Cyclist hit on beach road this morning 29/3/2006

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by PiledHigher, Mar 28, 2006.

  1. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Peter Signorini wrote:

    > There is a lot of high-tech transport research going on into just this
    > field. Who knows if it will prove to be of any benefit before petrol
    > gets to be more money than us mear mortals can afford to spend on
    > travel.
    > http://www.netspeed.com.au/cr/bicycle/its.htm
    >
    > Still not sure just what is meant by mirror symmetry. And can all
    > these processes happen quicker than I can see and act?


    Probably not. The question is would you trust a computet programmer with
    your life?
    I suspect that "Ideally, a bicycle-related ATIS system could provide
    advanced knowledge of existing bikeways and potential hazards" this would
    steer all cyclists onto shared-paths.
    "(e.g., bicycle and transit permit), " oops!

    It's going to be a lot of work pedaling hard enough to provide the power for
    the on-board server.

    Theo
     


  2. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >> giantvaude wrote:
    >>
    >> > On the main paths around my area (Eastern Freeway,
    >> > Gardners Ck and Dandenong Ck around Box Hill and Vermont areas).
    >> > Especially in the tighter sections, plenty of cyclists ride too fast
    >> > considering that kids, dogs and granny's are to be expected on the
    >> > track also.

    >>
    >> I'm sure the gov't response to that problem would be a Multinova.

    >
    > For the viewers at home, Theo means a speed camera. In WA they call
    > them by the brand name of the camera.
    >

    Similar to them being called 'Gatsos' in the UK IIRC.
     
  3. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-04-03, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > Probably not. The question is would you trust a computet programmer with
    > your life?
    > I suspect that "Ideally, a bicycle-related ATIS system could provide
    > advanced knowledge of existing bikeways and potential hazards" this would
    > steer all cyclists onto shared-paths.
    > "(e.g., bicycle and transit permit), " oops!
    >
    > It's going to be a lot of work pedaling hard enough to provide the power for
    > the on-board server.


    They wouldn't be making it out of AMD parts, silly.

    --
    TimC
    Did you know that in German, Usenet bulletin boards are called
    Gruppenareabrettecholistennetzs? - James "Kibo" Parry
     
  4. AndrewJ

    AndrewJ Guest

    Hey, if the oz.bicycle crowd have doubts, then you can imagine a pitch
    to a corporate audience for funding :) Lucky to get out of the room
    alive...

    But then, <if> we could make such a system that gave a much higher
    degree of safety to cyclists, then this would be a great thing. Apart
    from encouraging cyclists, it would reduce the burning of fossil fuels
    dramatically.

    Sometimes the unthinkable can happen. Nobody involved in the Internet
    in the 1980's thought it would ever happen.

    There are technical obstacles of a very high order, but also cultural
    and psychological barriers.

    I figure its worth a shot.
     
  5. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    TimC wrote:

    > Did you know that in German, Usenet bulletin boards are called
    > Gruppenareabrettecholistennetzs? - James "Kibo" Parry


    And the moderator would be an
    OberGruppenfuehrergruppenareabrettecholistenneter?

    Theo
     
  6. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    AndrewJ wrote:

    > There are technical obstacles of a very high order, but also cultural
    > and psychological barriers.
    >
    > I figure its worth a shot.


    Technology is actually _not_ the solution to everything.

    Theo
     
  7. sinus

    sinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could bring a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".
     
  8. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.

    There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation of the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or because the shared path runs out.

    I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half of vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the road, shared paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads, that makes them very dangerous constructs in these environments.

    If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent distance then that's a different scenario.

    Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off road cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the story's very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a dozen fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the road network.
     
  9. Hi Euan,

    EuanB <[email protected]> writes:

    > David Trudgett Wrote:
    >> "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >> >>> IMHO, shared paths are more dangerous than most roads.
    >> >
    >> > Agreed, very much so. Was simply using it as an example.

    >>
    >> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
    >> shared paths in this country?

    >
    > On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.


    Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
    that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of them.


    >
    > There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
    > shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation of
    > the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or because the
    > shared path runs out.


    So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
    roads, and not shared pathway accidents.


    >
    > I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half of
    > vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the road, shared
    > paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help but have multiple
    > intersections with roads, that makes them very dangerous constructs in
    > these environments.


    Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop. This
    applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to cyclists. No
    one suggests that footpaths are "very dangerous constructs" because
    they cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads, even
    though precisely the same argument applies. Most pedestrians, I would
    imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, would be killed at intersections or
    while crossing roads, and not while blissfully walking down the
    footpath, which in fact is a relatively safe place to be, generally
    speaking. Crossing the road, on the other hand, is a different matter.

    The cyclists and pedestrians who use shared pathways that have been
    constructed with a modicum of common sense, are not in any great
    danger. In fact, as a matter of my own personal opinion, it seems
    fairly clear to me that they are in *less* danger using the pathways
    than they would be using the roads, especially ma and pa wobbly
    cyclists out with six and seven year old Bill and Jane.

    Your point about the inevitability of multiple intersections with
    roads is also questionable. [1] There are, for example, many dozens of
    kilometres of shared pathway in my local region -- which is mostly an
    urban and suburban region, by the way -- and one can cycle for 15km or
    more without crossing a road. And furthermore, none of the crossings
    that do exist and of which I am aware could be classified as
    dangerous (no more dangerous than pedestrian crossings, anyway).

    [1] I am going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't think
    an intersection at the beginning and an intersection at the end
    constitutes "multiple".

    >
    > If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent
    > distance then that's a different scenario.


    Yes, see above. You can't have it both ways, you know. :) It can't be
    both inevitable ("cannot help but have") while at the same time
    admitting that it may be feasible to have point to point shared paths
    of a "decent distance".


    >
    > Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off road
    > cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the story's
    > very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a dozen
    > fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the road network.


    At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
    face. ;-)

    In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
    (the only information available to me at present) there was one
    fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
    same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
    redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
    make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular barrow
    to push, like the person responsible for this biased study [2]:
    http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
    actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
    with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
    are free of motor vehicular traffic.

    [2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
    pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
    statistics, don't we?

    The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to show
    the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between cycling
    on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]

    [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system



    Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
    trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
    to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as bicycle
    networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made, both in the
    attitude of the public, and by the designers of the redway system, is
    that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a recreation, not as
    transport. This mistake resulted in many design flaws in the redway
    network, causing it to be largely ignored by commuters, and other
    "serious" cyclists.

    [4] Which only amounts to showing that one cannot just go around
    saying as fact, rather than personal perception, that shared paths
    are more dangerous than roads, particularly in Australia. There
    are no credible statistics to back up such a claim.


    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once.

    -- David Hume
     
  10. Euan

    Euan Guest

    David Trudgett wrote:
    > Hi Euan,
    >
    > EuanB <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >> David Trudgett Wrote:
    >>
    >>> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
    >>> shared paths in this country?

    >>
    >> On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.

    >
    >
    > Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
    > that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of
    > them.
    >
    >> There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
    >> shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation
    >> of the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or
    >> because the shared path runs out.

    >
    >
    > So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
    > roads, and not shared pathway accidents.
    >
    >
    >
    >> I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half
    >> of vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the
    >> road, shared paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help
    >> but have multiple intersections with roads, that makes them very
    >> dangerous constructs in these environments.

    >
    >
    > Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop.
    > This applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to
    > cyclists.


    That's not correct. About half of cyclist / vehicle collisions occur
    when a cyclist joins the road. That is distinct from merely negotiating
    an intersection so it is different from motor vehicles.

    > No one suggests that footpaths are "very dangerous constructs"
    > because they cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads,
    > even though precisely the same argument applies.


    That's not correct either. A cyclist can use the road as a part of
    traffic whereas a pedestrian cannot so it's not precisely the same
    argument.

    > Most pedestrians, I would imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, would be
    > killed at intersections or while crossing roads, and not while
    > blissfully walking down the footpath, which in fact is a relatively
    > safe place to be, generally speaking. Crossing the road, on the other
    > hand, is a different matter.


    No idea. Seeing as I believe you're talking apples and oranges it's
    irrelevant.


    > The cyclists and pedestrians who use shared pathways that have been
    > constructed with a modicum of common sense, are not in any great
    > danger. In fact, as a matter of my own personal opinion, it seems
    > fairly clear to me that they are in *less* danger using the pathways
    > than they would be using the roads, especially ma and pa wobbly
    > cyclists out with six and seven year old Bill and Jane.


