Take the Lane

Crap, I hate when a deadline sneaks up on me

When I posted back in December on the Ontario call for submissions on its proposed cycling draft policy, I thought I had a lot of time to respond.

Then there was Christmas (busy, busy), got sick (oh great), went on holidays (yeah, Mexico), got sick again (some flu shot that was) and just looked up to realize that TODAY (Tuesday, Jan. 29) is the deadline for filing.

Yes, between drinking tea and chewing on Vitamin C tabs and popping zinc pills, I am scribbling out some thoughts on bike lanes, Idaho stops and helmet laws. You still have time to respond, too, if you feel so inclined. To all of you who have already responded, thank you, and I feel rightly ashamed.

Ontario wants your input on its draft cycling strategy

If you want to say anything about the Ontario Ministry of Transportation draft cycling strategy, you've got 60 days to do so.

The Ministry is among several provincial agencies that has had something to say about cycling in Ontario. The office of the Chief Coroner this summer released a cycling death review that had a lot to say to various ministries and governments about cycling safety. The Ontario Medical Association weighed in last year with its Enhancing Cycling Safety in Ontario, and various agencies of public health have contributed their thoughts about active lifestyles.

But this is the big one. The Ministry of Transportation actually designates money that builds things: whether that's paved, segregated bicycle lanes or bicycle storage at public transit facilities. And the ministry sets the tone for every new driver who is licensed in Ontario. If you want Ontario drivers to be trained to share the road, you have to have the Ministry of Transportation on side.

So really, you should read the draft strategy and offer your comments. And don't delay. Sixty days have a way of running out. In fact, if you are reading this on Saturday: only 59 days left.

You've probably read something about the draft strategy elsewhere. To recap, the strategy is looking at: better cycling infrastructure through a provincial cycling network, and through provincial support (cash, advice, policy) of municipally authorized cycling networks; better cycling safety, through education for cyclists and drivers and updates to the (incredibly outdated) Highway Traffic Act; and better overwatch, through monitoring and co-ordination (which sounds like a bonanza for consultants, but really does have a bearing on how improvements are made).

It is interesting that two recommendations of the Chief Coroner's report, made specifically to the Ministry of Transportation, are not in any way addressed in the draft strategy:

First, no mention of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation -- which really stirred up the beehive when it was suggested back in June of this year.

Second, no mention of the one-metre/three-foot passing law, which has been the subject of one private member's bill and many lobbying attempts. It appears that it continues to go nowhere fast.

Neither does the draft cycling strategy address the question of e-bikes. There has been a lot of energy generated about e-bikes, whether police are enforcing the law, whether the law is clear enough, whether e-bike users should be required to be licensed. Other than defining what an e-bike is and where it can be used, no discussion of the e-bike's future.

Of course, there are 60 days to discuss all of this. Go to the website, read the draft strategy and press the button to submit your responses.

The Cycling Dead: Zombies don't use bike helmets, why should you?

I think I've found the most compelling argument against wearing bicycle helmets: Zombies don't wear them.

You'd think that the undead would take the most basic precautions to avoid being dead again, and yet there they are, shambling around without protection for that vital brain case. Clearly they have made this decision because the wearing of bicycle helmets is an intrusion on their personal space, an infringement on their right to choose and finally, few bicycle helmets come in the appropriate zombie colours.

If it's good enough for the zombie apocalypse, it's good enough for the cycling apocalypse. Join the undead.

(Photographic evidence of widespread zombie adoption of head protection is welcome, should anyone wish to contradict this premise. Sporadic helmet use by zombies should not be considered an indication of a widespread trend or an indication of a clearly considered choice intended to extend their unlives.)

Lower speed limits are in our future

Way back in 2010, while at Velo-city Global 2010 in Copenhagen, I posted on a presentation from John Whitelegg, a prof in transportation studies from John Moores University in Liverpool.

The post was titled "Are lower urban speed limits in our future?", based on his research showing that 95 per cent of peds and cyclists will survive being hit by objects travelling at a speed of 32 km/h or less, while fully 55 per cent won't survive being struck at 48 km/h or faster.

So, of course, it was with interest that I read the reportage on the recent Ontario coroner's report on pedestrian deaths in Ontario. While the coroner's Report on Cycling Deaths (released in June, go here for both reports) made virtually no mention of speed limits, the attention on the Pedestrian Death Review seemed to be entirely about the speed limits.

In fact, that was one recommendation of many. Here's the recommendation: "The MTO should amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow local municipalities to lower the unsigned default speed limit to 40 kilometres an hour on residential streets from the current limit of 50 kilometres an hour." (It was later elaborated to indicate that speed limits on residential streets should be reduced to 30 km/h while all other municipal streets should be 40 km/h.)

There were lots of other recommendations: that Ontario communities should adopt a "complete streets" approach to planning and redevelopment (a recommendation that also was the first item in the cycling deaths review); that the province should develop a walking strategy; that side guards be manadatory on transport trucks (also in the cycling deaths review); that the Driver's Handbook be updated to reflect the new realities (also in the cycling review); and that there be publlic education and police education and enforcement (also in the cycling review).

