Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Cycling in Waterloo Region
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(10-07-2015, 07:54 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Fun cycling story from this morning: I pass a cyclist as I'm decelerating toward a 4-way stop, with my left turn signal on. Cyclist comes up behind me, without stoping, goes around my left shoulder, and cuts the intersection diagonally then cuts back in front of me to the right as I make the turn. Helmet, flashing light, all the gear. A "proper cyclist" and he's pulling moves like that. It's dicks like this that make me (and other drivers) absolutely resent all cyclists.

Sorry, but there is no justification to tar all cyclists with the mistakes of a few. Moreover while a certain percentage of the cyclists break the law, nearly 100% of drivers break the 3ft (now 1m) separation law, yet drivers give themselves a free pass for that while nitpicking on cyclists.
(10-06-2015, 04:18 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Stood up for what?  The needs of the few vs. the needs of the few? Wink

I just hope the Region will be a bit firmer with a polite "no" on this one: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5943...-s-roads-/

I'm all for bike lanes (and obeying traffic laws, like stoplights) but permitting two-abreast cycling is a step far, far too far, in my opinion. If cyclists get to do that, I'm driving my smart car on the sidewalk.

Respectfully, it's not at all helpful to make comparisons between actions that are merely inconvenient, to ones that are dangerous. I know you're kidding around, but I don't see how it advances any conversation.

(10-06-2015, 09:14 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]No, I still don't support it. It's like allowing someone to text behind the wheel, "just because nobody else is around". It's still unsafe. When I'm driving my Prius in EV mode, cyclists don't hear me coming up behind them and won't move over.

If your car didn't come with a horn, you should look at having one installed. I know it's not a requirement of law, but you shouldn't pass a bicycle if you think the cyclist isn't aware of your presence, even if you're giving the legally required meter of room. And, if a cyclist is taking a lane and hasn't yet moved over to allow you to pass, it's probably because he or she doesn't yet believe it to be safe. And you should be patient.

To be honest, I would find the argument that this move would slow traffic to cycling speed pretty compelling, if I believed it. I don't think it will slow traffic, but if it were to do so, that would be a positive in my mind. 99% of cyclists are never going to ride abreast or even take a lane for any length of time on busy streets. If they can be empowered to do so on local roads, and slow traffic to a more human speed, they'd be doing a great service.
How is slowing vehicular traffic down (thereby reducing the capacity of the transportation network as a whole) a good thing? Baffling.
There are so many ways in which slower traffic improves the quality of life in the neighbourhoods it's passing through. If you've ever lived in an urban neighbourhood that experiences rat-running, you could probably identify a few.

Slower traffic is also exponentially (literally) safer than fast traffic. Occasionally, cars hit people, and a slower car is a lot less likely to kill that person when it happens. A car traveling at 50 kilometres per hour is many times more likely to kill someone than a car traveling at 30 kilometres per hour, and a lot less likely to avoid the collision in the first place.
That's true, and 10 km/h is safer than 30, and 5 is safer than...
While we're talking about the efficiency of the transportation network, we can also talk about how many bicycles fit in the amount of space occupied by one car, yes?
We could, and we could also talk about the number of people who commute via bicycle, vs. automobile (and then chart it over months of the year, too!).
The efficiency of the transportation network does not boil down to just cars and bikes, our roads are arteries for the movement of goods via trucks of all sizes that have great difficulties as it is, navigating streets. Slowing down the grid to ridiculous speeds creates gridlock and a much more difficult driving environment, given the timeliness of inventory shipping.
(10-07-2015, 09:46 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]We could, and we could also talk about the number of people who commute via bicycle, vs. automobile (and then chart it over months of the year, too!).

We still don't have much infrastructure in Waterloo Region, although we're working on it. Last night in Zurich I had 4 bicycles in my field of vision, at a place with a fairly steep slope too. You don't need that many bicycles to move people faster than in cars, especially considering that the total door-to-door time on a bicycle vs a car is not that different for many reasonable routes in the region.

I don't think we're talking about slowing the grid down to ridiculous speeds, in any case. We're talking about residential streets like those that kids play street hockey on. We're not talking about Weber or Fischer-Hallman!
(10-07-2015, 09:43 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]That's true, and 10 km/h is safer than 30, and 5 is safer than...

I guess the response to this would be that 60 kilometres per hour limits might get some motorists to their destination a bit faster than 50 kilometres per hour limits, and 80 kilometres per hour would cause even less delay. Actually, at 32 kilometres per hour, studies have found only a 5% chance of death in the case of a car striking a human being, which is why many many cities have adopted a 30 kilometre an hour speed limit for residential streets. That's not much faster than the bicycle you are briefly stuck behind.

Your claims that allowing two-abreast cycling (while still legally requiring that cyclists get out of the way of your car!) will cause gridlock sound a lot like the knee-jerk responses we see from people in the vein of Rob Ford who shout "traffic chaos!" every time any accommodation is made for any road user that isn't an automobile. Allowing cyclists to ride side-by-side simply won't have a meaningful impact on traffic speeds on arterial streets, and if it did on residential streets, it would be welcome.
Settle down, settle down.

Yes, one moronic cyclist is enough to tar all cyclists with the same brush. This is human nature. Feel free to replace 'cyclist' with 'driver' or 'pedestrian'. It is only fallacy if you fail to acknowledge the bias, which we all seem able to do, so let's move on.

Cyclists move differently than cars. Ditto trucks and buses. My view on this is that putting up with these is the price of admission for living in this community within this society.

Similarly to how we need to accept that living in a community means putting up with some people drying clothes on a line or painting their house plaid, so do we need to accept that different people need or want to transport themselves and their goods differently. This is getting dangerously close to 'if you don't like it, then move' which is an argument I don't like for many reasons (chief amongst them is that not everyone, and especially the under-privileged, _can_ move), but in this case you can't escape society by moving.

If you live in society you must pay your taxes. Nobody gets a pass on this.

If you live in society you must put up with cyclists. Nobody gets a pass on this. Feel free to replace 'cyclists' with 'proselytizers' 'cars' 'buses' or 'politicians'.

"If you live in society" still sounds like a choice. You can't not. So my approach is to accept it as best I can. Grit your teeth about the cyclist/driver/bus/politician and report them using appropriate channels if they break the law. Otherwise, just remember that the community you live in is worth the price.
I still don't get the complaint.
Bikes are still legally compelled to yield the road to other vehicles when there is space.

If 1 bike is riding in the middle of the lane (currently legal) and they don't move over when a car comes, then they're breaking the rules.
If 2 bikes are riding abreast (currently illegal), and they don't move over when a car comes, then they're breaking the rules.

What is the difference here that makes the latter worse? So much worse that it must be made illegal at all times to ride abreast. That it takes 2 seconds for the bikes to go to single file?
Quote:City councillors approved bike lanes on Union Street, despite pleas of residents, who overwhelmingly said they don't want them.
The proposal to install cycling lanes along the street between Breithaupt Park and Lancaster Street West provoked an angry response from residents, who object to the loss of 48 parking spots, leaving 45 on one side of the street.
Residents presented a petition at Monday's council meeting, showing that only one of the 80 residents they reached was in favour of the bike lanes: 75 were opposed and four had no opinion.

The funny thing is that the new bike lanes would convert what is presently a high traffic street in danger of becoming a thoroughfare into a nice suburban slow speed street, increasing tremendously the appeal (i.e. price) of their houses.
(10-07-2015, 11:13 AM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]What is the difference here that makes the latter worse? So much worse that it must be made illegal at all times to ride abreast. That it takes 2 seconds for the bikes to go to single file?

I think it's mostly a "those damn cyclists" sentiment, full stop.
I think one of you here may have some clout, because I was passing by Margaret today and noticed the bike lanes had been repainted. The bicycle symbols have not, however, and likely because the lanes have been faded for so long, I didn't see a single bicycle pass even though it was a lovely day.

I did observe a particularly obnoxious taxi driver pass a school bus in the bike lane, and then continue traveling on top of the lanes...