    I respectfully disagree.

    A cyclist riding on the road as a part of traffic maintains its priority
    over said intersections. Also these cyclists benefit from being highly
    visible to other vehicles, allowing other vehicles to register their
    presence and act accordingly.

    A cyclist emerging from a shared path is an unpredictable event for
    other road users and therefore hazardous.

    > Your point about the inevitability of multiple intersections with
    > roads is also questionable. [1] There are, for example, many dozens
    > of kilometres of shared pathway in my local region -- which is mostly
    > an urban and suburban region, by the way -- and one can cycle for
    > 15km or more without crossing a road. And furthermore, none of the
    > crossings that do exist and of which I am aware could be classified
    > as dangerous (no more dangerous than pedestrian crossings, anyway).


    Are you taking in to account all the driveways you pass on the shared
    path? They're uncontrolled intersections as well and just as dangerous.

    In Melbourne I've travelled on two off road bicycle paths. The sight
    lines are awful and there are frequent uncontrolled intersections where
    there is a duty of care on the cyclist to give way. There are some
    intersections where the duty of care is on motor vehicles but it's a
    foolish cyclist who trusts those directions.

    The road poses no such impediments.

    >> If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent
    >> distance then that's a different scenario.

    >
    >
    > Yes, see above. You can't have it both ways, you know. :) It can't
    > be both inevitable ("cannot help but have") while at the same time
    > admitting that it may be feasible to have point to point shared paths
    > of a "decent distance".


    That's not correct. A shared path in the CBD has a much higher density
    of buildings and roads, a shared path of 15kms without an intersection
    is not feasible.

    A shared path between two suburbs in suburbia could quite easily have a
    decent distance without an intersection.

    >
    >
    >> Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off
    >> road cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the
    >> story's very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a
    >> dozen fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the
    >> road network.

    >
    >
    > At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
    > face. ;-)
    >
    > In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
    > (the only information available to me at present) there was one
    > fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
    > same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
    > redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
    > make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular
    > barrow to push, like the person responsible for this biased study
    > [2]: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
    > actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
    > with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
    > are free of motor vehicular traffic.


    You've just made my point for me. Five of the six cyclist / vehicle
    collisions occurred at the intersections of roads with with the cycle
    path. What more proof do you need that a cycle path crossing a road is
    a dangerous construct?

    > [2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
    > pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
    > statistics, don't we?


    Yes, when they prove an answer contrary to what is desired that line
    generally gets trotted out.

    > The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
    > show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
    > cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]
    >
    > [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system


    OK, try this one then, different off road cycling network, different
    country: http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/index.htm

    Plenty more on that site as well.

    >
    >
    > Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
    > trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
    > to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as
    > bicycle networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made,
    > both in the attitude of the public, and by the designers of the
    > redway system, is that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a
    > recreation, not as transport. This mistake resulted in many design
    > flaws in the redway network, causing it to be largely ignored by
    > commuters, and other "serious" cyclists.


    Which is the same problem that we have here in Victoria. It is openly
    acknowledged that shared paths and off road bicycle lanes are primarily
    for leisure and not for efficient transport.

    My perception of shared paths and off road bicycle paths is that they
    provide greater potential for incident. My perception of the roads is
    that they provide a safe and convenient route for me for a-b in most
    circumstances. Given that the off road cycling networks about 0.7% of
    the road network that's hardly surprising.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  11. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    --
    Frank
    [email protected]
    Drop DACKS to reply
    "Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > David Trudgett wrote:
    > > Hi Euan,
    > >
    > > EuanB <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > >
    > >> David Trudgett Wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
    > >>> shared paths in this country?
    > >>
    > >> On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.

    > >
    > >
    > > Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
    > > that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of
    > > them.
    > >
    > >> There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
    > >> shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation
    > >> of the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or
    > >> because the shared path runs out.

    > >
    > >
    > > So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
    > > roads, and not shared pathway accidents.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half
    > >> of vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the
    > >> road, shared paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help
    > >> but have multiple intersections with roads, that makes them very
    > >> dangerous constructs in these environments.

    > >
    > >
    > > Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop.
    > > This applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to
    > > cyclists.

