Trails

[danbrotherston]

For the record, I do not have a speedometer on my bicycle. 

Having a quantifiable threshold, like a speed limit, is much easier to enforce then something more qualitative ("courteous behaviour"), so I can see why that would be a proxy. Ideally you wouldn't be enforcing it on an empty trail when you could be going top speed, you would only be enforcing it in more congested conditions. 

That said, I have had some very dangerous interactions with e-scooters on the spur line/laurel trail by Erb Street over the past month.  I currently feel there should be some enforcement of signaling directions and passing for all wheeled vehicles in order to retain trail users.

Making a law that is intended to be broken is bad policy.  We already know we won't be enforcing it anyway.  Sadly, we already do this far too often, the multi-use paths are actually very good example of this.  And having laws which are intended to be broken I believe is a major cause of people not following the rules, if one rule is made to be broken, why not all of them.

Another problem is, speed limit doesn't mean courteous behaviour, and everyone's idea's of courteous behaviour is different.  I could pass a pedestrian way too close at 20 km/h, and make them feel very uncomfortable.  Other pedestrians are simply uncomfortable being on the trail with bikes at all.

Building better infrastructure is the best way to reduce these "dangerous" interactions.  Come out to the Iron Horse Trail Improvement consultation and demand a wider trail than is being planned.  That's a real change that would make the trail safer and more comfortable, and functional for all users.

And do keep the scope of "dangerous" in mind, I have frequent "dangerous" interactions with cars.  I far far more worried about that than I am about the occasional road cyclist who zips past me too close on the trail.  Objectively I know one poses a far greater danger to my safety and well being than the other.

[MidTowner]

Good comment, danbrotherston. I use the trails as a cyclist, and on foot, and with a stroller with either or both a toddler and infant in a stroller. At times, I've been passed discourteously by cyclists, or folks on e-scooters (I have no idea if they were manufactured in China or elsewhere). In the latter case, it's annoying that they are discourteous in addition to disobeying the posted rules of the trail, but those rules aren't enforced anyways. And, more importantly, the objective risk to me and others is a lot less than when I'm crossing a controlled intersection interacting with motor vehicles.

By and the large, the trails are working well, even with users who are not allowed to be there by rules that aren't enforced. The way to continue that is to make them widen enough to accommodate the traffic they get.

[darts]

^This. I've had a speedometer on every bike I've ever owned except my first bike with training wheels.

And that puts you very much in the minority, the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of cyclists don't have a speedometer.

@darts  "Travel that quickly"....how quickly?  21 km/h?  Pretty much any cyclist can easily hit 20 km/h on level ground.  If you're going down any hill, most cyclists can easily exceed 30 km/h.  

20 km/h is actually a very slow speed to cycle at.

Casual bike riders stay pretty close to the 20 mark unless they are going down hill or really booking it. Riders that aren't as casual (eg skinny tire, commuter/racer bikes built for speed) should be able to realize they go faster and need to relax when they are in mixed company.

[danbrotherston]

Casual bike riders stay pretty close to the 20 mark unless they are going down hill or really booking it. Riders that aren't as casual (eg skinny tire, commuter/racer bikes built for speed) should be able to realize they go faster and need to relax when they are in mixed company.

"Stay pretty close" to the 20 mark, exactly, which makes 25 even 30 pretty easy with a tail wind, or if someone is in a hurry, or downhill. So all of a sudden, casual riders are easily exceeding that limit substantially.

Quite frankly, I have had no close interactions with commuter or racing cyclists, usually it is with more casual cyclists, and usually they're not going overly fast, just overly close, sometimes misjudging space to pass. Either way, a speed limit wouldn't change that.

@MidTowner I definitely agree the trails do work generally quite well (save for several notorious crossings).

[jamincan]

Making a law that is intended to be broken is bad policy.  We already know we won't be enforcing it anyway.  Sadly, we already do this far too often, the multi-use paths are actually very good example of this.  And having laws which are intended to be broken I believe is a major cause of people not following the rules, if one rule is made to be broken, why not all of them.

Another problem is, speed limit doesn't mean courteous behaviour, and everyone's idea's of courteous behaviour is different.  I could pass a pedestrian way too close at 20 km/h, and make them feel very uncomfortable.  Other pedestrians are simply uncomfortable being on the trail with bikes at all.

