Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415
Results 1,401 to 1,462 of 1462

Thread: Cycling Infrastructure | Discussion

  1. #1401

    Default

    Even if nobody used it at all it would be an improvement for sidewalk users to have a safe buffer zone between them and traffic, and nearby residents would benefit from the marginally slower traffic speeds that would occur if drivers were confined to two slightly narrower lanes rather than 3 wider ones.

    But reality is that they would be used, by lots of people. Certainly more people than currently use if for parking, even if less visible.
    There can only be one.

  2. #1402
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    I'm a cyclist and bike commuter, albeit not on that route, and I don't think the route needs to be on 109th. As a commuter route there is little practical difference between 110th and 109th. For business access it's only a block of 109th so it facilitate that just fine as well.

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

  3. #1403

    Default

    It does need to tie in seamlessly to the high level bridge, and it needs to continue south of 76. 109 is the option that does that best.
    There can only be one.

  4. #1404

    Default

    Good thorough design could make 110th work very well and a High Level connection at 88th Ave already exists fairly well, and an interseection re-design to a degree might be needed for some bike-jump signals. 110th could work well with some stop sign adjustments, an improved traffic light at Whyte Ave, and some traffic islands at both 88th ave and at 76th ave as the route would head further south along 11th st.... it would have to connect I guess to 111 shared-use path south of 61st ave somehow though.

    That's the major issue. Will it be thought of as a small segment, or as a part of the wider network for future expansion? 109 st could look like Great Northern Way in Van which is a busy trucking and commuter road with a new treed boulevard and 2-way separated bike path with adjacent sidewalk. Easy. Everyone wins. Compliment with zoning and design guidelines for new development.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  5. #1405
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  6. #1406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    I'm a cyclist and bike commuter, albeit not on that route, and I don't think the route needs to be on 109th. As a commuter route there is little practical difference between 110th and 109th. For business access it's only a block of 109th so it facilitate that just fine as well.
    Agreed. I've been a cyclist for a long time and find it funny hearing most complaints from other cyclists. Especially when they make fun of drivers who can't be inconvenienced with an extra minute of delay because of cyclists but then turn around and complain if they have to take an extra minute to cycle an extra block like it's the end of the world.

  7. #1407
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    I'm a cyclist and bike commuter, albeit not on that route, and I don't think the route needs to be on 109th. As a commuter route there is little practical difference between 110th and 109th. For business access it's only a block of 109th so it facilitate that just fine as well.
    Agreed. I've been a cyclist for a long time and find it funny hearing most complaints from other cyclists. Especially when they make fun of drivers who can't be inconvenienced with an extra minute of delay because of cyclists but then turn around and complain if they have to take an extra minute to cycle an extra block like it's the end of the world.
    I just think if the city is trying to encourage cycling it should be highly visible (i.e. not shuffled to side streets), lanes should be added in high-demand areas, and driving lane demand will need to adjust. Also, 1 minute in a car in inclement weather is substantially different from 1 minute biking (or walking, for that matter) in inclement weather. Not to mention the 1 minute delay for bikes option still makes them cross a busy thoroughfare without additional safety measures added.

  8. #1408
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,302

    Default

    110st works. There is already a bike lane on 106st, so 108st wouldn't make much sense?
    109st, I don't know why you would want to bike on it other than to specifically try and calm traffic. 110st or 108st is much more pleasant.

  9. #1409

    Default

    For longer commutes that come from south of 76ave there is a practical difference. There's also the pathetic way that other so-called bike routes have been maintained in the area. There's a signed route on I think 113 that is nothing bit signs and one or two paved lane sections. The crossing at 72 is a beg button and a standard crosswalk despite 72 being re-done last year. 110 would likely be the same; there's an existing bike lane on 110 in garneau that's way too narrow and some of the worst pavement anywhere.

    And since winter maintenance is one of the main benefits of proper bike infrastructure for seasoned cyclists putting it next to a main road ensures that it will be maintained in the long term.

    The resistance to a bike lane seems like intentionally refusing to offer anything but scraps when there's so much underutilized space.
    There can only be one.

