"BICYCLE super-stations 4 Melb CBD"

[Bleve]

EuanB wrote:

> > Provide good quality faciliites and you'll get a lot more cyclists.
> >
> Well that's the billion dollar question isn't it? What makes good
> quality facilities? I'd suggest that faciliities which does not
> protect against the most common hazard a cyclist faces in an urban
> environment is not a good facility.

Except, as you point out later, that it's not really about what is
safer (it's *already* safer in so many ways to ride!) but perception.
People think they're safer in Land Barges, they think they're safer by
keeping their kids away from strangers by having them stay at Uncle
Baldy's place instead etc...

> Fact is that collisions with same direction traffic is one of the
> rarest accidents to befall a cyclist. The Copenhagen solution is one
> which is targetted at the percieved dangers of cycling, not the real
> ones.

If everyone got that riding bikes was safer than driving (which is the
truth, if you look at it without narrow focus) then bike paths wouldn't
be necessary at all for commuters - just for kids learning to ride. As
we all know here, the facts, and people's beliefs, rarely match.
Casinos make money, people buy big 4wds and eat at Maccas ....

> I maintain that the real issue here is educating cyclists in how to
> share the road. Far too many have no clue whatsoever.

I'm not really sure that education actually makes that much difference.
Does sending a car driver off to do an advanced driving course make
them more or less of a dangerous idiot on the roads, or more or less an
arrogant hoon?

You're right I think ... anything that gets more people riding (a
critical mass of riders, and you know I don't mean the Friday night
anarchists parade!) is good for all of us. If those paths make people
*feel* safer, then they work because they get them riding - which
reduces the number of cars and makes *everyone* safer.

 

[LotteBum]

Peter McCallum wrote:

The main thing that the Copenhagen people seem to be doing is commiting
resources to continuously improving facilities and the perception of
them.

It's not just Copenhagen. The entire country is dedicated to the 'perceived' safety of cyclists. Cars have been extremely expensive to own for a long time over there - this gives most people not a lot of choice but ride their bikes and I guess they probably all push for such facilities.

It costs on average a sh!tload of money just to maintain a car in Denmark, plus purchase costs are beyond what most of us here could afford... it all makes sense though - price people out of cars and force them to ride bikes and get healthy.

Lotte

 

[TimC]

On 2005-11-21, Peter McCallum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> We all know that cycling is relatively safe compared to other activities
> such as gardening or home renovation, but ask the average person and
> they'll tell you cycling is definitely unsafe. I think that if you
> provide people with facilities that provide a perception of safety, then
> engineer safety into them, you'll achieve a great outcome.

But, sssssh! If you start to say nasty things like these campaigns
are all just trying to improve the *perception* of safety, the
opposition will call for your sacking!


Of all the things they could possibly complain about, they want to get
her sacked over telling the truth. No wonder she likes to lie so
much. Fscking dickwads. All of them.

--
TimC
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
-- Ernest Rutherford

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "TimC" == TimC <[email protected]> writes:

TimC> On 2005-11-20, EuanB (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite,
TimC> entirely unlike tea:
>> cfsmtb Wrote:
>>> *Ahem* Yes, there's many pubs in the CBD. Funny that.
>>>
>>> cfs "kicked hard by goats & grappa" mtb

TimC> Grappa? Ewwww!

>> Got up about 1000. Wasn't functional until 1400. Very gentle
>> pootle in to Cheltenham for brunch and blue shwalbes

TimC> Did I miss out on a hard night out at the Goat?

Night at the Goat was as good as it normally is, it's when my mate from
work invited us to his place for a `bite to eat' that things started
deviating from the norm. He's a bloody good cook and has an interesting
array of beverages....
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[TimC]

On 2005-11-21, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Night at the Goat was as good as it normally is, it's when my mate from
> work invited us to his place for a `bite to eat' that things started
> deviating from the norm. He's a bloody good cook and has an interesting
> array of beverages....

Ah, so a bit of single malt, some port, some red, some Leffe Brüne,
some.... geee. I think that would be enough for one night


We had some Lunix geeks down to Melbourne one night, so I dragged 'em
all out to the Belgium Beer Cafe. Then the really cute (but soon to
be married) one wanted me to dink her to the next friend's place. We
failed. But I rode, rather drunkardly, and she caught the taxi.

