What Are Cyclists Lives Worth

While I cannot answer that question I can tell you what our society and its governments have decided cyclists lives are not worth.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of installing truck side guards on all large trucks.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of developing and installing better mirror or camera monitoring systems for large trucks and all motor vehicles.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of designing and building roads that do not place cyclists in the path of other vehicles such as big trucks and then directs those vehicles into the cyclists.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of infrastructure that separates cyclists from motor vehicle traffic where appropriate such as on the most dangerous routes.

Cyclists lives are not worth the political will to require drivers, especially truck drivers, to have a legal responsibility to be able to see where their vehicle is going (and who they may be driving into and running over) before they go there.

And most importantly cyclists lives are not worth the elimination of the get out of jail free card that drivers that kill cyclists get for simply saying they didn't see the cyclist.

So what are are cyclists lives worth.

Note: this post does not refer to any specific incident.

The War on Cars Starts Here – My Municipal Election Slogan

You don't have to actually run for office to have an election slogan, do you. Although my wife did suggest I take on our car loving, parking worshipping incumbent whose biggest priority is widening roads through the Greenbelt, I am too happy in retirement to go after a thankless twenty-four hour a day job. But I can still have an election slogan and mine is The War on Cars Starts Here.

Conventional wisdom would say that is a guaranteed losing slogan for a suburban candidate. But is it really.

After all, ask your typical suburban car commuter what they think of their commute and they will almost unanimously say that they hate it. Then ask someone who bikes or walks to work and the answer you will get is that they love it. Those that use public transit may have some complaints but almost all will be happy they do not have to drive in rush hour traffic, especially in the winter.

For some strange reason, even though studies and history has shown that building more roads never eases congestion problems, car drivers think that is somehow the answer to making their commute more bearable.

We do not need any more roads or any wider roads. We are over-serviced as far as roads go, except for two hours a day during the morning and evening rush hour. We spend millions and millions of taxpayers dollars trying to solve an unsolvable problem building more roads that we do not need ninety percent of the time.

The only solution that will really solve the problem for those people that drive to work are solutions that reduce the number of cars on the road, not so-called solutions that encourage more people to drive to work. We need to spend our tax money on alternatives to the hated car commute, on infrastructure for commuting solutions that people enjoy.

As with the Three Rs, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, Reducing commuting distances is the most important and effective solution to traffic congestion. We need to design and build our communities with more opportunities to work closer to home, and more opportunities to work from home.

That is where walking and cycling are the best alternatives, but they are not attractive if people feel unsafe. That is why we do not build sidewalks by drawing white lines to separate cars from pedestrians. Give people safe walking and cycling routes, preferably segregated, and they will use them.

Also improving the recreational pathway system will get more people onto their bikes and more people thinking about commuting on their bikes, especially if there is a comprehensive network that allows people to go from anywhere in the city to any destination without having to share major roadways with cars.

Winter is seen as a problem, but if you look at cities with similar climates to Ottawa that actually have good and extensive cleared winter cycling routes and infrastructure the number of winter cycling commuters is much higher than in Ottawa. If you build it they will ride it.

And of course making public transit a comfortable and enjoyable experience will increase ridership. It is already as fast and much less expensive than commuting by car. Indeed, I suspect for the majority of car drives, it is only stereotypes about public transit and psychological barriers that keep people off public transit.

Indeed if we provided secure and sheltered bike parking at the Park and Rides and an improved Bixi Bike system downtown and in major employment areas we could create a whole new commuter class of cycling public transit users, especially with the light rail system, where bike commuters would use the LRT for the long middle portion of their commute.

There is only one way to reduce traffic congestion on the roads and that is to reduce the number of cars on the roads. And there is only one way to do that and that is by improving infrastructure for the alternatives, public transit, cycling and walking.

The War on Cars Starts Here.

Kanata's Secret Segregated Bike Lane

Yes, Kanata has a secret, or at least unpublicized, segregated bike lane on Huntmar Drive from Maple Grove Road to the Canadian Tire Centre parking lot, even if, for some strange reason, it is only on one side of the road.

This is not like the high profile (and more costly) Laurier Street Segregated Bike Lane (SBL). It is done on the cheap, with only the use of concrete curbs to separate the bike lane from traffic, but it is effective. It achieves the most important goal, which is to prevent cars from parking in the bike lane, as cars parked in bike lanes not only render them ineffective but make them dangerous as jutting in and out of traffic from behind parked cars is not a safe practice.

All that separates most sidewalks from roadways are concrete curbs and they are the safety standard for pedestrians so they can make a safe and cost-effective separator for bike lanes. This should be standard practice for most bike lanes. There may be special cases, such as in the busy downtown core, where more separation may be needed. However, white lines on the road should not be the standard when the use of concrete curbs only requires a small one time expense, probably less than the ongoing cost of repainting white lines.

As to the argument that it will make snow clearance and street cleaning more difficult than the current practice, which seems to be to just plough all the crap into the bike lanes, well we need to change that policy anyway.

We can only hope that this is a quiet pilot project and that we will see more of these (starting with the other side of this section of Huntmar Drive) and that it will indeed become the minimum standard for Ottawa bike lanes. Just don't tell Allan “Roads are for Cars” Hubley about this.

