Kidical Mass Wheels Through Toronto

Aww that's so cute - a children's ride affiliated with the jackasses from Critical Mass. How irresponsible. I'd love to hear how participating parents answer their children's questions about critical mass's jerky antics over the years.

Toronto's critical mass website claims "we're not blocking traffic we are traffic" (sic)

OH THE HIGH-LARIOUS IRONIC IRONY OF IT ALL

wardnikoff, none of the examples you offer are valid comparisons at all, unless these bicycle riders are getting permits and taking responsibility, as do the organizers of the various parades and concerts that take over parts of our streets at various points. Even protests are often thoroughly organized and the police are kept in the loop.

God forbid a child should be killed on this "family friendly" event because someone saw fit to turn against a light, or into traffic, as I've seen them do on the Critical Mass ride.

I cycle daily. I'd like to see cycling better respected and better accommodated by our traffic laws and infrastructure. But I sure as hell wouldn't risk my child's life on the streets to make a point about it.

I <3 Torontoist for signing me out at random intervals, especially after I hit Post.

It's a great way to introduce your children to political action, showing them that it can be combined with fun.
Pickletoes, no reason they wouldn't end up using these ideas for right wing causes - youth rebellion can take different forms.

So is the fact that they didnt sign some form somewhere is the reason everyone thinks Critical Mass is reprehensible? Have you ever been caught behind a leagl parade or event...trust me, its JUST as annoying as an "illegal" one...

And as for the saftey of the ride.....well, riding at anytime is dangeous...if only there was some sort of venue for protesting just how dangerous riding is...

And for the record, trying to make a point by annoying people is not the way I roll ( though I guess I am doing so with this post...lol) so I think Critical Mass is at the end of the day as pointless as spam however, the vitriol I honestly dont quite understand...

All these children should be rounded up and arrested.

And if they show the slightest resistance? They should be shoved by a burly cop as they roll down the street at full speed -- shoved onto the sidewalk in an obvious attempt to concuss them.

And then they should be shot. Shot in the head. Every last filthy, hippie, bike-riding one of them...for they are all Commu-Nazis.

PARENTS WHO ENCOURAGE THEIR CHILDREN TO RIDE BICYCLES ARE EQUIVALENT TO SOME SORT OF HYBRIDIZED HITLER/STALIN ZOMBIE-MONSTER! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!! AAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHH!!!

/PickledDickbutt

Do you need a permit to ride your bike? No.

Do you need police escorts when you ride your bike? No.

Do people prefer cyclists stay on the sidewalks, away from the 'real traffic'? No.

So what's the real problem here?

If it's too dangerous for your kids to ride on the street with cars in a group (half of them parents!), isn't it just as dangerous, if not moreso, when they ride solo?

This anti-bike sentiment is sudden and alarming. Let's just buy the kids SUVs.

Here, here Mr. rek! A point so good it deserved to be said twice!

>Do you need a permit to ride your bike? No.

En Masse in a protest? Yes.

>Do you need police escorts when you ride your bike? No.

En Masse in a protest? Yes.

>Do people prefer cyclists stay on the sidewalks, away from the 'real traffic'? No.

Do people prefer bikes cycle by the rules of the road and not take up the entire lane? Yes.

>So what's the real problem here?

Exploiting children to make a point.

>If it's too dangerous for your kids to ride on the street with cars in a group (half of them parents!), isn't it just as dangerous, if not moreso, when they ride solo?

Not if they follow the rules of the road and the parents educate them on road safety.

>This anti-bike sentiment is sudden and alarming. Let's just buy the kids SUVs.

another typical Rek'diculous point, this one I won't bother with.

>I think everyone missed out on the fact that it's happening in the streets of Riverdale.

I was hit by a car on my bike riding in the streets of Riverdale. It's not like there isn't any traffic in Riverdale (there is TONNES). I think you're missing the fact that these people won't be biking single file in a bike lane with an emphasis on safety which in itself can still be unsafe.

PickleToes, consider them being indoctrinated with an anti-state rebellion - isn't that healthy?
I thought you'd support cycling for it's celebration of freedom.

Ministry of Unrestrained Operations?

Hmmm - I think I need some help with parenting now. Is riding my bike to the store with my child endangerment? How about 2-3 families want to ride around the neighbourhood before getting an ice cream? How about if a dozen families want to do this?

Probably the most often heard response from a driver after a bike/car collision is "I didn't even *see* them!" My experience is that traveling in a large group of cyclists if vastly safer than traveling as 1-2 individuals. Therefore I would assert that traveling quiet residential streets with children in a large group is safer than traveling as a single parent/child.

