General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[W. K. Lis]

Tomorrow's Financial Times front page print:
View attachment 154782

In deference to Fair Use, I'll post digitally direct just a portion of what the FT has allowed to be shown on-line above:
https://www.ft.com/content/986d878a-a7c4-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b

I can see Uber shifting to bicycles sidecars.

From link.

 

[Jeff Morgan]

I can see Uber shifting to bicycles sidecars.

From link.

The bikes that they are using in San Francisco currently are that not bad. They are electric bikes and have a nice basket in the front to make it easy to carry things. Not a bike I would personally want but for a quick ride across town it was very functional.

 

[steveintoronto]

Top stories

Uber Plans Shift to
E-Bikes and
Scooters for Short,
Inner-City Rides
Fortune
12 hours ago

Uber to diversify
into electric bikes
and scooters to
drive growth
The Guardian
13 hours ago

Uber's “last mile”
solution: Why the
car-hailing
company sees a future
Fast Company
9 hours ago

 

[Northern Light]

Oh boy...my first impression of this isn't good, at all. I'm looking at this as a Nederlander or Dane would, or many mainland Europeans or some Americans:

• 
• 
• 

PreviousNext

https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-n...or-cyclists-opens-at-stone-and-gordon-1027304

“It was just paint work and a bit of additional concrete work, so it wasn’t a significant cost to do this,” said Juste."...and therein is exactly what's wrong with this. It's not a serious attempt at safety at all. It's a bit of paint to make bureaucrats happy, and those that can't really cycle feel all warm and wholesome inside.

It's a death trap. I admit to being highly biased on this, but look at that, and my immediate impression is not if it can and will go wrong, but in how many ways?

I'll withhold further comment until getting the views of others, but I think many or most of us have reached the point of openly demanding *physically separated infrastructure* to do anything effective. In this case, nothing less than the "Dutch Solution" is the answer, and the intersection corner radii immediately render that impossible.

The 'dead' giveaway? The crossing lanes don't meet at the corners. Without a safety island, this is absolutely no better than what it replaces save for the flashy green paint. Most cyclists won't use the 'indented recesses' in the corners because it's non-intuitive, and technically, since it isn't painted green as well, it's sidewalk. The greatest risk? Cars flying around that car-biased corner curve and taking out a cyclist crossing across their path. This is *exactly* the same problem as cyclists cycling on sidewalks and being hit at intersections from doing it. And under the HTA, the cyclist will be held at fault.

The intersection does not make sense to me.

Let's put aside this 'paint as protection' business.

Let's assume the paint could be useful, if imperfect.

Not this time, not this way.

This suggests someone in a bike lane needs to maneuver out of their lane, over towards a crosswalk without even a continuous painted link, then back again on the other side of the intersection.

That seems mind-numbingly unsafe and utterly non-intuitive.

Its unsafe to encourage this type of movement and its not consistent w/what cyclists or motorists are taught about how to cross an intersection.

****

Now moving back to the original claim, a 'protected intersection' is there to protect cyclists from turning vehicles and vice versa and invariably includes some type of physical protection.

If one can do that, its a great idea.

If one can't, this half-assed attempt might actually be worse than nothing.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Lol at those corners.....I could whip a turn around that at at least 40kph....in my van. Man,look how long that is. It's a drift corner, almost.

That being said, it's a bit of a bogus design, but as a driver, I reckon those are very good sightlines at those corners which is something at least.

Honestly though....drift corners.

 

[steveintoronto]

If one can't, this half-assed attempt might actually be worse than nothing.

I wanted to state that, but was so aghast at how *intuitively* this is wrong, that I doubted my ability to state it logically without bias.

I've reduced the logic to this: If a cyclist feels compelled (or induced by the claim of "safer") to *cycle* through that green path, they are actually *multiples safer* to dismount and walk through the pedestrian pathway across the road, as they will have a much better visual advantage, and time to react laterally, something almost impossible to do on a bike. In other words, jump sideways as cars come zooming around that corner, as the *road geometry* encourages them to do. That's an intersection built for cars and trucks!

I see many things wrong with this.

Its unsafe to encourage this type of movement and its not consistent w/what cyclists or motorists are taught about how to cross an intersection.

That is entirely consistent with the major fault of this layout. It takes an unsafe situation, and those reasons for it being unsafe in the first place are actually multiplied.

This is far from the first time I've seen this with 'well meaning' bureaucrats, and they seem to think that slapping green paint on it is like blessing them with the Fairy Wand of Tinkerbell ringing her magical bicycle bell to make everything safe as a ten-wheeler careens into a cyclist there by false assurances.

Green Boxes are another incredibly poorly thought out 'safety' aspect, but I digress.

 

[steveintoronto]

Lol at those corners.....I could whip a turn around that at at least 40kph....in my van. Man,look how long that is. It's a drift corner, almost.

Exactly.

but as a driver, I reckon those are very good sightlines at those corners which is something at least.

Correct, but here's the thing: Which direction are most drivers going to be looking when zooming around that corner? Trucks especially aren't going to be able to see a cyclist emerging from the 'sidewalk' (which technically it is) due to their blindspot, and most cars, who *should* be able to see a cyclist there, aren't going to be expecting a cyclist to think they (the cyclist) has RoW. It's wrong by the HTA as the driver has the only actual lane, and a cyclist is required to act as a *pedestrian* (dismounted) to have what little protection the HTA offers them. Pedestrians certainly have RoW, but not cyclists in that situation. If there was a defined legal cycling lane *continuously connected through that intersection* the RoW is defined very differently in the Ont HTA.

Sidewalk cycling poses more danger than roads | CBC News - CBC.ca

From a Washington State article that exactly captures the *behaviour* of a cyclist in a situation *amplified* in Guelph above: (some legal details are different than Ontario ones, but the point stands)

[...]
Getting kids off their bikes before they cross the street essentially forces them to stop and look for traffic instead of riding straight through.

As adults it still makes sense to look for traffic, but the law doesn’t require that we get off our bikes to do it.

And while we’re on the topic of bikes and crosswalks ... cyclists are a sort of hybrid road-user – when they ride in the road they’re supposed to act like a car, and when they ride on the sidewalk they’re supposed act like a pedestrian. For some cyclists, this has led to a sort of schizophrenic behavior, switching between the two based on whatever seems most convenient at the time.

I can’t find a law that specifically states that cyclists can’t switch between being a vehicle and a pedestrian, but the law is pretty clear on rules for vehicles and rules for pedestrians. The law states that “no person shall drive any vehicle on a sidewalk.” And just to make it clear, the law specifically includes bicycles in its definition of a vehicle.

Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it seems to me like once you commit to riding in the roadway, you’re required to act like a car and stay off the sidewalks. Likewise, if you decide to ride on the sidewalk, you’ve committed to behaving like a pedestrian. The law prohibits pedestrians from darting unexpectedly into the roadway.

I can already hear the counter-argument; eventually a cyclist riding on the road will need to go onto the sidewalk. After all, we don’t have parking lots for bikes, except for bike racks that are located, you guessed it, on the sidewalk.

I also know that in a particularly dangerous stretch of road, a cyclist may choose to become a pedestrian for safety. But even if I’m wrong on the legal interpretation here, I’m right about the premise; it’s generally not safe for cyclists to switch back and forth from being a vehicle to a pedestrian.

I’ve mentioned before that predictability is a key to survival on the roads. The potential dual nature of a cyclist makes it even more critical to be clear about intentions. Switching from road to sidewalk and back to the road leaves motorists guessing, or worse, caught off guard.

Drivers also have responsibility. There is an assumption (possibly misplaced) that along with a driver license comes an understanding of traffic laws and a commitment to follow them. There should also be a realization that piloting two tons of steel presents a great risk to vulnerable road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians. The law places additional responsibility on the person with the ability to cause the most damage.

