Bad design contributes to bizarre death.

Luke said:

http://tinyurl.com/sykcn

A link to numerous accounts of a local cyclist's death.

Luke

I almost had the same thing happen to me several years ago.

Very sad. Another thing to consider is that untreated wooden bridges
can get slimey, especially during the fall/spring which is just as
slick as glare ice. Combine that with a low railing, and I'm surprised
this is the first fatality at that bridge.

Luke said:

http://tinyurl.com/sykcn

A link to numerous accounts of a local cyclist's death.

Luke

So it happened. Unsettling. I've thought about the possibility many times
while cycling across a local bridge via sidewalk. Its railing is about 1 meter
high too. I prefer the sidewalk nonetheless, because traffic is heavy and
vehicle lanes are way too narrow for my comfort, the bridge being about 70 years
old.

--
Michael

Michael said:

Luke said:

http://tinyurl.com/sykcn

A link to numerous accounts of a local cyclist's death.

Luke

So it happened. Unsettling. I've thought about the possibility many times
while cycling across a local bridge via sidewalk. Its railing is about 1 meter
high too. I prefer the sidewalk nonetheless, because traffic is heavy and
vehicle lanes are way too narrow for my comfort, the bridge being about 70 years
old.

I have to ride the sidewalks on the bridges here to since there was
never any consideration for bicycle traffic when they were built. There
is one mandatory sidewalk bridge that only has a car barrier next to the
sidewalk and that is only about 18" high. The sidewalk is about 4 feet
wide so I do have to get off and walk around any pedestrian traffic, but
the car side is a 6" vertical drop right into the traffic lane. I have
been whiffed by trucks, buses, and SUVs whether walking or riding. Some
of these trucks have the big mirrors that stick out almost a foot and
then the driver goes by at 60+ with his wheels almost rubbing the curb.
Sometimes I stop in the middle and put one foot on the guard rail and
just wonder "Why".
Bill Baka

landotter said:

Very sad. Another thing to consider is that untreated wooden bridges
can get slimey, especially during the fall/spring which is just as
slick as glare ice. Combine that with a low railing, and I'm surprised
this is the first fatality at that bridge.

What makes you think that a bridge spanning a river some 50 meters
below, built in 1980, designed to carry motor vehicle traffic, and
equipped with tubular aluminum guardrails is made of *wood*, treated or
otherwise?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Luke said:

http://tinyurl.com/sykcn

A link to numerous accounts of a local cyclist's death.

Luke

It's a shame that some things happen but I really wish for two reasons
that the "bicycle advocate" quoted so extensively in the news reports
hadn't decided to try to turn the unfortunate cyclist's death into an
indictment of the bridge design.
According to the news articles, that bridge has been there since 1980
yet this is the first cyclist fatality to occur there. One cyclist
fatality in 26 years- that one fatality under rather unusual
circumstances and involving a cyclist that was disobeying the sign that
said something to the effect that, "cyclists must dismount and walk
their bike"- doesn't justify calling for expensive re-engineering of a
roadway to fix a mostly non-existent safety hazard. It is an especially
bad idea to demand a re-engineering solution to what is, again, a
mostly non-existent problem when those responsible for paying for that
re-engineering could accomplish the same safety goal by simply banning
bikes from using that bridge at all. Cycling advocacy that results in
banning us from using the roads is poor advocacy.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

landotter said:

Very sad. Another thing to consider is that untreated wooden bridges
can get slimey, especially during the fall/spring which is just as
slick as glare ice. Combine that with a low railing, and I'm surprised
this is the first fatality at that bridge.

What makes you think that a bridge spanning a river some 50 meters
below, built in 1980, designed to carry motor vehicle traffic, and
equipped with tubular aluminum guardrails is made of *wood*, treated or
otherwise?

The write up I saw alluded to it being a path bridge, which are usually
made of wood.

landotter said:

Bob said:

landotter said:

Very sad. Another thing to consider is that untreated wooden bridges
can get slimey, especially during the fall/spring which is just as
slick as glare ice. Combine that with a low railing, and I'm surprised
this is the first fatality at that bridge.

What makes you think that a bridge spanning a river some 50 meters
below, built in 1980, designed to carry motor vehicle traffic, and
equipped with tubular aluminum guardrails is made of *wood*, treated or
otherwise?

