Jump to content

      












Photo

Should Government Street become a pedestrian boulevard?

Government st Poll Pedestrian new urbanism Government street pedestrian mall

  • Please log in to reply
860 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Government street become a pedestrian boulevard (109 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Government street become a pedestrian boulevard from Yates street to Humbolt street (Allowing restricted single lane traffic)?

  1. Yes (69 votes [63.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.30%

  2. No (27 votes [24.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.77%

  3. Depends (13 votes [11.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.93%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#841 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 15,477 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 10:07 AM

pro cycling folks don’t use the lanes! too slow.

#842 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 10:52 AM

The by-law requires cyclists to dismount, and yet we have a couple of cyclists above (one of whom I regularly agree with!) who feel that (as cyclists) by-laws simply don't apply to them if they ride "at a meandering pace".

 

And cyclists wonder why they are so profoundly disliked by a healthy swath of the local population?

 

Cyclists in Victoria really do need to do a serious clean-up on their act, especially in light of all the money and transportation real estate that is currently either already dedicated, or on the verge of being dedicated to the needs of those cyclists.

 

Perhaps some of the pro-cycling folks here on the forum could report back to this thread as to why by-laws that apply city wide don't actually apply to them?

 

I haven't ridden my bike down the "dismount" section of Government. I just said I wasn't particularly bothered by those who I had seen do so. In much the same way I don't get too bent out of shape when someone jaywalks across View from the McDonald's heading toward the Bay Centre. Both are technically illegal, and people really shouldn't do it, but it is pretty harmless. Are pedestrians "profoundly disliked by a healthy swath of the local population"? People seem to have an ability to get genuinely angry at cyclists for the most minor and mundane reasons, which suggests there may be underlying issues involved.


  • Danma and Brantastic like this

#843 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 15,477 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 11:13 AM

I agree with your last sentence.

#844 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,791 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 11:16 AM

Perhaps some of the pro-cycling folks here on the forum could report back to this thread as to why by-laws that apply city wide don't actually apply to them?

 

It does re-enforce the view that there are a number of cyclists that are self absorbed and have little regard in working with other segments of the population.  The elderly, those with young children, those that are mobility impaired are all impacted by cyclists yet there seems to be a complete disregard for them and their comfort.  The issue isn't "cycling" per say but the boorish / elitist culture that has been created around it.


  • Spy Black likes this

#845 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 11:28 AM

It's kind of silly how sometimes "cyclists" are lumped together like a monolithic group. You've got serious recreational cyclists (including "middle-aged men in spandex") who are focused on their workout and occasionally ride in a manner that could definitely be called self-absorbed. You've got a homeless population using bikes for transportation and moving possessions around, and who seem to often ride on sidewalks, and sometimes show little regard for their own safety. I think a lot of the anger towards cyclists probably stem from those two groups. But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the family riding down Government Street to check things out, or the young woman on her bike with a basket using Government Street to get to Chinatown to buy produce. 

 

There are a lot of different people on bikes, riding in a lot of different ways. I'm pretty sure people driving cars don't want to be lumped together as one cohort every time some Senior drives their car through an Oak Bay storefront.  :)


  • zoomer, Daveyboy, jasmineshinga and 1 other like this

#846 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 02:26 PM

....I'm pretty sure people driving cars don't want to be lumped together as one cohort every time some Senior drives their car through an Oak Bay storefront.  :)

Except such drastic vehicle accidents happen maybe once every 6 or 7 years, where as bad behaviour by cyclists can usually be seen within about the first 10 minutes (if even that long) of a person looking for it.

 

Cyclists have a somewhat sizeable act to clean up on a very broad scale, and denying the need to clean that act up only tends to drive the point further home ... the point made regularly that most folks make note of as "careless cyclists" who disobey traffic signals, signs, and by-laws, ones that the rest of the world follows more rigidly.

