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
(07-04-2019, 04:09 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(07-04-2019, 03:56 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: *sigh*...I feel like we're making negative progress on bike lanes. This was already supposed to be bike lanes, but because the city allowed parking for a while, now people don't want to give it up. Even when we design subdivisions with bike lanes, we screw ourselves over.  How stupid are we as a city?  Or is this intentional?

How stupid. They should have been built as segregated bike lanes in the first place, with barrier curbs separating them from the motor traffic lanes. Actually out in the suburbs segregated lanes with bike boxes at intersections would work extremely well. With low traffic overall, the environment is actually pretty quiet; all that is missing with the conventional dangerous design is some separation from the motor traffic.

Even better, you should go ride them, they have curbs IN the bike lanes for some delusional reason....

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4552454,-...312!8i6656
Reply


Reply
Reply
That first guy is probably just be an ass. Unfortunately, he must also be stupid to not realize that it's dangerous to act like an ass with a two or three tonne vehicle.
Reply
(07-09-2019, 12:56 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(07-09-2019, 10:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: My bike ride this morning was full of frustration, and danger.
...
Although you may be right that the guy is texting, you are crazy to confront someone about it.  You are asking for trouble.

WRPS tells me that I have an equal responsibility to keeping our roads safe. And frankly, I'm not so terrified of everyone around that I am opposed to shouting "put your phone away while driving" at random strangers.  If they choose to jump out of their car and confront me, as has happened, I am well prepared to dial 911.
Reply
(07-09-2019, 01:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-09-2019, 12:56 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Although you may be right that the guy is texting, you are crazy to confront someone about it.  You are asking for trouble.

WRPS tells me that I have an equal responsibility to keeping our roads safe. And frankly, I'm not so terrified of everyone around that I am opposed to shouting "put your phone away while driving" at random strangers.  If they choose to jump out of their car and confront me, as has happened, I am well prepared to dial 911.
I have investigated to many people who have been shot, stabbed, and run off the road because of it.  I could never advocate for someone to call out someone like that.  You wont have time to call 911...
Reply
(07-09-2019, 01:49 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(07-09-2019, 01:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: WRPS tells me that I have an equal responsibility to keeping our roads safe. And frankly, I'm not so terrified of everyone around that I am opposed to shouting "put your phone away while driving" at random strangers.  If they choose to jump out of their car and confront me, as has happened, I am well prepared to dial 911.
I have investigated to many people who have been shot, stabbed, and run off the road because of it.  I could never advocate for someone to call out someone like that.  You wont have time to call 911...

If I'm shot or stabbed for that, I'm glad you'll be there to investigate...frankly, I don't want to live in a society where such a fear is realistic enough to encourage me not too call that out...

I also don't think confronting is a bigger danger than cycling anyway. I've had a driver jump out of their vehicle and throw a punch at me for nothing more than existing. And that's ignoring the fact that a driver on their phone is far more likely to just kill me with inattention.
Reply


Seeking Input:

I had a discussion with a regional road engineer this morning about bike lanes, and I am curious to know the opinions of cyclists:

When there is room for a bike lane in only one direction (lets leave aside for the moment, the absurdity of this), and there is a substantial grade on the road, should that bike lane be located on:

a) the uphill side.

or b) the downhill side.

The advantage of a) is that cyclists are traveling slower, motorists may be more impatient behind, and it may be more difficult to take the lane when moving more slowly, thus drivers may tend to push past unsafely more often, so having a bike lane here is preferable. Additionally, on the downhill side with no bike lane, cyclists are moving much faster, and as a result will be able to take the lane more easily, and cars will be more patient (or waiting less time) so will be more willing to wait behind.

The advantage of b) is that since both cyclists and drivers are traveling much faster, any incident would be likely to be more harmful, as higher speeds are dangerous, so more separation by putting the bike lane on the downhill side is preferable.

There is also the consideration of the cyclists motions, going downhill, one can coast and have stable control of a high speed bicycle, but going uphill, speeds are much lower, but since the cyclist is working hard, the motion is more side to side.

So, I'm interested in seeing votes, opinions, and also any other considerations I'm missing.

Oh, and a bonus section:

In the event there is no room for a bike lane (on level, downhill, or uphill) is the preference, 1) make the lane as wide as possible, or 2) make the lane as narrow as possible.

The idea with 1) is that there is more room to maneuver, however, the risk is that cyclists will be bullied, or otherwise afraid and thus squeeze right and have cars squeeze past, even though there is not room, where as for 2) there is less room, but drivers are more forced to wait before overtaking, and it should be easier for the cyclist to take the lane.

