General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[Dan416]

I'm not much of a cyclist, but I totally agree that bikes shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign if it's safe for them to go through. On a bike it's just too much effort to get back up to speed.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'm not much of a cyclist, but I totally agree that bikes shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign if it's safe for them to go through. On a bike it's just too much effort to get back up to speed.

Non-bicyclists demand ALL must stop at stop signs. But, once anyone rides bicycles more than a handful of times, they'll understand that it is impossible.

 

[nfitz]

Non-bicyclists demand ALL must stop at stop signs. But, once anyone rides bicycles more than a handful of times, they'll understand that it is impossible.

Why would they demand that ... how often do you see a car stop at a stop sign; many don't even stop for a red light these days if they are turning.

 

[rbt]

Non-bicyclists demand ALL must stop at stop signs. But, once anyone rides bicycles more than a handful of times, they'll understand that it is impossible.

Happy to give someone on a bicycle under 15lbs with no exposed tube ends (I.e. covered handlebars) the ability to roll through a stop but those electric scooter things which are classed as bicycles are heavy enough to cause significant damage to pedestrians even at a low speed and don't cause the rider the same issues so I would like to see them treated approrpiately and distinctly.


That said, I've had a letter carrier go through a red eastbound on Queen at Ossington who clipped me (I was crossing Queen) a few years ago. Guy took a pretty solid tumble trying to avoid me but I would have been in serious pain if he didn't. I figure he was 180lbs and travelling at about 35 km/h. I can tell you my grandmother would have been severely injured if she was in my place just from getting clipped.

If rolling through a stop is stretched to going through without slowing down then I'll have issues.

 

[CDL.TO]

That said, I've had a letter carrier go through a red eastbound on Queen at Ossington who clipped me (I was crossing Queen) a few years ago. Guy took a pretty solid tumble trying to avoid me but I would have been in serious pain if he didn't. I figure he was 180lbs and travelling at about 35 km/h. I can tell you my grandmother would have been severely injured if she was in my place just from getting clipped.

If rolling through a stop is stretched to going through without slowing down then I'll have issues.

Sorry you had to experience that.

The cyclist:
- Failed to properly yield to a pedestrian
- Failed to approach the intersection at a speed that he could safely yield if he needed to do so

Therefore, if that stop sign had been replaced by a yield sign, he would still have been breaking the law.

What the Idaho stop does is legalize cyclists who roll through stop signs at 5 or 10 km/h, not those who blast through, unable to stop safely if needed.

 

[ShonTron]

That was an interesting article.

It is funny that cops like to make stop sign blitzes, but working near 52 Division, I see bike cops make illegal turns onto one-way streets (Simcoe), ride on sidewalks, ride in packs, even pass to the right of a right-turning car. Never mind stop signs. Of course I have to keep my mouth shut.

I'd much rather them hide at red lights - like College and Manning, or Harbord and Brunswick, and nab the red-light blow throughs. And give out warnings to those without lights at night.

 

[PaulTheMaul]

All road laws should be applied equally to all "vehicles" that are on the road.

STOP signs aren't just there to protect the pedestrians, but also to protect cyclists themselves.

 

[W. K. Lis]

All road laws should be applied equally to all "vehicles" that are on the road.

STOP signs aren't just there to protect the pedestrians, but also to protect cyclists themselves.

Try to keep under the 20 km/h speed limit in High Park, especially going downhill along Centre Road (including bicycles). Even skateboarders will be going over 20 km/h going down that hill.

You have to actually ride a bicycle before you find out that stopping at each and every STOP sign is ridiculous.

 

[reaperexpress]

All road laws should be applied equally to all "vehicles" that are on the road.

STOP signs aren't just there to protect the pedestrians, but also to protect cyclists themselves.

If that were true, one would expect the design of bike paths to be the same as the design for roads, both being designed to serve "vehicles".

When a bike path crosses another bike path, do we build traffic lights and crosswalks? Or maybe stop signs? No, of course not. Most of the time we don't even assign priority to one direction over the other. Bicycles are not cars, and do not need much traffic control to keep them from hitting pedestrians or each other.

Here's a timelapse of a bicycle intersection in Utrecht, The Netherlands. Note the amount of traffic control there is.
[video=youtube;XsKIM5ETlZ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsKIM5ETlZ8&list=UUnPQKvCvSD6nLOFQjs_BhhQ&index=101&feature=plcp[/video]

 

[Mississauga Slim]

My experience as a lifelong pedestrian is that cyclists consider themselves "vehicular" when it suits them and "pedestrian" when it suits them. The upshot is that they want to claim all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

 

[typezed]

Are there only two possible categories - vehicular and pedestrian - that cyclists must choose which to belong? Everyone, no matter their choice of transport, has the right to expect to move safely. Cyclists need to be more responsible than some are, but cyclists don't have the same responsibilities as drivers. Drivers can kill people when they're inattentive or careless. And there are plenty of irresponsible drivers in their two-tonne high-powered machines. I see drivers using cellphones, often texting, most every day.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

Well, at scramble crossings, when the message says "walk light on for all crossings" cyclists zoom on through. They aren't walking. I've almost been hit a number of times.
As pedestrian most "close calls" have been with bikes.

 

[reaperexpress]

My experience as a lifelong pedestrian is that cyclists consider themselves "vehicular" when it suits them and "pedestrian" when it suits them. The upshot is that they want to claim all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

Well, at scramble crossings, when the message says "walk light on for all crossings" cyclists zoom on through. They aren't walking. I've almost been hit a number of times.
As pedestrian most "close calls" have been with bikes.

The ability to act as either a pedestrian or a vehicle is one of the fundamental advantages of cycling. When you're riding, you can do nearly anything a car can, and when you're walking your bike, you can do anything a pedestrian can.

It is a valid question whether or not bicycles should be allowed ride through a scramble phase. In Toronto, cyclists are required to get off and walk through the intersection. However, in other places, such as Los Angeles, bicycles are allowed to ride through:

[video=vimeo;12495436]http://vimeo.com/12495436#[/video]

There isn't much difference between walking a bike and riding at walking pace. I think that permitting cycling through the intersection (at walking pace only) is more realistic than attempting to stop cyclists.

The issue with the cyclists you describe is more that they are speeding than that they are running a red. It is indeed a problem, but given the success we've had with eliminating speeding in cars, I don't see any easy solution.

 

[CDL.TO]

I simply cannot agree with the "some cyclists break the rules, so we shouldn't make things better for the cyclists which follow the rules" philosophy. Applied to cars (lets not widen a road because I see people parking in no parking zones) or pedestrians (lets not improve the sidewalk because I see people jaywalk) it's clear how absurd this line of thought is.

 

[TOareaFan]

I simply cannot agree with the "some cyclists break the rules, so we shouldn't make things better for the cyclists which follow the rules" philosophy. Applied to cars (lets not widen a road because I see people parking in no parking zones) or pedestrians (lets not improve the sidewalk because I see people jaywalk) it's clear how absurd this line of thought is.

I totally agree with you on this. The bad actions of some, should not be punishment on others (and I have not ridden a bike in about 30 years!).

I do, wish, however there was some/more general acknowledgement from the cycling community that more education/awareness is needed about safety (particulalry as the number of cyclists on city streets increases) and that not all "issues" are the cause of "irresponsible drivers in their two-tonne high-powered machines".

Every day I cringe when I see one particular (very common...ie multiple times a day) behaviour. Car stopped at read light with right turn signal on....cyclist pulls up on right side of car...proceeds through intersection. I have trained myself to never turn till I have accounted for every cyclist (mirror and shoulder check and - since I drive a convertible- most times a verbal "go, your clear" shout of comfort to the cyclist). I may be over cautious on this but I can't imagine anywhere I would be going that is worth risking another person's safety for.....but I do see lots of cars starting their turn when the light changes (as they have a right to do) only to suddenly brake when they see the cyclist going by.

Not sure why so many cyclists put themselves at this risk (if they must convert that single-vehicle lane into a two vehicle lane..they should do it on the outside of the car) but they do and if ever there was the need for one of those "awareness" campaigns...this would get my vote!