Cycling in Waterloo Region

[Canard]

This is why I hate the outright ban on bicycles on the sidewalk.

There are many sidewalks out there that could easily serve as de facto MUTs, but there is no way to legitimately "share" it with pedestrians.  If I'm riding on the sidewalk because the road would try to kill me, there is no way to interact with a pedestrian that is not "evil cyclist hauranging poor pedestrian". I yield to pedestrians, but I feel like I can't initiate a polite interaction, like ringing my bell, because it will be interpreted as me demanding they get out of my way (kind of like is a car honks at bike on the road).

I agree with you on all points, Markster - so well said on all counts.

The only spot I've ever ridden on the sidewalk is Courtland, between Block Line and Hayward, to get to the Block Line station to take pictures.  But I felt awful doing it, and, like you, didn't ring my bell but just very slowly went around someone, apologizing as I did - and he said "Hey, I don't blame you!!", which made me feel a little better about doing it.

I see so many places around (like Fairway, and Hespeler Road) where there is this huuuuuge grassy area off to the sides of the roads, one super-narrow sidewalk... and grass.  And it drives me nuts and I just can't understand why that isn't a MUT.

I just sheepishly avoid areas like this altogether when biking.

I've tweeted several times about the single lone "Shared Pathway" sign on Caroline and am assured that staff are "looking into it".

[Markster]

Ah, to be in Japan again...

[KevinL]

I see so many places around (like Fairway, and Hespeler Road) where there is this huuuuuge grassy area off to the sides of the roads, one super-narrow sidewalk... and grass.  And it drives me nuts and I just can't understand why that isn't a MUT.

Oh, yes! I really would like to see those sorts of wide bolevards put to more practical use.

[Canard]

Sad to report:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hey <a href="https://twitter.com/cityofcambridge">@cityofcambridge</a>, this dangerous glass is still all over the bike lane. Please clean it up! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bikeWR?src=hash">#bikeWR</a> Cc: <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WRPSToday">@WRPSToday</a> <a href="https://t.co/nOtqHiLhBn">https://t.co/nOtqHiLhBn</a></p>&mdash; Iain Hendry (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/892341545218830336">August 1, 2017</a></blockquote>

(Click to expand/photos)

I've now also emailed the City directly using one of their online forms.  The first doesn't work (doesn't let you submit), but a second, different one did.

If it's still there in another week I'll just go clean it up myself.

After contacting the City of Cambridge, they wrote back (email and twitter) saying they had cleaned it up.  But on my bike ride home, I still had to swerve into the car lane.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thanks, but there are still lots of glass particles all over the bike lane. I had to swerve into the car lane at rush-hour which was unsafe. <a href="https://t.co/6KNPcyDuGL">pic.twitter.com/6KNPcyDuGL</a></p>&mdash; Iain Hendry (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/892501703874007040">August 1, 2017</a></blockquote>

I've contacted them again via email and they say they've dispatched a street sweeper to go try and clean it up even better.

Of course, now there's a bunch of glass on the Eastbound lanes a little further toward Concession... sigh

[danbrotherston]

This little tidbit hit the news:

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/748...e-the-road

[jamincan]

I'm sure a bunch of speed limit signs will make the road a whole lot safer. /s

[danbrotherston]

Two cyclist involved collision this morning in the region:

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/748...collision/

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/748...collision/

Fortunately no life threatening injuries, but fairly different reporting. In one, police remind cyclists to do something which in no way would have prevented a collision. In the other, they remind drivers to be aware, which would prevent collisions.

[jamincan]

I think the reporting is sufficiently vague in both cases that it's impossible to judge responsibility and I don't think the police statements are assigning or implying blame either. Wearing a helmet is always good advice.

[danbrotherston]

I think the reporting is sufficiently vague in both cases that it's impossible to judge responsibility and I don't think the police statements are assigning or implying blame either. Wearing a helmet is always good advice.

No, it certainly isn't "always" good advice (in the Netherlands, its statistically bad advice, but really, it's wasteful advice).

But even here, you might think, "wear a helmet" is good advice.  It is probably (although not unquestionably) good advice for cyclists -- even though it in no way prevents collisions.  It is a terrible statement to make to drivers (the majority of people reading that article).  What it says to them is "cyclists should wear helmets, you have no responsibility for their safety".

[MidTowner]

Why are police giving advice, anyway? Bicycling without a helmet is not an offence; operating a vehicle without sufficient care is.

Edit: I say this because plenty of people erroneously think cyclists are required to wear helmets. That is reinforced when police are quoted in articles suggesting it in the same way as they suggest that people pay attention while driving.

