Bourke Street Bicycle Road

Adrian Tritschler

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

> On May 17, 1:07Â*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/Segreg...ycle_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

Tomasso

"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.

tenspeed

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?

Zebee Johnstone

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.

Duncan

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)

20cents

In article <slrng33nef.at1.zebeej@gmail.com>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
(snipped)
>
> 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.

Well, they must have asked because you provided feedback. No?
>
> WHich makes them a useless advocacy group. WHich annoys the shit out
> of me but I can't see any way to fix it.

Write to the BNSW?
Get on BNSW committee?
>
> Zebee
> - who dislikes fear as a way of doing business, but the state
> government loves it.

OK, so the consensus is that a separate bike lane is a bad idea.

What is the solution that satisfies:
a. local residents,
b. cyclists,
c. motor vehiclists, and
d. council.

Why not instal an amber flashing light or LED warning sign at the
intersection that is activated by a motion detector, aimed at the bike
lane, and powered by solar? The technology is simple and cheap.

cheers,
20cents

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 20 May 2008 05:49:38 GMT
20cents <noreply@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <slrng33nef.at1.zebeej@gmail.com>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, they must have asked because you provided feedback. No?

They asked a bunch of people before putting up anything else. True,
it isn't built. However it's rather a fair old way along the track.

I suspect they may be getting more opposition than they bargained for
as they are calling some public meetings with very short notice. As
in this Saturday.

>>
>> WHich makes them a useless advocacy group. WHich annoys the shit out
>> of me but I can't see any way to fix it.
>
> Write to the BNSW?
> Get on BNSW committee?

I am already on an advocacy committee, more than one is not really
doable to do them well. I also don't have a rep in the bicycle world
which you must have if you are going to try and move a committee into
a different way of doing things.


> OK, so the consensus is that a separate bike lane is a bad idea.
>
> What is the solution that satisfies:
> a. local residents,
> b. cyclists,
> c. motor vehiclists, and
> d. council.


The problem isn't Bourke St. The problem is the general concept of
what bicycles are for. And the relative value of the car and the
bicycle.

No solution that doesn't recognise those things will work.

You can only keep bicycles safe by increasing their numbers.

You can only increase their numbers by making them more attractive and
cars less attractive.

You make them more attractive by making them more desirable as
transport which means making cars less desirable. You make them more
desirable by changing the relative values. For example, in a car/bike
crash, shift the onus to the driver - they had to prove the bicycle
was behaving badly such as being unlit at night or weaving wildly.
Otherwise any crash is their fault.

Can't see that happening, can you?


>
> Why not instal an amber flashing light or LED warning sign at the
> intersection that is activated by a motion detector, aimed at the bike
> lane, and powered by solar? The technology is simple and cheap.

Might work if it was also triggered by a car at the turn threshold.
So it only flashes if someone's trying to turn. Because otherwise it
is always flashing and will be tuned out.

Now, how to determine a car (which may not be stopped) is turning in
time to signal the driver?

Zebee

Shane Stanley

In article <slrng33nef.at1.zebeej@gmail.com>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

They're not alone. From the latest Bicycle Victoria mail-out:

> Sydney: Bourke St is copping a bit of criticism
> If you know someone who lives in Sydney please ask them to write in support
> <http://www.bv.com.au/change-the-world/41281/> .

--
Shane Stanley

Travis

On May 13, 5:13 pm, terryc <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> 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.


I'm often in those focus groups, every few months I get called in to
give my opinions on all kinds of random crap, like for example an
advertising campaign about to commence for a big company, a political
session for marginal seat voters just before the election,
questioetc. They're not entirely stupid, though there is a cross
section of people in these things and therefore a few opinions
expressed which were a little bit dumb...

They're not bad. You get between $50 and $100 in your hand for an
hour of two of talking. There are usually snacks, cans of drink, and
icy cold pizza on offer.

I got on their list by not rudely hanging up on a telemarketer, at the
end of the call I was asked if I'd like to attend paid focus groups,
but you can register for focus groups yourself here in Perth at
http://www.wcfs.com.au/

No idea about where you'd register in the eastern states for a focus
group, but I'm sure you could find something in Google.

And maybe next time there is a cycling focus group, some people who
aren't "differently clued" about cycling might be consulted. ;P

And if you think the ads which get aired are bad, you should see the
ones we reject!

Travis

Travis

Actually I found this in Google: http://www.amsrs.com.au/index.cfm?a=directory2004

It is a list of market research firms, for anyone wanting to sign up
for focus groups. It is Australia-wide.

It is more lucrative for some groups than others. I think everyone
gets paid the same, but depending on your demographics they may call
on you more frequently or less frequently, as a function of how many
people they have on their list with the required demographics. I'm a
30-something male, which apparently is a hard to find group for them,
so I do a number of these every year.

Travis

terryc

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:01:24 -0700, Travis wrote:

> And if you think the ads which get aired are bad, you should see the
> ones we reject!

BTDT, that was why my comments. At one stage I too was in the hard to
obtain group. Mostly I found that the groups in general were good at
picking up the subtle hints given; aka if you give the results they
want, they get you to come more.

slowlyuphill@gmail.com

> > *Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip for brevity>
>
> I suspect they may be getting more opposition than they bargained for
> as they are calling some public meetings with very short notice. *As
> in this Saturday.


Went along to the Surry Hills one. Standing room only. Run by a
busload of hired facilitators. More a lecture than a meeting. No
questions allowed. Lots of booing when they announced this bit.

The new deal is lose three parking spots to save each tree. More
booing.

Interestingly nobody contradicted the local view that the thing is
unsafe because Surry Hills is a mass of intersections.