Thanks!
Reply
The bike lane should be on the uphill side. The problem is that passing on an uphill is significantly less safe than on a downhill because the driver typically can't see oncoming traffic. The most dangerous scenario is the passing driver swerving back suddenly to avoid an oncoming car and hitting the cyclist. Passing is less likely to occur on the downhill, but it's also going to tend to be safer as the driver can see traffic in the oncoming lane.

Bonus: if a lane is to be shared, it should be as narrow as possible. Wider lanes encourage drives to try to squeeze past a cyclist when there is no room to safely pass. Wider lanes also encourage higher speeds. There is never a benefit to the cyclist. The only good reason for wider lanes is for large trucks. I think it's reasonable in industrial areas, for example, where large trucks are common. I don't think it's reasonable in residential or commercial districts.
Reply
(07-26-2019, 09:06 PM)jamincan Wrote: The bike lane should be on the uphill side. The problem is that passing on an uphill is significantly less safe than on a downhill because the driver typically can't see oncoming traffic. The most dangerous scenario is the passing driver swerving back suddenly to avoid an oncoming car and hitting the cyclist. Passing is less likely to occur on the downhill, but it's also going to tend to be safer as the driver can see traffic in the oncoming lane.

Bonus: if a lane is to be shared, it should be as narrow as possible. Wider lanes encourage drives to try to squeeze past a cyclist when there is no room to safely pass. Wider lanes also encourage higher speeds. There is never a benefit to the cyclist. The only good reason for wider lanes is for large trucks. I think it's reasonable in industrial areas, for example, where large trucks are common. I don't think it's reasonable in residential or commercial districts.

This is a great point. Thanks for raising it. 

Trucks are limited to 2.6 meters in width. Even a 3.0 meter lane which the region would consider grossly undersized (their minimum is 3.35m), is more than wide enough for a transport to navigate safely, the only difference would be lower speeds.
Yes, narrower lanes like 2.6 would be too small for trucks but I'd argue we are nowhere near needing wider lanes for trucks.--at a regional level for sure. 
Or what I'm saying is even the narrowest roads in the region, ones which the region consider substandard are already wide enough for trucks in a straight through lane.
Reply
Physical barriers have started being added on Queen's.
Reply
(07-26-2019, 09:06 PM)jamincan Wrote: The bike lane should be on the uphill side. The problem is that passing on an uphill is significantly less safe than on a downhill because the driver typically can't see oncoming traffic. The most dangerous scenario is the passing driver swerving back suddenly to avoid an oncoming car and hitting the cyclist. Passing is less likely to occur on the downhill, but it's also going to tend to be safer as the driver can see traffic in the oncoming lane.

Bonus: if a lane is to be shared, it should be as narrow as possible. Wider lanes encourage drives to try to squeeze past a cyclist when there is no room to safely pass. Wider lanes also encourage higher speeds. There is never a benefit to the cyclist. The only good reason for wider lanes is for large trucks. I think it's reasonable in industrial areas, for example, where large trucks are common. I don't think it's reasonable in residential or commercial districts.

Definitely uphill side, as you say. For the same reason that when roads have occasional passing lanes (significant upgrade compared to a 2-lane road, without getting anywhere near the expense of building 4 lanes for an extended distance), they are on the uphill sections. Trucks can grumble along in the second lane while lighter vehicles can continue up the hill past them in the first lane. A bike lane is just a narrow second lane that is reserved for non-motor vehicles.

But the question presupposes an absurdity, which is that there could be space to consider different lane widths but not space to install a bike lane. Anywhere there is space to consider a wide lane the answer is easy — install a narrower lane plus a bike lane, preferably separated by a jersey barrier. No whining from motor vehicle operators please, we’ve heard quite enough.
Reply
Is there anywhere in the region you could seriously try out electric assist bikes? My commute has changed to be almost 15km but estimated at an hour, maybe due to elevation; I used to bike 9km in 25min with a direction dependent 10 to 25m of climbs. This one is 35 to 60. Driving has really been a drain compared to cycling, but to go from a short trail ride to at least 15km on mostly regional roads without cycling facilities, I just don't know.
Reply


(07-27-2019, 01:28 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Is there anywhere in the region you could seriously try out electric assist bikes? My commute has changed to be almost 15km but estimated at an hour, maybe due to elevation; I used to bike 9km in 25min with a direction dependent 10 to 25m of climbs. This one is 35 to 60. Driving has really been a drain compared to cycling, but to go from a short trail ride to at least 15km on mostly regional roads without cycling facilities, I just don't know.

I'm going to assume you've already investigated combining the train or iXpress with your bike ride?

As for trying ebikes, I know https://www.cycleelectric.ca/ is a major ebike dealer, they probably have orientation/trials, but I don't have much experience with them personally.
Reply
Thanks, I'll take a look. I tried timing bike and 301/302, as I'm going roughly Vic Park to Toyota, and it came in at an hour.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 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