Bourke Street Bicycle Road

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Anyone got any thoughts about this recent announcement by the Sydney
City Council?

There's some interesting 2007 stuff from when the Sydney City Council
Cycle Plan was launched at:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/browse_thread/thread/6b252d8b773b18f0/fa9f0c752b84cb9b?hl=en&lnk=st&q=bourke+cycleway#

.... but the two-way bikepath scheme has since been moved to Bourke
Street (which isn't as wide as Crown Street) and is meeting a lot of
opposition from the residents and cafes there. Some as yet unknown -
but sizeable - number pf parking spots and/or trees will have to go to
squeeze it into the very narrow bit around the "Il Baretto" where
Bourke Street crosses Arthur St in Surry Hills.

The original Crown Street plan is pictured at:

http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/html/3231-new-bicycle-lanes-to-improve-safety.asp

The Bourke Street announcement (pretty light on detail) is at:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/CityImprovements/RoadsAndStreetscapes/BourkeStCycleRoute.asp

Detailed draft plans (approved in Nov 2007) are at:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2007/Traffic/211107/071121_STC_ITEM34.pdf

Is this going to be safer/faster/better than the existing Bourke
Street Bike Lanes?

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 11 May 2008 03:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
tenspeed <tenspeed@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Is this going to be safer/faster/better than the existing Bourke
> Street Bike Lanes?

Consider the fun if the parked cars are vans or big 4WDs, there's only
one bicycle, and it's a BMX or similar small bike, and a car darts
into a driveway.

I believe that the majority of crashes in places with Copenhagen lanes
are at intersections, partly because the cars don't realise the bikes
will be there, and partly due to sightlines.

Zebee

Copenhagen lanes?

Hadn't heard that description before; just googled it and all became
clear when I hit the BV website.

Are the Swanston St ones causing the fuss in the forums one-way or
two?

Please excuse my ignorance, have only recently learned that our
current Sydney ones are properly called shoulder lanes.....




On May 11, 9:40 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 11 May 2008 03:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
> tenspeed <tensp...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Is this going to be safer/faster/better than the existing Bourke
> > Street Bike Lanes?
>
> Consider the fun if the parked cars are vans or big 4WDs, there's only
> one bicycle, and it's a BMX or similar small bike, and a car darts
> into a driveway.
>
> I believe that the majority of crashes in places with Copenhagen lanes
> are at intersections, partly because the cars don't realise the bikes
> will be there, and partly due to sightlines.
>
> Zebee

On 2008-05-11, tenspeed <tenspeed@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Anyone got any thoughts about this recent announcement by the Sydney
> City Council?
>
> There's some interesting 2007 stuff from when the Sydney City Council
> Cycle Plan was launched at:
>
>
> ... but the two-way bikepath scheme has since been moved to Bourke
> Street (which isn't as wide as Crown Street) and is meeting a lot of

<SNIP>

IIRC the plan was for a two way bike path on one side of the road i.e.
bikes in two direction cars in one. They tried this in the Netherlands
and bike/car accidents increased by 71% (if my memory serves).

Having traffic coming from an unexpected directions is just a stupid
idea.

Cheers

Joel
--
Human Powered Cycles | High quality servicing and repairs
joel@humanpowered.com.au | Affordable second hand bikes
(03) 9029 6504 | Bicycle reuse centre
www.humanpowered.com.au | Mechanical and on-road training and instruction

In aus.bicycle on 12 May 2008 07:53:11 GMT
Joel Mayes <joel@muse.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> IIRC the plan was for a two way bike path on one side of the road i.e.
> bikes in two direction cars in one. They tried this in the Netherlands
> and bike/car accidents increased by 71% (if my memory serves).
>

http://cycledog.blogspot.com/2008/01/copenhagen-cycling-not-what-it-seems.html

The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in a slight drop in the
total number of accidents and injuries on the road sections between
junctions of 10% and 4% respectively. At junctions on the other hand,
the number of accidents and injuries has risen significantly, by 18%.
A decline in road safety at junctions has undoubtedly taken place after
the construction of cycle tracks. If the figures for the road sections are
combined with those for the junctions, an increase of 9-10% in accidents
and injuries has taken place.

