SA - Road safety program launched with a focus on cyclists

[Zebee Johnstone]

>
> I'd say that it's probably past the upper end, to be able to cycle
> 60kms every day you've gotta have a level of commitment beyond that of
> most people. I'm not saying that not everyone's capable, of course
> they are, but where's the motivation when you know nothing about riding
> a bike as means of transport?

Definitely. I thought 6km was big at first didn't help that going
home was uphill!

Then I was doing about 8-9km and reckoned I was a hero.

The only way I thought a 20km trip was worth contemplating was because
of the 'bent. A friend had one and was doing 25 or so each way and
said it was way better lying down. So I decided that it was the only
way to get the exercise and while expensive a bike you ride is always
cheaper than one you don't.

The first few rides around my suburb to get used to it scared the hell
out of me Not because bents are weird but because hills are a
*******. I knew I had a few so had to practice. The first few rides
I was walking up most of them.

The motivation was mostly "i've said I will so I will" and "I'll feel
a poor fool if I give up now!" and "fitness is about working hard, so
stop whinging about working hard".

And of course "It's hard work, but I love riding this thing!"

I dunno most people would be willing to spend a lot of dosh on a
'bent, but without it I wouldn't be cycling...

How many people live 10km or 15km from work I wonder? Where I work a
lot of people live 20 or so, and with no decent cycle network now the
M2's history. Someone from St Ives wants to cycle but there's too
much ugliness on the Mona vale Road for him.

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Patrick Turner wrote:

> Ask yourself what's the ratio of motorists to cyclists when you take a
> look
> at the passing traffic.
> I reckon maybe 0.5% of traffic is a cyclist.

Iwanted real figures. I already know that more than 7% of all trips in Perth
are done by bicycle, which doesn't quite gell with your 0.5% for wherever
you are.

> I can wait 20 minutes on Northbourne Ave
> and see 2 guys go past on bicycles. How many hundred motorists? lots.
> And an occasional bus full of ppl.
> The cyclists probably don't ride as far as ppl drive, so the
> total bicycle kilometres travelled each day per annun in Oz
> probably is less than 0.5% of total motorvehicle distance travelled.
> But the ratio of dead cyclists to dead motorists isn't 1:200, 0r 0.5%,
> its allegedly about 1:20, or 5%.
>
> I guess this makes a bicycle 10 times more dangerous than being
> a motorist or being a passenger in a bus.

You're making all this up on the spot, aren't you?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Patrick Turner wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>> So the solution is to do what they did with drink-driving.
>>
>> massive education campaign coupled with some really serious
>> enforcement of laws. A few high profile cases of *careless* drivers
>> who hit cyclists being imprisoned, a story every week how someone who
>> was driving poorly was arrested and fined and had to leave their car
>> cos they were taken to the copshop.
>>
>> A story every couple of weeks about a cyclist who reported a bad
>> driver and the driver was convicted and lost their licence.
>>
>> Would take 2-3 years to start to have an effect...

> I'd just love to see the politians get busy on the
> legislation changes and revisions and get funding grants going for the
> protection of cyclists by means of an education program.
>
> But politics works on the fickle nature of the public and on
> priorities and whether any votes are in it.
> Maybe you spend millions on campaigns and providing a
> secure new home for motoring murderers, and save 4 lives a year.

So you think the effort isn't worth it. What's a few cyclists?

> Somehow I think the improvement and maintenance of a cycling
> infrastructure should be the priority.

Did you know that most cyclist accidents do not involve another vehicle?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Patrick Turner wrote:

> But once you ride only on dedicated off road cycle paths, then the
> risk plummets,

How so? The majority of cycle accidents don't involve another vehicle.
Roadways are filled with very predictable motor vehicle traffic, not those
wildly unpredictable pedestrians and dogs.

> If Oppie was a young fella of 25 now, would he be seen on the roads?

Of course he would, what a silly question.

> I guess the expectancy is another silly statistical peice of BS
> because the expectancy of life falls as you mount a bike, and then
> rises when you get off.