You could view both reports as convergent (the exceptions being the speed limits, mentioned only in the pedestrian review, and the three-foot passing law and mandatory helmets, mentioned only in the cycling review).

I think you can read a few things from both reviews:

One is that complete streets is the way of the future for municipal planning. No surprise since it is already happening at the grassroots level. Eventually, the provincial funding agencies will respond.

Another is that truck side guards are going to happen. They are already happening ... you can see examples on the major highways every day.

And another is lower speed limits. Not one of the "convergent" items, but cyclist and pedestrian advocates have been talking about lower limits for years. It fits with the complete streets planning model and is the logical way to reduce insurance costs, health funding, and energy consumption. Every roadway innovation of recent years -- traffic calming, roundabouts, community safety zones -- has been intended to reduce speed limits in the urban/suburban setting.

Lower speed limits are in our future and that can only be good news for cyclists.

There could be an e-bike in your future

I've been watching the growth of the e-bike community with interest. There's a lot of controversy, especially because so many North American e-bike owners flagrantly disregard the regulations that permit them to treat e-bikes like bicycles (no licensing, no insurance, yet can ride on most thoroughfares). Principal among them is the disabling of the pedals, with No. 2 being riding on sidewalks.

You don't have to go far to find stories about support for changing the regs, to require e-bike operators to take lessons, be tested and have a separate licensing structure.

I think that would be a huge mistake. Frankly, the arguments for licensing e-bikes are just about the same as the arguments for licensing bicycles, and I don't think there are many cyclists who want to go down that road. If you are a commited cyclist who doesn't want to see more bicycle regulation, you would be wise to argue for education of riders and enforcement by police of the existing regulations.

I have heard enough from police who allege that they don't know how to treat e-bikes, from an enforcement perspective, to suspect that they are only too willing to side with the testing-licensing factions (because they are too lazy to read the new regs?). If you have any contact with your local police force (through your bicycle advisory committee, your local police force, your brother-in-law's uncle), use it to argue for enforcement of the existing regs: Just read the MTO FAQ. It's not rocket science.

Anyway, it was with interest that I surveyed the e-bike offerings as ExpoCycle in Toronto on the weekend.

I saw about six booths dealing with e-bikes, with most of the offerings looking like bikes with battery packs, rather than the scooter-like clones that seem to be so popular (probably because they are structured to carry two riders).

Most of the e-bikes offered at ExpoCycle were the conventional hub-drive bikes. Pedego was the one I took the closest look at. Co-owner Terry Sherry was happy to talk about the vehicle he is confident will revolutionize urban transport (and Greg Moore, of Toronto's ezriders, which sells Pedego, would happily offer you a test ride).

(Above, a Pedego. The focus is on cruiser styling with lots of colour options.)

Sherry says that the average age of Pedego buyers is 59. "These are people who getting out and having fun again. These bikes open up the world to them again. You can watch them go from 55 to 15 (years of age) in a turn of the wrist" because terrain that was too daunting to them before, is now manageable. While he sees his main market now as the Baby Boomer, "gas costs will be the tipping point."

The people at Vancouver-based Epik cycles are focused on e-bikes with more of an urban, street vibe. And they are commited to the crank-case point of contact for the e-assist. The lower centre of gravity provides better control, they say, and ease of movement.

The pedElec system crankcase mechanics mean there is no drag on the wheel when freewheeling, as there can be with hub-mounted systems. The Epiks look darn nice, too. Epik reps weren't saying how many bikes they were selling, but said they are very happy with how they are selling in Vancouver. Anyone who has ridden the varying terrain in that city can understand why an e-bike might be desirable.

Police reporting in Fogolin cycling crash not up to standard

More news about cycle coach Frank Fogolin of Kitchener and his injuries from Sunday's crash are on the Record website.

What surprises me in all this is how lightly his injuries were treated by Waterloo Region Police Service.

There was not a major incident report released to any of the local media after the event on Sunday, when Fogolin was knocked down from behind and taken to hospital. In fact, it took a Facebook message from one of his cycling students, Olympian Leigh Hobson, to let anyone know that this had happened.

When I first asked questions about this earlier this week, I was told there was no report, and perhaps the incident had happened outside the Waterloo Region. Later, when I got the actual location from Hobson (on Ira Needles Boulevard in Waterloo), WRPS came up with a report. But even that report fell short of the reality of the case.

I posted on the incident on Wednesday, based on what I had learned from the police and Hobson, but the major media had to depend solely on the police report which said that Fogolin had received minor injuries and had been taken to hospital, held overnight for observation and released.

Clearly, the injuries weren't minor. The guy was knocked unconscious, had a bleed to the brain, has had part of his memory wiped and will be in rehab for months. This is minor?

And clearly, he is still in hospital and will stay there for some time. If this is the standard for police report-taking, how many cases can be thrown out of court because the reporting officer did a slipshod job?

 

The Invisible Bicycle Helmet

This film titled The Invisible Bicycle Helmet shows what a little thinking-outside-the-box (and seven years of data collection) can come up with.

Why are unused rail lines left to be wheel traps for cyclists?

