General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[typezed]

Except motorists are liable for an entire litany of fines, consequences (criminal, civil and financial) and are almost always caught.

Almost always caught?

When motorists kill or seriously injure someone? Probably. Haven't been researching the stats but I'd guess probably. Drivers do try to get away however. Hit and runs are not uncommon.

When motorists race around the city disobeying the rules of the road and recklessly endangering others? Hardly. There's very little consequence for aggressive and dangerous driving. Normal driving behaviour means travelling about 20% above posted limits and pushing yellow lights, just as an example.

 

[LNahid2000]

Except motorists are liable for an entire litany of fines, consequences (criminal, civil and financial) and are almost always caught.

Cyclists do the damage, do whatever they need to do and bike away - Bob's your uncle. They have no requirement to carry ID or anything identifying them when interacting with the police or facing fines.

Motorists can drive away from an accident as well, and I've heard of this happening quite a bit. Police can detain a cyclist who causes damage until they produce ID. I don't see the difference.

 

[LNahid2000]

That's a good idea. Only problem for me is that bike share is confined to a tiny portion of the city which I don't live in.

Expansion from 800 bikes to 1800 bikes is happening this summer, so maybe they will reach your area.

 

[the lemur]

The other issue is snow which makes Toronto a limiting place for riding a bike. 5-6 months ride time per year for me. Elevated laneways like the one on Sherbourne are ridiculous when you see the handful of bicyclists in winter.

It's not a laneway, and the purpose of raising it above the level of the road was to separate it from the rest of traffic. However, it's significantly compromised by the ease with which drivers can go on it regardless. Separated bike tracks can be plowed, which encourages winter cycling.

 

[ShonTron]

It's not a laneway, and the purpose of raising it above the level of the road was to separate it from the rest of traffic. However, it's significantly compromised by the ease with which drivers can go on it regardless. Separated bike tracks can be plowed, which encourages winter cycling.

Sherbourne was cleared of snow this season.

Winter cycling is fine, it's easy to dress for the cold. It's only bothersome when you actually get a snowfall or ice build-up. And for the most part, snow accumulation really only happens in Toronto between December 15 and March 15, with the occasional storm earlier and later. There's only a few weeks a year where commuter cycling can be difficult or miserable. I walk to work now, but I had a good heavy bike for the winter when I lived further away. I left the bike at home only during snowfall days and the slushy days.

 

[steveintoronto]

On the 'elevated cycle-ways' as first appeared in Toronto on Sherbourne, now Roncesvalles and a few other places around town which escape me right now, but I was surprised to come across them:

My first impression was that they were awkward, poorly defined area for pedestrian caution and RoW, and not a really good way to make time from point A to B.

My feeling is changing on that, by virtue of regarding them in a different way: TTC patrons are privy to walk into you path to board a streetcar, so are they on a road, no difference. Pedestrians are apt to walk on the bike path, as they would if it were demarked by white lines, but the *real advantage is*: It is clear to motorists (lol...well almost, I've seen some pylons shorn off) that it is not their space. The onus remains on the cyclist to assert their RoW if pedestrians are blocking the lane, and it is a compromise in lieu of a proper cycle lane, but it's a compromise that seems with time to be working better. Small victories can accumulate, and this is one.

 

[steveintoronto]

This is definitely an issue. I use Bike Share in the winter and my own bike in the summer to avoid ruining my bike.

Yup. As a young fool, I did it one winter, thought I could 'winter-proof' the machine. I was an idiot. You can prevent the superfluous buildup alright, but you can't prevent the pernicious migration of salt and corrosion into the bearings and every quality part of a machine.

The bottom line is this: Ride your good machine through the winter: Be prepared to acquire another one come Spring. Junkers it doesn't matter so much, they're junk to begin with, disposable after.

But for a really good machine? You don't deserve it if you're going to do that. And as a mechanic who's rebuilt many fine machines, trust me...
'sealed bearings' aren't.

 

[smuncky]

TTC patrons are privy to walk into you path to board a streetcar,

As a cyclist, you should be stopping for people getting on/off the streetcar when the doors are open. So this really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Except motorists are liable for an entire litany of fines, consequences (criminal, civil and financial) and are almost always caught.

Cyclists do the damage, do whatever they need to do and bike away - Bob's your uncle. They have no requirement to carry ID or anything identifying them when interacting with the police or facing fines.

And that's the crux I think of many a motorists ire. If we're all equal users of the road space we should be held equally responsible for our usage thereof. Cyclists (or ebiker for that matter) can kill or injure someone disembarking a streetcar, but they face little traffic enforcement for swerving past open TTC doors. Car drivers very rarely in my experience drive past school buses with flashing lights, mostly IMO due to the massive fine of $400 to $2,000 and six demerit points for first offence, and $1,000 to $4,000, six demerit points and possible jail time (up to six months) for subsequent offences, but I often see cyclists zoom right past the flashing school buses I'm waiting behind.

So, we all have stories of users of the road behaving badly in all manner of vehicles, but somehow only one (the motorized variety) has to pass a test, get insurance and face the wrath of the police and courts.

 

[Aldebaran]

" [...] but it's a compromise that seems with time to be working better. Small victories can accumulate, and this is one."

