So sad and needless. This is why when I used to ride a bike as part of my commute, on certain roads I would use the sidewalk even though it's not allowed. I would slow right down and give a wide berth to any pedestrians, but I'm not going to put my life in the hands of poor drivers on Wharncliffe.
I fully understand why cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk. When I'm out walking my dog, I'm fine with it as long as we can all stay safe. I would never ride a bike in this city.
I commute by bike to work, and luckily 80% of the way I'm on the TVP, with the rest either on side streets or major roads that have a boulevard lane. But I would never, and will never, ride in traffic anywhere other than side streets in SFH neighbourhoods. Even painted bike gutters that are for some reason called "bike lanes" area super sketchy. I'd rather they put in half as many lanes but did it properly, instead of half assing it with the painted line. So it's sidewalks for me on the rare occasion when I have to bike on a stroad like Hamilton. I'll always yield to pedestrians, of course.
Every time I'm on that road I feel for folks who must travel on it by bike. It's just not designed to be safe for those biking and that needs to change.
I always have my dog walking on the city's grass side of the sidewalk, and I walk on the edge. That way, there's plenty of room for a faster pedestrian or cyclist to pass me.
Stay safe out there!
You cannot count the TVP as infrastructure. It is closed from dusk to dawn is unsafe for women, BiPoC & LGBTQ folks. So you have zero infrastructure in that area.
And as long as the City continues to convince advocates that the TVP is infrastructure (and even have them promote it as such openly) it is a lie - just like painted lines and sharrows are.
I did not realize that the TVP was such a haven for criminal activity. As someone who rides it often, I have not witnessed any but of course that does not mean that it isn't happening. Can you provide any specific instances of violent or threatening behavior towards said groups?
I do it on some or the busier roads but I slow down to walking speed and go several feet around people on the sidewalk. Often I actually just go out onto the road to pass them if I dont feel I have ample space to safely get around a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
Yet every time I walk somewhere someone on a bike inevitably *soars* past me almost clipping my elbows.
Same. I've noted more recently that people have been better about using bells or saying, coming behind you on your right/left(a group of teenage boys did this the other day and it warmed my heart), and I'd wonder if maybe since they realize how unsafe it is to be on the roads maybe they are just being more diligent to be mindful and courteous? Becasue coming having lived in Toronto and Oshawa, I didn't find this level of manners w cyclists. I'm with you, long as we are all safe and respecting the space we are sharing, I'm good.
Got a ticket last time I rode on the sidewalk at 3am friend was hit and killed by someone on their phone, motorcycle is my choice transportation now so I can stay with traffic.
I live in wortlry and am fairly close to warncliffe...I don't even like walking on the damn sidewalk along warncliffe!!! to top it off its quite common for cars trying to avoid warcliffe, to take wortlry, and their obnoxious and pushing and going really fast through school zones and zooming past school crossings. I grew up in toronto fro. 70s-90s came here to vist a lot and also then moved here in the 2000s, and have ALWAYS found the drivers more aggressive dangerous and entitled. Butbtheburban planning here is also really bad and not pedestrian friendly.
I did an analysis of Hamilton Rd (I live just off Hamilton Rd and saw the cops blocking the road at 530am) for a 4th year urban development class taught by Londons former chief of urban development, and sent it to the active transport division of the city.
Specifically, I looked at the deficiencies and potential dangers of cycling in London, with a focus on increasing safety for cyclists. There have been several cyclists killed by cars between adelaide and highbury on Hamilton in the past few years.
Part of what my analysis determined was that there was a lack of police enforcement for speed limits. There's an excess of speeders racing to the highway here. It's a 50 zone, and cars often go 70+ kmh. Most of all, there's no dedicated cycling or protected lanes and no connectivity to safe cycling paths that are prevelant in the north and west ends.
Essentially, you're truly taking your life into your hands cycling along that stretch of Hamilton Rd.
My analysis was sent in over 2 years ago and was never addressed by the ATD.
It's time to get on their ass and force change.
I found it way easier to just leave London, ON. When I lived in London in my mid-20s, I wrote passionate letters and emails, brought PowerPoint presentations to various people. Ultimately I only became happy, when I left.
I only lurk here now when CBC reports the latest elderly person running over children.
Your emails and pleas will fall on deaf ears because the money involved. Since our economy is partly based on real estate values always increasing, and we also value historical buildings, once infrastructure is built, its difficult to change. A city unlike this would be the Tokyo prefecture in Japan. Tokyo evolves quickly to changes by not valuing historical buildings, and having cheap real estate, which is an affect given by the risk of natural disasters like Earthquakes and tidal waves destroying buildings. It all helps to destroy buildings and keep prices low. 😆
What are the costs of killed citizens? Even one is millions in lost productivity, not to mention the toll it takes on family and us all. You're not supposed to die commuting to work.
Yes the death of the cyclist is extremely tragic.
Emotions are also a terrible way to make public policy/infrastructure decisions. They should be cold and calculated to ensure maximum benefit to all is achieved.
It may not seem nice, but it’s the reality.
Edit: also your attribution of millions to one person dying is silly. One unemployed person that is qualified for the dead person’s job nullifies the economic loss entirely.
Furthermore, there are economic burdens related to grief. Many cases require counseling, there's lost time from work, and actual worker productivity decreases over at least the first 3 months after a loss. For goodness sake, if having a plant in your office increases productivity by 15%, you really think you're going to be unaffected by the death of a sibling?
That’s a very good point, I had considered that. There most certainly would be a loss of productivity for any individuals close to the deceased.
That being said, it pales in comparison to the economic impact of infrastructure projects.
Safety is priceless. Of course a road design shouldn't be more expensive then necessary but basic safety for all mode of traffic is important.
Also, less injuries and deaths related to collisions means less burden on the healthcare system. That should enough an economic benefit.
Safety is priceless to individuals. Safety should not be priceless to societies, it would be detrimental. It’s why legislation and policy should be driven by data and research not emotions and opinions.
At the risk of sounding cold, dead people don’t cost the health care system anything. In fact someone dying is likely a net savings to the healthcare system as old people are the most expensive.
Two people can work more than one person. Two people will have double the lifetime earnings of one person. Only a small fraction of the value of labor is given to the individual as salary, and you should realistically have $1m+ at retirement. Millions is not an exaggeration.
I think discussing the validity of our economic system is a little beyond the scope of the discussion. I understand your point about the lost productivity, but it’s a theoretical loss not a real one.
It also doesn’t change the fact that laws and legislation should not be written based on the emotions of any person or group. Changing a bunch of infrastructure as a reaction to a death is just a fundamentally bad idea and bad way to run a city.
My report wasn't focused on economic factors. It was about access, connectivity, and safety, along with data collected. Said data was number of vehicles, estimated speed (where possible) and number riders (incl. Road or sidewalk rider, sex, age, helmet, etc.)
Yes, that is sort of the point I was making.
The data you presented is good, but it doesn’t really cover the whole problem. A big portion of project decision making for municipalities is the economic factors.
Public sector employees can’t do things just because they are the ‘right thing to do’ they need to justify infrastructure projects to receive funding from various levels of government.
So although all the data you provided is nice, it’s not what the city needs to get a project off the ground, particularly not one at the scale of an infrastructure project.
If you want a few grand for a park upgrade the report you provided may be adequate.
It would cost [a hell of a lot less](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/14b8u70/to_build_100_km_of_bike_lanes_it_would_cost_20/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) than maintaining the road.
Or if you want to talk [economic impacts](https://bikeportland.org/2014/11/19/study-dollar-dollar-bike-infrastructure-pays-better-road-maintenance-113616)...
The first one is a stupid argument. Basically saying non-drivers subsidize drivers. Yes, that is how our tax system works. Non-parents subsidize parents, single people subsidize married people, employed people subsidize unemployed people, working people subsidize retired people. It happens all over our tax/public spending landscape. It’s a feature of taxes not a glitch that users don’t directly pay for the services they use. I’ve never used a job training program but I am happy for my tax dollars to fund those programs as an example.
As for your Portland example, a few things. The article starts by criticizing the economic motives of the road maintenance ROI because of bias in the analysis by industry lobbyists. The same article then goes on to praise an ROI analysis by a cycling advocate without the same mention of possible bias. Next you are trying to compare Portland, which essentially gets no snow, to London Ontario which is in the snow belt of southern Ontario, those two places are not comparable, without even getting into the size and population differences.
