News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

After several days with less-than-bikeable conditions, today I was finally able to commute by bike again, and on the way back along Danforth I happened to see a strange case of road rage, where a white car pulled over to the side (between the car lane & bike lane), then proceeded to accelerate and merge right behind a red car that passed it, and proceeded to tailgate it and constantly honk at it. I have no idea what beef the white car had with the red car, but I sure as hell would be pissed and agitated if I were driving that red car. Thank goodness this whole fiasco wasn't directed at me, and I got to watch the drama unfold from the safety of the bike lane.

Edit: just came across this "stellar" rant and had to share.
 
Last edited:
Interesting opinion piece from Martin Regg Cohn in the Star.

"Interesting" is one word for it. Bad faith, lazy, misinformed are a few more.

He takes great pains to negate bike couriers as a valid use group for these lanes. In one breath he acknowledges that they are an exploited and marginalized group (which at least in some cases is true) and then goes on to devalue their safe passage in bike lanes.

Are couriers the only users of bike lanes? Of course not. Many lanes throughout the city are busy, most days and most months of the year. There are reams of data showing the increase in cycling along corridors that have built well connected and protected lanes. Mr. Cohn wants to ignore all that in favour of his coy tip of the hat to Doug Ford (even as he tells us to disregard our feelings about him).

He is clearly not a real cyclist, fair weather or not. Like the classic "avid cyclist" in the comments section, he is using the fact he sometimes rides a bike to bolster his harmful claims that will, if accepted, lead to fewer bike lanes and a more dangerous city for all.
 
I found the article bias/lazy. The talk about bicycle lanes on Yonge/Bloor/University where there is a subway line underneath? We spent billions in taxpayer money for those lines, if anything that very reason should accommodate bike lanes on those streets. If we are concerned about tax dollars, bike lanes require less maintenance as cars are not driving on them.

Where are the masses of cyclists supposed to come from if we don't build bike lanes? To be real, this is the first summer where we had a half-decent protected network (for however long that lasts) so it only from next year forward that we can judge how much of a cycling city Toronto is/will be. Even then, the next round of condos (whenever they will be built) will have next to no parking and a ton of bicycle parking. The critical masses will come.

We haven't gotten any snow in downtown until right now. Even this snow has melted quickly. November, December and half of January were easily bikeable minus the rainy days.
 
The valet Bike Share stand at Bay and King still gets many bikes every day. Even today, when the windchill was -15 at 8 a.m., there are a few dozen. It's hundreds when the weather is nicer.

This part was particularly weird:

They believed that if you build it, they will bike.

Yet the cyclists have not come — not in numbers that would justify the resources in urban planning, municipal spending and provincial bandwidth.

They have actually come in large numbers! In only a few years of building proper protected lanes, and without much of a network in place. And the resources spent on it are tiny in proportion to the resources spent on driving.
 
TBF cycling advocates have a constantly moving goal post of well the lane is not successful because there aren't enough
It's not moving goal posts. That's always the case, even when you are starting from scratch. Whether it's transit or bike lanes, to reach the maximum usage you need a network (for obvious reasons). For the same reason, not all bike lanes will get high usage (outskirts of the network).
 
Sometimes car lanes are pretty empty. Must be a waste of space. Let's get rid of them.
His view is that you have to devote resources only to the biggest group of users on any corridor. We have to get rid of bike lanes because more people on those streets are using cars.

Ergo, we should also get rid of car lanes on Yonge, Bloor and University because more people use the subway. Bay St (and many other streets) should be pedestrian only because more walkers than drivers use them.

Obviously streets should only accommodate one type of use.
 
It's not moving goal posts. That's always the case, even when you are starting from scratch. Whether it's transit or bike lanes, to reach the maximum usage you need a network (for obvious reasons). For the same reason, not all bike lanes will get high usage (outskirts of the network).
Does the city have numbers for university? I think it's probably the best done section in the city.

I remember during the covid peak when pretty much everything was closed or illegal the daily volume was ~500 per direction?
Though I don't think it's grown substantially or even dropped since then from my own experience

The fact is that cycling is growing pretty rapidly, despite inadequate infrastructure.
Based off what numbers? The most common source I see is bike share.
My beef was that the bloor *extensions* didn't really grow usage above the initial modest jump (and extra 100-250 people a day)
 
Interesting opinion piece from Martin Regg Cohn in the Star.

A rebuttal: https://spacing.ca/toronto/2025/01/16/op-ed-taking-another-look-at-whos-using-bike-lanes/
 

Back
Top