[Tewder]

The train idea is idotic, no matter how you slice it. Nevertheless, when the bike lane ends I would think it prudent to dismount and walk your bikes on the sidewalk, no? Think of it as bike portaging... and I'm all for promoting healthy lifestyles and physical activity but I think it's also good to instill a little common sense in the kiddies too. Oh well, I guess Darwinism will take care of it in the long run!

 

[Atlantis]

What are the safer alternatives in your opinion?

Yonge St has a bike lane now which suddenly ends at the Esplanade due to the L Tower hoarding. You can turn right on to Esplanade, which is a better alternative but still not really that safe.

If you go west you have Bay and York, go east and you have Jarvis. All crappy choices for crossing the rail corridor and the Gardiner.

If I were to bike on the east side of Yonge I think I would be more inclined to use Church, or a combination of Victoria going up, and Church coming back down. I personally would try and stay away as much as possible from Yonge and Jarvis if I could, certainly with kids.

However I used to regularly bike on the west side of Bay, and my favorite combination was St. George, Beverley and John to go north/south, and through Queen's Park and UofT to get there .

 

[CDL.TO]

If I were to bike on the east side of Yonge I think I would be more inclined to use Church, or a combination of Victoria going up, and Church coming back down. I personally would try and stay away as much as possible from Yonge and Jarvis if I could, certainly with kids.

However I used to regularly bike on the west side of Bay, and my favorite combination was St. George, Beverley and John to go north/south, and through Queen's Park and UofT to get there .

None of Church, Victoria, or John cross the railway tracks (which the family in the photo have just passed under).

So, again, what are the safer alternatives to what is happening in that photo?

 

[Edward Skira]

Actually if you look at the previous photo they came from the Esplanade. Hard to tell from the photo but are they on the sidewalk or on the street going the wrong way down the one-way Esplanade?

 

[CDL.TO]

Actually if you look at the previous photo they came from the Esplanade. Hard to tell from the photo but are they on the sidewalk or on the street going the wrong way down the one-way Esplanade?

Thanks for pointing this out. It looks to me like they are walking their "bikes" on the sidewalk.

It's still unfortunate that the L Tower hoarding has eliminated the bike lane on Yonge. A small price to pay, though.

My point still stands that good ways of crossing the rail tracks on a bike are sorely lacking.

 

[Atlantis]

Yes I was using that first photo to make the assumption that they were probably coming from somewhere in the St. Lawrence neighbourhood and could just as easily have chosen Victoria or Church as an alternative going north.

Ed007, it does looks like they may have dismounted and walked their bikes across the street to the sidewalk.

And I certainly agree with your point CDL.TO about crossing the railway, we really need much better cycling access. Hoping as East Bayfront gets developed this decade that we begin addressing that need.

 

[junctionist]

No, roads are for traffic. Sidewalks are for people. Bike lanes and paths are for bikes. Anything else is inherently dangerous, no matter what your point of view... and to risk this for yourself is your choice but to blindly lead your children through it in a 'train' is utterly indefensible. Idiots!

So you think that cyclists have no right to use roads without bike lanes? That they're not part of traffic? (Are you Rob Ford?) Streets are for people to use however they like: transportation, festivals, road hockey, protests, and other events are perfectly acceptable. Some organizational structure like the government helps keep these different uses from creating chaos.

You don't know anything about their route. Only a small part of it might involve cycling down Yonge Street.

 

[Tewder]

So you think that cyclists have no right to use roads without bike lanes? That they're not part of traffic? (Are you Rob Ford?) Streets are for people to use however they like: transportation, festivals, road hockey, protests, and other events are perfectly acceptable. Some organizational structure like the government helps keep these different uses from creating chaos.

Ah but what you are talking about here though is 'context'. Road hockey may be perfectly acceptable on a quiet side street, for example, but wouldn't be acceptable at Yonge/Dundas... unless it is a special organized event or 'festival'. So yes, there are all kinds of exceptions. This doesn't change however, fundamentally, that roads are for cars and sidewalks for people and so on... Common sense and context should prevail, in the absence of any kind of personal agenda at least. Failing that, good luck to you!

You don't know anything about their route. Only a small part of it might involve cycling down Yonge Street.

Why so defensive? Agenda?? I mean, if you're going to assume I'm Rob Ford what should I assume in return? Or maybe it's just interesting to use a picture with little context to muse on these sorts of issues.

 

[spaced]

From the The Official MTO Driver's Handbook (http://www.todaysdriver.ca/files/Download/OntarioDHB2009.pdf)

The road test will test how well you use your knowledge while driving. You will be tested on:
...
-passing vehicles, including bicycles, and driving in passing lanes.
...
Ontario's roads accommodate a variety of road users, including...bicycles...Be wary of other road users, the speed at which they travel and the space they occupy on the road.
Cyclists need a metre on either side of themselves... When passing a cyclist, allow at least one metre between your car and the cyclist.
Never make sudden lane changes by cutting in front of another vehicle, including bicycles.
Watch for bicycles..
...bicycles... often need to pull to the left or the right side of their lane to avoid dangerous road conditions or to be seen by other drivers. Do not take this as an invitation to pass in the same lane.