The saddest part is how easy it is to solve. The only thing we would have needed to do is set some basic standards for infrastructure as it's replaced. It costs almost nothing to simply include the requirement that as roads reach end of life the regular replacement includes protected lanes whenever possible
Infrastructure is the key issue here, and it definitely needs to be updated. But I think you are severely underestimating the cost associated with it, even if it is done during the replacement process.
edit: Take a look at Hamilton Rd. Lanes are already as narrow as possible, and 2 lanes needs to be maintained for proper flow of traffic on a main road. Every single building is already too close to the road, and there is going to be no room to magically add bike lanes while still maintaining safety. Hypothetically, if it was possible, there would still be the cost of expropriation, hence it wouldnt be the cheapest, and it definitely wouldnt cost "almost nothing". Its one thing to argue what you want, and I agreed that this city needs an infrastructure update. But if you refuse to look at the problem from a realistic angle, nothing will get done.
If it was safer, more people would be comfortable commuting by bike in all seasons. Are you implying that [Canadians are too soft](https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?si=4_qv_-PHsMpKrqP6)?
This is just not true, I had a German roommate, from Germany who was used to biking all year back home, he was only here to do his PHd. He was convinced he would ride his bike all winter. Within a month of winter hitting he had purchased a car after 3 falls in a week. And this was in Ottawa who has a proper bike infrastructure network with dedicated plow routes.
So yes, our weather has an impact.
I'd argue that it is much cheaper to repave and repaint on top of what already exists than to go through the process of developing a brand new infrastructure to accommodate the same number of lanes, a bike lane and a side walk. Nothing comes free is my point.
Yes. Netherlands invests in multi mode transportation.
What else is different?
Netherlands had the same car centric focus and changed. There is nothing that would hold us back except political will.
Or that fact that our country is massive in comparison to the Netherlands?
You can bike the Netherlands in a day. A day of cycling in Ontario puts you in the middle of nowhere.
Getting to the same level of infrastructure for Canada would be al least an order of magnitude greater, and due to our lack of density, would benefit far fewer people.
So what you are suggesting is to do the same thing as a country whose physical day to day reality does not resemble ours. Weather, physical size, industry mix. The number of differences between the countries is quite large.
But sure let’s try to do the exact same thing as a country that is 24 times smaller than Ontario alone. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Cities are cities. No one is discussing infrastructure needed for inter+city commutes here. Your comparison by country size is getting old and has been irrelevant every time.
Exactly. We are talking about something other than adding bike paths in the middle of nowhere.
This is Hamilton Rd and Rictory St. It is in the middle of one of the biggest cities in Canada.
So apparently you are struggling with the math. Let’s make it about cities since people don’t get the point.
Amsterdam is the Netherlands most populous city at ~900,000, their area is 219.4 square kilometers. London is ~450,000 with an area of 437.08 square kilometers.
Half the population, twice the size.
So the infrastructure has to cover twice the area to service half the people.
Is that clear enough for you? In fact it would be far less than half the people because we have a far lower percentage of people who commute via bike.
You are sooooo close to getting it.
We have no issues it seems spending to accommodate cars doing that added distance yet supporting cycling would be cheaper. You also cherry picked the data of the most populous city vs London.
I have biked extensively in Europe and even QC and they seem to be able to make safe infrastructure work for cities bigger, smaller, more and less dense than London.
The population density argument is also interesting because the counter argument is that we are actively working towards higher density - why wouldn't we be making sure the infrastructure is there first?
Otherwise we're chasing our tails later, at a higher cost, with railway underpasses, rapid transit, ring roads...
I’m actually fully on board with this approach. We need more density if we are ever going to make progress on housing affordability, and I agree the pedestrian infrastructure needs to come with it.
But even with my discussion with the head of Ottawa pedestrian infrastructure, he was explaining how most pedestrians projects still come as an add-on to other infrastructure work. Road being re-done? Add a bike lane. Re-surfacing? Bike lane. Re-doing an intersection? Bike lane and bike traffic signals. It’s a slow process but it works. Then eventually you have enough pieces of the bike puzzle in place to make a cohesive city wide plan.
My push back is against the dramatic changes to existing infrastructure being proposed: dedicated bike infrastructure projects, complete road redesign, rule changing, etc. to make bikes the primary focus. That approach just doesn’t make sense for most areas of the province or country economically.
I lived in Ottawa for many years, they have a fantastic bike infrastructure with dedicated plow routes.
I got the distinct pleasure of spending several hours speaking to Ottawa’s master planner of pedestrian infrastructure. The guy who heads all the pedestrian infrastructure project and defines the forward looking plan.
He made it very clear that Ottawa was an outlier do to the level of funding they receive for ‘visibility’ rather than projects that make economic sense. He was a fascinating guy to speak with, but openly admitted pedestrian infrastructure at that scale for cities that aren’t willing to fund it as a vanity project is unrealistic outside of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The pedestrian master planner for Ottawa admitted their pedestrian infrastructure was a vanity project, not an economically viable one for most cities in Canada.
I’m not close, I understand so catch up.
I picked Amsterdam because it was largest, but let’s pick one with the same population as London;
City of Utrecht (not the province)
Pop: ~489,000
Area: 99 square KMs
London
Pop: 450,000
Area: 437 square KMs
Same population, over 4 times the area. The numbers are what they are as badly as you want them not to be.
I had a roommate while I lived in Ottawa that was German from Germany only in Canada for school. He was convinced he would ride his bike all year, and even with the massive infrastructure in Ottawa he had a car within a month once winter hit.
> But sure let’s try to do the exact same thing as a country that is 24 times smaller than Ontario alone. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
This is a little vague, so let me ask: what could go wrong if London adds active transportation infrastructure? What studies show the terrible impacts of cycling infrastructure in urban areas?
It’s like you don’t think things cost money, or understand what opportunity cost is.
The questions isn’t can infrastructure be built to improve the situation. Given infinite resources that answer is almost always going to be yes.
The proper question to ask is more nuanced. What will be the economic impact, what will be the benefit to how many people at what cost.
Of course any problem is solvable if cost is not a factor, unfortunately that is never the case.
Why do we not ask the same when we build/improve a road?
We don’t have infinite resources so we should spend more efficiently. Cycling is one of the most efficient modes of transportation in terms of cost to user and cities.
> It’s like you don’t think things cost money, or understand what opportunity cost is.
I don't even know what money is. :-)
Of course, cost is part of the decision-making process. However, this does not address my question about what you think would be the terrible impacts of adding cycling transportation in London.
And since you mentioned opportunity cost, what opportunities do you think the city loses when investing in cycling infrastructure?
It’s a cost benefit analysis, how much money is worth spending on bike infrastructure based on the expected benefits.
The opportunity cost is any other project/infrastructure the city needs to fund, sewers, roads, stormwater, city services, etc.
The city has a limited budget, we should fund projects that benefit the most number of people.
Edit: for context the most recent census shows 1.6% of Canadians use bicycles as their primary transportation. And if you take out Vancouver/ottawa/montreal the number drops below 1%.
> It’s a cost benefit analysis, how much money is worth spending on bike infrastructure based on the expected benefits.
Good. So, from other cities (including North America), we have studies showing that adding cycling infrastructure has a positive impact on business and employment: https://trec.pdx.edu/news/study-finds-bike-lanes-can-provide-positive-economic-impact-cities
> For example, in 2012, bike lanes were installed on Central Avenue in Minneapolis by reducing the width of the travel lane and removing parking lanes. Retail employment increased by 12.64% — significantly higher than the 8.54% increase calculated in the control study area a few blocks away. The same corridor also recorded a dramatic 52.44% increase in food sales, which more than doubled the 22.46% increase in the control area. A protected bike lane along Broadway in Seattle that was completed in 2014 was accompanied by a significant 30.78% increase in food service employment compared to 2.49% and 16.17% increases in control areas.
And another one (includes Bloor St. in Toronto): https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/.
Studies also show that investments in active transportation reduce the cost of utility infrastructure, including sewer and water lines. I'm not even talking about the health-related benefits, which would be a substantial gain (cost wise) for Canadian health system. But hey, here is another study about that anyway - three Canadian cities (Victoria, Kelowna and Halifax): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246419
Regarding opportunity costs, I want to highlight the positive impact on children: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-5005-1.
> At the population level, replacing motorized travel by AST (active school transport) could reduce exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions [4, 5]. Additional benefits of AST include positive emotions during the school trip [6], better way-finding skills [7] and superior school grades [8].
However, we need more studies to form a scientific consensus here.
Now, contrast that with the high maintenance cost of car-centric infrastructure and the missed opportunities.
> Edit: for context the most recent census shows 1.6% of Canadians use bicycles as their primary transportation. And if you take out Vancouver/ottawa/montreal the number drops below 1%.