The write up I saw alluded to it being a path bridge, which are usually
made of wood.

I reread the three articles and in one of them the alleged cycling
advocate talks about "the cycling path" being made unsafe by that
bridge. The other articles, especially the one with a photo, make it
clear that it's a bridge designed to transport motor vehicles but I can
see the source of your confusion.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

landotter said:

Bob said:

landotter wrote:
> Very sad. Another thing to consider is that untreated wooden bridges
> can get slimey, especially during the fall/spring which is just as
> slick as glare ice. Combine that with a low railing, and I'm surprised
> this is the first fatality at that bridge.

What makes you think that a bridge spanning a river some 50 meters
below, built in 1980, designed to carry motor vehicle traffic, and
equipped with tubular aluminum guardrails is made of *wood*, treated or
otherwise?

The write up I saw alluded to it being a path bridge, which are usually
made of wood.

I reread the three articles and in one of them the alleged cycling
advocate talks about "the cycling path" being made unsafe by that
bridge. The other articles, especially the one with a photo, make it
clear that it's a bridge designed to transport motor vehicles but I can
see the source of your confusion.

So I misread it. Big f'ing deal. Why do you need to re-read and fact
check me? Obsessive Usenet Disorder, by the sounds of it.

landotter said:

So I misread it. Big f'ing deal. Why do you need to re-read and fact
check me? Obsessive Usenet Disorder, by the sounds of it.

I didn't actually reread the articles. All three made the character of
the bridge abundantly clear on the first read. I was trying to be nice
and allow you an excuse your stupidity/poor reading comprehension
skills. I should have known better.

Bob Hunt

landotter said:

Bob said:

landotter said:

Bob wrote:
> landotter wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Very sad. Another thing to consider is that untreated wooden
>> bridges can get slimey, especially during the fall/spring which
>> is just as slick as glare ice. Combine that with a low railing,
>> and I'm surprised this is the first fatality at that bridge.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What makes you think that a bridge spanning a river some 50 meters
> below, built in 1980, designed to carry motor vehicle traffic, and
> equipped with tubular aluminum guardrails is made of *wood*,
> treated or otherwise?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The write up I saw alluded to it being a path bridge, which are
usually made of wood.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I reread the three articles and in one of them the alleged cycling
advocate talks about "the cycling path" being made unsafe by that
bridge. The other articles, especially the one with a photo, make it
clear that it's a bridge designed to transport motor vehicles but I
can see the source of your confusion.

Quoted message said:

So I misread it. Big f'ing deal. Why do you need to re-read and fact
check me? Obsessive Usenet Disorder, by the sounds of it.

Whoosh. You're so clueless you don't even realize he was being GENTLE with
you.

Bill "at least you're consistent" S.

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The write up I saw alluded to it being a path bridge, which are usually
made of wood.

I reread the three articles and in one of them the alleged cycling
advocate talks about "the cycling path" being made unsafe by that
bridge. The other articles, especially the one with a photo, make it
clear that it's a bridge designed to transport motor vehicles but I can
see the source of your confusion.

In the articles, IIRC the term 'path' refers to Toronto's bicycle path
network, of which this bridge was integral, i.e., it's designated a
bicycle corridor.

Luke

Bob said:

Luke said:

http://tinyurl.com/sykcn

A link to numerous accounts of a local cyclist's death.

Luke

It's a shame that some things happen but I really wish for two reasons
that the "bicycle advocate" quoted so extensively in the news reports
hadn't decided to try to turn the unfortunate cyclist's death into an
indictment of the bridge design.
According to the news articles, that bridge has been there since 1980
yet this is the first cyclist fatality to occur there. One cyclist
fatality in 26 years- that one fatality under rather unusual
circumstances and involving a cyclist that was disobeying the sign that
said something to the effect that, "cyclists must dismount and walk
their bike"- doesn't justify calling for expensive re-engineering of a
roadway to fix a mostly non-existent safety hazard. It is an especially
bad idea to demand a re-engineering solution to what is, again, a
mostly non-existent problem when those responsible for paying for that
re-engineering could accomplish the same safety goal by simply banning
bikes from using that bridge at all. Cycling advocacy that results in
banning us from using the roads is poor advocacy.

