Suzy the Media Slut

[suzyj]

Hi guys,

My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)

Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And fro
the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it'
not such a big thing after all.

Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe

Cheers,

Suz

--
suzyj

[till!]

suzyj Wrote:
> And from the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh)
Well, not only that, but we dont even get a good shot of your bike
Please ask the local rag to lift their game =

til

--
till!

[flyingdutch]

go goirl! :D

but there was no pic of your stem... :( :rolleyes:

PS you wanna mention the US/Europe stats that show that having
bikepath built near you helps to increase real estate prices too

--
flyingdutch

[Marty]

suzyj wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)
>
> Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> not such a big thing after all.
>
> Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
>

Good one Suzy, keep the pressure on.

The cyclist of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains, cyclists
of the world unite.

(Apologies to Karl Marx)

Marty

[PiledHigher]

Marty Wrote:
> suzyj wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)
> >
> > Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... An
> from
> > the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Mayb
> it's
> > not such a big thing after all.
> >
> > Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Suzy
> >
> >
>
> Good one Suzy, keep the pressure on.
>
> The cyclist of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains
> cyclists
> of the world unite.
>
> (Apologies to Karl Marx)
>
> Marty

Suzy,

Be careful what you wish for in terms of cycling facilties, it is thi
type of 'footpath' solution to cycle paths that have rated very poorl
in the past as safe places to ride. There were some Palo Alto studie
that suggested that it was much safer to ride on the road than use thi
sort of facility, I think the transport planner is probably correct i
opposing it.

PiledHIghe

--
PiledHigher

[suzyj]

PiledHigher wrote:

> It is this type of 'footpath' solution to cycle paths that have
> rated very poorly in the past as safe places to ride. There
> were some Palo Alto studies that suggested that it was much
> safer to ride on the road than use this sort of facility, I think
> the transport planner is probably correct in opposing it.

I agree that shared paths are heaps more dangerous than proper on-roa
facilities, but they're better than nothing at all.

This has a lot of history, going back to the start of planning for th
Lane Cove tunnel. Bikenorth asked for on-road cycle lanes either sid
of Epping Road, but RTA refused, saying that it was too dangerous t
have cyclists riding on Epping road and insisted on an off-roa
facility. Now council are saying the off road path is too dangerou
(for peds), and that we should be on the road.

But if we lose the off-road facility, then we end up with nothing, an
I'd prefer something to nothing.

Regards,

Suzy (who will use the bus lanes that are supposed to be going in o
Epping Road anyway

--
suzyj

[Marx SS]

Rock on.
Cycle paths !
Riding in Sydeny can be almost impossible on some roads I've seen!


--
Marx SS

[Alan Hutchison]

suzyj wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)
>
> Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> not such a big thing after all.
>
> Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
>
Well done.

I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
vehicle play?

Regards,

Alan.

[Tamyka Bell]

Alan Hutchison wrote:
>
> suzyj wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)
> >
> > Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> > the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> > not such a big thing after all.
> >
> > Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Suzy
> >
> >
> Well done.
>
> I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
> could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
> vehicle play?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan.

Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard arse yet. Would
you like one? I have one going cheap.

Tam

[PiledHigher]

Alan Hutchison Wrote:
> suzyj wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)
> >
> > Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... An
> from
> > the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Mayb
> it's
> > not such a big thing after all.
> >
> > Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Suzy
> >
> >
> Well done.
>
> I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
> could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
> vehicle play?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan.

Dual direction cycle paths put bikes in conflict with exiting cars in
non-expected direction, that is why they are so dangerous, you have
fighting chance if you are behaving in a similar manner to othe
traffic

--
PiledHigher

[suzyj]

Tam wrote:

> Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard arse
> yet. Would you like one? I have one going cheap.

What the fsck is a lard arse? Do I want one, or are they really scar
things?

Regards,

Suz

--
suzyj

[Tamyka Bell]

suzyj wrote:
>
> Tam wrote:
>
> > Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard arse
> > yet. Would you like one? I have one going cheap.
>
> What the fsck is a lard arse? Do I want one, or are they really scary
> things?
>
> Regards,
>
> Suzy
>
> --
> suzyj

It is a really big arse, that makes riding more comfortable, but can be
hard to carry up hills. They are indeed scary things. Not having one is
probably a good thing. Hence the cheap sell on mine.

I hear they come free to SGT and above in the Army... your issued BFA
(big fat arse)?

Tam

[flyingdutch]

PiledHigher Wrote:
> Dual direction cycle paths put bikes in conflict with exiting cars in
> non-expected direction, that is why they are so dangerous, you have
> fighting chance if you are behaving in a similar manner to othe
> traffic.

wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspectiv
only gets backed up
"See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build an
drive themselves we would have no need for them pesk
fleshy-based-things...

F"ghost in the machine"Dutc

--
flyingdutch

[PiledHigher]

flyingdutch Wrote:
> wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspectiv
> only gets backed up
> "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build an
> drive themselves we would have no need for them pesk
> fleshy-based-things...
>
> F"ghost in the machine"Dutch

Pedestrians don't move at 40kph

--
PiledHigher

[cfsmtb]

flyingdutch Wrote:
> wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspectiv
> only gets backed up
> "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build an
> drive themselves we would have no need for them pesk
> fleshy-based-things...
>
> F"ghost in the machine"Dutch


Yes, lets all submit to continued car-dominance over any attempts t
influence modial shift and attitudinal change. Vehicles: they're big
they're dangerous and other modes of transport are inferior or a
fault. That's the lazy logic this created "road arms race" we're al
dealing with now

--
cfsmtb

[Gemma_k]

"PiledHigher" > wrote in
message ...
>>
> Be careful what you wish for in terms of cycling facilties, it is this
> type of 'footpath' solution to cycle paths that have rated very poorly
> in the past as safe places to ride. There were some Palo Alto studies
> that suggested that it was much safer to ride on the road than use this
> sort of facility, I think the transport planner is probably correct in
> opposing it.
>
These studies refer to the types of facilities that have frequent road
crossings across sidestreets (and driveways!) - ie where motor vehicle
drivers don't expect you to dart across and there are frequent conflict
points. Completely separated (and grade separated) paths with good
alignment and sufficient width are considered the ultimate in bicycle
network planning. We even have a some paths in Adelaide that are
bike-only.....
Unfortunately having a completely separated system from the road system of
course isn't possible in an already developed city.

Gemm

[PiledHigher]

Gemma_k Wrote:
>
> These studies refer to the types of facilities that have frequent road
> crossings across sidestreets (and driveways!) - ie where motor vehicle
> drivers don't expect you to dart across and there are frequen
> conflict
> points.

Which is exactly what they are building

--
PiledHigher

[nebakke]

PiledHigher wrote:
> flyingdutch Wrote:
> > wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> > Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> > If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective
> > only gets backed up
> > "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> > now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and
> > drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky
> > fleshy-based-things...
> >
> > F"ghost in the machine"Dutch
>
> Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!

So which do you prefer? Being splattered on the road by a car and
getting in trouble for not clearing the path for him, or being
splattered on the road by a car and the driver getting in trouble for
driving on the bikepath?
I admit, it's only a small difference and legally there's no problem
with keeping your place on the road but I expect pretty much everyone
in this group take some sort of abuse from drivers every day because
drivers feel that the road belongs to them alone.
On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians. Maybe, some day, if
we keep pushing for bikepaths such as this, decent bikepaths will be
put in, and drivers will be taught to look for bicycles before they
turn... When you get a licence in Scandinavia you fail your test is you
don't look for bikes before turning right and most all drivers
remember to even after several years (of course that would propbably be
because of the likelyhood of the cyclists actually being there, but
that's not the point ;O) wouldn't it be nice if Australian drivers
learnt to look for bikes too?
Personally I belong in the group of people who feel a lot safer on a
bikepath, which sucks cos I'd really like to be able to ride from
somewhere a bit closer to home, but until more bikepaths are put in I'm
limited to what I've got and so is a lot of people who choose not to
use their bikes because of the percieve d risk of not having a bike
path...
Make sense? I hope so...

-Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....

[PiledHigher]

nebakke Wrote:
> PiledHigher wrote:
> > flyingdutch Wrote:
> > > wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> > > Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answe
> that!)
> > > If you answer the common way then the same stereotypica
> perspective
> > > only gets backed up
> > > "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> > > now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to buil
> and
> > > drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky
> > > fleshy-based-things...
> > >
> > > F"ghost in the machine"Dutch
> >
> > Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!
>
> So which do you prefer? Being splattered on the road by a car and
> getting in trouble for not clearing the path for him, or being
> splattered on the road by a car and the driver getting in trouble for
> driving on the bikepath?
> I admit, it's only a small difference and legally there's no problem
> with keeping your place on the road but I expect pretty much everyone
> in this group take some sort of abuse from drivers every day because
> drivers feel that the road belongs to them alone.
> On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
> just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
> significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
> traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians. Maybe, some day, if
> we keep pushing for bikepaths such as this, decent bikepaths will be
> put in, and drivers will be taught to look for bicycles before they
> turn... When you get a licence in Scandinavia you fail your test i
> you
> don't look for bikes before turning right and most all drivers
> remember to even after several years (of course that would propbabl
> be
> because of the likelyhood of the cyclists actually being there, but
> that's not the point ;O) wouldn't it be nice if Australian drivers
> learnt to look for bikes too?
> Personally I belong in the group of people who feel a lot safer on a
> bikepath, which sucks cos I'd really like to be able to ride from
> somewhere a bit closer to home, but until more bikepaths are put i
> I'm
> limited to what I've got and so is a lot of people who choose not to
> use their bikes because of the percieve d risk of not having a bike
> path...
> Make sense? I hope so...
>
> -Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....

I don't know where to start with this one.

To be recognized as traffic your right need to be respected on th
roads. Not on a shoddy bikepath top get you out of the way.

So you would rather have an unsafe alternative that you think is 'safe
than a an actual safe solution. Were do I sign me up for that one

--
PiledHigher

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
> PiledHigher wrote:
> > flyingdutch Wrote:
> > > wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> > > Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> > > If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective
> > > only gets backed up
> > > "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> > > now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and
> > > drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky
> > > fleshy-based-things...
> > >
> > > F"ghost in the machine"Dutch
> >
> > Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!
>
> So which do you prefer? Being splattered on the road by a car and
> getting in trouble for not clearing the path for him, or being
> splattered on the road by a car and the driver getting in trouble for
> driving on the bikepath?

If the bikepath was their driveway, I'd seriously doubt that they'd get
in trouble. Maybe I'm just cynical.

> I admit, it's only a small difference and legally there's no problem
> with keeping your place on the road but I expect pretty much everyone
> in this group take some sort of abuse from drivers every day because
> drivers feel that the road belongs to them alone.

What's this? I hadn't noticed. You mean they weren't just honking and
calling out because they like me? Absent Husband, why didn't you explain
this to me?!

> On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
> just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
> significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
> traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians. Maybe, some day, if
> we keep pushing for bikepaths such as this, decent bikepaths will be
> put in, and drivers will be taught to look for bicycles before they
> turn... When you get a licence in Scandinavia you fail your test is you
> don't look for bikes before turning right and most all drivers
> remember to even after several years (of course that would propbably be
> because of the likelyhood of the cyclists actually being there, but
> that's not the point ;O) wouldn't it be nice if Australian drivers
> learnt to look for bikes too?

And Australian pedestrians. And non-Australian drivers and pedestrians.
And dogs.

> Personally I belong in the group of people who feel a lot safer on a
> bikepath, which sucks cos I'd really like to be able to ride from
> somewhere a bit closer to home, but until more bikepaths are put in I'm
> limited to what I've got and so is a lot of people who choose not to
> use their bikes because of the percieve d risk of not having a bike
> path...
> Make sense? I hope so...
>
> -Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....

Where are you off to Rasmus?

[Tamyka Bell]

PiledHigher wrote:
<snip>
> I don't know where to start with this one.
>
> To be recognized as traffic your right need to be respected on the
> roads. Not on a shoddy bikepath top get you out of the way.
>
> So you would rather have an unsafe alternative that you think is 'safe'
> than a an actual safe solution. Were do I sign me up for that one.
>
> --
> PiledHigher

Have you been drinking? Just in a rush? I've never seen your
spelling/grammar deteriorate like that before!

Tam :P

[PiledHigher]

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> PiledHigher wrote:
> <snip>
> > I don't know where to start with this one.
> >
> > To be recognized as traffic your right need to be respected on the
> > roads. Not on a shoddy bikepath top get you out of the way.
> >
> > So you would rather have an unsafe alternative that you think i
> 'safe'
> > than a an actual safe solution. Were do I sign me up for that one.
> >
> > --
> > PiledHigher
>
> Have you been drinking? Just in a rush? I've never seen your
> spelling/grammar deteriorate like that before!
>
> Tam :P

No I have not been drinking, was in a rush to go to lunch (quick r*n).

PiledHighe

--
PiledHigher

[Alan Hutchison]

PiledHigher wrote:
> Alan Hutchison Wrote:
>
>>suzyj wrote:
>>
>>>Hi guys,
>>>
>>>My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived :)
>>>
>>>Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And
>>
>>from
>>
>>>the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe
>>
>>it's
>>
>>>not such a big thing after all.
>>>
>>>Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Suzy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well done.
>>
>>I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
>>could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
>>vehicle play?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Alan.
>
>
> Dual direction cycle paths put bikes in conflict with exiting cars in a
> non-expected direction, that is why they are so dangerous, you have a
> fighting chance if you are behaving in a similar manner to other
> traffic.
>
>
Sorry, I'm a little biased this week. The trial of the driver of the
truck that killed my cyclist wife was on Wednesday. She wasn't cycling
at the time she was killed though, she just sat for a moment on a seat
outside the post office when the truck needed to use the footpath and
nature strip instead of the two lane roadway.

Regards,

Alan.

[nebakke]

PiledHigher wrote:
> I don't know where to start with this one.
>
> To be recognized as traffic your right need to be respected on the
> roads. Not on a shoddy bikepath top get you out of the way.

I suppose the issue probably is that we disagree on exactly how unsafe
bikepaths actually are. In my experience drivers don't respect the fact
that technically they have to leave you exactly the same room on the
road as they do any other cars, in my experience they don't whereas a
bikepath tends to mean that they do leave just that bit more room.
But if you want to look at it that way, pavements should be gotten rid
off too because the only way for pedestrians to be safe in traffic then
is for them to be respected on the roads and not out of the way on the
pavement.

> So you would rather have an unsafe alternative that you think is 'safe'
> than a an actual safe solution. Were do I sign me up for that one.

Not at all but again, to be honest I think the issue is that you have
to fight hard to convince me that riding on the road is going to be a
lot safer than riding on the bikepath.
I can accept people not wanting to use the dedicated bikepaths due to
their ****poor quality but at the end of the day I use them because I'm
quite certain that they're quite a lot safer than the road. The "paths"
that are just painted on are definitely not a good solution but I do
believe that it's a step up from having the bikes on the road.
I suppose at the end of the day I figure that I'm at risk from idiotic
drivers no matter whether in the middle of the road or on the bikepath
but if I stay on the bikepath I can at least shove it in their face
with the arm that isn't broken, that that is MY lane...

-Rasmus

[nebakke]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> If the bikepath was their driveway, I'd seriously doubt that they'd get
> in trouble. Maybe I'm just cynical.

