News   Nov 27, 2024
Menkes Welcomes First Occupants to Festival at Assembly Park in Vaughan
 489     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
News Roundup for November 27, 2024
 482     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Better Buy a Boat
 740     0 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

W. K. Lis said:
When they design a cycling and pedestrian path based on "regulations". Likely to "slow" down cyclists...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628960349230710786
Click to expand...

Walter, that is not a cycling path; and it is not designed in that manner due to regulations either. It is a terrible design, but lets not confuse ineptitude in landscape architecture with 'engineering'

***

I should add, the idea of the windiness in the above is likely to make it accessible by reducing the rate of incline/gradient to something that could be managed by someone in a wheelchair, but I don't know that.

However, even if that is the case here, the design is poorly thought out, because a shorter and more direct route (likely using stairs) should be included in the design as well. In so far as accessibility is concerned, the path would also be too narrow.

It the choice is entirely aesthetic then its really goofy. But again, nothing to do with cycling at all.
 
Last edited:
Work on the College street bike lane upgrades is set to begin:

1677870974247.png
 
^ He raises a good point about pickup trucks being kind of antisocial. They should be made compliant with safety and emissions rules applicable to other passenger vehicles. Beyond that, maybe we need some rules around by whom and where they can be used that are a bit short of just banning them outright. Maybe a reasonable accommodation would be to require either a CDL or pay a high per km toll ($1-2/km) when driving such a vehicle in an urban area. No one is being deprived the use of them, but they will be strongly discouraged.

Lift kits and exhaust modifications should result in immediate impounding.
 
afransen said:
^ He raises a good point about pickup trucks being kind of antisocial. They should be made compliant with safety and emissions rules applicable to other passenger vehicles. Beyond that, maybe we need some rules around by whom and where they can be used that are a bit short of just banning them outright. Maybe a reasonable accommodation would be to require either a CDL or pay a high per km toll ($1-2/km) when driving such a vehicle in an urban area. No one is being deprived the use of them, but they will be strongly discouraged.

Lift kits and exhaust modifications should result in immediate impounding.
Click to expand...

As someone with an association to landscape/horticulture industry, in a roundabout way; I can say pick-ups are common and pretty necessary for moving equipment and material.

The problem is not pick-ups themselves; the problem is their use as a personal vehicle for people who have no practical reason to own one.

That then being a two-fold issue, that we have more of them on the road than necessary, but also that people who buy them for non-practical reasons are often doing so because they like the size, the ability to 'bully' or get attention; and are also inclined to making said problematic after-market changes as well.

That's not universal, of course; and lots of smaller vehicles can be and are driven in an overly-aggressive fashion; and/or are subject to similar modifications.

There's a balance to be struck between moderating access to some things, in some cases; discouraging access in others, and policing/enforcing reasonable uses of; variations to said equipment.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
As someone with an association to landscape/horticulture industry, in a roundabout way; I can say pick-ups are common and pretty necessary for moving equipment and material.

The problem is not pick-ups themselves; the problem is their use as a personal vehicle for people who have no practical reason to own one.
Click to expand...

The design with the ridiculously big grille that raises/extends the hood (which has permeated SUVs and other autos) is part of the problem. Manufacturers have created big vehicles with crap sightlines. Strict standards for noise and sightlines that are enforced would help.
 
PL1 said:
The design with the ridiculously big grille that raises/extends the hood (which has permeated SUVs and other autos) is part of the problem. Manufacturers have created big vehicles with crap sightlines. Strict standards for noise and sightlines that are enforced would help.
Click to expand...
Agreed on sightlines, but pedestrian protection has improved dramatically, even for large and heavy vehicles. For example, the massive Jeep Grand Cherokee gets a high pedestrian protection rating from Euro NCAP: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/grand+cherokee/47749
Yes, I know it's not a truck, but it's 5,500 lbs in the above test and sits high, so it makes the point well enough.

And plenty of other large SUVs are getting similarly high ratings these days.

We're getting to a point where vehicle design can minimize pedestrian deaths and injuries up to about 30-35 km/h. Meanwhile, automatic braking systems can reduce collision speeds by another 30 km/h; and these systems will improve further.

Combined, these factors might make mid-block collisions of up to 60-65 km/h quite survivable without major injuries.

Let's not forget that 65 km/h is where the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities used to approach 100%. So the fact we're getting close to solving that is huge. Frustration with oversized vehicles doesn't change the fact there's been massive progress.
 
Last edited:
Undead said:
Agreed on sightlines, but pedestrian protection has improved dramatically, even for large and heavy vehicles. For example, the massive Jeep Grand Cherokee gets a high pedestrian protection rating from Euro NCAP: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/grand+cherokee/47749
Yes, I know it's not a truck, but it's 5,500 lbs in the above test and sits high, so it makes the point well enough.

And plenty of other large SUVs are getting similarly high ratings these days.

We're getting to a point where vehicle design can minimize pedestrian deaths and injuries up to about 30-35 km/h. Meanwhile, automatic braking systems can reduce collision speeds by another 30 km/h; and these systems will improve further.

Combined, these factors might make mid-block collisions of up to 60-65 km/h quite survivable without major injuries.

Let's not forget that 65 km/h is where the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities used to approach 100%. So the fact we're getting close to solving that is huge. Frustration with oversized vehicles doesn't change the fact there's been massive progress.
Click to expand...
Extra protection with pedestrian detection. Which is an extra cost added to the product, along with a margin of profit for the manufacturers (plural).
 
Sure, and safety tech is one of the factors making vehicles more expensive. Obviously, auto makers will pass on extra costs arising from regulation onto consumers. This is nothing new. Maybe think of it as an investment into protecting vulnerable road users?

If you're claiming they won't do it because it costs more, then I think that's been demonstrated to not be the case. Regulations are forcing auto makers to step up.
 
Undead said:
Sure, and safety tech is one of the factors making vehicles more expensive. Obviously, auto makers will pass on extra costs arising from regulation onto consumers. This is nothing new. Maybe think of it as an investment into protecting vulnerable road users?

If you're claiming they won't do it because it costs more, then I think that's been demonstrated to not be the case. Regulations are forcing auto makers to step up.
Click to expand...

By and large, I agree.

I would note curious exceptions.

The 'industry' broadly supports side guards on trucks at this point (at least publicly); but spent years lobbying against them. To this day, at least last I heard, truck sideguards are still not mandated.

Equally, although review cameras are becoming normative in most newer cars, side-view cameras (which eliminate blindspots) are still something of luxury and not mandated.
 
W. K. Lis said:
The fines are higher for TTC fare evasion than for parking with their four-way flashers as they block streetcars while getting getting their coffee.
Click to expand...
All we need to do is deputize Torontonians. There’s never a valid reason for non-Emerg/Govt vehicles to park in open bike lanes (construction vehicles are allowed where bike lanes are temporarily closed off), same as on sidewalks. It doesn’t matter if you have a handicap parking permit, are delivering food, shredding docs, etc. So, if you see a bike lane blocker, you should be able to photograph the plate and send it to the city to have a ticket issued to the registered owner.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top