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.

Thoughts on Taking The Lane

Updated 2013-11-11

As I am not an expert on cycling safety this post is not intended to be advice on how to safely take the lane but only my thoughts on the subject.

While I am not one of those “vehicular cyclists”, that oppose cycling infrastructure because they think that the best place for all cyclists is on the roads competing for space with car drivers, I do believe that cyclists have a right to be able to ride on the roads safely. I also agree with the City of Ottawa when they tell cyclists “never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist”.

One of the most important ways that cyclists can ensure their safety on the roads is by taking the lane (riding in the middle of the lane of traffic) when appropriate and necessary.

The Legal Right to Take The Lane

The legal right to do this is provided in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.

Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

The key phrase here is “where practicable” and while that is not defined in the Act it seems reasonable to assume that in legislation dealing with highway safety that “where practicable” would include where safe and that a right to take the lane would therefore exist where that is the only safe option.

Indeed the City of Ottawa, Ottawa Police Service and the Ministry of Transportation clearly agree with that interpretation.

The section of the City of Ottawa website: Cycling and the law states:

Rules of the road

Cyclists are required to ride as close as possible to the right curb of the roadway, except when:

●Travelling at the normal speed of traffic

●Avoiding hazardous conditions

●The roadway is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side-by-side

●Tiding alongside another cyclist in a manner that does not impede the normal movement of traffic

●Preparing to make a left turn, passing another vehicle, or using a one-way street (in which case riding alongside the left curb is permitted)

The Share The Road section of the Ottawa Police Service website states:

Riding Tips for the Road

1. Ride predictably and defensively.

2. Ride in a straight line at least one metre from the curb or parked cars.

3. You may occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety just for the convenience of others.

And the Ontario Ministry of Transportation's Ontario's Guide to Safe Cycling states:

Taking a lane

In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it. On high-speed roads, it is not safe to take the whole lane. To move left in a lane, should check, signal, left and shoulder check again then move to the centre of the lane when it is safe to do so.

It also states:

Accordingly, cyclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share.

As well it states:

Around parked vehicles

Ride in a straight line at least one metre away from parked vehicles. Keep to this line even if the vehicles are far apart to avoid continuous swerving.

Cycle in a straight line past parked vehicles; do not swerve towards the curb when parked vehicles are far apart

When riding around parked vehicles, cyclists should watch for motorists and passengers who may open their car door into the cyclists' path.

And the Canadian Cycling Association CAN-BIKE Program: safety tips states:

CAN-BIKE TIP #7
Going…going, gone! When one lane disappears, use the other one

Highway Traffic Acts across Canada tell all vehicle users to occupy any part of a lane when safety warrants it. Bikes are vehicles too. In the event of parked vehicles, construction, snow banks, etc. If the lane is obstructed and there is not enough room to share the lane while passing the obstruction, take the whole lane to prevent vehicles from passing too close.

1. Look well ahead when you ride and pre-plan your position on the road.

2. Shoulder check first to make sure there is room and then signal before taking the lane.

3. Shoulder check again to make sure the drivers behind you respect your intention.

4. Take the centre of the lane and ride in a straight line.

5. Repeat 2 & 3 and return to the right most side of the lane when the obstruction is passed.

So we have established not only the legal right to take the lane but the fact that the authorities recommend it in appropriate situations.

Taking The Lane Safely

That of course does not change the fact that taking the lane can be intimidating, and even hazardous if not done carefully. After all, it is not wise to just pull out in front of bigger heavier vehicles going faster than you.

The first rule, and this applies to all cycling in traffic, is to be constantly aware of the traffic around you. No riding with headphones on or texting while cycling. Your life may depend on how aware you are.

You should also be aware of the road and driving conditions so that you can be prepared to ease into taking the lane safely, as you approach the conditions requiring it, and be able to do so without abruptly pulling in front of other traffic. And, of course only take the lane in urban traffic and not when the other traffic is travelling at highway speeds.

