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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling in Waterloo Region
(07-14-2017, 05:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: So I’m not sure I would really support flags demarcating bike lanes but I do think that “quick” stops (as opposed to quick stops) should be enforced fairly rigorously.

As they should be in regular traffic lanes, as well.
Reply
Bike lane lines have been finished on Lincoln Rd.
Reply
New surprise MUT on Hayward!

For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
There was an MUT there before the project, so they're really just restoring it.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
Yes, I'm very happy that's being restored.  My partner used to ride that daily to work before it was torn out for LRT construction years and years ago.
Reply
(07-13-2017, 09:55 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Hoping our resident by-law expert will answer this one.

What constitutes no standing vs. no stopping vs. no parking?

For instance, is the “Chubbs Post hole and fence” truck seen here doing anything wrong? There is no parking allowed, but stopping is allowed outside of 11:30AM to 01:30PM and 4:30PM to 6:00PM.

So why is stopping even allowed in bike lanes at all (e.g Park between William and Allen)?

I go away for the weekend, and missed the "Bat signal" looking for me!  Let me preface this with a "I worked in Kitchener, not Waterloo". Wink

First off, definitions:  Since the sign behind the vehicle shows No Stopping and No Parking restrictions, I'll define those:

“park” or “parking”, when prohibited, means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when standing temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers

“stop” or “stopping”, when prohibited, means the halting of a vehicle, even momentarily, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or of a traffic control sign or signal

Stopping is more restrictive, but in this case, the vehicle is definitely Parked (Or if it met the time restrictions, I'd tag for Stopping, as it's a higher fine). 

In Kitchener, even if there were no signs, it could be tagged for being parked in a restricted lane.... (Marked Diamond Lane for bicycles), I'm sure Waterloo has the same rule.

ljmorlan: The majority of the vehicle is in the restricted lane, therefore, its not considered in the traffic lane.  If it was fully in the traffic lane, it could get a ticket for "Obstructing traffic".

There are also exemptions granted for construction work, and it is quite possible this vehicle got city permission to block the bike lane for the day.

If there were no "No Parking" signs, the vehicle could legally park in a traffic lane, as long as the bike lane remained clear.  (This would obviously assume two traffic lanes in the same direction... otherwise it would be obstructing, and No Parking signs would be up)

Coke
Reply
(07-17-2017, 03:16 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 09:55 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Hoping our resident by-law expert will answer this one.

What constitutes no standing vs. no stopping vs. no parking?

For instance, is the “Chubbs Post hole and fence” truck seen here doing anything wrong? There is no parking allowed, but stopping is allowed outside of 11:30AM to 01:30PM and 4:30PM to 6:00PM.

So why is stopping even allowed in bike lanes at all (e.g Park between William and Allen)?

I go away for the weekend, and missed the "Bat signal" looking for me!  Let me preface this with a "I worked in Kitchener, not Waterloo". Wink

First off, definitions:  Since the sign behind the vehicle shows No Stopping and No Parking restrictions, I'll define those:

“park” or “parking”, when prohibited, means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when standing temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers

“stop” or “stopping”, when prohibited, means the halting of a vehicle, even momentarily, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or of a traffic control sign or signal

Stopping is more restrictive, but in this case, the vehicle is definitely Parked (Or if it met the time restrictions, I'd tag for Stopping, as it's a higher fine). 

In Kitchener, even if there were no signs, it could be tagged for being parked in a restricted lane.... (Marked Diamond Lane for bicycles), I'm sure Waterloo has the same rule.

ljmorlan: The majority of the vehicle is in the restricted lane, therefore, its not considered in the traffic lane.  If it was fully in the traffic lane, it could get a ticket for "Obstructing traffic".

There are also exemptions granted for construction work, and it is quite possible this vehicle got city permission to block the bike lane for the day.

If there were no "No Parking" signs, the vehicle could legally park in a traffic lane, as long as the bike lane remained clear.  (This would obviously assume two traffic lanes in the same direction... otherwise it would be obstructing, and No Parking signs would be up)

Coke

Legalities are all well and good, but generally I've been told a few things:

1.  Delivery vehicles where drivers are delivering packages will not be ticketed under any circumstances.

2.  Vehicles will not be ticked for being in a bike lane unless there are *also* no parking signs.

I'm also curious, are you saying that vehicles parked in vehicle lanes not marked with "no parking" can be ticketed?  That is contrary to what I understood which is no "No Parking" implies parking.
Reply
(07-17-2017, 03:27 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Legalities are all well and good, but generally I've been told a few things:

1.  Delivery vehicles where drivers are delivering packages will not be ticketed under any circumstances.

2.  Vehicles will not be ticked for being in a bike lane unless there are *also* no parking signs.

I'm also curious, are you saying that vehicles parked in vehicle lanes not marked with "no parking" can be ticketed?  That is contrary to what I understood which is no "No Parking" implies parking.

