Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 701 to 732 of 732

Thread: Cycling Infrastructure | Discussion

  1. #701

    Default

    ^^My guess is the 106 Street south of 100 Avenue is one way as well as concerns about capacity. There was a whole matrix of factors and routes were considered on a bunch of criteria which was reviewed by a third party audit.

    I doubt any cyclist wants to go down 106 Street hill anyhow. Doesn't connect to anything. (or up for that matter).
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 20-04-2017 at 05:04 PM.
    www.decl.org

  2. #702
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^^My guess is the 106 Street south of 100 Avenue is one way as well as concerns about capacity. There was a whole matrix of factors and routes were considered on a bunch of criteria which was reviewed by a third party audit.

    I doubt any cyclist wants to go down 106 Street hill anyhow. Doesn't connect to anything. (or up for that matter).
    Most cyclists, I think, would rather connect with HLB, or now that that's kind of screwed up, River Valley road and Menzies. What is needed though on Southbank is a little bit more manageable or gradual hill climb to get out of the valley. The one at U of A is nuts. That's several switchbacks. Most people get out of breath just walking up that one, its not fit for bikes. I think a few times in my life I've been able to pedal up that one. Even in lower gears you wonder if you're going to break a chain or a body part..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  3. #703
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Interesting.

    Bikes are typically around 0.8m wide. Cars are over 2m wide including mirrors, trucks around 2.5m and close to 6m long. Average occupancy isn't much higher.

    so which one hogs the roads again?
    The guy in front of me this morning, on a bike, that acted like HE owned the road.so who do you think I would say!
    This is actually recommended for cyclists using roads, its what they are supposed to do. I don't, I cycle near the curb, but that is very hazardous to do and much moreso than just occupying the lane. When a cyclist occupies the lane drivers have to navigate around and deal with that. When a cyclist is hugging the curb at their own peril (look out for sand, gravel, lousy uneven forms, pavement) drivers drive as if you are not even there whizzing by sometimes inches from pedals and handlebars if they don't run you off the road. I've been hit by cars 3 times in my cycling career. Trust me its not something somebody wants to happen once. All of these were egregious driver errors. "I didn't see him" (in broad daylight)

    As for hogging the road multiple bikes can navigate on a standard driving lane. With quite a lot of density. Almost all of those are one person bikes, like almost all the commuting vehicles driving. 10bikes fit into the footprint of a standard SUV. Who's hogging again?

    Try Burrard Bridge or Cambie in Vancouver sometime. In rush hour there are more bikes using and fitting on that bridge than vehicles and they got only 25% of the lane spacing of the bridge if that.
    Last edited by Replacement; 20-04-2017 at 06:55 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  4. #704
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    107 doesn't go through Macewan while 106 does, so there's that. 108 is already fairly bike friendly, so this makes a pretty nice grid with every second street being bike friendly.
    It's my understanding that one of the double sidewalks on the south side of MacEwan is supposed to become a bike lane. Using that to get over to 107 Street from the 106 Street MacEwan underpass would have been better than having to jog over on 100 Avenue.

    Since 100 Avenue is also going to have a protected bike lane guess the City's plan won't be terrible, just not optimum.

  5. #705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post

    Since 100 Avenue is also going to have a protected bike lane guess the City's plan won't be terrible, just not optimum.
    This should be what goes on our entrance signs. "Not terrible, just not optimum".
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  6. #706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So just wondering when cars bend the metal pylons onto the bike path by hitting them how fast it takes to repair them. This being a city where there hundreds of traffic sign casualties a year, Where people drive thru lawns and manage to hit house full bore, where people drive into shop fronts not on purpose.

    This isn't a barrier, its psychological only.

    Oh, as Howie mentioned above, I agree. Spiked belt, lol.

    We can't really design a livable city around the expectation that cars are constantly going to be driving uncontrollably at full speed. You'd have giant concrete pits as roads and bunkers for buildings. Better to reduce the ability/desirability to drive a lot and at high speeds.

    A normal driver isn't going to be jumping those curbs.

    Calgary has these, and they work just fine, both at keeping drivers out and at encouraging more people to ride bikes (and feel comfortable doing so). For all the hand-wringing and worrying we can do about potential problems, we just have to look at Calgary (and ride a bike there) to see that they work.

    As others have mentioned, there will be more significant barriers (including planters) at key points, such as approaching intersections, where more significant protection is desirable.

    And for the real winners that manage to get their cars stuck in a bike lane: that's what public shaming is for.

    Also: the bollards are flexible. They just pop back up if someone hits them.

  7. #707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    By "acted like he owned the road", you mean "refused to defer to you who really owns the road", right?

