I've stopped reading the comments from readers on almost all news articles on the topic of cycling in Toronto.
A police officer on his bike chased down and fined the first-year U of T student yesterday on St. George St. after he ran a red light on his bicycle. The visibly upset student, who wouldn't give his name, said he was from China and didn't know the rules.
Cycling organizations should also speak out more against their "radical" members, Burrows added."We know that 99.9% of drivers will stop at a red light. We don't know that with cyclists," he said.
I ask again, why do some cyclists in Toronto break the rules of the road?
1) Safety
How can running a red light increase safety? How does not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign increase anyone's safety?
It is unfair and unreasonable to assume that just because I'm on a bicycle, I have some sort of twisted death wish. If I really wanted to die in Toronto, I'd get in a car. When approaching a red light I know there's going to be a stream of cars piling up behind me. Some of the drivers are going to try and push to get in front of me at the light, the rest are going to push me in the intersection as I'm trying to build speed again. This is why you see so many cyclists in crosswalks, when you're being tailed by monstrous steel machines, you're going to move to where you know they aren't going to go.
Why then, would I run a red light? If the way is clear, running the red gets me through an intersection without impatient drivers riding my ass or trying to squeeze me out of the lane. Once through the intersection, I can now establish my line, so the drivers coming up quickly behind me can react and pass me safely.
Same goes for stop signs. I proceed safely without coming to a full stop and I preserve some momentum and get to continue on in a predictable fashion. And that's what motorists want, isn't it? Predictability.
2) Lack of enforcement
Even Toronto Police Services admits to this. They are lack on enforcing the rules of the road when it comes to cyclists. And, we can all see why. Cyclists very, very, very rarely kill people. Cyclists, even with our growing numbers, are still a minority. And what's more dangerous? The guy in his car eating a breakfast sandwich and speeding along a side street, or a cyclist, going less than 20 km/h, who doesn't fully stop at a stop sign? It's not like either of these are rare occurrences on our roads.
3) Laziness
Even though it takes far more physical energy to operate a bicycle vs. a car, cyclists can be and are often lazy. We want to get where we're going as fast as possible.
Motorists, doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that why we have drive-thru banks and coffee shops? Isn't that why there are HOV lanes on highways? Isn't that why your car can go 160 km/h when you legally should never reach speeds greater than 100 km/h, and much lower in our city?
We go the wrong way on streets because it is simply easier than trying to get into a turning lane, then wait for oncoming traffic while watching behind us for anyone who doesn't see us and then get honked at because we turn too slow. We go the wrong way because our destination is on the side of the street we're on and we don't want to deal with street car tracks. The reasons are numerous, even if they aren't in the name of safety and following the rules.
So, the next time you see a cyclist breaking the rules, ask yourself why they are behaving in this manner. There is always a reason for a cyclists behaviour. Cyclists aren't always making the right choices, and we do need to address not only the problem action, but also the reason behind why this action was made.
What do you think of the rules of the road and why cyclists break them in Toronto? Discuss this in the Biking Toronto Forum
Photo by ammiiirrr posted to Flickr
Labels: bike lanes, Highway Traffic Act, infrastructure, Police, rules of the road, safety, Toronto
A little room, please!
That's all I ask. You, in your car, you've got airbags and steel and power brakes and power steering and mirrors. To pass me, all it takes is a simple set of movements. Check your mirrors, check your blind spots and slightly move your hands on the steering wheel.
Honest, that's all it takes.
Why then, do the motorists who pass me on Keele, on Bathurst, on Jane, streets with at least 2 lanes running in each direction, fail to give me room?
When I confronted a driver about why he didn't yield at all, he said, "You get 18 inches of space, you need to stop weaving."
I was dodging pot holes and sewer grates, oh and I get 1 metre, that's 40 inches of space. And I get an additional 1 metre of space around me to protect me when you pass.
Or do I?
The Ontario Driver's Handbook suggests this of drivers (emphasis mine):
Bicycles and mopeds that cannot keep up with traffic are expected to keep to the right of the lane; however, they can use any part of the lane if necessary for safety, such as to avoid potholes and sewer grates. Cyclists need a metre on either side of themselves as a safety zone. When passing a cyclist, allow at least one metre between your car and the cyclist.I like the sounds of that, sounds like a rule to me!If the lane is too narrow to share, change lanes to pass the cyclist. When turning right, signal and check your mirrors and the blind spot to your right to make sure you do not cut off a cyclist. When parked on the side of the street, look behind you and check your mirrors and blinds spots for a passing cyclist before opening a door.
But, it is only just a suggestion. One that many drivers simply choose to ignore, or have forgotten. Aside from just now, I hadn't looked at a Driver's Handbook in over a decade. And for the drivers failing to give me space, who often appear to be much older than I am, well it's probably too long ago for them to remember at all.
Perhaps there's something more concrete in the Highway Traffic Act:
Vehicles meeting bicycles"Sufficient room?" To the motorist I encountered, the 18 inches I supposedly was to occupy, was his definition of "sufficient room" and by "weaving" I was forfeiting my access to more "sufficient room" when he passed me, so close his mirror passed below my handlebars.(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).
What we need is a concrete definition of "sufficient room," one backed by law.
Groups like 3feet2pass are working towards establishing such laws across the United States. Isn't it time we saw this in Ontario?
Share your thoughts and developments on this issue in the Biking Toronto Forum
Photo from Erik Twight's Flickr Photostream
Labels: Highway Traffic Act, Ontario, passing, safety, Toronto