Lawrence Lives, Lansdowne Lambasted

Ootes had similar "environmental" reasons for opposing the lanes on Cosburn: Less room for cars means slower traffic, more idling and greenhouse gases! Bicycles lanes are bad for the environment!

People on Dundas East are also complaining about the Sharrows installed there.
See Cyclists, drivers split hairs over split lanes from The Bulletin (Dec 01, 2008)

Not everyone is enthused by Sharrows. The Annette street fight earlier this year was to get bike lanes, not the offered sharrows. All of the people involved with this fight thought sharrows to be useless, or worse. In fact some mentioned how much worse Lansdowne is as a specific example of why sharrows were not an acceptable "compromise".

Me, I suppose sharrows have their place, but I don't think that we've really found it yet in Toronto.

Of course as Geoffrey mentions the sharrows need to be in the middle of the lane rather than the door zone.

But they also need signs as well, so drivers know what they mean! And redundancy helps get the message across.

These look great,

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2008/12/signs-to-pass.html

(for the clicking lazy, the signs say "Bicyclists allowed use of full lane" in a diamond and then in a rectangle underneath say "Change lanes to pass cyclists".

And these are real signs on the road in california!

There are still many who don't recognize the value of being able to move people on bikes to local retail and community destinations, but see "biking for transportation" as merely commuting.

It is recognized that cycling's modal share is continuing to grow in Toronto's core at a pace faster than growth, however cycling's growth outside the core is not acknowledged. And cyclists' many and varied purposes for using bikes as transportation continue to be misunderstood and/or deliberately misinterpreted in order to further a "roads are for cars" mentality.

When the issue of safety comes up, it's a weird "the bikes don't belong on the road for their own safety" type of argument, as forwarded here. Let's be clear here, the bikes are not what's unsafe, it's the tons of metal moving too fast while being controlled by drivers who are barely qualified for in the operations of such heavy machinery that makes the roads unsafe. Insurance does not save us from our own stupidity, it merely covers most of the costs of the damage that we caused.

It is because of the unwillingness of drivers to share the road responsibly with cyclists that we've had to create bike lanes, we've done this because bikes belong on roads, but have had to dedicate their own space for them. It's this reserved space that makes cycling safer on roads. Separating bike traffic to off road paths introduces many other problems, conflict and friction points, and lessens the visibility of cycling as a viable mode of transportation. Indeed, it treats cycling as a recreation. On the other hand, it can often be nicer to ride on these trails when they are designed properly, when the server useful endpoints, and when the only destinations are in the facilities that contain the trail, such as Toronto's Western Waterfront.

Here's the example criticism written as a letter to the editor that disturbed me:

from http://www.insidetoronto.com/article/60809

Re: 'Bike lanes along Lawrence approved,' News, Nov. 21
Years ago many of the streets that crossed the main CNR line in Scarborough were level crossings with gates. There were a number of serious accidents, some fatal.

The question was asked: 'How many people have to be killed in order to justify separation of grade?' The answer was no more and grade separations were built along with bridges and tunnels.

Lawrence Avenue is a very heavily-travelled street. City council should now answer the same question: 'How many cyclists have to be injured or killed before the bike lanes are removed?'

As a boy many years ago, I travelled many miles on bicycles. When I ride the GO Train downtown it occurs to me that a bicycle path could be made along the railway right of way and some distance from it and safe from street traffic and provide a path almost downtown. This would be a better choice.

J.M. DeGroot

Anthony,

You have to look in the mirror and realise it's about mindset, too. Nevermind the infrastructure, though demonstrating "care" with tangible deliverables is a good start.

You're an exemplary cycling father. but that comes from awareness, knowledge, education, not environment. That's the difference : you know how to cycle safely, effectively, cooperatively. Mr Scarborough does not. He's never been taught how to ride a bike, or navigate like a vehicle in traffic. Your mindset and attitude towards cycling diddn't develop as a result of any terrain or infrastructure you experienced. I am guessing it came from learning for your own enjoyment; learning how to learn, and teaching others how to learn. That, I hope, is what people mean when they say Education is a key component of Bike Plan.

That is what I mean by changing perceptions and behavior towards cycling. Not only did post WWII bring automobiles, suburbs, and shopping malls; it also fostered ignorance and misplaced attitude towards physical activity and sustainable living; cycling in particular.. Our generation are victims of the American Dream, but thank goodness we have woken up and realised the foolishness of our ways. And thanks for some of our leaders, like you, who have been aware all along that living in low density suburbs with automobiles to make it all happen is unrealistic and incorrect.

So now we have to play a little catch up, and re-educate folks so they know that physical activity is realistic and achieveable; that changing behavior and attitude, especially on the roads, is key, and that the whole process begins with ourselves, just like you Anthony. Be the change you want to see; and you are, congratulations!

brian