Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: Dangerous, speeding cyclists on High Level Bridge sidewalks

  1. #1

    Default Dangerous, speeding cyclists on High Level Bridge sidewalks

    Bicycling with my dog towards south end of High Level Bridge and there was a cyclist barreling down opposite at full speed. A pedestrian was in his path so he swung over into my lane, coming at me head on, at full speed. Narrowly managed to avoid crashing into me. This happened so fast that I had no chance to react.

    I was shaken(freaked out) by the close call. Had the creep crashed into me and my dog(or a pedestrian, bicyclist), it would have been ............................... extremely bad news. Ruined my leisurely evening bicycle ride. There are signs on the bridge "Ring bell before passing", "Keep right slow down". This cyclist did neither. This happens too often on the bridge. The other day a pedestrian almost got hit from behind by a speeding cyclist who gave no notice of his approach. Emailed 311, asking if speed bumps could be installed on bridge sidewalks to deter speeding. I'm not holding my breath on if the 'Integrated Infrastructure Department' will implement any safety measures.

  2. #2

    Default

    Not speed bumps but it could be time that they install walk through gates on either end so that cyclists have to walk their bike through and that would mitigate cyclists going through there at draft speed due to the downhill inclines found at either end.

    Of course if they installed something like that its inevitable one of these cannonball idiots would kill themselves smashing into the gate but it would lower speed through the bridge.

    It should be shocking to anybody that with the narrowing of the lanes that some cyclists still barrel through the bridge, but they do.

    Unfortunately theres few solutions to intentionally dangerous behavior. Ticketing needs to occur. A bicycle speed limit on the HLB and either connecting end needs to occur.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  3. #3

    Default

    Time to install a fence down the middle to separate riders and walkers.

  4. #4
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Time to install a fence down the middle to separate riders and walkers.
    That makes zero sense. It's already tight. Giving away precious inches isn't going to make the problem go away, it will make it worse.

  5. #5

    Default

    Obviously the city doesn't care about safety or it would mandate these bicyclists have a license plate, registration with photo radar traps

    Where the hell the police ? Get em out there cracking down

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,628

    Default

    How about bikes on the east side path, pedestrians on the west side, and a light controlled crossing at either end of the bridge?
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Time to install a fence down the middle to separate riders and walkers.
    That makes zero sense. It's already tight. Giving away precious inches isn't going to make the problem go away, it will make it worse.
    You're always very serious aren't you.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Time to install a fence down the middle to separate riders and walkers.
    That makes zero sense. It's already tight. Giving away precious inches isn't going to make the problem go away, it will make it worse.
    You're always very serious aren't you.
    What's needed is a registry or outright ban on bicycles

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    What's needed is a registry or outright ban on bicycles
    What's needed is an outright ban on this troll.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    What's needed is a registry or outright ban on bicycles
    Ha ha.

    No, the city needs remove those terrible ugly fences that narrowed High Level Bridge paths. Those things are dangerous and an eyesore. What a failure.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Time to install a fence down the middle to separate riders and walkers.
    That makes zero sense. It's already tight. Giving away precious inches isn't going to make the problem go away, it will make it worse.
    If it makes ZERO sense, then you can bet that the COE is already accepting tenders on a barbwire fence to be installed...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Obviously the city doesn't care about safety or it would mandate these bicyclists have a license plate, registration with photo radar traps

    Where the hell the police ? Get em out there cracking down
    In one thread you're freaking out over photo radar, and then in another you're advocating for them. Flip-flopking
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    What's needed is a registry or outright ban on bicycles
    What's needed is an outright ban on this troll.
    seconded!

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Time to install a fence down the middle to separate riders and walkers.
    That makes zero sense. It's already tight. Giving away precious inches isn't going to make the problem go away, it will make it worse.
    You're always very serious aren't you.
    heh, It would be obvious to almost everyone you were being facetious. I got a laugh out of it anyway.

    As well as Marcel correcting the internet again.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Obviously the city doesn't care about safety or it would mandate these bicyclists have a license plate, registration with photo radar traps

    Where the hell the police ? Get em out there cracking down
    In one thread you're freaking out over photo radar, and then in another you're advocating for them. Flip-flopking
    Yup. Flip-flop-king also wants deregulation and less intrusive government but then call for registration ofor bicycles and cyclists. Don't people understand that their hypocrisy is on a written record?

