Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[jollyburger]

I doubt there's much incentive for the government to really crack down unless you get so many head injury cases that it forces them to enforce the helmet law. I think that's why you don't have mandatory seat belts on buses or golf carts. With e-bikes and less courteous cyclists you assume there will be more conflicts even on dedicated paths.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My guess would be because the truck would be blocking both lanes of traffic on the roadway (or turning from the left lane) and there could also be the possibility of a stupid driver trying to pass the truck in the right lane and getting quished when the truck turned.
As for waiting to let the cyclist pass, there would likely always be another cyclist coming, so the timing is in line with when the truck approached, not stopping any particular cyclist.
It may also be harder for the truck to stop and then start up again (well, you'd see a big puff of exhaust if it did).

This almost happened to me a couple weeks ago on southbound on Ontario Street. A 5T delivery truck turned right in front of me across the separated bike lane to access the Langara parking lot. I had to brake pretty hard to stay out of the way. Usually I avoid riding in this particular lane because of the right hook danger but for whatever reason I used it that morning.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

....This logic really should apply to bicycles, imo. Riding a bike on a dedicated bike path should make helmets optional. Routes like the CVG, Seawall, Arbutus bikeway.

On street cycling and painted bike lanes can require them....

Sorry, but that would be silly. If your head hits the pavement from a spill it doesn't differentiate between a paved bike path and a paved road. For that matter, differentiating based on speed is not logical either as the bike is not locked into a set top speed, and our hilly terrain certainly doesn't help in that respect. All it would do is create a situation where people are more likely to travel without helmets everywhere. If you're out on a bike path and decide you want to go somewhere else, are you really likely to say "Oh, I don't have my helmet with me, guess I won't take a detour"?

I don't know why there's so much fuss about this. It's a safety device, they're not especially intrusive, and wearing a helmet is not a significant make-or-break factor for most people considering riding somewhere. Certainly not before weather, terrain, distance, purpose of the trip, cargo requirements, and many other factors.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My guess would be because the truck would be blocking both lanes of traffic on the roadway (or turning from the left lane) and there could also be the possibility of a stupid driver trying to pass the truck in the right lane and getting quished when the truck turned.
As for waiting to let the cyclist pass, there would likely always be another cyclist coming, so the timing is in line with when the truck approached, not stopping any particular cyclist.
It may also be harder for the truck to stop and then start up again (well, you'd see a big puff of exhaust if it did).

That's a bit of BS though. Like it or not, that bike lane is a lane of traffic and the truck should be WAITING for a lane of traffic to be CLEAR before proceeding. Should the cyclist have stopped and listened to the flagger? Yeah... for his own safety. But that truck simply didn't regard that bike lane to be a "real" lane of traffic.

The bike was level with the truck. The flagger can be there to stop the next cyclists as the truck enters the intersection, but these two vehicles were side by side on the road and the cyclist going STRAIGHT has the right of way over the truck making the turn crossing his lane.

The flagger should be there to stop the TRUCK to alert them that the lane is not clear, but let's be honest... they work for the construction company, not the city.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

That's a bit of BS though. Like it or not, that bike lane is a lane of traffic and the truck should be WAITING for a lane of traffic to be CLEAR before proceeding. Should the cyclist have stopped and listened to the flagger? Yeah... for his own safety. But that truck simply didn't regard that bike lane to be a "real" lane of traffic.

The bike was level with the truck. The flagger can be there to stop the next cyclists as the truck enters the intersection, but these two vehicles were side by side on the road and the cyclist going STRAIGHT has the right of way over the truck making the turn crossing his lane.

The flagger should be there to stop the TRUCK to alert them that the lane is not clear, but let's be honest... they work for the construction company, not the city.

If there was a lane (or lanes) of vehicle traffic the truck needed to cross the flagger would stop that lane to allow the truck to proceed. This happens all the time for making mid block left turns.

