Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So you're proposing a separated bike lane on Burrard instead of Hornby?

In the name of all that's holy, NO.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

With one right turn lane it becomes a bottleneck because not only can't vehicles turn right on a red light but they have to watch for cyclists coming up on their right and yield on a green light.

There's no yielding. Either the cars have a right turn signal or the bikes have a green light. I don't believe there are any conflicting right turn and bike signals on Smithe, which eliminates a lot of bike / vehicle conflicts.

Anyways, remove the bottleneck at Smithe and Hornby and you'd still have an issue getting all that traffic past the Hornby / Robson and Hornby / Georgia intersections.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

For those defending the bike lanes, here's a shot from a sunny weekday at rush hour on Smithe (a bike lane that connects to Richards and Hornby bike lanes). Notice anything? Maybe the car stranded in the intersection as the lights no longer time properly? Maybe the lack of bikes?

What I mostly noticed is that the car whose driver doesn't seem to know that you don't proceed across a junction unless there's space on the far side of an intersection has an 'N' on the car. Clearly that part of the 'Learn to drive manual didn't stick.

[logan5]

I don't think there are any bike lanes in Vancouver that match the vehicle throughput of car lanes, but there are lots of bike lanes in Europe that even exceed car lane throughput. That's with bike lanes half the size of car lanes, so it makes a lot of sense to have a good bike lane network, and try to build towards European levels of transportation efficiency.

Bicycle culture (as a commuting option) is a fairly recent thing in Vancouver, so there's still lots of room for growth, and escooters are becoming more and more popular. Using an escooter on a bike lane gets you around much faster than a bus, and in rush hour you move faster than a car, and that's without the effort of a peddle bike, which one of the main reasons people don't ride a bike to work.

We're going to see a lot more e mobility devices utilizing bike lanes, so it won't be long til bike lanes in Vancouver become more efficient than car lanes.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by logan5

Bicycle culture (as a commuting option) is a fairly recent thing in Vancouver, so there's still lots of room for growth, and escooters are becoming more and more popular. Using an escooter on a bike lane gets you around much faster than a bus, and in rush hour you move faster than a car, and that's without the effort of a peddle bike, which one of the main reasons people don't ride a bike to work.

We're going to see a lot more e mobility devices utilizing bike lanes, so it won't be long til bike lanes in Vancouver become more efficient than car lanes.

Going to see? I rarely saw e-bikes, e-scooters or onewheels pre-pandemic and now I see them all the time, esp the latter two. Even my car loving neighbours have figured out that all these personal mobility devices are here to stay and need a space to travel too.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

There's no yielding. Either the cars have a right turn signal or the bikes have a green light.

I want to remind everyone that at every downtown intersection I've ever been at right turns are inhibited by all the pedestrians. The solution for that has been advance right turn signals, which is exactly the same solution that's used for bike lanes. Essentially, the bike lanes don't delay right turning traffic any more than the pedestrians do, and since both can proceed concurrently there isn't really any net loss from the bike lanes in terms of timing of the signals.

[simons]

One element missing from the discussion is safety—a 2015 report prepared for the city found that, for example, Burrard north of Harwood is one of the two highest collision corridors in Vancouver. This is without a protected lane of any sort and even after the Hornby bike lane was installed. People are cycling and will continue to cycle on Burrard with or without a dedicated and protected bike lane. This is the same on other streets as well such as Main Street (also recognized as a high collision corridor). So one big question is whether the cost of a person’s injuries are worth the convenience of drivers. Likewise, are drivers comfortable with having a higher chance of colliding with people on bikes due to poor cycling infrastructure?

[theKB]

For the new bike lanes, the city putting in those mini islands hoping most drivers even notice it (notably smith/hornby and richards/robson) The tire marks and gouges are impressive. That wasn't particularly well thought out given the driving skills in this city. They should have left that out or made it considerably higher or more noticeable.

The way the city quietly extended the bike lane up smithe and down nelson was impressive. IT is a disaster once you get to granville.

The city never has taken a cohesive approach where it ultimately benefits all modes of transport. It's clearly bike followed by the rest. The thought of the city having escooters littered around the city will be interesting. (used these in calgary and it was great, I just don't think it will work here)

I have to say the way calgary has executed their growing bike infrastructure is quite good and integrates well with the surrounding area and doesn't put one mode over another. That said their streets are wider in most cases.

[whatnext]

I came across the accident scene this morning at Hornby and Pacific which looks like it involved a dump truck turning right onto Hornby and striking a cyclist going the same direction on the Pacific bike lane.

The news reports says pedestrian but I could see a bicycle wedged under the truck's rear wheels. It wasn't a tandem dump truck but one with an extended bed. Maybe the city should look at the type of trucks it allows on the downtown street network.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I came across the accident scene this morning at Hornby and Pacific which looks like it involved a dump truck turning right onto Hornby and striking a cyclist going the same direction on the Pacific bike lane.

