Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 8 Vote(s) - 3.38 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trails
I still have no idea why this rule exists.

Imagine the outrage if similar rules were in place for automobiles when approaching a major trail? To picture it, is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs, but yet that is the rule for cyclists which is in my mind nearly as silly.
Reply


I'm pretty sure it isn't a rule in these cases. For most of our trail crossings there aren't actual crosswalks, which I think means you're allowed to bike there.

But this is just more evidence that our rules don't accommodate cyclists. People wonder why cyclists break the law, this is part of it. The laws just don't make any sense from a cyclist perspective, or sometimes even a pedestrian perspective for that matter.
Reply
I have no inside knowledge ... but I suspect the rationale for the "please dismount" signs is that some people blow through, across the street, without stopping or looking. As usual (and this is not just cycling), most people behave rationally, but it only takes a few people with bad behaviour to trigger a rules clampdown.
Reply
(09-10-2016, 12:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I have no inside knowledge ... but I suspect the rationale for the "please dismount" signs is that some people blow through, across the street, without stopping or looking.  As usual (and this is not just cycling), most people behave rationally, but it only takes a few people with bad behaviour to trigger a rules clampdown.

It isn't a rule.  There isn't a crosswalk at most of the trail crossings, thus, there's no legal requirement for cyclists to dismount.

And if cyclists flying out into roads *was* a problem, which I'm not necessarily agreeing it is (frankly, I don't recall ever hearing about anyone being hit at a trail intersection recently), the sign to put to stop this is a stop sign.

Nobody has ever asked car drivers to get out of their cars and push them across an intersection.  Because that would just be ridiculous.

The "cyclists dismount" signs are suggested as a bad practice by the Ontario design guides for many good reasons.  I also see them as a complete surrender for bike infrastructure.  Basically saying "we can't or won't build safe infrastructure, so you might as well give up."
Reply
(09-11-2016, 10:35 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2016, 12:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I have no inside knowledge ... but I suspect the rationale for the "please dismount" signs is that some people blow through, across the street, without stopping or looking.  As usual (and this is not just cycling), most people behave rationally, but it only takes a few people with bad behaviour to trigger a rules clampdown.

It isn't a rule.  There isn't a crosswalk at most of the trail crossings, thus, there's no legal requirement for cyclists to dismount.

And if cyclists flying out into roads *was* a problem, which I'm not necessarily agreeing it is (frankly, I don't recall ever hearing about anyone being hit at a trail intersection recently), the sign to put to stop this is a stop sign.

Nobody has ever asked car drivers to get out of their cars and push them across an intersection.  Because that would just be ridiculous.

The "cyclists dismount" signs are suggested as a bad practice by the Ontario design guides for many good reasons.  I also see them as a complete surrender for bike infrastructure.  Basically saying "we can't or won't build safe infrastructure, so you might as well give up."

As my message says, it's just a "please dismount" sign rather than a rule.  I am merely speculating on the rationale.

Most people wouldn't be able to physically push a car (any car, let alone a SUV) across the intersection so let's just drop that comparison.
Reply
(09-12-2016, 12:36 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-11-2016, 10:35 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It isn't a rule.  There isn't a crosswalk at most of the trail crossings, thus, there's no legal requirement for cyclists to dismount.

And if cyclists flying out into roads *was* a problem, which I'm not necessarily agreeing it is (frankly, I don't recall ever hearing about anyone being hit at a trail intersection recently), the sign to put to stop this is a stop sign.

Nobody has ever asked car drivers to get out of their cars and push them across an intersection.  Because that would just be ridiculous.

The "cyclists dismount" signs are suggested as a bad practice by the Ontario design guides for many good reasons.  I also see them as a complete surrender for bike infrastructure.  Basically saying "we can't or won't build safe infrastructure, so you might as well give up."

As my message says, it's just a "please dismount" sign rather than a rule.  I am merely speculating on the rationale.

Most people wouldn't be able to physically push a car (any car, let alone a SUV) across the intersection so let's just drop that comparison.

The point is that car infrastructure is expected not to have weird gaps and interruptions. Sometimes finding an exact analogy is difficult or impossible. Obviously, the suggested analogy isn’t actually possible, but on the other hand the idea that bicyclists have to dismount at certain places is nonsensical, which is the point being made.

