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

[PiledHigher]

Anyone know anything, apparently reported on the radio.

[flyingdutch]

PiledHigher Wrote:
> Anyone know anything, apparently reported on the radio.

If reported on radio, wouldnt it normally be "cyclist collided with
car" ? grrrr.

Sorry. grumpy this morning.
what time?


--
flyingdutch

[PiledHigher]

No idea, sometime b4 9am, was reported 2nd hand, thought that others
may know more.

PiledHigher

[MikeyOz]

PiledHigher Wrote:
> No idea, sometime b4 9am, was reported 2nd hand, thought that others
> may know more.
>
> PiledHigher
wasn't me and was not out riding this morning so as usual "I know
nothing" hopefully nothing "serious"


--
MikeyOz

[The P]

"flyingdutch" > wrote in
message ...
>
> PiledHigher Wrote:
>> Anyone know anything, apparently reported on the radio.
>
> If reported on radio, wouldnt it normally be "cyclist collided with
> car" ? grrrr.
>
> Sorry. grumpy this morning.
> what time?
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a driver
lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a weetbix
box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[blah]

The P wrote:

>
> How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a driver
> lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a weetbix
> box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.

[rooman]

blah Wrote:
> The P wrote:
>
> >
> > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> driver
> > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> weetbix
> > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>
> Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...

in the same vein that people get shot by guns and stabbed by knives,
hit by kitchen rollers ... its just -hutzpah- ..like the jewish kid who
killed his parents and asked the court for mercy in sentencing as he was
now an "Orphan" !


--
rooman

[Peter Signorini]

"cfsmtb" wrote:
>
> blah Wrote:
>>
>> Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left
>> the
>> road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just
>> happened
>> to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> On a similar theme, that recent bingle btw a 4WD and a crowded Melb
> market? WTF was going on there?

The driver was hospitalised and sounded like he may have had some sort of
seizure or heart attack. Police were investigating whether this was the
case. Sadly such things occasionally occur. My mother was driving and had a
heamorage in the brain, just before her death. Her foot involuntarily hit
the accelerator. Luckily it was near home, she just clipped a light pole,
the front stub axle broke and the car skidded across the road to come to a
halt against the kerb. No-one was nearby and she didn't hit anything head
on.

Hope all the people injured in the market are on the way to a speedy
recovery.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[Bleve]

rooman wrote:
> blah Wrote:
> > The P wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> > driver
> > > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> > weetbix
> > > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> >
> > Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> > road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> > to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.

> the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
> cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...

Accident :

1.
1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one
resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to
his promotion.
3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's
clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the
nature of something.


As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
it's an accident.

[PiledHigher]

Bleve wrote:
> rooman wrote:
> > blah Wrote:
> > > The P wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> > > driver
> > > > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> > > weetbix
> > > > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> > >
> > > Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> > > road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> > > to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> > the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
> > cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...
>
> Accident :
>
> 1.
> 1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one
> resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
> 2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to
> his promotion.
> 3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's
> clothing.
> 2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
> 3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the
> nature of something.
>
>
> As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
> it's an accident.


But if you are breaking the road rules then it is not an unexpected
event.

[Donga]

Bleve:
>As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision, it's an accident.

How about if he did it deliberately and the cyclist ****ed/shat his
pants whilst lying on the ground wounded?

(sorry)

[Bleve]

PiledHigher wrote:

> > As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
> > it's an accident.
>
>
> But if you are breaking the road rules then it is not an unexpected
> event.

I'd suggest that the vast majority of drivers driving at 5km/h over the
posted speed limit would not be expecting to have a collision because
of it. Even the drunken dickhead doing 180km/h down a side street is
still having an accident if they crash. It's only not an accident if
they deliberatly crash.

Contributory negligence has to be taken into account, of course, when
it comes to setting appropriate penalties, but it's still (in the eyes
of a reasonable person) an accident unless there's intent.

Remember, to explain and to understand, is not to condone. Many many
people don't get that rather fundamental point.

[rooman]

giantvaude Wrote:
> Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If
> a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase
> the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not
> "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially
> the collision speed differential that results from only small
> differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no
> longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit,
> or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the
> risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an
> bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was
> careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the
> conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not
> be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic
> as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is
> ironic in this world of individualism.
>
>
> Pat
Insurance companies and actuaries love the refusal of individuals to
take responsibility for their own actions, it gives them great joy and
allows them to blow premiums through the roof...of course this is in
direct response to courts allowing this nonsense in actions for Tort.

Our society is too soft on personal responsibility...and we all pay the
price...and accepting motor vehicle collisions as "accidents" is also
society's soft option ...yep we have a world of individuals, who will
climb over their mother to make a buck off some one else, and cry foul
when their own acts of rashness, idiocy or pure stupidity allow them to
recover cash damages off some innocent person or organisation just
because the "soft on responsibility" society/courts of today permit
it!

It's a "paranoia litigia" and the curse of free enterprise, democracy
and plain common sense. That same bloody-mindedness that drives cagers
to tell cyclists to "get off the bloody road" !