    >
    > That's not correct. About half of cyclist / vehicle collisions occur
    > when a cyclist joins the road. That is distinct from merely negotiating
    > an intersection so it is different from motor vehicles.
    >
    > > No one suggests that footpaths are "very dangerous constructs"
    > > because they cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads,
    > > even though precisely the same argument applies.

    >
    > That's not correct either. A cyclist can use the road as a part of
    > traffic whereas a pedestrian cannot so it's not precisely the same
    > argument.
    >
    > > Most pedestrians, I would imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, would be
    > > killed at intersections or while crossing roads, and not while
    > > blissfully walking down the footpath, which in fact is a relatively
    > > safe place to be, generally speaking. Crossing the road, on the other
    > > hand, is a different matter.

    >
    > No idea. Seeing as I believe you're talking apples and oranges it's
    > irrelevant.
    >
    >
    > > The cyclists and pedestrians who use shared pathways that have been
    > > constructed with a modicum of common sense, are not in any great
    > > danger. In fact, as a matter of my own personal opinion, it seems
    > > fairly clear to me that they are in *less* danger using the pathways
    > > than they would be using the roads, especially ma and pa wobbly
    > > cyclists out with six and seven year old Bill and Jane.

    >
    > I respectfully disagree.
    >
    > A cyclist riding on the road as a part of traffic maintains its priority
    > over said intersections. Also these cyclists benefit from being highly
    > visible to other vehicles, allowing other vehicles to register their
    > presence and act accordingly.
    >
    > A cyclist emerging from a shared path is an unpredictable event for
    > other road users and therefore hazardous.
    >
    > > Your point about the inevitability of multiple intersections with
    > > roads is also questionable. [1] There are, for example, many dozens
    > > of kilometres of shared pathway in my local region -- which is mostly
    > > an urban and suburban region, by the way -- and one can cycle for
    > > 15km or more without crossing a road. And furthermore, none of the
    > > crossings that do exist and of which I am aware could be classified
    > > as dangerous (no more dangerous than pedestrian crossings, anyway).

    >
    > Are you taking in to account all the driveways you pass on the shared
    > path? They're uncontrolled intersections as well and just as dangerous.
    >
    > In Melbourne I've travelled on two off road bicycle paths. The sight
    > lines are awful and there are frequent uncontrolled intersections where
    > there is a duty of care on the cyclist to give way. There are some
    > intersections where the duty of care is on motor vehicles but it's a
    > foolish cyclist who trusts those directions.
    >
    > The road poses no such impediments.
    >
    > >> If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent
    > >> distance then that's a different scenario.

    > >
    > >
    > > Yes, see above. You can't have it both ways, you know. :) It can't
    > > be both inevitable ("cannot help but have") while at the same time
    > > admitting that it may be feasible to have point to point shared paths
    > > of a "decent distance".

    >
    > That's not correct. A shared path in the CBD has a much higher density
    > of buildings and roads, a shared path of 15kms without an intersection
    > is not feasible.
    >
    > A shared path between two suburbs in suburbia could quite easily have a
    > decent distance without an intersection.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >> Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off
    > >> road cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the
    > >> story's very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a
    > >> dozen fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the
    > >> road network.

    > >
    > >
    > > At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
    > > face. ;-)
    > >
    > > In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
    > > (the only information available to me at present) there was one
    > > fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
    > > same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
    > > redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
    > > make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular
    > > barrow to push, like the person responsible for this biased study
    > > [2]: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
    > > actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
    > > with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
    > > are free of motor vehicular traffic.

    >
    > You've just made my point for me. Five of the six cyclist / vehicle
    > collisions occurred at the intersections of roads with with the cycle
    > path. What more proof do you need that a cycle path crossing a road is
    > a dangerous construct?
    >
    > > [2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
    > > pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
    > > statistics, don't we?

    >
    > Yes, when they prove an answer contrary to what is desired that line
    > generally gets trotted out.
    >
    > > The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
    > > show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
    > > cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]
    > >
    > > [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system

    >
    > OK, try this one then, different off road cycling network, different
    > country: http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/index.htm
    >
    > Plenty more on that site as well.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
    > > trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
    > > to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as
    > > bicycle networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made,
    > > both in the attitude of the public, and by the designers of the
    > > redway system, is that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a
    > > recreation, not as transport. This mistake resulted in many design
    > > flaws in the redway network, causing it to be largely ignored by
    > > commuters, and other "serious" cyclists.

