Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Bicycle lanes/routes Should you use them?

  1. #1

    Default Bicycle lanes/routes Should you use them?

    Howdy.

    Im relatively new to using my bike as a commuter vehicle. i used it all the time for mountain biking and general recreation. but never for commuting.

    I have noticed a few things that are "weird" in this city.

    we have quite a few marked bike lanes and routes. yet quite often bikes dont use this infrastructure. ill be on a bike route and there is people riding on the sidewalk. AND people riding in traffic. while im in the nice clearly marked service lane bike route.

    You guys will probably know more about why this happens. but right now (in yes a very limited experience (only have done 100k or so of commuting by bike this year) i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it. for both bike commuters benefit, but also pedestrian benefit and motor vehicle benefit.

    Personally i have always wondered why a commuter bike insists on riding on a major arterial road averaging 30-40km/h ( i do 30 [im new]) screwing up the rest of traffic when there is a bike lane right next door.

    Now that im biking i still don't know?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Howdy.

    Im relatively new to using my bike as a commuter vehicle. i used it all the time for mountain biking and general recreation. but never for commuting.

    I have noticed a few things that are "weird" in this city.

    we have quite a few marked bike lanes and routes. yet quite often bikes dont use this infrastructure. ill be on a bike route and there is people riding on the sidewalk. AND people riding in traffic. while im in the nice clearly marked service lane bike route.

    You guys will probably know more about why this happens. but right now (in yes a very limited experience (only have done 100k or so of commuting by bike this year) i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it. for both bike commuters benefit, but also pedestrian benefit and motor vehicle benefit.

    Personally i have always wondered why a commuter bike insists on riding on a major arterial road averaging 30-40km/h ( i do 30 [im new]) screwing up the rest of traffic when there is a bike lane right next door.

    Now that im biking i still don't know?

    Thanks!
    You aren't obligated to use a bike lane.

    Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, depending on a lot of variables. I support bike lanes, but, generally, bike lanes aren't for me. I'm going too fast, and I'm part of the flow of traffic, behaving like a vehicle (see vehicular cycling). It's often much safer, for me, on the road. I'm fine with the roads, with a few obvious exceptions.

    I've ridden a lot, and rarely, if ever, screw up traffic. I almost never have any problems with drivers (though it's usually a memorable anecdote when I do, which can give the wrong impression). I figure the rare driver who causes problems for me is also someone who causes problems for other drivers.

    Riding on the sidewalk is a bad idea for a lot of reasons that might only become apparent as you do it. I sometimes ride on the sidewalk in winter, when there is nobody walking on them, but I take it very slow.

    One of the major problems with riding on the sidewalk are the numerous intersections (driveways, alleyways, parking lot exits). It needs to be stated that this can even be a problem with separated bike paths (and, indeed, some sidewalks are designated as bike paths), like the one that goes out to Millwoods, especially if they run counter to the flow of traffic. Drivers exiting driveways, parking lots, or alleys often are looking back for a break in traffic while edging out over the sidewalk or path.

    It can mean you need to go a lot slower than if you were riding as part of traffic.

    If you're going anywhere except just around the block , obviously you'll encounter actual intersections. You are far less visible to drivers if you're coming off the sidewalk or path than if you were in the street.

    Being visible and making your intentions obvious are keys to happy commuting, as is looking drivers in the eye.

    Let us know how it goes for you. I really hope you enjoy the experience. I remember when I got started commuting. I wondered why I hadn't been doing it all along, and why more people weren't doing it.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 16-08-2014 at 12:39 AM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  3. #3

    Default

    I do that Millwoods bike path all the time and occasionally have the problems you mention Jimbo. But if more bicyclists use the paths then it becomes more of a known. A lot of drivers on 34ave simply do not recognize that's a bike path. They behave ignorantly accordingly. If they were confronted with bike users regularly USING the paths it would create awareness.

    Also 91st is excellent path. Speed burn to Argylll than Milcreek trail and wherever you want to go. If not that way 86st(from ARgylll seems pretty bike friendly all the way up to Whyte if venturing in that direction. South of Argyll 86st is a bikepath gong show. Virtually frustrating to even attempt to use.

    Anyway to answer the OP more cyclists should be sticking to the trails. Its silly for most cyclists to be on the street instead of a commuter trail when they are going the same way.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-08-2014 at 12:46 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it.
    The Alberta Traffic Safety Act, Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590, and Edmonton Parkland Bylaw 2202 do not require that. What people feel, or what people think is silly is irrelevant.

    It's important to recognize that the onstreet bikelanes and bikeroutes in this city have all been designed the same way - a million monkeys bashing away on a million cad stations, in the blind hope that given enough time they will eventually stumble onto something.

    The Transportation department's recent talk of deleting bikelanes from the 102ave LRT corridor is hilarious, since they claim that they're concerned about "safety." They've never been concerned about safe bikelanes before - as evidenced by basically every bikelane in the city - so why would they be worried about it now?

    It is also perfectly legal to ride bmx or most folding bikes on the sidewalk, including in the downtown and old strathcona areas (although weirdly it is illegal to skateboard or rollerblade on sidewalks downtown or in old strathcona). The bmx-folk on the sidewalks might look like douchebags, but they're allowed to be there (although they legally must ring a bell when passing).

    As for the multi-use pathways: sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. 91st is good. 114st between belgravia and the university is a complete joke.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it.
    The Alberta Traffic Safety Act, Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590, and Edmonton Parkland Bylaw 2202 do not require that. What people feel, or what people think is silly is irrelevant.

    It's important to recognize that the onstreet bikelanes and bikeroutes in this city have all been designed the same way - a million monkeys bashing away on a million cad stations, in the blind hope that given enough time they will eventually stumble onto something.

    The Transportation department's recent talk of deleting bikelanes from the 102ave LRT corridor is hilarious, since they claim that they're concerned about "safety." They've never been concerned about safe bikelanes before - as evidenced by basically every bikelane in the city - so why would they be worried about it now?

    It is also perfectly legal to ride bmx or most folding bikes on the sidewalk, including in the downtown and old strathcona areas (although weirdly it is illegal to skateboard or rollerblade on sidewalks downtown or in old strathcona). The bmx-folk on the sidewalks might look like douchebags, but they're allowed to be there (although they legally must ring a bell when passing).

    As for the multi-use pathways: sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. 91st is good. 114st between belgravia and the university is a complete joke.
    I think the rule for sidewalks and bikes is wheels under 16", but might be mistaken.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I do that Millwoods bike path all the time and occasionally have the problems you mention Jimbo. But if more bicyclists use the paths then it becomes more of a known. A lot of drivers on 34ave simply do not recognize that's a bike path. They behave ignorantly accordingly. If they were confronted with bike users regularly USING the paths it would create awareness.

