[Midtown Urbanist]

The goal should be to make our cycling infrastructure safe enough that one doesn't need to wear a helmet.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

For riding a pokey bikeshare bike in Kensington Market or Queens Quay?

Surely you jest.

Riding a pokey-slow upright Bike Share Toronto bike WITHOUT a helmet is safter than riding a kneel-over race-type bike WITH helmet. I vote against anyone who mandates helmets for 40 year old people riding slow upright city-oriented bikes. They are slow, highly visible, force cyclists to keep head higher (see cars better).

Bike Share Bikes safer than own Bike

Certainly even a 40 year old need a helmet for some of the Toronto roads you cycle on....BUT NOT ON ALL OF THE ROUTES. Protest against helmets (except under 18).

Yes, there is even a TED TALK recommending against mandatory helmet law. WATCH IT before you Reply.

Such stupidity of a blanket recommendations.
Helmets are important, but blanket-requiring it?

I have more. Here is Europe, low death rate without helmets, here you go:

I am a car driver and I KNOW some cyclists can be dumb. But shaddup and read/watch above, then reply. I have plenty more to say, all the above is just a small sampling of why mandatory blanket law on cycle helmets, "everywhere, all ages, no matter what", is stupid. Ready, Juan_Lennon416?

Toronto downtown is gradually becoming safer for cyclists, thanks to the expansion in protected cycle tracks (some steps backwards like cars parking in Adelaide/Richmond lanes -- but they are going to install a permanent raised curb eventually). As this infrastructure expands, and some streets gain more cyclists than cars during rush (like College did at times), it becomes even safer to cycle on a per-capita basis. Those saying "We arent Europe" need to cycle on College on a busy day to realize Europe is here already and is spreading bit by bit.

Thanks for the long-winded post. You need to protect your head from trauma. You don't know what could happen while riding on the street or on a trail. Better to be safe than sorry

 

[W. K. Lis]

One mayor problem with Toronto (and other cities with freeways) is the barrier freeways (and railways) create for bicyclists and pedestrians.

For example, between Jane Street and Allen Road, the 401 presents a GREAT WALL. You can only use the arterial roads (Jane Street, Keele Street, Dufferin Street). Some roads you can't use, such as the Allen Road.

If you are bicycling along Caledonia Road and want to get to Wilson Avenue, there is a big detour that both bicyclists and pedestrians have to make. Can't get from Bridgeland Avenue to Falstaff Avenue either, because of another barrier, the railway.

The city should be making more access routes for bicyclists and pedestrians along the freeways and railways, especially in the sprawling suburban areas of the city.

I think that the older parts of the city has more access routes for bicyclists and pedestrians because there is less sprawl.

 

[mdrejhon]

Thanks for the long-winded post. You need to protect your head from trauma. You don't know what could happen while riding on the street or on a trail. Better to be safe than sorry

I have a helmet.

It is my choice if the bike trip I am planning to take, to decide if the trip demands a helmet or not.
-- A pokey slow upright ride on a bikeshare bike on protected paths
-- versus a long fast ride through suburban racetracks and huge intersections using my own owned bike.

Sometimes I am away from home and I do not have a bike with me. Two of the GO stations I use, and my house are all inside the SoBi Hamilton bikeshare zone. Some of my multimodal commutes involve an unexpected SoBi bikeshare. 80 percent of the bike route is available on a protected cycle route (Cannon). I just punch my own 6-digit code into a SoBi and ride home instead of a bus sometimes, costs only a dollar of bikeshare pay-per-use time ($4/hr but prorated by minute -- and takes less than 5 seconds to grab a SoBi). Unexpected 1-way SoBi bike ride where I do not have my own helmet with me while I am on my way home without my car.

Don't mandatorily legislate my own helmet, though. That where my uproar would come from.

 

[LNahid2000]

I have a helmet.

It is my choice if the bike trip I am planning to take, to decide if the trip demands a helmet or not.
-- A pokey slow upright ride on a bikeshare bike on protected paths
-- versus a long fast ride through suburban racetracks and huge intersections using my own owned bike.

