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.
(11-04-2016, 07:28 PM)kps Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-04-2016, 07:06 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I am aware what section you linked too.  That section doesn't apply to our discussion.  A "turnout" is a specific piece of roadway giving a place for traffic to pull into to allow vehicles behind to overtake.  It doesn't apply to driving down a straight urban roadway.
The phrase is “turn out” (verb, meaning ‘move out of the way’), not “turnout” (noun). §148 is precisely the part of the Highway Traffic Act concerned with meeting and overtaking; if you want to point out a different section, here is the whole thing again.

The phrase "turn out" is also a noun, indicating a location where one might turn out.  Without a location to turn out, one cannot turn out.  Clearly you've never seen one of these, feel free to google image search it, they're quite common in mountainous areas where roads are narrow and winding and passing is impossible.

But lets drop the semantics.  The statement in the MTO's cycling skills document: "In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it."

That is clear and unambiguous.  There is no confusing it.  Riding in the centre of a lane thereby taking the lane in urban areas with lanes too narrow to share is completely legal.

This is the finding of the MTO, it is the finding of the OPP, it is the finding of most city councils including ROW.  

This is one of the rules which apply to our roads and all drivers must accept.
(11-04-2016, 04:46 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I have a feeling this is not going to illicit a very popular reaction.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Uh oh. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/4Yva5ePuyF">pic.twitter.com/4Yva5ePuyF</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/794637241134055424">November 4, 2016</a></blockquote>

You’re right. That’s just stupid.

Actually, it’s stupid enough I hope somebody will apply some vigilante justice to the sign, unless as suggested by somebody else it is in fact temporary for construction.
(11-04-2016, 07:47 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-04-2016, 07:28 PM)kps Wrote: [ -> ]The phrase is “turn out” (verb, meaning ‘move out of the way’), not “turnout” (noun). §148 is precisely the part of the Highway Traffic Act concerned with meeting and overtaking; if you want to point out a different section, here is the whole thing again.

The phrase "turn out" is also a noun, indicating a location where one might turn out.  Without a location to turn out, one cannot turn out.  Clearly you've never seen one of these, feel free to google image search it, they're quite common in mountainous areas where roads are narrow and winding and passing is impossible.

But lets drop the semantics.  The statement in the MTO's cycling skills document: "In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it."

That is clear and unambiguous.  There is no confusing it.  Riding in the centre of a lane thereby taking the lane in urban areas with lanes too narrow to share is completely legal.

This is the finding of the MTO, it is the finding of the OPP, it is the finding of most city councils including ROW.  

This is one of the rules which apply to our roads and all drivers must accept.

Not disputing your point, but the section that kps is pointing to seems to be clearly using turn out as a verb meaning move to the side as much as is practical.  This is still written, i believe, with the fact in mind that in a city where the lanes aren't wide enough to accommodate a safe pass, you don't have to turn out (ie. you can take the lane).  I would argue, though, that if a horse came up behind you going faster than you then you'd probably have to turn out for him in the city Wink


"Bicycles overtaken

(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6)."
I just rode the Waterfront trail in Toronto again today (43 km!), and noticed that I was the only person using a bell to indicate I was passing someone (pedestrian or cyclists). All these super-super slicked-out speedracers kept nearly clipping me with zero warning - and traveling well above the posted 20 km/h limit.

I'm curious: is the bell thing only a KW thing? Or is it more that it's just not a Toronto thing?
(11-05-2016, 03:39 PM)notmyfriends Wrote: [ -> ]Not disputing your point, but the section that kps is pointing to seems to be clearly using turn out as a verb meaning move to the side as much as is practical.  This is still written, i believe, with the fact in mind that in a city where the lanes aren't wide enough to accommodate a safe pass, you don't have to turn out (ie. you can take the lane).  I would argue, though, that if a horse came up behind you going faster than you then you'd probably have to turn out for him in the city Wink


"Bicycles overtaken

(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6)."

With respect to the discussion with kps, I believe kds was suggesting that drivers were justified in feeling upset when cyclists take the lane because it is an illegal activity, (I'm being generous here, I meant to imply that drivers act aggressively towards a cyclist who has taken the lane, and drivers under no circumstances are entitled or justified in acting aggressively towards vulnerable road users, but I'm assuming that isn't what kps meant).

Never the less, the MTO's documents as well as all the police forces are crystal clear on this. Taking the lane when the lane is too narrow to share with cars is entirely legal.

With that out of the way, the discussion of the specific HTA provisions is an interesting one. I still don't believe the "turnout" provision applies. There is already a provision within the HTA which specifies the road positioning that slow vehicles should take, it says specifically "Slow vehicles should travel as close to the right of the road as is practicable".

