Re: Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> EuanB wrote:
>>> Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than
>>> to cross them, so what's your point?
>>
>> Only not allowed if a suitable path is provided for them alongside
>> the (paved) roadway, otherwise they are indeed allowed on the roads.

> Allowed on the side of the road, not where traffic travels. Big
> difference.

From a WA Gov't website
Where to walk when you're beside the road
Footpaths provide a safe place for you to walk and it is recommended you use
the paths for your safety.

When there is no footpath:

a.. Walk on the side of the road facing oncoming traffic except on curves,
where it is best to walk on the outside edge of the curve.
b.. If possible, walk off the road or as close to the edge of the road as
you can.
And for your safety at night, carry or wear one or all of these:

a.. Wear light-coloured clothing.
b.. Carry something white, eg a sheet of newspaper is better than nothing.
c.. Carry a torch.
d.. Wear reflective belt or arm band.
Note: These tips are not a statement of the "law" and should not be taken
as such. While sharing the road with motorists, you must share the
responsibilities.

Theo

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone.

Nonetheless, you're suggesting standards for bike-only facilities that
are far higher than you accept for shared facilities (ie, existing
roads). Is lack of a crumple zone or inferior brakes more a problem on a
bike-only facility than when sharing with other large, fast moving and
heavy vehicles?

> I'm not asking for more than other vehicles, just hte same.

Actually, I think you were -- things like eliminating two-way
thoroughfares.
>
> Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.

You mean asking for more than other vehicles is not without precedent.
You can't have it both ways.

> That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
> lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.

And the Swiss keep guns by law and have a very low homicide rate. Maybe
there's a little bit more involved.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-27, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> From a WA Gov't website
> Where to walk when you're beside the road
> Footpaths provide a safe place for you to walk and it is recommended you use
> the paths for your safety.
....
> a.. Wear light-coloured clothing.
> b.. Carry something white, eg a sheet of newspaper is better than nothing.

Are you sure? Surely most anglo's wearing nothing have higher
reflectivity than your average sheet of newspaper?

Hence nothing is better than a newspaper?

> Note: These tips are not a statement of the "law" and should not be taken
> as such. While sharing the road with motorists, you must share the
> responsibilities.

Ie, if they hit you, you are allowed to then run into them and crush
their car.

--
TimC
Modus Ponens in action:
- Nothing is better than world peace.
- A turkey sandwich is better than nothing.
==> Ergo, a turkey sandwich is better than world peace. --unknown

 

[EuanB]

On Apr 27, 3:07 pm, Shane Stanley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone.
>
> Nonetheless, you're suggesting standards for bike-only facilities that
> are far higher than you accept for shared facilities (ie, existing
> roads). Is lack of a crumple zone or inferior brakes more a problem on a
> bike-only facility than when sharing with other large, fast moving and
> heavy vehicles?

I've a lot more faith in motorised traffic than I have in pedetrians.
We're all operating to a common set of rules and it's prdictable.

> > I'm not asking for more than other vehicles, just hte same.
>
> Actually, I think you were -- things like eliminating two-way
> thoroughfares.

Based on the demonstrated lethality of two way bike paths. If two way
bike paths were built to the same standard as two way roads for other
traffic, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

> > Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.
>
> You mean asking for more than other vehicles is not without precedent.
> You can't have it both ways.

Actually, I can. Cars have priority over all other vehicles most of
the time currently.

> > That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
> > lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.
>
> And the Swiss keep guns by law and have a very low homicide rate. Maybe
> there's a little bit more involved.

Duh. There's also the fact that they keep rifles, not ammo, and that
they're all trained to use them. You know that. No relevence to the
topic anyway.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[EuanB]

On Apr 27, 6:21 pm, rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now you ARE talking !!,

Salesman: So sir, the $12,000 mega-carbon-extra-bling?

Punter: Yep, that's the one.

Salesman: Good, now if I can just see your cycling certificate

Punter: <shuffles feet>

Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
to applying for a car licence.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-28, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
> nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
> to applying for a car licence.

Zactly.

"They also have mandatory training in the form of mandatory military
service."

Everyone gets it.

--
TimC
Quantum Mechanics is a lovely introduction to Hilbert Spaces! --unknown

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-28, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Apr 27, 3:07 pm, Shane Stanley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.
>>
>> You mean asking for more than other vehicles is not without precedent.
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
> Actually, I can. Cars have priority over all other vehicles most of
> the time currently.

Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and never
rush when a car is waiting for me

--
TimC
Sorry if there are error (factual or otherwise) in transmission - I'm
sending this message by manually feeding signals down the gigabit
fiber link with a laser pointer.

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've a lot more faith in motorised traffic than I have in pedetrians.

Fine, but last I looked more cyclists were being killed by cars than by
pedestrians.

