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
(08-04-2017, 01:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(08-04-2017, 01:16 PM)jamincan Wrote: 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).

You are assuming a causal relationship where one doesn't exist.  Correlation does not automatically imply causality.
Reply


(08-05-2017, 10:02 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(08-04-2017, 01:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: No, it certainly isn't "always" good advice (in the Netherlands, its statistically bad advice, but really, it's wasteful advice).

You are assuming a causal relationship where one doesn't exist.  Correlation does not automatically imply causality.

No, of course correlation does not imply causation, and you are right, I was referring to the fact that wearing a helmet is correlated with being injured in a cycling accident in the Netherlands.  That doesn't mean wearing a helmet causes injuries, but in fact means that only people who are sport biking wear helmets, and they are more likely to be injured.

But I still don't know that wearing a helmet in the Netherlands is a good idea.  At the very least, people will look funny at you, and you'll muss up your hair, and maybe you'll be less likely to bike.  Certainly it is not "good" advice, as I said, it's at best, wasteful advice.
Reply
Mike Boos and I were talking about the changes to Northfield on the LRT Facebook group yesterday. This morning I biked both directions across, and here's a little video showing the final configuration, now that everything is complete.



I guess I proved to myself it's just a case of getting more confident, but it still makes me shudder a bit going Westbound, being sandwiched between the merge lane and the two lanes on my left there. Certainly not the most comfortable area ever.

...and I guess I have to ask: Why isn't there the super-bright green treatment to the entire Westbound crossover area? Seems like this would be the prime area of conflict to highlight.
Reply
In the long merging sections, the cyclist is going to be able to respond to an inattentive motorist much easier - just adjusting their speed a bit. Where the crossover is at a steep angle with no merge section, the risk is higher that someone trying to find a small gap in traffic and quickly merge in will fail to notice the cyclist and the cyclist wouldn't have time to respond.

This reminds me of another section of interchange with rather awkward bike infrastructure. I've only ever gone through when it's not busy, but northbound on Ira Needles/Trussler, the merging lane from the highway continues on as a second lane. This means that the bike lane just suddenly ends and reappears to the right of the merge lane. Volumes are low enough when I've gone through that it's never been a problem, but I really don't know how it could be safely redesigned. Perhaps putting a green lane marking across the merge lake kind of like on Northfield here and then a sign telling motorists to yield to cyclists?
Reply
I guess I'm of the mindset that, as a much slower-moving body on a bike, motorists should be adjusting their speed and merge point, not me speeding up or slowing down for them. I'm not just saying that to sound like a dick, if I was driving here, I'd either speed up or slow down a little to either go in front of (of safe!) or behind the biker. Of course while watching for a gap in traffic. But, you ride a lot faster than I do. Smile

Actually, that all sounds like a lot to try and do. I can't think of a reason I'd ever use that particular ramp, though, so I guess I can sleep easier. Smile
Reply
As the merging vehicle, the motorist should be the one adjusting speed, but we all know that the way things should be isn't the way things are and the consequences for the motorist failing to do so are much greater for me than it is for the motorist. If they're merging and it seems they are unaware of my presence, a quick light tap on my brakes should be enough for me to avoid trouble. The section with the green paint doesn't offer the cyclist any opportunity to avoid inattentive motorists, though, so making sure they are aware of cyclists is much more critical.

I guess the question should be at what point should they put the extra green paint. Considering the potential problems it has as a slippery surface in the rain, we don't want it to be ubiquitous. That would also lead to it's effect of drawing attention to the cycling lane being diminished. Situations where bike lanes cross merge lanes are sufficiently uncommon, though, that it would surely not be an issue to apply the paint in every case.
Reply
Oh, shoot - sorry, I absolutely agree in the case of heading Eastbound (green paint), as a cyclist I should be responsible for making the decision to slow down if I see someone coming up the ramp that doesn't see me. I was meaning more for that loooooooong Westbound merge/crossover area... as a cyclist I'm more-or-less a stationary object for the short period of time a fast-moving car moves through the area, so I think it's up to them to move around me on my bike in that case.
Reply


(08-04-2017, 01:44 PM)MidTowner Wrote: 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.

I'd say they are giving advice, to protect life.  It's part of their job.