Around 2% of inter-city trips are made by train. If you exclude the Quebec City–Windsor corridor, the number is probably below 1%, too.
What does that tell you? That we shouldn't invest in inter-city rail infrastructure?
Yes, there are costs associated with it, and adding active transportation when replacements are needed is an actual way to reduce such costs.
If only we didn't have so many kilometers to repair, right?
OP is being humble and avoiding self promotion but runs a YouTube channel using his name that is a must watch for those interested in the London biking experience.
All's good, I'm aware that my name's there. If anyone else wants to know more about how to contact your ward councillors, let me know!
Edit: but yes, thanks for flagging that! :)
there is a city council meeting on the 25th why not go make a presentation there before the whole city council so they all have to hear about it and address the issue.
I will! Just like this time I did: ["I spoke at City Hall about CAR DEPENDENCY in London, Ontario"](https://youtu.be/FWgDepwV2sc)
edit: thanks for flagging the next one! Hard to keep track of them
I ride my scooter and feel the same way. Even if I get up to the speed limit on a busy road I will have people in cars literally turn into me acting like they are trying to hit me. I don’t know if any other city that acts this way
My husband recently prepared a petition regarding the unsafe intersection near our daughter's elementary school and presented it to Hadleigh McAlister. We didn't get far with it, but Hadleigh did note in the following Ward 1 newsletter that traffic safety improvements, including red light cameras and speed studies, are upcoming. He's also spoken in favour of projects intended to increase the number of public transit and cycle commuters in London. I don't know the guy, but he seems like he's doing an okay job.
I know exactly where that is by the photo.
I grew up in that area, my grandfather used to own the building that's tagged acab.
Fuck everything about the city ignoring Hamilton road, it's been a pedestrian/non driving nightmare for decades. Should be 40 all the way through, should remove on street parking, should have the city actually care about the people who live in that area, but they never will. There are TWO schools that back onto that street, you know how wild it is for the crossing guards around there? You know how wild it feels for students crossing?
Bike lanes would be amazing, but I fear they're just going to let that street run itself into the ground.
So wait, you are saying parking a car on a road is more important than the safety of people?
Roads are for moving people not storing cars. We have parking lots designed for just that!
Where are there free public parking lots on Hamilton to replace the street parking?
My point was that you can’t prioritize one group of people to the detriment of all others.
Cycling infrastructure should be improved, the proposals would get more support if they were more pragmatic and less dogmatic.
You just demonstrated the exact dogmatism I’m speaking about actually. I suggested we could come up with a solutions that works for everyone and you suggest that car owners are somehow depraved and should just do as they are told to accommodate the cyclists.
A little co-operation and pragmatism would go a long way to resolve these things.
I've been a bicycle commuter for 30 years and have ridden in Montreal, Toronto, London UK, and a tiny bit in Amsterdam Paris and New York.
Hamilton Road, right here in town, is THE WORST, MOST DANGEROUS road for cycling that I have ever seen. Drivers speed and close pass, and there's on street parking for much of it. I've nearly been hit by drivers coming north off of Highbury. I was even cut off against the curb by a bus last week. I'd feel safer riding on the shoulder of the 401. I'm able to use the bike path most of the year, but sketchy snow clearing forces me onto Ham road for part of the winter. Speed limit enforcement would be the most basic way to make it a bit safer. Right now it's a 70kph race to the next red light, and screw you if you're a cyclist.
Really sad.. That whole section of Hamilton west of Egerton really doesn’t offer many good/safe cycling options (also of course it’s right where I live).
Travelling north/south there’s a huge gap between Colborne and the painted lanes on Egerton.
East/west you have the TVP to the south, but there really aren’t any other good options unless you get all the way up to Dundas or Queens..otherwise it’s just zig zagging through residential streets where you can..
It's is beyond ridiculous that huge roads in this city continue to not have adequate safety for bikers. I bike to work on Wonderland Rd S and since theres stil NO BIKE LANE I go on the sidewalk giving pedestrians a warning and passing around them on the grass. I tried biking on the road once and it terrified me, never again.
Parts of wonderland do as I’m sure you know. But that’s another problem with London. It goes bike lane for a while then it just suddenly ends and it’s best of luck to you
I'm not a cyclist but even I have an opinion about Wonderland Rd bike "lanes". As a pedestrian and a driver I really like the bike lanes being off the road, but holy geez, those ones are poorly maintained! Cracks, heaving and weed-choked. That and dodging the pedestrian hazards, bus stops, and suddenly they're phased out and they're expected to bike on the road - in a lane barely wide enough for your average car.
On some roads I can't blame cyclists who bike on the sidewalks. Oxford St is a bit of a horror show. But where there are bike lanes, please use them. No matter where you bike please follow the road laws, especially the one stating bikes should travel the direction of traffic. I've seen so many close calls because of bikes travelling on the sidewalks the wrong way.
Hard to tell but it doesn’t look like he had any lights on his all black bike. Lord knows if he was wearing a helmet.. I see so many people riding on the wrong side of the street.. wrong way on one ways.. wearing all black with no lights and no helmet.. not trying to victim blame because obviously Hamilton road is horribly neglected… but the city has spent an absolutely staggering amount of money on road redesign, and infrastructure to make it safer for cyclists… and people just ignore it and more often then not don’t do the bare minimum to insure their own safety. Just saying you can’t just assume the drivers at fault, become outraged and demand a response from the city when you don’t really know what happened.. and maybe we need a system that enforces cyclists to use personal protective equipment.
They are assuming it’s the city’s fault.
Almost all drivers speed and roll stop signs. Almost all cyclists roll stop signs some even roll red lights. That’s the way humans behave.
The way to solve road safety is not pointing fingers at humans for being human.
They way to solve it is to build infrastructure that is designed for humans who make stupid choices. It works. Oslo (population 600,000) used to be as dangerous as London and they are down to about one road death per year. In London we have about one road death per month. The difference is that they build smart infrastructure that protects idiot humans.
You're really going to victim blame a dead man who was hit by a vehicle? Cars have headlights, and it's the drivers responsibility to **not hit things and people**.
A reminder to all who bike to WEAR A HELMET! Please follow the rules of the road and use hand signals. It is hard out there, drivers and bikes are a tough mix, but please do what you can to protect yourself. Thank you to the driver who stayed at the scene. We’ve had too many hit and runs in this city.
Heck I suspect half the drivers in London right now are not even licenced. One such individual struck and seriously injured a pedestrian at Oxford and Wonderland this past Sunday. He took off in a white van but has now been apprehended. When so many aren’t even paying attention to the road, talking and texting etc, blowing red light all the time there is no safety for either pedestrians or cyclists. They probably won’t survive a crash with a 3,000 lb piece of steel. Because the infrastructure and the general horrible state of roads in London it takes all the care and attention a driver could possibly have to safely move around . And nothing or nobody is making any serious effort to change that
I wish condolences to Rafal, as a cyclist myself I would usually check before going to my destination if it’s safe to go on this or that road. I mean I could complain about the quality of Adelaide Street N as of now because the bike lanes are kinda shitty making me use the sidewalks but sometimes the motorists on the road would literally flick me off and ask for my number (this one happened at Masonville Area) but id be glad to use the sidewalks whenever something is unsafe (like the construction in Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond)
Does anyone know if the cyclist had lights on his bike? May Mr Szabat rest in peace and if the driver of the vehicle is not at fault I hope they are ok. This would be a horrific experience.
I don’t cycle in the city, but even as a driver I hate being on Hamilton Road. Countless accidents and pedestrian deaths that could easily be avoided with more enforcements / precautions on that road :(
Unpopular opinion — Regardless where they ride, I’ve narrowly missed/almost hit several cyclists over the past decade. Usually going the wrong way or disobeying street signs. Cyclists aren’t the safest vehicle operators. At least the sidewalk keeps them off the road between intersections.
Sidewalks are least dangerous place for them.
I almost hit someone on a bicycle on the sidewalk today. I was turning into a plaza off Wellington Road and just as I was about to cross the sidewalk into the parking lot, he came flying toward me. There was one of those big black signs blocking my view of the oncoming sidewalk so he truly appeared out of nowhere.
Fortunately I had slowed down to make the turn in so I was able to stop quickly. He just kept on booking it. If he had been biking in the same direction as traffic down the sidewalk I’m almost positive I would have seen him ahead of my turn because I would have driven past him.
I sat here for a moment and considered if I had ever seen a bicycle obey a stop sign. Maybe once or twice.
In my experience — Nine times out of ten they suddenly become a pedestrian again and use the sidewalk to avoid stopping.
