Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[IanS]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If the 2-way bike lane goes on Hornby, I wonder whether it would be on the west or east side of the street?

If consistent with Dunsmuir, it would be on the east side of the street,
HOWEVER - linkages at Pacific would probably favour a west side allignment since the sidwalk in front of Bicylce Sports Pacific can be clawed back and a bike lane to the southbround bridge can be installed, while the existing northbound bridge lane would just mean crossing Pacific at Kettle of Fish.

That would mean no left turns from Hornby - which would make sense, because most Hornby traffic comes from Burrard Bridge, so drivers will know to stay on Burrard if they are going west of Hornby.

I was thinking about this while walking down Horby today and I think a bike lane on the west side would probably be the less harmful of the two options. Yes, it would eliminate parking in front of the retail locations, but I think there's likely more parking options on the other side of the street. And, as you say, eliminating left turns from Hornby will almost certainly cause less damage than eliminating right turns.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IanS

I was thinking about this while walking down Horby today and I think a bike lane on the west side would probably be the less harmful of the two options. Yes, it would eliminate parking in front of the retail locations, but I think there's likely more parking options on the other side of the street. And, as you say, eliminating left turns from Hornby will almost certainly cause less damage than eliminating right turns.

Just to add to my own post, I think this would also require more opportunities to turn left off Burrard, as I think some drivers use Hornby to make a left onto Davie to get into the West End. If there are no longer any left turns permitted on Hornby, and no right turns on Hornby coming off the bridge, it will be pretty difficult to drive to the West End coming north over the Burrard Street bridge.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That all looks pretty permanent for a "trial".

On a macro level, has any society ever succeeded by making the flow of good and people less efficient? Just sayin'...

Was thinking the exact same thing. Kinda like the Burrard Bridge "trial".

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That all looks pretty permanent for a "trial".

If you read the council order, it's stated pretty clearly that a variety of barrier types are being used in order to evaluate the performance and response to each different type of barrier. If a principle purpose of the trial is to evaluate the various barrier options for performance, you need those barrier types to be built. You cannot fake it.

Temporary barriers like the concrete blocks on Burrard would have been completely unacceptable to businesses on Dunsmuir (they're an eyesore). Design is everything in this sort of context.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Was thinking the exact same thing. Kinda like the Burrard Bridge "trial".

As has been pointed out numerous times already this project was never describied by the city as a "trial." It was always meant to be a permanent pilot project.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

As has been pointed out numerous times already this project was never describied by the city as a "trial." It was always meant to be a permanent pilot project.

That's right. It's not a "trial". It's a "pilot".

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interesting that the pedestrian incidents are 6 times higher here. Obviously a small sample size, but that's telling of the total obliviousness and entitlement you see from the average Vancouver pedestrian.

Are you serious? A friend of mine five years ago got her leg bruised up to hell after a collision with a courier cyclist at Melville and Thurlow at the blind corner. The cyclist was going north on Thurlow on the sidewalk (aka against the one way flow of traffic) and going way too fast on the sidewalk and clipped her as she got around the blind corner. A lot of cyclists feel entitled to use the sidewalk and think they do not have to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks like cars do. Oh they blow through red lights as well. You're the if you think pedestrians are the problem.

[Zassk]

Cyclists not wanting to stop and take their feet off the pedals is a big problem, and I've had cyclists shout at me many times because I assumed that they would stop when they should. That is my biggest pet peeve. I have no issue with stopping when I'm cycling, and it gives cyclists a bad name that some insist on maintaining their momentum at any risk. It's a two-wheeled vehicle, and its driver needs to stop whenever safety and rules of the road demand it. Ok, blood pressure falling again...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by DKaz

A lot of cyclists feel entitled to use the sidewalk and think they do not have to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks like cars do.

It's illegal to cycle on the sidewalk if you're over 16 years of age, so if a cyclist hits a pedestrian on a sidewalk then there's really no question of who's at fault.

