Over the next few weeks, we'll highlight ten bike facilities in Toronto we think could use some improvement.
10 - Sentinel Avenue (at Finch)
Sentinel Avenue bike lane
No doubt a popular route amongst York University bike commuters, the intersection of Sentinel and Finch creates an unnecessary conflict between cyclists and drivers. Bike lanes should not be striped next to a right-turn only lane, as it creates confusion for both cyclists and drivers who has the right of way on the green light. The lane should be angled to continue between the straight through lane and the right turn lane, as it does in many other bike lanes in the city.
So what should happen at intersections where there is a bike lane, but traffic in the next lane over can go either straight through or turn right? This is why bike lanes are dotted at intersections. A right-turning vehicle should safely merge into the bike lane as if it was another lane of traffic before beginning their turn. A cyclist behind this vehicle can choose to wait for the vehicle to turn, or shoulder check and pass safely on the left. A cyclist arriving first at an intersection where there is a lot of right turning traffic may wish to move out of the bike lane into the middle of the lane at the intersection to avoid being right-hooked.
Comments
anthony
I didn't know
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 00:41I didn't know that the city had done this more than once. I'm so used to the bike lanes on Queens Quay (at Bathurst) or Birmingham (at Kipling and Islington) where the bike lane is away from the curb on the other side of the right hand turn lane, that I though that Lakeshore's (at Browns Line) bike lane was an anomaly.
You're right, this one does belong on a list of bad/weird/unfulfilling bike facilities.
I wonder if Lakeshore (at Browns Line) will also make the the top ten...
Darren_S
Bad design
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 09:33While I agree that this is a horrid intersection, I have to wonder a bit about this post. Most cyclist can tell you about bad facility designs cause we are always being told how bad they are in general or experience them on a daily basis. There would be more value to this exercise if we knew why they came up with this design in the first place.
Gerrard is a great example of an abortion when it comes to intersections and the reason it was designed that way. The lane comes to a funny end at intersections because when they were put in the two roads fell under two different jurisdictions who's masters could not agree. I have not been on Sentinel myself in years yet the cycling map indicates that it changes from a bike lane to route in the intersection. Is this a cause for this bad design?
The questions are who do we take to task for these designs, how to get them fixed in terms of the process of getting it done, and how to prevent further muck ups? Some of the very same people who designed these lanes are still on staff, should they have not been shown the door by now?
chephy (not verified)
Gerrard
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 10:54Gerrard is a great example of an abortion when it comes to intersections and the reason it was designed that way. The lane comes to a funny end at intersections because when they were put in the two roads fell under two different jurisdictions who's masters could not agree.
Interesting. I always thought the Gerrard design was intentional, to encourage proper cyclist positioning at intersections. I believe it's actually good design; probably the best you can really have with a bike lane (which in most cases is just an inherently flawed concept to start with - though it may be better than other options if people are not conditioned to use other options properly).
tanya
Bike lanes can end better
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 10:33Yes I believe this is the end of the bike lane. However, the dotted lines should still guide the cyclists to merge to the left of the right turn lane before the intersection. Experienced cyclists will still do this but I admit the presence of the lines were guiding me to stay to the right of the right turn lane and I was confused. Perhaps if the right turn road was a major "bike route" (which its not) then the lane may want to continue right but then definitely there should be right turn arrows in the bike lane.
One possible explanation is that the bike lane was installed first, and the right turn only lane was added later.
chephy (not verified)
This is horrendous.
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 10:50I didn't know the city did this. Is it even permissible standards-wise? And this is a new bike lane too! It's not as though it was a mistake from the early days. So, herb, do you still not "buy my characterization of city planners as bumbling idiots who will do anything to make life harder for cyclists"?...
If you want suggestions about other bad cycling facilities to feature, I suggest Davenport south of Dupont. They really wanted to preserve parking there, which resulted in unrealistically narrow parking spaces. It's so ridiculous, that not only is the bike lane in the door zone, there often simply isn't enough space in the lane to proceed - it's taken up by a parked SUV that isn't even parked that sloppily either.
vic
Yuck.
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 14:13That's gross. Anthony is right about Lakeshore at Brown's Line too. I got caught in that one a couple of times because I didn't realize I would have to merge out. A better design is definitely needed there.
Darren_S
Logic fails
Mon, 10/29/2007 - 17:06"buy my characterization of city planners as bumbling idiots who will do anything to make life harder for cyclists"
Chephy, Maybe it is the way it is worded but the logic here fails me. It is hard to imagine that "bumbling idiots" accomplishing anything let alone a conspiracy to make life harder for cyclists. Similar to a lot of criticism of bike lanes, ie Cyclists are so stupid that they will follow a bike lane anywhere, like trying to turn left from the curb. Yet if we take the bike lanes away they somehow become smarter?
