Special Report: Cycling

City Tells Cyclists to Get Lost

In 2013, it is not acceptable to redesign a street to exclude cyclists, especially as there are no practical alternatives.

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published October 21, 2013

Well, it seems that cyclists are not only excluded from the new transit lane on King Street, but the City is actually advising cyclists to stay off King Street entirely:

All other traffic, including bicycles, will be restricted to the other traffic lanes on King Street. Bicycles are encouraged to use parallel routes north or south of King Street.

This is completely outrageous and unacceptable!

Markings on King West for the transit lane (RTH file photo)
Markings on King West for the transit lane (RTH file photo)

The passive-aggressive advice to "use parallel routes" is dishonest, as anyone who cycles knows that such routes do not exist.

As Ken Moyle pointed out in his RTH post, these "parallel routes" are complicated and result in cyclists being told to take a circuitous detour that doubles their travel time.

This transit lane is an excellent idea, but I cannot believe that the City can mess up this pilot project so badly by telling one important class of road users to get lost (literally).

Serve All Road Users

This transit lane must be implemented in a way that retains a place for all road users: motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Why is the City hoping that the hundreds of cyclists who use King Street - despite the current difficult conditions - will just go somewhere else?

At a bare minimum, paint sharrows on the travel lane next to the transit lane to show both motorists and cyclists they are still welcome to use this road.

In 2013, it is not acceptable to redesign a street to exclude cyclists, especially as there are no practical alternatives. Remember that cyclists actually rank above motorists and transit in the City's own transportation hierarchy.

The City must include cyclists in this pilot project, and not just tell them to get lost, especially as there are plenty of lanes available to motorists.

Why do we have an "Alternative Transportation Project Manager" if he can't even ensure that cyclists are welcome on Hamilton's major westbound route?

It can't be buses or bikes, it must be buses and bikes. Either allow bikes in the transit lane like in Vancouver, Paris and other cities, or paint sharrows to show there is still a place for them on the street.

No Viable Alternatives

And please don't pretend there are viable alternatives, when every cyclists knows the lack of alternatives is one of the major challenges to cycling between Westdale and downtown.

On a personal note, I traveled from Central School along King Street to McMaster every day last year by bike or bus, and we know that hundreds of other cyclists do the same each day from the cycle traffic survey on the Hwy 403 bridge - even after the university school year is over.

Traffic volumes, King Street Cycle Track (over Hwy 403), 2013-05-09 to 2013-05-16 (Image Source: City of Hamilton)
Traffic volumes, King Street Cycle Track (over Hwy 403), 2013-05-09 to 2013-05-16 (Image Source: City of Hamilton)

Cycling is growing in Hamilton, and this is one of the major cycle routes. I cannot emphasize this enough: we must accommodate cyclists as part of this pilot project.

Nicholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a passionate amateur urbanist and a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson for Hamilton Light Rail.

49 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 11:46:55

Agree completely. I emailed the project team and councillor McHattie months ago about this. Brian seemed on board, but the response from city hall was a flag 'no' to my suggestion that we also add bike lanes next to the transit lane, or next to the curb parking. Sharrows simply don't cut it on a freeway like this. The road has mega wide lanes and could have easily included bike lanes next to the south curb parking all the way to Dundurn, at which pojnt a REAL bike box could have been installed to allow cyclists to switch to the north lane and continue to Westdale. No lanes would have been lost. A few extra cans of paint and our first ever can of green paint were all that was required.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 11:47:51

Edit button has disappeared. That should be a 'flat' no.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 11:56:17

A cycle lane would be far preferable, but the shocking thing is that the city is actually trying to discourage cyclists from riding on King. The sharrow suggestion is meant as a "do it now" interim change that at least visibly recognizes that cyclists have there place on the road.

When the pilot is evaluated, the city should definitely find a way to add a proper cycle lane somewhere on the road.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By compromise wisely (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 11:56:36

Quite a colourful uncompromising nimby article. One block over in a parallel street (which would be safer, smarter and not 'twice as long') is okay with me.