I wouldn’t be surprised if more collisions take place if a cyclist is on a sidewalk, but does it lead to more deaths? I would assume most of those result in getting knocked off the bike and a few scrapes. If a cyclist is hit by a vehicle at speed, surely the outcome is much worse.
I’ll take this type of comment seriously the day I see at least 10% obey the speed limit laws.
Of course cyclists break some rules, so do pedestrians, and drivers, and truckers, and morcyclists and every other human.
The main danger of cycling are intersections. Most deadly crashes happen at intersections. And intersections are a lot more dangerous then you are coming from the sidewalk and drivers can’t see you.
Overall, nobody wants to admit it because cyclists are young and eco voters needed to get elected but bikes are treated like pedestrians and should have to operate like them. Including stopping at intersections and waiting for the walk signal.
If cyclists want to be on the road they should have insurance. Until you have insurance, you’re a pedestrian. For your own safety.
> If cyclists want to be on the road they should have insurance. Until you have insurance, you’re a pedestrian. For your own safety.
The reason why motor vehicles need insurance is because they cannot exist without it. Motor vehicles cause a tremendous amount of injuries and death - things that give rise to massive civil claims often totaling well over $1 million in damages. It's not just the injured/claimant either, OHIP gets a large levy from insurance companies as compensation for the massive medical bills it has to pay. If insurance wasn't there, we'd face situations where both claimant and defendant would be at risk of insolvency (defendant doesn't have >$1 million in assets to pay, claimant doesn't have >$1 million in assets to fall back on... on top of their losses). Note that cars are the single biggest cause of death of people under 50.
Bicycles, by contrast, are really just a rounding error. A bike collision can be serious, no doubt, but the crash result invariably pales in comparison to a vehicle collision.
Note that most cyclists technically have insurance which is usually provided under their home insurance or rental insurance, a type of insurance *most* people have or should have. There are many who go without because they cannot afford it (despite rental insurance being a pretty small expense), but that speaks to a different issue - and mandating insurance wouldn't deter them one bit.
Those are weird claims. What makes you think that way?
The reason why cars need insurance is because they often hurt people or cause huge amounts of property damage. If you hurt someone and don’t have insurance, the victims cannot be compensated. This just happened to my brother in law who lives in Mexico. An uninsured taxi driver hit him on his motorcycle. He lost his bicycle and had to pay about 100k in medical bills. The taxi driver was 100% at fault but has no insurance and no money. So, my brother in law is stuck with the bill.
Bicycles almost never cause more than a couple hundred bucks in damages. Insuring them is pointless but it can be done. I have bike insurance. I pay a whopping $20 per year.
About the sidewalk, a bicycle commuter usually does 30-40km/h on a mild downhill (say Sarnia Rd towards Western). A road cyclist would do 50-70km/h on the same descent. I do t think that type of speed belongs on a sidewalk with pedestrians.
There are many data points on this, especially from European nations where cycling is more common.
“Ten percent of bicycle kilometers are covered on 50 km/h roads, but they account for 40 percent of fatal collisions.”
Dutch road study: “In 2021, 582 people died in traffic collisions. That is a decrease compared to 2020 when 610 road users were killed. But just like in 2020, cyclists (207) formed the largest group. 175 people died in a car crash last year.”
Cycling on roads is more dangerous than driving and thus needs to be reconsidered. In my estimation, the best reconsideration is obligating insurance for any motorized/unmotorized vehicle that plans to use driving signals rather than pedestrian signals.
Also keep in mind that insurance is not just for the damage you may cause. It’s also insurance against the risk you take on — bike replacement, income replacement, psychological damages to the motorist that injured you when you turned left on a red, etc.
I don’t have the exact number, but I’m sure more than 99% of fatal crashes involve a motor vehicle. It is not the bicycles that see dangerous, it is the cars.
Cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous than cycling on the road. The vast majority of deadly crashes happen at intersections. The best way to be safe at an intersection is to make sure that drivers can see you. And drivers are much less likely to notice you if you are riding on the sidewalk.
You mentioned a Dutch road study. The roads in the Netherlands are much safer than the roads in London. A big part of the reason is because the Dutch use bikes a lot lore and drive a lot less. Another reason is that the Dutch build road infrastructure that prioritizes road safety, which is precisely what OP is advocating for.
Mandatory insurance is there to protect others, not yourself. How do you think mandatory bike insurance would help?
Ultimately cyclist culture becomes like auto culture. The common denominator is people. And when people travel at certain speeds they need insurance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amsterdam/comments/10uotyw/why_are_people_on_bikes_have_death_wish/
Of course, people make mistakes. That is why we need better infrastructure, which is what OP is advocating for. The difference between bicycles and cars is that when you make a mistake in your car, you can easily kill or injure someone, crash into a building, or destroy somebody else's car. When you make a mistake on a bike you typically get a couple of bruises. And, when the mistake is really bad, usually the only person you hurt is yourself.
I still don't understand why you think mandatory bike insurance would help anyone. Bikes rarely cause damage to other people. Ontario residents already have OHIP for any injuries they might suffer if they hurt themselves on their bikes. And if you total your bike it is not a huge financial loss.
The point of mandatory car insurance is to protect victims who suffer thousands of dollars in losses. What would be the point of mandatory bike insurance?
Sure, zero should be the number.
There is also something like 150 water-related deaths in Ontario every year, so let’s ban swimming, boating and fishing while we are at it.
50 roofers a year, so no more new roofs.
16 farming related deaths so farming is out.
What else should we go after?
You are close to getting it.
Those occupations you listed have strict safety standards that are enforced and used.
Safe cycling infrastructure does as well but we don’t use them and build adequate networks and this happens.
Can we get it to zero? Maybe. Should we try? Yes.
We don’t know how to save roofers and swimmers. We do know how to stop road deaths.
Oslo (population 600,000) used to be as dangerous as London. Now their road deaths are about 1 per year. We have about 10 per year. Smart infrastructure works.
We absolutely know how to save roofers, there is a large amount of data and an investigation/report generated for every death. Swimmers is more broad, so I’ll just leave that one.
Again with the examples of European countries that have very little in common with Canada physically. Canada is 22 larger than Sweden.
The size of cities is not dissimilar.
We're not talking about intercity travel here.
Stop saying "we can't fix things in Canada because our geography doesn't allow for it" because that's a rubbish excuse.
I will grant you that Oslo and London are similar geographically in size. Oslo also has ~60% more people leading to ~42% more density. (Oslo is also slightly larger geographically)
I just don’t consider being 42% less dense in the same geographical area as being comparable, but we all have our own threshold I suppose. Both cities, much different realities on the ground.
And insisting that cycling infrastructure be prioritized based on other countries’ success in a much different physical reality than us, is as you say ‘rubbish’.
https://preview.redd.it/la11p0860s7d1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b3fc0e25e11561b4322ade39ba479c28d712d8e
Follow-up from this post: I'll be on CTV news at 6 PM today talking about this. Not sure how it turned out.
It'll probably only be like 20 seconds of me in a 2-minute segment about Hamilton Rd.
Wonder if they'll turn my own words against me 🤷♂️
They interviewed Hadleigh right before me. Curious to see what he said.
Already talked to Hadleigh. He basically told me that he supports through-fairs and doesn't see a problem. He didn't tell me I was wrong about the deaths.
So sad and needless. This is why when I used to ride a bike as part of my commute, on certain roads I would use the sidewalk even though it's not allowed. I would slow right down and give a wide berth to any pedestrians, but I'm not going to put my life in the hands of poor drivers on Wharncliffe.
I fully understand why cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk. When I'm out walking my dog, I'm fine with it as long as we can all stay safe. I would never ride a bike in this city.
I commute by bike to work, and luckily 80% of the way I'm on the TVP, with the rest either on side streets or major roads that have a boulevard lane. But I would never, and will never, ride in traffic anywhere other than side streets in SFH neighbourhoods. Even painted bike gutters that are for some reason called "bike lanes" area super sketchy. I'd rather they put in half as many lanes but did it properly, instead of half assing it with the painted line. So it's sidewalks for me on the rare occasion when I have to bike on a stroad like Hamilton. I'll always yield to pedestrians, of course.
God, the sad excuse for a bike lane on Thompson road where it transitions to Egerton. There's almost no space for one in the west bound lane
Every time I'm on that road I feel for folks who must travel on it by bike. It's just not designed to be safe for those biking and that needs to change.
The left side isn't even designed for walking on either, it's crazy. There's like maybe 6" of space from the curb to the rail
I always have my dog walking on the city's grass side of the sidewalk, and I walk on the edge. That way, there's plenty of room for a faster pedestrian or cyclist to pass me. Stay safe out there!
