New cycling road design danger

[DeF]

Progress Drive in Perth (south of river, parallel
to North Lake Road, runs past Bibra Lake and southern
half is part of Bibra Lake TT circuit).

To discourage drivers using this road as a rat run,
new traffic calming devices have been added. Basically,
there are two right angle triangles (viewed from above)
about 3m long with their hypotenuse aligned with the
kerb. This renders the middle of the road wide enough
for one car that must drive through a small chicane.
One direction has priority with the other direction
seeing a give way sign. For cyclists, there is a
gutter run to the left of these obstacles. All well
and good so far.

Now the problem. If you arrive at one of these things
around the same time as a car (as has happened to me),
you go through the gutter run and the car goes through
the middle. The big problem occurs when cyclist and
car merge again: cyclist is going straight, car is
heading towards kerb whilst turning to be parallel to
the road again after passing through the chicane.
Cyclist looks right and sees grill of said car heading
towards them. This is somewhat unnerving.

Anyone else seen these things and/or like to comment?
I think a letter to someone is appropriate here before
some poor sod gets knocked off by an impatient driver
pushing the envelope of this "traffic calming" device.
Especially if it is a 4WD with crap cornering capabilities.

DeF.

--
e-mail: d.farrow@your finger.murdoch.edu.au
To reply, you'll have to remove your finger.

[flyingdutch]

have come across a couple of these locally, but we dont even get the
bike 'rat-run' :(

perhaps a extension-concrete barrier running parallel with curb,
starting at last corner of said triangle that you pass (as you are
leaving schicanery) and dividing you from swerving/chianing oncoming
cars???

as per most raod things, they are designed by feckin fools in brown
suits, sitting behind desks, inside offices.
As long as it looks good in powerpoint, an overhead view or on a aerial
photograph, such ameliorating nonsense like a SIGHTVISIT™ should never
be considered :rolleyes:

sorry. bit grumpy

Be worth making a submission with photos, diagrams etc
make sure the pics clearly illustrate where/how cars are out of place
or conflicting. It's hard to argue with a thousand words...


--
flyingdutch

[Rhubarb]

"flyingdutch" > wrote in
message ...
>
<SNIP>
> Be worth making a submission with photos, diagrams etc
> make sure the pics clearly illustrate where/how cars are out of place
> or conflicting. It's hard to argue with a thousand words...

Or video for that matter.

Have also noticed the ones locally have no rat run for cyclists.

[ray]

DeF > wrote:
> Progress Drive in Perth (south of river, parallel
> to North Lake Road, runs past Bibra Lake and southern
> half is part of Bibra Lake TT circuit).
>
> To discourage drivers using this road as a rat run,
> new traffic calming devices have been added. Basically,
> there are two right angle triangles (viewed from above)
> about 3m long with their hypotenuse aligned with the
> kerb. This renders the middle of the road wide enough
> for one car that must drive through a small chicane.
> One direction has priority with the other direction
> seeing a give way sign. For cyclists, there is a
> gutter run to the left of these obstacles. All well
> and good so far.
>
> Now the problem. If you arrive at one of these things
> around the same time as a car (as has happened to me),
> you go through the gutter run and the car goes through
> the middle. The big problem occurs when cyclist and
> car merge again: cyclist is going straight, car is
> heading towards kerb whilst turning to be parallel to
> the road again after passing through the chicane.
> Cyclist looks right and sees grill of said car heading
> towards them. This is somewhat unnerving.
>
> Anyone else seen these things and/or like to comment?
> I think a letter to someone is appropriate here before
> some poor sod gets knocked off by an impatient driver
> pushing the envelope of this "traffic calming" device.
> Especially if it is a 4WD with crap cornering capabilities.
>
> DeF.
>
Yes, there are quite a few of them in Melbourne, including several close
to where I live, I don't use those roads much. Chicanes designed by
engineers for cars are frequently death-traps and should be treated warily.

[Donga]

Bleve's right. Common practice here (Brissie) is to put your right arm
out some distance before and move to the middle of the lane. Make the
frickin car wait while you go through. After all, they have to slow to
your speed anyway, if the chicanes are tight.

Donga

[cogcontrol]

Simple and safer answer to this is not to use the 'rat run' and go
through the squeeze point as you would if you were driving a car, take
the lane and nobody can interfere with you.

CC


--
cogcontrol

[flyingdutch]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> I don't find them to be a problem. Just like roundabouts, ride
> through
> the middle just like a car. Then they have to give way to you.
> What's
> the difference between this and any other chokepoint? I don't get it
> ....

the problem is they put you in a position of playing 'chicken' with a
car!
Drivers invariably do the ol 'idiot-math™' (ie me-car + them-bike =
me_must_go_faster!) and try and beat you into the dang chicane, even if
you are IN the damn thing!!!!
Cars travelling same direction are fine(ish), its the oncoming ones
that are a problem. 'My' chicane is in backstreet just north of Kew
Safeway/Junction area...


--
flyingdutch

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > I don't find them to be a problem. Just like roundabouts, ride
> > through
> > the middle just like a car. Then they have to give way to you.
> > What's
> > the difference between this and any other chokepoint? I don't get it
> > ....
>
> the problem is they put you in a position of playing 'chicken' with a
> car!
> Drivers invariably do the ol 'idiot-math™' (ie me-car + them-bike =
> me_must_go_faster!) and try and beat you into the dang chicane, even if
> you are IN the damn thing!!!!

