Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[racc]

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.

Granted, but cyclists behaving badly don't kill 20-30 pedestrians each year in Metro Vancouver. Careless drivers do that while also taking out a number of other drivers and a few cyclists every year as well.

Bottom line is that careless and reckless driving is a serious problem and a danger to all people while careless cycling and walking is more of an annoyance.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

Granted, but cyclists behaving badly don't kill 20-30 pedestrians each year in Metro Vancouver...

That's not surprising given how few cyclists there really are compared to cars.

Some interesting data from San Francisco:
...The latest CHP data on car-bike collisions that resulted in injury or death shows, most often, the cyclist is at fault. Take a look for yourself at the CHP statistics covering more than 11-thousand accidents around the bay during the past five years. Sixty percent of the time, the cyclist caused the crash. The most common violations that led to accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.... (bold mine)
http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/0...vs_cars_c.html

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 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.

As a pedestrian the biggest one I've seen. Is drivers who do not come to full stop when making a right turn. Or can't wait for me to cross. Also drivers who make have an advanced right turn arrow. They race up to the light to get it. But when they are 10 feet away from the light the arrow as of course stopped. I get my green walk symbol and alas the idiot driver decides he is more important thus he shouldn't have to stop.

So far I've kicked the side of someones car. I've thrown a rock at another and on another I quickly took my keys out and gave his nice SUV a long scratch up the side.

I'm thinking of getting the porcelin off the spark plug. You throw it at a window and it will shatter. That would be hilarious to suddenly see these idiot's windows shatter.

Now I'm not saying I support someone jay walking. Nor do I support a cyclist who feels he can ride fast amongst pedestrians.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

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.

So, when drivers drive badly, it's because cars are bad, but when cyclists drive badly, it's because they don't have enough space, ie. bikes are good?

How about pedestrians? When we j-walk is it because we don't have enough crosswalks or intersections or because we're just bad?

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by cabotp

As a pedestrian the biggest one I've seen. Is drivers who do not come to full stop when making a right turn. Or can't wait for me to cross. Also drivers who make have an advanced right turn arrow. They race up to the light to get it. But when they are 10 feet away from the light the arrow as of course stopped. I get my green walk symbol and alas the idiot driver decides he is more important thus he shouldn't have to stop.

So far I've kicked the side of someones car. I've thrown a rock at another and on another I quickly took my keys out and gave his nice SUV a long scratch up the side.

I'm thinking of getting the porcelin off the spark plug. You throw it at a window and it will shatter. That would be hilarious to suddenly see these idiot's windows shatter.

Now I'm not saying I support someone jay walking. Nor do I support a cyclist who feels he can ride fast amongst pedestrians.

Wow,thats some great behaviour on your part. I'm sure next time those drivers will be more considerate of cyclists.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by cabotp

As a pedestrian the biggest one I've seen. Is drivers who do not come to full stop when making a right turn. Or can't wait for me to cross. Also drivers who make have an advanced right turn arrow. They race up to the light to get it. But when they are 10 feet away from the light the arrow as of course stopped. I get my green walk symbol and alas the idiot driver decides he is more important thus he shouldn't have to stop.

So far I've kicked the side of someones car. I've thrown a rock at another and on another I quickly took my keys out and gave his nice SUV a long scratch up the side.

I'm thinking of getting the porcelin off the spark plug. You throw it at a window and it will shatter. That would be hilarious to suddenly see these idiot's windows shatter.

Now I'm not saying I support someone jay walking. Nor do I support a cyclist who feels he can ride fast amongst pedestrians.

If someone did that to me I would put them in the hospital right in the middle of the street. that is a ultimate and cowardly sign of disrespect and its easy to bump in to someone who will take up the challenge to fight, something you likely are not wanting to happen.

[dreambrother808]

This thread is nuts...

As for who's the bad guy, drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians, it's a rather pointless argument that will always come down to your own subjective experience. Us vs. Them arguments never have satisfying conclusions.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by IanS

How about pedestrians? When we j-walk is it because we don't have enough crosswalks or intersections or because we're just bad?

It's bad design, not bad behaviour.

If you're a pedestrian and there's a convenient crosswalk, then you will use it. If you're in the middle of the block and there is not, you will evaluate the risks and possibly jaywalk. If there's a place where jaywalking is common, then it makes sense to install a crosswalk.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

A "permanent pilot project" must be a new, made in Vancouver contradiction in terms ...

Many jurisdictions, not just Vancouver, have used the term "pilot" to describe a project used to demonstrate an infrastructure concept that if successful can then be rolled out to other locations.

The Dunsmuir bike lanes is a pilot in that sense. It is testing an idea that could be implemented on a wider scale.

The city has always been clear that the barriers for Dunsmuir would be permanent as opposed to the barriers for Burrard which were designed to be removed if the trial resulted in major problems.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

....will only increase overall pollution levels get in the way of some feel-good pie-in-the-sky daydreaming.

The evidence is quite clear. Cities who have introduced cycling and transit infrastructure at the expense of motor vehicle infrastructure actually have lower emissions than Vancouver.

Believing that we can meet our ghg emission targets without significantly reducing motor vehicle trips is the true pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It's bad design, not bad behaviour.

If you're a pedestrian and there's a convenient crosswalk, then you will use it. If you're in the middle of the block and there is not, you will evaluate the risks and possibly jaywalk. If there's a place where jaywalking is common, then it makes sense to install a crosswalk.

So, it's just drivers who are bad then. When cyclists or pedestrians don't follow the rules, it's because the facilities are inadequate. Got it.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by cornholio

well it shouldn't be to difficult to rip out again once this council gets tossed.
...

I doubt that.

After all, the NPA were the ones that changed the Vancouver Traffic Management plan to prioritize cycling over motor vehicles. Vision is just implementing policies that the NPA instituted. And COPE certainly supports these projects as well.

The lone NPA councillor was the one bragging about the fact she was one of the first cyclists to use the Burrard bridge separated bike lane.

It seems to me that most politicians and many members of the public recognize the fact Vancouver is far behind other world class progressive cities when it comes to cycling infrastructure. And they support us catching up.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Believing that we can meet our ghg emission targets without significantly reducing motor vehicle trips is the true pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

So, if it turns out that the bike lane on Dunsmuir doesn't reduce car use, but actually increases emissions due to added congestion, you'll be in favour of removing them?

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by IanS

So, if it turns out that the bike lane on Dunsmuir doesn't reduce car use, but actually increases emissions due to added congestion, you'll be in favour of removing them?

First of all it is not possible to measure emissions from one street and separate that from emissions from the region.

And one project can not be taken in isolation as a measure of success. It must be taken as part of an overall strategy. As long as we continue to increase motor vehicle infrastructure (eg. Gateway program) at a faster rate than cycling infrastructure emissions will likely continue to rise in the region.

Again we have to look at the evidence. Cities with lower emissions are cities that have significantly shifted modal share away from motor vehicles. I am not sure why Vancouver should be any different.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by IanS

So, it's just drivers who are bad then. When cyclists or pedestrians don't follow the rules, it's because the facilities are inadequate. Got it.

Well, I never said anything about drivers. If you need to fabricate words to make a point then maybe you're not worth debating with. I'm a driver and a cyclist, and I love my car and my bike equally.

Look, a similar analogy can be made with cars. When I moved to Vancouver I was shocked that left-turning drivers always squeeze through yellow and red lights to turn -- even on major roads. That's breaking the law, and "bad" in your book. It may be accepted practice in Vancouver, but in Calgary it's not just illegal, it'd be considered exceedingly rude. The exact opposite is true in Vancouver -- if you wait patiently to turn the drivers behind you will very quickly become pissed off.

The reason this behaviour is rare in Calgary is because almost all intersections have dedicated turning lanes and lengthy advance turn signals. There's simply no need to squeeze in at the last second. The behaviour isn't because Vancouver drivers are inherently more "evil" or morally corrupt than Calgarians. It's because different design creates different behaviours.

My point is universal to cars, bikes, and pedestrians. If a behaviour happens even despite legal disincentives, it's only because the practical benefits outweigh the risks. One needs to unwrap the problem to understand the cause, and then design to solve it.

So, in case my central thesis isn't clear to you yet, it's "smart design can mitigate bad behaviour". It's not "cars bad, bikes good". No one is that stupid.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cabotp

So far I've kicked the side of someones car. I've thrown a rock at another and on another I quickly took my keys out and gave his nice SUV a long scratch up the side.

I'm thinking of getting the porcelin off the spark plug. You throw it at a window and it will shatter. That would be hilarious to suddenly see these idiot's windows shatter.

I think there are some anger issues there ...
You wouldn't want drivers doing comparable "vengence" moves on cyclists or pedestrians, would you? (i.e. stick an umbrella into bike spokes?)

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Well, I never said anything about drivers. If you need to fabricate words to make a point then maybe you're not worth debating with. I'm a driver and a cyclist, and I love my car and my bike equally.

You didn't. In reviewing the chain of postings, I find that I was replying to a mixture of your post and others, which made comments different from yours. My apologies.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Look, a similar analogy can be made with cars. When I moved to Vancouver I was shocked that left-turning drivers always squeeze through yellow and red lights to turn -- even on major roads. That's breaking the law, and "bad" in your book. It may be accepted practice in Vancouver, but in Calgary it's not just illegal, it'd be considered exceedingly rude. The exact opposite is true in Vancouver -- if you wait patiently to turn the drivers behind you will very quickly become pissed off.

If your car is over the Signal Stop Line then you are legally within the intersection (i.e. blocking the crosswalk) and you are legally required to clear the intersection once the light changes (cross traffic may not proceed until the intersection is clear, and ICBC always considers a left turning vehicle to be at fault, so make sure that it is clear before you turn). Typically, 2 cars can queue in an intersection (one wholly in the intersection and one partially across the Signal Stop Line). Courtesy dictates that the first left turning vehicle pulls far enough into the intersection (depending on the size of the car) for the second vehicle to get a toe hold across the Signal Stop Line to make the turn.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

When I moved to Vancouver I was shocked that left-turning drivers always squeeze through yellow and red lights to turn -- even on major roads.

Back in the 70's before left turn lanes were as common as they are now I was taught that when you make a left turn you should pull forward as far as possible to allow room for the car behind you to also turn left when the light turns. At an intersection of two four-lane streets it should be possible for two cars to turn left when the light changes.

Left turn lanes don't really change that. It's legal to complete a left turn if your vehicle has entered the intersection when the light changes (but of course you must still yield to traffic going straight through the intersection in the opposite direction).

[cornholio]

once the lights change the cars that get the green light must wait until the intersection is clear, that includes all left turning vehicles that are past the signal stop line making their turn.

When the light at a intersection goes from red to green it doesn't mean go, it means proceed once safe.

[duener]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It's bad design, not bad behaviour.
.

Absolutely! I think jaywalking should be allowed and encouraged with good road design. That is, with medians and pedestrian islands people can safely cross traffic in one direction and pause in the middle of the road. I do it all the time in London. Forcing people to only cross at crosswalks is inefficient.

Granville island is a good example of cars and people mixing. Downtown could end up going the same way... i.e. a few major streets could have car traffic moving briskly while the rest could have slow car traffic mixed in with cyclists and jaywalkers.