I would hope that they'd still get in trouble, I do realise however
that in the real world it seems like the police couldn't care much less
about another crashed bicycle :O(


> What's this? I hadn't noticed. You mean they weren't just honking and
> calling out because they like me? Absent Husband, why didn't you explain
> this to me?!

Well with you I'm sure it's cos they like you Tam, but for me at least
they tend to be frowing and look threatening.. Thank God I'm a big guy
would hate to think what'd happen if I didn't have the intimidation
factor working for me ;O)

> And Australian pedestrians. And non-Australian drivers and pedestrians.
> And dogs.

Hehe OK, I just meant drivers here in general and yesyes, I get your
point, doesn't change my point though ;O) With regards to the dogs
though I have a feeling we might be fighting a loosing battle, one day
they will rule the world ;O)

> > -Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....
>
> Where are you off to Rasmus?

I've gotten a new job down Sydney-way.. Only downside is that I was
just starting to enjoy the morning ride to work and all, and feel
comfortable with where I'm going and how and now I've gotta start all
over again ;O) And I don't get to go on a BLART or anything either
:O(..
Oh well one day I might return...

-Rasmus, who's all excited and sad all at the same time...

[PiledHigher]

nebakke Wrote:
>
> Not at all but again, to be honest I think the issue is that you have
> to fight hard to convince me that riding on the road is going to be a
> lot safer than riding on the bikepath.
> I can accept people not wanting to use the dedicated bikepaths due to
> their ****poor quality but at the end of the day I use them becaus
> I'm
> quite certain that they're quite a lot safer than the road. Th
> "paths"
> that are just painted on are definitely not a good solution but I do
> believe that it's a step up from having the bikes on the road.
> I suppose at the end of the day I figure that I'm at risk from idiotic
> drivers no matter whether in the middle of the road or on the bikepath
> but if I stay on the bikepath I can at least shove it in their face
> with the arm that isn't broken, that that is MY lane...
>
> -Rasmus

I'm not even going to try any further to convince you becaus
everything you are writing now is based on beliefs not facts.

There are a lot of people that believe that they are safer because the
are driving huge 4wd with bull bars, this not the case

--
PiledHigher

[Tamyka Bell]

Alan Hutchison wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry, I'm a little biased this week. The trial of the driver of the
> truck that killed my cyclist wife was on Wednesday. She wasn't cycling
> at the time she was killed though, she just sat for a moment on a seat
> outside the post office when the truck needed to use the footpath and
> nature strip instead of the two lane roadway.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan.

Alan,

my deepest sympathy. It must really suck having to re-live this during
the trial. Be strong, and I hope the truck driver gets what he/she
deserves.

Tamyka

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
<snip>
> Not at all but again, to be honest I think the issue is that you have
> to fight hard to convince me that riding on the road is going to be a
> lot safer than riding on the bikepath.
> I can accept people not wanting to use the dedicated bikepaths due to
> their ****poor quality but at the end of the day I use them because I'm
> quite certain that they're quite a lot safer than the road. The "paths"
> that are just painted on are definitely not a good solution but I do
> believe that it's a step up from having the bikes on the road.
> I suppose at the end of the day I figure that I'm at risk from idiotic
> drivers no matter whether in the middle of the road or on the bikepath
> but if I stay on the bikepath I can at least shove it in their face
> with the arm that isn't broken, that that is MY lane...
>
> -Rasmus

I think Rasmus might be talking about good facilities such as the Coro
Dr bikeway (Coro Dr is fine off peak but the bikeway is way faster
during peak hour traffic; it's bitumen, and it's below the level of the
road, along the river, so you don't cop car fumes) or perhaps the
Western Fwy bikeway, which I haven't used deliberately, but once went
that way, assuming I would be able to exit, but it's closed off from
roads for a long way. I use Coro Dr every day I ride to uni.

However, I don't use the SE Fwy bikeway, except for a small section that
is basically flyover after flyover, to avoid all major intersections and
Fwy onramp/offramp, which is cool. The majority of the bikeway is nasty
and bumpy next to the fwy but that's not my gripe. At night, the fwy
headlights are in my eyes, and I can't see. The track is poorly lit, and
I can't see the edges. Then when I get further out my way, it directs me
through dark tunnels under roads, with absolutely no lighting, which
would be scary to walk through, let alone cycle. Then I get to the
section near Tarragindi where I am expected to dismount every block, to
cross the road. In addition, I am facing oncoming traffic, so their
lights are in my eyes (again). Where the bikeway rejoins the road, I am
spat out unceremoniously with little warning into the traffic. There are
poorly lit steep downhill sections, and unassisted road crossings -
whereas if I went along the road, I could just wait for the green arrow,
etc. With all this dodging, weaving, blinding, increased risk of
pinchflats, increased risk of stacking, inability to see... well, I save
myself 10-20 minutes by going home along Logan Rd, which is a major
route with lots of traffic, and is therefore very well and has a good
road surface.

Yes, the idea of a "bikeway" is good. The reality is often not so good.
The necessity for these facilities is a really bad reflection upon our
car-loving society.

Tam

[flyingdutch]

Alan Hutchison Wrote:
>
> Sorry, I'm a little biased this week. The trial of the driver of the
> truck that killed my cyclist wife was on Wednesday. She wasn'
> cycling
> at the time she was killed though, she just sat for a moment on a seat
> outside the post office when the truck needed to use the footpath and
> nature strip instead of the two lane roadway.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan.

oh jesus. i just got back from lager-infused lunch but now Im rea
sober.
If you have the wherewithall to tell, what did said driver get?
And where did this happen

--
flyingdutch

[nebakke]

PiledHigher wrote:
>
> I'm not even going to try any further to convince you because
> everything you are writing now is based on beliefs not facts.
>

That is fair enough, from what I've been able to find so far though it
looks like most of the incidents occuring on cycleways are between
pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars and cyclists, except for the
ones at crossings. The questions then, as I see it becomes whether the
issues at crossings make it worth it getting rid of the rest of the
paths.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to irk you or anything, I'm just trying to
understand this issue. Having grown up in a country and city where
bikelanes and cycleways are more the rule than the exception, I feel
quite comfortable with them and must admit that relatively speaking I
experience more issues on the road here than I do off the road in
Denmark.
Granted they are different cultures and different situations but
they're all I've got as a comparison. Basically I don't understand how
a dedicated cycleway causes more incidents between cars and bicycles,
so if someone can explain it I really would appreciate it.

> There are a lot of people that believe that they are safer because they
> are driving huge 4wd with bull bars, this not the case.

I seem to recall that statistics say that 4WD are often safer for the
passengers, at least they're not directly less safe, it's just that
they're a LOT unsafer for everyone else on the road.

-Rasmus, who doesn't mean to sound stupid, just trying to udnerstand
the issue.

[nebakke]

>
> I think Rasmus might be talking about good facilities such as the Coro
> Dr bikeway (Coro Dr is fine off peak but the bikeway is way faster
> during peak hour traffic; it's bitumen, and it's below the level of the
> road, along the river, so you don't cop car fumes) or perhaps the
> Western Fwy bikeway, which I haven't used deliberately, but once went
> that way, assuming I would be able to exit, but it's closed off from
> roads for a long way. I use Coro Dr every day I ride to uni.

Erhm I was indeed... Did I misunderstand the issue again? *blush* sorry
about that.

>
> However, I don't use the SE Fwy bikeway, except for a small section that
> is basically flyover after flyover, to avoid all major intersections and
> Fwy onramp/offramp, which is cool. The majority of the bikeway is nasty
> and bumpy next to the fwy but that's not my gripe.

Actually, that and the lighting that you mention too, are my 2 biggest
iossues with the Western Freeway bikeway from Toowong and out, it
really is not all that comfy to ride on, but again as I keep saying,
sure as hell beats being spread across the freeway itself under some
4WD idiot.

>
> The necessity for these facilities is a really bad reflection upon our
> car-loving society.

