On Monday, I went to the public consultation meeting for the Bike Plan implementation in Ward 25 (Don Valley West).
Lawrence and Mt Pleasant Public Meeting
I arrived at the public meeting with the special treat of starting the conversation on the sidewalk outside the school. A motorist was eager to let me know that the way I was riding was going to get me killed. I'm used to hearing this speech now, but usually it's heard while riding on Yonge Street. This time, I had been on Blythwood, a neighbourhood through street, where I was simply riding clear of parked cars, and apparently keeping someone from some cherished red light time. A friend arrived seconds after the conversation started to give me some appreciated points of support.
Three Torontonians were already talking. Democracy at work.
Things were much more civilized inside. The wall was covered in drawings. People were looking at them intently, and gathering in small groups to talk about the details.
I talked to a few people and listened in on some other conversations. I was impressed by the generally positive attitude. Even the people who were apprehensive, seemed to want to make things better for cycling. There were some dead-set against, but most expressed concerns about another issue and wanted to make sure things didn't get worse for them.
There were three main points against the bike lanes. All of them have solutions.
- Spill-over traffic
Will car traffic spill off of a congested Mount Pleasant onto neighbourhood streets? The results on Dundas say "no". Other places around the world have also shown that traffic will find entirely different routes to take or simply "disappear". Convincing people is difficult. It's a fair concern since traffic on some of the neighbourhood streets is already dangerously heavy, and people are afraid of it getting worse. - Parking
The lack of parking on Lawrence will cause an inconvenience for some people. The obvious solution is to allow these people to park on side streets, something they may be able to do already. Most people have driveways, but not all. - A turning-lane for a private school
A turning-lane on Lawrence to a private school will need to be removed. This turning lane doesn't serve much purpose because it gets so backed up that traffic still blocks the left lane. Apparently there was some agreement with the school when the lane was installed, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
At the same time, some residents really liked the idea of having bike lanes on Mount Pleasant. It slows traffic down on a road where speeds are too high, and moves the cars away from the sidewalk. Of course, it also gives them a nice cycling route.
Planned Lawrence Bike Lanes
The meeting may have been an exercise in democracy at the grand scale, but for me it was an exercise in personal relations. In these situations, it's very easy for people to say things that sound like personal attacks. Once there's confrontation, no one is listening. While I was trying to avoid saying anything too confrontational, I kept reminding myself not to take anything I heard too personally.
In case you find yourself at this kind of meeting, it might help to get warned of the kinds of responses you'll hear. Here are some thrown at me:
"No one's going to ride their bike on that street."
"I see 5 people a day riding on that street."
"Why don't you just take your bike on the bus?"
"That's great that people cycle downtown. Just keep it there."
"It's different in this part of the city. People won't ride bikes here."
"But I'm a taxpayer. Do you own a house?"
"I'm just being realistic."
"In this part of the city, cycling is just a recreational activity."
Some of these are particularly difficult to hear, if not offensive, especially the "taxpayer" line. I soon discovered that logic isn't going to serve any purpose when it gets to that level of discussion. Fortunately that was rare.
If we can promise people that traffic won't increase between their house and their kid's school, and we can keep parking somewhat convenient, there shouldn't be any opposition left.
Comments
Dr. Steph
That's the problem though isn't it?
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 10:46"If we can promise people that traffic won't increase between their house and their kid's school, and we can keep parking somewhat convenient, there shouldn't be any opposition left."
But who creates this traffic? The cars, not the cyclists. They put the blame in the wrong spot because they don't want to interrogate their own practices--like driving their kids to school or the assumption that cyclists are not home owners and therefore shouldn't have a say (good on you for not freaking on whomever said that!).
Same with the danger comment. Who creates that danger? I took a car ride home with a friend the last two evenings and watching the cars drive in the bike lane on Gerrard in front of Ryerson quickly answered that question.
I'm feeling pretty pessimistic today; I think the opposition will continue even if officials can guarantee the parking and traffic issues because people don't want really want to share the road (even with the other cars).
Martin Reis (not verified)
Thank you for your excellent
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:09Thank you for your excellent report!
The pure hatred towards bikes/cyclists is just astounding in this town. Been hearing that sort of thing and much worse for 20 years now. As a someone who spent 20 years riding as bike courier during the 80/90s told me recently: "The city hates bikes. All you can do is keep riding.'
It's plain to see that city openly discriminates against cyclists and pedestrians in favour of cars. And they are OK with it. I have yet to see anything to convinces me otherwise.
AnnieD
Recommended answers?