1. Yes and No. Officer's have discretion. If a vehicle is in a NPA (No Parking Anytime), and its obvious it is a delivery, it would not be tagged. If I come back 5 min later and its still in the NPA, it will get a ticket. If a delivery vehicle is in an NSA (No Stopping Anytime), it will be tagged. This is the cost of doing business, and the major players (UPS, Purolator) just pay them. Canada Post is the only one that is blatantly ignored.

2. Vehicles in a bike lane will be ticketed (in Kitchener, at least when I worked there) with or without NPA signs.

Park within 3m of a fire hydrant, 9m of an intersection or crosswalk, 15m of a railway crossing or bridge, more than 30 cm from the curb, 3 hr limit, facing wrong direction are all times a vehicle can be ticked in a vehicle lane without signage. Obstructing the flow of traffic will get a ticket regardless of signage.

Coke
Reply
(07-17-2017, 03:42 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(07-17-2017, 03:27 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Legalities are all well and good, but generally I've been told a few things:

1.  Delivery vehicles where drivers are delivering packages will not be ticketed under any circumstances.

2.  Vehicles will not be ticked for being in a bike lane unless there are *also* no parking signs.

I'm also curious, are you saying that vehicles parked in vehicle lanes not marked with "no parking" can be ticketed?  That is contrary to what I understood which is no "No Parking" implies parking.

1. Yes and No.  Officer's have discretion.  If a vehicle is in a NPA (No Parking Anytime), and its obvious it is a delivery, it would not be tagged.  If I come back 5 min later and its still in the NPA, it will get a ticket.  If a delivery vehicle is in an NSA (No Stopping Anytime), it will be tagged.  This is the cost of doing business, and the major players (UPS, Purolator) just pay them.  Canada Post is the only one that is blatantly ignored.

2. Vehicles in a bike lane will be ticketed (in Kitchener, at least when I worked there) with or without NPA signs.  

Park within 3m of a fire hydrant, 9m of an intersection or crosswalk, 15m of a railway crossing or bridge, more than 30 cm from the curb, 3 hr limit, facing wrong direction are all times a vehicle can be ticked in a vehicle lane without signage.  Obstructing the flow of traffic will get a ticket regardless of signage.

Coke

Thanks for 1 and 2.  For 2, this I was told when I inquired after repeatedly calling in vehicles blocking Glasgow bike lanes, the person on the phone said they wouldn't ticket because it could be "fought"...so eventually I complained to whatever department puts up proper signage, to fix it.

1.  This is still frustrating, areas with many deliveries see bike lanes blocked continually, further, I have at least one friend who routinely calls in delivery vehicles blocking bike lanes and bus stops simultaneously.   Any suggestions on what can be done to stop this practice?  Certainly some places have lack of parking for deliveries, but not all places.

As for "Obstructing flow of traffic"....what defines that?  Most parking obstructs flow to some degree, many residential streets are not wide enough for cars to pass each other and parked cars, I assume they aren't ticketed.

Thanks!
Reply
(07-17-2017, 03:16 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: ljmorlan: The majority of the vehicle is in the restricted lane, therefore, its not considered in the traffic lane.  If it was fully in the traffic lane, it could get a ticket for "Obstructing traffic".

Thanks for the information. This is disappointing, as it confirms that there is a double standard. Bicycle lanes should be considered, de facto and de jure, to be traffic lanes. This isn’t to say that some accommodation for people dropping off or picking up shouldn’t be made, but apparently bicycles can’t be obstructed by definition at present, which is crazy, and also justifies bicyclists taking a casual approach to following the rules (e.g. by riding on the much safer sidewalk, especially to get around an obstruction that is not legally an obstruction).
Reply
(07-18-2017, 06:28 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(07-17-2017, 03:16 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: ljmorlan: The majority of the vehicle is in the restricted lane, therefore, its not considered in the traffic lane.  If it was fully in the traffic lane, it could get a ticket for "Obstructing traffic".

Thanks for the information. This is disappointing, as it confirms that there is a double standard. Bicycle lanes should be considered, de facto and de jure, to be traffic lanes. This isn’t to say that some accommodation for people dropping off or picking up shouldn’t be made, but apparently bicycles can’t be obstructed by definition at present, which is crazy, and also justifies bicyclists taking a casual approach to following the rules (e.g. by riding on the much safer sidewalk, especially to get around an obstruction that is not legally an obstruction).