I cannot for a minute understand out how the Gerrard intersections are the best things going. I rode down them today and the design screams crossfire. Cars being invited to merge right where cyclists are being forced to move left.
You have been asked before provide some sort of study that supports your contentions that bike lanes are so bad. If you did post it could you point it out to us. Thanks.
chephy (not verified)
Chephy, Maybe it is the way
Wed, 10/31/2007 - 16:08Chephy, Maybe it is the way it is worded but the logic here fails me. It is hard to imagine that "bumbling idiots" accomplishing anything let alone a conspiracy to make life harder for cyclists.
Well, strictly speaking that's herb's wording. However, no special conspiracy is needed to make cyclists' lives difficult. It's a very simple task, actually. Bad design can easily be accomplished by bumbling idiots.
Similar to a lot of criticism of bike lanes, ie Cyclists are so stupid that they will follow a bike lane anywhere, like trying to turn left from the curb. Yet if we take the bike lanes away they somehow become smarter?</em.>
Well, firstly, if we took the bike lanes away, at least cyclists won't be ENCOURAGED to ride in bad places like to the right of right-turning cars. And secondly, drivers will not yell at them as much when they actually do the right thing. Right now, drivers will assume that if there is a bike lane, cyclists should be in it, even if it's a door zone bike lane. Clearly no bike lane is much better than a bad bike lane.
I cannot for a minute understand out how the Gerrard intersections are the best things going. I rode down them today and the design screams crossfire. Cars being invited to merge right where cyclists are being forced to move left.
But this is exactly what has to happen if cars are turning right and cyclists are proceeding straight. This is the reason all bike lanes are dashed at intersections - so that right-turning cars can go right and cyclists can pass them on the left. Otherwise we get a situation that's exactly the same as in this bad facility that we are all criticizing.
You have been asked before provide some sort of study that supports your contentions that bike lanes are so bad.
Plenty of references concerning all cycling facilities (not just bike paths, but bike lanes as well).
And still despite all this evidence I am not unflinchingly anti-bike lane (only unflinchingly anti bad bike lane) because of the "comfort factor". I said the design is inherently flawed because it guides cyclists to the right of right-turning traffic in cases when there is no separate right-turn lane; however, I also said in this very same thread that bike lanes may be better than many other options - perhaps than ANY other option - because of inherently flawed design of humans (they are impatient, irritable, set in their way, difficult to educate). Ideally, I'd prefer lots of narrow lanes on all major roads and giving a lane to every road user by default. However, I realize that the way people have been conditioned to drive, Charles S. explains very well why this is not a reasonable design at this point. However, wide curb lanes work well because they provide plenty of space for both a cyclist and a motorist sharing the lane, but do not encourage poor intersection positioning or door zone riding. But if it's possible to increase cyclist comfort level by introducing a bike lane without considerably compromising cyclist safety, it's probably a good trade-off and I will be a mild supporter at that point. You just have to realize that cycling safety WILL be slightly compromised even with a good design, and you have to decide whether the comfort-for-safety+efficiency trade-off is worth it.
Darren_S
Chephy, bike lane refs
Mon, 11/05/2007 - 21:01Chephy, I read as much as I could stand of the reference you provide, I had seen it before but never spent much time reading it. There were some really interesting things in there. Though still a lot of questionable tactics.
A lot of designs they tested were insane, hopefully they have all fallen out of favour. It was hard to tell in a lot of the studies exactly what types of bike lanes they were testing.
Things they did not seem to account for was an increase of cycling traffic, rather they just counted the total number of accidents. No mention either of the quality of life improvements for the street as a whole. Dundas Ave E for example, many residents reported that their street was more liveable after the bike lane went in.
I could not understand why they counted cyclists who were riding irregularly in the bike lane. What did that have to do with the bike lane? Riding the wrong way in the bike lane is not the fault of the bike lane. Some hinted that was the fault of they cyclists not understanding the bike lane.
None of the studies took enforcement into account. If you took a bike lane in Toronto and studied it would it be a fair representation of the bike lane?
tanya
Wrong way in the bike lane
Mon, 11/05/2007 - 22:25I find there is a small number of cyclists that truly don't understand that while they are in the bike lane usual rules of the road still apply, such as riding on the right side of the road. Someone I was riding with once started heading along the left side of the road, and I pointed out we should be on the RIGHT SIDE, and they are like "but there's a bike lane here!" The other side of the road unfortunately did not have a bike lane, and I find there seems to be an increase in wrong way riders when there is no bike lane on the right side.
It may possibly be of additional help to paint a small directional arrow above the bike icon in the bike lane.
Charles S. (not verified)
bike lanes bad?