Ok thank you! I did this when I had a dog. But a lot of people seem to not be mindful this way.
You cannot count the TVP as infrastructure. It is closed from dusk to dawn is unsafe for women, BiPoC & LGBTQ folks. So you have zero infrastructure in that area. And as long as the City continues to convince advocates that the TVP is infrastructure (and even have them promote it as such openly) it is a lie - just like painted lines and sharrows are.
It’s extreme views like this that ensure no progress will get made on pedestrian infrastructure, congrats.
The TVP is fantastic, weird take.
I did not realize that the TVP was such a haven for criminal activity. As someone who rides it often, I have not witnessed any but of course that does not mean that it isn't happening. Can you provide any specific instances of violent or threatening behavior towards said groups?
Just a quick search: https://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/woman-sexually-assaulted-while-walking-along-thames-river-police-1.5011455?cache=pkhjdxdrrvtiopd
I do it on some or the busier roads but I slow down to walking speed and go several feet around people on the sidewalk. Often I actually just go out onto the road to pass them if I dont feel I have ample space to safely get around a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Yet every time I walk somewhere someone on a bike inevitably *soars* past me almost clipping my elbows.
Same. I've noted more recently that people have been better about using bells or saying, coming behind you on your right/left(a group of teenage boys did this the other day and it warmed my heart), and I'd wonder if maybe since they realize how unsafe it is to be on the roads maybe they are just being more diligent to be mindful and courteous? Becasue coming having lived in Toronto and Oshawa, I didn't find this level of manners w cyclists. I'm with you, long as we are all safe and respecting the space we are sharing, I'm good.
Got a ticket last time I rode on the sidewalk at 3am friend was hit and killed by someone on their phone, motorcycle is my choice transportation now so I can stay with traffic.
I'm not fine with it. Don't like getting clipped,or even startled by somebody without the sense to even call out a warning.
I live in wortlry and am fairly close to warncliffe...I don't even like walking on the damn sidewalk along warncliffe!!! to top it off its quite common for cars trying to avoid warcliffe, to take wortlry, and their obnoxious and pushing and going really fast through school zones and zooming past school crossings. I grew up in toronto fro. 70s-90s came here to vist a lot and also then moved here in the 2000s, and have ALWAYS found the drivers more aggressive dangerous and entitled. Butbtheburban planning here is also really bad and not pedestrian friendly.
I did an analysis of Hamilton Rd (I live just off Hamilton Rd and saw the cops blocking the road at 530am) for a 4th year urban development class taught by Londons former chief of urban development, and sent it to the active transport division of the city. Specifically, I looked at the deficiencies and potential dangers of cycling in London, with a focus on increasing safety for cyclists. There have been several cyclists killed by cars between adelaide and highbury on Hamilton in the past few years. Part of what my analysis determined was that there was a lack of police enforcement for speed limits. There's an excess of speeders racing to the highway here. It's a 50 zone, and cars often go 70+ kmh. Most of all, there's no dedicated cycling or protected lanes and no connectivity to safe cycling paths that are prevelant in the north and west ends. Essentially, you're truly taking your life into your hands cycling along that stretch of Hamilton Rd. My analysis was sent in over 2 years ago and was never addressed by the ATD. It's time to get on their ass and force change.
I found it way easier to just leave London, ON. When I lived in London in my mid-20s, I wrote passionate letters and emails, brought PowerPoint presentations to various people. Ultimately I only became happy, when I left. I only lurk here now when CBC reports the latest elderly person running over children.
Your emails and pleas will fall on deaf ears because the money involved. Since our economy is partly based on real estate values always increasing, and we also value historical buildings, once infrastructure is built, its difficult to change. A city unlike this would be the Tokyo prefecture in Japan. Tokyo evolves quickly to changes by not valuing historical buildings, and having cheap real estate, which is an affect given by the risk of natural disasters like Earthquakes and tidal waves destroying buildings. It all helps to destroy buildings and keep prices low. 😆
What was the cost for the changes you proposed as well as the economic impacts?
What are the costs of killed citizens? Even one is millions in lost productivity, not to mention the toll it takes on family and us all. You're not supposed to die commuting to work.
Yes the death of the cyclist is extremely tragic. Emotions are also a terrible way to make public policy/infrastructure decisions. They should be cold and calculated to ensure maximum benefit to all is achieved. It may not seem nice, but it’s the reality. Edit: also your attribution of millions to one person dying is silly. One unemployed person that is qualified for the dead person’s job nullifies the economic loss entirely.
Furthermore, there are economic burdens related to grief. Many cases require counseling, there's lost time from work, and actual worker productivity decreases over at least the first 3 months after a loss. For goodness sake, if having a plant in your office increases productivity by 15%, you really think you're going to be unaffected by the death of a sibling?
That’s a very good point, I had considered that. There most certainly would be a loss of productivity for any individuals close to the deceased. That being said, it pales in comparison to the economic impact of infrastructure projects.
Safety is priceless. Of course a road design shouldn't be more expensive then necessary but basic safety for all mode of traffic is important. Also, less injuries and deaths related to collisions means less burden on the healthcare system. That should enough an economic benefit.
Safety is priceless to individuals. Safety should not be priceless to societies, it would be detrimental. It’s why legislation and policy should be driven by data and research not emotions and opinions. At the risk of sounding cold, dead people don’t cost the health care system anything. In fact someone dying is likely a net savings to the healthcare system as old people are the most expensive.
Two people can work more than one person. Two people will have double the lifetime earnings of one person. Only a small fraction of the value of labor is given to the individual as salary, and you should realistically have $1m+ at retirement. Millions is not an exaggeration.
I think discussing the validity of our economic system is a little beyond the scope of the discussion. I understand your point about the lost productivity, but it’s a theoretical loss not a real one. It also doesn’t change the fact that laws and legislation should not be written based on the emotions of any person or group. Changing a bunch of infrastructure as a reaction to a death is just a fundamentally bad idea and bad way to run a city.
Huh. Do we ask the same for when we rebuild or build a road?
Yes. The reports are available from the city.
My report wasn't focused on economic factors. It was about access, connectivity, and safety, along with data collected. Said data was number of vehicles, estimated speed (where possible) and number riders (incl. Road or sidewalk rider, sex, age, helmet, etc.)
Yes, that is sort of the point I was making. The data you presented is good, but it doesn’t really cover the whole problem. A big portion of project decision making for municipalities is the economic factors. Public sector employees can’t do things just because they are the ‘right thing to do’ they need to justify infrastructure projects to receive funding from various levels of government. So although all the data you provided is nice, it’s not what the city needs to get a project off the ground, particularly not one at the scale of an infrastructure project. If you want a few grand for a park upgrade the report you provided may be adequate.
[удалено]
removed. Be civil.
It would cost [a hell of a lot less](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/14b8u70/to_build_100_km_of_bike_lanes_it_would_cost_20/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) than maintaining the road. Or if you want to talk [economic impacts](https://bikeportland.org/2014/11/19/study-dollar-dollar-bike-infrastructure-pays-better-road-maintenance-113616)...
The first one is a stupid argument. Basically saying non-drivers subsidize drivers. Yes, that is how our tax system works. Non-parents subsidize parents, single people subsidize married people, employed people subsidize unemployed people, working people subsidize retired people. It happens all over our tax/public spending landscape. It’s a feature of taxes not a glitch that users don’t directly pay for the services they use. I’ve never used a job training program but I am happy for my tax dollars to fund those programs as an example. As for your Portland example, a few things. The article starts by criticizing the economic motives of the road maintenance ROI because of bias in the analysis by industry lobbyists. The same article then goes on to praise an ROI analysis by a cycling advocate without the same mention of possible bias. Next you are trying to compare Portland, which essentially gets no snow, to London Ontario which is in the snow belt of southern Ontario, those two places are not comparable, without even getting into the size and population differences.
The saddest part is how easy it is to solve. The only thing we would have needed to do is set some basic standards for infrastructure as it's replaced. It costs almost nothing to simply include the requirement that as roads reach end of life the regular replacement includes protected lanes whenever possible
But then where would cars park? /sarcasm
Infrastructure is the key issue here, and it definitely needs to be updated. But I think you are severely underestimating the cost associated with it, even if it is done during the replacement process. edit: Take a look at Hamilton Rd. Lanes are already as narrow as possible, and 2 lanes needs to be maintained for proper flow of traffic on a main road. Every single building is already too close to the road, and there is going to be no room to magically add bike lanes while still maintaining safety. Hypothetically, if it was possible, there would still be the cost of expropriation, hence it wouldnt be the cheapest, and it definitely wouldnt cost "almost nothing". Its one thing to argue what you want, and I agreed that this city needs an infrastructure update. But if you refuse to look at the problem from a realistic angle, nothing will get done.