HEAR HEAR!!! RIGHT ON SISTAH!!! My sentiment exactly

-Rasmus

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
> PiledHigher wrote:
<snip>
> > There are a lot of people that believe that they are safer because they
> > are driving huge 4wd with bull bars, this not the case.
>
> I seem to recall that statistics say that 4WD are often safer for the
> passengers, at least they're not directly less safe, it's just that
> they're a LOT unsafer for everyone else on the road.

Er, don't think so, but like you, I am too lazy to google for stats.

Tam

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
> >
> > I think Rasmus might be talking about good facilities such as the Coro
> > Dr bikeway (Coro Dr is fine off peak but the bikeway is way faster
> > during peak hour traffic; it's bitumen, and it's below the level of the
> > road, along the river, so you don't cop car fumes) or perhaps the
> > Western Fwy bikeway, which I haven't used deliberately, but once went
> > that way, assuming I would be able to exit, but it's closed off from
> > roads for a long way. I use Coro Dr every day I ride to uni.
>
> Erhm I was indeed... Did I misunderstand the issue again? *blush* sorry
> about that.

Yeah, I think this issue was more about the types of bikeways that cross
driveways and roadways and... other types of ways...

> Actually, that and the lighting that you mention too, are my 2 biggest
> iossues with the Western Freeway bikeway from Toowong and out, it
> really is not all that comfy to ride on, but again as I keep saying,
> sure as hell beats being spread across the freeway itself under some
> 4WD idiot.

<snip>

I thought Western Fwy Bikeway was a bit better? Not all under canopy,
and at least open to Fwy street lightinig most of the way (tho bad for
the lights in your eyes if you're headed inbound, I suppose). As for the
bumps, they're good for you, so you no longer need to get out of the
saddle for speedbumps and stuff... "I just drove over what?!" (once it
was a witches hat, dunno how I didn't stack it)

Tam

[Alan Hutchison]

flyingdutch wrote:

> Alan Hutchison Wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I'm a little biased this week. The trial of the driver of the
>>truck that killed my cyclist wife was on Wednesday. She wasn't
>>cycling
>>at the time she was killed though, she just sat for a moment on a seat
>>outside the post office when the truck needed to use the footpath and
>>nature strip instead of the two lane roadway.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Alan.
>
>
> oh jesus. i just got back from lager-infused lunch but now Im real
> sober.
> If you have the wherewithall to tell, what did said driver get?
> And where did this happen?
>
>
It happened on 15th April 2004, outside the Eltham (Victoria) post
office. Rosemary went there primarily to transfer some money to an
account to send it to America for our new Bike Friday solos. We had
been riding a BF tandem for a few years and wanted the solos to
complement it.

I cannot say too much at present because there will probably be more
court cases yet. Evidence in the driver's case suggested that the
truck's brakes were completely defective at the time of the crash and
the problems were known about and reported by the driver some days
prior. Hence the probability of more court activity.

The sentence handed down was three months jail, suspended for two years,
a $1000.00 fine and loss of licence for 18 months.

My view is that the driver was a victim in this to some extent as well.
I expect to see a full report of the proceedings in the Diamond Valley
News (Leader Newspapers) next week.

I have received great support from my friends in the cycling fraternity,
especially in my club (MBTC) and the Bike Friday people world wide, for
which I am deeply grateful.

I'll post a report when it is all over.

Regards,

Alan.

[nebakke]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> Yeah, I think this issue was more about the types of bikeways that cross
> driveways and roadways and... other types of ways...

Ah yes OK, riding a bike on the sidewalk essentially.. OK, I'm with
PiledHigher then.. Thanks for the clarification there Tam...

> I thought Western Fwy Bikeway was a bit better? Not all under canopy,
> and at least open to Fwy street lightinig most of the way (tho bad for
> the lights in your eyes if you're headed inbound, I suppose).

Well I suppose I might be a tad spoiled but I would rather prefer that
the bikeway had it's own lights... I suppose they're issues but not
huge ones, jsut things I'd like to be different ;O)

> As for the
> bumps, they're good for you, so you no longer need to get out of the
> saddle for speedbumps and stuff... "I just drove over what?!" (once it
> was a witches hat, dunno how I didn't stack it)

Ah yes, I do remember that feeling actually from back when I used to be
in better shape.. The complete numbness of ones bum that doesn't leave
for years after one stops riding.. For a long time there I was
wondering why chairs were suddenly so uncomfortable ;O)
Never quite managed a witches hat, once again you have impressed me
deeply Tam...

-Rasmus who often goes to ride home after having looked at this group,
looking somewhat like this c:-O

[nebakke]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > I seem to recall that statistics say that 4WD are often safer for the
> > passengers, at least they're not directly less safe, it's just that
> > they're a LOT unsafer for everyone else on the road.
>
> Er, don't think so, but like you, I am too lazy to google for stats.

He, well this time I did google it and it seems that once again I was
wrong.. Some stats do point towards 4WDs not being significantly less
safe than any other car but apparently NRMA did a test with a 4WD, a
Commodore and a Concrete block to see which of the cars would last the
better... Because the of the weight issue the Commodore was safer, so
as the editor of the site where I found the stats so nicely puts it:
"If you know you are going to be crashing into concrete blocks then buy
the Commodore every time as its definitely safer."

I hereby retract my statements and go sit in the corner with my dunce's
cap on...

-Rasmus, eating humble pie and thinking that sometimes working for NRMA
has got to be almost as cool as being on the MythBusters team...

[PiledHigher]

nebakke Wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I don't mean to irk you or anything, I'm just trying to
> understand this issue. Having grown up in a country and city where
> bikelanes and cycleways are more the rule than the exception, I feel
> quite comfortable with them and must admit that relatively speaking I
> experience more issues on the road here than I do off the road in
> Denmark.
> Granted they are different cultures and different situations but
> they're all I've got as a comparison. Basically I don't understand how
> a dedicated cycleway causes more incidents between cars and bicycles,
> so if someone can explain it I really would appreciate it.
>

They are talking about essentially painting a footpath that has a larg
number of driveways across it, voila instant dangerous cycleway (an
more dangerous than using the road).

The problem is that there are a large number of places to go in a larg
city and a great network connecting them (roads). We (as cyclists) ar
never going to be able to get everywhere we want go if we cant use th
roads. In addition off road cycleways reinforce the fact in driver
minds that we should not be on 'their' roads and lead to decrease
tolerance when we are on 'their' roads.

As to 4WD there is some risk transferrance but they also perform poorl
in likelyhood of rollover and in collisions with solid objects.

Black people were equal but different in South Africa under aparteid.
don't want cyclist to be that way

--
PiledHigher

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > > I seem to recall that statistics say that 4WD are often safer for the
> > > passengers, at least they're not directly less safe, it's just that
> > > they're a LOT unsafer for everyone else on the road.
> >
> > Er, don't think so, but like you, I am too lazy to google for stats.
>
> He, well this time I did google it and it seems that once again I was
> wrong.. Some stats do point towards 4WDs not being significantly less
> safe than any other car but apparently NRMA did a test with a 4WD, a
> Commodore and a Concrete block to see which of the cars would last the
> better... Because the of the weight issue the Commodore was safer, so
> as the editor of the site where I found the stats so nicely puts it:
> "If you know you are going to be crashing into concrete blocks then buy
> the Commodore every time as its definitely safer."
>
> I hereby retract my statements and go sit in the corner with my dunce's
> cap on...
>
> -Rasmus, eating humble pie and thinking that sometimes working for NRMA
> has got to be almost as cool as being on the MythBusters team...

You're a genius Rasmus, now how do I get a job on MythBusters...

Tam

[dave]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> nebakke wrote:
>
>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>
>>>>I seem to recall that statistics say that 4WD are often safer for the
>>>>passengers, at least they're not directly less safe, it's just that
>>>>they're a LOT unsafer for everyone else on the road.
>>>
>>>Er, don't think so, but like you, I am too lazy to google for stats.
>>
>>He, well this time I did google it and it seems that once again I was
>>wrong.. Some stats do point towards 4WDs not being significantly less
>>safe than any other car but apparently NRMA did a test with a 4WD, a
>>Commodore and a Concrete block to see which of the cars would last the
>>better... Because the of the weight issue the Commodore was safer, so
>>as the editor of the site where I found the stats so nicely puts it:
>>"If you know you are going to be crashing into concrete blocks then buy
>>the Commodore every time as its definitely safer."
>>
>>I hereby retract my statements and go sit in the corner with my dunce's
>>cap on...
>>
>>-Rasmus, eating humble pie and thinking that sometimes working for NRMA
>>has got to be almost as cool as being on the MythBusters team...
>
>
> You're a genius Rasmus, now how do I get a job on MythBusters...
>
> Tam

Blowing things up. Me Me.

Dave

[PiledHigher]

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> nebakke wrote:
> >
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > > > I seem to recall that statistics say that 4WD are often safer fo
> the
> > > > passengers, at least they're not directly less safe, it's jus
> that
> > > > they're a LOT unsafer for everyone else on the road.
> > >
> > > Er, don't think so, but like you, I am too lazy to google fo
> stats.
> >
> > He, well this time I did google it and it seems that once again
> was
> > wrong.. Some stats do point towards 4WDs not being significantl
> less
> > safe than any other car but apparently NRMA did a test with a 4WD, a
> > Commodore and a Concrete block to see which of the cars would las
> the
> > better... Because the of the weight issue the Commodore was safer
> so
> > as the editor of the site where I found the stats so nicely puts it:
> > "If you know you are going to be crashing into concrete blocks the
> buy
> > the Commodore every time as its definitely safer."
> >
> > I hereby retract my statements and go sit in the corner with m
> dunce's
> > cap on...
> >
> > -Rasmus, eating humble pie and thinking that sometimes working fo
> NRMA
> > has got to be almost as cool as being on the MythBusters team...
>
> You're a genius Rasmus, now how do I get a job on MythBusters...
>
> Tam


And for the record it looks like around 1/3 of fatal crash's in NS
involve solid objects and approximately another 1/3 are single ca
accidents. SO the safety of your own car is important

--
PiledHigher

[Carl Brewer]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:09:53 +1000, Tamyka Bell >
wrote:

>suzyj wrote:
>>
>> Tam wrote:
>>
>> > Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard arse
>> > yet. Would you like one? I have one going cheap.
>>
>> What the fsck is a lard arse? Do I want one, or are they really scary
>> things?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Suzy
>>
>> --
>> suzyj
>
>It is a really big arse, that makes riding more comfortable, but can be
>hard to carry up hills. They are indeed scary things. Not having one is
>probably a good thing. Hence the cheap sell on mine.

The seat of POWER!

Embrace it! For it is where your top speed comes from!

[Gemma_k]

"PiledHigher" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Gemma_k Wrote:
> >
> > These studies refer to the types of facilities that have frequent road
> > crossings across sidestreets (and driveways!) - ie where motor vehicle
> > drivers don't expect you to dart across and there are frequent
> > conflict
> > points.
>
> Which is exactly what they are building!
>
Bad luck then :-)

[Tamyka Bell]

Carl Brewer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:09:53 +1000, Tamyka Bell >
> wrote:
>
> >suzyj wrote:
> >>
> >> Tam wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard arse
> >> > yet. Would you like one? I have one going cheap.
> >>
> >> What the fsck is a lard arse? Do I want one, or are they really scary
> >> things?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Suzy
> >>
> >> --
> >> suzyj
> >
> >It is a really big arse, that makes riding more comfortable, but can be
> >hard to carry up hills. They are indeed scary things. Not having one is
> >probably a good thing. Hence the cheap sell on mine.
>
> The seat of POWER!
>
> Embrace it! For it is where your top speed comes from!

Perhaps I should have explained the difference between lard and muscle.

Tam

[Carl Brewer]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:22:27 +1000, Tamyka Bell >
wrote:


>> Embrace it! For it is where your top speed comes from!
>
>Perhaps I should have explained the difference between lard and muscle.

Top speed occurs on downhill stretches, where every gram helps
overcome that pesky air resistance. Grams of fat, muscle, water, beer
....

[flyingdutch]

nebakke Wrote:
>
> ...apparently NRMA did a test with a 4WD, a Commodore and a Concret
> block...

I've been meaning to do that for ages... :rolleyes

--
flyingdutch

[TimC]

On 2005-06-10, nebakke (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
> just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
> significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
> traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians.

But we're not on par with cars if we are encouraged to ride on the
path so as to get "out of the way" of cars.

--
TimC
When I'M trying to get somebody fired, I always walk a mile in their
shoes first. That way, when I get them fired and they get all angry
with me, I'm a mile away, and I'VE GOT THEIR SHOES! HAW HAW!
--Beable van Polasm, alt.religion.kibology

[TimC]

On 2005-06-10, Alan Hutchison (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Sorry, I'm a little biased this week. The trial of the driver of the
> truck that killed my cyclist wife was on Wednesday. She wasn't cycling
> at the time she was killed though, she just sat for a moment on a seat
> outside the post office when the truck needed to use the footpath and
> nature strip instead of the two lane roadway.

Condolenses Alan, and good luck.

--
TimC
Center meeting at 4pm in 3C-273.

[Jock]

"Carl Brewer" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:22:27 +1000, Tamyka Bell >
| wrote:
|
|
| >> Embrace it! For it is where your top speed comes from!
| >
| >Perhaps I should have explained the difference between lard and muscle.
|
| Top speed occurs on downhill stretches, where every gram helps
| overcome that pesky air resistance. Grams of fat, muscle, water, beer
| ...
|
|
|

latte and scones even!
Jock

[Kim]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Yes, the idea of a "bikeway" is good. The reality is often not so good.
> The necessity for these facilities is a really bad reflection upon our
> car-loving society.

to be honest i've not spent a lot of time 'commuting' in brisvegas.
i lived 1.5hrs to the west over the range. but travelled 'through' alot.

i have been stuck in brisbane on many occasions for whatever reason
without transport of my own.. my thoughts on commuting in brisbane is
that the rail and bus systems dont work. therefore car use is very high.
also that australia has a very mobile[1] population, unlike other places
ive been/seen.

what ever happened to the light rail system that was proposes around
97-98? did any of that ever make it into reality?

cheers,

kim

[1] we commute to work a lot further, shop around 'burbs the other side
of town, traveling holidays and family is scattered all of the place!

[Marty]

Baka Dasai wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2005 21:46:08 -0700, nebakke said (and I quote):
>
>>Basically I don't understand how
>>a dedicated cycleway causes more incidents between cars and bicycles,
>>so if someone can explain it I really would appreciate it.
>
>
> Collisions between cars and bikes mostly occur at intersections.
> Dedicated cycle paths do not reduce the number of intersections, and the
> proposed cyclepath in this instance actually makes a whole class of
> intersections (driveway with road) more dangerous because car-drivers
> entering and exiting driveways are less likely to be looking for
> fast-moving bikes on a cycleway, whereas if the bike was on the road the
> car-driver would be more likely to see them.

Is that your real name or is that a japanese nick name?

[nebakke]

PiledHigher wrote:
> nebakke Wrote:
>
> The problem is that there are a large number of places to go in a large
> city and a great network connecting them (roads). We (as cyclists) are
> never going to be able to get everywhere we want go if we cant use the
> roads. In addition off road cycleways reinforce the fact in drivers
> minds that we should not be on 'their' roads and lead to decreased
> tolerance when we are on 'their' roads.