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:10Other than the obvious ones, eg: "I see 5 people a day riding on that street." - You'll see a lot more when bikelanes are put in. "But I'm a taxpayer. Do you own a house?" Yes. (but that alone feels like a cop-out since it doesn't take on the misguided notion that renters don't contribute to municipal taxes, or that only those who contribute to taxes should get services).
What kinds of responses do people come up with to these questions?
I hate walking away from a dumb question only to think of the perfect reply 2 hours later...
geoffrey (not verified)
Metro Morning's Anti Bikey at it again
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:28Sorry, somewhat off topic. Shortly before 8 am this morning (Jun 11) Andy Barrie, the host of CBC's Metro Morning http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/ launched into an anti recumbent rant as in his estimation it was too difficult to see recumbents in his rear view mirror therefore he should be excused from dooring them (or something to those words). Evidently recumbent riders are too low. Aside from the obvious that Andy requires tutelage in rear view mirror adjustment and use, car purchase options and the use of the shoulder check, his intolerance of bicyclists as a public figure could use checking. Some would be lead to suspect he is encouraging motorists to display intolerance of bicyclists. Need I remind all of his "a few cogs short of a derailleur" comment one February morning earlier this year uttered with respect to cyclists with the audacity to use public streets when motorists felt obliged to be released from their obligation to drive responsibly given slippery road conditions?
Andy invites one and all to comment on his diatribe via the vox box at (416)205-5807. One can also use the comment form at http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/contact.html
toroadie
recumbents & Metro Morning
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 22:33@ geoffrey.
I heard Metro Morning, but Andy Barrie didn't sound intolerant. He just stated the commonly held view that it is hard to see recumbents.
I ride a very low recumbent, and everyone who tells me "Its hard to see you", sees me.
I say, you should ride any bike assuming that no one sees you and you'll be much safer. Stay out of the door zone, anticipate where cars can move and stay out of that area.
I've been hit, multiple times, by cagers while on an upright bike. Sometimes I've had a bright yellow jacket other times, bright front and rear lights. It doesn't matter how visible you are. If people aren't looking / paying attention then they will not see you.
So I don't bother putting a flag on my recumbent because I know that it doesn't matter how visible I am, many drivers will just not see me.
As long as I can see the cars and avoid where they'll be I feel safe.
vic
Sample Answers
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:29"No one's going to ride their bike on that street."
--- I ride my bike on these streets. And as the infrastructure improves, more cyclists will use it too.
"I see 5 people a day riding on that street."
--- Did you count bikes for a 24h period? And as with the previous one... as the infrastructure improves, more cyclists will use it too.
"Why don't you just take your bike on the bus?"
--- Why would I take the bus when I have a bike?
"That's great that people cycle downtown. Just keep it there."
--- Although there's a concentration of cyclists downtown, people cycle everywhere. Or... "People drive outside of the downtown. Just keep it there."
"It's different in this part of the city. People won't ride bikes here."
--- Many of us already do, and the numbers are increasing. Again...if you make it safer, more people will ride.
"But I'm a taxpayer. Do you own a house?"
--- In my case...yes, I'm a taxpayer and I own a house. When I was a renter, I also paid taxes. When you drive your car outside of the city, should you lose the right to be on another municipality's roads?
"I'm just being realistic."
--- Me too.
"In this part of the city, cycling is just a recreational activity."
--- When the racers on Mount Pleasant killed that cabbie, that was also "recreational" driving. Whether cyclists are riding for recreation or transportation, it doesn't really matter. They are still using the roads that they are legally entitled to.
...and last but not least, you can learn from Pee-Wee Herman and default back to the standard, "I know you are, but what am I?!" response.
darren
comments
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:31I should point out that 3 of those comments came from one person who was very upset. They were the bus comment, cyclists-should-stay-downtown comment, and the taxpayer comment.
-dj
anthony
same as it ever was
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 12:32Your experiences here are very similar to any of these types of meetings anywhere in this city, or any other city. Some people love the plan, some are utterly bewildered or confused, and some are so dead set opposed to the plan that reason and normal discussion holds no value.
These things can be painful to attend, but it is uttely nessessary that we do attend and that we speak up while we are there in order to move the bike plan ahead. People are already affected by gasoline prices, and bikes are one of the options that we want to support for moving people around in our city without huge capital investments and also without huge operating costs.
Todd Tyrtle (not verified)
All the more reason...
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 12:48All the more reason to step up the level of activism in the city. Why are cycling activists only making the news once a month? Why aren't we doing it once a week? Where are the bike buses? Where are the "cycling mentor" programs to help the average joe learn to commute by bike or meet others who are already doing it? Whatever you think of CM taking the Gardiner, to me it demonstrates that this community has a tremendous amount of frustration-fueled energy. Let's start putting that energy to constructive and positive use! The pressure needs to be stepped up and applied from all sides.
