Avoidable death

Again from the Montréal Gazette:

"Death highlights bike path peril

Cement truck crushes cyclist"

This article has got to be the weakest analysis I have read in a long time.

Facts:

On August 9th, a 56-year-old cyclist was crushed to death by a cement-mixing truck as it turned north onto Frontenac St. from Notre Dame St. Both truck and cyclist were travelling west, probably obeying the same green traffic lights. The truck driver didn't see the cyclist.

Now, to represent cyclists, the reporter interviews Suzanne Lareau, Vélo Québec's CEO. She declares:

"whether it's a cyclist or motorist approaching an intersection, they have to slow down, that's the only way you'll be able to see everything that's going on around you and be able to react to the unforeseen."

Wow, what an analysis. We could never have figured that one without her. And then it goes on:

"Lareau doubted whether a separate set of traffic signals for cyclists would make a difference along Notre Dame St., noting that an existing system of signals for cyclists along Rachel St. are so unsynchronized they don't even allow enough time to cycle across an intersection."

For some reason, the Vélo Québec folks are always making soft-assed statements, such as these above, every time they are interviewed by the media. They never says anything deep, concrete or energetic while we all know they could do much better. What's up with that? Scared of loosing some financing or what?

So, we are to understand that because Rachel St. lights are unsynchronised, it means no improvements should be made on Notre Dame St., Right? No? Then you would think that she would offer suggestions... like... hum... What about proposing something... such as... uh... well... hum... let's see... Oh, yeah, getting the damned lights, well, synchronised? How hard is it to just say this? Just that bit, nothing more, bare freaking minimum but at least she would be suggesting something!!

Well, in her defense, maybe she did and it was cut out by the interviewer... Maybe...

Well, as it turns out, the problem on the Notre Dame bike path is extremely simple: poor design. 

It is a mostly recreational type bike path carved out in a park-like setting (the path is lined with trees on both sides) while trailing along a highway type boulevard where cars go particularly fast. This path was obviously an after thought and is not well integrated. At every intersection big surprise: Cars turning into the lane do not see cyclists coming until the very last minute and vice-versa.

 Here is the light at said intersection. Does anyone see a problem?

 When the light turns on green, first the upward arrow appear along with the pedestrian symbol followed, barely seconds later, by the turning arrow. 

This should never be allowed: you cannot have conflicting sets of road users, i.e. right turning cars vs. pedestrians and cyclists moving forward, acting on the same light.

So why did this guy die? Because nobody in this damned city has the balls to make the necessary changes, meaning:

- Stop requiring cyclists to "obey the rules of the road" and car "traffic lights". This is bullshit, and we all know it. Bicycles are NOT cars, are cyclists are NOT motorists.

Cyclists are nothing more than fast moving pedestrians. They should have the same lights as and have the green at the same time as pedestrians, each proceeding on their respective parallel infrastructures, i.e. bike path for the cyclists and crosswalk for the pedestrian.

Like this one

Or that one



- While these two categories of road users proceed, the third one waits on a red light. When the motorists lights turn green, pedestrians and cyclists wait. They alternate but can never proceed at the same time.

What's so freaking hard about this? We actually already have intersections like this in the city, so what's up with that? Is it because Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is a poor blue-collar neighbourhood nobody gives a fuck about? 

Or rather, because Notre-Dame boulevard is "sacred". Can't touch it, can't slow the damned traffic even by one km/h otherwise it would be the Apocalypse! It is already totally gridlocked at rush hour:

The necessary traffic interventions will increase waiting time at the lights for sure. So what? 

Aren't people in cars sitting comfortably anyways? Isn't it the reason they prefer cars anyways? Then, they can wait a little bit, it won't kill them but will save both pedestrians and cyclists lives.

The cause of traffic is traffic. Simply that, too many cars. Sounds silly but the only reason anyone gets stuck in jams is because they choose (not all but most of them) to take their cars to travel instead of any other mean. Traffic is not caused by lights, pedestrians, cyclists, cycle paths, Festivals, God or any other scapegoat one might come up with.

Now, it would be nice if the people supposed to represent us were more assertive in their demands for a change. Speak up! If Vélo Québec really wants to represent urban cyclists, it need to grow balls.

In the meantime, when it comes to traffic lights, cyclists should always follow the pedestrian signs. If it is not safe for a pedestrian, then it is not safe for a cyclist either. 

Last point, and the gem in the article:

"This possibility has led Montreal police to repeat their warning to cyclists and pedestrians to establish eye contact with the driver turning onto an intersection they are about to cross."

Transposed into different context:

"This possibility has led Montreal police to repeat their warning to women at risk of getting raped to always wear a female condom when walking outside, just in case."

Brilliant.

Major league vs. minor league attitude

While in North America, cyclists would rather bicker and fight among themselves over such trivial and secondary issues such as helmets or so-called scofflaw behaviour, to the point of actually drafting open letters to officially and publicly insult each other, Belgians are resolutely stepping into the 21st century with flair and avant-garde type of attitude.

The Commission Infrastructure de la Chambre, most probably a sub-committee of the parliament on infrastructure issues, is about to vote the right for cyclists to turn right on the red light. Neighbouring countries such as France, the Netherlands and Germany are all experimenting on the same vibe with no increase in accident rates. Of course! Cyclists there probably did not await the advent of a law to practice common sense... To be noted: Idaho already has a law allowing cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs.

Which puts them all on a whole other level, in major league, where structural aspects of society are being analysed and reviewed in order to promote cycling. They estimate that cyclists waste up to 20% of their time waiting stupidly for the green when they could simply roll the red (coast being clear of course), preserve that precious momentum and be home faster than those in tuna cans.

Meanwhile, back in minor league, bogus journalists cook up dishonest videos, based on which they produce shallow analysis, police cracks down on inoffensive behaviour, and the majority of Torontonian cyclists (or so it seems) moronically agree with the whole thing.

How does Montreal fare amid all this nonsense? As usual, we have our butt stuck in between: on cheek in upper league, one cheek in lower league.

The lower cheek: it seems that the police has given up on such crack downs and is adopting a "campagne de sensibilisation" attitude. So far, they've been distributing warnings to those cycling around while listening to music. Funny thing is cell phone on bikes is perfectly legal. Given the Bluetooth epidemy, one wonders how will the police sort out the geese from the gander.

However, there is some hope.

The upper cheek: on December 10th 2010,  the Loi 71 was adopted, updating the Code de la sécurité routière du Québec with, in my view two major changes:

1. The requirement to use cycle paths when present was dropped. One can cycle on the road despite the presence of bike paths.

2. The most important: municipalities can now officially organise bike circulation against traffic in secondary streets. This could mean against-traffic lanes which, anyways, was already the case all across the Plateau (too many to quote), the Mile-end (Clark) and the Ghetto (Milton).

That's nice, but what I would like to see is this:

Or this:

Even both at the same time:

On all residential and secondary streets.

Finally some candy for the eyes. City of Lille created a nice cycling pamphlet/guide. Note how displaying people riding against traffic with no helmet looks so normal and natural.

Damned froggies...