Cyclists should never overtake or pace cars in that right lane unless they're d@mn sure that the driver sees them. The cyclists may have the right of way over right-turning traffic, but the consequences of a mistake are too serious to risk, IMHO. Being in the right is small solace for getting injured or worse.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Cyclists should never overtake or pace cars in that right lane unless they're d@mn sure that the driver sees them. The cyclists may have the right of way over right-turning traffic, but the consequences of a mistake are too serious to risk, IMHO. Being in the right is small solace for getting injured or worse.

The cyclist did have the right of way if the light was green. But yes, the more exposed road user should always be the most cautious because of the potential ramifications an accident may have for their health.

whatnext, this is why the traffic lights on Smithe which we recently discussed are the way they are. Any street with a protected bike lane should have dedicated turn signals and bike signals, because those signs telling drivers making right-hand turns to yield to cyclists don't do squat.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The cyclist did have the right of way if the light was green. But yes, the more exposed road user should always be the most cautious because of the potential ramifications an accident may have for their health.

whatnext, this is why the traffic lights on Smithe which we recently discussed are the way they are. Any street with a protected bike lane should have dedicated turn signals and bike signals, because those signs telling drivers making right-hand turns to yield to cyclists don't do squat.

I understand your comment about Smithe but my point there was that the majority of the traffic coming into downtown along Smithe wants to turn right at various points thus inherently creating more conflicts.

As I (fortunately) did not witness the collision on Pacific I can't speculate where the cyclist was in relation to the truck when it turned. The truck was high enough that the driver, planning for his turn and having to make a wide swing around the pedestrian bulge, may have ben distracted. The bed of the truck was so long the cyclist may not have seen a turn signal when it overtook him. That's why the City needs to take a good look at tandem and overlength trucks coming downtown IMHO.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Honestly, I was taught that heavy trucks always had the right of way.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Honestly, I was taught that heavy trucks always had the right of way.

That's not what the street signage indicates. Turning vehicles are supposed to yield to the bike lane.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

That's not what the street signage indicates. Turning vehicles are supposed to yield to the bike lane.

Sure, but you yield anyway - it's a enormous 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 truck that probably can't see you.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but you yield anyway - it's a enormous 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 truck that probably can't see you.

But what if the truck didn't signal? Should the cyclist have to automatically assume the truck is going to make an unsignalled turn right in front of him?

Sadly the full details of what actually happened rarely get reported so people can learn from it.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but you yield anyway - it's a enormous 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 truck that probably can't see you.

I'm not saying the cyclist shouldn't have stopped out of their own interest. What I'm saying is any AAA facility should have dedicated vehicle turning / bike proceeding traffic signal cycles.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But what if the truck didn't signal? Should the cyclist have to automatically assume the truck is going to make an unsignalled turn right in front of him?

Sadly the full details of what actually happened rarely get reported so people can learn from it.

just because you have right of way doesn't mean you can just ignore the semi. You still have to be careful in case something happens. This applies to whether you are cyclist, pedestrian or even driver. At this close of a distance, the semi can only rely on mirrors. You do not want to be in its blind spot. At the end of the day, you can't beat physics. Any collision happens, you lose.

Looking at picture it looks like cyclist was struck at the rear wheels. The location of the semi suggest it has already made the turn.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fatal-crash-between-semi-truck-cyclist-in-downtown-vancouver-1.5968221

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

just because you have right of way doesn't mean you can just ignore the semi. You still have to be careful in case something happens. This applies to whether you are cyclist, pedestrian or even driver. At this close of a distance, the semi can only rely on mirrors. You do not want to be in its blind spot. At the end of the day, you can't beat physics. Any collision happens, you lose.

Looking at picture it looks like cyclist was struck at the rear wheels. The location of the semi suggest it has already made the turn.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fatal-crash-between-semi-truck-cyclist-in-downtown-vancouver-1.5968221

From what I understand it is often common with truck/cyclist collisions for the cyclist to be struck by the portion of the truck ahead of the wheel (the blind spot) and then flipped around underneath ending.

One more reason for the city to look at regulating larger truck's access downtown. If they had "skirts" the cyclist has better chance of not going under the truck.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But what if the truck didn't signal? Should the cyclist have to automatically assume the truck is going to make an unsignalled turn right in front of him?

Yes, he should. Because sooner or later that's exactly what's going to happen.

It's not quite so dangerous if the turn is in front of the cyclist, because that lets the cyclist see what's happening and do something about it. What the cyclist really has to watch out for is the truck that's rumbling along at the same speed beside him and then turns into him unexpectedly. When I'm cycling in the downtown bike lanes I try to make sure I'm not riding right beside anyone in the rightmost vehicle lane - just the same way that when I drive on the street try to avoid driving right beside someone on either side of me.