The agenda for the April 14th meeting is up.
The first item on the agenda is from the Police Services. The police have been accused of treating cyclists poorly during their annual bike safety week that traditionally occurs at the end of Bike Month (formerly Bike Week). Aaron Hershoff objects to this style of enforcement, and will be offering a better approach for the police to use during their annual blitz.
Item two is the Bike Plan update. We're never sure what surprises the city has planned up its sleeve, or what new disappointments await us.
Item three is a discussion and recommendations about how we, the public, can more easily know how we can interact with the Cycling committee. Hopefully they will also address making it just plain easier.
This year's snow was big news, and the lack of snow clearing in the bike lanes was a big gripe for (would be) winter Cyclists. The fourth item is where we should be discussing the few bike lanes deemed to be of high enough priority to be cleared. I think that all bike lanes should be a priority by definition, but the city didn't put THAT on the agenda.
The terms of reference of the cycling committee include encouraging more participation from cyclists outside the downtown. One way is for the cycling committee to hold its meetings at locations other than City Hall. While A. Heaps might not want the committee to become "a travelling road show", I think that if it helps cyclists who are not from downtown feel better, then it is a small price to pay.
Toronto's public transit services are big, and they always have a lot going on. The cycling committee created a Transit Working Group. The sixth agenda item is a report from this group on what they've been doing with the TTC, GO, and perhaps others.
The last agenda item is about South Kingsway-Queensway which are city streets that have a freeway-style interchange which is not cycling friendly, nor pedestrian friendly. The area is now residential, but used to be industrial. And what's worse, the Queensway Bike Lane ends just before this interchange, creating yet another bike lane that goes nowhere and connects with nothing. The city budgeted money to normalize this into an intersection, but then pulled back and is now merely planning to resurface this area. Don't ride your bike through here to see what a rat's nest this is. We don't need more injured cyclists. Instead, email the Toronto cycling committee c/o Frank Baldassini (city clerk) and let them know that you don't like riding on dangerous roads like this; that these high-speed highway style interchanges should have no place in our city, and remind them that the bike plan promises that ALL Toronto streets are to be cycling friendly streets; and that the bike lane needs to continue through the area.
Remember Sunday!
Comments
Darren_S
Been there, done that.
Fri, 04/11/2008 - 22:17Setting aside the other warts in the police "safety" campaign, Aaron Hershoff's suggestions were put into practice in Ontario many years ago. People charged under the HTA with driving offences would go to a court and talk about their transgression. It was a very very poor version of a native healing circle.
It turned out to be such a joke due to abuse and ineffectiveness, much to a lot of lead footed drivers' dismay, it was put out of its misery after a short while.
anthony
So being heavy handed is better?
Fri, 04/11/2008 - 23:38The police have a wide range of responses available to them. Police can use quite a bit of discretion when choosing how to deal with an HTA transgression. They can ticket and fine, they can issue warnings, and they can revoke tickets.
Bells are almost useless for those who ride only on roads, but are rather convenient to those who ride on multi-use trails. The law originally came from a time when people walked on the roads because there were no sidewalks, and there were also very few motorcars.
Lights at night not make sense for cyclists?
Cyclists have killed about three pedestrians in the past century in Canada. Motorists kill more than one a day in Canada. Blowing a red light or stop sign while riding a bike poses little actual danger to others. Cyclists don't need to be "bullied" by police with the same heavy fines that motorists get for these infractions. Motorists need the disincentive of a heavy fine because of the danger they pose to Pedestrians cyclists, and to each other by engaging in this behaviour where as a cyclist is mostly putting the risk on him/her self. Cyclists are already keenly aware of how vulnerable they are. And there may even be some doubt about the wisdom for a cyclists stopping, as you've pointed out here
Cyclists are justifiably upset at some of the heavy handed tactics used by police against them when the risks of their behaviour on others are so low. Meanwhile motorists are driving without regard to the law or to the safety of others every day and the police don't seem to care at all, expect maybe for the odd speed trap, blitz, or RIDE event.
Everyday motorists park in Bike Lanes and cyclists call in and post picture to places like mybikelane.com and City Halls have responded by OKing parking in Bike Lanes. You've also documented this in Toronto.
You've seemed to complain about both approaches.
I'd really love to hear what constructive suggestions you have.
