Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

What the person in the article is requesting is a re-evaluation of our rights of way and public realm - which is already happening starting with Davie. In fact the preliminary design has neither bus nor bike lanes on Robson.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/west-end-villages.aspx

If the first pass doesn't give them a lane on Davie, they'll keep going until the second or third or fourth pass does. Cycling advocates are pushing for "reevaluations" on behalf of themselves - any benefit to pedestrians or transit users is at best a byproduct and at worst a coincidence.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The point they are making, that many bike advocates make when cyclists are breaking the law.

"It's ok because cyclists have it harder that everybody else." It's always an excuse and a blame game, never taking responsibility.

I mean, it worked for the weed lobbyists?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The point they are making, that many bike advocates make when cyclists are breaking the law.

"It's ok because cyclists have it harder that everybody else." It's always an excuse and a blame game, never taking responsibility.

I think she said (it's a design issue):

I edited the quote because the text is different (below) from the article than what Warren posted). Not sure if the earliest quote was from another part of the article:

"Cycling advocate Lucy Maloney says the petition encapsulates the unnecessary conflicts caused by the city's failure to redesign streets to reflect significant social changes, especially the massive increase in the public's appetite for food delivery services.

"Food delivery workers bear the brunt of a difficult time and financial pressures,” she adds.

"The commercial streets in the West End are car-focused, lacking any cycling infrastructure and very few designated delivery zones.”"

While a licensing program is worthwhile at all the power to make that come true but the core issue is competition for scarce space.

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yes but no.



More often than not, it's the Strong/Fearless 1-7% causing all the problems.

Haha yeah I’d argue that the strong/fearless ones are the road warriors/cyclists who will ride on the roads. The delivery folks riding on the sidewalks ain’t fearless, that’s why they’re on the sidewalks.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If the first pass doesn't give them a lane on Davie, they'll keep going until the second or third pass does. Cycling advocates are pushing for "reevaluations" on behalf of themselves - any benefit to pedestrians or transit users is a coincidence.

Of course they will keep advocating for space for cycling. That's their MO.

City staff and Council can approve all kinds of public realm designs and they'll get built. Whether they are good or not.

The Bute-Robson plaza for instance is a real mish-mash.

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Davie, Denman and Robson might not have bike lanes, but the streets next to them do. If anything gets put on the arterials, it should be bus lanes (that is, unless bike advocates are willing to reciprocate with a trolley route on Comox or Haro).

So all the shops and destinations are on those streets without bike infrastructure. So it’s entirely possible those folks rode to those destinations on bike lanes but for that last block or two, they are on the side walk to avoid getting hit by cars as they get to their destinations. I think that’s a very likely scenario, no?

Would you support removing street parkings on those arterial roads so bikes can ride on them instead?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

So all the shops and destinations are on those streets without bike infrastructure. So it’s entirely possible those folks rode to those destinations on bike lanes but for that last block or two, they are on the side walk to avoid getting hit by cars as they get to their destinations. I think that’s a very likely scenario, no?

From walking around the area daily, 85% yes. (scooters hellz no)

A big factor in using the sidewalk is the bikes are heavy to lift up a curb and they can use the pedestrian curb ramps at intersections to get access to the stores. Not to mention if you're on the road, you'd have to get your bike and the load between parked cars and up onto the sidewalk.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Of course they will keep advocating for space for cycling. That's their MO...

... The Bute-Robson plaza for instance is a real mish-mash.

Yeah, and it doesn't mean everybody else has to give it to them.

Ditto the N/S walk cycle at Burrard and Cornwall. Bikes get the green light every time... but pedestrians have to push the button, otherwise they get a red? They're literally travelling in the same direction. And pedestrians have to stop a full ten seconds before the bikes do? It's pretty clear which interest groups were/weren't in the room when they designed that one.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, and it doesn't mean everybody else has to give it to them.

Ditto the N/S walk cycle at Burrard and Cornwall. Bikes get the green light every time... but pedestrians have to push the button, otherwise they get a red? They're literally travelling in the same direction. And pedestrians have to stop a full ten seconds before the bikes do? It's pretty clear which interest groups were/weren't in the room when they designed that one.

From the looks of things there will be no bike lanes on Davie, Denman or Robson.

I personally am not aware of cyclists being a reason behind a City Engineering department's pedestrian "beg-button" design and traffic light syncing at that intersection.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

Haha yeah I’d argue that the strong/fearless ones are the road warriors/cyclists who will ride on the roads. The delivery folks riding on the sidewalks ain’t fearless, that’s why they’re on the sidewalks.

Originally Posted by NetMapel

So all the shops and destinations are on those streets without bike infrastructure. So it’s entirely possible those folks rode to those destinations on bike lanes but for that last block or two, they are on the side walk to avoid getting hit by cars as they get to their destinations. I think that’s a very likely scenario, no?

The line between "fearless" and "not giving a f**k" is thinner than one would think.

Nothing is stopping them from getting off and walking for the last two blocks... but of course, they gotta go fast to maximize their revenue. Gig drivers exhibit reckless behaviour, that's the fault of the drivers; gig bikers exhibit reckless behaviour, that means they need more space?* That doesn't add up.

*E-scooters fall somewhere in between, possibly due to how new they are.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I personally am not aware of cyclists being a reason behind a City Engineering department's pedestrian "beg-button" design and traffic light syncing at that intersection.

It's a standard crosswalk; both pedestrians and cyclists are travelling in the same direction, and there are no space conflicts. If the bikes can go, the pedestrians can go.

I'm willing to accept unconscious bias, but it's nevertheless a bias.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Nothing is stopping them from getting off and walking for the last two blocks...

You'd be hard-pressed to find regular non delivery folks that would even do this.

Biking is not permitted on sidewalks, there is a fine, and a structure for enforcement. We apparently could also license these cyclists. We can wait and see if this all will have an affect.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's a standard crosswalk; both pedestrians and cyclists are travelling in the same direction, and there are no space conflicts. If the bikes can go, the pedestrians can go.

I'm willing to accept unconscious bias, but it's nevertheless a bias.

Again, I personally can't confirm if cyclists we're behind Engineering's design on this item. Not sure what the benefit would be.

Could be that there is some Engineering math on "pedestrians require "X" seconds to cross according to the big book of rules".

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I mean, it worked for the weed lobbyists?

The primary impact on others with weed smokers (second hand smoke) was an issue and remains a problem (and remains illegal in all of the same spots). Apples and oranges IMO.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

Haha yeah I’d argue that the strong/fearless ones are the road warriors/cyclists who will ride on the roads. The delivery folks riding on the sidewalks ain’t fearless, that’s why they’re on the sidewalks.

I'd argue that if you're too scared to ride your fat tire e-bike on relatively calm streets like those in the west end, you're unsuited to be an uber eats courier.

Furthermore, if they are so scared, why do none of them wear helmets?

They are lazy, selfish pricks, who don't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about anybody else.

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, and it doesn't mean everybody else has to give it to them.

Ditto the N/S walk cycle at Burrard and Cornwall. Bikes get the green light every time... but pedestrians have to push the button, otherwise they get a red? They're literally travelling in the same direction. And pedestrians have to stop a full ten seconds before the bikes do? It's pretty clear which interest groups were/weren't in the room when they designed that one.

I hardly think Vancouver got a powerful big bike lobby group. If we did, ABC wouldn’t be nicknamed “anti-bike council” by urban advocates hehe!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I hardly think Vancouver got a powerful big bike lobby group. If we did, ABC wouldn’t be nicknamed “anti-bike council” by urban advocates hehe!

We have a loud vocal minority of cyclists, that much is clear.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The primary impact on others with weed smokers (second hand smoke) was an issue and remains a problem (and remains illegal in all of the same spots). Apples and oranges IMO.

Methodology, not social impact. The "keep breaking rules until the rules get changed" playbook has delivered in the past for many other groups (some more important, some less) than just bikes and cannabis.

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I hardly think Vancouver got a powerful big bike lobby group. If we did, ABC wouldn’t be nicknamed “anti-bike council” by urban advocates hehe!

That speaks more to the power of City Council and who they listen to - if the car lobby was so strong, Point Grey Road and Nanaimo wouldn't exist, nor would Critical Mass.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Methodology, not social impact. The "keep breaking rules until the rules get changed" playbook has delivered in the past for many other groups (some more important, some less) than just bikes and cannabis.

Sure. Far better with victimless crimes though, which I'd argue "bikes on sidewalks" isn't. Hence the guy getting so upset about it and going to the news.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That speaks more to the power of City Council and who they listen to - if the car lobby was so strong, Point Grey Road and Nanaimo wouldn't exist, nor would Critical Mass.

Agreed. Or enforcement of the very issue we're talking about.

[GenWhy?]

I don't think many people are a fan of the Nanaimo design outcome. Another clever Engineering mish-mash. North of Hastings it's just useless and dumb design.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think many people are a fan of the Nanaimo design outcome. Another clever Engineering mish-mash. North of Hastings it's just useless and dumb design.

If you're talking about the one-lane-in-each-direction with a centre left turn lane and cycling lanes on each side, I think it works pretty well. I drive down Nanaimo every so often and no longer have to deal with people blocking the traffic lane to turn left or people turning right that are too inconsiderate to pull out of the travel lane. The only real choke points are northbound past 1st Avenue and southbound past Hastings where two lanes merge into one - and most people now seem to have figured out how to do that reasonably smoothly.

I do agree that the couple of blocks of north of Hastings seem pretty useless, though.