This however I do disagree with, the same argument could be transferred
to pedestrians then, by inferred argument you're saying that footpaths
are a bad thing as well as pedestrians are never going to be able to
get everywhere they want to if they can't use the roads...
I'm no saying that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed to use the roads
where there is no bikepath, I'm just saying that if you could put
bikepaths everywhere, and again I'm not talking about the dodgy painted
on and shared ones here, it'd be a better solution for everyone.
I'm an idealist, but I'm not so much of an idealist that I am willing
to sacrifice peoples lives on the altar of my ideology. The whole point
of this exercise would be to spare lives and I do believe that that can
be done by putting in decent well thought through bike paths.

> Black people were equal but different in South Africa under aparteid. I
> don't want cyclist to be that way.

I honestly don't think this compares by any measure to apartheid
though, I can't say for example that I know a single driver who would
kill their daughter's boyfriend for being a cyclist, drivers don't get
priority at job interviews or have their own, better kept, toilets.. As
cyclists we are indeed disadvantaged in the traffic but there's a LONG
way to the apartheid rule.

-Rasmus, taking a step back off his soap box...

[Resound]

"nebakke" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> PiledHigher wrote:
>> nebakke Wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that there are a large number of places to go in a large
>> city and a great network connecting them (roads). We (as cyclists) are
>> never going to be able to get everywhere we want go if we cant use the
>> roads. In addition off road cycleways reinforce the fact in drivers
>> minds that we should not be on 'their' roads and lead to decreased
>> tolerance when we are on 'their' roads.
>
> This however I do disagree with, the same argument could be transferred
> to pedestrians then, by inferred argument you're saying that footpaths
> are a bad thing as well as pedestrians are never going to be able to
> get everywhere they want to if they can't use the roads...
> I'm no saying that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed to use the roads
> where there is no bikepath, I'm just saying that if you could put
> bikepaths everywhere, and again I'm not talking about the dodgy painted
> on and shared ones here, it'd be a better solution for everyone.
> I'm an idealist, but I'm not so much of an idealist that I am willing
> to sacrifice peoples lives on the altar of my ideology. The whole point
> of this exercise would be to spare lives and I do believe that that can
> be done by putting in decent well thought through bike paths.
>

The raw speed differential between cyclists and pedestrians means that many
of the safety issues that obtain for cyclists on paths are irrelevant for
pedestrians, but also generates other safety issues, particularly with the
general unpredictability of cyclists. Yes, motorists can occasionally be
unpredictable, but I've yet to see one stop dead for no apparent reason and
then wander off at right angles to their original direction without any
warning whatsoever. Drivers don't wander left and right in their "lane" half
as much as peds either. In short, I'd rather leave the pedestrians to mill
about together on the path and insert myself into the flow of traffic. I
generally use roads by preference, even if there is a path available. A bike
lane on the road is different, I rather like those. They mean I can sit well
out from the parked cars without taking over a whole lane of the road with
traffic that wants to move at twice my speed.

>> Black people were equal but different in South Africa under aparteid. I
>> don't want cyclist to be that way.
>
> I honestly don't think this compares by any measure to apartheid
> though, I can't say for example that I know a single driver who would
> kill their daughter's boyfriend for being a cyclist, drivers don't get
> priority at job interviews or have their own, better kept, toilets.. As
> cyclists we are indeed disadvantaged in the traffic but there's a LONG
> way to the apartheid rule.
>

Oh hell yes. That comes perilously close to tripping Godwin's law, and
dodges only by virtue of the fact that it's not actually about the Nazi
regime.

> -Rasmus, taking a step back off his soap box...
>

[Carl Brewer]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:27:34 +1000, "Resound"
> wrote:


>The raw speed differential between cyclists and pedestrians means that many
>of the safety issues that obtain for cyclists on paths are irrelevant for
>pedestrians, but also generates other safety issues, particularly with the
>general unpredictability of cyclists. Yes, motorists can occasionally be
>unpredictable, but I've yet to see one stop dead for no apparent reason and
>then wander off at right angles to their original direction without any
>warning whatsoever. Drivers don't wander left and right in their "lane" half
>as much as peds either. In short, I'd rather leave the pedestrians to mill
>about together on the path and insert myself into the flow of traffic. I
>generally use roads by preference, even if there is a path available. A bike
>lane on the road is different, I rather like those. They mean I can sit well
>out from the parked cars without taking over a whole lane of the road with
>traffic that wants to move at twice my speed.

You forgot joggers and rollerbladers and small children and dogs.

[Resound]

"Carl Brewer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:27:34 +1000, "Resound"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The raw speed differential between cyclists and pedestrians means that
>>many
>>of the safety issues that obtain for cyclists on paths are irrelevant for
>>pedestrians, but also generates other safety issues, particularly with the
>>general unpredictability of cyclists. Yes, motorists can occasionally be
>>unpredictable, but I've yet to see one stop dead for no apparent reason
>>and
>>then wander off at right angles to their original direction without any
>>warning whatsoever. Drivers don't wander left and right in their "lane"
>>half
>>as much as peds either. In short, I'd rather leave the pedestrians to mill
>>about together on the path and insert myself into the flow of traffic. I
>>generally use roads by preference, even if there is a path available. A
>>bike
>>lane on the road is different, I rather like those. They mean I can sit
>>well
>>out from the parked cars without taking over a whole lane of the road with
>>traffic that wants to move at twice my speed.
>
> You forgot joggers and rollerbladers and small children and dogs.
>
>

Never forgotten, I was just using "pedestrians" as shorthand for that
general group. Pretty much everyone here knows what I mean :)

[nebakke]

Resound wrote:
> "nebakke" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > PiledHigher wrote:
> >> nebakke Wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem is that there are a large number of places to go in a large
> >> city and a great network connecting them (roads). We (as cyclists) are
> >> never going to be able to get everywhere we want go if we cant use the
> >> roads. In addition off road cycleways reinforce the fact in drivers
> >> minds that we should not be on 'their' roads and lead to decreased
> >> tolerance when we are on 'their' roads.
> >
> > This however I do disagree with, the same argument could be transferred
> > to pedestrians then, by inferred argument you're saying that footpaths
> > are a bad thing as well as pedestrians are never going to be able to
> > get everywhere they want to if they can't use the roads...
> > I'm no saying that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed to use the roads
> > where there is no bikepath, I'm just saying that if you could put
> > bikepaths everywhere, and again I'm not talking about the dodgy painted
> > on and shared ones here, it'd be a better solution for everyone.
> > I'm an idealist, but I'm not so much of an idealist that I am willing
> > to sacrifice peoples lives on the altar of my ideology. The whole point
> > of this exercise would be to spare lives and I do believe that that can
> > be done by putting in decent well thought through bike paths.
> >
>
> The raw speed differential between cyclists and pedestrians means that many
> of the safety issues that obtain for cyclists on paths are irrelevant for
> pedestrians, but also generates other safety issues, particularly with the
> general unpredictability of cyclists.

I know what you're saying, and I completely agree that there are huge
safety issues with bicycle and pedestrians sharing paths which is why
I'm not really advocating this, what I was doing was just elaborating
on the argument... The raw speed differential between cyclists and cars
cause a fair few of the safety issues in sharing lanes that way.

> Yes, motorists can occasionally be
> unpredictable, but I've yet to see one stop dead for no apparent reason and
> then wander off at right angles to their original direction without any
> warning whatsoever. Drivers don't wander left and right in their "lane" half
> as much as peds either. In short, I'd rather leave the pedestrians to mill
> about together on the path and insert myself into the flow of traffic.

This is all why I'm trying to advocate a path for each, footpath for
pedestrians, bicyclepath for cyclists and the road for cars, keeps it
all clean and tidy.. And referring back to a seaqrch I did on the net
earlier according to Danish and Dutch (that's right, they're not the
same ;O) studies dedicated bikepaths on the road which change to bike
lanes at intersections provide a higher safety than bikepaths or lanes
alone... For example, optimal would be a completely dedicated bike path
on it's own, but that would probably be both costly and cause plenty of
heated debates about where to put them (no, NOT there ;OP~~)

>I
> generally use roads by preference, even if there is a path available. A bike
> lane on the road is different, I rather like those. They mean I can sit well
> out from the parked cars without taking over a whole lane of the road with
> traffic that wants to move at twice my speed.

