City
Should cyclists have to ride single-file in Toronto?
A year-old bylaw still working its way through city hall could force all cyclists in Toronto to ride single-file under threat of a $60 fine if a motion by councillor Karen Stintz fails to win approval at council next week.
The bylaw originates in Etobicoke, where pre-amalgamation cyclists were fined $85 for riding side-by-side or in clusters. As part of on-going efforts to consolidate bylaws across the City of Toronto, the law was tweaked and enacted on Dec. 1 2011 by city council.
Though the rules have technically been in place for more than a year, the city has yet to decide when police will start actively handing out tickets to rule-breaking cyclists.
A similar bylaw existed in the days of Metro Toronto when the fine was $3.75 for riding in groups on arterial roads. Current road rules already require cyclists to move right and drivers left "so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision."
"Effectively what that law does is prohibit group riding," says Jared Kolb from Cycle Toronto. "That has implications for road riders who are out on Lake Shore, for instance. It has implications for families on side-streets, friends out on Bloor. It's got implications right across the board."
"It's a regressive bylaw and it's something we're keen to see taken off the books."
Kolb says he's heard from cycling groups who have been spoken to by police for riding together.
According to the official language the fine "will become enforceable the first Thursday following 45 days after set fine approval," though the city says there is actually no set timetable. If Stintz's motion is successful the bylaw will be immediately repealed once the city starts issuing fines.
What do you think of this bylaw - does the city need extra rules to force cyclists to ride in a straight line or do the existing rules already make it clear how bikers are expected to behave? Will new laws discourage new cyclists?
Chris Bateman is a staff writer at blogTO. Follow him on Twitter at @chrisbateman.
Image: "The Commute Home" by happy d/blogTO Flickr pool.
Discussion
121 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
There's lots of road obstacles we have to be aware of. Those nasty potholes that "wreck your shocks" could wreck our lives, so we need room to maneuver.
Oh, that's right, the same places that also removed bike lanes in 2012. i.e. nowhere except Rob Ford's Toronto.
There are nuanced ways to handle the single-line issue and traffic flow without being draconian. Here is how Massachusetts did it:
http://massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/bike-law-update/
yes, of course the majority of time cyclists should be riding in single file, which they do.
I do think that on larger roads with faster traffic, group riders should be allowed to ride in pairs, more for their own safety than anything else. On narrower, slower, downtown streets? We should all really be riding single file.
But this is way way way down on the list of issues when it comes to cycling in Toronto.
Unfortunately the reality is that they do whatever they want.
The HTA currently allows a cyclist to use the whole lane. All of our mixed-use lanes are wide enough to be shared by two people riding bicycles. It doesn't matter if the lane is being used by one bicycle or by two bicycles - the lane is in use; others wishing to pass must do so safely while using another lane.
I think that it a fine idea to get rid of this law forcing cycling to always ride single file.
Also what if some jerk rides beside you while you cycle, do you both get stopped of only one of you???
1) use proper lights (most cyclists use no lights at all during the night)
2) signal, when you turn
3) don't run red lights
4) don't overtake on the right, when you very well know that the car infront of you want to turn right
A few simple rules and everybody would be happier.
And yes, cops riding in clusters of slow moving mountain bikes, weaving around the bike lane, are one of the major nuisances on the road today.
don't forget under the Highway Traffic Act cyclists are entitled to take up an entire lane if they want, so don't viciously honk at a cyclist when they are in the middle of the lane, it's usually for good reason.
Apart from potholes etc. fair enough, but there are too many cyclists that somehow think they are entitled to a full lane (just to be little bitches) and put themselves in a bunch of danger in doing so. I always make way and look for bikers when changing lanes etc. but there's a culture of little whiny biker babies that seem to want to test the limits all the time. To them i hope they have a nice spill and maybe get an attitude adjustment and realize cars are stronger than they are. I again think those stupid electric pieces of shite should be gone as they just f' everything up
and while some do try and take a whole lane just for the sake of it, drivers may not always be aware of the logic.
Toronto streets are quite bike friendly, but I know about a dozen solid examples where it is a death trap for a cyclist if a driver is in la la land.
I bike along Bay street every day and almost get honked at every day at the exact same spot where I do go into the middle of the lane. If I didn't, I would get clipped in a second and wind up on the sidewalk. Think of the turn, right before college st (heading south), as I approach that curve -- while in the middle of the lane and getting honked at-- I often see car wheels brush the curb. How exactly would a cyclist squeeze through that?
