Action on the Viaduct

something else that might be helpful is a big solid and perhaps coloured swath of paint showing clearly where cyclists will continue to ride. signage is definitely needed to alert motorists to let cyclists merge thru tho. Let's find out what Councilor Fletcher says...
Oh and I really like that guys shirt too ;-)

That's not really a difficult intersection. Don't insult cyclists by saying they need special paint and signage just to go across a lane of traffic. And don't try to restrict them to one specific merging path, as it may not be the best in all circumstances.

It's really basic stuff, same as changing lanes in a car: look back and wait for the gap or signal and get someone to let you through.

well, for starters, we don't insult them by assuming that they are all confident, experienced and able enough to cross over a completely unsigned offramp where motorists speed up as they exit!
chephy, not all cyclists are young men, as I bet you are.
many people have told me personally that it is a frightening spot for them to ride through.
I personally (and thankfully) have not had a bad experience there, and haven't had trouble signalling and merging through...but still, I ALWAYS appreciate special bike signage and infrastructure where ever I go - every last bit of it, even if it's on easy street.. because you know what? It makes me feel like I belong. It also makes me feel safer.
I applaud this action.

I am not a man. I actually happen to be female. Moreover, I am not even a militant vehicular cyclist who enjoys taking lane on 70 km/h arterials. There are plenty of places around the city that I find stressful for riding. But not that one.

And I don't always appreciate cycling signage and infrastructure at all, because often it is there just to slow cyclists down to make them "safer". Ever rode on any Mississauga bike paths that parallel major roads (e.g. Rathburn, Britannia).? These charming "cyclists dismount to cross the road" signs are nothing I particularly appreciate.

That sort of thing is my main fear when it comes to making roads "cycling-friendly". A lot of the time the infrastructure is put in place to slow down cyclists so much, that they become, in essence, pedestrians. Or, the signage/infrastructure ends up being unintuitive and violating basic traffic principes, which creates confusion among motorists (who then act in unpredictable and hence dangerous ways) and gives cyclists a false sense of security ("oh, there is a bike picture here, so everyone will yield to me!" sort of thing).

Right now, if you're truly frightened by that crossing or have real bad luck merging on any given day, nothing prevents you from just stopping and waiting in the bike lane until there is a gap (cars come in packs, so a gap is bound to come up), or using the ped crossing. Eventually, you should be able to build up the skill and confidence necessary to merge without a problem. After all, we do require motorists to have basic vehicle-operating skills, so how come cyclists are so passionate about defending their right to be clueless and incompetent when it comes to operating their vehicle on public roads? Of course, motorists have a far greater responsibility since they operate far more dangerous vehicles, but everyone who uses a public road should have basic skills and knowledge to do so safely, efficiently and predictably. So if you're unskilled and unsure in traffic, don't proudly state it and demand that the road should be rebuilt to suit your incompetence (which almost by definition will end up inconviniencing other road users, including other cyclists, since making a thing fool-proof usually makes it far more limited... something's got to suffer). Instead take some cycling courses, read up on cycling safely, and practice.

Now, I have nothing against making intersections truly bike-friendly: as in, allowing cyclists to operate more safely AND at least as efficiently as prior to the introduction of the infrastructure. If something like this could be arranged for that merge, great. If not... there is already a safe and less efficient way to negotiate that ramp (see above). Use it and don't force a less efficient way on the rest of us, please. There are enough lights and obstacles in the city as it is.

P.S. If you're just going to put some signs there, warning cyclists and drivers what's ahead - good. For someone who's riding there the first time it's bound to be quite a confusing intersection.

Chephy, as long as we all buy your characterization of city planners as bumbling idiots who will do anything to make life harder for cyclists. Fortunately, there are more and more city planners who now understand cycling issues, and are commuter cyclists themselves

Yes, I have seen SOME positive shift in this direction over the years. There have been improvements. However, even people who are commuters and who do truly want to make cycling better for everyone will often come up with infrastructure that does not work very well for cyclists - because they will greatly overestimate some dangers and greatly underestimate others. For example, this idea of getting physically separated bike lanes keeps rearing its ugly head time and time again in the cycling community, among people who really are cyclists and want good cycling infrastructure. Be sure that I will try to fight that for as long as I am a cyclist.

The main flaw with bad cycling infrastructure seems to me to be cyclist segregation from motor traffic. While it's great in theory, it cannot really be done in practice because of intersections. So this infrastructure that's supposed to protect cyclists actually endangers them or makes them slow down to a crawl at EVERY intersection because they might get hooked by turning motorists due to poor sightlines.

