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:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling in Waterloo Region
And of course, I remembered about SF's super sharrows because they also have the....umm...super-duper sharrow?

https://bikeeastbay.org/supersharrows

Which is just in case drivers missed the giant green bike symbols...we'll just continue them for the entire lane.

I mean, if an idea isn't working, try try again right?
Reply


(06-12-2018, 07:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-12-2018, 06:55 AM)Canard Wrote: Thank you Kevin. What is the purpose of the “Sharrow” markings?

The HTA doesn't mention sharrows, but they are found in the MTO Traffic Manual Book 18, where it states:

"Sharrows are intended to indicate to both motorists and cyclists the appropriate line of travel for cyclists. .... Where shared lanes are too narrow for this, the sharrows are placed in the centre of the lane."

Of course according to WRPS, they're "the lane is too narrow, so be sure to ride in the door zone and encourage cars to squeeze past dangerously" markings.

Frankly, at this point, I'm considering taking the bus into work.  Between the 1 hour of cyclist hate on FB, and the Police actively endangering my life by encouraging it and telling motorists that I'm breaking the law by following the MTO guidelines, I'm not feeling particularly safe right now.

Or do what I do, ride on the sidewalk. I really don't care if it's not legal. Apart from the DT cores, there usually is not enough pedestrian traffic not to do it. I have kids so I need to make sure I arrive alive.
Reply
With kids, I think anyone you put out is going to be understanding. I don't like when I see an adult riding on the sidewalk, especially if there is a bike lane, and particularly not when I am pushing a strolling and trying to make sure another kid stays moving on the sidewalk, but if you've got a kid or two behind you or in a trailer, I understand that obeying the rules of the road to a 't' is not the priority.
Reply
(06-13-2018, 06:39 AM)MidTowner Wrote: With kids, I think anyone you put out is going to be understanding. I don't like when I see an adult riding on the sidewalk, especially if there is a bike lane, and particularly not when I am pushing a strolling and trying to make sure another kid stays moving on the sidewalk, but if you've got a kid or two behind you or in a trailer, I understand that obeying the rules of the road to a 't' is not the priority.

Problem is, not enough bike lanes. If there are bike lanes, I'll stick to them. No where in my area are their bike lanes. Last time I used roads the way to work, I almost didn't make it there alive, including an officer on his cell that almost ran me over. After that, I realized, between headwinds, hills, crazy drivers and lots of sweat, or an air conditioned car and 1/2 the time to get to work, I'll just stick with a car.

I've thought about an e-bike (pedal assist) so as to keep my speed up and not piss off impatient motorists, plus I have proper gear (as in clothing that can be seen from the international space station), so I might go back to biking, especially considering how expensive gas and parking is (I don't pay for parking right now, but that will likely change).
Reply
An eBike (Pedelec) won’t help you much with the the speed, but you’ll be able to ride further, headwinds disappear, and you’ll show up to work less sweaty. You’ll end up riding your bike far more often, because you’ll find fewer excuses not to ride. Highly recommended.

Look at bikes with a Bosch or Shimano middrive; Ziggy’s has the (excellently priced) Trek Verve+ with Bosch’s new middrive on it right inside their front door. Go give it a rip.
Reply
What is the difference between “accident” and “crash”?

I see this all the time on twitter but perhaps naively see no difference. In all scenarios nobody is intentionally setting out to hurt another. So why the emphasis?
Reply
Why are you assuming there's a difference? I could see a "crash" as being one form of an accident (a "fall' might be another), but I imagine many people would use the terms interchangeably, especially on something as casual as twitter.
Reply


"Accident" gives too much of a sense that it was all due to random chance. Often it's not the case; someone made a poor choice that led to this happening (whether distracted driving, speeding, poor movement on the road, failure to signal, or whatever). "Crash" gives a more flat and open indication of the occurrence, and leaves room for a causation to be applied later.
Reply
(06-13-2018, 11:07 AM)KevinL Wrote: "Accident" gives too much of a sense that it was all due to random chance. Often it's not the case; someone made a poor choice that led to this happening (whether distracted driving, speeding, poor movement on the road, failure to signal, or whatever). "Crash" gives a more flat and open indication of the occurrence, and leaves room for a causation to be applied later.

Indeed, saying something like "Cyclist involved in accident with pickup" does many things, as an example headline. Using "Cyclist" or "bike" dehumanizes the victim, because of how people react to those terms. "Accident" begins the mental perception of what occurred in the same way one says "oh it was an accident" when something happens, beginning by shunning responsibility. "Pickup" distances the reader from that which causes the most damage in any collision, by distancing them (by referring to vehicle type instead of to a person).