When respect, fair play and personal responsibility for our own actions
is more apparent maybe then will we ride the roads in greater safety,
till then common sense where the "bloody hell are you?":mad:


--
rooman

[Peter Signorini]

"giantvaude" wrote:

> Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If
> a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase
> the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not
> "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially
> the collision speed differential that results from only small
> differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no
> longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit,
> or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the
> risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an
> bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was
> careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the
> conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not
> be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic
> as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is
> ironic in this world of individualism.

You are confusing responsibility, negligence and intention.

If I am riding down the bike path at a moderate clip, say 20 kmh, and I come
around a curve to see a group of pedestrians massed on the path, coming
towards me. I haul on the brakes (it's a fairly easy stop), but at that
point my cable breaks. I career into the peds. scattering them like
nine-pins.

Am I responsible? Yes, principally. But the peds walking all over the path
were behaving unreasonably - it is a shared use trail after all.

Was I negligent? Probably not, but it may take a judge to determine. The
brake failure may have been unforeseeable.

Was my action intentional? Definitely not, I had no intention of running
down those pedestrians.

An event that causes a collision may involve a degree of negligence, but if
it is unintended it is still an accident. Otherwise it would be a deliberate
act, involving a charge of assault with a vehicle, attempted murder, or
murder.

This has been done. I recall about 10 years ago a driver in Sydney being
charged and convicted of murder. He drove his car across three lanes of
traffic to run down and kill a cyclist. The jury viewed his actions as
deliberate.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[rooman]

The definition of accident is one then of context...there are many...all
which suit whoever and whatever cirumstances that allow humans to
include their actions whether intended or not to cause harm to persons
or property...these are the very occasions of which we speak...humans
are involved thus they are *not* accidents, an accident in the purest
sense does not involve human intervention...we hide behind that word to
excuse our actions.

One of the purest definitions of "accident" is IMHO this one:-

-An unplanned event, unexpected and undesigned, which occurs suddenly
and at definite place, being an event arising out of natural causes
with no human intervention which could not have been prevented by
reasonable care or foresight.- Example flood, earthquake ...some choose
to call these *Acts of God* , if that helps one understand at all.

So if you choose to accept an incident which is the result of an
intervention by a human which causes harm, damage or destruction to
persons or property an "accident" then live in denial all you wish,
some solace may come to you...the world will not be a better place for
it...

I prefer to call the incident a lesson...one from which we may all
learn something, or not...some never learn and so be it, and the
"incidents" keep coming, in the guise of man's claimed "accidents" and
thus he goes to his mirky end never the wiser...


( goes off in search of a nice glass of red)


--
rooman

[Peter Signorini]

"rooman" wrote:
>
> The definition of accident is one then of context...there are many...all
> which suit whoever and whatever cirumstances that allow humans to
> include their actions whether intended or not to cause harm to persons
> or property...these are the very occasions of which we speak...

You are a lawyer??

<snip>

> learn something, or not...some never learn and so be it, and the
> "incidents" keep coming, in the guise of man's claimed "accidents" and
> thus he goes to his mirky end never the wiser...
>
>
> ( goes off in search of a nice glass of red)

Sounds like you've had enough already.

:-)

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[Peter Signorini]

"vaudegiant" wrote:

>> In many professions, one can be charged with negligence when an
>> "accident" occurs.

Ah, yes, this will apply in any situation of negligent action.

>> Whilst you may not have "intended" for someone to
>> suffer from your "accident", you may be judged to have expected the
>> possibility of such an outcome as a result of your "negligent" act. No
>> intent.....and still no "accident".

This would make it an accident, resulting from negligent actions. Any
incident that was caused by deliberate actions is not negligence. It would
result in criminal prosecution for either assault, criminal damage to
proerty or murder. It surprises me how some people don't grasp the concept
here. Accidents are unintended incidents, negligent or otherwise (check the
dictionary, derived from the latin for 'happenings'); deliberate actions
step into the realm of crimes.

>> It could be argued that riding at
>> 20km/hr on a shared path around a corner is inadvisable and
>> innappropriate, and thus any incident that results may not be
>> considered accidental.

I actually said around a curve. Certainly a sharp corner requires a
different approach. Do you really find 20 kmh to be too fast on a shared
path? On the Dandenong Creek Trail I happily cruise at 30kmh along the
straighter sections.

>> IMHO, shared paths are more dangerous than most
>> roads.

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

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:42:17 +1000
Peter Signorini > wrote:
>
> This would make it an accident, resulting from negligent actions. Any
> incident that was caused by deliberate actions is not negligence. It would
> result in criminal prosecution for either assault, criminal damage to
> proerty or murder. It surprises me how some people don't grasp the concept
> here. Accidents are unintended incidents, negligent or otherwise (check the
> dictionary, derived from the latin for 'happenings'); deliberate actions
> step into the realm of crimes.

Most actions are deliberate.

I think it might be better expressed as "actions intended to produce
the result".

Which is why carelessly meandering into a lane is an accident,
deliberately sideswiping isn't.

But only a court can really determine which it was if the driver
doesn't claim intent.

"mens rea", the difference between manslaughter and murder as I understand
it. As wikipedia puts it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea )
"the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"

Which is why manslaughter exists as a crime. Can't just go around
killing people, but there's a really big difference between being a
careless twonk and deliberately setting out to kill.

The fun bit is working out where to draw the line. Is someone who gets
inside a ton or two of lethal weapon - such as a large bull-bar-equipped
4WD - and allows themselves to be distracted such that they give
steering inputs to that weapon and it collects a pedestrian standing
on the footpath, what are they guilty of? They must have known the
consquences of failing to steer correctly in an area where they can expect
a ped on the path, but they certainly didn't intend to steer incorrectly.

If they had been on a bicycle instead of in the tank, then the outcome
of the bad steering would have been different, must they be held to a
higher standard if the consequences of a bad action are worse? Do we
care more about culpable negligence in a nuclear plant compared to a
place that makes cardboard boxes?

Keeps lawyers and philosphers in business that does!

Of course the real intractable problem is the car culture. We, as a
society, accept situations concerning cars that we won't accept with
other things, and there's no way that will change without massive
societal upheaval, as massive as the introduction of the things in the
first place.


Zebee

[Peter Signorini]

"David Trudgett" wrote:
>
> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
> shared paths in this country?

Virtually none AFAIK. Road riding involves the higher death risk (but then
it's probably less than lawn bowls). However I also understand that there
are a higher rate of injuries from accidents on shared paths. This is what I
experience any time I ride a heavily trafficked shared path - with oncoming
riders, overtakers, walkers, dogs, kids on bike or foot, bladers, drunks et
al. Give me a nice predictable main road any day.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[David Trudgett]

Gidday, Peter,

"Peter Signorini" > writes:

> "David Trudgett" wrote:
>>
>> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
>> shared paths in this country?
>
> Virtually none AFAIK.

Q.E.D. :-) So, riding on shared paths has nowhere near the level of
danger as riding on roads populated by big heavy vehicles driven by
a race of alienated human beings :-).


> Road riding involves the higher death risk (but then it's probably
> less than lawn bowls).

Just being alive at 80 or 90 presents a high death risk, doesn't it?
;-) And it's funny how they don't read out the holiday lawn bowl toll
like they do the road toll... Makes you wonder what they're thinking!
:-)


> However I also understand that there are a higher rate of injuries
> from accidents on shared paths.

Couple of points: 1. source? 2. Even if that were so, I would much
rather prefer a very occasional case of gravel rash or grass burn than
a single case of death. That's just a prejudice of mine, though... ;-)

From the pedestrians' point of view, having to share a path with
bicycle riders presents a slightly higher (but still *extremely* low)
risk of minor injury, compared to having to share with only other
pedestrians. Dogs, of course, since you mention them later on, are
probably a greater risk to pedestrians than bicyclists. And I've seen
some vicious ankle biters in my time, I can tell you! :-)

Now, of course, the "shared paths" of your experience and the "shared
paths" of my experience are two entirely different beasts. My
experience of shared paths is that of probably hundreds of kilometres
of relatively trouble-free cycling, tempered by the fact that one must
actually share the path on occasion! I've even had to use, yes!, the
grass. Oh, the ignominy! ;-)

On the other hand, your experience of "shared paths" may have been a
nightmare. Still, it would seem to be a slight exaggeration (and a
classic rationalisation) to claim that riding on shared paths (a
general and all-inclusive statement) is actually more *dangerous* than
riding on most roads (and most roads are in cities, too, we must
recall).

In other words, I don't think a hypothetical (no source given)
increased incidence of minor bumps and bruises even remotely compares
to the death and serious injury toll on the roads (and, in my opinion,
riding a bicycle on the roads is not safer than driving a car on
them).


> This is what I experience any time I ride a heavily trafficked
> shared path - with oncoming riders, overtakers, walkers, dogs, kids
> on bike or foot, bladers, drunks et al. Give me a nice predictable
> main road any day.

I don't have your experience with "heavily trafficked" shared paths,
for sufficiently high values of 'heavily', and nor do I have your
experience with nice predictable main roads...

Oh well, c'est la vie, or as the French say, that's life.

David


--

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

One of the clearest lessons of history, including recent history, is
that rights are not granted; they are won. The rest is up to us.

-- Noam Chomsky
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm>

[SteveA]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:42:17 +1000
> Peter Signorini > wrote:
> >
> > This would make it an accident, resulting from negligent actions. Any
> > incident that was caused by deliberate actions is not negligence. It
> would
> > result in criminal prosecution for either assault, criminal damage to
> > proerty or murder. It surprises me how some people don't grasp the
> concept
> > here. Accidents are unintended incidents, negligent or otherwise
> (check the
> > dictionary, derived from the latin for 'happenings'); deliberate
> actions
> > step into the realm of crimes.
>
> Most actions are deliberate.
>
> I think it might be better expressed as "actions intended to produce
> the result".
>
> Which is why carelessly meandering into a lane is an accident,
> deliberately sideswiping isn't.
>
> But only a court can really determine which it was if the driver
> doesn't claim intent.
>
> "mens rea", the difference between manslaughter and murder as I
> understand
> it. As wikipedia puts it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea )
> "the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"
>
> Which is why manslaughter exists as a crime. Can't just go around
> killing people, but there's a really big difference between being a
> careless twonk and deliberately setting out to kill.
>
> The fun bit is working out where to draw the line. Is someone who gets
> inside a ton or two of lethal weapon - such as a large
> bull-bar-equipped
> 4WD - and allows themselves to be distracted such that they give
> steering inputs to that weapon and it collects a pedestrian standing
> on the footpath, what are they guilty of? They must have known the
> consquences of failing to steer correctly in an area where they can
> expect
> a ped on the path, but they certainly didn't intend to steer
> incorrectly.
>
> If they had been on a bicycle instead of in the tank, then the outcome
> of the bad steering would have been different, must they be held to a
> higher standard if the consequences of a bad action are worse? Do we
> care more about culpable negligence in a nuclear plant compared to a
> place that makes cardboard boxes?
>
> Keeps lawyers and philosphers in business that does!
>
> Of course the real intractable problem is the car culture. We, as a
> society, accept situations concerning cars that we won't accept with
> other things, and there's no way that will change without massive
> societal upheaval, as massive as the introduction of the things in the
> first place.
>
>
> Zebee

think of it in 4 levels:

1. the pure accident (eg a normally heathly person has heart attack at
wheel of car and hits cyclist);
2. the negligent accident (eg a driver is driving into the sun, does
not see cyclist and hits cyclist);
3. the criminally negligent accident (eg a driver is ****ed and hits
cyclist);
4. the deliberate event (eg a driver deliberately hits a cyclist);

(You might divide events into more or less catagories - 4 works for me
on a Monday morning.)

Only in the last category is the injury to the cyclist deliberate (ie
the driver had the mens rea, to use some legal latin). But in the 2
middle categories, the driver is clearly responsible, even if there is
no mens rea.

The law deals with these events on a sliding scale - from a finding of
accidental death in the Coroners Court for a pure accident up to a
murder conviction in the Supreme Court for the deliberate running down
of a cyclist.

Where does a speeding driver fall in the above categorisation? -
probably in category 2 or 3 depending on the speed and any other
relevant factors.

Where does a drunk driver fall in the above categorisation? Probably
in category 3. If the drunk driver kills someone, is he a murderer?
Legally, no. Unless he intended to.

SteveA


--
SteveA

[AndrewJ]

Which, unfortunately illustrates the main point. Safety for pedestrians
and cyclists cannot be ensured by legislation, or education, or silly
tv advertising campaigns.

It can only be ensured by taking control of cars away from drivers when
they are going to cause an accident.

Consider: the car deviates from the roadway at high speed. Since it has
onboard position tracking which is linked to the roadway map, and
roadway edge detection, the car computer knows that it is in trouble.
So the brakes are automatically applied and the car stops.

The only way to make the roads safe is to take control away from the
drivers.

I'm starting a research project to create this technology. I'll be
chasing funding and ways to raise funds. Any ideas gratefully received.

[TimC]

On 2006-04-03, AndrewJ (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Which, unfortunately illustrates the main point. Safety for pedestrians
> and cyclists cannot be ensured by legislation, or education, or silly
> tv advertising campaigns.
>
> It can only be ensured by taking control of cars away from drivers when
> they are going to cause an accident.
>
> Consider: the car deviates from the roadway at high speed. Since it has
> onboard position tracking which is linked to the roadway map, and
> roadway edge detection, the car computer knows that it is in trouble.
> So the brakes are automatically applied and the car stops.

Good thing there is never equipment failure then, eh?

Or, alternatively, what happens when a truck in front brakes and
swerves, the car you are driving is in the line of fire, and you
decide to head for the barrier and accelarate to get out of trouble?
Oh, the brakes applied automatically. Damn, looks like the truck will
get me afterall.

Contrived situation true, but humans (some of us anyway) were blessed
with more intelligence than that possessed by control systems of the
current time.

> The only way to make the roads safe is to take control away from the
> drivers.

In other words, I think yanking control away from a driver in critical
sitations is a stupid idea, worthy of mention in the RISKS digest.

--
TimC
Probably best see a real doctor and not take too much diagnostic advice
from a bunch of sysadmins who consider the body a meat computer that
needs debugging. -- Anthony de Boer on possible nerve damage in ASR

[TimC]

On 2006-04-03, TimC (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2006-04-03, AndrewJ (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> It can only be ensured by taking control of cars away from drivers when
>> they are going to cause an accident.
>>
>> Consider: the car deviates from the roadway at high speed. Since it has
>> onboard position tracking which is linked to the roadway map, and
>> roadway edge detection, the car computer knows that it is in trouble.
>> So the brakes are automatically applied and the car stops.
>
> Good thing there is never equipment failure then, eh?
....
> In other words, I think yanking control away from a driver in critical
> sitations is a stupid idea, worthy of mention in the RISKS digest.

Tee hee hee. See april 1 version of risks here (in particular, look
at item number 1):

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.22.html

--
TimC
I hereby declare that from now on, the singular of "people" is "peopum".
-- Kibo

[Theo Bekkers]

giantvaude wrote:

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

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

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

AndrewJ wrote:
> Which, unfortunately illustrates the main point. Safety for
> pedestrians and cyclists cannot be ensured by legislation, or
> education, or silly tv advertising campaigns.
>
> It can only be ensured by taking control of cars away from drivers
> when they are going to cause an accident.
>
> Consider: the car deviates from the roadway at high speed. Since it
> has onboard position tracking which is linked to the roadway map, and
> roadway edge detection, the car computer knows that it is in trouble.
> So the brakes are automatically applied and the car stops.

I suppose the onboard computer is aware there is an out of control B-double
heading towards the car on the wrong side of the road, and the driver is
taking drastic avoidance action?