    >
    > Which is the same problem that we have here in Victoria. It is openly
    > acknowledged that shared paths and off road bicycle lanes are primarily
    > for leisure and not for efficient transport.
    >
    > My perception of shared paths and off road bicycle paths is that they
    > provide greater potential for incident. My perception of the roads is
    > that they provide a safe and convenient route for me for a-b in most
    > circumstances. Given that the off road cycling networks about 0.7% of
    > the road network that's hardly surprising.
    > --
    > Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    > Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    > Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)


    Sorry for not trimming - the whole lot above is relevent...

    I'll reiterate a point I've made before: In Australia cycle and shared paths
    are segregated from the roads, leading to the kind of collisions described.

    In the European countries in which I've cycled bike and shared paths are
    integrated with roads much more. For example, riding on a bike path next to
    a road to a T juction, it's usual for the stop sign to be set well back from
    the intersection and the bike lane continues. When a road crosses the bike
    lane the bike lane is clearly marked and, if it's the continuing lane, motor
    traffic is obliged to obey stop and give way signs. Similarly, when a bike
    lane crosses a continuing road the bike lane is clearly marked and cyclists
    must obey the usual traffic laws as applied to other road lanes.

    In Australia bike and shared paths stop at intersections and do a little
    wiggle that sends bikes and walkers into the side of a car at the
    intersection. Motor traffic is given priority and it is encumbent on
    cyclists and walkers to give way. Even the marked bike lanes painted on the
    side of the road end at each intersection and start on the other side.

    Constructing paths in this manner indicates that cyclists and walkers are
    not as legitimate as motor traffic and shouldn't hold up motor vehicles;
    roads are for motor traffic and other users can only use roads at motorists
    convenience. As more segregation occurs the message to drivers is
    reinforced.

    I'll leave walkers out from now on. Walkers can stop and start more easily
    than cyclists in general - especially inexperienced cyclists (I'd like to
    see figures that cite the experience level of cyclists involved in
    collisions. I suspect Joe Wobbly, gaining experience, is over represented)

    The construction of paths is what counts. I can't speak about MK, never
    having been there, but path construction determines how cyclists join the
    traffic flow on roads. Constructing paths the way they do here in Australia
    almost ensures collisions if a cyclist makes a braking mistake, loses
    balance momentarily, etc. The path spits the cyclist directly into the side
    of the car. With continuing paths that is not the case. The cyclist passes
    in front of the car which is waiting at the stop sign (I hope this is clear
    enough - too early and no pictures!).

    Segregating for paralell sections is OK. For intersections, however, paths
    should be integrated and treated as another road lane, not as an
    inconvenience to motorists and presenting a hazard to cyclists.

    Nuff now - too early in WA!

    Frank
     
  12. Hi Euan,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Euan <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    >> [2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
    >> pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
    >> statistics, don't we?

    >
    > Yes, when they prove an answer contrary to what is desired that line
    > generally gets trotted out.


    I see... can I stop rolling around on the floor laughing now? :) No
    one could believe that that deliberately misleading and unscientific
    piece of writing *proves* anything besides the author's state of
    mind. I wonder why, for example, the author lumps in "serious"
    injuries with fatalities? Wouldn't be for the purpose of concealing or
    obscuring facts, would it?


    >
    >> The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
    >> show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
    >> cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]
    >> [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system

    >
    > OK, try this one then, different off road cycling network, different
    > country: http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/index.htm


    How long do we have to play this game? :) (The "Oh, yeah, right,
    well, how about this one, then?" game.)

    The article above (not a scientific one either), claims the following
    fact: Cycling accidents are 2.9 times more likely when cycling on the
    road among cars, than when cycling on separated cycle paths
    (fig. 2). And this fact: accidents while cycling on footpaths are
    about two and a half times less frequent than while cycling on roads
    (fig. 2). And this fact: crossing accidents while cycling on the road
    with traffic occur at around twice (1.9) the frequency of crossing
    accidents from footpaths (fig.3). And to put those into some
    perspective, it also claims this fact: that there are more than three
    times as many bicycle fatalities in Finland (where the figures were
    collected) than in the Netherlands (on a kilometre travelled basis),
    who also cycle four times as much as people in Finland (fig. 6). The
    Dutch must be a far more level headed kind of people, I guess, as well
    as being quite obviously more attuned to the presence and requirements
    of cyclists.