Also, taking of an entire lane is also not necessarily an issue under section 147 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (which cyclists are subject to as vehicles - on equal footing with other vehicles) which states: "Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway." If conditions on the right (car door opening, potholes, grates, etc) make it unsafe to ride close to the right, moving to the left is required. Likewise, many drivers have an unfortunate tendency to try to pass closely on the left even when an empty passing lane exists. By filling a lane with cyclists (or traveling far to the left as a single cyclist), additional safety is provided by discouraging motorists' passing too closely while at the same time providing room for evasive action to the right if necessary.

As for the Stalin/Hitler debate - weren't both of them all about mindlessly and unquestioningly following the direction of the state? Seems like if a comparison were to be made it wouldn't be with the CM or KM participants but perhaps other folks...

toddtyrtle, if it was only about taking up the whole lane, but still proceeding in the proper direction and obeying the lights and not spontaneously cycling up onto the Gardiner, (for example,) a lot fewer people would hate Critical Mass.

tyrannosoarus rek, no one is BLAMING Kidical Mass for what Critical Mass does. But if the former group doesn't want to deal with the negative associations, they might want to re-think their name.

@david I understand your objections and though I do participate in CM rides, I think that at times both cyclists and drivers alike could improve how this is handled. Rather than bring up yet *another* CM debate (I think everyone has a strong opinion that will not be changed by yet another debate here on the subject) there are some unique challenges that cycling with a group of 300-500 folks presents that makes many of the practices (keeping together through a light even as it goes red, "corking" side streets, etc necessary which is why these same practices were supported and in most cases performed by the ~30 police officers accompanying the CM ride in June.

The fact of the matter is that I feel very strongly that in the face of limited and often inadequate cycling infrastructure, riding together in groups may be one of the best things we can do to improve cyclists' safety. It is the "safety in numbers" aspect that brings many such as myself to critical mass rides. It is this same safety in numbers that has brought many in other cities such as Sydney to start group commuter rides, also known as Bike Buses. Several of us hope to bring the same sort of program here soon.

Parenthetically, there have been a number of cyclists from time to time proposing Critical Manners rides be started in Toronto. I'd love to see this become a reality, though truth be told, I think it could be a little challenging with more than a hundred or so riders...

@torontothegreat Clearly there are exceptions to every rule otherwise:

- Nobody would die in a Volvo crash
- All birth control would be 100% effective
- Users of sunscreen would never get skin cancer
- The government would always be there to help you

What you have shown is that cars, especially as in this case when operated by impaired individuals, crash into things. Sometimes it is other cars, sometimes inanimate objects, and other times into pedestrians and cyclists.

Tragedies happen all the time and the laws of statistics come into play but the fact remains that groups are more visible than individuals. Single pedestrians are picked off all the time here - sometimes it seems like on a weekly basis or more. *Groups* of pedestrians crossing major streets are, on occasion, hit but not nearly as often despite the fact that they are omnipresent downtown.

@torontothegreat It's an interesting question. There is no question that an accident with a group of a dozen folks is going to be more tragic than one. However, with greater visibility comes a reduced number of accidents in the first place. Take our city's most recent fatality when a woman didn't see a single oncoming cyclist and opened her car door. Another commonly fatal car/bike accident is the 'right hook' where someone makes a right turn failing to see the cyclist going straight ahead (or waiting to do so) while the driver was making a right turn. This would be a bit less likely with a group of cyclists.

But of course nobody on two wheels, four wheels, or two legs is made any safer from the drunk, the street racer, or the other forms of inattentive driver.

Oh, and as for the comments about the possibility of this group concerned that lawlessness and anarchy will ensure - take note that in the photo above, all riders are signaling an upcoming turn.

Here's more context behind the photo that torontothegreat linked to. And here's the MSNBC article that the image is from. A drunk driver who fell asleep at the wheel crashed into a group of pedestrians in a bike rally near the U.S.-Mexico border, and one cyclist died. Given that it's a freak accident that I've never seen or heard anything like before, I don't know that it proves anything about safety in numbers, one way or another. (You could argue it's an exception that proves the rule.) As someone who bikes, though, I'd have felt far safer, say, on that group Gardiner ride than on my usual summer commute downtown along Dupont Street.

@bigdaddyhame Actually, no. Surprisingly bicycles are rarely mentioned explicitly there. They are classified as vehicles (albeit slow moving ones - thus the applicability of HTA-147)

This isn't directed at anyone in particular but I think much of the tension between cyclists/drivers could be alleviated by education relating to a few simple facts:

- Bikes with wheels larger than 20" in diameter are not permitted on sidewalks. (i.e. angry motorists telling cyclists to get on the sidewalk are actually directing folks to violate the law. By the same token angry pedestrians saying "Get off the sidewalk!" are within their rights. That said, particularly in the more suburban areas (Dufferin north of Finch comes to mind), the roads are treacherous and pedestrians are few to none. I will risk a ticket before risking my life there. No excuse for sidewalk-cycling downtown.

- Bikes are classified as vehicles under the HTA and are therefore subject to the same rules as all other vehicles. Arguments can be made that rules could/should be changed but we're stuck with what we have for now.