With regards to the bike lane I can only refer you to the research that
PiledHigher mentions, personally I do still get that same sense of
safety from having my own lane even if it's a false one.

> >> Black people were equal but different in South Africa under aparteid. I
> >> don't want cyclist to be that way.

<snip snip>

> Oh hell yes. That comes perilously close to tripping Godwin's law, and
> dodges only by virtue of the fact that it's not actually about the Nazi
> regime.

Oooooooooooh, I didn't even think of that, HEY! That means that if the
law holds and we keep this discussion up I will eventually win!!! WOOT!

-Rasmus

[PiledHigher]

nebakke Wrote:
> Resound wrote:
> > "nebakke" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > PiledHigher wrote:
> > >> nebakke Wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The problem is that there are a large number of places to go in
> large
> > >> city and a great network connecting them (roads). We (as cyclists
> are
> > >> never going to be able to get everywhere we want go if we cant us
> the
> > >> roads. In addition off road cycleways reinforce the fact i
> drivers
> > >> minds that we should not be on 'their' roads and lead t
> decreased
> > >> tolerance when we are on 'their' roads.
> > >
> > > This however I do disagree with, the same argument could b
> transferred
> > > to pedestrians then, by inferred argument you're saying tha
> footpaths
> > > are a bad thing as well as pedestrians are never going to be abl
> to
> > > get everywhere they want to if they can't use the roads...
> > > I'm no saying that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed to use th
> roads
> > > where there is no bikepath, I'm just saying that if you could put
> > > bikepaths everywhere, and again I'm not talking about the dodg
> painted
> > > on and shared ones here, it'd be a better solution for everyone.
> > > I'm an idealist, but I'm not so much of an idealist that I a
> willing
> > > to sacrifice peoples lives on the altar of my ideology. The whol
> point
> > > of this exercise would be to spare lives and I do believe that tha
> can
> > > be done by putting in decent well thought through bike paths.
> > >
> >
> > The raw speed differential between cyclists and pedestrians mean
> that many
> > of the safety issues that obtain for cyclists on paths are irrelevan
> for
> > pedestrians, but also generates other safety issues, particularl
> with the
> > general unpredictability of cyclists.
>
> I know what you're saying, and I completely agree that there are huge
> safety issues with bicycle and pedestrians sharing paths which is why
> I'm not really advocating this, what I was doing was just elaborating
> on the argument... The raw speed differential between cyclists an
> cars
> cause a fair few of the safety issues in sharing lanes that way.
>
> > Yes, motorists can occasionally be
> > unpredictable, but I've yet to see one stop dead for no apparen
> reason and
> > then wander off at right angles to their original direction withou
> any
> > warning whatsoever. Drivers don't wander left and right in thei
> "lane" half
> > as much as peds either. In short, I'd rather leave the pedestrians t
> mill
> > about together on the path and insert myself into the flow o
> traffic.
>
> This is all why I'm trying to advocate a path for each, footpath for
> pedestrians, bicyclepath for cyclists and the road for cars, keeps it
> all clean and tidy.. And referring back to a seaqrch I did on the net
> earlier according to Danish and Dutch (that's right, they're not the
> same ;O) studies dedicated bikepaths on the road which change to bike
> lanes at intersections provide a higher safety than bikepaths or lanes
> alone... For example, optimal would be a completely dedicated bik
> path
> on it's own, but that would probably be both costly and cause plent
> of
> heated debates about where to put them (no, NOT there ;OP~~)
>
> >I
> > generally use roads by preference, even if there is a path available
> A bike
> > lane on the road is different, I rather like those. They mean I ca
> sit well
> > out from the parked cars without taking over a whole lane of the roa
> with
> > traffic that wants to move at twice my speed.
>
> With regards to the bike lane I can only refer you to the researc
> that
> PiledHigher mentions, personally I do still get that same sense of
> safety from having my own lane even if it's a false one.
>
> > >> Black people were equal but different in South Africa unde
> aparteid. I
> > >> don't want cyclist to be that way.
>
> <snip snip>
>
> > Oh hell yes. That comes perilously close to tripping Godwin's law
> and
> > dodges only by virtue of the fact that it's not actually about the
> Nazi
> > regime.
>
> Oooooooooooh, I didn't even think of that, HEY! That means that if the
> law holds and we keep this discussion up I will eventually win!!!
> WOOT!
>
> -Rasmus

Bike lanes on the road are safer than footpath type 'bike' paths so
Resound you are correct, most of the time, the interactions with cars
in this case are the same that cars have with other cars and so are
coming from where they expect you to be. The point is that an on road
bike lane is similar in safety to a wide outside lane with no markings
for cyclists. Either of these treatments is better than the footpath
option.

Obviously a completely separated bike path will lead to less car bike
conflicts but the land is not available to deliver these in an existing
city, as such they will never meet the needs of cyclists in travelling
to all destinations, there is a network for this, its called roads, I
don't want to not be able to use this resource on a bike.

Rasmus, you are winning the argument in your own head, its not based on
facts but who ever let those get in the way of a good argument. The
arguments that I have point forward that you have tried to corroberate
have come up as factual (surprise!).

Most of the issues between cars and bikes are not speed differential
issues, the key causes of accidents between cars and bikes are at
intersections, while turning etc.

When the consequences of killing a cyclist, while drunk are a $3100
fine, we are second class citizens. If you took 1/2 the comments that
get published about cyclists in the paper and swapped the word Muslim,
Jew or Christian for cyclist you would be vilified!

PiledHigher


--
PiledHigher

[Graeme]

"nebakke" > wrote in
oups.com:

> PiledHigher wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that there are a large number of places to go in a
>> large city and a great network connecting them (roads). We (as
>> cyclists) are never going to be able to get everywhere we want go if
>> we cant use the roads. In addition off road cycleways reinforce the
>> fact in drivers minds that we should not be on 'their' roads and lead
>> to decreased tolerance when we are on 'their' roads.
>
> This however I do disagree with, the same argument could be
> transferred to pedestrians then, by inferred argument you're saying
> that footpaths are a bad thing as well as pedestrians are never going
> to be able to get everywhere they want to if they can't use the
> roads...

I don't think your extension of the argument follows, for a variety of
reasons.

Pretty much everybody is a pedestrian at some stage of the day (even if
it is only from their front door to the car door and from their car door
to the office), so there is less of the "us and them" attitude that
there can be between drivers and cyclists. So any pedestrian who wonders
on to the road is seen as an individual, whereas any cyclist on the road
(regardless of how they are cycling) is seen as "one of them" who should
be on "those cycle paths that so much of my tax gets spent on."

Cars and pedestrians don't mix well, even at suburban speeds, so
there is a distinct advantage in having footpaths to seperate the two.
Cars and cycles can and do, on the whole, mix well in the majority of
situations.

That said, I've noticed a lot of the suburbs around Perth don't even
have footpaths. This would be great if they'd gone the whole hog and got
rid of all road markings, road signs etc. and lost the distinction
between "car's domain" and "pedestrian's domain" as has been done in
some countries very successfully. However, I'm pretty sure it was done
purely to let them squeeze extra house blocks in to a given area and the
estates are still designed with the "car is king" mentality.

Graeme

[Graeme]

"nebakke" > wrote in news:1118719032.569792.61180
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> With regards to the bike lane I can only refer you to the research that
> PiledHigher mentions, personally I do still get that same sense of
> safety from having my own lane even if it's a false one.

In any given situation I'd far rather have a true sense of risk than a
false sense of safety. If that meant doing away with the frequently
pointless little white lines giving us a metre or so of space at the side
of the road then fair enough.

