Re: Reduced sidewalk riding fine & cycle paths

[Chris B.]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:05:27 GMT, "Doug Purdy" > wrote:

>Check out Jan Wong's article "All thos cycle paths" in today's Globe and
>Mail Toronto section page M3 or at
>http://www.globeandmail.com

Try:
<http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040508/WONG08//?query=jan+wong>

>"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views every
>issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist. Their job
>is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials on
>cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that city
>council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50 from
>$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.
>
>"The pedestrian committee, a kinder, gentler group, actually supported
>the cycling committee in cutting the fine. Asked why, Rita Brooks, the
>pedestrian co-chairwoman and a non-cyclist, hesitated. "It was sort of
>the lower-income argument. But that's not very good, is it?"
>
>"The cycling committee holds sway over a $72-million bike plan that will
>change the face of the city. That includes doubling the number of
>cyclists in Toronto within 10 years by ensuring everyone lives within a
>five-minute ride of a network of 1,000 kilometres of bike paths"

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

More evidence that the greatest threat to people who wish to ride
their bikes to go somewhere or who wish to ride above 5 km/h and don't
desire dodging and weaving around 3 year olds on tricycles is the
so-called Cycling Advocate.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Chris B. > writes:

> A self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> More evidence that the greatest threat to people who wish to ride
> their bikes to go somewhere or who wish to ride above 5 km/h and don't
> desire dodging and weaving around 3 year olds on tricycles is the
> so-called Cycling Advocate.

I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
(the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Bernie]

Chris B. wrote:

>On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:05:27 GMT, "Doug Purdy" > wrote:
>
>>Check out Jan Wong's article "All thos cycle paths" in today's Globe and
>>Mail Toronto section page M3 or at
>>http://www.globeandmail.com
>>
>
>Try:
><http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040508/WONG08//?query=jan+wong>
>
>>"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views every
>>issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist. Their job
>>is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials on
>>cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that city
>>council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50 from
>>$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.
>>
>>"The pedestrian committee, a kinder, gentler group, actually supported
>>the cycling committee in cutting the fine. Asked why, Rita Brooks, the
>>pedestrian co-chairwoman and a non-cyclist, hesitated. "It was sort of
>>the lower-income argument. But that's not very good, is it?"
>>
>>"The cycling committee holds sway over a $72-million bike plan that will
>>change the face of the city. That includes doubling the number of
>>cyclists in Toronto within 10 years by ensuring everyone lives within a
>>five-minute ride of a network of 1,000 kilometres of bike paths"
>>
>
>A self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
>More evidence that the greatest threat to people who wish to ride
>their bikes to go somewhere or who wish to ride above 5 km/h and don't
>desire dodging and weaving around 3 year olds on tricycles is the
>so-called Cycling Advocate.
>
Agreed, we already have a network of routes to use on bicycles. It's
called the streets and highways of where we live.
Best regards, Bernie

[LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT]

> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??

What a load of horse-manure.

[Steven Goodridge]

(Tom Keats) wrote :
> I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
> (the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.

Exactly - the appropriate response would be to hike the fines for
speeding, red light running, or aggressive driving.

-Steve

[Zoot Katz]

10 May 2004 12:00:10 -0700,
>,
(Steven Goodridge) wrote:

(Tom Keats) wrote :
>> I dunno. A $50 fine can still sting. But the ostensible reason
>> (the roads getting more dangerous) doesn't quite sound 'right'.
>
>Exactly - the appropriate response would be to hike the fines for
>speeding, red light running, or aggressive driving.
>
Increased enforcement would do more than raising a fine no one pays
because they're not cited for the infraction.
--
zk

[A mukluk wearing troll]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 19:22:16 GMT, Chris B.
> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:05:27 GMT, "Doug Purdy" > wrote:
>
>>Check out Jan Wong's article "All thos cycle paths" in today's Globe and
>>Mail Toronto section page M3 or at
>>http://www.globeandmail.com
>
>Try:
><http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040508/WONG08//?query=jan+wong>
>
>>"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views every
>>issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist. Their job
>>is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials on
>>cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that city
>>council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50 from
>>$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.
>>
>>"The pedestrian committee, a kinder, gentler group, actually supported
>>the cycling committee in cutting the fine. Asked why, Rita Brooks, the
>>pedestrian co-chairwoman and a non-cyclist, hesitated. "It was sort of
>>the lower-income argument. But that's not very good, is it?"
>>
>>"The cycling committee holds sway over a $72-million bike plan that will
>>change the face of the city. That includes doubling the number of
>>cyclists in Toronto within 10 years by ensuring everyone lives within a
>>five-minute ride of a network of 1,000 kilometres of bike paths"
>
>A self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
>More evidence that the greatest threat to people who wish to ride
>their bikes to go somewhere or who wish to ride above 5 km/h and don't
>desire dodging and weaving around 3 year olds on tricycles is the
>so-called Cycling Advocate.

