Cycling in Waterloo Region - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25) +--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
|
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 06-12-2018 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? RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 06-12-2018 (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? 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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 06-13-2018 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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 06-13-2018 (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). RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 06-13-2018 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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 06-13-2018 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? RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 06-13-2018 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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 06-13-2018 "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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Viewfromthe42 - 06-13-2018 (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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 06-13-2018 What do we call it when a car gets hit by a train? RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 06-13-2018 (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? RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Viewfromthe42 - 06-13-2018 (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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - plam - 06-13-2018 (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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 06-13-2018 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. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Pheidippides - 06-13-2018 (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.” |