> We're all operating to a common set of rules and it's prdictable.

Except, of course, for all the motorists (and cyclists) who think the
rules don't apply to them, or who don't actually know the rules.

> Based on the demonstrated lethality of two way bike paths.

"demonstrated lethality"?

> If two way bike paths were built to the same standard as two way roads for other
> traffic, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

You don't design roads for a type of vehicle by using the standards for
a totally different type of vehicle. There are plenty of two-way roads
where the made surface isn't wide enough for two cars, for example.
People have to drive/ride to the conditions.

> Duh. There's also the fact that they keep rifles, not ammo, and that
> they're all trained to use them. You know that. No relevence to the
> topic anyway.

The relevance is that your argument was suggesting a cause-and-effect
relationship that isn't justified; there are lots of factors that affect
a country's road trauma rate. The world's a more complicated place.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:00:48 +1000
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-04-28, EuanB (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
>> nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
>> to applying for a car licence.
>
> Zactly.
>
> "They also have mandatory training in the form of mandatory military
> service."
>

Everyone? Or only physically fit males?

Zebee

 

[me]

On Apr 28, 4:03 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:

> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and never
> rush when a car is waiting for me

Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
aggressive tools etc) I *really* despise those situations when a
motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your
civil duty, and accidently on purpose, walk/cycle a bit slower so
others can walk without being unduly intimidated.

 

[rooman]

On Apr 28, 3:16 pm, EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:21 pm, rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now you ARE talking !!,
>
> Salesman: So sir, the $12,000 mega-carbon-extra-bling?
>
> Punter: Yep, that's the one.
>
> Salesman: Good, now if I can just see your cycling certificate
>
> Punter: <shuffles feet>
>
> Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
> nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
> to applying for a car licence.
> --
> Cheers
> Euan

Have had that thought( mandatory cycle training as a precursor to
applying for a car licence) for a long time, and add to that make it
also mandatory for any driver who loses a lic. from an offence against
a cyclist , who then has to spend time under supervision in a mandated
cycling skill bicycle laws awareness and on road riding exposure to
traffic course before lic. is restored...

seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
shared path users) at high risk.

It is just one area that has been ignored over the years ( perhaps
rightly) but it has been ignored and is probably IMO one of the main
contributors to many accidents on the road ( low skill level and
competency).

I'm sure the bicycle manufacturers wouldn't go for it, as that would
certainly limit sales and perhaps put annual bike sales back behind
cars .

I am not talking registration, but a simple level of approved
competency and skill that wouldnt hurt everyone, before they can ride
on the road .

Extend it to producing that qualification when you buy or hire a
bicycle of a capability for road use.( shock horror you say, well why
not?).. It (courses) could be run at local councils or BUGs or bike
shops and cycling clubs, across the whole community and quickly build
a level of comeptence and skill that would put Australian bicycle
riders as best in class in the world IMO.

Cycling Australia has such a course and could put out many more new
coaches each year who can deliver this in the public domain ( for
reward or free) . That course also aligns with the ride to school
programmes and certainly is attractive to work place BUGs to utilise
to encourage more people to gain confidence , skill and competency for
bicycle riding as a transport option.

Worth a discussion and worth serious consideration....let us know,
over to you.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 27 Apr 2007 23:42:27 -0700
me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> aggressive tools etc) I *really* despise those situations when a
> motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
> mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your

What bothers me is people who see me stopped and waiting and scurry.

I relax back off the bike if I can, I smile, I wait for them as the
extra minute won't kill me, but they scuttle across the road as if
they are scared.

That is sad. Hate to see it happen.

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

Have had that thought( mandatory cycle training as a precursor to
applying for a car licence) for a long time, and add to that make it
also mandatory for any driver who loses a lic. from an offence against
a cyclist , who then has to spend time under supervision in a mandated
cycling skill bicycle laws awareness and on road riding exposure to
traffic course before lic. is restored...

seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
shared path users) at high risk.

I've thought about it and I'm sure many people smarter than me have thought about it. Frankly it's not worth it.

Yes bicycles can approach the speeds of other vehicles, yes cyclists can get themselves in to dangerous situations. The fact remains that the bicycle is the most benign form of transport ever invented. Put simply a cyclist killing another road user is a rare event, so rare that it makes the front page of national news for the best part of a week.

The benefits of riding a bicycle outweigh the risks to the cyclists by 20:1. Much better to have someone ride than not ride, both for that someone and society.

Simply put just like MHL ensuring a level of competency amongst cyclists will cost more lives in terms of people who do not take to the bike becaue they're too lazy to get the accreditation than such accreditation is likely to save. It's just not worth it.

 

[EuanB]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've a lot more faith in motorised traffic than I have in pedetrians.

Fine, but last I looked more cyclists were being killed by cars than by
pedestrians.

Last time I looked pavement cycling's far more dangerous than road cycling.

> We're all operating to a common set of rules and it's prdictable.

Except, of course, for all the motorists (and cyclists) who think the
rules don't apply to them, or who don't actually know the rules.

Of course there are exceptions. What is it with you, do I have to spell everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

> Based on the demonstrated lethality of two way bike paths.

"demonstrated lethality"?

Put another way research has shown that two way cycling paths are the most dangerous form of cycling infrastructure.

This is going around in circles and for one very simple reason. You're confusing what I think would make a good bike path with what I want or expect. As I've stated earlier in this thread don't confuse the two.

Over and out unless you've something relevent to say.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:28:45 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the
> main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

Is that because they have passed a test, or because they are more
restricted by their mode of transport?

Zebee

 

[cfsmtb]

seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
shared path users) at high risk.

On 3AW (17/4) Flip Shelton mentioned that point regarding drivers licences:
http://www.woj.com.au/audio/3YawN_nm_rego.mp3

Of course Neil Mitchell & his QC mate laugh off the suggestion, but all probability, this has far more potential for implementation on state/national level than pushing furphys like the bike rego debate.

(Warning: Listen in from the 3.42 minute mark. Plenty of subjective comments and gaps of logic big enough to drive a b-double through, although Flip does try to counter some of the worst of it.)

BTW I've just volunteered to assist in a course to teach adult beginners, so at some point I'll let you know how that proceeds.

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-29, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> rooman Wrote:
>> seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
>> competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
>> bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
>> best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
>> has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
>> rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
>> shared path users) at high risk.
>
> On 3AW (17/4) Flip Shelton mentioned that point regarding drivers
> licences:
> http://www.woj.com.au/audio/3YawN_nm_rego.mp3

I like this lawyer's view that license plates lead to identifiability,
but when was the last time anyone here managed to get the police off
their fat arses to investigate anything when they were given a license
plate to deal with.

--
TimC
Modus Ponens in action:
- Nothing is better than world peace.
- A turkey sandwich is better than nothing.
==> Ergo, a turkey sandwich is better than world peace. --unknown

 

[John Pitts]

On 2007-04-28, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:03 pm, TimC <[email protected]
> astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and never
>> rush when a car is waiting for me
>
> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> aggressive tools etc) I *really* despise those situations when a
> motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
> mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your
> civil duty, and accidently on purpose, walk/cycle a bit slower so
> others can walk without being unduly intimidated.
>

Me too. I'm usually a fairly fast walker, but if I'm crossing the road
with kids or less mobile pedestrians, I'll hang back and make sure I'm
the last one to the kerb.

If the driver is behaving in an intimidating way, I favour them with
some one-on-one eye contact as I stroll by.

--
John
If you wanna end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud! - Arlo Guthrie

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> What is it with you, do I have to spell everything out?

Funnily enough, debate can sometimes be a bit like that. Much more work
than simply being dogmatic.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[rooman]

EuenB
I've thought about it and I'm sure many people smarter than me have thought about it. Frankly it's not worth it.

Yes bicycles can approach the speeds of other vehicles, yes cyclists can get themselves in to dangerous situations. The fact remains that the bicycle is the most benign form of transport ever invented. Put simply a cyclist killing another road user is a rare event, so rare that it makes the front page of national news for the best part of a week.

The benefits of riding a bicycle outweigh the risks to the cyclists by 20:1. Much better to have someone ride than not ride, both for that someone and society.

it is fine to say that, and by the stats it seems to be the outcome that society will deliver for some time to come...

I know that people very close to important decision makers in Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the economy. Part of their concern and advice is what needs to be done to improving cycling training. A vital aspect of the discussion has been the likelihood of implementing an accreditation scheme down the track if riding numbers become huge, compared to current figures...(for commuting journeys especially as that is the stat. that is being tracked at the moment).....so start to embrace the idea no matter how benign it may seem at the moment....it may not be so remote in time for us to be flippant about.

EuenB
Simply put just like MHL ensuring a level of competency amongst cyclists will cost more lives in terms of people who do not take to the bike becaue they're too lazy to get the accreditation than such accreditation is likely to save. It's just not worth it.

those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get accreditation will also probably be too lazy to actually seriously ride a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation... they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own level of inertia...
IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more positive than sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for f$csk sake why bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and so wont ride...ever..."

I am not advertising here, but like others on this forum I have (recently ) done one cycling coaching course with Cycling Australia and in June will do another, so I take seriously what I say...and am willing to seek out and actively participate in such courses as are applicable to riding safely (and to do it at a Coaches level, so much the better!).

If as many people as possible become accredited to teach these skills courses, it will become more of an accepted community practice to participate in them and the wider community benefits must be positive ones.