Cyclist hit on beach road this morning 29/3/2006

On 2006-04-03, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Theo Bekkers wrote:
giantvaude wrote:

On the main paths around my area (Eastern Freeway,
Gardners Ck and Dandenong Ck around Box Hill and Vermont areas).
Especially in the tighter sections, plenty of cyclists ride too fast
considering that kids, dogs and granny's are to be expected on the
track also.

I'm sure the gov't response to that problem would be a Multinova.

For the viewers at home, Theo means a speed camera. In WA they call
them by the brand name of the camera.

Here I was, thinking of multiple stars undergoing deflagration. I
would consider that a valid solution to many a problem.

--
TimC
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Peter Signorini wrote:

There is a lot of high-tech transport research going on into just this
field. Who knows if it will prove to be of any benefit before petrol
gets to be more money than us mear mortals can afford to spend on
travel.
http://www.netspeed.com.au/cr/bicycle/its.htm

Still not sure just what is meant by mirror symmetry. And can all
these processes happen quicker than I can see and act?

Probably not. The question is would you trust a computet programmer with
your life?
I suspect that "Ideally, a bicycle-related ATIS system could provide
advanced knowledge of existing bikeways and potential hazards" this would
steer all cyclists onto shared-paths.
"(e.g., bicycle and transit permit), " oops!

It's going to be a lot of work pedaling hard enough to provide the power for
the on-board server.

Theo

"Bleve" wrote in message
oups.com...

Theo Bekkers wrote:
giantvaude wrote:

On the main paths around my area (Eastern Freeway,
Gardners Ck and Dandenong Ck around Box Hill and Vermont areas).
Especially in the tighter sections, plenty of cyclists ride too fast
considering that kids, dogs and granny's are to be expected on the
track also.

I'm sure the gov't response to that problem would be a Multinova.

For the viewers at home, Theo means a speed camera. In WA they call
them by the brand name of the camera.

Similar to them being called 'Gatsos' in the UK IIRC.

On 2006-04-03, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Probably not. The question is would you trust a computet programmer with
your life?
I suspect that "Ideally, a bicycle-related ATIS system could provide
advanced knowledge of existing bikeways and potential hazards" this would
steer all cyclists onto shared-paths.
"(e.g., bicycle and transit permit), " oops!

It's going to be a lot of work pedaling hard enough to provide the power for
the on-board server.

They wouldn't be making it out of AMD parts, silly.

--
TimC
Did you know that in German, Usenet bulletin boards are called
Gruppenareabrettecholistennetzs? - James "Kibo" Parry

Hey, if the oz.bicycle crowd have doubts, then you can imagine a pitch
to a corporate audience for funding :-) Lucky to get out of the room
alive...

But then, if we could make such a system that gave a much higher
degree of safety to cyclists, then this would be a great thing. Apart
from encouraging cyclists, it would reduce the burning of fossil fuels
dramatically.

Sometimes the unthinkable can happen. Nobody involved in the Internet
in the 1980's thought it would ever happen.

There are technical obstacles of a very high order, but also cultural
and psychological barriers.

I figure its worth a shot.

TimC wrote:

Did you know that in German, Usenet bulletin boards are called
Gruppenareabrettecholistennetzs? - James "Kibo" Parry

And the moderator would be an
OberGruppenfuehrergruppenareabrettecholistenneter?

Theo

AndrewJ wrote:

There are technical obstacles of a very high order, but also cultural
and psychological barriers.

I figure its worth a shot.

Technology is actually _not_ the solution to everything.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:


The question is would you trust a computet programmer with your life?

Could bring a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".


--
sinus

Hi Euan,

EuanB writes:

David Trudgett Wrote:
"Peter Signorini" writes:

IMHO, shared paths are more dangerous than most roads.

Agreed, very much so. Was simply using it as an example.

How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
shared paths in this country?

On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.

Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of them.



There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation of
the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or because the
shared path runs out.

So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
roads, and not shared pathway accidents.



I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half of
vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the road, shared
paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help but have multiple
intersections with roads, that makes them very dangerous constructs in
these environments.

Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop. This
applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to cyclists. No
one suggests that footpaths are "very dangerous constructs" because
they cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads, even
though precisely the same argument applies. Most pedestrians, I would
imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, would be killed at intersections or
while crossing roads, and not while blissfully walking down the
footpath, which in fact is a relatively safe place to be, generally
speaking. Crossing the road, on the other hand, is a different matter.

The cyclists and pedestrians who use shared pathways that have been
constructed with a modicum of common sense, are not in any great
danger. In fact, as a matter of my own personal opinion, it seems
fairly clear to me that they are in *less* danger using the pathways
than they would be using the roads, especially ma and pa wobbly
cyclists out with six and seven year old Bill and Jane.

Your point about the inevitability of multiple intersections with
roads is also questionable. [1] There are, for example, many dozens of
kilometres of shared pathway in my local region -- which is mostly an
urban and suburban region, by the way -- and one can cycle for 15km or
more without crossing a road. And furthermore, none of the crossings
that do exist and of which I am aware could be classified as
dangerous (no more dangerous than pedestrian crossings, anyway).

[1] I am going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't think
an intersection at the beginning and an intersection at the end
constitutes "multiple".


If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent
distance then that's a different scenario.

Yes, see above. You can't have it both ways, you know. :-) It can't be
both inevitable ("cannot help but have") while at the same time
admitting that it may be feasible to have point to point shared paths
of a "decent distance".



Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off road
cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the story's
very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a dozen
fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the road network.

At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
face. ;-)

In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
(the only information available to me at present) there was one
fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular barrow
to push, like the person responsible for this biased study [2]:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
are free of motor vehicular traffic.

[2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
statistics, don't we?

The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to show
the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between cycling
on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]

[3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_..._redway_system



Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as bicycle
networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made, both in the
attitude of the public, and by the designers of the redway system, is
that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a recreation, not as
transport. This mistake resulted in many design flaws in the redway
network, causing it to be largely ignored by commuters, and other
"serious" cyclists.

[4] Which only amounts to showing that one cannot just go around
saying as fact, rather than personal perception, that shared paths
are more dangerous than roads, particularly in Australia. There
are no credible statistics to back up such a claim.


David


--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once.

-- David Hume

David Trudgett wrote:
Hi Euan,

EuanB writes:


David Trudgett Wrote:

How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
shared paths in this country?

On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.


Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of
them.

There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation
of the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or
because the shared path runs out.


So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
roads, and not shared pathway accidents.



I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half
of vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the
road, shared paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help
but have multiple intersections with roads, that makes them very
dangerous constructs in these environments.


Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop.
This applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to
cyclists.

That's not correct. About half of cyclist / vehicle collisions occur
when a cyclist joins the road. That is distinct from merely negotiating
an intersection so it is different from motor vehicles.

No one suggests that footpaths are "very dangerous constructs"
because they cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads,
even though precisely the same argument applies.

That's not correct either. A cyclist can use the road as a part of
traffic whereas a pedestrian cannot so it's not precisely the same
argument.

Most pedestrians, I would imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, would be
killed at intersections or while crossing roads, and not while
blissfully walking down the footpath, which in fact is a relatively
safe place to be, generally speaking. Crossing the road, on the other
hand, is a different matter.

No idea. Seeing as I believe you're talking apples and oranges it's
irrelevant.


The cyclists and pedestrians who use shared pathways that have been
constructed with a modicum of common sense, are not in any great
danger. In fact, as a matter of my own personal opinion, it seems
fairly clear to me that they are in *less* danger using the pathways
than they would be using the roads, especially ma and pa wobbly
cyclists out with six and seven year old Bill and Jane.

I respectfully disagree.

A cyclist riding on the road as a part of traffic maintains its priority
over said intersections. Also these cyclists benefit from being highly
visible to other vehicles, allowing other vehicles to register their
presence and act accordingly.

A cyclist emerging from a shared path is an unpredictable event for
other road users and therefore hazardous.

Your point about the inevitability of multiple intersections with
roads is also questionable. [1] There are, for example, many dozens
of kilometres of shared pathway in my local region -- which is mostly
an urban and suburban region, by the way -- and one can cycle for
15km or more without crossing a road. And furthermore, none of the
crossings that do exist and of which I am aware could be classified
as dangerous (no more dangerous than pedestrian crossings, anyway).

Are you taking in to account all the driveways you pass on the shared
path? They're uncontrolled intersections as well and just as dangerous.

In Melbourne I've travelled on two off road bicycle paths. The sight
lines are awful and there are frequent uncontrolled intersections where
there is a duty of care on the cyclist to give way. There are some
intersections where the duty of care is on motor vehicles but it's a
foolish cyclist who trusts those directions.

The road poses no such impediments.

If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent
distance then that's a different scenario.


Yes, see above. You can't have it both ways, you know. :-) It can't
be both inevitable ("cannot help but have") while at the same time
admitting that it may be feasible to have point to point shared paths
of a "decent distance".

That's not correct. A shared path in the CBD has a much higher density
of buildings and roads, a shared path of 15kms without an intersection
is not feasible.

A shared path between two suburbs in suburbia could quite easily have a
decent distance without an intersection.



Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off
road cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the
story's very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a
dozen fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the
road network.


At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
face. ;-)

In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
(the only information available to me at present) there was one
fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular
barrow to push, like the person responsible for this biased study
[2]: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
are free of motor vehicular traffic.

You've just made my point for me. Five of the six cyclist / vehicle
collisions occurred at the intersections of roads with with the cycle
path. What more proof do you need that a cycle path crossing a road is
a dangerous construct?

[2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
statistics, don't we?

Yes, when they prove an answer contrary to what is desired that line
generally gets trotted out.

The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]

[3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_..._redway_system

OK, try this one then, different off road cycling network, different
country: http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/index.htm

Plenty more on that site as well.



Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as
bicycle networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made,
both in the attitude of the public, and by the designers of the
redway system, is that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a
recreation, not as transport. This mistake resulted in many design
flaws in the redway network, causing it to be largely ignored by
commuters, and other "serious" cyclists.

Which is the same problem that we have here in Victoria. It is openly
acknowledged that shared paths and off road bicycle lanes are primarily
for leisure and not for efficient transport.

My perception of shared paths and off road bicycle paths is that they
provide greater potential for incident. My perception of the roads is
that they provide a safe and convenient route for me for a-b in most
circumstances. Given that the off road cycling networks about 0.7% of
the road network that's hardly surprising.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)