(05-11-2016, 08:33 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, that's pretty curt/passive aggressive. That doesn't help smooth the tensions between cyclists and pedestrians at all...
Agreed. It should read "
Please ring bell
BEFORE passing pedestrians". More polite, plus if you wait until you are passing them, you're just asking for trouble. To me, the proper etiquette is to ring your bell well in advance so they know you're coming and then to announce clearly "passing on left" well before you reach them.
Oh- sorry, I couldn't tell it was a joke. I have to say, I think it's probably the majority of cyclists who don't have bells, and the "hardcore" ones probably are less inclined.
I'm with plam that I like the bell (I am not a hardcore cyclist). Some people have told me they hear it the same way as a car horn, but I consider the bell to be less aggressive than "on the left" sometimes does. There's no perfect system- these are by and large recreational trails, people aren't in the frame of mind of focusing on rules and procedures.
My mom always used to embarrass me when I was a kid by saying "BYE ON THE LEFT!" when we rode on Rails-to-Trails on our vacations in the states. Now as an adult I get it.
The single "ding" of a bell I feel is a very polite way to signal your presence, so long as it can be heard over headphones and the like. Although, if someone is wearing headphones, they're likely walking alone and walking on the right, anyway. It's only groups of people talking together that you might want to warn, I suppose.
(05-11-2016, 06:21 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]My mom always used to embarrass me when I was a kid by saying "BYE ON THE LEFT!" when we rode on Rails-to-Trails on our vacations in the states. Now as an adult I get it. The single "ding" of a bell I feel is a very polite way to signal your presence, so long as it can be heard over headphones and the like. Although, if someone is wearing headphones, they're likely walking alone and walking on the right, anyway. It's only groups of people talking together that you might want to warn, I suppose.
No, it's every pedestrian, whether alone or in a group. Anyone who might step into your path if they are not aware of your approach.
I try to ring my bell a few times to give people a sense of where I am. I appreciate any warning, but I do get annoyed if the warning comes immediately before they pass me and are so close I can almost feel them.
Yesterday I was out for a ride and discovered my bell needs to be tightened, instead of ringing I was just pushing it around the handle bar
Currently I have the cheapest bell available from King Street Cycles, but my brother sent me a link to this Kickstarter, so hopefully I'll have one of these soon:
Oi Bike Bell
(05-11-2016, 04:22 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Only because I thought Jamincan was a pretty hardcore biker. I suspected maybe the mass of a bell might reduce efficiency. Just having fun, no harm meant.
I'm not too worried about the mass of the bell, the aerodynamics though...
Speaking seriously, I do almost all of my riding out in the country and at speeds where a bell doesn't really help. I otherwise ride exclusively on the road (on my way to country roads). I suppose there could be some cases where a bell could be useful, but in those fringe cases, my voice works pretty well too.
I do keep lights in my saddlebag if I get caught out after dark.
So the City of Waterloo is investigating how best to route the Laurel Trail through Waterloo Park. They intend to upgrade it (it will become the park's 'Central Promenade') and, perhaps, relocate it. There are two options on the table: option 1 would keep it straight alongside the rail line as it is now; option 2 would relocate it to the east, on the far side of the zoo.
More details
are available here (be sure to click 'read more' to get the PDF links).
NOOOOO!!!!!! Must stay next to tracks!!! :panic:
(05-14-2016, 07:04 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]NOOOOO!!!!!! Must stay next to tracks!!! :panic:
Yes, this is yet another consultation that is going off the rails. Of course the Laurel Trail (which is a traffic route, not primarily a park walk) should continue to run by the direct route immediately parallel to the tracks. There can be no rational debate on this point.
What can be reasonably discussed is whether there should be another route through the park that is meant primarily to be a pleasant walk. A more interesting route running between different attractions within the park could be right for this, and could have the additional benefit of taking the “Sunday drivers” so to speak off the main traffic route.
But unfortunately I now expect this kind of rank illogic from our planners. Did you notice that the Bridgeport/Caroline/Erb plan still provides for only one lane turning from Caroline Southbound onto Erb Westbound? This will make Erb/Bridgeport continue to be the only four-lane road in the Region I can think of that has a bottleneck at one intersection where one of the directions is restricted to a single lane. Also some of the stuff they said about bike lanes and pedestrian crossings in that study was pretty far out there.
The bell thing is actually in the HTA and the cops can write you a 110$ (IIRC) ticket for not having one. I think the wording allows gongs and horns too! Those silly signs are obviously the work of a busy-body and it won't be long before someone rips them down or covers them in graffiti.
I'm glad to hear they will finally be paving the Laurel trail in Waterloo Park, it's been a long time coming.
(05-14-2016, 11:07 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-14-2016, 07:04 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]NOOOOO!!!!!! Must stay next to tracks!!! :panic:
Yes, this is yet another consultation that is going off the rails. Of course the Laurel Trail (which is a traffic route, not primarily a park walk) should continue to run by the direct route immediately parallel to the tracks. There can be no rational debate on this point.
What can be reasonably discussed is whether there should be another route through the park that is meant primarily to be a pleasant walk. A more interesting route running between different attractions within the park could be right for this, and could have the additional benefit of taking the “Sunday drivers” so to speak off the main traffic route.
But unfortunately I now expect this kind of rank illogic from our planners. Did you notice that the Bridgeport/Caroline/Erb plan still provides for only one lane turning from Caroline Southbound onto Erb Westbound? This will make Erb/Bridgeport continue to be the only four-lane road in the Region I can think of that has a bottleneck at one intersection where one of the directions is restricted to a single lane. Also some of the stuff they said about bike lanes and pedestrian crossings in that study was pretty far out there.
Is the third option to have both trails and both meet at the creek crossing?
What type of connection is planned between the top end of the Spur Line Trail, and the bottom end of the Laurel Trail (from Regina, through Waterloo Town Square, over to Erb/Caroline)? Right now, it's a bit disjointed because of the construction (but this actually makes it a little easier, not having to deal with traffic on King).
(05-15-2016, 07:15 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]What type of connection is planned between the top end of the Spur Line Trail, and the bottom end of the Laurel Trail (from Regina, through Waterloo Town Square, over to Erb/Caroline)? Right now, it's a bit disjointed because of the construction (but this actually makes it a little easier, not having to deal with traffic on King).
Minor correction to your question: Laurel trail right now already runs down the train tracks, through the space between the buildings, across the creek bridge, then up to Erb St and along the creek to Weber. There is also a branch off to Waterloo City Hall. It’s not clear to me exactly what the official status is, but the section from Regina to the creek may be both Spur Line and Laurel. Now to my answer:
Not clear. This is another bit of botched planning. The right solution is for Laurel trail to continue on the North side of the freight tracks all the way to King. Unfortunately gauntlet track apparently isn’t good enough for this location so the freight track will be occupying the space that should be occupied by the trail immediately West of King.
For King to Regina they should embed the tracks and simply make the entire space between the buildings be the path (and the freight track; use gap fillers to reduce the risk to bicyclists). There’s probably some sort of rule that makes sense in other contexts (not this one, with slow rare freights running only after midnight) that forbids that, but they could still build it that way and have it be that “officially” the trail goes around the buildings immediately next to the parking garage.
I would also have shifted the freight tracks slightly to the South between Regina and Willow. This would have allowed the trail to stay on the North side all the way from Waterloo Park to Kitchener (OK, maybe with a gap at Len’s Mill Store!). This might sound radical but now that I’ve seen how much (temporary) shifting around of tracks they did to build the LRT I think it’s a perfectly reasonable proposal, if we really believe that active transportation infrastructure matters.
(05-14-2016, 09:28 PM)MacBerry Wrote: [ -> ] (05-14-2016, 11:07 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, this is yet another consultation that is going off the rails. Of course the Laurel Trail (which is a traffic route, not primarily a park walk) should continue to run by the direct route immediately parallel to the tracks. There can be no rational debate on this point.
Is the third option to have both trails and both meet at the creek crossing?
Sounds good to me. But it’s not given as an option in the study. If the study was clear that there will continue to be a trail along the tracks, and the discussion is whether that trail should double as the Promenade or if the Promenade should take a different route, I would have no problem with it.
Thanks for the explanation, ijmorlan! I've only got a week under my belt of trail riding, so I'm still learning.
I responded to the study and suggested that perhaps a hybrid of the options could be considered - the dedicated cycle trail from Option 1, adjacent to the LRT line, and the Multi-Use/Pedestrian path from Option 2 meandering through the park.
Personally, I love the current setup - I like trains, and my other half likes zoos. So whenever we go to Waterloo Park, We always walk along one trail, and then back along the other. Best of both worlds.