I might suggest a slightly different analogy: instead of “please dismount”, the car intersection for no discernible reason is gravel or even dirt instead of pavement. That is, there is a gap in the infrastructure that is of significantly lower quality than the rest.

It all comes back to the double standard. There are frequently discussions around whether a new trail will be gravel or pavement. But when was the last time there was a discussion about whether the roads in a new subdivision would be paved? Probably literally the 50s or earlier.

(yes, I know some joggers prefer gravel. This can be accommodated by having a gravel shoulder next to the main path, and is no reason to consider not paving the path itself)
Reply
The analogy I prefer for "please dismount" is to imagine that there's a sign telling you as a driver, to park, turn off the ignition, observe your surroundings, and then proceed. If you weren't a driver, you might not see anything wrong with that procedure, to ensure a vehicle comes to a full and complete stop.
Reply


(09-12-2016, 09:06 AM)Markster Wrote: The analogy I prefer for "please dismount" is to imagine that there's a sign telling you as a driver, to park, turn off the ignition, observe your surroundings, and then proceed.  If you weren't a driver, you might not see anything wrong with that procedure, to ensure a vehicle comes to a full and complete stop.

Much better analogy, thanks!

Although I understand that in some places, “STOP” means “stop for at least 2 seconds” which I think is ridiculous. It’s really just a way to make it crystal clear that police are allowed to ticket perfectly safe behaviour.
Reply
If it's not a "crosswalk", so the rule about cyclists dismounting to cross shouldn't apply: depends on how it's painted, I guess. The "elephant's feet" crossing you see in places (Davenport, and along the Spur Line Trail) permit cyclists to ride across.

There's also the signalized, delineated crossride that's in place on Erb near Willow.

But, we're going to run into some potential cycling/walking coexistence problems with the upcoming level 2 pedestrian crossovers. On the plus side, we could start to see rollout of crossings where the motorist needs to allow pedestrians to cross, placed at roundabouts and likely at key crossing points. But, so far as I know (and based on my recollection of a discussion with regional staff) they're pure crosswalks and people on bikes will be obliged to dismount, and they can't be combined with crossrides.

So what do you do? Permit what people are going to do anyway (ride across), or provide a higher degree of pedestrian safety but criminalize behaviour that could have otherwise been permitted?

I don't like those choices.
Reply
[alternate universe]
I mean, how can we trust the usual brake? A driver's foot could slip off! And a lot of scofflaw drivers don't even come to a complete stop! They just roll right through.  So we have to tell them all to stop, put on the parking brake, and turn off the ignition, then we can be certain they have come to a complete stop, and can then proceed with caution.  It's easy enough to start the car back up.
[/alternate universe]
Reply
(09-12-2016, 11:16 AM)zanate Wrote: If it's not a "crosswalk", so the rule about cyclists dismounting to cross shouldn't apply: depends on how it's painted, I guess. The "elephant's feet" crossing you see in places (Davenport, and along the Spur Line Trail) permit cyclists to ride across.

There's also the signalized, delineated crossride that's in place on Erb near Willow.

But, we're going to run into some potential cycling/walking coexistence problems with the upcoming level 2 pedestrian crossovers. On the plus side, we could start to see rollout of crossings where the motorist needs to allow pedestrians to cross, placed at roundabouts and likely at key crossing points. But, so far as I know (and based on my recollection of a discussion with regional staff) they're pure crosswalks and people on bikes will be obliged to dismount, and they can't be combined with crossrides.

So what do you do? Permit what people are going to do anyway (ride across), or provide a higher degree of pedestrian safety but criminalize behaviour that could have otherwise been permitted?

I don't like those choices.

I believe you're right on all points, but I don't think it matters.  They will continue to mark them as crosswalks, cyclists will continue to ignore that, and they will continue to cross without the slightest legal protection.  When someone is hit, the region, instead of fixing the problem, will put up "cyclist dismount" signs and then cyclists will continue to ignore them, and cross with no legal protection.  But my point is, very little will actually change, behaviour won't, safety won't.  The only slight change might be a slight decrease in the already limited legal protections cyclists had at crossing trails.  To be honest, I don't think there have been a whole lot of accidents of this form, so I think it's fairly safe already.

Man, I'm feeling a little cynical this morning.