You can see them coming though. It's not like you're being sideswiped
or u-turned or lane-pressed. Try Rooks Rd (Mitcham) for that game :)

> Cars travelling same direction are fine(ish), its the oncoming ones
> that are a problem. 'My' chicane is in backstreet just north of Kew
> Safeway/Junction area...

And the difference between that and a roundabout is? I'm sorry, I have
never found these chicanes to be a major problem - but I don't see
having to occasionally yield to a car in a tight spot as being a huge
drama. *shrug* I guess I'm just bothering to look ahead and not
expecting everyone else to do the Right Thing. :)

Where I live there's dozens of these things. There's fights worth
having, and then there's whinging about something that's just not a big
deal. Thse fit neatly into the "no big deal" basket, IMO. CF the
tramstops on Whitehorse Rd near Box Hill. Now *they* are something to
get upset about. The exit lane from the back path through the first
one (eastbound) drops a rider off at a blinded left hand corner with
the implication that the lane is safe to ride. *very* dangerous. BV I
think (before your time there Dutchy) did get some changes made - the
back lane at least now exists, but these are still a dangerous
chokepoint with a misleadingly dangerous path behind them (and metal
grates .. try them on a wet night :-/ )

Slighly OT, is BV (Dutchy :) ) at all interested in a safe/defensive
riding guide or video? Has it been done already? I've a few ideas for
one if it hasn't.

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-04-06, Bleve > wrote:
> flyingdutch wrote:
>> Drivers invariably do the ol 'idiot-math (ie me-car + them-bike =
>> me_must_go_faster!) and try and beat you into the dang chicane, even if
>> you are IN the damn thing!!!!
>
> You can see them coming though. It's not like you're being sideswiped
> or u-turned or lane-pressed. Try Rooks Rd (Mitcham) for that game :)

*shudder* I'd rather not. I've driven up it a few times -- not often,
considering how close it is to my home, but enough to know that I'm
*never* taking my bike through there.

Fortunately, it's not really on any direct route that I'm likely to need
to take on the bike.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

[Bleve]

Stuart Lamble wrote:

> > You can see them coming though. It's not like you're being sideswiped
> > or u-turned or lane-pressed. Try Rooks Rd (Mitcham) for that game :)
>
> *shudder* I'd rather not. I've driven up it a few times -- not often,
> considering how close it is to my home, but enough to know that I'm
> *never* taking my bike through there.

I ride it regularly. You just have to be assertive and alert to those
that might not want to play by the rules. Ie: where the road chokes
from 2 to 1 after the railway line (next to the panelbeaters .. now
there's a combo! light industry, busy chokepoint ... railway line
building impatience!) it's a very good idea to have a good look behind
to see if anyone's roaring up the road and act accordingly if they are
(ie: get out of their way!). Once you're in the narrow bit, it's not
too bad except when some tool overtakes between the "calming" devices
and suddenly finds they have to cut back quickly or go down the wrong
side of the road, into the path of a truck. Not a road for the faint
of heart or poor of hearing.

I'd love plod to put some fixed speed cameras on that road too ... I'm
a big fan of voluntary tax paying and that'd pay off a lot of state
debt :)

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:

> > Where I live there's dozens of these things. There's fights worth
> > having, and then there's whinging about something that's just not a
> > big
> > deal. Thse fit neatly into the "no big deal" basket, IMO.
> >
>
> No, I'm talking aobut bing IN the chicane and oncoming cars stil
> lthinking they can bully you out of it. There is nowhere to go in this
> scenario, other than under the car... :(

That's true, but isn't really the fault of the road design, save that
having roads means you have cars .. and cars means ...


> Bleve Wrote:
> > CF the tramstops on Whitehorse Rd near Box Hill. Now *they* are
> > something to
> > get upset about. The exit lane from the back path through the first
> > one (eastbound) drops a rider off at a blinded left hand corner with
> > the implication that the lane is safe to ride. *very* dangerous. BV
> > I
> > think (before your time there Dutchy) did get some changes made - the
> > back lane at least now exists, but these are still a dangerous
> > chokepoint with a misleadingly dangerous path behind them (and metal
> > grates .. try them on a wet night :-/ )
>
> Dont worry. by all current accounts they are all (109 route) going to
> get replaced by central platforms and lots of ped crossings, with
> narrower lanes etc. Those Box Hill scenarios are idiotic. BV did nag
> vicroads/tramways about that and got minor concessions.
> Dutch ones are far more commonsense/practical

I hope so, they're bloody awful at the moment.

> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > Slighly OT, is BV (Dutchy :) ) at all interested in a safe/defensive
> > riding guide or video? Has it been done already? I've a few ideas
> > for
> > one if it hasn't.
>
> i think you meant 'totally' OT :D

:)

> not sure.
> They do a promo/safety/instructional DVD for all GVBR riders.
> are looking into streaming components of this online so could end up
> being what you talk of.
> Write em (specify the Board, not me) and suggest such an initiative.
> Maybe even post it on their forum as they monitir that for feedback...

Maybe I just make one .. one of my riders is a film maker ... I'm sure
we can do something and then donate it to BV etc. A bit of free time
in a studio to do the editing, and a couple of borrowed cameras ..
can't be that hard to do :)