So far, Quebec is the only Canadian province that has updated its legislation to allow wheelchairs and mobility scooters on bike and roll routes and low-speed roads.
I’m not understanding. Are you saying that even with very wide bike lanes, you would be barrelling down it at 30km/h while other users were nearby?
Wider lanes doesn’t mean that we become inconsiderate. Wider lanes make things more accessible to a larger user base. We should still be moving along those lanes at a reasonable speed.
No, I’m saying I use a bike to go fast without a car.
For sure, but bike lanes (of any width) aren’t really designed for fast bikes. Granted, wide bike lanes (like in some areas in Montreal) would accommodate fast cyclists because you have a ton of space to pass slow riders.
Widening the lane and adding slow moving individuals increases the likely hood of an accident. Also makes the lane less usable by cyclists.
But we currently have the same users on very narrow lanes… how would widening it make the problem worse?
Yes, we would be inducing demand, but with wide lanes, this would be a non-issue.
If you want better infrastructure for those with disabilities widen the sidewalk where they are already safe.
In a perfect world, yes, I agree. Unfortuantely, you can’t have wide sidewalks and wide bike lanes and wide roads. There’s just not enough room or money for that.
If you build a very wide “bike lane” that replaces a sidewalk and standard bike lane at the same time, you can build more of them, and they’d be safer than having a narrow bike lane and narrow sidewalk.
The idea of bike lanes was to separate them from cars. How is making it a new sidewalk an improvement?
You’re still separated by more space :)
Ok, in this context, I don’t think that anyone is proposing simply building a wider bike lane next to cars. The ideal would be to do what other cities have done (Paris, Montreal, various cities in the Netherlands, etc.) and build “wide bike lanes” that are actually regular roads with no car access.
If you frame it as a need for cyclists, you get very little support (in fact, you get push back from NIMBYs and carbrains). However, when framed as an accessibility right for people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, then you have more legal obligations to build this infrastructure up, and cyclists win at the same time.
I think there’s a disconnect of what people mean by fast and slow here. A slow cyclist is still going at 15km/h, and 30km/h isn’t even that fast, more comparable to a jogger than a sprinter for pedestrians.
Whereas electric wheelchairs are optimized to move within walking speeds, so about 4-6km/h. Having someone move 5km/h share space with someone going 20km/h+ is like having roads that share 60km/h with those going at 20km/h. Anybody would agree that it’s unsafe for such a discrepancy on a road, so why isn’t it also true on bike lanes?
Not to mention that some bike lanes are actually too narrow for wheelchairs to fit. I know some that are less than one meter wide because our city sucks and we’ve had mayors do their best to abolish bike lanes while others try to bring them back, only for the premier to try his turn to abolish them. Imagine trying to fit anything but a bike when you’re flanked with concrete walls about 70cm apart?
Though I also admit, some sidewalks are hardly any better, and there’s entire sections of the city that have zero side walks as well, but those areas also have zero bike lanes despite allowing cars to go 40km/h or even higher.
I think there’s a disconnect of what people mean by fast and slow here. A slow cyclist is still going at 15km/h, and 30km/h isn’t even that fast,
What’s the context? Country bike lane or urban trail? 30km/h on an urban bike trail is too fast. That’s why places that do post speed limits for cyclists often have them at 20km/h or slower.
Whereas electric wheelchairs are optimized to move within walking speeds, so about 4-6km/h. Having someone move 5km/h share space with someone going 20km/h+
I disagree. If you’ve even been in a sufficiently wide bike track, you’ll realize there are no real conflicts.
The issue is that very few tend to be very wide, so any conflict is a result of the design, and not the concept.
is like having roads that share 60km/h with those going at 20km/h.
Yes, a single, narrow road in that scenario would create bottlenecks. Although, this is common on roads where farm equipment is used.
The more accurate comparison would be a multi-lane road where slower drivers are on the right side, while faster drivers are on the left. They have enough width over those multiple lanes to avoid conflicts.
We’re asking that bike lanes be sufficiently wide to also avoid conflict.
Not to mention that some bike lanes are actually too narrow for wheelchairs to fit.
100% agreed. Too narrow for bike trailers, cargo bikes, trikes, and mobility scooters.
That’s why we need laws that make it mandatory to have WIDE lanes for these users.
there’s entire sections of the city that have zero side walks as well, but those areas also have zero bike lanes despite allowing cars to go 40km/h or even higher.
We have a few places like that around here. It’s unnerving to say the least, and I wish they were only going 40km/h… I’ve clocked cars and large trucks going well over 80km/h (in 50km or 60km/h zones) as I white-knuckle through on my bike.
Alright, I see the disconnect here. You’re talking about rural bike lanes as well as park paths. I’m talking about city bike lanes where you have about 12 meters to work with before you’re up against buildings on both sides half the time.
In that context, there’s only so much you can do to widen lanes, and usually that’s only possible by removing lanes for other modes of transit.
Frankly speaking, bike lanes of other areas have to go based on different standards as they exist for different purposes, so I’ve been isolating entirely to typical city streets.
