Clifton Hill intersection + Stonnington Bike Strategy

cfsmtb said:

If a messy death is to be avoided, fixing this interesection must be an
extreme priority.

Or, avoid the intersection? I ride around there a bit, and just don't
ride along that section. The erstwhile cyclist can turn left and
then turn right at the McPlastics just down the road and get back
that way.

Not to be one to suggest that society may not be to blame,
of course! We cyclists can always blame the bad roads and
drivers! Responsibility is for the BIRDS!

(I don't mean to over-react, but the Rogey started it!)

Carl Brewer said:

Not to be one to suggest that society may not be to blame,of course! We cyclists can always blame the bad roads and
drivers! Responsibility is for the BIRDS!

(I don't mean to over-react, but the Rogey started it!)

Nice positive start there Carl. Fortunately, your attitude is not an indication of what most roadies think. 🙄

I used to come home that way and never had a problem with the traffic
there. Hey, it's much better than in the "old days" when there weren't
any traffic lights there.

I always thought crossing the Merri Ck on heidelberg rd was much more
dangerous, especially in the mornings with Grollo Concrete trucks
rolling through.

DaveB

DaveB said:

I used to come home that way and never had a problem with the traffic
there. Hey, it's much better than in the "old days" when there weren't
any traffic lights there.

I always thought crossing the Merri Ck on heidelberg rd was much more
dangerous, especially in the mornings with Grollo Concrete trucks
rolling through.

DaveB

Yeah, that bridge is utter utter sh!t. There was discussion of taking out a lane there. But unfortunately, due to the Road Management Act, VicRoads would probably stamp down on such *initiative*.

BTW, many thanks to those lovely folks who are firing off emails to CoY,VicRoads & BV, keep sending them cc. to [email hidden] 🙂 🙂 🙂

cfsmtb said:

Carl Brewer said:

Not to be one to suggest that society may not be to blame,of course! We
cyclists can always blame the bad roads and
drivers! Responsibility is for the BIRDS!

(I don't mean to over-react, but the Rogey started it!)

Nice positive start there Carl. Fortunately, your attitude is not an
indication of what most roadies think. 🙄

Heh 🙂

Seriously though, although the intersection is sub-optimal for
cyclists (and cars, and motorbikes ...) this kind of thing :

Quoted message said:

If a messy death is to be avoided, fixing this interesection must be an
extreme priority.

is bull. Improving the intersection may reduce the risks associated
with riding through it, but that kind of "blame the roads" stuff is
[censored]. The way to avoid a messy (or any other kind!) of death
is to ride carefully according to the conditions, and avoid any
really nasty spots where possible - at that intersection
avoiding the nasty bit is *trivially* easy. Sure, it could maybe be
improved, but there's far worse around than that bit.

And the suggestion of putting a sign up saying "please don't
crash into the bikes" won't make a scrap of difference - the
kind of driver who goes flying through that intersection or any
other with no regard for other road users save for bigger ones,
doesn't take any notice of signs anyway - not even those ones
that suggest traveling below a certain speed or face the risk of
a financial penalty.

Carl Brewer said:

Seriously though, although the intersection is sub-optimal for cyclists (and cars, and motorbikes ...) this kind of thing :

Quoted message said:

If a messy death is to be avoided, fixing this interesection must be an
extreme priority.

is bull. Improving the intersection may reduce the risks associated with riding through it, but that kind of "blame the roads" stuff is [censored]. The way to avoid a messy (or any other kind!) of death is to ride carefully according to the conditions, and avoid any really nasty spots where possible - at that intersection avoiding the nasty bit is *trivially* easy. Sure, it could maybe be improved, but there's far worse around than that bit.

And the suggestion of putting a sign up saying "please don't crash into the bikes" won't make a scrap of difference - the kind of driver who goes flying through that intersection or any other with no regard for other road users save for bigger ones, doesn't take any notice of signs anyway - not even those ones that suggest traveling below a certain speed or face the risk of
a financial penalty.

