Bike racks on Canberra buses

[Bean Long]

Hi all,

In the past month or so, several ACTION buses here in Canberra have been
driving around with bike racks on their fronts but signs saying they are not
yet in operation. I asked what the deal was and got the following reply:

Thanks for your email on bike racks.
The bike racks you have seen are on trial only, to sort out any operational
issues that may occur. The bike racks will then be fitted to a larger number
of buses and the public will then be able to use the bike racks, however I
don't have an actual start date at this stage..

Before these bike racks come into operation, ACTION will commence a
communications campaign designed to tell you everything you need to know
about using the bike racks (they're very easy to use!).

I hope this information is of assistance. I would suggest you keep a look
out on our website, as this will have information on the bike racks as soon
as the start date is announced.

Regards

Lynda

ACTION Customer Service Team

It's a great idea, especially given the distances some commuters might have
to travel in Canberra to get to work. The racks look similar to those I've
seen in Seattle in the US where they are frequently used and well thought
of. Anyone else got them on their local buses?
--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Bean Long wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the past month or so, several ACTION buses here in Canberra have been
> driving around with bike racks on their fronts but signs saying they are not
> yet in operation. I asked what the deal was and got the following reply:
>
> Thanks for your email on bike racks.
> The bike racks you have seen are on trial only, to sort out any operational
> issues that may occur. The bike racks will then be fitted to a larger number
> of buses and the public will then be able to use the bike racks, however I
> don't have an actual start date at this stage..
>
> Before these bike racks come into operation, ACTION will commence a
> communications campaign designed to tell you everything you need to know
> about using the bike racks (they're very easy to use!).
>
> I hope this information is of assistance. I would suggest you keep a look
> out on our website, as this will have information on the bike racks as soon
> as the start date is announced.
>
> Regards
>
> Lynda
>
> ACTION Customer Service Team
>
> It's a great idea, especially given the distances some commuters might have
> to travel in Canberra to get to work. The racks look similar to those I've
> seen in Seattle in the US where they are frequently used and well thought
> of. Anyone else got them on their local buses?
> --
> Bean
>
> Remove "yourfinger" before replying

We've had them in Brissie for ages, but only on certain bus routes...
NOT the ones I use.

Tam

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "Bean" == Bean Long <[email protected]> writes:

Bean> Hi all, In the past month or so, several ACTION buses here in
Bean> Canberra have been driving around with bike racks on their
Bean> fronts but signs saying they are not yet in operation. I
Bean> asked what the deal was and got the following reply:

I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with paramedics
and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the size of 4WDs
that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which
concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.

How are these bike racks any different?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but this strikes
me as sacrificing safety for convenience which isn't what it's all
about. I mean why put them on the front of the bus, what's wrong with
the rear?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Bean Long]

"Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> "Bean" == Bean Long <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Bean> Hi all, In the past month or so, several ACTION buses here in
> Bean> Canberra have been driving around with bike racks on their
> Bean> fronts but signs saying they are not yet in operation. I
> Bean> asked what the deal was and got the following reply:
>
>I mean why put them on the front of the bus, what's wrong with
> the rear?

My guess is that it means quicker stop and the driver can see what's going
on in front of him. As for collisions... I wouldn't want to get hit by a
bus, bike rack or not!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

 

[SteveA]

>>>>> "Bean" == Bean Long <[email protected]> writes:

Bean> Hi all, In the past month or so, several ACTION buses here in
Bean> Canberra have been driving around with bike racks on their
Bean> fronts but signs saying they are not yet in operation. I
Bean> asked what the deal was and got the following reply:

I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with paramedics
and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the size of 4WDs
that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which
concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.

How are these bike racks any different?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but this strikes
me as sacrificing safety for convenience which isn't what it's all
about. I mean why put them on the front of the bus, what's wrong with
the rear?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

In the early '90s, Perth buses had pram/stroller racks on the rear. They took them off after a couple of incidents where the mums put the perambulator containing the kid on the hooks and the driver took off before mum could get the kid out and get on the bus. "Bye mum, I'm going into town by myself, wheeee"

SteveA

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:45 +1000
SteveA <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In the early '90s, Perth buses had pram/stroller racks on the rear.
> They took them off after a couple of incidents where the mums put the
> perambulator containing the kid on the hooks and the driver took off
> before mum could get the kid out and get on the bus. "Bye mum, I'm
> going into town by myself, wheeee"

Yanno... I grew up in Perth.

