Portage and Main re-opening 2016

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Perhaps cyclists should earn their license to share the road, much like automobile operators do. I'm for it. Then they can actually get ticketed.

I didn't read the article but the majority of dumb or selfish cyclists out there is huge.

Wow, people are getting killed, mostly due to unsafe street design, and your response is to want to ticket them. Seems Mr Burns-esque - "Smithers, this damn cyclist has gone and gotten his limbs and organs all tangled up in my suspension! Call the police and have them issue a ticket to this corpse's family, post-haste!"

In reality, cyclists and motorists break traffic laws at about the same rate.
https://www.outsideonline.com/227300...s-more-drivers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-...-similar-rates

[cheswick]

Banning right turn on red would prevent more pedestrian collisions than opening p&m would. Yet we don’t hear any cries for that in the name of safety.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

There are no right turns allowed at P&M on red.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

There are no right turns allowed at P&M on red.

Not just at P&M but in general. That is a huge factor in pedestrian-car collisions. It might seriously be time to rethink right turns on red.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by esquire

Not just at P&M but in general. That is a huge factor in pedestrian-car collisions. It might seriously be time to rethink right turns on red.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unsafe with right turns on red and they save you and me and everyone else time instead of having to wait for the light to change. I don't recall ever once hearing about a pedestrian getting hit by someone turning right on a red.

[esquire]

^ There have been a few such incidents in Toronto lately. It has been brought up as a major issue affecting pedestrian safety.

[robertocarlos]

I was hit by a car while I was on the sidewalk. The driver was coming up to one-way street from the alley and he only looked one way. He did not stop at the sidewalk.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Banning right turn on red would prevent more pedestrian collisions than opening p&m would. Yet we don’t hear any cries for that in the name of safety.

Been saying for a while on here that ALL right turns on reds in downtown/Exchange should be banned 7 am to 7 pm. The city is implementing no RoR at every intersection with a bike lane, but it should extend to all intersections downtown IMO... Cars here tend to roll through the sidewalk to the curb edge, even if it's a red light. No thought at all if a pedestrian could be there.

And there's soooo many more people on the streets these days, and later, that the 5:30 end time for rush hour / no RoR needs to be extended. Streets are just as busy at 6pm these days.

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

I was hit by a car while I was on the sidewalk. The driver was coming up to one-way street from the alley and he only looked one way. He did not stop at the sidewalk.

Yup almost got smoke yesterday crossing WB Bannatyne at Main as I had the walk light but the woman just rolled right through the crosswalk as no traffic was coming. People often forget (or choose not to remember) that you still have to STOP at the line on a red before rolling forward.

As I've said before, we seriously need to move all stop lines at lights back 10 feet, why risk all the (near-) collisions and blocking of crosswalks so driver's can get a few feet closer at a light. It's especially imperative for bike routes, as the city seems to forget that cyclists don't just go in a straight line... sometimes they need to turn right.

In Boston, the stop lines are 10-15 feet back of crosswalks, and painted, so cyclists turning left can cue up safely, and without blocking the bike lane or crosswalk on the other side, and waiting for the light to change. The plans for the downtown network here have some intersections with a 2-stage left turn box, which is adequate, but not at every intersection – how are you supposed to turn left then?

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

That's not cautious driving, that's bad or incapacitated driving.

If they don't know how to merge, the shouldn't be driving.


Perhaps cyclists should earn their license to share the road, much like automobile operators do. I'm for it. Then they can actually get ticketed.

I didn't read the article but the majority of dumb or selfish cyclists out there is huge.

Cyclists can be ticketed, it has nothing to do with having a license or not.

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by vjose32

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unsafe with right turns on red

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_o...estrian_safety

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Turns on red are especially problematic for pedestrians due to drivers looking left for traffic on red light and not noticing a pedestrian waiting to cross the street to the driver's right. This may lead to a "right hook" collision when the driver and pedestrian both enter the intersection. Right on red reduces perceived safety for pedestrians and hence walkability. Suburbanization and car oriented development of the west has been a driving force behind right turn on red[citation needed], although in some downtown core areas even in Western US right on red is explicitly prohibited with signs.