Seems like the law says bicycles have as much right to most roads (including Yonge St.) as cars do to me.

 

[Tewder]

Hey, go ahead and exercise your 'rights' and drag your kids through Yonge Street traffic where there are no bike lanes... and enjoy inhaling all those exhaust fumes while at it!

 

[Tulse]

I'm a strong supporter of cyclist rights, but I'm also a strong supporter of using common sense -- it is simply dangerous and irresponsible to have kids on bikes try to negotiate dense traffic in a construction zone with narrow lanes and a lot of driver distractions. If they absolutely had to take such a crowded, busy route, the appropriate solution would have been to dismount and walk the bikes through the covered and separated pedestrian walkway.

 

[Homer]

From the The Official MTO Driver's Handbook (http://www.todaysdriver.ca/files/Download/OntarioDHB2009.pdf)


Seems like the law says bicycles have as much right to most roads (including Yonge St.) as cars do to me.

I agree with Tewder on this... roads were not designed for bicycles and that is the problem. Laws allowing bikes on roads does not change the fact that the road was not designed to accomodate bikes. Designated bike lanes on the road
helps as you are starting to deal with the design issue of the road.

 

[junctionist]

Ah but what you are talking about here though is 'context'. Road hockey may be perfectly acceptable on a quiet side street, for example, but wouldn't be acceptable at Yonge/Dundas... unless it is a special organized event or 'festival'. So yes, there are all kinds of exceptions. This doesn't change however, fundamentally, that roads are for cars and sidewalks for people and so on... Common sense and context should prevail, in the absence of any kind of personal agenda at least. Failing that, good luck to you!

Of course common sense and context should prevail. Cyclists can use roads safely. If they feel unsafe, they may take the lane. They're part of traffic. Streets are for people to use, be it for driving cars, riding bikes, having a festival, or playing sports. They're also useful for protests. On a street with little or no traffic one might play hockey. But the narrow "streets are for cars" line of thought means city-wide prohibitions even on that.

Why so defensive? Agenda?? I mean, if you're going to assume I'm Rob Ford what should I assume in return? Or maybe it's just interesting to use a picture with little context to muse on these sorts of issues.

No agenda, though I do have a vision of the kind of city I'd like to see. Everyone should. But the emotional, conservative reaction to which I responded to was over the top: 'They should get a minivan' or 'Someone should call children's aid'. These people could have had a couple of blocks to their car or to a quieter street. Drivers have to be alert and share the road with cyclists, especially on Yonge Street, the heart of urban Toronto.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

I agree with Tewder on this... roads were not designed for bicycles and that is the problem. Laws allowing bikes on roads does not change the fact that the road was not designed to accomodate bikes.

Yonge was designed for people and horses. It was 100 years before this road saw its first car.

 

[reaperexpress]

No, roads are for traffic. Sidewalks are for people. Bike lanes and paths are for bikes. Anything else is inherently dangerous, no matter what your point of view...

So in other words, bikes should not exist at all. I challenge you to find a single commute that can take place entirely within bike lanes and mixed-use trails. And cycling on the street is no more dangerous than driving a car downtown, if you're responsible. How does a bike riding downtown act any differently than a car? The main differences are that bikes are smaller and have a lower top speed. Driving downtown, you don't spend that much time above 30km/h so a bike taking the lane would not really slow down traffic anyway.

The train idea is idotic, no matter how you slice it. Nevertheless, when the bike lane ends I would think it prudent to dismount and walk your bikes on the sidewalk, no? Think of it as bike portaging... and I'm all for promoting healthy lifestyles and physical activity but I think it's also good to instill a little common sense in the kiddies too. Oh well, I guess Darwinism will take care of it in the long run!

What is the point of having a bike if you're just going to portage it everywhere? Bike lanes aren't common enough for this to be practical. Bikes exist because they are faster than walking and, believe it or not, people actually use them to get places. If I were to "bike portage" my commute, it would involve biking 500m and walking 4.5km. That would take bloody forever, so I would never do that. Biking normally, my commute only takes about 10-20 minutes, which is faster than taking transit and only marginally slower than driving. Now that the weather is nice, I bike relatively frequently. Are you telling me that I should not be doing this?

Ah but what you are talking about here though is 'context'. Road hockey may be perfectly acceptable on a quiet side street, for example, but wouldn't be acceptable at Yonge/Dundas... unless it is a special organized event or 'festival'. So yes, there are all kinds of exceptions. This doesn't change however, fundamentally, that roads are for cars and sidewalks for people and so on... Common sense and context should prevail, in the absence of any kind of personal agenda at least. Failing that, good luck to you!

This is simply your personal perspective on what roads are for. Official documentation and history each have different takes on how roads should be used as well.

It seems a bit hypocritical that the same person who is explaining context also makes broad generalizations about how all road cycling is irresponsible.

Why so defensive? Agenda?? I mean, if you're going to assume I'm Rob Ford what should I assume in return? Or maybe it's just interesting to use a picture with little context to muse on these sorts of issues.

You stated Rob Ford's exact stance on cycling, and someone pointed that out. If I may say so myself, you're the one who seems defensive here.