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

--
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_..._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 befo 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

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_..._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

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

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