Waterloo Region Connected
Cycling in Waterloo Region - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186)



RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-20-2020

(09-19-2020, 02:56 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Another person hit by a driver while bicycling.

I have never understood why any sections of the extremely busy Northfield drive were marked as a cycling route.

https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-news/cyclist-hospitalized-with-serious-injuries-after-being-hit-by-vehicle-2726489

The article says that Northfield was closed between Scotch Line Road and Line 86. That is, here:

https://goo.gl/maps/8agprY36iK8rkzHQ9

I suspect most people, like me, don’t think of this part when hearing the name “Northfield” but rather the in-town part.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-20-2020

(09-20-2020, 06:16 PM)timc Wrote:
(09-19-2020, 02:56 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Another person hit by a driver while bicycling.

I have never understood why any sections of the extremely busy Northfield drive were marked as a cycling route.

https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-news/cyclist-hospitalized-with-serious-injuries-after-being-hit-by-vehicle-2726489

a. Is that part really marked as a cycling route?
b. That section isn't that busy, but is driven at highway speeds.
c. There isn't a lot of information, but visibility at 9 pm isn't great, and it makes me wonder if the bike had proper lighting.

a) Parts are, not that part, basically from the city to Sawmill Dr. is, then from Sawmill Dr. to the Kissing Bridge Trail isn't, and then north of there, it is.
b) Busy is of course a relative term, but I find it busier than other routes that I have historically ridden outside the city.
c) I try not to ask such questions, I'm sure the police will. But unlike the police, I don't believe a cyclist not having lighting really justifies hitting a person in all or even most circumstances.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 09-21-2020

Northfield is awful for cycling. The section this cyclist was on is actually not a common one for cyclists to use as Middlebrook Road runs parallel and is much nicer. The section of Northfield I probably use most often is south of Scotch Line. Scotch Line is a relatively popular E-W option in that area, but ends at Northfield. People therefore often take Northfield between Scotch Line and Jiggs Hollow Rd. There is actually a laneway that is much nicer opposite Scotch Line, but it's a private road.

There is also discussion about Woolwich demolishing the bridge on Glasgow, which would make the only access to areas northeast of Waterloo (a very popular area for cycling) be via Northfield to Conestogo.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-21-2020

(09-20-2020, 09:39 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: c) I try not to ask such questions, I'm sure the police will. But unlike the police, I don't believe a cyclist not having lighting really justifies hitting a person in all or even most circumstances.

The question is clearly asked too much. For example, a car could run a red and hit a cyclist, and people would probably still be asking whether the cyclist had a light, as if a driver who ignored a giant red light would have been more careful if the cyclist had been wearing a tiny little light.

But on the other hand, light are required, by law, for good reason at night. To take the question to the extreme, I hope it’s clear that if the cyclist is completely invisible it can’t possibly be the fault of the motor vehicle operator for not seeing them. And depending on atmospheric and road conditions and what the cyclist is wearing, they actually could be effectively invisible even if not literally Invisible Man invisible.

This is why I think that strict liability for hitting non-motor traffic goes too far. If on a foggy night I turn left off a dark road and hit a cyclist driving the wrong way in the bicycle lane while wearing all black with no lights, that’s not really my fault: they need to drive legally and be at least somewhat visible.

To disagree with this is basically to say that motor vehicle traffic is illegitimate. Whatever the rules are, they have to make it feasible to do legally the things that people do, without fear of randomly incurring legal liability for the reckless behaviour of someone else.

That being said, the actual problem in most cases here and now is that people assume the cyclist was behaving irresponsibly when in fact most of the time it is the operator of the large, heavy, and fast motor vehicle who was doing so.

And just to inject some factual information into the discussion, I took a look in Google StreetView, and the section of road in question appears to have gravel shoulders. So I speculate that if the road had paved shoulders, this collision would not have occurred. Of course paved shoulders cost more, but they make the roads much more useable by cyclists and pedestrians, which is something we’re supposed to be encouraging.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 07:27 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-20-2020, 09:39 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: c) I try not to ask such questions, I'm sure the police will. But unlike the police, I don't believe a cyclist not having lighting really justifies hitting a person in all or even most circumstances.