Permalink | Context

By engin (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 15:40:46 in reply to Comment 93453

Completely agree! Everyone wants everything, but is unwilling to compromise in the slightest. As the City stated "All other traffic, including bicycles, will be restricted to the other traffic lanes on King Street." So if you don't want to use another route, or one isn't available, use one of the other lanes.

Permalink | Context

By viennacafe (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 17:58:35 in reply to Comment 93478

Give me a break. It is clear you don't cycle. I cycle from Gage. There is no good route except on King St. People say a) cyclists should obey stop signs; b) cyclists should be forced onto routes with a stop sign at almost every block.

I pay my taxes and my taxes pay for the damn roads and I place far less wear and tear on them than any driver so screw you and your NIMBYism allegation and BS "compromise". There is no compromise when the starting position is nothing.

Cyclists should organize mass daily commutes along King and Main. It is our roads, too.

Permalink | Context

By compromise wisely (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 21:53:14 in reply to Comment 93488

I do bike, don't presume things... I sold my car after moving downtown, that is how much I bike (everywhere).

Permalink | Context

By Lawry (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 09:57:15 in reply to Comment 93491

Maybe you're just not bikey enough to be cool, I guess. Only the bikingist may have valuable comments!

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:45:29 in reply to Comment 93491

There are different personalities that cycle ... Some people meander slowly on the sidewalk. Others meander slowly on side streets. Others commute on roads and try to maintain momentum. Still others are racing/fitness and normally overtake commuters :) If you are the meandering type who likes a side street route with stops every hundred meters, that's absolutely fine, wonderful and relaxing in fact! But riding that way is incompatible with the distance and efficiency with which many commuters must cycle, and main streets are going to be used to do that (also it is where the destinations are).

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 13:32:32 in reply to Comment 93453

The shortest alternative route would be to go north on Bay to Market, go west on Market to Hess, go north on Hess to Napier, go west on Napier to Locke, cross Victoria Park, go west on Head Street to Dundurn, and go south on Dundurn to King. That route would add about half a kilometre and ten intersections (most of them stop signs), more or less doubling the travel time. (Going all the way to York would add over a kilometre, and that stretch of York doesn't currently have bike lanes either).

Heading south, we have an immediate problem because Bay Street is one-way northbound. So is the next street to the east, Summer's Lane, and MacNab is a bus terminal. On a bike, there is simply no practical way to get from King and Bay down to Jackson without either breaking the law or backtracking massively and adding a good 1.5+ km to the route.

Given how incredibly easy it would be to accommodate cyclists on King (i.e. let cyclists ride in the transit lane), your comment seems to be in poor faith.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 13:41:18 in reply to Comment 93467

To be fair, I still think the city should be trying to fix up Napier as a bike route, since it does have potential for this usage. But yes, it would take a zillion little projects like

1) Traffic light on Queen at Napier.

2) Replace existing stop-signs along the various intersections along the way to favour Napier's traffic (possibly in tandem with an Idaho Stop policy).

3) Two-way Bay Street

4) Install a bike-path along the North side of the Federal building that would provide Napier cyclists with a direct path to Bay Street.

... yeah, just let bikes in the bus-lane.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2013-10-21 13:41:53

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 14:07:09 in reply to Comment 93469

I'd love to see Hunt/Head/Napier as part of a network of neighbourhood greenways - but when it comes to our bike network, we can't even seem to manage the basic stuff, let alone adopting a best practice.

It's extremely frustrating that we keep half-assing it on balanced street redesigns - like the bike lanes on Hunter, which a) won't be physically separated and b) won't actually run between Catharine and MacNab until some unspecified time in the future. The technical challenges of running bike lanes past the GO Station are not hard problems to solve, but we seem incapable of getting it right.

Missed opportunities swoop by, like repainting King Street East to the status quo instead of adding easy bike lanes protected by parallel parking; or failing to add bike lanes on Barton Street East between Nash and Centennial. On the east mountain, Councillor Duvall still isn't sure whether Queensdale should have bike lanes, and he's had one installed for a few blocks to see how many people complain. East of Upper Sherman, Councillor Jackson has flatly vetoed the Queensdale lane because he thinks bicycles are for recreation only.