What Are These White Lines All About

While we are talking about bike lanes, what about pseudo bike lanes. These are on what I would call collector streets in our neighbourhood. And yes, they look like bike lines. However they have no signage and are not marked on the cycling map as bike lanes. And the fact that cars are allowed to park on them makes them ineffective and possibly even dangerous if used as bike lanes. Indeed, on these streets I follow the general rule of keeping to the right of the roadway but if a series of cars are parked in these lanes I keep to the middle to avoid jutting in and out from behind parked cars.

Perhaps they are parking lanes, but as you can see they are not wide enough for parking within the lines. If they were in the country it would be obvious, they would be paved shoulders, but in a suburb.

I think they are just “make the cyclists feel good” lanes.

After posting this I received this via Twitter:

Charles A-M ‏@Centretowner
@the5thColumnist @auxonic technically it's not a bike lane but an at-grade asphalt sidewalk. I tweeted pic of this 2y ago.
27 July 2013 20:49

Marie Lemay Gets it Right Again

It looks like the National Capital might have a new crusader against the hegemony of the automobile in our society.

Last month she was promoting turning "the national capital into a cycling role-model for Canada" and this month she wants Ottawa and Gatineau "to put public transit at the centre of their plans for city-building, today and over the next 50 years".

The position of head of the NCC has often been criticized for being an unelected and unaccountable position. However, as NCC CEO, Marie Lemay has shown more leadership than our elected Mayor "Photo-op" Larry ever has.

The Truth is Coming Out About the Terry Fox Drive Extension Through the South March Highlands

After hearing from City staff and concerned residents, the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee passed a unanimous motion to ask the City of Ottawa to immediately stop construction on the Terry Fox drive Extension through the South March Highland until an "in-depth ecological analysis is undertaken."

The Ottawa Citizen reported:

The Ottawa forests and greenspace advisory committee will ask city council to put the construction of the Terry Fox Drive Extension on hold and order a more thorough environmental review.

The committee passed a unanimous motion Monday night to ask the city to "immediately re-examine the demographic, transportational and economic rationale" for the project and to halt construction until an "in-depth ecological analysis is undertaken."

The request will come before the city's planning and environment committee, where it would need the endorsement of councillors before it could be voted on by City Council.

The $47.7-million Terry Fox Drive Extension is being built now to take advantage of $32 million in federal and provincial stimulus funding that runs out in March 2011.

The original plan to build the road dates back to a 1983 Ontario Municipal Board decision to expand Kanata's urban boundary into the South March Highlands, with the road marking the outside perimeter of development.

Once the road is built, 182 hectares of natural lands inside the arc of the road are expected to be bulldozed for housing.

But the highlands, a 895-hectare area of near-pristine woodlands and wetlands, have been identified by the province as a candidate for the designation of Area of Natural and Scientific Interest containing a complex of Provincially Significant wetlands.

At the meeting many residents expressed concerns about the project.

The Ottawa Sun reported:

It was standing room only at the city’s forest and greenspace advisory committee meeting Monday evening.

Marjorie Edwards, who lives on Old Carp Rd., said she fears the extension of Terry Fox Dr. will lead to more development and further destruction of sensitive environmental areas, with devastating consequences.

“The land is going to be developed. It started out as environmentally protected land from the province and it still is, but people seem to be able to find ways of circumventing it,” she said.

The road will encroach on habitat of about a half dozen species at risk, including the Blanding’s turtle and the western chorus frog. The project will also pass through four significant wetland areas and require about 10.5 hectares of clear cutting.

Judy Makin, who also lives in the area, shares Edwards’ concerns.

“Unbeknownst to most of the city of Ottawa, we’ve got a little Algonquin Park in our backyard and we’re putting a road through it. It’s not wise,” she said, comparing the South March Highlands to the protected provincial park.

Makin called on the advisory committee to recommend council issue an immediate stop work order to prevent any further construction. She also called for the establishment of a governing body, what she called the Ottawa Forest Keeper, to protect sensitive areas and deny destructive planning proposals.

“We cannot allow this roadway to provide the final doorway to even more destruction,” she said.

Paul Renaud made a very interesting presentation on "Ottawa's Other Transportation System" in which he stated:

As you can see from this aerial photo, looking down from 50 km, we can see 3 major eco-corridors running in parallel to each other:

-Gatineau Park to the North
-Constance Lake – Shirley’s Bay along the River
-South March Highlands to the South

Each of these eco-corridors plays a vital role in the transportation system of the National Capital:

-They enable the transportation of animals, fish, and birds who live in and travel within them
-Who in turn carry native seeds, pollen, and other genetic material up and down these corridors
-This transportation of vital genetic material helps the City fight off the invasive species that our now threatening us as a result of the combination of irresponsible development and climate change
-These eco-corridors also help absorb the GHG emitted by the City’s other transportation system, turning these noxious fumes back into life-giving oxygen.

How is it that City planners have been oblivious to the whole transportation picture?

