[Avenue]

I too rode through last night - but a cop had conveniently decided to park in the new channel, so I was still forced onto the sidewalk.

Cops too often park in bike lines and TTC stop pockets even when there's street parking available nearby.

 

[ADRM]

Cops too often park in bike lines and TTC stop pockets even when there's street parking available nearby.

I once confronted a cop doing so, who of course claimed that he was responding to a call.

That call was a Timmie's double double.

 

[steveintoronto]

I rode the newly paved bike route this morning. Lines haven't yet been painted, but otherwise it seems ready to go. While it's a vast improvement over what was there before, there's an unfortunate conflict point where the south-side crosswalk across Bathurst crosses the bike channel. Could possibly be resolved with a dedicated signal cycle for bikes -- anyone know whether signal changes are coming?

Yeah, I was there yesterday studying it. The workmanship is wanting, the choice of asphalt poor, unless they're putting an actual European style asphalt added-traction top-coat on it. The concrete forming is poor...they cheaped out on this. It remains to be seen what flow they paint on Adelaide from the east to get bikes safely across to the slip, and unfortunately you're right on the channel v pedestrian conflict, not just for right-of-way, but also when the channel fills up, it will block pedestrians trying to cross at that point.

We'll have to see how they address the flow with the signals. Done right, it could and would work. At least it seems a railing is going up on the concrete plinth for the northern slip, to channel flow with the southern access to cross east across Bathurst. Ideally, those two flows should be separated by signal sequence and/or a guided rail or curb to guide both easterly. We'll see.

 

[Oddpie]

About the bike lights discussion, I was surprised no one brought up putting lights on your helmet. I found that they're very easy to get a driver's attention if you're not sure they've seen you by moving your head. And also good when you look behind to change lane positions, or to the right of you, etc.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Here's a photo I took today at Leslie/Highway 7 of the bike/pedestrian multi-use path.

I notices that the path is not continuous from north of 16th Ave to Hwy 7. It narrows to the regular concrete sidewalk at signalized intersections (and bus stops), which is the worse design ever, but has a full on path at driveways (dashed lines). I hope some day they can build it all out at has a proper continuous path.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Google Earth Imagery for the new Highway 7 Widening with bikes lanes are now updated:
In my opinion, the inconsistencies of where the green "paint" is used is quite annoying and may cause confusion.

 

[steveintoronto]

About the bike lights discussion, I was surprised no one brought up putting lights on your helmet. I found that they're very easy to get a driver's attention if you're not sure they've seen you by moving your head. And also good when you look behind to change lane positions, or to the right of you, etc.

I have to disagree. I'm not saying that they aren't a good thing, but *supplementary* to handlebar mounted lights, that by necessity, must continually be aimed forward and on-beam to oncoming traffic. The right handlebar mounting makes you visible blocks away. A good part of that is the right flashing cadence, but also the concentrated point-source of light emission.

Both front and rear lights are *essential* to being critically aimed at approaching traffic, and most specifically, *eye level* of the motorist and/or other cyclist on-coming. You can't do that with a helmet mounting bobbing all over the place.

 

[steveintoronto]

In my opinion, the inconsistencies of where the green "paint" is used is quite annoying and may cause confusion.

I was going to post this with my post immediately prior, until realizing this is a *very* important point. Both cyclists and motorists are confused, and for good reason. There's an incredible lack of consistency with how the green is used.

Use it too much, the motorist is desensitized to the 'alert' factor. Not enough, and cycling lanes become unnoticeable.

I've got to say I'd avoid those cycle lanes unless I found myself stuck in that part of the world. Doubtless, it adds safety, and I must admit to bulling along Hwy 7 in years past, God only knows why. There's just nothing inviting about that corridor for a cyclist. I go further north and try and find reasonable side roads with a more rural feel to them.

But your point on the green requires a lot more discussion, it's also being grossly misused in the City too.

 

[Oddpie]

I have to disagree. I'm not saying that they aren't a good thing, but *supplementary* to handlebar mounted lights, that by necessity, must continually be aimed forward and on-beam to oncoming traffic. The right handlebar mounting makes you visible blocks away. A good part of that is the right flashing cadence, but also the concentrated point-source of light emission.

Both front and rear lights are *essential* to being critically aimed at approaching traffic, and most specifically, *eye level* of the motorist and/or other cyclist on-coming. You can't do that with a helmet mounting bobbing all over the place.

I thought you might disagree but in my experience I feel unsafe with bike mounted lights and feel safe only with helmet lights. Probably saved me 30+ times. I don't care to get the stationary lights, just more to carry, speaking only for myself.

I also thought you would mention them as a supplementary and I'm sure that's fine too.

I wonder if the plowing of Bloor this year will be back on the low priority schedule like last year (budget), or will it have higher priority as in 2015, I think it was?

 

[Voltz]

I thought you might disagree but in my experience I feel unsafe with bike mounted lights and feel safe only with helmet lights. Probably saved me 30+ times. I don't care to get the stationary lights, just more to carry, speaking only for myself.

