Cycling in Waterloo Region

[timc]

The problem with bike boxes in my mind, is that they are designed around vehicular cycling.  They only work for cyclists who are comfortable taking a lane, and riding in front of a line of traffic.

As a vehicular cyclist, I find that it is easier to take the lane with cars than it is to use a bike box.

[danbrotherston]

Good. I was wondering exactly what a bike box was, and how it was used. Thanks for the explanation.

Can a vehicle enter the bike box if there is no cyclist in front of them using the bike box, or must they always stop before it?

Nope, the intent is that a cyclist may come up and occupy the box at any time during the red signal.

I have *heard* city staff suggest that right turns on red are also not permitted when there is a bike box, but given there is no signage, education, or any other other way for anyone to know this, it's the "tree in a forest with nobody to hear it" equivalent of a rule, so realistically, I would consider this the exception.

[danbrotherston]

The problem with bike boxes in my mind, is that they are designed around vehicular cycling.  They only work for cyclists who are comfortable taking a lane, and riding in front of a line of traffic.

As a vehicular cyclist, I find that it is easier to take the lane with cars than it is to use a bike box.

I'm not sure what you mean?  I see using the bike box as part of taking the lane.  For example, when turning left, the bike box allows you to enter the left turn lane, when it might be difficult to do so due to a line of traffic blocking you between the bike lane and the left turn lane.  

Or when a bike lane ends at a signalized intersection with a red, it is far safer to enter the box and move in front of the remaining through lane, than trying to merge with accelerating traffic when the light turns green.

[Canard]

I have a feeling this is not going to illicit a very popular reaction.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Uh oh. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/4Yva5ePuyF">pic.twitter.com/4Yva5ePuyF</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/794637241134055424">November 4, 2016</a></blockquote>

[timc]

As a vehicular cyclist, I find that it is easier to take the lane with cars than it is to use a bike box.

I'm not sure what you mean?  I see using the bike box as part of taking the lane.  For example, when turning left, the bike box allows you to enter the left turn lane, when it might be difficult to do so due to a line of traffic blocking you between the bike lane and the left turn lane.  

I mean that if I want to turn left, I will move to the left turn lane before I get to the intersection. I find that easier than trying to use a bike box, likely because drivers don't understand how to drive around bike boxes.

[danbrotherston]

I have a feeling this is not going to illicit a very popular reaction.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Uh oh. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/4Yva5ePuyF">pic.twitter.com/4Yva5ePuyF</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/794637241134055424">November 4, 2016</a></blockquote>

Your feeling is correct, I was rather bothered by that sign.  I am *hoping* it is temporary during the construction.

[danbrotherston]

I mean that if I want to turn left, I will move to the left turn lane before I get to the intersection. I find that easier than trying to use a bike box, likely because drivers don't understand how to drive around bike boxes.

I find it very much depends on the intersection and conditions, on some roads, if its a quite day with little traffic, moving into the left turn lane is easy, on other roads, say, Fischer-Hallman near rush hour, I'm not so comfortable moving across 2 lanes of 90km/h traffic. Other roads like University, there may be an enormous queue of through traffic blocking me access from the left turn lane. So it very much depends on the conditions. I actually find them most useful when the bike lane ends. I *hate* roads where the bike lane disappears through an intersection (I'm looking at you Glasgow).

I actually use the 'Bike box' style of left turn sometimes even when there is no bike box if the conditions are as above, I'll cut in front of cars in the left turn lane. The biggest problem, with both that, and the bike boxes, is cars turning left or right from the other road may think you are crossing the entire intersection. Much like most new traffic devices, it will take some getting used too. But this one, maybe we can just skip.

[kps]

They only work for cyclists who are comfortable taking a lane, and riding in front of a line of traffic.  Most cyclists are not comfortable with this, and worse, many drivers seem to not accept it either.

Makes sense, since it's illegal, although it's part of the 99% of the Highway Traffic Act that's never enforced.

[timc]

Unless you're in a bike box, if you are making a left turn, you should be in the left turn lane. It's also in the HTA (section 154).

[danbrotherston]

They only work for cyclists who are comfortable taking a lane, and riding in front of a line of traffic.  Most cyclists are not comfortable with this, and worse, many drivers seem to not accept it either.

