1124 replies to this topic

[Bingo]

Come on, you can not expect couples to walk single-file.

 

If we held a Marital Difficulties Day on the trail, seven days a week, then that might work.

[Mike K.]

I'm sure flabbergasted by the anti-pedestrian stuff. And here I thought the cyclist stance was all about inclusion, the sharing of infrastructure and respectful/safe use of that infrastructure by all users. But suddenly pedestrians are an inconvenience and must be the ones who change their use of the trail, not the cyclists who are in fact the source of the problem.

Jeepers.

[dasmo]

You wouldn't need to widen the entire thing, just strategic spots. Long site lines are pretty safe...

[Mike K.]

There are choke points like under Burnside and over HWY 1. I can't see cyclists suddenly slowing down to a reasonable speed when their lane merges with the pededtrian lane.

It's an issue of courtesy not being practiced. Cyclists want the trail all to themselves and use their speed and too-close-for-comfort pass-bys to enforce their dominance. I see this all the time on the Goose.

Heck, 10 years ago cyclists truly practiced courtesy on the Goose and would alert pedestrians and pass wide. Not anymore, an alert is a rarity and pedestrians are seen as slalom cones. Like I was saying, I'm shocked by the response here that pedestrians better get out of the way because cyclists should be free to travel as fast as they want and not be burdened by other users. It just exposes the hardcore cyclist mentality for what it truly is, and it's not the fluffy stuff the lobbyists would have us believe.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm sure flabbergasted by the anti-pedestrian stuff. And here I thought the cyclist stance was all about inclusion, the sharing of infrastructure and respectful/safe use of that infrastructure by all users. But suddenly pedestrians are an inconvenience and must be the ones who change their use of the trail, not the cyclists who are in fact the source of the problem.

Jeepers.

 

In this case, pedestrians cause almost all the problems.  If they walked close to one edge of the trail, they would be fine.  Sort of like bikes on a roadway, if they stay to the side of the road, there isn't much issue.  You would not blame a car if he hit a bike that decides to cross over and zig-zag down a road from one curb to the opposite.  Yet walkers do this, no wonder they get hit by bikes on the trail.

 

Having said that, I read a lot about how "I was nearly hit!", or "I've often had close calls" but I've heard very few real incidents of collisions between pedestrians and bikes on the trail.

 

Look at it this way:

 

Roads:  car drivers get mad at irresponsible bike riders that swerve into car lanes, or blow stop signs.  Bikes get mad at cars that cut them off near turns or don't see them, or drive too close to the curb or pass too tightly.

 

Trail:  bike riders get mad at pedestrians that don't pay attention, block the whole path by walking 4 abreast, zig-zag from one side of the trail to the other, or make quick lateral moves of any type.  Pedestrians get mad at riders that ride too close to them, or pass too tightly.

 

I say to walkers:  Go to a normal park if you want a leisurely stroll all over the place.  This trail is for those on the move from A to B!  Erratic walker that wants to go A>B, if you want to be all over the place, do it on a sidewalk adjacent to a street, where there are no bikes or cars.  The Goose isn't even a decent shortcut for most walkers.  It's well made for riders that can go great distances without stops and starts or hills to lose their momentum - walkers don't have those issues.

[pherthyl]

Come on, you can not expect couples to walk single-file.

 

As long as they don't take up more than half the trail that's fine.  But I've seen groups of 4+ people walking down the Goose taking up the whole thing.

[pherthyl]

You pretty much just described the reason there are speed limits on roads. To limit the speed of the user to limit and control on a safe manner. A road is built to a different standard to a multi use trail. You don't have people walking in the middle of a highway and their are laws and rules to the use of that for cyclist. Like staying to the right. But if I remember correctly you disagree with the bike must travel to the right law?!?

 

I see you didn't follow that discussion.  The topic was about staying close to the left side of the bike lane/shoulder.   You know, exactly the same as the recommended lane position for a motorcyclist or a car.   Ever see a car driving towards the right of their lane?  99% of the time it's a new driver or old timid lady.   Everyone else knows to bias towards the left of your lane. 

[pherthyl]

If we held a Marital Difficulties Day on the trail, seven days a week, then that might work.

 

I was walking in front of my wife once to let an old man pass on the sidewalk.  He said "I thought only the Chinese did that!".   

[Mike K.]

That's also disrespectful, no doubt about it.

@VHF, it's a trail, not a highway. Until a designated cycling or walking lane is created pedestrians have full use of the trail. They should be respectful of other users but by no means should they be expected to stick to ridge between the asphalt and the dirt.

[VicHockeyFan]

@VHF, it's a trail, not a highway. Until a designated cycling or walking lane is created pedestrians have full use of the trail. They should be respectful of other users but by no means should they be expected to stick to ridge between the asphalt and the dirt.

 

That's like saying bikes have full use of every road, from one curb to the other, and they should not be forced to use an area nearer the curb.  No, no, no.  The rules on the trail is stay right.  And if you are smart, and a walker, you'll stay well right.  Do that and all will be fine.

[pherthyl]

I'm sure flabbergasted by the anti-pedestrian stuff. And here I thought the cyclist stance was all about inclusion, the sharing of infrastructure and respectful/safe use of that infrastructure by all users. But suddenly pedestrians are an inconvenience and must be the ones who change their use of the trail, not the cyclists who are in fact the source of the problem.

Jeepers.

 

Really?  It's not blindingly obvious that two modes of transport with different speeds on the same trail will result in the trail being favourable to one over the other?   Since when is recognizing a simple fact anti-pedestrian?   And what point would there be in being anti-pedestrian when I am equally often a pedestrian as a cyclist?   

 

I'm in favour of bike lanes on roads, but unlike you I'm under no delusion that that turns roads into a equal-opportunity pathway.   Roads are vehicle-first designs, and the Goose is a cyclist-first design.  If it wasn't they would have never paved it.   Since when does every path have to be equal to everyone?

Edited by pherthyl, 12 October 2014 - 12:02 PM.

[pherthyl]

Like I was saying, I'm shocked by the response here that pedestrians better get out of the way because cyclists should be free to travel as fast as they want and not be burdened by other users.

 

So aside from you pretending to be shocked to boost your argument, where did anyone say that pedestrians better get out of the way?   

I have no problem with pedestrians on the Goose, and I pass with enough space.  But I also don't walk on the goose because there are a thousand better and more interesting trails out there for walking.

[Mike K.]

That's like saying bikes have full use of every road, from one curb to the other, and they should not be forced to use an area nearer the curb. No, no, no. The rules on the trail is stay right. And if you are smart, and a walker, you'll stay well right. Do that and all will be fine.

You're mixing up courtesy and actual laws/rules of the road.

Phyrthyl, I am shocked because the cycling lobby is so vocal about sharing the road, about drivers needing to be more respectful of cyclists, etc., but yet when the situation is reversed the cyclists maintain their right to speed and their right to unimpeded use of the trail must be the priority. All of a sudden the Goose isn't fit for pedestrians, pedestrians have alternate routes, pedestrians this, pedestrians that. Hmmm.

It doesn't matter that you might think the Goose is impractical for pedestrians. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that thousands of pedestrians do use the Goose to get to or from work, to or from the store, for recreation, whatever, and aggressive cycling is impacting their use of that trail negatively.

[Mike K.]

I just looked up the CRD's Goose etiquette guide. Despite no "laws" affecting trail use, the onus is on cyclists to control speed and safely navigate around pedestrians. The onus is not on pedestrians to have a 360 degree awareness of cycling activity around them at all times. As a courtesy, all users must stay to the right, but this in no way implies that pedestrians must walk to ridge on the right, they are only expected to remain on their respective side of the trail. No more, no less.

As far as risk management is concerned, close calls are as good as the real thing. There's a reason why close calls/near misses across a plethora of industries are documented and treated seriously, at the very least they're an indicator of a serious problem and shouldn't be discounted.

[VicHockeyFan]

It doesn't matter that you might think the Goose is impractical for pedestrians. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that thousands of pedestrians do use the Goose to get to or from work, to or from the store, for recreation, whatever, and aggressive cycling is impacting their use of that trail negatively.

 

It's very likely that hundreds of people do not ride their bikes on Shelbourne each day, due to a very few car drivers that make it unsafe.  Aggressive driving is impacting their use of that road negatively.  

 

So you know what those cyclists do?  They find another route.  That's what scaredy-cat walkers on the Goose ought to do.

[Mike K.]

You know that photo of a shortcut you posted earlier in this thread that you used to show how pedestrians will always find the quickest route and stick to it? That's what the Goose is, it's a massive shortcut. Expecting pedestrians to refrain from using the Goose, a multi-use trail, because you think that they're actually the problem and are wimps for even raising safety concerns is bonkers.

 

Asking cyclists to be a little bit more respectful of other users of the trail is a pretty darned easy thing to do which doesn't require any money, doesn't require any real effort, and won't be mired in planning controversies for years to come. Be courteous, be helpful (in the words of Sparky), and and slow down. Goose problem suddenly solved.

[VicHockeyFan]

You know that photo of a shortcut you posted earlier in this thread that you used to show how pedestrians will always find the quickest route and stick to it? That's what the Goose is, it's a massive shortcut. 

 

A massive shortcut?  From where to where?  If I'm walking from Gorge/Burnside, no way I'm taking the Goose.  I'm gonna walk the green route.  And I'll enjoy the part through Rock Bay too.

 

 

It's just pleasant for bikes because it's flat and has limited stops, turns, car interactions and starts.  It's not quicker for the majority of users that are walking.  Maybe none that are walking.  Unless you are walking from Quadra/McKenzie to downtown, or VGH to downtown and nobody is doing that.  They're riding that route though.  And that's why they'd like to move with some speed, please.

[Mike K.]

For sure it is. People in my neighbourhood walk to Mayfair and Uptown along the Goose all the time. No lights and a bee line route. It's great. Just the savings on lights alone is a difference of several minutes.

 

Even that poor girl who was assaulted while walking the Goose, do you think she was walking along the trail because it was a longer route to get home? Or do you think she was walking the trail, maybe, just maybe, because it was a shortcut?

[sebberry]

It's simple.  The reason cars are being hit with lower speed limits is partly due to cyclists feeling unsafe when a car passes too close, because many drivers are idiots and don't slow down and move over when approaching cyclists. 

 

Now the cyclists are doing the same thing they're complaining about on the Goose.  Not just to pedestrians, but also to other cyclists.  

 

If they're not going to be responsible by slowing down and passing slower moving trail users with care, then their problematic behavior needs to be regulated.  

[VicHockeyFan]

For sure it is. People in my neighbourhood walk to Mayfair and Uptown along the Goose all the time. No lights and a bee line route. It's great. Just the savings on lights alone is a difference of several minutes.

 

Well that's a pretty small fraction of the users, and they are not using it when most fast commuters are.  Lights to a walker is hardly an issue.