Waterloo Region Connected
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)



RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - robdrimmie - 02-11-2019

In what way are the metal bollards unsafe? They would increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians wouldn't they?

(This is a genuine question, not intended to be contradictory or confrontational - I read metal bollards and get happy, but I'm clueless about a great many things.)


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 02-11-2019

Didn't they have them adjacent to King Street in front of City Hall for awhile?


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - robdrimmie - 02-11-2019

They still do in the summer, but they're not right on the curb they usually define the parking spaces so are in from the street by a lane or thereabouts.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 02-11-2019

(02-11-2019, 01:29 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: In what way are the metal bollards unsafe? They would increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians wouldn't they?

(This is a genuine question, not intended to be contradictory or confrontational - I read metal bollards and get happy, but I'm clueless about a great many things.)

They aren’t unsafe. But I can think of reasons people might give as to how they are unsafe.

The biggest is that a car might run into them, causing injury to the occupants of the car. Of course this is bogus, because if the bollards weren’t there the car might careen into a bicycle or pedestrian lane, causing worse injuries to the occupants of those lanes. So this is not a legitimate objection.

A more reasonable objection is that somebody on a bicycle might run into them. But I think the additional safety from cars definitely not infringing on the bicycle lane probably outweighs the danger to cyclists from immovable bollards.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-11-2019

(02-11-2019, 01:02 PM)Canard Wrote: I don't think you can put metal bollards right next to a road, that's not safe.  Can anyone think of any examples where this has been implemented like that?

It is definitely permitted, but there are standards that must be met, simple examples are like, a lane beside a bridge abutment, or heck, King St. in DTK, I'm not sure how big this buffer must be, or if it must be marked.

The standards relate to having some buffer between the lane and the barrier, so maybe using flex posts allows them to move them closer to the road.

I suspect the lanes plus the width of the roll curb would be sufficiently wide enough to meet these standards, but again, I'm not a traffic engineer, so I don't know for sure.

That being said, I really would be surprised if flex posts aren't held to the same standards as metal bollards...my guess is simply that the engineers are incredibly ridiculously unbelievably conservative to anything even remotely impinging on traffic.

To give an example, transportation commissioner was saying that, maybe, possibly, if they really really were desperate they could use a 3.55 meter lane, instead of a 3.65 meter lane in order to achieve a 1.35 (still undersized) bike lane, instead of 1.25, but anything more, would be entirely unacceptable.  Now remember, CoK has no problem with 3.1 meter lanes and many places will go as low as 2.8 meters.  But regional standards say that curb lanes must be 3.65, and that's the last thing to be compromised.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Spokes - 02-11-2019

Are the ones along all of King in DTK not considered right on the roadway? Or are they set back too much compared to what's happening in Waterloo?


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 02-11-2019

Some of the King bollards are roadside, some are set back for parking spaces. But enough are roadside that they match Canard's concern, I think.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 02-11-2019

(02-11-2019, 01:29 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: In what way are the metal bollards unsafe? They would increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians wouldn't they?

(This is a genuine question, not intended to be contradictory or confrontational - I read metal bollards and get happy, but I'm clueless about a great many things.)

If you drive into a fixed metal object with an infinitely small cross sectional area at the point of contact, it poses a massive safety risk to the occupant of the vehicle.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-11-2019

(02-11-2019, 03:31 PM)Canard Wrote:
(02-11-2019, 01:29 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: In what way are the metal bollards unsafe? They would increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians wouldn't they?

(This is a genuine question, not intended to be contradictory or confrontational - I read metal bollards and get happy, but I'm clueless about a great many things.)

If you drive into a fixed metal object with an infinitely small cross sectional area at the point of contact, it poses a massive safety risk to the occupant of the vehicle.

If a vehicle drives outside of the roadway area, it's going to be dangerous for someone.  Some traffic engineering manuals in the US have the concept of a "clear zone" where out of control vehicles should be able to safely fly through without risk of serious collision, these "clear zones" usually include sidewalks...because that's how traffic engineering is.

I don't know what our standards are, but they're sufficiently different from that, we have light poles, signs, etc. next to roads...so we already have obstructions, especially on a road like King..

That being said, I think the "danger" is greatly exaggerated. As you yourself pointed out, the bollards they would use would not stop a car.  They might cause some damage, but a car leaving the roadway in an uncontrolled manner will simply flatten a metal bollard, without harming the vehicle occupants--this is the case with the bollards in Kitchener, which are routinely hit. Other risks far outweigh the danger of hitting the bollard, for example, a vehicle hitting a flex bollard will not change direction, one hitting a metal bollard could be deflected slightly.  A driver hitting a metal bollard on the side is possibly more likely to swerve in a dangerous way (although I'm not convinced on that one).

The biggest difference is probably perception and maybe maintenance costs I think.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Viewfromthe42 - 02-11-2019

Yes. Every street has objects at the side for cars to collide into: traffic signals, lampposts, decorative gardens, fire hydrants, even other parked cars! Something to safeguard the lives of vulnerable road users should not be contentious.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 02-11-2019

Not disputing that. I’m helping you guys understand why putting fixed objects exactly at the lane edge is generally avoided.

Even your example of light poles and fire hydrants is bogus because they’re set back from the road significantly and appear between the bike lanes and sidewalk.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-11-2019

(02-11-2019, 05:15 PM)Canard Wrote: Not disputing that. I’m helping you guys understand why putting fixed objects exactly at the lane edge is generally avoided.

Even your example of light poles and fire hydrants is bogus because they’re set back from the road significantly and appear between the bike lanes and sidewalk.

In many (most) places there are no bike lanes, and vehicles drive directly along a curb, and there are occasionally signs placed directly at the curb:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4503943,-80.5003647,3a,69.3y,326.66h,89.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTnto8nY8qAld6gDFBCOrpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

With wider than standard lanes, it would be reasonable that the posts could be mounted on the top of the curb, and the extra lane width function as the additional buffer to achieve the same distance from the sign as you get in the above google maps image.

That's the situation in uptown right now, which is why I argue that there probably isn't a technical reason not to mount metal bollards on top of the curb like so:

   

Regardless, I'm curious as to the reasons for the engineering changes, and cynical with my assumptions, but it's still an acceptable solution, so I'm not going to bother making a big deal, more of an academic discussion.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 02-11-2019

(02-11-2019, 03:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: If a vehicle drives outside of the roadway area, it's going to be dangerous for someone.  Some traffic engineering manuals in the US have the concept of a "clear zone" where out of control vehicles should be able to safely fly through without risk of serious collision, these "clear zones" usually include sidewalks...because that's how traffic engineering is.

This is actually perfectly sensible for freeways, but as far as I’m concerned it constitutes criminally negligent malpractice in urban areas (“streets” rather than “roads”).

https://youtu.be/P9BUyWVg1xI

Quote:That being said, I think the "danger" is greatly exaggerated. As you yourself pointed out, the bollards they would use would not stop a car.  They might cause some damage, but a car leaving the roadway in an uncontrolled manner will simply flatten a metal bollard, without harming the vehicle occupants--this is the case with the bollards in Kitchener, which are routinely hit. Other risks far outweigh the danger of hitting the bollard, for example, a vehicle hitting a flex bollard will not change direction, one hitting a metal bollard could be deflected slightly.  A driver hitting a metal bollard on the side is possibly more likely to swerve in a dangerous way (although I'm not convinced on that one).

One difference is that a metal bollard cannot be ignored — even if the car won’t be stopped outright, it will be at least slightly damaged, and it would be clear to everyone that intentionally driving into one would be an act of vandalism. Whereas this is not true of the flex bollards. So the metal ones will stop all deliberate incursions into the sidewalk, leaving only accidental high-speed / large vehicles, whereas flex bollards will leave the real dregs of unashamedly irresponsible drivers still able to perpetrate their offenses.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - taylortbb - 02-12-2019

(02-11-2019, 03:31 PM)Canard Wrote: If you drive into a fixed metal object with an infinitely small cross sectional area at the point of contact, it poses a massive safety risk to the occupant of the vehicle.

While this is true, if the metal bollard isn't there then the car is driving into a cyclist (potentially) which is a massively safety risk for the cyclist. Given the presence of crumple zones on cars, and the lack of them on cyclists, I think it makes more sense for the car to take the impact.

I definitely get your point on most roads where it's a grassy median or other place that we don't expect pedestrians/cyclists to be, but for the case of the bike lanes the damage to the car is to protect the occupant of the bike lane.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 02-12-2019

While I think solid bollards would be better, the flex bollards will still likely achieve the main objective of stopping people from encroaching on the bike lanes.