Is locking your doors and windows, walking in groups or hiding your valuables a law?  No, but it is common advice to prevent crime.  When the police are at the mall handing out "Lock it or lose it" cards when they are checking for unlocked vehicles and valuable items, no one thinks its anything other than giving good advice.  I'd say the bike helmet comments are the same.

I'm pretty sure the police encouraged people to wear seat belts before they were mandatory....

Coke
Reply
(08-14-2017, 10:02 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(08-04-2017, 01:44 PM)MidTowner Wrote: 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.

I'd say they are giving advice, to protect life.  It's part of their job.

Is locking your doors and windows, walking in groups or hiding your valuables a law?  No, but it is common advice to prevent crime.  When the police are at the mall handing out "Lock it or lose it" cards when they are checking for unlocked vehicles and valuable items, no one thinks its anything other than giving good advice.  I'd say the bike helmet comments are the same.

I'm pretty sure the police encouraged people to wear seat belts before they were mandatory....

Coke

It is important to look at the context of the advice.

I don't think the police should respond to break and enter with "you should probably lock your doors" either.  

That being said, I would still argue that victim blaming is a much more serious problem when it comes to cycling and helmets than it is with locking your doors.  While I'm sure plenty of people would say "well you should have locked your doors", none of those people would argue against police presence or other safety measures in addition to locking one's door, as they do without fail when there's a cyclist involved collision.
Reply
I wonder if the comments on the police/helmet thing would have been any different if people knew that the kid who got hit was not wearing a helmet and suffered a head injury?
Reply
(08-14-2017, 10:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It is important to look at the context of the advice.

I don't think the police should respond to break and enter with "you should probably lock your doors" either.  

That being said, I would still argue that victim blaming is a much more serious problem when it comes to cycling and helmets than it is with locking your doors.  While I'm sure plenty of people would say "well you should have locked your doors", none of those people would argue against police presence or other safety measures in addition to locking one's door, as they do without fail when there's a cyclist involved collision.

Agreed. I would agree that victim shaming is bad, but if for the greater good, I get it: (ie. The driver was travelling at 140 km/h when he hit the tree. Speed was a factor in the collision. --- Read: Speeding kills).

Normally, the helmet/door lock/etc. advice is given as a generality for others to learn from, and hopefully to prevent a future incident.

While the (lack of) helmet was not the cause of the accident, it could of mitigated damages. No different than I get rear ended, but was seriously injured as I didn't have my seat belt on and was ejected from the vehicle. The police reminding people to wear their seat belts afterwards is prudent advice.

Coke
Reply
@Coke6pk Well, we can agree to disagree.

@panamaniac No it would not change my statements.
Reply
"While the (lack of) helmet was not the cause of the accident, it could of mitigated damages. No different than I get rear ended, but was seriously injured as I didn't have my seat belt on and was ejected from the vehicle."

One difference is that wearing a seat belt is the law, and wearing a helmet is not. There are a lot of other differences.

Even when we're talking very specifically about helmets and bicycling, the common mindset is that helmets somehow prevent collisions between motorists and cyclists. Even you just wrote "Normally, the helmet/door lock/etc. advice is given as a generality for others to learn from, and hopefully to prevent a future incident."

Markster understood my point perfectly and expounded it well in post 1848. Police can give advice, anyone can give advice, but when police are advising on different actions in the same way, people naturally come to view them as equally important, which is not the case.
Reply


A young boy on a bike was hit by a flatbed truck this morning.

http://www.570news.com/2017/08/16/boy-cr...bed-truck/

Injuries are serious. The description is not terribly detailed, but the vehicle turned right off of Hespler onto Can-Amera while the boy was "riding by on the sidewalk". I'm assuming this means the boy was in the crosswalk (otherwise the vehicle drove on the sidewalk), and was hit. What direction they originated from, I have no idea.

I am guessing, this will be determined to be cyclist at fault, because they were riding on the sidewalk (and presumably crosswalk), but perhaps age will mitigate that.

Of course, here is the intersection:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3856562,-...56!5m1!1e3

I certainly wouldn't want to ride on a six lane at grade divided highway either.
Reply
CTV has more details: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId...tPageNum=1
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 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