I also thought you would mention them as a supplementary and I'm sure that's fine too.

I've heard that an object mounted on your helmet can be an injury risk if you fall on it.

 

[steveintoronto]

I thought you might disagree but in my experience I feel unsafe with bike mounted lights and feel safe only with helmet lights.

I think you'd best check with others as to how visible you are, and how consistent that visibility is. I passed a cyclist just yesterday with rear mounted lights on her helmet, except they weren't visible. She had a scarf wrapped over them. Hey...It's easy to be oblivious when you can't look behind you to make sure your lights are working and properly aligned.

The following should be obvious to anyone who wishes to cycle safely, but I digress:

[...]
Advantages and disadvantages
Helmet lights are particularly useful for off road riding because the light follows the direction you are looking. Lights mounted on the bike will still be shining straight ahead when you need to see how to set up for the next turn. On the road the light may catch a driver's eye, and you can even "flash" the light briefly in a driver's eye to get their attention. We don't recommend that. It blinds the driver, or even worse, another bicyclist coming at you on a dark trail, and they experience something similar to having a camera flash go off in your face. Careful practice is required to avoid flashing people when you don't intend to. Since an important function of a headlight is identifying your vehicle to oncoming or crossing traffic, you may think that the unusual helmet-mounted light will attract a driver's attention, but in an urban setting it may be lost in the light clutter and rejected as a streetlight or sign because it is too far above the roadway. From this perspective, a car light mounted on the bicycle provides the light that drivers are scanning for, and is a more reliable indicator that you are a vehicle. At intersections, cars coming from the left or right often depend on the light they see on the pavement ahead to decide if a vehicle is coming on the crossing street.



The importance of breakaway mounts
The first and most important rule for mounting a light on your helmet is that it must break away readily when you crash or catch an overhanging obstacle. If it does not, you risk having your neck jerked when it snags on the pavement or tree. Besides jerking your neck, that can add to the g's of the shock to your brain when you hit pavement.
There is no standard for how easily the light should detach. The CPSC standard says it should "readily" detach during normal lab impacts. But "readily" is not defined. Few helmet or light manufacturers have given enough thought to their mounts. Only one helmet manufacturer we have spoken to provided their lab test levels, Uvex, proving that they actually have an internal standard. And the light manufacturer Jet Lites has a standard requiring their mount to break away when loaded with a 5 pound weight.

Some manufacturers use hook-and-loop straps to hold their lights on. We have seen some that wrap through the vents and under that seemed unlikely to detach when they should have. But again, there is no standard for that.
[...]

https://helmets.org/helmetlights.htm

 

[reaperexpress]

Well, rather than getting involved in the difference between 'cycling advocates' and 'your average oblivious cyclist' (which is not demeaning, just that infrastructure has to take that into consideration. Take the number of bikes without lights, for instance...), I did some research a few weeks back, and talked to a number of police officers, I'm not going to give names and divisions, as they would rightly prefer that any public statement come through their official spokesman, who I haven't talked with yet.

There's a very serious gap in enforcing bike infrastructure: painted lanes on roads come under the HTA, anything else is not the domain of the police short of criminal offences (and there are a few I believe applicable).

How serious an issue are items like "Green Boxes"? One of the concerned desk-sergeants I first spoke to was a cycle cop last year. He had "*No idea!*" of what a "Green Box" was/is, let alone as to how the law stands on them.

I had to show him a picture on my phone, and explain the conundrum. I'll be posting those pics and the relevant legal reference some time soon, suffice to say the bottom line is this:

*Technically*, as it now stands, a cyclist can be charged with obstructing traffic by sitting in a green box like this one:

That is on the south-east corner of Lansdowne and Dundas.

Here's a sign eastbound on Dundas directing cyclists to that corner to continue going east on College instead of going through the suicide turn by the bridge:

The Cdn, Ontario, and City of Toronto guidelines on boxes is that the traffic lane that they obstruct, "may" have a "no right turn on red" sign posted. *MAY*????

The US guidelines (which is where the model Canada copies originates) are emphatic (and the US is fortunate in having a powerful national mandate and gov org for cycling and traffic safety) that turns *should* be banned from right turns on red when a box is used in an intersection.

Lansdowne *does not* ban a right on red turn, I have the pics to prove it, just can't be bothered to post them. And neither are a lot of intersections with boxes in them.

Not only that, there's *no law* that Ontario (Metro et al) police can invoke to protect the rights of cyclists in such infrastructure. It's *Not in the HTA!*

There's huge concern on the part of the police I've spoken with. There's an awkward silence when asked about this...and one sergeant in a traffic division revealed her personal feelings on the matter, I'm not going to reveal them, save for her stating: "It's really good for someone to invoke and understand the HTA, and why our hands are tied on this, and all we can say in these situations is "we have to share the road". I was given a contact at HQ which I haven't pursued yet. It might even put HQ in an awkward position, since it may not be the place of the cops to point this out to politicians asleep at the wheel.