Those racks were on the busses since at least the 1960s.

The reason given in the papers for them being taken off was that the
driver didn't have the time anymore to help people get the prams on and
off the racks, and it was an occ health safety issue for the drivers
too, lifting heavy things to a height.

A few seconds reflection will be enough to realise that even if the
hooks were low, it's a lot more work to lift a pram with a kid in it
then to remove the kid first, and so the story given is a tad unlikely.

Zebee

 

[HUMBUG]

On 21/09/05 at 11:38:57 Euan somehow managed to type:

<snip>

>
> I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with
> paramedics and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the
> size of 4WDs that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the
> bull bars which concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal
> force.

Um, it's a BUS. Bike rack or bullbar or not, if you get hit by a bus
you'll quite probably come out of it not very well at all... At least,
by and large, suburban PT busses are driven by competent drivers.
Granted there are exceptions but most of 'em are pretty good...

Now, in the case of bullbars on Prados you're (we're) dealing with
something completely and totally else. ie. A large vehicle that's
aimed, more or less inaccurately, by a moron who carries on blissfully
oblivious to its surroundings and the carnage it leaves behind.


--
Humbug

 

[Terry Collins]

Euan wrote:

> I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with paramedics
> and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the size of 4WDs
> that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which
> concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.
>
> How are these bike racks any different?

Probably not, but do the stats show that buses run into many peds?
I know they havebeen used OS (California) for about 3 decades.

>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but this strikes
> me as sacrificing safety for convenience which isn't what it's all
> about. I mean why put them on the front of the bus, what's wrong with
> the rear?

Driver can see clearly what is happening. Very hard to get same view
with multiple cameras.

 

[DJ]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4330e8d2$0$13315$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Euan wrote:
>
>> I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with paramedics
>> and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the size of 4WDs
>> that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which
>> concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.
>>
>> How are these bike racks any different?
>
> Probably not, but do the stats show that buses run into many peds?
> I know they havebeen used OS (California) for about 3 decades.
>
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but this strikes
>> me as sacrificing safety for convenience which isn't what it's all
>> about. I mean why put them on the front of the bus, what's wrong with
>> the rear?
>
> Driver can see clearly what is happening. Very hard to get same view
> with multiple cameras.

Not only that..., if the bike racks were on the back of the bus, what's
stopping someone who sees a nice looking $2,000+ cycle, waiting for the
bus to stop at lights, running up and taking the bike off the rack and
riding away before someone has a chance to do something. They have to be
easy to put on and take off otherwise it's just going to stuff up the time
tables and hold up traffic...

Just a thought!!

DJ

 

[Euan]

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

HUMBUG> On 21/09/05 at 11:38:57 Euan somehow managed to type: <snip>

>> I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with
>> paramedics and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not
>> the size of 4WDs that's the problem with pedestrian accidents,
>> it's the bull bars which concentrate all that kinetic energy in
>> to lethal force.

HUMBUG> Um, it's a BUS. Bike rack or bullbar or not, if you get hit
HUMBUG> by a bus you'll quite probably come out of it not very well
HUMBUG> at all... At least, by and large, suburban PT busses are
HUMBUG> driven by competent drivers. Granted there are exceptions
HUMBUG> but most of 'em are pretty good...

It's not the bus drivers I'm worried about, more the lemming like
behaviour of pedestrians.

Seriously, they're their own worst enemy. They don't obey the road
rules, they're unpredictable, liable to swerve out in front of you at a
moment's notice. Hardly any of them wear reflective clothing at night,
they're just asking to get hit. They ought to be registered and have a
competency certificate before being allowed on public thoroughfares. I
hesitate to call them idiots, but they are!