Where possible, however, it's a good idea to genetly encourage
authorities to give some attention to such subjects so that bridge
repairs and maintenance procedures can be modified to update or
improve such designs. If no one speaks up, nothing is done. If too
many people raise too much of a fuss in the wrong manner, though, as
you say, it can cause the wrong reaction. The trick is to point out
opportunities and suggest solutions, not to loudly declaim that things
are unsafe and demand that "something must be done!" unless there's a
situation that is so patently and demonstratedly unsafe that such
action becomes warranted.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob

Quoted message said:

Luke said:

http://tinyurl.com/sykcn

A link to numerous accounts of a local cyclist's death.

Luke

It's a shame that some things happen but I really wish for two reasons
that the "bicycle advocate" quoted so extensively in the news reports
hadn't decided to try to turn the unfortunate cyclist's death into an
indictment of the bridge design.

Cycling advocates do just that: champion a cyclo-centric agenda. No
shame in that. Notwithstanding the proponent's biased perspective, the
issue, how the bridge's design suits its uses, merits scrutiny.

Patterns and intensity of use change over time; Mississauga, (the town
concerned), over the last 25 years since this bridge's construction,
has seen its population and traffic increase dramatically. Around here,
bridges are widened and modified continually. That's less of an
indictment of design, than an acknowledgement that the original plan
doesn't satisfy contemporary patterns of use.

Quoted message said:

According to the news articles, that bridge has been there since 1980
yet this is the first cyclist fatality to occur there. One cyclist
fatality in 26 years- that one fatality under rather unusual
circumstances and involving a cyclist that was disobeying the sign that
said something to the effect that, "cyclists must dismount and walk
their bike"- doesn't justify calling for expensive re-engineering of a
roadway to fix a mostly non-existent safety hazard.

If I'm not mistaken, this thoroughfare and bridge forms part of the
city's official bike plan; as such, this route is officially
recommended to cyclists. It's incongruous, and indicative of poor
foresight, that segments of the officially sanctioned plan would
require cyclists to dismount when extending the bicycle lane across the
bridge and/or posting 'Autos yield to cyclists' signs at the bridgehead
or raising the bridge's railing by a foot or so, etc., would obviate
the need to cross on foot. These are not expensive modifications.

If it's the city's expressed intent to encourage cycling on this route,
it should exercise due foresight, anticipate these situations, and act
to ameliorate needless aggravations to cyclists.

Quoted message said:

It is an especially
bad idea to demand a re-engineering solution to what is, again, a
mostly non-existent problem

The problem may seem non-existent if you define it in terms of a
casualty count. To me it's obvious: there's a discontinuity between how
the roadway/bridge is used and intended to be used, and the methods
employed to facilitate this. The setup doesn't serve its function well.

Quoted message said:

when those responsible for paying for that
re-engineering could accomplish the same safety goal by simply banning
bikes from using that bridge at all. Cycling advocacy that results in
banning us from using the roads is poor advocacy.

That last remark strikes me a self-defeating. Let's not frame the
question as a zero-sum game. Nor exaggerate the ill-effects of
advocacy. Misguided responses to advocacy are not the sole fault of
advocates. The shortcomings of a host of others - politicians,
planners, bureaucrats - are equally culpable. Perhaps we should just
ban these worthies as well.

Luke

Bob said:

According to the news articles, that bridge has been there since 1980
yet this is the first cyclist fatality to occur there. One cyclist
fatality in 26 years- that one fatality under rather unusual
circumstances and involving a cyclist that was disobeying the sign that
said something to the effect that, "cyclists must dismount and walk
their bike"- doesn't justify calling for expensive re-engineering of a
roadway to fix a mostly non-existent safety hazard.

Hmm. I wouldn't want that logic applied too often.

Our bike club is (once again) battling one of the stupidest bike
facility designs I've ever seen, in our local metro park. Two-way bike
lane on one side of a road, posts in the bike lane every once in a
while to provide collision hazards, and (most recently) milled pavement
between the bike lane and motor vehicle lane so any cyclist who tries
to leave the bike lane (say, to get to the traffic light's loop
detector) either gets his teeth rattled or gets tossed to the ground.

The park officials could say "Well, nobody's died yet."

Good design needs different criteria than that.