It is mighty irritating that the 40-something cyclist who died in Toronto on Monday (see Star story here) fell because his wheel was jammed into disused street car tracks.

According to the Star item, the tracks hadn't been used since the 1980s. Basically, they've been sitting there for nearly 30 years waiting for someone to make a wrong move.

This guy did make a wrong move, went down hard and hit his head. He was essentially dead at the scene. Much will be made, I suspect, of the fact that we wasn't wearing a helmet. I'm all for protective equipment (I wear a helmet), but the protective equipment argument can be taken to extremes. Should everyone going to a nightclub wear Kevlar vests, or should we just search patrons for handguns?

Should we all wear helmets, or should we make the roadway environment safe for users? Riding Toronto streets where there are a lot of streetcar tracks is a real obstacle course. I try to cross rail lines at a 90-degree angle, but in some downtown areas of Toronto, a rider would have to have the handlebars in constant motion to weave through the labyrinth of lines.

Perhaps riders should stay clear of the worst areas. Perhaps the city should look to "deactivate" unused rail lines, so they aren't a hazard.

 

 

Anti-cycling message from host city's newspaper must sting Velo-city Global

It was a bit depressing to read this anti-cycling lead editorial in the Vancouver Province on my last day in British Columbia, following Velo-city Global 2012.

Vancouver, after all was the host city for the world cycling advocacy conference. And Vancouver has been setting a high bar for cycle friendliness. So the anonymous and half-formed opinions about the helmet stance of Dutch cyclist Hans Voerknecht "and all the other true believers" that topped the editorial page on Friday were a bit of a surprise.

You would assume that the Velo-city organizers must have felt a bit unwelcome, especially coming on the last day. "Oh, thanks for coming from around the world and spending your dollars here. And by the way, you can stuff your ideas."

Perhaps it was written by a German still smarting from the Euro 2012 loss the day before.

Why waste energy on mandatory helmet laws?

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws, like that being proposed by the Ontario coroner in his Cycling Death Review released last week, is just a waste of effort and funds that could be used to make cycling really safer.

That's the majority opinion of some panellist members of the final event of the day today, The Helmet Dialogue, at Velo-city Global 2012.

With more than two dozen events a day, it is unfair to generalize about the popularity of any issue, but I believe that the matter of mandatory helmet laws came up at every plenary and symposium I attended.

When one considers that "safety" and "children" are the over-arching themes of this conference in Vancouver, it might appear contradictory that there seems to be a strong voice here for helmet pro-choice. Aren't helmets all about safety?

Invariably, the cyclists here who speak passionately about the subject, begin with, "I have nothing against people who wear helmets," or "I wear a helmet myself," followed immediately by, "but I don't think helmet use should be legislated." The personal freedom of choice about "to wear or not to wear" seemed to be a major factor.

That was certainly part of the message from Sue Knaup, executive director of the Arizona-based One Street; Dr. Kathi Diethelm, of Pro Velo Switzerland; and Ceri Woolsgrove, policy officer with the European Cyclists' Federation, who were speaking later today on helmets. All agreed that helmet use is a personal choice. Other issues concerned them more, including the amount of time taken talking about helmets.

"The discussions about helmet laws are taking the place of discussions about safer streets," said Knaup, in an open discussion with Take the Lane. "Helmets never prevented a crash. Let's talk about what we can do to prevent crashes."

Knaup and Woolsgrove said that many officials seem to think that helmets are a substitute for good quality safety and training programs. Diethelm added that drivers "like a helmet law because they don't to care about or think as much about the safety of others. The others can take care of themselves."

And if there is an accident, it's a case of "blame the victim," said Diethelm.

All three were concerned that many helmet law discussions were taking place without sufficient objective study. "The data is flawed," said Knaup. "In some cases, tooth injuries are marked (by emergency room staff) as head injuries," said Woolsgrove. "As a mathematician, I get crazy," said Diethelm, who noted that in some instances, data from accidents involving motorcycle riders wearing motorcycle helmets are used to make the case for bicycle helmets.

Even insurance companies, who one might think would do risk-benefit analysis of bicycle injuries, haven't stepped up to the plate, preferring to argue simply for helmet use. If the rider (on a pubic bike share or a charity ride) signs a waiver agreeing to wear a helmet and then is injured while not wearing a helmet, regardless of the nature of the injury, the insurance company can walk away. "It's just laziness," said Diethelm.

What three things would they say to anyone (such as Ontario) considering mandatory helmet laws?

1. Cycing is not a risky activity, and is certainly comparable to being a pedestrian.

2. Helmet laws are making cycling appear to be dangerous, and thus creating impediments to those who might consider cycling. Part two of this is: Mandatory helmet laws are simply the ultimate product promotion, benefiting manufacturers and insurance companies, without making the roads safer.

3. Helmets are not as effective as they are made out to be (usually rated to crash speeds of 20 km/h).

Although helmet discussions can suck the oxygen out of the room, Knaup said that some conversation is necessary because "if we aren't talking about it, the helmet hysteria could wipe out the (cycling) movement. It's worth putting the energy into it."