    This; do as I say and not as I do, mentality is just so apparent in certain people.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  16. #16

    Default

    Infrastructure/.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  17. #17

    Default

    Just got email from 311 that the traffic dept will review safety measures. Sigh. Maybe a pedestrian or bicyclist has to get killed by a speeding cyclist before any safety features are implemented.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    Sigh. Maybe a pedestrian or bicyclist has to get killed by a speeding cyclist before any safety features are implemented.
    So they install suicide barriers to stop people who WANT to kill themselves, only to make it more likely that bystanders and cyclists will unwittingly get killed?

    Yup, sounds like something our clown parade of a city council would do.

  19. #19

    Default

    I said before there needs to be walk through gates at either end. maybe even two spaced at either end, that would prevent the problem of cyclists building speed on the downslope and using that to maintain top speed through the HLB length. Its the slope at either end that allows cyclists to build this speed, so mitigate it. Problem solved.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    Sigh. Maybe a pedestrian or bicyclist has to get killed by a speeding cyclist before any safety features are implemented.
    So they install suicide barriers to stop people who WANT to kill themselves, only to make it more likely that bystanders and cyclists will unwittingly get killed?

    Yup, sounds like something our clown parade of a city council would do.
    Yup, and on a bridge where you can simply stroll to the top along the railway tracks and jump/fall off without obstruction.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I said before there needs to be walk through gates at either end. maybe even two spaced at either end, that would prevent the problem of cyclists building speed on the downslope and using that to maintain top speed through the HLB length. Its the slope at either end that allows cyclists to build this speed, so mitigate it. Problem solved.
    Slope? The north end has no slope and the south end has a slope but a dangerous chicane with huge beams to dodge. The most speed is no the straight section in the middle, not on the ends.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  22. #22

    Default

    The North end does have a slope to it as well. Just that its more gradual but definitely if you are coming down 109st theres a slope that's quite noticeable on a bike.

    The HLB bridge is the same elevation on one side as it is the other. The top bank of either side of the river is same elevation. Not sure what you are thinking suggesting theres slope to bridge only on one side..

    Apparently the chicane isn't dangerous enough to deter speeders. Social Darwinism wants to prevail. Actually on the south side there should be a series of walk through gates to prevent cyclists even being mounted through that section. Strictly have East facing pathway as a walk only route. Allow cycling on the other side.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-08-2017 at 12:37 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,628

    Default

    As I said in post #6, bikes on one path, pedestrians on the other. Bike/pedestrian collisions eliminated.

    Plus, I doubt anyone on a bike, outside of going full kamikaze, is going to relish a potential head-on collision speed of 40 kmh/hr.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  24. #24

    Default

    Oddly, people have been walking and cycling that bridge for many decades, and the only significant bike incident (in that it made headline news) was in the 90s when someone (de-)brained themselves on one of the vertical beams on the southwest curve after losing control. Which prompted the signage around there about the hazard that I believe still exists today.

    I biked across the bridge daily (sometimes weekends too, even during the winter in early am hours - very surreal) in the 80s on a mountain bike and always had it in my mind that the railing could catch my handlebars and toss me down abruptly. Bikes weren't quite the lifestyle feature back then and the wide handlebars of "mountain" bikes were quite new to the world of cycling after the curved-handle bikes of the 70s.

    But, that please-kill-yourself-elsewhere fence is a big detraction from a wonderful city feature and an increased hazard to all users of the bridge now that cycling has become so popular. Its current tacked-on status ought to be considered a stopgap experiment and some other PKYE measure adopted, even a horizontal mesh below the deck to catch the extremely-few that use the bridge as an exit from this mortal coil.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,628

    Default

    Coupla maybes: Increased population, more bridge users. Increase in cycling's popularity. Less general tolerance of others now. Greater verbalisation of complaints now (especially on c2e). Who knows?
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Pedestrians on one side, bikes on the other might work, but then you would only be able to view one side. Maybe each pedestrian should be required to carry a ramrod of some kind and when a speeding bike goes by ram it into the spokes to see what happens. lol. Maybe bikes should be moved to the upper deck?

