We all know bike lanes are (generally) useless, but....

[LotteBum]

I’m not entirely sure about the rest of the country, but here in Brisbane, most people are pretty thick. This does not exclude our beloved Council and Main Roads w@nkers who place bike lanes for up to 20 metres here and there to keep cyclists happy.



Very recently, a bike lane has been added on Hyde Road (Yeronga), where it intersects with Ispwich Road (T Intersection). For those who don’t know this intersection, basically the cars line up side by side in one lane, as those who turn left get a green arrow well before those turning right get a green light. That makes perfect sense to me.



The new bike lane has been placed to the very left of the lane and in the short time it has been there (maybe 6 weeks), I’ve not seen one motorist avoid sitting in it. But it’s not the motorists I’m annoyed at. It’s Council, for putting it there! I’m not entirely sure how I am supposed to make use of this bike lane, given that I turn right at the intersection and don’t want to get run over by those who are turning left (like I said, they get a green arrow well before those who are turning right).



If I’m not making any sense, e-mail me (lottehougaard at resortbrokers dot com dot au) and I’ll send you a diagram of the intersection to clarify it.



I don’t mind sitting to the right of the intersection, with all the cars turning right, but the bike lane has caused a couple of hiccups where drivers have indicated to me that I should be in the bike lane.



Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?

 

[AndrewJ]

Yeah, drop them a line. Say: hey guys, your bicycle lane is useless.

I tried a while ago to stop cars <parking> in one bicycle lane that I
use. To me, the idea of using a bike lane for parking was not a real
smart use of the resource. But no, apparently there aren't many cars
parking in the bike lane, so let's just let it go.

Takes large folder. Whacks self on head. Chants "people are stupid,
stupid..."

LotteBum wrote:
> ::I'm not entirely sure about the rest of the country, but here in
> Brisbane, most people are pretty thick. This does not exclude our
> beloved Council and Main Roads w@nkers who place bike lanes for up to
> 20 metres here and there to keep cyclists happy.::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::Very recently, a bike lane has been added on Hyde Road (Yeronga),
> where it intersects with Ispwich Road (T Intersection). For those who
> don't know this intersection, basically the cars line up side by side
> in one lane, as those who turn left get a green arrow well before those
> turning right get a green light. That makes perfect sense to me. ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::The new bike lane has been placed to the very left of the lane and in
> the short time it has been there (maybe 6 weeks), I've not seen one
> motorist avoid sitting in it. But it's not the motorists I'm annoyed
> at. It's Council, for putting it there! I'm not entirely sure how I
> am supposed to make use of this bike lane, given that I turn right at
> the intersection and don't want to get run over by those who are
> turning left (like I said, they get a green arrow well before those who
> are turning right). ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::If I'm not making any sense, e-mail me (lottehougaard at
> resortbrokers dot com dot au) and I'll send you a diagram of the
> intersection to clarify it. ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::I don't mind sitting to the right of the intersection, with all the
> cars turning right, but the bike lane has caused a couple of hiccups
> where drivers have indicated to me that I should be in the bike lane.
> ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?::
>
>
> --
> LotteBum

 

[warrwych]

I’m not entirely sure about the rest of the country, but here in Brisbane, most people are pretty thick. This does not exclude our beloved Council and Main Roads w@nkers who place bike lanes for up to 20 metres here and there to keep cyclists happy.



Very recently, a bike lane has been added on Hyde Road (Yeronga), where it intersects with Ispwich Road (T Intersection). For those who don’t know this intersection, basically the cars line up side by side in one lane, as those who turn left get a green arrow well before those turning right get a green light. That makes perfect sense to me.



The new bike lane has been placed to the very left of the lane and in the short time it has been there (maybe 6 weeks), I’ve not seen one motorist avoid sitting in it. But it’s not the motorists I’m annoyed at. It’s Council, for putting it there! I’m not entirely sure how I am supposed to make use of this bike lane, given that I turn right at the intersection and don’t want to get run over by those who are turning left (like I said, they get a green arrow well before those who are turning right).



If I’m not making any sense, e-mail me (lottehougaard at resortbrokers dot com dot au) and I’ll send you a diagram of the intersection to clarify it.



I don’t mind sitting to the right of the intersection, with all the cars turning right, but the bike lane has caused a couple of hiccups where drivers have indicated to me that I should be in the bike lane.



Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?

Sounds to me like 1) the bike lane shouldnt be there and 2) the general logic of motorists who think that if there is a painting of a bike on a flat bit of bitumen or concrete, then that's where all bikes should be and stay, irrespective of any need to turn left or right, or go elsewhere, as the case may be.