    Also 91st is excellent path. Speed burn to Argylll than Milcreek trail and wherever you want to go. If not that way 86st(from ARgylll seems pretty bike friendly all the way up to Whyte if venturing in that direction. South of Argyll 86st is a bikepath gong show. Virtually frustrating to even attempt to use.

    Anyway to answer the OP more cyclists should be sticking to the trails. Its silly for most cyclists to be on the street instead of a commuter trail when they are going the same way.
    You take the trails. I'll take the street. It works better for me, and it's where I belong.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it.
    The Alberta Traffic Safety Act, Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590, and Edmonton Parkland Bylaw 2202 do not require that. What people feel, or what people think is silly is irrelevant.

    It's important to recognize that the onstreet bikelanes and bikeroutes in this city have all been designed the same way - a million monkeys bashing away on a million cad stations, in the blind hope that given enough time they will eventually stumble onto something.

    The Transportation department's recent talk of deleting bikelanes from the 102ave LRT corridor is hilarious, since they claim that they're concerned about "safety." They've never been concerned about safe bikelanes before - as evidenced by basically every bikelane in the city - so why would they be worried about it now?

    It is also perfectly legal to ride bmx or most folding bikes on the sidewalk, including in the downtown and old strathcona areas (although weirdly it is illegal to skateboard or rollerblade on sidewalks downtown or in old strathcona). The bmx-folk on the sidewalks might look like douchebags, but they're allowed to be there (although they legally must ring a bell when passing).

    As for the multi-use pathways: sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. 91st is good. 114st between belgravia and the university is a complete joke.
    Well basically if bikes can be on sidewalks... the bike route AND the regular road... as a driver you have no idea whatsoever where that bike is or is going to be. (plus whats the point of having separate infrastructure for a bike route and it not be used. so far in my very limited time commuting. ive seen 2 pedestrians almost hit on a sidewalk next to a bike route.. AND 2 bicyclists in rush hour traffic holding up a major route. (cars just went around). and then most of us commuters riding in the (only slightly slower then the bicycles on the major route) bike route.

    personalty i don't think my "Feelings" are irreverent because i feel this way because the more people ****** off at bikers. increase my danger level in some way.

    The only time i have been riding on the sidewalk is the designated bike path acrooss the bridges on 102ave (groat) stony Plain Road (groat) and 142St (ravene). i know they are legal due to being over 1.5m wide. but i do see the greater danger in sidewalk travel even if legal.

    (unrelated being new to commuting i regularly lose the bike route... the signs aren't very good).

    (i truly believe all multiuse paths should have a second stop sign indicating to drivers to stop and look for bikes/pedestrians THEN stop further up and look for cars. I even forget to do this because as a driver your not necessarily looking if its a regular sidewalk (where bikes "shouldn't" be on) or a multi use trail. ).

    Jimbo. lol i know im actually surprised how fast it is top travel. im out of shape(fat)
    and it takes maybe 20% longer to get there by bike then car. especially with parking. (for me within 50 blocks)

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it.
    The Alberta Traffic Safety Act, Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590, and Edmonton Parkland Bylaw 2202 do not require that. What people feel, or what people think is silly is irrelevant.

    It's important to recognize that the onstreet bikelanes and bikeroutes in this city have all been designed the same way - a million monkeys bashing away on a million cad stations, in the blind hope that given enough time they will eventually stumble onto something.

    The Transportation department's recent talk of deleting bikelanes from the 102ave LRT corridor is hilarious, since they claim that they're concerned about "safety." They've never been concerned about safe bikelanes before - as evidenced by basically every bikelane in the city - so why would they be worried about it now?

    It is also perfectly legal to ride bmx or most folding bikes on the sidewalk, including in the downtown and old strathcona areas (although weirdly it is illegal to skateboard or rollerblade on sidewalks downtown or in old strathcona). The bmx-folk on the sidewalks might look like douchebags, but they're allowed to be there (although they legally must ring a bell when passing).

    As for the multi-use pathways: sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. 91st is good. 114st between belgravia and the university is a complete joke.
    Well basically if bikes can be on sidewalks... the bike route AND the regular road... as a driver you have no idea whatsoever where that bike is or is going to be. (plus whats the point of having separate infrastructure for a bike route and it not be used. so far in my very limited time commuting. ive seen 2 pedestrians almost hit on a sidewalk next to a bike route.. AND 2 bicyclists in rush hour traffic holding up a major route. (cars just went around). and then most of us commuters riding in the (only slightly slower then the bicycles on the major route) bike route.

    personalty i don't think my "Feelings" are irreverent because i feel this way because the more people ****** off at bikers. increase my danger level in some way.

    The only time i have been riding on the sidewalk is the designated bike path acrooss the bridges on 102ave (groat) stony Plain Road (groat) and 142St (ravene). i know they are legal due to being over 1.5m wide. but i do see the greater danger in sidewalk travel even if legal.

    (unrelated being new to commuting i regularly lose the bike route... the signs aren't very good).

    (i truly believe all multiuse paths should have a second stop sign indicating to drivers to stop and look for bikes/pedestrians THEN stop further up and look for cars. I even forget to do this because as a driver your not necessarily looking if its a regular sidewalk (where bikes "shouldn't" be on) or a multi use trail. ).

    Jimbo. lol i know im actually surprised how fast it is top travel. im out of shape(fat)
    and it takes maybe 20% longer to get there by bike then car. especially with parking. (for me within 50 blocks)
    In many years of cycling I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen a cyclist hold up traffic. It seems like it when you're driving because anything can be an irritation, but in practice if a car slows at all to pass, they immediately end up where they would be anyway.

    In all seriousness I don't think most drivers even really notice me except that I'm part of traffic. But I've had some mad at me for just being there stopped at a light if I'm in front of them, where I'm supposed to be. I've had someone scream at me complaining that cyclists never stop at stop signs; while I was stopped at a stop sign. And as for rush hour traffic, I just go around it Part of the fun of riding a bike.

    When I first started I was actually surprised by the number of drivers who were really nice to me. It's easy to focus on the bad ones, but I've come across many more good ones.

    There are some things that seem counter intuitive - such as riding too close to the curb. It might seem safer there, but it's not.

    Once you start commuting more a lot of things will be a lot clearer, and you'll really understand the frustration cyclists feel with some of the attitudes they encounter, mostly grounded in naive innocence (but sometimes not), and you too will have to answer the same questions over and over and over.

    I'm really encouraged to hear you are doing this. Watch out, it can be addictive!
    Last edited by Jimbo; 16-08-2014 at 01:48 AM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    i feel that of there is a bike lane. bikes MUST use it.
    The Alberta Traffic Safety Act, Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590, and Edmonton Parkland Bylaw 2202 do not require that. What people feel, or what people think is silly is irrelevant.