Most of the sidewalks plus bike lanes in Toronto at least tend to only add up to about five meters in width at most, with plenty being only three meters wide together (two for the sidewalk, and one for the bike lane), with streets being between one or two lanes for the most part, excluding certain major streets.
In this context, it’s crazy to think about bikes and wheelchairs sharing space together. And to be frank, even if the space was double that, I think the difference in typical speed makes such considerations still crazy. Just because some mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs are physically able to go as fast as a slow bike, doesn’t mean that it’s safe for them to share space.
If you can somehow make bike paths on the roads at least four meters wide, then sure, we can talk about that. But I’ve never seen such a thing anywhere in my city. Anything wider than 1.5 meters is simply doesn’t exist, and that is far too narrow to allow both forms of travel to share space safely.
That’s the real problem: we aren’t prioritizing the non-car user experience.
Why do we have to make any concessions when it comes to cyclists, pedestrians, or the disabled communities? The default should be to prioritize and accommodate them first, then public transport, then cars.
We are doing things ass backwards here in Ontario.
This I wholeheartedly agree with. The benefits of alternative transit solutions are countless, not to mention that they all reduce traffic in the first place, one of the biggest complaints of Ontarians.
And frankly, many of Toronto’s mayors and councils have been pushing this and been making real progress. Unfortunately a particular premier decided that he knew better and should have the power to redesign the city and its roads, rather than the people elected specifically to do that job.
My friend, there are already slow cyclists in the bike lane. They will remain there, because they have the right to it by definition. Adding other kinds of small mobility vehicles with similar speeds is not materially going to impact us faster cyclists, as long as the bike lane is of sufficient width for us to safely pass them. This is coming from another 90 kg/>30 km/h rider who often has to use the main road for practical reasons.
In fact, I tend to use the main road over available bike lanes specifically when the width of the bike lane is insufficient for passing slower cyclists in a safe manner. The other reason I skip the bike lane is when it is designed in an unsafe manner, such as ending abruptly and forcing conflicts with pedestrians, or when it crosses turning lanes in a manner where drivers cross the lane without looking.
So, lets see. So far in this thread cycle paths should be wide enough for an emergency vehicle, should be used by all manners of transport other than automobiles and speed restricted due to slow moving scooters and pedestrians.
Sounds like it removes all the benefits and adds all the problems of the system we currently have.
I don’t think they should necessarily be speed restricted, nor is that the law where I live - the only rule is that you can’t exceed the speed limit on adjacent roads (which practically makes them unbounded for almost all cases for cyclists under their own power).
By making them wide enough for emergency vehicles, they can accommodate both slower and faster moving cyclists, with mobility vehicles moving at similar speeds to slower cyclists and hence automatically being accommodated. I don’t think pedestrians should be co-located with cyclists and mobility vehicles, as these actors have different incompatible needs.
I’m not understanding. Are you saying that even with very wide bike lanes, you would be barrelling down it at 30km/h while other users were nearby?
Wider lanes doesn’t mean that we become inconsiderate. Wider lanes make things more accessible to a larger user base. We should still be moving along those lanes at a reasonable speed.
Unless I totally misunderstood what you’ve said.
No, I’m saying I use a bike to go fast without a car.
Widening the lane and adding slow moving individuals increases the likely hood of an accident. Also makes the lane less usable by cyclists.
If you want better infrastructure for those with disabilities widen the sidewalk where they are already safe.
The idea of bike lanes was to separate them from cars. How is making it a new sidewalk an improvement?
For sure, but bike lanes (of any width) aren’t really designed for fast bikes. Granted, wide bike lanes (like in some areas in Montreal) would accommodate fast cyclists because you have a ton of space to pass slow riders.
But we currently have the same users on very narrow lanes… how would widening it make the problem worse?
Yes, we would be inducing demand, but with wide lanes, this would be a non-issue.
In a perfect world, yes, I agree. Unfortuantely, you can’t have wide sidewalks and wide bike lanes and wide roads. There’s just not enough room or money for that.
If you build a very wide “bike lane” that replaces a sidewalk and standard bike lane at the same time, you can build more of them, and they’d be safer than having a narrow bike lane and narrow sidewalk.
You’re still separated by more space :)
Ok, in this context, I don’t think that anyone is proposing simply building a wider bike lane next to cars. The ideal would be to do what other cities have done (Paris, Montreal, various cities in the Netherlands, etc.) and build “wide bike lanes” that are actually regular roads with no car access.
If you frame it as a need for cyclists, you get very little support (in fact, you get push back from NIMBYs and carbrains). However, when framed as an accessibility right for people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, then you have more legal obligations to build this infrastructure up, and cyclists win at the same time.
I think there’s a disconnect of what people mean by fast and slow here. A slow cyclist is still going at 15km/h, and 30km/h isn’t even that fast, more comparable to a jogger than a sprinter for pedestrians.
