Who or What is "The Average Cyclist" and why are we designing only for them?

It's tough luck for us, relatively fast commuters who ride a lot. No one designs anything for us simply because there aren't enough of us. And I suspect there won't be that many of us ever. Even in the alleged Cycling Heavens like Copenhagen the bike infrastructure is designed with a pretty slow cyclist in mind, one who doesn't ride very fast or go very far.

It will probably remain that way. In cars, the gas pedal is the great equalizer, but in cycling there will always be a very wide range of skill and ability among the riders. But here is the thing: it is not a statistically normal distribution -- the majority of cyclists will be closer to the low end of the skill/ability range. That's not an insult to them, just a natural consequence of most people's lack of interest in becoming skilled cyclists -- it's simply not a priority for them. So those are your "average cyclists", and the infrastructure, if truly designed for them in mind, would reflect that the predominantly low skill and ability level. Therefore building for the average cyclist would be very close to building for the lowest common denominator, which I think that it actually aligns with the Bike Plan: designing for the average cyclist will result in infrastructure that people of all ages, skills and abilities will be able to use. Not too effectively, mind you, but the word "effectively" is not in the plan, is it?

Now, there are a few nuances. One is that the kind of infrastructure you build actually affects what "average cyclist" looks like. A well-developed, robust, efficient network will draw more people to cycling and will encourage good cycling habits. A bunch of poorly connected bike lanes and ridiculous paths with obstacles and blind corners... well, let's just asy they won't have the same beneficial effect.

Another consideration that sort of turns this whole discussion into a bit of a moot point is that right now our cycling infrastructure is not actually being designed for the average cyclist, or for any kind of cyclist, for that matter. It's designed in a way that least inconveniences motorists, and if it doesn't end up working all that well for cyclists, average or not... no one actually gives too much of a damn about that.

The correct answer is "everyone." The cycling infrastructure should be designed for everyone. Just like it is in The Netherlands. See:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands.html

The purpose of bike infrastructure is to increase bike ridership. This means it has to be built for people who ride seldom but would ride more with better infrastructure, or people who don't ride but would start riding if there were infrastructure. The end goal has to be a high modal share for cycling.

The more bike ridership grows, the more car drivers know to look out for and expect bikes. The greater the bike modal share, the fewer cars there are to conflict with. The greater the proportion of the voting public that bikes, the easier it is to sell bike infrastructure to politicians. It's a virtuous cycle.

Remember that "all cyclists" also includes those of us who are getting older or have (usually minor) disabilities. In cycling-friendly European countries, deaf or hard-of-hearing cyclists can get a crossed ear sign for the back of their bicycle so others understand that they won't react to bells or horns. I met a disabled person in Amsterdam who got a subsidy for his adult tricycle.

I just have some arthritis; I cycle a lot, but it is MUCH easier for me to kick off if there is a curb I can stand on instead of having to jump on my bicycle (I've been doing that for almost 50 years, starting as a kid, but it hurts now). And of course I have a women's frame, and would even as a man, with such a problem.

There are some routes in Copenhagen proper where cyclists can go faster; in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities, it is true that cyclists are pretty much expected to conform to the speed of the crowd, but no Dutch city is so large for that to be a problem. Long commutes will be between cities or from somewhat remote suburbs, where there are definitely cycling routes where one can go faster, as they are also used by sport cyclists training. But remember that there is an excellent commuter rail system and probably most cyclists' commutes are intermodal.

Anthony, psst, it is "neigbhour" in Canadian English. I know I'm a stickler, but creeping American spelling must be pointed out.

I think the average rider is appropriate. The vast majority of our bike lanes are little more than a painted 'guideline' on the road. It serves a purpose to delineate a space on the road for cyclists. These benefit the average cyclist who may be deterred from cycling if there were no line at all.

For me personally I use my bicycle exclusively for getting to work and other places. I once calculated that my trip to work is 74 blocks long of which 3 are along bike lanes. I could incorporate more bike lanes in the route but why bother? It would be inconveniently circuitous and would matter little to my comfort level as I already cycle easily along several busy roads on the 71 other blocks.