  10. #1410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    110st works. There is already a bike lane on 106st, so 108st wouldn't make much sense?
    109st, I don't know why you would want to bike on it other than to specifically try and calm traffic. 110st or 108st is much more pleasant.
    Calming traffic on 109 is a very worthy goal, and just a few months ago the city started consultation with that in mind - and that consultation apparently was strongly in favour of bike lanes on 109.
    There can only be one.

  11. #1411
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    For longer commutes that come from south of 76ave there is a practical difference. There's also the pathetic way that other so-called bike routes have been maintained in the area. There's a signed route on I think 113 that is nothing bit signs and one or two paved lane sections. The crossing at 72 is a beg button and a standard crosswalk despite 72 being re-done last year. 110 would likely be the same; there's an existing bike lane on 110 in garneau that's way too narrow and some of the worst pavement anywhere.

    And since winter maintenance is one of the main benefits of proper bike infrastructure for seasoned cyclists putting it next to a main road ensures that it will be maintained in the long term.

    The resistance to a bike lane seems like intentionally refusing to offer anything but scraps when there's so much underutilized space.
    I bike home that way about once a week lately. Getting from the LRT path going down 111st to 110st would be pretty easy with some minor upgrades.
    Because 106st is under construction south of 76ave, I've been riding down 108st. The part that doesn't work is getting from the north side of Argyll to the east side of 109st.
    Bike lane down 110st to 76ave should work excellent.

  12. #1412

    Default

    caught the 6pm CTV news yesterday and there was a business owner on 109 Street who had a letter signed by 20 other businesses on 109 Street or very close to it, who are against putting a bike-lane on 109 Street. They said it would negatively affect their bottom line with limited parking around the area.

  13. #1413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    110st works. There is already a bike lane on 106st, so 108st wouldn't make much sense?
    109st, I don't know why you would want to bike on it other than to specifically try and calm traffic. 110st or 108st is much more pleasant.
    Calming traffic on 109 is a very worthy goal, and just a few months ago the city started consultation with that in mind - and that consultation apparently was strongly in favour of bike lanes on 109.
    There is no calming required whatsoever as it is already snarled beyond belief. The last thing people who live and commute by vehicle from Southwest Edmonton (the overwhelming vast majority of citizens as it seems that fact escapes your comprehension) is another 99 Street and Calgary Trail mess between Saskatchewan Drive and Whyte Avenue. Get a grip.

  14. #1414
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    110st works. There is already a bike lane on 106st, so 108st wouldn't make much sense?
    109st, I don't know why you would want to bike on it other than to specifically try and calm traffic. 110st or 108st is much more pleasant.
    Calming traffic on 109 is a very worthy goal, and just a few months ago the city started consultation with that in mind - and that consultation apparently was strongly in favour of bike lanes on 109.
    There is no calming required whatsoever as it is already snarled beyond belief. The last thing people who live and commute by vehicle from Southwest Edmonton (the overwhelming vast majority of citizens as it seems that fact escapes your comprehension) is another 99 Street and Calgary Trail mess between Saskatchewan Drive and Whyte Avenue. Get a grip.
    Even if bike lanes were added to 109st, if your concern is between Sask Drive and Whyte, there would likely be little to no change other than losing the under utilized bus/taxi lane on the northbound portion.
    That said, I would personally prefer to, and already do, bike off of 109st.

  15. #1415
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Preference is one consideration. Another is what the bike lane would do for potential businesses along that East side of 109 between Whyte & 109. That section is ripe for redevelopment with the boarded up Mucho Burrito, closed church, parking lot just North of TD Bank, etc. If memory serves, the Knox Metro Church site is becoming a condo building, right? Seems like a slam-dunk to have a connected bike network right outside that isn't even removing parking spaces.

    Does more vehicle traffic help that redevelopment? The past 10 years of virtually no progress along that strip seems to indicate that no, it does not. Add a bike lane, relax parking restrictions on side streets to accommodate businesses, and it's all upside.

  16. #1416
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Preference is one consideration. Another is what the bike lane would do for potential businesses along that East side of 109 between Whyte & 109. That section is ripe for redevelopment with the boarded up Mucho Burrito, closed church, parking lot just North of TD Bank, etc. If memory serves, the Knox Metro Church site is becoming a condo building, right? Seems like a slam-dunk to have a connected bike network right outside that isn't even removing parking spaces.

    Does more vehicle traffic help that redevelopment? The past 10 years of virtually no progress along that strip seems to indicate that no, it does not. Add a bike lane, relax parking restrictions on side streets to accommodate businesses, and it's all upside.
    Although to get the seamless tie into the High Level Bridge mentioned earlier the route would have to be on the west side of 109th. Otherwise you have cluster getting across 109th where it bends down Walterdale Hill.

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

  17. #1417
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    388

    Default

    When I've cycled from DT, at the south end of the High Level Bridge I just swing west to get to 110st and follow that all the way south to 63rd ave. Works very well as it is. Once at 63rd ave I cross over I use the shared path to the pedestrian bridge over whitemud, from there is all the way south. Sounds like we have a defacto bike path already in place for 110st/ 112st . As much as I enjoy cycling in the warm weather, not every major road must have a bike path. Leave 109th alone, cars, trucks, buses etc all use that corridor.

  18. #1418
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Preference is one consideration. Another is what the bike lane would do for potential businesses along that East side of 109 between Whyte & 109. That section is ripe for redevelopment with the boarded up Mucho Burrito, closed church, parking lot just North of TD Bank, etc. If memory serves, the Knox Metro Church site is becoming a condo building, right? Seems like a slam-dunk to have a connected bike network right outside that isn't even removing parking spaces.

    Does more vehicle traffic help that redevelopment? The past 10 years of virtually no progress along that strip seems to indicate that no, it does not. Add a bike lane, relax parking restrictions on side streets to accommodate businesses, and it's all upside.
    Although to get the seamless tie into the High Level Bridge mentioned earlier the route would have to be on the west side of 109th. Otherwise you have cluster getting across 109th where it bends down Walterdale Hill.
    A stop light and signal phase change would be necessary, so it wouldn't be free flow, but I don't think that's so complex that it's impossible to overcome.

  19. #1419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    I'm a cyclist and bike commuter, albeit not on that route, and I don't think the route needs to be on 109th. As a commuter route there is little practical difference between 110th and 109th. For business access it's only a block of 109th so it facilitate that just fine as well.
    Agreed. I've been a cyclist for a long time and find it funny hearing most complaints from other cyclists. Especially when they make fun of drivers who can't be inconvenienced with an extra minute of delay because of cyclists but then turn around and complain if they have to take an extra minute to cycle an extra block like it's the end of the world.
    I just think if the city is trying to encourage cycling it should be highly visible (i.e. not shuffled to side streets), lanes should be added in high-demand areas, and driving lane demand will need to adjust. Also, 1 minute in a car in inclement weather is substantially different from 1 minute biking (or walking, for that matter) in inclement weather. Not to mention the 1 minute delay for bikes option still makes them cross a busy thoroughfare without additional safety measures added.
    I agree that cycling routes that flow nicely would be great, but it's all about money. The city will not spend a fortune for the small amount of cyclists. Comparing the routes and conveniences that cars have is apples and oranges. On any given major route, the amount of cyclists compared to the amount of people in vehicles including busses is not even comparable at all. Even if the amount of cyclists increase dramatically, it still wouldn't compare to those commuting in vehicles, so the amount of time and money to spend on cycling routes needs to be comparable to its volume. It's far easier and cheaper to paint a bike lane on a lesser-used sideroad than to rework a bridge that crosses the river. It's just common-sense really.

  20. #1420

    Default

    Any future bike lanes would not simply be paint on the road, and if built on 109st it would be a part of a grander scheme all ready in place to rebuilt the sidewalk and public realm. Built in tandem as a part of the 109st redevelopment. 109st is being changed in any case so it's thought to pair this cycling track as a part of that greater dialogue in design of 109st.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  21. #1421
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,161
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  22. #1422
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    caught the 6pm CTV news yesterday and there was a business owner on 109 Street who had a letter signed by 20 other businesses on 109 Street or very close to it, who are against putting a bike-lane on 109 Street. They said it would negatively affect their bottom line with limited parking around the area.
    Ridiculous, as there wouldn't be any parking removed if they put it on the East side of the street. Also, its way easier for someone on a bike to stop and find parking to visit a business. Do they think cyclists don't spend money?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  23. #1423
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,392

    Default

    That petition smacks of Envision Edmonton.
    How dare these businesses make more money!
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  24. #1424

    Default

    Using 109th street south of high level for bike lanes is a foolish idea at best. I don't know what is with this city administration... instead of creating transportation networks in harmony with each other, they seem to prefer the idea of pitting one against the other. It's a brain-dead idea, when one can easily use 110th street without taking away parking or driving lanes through a busy commerce area.

    Before you respond that I'm some car driving suburban person, realize that I ride to work nearly daily, and probably ride more kms per year than you have in your life.

  25. #1425

    Default

    It is true that once could easily transform 110th st from 76 ave to the High Level Bridge to a valuable and good piece of cycling infrastructure, but I think the conversation on the two routes is whether the intent is to also consider the route beyond 76th ave (ease of thru-access and connections), as well as the general transformation of 109th street.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  26. #1426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Ridiculous, as there wouldn't be any parking removed if they put it on the East side of the street. Also, its way easier for someone on a bike to stop and find parking to visit a business. Do they think cyclists don't spend money?
    Really kinda depends on if that business is a Starbucks or a Bridal Shop.

    Also if you provide parking that gives you access to a bigger radius of people. If I open a food establishment on 109 Street with no parking (or next to impossible to find parking), I kinda doubt those Westenders are going to bike/bus over. But if a cyclist isn't willing to walk one street over for the food (the food must not be very good).

  27. #1427

    Default

    The neighbourhood has ample free parking.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  28. #1428
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    City Bicycle Ridership Survey

    We would like your feedback on cycling in Edmonton. Researchers from the University of Alberta are conducting a study on Edmontonians' perceptions of cycling in different environments. All residents of Edmonton are welcome to participate whether they currently ride a bike or not.
    They have a good section about comfort levels riding using videos to illustrate the situations.

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

  29. #1429

    Default

    The new bike lanes on 83rd Avenue between 106 Street and 111 Street are open for business.

    All that seems to be left is a little landscaping in a few spots.


    All the wet weather has allowed the newly-laid sod to take very well. The lanes themselves look great.


    There's also a new set of pedestrian-activated traffic lights at 83rd and 109 Street with brick crosswalks. Looks good and is far safer than what was there previously.


    Overall everything looks great, seems to be a wonderful addition. I do wish that it would have extended all the way to 112 street though.

  30. #1430

    Default

    I hope there is enforcement with fines for misuse of these signals for people who do not dismount.

  31. #1431

    Default

    Why do they need to dismount at a protected, separated cycle track intersection?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  32. #1432

    Default

    Because it is a Pedestrian-activated signal. I know this escapes the comprehension of many cyclists. It is not a way to snarl traffic beyond what has already been inflict on drivers by cyclists.

  33. #1433
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Why should cyclists dismount if they aren't using the crosswalk?

  34. #1434

    Default

    If they activate the Pedestrian signal as they repeatedly do all over the City they better dismount.

  35. #1435

    Default

    You know, I see drivers who take advantage of a pedestrian pushing the button at a crosswalk all the time, sometime even having a passenger get out to push the button and I've never seen a single one get out an push his or her car.

    I don't understand why a cyclist should be treated any differently.
    There can only be one.

  36. #1436

    Default

    Both should be fined. My experience is that cyclists are the #1 offenders and the last thing we need is more snarl on 109 street.

  37. #1437

    Default

    My experience is that cars get in the way of other cars far more often than cyclists get in the way, and that the lights timed for cars at 82 ave cause queues back past 83ave fairly often. Adding a timed light to allow safe crossing of 109 will have no effect on motor traffic other than making it harder for them to illegally enter the 83 ave intersection when they're unable to clear it and harder to illegally not yield to pedestrians crossing 109st.

    Also, you may have noticed that there are hundreds of locations in this city where traffic lights are triggered by detection loops in the pavement that detect cars, ensuring that people in cars get a chance to proceed in a reasonable amount of time. Very few bikes have enough metal in them to be detected and you would probably be livid if one rode up to a red light in the part of the street where they might have a chance.

    For a person on a bike refraining from pushing the button to avoid "snarling" traffic is pretty much like someone in a car intentionally stopping at a red light behind the detection loop to avoid triggering the signal and "snarling" traffic.

    When was the last time you saw a driver do that?





    Also, at the flashing yellow pedestrian crossings do you particularly enjoy waiting longer for a dismounted bike rider because you revel in their inconvenience, or would you prefer they ride their bike and clear the crossing faster despite it violating the letter of the law?

    Only the second option is rational.
    There can only be one.

  38. #1438

    Default

    I wasn't there for long but as far as I could tell the 83rd Avenue lights were completely synchronized with the 82nd Avenue lights. I doubt these new lights will affect traffic flow and they were badly needed for pedestrian safety.

    I wish they would have added activation buttons specifically for use by cyclists.

  39. #1439

    Default

    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.

  40. #1440

    Default

    This is not a amber crosswalk. This intersection is a traffic light controlled intersection where cyclists, pedestrians, and cars will cross 109 street on a red light, or when safe proceed through the stop sign.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #1441

    Default

    I was brought up to not blare my horn at other road users unless they were creating imminent danger. You don't need to stop or yield to a cyclist who doesn't dismount but the horn is just you being disrespectful.
    There can only be one.

  42. #1442

    Default

    There is currently no section in the Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590 or the Alberta Traffic Safety Act specifically dealing with cyclists in crosswalks. Cyclists are not legally required to dismount at crosswalks and there is nothing to prohibit a cyclist from riding along a crosswalk.In terms of the operations of a crosswalk, as stated in the Alberta TSA “Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation” Part 2, Division 4 (75): “A person driving a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within the crosswalk.”
    Therefore, only if a cyclist dismounts and is therefore considered a pedestrian and not a vehicle by law, do they obtain the right-of-way over motorists.
    If a cyclist chooses to ride their bike along the crosswalk, they are considered a vehicle. The crosswalk only serves to provide protection for pedestrians.
    This does not excuse vehicles from exercising due care and taking reasonable efforts to avoid collisions (regardless of right of way), but they are not legally obligated to yield to a cyclist who rides through a crosswalk merely because of the presence of a crosswalk. On the other hand, other controls, such as a yield or stop sign, would still require a driver to yield to both pedestrians and cross traffic, meaning even without dismounting a person would still have the right of way over vehicle traffic.
    http://edmontonbikes.ca/bylaw-5590-traffic-bylaw/

  43. #1443
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.
    So you want Cyclists to dismount and take longer to cross the road? Which is in opposition to your concern about increased traffic congestion.

  44. #1444
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,161

    Default

    Looks fantastic.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  45. #1445
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    edmonton, alberta
    Posts
    2,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Looks fantastic.
    I second that

  46. #1446
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.
    My guess is that the 109 st crossing will have the same bike detectors that were placed on 99 st. A bike goes over the detector and then the light will change for them. For now, their only option is to press the button, and once they proceed they are doing so as a vehicle, not as a pedestrian.

    You are correct that bikes should be walked across a normal crosswalk.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  47. #1447

    Default

    What's the bike count today?

  48. #1448
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    What's the bike count today?
    Down a bit.

    I was out and saw few others though. I actually think the count is higher in mid-winter when people have their winter bikes and gear ready. This is so abnormal for this time of year most who ride in the winter weren't ready for it. Or thought they weren't ready for it. The reality was the riding wasn't bad. No ice, just wet so like riding on a rainy day except cooler.

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

  49. #1449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.
    My guess is that the 109 st crossing will have the same bike detectors that were placed on 99 st. A bike goes over the detector and then the light will change for them. For now, their only option is to press the button, and once they proceed they are doing so as a vehicle, not as a pedestrian.

    You are correct that bikes should be walked across a normal crosswalk.

    http://edmontonbikes.ca/bylaw-5590-traffic-bylaw/

  50. #1450

    Default

    From Medwards link

    There is currently no section in the Edmonton Traffic Bylaw 5590 or the Alberta Traffic Safety Act specifically dealing with cyclists in crosswalks. Cyclists are not legally required to dismount at crosswalks and there is nothing to prohibit a cyclist from riding along a crosswalk.


    In terms of the operations of a crosswalk, as stated in the Alberta TSA “Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation” Part 2, Division 4 (75): “A person driving a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within the crosswalk.”


    Therefore, only if a cyclist dismounts and is therefore considered a pedestrian and not a vehicle by law, do they obtain the right-of-way over motorists.


    If a cyclist chooses to ride their bike along the crosswalk, they are considered a vehicle. The crosswalk only serves to provide protection for pedestrians.

  51. #1451
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    The interesting thing here is that while there is nothing technically illegal about riding your bike in a crosswalk it is against city bylaw to ride an adult sized bike on a sidewalk. Yet it seems what people get up in arms about the former far more than the latter.

    On the practical side if you are riding on the sidewalk it makes a lot of sense to dismount when crossing or, at the very least, treat it as stop sign. Even a cyclist moving at moderate speed could be seen too late for a driver to brake in time.

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

  52. #1452

    Default

    Agreed, everyone has a responsibility to drive/ride/walk/run/hover safe and with due care, however, expecting cyclists, especially those who are commuting to dismount to cross a road is highly inefficient for the cyclist. Its akin to asking the driver to get out of his car and push it across...

    drivers need to come to a full stop, at the stop line, not the middle of a crosswalk before proceeding with their next movement. Thats where the majority of problem occur, drivers ignoring stop lines.
    Last edited by Medwards; 22-09-2018 at 12:37 PM.

  53. #1453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.
    Your view on this is outmoded. A cyclist should walk their bike across a crossing if they happen to be on a sidewalk. If they happen instead to be going through the crossing on a designate multiuse/bike path they should not have to dismount. Every cycling season I encounter several drivers like yourself that honk their horn or yell abuse because I didn't dismount and I carefully crossed the crossing with the walk sign visible ON a multiuse path. It seems some drivers are still working off a 1970's driving instruction manual.

    Multiuse paths have existed in this City now since at least the 1970's and you swear from driver reaction that its a new innovation.

    I do think as well that most of the driver frustration and abuse directed is primarily due to drivers choosing a mode of transport that is just much more frustrating. Albeit cycling in this city is plenty frustrating as well when interaction with some drivers is involved..


    I counter this though by waving thank you to any driver out there that does even spot a cyclist using a road adjacent multiuse path. I appreciate that some drivers are even aware of cyclists occupying adjacent paths.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2018 at 01:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  54. #1454
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,275

    Default

    The other reason why a cyclist should dissmount their bikes and walk them while crossing a cross walk with 4 lanes, is because the last lane ahead is often a right hand turning lane. Maybe the adjacent vehicle in a right hand turning lane is a blind spot to a higher profile vehicle like a truck. I've seen vehicles in the turning right hand lane just whip by without checking.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  55. #1455
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.
    Your view on this is outmoded. A cyclist should walk their bike across a crossing if they happen to be on a sidewalk. If they happen instead to be going through the crossing on a designate multiuse/bike path they should not have to dismount. Every cycling season I encounter several drivers like yourself that honk their horn or yell abuse because I didn't dismount and I carefully crossed the crossing with the walk sign visible ON a multiuse path. It seems some drivers are still working off a 1970's driving instruction manual.

    Multiuse paths have existed in this City now since at least the 1970's and you swear from driver reaction that its a new innovation.

    I do think as well that most of the driver frustration and abuse directed is primarily due to drivers choosing a mode of transport that is just much more frustrating. Albeit cycling in this city is plenty frustrating as well when interaction with some drivers is involved..


    I counter this though by waving thank you to any driver out there that does even spot a cyclist using a road adjacent multiuse path. I appreciate that some drivers are even aware of cyclists occupying adjacent paths.
    So, here's what I witnessed the other day on 99 st and Whyte Ave. Vehicle is facing South on 99 st, turning East onto Whyte Ave. There's 5 seconds left on the walk signal (before the light changes) - there's no traffic heading North on 99 st, and no pedestrians crossing. The vehicle starts to turn when all of a sudden there's a cyclist heading South using the crosswalk, and he nearly got hit by the vehicle turning. Who is at fault?

    If the cyclist is a pedestrian then he started crossing WAY too late. If he's a vehicle then he's driving on the wrong side of the road. The vehicle turning left had checked before proceeding to make sure it was clear, but because the cyclist wasn't obeying the rules, he nearly got clipped. The cyclist was a dick, and he nearly got run over because of it. (This was NOT a commuter-cyclist...)
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  56. #1456
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Agreed, everyone has a responsibility to drive/ride/walk/run/hover safe and with due care, however, expecting cyclists, especially those who are commuting to dismount to cross a road is highly inefficient for the cyclist. Its akin to asking the driver to get out of his car and push it across...

    drivers need to come to a full stop, at the stop line, not the middle of a crosswalk before proceeding with their next movement. Thats where the majority of problem occur, drivers ignoring stop lines.
    Drivers do not need to come to a full stop when turning on a green light or on a yield sign. A cyclist on a sidewalk can easily be moving fast enough that a driver will not see them in time. As an example, while cycling on a road I was about to turn right, I looked right first to see if any pedestrians were crossing then left for any vehicles. As I started to move two cyclists at speed almost hit me in the crosswalk from my right. They were moving fast enough I didn't see them on my first check.