    The article also highlights a design flaw of the Helsinki cycle
    pathway system. As shown in figure 4, these "cycle paths", which run
    along roads are designed in such a way as to encourage cyclists to
    enter intersections when there is a chance of collision with motor
    vehicles. (This could partly explain why the footpaths are safer,
    since presumably there is no encouragement for footpath users to dash
    out in front of vehicles.) Added to this is an apparently endemic
    negligence on the part of Finnish motor vehicle drivers: 'Right-
    turning drivers focus their attention mainly on cars from the left on
    the major street, and "forget" the cyclists approaching from the
    right.'

    This design flaw, combined with driver negligence, means that in
    comparison to cyclists using footpaths, nearly ten times (9.6) as many
    crossing accidents occur as a result of cyclists using these
    alongside-roadway cycle paths (fig 3). The design is so bad that this
    number is five times higher than crossing accidents involving cyclists
    riding with the motor vehicular traffic (fig 3).

    Be that as it may, the article inspires no confidence at all in its
    "results". It looks like a high school student gone crazy with Excel
    charts. There is no indication that the author even understands basic
    statistics, confidence intervals, standard deviations, means, medians,
    Chi-squares, correlations, and so on and so forth, much less that this
    knowledge was actually applied to the "study".

    And when the author comes up with stellar bits of reasoning like,"A
    car driver who chooses to ride a bicycle instead may only provide an
    opportunity for somebody else to utilize the car," well it just makes
    you wonder.



    >
    > Plenty more on that site as well.


    I don't have time for this. Are they all just as good as the last one?


    >
    >> Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
    >> trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
    >> to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as
    >> bicycle networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made,
    >> both in the attitude of the public, and by the designers of the
    >> redway system, is that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a
    >> recreation, not as transport. This mistake resulted in many design
    >> flaws in the redway network, causing it to be largely ignored by
    >> commuters, and other "serious" cyclists.

    >
    > Which is the same problem that we have here in Victoria. It is openly
    > acknowledged that shared paths and off road bicycle lanes are primarily
    > for leisure and not for efficient transport.


    Exactly.


    >
    > My perception of shared paths and off road bicycle paths is that they
    > provide greater potential for incident. My perception of the roads is
    > that they provide a safe and convenient route for me for a-b in most
    > circumstances. Given that the off road cycling networks about 0.7% of
    > the road network that's hardly surprising.


    You're quite welcome to your opinion, and you seem like a smart sort
    of guy, so you might even be right when it comes to your own personal
    circumstances. What more can one ask?

    Cheers,

    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    My opposition to machinery is much misunderstood. I am not opposed to
    machinery as such. I am opposed to machinery which displaces labour
    and leaves it idle.

    -- Mohandas Gandhi
     
  13. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    The answer to this particular conundrum is to put yourself fimrly in the middle of the lane and maintain position thorugh the intersection. If you don't do that you'll be squeezed to buggery negotiating the intersection.

    Obviously that's not a one size fits all scenario, some junctions are easily wide enough to allow a cyclist to maintain a half - one metre clearance from the edge of the road and let other traffic share the lane.

    I agree that a continuous lane which gives cyclists priority at intersections is a much preferred solution.
     
  14. In aus.bicycle on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:46:23 +1000
    David Trudgett <[email protected]> wrote:
    > mind. I wonder why, for example, the author lumps in "serious"
    > injuries with fatalities? Wouldn't be for the purpose of concealing or
    > obscuring facts, would it?


    ON the other hand, can anything based on fatalities be usefully
    statistically significant, as there are so few of them?

    And when it comes to "vulnerable road users" like powered and
    unpowered two wheelers, the difference between dead and badly hurt can
    be a slight angle in hitting, or a hell of a lot of luck.

    Counting fatalities alone doesn't give you insight into what's causing
    the problem because the difference between fatal and serious is too small.

    THis is fairly clear when looking at motorcycle crashes, I dunno
    bicycle crashes are wildly different.

    Zebee
     
Loading...
Loading...