Report to/Rapport
au :
Cycling Advisory
Committee/
7 January 2003 / le 7 janvier 2003
Submitted by/Présenté
par : Stella Val, Cycling Advisory
Committee /
Contact/Personne-ressource : Rosemary Nelson, 580-2424, ext./poste 21624,
Rosemary.Nelson@ottawa.ca
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE -
MINUTES
OBJET: COMITÉ DE L’ÉDUCATION ET DE L’EXÉCUTION - PROCÈS-VERBAL
That the
Cycling Advisory Committee receive the report for information.
Que le Comité consultatif sur le cyclisme
reçoive le rapport à titre d’information.
The
Education and Enforcement Sub-committee met on 25 November 2002 and have submitted
the attached Minutes for the information of the Cycling Advisory Committee.
Document 1 – Minutes of 25 November
Document 1
Notes
Ottawa
Education and Enforcement Sub-Committee
25
November 2002, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Office
of Citizens for Safe Cycling
1. Acceptance
of agenda
Agenda
was accepted.
2. Acceptance/modification
of notes from October 28, 2002 meeting.
Notes
were accepted without change.
3. Bicycles
on the sidewalks
Members
will share the results of their research on sidewalk cycling in other cities.
Jen
reported on her request for information on enforcement, which included
information on sidewalk cycling. This
synopsis also applies to #5 below.
From
Missoula, Montana, pop 50,000
§
enforcement is medium – low
§
violators are hard to chase
§
cyclists are lippy
§
15+not allowed on sidewalks
§
statistics are not available
§
enforcement blitz once a year
§
there are 4 cops on bikes
§
minimal political support
§
no cyclist-specific funding
From
San Francisco
§
enforcement only in commercial districts
§
there are bike police but they do not enforce
traffic rules
§
funding is $25000 derived from gas tax
§
no bike school
§
there have been public education campaigns
against aggressive driving
It
was suggested that sidewalk cycling was covered by by-law. All transportation by-laws may be enforced
by Parking Control Officers (PCO’s) Troy Leeson is co-ordinator of PCO’s
ACTION: Jen will contact Troy Leeson to find out who
enforces sidewalk cycling and what cycling-training PCO’s are required to have.
ACTION:
Brett
will contact Susan Jones to find out who enforces ByLaw, specifically
sidewalk cycling and contact Human Resources to find out what the training
policy is for employees, such as PCO’s, using bicycles for their work – is
there a minimum requirement of CAN-Bike 1?
“Bicycling on Sidewalks in Ottawa-Carleton” 19
March 1997
After a brief
discussion of the document as a whole, we considered each of the 5
recommendations:
1. The
question of enforcement may be addressed in finding out who should enforce sidewalk
cycling. The fine of $35 is too low,
should be higher to standardize it with other fines endangering others, bring
it in line with Toronto fines, and also to provide revenue for Bike School.
RECOMMENDATION: We feel the fine for sidewalk cycling should
be $90.
ACTION: Brett will find out what has happened to the
by-law consolidation process.
2. The question
of education should be addressed as part of City of Ottawa’s program for which
they have an Rfp.
3.& 4. The
question of gaps in the network and design of new pathways should be addressed
by the Bicycle Plan.
5. Should
be addressed by on-going education campaigns.
Review and comments on
the letter Stella prepared for MIAC, additions/deletions/ changes. The new version of the letter is:
Dear Donna-Lee and
MIAC members:
Thank
you for your comments about sidewalk cycling, which came to us through Rob
Tremblay. Obviously this is a complex
issue and we agree with you that there are reasons that the cyclists are using
the sidewalks. We know that there are
many roads where cyclists do not feel comfortable:
§ because of narrow lanes and feeling they are
too close to the cars,
§ because of lack of cycling knowledge and
skills,
§ because of aggressive drivers.
The solution, if there
is one, has therefore to be found in
§ the design of the roads, cycle lanes and
paths, (engineering)
§ the behaviour of operators of all types
vehicles (education),
§ incentives to encourage cyclists to ride on
the road (encouragement), or
§ the enforcement of rules (enforcement).
An
alternative solution, as you mention is to segregate motorized vehicles from
cyclists, in-line skaters and pedestrians.
We discussed this and feel that this setup is fine along long stretches
where there are few driveways or intersections, and where the pedestrians are
traveling parallel to the cyclists (such as is the case on the NCC multi-use
paths.) However, we feel it is not safe
on sidewalks where pedestrians and motorists are turning in and out of
entrances, (to houses, schools offices or shops) each of which becomes an
intersection. A study, titled
"Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections"
by Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston in the Sept./Oct 1994, ITE Journal (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm)
reported:
"Table
5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are usually not,
as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road, but much less safe. This
conclusion is already well established in existing standards for bikeway
design, although in our experience it is not widely known or observed. Two
principal standards, the 1981 AASHTO Guide for Development of New Bicycle
Facilitiesi and the California Highway Design Manual’s chapter on “Bikeway
Planning and Design” ii, find that the designated use of sidewalks as bikeways
is “unsatisfactory.” The 1981 AASHTO Guide and the 1983 version of the
California Manualiii offer an extensive list of reasons for this
recommendation, including wrong-way travel and blind conflicts at intersections
and driveways..."
"Tables 3 and 4 bear out the
explanations given for these design recommendations. Table 4 shows that
wrong-way sidewalk travel is 4.5 times as dangerous as right-way sidewalk
travel. Moreover, both Table 4 and Table 5 show that sidewalk bicycling
promotes wrong-way travel: 315 of 971 sidewalk bicyclists (32 percent) rode
against the direction of traffic, compared to only 108 of 2005 roadway
bicyclists (5 percent).
“Even right-way sidewalk bicyclists can
cross driveways and enter intersections at high speed, and they may enter from
an unexpected position and directionfor instance, on the right side of
overtaking right-turning traffic. Sidewalk bicyclists are more likely than
roadway bicyclists to be obscured at intersections by parked cars, buildings,
fences, and shrubbery; their stopping distance is much greater than a
pedestrian’s, and they have less maneuverability."
In
our October meeting, the committee members planned to do research on what other
cities are doing to combat sidewalk cycling, and hope to include the results of
that research in a proposal for a plan of action. This plan will include proposing an area where sidewalk cycling
will be targeted with a campaign to get cyclists to ride on the road. Pre-campaign data on the amount of sidewalk
cycling will be collected. The campaign
may entail an advertising blitz, signs erected on the site and zero tolerance
of sidewalk cycling (tickets issued).
Then post-campaign data will be collected to ascertain if there is any
improvement.
We
would appreciate your comments on this kind of proposal after your next MIAC
meeting in January, 2003.
Sincerely,
Stella Val and the E&E sub-committee of OCAC.
As the December meeting of MIAC has been cancelled, the letter will
have to presented at the January meeting.
4. Report
from Jen on education related items taking place at CfSC.
Some discussion took
place on CfSC’s preparation of a proposal for the City of Ottawa’s 2002
program. The RfP is now advertised nationally on MERX. It is very similar to the one presented at
the OCAC meeting Nov. 18. Sidewalk
cycling is not specified, but can be integrated.
5. Enforcement
See
information in #1 above about Jen’s findings on this issue. Brett will have information by the next
meeting in January.
Jen reported that Manny has been in touch with Madelaine Meilleure to continue to push for year round police enforcement on bikes as it will promote visibility and year round cycling.
As time was short,
next steps will be discussed in the January meeting.
6. Health
Department Report Card
A
report from the Durham Region is driving this initiative, which will be a high
level document that the Health Department is preparing for Jan-Feb. Possible meeting with Greg Kent to discuss
issues on health from a cycling perspective, or Brett may just report back from
this meeting. We discussed what were
issues, perceived issues, and what was measurable. Possible issues were:
§
sidewalk cycling - measurable
§
speed of drivers - measurable
§
lack of respect for cyclists – hard to measure
§
drivers passing too closely – hard to measure
§
right turns on red and not stopping for cyclists
or pedestrians – hard to measure
§
failing to stop at red lights – hard to measure
§
air quality - measurable
§
use of helmets - measurable
§
enforcement activity too low – hard to measure
§
cycling while intoxicated – hard to measure
§
cycling and speeding
Possibly
because enforcement activity is low, and many accidents are not reported, there
are limited figures to use in analysis.
It
is even very hard to get information from MFAR’s .
We
need a Pedestrian/Bicycle Analysis Tool to do a one time study to get some
information.
(We
also need consistent enforcement to change cycling and motorist behaviour.)
7. Location
and date of next meeting –January 5, 2003, location to be announced.