.....The increase in injuries due to the construction of cycle tracks
arises because there are more injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and
moped riders at junctions. There has been an increase of 28%, 22% and 37%
respectively for these three road user groups.

The increase in injuries to women was 18%, whereas there was only a small
rise in injuries to men, just 1%. The increase in injuries is especially
large among females under 20 years of age on foot and bicycle, as well
as female pedestrians over the age of 64. On the other hand, there was a
considerable fall in injuries among older cyclists and children in cars
of both sex.

....From table 1, it can be deduced that the construction of cycle tracks
has resulted in three important gains in road safety: fewer accidents in
which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with
cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a
parked car. These gains were more than outweighed by new safety problems:
more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when
overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in
which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents
between cyclists and pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.

In aus.bicycle on 12 May 2008 08:41:15 GMT
Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://cycledog.blogspot.com/2008/01/copenhagen-cycling-not-what-it-seems.html
>

Looking at the full report, the biggie appears to be (as you would
expect) how many vehicles turn across the bike lane.

In the area studied, the construction of the cycle lane meant parking
was removed from the main road, meaning people were now parking on the
side roads - more turning traffic.

It also seems that - again as you would expect - that if you mix bikes
and cars at traffic lights, especially if the cars want to turn and
the bikes want to go straight then that's bad news. I'm not sure what
a "shortened cycle track" is, but I think it's where the copenhagen
lane finishes so the bikes are spat out into the road, and where that
happened and there was no turn lane for cars, so cars and bikes mixed,
then bike injuries increased even though actual crashes decreased.

The injury rate at intersections with Copenhagen lanes increased 45%.

Apparently what increased was right turning (in Oz, left turning)
traffic hitting cyclists. I suspect that's a sightline thing -
drivers not turning their heads to look but relying on mirrors which
are notorious for being badly adjusted and not good at seeing
singletrack vehicles. A driver turning from the far lane has more
vision of the bike lane.

The other big rise was bike on bike action. Usually, it appears, from
passing. I can see that - anyone who rides on bike paths knows the
Sunday rider is as bad as the Sunday driver for having poor lane
discipline and poor awareness.

However...

"The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an
increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of
9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in
accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads"

Stats aren't my strong point, but doesn't that mean that the injury
rate is half the expected increase?

Zebee

This isn't a new bike route so there's no reason to think that Bourke
Street car traffic will decrease. I think council are hoping that the
two-way bicycle road will encourage more recreational cycling - it's a
pretty street.

The narrow bit is Restaurant Row. It's often very difficult to park at
the moment, with loads of three-point turns into the cross streets
when drivers spot someone pulling out. Seems unlikely that this stuff
will be reduced when the existing bike lanes and half the parking
spaces are replaced by the bicycle road.

The area I'm describing - we often bike around there - is on pages 10
and 11 of the detailed plans, by the way. It's in the background of
the pic in the council announcement leaflet.

-----------

On May 12, 6:54 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

> "The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an
> increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of
> 9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in
> accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads"
>
> Stats aren't my strong point, but doesn't that mean that the injury
> rate is half the expected increase?
>
> Zebee

