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.
(03-03-2020, 02:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying that bylaw doesn't very occasionally ticket vehicles parked in the bike lanes, but Bylaw can only ticket when it is also a no parking zone (and the ticket is a parking ticket), but parking in a bike lane is also a HTA charge, which bylaw cannot issue, only WRPS can, and I suspect it probably hasn't ever done so before.

Shouldn’t all places with bike lanes be not just no parking zones, but actually no stopping? Unless there is a separate parking lane as well, either between the motor vehicle lanes and the bike lane or between the bike lane and the curb.

How is one supposed to stop or park if there is a bike lane there?

Also, related question, what would the offence be if one stopped or parked right in the middle of the road? Also something Bylaw can’t address? There shouldn’t really be any such thing as “[…] in a bike lane”; it should just be “[…]”, with no difference between doing it in a bike lane and doing it in a motor vehicle lane (the only exception being driving in a bike lane, which is illegal for motor vehicles but the same action is perfectly legal done in a motor vehicle lane).
I think this is further evidence for a more permanent bike lane structure that drivers CAN'T park in
(03-03-2020, 06:06 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2020, 02:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying that bylaw doesn't very occasionally ticket vehicles parked in the bike lanes, but Bylaw can only ticket when it is also a no parking zone (and the ticket is a parking ticket), but parking in a bike lane is also a HTA charge, which bylaw cannot issue, only WRPS can, and I suspect it probably hasn't ever done so before.

Shouldn’t all places with bike lanes be not just no parking zones, but actually no stopping? Unless there is a separate parking lane as well, either between the motor vehicle lanes and the bike lane or between the bike lane and the curb.

How is one supposed to stop or park if there is a bike lane there?

Also, related question, what would the offence be if one stopped or parked right in the middle of the road? Also something Bylaw can’t address? There shouldn’t really be any such thing as “[…] in a bike lane”; it should just be “[…]”, with no difference between doing it in a bike lane and doing it in a motor vehicle lane (the only exception being driving in a bike lane, which is illegal for motor vehicles but the same action is perfectly legal done in a motor vehicle lane).

It is city policy to make all bike lanes "no parking zones" for the purposes of enforcing the bike lanes. As for "no stopping" zones, they don't go that far, and part of that is the HTA, which does allow buses to use the bike lanes for embarking/disembarking passengers, part of that is simply that none of the cities will enforce against stopping in the bike lane of delivery vehicles or taxis.

As for "how is one supposed to park"...they aren't, it's always illegal, which is why a "no parking" zone is superfluous or at least, implicit.  But that is a HTA charge, so the city's bylaw cannot enforce it, to allow bylaw to enforce it, the bike lane must be additionally marked explicitly as "no parking". At least this is the excuse they gave me for refusing to enforce the bike lane on Glasgow for a year.

I don't think bylaw could charge you with stopping in the middle of the road either. But WRPS could, and definitely would...kind of the point.  The charge would probably be similar to what this was "impeding traffic"...
(03-04-2020, 10:48 AM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]I think this is further evidence for a more permanent bike lane structure that drivers CAN'T park in

But what is that? Certainly the drivers could get over the curbs and through the bollards, but as the earlier video showed, you can just enter the bike lane at the roadway, well, now what, we can't have wide bike lanes (less social)?  We have bollards *in* the bike (dangerous to cyclists)?

There are trade offs, maybe we haven't yet struck the right balance, but I do think that this occurrance is relatively rare compared with cars parking in unprotected bike lanes....this is shown by the response to these occurrences (police action, news stories, etc.) as compared with the normal response to bike lane parking: *crickets*. Whether there are enough illegal parking to make a meaningful degredation of the use of the bike lanes...I don't know. I haven't experienced it but I'm only a single data point.
(03-04-2020, 10:57 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think bylaw could charge you with stopping in the middle of the road either.


"Park Obstructing Traffic" - 3 (a) (xi)


3. Parking Prohibited
a) General
(xi) In such a manner as to obstruct traffic;

Normally used for double parking downtown, but has other uses.

Coke
(03-04-2020, 02:19 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2020, 10:57 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think bylaw could charge you with stopping in the middle of the road either.


"Park Obstructing Traffic" - 3 (a) (xi)


3. Parking Prohibited
a) General 
(xi) In such a manner as to obstruct traffic;

Normally used for double parking downtown, but has other uses.

Coke

So this should cover bicycle lanes, because bicycles (not to mention pedestrians) are traffic.

It’s basically bigoted to argue otherwise — people only count as traffic if they’re encased in a large metal shell?
(03-04-2020, 10:57 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]As for "how is one supposed to park"...they aren't, it's always illegal, which is why a "no parking" zone is superfluous or at least, implicit.  But that is a HTA charge, so the city's bylaw cannot enforce it, to allow bylaw to enforce it, the bike lane must be additionally marked explicitly as "no parking". At least this is the excuse they gave me for refusing to enforce the bike lane on Glasgow for a year.

OK, I think I understand now why they separately mark it. But still, it should be “no stopping” because really it’s “keep out” in the same way the sidewalk is. Another reason to put the curb between the motor vehicle lanes and the bicycle lanes — almost everybody seems to understand that it’s not on to jump the curb. We don’t seem to need to “no parking on the sidewalk” signs all over the place.
(03-04-2020, 02:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]It’s basically bigoted to argue otherwise — people only count as traffic if they’re encased in a large metal shell?