Whereas electric wheelchairs are optimized to move within walking speeds, so about 4-6km/h. Having someone move 5km/h share space with someone going 20km/h+ is like having roads that share 60km/h with those going at 20km/h. Anybody would agree that it’s unsafe for such a discrepancy on a road, so why isn’t it also true on bike lanes?
Not to mention that some bike lanes are actually too narrow for wheelchairs to fit. I know some that are less than one meter wide because our city sucks and we’ve had mayors do their best to abolish bike lanes while others try to bring them back, only for the premier to try his turn to abolish them. Imagine trying to fit anything but a bike when you’re flanked with concrete walls about 70cm apart?
Though I also admit, some sidewalks are hardly any better, and there’s entire sections of the city that have zero side walks as well, but those areas also have zero bike lanes despite allowing cars to go 40km/h or even higher.
What’s the context? Country bike lane or urban trail? 30km/h on an urban bike trail is too fast. That’s why places that do post speed limits for cyclists often have them at 20km/h or slower.
I disagree. If you’ve even been in a sufficiently wide bike track, you’ll realize there are no real conflicts.
The issue is that very few tend to be very wide, so any conflict is a result of the design, and not the concept.
Yes, a single, narrow road in that scenario would create bottlenecks. Although, this is common on roads where farm equipment is used.
The more accurate comparison would be a multi-lane road where slower drivers are on the right side, while faster drivers are on the left. They have enough width over those multiple lanes to avoid conflicts.
We’re asking that bike lanes be sufficiently wide to also avoid conflict.
100% agreed. Too narrow for bike trailers, cargo bikes, trikes, and mobility scooters.
That’s why we need laws that make it mandatory to have WIDE lanes for these users.
We have a few places like that around here. It’s unnerving to say the least, and I wish they were only going 40km/h… I’ve clocked cars and large trucks going well over 80km/h (in 50km or 60km/h zones) as I white-knuckle through on my bike.
Alright, I see the disconnect here. You’re talking about rural bike lanes as well as park paths. I’m talking about city bike lanes where you have about 12 meters to work with before you’re up against buildings on both sides half the time.
In that context, there’s only so much you can do to widen lanes, and usually that’s only possible by removing lanes for other modes of transit.
Frankly speaking, bike lanes of other areas have to go based on different standards as they exist for different purposes, so I’ve been isolating entirely to typical city streets.
Most of the sidewalks plus bike lanes in Toronto at least tend to only add up to about five meters in width at most, with plenty being only three meters wide together (two for the sidewalk, and one for the bike lane), with streets being between one or two lanes for the most part, excluding certain major streets.
In this context, it’s crazy to think about bikes and wheelchairs sharing space together. And to be frank, even if the space was double that, I think the difference in typical speed makes such considerations still crazy. Just because some mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs are physically able to go as fast as a slow bike, doesn’t mean that it’s safe for them to share space.
If you can somehow make bike paths on the roads at least four meters wide, then sure, we can talk about that. But I’ve never seen such a thing anywhere in my city. Anything wider than 1.5 meters is simply doesn’t exist, and that is far too narrow to allow both forms of travel to share space safely.
That’s the real problem: we aren’t prioritizing the non-car user experience.
Why do we have to make any concessions when it comes to cyclists, pedestrians, or the disabled communities? The default should be to prioritize and accommodate them first, then public transport, then cars.
We are doing things ass backwards here in Ontario.
This I wholeheartedly agree with. The benefits of alternative transit solutions are countless, not to mention that they all reduce traffic in the first place, one of the biggest complaints of Ontarians.
And frankly, many of Toronto’s mayors and councils have been pushing this and been making real progress. Unfortunately a particular premier decided that he knew better and should have the power to redesign the city and its roads, rather than the people elected specifically to do that job.
My friend, there are already slow cyclists in the bike lane. They will remain there, because they have the right to it by definition. Adding other kinds of small mobility vehicles with similar speeds is not materially going to impact us faster cyclists, as long as the bike lane is of sufficient width for us to safely pass them. This is coming from another 90 kg/>30 km/h rider who often has to use the main road for practical reasons.
In fact, I tend to use the main road over available bike lanes specifically when the width of the bike lane is insufficient for passing slower cyclists in a safe manner. The other reason I skip the bike lane is when it is designed in an unsafe manner, such as ending abruptly and forcing conflicts with pedestrians, or when it crosses turning lanes in a manner where drivers cross the lane without looking.
So, lets see. So far in this thread cycle paths should be wide enough for an emergency vehicle, should be used by all manners of transport other than automobiles and speed restricted due to slow moving scooters and pedestrians.
Sounds like it removes all the benefits and adds all the problems of the system we currently have.
I don’t think they should necessarily be speed restricted, nor is that the law where I live - the only rule is that you can’t exceed the speed limit on adjacent roads (which practically makes them unbounded for almost all cases for cyclists under their own power).
By making them wide enough for emergency vehicles, they can accommodate both slower and faster moving cyclists, with mobility vehicles moving at similar speeds to slower cyclists and hence automatically being accommodated. I don’t think pedestrians should be co-located with cyclists and mobility vehicles, as these actors have different incompatible needs.