General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[salsa]

Hamilton had some very bad politicians in the past anyway. Hoped that the city is over that past and showing a better political leadership for sustainable city!

"The motion to examine parking in the bike lanes passed in a 9-1 vote"

Nope, Hamilton still has a long way to go.

 

[steveintoronto]

[B]Dutch Cycling Embassy[/B]‏ @[B]Cycling_Embassy[/B]
FollowFollow @Cycling_Embassy
More
"Is 30 the new 50?" Half of the Dutch population think the maximum speed of traffic within built-up areas should be reduced from 50 to 30 kilometers per hour; a proposal backed by motoring lobby RAI. Amongst those who cycle, that number increases to 71%. https://www.parool.nl/nederland/helft-van-de-nederlanders-maximumsnelheid-bebouwde-kom-van-50-naar-30~b1989257/ …

https://twitter.com/x/status/1130794794857504769

 

[MisterF]

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who follows this thread.

Protected bike lanes make the roads safer—even if you're in a car
Cyclist-friendly streets have fewer injuries and deaths overall.

More than 40,000 people die each year on American roads and millions are injured, according to the National Safety Council. Cities across the country are trying to reduce the human cost of driving, and new research offers evidence that creating bike lanes might do the trick.

“It wasn’t the safety in numbers that some people expected, in terms of there just being more cyclists on the road,” says Marshall. “It was actually the infrastructure we built for them.”

Marshall and his team don’t really understand why bike lanes help make roads safer for non-cyclists yet, but he suspects it has something to do with the fact that bike lanes often decrease the amount of road available to cars, causing drivers to move more slowly. But it matters more that it works, he says: “I’m really interested in just making cities safer.”

 

[steveintoronto]

^

Crucially, the kind of bike lanes that the researchers think are most useful are separated by a meaningful barrier from the car-use part of the road. Marshall cites downtown Vancouver’s divided bike lanes, which put a planter between bikes and cars, as a good example. Painted lines on the road don’t constitute real bike lanes: “Paint doesn’t really protect anybody,” he says.

https://www.popsci.com/protected-bike-lanes-safer-roads

 

[muller877]

I was driving in Etobicoke over the weekend (Ikea and Costco trip...sigh) and noticed that the bike lanes near bus stops have a makeover (e.g. Royal York). They have now painted the bike lane/bus stop with green paint and placed a sign for cyclists to stop for the bus. Didn't get a picture (was driving) but an excellent reminder for cyclists.

 

[steveintoronto]

...the bike lanes near bus stops have a makeover (e.g. Royal York). They have now painted the bike lane/bus stop with green paint and placed a sign for cyclists to stop for the bus. Didn't get a picture (was driving) but an excellent reminder for cyclists.

Unfortunately for many/most cyclists, it's like water off a duck's ass. Law, protocol, safety and regard for others doesn't apply to them. It truly pizzes me off, since it debases cyclists' case against dangerous driving.

 

[West End Boy]

Unfortunately for many/most cyclists, it's like water off a duck's ass. Law, protocol, safety and regard for others doesn't apply to them. It truly pizzes me off, since it debases cyclists' case against dangerous driving.

In my experience on the road, rule breaking is across the board. Pedestrians cross anywhere, often stepping in front of cars and bikes staring at their phones. Drivers very routinely break speed limits, do illegal u-turns, fail to stop at stop signs, race through red lights, turn right on red light without even stopping, often almost hitting pedestrians. Cyclists are unpredictable, ride the wrong way, turn without looking, ride on the sidewalk, etc. etc. Then there are the scooters, skateboarders, mopeds, and hover boards too.

But there is a very deep bias against cyclists, and if you look at it more objectively, you can see how the faults of cyclists get too much focus, while the faults of motorists get overlooked because they are simply seen as "normal". My street, like many, has a 30km speed limit. I would guess that less than 15% of drivers follow that. Does that make all drivers jerks? Of course not. If you stand at any major intersection and count how many cars fail to stop at a red light before rushing to turn right, despite pedestrians starting to cross, you will be lucky to find more than 15% of drivers stopping fully as they are required to do. I know they do this because it is often hard to find a gap to turn right due to pedestrian volume. But it is still unlawful and nobody seems to be talking about this, despite the obvious risk to pedestrians every single day.

The case against dangerous driving shouldn't be based on whether all cyclists are law-abiding. It should be based on harm, and the bottom line is that cars do almost all of the killing. Cyclists can also harm pedestrians of course, but the real danger remains vehicles. Cyclists are definitely an annoyance for vehicles, but few drivers if any ever have been killed by cyclists breaking laws.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When pedestrians bump into each other, we Canadians say "sorry" and move on.

When bicycles bump into each other, they may get abrasions, swear, and move on.

When motorists bump into each other, they may swear at each other and try to agree not to contact the insurance companies nor the police reporting centre.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Cyclists are unpredictable, ride the wrong way,

This is a safety issue for me. When I'm on a bike, I prefer to see cars coming towards me, rather than have them behind me and worry that they will pass me at an unsafe distance and speed.
Accordingly, I feel safe on contraflow bike lanes, whereas I find "sharrows" utterly pointless. On Dowling and Beatty Avenues in Parkdale, where sharrows were recently painted instead of the original contraflow plan, I have biked the wrong way and will continue to do so. I'd rather pay a ticket than be killed by a distracted Uber driver.

 

[jaybe]

This city is terribly unfriendly to cyclists. As a road biker there are very, very few ways to ride through this city in a safe manner. If I ride on the paths/trails (ie. Betty Sutherland, Pan-Am, Waterfront, etc) at anything more than 25kpm then I become a threat to other people using the trail. As a road cyclist, 25kph is a very casual speed. Ideally bike lanes should allow a cyclist to safely ride at 30kph+.