The same applies to crosswalks. But with crosswalks, I've often seen pedestrians stepping away from the curb when they don't have the light and without really paying much attention to what's coming at them. I'm sure that's going to be an issue with the new cycling lane on Dunsmuir, and the only thing I can say to fellow cyclists is to be careful out there!

People are people, and they make mistakes whether they're drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. I don't really believe that there's any one group that has a monopoly on idiots. But motorists have the advantage of a steel cocoon so accidents are a lot more likely to hurt whatever they hit than themselves.

[racc]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Are you serious? A friend of mine five years ago got her leg bruised up to hell after a collision with a courier cyclist at Melville and Thurlow at the blind corner. The cyclist was going north on Thurlow on the sidewalk (aka against the one way flow of traffic) and going way too fast on the sidewalk and clipped her as she got around the blind corner. A lot of cyclists feel entitled to use the sidewalk and think they do not have to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks like cars do. Oh they blow through red lights as well. You're the if you think pedestrians are the problem.

Cars stopping at crosswalks. Get real. What happens all the time is a car in one lane will stop and the driver just behind them will speed up and do a quick lane change and speed through the crosswalk. Drivers are always blowing red lights as well. Why do you think there are cameras all over the city. Just as bad, drivers often end up in the middle of the intersections during red lights which both blocks traffic and is really dangerous. Bottom line though, is that drivers kill 20-30 pedestrians per year in Vancouver.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by DKaz

A lot of cyclists feel entitled to use the sidewalk and think they do not have to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks like cars do. Oh they blow through red lights as well. You're the if you think pedestrians are the problem.

Obviously riding on the sidewalk is indefensible. That said, pedestrians who walk on bike paths are deserving of the same scorn. I cannot count the number of times I've had to do an emergency stop because of a pedestrian veering onto the bike-only path without even looking. You wouldn't run onto a road without looking, a bike path should be no different. One should be even more cautious, actually, because everyone involved will be injured.

It's not just pedestrians -- the closest call I ever had was when an unleashed dog decided to try and attack me head-on. Stupid owner, lucky dog.

Ultimately, I think the the distribution of idiots in society is pretty uniform. You're always going to have a bad drivers, bad cyclists, and oblivious pedestrians. The trick is to mitigate the risks through good design.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

As has been pointed out numerous times already this project was never describied by the city as a "trial." It was always meant to be a permanent pilot project.

A "permanent pilot project" must be a new, made in Vancouver contradiction in terms that is quite impressive; even in these parts. Websters defines a "pilot project" as an "activity planned as a test or trial". So unless the city has come up with new meanings for these words (which at this point would not be that beyond the realm of possibility), the words "permanent" and "pilot project" contradict each other. but then again contradiction is nothing new to the City of Vancouver. But hey, why let little details like this and the fact that inducing congestion will only increase overall pollution levels get in the way of some feel-good pie-in-the-sky daydreaming.

[cornholio]

well it shouldn't be to difficult to rip out again once this council gets tossed.
hopefully we get some reforms in how municipal governments are run so they can be more accountable for their actions and to their citizens.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Are you serious? A friend of mine five years ago got her leg bruised up to hell after a collision with a courier cyclist at Melville and Thurlow at the blind corner. The cyclist was going north on Thurlow on the sidewalk (aka against the one way flow of traffic) and going way too fast on the sidewalk and clipped her as she got around the blind corner. A lot of cyclists feel entitled to use the sidewalk and think they do not have to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks like cars do. Oh they blow through red lights as well. You're the if you think pedestrians are the problem.

Clearly your single anecdotal story sums up the entire traffic situation in the city.

Take 15 mins and watch the goings on of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians downtown or in kits. Then tell me which group breaks the law the most.

Drivers break the rules the least amount of times, yet their actions have the largest consequences, then cyclists, then pedestrians, who are "all over the place" for lack of a better description. What makes a jaywalk less of a crime than rolling through a stop sign?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Clearly your single anecdotal story sums up the entire traffic situation in the city.

Take 15 mins and watch the goings on of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians downtown or in kits. Then tell me which group breaks the law the most.

Please tell me you were intending to be ironic here.

