Rob Ford's Toronto

[Ak2809]

If I see a driver breaking the law I can call and report his license number, and with a cyclist I cannot.

I like the idea of forcing a potential cyclist to study the rules of the road where they concern bicycles and be tested on it. When it comes to safety and sharing the road with motor vehicles more education is never a bad thing.

 

[spider]

If I see a driver breaking the law I can call and report his license number, and with a cyclist I cannot.

Red light cameras are currently used effectively to fine the vehicle owner instead of the driver, If I lent my car to someone and received a ticket for his actions you may rest assured he would never drive my car again even after he paid the fine.

If all bicycles were required to display a licence plate in a designated position it would be simple to fine the owner without even stopping the cyclist, hopefully the owner would act as above with regard to lending his bike out.

The licencing question is all about stopping dangerous operation of the bicycle not teaching the rules of the road to the riders, I think they already are aware of what a sidewalk is for and how to interpret a one-way sign.

 

[spider]

Certainly, Ford and his gang are betting that infuriating downtown will not impact their suburban re-election base. And why not? So far, the suburbs, on the surface, seem set to lose much less than dense old complicated downtown. It will take some time for the suburbs to feel it. They're ignoring it on paper now.

However, when the suburbs begin to see downtown's problems coming to actually roost in their own parks, community centers, libraries, maintenance, crime rates, garbage pickup, transit, sewers and backyards - well, that's when I suspect things will really hit the fan.

Sheesh, enough already. When will the sanctimonious lectures end.
I understand that UT is a downtowner dominated platform but that doesn't make silly statements acceptable. We suburbanites are perhaps not quite as clever or urbane as our downtown partners but we expect to be respected as taxpayers with a different view on how to conduct our lives, failing that, at least a little tolerance would be nice.

I, for one, would like to see a little more detail about the impending downtown type of woe that is about to descend on our suburban parks, community centres etc. Helping us to understand the error of our ways and the scope of the Crap hammer that will surely smite us can only be of use to the entire City we share.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live". Oscar Wilde.

 

[Ak2809]

The licencing question is all about stopping dangerous operation of the bicycle not teaching the rules of the road to the riders, I think they already are aware of what a sidewalk is for and how to interpret a one-way sign.

Tell this to the person I saw riding their bike down pharmacy on the sidewalk instead of the bike lane. It is completely possible to be ignorant of the intricacies of the rules of the road if you've never had a drivers license.

 

[Armbruster]

Cyclists already are accountable if they're caught by police violating a traffic law. A license would allow, I guess, penalties that include stripping them of their bicycle license, but those with suspended bike licenses could still head out on the road. Enforcement is so lax that it's not like they'd run a great risk of getting caught.

The easiest and most practical way to reach the most cyclists and improve safety for all is to make bike safety a required component of the regular automobile drivers' license. Most adult cyclists have drivers' licenses, and this would be an excellent way of giving at least those riders some important safety information.

This would also be good information for drivers who don't ride bikes, but do drive alongside cyclists. For example, many drivers are unaware that the Highway Traffic Act allows cyclists to take up an entire lane if they sense drivers might try to squeeze past them dangerously (here's Const. Hugh Smith of the Toronto Police making the same point). If drivers had understood this, they might have realized that by removing the Jarvis bike lanes, the City was effectively reducing the number of open car lanes from four to three, since cyclists will certainly need to take up all of the very-narrow curb lanes that will remain once the reversible middle lane is reinstalled. Cyclists recently held a "Take the Whole Lane Day" to make road users aware of the law, and apparently many drivers expressed anger as if this was some provocation, and a few actually promised to kill cyclists if they dared exercise their rights under the law.

So clearly both car-driving cyclists and other motorists would benefit from more cycling safety information as part of the drivers' licensing process. This could be the easiest way of achieving most of the goals of bike licensing, without all the impracticalities and expense.

Of course, all this assumes that the purpose of bike licensing is to improve safety, and not just a way to say "fuck you" to cyclists.

 

[spider]

Cyclists recently held a "Take the Whole Lane Day" to make road users aware of the law, and apparently many drivers expressed anger as if this was some provocation, and a few actually promised to kill cyclists if they dared exercise their rights under the law.

A right that most cyclists are perfectly happy to abandon if it means lining up in the middle of "their" lane at a stop light like the cars they are behind. Nope, they now want to ride up along side of those stopped cars and are downright annoyed if you don't give them space to do so.

 

[tkip]

I think it still comes down to people's overall behavior these days with too many thinking they own the space around them with the mentality they can do as they please.

A friend suggested last night that we might have to go with licensing for cyclists due to the complete irresponsible and wreckless behavior such as seeing more and more cyclists riding full throttle on the sidewalks now for example. So if there's an incident with a pedestrian, either you have to catch them before they take off or you haven't any method to identify them for prosecution later.

She also mentioned the prospect of also eventually requiring cyclists to have insurance due to the growing incidents on the roads. Shame it's come to this though.

 

[jje1000]

It wouldn't have needed to come to this if the police actually did a few high-profile sweeps of the city for cyclists breaking the law and fined them heavily. The precedent needs to be set.