This is a rather minor example, I'd argue this is a much larger problem, and something which the vast majority of people who whine about cyclists breaking the law have never experienced, but most of our infrastructure and the laws surrounding them aren't designed for cyclists, this example with bike lanes is one, but even just take our MUTs, with all but one exception they have crosswalks at intersections which cannot be legally used by cyclists.  As a result, cyclists are basically expected to break the law in order to bike around.
Reply
danbrotherson: Unfortunately, the only thing you can do is call and complain and/or sit back and hope the by-law folks come by at the right time/right place. The problem with delivery vehicles is they are there for just a few minutes before moving on. We don't sit and wait for infractions, we just get lucky as we pass by. (The only exceptions to this are NSA's in School Zone... we pick a school and stand there and hand out $80 tickets to everyone who stops to drop off little Jimmy... the other exception is private security guards who are authorized to write city tickets... they can hang out in their property's fire route and hand out $80 Fire Route tickets and $300 disabled persons space tickets). As for the bus stops, the drivers were pretty good about radioing in to dispatch who would send us if we were close. Its frustrating, but for now, its what we got.

Obstructing traffic would be used mostly on a non-residential roadway, where a vehicle parks in such a manner to block the only lane in that direction. [So even though a parked car in one of two N/B lanes technically may be Obstructing, it wouldn't be ticked. If another vehicle double parked, that vehicle would be obstructing. Basically if a parked vehicle sends me into oncoming traffic, a ticket is warranted] Residential roadway's are trickier, since 3hrs of parking is normally allowed on both sides. Even though I may need to pull to the side to allow oncoming traffic to pass, I wouldn't ticket. If in my expert opinion, I am of the belief that a fire truck could not safely pass thru, I would ticket vehicles on both sides.

Its sad to hear the Customer Care centre give "they might fight it" as a reason not to attend. [When I worked there we got the calls directly]. Our justice system is built on the premise everyone has the right to trial, and if we don't enforce things that people might fight, not only would I be out of a job, but we could eliminate all law enforcement.

ljmorlan: Yes it is. The traffic bylaw was written for cars, and changed to accommodate bikes... but not written with them in mind. [In fact if I recall correctly, the "restricted lane" section of the by-law doesn't mention bikes specifically, even though it is the most prevalent type of such lane.]

Coke
Reply
Update:

So this was the wording I remember:
Reserved Lane means a lane within a highway reserved under this by-law exclusively
for use by horse-drawn vehicles, buses or other specific classes or types of
vehicles.

but they have added this now:
Bicycle Lane means a lane on a highway designated by authorized signs, the use of which is solely for bicycles.

And the parking restrictions are now:
3. Parking Prohibited

a) General
Unless otherwise permitted in this by-law, no person shall at any time park a vehicle on any highway:
(xviii) Within a reserved lane during the hours and days that the reserved lane is in effect;
(xxv) On, or in such a manner as to obstruct any designated bicycle lane, provided that this shall not prohibit a momentary stopping of transit buses at signs marking a bus stop, taxis while actively engaged in receiving or discharging passengers, or other motor vehicles while actively engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.


So when I was there, I would tag a bike lane as a restricted lane and we were all good.  Now, a bicycle lane is restricted to having authorized signs posted.  This is disappointing, as I don't remember ever seeing a diamond lane sign for bikes here.  [They are painted on the roadway, but we all know that roadway markings are not enforceable when it comes to parking.... well, other than the "Park in more than one space" ticket, but I digress....

Coke
Reply
(07-15-2017, 12:06 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Bike lane lines have been finished on Lincoln Rd.

I would say *mostly* finished. Lines have been painted, but no signs have been posted, and there are no diamonds painted in the lane.

It looks like the idea of painting a buffer such as on Lexington Road didn't come to fruition.
Reply
@Coke

Thanks for the info.

Our bike lanes pretty reliably have the restricted lane diamond signs (which by the way about 1% of drivers even know what they mean [1]) all along, so that wouldn't be an issue.

Seems like unloading of cargo is not an explicit exception in the bylaw either.

Regardless, the bylaw is basically ignored by a large percentage of the population, worse, I still think the "impeding traffic" is a judgementy type thing, which is usually a bad law. I have no idea why it isn't just "no parking in no parking zones".

Also, ooooh, how do we get deputized to write tickets? I could write a half dozen on my walks to and from work. Double that if I could also ticket for texting and driving.

[1] Our region now has a number of different diamond marked lanes which are interesting, and include buggy lanes in the rural areas, as well as transit lanes for the LRT and aBRT. I know a number of people who were confused as to why the "LRT tracks were marked for bikes".
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)