Theo

[Tamyka Bell]

AndrewJ wrote:
>
> Which, unfortunately illustrates the main point. Safety for pedestrians
> and cyclists cannot be ensured by legislation, or education, or silly
> tv advertising campaigns.
>
> It can only be ensured by taking control of cars away from drivers when
> they are going to cause an accident.
>
> Consider: the car deviates from the roadway at high speed. Since it has
> onboard position tracking which is linked to the roadway map, and
> roadway edge detection, the car computer knows that it is in trouble.
> So the brakes are automatically applied and the car stops.
>
> The only way to make the roads safe is to take control away from the
> drivers.
>
> I'm starting a research project to create this technology. I'll be
> chasing funding and ways to raise funds. Any ideas gratefully received.

I believe there is already research in the face-recognition area where
they are looking at what happens to people's facial expression when they
lose concentration on driving. The idea is that an alarm will sound to
alert the driver and if no action is taken/response is seen, the car
will stop or something.

This is more likely to be used in fleet vehicles rather than personal
use vehicles (unless legislation is passed to make it compulsory)
because if only x% of the population will have a car accident because
they lost focus, an individual is likely to say "it won't be me" and not
pay the extra expense, whereas a corporation is likely to realise that
it means x vehicles per 100 of their fleet will be involved in an
accident over a period of time, and they will likely benefit.

Er, so not sure how your funding would go, unless you had a much more
solid idea.

Tam

[AndrewJ]

No technical system can be perfect, but it can do a better job than a
high proportion of drivers.

Can such a system be aware of the truck ? Yes.

[Bleve]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> giantvaude wrote:
>
> > On the main paths around my area (Eastern Freeway,
> > Gardners Ck and Dandenong Ck around Box Hill and Vermont areas).
> > Especially in the tighter sections, plenty of cyclists ride too fast
> > considering that kids, dogs and granny's are to be expected on the
> > track also.
>
> I'm sure the gov't response to that problem would be a Multinova.

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

[Peter Signorini]

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

> I suppose the onboard computer is aware there is an out of control
> B-double heading towards the car on the wrong side of the road, and the
> driver is taking drastic avoidance action?

There is a lot of high-tech transport research going on into just this
field. Who knows if it will prove to be of any benefit before petrol gets to
be more money than us mear mortals can afford to spend on travel.

http://www.netspeed.com.au/cr/bicycle/its.htm

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

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[TimC]

On 2006-04-03, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> giantvaude wrote:
>>
>> > On the main paths around my area (Eastern Freeway,
>> > Gardners Ck and Dandenong Ck around Box Hill and Vermont areas).
>> > Especially in the tighter sections, plenty of cyclists ride too fast
>> > considering that kids, dogs and granny's are to be expected on the
>> > track also.
>>
>> I'm sure the gov't response to that problem would be a Multinova.
>
> For the viewers at home, Theo means a speed camera. In WA they call
> them by the brand name of the camera.

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

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

[Theo Bekkers]

Peter Signorini wrote:

> There is a lot of high-tech transport research going on into just this
> field. Who knows if it will prove to be of any benefit before petrol
> gets to be more money than us mear mortals can afford to spend on
> travel.
> http://www.netspeed.com.au/cr/bicycle/its.htm
>
> Still not sure just what is meant by mirror symmetry. And can all
> these processes happen quicker than I can see and act?

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

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

Theo

[Resound]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> giantvaude wrote:
>>
>> > On the main paths around my area (Eastern Freeway,
>> > Gardners Ck and Dandenong Ck around Box Hill and Vermont areas).
>> > Especially in the tighter sections, plenty of cyclists ride too fast
>> > considering that kids, dogs and granny's are to be expected on the
>> > track also.
>>
>> I'm sure the gov't response to that problem would be a Multinova.
>
> For the viewers at home, Theo means a speed camera. In WA they call
> them by the brand name of the camera.
>
Similar to them being called 'Gatsos' in the UK IIRC.

[TimC]

On 2006-04-03, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Probably not. The question is would you trust a computet programmer with
> your life?
> I suspect that "Ideally, a bicycle-related ATIS system could provide
> advanced knowledge of existing bikeways and potential hazards" this would
> steer all cyclists onto shared-paths.
> "(e.g., bicycle and transit permit), " oops!
>
> It's going to be a lot of work pedaling hard enough to provide the power for
> the on-board server.

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

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

[AndrewJ]

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

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

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

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

I figure its worth a shot.

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

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

And the moderator would be an
OberGruppenfuehrergruppenareabrettecholistenneter?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

AndrewJ wrote:

> There are technical obstacles of a very high order, but also cultural
> and psychological barriers.
>
> I figure its worth a shot.

Technology is actually _not_ the solution to everything.

Theo

[sinus]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>
>
> The question is would you trust a computet programmer with your life?
>
Could bring a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".