On May 12, 6:54 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 12 May 2008 08:41:15 GMT
>
> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://cycledog.blogspot.com/2008/01/copenhagen-cycling-not-what-it-s...
>
> Looking at the full report, the biggie appears to be (as you would
> expect) how many vehicles turn across the bike lane.
>
> In the area studied, the construction of the cycle lane meant parking
> was removed from the main road, meaning people were now parking on the
> side roads - more turning traffic.
>
> It also seems that - again as you would expect - that if you mix bikes
> and cars at traffic lights, especially if the cars want to turn and
> the bikes want to go straight then that's bad news. I'm not sure what
> a "shortened cycle track" is, but I think it's where the copenhagen
> lane finishes so the bikes are spat out into the road, and where that
> happened and there was no turn lane for cars, so cars and bikes mixed,
> then bike injuries increased even though actual crashes decreased.
>
> The injury rate at intersections with Copenhagen lanes increased 45%.
>
> Apparently what increased was right turning (in Oz, left turning)
> traffic hitting cyclists. I suspect that's a sightline thing -
> drivers not turning their heads to look but relying on mirrors which
> are notorious for being badly adjusted and not good at seeing
> singletrack vehicles. A driver turning from the far lane has more
> vision of the bike lane.
>
> The other big rise was bike on bike action. Usually, it appears, from
> passing. I can see that - anyone who rides on bike paths knows the
> Sunday rider is as bad as the Sunday driver for having poor lane
> discipline and poor awareness.
>
> However...
>
> "The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an
> increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of
> 9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in
> accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads"
>
> Stats aren't my strong point, but doesn't that mean that the injury
> rate is half the expected increase?
>
> Zebee

That's a pretty stunning set of statistics there. I would be very
interested to know what kind of evidence base council is working from
in terms of claiming this kind of development would then be making the
roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Nobody so far has been
able to show me any kind of evidence that this type of development has
worked in the past but maybe I'm just not looking in the right places?

I am tempted to email the woman in charge of the project Fiona Lewis
and ask her about this but to be honest I really don't feel like being
brushed off again like all my other queries have been up to this
point.

<dixie.dean@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b47aea39-5b9b-4824-a27b-6c4624fd8b47@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 6:54 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on 12 May 2008 08:41:15 GMT
>>
>> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://cycledog.blogspot.com/2008/01/copenhagen-cycling-not-what-it-s...
>>
>> Looking at the full report, the biggie appears to be (as you would
>> expect) how many vehicles turn across the bike lane.
>>
>>
snip
>> Zebee
>
> That's a pretty stunning set of statistics there. I would be very
> interested to know what kind of evidence base council is working from
> in terms of claiming this kind of development would then be making the
> roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Nobody so far has been
> able to show me any kind of evidence that this type of development has
> worked in the past but maybe I'm just not looking in the right places?
>
> I am tempted to email the woman in charge of the project Fiona Lewis
> and ask her about this but to be honest I really don't feel like being
> brushed off again like all my other queries have been up to this
> point.

The original city bike plan up for submissions didnt have any "Copenhagen
style" lanes in it but somewhere along the line
after the submissions were received and the final plan was released they
appeared. Probably under pressure from local bike groups and
maybe a few councillors who have been to Europe etc and think they know
whats best, or maybe the troglodyte traffic engineers who dont want cyclists
on the road. King St will be the first such 2 way bike lane (down a steep
hill, hate to think of possible handle bar tangles) then Clarence I think it
is, and Bourke St after that. SS Council did part of Bourke St in Surry
Hills a few years ago with a contraflow bike lane with median, but that was
when Bourke St was one way I think, and its flat there. I dont like the idea
of two way bike lanes on hills like Bourke St North. I have a book called
Collection of Cycling Concepts, put out by the Danish Govt for free, and
they dont reccommend two way bike lanes if there are many side streets or
driveways etc, and there aent any pictures of them, so I dont know where the
so called Copenhagen style lanes come from. From memory 10 years ago
Copenhagen had one way separated cycle lanes on its big wide main streets.
So much room it was no wonder everyone rode a bike.

Sorry if that was all one long line but how do you adjust line length in in
Outlook Express?

FB in Syd knee

On May 13, 2:12 pm, "fractal" <no...@yeahyeahyeah.org> wrote:
> <dixie.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b47aea39-5b9b-4824-a27b-6c4624fd8b47@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The original city bike plan up for submissions didnt have any "Copenhagen
> style" lanes in it but somewhere along the line
> after the submissions were received and the final plan was released they
> appeared. Probably under pressure from local bike groups and
> maybe a few councillors who have been to Europe etc and think they know
> whats best, or maybe the troglodyte traffic engineers who dont want cyclists
> on the road. King St  will be the first such 2 way bike lane (down a steep
> hill, hate to think of possible handle bar tangles) then Clarence I think it
> is, and Bourke St after that. SS Council did part of Bourke St in Surry
> Hills a few years ago with a contraflow bike lane with median, but that was
> when Bourke St was one way I think, and its flat there. I dont like the idea
> of two way bike lanes on hills like Bourke St North. I have a book called
> Collection of Cycling Concepts, put out by the Danish Govt for free, and
> they dont reccommend two way bike lanes if there are many side streets or
> driveways etc, and there aent any pictures of them, so I dont know where the
> so called Copenhagen style lanes come from. From memory 10 years ago
> Copenhagen had  one way separated cycle lanes on its big wide main streets.
> So much room it was no wonder everyone rode a bike.
>
> Sorry if that was all one long line but how do you adjust line length in in
> Outlook Express?
>
> FB in Syd knee


Just done a search or ten. BINGO!

Looks as if a "focus group" of "potential cyclists" was shown pics of
various sorts of bike lanes and thought the two-way ones looked nice:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2007/Committee/Planning/260307/070326_PDTC_ITEM02_ATTACHMENTE.PDF

This is borne out by the tone of the press stuff when the plan was
released.:

http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/Assets/Downloads/080208%20bourke%20st%20cycleway.pdf

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 01:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
tenspeed <tenspeed@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Looks as if a "focus group" of "potential cyclists" was shown pics of
> various sorts of bike lanes and thought the two-way ones looked nice:

Hmm.. couple that with this report about gut feel safety assessment
often being wrong...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/think-before-you-leap/2008/05/11/1210444242976.html

" "People are not accustomed to thinking hard," writes Daniel
Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, "and are often content
to trust a plausible judgement that quickly comes to mind"."

""Psychology and media aside, a third element skewing our perceptions
of risk is marketing. Simply put, fear is useful. Fear sells products.
Fear wins votes. Fear attracts public attention. "

People with little or no experience of cycling in traffic fear
traffic. And so see something that "looks right" and think it is
right. THinking hard about it, using intelligence and looking for
problems is too hard (and probably not worth the effort for a bit of
focus group silliness).

Zebee

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:23:29 -0700, tenspeed wrote:

> Looks as if a "focus group" of "potential cyclists" was shown pics of
> various sorts of bike lanes and thought the two-way ones looked nice:

Yer, I can imagine what sort of cyclists the focus group consisted of.
They have focus groups that choose the adverts we see. Nuff said.

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.13.09.13.15.547833@woa.com.au...
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:23:29 -0700, tenspeed wrote:
>
>> Looks as if a "focus group" of "potential cyclists" was shown pics of
>> various sorts of bike lanes and thought the two-way ones looked nice:
>
> Yer, I can imagine what sort of cyclists the focus group consisted of.
> They have focus groups that choose the adverts we see. Nuff said.

Bumped in to one of the consultants who is designing the Bourke St bike
lane. He said they were aware of the dangers from turning motorists at
intersections. They are going to do away with the median approaching the
intersection and "curve in" the bike lane so it is next to the traffic lane,
with only a white line separating bikes from cars. This is to promote better
visibility. Still have to trust motorists not to turn across your path. And
how does a cyclist make a turn from wrong side of road and across the path
of other cyclists, particularly if there are a lot of cyclists?

There is an example on Marsh St (the road past the Airport) in Arncliffe on
the Tempe/Botany Bay cycle path. A two way shared path crosses Innesdale St
and motorists turning right off Marsh St at speed are a threat to any
cyclist heading south unless you keep a sharp lookout over left shoulder,
and left turning motorists are also a threat. The next cross street has
lights so easier to negotiate.

fb

On May 14, 9:49 pm, "Fractal" <fractalbugNOS...@aussie.yahoo> wrote:
> "terryc" <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2008.05.13.09.13.15.547833@woa.com.au...
>
<SNIP>
> Bumped in to one of the consultants who is designing the Bourke St bike
> lane. He said they were aware of the dangers from turning motorists at
> intersections. They are going to do away with the median approaching the
> intersection and "curve in" the bike lane so it is next to the traffic lane,
> with only a white line separating bikes from cars. This is to promote better
> visibility. Still have to trust motorists not to turn across your path. And
> how does a cyclist make a turn from wrong side of road and across the path
> of other cyclists, particularly if there are a lot of cyclists?
>
> There is an example on Marsh St (the road past the Airport) in Arncliffe on
> the Tempe/Botany Bay cycle path. A two way shared path crosses Innesdale St
> and motorists turning right off Marsh St  at speed are a threat to any
> cyclist heading south unless you keep a sharp lookout over left shoulder,
> and left turning motorists are also a threat. The next cross street has
> lights so easier to negotiate.
>
> fb

-----------------------------

Interesting.

A wiggly bicycle road, eh?

Looking at my Gregorys (ancient 2nd edition Maxi - map11) that's 5
cross-streets in the half kilometre between Devonshire St and Fitzroy
St. Not a raceway, then :)

Will we be compelled to use it rather than the main roadway?
Presumably the shoulder lanes will be removed to make space for the
bicycle road..

In article
<0017d3bf-f482-4d42-bf77-505c62707ef1@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
tenspeed <tenspeed@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> This isn't a new bike route so there's no reason to think that Bourke
> Street car traffic will decrease. I think council are hoping that the
> two-way bicycle road will encourage more recreational cycling - it's a
> pretty street.

Of course there has to be a means of reaching Bourke St in the first
place so that you can enjoy promenading on the bicycle. Or will it be
like Centennial Park where people drive to the park with bike on the
rack?

Do they intend to instal an appropriate number of bike racks to allow us
to stop for a drink and snack?

>
> The narrow bit is Restaurant Row. It's often very difficult to park at
> the moment, with loads of three-point turns into the cross streets
> when drivers spot someone pulling out. Seems unlikely that this stuff
> will be reduced when the existing bike lanes and half the parking
> spaces are replaced by the bicycle road.

I am not as confident.

Drivers will, as they do in my neck of the woods, concentrate on finding
a parking spot next to the cafe/restaurant and 'to hell' with anything
or anyone that gets in the way.

How do they intend to mitigate against the Australian drivers' fixation
with 'must speed up and pass cyclist because I need to turn left' that
causes us cyclists all sorts of angst. Probably not as bad for regular
road warriors but the weekend cyclist is going to feel intimidated.

And that is before they address the problem of the drivers making mobile
phone calls to explain to their friends at the cafe they are only five
minutes away.
>


20cents

tenspeed <tenspeed@iinet.net.au> writes:

> On May 17, 1:07 pm, "PeteSig" <pete...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> Jaaysus!!!
>>
>> Would it be too much to expect that our TERTIARY qualified TRANSPORT
>> PLANNERS might have the gumption to do a bit of a search of overseas
>> experiences, before istalling patently unsafe traffic devices.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities

...snipped for brevity...

> Just tried the "Sidepath Suitability Score" after following up the
> Wiki stuff (thanks Pete):
>
> http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/sidepathinfo.htm
>
> Used a Gregory's to count the intersections on the west side of Bourke
> St. Doesn't show the driveways so made a few guesses.
>
> Score was between 17 and 31 depending on the guesses.
>
> Guidelines say over 10 = silly idea.
>
> And thats for a one-way path (Council plan is for a two-way one).
>
> This is not looking good,
>
> Anyone know why BicycleNSW are supporting it in their newsletter?

Because it is infrastructure and infrastructure is easy. Bike groups
and governments love infrastructure. They can say "Give us X dollars
and we'll build Y km of bike paths and all will be well". They can say
"In our term in office we built Y km of bike paths aren't we good".
What they can't do is say "We'll change the attitudes of majority of
Aussie commo-ford drivers so they don't try to kill anyone not inside
their protective metal boxes".

Adrian

"Adrian Tritschler" <ajft64+noos@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:kgrmymoa6y5.fsf@fafnir.ajft.org...
>...
> What they can't do is say "We'll change the attitudes of majority of
> Aussie commo-ford drivers so they don't try to kill anyone not inside
> their protective metal boxes".

All it would take is a length of bailer twine from the front bumper to the driver's testicles (or whatever they have in that place).

Any minor bump would be felt.

It would even out the playing field.

Serious caution would ensue - except for the masochists, and they could be kept happy by cyclists kicking their front bumper while
waiting patiently at a red light...

T.

Back to my earlier questions:

Surely this bicycle road better than the existing shoulder lanes?

BicycleNSW (I joined for the insurance) is telling me to vote for the
scheme.

Why is Council spending all this money and upsetting so many people if
there is no upside?

All the Council adverts say this is going to make things safer for
cyclists.

Everyone in this thread seems to think the bicycle road will be more
dangerous than the existing shoulder lanes.

This all very confusing.

Surely someone out there thinks that this is a good idea?

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 May 2008 08:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
tenspeed <tenspeed@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Back to my earlier questions:
>
> Surely this bicycle road better than the existing shoulder lanes?

Define better.

What do you want in a bicycle lane? I want ease of use - which to me
means I am the traffic and want to have the same options they do.

I also want safety, meaning I want to be visible and for cars to know
I am there.

>
> BicycleNSW (I joined for the insurance) is telling me to vote for the
> scheme.

Because they want facilities, any facilities. THey are scared that if
they object then the various levels of government will say "this or
nothing, Ok then: nothing"

>
> Why is Council spending all this money and upsetting so many people if
> there is no upside?

Because they must do something, this is something, so they'll do it.

Besides - most of them are not cyclists. They are going on the first
gut feeling "ah, that must be safer" rather than really investigating
the thing. Councils aren't particualrly bright. Plus they asked
other non-cyclists who validated the choice.

It does look safer for sure. Until you thnk to yourself "OK, I'm a
left turning car. What can I see?"

As part of my feedback to the council I pointed the left turn problem
out and suggested a speed hump at the entrance to every crossing of
the lane, and motorcycle parking only either side of each crossing.
That's going to be about the best you can do to give left turning
drivers vision into the lane. The hump will slow them down enough for
cyclists to ahve a chance to stop before the car violates their right
of way and hits 'em....

>
> All the Council adverts say this is going to make things safer for
> cyclists.

And all the car adverts say you will pull members of the appropriate
sex if you buy their car. You believe that too?

>
> Everyone in this thread seems to think the bicycle road will be more
> dangerous than the existing shoulder lanes.

Yes. Because most people here are experienced cyclists. Meaning they
know how to handle traffic so traffic isn't scary.

Non-cyclists feel that being without some form of cage whether that's
metal or concrete dividers is too scary.

So the council hopes this will encourage more cyclists to use it. And
it might until someone gets hurt. And then the non-cyclists will
think "it really is too dangerous to ride a bike!"

>
> This all very confusing.
>
> Surely someone out there thinks that this is a good idea?

Obviously someone at the council does. Now, if you ask "does someone
out there who is an experienced cyclist or comes from a country where
cycling is a normal mode of transport think that this is a good idea
on a street with lots of intersections" you will get a different
answer.

The council didn't ask. Or if they did, they asked BNSW who have
never said no to any cycling facility no matter how useless because
they think if they do then they will be pilloried for it.

WHich makes them a useless advocacy group. WHich annoys the shit out
of me but I can't see any way to fix it.

Zebee
- who dislikes fear as a way of doing business, but the state
government loves it.

On May 20, 6:06 am, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 May 2008 08:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
> tenspeed <tensp...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > Everyone in this thread seems to think the bicycle road will be more
> > dangerous than the existing shoulder lanes.
>
> Yes. Because most people here are experienced cyclists. Meaning they
> know how to handle traffic so traffic isn't scary.

<lots of good points snipped>

What I personally hate most about poorly thought out bicycle
facilities, is that drivers then ask (justifiably so, imho), why you
aren't using them. Of course by 'ask', I mean anything from a
bewildered look to outright abuse and trying to force you off the
road.

duncan (definitely a fan of off road paths, but keep the useless
painted lines under kerbside parking, paths that cross busy roads at
ill-thought out intersections and the like to yourselves)