Sharrows on Hallam Ribbon Cutting Ceremony = Big Fun!!

I agree with the naysayers on this one. Sharrows are a poor substitute for bike lanes.

Lately, I've been coming around to the opinion that even bike lanes are largely useless. There's a great article by Jeff Grey, aka Dr Gridlock, in today's Globe where he explains why. Basically, on a street like College, the bike lane goes straight through the door zone. To avoid getting doored, the cyclist is forced to the far left of the lane, which is dangerously close the passing cars and makes it dangerous for a faster cyclist to pass. The lanes on Harbord are better, but it's rare that you can get very far without having to pass some jerk who sees "bike lane" and reads "free parking".

I find arterial roads too unpleasant, with or without bike lanes (or sharrows) and I mostly stick to side streets, now (where bike lanes aren't necessary). I don't get to go as fast as I'd like, what with all the stop signs, but that's okay - I'm not in a hurry.

Personally, I find the biggest problem facing us right now is the animosity between motorists and cyclists that is getting increasingly bitter in this city, and the general ignorance of most drivers re: how to deal with cyclists on the streets. We really need a public education campaign. Motorists need to be told that we have a right to the roads, just as much as they do, and that when a cyclist needs to take the lane, the proper response is not to honk your horn and yell "Get off the f**kin road!" They need to be told simple things, like do a shoulder check before opening doors and changing lanes.

So they don't feel unfairly targeted (they really get defensive when you tell them they drive like a-holes), we should have a public education campaign targeted at cyclists, too. Like "Take those damn headphones off, and get on the right side of the road".

I really feel that the only thing that will make the streets safer for all of us is a huge shift in attitude. Sharrows are just a waste of paint.

I don't think that the plan for bikes lanes on Bloor St. is particularly grandiose. At $25 / km, 8 km would cost $200000 dollars. That's peanuts to the city, which is throwing hundreds of millions at the Front St. extension.

To put it in perspective, $200000 is also one one-hundredth of a percent of the recently announced Provincial 2 billion dollar road repair and expansion budget.

I think that traffic is generally slowed a bit by bike lanes. Case Ootes wasted a lot of perfectly good syllables talking about this with respect to Cosburn two years ago. I agree that bike lane parking is an issue, but it should be dealt with by proper enforcement, as should many safety issues affecting cyclists. Proper enforcement of traffic laws that protect cyclists is sorely lacking in Toronto.

There are councillors who are major stumbling blocks to initiatives like this, e.g. Vaughn who treats R.A.s and B.I.A.s like royalty and spends a good amount of time ignoring and mocking the needs of cyclists.

...that motorists will park any differently on Bloor or any other street when sharrows are added, Sharez. In my experience, they don't understand what a sharrow is nor respect it. Heck, even I am unclear on what a sharrow is supposed to accomplish. It's not like the city has exactly advised anyone what a sharrow is or what its' purpose is.

Motorists will not, in my opinion, be more vigilant of cyclists either. If they are blissfully ignorant of cyclists when parking next to a bike lane, they certainly won't give any extra attention when adjacent to a sharrow. The same goes with opening their doors. Let's face it, most folks are self-absorbed and thinking about where they're going, what they're doing, etc., not about pedestrians, other cars or cyclists.

While bike lanes may give a false sense of security, the only folks who have that false sense of security are those who decide not to be alert and aware when in a bike lane. Most of us know it is still part of the road and we need to be aware that cars are racing by on our left and might swing toward the curb when making an unsignalled right turn or a u-turn. But, considering I use bike lanes every day, I can attest that the vast majority of motorists do recognize the solid line and consciously avoid crossing it. It is a constant visual barrier. Without seeing any kind of line on routes with sharrows, motorists will have no reference point or visual reminder to maintain a certain distance away.

I think it's wishful thinking to believe motorists will make any attempt at eye-contact or communication with cyclists. Cyclists must be just as wary on a road with sharrows as they would on any other road with or without bike lanes. Sharrows, in my opinion, are much closer to a road with no markings at all than they are to a road with a bike lane.

In answer to your inquiry about cars using bike lanes illegally or traveling faster, it's not as if a bike lane on Bloor would be entirely alien to most motorists. They've certainly driven on roads with bike lanes before and wouldn't treat a Bloor St. bike lane any differently than they would College, Harbord, Sherbourne or Davenport, for example. While some motorists stop or park in bike lanes, the vast majority do not and I think that trend would likely continue on Bloor St.

Motorists speed where-ever and when-ever they can. Bloor will be no exception. If there's space, they'll speed.

I have pitched the idea of centre-positioned bike-lanes directly to members of city council and they seemed intrigued, but less than enthusiastically. The idea has a great deal of merit on a street like Bloor where, for the most part, there are only two lanes in each direction. Dooring is eliminated, bike lanes are cleared of snow and are generally free of other obstacles such as sewer grates, manhole covers and residual debris. And, cyclists would be in line-of-sight withdrivers if they were positioned to the left of cars. Turning left or right for cyclists is more of a challenge, but if a left-turn signal similar to the ones used on Spadina and, soon, St. Clair were to be installed, that would control high-risk turns. Cyclists would need to merge out of a centre-positioned bike lane into the right lane to complete a right turn. Therefore, a curb separating a CP-bike lane from motor traffic would not be a good idea, I think. It would limit the cyclists ability to turn right.

I conclude with challenging the sentiment that sharrows are better than nothing. Since no discernible benefit can be obtained from a sharrow, it is a waste of money and time to 'install' a sharrow. It's also defeatist. Either approve a bike lane or don't. Settling for a weak compromise like a bike lane is like giving up even trying to get a bike lane.