--
sinus

[David Trudgett]

Hi Euan,

EuanB > writes:

> David Trudgett Wrote:
>> "Peter Signorini" > writes:
>>
>> >>> IMHO, shared paths are more dangerous than most roads.
>> >
>> > Agreed, very much so. Was simply using it as an example.
>>
>> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
>> shared paths in this country?
>
> On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


David


--

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

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

-- David Hume

[Euan]

David Trudgett wrote:
> Hi Euan,
>
> EuanB > writes:
>
>
>> David Trudgett Wrote:
>>
>>> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
>>> shared paths in this country?
>>
>> On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.
>
>
> Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
> that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of
> them.
>
>> There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
>> shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation
>> of the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or
>> because the shared path runs out.
>
>
> So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
> roads, and not shared pathway accidents.
>
>
>
>> I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half
>> of vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the
>> road, shared paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help
>> but have multiple intersections with roads, that makes them very
>> dangerous constructs in these environments.
>
>
> Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop.
> This applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to
> cyclists.

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

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

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

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

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


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

I respectfully disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

The road poses no such impediments.

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

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

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

>
>
>> Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off
>> road cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the
>> story's very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a
>> dozen fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the
>> road network.
>
>
> At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
> face. ;-)
>
> In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
> (the only information available to me at present) there was one
> fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
> same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
> redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
> make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular
> barrow to push, like the person responsible for this biased study
> [2]: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
> actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
> with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
> are free of motor vehicular traffic.

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

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

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

> The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
> show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
> cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]
>
> [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system

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

Plenty more on that site as well.

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

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

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

[Plodder]

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Euan" > wrote in message
...
> David Trudgett wrote:
> > Hi Euan,
> >
> > EuanB > writes:
> >
> >
> >> David Trudgett Wrote:
> >>
> >>> How many cyclist and pedestrian fatalities are there per year on
> >>> shared paths in this country?
> >>
> >> On shared paths in *this* country, none that I'm aware of.
> >
> >
> > Spot on, Bro! ;-) There are none that I'm aware of, either, although
> > that doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't heard of
> > them.
> >
> >> There are however fatalaties which occur when a cyclist leaves a
> >> shared path to re-join the road, either to get to the continuation
> >> of the shared path on the road the shared path is crossing or
> >> because the shared path runs out.
> >
> >
> > So, these would be road accidents, involving collisions with cars on
> > roads, and not shared pathway accidents.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I believe I'm correct in saying that something in the order of half
> >> of vehicle / cyclist collisions occur when a cyclist joins the
> >> road, shared paths in sub-urban and urban environments cannot help
> >> but have multiple intersections with roads, that makes them very
> >> dangerous constructs in these environments.
> >
> >
> > Intersections are probably where most accidents occur. Full stop.
> > This applies to motor vehicles and pedestrians as well as to
> > cyclists.
>
> That's not correct. About half of cyclist / vehicle collisions occur
> when a cyclist joins the road. That is distinct from merely negotiating
> an intersection so it is different from motor vehicles.
>
> > No one suggests that footpaths are "very dangerous constructs"
> > because they cannot help but have multiple intersections with roads,
> > even though precisely the same argument applies.
>
> That's not correct either. A cyclist can use the road as a part of
> traffic whereas a pedestrian cannot so it's not precisely the same
> argument.
>
> > Most pedestrians, I would imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, would be
> > killed at intersections or while crossing roads, and not while
> > blissfully walking down the footpath, which in fact is a relatively
> > safe place to be, generally speaking. Crossing the road, on the other
> > hand, is a different matter.
>
> No idea. Seeing as I believe you're talking apples and oranges it's
> irrelevant.
>
>
> > The cyclists and pedestrians who use shared pathways that have been
> > constructed with a modicum of common sense, are not in any great
> > danger. In fact, as a matter of my own personal opinion, it seems
> > fairly clear to me that they are in *less* danger using the pathways
> > than they would be using the roads, especially ma and pa wobbly
> > cyclists out with six and seven year old Bill and Jane.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> A cyclist riding on the road as a part of traffic maintains its priority
> over said intersections. Also these cyclists benefit from being highly
> visible to other vehicles, allowing other vehicles to register their
> presence and act accordingly.
>
> A cyclist emerging from a shared path is an unpredictable event for
> other road users and therefore hazardous.
>
> > Your point about the inevitability of multiple intersections with
> > roads is also questionable. [1] There are, for example, many dozens
> > of kilometres of shared pathway in my local region -- which is mostly
> > an urban and suburban region, by the way -- and one can cycle for
> > 15km or more without crossing a road. And furthermore, none of the
> > crossings that do exist and of which I am aware could be classified
> > as dangerous (no more dangerous than pedestrian crossings, anyway).
>
> Are you taking in to account all the driveways you pass on the shared
> path? They're uncontrolled intersections as well and just as dangerous.
>
> In Melbourne I've travelled on two off road bicycle paths. The sight
> lines are awful and there are frequent uncontrolled intersections where
> there is a duty of care on the cyclist to give way. There are some
> intersections where the duty of care is on motor vehicles but it's a
> foolish cyclist who trusts those directions.
>
> The road poses no such impediments.
>
> >> If it's feasible to have a point to point shared path of a decent
> >> distance then that's a different scenario.
> >
> >
> > Yes, see above. You can't have it both ways, you know. :-) It can't
> > be both inevitable ("cannot help but have") while at the same time
> > admitting that it may be feasible to have point to point shared paths
> > of a "decent distance".
>
> That's not correct. A shared path in the CBD has a much higher density
> of buildings and roads, a shared path of 15kms without an intersection
> is not feasible.
>
> A shared path between two suburbs in suburbia could quite easily have a
> decent distance without an intersection.
>
> >
> >
> >> Have a look at the data for coutries with much more extensive off
> >> road cycling netwroks and much higher incidences of cycling and the
> >> story's very different. In Milton Keynes for example there were a
> >> dozen fatalities on the off road cycling network and one on the
> >> road network.
> >
> >
> > At least when you misrepresent statistics, you do so with a straight
> > face. ;-)
> >
> > In fact, over a period of about 11 or 12 years, from 1987 to 1998,
> > (the only information available to me at present) there was one
> > fatality on the redway network in MK, and six on the roads during the
> > same period. Five of those six occurred at intersections with the
> > redway network, undoubtedly collisions with motor vehicles. Does that
> > make the redway network unsafe? Only if you've got a particular
> > barrow to push, like the person responsible for this biased study
> > [2]: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html. What it
> > actually means is that it is somewhat more dangerous to cross roads
> > with motor vehicles on them than it is to ride on redway paths that
> > are free of motor vehicular traffic.
>
> You've just made my point for me. Five of the six cyclist / vehicle
> collisions occurred at the intersections of roads with with the cycle
> path. What more proof do you need that a cycle path crossing a road is
> a dangerous construct?
>
> > [2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
> > pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
> > statistics, don't we?
>
> Yes, when they prove an answer contrary to what is desired that line
> generally gets trotted out.
>
> > The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
> > show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
> > cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]
> >
> > [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system
>
> OK, try this one then, different off road cycling network, different
> country: http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/index.htm
>
> Plenty more on that site as well.
>
> >
> >
> > Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
> > trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
> > to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as
> > bicycle networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made,
> > both in the attitude of the public, and by the designers of the
> > redway system, is that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a
> > recreation, not as transport. This mistake resulted in many design
> > flaws in the redway network, causing it to be largely ignored by
> > commuters, and other "serious" cyclists.
>
> Which is the same problem that we have here in Victoria. It is openly
> acknowledged that shared paths and off road bicycle lanes are primarily
> for leisure and not for efficient transport.
>
> My perception of shared paths and off road bicycle paths is that they
> provide greater potential for incident. My perception of the roads is
> that they provide a safe and convenient route for me for a-b in most
> circumstances. Given that the off road cycling networks about 0.7% of
> the road network that's hardly surprising.
> --
> Cheers | ~~ __@
> Euan | ~~ _-\<,
> Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Sorry for not trimming - the whole lot above is relevent...

I'll reiterate a point I've made before: In Australia cycle and shared paths
are segregated from the roads, leading to the kind of collisions described.

In the European countries in which I've cycled bike and shared paths are
integrated with roads much more. For example, riding on a bike path next to
a road to a T juction, it's usual for the stop sign to be set well back from
the intersection and the bike lane continues. When a road crosses the bike
lane the bike lane is clearly marked and, if it's the continuing lane, motor
traffic is obliged to obey stop and give way signs. Similarly, when a bike
lane crosses a continuing road the bike lane is clearly marked and cyclists
must obey the usual traffic laws as applied to other road lanes.

In Australia bike and shared paths stop at intersections and do a little
wiggle that sends bikes and walkers into the side of a car at the
intersection. Motor traffic is given priority and it is encumbent on
cyclists and walkers to give way. Even the marked bike lanes painted on the
side of the road end at each intersection and start on the other side.

Constructing paths in this manner indicates that cyclists and walkers are
not as legitimate as motor traffic and shouldn't hold up motor vehicles;
roads are for motor traffic and other users can only use roads at motorists
convenience. As more segregation occurs the message to drivers is
reinforced.

I'll leave walkers out from now on. Walkers can stop and start more easily
than cyclists in general - especially inexperienced cyclists (I'd like to
see figures that cite the experience level of cyclists involved in
collisions. I suspect Joe Wobbly, gaining experience, is over represented)

The construction of paths is what counts. I can't speak about MK, never
having been there, but path construction determines how cyclists join the
traffic flow on roads. Constructing paths the way they do here in Australia
almost ensures collisions if a cyclist makes a braking mistake, loses
balance momentarily, etc. The path spits the cyclist directly into the side
of the car. With continuing paths that is not the case. The cyclist passes
in front of the car which is waiting at the stop sign (I hope this is clear
enough - too early and no pictures!).

Segregating for paralell sections is OK. For intersections, however, paths
should be integrated and treated as another road lane, not as an
inconvenience to motorists and presenting a hazard to cyclists.

Nuff now - too early in WA!

Frank

[David Trudgett]

Hi Euan,

Thanks for your reply.

Euan > writes:

>
>> [2] Biased because he obviously set out to try to prove a
>> pre-conceived idea using statistics, and we all know about
>> statistics, don't we?
>
> Yes, when they prove an answer contrary to what is desired that line
> generally gets trotted out.

I see... can I stop rolling around on the floor laughing now? :-) No
one could believe that that deliberately misleading and unscientific
piece of writing *proves* anything besides the author's state of
mind. I wonder why, for example, the author lumps in "serious"
injuries with fatalities? Wouldn't be for the purpose of concealing or
obscuring facts, would it?