    Maybe consider that he owns the road just as much as you do.
    No, not right. And get a damn bell on your bikes!
    Just imagine that he was driving his car and you were behind him. Because that would be what he would be doing if he weren't riding his bike.

    And: ding ding ding.

  8. #708

    Default

    The kerbs work very well to separate cars and bicycles. The only exception would be a very small amount of filthy degenerates, for whom jumping barriers gets their perverted jollies going.

    Unfortunately, the filthy degenerates always make the most noise. The creeps pollute this forum as they pollute anywhere else.

    Fortunately, their easy assumption that everyone is as obscene as they are -- for wanton speeding or kerb jumping or anything else these perverts do -- is wrong.

    Most people are not degenerate creeps. Thank the gods.

  9. #709
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fryingwoks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    By "acted like he owned the road", you mean "refused to defer to you who really owns the road", right?

    Maybe consider that he owns the road just as much as you do.
    No, not right. And get a damn bell on your bikes!
    Just imagine that he was driving his car and you were behind him. Because that would be what he would be doing if he weren't riding his bike.

    And: ding ding ding.

    Is it a lot to ask though?A bell on a bicycle????????

  10. #710

    Default

    Public open house on 102 Ave. bike lane construction.

    Date: Wednesday May 3, 2017
    Time: 5-8pm
    Place: Robertson-Wesley United Church

    The meeting will provide details on construction of the 102 Ave. bike lane from Clifton Place to 111 St. Construction is planned to start in May and be completed by Fall 2017. https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...ke-routes.aspx.

  11. #711
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^^ Properly built bike lanes benefit everyone, including drivers. Cyclists don't need to compete for space, and drivers aren't impeded by cyclists occupying a full lane because there is nowhere else to go. And what is with the hangup about bells? Bike bells are like car horns - something you should have, but not something you should use often.

  12. #712
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    I think you should have a bell. We've seen elderly people scared by a bike going far too fast by them, if they had heard a bell, it would have been better.Of course some people on bikes don't think that way, it's all about them!
    Nothing like a car horn at all.

  13. #713
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,075

    Default

    Common courtesy not being very common, unfortunately.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  14. #714
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    I think you should have a bell. We've seen elderly people scared by a bike going far too fast by them, if they had heard a bell, it would have been better.Of course some people on bikes don't think that way, it's all about them!
    Nothing like a car horn at all.
    I've seen elderly people have no conception that they are actually on a multiuse trail and could reasonably expect bikes to be passing them. I've seen enough kids, families, other people be similarly unaware. Multiuse trails are not sidewalks. They are multiuse and also for people with bikes, rollerblades etc none of whom appreciate fellow users with no appreciation that it is a busy use area and with faster modes passing them.

    I use a bell, regularly, because a lot of trail users walking 4 astride and blocking trails like cattle standing around are not properly using the trails. Generally, to be considerate to other users a right hand rule should apply to pedestrians using trails. Stay in right lane except for passing when its safe. Its obviously ignorant, or should be, for people to block the whole trail or be entirely unaware of other trail users.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  15. #715

    Default

    ^ Yep. Dog walkers too, with their leashes stretched over the whole trail.

    It's not difficult to stay to the right, just common courtesy.

  16. #716

    Default

    ^^^The law says you need a bell, and they're sometimes useful, but less often than you might think.

    Dinging a bell doesn't help much if the pedestrian is hard of hearing, as is often the case for seniors.
    To really work like it's supposed to on a multi-use path the bell needs to be rung, and heard, long enough before passing that the cyclist is still well back when the pedestrian inevitably swerves while shoulder checking, and randomly chooses a direction to "get out of the way" they don't cause more conflict.

    There are a lot of places where cyclists just need to slow down to something like a moderate jogging speed when there are lots of people around - but there are also places where pedestrians just need to expect that people on bikes will be passing by all the time.

    edit: also, the best way to reduce conflicts is to separate users going different speeds, or to provide sufficient width to pass. Adding more separated cycling infrastructure is probably the best way to reduce conflicts. Both the separated lanes we're building now that will help coax riders off sidewalks, and separated cycling and walking paths in high-use off-roadway locations or well marked cycling areas within larger mixed use areas.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 24-04-2017 at 09:17 AM.
    There can only be one.

  17. #717
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    ^ Yep. Dog walkers too, with their leashes stretched over the whole trail.

    It's not difficult to stay to the right, just common courtesy.
    Dog walkers are a bane on my cycling existence. The worst being the dog walker with earphones on that can't hear the bell and 25 feet leash of random canine attached. Canines are like random molecules. They don't walk in a straight line lets just say. Toddlers as well. Those should come with leashes..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  18. #718
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,127

    Default

    I find bells worse than useless for the reasons that Highlander presents. I have no directional sense of hearing and I know that different cyclists like to use different protocols when dealing with pedestrians (some expect the walker to step out of their path, believe it or not). So when I hear a bell, I find myself stopping and shoulder checking to see where the cyclists is and what direction he wants to use to pass. Usually they're well past by then. My irritation lingers though.