When To Take The Lane

The road conditions when I take the lane include:

● when the bike lane abruptly ends, which I interpret as the traffic engineer's way of telling me that there is not enough room alongside traffic and that I should take the lane,

● when the roadway alongside traffic is too dangerous to ride in due to pot holes or debris in the lane,

● in constructon or detour zones with lanes that are too narrow to ride alongside traffic

● alongside parked cars when simply staying out one metre risks getting forced into the dooring zone by passing motorists,

● and when the lane is simply too narrow to ride safely alongside traffic.

The bottom line on when to take the lane is when you believe that you cannot ride safely alongside traffic and that it is safe to take the lane. As the City of Ottawa states “never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist”.

Stop Signs as Yield Signs for Cyclists - Ontario Cycling Strategy and The Idaho Experience

The following, based on a previous blog post, was submitted to the Ontario Cycling Strategy public consultation process.

Stop Signs as Yield Signs For Cyclists - The Idaho Experience

I am proposing that as part of the Ontario Cycling Strategy the Highway Traffic Act be amended to adopt the policy that has worked successfully in Idaho, and that is allowing cyclists to treat Stop signs as Yield signs.

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.

This policy and legislative change would require a public education policy so that cyclists would know what is expected of them, and motorists would understand the reasoning behind the new Highway Traffic Act provision. 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: http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720.htm

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

Toronto Star Article: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/675301

Bicycling blog: http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/07/28/a-stop-sign-solution/

Bicycle law blog: http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/3/7/Origins-of-Idahos-Stop-as-Yield-Law

Bicycle Civil Liberties Union: http://www.bclu.org/stops.html

Cyclist Fatality Waiting/Designed to Happen

If you wanted to design a storm sewer grate to catch a bicycle wheel and throw the rider into fast heavy traffic you could not do better than this.

These are located along Eagleson Road between the Queensway and Hazeldean Road. They seem designed to capture bicycle wheels and kill cyclists.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to use something like that rather than the design below, used along Eagleson Road south of Hazeldean Road, that has the openings perpendicular to the wheels so you ride across them rather than along and into them.

Still shaking my head and making sure I stay well away from the curb along that section of Eagleson Road.

Three Things Every Casual Cyclist Should Know

While I am by no means an expert, as a serious cyclist there are some things I have noticed that I would like to share with my readers, some of whom are thinking about taking up cycling in a more serious manner.

1. Almost everyone has their bicycle seats set too low. Even when I got my first good bike, the bike shop set it too low because they simply asked me what felt right rather than suggesting setting it at the proper height.

For most efficient pedalling a bike should be set so that when your pedal is at the very bottom of the rotation there should just be a very slight bend in your knee. An exception is for mountain biking where in the case of downhill or very technical trail riding you might set it with a bit more bend. I notice most casual riders have an extreme amount of bend in their knees when they are cycling. If that is you, try reducing the bend and you will notice the difference.

2. Almost everyone keeps their tire pressure too low and rarely checks it till it is obviously almost flat. If you are always riding on pavement you should keep your tire pressure near the recommended maximum stated on the tire. This will provide more efficient cycling with less rolling resistance and less effort required.

My hybrid tires' maximum is 75 PSI but I run them at about 60 because I ride my hybrid on gravel and easy dirt trails as well as pavement. For that reason I also use hybrid tires with a fair amount of tread on them.

My mountain bike tires', used for trail riding, maximum is 50 PSI but I run them at about 40, which is fairly normal, though some mountain bikers run much lower tire pressures in certain conditions. Unless you know why you are running really low tire pressures avoid them.

Hard core roadies with serious road bikes and extremely skinny smooth tires will run at very high pressures, but if that is not you it is probably best to keep to under 80 PSI and never more than the maximum rating on your tires.

3. The majority of cyclists neglect to keep their drive-train (chain and gears) lubricated. Preferably one will check and re-lube their chain regularly with special bike lube. But if you are a casual cyclist with an inexpensive bicycle you are probably better just using heavy grease that only needs to be reapplied a few times a season. That way you will be sure not to have your chain running dry.

I ride an inexpensive bicycle in the winter to avoid exposing my good bikes to salt damage and I use lithium grease on it, supplemented with chain saw bar oil to deal with the slush and salt on the roads in the winter.