At the friends house, he, being an IT geek being paid a fortune,
showed us his book collection of rare 18th century books, and then
cracked open the $300 bottle of Merlot.

BEST. WINE. EVAR!

It was *everything* you could want from a drink. Sigh.

--
TimC
Can you keep your witty comments shorter dude? I can't
make that my sig! --Hipatia

 

[Plodder]

--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"LotteBum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Marx SS wrote:
>
> As for the Copenhagen-style bike lanes, well, this ain't Copenhagen.
> There are a number of Melbourne bicycle commuters travel quite a
> distance compared to Europeans to get to/from work (hands up who
> commutes 30kms+ per day). There aren't that many Baguettes-in-baskets
> meandering home @ 10kms/hr.
>
> Agreed. I think bike lanes are a great idea, but I also believe that
> the main key to this problem is education.
>
> I'm sick and tired of hearing about motorcyclists being the most
> underrepresented statistics on the roads. Well, there'd be a good
> reason for that - too many of them ride like knobs and surely, they're
> the ones that (mostly) get killed (I'm sure there are exceptions, the
> same way there are for cyclists etc). Even when I ride my scooter
> home, I find myself being overtaken on the left - in the same lane - by
> motorcyclists who MUST ride at 90 - 100km/h in a 60 zone on the left of
> cars (clever!).
>
> I am of the opinion that a campaign to get people riding bikes and to
> encourage the general public to have some respect for cyclists is long
> overdue. That's not to say that motor cyclists don't deserve respect
> on the roads, but they DO still use fuel and I'm 100% sure they don't
> receive the same amount of disrespect on the roads as do cyclists. I
> feel extremely safe on my scooter purely because I am used to not
> feeling all that safe on my bike.
>
> It's time we stop following in America's footsteps and following in the
> steps of developed countries who seem to know what they're doing.
>
> LotteSoapBoxBum
>
>
> --
> LotteBum

Agree with a lot of Lotte...

I think the glaring difference in the way bike lanes are regarded here is
that they are seen as a way of segregating cycles from 'traffic' (we don't
count as traffic here). In Europe, there is more of an integration approach,
where bike lanes are integrated with motorised traffic.

An example: Bike lane/shared path crosses a T junction in Australia. The
bike lane is built with a curious little wiggle, forcing the cyclist to slow
down. The lane ends at the road and starts on the other side. Cars have the
stop of give way lines right next to the intersecting road.

In Europe, the bike lane goes straight, with motorised traffic having to
stop adjacent to the bike lane, not to the road. Cars give way to continuing
traffic (bikes).

If you're riding a bike here it's planned in as second-class transport; cars
have priority. Bike lanes are designed to keep us from inconveniencing
'traffic'. We're segregated as much as possible, promoting the idea that we
SHOULD be segregated.

I think we should all take whatever opportunity to lobby, pester and
otherwise get the point across that there is a place for bike lanes, but
they are a method of integration, NOT segregation.

INTEGRATE, NOT SEGREGATE!

Got a nice ring, really, hasn't it? Maybe I should get some stickers
made...

two cent's worth...

Frank

 

[Plodder]

--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> EuanB wrote:
>
> > I've seen that video, notice how many cyclists there are? That's what
> > makes it a workable solution. Not the facilities themselves.
> >
> > People in Copenhagen expect to see cyclists on their near side and
> > behave accordingly. People in Melbourne do not.
>
> While personally I don't want to be stuck in a plodders lane, I can see
> (after watching that video) that for slow commuters, it's a workable
> idea.

See my previous post about integrating bikes. There's nothing to say you
MUST stay in a bike lane if one is provided. I'd like to see some stats for
the average commuter speed here and in Europe. I'd guess the average speed
would be higher here in Aus because it tends to be enthusiasts who commute
rather than in Europe where the range of commuters/bicycle users is much
higher.