What I'm taking away from all of this is that the wording in bikeway design guidelines should be changed from "may" to "must" regarding No RTOR signs. Other than that, the left-turn boxes seem totally fine. They don't need any HTA force in themselves, the surrounding roadway arrangement and RTOR sign will already keep them clear for cyclists.

Which brings us back to that intersection at Adelaide and Bathurst: Let me flip this over, since I've got reams of reference here but I'm too scattered to edit and post it at this time, and I especially ask the "Cycling Advocates".

What laws will be used to enforce safety on the 'boxes' and "unique" lay-by at Ad and Bath? As far as I can tell, it's a mish-mash of law and by-law. so it would take a by-law officer and police officer at the same time to regulate it. If even that. I see all sorts of legal technicalities that would get charges dropped.

Let me be more blunt: Who at City Hall and Queen's Park has thought through the legalities of this? The Ont Cycling Handbook gives suggestions, but there's no legal back-up under the HTA.

Any answers most welcome.

Btw: Just checked Ad-Bath an hour ago. No change in a week, and cyclists zooming up onto the sidewalk oblivious of pedestrians, kids in strollers and the infirm. Not all cyclists, but many. Some cyclists shake their heads in disbelief, as do I when 'the metrosexual cyclist' claims: "I see no wrong".

You don't need HTA back-up for every little roadway design. You need HTA backup where you think something needs to be enforced but there isn't another law that does so. What precisely do you think needs to be enforced at Bathurst & Adelaide that isn't already enforceable under a different law?

 

[steveintoronto]

[...]You don't need HTA back-up for every little roadway design. You need HTA backup where you think something needs to be enforced but there isn't another law that does so. What precisely do you think needs to be enforced at Bathurst & Adelaide that isn't already enforceable under a different law?

Then you need the HTA to recognize the applicability of by-laws in a court of law so that when an accident that causes damage to life and limb, let alone to property, the person(s) responsible can be charged, and therefore in a civil case, that can be used to recover damages.

Why does the HTA exist in the first place? Cyclists need the protection of the HTA.

Ontario failing to protect cyclists, pedestrians

The province should follow the lead of other jurisdictions and adopt a Vulnerable Road Users law.

[...]
Some jurisdictions now specifically recognize the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians. New York, Oregon and Washington have passed Vulnerable Road User laws, which impose harsher penalties and consequences on a motorist who injures or kills a vulnerable road user, defined as a pedestrian, cyclist, road worker, or person using a mobility device.

Pedestrian and cycling deaths in Toronto alone this year make clear that it’s time for Ontario to implement similar measures. A generation ago harsher penalties for impaired driving also changed conduct and attitudes — and saved lives.

The new law or changes to the HTA would include treating road infractions differently when a vulnerable road user is harmed so that the offence becomes, for example, “careless driving” or “leave road not in safety” that caused injury or death to a vulnerable road user. (Where not already the case, the onus to prove reasonable care would fall on the motorist.)

Motorists would be required to attend court for sentencing. New penalties would include the requirement to take road safety courses; the imposition of community service related to road safety; the suspension of a driver’s license and increased demerit points (as have recently been added for dooring a cyclist); and the availability of jail, particularly where there is another aggravating factor.

Treating offences involving vulnerable road users in a special manner gives clear direction to police, prosecutors, and judicial officials to deal with such collisions as preventable tragedies instead of unfortunate accidents.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...-failing-to-protect-cyclists-pedestrians.html

 

[reaperexpress]

Then you need the HTA to recognize the applicability of by-laws in a court of law so that when an accident that causes damage to life and limb, let alone to property, the person(s) responsible can be charged, and therefore in a civil case, that can be used to recover damages.

Why does the HTA exist in the first place? Cyclists need the protection of the HTA.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...-failing-to-protect-cyclists-pedestrians.html

I still don't get it. What changes to the HTA are you proposing to make them better protect cyclists at left-turn queue boxes?

 

[steveintoronto]

I still don't get it. What changes to the HTA are you proposing to make them better protect cyclists at left-turn queue boxes?

Put them in the HTA. State the terms of use, and penalties for those who fail to follow the terms. Police would then be obliged to charge motorists and cyclists who fail to comply. And my point isn't just "left turn queue boxes". It's *all of them*. At present, they are only devices of local By-Law, and enforced, if at all, by by-law officers.

Btw: How the US (which is the model Canada copied) counsels local jurisdictions to comply with conditions for bike boxes:

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/

Take close note of "shall".

The Cdn, Ontario and Toronto guideline versions state "may".

Frankly, I think many if not most "bike boxes" are dangerous and poorly designed/thought out, but *at the very least* offer protection to those who use them! If cyclists are going to be given a false sense of safety in them, then legislate that sense to make it real. By-Laws are not legislation in the truest sense, they are delegated. Bicycle infrastructure must be recognized under the HTA to offer the safety and enforcement needed since bicycles themselves are recognized explicitly under the HTA.