Re: Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
and with priority at junctions.

Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
--
Cheers,
Euan

In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700

EuanB said:

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

Roads for cyclists.

Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered
vehicles, what makes unpowered different?

HAve to define bicycle though!

If a trike can use the path, then can a rollerblader who isn't that
much wider really?

Hand cranked? Rowbike?

What are the requirements in size and behaviour of vehicles that can
use the path?

Zebee

On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700

EuanB said:

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

Roads for cyclists.

Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered
vehicles, what makes unpowered different?

HAve to define bicycle though!

Everything but bents.

🙂

--
TimC
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:05:07 +1000

TimC said:

On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)

Quoted message said:

HAve to define bicycle though!

Everything but bents.

🙂

You are Bicycle Victoria and I claim my five pounds!

Zebee

EuanB said:

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

What about another three meters for a passing lane? Why not just bitumenise
the planet?

Theo
Not sure the lanes on our local roads are three metres wide.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:07:30 +0800

Theo Bekkers said:

EuanB said:

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

What about another three meters for a passing lane? Why not just bitumenise
the planet?

Nah, just hand over the roads currently used by cars to bicycles.

OK, the city as we know it will disappear but on the other hand it will
stop those pesky mountain bikers playing silly buggers in areas they
can't ride to and completely remove questions about bike racks on cars,
so that's something.

Zebee

Theo Bekkers said:

EuanB said:

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Quoted message said:

Exclusive to cyclists.

Quoted message said:

One way.

Quoted message said:

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Quoted message said:

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

What about another three meters for a passing lane? Why not just bitumenise
the planet?

Which is why good bike paths will not happen. Space is at a premium
in urban areas so for decent bike paths to happen antoher demographic
will have to lose out; that's unlikely to happen which is why learning
to share the road with other road users is the way to go (shared space
etc).

It may be feasible for inter-state roads however.

Quoted message said:

Not sure the lanes on our local roads are three metres wide.

I very much doubt they are, they certainly aren't in Melbourne.
Please don't confuse what I consider to be a good bike path with what
I want or expect to happen.
--
Cheers
Euan

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

So if we banned cars tomorrow, and turned all the roads over to cyclists
only, most of them would be unsafe for cyclists. Interesting.

--
Shane Stanley

"EuanB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
and with priority at junctions.

Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
--
Cheers,
Euan

My idea of a safe bike path:
Not exclusive to cyclists - why create separation and the impression we're
somehow special?

Two ways - dumbing down facilities contributes nothing to evolving skills
and normalising bicycle use.

No special priority. Subject to normal vehicle rules - again, we're not
special.

I'll agree to the well surfaced part, but three to five meters? Isn't it
true that we expect people to drive to the conditions? Shouldn't it also be
true that cyclists should ride to the conditions? If the path or street is
narrow and/or has poor sight lines, slow down to a safe speed. We have
enough tarmac strips stuffing up the landscape.

The first three of your ideas seem to me to be creating the same sort of
bubble that motorists are accused of living in and removing the need for
working skills and human interaction. Personally, I don't accept that
cyclists should be separated from other people - commuters, walkers,
families out for a picnic, etc. The whole kit and caboodle should integrate.
To me, that's the utopian ideal, not segregation based on the convenience
determined by a mode of transport.

Yes, motor vehicles have their freeways and highways; their privileges and
priorities. Tough. I se no reason to replicate that for other ways people
use to move around. Why duplicate what's already seen as a mistake?

I also think that cyclists should have a certificate of competency (or
something like that) issued by schools for kids. Prospective drivers would
need to prove competency on a bicycle before they are permitted to apply for
a driver's license. There would, of course, be exceptions for those who are
unable to ride (disabled, etc) but they would be expected to submit to a
written or oral examination to show good knowledge of cycling.

Overall, I see the problem with the interactions between modes of transport
as being rooted in the idea that a chosen form of transport makes one person
somehow different to others. None of us is special or has some sort of
convenience priority over others; and that's what we're discussing -
convenience. It's more convenient for me to have a faster, uninterrupted
route. It's not a need. I see no need to pander to convenience by
segregating when, for me, the ideal is integration and human interaction
that's not goverened by one's chosen means of movement.

Nuff for now - maybe I'm just sensitive about being yelled at so much for
being on the road when ther's a bike path near by. Bike paths seem to
support the idea that I shouldn't be cycling on the road.

Frank

On Apr 27, 9:54 am, Shane Stanley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Quoted message said:

Exclusive to cyclists.

Quoted message said:

One way.

Quoted message said:

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Quoted message said:

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

So if we banned cars tomorrow, and turned all the roads over to cyclists
only, most of them would be unsafe for cyclists. Interesting.

--
Shane Stanley

Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
wide.
--
Cheers,
Euan

EuanB said:

On Apr 27, 9:54 am, Shane Stanley wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So if we banned cars tomorrow, and turned all the roads over to
cyclists only, most of them would be unsafe for cyclists.
Interesting.

Quoted message said:

Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
wide.

One way? I doubt it. Most older roads don't meet the current minimum
standard of 3.5 m per lane plus 1 m of sealed shoulder.

Theo

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
wide.

I was talking about banning cars, not pedestrians.

--
Shane Stanley

Quoted message said:

My idea of a safe bike path:
Not exclusive to cyclists - why create separation and the impression we're
somehow special?