I also want to add two further comments that should not really need mentioning but by watching a lot of cyclists out there they obviously do need to be emphasized, and that is headgear and footwear.

Always wear a helmet, You never know when you will need it. It is not a panacea but it definitely can be the difference between walking away with no harm or with a head injury, in particular a concussion. And in worse case scenarios in can mean the difference between a serious injury and death. Being alive is far more important than looking "chic".

And please, no flip-flops or sandals. Never wear footwear that exposes your feet or toes. Decent running or walking shoes are fine. In the winter I wear my winter hiking boots. You don't even want to think about the pain of your exposed toes being dragged along pavement or gravel.

And finally, I will mention two other things I have noticed. Parents seem to think their children are smarter than them and thus protect their children's brains but not their own, essentially sending the message that "once your older you won't have to wear your stupid helmet". And teenage girls seem to think that keeping a spare helmet hanging from their handlebars is more important than having one on their head. Perhaps they think being pretty is more important than being smart, but trust me, a smashed brain is not a pretty sight.

These are not the only things one should know about cycling but they are the most obvious things I have noticed novice riders neglecting.

East and West: Two Solitudes - The Problems With The Ottawa River Pathway

(Click On Maps To Enlarge)
The really nice thing about Ottawa is that so much of the Ottawa River shoreline is in public hands and includes shared scenic recreational pathways/bike paths. In the past few weeks I have rode on the eastern and western portions of the Ottawa River pathway and made some observations. The first one being:


It is often said of Canada, that it consists of two solitudes, English Canada and French Canada. When it comes to the Ottawa River Pathway the solitudes are East and West. The connections between Ontario and Quebec are actually quite good, however the East and West sections of the Ottawa River Pathway are separated from each other by sometimes dangerous roadways. I did not even try to follow the roadway from the east to west on my last ride because it started along a very narrow and winding under construction section of road.

However if you examine the map above you will see that there is not much development along the riverfront between the two sections of the Ottawa River Pathway, and I believe most of what development there is, are federal institutions. One of the problems with the National Capital's very good system of pathways is the lack of key interconnections. I believe this missing link to be one of the most important missing connections and connecting the two sections properly, avoiding roadways, should be given the highest priority.

I also see a problem with the western section of the Ottawa River Pathway:


The Ottawa River Pathway ends at the Andrew Haydon Park water park, although two separate pathways continue, one through parkland (Andrew Haydon Park and Dick Bell Park) and one along Carling Avenue.

Unlike all other pathways that I know of in the National Capital Region, the one through this parkland is not a shared pathway and bicycling is not allowed on it. The only reason I can think of for this anomaly is that it goes back to when those parks were in Nepean and different rules were applied. Indeed the section immediately east of the water park going go Britannia Park has as much, if not more, pedestrian traffic than the section that goes through Andrew Haydon Park and bicyclists and pedestrians manage to share the pathway with no problem. As well since there is an alternative faster and shorter route along Carling Avenue, commuter cyclists in a hurry would opt for that route leaving the route through the parkland for those wanting a casual ride through parkland avoiding the traffic noise of Carling Avenue.

It is time to move on and apply the same rules to this pathway as all other pathways in the National Capital Region.

After Dick Bell Park the pathway continues along Carling Avenue as that is where the publicly owned land ends, at least until we get to Shirley's Bay.

I also have an observation to make about the eastern end of the Ottawa River Pathway:


I discovered that there is another very pleasant gravel pathway a short distance from the eastern end of the Ottawa River Pathway. The pathway starts alongside Hiawatha Park Road, not far from the Bruyère Continuing Care Saint-Louis Residence, and goes all the way to Trim Road. One interesting thing about this pathway is that a group of what appear to be hiking and/or single track mountain bike trails intersect with it and run alongside a portion of the pathway.

I believe it would be very useful to have some signage at the eastern end of the Ottawa River Pathway directing people to this, as far as I know, unnamed pathway.

The Ottawa River Pathway is a very important part of the National Capital Region shared pathway system and very enjoyable to cycle on. With some improvements it could be a real gem, the most important being connecting the east and west sections safely so that they are no longer two solitudes.