My road experience is such that I will use cycling lanes if they are handy but I imagine for the above average cyclist bike lanes matter very little.

There is another gorup of cyclists that need to be considered and that is school cyclists.

The TDSB now has an Active Transportation Charter. Principals will be required to submit ways that will get their students to walk and ride to school rahter than be driven or bussed. There is an infrastucture in place to do so, bike racks being planned. How can future cycling infrastucture benefit this group?

Well, obviously the Dutch standard is from 8 to 80 at least. Of course including schoolchildren and highschoolers. Until I was about 15 or 16, I didn't cycle to school, I simply walked. Quite a way - not talking about the heroic tales of children in farm communities doing great treks. I loved walking a lot, and I loved cycling. Yes, important to "look both ways", but still, it was time to dream. I'm horrified at how the current generation of children are driven anywhere, if the parents can afford a car.

The new separated Richmond Simcoe Adelaide cycle tracks are great for vehicular cyclists they are not designed however for occasional recreational cyclists unused to traffic.
The pilot's design has done what Egan said designed for the average cyclist i.e. someone already cycling on City streets.

The disappearance of the southbound Simcoe cycle track at Roy Thomson Hall between King and Wellington, the lack of signals for cyclists at Richmond at Simcoe to cross Richmond , the floating southbound cycle lane/sharrows at Front and Simcoe sandwiched between a right hand turn lane and southbound vehicular lane.

No recreational trail cyclist who is uncomfortable on city streets will ever use these routes unless they are better and completely separated and designed better with non vehicular cyclists as the priority.

The current modal split is 4% cyclists this means 80?-85?% of the City population aren't riding at all on City streets.
Hopefully the compromises made in the pilot will not be carried through to the permanent installation but the current design speaks to a continuation of designing for the tiny percentage of the population that are already riding.

I'm not a "vehicular cyclist", nor am I a "recreational" one. I've been a utilitarian cyclist here in Montréal for a good 40 years, but I do not follow the reactionary carcentric cult of vehicular cycling. Cycling is for human beings of all ages and abilities.

What exactly is an "average" cyclist? We seem to want to design a one size fits all strategy. Although people go back and forth between them, I see 4 distinct groups. All of them have had casualties. All need to be thought of.

1. Recreational cyclists. In my mind Mimico Linear Park trail is designed for them. Many of the trails in the ravines are of use to them. They go out for a leisurely ride, maybe with family.

Edouard Le Blanc fits into this category. On October 9, he was trying to cross Warden Ave, at an intersection that had a special signal for cyclists that connects to the Gatineau Hydro corridor bike path. It is unclear if the car driver will be charged.

2. The second group is commuters. I am mainly part of this group. The lanes on Adelaide and Wellington are designed with them in mind.

Tom Samson falls into this category. He died while stationary making a left turn in a left turn lane when he was rammed from behind. Although he had 8 previous driving convictions, the driver was only charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident where death occurred.

Otto Rivera also falls into this category. He was riding home from his work as a bike courier when he was struck by a drunk driver. He died after two years in a coma.

3. The third group is club and recreational riders. They are experienced, ride fast and often in groups. I can think of no paths or trails built for them.

Sue Trainor falls into this category. On September 18, 2013 she died at Dwight and Lakeshore. Although it has been on the bike plan since 2001, there is no path there. Her death triggered a staff report on getting a lane.
Although she was a 50+ year old woman, she was reported as being in her twenties.

The final group is school children and their parents. This will beome a larger group as the TDSB Active Transportation Charter comes more into effect. To my knowledge, there are no plans looking at routes to make it safer for them.

Jenna Morrison represents this group. She was on her way to pick up her son from school. She was crushed by a right turning truck trying to get on to the West Rail Path. The driver was never charged.

Yes we need to think about the "average" cyclist. What des that mean? How can we make cycling safer for everyone?

It means separated infrastructure at as high a standard as seen in the Netherlands, Denmark and other cycling-friendly countries.

Middle-aged cyclists were also killed - by heavy trucks - in Montréal and in Ottawa this past week.