spunkyj

I am left fuming after reading this article. I really want to respond, but where to begin?

https://www.wheels.ca/news/carte-blan...ds-death-trap/

genec

And here is the classic clueless response made by someone...

spunkyj

The article is really really bad. Bordering on downright bigotry in cases. Jim Kenzie even refers to cycling advocacy as whining.

He also propagates myths and misinformation: Cyclists can't control their bikes. Cyclists don't have good brakes. He personally knows three cyclists who have been killed, so therefore cycling is disproportionately dangerous.

The whole attitude of his article is that bikes don't belong on the road, and goes as far as suggesting that the road designer be jailed for having cyclists "take the lane" on a narrow and windy downhill.

eja_ bottecchia

I have mixed feelings about the article. OTOH I don't like reading articles that perpetuate the old misconception that cyclists don't belong on the road. That's pure crap.

On the other hand, a great deal of cyclists (a LOT of cyclists) lack the skill, the physical ability and the properly maintained equipment to safely ride a bike on the public roads. The crap I've seen cyclists pull out on the road scares me (for their safety). Let's face it, just like a lot of drivers don't beling behind the wheel of a vehicle, a lot of cyclists likewise don't belong on a bike saddle.

Although the article's general premise is flawed, I don't think that the writer comes from a bad place. I know how he feels--I have two grown daughters who live and commute by bike in San Francisco. (I have bought very nice cars for both of them, but they still love cycling, I guess that's my fault.) Sometimes, when I think about them negotiating traffic up and down the hills of SF I break into a cold sweat.

Let's not demonize the writer and instead focus on what we can do to make the roads better and safer for everyone.

Chevy vs. Schwinn the Chevy wins 99.9% of the time.

Please be safe.

dynodonn 

Nice roadway setup, signage and protected lane and all. The author in the OP article can ***** all he wants, but it seems that cyclists have/had a friend in the D.O.T.

I like our latest sharrow install, letting me better take the lane, plus it calms motorists' overall speed. One section of the sharrow was repaved, signage temporarily removed, and it was nothing but trouble from a number of motorists in that section of roadway,until it was repainted.

silmarillion

Like many op-ed articles it starts off okay, but the author lost me here....

My guess is that cyclists themselves share some of the blame. They have been begging, whining, for years to have more bike lanes installed on Toronto streets, never mind that their usage is so minimal, especially for half the year, that it’s a colossal waste of scarce public resources. But they got their wish here.

Makes more sense to restrict cyclists so drivers can fly down the road maybe?

I know what you are saying eja about demonizing the author, but when an author takes a piece of writing and turns it against cyclists by name calling himself...he kind of opens the door for hostile rebuttal.

CommuteCommando

Methinks this writer hasn't ridden a bike since he was a child. Most regular cyclists, like the ones who would use such share-lanes, are pretty skilled using the brakes, and can slow as fast, if not more so, going down a hill like that.

CommuteCommando

Reminds me of something from this earlier thread. https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-Hate-Cyclists . Especially the part about the "affect heuristic". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_heuristic

dougmc

Heh.

I guess that analogy would work well if the roads were a boxing ring and participants were all expected to duke it out. In reality ... not so much.

charbucks

I like how he even admits
And then goes on to say it's the cyclists who don't belong on the road...

jjamesstrk

Seems to ignore the motorist responsibility not to kill people.

spunkyj

I disagree. I think it is clear that Jim Kenzie harbors resentment toward cyclists in general, and the only solution he will be happy with is if they are banned from the road altogether. He refers to bike lane infrastructure in Toronto as poorly used (which is just so so wrong--sometimes the lanes here are overflowing with cyclists), and a "colossal waste of resources". So obviously he isn't concerned with making cyclists safer through better infrastructure. He just wants them off the road, and is using safety as a rationalization. He may have convinced himself he is "coming from a good place", like many self-righteous bigots out there, but I think most of what he says comes from a very very bad place.

Given that cyclists are not going to be banned from the road, what purpose doe Jim Kenzie's article serve other than to enrage motorists over the simple presence of cyclists on "their" roads. Enraged motorists make cyclists less safe due to more aggressive driving. Kenzie states he has a daughter that cycles. I hope his article doesn't get her killed.

nelson249

Kenzie doesn't want anything to stand in his way when he wants to drive at warp 7. This means pesky cops, cyclists, other motorists who don't share his skill level and farm equipment. He is just a selfish git and far worse than any of the 'whiny' bike advocates he rails against on a regular basis.

Oh yes and I really took a shot at his crappy excuse for journalism in the comments section.

eja_ bottecchia

Sorry, but I didn't get that from the article.

In our zeal to advance the cause of cyclists and cycling we cannot forget that there are far more motorists than cyclists. It will be to all of our benefits to work together and not hurl attacks at each other.

IMO, instead of demonizing the writer and reaching for conclusions that may not be suported by the article, it would be far better to get more people like the writer turned around to our POV.

Daves_Not_Here

I'm sorry, but your attitude is far too constructive.

spunkyj

I partially agree in the sense that I would address Jim Kenzie with a less inflammatory tone in person, compared to how I b*tch about him on an internet forum. I stand by everything I said, however. I think Kenzie is wrong minded and stubborn. I think that his views are dangerous for cyclists. I think his predominant concern for cyclist safety is disingenuous and hides an ulterior motive (whether this is clear to Kenzie himself or not).

If I could address Kenzie personally, I would do so in a less inflammatory manner, and sans accusations of any kind. Not because he deserves it, but because it's better for cyclists in the long run, as you point out.

CharlesZ

Why am I finding myself in general agreement with this article? I ride alot of roads that start out with a nice 3-5 ft shoulder and then I'll
reach an overpass where that shoulder disappears and I start getting nervous, a little scared and the legs start churning 'cause all I want
to do is get back to that separation, that 3-5 ft shoulder.
What I'm reading in this article is that if bikes and cars are thrust together as equals, cyclists are going to die. I won't try to discern the moral aspects of the writer's arguments but for me there's an ideal and then there's reality.

dynodonn 

Personally, the road setup pictured in the article in the OP is an awesome setup, the author in the OP article can go **** himself.

Chris516

He is just mouthing off. His opinion means squat to me. If he wants to be a blowhard and complain about a particular road, maybe he should think of Lombard Street in San Francisco, that 'snakes' down the hillside. Then he can satisfy his urge to moan about cyclists' and the road.

Until then, he is nothing to me.

RaleighSport

Just to be clear here, the article is on a car website? :/

spunkyj

Sort of. It's in the "Wheels" section of the Toronto Star's online media. The Toronto Star being Toronto's most read newspaper. So it's not on an independent car website, but in the automotive section of the online paper. And it was prominently advertised as "must read" on the front page of yesterday's Toronto Star (near the top of the online headlines). The intended audience was broad.

asmac

I agree with Kenzie that the Pottery Rd arrangement is an accident waiting to happen. It is a very steep hill and, at the very least, there should be a bike lane on the westbound lane. Creating unsafe conditions that (inevitably) enrage some drivers does not promote safety.

Nonetheless, the author's bias is clear when he says "a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is a whole lot less fraught than a cyclist hitting a car." It seems pretty clear that he places all responsibilty for all bike-related accidents on cyclists and that is neither helpful nor right.

I'm primarily interested in getting home safely each day and assigning blame comes a distant second.

dynodonn 

The only accident waiting to happen is your theory on putting in a debris filled bike lane on a downhill grade with close passing motorists who don't wish to be inconvenienced.

hagen2456

Yes, per definition:

"debris filled bike lane" and "motorists who don't wish to be inconvenienced".

Of course, of course.

kmv2

Minus the hill factor, there are single lane roads like this that I cycled on in the Netherlands countryside. One lane serving two way traffic for cars, bikes and pedestrians. Cars yielded to cyclists, cyclists yield to peds. It all came down to the attitude of the people who live there, and obviously the Dutch motorists are much more able and willing to deal with cyclists/peds on the road than North Americans.

Some things neglected from this article, what is the speed limit on this stretch of road? Does it have heavy traffic? Are there alternate routes?

I think he basically just wants his daughter to buy a car or something tbh.
He must get a lot of **** from the staff of "wheels.ca" for his daughter and her non car / bike riding lifestyle, lol.