 

[jn_12]

How about just trying to educate instead of penalizing? I wouldn't be surprised if some people aren't aware that they're expected to follow all of the road laws. For example, in Niagara, no one cares about riding on the proper side of the road, nor does anyone care if you ride on a sidewalk or abide by stop signs (of course, you'd watch for cars, but you would also know that). All of this simply because of the way cycling is viewed there (I had similar experiences while living in Peterborough). If you move from that environment to a place like Toronto, you're going to face a learning curve, and given that Toronto is becoming more and more a city of people not from Toronto, it might just take some basic education to teach people some of these things. Maybe some people just need a reminder or a primer? To me, it's a fairly easy solution: Put up signs like "Cyclists must obey lights" at intersections, or even go a step further and start an ad/print campaign. There's no need to adopt deterrents for cycling, nor do you have to get the police involved. Creativity goes a long way.

Also, don't forget, we now also have this little thing called Bixi. How would you guys propose that work for all those who think we need licenses?

 

[spider]

No, don't licence the riders, licence the bikes as in register ownership for the purpose of ticketing.

I was in Stratford yesterday and as you know there are some awkward intersections there not governed by signals, guess what? they have crazy cowboy cyclist too.

 

[Isaachan01]

What I don't understand is that by creating a bike lane and not putting any barriers is just the same as there being no bike lane at all... How about a 3ft curb to stop cars from running over bikers? just a standard cement wall about 1 ft thick.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

This would also be good information for drivers who don't ride bikes, but do drive alongside cyclists. For example, many drivers are unaware that the Highway Traffic Act allows cyclists to take up an entire lane if they sense drivers might try to squeeze past them dangerously (here's Const. Hugh Smith of the Toronto Police making the same point). If drivers had understood this, they might have realized that by removing the Jarvis bike lanes, the City was effectively reducing the number of open car lanes from four to three, since cyclists will certainly need to take up all of the very-narrow curb lanes that will remain once the reversible middle lane is reinstalled. Cyclists recently held a "Take the Whole Lane Day" to make road users aware of the law, and apparently many drivers expressed anger as if this was some provocation, and a few actually promised to kill cyclists if they dared exercise their rights under the law.

A smaller demonstration was held on Friday. By the time I ran & grabbed my camera I just managed to catch the tail end of it as they went south on Jarvis Street. In my view they are doing it all wrong, they are taking two lanes during these demonstrations, not one.

How about just trying to educate instead of penalizing?

I've searched and searched and cannot find anything on cycling/safety information.

 

[MisterF]

We know how heavy the bus is, we don`t know the cars weight. There are probably a 1000 civics on the road for every Escalade which would lead me to believe that the bus is likely to be the most destructive. How else to explain the ubiquitous pavement Knuckles that only appear at bus stops.

Please resist trotting out the myth that a bus carrying 50 passengers removes 50 cars from traffic.

There's no need to trot anyting out, I was just questioning the idea that buses put more wear on the road than cars. And more importantly, the implication that buses cost the city more per person for road infrastructure. Cars use road space less efficiently and need bigger, more expensive roads. The more people use buses, the more the city can grow without major road expansion. You don't build 6 lane arterials and 16 lane freeways for buses.

1000 Civics for every Escalade? lol! Even if that's true it's not relevant. Canada's best selling vehicle is the Ford F-150, with the Sierra/Silverado a close second. 3 of the top 5 are full size pickups and trucks outsell cars overall. The weight of the average vehicle in Canada is a lot more than the Civic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/top-10-best-selling-vehicles/article1512191/
http://www.kanetix.ca/ic_auto_info_auto_articles_61

 

[spider]

1000 Civics for every Escalade? lol! Even if that's true it's not relevant. Canada's best selling vehicle is the Ford F-150, with the Sierra/Silverado a close second. 3 of the top 5 are full size pickups and trucks outsell cars overall. The weight of the average vehicle in Canada is a lot more than the Civic.

The more people use buses, the more the city can grow without major road expansion.

Retrotted

I have no quibble with the statistics quoted above except that they are National as opposed to specific to Toronto.
Pickup trucks are very popular even as the sole family vehicle in small town and rural areas, in Toronto not so much. If you need verification drive around any small centre more than 50 Km from Toronto and you are in a sea of trucks.
Drive any bus route in Toronto and those "Special edition`pickups masquerading as the family car are pretty rare, most City pickups are work vehicles replete with the tools and materials of their driver`s trade. A gardener is unlikely to park his pickup and show up at the bus stop with all his mowers, blowers and gas cans nor would he be cheered on for taking his vehicle off the road.

 

[allabootmatt]

Interesting nugget from The Star:

`Ford and his councillor brother Doug are committing gaffes; the marathon meeting has energized their opponents; and a hasty, ham-handed budget process is alienating centrists and fraying the Fords’ hold on at least two inner circle members.'

More here: http://www.thestar.com/news/toronto...nking-government-not-deficit-drives-ford?bn=1

Any bets on the identities of the queasy insiders? I'll wager Stintz and Robinson.