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

  57. #1457

    Default

    Im talking about when there is a stop sign or red light for the driver, especially if the driver intends on turning right, they do not stop at the stop line and instead proceed beyond the stop line and into the crosswalk area, blocking people from using the crosswalk. The proper motion is to stop at the stopline and then only proceed once safe to
    do so.

  58. #1458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I was brought up to dismount and walk my bike if I wanted to use a crosswalk. I always respect that and stop for both pedestrians and dismounted cyclists (I drive Saskatchewan Drive to work every day and stop for dismounted cyclists every time; those who try to ride through a crosswalk get no leeway and a loud horn if they do). The fact that you seem to think you are special is what is wrong with the whole approach that this misguided administration and city council has taken.
    Your view on this is outmoded. A cyclist should walk their bike across a crossing if they happen to be on a sidewalk. If they happen instead to be going through the crossing on a designate multiuse/bike path they should not have to dismount. Every cycling season I encounter several drivers like yourself that honk their horn or yell abuse because I didn't dismount and I carefully crossed the crossing with the walk sign visible ON a multiuse path. It seems some drivers are still working off a 1970's driving instruction manual.

    Multiuse paths have existed in this City now since at least the 1970's and you swear from driver reaction that its a new innovation.

    I do think as well that most of the driver frustration and abuse directed is primarily due to drivers choosing a mode of transport that is just much more frustrating. Albeit cycling in this city is plenty frustrating as well when interaction with some drivers is involved..


    I counter this though by waving thank you to any driver out there that does even spot a cyclist using a road adjacent multiuse path. I appreciate that some drivers are even aware of cyclists occupying adjacent paths.
    So, here's what I witnessed the other day on 99 st and Whyte Ave. Vehicle is facing South on 99 st, turning East onto Whyte Ave. There's 5 seconds left on the walk signal (before the light changes) - there's no traffic heading North on 99 st, and no pedestrians crossing. The vehicle starts to turn when all of a sudden there's a cyclist heading South using the crosswalk, and he nearly got hit by the vehicle turning. Who is at fault?

    If the cyclist is a pedestrian then he started crossing WAY too late. If he's a vehicle then he's driving on the wrong side of the road. The vehicle turning left had checked before proceeding to make sure it was clear, but because the cyclist wasn't obeying the rules, he nearly got clipped. The cyclist was a dick, and he nearly got run over because of it. (This was NOT a commuter-cyclist...)
    Can't comment on others but I go only on a fresh green, with walk sign, if anybody is turning. If intersection is clear of left or right turning vehicles I do proceed still with stale green light if safe to do so. Ultimately its up to the cyclist to look out for their safety just like a pedestrian. You can't assume it.

    Note that I don't think it is fair, courteous, or sharing the road for pedestrians or cyclists to prevent turning vehicles by going on a stale green. But if nobody is turning and I have green I'm not delaying anybody.


    But I've had dick drivers literally scream at me as they are turning left into me that I "have to dismount" So in otherwards if I don't dismount and cross on a walk signal they feel like they have permission to mow me down...
    Last edited by Replacement; 23-09-2018 at 12:16 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  59. #1459

    Default

    The trails around Rossdale/the power plant are finally open again. Went for a nice long ride yesterday from the Walterdale towards the funicular. Too bad the trail connections at Louise McKinney are still closed.

  60. #1460
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,161
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  61. #1461
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,275

    Default

    The bush and assorted foliage that has been existing there for decades along the West side of the tracks from Clareview station to Belvedere has been cleared. I'm hoping the City will install a multi use pathway, that will connect Clareview station to Belvedere station.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  62. #1462
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,472

    Default

    ^ Hopefully. That pathway is long overdue.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415

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
  •