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.
(11-08-2016, 11:51 AM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

I would categorize the unlit Iron Horse Trail as "complete darkness" Tongue.
(11-08-2016, 10:41 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?

I have either this one or one of its competitors.

https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5051-604/C...ront-Light

It is noticeably brighter than the Quattro and projects to a wider field.

I've never tried a helmet mounted front light. In the past I've used a helmet mounted rear light. When I use headlamps for hiking, which is a pretty different use case, the fact that the beam turns with my head is not that useful, I think. More just that one wants a broader beam for many things.
I run a Busch and Muller dynamo powered light. I have a 20 lux version for in-town riding that is always on with a wide light on the rear rack that is very visible. They're expensive on the onset but I've been riding my city commuter year-round for 5 years without any problems. I use a brighter headlight on my road bike for all-night rides in the countryside, the design of the lenses in these lights provide incredible visibility in all conditions. I want to upgrade my light to one with a USB plug so I can charge my garmin directly from the hub during the day.

Black Arrow cycles has some good USB chargeable lights, I think they are cat eye brand... I've been surprised by their quality. I don't ever use flashing lights, I don't know if there is any science to back up the idea that they provide more visibility.
Crash in Cambridge leaves alleged sidewalk cyclist hurt

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/crash...-1.3154773
It doesn't help with the drivers and politicians who encourage (still illegal) sidewalk cycling.
(11-10-2016, 05:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't help with the drivers and politicians who encourage (still illegal) sidewalk cycling.

Not to mention cycling in crosswalks, which, quite frankly, given the infrastructure design around MUTs in the city, I feel is bordering on entrapment.
"Alleged sidewalk cyclist" makes me chuckle somehow.  Better than "the perp", I suppose.
My first interpretation of that sentence was that it was an alleged cyclist.
Alleged cyclist - I suppose for some people, that's crime enough.

I wish they would indicate what charges are pending; it was probably riding on the sidewalk/crosswalk. I suspect the truck was likely at least partially at fault, though. Even as a runner or walker, left turning vehicles have a tendency to only look for the break in car lanes and ignore people on the sidewalk and I wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of factors were involved in this case. In fairness to the truck, cyclists are often going faster than pedestrians, but as a runner, I am going a lot faster than pedestrians too and always have to be vigilant with turning vehicles; I would have been mowed down many times already otherwise. This is all speculation on my part, of course, because these articles are typically very scant on details, but quite happy to pin guilt on one party regardless.

I think it would be interesting to see bylaws regarding sidewalk cycling challenged. I personally don't advocate for it, but I recognize why people ride on the sidewalk and it is normally out of a sense that riding on the road is less safe. The evidence is mixed on that front, but I think there is a case to made that cycling infrastructure on the road is woefully inadequate and in some cases actually endangers cyclists. Can the municipality force cyclists off sidewalks without providing adequate infrastructure for them on the road? I'd argue that as long as they have by-laws in place prohibiting cyclists on sidewalks that they have a duty to provide an alternate safe arrangement for cyclists. The fact that they allow children to ride on sidewalks could be seen as an acknowledgement of sorts within the by-law that there is an issue of safety when biking on the roadway.
The location of the incident:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3873779,-...a=!3m1!1e3

What happened:
Quote:the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk along Elgin Street.
At the same time, a pickup truck was making a left turn off of Elgin onto Woodborough Place.
According to police, the cyclist tried to get through the intersection before the truck, but ended up crashing into the side of it.

I'm guessing then that the cyclist was going southbound on the east sidewalk. Yeah, that's a pretty precarious position. It's "against the flow", so drivers aren't accustomed to things coming quickly from that part of the sidewalk. If the driver noticed the cyclist at all, they probably thought it was going slower than it was. Whenever I'm sidewalk cycling like that, I go a little slower, and am more cautious crossing roads and driveways.

I suppose the cyclist was on the sidewalk because the road is somewhat busy and has cars parked erratically on it.
Blame now seems easy to lay at the feet of the cyclist as, not only were they in contravention to law, they crashed into the side of the truck. The cyclist was clearly going too fast to stop within the environment they had placed themselves, which is a failure of judgement akin to not leaving sufficient stopping distance in front of your car on a throughway.

Unfortunately this will reinforce "Those crazy cyclists" narratives and draw energy away from examinations of the structural and systemic failings that resulted in the issue in the first place (The cyclist didn't want to be on the road. Cars don't want cyclists on the roads. Causal link? Education failing on all parties at any rate.)

This is one of the reasons I sometimes choose road segments over trail segments: outreach. Show people that cyclists exist and belong.
Why is it that we personify motorized vehicles? It's always "the cyclist did X", but "the car/truck did Y". In this story: "the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk" vs "a pickup truck was making a left turn".
Because there is only really one type of bicycle. There are many types of road vehicles. Saying "a driver" doesn't differentiate smart car from City Bus - sometimes the size matters (heh) when visualizing the situation.

I suppose those are those recumbent bikes... Smile

The Record has an article now about this: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6958...cambridge/
Naturally, it was important to point out that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. I wonder if the driver of the truck was wearing a seat belt.
Has anyone tried biking on Erb St. past the new Costco? Any thoughts on this?

The infrastructure seems to be pretty bad. Two traffic circles so close together means the bike lanes appear and disappear everywhere. Using the new trails is possible, but they don't continue down to Ira Needles, and, as usual, there is no legal way to use the trails while biking because of the crossings.