Have a look at the cycle paths in Munich, for example - treated almost like
a cycle freeway with faster cyclists not being impeded by the plodders. Hmm.
Come to think of it, haven't there been an awful lot of posts over the years
about how we shouldn't be regarded as something that slows faster road users
down? Perhaps it's that 'must go fast' attitude that needs addressing...


> You're implying above that because something is not expected that it
> can't be. That's demonstrably false. What people expect can be
> changed. No-one used to expect booze busses on freeways or speed
> cameras on suburban arterials either. 100 years ago no-one expected
> cars on our roads.

Agree wholeheartedly. I'm learning to ride more assertively - ride as though
I expect drivers to expect to see cyclists on the road. It's that
expectation that meant I had no trouble riding in Europe, but daily get
honked, flashed, swerved at and things lobbed at me here. The more
assertively I ride, the more I get hassled, but I'm damned if I'll ride in
the gutter and be treated like that's where I belong!

Perth - home of the Hoon...

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Plodder]

--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter McCallum Wrote:
> > EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've seen that video, notice how many cyclists there are? That's
> > what
> > > makes it a workable solution. Not the facilities themselves.
> > >
> > > People in Copenhagen expect to see cyclists on their near side and
> > > behave accordingly. People in Melbourne do not.
> >
> > Provide good quality faciliites and you'll get a lot more cyclists.
> >
> Well that's the billion dollar question isn't it? What makes good
> quality facilities? I'd suggest that faciliities which does not
> protect against the most common hazard a cyclist faces in an urban
> environment is not a good facility.
>
> Fact is that collisions with same direction traffic is one of the
> rarest accidents to befall a cyclist. The Copenhagen solution is one
> which is targetted at the percieved dangers of cycling, not the real
> ones.
>
> That in itself may not be a bad thing if it gets more people cycling.
> More people cycling means that more people expect and know how to deal
> with cyclists. It may be worth the trade off in short term safety to
> achieve a higher level of safety through greater cycling numbers.
>
> I maintain that the real issue here is educating cyclists in how to
> share the road. Far too many have no clue whatsoever.

Including the the people who design our bike paths!
I'd like to see a procedure that makes the designers commit to bicycle
commuting along the routes they design for 6 months after the path is built
or they don't get paid... that'd make them more aware of cyclist's needs!

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Plodder]

--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Peter McCallum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1h6dwgj.1fbk451vxawyqN%[email protected]...
> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Peter McCallum Wrote:
> > >
> > > Provide good quality faciliites and you'll get a lot more cyclists.
> > >
> > Well that's the billion dollar question isn't it? What makes good
> > quality facilities? I'd suggest that faciliities which does not
> > protect against the most common hazard a cyclist faces in an urban
> > environment is not a good facility.
> >
> > Fact is that collisions with same direction traffic is one of the
> > rarest accidents to befall a cyclist. The Copenhagen solution is one
> > which is targetted at the percieved dangers of cycling, not the real
> > ones.
> >
> > That in itself may not be a bad thing if it gets more people cycling.
> > More people cycling means that more people expect and know how to deal
> > with cyclists. It may be worth the trade off in short term safety to
> > achieve a higher level of safety through greater cycling numbers.
> >
> > I maintain that the real issue here is educating cyclists in how to
> > share the road. Far too many have no clue whatsoever.
>
> Given that Copenhagen achieved a 50 per cent reduction in cyclist
> accident risks in a six year period, then they must be doing something
> correct.
>
> Generally, I think that most people don't want to cycle at more than
> about 20-25km/h and they don't want to have to dress up to go cycling.
> They just want to hop on the bike and ride it to their destination in
> comfort and with a perception of safety.

YEP! We're not all in the lycra set!

<SNIP>

Frank

 

[Marx SS]

Kinda hard to convince anyone that cycling is safe when you have to wear a helmet to do it.
I say tell ‘em like it is & let them decide.

 

[EuanB]

Kinda hard to convince anyone that cycling is safe when you have to wear a helmet to do it.
I say tell ‘em like it is & let them decide.

No no no no no no no no no no <wags finger> Let's not turn this in to a helmet thread!

 

[flyingdutch]

Kinda hard to convince anyone that cycling is safe when you have to wear a helmet to do it.
I say tell ‘em like it is & let them decide.

