Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Lexus

What cyclist stops at stop sign? Slow down at most and go through if safe.

A lot of intersections in residential areas have terrible visibility because of curb parking, so the stop almost has to be complete to determine if it is safe to proceed.

And besides, slowing from 25 KPH to even 5 KPH and accelerating again takes a lot of extra energy and really slows the commute.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I would like to point out that some of the bike lanes do not have priority, so you often come to a four-way stop every couple blocks. A lane on Broadway would come with the priority of a main street.

Lots of bike routes have priority when the car access is blocked off. If you give them right of way through intersections you'll get cars rat running through.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

And besides, slowing from 25 KPH to even 5 KPH and accelerating again takes a lot of extra energy and really slows the commute.

That's a — excuse for poor behaviour.

Same can be said on brake wear and tear and acceleration spewing carbon for cars.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Lexus

What cyclist stops at stop sign? Slow down at most and go through if safe.

The same can be said of many motorists...

For every kind of bad behaviour, examples can be found in all modes of transportation. Even pedestrians.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The same can be said of many motorists...

For every kind of bad behaviour, examples can be found in all modes of transportation. Even pedestrians.

The importance and impact of each of these infractions is also quite unequal.

A cyclist rolling through a stop is not akin to the same action in a car.

As a cyclist I’ve been hit by a car twice and suffered a concussion each time. Both situations were the drivers’ fault as I had the right-of-way. I was also riding in a bike lane each time. Both were not separated, however.

I now rarely cycle.

How often does a cyclist have that impact on a motorist’s life?

[scottN]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If you did that then you'd need to install barriers to prevent cars from taking the same route, otherwise it would turn into an arterial for all practical purposes.

45th Avenue between Victoria Drive and Boundary Road is a case in point. It was fairly busy with car traffic when it was designated as a bike route - they tried installing a trial diverter at 45th and Clarendon/Elliot, but the neighborhood voted it down so they ended up installing speed bumps all along 45th Avenue. It didn't do all that much to discourage the cars...

Periodic traffic diverters for cars work well when they are installed. 10th @ prince edward, woodland @ 1st and woodland @ the grandview cut bridge are some examples of recently installed diverters. I think it's disappointing that the city allows local residents to block this kind of safety infrastructure.

The other option is a fully separated bike lane but this comes at the expense of parking (i.e. 10th @ vine)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The importance and impact of each of these infractions is also quite unequal.

A cyclist rolling through a stop is not akin to the same action in a car.

I totally agree. That having been said, I don't really fault motorists or cyclists for rolling through stop signs, as long as they're looking for conflicting traffic and are able to stop if necessary.

The pedestrian equivalent of this is, IMHO, staring at your cell phone while crossing the street without even bothering to look for traffic. I have no tolerance for that whatsoever.

I had a bit of a wake-up call once while driving southbound on Woodlands (which is a bike route) crossing 10th Ave (also a bike route). There are no stop signs at that intersection, it has a traffic circle at which the normal yield-to-traffic-on-the-right rules apply. I looked both ways and proceeded around the circle only to be surprised by a cyclist on my right.

It was at this point I realized that drivers (including myself) are conditioned to look for cars, not bikes. Since then I've tried to be more vigilant specifically for bikes at intersections, and when I'm cycling I never ever trust any driver to see me, no matter who has the right of way.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by scottN

Periodic traffic diverters for cars work well when they are installed. 10th @ prince edward, woodland @ 1st and woodland @ the grandview cut bridge are some examples of recently installed diverters. I think it's disappointing that the city allows local residents to block this kind of safety infrastructure.

The other option is a fully separated bike lane but this comes at the expense of parking (i.e. 10th @ vine)

It's funny how the city now seems ready to drop towers into neighbourhoods but is too scared to remove curbside parking. And of course part of the problem is the city shot itself in the foot by relaxing parking requirements, thereby ensuring there will be more cars fighting for street parking even near bike routes.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It was at this point I realized that drivers (including myself) are conditioned to look for cars, not bikes. Since then I've tried to be more vigilant specifically for bikes at intersections, and when I'm cycling I never ever trust any driver to see me, no matter who has the right of way.

This is true. No one intended to hit me and both were obviously mistakes due to lack of awareness. Greater awareness would have made them more conscious of the presence of the bike lane and the potential for cyclists there.

Unfortunately as well, I was even more aware of the dangers of getting hit the second time, was behaving cautiously, and it still happened. The vehicle beside me literally turned into me to make a right, without signalling, and without checking to see if there was someone in the bike lane.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I totally agree. That having been said, I don't really fault motorists or cyclists for rolling through stop signs, as long as they're looking for conflicting traffic and are able to stop if necessary.

The pedestrian equivalent of this is, IMHO, staring at your cell phone while crossing the street without even bothering to look for traffic. I have no tolerance for that whatsoever.

