Trails

[tomh009]

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. (...) 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.

Same for me. I will ride across, but only if there are no cars approaching, or they have clearly seen me and stopped for me. This is exactly the same thing that I do if I am walking.

[ijmorlan]

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.

To me the danger comes from having one side expecting the other to stop when in fact that other side has no obligation to stop.

Since it is the City implicitly telling the first side that the other should stop even though legally the other side does not have to stop, they are the ones causing the dangerous situation and may be legally liable.

That’s my thinking, at any rate. How much connection it has to reality is another matter. The point about never crossing unless the cyclist is sure road traffic is yielding is a good one, and certainly prudent on the part of the cyclist, regardless of the legal situation.

[danbrotherston]

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.

To me the danger comes from having one side expecting the other to stop when in fact that other side has no obligation to stop.

Since it is the City implicitly telling the first side that the other should stop even though legally the other side does not have to stop, they are the ones causing the dangerous situation and may be legally liable.

That’s my thinking, at any rate. How much connection it has to reality is another matter. The point about never crossing unless the cyclist is sure road traffic is yielding is a good one, and certainly prudent on the part of the cyclist, regardless of the legal situation.

There is not a cyclist or pedestrian in the entire country which expects drivers to stop at crossings. Every single pedestrian and cyclist in the country knows that drivers will fail to yield whether required to or not.

This is why it isn't "dangerous"...because it doesn't change anything about behaviour.

I'd add to that, the fact that our right of way laws are so poorly communicated and so far detached from the actual experience of using a crossing that nobody, not cyclists, nor pedestrians, nor drivers actually know when they should yield...beyond a few policy wonks like us here, actual lawyers, actual traffic engineers, and maybe a few cops....maybe.

[danbrotherston]

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. (...) 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.

Same for me. I will ride across, but only if there are no cars approaching, or they have clearly seen me and stopped for me. This is exactly the same thing that I do if I am walking.

Funny, I will ride across any time I have the right of way (i.e., there are not vehicles to yield to). If drivers stop for me when they have the right of way, I still won't go...it is their job to follow the rules and I do make myself an ass by forcing them to go. On occasion they get outright violent about it...basic primate psychology, yielding the right of way is their way of demonstrating dominance...THEY decide when I cross.

But (before I left anyway) I did decide to just cross when drivers yielded to me at a PXO...even if I'm on a bike.

Honestly, this is the point, our laws are so bad, that reality is more important than following the laws. And I'm glad that some engineers have recognised this.

[Acitta]

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.

My experience is that it is mainly cars exiting the roundabout that are the most dangerous because drivers may not see cyclists or pedestrians approaching the crossing. Drivers approaching the roundabout have longer sight lines and are more likely to stop.

[tomh009]

Funny, I will ride across any time I have the right of way (i.e., there are not vehicles to yield to). If drivers stop for me when they have the right of way, I still won't go...it is their job to follow the rules and I do make myself an ass by forcing them to go.

The rules say that they have the right to go first, not that they must go first. Ceding that right-of-way happens from time to time in driver to driver interactions, too: letting a car pull out of a driveway in front of you, letting someone turn left in front of you, letting a parked vehicle pull out etc. In each case, the driver ceding has the right of way, but chooses to let the other driver go first.

Some people would call that being nice, or considerate.

[dtkvictim]

Funny, I will ride across any time I have the right of way (i.e., there are not vehicles to yield to). If drivers stop for me when they have the right of way, I still won't go...it is their job to follow the rules and I do make myself an ass by forcing them to go.

The rules say that they have the right to go first, not that they must go first. Ceding that right-of-way happens from time to time in driver to driver interactions, too: letting a car pull out of a driveway in front of you, letting someone turn left in front of you, letting a parked vehicle pull out etc. In each case, the driver ceding has the right of way, but chooses to let the other driver go first.

Some people would call that being nice, or considerate.

Being considerate can often line up with being dangerous. They are far from mutually exclusive.

I hate pedestrian island crossings like the IHT has on Victoria and Queen. Cars often stop to wave you across the first half, when a lot of traffic is coming the other way. There is hardly adequate room to wait with a bike on the islands, and they are not protected spaces. It's uncomfortable waiting one them with fast moving cars on both sides.

You also have cars on the second half of the crossing slamming on their breaks once you start crossing to the island, which could have them rear ended (right into me crossing).

I really hate the pedestrian island crossings we have, and would honestly prefer if they were removed.

[danbrotherston]

Funny, I will ride across any time I have the right of way (i.e., there are not vehicles to yield to). If drivers stop for me when they have the right of way, I still won't go...it is their job to follow the rules and I do make myself an ass by forcing them to go.

The rules say that they have the right to go first, not that they must go first. Ceding that right-of-way happens from time to time in driver to driver interactions, too: letting a car pull out of a driveway in front of you, letting someone turn left in front of you, letting a parked vehicle pull out etc. In each case, the driver ceding has the right of way, but chooses to let the other driver go first.

Some people would call that being nice, or considerate.

Yeah, I strongly disagree here. The goal of right of way laws is to create understandable reliable behaviour from a chaotic system. Yielding incorrectly leads to confusion and bad behaviour all around. I have nearly been run over when a driver stopped for me, and another driver drives around them. This has happened more than once in multiple contexts. To say nothing of not seeing cars in other lanes or going the other way.

This is "kind and considerate" in the same way buying the entire UK Olympic Team[1] matching luggage was "kind and considerate"...i.e., it's a personal action you take (for you, I'm sure, and for most or at least many--but certainly not all) altruistically, but without understanding the broader implications of the decision.

