Terrific video! That beg button placement for the cyclist at 1:51 might be the worst in the city proper. You have zero vision of half the road, and southbound drivers won't even attempt to see you until you're directly in their path. Also you have to veer left on an incline to actually enter the crossing. I assume that since the crossing goes over into a different municipality, the city wasn't wanting to do more than the bare minimum at that spot. Excited to see more from your channel!
Dude, an urban planning and design channel in Victoria? Hell yes. You may be small but keep it up. That crossing in the new lanes on Fort to get from the left side to the right side is abhorrent - I'm able bodied and have been cycling my whole life and fell off my bike for the first time in five years trying to get through that in time to not get run over by a bus. The provincial standard is something that UBCM has been fighting for already for a while. Our current MOTI is led by Rob Fleming - someone who dumps billions into highways and pennies into non-private vehicle transport. Don't hold your breath. MOTI doesn't care about anything other than car traffic efficiency and convenience. I'd also add to your call to actions section that meeting with counsellors is one of the most valuable things you can do in the CRD.
Make a complaint to the police department. In Montreal there is a traffic division that takes complaints regarding unsafe areas. They plan and send a few officers to work on a crossing for a few months and they start handing out warnings and tickets.
As discussed in another comment, there is a track record of police in this city not being an ally to people outside of motor vehicles, we have a number of laws that criminalise cycling, and the legal status of these crossings might not be adequate to allow for enforcement. I appreciate the suggestion, though.
Stupid. How many drivers would know this or how to identify intersections that have it? Here's an idea that's worked for me for over 30 years. Use crossings with a light, intersection or flashing and look both ways before crossing... something you should have learned when you were 5.
@@davideades4839the sign is for cyclists, not motorists. The cyclists already have the right of way in the situations addressed in this video and the stop sign is there for motorists. This sign would be used to remind cyclists they don't have to stop. The video also suggests that these "except bicycle" signs would go along with a sign for drivers reminding them to yield to bicycles at these crossings. Obviously, people still need to make sure they are crossing safely. This idea is just to help address the current confusion with mixed and conflicting signals currently at these intersections. I am in favor of Idaho stop laws as well as research has shown these laws to make roads and intersections safer for all users. So adding these "except bicycles" signs to every stop sign everywhere might actually be a good idea. Cyclists are still careful when Idaho stop rules are in place and of course they use their eyes. They have more visibility than people in cars and can respond more quickly as well. Also, most road users, including cars don't actually stop at stop signs most of the time and tend to use them more like yield signs anyway.
This is no good, We should advocate to use Netherlands's designs for bike infrastructure. Education is not good. Design is better. For example, by using humps and bulges, we can slow traffic, which means that traffic will be safer and more likely to cooperate.
I agree. You cannot fully educate your way out of a problem. Later in the video I suggest some design solutions - further traffic calming would certainly help to encourage drivers to stop at these crossings. The fact that many people wholesale refuse to stop demonstrates a misunderstanding around side streets that might not be easily resolved with more traffic calming.
@@speakertwentytwo "The fact that many people wholesale refuse to stop demonstrates a misunderstanding around side streets that might not be easily resolved with more traffic calming." I tend to agree at the design level. I think that urbanists tend to advocate for a handful of things that actually ruin street design. For example, I vaguely recall that a street/road grid style layout makes travel better, and yet designes started making them 1 way, and started closing them off to entering traffic. Also, some designers started removing left turns. After the benefits were explained, it all began to make sense, and I now support them. The same goes for roundabouts: I now love them.
I have thought about running an education campaign with a physical presence at these crossings, or what I would say to a police officer if I ran into one at these crossings - "you should be enforcing these!". However, I can't say this would be a net good. While nearly all road users break the letter of the law, people cycling are under more scrutiny for this. A police car camping at one of these crossings could likely lead to just as many tickets related to helmets and stop signs as tickets for motorists. Police officers often have an anti-cycling bias, systemically if not personally. Furthermore, the legal status of these crossings is under question, so it would be difficult to enforce in the first place. Short of a cultural change, such as in Europe where following inconvenient traffic laws is expected behaviour, you cannot fix roads with education and enforcement. As the Netherlands has demonstrated, it's best to design your roads to make the safe choice the easiest and most intuitive choice.
Nice to see a fellow Victoria-based UA-camr in my recommended. This video was very well put together and you brought up some great ideas at the end.
Terrific video!
That beg button placement for the cyclist at 1:51 might be the worst in the city proper. You have zero vision of half the road, and southbound drivers won't even attempt to see you until you're directly in their path. Also you have to veer left on an incline to actually enter the crossing. I assume that since the crossing goes over into a different municipality, the city wasn't wanting to do more than the bare minimum at that spot.
Excited to see more from your channel!
By the way, it is nice to see BC Transit buses. Thank you.
Dude, an urban planning and design channel in Victoria? Hell yes. You may be small but keep it up. That crossing in the new lanes on Fort to get from the left side to the right side is abhorrent - I'm able bodied and have been cycling my whole life and fell off my bike for the first time in five years trying to get through that in time to not get run over by a bus.
The provincial standard is something that UBCM has been fighting for already for a while. Our current MOTI is led by Rob Fleming - someone who dumps billions into highways and pennies into non-private vehicle transport. Don't hold your breath. MOTI doesn't care about anything other than car traffic efficiency and convenience. I'd also add to your call to actions section that meeting with counsellors is one of the most valuable things you can do in the CRD.
Make a complaint to the police department. In Montreal there is a traffic division that takes complaints regarding unsafe areas. They plan and send a few officers to work on a crossing for a few months and they start handing out warnings and tickets.
As discussed in another comment, there is a track record of police in this city not being an ally to people outside of motor vehicles, we have a number of laws that criminalise cycling, and the legal status of these crossings might not be adequate to allow for enforcement. I appreciate the suggestion, though.
Policing is not the awnser, proper street design is.
Love the "except bicycles" tab under stop signs idea. Simple and effective.
Stupid. How many drivers would know this or how to identify intersections that have it?
Here's an idea that's worked for me for over 30 years. Use crossings with a light, intersection or flashing and look both ways before crossing... something you should have learned when you were 5.
@@davideades4839the sign is for cyclists, not motorists. The cyclists already have the right of way in the situations addressed in this video and the stop sign is there for motorists. This sign would be used to remind cyclists they don't have to stop. The video also suggests that these "except bicycle" signs would go along with a sign for drivers reminding them to yield to bicycles at these crossings.
Obviously, people still need to make sure they are crossing safely. This idea is just to help address the current confusion with mixed and conflicting signals currently at these intersections.
I am in favor of Idaho stop laws as well as research has shown these laws to make roads and intersections safer for all users. So adding these "except bicycles" signs to every stop sign everywhere might actually be a good idea. Cyclists are still careful when Idaho stop rules are in place and of course they use their eyes. They have more visibility than people in cars and can respond more quickly as well. Also, most road users, including cars don't actually stop at stop signs most of the time and tend to use them more like yield signs anyway.
This is no good, We should advocate to use Netherlands's designs for bike infrastructure. Education is not good. Design is better.
For example, by using humps and bulges, we can slow traffic, which means that traffic will be safer and more likely to cooperate.
I agree. You cannot fully educate your way out of a problem. Later in the video I suggest some design solutions - further traffic calming would certainly help to encourage drivers to stop at these crossings.
The fact that many people wholesale refuse to stop demonstrates a misunderstanding around side streets that might not be easily resolved with more traffic calming.
@@speakertwentytwo "The fact that many people wholesale refuse to stop demonstrates a misunderstanding around side streets that might not be easily resolved with more traffic calming."
I tend to agree at the design level. I think that urbanists tend to advocate for a handful of things that actually ruin street design.
For example, I vaguely recall that a street/road grid style layout makes travel better, and yet designes started making them 1 way, and started closing them off to entering traffic. Also, some designers started removing left turns. After the benefits were explained, it all began to make sense, and I now support them. The same goes for roundabouts: I now love them.
the way North America design their roads just sucks
US street design sucks. You got to improve.
2:21 is that a random deer?
Yep! Deer are a very normal sight in Victoria.
tall rat
Nah it's deerterministic
the only way to fix this is hard law enforcement, Wasserbillig, Lux. did make crosswalks folks careful with enforcement.
I have thought about running an education campaign with a physical presence at these crossings, or what I would say to a police officer if I ran into one at these crossings - "you should be enforcing these!". However, I can't say this would be a net good.
While nearly all road users break the letter of the law, people cycling are under more scrutiny for this. A police car camping at one of these crossings could likely lead to just as many tickets related to helmets and stop signs as tickets for motorists. Police officers often have an anti-cycling bias, systemically if not personally. Furthermore, the legal status of these crossings is under question, so it would be difficult to enforce in the first place.
Short of a cultural change, such as in Europe where following inconvenient traffic laws is expected behaviour, you cannot fix roads with education and enforcement. As the Netherlands has demonstrated, it's best to design your roads to make the safe choice the easiest and most intuitive choice.
Sue everyone.