survey on bike paths?
- Thread starter peterlip
- Start date
B
Bleve
Guest
peterlip wrote:
> Over heard a conversation in a bike shop tonight. There were people
> doing surveys on some bike paths today. However, I wasn't a very good
> eves dropper, so I don't know any details, where, when, why.
> Anyone stopped?
I saw a bunch of people in orange vests this week (maybe Wednesday?
Can't remember ...) around a lot of the bike paths. BV? Victoads? I
dunno ...
> Over heard a conversation in a bike shop tonight. There were people
> doing surveys on some bike paths today. However, I wasn't a very good
> eves dropper, so I don't know any details, where, when, why.
> Anyone stopped?
I saw a bunch of people in orange vests this week (maybe Wednesday?
Can't remember ...) around a lot of the bike paths. BV? Victoads? I
dunno ...
Bleve said:
hmmm
possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
OR
Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
was there one of these nearby?
http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
flyingdutch said:
I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are a good thing or not.
R
ray
Guest
cirrus wrote:
> flyingdutch Wrote:
>
>>hmmm
>>
>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>OR
>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>
>>was there one of these nearby?
>>
>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>
>
> I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
> research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
> bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
> your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
> a good thing or not.
>
>
This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
> flyingdutch Wrote:
>
>>hmmm
>>
>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>OR
>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>
>>was there one of these nearby?
>>
>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>
>
> I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
> research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
> bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
> your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
> a good thing or not.
>
>
This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
H
Hawkmoon
Guest
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
wrote:
>cirrus wrote:
>> flyingdutch Wrote:
>>
>>>hmmm
>>>
>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>OR
>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>
>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>
>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>
>>
>> I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>> research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>> bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>> your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>> a good thing or not.
>>
>>
>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
a bike every day.
wrote:
>cirrus wrote:
>> flyingdutch Wrote:
>>
>>>hmmm
>>>
>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>OR
>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>
>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>
>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>
>>
>> I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>> research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>> bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>> your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>> a good thing or not.
>>
>>
>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
a bike every day.
Hawkmoon said:
I guess it depends on the speed and volume of the traffic, as well as the condition of the roads. You might find peak hour traffic safer than riding on the roads on weekends since the speeds are often so much lower. Try riding to work at least once so you base your decision on experience as well as suspicion. You know you'd rather be riding!
Ritch
P
Peter Signorini
Guest
"Hawkmoon" wrote:
> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
Maximum speed limit on all roads in metropolitan area of 40kmh?
Change to the presumption of guilt in all accidents between motor vehicles
and cyclists/pedestrians so that car driver is at fault unless proved the
cyclist/ped was negligent?
Motor vehicles required to give way to cyclists at all times?
Would any of these entice you onto the road? For some ideas about actually
using the roads to commute, have a look at this:
http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=915&sid=370a615a1b324390c460395fa065ef6f
And as for the idiocy of bike paths have a lok at the photos on this. A real
laugh!
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
Maximum speed limit on all roads in metropolitan area of 40kmh?
Change to the presumption of guilt in all accidents between motor vehicles
and cyclists/pedestrians so that car driver is at fault unless proved the
cyclist/ped was negligent?
Motor vehicles required to give way to cyclists at all times?
Would any of these entice you onto the road? For some ideas about actually
using the roads to commute, have a look at this:
http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=915&sid=370a615a1b324390c460395fa065ef6f
And as for the idiocy of bike paths have a lok at the photos on this. A real
laugh!
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:10:20 +1000
Hawkmoon <[email protected]> wrote:
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
I think it depends a great deal on the roads.
When I was commuting from Merrylands to Silverwater, I didn't take the
route I took using the motorcycle. I took back roads and at one point
the footbridge over a railway line rather than the road bridge further
up.
After some experimentation I reduced it to 2 points where I had to be
on a trafficked road - one over a railway where the only footbridge
used stairs, and one section of Parramatta Road where I used what
passed for a footpath for about 300 yards. The bridge was scary for
the first few weeks, but gradually I got used to cars and they got
used to me - when you ride at the same time every day I think people
begin to expect you.