Right. Isn't life itself just a series of compromises? It's impossible to live with each other otherwise.

Small victories, albeit slower, are easier to win and last longer, if not permanently. They then become stepping stones to another small victory in the future, which would have been inconceivable without winning the first victory.
Each generation climbs on top of the shoulders of the previous generation to reach higher, sweeter fruit.

I yearn for radical breakthroughs, but I suspect it's just my selfish desire to reel in things from a timeframe outside my own. In other words, I'm frustrated with my finite lifespan — along with the small magnitude of and slow rate at which victories are won — which reduce my chances to see those big dreams turn to reality.

When it comes to city building and infrastructure projects, many members here are saddened and/or frustrated by the fact that their choices and preferences were not embraced by the city (or even taken into consideration). Do not despair. Sometimes the things you are pushing for need an intermediate, less courageous version before they can ultimately materialize. That intermediate compromise may seem weak, over-cautious, and watered down, but it is an improvement over what was there before and a step closer towards what you originally envisioned... perhaps even a prerequisite.

Many of those who fought for bike lanes in car-dominated Amsterdam in the 1970s never lived to see them turn to reality and actually enjoy them. Yet, without their efforts, they would have remained just a pipe dream.

 

[steveintoronto]

As a cyclist, you should be stopping for people getting on/off the streetcar when the doors are open. So this really shouldn't be an issue.

You fail to understand the term "privy" let alone the context: (It means they are 'privy' to their right of access)

TTC patrons are privy to walk into your path to board a streetcar, so are they on a road, no difference.

My point stands, and you reinforce it: When a streetcar stops to pick-up or detrain passengers, so must traffic on the inside lane, whether that's bike, plane, car or six-legged wombat.

 

[steveintoronto]

They then become stepping stones to another small victory in the future, which would have been inconceivable without winning the first victory.

Excellent post! I now embrace the (for want of a better description) "sidewalk shared bike lanes" of various different types. To reiterate, I didn't at first, thought they'd be a huge failure, since they were....wait for it...a *compromise*. But you're exactly right! And put my quote in exactly the context I meant. And it *is* a victory. For all the imperfections of the 'hybrid' bike paths (and on some, the yellow markers are coming adrift leaving dangerous holes agape for the unsuspecting to trip and or/crash over) the art of compromise and *accommodation* is working!

I look at it this way: For all their shortcomings, they're far better than sharing that lane with cars. On Roncesvalles, it can still be dangerous when the hybrid segments stop, drivers are focused on anything but checking their mirrors and looking before opening their doors, or pulling out from Joe's Consumer Emporium.

I was a nay-sayer originally on the Bloor experiment, but now it's been made clear to me that parking will be on the outside of the bike lanes, I'm all for it. This is not for the 'Lance Wannabes'...let them fight with the cars...live by the sword, die by it, but it will offer relatively safe dependable cycling at a measured pace.

That alone is progress. Excellent post Aldebaran. I like your attitude and demeanor.

 

[steveintoronto]

And that's the crux I think of many a motorists ire. If we're all equal users of the road space we should be held equally responsible for our usage thereof. Cyclists (or ebiker for that matter) can kill or injure someone disembarking a streetcar, but they face little traffic enforcement for swerving past open TTC doors. Car drivers very rarely in my experience drive past school buses with flashing lights, mostly IMO due to the massive fine of $400 to $2,000 and six demerit points for first offence, and $1,000 to $4,000, six demerit points and possible jail time (up to six months) for subsequent offences, but I often see cyclists zoom right past the flashing school buses I'm waiting behind.

So, we all have stories of users of the road behaving badly in all manner of vehicles, but somehow only one (the motorized variety) has to pass a test, get insurance and face the wrath of the police and courts.

One of your earlier posts has been resonating to me. Even being in incredible shape and a very powerful rider, I am older, and someone asked me the other day why I don't wear a helmet (A discussion in itself, the stats just don't prove the case, but I insist on wearing thick, padded, Kevlar skinned palm gloves, cycling shoes, padded undershorts....and I *LOOK* before doing anything).

My set of protocols to survive almost exactly mimic that of a motorcyclist. People forget that accident rates for motorcyles are incredibly high, and in the vast majority of *older* riders, it's not their fault. So motorcyclists *have* to practise safe protocol to survive. The big difference between motorbikes and bicycles is the noise level, but the rest is pretty much the same except for weight, speed and consequence of collision.

Cyclists can learn a lot from sensible bikers. And we should...

 

[Aldebaran]

You're very kind, Steve!

Indeed, compromise is causing a great deal of melancholy amongst members here.

 

[ADRM]

There's so much silliness on this thread. Statements that aren't really debatable:

> Some unknowable number of vehicle operators to stupid stuff and break laws
> Some unknowable number of bicycle operators to stupid stuff and break laws
> You're significantly more likely to be seriously injured if you're hit by a car than by a bike
> Toronto has a woefully inadequate system of bicycle infrastructure and a perfectly adequate system of vehicular infrastructure
> Adequate and well-designed bicycle infrastructure reduces users' propensity to break particular laws
> Adequate and well-designed bicycle infrastructure enhances safety for cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians

Why does the debate have to be any more complicated than that? Toronto needs to build a better network of cycling infrastructure, and the blame game is both endless and more or less pointless.