I encourage you all to read the full text of his presentation in his blog Virtual Nonsense: Can You Still See The Forest?, and be sure to view the very interesting slides he presented.

I must say, knowing how difficult it is to stop road construction in our automobile dominated society, I was very sceptical about the prospects of success for this campaign. However, it appears that the hard work being done by a lot of people behind the scenes in ferreting out the truth about these projects is starting to have an effect and I am beginning to think that there may indeed be hope, to not only stop the Terry Fox Drive Extension through the South March Highlands but to also stop the destruction proposed by the KNL development plans.

Let's Send Clive to Copenhagen

I would like to congratulate the National Capital Commission, and in particular CEO Marie Lemay, for their enlightened approach to cycling in the capital. The Ottawa Citizen reports:

Ottawa has a car-first, bike-after attitude, says the chief executive of the National Capital Commission. And Marie Lemay said residents have to decide if that's really the way they want to build the future of Canada's capital.

One of the fundamental things that I think we need to have a discussion about is, do we want our National Capital Region to be bike- and pedestrian-friendly? And if the answer is yes, we have to be ready to do the things that implies. It might mean it will be more difficult for cars, for example, she said.

Do we make the decision that bikes and pedestrians come first? And if we do that, everything else follows.

Lemay said the place of cyclists and pedestrians will be a central question in the NCC's new, three-year initiative to develop a plan for Canada's capital. Public discussions on the plan are to begin this summer.

The Ottawa Citizen further reports:

The head of the National Capital Commission says she hopes Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien will join her and Gatineau Mayor Marc Bureau as they travel to a major bicycling conference in Copenhagen in June to pick up tips on how to turn the national capital into a cycling role-model for Canada.

“If it is him, I’ll be thrilled and, if it’s not, and it’s a councillor, I’ll be very happy. The important thing is that we do have a political champion with us,” said the NCC’s CEO.

Mayor Larry O'Brien as a political champion of cycling does not seem to be a very good fit. Indeed, we need someone to go the the conference who is already a political champion for cycling, who has the background and can come back even more enlightened and energized to lead Ottawa into a new future that is not dictated by the automobile. Who better to fill that role than Councillor Clive Doucet, who will almost certainly be back on Council after the next election, unlike Mayor Larry who does not even know yet whether he wants the job.

The Velo-city Global 2010 conference will feature four days of presentations and discussions by cycling experts and policy-makers from around the world. Topics include cycling in mega-cities; cycling in cold, hilly cities; suburban cycling; and lifting the social status of the bicycle, among many others.

The sheer fact of being in Copenhagen and observing the cycling culture there is also an important aspect of the trip, Lemay said.

“They definitely do put cyclists and pedestrians first. Even the signage at street lights. The priority is not to the car,” said Lemay.

“To see that and be immersed in a totally different way of thinking, then you can see that it can actually be done. I’m hoping from there, you move backwards, and say, ‘what do we like about this, and how can we get there?’ ”

Although the NCC has maintained recreational biking paths in the national capital region for 40 years, Lemay said she realized last summer the importance of moving beyond those paths to create a safe, integrated network of cycling lanes and pathways across the downtown cores of Ottawa and Gatineau.

One thing Marie Lemay has right, and that Clive Doucet would agree with, is that we need to build a city for ordinary cyclists. As the Ottawa Sun reports:

“When you have Lance Armstrong sending in a bib from the Tour de France, I mean, that accident went around the world,” said Doucet. “I think people are beginning to realize Ottawa is a wonderful place to be a recreational cyclist, but a terrible place to be an ordinary cyclist.”

Doucet said the reputation Ottawa had built as a cycle-friendly city had little to do with the municipality’s efforts. The National Capital Commission established and continues to maintain the vast network of bike trails that earned the city its good standing in the first place.

“If you strip away the NCC shared bicycle pathways, the city has nothing,” said Doucet.

Lemay makes the point that while avid cyclists may cycle anywhere and everywhere all the time ordinary cyclists will only cycle if they feel it is safe.

Lemay, who lives in Chelsea, said she owns a bike but is not an “avid cyclist.”

She said she’d love to bike around downtown Ottawa, but she’s concerned about safety on city streets. She believes this gives her something in common with other people who would like to use their bikes more, but don’t feel comfortable cycling in traffic.

“This is not about accommodating the avid cyclist. This is about integrating cycling into a sustainable mode of transportation,” Lemay said.

“It’s not about just one segment of the population. It’s everybody. It’s me. It’s all the other people that could be using their bikes if it was safer. If it was easier.

The City of Ottawa has to show that it is serious about changing from being subservient to the automobile to embracing the future, a future that already exists in much of Europe.

I have already presented my ideas and I encourage everyone else to let the City and the NCC know what they think.

Cycling and Safety in Ottawa

This is being submitted to the City of Ottawa Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee and to selected city councillors.

I am primarily a recreational cyclist, not a commuter. I love riding the trails on my mountain bike but most of my kilometres are put on my hybrid on the paved and gravel pathways, though I do ride the roads on occasion and am just starting to ride in the winter.

Ottawa Police Service's Inappropriate Response to Cycling Injuries Caused by Motorists

This post/submission is inspired by this cycling season's large number of injuries and deaths to cyclists at the hands of motorists and the Ottawa Police Service's inappropriate response of targeting motorists and cyclists equally. A proportionate response is not appropriate because the impact and the risks are not proportionate. Motorists kill cyclists with their vehicles. Cyclists don't kill anyone with their vehicles, and are only a risk of minor injuries to pedestrians in the overwhelming number of situations. Yes, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, and I will deal with that, but motorists are the real threat of injury and death and that is where the bulk of resources should be targeted. Now that I have stated the obvious let us move on.

The police need to move aggressively against reckless and impaired drivers because they are a real threat to everyone on the road, but particularly to cyclists who are not protected by a metal box. Crashing into another vehicle can cause damage, crashing into a cyclist can kill them. While the threat from bad and aggressive drivers is the most obvious, the biggest threat to cyclists is from otherwise good drivers who are unaware of cyclists and the potential threat motorists pose to them.

Cyclists are on the roads, and they have a right to be on the roads. The most important thing that we can do to protect them is to make drivers aware of this, so they are thinking of cyclists whenever they are driving and watching for them. And cyclists need to follow the rules of the road and be where they are supposed to be.

The City of Ottawa website lists some of these rules. Perhaps the most important is "Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist".

More information on cycling in Ottawa is available on the City of Ottawa Website Cycling Page, including the City of Ottawa Cycling Map.

I have a rule for motorists - do not give up your right-of-way (unless you need to avoid an accident). The rules are there so everybody knows what to expect from everyone else. If you give up your right of way to me, with a gesture or whatever, I may be aware but other drivers might be confused. I am happy to wait my turn.

The key thing is awareness of other road users, where they are and what they are going to do. The rules of the road exist so all road users know what to expect, that is why it is so important that everyone follows them.

Stop Signs as Yield Signs For Cyclists - The Idaho Experience

There are already some differences in how the Highway Traffic Act applies to motor vehicles and bicycles, such as the requirement that bicyclists stay to the right and allow motor vehicles to pass, unless it is dangerous to do so. I would like to suggest another difference be implemented and that is the Idaho practice of allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.

The main difference between a bicycle and a motor vehicle is that a bicycle is human powered - having to stop means losing momentum and having to rebuild it again when starting up. This can be particularly frustrating on a hill. The other big difference of course is that a bicyclists is not in a metal cage and thus has a much clearer view all around him than someone in a car. And the biggest difference is that a bicycle is much less dangerous than an automobile.

Experience indicates that allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs is safe. As cyclist are going slower to start off with they can easily slow down and check for oncoming traffic without coming to a full stop. The complete stop is what causes the most significant momentum problem. Slowing down enough to check for oncoming traffic allows one to continue, if safe, while conserving considerable human energy.

In the long term this would require the city, along with other cites, to lobby the provincial government to change the law. But in the meantime the police could adopt a policy of only charging cyclists who go through stop signs if they do so in a dangerous manner. It is not unusual for police to prioritize their enforcement policies.

This would also require a public education policy so that cyclists would know what is expected of them, and motorists would understand the reasoning behind the policy. Cyclists at the moment realize they could be charged no matter what speed they go through a stop sign. I would expect this new approach would lead to many cyclists being more cautious at stop signs than they now are.

The Idaho legislation states:

IDAHO STATUTES
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.

Source: Idaho Statutes

More information on the Idaho legislation an experience can be found here:

Toronto Star article

Bicycling blog

Bicycle law blog

Bicycle Civil Liberties Union

Clarifying the Rules Regarding Pedestrian Crosswalks

The Highway Traffic Act includes the following provisions:

Definitions
1. (1) In this Act,
“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway, designated by by-law of a municipality, at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations;

Riding in pedestrian crossover prohibited
140.(6) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within a pedestrian crossover. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s.140 (6).

Riding in crosswalks prohibited
144.(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c H.8, s.144 (29).

I think it makes good sense not to allow cyclists to ride their bikes on crosswalks along sidewalks. Cyclists should not be riding on the sidewalk so they should not be riding on crosswalks.

However there is one situation where the wording of the law may create ambiguity, I am talking about road crossings where shared use paths intersect with roadways. Since the pathway is shared all the way up to the roadway, there is no reason it cannot be shared across the roadway with cyclists remaining on their bikes when crossing the road.

The solution is to simply have the city clarify it's documentation and signage to make clear that shared use pathway crossings are not considered pedestrian crossovers or crosswalks.

Rules of The Shared Pathway - To Ring or Not Ring Your Bell

As we discuss the rules of the road let's look at the rules or conventions of the shared pathway. While I have my understanding of them, it is clear that there is no common understanding amongst pedestrians and cyclists.

My understanding is that all users of a shared pathway should keep to the right, allowing room for both pedestrian and bicycle traffic to move in both directions. Since pedestrians walk on the pathway, not alongside it, they should not be walking in the opposite direction of the pathway traffic. They also should not take up both sides of the pathway, though I am willing to be lenient in this regard as long as they move over for oncoming traffic or traffic that wishes to pass them, whether it be cyclists or joggers.

