A commentary by a design consultant for cycling and walking facilities, executive director of Capital Bike and Walk, former president of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition and former Victoria city councillor.
Re: 鈥�,鈥� commentary by Adrian Kershaw, Sept. 22.
Existing protocols on our regional trails that govern traffic flow are the right ones, and the Capital Regional District should ignore those who call for ride right, walk left.
Almost every multi-use trail in North America uses the 鈥渒eep right鈥� protocol that we find on our own trails, and for good reason. Trails are not rural roads, and the switch would increase confusion and result in more user conflicts and collisions, contrary to the writer鈥檚 expectations.
Our trails do need some extra width or separation of uses where traffic is heavy, ideas I鈥檝e been pressing with trail engineers since I聽first sat on the design committee that shaped the Galloping Goose back in the 1990s.
Since those early days, I have been involved in a number of projects that have helped to enhance safety and utility on the Galloping Goose and Lochside, and worked hard to help create the E&N trail that has opened a new route for active travel between the city and the countryside. Along the way, I鈥檝e talked with engineers, trail designers and managers, and attended workshops and conferences across sa国际传媒 and the U.S. to learn more about building better trails for cycling and walking. Keeping all users to the right is universally supported by those involved on the professional side.
Keeping users to the right creates two lanes of traffic. Ride right, walk left would create four, generating congestion and confusion on busier sections or during peak hours. Having cyclists and pedestrians travelling in opposite directions along the same side of a relatively narrow path would also accelerate closing speeds. Reaction time for both user groups would be much reduced. The consequence of any collision would be much more traumatic than those that occur when users are travelling in the same direction.
The mix of users on our regional trails does not so easily respond to the writer鈥檚 idea. There are, besides the cyclists and straight ahead pedestrians, also skateboards, people using mobility aids, families with strollers or wandering children, and dog-walkers, all with their own purposes and patterns of behaviour. Who, among them, should stay on the right and who should be on the left? What about mom and dad with a child on their first two-wheeler (with training wheels perhaps), moving at walking speed? Should they walk on the left while the child rides right?
The writer assumes everyone following his preferred protocols will act predictably. Most cyclists will pass on the left, but pedestrian movements are not always so patterned. People walk side by side, in groups, meander across the trail. Who knows which direction they might move facing an oncoming cyclist. In the absence of a shoulder, it will not always be clear.
No doubt our trails are suffering from their success, as witnessed by the discomfort the writer feels. It calls for more and better signage. It might be time for a 鈥渢rail ambassador鈥� program that deploys volunteers or staff on the trails to gently reinforce pattern protocols. Ambassador programs have been used successfully in other jurisdictions and traffic volumes here suggest we need to develop strategies to deal with friction between users. Let鈥檚 not, however, chase ideas that have been studied and discarded for good reason.
