Go Ride in Traffic

As a cyclist I often find myself arguing until I’m blue in the face with some people over where and how it is appropriate to ride.

My position is this: cyclists are safest when they obey the laws at all times. Selfishly breaking laws to save a few seconds or because you think you’re making yourself safer (more on this in a minute) makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.

Of course there are always emergency and unusual exceptions (construction, accidents, etc.) but in my not-so-humble opinion there is almost never a valid excuse for riding anywhere but on the road, with traffic.

Sidewalk Cycling

Inexperienced cyclists seem to think that the biggest threat to them is passing drivers. So it makes perfect sense that getting off the road (and onto the sidewalk) would be the easiest way to eliminate this risk.

Unfortunately it’s not true.

In fact an incredibly small percent of driver-cyclist accidents are the result of a driver hitting a cyclist from behind.

So, the argument goes, sidewalk cycling must at least get rid of that 4-ish%, right?

It absolutely does and if you could ONLY ride on sidewalks you’d only be a threat to the pedestrians (which works out pretty well for you…not so much for the pedestrians).

The only problem is that in order to get anywhere, you have to pass through intersections – where the vast majority of cycling accidents occur.

Biking on the sidewalk may eliminate the small risk of being hit from behind, but when entering the relatively high-risk intersections, sidewalk cyclists put themselves at a much higher risk than they would face if they were on the road in the first place.

In North-America, it has been found that sidewalk cyclists are at a significantly higher risk of being in an accident – double or more.

And really, it’s no wonder. BicycleSafe.com shows the top 10 ways to get hit on a bike (and how to avoid it). 7 of them involve a vehicle turning into a cyclist at an intersection.

I think it’s safe to say that in most cities, drivers don’t want to hit cyclists. But it’s hard to avoid what you can’t see – or what isn’t where you expect it to be.

When approaching an intersection, the average driver will check for the usual obstacles in the usual places. A cyclist travels at a much faster speed than a pedestrian and may not be in the driver’s field of consideration when checking the sidewalk.

A driver will, however, look at other traffic – the oncoming lane, his own lane and the lane beside him. A cyclist in one of these locations is much more likely to be seen and safely avoided than one that appears in the intersection unexpectedly.

Sidewalk cyclists may feel safer, but ultimately they are trading a relatively small risk for a much much larger one.

Path Biking

There isn’t a single risk-factor above that doesn’t apply to sidewalk-adjacent bike paths – including pedestrians, because as anyone that has tried to use them knows, beside-the-sidewalk bike paths are really just double-wide sidewalks.

These paths even bring up additional problems. Sidewalk cyclists may be oblivious and self-centred, but most of them know they shouldn’t be there and may be slightly more attentive when crossing intersections.

The paths, however, give the illusion of safety and right-of-way while keeping cyclists effectively invisible from motorists. Whenever I see a conflict between the two on these paths, both seem to feel they are in the right.

The cyclist was usually keeping to the designated path and had the right of way! But to the driver, he was minding his own business when suddenly a bike appeared out of nowhere and crossed his path! Regardless of who is in the right, this situation creates a dangerous scenario that is bound to eventually result in more than just road rage.

The paths also create a culture of segregation between bikes and cars. I can’t count the times I’ve had drivers honk or yell at me to “get on the path” when passing me in traffic. Despite the fact that road biking is safer, the presence of these paths encourages bikes and cars to ignore each other – until they are forced to acknowledge each other’s presence – angrily – after a near collision.

This doesn’t promote cooperation or road-sharing, it promotes frustration and distrust between road-users. Bikes are only visible to drivers when they are avoiding hitting one that jumps into an intersection unexpectedly.

Solutions?

While North-America in general is a long way away from the cultural shift necessary to make biking as safe as it is elsewhere in the world, there are things we can do.

On a city-wide level, I encourage London to ticket sidewalk cyclists and remove all beside-the-sidewalk lanes. Where possible these should be replaced with safer on-road marked bike lanes.

Individually, we can solve this problem by refusing to use the sidewalk or the bike paths. Not only is it practically safer, but it encourages bikes and cars to be aware of each other making the roads safer for all cyclists.

If you are interested in learning more about bicycle safety, visit BicyclingLife.com and BicycleUniverse.info.