For that reason pathway users, whether pedestrians or cyclists should always be aware of their surroundings. Please leave the headphones at home when out in traffic, whether on the roads or the shared pathways. You do not have to always be plugged in and disconnected from your surroundings. Sometimes I think the Walkman and the IPod are the most evil and dangerous inventions of mankind.

Let me say this to the pedestrians on the pathway. Now that you are aware of your surroundings and I am approaching you, it is a simple matter to ring my bell to alert you of my presence. It would be a simple decision if I could predict your reaction but I cannot. I know what my purpose is - not to tell you to get off the path, but simply to alert you of my presence and to allow groups of pedestrians to move into single file on the right. However all to often the response is for pedestrians in groups to scatter all over the path or for those walking along the right to move over to the left and into my path. It would make both our lives much easier and safer if upon hearing my bell, you just glanced my way to acknowledge my presence and stayed or moved over to the right in single file to allow me to safely pass. In exchange I will slow down and give you sufficient time to do this.

Life on the shared paths would be much simpler and safer if this approach was adopted as the convention by all pathway users, and perhaps made part of a public education campaign.

Bike Lanes - What Are They

One would think that determining this would be pretty simple.

As far as bike lanes are concerned it was always my assumption that the lines along the roadway about a metre from the curb indicated a bike lane. However, I discovered a couple of problems with that.

The first is that those lines appear on many streets where the City of Ottawa cycling map does not indicate a bike lane exists. Also, in many cases those lines appear along roadways where parking is allowed making the apparent bike lane meaningless because it is dangerous to be moving in and out of the roadway between parked cars.

Something more problematic is the City of Ottawa ad stating that cyclists should ride a meter out from the curb and and the following from the city of Ottawa website which states: "Cyclists generally ride in the right-most through lane, about one metre from the curb or parked cars." The apparent bike lane markings are about a metre from the roadway so if cyclists followed the City's advice they would be riding alongside the apparent bike lane rather than in it, causing motorists to be upset that the cyclist are not riding in what they think is the bike lane, and potentially causing confusion for everyone.

We really need some clarification here.

Shared Pathways - What Are They

You would also think that determining this would be pretty simple. My basic rule has always been that if it is cement it is a sidewalk and if it is asphalt that it is a pathway. But again, looking at the City of Ottawa cycling map, many asphalt pathways are not shown. For example the pathway along Carling Avenue from Holly Acres Road to Moodie Drive is officially designated as a pathway while the pathway along Eagleson Road from Cadence Gate to Hazeldean Road is not, even though they have similar characteristics. Both run along major roadways where many cyclists would be leery of riding on the road and both provide connections between neighbourhoods as well as connections between other pathways.

Indeed, the Eagleson Road pathway connects Bridlewood to the Hazeldean Mall and the Hazeldean community as well as to pathways that connect through Katimavik to Beaverbrook. I would strongly recommend that this route be officially designated as a shared pathway.

For purposes of clarity I would also suggest that all asphalt paved pathways be so designated. If the city wants something to be a sidewalk they should build a proper cement sidewalk.

The Big Issue - Separating Bicycles and Automobiles

This past fall a friend of ours was involved in a vehicular collision when the approaching vehicle veered into his lane. Luckily he survived, though with significant injuries. The people in the other car were killed. He survived because his vehicle was larger and provided better protection. In a collision between a bicycle and a vehicle the cyclist will always be the one to suffer greater injuries or death.

Though I have always tried to avoid riding on the road I have always felt safe when doing so. As long as I obeyed the rules of the road and acted as a vehicle I expected other vehicles to do likewise. Even while driving down the bicycle lane along Hunt Club Road with heavy traffic whizzing by me I felt safe because I had my own designated space. It never really occurred to me that a driver would deliberately drive into the bike lane and maim or possibly kill me. Now it does because we know that that happens way too often.

The only real solution that treats cyclist lives as seriously as motorists lives is to adopt the European approach and separate cyclists from motor vehicles.

I would like to see Ottawa adopt it's own version of this approach built on the existing network of pathways. While dedicated bike paths would be nice to have and would allow for a faster flow of cycling traffic the shared pathways we have now work quite well.

However nothing should prevent cyclists who wish to from continuing to share the road with vehicles.

That being said, providing an alternative to riding on the roads has the potential to substantially increase the number of recreational cyclists and the number of cyclists who commute regularly for work, shopping and other tasks beyond recreational cycling.

So we start by building on the existing pathway network to extend it to a true network that provides connections between all Ottawa communities and neighbourhoods, as well as connecting to the NCC recreational pathway system. Preferably this would be a distinct network separate from the roadway system. Where the network did run parallel to roadways there should be physical barriers or barriers of significant space between bicycles and motor vehicles. The network should never have bicycles and motor vehicles sharing busy roadways only separated by lines on the road.

Of course we cannot have a separate system from door to door. The system would be between neighbourhoods. Cyclists would have to share less busy neighbourhood streets with motor vehicles. In the busy downtown core we should follow the European practice of having separate bike lanes on the sidewalks, rather than the roadways.