I had a bit of a wake-up call once while driving southbound on Woodlands (which is a bike route) crossing 10th Ave (also a bike route). There are no stop signs at that intersection, it has a traffic circle at which the normal yield-to-traffic-on-the-right rules apply. I looked both ways and proceeded around the circle only to be surprised by a cyclist on my right.

It was at this point I realized that drivers (including myself) are conditioned to look for cars, not bikes. Since then I've tried to be more vigilant specifically for bikes at intersections, and when I'm cycling I never ever trust any driver to see me, no matter who has the right of way.

I think all the mini traffic circles that the city installed on bike routes are super dangerous. Bikes can (and do) ride more or less straight through them at full speed, and cars have to slow down, turn and look for bikes all at the same time. It also doesn't help that cyclists position themselves on the right side of the lane in order to ride a straight path through the traffic circle, which further reduces visibility.

IMO the only place such traffic circles should be used on bike routes is at the intersection of 2 bike routes (i.e. 10th @ woodland, 10th @ ontario etc) and cars should be completely blocked from using these intersections.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by scottN

IMO the only place such traffic circles should be used on bike routes is at the intersection of 2 bike routes (i.e. 10th @ woodland, 10th @ ontario etc) and cars should be completely blocked from using these intersections.

Well, you can't prevent car owners from driving to their properties. I don't have a problem with traffic circles, it forces cars at least to slow down. I think the biggest problem is that a lot of people don't seem to understand that traffic circles aren't the same as roundabouts - the former uses the "yield to traffic on the right" rule and the latter uses "yield to traffic on the left" (ie., traffic already in the roundabout).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by scottN

...the mini traffic circles... Bikes can (and do) ride more or less straight through them at full speed

you know that is by design. i talked to someone in CoV about this. and the point of the small traffic circles ARE to let bikes go straight though, while forcing cars to slow down.

100%, that's what i was told the design point was. this was probably 5yrs ago now. i asked the question why some were huge, and some were much smaller. that was the response i got. i cant say i have an opinion on them myself other than i prefer the larger ones from a landscaping perspective.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I think the biggest problem is that a lot of people don't seem to understand that traffic circles aren't the same as roundabouts - the former uses the "yield to traffic on the right" rule and the latter uses "yield to traffic on the left" (ie., traffic already in the roundabout).

Actually both have the "yield to someone who is already in the traffic circle / roundabout" as the primary rule. https://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/Documents/drivers4.pdf "yield to the right" is the secondary rule which only applies if two vehicles arrive at the same time. I think this convention only comes about because traffic circles are too small to fit multiple cars, but 4 cyclists can comfortably enter a roundabout at the same time for 4 different directions (provided all are going about the same speed and not too fast).

The user error I see most frequently with traffic circles is drivers who enter the traffic circle, then decide to yield to a cyclist on the right when then are half way through, blocking the circle to other traffic.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It was at this point I realized that drivers (including myself) are conditioned to look for cars, not bikes. Since then I've tried to be more vigilant specifically for bikes at intersections, and when I'm cycling I never ever trust any driver to see me, no matter who has the right of way.

That's the downside to having bike routes on side streets.

Cyclist almost always ride far to the right, about 3 feet away from parked cars. This makes them invisible to cars who want to cross the intersection, until they clear the last parked car. If the last car is parked legally, and is 6 meters away from the intersection, that leaves about 1 second of time that cyclist is visible to the driver crossing the intersection (cyclist travelling at a modest 20 km/h. This is why in a lot of situations I edge my car out slowly to get in a position to see further down the street than 6 meters (and a lot of times less than that). That puts the front of my car into the intersection, and this angers cyclists, and they shake their head. They are completely oblivious to how invisible they are.

With 10th Ave being (I believe) the busiest bike route in the city, I would want to put traffic lights along that route specifically designed for cyclists. They can be timed so that a cyclist doing 30 km/h hits all greens and you have in essence a cycle expressway. I would block off every 2nd intersection (to cars) to reduce costs. That would make the 10 Avenue route as fast as being on Broadway, and far more appealing than being engulfed in noise and air pollution.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by logan5

That's the downside to having bike routes on side streets.

Cyclist almost always ride far to the right, about 3 feet away from parked cars. This makes them invisible to cars who want to cross the intersection, until they clear the last parked car. If the last car is parked legally, and is 6 meters away from the intersection, that leaves about 1 second of time that cyclist is visible to the driver crossing the intersection (cyclist travelling at a modest 20 km/h. This is why in a lot of situations I edge my car out slowly to get in a position to see further down the street than 6 meters (and a lot of times less than that). That puts the front of my car into the intersection, and this angers cyclists, and they shake their head. They are completely oblivious to how invisible they are.

With 10th Ave being (I believe) the busiest bike route in the city, I would want to put traffic lights along that route specifically designed for cyclists. They can be timed so that a cyclist doing 30 km/h hits all greens and you have in essence a cycle expressway. I would block off every 2nd intersection (to cars) to reduce costs. That would make the 10 Avenue route as fast as being on Broadway, and far more appealing than being engulfed in noise and air pollution.