- Probably the most important thing to keep in mind is that a certain percentage of human beings are idiots and jerks. Idiocy and jerkiness becomes much more evident when people are operating a vehicle (motorized or not). Arguments such as "Drivers always..." or "Cyclists always..." are stereotypes based on the actions of a percentage of the larger group and thus don't detract from the respectability of the individual you are encountering at any moment. Unless bikes are declared illegal or cars either banned from the city or rendered too expensive to operate by gas prices (none of which will happen soon) we're stuck with each other and need to do our best to figure out how to get along. Understanding each other helps a lot in that sense.

- Finally, and this is just opinion, I feel that one of the best things for our relationship as commuters would be to have good infrastructure for cyclists including bike lanes (clear of snow and not used as loading zones or parking). Good infrastructure makes everyone's moves that much more predictable. Pedestrians rarely have conflicts with drivers because there is a clear place for them (the sidewalk) with their own signals and rules that still afford them the opportunity to travel at reasonable speeds making it a viable option. Unfortunately, it still seems that while urban sidewalks are considered a necessity, bike lanes are still a "nice to have".

Cycling in a group is definitely safer. For every doubling of the number of cyclists on the road, the increase in collisions is about 30%. This means that the individual chance of being in a collision is about 30% less.
source

sorry moot my point about biking in groups. My quick scan reading style is obviously not working so well today ;)

As a cyclist with 31 years of riding experience and as a motorist with 19 years of the same, that which I take exceptional umbrage (particularly the bolded situations):

• Motor vehicle operators using any electronic information-communication device while in motion;
• Bicycle operators using any electronic information-communication device while in motion;
• Motor vehicles occupying two lanes, one which is designated for parallel parking and bicycle traffic;
• Bicycle operators moving on a two-way road and riding against the traffic;
• Toronto's bike lanes (their civil engineering design and implementation is entirely wrong, ill-envisioned, and incontestably hazardous);
• Motor vehicle operators who execute parking/idling/stopping in designated bike lanes;
• College Street (all of it). College Street is Death Trap Road;
• Beck Taxi. Maple Taxi comes 2nd. Co-op, 3rd. Crown, 4th.
• Motorists who honk and charge at a bicyclist stopped at front of red light for not "getting out of the way" to defer to motorist to make their right turn on red (see HTA on bicycles being classified as vehicles);
• Motorists who try to manoeuvre around a bicyclist stopped at front of a red light regardless;
• Bicyclists who elect not to wear helmets;
• Motorists who fail to leave 1m berth between rightmost driving lane and curbside/parked cars;
• Motorists who fail to use their turn signals;
• Toronto Police Service for demonstrative reluctance to write citations for motorists who trigger a bicycle accident/collision;
• Motorists who employ a separate class of road rage techniques for bicyclists (drive-by tossing coffee on cyclist, sandwiching bicyclist to curb, etc.);
• Motorists who exercise a "stale amber" light as a "fast green" one;
• Bicyclists who slowly and erratically weave side-to-side;
• Motorists who scream at bicyclists of any kind to get out of the road where they "don't belong";
• Bicyclists who fail to use a front headlight or white flasher at night;
• Fixie/fixed-gear bicyclists without a backup hand-brake, who have to fish-tail to slow down in rapid cases, risking to sideswipe other nearby cyclists;
• The lack of demarcated "bike boxes" at traffic light intersections;
• The lack of road information signage tailored for bicyclists;
• Non-taxi/bus motorists who use Bay Street's protected lane between 7a-7p on weekdays;
• Motorists who unambiguously ignore a bicyclist bell warning;
• Motorists who parallel park and fail to look before swinging open their door;
• Motorists who not only fail to signal well in in advance of an anticipated parallel parking decision, but then also try to pull into the space front-end-in first, sandwiching a bicyclist while jamming motorist traffic on a functionally two-lane road;
• Motorists who are using the right lane before a traffic intersection, and either fail to signal a right turn or use the signal only after they are in the process of turning;
• Bicyclists who fail to move to the left of a right-signalling, right-turning vehicle;
• Chemically incapacitated drivers (drunk, stoned, amped);
• Chemically incapacitated bicyclists (drunk, stoned, amped);
• Every permutation of pedestrians who jaywalk, and do so without caring to look both ways;
• As a bicyclist, Queens Park/University Avenue and Avenue Road;
• As a motorist, Bloor Street and Queen Street;
• Motorists who make three-point turns on a core arterial without signalling, yielding, or planning ahead the turnaround execution.

When all these (and other) different situations go down (and they all do), it's a volatile, explosive stew just waiting to boil over. And boil over it does, played out multiple times a day every day, all over the city.

By comparison, a collected gaggle of bicyclists, predictably once a month, predictably same time that month, predictably starting at the same place that month, is orderly when set against the chaos of the massive list preceding.