The same kind of accident could also be referred to in this way: "Woman killed in bike lane by driver who fled the scene" "Woman" humanizes the victim. "Driver" brings responsibility back to the person using the vehicle which caused the death.

In this case, the death in Toronto of Isabel Soria has shown be basically these two headline types. If you are going to pick up a gun, or the leading instrument of death in a country (vehicles, in nearly every case), you have to acknowledge that you bear great responsibility for the use of such a deadly thing. Using such a deadly thing does not make you a bad person, but it requires the greatest responsibility, especially in areas where there is not exclusive vehicle use (like highways are). We use too much forgiving language, and I do believe people are right to call out Mayor Tory for his "thoughts" being with the victim, because at this point, it's a very close equivalent to American "thoughts and prayers" over every death by gun.
Reply
What do we call it when a car gets hit by a train?
Reply
(06-13-2018, 11:34 AM)Canard Wrote: What do we call it when a car gets hit by a train?

Almost always "train crashes into car", no?
Reply
(06-13-2018, 11:34 AM)Canard Wrote: What do we call it when a car gets hit by a train?

I would defer to you on the matter of railway systems, but my perception of railways is that it really is the responsibility of everyone else to respect the rails. If you are a pedestrian walking on a railway, or a person biking around a crossing that is down, or a person driving onto tracks you can't get clear of, it's a tragic situation, but I tend to view it as your fault. There are likely some scant exceptions (wasn't it a train somewhere in the States that derailed in the last year because it was going too fast? Can't recall whether the derailed area was improperly signed for speed, or if the conductor of the train didn't follow things). While responsibility generally flows to the larger party in any collision, trains seem to be an exception, probably due to their size, their velocity (in)abilities, and their incredibly predictable and well-communicated movements.
Reply
(06-13-2018, 11:07 AM)KevinL Wrote: "Accident" gives too much of a sense that it was all due to random chance. Often it's not the case; someone made a poor choice that led to this happening (whether distracted driving, speeding, poor movement on the road, failure to signal, or whatever). "Crash" gives a more flat and open indication of the occurrence, and leaves room for a causation to be applied later.

Yes, I understand that the safety professionals like to avoid the use of "accident" because that's something that you can't prevent. Collisions are preventable and better design can help avoid them.
Reply


Thanks for the explanation. I now understand that the terminology is to make sure that designers know there's a problem that needs to be resolved.

I had always read/heard it as some way to automatically and always place blame onto drivers, which is not fair or accurate.
Reply
(06-13-2018, 10:57 AM)Canard Wrote: What is the difference between “accident” and “crash”?
The main difference in the terms is that accidents, by definition, are preventable. All accidents can be crashes, but not all crashes are accidents.

It may not seem that this small change in semantics is important, but it is because it removes the implicit “nobody’s-fault” attitude that the word accident conveys that neutral words like crash, incident, or collision do not.

When you use the word accident, it’s like, ‘God made it happen,’ or like a lightning strike, something beyond anyone’s control, an unforeseen event that could not have been anticipated, and for which no one can be blamed.

That’s not the case though. All traffic crashes are preventable/fixable problems caused by dangerous and poorly designed streets, and people making unsafe choices and bad habits/behaviours. They are not accidents.

Until all the facts are known the presumption should be to call it a crash/incident/collision especially when you consider that a very large majority of fatal crashes are caused by bad choices like intoxication, speeding, distraction, or carelessness and, therefore, are not accidents. For example, at the time of a fatal crash you often only have one side of the story, the survivor’s; the victim(s) are dead. So by using the term accident you are exonerating those responsible before all the facts are known. Then of course the front page news becomes old news and no one reads the correction notice buried in fine print in the back pages a week later, and so society is left with an on-going generalization based on their impression from the original headlines that are misrepresentations of the final facts.

Even if your brakes fail resulting in you crashing it should not be considered an accident if you have deliberately chosen to skip the maintenance on your brakes. The crash in that example could have been prevented with regular maintenance to the brakes.
 
Planes don’t have accidents; they crash. Cranes don’t have accidents; they collapse. Why then why do we keep calling traffic crashes accidents?

Even the AP has switched their guidance on this, “reporters should avoid accident, which can be read by some as a term exonerating the person responsible.”
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 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