More here:
http://bikingtorontocommunity.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=1979508%3ATop...
anthony
Next meeting is tonight, see you there!
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 12:59http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2206
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/gardiner_kipling_islington/index...
This proposal is antithetical to the Official plan, the clean air strategy, the pedestrian charter and also to the Bike Plan.
When traffic leads and the stated goal is to "streamline traffic thus providing ... more efficient traffic movement" you know that there's no sound reasoning behind this.
bikegirly (not verified)
We need a proper marketing
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 15:05We need a proper marketing campaign. Postering. Pamphlets. Etc. We can't really expect people to become magically educated, and random arguing on the street or at conferences isn't going to do it either.
We need impartial educational materials that cover both sides of the coin and they need to be everywhere.
EVERYWHERE.
anthony
bikegirly's help is welcome
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 16:15The bike union needs more people like you to help us prepare these kind of materials.
What should we prepare, who would be the target audience, how would we distribute this.
Whatever advice you can offer, whatever skills you could bring to the table, we would really appreciate your help.
geoffrey (not verified)
Metro Morning and Anti Bikey
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 23:34@ toroadie
I was assraped without a condom July 27 last year and am still picking pieces of pavement out of my flesh while trying to massage it into something more recogniseable as resembling human form. When a "media personality" advocates abandoning their responsibility as a motorist while using a medium some believe reaches a few hundred thousand Torontonians and Toronto area commuters I've reason to take offense. Being hit from behind has a tendancy to do that to you. The courageous individual who did this to me is still unknown to me. The investigating officer one PC ALI RASHID #9497 insists I fell. The white paint on my rear tire seems to support my version of events.
I agree you should no more be obligated to wear a flag than other minorities be obligated to wear discerning markings. Hopefully we learned from Kristalnacht and that insanity will not be repeated.
Seeing what is approaching from behind is something of a problem. Avoiding them when one is lawfully using roadspace is moreso.
toroadie
geoffrey's pain
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 04:31@ geoffrey.
Wow that is the worst possible accident I can think of. I'm literally shocked that a car could hit you from behind. That is the one thing I assume will never happen. It is scary to think otherwise.
I'm only posting a reply because I spent a bit of time putting together a video of a recent recumbent ride and wanted to share that perspective.
I didn't have a coffee when I was half listening to Metro Morning, so perhaps your take of Andy Barrie's comments matched up with reality. I agree that when cagers attempt to place the onus for safety of those they can kill upon those they can kill, then they are lacking in basic human empathy.
I'll ask you a question so you can have the last word. If the bike union existed before you were assaulted by the vehicle and the negligent driver, what response would you have liked? In hind sight what would have helped you the most, given that the assailant is still unknown? Media attention? Pressure for road redesign? Protests? Other?
RobW (not verified)
We're there for numbers and information
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:35I found at the meeting that we weren't really there to sway people's opinion - the people that turn up to these usually already have a strong opinion for or against. No amount of discussion with the 'anti-' people will change them, - but it feels good to try... I believe we're just there as advocates for cycling - both in terms of numbers, and for information;
As far as numbers is concerned, we were there to show the ward councillor and the residents how many cyclists are out there - I'm sure quite a few residents were surprised how many everyday cyclists were present - (more than once, people thought I worked for the city and had drawn the plans myself! Why else would I be there?).
As far as giving them information is concerned, we were there to show how appreciated any change would be, and to give our perspective on what it's like to cycle for people who've never actually sat on a bike before. e.g. Some people were surprised at what, to me represents most danger on the road - one person felt sure that the greatest danger would be TTC buses ignoring cyclists, pulling in to the bus stop and squashing them from behind in the process. (I have never had this happen to me ... yet!). They need to know that bike lanes will make it safer and more inviting, from someone who uses them.
I certainly agree, it's hard not to get angry and frustrated, and it's certainly a step completely backwards if we do. A couple of times in my discussions, both parties got heated, we took deep breaths and calmed down, and were able to carry on in a 'civil' fashion and ended up agreeing on a few points, if not all.
RobW (not verified)
Andy Barrie not all negative
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:39I also heard Andy Barrie and his team's comments - I didn't think it was all negative - apart from the recumbant comment, and was looking forward to hearing comments from recumbant riders about this... The rest of the section was quite positive - 'there are far more cyclists and scooters on the roads nowadays - we're surrounded by them at the lights and they zip off in front of us, far faster than the cars stuck in traffic can' was the message I heard.