See also: Ottawa River Pathway Two Solitudes: PostScript

Cyclist Killed Near Inappropriate Pathway Detour Route

On August 13, 2010 a cyclist was killed while riding along city streets in the area of the official detour route for a section of National Capital Commission (NCC) pathway along the Ottawa River that was closed for rehabilitation.

This post is not meant to assign blame for this tragedy. I will leave that to the appropriate authorities. I also want to make it clear that I rode the official detour route and it seemed perfectly comfortable and safe to ride, for me.

That being said, the Ottawa Citizen article did raise concerns about cyclists detouring through the neighbourhood streets which I wish to address. Indeed, there are many people who choose the shared pathways to cycle because they do not feel comfortable riding on the roads and it seems appropriate to attempt to keep a pathway detour on pathways as much as possible. In this case, when there is a parallel pathway running alongside the detour route, not using it and detouring further away on city streets seems completely inappropriate. I have not been using the official route but an unofficial detour that I mapped out several weeks ago (and shared with others) before the official detour route was marked.

Click on Map To Enlarge
As you can see the official detour (and my route) follows alongside Carling Avenue for a bit on the paved shoulder. It then, out of necessity, goes down Maplehurst Avenue and then along the parallel pathway. My unofficial detour continues along the parallel pathway until it reaches the end of the construction zone and continues on an open and rideable section of the main pathway. For some reason the official detour leaves the parallel pathway at Kempster Ave. and meanders through city streets not joining the main pathway till well past the end of the construction, as the map above indicates.

As soon as I saw the official detour route I wondered why it did not follow the most logical and appropriate route rather than taking cyclists, many who choose to ride the pathways to avoid the roads, onto city streets.

UPDATE AUGUST 16, 2010

Today construction has started on the dark blue section of the detour. The old asphalt has been removed and new gravel put down and it appears to have been packed down by a roller. That section of pathway is now effectively open and being used, at least till they start repaving it. The rest of the detour, blue section, has the old asphalt removed, new gravel down, and rollers were on it today.

UPDATE AUGUST 23, 2010

All of the pathway construction is paved (lines not painted) and effectively in use, although not yet officially open.

UPDATE OCTOBER 20, 2010 (from NCC)

Re-opening: Ottawa River Pathway

The rehabilitation work of the 2 km of recreational pathway between Carling Ave. and Britannia Rd is completed. The NCC has done its final inspection and the pathway has officially re-opened.

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.

The Phony Safety Issue in the OC Transpo Strike

It is not because safety is not important that I say that this is a phony issue. It is a phony issue because there was no concern raised by the city before the strike began, or even at the start of the strike, or at least no concern that was made public, and Mayor Larry has shown no inclination to keep such concerns private.

The concern was only raised after OC Transpo, and Mayor Larry's, financial arguments about their scheduling position were discredited when the public learned that the current scheduling system was proposed by OC Transpo and that the workers took a pay reduction to pay for the additional costs of the system.

It was simply an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

However there is a problem with OC Transpo not being under any safety regulations regarding bus drivers' working hours. This is because of the federal government's blatant disregard of their responsibility for inter-provincial (and international) municipal public transit and the lack of appropriate safety regulations. Requests were made, and granted, to have municipal transit services exempted from the federal regulations because the federal regulations were designed for long distance trucking and bus systems and were not suited to municipal systems. The fact that the federal government has jurisdiction over inter-provincial municipal transit systems and does not provide appropriate safety regulations is inexcusable.

The ideal solution would be to recognize that OC Transpo is essentially an Ontario transit service and have a federal-providential agreement giving the province regulatory powers so that OC Transpo would be under the same safety regulations as other Ontario public transit systems.

In the interim I would suggest an agreement (outside of the collective bargaining process) between OC Transpo and the Amalgamated Transit Union to have OC Transpo operate as if it was covered by the provincial regulations.

In the meantime the scheduling system could be referred to mediation, the financial issues could go to arbitration, and the buses could go back into service.

Health Minister Says Retailers Should Not Care About Customers Health

According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen Health Minister Tony Clement thinks retailers should not be concerned about the health and safety of their customers and should decide what to sell only on the basis of what people will buy.

