Halifax Active Transportation

[atbw]

Originally Posted by JET

I am concerned about the bus/cyclist interactions. People waiting for buses standing in the cycling lane, and exiting a bus blindly into the cycling lane at bus stops (discovered that the other day exiting a bus, stepping onto the raised bike lane), felt nervous even before the lanes are in use. Will bikes stop when approaching a bus that has just stopped?

I think after a few bell dings people will figure it out. I'm curious to see what cyclist speeds are like through there, now that they don't have to pedal for their lives.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

I think after a few bell dings people will figure it out. I'm curious to see what cyclist speeds are like through there, now that they don't have to pedal for their lives.

Doesn't matter, they will ignore whatever rules are in place and then complain. It is what cyclists do.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Doesn't matter, they will ignore whatever rules are in place and then complain. It is what cyclists do.

In Amsterdam the cyclists are a rule upon themselves. We were warned repeatedly by our tour director to watch out for the cyclists, and one of the people on our tour was very nearly clubbed to death by a cyclist speeding past the bus door as she attempted to exit the bus.

Since bicycles are faster and more massive than pedestrians, you would think that pedestrians should have the right of way, don't you think.........

[JET]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In Amsterdam the cyclists are a rule upon themselves. We were warned repeatedly by our tour director to watch out for the cyclists, and one of the people on our tour was very nearly clubbed to death by a cyclist speeding past the bus door as she attempted to exit the bus.

Since bicycles are faster and more massive than pedestrians, you would think that pedestrians should have the right of way, don't you think.........

I'm not concerned about the cyclists with bells that follow the rules of the road, I find that many cyclists don't have bells, don't use bells, don't wear helmets, ride side by side, ride on sidewalks and streets as they choose don't follow traffic lights and signs, use crosswalks as if they are pedestrians, those folks are dangerous to themselves and others. I don't often use a bike but when I do I use my bell and give right of way to pedestrians. I have almost been knocked down a few times by people that blow right past me with no warning. Many cyclists are courteous and law abiding, I fear for the ones that are not, they are dangerous.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by JET

I am concerned about the bus/cyclist interactions. People waiting for buses standing in the cycling lane, and exiting a bus blindly into the cycling lane at bus stops (discovered that the other day exiting a bus, stepping onto the raised bike lane), felt nervous even before the lanes are in use. Will bikes stop when approaching a bus that has just stopped?

Similar to risks in other places, I guess. Street cars in Toronto have passengers exit into vehicular traffic lanes in some places. I'd be worried, myself (and didn't enjoy exiting into traffic lanes in TO!).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by atbw

I think after a few bell dings people will figure it out. I'm curious to see what cyclist speeds are like through there, now that they don't have to pedal for their lives.

I'm sure that will work in some cases, but IMHO will not work in all cases. I guess we will see if anything happens, and then - as usual - the city will be reactionary.

Doesn't sound like an ideal set-up in the least.

I'm also wondering how the left turn box works - so a cyclist is pedaling along the dedicated cycling lane, where they are now expected to be, and then they are to dash over to the left turn box? Is that located in the left turn lane designated for motor vehicles?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Similar to risks in other places, I guess. Street cars in Toronto have passengers exit into vehicular traffic lanes in some places. I'd be worried, myself (and didn't enjoy exiting into traffic lanes in TO!).

Doesn't sound ideal either, but at least most motor vehicles make some kind of noise, and are large enough that people would tend to look out for them. Electric vehicles might change that dynamic somewhat, though.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm also wondering how the left turn box works - so a cyclist is pedaling along the dedicated cycling lane, where they are now expected to be, and then they are to dash over to the left turn box? Is that located in the left turn lane designated for motor vehicles?

It's a two-step process.

Without the turn box a cyclist would have to leave the bike lane and cut across a lane of traffic to turn left.

With a turn box, the cyclist continues straight into the intersection. They then stop in the turn box, which is located in front of the through lane for the perpendicular traffic. They turn the body of their bike 90 degrees. They then wait for that light to turn and go straight. So instead of making a left turn, they've made a straight + turn bike 90 degrees + straight.