    It's important to recognize that the onstreet bikelanes and bikeroutes in this city have all been designed the same way - a million monkeys bashing away on a million cad stations, in the blind hope that given enough time they will eventually stumble onto something.

    The Transportation department's recent talk of deleting bikelanes from the 102ave LRT corridor is hilarious, since they claim that they're concerned about "safety." They've never been concerned about safe bikelanes before - as evidenced by basically every bikelane in the city - so why would they be worried about it now?

    It is also perfectly legal to ride bmx or most folding bikes on the sidewalk, including in the downtown and old strathcona areas (although weirdly it is illegal to skateboard or rollerblade on sidewalks downtown or in old strathcona). The bmx-folk on the sidewalks might look like douchebags, but they're allowed to be there (although they legally must ring a bell when passing).

    As for the multi-use pathways: sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. 91st is good. 114st between belgravia and the university is a complete joke.
    I think the rule for sidewalks and bikes is wheels under 16", but might be mistaken.
    I was pretty sure if the Sidewalk is 1.5m wide its automatically considered a multi use trail

  10. #10
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    I think the rule for sidewalks and bikes is wheels under 16", but might be mistaken.
    Bylaw 5590 states "wheel diameter of 50 centimeters or less". Following a strict metric conversion a 20" tire would nominally be 50.8cm, but the ETRTO of a 20" bicycle "wheel" is 406mm. The bylaw is poorly written enough that I don't think they should issue tickets to 20" bikes, but if someone did get a ticket during one of the yearly blitzes it should be easy to get it thrown out it court.

    The city tries to cover for their poorly written bylaw by helpfully (and disingenuously) interpreting it on their website by stating "Only bicycles with wheels less than 50cm in diameter (children's bikes)" but that is NOT what the bylaw says. Even the city doesn't understand its own laws.
    Last edited by newfangled; 16-08-2014 at 11:25 AM.

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    personalty i don't think my "Feelings" are irreverent because i feel this way because the more people ****** off at bikers. increase my danger level in some way.
    Coincidentally, here is my story from yesterday morning:

    I'm approaching a all-way stop at 98ave&111st - residential road, half block from an elementary school, 50kph limit, 30' from the intersection, taking the lane~ish, wearing a hi-vis vest, with 2 rear blinkies - and honk Honk HONNNK from behind me.

    I come to a stop at the stopsign, turn around and give my default "It's a f'n stopsign!" (I always point out whatever law the morons doesn't understand: stopsign, redlights, crosswalk, oneway, etc)

    So the @#$% actually gets out of his suv and starts screaming at me.
    I reply "Read the bylaws, @#$%", which is my typical response to morons.
    "No! You over there!" He points to the sidewalk? Or the curb? Rough english, so I have no idea what he "felt" I was doing wrong.
    "Read the bylaws, @#$%"
    "You over there!"
    "Read the bylaws, @#$%"

    As the @#$% gets back in his suv (champagne or gold colored 2005ish Mazda Tribute, I think) I ask if he was even planning to stop. The @#$% peels out around me and blows right through the stopsign.

    What the @#$% "felt" was irrelevant, just as your feelings are irrelevant. Drivers are ****** off at everyone all the time. But just because drivers are ****** off doesn't make something illegal. Drivers usually have no idea what they're talking about.

    I "feel" that all cars should be high-visibility yellow, and that buying a black car is silly. I "feel" that all volkswagons should have a Boot installed on them the second that they are sold, because volkswagon drivers are a plague on the earth. And I "feel" that cars should only drive on even numbered streets - it's silly to drive on odd numbered streets when there are all those even numbered streets that people should be using instead. People's personal feelings are irrelevant, because people feel stupid things.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I do that Millwoods bike path all the time and occasionally have the problems you mention Jimbo. But if more bicyclists use the paths then it becomes more of a known. A lot of drivers on 34ave simply do not recognize that's a bike path. They behave ignorantly accordingly. If they were confronted with bike users regularly USING the paths it would create awareness.

    Also 91st is excellent path. Speed burn to Argylll than Milcreek trail and wherever you want to go. If not that way 86st(from ARgylll seems pretty bike friendly all the way up to Whyte if venturing in that direction. South of Argyll 86st is a bikepath gong show. Virtually frustrating to even attempt to use.

    Anyway to answer the OP more cyclists should be sticking to the trails. Its silly for most cyclists to be on the street instead of a commuter trail when they are going the same way.
    You take the trails. I'll take the street. It works better for me, and it's where I belong.
    The thread and question isn't about what is good for you and I.

    One instance, or 2 or 3, could change your view on this immediately. You kid yourself constantly thinking its safe playing with motorists on main roads. Stats don't bear this out at all, for anybody. So the regular advocating of cycling on road as a vehicle (it isn't) is arguably not in everybodies best interests.

    Cars and bikes don't play well together, fatality stats reveal that. Motorcycles and Cars don't play well together, fatality stats reveal that. Fortunately bike riders in many cases have options and should ideally use those options which creates use and demand patterns on bike trails and serves notice of those trails, need for those trails, and need for driver vigilance around those trails.

    While I enjoy that there are people that bike commute, and even if they do it on main roads (and I used to) in present day I would be leery of offering the advice you do to other prospective riders. Especially individuals that indicate they would be commuter novices.

    Separated bike trails are safer. You're not sharing road with vehicles that can cut you off or run you off the road in an instant. You have to be careful and ever vigilant on intersections while on separated trails but you need to be that on main roads as well and should never assume a vehicle on a side road won't merge right on top of you.

    It takes me maybe 5 - 10 minutes longer to Cycle downtown on bike trails than it would on roads. This from Southeast portion of city. This ride would be more enjoyable, can be done at comfortable pace, is not stressful, and is often quieter and allowing more piece of mind. Being that the commute is more enjoyable I don't care that it takes me a few minutes longer. One of the advantages of cycling commuting is that the mode is enjoyable, breeze on your face, and can be a zen like activity. I remember though that cycling on roads involves the parallel energy of feeling the stress of the other rushed commuters and is less enjoyable. The thoughts of carnage at hand and several ton vehicles bearing down on you remove a lot of the enjoyment imo. Not to mention the smell of diesel, fumes, dust, dirt and gravel flying at you.

    I'd recommend people try some of the good trails first to see how they like them. I'd recommend as well that people in threads like this share the designate trails that are reasonably commuter helpful and that work for them. 34AvE then 91st north is fine to get to and from Millwoods to the downtown, to Whyte Ave.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-08-2014 at 12:27 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But if more bicyclists use the paths then it becomes more of a known. A lot of drivers on 34ave simply do not recognize that's a bike path. They behave ignorantly accordingly. If they were confronted with bike users regularly USING the paths it would create awareness.

    .
    I think this is a really important point from Replacement.

