Most bikers are reasonable, sensible bicycle commuters. They stay in the road, wear helmets, and follow laws. No skin off my nose. (ecologically friendly, fights obesity, blah blah blah blah blah)

But I've also had multiple encounters with bicyclists who feel they are entitled to switch back and forth between a wheeled vehicle moving significantly above normal walking speeds and a pedestrian who just happens to be on a bicycle. Usually with no notice and as is convenient for them. Not infrequently such enhanced-pedestrians can top 20 mph barreling down the sidewalk. Sometimes with cargo in tow. I have literally never even heard of there being any real consequences for such irresponsible and reckless behavior.

I understand why they do it. It's so convenient! Roads certainly aren't always designed for the safety of bicyclists. Yet, these are perhaps less than adequate reasons for irresponsible behavior.

More troubling to me is the role bicycles seem to play in the underground economy of the Bay. But that seems more an issue stemming from law enforcement's general disinclination to be interested in bikes and bikers at all.

because they can. trying to pigeonhole cyclists as either cars or pedestrians is exactly why so many confrontations occur. its not that a cyclists prefer sidewalks as they are horrible to bike on (bumpy, uneven, inconsistent, obstacled), its that on some roads a distracted driver can mean near certain death. Its not irresponsible, its moving a 20 pound object around 100-200 lb people (if pedestrians cant be avoided) instead of holding their own against 3 ton cages.

Are there douchey cyclists? yes. But just try getting down one block of SF only in the bike lane. You’ll be stuck behind a ups truck or broken muni for days or pop a tire on a broken bottle some hobo left there or get hit in the face with a door.

If you're forced to move into pedestrian space for safety from giant metal cages, the safest option is to actually become a pedestrian. For you and for the other squishies around. I understand that it's slow, uncomfortable, and an unpleasant cycling experience. I appreciate the sacrifice you make for the safety of your fellow squishies.

I'd also be happier with Bay biking culture if it didn't consistently make excuses for douchey cyclists.

Mostly issue with city biking is drivers who think that roads are strictly for cars

Cars are looking for road traffic when they’re turning, so to be most visible you should be on the road. They’re not looking for cyclist riding 15-20 mph on the sidewalk.

And in my experience, all of the close calls I’ve had have been while riding on the sidewalk. The closest I ever came to getting hit was a car turning while I was crossing a crosswalk at speed. I had to swerve and jump the curb to avoid getting hit.

Also, cars and cyclists are much more similar than pedestrians and cyclists are. Pedestrians can stop and turn instantly, while cars and cyclists cannot. Pedestrians also are likely to be on their phone, walking a dog, or pushing a stroller. Or all of those at once.

I'm no saint, I practice the Idaho Stop too but if I'm at a four-way stop and two cars stop before me, then of course they get to go.

There are two parts to complying with a stop sign:

1. Come to full stop

2. Yield to any traffic that has the right-of-way before proceeding

The problem with a lot of stop sign installations in the US is that they're largely unnecessary since it's possible to yield to traffic that has the right of way without having to come to a full stop first (since there's plenty of visibility of approaching cross traffic). That's why cyclists do "Idaho stops" and car drivers do rolling stops.

If authorities would only post traffic control devices in areas that are absolutely necessary, instead of having a blanket rule for using them, then compliance would go up substantially and complaints about cyclists and cars running stop signs, for example, would be next to non-existent.

I would be very surprised to see that on a side walk. 20mph is above the speed limits for cars in cities here in Sweden, and I recall reading that while the police can catch people speeding on bikes that its not very likely event.

> Usually with no notice and as is convenient for them

Seems similar to parents with strollers. I have never heard of a parent being confronted by police for reckless engagement of children when walking on the bike road, and it is almost as if people do not view it as reckless. I am pretty sure through that people would react if a parent started to walk with the stroller onto the road against car traffic.

I would be very interested to know how many people would confront a stranger that is walking a stroller on a bike road, or even just quietly consider it reckless.

I don't walk to work with a radar gun, but sidewalk-bikes barreling down on me are a daily occurrence (San Francisco). Not people coasting down the block, people actively pumping and dodging. I've been run over by a bike twice, and while I'll take that any day vs. a car, those shitheads need to stay off the sidewalk.

I am very pro-bike. I road one to work daily, until a couple of scary incidents put me off it. I no longer ride much[1].

That said, the jerks on the sidewalk, along with some of the more aggressive bikers, really need to be locked in a room with the entitled auto-rageoholics. The survivors can enjoy the nicer streets with the rest of us after they graduate from the reeducation camps.

[1] Had a couple bad incidents nearly back-to-back, and am probably doing that thing where one's risk aversion increases with age, but I don't feel safe riding anymore.

The average bike speed, as far as I know, is average 10 mph on city bike roads. Seeing a bike going 20 on a city sidewalk is like seeing a car going 150 on narrow city roads. I am sure it happens, but it is illegal, very dangerous, and not something most people will ever see in a life time. I think it is just fair to treat both forms equal and address it for what it is.

The fastest they clocked were nearly 80kmh. If you go that fast on motorcycle you are expected to wear a massive helmet and suit, yet the person likely did it wearing spandex and a bike helmet (if that).

now that speed was highly unlikely to be maintained, but do not underestimate the kinds of speeds a bicycle can get up to under the proper circumstances.

Anecdata time.

Practically every single day I'll see bikes casually going through red lights, usually moving between pedestrians crossing. Now, I'll freely grant that they're usually paying enough attention to be safe - but you can bet motorbikes (and even cars) could make those very same judgement calls - except they'd get done by cameras/police.

Bikes are not obviously safer than a car to me as a pedestrian. They're less predictable, less regulated, and typically less careful of pedestrians. Heck, they also probably travel faster than cars most of the time in central london since the speed limit is 20mph everywhere on the rare occasion there's no traffic.

Then of course there's the idiots riding along on the pavement because they can't easily filter through traffic and why should they have to wait in line to move on etc etc.

I'm actually pretty solidly pro properly segregated bike lanes, but if I had to rate drivers vs cyclists in a "most likely to have a collision with as a pedestrian" I would easily go with the cyclist.

Possibly, but if you'd pick a more reasonable metric, such as accidents that actually result in serious injury, cars are apparently ahead, by a 6000% margin; http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-...

I don't want to start an argument, but I bet we could look up driver -> pedestrian accidents, and see how many were reported vs cyclists -> pedestrian accidents.

Personally, I would much rather get hit by a cyclist as a pedestrian, than a car, and that's simply physics. I've been hit as a pedestrian multiple times by cars (thankfully, at low speed), but never by a bike. I've been hit by a car while riding a bike.

You do not want to get hit by a car, while riding a bike. The car always wins. Thankfully, I survived.

I'd weight it by, well, mass and associated likelihood of actual harm, personally.

I'm a fairly keen (but casual) cyclist. I wouldn't cyclce in London by preference, and I have seen some terrible behaviour by cyclists in London.

One day at 9am in the City, I saw a cyclist swearing loudly at everyone and pushing through the crush as people tried to cross Liverpool Street, at a pedestrian crossing, when the lights were red for traffic.

Total arsehole. I thought to myself "this is why people think cyclists are all bastards, people like you".

Not in Philadelphia, at least. I walk everywhere, and racking my brain for bike encounters I can only recall one of maybe 20 instances in which a bike actually stopped at a red light. I can recall at least a third of those instances where bikes were travelling the wrong way on a one way street, and another third with bikes on the sidewalk.

That being said, I still think biking is a net positive. It would be better if the roads were designed with bikes in mind. The problem with bad human behavior is almost never the human, but the system that's designed to disincentivize the good behavior.

In general, traffic isn't paying attention. They will swerve blindly into the bike lane to get around other cars to take a right and I can't depend on them to be watching out for me.

Once I stop moving I remove the option of swerving out of the way. After my first month of biking here and almost getting hit several times, I just gave up and I ride as aggressively as everyone here drives. I hate it. Biking in New York, Portland or anywhere else I've lived is just a different game. Philly is the most stressful place I've biked.

Not saying that's safe... But it is legally accepted

I pay at least as much attention when I am the lone cyclist at a red light (particularly at night) as when I am actively moving and riding in traffic, and have had a number of vehicles come to a stop a bit close or a bit too quickly for comfort. This is in an area with _a_lot_ of cyclists.

I will also concede that motorcyclists are generally much better on the road than "analog" bikes, at least when they aren't in a group and their loud-ass bikes aren't waking me up at 1 AM.

My tail lights on my bike are rather bright and flashy. It's still happened before. There isn't really "a" solution. It's better awareness, better visibility, everyone being more proactive, etc.

Can you fucking imagine shipping a product that just plain doesn't work for a large part of what the law defines as a vehicle? For something as crucial as a light? Can you imagine installing that as the government, not in some test locations, but all over?

I'm not quite sure what specifications lights need to conform to but a good fricking starting point seems like the law. These things are just plain defective.

One of my safety heuristics is "clear the intersection". Sometimes that means jump the light, or follow a car thru a 4-way, or full stop (foot on ground) to clearly signal I'm waiting my turn.

> Not in Philadelphia, at least.

This is mostly solvable by building better infrastructure. Just visit Netherlands or Denmark to see how well things could be organized.

When the infrastructure is bad, bikers (or people in general) will resort to odd behavior just to get by.

Some bikers in the city are irresponsible and ignore traffic laws. The same treatment given to cyclists by some drivers is meted out to pedestrians by some cyclists. Something to do, no doubt, with that pesky issue of power imbalance.

In terms of risk assessment as a pedestrian in NYC, I always watch out for (1) MTA bus drivers, (2) any sort of livery, and (3) people on bikes, in that order.

In California, bikes seemed alright enough. Lane splitting is legal, most use bike lanes, etc.

That being said, bikes are supposed to act like a vehicle on the road. I.e. stop at stop signs, and go through the stop signs one at a time. Not once have I ever seen this happen. There's also stopping at lights, which happens usually, but typically they then try to act like pedestrians...

Now outside of California, lane splitting is very rarely legal, especially in the Midwest, South, and East. Which means a bike literally has to act 100% like a car, or motorcycle. They can't ride next to a car or pass a car (or line of cars), without moving to another lane. The only exception, is typically if there is a bike lane.

So no, most bikes don't follow the laws. The "minority" of poeple who make "wild claims" are the people who have to drive next to them.

For the record, I've had 5 bikers hit my car (one got a ticket), at least 2 bikers try to squize by and scratch my car, and 1 idiot try to pass me on the right while I made a right turn. That person got pissed, but cop agreed I was in the right. I've lived in Alameda and drove to SF and Oakland regularly, but half of this happened in Champaign IL (on a college campus, where the bikers don't know how to ride or the laws).

In regards to pedestrians, twice I've been hit by a bike where both of us fell down and we were at least shaken. My wife, while in college, was straight up laid out when crossing the street once. The biker needed to be hospitalized, and she was injured (urgent care worked).

Point being, i don't think my opinion are wild. Bikers need education, and currently, riding a bike (especially inappropriately) in many places is dangerous for everyone. I agree that bikes can be more effective. However, in practice I think people should get a biking license. Just a 2 hour class, and a simple test. Know the rules, before you kill yourself or hurt others.

I would be a huge fan of collecting additional data as I am a firm believer that we would see trend lines down where we invest in infrastructure and where biking become more popular.

I still love cycling and I think it's the best way to get around. It sucks because my city is extremely bike-unfriendly and I don't feel safe biking here.

Crappy humans are crappy, no matter the mode of transport they use.

Crossing the street in NYC is more dangerous than it has to be because you always have to be wary of a person on a bike coming out from behind a truck or something.

I walk 4 miles a day on city sidewalks. The number of times I have to yield to bikers on the sidewalk is disgusting[0]. And some of these bikers are going fast. I once saved a child that was about to run out of a store. I could see, from my vantage point, the biker and the child set for a collision course. I stepped in front of the biker, doing about 20 mph on the sidewalk, to stop them. I got an earful of 4-letter words not a thank you.

Of course, there was the 20-something woman killed in a crosswalk by a biker running a light in SF a few years ago.

As a pedestrian, I have no love for many drivers or bikers, since they are a constant source of danger.

EDIT:

[0] I had an argument with a young woman at a light once, where I told her politely that she wasn't supposed to be on the sidewalk. He response? To tell me I was a selfish person not wanting to share the sidewalk.

As a biker you can't win. Drivers try to run you off the road, pedestrians don't want you on the sidewalk. Bike lanes are a solution, but the political will needs to be there.

That being said, in places where bikers feel they have to use the sidewalk, they should absolutely yield to pedestrians.

As both a biker and a pedestrian in NYC, this seems so glaringly obvious that it never fails to make me angry when I see a biker blithely biking down the sidewalk. In a city of impatient people riding your bike on the sidewalk is taking things to an anti-social extreme.

That said, I do find it frustrating (as both a biker and a pedestrian) when pedestrians fail to yield to bikers when the biker has the light -- New York pedestrians are opportunistic jaywalkers by nature, but so many people fail to look for bikes or yield to them, even when they have the light, if the street is clear of car traffic.

In many places of the US you have sidewalks built because they were mandated by law but are rarely used.

A typical example will have a 4-lane 45+mph road next to big box retail stores. This type of road is unpleasant to bike on but the adjoining sidewalk is empty and, assuming it has sufficient visibility to allow the cyclist to avoid left and right hooks, is much safer than the road.

NYC is a fascinating and important place but for better or worse is very different from the typical US city.

The law varies city by city. Where I live bikes are prohibited from the sidewalk only in the downtown area and it's legal elsewhere. Not that it stops anyone from biking on the sidewalk even downtown or that it ever gets enforced.

you're right, but the attitude that arises from that problem is what most people don't like about city bikers

It is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in every city I know of.

Pedestrians don't have lanes. Pedestrians don't have rules. They might turn suddenly to get into a car, or pop out of a shop. It is just selfish of bikers to think they should be on the sidewalk. It's very dangerous for us pedestrians. In the last 20 years, I've been hit twice on the sidewalk and had to jump out of the way, to avoid serious injury, many times.

While I agree that riding on the sidewalk is generally a bad idea, it's definitely not illegal in all places. For example, in Austin it's explicitly legal except in these locations [0].

[0] https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public...

So I must ask, how much of a freak accident is a traffic death caused by a biker crashing into a pedestrian? I recall looking into statistics for it a while back, but it seems that only data I could find was death caused by people falling down from bikes or into cars, not crashing into other people. The national statistics here in Sweden over road accident, the one which famously has a zero death goal, do include bikes and car collision (3 people died last year) but has no data at all over deaths caused by bike hitting people. Assuming that number is 0.

Is it possible that the 20-something woman killed was a freak accident? 20mph is about 50% faster than the legal limit of a electric bike, would be classified as a illegal moped at those speed if it has a engine, and it is even above the legal limit for cars inside Swedish cities. A bit unusual to see in city traffic.

That said, it happens, but only on the order of 1 or 2 deaths, and in some years none at all. The incidence is extremely low so no meaningful statistics. And then of course it mostly involves an old population who are susceptible to dieing from even a simple fall after stumbling on a tree root. It tells us more about the elderly than risk of cycle collisions.

Don't be too mad at the cyclists, though. Usually they're doing it because the city isn't providing the proper level of bike infrastructure. With more high quality bike lanes that people feel safe using, you'll see a lot fewer cyclists on sidewalks. It works in Manhattan.

Biking on the sidewalk is WAY more common in SF than in NYC, especially in manhattan. In SF, there seems to be a few main reasons:

1 - Biking on the street would clearly be unsafe. An example here is 3rd st between portrero and soma.

2 - Biking on the sidewalk on the block where you are stopping. These are people that usually bike on the street, but pull onto the sidewalk when they are leaving/entering a building. I understand this, but wish it wasn't so common.

3 - ignorance of, or just not caring about, biking rules and conventions.

It's easy to assume that #3 is always the case and get angry about it, but it's frequently #1 or #2 and I do think some empathy is called for.

Once I stopped sparring in the morning, I switched to a Black Diamond Dart. Easy to run with, and ample room for all the stuff you mentioned.

I now use a super light pack, and only pack my lunch, pants/shirt/socks/underwear. I live in SF, and generally don't shower unless I get really sweaty. Some people find this gross in theory but I don't, people in NYC get sweaty as hell walking from the subway to work in the summer in their regular clothes, so I've never really seen the difference.

Two big things I do come to mind: I never take my laptop to/from work everyday. I also keep dress shoes at work under my desk.

When I'm on the sidewalk, however, I'm only going at a brisk walking pace when pedestrians are present.

on HN is there seriously only two places to live in the US?

moved to SF last year for work.

Both NYC and SF have a relatively high concentration of tech folks, which is probably a lot of the HN readership.

NYPD ticket like crazy for sidewalk biking. Bay Area cops in the cities don’t really ticket for ‘quality of life’ crimes (or even blatant things like busting out car windows and such).

Bikers killing someone are extremely rare. Bikers getting killed by drivers is more common (citation needed).

When I am biking I'd much rather be riding slowly on a sidewalk than getting killed by a inconsiderate driver.

Where I live it is legal to ride on sidewalks in streets with no bike lines. So instead of taking my chances on a busy street I'd much rather ride slowly(10-15 km/h) on a sidewalk.

In an ideal world the cities would have specific bike only lines which cover all areas. I hear Copenhagen and Amsterdam are good with this.

It's not a choice. Every pedestrian must deal with both.

When I am biking I'd much rather be riding slowly on a sidewalk than getting killed by a inconsiderate driver.

Here's the thing: the amount of risk you are comfortable with is probably different than it is for me. What bikers who ride on the sidewalk are doing is forcing their risk tolerance on me. Given where I walk it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, I feel a certain amount of righteousness in asking bikers to get off the sidewalk.

Not quite as terrible as one pedestrian being killed every 1.6 hours by cars though. (2015 figures for the USA)

Funny, this is the exact opposite view from mine. Just last week I was hit by a bike crossing a street with a walk sign. Those assholes wouldn’t stop for you if you paid them.

Citations? Forget about it. The streets will just get too dangerous for peds and cars.

The majority of bikers I know freely admit, and even take pride in, blowing through stop signs and red lights. “You’re not supposed to stop!”

Why the fixation with traffic laws whenever bikes come up?

I bike to work and I don't follow the rules, I run reds, blow stop signs, ride on the sidewalks and so on.

However, I am courteous and polite to everyone. My goal is to not startle or inconvenience any other user of the road (or sidewalk).

Why should I stop at stop signs like a boyscout? That's just false piety.

The rules don't keep us safe, because the rules weren't designed in a perfect world.

What would help is if everyone just paid attention-texting while driving creates a huge hazard.

I found that for many people this concept makes them feel uncomfortable, and that they then explain that discomfort by appealing to rules.

I remain unmoved.

IMHO we need less rules, not more.

Biking in the city is great. We still need lots of infrastructure upgrades to make it safer, but progress is being made on a monthly basis. Just last month a particularly dangerous section of 5th Ave had its bike lane converted from, essentially, a standing/loading lane for vehicles into an actual protected bike lane (with parking separating it from vehicle traffic) that is safe for use. And they even painted it green!

For every one complaint others here have about cyclists, I have ten complaints about drivers and pedestrians. Every day on my commute I see dozens of infractions, the most common types being vehicles parking or driving in bike lanes, not yielding safely, pedestrians walking/standing in bike lanes, and pedestrians jaywalking through intersections. People who jaywalk at every light without thinking, and don't even yield to cyclists who have right of way while doing so, will then hypocritically turn around and criticize cyclists for doing things that are much less unsafe.

Just this morning I had to navigate through a veritable horde of people standing around in the bike lane at Union Square. I had the green light and they were all waiting to cross across me, except they were six feet too forward and were completely blocking the bike lane. This is a daily occurrence that you see while biking.

I wonder how the transition went and what effects were ?

I was mind wandering the other day:

- biking is less stressful than driving [1]

- promotes human contact

- promotes prolonged activity

- has very low cost

- almost zero carbon emission (keep breathing people)

- allows more capacity / density in urban environments

But it's all bedroom speculation so if anyone can give his own experience.

[1] considering no dangerous vehicles near, you're less hurried, and less angry at others for no reasons, enjoying the view rather than ruminating the traffic jam

For those interested, some history about Amsterdam cycling and "Stop the child murder" protests:

"How the Dutch got their cycling infrastructure": https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-...

"How Amsterdam became the bicycle capital of the world": https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...

Tail them for a bit, wait patiently for a safe opportunity to pass, and off you go! It's not like they're crashing into things left and right. Cars are typically more of a real threat, IMO.

There's two things that actually scare me as a biker: kids and dogs. Both are prone to completely unpredictable and sudden movement right into the bike path. If it's a kid holding a dog? FULL STOP.

A lot of bikers won't bike when the weather reaches a certain point (too cold, too much rain). This means that even if you build infrastructure for bikes, you're still going to have to build just as much throughput for other modes of transportation as you did before (they have to handle situations where no one is biking).

It seems to stop at least a number of them, even in places like Denmark. Look at the answers to this question, "Do Danes ride a bike in heavy rain?"[1]:

> Yes, though fewer will than in nice weather.

> Bus fill up more then usual in rain, though

Or this blogpost about people from Copenhagen biking through the winter[2]:

> As mentioned before, 80% of Copenhageners cycle through the winter. That number is surely lower when we have hard winters with snowstorm after snowstorm, but the numbers are still impressive.

And keep in mind the number we'd be interested in would be lower - not just how many people generally cycle throughout the winter (which seems to be ~80%), but how many of that 80% still choose to cycle on particularly cold or snowy winter days.

So even if we could have infrastructure on par with Copenhagen, and even if we get a corresponding cultural shift (neither of these are easy or quick tasks), we would still need the other forms of transportation infrastructure to be able to handle the spillover that occurs when large amount of bikers don't feel like biking.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Do-Danes-ride-a-bike-in-heavy-rain [2] http://www.copenhagenize.com/2011/01/cycling-in-winter-in-co...

> we would still need the other forms of transportation infrastructure to be able to handle the spillover that occurs when large amount of bikers don't feel like biking.

Not necessarily. If you don't have (enough of) that infrastructure, less people will be tempted by it. I imagine the 20% in Copenhagen switch to public transportation because it is well developed and convenient. When I commuted by bicycle, weather wasn't a factor because I had no convenient alternative. Ditto for my colleagues who commuted by bicycle.

I agree that the biggest problem is cultural.

If you somehow get people to try, they also discover that biking in really bad conditions is actually quite a lot of fun, provided you are wearing the right clothes. In the cold, your usual jacket is almost always enough because you're exercising anyway, but you'll need the best gloves and hat you can find. The days where I got to work in a snowstorm are actually my most productive :)

The real problem in bad weather conditions is that the threat from cars is amplified: it's usually dark in winter, snow and rain further deteriorate visibility, and snow/ice are dangerous because both bikes and cars are less predictable. Bikes are also extremely vulnerable to blocks of hardened snow that often get shoved right onto their usual path by cars.

Why do you "have to" build more car infrastructure? If traffic gets worse when the weather gets bad then there's even more incentive to bicycle despite the weather. That's the whole point of cycle-first, transit-first, pedestrian-first city planning: Cars don't scale, so stop trying.

They seem indestructible, and, once moving, can roll forever without slowing down. Yes, because of their high weight. But also because they're well-maintained and have low losses in components such as bearings and gears.

The weight is obviously far too high, and I wouldn't buy anything with these characteristics for personal use. But it's fun once in a while Used to be even better when they had suspensions that basically allowed you to take the curbs without slowing down.

Agree that the build quality is really good (picture here: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5619/22110033485_a7ab045bdd_b...)

Eventhough they're rather heavy, the nextbike actually cycles rather well. Was pleasantly surprised.

What's now preferred is a marked lane in the rightmost car lane, or to just dedicate a complete lane to bikes.

Proper, separated lanes, with kerbstones between both the cars and the pedestrians is best. It's also the most expensive.

There are some examples from Copenhagen here: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2006/10/04/notes-on-bicycling-in-...

Having said that, they don't seem to cause anywhere near as much of a problem when there are bike lines, but obviously that is not something available everywhere.

I'm sure they're easy to cross perpendicularly, but riding longitudinally with them and getting your tire into a crack could end very badly. If you have to go through an intersection where streetcars turn and the tracks snake all over, it would be hard to ensure you're always crossing them perpendicularly.

Do you ride on those streets, or somewhere more bike-friendly? (I suppose a fat tire bike might have no problem with those road features, and such bikes are getting more popular with cyclists who commute through the winter).

So yeah, it's definitely top of mind if you're riding on those streets, but there are things you can do to mitigate risk down to a level that's acceptable for me. For the record I live in Toronto, drive to work, all other trips are on my bike unless there's snow on the ground.

The streetcar tracks are definitely something you need to be aware of. If you do your best to cross perpendicularly and avoid rapid swerves when it's raining, it's pretty safe.

I spend most of my time on separated bike lanes, which are increasingly becoming A Thing. It's great.

The only time I really have to deal with streetcar tracks is if I'm on Queen St and I need to pass a stopped car on the right. It's fairly rare, maybe a few times per year. The rest of the time I'm just passing over them going on Richmond/Adelaide across Spadina which is orthogonal and easy.

Overall: The tracks are not great, and they're the #1 thing I warn new bikers about, but they're not a huge issue once you're aware of them and know how to deal with them.

Usually I do a little bunny hop over street car tracks, and taking some time to learn these sorts of handling skills is very much worth the trouble if you intend to make a habit of commuting by bike.

They're not only dangerous because of the cracks, but they're also extremely slippery when it rains.