Whether you’re in a car, on a bike or walking, we’re all neighbors sharing the streets. And it’s going to take a commitment from all of us to end serious injuries and deaths on our roads, so be kind and drive wise.

Road Rules is a regular column on road laws, safe driving habits and general police practices. Doug Dahl is the Target Zero Manager for the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force. Target Zero is Washington’s vision to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2030. For more traffic safety information visit TheWiseDrive.com. Ask a question.

Cyclists riding on a sidewalk must dismount before entering an intersection

Riding on sidewalks
It is against the law to ride on sidewalks, unless specifically directed to do so by a sign or local bylaw. Several studies have proven that cyclists on sidewalks face a far greater collision risk than cyclists on the roadway. The main danger points are driveways and street crossings where sidewalk cyclists surprise motorists and pedestrians by appearing from unexpected directions. Bicycle police and paramedics are permitted by law to ride on sidewalks.

http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/bikesense/ch4.htm

And so on...

 

[SunriseChampion]

It's true and reminds me that the only time I've almost hit a cyclist is when it's been some knob gunning it along the sidewalk across the path of my turn.

It's no one there and in the second it takes for me to initiate my turn from a stop there's suddenly someone there at 20kph.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I got to admit though, that is a very visible painting of green.

Not that I think paint offers any sort of protection, but I don't think the green we use in Toronto is even half as visible as that.

 

[steveintoronto]

I got to admit though, that is a very visible painting of green.

Not that I think paint offers any sort of protection, but I don't think the green we use in Toronto is even half as visible as that.

That struck me too, it might have a 'Day Glo' pigment content. As to how long that pigment remains that active has yet to be shown. Those types of pigments are very easily bleached by UV.

But it raises a still ongoing issue: Is there such a thing as 'too much green'...to the point of 'crying wolf' to drivers? (Desensitization)

The Big Question: Do dedicated lanes make cycling less safe, and should roads be redesigned?
[...]
Why are we asking this now?

Because research published yesterday suggests that when cyclists ride in dedicated lanes motorists give them less room. Teams at Leeds and Bolton universities, supported by CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, put a camera on the back of a bike being ridden along three roads in the north of England. Analysis of the footage revealed that drivers gave up to 18cm (seven inches) more space to cyclists on stretches without cycle lanes. The findings question the perceived wisdom that slapping down strips of green paint and white lines makes riding safer. And as cycling continues to enjoy a boom, the suggestion that cycle lanes could be endangering rather than protecting users highlights increasingly fraught relationship between riders and drivers.

Why is this a big deal?

Cycling is booming like never before. In the capital alone there has been a 91 per cent increase in the number of cycle journeys since 2000 as commuters ditch gridlock and delay in favour of fresh air and exercise. But not everyone's prepared to take to two wheels. "The main barrier stopping as many as two-thirds of the people who don't cycle regularly is a fear of traffic," says Chris Peck, CTC's policy chief. "While cycle lanes can have a positive effect, bad facilities only make those initial excursions terrifying, putting people off altogether."

Why do drivers behave this way?

It comes down to psychology. "The very existence of cycle lanes can lead to drivers to being lazier when overtaking because they believe the space between the cycle lane and the middle of the road is their territory," Peck says. It's though the presence of a solid white line offers the illusion – to both rider and driver – of a barrier behind which cyclists are protected. When the barrier is not there, drivers take care as they move to overtake cyclists rather than roaring past with inches to spare. Other research suggests drivers react in similar way to cyclists wearing helmets. In 2006, a traffic psychologist at the University of Bath found drivers gave him less room when he was wearing head protection than when he rode helmet-free.
[...]
What have other studies found?

This latest research isn't the first to paint cycle lanes in a bad light. Studies in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Milton Keynes have also shown an increased risk for cyclists using lanes. And in 2007, the Cycle Campaign Network, an umbrella organisation representing 70 local cycling groups, said it "knows of no evidence that cycle facilities and in particular cycle lanes, generally lead to safer conditions for cycling".

