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:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling in Waterloo Region
(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)Section ThirtyOne Wrote: Went for a ride yesterday and was very surprised to find that the rebuilt Courtland Avenue has not included any bike lanes. Is there going to be a MUT or something that is not yet finished?

It was a lovely day for a ride!

Sadly no plans to include any trails AFAIK.  Worth remembering about the LRT is it saw most of the scoping and planning nearly 10 years ago, before we really had modern bike plans.  It's still an unfortunate oversight, and I think long term there is some wish for some infrastructure, but given that the road has been rebuilt, it'll be a while.

In the nearer term however, the trails along Courtland from Bedford through to Hayward will be upgraded, paved, and improved very soon (before the end of this summer).  The LRT project includes a MUT along Hayward, and then there is another trail south through the Peter Hallman Ballyard, which ends rather abruptly. The plan is to continue this trail to meet Manitou, and also connect with the new-ish trails around Balzar Rd. I hope that the plan will also include connecting the Hydro corridor trail (along the LRT ROW), to Balzar Rd., and then the area will have pretty good off road connectivity, and I think the need for a Courtland connection will be reduced. But we'll see if that actually happens.

In other news, due to the nice weather, I also went out for a ride and checked out the new bike lanes on Ottawa, and the new lanes on Manitou. I have uploaded video of the lanes, and will follow up this week with a blog post on my analysis. Short answer, is, they're pretty good, especially the segregated lanes, but the region still has a few bad design habits.

Manitou:
https://youtu.be/8JUEZCg0rzI

Ottawa:
https://youtu.be/2EzO6aiICAQ
Reply


(03-20-2017, 09:48 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sadly no plans to include any trails AFAIK.  Worth remembering about the LRT is it saw most of the scoping and planning nearly 10 years ago, before we really had modern bike plans.  It's still an unfortunate oversight, and I think long term there is some wish for some infrastructure, but given that the road has been rebuilt, it'll be a while.

Most of the detail design work was done in 2012/2013, and there were definitely bike plans by then.
Ultimately, it just wasn't a priority. Sad
Reply
Back when LRT was approved and construction started, I wasn't a cyclist and didn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Now, biking sometimes upward of 100 km a week, along Charles, King, and all over generally (admittedly mostly for LRT construction updates!), I realize just how much of a missed opportunity there was, here.
Reply
And case in point...

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7199...wa-street/

Ottawa and Lilac. Freshly rebuilt for LRT. A 59 year old cyclist was hit by a 20 year old driver making a turn.
Reply
(03-20-2017, 09:53 AM)Markster Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 09:48 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sadly no plans to include any trails AFAIK.  Worth remembering about the LRT is it saw most of the scoping and planning nearly 10 years ago, before we really had modern bike plans.  It's still an unfortunate oversight, and I think long term there is some wish for some infrastructure, but given that the road has been rebuilt, it'll be a while.

Most of the detail design work was done in 2012/2013, and there were definitely bike plans by then.
Ultimately, it just wasn't a priority.  Sad

Detail design work != scoping.  I don't pretend to be an expert on engineering or planning, but I imagine if the original plan didn't have it as a requirement, it's much harder to add during detailed design work.  Yes, if it was a high enough priority it could have been, but that priority needs to be much higher than it would need to be when the project was originally defined.
Reply
(03-20-2017, 12:30 PM)Markster Wrote: And case in point...

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7199...wa-street/

Ottawa and Lilac. Freshly rebuilt for LRT.  A 59 year old cyclist was hit by a 20 year old driver making a turn.

Yes, that's going to be a hole in our bike network for a very long time.  Of course, I don't think it's as big a problem as the 7/8 overpass on Ottawa which also has no plans for bike infra despite having infra on both sides.


That's a much more obvious case of jurisdictional conflict of priorities IMO.
Reply
(03-20-2017, 09:53 AM)Markster Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 09:48 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sadly no plans to include any trails AFAIK.  Worth remembering about the LRT is it saw most of the scoping and planning nearly 10 years ago, before we really had modern bike plans.  It's still an unfortunate oversight, and I think long term there is some wish for some infrastructure, but given that the road has been rebuilt, it'll be a while.

Most of the detail design work was done in 2012/2013, and there were definitely bike plans by then.
Ultimately, it just wasn't a priority.  Sad

It's a shame really, especially that stretch of Courtland. There is plenty of room on the east side for a MUT. It wasn't so bad riding through there on Sunday with little traffic, but on a weekday in the morning or afternoon it could be pretty hectic.
Reply


The driver who hit the cyclist on King St. has entered a not guilty plea.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7215...r-accused/
Reply
(03-29-2017, 06:01 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The driver who hit the cyclist on King St. has entered a not guilty plea.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7215...r-accused/

Their defence: The cyclist was wearing black!
Reply
(03-29-2017, 06:03 PM)Markster Wrote:
(03-29-2017, 06:01 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The driver who hit the cyclist on King St. has entered a not guilty plea.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7215...r-accused/

Their defence: The cyclist was wearing black!

I could see that going to mitigation at sentencing, but is there precedent in Ontario for it as a successful defence to the charge?  I'm not a cyclist, but I would hope not.
Reply
(03-29-2017, 06:18 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(03-29-2017, 06:03 PM)Markster Wrote: Their defence: The cyclist was wearing black!

I could see that going to mitigation at sentencing, but is there precedent in Ontario for it as a successful defence to the charge?  I'm not a cyclist, but I would hope not.