Crikey, Carl, you sound like Greg Algie, Eugene McGee's lawyer;

"What you have in terms of his driving, objectively assessed, is a wholly unremarkable, totally lawful act of driving a vehicle along a highway. That tragic and terrible accident could and probably would have happened no matter who was driving, including . . . if any of us were driving."

Carl Brewer said:

And the suggestion of putting a sign up saying "please don't
crash into the bikes" won't make a scrap of difference - the
kind of driver who goes flying through that intersection or any

Reminds me of southbound of Commonwealth Bridge, Canberra.
There's the greenfill bikelane across the exit, just before is a Bike Lane sign.
On the same pole, underneath is another sign "Look out for Cyclists".
So someone who doesn't get the painted lane and the bike lane sign will appreciate the lookout sign???
Of course not clipping the pole precludes checking for any left indicators behind me as I take the ramp from legal footpath onto the lead in bike lane.

Still, why should we not use the road because some drivers shouldn't be driving. They're the ones who should be off the road.

cfsmtb said:

Carl Brewer said:

Seriously though, although the intersection is sub-optimal for cyclists
(and cars, and motorbikes ...) this kind of thing :

Quoted message said:

If a messy death is to be avoided, fixing this interesection must be

an

Quoted message said:

extreme priority.

is bull. Improving the intersection may reduce the risks associated
with riding through it, but that kind of "blame the roads" stuff is
[censored]. The way to avoid a messy (or any other kind!) of death is to
ride carefully according to the conditions, and avoid any really nasty
spots where possible - at that intersection avoiding the nasty bit is
*trivially* easy. Sure, it could maybe be improved, but there's far
worse around than that bit.

And the suggestion of putting a sign up saying "please don't crash into
the bikes" won't make a scrap of difference - the kind of driver who
goes flying through that intersection or any other with no regard for
other road users save for bigger ones, doesn't take any notice of signs
anyway - not even those ones that suggest traveling below a certain
speed or face the risk of
a financial penalty.

Crikey, Carl, you sound like Greg Algie, Eugene McGee's lawyer;

Only if Algie is trying to suggest that people be responsible for
their actions and the consequences thereof. Which would
mean that McGee would have plead guilty, which he
didn't, so no, you're quite wrong.

And from the out of context, gibberish paragraph you
quoted, I'd say that he wasn't, so I don't think I do, thanks all
the same.

Once again - that intersection is bloody dangerous. A sensible
cyclist rides in such a way as to minimise risk (or
to balance their risk/reward position). There's ways around
that intersection that significantly reduce the risk of accident
for very little extra effort. Many drivers are dangerous
and pay no heed to road signs (duh!), so even putting
up some signs is unlikely to make any difference to the
risks faced by cyclists at that intersection.

The only way to make that intersection genuinely safer would be to
put a bridge over it or a tunnel under it, or totally redesign the
whole intersection area and that's not very
likely. So why flog a dead horse when there's a live one right
next to it, keen for a trot?

aeek said:

Quoted message said:

Still, why should we not use the road because some drivers shouldn't be
driving. They're the ones who should be off the road.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the road, I'm saying
that we should use the road sensibly and mindful of the
risks, and in such a way that we minimise those risks.

Carl Brewer said:

?

Yawwwwwn, Carl, take off the roadie blinkers off. You're presenting yourself as a individual who obviously knows sweet FA about bicycle advocacy and traffic management, other than some half-arsed view of vehicular cycling. Remove the bllinkers and discover the big world past the end of your nose. Oh, you're a *coach*, those who can, do. those who can't, teach. *chuckle*

Carl Brewer said:

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the road, I'm saying
that we should use the road sensibly and mindful of the
risks, and in such a way that we minimise those risks.

I minimise my risks by establishing and reinforcing my right to be riding the roads by riding the roads.

cfsmtb said:

Carl Brewer said:

?

Yawwwwwn, Carl, take off the roadie blinkers off. You're presenting
yourself as a individual who obviously knows sweet FA about bicycle
advocacy and traffic management, other than some half-arsed view of
vehicular cycling. Remove the bllinkers and discover the big world past
the end of your nose. Oh, you're a *coach*, those who can, do. those who
can't, teach. *chuckle*

Why? Because I think that getting hysterical in the press about an
intersection that can be easily circumvented and is highly unlikely to
be changed in any meaningful way is a waste of time?