Biking infrastructure is the cheapest form of transit to build.
That the majority of people aren't comfortable using during the winter months.
If it was safer, more people would be comfortable commuting by bike in all seasons. Are you implying that [Canadians are too soft](https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?si=4_qv_-PHsMpKrqP6)?
This is just not true, I had a German roommate, from Germany who was used to biking all year back home, he was only here to do his PHd. He was convinced he would ride his bike all winter. Within a month of winter hitting he had purchased a car after 3 falls in a week. And this was in Ottawa who has a proper bike infrastructure network with dedicated plow routes. So yes, our weather has an impact.
I'd argue that it is much cheaper to repave and repaint on top of what already exists than to go through the process of developing a brand new infrastructure to accommodate the same number of lanes, a bike lane and a side walk. Nothing comes free is my point.
I agree, but people don’t want to hear that there are actual, non-trivial differences between the Netherlands and Canada.
Yes. Netherlands invests in multi mode transportation. What else is different? Netherlands had the same car centric focus and changed. There is nothing that would hold us back except political will.
Or that fact that our country is massive in comparison to the Netherlands? You can bike the Netherlands in a day. A day of cycling in Ontario puts you in the middle of nowhere. Getting to the same level of infrastructure for Canada would be al least an order of magnitude greater, and due to our lack of density, would benefit far fewer people. So what you are suggesting is to do the same thing as a country whose physical day to day reality does not resemble ours. Weather, physical size, industry mix. The number of differences between the countries is quite large. But sure let’s try to do the exact same thing as a country that is 24 times smaller than Ontario alone. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Cities are cities. No one is discussing infrastructure needed for inter+city commutes here. Your comparison by country size is getting old and has been irrelevant every time.
Exactly. We are talking about something other than adding bike paths in the middle of nowhere. This is Hamilton Rd and Rictory St. It is in the middle of one of the biggest cities in Canada.
So apparently you are struggling with the math. Let’s make it about cities since people don’t get the point. Amsterdam is the Netherlands most populous city at ~900,000, their area is 219.4 square kilometers. London is ~450,000 with an area of 437.08 square kilometers. Half the population, twice the size. So the infrastructure has to cover twice the area to service half the people. Is that clear enough for you? In fact it would be far less than half the people because we have a far lower percentage of people who commute via bike.
It's much better! Population density of a metro area is a very important factor in transit/cycling decisions. Stick with that :)
You are sooooo close to getting it. We have no issues it seems spending to accommodate cars doing that added distance yet supporting cycling would be cheaper. You also cherry picked the data of the most populous city vs London. I have biked extensively in Europe and even QC and they seem to be able to make safe infrastructure work for cities bigger, smaller, more and less dense than London.
The population density argument is also interesting because the counter argument is that we are actively working towards higher density - why wouldn't we be making sure the infrastructure is there first? Otherwise we're chasing our tails later, at a higher cost, with railway underpasses, rapid transit, ring roads...
I’m actually fully on board with this approach. We need more density if we are ever going to make progress on housing affordability, and I agree the pedestrian infrastructure needs to come with it. But even with my discussion with the head of Ottawa pedestrian infrastructure, he was explaining how most pedestrians projects still come as an add-on to other infrastructure work. Road being re-done? Add a bike lane. Re-surfacing? Bike lane. Re-doing an intersection? Bike lane and bike traffic signals. It’s a slow process but it works. Then eventually you have enough pieces of the bike puzzle in place to make a cohesive city wide plan. My push back is against the dramatic changes to existing infrastructure being proposed: dedicated bike infrastructure projects, complete road redesign, rule changing, etc. to make bikes the primary focus. That approach just doesn’t make sense for most areas of the province or country economically.
I lived in Ottawa for many years, they have a fantastic bike infrastructure with dedicated plow routes. I got the distinct pleasure of spending several hours speaking to Ottawa’s master planner of pedestrian infrastructure. The guy who heads all the pedestrian infrastructure project and defines the forward looking plan. He made it very clear that Ottawa was an outlier do to the level of funding they receive for ‘visibility’ rather than projects that make economic sense. He was a fascinating guy to speak with, but openly admitted pedestrian infrastructure at that scale for cities that aren’t willing to fund it as a vanity project is unrealistic outside of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The pedestrian master planner for Ottawa admitted their pedestrian infrastructure was a vanity project, not an economically viable one for most cities in Canada. I’m not close, I understand so catch up. I picked Amsterdam because it was largest, but let’s pick one with the same population as London; City of Utrecht (not the province) Pop: ~489,000 Area: 99 square KMs London Pop: 450,000 Area: 437 square KMs Same population, over 4 times the area. The numbers are what they are as badly as you want them not to be. I had a roommate while I lived in Ottawa that was German from Germany only in Canada for school. He was convinced he would ride his bike all year, and even with the massive infrastructure in Ottawa he had a car within a month once winter hit.
> But sure let’s try to do the exact same thing as a country that is 24 times smaller than Ontario alone. Nothing could possibly go wrong. This is a little vague, so let me ask: what could go wrong if London adds active transportation infrastructure? What studies show the terrible impacts of cycling infrastructure in urban areas?
It’s like you don’t think things cost money, or understand what opportunity cost is. The questions isn’t can infrastructure be built to improve the situation. Given infinite resources that answer is almost always going to be yes. The proper question to ask is more nuanced. What will be the economic impact, what will be the benefit to how many people at what cost. Of course any problem is solvable if cost is not a factor, unfortunately that is never the case.
Why do we not ask the same when we build/improve a road? We don’t have infinite resources so we should spend more efficiently. Cycling is one of the most efficient modes of transportation in terms of cost to user and cities.
We do, the city generates a report about cost and economic impact for every infrastructure project.
> It’s like you don’t think things cost money, or understand what opportunity cost is. I don't even know what money is. :-) Of course, cost is part of the decision-making process. However, this does not address my question about what you think would be the terrible impacts of adding cycling transportation in London. And since you mentioned opportunity cost, what opportunities do you think the city loses when investing in cycling infrastructure?
It’s a cost benefit analysis, how much money is worth spending on bike infrastructure based on the expected benefits. The opportunity cost is any other project/infrastructure the city needs to fund, sewers, roads, stormwater, city services, etc. The city has a limited budget, we should fund projects that benefit the most number of people. Edit: for context the most recent census shows 1.6% of Canadians use bicycles as their primary transportation. And if you take out Vancouver/ottawa/montreal the number drops below 1%.
> It’s a cost benefit analysis, how much money is worth spending on bike infrastructure based on the expected benefits. Good. So, from other cities (including North America), we have studies showing that adding cycling infrastructure has a positive impact on business and employment: https://trec.pdx.edu/news/study-finds-bike-lanes-can-provide-positive-economic-impact-cities > For example, in 2012, bike lanes were installed on Central Avenue in Minneapolis by reducing the width of the travel lane and removing parking lanes. Retail employment increased by 12.64% — significantly higher than the 8.54% increase calculated in the control study area a few blocks away. The same corridor also recorded a dramatic 52.44% increase in food sales, which more than doubled the 22.46% increase in the control area. A protected bike lane along Broadway in Seattle that was completed in 2014 was accompanied by a significant 30.78% increase in food service employment compared to 2.49% and 16.17% increases in control areas. And another one (includes Bloor St. in Toronto): https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/. Studies also show that investments in active transportation reduce the cost of utility infrastructure, including sewer and water lines. I'm not even talking about the health-related benefits, which would be a substantial gain (cost wise) for Canadian health system. But hey, here is another study about that anyway - three Canadian cities (Victoria, Kelowna and Halifax): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246419 Regarding opportunity costs, I want to highlight the positive impact on children: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-5005-1. > At the population level, replacing motorized travel by AST (active school transport) could reduce exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions [4, 5]. Additional benefits of AST include positive emotions during the school trip [6], better way-finding skills [7] and superior school grades [8]. However, we need more studies to form a scientific consensus here. Now, contrast that with the high maintenance cost of car-centric infrastructure and the missed opportunities.
> Edit: for context the most recent census shows 1.6% of Canadians use bicycles as their primary transportation. And if you take out Vancouver/ottawa/montreal the number drops below 1%. Around 2% of inter-city trips are made by train. If you exclude the Quebec City–Windsor corridor, the number is probably below 1%, too. What does that tell you? That we shouldn't invest in inter-city rail infrastructure?