Building better infrastructure is the best way to reduce these "dangerous" interactions.  Come out to the Iron Horse Trail Improvement consultation and demand a wider trail than is being planned.  That's a real change that would make the trail safer and more comfortable, and functional for all users.

And do keep the scope of "dangerous" in mind, I have frequent "dangerous" interactions with cars.  I far far more worried about that than I am about the occasional road cyclist who zips past me too close on the trail.  Objectively I know one poses a far greater danger to my safety and well being than the other.

We have all sorts of laws that are enforced with discretion. I don't always agree with how they are enforced, but to claim that they are useless as a result is a bit of an exaggeration. What is important is that the police have some sort of law they can use against the most reckless users, otherwise there is absolutely no oversight at all. Better infrastructure is nice, but it's not an either-or situation.

20 kph is a reasonable speed limit on a MUP. Just like with speed limits on the road, no one is going to be chasing after people going 25 kph, or likely even 30 kph. But around pedestrians, speeds like that are not safe. You cannot react quickly enough to unexpected reactions from pedestrians at 30+kph and I have enough experience dodging pedestrians when I'm running at much lower speeds to know to avoid them entirely when I'm on my road bike.

[Markster]

20 kph is a reasonable speed limit on a MUP. Just like with speed limits on the road, no one is going to be chasing after people going 25 kph, or likely even 30 kph. But around pedestrians, speeds like that are not safe. You cannot react quickly enough to unexpected reactions from pedestrians at 30+kph and I have enough experience dodging pedestrians when I'm running at much lower speeds to know to avoid them entirely when I'm on my road bike.

I don't think bringing over the flawed system of "no one obeys them anyway" speed limits is the answer here.

[danbrotherston]

20 kph on a MUT isn't a reasonable limit if you don't think it should apply to people doing under 25 or 30. Obviously then you think the limit should be 30 or so. But you said that's too fast. So...do you want to enforce the speed limit against people doing 30 km/h or not?

Also, yes, quite frankly, seeing drivers continually run red lights, speed excessively, fail to yield, fail to stop, fail to signal, fail to not drive while texting, fail to stay in lanes, it gives me very little motivation for me to follow laws. I can only imagine someone who doesn't know the risks associated with certain illegal behaviours feel very little motivation to follow those laws.

[Elmira Guy]

So is the preferred approach no speed limits on MUT's for cyclists and e-scooters?
As comparisons to speed limits on roads have been made by some, and rejected by others, should it also follow that speed limits on roads also be done away with?

As I don't drive, I spend a lot of time being a pedestrian, and I have seen a$$holes who represent every mode of transportation, including pedestrians.
The only great difference is that vehicle drivers who don't abide by the laws are a much greater threat to users of the other modes of transport. It's also true however that a pedestrian being hit or even clipped by a cyclist doing 30 kph is likely to suffer some sort of injury. Yet there are several people here who have argued that cyclists have as much right to sidewalks as pedestrians do.

I am very conscious of the laws as they pertain to me as a pedestrian, but I also try to be courteous. Again, every mode has their fair share of discourteous people. Out and about yesterday with a friend, I saw several cars fail to signal, or accelerate through an amber when they had plenty of time to stop. I saw a cyclist go right through a red light at Weber and Queen forcing cars who had the ROW to brake in the middle of the intersection, and then give said car drivers the finger. Also saw a young woman start into the crosswalk when she had to have known she was never going to make it to the other side before her light turned orange.

So since courtesy and consideration for others cannot be mandated or enforced, there has to be laws. And there has to be laws governing all modes of transport. ALL of the aforementioned behaviours should be subject to enforcement regardless of what camp you favour, as all of them behaved badly.

Note: A day does not pass where I don't see someone from all three modes behave in a discourteous, if not illegal manor. The only exception to this frequency is cyclists in the winter.

[BuildingScout]

I hold no preference in terms of speed limits in trails, but in the interest of the facts, I should point out that shared trails in Copenhagen have a 20km/h speed limit with radar displays showing cyclists their present speed.

Additionally traffic lights along dedicated cycling trails are green wave synchronized at this speed. So most people cycle at precisely that speed.