Can lanes be effective?

Only when they're properly built and in the right places. Government standards require cycle lanes to be two metres wide, with a minimum width of 1.5 metres. But all the lanes used in the latest research fell short – and CTC believes that the same is true of the "vast majority" of Britain's bike lanes. "You wouldn't see authorities skimping on lane width when it comes to motorways," Peck says. "Even if drivers are being lazy that's not so much of a problem if the cycle lane is wide enough to give the required berth." Other cycle lane failures include stretches that stop suddenly, depositing riders back into traffic.

Are lanes always a good idea?

Not in slower traffic. "It's the difference in speeds on the road that creates danger," Peck says. "Cycle lanes try to alleviate that by creating separate areas but they aren't always successful. But if traffic is limited to 20mph, that's the speed at which road users can mix happily."

Many local authorities have started to introduce 20mph limits in residential and urban areas in recent years. The "shared space" scenario which this allows has become something of a global trend in urban planning. In some places, including parts of Ashford in Kent, kerbs, traffic lights, road markings and signs have been ripped out. In almost all cases, average speeds and accident rates have dropped. CTC believes it's an approach that should be adopted more widely. Peck says: "Even if you only went so far as to allow one-way roads to go two ways for cyclists it would increase the ability to navigate back streets away from dangerous main roads."

What's the story in other countries?

Generally better but for an example of cycling nirvana we must pedal to Denmark, where the capital was last month named the best city in the world for cyclists. Copenhagen boasts more than 200 miles of cycle routes and bikes have priority over cars at many junctions. As a result, a third of people cycle to work, school or university, and accidents are rare.

"It's astonishing how many people cycle there," Peck says. "And they have huge, wide cycle paths. The size and design of British roads would make that difficult but reducing speed and rethinking how we use what we have would make a big difference."
[...]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-and-should-roads-be-redesigned-1785239.html

Article is almost ten years old, it would be interesting to see what, if anything, has changed in that time. I see a lot of enduring truth in this piece. Clearly the Guelph instance is a case of an horrendous infrastructure concept with green lipstick slapped on it.

Here's a detailed PDF, very informative, will read later:

INTRODUCTION This paper presents an overview of some of the best practices and interesting measures of improving the safety of cyclists and generally improving conditions for cycling. Examples are mainly from cycling more developed countries, such as Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom and others, but can also spread to other European countries, which are still developing in the field of cycling infrastructure and improved conditions for cyclists. An overview of best practices can raise awareness among the ROSEE project partners and the wider interested public about activities and measures in the field of provision of safe cycling and possibly give the idea for the further development and promotion of safe cycling in cycling less developed countries. The document includes examples of good practice from the aspect of reducing negative outcomes of road crashes and the aspect of avoiding road crashes in the first place. The examples in the document cover the areas of engineering and planning measures, education and training, encouragement and promotion and other examples of best practice. [...]

http://www.avp-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Best_practice_examples_of_safe_cycling_in_Europe.pdf

 

[OneCity]

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/levy-city-puts-happy-spin-on-cycling-numbers

Honestly I drive this route in rush hour give or take approx. 2 days a week. I couldn't believe the numbers the City put out here. Even in the nicest weather this summer from Kingston rd. to Gerrard along Woodbine I would be lucky to see one cyclist in the 5 to 10 minutes I am stuck waiting to get to Gerrard.. And that's on the nicest days. I have seen a few thrill seekers on skateboards using the lane on the steep hill, but most days no cyclists in sight. I question how many will be using it come fall and winter.

 

[pstogios]

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/levy-city-puts-happy-spin-on-cycling-numbers

Honestly I drive this route in rush hour give or take approx. 2 days a week. I couldn't believe the numbers the City put out here. Even in the nicest weather this summer from Kingston rd. to Gerrard along Woodbine I would be lucky to see one cyclist in the 5 to 10 minutes I am stuck waiting to get to Gerrard.. And that's on the nicest days. I have seen a few thrill seekers on skateboards using the lane on the steep hill, but most days no cyclists in sight. I question how many will be using it come fall and winter.