Update July 29, 2009

Today it came to my attention that the city of London, Ontario recognizes the dangers of the sidewalk paths – what they call “In-Boulevard Bicycle Paths”.

London’s Bicycle Master Plan [PDF] states:

When properly situated, IBBP’s can serve as significant generators of bicycle use, providing for enjoyable recreational opportunities (especially for the less skilled cyclist) as well as desirable commuter routes. Appropriate applications of an IBBP would include:

• Where an uninterrupted right-of-way is available to provide for long, continuous routes for commuting or recreational trips; or,
• Within an independent right-of-way such as an abandoned railway corridor, utility corridor, along a river, through a linear park or a greenbelt.

According to the Ministry of Transportation, bicycle paths may be located within the right-of-way of major roads as long as they are located beyond what is used as the clear hazard zone for such facilities. In such instances, the Ministry recommends a separation distance of 10 to 15 metres. When IBBP’s are located immediately adjacent to an arterial roadway, however, many operational problems can occur as the motorist and cyclist interface. Cyclists using the inboulevard pathway, for example, are generally required to stop or yield at all cross streets and driveways to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Furthermore, unless diligence is exercised in regular pathway maintenance, the accumulation of sand, debris, and eroded materials on the IBBP can lead to crashes that do not involve another vehicle or cyclist. For reasons noted above, there is a “…higher incidence of bicycle crashes associated with off-street, rather than on-street, facilities, particularly in commercial areas… (Ontario Bikeways, Planning and Design Guidelines, Ministry of Transportation).

The problem is that I can’t think of a single example of a IBBP in London that has a dedicated right-of-way for any significant distance (the longest I can find is 700m) or that is anywhere near 10-15m from the road.

Does continuous right-of-way count when there are bus stops planted in the middle of the paths?

In fact, although I have no statistics in this case, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it is more dangerous to jump in and out of traffic than it is to just stay in the lane in the rare case where a cyclist may have the right of way for any noteworthy distance.

Not that it matters anyway, those cases are limited to a handful.

Thankfully the plan has acknowledged that these paths are dangerous and do not intend to install any more.

Given the operational (and potential risk management) issues associated with IBBP’s, the Bicycle Master Plan Guideline recommends that the City no longer pursue their development. While it is recognized that portions of the system may currently temporarily include existing, or previously planned and approved infrastructure, all new City-initiated capital transportation projects will not provide for the development of IBBP’s.

However the unfortunate truth is they are part of the culture of London and established paths need to be removed if the city is serious about ensuring the safety of its travellers.

Park(ing) Day

This was just brought to my attention by James Kingsley and I think it needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

PARK(ing) Day is an annual, one-day, global event where artists, activists, and citizens collaborate to temporarily transform metered parking spots into “PARK(ing)” spaces: temporary public parks.

Anyone can participate in PARK(ing) Day, though it is strictly a non-commercial project, intended to promote creativity, civic engagement, critical thinking, unscripted social interactions, generosity and play.

London has an overwhelming car-culture that strikes fear into pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users alike. Public transit is underused and (therefore) underfunded, relegated only to the untouchables of the city that aren’t invincible in their SUVs.

It’s definitely a problem. However urban sprawl isn’t just a phenomenon here, it’s a way of life. Box store hell is the place to be – with stores spread so far apart people drive from store to store. I’m not sure when malls became so untrendy. Some of the major shopping centres are completely (or unreasonably) inaccessible by transit and the city is spread thin by all the ‘little boxes all the same’.

It’s already a huge problem to get around in downtown London by car. The lights are synchronized such that every light seems red and drivers – in their frustration – make it worse. A few weeks ago it took an hour to drive from Masonville Place to the 401 via downtown. An HOUR. To travel 14km.

So instead of reclaiming the parking spots in urban centres, I propose that London needs Park(ing) Day in boxstore hell. I suspect that most boxstore hell lots are private-property so it wouldn’t last long.

Any thoughts as to how to bring this to where it is releveat to London?

Community-driven vs. driven Communities

Being from a small town, I grew up with a unique perspective on community. When you live with 700 other people, you can’t escape it – for all its good and all its bad.

I was asked recently why I instantly warmed-up to a community in Ottawa but have been repelled by an almost identically-composed community in London.

I knew there was a difference and I could feel it, but it’s been difficult to pinpoint.