Here's some simple questions for you :

Do you believe that putting up signs saying "beware of
cyclists" will make the intersection significantly safer?

Do you believe that putting extra lane lines on that intersection
will make it significantly safer?

Do you believe that there's no simple, safe alternative
to riding straight across that intersection, with the added
risk that that brings with it?

Now, if you want to debate the virtues of the proposed changes,
I'm all for it. If you want to carry on ad hominien attacks (which
is what it looks like at this point, but that could just be my
perception!), then I know where you stand and won't waste any more
time on this issue.

Here's what I believe at this time (and I know the intersection
well), and comparing it to somewhat similar intersections (St Kilda
Rd/Fitzroy St/feeder onto Kings Way). I don't think that signs saying
"beware of cyclists" make any difference at all. The people
that take notice of these signs are already driving carefully, they
are not the problem. There's some of these on Canterbury Rd too,
just as one rides up and over the hill at Box Hill. Make any
difference? In my experience, no - I [censored] myself every time I ride
over that bit of road at night if I can hear a car coming, or
worse, a truck. As such, I usually ride up Riversdale Rd instead,
it's safer (less traffic, a bit wider)

I think that in some conditions special bike lanes can be useful, but
my general experience with the St Kilda Rd one is that cars
cut over it without paying any attention if that was what they
were going to do anyway, and that the drivers who take note of
them are the same ones as who take notice of the signs - ie :
not the ones that are a problem anyway. If there's any evidence to
suggest the contrary, I'd like to see it. I'd like to think that
something as cheap and easy as a few signs would make
a difference, and if it does, then I'd be all in favour of slapping
them up everywhere and painting lines.

From what I know of that intersection, I choose to ride around it
to minimise my risk. I don't think anything genuinely useful can
be done to it to make it significantly safer without spending
a lot of money on it. If that's roady blinkers, so be it. The
areas for debate are what consitutes a significant increase in
the safety of the intersection, I think. What do you think? I hope
disagreement isn't so threatening that you have to stoop to petty
insults again.

cfsmtb said:

Carl Brewer said:

?

Yawwwwwn, Carl, take off the roadie blinkers off. You're presenting
yourself as a individual who obviously knows sweet FA about bicycle
advocacy and traffic management, other than some half-arsed view of
vehicular cycling. Remove the bllinkers and discover the big world past
the end of your nose. Oh, you're a *coach*, those who can, do. those who
can't, teach. *chuckle*

Sad that you had to get personal. From past posts you didn't seem the
type.

--
..dt
1996 Diamond Back 'Expert Tg' Roadie (7spd DT shifters, favourite bike!)
2004 Trek 2300 Roadie (9spd Ultegra)
2003 DiamondBack 'Criterium' Roadie (8spd Sora, rain bike)

Carl Brewer said:

From what I know of that intersection, I choose to ride around it
to minimise my risk. I don't think anything genuinely useful can
be done to it to make it significantly safer without spending
a lot of money on it. If that's roady blinkers, so be it. The
areas for debate are what consitutes a significant increase in
the safety of the intersection, I think. What do you think? I hope
disagreement isn't so threatening that you have to stoop to petty
insults again.

Funny that Carl, take a closer look at some of your previous discussions on usernet. No-ones threatening anyone, it's the internet, get over it. You clearly don't understand about advocacy, present people with ideas, resources so they can deal with a problem instead of running away, ignoring it or sticking to the status quo. Cyclists, ped and motorists don't like this intersection, this issue is not going to disappear because you clearly do not comprehend it. Widen the debate, Carl, you commenced with the snide remarks, so don't sh!tcan a discussion just because you do not understand it.

I'll repeat the point again, present a idea or issue, give people the scope to *actually do* something about it. It's open discussion, I never proposed that there was a simple solution or a didactic answer to the problem. A very simple fact you clearly missed.