The system should be an all-season system. I have recently started winter cycling for recreational purposes and find that more often than not I have to use the roads, as the pathways are usually not cleared - some are not cleared for the whole winter. In my case, as a recreational cyclist, I can easily stick to the local arterial roads that are kept quite clear but commuters do not have a choice of routes. With no reliable pathway system in the winter they have to share the busy roads with motorists when it is the most dangerous.

If we want to encourage more environmentally friendly commuting we need to make a paradigm shift in our snow clearing priorities. I would propose this priority - sidewalks, shared pathways, public transit routes, other roads.

The most important first step is to build a shared pathway system that is uninterrupted and truly connects all Ottawa communities and neighbourhoods.

A Note on Bicycle Helmets

I would be remiss if I did not include this subject in this post/submission.

According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation:

If you are under the age of 18 you are required by law to wear an approved bicycle helmet when travelling on any public road. Cyclists over 18 are encouraged to wear helmets for their own safety, but are not required to by law.

Source: MTO

It is unfortunate that the government of Ontario does not consider cyclists lives to be as important as drivers lives. Drivers and passengers in motor vehicles are required to use seat belts because they safe lives. The government does not seem to consider the lives of cyclists, who do not share the added protection of a metal cage with airbags around them, to be as worthy of protection.

There is extensive proof and studies as well as submissions from various medical organizations that bicycle helmets save lives and reduce injuries, yet we still do not require cyclists over 18 to wear seat belts. What is even more worrisome is the opposition to seat belt legislation from some so-called bicycle advocacy and safety organizations.

I am not going to outline all the evidence and submissions from medical experts here as that would be a treatise on it's own but I am going recommend that City of Ottawa to call upon the Ontario government to recognize that cyclists lives are just as important as the lives of motor vehicle passengers by passing legislation requiring that all cyclists wear helmets.

And a note to parents. Do you know where your daughter's helmet is after she is out of your sight. As one who passes them on the pathways often I can tell you that most of the time it is hanging from her handlebars. Part of the reason for this may be that, in my experience, there appears to be no enforcement of the helmet legislation for those under 18 years of age.

Final Words

It is vital that the City of Ottawa undertake a public education campaign for motorists and cyclists that stresses awareness of other users of the roads and pathways and the need for everyone to obey the rules of the road. Enforcement should be concentrated on the real danger to life and limb - motorists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is being submitted to:

Ottawa Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee
Stephanie.Brown@ottawa.ca

Councillor Peggy Feltmate
Peggy.Feltmate@ottawa.ca

Councillor Alex Cullen
Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca

Councillor Clive Doucet
Clive.Doucet@ottawa.ca

Gatineau Parkway: A Cyclists Dream or A Drivers Nightmare

In an earlier Fifth Column I stated:

A few weeks ago I was driving home from mountain biking along the Gatineau Parkway when I noticed just how little room there was for cyclists and motor vehicles to share the road. If I wanted to pass a cyclist I had to hug the yellow line, a dangerous thing to do if traffic is approaching me and only possible if the oncoming traffic sees the cyclist on my side and moves over to give me room, and impossible if there are motor vehicles and cyclists on both sides of the road. At one point I just had to follow behind the cyclist till it was safe to pass, fortunately he was moving at about 40 km/hr.

This can create very dangerous situations, especially if there are impatient drivers. Drivers should, however, be aware that, although used as such, the parkway is not a commuter route, it is a scenic route for tourists and residents to use to enjoy the park scenery and has a speed limit of 60 km/hr.

In many ways the Gatineau Parkway is a wonderful route for cyclists, scenic, winding and hilly. It could be a world class cycling route and a major tourist attraction and economic benefit to the region, if the safety problem was solved.

The National Capital Commission and The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are also aware of the safety problems and they have announced their solution, according to an article in the Ottawa Citizen which states:

Don't ride your bicycle in double file, in "packs" of more than 15 or speed through stop signs this summer.

The National Capital Commission and police are cracking down on cyclists and motorists in Gatineau Park as part of a share the road campaign prompted by the increasing number of traffic violations in the park each year.
…

RCMP Const. Suzanne Lefort said cyclists who ride in double file or in groups of more than 15 face $95 fines. Cyclists who run through stop signs face $15 fines, plus the loss of three demerit points if they have a driver's licence. Also, cyclists were warned about speeding last year, but this year they will be ticketed.

Drivers who exceed the speed limit by more than 40 km/h could have their vehicles impounded for seven days.

This has led to considerable reaction from the cycling community, including Letters to The Editor from Mike Abraham, Matt Surch, Alex MacKenzie and Avery Burdett.

Matt Surch describes the Gatineau Parkway as a road cyclists haven:

Cycling is a healthy practice with a rich tradition in the Ottawa Valley, home of the country's two oldest bike clubs, dating back to 1882. More than just a sport, cycling affords pleasurable movement through the city and its surroundings.

On any given day, hundreds of cyclists, many in their retirement years, seek the challenge of the hilly Gatineau Parkway to recreate, to live, on the bike. Many users ride the parkway more than once a week, for years.