Most cyclists in Toronto, who are not riding on the paths are riding
in traffic. _However_, (and I say that knowingly - I live here, and
get around in the city as a pedestrian, a cyclist and a driver)
Canadians, particularly those in southern Ontario, are much more
aggressive on the road than fifteen years ago. I'm sure that visiting
Americans have noticed our free interpretation of speed limits.

There are sections of suburbia, both in city limits and in the
surrounding muncipalities where I would not ride on the road in peak
volumne traffic. The roads are designed (and used) as six lane high
speed arterials - there is just too much difference in speed to bike
safely. I'm thinking of Dixie Road in Mississauga, from Eglington
north toe the 401 and north of the 401 to past Derry Rd. Cars
routinely travel at 100kph,, and there is no shoulder, just curbs. I'm
also thinking of the Queensway from Kipling to Dixie Rd. Massive
volumne, a highway interchange with a 400 series highway, a
destination shopping mall and a mushrooming group of outlet malls.
Lots of cars travelling at highspeed, then braking and turning.

On these sections, I soemtimes ride on the sidewalk. It's just safer.
I'd rather not bounce a hundred metres down the road. Pedestrian
traffic is very light.

Downtown, OTOH, is a different story. Due to daytime congestion, bikes
can move faster than cars in many neighbourhoods. Here, they belong on
the road and only the road. In fact, if I'm riding the trails on the
weekend, I make a point of doing so early in the morning, before the
majority of the dog walkers and families with kids are out. The parks
get heavily used after 10 am.

Shiirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

[A mukluk wearing troll]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 23:58:31 -0700, LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT
> wrote:

>> city council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
>> from $90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.
>
>Since the old fine of $90 is 80% more than the new fine of $50, does
>that mean they think the roads are now 80% more dangerous than before,
>or is it simply that the life of a cyclist now worth $40 less than before??
>
>What a load of horse-manure.


Do you ride here?

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

[LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT]

A mukluk wearing troll wants to know:

> Do you ride here?

I was riding there twenty years ago, when your mukluk was still on the seal.

[Doug Purdy]

"A mukluk wearing troll" > wrote in message
...
> There are sections of suburbia, both in city limits and in the
> surrounding muncipalities where I would not ride on the road in peak
> volumne traffic. The roads are designed (and used) as six lane high
> speed arterials - there is just too much difference in speed to bike
> safely. I'm thinking of Dixie Road in Mississauga, from Eglington
> north toe the 401 and north of the 401 to past Derry Rd. Cars
> routinely travel at 100kph,, and there is no shoulder, just curbs. I'm
> also thinking of the Queensway from Kipling to Dixie Rd. Massive
> volumne, a highway interchange with a 400 series highway, a
> destination shopping mall and a mushrooming group of outlet malls.
> Lots of cars travelling at highspeed, then braking and turning.
>
> On these sections, I soemtimes ride on the sidewalk. It's just safer.
> I'd rather not bounce a hundred metres down the road. Pedestrian
> traffic is very light.

Hi Shirley,

I've not been on those roads in rush hour for years. I remember Dixie as
having very wide lanes. If highway speed drivers give me 6 feet I feel
ok for destination travel but as volume mounts to rush hour I find it
less and less enjoyable. Wondering when someone is going to hit me is
only one aspect. Tire and engine noise, grit, exhaust, ugh! You get that
on the sidewalk too. I would try to find a more pleasant route where I
might be able to hear a bird sing or smell a flower.

Expressways are barriers forcing traffic to the few bottleneck roads
crossing them. In Toronto city limits there are a number of easier ways
to cross Highway 401. Two very nice crossings are part of the river
pathway systems. Another is just north of the Avenue Road/Wilson
intersection where I had my accident. Through traffic is calmed to
suffocation so aside from cars entering the expressway there's very
little traffic, and on the north side you can hear birds! ;)

The more ways a city can open up it's expressway, rail line and
subdivision barriers to bike crossing the easier it will be for cyclists
to find satisfactory routes on existing streets.

> Downtown, OTOH, is a different story. Due to daytime congestion, bikes
> can move faster than cars in many neighbourhoods. Here, they belong on
> the road and only the road. In fact, if I'm riding the trails on the
> weekend, I make a point of doing so early in the morning, before the
> majority of the dog walkers and families with kids are out. The parks
> get heavily used after 10 am.

Amen to both those points!

Doug
For email, a sense of wonder.

[A mukluk wearing troll]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:39:04 -0700, LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT
> wrote:

>A mukluk wearing troll wants to know:
>
>> Do you ride here?
>
>I was riding there twenty years ago, when your mukluk was still on the seal.

So was I. BOth in deepest suburbia and downtown. I went away to other
parts of the country for eleven years, and then came back. Congestion
and driver's manners and habits had changed a great deal in the
interval.

It's a giant pinball game out there. Sometimes I'm up for playing
(Queen Street is fuuuuunnnnn) and sometimes I'm not. Then, the Humber
River Trail, that runs by my front door, looks pretty good.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

[Tanya]

A mukluk wearing troll > wrote in message >...
> On these sections, I soemtimes ride on the sidewalk. It's just safer.
> I'd rather not bounce a hundred metres down the road. Pedestrian
> traffic is very light.