[buzzg]

I have no problem with RoRs when there's no people around, but downtown is getting busier and busier that there usually is always people crossing now. Don't allow it during the day when there's lots of busses, cyclists, and pedestrians – but after 7 and on Sundays, sure.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Wow, people are getting killed, mostly due to unsafe street design, and your response is to want to ticket them. Seems Mr Burns-esque - "Smithers, this damn cyclist has gone and gotten his limbs and organs all tangled up in my suspension! Call the police and have them issue a ticket to this corpse's family, post-haste!"

In reality, cyclists and motorists break traffic laws at about the same rate.
https://www.outsideonline.com/227300...s-more-drivers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-...-similar-rates

I'm curious is the rate of ticketing is the same for cyclists as it is motorists?

The article did mention that people who took formal training had better outcomes. Maybe licensing isn't a bad thing. You receive a license after completing a one day course?

[buzzg]

Think they should just add it to schools. Do bus ridership & bike ridership – teach kids road rules at the same time their parents teach them to ride.

Maybe do it again in high school, and/or add a cycling component to driver's ed.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

I'm curious is the rate of ticketing is the same for cyclists as it is motorists?

The article did mention that people who took formal training had better outcomes. Maybe licensing isn't a bad thing. You receive a license after completing a one day course?

I would be very confident that motorists are ticketed at an exponentially higher rate, but their vehicles can also do exponentially more damage than a bicycle can so it makes sense that's where police would focus. More training is definitely needed, I think you could eliminate alot of the problem cyclists if there was more effort to teach people how to do it properly. There are a few schools doing pilot projects doing just that and they have bikes available at the school for students to borrow. A good start but it should be a standard part of the phys-ed curriculum. As for licensing I really don't know how you enforce it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ools-1.3802190

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by windypeg

I would be very confident that motorists are ticketed at an exponentially higher rate, but their vehicles can also do exponentially more damage than a bicycle can so it makes sense that's where police would focus. More training is definitely needed, I think you could eliminate alot of the problem cyclists if there was more effort to teach people how to do it properly. There are a few schools doing pilot projects doing just that and they have bikes available at the school for students to borrow. A good start but it should be a standard part of the phys-ed curriculum. As for licensing I really don't know how you enforce it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ools-1.3802190

I believe you used to have to. My dad was telling me of a day when little bike License plates were a thing. No plate on your bike then it gets impounded? That might be a little far. I'm not really against cyclists, I do however feel they should be subject to the same punishments as drivers. We both share the road and are both equally responsible to be safe.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Think they should just add it to schools. Do bus ridership & bike ridership – teach kids road rules at the same time their parents teach them to ride.

Maybe do it again in high school, and/or add a cycling component to driver's ed.

When I was in elementary school there was a bus safety course. Had to bring your bike to school. Learned the hand signals and what not.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by esquire

It isn't unusual for a Winnipeg merge lane to be just a few car lengths long. Let's say there is a constant stream of bumper to bumper traffic going at 60 km/h or more. What exactly do you propose that drivers do when they reach the end of the merge area, just ram their way into the lane and smash into other cars?

Obviously not that... let's maintain some reason

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Most merge lanes in Winnipeg are half assed slip lanes, which is totally inappropriate obviously. That being said, there are some actual merge lanes in really strange places where they aren't needed. It's really perplexing

This.

Originally Posted by esquire

That's my exact point. The only consistent thing with Winnipeg merge/slip lanes is the inconsistency. So I don't know why anyone is surprised that drivers will assume the worst and expect there to be no merge space if they aren't already familiar with a certain intersection... in Winnipeg, you'd be downright foolish to assume that an intersection or interchange you don't know offers plenty of room to merge safely because those are very much the exception.

This is the same in any city, for the most part. some merges are long, some non-existent, others in between. If we can't discern that with our eyes, then we shouldn't operate heavy machinery. It's actually easy, except Winnipeg motorists are often mentally lazy.