Health Minister Tony Clement said yesterday there's no need for retailers to assume the role of regulator when it comes to deciding which products are safe for sale in Canada -- just as two more giant retailers pulled all plastic products with bisphenol A from their shelves.
...

"Retailers make their own decisions, based upon what they think will sell and won't sell, so I'm not going to tell them how to run their businesses. I'm concerned about the health and safety of Canadians, and when we have something to announce, we'll announce it," said Mr. Clement.

He added Health Canada decides whether a product is safe for use or if it should be banned.

These companies are "saying to others that the market for these (BPA) products is drying up pretty quickly. So listen, if it's a market-based decision, that's for them to make. If it's health and safety, of course, Health Canada has to protect the health and safety of Canadians," Mr. Clement said.

The Minister seems to believe that the only responsibility retailers have is to maximize their profits and that only Big Brother Health Canada has a responsibility for the health of Canadians.

We would be a sad and unhealthy society if we all thought that way. But, of course, we don’t. Would the minister have parents buy dangerous and unhealthy toys for their children just because they are allowed to be sold. I suppose he would, because he believes retailers should sell goods they consider dangerous, unless and until Health Canada decides they should not.

Fortunately there are retailers who believe maximizing profit is not the only thing and choose their products considering such things as the health and safety of their customers. In the case of polycarbonate bottles containing bisphenol A Mountain Equipment Co-Op (MEC) was the first Canadian retailer to stop selling the product out of concern for the health of it’s members and customers. MEC, of course, has a reputation for putting the needs and the well-being of its members and customers first.

This is a good thing Mr. Clement. Remember you are the Minister of Health, not the Minister of Unbridled Capitalism.

The Two Issues in the Chalk River Nuclear Safety/Radioisotopes Affair

Stephen Harper is starting to remind me of Larry O’Brien. They both seem to have no concept of the role of government and public policy beyond the Do What I Say I’m the Boss School of Leadership.

There are two issues involved in the Chalk River nuclear safety/radioisotopes affair.

The second issue is whether Parliament should have passed legislation requiring restarting of the reactor. What Parliament essentially said was that the shortage of radioisotopes justified lowering the normal safety standards for the reactor. It is Parliament’s role to balance competing interests. While many of us disagreed with the legislation, it was within Parliaments role.

The first issue is whether the government should have attempted to influence and intimidate Linda Keen and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission into not doing their job and then fire her for doing her job.

The government claims she was fired for lack of leadership. If Linda Keen has demonstrated anything it is leadership. The government may not have like the leadership she provided but it is ludicrous to suggest she did not provide leadership.

It is the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to set and enforce safety standards in the nuclear industry. That is what they did in the case of the Chalk River reactor. When Atomic Energy of Canada Limited failed to do required safety upgrades the Commission it did it’s job and ordered the reactor shut down. It is not the role of the Commission to let outside factors or interests influence it’s decisions. Indeed it would be derelict in it’s duty if it let outside interests, or political intimidation, influence it’s decision-making.

If anyone lacks leadership it is Stephen Harper who does not understand the difference between leadership and intimidation.

Just Say “No”

House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 142 NUMBER 036 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007

[English]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that this side of the House did its duty last night.

[Translation]

Since the Chalk River reactor will now be restarted, can the Minister of Health guarantee that Canadian patients will be the first to benefit from the isotopes produced, before the international markets are supplied?

[English]

Would the minister guarantee that worried Canadians will not be waiting in line for isotopes while other foreign contracts for AECL are fulfilled?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, each hospital and each clinic has a contract that is sometimes with Nordion, AECL or with another supplier. Those contracts would be honoured.

At this time in the House, I want to give our thanks to the medical oncologists and the nuclear medicine specialists who have worked day and night across this country to ensure this particular situation did not create a medical crisis. I think they deserve all of our applause for doing so.

If the answer is “no” just say so. Don’t try to confuse everyone with bafflegab just because you know the Canadian public will not be happy with your answer that translates to “despite the fact that we are putting Canadian lives at risk we are not going to give Canadians priority access to the isotopes produced while this reactor operates in an unsafe manner unapproved by the nuclear safety regulator”.