It should depend on the details. If I recall correctly, the cyclist was riding legally, so it should be pretty hard to mount a successful defence if one has driven into them. At the same time, drivers can only be responsible for seeing that which is actually visible. An all-black cyclist with no lights at night can’t reasonably expect not to be at higher risk of collision. I don’t know the details in this case — for example, if the cyclist had appropriate lights then none of what I just said is relevant.

I was thinking about this in connection with the idea that strict liability should attach for driving into cyclists. In general, I think the idea is sound, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Suppose I drive into a wrong-way, all-black, no-lights, cyclist who is running a red at speed. Should I be penalized? Even if they end up dead I fail to see how I am supposed to avoid such a collision.

But yeah, probably it’s a bogus defence.
Reply
(03-29-2017, 06:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: It should depend on the details. If I recall correctly, the cyclist was riding legally, so it should be pretty hard to mount a successful defence if one has driven into them. At the same time, drivers can only be responsible for seeing that which is actually visible. An all-black cyclist with no lights at night can’t reasonably expect not to be at higher risk of collision. I don’t know the details in this case — for example, if the cyclist had appropriate lights then none of what I just said is relevant.

I was thinking about this in connection with the idea that strict liability should attach for driving into cyclists. In general, I think the idea is sound, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Suppose I drive into a wrong-way, all-black, no-lights, cyclist who is running a red at speed. Should I be penalized? Even if they end up dead I fail to see how I am supposed to avoid such a collision.

But yeah, probably it’s a bogus defence.

For the record, the HTA does not require cyclists to have lights, only reflectors.  I would be extremely disappointed if a perfectly legal vehicle under the HTA was deemed "hittable without consequences".  That would seem to question the very premise that cyclists are legally allowed to use the road.

And yes, not having lighting *might* put you at a higher risk for a collision, it doesn't mitigate a careless driving charge against the driver.  Just like leaving my front door ajar *might* increase the probability of me being robbed, but does not mitigate the charge of theft against those who rob me (although, it could possibly affect insurance settlements).

I think strict liability can be spoken too by a lawyer, but I was under the belief that the general intent is that another party's misbehaviour does not mitigate your responsibility to drive safely.  I.e., if you hit a pedestrian who's jwalking, the fact that they are jwalking does not mitigate your responsibility from driving safely, i.e., not being distracted.  But, IANAL.
Reply
(03-29-2017, 07:00 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(03-29-2017, 06:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: It should depend on the details. If I recall correctly, the cyclist was riding legally, so it should be pretty hard to mount a successful defence if one has driven into them. At the same time, drivers can only be responsible for seeing that which is actually visible. An all-black cyclist with no lights at night can’t reasonably expect not to be at higher risk of collision. I don’t know the details in this case — for example, if the cyclist had appropriate lights then none of what I just said is relevant.

I was thinking about this in connection with the idea that strict liability should attach for driving into cyclists. In general, I think the idea is sound, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Suppose I drive into a wrong-way, all-black, no-lights, cyclist who is running a red at speed. Should I be penalized? Even if they end up dead I fail to see how I am supposed to avoid such a collision.

But yeah, probably it’s a bogus defence.

For the record, the HTA does not require cyclists to have lights, only reflectors.  I would be extremely disappointed if a perfectly legal vehicle under the HTA was deemed "hittable without consequences".  That would seem to question the very premise that cyclists are legally allowed to use the road.

And yes, not having lighting *might* put you at a higher risk for a collision, it doesn't mitigate a careless driving charge against the driver.  Just like leaving my front door ajar *might* increase the probability of me being robbed, but does not mitigate the charge of theft against those who rob me (although, it could possibly affect insurance settlements).

I think strict liability can be spoken too by a lawyer, but I was under the belief that the general intent is that another party's misbehaviour does not mitigate your responsibility to drive safely.  I.e., if you hit a pedestrian who's jwalking, the fact that they are jwalking does not mitigate your responsibility from driving safely, i.e., not being distracted.  But, IANAL.

All excellent points. Just to be clear, I’m imagining a situation where the cyclist is effectively invisible to the driver, through no fault of the driver and primarily because of the cyclist’s choices. I agree that drivers actually do need to look and react appropriately, and furthermore most cyclists, including ones who aren’t making the best possible choices, aren’t the ones I’m imagining. If “strict liability” just means I have to operate safely, that’s fine, as long as it’s understood that it is still possible for me to be involved in a collision even if I’m driving safely. I thought it meant I was liable for collisions, regardless of how caused. To be fair, this injustice is already the case by the laws of physics for cyclists — if they get hit badly enough, they’re dead, no matter how wrong the car driver was. But there is no reason for humans to create additional injustice.
Reply


HTA section 62:

Lights and reflectors on bicycles, etc.

(17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor-assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2).

The only thing I take from this is that a rear light is optional at night if you have a reflector, which seems really stupid but a front light is absolutely required at night along with the reflective strips... I've never heard of the reflective strips being enforced but in a court case it might come up. The stupidest thing I see is people riding around at night with helmets on but no lights...
Reply
Actually the HTA does require lights before dawn and dusk, but only on the front and a minimum of red reflectors on the back:

Cyclists must have proper lights, reflective materials and reflectors on their bicycles (and that includes e-bikes) and motor-assisted bicycle (mopeds). HTA s62(17) says:
When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor-assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 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