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:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 3.29 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trails
I'm pro-bollard, it forces the space cadet cyclists and dog walkers to at least pick a side when they're coming toward you instead of taking up the whole trail. I've seen cars down that stretch a few times over the last couple of years. I imagine a side-by-side stroller for triplets would be a tight fit but a Bakfiets or other big bike shouldn't have any trouble passing through there.
Reply


We biked down the Iron Horse from Allen to Victoria Park yesterday with our big bakfiets. There were flexibollards at a number of cross streets, and they posed no issue for me or my friend hauling a trailer, except for the very awkward bit on the east side of West Ave.
Reply
I'm noticing a trend on social media where many people firmly believe the shark teeth on the new pedestrian crossovers along the IHT also give right of way to cyclists, despite the fact cyclists are explicitly prohibited from riding within pedestrian crossovers in the HTA. Has the city removed the "cyclists dismount" signage from the updated crossings? If so, it seems like they're basically encouraging cyclists to illegally ride across PXOs. It's kind of bizarre to me that the MTO's own cycling facilities handbook states the dismount signs are rarely obeyed, but the government still won't legislate crossrides being combined with PXOs as they should be on MTUs.

Don't get me wrong here, I have no problem with cyclists using PXOs, and just from driving around to various IHT crossings it's abundantly clear that's what's happening, but if a cyclist is struck after riding into a PXO it's not going to be the driver facing HTA charges and an insurance claim.
Reply
(07-01-2022, 06:03 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: I'm noticing a trend on social media where many people firmly believe the shark teeth on the new pedestrian crossovers along the IHT also give right of way to cyclists, despite the fact cyclists are explicitly prohibited from riding within pedestrian crossovers in the HTA. Has the city removed the "cyclists dismount" signage from the updated crossings? If so, it seems like they're basically encouraging cyclists to illegally ride across PXOs. It's kind of bizarre to me that the MTO's own cycling facilities handbook states the dismount signs are rarely obeyed, but the government still won't legislate crossrides being combined with PXOs as they should be on MTUs.

Don't get me wrong here, I have no problem with cyclists using PXOs, and just from driving around to various IHT crossings it's abundantly clear that's what's happening, but if a cyclist is struck after riding into a PXO it's not going to be the driver facing HTA charges and an insurance claim.


I mean, there is a tacit acknowledge among all but the most obstinate of traffic engineers that cyclists will ride through crossrides. I think our city engineers (not region engineers) are taking a pragmatic approach here and just saying nothing about it. I suspect they hope that the legislation will be updated to be less...I cannot think of a nice word here, and are simply accepting how the infra will function.

Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.

Fortunately we have a fairly robust heatlhcare and insurance system where even an at fault cyclist would be entitled to healthcare for their injuries (a cyclist with no insurance--even one who is at fault--is entitled to make an insurance claim against the drivers insurance).

FWIW...the sharks teeth on the crossrides are the wrong direction last time I checked (which was some time ago). Owing to the fact that our engineers chose to use sharks teeth to indicates two different things...because apparently UX is not their strong suit.
Reply
(07-02-2022, 06:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.

Hang on a second, what’s going on here? I mean yes, I know, bias, but legally, doesn’t everyone have the obligation to avoid collisions as much as possible, no matter the events leading up to them? If I’m driving down the street and a car turns left in front of me illegally, I’m not allow to just plow into them — I have to attempt to avoid the collision, presumably by braking.

So even if the person on a bicycle is in the crossing illegally (which it shouldn’t be, as you point out, but that’s another story), shouldn’t the driver be liable to be charged?

Is it just bias or do I misunderstand the law?
Reply
(07-02-2022, 09:10 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(07-02-2022, 06:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.

Hang on a second, what’s going on here? I mean yes, I know, bias, but legally, doesn’t everyone have the obligation to avoid collisions as much as possible, no matter the events leading up to them? If I’m driving down the street and a car turns left in front of me illegally, I’m not allow to just plow into them — I have to attempt to avoid the collision, presumably by braking.

So even if the person on a bicycle is in the crossing illegally (which it shouldn’t be, as you point out, but that’s another story), shouldn’t the driver be liable to be charged?

Is it just bias or do I misunderstand the law?

Big caveat: IANAL...

Yes, I think in theory if you could prove that a driver was negligent (or homicidal) then they could get charged in a situation where another driver was breaking the law and they weren't.

In practice, this never happens.

You want to know a story that makes me angry. A driver was making a left turn, they dropped a water bottle on the ground, looked down IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TURN and started looking for it. They left the roadway and killed or maimed (I cannot remember) a pedestrian. They were charged, but the judge ruled that looking away from the road for an extended period of time during a critical dangerous maneuver and driving up onto the sidewalk into a person did not "deviate from the normal standard of driving".

I.e., our society has such a low standard of driving, I'm not sure it's even possible to be negligent without being homicidal...like, if you hit someone NOT on purpose, it seems likely that there is no level of lack of due care which will legally qualify as negligence. 

But even if you felt the driver hit you on purpose...I think you'd be hard pressed to convince the police of that, without some pretty compelling evidence.

I have a low opinion of the legal framework around driving. It's firstly designed first as an insurance adjustment system and only second as an enforcement organization. It focuses on specific driver errors for which fault has been quantitatively assigned.
Reply
(07-02-2022, 06:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, there is a tacit acknowledge among all but the most obstinate of traffic engineers that cyclists will ride through crossrides. I think our city engineers (not region engineers) are taking a pragmatic approach here and just saying nothing about it. I suspect they hope that the legislation will be updated to be less...I cannot think of a nice word here, and are simply accepting how the infra will function.

Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.

Fortunately we have a fairly robust heatlhcare and insurance system where even an at fault cyclist would be entitled to healthcare for their injuries (a cyclist with no insurance--even one who is at fault--is entitled to make an insurance claim against the drivers insurance).

FWIW...the sharks teeth on the crossrides are the wrong direction last time I checked (which was some time ago). Owing to the fact that our engineers chose to use sharks teeth to indicates two different things...because apparently UX is not their strong suit.

I'm not sure I share your optimism about WRPS. In the 2018 annual collision report, nearly half of motor vehicle collisions with cyclists involved a cyclist riding in a crosswalk, and nearly every WRPS media release about this incident mentions charges for the cyclist. I don't know about Waterloo, but TPS was averaging about 750 charges per year for riding within crosswalks and crossovers a decade ago based on some open data I found.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ridge.html

https://www.therecord.com/opinion/letter...cture.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...swalk.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arges.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...icles.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arged.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arged.html

The new IHT crossings seem to done correctly based on O. Reg. 402/15. Glasgow doesn't have road markings yet though.

[Image: MFNzBgI.png]

[Image: SnGNwz4.png]

[Image: JPFYMTZ.png]

My problem with the way this is being handled right now is the infrastructure actively encourages cyclists to not properly understand the law in a way that could get them seriously injured or killed, let alone fined. If you look at the screenshot of Gage Ave, there is literally no way to anticipate a cyclist riding into the crossover with those sightlines. I came to a complete stop for the first group of joggers there and still had a second group nearly run into the side of my car as I slowly proceeded through the crossover, and a cyclist would likely have struck my vehicle.

And don't get me started on the "crossrides" the City of Waterloo installed at the Columbia Ave W roundabout continuing that bizarre roll curb bike lane/MUT thing. Not only do they have no signage or regulatory authority, it's actually forbidden to install a crossride alongside a pedestrian crossover like this, which is why the IHT crossovers were designed to be able to add them later if regulatory changes allow it.

[Image: QxszwPw.png]

(07-02-2022, 09:10 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Hang on a second, what’s going on here? I mean yes, I know, bias, but legally, doesn’t everyone have the obligation to avoid collisions as much as possible, no matter the events leading up to them? If I’m driving down the street and a car turns left in front of me illegally, I’m not allow to just plow into them — I have to attempt to avoid the collision, presumably by braking.

So even if the person on a bicycle is in the crossing illegally (which it shouldn’t be, as you point out, but that’s another story), shouldn’t the driver be liable to be charged?

Is it just bias or do I misunderstand the law?

Drivers have a duty of care to not strike pedestrians and cyclists, so of course you can't just plow through a crossover if a cyclist is riding in it illegally, but in most cases the cyclist is going to be found at fault. Even pedestrians can be charged for getting struck at a crossover if they step out in front of a vehicle without due care. I usually refer to the comments from the MTO in this excellent article about uncontrolled crossings.

https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1..._crosswalk
Reply
(07-02-2022, 01:28 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote:
(07-02-2022, 06:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, there is a tacit acknowledge among all but the most obstinate of traffic engineers that cyclists will ride through crossrides. I think our city engineers (not region engineers) are taking a pragmatic approach here and just saying nothing about it. I suspect they hope that the legislation will be updated to be less...I cannot think of a nice word here, and are simply accepting how the infra will function.

Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.

Fortunately we have a fairly robust heatlhcare and insurance system where even an at fault cyclist would be entitled to healthcare for their injuries (a cyclist with no insurance--even one who is at fault--is entitled to make an insurance claim against the drivers insurance).

FWIW...the sharks teeth on the crossrides are the wrong direction last time I checked (which was some time ago). Owing to the fact that our engineers chose to use sharks teeth to indicates two different things...because apparently UX is not their strong suit.

I'm not sure I share your optimism about WRPS. In the 2018 annual collision report, nearly half of motor vehicle collisions with cyclists involved a cyclist riding in a crosswalk, and nearly every WRPS media release about this incident mentions charges for the cyclist. I don't know about Waterloo, but TPS was averaging about 750 charges per year for riding within crosswalks and crossovers a decade ago based on some open data I found.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ridge.html

https://www.therecord.com/opinion/letter...cture.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...swalk.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arges.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...icles.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arged.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arged.html

Hmm....I stand corrected.

My experience is with pedestrians not being charged when they cross without explicitly having the right of way. I am probably wrong to assume it applies to cyclists as well.

Quote:The new IHT crossings seem to done correctly based on O. Reg. 402/15. Glasgow doesn't have road markings yet though.

The 'incorrect' usage is when there is a vertical deviation, sharks teeth are used to point "up" the bump. This means that they are pointing the opposite direction and have no meaning for yielding. The fact they would use the same marking in two contradictory positions with two completely different meanings is frankly negligent....I have not put this bluntly towards people who I know worked on the standards document but it really shows how little UX plays into their collective thinking.

Quote:[Image: MFNzBgI.png]

[Image: SnGNwz4.png]

[Image: JPFYMTZ.png]



My problem with the way this is being handled right now is the infrastructure actively encourages cyclists to not properly understand the law in a way that could get them seriously injured or killed, let alone fined. If you look at the screenshot of Gage Ave, there is literally no way to anticipate a cyclist riding into the crossover with those sightlines. I came to a complete stop for the first group of joggers there and still had a second group nearly run into the side of my car as I slowly proceeded through the crossover, and a cyclist would likely have struck my vehicle.

"Actively encourage" no, it definitely does not do that. What do you feel "actively encourages" cyclists to do something? It doesn't "prevent" them from doing it, but that isn't the same thing at all. In fact, from a cyclists perspective literally nothing has changed between now and before. Cyclists have gained no new rights, nor any new responsibilities. In the event of a collision, the police may be more likely to charge them, but they could have been charged before, and they would always have been at fault.

The Gage St. sight lines have been an issue forever. And as you point out, it isn't a problem for just cyclists but also pedestrians. The real solution is to constrain drivers with vertical and horizontal deviations (provided the city is unable to legally compel the property owner to improve the sight line).

Quote:And don't get me started on the "crossrides" the City of Waterloo installed at the Columbia Ave W roundabout continuing that bizarre roll curb bike lane/MUT thing. Not only do they have no signage or regulatory authority, it's actually forbidden to install a crossride alongside a pedestrian crossover like this, which is why the IHT crossovers were designed to be able to add them later if regulatory changes allow it.

[Image: QxszwPw.png]

That is very surprising, you are right that they are not explicitly permitted to do that. The City of Kitchener asked for permission and was denied. Are you sure the MTO Book 18 says "no" rather than just not explicitly allowing it I cannot remember? Engineers are usually a conservative bunch and will ask instead of assume.