Try the bike path that parallels Eglinton West west of the Humber. Ten years ago it had the same stupid "cyclists dismount" signs as Mississauga paths have no.w That has been changed: the cyclist crossings at intersections have actually been redone and colour-coded. Still, they are regularly blocked by right-turning auto traffic, so you end up giving up right of way at every intersection even though most of the time you have a green light (since Eglinton is a major street that gets traffic light priority). Frankly, I think the intersections have been made more dangerous, because the new infrastructure encourages them to believe that they have the ROW and can just roll through, even though the intersections remain just as dangerous as before. I've witnessed several near-collisions there - and I hardly ever ride in that part of town!

one of your suggestions is to "practice" - where, if not on the road?

For starters, on a large quiet smooth paved area. Like a parking lot. It's amazing how many cyclists start riding in the street as soon as they learn how to balance. Many lack the basic skills like one-handed riding or looking back without veering left. They should go to a place that has no traffic of any kind and perfect their cycling skills. Next try bike paths (excellent obstacle courses on a summer evening ;-) ), then quieter streets. Then, finally, high-traffic areas. A natural progression, no?

also I'm not sure if I would like to see any cyclists stopped in the bike lane waiting to merge - it would create more obstacles for those of us (cyclists) trying to merge and go through.

I don't suggest stopping halfway through the bridge in order to wait for a gap. It's just as easy to wait for a gap close to the intersection, at a point by which merging cyclists would already have changed lanes.

our City seems to be fond of slapping down some paint on bridges and saying: "look there's X# km of bike lane for ya!" but then nada, nothing, zip once the bridge (or tunnel) is gone!

Actually, I kind of like that... I think for a couple of reasons bridges and tunnels should get priority bike lanes:

1) Auto traffic tends to speed up there due to lack of intersections and traffic signals, so cyclists would especially benefit from a dedicated lane.

2) Due to lack of intersections, bike lanes don't mess up natural traffic patterns the way they sometimes do on regular streets.

Consider the bridge in question. Once you cross the Don Valley going east the bike lane stops. However, the curb lane on Danforth is wide and is easily shared with moving vehicles at rush hour and parked vehicles at other times. Do you really need a bike lane there? How is a bike lane going to make anything better? Really, I'm curious.

Experience has shown that there are people who have no qualms about doing 80kmh plus on the Viaduct and see a left arm extended as a sign that they should be giving the motor more gas. Anyone that tells me that they have no fear is either a liar or fool.

I don't feel fear in that situation, and I'm neither a liar nor a fool - please don't insult me. I exercise caution. That's a rather different concept. Fear makes one irrational and, actually, likelier to make bad decisions. Caution on the other hand makes you safer.

I wonder if you seem to believe that an extended left arm gives you an automatic right-of-way. If that's the case, I can see how you might be frustrated and scared, since that "right of way" is being violated all the time. However, if you realize that signalling does not give you ROW, then merging becomes pretty easy. Start checking the traffic behind you well before you are near the intersection, to see if you can find a suitable gap. If you can time it so that you move left during the gap, great. Otherwise, look back, signal and don't just move left and HOPE that the driver yields. CHECK FOR THE DRIVER RESPONSE. If the driver is not slowing down to let you in, let him go. The next one will probably slow down. If not, then the one after him will. I've NEVER had to "ask" more than three drivers in a row to let me merge. It really works. Once you see that the driver is slowing down and letting you in, then you know he has seen you and reacted to you, so you move left. Which part of this routine supposed to be scary?

It is nice that you like to use sideroads but a funny suggestion on your part. There seems to be a lot of starting and stopping (yes I actually stop at them) on the side streets, something you are railing against.

Where did I say I liked side roads? I said that I liked roads that have ample space to share in the curb lane. Ideally, they would be major roads, so I don't have to stop and start all the time. Some major roads in the city are like that (Bathurst south of Bloor, Danforth, stretches Mt. Pleasant, stretches of Yonge etc.) Unfortunately, most major roads have narrow lanes, so I often choose side roads at that point. I am all for making major roads bike-friendlier by widening curb lanes or possibly putting well-designed bike lanes in.

"...that make sure you can't get yourself killed even if you tried very hard, as you seem to be doing most of the time... " Nice, too bad you have such a dim view of cyclists.

That's not my view, that's the view of the generalized city bureaucrat. However, I do think that a lot of cyclists do a lot of stupid things on the road. The very post we're discussing describes a cyclist who has done something very stupid (cutting across lanes without even glancing behind him and forcing a driver to slam on the brakes), and then using this as an example of why the intersection should be redesigned. I think that just serves as an example of why a lot of Toronto cyclists should acquire some rudimentary cycling skills, for crissake.