The question is clearly asked too much. For example, a car could run a red and hit a cyclist, and people would probably still be asking whether the cyclist had a light, as if a driver who ignored a giant red light would have been more careful if the cyclist had been wearing a tiny little light.

But on the other hand, light are required, by law, for good reason at night. To take the question to the extreme, I hope it’s clear that if the cyclist is completely invisible it can’t possibly be the fault of the motor vehicle operator for not seeing them. And depending on atmospheric and road conditions and what the cyclist is wearing, they actually could be effectively invisible even if not literally Invisible Man invisible.

This is why I think that strict liability for hitting non-motor traffic goes too far. If on a foggy night I turn left off a dark road and hit a cyclist driving the wrong way in the bicycle lane while wearing all black with no lights, that’s not really my fault: they need to drive legally and be at least somewhat visible.

To disagree with this is basically to say that motor vehicle traffic is illegitimate. Whatever the rules are, they have to make it feasible to do legally the things that people do, without fear of randomly incurring legal liability for the reckless behaviour of someone else.

That being said, the actual problem in most cases here and now is that people assume the cyclist was behaving irresponsibly when in fact most of the time it is the operator of the large, heavy, and fast motor vehicle who was doing so.

And just to inject some factual information into the discussion, I took a look in Google StreetView, and the section of road in question appears to have gravel shoulders. So I speculate that if the road had paved shoulders, this collision would not have occurred. Of course paved shoulders cost more, but they make the roads much more useable by cyclists and pedestrians, which is something we’re supposed to be encouraging.

I mean, even if cyclist literally had a cloak of invisibility, and the driver could not possibly see them, the driver still could be partly at fault for the collision, if they were driving in the bike lane, or on the shoulder, or ran a light or stop sign.

As for strict liability, I'm not sure why you think it goes too far, we already have it, the police do an incredibly job of defending drivers. But in general, why should it not fall on the operator of a dangerous piece of equipment to prove they were doing so safely. I disagree with what you claim about strict liability, it does not make other's transgressions your fault, it merely means that in the event of a collision, you must prove you were operating safely, rather than it being the presumption.

I do of course agree that proper infrastructure solves most of these problems.  I wouldn't actually support paved shoulders, what I would prefer: 
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.6354938,5.8374536,154m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

Many rural highways--certainly all cycling routes along main highways, have a separated path.

Also, I believe improving safety is important for drivers as well, I prefer this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


U
sed in Sweden as part of vision zero, basically most (at least starting where collisions are common) highways are divided, this pretty much prevents crossover collisions.

I am curious though, our road engineers seem to feel that wide (at least a lane width) gravel (or paved) graded shoulders are necessary, but I don't see them in Europe, what do shoulders actually achieve?


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - creative - 09-21-2020

Paved shoulders move water away from the roadway before it can infiltrate into the road's subbase, increasing the life expectancy of the road surface. Shoulders help provide extra structural support of the roadway.
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Should...
Shoulder (road) - Wikipedia


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 09:47 AM)creative Wrote: Paved shoulders move water away from the roadway before it can infiltrate into the road's subbase, increasing the life expectancy of the road surface. Shoulders help provide extra structural support of the roadway.
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Should...
Shoulder (road) - Wikipedia

This is the theory, but Europe also has roads with water and heavy traffic, how do they manage without shoulders.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 09:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, even if cyclist literally had a cloak of invisibility, and the driver could not possibly see them, the driver still could be partly at fault for the collision, if they were driving in the bike lane, or on the shoulder, or ran a light or stop sign.

Yes, that is certainly true. My point is just that in some circumstances the cyclist may be partly or entirely at fault; it could be impossible for a motor vehicle operator to avoid a collision, or more precisely it could be impossible for motor vehicle operators to avoid certain classes of collisions.

Quote:As for strict liability, I'm not sure why you think it goes too far, we already have it, the police do an incredibly job of defending drivers. But in general, why should it not fall on the operator of a dangerous piece of equipment to prove they were doing so safely. I disagree with what you claim about strict liability, it does not make other's transgressions your fault, it merely means that in the event of a collision, you must prove you were operating safely, rather than it being the presumption.