But they no longer count as traffic again if they happen to be encased in even larger metal shells, delivering things.
(03-04-2020, 02:46 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2020, 10:57 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]As for "how is one supposed to park"...they aren't, it's always illegal, which is why a "no parking" zone is superfluous or at least, implicit.  But that is a HTA charge, so the city's bylaw cannot enforce it, to allow bylaw to enforce it, the bike lane must be additionally marked explicitly as "no parking". At least this is the excuse they gave me for refusing to enforce the bike lane on Glasgow for a year.

OK, I think I understand now why they separately mark it. But still, it should be “no stopping” because really it’s “keep out” in the same way the sidewalk is. Another reason to put the curb between the motor vehicle lanes and the bicycle lanes — almost everybody seems to understand that it’s not on to jump the curb. We don’t seem to need to “no parking on the sidewalk” signs all over the place.

Unfortunately, I suspect the ONLY thing they understand is that if they try to drive over this six inch curb in their sedan it may damage it.

That's why roll curbs are ineffective...that's why people in SUVs like to drive off road (i.e., on the sidewalk) ... etc. etc.

But the no parking signs are there for the purposes of bylaw enforcing the law, and bylaw only enforces "no parking", not "no stopping" (which is a HTA sign).

Based on Coke's citation, bylaw doesn't seem need this, but they claim they do...I don't know what to say...I've said it before, enforcement is generally a joke...I know the officers are doing their best, but the system is setup to fail.
(03-04-2020, 03:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, I suspect the ONLY thing they understand is that if they try to drive over this six inch curb in their sedan it may damage it.

That's why roll curbs are ineffective...that's why people in SUVs like to drive off road (i.e., on the sidewalk) ... etc. etc.

I like the curb in Waterloo Town Square parking lot separating the parking lot from the freight railway track. I don’t think a normal car/van could jump it at all — they would just run into it. A large pickup truck could probably take it but I think people would understand that they would be committing an offense by doing so.
(03-04-2020, 07:54 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2020, 03:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, I suspect the ONLY thing they understand is that if they try to drive over this six inch curb in their sedan it may damage it.

That's why roll curbs are ineffective...that's why people in SUVs like to drive off road (i.e., on the sidewalk) ... etc. etc.

I like the curb in Waterloo Town Square parking lot separating the parking lot from the freight railway track. I don’t think a normal car/van could jump it at all — they would just run into it. A large pickup truck could probably take it but I think people would understand that they would be committing an offense by doing so.

I think you very much underestimate what curb you can run over. A normal car probably wouldn't run it without damage but certainly could still drive up or down it. It is only the threat of damage which causes people to choose not too.

Pretty much any pickup could handle it easily. Source: I've watched them do it.
(03-04-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2020, 07:54 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]I like the curb in Waterloo Town Square parking lot separating the parking lot from the freight railway track. I don’t think a normal car/van could jump it at all — they would just run into it. A large pickup truck could probably take it but I think people would understand that they would be committing an offense by doing so.

I think you very much underestimate what curb you can run over. A normal car probably wouldn't run it without damage but certainly could still drive up or down it. It is only the threat of damage which causes people to choose not too.

Pretty much any pickup could handle it easily. Source: I've watched them do it.

Thanks for the information. I haven’t witnessed anybody try that curb, except for I think one car that appeared to have got on it starting where it’s flat at the crossing and driving along until it was at a very awkward angle. Next time I’m near I’ll drive my minivan up next to it and see where the curb actually comes on the wheel. In any case, it’s high enough that most people don’t try it, which is the crucial element.
(03-04-2020, 11:08 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I think you very much underestimate what curb you can run over. A normal car probably wouldn't run it without damage but certainly could still drive up or down it. It is only the threat of damage which causes people to choose not too.

Pretty much any pickup could handle it easily. Source: I've watched them do it.

Thanks for the information. I haven’t witnessed anybody try that curb, except for I think one car that appeared to have got on it starting where it’s flat at the crossing and driving along until it was at a very awkward angle. Next time I’m near I’ll drive my minivan up next to it and see where the curb actually comes on the wheel. In any case, it’s high enough that most people don’t try it, which is the crucial element.

Yes, I totally agree, barrier curbs as seen in most new construction in KW are sufficient to keep all by the most obtuse pickup drivers from intentionally crossing the curb.

I just wish our regional engineers saw that as a good thing, instead of deciding to allow drivers the freedom to drive over every surface in our city.
(03-04-2020, 02:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]So this should cover bicycle lanes, because bicycles (not to mention pedestrians) are traffic.

It’s basically bigoted to argue otherwise — people only count as traffic if they’re encased in a large metal shell?

I like the way you think.  If I still worked by-law, I'd give it a try.  I loved pushing limits, sometimes the JP would agree, sometimes not.

Bike lanes weren't a thing when I did that job, so my mind didn't even go there.

Coke
(03-05-2020, 11:33 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2020, 02:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]So this should cover bicycle lanes, because bicycles (not to mention pedestrians) are traffic.

It’s basically bigoted to argue otherwise — people only count as traffic if they’re encased in a large metal shell?

I like the way you think.  If I still worked by-law, I'd give it a try.  I loved pushing limits, sometimes the JP would agree, sometimes not.

Bike lanes weren't a thing when I did that job, so my mind didn't even go there.

Coke

JP?