Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Thunderstorm
30°/16°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/19°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
30°/16°

17 Comments

cityscape

Public Works Committee to Cyclists: Let Them Eat Posts

Committee votes to prohibit locking bikes to anything but official bike posts...of which there are far too few.

Photo by Gavatron from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

On Thursday, Mike Layton tweeted that, as part of the new comprehensive streets bylaw [PDF] being proposed by the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, the City would basically make it illegal for anyone to lock their bike to anything other than an official bike post. This was quickly followed by some self-appointed sensible people pointing out that nobody would do anything unless said bike was locked up for more than 24 hours, so it didn’t really affect anybody, did it?

The answer to this question is “yes and no.” On a practical level, no: no bike will be towed for a day following it being locked to a non-bike post, so it doesn’t matter for the vast majority of cyclists, and most of those few cyclists who do need to lock up for more than 24 hours can find a bike post. So, yes, this law as written will not affect cyclists too much, and indeed seems to be related to City Hall’s newfound fear of abandoned bikes.

But on a more serious level, the answer is “yes.”

It is true that the only enforcement of the bylaw is the 24-hour seizure rule, but that doesn’t change the fact that the law renders the act of locking a bike to a fence or a street sign—or anything that isn’t an Official City of Toronto Municipal Bicycle Security Structure ™—illegal. It seems entirely possible that a police officer can, upon seeing you locking your bike to a stop sign, order you to cease and desist.

Photo by DdotG from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

It’s also wildly impractical. Every cyclist in Toronto knows perfectly well that the city doesn’t have enough official bike posts. Outside of the downtown core they’re few and far between; what are suburban cyclists supposed to do when there’s no bike post literally for kilometres in any direction? And of course, downtown cyclists are used to the experience of not being able to find an empty bike post for blocks. Cyclists want to use the bike posts. They even are willing to use those bike posts that haven’t been reinforced yet and which are potentially unsecure. (Any downtown cyclist with a reasonable amount of riding experience can think of half a dozen bike posts where the ring is hanging loosely from the pole—and even these posts are routinely filled with bikes.) People use fences and street signs because there simply aren’t bike posts to satisfy the demand for locking points. A law that penalizes people for not using bike posts will not solve this problem.

But it’s more than the law itself. It’s the fact that, when presented with the problem of there simply not being enough bike posts to handle bike traffic, Team Ford’s solution was to propose laws which can only serve to discourage cycling. Rob Ford campaigned on ending the “war on the car.” Between this bike lock provision and the removal of three new bike lanes in the past months, it’s quite clear now that Rob Ford and his ideological allies at City Hall want to make up for that phony, imaginary war by conducting a very real war on the bike. This is obvious, and it is long past time to stop giving Rob Ford the benefit of the doubt on this issue. He doesn’t care about good public policy. He doesn’t care about what’s best for Toronto. He just doesn’t like bikes.


Proposed amendment to bylaw concerning Streets and Sidewalks, Use Of; 2.C (P):

No person shall, without prior authorization from the General Manager, chain, lock or otherwise attach any article or thing to a waste receptacle, streetlight, parking meter, utility pole, transit shelter, fence, tree or any other municipal property or authorized encroachment that is located in a street, and any article or thing that remains attached for more than 24 consecutive hours may be removed by the General Manager and disposed of pursuant to Article XVIII.

The new harmonized streets bylaw will come before a meeting of full city council for a final debate and vote November 29–30.


Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=28132417 Matt Patterson

    As a cyclist, I agree with all of the criticisms presented in this post with one big exception: I don’t think the 24 hour rule should apply to trees. The minute a city official sees a bike locked to a tree – especially those thin ones struggling to make it through their first few years, which ironically make them particularly attractive for bike locks – the bike should be removed immediately. I’d also like to see the culprits publicly caned, but I don’t think that will fly with the constitution.

  • http://twitter.com/marxidad Mark Cidade

    Why don’t we just plant a ring post with every sapling? #bikeTO

  • http://twitter.com/MarkJull Mark Jull

    I was rather surprised to hear this coming from the Public Works Committee last week, but I wonder if it really did come out of nowhere, or even if its cause is bikes. I wonder if there is some other object that’s being locked to municipal property that’s causing problems, like those A-frames that realtors attach to poles for ‘open houses.’ I also understand that this proposed bylaw is to ‘harmonize’ the various bylaws left over from amalgamation (meaning that such a bylaw already exists in certain parts of the city?).

    I’m beginning to wonder if this has nothing to do with cyclists, or if it’s just some symbolic ‘eff you’ to cyclists by the Mayor and his cronies.

    An interesting take here: http://www.ibiketo.ca/blog/cyclists-alarmed-over-proposed-bylaw-restrict-bike-parking-street

  • Guest

    I don’t see a problem with this bylaw in practice:

    waste receptacle – can’t do it anyway with the crappy new bins.
    streetlight – generally to big to get U lock around
    parking meter – mostly (if not all) gone
    utility pole – generally too big to get U lock around
    transit shelter – can’t do it anyway
    fence – now many are municipal property anyway
    tree – should not be doing it anyway

    List does not seem to include parking, stop, or street signs, which are commonly used.

    • Antinephalist

      Signage is included in the “or any other municipal property” language.

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t council have better things to do than rearrange the deck furniture as the iceberg approaches?

    (This isn’t a Rob-Ford-is-fat joke.)

    • Anonymous

      I like it better as a Rob-Ford-is-fat joke…

  • http://twitter.com/mark_dowling Mark Dowling

    It would be interesting to see if a map could be produced detailing “no park” zones where a bike cannot possibly be legally parked on municipal property.

  • Anonymous

    If I can’t lock my bike at the Eaton Centre. at he grocery store, or the bank I am taking it in with me.

    • http://twitter.com/ChrisDartCOTF Chris Dart

      Yeah, I cosign that.

  • http://twitter.com/WanderingPeng1 Steve Craig

    “He just doesn’t like bikes.”

    One would imagine the feeling is very, very mutual.

    (With apologies to tyrannosaurus_rek this IS a Rob-Ford-is-fat joke.)

  • Anonymous

    Here’s an opportunity to note just how fucking insane our notions of parking are, as between bikes and cars. As Christopher notes, there are far too few ring posts – which the overwhelming majority of cyclists seek out and want to use. These cost, what, $50 a pop?

    Contrast this with car parking. Think of how expensive it is to build a roadway. Now consider that we build our roadways 33-50% wider than they need to be just so people can leave their cars parked and unoccupied for large periods of time. And at absurdly cheap (read: subsidized) rates.

  • Wing Tipped

    this is kinda fascist … boo!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Cook/507835870 Bryan Cook

      First they came for the communists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the bicycles…

  • Jim Clarke

    “Every cyclist in Toronto knows perfectly well that the city doesn’t have enough official bike posts.”

    On the other hand, cyclists seem perfectly willing to jam sidewalks by locking their bikes to signs (etc.) without thought about how much space is left for walking.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Cook/507835870 Bryan Cook

    I didn’t know there wasn’t a law saying this already. I know for private property you can remove bikes not on bike racks. At my work we give 48 hour notice which is so long we never really remove them just waste paper. I find it especially annoying becasue we have a bike rack in the parking area but people stick them on our trees, light posts and signs.

    When I worked on Queen’s Quay years ago if a bike stayed overnight it would be stolen. Ever since the big raids on stolen bike dealer cyclists have gotten lazy.

  • http://twitter.com/clotheshoarse Harry S.

    I completely understand the need to remove bicycles from the noted fixtures. I’ve had a bike locked to a street sign outside my business for months. Despite my persistent attempts to contact the owner, (notes) the now rusting and essentially unusable bike, remains. I’d LOVE it if the city came by and removed it. But, I don’t see the need for the 24 hour rule. Why not a week or something else? Why can a van, with flat tires and expired license stickers be left on my (home) street for months and not even get a ticket? Surely, this van with it’s oil dripping onto the street, and so into the storm sewers, is a greater problem than my bike?