As citizens and tax payers in this great city we all assume that everyone is treated equally. It is always painful then to discover that we are, in fact, not all equal. I am not talking about our famed egalitarian culture (it really is special). Nor am I discussing the equal access to a range of exotic foods from world regions a Babylonian King would have envied. No. What I'm talking about is how poorly cyclists are treated in this city. For anyone who has seen the cycling cultures of Europe - or even that perenial, so-called third-world city of Bogota, Colombia - the backwardness of this city is frustrating.
What is more frustrating is that cyclist put up with it. If ever there was a situation where the analogy of the frog in a pot of boiling water could be fairly used it is this one. You know, if a frog is put in a pot of room temperature water on a stove and the heat is gradually increased, the frog will not jump out until, well, it is too late.
Cyclists in this city are like that. In spite of the number of people who own bikes and would like to commute if they felt safe, city officials continue to dismiss us as just a bunch of disenfranchised bike couriers (no offense to bike couriers here who know exactly what I mean because they have to deal with city streets all day long). Yet we do nothing even with the potentially significant political force we represent.
In spite of the number of preventable injuries and deaths caused by policy decisions made by city hall, cyclists just sit back and take it. In spite of cyclists who get ticketed for riding the wrong way down streets they live on because traffic planners designed them for cars, not cyclists, they take it. Why? Because over time we have come to think that it can be no other way. Cars and their drivers are king or so we've come to accept.
Is it time for a serious cycling union comprised of a broad swath of the cyclists in the city from couriers to lawyers, teachers to dentists?
I think so. Why am I so adamant about this today? I left the office on King West last night at about 6:30 and headed east towards Spadina. The roads were wet and heavy clouds made it dark enough that cars turned their lights on. There was a massive traffic jam nearing Spadina because of a film crew shooting somewhere in or around Crush.
If you are a cyclist you know the scenario. It is dark, wet, traffic is everywhere, the street car tracks are treacherous, and car drivers are pissed off because they are trying to get home and they are on their cell phones explaining the delay. Bike commuters take extra care in those situations.
As I got closer to the film trucks lining the south side of King Street, I was forced out towards the street car tracks by a line of those ubiquitous orange traffic cones. The cones were about two feet out from the parked vans and trucks and could easily be moved in line with them allowing easier passage for cyclists away from the cars, trucks, and streetcars.
It seemed an obvious solution so when I spotted the ever-present policeman assigned to these shoots I asked if he could get the support crew to move the cones over to make the street safer for the hundreds of cyclists who would be using it. Here the plot thickens.
The officer said no, he wouldn't. I asked why not. He said cyclists had to go where the cars go, implying if cars were stuck in traffic cyclists would have to wait as well. I thought he was joking so I asked him to look at the cones. He grudgingly obliged. I pointed out that it was common sense that the cones could be moved over a foot and a half - just enough to make it safe.
Again he said no. The cones must stay where they were. I responded somewhat taken aback that if a cyclist slipped on the tracks and was injured or, god forbid, killed his day would be ruined. His response? "My day wouldn't be ruined, the cyclists' would."
To serve and protect, as long as you are not a cyclist.
Now, if you are like me you were brought up to respect the police. Even as we grow older and wiser and learn that authority figures are not always right, it is difficult to find yourself in an escalating dispute with one of the city's finest. I shrugged, asked for his name while promising to myself to write this story and remember that some people don't take constructive criticism well - maybe he was having a bad day.
My dark view of Toronto's police improved a few blocks later when I came across two police on their mountain bikes. I stopped one and explained how dangerous the cones made cycling. He seemed to get it and promised to double back and take a look.
Now, I'm not sure he did and wouldn't blame him for staying out of the whole dispute. This is a policy issue not a policing issue and the real discussion must be made with the city's politicians and bureaucrats. If we want safe streets for cycling and the benefit cycle commuting brings to the city over commuting by car, then our representative have to see it as a political issue. Is it time for a serious cycling lobby group in Canada? Where do we start?
[email this story] Posted by R Ouellette on 09/27 at 10:05 AM
-
Did you note his badge number and make a complaint? If not, how are things going to improve? By hoping a member of the PSB reads RT?
Posted by
Mark Dowling on 09/27 at 01:36 PM
-
Hi Mark, I did get his name but after thinking about the real cause of this situation filing a compl;aint would be like “killing the messanger” if I could make a classical reference. The real problem is us. If we don’t make changes happen on a political level no amount of friction between Toronto’s finest and cyclists will make the problem go away.
Posted by
Editor on 09/27 at 01:45 PM
-
I’ve been through the same grind with the rent-a-cops and TTC maintenance crews (its a safety issue – we don’t want traffic passing us too close!) and the gas and bell guys. If they aren’t forcing cyclists onto streetcar tracks they are parking on sidewalks forcing pedestrians into the street to pass. Just the thing for the wheelchair bound.
On less than objective policing PC Ali Rashid (#9497) demonstrated to me how “he don’t need no stinking victim statement”. With “witnesses” (undoubtedly passengers in the vehicle that did the striking) another account of what happened was unnecessary.
http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=2221#comments
Now why would the statement of a cyclist have no standing while that of a motorist who has something to lose would?
Posted by on 09/27 at 07:15 PM
-
Lets not dismiss the negligence of the province in not acting on the coroner’s report especially with respect to driver education and the HTA:
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/coroner_index.htm
particularly:
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/coroner_appendix.htm
re: the amendments to Section 130(2) Careless Driving requiring a minimum 3 m passing interval Section 141(2)(5)(6) Turns, Section 147(1) Slow Vehicles to Travel on Right Side, Section 148(2) Vehicles or Equestrians Overtaken, Section 148(5) Vehicles or Equestrians Overtaking Others, Section 148(6) Bicycles Overtaken, Section 148(8) (Passing Meeting Vehicles), Section 150(1) Passing to Right of Vehicle.
It remains there are still so many drivers who believe cyclists are forbidden from using public roadways and think it is acceptable to use their vehicles to intimidate and/or mutilate cyclists.
On that note, our Minister of Transportation is strangely out of touch with cycling issues and appears all but disinterested:
http://therecord.blogs.com/take_the_lane/2007/09/donna-cansfield.html
But if that is not concern enough there appears not only a culture encouraging marginalisation of cyclists but an outright hatred of cyclists.
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/14/local-radio-show-promotes-hatred-toward-cyclists/
We ceased tolerating fomenting hatred against blacks and gays some time ago. Why are we still tolerating it against cyclists?
Posted by on 09/28 at 08:09 AM
-
Robert, just to be clear: The police officer indicated that you do not have MORE rights to the road than motorists and pedestrians, not that you do not have EQUAL rights. I find your use of this incident to complain about the erosion of cyclists’ equality is therefore misleading.
Posted by on 09/28 at 11:06 AM
-
Diane, I do not understand your comment.
Posted by
Editor on 09/28 at 11:42 AM
-
Robert, sorry I wasn’t more clear.
I think had a motorist stopped his car and asked the officer to move the cones, for whatever reason, the officer would have refused in that case too.
While cyclists do indeed deserve more rights (and a number of them should be required to demonstrate greater responsibility), I don’t see this incident as indicative of the inequality of cyclists.
Posted by on 09/28 at 11:59 AM
-
Thanks. I don’t agree. From a safety perspective, the situation was analogous to having the east-bound lanes closed so traffic would have to go head on towards traffic coming the other way – without any monitoring. You can imagine the stink that would result in.
Posted by
Editor on 09/28 at 12:04 PM
-
Robert: While I’m totally sympathetic to the film truck/pylon/cop incident (been there, too), I take issue with your implication (in paragraph four) that cyclists can choose which rules of the road to obey.
While I am all for making our side streets two-way again (and getting rid of speed bumps), until such time that we can achieve those changes, we should follow the rules and set a good example. Like it or not, we SHARE the road with cars, and that relationship needs to remain civil. Every time a driver sees a cyclist ride the wrong way, or through a stop sign or red light, it builds up resentment (hostility?) towards all cyclists, we get treated with less respect, and it makes the roads more dangerous for those of us on two wheels.
I ride through at least two traffic-mazed neighbourhoods every day, and it’s really not that hard to find a route through that is “legal”. While it can be a pain if you live on a street that has been “engineered” (NB: typically at the request of the residents) there’s almost always a reasonable way around. I suspect that a lot of cyclists are just too lazy to go an extra half block, and excuse their actions as a “protest”.
Personally, I’m all for setting a good example and shaming the cars into repecting us. (Also, the extra couple of blocks are good for your heart.)
Posted by
mrpommer on 09/28 at 01:09 PM
-
Robert: A follow-up. I just came across this gadget:
http://www.gluegluedesign.com/index/opos.html
Maybe we can make a biker version?
Posted by
mrpommer on 09/28 at 01:12 PM
-
mrpommer—I couldn’t agree more. Cyclists will never be taken seriously on the road until they obey the laws of the road—that means no more riding the wrong way on a one-way street, stopping at all stop signs, pedestrian crosswalks and streetcar pick-ups, staying off the sidewalks, and using lights at night ( you’ve got a deathwish if you don’t ). Until cyclists obey these traffic laws en masse, they will get no sympathy from drivers or cops. geoff
Posted by on 09/30 at 11:35 AM
-
does anyone have a good reason why cyclists shouldn’t cycle the wrong way down a one-way street?
Posted by laurence on 10/01 at 02:32 PM
-
I put riding a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street in the same category as crossing the street between intersections. Anyone who ever does one should not complain about people who do the other because before there were streets for automobiles cities were far more user-friendly for environmentally efficient means of transportation. The huge social and legal infrastructure that allows the use of the automobile should not become the de facto standard dictating the way people can use the city. The argument is absurd and serves the interest of big oil more than it does big community-sorry PLANT, I’m not with you on this one.
Posted by
Editor on 10/01 at 03:22 PM
-
Re: Until cyclists obey these traffic laws en masse, they will get no sympathy from drivers or cops.
.. ummm .. so when will motorists cease getting the respect of cops? I don’t see them stopping for stops signs or driving only the right way down one way streets or unfailingly using their lights at night .. en mass. If you are going to use the behaviour of a few cyclists to PREJUDGE that of ALL cyclists, why not apply the same to motorists? Especially as motorists tend to leave bigger craters when they crash and burn than cyclists?
C’mon Geoff. Wake up.
Posted by on 10/01 at 03:44 PM
-
I do my best to follow the rules of the road while biking, but when I’m tired, and the constant stopping and starting due to all the red lights and having to get around the cars and trucks stopped in the bike lane start sapping me of the last bit of energy I need to get where I’m going, I start to bend the rules a little in places where I’m not putting myself or anyone else in danger. Like College St. going east at University, and Queens Quay going west at York: both of these streets have pedestrian lights (they’re not at intersections), yet there aren’t always pedestrians waiting to cross.
One-way streets are another rule I bend far more frequently, since I never know where the streets going my way are located, and I don’t have the time, patience or energy to find out. Without a remotely decent (ie. safe and quick) east-west route between College and Queen’s Quay, I feel more than justified in cycling the wrong way down Richmond west of Bathurst until someone builds/paints me a better alternative.
Posted by on 10/01 at 09:40 PM
-
It pains me to read some of the back and forth above. It simply proves to me that we in North America are light years behind more enlightened European cities. On a recent trip to Scandanavia I saw thousands of well dressed Danes commuting to work and school. They stopped at all stop signs, indicated at all lights, and never once went the wrong way down a one way street. The catch was that all this law abiding behaviour happened on a bike-only network of roads, tunnels, and bridges that would make Toronto’s public works department weep to see. Well maintained, safe, and on more direct routes than those used by cars the bike network continues to grow because the city and state governments understand its importance. They have also figured out that providing a little carrot means that you don’t need to use as much stick.
Posted by
Jane on 10/01 at 10:18 PM
