General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[ShonTron]

In protest I encourage every cyclist in Toronto to "take a lane" from today onward and ride down the middle of the lane where no bike lane exists. No more cycling along the curb with vehicles flying by one foot away, take a lane and cycle safely. Gridlock the city and let's see how fast these bike hating City Councillors move to build a network of proper, separated bike lanes for the thousands of cyclists downtown alone. Under the Highway Traffic Act it is your right as a cyclist to take a lane when riding on a bicycle. As always, be sure to obey all the rules of the road whenever you get on your bike.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=188911

I commute almost every day by bike, and upset at this decision, which has been part of a trend of interference in local affairs by suburban councillors. But I was also never really in favour of the Jarvis bike lanes. I also don't think that those types of protests, that will just inflame motorists further, are productive.

Here's why:
The planning process for Jarvis included multiple consulations that were to humanize the street and bring neighbourhood benefits back. Jarvis was widened in the 1940s/1950s as a throughway for uptown commuters streaming down Mount Pleasant Road. In a 1950s era, this kind of made sense. Jarvis had faded as the grand street it once was, there were no streetcars or many buses on that street (Sherbourne had streetcars until 1947 and buses after that). The neighbourhood bounced back with new developments such as the National Ballet School and Radio City.

But instead of the streetscape improvements and wider sidewalks, cyclists opposition surged and lobbied hard (I remember Hamish Wilson out there, lonely standing outside a consultation trying to get support for bike lanes when they weren't on the table) and got those bike lanes. So paint was appied and the overhead signals removed instead of permanent street improvements that would have been nearly impossible to reverse. Now we're back to square one.

Jarvis made less sense for bike lanes than Church (which could connect to Davenport and go all the way to Front). Now I'm hoping Yonge can be redesigned with bikes in mind along with wider sidewalks and streetscaping, I already don't find Yonge bad cycling down, even in rush hour, and Yonge has a supportive BIA as well. I have hope for Yonge.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

With bike lanes gone on Jarvis in a month or so I'd take Yonge, Church or Bay over Jarvis too because it's too fast and aggressive with five lanes, but I still stand by taking a lane. It's a cyclists right to share the road with motor vehicles (except on highways), yet most people don't know it. The new lanes on Sherbourne are terrific, if we could get those lanes on every 2nd or 3rd north/south and east/west street downtown (where appropriate) the city would explode with cyclists from March to October plus it might take a little pressure off traffic and overcrowded transit lines.

 

[junctionist]

People will cycle year-round, too, if the infrastructure is maintained with cyclists in mind, for instance, with quick salting of roads and the snow cleared up to the curbs.

 

[SlickFranky]

Since there are hazards, such as sewer grates, litter, potholes, weeds, and other debris, bicyclists will be forced to move more into the center of the lane.

I don't use Jarvis that often, but whenever I have I've found the road condition within the bike lanes to be atrocious. Raised grates, potholes, cracks, and a shocking amount of broken glass. I don't agree particularly with removing the lanes outright, and certainly disagree with the funding source paying for the removal (if the blog entry posted earlier is accurate)...but in their current state I didn't find them terribly useful in the first place, and was often forced to bike in the vehicle lane anyway.

 

[West Toronto Junction]

03OCT12 - Yes. It's always been extraordinarily bike friendly. I've cycled a lot here all my life. My kids do it all the time. It's become more of a "religion" and less of an eccentricty as it's become more popular. The trick will be to move beyond a "religious" discussion of dogma (helmets, traffic, moral superiority) as it becomes more a normal part of everyday life, so that we can focus on everyday outcomes and build political consensus on getting law, regulation, investment, practice, etc. that makes it even friendlier to use. WTJ.

 

[Admiral Beez]

, but I still stand by taking a lane. It's a cyclists right to share the road with motor vehicles...

That's a good way to get yourself injured or killed. Sure, you'll be in the right and someone will have infringed on your legal right to use the road space, but that's small consolation for being under truck's tire.

I ride a motorcycle, and I would NEVER take the attitude that I'm entitled to a position in the road regardless of safety concerns. Imagine blindly going through an intersection because you've got a right to proceed on the green light, and then some blue hair in a cage turns left and smokes you. IMO, such a collision would be partly my fault, and I'm now entirely dead.

 

[junctionist]

That's a good way to get yourself injured or killed. Sure, you'll be in the right and someone will have infringed on your legal right to use the road space, but that's small consolation for being under truck's tire.

I ride a motorcycle, and I would NEVER take the attitude that I'm entitled to a position in the road regardless of safety concerns. Imagine blindly going through an intersection because you've got a right to proceed on the green light, and then some blue hair in a cage turns left and smokes you. IMO, such a collision would be partly my fault, and I'm now entirely dead.

It's not likely that taking the lane will get you killed, though obviously one must assess the risks on any given road. So long as you don't take the lane in the path of a truck right behind you, you shouldn't end up under a truck's tire. There are now circumstances where the city's urban designers have forced cyclists to take the lane. For instance, the lanes on most of St. Clair Avenue West are too narrow for cars to safely share with cars since the completion of the streetcar ROW.

 

[Joe R.]

With bike lanes gone on Jarvis in a month or so I'd take Yonge, Church or Bay over Jarvis too because it's too fast and aggressive with five lanes, but I still stand by taking a lane. It's a cyclists right to share the road with motor vehicles (except on highways), yet most people don't know it. The new lanes on Sherbourne are terrific, if we could get those lanes on every 2nd or 3rd north/south and east/west street downtown (where appropriate) the city would explode with cyclists from March to October plus it might take a little pressure off traffic and overcrowded transit lines.

So you approve of breaking the law to make your point? Actually, no, it's not your right or any other cyclists to take up a lane of traffic which isn't designated for cycling.

 

[rbt]

So you approve of breaking the law to make your point? Actually, no, it's not your right or any other cyclists to take up a lane of traffic which isn't designated for cycling.

MTO's opinion on the matter.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section3.0.shtml


As a child, I remember being told to stay to the left hand side of the lane primarily so that drivers would see you and not risk clipping you when passing. It seems this is not the recommended way to ride anymore; they only recommend taking the lane (on all streets) when approaching intersections to prevent a vehicle from turning right.

 

[Joe R.]

MTO's opinion on the matter.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section3.0.shtml

A cyclist doesn't have a right to ride directly in front of a vehicle (beside them, yes). They would be impeding all traffic behind them, as well as putting their life at risk.

 

[ShonTron]

Hah. I like it when anti-bike commenters on one hand like to say that cyclists should be forced to be educated and licensed, and then be totally ignorant of the laws they righteously preach that cyclists must know.

Guess what? I've taken and passed CAN-BIKE II, I'm a fully licenced driver and my bike is registered with the Toronto police. CAN-BIKE, which bike cops have to take and pass too, is very clear about taking the lane. It's legal, it's a right, and the best and safest thing to do sometimes.

 

[Joe R.]

Hah. I like it when anti-bike commenters on one hand like to say that cyclists should be forced to be educated and licensed, and then be totally ignorant of the laws they righteously preach that cyclists must know.

Guess what? I've taken and passed CAN-BIKE II, I'm a fully licenced driver and my bike is registered with the Toronto police. CAN-BIKE, which bike cops have to take and pass too, is very clear about taking the lane. It's legal, it's a right, and the best and safest thing to do sometimes.

Who said I'm anti-bike? Are you insinuating that it's perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to ride on a 60km road, directly in front of vehicles or merely 40km roads--especially in the downtown core, where traffic moves more slowly and is much more compact than in the burbs?

 

[W. K. Lis]

A cyclist doesn't have a right to ride directly in front of a vehicle (beside them, yes). They would be impeding all traffic behind them, as well as putting their life at risk.

Which is why we need bicycle lanes. Removing the bicycle lanes on Jarvis could make it worse for automobile drivers by impeding traffic.

From the MTO quoting the paragraph in question:

Taking a lane

In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it. On high-speed roads, it is not safe to take the whole lane. To move left in a lane, should check, signal, left and shoulder check again then move to the centre of the lane when it is safe to do so.

Jarvis Street is not a high-speed road (in theory).

 

[ShonTron]

Who said I'm anti-bike? Are you insinuating that it's perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to ride on a 60km road, directly in front of vehicles or merely 40km roads--especially in the downtown core, where traffic moves more slowly and is much more compact than in the burbs?

On a 60 km/h road like Bathurst, or Yonge through Hogg's Hollow, or Lawrence? Absolutely, if it's necessary. The cyclist has as much right to be on that road as anyone else.

I don't take the lane myself unless necessary, but I will take the lane when construction, congestion, or poor conditions make it necessary to move safely and confidently. I'd rather be visible and alive, and perhaps inconveniencing some motorists for a minute or two, than struggling through debris, catch basins and swept to the side by the mirror of a SUV. That's what they teach when they teach safe, defensive, cycling.

 

[nfitz]

As a child, I remember being told to stay to the left hand side of the lane primarily so that drivers would see you and not risk clipping you when passing. It seems this is not the recommended way to ride anymore; they only recommend taking the lane (on all streets) when approaching intersections to prevent a vehicle from turning right.

That's what I remember being taught in Ontario as well ... by the OPP. Make sure you take enough of the lane, that a car won't be tempted to pass you without using the other lane - be in the middle of the lane.

Not sure why cyclists are so timid these days ... surely they are only putting themselves in danger of being close enough to a parked car, that a door might open and hit them.

I always used to cycle like that - it never seemed to be an issue for cars.