Cyclists Don't Buy Vehicular Cycling

Curbed bike lanes have several disadvantages. Montreal closes theirs in the winter since they cannot properly clear them of snow. Depending on the size, it is difficult to overtake slower cyclists. They are harder to clear of debris. They do not allow cyclists to lane position themselves with cars at intersections, meaning that left turns would have to be made with pedestrian like crossings. Right hooks would happen without separate light phases.

PLEASE NO.

I've taken CAN-BIKE 2 four times - once for every year I was a cycling ambassador employee with the city. Plus I'm a CAN-BIKE instructor and I've now got a couple years of teaching that under my belt. But I still think that riding on some Toronto roads requires a lot of courage. The simple fact is that I can ride as predictably and safely as possible but it doesn't mean that biking along Dundas and Six-points or along Dufferin is going to be a pleasant experience. Even if the danger of a collision is not as great riding safely it doesn't mean that I actually want to take these roads. But the issue is that to go long distances in this city these are the very types of roads that we are forced to take.

This whole "vehicular cycling" craze is pure b.s. and it's not even something that CAN-BIKE teaches exclusively. CB still acknowledges that there are good reasons for good cycling infrastructure. Countries with very high cycling usage like Denmark or The Netherlands give a double dose of great cycling infrastructure (and a willingness to try different things) and cycling education starting in elementary school.

Too often us in North America believe we have the answers when only 1 to 2% of our hardiest folk will ride on a regular basis, and only 0.000005% will ride throughout winter weather (that last number I made up). This very morning I'm getting ready to take the subway because the roads are just too icy and there's no way I'm going to share Dundas with sliding cars.

Any stat on the "safeness" of a bike lane has to be taken with a grain of salt. For any given road in Toronto cycling collisions with cars are notoriously unreported, under reported, misreported, or just plain wrong. The rate is sometimes pegged around 80%, I have the Toronto Police agreeing with that rate on the record. The fault for which is spread around pretty well to various interests. Cops who do not know how to fill out an accident report properly, cyclists too much in a rush to wait for cops, and reports that get misinterpreted.

Any unsafe acts I have ever seen committed in a bike lane were those of drivers.ie parked in bike lane, driving in bike lanes, etc. I have seen a few cyclists over the years ride the wrong way in the bike lanes but they did the same when they turned onto a road with no bike lanes.

Intersections are conflicts period. You have opposing and crossing traffic. A lot of Toronto bike lanes have poor intersections, this is something that should and could be improved. Left turn lanes for instance should have at the very least a sharrow or left turn lane for cyclists. I rode in a city (forget which) just outside San Francisco that only had bike lanes/positioning in intersections. They clearly set out where one should be and everyone understood it. One intersection had three roads converge, it was clear as day where you should be to cross the intersection on a bike.

"...But, given my experience, I'm a bit perplexed by the stories of
people who have had multiple accidents in a short period of time. What
are we doing differently to cause such a radically different
experience?..."

This is a very good question. You have to tread carefully though. In
Ontario you do not need to have contact with anything to have had an
accident. If you are riding and take evasive moves because of an
errant driver you have had an accident. There are no charges in the
HTA for having contact with another vehicle or person. What you are
charged with is the act that precedes the contact. If you wilfully set
out to damage a car you are charged with a criminal offence. There is
consideration for the damage/injury you caused under the HTA in
sentencing.

In reality if the cops would charge every driver/cyclist for every
errant move the streets would come to a standstill. They do tend to
charge when they see it for themselves as opposed to being called to
the scene.

One may have had one contact with a motor vehicle but if they have
numerous evasive moves on a ride there is some cause for concern.
Either their skill level is wanting or they are riding in a dangerous
part of town.

I have no problem with and support cyclists getting training prior to riding on the road, whether to understand the rules or to improve skills. I have an exceptionally big problem with this fanaticism that goes along with VC.

The best trained cyclist is only as safe as the worst driver on the road. You can educate a cyclist all you want, if you have a driving public that ignores that training (speeding, eating while driving, drunk, etc. etc.) the best you can hope for is a level of safety equal to the worst driver out there. It is quite telling that in Toronto that the fatality rate for cyclists not at fault in a collision is much higher than the fatality rate for those cyclists at fault. While the same for injury rates are pretty much equal.

As powerful as VC may be, it cannot teach people instincts. You either have them or you don't. You can teach people skills to replace the instincts they may not have. Secondly, there is no proof that VC techniques can change the behaviours of the drivers that are most apt to kill you.

The other problem with VC is that it accepts cyclists being subjugated by a passive traffic control system with motor vehicles at the top of the food chain. A system like 'naked streets' does more to equalize the differences between cars, cyclists, and peds. The Chinese lived for years with traffic systems that favoured cycling an peds over motor vehicles with good success. Why is VC so keen to keep us with a system that kills and maims so many thousands every year?