Bike Lanes and Cycling in Saanich - A Balancing Act with Motorists
Why are motorists and cyclists pitted against one another in competition for road use?
Why does improving safety for a small but slowly growing group have to deliberately and negatively impact a huge and still growing group of road users?
1. Our entire team is dedicated to a moratorium on any more bike lanes.
2. Our team is also interested in removing any bike lanes on major routes that:
a) impede traffic flow (especially closing a lane of vehicle traffic) causing serious congestion that was not there before, or
b) prevent first responder vehicles from getting to emergencies or force them to reroute through neighbourhoods - reducing their effectiveness and response times. Nobody wants an ambulance stuck at a traffic light because all the cars are fenced in by concrete – our members have seen this firsthand.
c) or have little to no usage and are a "stranded asset" where bike traffic is using an alternate nearby trail, path, or bikeway instead (like Mann Ave).
3. This next component has been researched, developed, and is fully supported by Graham but he hasn't canvassed all of his teammates yet. There are better designs and alternatives to concrete in the street – with more feedback from the cycling community.
a) Graham's preferred method of providing a cycling network across Saanich is on trails, paths, and quieter streets where traffic volume is significantly lower and protected bike lanes are unnecessary. However, some friendly cyclists reminded him that it is not always possible without adding as much as 40% to their trip. So….
b) when a major route is involved, the next step is extending and dividing a sidewalk (like parts of Shelbourne) but with a sloped curb for cyclists to enter and leave the roadway (perhaps before and after an intersection - based on additional feedback from regional cyclists) and…
c) it is acknowledged that some streets will not have room or budget for that so when an on-the-roadway implementation is the only way to prevent extending their travel distance inefficiently or unfairly (from point a, above) - and a physically protected bike lane is deemed necessary, there are many ways to implement this protection without concrete and one of them is intermittent modular lane separators or curb systems.
Graham, through his research, prefers the intermittent style as it allows the cyclist opportunities to get out of them to make left turns and do some passing when necessary. They act as significant speed humps when crossed laterally but provide a smooth, low-impact roll at crawling speeds. At any kind of travelling speed, they deliver a sharp, suspension rattling experience if a driver crosses them. There is also a design where it can be continuous with a hard edge for motorists but a smooth exit curve so cyclists don't have to wait for a gap.
These systems, instead of concrete, are cheaper, easier to install and maintain, do not escalate injury like concrete can, are more visible at night, allow emergency vehicles through because cars can carefully pull over, allow maintenance vehicles to reach garbage and recycling and perform leaf removal without having to close a direction on the roadway like Victoria is experiencing…all over the place.
Some cyclists will ignore all this and complain that rubber or plastic doesn’t protect them like concrete can. Well, here is some unfortunate news for them:
1. Intersection gaps and “turning hooks” – cyclists with concrete barriers are receiving some protection while riding mid block but it is concentrating their crashes at intersections. Cyclists are given a false sense of protection with a sign that tries to override the highway traffic act and make drivers yield to them when turning. This is a dangerous joke that I would like to remove. The first vehicle at the intersection should be able to execute their maneuver. As e-bikes and e-scooters advance, their riders are flying up the bike lanes. How is a driver supposed to give them a safe right of way from a shoulder or mirror check? Meanwhile, the rider, seeing the car straight ahead of them can easily take a second to let the car make their turn if they are there well ahead of the speeding rider. Who is more visible is the question I ask debaters on this.
2. High-speed barrier “vaulting” – unless you put a 2-foot tall highway crash barrier along the bike path, vehicles can easily use the edges of the concrete barrier as a ramp and really annihilate a cyclist. This can happen at speeds as low as 20km/h, putting the car directly into the bike path. This is happening in North America and Europe right now.
3. Barrier-induced solo and crowd crashes – sadly, the barriers can become the direct cause of some serious cyclist injuries and deaths including secondary collisions with vehicles. The 2 documented ways (so far) are 1. “clipping” where the cyclist clips the edge of the concrete with their tire or pedal and they tumble over the handlebars. And 2. “Ejection” like the high-profile lawsuit against the city of Vancouver where the cyclist hit a poorly marked block and was ejected into the path of oncoming vehicles.
The alternatives mentioned here reduce the frequency and severity of any “self” induced crash, maintain a significant enhancement to cyclist safety, snap drivers back to attention if they wander, allow emergency vehicles to pass because other vehicles can get out of the way, allow parking (carefully) beyond the barrier to the road’s edge, offer increased and welcome maneuverability for cyclists of varying skill levels to avoid obstacles or politely get around slower riders, still let them slip through traffic, enhance their routes to keep them efficient, and reduce frustration and travel times for everyone.