    Some drivers encounter cyclists so rarely that when they do come across one they have no idea what to do and are completely out of sorts. as the numbers of regular riders increase i think drivers will start to understand better.

    also this stuff should really be emphasized in the driving tests and licensing.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    [
    Well basically if bikes can be on sidewalks... the bike route AND the regular road... as a driver you have no idea whatsoever where that bike is or is going to be. (plus whats the point of having separate infrastructure for a bike route and it not be used. so far in my very limited time commuting. ive seen 2 pedestrians almost hit on a sidewalk next to a bike route.. AND 2 bicyclists in rush hour traffic holding up a major route. (cars just went around). and then most of us commuters riding in the (only slightly slower then the bicycles on the major route) bike route.

    personalty i don't think my "Feelings" are irreverent because i feel this way because the more people ****** off at bikers. increase my danger level in some way.

    The only time i have been riding on the sidewalk is the designated bike path acrooss the bridges on 102ave (groat) stony Plain Road (groat) and 142St (ravene). i know they are legal due to being over 1.5m wide. but i do see the greater danger in sidewalk travel even if legal.

    (unrelated being new to commuting i regularly lose the bike route... the signs aren't very good).
    This to me is a key and that usage of multiuse separated trails by more cyclists serves to inform where the bikes are going to be. Most drivers you interact with on side roads intersecting with bike trails ride the route regularly and usually live in the area. If they encounter cyclists continually they start to learn "bike trail" if cyclists are avoiding bike trails because they can get somewhere a little faster on a road using much the same route they are in fact competing with drivers, competing with bike trails, adding confusion, and making it less clear that bike trails are even necessary, or well used.

    Whenever reasonably possible I would say support bike trails by using them. Without use its easy for opponents to argue against the need for them. Which will result in less rather than more bike commuters/users.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-08-2014 at 12:29 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    I ride on what's available, path or street. I ride on sidewalks only when I'm with my kids (and we're gradually moving to the streets with them as well) or when I'm at destination and I'm about to lock up. I don't find the paths to be too slow but they do make me nervous at intersections if there's a car on my left.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  16. #16

    Default

    Hey there. If you don't mind me saying, it sounds like you have a typical view of "cyclist inferiority". This is held by a lot of people, and naturally, when they become cyclists, they tend to bring it with them. I did it myself! Remember the basic rules. Bicycles are traffic. They follow prescribed laws, and have the same rights as other vehicles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Well basically if bikes can be on sidewalks... the bike route AND the regular road... as a driver you have no idea whatsoever where that bike is or is going to be.
    I can't defend sidewalk riding. But a multi use path is really just a road that motorists aren't allowed to use. Saying it's confusing to have bikes in both places is like saying it's confusing to have cars on main streets and side streets. Or main streets and utility roads. Sometimes they're parallel, sometimes they cross, but there are rules that handle these interactions. Same as with bikes on roads and paths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    bicyclists in rush hour traffic holding up a major route. (cars just went around).
    So were they stopped in the middle of the road? Or were they just going slower than other vehicles? If they were stopped, they were holding up traffic. If not, they were not an issue. Besides, you said yourself that motor traffic just "went around", which is the accepted solution for all slower vehicles, such as heavy equipment or large trucks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    (plus whats the point of having separate infrastructure for a bike route and it not be used.
    Here's an example. I live on the south side of Saskatchewan Drive. The path is on the north side. If I take the path all the way home, I eventually have to get off and cross three lanes of traffic to get home. Or I could just ride on the road and turn right into my driveway exactly when I need to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    ((i truly believe all multiuse paths should have a second stop sign indicating to drivers to stop and look for bikes/pedestrians THEN stop further up and look for cars.
    My belief is this. Multi use trails are just roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed. Every time a trail intersects with a road, a stop or yield sign should be installed. That way, the cyclist has to behave like a car on a side street. He waits until it's safe, and then crosses. Or if it's a crosswalk, the cyclist can dismount and cross like a pedestrian, with the right of way.

  17. #17

    Default

    The question to the thread should not be "Should I use bike lanes" but perhaps "when?" Like a driver or pedestrian I cycle on a route of most convenience. Safety. Speed. Limited obstruction. Do not cycle on the sidewalk as part of a regular commute, though I use it to cross busy intersections and make route adjustments. The fact is the routes that are painted lines and created by me involve creativity and savy navigation at times, and the freedom of being a cyclist! I cycle on roads rather than bike lanes (or in them?) Because the routes designated do not do what I need them to do. You will fond that whatever makes you most comfortable, now and in the future, will become your own chosen method and route - as long as you follow traffic laws and fee safe of course! Be creative and feel safe. As a driver I know what to expect and not expect from our streets. Let people know your signalling, be polite, use side roads if necessary, and have fun. I have very few if any poor interactions with drivers and I'm out there every day.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I do that Millwoods bike path all the time and occasionally have the problems you mention Jimbo. But if more bicyclists use the paths then it becomes more of a known. A lot of drivers on 34ave simply do not recognize that's a bike path. They behave ignorantly accordingly. If they were confronted with bike users regularly USING the paths it would create awareness.

    Also 91st is excellent path. Speed burn to Argylll than Milcreek trail and wherever you want to go. If not that way 86st(from ARgylll seems pretty bike friendly all the way up to Whyte if venturing in that direction. South of Argyll 86st is a bikepath gong show. Virtually frustrating to even attempt to use.

    Anyway to answer the OP more cyclists should be sticking to the trails. Its silly for most cyclists to be on the street instead of a commuter trail when they are going the same way.
    You take the trails. I'll take the street. It works better for me, and it's where I belong.
    The thread and question isn't about what is good for you and I.

    One instance, or 2 or 3, could change your view on this immediately. You kid yourself constantly thinking its safe playing with motorists on main roads. Stats don't bear this out at all, for anybody. So the regular advocating of cycling on road as a vehicle (it isn't) is arguably not in everybodies best interests.

    Cars and bikes don't play well together, fatality stats reveal that. Motorcycles and Cars don't play well together, fatality stats reveal that. Fortunately bike riders in many cases have options and should ideally use those options which creates use and demand patterns on bike trails and serves notice of those trails, need for those trails, and need for driver vigilance around those trails.

    While I enjoy that there are people that bike commute, and even if they do it on main roads (and I used to) in present day I would be leery of offering the advice you do to other prospective riders. Especially individuals that indicate they would be commuter novices.

    Separated bike trails are safer. You're not sharing road with vehicles that can cut you off or run you off the road in an instant. You have to be careful and ever vigilant on intersections while on separated trails but you need to be that on main roads as well and should never assume a vehicle on a side road won't merge right on top of you.