The exact opposite is true. The increase in life expectancy through improved
health far outweighs the risks of riding.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Shane Stanley wrote:

> But are the majority of cycling miles utility trips? I would have
> thought there'd be at least a ratio of something 2:3 between time and
> distance figures.

My old ride to work was the same for the car and the bike but only because I
planned to arrive at 7am before the traffic got heavy. In the afternoon I
left at five, same as everyone else, and even though it was all bloody well
uphill, was 5-10 minutes quicker than the car over the twelve kms.

Theo

 

[PiledHigher]

On Aug 21, 11:16 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >> So the solution is to do what they did with drink-driving.
>
> >> massive education campaign coupled with some really serious
> >> enforcement of laws. A few high profile cases of *careless* drivers
> >> who hit cyclists being imprisoned, a story every week how someone who
> >> was driving poorly was arrested and fined and had to leave their car
> >> cos they were taken to the copshop.
>
> >> A story every couple of weeks about a cyclist who reported a bad
> >> driver and the driver was convicted and lost their licence.
>
> >> Would take 2-3 years to start to have an effect...
> > I'd just love to see the politians get busy on the
> > legislation changes and revisions and get funding grants going for the
> > protection of cyclists by means of an education program.
>
> > But politics works on the fickle nature of the public and on
> > priorities and whether any votes are in it.
> > Maybe you spend millions on campaigns and providing a
> > secure new home for motoring murderers, and save 4 lives a year.
>
> So you think the effort isn't worth it. What's a few cyclists?
>
> > Somehow I think the improvement and maintenance of a cycling
> > infrastructure should be the priority.
>
> Did you know that most cyclist accidents do not involve another vehicle?
>
> Theo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bit most fatal ones do involve another vehicle.

 

[Resound]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>> I'd say that it's probably past the upper end, to be able to cycle
>> 60kms every day you've gotta have a level of commitment beyond that of
>> most people. I'm not saying that not everyone's capable, of course
>> they are, but where's the motivation when you know nothing about riding
>> a bike as means of transport?
>
> Definitely. I thought 6km was big at first didn't help that going
> home was uphill!
>
> Then I was doing about 8-9km and reckoned I was a hero.
>
> The only way I thought a 20km trip was worth contemplating was because
> of the 'bent. A friend had one and was doing 25 or so each way and
> said it was way better lying down. So I decided that it was the only
> way to get the exercise and while expensive a bike you ride is always
> cheaper than one you don't.
>
> The first few rides around my suburb to get used to it scared the hell
> out of me Not because bents are weird but because hills are a
> *******. I knew I had a few so had to practice. The first few rides
> I was walking up most of them.
>
> The motivation was mostly "i've said I will so I will" and "I'll feel
> a poor fool if I give up now!" and "fitness is about working hard, so
> stop whinging about working hard".
>
> And of course "It's hard work, but I love riding this thing!"
>
> I dunno most people would be willing to spend a lot of dosh on a
> 'bent, but without it I wouldn't be cycling...
>
> How many people live 10km or 15km from work I wonder? Where I work a
> lot of people live 20 or so, and with no decent cycle network now the
> M2's history. Someone from St Ives wants to cycle but there's too
> much ugliness on the Mona vale Road for him.
>
> Zebee

I cycle 15km each way at the moment, but my last commute was nigh on 20km. I
did it pretty easily and I'm a lazy fat boy.

 

[Tomasso]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:13:43 +1000
> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
>> taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
>> indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
>> to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.
>
> 30km would be at the upper end for utility trips?
>
> At first I thought "OK for some" but then I realised that the fastest
> trip to work on the motorcycle is about 35 mins, the peak hour one is
> more like 45 (with lanesplitting) which compares better to the 70 by
> bicycle.
>
> Peak hour by car doesn't bear thinking about!
>
>
>> If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
>> at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
>> higher than in Australai.
>
>
> Is there a breakdown between urban and non? I suspect urban UK roads
> in most cities are narrower and more congested with cars and peds than
> those in most Oz cities.
>
> Zebee

One place I used to work took:

7 minutes by bike
12 minutes running
30 minutes walking
30 minutes by car (assuming peak hour).