[creative]

danbrotherson. It doesn't say that at all!
I am so tired of your continued angry posts that ruin this forum for everyone. I've been on this forum since the beginning and Wonderful Waterloo before that. I don't believe that you have ever posted a positive comment. I'll probably get banned from this group but I'm sure that there will also be a lot of people quietly agreeing with me. Now to figure out how to block your posts so that I can continue to enjoy the bulk of this forum with out having to deal with your annoying rants and rages.

[jamincan]

I think his posts can sometimes be depressing and negative because there is such a monumental shift in culture needed. Facing all the shortcomings in how we build our cities can be discouraging. In any case, he's not just a cynic sitting behind a keyboard, he's actively engaged with the community trying to change it for the better. He's taken positive action that few can claim; give him a break if his posts aren't all sunny days.

My view on helmets is maybe a little different than others. The sort of riding I do involves a certain risk of crashing without even factoring in vehicles, which maybe influences my perspective. I'm aware of the data that helmets don't necessarily reduce fatalities, but I'm also acutely aware of how debilitating concussions and other head injuries can be, and helmets can help avoid that when accidents do happen. My reading of the article about the incident in Ayr didn't make it clear to me that the fault lay with the driver. It may well have been entirely the cyclist's responsibility, or not. Regardless, in this case there was a crash potentially involving a head injury; a helmet may help reduce the severity of the injuries.

[Markster]

Edit: I say this because plenty of people erroneously think cyclists are required to wear helmets. That is reinforced when police are quoted in articles suggesting it in the same way as they suggest that people pay attention while driving.

"Remember, always keep your eyes on the road (1), don't text and drive (2), and wear a helmet when cycling (3)."

1: The law, defying could harm yourself and/or others
2: The law, defying could harm yourself and/or others
3: Not the law, defying may increase harm to yourself if in an accident.

But the way they say them gives them equal weight.

[KevinL]

In particular, this article puts that suggestion in the first paragraph where it's considered among the most important details being conveyed. This can give it undue weight if, in fact, it does not apply (which I am not certain it does).

[danbrotherston]

I think his posts can sometimes be depressing and negative because there is such a monumental shift in culture needed. Facing all the shortcomings in how we build our cities can be discouraging. In any case, he's not just a cynic sitting behind a keyboard, he's actively engaged with the community trying to change it for the better. He's taken positive action that few can claim; give him a break if his posts aren't all sunny days.

My view on helmets is maybe a little different than others. The sort of riding I do involves a certain risk of crashing without even factoring in vehicles, which maybe influences my perspective. I'm aware of the data that helmets don't necessarily reduce fatalities, but I'm also acutely aware of how debilitating concussions and other head injuries can be, and helmets can help avoid that when accidents do happen. My reading of the article about the incident in Ayr didn't make it clear to me that the fault lay with the driver. It may well have been entirely the cyclist's responsibility, or not. Regardless, in this case there was a crash potentially involving a head injury; a helmet may help reduce the severity of the injuries.

I appreciate the response.  Certainly some types of riding demand a helmet independent of road safety.  And I would always agree with "before hitting the trails, put on helmet" or whatever your favourite flavor of cycling, is always good advice.  And I'm in no way advocating *against* helmets.  I have a helmet from my collision that proves they were helpful.  And it is perhaps unfair of me to point out the Netherlands as an example where it would be bad advice to wear a helmet

But I really do believe the opportunity cost, plus the message to drivers makes the police statement in fact, one that is contrary to safety.  I see it as similar to the "share the road" signs.  Studies were done, they increase antagonism on the road because cyclists and drivers interpret them differently.  To cyclists, they mean drivers must share, to drivers they mean, cyclists should get out of the way.

danbrotherson. It doesn't say that at all! 
I am so tired of your continued angry posts that ruin this forum for everyone. I've been on this forum since the beginning and Wonderful Waterloo before that. I don't believe that you have ever posted a positive comment. I'll probably get banned from this group but I'm sure that there will also be a lot of people quietly agreeing with me. Now to figure out how to block your posts so that I can continue to enjoy the bulk of this forum with out having to deal with your annoying rants and rages.

I do believe it says that some drivers, the comment threads facebook make this clear enough to me, but you're welcome to disagree, or argue otherwise.

I am sorry that you interpret my comments as "angry rants" they are not intended that way, and I'm sorry that my comments have harmed your enjoyment of this forum.  If you wish to block me, you can do so easily by clicking my handle and going to "Add to Ignore List".  I do think it is unfair to say I've never posted anything positive, as this is clearly not true.  Ironic as well, given that just last week I was angrily accused of being far too positive with respect to our citys' cycling policies.  I also hope you do not speak for the "majority" or "everyone" here.