Sometimes I am away from home and I do not have a bike with me. Two of the GO stations I use, and my house are all inside the SoBi Hamilton bikeshare zone. Some of my multimodal commutes involve an unexpected SoBi bikeshare. 80 percent of the bike route is available on a protected cycle route (Cannon). I just punch my own 6-digit code into a SoBi and ride home instead of a bus sometimes, costs only a dollar of bikeshare pay-per-use time ($4/hr but prorated by minute -- and takes less than 5 seconds to grab a SoBi). Unexpected 1-way SoBi bike ride where I do not have my own helmet with me while I am on my way home without my car.

Don't mandatorily legislate my own helmet, though. That where my uproar would come from.

I do exactly the same thing. If I'm riding my fast road bike (which usually involves biking 30km+), I always wear a helmet. On the other hand, if I'm riding a slow Bike Share bike, which often end up being unexpected trips, I don't wear a helmet. The trip is only going to be a couple of km anyway, and studies have been done to show that those bike share bikes are safer anyway.

 

[Napoleon]

I do exactly the same thing. If I'm riding my fast road bike (which usually involves biking 30km+), I always wear a helmet. On the other hand, if I'm riding a slow Bike Share bike, which often end up being unexpected trips, I don't wear a helmet. The trip is only going to be a couple of km anyway, and studies have been done to show that those bike share bikes are safer anyway.

I'm not brave enough to go helmet-free in Toronto. When in Montreal; however, the cycling infrastructure feels good enough that I don't mind using the Bixi bikes at all!

 

[downtownordinary]

Hmm. Interesting discussion. I fully agree that it makes me nervous when I see cyclists pass on the right a car about to or in the process of turning right. But I don't agree that the proper manoeuver for the driver is to actually merge into the bike lane before turning right. For one, if this were the rule then it runs the risks of endangering cyclists who might be in a driver's blind spot at the moment he decides to move into the bike lane before his right hand turn. For another, I think too little mental separation between car lanes and bike lanes can encourage the attitude that bike lanes are just lanes that exist for drivers in those instances where they want to use them to their advantage.

The best solution, to my mind, is for drivers to wait for a clear bike lane before turning right, while at the same time for cyclists to merge to the left of the car as the driver waits to execute the turn. I think the underlying issue is that there's this belief that a cyclist shouldn't have to stop behind a car to wait for it to make its move. This is partly because stopping as a cyclist is annoying, as starting back up again takes more energy. The result is that cyclists start to foolishly either merge left to pass the right-turning car, or they foolishly try to sneak in on the right hand side before the turn, all in the interest of not stopping with traffic when necessary like other vehicles do.

But again, the problem would be solved if right-turning cars were safer and more patient, and if cyclists accepted that sometimes you just need to wait behind traffic until it's safe to proceed.

The reason to allow cars into the bike lane to turn right at an intersection is that it provides a safe place for the cyclist to go on the left side of the car. If the car wasn't in the bike lane when turning right then, in order for the cyclist to pass on the left they'd have to go into the outer lane where through traffic will be. By allowing the car into the bike lane at the intersection, the left side of the car stays partially in the inner (curb) lane stopping cars from proceeding in that lane but giving enough space for the cyclist to proceed safely through the intersection.

I agree that not enough public education has been done for cyclists or drivers on how to handle the right turn and patience is required by all parties.

 

[LNahid2000]

The reason to allow cars into the bike lane to turn right at an intersection is that it provides a safe place for the cyclist to go on the left side of the car. If the car wasn't in the bike lane when turning right then, in order for the cyclist to pass on the left they'd have to go into the outer lane where through traffic will be. By allowing the car into the bike lane at the intersection, the left side of the car stays partially in the inner (curb) lane stopping cars from proceeding in that lane but giving enough space for the cyclist to proceed safely through the intersection.

I agree that not enough public education has been done for cyclists or drivers on how to handle the right turn and patience is required by all parties.

The problem is, the majority of drivers in my experience don't hug the curb when turning right. This makes it difficult to pass on either side since there's no room on the left, and I don't want to get right hooked on the right. If every car hugged the curb when turning this would work well though.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Bugs me are those persons in a small car but make a WIDE turn, crossing two lanes, before and after the turn.