My current commute is a lot longer, but again I don't use the roads I
use on the motorcycle. I could use most of them, as someone else noted
the speeds in rush hour are much lower. But it is much easier for this
unfit little black duck to go down the small side streets which have
humps and junctions and meander some and thus aren't attractive to cars.
Sometimes it takes me a bit longer. For example, to get to the Summer
Hill roundabout and the underpass I use to get past the Burwood line,
I don't take the quick main route, I do a bit of bike path, then up some
side streets, cross the main route at a ped light, up more side street,
across along more back roads, then right at some lights to go down a
mainish road (and lose some of the ground I've gained) so as to duck
down more streets. It covers more ground, but it keeps me off a busy
road with buses and impatient bus and right-hand-turner avoiding cars
so the extra 400 yards or so isn't a problem. The couple of hundred on
the mainish road is sometimes a bit scary, but in the morning that bit's
usually lightly trafficked and the lane is wide, so no real problem.
And no side roads from where I join to where I leave, which is important.
Same on the whole of my commute. I take roads I'd never consider if
on the motorcycle, and no one considers in a car. There are a couple
more short bits where I do have to go on main roads, but they don't
take long, the traffic speed is slow, and the roads are wide (for
Sydney).
Most of the route I take I got from a book of such things for Sydney,
others I got from other riders who said "try this instead, I think
it's better." When I worked out the Silverwater commute I just rode
about on the motorcycle one weekend, looking for suitable routes which
is how I found the footbridge with ramp, in a suburb I'd never been in
before, nor had any reason to go to.
So before thinking traffic's going to make it hard, have a bit of a
poke around for commuting backroads.
Zebee
Hawkmoon <[email protected]> wrote:
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
I think it depends a great deal on the roads.
When I was commuting from Merrylands to Silverwater, I didn't take the
route I took using the motorcycle. I took back roads and at one point
the footbridge over a railway line rather than the road bridge further
up.
After some experimentation I reduced it to 2 points where I had to be
on a trafficked road - one over a railway where the only footbridge
used stairs, and one section of Parramatta Road where I used what
passed for a footpath for about 300 yards. The bridge was scary for
the first few weeks, but gradually I got used to cars and they got
used to me - when you ride at the same time every day I think people
begin to expect you.
My current commute is a lot longer, but again I don't use the roads I
use on the motorcycle. I could use most of them, as someone else noted
the speeds in rush hour are much lower. But it is much easier for this
unfit little black duck to go down the small side streets which have
humps and junctions and meander some and thus aren't attractive to cars.
Sometimes it takes me a bit longer. For example, to get to the Summer
Hill roundabout and the underpass I use to get past the Burwood line,
I don't take the quick main route, I do a bit of bike path, then up some
side streets, cross the main route at a ped light, up more side street,
across along more back roads, then right at some lights to go down a
mainish road (and lose some of the ground I've gained) so as to duck
down more streets. It covers more ground, but it keeps me off a busy
road with buses and impatient bus and right-hand-turner avoiding cars
so the extra 400 yards or so isn't a problem. The couple of hundred on
the mainish road is sometimes a bit scary, but in the morning that bit's
usually lightly trafficked and the lane is wide, so no real problem.
And no side roads from where I join to where I leave, which is important.
Same on the whole of my commute. I take roads I'd never consider if
on the motorcycle, and no one considers in a car. There are a couple
more short bits where I do have to go on main roads, but they don't
take long, the traffic speed is slow, and the roads are wide (for
Sydney).
Most of the route I take I got from a book of such things for Sydney,
others I got from other riders who said "try this instead, I think
it's better." When I worked out the Silverwater commute I just rode
about on the motorcycle one weekend, looking for suitable routes which
is how I found the footbridge with ramp, in a suburb I'd never been in
before, nor had any reason to go to.
So before thinking traffic's going to make it hard, have a bit of a
poke around for commuting backroads.
Zebee
E
Euan
Guest
Hawkmoon wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>cirrus wrote:
>>
>>>flyingdutch Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>hmmm
>>>>
>>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>>OR
>>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>>
>>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>>>research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>>>bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>>>your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>>>a good thing or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
>
>
>
> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
Frankly that is a tragedy.
The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
slightly at that.
Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
experience.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>cirrus wrote:
>>
>>>flyingdutch Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>hmmm
>>>>
>>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>>OR
>>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>>
>>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>>>research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>>>bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>>>your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>>>a good thing or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
>
>
>
> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
Frankly that is a tragedy.
The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
slightly at that.
Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
experience.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
E
Euan
Guest
Hawkmoon wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>cirrus wrote:
>>
>>>flyingdutch Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>hmmm
>>>>
>>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>>OR
>>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>>
>>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>>>research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>>>bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>>>your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>>>a good thing or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
>
>
>
> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
Frankly that is a tragedy.
The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
slightly at that.
Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
experience.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>cirrus wrote:
>>
>>>flyingdutch Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>hmmm
>>>>
>>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>>OR
>>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>>
>>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>>>research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>>>bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>>>your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>>>a good thing or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
>
>
>
> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
> a bike every day.
Frankly that is a tragedy.
The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
slightly at that.
Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
experience.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
I feel MUCH less safe on a shared bike path. Peds, dogs, rollerbladers, plus oncoming cyclists dodging aforestated make path riding quite "interesting" at times.Hawkmoon said:
At least on the road you are moving with the traffic, can place yourself in such a position that other traffic moves around you and you can concentrate only on car dors and senile old fools reversing out in front of you.
H
Hawkmoon
Guest
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:42:57 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hawkmoon wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>cirrus wrote:
>>>
>>>>flyingdutch Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>hmmm
>>>>>
>>>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>>>OR
>>>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>>>
>>>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>>>>research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>>>>bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>>>>your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>>>>a good thing or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>>>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>>>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>>>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>>>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>>>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>>>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
>>
>>
>>
>> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
>> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
>> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
>> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
>> a bike every day.
>
>Frankly that is a tragedy.
>
>The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
>is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
>slightly at that.
>
>Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
>than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
>benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
>of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
>
>If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
>training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
>Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
>the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
>experience.
I'm sure you will be pleased to know I don't drive to work, I take the
train.
>Hawkmoon wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:25:55 +1000, ray <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>cirrus wrote:
>>>
>>>>flyingdutch Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>hmmm
>>>>>
>>>>>possibly BV following up 'light-usage' survey
>>>>>OR
>>>>>Vicroads doing eyeball confirmation of new BikeCounterLoop stats
>>>>>
>>>>>was there one of these nearby?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/loops.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was given a survey on the Footscray Rd Path on Tuesday(?). It was a
>>>>research project from Monash uni. Basic drift of the survey was if the
>>>>bike/shared path you were riding on didn't exist would you still ride
>>>>your bike. I guess it was trying to figure out whether shared paths are
>>>>a good thing or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is actually disgusting. What they are really trying to do is
>>>provide a statistical basis for constructing more bike-paths which are
>>>essentially of main use to Sunday afternoon cyclists, and useless for
>>>commuters and shoppers, at the expense of on-road facilities, which of
>>>course clash with the Great God Car. I wouldn't fall for this bilge, and
>>>Alan Parker's response could probably be summed up in one word, four or
>>>eight letters, and I totally agree with him.
>>
>>
>>
>> As one of your "Sunday afternoon cyclists" I know what my answer will
>> be if I am asked. If they built bike paths that I could actually use
>> to get to work, I would ride to work, but I don't think there is
>> anything they could do to the roads to entice me to risk the roads on
>> a bike every day.
>
>Frankly that is a tragedy.
>
>The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
>is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
>slightly at that.
>
>Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
>than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
>benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
>of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
>
>If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
>training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
>Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
>the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
>experience.
I'm sure you will be pleased to know I don't drive to work, I take the
train.
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 8 Apr 2006 17:17:18 +1000
steve46au <[email protected]> wrote:
> I feel MUCH less safe on a shared bike path. Peds, dogs, rollerbladers,
> plus oncoming cyclists dodging aforestated make path riding quite
> "interesting" at times.
Most of the time it's OK. The other day a couple of brainless young
lads on BMX/Freestyle bikes riding abreast towards me taking the whole
path, and both looking at each other, or over to the side, never once
looking ahead.
I waited and waited, till finally I yelled "Oy! Watch where you are
going!" and the one on my side looked frontwards, saw me, jerked wildly
and nearly crashed into his mate
He did have the grace to mutter "sorry" as we passed.