  19. #719
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    I expect pedestrians to move when they hear a bell, which is why I generally only use it when they and/or their pets are occupying the entire width of a multi-use trail and there is no room for me to pass if they don't move. Otherwise, I just go around.

  20. #720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I expect pedestrians to move when they hear a bell, which is why I generally only use it when they and/or their pets are occupying the entire width of a multi-use trail and there is no room for me to pass if they don't move. Otherwise, I just go around.
    Best policy may be: Do not not ask for whom the bell tolls, assume the bell tolls for thee.

  21. #721
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    ^ Yep. Dog walkers too, with their leashes stretched over the whole trail.

    It's not difficult to stay to the right, just common courtesy.
    Dog walkers are a bane on my cycling existence. The worst being the dog walker with earphones on that can't hear the bell and 25 feet leash of random canine attached. Canines are like random molecules. They don't walk in a straight line lets just say. Toddlers as well. Those should come with leashes..
    Bikes must rule.! Bike owners are .....

  22. #722
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I expect pedestrians to move when they hear a bell, which is why I generally only use it when they and/or their pets are occupying the entire width of a multi-use trail and there is no room for me to pass if they don't move. Otherwise, I just go around.

    If everyone is sharing,include seniors with walkers,let them know you are behind them, pretty simple

  23. #723
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    ^ Yep. Dog walkers too, with their leashes stretched over the whole trail.

    It's not difficult to stay to the right, just common courtesy.

    I agree. I just don't want someone on a bike to spook them!

  24. #724
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Common courtesy not being very common, unfortunately.
    No, it is not.My dogs are always on a tight leash.those bikes rushing to Grant McEwen, they are going faster than bikes on a road!

  25. #725
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    I find bells worse than useless for the reasons that Highlander presents. I have no directional sense of hearing and I know that different cyclists like to use different protocols when dealing with pedestrians (some expect the walker to step out of their path, believe it or not). So when I hear a bell, I find myself stopping and shoulder checking to see where the cyclists is and what direction he wants to use to pass. Usually they're well past by then. My irritation lingers though.
    I get perplexed that the rule is not understood. On Multiuse trails there is usually a line painted in the middle. The assumption being to cater to right hand rule and so that any nature of users can use the lanes so as not to run head into each other. So that it should be for all conveyences stay on the right except if you need to pass on the left. Any cyclist expecting the user to move out of the way and out of that lane is confusing the whole purpose of the lanes. Lots of people will state "passing on the left" I thought that that was redundant information and that the bell or Passing should suffice.

    On a bike I'm the faster moving vehicle and can navigate and go in and out of lane much quicker. Why would I expect a pedestrian to do that? All I require is that they contain themselves to the right lane and not take up the whole trail walking abreast. I've seen walkers that walk abreast lining the other trail even so that cyclists upcoming, which they see, actually have to go off the trail to afford the walkers the whole trail. actually this is common. How I deal with people like that when I'm in a mood is come to a complete stop tapping fingers on my handlebar. see it they get it or not..As in your blocking both lanes. I've actually had walkers look at me rude for being on their trail. Even though I'm in the right lane as I should be.

    Should mention here that any user going from Right to left lane should check forwards and backwards before doing so.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #726
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    ^ Yep. Dog walkers too, with their leashes stretched over the whole trail.

    It's not difficult to stay to the right, just common courtesy.
    Dog walkers are a bane on my cycling existence. The worst being the dog walker with earphones on that can't hear the bell and 25 feet leash of random canine attached. Canines are like random molecules. They don't walk in a straight line lets just say. Toddlers as well. Those should come with leashes..
    Bikes must rule.! Bike owners are .....
    Its just a comment, no reason to get offended. I was tongue in cheek with that. But as far as dogs they are extremely hazardous to other cyclists. Not to mention the dog. Ever see a dogs chain get caught by a bicycle as its going through? I've seen one lodge on a cyclists crank. The cyclist was severely injured as was the big dog. Dogs are also the bane of people using boards, rollerblades. A dog on a multiuse trail should be properly controlled, on short leash, or otherwise represent a threat to nearly every other user.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  27. #727
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    ^ Yep. Dog walkers too, with their leashes stretched over the whole trail.

    It's not difficult to stay to the right, just common courtesy.
    Dog walkers are a bane on my cycling existence. The worst being the dog walker with earphones on that can't hear the bell and 25 feet leash of random canine attached. Canines are like random molecules. They don't walk in a straight line lets just say. Toddlers as well. Those should come with leashes..
    Bikes must rule.! Bike owners are .....
    Its just a comment, no reason to get offended. I was tongue in cheek with that. But as far as dogs they are extremely hazardous to other cyclists. Not to mention the dog. Ever see a dogs chain get caught by a bicycle as its going through? I've seen one lodge on a cyclists crank. The cyclist was severely injured as was the big dog. Dogs are also the bane of people using boards, rollerblades. A dog on a multiuse trail should be properly controlled, on short leash, or otherwise represent a threat to nearly every other user.
    I agreed about the dogs/dog owners, I would never let mine go off on a log leash , unless we are in a field

  28. #728
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    I find bells worse than useless for the reasons that Highlander presents. I have no directional sense of hearing and I know that different cyclists like to use different protocols when dealing with pedestrians (some expect the walker to step out of their path, believe it or not). So when I hear a bell, I find myself stopping and shoulder checking to see where the cyclists is and what direction he wants to use to pass. Usually they're well past by then. My irritation lingers though.
    I get perplexed that the rule is not understood. On Multiuse trails there is usually a line painted in the middle. The assumption being to cater to right hand rule and so that any nature of users can use the lanes so as not to run head into each other. So that it should be for all conveyences stay on the right except if you need to pass on the left. Any cyclist expecting the user to move out of the way and out of that lane is confusing the whole purpose of the lanes. Lots of people will state "passing on the left" I thought that that was redundant information and that the bell or Passing should suffice.

    On a bike I'm the faster moving vehicle and can navigate and go in and out of lane much quicker. Why would I expect a pedestrian to do that? All I require is that they contain themselves to the right lane and not take up the whole trail walking abreast. I've seen walkers that walk abreast lining the other trail even so that cyclists upcoming, which they see, actually have to go off the trail to afford the walkers the whole trail. actually this is common. How I deal with people like that when I'm in a mood is come to a complete stop tapping fingers on my handlebar. see it they get it or not..As in your blocking both lanes. I've actually had walkers look at me rude for being on their trail. Even though I'm in the right lane as I should be.

    Should mention here that any user going from Right to left lane should check forwards and backwards before doing so.
    Oh I agree. When I walk on a multi-use trail, I'm on the extreme right of the pavement. You can pass me if you want. Cars pass each other all the time without honking at each other if the rules are understood. What I object to is the occasional cyclist who rings their bell at a short distance *right behind me*. In those cases, muddy shoes are easier to deal with that a collision. They then thank me for getting out of the way. No kidding.

    My most memorable episode was one I witnessed rather than participated in. I was on a multi-use early in the morning in Calgary. Wide trail. There was a guy on crutches making his slow way along. Behind us came a cyclist who then slowed right down, rang her bell insistently until the poor guy went onto the grass so she could proceed on. Are there people who think you've got to *stay* on the right?

  29. #729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    Oh I agree. When I walk on a multi-use trail, I'm on the extreme right of the pavement. You can pass me if you want. Cars pass each other all the time without honking at each other if the rules are understood. What I object to is the occasional cyclist who rings their bell at a short distance *right behind me*. In those cases, muddy shoes are easier to deal with that a collision. They then thank me for getting out of the way. No kidding.

    My most memorable episode was one I witnessed rather than participated in. I was on a multi-use early in the morning in Calgary. Wide trail. There was a guy on crutches making his slow way along. Behind us came a cyclist who then slowed right down, rang her bell insistently until the poor guy went onto the grass so she could proceed on. Are there people who think you've got to *stay* on the right?
    The right of way is always the pedestrian's. If you are tall enough, can look determined enough, and can ignore the obscenities about to come your way, you can keep to your walking path until the cyclists go around you. I've done that sometimes. Unfortunately, that is not always an option, as your post shows too well.

  30. #730

    Default

    They should be working on the 103st bike lane now, at least the sign said parking is no longer allowed as of today.

    106 st looked pretty good yesterday, but I really hope that new lights at 104 ave are in the budget. it's not a fun crosswalk as it is.

    I rode the existing lane on 83 ave the other day - still full of winter grit, pretty much had to ride on the line. But at least with no divider I could do that. 106st north of whyte has to be the worst. Completely useless.
    There can only be one.

  31. #731

    Default

    Update on Bike Grid Launch Event - Likely happening late August, to be confirmed. Planning a bunch of events/stations around the grid to get people engaged and exploring the network, as well as education on the new lanes/signals/bike safety. Main launch will most-likely be at the Federal Building plaza (Centennial Plaza). More details to come.

    If you want to get involved somehow, I can point you in the right direction City-wise.
    www.decl.org

  32. #732
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    42,814

    Default

    Time to get the bike tuned up!
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

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
  •