Trails

[MidTowner]

Thanks for the explanation, ijmorlan! I've only got a week under my belt of trail riding, so I'm still learning.

Out of curiosity, do you come to complete stops at the stop signs along the trails? For instance, when using the Spur Line and coming up to Allen, where there is a stop sign, would you make a complete stop even after slowing down and being able to see that there is no other traffic coming?

[Canard]

I think I know why you're asking me specifically about this. In all honesty, the answer is "no". About half of the time I have been coming to a full stop at the trail stop signs where it meets a road, but the other half of the time I have been decelerating to ~10 km/h and then only after double checking both ways there is no traffic at all, rolling through.

So yes, you can call me a hypocrite, and I apologize for my comments I've made in the past - I was wrong... I'm sorry. I am definitely seeing the other side of the story now.

(I have been coming to complete stops at all city street stop signs, no matter what the traffic situation is, however... There is a 4-way stop on the quiet city streets we live on. I have been surprised at how courteous the drivers have been here toward me on my bike - when I come to a complete stop, even if I don't have the right of way, I get waved through. I think it's because they see I made the effort.)

[jamincan]

There is a 4-way stop on the quiet city streets we live on. I have been surprised at how courteous the drivers have been here toward me on my bike - when I come to a complete stop, even if I don't have the right of way, I get waved through.

I actually really hate it when people do this. I prefer to be treated like normal traffic as it makes things much more predictable.

[Viewfromthe42]

There is a 4-way stop on the quiet city streets we live on. I have been surprised at how courteous the drivers have been here toward me on my bike - when I come to a complete stop, even if I don't have the right of way, I get waved through.

I actually really hate it when people do this. I prefer to be treated like normal traffic as it makes things much more predictable.

As was said earlier, the risk is high when you get into a situation where one, two, or three motorists break the rules of the road by waving through a cyclist/giving priority to a cyclist who should not have had it, and one additional driver doesn't do this, a collision results, and it is the cyclist's fault that they were injured. At the very least, the Spur Line has become nice in that it reduces bicycle/car interactions (and, consequently, stop signs for the cycling route).

[MidTowner]

I agree that predictability is better. I find it annoying when motorists cede their right of way to me whether I’m on foot or bike. I guess I find it more annoying when they take my right of way… it’s safer when everyone can be counted on to obey the rules, even when that might seem discourteous.

Canard, I won’t call you a hypocrite. Opinions change based on facts and experiences. It’s hard to understand the pure logic of the Idaho stop until one has actually been on a bike a few times. The problem is that so many people around here are nearly never on foot or bike, so they have no perspective but from behind the windshield. Their behaviour and opinions obviously reflect that.

[clasher]

I've stopped taking the right of way when people cede it out some misplaced sense of courtesy, especially at stop signs but more importantly on the roads where trails cross and there is no expectation of motorists to stop. The worst is when there is only one car and they stop to wave me on. I flip out because if they'd have kept going I could usually just roll though without have to stop and put a foot down. Some drivers get pretty mad when I won't walk or bike in front of their car... I really don't understand the mentality of these people.

[jamincan]

I can understand the frustration. In their mind they're extending a courtesy and you're rejecting it. Normally that would be considered rude and it's difficult to explain the reasoning when someone is in a car. That's not to say we should compromise on safety, but a lot of people are woefully ignorant of safe and defensive driving practices, which is a shame.

[KevinL]

I'm guessing they simply see it as a courtesy and don't consider the larger factors, then are puzzled when you refuse their 'generosity'.

[panamaniac]

I'm guessing they simply see it as a courtesy and don't consider the larger factors, then are puzzled when you refuse their 'generosity'.

One of the things that these "courteous" drivers seem not to take into account is oncoming traffic.  You clear the path for your half of the road without thinking about the fact that the oncoming traffic has not come to a stop.  Accident waiting to happen.

[clasher]

I'm guessing they simply see it as a courtesy and don't consider the larger factors, then are puzzled when you refuse their 'generosity'.

One of the things that these "courteous" drivers seem not to take into account is oncoming traffic.  You clear the path for your half of the road without thinking about the fact that the oncoming traffic has not come to a stop.  Accident waiting to happen.

Something like this happened to me in a roudabout recently. The "courteous" driver stopped seeing me heading toward the crossing but if they'd kept going there would have been a safe gap for me to cross right after they passed the crosswalk. Where they stopped blocked my view of the other lane and while I stood there waving them on traffic continued on their left because they didn't see me or they knew that bikes apparently don't have right of way where the pedestrians would. It was only when I got on my bike and started to ride down homer-watson that the "courteous" driver finally continued on their way obviously shouting something at me... it's a shame their windows weren't open since I had words to return in kind. I did not have to wait long for a gap to open up to cross to the first island and there traffic is slow and hitting a gap is pretty easy and doesn't slow any drivers down since they are either stopped or slowing anyway. If it wouldn't have been rush hour I'd have just been on the road "taking the lane"


I'm the blue dot if my explanation isn't clear enough.