And at the end of the day you're right, a bike will never win against a car, and anyone who endangers themselves is a fool.
Ebikes however, that's a whole other story...
I also think that car drivers have to follow a set of rules.
It's just in my experience that cyclists generally don't really care about the rules so much, since no cop is chasing them down.
Yes - it means we take up more room. However, it forces cars to go around cyclists (and maybe to change lanes in doing so), instead to squeezing by, leaving only an inch of room.
This only highlight the point that Toronto needs more bike lanes...
As far as I know, someone on a bike has the right to take up a lane, and ride right in the middle if they want, without moving to the right to let cars past. Maybe I'm wrong, but I swear that's what I read somewhere.
So the people really affected are cyclists who might casually be going down a quiet residential side street, two abreast. That behaviour would now become illegal.
Every single state in the US, and I believe every province, allows some form of two-abreast riding when it does not impede traffic or overtaking. No one except requires single-file riding at all times in all circumstances. (source: http://bicycledriving.org/law/guide-to-improving-laws)
Where does the Ford Administration get off coming up with laws that don't exist anywhere but their poorly-educated imaginations? Should these people really be in charge of running a major city?
As for Group riding, this is a hobby or activity versus a means of commuting. Leisure riding (or Training) should not be a burden to other vehicles. Besides, it is much safer and more sensible to do it outside of the downtown core anyway.
I agree single file makes sense in the core and when cycling is a means of transportation (especially during rush hour)
But the by-law would enable officers to give tickets to people causually riding next to each other along the Lakeshore, or to parents riding with their kids on side streets on a bright Sunday morning.
Come on Ford, let's deter people from cycling even more!
Notice, the lead cyclist is actually cycling while the other four are blocking the streetcar stop.
Cyclists must be licenced and insured to pay for future bike lanes and to cover any liability.
can you even comprehend the benefits of cycling? not just for the individual, but for you too?
reduced negative impact on the quality of the environment (you breathe air right?)and hey! cycling is exercise, so less strain on health care, which you probably contribute you, and might even need from time to time...
Don't even start with that red herring about licensing, another anti-urban, anti-cyclist, made-up problem. No city has a law about licensing cyclists because it is a ridiculous concept and does not work. Needless to say, this is therefore also another favourite Fordism because he and his people are utterly ignorant of how successful urban places operate.
Kind of hard to tell from a photo how long the light has been green, but it looks like cyclists 2 and 3 are preparing to move off, cyclist 4 is looking at her phone (possibly), cyclist 5 is waiting. They're not 'blocking the streetcar stop' any more than a car or other vehicle in that lane waiting to proceed would be. You're not suggesting some kind of no-go area be demarcated on the road around stops, are you? As long as the streetcar isn't right there, it's no big deal.
Licensing and insurance won't solve anything: it doesn't generate enough money for infrastructure (fuel tax, licensing and insurance for cars doesn't even do that) and it doesn't improve skill (see also: drivers). Training does that.
And also, reasonable distance from curb - 18" or 45 cm and less - not 3-4 feet. Car doors are a hazard to everyone, cyclos don't get special treatment/ space.
To all those who say it would disrupt, reduce fun, family safety, and other such nonsense - it is important to realize that roads are highly regulated no-fun zones and not play, sport, fitness, training, or family-togetherness parks. If we really wanted to make roads safer, we would ban winter cycling when any part of an arterial road is impeded by piled, drifting, or unplowed snow - its just stupid dangerous, anyway. And what about licences for cyclists? If they can do it quick and easy with boats, they can do it with 16+ year-old cyclos. Safer roads through enforcement, regulation, de-fun-alization, and red tape - huzzah. Gawd i hate non-obedient cyclos.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section3.0.shtml
So yes, it is legal to ride in the middle of YOUR lane. If motorists want to use the "cyclists don't obey rules of the road" argument, it would help to actually know what they are talking about.
What's next? Is City Council gonna sit around and debate about how to fix the issue of zig zag walkers on the sidewalk? Give me a break...
I ride single file and cars purposely pass me within a few centimeters to show their hatred for cyclists. Sad because these drivers don't realize that their anger could kill someone.
Let's share the road and elect smarter councilors.
how would i pass everyone? i only have one speed, and that is fast. if i was stuck behind a slower rider, it would severely impact my riding.
ban winter riding? you mean ban winter street parking right? (in fact ban all street parking.)
you should try to think in the 3rd person. remove yourself from the equation and you'll realize that riding a bike is a better way to commute, but comes with a greater risk too. when you drive, you leave ample stopping space in front of you (right...?) , and what the worst that can happen to you? a few hundred bucks in paint swapping? when a car comes 1" away from your handle bars (i.e.: steering wheel) it's scarey as shit. or when the mirrors actually hit your bars? it's tough out there. my bars are only 14.5" wide, and i still get hit.
I sometimes come close to bicycles too (not in a dangerous way, provided they can ride in a straight line), and it's not to "show hatred" as you put it, it's because I also have to leave enough room for the motorist next to me.
1. slower traffic stays right
2. slower traffic must give way to faster traffic when safe and practical
"In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it. "
Sorry, it was not in bold, and you had to scroll down a bit to see it...
Also, agreed that slower traffic should stay right as much as is safely possible.
But when a bicycle can (and does) go as fast as other cars, it's a moot point.
That point goes without saying and is only there for people who are too dumb to make their own critical observations on whether or not they're putting themselves in danger. Totally different from how you put it,"So yes, it is legal to ride in the middle of YOUR lane" as it's purely conditional, not as absolute, as you put it "totally legal".
As it is with motorbikes. No difference there.
But you know what, I totally understand that you lose all logic, reasoning and everything you learned when you made your driver's license, as soon as you hop onto a bicycle.
But on residential streets during times of the day with no heavy traffic, meh...ride two abreast if you like. If a car shows up, re-configure to single file and let them pass. No biggie.
Same as he'd ride a motorbike. No difference.
But you know, I understand that you lose all logic, reasoning and everything you learned when you did your driver's license, as soon as you hop onto a bicycle.
You are incorrect. While the Highway Traffic Act allows for a bicycle (or motorcycle) to be TREATED as a car in terms of space allowed from front to back, it does not allow for slow-moving vehicles (bicycles) to ride side-by-side.
Why cyclists would even want to ride side-by-side on a major Toronto street defies logic. Not only are you inconveniencing other vehicles INCLUDING your fellow cyclists, you are endangering your own lives if one cyclist has to swerve to avoid a pothole, glass, pedestrian, animal, etc. and bumps the other into traffic, or onto the sidewalk.
Bike smart, bike safe.
We need to move this discussion away from lobbyists, politicians, and special interest groups. How about we allow experts in urban planning, transportation, civil engineers, etc. figure out how to address this issue. And it should not be dealt with exclusive of the broader plans around transit. The entire system should be better planned, managed, integrated, and implemented.
I'm only citing a single country because you did first in your failed attempt to deflect the point that every single state and province in North America does not require single-file riding. I agree that any single entity is hard to compare to, but if EVERY other jurisdiction is doing one thing it's pretty hard to come up with justification for doing the opposite, especially when a six year old child who hates bikes is mayor.
Case closed.
As true in my day as it is now, you just can't trust the cops in Toronto.
Once a pig, always a pig!
Anyway, kudos to Joe Mama for using POLAND (?!?!) to make his absurd case for licensing bikes. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Get out much, Joe?
Why don't you run along and wrangle some stray feral cats and explain them that THEY TOO need to be licenced?? Hell, those gravy-sucking feline freeloaders would be GOLD MINE for Mayor Ford. Now all you need to do is teach each of them how to fill out a registration application.
You putz.
Are you an ignorant man-child, a drooling moron, or just from outer Etobicoke??
Shee-it!
THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH CYCLISTS is every other vehicle on the roads had to pass a licensing test before they were allowed on the roads. This not only ensures safety through a common convention of thought about how to behave in traffic, it also ensured those that don't understand the rules, do not make it on the roads.
Boo-yah!
Now, stop wetting your pants and say something to further this lively discussion.
(please)
"4) don't overtake on the right, when you very well know that the car infront of you want to turn right"
Don't flip me the finger when I've signaled and indicated a right turn and you clearly tried to overtake the right turn. I don't know why rule-breaking cyclists are so rude.
The world is laughing.
People just need to look out for and respect other people. This whole driver v. cyclist thing makes me dizzy.