It is possible that I misunderstand strict liability. My understanding is that it means that if a problem occurs that would not have occurred without my conduct, I am liable. For example, strict liability for polluting a stream would mean that if I have a factory and its effluent ends up in the stream, I’m liable, even if I was using appropriate control measures and somebody sabotaged them, causing pollution of the stream. In the road context, it would mean that if I hit a cyclist, I’m liable, even if they were actually at fault (example, as I suggested, they’re effectively invisible, in part due to their clothing/lack of lights, and riding illegally).

If strict liability means that the presumption is I’m liable and I have to prove I was operating safely, then that might actually be perfectly reasonable. In my cyclist example, however, it might be hard: how would I prove that I actually was watching where I was driving, and would have seen a legally-operating cyclist not in camouflage? So I welcome correction on what the term means and how it applies in practice.

Just to be crystal clear, I will re-iterate that this example is a hypothetical, and in fact I think in most cases motor vehicle/cyclist collisions result from motor operator negligence, at least in part.

Quote:I do of course agree that proper infrastructure solves most of these problems.  I wouldn't actually support paved shoulders, what I would prefer: 
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.6354938,5.8374536,154m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

Many rural highways--certainly all cycling routes along main highways, have a separated path.

Also, I believe improving safety is important for drivers as well, I prefer this:
[url=https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is great, and I agree much better than paved shoulders as bicycle infrastructure.

I recently took a look at Google Streetview at a location in Africa (kid was curious about the world so we looked at a few places). It was obviously a rural road in the middle of a paving project. It looked like it was previously a narrow gravel track, soon to be a 2-lane paved road probably not that different from our highways in Ontario. There were many motorcycles and pedestrians about, many carrying goods on their heads, and shacks nearby along the road. I wondered if those people truly understood what the road is about to become as motor vehicle traffic makes use of the new route, and how unsafe it will likely be for people walking.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Bob_McBob - 09-21-2020

I drive in Woolwich at night on a regular basis, and it's exceedingly rare to encounter a cyclist without lights after dark in rural areas. In fact, I was in that section of Northfield 30 minutes before the collision and passed multiple cyclists with full lighting. Almost everyone out at that time is either a Mennonite or serious cyclist, and they're all well aware of how dangerous it is sharing the road with that type of traffic.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 10:16 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 09:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, even if cyclist literally had a cloak of invisibility, and the driver could not possibly see them, the driver still could be partly at fault for the collision, if they were driving in the bike lane, or on the shoulder, or ran a light or stop sign.

Yes, that is certainly true. My point is just that in some circumstances the cyclist may be partly or entirely at fault; it could be impossible for a motor vehicle operator to avoid a collision, or more precisely it could be impossible for motor vehicle operators to avoid certain classes of collisions.

Quote:As for strict liability, I'm not sure why you think it goes too far, we already have it, the police do an incredibly job of defending drivers. But in general, why should it not fall on the operator of a dangerous piece of equipment to prove they were doing so safely. I disagree with what you claim about strict liability, it does not make other's transgressions your fault, it merely means that in the event of a collision, you must prove you were operating safely, rather than it being the presumption.

It is possible that I misunderstand strict liability. My understanding is that it means that if a problem occurs that would not have occurred without my conduct, I am liable. For example, strict liability for polluting a stream would mean that if I have a factory and its effluent ends up in the stream, I’m liable, even if I was using appropriate control measures and somebody sabotaged them, causing pollution of the stream. In the road context, it would mean that if I hit a cyclist, I’m liable, even if they were actually at fault (example, as I suggested, they’re effectively invisible, in part due to their clothing/lack of lights, and riding illegally).

If strict liability means that the presumption is I’m liable and I have to prove I was operating safely, then that might actually be perfectly reasonable. In my cyclist example, however, it might be hard: how would I prove that I actually was watching where I was driving, and would have seen a legally-operating cyclist not in camouflage? So I welcome correction on what the term means and how it applies in practice.

Just to be crystal clear, I will re-iterate that this example is a hypothetical, and in fact I think in most cases motor vehicle/cyclist collisions result from motor operator negligence, at least in part.

Quote:I do of course agree that proper infrastructure solves most of these problems.  I wouldn't actually support paved shoulders, what I would prefer: 
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.6354938,5.8374536,154m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

Many rural highways--certainly all cycling routes along main highways, have a separated path.

Also, I believe improving safety is important for drivers as well, I prefer this:
[url=https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is great, and I agree much better than paved shoulders as bicycle infrastructure.