They exist in a lot of cities now and seem to work. The caveat here will be whether or not the city puts the effort in to keep them painted.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

I'm not concerned about the cyclists with bells that follow the rules of the road, I find that many cyclists don't have bells, don't use bells, don't wear helmets, ride side by side, ride on sidewalks and streets as they choose don't follow traffic lights and signs, use crosswalks as if they are pedestrians, those folks are dangerous to themselves and others. I don't often use a bike but when I do I use my bell and give right of way to pedestrians. I have almost been knocked down a few times by people that blow right past me with no warning. Many cyclists are courteous and law abiding, I fear for the ones that are not, they are dangerous.

I foresee a boom in the popularity of stout walking sticks for use by pedestrians and transit passengers. Some enterprising business should bring a bunch in and start promoting them as pedestrian safety accessories. SOP could be to open the rear exit door of a bus and extend the stick horizontally to discourage rogue cyclists from coming too close.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

It's a two-step process.

Without the turn box a cyclist would have to leave the bike lane and cut across a lane of traffic to turn left.

With a turn box, the cyclist continues straight into the intersection. They then stop in the turn box, which is located in front of the through lane for the perpendicular traffic. They turn the body of their bike 90 degrees. They then wait for that light to turn and go straight. So instead of making a left turn, they've made a straight + turn bike 90 degrees + straight.

They exist in a lot of cities now and seem to work. The caveat here will be whether or not the city puts the effort in to keep them painted.

Thanks for the info!

Where is it located in this photo posted by Dmajackson on the previous page:


Is it that box between the pedestrian and the bike crossing lane? If so, doesn't that put the bike in the way of right turning motor vehicles?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is it that box between the pedestrian and the bike crossing lane? If so, doesn't that put the bike in the way of right turning motor vehicles?

Yeah it's that green you can just see over the crown of the road, between the dashed extension of the bike lane and where the pedestrian is in the crosswalk.

It puts the bike in front of the car that's sitting at the lights. There is indeed one possible point of conflict, which would be a right hook if that bus turned right while the bike was crossing to get to the box. But that's no different than the risk of a right hook if the bike was going straight through the intersection, and at least now they've added that yield signage next to the bus.

[Keith P.]

I see Kelsey "Bike" Lane has a guest piece in the Red Star today extolling the virtues of cycling. In it she reveals that she recently got into a disagreement with a car while doing so. Yet strangely she makes the argument about how wonderful cycling is, ignoring what should be a life lesson that it is an inherently dangerous and unsafe activity. She also perversely makes the argument that those people who are disabled or have mobility challenges need better ways to get around (I agree) without recognizing that the HRM firehose of cash poured into construction of bike lanes is a totally ableist agenda catering to a tiny but loud minority that does those disabled folks no good and diverts money from accessibility initiatives that could make a big difference to their daily lives. Bizarre, but what else would you expect from that publication?

https://www.thestar.com/halifax/2019/09/...lso-provide-integrity-and-belonging.html

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Yeah it's that green you can just see over the crown of the road, between the dashed extension of the bike lane and where the pedestrian is in the crosswalk.

It puts the bike in front of the car that's sitting at the lights. There is indeed one possible point of conflict, which would be a right hook if that bus turned right while the bike was crossing to get to the box. But that's no different than the risk of a right hook if the bike was going straight through the intersection, and at least now they've added that yield signage next to the bus.

And the next step in HRM's war against the vehicle is to ban right turns on red at such intersections before doing so everywhere else too, all in he name of "safer streets for everyone". "Adding to climate change one step at a time" ought to be their motto.

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And the next step in HRM's war against the vehicle is to ban right turns on red at such intersections before doing so everywhere else too, all in he name of "safer streets for everyone". "Adding to climate change one step at a time" ought to be their motto.

Many newer cars don't even idle anymore. And the GHGs saved from people choosing to cycle instead of taking their car far outweighs any idling at red lights.

Also, stop with this nonsense that bike lanes are ableist. 78% of people with disabilities can use a bicycle. 26% of ALL commuting trips by disabled individuals in Cambridge are done by bicycle [1]. Not everyone has to bike. But if more people do, it allows people who can't bike to get where they need to go more efficiently.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/...led-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick

[Keith P.]