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bolo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    Sigh. Maybe a pedestrian or bicyclist has to get killed by a speeding cyclist before any safety features are implemented.
    So they install suicide barriers to stop people who WANT to kill themselves, only to make it more likely that bystanders and cyclists will unwittingly get killed?

    Yup, sounds like something our clown parade of a city council would do.
    Yup, and on a bridge where you can simply stroll to the top along the railway tracks and jump/fall off without obstruction.

    If they'd only put up the barriers in a more intelligent manner than narrowing a narrow path. However isn't narrowing the road a standard and proven "traffic calming" method?


    Barriers seem to work to some degree:


    Suicide bridge - Wikipedia

    "Suicide prevention advocates believe that suicide by bridge is more likely to be impulsive than other means, and that barriers can have a significant effect on reducing the incidence of suicides by bridge.[3] One study showed that installing barriers on the Duke Ellington Bridgein Washington, D.C.—which has a high incidence of suicide[4]—did not cause an increase of suicides at the nearby Taft Bridge.[5]A similar result was seen when barriers were erected on the popular suicide bridge: the Clifton Suspension Bridge, in the United Kingdom.[6] Families affected and groups that help the mentally ill have lobbied governments to erect similar barriers. One such barrier is the Luminous Veil on the Prince Edward Viaduct in Toronto, Ontario, once considered North America's second deadliest bridge, with over 400 jumps on record.[7] ..."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bridge
    Traffic calming - Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming

  28. #28

    Default

    OP, you were on a bike. Next time you see someone flying down and swerving around pedestrians, STOP HIM. Put your bike sideways to block him and make him stop to tell him to smarten up and obey the posted signs. Sometimes you gotta let these idiots know they're pissing people off or they'll keep doing it. People in public are too cowardly of doing something about someone doing something wrong or illegal. DO something, SAY something. It only takes one, and others around you will side with you.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    However isn't narrowing the road a standard and proven "traffic calming" method?
    Yes, but even when going slow, it's easy to snag one of your bike handles on a barrier post and crash (hurting yourself or someone nearby). The narrower path makes it more likely to occur.

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    OP, you were on a bike. Next time you see someone flying down and swerving around pedestrians, STOP HIM. Put your bike sideways to block him and make him stop to tell him to smarten up and obey the posted signs. Sometimes you gotta let these idiots know they're pissing people off or they'll keep doing it. People in public are too cowardly of doing something about someone doing something wrong or illegal. DO something, SAY something. It only takes one, and others around you will side with you.
    Worst idea ever, unless you're looking to create a collision and start a fight. I'm trying to get somewhere, and if you block my way, I'll make sure you get out of my way, now, in a most unpleasant manner.

    How do you think someone on a bike is going to get around someone without swerving? And, to the original poster, how does someone on a bike pass a pedestrian without swerving left to go around them?

    YOU DON'T STAY RIGHT WHEN YOU ARE PASSING SOMEONE!

    It's as if some believe people on their bikes are supposed to slow to the pace of a pedestrian and ride along behind them.

    Replacement's idea regarding gates at each end is almost as bad. Clearly not a real bike commuter. It's the busiest bike thoroughfare in the city. Considering that fact, along with the fact there has been only one serious incident in decades (and it didn't involve anyone except the one on the bike) shows it's actually working out pretty well. Gates would cost a lot of money, create a backup at each end, and solve nothing at all.

    The overwhelming majority of people who ride bikes slow down coming onto the bridge, especially on the south side. Because any reasonable person would. I don't know how slow Replacement wants them to go, but if he really does ride a lot he'd know you need a certain amount of speed to be stable.

    The biggest problem at the south end of the bridge, going north, is the narrow path on the right side of the girder, which leads some (especially the less confident riders) to go around using the other side. Because of the curve it's hard to see anyone coming from the north. A pet peeve of mine.

    Commuters are trying to get somewhere. Replacement seems to view bike commuters the same as recreational cyclists out for a leisurely ride, in no hurry. It's no different than people in cars making their commute. We've all got somewhere to be, and we're all in a hurry.

    If someone is going too fast (I mean really too fast - some would like them to go barely faster than pedestrians), then they are the problem. I've seen someone really going too fast on a bike on the high level maybe twice in a decade, and both times were at night.