Bluntly, cycling is superior.

There is no more efficient method of transport, in terms of energy,
than the bicycle.

Countries which enjoy high rates of cycling have much lower rates of
road trauma and much lower health care costs.

Cycling is a benefit to society, not a detriment. In terms of road
trauma and health private motor cars are extremely detreimental to
society.

Quoted message said:

Two ways - dumbing down facilities contributes nothing to evolving skills
and normalising bicycle use.

Because two way bike paths have been proven to be the most dangerous
cycling construct for cyclists. That's why they don't exist in
Holland.

Quoted message said:

No special priority. Subject to normal vehicle rules - again, we're not
special.

If you want to encourage cycling, you have to make cycling special.

Quoted message said:

I'll agree to the well surfaced part, but three to five meters? Isn't it
true that we expect people to drive to the conditions? Shouldn't it also be
true that cyclists should ride to the conditions? If the path or street is
narrow and/or has poor sight lines, slow down to a safe speed. We have
enough tarmac strips stuffing up the landscape.

Don't confuse what I think is a good bike lane with what I want or
expect to get.

Quoted message said:

The first three of your ideas seem to me to be creating the same sort of
bubble that motorists are accused of living in and removing the need for
working skills and human interaction. Personally, I don't accept that
cyclists should be separated from other people - commuters, walkers,
families out for a picnic, etc. The whole kit and caboodle should integrate.

Nor do I, I'm much more in favor of shared space. I gave my opinion
on what would make a good bike path, not on what would make good
facilities for the common good.

Understanding the needs of all demographics allows us to compensate
when those needs can't be met. I allow a lot more room stepping out
in front of a truck than I do in front of a pedestrian, for example.

Quoted message said:

Yes, motor vehicles have their freeways and highways; their privileges and
priorities. Tough. I se no reason to replicate that for other ways people
use to move around. Why duplicate what's already seen as a mistake?

Well, that's the point of shared space. Car drivers lose those
privliges and have to work with everyone else. Call it shared space,
unsafe safety, second generation traffic engineering and it all boils
down to the same thing, all road users working with each other to get
to where they need to go.

Quoted message said:

I also think that cyclists should have a certificate of competency (or
something like that) issued by schools for kids.

Why? It's arguable that there'd be a benefit to society in preventing
children from getting on bikes, they're less likely to be active and
more likely to suffer from obesity and its related problems.

Quoted message said:

Prospective drivers would
need to prove competency on a bicycle before they are permitted to apply for
a driver's license. There would, of course, be exceptions for those who are
unable to ride (disabled, etc) but they would be expected to submit to a
written or oral examination to show good knowledge of cycling.

That would be nice.

Quoted message said:

Overall, I see the problem with the interactions between modes of transport
as being rooted in the idea that a chosen form of transport makes one person
somehow different to others.

It's a fact that a cyclist is different to a driver. A cyclist is
much more vulnerable than a driver. A cyclist has a harder time
getting up hills than a driver. A driver is capable of much greater
speed with less effort than a cyclist. There's no beneift in
pretending otherwise, in fact it's dishonest.

Quoted message said:

Nuff for now - maybe I'm just sensitive about being yelled at so much for
being on the road when ther's a bike path near by. Bike paths seem to
support the idea that I shouldn't be cycling on the road.

I have not, or ever have been, a fan of bike paths. The very things
that make a bike path safe are the things that make them impracticle.
That said as cfsmtb says they are a fact of life now because that's
what Joe Public wants. The best we can do is do our best to minimize
the bad things about them, such as Sydney's proposal of a two way bike
lane on one side of the road seperated from traffic by bollards, and
promote the good things such as green lanes as recently popularised by
the ACT ads.

On Apr 27, 12:38 pm, Shane Stanley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
wide.

I was talking about banning cars, not pedestrians.

Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
cross them, so what's your point?
--
Cheers
Euan

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
cross them, so what's your point?

Your suggestion about right of way.

But really, I guess I find it hard to believe that bikes have
requirements so much higher than vehicles that are bigger, travel
faster, have poorer vision, etc.

--
Shane Stanley

EuanB said:

Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
cross them, so what's your point?

Only not allowed if a suitable path is provided for them alongside the
(paved) roadway, otherwise they are indeed allowed on the roads.

Theo

On Apr 27, 2:05 pm, Shane Stanley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
cross them, so what's your point?

Your suggestion about right of way.

But really, I guess I find it hard to believe that bikes have
requirements so much higher than vehicles that are bigger, travel
faster, have poorer vision, etc.

Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone. I'm not
asking for more than other vehicles, just hte same. Well I'm not even
asking for it as I'm more in favor of shared space.

Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.
That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.
--
Cheers
Euan

Theo Bekkers said:

EuanB said:

Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
cross them, so what's your point?

Only not allowed if a suitable path is provided for them alongside the
(paved) roadway, otherwise they are indeed allowed on the roads.

Theo

Allowed on the side of the road, not where traffic travels. Big
difference.
--
Cheers
Euan

EuanB said:

Shane Stanley wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But really, I guess I find it hard to believe that bikes have
requirements so much higher than vehicles that are bigger, travel
faster, have poorer vision, etc.

Quoted message said:

Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone.

What? Obviously unsafe things, let's ban them.

Theo