    It takes me maybe 5 - 10 minutes longer to Cycle downtown on bike trails than it would on roads. This from Southeast portion of city. This ride would be more enjoyable, can be done at comfortable pace, is not stressful, and is often quieter and allowing more piece of mind. Being that the commute is more enjoyable I don't care that it takes me a few minutes longer. One of the advantages of cycling commuting is that the mode is enjoyable, breeze on your face, and can be a zen like activity. I remember though that cycling on roads involves the parallel energy of feeling the stress of the other rushed commuters and is less enjoyable. The thoughts of carnage at hand and several ton vehicles bearing down on you remove a lot of the enjoyment imo. Not to mention the smell of diesel, fumes, dust, dirt and gravel flying at you.

    I'd recommend people try some of the good trails first to see how they like them. I'd recommend as well that people in threads like this share the designate trails that are reasonably commuter helpful and that work for them. 34AvE then 91st north is fine to get to and from Millwoods to the downtown, to Whyte Ave.
    Oh come on now. I haven't driven a car since the 80's. I will continue to use whatever method works best for me, just like anyone else, including drivers of motor vehicles.

    Let me make this absolutely clear - under normal circumstances riding in the street with traffic can be safer than riding on a path. I'm more visible, and more predictable, among numerous other details we've gone over, ad nauseum. The vast majority of bicycle collisions with motor vehicles happen at intersections (specifically the "left hook", "right hook", and "drive out"). Not only are there often much more serious issues with intersections on bike lanes and paths (more proximity to driveways, alleyways, entrance/exit parking lots, etc), but cyclists are far less visible due both to their being off to the side outside of the motor vehicles scan, and due to the many trees, hedges, poles, etc. obscuring drivers vision.

    The perception of increased safety (despite decades of study showing bike lanes are more dangerous) can lead cyclists to be less careful, when they should actually be more careful. The irony is that those inexperienced cyclists for whom bike paths are often touted as being primarily for may actually be putting them at increased risk.

    I refuse to move to secondary status because of some inexperienced persons mistaken perceptions and assumptions.

    All cyclists will be required to ride on the road at some point (such as to turn left). It's important they learn how to do this properly, and learn the inherent risks of each approach.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 16-08-2014 at 06:13 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  19. #19
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Riding in traffic is generally safe, paths are less stressful but there are real risks at intersections. Less busy streets are ideal, but even when there are good direct routes through neighbourhoods the intersections with major routes are often very inconvenient and all those traffic calming measure within neighbourhoods meant to slow cars down make them frustrating to use if you obey all the signs.

    An Idaho stop rule would make using less-travelled streets a much more attractive option.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Let me make this absolutely clear - under normal circumstances riding in the street with traffic can be safer than riding on a path.
    I'd just like to add that the two most serious "accidents" I've had on my bike both happened on multi-use trails. One was because of conditions (glare ice covered by a light dusting of snow). The second happened when I tried to avoid a dog that ran out of the woods directly in front of me, and crashed. I didn't hit the dog, though...

    In almost 15 years of commuting by bike, biking for utility, and biking for pleasure (all involving biking on roads to some degree), I have never been injured by a motor vehicle. Although cars and trucks have sometimes acted aggressively and dangerously, I have never even had what I would consider "a close call". Of course, I realize that good luck has something to do with this. But following the rules of the road, and acting like a vehicle when using the road, helps a lot.

  21. #21

    Default

    Riding on the wrong side of the street on a sidewalk is a bad idea. I've been knocked off my bike twice at intersections after foolishly doing that. Even riding on the correct side of the street on a sidewalk can be dicey. I'm afraid the multi-use trails can have the same issue, to a certain extent. I was biking northbound on the double lane trail that runs on the west side of Rabbit Hill road (and thus against the flow of traffic). A vehicle popped out of the drive way from one of the strip malls on 23rd ave, and I couldn't stop in time and smacked right into it. The driver never saw me until I hit the side of the vehicle.

    I haven't done a commute for a bit, but I use a combination of multiuse trails and roads when I do. I'm extra wary at intersections when I'm against traffic, due to my experiences. I usually stay off of sidewalks completely, unless the traffic is extremely dense.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarma View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Let me make this absolutely clear - under normal circumstances riding in the street with traffic can be safer than riding on a path.
    I'd just like to add that the two most serious "accidents" I've had on my bike both happened on multi-use trails. One was because of conditions (glare ice covered by a light dusting of snow). The second happened when I tried to avoid a dog that ran out of the woods directly in front of me, and crashed. I didn't hit the dog, though...

    In almost 15 years of commuting by bike, biking for utility, and biking for pleasure (all involving biking on roads to some degree), I have never been injured by a motor vehicle. Although cars and trucks have sometimes acted aggressively and dangerously, I have never even had what I would consider "a close call". Of course, I realize that good luck has something to do with this. But following the rules of the road, and acting like a vehicle when using the road, helps a lot.
    I've been injured 3 times by drivers on roads and hospitalized once. While driving on a main road and having a driver drive right through a stop sign into me. An accident I couldn't avoid while travelling at road speed. Again I was on the main road and had the right of way. The driver claimed not to have spotted me and was held responsible for the accident.

    Another one a driver simply side swiped me. Changed lanes right into me and took me off the road. I have no idea how or why this driver did this.

    A third a guy sideswiped right into me who at last second figured he had to turn left as I was already in the left hand lane stationary awaiting a chance to turn left across traffic. hit me off my bike and I slammed into meridian.

    I should state every one of these instances were in broad daylight.

    These all anecdotal and we all have our experiences but I could've avoided none of these accidents in no other way than simply STAYING OFF the road.

    These events do occur and fatalities and accidents do regularly occur with cycling on roads.

    I haven't had one accident, or even one close call in the 15 years since I've decided to cycle detatched bike routes primarily.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-08-2014 at 02:42 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Riding on the wrong side of the street on a sidewalk is a bad idea. I've been knocked off my bike twice at intersections after foolishly doing that. Even riding on the correct side of the street on a sidewalk can be dicey. I'm afraid the multi-use trails can have the same issue, to a certain extent. I was biking northbound on the double lane trail that runs on the west side of Rabbit Hill road (and thus against the flow of traffic). A vehicle popped out of the drive way from one of the strip malls on 23rd ave, and I couldn't stop in time and smacked right into it. The driver never saw me until I hit the side of the vehicle.

    I haven't done a commute for a bit, but I use a combination of multiuse trails and roads when I do. I'm extra wary at intersections when I'm against traffic, due to my experiences. I usually stay off of sidewalks completely, unless the traffic is extremely dense.
    To answer this while on a multiuse trail I don't approach any intersection without defensively knowing where all traffic is. I check back for other cyclists when approaching an intersection, check back to see if anybody will be turning left, check if anybody else is approaching intersection. On the routes I use theres not a ton of intersections and so being vigilant is easy enough to do. What I don't like is the many intersections that are obstructed view due to high fences, trees. If limited visibility I watch even more. In limited traffic conditions you also hear traffic and whether anybody is approaching.