That being said I think Book 18 is just a guideline which engineers can override. Frankly I applaud CoW engineers for doing what the design SHOULD be rather than what is provided for in very slowly improving standards. I think our engineers should be more willing to ignore bad standards. I am surprised to see it in the CoW given how unwilling they were to do this for other bad standards during the last master planning process.

Quote:
(07-02-2022, 09:10 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Hang on a second, what’s going on here? I mean yes, I know, bias, but legally, doesn’t everyone have the obligation to avoid collisions as much as possible, no matter the events leading up to them? If I’m driving down the street and a car turns left in front of me illegally, I’m not allow to just plow into them — I have to attempt to avoid the collision, presumably by braking.

So even if the person on a bicycle is in the crossing illegally (which it shouldn’t be, as you point out, but that’s another story), shouldn’t the driver be liable to be charged?

Is it just bias or do I misunderstand the law?

Drivers have a duty of care to not strike pedestrians and cyclists, so of course you can't just plow through a crossover if a cyclist is riding in it illegally, but in most cases the cyclist is going to be found at fault. Even pedestrians can be charged for getting struck at a crossover if they step out in front of a vehicle without due care. I usually refer to the comments from the MTO in this excellent article about uncontrolled crossings.

https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1..._crosswalk

What is clear to me is that Ontario has some of the worst right of way laws in Canada. In most other provinces, drivers are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. In Ontario, the design does very little to make clear who has the right of way, this is despite the fact that hundreds of pages and billions of dollars of infrastructure has been spent trying to standardize these things.
Reply
(07-02-2022, 02:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: "Actively encourage" no, it definitely does not do that. What do you feel "actively encourages" cyclists to do something? It doesn't "prevent" them from doing it, but that isn't the same thing at all. In fact, from a cyclists perspective literally nothing has changed between now and before. Cyclists have gained no new rights, nor any new responsibilities. In the event of a collision, the police may be more likely to charge them, but they could have been charged before, and they would always have been at fault.

"Actively" is probably too harsh, but it's pretty clear from my online interactions that many people believe the new PXOs also give right of way to cyclists, especially if the dismount signs were also removed.

(07-02-2022, 02:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: That is very surprising, you are right that they are not explicitly permitted to do that. The City of Kitchener asked for permission and was denied. Are you sure the MTO Book 18 says "no" rather than just not explicitly allowing it I cannot remember? Engineers are usually a conservative bunch and will ask instead of assume.

That being said I think Book 18 is just a guideline which engineers can override. Frankly I applaud CoW engineers for doing what the design SHOULD be rather than what is provided for in very slowly improving standards. I think our engineers should be more willing to ignore bad standards. I am surprised to see it in the CoW given how unwilling they were to do this for other bad standards during the last master planning process.

My understanding is that since crossride road markings aren't regulatory, they should only be installed where cycling cross traffic would have the right of way anyway through some other regulatory means. That's why most Ontario municipalities only install crossrides at signalized intersections, and driveway crossings. Waterloo appears to be operating under the principle that the yield sign at the roundabout entrance makes the crossride separately legal from the PXO, but it's contrary to the practices described in Book 18 since it's clearly not a minor intersection. Apparently Thunder Bay was also considering this approach but did not go ahead with it for their first roundabout last year.

At a regular PXO, cyclists don't have the right of way, so simply painting a crossride doesn't confer it, regardless of whether it has shark teeth (which also aren't regulatory).

"In keeping with the principle of applying a consistent design language, crossride pavement markings should only be applied where people cycling have the right-of-way over intersecting traffic. These include situations where the cycling movement is governed by traffic signals where turning motor vehicles are required to yield to cyclists on a green indication, at minor intersections where the cross traffic is controlled by a stop or yield sign, or at driveways, where motor vehicles entering or exiting the roadway must yield to pedestrians and cyclists."

Oshawa actually installed a special signalized crossing across an MUT last year to allow a crossride.

[Image: gvttQGo.jpg]

Meanwhile in Peterborough they just plowed ahead and painted a crossride at a PXO on one of their MUTs that has zero regulatory authority. There is nothing legally requiring drivers to yield to cyclists here because the shark teeth have no regulatory authority by themselves. That's a dangerous situation.

[Image: QSG1Fnh.png]
Reply
(07-02-2022, 03:43 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Meanwhile in Peterborough they just plowed ahead and painted a crossride at a PXO on one of their MUTs that has zero regulatory authority. There is nothing legally requiring drivers to yield to cyclists here because the shark teeth have no regulatory authority by themselves. That's a dangerous situation.

Do the City’s lawyers know about this? That sounds like a significant legal liability to me.
Reply
(07-02-2022, 02:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: What is clear to me is that Ontario has some of the worst right of way laws in Canada. In most other provinces, drivers are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. In Ontario, the design does very little to make clear who has the right of way, this is despite the fact that hundreds of pages and billions of dollars of infrastructure has been spent trying to standardize these things.

And despite the fact that in Toronto in the 1980s, crosswalks worked just fine de facto (I was too young to be aware of the legal situation). I pointed, cars stopped, I walked across. You’d think that in 40 years we could have at least got the legal environment and the practical environment to be consistent.

Thanks for all the other information as well.
Reply
As a cyclist, there is no way I am going to dismount my bike and walk it across an intersection that crosses a multi-use trail. It is stupid to have a path shared by pedestrians and cyclists suddenly become pedestrian only for the width of the road, then become shared again on the other side. It is discriminatory. We don't ask motorists to get out of their cars and push them through intersections. In practice, I find that those crossings that have signs that tell motorists to stop for pedestrians, they will also stop for cyclists as long as they see them in time. Of course, it is incumbent on cyclists to also act safely and not just barrel through intersections without checking whether the motorists have time to stop. Once at the Homer Watson/Ottawa roundabout, a motorist exiting the roundabout suddenly saw me slowly approaching the crossing and came to a screeching halt, even though I was going slowly and was preparing to stop.
Reply
(07-02-2022, 06:36 PM)Acitta Wrote: As a cyclist, there is no way I am going to dismount my bike and walk it across an intersection that crosses a multi-use trail. It is stupid to have a path shared by pedestrians and cyclists suddenly become pedestrian only for the width of the road, then become shared again on the other side. It is discriminatory. We don't ask motorists to get out of their cars and push them through intersections. In practice, I find that those crossings that have signs that tell motorists to stop for pedestrians, they will also stop for cyclists as long as they see them in time. Of course, it is incumbent on cyclists to also act safely and not just barrel through intersections without checking whether the motorists have time to stop. Once at the Homer Watson/Ottawa roundabout, a motorist exiting the roundabout suddenly saw me slowly approaching the crossing and came to a screeching halt, even though I was going slowly and was preparing to stop.

My personal record at that roundabout is 18 cars in a row passing before one stopped to let me pass! Hope we can start a competition here.
local cambridge weirdo
Reply
(07-02-2022, 03:46 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Do the City’s lawyers know about this? That sounds like a significant legal liability to me.

The city calls it a "crossride" but has stop signs installed on the trail and instructs cyclists to stop and wait until traffic stops before riding across. The actual road marking may as well not exist because they're basically just telling cyclists to do a mid-block crossing and hope for the best.
Reply
(07-02-2022, 03:43 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Meanwhile in Peterborough they just plowed ahead and painted a crossride at a PXO on one of their MUTs that has zero regulatory authority. There is nothing legally requiring drivers to yield to cyclists here because the shark teeth have no regulatory authority by themselves. That's a dangerous situation.

I agree more or less with all the legal interpretation, but I disagree that it is "dangerous". Or at least, I disagree that it is more dangerous than any other marking.

Cyclists are not going to dismount...it doesn't matter what you do, dismount signs, whatever cyclists won't...and I agree fully with them.

Drivers are going to yield some of the time, but probably equally to cyclists and pedestrians...drivers don't know the law either. Cyclists and pedestrians are going to look for drivers equally and almost all the time as they know drivers often do not yield whether they are required to or not.

So what is the "danger" here? I don't consider "legal risk" danger, if you even think there is any legal risk here to engineers or the city, which I doubt there is anyway.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 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