cyclists and have police issue a ticket. The trouble is, a licence plate identifies the vehicle, not the operator and police must issue tickets to the latter.
• The city rejected licensing in 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2009 because of several challenges: keeping a current and complete database, licensing children, and the fact licensing in itself won’t necessarily change cyclists’ behaviour.
• But the biggest obstacle has always been the cost to create, administer and enforce such a program. There’s never been faith licensing fees would cover the substantial cost.

**********

Councillor Jim Karygiannis, member of the licensing and standards committee:

“If you had a licence on the back of your bike, you’d be less tempted to do all these foolish things. Not only that, but if your bike gets stolen and if you register it, police will be able to find it. People will continue to do what they’re doing. (But) how are you going to enforce it? And what happens to a 16-year-old? How does insurance work? It’s a dilemma. We need better education and we need to hold bicyclists accountable. If I need a licence to drive a car and I need to learn how to drive — then (a cyclist) should do nothing less.”

Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, avid cyclist:

“It doesn’t raise money, most people don’t license their cats or dogs. So to say to people, ‘You know that bicycle that’s in your shed? You’re going to have to get a licence for it and attach it to your bike somehow,’ is just silly. It’s very bureaucratic. We all have to be a little kinder to each other and be a bit more civilized.”

Councillor Cesar Palacio, chairman of the licensing and standards committee:

“I think it would be a good idea to have a conversation with all the stakeholders to begin with, and that’s including the cycling community and all road users, but mainly the city. I think there is a need to have such a conversation. Perhaps even to look at the number of police managing pedestrians, motorists and cyclists. A cyclist can just walk away from an incident and this is particularly troubling. There needs to be a level of accountability for cyclists, as well.”

 

[smably]

I personally think it is illogical to use bike safety as an argument for bike lane infrastructure. The purpose of bike lanes is to encourage cycling as a mode of transportation. A worthy goal. If there are more cyclists on the roads and more cyclist who are uncomfortable cycling in mixed traffic (the supposed purpose of the lanes) accidents and injuries will rise regardless of the separation of the cyclists from mixed traffic would they not?

Evidence says otherwise -- the more people on bikes, the lower injury rates go. This holds true almost everywhere -- e.g., NYC:


If you want to improve bike safety, the best thing you can do is get lots of people biking. How do you get people biking? Make them feel safe. Where do people feel safe biking? Where there's good infrastructure with physical separation.

I'm surprised at the number of cycling advocates who are trying to tell business owners how they run and how to run their businesses.

I don't think anyone is doing that. Certainly there are legitimate servicing issues that have to be addressed. But the political calculus almost always comes down to on-street parking, and there is good evidence that business owners vastly overestimate the number of customers who arrive by car. That's what advocates for better cycling infrastructure are fighting against. It's also worth noting that cyclists spend more than drivers, so even if costs increase, business is likely to increase too.

 

[the lemur]

I want to address two issues here:

1) Cycling advocates are often advocating for the greater physical separation options but I question if they are safer. I primarily drive now but I have 15 years of cycling experience in this city and 10 years of downtown driving experience. Proximity to traffic is not the most dangerous issue in my opinion. The greater issue is visibility and merging/turning vehicles. Bi-directional and parked vehicle separated lanes reduce visibility and confuse drivers especially if they are not local drivers and not used to these modes. If the purpose of bike lanes is to make cycling safer than be careful what you wish for in these configurations.

I personally think it is illogical to use bike safety as an argument for bike lane infrastructure. The purpose of bike lanes is to encourage cycling as a mode of transportation. A worthy goal. If there are more cyclists on the roads and more cyclist who are uncomfortable cycling in mixed traffic (the supposed purpose of the lanes) accidents and injuries will rise regardless of the separation of the cyclists from mixed traffic would they not?

2) I'm surprised at the number of cycling advocates who are trying to tell business owners how they run and how to run their businesses. We may decide that the needs of bike lane infrastructure supersede their interests but have you ever run a business? Buildings and businesses have servicing and logistical (delivery etc.) transportation and parking needs beyond customers. The Annex section of Bloor Street for instance has a reasonable amount of off-street parking and rear lanes servicing that can work; however the further West you go on Bloor the less this is the case. Added costs matter. You may actually find that the addition of bike lanes will have a long-term influence on the kind of stores that exist in these areas. You're going to tell a retail owner grinding out $40,000 a year with no rear lane service shut up and don't complain we deserve bike lanes so you need to eat $4000 in extra costs? Who is progressive now?