Car had 12 traffic lights to destination and a couple of sneaky one way streets (probably could have been quicker if I did it more
than a few times and found the quicker alleyways).

All other trips crossed Pyrmont Bridge.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:42:52 -0700
PiledHigher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Bit most fatal ones do involve another vehicle.

Any idea what the kinds of crashes are?

How many are "same direction, turn in front of" how many are "turn
across path" how many are rear end, how many are cyclist rear ending
vehicle?

When the MCC started getting stats together about type of crash and
age and experience level and such, then patterns emerged that led to
campaigns the RTA was willing to try.

I'd presume this work has been done for Australia, is it easily
available?

Zebee

 

[Patrick Turner]

EuanB wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner Wrote:
> > Shane Stanley wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
> > > > aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a
> > cyclist.
> > >
> > > Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different,
> > no?
> > >
> > > > in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die
> > >
> > > Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to
> > here?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Shane Stanley
> >
> > I always thought motocyclists had far riskier lives and
> > endured a lower life expectancy than motorists in cars, buses, and
> > lorries.
> >
> > I would hazard a guess that while you are on a busy road as a cyclist,
> > and without a bike lane, you'd be more prone to a shorter life than
> > our motorcyclist bretheren.
> >
> > But once you ride only on dedicated off road cycle paths, then the
> > risk
> > plummets,
> You'd think so wouldn't you? I did but studies and research strongly
> suggest that a cyclist fares best when riding as a part of normal
> traffic.

What's normal traffic?

In most Oz city roads, sharing narrow lanes on busy roads with oafish
drivers is a nightmare.

But on Canberra's cycle paths its utterly different.
There simply isn't anything that will kill you.

Quite a few cyclist have died on roads in the ACT,
but I doubt a single one on the cycle paths in 30 +years.
My eyes tell me more ride the paths than ride the roads.

>
> If you have an interest, check the body of evidence at
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Thanks for the link, but there's far more there than I have time to
read.

I think the bike lanes on roads make a huge difference, ie, a smooth
strip between gutter and car lane at least
1.2M wide and with an unbroken white line places the cyclist at probably
1/10 of the normal risk.
I remember the days before the lanes went in here, and it definately
was far less safe.

But there are many who don't like breathing all the car exhaust fumes
and dust from ground up brake and clutch linings.

If yer don't get rundown, yer get lung cancer.


Patrick Turner.


>
> --
> EuanB

 

[Patrick Turner]

EuanB wrote:
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
> > > aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.
> >
> > Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?
> No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
> taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
> indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
> to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.

Gees, your place of commuting is indeed bad.
The longest trip to get to work here could be about 45 minutes by car,
and it'd take at least twice than by bike.

But you forget one factor.

Add in the time taken to earn the money to pay for the motoring.
THEN the average time taken to do a distance becomes much greater,
and the bicycle wins easily.
>
> > > in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die
> >
> > Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?
> Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
> matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
> got around and warranted no special consideration.
>
> If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
> at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
> higher than in Australai.

We have 60k in most built up areas, 50k on smaller suburb roads,
and up to 110k on freeways.

Patrick Turner.
>
> --
> EuanB

 

[EuanB]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>> I'd say that it's probably past the upper end, to be able to cycle
>> 60kms every day you've gotta have a level of commitment beyond that of
>> most people. I'm not saying that not everyone's capable, of course
>> they are, but where's the motivation when you know nothing about riding
>> a bike as means of transport?
>
> Definitely. I thought 6km was big at first didn't help that going
> home was uphill!
>
> Then I was doing about 8-9km and reckoned I was a hero.
>
> The only way I thought a 20km trip was worth contemplating was because
> of the 'bent. A friend had one and was doing 25 or so each way and
> said it was way better lying down. So I decided that it was the only
> way to get the exercise and while expensive a bike you ride is always
> cheaper than one you don't.
>
> The first few rides around my suburb to get used to it scared the hell
> out of me Not because bents are weird but because hills are a
> *******. I knew I had a few so had to practice. The first few rides
> I was walking up most of them.
>
> The motivation was mostly "i've said I will so I will" and "I'll feel
> a poor fool if I give up now!" and "fitness is about working hard, so
> stop whinging about working hard".
>
> And of course "It's hard work, but I love riding this thing!"
>
> I dunno most people would be willing to spend a lot of dosh on a
> 'bent, but without it I wouldn't be cycling...
>
> How many people live 10km or 15km from work I wonder? Where I work a
> lot of people live 20 or so, and with no decent cycle network now the
> M2's history. Someone from St Ives wants to cycle but there's too
> much ugliness on the Mona vale Road for him.
>
> Zebee

I cycle 15km each way at the moment, but my last commute was nigh on 20km. I
did it pretty easily and I'm a lazy fat boy.

I'm lazier than you

 

[Patrick Turner]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> > Ask yourself what's the ratio of motorists to cyclists when you take a
> > look
> > at the passing traffic.
> > I reckon maybe 0.5% of traffic is a cyclist.
>
> Iwanted real figures. I already know that more than 7% of all trips in Perth
> are done by bicycle, which doesn't quite gell with your 0.5% for wherever
> you are.

I am not a statistician. Gee, you're tryna tell me for every 93 people
in motors
in Perth, there are 7 cyclists?
Maybe; isn't the terrain mainly flat?
And the weather isn't cold. An maybe roads are not crowded.
>
> > I can wait 20 minutes on Northbourne Ave
> > and see 2 guys go past on bicycles. How many hundred motorists? lots.
> > And an occasional bus full of ppl.
> > The cyclists probably don't ride as far as ppl drive, so the
> > total bicycle kilometres travelled each day per annun in Oz
> > probably is less than 0.5% of total motorvehicle distance travelled.
> > But the ratio of dead cyclists to dead motorists isn't 1:200, 0r 0.5%,
> > its allegedly about 1:20, or 5%.
> >
> > I guess this makes a bicycle 10 times more dangerous than being
> > a motorist or being a passenger in a bus.
>
> You're making all this up on the spot, aren't you?

Just stating about what I observe.

The probability of error is huge, and the truth could be either way,
IMHO.


But last month I did have to wait 1/2 an hour for a taxi outside the ABC
headquaters on NthBourne,
and only a very small number of cyclists rode past, maybe 3 or 4, while
hundreds of motorists
went past.

See for yourself. Go sit on a busy road and count the cars and bicycles
that go past on one side of the road for 15 minutes, then do the same
for
15 minutes on the other side.
You won't be able to keep count of the motorists
but the bicycles will be a tiny number.

Try this at 8pm and 2pm.

There will be more bikes in the morning, but during mid arvo there
is hardly any.

I have no idea if anyone in the ACT has done a serious survey of cyclist
and motorist flow on roads,
and cyclist usage of bicycle paths.
Maybe someone has.

Patrick Turner.



>
> Theo

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd presume this work has been done for Australia, is it easily
> available?

What there is is in the report Euan pointed to.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
Patrick Turner <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for the link, but there's far more there than I have time to
> read.

With respect, you're posting an awful lot here and presumably expecting
others to read it; perhaps a bit less typing time and a bit more reading
time would be a sound investment.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[EuanB]

Just stating about what I observe.

The probability of error is huge, and the truth could be either way,
IMHO.

The probability is not huge, it's four times that of a motorist and that probability is so small most people don't even think about it. Four times a very small thing is still a small thing.

But last month I did have to wait 1/2 an hour for a taxi outside the ABC
headquaters on NthBourne,
and only a very small number of cyclists rode past, maybe 3 or 4, while
hundreds of motorists
went past.

Ever considered that cyclists may use different roads?