Tue, 10/30/2007 - 00:31One can find plenty of analysis that purports to show that bike lanes are "inherently flawed" on John Forester's website. However, from what I can tell this argument focuses too much on measures of safety and ignores measures of comfort, which, I submit, are just as important in getting people to cycle.
I have lived and cycled in several North American cities over the past dozen years. I am not scared to share lanes with cars, even narrow lanes, I am a good enough cyclist to do it safely, and I'm sure anyone can develop the necessary skills to do so without too much trouble. But I don't like it. It is--what's the right word, unpleasant? uncomfortable?--to, daily, compete for lane space with large heavy armoured objects that travel much faster than I want or need to go. Try biking uphill on Jarvis, or downhill for that matter, for an object lesson in this. In fact, I hate sharing narrow lanes so much that I will go well out of my way to travel on streets that have wide shoulders or bike lanes--bike lanes being best, if the street is busy, because the motorists understand (well, most of them) that they have no business being in the lane. It's (by comparison) comfortable. It's pleasant. It feels civilized. That's probably why there are a hundred times more cyclists in European cities where lanes and similar facilities are ubiquitous than here in North America.
Some people may not share this perspective. That's fine. But I humbly submit that they are a relatively small percentage of cyclists or would-be cyclists. I ride on Gerrard all the time. The way the bike lane fizzles out at intersections such as Jarvis may be perfectly safe, but it is not comfortable. It sets up a competition for lane space which is likely to result in everybody getting upset--the motorists who perceive that the cyclists are blocking their way, and the cyclists who are forced to merge into traffic that may be moving much faster than they want to go. This, like the lane configuration pictured in this post, is on balance a deterrent to cycling, and the kind of thing that needs to be fixed.
Charles S. (not verified)
Addendum
Tue, 10/30/2007 - 00:50I should point out that Forester's website does contain a few brief references to studies which supposedly show that bike paths (probably really multi-use trails, though without any details or context it's hard to say anything useful about them) are less safe for cyclists than roads. However, I can't find any references to studies that deal with bike lanes, which leaves us with a highly dubious argument-by-analogy--the reasoning seems to be that if biking on the sidewalk is dangerous, then bike lanes must also be dangerous, since they're right next to the sidewalk.
Aidan
cops
Tue, 11/06/2007 - 20:55Safety most of all comes down to getting cops to enforce a bylaw or two, but to focus more on cars than bicycles for so many obvious reasons it's one of those things you get, or I can't explain it to you.
The EnigManiac
Cops won't
Tue, 11/06/2007 - 23:55Cops do not enforce bylaws, even traffic ones. And they certainly don't give a damn about bike lanes. It's just not important to them or their stats, etc.
Cops have the authority to act on bylaw infractions, I believe, but they refuse to exercise it. It's not worth their time in court is what a few have told me. Bylaw enforcement officers, on the other hand, have the responsibility to enforce bylaws. However, in more than twenty years of riding, I've never seen one. That's why so many morons ride their bikes on the sidewalks. There's no fear of repercussions.
A couple of cops have told me---unofficially, of course---that unless a cyclist is an obvious hazard, overly mouthy or they feel like being hard-asses, they won't stop him for lack of lights, horns, ging through stop signs etc. However, it goes the other way too. They won't go after motorists who make a dangerous right turn, cut-off or otherwise infringe upon a cyclists safety.
I'm not sure all the cops observe those rules, but from what I'm told, that is what we can expect. Most Metro cops live outside the city, in non-cycling areas---even the bike cops---and they have told me straight out that they leave us to our own devices, to make our own way and govern ourselves individually. It's not an acceptable or preferable approach, in my opinion, but it is what it is.
Aidan
Class-Action?
Wed, 11/07/2007 - 13:40Is it possible for cycling citizens to put forth a class-action suit against cities and their police force for not enforcing their own statutes, thus getting more of us killed/injured than could be expected if they did enforce them?
I'm not a lawyer, but I realize that the term 'class-action' is probably something I got from American TV, and not a Canadian legal term. Any lawyer, law student or person involved in bicycle advocacy know if it is possible (or the right term)? Would be a great first project and publicity stunt for that cyclist-union in the works. Formal success would be pretty irrelevant.
Maybe similar could be done against the city for the fact that the city has, at best, completed 1/3 of the 'bike plan' in 2/3 of the ten it planned for, and the 1/3 done is all the easy work. It might help if they did not waste money on the fancy pamphlets I found at MEC but did some painting with that coin. Regardless, the city could do far more for us if it got rid of curb-lane parking on major streets, and painted it for bikes.
Darren_S
Stunts
Wed, 11/07/2007 - 14:33Before any lawyer takes on a class action suit you will have to convince them that you are simply not doing as a stunt. Lawyers can get into a lot of trouble with the Law Society and the courts for that matter if they engage in stunts. This is on top of being liable for costs when the case is lost.