>
>> The truth is that there are no normalised statistics available to
>> show the magnitude and direction of any safety differential between
>> cycling on MK roads and cycling on MK redway paths. [3]
>> [3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system
>
> OK, try this one then, different off road cycling network, different
> country: http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/index.htm

How long do we have to play this game? :-) (The "Oh, yeah, right,
well, how about this one, then?" game.)

The article above (not a scientific one either), claims the following
fact: Cycling accidents are 2.9 times more likely when cycling on the
road among cars, than when cycling on separated cycle paths
(fig. 2). And this fact: accidents while cycling on footpaths are
about two and a half times less frequent than while cycling on roads
(fig. 2). And this fact: crossing accidents while cycling on the road
with traffic occur at around twice (1.9) the frequency of crossing
accidents from footpaths (fig.3). And to put those into some
perspective, it also claims this fact: that there are more than three
times as many bicycle fatalities in Finland (where the figures were
collected) than in the Netherlands (on a kilometre travelled basis),
who also cycle four times as much as people in Finland (fig. 6). The
Dutch must be a far more level headed kind of people, I guess, as well
as being quite obviously more attuned to the presence and requirements
of cyclists.

The article also highlights a design flaw of the Helsinki cycle
pathway system. As shown in figure 4, these "cycle paths", which run
along roads are designed in such a way as to encourage cyclists to
enter intersections when there is a chance of collision with motor
vehicles. (This could partly explain why the footpaths are safer,
since presumably there is no encouragement for footpath users to dash
out in front of vehicles.) Added to this is an apparently endemic
negligence on the part of Finnish motor vehicle drivers: 'Right-
turning drivers focus their attention mainly on cars from the left on
the major street, and "forget" the cyclists approaching from the
right.'

This design flaw, combined with driver negligence, means that in
comparison to cyclists using footpaths, nearly ten times (9.6) as many
crossing accidents occur as a result of cyclists using these
alongside-roadway cycle paths (fig 3). The design is so bad that this
number is five times higher than crossing accidents involving cyclists
riding with the motor vehicular traffic (fig 3).

Be that as it may, the article inspires no confidence at all in its
"results". It looks like a high school student gone crazy with Excel
charts. There is no indication that the author even understands basic
statistics, confidence intervals, standard deviations, means, medians,
Chi-squares, correlations, and so on and so forth, much less that this
knowledge was actually applied to the "study".

And when the author comes up with stellar bits of reasoning like,"A
car driver who chooses to ride a bicycle instead may only provide an
opportunity for somebody else to utilize the car," well it just makes
you wonder.



>
> Plenty more on that site as well.

I don't have time for this. Are they all just as good as the last one?


>
>> Now, none of what I've said [4] should be taken to mean that I am
>> trying somehow to advocate a particular state of affairs with regard
>> to motor vehicle, bicycle and non-vehicular transport, such as
>> bicycle networks ala Milton Keynes. The big mistake that MK made,
>> both in the attitude of the public, and by the designers of the
>> redway system, is that bicycle riding is seen as almost exclusively a
>> recreation, not as transport. This mistake resulted in many design
>> flaws in the redway network, causing it to be largely ignored by
>> commuters, and other "serious" cyclists.
>
> Which is the same problem that we have here in Victoria. It is openly
> acknowledged that shared paths and off road bicycle lanes are primarily
> for leisure and not for efficient transport.

Exactly.


>
> My perception of shared paths and off road bicycle paths is that they
> provide greater potential for incident. My perception of the roads is
> that they provide a safe and convenient route for me for a-b in most
> circumstances. Given that the off road cycling networks about 0.7% of
> the road network that's hardly surprising.

You're quite welcome to your opinion, and you seem like a smart sort
of guy, so you might even be right when it comes to your own personal
circumstances. What more can one ask?

Cheers,

David


--

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

My opposition to machinery is much misunderstood. I am not opposed to
machinery as such. I am opposed to machinery which displaces labour
and leaves it idle.

-- Mohandas Gandhi

[EuanB]

Plodder Wrote:
> In Australia bike and shared paths stop at intersections and do a little
> wiggle that sends bikes and walkers into the side of a car at the
> intersection. Motor traffic is given priority and it is encumbent on
> cyclists and walkers to give way.
>

The answer to this particular conundrum is to put yourself fimrly in
the middle of the lane and maintain position thorugh the intersection.
If you don't do that you'll be squeezed to buggery negotiating the
intersection.

Obviously that's not a one size fits all scenario, some junctions are
easily wide enough to allow a cyclist to maintain a half - one metre
clearance from the edge of the road and let other traffic share the
lane.

I agree that a continuous lane which gives cyclists priority at
intersections is a much preferred solution.


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:46:23 +1000
David Trudgett > wrote:
> mind. I wonder why, for example, the author lumps in "serious"
> injuries with fatalities? Wouldn't be for the purpose of concealing or
> obscuring facts, would it?

ON the other hand, can anything based on fatalities be usefully
statistically significant, as there are so few of them?

And when it comes to "vulnerable road users" like powered and
unpowered two wheelers, the difference between dead and badly hurt can
be a slight angle in hitting, or a hell of a lot of luck.

Counting fatalities alone doesn't give you insight into what's causing
the problem because the difference between fatal and serious is too small.

THis is fairly clear when looking at motorcycle crashes, I dunno
bicycle crashes are wildly different.

Zebee