Give and Take at PWIC
I was at yesterday's Public Works and Infrastructure meeting where I made a deputation on item PW1.4; the issue was about riding bikes on sidewalks.
In my deputation, I suggested that distinction between sidewalks and Multi-use trails was somewhat arbitrary. For examples I cited the bike path that runs adjacent to the sidewalk on Eglinton Ave West, or that there are no sidewalks but only a multi-use trail beside Lake Shore Blvd West through the Western Waterfront Beaches. I suggested that since cyclists don't feel comfortable riding on our roads, and in fact get yelled by motorists to get off the road and on to the sidewalk, that rather than fighting this with heavy handed enforcement, we convert and upgrade all of our sidewalks into multi-use trails.
I also cited the city's own studies of deaths and injuries of people from car-on-car, car-on-bike and car-on-pedestrian studies and yearly summaries and noted the absence of bike-on-pedestrian studies because it's simply not an issue.
I questioned the need for such a heavy handed enforcement, and the need for the by-law at all as it is.
I was then questioned about bike lanes by Councillor Layton, and I explained that the bike lanes we currently have are nearly useless because they are filled with parked cars and/or delivery vehicles. Minon-Wong, the chair, also questioned me, and I replied that other municipalities allows sidewalk cycling with the exception of some areas; after all the HTA does not dis-allow it, it is only local by-laws that control it.
The guests (Del Grand and Stintz) were the worst to listen to; you would have thought from their description that the cyclists were actually the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
As always, Perks was the most brilliant with his oration, quickly disproving the hyperbole that Del Grand and Stintz spewed. The rest of the committee also did their best with their questions of staff, as well as with their discussions and debate. The level of discourse was the highest I've ever seen it at a Public Works committee for a cycling issue. It was recognized by the committee that some give-and-take on the issue was the current best course of action. The committee members all expressed their enthusiasm towards working on a new (or improved) cycling strategy which would be better for everyone in the coming months, and they all expressed that they wanted to encourage more, and safer, cycling (except Parker).
If this level of discussion and debate, as well as the zeal for cycling showed by the committee members continues, am more confident now that this administration will do more to further cycling than the last two have done for our city.
Anthony, thanks for the report. I've been at more than one PWIC meeting under the old regime where the majority of the committee just sat there looking bored, so any rational discussion of the issues sounds like a step up. Let's see what actions they take!
http://jnyyz.wordpress.com/
Thanks so much for your lucid and responsible feedback on that subject!
Perhaps this is just another example of politico's taking shots at easy targets to gain wider favor/visibility? Only to abandon the 'cause celebre' with a shift in the breeze...
The subect of safety on Multi-Use trails sure is a slippery one, when you consider the fact there's no well supported protocols for traffic flow, and careless use and erratic movement can lead to all sorts of chaos resulting in more close calls.
I for one think that adults on bikes have no business riding (at speed) on sidewalks...For the following basic reasons, that I'd be happy to update according to any logical rationale that get's presented....Here's where I'm at so far:
ThumbShift.com
Just Sayin
Kudos to you Anthony. I'm very glad to hear PWIC is giving more than lip service to cycling issues. There will be challenges along the way but I agree with your opinion that "this administration will do more to further cycling than the last two have done for our city". We just have to keep their feet to the fire
The Toronto Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Collision Study (2003) makes it clear that cyclists put themselves at increased risk of injury as a result of crash when riding out from a sidewalk. And from personal experience I know that when I am in a hurry, a busy MUP is the worst place to be.
On the other hand, a heavy handed response to riding on the sidewalk (and at $90, it is very heavy handed) is simply overkill.
My personal intent was to soften the blow. I asked for the stars when I was after the moon. Instead, we got the sky; that is, we got a compromise as I explained. While not ideal, it's a recognition that more needs to be done to also encourage, in a softer way, cyclists to not use the sidewalk, and a recognition that the city needs to do more to make the streets feel safe enough to cyclists so this kind of enforcement is not needed.
Very interesting. I see from the minutes that you were the only deputant (is that a word?).
How does one get access to PWIC agendas? Making a deputation is something that I myself may be interesting in doing in the future.
My own local councillor (ward 24, David Shiner) is a member of PWIC. Perhaps that will give me a sliver more clout.
Kevin Love
Anthony,
Well done. Deputations are easy, and good for our Councillors and Staff. It's easy to get onto the roster - visit www.toronto.ca, find the committee you wish to depute to, and email the committee secretary. Then show up early, well dressed, prepared to speak 5 minutes, and answer questions if asked. Introduce yourself to as many people in the room, and be nice.
On that note, Councillor Parker isn't against more and safer cycling per se; he's just against the kind of belligerent, fist-shaking cycling "activism" that has been directed at him and his C-conservative cronies like Ootes and Holyday. Councillors like these just don't like "entitled" constituents demanding "special treatment". Councillor Parker is a reasonable businessman, parent, and avid cyclist, riding off-road and street. He dosn't make a big deal out of the facts that he's participated in Group Commutes for several years,cycles thru Leaside on a regular basis, and has a bigger cycling file in his office than many other Councillors. Approach his office someday and introduce yourselves - you may find a pleasant surprise.
Cyclists need to work together positively, in good faith, with those who can make change happen. Keep up the good work.
Brian
Kevin,
The city's schedule of meetings, the agendas, the decision documents, and the minutes, can all be found at one location:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/meetingCalendarView.do?function=meetingCalendarView#current
Brian,
I don't dislike Councillor Parker. I have had even the chance to converse with him a couple of times outside of meetings, and he made a good impression on me those times.
However, his presence was the least constructive at the last PWIC meeting -- with regards to this item; and what little he did say did not come out well. With what he said, and with the way he voted, he did not leave a very good impression.
Is Councillor Parker sympathetic to Vehicular Cycling?
Excuse me, but let's not talk about other cyclists as though they belonged to a demented cult- we have Jim Kenzie (columnist for the Star's Wheels) to do that for us.
Cyclists and cycling advocates have a basic chicken and egg problem. We need motorists to respect cyclists and not assault us with close passes and other form of harassment on the roads. We need that more than anything else for cycling safety, certainly more than we need bike lanes, which with all the good will in the world don't go everywhere. But many motorists will only get the need to respect cyclists when they see a lot of us, a critical mass of everyday cyclists. And many people will not cycle, or cycle less than they could, or refuse to let their children cycle, because of fear.
So we have to figure out how to create the numbers of cyclists that will create a traffic culture where no motorist would intentionally endanger of harass a cyclist, when that very danger and harassment prevent people from cycling. I believe we have to do it in incremental steps, and infrastructure, including protected infrastructure, definitely has a role to play. On the other hand, I don't think infrastructure by itself will accomplish what we need. If cyclists who won't cycle in traffic under any circumstances can only go where the infrastructure takes them, and it won't take any of us very far. Often, cycling infrastructure won't take us where we want to go. We need both approaches. I disagree with vehicular cyclists who attack any effort to put in cycling infrastructure, but it doesn't do to call such people cult-like or foolish. We can make our case for infrastructure without attacks on other cycling advocates. Divisions in the cycling community serve nobody, except for Ford, GM, Chrysler, Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot