One side of the story?

First off, we know the road on the right in our video is a condo driveway, which skews things.

There’s no doubt the final tally would be a lot different at, say, Yonge and Dundas Sts.

Also, if we set up a video looking for motorists breaking the law by blocking bike lanes or squeezing cyclists into the curb, you can bet it’d be just as easy to do.

In fact, a recent video out of New York shows the madness that a city intersection really can be, if you take the long view.

Say what you will, though, about our video — it proves not even “quiet” roads are 100 per cent safe. One cyclist almost gets clipped by a vehicle coming out of the driveway.

And according to the law, a red light is a red light is a red light, no matter where.

So the question is, should the location of the red light dictate whether you stop at it or not?

Comments

[Paul]

It really feels like The Star and other media outlets are really trying to hype up this Bikes vs. Everyone argument and, while I'm sure it's great a sparking outrage and getting views, it's not productive at all. The bottom line is that laws relating to cyclists need to be better, period. The biggest and most pointless argument that I see around here is that "cyclists should obey the laws and act like vehicles" but how would these people react to being stuck behind a single cyclist biking down the middle of a lane, acting as a motorist, and doing what, 20-25 km/h? The fact is that cyclists constantly accommodate motorists by moving to the side and risking their safety by letting a huge mass of metal zoom right next to them. There is give and take for all modes of transportation and all you need is to try being a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian for a decent amount of time to understand the nuances of it.

[Christina]

I bike and it's really not that hard to follow the rules, but there needs to be a culture shift with cyclists. Right now they think they're a separate species immune to following current road laws and this has to change, if only for their safety. First law I'd LOVE to see enacted? Mandatory helmet use for ALL ages. www.christina-on-wheels.blogspot.com

[AMH]

There was a study done in London that showed that cyclists jumped the red light were less likely to get killed and/or injured than those who stayed and waited for the green. This red-light jumping behaviour was safer for cyclists than having left-turning (here that would be right-turning) vehicles catch the cyclists between the vehicle and the curb, or under the wheels of a larger vehicle like lorries (trucks) and buses.

Rather than encouraging this safer red-light jumping behaviour of cyclists, England demanded better mirrors from buses and lorries, and London installed mirrors at their most hazardous intersections.

Here in Toronto, we have many "on-demand" lights They are supposed to be set to be sensitive enough for a bike to trigger the green signal. Alas, this is too often not the case. and a bike cannot trigger the light to turn green. These intersections are simply broken. However, we have ended up training many of our cyclists that the lights won't even work for them, so these cyclists ignore _all_ lights.

Lastly, we spend $0 on training people on how to ride a bike on our city streets. Many people who start riding a bike behave as if they are pedestrians on wheels. As we have a culture of Jay-walking, they continue to follow that behaviour on a bike; remember that no-one taught them anything different.

Random, and occasional enforcement will not change this behaviour. And we cannot afford sustained widespread enforcement as the returns don't cover the cost. In addition, In addition, police enforcement is not proportional with the externalities of the risk created by this behaviour; in other words, the cost of the ticket is unfair for cyclists in relation to the risks that they expose others to.

We, as a society, have a lot to change within ourselves if we ever want to see cyclists behaving "better".

[Ridin2work]

I agree that all vehicle drivers should obey the law but, as a cyclist, I experience frustration with the infrastructure I cycle on. I have a 7 km commute to work. There are 32 stop signs/lights in that distance. It's seems crazy to stop every 219 metres. I never run lights and am always prepared to stop at a sign but it seems like such a waste of my energy to stop, get off the seat and put my foot down. Call me lazy.

I, too, worry about cyclists who do not respect their potential to injure or to be injured when running stop signs and lights. Wish I had an easy solution.

Ridin2work

[jon]

Red lights are red lights and should be obeyed by anyone using the roads, or sidewalks for that matter. As a pedestrian, I encounter daily that the majority of the bikers either don't know the laws or choose not to follow them. People run the red lights all the time, apart from maybe some major intersection, but most bikers there just cheat by cutting through a crosswalk. As a pedestrian, that really annoys me, because it makes walking unsafe. People biking through crosswalks, right through pedestrians is unsafe. I have been nearly hit many times, or forced to almost walk in traffic because of a wobbly bicyclist trying to peddle through the pedestrians. I've also almost been hit many times by cyclists blowing through red lights or failing to stop anytime people are crossing, seemingly not aware that they have no right of way. I think its about time the Police really crack down. I am all for cycling, and encourage it, anything to put less cars on the road and more people on bikes is great. Its just that bikers need to learn the traffic rules and learn to stick to them. If you are riding something that has wheels, you are a vehicle, therefore you follow the same rules as all other vehicles!

[Georges]

If you knew the location was going to give you skewed results, why did you do it? Why not move to a location more representative of overall traffic in the downtown core? Because this makes for a more sensation headline. Good headline, reporting fail.

Many, many of the FAILs in your video are seen stopped then starting up again before it has gone green. True, this is technically illegal, but it also shows that they stopped made sure it was safe and then continued.

You would NOT see this behaviour somewhere like College (or Dundas) and Spadina. Try a video there next time.

[Gavin]

I completely agree with Georges. This video was designed in an extremely biased manner. The results would be VASTLY different at any major intersection. Giving cyclists such a bad name is only harmful. Give the bad name to those who deserve it, the ones blowing through at intersections like Queen/Spadina, which I'm willing to bet would be around 1/42 instead of 22/42.

[lukev]

in your same video, over 100 pedestrians cross illegally. Why no article on the jay-walkers??

[bikerdriverwalker]

"Say what you will, though, about our video — it proves not even “quiet” roads are 100 per cent safe.

Ridiculous. I don't think anybody (biker, driver or pedestrian) ever made the claim that anything is 100% safe. We did not need a video to prove that.

"And according to the law, a red light is a red light is a red light, no matter where. " -Obviously!

[Marc]

@Ridin2work: Drivers have to stop 32 times along your commute. Don't you think they'd rather just go straight on through as well?

@Georges: I work at King and University and I'm outside there between 3 and 6pm. I see cyclists run reds there all the time. Is that not a busy enough intersection? Many of them also can't be bothered to stop for pedestrians getting off streetcars.

Technically illegal is still illegal. You won't get anywhere trying to tell a cop that it was okay to speed because you were on an empty highway, and you won't get anywhere saying it's okay to run a red because the intersection was clear.

[Ryan]

As far as the choice of intersection goes, here's the pertinent question: What was the point of your study?

Is your point that everyone should obey all the laws all the time? In which case, sure, cyclists fail, but that ship has sailed. I agree with the sentiment that we should observe the law, but society accepts a certain amount of rule breaking - just observe the speed of traffic on the 401, and then compare it the actual speed limit. Or watch the majority of drivers speed up to get through an amber light, when the HTA says you have to stop as long as it's safe to do so.

In this particular case, most cyclists were able to cross the "intersection" safely, without posing a danger to themselves or others, and without disrupting other traffic. It may not be legal, but is it different from the thousands of other traffic violations you can find every day?

I'd also say it's The Star's responsibility to note the nature of that particular intersection, and avoid giving its readers the false impression that cyclists are weaving across a busy street.

[James]

@Marc, I find it funny that you used speeding as an example. I'll repeat what you said: "Technically illegal is still illegal. You won't get anywhere trying to tell a cop that it was okay to speed because you were on an empty highway, and you won't get anywhere saying it's okay to run a red because the intersection was clear."

Go stand beside the 401 with a radar gun and tell me what percentage of motorists drive under 100km/h (outside of the congested hours). Let's compare that to the percentage of cyclists who jump a red light at King and University.

I guess a video showing 98% of motorists illegally driving more than 100km/h wouldn't be very interesting because we as a society have accepted that it's okay to break the law. Hypocrite much?

[Joe]

So, cyclists ride through red lights. Who cares? What's the big deal? Well, if for no other reason it puts people at risk. Sure you can check to see if cars, people, or other cyclists are coming but, what happens when you miss something? An "accident" occurs. Except, it's not an accident, it's because someone did something stupid, irresponsible, and disrespectfull. That's not an "accident". We all have to share the road. Cyclists, cars, and pedestrians all have a responsibility to keep each other safe. When we fail to follow traffic rules (run lights, not check blind spots, walk against lights) we put ourselves and those around us at risk. We show children how to be disrespecful and to make poor decisions. People expect other people to be at a certain place at a certain time, this allows huge groups of people to move around everyday. Imagine what it would be like if everyone disregarded traffic rules (just think what happens when traffic lights are out and how much traffic is slowed down). If nothing else it makes the rest of us cyclists look bad.

[AerieG]

I think this is simply an example of journalistic laziness. They sent an intern out to videotape an intersection for an hour and the intern picked an intersection a block away from the Star building. Can't really blame the intern, he or she did exactly what they were tasked to do. The Star's lame effort to fluff it into an controversial issue is disappointing.

[John Spragge]

@Joe:
As a cyclist who works pretty hard to ride responsibly and courteously, I understand why other cyclists run red lights. After riding in this city for a lot of years, I can understand people who conclude the motoring culture of Toronto simply doesn't deserve respect. Meet enough motorists who park in bike lanes, drive in bike lanes, speed, harass cyclists, lack the slightest clue about what the HTA actually says about cycling and yell at us for making perfectly legal and safe maneuvers like turning left from the left turn lane, start pounding on their horns the moment they see us in the lane ahead of them, whoosh by inches from our handle bars, and everyone will say enough. I don't see behaving dangerously as the answer, although I don't consider running a red light at a "T" intersection all that dangerous. But I do think cyclists need an effective way to make the point that respect goes both ways.

[Jacob G]

@Paul
"The biggest and most pointless argument that I see around here is that "cyclists should obey the laws and act like vehicles" but how would these people react to being stuck behind a single cyclist biking down the middle of a lane, acting as a motorist, and doing what, 20-25 km/h?"
You may want to look it up but the cyclist (as with any traffic unable to move with the flow of traffic, has to move to the right when safe to do so. When not safe to do so, these slow moving vehicles, including bicycles, are entitled to use the full appropriate lane. Really then, the argument is legit.
It certainly is no worse if not better than 2 common (lawbreaking) cyclist arguments. 1) "Drivers and pedestrians break the law (almost as much/as often/more)". This does not defend a cyclists breaking the law, it only groups them in with other law breakers. 2) "It does not make sense to stop because of energy to start up or loss of momentum". I would say that a large number of cyclists DO stop despite not being immune to this issue. They prove this argument empty. On top of that, laws are not made for convenience (of bikers, drivers or pedestrians) only safety, reduce risk and create order. Biking is, by all definitions, a physical activity. You will have to physically exert yourself even when doing so is inconvenient. If you don't want to do this, there is transit, walking and even low emission mo-peds.
As to the bikers that feel picked on in articles like this as if The Star is focused on you, I wonder how often to check to make sure articles on blitzes against: cell phone using drivers; drivers stopping in intersections; long-weekend traffic infractions blitzes have to mention cyclists so drivers don't feel picked on. It's an article on cyclists that break the law. Why does it have to include drivers any more than articles on driver has to include cyclists?