Actually, the only thing that might change is because of the PXOs giving priority to pedestrians cyclists may also start to get priority sometimes, which might help drivers become accustomed to the idea of yielding to cyclists. Given that I was cut off by a left turning drive while crossing three different side streets along the Weber St. bike path this is probably a good thing. But legal protections would be better.
Reply
(09-12-2016, 11:16 AM)zanate Wrote: If it's not a "crosswalk", so the rule about cyclists dismounting to cross shouldn't apply: depends on how it's painted, I guess. The "elephant's feet" crossing you see in places (Davenport, and along the Spur Line Trail) permit cyclists to ride across.

There's also the signalized, delineated crossride that's in place on Erb near Willow.

But, we're going to run into some potential cycling/walking coexistence problems with the upcoming level 2 pedestrian crossovers. On the plus side, we could start to see rollout of crossings where the motorist needs to allow pedestrians to cross, placed at roundabouts and likely at key crossing points. But, so far as I know (and based on my recollection of a discussion with regional staff) they're pure crosswalks and people on bikes will be obliged to dismount, and they can't be combined with crossrides.

So what do you do? Permit what people are going to do anyway (ride across), or provide a higher degree of pedestrian safety but criminalize behaviour that could have otherwise been permitted?

I don't like those choices.

Easy. Promote multi-use trails to be streets that happen to have no motorized vehicles permitted. Then where they meet motorized vehicle streets, have a regular intersection. With, obviously, no turns permitted by motorized vehicles. Incidentally, this solution also occurred to me as a possibility for some LRT problems: make an “off-road” section of LRT actually be street running, where the street part is a dead-end that goes nowhere and does nothing other than providing really good bicycling infrastructure (there would be a multi-use trail connecting the dead end to the next street so it would be a through street for bicycles). Voila! No need for crossing arms or fences! Wouldn’t work where freight travels, unless you can get street-running approved. Although at the low speeds used by the freight, maybe street-running could still be approved, I don’t know.

Also, what is this “can’t be combined with crossrides” stuff? Ok, so don’t combine them, put a crossride next to a crosswalk. If the rules provide for a minimum separation between the two, put the crossride straight in line with the path. So theoretically pedestrians should walk over to the crosswalk, but there is no actual need for them to do so. If necessary, put a secondary set of buttons at the crossride that activate the crosswalk 30m away or however far it needs to be. So then the crosswalk is stupid and pointless, but less stupid and pointless than bicyclists piously dismounting.

It just occurred to me, some religious communities are expert at working around rules passed down from on high. Why can’t secular communities do the same? Or better yet, give designers actual responsibility for good design rather than excessively detailed rules that are required to be followed exactly.
Reply
(09-12-2016, 12:16 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Easy.

I beg to differ.

Quote:Promote multi-use trails to be streets that happen to have no motorized vehicles permitted. Then where they meet motorized vehicle streets, have a regular intersection. With, obviously, no turns permitted by motorized vehicles.

This requires major (provincial level) changes, because right now multi-use trails intersect with streets at crosswalks-- as in, according to the HTA, a person should dismount from their bike and walk across. So the region can't promote this.

Quote:Also, what is this “can’t be combined with crossrides” stuff? Ok, so don’t combine them, put a crossride next to a crosswalk. If the rules provide for a minimum separation between the two, put the crossride straight in line with the path. So theoretically pedestrians should walk over to the crosswalk, but there is no actual need for them to do so. If necessary, put a secondary set of buttons at the crossride that activate the crosswalk 30m away or however far it needs to be. So then the crosswalk is stupid and pointless, but less stupid and pointless than bicyclists piously dismounting.

This is exactly what I meant when I said "can't be combined with crossrides". At least, in the region staff's interpretation. Can't have a crossride present if you're using level 2 PXO's. Can't be adjacent, can't be near. The new rules also state clearly that you can't use the L2 PXO if there's another crossing within 100m.

Quote:It just occurred to me, some religious communities are expert at working around rules passed down from on high. Why can’t secular communities do the same? Or better yet, give designers actual responsibility for good design rather than excessively detailed rules that are required to be followed exactly.

There's some latitude in the rules, and things like Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 give engineers a number of different choices of how to provide bike infrastructure, as well as guidance on the context that different options should be applied. Some of the stuff in book 18 is good, and some is... well... less well regarded.