 

Equivocating cycling bad behaviour with a disoriented or medically distressed senior citizen driving an automobile only makes cycling folks seem even more desperate for anything in order to justify what is quite blatantly incredibly bad behaviour!


  • Nparker, Cats4Hire and Victoria Watcher like this

#847 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 06:07 PM

Sat outside Garrick's Head for two hours this evening. Three cyclists went down the closed block of Government. One was a 65-70 year-old lady with a cruiser bike and a basket. One was a homeless guy. One was a 50ish guy with a commuter bike (going the "wrong" direction). None were going faster than 10-12 kph. I just can't get excited by this. None of the three could reasonably be described as "quite blatantly incrediby bad behaviour!".

 

Also, where is the "cyclists dismount" sign? Because I haven't found it yet.

 

/Also, if you think someone only drives a car through a store front here every 6-7 years, you aren't paying close attention. But I admit that is largely irrelevant. On the other hand, how many people have been killed by cyclists in the last 6-7 years in Victoria?

 

//but this isn't exactly the hill I want to die on. They should dismount. I just don't think it is a very big deal, that's all.


Edited by Greg, 26 July 2020 - 06:21 PM.


#848 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,992 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 08:12 PM

It’s on Fort.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#849 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 26 July 2020 - 10:30 PM

..... I just don't think it is a very big deal, that's all.

I know that you're likely more than aware that simply not liking any given by-law, or a personal belief that the breaking of any given by-law is "no big deal" is absolutely no excuse for breaking it.

 

It's precisely this attitude that justifies 99% of what car drivers and pedestrians say about cycling bad behaviour ... and it really is time that cyclists got over themselves and began behaving in a manner that reflects the massive amount of taxpayer funds put into reinventing the downtown core in order that cyclists can ride in a safe, and law abiding manner.



#850 FogPub

FogPub
  • Member
  • 506 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 14 August 2020 - 01:32 AM

In much the same way I don't get too bent out of shape when someone jaywalks across View from the McDonald's heading toward the Bay Centre. Both are technically illegal,

"Jaywalking" in downtown Victoria has been legal for some years now.

 

What I'd like to see is more cyclists following the provincial laws that say they are a motor vehicle with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, and are thus bound to the same rules of the road.  This is perhaps my biggest issue with bike lanes in general; they're means by which cyclists can skate around these rules e.g. now they have their own lane they can pass on the right (endangering themselves in the process), where before (in theory) they couldn't and were supposed to hold their place in the traffic when it was either stopped or moving slowly enough for them to keep up.



#851 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 14 August 2020 - 05:46 AM

"Jaywalking" in downtown Victoria has been legal for some years now.

 

Not accurate.

Some very specific areas of town permit jaywalking (primarily a limited stretch of Gov't St.), but in most areas it will still get you a ticket if you're caught.

https://www.victoria...ylaw-09-079.pdf

Page 15.



#852 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,992 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 07:31 AM

You've got 11 seconds to make sense of this.

 

You're at a red light, and you immediately see a space where you can drive your vehicle onto Government, and you know only Fort to View is closed, at least that's what you recall you heard on the radio.

 

But there are not one, but two signs stating DO NOT ENTER, LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY. You see Welcome! in giant letters. You also see two signs with a pedestrian image, and wording that says YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS.

 

What's happening here? What do I do? The light just turned green and there's a sign that says no right turn ...but only on red? OK, maybe I shouldn't turn right. Do I have to turn left? I have a green light and there's no 'must turn left' green arrow. It looks like I can drive through, but it says DO NOT ENTER. What the heck?

 

government-at-humboldt.jpg


  • Cats4Hire, Teardrop and Spy Black like this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#853 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,992 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 07:46 AM

Oh, and I forgot. There's also a yellow/black hazard sign indicating for motorists to keep left of the hazard sign to enter this space, but when they do, they're just inches from the blue fencing, which should also have a yellow/black hazard motif indicating to keep right.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#854 mbjj

mbjj
  • Member
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 07:57 AM

That is a very narrow opening! How does any sort of delivery truck get through? Guess the rest of us peasants would be left having to navigate the Wharf Street mess and then drive home again, lol.



#855 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 08:03 AM

LOL, that's probably the worst bit of traffic engineering in the entire city.

 

As I watch the various Government St undertakings, patios, road-blockades, etc ... it becomes somewhat apparent that we're probably never going to return to general vehicle traffic, and that likely the most prudent thing to do is simply shut down Government between Humboldt and View entirely, and leave it to the pedestrians. 

Many of the patios are slowly being converted from the temporary look we saw develop over the past few months, and are becoming what can only be described as quite "permanent looking".

 

The push back will come from business (most of whom are actually benefiting from the focus on Gov't St that the patios and vehicle shut-downs bring) and their need to get trucks and delivers close to their doors. But the reality is that commercial delivery parking on Gov't has always been a poorly planned shit show, with the pre-noon parking free-for-all that primarily served delivers for business not even on Gov't St, but rather two blocks east and west of Gov't St.

If deliveries are an issue, then do what they do in places like Manhattan, make delivers off the multitude of Gov't side streets  between the hours of 5:00am and 7:00am (in Manhattan, the deliveries take place between 1:00am and 5:00am, but I get that Victoria isn't Manhattan).

 

Regardless, the transition to largely pedestrian patios, and the closing down or simply making it overtly difficult for private vehicles to move about or park in the downtown core is part of the mayor and councils ongoing agenda ... and it's currently being fulfilled right before our eyes, on an almost daily basis.

 

Like the ridiculous 600 block of Fort St though ... residents and users will simply suck it up and get used to it (we really don't have any other choice) until such time as far wiser heads are doing the thinking at City Hall.



#856 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,818 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 08:03 AM

You gotta love the mixed message here.

Capture.JPG


Edited by Nparker, 23 August 2020 - 08:05 AM.

  • aastra, Midnightly, Cats4Hire and 1 other like this

#857 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,791 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 10:45 AM

But there are not one, but two signs stating DO NOT ENTER, LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY. You see Welcome! in giant letters. You also see two signs with a pedestrian image, and wording that says YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS.

 

What's happening here? What do I do? The light just turned green and there's a sign that says no right turn ...but only on red? OK, maybe I shouldn't turn right. Do I have to turn left? I have a green light and there's no 'must turn left' green arrow. It looks like I can drive through, but it says DO NOT ENTER. What the heck?

 

You turn right, then left on Douglas, drive through the new overpass at Mackenzie and make your way to Ocean Boulevard, park for free then purchase lunch from one of the food trucks then enjoy the beach and lagoon.


  • Mike K., Redd42 and Cats4Hire like this

#858 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,342 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 11:53 AM

 

You gotta love the mixed message here.

 

Yes/no, cat/dog, red/blue, up/down, stand/sit... the contradictions are everywhere now. It's why people are so anxious.



#859 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 01:55 PM

You've got 11 seconds to make sense of this.

 

You're at a red light, and you immediately see a space where you can drive your vehicle onto Government, and you know only Fort to View is closed, at least that's what you recall you heard on the radio.

 

But there are not one, but two signs stating DO NOT ENTER, LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY. You see Welcome! in giant letters. You also see two signs with a pedestrian image, and wording that says YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS.

 

What's happening here? What do I do? The light just turned green and there's a sign that says no right turn ...but only on red? OK, maybe I shouldn't turn right. Do I have to turn left? I have a green light and there's no 'must turn left' green arrow. It looks like I can drive through, but it says DO NOT ENTER. What the heck?

 

Just a guess, but I'd say you don't enter unless you are local traffic, and if you are, you should still yield to pedestrians.



#860 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,791 posts

Posted 23 August 2020 - 02:29 PM

Sounds like it would be a good catch phrase for Victoria........ "Welcome .......We're open for business so DO NOT ENTER."


  • Nparker, Matt R. and mbjj like this

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users