Recently I’ve had a similar feeling over another completely separate community in London. Something hasn’t quite felt right and I couldn’t put my finger on it.

I’ve come to realize that while everything about a community can be the same, the subtle foundation of its existance makes a world of difference.

Driven Communities

Driven communities are brought together by a specific cause or interest. Profession, religion, hobby…these groups are formed – formally or informally – around a specific purpose.

Members become part of that community because it represents part of themselves. They participate because it gives them something spiritually, professionally, recreationally or socially.

Driven communities are satellites to people’s existing social networks and lives.

Community Driven

Community Driven communities are more organic. They’re often still formed around a common interest but as the community evolves, that common bond can become incidental to the bond of the community itself: Community for the sake of community.

Community driven communities are more of a country, with a hodgepodge of citizens that may be different but they all share a common identity. That identity leads to specific issues and interests the citizens may share together but the community always comes before the issue or interest.

Community-driven communities are often an integral part of the identities of the members. Relationships outside are either welcomed as in-laws or become the satellites.

To me these communities are like families. There’s always the crazy one and the one you always argue with, but there’s something deeper there than just a shared love of knitting. Members aren’t just part of the knitting club – they’re ‘knitters’.

It can be extremely difficult to tell the difference from the outside of a community (and they can certainly transform) but the difference is tremendous.

I have found that London is full of many driven communities but not many community-driven communities.

I think the reason I haven’t seen the ‘community’ here yet is because I’m still looking for a community-driven community. I’m not sure if it’s in the cards (or culture) here to find it.

It’s my road too

I don’t hide the fact that if I was slightly homicidal, biking in London would tip me over the edge.

This will be my second summer and the problems with biking on London’s streets are striking compared to Ottawa, where I regularly commuted by bike. These problems happen everywhere, but in London the frequency is incredible.

• Drivers don’t give cyclists enough any room when passing
• Drivers don’t respect cyclists’ rights as vehicles on the road
• Drivers often harass cyclists by honking at them or cutting them off
• Cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road when they’re on it
• Cyclists regularly bike on the sidewalk
• Pedestrians walk on designated bike lanes and don’t respond to bike bells

All of these problems are, in my opinion, part of a larger systematic problem.
It’s not just cyclists that have it rough. Greg Fowler is often running up against brick walls when it comes to pedestrian rights. And transit users don’t get it much better.

Rules are poorly enforced. I’ve never seen a cyclist ticketed for biking on the sidewalk in London. Nor have I ever seen a driver even warned for careening blindly across a bike lane or pedestrian crosswalk.

Instinctually, I feel that the best way to fight this problem is to be safely aggressive and to be a presence. By cycling timidly on the sidewalk, cyclists are lying down and taking it.

I’ve argued until blue in the face with some local cyclists who think that it’s safer to bike on the sidewalk or on the separate roadside bike paths (which, in my opinion are the *most* dangerous place to be – but that’s another story).

Today I found some vindication in the Globe and Mail:

…There are still a puzzling number of people who are resistant to cycling on the grounds that it’s dangerous or impractical. In fact, though, London [England] statistics show that the number of biking accidents actually goes down as the number of cyclists goes up.

In Germany, where bike riding is part of the normal culture, people are 10 times more likely to ride a bike than Americans and three times less likely to get hurt while doing so.

The problem with cycling in North America and Britain (as opposed to, say, the Netherlands or Japan) is that it’s treated like a recreational sport rather than a normal way of getting around. Instead of increasing bike lanes, North American governments prefer to pass mandatory helmet laws. The irony is, of course, that cycling accident rates in continental Europe, where helmets are almost unheard of, are generally much lower.

The lesson here is simple: The more stylish cycling becomes, the safer and more practical it will be. (emphasis mine)

Cyclists that don’t bike on the roads as the vehicles they are make the roads more dangerous for everyone.

It says “I’m not really a vehicle, and you don’t need to respect me”.

It says “I’m not going to follow the rules of the road so you can’t trust me or predict what I’m going to do”

I know the roads are dangerous and that London driver’s licences may be the result of a Kellogg’s promotion gone wrong, but things won’t change unless we make them change.

As a cyclist, you’ll see me on the road, taking my lane, signalling and using four way stops correctly. The more people join in, the safer it will be for everyone. And that’s critical, because in London, we’ve got a LONG way to go.