RUN FOR THE HIIILLLLLSSSSS. A HELMET DEBATE

 

[cfsmtb]

RUN FOR THE HIIILLLLLSSSSS. A HELMET DEBATE

Oh ****. Duck & cover........I'm not coming outta my bunker until late Friday afternoon

 

[Peter McCallum]

Plodder <[email protected](removeDAKStoreply)> wrote:
> There's nothing to say you
> MUST stay in a bike lane if one is provided.

Apart from the road rules?

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[Peter McCallum]

Plodder <[email protected](removeDAKStoreply)> wrote:
> I'd like to see a procedure that makes the designers commit to bicycle
> commuting along the routes they design for 6 months after the path is built
> or they don't get paid... that'd make them more aware of cyclist's needs!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank

Quickly, everyone write to Barnaby Joyce and get him to slip that into
the new Industrial Relations laws.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[EuanB]

Not sure if "I'm allowed to comment on such things now???"
but here'tis anyway...

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17308681%255E2862,00.html

Euro-style plan for bicycle city
John Ferguson
21nov05

BICYCLE super-stations and key changes to traffic flows are part of a controversial $10 million plan to bring European-style commuting to Melbourne.

Riders will be able to park, shower and even drink coffee at cafes attached to several major bike stations dotted across the city.
Melbourne City Council is also backing sweeping changes to bike paths to make commuting safer.

Councillor Peter Clarke wants expanded a push to create Copenhagen-style bike paths into the CBD.

I've just taken a call from Councillor Peter Clarke I left a message with his secretary yesterday and he got back to me. I'm impressed!

It was pretty much a single issue call, I outlined my concerns about the danger Copenhagen style lanes may put cyclists in if implemented without regard for the door zone. I told him I thought the super stations are a great idea.

Peter told me that the Copenhagen lanes was way down on the list of things he wanted to get exposure. His top two items were the super staions and completing the missing links in conjunction with BV. He suspects that the reporter rather fancies the Copenhagen for his commute in to work and went on to find a puff piece to support his views. Copenhagen style lanes will be more the exception than the rule in Peter's opinion, mainly because it'll be so difficult to get the land off of VicRoads.

I took the opportunity to suggest that bicycle lanes carrying on through junctions may be a good idea. He said I'd raised a good point which he hadn't considered and will take it on board. Don't know if that's true or not but it's nice to hear

 

[ghostgum]

Kinda hard to convince anyone that cycling is safe when you have to wear a helmet to do it.

I mentioned the helmet once. I think I got away with it.

 

[ghostgum]

I've just taken a call from Councillor Peter Clarke I left a message with his secretary yesterday and he got back to me. I'm impressed!

I took the opportunity to suggest that bicycle lanes carrying on through junctions may be a good idea. He said I'd raised a good point which he hadn't considered and will take it on board. Don't know if that's true or not but it's nice to hear

Yay. Good that you made the point on continuing the bicycle lanes.
I particularly liked the way Copenhagen makes it very clear
that the bicycle lane continues by painting it blue (similar
to those new green lanes near Eastern Freeway?),
and that the car really is crossing another lane.

I sent a letter to my local council asking for the bike lane
marking on my route to continue across every T-intersection
in accordance with the VicRoads standards, instead of
having the bike lane signs say one thing, but the road
marking say something else.

 

[TimC]

On 2005-11-21, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> flyingdutch Wrote:
>> RUN FOR THE HIIILLLLLSSSSS. A HELMET DEBATE
>
>
> Oh ****. Duck & cover........I'm not coming outta my bunker until late
> Friday afternoon

Remember to bring your waterproof catsuit.

--
TimC
I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere. --unknown

 

[Random Data]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:18:45 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:

> Apart from the road rules?

"Where practical" IIRC. That's a *lot* of leeway. It may also be phrased
"where safe", which also leaves lots of leeway.

I know there's one cycleway I ignore, since it took me about 2 years to
*notice* the "all bikes ride here" sign. Pity it's covered in small
children, while there's a reasonably wide and quiet road next to it.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses" - Elwood Blues