Come to think of it, in a head on like that I suspect the battering
ram with attached scythe that forms the front of a bent might inflict
some interesting damage!
Especially if I unclip and get my legs out of the way as it strikes.
Zebee
steve46au <[email protected]> wrote:
> I feel MUCH less safe on a shared bike path. Peds, dogs, rollerbladers,
> plus oncoming cyclists dodging aforestated make path riding quite
> "interesting" at times.
Most of the time it's OK. The other day a couple of brainless young
lads on BMX/Freestyle bikes riding abreast towards me taking the whole
path, and both looking at each other, or over to the side, never once
looking ahead.
I waited and waited, till finally I yelled "Oy! Watch where you are
going!" and the one on my side looked frontwards, saw me, jerked wildly
and nearly crashed into his mate
He did have the grace to mutter "sorry" as we passed.
Come to think of it, in a head on like that I suspect the battering
ram with attached scythe that forms the front of a bent might inflict
some interesting damage!
Especially if I unclip and get my legs out of the way as it strikes.
Zebee
T
Terry Collins
Guest
Euan wrote:
> The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
> is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
> slightly at that.
It isn't the "risk" that is the real problem, but the "expectation", to
misuse my limited statistics jargon. When you do hit pay dirt, the
consequence can be very damaging.
General attitudes are not helped by the continual posting of "damages i
sustained" each week.
> The risks of cycling on the road are grossly over stated. At worst it
> is slightly more dangerous than driving on the roads, and only very
> slightly at that.
It isn't the "risk" that is the real problem, but the "expectation", to
misuse my limited statistics jargon. When you do hit pay dirt, the
consequence can be very damaging.
General attitudes are not helped by the continual posting of "damages i
sustained" each week.
P
persia
Guest
Well they were handing them out on Canning Street (not a bike path), so
I don't think that was the case at all.
But nice guess Ray. After all, "they" have it in for "us", for sure,
"everyone" knows that.
I don't think that was the case at all.
But nice guess Ray. After all, "they" have it in for "us", for sure,
"everyone" knows that.
persia said:
Ah yes, the Conspiracy Theorists are out! By the way, while at a Yarra Council forum on getting kiddies to use sustainable transport to & from school we enjoyed a presentation from Constable Brett Harman. Now in a piece of news that will have a few folks gasping, the name of John Forester was invoked. Yep, he mentioned he was influenced by Foresters "Effective Cycling".
http://www.johnforester.com/
Not sure how this view is reconciled with Foresters attitude towards bicycle infrastructure, but it nevertheless impressed me. Now can we all move on and cease dredging up petty disputes that have well run their course? Ta.
cirrus said:
WHOA NELLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
one person makes an assumption and you all go troppo over paths versus onroad!?!?!?!?!?!?
i could 'almost' guarantee tha tany kind of survey (especially if involving uni-types) will be far more likely to involve pro-cycling initiatives rathr than the rather blind/large asumptions than you all seem to be clutching at currently!
perhaps we should try a pretending of throwing cyclists overboard and then denying it...
E
Euan
Guest
Hawkmoon wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:42:57 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
>>than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
>>benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
>>of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
>>
>>If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
>>training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
>>Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
>>the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
>>experience.
>
>
>
> I'm sure you will be pleased to know I don't drive to work, I take the
> train.
Well it's better than driving but no substitute for cycling. Cycling is
much more fun than riding on the train could ever be.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:42:57 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cycling on the roads is a normal practice. It's no more risk taking
>>than walking on the pavement or driving your car. Given that the
>>benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 choosing to drive instead
>>of ride is a poor decision if based solely on risk reduction.
>>
>>If you feel that your skills are not up to the job then get some
>>training, I understand that Kathy Watt runs courses and there's the
>>Cog's Girls rides on Saturday mornings. Realizing that you can ride on
>>the roads as a part of your normal activities is a very liberating
>>experience.
>
>
>
> I'm sure you will be pleased to know I don't drive to work, I take the
> train.
Well it's better than driving but no substitute for cycling. Cycling is
much more fun than riding on the train could ever be.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