Another example, when I was cycling in the region regularly, drivers would frequently yield improperly at traffic signals and stop signs. Most of the time it was drivers being "nice" and occasionally it is drivers distracted on their phones. I cannot tell the difference while cycling, and if I go and I'm wrong and a driver of a pickup truck looks up from their phone and sees a green light, I die.

The situation at PXOs, I feel is sufficiently insane that I don't think it helps anyone for me not to go, but in the other circumstances I mentioned, it is absolutely the case that being obstinate about it has saved me some close calls.

But, leaving aside entirely the risk, 9 times out of 10, drivers who yield improperly actually delay me even if I was to go when they yield. Whether it's someone at a stop sign who doesn't go and then we all have to wait longer or the most infuriating, a driver at the tail end of a queue at a crossing who stops and now I miss an opportunity to cross both lanes...the overall goal of that reliable behaviour achieved from right of way laws (remember, safety is not a goal in transportation) is actually optimizing throughput. If I can anticipate when I will have the right of way, I can reach the intersection at the right time to proceed. Then I don't have to stop and slowly accelerate, and we all save time. This applies to driving and cycling and a little to walking.

That's the most frustrating thing about this whole thing. 9 times out of 10, even if we ignore the risks which I feel are very real, being nice actually delays everyone.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/british-...&r=US&IR=T

FWIW: Where I live now, drivers much more rarely yield improperly, following the right of way laws is key to maintaining through put, and safety is not dependent on it either, because speeds are generally low enough that there is little risk if someone makes a mistake or does something unexpected.

[tomh009]

A car slowing to let you cross isn't inherently making it more dangerous, though.

If you judge crossing at that time to be dangerous, just wave them on.

[ijmorlan]

I really hate the pedestrian island crossings we have, and would honestly prefer if they were removed.

They should be enlarged. A safe pedestrian island is clearly better than no island. Crossing a single one-directional lane of traffic is way easier than crossing two directions at once.

I would argue that a narrow island is better than nothing, but I agree that the behaviour some drivers have of excessive yielding doesn’t help, certainly not as much as they probably think it does.

[ijmorlan]

A car slowing to let you cross isn't inherently making it more dangerous, though.

If you judge crossing at that time to be dangerous, just wave them on.

Part of the complaint is that some people get upset when they are waved on. Instead one has to pretend to be rummaging in a pocket for gloves or something.

Context also makes a difference. If I am trying to cross a single lane of busy traffic, somebody stopping for me can help because it allows me to cross. But one person stopping on a 4-lane road is useless or even worse than since the other lane in their direction and the 2 lanes in the other direction are still moving, while drivers are deciding what to do about the stopped vehicle in front of them, which might involve going around it.

It’s also a fact that stopping sometimes slows everybody down. I’ve had people stop for me who would have been gone by the time I actually started crossing.

[danbrotherston]

A car slowing to let you cross isn't inherently making it more dangerous, though.

If you judge crossing at that time to be dangerous, just wave them on.

A car slowing down doesn't inherently make it more dangerous....I didn't say that. But crossing out of the normal right of way *IS* more dangerous. Like I said, I have had multiple experiences of cars stopping and yielding incorrectly and then other drivers going around them...or coming up the other lane.

And I always wave drivers on...they often do not proceed. Sometimes they stop, and wave, and then proceed, sometimes they stop, wave, tell me "I'm letting you go"...then cuss at me when I still refuse to go.

[KevinL]

So it seems The Mill Club, a private neighbourhood on Doon Valley next to the golf course, at one point paved a connecting trail from the end of one of their private culs-de-sac down to the Walter Bean, and this was presumably for public use. (I've never seen or used it, so not completely sure myself.)

However, recently a fence and locked gate have been installed across it. This reddit poster, not realizing it was private property, got /r/Kitchener riled up over the apparent closure of a 'public' pathway.

The question remains, though, is if there was some kind of arrangement to make this publicly accessible, and if that has lapsed or been violated by this installation. Anyone here know anything on this?

[ijmorlan]

An example of the importance of checking facts, before speaking (something which I try to do but don’t always get right)!

Somebody in that conversation said “Why would a fencing company put that up knowing it was against the law?” My question (and I don’t mean to single out that specific post, it’s just a convenient example) is, “why would someone post that without checking their assumption that the land is public?”

[Bytor]

So it seems The Mill Club, a private neighbourhood on Doon Valley next to the golf course, at one point paved a connecting trail from the end of one of their private culs-de-sac down to the Walter Bean, and this was presumably for public use. (I've never seen or used it, so not completely sure myself.)

However, recently a fence and locked gate have been installed across it. This reddit poster, not realizing it was private property, got /r/Kitchener riled up over the apparent closure of a 'public' pathway.

The question remains, though, is if there was some kind of arrangement to make this publicly accessible, and if that has lapsed or been violated by this installation. Anyone here know anything on this?

I've gone through this in detail on that reddit post.

Here is a screen cap of a map of the area from the CoK official interactive map with a couple of additions of mine.

The grey path area encircled in green is the actual, public Walter Bean Grand River trail.

The grey path encircled in red on the pale yellow background is the path that he redditor is complaining is fenced off and has "no trespassing" signs.

The pale yellow background is residential-zoned land and as you can see from the property boundaries around it, that means the path they are complaining about is a private path on private land.

The redditor is claiming that the trail head existed before the condos did, but the Walter Bean trail was not announced until 1999 and was not competely finished until 2006 or so. The condo corporation (WSCC #369) was created in 2002, a number of months after construction was started. Before WSCC #369 gained title to that property it would have been owned by one of the two declarants for the condo corp, 1421281 Ontario Ltd and 1357440 Ontario Ltd who likely owned that land for several years before construction started given how condos need to have a minimum percentage of ownership before construction starts.