If you don’t build cycling infrastructure, don’t be surprised if the number of cyclists doesn’t grow.

 

[Northern Light]

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/levy-city-puts-happy-spin-on-cycling-numbers

Honestly I drive this route in rush hour give or take approx. 2 days a week. I couldn't believe the numbers the City put out here. Even in the nicest weather this summer from Kingston rd. to Gerrard along Woodbine I would be lucky to see one cyclist in the 5 to 10 minutes I am stuck waiting to get to Gerrard.. And that's on the nicest days. I have seen a few thrill seekers on skateboards using the lane on the steep hill, but most days no cyclists in sight. I question how many will be using it come fall and winter.

Sooo, did you actually think the City's numbers through?

They're not that high.

Watch this.... 220 cyclists, over a 12 hour period = 18 cyclists per HOUR

How many is that per 5 min?

1.5

Exactly in line w/what you are seeing.

Moreover, that's counting both directions of travel, along the entire length of Woodbine.

You're also picking the section w/the most brutal uphill climb, which far fewer will make.

Its also a tiny subsection of the route.

Put another way, your observations would lead to the suggestion that the numbers are now HIGHER than what the City counted.

 

[OneCity]

Sooo, did you actually think the City's numbers through?

They're not that high.

Watch this.... 220 cyclists, over a 12 hour period = 18 cyclists per HOUR

How many is that per 5 min?

1.5

Exactly in line w/what you are seeing.

Moreover, that's counting both directions of travel, along the entire length of Woodbine.

You're also picking the section w/the most brutal uphill climb, which far fewer will make.

Its also a tiny subsection of the route.

Put another way, your observations would lead to the suggestion that the numbers are now HIGHER than what the City counted.

I simply provided an observation from the stretch I frequent during rush hour, which I have yet to see 2 cyclists during the periods ive sat in traffic, in nice weather, during rush hour.

24 hour stats are not all that useful considering you obviously wouldn't expect many riders at all after midnight to 6am. Yesterday I was there at 6pm for 10mins and just 1 rider in rush hour. The numbers probided are indeed poor amd shouldnt have warranted a full vehicle lane removal here.

I fully agree its a rough stretch for most to cycle from Kingston to Gerrard, sadly weve removed lanes in thos stretch to accommodate something few will ever use. Not sure the benefits outweigh the negatives here and itll likely come out in full force in the local ward election.

 

[Northern Light]

I simply provided an observation from the stretch I frequent during rush hour, which I have yet to see 2 cyclists during the periods ive sat in traffic, in nice weather, during rush hour.

24 hour stats are not all that useful considering you obviously wouldn't expect many riders at all after midnight to 6am. Yesterday I was there at 6pm for 10mins and just 1 rider in rush hour. The numbers probided are indeed poor amd shouldnt have warranted a full vehicle lane removal here.

I fully agree its a rough stretch for most to cycle from Kingston to Gerrard, sadly weve removed lanes in thos stretch to accommodate something few will ever use. Not sure the benefits outweigh the negatives here and itll likely come out in full force in the local ward election.

First, the City studied a 12-hour period, not 24. Midnight-Six Am was never counted.

Second, I think you'll find many residents, particularly on Woodbine are not unhappy (some are), but for many it meant that they gained permanent on-street parking, where previously they had to move their car in rush hours. The street is also quieter in the off-peak now.

Third, the majority of marginally inconvenienced motorist do not live in the area in question, they merely pass through, they don't get to vote for ward councillor.

Finally, you can't just extract the bike lane from Kingston to Gerrard as if that section of street operates in isolation.

If you have 2 lanes northbound up to Gerrard and it then drops to one, you would have to force traffic in the right-lane to exit, or merge w/the left lane.

The road to the north would not have capacity to absorb traffic from the south.

These things have to planned in a coordinated way.