|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
EuanB Wrote: That's not correct. A furphy a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable story (Wikipedia). I've been learning these things see, in preperation for becoming a citizen :-) Stating that many examples of seperated facilities are detrimental to the safety of cyclists is neither erroneous or improbable. It has been demonstrated several times in several contries. In the context of providing bicycle facilities that people *want*, it is a furphy. A furphy that keeps stymieing good debate and doesn't allow for alternative solutions to develop. Shared paths may have a higher probability of risk, and also contribute to some cyclists having a lower skills base. Riding onroad is far better, where applicable, but only if the rider has attained confidence and good skills base. Continually quoting the risk percentage of offroad facilities isn't going to solve anything, unless it's correctly utilised in context to provide safer, adequate access for all users. For instance, instead of quoting wiki, maybe you should try attending a couple of transport-themed public consultations, such as local council, bicycle advisory committees, local road safety councils or BUG meetings and see what being said on many different levels. Put simply it doesn't matter how damn good onroad facilities actually are, a high percentage of potential bicycle riders *will not ever* ride on the road. And until that utopian vision of peaceful shared road co-existance does develop, the needs of these potential bicycle riders will have to be listened to. -- cfsmtb |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
cfsmtb Wrote: In the context of providing bicycle facilities that people *want*, it is a furphy. I disagree. It's not a rumor that cyclepaths are in many cases riskier and it's not inaccurate, therefore it's not a furphy. You used the wrong word. That's OK, it happens to all of us. cfsmtb Wrote: For instance, instead of quoting wiki, maybe you should try attending a couple of transport-themed public consultations, such as local council, bicycle advisory committees, local road safety councils or BUG meetings and see what being said on many different levels. Yep, done all that. cfsmtb Wrote: Put simply it doesn't matter how damn good onroad facilities actually are, a high percentage of potential bicycle riders *will not ever* ride on the road. And until that utopian vision of peaceful shared road co-existance does develop, the needs of these potential bicycle riders will have to be listened to. Which is why I said ``No arguement there.'' I was agreeing with you, well on that point anyway. I still disagree with your use of the word furphy though. -- EuanB |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
MikeyOz Wrote: Now, what will she do now ? Go and sue the council which she might very well be entitled todo if she has a good enough lawyer with mitigating circumstances and the council will close the bike path so they don't get sue'd anymore. she probably wont do anything, as she was pretty convinced ( in her bruised and drowsey state) she didnt have enough skill, the sun was in her eyes and she didnt slow or stop when that may have been the prudent thing to do... as for suing Council ( Ambulance chasers turn your heads away from screen now) , she may have a case for misfeasance...ie the council actively designed and built a section of the path and may have been negligent in the design, material selection and construction standard to minimise injury or damage to "the reasonable" man/woman expected to use the path. If council did nothing and left the path as it was she would have no case as it cant be guilty of malfeasance ("not" doing anything) as opposed to misfeasance ( a "wrong" doing)...when in the ordinary course it owed no duty of care beyond what it had discharged in the orginal design and construction of the path. -- rooman |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
In article ,
EuanB wrote: IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way and with priority at junctions. Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse. -- Shane Stanley |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
In article ,
rooman wrote: It is also used by many commuters, who IMO ride too fast (and seriously)should be using the roadway. Not just commuters. I daily see commuters and some recreational riders fairly hammering along this path. Yep. As it happens, I was riding along the path just the other side of Ricketts Point on Anzac Day. It was only the second time I'd ridden along it -- I ride Beach Road regularly, but I was with my wife, who travels at a somewhat sedate pace. I was actually thinking how most of the people seemed to be going much more slowly than normal, or at least there were very few people going at more than a very leisurely pace. There were lots of family groups with young kids. Hardly what I'd call bumper to bumper, though. But it is easy to get up a bit of speed down those dips, and quite a few people don't seem to have complete control. I'm very nervous about the exits from the carpark near Ricketts Point -- the bushes next to the path make it very hard for drivers leaving to see even a slow cyclist coming. Having said that, I find it hard to think anyone would label the path unsafe. Yes, it could be safer, but short of ripping out the foreshore, widening it massively and putting in overpasses and barriers, it's always going to need some care, and there are always going to be mishaps. But the one you saw sounds truly awful... -- Shane Stanley |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:35:22 +1000, EuanB
wrote: Make no mistake, to the majority of people cyclist safety means removing cars from the road so cars won't hit them. I like the cars on the road, they discourage the pedestrians! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley
wrote: In article , EuanB wrote: IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way and with priority at junctions. Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse. OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path. Exclusive to cyclists. One way. Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including pedestrians. Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide. Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines. -- Cheers, Euan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700
EuanB wrote: Exclusive to cyclists. One way. Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including pedestrians. Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide. Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines. Roads for cyclists. Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered vehicles, what makes unpowered different? HAve to define bicycle though! If a trike can use the path, then can a rollerblader who isn't that much wider really? Hand cranked? Rowbike? What are the requirements in size and behaviour of vehicles that can use the path? Zebee |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700 EuanB wrote: Exclusive to cyclists. One way. Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including pedestrians. Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide. Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines. Roads for cyclists. Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered vehicles, what makes unpowered different? HAve to define bicycle though! Everything but bents. -- TimC Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:05:07 +1000
TimC wrote: On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce) HAve to define bicycle though! Everything but bents. You are Bicycle Victoria and I claim my five pounds! Zebee |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long Island-Jones Beach Bike Path reopening anytime soon? | [email protected] | Rides | 7 | April 20th 06 02:19 AM |
Long Island-Jones Beach Bike Path reopening? | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | April 18th 06 05:38 PM |
Cross City Tunnel - Unsafe for cyclists | scotty72 | Australia | 2 | October 20th 05 02:08 AM |
Speed checking on Perth bike path | BruceA | Australia | 41 | April 15th 05 08:18 AM |
Unsafe At Any Speed | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 19 | November 9th 03 01:09 AM |