Please email Frank Baldassini and Councillor Heaps before Monday letting them know that you'll be talking to item number one on the cycling commitee's agenda.
You know that I'll be there because I really want to hear your ideas of how the Police should be conducting its annual blitz, and how you think that cyclists should be treated byt the police for these common infractions.
I'll also be there because it is a great evening of free entertainment. Recently the drama of this commitee has been getting good. ;-) And a little birdy told me that Monday's drama performance may beat all of the others so far! I hope so.
Darren_S
In short
Sat, 04/12/2008 - 08:06Anthony, I think I made clear in the first sentence that the program has warts. Probably what I did not make clear was that if you ask the cops for something they want something in return. This equation exists in every situation. What is being asked for is a logistical nightmare, cyclists will be stuck in police stations for hours waiting to get their tickets revoked.
So you could ask for discretion but be prepared to give up something in return. What are you willing to give up?
Going after the warts of the program may be a far better approach. Stop nailing cyclists for riding without lights on a sunny afternoon. Bells, well as you point out are archaic. The program is more often than not executed in an illegal manner. Essentially they are conducting American style "Terry stops" which are illegal, insofar as it relates to this discussion, in Ontario. They cannot stop you, conduct a search of your bike for a bell and then charge you for not having one (they can do this to motorized vehicles). When they pull you over they have to have already seen the violation. (This is not a fight you want to have a street level while they are dishing out the ticket. It will go poorly.)
The cops have been emboldened in their approach because for years the cycling committee has given them cart blanche to do it. In defence of the cops, a few years ago when the cycling committee stuck their heads in the sand and said they were powerless to do anything we went to the cops and asked for change. There was a vast improvement over the old "Cycle Right" program but the cops themselves admitted there were still problems in its application. It mostly comes down to the individual cops ability to use their "discretion" unless specifically ordered otherwise by the Chief.
What will a drama fest at the cycling committee do for cyclists?
hamish (not verified)
shorter notice of agenda;Bloor
Sat, 04/12/2008 - 16:28It doesn't seem too welcoming and inviting to have the agenda posted a relative few days ahead of the meeting, as my understanding is that the agenda-setting meeting is about two entire weeks before, and that it can be struggle to get things on.
So it seems that there are some things that the City has less desire to discuss - and what are the tricks for getting an item onto the agenda? Like Bloor St. in the Bloor/Yorkville BIA 1km?
At worst, this is a private paving party supported by "progressives", but also being a deflection of public priorities eg. bike facilities.
If it gets a 2-minute presentation by Dan Egan, with a quick slide show of "plans", is that all the consultation cyclists get?
Have there been public meetings on this rebuild? What are the triggers for EAs? and doesn't the lack of consideration for cyclists matter in this greenhouse century?
It's perhaps incredibly ironic.that Mr. Heaps is quoted in the current NOW as "Any major arterial is more than capable of accommodating a bike lane" (p. 69 in Bumped in the Burbs), but the push is on to paint 30kms of perhaps less useful lanes in lighter conditions vs. 1km in a most logical and needed spot in the City core.
With the chopping back of the Cycling Committee went a network subcommittee and a LOT of opportunity for info-sharing, consulting and fine-tuning, and long-term memory.
Like with winter-clearing, there are supposed policies and standards already in place, but they seem to be somewhat ignored this last year, with the basic point of having a network instead of a winter patchwork missing under a snowbank, as that's often what the bike lanes have been for.
We also need to avoid those indented parking bays unless the City finally shows that they are able to plow them out for an entire winter season.
anthony
drama fest
Sun, 04/13/2008 - 03:25Hopefully it means that some stuff will get done for cyclists that haven't been done before.
The EnigManiac
Yawn-fest
Wed, 04/16/2008 - 00:39The meeting was, in my opinion, neither informative nor particularly enlightening. It even seemed unproductive.
After Constable Burns (I think that was his name---pardon me if it wasn't) gave his presentation regarding the upcoming Bikes & Wheel Sport Safety Campaign, the committee then spend 20 minutes misinterpreting a simple request to not have the campaign in the same month as Bike Month as there seemed to be a conflict of messages: come on out and bike, but the cops will be waiting for you. It seemed like a pretty good idea to me to move the campaign to July or later, but Councilor Heaps was adamant about keeping it in the same month.