The architecture of the intersection is clearly at fault here, there was a $1.2m solution mooted for area. Unfortunately VicRoads funding stuffed it. So now, cycling stakeholders are considering alternatives and generating discussion. And we'll get on with creating longterm dialogue with the local council, VicRoads, cyclists and BV in order to create a workable solution.

cfsmtb said:

Carl Brewer said:

From what I know of that intersection, I choose to ride around it
to minimise my risk. I don't think anything genuinely useful can
be done to it to make it significantly safer without spending
a lot of money on it. If that's roady blinkers, so be it. The
areas for debate are what consitutes a significant increase in
the safety of the intersection, I think. What do you think? I hope
disagreement isn't so threatening that you have to stoop to petty
insults again.

Funny that Carl, take a closer look at some of your previous
discussions on usernet. No-ones threatening anyone, it's the internet,
get over it. You clearly don't understand about advocacy, present
people with ideas, resources so they can deal with a problem instead of
running away, ignoring it or sticking to the status quo. Cyclists, ped
and motorists don't like this intersection, this issue is not going to
disappear because you clearly do not comprehend it. Widen the debate,
Carl, you commenced with the snide remarks, so don't sh!tcan a
discussion just because you do not understand it.

Ok, explain it to me, in simple words so I might understand. What's
the plan to make it better that's being proposed? I note that you're
not interested in explaining your beliefs concerning signs, lane
lines etc. You know my belief on that, but as with all beliefs,
it's not backed by any facts, merely my personal experiences and
biases. As a taxpayer, I want my money spent wisely on things
that work (heh, fat chance of that ...). Or at least, things that
I believe might work 🙂

Quoted message said:

I'll repeat the point again, present a idea or issue, give people the
scope to *actually do* something about it. It's open discussion, I
never proposed that there was a simple solution or a didactic answer to
the problem. A very simple fact you clearly missed.

I was critizising the suggestion by the author of the letter to the
editor, which maybe you missed? I was also disturbed by the
hysterical tone of the last paragraph of the letter, which to
my reading was suggesting that unless something was
done, that people would die. That's, and I'm not going to
mince words, [censored]. It's the sort of scaremongery
[censored] that gets bounced around
on current affairs TV shows and tabloid newspapers.
I responded with sarcasm, because (hey, it's USENET, right?
we all have thick skins!) I thought that was what that
letter deserved. I don't disagree with the basic tenemant of
improving blackspots to make roads safer (so duh, I'm on
your side ...). I don't like the way the argument was presented,
in particular, with it's implicit absolution of responsibility on the
part of riders towards their own safety. and you then accused
*me* of suggesting that people don't have to be respsonsible for
their actions by inferring that I was behaving like McKee's
advocate. I was making exactly the opposite assertion, but
by using sarcasm (I though it was reasonably clear sarcasm though,
and yes, the medium does confuse the message at times, but I
used BOLD!).

Any cyclist riding through that intersection
as it stands today, should be aware of the risk and the
alternatives. The alternative that I can see is simple, and costs
very little effort for a great increase in safety. You want to fix
the intersection. Great. I want to stay alive *now* and I want other
riders to stay alive, *now*. This means taking responsibilty
for our own safety, not just in a letter to the editor/BV/BUG/lobbyist
campaign, but also riding according to the conditions as they stand.
And that's the rub, I object to the suggestion that the roads are
to blame, which was my understanding of the core argument of
the letter you quoted. The roads are *not* to blame. The behaviour
of the people using the roads are to blame. It's possible to alter
the roads such that the dangerous idiots can cause less harm,
and I'm all in favour of that where it makes sense to do so.
But, there are dangerous idiots on the roads, and we as
road users have to be aware of them.

This means all of
us. I'm all in favour of positive changes to improve our
safety and access to roads, and I'll go to bat for things
that I think may make a real difference.

Quoted message said:

The architecture of the intersection is clearly at fault here,

Agreed, it's a bloody dangerous intersection for bikes. What was the
1.2mil proposal?

Quoted message said:

there
was a $1.2m solution mooted for area. Unfortunately VicRoads funding
stuffed it. So now, cycling stakeholders are considering alternatives
and generating discussion. And we'll get on with creating longterm
dialogue with the local council, VicRoads, cyclists and BV in order to
create a workable solution.

If I was the one cutting the pie up, I'd be looking at where to
best spend the money where it may make the most difference to
road safety. *personally* I would look at some of the other
dangerous intersections and roads
that don't have easy alternatives,
rather than that one. As you mention, but skip the details here,
there's some plan to fix it with big bucks. Presumably that would
be something fair dinkum, a bridge (do yuo get a bridge for
1.2mil these days?) or something else reasonably radical. 1.2 mil
may seal a lot of shoulders on country roads. That would
make a lot of roads a lot safer. (does 1.2mil seal a lot of
shoulders? I don't pretend to know the numbers, but I'd
hope it would! Victoria Rd in Lilydale for a start .... that's
a -killer- bit of road and there's not much in the way of
alternatives short of driving 🙁

Ultimatly, cfsmtb (I'd love to know your real name, discussing things
with pseudonyms sucks!), there's two points of view. There's
the "we have to be crusaders" PoV, which is valuable and
necessary, and there's the "I'm riding to survive now" PoV.
Witness the recent discussions on riding on the footpath as
an example of this clash of points of view manifesting itself.

Most (all?) people flick back and forward between the two depending on
how important the issue at the time is to them. They usually also
expect everyone else to be of the same mind. And here be dragons ...

aeek said:

Carl Brewer said:

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the road, I'm saying
that we should use the road sensibly and mindful of the
risks, and in such a way that we minimise those risks.

I minimise my risks by establishing and reinforcing my right to be
riding the roads by riding the roads.

Me too 🙂

(is it ok here to "me to" post if it's not a top post? 🙂 )

cfsmtb said:

Funny that Carl, take a closer look at some of your previous
discussions on usernet. No-ones threatening anyone, it's the internet,
get over it. You clearly don't understand about advocacy, present
people with ideas, resources so they can deal with a problem instead of
running away, ignoring it or sticking to the status quo. Cyclists, ped
and motorists don't like this intersection, this issue is not going to
disappear because you clearly do not comprehend it. Widen the debate,
Carl, you commenced with the snide remarks, so don't sh!tcan a
discussion just because you do not understand it.

Further to my other reply to this, your original words, quoted slighly
out of context :

Quoted message said:

Do you agree
with Roger's comments (see letter below), or do you have additional
suggestions to make?

You *did* ask for comments. You just didn't like mine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Carl" == Carl Brewer <[email hidden]> writes:

Carl> This means taking responsibilty for our own safety, not just
Carl> in a letter to the editor/BV/BUG/lobbyist campaign, but also
Carl> riding according to the conditions as they stand.

Me too. (If you're dammed, so am I.)

I was spitting teeth about the tram super stops on Clarendon Street as
some of you may remember. Cycling down that road became an absolute
nightmare so, thanks to some on this group, I found an alternative.

That didn't stop me writing letters of protest, getting involved with
PPUG etc. Eight letters written, seven responses so not a bad batting
average.

It was worth it just for the education on how absolutely clueless
traffic engineers are when it comes to what cyclists need from roads.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Carl Brewer said:

Further to my other reply to this, your original words, quoted slighly
out of context :

Quoted message said:

Do you agree >with Roger's comments (see letter below), or do you have additional >suggestions to make?

You *did* ask for comments. You just didn't like mine.

Calm down Carl. You've obviously taken this out of perspective. Why argue with the letter writer and project it onto me? You're a roadie, I have a completely different perspective, ie: trying to negotiate with bureacracy and non-competitive peak cycling organisations. Take all the [censored] politics involved with competitve cycling, then simply replace the names with bicycle advocacy organisations. Same [censored], different shovel. Anyway, you did meet me at the Austral. As for using a name on the internet, no way, not with the nasty cross-posting freaks on the prowl. Now back to watch stage 5 live.