[timc]

Something like this happened to me in a roudabout recently. The "courteous" driver stopped seeing me heading toward the crossing but if they'd kept going there would have been a safe gap for me to cross right after they passed the crosswalk. Where they stopped blocked my view of the other lane and while I stood there waving them on traffic continued on their left because they didn't see me or they knew that bikes apparently don't have right of way where the pedestrians would. It was only when I got on my bike and started to ride down homer-watson that the "courteous" driver finally continued on their way obviously shouting something at me... it's a shame their windows weren't open since I had words to return in kind. I did not have to wait long for a gap to open up to cross to the first island and there traffic is slow and hitting a gap is pretty easy and doesn't slow any drivers down since they are either stopped or slowing anyway. If it wouldn't have been rush hour I'd have just been on the road "taking the lane"

This situation seems a bit confusing to me. If you are using the pedestrian crossing, you should be walking your bike. And motorists are instructed to yield to pedestrians (even if this isn't legally required -- yet). So it seems to me that the driver might have been doing the right thing in this case.

[highlander]

This situation seems a bit confusing to me. If you are using the pedestrian crossing, you should be walking your bike. And motorists are instructed to yield to pedestrians (even if this isn't legally required -- yet). So it seems to me that the driver might have been doing the right thing in this case.

It is confusing, but the law has changed from:

"No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (29)."

To this:

"No person shall ride or operate a bicycle across a roadway within a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location, other than an intersection, which is controlled by a traffic control signal system. 2015, c. 14, s. 40 (2)."

Cyclists are now allowed to ride "along a crosswalk". In fact, the region is encouraging this in the way they are designing roundabouts (the best examples being Homer Watson-Block Line and Westmount-Laurelwood, not to mention the future Fischer-Hallman & Bleams, which I mentioned in the cycling thread because it actually affects me   )

[panamaniac]

Something like this happened to me in a roudabout recently. The "courteous" driver stopped seeing me heading toward the crossing but if they'd kept going there would have been a safe gap for me to cross right after they passed the crosswalk. Where they stopped blocked my view of the other lane and while I stood there waving them on traffic continued on their left because they didn't see me or they knew that bikes apparently don't have right of way where the pedestrians would. It was only when I got on my bike and started to ride down homer-watson that the "courteous" driver finally continued on their way obviously shouting something at me... it's a shame their windows weren't open since I had words to return in kind. I did not have to wait long for a gap to open up to cross to the first island and there traffic is slow and hitting a gap is pretty easy and doesn't slow any drivers down since they are either stopped or slowing anyway. If it wouldn't have been rush hour I'd have just been on the road "taking the lane"

This situation seems a bit confusing to me. If you are using the pedestrian crossing, you should be walking your bike. And motorists are instructed to yield to pedestrians (even if this isn't legally required -- yet). So it seems to me that the driver might have been doing the right thing in this case.

The thing that makes me nervous in the roundabout situation is that while the car in the right-hand lane may be yielding to a pedestrian/cyclist, approaching traffic in the left-hand lane may not be able to see the pedestrian or even be aware that that is what the other car is doing - if they are looking to the left to see if they need to yield, a serious car-pedestrian accident could easily occur.  This nearly happened to me a few months back (I was the offending left-hand lane driver) and I am now super vigilant to confirm whether the right-hand lane car is stopped for a pedestrian.

[ijmorlan]

I’ve actually witnessed somebody stopped on Moore at Allen to let kids cross Moore. This is before the intersection was changed to a 4-way stop. So Allen had stop signs but Moore was supposed to take the right-of-way. Anyway, this person was flipping off all the opposing direction traffic which was continuing through as per the rules. So they managed to not help the kids while possibly making other people wonder why they were being insulted.

I was not impressed. We have pre-determined rules for a reason; if everybody starts being rude to everybody else for violating their particular idea of how the rules ought to be (but are not), then it starts getting more than a little confusing.

Having said that, I think the frequency of this behaviour of ceding right-of-way says that many motorists are actually happy to share the right of way, do care about pedestrians, and would be happy with rules that gave pedestrians more priority. This in turn makes me think that two-lane roads with plentiful pedestrian refuges should be the model for most busy streets. On such a road, stopping at a pedestrian refuge to allow pedestrians to cross actually is safe because it completely stops the traffic between the refuge and one side of the road.

Of course, when I suggested that this might be appropriate on Allen (and other streets) at the Spur Line Trail, it went right over the heads of the city staff. They started talking about the new crosswalk legislation as if it was some great new innovation when really it’s just a minor tweak to the allowed options for crosswalk signage.

[clasher]

Something like this happened to me in a roudabout recently. The "courteous" driver stopped seeing me heading toward the crossing but if they'd kept going there would have been a safe gap for me to cross right after they passed the crosswalk. Where they stopped blocked my view of the other lane and while I stood there waving them on traffic continued on their left because they didn't see me or they knew that bikes apparently don't have right of way where the pedestrians would. It was only when I got on my bike and started to ride down homer-watson that the "courteous" driver finally continued on their way obviously shouting something at me... it's a shame their windows weren't open since I had words to return in kind. I did not have to wait long for a gap to open up to cross to the first island and there traffic is slow and hitting a gap is pretty easy and doesn't slow any drivers down since they are either stopped or slowing anyway. If it wouldn't have been rush hour I'd have just been on the road "taking the lane"

This situation seems a bit confusing to me. If you are using the pedestrian crossing, you should be walking your bike. And motorists are instructed to yield to pedestrians (even if this isn't legally required -- yet). So it seems to me that the driver might have been doing the right thing in this case.

Even if I was on foot I would have still waved the driver on because traffic in the far lane wasn't stopping because the drivers couldn't see me. The multi-use path on block line just turns into a wider sidewalk and with the road being made 4 lanes wide there isn't enough lane to share with cars unless one is willing to take the lane and aggressively defend that position in the roundabout. The city/region should just suck it up and install a hovenring given the foot traffic from the school