It struck me as curious that 1,900+ cyclists could be cited for POA's during the one week campaign last year but only 900 more were cited the during the other 51 weeks of the year. That's less than 18 per week. Not that I am calling for stricter enforcement or anything. It just seemed to me that, clearly, bikes running stop signs or failing to signal is not that big a deal to the police, except during Safe Cycling week, so why bother with it at all?
It also struck me as curious why no-one on the committee asked the police why they didn't cite motorists for parking in bike lanes during the winter. Sure the curbs were piled high with snow and ice, preventing motorists from parking in their designated spaces, so what? Does that mean they can keep moving further out (Occupying travel lanes), no matter who is affected? What if a motorist can't fit his car in his driveway because of the snow, is he allowed to park on the sidewalk? Residents who can't get around his car just have to freeze to death. Or how about the middle of the road? Is it okay to park there if the parking space is blocked? How far is too far? Why weren't the cops challenged on this issue?
The study of the Bloor-Danforth line is, apparently, yielding the results I expected: that motor traffic is to be disturbed as little as possible, that the volumes of traffic are to be respected and left alone. Dan Egan noted that Bloor-Danforth is not a standard route: it's narrow in some places, wider in others, has great volumes on some stretches and not as much in others, some areas have commercial/retail stores, others don't and, therefore, several means of accommodating cyclists would have to be installed rather than a straight-forward bike lane and those options would include, among others, the most ineffective and silly compromise I've ever seen: sharrows. Rather than encourage the disuse of cars for those who shop and travel on Bloor-Danforth, the city seems quite happy to maintain the motor-vehicle volumes and maybe, just maybe, eliminate a few parking spots. The irrational and unfounded fears of merchants and residents---in spite of evidence that cycling infrastructure enhances businesses and property values---must be pandered to. No councilor wants to lose the motoring vote. Gotta protect their cushy jobs first, after all.
And, of course, the Yorkville reconstruction area will not get bike lanes, but space will supposedly be available for cyclists (when cars aren't in that space).
I didn't have any expectations about what the meeting would accomplish when I attended, but I can't say I feel any more secure or reassured following the meeting either. I guess we're on our own. Maybe the Bike Union can help achieve a political voice for cyclists, because it doesn't seem we have one in spite of the good intentions and well-meaning efforts of the committee and Councilor Heaps.
hamish (not verified)
saddening, but not a total yawnfest
Wed, 04/16/2008 - 10:02I'm most interested in the bikeway though the police reactions/non-reactions are certainly of note - and the discrepancies between actions in bikeweek and what happens when a cyclist like Geoffrey Ries? is rundown from behind is telling...
The agenda posted on Friday gave no hint that the B/Danforth would be the main presentation item on #2 - and they are finally moving in on this study with a lot of things/consult happening in the summer/fall - so heads up all!!
Mr Egan however didn't give the total history of bike lanes on Bloor/Danforth as he omitted the 1992 study just rediscovered on Urban Affairs shelves. (see takethetooker.ca ) - which is strange as his name is on the front cover. Wide Bloor through Yorvkille was the #1 choice for an east-west core bike street 16 years ago.
Despite Mr. Heaps claim that evey carterial can take a bike lane in the current NOW, he's quite keen on maintaining the private privilege over public priorities and a public street in the BYBIA turf - and given the find of this 1992 study, I have difficulty believing what he says about it all being such a done deal. Dumb deal.....
And where's the Environmental Assessment?
What are the triggers for a Class EA?
Why not here, and yet on Jarvis?
Why the pre-occupation with providing parking when there's the big subway beside B/D?
Isn't it the most logical spot in Southern Ontario to bump cars and favour bikes?
Mr. Egan did stick up for cyclists though in a big way when he cautioned the committee to not be too weak in asking for proper snow clearance in bike lanes in winter. There's a big diff between snow clearance and snow removal, and it seemed that there was a push to give priority clearance only to a few select routes and back off everything else contrary to the supposed policy of 2/3 clear in place.
The committee members are few; they are somewhat newbies; and having been there, it's not an easy thing to be in the Councillor's face as there is a distinct power imbalance, even more pronounced when the City helps your organization with space eg. Fred.
There was also some wrinkles in deputing - Mr. Heaps wants a tight ship but a tight ship isn't a democratic one.
Nice to get the reports and perspectives on the meeting from someone else though...
thanks
I left early - partly from frustration and sadness.