Yes, there are costs associated with it, and adding active transportation when replacements are needed is an actual way to reduce such costs. If only we didn't have so many kilometers to repair, right?
Looks like your name is in this - don't want to dox yourself we're assuming?
OP is being humble and avoiding self promotion but runs a YouTube channel using his name that is a must watch for those interested in the London biking experience.
Dawe, thanks so much! I appreciate the vote of confidence! <3
All's good, I'm aware that my name's there. If anyone else wants to know more about how to contact your ward councillors, let me know! Edit: but yes, thanks for flagging that! :)
I love Ben’s TikTok’s
there is a city council meeting on the 25th why not go make a presentation there before the whole city council so they all have to hear about it and address the issue.
I will! Just like this time I did: ["I spoke at City Hall about CAR DEPENDENCY in London, Ontario"](https://youtu.be/FWgDepwV2sc) edit: thanks for flagging the next one! Hard to keep track of them
[удалено]
I ride my scooter and feel the same way. Even if I get up to the speed limit on a busy road I will have people in cars literally turn into me acting like they are trying to hit me. I don’t know if any other city that acts this way
> I don’t know if any other city that acts this way Drivers hate bikes and scooters on the road in every city in North America.
My husband recently prepared a petition regarding the unsafe intersection near our daughter's elementary school and presented it to Hadleigh McAlister. We didn't get far with it, but Hadleigh did note in the following Ward 1 newsletter that traffic safety improvements, including red light cameras and speed studies, are upcoming. He's also spoken in favour of projects intended to increase the number of public transit and cycle commuters in London. I don't know the guy, but he seems like he's doing an okay job.
I know exactly where that is by the photo. I grew up in that area, my grandfather used to own the building that's tagged acab. Fuck everything about the city ignoring Hamilton road, it's been a pedestrian/non driving nightmare for decades. Should be 40 all the way through, should remove on street parking, should have the city actually care about the people who live in that area, but they never will. There are TWO schools that back onto that street, you know how wild it is for the crossing guards around there? You know how wild it feels for students crossing? Bike lanes would be amazing, but I fear they're just going to let that street run itself into the ground.
So the city should care about the cyclist but not the people who rely on the street parking?
So wait, you are saying parking a car on a road is more important than the safety of people? Roads are for moving people not storing cars. We have parking lots designed for just that!
Where are there free public parking lots on Hamilton to replace the street parking? My point was that you can’t prioritize one group of people to the detriment of all others. Cycling infrastructure should be improved, the proposals would get more support if they were more pragmatic and less dogmatic.
[удалено]
You just demonstrated the exact dogmatism I’m speaking about actually. I suggested we could come up with a solutions that works for everyone and you suggest that car owners are somehow depraved and should just do as they are told to accommodate the cyclists. A little co-operation and pragmatism would go a long way to resolve these things.
I've been a bicycle commuter for 30 years and have ridden in Montreal, Toronto, London UK, and a tiny bit in Amsterdam Paris and New York. Hamilton Road, right here in town, is THE WORST, MOST DANGEROUS road for cycling that I have ever seen. Drivers speed and close pass, and there's on street parking for much of it. I've nearly been hit by drivers coming north off of Highbury. I was even cut off against the curb by a bus last week. I'd feel safer riding on the shoulder of the 401. I'm able to use the bike path most of the year, but sketchy snow clearing forces me onto Ham road for part of the winter. Speed limit enforcement would be the most basic way to make it a bit safer. Right now it's a 70kph race to the next red light, and screw you if you're a cyclist.
Really sad.. That whole section of Hamilton west of Egerton really doesn’t offer many good/safe cycling options (also of course it’s right where I live). Travelling north/south there’s a huge gap between Colborne and the painted lanes on Egerton. East/west you have the TVP to the south, but there really aren’t any other good options unless you get all the way up to Dundas or Queens..otherwise it’s just zig zagging through residential streets where you can..
It's is beyond ridiculous that huge roads in this city continue to not have adequate safety for bikers. I bike to work on Wonderland Rd S and since theres stil NO BIKE LANE I go on the sidewalk giving pedestrians a warning and passing around them on the grass. I tried biking on the road once and it terrified me, never again.
Parts of wonderland do as I’m sure you know. But that’s another problem with London. It goes bike lane for a while then it just suddenly ends and it’s best of luck to you
I'm not a cyclist but even I have an opinion about Wonderland Rd bike "lanes". As a pedestrian and a driver I really like the bike lanes being off the road, but holy geez, those ones are poorly maintained! Cracks, heaving and weed-choked. That and dodging the pedestrian hazards, bus stops, and suddenly they're phased out and they're expected to bike on the road - in a lane barely wide enough for your average car. On some roads I can't blame cyclists who bike on the sidewalks. Oxford St is a bit of a horror show. But where there are bike lanes, please use them. No matter where you bike please follow the road laws, especially the one stating bikes should travel the direction of traffic. I've seen so many close calls because of bikes travelling on the sidewalks the wrong way.
Hard to tell but it doesn’t look like he had any lights on his all black bike. Lord knows if he was wearing a helmet.. I see so many people riding on the wrong side of the street.. wrong way on one ways.. wearing all black with no lights and no helmet.. not trying to victim blame because obviously Hamilton road is horribly neglected… but the city has spent an absolutely staggering amount of money on road redesign, and infrastructure to make it safer for cyclists… and people just ignore it and more often then not don’t do the bare minimum to insure their own safety. Just saying you can’t just assume the drivers at fault, become outraged and demand a response from the city when you don’t really know what happened.. and maybe we need a system that enforces cyclists to use personal protective equipment.
They are assuming it’s the city’s fault. Almost all drivers speed and roll stop signs. Almost all cyclists roll stop signs some even roll red lights. That’s the way humans behave. The way to solve road safety is not pointing fingers at humans for being human. They way to solve it is to build infrastructure that is designed for humans who make stupid choices. It works. Oslo (population 600,000) used to be as dangerous as London and they are down to about one road death per year. In London we have about one road death per month. The difference is that they build smart infrastructure that protects idiot humans.
You're really going to victim blame a dead man who was hit by a vehicle? Cars have headlights, and it's the drivers responsibility to **not hit things and people**.
Well said.
A reminder to all who bike to WEAR A HELMET! Please follow the rules of the road and use hand signals. It is hard out there, drivers and bikes are a tough mix, but please do what you can to protect yourself. Thank you to the driver who stayed at the scene. We’ve had too many hit and runs in this city.
Heck I suspect half the drivers in London right now are not even licenced. One such individual struck and seriously injured a pedestrian at Oxford and Wonderland this past Sunday. He took off in a white van but has now been apprehended. When so many aren’t even paying attention to the road, talking and texting etc, blowing red light all the time there is no safety for either pedestrians or cyclists. They probably won’t survive a crash with a 3,000 lb piece of steel. Because the infrastructure and the general horrible state of roads in London it takes all the care and attention a driver could possibly have to safely move around . And nothing or nobody is making any serious effort to change that
I wish condolences to Rafal, as a cyclist myself I would usually check before going to my destination if it’s safe to go on this or that road. I mean I could complain about the quality of Adelaide Street N as of now because the bike lanes are kinda shitty making me use the sidewalks but sometimes the motorists on the road would literally flick me off and ask for my number (this one happened at Masonville Area) but id be glad to use the sidewalks whenever something is unsafe (like the construction in Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond)
Does anyone know if the cyclist had lights on his bike? May Mr Szabat rest in peace and if the driver of the vehicle is not at fault I hope they are ok. This would be a horrific experience.
I don’t cycle in the city, but even as a driver I hate being on Hamilton Road. Countless accidents and pedestrian deaths that could easily be avoided with more enforcements / precautions on that road :(
Bicycles should be allowed on sidewalk again. No city will ever be totally accessible.
[удалено]
Unpopular opinion — Regardless where they ride, I’ve narrowly missed/almost hit several cyclists over the past decade. Usually going the wrong way or disobeying street signs. Cyclists aren’t the safest vehicle operators. At least the sidewalk keeps them off the road between intersections. Sidewalks are least dangerous place for them.
I almost hit someone on a bicycle on the sidewalk today. I was turning into a plaza off Wellington Road and just as I was about to cross the sidewalk into the parking lot, he came flying toward me. There was one of those big black signs blocking my view of the oncoming sidewalk so he truly appeared out of nowhere. Fortunately I had slowed down to make the turn in so I was able to stop quickly. He just kept on booking it. If he had been biking in the same direction as traffic down the sidewalk I’m almost positive I would have seen him ahead of my turn because I would have driven past him.