But pedestrians are not the only safety consideration with riding on
the sidewalk. Cars do not expect a vehicle going at a bicycle speed to
be on the sidewalk, so you are completely outside of their radar.
Driveways, plaza entrances, and intersections - unless you are going
to come to a stop or slow down to walking speed at each and every one
of them, you are in greater danger of getting hit. In fact in the
Toronto cycling study I believe 30% of all cyclists hit were riding on
the sidewalk.
See http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

[A mukluk wearing troll]

On 13 May 2004 11:38:35 -0700, (Tanya)
wrote:

>A mukluk wearing troll > wrote in message >...
<snip>

>But pedestrians are not the only safety consideration with riding on
>the sidewalk. Cars do not expect a vehicle going at a bicycle speed to
>be on the sidewalk, so you are completely outside of their radar.
>Driveways, plaza entrances, and intersections - unless you are going
>to come to a stop or slow down to walking speed at each and every one
>of them, you are in greater danger of getting hit. In fact in the
>Toronto cycling study I believe 30% of all cyclists hit were riding on
>the sidewalk.
>See http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

That's a comprehensive report, Tanya. Thanks for posting the link.
It confirms what my own observations were telling me, that there are
two distinctly different cycling patterns going on in the city.

I hadn't realized that the dooring rate along Bloor and College were
that high.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

>"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views every
>issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist. Their job
>is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials on
>cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that city
>council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50 from
>$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Is it only me who finds this logic strange? Instead of making the roads
safer, they reduce the fine for behaviour that makes them even more
dangerous.

Sounds like some people were promoted beyond their Peter-limit.

[Jeremy Parker]

Is this stuff about dangerous roads even true? What is the city? How
do they know? I've seen reports of research in Canada that indicates
that the kind of people who like to ride on the sidewalk are indeed
more accident prone than others when riding on the road, but they are
still safer on the road than on the sidewalk.

Jeremy Parker


"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" > wrote in
message ...
> >"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views
every
> >issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist.
Their job
> >is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials
on
> >cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that
city
> >council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50
from
> >$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.
>
> Is it only me who finds this logic strange? Instead of making the
roads
> safer, they reduce the fine for behaviour that makes them even more
> dangerous.
>
> Sounds like some people were promoted beyond their Peter-limit.
>
>

[A mukluk wearing troll]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:49:15 +0200, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
> wrote:

>>"At City Hall, a volunteer committee of 20 activist citizens views every
>>issue through the mud-spattered lens of an oppressed cyclist. Their job
>>is to develop policy and advise city staff and elected officials on
>>cycling matters. Last month, the committee virtually ensured that city
>>council will vote to slash the fine for sidewalk cycling to $50 from
>>$90. The rationale: The roads are getting too dangerous.

Jan Wong writes in a sardonic style. You have to be a regular reader
of the Globe and Mail or her columns to know that. It doesn't
translate well to Usenet.

>Is it only me who finds this logic strange? Instead of making the roads
>safer, they reduce the fine for behaviour that makes them even more
>dangerous.

Ummm, have you had the downtown Toronto riding experience?
It makes sense in the local context, screwy as it may seem.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

[A mukluk wearing troll]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:47:35 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
> wrote:

>Is this stuff about dangerous roads even true? What is the city?

Toronto.

>How
>do they know?

This study,
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htmwhich
was posted in reponse to one of my earlier responses. There is one
pattern of accidents occuring downtown, and a different one out in the
suburbs. The suburban ones involve more bicycles on sidewalks both
kids and seniors, the downtown ones, more door incidents with 20 - 45
yr old riders.

>I've seen reports of research in Canada that indicates
>that the kind of people who like to ride on the sidewalk are indeed
>more accident prone than others when riding on the road, but they are
>still safer on the road than on the sidewalk.

It depends where you are riding. I'm safer on the road in downtown
Toronto than I am negotiating the 2 km stretch on either side of the
Queensway/427 intersection out in Etobicoke. There, I will take the
sidewalk, thank you very much. I try not to ride through there, but
some times, you just have to.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

[Bill Z.]

"Jeremy Parker" > writes:

> Is this stuff about dangerous roads even true? What is the city? How
> do they know? I've seen reports of research in Canada that indicates
> that the kind of people who like to ride on the sidewalk are indeed
> more accident prone than others when riding on the road, but they are
> still safer on the road than on the sidewalk.

One study, done in the town I live in, showed that the accident rate
for riding on a sidewalk was nearly identical to riding on the road
provided you road in the same direction as traffic. Riding on the
sidewalk against the flow of traffic is what is really risky, and
the accident rate was several times higher for this than riding
on the roadway in the direction of traffic.

The study controlled for a variety of factors, but not the speed of
the cyclist. Informal observations indicate that the sidewalk
cyclists usually are far slower than the ones on the adjacent
roadway in the town where the study was done.

Aside from the direction of travel, it seems that people are making
reasonable decisions about where to ride. All the previous studies
that showed an increased risk for sidewalk cycling did not control
for the direction of travel, as far as I know.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB