Waterloo Region Connected

(05-28-2017, 09:19 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]4/4 - Sunday, May 28, 2017



I. hate. these. so. much.[/i]

So, the City of Kitchener got back to me about these:

Quote:"In short, the Innovation/Civic Centre districts blend in together, so Francis st. has Innovation lighting on one side, Civic Centre on the other. Lanterns are for Civic Centre. Prior to LRT you could tell them apart - Civic had black poles, Innovation had silver. In some areas, black was replaced with silver."

I like this response, personally:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The lamps pictured here represented the true proud innovation history of KW. The Crappe Lamppes now chosen are an insult to K &amp;W. <a href="https://t.co/FYv5h0JTSj">pic.twitter.com/FYv5h0JTSj</a></p>&mdash; Michael Brisson (@RMBrisson) <a href="https://twitter.com/RMBrisson/status/870696350718992384">June 2, 2017</a></blockquote>

Love those lampposts… Lawyers are why we can't have nice things.

Lazy update, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Some of the stations for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> will have on-demand heating in the stations. <a href="https://t.co/Wolu81CNRP">pic.twitter.com/Wolu81CNRP</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/874008828248981505">June 11, 2017</a></blockquote>

...and more importantly:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Surprise! Looks like we're getting bike lanes on King after all!! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BikeWR?src=hash">#BikeWR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> Cc: <a href="https://twitter.com/WRConnected">@WRConnected</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TriTAG">@TriTAG</a> <a href="https://t.co/91onmGzoVV">pic.twitter.com/91onmGzoVV</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/874017620063858688">June 11, 2017</a></blockquote>

We got bike lanes after all!! They're on both sides of King on the brand-new paved section. I expect to see 'em all the way up along King as that final layer goes down and the markings go on!

Someone can tell Canard those aren't bike lanes. They are only "edge lines" to optically narrow the excessively wide lanes. They have no legal protections like bike lanes and also won't be continuous (not that bike lanes usually are anyway).

Courtland has this.

(06-11-2017, 06:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Someone can tell Canard those aren't bike lanes.  They are only "edge lines" to optically narrow the excessively wide lanes.  They have no legal protections like bike lanes and also won't be continuous (not that bike lanes usually are anyway).

Courtland has this.

Better than nothing. Wow talk about a Debbie downer.

(06-11-2017, 08:29 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2017, 06:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Someone can tell Canard those aren't bike lanes.  They are only "edge lines" to optically narrow the excessively wide lanes.  They have no legal protections like bike lanes and also won't be continuous (not that bike lanes usually are anyway).

Courtland has this.

Better than nothing. Wow talk about a Debbie downer.

two things here:
1) "Better than nothing" isn't really true...sometimes nothing is better, especially when there is an illusion of something.  But there are plenty of others here who can elaborate the "why" of this better than I could.
2) Not sure what the "Debbie Downer" is about.  If it's about the first sentence, reportedly there is some "bug" whereby Canard can't see Dan's messages unless they are quoted. If its about the discontinuity of bike lanes, than that is a true statement, and I'm not sure when Dan is a "Debbie Downer" for noting it...

(06-11-2017, 09:51 PM)Smore Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2017, 08:29 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]Better than nothing. Wow talk about a Debbie downer.

two things here:
1) "Better than nothing" isn't really true...sometimes nothing is better, especially when there is an illusion of something.  But there are plenty of others here who can elaborate the "why" of this better than I could.
2) Not sure what the "Debbie Downer" is about.  If it's about the first sentence, reportedly there is some "bug" whereby Canard can't see Dan's messages unless they are quoted. If its about the discontinuity of bike lanes, than that is a true statement, and I'm not sure when Dan is a "Debbie Downer" for noting it...

Thanks.

You're absolutely right.  Bad big infra can be worse than nothing, people don't use it, then people who wish to argue against bike infrastructure (or even don't want to but still see it) can point to it and say, cyclists don't use it anyway.

And when it comes to something that "looks" like bike infra, but which isn't, or is poorly designed, drivers are even more likely to be offended or act aggressively when cyclists aren't using what appears to be a bike lane, even if there are good reasons why they shouldn't.

Worse, cyclists, who may have been bullied into bad positions on the road, by misleading lines and aggressive drivers, might even be hurt because they aren't actually in a real bike lane. (Again, much of this is mitigated by the reality that our actual bike lanes are often very poorly designed as well, well, maybe mitigated isn't the right word)

This is also very easy for those of us who are confident cyclists to forget, because we may feel more confident dealing with this situation.

I'm sure "Debbie downer" is about my "negativity" towards the "bike lanes"...which is fine for him to have that opinion of me, but I do think it's unfair. I'm trying to accurately portray the situation, in a forum which I hope is fairly reasonable. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to be realistic and accurate.

Should I be riding on the inside or outside of that line? If it's the "edge line" of the lane, shouldn't I be in the lane and not outside of it?

(06-12-2017, 07:53 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Should I be riding on the inside or outside of that line? If it's the "edge line" of the lane, shouldn't I be in the lane and not outside of it?

I get what you guys are discussing, but really, Anyone on a bike that wouldn't ride in that false lane is putting themselves at more risk then necessary.  Riding a bicycle on roads is always a risk, many drivers don't know the rules of the roads, like many cyclists.  FYI, I have been doing law enforcement for over 21 years, I have been involved in my fair share of pedestrian and cyclists deaths investigations.  So I have a different perspective on it.  In an ideal world every major arterial road would have a bike lane.  As along as we have motor vehicles sharing the road with cyclists and pedestrians we will have accidents.

As far as the Debbie Downer comment, sorry.  I was trying to insert some humor.  Clearly this forum does not respond well to it and I will refrain from it in the future.

Now I'm kicking myself for not taking a picture of the Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad lane marking on the other side of the ROW from where that picture was taken.

The "bike lane" gets squished into nothing on the curb as you approach the intersection, and then emerges from the curb on the other side. But only after there is yellow paint encouraging drivers to encroach on the curb side (in order to steer them away from the central curb where the LRT curb begins.)

You are not given an elegant way to merge out into the car lane, and then if you are not riding single-file at the intersection, the cars are being encouraged to side-swipe you.

(06-12-2017, 09:51 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the Debbie Downer comment, sorry.  I was trying to insert some humor.  Clearly this forum does not respond well to it and I will refrain from it in the future.

People on the forum appreciate humour, but try to keep it from being at others' expense.

You said it yourself:

Quote: I have been doing law enforcement for over 21 years, I have been involved in my fair share of pedestrian and cyclists deaths investigations. So I have a different perspective on it.

This is frankly no joking matter.

(06-11-2017, 05:56 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]We got bike lanes after all!!  They're on both sides of King on the brand-new paved section.  I expect to see 'em all the way up along King as that final layer goes down and the markings go on!

   

(06-11-2017, 06:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Someone can tell Canard those aren't bike lanes.  They are only "edge lines" to optically narrow the excessively wide lanes.  They have no legal protections like bike lanes and also won't be continuous (not that bike lanes usually are anyway).

Courtland has this.

 

(06-12-2017, 09:51 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2017, 07:53 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Should I be riding on the inside or outside of that line? If it's the "edge line" of the lane, shouldn't I be in the lane and not outside of it?

I get what you guys are discussing, but really, Anyone on a bike that wouldn't ride in that false lane is putting themselves at more risk then necessary.  Riding a bicycle on roads is always a risk, many drivers don't know the rules of the roads, like many cyclists.  FYI, I have been doing law enforcement for over 21 years, I have been involved in my fair share of pedestrian and cyclists deaths investigations.  So I have a different perspective on it.  In an ideal world every major arterial road would have a bike lane.  As along as we have motor vehicles sharing the road with cyclists and pedestrians we will have accidents.

As far as the Debbie Downer comment, sorry.  I was trying to insert some humor.  Clearly this forum does not respond well to it and I will refrain from it in the future.

Actually in an ideal world every major arterial road would have a segregated cycle path, and that "ideal world" is the Netherlands.

As to the question, you should ride where it is safest.  Sometimes that would be safest to ride outside the edge line, sometimes it is not.  If there are obstructions (sewer grates, potholes, gravel, car parts, etc.) in that lane riding out of it might be better.  If they're making a left turn ahead.  If the line ends ahead.  If they are moving at the speed of traffic.  If the false lane is narrow and there isn't room to safely pass.

Where it is safe to ride depends greatly on context, and it's often something drivers won't even notice--and that's a problem--but it doesn't mean using that lane is necessarily safer.  Most drivers aren't actually homicidal, and won't run you over even if they're angry.

I didn't mean to "not respond well to [the comment]", perhaps I take things too seriously.  Sometimes humour doesn't come through in text, but generally, I think this is a good place to discuss issues in detail without getting overly defensive, is not my intention to be so.

Markster, thanks for the clear description about how the "bike lane" (or whatever it is) gets squished. Based on that, I surmise that it's probably not a very good place to ride, but I guess everyone will figure that out for him or herself after riding it for the first time. That's really the case with real bike lanes around, anyway, when someone realizes what the specific conditions are like.

Danbrotherston, I probably should have phrased my question differently. What are "edge lines" exactly? Who is supposed to be using the space outside of them? Cyclists? Someone else? Nobody?

(06-12-2017, 11:52 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Markster, thanks for the clear description about how the "bike lane" (or whatever it is) gets squished. Based on that, I surmise that it's probably not a very good place to ride, but I guess everyone will figure that out for him or herself after riding it for the first time. That's really the case with real bike lanes around, anyway, when someone realizes what the specific conditions are like.

Danbrotherston, I probably should have phrased my question differently. What are "edge lines" exactly? Who is supposed to be using the space outside of them? Cyclists? Someone else? Nobody?

Apparently three people commented while I was editing my comment.  Woops lol.

Yes, Markster's description is helpful, although regional staff have said that they would not paint an edge line under such circumstances....for this reason specifically....but it seems that message hasn't been dispersed so widely yet.

As to the question, it has many answers ranging from nobody to everybody.....*sigh*....it's extra pavement to make the road wider, but then we realized that wider is actually bad in some ways (like safety) so we put paint down to make it appear narrower to try and slow down drivers.

Frankly, if people want to scream about government waste, how about paving a 5 meter wide lane than trying to make it appear narrower by putting down paint.

In practice the cities have concerns about fitting a plow down a 3.5 meter wide lane with curbs on both sides, so minimum widths are set.  I mean, I'd argue we should keep narrower, cheaper, less wasteful, less dangerous lanes and simply buy smaller plows, but apparently not.  C'est la vie.