Some ride alone, others in groups. By riding side-by-side, conversation flows. Other groups with a more competitive bent enjoy the parkway for its promise of training gains and the opportunity to practise road tactics such as drafting, working together as a group.

Yes, road cycling is in fact a team sport; working together to cover ground faster is the magic of cycling.

The parkway is special -- it is a haven for cyclists because it is a parkway; low car speeds are appropriate. Cyclists outnumber any other user group in the summer, including drivers. We feel like the parkway is our oasis in an otherwise hostile cycling environment.

Unfortunately, the NCC does not acknowledge cyclists on the parkway as a recreational user group. Instead, we are being treated just like traffic.

As the last quoted sentence indicates, the NCC does not see it that way, and that is the crux of the matter – should the NCC Parkway be seen as just another commuter road or as a recreational route for cyclists.

Of course the Gatineau Parkway is not just another commuter route. You don't close down a commuter route for a whole season, banning cars, and let a recreational user group use it as their own. But that is what is done with the Gatineau Parkway in the winter for cross country skiers. That does not stop people from using their vehicles to access the ski hills or trails or other recreational facilities. And it certainly contributes to tourism in the National Capital region and the local economy.

The Gatineau Parkway already has the hilly terrain that serious road cyclists love to ride and train on. So why not apply the same logic to the summer season, ban cars from the Gatineau Parkway, and take advantage of an even greater opportunity to turn the National Capital Region into an international destination for cyclists, not to mention providing a wonderful opportunity for local cyclists to develop their skills. It is such opportunities and facilities that produce Olympic Gold Medallists.

Should Public Transit Be Declared An Essential Service

As an environmentalist, I am inclined to say yes to that question because of the extensive environmental benefits provided by public transit systems, the main one, of course, being the fact that it reduces automobile use considerably and in some cases can make car ownership unnecessary.

But the first question we have to answer is what does that mean.

If public transit is essential, like police and health care services, then it must be provided. There must be legislation requiring municipalities above a certain size to provide a public transit service.

If public transit is essential, then it must be publicly provided. It cannot be left to the whims of the private sector that will only provide service where it is profitable.

It must be a meaningful service so the legislation must provide standards of service that must be provided.

It must also be affordable to all citizens, especially lower income citizens. In order to do this fares must only be used to cover a portion of the costs, no more than fifty percent.

Since municipalities have the least effective and least equitable taxing powers of all levels of government, funding must be provided by all three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal.

And for it to be effective in getting people to make permanent lifestyle changes it must be reliable and provided without interruption.

This would require removing the right to strike from workers and the right to lock-out workers during labour disputes from management and replacing it with a fair system of compulsory arbitration when negotiations and mediation fail. It should also be noted that despite whatever legislation may be in place strong unions always maintain the ability to strike if the alternative measures are not applied fairly.

Legislation declaring public transit an essential service must include all of these factors if we are truly treating it as an essential service. It has to be a lot more than just taking rights away from workers.

While we are discussing declaring services essential for their environmental benefits, I would suggest that a comprehensive system of commuter bike routes also be declared an essential service that must be provided by all municipalities.

Boycott Hypocrisy Hour - Become Enlightened

We already have Environment Week and Earth Day and numerous other Environmental Events.

We do not need another token 60 minutes to think about the environment before going back to our normal overconsuming energy wasting daily life.

On March 29, 2008 at 9:00 PM in our home the Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) will be on, as necessary, the Energy Star appliances will be running, if needed, the single compact energy efficient car will be in the garage, with the snowblower (nobody’s perfect) waiting for it to be replaced with the push mower, and the bikes and kayaks will be waiting to replace the skis and snowshoes.

There is a lot that you can do everyday to reduce your energy consumption and your environmental footprint that will have a lot more impact than spending one hour a year in the dark.

We like to blame the big corporate polluters And they are at fault. And the tar sands are an environmental crime against humanity. But even their development is driven by our insatiable lust for fossil fuels.

The automobile is the first thing to cut down on. Cut down on the number - everyone in the family does not need their own car, and cut down on the use. When we had four drivers living at home we had one car, which was not used for driving to work - that is what public transit is for. With a few exceptions the vast majority of urban and suburban workers do not need to use a car to go to work. And nobody living in the city needs a Hummer (status does not count as a need) or any gas guzzling vehicle,

Improve the energy efficiency of your home. It does not cost a lot to change your light bulbs and appliances can be upgraded when replaced. We replaced our inefficient freezer earlier than necessary but the energy savings will eventually pay for the cost of the new one. Don’t waste water. We think of water as free, or at least we used to - the costs of cheap water are now catching up with us and prices are increasing to maintain the infrastructure that we let deteriorate.

Start to live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. Do you really need to drive to the corner store. Walk or bike - don’t drive everywhere. After awhile you will be amazed at just how far you can walk or bike and you will enjoy it. It will be good for your health and good for the planet. Get out in the bush, on foot or on a bike and start to enjoy the wonders of nature. Once you start to appreciate it you will have a real incentive to protect it.

Become enlightened - being in the dark is not going to accomplish anything.

Should Carbon Offsets Be Mandatory

My wife and I are planning to travel to Vienna for our 30th anniversary, which means we will be flying. Although our specific plans are not made yet, I decided to see what the cost of carbon offsets for our return flight would be if we flew via Air Canada to Frankfurt return. At economy the flights would cost about $2700 and the carbon offsets approximately $40 (about 1.5 % of the cost). The carbon offsets would pay for a reforestation project that would supposedly offset the carbon released into the atmosphere by our share of the flights.

The problem with carbon offsets is that they can be used to buy off your guilt and to justify to yourself that your carbon emitting activities are not part of the problem. You can drive the gas guzzling SUV and take the overseas vacations and buy your way out of responsibility.

The other problem is that we need to reduce our carbon dioxide emitting activities at the same time as we undertake the kind of environmental projects, such as reforestation projects, that the carbon offsets finance.

But the fact is that some people are just not going to care and will refuse to limit their carbon creating habits, while those that are environmentally conscious are still going to have to travel by automobile or air at times, even if they consciously limit such travel.

The best way to do our part is to reduce our carbon emissions as much as possible and offset those we cannot reduce with environmental projects such as reforestation. Carbon offsets are one way of doing that, and they should not be limited to the voluntary contributions of the environmentally conscious.

Carbon offsets should be mandatory and built into the cost of air travel, gasoline and other vehicle fuels.

Cycling and Mountain Biking in the Gatineau Park

A few weeks ago I was driving home from mountain biking along the Gatineau Parkway when I noticed just how little room there was for cyclists and motor vehicles to share the road. If I wanted to pass a cyclist I had to hug the yellow line, a dangerous thing to do if traffic is approaching me and only possible if the oncoming traffic sees the cyclist on my side and moves over to give me room, and impossible if there are motor vehicles and cyclists on both sides of the road. At one point I just had to follow behind the cyclist till it was safe to pass, fortunately he was moving at about 40 km/hr.

This can create very dangerous situations, especially if there are impatient drivers. Drivers should, however, be aware that, although used as such, the parkway is not a commuter route, it is a scenic route for tourists and residents to use to enjoy the park scenery and has a speed limit of 60 km/hr.

In many ways the Gatineau Parkway is a wonderful route for cyclists, scenic, winding and hilly. It could be a world class cycling route and a major tourist attraction and economic benefit to the region, if the safety problem was solved.

The answer of course is simple - put dedicated bike lanes along both sides of the parkway. Yes, it will take up some green space but only along the parkway corridor, doing much less damage than building superhighways through the park which the National Capital Commission (NCC ) thinks is appropriate. These bike lanes should be double lanes, not to encourage riding double which cyclists do now adding to the safety problem, but to allow faster cyclists to pass slower ones without having to enter the motor vehicle portion of the parkway.

Perhaps if the NCC undertook a project such as this it would divert their attention from turning single track trails into gravel roads. Which brings me to the other aspect of cycling in the Gatineau Park - mountain biking.

The NCC, in it’s wisdom, has decided that mountain bikers should be second class citizens in the park. If they want to ride single track trails they are relegated to a small section of the park (Camp Fortune) run by a private operator where fees are charged. Meanwhile hikers and trail runners have free reign over all of the public trails in the park at no charge, including the wide trails designated for mountain biking.

I appreciate having the wide gravel trails to ride, they are fun, but mountain bikers, like serious hikers, love rough natural technical single track trails, which are a lot more environmentally friendly than widened gravel roads, which the NCC loves to build and call trails.

There are two arguments for keeping mountain bikers off single track trails - user conflicts and environmental damage. However, neither of these arguments holds up to scrutiny.

In various places, including the NCC’s own greenbelt (where bicycle use is against NCC regulations but the regulations are not enforced), hikers and bikers regularly share the trails with each other with few problems. I can personally attest to never having had a conflict with hikers on the greenbelt trails while riding them regularly (several times a week). I can also attest to hiking and mountain biking in the South March Highlands and always having other trail users treat me with respect, whether as a hiker or a biker.

As to the environmental impact, the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that hikers and mountain bikers have equivalent impacts on trails. See, for example, the reviews done by the International Mountain Bicycling Association and the New Zealand Department of Conservation.

For more information on mountain biking see the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) website and the Ottawa Mountain Bike Association (OMBA) website.

Since there are no reasons to treat them differently from other trail users, what should the NCC do to ensure that mountain bikers receive equal treatment and trail access in the Gatineau Park.

First they should enter into an agreement with the operator of Camp Fortune to replace the cross country trail fees paid by individuals with a fee paid by the NCC. I suspect the impact of this on the NCC budget would be minimal. This would ensure that mountain bikers do not have to pay access fees that other trail users do not have to pay.

The next thing they should do is to provide mountain bikers access to the rest of the single track trails in the park. This may require a short transition stage for public education and signage and perhaps some trail maintenance. There may even be a few trails that for specific reasons should not have mountain bike access. The NCC should take advantage of OMBA and IMBA’s sustainable trail building expertise during this process. In the interests of equality, this process should be expedited.

The NCC has an opportunity to make the Gatineau Park an internationally acclaimed location for both road cycling and mountain biking. Let us see if they are up to the challenge.