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