Makes sense, since it's illegal, although it's part of the 99% of the Highway Traffic Act that's never enforced.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here, but you are 100% incorrect on this. Cyclists are permitted to take the lane as necessary.

First, the turnout law doesn't apply to the circumstances I'm discussing. You probably mean to link to the "slow moving vehicles (including bicycles) must keep right as practicable".

But that word practicable has a very specific meaning, and I will refer you to the MTO's cycling skills guide which gives explicit instructions for cyclists:

"Where do you ride?
Because bicycles usually travel at a lower speed, there are two rules of the road to
which cyclists must pay special attention:
1. slower traffic stays right
2. slower traffic must give way to faster traffic when safe and practical
Accordingly, cyclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand
edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster
than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share."

Source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/...skills.pdf

So, cyclists may take the lane if the lane is too narrow to share with a car, or should ride one meter out from the curb. On most lanes in our city 1 meter out from the curb is effectively taking the lane. This is the government's document recommending specific cyclist behaviour. Later, the same document repeats it:

"Taking a lane
In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it
is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it. "

Taking the lane is entirely legal in Ontario if the lanes are not wide enough to share with a car, which is almost all lanes, except for extra wide parking lanes.

[Pheidippides]

Nice to be able to see the bike lanes on the pavement along Margaret again (they had faded considerably). I only saw them while on the #8 so hard to know if some of the oddities have been corrected yet. The driving lanes on Margaret seem narrower though; so much so that the #8 was straddling the bike lane by a good margin.

[danbrotherston]

Nice to be able to see the bike lanes on the pavement along Margaret again (they had faded considerably). I only saw them while on the #8 so hard to know if some of the oddities have been corrected yet. The driving lanes on Margaret seem narrower though; so much so that the #8 was straddling the bike lane by a good margin.

That was the "shave and pave" that was planned, should also lead to a smoother ride. I know they had planned to correct some oddities around the pedestrian island, but it didn't look like they'd rebuild either the curb or the island so I have no idea if that happened or not.

The narrowness of the lanes is a problem on some streets, buses on Highland do the same thing, but it *should* slow traffic down. Of course, traffic rides on the line enough it disappears and then we go back to 4.5 meter wide lanes.

[kps]

Makes sense, since it's illegal, although it's part of the 99% of the Highway Traffic Act that's never enforced.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here, but you are 100% incorrect on this.  Cyclists are permitted to take the lane as necessary.

First, the turnout law doesn't apply to the circumstances I'm discussing.  You probably mean to link to the "slow moving vehicles (including bicycles) must keep right as practicable".

The link (which works, though the file is large, so perhaps your browser can't cope) is to §148(6):

(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).

I don't see anything in the Highway Traffic Act that says that's optional; please point out the section that makes it “100% incorrect”.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here, but you are 100% incorrect on this.  Cyclists are permitted to take the lane as necessary.

First, the turnout law doesn't apply to the circumstances I'm discussing.  You probably mean to link to the "slow moving vehicles (including bicycles) must keep right as practicable".

The link (which works, though the file is large, so perhaps your browser can't cope) is to §148(6):

(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).

I don't see anything in the Highway Traffic Act that says that's optional; please point out the section that makes it “100% incorrect”.

I am aware what section you linked too. That section doesn't apply to our discussion. A "turnout" is a specific piece of roadway giving a place for traffic to pull into to allow vehicles behind to overtake. It doesn't apply to driving down a straight urban roadway.

This in no way precludes taking the lane on an urban road, it simply means, if there is a turnout, you must use it. There aren't turnouts on city streets.

I don't think the MTO's book can be any clearer. "In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it." This is a government document giving instructions for cycling in the city. It *is* the rules. It cannot be clearer. Taking the lane is legal.

[kps]

I am aware what section you linked too.  That section doesn't apply to our discussion.  A "turnout" is a specific piece of roadway giving a place for traffic to pull into to allow vehicles behind to overtake.  It doesn't apply to driving down a straight urban roadway.

The phrase is “turn out” (verb, meaning ‘move out of the way’), not “turnout” (noun). §148 is precisely the part of the Highway Traffic Act concerned with meeting and overtaking; if you want to point out a different section, here is the whole thing again.