If I ride on the road, there are few paved shoulders or dedicated bike lanes in the core or the inner burbs. Any of the busier roadways in the burbs are typically heavily used by buses which means the curb lane is in horrible shape and I often have to push further into traffic to avoid potholes and other hazards.

Once I am outside of Toronto, Markham (York Region) and Durham region have bike lanes that safely get me onto country roads where I can ride safely. I find it astounding that so little consideration is given to cyclists in Toronto.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The city takes forever, or not at all, to fix the curb potholes, bus depressions, or crumbling asphalt.

 

[PinkLucy]

This is a safety issue for me. When I'm on a bike, I prefer to see cars coming towards me, rather than have them behind me and worry that they will pass me at an unsafe distance and speed.
Accordingly, I feel safe on contraflow bike lanes, whereas I find "sharrows" utterly pointless. On Dowling and Beatty Avenues in Parkdale, where sharrows were recently painted instead of the original contraflow plan, I have biked the wrong way and will continue to do so. I'd rather pay a ticket than be killed by a distracted Uber driver.

Riding against traffic puts fellow cyclists in danger. Put your own life at risk if you must, but don’t endanger mine.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Riding against traffic puts fellow cyclists in danger. Put your own life at risk if you must, but don’t endanger mine.

I'm not putting fellow cyclists in danger. Going against traffic I recognize that I need to give the right of way to everyone else and I'm prepared to pull over whenever necessary.
But my main point is that I wouldn't feel compelled to do this if we had an infrastructure that was actually safe for cyclists. Sharrows are not safe, and noone will convince me otherwise, Gord Perks included.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Copenhagen: More than bike lanes

From link.

Correctly pricing car use and promoting dense urban development are keys to promoting cycling

The Los Angeles Times has a gushy article–“Copenhagen has taken bicycle commuting to a whole new level,“–extolling the virtues of cycling in Copenhagen. What with a vast network of bike lines and even bike-superhighways, and a robust public commitment to making cycling a viable transportation alternative, the Danish capital is a model of how to free a city from domination by cars. Long a leader in this endeavor, Copenhagen continues to build on its success: fully 62 percent of commutes are by bike, up from 36 percent just seven years ago.

Its an impressive accomplishment, and for good reason Copenhagen stands as a model of how a prosperous Western city can consciously undertake policies that lessen its reliance on automobile transportation and reduce carbon emissions and other air pollution by making it easier and more convenient to get around by bicycle.

The LA Times chalks up Copenhagen’s success to a combination of political leadership, and the investment of about $115 million in cycling infrastructure in the past decade. Copenhagen has on-street bike lanes, dedicated bike boulevards, and even bike- and pedestrian-only bridges. Cycling has achieved social and cultural critical mass. People of all ages, different genders and social stations ride their bikes: cycling is not the exclusive province of the athletic, the young and the spandex-clad. And most everyone rides some variant of the simple, upright single-speed black city-bike. As an occasional visitor to the city, its a joy to rent a bicycle and use it as your primary means of transportation.

For those who have made the pilgrimage to Copenhagen, and come away with a romantic vision of re-making their auto-dominated city into a more bike-friendly place, there’s a lot than can be learned. While leadership and infrastructure are certainly keys to building a bike-friendly city, too many re-tellings of Copenhagen’s success–leave out some of the most important ingredients. (Aside from a reference to parking violations costs as much as $80, the LA Times article spells out none of the details about how car travel is priced in Denmark). A close look at the specific policies for taxing and pricing of cars and fuel, and promoting dense urban development are key to understanding why Copenhagen has been so successful.

Like most Western European nations, Denmark imposes heavy taxes on gasoline. The typical price of a liter of gas in Denmark today is about 10.70 Danish Kronor (DKK), which works out to about $5.70 per gallon (about US$ 0.14 per DKK and 3.78 liters per gallon). Because of higher taxes, gasoline costs roughly twice as much in Denmark as it does in the US. Cheap gasoline is a strong inducement to own and drive cars. Expensive gasoline prompts people to make very different choices, both about where to live and how to travel. (Plus the tax revenue is a vital source of funding for bike infrastructure, transit, and a range of public services).

Also, Denmark imposes a 150 percent excise tax on most new vehicle purchases. So a basic economy car which would have a retail price of say $20,000 in the US would cost upwards of $50,000 in Denmark. (The tax has been reduced from a previous level of 180 percent). Unsurprisingly, only about 29 percent of Copenhagen households own cars. Making cars and driving more expensive creates powerful incentives for people to live in places where there are good alternatives to car travel (including transit, walking and cycling), and to utilize these modes regularly.

Finally, its worth noting that the density and ownership of housing in Copenhagen is very different than in US cities. Copenhagen is relatively dense. Nearly 60 percent of households live in multi-family housing. Also, Denmark has a system of tenant-governed social housing. About 20 percent of the nation’s population lives in social housing that is constructed and governed by tenant cooperatives. Cycling is more convenient in higher density communities.

There’s a lot we can learn from the design and operation of bike lanes in Copenhagen, and the lessons about leadership and the need to make investment are real. But that’s only part of the story. Public policies that ask car owners to take greater responsibility for the cost of roads and emissions, and the conscious decision to build housing at much higher densities make cycling more attractive and feasible than car travel for many trips. As we always stress at City Observatory, the dysfunction in our transportation system stems fundamentally from charging the wrong price for roads. Stories, like this one from the Guardian, extolling the Copenhagen cycling success story shouldn’t leave out the essential role of correctly pricing cars and fuel and building dense housing.

Wonder if that includes Greenland, an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can we please stop comparing ourselves to small densely populated European cities. Find me a Toronto-like city of about 3 million residents (excluding suburbs) with a density of about 4,500 people per km2. I’d bet Toronto compares ok.