    When I start regularly hearing about collisions between someone on a bike and a pedestrian, I'll admit there is a problem. Until then, the anecdotes are the exception that proves the rule. The collisions aren't happening, and haven't been happening for decades, which leads me to believe there is no serious problem at all. It's working. Well. For people on foot and people on bikes.

    It's working. Don't screw it up. The barriers were bad enough.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  31. #31

    Default

    ^ I don't use bicycle clips, remember? heh, any forward motion is enough to stay stable on a bike. Careening 30K on a downhill slope in a very crowded and narrow restricted lane area is not what I refer to as stability, I call it insanity.

    When I'm on a bike, even as a commuter, I try to have enough respect for other users not to put them in danger through my own impatience.

    My lord what is your definition of too fast on HLB. Most people could spot a cyclist going too fast every time they use the bridge.

    Finally, the blanket rule of safe providence for all commuters, no matter what vehicular transport used is DON'T be in a hurry. Being in a hurry while commuting is the most dangerous attitude you can have. You seem to have forgotten everything about defensive driving, which is odd being you're a cyclist.
    Last edited by Replacement; 15-08-2017 at 10:32 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #32

    Default

    Next, I'm not as convinced as Jimbo that collisions are not occurring. Indeed, they are being reported.

    http://edmontonbikes.ca/high-level-bridge-injuries/

    Next, everybody has a different threshold for what close call is. The careening cyclist may feel brushing past somebody by inches is routine. The person walking, and hearing a speeding cyclist whizz by so closely has a different impression. In any case it represents an intrusion of one mode of transit vs another. Similarly Cyclists are often offended if a car whizzes by them by a margin as slight as a foot. Why would that same thinking not apply when Cyclists are passing pedestrians? I think its sensorally inate to be alarmed at faster moving objects (and objects that can injure) speeding close by a person moving at slower speed. Its a given that people get alarmed by things that speed up past them from behind. Its hardwired into our anatomy through caveman predator prey relations to have that alarm response.

    The thing is nothing good comes of cyclists repeated ringing that alarm bell (and not their real bell to signal to pedestrians that they are coming through as hardly any seem to do) and it only results in such things as more circumspection and solutions that the faster mode will not like. For instance imposed speed reductions or impedence to cause that.

    Oh, I see I rang your bell Jimbo.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Why don't cyclists ring their bells more often? We had a family bike ride yesterday through Mill Creek Ravine, and we were ringing our bells every time we passed pedestrians. However, we had a couple of cyclists zip past us at high speeds with absolutely no indication they were passing on the left. Why is it so hard for so many to use their bells?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  34. #34

    Default

    It's as if some believe people on their bikes are supposed to slow to the pace of a pedestrian and ride along behind them.
    That's exactly what a cyclist is supposed to do. Only switch into left lane "when its safe to do so." Its common sense and a thing called 'respect for other pedestrians and bicyclists.' This jerk off cyclist clearly had no care for the safety and respect of others.

    recreational cyclists out for a leisurely ride, in no hurry. It's no different than people in cars making their commute. We've all got somewhere to be, and we're all in a hurry.
    Well if you're in that much of a hurry and can't be bothered to safely pass other people, maybe you should choose a different route. Or better still, ride on the roadway of the bridge.
    Last edited by trekaw; 18-08-2017 at 11:22 AM. Reason: grammar

  35. #35

    Default

    When passing pedestrians or slower trail users, cyclists are required to sound their bell early, slow down during their approach and pass slowly and safely on the left side. Failure to sound your bell to alert someone when passing is a $250 offence.
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ws-safety.aspx

    Sounds like we need some plainclothes cops pacing back & forth on the bridge & other mixed use trails.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    noodle, I'd be shocked if a peace officer has ever written one of those tickets in Edmonton. That seems like a law that's on the books and is never, ever enforced.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  37. #37

    Default

    Yeah, that's kinda why I posted it. I read trekaw's reply & looked it up to see if it was true, as I've never heard of it, much less heard it enforced. Lo & behold, it's true.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #38

    Default

    Or... you build better infrastructure...
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  39. #39

    Default

    What "better infrastructure" would aid in cyclists speeding past pedestrians in violation of the law?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #40

    Default

    ^Wider... better... infrastructure?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #41

    Default

    Dedicated?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  42. #42

    Default

    Given that we're talking about >=2.4m wide mixed-use paths as-is, how wide of a path would you like? And what do we do about the places where we can't widen it?

    Furthermore, wouldn't wider paths have the same effect wider lanes for cars have, increasing the speed of travel, increasing the differential between cyclist & pedestrian speeds, resulting in higher impact forces when the inevitable occurs? We're moving back to narrower lanes for cars as an enforcement-free way of discouraging high speeds, it seems counterproductive to do the exact opposite for mixed-use paths.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  43. #43

    Default

    Considering that fast, apparently dangerous cyclists on wide paths are going about the speed that drivers complain about slowing down to in school zones I think that's a bit of a red herring. Most cyclists are going around 20 on the bridge.

    separated infrastructure is the ideal solution. When bike and pedestrian levels are high enough to need an extra wide path there's pretty much no benefit to keeping them together. A 4m shared use path would have far more conflicts than parallel bike and pedestrian paths, and would require far more passing.
    There can only be one.

  44. #44

    Default

    Exactly. Either use existing infrastructure to make good appropriate changes (if there is such a safety issue on the bridge), or find a solution to make adequate and safe infrastructure)... meaning, making new paths that are wider, dedicated, allow better passing and connectivity.

    Bike lane. Pedestrian lane. Done. How much money? Where? Write a letter to your councillor, make it a priority. If passing, and not "speeding" is the issue, then the solution is more space or dedicated space for cyclists commuting from one side to the other.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  45. #45

    Default

    These barriers were recently installed on a Quebec bridge due to 2 fatalities involving bicyclists running into pedestrians. This could work on the High Level Bridge.



    Here is the article: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/barriers-j...224749574.html
    Last edited by trekaw; 24-05-2018 at 04:49 PM.

  46. #46

    Default

    Why don't they just put up razor wire, attack dogs and sentries?

    It is assumed that cyclists are the problem and pedestrians with headphones and glaring at smartphones are not the issue.

    Lets make it more dangerous for cyclists and even the score?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  47. #47

    Default

    I'm not sure how to post pictures but I'll try............................


  48. #48

    Default

    By the lean, I would say he is moving quickly. These are impossible with my tandem.

    Maybe just a bunch of hooks at handlebar level.

    Why would speed bumps not be just as effective and far less dangerous?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-05-2018 at 07:25 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #49
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,231

    Default

    Well, he wouldn't bump into me with those gates. Seeing how bikes are required to weave from one edge of the pavement to another would be a signal for me to stay off the bridge.

    I know that between the excessive posts, the variable lighting and the narrow sidewalks that it's easier for me to just take transit when I want to cross the High Level. And that's what I do.

  50. #50

    Default

    Good job trekaw, I see the image but you need to include a link to the source, unless you took it yourself.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  51. #51
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    These barriers were recently installed on a Quebec bridge due to 2 fatalities involving bicyclists running into pedestrians. This could work on the High Level Bridge.



    Here is the article: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/barriers-j...224749574.html
    Both fatalities involved bikes only, as far as I can tell. One was bike on bike, the other the bike hit a pole.

    These barriers do not seem to be helping. And would make the bridge un-navigable for some bikes, like tandems or bikes with trailers (and kid trailers).

  52. #52

    Default

    Thanks Channing for pointing that out. My mistake on that fact.

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    I'm not sure how to post pictures but I'll try............................

    Heh, that looks like, "He's out of the chicane and into the straight, watch him GOOOOOOOOOO!"
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  54. #54

    Default

    This is a good thread (not many useful comments, but a good topic). Reading this thread caused me to reflect on how I ride across the HLB (I commute 36kms daily and cross the bridge to and from work).

    I ride to work at 6:30am and home around 4:00pm, so my morning commute involves few fellow riders and pedestrians, but in the afternoon the bridge is often teeming with people. As a long distance commuter I definitely take advantage of every opportunity to build up speed and maintain it, but I'm also very situationally aware and I'll slow down and ring the bell as far as possible before passing pedestrians. By slow down, though, I mean to the extent that it feels safe to pass to me on the bike. I'm not sure how a pedestrian would perceive the speed that I travel at when passing.

    I think that the vast majority of cyclists and pedestrians are aware and respectful of other users of the multi-use path on HLB (or any other path), but as always there are exceptions. I think the key is an awareness of the perspectives of each group.

    Here are some daily observations from a cyclist's perspective:
    - Many pedestrians have headphones in and don't hear the bell (I won't even start with the cell phones). Understandably, they freak when I pass from behind...but I rang my bell several times, starting as far back as 10 seconds ago, I promise.
    - Headphones or not, some pedestrians, when they hear my bell spook anyway; it's common to have someone scream and/or run or jumped to the left, into my path. Really, it's not my fault that you're jumpy. I warned you of my presence as soon as I thought you'd hear my bell, and I slowed down because I expected you to do this and I didn't want to mow you down - you're welcome.
    - Some families let their small children roam all over the path, oblivious to cyclists and associated dangers. I loathe parents. I love little kids. I'll begrudgingly slow to an absolute snail's pace, and even come to a complete stop, in order to avoid running your kids over, even as you continue stare at me with that stunned expression all over your face.
    - It's very common to see dog walkers strolling on the left, with the dog on the right, and the leash strung across the path. As much as I fantasize about running through the leash and sending your toy poodle flying 25 feet I'll take the grass every time.
    - Most days I see at least one group of friends or colleagues, lined up shoulder-to-shoulder across the path. They're so engrossed in conversation that they have no clue that I've been ringing the bell for almost half a block. I also expect this, and so I take the grass when I can, or I gently glide up behind them, bell ringing not too harshly as to startle. At some point, someone in the group will turn around to see my 6'4" 215lb person perched on an XXL bike frame and will push everyone to the side.

    As a cyclist, I know that not all pedestrians are idiots, and I'm not calling for the EPS to ticket pedestrians, or to force them to use separate trails or institute any other dumb rule or regulation. I think we all need some tolerance for the other group, as well as awareness and communication.
    Last edited by Captain Obvious; 08-08-2018 at 04:26 PM.

  55. #55

    Default

    I've been thinking about this a little - pedestrian and bike rider courtesy, because dockless electric scooters and bikes are in the news and because I saw a local ad for kids bike "rules' training.

    I was able to go with one of my children to Kiwanis Safety City a year or so ago. There the class drove little electric carts as recklessly as you would expect from kindergardeners, and they mostly waited for the walk light as they walked on the pretend sidewalks and crosswalks. and as far as I know that's the extent of the traffic awareness schooling that they get other than informally from their parents.

    But there really does need to be more. Unless you're actually looking for it or happen to run into the city's "street team" you won't learn the actual rules - there needs to be solid in-class learning every few year up to and including high school. First just walking and riding bikes on sidewalks in elementary school, then neighbourhood on-street biking and multi-use path situational awareness in grade 4-5-6, then everyone needs to learn all the road rules from a pedestrian/cyclist perspective in Jr high before they're even able to get a learners permit. Everyone should know to walk on the right of a multi-use path, to move right when you hear ringing from behind, that crossing a crosswalk on a bike without dismounting isn't actually illegal.
    There can only be one.

  56. #56

    Default

    $50 is a bit rich for this program. Perhaps if the city sponsored them, more kids would learn bike safety.

    Pedal Pushers Bicycle Program (5 -

    This 5 hour program of classroom and practical instruction will teach children the
    basic fundamentals of cycling and the traffic skills necessary for safe riding.


    This course is for kids who can ride their bicycle without training wheels.
    Students will receive a workbook and practice a variety
    of manoeuvres that will help keep them safe on the road.

    https://www.safetycouncil.ab.ca/trai...aining-program

  57. #57

    Default

    Speed bumps every 50m and done. I cycle, and I don't think going slower over the stretch of the highlevel is going to ruin your entire ride. If it does (because of training etc), take a different route. Easy as that.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Speed bumps every 50m and done. I cycle, and I don't think going slower over the stretch of the highlevel is going to ruin your entire ride. If it does (because of training etc), take a different route. Easy as that.
    Not a good idea.

    Speed bumps risk having cyclists lose control and on the HLB, with it's girders and barriers on either side of the path, could be lethal. The problem is really blown out of proportion, but regardless, education is the best solution.

    I saw in another thread that a "bell blitz" was done in two locations a couple years ago where bikes were checked for bells, and bells were handed out to cyclists who didn't have one. That's a great idea.

    Another great idea is signage pointing out to ALL users that the multi-use paths are shared. Pedestrians should remain aware of their surroundings, actively listen for approaching cyclists and joggers, and stay to the right.

  59. #59
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Yup, pedestrians are as much a problem as cyclists. I made the mistake of going for a bike ride on Monday down River Valley Road and through Laurier park, and even in Laurier near the foot bridge where the trail is literally 20+ feet wide with both paved and un-paved portions, the hordes of pedestrians heading to Heritage Days were taking up the entire path in one direction and not paying any attention to oncoming pedestrians or cyclists. I had to continually ring my bell and yell to get people to move out of the way, and I was not trying to travel much faster than jogging speed. Same thing on the path along River Valley Road. Numerous families walking 4-5 abreast, or individuals and pairs walking on the left hand side, etc.

    Unfortunately, I don't think there's much solution other than to try to separate disparate speed uses. Whether it's a significant minority or a majority, there's always a large chunk of the human race that has it's head in the clouds at all times. I try to avoid the busy multi-use paths, but there's only so much single track in the central part of the city and much of it requires me to use the busier paths to access, unless I drive to trail heads.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Speed bumps every 50m and done. I cycle, and I don't think going slower over the stretch of the highlevel is going to ruin your entire ride. If it does (because of training etc), take a different route. Easy as that.
    Not a good idea.

    Speed bumps risk having cyclists lose control and on the HLB, with it's girders and barriers on either side of the path, could be lethal.
    Only if you're an *****. As long as the bumps are painted brightly and there's signage warning the riders, there shouldn't be a problem. Do you see cars and motorcycles getting into accidents in parking lots and residential areas that have them? No. If they ignore the signs and bright yellow bumps, then maybe they deserve to wipe out and pay more attention from then on. Enough with the bleeding hearts already for absolutely everything that might slightly inconvenience someone who's being ignorant and oblivious lol god sake....

    EDIT: So word ideeeyot gets blanked out now? Good lord... Is this site run by children?

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Yup, pedestrians are as much a problem as cyclists. I made the mistake of going for a bike ride on Monday down River Valley Road and through Laurier park, and even in Laurier near the foot bridge where the trail is literally 20+ feet wide with both paved and un-paved portions, the hordes of pedestrians heading to Heritage Days were taking up the entire path in one direction and not paying any attention to oncoming pedestrians or cyclists. I had to continually ring my bell and yell to get people to move out of the way, and I was not trying to travel much faster than jogging speed. Same thing on the path along River Valley Road. Numerous families walking 4-5 abreast, or individuals and pairs walking on the left hand side, etc.

    Unfortunately, I don't think there's much solution other than to try to separate disparate speed uses. Whether it's a significant minority or a majority, there's always a large chunk of the human race that has it's head in the clouds at all times. I try to avoid the busy multi-use paths, but there's only so much single track in the central part of the city and much of it requires me to use the busier paths to access, unless I drive to trail heads.
    Heritage Days and other such occasions don't happen every day. So maybe when there's really large crowds of pedestrians on a multi-use path because of an event, you could just dismount and walk through instead of trying to force your way through the crowds yelling and ringing your bell. The crowd is disturbing one person (you) but you're disturbing hundreds of people. Suck it up for 5 minutes to walk through the crowds and then carry on cycling...

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Speed bumps every 50m and done. I cycle, and I don't think going slower over the stretch of the highlevel is going to ruin your entire ride. If it does (because of training etc), take a different route. Easy as that.
    Speed bumps barely slow a cyclist, but they’re a real pain for wheelchairs and scooters, and a hazard for pedestrians in icy conditions.

    same with the zig-say barriers up-thread: minor impact on the fast cyclists, major bottleneck for tandems and bikes with trailers who aren’t the problem. The barriers that the city installed on multi-use paths supposedly to keep out cars but that was already a non-existent problem; while the barriers themselves are a hazard to cyclists and an unreasonable bottleneck when kept closed.
    There can only be one.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Speed bumps every 50m and done. I cycle, and I don't think going slower over the stretch of the highlevel is going to ruin your entire ride. If it does (because of training etc), take a different route. Easy as that.
    Speed bumps barely slow a cyclist, but they’re a real pain for wheelchairs and scooters, and a hazard for pedestrians in icy conditions.

    same with the zig-say barriers up-thread: minor impact on the fast cyclists, major bottleneck for tandems and bikes with trailers who aren’t the problem. The barriers that the city installed on multi-use paths supposedly to keep out cars but that was already a non-existent problem; while the barriers themselves are a hazard to cyclists and an unreasonable bottleneck when kept closed.
    Yeah, the hard squared bumps definitely will slow a cyclist, unless he doesn't care about popped tires or dented rims. Staggering them in a chicane manner will also allow wheelchairs and scooters to navigate around. Although they would have no problem going over the short square bumps anyways.

    There are also smart speedbumps being used in Europe that I hope come to Canada. They're filled with a non-Newtonian fluid that doesn't freeze. The rubber stays soft and will give way like it's not even there if you try to go over it slowly with a wheelchair or stroller. But a higher speed impact and the fluid instantly becomes hard. So anyone going slow over the bump will have it bend down, but go fast and it's like a concrete speed bump. Go on YouTube and search non-Newtonian fluids if you don't know what it is.

  64. #64

    Default

    I don’t think you know what a speed bump is. Other than maybe the skinniest tires you just stand up and cruise over any bump that’s passable for a scooter.

    tell us all about this non-freezing non-Newtonian fluid, because the makes of that speed bump certainly don’t claim it. It’salso Made for cars, people walking wouldn’t weigh enoug to squish it. So yeah, let’s make people walk over a waterbed.
    There can only be one.

  65. #65

    Default

    Speed bumps on the HLB are obviously not the answer, but signage is a good idea. It's relatively cheap, effective and informs all users of the multi-use path on the High Level Bridge..

  66. #66

    Default

    One possible short-term solution would be to encourage faster southbound cyclists to use the general traffic lanes, including curb cuts to get of/on the multi-use path where it’s wider. I’ve ridden the high level with traffic and it’s no worse than other 50km/hr arterial roads.
    There can only be one.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    Speed bumps on the HLB are obviously not the answer, but signage is a good idea. It's relatively cheap, effective and informs all users of the multi-use path on the High Level Bridge..
    So more signs? There's already several signs indicating its a multi-use path, and judging by many other multi-use paths, you could put a sign up every 50 meters, but bros still going to walk side by side blocking the whole path no matter what colour the sign, or how big the yellow line is. What's that? a bell is being rung! better come to a complete stop while still blocking the entire pathway!

  68. #68

    Default

    Highlander's right. Let's just do nothing but add more signs that they'll also ignore just like the existing ones, or add some painted lines that they won't stay in. Love those contributing posts...

  69. #69

    Default

    Really the simplest and most effective solution would be to designate one side of the bridge for cyclists, and the other for pedestrians. Almost as good would be to designate each sidewalk for travel in one direction only, the east side going north and the west side south, thus leaving the painted line to separate cyclists from pedestrians.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 10-08-2018 at 08:29 PM.

  70. #70

    Default

    As if pedestrians or cyclists ever obey rules. The access points are disjoint and no simple crossings to get to the opposite sides.

    That is not a solution at all.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #71
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,346

    Default

    Pedestrians have more of a right to use sidewalks then cyclists do, besides there is a city bylaw about cyclists on city sidewalks. To bad its not enforced.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  72. #72

    Default

    How are cyclists supposed to cross the HLB? Technically they have the right to use the road but that would be a death sentence.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #73

    Default

    Another option would be to put in a bike path on the top level. This would cost some money, though.

    This is not my idea, nor is it new. I remember people talking about it in the early nineties, when there was a campaign to preserve the old Jasper CPR overpass and build a bike path along the railway grade from 104 to Whyte.

    Most of that path is now in place in one form or another. The High Level part could be put in next.

  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Pedestrians have more of a right to use sidewalks then cyclists do, besides there is a city bylaw about cyclists on city sidewalks. To bad its not enforced.
    This is a true statement, but the high level bridge is a multi-use path, not a sidewalk, so both users have equal rights to use it.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

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
  •