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.
(09-17-2019, 10:30 PM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a pro-tip to avoid getting right-hooked: don't zoom by a line of cars on the right when they're stopped at a light. Even if you see a turn signal coming down that hill on Park where this particular incident happens leaves little time to react.

I don't know what you would do with road design to prevent this sort of thing. Even if a driver did a shoulder check it's quite possible in this location a fast cyclist could be going 35-45km/h and that's enough time for someone in car to shoulder-check, not see a cyclist, and start their turn. A rider going that speed would need fast reflexes and great brakes to stop in time. Someone going fast down a line of cars like that isn't going to have a lot of time to see a turn signal and could quite easily miss seeing one...

Y'all are clamouring for drivers to be better trained and to make more effort to look... sometimes that goes for cyclists too, and this rider could have saved themselves a bit of pain by not riding like this. Sorry that stresses you out but as a someone that rides a bike I can't ignore poor cycling choices leading to poor outcomes.

Actually we're clamoring for safer roads.

To answer your question, the design is a tighter corner so drivers must go slowly, and to set the crossing back so that drivers have better sightlines to the incoming cyclists.

And I mean, that's just the dutch design, I guess we could innovate instead.

That being said, the cyclist in the video was not going anywhere near that speed, neither is any cyclist coming up beside traffic like that.  But I guess it's easier to make a point if you ignore that.
The cyclist in that video was in the wrong. The driver in the video was in the wrong. It's okay to state both facts.

It's also okay to discuss strategies as cyclists to mitigate the terrible road design. We need to cycle with the knowledge that the roads and laws are designed (intentionally or not) to make our safety less important than a motor vehicle operator's time. Sharing safety tips and practices that are applicable _today_ is critical if you actually want to save lives. This conversation has added to my knowledge and safety and as a result I'm more likely to live longer.

Discussing strategies to deal with the reality of today while advocating to not have to use those strategies in the future is not something that is in conflict.

We shouldn't have to fear being right-hooked, but we do have to fear it. Until our entire city's infrastructure is rebuilt, and until that of any other city we might ride in is as well, we as cyclists need to know what makes situations dangerous and what factors that are _in our control today_ we can work with to mitigate that danger.
danbrotherston Wrote:
Acitta Wrote:I have had cars pass me from behind and right hook right in front of me.

MidTowner Wrote:It’s a common occurrence. I had it happen once pretty egregiously at a driveway (so I wasn’t expecting the possibility). I was able to stop in time, but just: I nearly crashed into the passenger door.

You're not helping guys Tongue

haha Sorry- I wasn't really trying to!

I don't personally think most of the tips and advice posted here in the last few pages are likely to reduce the chances of being right hooked. But given the situation as it is today, people ought to cycle in a way that makes them feel safest and most comfortable.* Otherwise, they just won't do it. For a lot of people, that precludes taking the lane, for instance: I've been verbally abused and threatened for doing that, so I can understand why some people would avoid that in most cases.

*I guess the caveat to this is "as long as it's legal," but sometimes regulations are in conflict with common sense, and sometimes motorists get incensed when someone on a bike follows the regs to a 't'. So really...
(09-18-2019, 10:50 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]
danbrotherston Wrote:You're not helping guys Tongue

haha Sorry- I wasn't really trying to!

I don't personally think most of the tips and advice posted here in the last few pages are likely to reduce the chances of being right hooked. But given the situation as it is today, people ought to cycle in a way that makes them feel safest and most comfortable.* Otherwise, they just won't do it. For a lot of people, that precludes taking the lane, for instance: I've been verbally abused and threatened for doing that, so I can understand why some people would avoid that in most cases.

*I guess the caveat to this is "as long as it's legal," but sometimes regulations are in conflict with common sense, and sometimes motorists get incensed when someone on a bike follows the regs to a 't'. So really...

I do not care one iota about the law when I'm cycling, I care only about my safety, much of the time, this lines up with the law, but I have enough experience to know now this is not always the case, and I have zero motivation to follow a law that endangers me because it's writers didn't know or care about me or my safety when it was written (or to be more generous, the law didn't envision the context in the real environment that we actually have).

And yes, I've been verbally abused for riding on the road in Victoria Park...I really don't think there's anything I can do on a bicycle that guarantees me no verbal abuse.
Cyclist struck by vehicle at University and Erb this morning.

https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-new...sh-1701777
And to update, the cyclist has been charged with riding in a crosswalk. WRPS did not provide many details about the incident. It seems like either the driver entered the crosswalk while waiting at a red and struck the cyclist, or the cyclist blew through a red during rush hour cross traffic.
The updated article also reports that the cyclist went to the hospital with non-threatening life injuries.
(09-19-2019, 04:09 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]And to update, the cyclist has been charged with riding in a crosswalk. WRPS did not provide many details about the incident. It seems like either the driver entered the crosswalk while waiting at a red and struck the cyclist, or the cyclist blew through a red during rush hour cross traffic.

That’s a strange charge. It seems to me that either the driver should be charged with running a red (in your first alternative), or the cyclist should be (in the second). It’s hard to see how riding in a crosswalk, in itself, would be the cause of a collision with a motor vehicle (maybe a pedestrian, but not a motor vehicle). That’s not for sure — if the cyclist was going at bicycle speeds they could cut in front of somebody in the middle of a legitimate turn, for example, who would never have hit a pedestrian — but I’d like to know more about the facts.
As it has been pointed out to me elsewhere, the third option is the cyclist was crossing Erb and the car simply struck them while finishing their turn, and WRPS used misleading wording in describing the car as "waiting to turn left". The thing that threw me about that is the traffic was closed on University on the opposite side of Erb, and the bike was moved over there, so I assumed the bike was knocked into the intersection and the driver went through and pulled over on the shoulder.

The charge of riding in a crosswalk is essentially automatic in Ontario any time a cyclist is struck while riding in a crosswalk, regardless of the driver's behaviour.
The incident report was apparently mostly wrong. The car was travelling east on Erb and turned left onto University and struck a cyclist in the crosswalk.
Where's the shaking my head emoji?  That's all I've got.  Good god.
Can't both the person on the bike and the person in the car be charged? You're not driving properly if you hit a person- even a person on a bike- in the crosswalk while making a turn. But, likewise, strictly speaking the person shouldn't be riding a bike in a crosswalk.

That intersection is brutal, though, and there's no doubt that the motorist was taking the turn at a speed that simply shouldn't be possible inside the city.
(09-20-2019, 08:15 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Can't both the person on the bike and the person in the car be charged? You're not driving properly if you hit a person- even a person on a bike- in the crosswalk while making a turn. But, likewise, strictly speaking the person shouldn't be riding a bike in a crosswalk.

That intersection is brutal, though, and there's no doubt that the motorist was taking the turn at a speed that simply shouldn't be possible inside the city.

It's not impossible, but I don't think it happens all that much, certainly the police would not find anything "improper" about the turn, basically, if a cyclist is in a crosswalk, you're allowed to hit them, and as long as you don't tell the officer "oh, I looked up from my phone and they were right there"..."I ran the light and they were there"...you're not going to get a ticket.
This is what concerns me about the Caroline Street MUT - in the space of 2-minute ride there are 3 crossings (William, FDB, and Erb) which are crosswalks so technically you're supposed to dismount and walk your bike across. In practice, no one ever does this. But if a cyclist even at a walking pace were to be hit crossing one of these roads, it would be dismissed as "riding in a crosswalk" instead of anyone asking why our cycling infrastructure is so lacking.