Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

I have no idea of the situation here...what I do know is that I have ZERO trust in WRPS to give an accurate account here.

This is not the traditional intersectionality example, but cyclist + cops + low income individual (as suggested by someone on social media who claimed to have actually seen the person who was hit) seems utterly RIPE for untruths...at best.

And frankly, this is kind of a huge problem...when we cannot trust police to serve justice...then we have no justice.

[Bob_McBob]

My suspicion is the cyclist was right-hooked while riding on the sidewalk, so we'll either never hear about it again or WRPS will blame them. The language of their official statement about the cyclist colliding with the cruiser like it's an inanimate object really says it all. Helmet status: unknown 

[danbrotherston]

My suspicion is the cyclist was right-hooked while riding on the sidewalk, so we'll either never hear about it again or WRPS will blame them. The language of their official statement about the cyclist colliding with the cruiser like it's an inanimate object really says it all. Helmet status: unknown 

There are few to no circumstances where the police won't reflexively blame a cyclist with their language.

But I feel like your suspicion is correct, and they will blame the cyclist. Again, legally the cyclist is at fault, but morally and systemically the traffic engineers and drivers (and police) have quite a bit of blame.

[ijmorlan]

I just realized that my centre bikelane idea is not as unprecedented as I had implicitly assumed: diverging diamonds very naturally work with the non-motor-vehicle space down the middle. I don’t know if they all do, but here is an example of one that does indeed put it in the middle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CVqvZR6eeg

Of course, this one is much more unpleasant than my Northfield idea owing to the motor vehicle lanes being right beside the multiuse trail rather than being separated by LRT tracks, and there are many other criticisms that can be made about what is seen in the video. Nevertheless, I think this puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that my idea is inadmissably bad and need not be considered, given that something like it has already been implemented in real life.

[danbrotherston]

I just realized that my centre bikelane idea is not as unprecedented as I had implicitly assumed: diverging diamonds very naturally work with the non-motor-vehicle space down the middle. I don’t know if they all do, but here is an example of one that does indeed put it in the middle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CVqvZR6eeg

Of course, this one is much more unpleasant than my Northfield idea owing to the motor vehicle lanes being right beside the multiuse trail rather than being separated by LRT tracks, and there are many other criticisms that can be made about what is seen in the video. Nevertheless, I think this puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that my idea is inadmissably bad and need not be considered, given that something like it has already been implemented in real life.

Indeed. Especially given the worst parts of that infra (crossing the slip ramps) are exactly the thing we will be removing lol.

[ijmorlan]

I just realized that my centre bikelane idea is not as unprecedented as I had implicitly assumed: diverging diamonds very naturally work with the non-motor-vehicle space down the middle. I don’t know if they all do, but here is an example of one that does indeed put it in the middle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CVqvZR6eeg

Of course, this one is much more unpleasant than my Northfield idea owing to the motor vehicle lanes being right beside the multiuse trail rather than being separated by LRT tracks, and there are many other criticisms that can be made about what is seen in the video. Nevertheless, I think this puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that my idea is inadmissably bad and need not be considered, given that something like it has already been implemented in real life.

Indeed. Especially given the worst parts of that infra (crossing the slip ramps) are exactly the thing we will be removing lol.

Right, I have the crossings at regular signalized intersections.

It’s interesting that even in the video, left turns don’t interact with the path crossings at all; only the right turns, and it appears that while the on-ramp right turn has the path yielding to motor vehicles, the off-ramp right turn has a signal. I would want to consider making the right turn ramps more like regular turns, and also look at signalizing the on-ramp right turns as well.

[danbrotherston]

Indeed. Especially given the worst parts of that infra (crossing the slip ramps) are exactly the thing we will be removing lol.

Right, I have the crossings at regular signalized intersections.

It’s interesting that even in the video, left turns don’t interact with the path crossings at all; only the right turns, and it appears that while the on-ramp right turn has the path yielding to motor vehicles, the off-ramp right turn has a signal. I would want to consider making the right turn ramps more like regular turns, and also look at signalizing the on-ramp right turns as well.

You're absolutely right. Slip ramps have no place in cities.

[Bob_McBob]

WRPS appear to have scrubbed the media release about the cyclist striking the cruiser from their site.

In other news, two cyclists were injured in separate incidents yesterday.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...uries.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ridge.html

[Bytor]

WRPS appear to have scrubbed the media release about the cyclist striking the cruiser from their site.

In other news, two cyclists were injured in separate incidents yesterday.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...uries.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ridge.html

Notice the difference in the language between the two articles.

In the first one: "…after a Dodge SUV hit the rider", and "…when the driver of a pickup truck hit an eight-year-old".

In the second one: "…after a collision with the driver of a pickup truck".

First one active voice about the vehicle hitting the cyclist. Second one passive voice that makes it look it was the cyclist hitting a stationary object.

[danbrotherston]

WRPS appear to have scrubbed the media release about the cyclist striking the cruiser from their site.

In other news, two cyclists were injured in separate incidents yesterday.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...uries.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ridge.html

Notice the difference in the language between the two articles.

In the first one: "…after a Dodge SUV hit the rider", and "…when the driver of a pickup truck hit an eight-year-old".

In the second one: "…after a collision with the driver of a pickup truck".

First one active voice about the vehicle hitting the cyclist. Second one passive voice that makes it look it was the cyclist hitting a stationary object.

To be fair the journalist used both passive and active for the first collision:

"The driver of a grey Dodge SUV towing a travel trailer hit the woman, police said."

Although, maybe it's the police who deserve a little credit as the wording is suggested to come from them.

Probably the author is just not thinking about what kind of language to use.

The headlines are both junk though.

[bravado]

We can all rest easy knowing that “The driver of the pickup, a 36-year-old Kitchener woman, was not injured in the crash.”

[Acitta]

Plan to make Waterloo Region more bicycle-friendly unveiled

[danbrotherston]

That's looking good.

I'll give them credit for ingenuity that they haven't displayed before. A centre running facility is about the only way to get a cycling facility safely through the interchange and the configuration of the one way roads provides an opportunity to implement it in a reasonable manner.

They also have a big opportunity at Lancaster and Bridgeport to make big improvements to what is one of the regions many highly dangerous intersections...especially since Lancaster is being rebuilt.

[ijmorlan]

That's looking good.

I'll give them credit for ingenuity that they haven't displayed before. A centre running facility is about the only way to get a cycling facility safely through the interchange and the configuration of the one way roads provides an opportunity to implement it in a reasonable manner.

They also have a big opportunity at Lancaster and Bridgeport to make big improvements to what is one of the regions many highly dangerous intersections...especially since Lancaster is being rebuilt.

Yes, I’m very pleased to see that they’re including centre-running through the interchange as an option. They’ll need lights at the ramps, however, because right now left turns across the centre line are done in the usual “wait for a gap in traffic” way, which wouldn’t be safe with bicycles coming through the middle (as we know from LRT experience, both here and elsewhere).

To me it is obvious that there should be 2-way bicycle paths on both streets, regardless of what is chosen for the interchange. While we’re at it, let’s go on a road diet. There is absolutely no conceivable need for 4 lanes on Bridgeport west of Weber; even 3 is questionable, other than turn lanes. Personally if it were up to me I’d probably go to 1 lane plus turn lanes.

[danbrotherston]

That's looking good.

I'll give them credit for ingenuity that they haven't displayed before. A centre running facility is about the only way to get a cycling facility safely through the interchange and the configuration of the one way roads provides an opportunity to implement it in a reasonable manner.

They also have a big opportunity at Lancaster and Bridgeport to make big improvements to what is one of the regions many highly dangerous intersections...especially since Lancaster is being rebuilt.

Yes, I’m very pleased to see that they’re including centre-running through the interchange as an option. They’ll need lights at the ramps, however, because right now left turns across the centre line are done in the usual “wait for a gap in traffic” way, which wouldn’t be safe with bicycles coming through the middle (as we know from LRT experience, both here and elsewhere).

To me it is obvious that there should be 2-way bicycle paths on both streets, regardless of what is chosen for the interchange. While we’re at it, let’s go on a road diet. There is absolutely no conceivable need for 4 lanes on Bridgeport west of Weber; even 3 is questionable, other than turn lanes. Personally if it were up to me I’d probably go to 1 lane plus turn lanes.

Yeah, signals at the ramps is one option. A second option is to disallow left turns, which I don't think is entirely unreasonable. On the west ramp, the only movements that would be limited is southbound 85 towards Bridgeport, which could be accessed reasonably via the University exit. The eastern ramp is a little more problematic because there are more movements which are restricted, some of which are a more significant detour. You could put in new ramps, but now we're talking about pretty major changes.

Either way, it's probably a non-starter in either case. Two new signals would cost a quarter million dollars and significantly affect traffic operations and I'm pretty sure both signals and restricting access would require the province to agree to it which just isn't going to happen.

So sadly, that seems like it'll be a non-starter...even though...even with completely uncontrolled intersections it would probably be significantly safer than crossing the slip ramps.

C'est la vie.

FWIW...I'm disappointed that it probably won't happen because of the provincial agreement that would be required, and because it would involve major changes to traffic operations...but I also think we need a broader conversation about highway access patterns.

I suspect that the suggestion that people on SB 85 accessing the bridgeport area can just get off at University and use surface streets would be considered unthinkable by most engineers and much of council. But that's actually a relatively minor detour. We need to start having serious conversations about this kind of limitation. The idea of making a trip a few minutes longer in order to make our roads safer and saner should be an easy win...