Tongue firmly in cheek, in case anyone was wondering.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[SteveA]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:45 +1000
SteveA <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In the early '90s, Perth buses had pram/stroller racks on the rear.
> They took them off after a couple of incidents where the mums put the
> perambulator containing the kid on the hooks and the driver took off
> before mum could get the kid out and get on the bus. "Bye mum, I'm
> going into town by myself, wheeee"

Yanno... I grew up in Perth.

Those racks were on the busses since at least the 1960s.

The reason given in the papers for them being taken off was that the
driver didn't have the time anymore to help people get the prams on and
off the racks, and it was an occ health safety issue for the drivers
too, lifting heavy things to a height.

A few seconds reflection will be enough to realise that even if the
hooks were low, it's a lot more work to lift a pram with a kid in it
then to remove the kid first, and so the story given is a tad unlikely.

Zebee

I believe they were babies in prams (rather than toddlers), the sort that could not be laid on the footpath while the pram was lifted onto the hooks. I'm not sure if this led to the removal of the hooks, but a number of incidents were reported at the time in the media (and we know the media does not make things up).

The other reason given at the time was that there was a security issue with the driver being out of his seat of the bus while it was in service. Although I didn't hear any stories at the time of passengers hijacking busses while the driver was at the back assisting the parent to hook up a pram.

SteveA

 

[BrettM]

Euan <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>>>> "Bean" == Bean Long <[email protected]>
>>>>>> writes:
>
> Bean> Hi all, In the past month or so, several ACTION
> buses here in Bean> Canberra have been driving around
> with bike racks on their Bean> fronts but signs saying
> they are not yet in operation. I Bean> asked what the
> deal was and got the following reply:
>
> I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work
> with paramedics and have been told on numerous occasions
> that it's not the size of 4WDs that's the problem with
> pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which concentrate
> all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.
>
> How are these bike racks any different?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but
> this strikes me as sacrificing safety for convenience which
> isn't what it's all about. I mean why put them on the
> front of the bus, what's wrong with the rear?

Bullbar - rigid forward projection designed to deflect heavy
objects

Bikes and rack - Not so rigid forward projection not designed
to deflect heavy objects guaranteed to fold up like a preztel
at the first pothole.

Seriously the design (of the ones I've seen) is supposedly
pedestrian friendly, that it it has no sharp projections so
should be no worse than hitting the bus (bad in itself).

The worst injuries I've seen in relation to peds and bullbars
is due to fitments like whinches and cables, rod racks and
atenna brackets. These things aren't supposed to be in front
of the bullbar anyway (but often are). They tend to cut into
the person.

The big issue with bullbars is the treatment they give to
smaller cars where they significantly increase the intrusion
into the vehicle by concentrating the load. Most passenger
cars, trucks and buses are distinctly ped unfriendly. The
best you can hope for is to be thrown under or over the
vehicle. 4wds tend to just plough through.

Interestingly some research from England suggests that there
is a correlation between the introduction of low floor buses
and the severity of ped injuries. The guess is that they get
"caught" by the bus rather than be able to pass under the
front of it.

Cheers
Brett"reader in esoteric traffic safety bs"M

 

[DD]

SteveA wrote:
> Euan Wrote:
>
>>>>>>>"Bean" == Bean Long <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>Bean> Hi all, In the past month or so, several ACTION buses here in
>>Bean> Canberra have been driving around with bike racks on their
>>Bean> fronts but signs saying they are not yet in operation. I
>>Bean> asked what the deal was and got the following reply:
>>
>>I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with paramedics
>>and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the size of 4WDs
>>that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which
>>concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.
>>
>>How are these bike racks any different?
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but this strikes
>>me as sacrificing safety for convenience which isn't what it's all
>>about. I mean why put them on the front of the bus, what's wrong with
>>the rear?
>>--
>>Cheers | ~~ __@
>>Euan | ~~ _-\<,
>>Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
>
>
> In the early '90s, Perth buses had pram/stroller racks on the rear.
> They took them off after a couple of incidents where the mums put the
> perambulator containing the kid on the hooks and the driver took off
> before mum could get the kid out and get on the bus. "Bye mum, I'm
> going into town by myself, wheeee"
>
> SteveA
>
>
I remember that, the last incident was in Freo and reported in all the
local papers before Transperth pulled the plug on rear hangers. As to
front hangers the PTA has a $5000 front bike rack but are yet to use it
and the local BUG groups are trying to get a trial up an running, PTA
yet to oblige.
BTW I heard that there is only a 9% survival rate for pedestrians for
being hit by a bus, hence the term about feeling like being hit by a
bus. I guess having a rack on the front or not makes little difference
when that bus hits you, with 91% chance that you're booked into a
wormfarm anyway.

