General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[littlewill1166]

Speciality banning people from suing the province for injury or death caused by these changes is them admitting they know it will make the street more dangerous, but they don't care.

That's the default. You can't sue the government unless it avails itself to liability...

Nonetheless, you can still sue the driver if you're injured (for now). I got doored twice and got a nice settlement from insurance each time. It's also probably the most effective way of deterring bad behaviour on the part of drivers against cyclists at this point.

 

[turbanplanner]

I’m that single person. And I have seen others. Not many, granted, because people don’t realize that it’s doable with a kid’s bike trailer. It’s actually a money saver because you have to be more conscious of how much space you have to pack.

I don't think the number is zero! Just that it's not going to be a substantial amount, even in places like east york where density is a lot higher I'll often bike to a Plaza and only my bike is on the rack.

That's the default. You can't sue the government unless it avails itself to liability...

Nonetheless, you can still sue the driver if you're injured (for now). I got doored twice and got a nice settlement from insurance each time. It's also probably the most effective way of deterring bad behaviour on the part of drivers against cyclists at this point.

This will probably sound stupid but how hard was the process? Afaik the police rarely show up so it ends up being a he said she said issue a lot of the time?

 

[littlewill1166]

This will probably sound stupid but how hard was the process? Afaik the police rarely show up so it ends up being a he said she said issue a lot of the time?

In my case it was quite obvious based on the physical evidence what happened.

Just call The Biking Lawyer and they'll tell you what to do. I don't think I'm allowed to be too specific about what happened.

 

[bearcat]

I don't think the number is zero! Just that it's not going to be a substantial amount, even in places like east york where density is a lot higher I'll often bike to a Plaza and only my bike is on the rack.

This will probably sound stupid but how hard was the process? Afaik the police rarely show up so it ends up being a he said she said issue a lot of the time?

Were these plazas on a street with bike lanes? Your original point was that adding bike lanes will not change people's behaviour and get them to cycle more as opposed to driving. I am not necessarily saying that's false, but if the plaza was not a street with bike lanes it's not a surprise that plazas designed for cars (with a sea of parking and stores set far back from the street) don't see a lot of people cycling there, and does not in any way prove your original point.

 

[nfitz]

That's the default. You can't sue the government unless it avails itself to liability...

Not entirely true.

If the government is acting in a reckless or wanton disregard for the safety or lives of others, then they can be, and have been, successfully sued. At least federally. See Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 where Health Canada was sued.

I doubt this act can avoid that, simply avoid some lesser suits. But I'm not a lawyer ... I only play one on Twitter.

 

[Natika33]

One of my examples was to look at the people in the suburbs and where they are driving most of the time that isn’t work? Groceries, theatres, the mall?

I don’t see a single person at Costco switching to a bike trip even if there was a lane from their house to the store!

Why assume you can't use a bike to shop at Costco? I can do a week's plus worth of groceries for two adults in one trip on my touring bike since I have a big front basket, paniers, a large flat back rack, and a backpack. I even once took a mattress home by bike. Add a trailer and I could easily load enough groceries to last beyond a month, or cart several kids to school, same as a car.

Moreover - and this might blow your mind - but did you know that Costco doesn't have a minimum spend? It's perfectly possible to actually opt to buy less on one shopping trip! I pass a Costco every time I go into the office, as do many in the suburbs, and frankly, I'd rather grab a few things here and there on a random slow weeknight than fight the weekend crowds just so that I could do a month's worth of shopping in one fell swoop.

But in a way you're right - few people in Canada now will switch because they are conditioned to believe a car is a necessity rather than to be thankful they can afford such luxury. I have a feeling the next generation won't be so lucky, but whatever, who cares about the poor or young so why build infrastructure that could help them out?

 

[nfitz]

Moreover - and this might blow your mind - but did you know that Costco doesn't have a minimum spend?

I'm not sure if that's just a joke, or minimum spends are actually a thing?

(I've never been in a Costco - don't you need a membership or something?)

 

[turbanplanner]

Were these plazas on a street with bike lanes? Your original point was that adding bike lanes will not change people's behaviour and get them to cycle more as opposed to driving. I am not necessarily saying that's false, but if the plaza was not a street with bike lanes it's not a surprise that plazas designed for cars (with a sea of parking and stores set far back from the street) don't see a lot of people cycling there, and does not in any way prove your original point.

Yes there are bike lanes east west and north south a block over.

Why assume you can't use a bike to shop at Costco? I can do a week's plus worth of groceries for two adults in one trip on my touring bike since I have a big front basket, paniers, a large flat back rack, and a backpack. I even once took a mattress home by bike. Add a trailer and I could easily load enough groceries to last beyond a month, or cart several kids to school, same as a car.

Moreover - and this might blow your mind - but did you know that Costco doesn't have a minimum spend? It's perfectly possible to actually opt to buy less on one shopping trip! I pass a Costco every time I go into the office, as do many in the suburbs, and frankly, I'd rather grab a few things here and there on a random slow weeknight than fight the weekend crowds just so that I could do a month's worth of shopping in one fell swoop.

But in a way you're right - few people in Canada now will switch because they are conditioned to believe a car is a necessity rather than to be thankful they can afford such luxury. I have a feeling the next generation won't be so lucky, but whatever, who cares about the poor or young so why build infrastructure that could help them out?

I honestly think 95% of it is comfort. Same reason the majority of dwellings have AC even though you only "need" heat. And yes, I laugh with the receipt checkers whenever I buy a single thing at Costco. I feel like people are mixing up "possible" and "preferable"

 

[bearcat]

Yes there are bike lanes east west and north south a block over.

I honestly think 95% of it is comfort. Same reason the majority of dwellings have AC even though you only "need" heat. And yes, I laugh with the receipt checkers whenever I buy a single thing at Costco. I feel like people are mixing up "possible" and "preferable"

This made me wonder where in East York there actually are interaction with bike lanes in all four cardinal directions. Looks like there is only TWO such intersections in all of East York proper, Woodbine and Danforth and Woodbine and Cosburn.

 

[bearcat]

As per my previous post, I discovered as per https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-197 the definition of a bicycle under the HTA has changed.

The definition of “bicycle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by striking out “a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle” and substituting “a tricycle and a unicycle”.
The definition used to be “bicycle” includes a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle but does not include a motor assisted bicycle.
Since there is no longer such a thing as "power-assisted bicycle" under the HTA, in my understanding all e-bikes are now considered motor assisted bicycles and are therefore.not bicycles but motor vehicles.

Bill 212 defines “bicycle lane” as any portion of a highway, the use of which is wholly or partially restricted or dedicated to bicycles.

But since now e-bikes are not bicycles the city can theoretically create e-bike only lanes (which must exclude regular bicycles) that can take away car lanes?

I am not a lawyer, but this kind of thought exercise was fun . I could be totally wrong here of course.

Ultimately none of this matters as Doug Ford can change the HTA or any law again, this is just for fun, feel free to ignore.

 

[txlseries4]

On an unrelated note, can anyone explain to me the shenanigans in terms of changing the definitions regarding e-bikes?

See https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-197

The definition of “bicycle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by striking out “a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle” and substituting “a tricycle and a unicycle”.

The definition of “motor vehicle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “a power-assisted bicycle”.

No person who is the owner or is in possession or control of a motor assisted bicycle shall permit a person who is under the age of 16 years to ride on, drive or operate the motor assisted bicycle on a highway.

I've seen some people Tweet about it, and I am confused, does it mean it will be illegal to carry a child on an e-bike?

To me it seems the more narrow definition of "power-assisted" bicycle is gone, and only the more broader definition of " motor assisted" bicycle remains.

You might get closer to an answer reading/searching through the Hansard transcript for that bill when it was at the standing committee. From a quick look others share that concern

Committee Transcript 2024-Nov-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Committee Hansard Transcript - 2024-11-15 - Parliament 43 Session 1

www.ola.org

 

[evandyk]

Not entirely true.

If the government is acting in a reckless or wanton disregard for the safety or lives of others, then they can be, and have been, successfully sued. At least federally. See Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 where Health Canada was sued.

I doubt this act can avoid that, simply avoid some lesser suits. But I'm not a lawyer ... I only play one on Twitter.

Generally, you can't sue a government on the basis that "You created this law that caused me harm". There's a law called the "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act", and one of its provisions is:

Extinguishment of causes of action respecting certain governmental functions

Acts of a legislative nature

11 (1) No cause of action arises against the Crown or an officer, employee or agent of the Crown in respect of any negligence or failure to take reasonable care while exercising or intending to exercise powers or performing or intending to perform duties or functions of a legislative nature, including the development or introduction of a bill, the enactment of an Act or the making of a regulation.

Regulatory decisions

(2) No cause of action arises against the Crown or an officer, employee or agent of the Crown in respect of a regulatory decision made in good faith, where,

(a) a person suffers any form of harm or loss as a result of an act or omission of a person who is the subject of the regulatory decision; and

(b) the person who suffered the harm or loss claims that the harm or loss resulted from any negligence or failure to take reasonable care in the making of the regulatory decision..

This law really just restates that provision and expressly confirms that it applies to this law. You could still sue if you were injured due to the specific nature of the redesign of a specific street, but you can't sue just because this law generally makes it more likely you'll be hurt while cycling in Toronto.

 

[max]

Every time there's news on this bill I get this vibe...

 

[evandyk]

Yes there are bike lanes east west and north south a block over.

I honestly think 95% of it is comfort. Same reason the majority of dwellings have AC even though you only "need" heat. And yes, I laugh with the receipt checkers whenever I buy a single thing at Costco. I feel like people are mixing up "possible" and "preferable"

Same reason the majority of people drive to stores even though you only "need" to bike or walk.

I don't get the argument that there are bike lanes only a block away. There are car lanes only a block away too! Why do we expect cyclists to go out of their way, but never drivers? Drivers can use Harbord or Dupont instead of Bloor, why do they bitch about the traffic on Bloor?

 

[Midtown Hank]

This is not correct.

Actually it is.

Plausibly; but that certainly isn't a fact. It would depend on what condition you returned those curb lanes to.

In theory it is; which is what I said. You can create any number of caveats to counter it, but those other issues are the barriers to improving traffic flow, not the removal of the bike lanes in and of themselves.

Generally, this is true; but conversely, removing the cycle tracks would generally make an assumption of an increased number of cars using that stretch of road, which would again offset, at least partially, any benefit drivers might gain from removing said lanes.

Sure, but the bias is toward reduced congestion.

It wasn't silly. What most drivers care about is their daily commute, if most drivers aren't on Yonge north of Bloor each day, they couldn't care one whit about how well it does or does not move.

If the desire is to move traffic more quickly on the Gardiner, the 401 or Spadina/York, different investments in both roads and transit are required.

Agree, so apologies to GrimSweeper. On re-reading he makes a good point. I was focused solely on the 3 main streets where the province is proposing the removal of bike lanes.

This is potentially more accurate. However, its a lousy basis for making public policy.

Agree, but it's sadly common practice in politics.