Take the Lane

A cyclist can make anyone say, "Thank you."

It's easy for a cyclist to make someone say, "Thank you."

All you have to do is, when overtaking someone on a trail or sidewalk, call out that you are about to pass them on the left. Invariably, for me at least, that person or persons will turn and say, "Thank you."

Why? I suspect it is because so few cyclists actually bother to warn anyone that they are coming. That lack of notice is the Number One, El Supremo, Numero Uno reason, as far as I have heard, for pedestrians to be so ticked off with cyclists. I get this in e-mail, letters and casual conversation. So many peds are so angry that they are overtaken by cyclists who startle them when they zip by without any warning.

If you are an unsteady walker, this is a problem. Even if you are totally steady, to have 200 pounds of flesh and metal breeze by you at 25 kilometres per hour can be pretty unsettling.

But you can bridge that divide, and make a trailful of walkers thankful for your presence. Just ring your bell or call out a warning, and see the thanks you get.

Toronto sidewalks are dangerous places

It must be the fine fall weather that is bringing out the cyclists, and the complaints about cyclists.

Jack Lakey of the Toronto Star, who writes The Fixer column, has a lengthy piece on the conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on T.O.'s sidewalks.

Apparently, Lakey has never talked to the police representatives I have talked to. His Toronto contacts seem to suggest the adult riding of bikes on sidewalks is discouraged, while the people I've talked to suggest that enforcement is largely complaint-based, and police would rather see cyclists on sidewalks than on a dangerous or unsafe road.

I can't help but wonder if Lakey should have focused more on courtesy than the legality. If a nanny with a jog stroller had forced a pedestrian to leave the sidewalk, would there be this discussion? Admittedly, being hit by a cart full of kids and groceries might not be as damaging as being hit by a speeding bicycle, but it could be if you were a senior.

Isn't courteous sidewalk behaviour the answer?

After you! No, no, after you!

Here's a matter of cycling etiquette to ponder.

A colleague encountered the following scenario, and although she knows she was in the right, thought she'd ask what the protocol should have been:

She was riding along the Iron Horse Trail (paved bike path) approaching a gate that narrows the access from the trail to the sidewalk along Victoria Street. A male cyclist was crossing Victoria Street heading for the ramp up onto the sidewalk, and then onto the trail. She was exiting the gate as he reached her side of the street thus forcing him to stop. He then protested that she had made him stop. "I was coming across the road," he said, which, she presumed, meant he felt he had the right of way through the gate. Who had the right of way?

I did a casual survey of some cyclists and most favoured the cyclist in the street:

Yvonne Bambrick, of the Toronto Cyclist Union, said that the trail rider should stop because the other cyclist was on an active road and needed an unencumbered entry to the safety of the trail.

Herb van den Dool, of I Bike TO, thought those in minor roads should yield to those in major roads, but in any case, riders should make eye contact and negotiate.

Darren Jenkins, also of I Bike TO, thought that once you are both at the gate, no one has the right of way, but if there can't be a draw, then the cyclist in the street has the edge.

While it would be nice to live in a world where everyone was like the Goofy Gophers Mac and Tosh of the Bugs Bunny Show ("No, no, no, after you"), even cyclists expect a mutual understanding of road and path etiquette to ensure a steady flow. What do you think the protocol should be?

Why don't pedestrians just stay off the sidewalks?

Based on some recent letters to the editor, it's time again for some anger from pedestrians who feel embattled by cyclists who use the sidewalks.

I do feel for them. There is nothing as unsettling for a ped as to have 200 pounds of flesh and metal come barreling at them on a narrow sidewalk, unless of course it's having the same package come barreling up from behind them.

People, use your bells, use your voices. Is it really so hard to say, "Excuse me"?

Of course, someone is bound to remind us that adults are banned by local bylaws from riding on sidewalks. Typically, this is enforced on a complaints basis. Ask any police officer and you'll get the same answer: the police would rather have an adult riding on a sidewalk than on some busy streets. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis. An erratic cyclist on a sidewalk may irritate some pedestrians and may result in a phone complaint. An erratic cyclist on a roadway may be killed in a crash and lead to paperwork, court appearances, trauma to driver and family of the victim and a huge impact on the community.

But we could consider a paradigm shift: force all the pedestrians on to the streets and let the cyclists have the sidewalks. That way, cyclists could go as fast as they like without offending the walkers, and the presence on the roads of people with shopping carts, old folks with walkers, moms with their job-strollers and wee children who are wobbling around on their training-wheel-equipped kiddie bikes will force motorists to slow down to the speed limits.

They would slow down, wouldn't they?

Sidewalk cycling #2

John Boldt of Waterloo wrote me an e-mail that not every road is a safe one for cyclists. His bicycle commute takes him down Bridgeport Road during rush hour, so he uses the sidewalk for safety reasons.
He wrote that, "Although the portion of Bridgeport nearing King has a bike lane, I don't believe that our culture is mature enough to respect its use and have seen cars half way in as the driver performed some other task. (dog, phone, coffee, etc.) . . . I advocate sidewalks to all cyclists -- as long as if a pedestrian is encountered, they are given a ding from the bell if coming from behind and a smile and ample space if approaching."
I see his point, and understand that some riders would rather not have a close encounter of the worst kind on a roadway.
But, if a bicycle is a means of transportation (to school, to work, to the doctor's office) then I worry about perceptions about the use of this vital transportation tool. Not every route has sidewalks. Not every road has a bike lane. What every road has is a road surface -- a road surface that can be shared.
I am happy to see more riders on bicycles, whether on the road or the sidewalk. But I don't think the great accommodation should be between pedestrians and cyclists on the niceties of sharing the sidewalk. Our future lies in a partnership between cyclists and motorists, on sharing the road.

(So many people are responding by e-mail, it occurs to me that many must not be comfortable using the comment field. If you feel that way, send your comments to bbean@therecord.com.)

Sidewalk cycling

Gerry Strauss of Kitchener has a few suggestions for nominees for Moron of the Week: the people who ride on sidewalks along Ottawa Street.
"They don't wear helmets, they don't have lights, they don't have bells. There's an extra wide boulevard and they expect me to move over and walk on the grass. One kid at night was dressed all in black." Strauss says that he watched one day as a cyclist knocked over a woman who was leaving a bus shelter, and kept riding without a backward glance.
I understand why cyclists might choose to use sidewalks over roads. It is illegal, but the perception that the sidewalk is safer than the road may trump bylaws, and in fact, most riders know they are unlikely to be charged, unless they knock over a pedestrian.
But if cyclists don't extend the simple courtesies -- a bell or a yell announcing their presence or slowing down when overtaking slower-moving sidewalk users -- who would blame a pedestrian for sticking a cane into their spokes when passing?
More people are walking these days. Will sidewalks become a battlefield between peds and riders?