 

[aeek]

BTW I heard that there is only a 9% survival rate for pedestrians for
being hit by a bus, hence the term about feeling like being hit by a
bus. I guess having a rack on the front or not makes little difference
when that bus hits you, with 91% chance that you're booked into a
wormfarm anyway.

quick google:
http://www.netspeed.com.au/cr/bicycle/buscycle.htm

1997: the original Action trial was blocked - the Federal Office of Road Safety stated that "bicycle racks fitted to the front of buses are not
technically essential for the operation of the buses and are likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to persons, eg pedestrians."

They are essential if you want buses to serve cyclists.

 

[Plodder]

"SteveA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> > In aus.bicycle on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:45 +1000
> > SteveA <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the early '90s, Perth buses had pram/stroller racks on the rear.
> > > They took them off after a couple of incidents where the mums put the
> > > perambulator containing the kid on the hooks and the driver took off
> > > before mum could get the kid out and get on the bus. "Bye mum, I'm
> > > going into town by myself, wheeee"
> >
> > Yanno... I grew up in Perth.
> >
> > Those racks were on the busses since at least the 1960s.
> >
> > The reason given in the papers for them being taken off was that the
> > driver didn't have the time anymore to help people get the prams on and
> > off the racks, and it was an occ health safety issue for the drivers
> > too, lifting heavy things to a height.
> >
> > A few seconds reflection will be enough to realise that even if the
> > hooks were low, it's a lot more work to lift a pram with a kid in it
> > then to remove the kid first, and so the story given is a tad unlikely.
> >
> > Zebee
> I believe they were babies in prams (rather than toddlers), the sort
> that could not be laid on the footpath while the pram was lifted onto
> the hooks. I'm not sure if this led to the removal of the hooks, but a
> number of incidents were reported at the time in the media (and we know
> the media does not make things up).
>
> The other reason given at the time was that there was a security issue
> with the driver being out of his seat of the bus while it was in
> service. Although I didn't hear any stories at the time of passengers
> hijacking busses while the driver was at the back assisting the parent
> to hook up a pram.
>
> SteveA

It wouldn't surprise me if the hooks were taken off to stop young twits
using them to hitch a ride on the back of the bus. Hang on to the hooks and
feet on the bumper. I travelled about 40km by bus to go to school (Calista
to Freo) so I saw this almost every day (and participated too, before anyone
asks!). Hey, we were young and times were less restrictive! When you think
about the safety aspect of the fun we had, it makes more sense than the pram
thing.

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Plodder]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4330e8d2$0$13315$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au
....
> Euan wrote:
>
> > I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work with paramedics
> > and have been told on numerous occasions that it's not the size of 4WDs
> > that's the problem with pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which
> > concentrate all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.
> >
> > How are these bike racks any different?

I remember reading something that stated that the biggest risk with bull
bars is that it overcomes the design of car bonnets to throw a pedestrian up
on to the bonnet rather than pushing them under the wheels, lessening
injuries. The bull bar, as Euan wrote, concentrates the kinetic energy into
an impact where a a properly designed bonnet uses some of the kinetic energy
to throw the pedestrian who sheds energy as they fly.

Buses are not designed that way, so I doubt a bull bar, bike rack or much
else will mitigate the impact with a bus.