Bike lanes (and paths) are a double edged sword. They provide for governmental types evidence of fiscal expenditure and due care for citizens; provide an often "safe" haven for cyclists mixing it with traffic; and a reason for motorists to become indignant at having to share the road with cyclists (ie when there are perfectly good, specific facilities otherwise provided for cyclists ie marked lanes). So to me, your problem is a combination of poorly thought out planning and misconceived driver logic.

 

[cfsmtb]

Hrrrmm - got pix? Does QLD have the equivalent of VicRoads Cycle Notes series?
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/VRNE...08142E7-5932FCD44F312390CA256FE10042BC63?open

Another tip, have a peruse through the Bikeability Toolkit, as the lazy gits here:

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/index/cycling_resourcepack

.. don't give you a direct link to here:

http://www.travelsmart.gov.au/bikeability/index.html

Oh why aren't I surprised at that ...

BTW - nice letter writing tips here. Saw off shottie optional for later if adequate followup is lacking?
http://www.woj.com.au/resources-and-support/letter-writing-guide/

 

[vintage]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hrrrmm - got pix? Does QLD have the equivalent of VicRoads Cycle Notes
> series?
> http://tinyurl.com/esa9z
>
> Another tip, have a peruse through the Bikeability Toolkit, as the lazy
> gits here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zdxqm
>
> . don't give you a direct link to here:
>
> http://www.travelsmart.gov.au/bikeability/index.html
>
> Oh why aren't I surprised at that ...
>
> BTW - nice letter writing tips here. Saw off shottie optional for later
> if adequate followup is lacking?
> http://www.woj.com.au/resources-and-support/letter-writing-guide/
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb


We have the same problem on Swanston st at the corner of Latrobe st facing
south. One lane for cars turns left AND right and a bike lane to the left.
All day there are cars siiting on the gutter waiting to turn left.

Bike lanes seem to reek of tokenism. Rarely thought out well at all.
>

 

[Friday]

LotteBum wrote:
> ::I’m not entirely sure about the rest of the country, but here in
> Brisbane, most people are pretty thick. This does not exclude our
> beloved Council and Main Roads w@nkers who place bike lanes for up to
> 20 metres here and there to keep cyclists happy.::

Lotte you have to remember that by definition 50% of the population has
below average IQ. More importantly, about 99% of the population don't
see the bike culture as you do, and you can't change that by working
against people but you must coax them, lead them to make better decions
and you can only do that by getting involved in the decion making
process. The world is run by people who turn up to meetings.

Friday

>
> :: ::
>
> ::Very recently, a bike lane has been added on Hyde Road (Yeronga),
> where it intersects with Ispwich Road (T Intersection). For those who
> don’t know this intersection, basically the cars line up side by side
> in one lane, as those who turn left get a green arrow well before those
> turning right get a green light. That makes perfect sense to me. ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::The new bike lane has been placed to the very left of the lane and in
> the short time it has been there (maybe 6 weeks), I’ve not seen one
> motorist avoid sitting in it. But it’s not the motorists I’m annoyed
> at. It’s Council, for putting it there! I’m not entirely sure how I
> am supposed to make use of this bike lane, given that I turn right at
> the intersection and don’t want to get run over by those who are
> turning left (like I said, they get a green arrow well before those who
> are turning right). ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::If I’m not making any sense, e-mail me (lottehougaard at
> resortbrokers dot com dot au) and I’ll send you a diagram of the
> intersection to clarify it. ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::I don’t mind sitting to the right of the intersection, with all the
> cars turning right, but the bike lane has caused a couple of hiccups
> where drivers have indicated to me that I should be in the bike lane.
> ::
>
> :: ::
>
> ::Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?::
>
>

 

[adam85]

I’m not entirely sure about the rest of the country, but here in Brisbane, most people are pretty thick. This does not exclude our beloved Council and Main Roads w@nkers who place bike lanes for up to 20 metres here and there to keep cyclists happy.



Very recently, a bike lane has been added on Hyde Road (Yeronga), where it intersects with Ispwich Road (T Intersection). For those who don’t know this intersection, basically the cars line up side by side in one lane, as those who turn left get a green arrow well before those turning right get a green light. That makes perfect sense to me.



The new bike lane has been placed to the very left of the lane and in the short time it has been there (maybe 6 weeks), I’ve not seen one motorist avoid sitting in it. But it’s not the motorists I’m annoyed at. It’s Council, for putting it there! I’m not entirely sure how I am supposed to make use of this bike lane, given that I turn right at the intersection and don’t want to get run over by those who are turning left (like I said, they get a green arrow well before those who are turning right).



