Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

EuanB Wrote:
That's not correct. A furphy a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable
story (Wikipedia). I've been learning these things see, in preperation
for becoming a citizen :-)

Stating that many examples of seperated facilities are detrimental to
the safety of cyclists is neither erroneous or improbable. It has been
demonstrated several times in several contries.

In the context of providing bicycle facilities that people *want*, it
is a furphy. A furphy that keeps stymieing good debate and doesn't
allow for alternative solutions to develop. Shared paths may have a
higher probability of risk, and also contribute to some cyclists having
a lower skills base. Riding onroad is far better, where applicable, but
only if the rider has attained confidence and good skills base.
Continually quoting the risk percentage of offroad facilities isn't
going to solve anything, unless it's correctly utilised in context to
provide safer, adequate access for all users.

For instance, instead of quoting wiki, maybe you should try attending a
couple of transport-themed public consultations, such as local council,
bicycle advisory committees, local road safety councils or BUG meetings
and see what being said on many different levels. Put simply it doesn't
matter how damn good onroad facilities actually are, a high percentage
of potential bicycle riders *will not ever* ride on the road. And until
that utopian vision of peaceful shared road co-existance does develop,
the needs of these potential bicycle riders will have to be listened
to.


--
cfsmtb

cfsmtb Wrote:
In the context of providing bicycle facilities that people *want*, it is
a furphy.

I disagree. It's not a rumor that cyclepaths are in many cases riskier
and it's not inaccurate, therefore it's not a furphy. You used the
wrong word. That's OK, it happens to all of us.


cfsmtb Wrote:
For instance, instead of quoting wiki, maybe you should try attending a
couple of transport-themed public consultations, such as local council,
bicycle advisory committees, local road safety councils or BUG meetings
and see what being said on many different levels.

Yep, done all that.


cfsmtb Wrote:
Put simply it doesn't matter how damn good onroad facilities actually
are, a high percentage of potential bicycle riders *will not ever* ride
on the road. And until that utopian vision of peaceful shared road
co-existance does develop, the needs of these potential bicycle riders
will have to be listened to.

Which is why I said ``No arguement there.'' I was agreeing with you,
well on that point anyway. I still disagree with your use of the word
furphy though.


--
EuanB

MikeyOz Wrote:


Now, what will she do now ?
Go and sue the council which she might very well be entitled todo if
she has a good enough lawyer with mitigating circumstances and the
council will close the bike path so they don't get sue'd anymore.
she probably wont do anything, as she was pretty convinced ( in her
bruised and drowsey state) she didnt have enough skill, the sun was in
her eyes and she didnt slow or stop when that may have been the prudent
thing to do...

as for suing Council ( Ambulance chasers turn your heads away from
screen now) , she may have a case for misfeasance...ie the council
actively designed and built a section of the path and may have been
negligent in the design, material selection and construction standard
to minimise injury or damage to "the reasonable" man/woman expected to
use the path.

If council did nothing and left the path as it was she would have no
case as it cant be guilty of malfeasance ("not" doing anything) as
opposed to misfeasance ( a "wrong" doing)...when in the ordinary course
it owed no duty of care beyond what it had discharged in the orginal
design and construction of the path.


--
rooman

In article ,
EuanB wrote:

IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
and with priority at junctions.

Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.

--
Shane Stanley

In article ,
rooman wrote:

It is also used by many commuters, who IMO ride too fast (and
seriously)should be using the roadway.

Not just commuters.

I daily see commuters and some recreational riders fairly hammering
along this path.

Yep. As it happens, I was riding along the path just the other side of
Ricketts Point on Anzac Day. It was only the second time I'd ridden
along it -- I ride Beach Road regularly, but I was with my wife, who
travels at a somewhat sedate pace.

I was actually thinking how most of the people seemed to be going much
more slowly than normal, or at least there were very few people going at
more than a very leisurely pace. There were lots of family groups with
young kids. Hardly what I'd call bumper to bumper, though.

But it is easy to get up a bit of speed down those dips, and quite a few
people don't seem to have complete control.

I'm very nervous about the exits from the carpark near Ricketts Point --
the bushes next to the path make it very hard for drivers leaving to see
even a slow cyclist coming.

Having said that, I find it hard to think anyone would label the path
unsafe. Yes, it could be safer, but short of ripping out the foreshore,
widening it massively and putting in overpasses and barriers, it's
always going to need some care, and there are always going to be mishaps.

But the one you saw sounds truly awful...

--
Shane Stanley

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:35:22 +1000, EuanB
wrote:

Make no mistake, to the majority of people cyclist safety means
removing cars from the road so cars won't hit them.

I like the cars on the road, they discourage the pedestrians!

On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley
wrote:
In article ,

EuanB wrote:
IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
and with priority at junctions.

Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.


OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
--
Cheers,
Euan

In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700
EuanB wrote:

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

Roads for cyclists.

Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered
vehicles, what makes unpowered different?

HAve to define bicycle though!

If a trike can use the path, then can a rollerblader who isn't that
much wider really?

Hand cranked? Rowbike?

What are the requirements in size and behaviour of vehicles that can
use the path?

Zebee

On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700
EuanB wrote:

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

Roads for cyclists.

Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered
vehicles, what makes unpowered different?

HAve to define bicycle though!

Everything but bents.







--
TimC
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:05:07 +1000
TimC wrote:
On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)

HAve to define bicycle though!

Everything but bents.







You are Bicycle Victoria and I claim my five pounds!

Zebee