Speed bumps criticized on Mont-Royal
Plateau borough has installed quite a lot of rubber speed bumps along the pedestrian section of Mont‑Royal in an attempt to make cyclists slow down. But Vélo‑Québec says they can easily tip cyclists, causing accidents.
Cyclists, skateboarders and scooter users are permitted, but are asked not to speed, and to yield to pedestrians.
Ian 19:07 on 2024-07-09 Permalink
Vélo-Québec are a bunch of pearl-clutchers. It’s a shame there’s no pedestrian advocacy group to influence city planning … but then again there shouldn’t have to be.
Kate 19:28 on 2024-07-09 Permalink
There’s Piétons Québec but it’s not specific to Montreal.
Ian 08:27 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
In looking up any position they might have on pedestrian-first usage or prioritising pedestrians, everything I could find was “piétons et des cyclistes” or “à pied et à vélo”. Even their training sessions are partnered with Vélo-Québec.
CE 09:13 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
If we had a pedestrian lobby group as big and effective as Vélo Quebec, I feel like the pedestrian infrastructure in this city would be much better. Just looking at ave Mont-Royal again, when it’s not pedestrianized, some of those sidewalks are so narrow it’s embarrassing!
DeWolf 09:21 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
It’s rare that I disagree with Vélo-Québec but their complaints about this doesn’t make any sense to me. If a cyclist is injured by going over a speed bump on Mont-Royal, it’s because they were going way too fast. And therein lies the problem.
@Ian You’d rather active transport groups not work together? I get that you have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who ride bikes but seriously, pedestrian safety and cyclist safety are intertwined and there’s no good that will come from a pedestrian advocacy group spending its effort battling cyclists.
Ian 09:51 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Pedestrians are under-represented in city planning concerns and I don’t think conflating their needs exclusively with those of bicyclists does pedestrian safety any favours. I do have issues with Vélo-Quebec as an advocacy group as I feel they give way too much priority to sport cyclists and MAMILs, but I don’t have a beef with cyclists in of themselves. I commuted by bicycle well into my mid-40s, including winters.
Would you expect the STM or EXO or the REM to consult with Vélo-Quebec?
DeWolf 15:06 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Yes absolutely, why would you want all these organizations to exist in silos? They should definitely be consulting with both Vélo Québec and Piétons Québec.
Ian 16:30 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Well then, you’ve got a big opportunity to organize advocacy synergies if that’s how you think it should be done. AFAIK only the STM consults with Vélo-Quebec, and even then only as a partnership in organizing the Tour-de-l’Île.
You always say people “have a big chip on their shoulder” if they consistently speak against something you favour. I think you’ve got a chip on your shoulder against people that don’t see things the way you do.
Personally I think that advocacy groups should only serve to bring their concerns to planners – otherwise we run the risk of being governed by lobbyists or, as I suspect is the case with Vélo-Quebec’s relationship with the city, friends of friends. It all sounds innocent when it’s the MAMIL lobby positionining themselves as “a key element of public transit” but what if it was developers, or contruction companies? If that were happening publicly everyone would be (rightly) decrying cronyism and corruption.
Again, I don’t think Vélo-Quebec reflects the needs of bicyclists, just a very specific kind of bicyclist. In any case, I wouldn’t expect an panel from the STM giving an explanation of new bus lanes (forn instance) to have reps from bike advocates or (heaven forfend) car advocates. These are all different things. Why should Piétons-Quebec be expected to share the stage with Vélo-Quebec?
As far as advocating for the rights of pedestrians go, as I said in my first post in this thread, I think city planning should take their concerns into consideration and give them priority without the need for special advocacy groups – in fact, despite the complaints Vélo-Quebec, who apparently aren’t as willing to share public space with pedestrians as they demand for themselves from others.
Rennie 16:51 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
>>””I don’t think Vélo-Quebec reflects the needs of bicyclists, just a very specific kind of bicyclist.”
I would like to understand that statement a bit more. Thanks.
DeWolf 17:44 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Advocacy groups develop specific expertise that other organizations don’t have which is why they are valuable resources. It’s not a question of consulting them on every occasion but when a new metro station is being planned, I would hope the STM would turn to Vélo-Québec for advice on how to make it safe and accessible for people arriving by bicycle because their own planners might not have that knowledge.
And yes, planners need to work with a hierarchy of priorities in which pedestrians should always be on top. This has become official policy in the UK among other places.
In any case, I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that Vélo-Québec is an organization that advocates for sport cyclists more than anyone else. It’s been around for awhile, maybe that was the case in the past, but with J-F Rheault in charge? The guy rides a heavy Dutch grandpa bike around town. MAMILs are more often opposed to safe cycling infrastructure because they like to go fast and bike paths like the REV are designed for ordinary people who aren’t blasting down the street at high speeds.
Ian 17:53 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
I guess that’s why they are complaining about speed bumps in a mixed usage zone then? I must have misunderstood 😉
MarcG 07:35 on 2024-07-11 Permalink
No speed bumps = Bicyclists go too fast and endanger pedestrians
Speed bumps = Bicyclists are distracted by the speed bumps and endanger pedestrians
Winding route = Emergency vehicles are inhibited
Perhaps mixed use is just a dream and there needs to be dedicated bike lanes.
CE 08:40 on 2024-07-11 Permalink
I really don’t understand Vélo Quebec’s opposition to these speed bumps. all cyclists will lose the right to use the street if the minority of idiot cyclists are allowed to continue riding like assholes on the pedestrian streets.
DeWolf 21:04 on 2024-07-11 Permalink
@Ian That’s exactly why I’m surprised by Vélo-Québec’s position on these speed bumps, especially since they’ve been used without controversy on Wellington.
You can be right 90% of the time, which means you’re wrong 10% of the time. This weird position doesn’t mean Vélo-Québec is mainly supporting obnoxious Lycra dudes.
Ian 16:30 on 2024-07-12 Permalink
Point taken, I guess nobody likes MAMILs now. They’re the bicyclist equivalent of middle aged dudes that buy a Porsche & treat the world as their piste.
Rennie 10:52 on 2024-07-13 Permalink
Now I understand your comment about Vélo-Quebec better, thanks.
Rennie 10:45 on 2024-07-16 Permalink
6600 children learned to ride bicycles safely thanks to Vélo-Quebec’s “Cycliste averti” cycling education program.