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.
(11-05-2018, 02:27 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]I keep coming back to the Ottawa Laurier Ave pilot project in my head.  All they did was put down the concrete parking barriers that they use at the end of parking spots over top of the painted on bike lakes.  Instant segregated bike lanes.  And they saw a massive increase in number of cyclists, and an increase of the confidence and feeling of safety by those cyclists.  

I sound like a broken record because I keep bringing this up, but it's so simple, fairly cheap.  Why not try it the way Ottawa did.  If it doesn't work, you just stop it.  But it will.

Yep. There's good, better, best. What we don't have in the King St pilot is even "good". If they put bollards at the ends of the lanes that would help a bit (people often park beyond the end of the parking and into the bike lane).

I'd say that concrete parking barriers would be "better" and maybe "best"; they're designed to redirect cars off of them. A median might look better but could be less effective than the Jersey barrier.

I am just coming back from Montreal where I was on bike paths that I used to ride 20 years ago and ones that have only been there for 5 years. Some of the old ones now have just the crowd control barriers plus a row of parked cars; I don't remember what they were like back in the day. Also those paths are parallel to major arteries. Certainly those parts of the bike path network worked well for me on the weekend.
(11-05-2018, 12:59 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]On another note (somewhat related), I saw that the Bicycle Network of Australia was advocating for a pilot project making helmets not mandatory on footpaths and cycle tracks. They point out that personal protective equipment should be the last line of defence and there are many other things to consider for safety of those on bicycles.

I don't understand this. If I drop a watermelon from about head high it's pretty obvious what will happen to it when it hits the ground. It doesn't matter whether or not I drop it on a road, a sidewalk, an MUT, while stationary, moving slowly, moving quickly, in the presence or absence of traffic -- the result is the same.

(Yes, there's a straw man argument that my head is at about the same height while I'm walking so why not insist on helmets for walkers too, but the key difference is in my ability to cushion and control my fall if I stumble while walking, a luxury one does not enjoy while astride a bicycle.)
(11-05-2018, 04:32 PM)KevinT Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2018, 12:59 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]On another note (somewhat related), I saw that the Bicycle Network of Australia was advocating for a pilot project making helmets not mandatory on footpaths and cycle tracks. They point out that personal protective equipment should be the last line of defence and there are many other things to consider for safety of those on bicycles.

I don't understand this.  If I drop a watermelon from about head high it's pretty obvious what will happen to it when it hits the ground.  It doesn't matter whether or not I drop it on a road, a sidewalk, an MUT, while stationary, moving slowly, moving quickly, in the presence or absence of traffic -- the result is the same.

(Yes, there's a straw man argument that my head is at about the same height while I'm walking so why not insist on helmets for walkers too, but the key difference is in my ability to cushion and control my fall if I stumble while walking, a luxury one does not enjoy while astride a bicycle.)

There's many things here.

One does have the same luxury astride a bicycle, absolutely you can cushion your fall, further, heads don't just fall from shoulder height to the ground, unless they're lopped up--rarely an issue while cycling.  They're attached to a human being which changes the dynamics substantially.  Also, your head is a lot different from a Watermelon, concussions are bad, but the demonstration has far more to do with optics than safety

If helmets keep you safe, making a law still wouldn't make sense, because the law only serves to discourage and reduce the number of cyclists which makes you less safe, and gives police another justification to harass those who they wish to target. This is fairly definitively shown by analysis of the helmet law examples we have.

The "helmets keep you safe" is almost certainly false anyway, given how strongly it's contradicted by the Dutch who have the safest place to cycle with near zero helmet use.

Even if we take it and say, cycling on our roads is different because you could get hit by a car and thus falls are more likely, and helmets will protect you then, the evidence is still pretty weak, but we're still back to the point where if we have safe infra, we no longer need a helmet.

Frankly the main reason I wear a helmet while cycling is the very limited protection it gives me against victim blaming.
What danbrotherson said.

Here's their reasoning:

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsro...lmet-laws/

Walking and driving are also pretty dangerous and helmets might help with those activities too. Indeed, sometimes you're standing in the bus shelter and a car hits you. But we don't victim blame when people don't have helmets when walking or driving.

The Australian report pointed out that it was a lot more likely that bicycle injuries are caused by cars. So their proposed pilot project is for car-free zones.

They also point out that bicycle use is declining in Australia, bucking the global trend, perhaps because of helmet laws. If there aren't people on bicycles then more infrastructure doesn't get built.
Helmets are primarily beneficial for types of cycling that are inherently more dangerous. Riding in a group, mountain biking, dirt jumping, trials etc. Riding for transportation is not inherently dangerous, and a helmet wouldn't protect a rider from the principle hazards.

Assessing risk is complicated and there are many factors to consider. A helmet will help in a situation where a cyclist hits their head on the ground after falling. Evidence also shows, however, that more drivers pass within one meter of cyclists wearing a helmet than those without. There is also the well-documented effect of moral hazard where a cyclist wearing a helmet is likely to take greater risk than the one without.

More broadly, safety campaigns and laws focused on cyclists seem to also cause society to generally also place responsibility for safety on cyclists as well and implicitly absolve drivers of blame. Consider how reports about cyclists being hit talk about them not wearing bright clothing (even when they have lights on the bike), or mention how they didn't have a helmet (even when run over by a car). In some ways these campaigns for cycling safety are good - bright clothes are better for visibility - but they also seem to have resulted in people interpreting not following these guidelines as reckless behaviour on the part of the cyclist. How much less safe are cyclists due to the lack of responsibility for cars hitting cyclists being placed squarely on the responsible party's shoulders? It's hard to quantify, but I don't have any doubt that these campaigns are at least partly responsible for the cultural landscape we are in today that seems to view running over a cyclist as an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone instead of reckless and dangerous driving (and just remember when cycling to turn on your lights and wear bright clothing and wear a helmet and only use crosswalks on foot...!).
Waterloo Region council has backed lights at both Peppler and the Laurel Trail, on Bridgeport.
Will there be a crossbike at the Laurel Trail?
The Region of Waterloo has a survey about Uptown streetscape improvements, in case anyone wants to share their thoughts on the new bike lanes... https://surveys.regionofwaterloo.ca/?e=1...1AE87&l=en
(11-06-2018, 02:02 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]Waterloo Region council has backed lights at both Peppler and the Laurel Trail, on Bridgeport.

That was the right call.  I'm a little surprised.
(11-06-2018, 03:06 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2018, 02:02 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]Waterloo Region council has backed lights at both Peppler and the Laurel Trail, on Bridgeport.

That was the right call.  I'm a little surprised.

This exactly.
I read several articles surrounding Australia's situation yesterday to educate myself but still find the whole thing curious. As a cyclist I've never taken on more risk or rode someplace I otherwise wouldn't just because I'm wearing a helmet, and as a car driver I've never thought to myself "Hmm, that cyclist is wearing a helmet, guess I'll clip that mothersmurfer a little closer." If the researchers are to be believed however that makes me an anomaly. All I know is that after a car driver turned right just after passing me in 1991 and I somersaulted over the hood of their car at 45 km/h, I have worn a helmet, and I will never feel safer not wearing it.
(11-06-2018, 04:34 PM)KevinT Wrote: [ -> ]I read several articles surrounding Australia's situation yesterday to educate myself but still find the whole thing curious.  As a cyclist I've never taken on more risk or rode someplace I otherwise wouldn't just because I'm wearing a helmet, and as a car driver I've never thought to myself "Hmm, that cyclist is wearing a helmet, guess I'll clip that mothersmurfer a little closer."  If the researchers are to be believed however that makes me an anomaly.  All I know is that after a car driver turned right just after passing me in 1991 and I somersaulted over the hood of their car at 45 km/h, I have worn a helmet, and I will never feel safer not wearing it.

It’s not necessarily conscious, for either the motorist or the bicyclist. A lot of things which would be horrible if done consciously (e.g., as you say, driving a bit closer to a bicyclist just because they have a helmet on) are a part of how our minds work unconsciously; this doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about them, but dismissing them as something that is present only in bad people isn’t going to work.
(11-06-2018, 04:34 PM)KevinT Wrote: [ -> ]I read several articles surrounding Australia's situation yesterday to educate myself but still find the whole thing curious.  As a cyclist I've never taken on more risk or rode someplace I otherwise wouldn't just because I'm wearing a helmet, and as a car driver I've never thought to myself "Hmm, that cyclist is wearing a helmet, guess I'll clip that mothersmurfer a little closer."  If the researchers are to be believed however that makes me an anomaly.  All I know is that after a car driver turned right just after passing me in 1991 and I somersaulted over the hood of their car at 45 km/h, I have worn a helmet, and I will never feel safer not wearing it.

You might be surprised to discover that the majority of your actions are unconscious.  You might not think you would pass an unhelmeted cyclist more carefully, but you probably would...or at least, most people would because they don't think that much about it.

The same is true for unconscious racial bias, for unconscious gender bias, and so many others.  In fact, the best way to change our unconscious behaviour is to understand that it *can* occur, and that we aren't necessarily immune to it.

In fact, I'll point out you say you'll never feel safer not wearing it, do you feel unsafe not wearing it?  Naked even?  That's how I feel, and I am quite sure that that feeling of unease probably makes me more cautious...whether that makes me safer, well, I doubt it, but it still changes my behaviour no matter how much I don't want it too.  You might find that an objective evaluation would show you act differently as well.

As for your choice to wear a helmet, all the power too you, I also choose to wear a helmet most of the time, further nobody here is suggesting that you be banned from wearing a helmet, or in any way derided for it, or even that you shouldn't.  Only that a law forcing you to wear one is clearly a bad thing, and that safety campaigns oriented around wearing helmets are also counter productive.
(11-06-2018, 04:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]In fact, I'll point out you say you'll never feel safer not wearing it, do you feel unsafe not wearing it?  Naked even?  That's how I feel, and I am quite sure that that feeling of unease probably makes me more cautious...whether that makes me safer, well, I doubt it, but it still changes my behaviour no matter how much I don't want it too.  You might find that an objective evaluation would show you act differently as well.

Great way to look at it! Point taken.
What is the plan for snow clearing in the new bike lanes in Uptown?
[attachment=5785]