PS : I wonder how much this had to do with the government’s decision

Don’t Fuck Around With Nuclear Safety

Sometimes an “expletive” is required and this is one of those times.

A Three-Mile-Island-type of nuclear accident could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system, capable of withstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes, is installed, according to an assessment by the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It is “essential” that the safety equipment be installed on two crucial pumps before the reactor, which makes more than half the world's nuclear medicines, is restarted, Linda Keen wrote in a blunt letter to two federal government ministers.

It is frightening that we were placed at risk because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited simply ignored safety directives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who discovered the fact in a routine inspection.

The situation is all the more worrisome because the country's nuclear regulator specifically ordered AECL more than a year ago to take extra safety precautions if it wanted to continue operating the aging NRU.

But there's more at stake than isotopes.

The technical competency of an industry trying hard to win back public confidence is being questioned, as is public safety, national security and the reputation of a company whose message to Canadians has consistently been: "Trust us."

Yet AECL not only failed to install a key piece of safety equipment on the National Research Universal (NRU), Canada's oldest nuclear reactor. When its mistake was discovered, it matter-of-factly camouflaged it in a Dec. 4 press release as little more than a routine maintenance issue.

In fact, an important safety repair had not been made.

On Nov. 19, a day after what was supposed to be a routine five-day shutdown, safety inspectors with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) discovered a significant and mandated safety upgrade -- connecting two heavy water pumps to an emergency power supply -- had not been done.

It is even more frightening that the government, with the support of all parties, is going to put Canadians back at risk.

The emergency legislation introduced by the Conservatives, which would allow AECL to start the reactor immediately and run it for 120 days, was passed unanimously by all parties after four hours of civilized debate.

As an NDP supporter it troubles me that the only party to oppose this was the Green Party. The NDP should be ashamed.

The Prime Minister has disgraced himself by accusing the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting Canadians safety with “obstruction” for doing it’s job.

"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be … is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."

The operator of the Chalk River reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., had said it expected the plant to be up and running by the middle of this month, but the safety commission was refusing to allow it to restart production until it resolved a host of safety issues.

So it appears that all we have to protect us from a nuclear melt down is the Prime Minister’s word that it can’t happen here.


References:

Globe and Mail: Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog

National Post; Emergency bill to resume isotope production off to Senate

Ottawa Citizen: The major safety snafu behind the isotope shortage

CBC: MPs pass bill to restart urgent isotope production

CBC: Green Leader May slams Tories' handling of isotope shortage

Why I Like Bike Lanes

The first thing I should make clear is that I am not a hardcore roadie or commuter. I am more of a recreational cyclist who, when not riding dirt trails on my mountain bike, prefers to ride dedicated pathways on my hybrid. That being said, I still have occasion to ride on the roads and when I do I try to act as a vehicle following the same rules of the road.

I realize that many cyclists, as well as Citizens for Safe Cycling, are not big fans of bike lanes.

One of the reasons I am a fan of bike lanes is because, like it or not, bicycles and cars are not equal on the road. For one thing cars are faster, larger and heavier, and more importantly can do much more damage than bicycles. Read that to mean they can kill people.

Bicycles are also not equal legally and are required to move to the right to allow motor vehicles (and horses) to pass. The Highway Traffic Act states:

“Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).”

Sharing the same roadway may be fine in theory but can be very scary in practice. I really appreciated having dedicated bike lanes when I was travelling down Hunt Club Road in heavy traffic with cars and big trucks whizzing past me at high speeds within one or two feet of me. However because I was in a dedicated lane, so that both myself as a cyclist as well as the car drivers had our own clearly dedicated space, I felt safe.

On the other hand travelling over the Queensway on Moodie Drive while it is under construction and the bike lanes are removed is a lot scarier than taking the same route with the bike lanes.

I realize that bike lanes are not perfect. My biggest complaint about bike lanes is when they disappear at intersections, creating a situation that can create real havoc as cyclists are almost pushed off the road where four directions and multiple lanes of traffic are converging. But let us fix the design problems, not eliminate bike lanes.