Visibility and merging/turning vehicles as they relate to car/bike conflicts are reasons in themselves to provide separated bike infrastructure, at least - or especially - at intersections. Proximity to other traffic certainly is a factor right now where the city expects people to ride alongside parked cars that may emerge from parking spaces without the driver checking sufficiently, or whose doors may be flung open without the occupant checking. The latter might still happen if parked cars separate bike lanes from the rest of the road, i.e., the bike lane is between the parked cars and the sidewalk, but the consequences are less serious.

If bike lanes are there to encourage cycling, they will encourage people who don't feel safe otherwise. More cyclists doesn't necessarily translate to more collisions/injuries - for one thing, the more bikes there are, the more that drivers will notice them and pay attention.

As to the issue of deliveries, smably already addressed the parking illusion; another factor is that businesses continue to receive front-door deliveries without blocking bike lanes - it's already happening .

 

[the lemur]

There are "those people" who still want bicyclists to be licensed. See link to Toronto Sun. A thumbs down from me.

Licensing isn't (unfortunately) going to stop some cyclists from going up on the sidewalk - that's a matter of enforcing an existing law. Licensing drivers sure as hell doesn't stop them driving the wrong way down my street or cutting off pedestrians on the crosswalk when they make right turns. I had the city put up one of those giant MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs. It doesn't help (certainly not since someone bent it with a truck).

 

[the lemur]

Nothing new there. Was crossing the street when the light turned green the other day, and I had a Becks cab trying to turn left on red across my path - he entered the intersection about the same time I did (long after his green turn light disappeared) and then started honking at me, because he had no intention of stopping. Nor did he, while I stood there in the middle of a 4-lane street! Disturbingly exactly the same (other than the taxi bit) happened the previous time I tried crossing the same intersection a couple of weeks ago - but it was TWO cars that time. Something about the Kingston/Woodbine intersection, that makes cars ignore pedestrians and streetcars. I have no idea how bikes survive on a road like that, trying to share it with these fordwits.

They really do seem to be the worst of all the taxi companies (or maybe it just seems that way because they are so numerous). I haven't seen anywhere near as many drivers from other companies pull sudden U-turns, get pulled over for safety infractions such as bald tires, or have lousy traffic skills (such as staying the curb lane on a street known for on-street parking). They talk about how they address issues with their drivers, but nothing ever changes and they block people on Twitter just for criticizing their drivers.

 

[BMO]

I want to address two issues here:

1) Cycling advocates are often advocating for the greater physical separation options but I question if they are safer. I primarily drive now but I have 15 years of cycling experience in this city and 10 years of downtown driving experience. Proximity to traffic is not the most dangerous issue in my opinion. The greater issue is visibility and merging/turning vehicles. Bi-directional and parked vehicle separated lanes reduce visibility and confuse drivers especially if they are not local drivers and not used to these modes. If the purpose of bike lanes is to make cycling safer than be careful what you wish for in these configurations.

I personally think it is illogical to use bike safety as an argument for bike lane infrastructure. The purpose of bike lanes is to encourage cycling as a mode of transportation. A worthy goal. If there are more cyclists on the roads and more cyclist who are uncomfortable cycling in mixed traffic (the supposed purpose of the lanes) accidents and injuries will rise regardless of the separation of the cyclists from mixed traffic would they not?

2) I'm surprised at the number of cycling advocates who are trying to tell business owners how they run and how to run their businesses. We may decide that the needs of bike lane infrastructure supersede their interests but have you ever run a business? Buildings and businesses have servicing and logistical (delivery etc.) transportation and parking needs beyond customers. The Annex section of Bloor Street for instance has a reasonable amount of off-street parking and rear lanes servicing that can work; however the further West you go on Bloor the less this is the case. Added costs matter. You may actually find that the addition of bike lanes will have a long-term influence on the kind of stores that exist in these areas. You're going to tell a retail owner grinding out $40,000 a year with no rear lane service shut up and don't complain we deserve bike lanes so you need to eat $4000 in extra costs? Who is progressive now?

Cycling advocacy in this city is almost as extreme as subway advocacy. Bikeways, bikeways, bikeways everywhere!

 

[salsa]