I recently took a look at Google Streetview at a location in Africa (kid was curious about the world so we looked at a few places). It was obviously a rural road in the middle of a paving project. It looked like it was previously a narrow gravel track, soon to be a 2-lane paved road probably not that different from our highways in Ontario. There were many motorcycles and pedestrians about, many carrying goods on their heads, and shacks nearby along the road. I wondered if those people truly understood what the road is about to become as motor vehicle traffic makes use of the new route, and how unsafe it will likely be for people walking.

Interestingly, insurance probably does a better job of assigning fault than police, generally they will charge only the most obvious and clear failures. Where as insurance tends to assign a percentage blame to each party. They are still poor though, the thing that a lot of people (and a few people very loudly) cannot accept is that everyone plays a role in crashes. However, because it is drivers who are conducting the inherently dangerous activity (driving a car) I believe the larger liability should fall on them. And I have little sympathy, if you don't like it, there should not be a requirement to drive a car.

As for strict liability, I am not a lawyer, but in my understanding it is not that you are liable when you are not, but only whose burden of proof it is.

As for the cycling example, again, I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say what the actual strict liability in the Netherlands law is, but I would like for the case to be that you must prove why you did not see them. For example, weather, poor vehicle design etc. but if you cannot give justification the presumption is that you were negligent. I don't think this is unfair, as a driver I feel it is my responsibility to see things, if I don't, unless there is a good reason, it is my fault for not seeing it. And I am happy to be subject to the same restrictions as a driver.

Remember, these are not criminal charges, but liability and licensing. Drivers who make mistakes like not seeing people, should not be driving, and they should be paying (through insurance) for the harm they cause.

I do agree that in practice, this is rarely the issue, our actual standards are basically zero....there was a collision where a driver killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk, while looking around on the floor of their car for a waterbottle for more than five seconds, while making a left turn, the courts dismissed the charges because the justice felt that not looking at the road for 5 seconds straight did not deviate from a normal standard of driving.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 07:13 AM)jamincan Wrote: There is also discussion about Woolwich demolishing the bridge on Glasgow, which would make the only access to areas northeast of Waterloo (a very popular area for cycling) be via Northfield to Conestogo.

Has anyone proposed keeping the bridge, but closing it to cars? Or would maintenance still be too expensive?


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 02:08 PM)KevinL Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 07:13 AM)jamincan Wrote: There is also discussion about Woolwich demolishing the bridge on Glasgow, which would make the only access to areas northeast of Waterloo (a very popular area for cycling) be via Northfield to Conestogo.

Has anyone proposed keeping the bridge, but closing it to cars? Or would maintenance still be too expensive?

I'm pretty sure the proposal is to actually keep it open to cyclists and mennonites, who are also a key user of the bridge.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 02:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 02:08 PM)KevinL Wrote: Has anyone proposed keeping the bridge, but closing it to cars? Or would maintenance still be too expensive?

I'm pretty sure the proposal is to actually keep it open to cyclists and mennonites, who are also a key user of the bridge.

It's one of the proposals on the table, but I don't think a final decision has been made yet. I seem to recall that the staff recommendation was demolition (ie. it was, by far, the cheapest option on the table).


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 02:19 PM)jamincan Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 02:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm pretty sure the proposal is to actually keep it open to cyclists and mennonites, who are also a key user of the bridge.

It's one of the proposals on the table, but I don't think a final decision has been made yet. I seem to recall that the staff recommendation was demolition (ie. it was, by far, the cheapest option on the table).

Yeah, that was their proposal, there was push back thank goodness. It ticks me off though, staff recommend demolishing the bridge despite knowing full well the bridge is used by cyclists and mennonite buggies who would have to find a different route on roads which do not have safe infrastructure. This absolutely will result in deaths and injuries. It is ONLY cheap because they are allowed to not consider safety or suitability for other users except drivers.

Killing people should be extremely expensive...not free.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-21-2020

(09-21-2020, 09:47 AM)creative Wrote: Paved shoulders move water away from the roadway before it can infiltrate into the road's subbase, increasing the life expectancy of the road surface. Shoulders help provide extra structural support of the roadway.
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Should...
Shoulder (road) - Wikipedia

The paved shoulders are also used by the mennonite buggies to allow faster traffic to pass.