>>>>> "southerncyclist" == southerncyclist <
[email protected]> writes:
southerncyclist> Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about the
southerncyclist> lack of clearance. IMO this line of argument is
southerncyclist> twaddle.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've had cars cross the
white line to overtake me on several occasions, whilst to the left of
the tram tracks incidentally.
southerncyclist> With regards to hook turns, I fail to see how
southerncyclist> cyclists passing on the right of the turner is a
southerncyclist> problem.
The problem is that the cyclist has to cross from the near side lane to
the offside lane in order to carry on straight ahead. You don't need to
do that in the CBD.
>> The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram
>> lines intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved
>> tram lines at a save angle without slowing down to a crawl and
>> picking your way through them.
southerncyclist> I'll concede you this point (although you say *two*
southerncyclist> cross roads... surely you just mean the Clarendon
southerncyclist> & Park St intersection?). But this problem could
southerncyclist> easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bikes
southerncyclist> in the kerb extension.
Agreed. If that alone was implemented I'd be satisfied, although I'm
still skeptical that the hook turns have done anything to improve tram
travel times.
southerncyclist> But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars was
southerncyclist> the entire point?
You can make it a pain in the ass for cars and still make it amenable
for cyclists. With Park Street / Clarendon Street that's not the case.
southerncyclist> I'm all in favour of anything which gets cars off
southerncyclist> inner city streets and people on trams and if it
southerncyclist> means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to some
southerncyclist> changes then that is a very small price to pay.
If you've been following my posts on this subject you'll have noted that
I have no problem with cars and bicycles being subordinate to trams,
it's purely safety that concerns me. Suggesting that I'd be in favor of
wider roads etc is incorrect.
In summary I think that engineering the roads to give priority to trams
over all other forms of transport is a good thing, however the means
must not introduce elements of danger which were not present prior to
the project. Primarily:
1) Forcing cyclists to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle at Park
Street / Clarendon Street.
2) Forcing cyclists to cross from the near side lane to the off side
lane in order to carry on straight ahead.
Like it or not these elements introduce risk where before there wasn't.
Adaptations to make this a non-issue are trivial and well documented on
BV's page on the subject.
--
Cheers
Euan