 

[Patrick Turner]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> >> So the solution is to do what they did with drink-driving.
> >>
> >> massive education campaign coupled with some really serious
> >> enforcement of laws. A few high profile cases of *careless* drivers
> >> who hit cyclists being imprisoned, a story every week how someone who
> >> was driving poorly was arrested and fined and had to leave their car
> >> cos they were taken to the copshop.
> >>
> >> A story every couple of weeks about a cyclist who reported a bad
> >> driver and the driver was convicted and lost their licence.
> >>
> >> Would take 2-3 years to start to have an effect...
>
> > I'd just love to see the politians get busy on the
> > legislation changes and revisions and get funding grants going for the
> > protection of cyclists by means of an education program.
> >
> > But politics works on the fickle nature of the public and on
> > priorities and whether any votes are in it.
> > Maybe you spend millions on campaigns and providing a
> > secure new home for motoring murderers, and save 4 lives a year.
>
> So you think the effort isn't worth it. What's a few cyclists?
>
> > Somehow I think the improvement and maintenance of a cycling
> > infrastructure should be the priority.
>
> Did you know that most cyclist accidents do not involve another vehicle?
>
> Theo

I agree Theo. That has been my experience.
Twice in 12months I fell off because of a recently washed out ridge
crossing onto a cycle path,
and then because of a breaking head stem on a main road. Fortunately I
fell like a sack of spuds
onto the cycle lane, and without following traffic which may well have
run right over me otherwise.

15 years ago i also fell a total of several times, all self inflicted,
once clipping a rear wheel in front in a bunch. Then twice I couldn't
avoid
other dizzy brained cyclists, once with a careless school boy about 13,
and again with a
confused Chinese girl student. The resulting head on crashes were bloody
awful,
but not one fall or crash was life threatening, just a mild nuisance,
like being tackled hard in a game of footy.

That used to happen many times in a game to me.

Last week I slowed right down to pass a young couple with a 3 year old
son on a small bike.
My sixth sense told me to slow, because the parents were not looking
very aware, even when i rang a bell.
Just as I slowed, little johnny zoomed across into my wheel, even though
I'd swung
out a couple of meters into the grass, and and I had to stop dead, and I
rolled off the bike onto grass
to avoid falling on top of the kid, who had no idea he's been a bit of a
nuisance.

Be those saturday ppl had a right to be there, and I have a duty of
care,
and so I had a chuckle to the parents, "perhaps i will leave it to you
to tell him something"
and off i went, green-kneed, but quite unhurt.

Lucky such cycle paths exist, with nice soft grass each side,
and generally one can swing out into the grass
if something happens, generally there is no harm done.

Patrick Turner.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:00:41 +1000
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
> I cycle 15km each way at the moment, but my last commute was nigh on 20km. I
> did it pretty easily and I'm a lazy fat boy.

depends on the commute I think.

Except for Mellville St, the Hill of Doom, all my current commute is
easy.

The previous one was a hell of a lot harder.

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
> > > aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.
> >
> > Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?
> No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
> taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
> indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
> to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.

Gees, your place of commuting is indeed bad.
The longest trip to get to work here could be about 45 minutes by car,
and it'd take at least twice than by bike.

But you forget one factor.

Add in the time taken to earn the money to pay for the motoring.
THEN the average time taken to do a distance becomes much greater,
and the bicycle wins easily.

No, I haven't forgotten that factor. That predicates that you don't own a car, which costs on average 250 bucks to run. Most people who ride to commute own a car as well, I'm not one of those although I have ready access to my wife's car.

Plus there's the `free' exercise time and that thing few of us do these days, time to oneself to think. I do a lot of thinking on my bike.

>
> > > in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die
> >
> > Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?
> Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
> matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
> got around and warranted no special consideration.
>
> If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
> at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
> higher than in Australai.

We have 60k in most built up areas, 50k on smaller suburb roads,
and up to 110k on freeways.[/quote]

Between 30 - 40 miles an hour on suburban roads, 60 miles an hour on arterials and 70 miles an hour on dual carraigeways / motorways.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

PiledHigher wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:16 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Did you know that most cyclist accidents do not involve another
>> vehicle?

> Bit most fatal ones do involve another vehicle.

I don't know. Do you have some stats on that?

Theo