If we want more people to cycle we have to make it comfortable for them to cycle. While hardcore roadies and commuters may feel comfortable fighting with automobiles for a piece of the road, the average person we are trying to convince to use their bike instead of their car will be scared off of the road unless we make them feel safe on the road. In my humble opinion, dedicated bike lanes are an important way of making riding on the road safer for the average cyclist.

The Danger of “Stranger Danger”

Stranger Danger is rearing it’s ugly head again as A-Channel NEWS airs a three part series Oct. 24, 25, 26, 2007.


Once again we are focusing on a minuscule threat and avoiding the real issues.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children states:

Is "stranger danger"—that dangers to kids come from strangers—really a myth?

Yes. In the majority of cases, the perpetrator is someone the parents or child knows, and that person may be in a position of trust or responsibility to the child and family.

We have learned that children do not have the same understanding of who a stranger is as an adult might; therefore, it is a difficult concept for the child to grasp. It is much more beneficial to children to help them build the confidence and self-esteem they need to stay as safe as possible in any potentially dangerous situation they encounter rather than teaching them to be "on the look out" for a particular type of person.

For decades, parents, guardians, and teachers have told children to "stay away from strangers" in an effort to keep them safe. In response to the on-going debate about the effectiveness of such programs, NCMEC released the research-based Guidelines for Programs to Reduce Child Victimization: A Resource for Communities When Choosing a Program to Teach Personal Safety to Children to assist schools as they select curricula aimed at reducing crimes against children.

The Missing Children's Network Canada states:

The Stranger-Danger Myth

Did you know that the majority of abductions and aggressions against children are committed by someone the child knows and trusts?

The Missing Children's Network has removed the use of the term "stranger" from its safety literature for the following reasons:

# It just doesn't work! Children need a clear and concise description in order to be able to properly recognize a stranger in their neighbourhood.

# Adults often send contradictory messages when saying "Don't talk to strangers!" When we walk on the street, how often do we tell our children to say hello to people who are walking by?

# In case of emergency, children may need to ask help from someone they don't necessarily know or have never met. Children need to be reassured that most people are well-intentioned and sincerely care about them.

For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you constantly reinforce the following fundamental principle:

Your child always has the right to say NO! to anyone including family members, neighbors, close friends, teachers, coaches or in any situation that leaves him feeling afraid, uncomfortable or confused. If at any time he finds himself in these circumstances, he must say NO!, get away from the situation and immediately confide in an adult whom he trusts.

So why do the media continue to pound away at this myth. Probably for the same reason discrimination and racism exists - it is far easier to see people we do not know and understand as being dangerous than those we have been taught to trust, who are a much greater risk to our children.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that we actually live in very safe communities in a very safe country (where crime rates are declining but crime reporting by the media is increasing), we live in an age of fear. We do not let our children walk even a few blocks to school. In the past it was children that used to be afraid of the bogeyman. Now we live in a society that is afraid of the bogeyman.

We develop many of our attitudes in life at an early stage. If we teach our children to needlessly fear strangers what will that do their social development. What will that do to their ability to trust others and build communities together.

I prefer to think of a stranger as a friend I have not met yet.

Should Bicycle Helmets be Mandatory

This column was inspired by a discussion on MTB Kanata

Whenever I see someone on a bike without a helmet, whether on the trails or the road, no matter how expensive or fancy the bike might be, I always assume the rider is not a serious cyclist, because a serious cyclist would be wearing a helmet.

So should we be legislating common sense and requiring everyone to wear a helmet by law. I think we can all agree that legislation on it’s own is not the answer. We simply do not have the enforcement resources. Public education and changing attitudes is always the best answer. That is ultimately what reduced impaired driving, though increased sentences, as a sign that society’s attitudes had changed, was a big part of that.

However legislation can be an important part of a public education campaign. The example of seat belts is an excellent example of how that works. We have mandatory seat belt laws. The police do not devote extensive resources to enforcement but occasionally do blitzes as part of the public education campaign. We see these less and less as public attitudes have changed and we now have extremely high seat belt usage in Canada as a result of this combination of legislation and public education. This is how mandatory bicycle helmet legislation would work.