 

[Filip]

People just don't know they're supposed to go into the bike lane for right turns. It doesn't help when cyclists also start ringing their bells/swearing when a car IS in the bike lane to make a right turn.

Education on both sides is required. Between right/left turning cars, you can have only one working lane on Richmond or Adelaide - which is causing more than enough issues on its own.

 

[Miscreant]

Well, fair enough. I'll trust that you guys know more about this than I do. But I will add this: as far as I know--correct me if I'm wrong--it's technically wrong to stop in a bike lane. Vaguely aware of this, when I've been a driver (which is infrequently, I'm a cyclist or a pedestrian most days), I've been reluctant to get into the bike lane because it was my understanding that I wasn't to stop in it at all, which is technically supposed to happen when making a right hand turn, at least on a red, if not for safety on a green.

I think there's a fair bit of ambiguity on this score. In my view, the best policy is to stop in the lane, check your mirror, and wait to make your turn only when you see no cyclists approaching on the right. In other words, you give them the right of way since you're making a two-lane right hand turn.

 

[LNahid2000]

I don't think there is much ambiguity here. If there is a dashed line at the intersection, this means you move into the bike lane to make your turn. If there is a solid line at the intersection (this is the case on most cycle tracks but not bike lanes), this means you yield to cyclists before making your turn.

 

[West End Boy]

I don't think there is much ambiguity here. If there is a dashed line at the intersection, this means you move into the bike lane to make your turn. If there is a solid line at the intersection (this is the case on most cycle tracks but not bike lanes), this means you yield to cyclists before making your turn.

I agree. Many people don't realize this, and yes the outraged cyclists yelling at drivers doing this really doesn't help. Once you notice the change from solid to dashed, it makes much more sense. We need a public education campaign on this.

 

[Fred.S]

Although I don't blame drivers too much for not knowing, there seems to be many different intersection types when it comes to bike lanes. Some with dashed lines, some cycle tracks go right up to the intersection, sometimes they disappear and sharrows appear, etc. Even Richmond and Adeleide have inconsistent intersection designs along them. There's also a multitude of inconsistent bike lane and track types, and there seems to be a different standard on each street. Sometimes there are flexi-posts, sometimes not, sometimes a thick buffer, and for some reason Sherbourne has a green line on it, and no actual separation at points.

I wish they would come up with design standards, based on best-practices (such as Netherlands/Copenhagen), go through a proper consultation process to finalize them, and apply them uniformly.

 

[MisterF]

Bugs me are those persons in a small car but make a WIDE turn, crossing two lanes, before and after the turn.

I notice this all the time. Most drivers have no idea how much room they actually have. It doesn't help that our roads are so wide. People get used to having a huge amount of space around them that they're not comfortable being close to the curb or manoeuvring their car into tight spaces. So people swing out to the left when they're making a right turn. Or when I'm going straight at a red light and moved to the left side of the lane to allow people turning right to get through, they just sit behind me thinking there's no room when I can plainly see that they've left two metres between their car and the curb. When I first visited Europe really drove this point home. Their roads are much narrower than ours, with less room for error, and that makes their drivers more aware of the space around them. They will sail through a space that would confound a North American without a second thought. Come to think of it, the whole world designs their roads like that except North America. We build our roads to be so foolproof that we've created a bunch of oblivious fools behind the wheel.

Although I don't blame drivers too much for not knowing, there seems to be many different intersection types when it comes to bike lanes. Some with dashed lines, some cycle tracks go right up to the intersection, sometimes they disappear and sharrows appear, etc. Even Richmond and Adeleide have inconsistent intersection designs along them. There's also a multitude of inconsistent bike lane and track types, and there seems to be a different standard on each street. Sometimes there are flexi-posts, sometimes not, sometimes a thick buffer, and for some reason Sherbourne has a green line on it, and no actual separation at points.

I wish they would come up with design standards, based on best-practices (such as Netherlands/Copenhagen), go through a proper consultation process to finalize them, and apply them uniformly.

MTO does have a manual for bike facilities. The quality of the standards in the manual and how consistently they're applied is a whole other matter.