I do think that the new Level 2 pedestrian crossovers are over-specified. But they're also the first thing in Ontario that's putting in place an obligation for drivers to stop at something other than a stop sign or an activated light. Its use for people cycling as well as walking hasn't been covered at all. Unfortunately, it's not something that can just be waved away. Traffic engineers have to always use "good engineering judgement" and a large part of that is relying on accepted practices and rules, because if they don't, they'll shoulder a lot more of the blame if something goes wrong.

Which is why I view it as a looming problem. And why I don't think it's easy.
Reply


(09-13-2016, 12:04 PM)zanate Wrote:
(09-12-2016, 12:16 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Promote multi-use trails to be streets that happen to have no motorized vehicles permitted. Then where they meet motorized vehicle streets, have a regular intersection. With, obviously, no turns permitted by motorized vehicles.

This requires major (provincial level) changes, because right now multi-use trails intersect with streets at crosswalks-- as in, according to the HTA, a person should dismount from their bike and walk across. So the region can't promote this.

This isn't exactly true.

First of all, multi-use trails do not have to intersect with streets at crosswalks....they may simply intersect streets with no provisions whatsoever, as they do for most Iron Horse Trail intersections.

But to the meat of the matter, there aren't necessarily provincial changes needed to consider MUTs a "public highway".  Public highways are allowed to have restricted lanes, such as bike lanes, and also allow pedestrians, if there are no sidewalks.   All a MUT is, is a public highway composed ONLY of bike lanes.  There's nothing in the law precluding this.

At that point there's no reason that you cannot have a MUT meet a vehicular road at a normal intersection.

My understanding of the law is this is perfectly legal under the HTA, we would only have to choose to do it, which really seems to be the sticking point.  Of course, IANAL.
Reply
(09-13-2016, 12:04 PM)zanate Wrote:
(09-12-2016, 12:16 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Easy.

I beg to differ.

Ok, I’ll admit I’m being a bit flippant, although I do have a serious point.

Quote:
Quote:Promote multi-use trails to be streets that happen to have no motorized vehicles permitted. Then where they meet motorized vehicle streets, have a regular intersection. With, obviously, no turns permitted by motorized vehicles.

This requires major (provincial level) changes, because right now multi-use trails intersect with streets at crosswalks-- as in, according to the HTA, a person should dismount from their bike and walk across. So the region can't promote this.

What I mean is, make the trail be a street. Which it should be anyway for other reasons — all our trails are marked as parks, with signs saying they are closed overnight. What kind of transportation corridor is closed overnight?

A street with bicycle lanes in both directions and no general traffic lanes. I’ll admit this idea is bogus as a way of dealing with the existing rules if you can find a regulation which states that a street must have a general traffic lane.

Quote:I do think that the new Level 2 pedestrian crossovers are over-specified. But they're also the first thing in Ontario that's putting in place an obligation for drivers to stop at something other than a stop sign or an activated light. Its use for people cycling as well as walking hasn't been covered at all. Unfortunately, it's not something that can just be waved away. Traffic engineers have to always use "good engineering judgement" and a large part of that is relying on accepted practices and rules, because if they don't, they'll shoulder a lot more of the blame if something goes wrong.

Which is why I view it as a looming problem. And why I don't think it's easy.

Are you telling me that drivers didn’t actually have to stop at the crosswalks in Toronto in 1980 which consisted of signs saying it was a crosswalk and more signs encouraging pedestrians to point in order to signal to cars that they want to cross? This is the bit I find the strangest about these level 2 crossovers. The first I heard of them was when I suggested at the Spur Line Trail consultation that Allen St., Union St., and probably some other streets should have pedestrian refuges at the trail. The staff suggested instead one of these “new” crossings but were extremely vague as to how they were different from previous crosswalks. Eventually I found the technical definition somewhere, and remained unimpressed with what they were saying. While I now think I have some understanding of the difference between the two crosswalk styles, they are really relatively minor differences and certainly nothing really new compared to what has existed for decades — it’s really just two slightly different signage and signalling standards.

Also, I was left with the impression that the staff would say almost anything to avoid engaging with my idea. Why not more pedestrian refuges, anyway? Most roads don’t need anything more than a pedestrian refuge, especially if the road is only one lane in each direction. They didn’t answer that question, just talked about a minor variation on the existing concept of a crosswalk as if it were a substantial new idea.

Thanks in any case for the discussion.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 9 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links