One of the biggest ant-helmet law argument is the individualist argument, or the right to be stupid it does not affect you argument. We live in a country with a social contract. This is not the capitalistic individualist United States. We have Canadian values that include caring about each other. But we also have a much more practical stake. We all contribute to a publicly funded universal health care system - and opting out is not an option. So we all have a practical stake in preventing needless deaths and injuries. As cyclists we also have a stake in keeping injuries down to avoid excuses to put restrictions on cycling. Mountain bikers, in particular, know the impact concerns about injuries and liability have on trail access.

Some have suggested we only have legislation for children, which is what we have now and it is not enforced and completely ineffective. The main reason it is not effective is because it is hypocritical. Children and young people do not respond well to hypocrisy. It is like the parents you see on the trails or paths everyday telling their children “don’t worry you only have to wear your helmet now when I’m watching, when you get older like me you won’t have to wear a stupid helmet”, which is what they are telling their children when they go out riding with their children and do not wear a helmet themselves. We teach best by example, and worst by hypocrisy. That is why we see so many young people, for some reason mostly girls, riding their bikes with their helmets dangling from their handlebars.

A huge part of public education in today’s society is the influence of role models. This is what started the discussion on MTB Kanata. Stunt riders performing at the Tour Nortel, ironically a fund raiser for the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), were doing dangerous stunts without wearing helmets, setting the worst example you could find (unless the idea was to create future business for the hospitals head and brain injury wards). Yes, I’m shaking my head too. There was actually controversy about whether this was a bad idea with the suggestion if children follow the example of their heroes and get injured it is their own fault for being stupid and having parents that raised them to be “morons”.

Children, and adults too, are highly influenced by role models, their heroes, particularly in today’s mass media society. I remember seeing a photo of Lance Armstrong riding without a helmet in the Tour de France. It was explained to me that, while helmet use is mandatory during most of “The Tour” at certain stages it is not (apparently because the risk is less at those stages). This just sends mixed messages, particularly when you have photos of the world’s number one cycling hero riding without a helmet. If everyone always wears a helmet you would have a level playing field and you would be sending a message that hard core riders always wear their helmets, rather than the message that they do not, leaving children wanting to imitate their heroes, such as the helmetless riders at the children’s hospital fundraiser.

So if public education is the answer who should be doing the education. Public authorities such as schools certainly have a role to play, and the probably are not doing enough. You would also expect an organization that calls itself Citizens for Safe Cycling (CFSC) to perform that role. While CFSC does do rider safety training, their main emphasis, when it comes to helmet use, is to mount an extensive campaign against mandatory helmet laws while paying lip service to the benefits of wearing a helmet. Their position on bike lanes, that I and many other cyclists agree provide a safer and much less scary riding experience, is also really perplexing.

CFSC, and others, argue that requiring people to wear helmets will deter people from riding because of the helmet costs. Helmets meeting safety standards can be purchased for $20. They also argue that it will scare people away from cycling because they will think it is dangerous. Would anyone argue that young (or old) hockey players should not be required to wear safety equipment because it might scare them away from the sport. The fact is cycling does have risks, but learning how to cycle safely and wearing a helmet will make it a relatively safe activity. That is what should be promoted, not underplaying the risks to encourage people to cycle.

Read more about CFSC policies.

Then there is the “I only wear my helmet when it is dangerous” argument. I can remember an experience riding on a relatively tame trail (Old Quarry) with a much more experience hard core rider than me and he crashed on this easy trail. Of course he was wearing a helmet. We tend to concentrate more on the dangerous stuff and less on the easy stuff, which actually balances out the risk. You cannot predict when you are going to need your helmet to protect you.

One of the best reasons to always wear your helmet because if you do you will always have it on when you need it. Developing a habit is the best way to avoid forgetting to wear it when you need it. Let me tell you a story about a rider who always wears his helmet, except that he decided he did not need it riding his trainer in the basement over the winter. On the way back from his first ride of the season on his mountain this helmet use proselytizer discovered he was not wearing his helmet. Luckily I did not need it on that ride.