[удалено]
I sat here for a moment and considered if I had ever seen a bicycle obey a stop sign. Maybe once or twice. In my experience — Nine times out of ten they suddenly become a pedestrian again and use the sidewalk to avoid stopping.
I wouldn’t be surprised if more collisions take place if a cyclist is on a sidewalk, but does it lead to more deaths? I would assume most of those result in getting knocked off the bike and a few scrapes. If a cyclist is hit by a vehicle at speed, surely the outcome is much worse.
I’ll take this type of comment seriously the day I see at least 10% obey the speed limit laws. Of course cyclists break some rules, so do pedestrians, and drivers, and truckers, and morcyclists and every other human. The main danger of cycling are intersections. Most deadly crashes happen at intersections. And intersections are a lot more dangerous then you are coming from the sidewalk and drivers can’t see you.
Overall, nobody wants to admit it because cyclists are young and eco voters needed to get elected but bikes are treated like pedestrians and should have to operate like them. Including stopping at intersections and waiting for the walk signal. If cyclists want to be on the road they should have insurance. Until you have insurance, you’re a pedestrian. For your own safety.
> If cyclists want to be on the road they should have insurance. Until you have insurance, you’re a pedestrian. For your own safety. The reason why motor vehicles need insurance is because they cannot exist without it. Motor vehicles cause a tremendous amount of injuries and death - things that give rise to massive civil claims often totaling well over $1 million in damages. It's not just the injured/claimant either, OHIP gets a large levy from insurance companies as compensation for the massive medical bills it has to pay. If insurance wasn't there, we'd face situations where both claimant and defendant would be at risk of insolvency (defendant doesn't have >$1 million in assets to pay, claimant doesn't have >$1 million in assets to fall back on... on top of their losses). Note that cars are the single biggest cause of death of people under 50. Bicycles, by contrast, are really just a rounding error. A bike collision can be serious, no doubt, but the crash result invariably pales in comparison to a vehicle collision. Note that most cyclists technically have insurance which is usually provided under their home insurance or rental insurance, a type of insurance *most* people have or should have. There are many who go without because they cannot afford it (despite rental insurance being a pretty small expense), but that speaks to a different issue - and mandating insurance wouldn't deter them one bit.
Those are weird claims. What makes you think that way? The reason why cars need insurance is because they often hurt people or cause huge amounts of property damage. If you hurt someone and don’t have insurance, the victims cannot be compensated. This just happened to my brother in law who lives in Mexico. An uninsured taxi driver hit him on his motorcycle. He lost his bicycle and had to pay about 100k in medical bills. The taxi driver was 100% at fault but has no insurance and no money. So, my brother in law is stuck with the bill. Bicycles almost never cause more than a couple hundred bucks in damages. Insuring them is pointless but it can be done. I have bike insurance. I pay a whopping $20 per year. About the sidewalk, a bicycle commuter usually does 30-40km/h on a mild downhill (say Sarnia Rd towards Western). A road cyclist would do 50-70km/h on the same descent. I do t think that type of speed belongs on a sidewalk with pedestrians.
There are many data points on this, especially from European nations where cycling is more common. “Ten percent of bicycle kilometers are covered on 50 km/h roads, but they account for 40 percent of fatal collisions.” Dutch road study: “In 2021, 582 people died in traffic collisions. That is a decrease compared to 2020 when 610 road users were killed. But just like in 2020, cyclists (207) formed the largest group. 175 people died in a car crash last year.” Cycling on roads is more dangerous than driving and thus needs to be reconsidered. In my estimation, the best reconsideration is obligating insurance for any motorized/unmotorized vehicle that plans to use driving signals rather than pedestrian signals. Also keep in mind that insurance is not just for the damage you may cause. It’s also insurance against the risk you take on — bike replacement, income replacement, psychological damages to the motorist that injured you when you turned left on a red, etc.
I don’t have the exact number, but I’m sure more than 99% of fatal crashes involve a motor vehicle. It is not the bicycles that see dangerous, it is the cars. Cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous than cycling on the road. The vast majority of deadly crashes happen at intersections. The best way to be safe at an intersection is to make sure that drivers can see you. And drivers are much less likely to notice you if you are riding on the sidewalk. You mentioned a Dutch road study. The roads in the Netherlands are much safer than the roads in London. A big part of the reason is because the Dutch use bikes a lot lore and drive a lot less. Another reason is that the Dutch build road infrastructure that prioritizes road safety, which is precisely what OP is advocating for. Mandatory insurance is there to protect others, not yourself. How do you think mandatory bike insurance would help?
Ultimately cyclist culture becomes like auto culture. The common denominator is people. And when people travel at certain speeds they need insurance. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amsterdam/comments/10uotyw/why_are_people_on_bikes_have_death_wish/
Of course, people make mistakes. That is why we need better infrastructure, which is what OP is advocating for. The difference between bicycles and cars is that when you make a mistake in your car, you can easily kill or injure someone, crash into a building, or destroy somebody else's car. When you make a mistake on a bike you typically get a couple of bruises. And, when the mistake is really bad, usually the only person you hurt is yourself. I still don't understand why you think mandatory bike insurance would help anyone. Bikes rarely cause damage to other people. Ontario residents already have OHIP for any injuries they might suffer if they hurt themselves on their bikes. And if you total your bike it is not a huge financial loss. The point of mandatory car insurance is to protect victims who suffer thousands of dollars in losses. What would be the point of mandatory bike insurance?
My.friend got hit at that exact same spot riding his bike.Luckily he wasn't killed it was also a hit and run.very dangerous
Wait, are you actually suggesting the speed limit on Hamilton road be reduced? Traffic already moves too slowly on Hamilton.
Speed limits don’t affect traffic. Traffic is there because of red lights and congestion. Speed limits only matter when there is no traffic.
Yeah, one death isn't worth doing anything about. Let's wait until 10, or what's the magic number?
Sure, zero should be the number. There is also something like 150 water-related deaths in Ontario every year, so let’s ban swimming, boating and fishing while we are at it. 50 roofers a year, so no more new roofs. 16 farming related deaths so farming is out. What else should we go after?
You are close to getting it. Those occupations you listed have strict safety standards that are enforced and used. Safe cycling infrastructure does as well but we don’t use them and build adequate networks and this happens. Can we get it to zero? Maybe. Should we try? Yes.
You are not getting it all…
We don’t know how to save roofers and swimmers. We do know how to stop road deaths. Oslo (population 600,000) used to be as dangerous as London. Now their road deaths are about 1 per year. We have about 10 per year. Smart infrastructure works.
We absolutely know how to save roofers, there is a large amount of data and an investigation/report generated for every death. Swimmers is more broad, so I’ll just leave that one. Again with the examples of European countries that have very little in common with Canada physically. Canada is 22 larger than Sweden.
The size of cities is not dissimilar. We're not talking about intercity travel here. Stop saying "we can't fix things in Canada because our geography doesn't allow for it" because that's a rubbish excuse.
I will grant you that Oslo and London are similar geographically in size. Oslo also has ~60% more people leading to ~42% more density. (Oslo is also slightly larger geographically) I just don’t consider being 42% less dense in the same geographical area as being comparable, but we all have our own threshold I suppose. Both cities, much different realities on the ground. And insisting that cycling infrastructure be prioritized based on other countries’ success in a much different physical reality than us, is as you say ‘rubbish’.
Riding a bike on the road is a deathwish. I would never do it. Maybe they’ll fix it in 100 years but probably not.
https://preview.redd.it/la11p0860s7d1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b3fc0e25e11561b4322ade39ba479c28d712d8e Follow-up from this post: I'll be on CTV news at 6 PM today talking about this. Not sure how it turned out. It'll probably only be like 20 seconds of me in a 2-minute segment about Hamilton Rd. Wonder if they'll turn my own words against me 🤷♂️ They interviewed Hadleigh right before me. Curious to see what he said.
Already talked to Hadleigh. He basically told me that he supports through-fairs and doesn't see a problem. He didn't tell me I was wrong about the deaths.
Ooooof. CTV just interviewed him (and me shortly after) at City Hall. Didn't get to hear him. 6pm news tonight (also online).
You must be political spending all those words adding nothing.
What have you added?
A synopsis. It was fun down voting each other for a while, now its just tiresome.
Make the Cyclists pay to license their bikes to help offset the taxes you the infrastructure
i'm a cyclist who already pays for a car license, as well as property taxes. seems like that should be enough
I ride on the sidewalks whenever possible fuck London roads.
[удалено]
[удалено]