This isn't Euroland, but the cycling activists can't seem to grasp that and want to make us into Copenhagen or Cambridge. Those $5000 recumbent trikes will be a hot seller I'm sure. Of course the Lance Armstrong wannabes going 40km/h in the bike lane won't like them very much.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This isn't Euroland, but the cycling activists can't seem to grasp that and want to make us into Copenhagen or Cambridge. Those $5000 recumbent trikes will be a hot seller I'm sure. Of course the Lance Armstrong wannabes going 40km/h in the bike lane won't like them very much.

My dad had a lot of health problems and is no longer able to ride a bike. However, he got a $300 recumbent trike (a self-built jobby from Kijiji; there are many commercially-built units available used for under $1500) and not only is he able to use it, it's been crucial to helping him rebuild strength and regain his health.

The idea that cycle lanes need to work for every person with any form of disability in order to not be ableist is, quite frankly, absurd. By the same logic, cars are super ableist because people with vision problems can't use them. The reality is, bike lanes make cycling easier, safer, and available to a much wider range of the population. They're not for the Lance Armstrong wannabes going 40 km/h; those guys are already confident using the roads.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I foresee a boom in the popularity of stout walking sticks for use by pedestrians and transit passengers. Some enterprising business should bring a bunch in and start promoting them as pedestrian safety accessories. SOP could be to open the rear exit door of a bus and extend the stick horizontally to discourage rogue cyclists from coming too close.

I might need that

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

My dad had a lot of health problems and is no longer able to ride a bike. However, he got a $300 recumbent trike (a self-built jobby from Kijiji; there are many commercially-built units available used for under $1500) and not only is he able to use it, it's been crucial to helping him rebuild strength and regain his health.

There's still some stuff that needs to be figured out but now that batteries have improved so much there's going to be an explosion of cheap electric vehicles. The heavy, weak, and expensive batteries are what held them back from 2000-2017 or so. We still haven't seen the "killer" personal electric vehicle, and they aren't supported well by the current mix of roads and pathways. Scooters are OK and there are scooters now that are around $500, cost ~$0 for fuel, emit nothing, and will go 45 km on a charge at around 20 km/h. Cities will want to develop good networks of medium-speed roadways for people going 15-25 km/h (and excellent snow/ice clearance along these routes).

If the infrastructure is developed properly this could bring about huge changes for cities like Halifax, where lots of people have medium-length commutes and there isn't great transit. The infrastructure is an order of magnitude cheaper and uses far less space than car infrastructure. For most people, on a nice day if they had a good route (hilly or not) from their home to work, commuting 5-10 km by electric scooter or bike would be an extremely attractive option.

[MonctonRad]

I tend to be a Keith supporter on this thread, but I admit that I have developed an interest in purchasing an e-bike myself, and might do so next spring.

Of course, I would not use my e-bike for commuting (perhaps occasionally in the summertime), but there are many active transportation trail in Moncton that are completely separate from the roadways (generally following power ROWs or along the banks of rivers and streams). It would be interesting to explore them. The Riverfront Trail along the Petitcodiac alone is 40 km in length, and extends along both sides of the river.

In essence, I have nothing against bicyclists, but I do have an issue with measures to encourage bicycle commuting at the expense of motorists. In Moncton, bicyclists can commute along the trail network considerable distances without impacting on street traffic. Occasionally issues do arise however. Several of our larger collector streets have been converted from four lane to three lane (centre turning lane), with bicycle lanes on both sides. This is partly for the benefit of the cyclists, and partly for traffic calming. It has worked fairly well on Salisbury and Shediac Roads, but is problematic on Mountain Road by the Casino. This is really the only area in town where there is really a fight going on between commuters and the cycling lobby.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Yeah it's that green you can just see over the crown of the road, between the dashed extension of the bike lane and where the pedestrian is in the crosswalk.

It puts the bike in front of the car that's sitting at the lights. There is indeed one possible point of conflict, which would be a right hook if that bus turned right while the bike was crossing to get to the box. But that's no different than the risk of a right hook if the bike was going straight through the intersection, and at least now they've added that yield signage next to the bus.

Thanks!