A look at College sharrows - makes for better sharing?

Streets can be read almost like a text. They contain clear messages about the priorities of the people who made them. If there is a sidewalk, pedestrians are given some space, and therefore valued. Ditto with space for moving and parked cars. On most Toronto streets there is really nothing - no signage, infrastructure, anything - to show that bikes matter, or need to be given consideration or valued. And drivers feel justified in enforcing this value system by squeezing us out of the little space we are able to find, and often putting us at real risk.

Sharrows seem like a pretty minimal infrastructure improvement to me, but I think that the simple message 'you can expect bikes to be here' shows that there is a legitimacy to our presence. Which of course affects driver behavior and cyclist behavior.

But I don't find this heartening. It reminds me that on pretty much every other street, a message of not belonging on the roadway is being communicated. And after the Bryant charges being dropped this week, it feels really hostile out there. Even with the new sharrows for two hours a day on College.

We don't need sharrows, or bike lanes; we need political will to force the cops to do their ---- job and enforce the traffic code, so people in all modes of transportation are safer than presently.

I hear that, they won't even show up unless you're seriously injured... never mind the reporting rules they have regarding property damage over $1000... a $1000 bicycle crash??

Any car/bicycle crash needs to be treated seriously... it's not a car/car crash where the only things at risk are bumpers and deductibles. Cyclists don't have that advantage, and when a car hits one of us the police need to respond with appropriate gravity. A typical cycling accident where a cyclist can get away with bruises for a week could have easily been far far worse. The damage/speed equations aren't linear for us like they are for motorists behind safety cages and airbags.

If police want cyclists to stop grabbing onto hit and run driver's cars and getting killed, start to enforce laws against sentiment that the globe and mail editorial writer dispensed earlier this week - that if "the cyclist doesn't appear injured" it's fine to leave the scene without a word.

BTW what about that Quebec driver who killed 3 cyclists and injured 3 other.. still no charge against him.

I drive very rarely, maybe one trip a month (yay Autoshare) and so when I do I'm hyper-vigilant about what's going on around me, and I saw something similar on College during afternoon rush hour last week -- in sections with sharrows, bikes were basically taking a lane, except in places where cars needed to get over to turn or to pass cars turning left. I'm not thrilled with "sharrows under parked cars" but it was definitely getting bikes out into the lane when they were visible. ****

Think I said it elsewhere, but it bears saying again: people should have their licenses pulled for a decade if you are in an accident that kills, and five years if it maims, no matter who is 'at fault'. Criminal responsibility (not likely) and civil liability (still unlikely) can be determined later, but the **privilege **of driving a dangerous vehicle should be immediately lost. Imagine what 'kid gloves' people would drive with.

As a (until very recently) regular rider of that bit of College, I have to say the sharrows actually make a nice difference. And I was a big skeptic of them before they came in. They really encourage cyclists to ride right at the tip of the arrow, which is definitely further away from the curb. It certainly give me confidence to do so. Good job city!