Permalink | Context

By troll police (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:54:56 in reply to Comment 93453

Quite a disingenuous condescending troll comment.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:25:00 in reply to Comment 93453

In cities I've seen that have transit or rush-hour lanes (Toronto, Calgary), they are taxi/bus/bike.

For parallel streets to be viable : Idaho Stops need to be implemented - that will make side streets a viable throughfare for medium powered traffic (bikes) while maintaining control and safety. Main Street has plenty of room for a bi-directional bike lane and is close to King. York/Cannon improvements are a ways off still.

Viable parallel streets are slim pickings. Nothing has actually been done to make parallel alternatives available. And for those who MUST access King Street on bike, they are not going to magically cease to exist.

I hope nobody gets hurt as a result of continued discrimination against the cleanest and highest efficiency method of getting around.

  • I would also add that if the city is going to tell cyclists to get off King, there is increased responsibility for preparing a viable parallel route. It's getting better but still mostly negligent overall. How about a bit more six sigma thinking?

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2013-10-21 12:29:12

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 16:17:04 in reply to Comment 93461

Idaho Stops need to be implemented

I don't know that idaho stops are really a functional change to intersections. Many cyclists already treat stop-signs as Idaho stops - as far as I can tell the only benefit of implementing them is that you can't be charged. I would be interested to know if people actually get tickets for performing idaho stops, but my impression and personal experience has been that you can already get away with them, legal or not.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 16:54:33 in reply to Comment 93481

Making Idaho stops legal helps to legitimize a normal (and reasonably safe) cycling practice that takes into account the increased visability and shorter stoppong distance of a cyclist, as well as the increased kinetic difficulty of accelerating a bike from a full stop as opposed to a rolling stop. See this article for more on the Idaho stop.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 09:42:56 in reply to Comment 93484

I'm not arguing that Idaho stops are not a good idea. I think they are a great thing and I totally agree with the article you cited. That being said, implementing Idaho stops only serves to legalize what cyclists already do. It's not going to be the policy that changes a bad cycling route into a good cycling route. It doesn't matter if you are not required by law to literally stop at every stop-sign - you still need to slow down and observe just like you do now when you (as I'm sure many of urban cyclists do) roll illegally through a stop sign. Same goes for stop lights.

A good case study for this is Dunsmure Rd. On a quiet day you might cycle this entire road without even slowing down for 90% of stop-signs, because traffic is not very heavy and the visibility at each intersection is good enough that you can verify that the way is clear without slowing down. You also can be pretty sure that no cops are waiting on those quiet residential streets to ticket you for not stopping properly. Idaho stops are already a functional reality on this road.

Do I think that it would be better if it were legal to ride this way? Absolutely. Will changing that law affect the way I ride on Dunsmure? Not at all, because the infrastructure of that road already dictates the way I use it. What would improve Dunsmure as an arterial cycling route would be to implement a greenway style of infrastructure. Such an infrastructure scheme would actually change my behaviour on Dunsmure, because then I would not need to be ready to stop every 100-200ft in case a car is approaching an intersection.

Idaho stops are a great idea, but what Hamilton needs is better cycling infrastructure. The OHTA already allows for great cycling environments to exist (St. George / Beverly St. in Toronto, for example), but to actually create these environments you need infrastructure improvements, not legal changes.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2013-10-28 09:43:29

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 16:37:22 in reply to Comment 93481

Exactly. Making it official would simply mean you can relax and not worry about whether a cruiser is in sight, while still being responsible for stopping when required.

Permalink | Context

By Kevin Love (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 23:48:35 in reply to Comment 93483

Implementing Idaho stops would require a change to Ontario's Highway Traffic Act. Although I note that this has become the de facto policy in Hamilton.

What the city can do is replace 4-way stop signs with yield signs to indicate right-of-way. Couple this with the use of traffic calming measures, such as bollards to eliminate cut-through rat-running car traffic from residential neighbourhoods.

Permalink | Context

By jorvay (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 11:47:48 in reply to Comment 93494

Or a more simple and legal alternative of the residential round-about. I'd been taught that these could be useful in lower-traffic residential areas when I was in university, but I got to see a few of them first-hand last year in Vancouver. Here's an example: http://goo.gl/I44uZm

Granted some of the Napier intersections may be a little tighter, but a small, rolled-curb hump round-about would still fit without preventing fire trucks and occasional moving fans from working their way through the neighbourhood.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:22:54 in reply to Comment 93494

Adding one more comment - it is disingenuous to say that OHTA allows municipalities to ban e-bikes from lanes and paths (Toronto), while simultaneously, neighborhood greenways with idaho stops are somehow incompatible with the OHTA!

The laws are trailing technological and social trends and need to be updated (properly, by teams of experts, not by decrepit old politicians who think bikes are toys).

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:07:12 in reply to Comment 93494

I agree it's defacto policy, in that, unless you cause a problem or accident, the chances of being ticketed for rolling a stop sign on a bike is negligible.

Educating the people to cycle properly however - a very poor method is to say "this is the law, but between you and me no one obeys it". It creates contention with the motoring public and confusion. (BTW isn't putting mini-yield signs on stop signs how Idaho stops are implemented?)

However, the OHTA is not the 10 commandments chiseled into stone by Moses and preserved for time immortal. It has, and should continue to, be able to evolve and adapt to changing technology, trends, and requirements of citizens. Maybe it is time to expand the toolkit a little bit.

Not to be all cynical - a great example of evolution is the rural cycling and safety policy that require a paved shoulder on all new road work.

One example of a failure is the failure so far to enact a safe passing law whereby drivers are not allowed to brush our arm hairs with their side view mirrors as they scream past with accelerator to the floor.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2013-10-22 08:09:21

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:23:34 in reply to Comment 93453

Napier ends before Bay Street, and is full of stop-signs. It would need a lot of TLC to properly function as an alternative to King for cyclists - fewer stops, a legal way to get to Bay Street, and a legal/non-suicidal way to get to York Boulevard's bike lanes (eg. 2-way Bay). And it's needed now, not "in two years after we finish this study and figure out the funding model" since King's bus lane is going in now.

Permalink | Context

By bikehounds (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:21:21 in reply to Comment 93453

What parallel street are you referring to?

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:15:06 in reply to Comment 93453

How is it NIMBY to support the transit lane (which I call an excellent idea)? How is it uncompromising to push for a solution that works for all road users? I specifically said that it should be buses AND bikes.

I would also be "okay" with a route one block over in a parallel street ... except that such a route DOESN'T EXIST! This is the whole point of the article.

Have a look at a map of King St between Mary and New street and please tell me where the route "one block over" is ... or are you proposing that the city do some two-way conversions and demolitions?

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=google+map...

South of King, the best possible alternative is Jackson street, which is three blocks south for most of the route (adding six blocks or 750m to the trip). It also involves many stop signs, cycling through the city hall parking lot and along a narrow pedestrian path through the Jackson Street Playground onto the Dundurn sidewalk, and then cycling the dangerous stretch of Dundurn between Main and King and making a dangerous left turn onto King St.

Google maps tells me the King St route takes 6 minutes and 2km on a bike, while the Jackson street route is almost three times as long in time (16 minutes) and 35% longer in distance. This is not a viable alternative for a human powered vehicle!

https://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=Mary+a...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=Mary+a...

The routes to the north of King are even more circuitous and double the trip time as Ken pointed out.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-10-21 12:54:32

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:46:20

It's interesting to note that, even though this bus-only lane is a dry-run for LRT, it's on the wrong side compared to an LRT. The LRT plan is to occupy the south (left) side of King St, which would leave the curb-lane available for stopping cars and for cyclists. Obviously the right-sided bus doors prevent this from being an option so you can't blame the city for putting the buses on the wrong side, but still - it means that this situation is "temporary-enough" that the city might ignore it.