No parking within 20m of a traffic circle would help fix this problem. But the better solution is just to use plain old 2 ways stop signs instead of traffic circles. That way the cyclists can ride in the middle the road where they are more visible, and cars can poke their noses out for better visiblity (after stopping) without blocking traffic.

Anecdotally I think the city has stopped installing new traffic circles on bike routes in the last ~10 years. I think this corresponds roughly with the time they started to turn the stop signs on bike routes so you could ride more than 2 blocks without hitting a stop sign. The most recent traffic circle change that I'm aware of was removing the traffic circle at 10th and Pine.

Ontario and 29th has a funny right turn diverter that seems to accomplish a similar traffic calming effect, but without the safety issues. Cars from all directions are forced to turn right and cyclists can ride straight through.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by scottN

No parking within 20m of a traffic circle would help fix this problem. But the better solution is just to use plain old 2 ways stop signs instead of traffic circles. That way the cyclists can ride in the middle the road where they are more visible, and cars can poke their noses out for better visiblity (after stopping) without blocking traffic.

Anecdotally I think the city has stopped installing new traffic circles on bike routes in the last ~10 years. I think this corresponds roughly with the time they started to turn the stop signs on bike routes so you could ride more than 2 blocks without hitting a stop sign. The most recent traffic circle change that I'm aware of was removing the traffic circle at 10th and Pine.

Ontario and 29th has a funny right turn diverter that seems to accomplish a similar traffic calming effect, but without the safety issues. Cars from all directions are forced to turn right and cyclists can ride straight through.

On 10th Ave on my memory they decommissioned a few mini round abouts. I think they were at Vine and/or Yew. And made 10th a priority with stop signs in crossing streets.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by scottN

I think all the mini traffic circles that the city installed on bike routes are super dangerous. Bikes can (and do) ride more or less straight through them at full speed, and cars have to slow down, turn and look for bikes all at the same time. It also doesn't help that cyclists position themselves on the right side of the lane in order to ride a straight path through the traffic circle, which further reduces visibility.

IMO the only place such traffic circles should be used on bike routes is at the intersection of 2 bike routes (i.e. 10th @ woodland, 10th @ ontario etc) and cars should be completely blocked from using these intersections.

Yeah I have a bit of a problem with this more as a pedestrian than a driver or cyclist. I've had bikes nearly hit me and/or my son on numerous occasions.

Cyclists ripping around pedestrians because they can fit, and not slowing down and showing some acknowledgement of right of way is extremely annoying and dangerous.

[simons]

Originally Posted by scottN

No parking within 20m of a traffic circle would help fix this problem. But the better solution is just to use plain old 2 ways stop signs instead of traffic circles. That way the cyclists can ride in the middle the road where they are more visible, and cars can poke their noses out for better visiblity (after stopping) without blocking traffic.

Anecdotally I think the city has stopped installing new traffic circles on bike routes in the last ~10 years. I think this corresponds roughly with the time they started to turn the stop signs on bike routes so you could ride more than 2 blocks without hitting a stop sign. The most recent traffic circle change that I'm aware of was removing the traffic circle at 10th and Pine.

Ontario and 29th has a funny right turn diverter that seems to accomplish a similar traffic calming effect, but without the safety issues. Cars from all directions are forced to turn right and cyclists can ride straight through.

I think cyclists will still ride along the right because the issue causing them to do so—particularly with less experienced cyclists—is being tailgated by drivers who think the cyclist is too slow. That said, without parked cars, there would be fewer visual obstructions.

As for two way stop signs, it’s been a double edged sword in my experience. On 10th Ave, ~60% of the time a driver jumps a stop sign thinking it’s a four way stop. I’ve had to brake suddenly so many times that I’ve lost count because of it, and that’s even with me having clear line of sight with the driver.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by simons

As for two way stop signs, it’s been a double edged sword in my experience. On 10th Ave, ~60% of the time a driver jumps a stop sign thinking it’s a four way stop. I’ve had to brake suddenly so many times that I’ve lost count because of it, and that’s even with me having clear line of sight with the driver.

I see 2 way stops on 5th as well. I think they can be a bit dangerous. I've seen cyclists blow the stop thinking they are 4 ways as well, and cars driving too fast through the open road.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by simons

I think cyclists will still ride along the right because the issue causing them to do so—particularly with less experienced cyclists—is being tailgated by drivers who think the cyclist is too slow.

The visibility issue isn't that they ride close to the right side of the road (which the Motor Vehicle Act requires then to do when practicable) but rather the fact that they can be hidden by the parked cars. If you eliminate the parked cars close to the traffic circle then you'd be better able to see the cyclist even if he rides close to the right side of the road.

Of course "better able to see" doesn't mean squat when drivers are conditioned to be looking for other cars and not for cyclists. This is why using flashing head and tail lights is a good idea even during the day - it draws attention to yourself even when people aren't specifically looking for you.