Graeme

[nebakke]

>
> Bike lanes on the road are safer than footpath type 'bike' paths so
> Resound you are correct, most of the time, the interactions with cars
> in this case are the same that cars have with other cars and so are
> coming from where they expect you to be. The point is that an on road
> bike lane is similar in safety to a wide outside lane with no markings
> for cyclists. Either of these treatments is better than the footpath
> option.

If I'm misunderstanding once again then I appologise but... According
to Danish Directorate of Roads, recent research has shown that
"footpath" type bike paths are safer than bike lanes except for around
intersections. Now when I say "footpath" type paths I don't mean sahred
paths or paths rewmoved completely from the road, I mean paths that are
dedicated to bicycles, not going in both directions, raised from the
road the way a footpath is but, at least in Scandinavia, lower than the
footpath so as to make it distinctively different to the footpath. This
type of path has proven to be the best option in particular in areas
with high speed traffic and with high traffic loads... When talking
about intersections you're right, bike paths are less safe, generally
because both cars and bicycles have that false sense of security but
also because neither drivers NOR cyclists are quite certain about how
to behave when they meet in an intersection. Apparently so far the
safest suggestion, accordin to research, has been to use the raised
type bicycle path along the road and end it about 10 meters before
intersections so as to increase the awareness of everyone in the
traffic. The biggest issue generally with this type of bike path occurs
if they're not maintained right, the exact same as with roads and
everything else.

>
> Rasmus, you are winning the argument in your own head, its not based on
> facts but who ever let those get in the way of a good argument.

Piledhigher, this was meant as a joke... Godwin's law states that "As
an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." in many newsgroups, I refer
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law - "There is a tradition
in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the
thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost
whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor
form to invoke the law explicitly."
So, as I didn't invoke Godwin's law myself and if the general rule
helt, I almost won the discussion by default ;O)... Anyways, it was a
joke and doesn't hold true either, it's a flawed understanding of the
law, as also shown by the link.

>
> When the consequences of killing a cyclist, while drunk are a $3100
> fine, we are second class citizens. If you took 1/2 the comments that
> get published about cyclists in the paper and swapped the word Muslim,
> Jew or Christian for cyclist you would be vilified!

That I agree with but as I see there's a long way from a bad perception
of cyclists and legislation that is way too soft, to the point of
actually being second class citizens...
As I wrote before... As a bicyclist you're not in danger of getting
murdered just because you ride a bike... You're not in a situation
where you, even when off the bike, get treated differently, you don't
have to use different rest rooms or sit in the back of the bus..
What I'm trying to say is that to me, saying that as bicyclists we are
considered second class citizens is an overdrqamatization. I can
certainly understand why you feel like that but I don't believe it
helps our cause at all. Feeling victimised tends to lead to finding
someone to blame, in this case cars, the next step, if we follow the
feeling of apartheid, is to start bashing car windows in and beating up
drivers for being drivers, eventually leading to all out war. This
might be a bit exxagerated (a BIT he said??? ;O) but I'm sure you get
my point.

-Rasmus

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
<snip>
> As I wrote before... As a bicyclist you're not in danger of getting
> murdered just because you ride a bike... You're not in a situation
<snip>

I can think of at least 4 situations in the last two years when someone
has deliberately tried to run me off the road. I am talking about
situations where said driver has sped up and sat just off my back wheel
or has swerved across up to four lanes of traffic to get at me.

In contrast, in my entire life to date, I have suffered two (separate)
attempted muggings at knifepoint, and one attempted rape. (Note
"attempted" for all three cases - arseholes will never try THAT again,
at least, not on an innocent looking chicky.)

So I would disagree and say that I am in danger of getting murdered just
because I ride a bike.

Tam

[flyingdutch]

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
>
> I can think of at least 4 situations in the last two years whe
> someone
> has deliberately tried to run me off the road. I am talking about
> situations where said driver has sped up and sat just off my bac
> wheel
> or has swerved across up to four lanes of traffic to get at me.
>
> In contrast, in my entire life to date, I have suffered two (separate)
> attempted muggings at knifepoint, and one attempted rape. (Note
> "attempted" for all three cases - arseholes will never try THAT again,
> at least, not on an innocent looking chicky.)
>
> So I would disagree and say that I am in danger of getting murdere
> just
> because I ride a bike.
>
> Tam

heyzoos! lil' ol' tame Melbourne just dont measure up

--
flyingdutch

[nebakke]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> nebakke wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > As I wrote before... As a bicyclist you're not in danger of getting
> > murdered just because you ride a bike... You're not in a situation
> <snip>
>
> I can think of at least 4 situations in the last two years when someone
> has deliberately tried to run me off the road. I am talking about
> situations where said driver has sped up and sat just off my back wheel
> or has swerved across up to four lanes of traffic to get at me.
>
> In contrast, in my entire life to date, I have suffered two (separate)
> attempted muggings at knifepoint, and one attempted rape. (Note
> "attempted" for all three cases - arseholes will never try THAT again,
> at least, not on an innocent looking chicky.)
>
> So I would disagree and say that I am in danger of getting murdered just
> because I ride a bike.

Wow.... erhm well.. I guess I'll just modify that statement a bit
then...
Anyways, can we at least agree that you're not generally in danger of
being murdered? In my still limited experience with riding down here
I've found that the greatest dangers I've faced on the road has been
F*****G idiot teenagers in hotted up cars that they can't and won't
control who thinks that it'd be cool to swerve and try to scare the
cyclist... But as I see it's still a long way from that to actually
attempting murder nomatter how ****ed off I get with them i don't
expect any of them ever actually intend to kill me... If they do the
problem here isn't just traffic rules.

-Rasmus

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > nebakke wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > As I wrote before... As a bicyclist you're not in danger of getting
> > > murdered just because you ride a bike... You're not in a situation
> > <snip>
> >
> > I can think of at least 4 situations in the last two years when someone
> > has deliberately tried to run me off the road. I am talking about
> > situations where said driver has sped up and sat just off my back wheel
> > or has swerved across up to four lanes of traffic to get at me.
> >
> > In contrast, in my entire life to date, I have suffered two (separate)
> > attempted muggings at knifepoint, and one attempted rape. (Note
> > "attempted" for all three cases - arseholes will never try THAT again,
> > at least, not on an innocent looking chicky.)
> >
> > So I would disagree and say that I am in danger of getting murdered just
> > because I ride a bike.
>
> Wow.... erhm well.. I guess I'll just modify that statement a bit
> then...
> Anyways, can we at least agree that you're not generally in danger of
> being murdered? In my still limited experience with riding down here
> I've found that the greatest dangers I've faced on the road has been
> F*****G idiot teenagers in hotted up cars that they can't and won't
> control who thinks that it'd be cool to swerve and try to scare the
> cyclist... But as I see it's still a long way from that to actually
> attempting murder nomatter how ****ed off I get with them i don't
> expect any of them ever actually intend to kill me... If they do the
> problem here isn't just traffic rules.
>
> -Rasmus

Never ridden through Burpengary (aka redneckvillea), have you?! Out
there, and Caboolture, and... well all over the Northside, really, they
WANT to kill you. I've seen a ****** nearly write his van off by
flicking it off the road onto the gravel a few metres in front of our
bunch. If he'd rolled it... would we have stopped? Interesting thought.
Maybe to "put him out of his misery".

Still, if you want to think they DON'T want to kill you... can I come
live in your happy little Utopia?

Tam

[nebakke]

Nopes, can't say that I have... But as I said before if that's the case
then I'm not sure that the road/traffic situation is the problem...
OK, I'll amend the sentence again, the government doesn't condone these
attempted murders then, and it certainly hasn't based itself firmly on
the hatred of bicyclists.: Even if it feels like that sometimes...

-Rasmus