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Bean Long]

Well, what do you know... I thought they looked like the one's I'd seen in
Seattle!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying
"aeek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> DD Wrote:
> >
> > BTW I heard that there is only a 9% survival rate for pedestrians for
> > being hit by a bus, hence the term about feeling like being hit by a
> > bus. I guess having a rack on the front or not makes little difference
> > when that bus hits you, with 91% chance that you're booked into a
> > wormfarm anyway.
>
> quick google:
> http://www.netspeed.com.au/cr/bicycle/buscycle.htm
>
> 1997: the original Action trial was blocked - the Federal Office of
> Road Safety stated that "bicycle racks fitted to the front of buses are
> not
> technically essential for the operation of the buses and are likely to
> increase the risk of bodily injury to persons, eg pedestrians."
>
> They are essential if you want buses to serve cyclists.
>
>
> --
> aeek
>

 

[Bean Long]

Yes, I have to say that the racks I have seen here in canberra look pretty
low weight (probably thin aluminium piping) with rubber coating on some of
the welds). They don't bare any resemblance to a bull-bar and look floppy
rather than rigid. It's the bikes that might be a nasty thing to get hit by
if a bus sneaks up on you. Then again, as I said before, I'd prefer not to
be hit by a bus full-stop! My uncle was tragically killed when hit by a bus
while training for a bike race when he was just 19 (he now has a road race
named in his honour in Victoria's western district, of which I am very
proud). That was back in the 50's and I'm sure there were no bike racks on
the bus!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying
"BrettM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Euan <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >>>>>> "Bean" == Bean Long <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> writes:
> >
> > Bean> Hi all, In the past month or so, several ACTION
> > buses here in Bean> Canberra have been driving around
> > with bike racks on their Bean> fronts but signs saying
> > they are not yet in operation. I Bean> asked what the
> > deal was and got the following reply:
> >
> > I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. I work
> > with paramedics and have been told on numerous occasions
> > that it's not the size of 4WDs that's the problem with
> > pedestrian accidents, it's the bull bars which concentrate
> > all that kinetic energy in to lethal force.
> >
> > How are these bike racks any different?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm all for multi-modal transport but
> > this strikes me as sacrificing safety for convenience which
> > isn't what it's all about. I mean why put them on the
> > front of the bus, what's wrong with the rear?
>
> Bullbar - rigid forward projection designed to deflect heavy
> objects
>
> Bikes and rack - Not so rigid forward projection not designed
> to deflect heavy objects guaranteed to fold up like a preztel
> at the first pothole.
>
> Seriously the design (of the ones I've seen) is supposedly
> pedestrian friendly, that it it has no sharp projections so
> should be no worse than hitting the bus (bad in itself).
>
> The worst injuries I've seen in relation to peds and bullbars
> is due to fitments like whinches and cables, rod racks and
> atenna brackets. These things aren't supposed to be in front
> of the bullbar anyway (but often are). They tend to cut into
> the person.
>
> The big issue with bullbars is the treatment they give to
> smaller cars where they significantly increase the intrusion
> into the vehicle by concentrating the load. Most passenger
> cars, trucks and buses are distinctly ped unfriendly. The
> best you can hope for is to be thrown under or over the
> vehicle. 4wds tend to just plough through.
>
> Interestingly some research from England suggests that there
> is a correlation between the introduction of low floor buses
> and the severity of ped injuries. The guess is that they get
> "caught" by the bus rather than be able to pass under the
> front of it.
>
> Cheers
> Brett"reader in esoteric traffic safety bs"M

 

[TimC]

On 2005-09-21, Plodder (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> It wouldn't surprise me if the hooks were taken off to stop young twits
> using them to hitch a ride on the back of the bus. Hang on to the hooks and
> feet on the bumper. I travelled about 40km by bus to go to school (Calista
> to Freo) so I saw this almost every day (and participated too, before anyone
> asks!). Hey, we were young and times were less restrictive! When you think
> about the safety aspect of the fun we had, it makes more sense than the pram
> thing.

Kids have no fun these days. They are all forced to live in a padded
cell.

It build character to fall off a 30 foot high uncovered metal slide in
40 degree heat, with bits of razor between the metal sheets.


Why, back when I was a kid, we had to ride both ways uphill in the
snow!

--
TimC
So there you have it, supplicant. The Europeans aren't morally superior
to you [USAnians] at all. Just intellectually. -- The Internet Oracle