If I’m not making any sense, e-mail me (lottehougaard at resortbrokers dot com dot au) and I’ll send you a diagram of the intersection to clarify it.



I don’t mind sitting to the right of the intersection, with all the cars turning right, but the bike lane has caused a couple of hiccups where drivers have indicated to me that I should be in the bike lane.



Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?

Both. But Lotte, do you mean Fairfield Rd not Ipswich Rd? This one?(googlemap link)
http://tinyurl.com/fcwkw

It is annoying, I would just stay right out of that mess, and take the lane. If you get **** from drivers, just tell 'em to stay out of the bike lane. Let council know how stupid it is. I'm not sure the alternative where the bike lane is in between the left turn and straight lanes is any better either. Poor drivers just get too confused. Just let me share the road and decide where I should be and I'm happy.

I've got a road like this on my commute home at Wilston (googlemap link)
http://tinyurl.com/ppce3

There is a glasslane (sorry bikelane) all the way up Kedron Brook Rd. Once you pass all the cafes and shops where people park in the bikelane and try to door you, you go up the hill to a roundabout where you can see a bus in the image. Cars enter the bikelane from about 100m away and just sit there in a traffic jam as 90% of cars are turning left. I just claim the lane and then turn right. The thing that makes me laugh is instead of sitting there for ages, they could stay in the empty car lane and make a 270 turn and have right of way over all the people in the bike lane It's a dogdy roundabout too, a real mr magoo magnet.

Adam

 

[Tamyka Bell]

LotteBum wrote:
<snip>
> ::Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?::

Yes, and yes. They should be used to both by now

I too hate the token Bne bike lanes, although did you know
that part of Wynnum Rd has bike lanes that are clearways
during peak hour for cyclists? No dodging the parked cars -
you can actually use the lane - fancy that! Now THAT is
cool, a big thanks to whoever was responsible for getting
that done.

T

 

[Tamyka Bell]

adam85 wrote:
<snip>
> just claim the lane and then turn right. The thing that makes me laugh
> is instead of sitting there for ages, they could stay in the empty car
> lane and make a 270 turn and have right of way over all the people in
> the bike lane It's a dogdy roundabout too, a real mr magoo magnet.

Oooh - that's what I used to do all the time heading from
Miskin St to Mt Coot-tha Rd, at the big Toowong roundabout!
Hehehehehe...

Tam

 

[LotteBum]

Both. But Lotte, do you mean Fairfield Rd not Ipswich Rd? This one?(googlemap link)http://tinyurl.com/fcwkw

Nope. For some reason, Google refers to it as School Road (it is actually Hyde Road)....

It is annoying, I would just stay right out of that mess, and take the lane. If you get **** from drivers, just tell 'em to stay out of the bike lane.

But even using the bike lane would be dangerous as I'm turning right, but people turning left would go around me in the bike lane. What a joke!

Let council know how stupid it is. I'm not sure the alternative where the bike lane is in between the left turn and straight lanes is any better either. Poor drivers just get too confused. Just let me share the road and decide where I should be and I'm happy.

I'm with you. I'm not big on bike lanes, nor bike tracks. Bike tracks are good for Joe Blow who wants to ride 10km to work and for people with their kids, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist... but bike lanes are another story. A complete joke if you ask me.

 

[osc]

The thing that makes me laugh is instead of sitting there for ages, they could stay in the empty car lane and make a 270 turn and have right of way over all the people in the bike lane It's a dogdy roundabout too, a real mr magoo magnet.

Adam[/QUOTE]

Hey Adam, stop giving away my time saving ideas!. If I am going through that roundabout (in car) and the traffic is built up this is my primary strategy. Works a real treat. Never actually seen a bike in the bike lane there...only cars

Stewart

 

[TimC]

On 2006-10-03, Friday (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Lotte you have to remember that by definition 50% of the population has
> below average IQ.

It's not, actually.

The Intelligence Quotient curve is not exactly a bell curve,
particularly outside the range of 75<IQ<125, and is not symmetrical
about 100 -- you can have IQs above 200, but you can't have IQs below
0. An IQ of 100 is the mean IQ of the population. Sum up the entire
population, those skewed towards the low end because of brain damage,
and those children skewed towards the high end because of (mental)
growth spurts, divide by the number of the population, and end up with
100. But a number different to half of the population is above and
below an IQ of 100.

;{P <- winking toffer with a mistache and tongue poking out.
He's a professor.

--
TimC
No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great
programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage
cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their
operating system. -- Bill Gates

 

[adam85]

Nope. For some reason, Google refers to it as School Road (it is actually Hyde Road)....

Ah ok don't really know that intersection.

Adam wrote:
>It is annoying, I would just stay right out of that mess,
>and take the lane. If you get **** from drivers, just tell
>'em to stay out of the bike lane.

But even using the bike lane would be dangerous as I'm turning right, but people turning left would go around me in the bike lane. What a joke!

I meant stay in the right hand lane not the bikelane, but yeah it's a bugger for sure.

Adam

 

[DeF]

TimC wrote:

> On 2006-10-03, Friday (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Lotte you have to remember that by definition 50% of the population has
>>below average IQ.
>
>
> It's not, actually.
>
> The Intelligence Quotient curve is not exactly a bell curve,
> particularly outside the range of 75<IQ<125, and is not symmetrical
> about 100 -- you can have IQs above 200, but you can't have IQs below
> 0. An IQ of 100 is the mean IQ of the population. Sum up the entire
> population, those skewed towards the low end because of brain damage,
> and those children skewed towards the high end because of (mental)
> growth spurts, divide by the number of the population, and end up with
> 100. But a number different to half of the population is above and
> below an IQ of 100.
>
> ;{P <- winking toffer with a mistache and tongue poking out.
> He's a professor.
>

This is not quite how it works. As I understand it, IQ (your
mental age divided by your chronological age multiplied by 100)
is *defined* to be normal with mean 100 and standard deviation
about 15 or 16 (definitions vary). Even though as TimC says,
you can have an IQ above 200 but not below 0, the results are scaled
so that they fit a normal curve. In practice, this asymmetry doesn't
mean much as the tails (ie near zero and high above 100) are so
many standard deviations away from the mean that they have no
practical effect. Using a SD of 15 means that about 99.999971%
of the population have an IQ of less than 175. Of course, the
rest of the population above 175 ride bikes and post to a.b

DeF.

--
e-mail: d.farrow@your finger.murdoch.edu.au
To reply, you'll have to remove your finger.

 

[Friday]

DeF wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> On 2006-10-03, Friday (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>> Lotte you have to remember that by definition 50% of the population
>>> has below average IQ.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not, actually.
>>
>> The Intelligence Quotient curve is not exactly a bell curve,
>> particularly outside the range of 75<IQ<125, and is not symmetrical
>> about 100 -- you can have IQs above 200, but you can't have IQs below
>> 0. An IQ of 100 is the mean IQ of the population. Sum up the entire
>> population, those skewed towards the low end because of brain damage,
>> and those children skewed towards the high end because of (mental)
>> growth spurts, divide by the number of the population, and end up with
>> 100. But a number different to half of the population is above and
>> below an IQ of 100.
>>
>> ;{P <- winking toffer with a mistache and tongue poking out.
>> He's a professor.
>>
>
> This is not quite how it works. As I understand it, IQ (your
> mental age divided by your chronological age multiplied by 100)
> is *defined* to be normal with mean 100 and standard deviation
> about 15 or 16 (definitions vary). Even though as TimC says,
> you can have an IQ above 200 but not below 0, the results are scaled
> so that they fit a normal curve. In practice, this asymmetry doesn't
> mean much as the tails (ie near zero and high above 100) are so
> many standard deviations away from the mean that they have no
> practical effect. Using a SD of 15 means that about 99.999971%
> of the population have an IQ of less than 175. Of course, the
> rest of the population above 175 ride bikes and post to a.b
>
> DeF.
>

You both missed the tricky part, I didn't say below an IQ of 100, I said
"below average". And whilst my definition of average is not according to
the statistical definition, most people would agree that average is in
"the middle".

Friday

 

[LotteBum]

You both missed the tricky part, I didn't say below an IQ of 100, I said "below average". And whilst my definition of average is not according to
the statistical definition, most people would agree that average is in "the middle".

That's how I read it. Stop being so picky, boys!!

Lotte

 

[ghostgum]

DeF wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> On 2006-10-03, Friday (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>> Lotte you have to remember that by definition 50% of the population
>>> has below average IQ.
>>
>> It's not, actually.

You both missed the tricky part, I didn't say below an IQ of 100, I said
"below average". And whilst my definition of average is not according to
the statistical definition, most people would agree that average is in
"the middle".

Friday

Which average did you mean? The mean, the median or the mode? Average is usually taken to be the mean. If it is a symetric bell curve, then the mean and the median are the same. In any case, 50% are below the median.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-10-04, LotteBum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Friday Wrote:
>> You both missed the tricky part, I didn't say below an IQ of 100, I said
>> "below average". And whilst my definition of average is not according to
>> the statistical definition, most people would agree that average is in
>> "the middle".
> That's how I read it. Stop being so picky, boys!!

Multiple exclamation marks. A sure sign of insanity.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[DeF]

Friday wrote:

> DeF wrote:
>
>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-10-03, Friday (aka Bruce)
>>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>>
>>>> Lotte you have to remember that by definition 50% of the population
>>>> has below average IQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not, actually.
>>>
>>> The Intelligence Quotient curve is not exactly a bell curve,
>>> particularly outside the range of 75<IQ<125, and is not symmetrical
>>> about 100 -- you can have IQs above 200, but you can't have IQs below
>>> 0. An IQ of 100 is the mean IQ of the population. Sum up the entire
>>> population, those skewed towards the low end because of brain damage,
>>> and those children skewed towards the high end because of (mental)
>>> growth spurts, divide by the number of the population, and end up with
>>> 100. But a number different to half of the population is above and
>>> below an IQ of 100.
>>>
>>> ;{P <- winking toffer with a mistache and tongue poking out.
>>> He's a professor.
>>>
>>
>> This is not quite how it works. As I understand it, IQ (your
>> mental age divided by your chronological age multiplied by 100)
>> is *defined* to be normal with mean 100 and standard deviation
>> about 15 or 16 (definitions vary). Even though as TimC says,
>> you can have an IQ above 200 but not below 0, the results are scaled
>> so that they fit a normal curve. In practice, this asymmetry doesn't
>> mean much as the tails (ie near zero and high above 100) are so
>> many standard deviations away from the mean that they have no
>> practical effect. Using a SD of 15 means that about 99.999971%
>> of the population have an IQ of less than 175. Of course, the
>> rest of the population above 175 ride bikes and post to a.b
>>
>> DeF.
>>
>
> You both missed the tricky part, I didn't say below an IQ of 100, I said
> "below average". And whilst my definition of average is not according to
> the statistical definition, most people would agree that average is in
> "the middle".
>
> Friday

Alright, I'll bite. My post was about TimC's discussion of IQ.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "the" statistical
definition of "average".

There are three different "averages" that get bandied about:
The "mean" (usually the arithmetic mean but not always),
the "median" (the value that splits the population into two
equal parts) and the "mode" (the value that has the highest
frequency). These are all the same for unimodal symmetric
distributions, such as the normal distribution.

It's interesting that you often hear about the "median house
price" but about the "average wage". Both talking about money
but for different things. For wages, the average wage is
greater than the median wage. This is because there is a long,
flattish tail of high earners.

Most of the time when you read "average" in the newspaper, they
are talking about the arithmetic mean of a sample of some kind.
Even this is a bit tricky as the mean may have been weighted or
normalised in some weird unexplained way. There might have been
some excising of "outliers" that is not mentioned. The raw
data may have been "filtered" or "scaled" prior to averaging,
again, usually not explained or mentioned in a report.

I am instinctively suspicious of any statistical results that
are published in newspapers or magazines. I know that even
in peer reviewed scientific journals (which are supposed to
guard against mistakes and misleading results) rubbish statistics
get used. The stuff that isn't checked by an independent
vetter must be viewed with deep suspicion. It's not that
the conclusion drawn from the data is necessarily wrong, just that
the data doesn't support the conclusion as much as it is
proposed to.

That's enough of me ranting for today.

DeF

--
e-mail: d.farrow@your finger.murdoch.edu.au
To reply, you'll have to remove your finger.

 

[Gemma_k]

"Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LotteBum wrote:
> <snip>
>> ::Should I drop Council a line, or am I *****ing and moaning?::
>
> Yes, and yes. They should be used to both by now
>
> I too hate the token Bne bike lanes, although did you know
> that part of Wynnum Rd has bike lanes that are clearways
> during peak hour for cyclists? No dodging the parked cars -
> you can actually use the lane - fancy that! Now THAT is
> cool, a big thanks to whoever was responsible for getting
> that done.

That's what ALL bicycle lanes are supposed to be like! One that has parking
in it just isn't a bike lane either my aust standards or the road rules - so
don't go tarnishing those that are real ones with your pretend brisbane
ones.

Gemm bobthebikelanebuilder