You're right, traffic management is provided by the construction company, but that isn't a secret. Their job is to allow the construction project to proceed by enabling efficient movement of the required construction vehicles; not to babysit the general public.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Sorry, but that would be silly. If your head hits the pavement from a spill it doesn't differentiate between a paved bike path and a paved road. For that matter, differentiating based on speed is not logical either as the bike is not locked into a set top speed, and our hilly terrain certainly doesn't help in that respect. All it would do is create a situation where people are more likely to travel without helmets everywhere. If you're out on a bike path and decide you want to go somewhere else, are you really likely to say "Oh, I don't have my helmet with me, guess I won't take a detour"?

I don't know why there's so much fuss about this. It's a safety device, they're not especially intrusive, and wearing a helmet is not a significant make-or-break factor for most people considering riding somewhere. Certainly not before weather, terrain, distance, purpose of the trip, cargo requirements, and many other factors.

Everyone has a different travel pattern. Not everyone goes somewhere on a whim. I'm not AGAINST helmets in general, whether it's in a car or a bike... but I don't think it makes sense for it to be mandated.

And I hear the "head splitting open hitting the sidewalk argument" a lot, but in reality many of the studies are flawed. I know there's this one study in Seattle they did which observed 4500 people and tracked how many non-helmeted vs helmeted had head injuries in the hospital to make a conclusion... but not only is the sample size small... but the study is flawed in general.

One observation... safer riders tended to be the ones wearing helmets... so was it the helmet or the rider's safety habits that reduced the Head injuries. They also found that more of the helmeted riders were white and affluent and tended to ride in parks and other non-conflict areas, which likely contributed more to their safety than the helmet.

Yes, there are pretty good studies on the safety IF you get into an accident but calling helmets the panacea to bike safety is ridiculous. One really shouldn't need a helmet riding your bike around the sea wall at 10–15kph. And in Vancouver at least, you usually are only a few blocks from a major bikeway anyhow.

As for me... I wear a helmet... even on those paths... mostly to protect my hair-free head from the sun... because caps are sweaty and gross an helmets provide better ventilation... so for me, they're definitely a safety device... saving my life from the ravages of UV-B radiation.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by madog222

If there was a lane (or lanes) of vehicle traffic the truck needed to cross the flagger would stop that lane to allow the truck to proceed. This happens all the time for making mid block left turns.

Yes I know that but that flagger was out way too late to stop that bicyclist and the truck just barrelling through without paying attention was dangerous. If it was a car, the truck would have slowed down BEFORE the turn and turned after the car cleared the turn point. The flagger wouldn't have jumped out in front the car, and this whole incident wouldn't have happened.

People just like to blame the cyclist but the whole situation is little more nuanced.

[Zepfancouver]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

That's a bit of BS though...
The flagger should be there to stop the TRUCK to alert them that the lane is not clear, but let's be honest... they work for the construction company, not the city.

The truck needs both southbound lanes to make this turn, you are not going to stop all traffic for minutes on end for 5 to 10 cyclist to make there right of way. You have a full construction crew making $50 to $90 an hour waiting for a slowpoke cyclist or pedestrian.
And you don't make things complicated by giving the flagger choices or judgements on who gets the right of way, that's when accidents happen, the flagger see a truck, stops all traffic and no one gets hurt.

Edit: Sorry for the spelling (their, sees) I was a little flustered when writing

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The flagger should be there to stop the TRUCK to alert them that the lane is not clear

this is just completely wrong.

they have a TMP, have gotten permission to use the road in this manner with flaggers, etc. and its the job of the cyclist to follow the flaggers directions. full stop.

[officedweller]

Flaggers stop car traffic all the time in various construction site scenarios to allow construction vehicles to have priority. It's especially true when trucks are backing up out of a site.

I think that it's a symptom of today's society that people are very 'rights' focussed, and unwilling to incur any inconvenience or impact on their lives or activities (think noise, road and sidewalk closures, diversions or delays). I think it started with the 'me' generation.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

...its the job of the cyclist to follow the flaggers directions. full stop.

BC Motor Vehicle Act, Section 141, "Obeying Flagger":

If a flagger is controlling the movements of traffic around the section of highway being worked on, a person must not drive or operate a vehicle other than as directed by the flagger.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

wearing a helmet is not a significant make-or-break factor for most people considering riding somewhere.

I think this is incorrect. Especially in our age of micro mobility sharing, many people may consider using a bike or scooter throughout their day even though they were not planning to when they left their home.

I rely on Mobi, walking, and transit to get everywhere. I frequently take the bus or walk to work, but then hop on a Mobi to get home. I flaunt the mandatory helmet law because in these situations my bike helmet is in my closet at home. I could wear a shared helmet, but I think those are pretty gross, and I could always carry my bike helmet with me, but that would be pretty inconvenient.

For people who are more law-abiding, I think it's inarguable that the mandatory helmet law may dissuade them from hoping on a shared bike.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

BC Motor Vehicle Act, Section 141, "Obeying Flagger":

Not to be pedantic, but Burrard isn't a highway. And wouldn't all flaggers on highways be employed as part of a Ministry of Transportation project? That would be quite different from a flagger working on a private housing development.

[WarrenC12]

Anybody defending the cyclist in that video has absolutely lost the plot.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Anybody defending the cyclist in that video has absolutely lost the plot.

I think two things can be true at once:
- the cyclist, by ignoring the flagger, was a complete bonehead who was willing to wager their life against saving a few seconds
- the flagger perhaps should have let the cyclist proceed before the truck completed its turn

I am curious about a couple things:
- What sorts of permits does a construction project need to have to use a flagger to direct traffic? Is there something that prescribes the flagger's actions or does they have discretion? There's a construction project that's been going on by our place for months, and overtime they have taken more of the roadway with fencing and are stopping vehicles more frequently. I hope those actions are allowing the project to proceed faster, but I do wonder how much "public space creep" these projects engage in over the months or years they are built.
- Have these flaggers always been required, or do we think this one is in place because of the high-profile right-hook cyclist death that occurred a year or two ago?
- Common sense aside (I think it would have been better for everyone - the truck driver, the flagger, the drivers on Burrard, etc. - if the cyclist gave way), are construction vehicles still required to follow traffic laws at intersections (e.g., that prominent "right turns yield to bikes" sign) even when a flagger is present? Obviously trucks often block intersections or make turns from several lanes over, but is this a grey area in regulations or are these actions specially permitted in the MVA?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Not to be pedantic, but Burrard isn't a highway. And wouldn't all flaggers on highways be employed as part of a Ministry of Transportation project? That would be quite different from a flagger working on a private housing development.

Here's what the definition of a "highway" is in the MVA:

"highway" includes

(a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,

(b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and

(c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited,

but does not include an industrial road;

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Here's what the definition of a "highway" is in the MVA:

You learn something new everyday. I stand corrected.

[Zepfancouver]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The flagger is also probably there because of the fatality at the Hornby & Pacific intersection a year or 2 ago...

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

...- Have these flaggers always been required, or do we think this one is in place because of the high-profile right-hook cyclist death that occurred a year or two ago?...

That was my first thinking a few weeks ago when I first saw these trucks turning onto Harwood St. with the help of a flagger.

The day of that fatal accident https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9663326#post9663326

Video of the incident https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9666760#post9666760

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

You learn something new everyday. I stand corrected.

That definition would derive from the historic common law term, which is equivalent to a public roadway.
Think of a "highwayman" or "highway robbery".

The exclusion of industrial roads may have to do with forest service roads or mining roads.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Anybody defending the cyclist in that video has absolutely lost the plot.

i dont understand it. they were just so in the wrong. they were doing something so dangerous. and ontop of that, they then acted like an ass by giving the finger.

so you know they learned nothing from this, and will continue to act in this manner. if they do this on a bike, odds are they also have a similar attitude in general.