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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling Outside Waterloo Region
#31
I've rode part of that trail a couple of times, it's pretty nice. I had a good laugh at that sign too.
Reply
#32
I presume this is either a deprecated roadway that has grown over, or a future roadway that they've signposted well in advance of its actual construction.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
#33
LOL, but even if it was depreciated Kevin, imagine how many years it would have taken to grow over like that. 50? The trail has got to be like.. 5 years old, max. Here's the location, FYI.

https://goo.gl/maps/sXMJwL3ZB732
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#34
(08-21-2017, 02:29 PM)Canard Wrote: LOL, but even if it was depreciated Kevin, imagine how many years it would have taken to grow over like that.  50?  The trail has got to be like.. 5 years old, max.  Here's the location, FYI.

https://goo.gl/maps/sXMJwL3ZB732

It’s the double standard again. No motor vehicle route can ever be subordinate to any bicycle route.

The road should simply have stop signs. In this case, this is just obvious, full stop (get it?).

In other locations, for example John St. at the Spur Line, I believe the road should in principle have stop signs and the trail should have priority, but I’m not sure how to actually construct the intersection so that vehicle drivers understand the situation and actually drive safely. The idea is that pedestrians and bicycles should just go across and it’s up to cars to fit into the gaps just as they do when reaching any major road.
Reply
#35
(08-21-2017, 02:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-21-2017, 02:29 PM)Canard Wrote: LOL, but even if it was depreciated Kevin, imagine how many years it would have taken to grow over like that.  50?  The trail has got to be like.. 5 years old, max.  Here's the location, FYI.

https://goo.gl/maps/sXMJwL3ZB732

It’s the double standard again. No motor vehicle route can ever be subordinate to any bicycle route.

The road should simply have stop signs. In this case, this is just obvious, full stop (get it?).

In other locations, for example John St. at the Spur Line, I believe the road should in principle have stop signs and the trail should have priority, but I’m not sure how to actually construct the intersection so that vehicle drivers understand the situation and actually drive safely. The idea is that pedestrians and bicycles should just go across and it’s up to cars to fit into the gaps just as they do when reaching any major road.

Here's another painful example:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4412166,-...312!8i6656

The trail has stop signs for the stub of a dead end road.
Reply
#36
Not to take away the griping of cyclists, but drivers also suffer from over protective "pre-planning" stop signs...

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4609772,-...312!8i6656

Coke
Reply
#37
(08-23-2017, 07:36 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: Not to take away the griping of cyclists, but drivers also suffer from over protective "pre-planning" stop signs...

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4609772,-...312!8i6656

Coke

At least that one actually has conflicting traffic on the sidewalk.
Reply
#38
(08-23-2017, 08:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-23-2017, 07:36 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: Not to take away the griping of cyclists, but drivers also suffer from over protective "pre-planning" stop signs...

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4609772,-...312!8i6656

Coke

At least that one actually has conflicting traffic on the sidewalk.

This is getting seriously off track, but pedestrians can beat that.

From our very own LRT, here's a pedestrian "no walk" sign just in case any cars want to turn into the concrete wall.

   
Reply
#39
That is the weirdest thing ever.
Reply
#40
(08-23-2017, 09:04 AM)panamaniac Wrote: That is the weirdest thing ever.

It drives me nuts.  If it was a road, they'd simply put bags over the lights.  Instead I'm forced to technically break the law.
Reply
#41
(08-23-2017, 08:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-23-2017, 07:36 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: Not to take away the griping of cyclists, but drivers also suffer from over protective "pre-planning" stop signs...

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4609772,-...312!8i6656

Coke

At least that one actually has conflicting traffic on the sidewalk.

That was handled fine with the yield sign we had before.  Now it's a great little money grab for the motorcycle that hides in the grass up against the fence line behind the driver at stop line, and catches those rolling thru.

Coke
Reply
#42
(08-23-2017, 09:02 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is getting seriously off track, but pedestrians can beat that.

From our very own LRT, here's a pedestrian "no walk" sign just in case any cars want to turn into the concrete wall.

Oh my God.... you win!  LOL

Coke
Reply
#43
(08-23-2017, 09:02 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is getting seriously off track, but pedestrians can beat that.

From our very own LRT, here's a pedestrian "no walk" sign just in case any cars want to turn into the concrete wall.


Looks odd now, but it appears this is future proofing the intersection as an entrance to the Sixo development. Though I'll still chuckle every time I walk through until that development begins.  Smile

   
Reply
#44
(08-23-2017, 09:33 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(08-23-2017, 08:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: At least that one actually has conflicting traffic on the sidewalk.

That was handled fine with the yield sign we had before.  Now it's a great little money grab for the motorcycle that hides in the grass up against the fence line behind the driver at stop line, and catches those rolling thru.

Coke

You’re right, a yield sign would be fine. For some reason even though I’m a big fan of yield signs I don’t always remember them. And the police have no business enforcing that stop sign except in the case that a motorist violates a pedestrian’s right of way or somebody really is driving dangerously (blowing through at speed and barely making the turn). Do they really hang out there often? If so it’s a waste of police resources. Fire the officer and increase taxes across the board to achieve the revenue.
Reply
#45
(08-23-2017, 10:53 AM)UrbanCanoe Wrote:
(08-23-2017, 09:02 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is getting seriously off track, but pedestrians can beat that.

From our very own LRT, here's a pedestrian "no walk" sign just in case any cars want to turn into the concrete wall.


Looks odd now, but it appears this is future proofing the intersection as an entrance to the Sixo development. Though I'll still chuckle every time I walk through until that development begins.  Smile

Either the lights should be bagged, or they should be programmed to display a walk signal all of the time. There is no justification for displaying a stop signal for pedestrians and it is wrong to do so. In principle I’d love to hear an expert explanation for why what they’ve done is reasonable, but I’m quite confident there isn’t one.

One thing I’ll be interested to see is whether they use that as the construction entrance. If construction starts with excavation at that end of the property, they could get a construction entrance running through there very quickly. If that happens, then the lights would become reasonable at that point.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)