[racc]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Clearly your single anecdotal story sums up the entire traffic situation in the city.

Take 15 mins and watch the goings on of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians downtown or in kits. Then tell me which group breaks the law the most.

Drivers break the rules the least amount of times, yet their actions have the largest consequences, then cyclists, then pedestrians, who are "all over the place" for lack of a better description. What makes a jaywalk less of a crime than rolling through a stop sign?

I wouldn't be so sure that drivers break the rules the least. I think drivers are so used to breaking the rules and so used to seeing the rules broken, they actually don't even notice anymore. Don't forget that the speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. Exceeding it even by 1 km/h is still breaking the rules. When turning right on red, drivers must come to a complete stop, very few do unless they are going to hit something. Then there is failure to signal while changing lanes, talking on cell phones, stopping in no stopping zones, stopping in bike lanes, using the bus lanes, getting stuck in the middle of an intersection during a red light, rolling through stops etc.

Regarding collisions involving cyclists, in the 1999 bicycle plan, the city found drivers were at fault more of the time than cyclists and I suspect 100% of the time, the cyclist got the worst of it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Clearly your single anecdotal story sums up the entire traffic situation in the city.

Take 15 mins and watch the goings on of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians downtown or in kits. Then tell me which group breaks the law the most.

Drivers break the rules the least amount of times, yet their actions have the largest consequences, then cyclists, then pedestrians, who are "all over the place" for lack of a better description. What makes a jaywalk less of a crime than rolling through a stop sign?

While there are certainly many poor drivers, you can pretty much be guaranteed they are not going drive up on the sidewalk and rarely drive the wrong way down a street as a matter of habit. Cyclists frequently do both. In fact what makes cyclists so dangerous is their sheer unpredictability. You never know when they are going to decide they want to be treated as a vehicle, or as a pedestrian. And as pointed out in a Vancouver Sun article on bike safety recently, bikes aren't even sold with the minimum of safety gear - imagine trying to buy a car without lights! http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/...735/story.html
And we all know how are cycling zealots will vigorously defend their right not wear a helmet (after all that's not how they do it in Copenhagen or wherever)

Interestingly, the article quotes Geoff Meggs as to how dumb that is. Nobody's pointed out that wrecking Dunsmuir as a vehicle route will conveniently pave the way for Meggs last-century pet project - getting rid of the viaducts. After all, make them so useless and unuseable, and what's the harm of tearing them down.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Take 15 mins and watch the goings on of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians downtown or in kits. Then tell me which group breaks the law the most.

racc's got a good point here. There are lots of small infractions going on all the time in all modes, which ones do you count? And is it fairer to count them by absolute number or "by capita" (ie, average number of infractions per motorist/cyclist/pedestrian) to account for the varying share of people per mode?

We're not going to solve the safety problem in this thread, I think the best we can do is to just admit that everyone screws up from time to time.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

While there are certainly many poor drivers, you can pretty much be guaranteed they are not going drive up on the sidewalk and rarely drive the wrong way down a street as a matter of habit. Cyclists frequently do both.

I wouldn't condone either action, but it should be clear that both activities are symptoms of a lack of space allocated for cyclists. If you took away the sidewalks, you can be sure pedestrians would be wandering on the street. Cyclists need our own space, but right now we're pushed to the very edge. The obvious solution to this problem is to develop a network of safe and practical lanes for cyclists to get where they need to go.

Since you acknowledge the problem, I assume you would agree with the solution or propose a clear alternative that is equally effective.

[officedweller]

I think the problem is the attitude of those breaking the law - that they have the right to so so or inconvenience others (i.e. the "me" generation and subsequent generations).

i.e. the cyclist who speeds down a sidewalk versus the cyclist on the sidewalk who is respectful of pedestrians

i.e. the pedestrian who casually saunters across the street jaywalking expecting cars to stop versus the pedestrian who acknowledges that he or she is in the wrong and at least makes an effort to dash across.

i..e. the driver who stops at a traffic light halfway across the crosswalk and stays there versus the driver who does so then backs up to clear the crosswalk.