The law allows cops discretion. It is double-edged sword, sometimes it helps us other times it serves as an excuse to allow poor behaviour. A cop will use their discretion to not arrest a person causing a non-violent disturbance if that person is not mentally fit whereas if you or I did it we would face charges. You will have to prove that their actions or lack of action falls out of their discretion. Everyone would agree that they do not have discretion stopping a murder but would argue that they would have some when it comes to a little old lady being dropped off in a bike lane.
Lawyers will not give you advice online, gets them into trouble also. If you really want to find out the answers to your questions try the Law Society's referral service 1-900-565-4LRS (4577) costs $6. Better yet try contacting lawyers that specialize in environmental law to see if they have interest in helping you.
chephy (not verified)
More on bike lanes
Thu, 11/08/2007 - 01:05Darren:
A lot of designs they tested were insane, hopefully they have all fallen out of favour.
The lane discussed in this very post is pretty insane to me. What I encounter several times a week on Davenport (about 1 foot between the left edge of the bike lane and properly parked cars) is pretty insane. The bollards on Martin Goodman trail are insane. I can go on and on with the GTA examples. The insanity liveth on, unforunately.
Things they did not seem to account for was an increase of cycling traffic, rather they just counted the total number of accidents.
Is that so? That's what they did in ALL those studies to which I gave a link? You seem to keep referring to some one study. There are summaries of several dozen studies on the page I linked to. Are you discussing some particular one?
No mention either of the quality of life improvements for the street as a whole. Dundas Ave E for example, many residents reported that their street was more liveable after the bike lane went in.
This can be a side benefit of a bike lane, I concur, and is something that should not be neglected in overall considerations. However, the main reason to install bike lanes should be to increase the safety and efficiency of cycling in the city, imho. If a bike lane increases liveability but leads to increase in bike accidents, the city should get rid of an unsafe bike lane and look into some other ways of increasing liveability...
I could not understand why they counted cyclists who were riding irregularly in the bike lane. What did that have to do with the bike lane? Riding the wrong way in the bike lane is not the fault of the bike lane. Some hinted that was the fault of they cyclists not understanding the bike lane.
One trouble with bike lanes is that they attract incompetent cyclists who believe that they can ride in a bike lane any which way they want (I admit this is what partly accounts for a higher accident rate on bike facilities - the fact that they tend to be used by less experienced users). It is not a fault of a bike lane per se, true, but if you put in a bike lane, that's what the consequences are going to be, like it or not. I think this is at least partly due to generally irregular nature of bike facilities: one-way bike lanes, two-way bike lanes, two-way multi-use paths, contraflow bike lanes.... there is lots of confusion and as a result a general perception that bikes should not use the rules for the motor traffic, but that they should instead make up ad hoc, impromptu ways to navigate cycling facilities (since cycling facilities are so inconsistent). A way to address this is education of the public, and some sort of standartization of cycling facilities, so that people can know what they are supposed to do in a bike lane. But if you have bike lanes that lead you to the right of right-turning cars as in this example, it sends a very, very bad message.
None of the studies took enforcement into account.
I don't understand your wording. Enforcement of what?
Ian23 (not verified)
Sentinel Ave bike lane
Wed, 11/28/2007 - 19:11I've been biking to York regularly this fall and can report that there's a hidden hazard for cyclists who edge left into the straight-through lane: there are drivers who go straight through even though they are in the right-turn lane. This may be deliberate - the red light is a longish one, giving priority to traffic on Finch, and if there's a queue of cars in the straight-through lane, it must be tempting to whiz by on their right. Or it may be that people don't see the left turn arrow on the road. Sentinel is two lanes in each direction north of Finch; so northbound cars going straight through in the right-turn lane have their own lane to go into. Southbound cars can see that Sentinel narrows to one lane on the other side of Finch, and I haven't yet seen anyone try to go straight from the right-turn lane. So, I'm inclined to think that the northbound violators have just missed the arrow. It might help to put up more signage or realign the road (?).
BTW the bike lane is being extended south along Sentinel to Sheppard, which makes for a more comfortable ride, except when it's covered in snow and ice, like this morning :(
Adam M (not verified)
Sentinel Ave. About the
Thu, 11/29/2007 - 18:10Sentinel Ave.
About the right-turn-lane / dotted-bike-lane issue going southbound, I compensate by riding on the left side of the right lane well ahead of time in the intersection (after having close calls with right turning cars in the past); though for cyclists who are more shy, a redesign of the lanes would be ideal.
BTW Ian 23 - - just wondering if you've heard about the cycling advocacy project that's started at York, was previously called "Bike to York" now called "Bike U"? I'm trying to seek out and meet every commuter at York, and get encourage some bike culture on our suburban campus.
Woo hoo for the extension of the rest of the lane!