    Anybody using a multiuse trail should not be approaching an intersection at full speed.

    Driving on multiuse trails is COMPLETELY SAFE just that you have to make it so with proper defensive driving.

    On the road as I've described no act of preparedness or defensive driving prevents some ***** riding a ton of metal from plowing right into you at any moment. Which can and does occur.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    [
    Oh come on now. I haven't driven a car since the 80's. I will continue to use whatever method works best for me, just like anyone else, including drivers of motor vehicles.

    Let me make this absolutely clear - under normal circumstances riding in the street with traffic can be safer than riding on a path. I'm more visible, and more predictable, among numerous other details we've gone over, ad nauseum. The vast majority of bicycle collisions with motor vehicles happen at intersections (specifically the "left hook", "right hook", and "drive out"). Not only are there often much more serious issues with intersections on bike lanes and paths (more proximity to driveways, alleyways, entrance/exit parking lots, etc), but cyclists are far less visible due both to their being off to the side outside of the motor vehicles scan, and due to the many trees, hedges, poles, etc. obscuring drivers vision.

    The perception of increased safety (despite decades of study showing bike lanes are more dangerous) can lead cyclists to be less careful, when they should actually be more careful. The irony is that those inexperienced cyclists for whom bike paths are often touted as being primarily for may actually be putting them at increased risk.

    I refuse to move to secondary status because of some inexperienced persons mistaken perceptions and assumptions.

    All cyclists will be required to ride on the road at some point (such as to turn left). It's important they learn how to do this properly, and learn the inherent risks of each approach.
    I wonder if such studies focused on whether the bike trails were detached only multiuse trails which are clearly separate from roads. I would think the stats include bike trails that are PART OF the road which are the most dangerous in my experience. With a little painted line affording no safety from traffic.

    Not sure about the bolded either. In the 70's, 80's, 90's I was cycling city streets/highways as much as 15-20 hrs a week. Even commuting with a job that involved different appointments in different areas of the city every day.

    In an instant though I stopped main road cycling in 1998. Given the same instance you might as well. I'm thankful I was even afforded the choice. The accident could easily have been fatal.

    You'll post what you post and I'll post what I do for balance. Having experienced some of the worst that on road cycling has to offer I have that as perspective.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-08-2014 at 02:52 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #25

    Default

    PS just as another comment driving a vehicle in Edmonton there isn't one week that goes by where I don't see some driver blind changing lanes across the path of another driver. With this poor driving habit of not adequately checking lane changes being ongoing on Edmonton roads.

    This is people failing to spot VEHICLES before making lane changes. This is drivers not even comprehending the notion of blindspot.

    Anybody riding a bike on a main road should be thinking about this. Because you're even harder to spot. Plus that some drivers doing that, and theres plenty out there, have anywhere from no, or ill regard, for other road users.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-08-2014 at 03:14 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #26
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I'm fortunate enough to cycle mostly in areas where traffic moves slower. While I do use Multi-use trails where they exist and are useful, I ride on the road to because otherwise you just can't get to a lot of places. I'm comfortable riding where the speed limit is 50 and traffic flow is no faster than 60. anywhere else I'll go out of my way to use side streets or even sidewalks.

    I also ride sidewalks (slowly and cautiously, yielding for pedestrians and watching for turning cars) where the bike route option just isn't practical. Where the option is a couple blocks on the sidewalk versus crossing and arterial twice it's not a hard decision, and I'm far from the only one.

    I had a different dilemma this weekend. I cycled to/from the Soccer game with my sons aged 7 and 9, and after the game the sidewalk was a non-starter, crowded and too narrow for the crowds, so we rode on 112 avenue until we could turn off towards Ada. It's less than ideal, but sometimes there's no choice. At least traffic was moving fairly slow.

  27. #27
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarma View Post
    My belief is this. Multi use trails are just roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed. Every time a trail intersects with a road, a stop or yield sign should be installed. That way, the cyclist has to behave like a car on a side street. He waits until it's safe, and then crosses. Or if it's a crosswalk, the cyclist can dismount and cross like a pedestrian, with the right of way.
    I've seen this before in other places. Often in this kind of situation there are road accesses every few dozen metres. Imagine having to come to a full stop on your bike every 30m.

    That wouldn't work.

    You can make it a yield sign, but that puts ALL the onus and responsibility on the cyclist.

    That's not really any better.

    It should really be the cars with yield signs at these accesses to cyclists if you're going to sign it at all. Which I'm still not sure is a good idea.

    The best idea is to avoid multi-use trails where you have multiple accesses crossing it.

  28. #28
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There's a multi-use path in Sherwood park, from millennium place down to baseline, that has "cyclist dismount" signs at every strip-mall driveway.

    Aweful, and no cyclist will ever obey it.

    The reality is these paths are supposed to be arterials for bikes.

    You would never expect an arterial for cars to stop at a driveway or even at a local streets(unless it's signallized); so why people think it's ok to do that to a bike path?

    I find, though, that if the path is far enough from the main drag that drivers aren't just coming out of their turn at the path there's a significant portion who yield whether they have to or not.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    [
    Oh come on now. I haven't driven a car since the 80's. I will continue to use whatever method works best for me, just like anyone else, including drivers of motor vehicles.

    Let me make this absolutely clear - under normal circumstances riding in the street with traffic can be safer than riding on a path. I'm more visible, and more predictable, among numerous other details we've gone over, ad nauseum. The vast majority of bicycle collisions with motor vehicles happen at intersections (specifically the "left hook", "right hook", and "drive out"). Not only are there often much more serious issues with intersections on bike lanes and paths (more proximity to driveways, alleyways, entrance/exit parking lots, etc), but cyclists are far less visible due both to their being off to the side outside of the motor vehicles scan, and due to the many trees, hedges, poles, etc. obscuring drivers vision.

    The perception of increased safety (despite decades of study showing bike lanes are more dangerous) can lead cyclists to be less careful, when they should actually be more careful. The irony is that those inexperienced cyclists for whom bike paths are often touted as being primarily for may actually be putting them at increased risk.

    I refuse to move to secondary status because of some inexperienced persons mistaken perceptions and assumptions.

    All cyclists will be required to ride on the road at some point (such as to turn left). It's important they learn how to do this properly, and learn the inherent risks of each approach.
    I wonder if such studies focused on whether the bike trails were detached only multiuse trails which are clearly separate from roads. I would think the stats include bike trails that are PART OF the road which are the most dangerous in my experience. With a little painted line affording no safety from traffic.

    Not sure about the bolded either. In the 70's, 80's, 90's I was cycling city streets/highways as much as 15-20 hrs a week. Even commuting with a job that involved different appointments in different areas of the city every day.

    In an instant though I stopped main road cycling in 1998. Given the same instance you might as well. I'm thankful I was even afforded the choice. The accident could easily have been fatal.

    You'll post what you post and I'll post what I do for balance. Having experienced some of the worst that on road cycling has to offer I have that as perspective.
    Balance can be good, as long as it's not a balance halfway between right and wrong.

    There are innumerable studies on every kind of bike path/lane/etc. I'm going both from experience, and from what I've learned from the studies.

    The main problem isn't just that bike lanes/paths/etc can be just as dangerous, or more dangerous. The problem can come from the false perception that bike paths are safer, which can lead to cyclists having a false sense of security and not being as cognisant of the potential hazards.

    There are roads I try to avoid, such as 70 st, where the lanes aren't wide enough, traffic can be heavy and fast moving, and once you are on it there's no way out.

    I appreciate your perspective but can't let some things slide, such as your assertion in other threads that cyclists always ride as far to the right as possible (the law says practicable - a term nobody seems to understand fully), and stay far right at intersections. That's a recipe for being a victim.

    That can be very dangerous for a number of reasons, including the fact there are sewer grates, cracks in the pavement, potholes, and debris. You need to allow yourself the room to manoever around these hazards without weaving in and out of the centre of the lane. It's much better to take the lane than to be squeezed out.

    And at an intersection where you are stopped for a light it's far better to stop in the middle of the outside lane, or in the case of a right turning lane, to move toward the centre, or even into the middle of the next lane to the left, to allow for motor vehicles to turn.

    As for bike paths/lanes/etc, the most dangerous circumstance, by far, are two way paths because one lane runs counter to the flow of traffic, such as the one along Gateway.

    I encourage all cyclists to become aware of the potential hazards (with a special focus on intersections) and ride accordingly. Discussion of the dangers involved with cycling can lead to another false impression - that cycling and commuting by bike are inherently dangerous. Cycling is generally very safe if you ride like it's a vehicle, according to the rules of the road, and learn and follow best practices.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There's a multi-use path in Sherwood park, from millennium place down to baseline, that has "cyclist dismount" signs at every strip-mall driveway.

    Aweful, and no cyclist will ever obey it.

    The reality is these paths are supposed to be arterials for bikes.

    You would never expect an arterial for cars to stop at a driveway or even at a local streets(unless it's signallized); so why people think it's ok to do that to a bike path?

    I find, though, that if the path is far enough from the main drag that drivers aren't just coming out of their turn at the path there's a significant portion who yield whether they have to or not.
    Those are the kinds of rules put in by people who clearly don't commute by bike and probably don't ride at all. No kidding that few or none will obey those signs. I've heard the same kind of well meaning suggestion from many drivers, especially as it has to do with riding through crosswalks.

    Some seem to believe cyclists should dismount and walk across every time there is a crosswalk (by the way, there is no law stating cyclists must dismount in an intersection). If they actually tried it by bike they would understand how ridiculous it is, having to dismount every block, even where there is a bike path. It's just unworkable. But it might not seem as clear to someone who doesn't ride.

    If you dismount, then you are a pedestrian, and have the right of way. If you remain seated on your bike, you are expected to give right of way to cross traffic.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    PS just as another comment driving a vehicle in Edmonton there isn't one week that goes by where I don't see some driver blind changing lanes across the path of another driver. With this poor driving habit of not adequately checking lane changes being ongoing on Edmonton roads.

    This is people failing to spot VEHICLES before making lane changes. This is drivers not even comprehending the notion of blindspot.

    Anybody riding a bike on a main road should be thinking about this. Because you're even harder to spot. Plus that some drivers doing that, and theres plenty out there, have anywhere from no, or ill regard, for other road users.
    Make yourself as visible as possible, and make your intentions clear and predictable.

    There are bad drivers out there. The answer for cyclists is not to stay off the roads.

    I do love bike paths and lanes, because they remind drivers and potential cyclists that they do belong, and may encourage many more people to take up cycling, which helps make it safer for all of us. I also believe they contribute a great deal to liveable neighbourhoods and communities, partly by slowing traffic (which is one of the things those who complain about bike paths object to). From a visible standpoint I'd sure rather a bike path in front of my house than another dirty feeder road.

    There are too many drivers that remain convinced of the superiority of motor vehicles over bikes, making bikes and similar vehicles second class interlopers, but there are less of them all the time. Like the other dinosaurs, they seem to be dying out, as more people learn to share the road and find it isn't a bad thing at all.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 19-08-2014 at 03:55 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  32. #32

    Default

    I'm gonna lose it at the next cyclist that ignores the stop sign on the MUP that crosses 100 Ave between 109 & 108 street on the way to the HLB.

    Yes, cyclists, that stop sign is for you too.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #33
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^ is it ok if I just treat it as a yield?

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ^ is it ok if I just treat it as a yield?
    The "Idaho roll"
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  35. #35

    Default

    ^ to be honest i dont think i have ever completely stopped at a stop sign unless someone was coming...

    When i was talking about multi use trails.. i ment have a sign for the cars to stop. treating the multiuse trail like part of the arterial road. so a car exiting a driveway or local street would have to stop 2ce once for the trail and once for the road traffic. (they should still stop at other arterial roads however).

  36. #36
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That's absolutely the way it should be. It would require building the paths at least a car-length away from the street, though.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That's absolutely the way it should be. It would require building the paths at least a car-length away from the street, though.
    Not necessarily if the sightlines were proper. and you used a Stop Sign (at the multiuse trail) and a yield sign at the road mix. or just making sure Stop lines are painted on every driveway behind the trail.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post

    Balance can be good, as long as it's not a balance halfway between right and wrong.

    There are innumerable studies on every kind of bike path/lane/etc. I'm going both from experience, and from what I've learned from the studies.

    The main problem isn't just that bike lanes/paths/etc can be just as dangerous, or more dangerous. The problem can come from the false perception that bike paths are safer, which can lead to cyclists having a false sense of security and not being as cognisant of the potential hazards.

    There are roads I try to avoid, such as 70 st, where the lanes aren't wide enough, traffic can be heavy and fast moving, and once you are on it there's no way out.

    I appreciate your perspective but can't let some things slide, such as your assertion in other threads that cyclists always ride as far to the right as possible (the law says practicable - a term nobody seems to understand fully), and stay far right at intersections. That's a recipe for being a victim.

    That can be very dangerous for a number of reasons, including the fact there are sewer grates, cracks in the pavement, potholes, and debris. You need to allow yourself the room to manoever around these hazards without weaving in and out of the centre of the lane. It's much better to take the lane than to be squeezed out.

    And at an intersection where you are stopped for a light it's far better to stop in the middle of the outside lane, or in the case of a right turning lane, to move toward the centre, or even into the middle of the next lane to the left, to allow for motor vehicles to turn.

    As for bike paths/lanes/etc, the most dangerous circumstance, by far, are two way paths because one lane runs counter to the flow of traffic, such as the one along Gateway.

    I encourage all cyclists to become aware of the potential hazards (with a special focus on intersections) and ride accordingly. Discussion of the dangers involved with cycling can lead to another false impression - that cycling and commuting by bike are inherently dangerous. Cycling is generally very safe if you ride like it's a vehicle, according to the rules of the road, and learn and follow best practices.
    its all good. I just think that as many views as possible should be represented in the discussion. People are reading and trying to develop their own habits.

    btw much of my road cycing was on highways and freeways as well. Obviously you'd be dead or stupid to pick "regular vehicle lane position" doing that. Being that I did a lot of freeway and highway trips being on the shoulder was always second nature. tbh given that and cycling along high speed vehicles and being used to that its not natural at all to then venture into middle of lanes (like a vehicle) on any commuter road.

    Should note as well that on roads where I knew the sides were bad I would take that much more room if theres gravel, grates, hazards etc on the road on a regular route. Also on narrow city streets I would often adopt what you say about lane positioning because allowing vehicles to squeeze past you on tight roads is just a bad idea.

    In anycase regularly adopting your lane positioning on a road involves trust. Trust that the drivers behind you wouldn't inattentively run you right over. That's a trust exercise I currently don't possess with Edmonton Drivers and doubt I ever will again. btw I'm the driver flashing break lights repeatedly for the idiots behind me to know that Henday is jammed up ahead. Looking attentively in rear view mirror as much as forward because I know Edmonton drivers and always check to see if somebody is going to be plowing into the jam.

    Just as well if the Police could release some stats on how many rush hour accidents there has been on Henday south this year it would be informative. I swear almost every other day some yahoos are bungling up the whole drive home for everybody by following too close.

    ftr I wouldn't cycle on henday...although I did lots before it was opened to traffic haha..
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-08-2014 at 07:04 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarma View Post
    My belief is this. Multi use trails are just roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed. Every time a trail intersects with a road, a stop or yield sign should be installed. That way, the cyclist has to behave like a car on a side street. He waits until it's safe, and then crosses. Or if it's a crosswalk, the cyclist can dismount and cross like a pedestrian, with the right of way.
    lol Should I have to dismount everytime as well anytime I'm intersecting a side road (that has stop signs) when I'm on a thoroughfare parallel bike route?

    This makes no sense at all for cyclists. Vast majority of separated bike trails exist along corridors that tend to be the thoroughfare right of ways and that stop only for other arterials. Vehicles on side streets have to stop for traffic anyway and have stop lights. Being that theres an established and marked bike trail and that the stop signs are often recessed from the bike trail and with a line in pavement or sign sometimes displaying the exact stop position there should not be any questions that vehicles should be stopping PRIOR to the intersecting bike path and yield right of way.

    To state that a bike should have to stop for a stopped vehicle at a stop sign awaiting for its chance to turn onto a main road is making cyclists 3rd class citizens at best in that scheme. Which is diametrically opposed to encouraging cycling as a valid commuter choice.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-08-2014 at 07:01 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    lol Should I have to dismount everytime as well anytime I'm intersecting a side road (that has stop signs) when I'm on a thoroughfare parallel bike route?

    To state that a bike should have to stop for a stopped vehicle at a stop sign awaiting for its chance to turn onto a main road is making cyclists 3rd class citizens at best in that scheme. Which is diametrically opposed to encouraging cycling as a valid commuter choice.
    Except there are already cases like this, with regular roads. Think of utility road parallel with a main thoroughfare. Cars on the utility road often have stop signs where it crosses a side street. They have to wait at a sign, waiting for cars stopped at another sign, too. Look at the utility roads along 75th street south of 98th ave, for instance.

    I have to say that I've made a point similar to yours at times, when discussing well-used bike paths that cross minor streets. There are 2-way bike paths that cross 1-way feeder streets that aren't much wider than the path. Why should the cyclists have to yield? It's a good point.

  41. #41
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Those utility roads/frontage roads are intentionally local only roads, longer distance travel is intentionally discouraged on the side road and funnelled to the arterial. Bike routes parallel to arterials are the opposite: they're long distance arterials, just for bikes, and frustrating cyclists who would use them, effectively encouraging them to use the main road, is exactly what we don't want.

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default






    Careful out there everyone. People are morons.

  43. #43
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,148

    Default

    I don't even understand how that vehicle got there.

  44. #44
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    It kinda looks as though it flew.

  45. #45
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I don't even understand how that vehicle got there.
    Even in-person we had to spend some time puzzling it out.

    They got onto the sidewalk offscreen to the right, weaved between two big old trees, hit a streetsign which tore up the right fender, got onto the paving stones infront of the building narrowly missing the black metal fence, took out one little plastic lightpost and some pavers, plowed through all the plants, pushed the wooden bench out of the way, smooshed two large concrete flower pots (which I think took most the impact) and then basically kissed the pony wall.

    Hearing third-hand from some neighbors it sounds like the driver "panicked" whatever that means.

  46. #46

    Default

    Q; Why did the car go off the road?

    A: It was looking for a bike to swallow..

    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I don't even understand how that vehicle got there.
    Even in-person we had to spend some time puzzling it out.

    They got onto the sidewalk offscreen to the right, weaved between two big old trees, hit a streetsign which tore up the right fender, got onto the paving stones infront of the building narrowly missing the black metal fence, took out one little plastic lightpost and some pavers, plowed through all the plants, pushed the wooden bench out of the way, smooshed two large concrete flower pots (which I think took most the impact) and then basically kissed the pony wall.

    Hearing third-hand from some neighbors it sounds like the driver "panicked" whatever that means.
    Presumably panicked at the thought of going through life with this amount of confusion..

    jk aside that feeling where you've done something stupid and hope that nobody notices, except that everybody notices...

    Not that I've ever done anything close to this

    I did misinterpret a turn recovery a couple times on other city streets that were confusing. Counted a few times where I went the wrong way up a one way block that wasn't marked well..blushed and redfaced every time.
    Last edited by Replacement; 20-08-2014 at 11:51 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  48. #48
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    panicked...it means exactly that...

    Odds are, the driver got overly stressed, the brain shut down, and they could only think of moving forward. Going back would mean having to look backwards, and if I just keep going...I can exit somewhere else, get away, and avoid complete embarrassment...

    ...same thing happens when you embarrass yourself on a date, or decide that cycling down a cliff is a good idea, skydive when you are not ready, find yourself going the wrong way down a one way, end up in a neighborhood that you probably don't want to be in, get frightened by a friend on Halloween, etc, etc, etc.

    Bad situation, you're embarrassed or scared...brain just says get me out of here...and eyes are forward...

    We are animals...ever see a stampede...cattle, concert, or Christmas shopping...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •