Results 1 to 44 of 44

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 Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,869

    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
    4,315

    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
    2,010

    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
    5,031

    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
    4,315

    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
    4,315

    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
    6,075

    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
    4,930

    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
    5,031

    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
    5,031

    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.

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
  •