- Frank Krygowski

Werehatrack said:

Where possible, however, it's a good idea to genetly encourage
authorities to give some attention to such subjects so that bridge
repairs and maintenance procedures can be modified to update or
improve such designs. If no one speaks up, nothing is done. If too
many people raise too much of a fuss in the wrong manner, though, as
you say, it can cause the wrong reaction. The trick is to point out
opportunities and suggest solutions, not to loudly declaim that things
are unsafe and demand that "something must be done!" unless there's a
situation that is so patently and demonstratedly unsafe that such
action becomes warranted.

We are in agreement. Giving him the benefit of doubt, perhaps it wasn't
what the cycling advocate wanted to see stressed but the specific
safety issue that got the biggest play in the three articles posted was
the height of the guardrail. Guardrails on raised structures are meant
to serve only one purpose- to prevent falls. Since falls from a height
of 50 meters are only very rarely survived and there has been just one
accidental death reported there (it's really not useful to include
suicides in the discussion) since the bridge's apparent construction in
1980, I'd say the guardrails seem to be serving their purpose.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob

Quoted message said:

It is an especially
bad idea to demand a re-engineering solution to what is, again, a
mostly non-existent problem

The problem may seem non-existent if you define it in terms of a
casualty count. To me it's obvious: there's a discontinuity between how
the roadway/bridge is used and intended to be used, and the methods
employed to facilitate this. The setup doesn't serve its function well.

Quoted message said:

when those responsible for paying for that
re-engineering could accomplish the same safety goal by simply banning
bikes from using that bridge at all. Cycling advocacy that results in
banning us from using the roads is poor advocacy.

That last remark strikes me a self-defeating. Let's not frame the
question as a zero-sum game. Nor exaggerate the ill-effects of
advocacy. Misguided responses to advocacy are not the sole fault of
advocates. The shortcomings of a host of others - politicians,
planners, bureaucrats - are equally culpable. Perhaps we should just
ban these worthies as well.

Luke

I wasn't being critical of advocacy in general, just *poor* advocacy
and let's not underestimate the ill effects of poor advocacy. Based
solely on the news articles you linked I believe this is an instance of
poor advocacy. The specific safety issue that got the most play in
those articles wasn't traffic volume, poor lane markings, a lousy
approach to the bridge itself, or any other issue. It was the height of
the guardrails. Would an expensive revamp of those guardrails solve the
problems faced by that bridge's everyday cycling users or would it
simply prevent another "bizarre death" in the *next* 26 years? An
effective advocate tries to anticipate possible reactions to what they
say. I don't think this particular advocate did that in this specific
instance. If he had, he wouldn't have even mentioned the height of the
guardrails.
When faced with spending large amounts of money to upgrade a bridge to
accommodate bicycles there are people that will say, "If all other
traffic can safely use the bridge as it exists but bicyclists can't,
let's just ban bikes from the bridge.". To pretend otherwise is simply
refusing to face reality. Better he should have said, "We all,
motorized and non-motorized traffic, need a better bridge. While we're
building it, let's address some of the issues peculiar to cyclists."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob

Quoted message said:

I wasn't being critical of advocacy in general, just *poor* advocacy
and let's not underestimate the ill effects of poor advocacy. Based
solely on the news articles you linked I believe this is an instance of
poor advocacy. The specific safety issue that got the most play in
those articles wasn't traffic volume, poor lane markings, a lousy
approach to the bridge itself, or any other issue. It was the height of
the guardrails.

I suspect that the reporter and/or editor, soliciting the requisite one
or two line response from an opposing perspective, simplified the
advocate's opinion, distilling into a sentence. If a casual cyclist
such a myself can grasp that there can be multiple solutions, it cannot
be lost to that dedicated specialist from ARC (Advocacy for Respect for
Cyclists). No doubt even a cursory interview of the ARC rep. would
yield numerous suggestions. Perhaps the advocate did elaborate as to a
more involved and less expensive solution than 'build a higher
railing', but the media didn't think it worth the ink. The fault may
lay in reporting.

Quoted message said:

Would an expensive revamp of those guardrails solve the
problems faced by that bridge's everyday cycling users or would it
simply prevent another "bizarre death" in the *next* 26 years? An
effective advocate tries to anticipate possible reactions to what they
say. I don't think this particular advocate did that in this specific
instance. If he had, he wouldn't have even mentioned the height of the
guardrails.
When faced with spending large amounts of money to upgrade a bridge to
accommodate bicycles there are people that will say, "If all other
traffic can safely use the bridge as it exists but bicyclists can't,
let's just ban bikes from the bridge.". To pretend otherwise is simply
refusing to face reality.

Reactionaries abound, no denying that. But what they say and what they
(can) do are two different things. Contingent upon the determination of
the players, the issue could easily devolve to lawyers where legal
rights and a court decide the matter. That may entail an outcome more
to the disadvantage of the intransigent than raising a railing by a few
feet. The sword cuts both ways.

One shouldn't be unduly concerned with 'what people say' - opinions are
like [censored], everybody has one! (Clint Eastwood?). How would have the
advocates responsible for the ubiquity of wheelchair accessible
buildings, non-smoking public spaces, HOVs, etc... fared if their
adversaries' opinions had shaped their agendas? The rewards of
diplomacy are only worth the effort if they're not at the expense of
the goal.

Quoted message said:

Better he should have said, "We all,
motorized and non-motorized traffic, need a better bridge. While we're
building it, let's address some of the issues peculiar to cyclists."

If I may take the liberty, I'd rather your sentence read:

"We all, motorized and non-motorized traffic, need a better bridge.
Let's work together *now* to address some of the issues peculiar to
cyclists."

Luke

Luke said:

I suspect that the reporter and/or editor, soliciting the requisite one
or two line response from an opposing perspective, simplified the
advocate's opinion, distilling into a sentence. If a casual cyclist
such a myself can grasp that there can be multiple solutions, it cannot
be lost to that dedicated specialist from ARC (Advocacy for Respect for
Cyclists). No doubt even a cursory interview of the ARC rep. would
yield numerous suggestions. Perhaps the advocate did elaborate as to a
more involved and less expensive solution than 'build a higher
railing', but the media didn't think it worth the ink. The fault may
lay in reporting.

*Of course* the advocate's responses were edited. You don't have to be
particularly media-savvy to know that what you say to a reporter is
going to be edited. That's precisely why a *good* advocate avoids
addressing silliness like is the guardrail 36" high instead of 42".
This advocate in this instance didn't avoid that silliness and that's
why I say it was poor advocacy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would an expensive revamp of those guardrails solve the
problems faced by that bridge's everyday cycling users or would it
simply prevent another "bizarre death" in the *next* 26 years? An
effective advocate tries to anticipate possible reactions to what they
say. I don't think this particular advocate did that in this specific
instance. If he had, he wouldn't have even mentioned the height of the
guardrails.
When faced with spending large amounts of money to upgrade a bridge to
accommodate bicycles there are people that will say, "If all other
traffic can safely use the bridge as it exists but bicyclists can't,
let's just ban bikes from the bridge.". To pretend otherwise is simply
refusing to face reality.

Reactionaries abound, no denying that. But what they say and what they
(can) do are two different things. Contingent upon the determination of
the players, the issue could easily devolve to lawyers where legal
rights and a court decide the matter. That may entail an outcome more
to the disadvantage of the intransigent than raising a railing by a few
feet. The sword cuts both ways.

Calling people "reactionaries" because we disagree with them is also
poor advocacy. Appealing to the courts is also a two-edged sword.
Google "Boub vs Wayne Township" for an example.

Quoted message said:

One shouldn't be unduly concerned with 'what people say' - opinions are
like [censored], everybody has one! (Clint Eastwood?). How would have the
advocates responsible for the ubiquity of wheelchair accessible
buildings, non-smoking public spaces, HOVs, etc... fared if their
adversaries' opinions had shaped their agendas? The rewards of
diplomacy are only worth the effort if they're not at the expense of
the goal.

The advocates of the causes you mention didn't achieve their goals by
dismissing the opinions of everyone else. The Americans With
Disabilities Act for example became US law because its supporters
convinced enough people that it was the right thing to do. IOW, they
thought out their position *and what people would say about it* and
then worked from there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Better he should have said, "We all,
motorized and non-motorized traffic, need a better bridge. While we're
building it, let's address some of the issues peculiar to cyclists."

If I may take the liberty, I'd rather your sentence read:

"We all, motorized and non-motorized traffic, need a better bridge.
Let's work together *now* to address some of the issues peculiar to
cyclists."

Our phrasing differs but the outcome is the same.

Regards,
Bob Hunt