Originally Posted by windypeg

Wow, people are getting killed, mostly due to unsafe street design, and your response is to want to ticket them. Seems Mr Burns-esque - "Smithers, this damn cyclist has gone and gotten his limbs and organs all tangled up in my suspension! Call the police and have them issue a ticket to this corpse's family, post-haste!"

In reality, cyclists and motorists break traffic laws at about the same rate.
https://www.outsideonline.com/227300...s-more-drivers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-...-similar-rates

Goodness, off the rails much? I'm a car guy but I'm not anti-cycle. I'm somewhat of an urbanist in this sense but I want people to stay away from my turbos or v8s, haha!

But dammit, way to blame the system, eh?

Our city has a poor design for pedestrians and cyclists, and it's being gradually improved. It's probably not easy to retrofit a great urban cycling/pedestrian network onto what we have, but I think our city is somewhat incompetent anyway. It could be better.

So what does that leave us with? No matter the system, we're all in charge of our lives, so it's time to act like it. To be smart and aware in a dangerous situation, because that's what cycling on the road in any country is... dangerous. Because when a car hits you, you might be dead. People need to show respect for the fact that cars are huge and deadly.

Before you read into that all wrong, it's not about passing blame, but acknowledging the realities. A strong amount of cyclists here seem quite ignorant of the dangers around them unless it's time to complain about motorists. I've seen CYCLISTS crash into each other numerous times where merely paying attention (and in two cases, heeding red lights) would have solved it. I DON'T see this in europe. I see cyclists obey the laws more regularly and use the roads with safe caution. Considering our drivers are dumb in Winnipeg it's not a stretch to assume, as I feel I've witnessed plenty, that our cyclists aren't automatically bright.

It's absolutely motorists' responsibility to watch out for cyclists, but we generally operate under the impression that those with the power (car) hold the sole responsibility and fault. That's like saying the poor are poor because the rich are rich. Complete nonsense.

We are still new to the urban cycling/pedestrian thing and I don't see us paying near the amount of attention required that more experienced cities are. That's all I was saying, and that's not unreasonable at all. I'm also in complete favour of a less car dependent urban car. Minus myself, of course

Originally Posted by Ando

Cyclists can be ticketed, it has nothing to do with having a license or not.

Forgot about that. Anything for increasing accountability, though.

Originally Posted by windypeg

I would be very confident that motorists are ticketed at an exponentially higher rate, but their vehicles can also do exponentially more damage than a bicycle can so it makes sense that's where police would focus. More training is definitely needed, I think you could eliminate alot of the problem cyclists if there was more effort to teach people how to do it properly. There are a few schools doing pilot projects doing just that and they have bikes available at the school for students to borrow. A good start but it should be a standard part of the phys-ed curriculum. As for licensing I really don't know how you enforce it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ools-1.3802190

I agree with some of this, but ultimately size of vehicle does not determine fault, just result. Cyclists need to remember that.

[buzzg]

It's a good point that the common urban cycling is still new here, and we're slowly getting better. It's also clear who the city still prioritizes (vehicles) almost everywhere, evidenced in one matter by the fact there is little to no signage for cyclists and pedestrians, any cycling-related signs are almost all for vehicles, but yet not nearly enough reminding vehicles there's a bike lane/crossing on the street as well. It's especially concerning considering the lack of visible painted road markings we have for 8 months of the year.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

This is the same in any city, for the most part. some merges are long, some non-existent, others in between. If we can't discern that with our eyes, then we shouldn't operate heavy machinery. It's actually easy, except Winnipeg motorists are often mentally lazy.

The trouble is you don't often know until you're into the merge lane. No one is going to accelerate when they aren't sure what the conditions around the bend are like.

You can keep pointing fingers at other drivers, but the fact is people are responding very rationally to the conditions.

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by dmacc

We both share the road and are both equally responsible to be safe.

As long as you make clear that one of those things is a 4000lb, 6' x 15' box of metal, and the other is a 150lb person on a 15lb frame. The responsibilities change when you consider this distinction.