Therefore, "turning out"...can't mean "travel at the right hand side", that's covered under the other statute. Further, the cycling guide gives specific guidelines on the "practicable" qualification. Specifically 1 meter from the curb (as to avoid potholes, sewers, etc.) > 1 meter away from parked cars as to avoid opening doors, and optionally, in the middle of narrow lanes.

The way I have always interpreted the "turnout" requirement, is that under some circumstances, you must turn out and actually stop to wait for cars to pass. Specifically, if there is a road area designated for turning out is provided, you must use it to allow traffic to over take. Such pieces of pavement are common on winding roads, where overtaking is limited, and they're specifically signed as "turnout". Basically, they're a single parking space at the side of an otherwise narrow road.

That being said, it specifies that "any cyclist... that is overtaken". So I'm not entirely sure what that means, I have to turn out, after I'm overtaken? And the overtaking vehicle must "turn out to the left". All in all, it isn't an entirely clear statute to me even, And I'd love to hear an expert chime in on the issue. Or maybe, you know, have the law be clearer in the first place.

On the other hand, the MTO's cycling skills guide is quite clear.
I feel like if they were referring to a specific feature of a roadway (a turn out versus turning out), it would be included in the definitions at the beginning of the HTA.
(11-05-2016, 03:57 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I'm curious: is the bell thing only a KW thing? Or is it more that it's just not a Toronto thing?

In a high traffic area, (which, is most of the bike infrastructure in Toronto) it's much more sensible to just assume that there will be passing happening frequently. Expecting bell ringing when passing is going to happen would mean a cavalcade of constant rings. I don't honk my car horn when passing other cars; everyone just knows it's going to happen all the time.
I guess... but I also don't honk my horn on country roads every time I meet another vehicle! Smile
Cycle gear question! Now with horribly depressing standard time back in effect, it gets dark so early. Sad I saw someone on the Laurel Trail the other evening with a wonderful flashing headlight - I thought that was brilliant for late afternoon/dusk for visibility. I must have noticed him 500m+ away!

I'd love a USB-rechargeable headlight with that flashing function. Searches reveal a dearth of options in Lumen outputs from 10 to over 700.

I love the look of the Bontrager ion family (I'm a design guy!), and Ziggy's carry them (I like to support them, since they were so helpful to me when purchasing my bike this spring), but they're not rechargeable...

What are you folks using?
I have been using this:

https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5028-137/Q...oCUArw_wcB

Good light output. Flashing and beam mode. Rechargeable and I like the mount (especially as I have multiple bikes) because it's easy to attach and remove.

Only issue is it doesn't seem good on winding trails at night so I am thinking of also getting a helmet mounted light but haven't found anything I like for that.
(11-08-2016, 08:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I have been using this:

https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5028-137/Q...oCUArw_wcB

Good light output. Flashing and beam mode. Rechargeable and I like the mount (especially as I have multiple bikes) because it's easy to attach and remove.

Only issue is it doesn't seem good on winding trails at night so I am thinking of also getting a helmet mounted light but haven't found anything I like for that.

We also have a Quattro which I use. I got a burlier light as well, but the Quattro is fine for visibility, not so much for providing illumination.

By the way, I've heard that flashing mode is harder for oncoming people to get a distance estimation (and it bugs me to see it too). I use flashing mode for the rear light but not for the front light.
(11-08-2016, 10:32 AM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]We also have a Quattro which I use. I got a burlier light as well, but the Quattro is fine for visibility, not so much for providing illumination.

By the way, I've heard that flashing mode is harder for oncoming people to get a distance estimation (and it bugs me to see it too). I use flashing mode for the rear light but not for the front light.

I find it's okay for illumination the occasional time I use the very straight Iron Horse Trail after dark.  However, now that my commute will regularly take me on trails after dark, and winding ones, it's probably not sufficient.  It is certainly a brighter than a simple visibility light though.

I've also heard that about flashing lights.  It's hard to say, but you can have the best of both worlds, as some lights have a "steady + flash" mode.

Is your "burlier" light helmet mounted?  My biggest problem is that on winding trails, the light is pointing the wrong way most of the time around corners, and I thought helmet mounted would help that.  What do you have?
Isn't the flash for daytime and then steady-on is for night?

Flash at night would be very annoying as a rider I would think.
(11-08-2016, 11:16 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the flash for daytime and then steady-on is for night?

Flash at night would be very annoying as a rider I would think.

It's not really annoying unless you're in complete darkness.  On a lit street, it's not all that noticeable except on reflective signs.
(11-08-2016, 11:48 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It's not really annoying unless you're in complete darkness.  On a lit street, it's not all that noticeable except on reflective signs.

If I were on the unlit Iron Horse Trail, then I would definitely prefer that the other bikes approaching me use a steady-on.