[tomh009]

Well said, EG.

[jamincan]

I don't think bringing over the flawed system of "no one obeys them anyway" speed limits is the answer here.

The flawed system already exists and that is what we have to work with. The point is whether a speed limit would influence behaviour. I expect it would for most people. Some people would disregard them, as they do on the road, but many and hopefully most, would moderate their speed in response. Whether it is below 20kph is somewhat less important than whether people, on the whole, slow down.

20kph is a pretty good speed for a MUP. Most people who are not experienced cyclists will naturally go at this speed or slightly slower without a downhill or tailwind. Stopping distance is good on a bike at this speed with little experience and handling is generally significantly easier than at higher speeds. Cyclists who want to push higher speeds are likely more experienced and have the skill and confidence to ride on the road. Cyclists with less experience have an option away from cars that offers lower speeds and higher safety. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[BuildingScout]

Yet there are several people here who have argued that cyclists have as much right to sidewalks as pedestrians do.

I don't recall a single person suggesting this. I've argued that a cyclist sauntering at 8km/h (i.e. barely faster than walking speed) should be allowed on the sidewalk, as they are in many places in Europe.

[darts]

Casual bike riders stay pretty close to the 20 mark unless they are going down hill or really booking it. Riders that aren't as casual (eg skinny tire, commuter/racer bikes built for speed) should be able to realize they go faster and need to relax when they are in mixed company.

"Stay pretty close" to the 20 mark, exactly, which makes 25 even 30 pretty easy with a tail wind, or if someone is in a hurry, or downhill.  So all of a sudden, casual riders are easily exceeding that limit substantially.

And going downhill I notice I am going much faster and can adjust. It's something that a reasonable person will notice

[Elmira Guy]

@tomh009 Thank you!

@BuildingScout It was from a discussion in the cycling thread. There may have actually only been one or two people who felt cyclists had every right to ride on sidewalks, though the issue of speed limit was never part of the discussion.

I may look for it in that thread, then again, I may not. Regardless, that point was hardly the main thrust of my post.

[Pheidippides]

I attended the Iron Horse central section consultation last tonight. It was a busy crowd early on, I can't speak to how busy it was later.

The materials should be online soon. I'm not sure why they could not have put them online beforehand so people could read them and come with their questions. Instead, everyone has to digest everything on the fly and staff end up having to re-iterate and answer the same questions over and over for things that are already answered in the materials already. It is a very inefficient use of time especially when it was a limited time period of two hours.

There were two proposed paths for the bridge over the creek near Henry Sturm greenway; apparently it needs to be replaced regardless of which route is picked.

The proposed new connection to Victoria Park looks pretty good, as does the new wayfinding signage.

The proposed changes to the existing connection to Victoria Park looks pretty good too.

The proposed change to the crossing at Victoria/West is uninspiring.

A lot of people were complaining about the loss of vegetation along the route between Gage and Glasgow, but that was out of scope last night.

I think the City of Kitchener could have handled the changes to that stretch a little better. I'm glad that 137 Glasgow is re-orienting the building and making the connection to the trail, but there should have been more communication about the changes that are coming. You wouldn't change a road intersection without engaging the community and this should be no different. The city could have saved themselves a lot of grief because people last night were upset about the loss of vegetation without understanding there was an unhealthy balance of species and invasive species along that stretch, some widening and repaving, and that a new connection that is being added to the trail. All they see is huge swaths of vegetation being ripped out and don't see the bigger picture of replanted trees and an improved trail (and amenities).

Further to that, the city could do a better job of marking off their work areas and cleaning up after themselves. I used that section last week knowing full well and being prepared that I may have to detour around for the intermittent and temporary closures along that stretch, but when I got to Gage there was no sign indicating closure or detour so I kept going. I got about halfway to Glasgow and had to slow to a crawl to avoid trucks and a backhoe. A city worker then chastised me and warned me in a condescending voice, "You're going to get hurt" (maybe it was a threat?). As if it was my fault that they did not mark off and secure their work site properly before starting their work with heavy machinery. I told him there was no signage, so how are users to know to go around. He said the signage hadn't arrived yet and I should turn around anyway. On the return trip home I had to slow, not for work being done, but for the large amount of debris left on the trail and sticking out from the edges.