Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[deasine]

With the downtown bike lanes, you can say there has been a lot of debate and controversy, but if the residents are also onboard (the main stakeholders), which seems to be the case, this means the conversation for this has already started and will be implemented. I don't see what's wrong if the conversation has started.

[radacal]

What are the chances of getting a sign installed at the north of the Burrard Street Bridge asking cyclists to utilize their dedicated bike lane on Hornby? (instead of clogging up the bus lane on Burrard)...just asking.

[s211]

Originally Posted by radacal

What are the chances of getting a sign installed at the north of the Burrard Street Bridge asking cyclists to utilize their dedicated bike lane on Hornby? (instead of clogging up the bus lane on Burrard)...just asking.

More likely to get the sign installed than to get them to follow its instructions.

Take the no-bike signs on Cambie Bridge's west sidewalk, for example. They're ignored with aplomb and vigour.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Take the no-bike signs on Cambie Bridge's west sidewalk, for example. They're ignored with aplomb and vigour.

I don't know why you constantly bring this up. I take the Cambie St. bridge every day, and I hardly ever see pedestrians on the west side, and never see cyclists.

[s211]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't know why you constantly bring this up. I take the Cambie St. bridge every day, and I hardly ever see pedestrians on the west side, and never see cyclists.

I walk the west sidewalk every day when it's not raining, and confront a cyclist at least once a day. They seriously don't give a whit. Best one this morning was a girl with a helmet hanging from her handle bars.

I raise it because they endanger pedestrians on a sidewalk not made for bike and pedestrian traffic, and are self-absorbed because they're only thinking of their own protection.

No better than some wag driving a honking tall SUV so that he/she can see better, but block everyone else's view in the meantime. Selfish and self-absorbed.

[officedweller]

Of interest - Toronto Star reports on that UBC study's findings on streetcar tracks causing a third of serious bike accidents:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/...blamed-for-a-third-of-bicycling-injuries

Maybe that's why Vision has taken the Downtown Streetcar off the City's agenda...

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by s211

Take the no-bike signs on Cambie Bridge's west sidewalk, for example. They're ignored with aplomb and vigour.

Take the no-pedestrian signs on Burrard Bridge's east sidewalk, for example. They're ignored with aplomb and vigour.

Cyclists, pedestrians, drivers - they're all equally adept at ignoring instructions. The only solution is better design.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Take the no-pedestrian signs on Burrard Bridge's east sidewalk, for example. They're ignored with aplomb and vigour.

Cyclists, pedestrians, drivers - they're all equally adept at ignoring instructions. The only solution is better design.

The only solution? Please... How about adding ENFORCEMENT to the list? This city enforces absolutely d!ck, unless it involves the cutting of a tree.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by s211

The only solution? Please... How about adding ENFORCEMENT to the list? This city enforces absolutely d!ck, unless it involves the cutting of a tree.

I'd love to see pedestrians ticketed for walking on bike paths.

That said, the proper solution to reducing conflicts is better design, not mindless finger-pointing and whining.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I'd love to see pedestrians ticketed for walking on bike paths.

That said, the proper solution to reducing conflicts is better design, not mindless finger-pointing and whining.

Irony.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I'd love to see pedestrians ticketed for walking on bike paths.

As much as I'm annoyed by pedestrians blocking a cycle path, is it actually illegal for them to walk on it?

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Of interest - Toronto Star reports on that UBC study's findings on streetcar tracks causing a third of serious bike accidents:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/...blamed-for-a-third-of-bicycling-injuries

Maybe that's why Vision has taken the Downtown Streetcar off the City's agenda...

From a recent UBC cycling study:

"Grossman was commenting on a study that concluded certain types of routes carry much lower risk of injury for cyclists. The study, published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, analyzed the cause of 690 cycling injuries in Vancouver and Toronto in 2008 and 2009 and various route types and infrastructure.

It concluded that the greatest risk to cyclists is when they share major streets with parked cars, with no bike lanes present - such as on Broadway in Vancouver - and that without a designated space on the road, cyclists face a greater risk of injury from moving cars and car doors opening.



In contrast, the study concluded, roads with infrastructure designed for cyclists - including bike lanes on major streets without parked cars, residential street bike routes, and off-street bike paths - carry about half the risk, while physically separated bike lanes carry about one-tenth the risk."

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=7415693

It is interesting to note that the safest bike route in this study was the physically separated bike lane, it even beat the off street path!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

It is interesting to note that the safest bike route in this study was the physically separated bike lane, it even beat the off street path!

Could be the interaction with pedestrians on a lot of those off-street routes. I'm thinking about the seawall for example.

[officedweller]

That would be my guess too - off-street is shared with joggers, pedestrians with pets on long leashes, etc.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Could be the interaction with pedestrians on a lot of those off-street routes. I'm thinking about the seawall for example.

It surprised me though how much different it was. I thought about the pedestrian/pets as well. Sometimes when I am biking on the pathways in Surrey and North Delta as I go up towards pedestrians that are walking the same direction as me I have had them suddenly turn around and start walking the other way around but on the other side of the multi-use path just before I pass by them. I have had a couple of close calls. One pretty much has to use a bell for every person they pass that isn't looking at them and sometimes the ones that are.

[officedweller]

Even when jogging, you often say "Passing on the left/right" when you observe particular people who either flail arms, take up too much space or veer all over the path when walking.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Sometimes when I am biking on the pathways in Surrey and North Delta as I go up towards pedestrians that are walking the same direction as me I have had them suddenly turn around and start walking the other way around but on the other side of the multi-use path just before I pass by them. I have had a couple of close calls.

Yeah, pedestrians can be really unpredictable, probably even more unpredictable than cyclists must seem to be to drivers. There's probably a universal law in there somewhere. For example I'll bet that truckers and bus drivers feel the same way about cars.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Even when jogging, you often say "Passing on the left/right" when you observe particular people who either flail arms, take up too much space or veer all over the path when walking.

My bike has a bell and I use it when I think there could be a conflict. I like it because it instantly identifies me as a bicycle without the person having to take that extra time to figure out exactly what's going on.

[whatnext]

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out BIXI bike share will cost Vancouver taxpayers millions of dollars. Even more maddening some of those millions will go straight to the City of Montreal who had to bail out BIXI.
http://www.straight.com/article-827736/v...e-share-program-puts-millions-taxes-risk

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out BIXI bike share will cost Vancouver taxpayers millions of dollars. Even more maddening some of those millions will go straight to the City of Montreal who had to bail out BIXI.
http://www.straight.com/article-827736/v...e-share-program-puts-millions-taxes-risk

This was inevitable from the very beginning.

I wrote the following in this thread on June 10, 2012, when it was announced that Vision would be implementing a supposedly self-sustaining bike sharing enterprise:

When a city is as heavily involved and invested in the implementation and success of an "enterprise" as this city council is, then it inevitably creates a liability for the taxpayers. What if the company can't make a go of it, especially considering that the province has made it illegal to not wear a helmet (a problem which has no economically viable resolution as of yet)? Do you think this city council will allow a project in which its ideological reputation is so heavily invested to fail?

The taxpayers are already liable for providing "space for stations, marketing and communications support, and permitting support and costs." It will be just a matter of time before the taxpayers will be directly subsidizing operating costs as well.