Because this is meant as a "temporary pilot project", I could see City Hall telling cyclists that we'll have to suck it up for a few years and wait for the Cannon lanes and the LRT. That's kinda weak.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2013-10-21 12:49:15

Permalink | Context

By hshields (registered) - website | Posted October 22, 2013 at 11:16:49 in reply to Comment 93463

You read my mind Pxtl. If this is suppose to be a dry-run for LRT the City is doing the best it can with bus doors on the wrong side. They should also do the same thing to Main since most people I know like to get back from where they go to eventually. Nevertheless, this does raise the issue of when LRT lanes are built (above grade or at grade) will they permanently take away roadway from everyone - including cyclists? Ryan - I'm sure the City has thought of that and has made pledges to motorists/cyclists that things will be all roses and sunshine and we all share the road ect when LRT is built... right?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 12:49:13

"Bike-bus lanes are travel lanes restricted to buses, bicycles, and (usually) vehicles turning right. The lane is separated from general purpose lanes by a solid white line, and designated by signs and painted legends. This configuration requires bicyclists and buses to pass one another in "leapfrog" fashion. Cities employing shared bike-bus lanes include Tucson, AZ; Madison, WI; Toronto, Ontario; Vancouver, BC; and Philadelphia, PA.

Shared vs. Separate Lanes
On a busy arterial street with conventional bike lanes, buses frequently block the bike lane at bus stops. Bicyclists may also be squeezed between the door zone of parked cars on the right and adjacent traffic on the left. A shared lane eliminates these issues, but may introduce new hazards. However, many bicyclists feel the shared bike-bus lane functions better than a conventional bike lane because bus traffic tends to be relatively light, bus drivers are professionally trained to coexist with bicyclists, and buses can merge partway into the adjacent lane to overtake a bicyclist. Nevertheless, many local traffic departments are reluctant to allow bicyclists access to bus-only lanes. This effectively disenfranchises bicyclists on streets where dedicated bus lanes have been deployed, but denying bicyclists access to them.

In some cities, bicycle lanes are provided to the left of dedicated bus lanes (see photo). This introduces turning conflicts where buses turn left across the bike lane, and bicyclists turn right across the bus lane, and motorists turn right across both.

Safety Studies
A reportedly suppressed study by Transport for London leaked to the London Telegraph indicates that on two corridors where bicycles and motorized cycles were allowed in bus lanes, bicyclist crashes were reduced 44%.
Bike-bus lanes have been used in French and German cities. Paris and Bordeaux have shared lane networks of 118 and 40km, respectively. According to the German Cycling Federation, the Federal Ministry of Transportation reports bicycles are safer using bus lanes, and bus operations are not negatively affected by this arrangement. The Ministry states that, where traffic speeds exceed 30 mph, the width of the lane should be at least 4 meters (13 feet) to allow bicyclists to overtake a bus without entering an adjacent lane. Narrower widths, typically 3.0 meters (10.5 - 11.5 feet) are acceptable in lower speed environments (20mph or less)."

http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Bike-Bus+lanes

Permalink | Context

By hshields (registered) - website | Posted October 22, 2013 at 11:21:15 in reply to Comment 93464

Will the City come out and provide a rationale for their restrictions?

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 22, 2013 at 11:59:08 in reply to Comment 93521

Please contact your councillor and ask them!

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 22:19:08 in reply to Comment 93464

However, many bicyclists feel the shared bike-bus lane functions better than a conventional bike lane because bus traffic tends to be relatively light, bus drivers are professionally trained to coexist with bicyclists, and buses can merge partway into the adjacent lane to overtake a bicyclist.

That north curb lane is wider than the others. While buses take up greater lane-width than other vehicles, does that not make for enough room to share the lane?

Or are they repainting all the lanes during this trial and adjusting their widths in the process?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 13:26:56

Its amaysing of all the good idea that we have here on RTH and city hall dont get it !!!!!!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 14:05:46

"The City of Hamilton and Metrolinx are working to improve transit services in Hamilton to better serve existing riders and also to attract new users...Funding for the project is provided by Metrolinx."

https://www.hamilton.ca/CityServices/Transit/Major+Transit+Projects/MajorTranstProjects.htm?WT.mc_id=TransitOnlyLane&WT.hamilton_redirect_friendly=1

"Seventy per cent of Ontarians believe that cyclists need more bicycle lanes or paved shoulders, according to a survey slated to be released Monday.

The annual poll commissioned by Share the Road Cycling Coalition also found that a majority of Torontonians — 71 per cent — would like to see funding for active transportation included in Metrolinx’s $30 billion Big Move."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/05/27/most_ontarians_want_more_bicycle_lanes_survey_shows.html

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bikeonly (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 14:11:01

what parallel route? i will ride my bike on king street if i want to.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 14:13:57 in reply to Comment 93474

So will I, but I'm a crazy outlier <1% risk-seeking male who is willing to ride in mixed traffic. Over 99% of people are not willing to do that, which is why cycling rates are low in cities that don't have high-quality dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 16:27:25 in reply to Comment 93475

A shout out to the "crazy outlier <1%'s!!! Proud to be one, but would take a bike lane all the same.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-AlanWhittle (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 14:49:20

The bus only lane is only 2 Kilometers long, in only one direction. How will this improve anything?

Permalink | Context

By viennacafe (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 18:03:00 in reply to Comment 93476

You have a point. Hamilton is the Half-Assed City.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 21:52:28 in reply to Comment 93489

Nothing changes for me except the level of hostility. The second right lane become the de facto bike lane. I'll have no choice but to take the whole lane and I'm sure I'll get a few choice names hurled at me especially when I'm riding my slow heavy bike which lacks pedal clips. I'm not detouring from King St. It is the most direct westbound route.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Carter (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 14:52:14

When it comes down to it, I'll use the transit lane. If you don't like it, here's a good plan, change it. Cyclists aren't going away. So we'll make the problem go away our way.

Permalink | Context

By engineer (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 17:28:22 in reply to Comment 93477

Yes - that's a great idea. I don't like lots of things that are laws, should I just go against them? They are in place for a reason.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 21, 2013 at 17:43:42 in reply to Comment 93486

You must specialize in engineering things out of straw. Laws and other policies evolve in response to new evidence, changing best practices and public pressure. I would think an engineer would understand that.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2013-10-21 17:51:09

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By J (registered) | Posted October 21, 2013 at 22:41:47

I'll be riding in the transit lane. Any cop that would give you a ticket for that would have a few loose screws. The transit lane on Bay street in Toronto allows bikes and while it's never enforced, as a cyclist you usually overtake more buses than overtake you.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:12:54 in reply to Comment 93493

If there's passengers at most stops, on normal streets I overtake a bus. Usually I have to because of their emissions. Lethal carcinogenic gas warfare coming our of some of these tail pipes.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 07:35:09 in reply to Comment 93493

Agreed!!! That lane in Toronto is reserved for Buses, Taxi's and Bikes and rocks as it's like an executive lane (i.e. extra wide) from Bloor to Queen, before it narrows down to really tight.

Riding a Bixi from Bloor down Bay Street there's not much on the road that can keep ahead of you. The odd taxi, but no buses. I always felt like I was 'king of the road' for the 6 months I rode that route.

Take that car drivers (which, FTR I'm one of as well)!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By All Motorists (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:19:07

Just use the bus lane please.

Permalink | Context

By bikehounds (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:32:07 in reply to Comment 93500

Please contact your councillor and ask them to legalize bikes in the transit lane. This costs zero dollars and solves the problem in half a second. I don't know why this council is intent on creating a hundred imaginary problems every time they solve one real problem.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 22, 2013 at 08:35:07

As a driver and cyclist, I much prefer to see bikes allowed in the transit lane. The curb lane is wide along King. This gives bikes a safe option, and removes 'pesky' bikes from the general car lanes.

I'd rather share a lane with a highly trained bus driver than anyone else on the road.

http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Bike-B...

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds