From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 05:51:20 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 05:51:38 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Bending the Western Bikeway for the tunnel Message-ID: I think it is fair to say that at least there was some concern by the listees here that there was the potential for stuff ups when the over/underpass was first mooted wrt the NL tunnel. I like the way they say that if they need to squeeze in a few more lanes under the bridge that it will be a minor modification to 'add in a section' to the bridge. I cant really see how that could be a minor job. It probably amounts to making larger spans altogether. The bridge seems to be fast taking shape too, despite to all the bureaucratic preamble and the pretence of public consultation. The temp detour they built was fun_not at night. They put up reflective bits on all the star pickets after much complaining of the total lack of visibility down there in the gully. It's really pretty sub-standard provision for cyclists around the works there. They also saw fit to not put up the bike only sign at their temp detour entrance and pedestrians could blissfully enter the bikeway and not see a no pedestrian sign until they got all the way to Moggill Rd some kilometres on, it was pure negligence on their part. k mich rolling wrote: Hopefully the Northern Tunnel consortium will pay to 'make good' any changes necessary to the Western Freeway cycleway. I remember an exchange recorded in the Courier Mail from CanDo back when the first call for comments on the Northern Link went out; reporter (something along the lines) 'will people whose property will be devalued by the tunnel be able to get compensation' , CanDo (along the lines); 'no, the idea for the tunnel has been on the books for twenty-odd years so they can't claim they did not know what might happen and they bought knowing the risk'.. Tunnellers started planning the tunnel back then and presumeably did not object to the SUP overpass so no recourse for the cost of changing the bridge or its path. Bikeway may bend for Northern Link tunnel http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/bikeway-may-bend-for-northern-link-tunnel/2008/10/30/1224956219897.html Tony Moore | October 30, 2008 - 3:25PM A new $4 million bikeway bridge being built in Toowong may have to be modified to suit the final design of the multi-billion dollar Northern Link tunnel project, city planners have conceded Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. _________________________________________________________________ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/de880251/attachment.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 05:57:54 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 05:58:06 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] We are cyclists... Message-ID: Thanks Yani, yeah that was worth a chuckle, quite funny. Monkey Dust, like Southpark and Simpsons is full of great social commentary. You can get torrents of the full first 3 seasons (maybe more by now) if anyone wants more. Of course, do check with the copyright holders before you download them :) Yani wrote: > http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4 > > Have a laugh... not too far from how we are seen. > > Yani > > > _______________________________________________ > bikeqld mailing list > bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld > This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > > > _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/89e8a1e6/attachment.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 06:22:48 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 06:23:03 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] CanDo's Cycling Fund Message-ID: Yes it is rather telling when half the project names have got 'park' or 'creek' in the name. They are building one over near my place in Chapel Hill that will follow Cubberla Creek out to Moggill Rd. These in-park shared paths are about as minimal as you can get. They basically just scrape off some grass with a bobcat and place a 100mm (at best) un-reinforced biscuit slab. Then usually a truck comes and drives over them and they are cracked up before they are even open to the public. Not a whole lot of surveying to do. No DA necessary for change of use. They are flat. Generally no hassles for Council at all. Just an easy way to say, hey look at our commitment to cycling because we have spent x-many thousands on it. Most of our creeks, brooks and drains run east-west and that is not to say that commuters don't need east-west routes but surely the routes we need are the same as that being recognised for motorists. As Michael Y points out in his response, most of these in-park paths are in areas where there are perfectly good, quite, suburban roads to cycle on and Council is spending millions on these redundant paths. The roadways in these suburban areas generally present a much safer option for cycling after dark. I think that Council does have an updated cycle map which would show these additions, but it is probably not available online yet. A request to the ATU folk in Council might get a copy to anyone wanting to see this expenditure in map form. kim mich rolling wrote: CanDoNewman came up with this list of bikeways back in June. No pricings and most of them are unknown to me. Does anyone have a map showing where they are and something of a priority list for their implementation? Massive boost to bikeways and active travel Written on the 11th of June 2008 Campbell Newman Lord Mayor BUDGET 2008-09 MEDIA RELEASE 1106 Budget - Active Transport Cyclists will soon see the benefits of Lord Mayor Campbell Newman?s massive $100 million investment in bikeways, with the roll out of his bold vision imminent. Over $25 million will be spent on the Brisbane?s bikeway network this coming financial year alone, which will see new infrastructure created and existing bikeways upgraded. ?To put this in context, Council spent $25.9 million on bikeways over the past four years, so we?re effectively spending in one year what we just did in four,? Cr Newman said. ?This is a significant commitment that will reduce traffic congestion, decrease carbon emissions, promote fitness and increase safety around schools. ?We have quadrupled funding so cyclists commuting from the suburbs have the opportunity to get right across the city without needing to weave through traffic.? A full list of planned bikeway improvements over the next four years is included overleaf. The Lord Mayor?s visionary bike hire scheme, which has captured the public?s imagination both here and interstate, receives $600,000 in the upcoming financial year. ?In the future, I see bikes playing a much greater role in shorter distance travel ? and what we are doing is helping to encourage and speed that culture change by providing the infrastructure,? he said. ?Grabbing a hire bike is not only a hassle-free way to get around, but it?s also a healthy alternative and helps the environment. ?What I expect is that people will see how easy it is to get around the city by bike and will naturally use the car less for quick trips down to the shops and other short journeys.? Also included in the funding is $200,000 in 2008/09 (rising to $300,000 in upcoming Budgets) for bikeway safety signage, so users will know exactly where they are at all times. ?People will be seeing bikeways and footpaths across the city upgraded to ensure they are safe and serviceable,? Cr Newman said. In line with that massive investment, the Lord Mayor has doubled funding to $750,000 for the highly successful Active School Travel program. Participating schools have seen an 11.3 per cent decrease in sole passenger car travel to and from school. They also experienced a 7 per cent increase in walking and a 4 per cent increase in car-pooling. ?Last year, we worked with 13 schools to develop Active School Travel programs, so we would hope to see that number double in the coming year,? Cr Newman said. ?It?s all about encouraging healthy behaviours at a young age and I am delighted to see how successful the program has been so far.? The Lord Mayor?s commitment to cycling infrastructure was demonstrated just last week, with the official opening of the Council-funded King George Square Cycle Centre. Full list of local bikeways (North): ? Kedron Brook Bikeway, Mitchelton Stage 2 ? Kedron Brook Bikeway, Mitchelton Stage 3 ? Kedron Brook Feeder, Everton Park ? Kedron Brook Feeder, Grange ? Kedron Brook Greenway, Ferny Hills (Mooney St ? Tramway St) ? Kelvin Grove Urban Village to Brisbane Grammar Land Bridge ? Dawson Parade, Oxford Park (under Dawson Rd linking with existing cycleway) Grovely ? Enoggera Creek Bikeway, Kelvin Grove/Newmarket (Bancroft Park to Spencer Park) ? Enoggera Creek, Kelvin Grove (Picot St to Clyde Rd) ? Hogarth Rd, Ferny Grove ? Cemetery Rd, Ferny Grove ? Selkirk Crescent, Upper Kedron ? Heilbromm St, Stafford Heights ? Downfall Creek Bikeway, Banyo (Virginia Station to Nudgee Recreation Reserve) ? Downfall Creek, Stafford Heights (Rode Rd to Lanchester St) ? Downfall Creek, Virginia (Borrows Rd) ? Bald Hills Creek (Cavalier Cl to Hoyland St) ? Cabbage Tree Creek Bikeway, Taigum (Cambridge Crescent to Lemke Rd) ? Gateway North, Eagle Farm (DFO to Schultz Canal bikeway) ? Little Cabbage Tree Creek, Aspley (Aspley Hypermarket to Aspley High) ? Cabbage Tree Creek, Carseldine (Padova St to Coonawarra Drive, plus bridge to Alan Guy bikeway) ? Cabbage Tree Creek, Carseldine (Phillip Vaughan Park to Graham Rd) ? Cabbage Tree Creek, Carseldine (Squash courts to Gympie Rd) ? Nundah Creek Bikeway, Nudgee (Nudgee Recreation Reserve to Bicentennial Rd) ? South Pine River Greenway, Bald Hills (Westfield Strathpine to Wyampa Rd) ? Great Northern Arterial, Zillmere to Chermside (Kakadu Ct to Ellison Rd) ? Great Northern Greenway, Bracken Ridge (Lemke Rd to South Pine River) ? Geebung Park to Murphy Rd, Geebung ? Nudgee Bridge to Jim Soorley Bikeway, Nundah ? Kedron Brook Bikeway ? Beams Rd Connection ? Childs Rd, Nudgee (off road path) ? Coopers Camp Rd to Coolibah St, Bardon ? Western Arterial, Moggil Creek, Kenmore Hills (Rees Way to Brookfield State School) ? Bardon Scenic Reserve ? Great Western Greenway, Kenmore (Westminster Court to Kingfisher Park) ? Cubberla Creek, Chapel Hill (Moggill Rd to Boblynne St) ? Cubberla Creek, Chapel Hill (Rebecca St to Brushbox Court) ? Cubberla Creek, Chapel Hill (Dillingen St to Lambeth St) ? Western Freeway Connector, Kenmore (Rafting Ground Reserve to Gem Rd) ? Toowong Bus Depot Connection ? Dobell St, Indooroopilly (Western Freeway Connector Stage 2) ? Glen Rd to Sandford St, Toowong ? Rafting Ground Reserve, Kenmore ? Bardon Scenic Reserve (Ithaca Creek) ? Crompton St, Kenmore Hills ? Dorrington Park Ashgrove, Stages 1 and 2 ? Sunset Rd, Kenmore ? Bicentennial Bikeway progressive widening Stage 2 ? Bicentennial Bikeway progressive widening Stage 3 Full list of local bikeways (South): ? Yeronga Bikeway (Woodlea St to Fairfield Rd) ? Great Eastern Arterial, Coorparoo (Whites Hill Reserve - Norman Creek) ? Tarragindi Bikeway Stage 1 (Evans Rd to Pope St) ? Tarragindi Bikeway Stage 2 (Pope St - Cracknell Rd) ? Moorooka Greenway, Tarragindi (Mayfield St to Sunshine Ave through Tarragindi Rec Res) ? Orient Road Park, Yeronga ? Tonks St, Moorooka ? Great Southern Greenway (Vendale Ave - Toohey Forest) ? Toohey Forest - Ridge Track to SEF Bikeway ? Algoori St - Lytton Rd, Morningside ? South Eastern Feeder Norman Creek (Greenslopes Busway Station to Birdwood Rd) ? Carina Heights Stage 1 (Gallipoli Rd - Gaffney St) ? Carina Heights Stage 2 (Gaffney St - Creek Rd) ? Lambertia Cl - Donnington St, Carina ? Bridgewater Ck - Old Cleveland Rd to Temple St ? Riverwalk KP Stage 2 (Bright Street - Holman Street) ? Barwon St- Lytton Rd (Colmslie Pool) ? C B Mott Park, Holland Park ? Bulimba Creek Bikeway, Wishart Stage 2 (Wishart Community Park) ? Carina Heights Stage 1 (Gallipoli Rd - Gaffney St) ? Carina Heights Stage 2 (Gaffney St - Creek Rd) ? Bulimba Creek Bikeway, Macgregor (SE Freeway Bikeway to DM Henderson Park) ? Bulimba Creek Bikeway, Wishart Stage 3 (Bellbird Crescent to Stackpole Street) ? Lambertia Cl - Donnington St, Carina ? Bridgewater Ck - Old Cleveland Rd to Temple St ? Great Southern Greenway, Calamvale (Hellawell Road - Algester Rd) ? Willawong Bikeway (Forest Lake to Algester via Pallara) ? Greenways Esplanade, Parkinson ? Beryl Roberts Park, Coopers Plains ? Jindalee Bikeway, Mt Ommaney Dr - Kooringal Dr ? Oxley Creek Greenway, Corinda (Strickland Tce - Oxley Common) Stage 2 ? Willawong Bikeway (Forest Lake to Algester via Pallara) ? John Magee Park (Counihan Rd), Seventeen Mile Rocks ? Eden Brooke Greenway (Ashridge Road - Darra Train Station), Darra ? Pampling St, Seventeen Mile Rocks - existing bikeway (UBD 198 B9) ? Wacol Rail Trail- Viking Drive- Campbell Ave ? Wynnum Road mad mile (Manly Rd - Preston Rd) ? Arafura Cr - Soloman Cr - Castlerea St, Tingalpa ? Gateway South (Lytton Rd - Murarrie Rec Reserve) ? Algoori Street, Morningside ? Lytton Road cycle link (Junction Rd - Gateway Upgrade) [Ends] June 11, 2008 Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. _________________________________________________________________ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/5b56660d/attachment-0001.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 07:05:59 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 16:55:51 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] left of centre Message-ID: As most of us are aware, the left hook is one of the ever present risks of riding on the road. I have been contemplating the rights of the cyclist when riding on the road with respect to the left turning motorist in many different scenarios. I have looked at the wording of our road rules which might be applicable in these scenarios. I have also considered some of the newer on-road infrastructure features that we are seeing around town such as the bicycle storage bays at intersections, advanced stop lines at intersections and cyclist operated traffic light controls. All of these are designed to get the cyclist up to the front of the intersection and to be more visible to motorists once there and out of the way of left turning motorists queuing at intersections, however our road rules seem to conflict with the intended operation of these features. Right now if you are approaching an intersection with a bikelane control button or sensor and there is queued traffic in the car lane showing a left turn signal then you can not ride past these cars on their left to reach these controls even though the cars are not moving. So can you leave the bike lane and pass these left signalling cars on their right as you make your way to the front of the intersection. QT simply saw fit to remind me that I might be breaking a few laws in 'lane splitting' by going on the right of these turning cars. Ironically if I dismount I think I can quite safely run up the side of these cars to the front of the intersection to reach the controls. Now how about on a Main Road like Sandgate Rd where the left turn onto Rode Rd has a left turn car lane that cuts in front of the bike lane which is controlled by a bike traffic light, in theory a cyclist could rarely cycle up to the bike traffic light and stop line or activate the in-road sensors there because there will nearly always be cars showing left turn signals on their right in the left turn car lane. MR when quizzed gave a motherhood answer and said they did not condone breaking the rules but one should use their common sense. They said that a police officer would never issue a ticket for such a breach but I wonder if a police officer would get in a huff if one was to leave the bike lane there and ride in the regular straight ahead lane to avoid breaking the left turning motorist laws? Right now, the rules are slightly different for a motorist on a multi-lane road as opposed to a single lane road with respect to giving way. For some reason a bike lane does not count as a lane in determining whether a road is multi-lane or not and as such a motorist is not required to give way to bikes in that lane when moving into that lane (for example to turn left) under one law but there is another law that recognises multiple 'lines of traffic'. QT inform me that this 'anomaly' will be fixed up in the revision for March next year. Anyhow its a bit of an ongoing discussion with the Road Rules folk at QT. If anyone is interested in the specifics and how they apply to our road rules I have pasted some thread of discussion with QT below: kim =============================================================================================== I have had some time to digest your response to my initial enquiry and have composed some additional questions which need further clarification based on what you have told me. Firstly, I must say that the road rules are quite unique when compared to rules for other forms of transport, such as marine or air. In these other forms of transportation the rules are generally designed to recognise the fact that human powered and low powered forms of transport are generally more vulnerable than high powered forms and with this in mind the rules generally favour the human powered vehicles in many circumstances. The impression I get when I hear some of the views expressed regarding the rights of cyclists on the road has all the hallmarks of the classic class debate where in this case people riding bicycles are thought of as the poorer cousins of those driving motor vehicles. Its rather crazy considering most bicycles and cars are generally both carrying just one person each and those persons are likely to be just your average citizens who would otherwise both enjoy the same rights within the community. The argument is often strained to substantiate that particular rules or views are based on 'protecting' the vulnerable cyclists on our roads rather than giving priority to a particular person because they drive a particular class of vehicle. Imagine the discontent if we had road rules that dictated that smaller or cheaper model cars had to give way to more expensive luxury models in particular circumstances. It is apparent when you look at how the rules are written and interpreted, as an example; a car can generally pass a cyclist and then turn left in front of the cyclist and the driver is permitted to judge what are the safe distances associated in making that manoeuvre and that is all taken for granted, and yet when it comes to lane splitting where a cyclist then has to judge whether there is a safe amount of room, there is a great deal of debate, even you saw fit to remind me that it might be illegal and the potential fines applicable. When left turning traffic is queued up at a traffic light with left turn signals going, it would seem that the rules prevent a cyclist from passing those stationary cars rather than allowing the cyclist to make his or her own judgement about the safety of the manoeuvre around this stationary traffic. Now with respect to the scenarios I raised in my previous email and some additional related issues I ask the following questions: (nb: I have preserved my original numbering of the scenarios and continued the numbering scheme for the additional points for ease of reference. The original questions and your response are included below the relevant scenario to make things easier to follow. My original question is in red, your response in blue.) Scenario 1. s141(2) stipulates that a rider must not ride past a vehicle giving a left turn signal and turning left. I emphasise the 'and' in this rule as it relates to my question. I am assuming that giving a left signal to show intention and actually turning left are two separate actions as would be highlighted in the other rule s46(2) which you quote, which talks about signalling your intention to take an action well before you take that action. Also if you look at the right hand turn equivalent, s142(1) it too clearly distinguishes between the actions of signalling and turning and is applicable only when both actions are taking place. So is the correct interpretation of s141(2) that a cyclist must not ride past the vehicle ahead while it is actually making the turn or in such a manner as to obstruct the car while it is actually turning, ie is the cyclist required to make a judgement about sufficient clearance to not interfere with the car while it is negotiating the turn but is otherwise allowed to pass that vehicle if is is only showing the intention to 1. turn or 2. leave the road or 3. move left into the bike lane or line of traffic? How otherwise is a cyclist to know which of those three actions the driver is intending to take when deciding whether it is safe and legal to pass that vehicle on the left? So it does not seem to matter whether there is a bike lane or a separate line of cycle traffic on the left. So in this scenario with a long line of cyclists approaching an intersection, while s148(2) would require the car to give way to all of the cyclists in the line of cycle traffic on the far left before safely moving left into that line so as not to impede that flow, s141(2) states that cyclists behind the car must not ride past the car. Clearly there are different distances involved here and in theory a cyclist can ride right up to the car but not past it but s148(2) would require the motorist to give way to a cyclist who was that close to the car. So if a motorist needs to allow say 30m distance in front of a cyclist to safely move into the cyclists line, what requirement is there for a cyclist to provide that clear distance? Are you suggesting that implicit in s141(2) is a cyclist must also then allow the motorist sufficient room to move into the cycle line of traffic, by, if necessary, stopping and allowing the car to get ahead by the 30m? Scenario 1. Section 141(2) of the QRR provides that the rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal. Section 148(2) of the QRR provides that when a driver in a line of traffic is moving to another line of traffic, the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic. Section 46(2) of the QRR provides that before a driver changes direction to the left, the driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians. Therefore, if the driver is turning left at an intersection and indicating left, the rider of a bicycle that is behind the motor vehicle must give way to the motor vehicle. Provided the driver has given sufficient indication, it is the responsibility of the rider to observe such indication and react appropriately. On the other hand, If the bicycle is beside or ahead of the motor vehicle before the driver begins to indicate and turn left, then the driver must give way. 1. A cyclist is riding toward an intersection keeping to the left of the lane as there is no dedicated bike lane. A car approaching the cyclist from behind passes the cyclist on the right of the cyclist and then signals left to turn left at the approaching intersection. It would seem quite subjective as to when the car was driving past the cyclist and when the cyclist was deemed to be 'riding past' the car if they are traveling at a similar speed which is often the case as the turning car needs to slow down to make the turn at the intersection. If the car is alongside the cyclist or even in front by a small amount, it is very unlikely that the cyclist can see the car's turn signal at that close proximity. Does this situation rely on some specified safe distances in the Code for making this pass and then turn manoeuvre? Scenario 2. So it would seem that if a cyclist is not showing a left turn signal when approaching an intersection then a driver intending to turn left would ordinarily judge whether there was sufficient distance and time to pass the cyclist and to turn left in front of the cyclist, however if the cyclist does indicate a left turn a motorist might see no issue in turning left in front of the cyclist despite the potential for an incident on the narrow road that they are turning onto. Is there not a requirement for the motorist to make the left turn from the far left, ie the motorist needs to be in the same line of traffic as the cyclist and so would need to either make the turn well before or well after the cyclist rather than alongside the cyclist? If the motorist sees the cyclist signal left should not the motorist have to enter the far left line of traffic ie the bike line behind that signalling cyclist? You suggest that if both are taking off from the lights to turn left then it would be a matter of who got the jump on the other based on vehicle acceleration. Basically you are saying its a matter of who can get around the corner first from a standing start, like a race. So the rule about needing to make the turn from the far left does not seem to apply here for the car and the rule about not accelerating while being overtaken s145 is not relevant either. It really does seem like an anarchic scenario to me. So given that it is not a requirement for the cyclist to signal left it would be prudent for a cyclist in this scenario to not signal the intention to turn left and thus the car turning left and being alongside the cyclist would ordinarily have to give way to the cyclist (as the cyclist could be moving straight ahead). Scenario 2. If the bicycle commences the left turn ahead of a motor vehicle then the driver should remain behind the bicycle. If the motor vehicle commences the left turn ahead the bicycle then the cyclist should remain behind the motor vehicle. If the bicycle and the motor vehicle attempt to make the turn side by side it is quite possible that the rider and the driver may be contravening either section 141(2) or section 148(2) of the QRR. In the case of both the rider and the driver moving off from a stationary position at lights, it would largely be subject to the acceleration capability of each of the vehicles concerned. 2. If the cyclist is also intending to turn left at the same intersection and the road onto which the cyclist is turning does not have room for both a cyclist and another vehicle, who has right of way in that turn? This could occur in the situation described in 1. above or it could occur from a stationary position at an intersection controlled by traffic lights. The code also has no requirement for a cyclist to signal an intention to turn left. Scenario 5. So if the bike lane on the left is actually a bus lane which can be legally used by bikes does this change any of the scenarios, particularly with regards to riding past a left signalling/turning/moving left vehicle or does the bike have the same status as a bus in that lane with respect to the need to give way or be given way to? Scenarios 5. Section 158 of the QRR provides that a driver may drive in a bicycle lane for up to 50m to enter or leave a road. Section 148 of the QRR provides that a driver on a multi-lane road who is moving from one marked lane to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction in the marked lane to which the driver is moving. The current definition of a multi-lane road in the QRR excludes a bicycle lane. This means that a single lane two way road with a bicycle lane does not qualify as a multi-lane road and section 148(1) would not apply. However, the provision in section 148(2) may apply in this situation. A proposed amendment to section 148 of the QRR will fix this anomaly. It is expected that this amendment will be included in the QRR by March 2009. The effect of this amendment will be that section 148(1) will apply to a driver on a single lane road moving into a bicycle lane. 5. Does the situation in any of the above situations change if the cyclists have a dedicated bike lane at the left of the road? Scenario 8. So according to s27(1) which requires that a driver make a left turn from the far left of the road, could necessitate the driver moving left into a bike lane or left into a line of bike traffic and s148(2) would be applicable, however if it was a multi-lane road, then there is not a requirement to move into the bike lane or the bike line of traffic in this case and the left turn can be made from within the left lane and then only s141(2) might apply and there is no requirement for the car to give way to the line or lane of cycle traffic on the left as it does not need to enter that line or lane in advance of the turn. That would seem to give rise to the classic 'left hook' interaction. Scenario 8. In section 153 of the QRR which provides that the driver of any vehicle may drive for up to 50m in a bicycle lane, if it is necessary for the driver to drive in the bicycle lane to enter or leave the road, the phrase 'to enter or leave a road' includes making a left turn at an intersection. This does mean that a rider in a bicycle lane must not ride past a vehicle which is turning left and giving a left change of direction signal. 8. The Traffic Code has provision for vehicles other than a bicycle to travel in a bike lane for a distance of no more than 50m for the purpose of leaving a road. Does this 'leaving a road' include making a left turn onto another road? In other words, is a vehicle permitted or possibly required to make the left turn from the very left of the road, which would necessitate entering the bike lane up to 50m before the intersection? Does this then prevent a cyclist from passing a vehicle on its left which has entered the bike lane and is signaling an intention to turn left. Scenario 9. What I was referring to in this situation was the provision of push buttons and in-pavement detectors designed to control the timing of traffic lights by being either manually or automatically activated by cyclists in a cycle lane or line. If indeed traffic lights are showing red and a car stopped at these lights is signalling a left turn, is a cyclist then prevented from reaching these controls to activate them due to s141(2)? These controls and the stop line for cyclists is commonly positioned in front of the stop line for the cars and as such even the first car, if it was signalling left, could prevent the cyclist reaching the control button or pavement loop. The operation of s141(2) would seem to defeat the very purpose of these controls in affecting a smooth traffic flow. Scenario 9. It is unclear what you are referring to as 'intersection controls that are provided for cyclists' and therefore I am unable to respond to this scenario. 9. As a corollary to the situation described in 8. above is a cyclist then prevented from reaching and activating any intersection controls that are provided for cyclists at this intersection because the cyclist is effectively not able to reach this control because a vehicle in front is showing a left turn signal? Scenario 10. That would seem strange that we do not have rules pertaining to the use of these bicycle storage bays at the front of intersections when we have some in operation in the CBD on Adelaide St already and there are probably others elsewhere in Qld. How does s151 regarding having not more than two cyclist abreast apply right now when these bays are designed to carry about 6 cyclists across the whole width of the lane, that is the very purpose they are designed for; to get the cycle traffic ahead of the cars and they can even have a special bicycle light phase to get them all off to an early start and back into a single line before the cars start to move. How do cyclists access this starting bay at the front of the intersection if a car is signalling left? Are cyclists required to lane split to the right of the left signalling vehicle to access these bays? They would seem to have very little benefit if cyclists are prevented from reaching them. Scenario 10. With the respect to the establishment of bicycle storage areas at intersections, the rules for bicycle storage areas have not yet been progressed into the QRR. Until such time as these rules have been incorporated into the QRR an attempt at precise interpretation of these rules is not appropriate. 10. With the advent of bicycle storage bays at intersections in Brisbane, is the use of these bays by bicycle traffic in any way affected by any of the situations described above? It would seem that these bays are provided with the intention of having the bicycle traffic pass all the queued vehicles at an intersection. Does a left signaling vehicle disrupt this in any way? Scenario 11. So at least in the instance that there is no dedicated bike lane it would seem that a cyclist travelling in a line of cycle traffic to the far left faces the prospect of having to stop for left turning cars or being not able to reach a storage bay or operate an intersection control, but if the cyclist moves to the middle of the left lane they have none of these restrictions and potential conflicts as they approach the intersection. Providing the cyclist moves into the middle of the lane with sufficient distance from any approaching cars and takes into account the approaching speed of the cars and the cyclists own speed, there is no hazard presented to the cars, particularly if traffic has stopped or is stopping for lights at the intersection. In the case where there is a marked bike lane, I would have thought that if left turning cars had stopped in this lane and were waiting on pedestrians or an red arrow that a cyclist wishing to move straight ahead at a green light would find it impracticable to do so from the bike lane as there is generally not room for a car and a bike side by side in a bike lane, and so could move out into the left lane and travel straight ahead. Are you suggesting that this situation would not fit the definition of 'impracticable'? Presumably if there is room for a line of cycle traffic on the left of the left lane and cars move into this line to make their left turn from the far left, then there should be equally the same room on the right of the car for a cyclist now that the car has moved to he far left. I would argue that it is far easier for a cyclist to judge the safe clearance riding past on the right of a car than it is for a car to judge the clearance passing a cyclist on its left hand side, that should be obvious. You make no mention of this same clearance issue when a car has to pass the bike on its left, the fine and rule, s144(a) equally apply to the driver of the car in that case on the same width of road. Cars squeezing past on the right of a cyclist are notionally 'lane splitting' also, does QT not share this view?. Normally if a cyclist was to 'lane split' to reach front of the intersection, they would be doing this while traffic was stationary. There would be very little risk here of obstructing traffic and safe clearance distances should be the judgement of the cyclists. Car traffic deliberately moving right or opening their right hand door to block this line of cycle traffic, should be seen to be committing an offence under the road rules. While technically a cyclist could 'lane split ' and remain in the one lane it would seem that QT could facilitate this further by not requiring right hand signals each time the cycle momentarily crossed the middle lane dividing line if it is a multi-lane road. Obviously riding between two lanes of stationary traffic is not going to have any affect on the traffic regardless of whether the cyclist is riding on the lane divider or not. Obviously it is far safer for the cyclist to have both hands on the brakes and bars and for the cyclist to position his or her self midway between the two lanes of cars irrespective of where the line is. I think to be pedantic about the issue of riding on the line or crossing the line slightly is not the way to deal with the issue, either QT supports the idea, and if it does, then in makes provision for it to be done in the safest manner or if it does not support the idea, then simply make a clear cut provision to ban it, but don't rely on some pedantic reading of the rules approach to 'discourage' it by quoting some fines. Either QT is all for it or all against it. Which is it? And why? Does it come back down to this 'class debate'? Scenario 11. Section 247 of the QRR provides that a cyclist must use a bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so. There are no rules that prescribe where a vehicle should travel within the width space of a lane. However, section 253 of the QRR prohibits a cyclist from causing a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian. The practice of riding between rows of vehicles is commonly referred to as "lane splitting" and while there is currently no specific rule prohibiting lane splitting, there are a number of sections of the QRR that may be contravened by a rider while lane splitting. I have set out the particular rules below along with the bicycle infringement notice penalty for each one. In practice it would be very difficult for a rider to lane split without contravening some or all of these rules: changing lanes without signalling for sufficient distance to alert other road users - penalty of $30; failing to stay within a single marked lane or line of traffic - penalty of $30; failing to provide a safe distance when passing another vehicle - penalty of $30; 11. Should a cyclist always occupy the middle of a lane when approaching an intersection so that they have the legal option of passing a left signaling vehicle in front to the right of that vehicle? Is that also a legal option for accessing a bicycle storage bay at the intersection? The Traffic Code does not prevent cyclists from what is commonly referred to as 'lane splitting'. And now a couple of further and related issues: Scenario 12. What happens if there is a cycle lane on the far left with a bicycle traffic light and to the right of that there is a marked left turn lane for cars. The traffic lights are designed to allow the left turning cars to turn left while the bike lane has a red bike light facing them. This is a scenario that exists on Sandgate Rd near Nundah. Are cyclists required to stop way back from the traffic light and stop line for the bike lane because there is a whole lane of left turning cars on their right or can they proceed to the red bicycle light possibly passing to the left of cars showing a left turn signal? And what happens while the left turning lane is stopped and the bike lane has the green bike symbol, how does the bike lane proceed while there are cars to their right showing left turn signals? How does a cyclist know in advance that their lane is controlled by a bike light when making the decision to ride past the cars or not? Scenario 13. If there is a regular dedicated left turn lane on the far left which also forms part of the bike lane on the left should a cyclist travel to the right of cars in this lane although cyclists are explicitly permitted by sign to travel straight ahead in this lane? Presumably this would count as a multi lane section of road and a cyclist would be able to ride past a car indicating an intent to move into this lane as the car is not actually turning left but rather just moving into the left turn lane. Melbourne St at Sth Brisbane has a good example of this situation. Scenario 14. What if instead of a left turn scenario we look at a similar mirror reverse scenario which occurs in the CBD on Ann St which is One Way. A cyclist wishing to turn right on to Roma St or George St would normally ride on the far right of the right hand lane. These cyclists it would seem are prevented from riding past a car which is signalling and turning right by s142(1), so as in scenario 1, if the right hand lane of cars is slow or stopped but some are showing a right signal well before the intersection, are they just signalling to move into the line of bike traffic on the far right prior to actually making the turn and must therefore give way to the bikes in the line they are going to move into? Scenario 15. If a cyclist approaching an intersection moves to the footpath or nature strip to pass a car giving the left turn signal and safely returns to the bike lane or line of cycle traffic well in front of the turning car, then that use of what amounts to a 'road related area' does not in fact contravene s141(2) or other rules? Finally, why is it that a rule pertaining to cycles which was amended in the last revision of the road rules, only appears in Part 17 in Division 2 entitled Buses and Taxis and has no mention in Part 15 with rules specific to Bicycle Riders? How would a bicycle rider be made aware of this amendment? I refer to the addition of Bicycles to the B traffic lights in Bus Lanes which differs in other states. I trust you can clarify all of these left turn issues for me as they really do represent one of the most common scenarios for car/cyclist interactions. _________________________________________________________________ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/746221ed/attachment-0001.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Sun Nov 2 17:31:27 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Sun Nov 2 17:31:56 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Bending the Western Bikeway for the tunnel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081102233133.TUWO21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Thanks Kim ... As a general rule, "temporary" road works need to be properly designed and conform to accepted standards so it is quite safe to assume that what is in place has been approved by a number of Main Roads and/or QT staff responsible for the project. Of course they probably don't know much about what is required but would be working under instructions including from detailed contract/construction documents which will have been signed off by those who ARE supposed to be responsible. So some photos would be useful to put on the public record (eg the Wiki?) as like any other project by Main Roads and/or QT, the current projects should provide an example of current best practice ...! Star pickets don't comply as edge barriers unless they are well beyond the defined edge of the defined "bikepath" as in Part 14 ... and even then I would have thought them a high risk option. Having some photos on a website that has direct public access via a direct link is probably the best way to record over time the state of commitment to standards for cycling facilities. It is also a protection for cyclists who might otherwise assume that what is being done by MR an/or QT is anywhere near reasonable quality practice. Its also interesting and testament to the ongoing LACK of support for cycling that when the first stage of this bikepath was constructed, an audit was carried out which showed the bikepath failed to comply in a large number of ways ... some of which have been slowly changed, others not, yet all were examples where Main Roads designers simply chose to ignore Part 14 ... It seems little has changed since the official opening or as it was described "Commissioning" of the original section on May 8, 1998. And that raises the question of the role of BQ in seeking facilities that do comply with Part 14 or does BQ simply "go along"with the government agencies. MY.................................. At 09:51 PM 2/11/2008, kim wrote: From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 18:37:06 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 18:37:19 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Bending the Western Bikeway for the tunnel Message-ID: Michael, you are spot on with that. The day-glo mesh barrier strung between the star pickets is also explicitly forbidden by, not just the Austroads Part 14 but by Main Roads own MUTCD. The mesh barrier used to, and to a lesser extent, still flops over onto the temporary path presenting an easy handlebar trap for a cyclist. It was even worse when the barrier was not delineated by reflectors at night as the light level there is zero. I do have it all documented, and I will have it up on the Wiki some time. The thing that gets me is that the engineer I was communicating with would not address these obvious issues of non-compliance at first instance, it was like pulling teeth. It was pretty much the same situation down at the Hale St Bridge site, and even today there are plenty of shortcomings there, not just the Coro Drv side but also the West End side. Like you say, there is supposed to be a compliance check done at the planning stage and certainly before things are open to the public, and all of this to be documented. Any future 'fixes' are supposed to be documented too but I doubt very much that you will find any of the later 'fixes' documented as they would then need to explain why the obvious points were overlooked in the first instance. Was it 98 or 88? I thought it all went back some 20 years now. As for BQ's involvement, I really think that they don't/can't get involved in issues of the quality of provision of any such infrastructure, there is certainly no evidence of that. kim Michael Yeates wrote: > Thanks Kim ... > > As a general rule, "temporary" road works need to be properly designed > and conform to accepted standards so it is quite safe to assume that > what is in place has been approved by a number of Main Roads and/or QT > staff responsible for the project. > > Of course they probably don't know much about what is required but > would be working under instructions including from detailed > contract/construction documents which will have been signed off by > those who ARE supposed to be responsible. > > So some photos would be useful to put on the public record (eg the > Wiki?) as like any other project by Main Roads and/or QT, the current > projects should provide an example of current best practice ...! > > Star pickets don't comply as edge barriers unless they are well beyond > the defined edge of the defined "bikepath" as in Part 14 ... and even > then I would have thought them a high risk option. > > Having some photos on a website that has direct public access via a > direct link is probably the best way to record over time the state of > commitment to standards for cycling facilities. > > It is also a protection for cyclists who might otherwise assume that > what is being done by MR an/or QT is anywhere near reasonable quality > practice. > > Its also interesting and testament to the ongoing LACK of support for > cycling that when the first stage of this bikepath was constructed, an > audit was carried out which showed the bikepath failed to comply in a > large number of ways ... some of which have been slowly changed, > others not, yet all were examples where Main Roads designers simply > chose to ignore Part 14 ... > > It seems little has changed since the official opening or as it was > described "Commissioning" of the original section on May 8, 1998. > > And that raises the question of the role of BQ in seeking facilities > that do comply with Part 14 or does BQ simply "go along"with the > government agencies. > > MY.................................. > > At 09:51 PM 2/11/2008, kim wrote: > > > _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/24230e88/attachment.htm From ben at creative-engineering.com.au Sun Nov 2 18:54:42 2008 From: ben at creative-engineering.com.au (Ben Guymer) Date: Sun Nov 2 18:54:53 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] left of centre References: Message-ID: <2AE18ED05AD8448B99AA6780E422860E@Toaster> Hi Kim, I had a look through some of the scenarios you describe, my normal commute would include a good portion of these scenarios! One is at the approach to the green bridge, as you climb from Annerley Rd: you have to cross out of the left turning cycle lane to reach the bicycle box which continues straight ahead. Very poorly thought out. Of course, just to confound, motorists don't always indicate (ie if you're at the head of a stationary queue, is the car behind indicating? If it indicates, there's a fair chance it will turn. If not, it may or may not turn). Wouldn't it be great if reporting a non-indicating vehicle would get them a $30 fine? As for marine rules of transport: Yacht racing rules are much more detailed and would clarify just about all these scenarios! On road, I guess the infrastructure is supposed to make up for the increased lack of knowledge. For example: approaching a bouy, the yacht on the outside of the turn must allow clear water for the inside boat to turn. Who is on the outside is fixed at two boat lengths before the turn (boatlengths of the longer yacht). There are also other rules which define what is ahead or behind, holding true course etc., which generally work to safeguard slower boats, for example (if we all had masts) the 'Mast abeam' condition would prevent someone turning across your path until they are clear ahead of you.. and it would still be illegal for them to do so if you had to alter your speed or course at any time, during their turning. Firstly, I must say that the road rules are quite unique when compared to rules for other forms of transport, such as marine or air. In these other forms of transportation the rules are generally designed to recognise the fact that human powered and low powered forms of transport are generally more vulnerable than high powered forms and with this in mind the rules generally favour the human powered vehicles in many circumstances. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/cd21f98b/attachment.htm From gsfergus at optusnet.com.au Sun Nov 2 18:59:07 2008 From: gsfergus at optusnet.com.au (Glen Fergus) Date: Sun Nov 2 18:59:19 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre Message-ID: Thanks Kim. One I've commented on a bit too. You've done well to engage QT on the subject. Thoughts: 1. Why do you say: "Right now if you are approaching an intersection with a bikelane control button or sensor and there is queued traffic in the car lane showing a left turn signal then you can not ride past these cars on their left to reach these controls even though the cars are not moving." I don't get how you've come to that view. You emphasise the conjunction and in s141(2) below. The meaning is plain enough, but seems garbled in the QT response to your Scenario 1. In general, regs are interpreted to mean what they actually say. A car in a queue of traffic approaching an intersection - whether stopped or moving slowly - is not "turning left". It may be going to turn left, but it is not yet doing it. Therefore s141(2) cannot apply. It would be good to see some case law on that. This wording has been used nation wide for a decade (except maybe in Victoria, where I've heard the conjunction used is or, but I've never checked). There ought to be cases around by now. 2. An interesting example occurs at evening peak, outbound on Sylvan Rd at the Jephson/Croyden lights. There is usually a long queue of cars waiting in the single combined ahead / left turn lane. Maybe a third want to turn left into Jephson. But there is also often a long queue of bikes (a dozen is not unusual) in the narrow bicycle lane to the left, and better than 90% of them want to go straight ahead to the Western Freeway Bikeway. So there is substantial traffic engineering conflict, perhaps the worst between bicycles and cars in the whole city. I observe: * Nearly all bicycles stop at the red signal, unlike at some other places. A few push the bicycle button provided beside the forward storage bay, but it appears to have nil effect on phasing precedence. * Cars very rarely drive in the (narrow) bicycle lane, even though they may be entitled to if turning left, according to QT below. * No bicycles stop to the rear of cars in the queue that are showing a left turn signal. That's none, ever. * Essentially all left turning cars wait for bicycles, even those that were far to the rear of them in the queue. It doesn't seem to matter that they might not be obliged to wait, according to QT below. 3. I agree that it's disgraceful that QT haven't acted to fix this anomaly. My worry would be that they might just "fix" it to our serious detriment! G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/029869e2/attachment-0001.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 19:15:07 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 19:15:19 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 40km/h in the CBD Message-ID: The Poll is running at 61:39 in favour of a 40 limit. I think it is a pretty poor show to not aim for the internationally recommended safe speed limit for such an area, which is 30kph. There was a good interview some months back on the Radio National's Counterpoint show with a Dutch artist/inovator and traffic planner, David Engwitch. They were talking about his book, Mental Speed Bumps which is all about traffic calming and claiming back the roads in cities. It was pretty interesting, they had the podcast of it up there for a while but it seems to be gone now, perhaps it is archived, but I think I have a copy of it still somewhere it anyone want to have a listen. The thing with the CBD as they define it, is that it is pretty much a big dead end so I cant see why a low limit like 30 would be a problem for cars in there. The only arguably 'through roads' are Turbot/Wickham and Ann where 40 would not impact on their flow most of the time anyway. In reality I think what they refer to as the CBD is out of date, you really need to include the Valley and the area in between as well as the West End where urban renewal has seen a huge increase in people using the areas at more hours of the day. Michael Yeates wrote: Hi all ... Brisbane City Council's "Your City Your Say" currently has a survey seeking responses to the possible implementation of a 40km/h speed limit in the CBD. Presumably most of us would strongly support such a move ... both as cyclists and as pedestrians ... maybe even as environmentalists ...! A 40km/h speed limit in the CBD is probably the most effective (and cost effective) way to achieve a whole raft of transport, health, urban design, amenity and environmental outcomes long promoted by Council. It appears few people know (or recall) that when the footpaths along Adelaide Street were widened, and as part of the scheme, the "yellow BIKEs" were added to create what is still the only bicycle corridor in through the CBD, BCC also reduced the speed limit in Adelaide Street to 40km/h only to have it later increased to 50km/h. It is also worth noting that the area covered by the 40km/h zone will be important ... the bigger the better. North Sydney "CBD" has had a 40km/h speed limit in place in its pedestrian activity area for some 5 or more years. Strong community support will be necessary. Beware the temptation to complicate support for this initiative ... nothing is perfect ..! It is getting on for 10 years since BCC nearly implemented a 40km/h zone in the CBD and if the Lord Mayor's CitiBike proposal is to have much chance of success, reducing the speed of traffic is imperative. Anyone interested in more detail is welcome to contact me off-list. MY.................. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/6fe5f456/attachment.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Sun Nov 2 19:36:53 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Sun Nov 2 19:37:46 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081103013732.KIHN15831.nschwotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Thanks Kim ... Very detailed. As you suggest, much of the problem comes from regarding the (high speed) motorists as having priority over pedestrians and cyclists whose "right of passage" then has to be constrained otherwise motorists might be delayed. A further problem related to that, is the failure to follow practices that have worked elsewhere ... choosing instead what appear to be rational choices but based on the motorists "windscreen" view even where the designer or decision maker also professes to be a cyclist. There are others but a similar but earlier BCC example is on Gregory Terrace where the bike lane also veers left hugging the kerb at a number of left turn lanes which could easily have been LEFT TURN EXCEPT CYCLIST lanes ... as was the case in Melbourne Street approaching Grey Street heading outbound ... but that too disappeared (suspiciously close to when QT and its consultants designed the busway changes). So back to the example of the Rode/Sandgate Road intersection. When the "bike lanes" were added to Sandgate Road, the outbound (northbound) "bike lane" at this intersection was almost exactly as is illustrated on the front cover of AUSTROADS Part 14 aka "The Pink Brick" (ie the first edition). So it conformed with and was what would be expected by "good design" and current good (best?) practice. This type of design had/has been in use elsewhere in Australia and overseas. I know I used exactly this type of facility in Newcastle on some very busy multi-lane major roads with probably more truck (esp interstate) than Sandgate Road and I suspect that was in about 1995-7 and although it took a bit of getting used to, it worked well. And if you were a bit "worried", you could wait for a gap in the platooned traffic. And as at the crossing of Rode Road, any cyclist who did not feel comfortable using the "bike lane" through the intersection could always leave the "bike lane" and use the footpath although cycling on the footpath is ILLEGAL in NSW. I am unsure when the Rode/Sandgate Road intersection was changed or more importantly, why it was changed but the result is not only very constraining of cyclists (which often encourages law-breaking) but is also completely unnecessary as there are several alternatives. Perhaps MR should be asked why it changed the design? But the real issue is why MR removed a facility that complied with Part 14 and at great expense, implemented a scheme where left turning motorists have priority over through cyclists and where as a deliberate outcome, cyclists on a major bike route have little or no priority. Unfortunately both MR and QT are totally un-cooperative when it comes to any transparency in relation to decisions they make ... and almost certainly, this example would require a long FOI process and be likely to end up with either a heap of blackened out material or a "no documentation" response ... or maybe even a "BQ was consulted" response ..! The added problem is the confusion caused by what appear to be decisions based on ill-informed personal opinion that not only lead to differences between states but also between MR and QT regions, but also internationally. So much for any move towards consistency or globalisation in this field. There seems to be a deliberate policy in BCC and MR and QT to remove cyclists from danger rather than reduce the danger. A similar problem is the increasingly tokenistic use of green paint ...! If only "green paint" had been found to be so successful a bit earlier, it could have been used on the "old" facility at Road/Sandgate Roads. Perhaps all the next generation designs should revert to the "old" design * but with green paint added ...? MY.................................................. * feel free to email me off-list if you want a copy of the front cover or the photo on it. At 11:05 PM 2/11/2008, kim wrote: >As most of us are aware, the left hook is one of the ever present >risks of riding on the road. I have been contemplating the rights of >the cyclist when riding on the road with respect to the left turning >motorist in many different scenarios. I have looked at the wording >of our road rules which might be applicable in these scenarios. I >have also considered some of the newer on-road infrastructure >features that we are seeing around town such as the bicycle storage >bays at intersections, advanced stop lines at intersections and >cyclist operated traffic light controls. All of these are designed >to get the cyclist up to the front of the intersection and to be >more visible to motorists once there and out of the way of left >turning motorists queuing at intersections, however our road rules >seem to conflict with the intended operation of these features. > >Right now if you are approaching an intersection with a bikelane >control button or sensor and there is queued traffic in the car lane >showing a left turn signal then you can not ride past these cars on >their left to reach these controls even though the cars are not >moving. So can you leave the bike lane and pass these left >signalling cars on their right as you make your way to the front of >the intersection. QT simply saw fit to remind me that I might be >breaking a few laws in 'lane splitting' by going on the right of >these turning cars. Ironically if I dismount I think I can quite >safely run up the side of these cars to the front of the >intersection to reach the controls. Now how about on a Main Road >like Sandgate Rd where the left turn onto Rode Rd has a left turn >car lane that cuts in front of the bike lane which is controlled by >a bike traffic light, in theory a cyclist could rarely cycle up to >the bike traffic light and stop line or activate the in-road sensors >there because there will nearly always be cars showing left turn >signals on their right in the left turn car lane. MR when quizzed >gave a motherhood answer and said they did not condone breaking the >rules but one should use their common sense. They said that a police >officer would never issue a ticket for such a breach but I wonder if >a police officer would get in a huff if one was to leave the bike >lane there and ride in the regular straight ahead lane to avoid >breaking the left turning motorist laws? From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 19:43:10 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Sun Nov 2 19:43:23 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre Message-ID: Hi Glen I think that is how s141 in the Rules works. s141 (1) does have provision for passing a stationary vehicle to the left but explicitly excludes bicycles. s141(2) then states that a bicycle must not overtake to the left a car showing a left turn signal and turning left. QT's responses seem to reinforce that although I am still waiting for some more definitive answers. Whether the cars are completely stationary might be a moot point too as virtually the same situation applies when the car are moving slowly and decelerating or accelerating at a change of lights. The question I have asked of QT is that the rules explicitly state that the car is showing a left turn signal AND turning left - two separate actions - as documented elsewhere in the rules. So does the action of turning left mean that the vehicle is in motion and actually negotiating the corner? Also the Rules would require that on a single lane road that the car makes the turn from the far left of the lane and to do that the car must first signal left to enter the line of traffic on the far left, ie the bike lane or line and as such would need to give way to the bikes, not have the bikes give way to them as they are not signalling to turn left at that point, just moving into the lane or line. Furthermore, if a car does enter the bike lane as required on a single lane road to make the left turn from the far left then one would presume that the same amount of room that once represented the bike lane or line would then be available on the right hand side of the car and yet QT argue that this would be lane splitting. Surely if it is going to work this way as stated in the rules then it would seem that a bicycle riding on the right of a left turning car is in a much better position to judge safe clearances than it is for a car to judge the clearance to a cyclist on its left. kim Transport Operations (Road Use Management?Road Rules) Regulation 1999 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless? (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle; or (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U?turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal; or (c) the vehicle is stationary and can be safely overtaken to the left of the vehicle. Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. (2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal. Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. (3) In this section? turning right does not include making a hook turn. vehicle does not include a bus travelling along tram tracks, or any vehicle displaying a do not overtake turning vehicle sign. Glen Fergus wrote: Thanks Kim. One I've commented on a bit too. You've done well to engage QT on the subject. Thoughts: Why do you say: "Right now if you are approaching an intersection with a bikelane control button or sensor and there is queued traffic in the car lane showing a left turn signal then you can not ride past these cars on their left to reach these controls even though the cars are not moving." I don't get how you've come to that view. You emphasise the conjunction and in s141(2) below. The meaning is plain enough, but seems garbled in the QT response to your Scenario 1. In general, regs are interpreted to mean what they actually say. A car in a queue of traffic approaching an intersection - whether stopped or moving slowly - is not "turning left". It may be going to turn left, but it is not yet doing it. Therefore s141(2) cannot apply. It would be good to see some case law on that. This wording has been used nation wide for a decade (except maybe in Victoria, where I've heard the conjunction used is or, but I've never checked). There ought to be cases around by now. An interesting example occurs at evening peak, outbound on Sylvan Rd at the Jephson/Croyden lights. There is usually a long queue of cars waiting in the single combined ahead / left turn lane. Maybe a third want to turn left into Jephson. But there is also often a long queue of bikes (a dozen is not unusual) in the narrow bicycle lane to the left, and better than 90% of them want to go straight ahead to the Western Freeway Bikeway. So there is substantial traffic engineering conflict, perhaps the worst between bicycles and cars in the whole city. I observe: Nearly all bicycles stop at the red signal, unlike at some other places. A few push the bicycle button provided beside the forward storage bay, but it appears to have nil effect on phasing precedence. Cars very rarely drive in the (narrow) bicycle lane, even though they may be entitled to if turning left, according to QT below. No bicycles stop to the rear of cars in the queue that are showing a left turn signal. That's none, ever. Essentially all left turning cars wait for bicycles, even those that were far to the rear of them in the queue. It doesn't seem to matter that they might not be obliged to wait, according to QT below. I agree that it's disgraceful that QT haven't acted to fix this anomaly. My worry would be that they might just "fix" it to our serious detriment! G. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/75d0f555/attachment-0001.htm From gsfergus at optusnet.com.au Sun Nov 2 20:37:09 2008 From: gsfergus at optusnet.com.au (Glen Fergus) Date: Sun Nov 2 20:37:35 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51F4D858C47C451099EFA9F85255D11B@golder.gds> Yeah. To be clear: 1. In the first instance, regs are framed to prohibit, not to allow. If there is no provision which prohibits an action, then it will generally be permissible. 2. S141(1) does not apply to cyclists. Full stop. So it does not matter what it says in this context. 3. S141(2) has no effect unless the other vehicle is "turning left". I read that to mean actually in the process of turning left around the corner, but it would be nice to see that a judge somewhere has agreed with me. 4. The reg should be revised to make 3. explicit. G. _____ From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of kim Sent: Monday, 3 November 2008 11:43 AM To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Subject: Re: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre Hi Glen I think that is how s141 in the Rules works. s141 (1) does have provision for passing a stationary vehicle to the left but explicitly excludes bicycles. s141(2) then states that a bicycle must not overtake to the left a car showing a left turn signal and turning left. QT's responses seem to reinforce that although I am still waiting for some more definitive answers. Whether the cars are completely stationary might be a moot point too as virtually the same situation applies when the car are moving slowly and decelerating or accelerating at a change of lights. The question I have asked of QT is that the rules explicitly state that the car is showing a left turn signal AND turning left - two separate actions - as documented elsewhere in the rules. So does the action of turning left mean that the vehicle is in motion and actually negotiating the corner? Also the Rules would require that on a single lane road that the car makes the turn from the far left of the lane and to do that the car must first signal left to enter the line of traffic on the far left, ie the bike lane or line and as such would need to give way to the bikes, not have the bikes give way to them as they are not signalling to turn left at that point, just moving into the lane or line. Furthermore, if a car does enter the bike lane as required on a single lane road to make the left turn from the far left then one would presume that the same amount of room that once represented the bike lane or line would then be available on the right hand side of the car and yet QT argue that this would be lane splitting. Surely if it is going to work this way as stated in the rules then it would seem that a bicycle riding on the right of a left turning car is in a much better position to judge safe clearances than it is for a car to judge the clearance to a cyclist on its left. kim Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Road Rules) Regulation 1999 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless- (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle; or (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal; or (c) the vehicle is stationary and can be safely overtaken to the left of the vehicle. Maximum penalty-20 penalty units. (2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal. Maximum penalty-20 penalty units. (3) In this section- turning right does not include making a hook turn. vehicle does not include a bus travelling along tram tracks, or any vehicle displaying a do not overtake turning vehicle sign. Glen Fergus wrote: Thanks Kim. One I've commented on a bit too. You've done well to engage QT on the subject. Thoughts: 1. Why do you say: "Right now if you are approaching an intersection with a bikelane control button or sensor and there is queued traffic in the car lane showing a left turn signal then you can not ride past these cars on their left to reach these controls even though the cars are not moving." I don't get how you've come to that view. You emphasise the conjunction and in s141(2) below. The meaning is plain enough, but seems garbled in the QT response to your Scenario 1. In general, regs are interpreted to mean what they actually say. A car in a queue of traffic approaching an intersection - whether stopped or moving slowly - is not "turning left". It may be going to turn left, but it is not yet doing it. Therefore s141(2) cannot apply. It would be good to see some case law on that. This wording has been used nation wide for a decade (except maybe in Victoria, where I've heard the conjunction used is or, but I've never checked). There ought to be cases around by now. 2. An interesting example occurs at evening peak, outbound on Sylvan Rd at the Jephson/Croyden lights. There is usually a long queue of cars waiting in the single combined ahead / left turn lane. Maybe a third want to turn left into Jephson. But there is also often a long queue of bikes (a dozen is not unusual) in the narrow bicycle lane to the left, and better than 90% of them want to go straight ahead to the Western Freeway Bikeway. So there is substantial traffic engineering conflict, perhaps the worst between bicycles and cars in the whole city. I observe: * Nearly all bicycles stop at the red signal, unlike at some other places. A few push the bicycle button provided beside the forward storage bay, but it appears to have nil effect on phasing precedence. * Cars very rarely drive in the (narrow) bicycle lane, even though they may be entitled to if turning left, according to QT below. * No bicycles stop to the rear of cars in the queue that are showing a left turn signal. That's none, ever. * Essentially all left turning cars wait for bicycles, even those that were far to the rear of them in the queue. It doesn't seem to matter that they might not be obliged to wait, according to QT below. 3. I agree that it's disgraceful that QT haven't acted to fix this anomaly. My worry would be that they might just "fix" it to our serious detriment! G. _____ _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. _____ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. Try it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/47e8a9e3/attachment.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Sun Nov 2 20:41:53 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Sun Nov 2 20:42:38 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081103024212.SYWP1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Him, Glen et al ... Because we have so few "bike lanes" (esp out in this part of Brisbane ;-) ) and because (for the reasons you raise and others as well) they really don't or won't work anyway (so I persist with campaigning for slower traffic speed limits and "sharing the road" by way of "new" road management including the "yellow BIKEs"), it is a while since I looked at these details. In fact it was probably when MR was proposing changes to Part 14 edition 1 which may well be implemented in Part 14 edition 2 ... so the ARRs may well have been changed in that period. However it seems there is an implication here that motorists are increasingly being allowed to travel in a "bike lane" ... yet this used to be very much limited in much the same way that motorists are not allowed to travel on a shoulder with exceptions or in a "bus lane". Is it the case that rather than being expected to use their lane(s), motorists can now travel in "bike lanes" eg when turning left, while if there is a "bike lane", cyclists are expected to use it except when another set of exceptions for cyclists apply? Does this mean as in the case of Sylvan outbound (towards Milton Road) that a left turning motorist "should" do so ... so that through motorists can proceed when the left turn is stopped by a red signal? A similar problem occurs at Lambert Road (at Clarence Road) lights heading inbound towards Long Pocket and CBD where all sorts of strange things happen ... and potentially much more dangerous, in Adelaide Street (heading towards the Valley) at Wharf Street where the majority of buses turn left "over" that bit of cycling stuff on the road that looks like a bike lane and probably therefore means motorists expect cyclists to use it. It follows that ONLY a cyclist turning left should be to the left of BOTH left turning and through motorists ... and thus if there is a difficulty, then the best (?) solution is no bike lane but a LEFT TURN ONLY LANE EXCEPT CYCLISTS ... as suggested previously. This works well even where it lacks the EXCEPT CYCLISTS where quite sensibly in my view (if they do NOT block the left turning traffic), cyclists form up on the line between the left turning and through lanes. Is it no longer the case then that if a motorist is travelling on a single (or multi?) lane road, with either a bike lane or a shoulder to the left, then the motorist is required to travel in that lane and NOT in or partly in the bike lane or shoulder ... with exceptions......? What then are the exceptions? Is the motorist changing lanes and therefore does the motorist have to give way to any/all cyclists in the bike lane or on the shoulder? In the event of a collision, would the motorist ALWAYS be held responsible ie as a result of not staying in the correct lane? Also if BOTH cyclist in a "bike lane" and motorist in adjoining lane (ie NOT allowed to travel in the "bike lane") are turning left, then in effect the "bike lane" separation continues so why can't a cyclists overtake a left turning motorist? Lets face it ... these are really silly rules designed to legitimate existing poorly considered road management but also, being so based, constrain anything else ... they don't work ... other than to confuse ...! Adding cyclists to the road users just shows this up ... also the fact that the political and state, fed and local government "support" for and encouragement of cycling is little more than political rhetoric ... hence Brisbane gets a $100m bikepath (more correctly a "shared footpath") programme to help keep cyclists where they belong. This reminds me of the problem of motorists "squeezing" past cyclists when technically that is overtaking and that apparently should mean the motorist overtaking should only do so when in another lane or on the other side of a centreline ... as if the cyclist was any other wide vehicle (car, truck, bus) and ONLY when it is "safe" to do so ... another difficulty QT and MR won't address or promote ... and one that arises with (indeed is part of the rationale for) "sharing the road" and using the "yellow BIKEs" to show HOW (ie where to travel) to "safely" share the road. Of course, these legal complexities would not occur if (i) motorists were prohibited from travelling in as distinct from turning across "bike lanes" and (ii) if the speed limits were not so high as to exceed the accepted differentials between motorists and cyclists such that so many people did not want to "share the road" ... and if as a result, the facilities were designed and built accordingly. MY........................... At 11:43 AM 3/11/2008, kim wrote: >Hi Glen > >I think that is how s141 in the Rules works. >s141 (1) does have provision for passing a >stationary vehicle to the left but explicitly >excludes bicycles. s141(2) then states that a >bicycle must not overtake to the left a car >showing a left turn signal and turning left. >QT's responses seem to reinforce that although I >am still waiting for some more definitive >answers. Whether the cars are completely >stationary might be a moot point too as >virtually the same situation applies when the >car are moving slowly and decelerating or >accelerating at a change of lights. The question >I have asked of QT is that the rules explicitly >state that the car is showing a left turn signal >AND turning left - two separate actions - as >documented elsewhere in the rules. So does the >action of turning left mean that the vehicle is >in motion and actually negotiating the corner? >Also the Rules would require that on a single >lane road that the car makes the turn from the >far left of the lane and to do that the car must >first signal left to enter the line of traffic >on the far left, ie the bike lane or line and as >such would need to give way to the bikes, not >have the bikes give way to them as they are not >signalling to turn left at that point, just moving into the lane or line. >Furthermore, if a car does enter the bike lane >as required on a single lane road to make the >left turn from the far left then one would >presume that the same amount of room that once >represented the bike lane or line would then be >available on the right hand side of the car and >yet QT argue that this would be lane splitting. >Surely if it is going to work this way as stated >in the rules then it would seem that a bicycle >riding on the right of a left turning car is in >a much better position to judge safe clearances >than it is for a car to judge the clearance to a cyclist on its left. > >kim > > >Transport Operations (Road Use Management?Road >Rules) Regulation 1999 > >141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle > >(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a >vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless? > >(a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle >can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of >the vehicle; or >(b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U?turn from the >centre of the road, and is giving a right change of >direction signal; or >(c) the vehicle is stationary and can be safely overtaken to >the left of the vehicle. >Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. > >(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the >left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change >of direction signal. >Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. > >(3) In this section? >turning right does not include making a hook turn. >vehicle does not include a bus travelling along tram tracks, or >any vehicle displaying a do not overtake turning vehicle sign. > > > >Glen Fergus wrote: >>Thanks Kim. One I've commented on a bit >>too. You've done well to engage QT on the subject. Thoughts: >>Why do you say: "Right now if you are >>approaching an intersection with a bikelane >>control button or sensor and there is queued >>traffic in the car lane showing a left turn >>signal then you can not ride past these cars on >>their left to reach these controls even though >>the cars are not moving." I don't get how >>you've come to that view. You emphasise the >>conjunction and in s141(2) below. The meaning >>is plain enough, but seems garbled in the QT >>response to your Scenario 1. In general, regs >>are interpreted to mean what they actually >>say. A car in a queue of traffic approaching >>an intersection - whether stopped or moving >>slowly - is not "turning left". It may be >>going to turn left, but it is not yet doing >>it. Therefore s141(2) cannot apply. It would >>be good to see some case law on that. This >>wording has been used nation wide for a decade >>(except maybe in Victoria, where I've heard the >>conjunction used is or, but I've never >>checked). There ought to be cases around by >>now. An interesting example occurs at evening >>peak, outbound on Sylvan Rd at the >>Jephson/Croyden lights. There is usually a >>long queue of cars waiting in the single >>combined ahead / left turn lane. Maybe a third >>want to turn left into Jephson. But there is >>also often a long queue of bikes (a dozen is >>not unusual) in the narrow bicycle lane to the >>left, and better than 90% of them want to go >>straight ahead to the Western Freeway >>Bikeway. So there is substantial traffic >>engineering conflict, perhaps the worst between >>bicycles and cars in the whole city. I observe: >>Nearly all bicycles stop at the red signal, >>unlike at some other places. A few push the >>bicycle button provided beside the forward >>storage bay, but it appears to have nil effect >>on phasing precedence. Cars very rarely drive >>in the (narrow) bicycle lane, even though they >>may be entitled to if turning left, according >>to QT below. No bicycles stop to the rear of >>cars in the queue that are showing a left turn >>signal. That's none, ever. Essentially all >>left turning cars wait for bicycles, even those >>that were far to the rear of them in the >>queue. It doesn't seem to matter that they >>might not be obliged to wait, according to QT below. >>I agree that it's disgraceful that QT haven't >>acted to fix this anomaly. My worry would be >>that they might just "fix" it to our serious detriment! >>G. >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>bikeqld mailing list >>bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >>This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > > > >---------- >Stay organized with simple drag and drop from >Windows Live Hotmail. >Try >it >_______________________________________________ >bikeqld mailing list >bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1763 >- Release Date: 2/11/2008 7:08 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/f74d77b6/attachment-0001.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 2 21:36:32 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Sun Nov 2 21:36:53 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3721.29800.qm@web51508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The solution to this is very simple. ? 1.? Don't rely on a driver to indicate when they're turning left -- 90% of them simply don't bother. ? 2.? Watch where the driver has positioned themselves in the lane for?a much more reliable (but not foolproof) method of predicting what they're going to do. ? 3.? If in doubt, either pass on the other side, move into the centre of the lane, or simply wait in the queue behind them.? If that means getting out of the bike lane for a while, so be it. ? 4.? If it's a grey area of the law (and this goes for any practice), it's probably best not to engage QT for "clarification".? A grey area is almost universally better than an outright ban on whatever manoeuvre?you're referring to, which is the most likely outcome if too much attention is drawn to the issue. ? --- On Mon, 3/11/08, kim wrote: From: kim Subject: Re: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Received: Monday, 3 November, 2008, 12:43 PM #yiv362607544 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv362607544 { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Hi Glen I think that is how s141 in the Rules works. s141 (1) does have provision for passing a stationary vehicle to the left but explicitly excludes bicycles. s141(2) then states that a bicycle must not overtake to the left a car showing a left turn signal and turning left. QT's responses seem to reinforce that although I am still waiting for some more definitive answers. Whether the cars are completely stationary might be a moot point too as virtually the same situation applies when the car are moving slowly and decelerating or accelerating at a change of lights. The question I have asked of QT is that the rules explicitly state that the car is showing a left turn signal AND turning left - two separate actions - as documented elsewhere in the rules. So does the action of turning left mean that the vehicle is in motion and actually negotiating the corner? Also the Rules would require that on a single lane road that the car makes the turn from the far left of the lane and to do that the car must first signal left to enter the line of traffic on the far left, ie the bike lane or line and as such would need to give way to the bikes, not have the bikes give way to them as they are not signalling to turn left at that point, just moving into the lane or line. Furthermore, if a car does enter the bike lane as required on a single lane road to make the left turn from the far left then one would presume that the same amount of room that once represented the bike lane or line would then be available on the right hand side of the car and yet QT argue that this would be lane splitting. Surely if it is going to work this way as stated in the rules then it would seem that a bicycle riding on the right of a left turning car is in a much better position to judge safe clearances than it is for a car to judge the clearance to a cyclist on its left. kim Transport Operations (Road Use Management?Road Rules) Regulation 1999 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless?? (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle; or (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U?turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal; or (c) the vehicle is stationary and can be safely overtaken to the left of the vehicle. Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. (2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal. Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. (3) In this section? turning right does not include making a hook turn. vehicle does not include a bus travelling along tram tracks, or any vehicle displaying a do not overtake turning vehicle sign. Glen Fergus wrote: #yiv362607544 .hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;} #yiv362607544 { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Thanks Kim.? One I've commented on a bit too.? You've done well to?engage QT on the subject.??Thoughts: Why do you say: "Right now if you are approaching an intersection with a bikelane control button or sensor and there is queued traffic in the car lane showing a left turn signal then you can not ride past these cars on their left to reach these controls even though the cars are not moving."? I don't get how you've come to that view.? You?emphasise the conjunction and in s141(2) below.? The meaning is plain enough, but seems garbled in the QT response to your?Scenario 1.? In general,?regs are interpreted?to mean what they actually?say.? A car?in a queue of traffic approaching?an intersection?- whether stopped or moving slowly - is not "turning left".? It may be going to turn left, but it is not yet doing it.? Therefore s141(2) cannot apply.? It would be good to see some case law on that.? This wording has been used nation wide for?a decade?(except maybe in Victoria, where I've heard the conjunction used?is?or,?but I've never checked).? There ought to be?cases around?by now. An interesting example occurs at evening peak, outbound on Sylvan Rd?at the Jephson/Croyden lights.? There is?usually a long queue of cars waiting?in the single combined ahead / left turn lane.? Maybe a third want to turn left into Jephson.? But there is also often a long queue of bikes (a dozen is not unusual)?in the narrow bicycle lane to the left, and better than 90% of them?want to go straight ahead to the Western Freeway?Bikeway.? So there is substantial traffic engineering conflict, perhaps the worst between bicycles and cars in the whole city.? I observe: Nearly all bicycles?stop at the red signal, unlike at some other places.? A few?push the bicycle button provided beside the forward storage bay, but it appears to have nil effect on phasing precedence. Cars very rarely?drive in the (narrow) bicycle lane, even though they may be?entitled to?if turning left, according to?QT below. No bicycles stop to the rear of cars in the queue that are showing a left turn signal.? That's none, ever. Essentially all left turning cars wait for bicycles, even those that were far to the rear of them in the queue.? It doesn't seem to matter that they might?not be?obliged to wait, according to QT below. I agree that it's disgraceful that QT haven't acted to fix this anomaly.? My worry would be that they might just?"fix" it to our serious?detriment! G. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. Try it _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081102/e5443ea2/attachment.htm From gsfergus at optusnet.com.au Sun Nov 2 23:49:46 2008 From: gsfergus at optusnet.com.au (Glen Fergus) Date: Sun Nov 2 23:49:58 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: <3721.29800.qm@web51508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <3721.29800.qm@web51508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Chris: 4. If it's a grey area of the law (and this goes for any practice), it's probably best not to engage QT for "clarification". A grey area is almost universally better than an outright ban on whatever manoeuvre you're referring to, which is the most likely outcome if too much attention is drawn to the issue. Which is what I meant when I said "My worry would be that they might just "fix" it to our serious detriment!". Of course, the one time when this sort of fine detail does really matter is when something goes wrong. The law says don't overtake to the left of a car that's indicating left and turning left. Well doh! Who bothered to write that little piece of the blindingly obvious? Matters not. That is until you're actually left hooked, suffer a serious injury, and need to sue for recompense. Then it matters, and this redundant nonsense just might give the driver's 3P insurer an out. Leaving you an invalid pauper. Worth trying to get it right, I think. G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/cf464b31/attachment.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 3 02:14:35 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Mon Nov 3 02:14:57 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <728882.21904.qm@web51508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Personally, I wouldn't rely on suing for recompense anyway.? For one thing, the court cases that have been flagged on this list previously make it abundantly clear that you aren't going to get squat out of the driver regardless.? It will just be the old "your word against theirs" argument before the judge about whether or not the driver was indicating at the time.? The judge will simply wheel out the old "innocent until proven guilty" line, and that will be the end of the case unless you get a REALLY expensive lawyer.? Even then you'll probably be up for as much in legal fees as you could ever hope to recover anyway.? That's assuming you can get the police to even investigate the matter, which is a remote possibility at best.? ? Personally, I'll stick to the strategy of doing whatever it takes to avoid being left-hooked in the first instance (as outlined in my previous post), and I don't want some law maker telling me I can't legally do those things because someone asked QT for "clarification" of a vague law.? That strategy has already proven itself to have a far higher success rate than trying to get money out of a driver, and I'd rather avoid being left an invalid at all, regardless of the financial recompense.? --- On Mon, 3/11/08, Glen Fergus wrote: From: Glen Fergus Subject: RE: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre To: "Bikeqld" Received: Monday, 3 November, 2008, 4:49 PM Chris: 4.? If it's a grey area of the law (and this goes for any practice), it's probably best not to engage QT for "clarification".? A grey area is almost universally better than an outright ban on whatever manoeuvre?you're referring to, which is the most likely outcome if too much attention is drawn to the issue. Which is what I meant when I said "My worry would be that they might just?"fix" it to our serious?detriment!".? Of course, the one time when?this sort of fine?detail?does?really matter is when something goes wrong.??The law says don't overtake?to the left of a car that's indicating left and?turning left.? Well doh!? Who bothered to write that little piece of the?blindingly obvious?? Matters not.??That is until you're actually left hooked, suffer a serious injury, and need to sue for recompense.? Then it matters, and this redundant?nonsense just might give the driver's 3P?insurer?an out.??Leaving you an invalid pauper.? Worth trying to get it?right,?I think. ? G._______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/bbac50eb/attachment-0001.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Mon Nov 3 19:06:42 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Mon Nov 3 19:06:56 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre Message-ID: Chris, So if 90% of the cars don't bother to signal for a left turn, that might be viewed as a good thing for cyclists as then there is no problem in passing them on the left as far as the law is concerned, so perhaps we should not be complaining too much about these motorists. I guess the motorists might say the same thing about cyclists even though we are not required by law to give a left signal. I don't think that we as cyclists enjoy too many unintended benefits due to any grey areas in the law. I doubt too, that any punter asking a question of QT regarding the rules is going to 'draw too much attention' to a particular rule. Sadly it takes an incident, fatality or court case to grab anyone's attention. The whole issue of lane splitting has been a controversial one with QT for ages, that is nothing new. The proposed changes to s148 are well and truly there and were probably based around legal past claims. I think it works both ways with these 'grey' areas or 'subjective' areas as QT likes to call them; a cyclist can flaunt a grey area as you say and maybe feel better about it or QT can choose to ban it, but in doing so it gives you a legal mandate to do something else. The bike lanes are a good example, while there may be plenty of grey areas regarding who has to give way and when you can ride outside the bike lane, the law uses that as an excuse to say, hey you should not be using the car lane, there is a perfectly good bike lane on the left. Same happens if there is a footpath, and there are grey areas there too with proposed changes to s131 and s132 in March 09 (footpaths are still one way for cyclists in Qld), why were you on this busy road when I ran you down, when there is a perfectly good shared path right alongside?. At least in NSW you do have a mandate to ride on the roadway but people will still ride on the footpath if they feel they need to. Personally I would just as happily flaunt a law set in stone as a grey law if it was a matter of being killed or not and I would happily complain to QT about a law set in stone as I would about a grey law. Hey, where would we be if Rosa Parks never broke the law? Obviously staying alive on a bike has a lot to do with experience and knowing the queues as you say, but there is a school of thought that says that the rules are supposed to help, particularly for those who are not so experienced. I think that things like the advanced storage bays and cyclist controls do lend a lot of weight and reason to support the cyclist's position in some of the scenarios I mentioned. I don't think it really helps to be too timid or quiet about our lot on the road, its not what advocacy is about. cheers kim Chris Lewthwaite wrote: The solution to this is very simple. 1. Don't rely on a driver to indicate when they're turning left -- 90% of them simply don't bother. 2. Watch where the driver has positioned themselves in the lane for a much more reliable (but not foolproof) method of predicting what they're going to do. 3. If in doubt, either pass on the other side, move into the centre of the lane, or simply wait in the queue behind them. If that means getting out of the bike lane for a while, so be it. 4. If it's a grey area of the law (and this goes for any practice), it's probably best not to engage QT for "clarification". A grey area is almost universally better than an outright ban on whatever manoeuvre you're referring to, which is the most likely outcome if too much attention is drawn to the issue. -- _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/11c9f96f/attachment.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 3 20:35:12 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Mon Nov 3 20:35:25 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <294272.68430.qm@web51501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I wasn't going to do this, but... --- On Tue, 4/11/08, kim wrote: From: kim Subject: Re: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Received: Tuesday, 4 November, 2008, 12:06 PM #yiv260012565 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv260012565 { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Chris, So if 90% of the cars don't bother to signal for a left turn, that might be viewed as a good thing for cyclists as then there is no problem in passing them on the left as far as the law is concerned, so perhaps we should not be complaining too much about these motorists. ? Personally I don't complain about them, I just let them do what they do and respond appropriately.? If I complained about every motorist I saw breaking the law, the only riding I'd get would be to and from my local police station.? And as I said before, the fact that they don't bother to signal doesn't help cyclists' cause one bit.? For one thing, the left hook won't hurt any less, and for another, it will just be your word against theirs before the judge.? How do you prove anything? ? I'll stick to my strategy of avoidance thankyouverymuch. ? The whole issue of lane splitting has been a controversial one with QT for ages, that is nothing new. The proposed changes to s148 are well and truly there and were probably based around legal past claims. I think it works both ways with these 'grey' areas or 'subjective' areas as QT likes to call them; a cyclist can flaunt a grey area as you say and maybe feel better about it or QT can choose to ban it, but in doing so it gives you a legal mandate to do something else. ? Personally I don't "flaunt" grey areas to "feel good about it".? I simply do what I have to do to complete the ride in a safe and timely manner within the framework of the law.? If the law doesn't prohibit a practice outright, that makes it perfectly legal in my view.? As it is, I utilise lane-splitting every day (often twice a?day), and as I've never seen any law that prohibits it, it's perfectly legal and totally black and white in my view.??? Do you really think for one second that querying QT about it, or asking QT, a government or a court to issue a ruling is going to make them say "oh sure, lane-splitting is perfectly legal" in this day and age?? ? Of course, if you're going to lane-split you should be selective about where you do it and only ride within your capabilities, but that applies to all riding does it not?? ? The bike lanes are a good example, while there may be plenty of grey areas regarding who has to give way and when you can ride outside the bike lane, the law uses that as an excuse to say, hey you should not be using the car lane, there is a perfectly good bike lane on the left. ? Does it?? I've never heard of a cyclist being fined for being outside the bike lane.? As far as I'm concerned, that is also a perfectly black and white area of the law.? It says you have to ride in the bike lane unless it's "impracticable" to do so.? As far as I'm concerned, any bike lane covered in broken glass, crash debris, parked cars, or any bike lane that puts you in a dangerous position in the flow of traffic at any given moment IS impracticable to use.? Perfectly black and white.? ? I will add that I have well over 150,000km of riding experience in five states without ever being ticketed or even questioned about leaving a bike lane to back this up.? Again, if we ask QT to "clarify" this one, they're just as likely to ban us from EVER leaving the bike lane.? Is that what you want? ? Same happens if there is a footpath, and there are grey areas there too with proposed changes to s131 and s132 in March 09 (footpaths are still one way for cyclists in Qld), why were you on this busy road when I ran you down, when there is a perfectly good shared path right alongside?? ?At least in NSW you do have a mandate to ride on the roadway but people will still ride on the footpath if they feel they need to. ? And you still get occasional yobbos in cars yelling abuse or throwing things at you on the road.? And you still get idiot "traffic controllers" asking you to use the footpath at different times, and you still get courts doing nothing about cyclists who are injured while riding on said road.? Changing the law doesn't stop people from flat out ignoring it.? ? Personally I would just as happily flaunt a law set in stone as a grey law if it was a matter of being killed or not and I would happily complain to QT about a law set in stone as I would about a grey law. Hey, where would we be if Rosa Parks never broke the law? ? The difference is that cyclists don't need to put themselves in the position?of Rosa Parks, because at present we're not banned from roads or "car lanes" as they're often inaccurately referred to.? I sometimes think that if cycling "advocates" had been involved in the campaign to improve race relations in America, "the dream" would have been reserved seating at the back of the bus.? Obviously staying alive on a bike has a lot to do with experience and knowing the queues as you say, but there is a school of thought that says that the rules are supposed to help, particularly for those who are not so experienced. I think that things like the advanced storage bays and cyclist controls do lend a lot of weight and reason to support the cyclist's position in some of the scenarios I mentioned. I don't think it really helps to be too timid or quiet about our lot on the road, its not what advocacy is about. ? I always thought "advocacy" was about making things easier for cyclists, or am I just being naive?? It's all well and good to talk about "advanced storage bays" or "cyclist controls", but what do we do in situations where they cause more problems than they solve?? At present, the law as it is written allows us to use our judgement, and ignore those facilities legally should such a situation arise.? That's what "practicable" means.? ? If that right is taken away, it constitutes a backward step for cyclists as far as I'm concerned -- irrespective of whether it "clarifies" the law or not. Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081103/ade4ab2f/attachment.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Tue Nov 4 06:18:05 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Tue Nov 4 06:18:22 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre Message-ID: Chris Lewthwaite wrote: I wasn't going to do this, but... Hey Chris,no need to be hesitant about the feedback, I do appreciate it and I am sure the other listees do too. Apologies too for my wording, I did not mean to imply that yourself or any cyclists got a kick out of 'flaunting a grey area', I meant to say that a cyclist would feel better flaunting a rule they considered grey than having to knowingly break a rule. I fully agree with your avoidance strategy, but as a cyclist with lots of on-road experience, are there any road rules, in your view, that could/should be amended to improve the lot of the cyclist or is the status quo just fine? cheers kim The whole issue of lane splitting has been a controversial one with QT for ages, that is nothing new. The proposed changes to s148 are well and truly there and were probably based around legal past claims. I think it works both ways with these 'grey' areas or 'subjective' areas as QT likes to call them; a cyclist can flaunt a grey area as you say and maybe feel better about it or QT can choose to ban it, but in doing so it gives you a legal mandate to do something else. Personally I don't "flaunt" grey areas to "feel good about it". I simply do what I have to do to complete the ride in a safe and timely manner within the framework of the law. If the law doesn't prohibit a practice outright, that makes it perfectly legal in my view. As it is, I utilise lane-splitting every day (often twice a day), and as I've never seen any law that prohibits it, it's perfectly legal and totally black and white in my view. Do you really think for one second that querying QT about it, or asking QT, a government or a court to issue a ruling is going to make them say "oh sure, lane-splitting is perfectly legal" in this day and age? Of course, if you're going to lane-split you should be selective about where you do it and only ride within your capabilities, but that applies to all riding does it not? _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081104/d5468ad9/attachment-0001.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 4 20:24:51 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Tue Nov 4 20:25:06 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <838155.60431.qm@web51501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 4/11/08, kim wrote: Hey Chris,no need to be hesitant about the feedback, I do appreciate it and I am sure the other listees do too. Apologies too for my wording, I did not mean to imply that yourself or any cyclists got a kick out of 'flaunting a grey area', I meant to say that a cyclist would feel better flaunting a rule they considered grey than having to knowingly break a rule. I fully agree with your avoidance strategy, but as a cyclist with lots of on-road experience, are there any road rules, in your view, that could/should be amended to improve the lot of the cyclist or is the status quo just fine? ?Believe it or not, the road rules are a remarkably clear, concise and practical piece of legislation by law standards.? I've studied Company Law in the past, and I deal with Tax law everyday.? They're?a million times more vague.? I actually think the road rules as they are work extremely well when people are following the law.? The problems only arise when people don't follow the law.? Even then, the legislation is remarkably flexible in allowing cyclists the option of leaving the bike lane or changing lanes should the situation require.? ? In fact, I'd wager that if the road toll was broken down on a case-by-case basis, you'd find that virtually every death (whether it involved a cyclist or not) was the result of someone not following the law.?? The left hook issue is a prime example.? If every driver indicated prior to turning left, and every cyclist slowed and waited upon seeing the indicator, there wouldn't be an issue.? Clearly, the problem is not with the law, but with compliance.? ? What I don't understand is why people think that asking various levels of government to institute new laws (which is effectively what asking for "clarification" is) is going to fix the non-compliance issue.? The real answer is greater law enforcement, and greater penalties for breaking the law? (better yet, give me the portfolios of transport minister and commissioner of police and I'll halve the road toll within twelve months).? Once we have the compliance, then we can more accurately measure the effectiveness or equity of a particular law, and identify areas in need of revision.? However, simply changing laws without making anyone comply is just an exercise in tokenism. ? Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081104/33cc173f/attachment.htm From viller at itee.uq.edu.au Tue Nov 4 22:52:25 2008 From: viller at itee.uq.edu.au (Stephen Viller) Date: Tue Nov 4 22:52:38 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: <838155.60431.qm@web51501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <838155.60431.qm@web51501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7CBF4C62-AB70-4EFA-8787-781A66D50BFD@itee.uq.edu.au> On 05/11/2008, at 12:24 pm, Chris Lewthwaite wrote: > --- On Tue, 4/11/08, kim wrote: > Hey Chris,no need to be hesitant about the feedback, I do appreciate > it and I am sure the other listees do too. > > Apologies too for my wording, I did not mean to imply that yourself > or any cyclists got a kick out of 'flaunting a grey area', I meant > to say that a cyclist would feel better flaunting a rule they > considered grey than having to knowingly break a rule. > > I fully agree with your avoidance strategy, but as a cyclist with > lots of on-road experience, are there any road rules, in your view, > that could/should be amended to improve the lot of the cyclist or is > the status quo just fine? > Believe it or not, the road rules are a remarkably clear, concise > and practical piece of legislation by law standards. I've studied > Company Law in the past, and I deal with Tax law everyday. They're > a million times more vague. I actually think the road rules as they > are work extremely well when people are following the law. The > problems only arise when people don't follow the law. Even then, > the legislation is remarkably flexible in allowing cyclists the > option of leaving the bike lane or changing lanes should the > situation require. > > In fact, I'd wager that if the road toll was broken down on a case- > by-case basis, you'd find that virtually every death (whether it > involved a cyclist or not) was the result of someone not following > the law. The left hook issue is a prime example. If every driver > indicated prior to turning left, and every cyclist slowed and waited > upon seeing the indicator, there wouldn't be an issue. Clearly, the > problem is not with the law, but with compliance. > I don't have the time to check it, but for anyone so inclined the following interactive road fatalities map from Victoria has most of the data you'd need to verify this: Media release: http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=17347 Direct link to map: http://snurl.com/54qrk Unfortunately, it is hard to distinguish the bicycle and motorcycle icons at a glance (but there are loads more of the latter). > What I don't understand is why people think that asking various > levels of government to institute new laws (which is effectively > what asking for "clarification" is) is going to fix the non- > compliance issue. The real answer is greater law enforcement, and > greater penalties for breaking the law (better yet, give me the > portfolios of transport minister and commissioner of police and I'll > halve the road toll within twelve months). Once we have the > compliance, then we can more accurately measure the effectiveness or > equity of a particular law, and identify areas in need of revision. > However, simply changing laws without making anyone comply is just > an exercise in tokenism. > But we also have to make sure that there is understanding of the law from the enforcers. I've come across plenty of cases where the police get it wrong when it comes to bicycles. I had the good fortune to be shouted at by a police officer from his patrol car last week on my regular commute through Indooroopilly. I was 'lane splitting' (didn't know this term before) to get to the front of two lines of cars waiting at a red light at the end of Riverview Terrace, prior to turning right into Station Road. I'd just got to the front of the lights when the copper, who was driving down Station Rd towards the station, stopped in the middle of the intersection to shout "Road rules not good enough for you?" at me, before continuing on. I caught up with him on Westminster Rd, where he was waiting to turn left onto Coonan St. He still had his window down so I rode up alongside to ask him what I'd done wrong (++pom accent). It all happened pretty quick, but he started by saying that I'd committed at least 2 offenses and mentioned $100+ fines for each. He only elaborated on one of them, which was crossing the solid white line at the traffic lights, which is where I go deliberately as the safest place to be at a red light. At the end of our chat, my approach seemed to have defused his initial aggression, and he cheerfully said "Don't get crushed champ!" to me as he drove off when the lights changed, leaving me stranded in the middle of the road with several cars behind me. The manoeuvre is one I make in several places on my commute. This is the first time I've been called for it, and following this thread I now guess that 'lane splitting' was the second offense the cop was referring to, but I'm not sure that what I do is wrong. I'm certainly no longer as confident as I used to be that what I was doing was not only the safest thing to do, but also legal. I would feel more confident (and therefore safe) out there if it was clear when I was interpreting the law flexibly, and when I had the law entirely on my side. --Stephen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081105/58abd304/attachment.htm From ben at creative-engineering.com.au Wed Nov 5 00:01:08 2008 From: ben at creative-engineering.com.au (Ben Guymer) Date: Wed Nov 5 00:01:35 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre References: <838155.60431.qm@web51501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sure, I think the road rules work if people stick to the law but also if the infrastructure permits them to. As I said earlier "On road, I guess the infrastructure is supposed to make up for the increased lack of knowledge". I would also add to this that "Infrastructure should also permit people to easily cycle within the law". Many issues that come up are because routes either require compromising the law or ridiculous scenarios to comply. I think what gets up many of our noses is many new projects provoke these ridiculous scenarios to be played out in a 'standard' commute. Green Bridge about a dozen times over, for example. So with the nature of much cycling infrastructure being rubbish, there's some good reasons the laws suck too. Some may notice a new cycle path at the tennyson tennis centre ending with something better tackled by a 'red bull' flying machine.. must post a photo! Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Lewthwaite To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:24 PM Subject: Re: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre --- On Tue, 4/11/08, kim wrote: Hey Chris,no need to be hesitant about the feedback, I do appreciate it and I am sure the other listees do too. Apologies too for my wording, I did not mean to imply that yourself or any cyclists got a kick out of 'flaunting a grey area', I meant to say that a cyclist would feel better flaunting a rule they considered grey than having to knowingly break a rule. I fully agree with your avoidance strategy, but as a cyclist with lots of on-road experience, are there any road rules, in your view, that could/should be amended to improve the lot of the cyclist or is the status quo just fine? Believe it or not, the road rules are a remarkably clear, concise and practical piece of legislation by law standards. I've studied Company Law in the past, and I deal with Tax law everyday. They're a million times more vague. I actually think the road rules as they are work extremely well when people are following the law. The problems only arise when people don't follow the law. Even then, the legislation is remarkably flexible in allowing cyclists the option of leaving the bike lane or changing lanes should the situation require. In fact, I'd wager that if the road toll was broken down on a case-by-case basis, you'd find that virtually every death (whether it involved a cyclist or not) was the result of someone not following the law. The left hook issue is a prime example. If every driver indicated prior to turning left, and every cyclist slowed and waited upon seeing the indicator, there wouldn't be an issue. Clearly, the problem is not with the law, but with compliance. What I don't understand is why people think that asking various levels of government to institute new laws (which is effectively what asking for "clarification" is) is going to fix the non-compliance issue. The real answer is greater law enforcement, and greater penalties for breaking the law (better yet, give me the portfolios of transport minister and commissioner of police and I'll halve the road toll within twelve months). Once we have the compliance, then we can more accurately measure the effectiveness or equity of a particular law, and identify areas in need of revision. However, simply changing laws without making anyone comply is just an exercise in tokenism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081105/2d18948c/attachment-0001.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 5 04:48:31 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Wed Nov 5 04:54:44 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] left of centre In-Reply-To: <7CBF4C62-AB70-4EFA-8787-781A66D50BFD@itee.uq.edu.au> Message-ID: <768361.92755.qm@web51507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/11/08, Stephen Viller wrote: From: Stephen Viller Subject: Re: [bikeqld] left of centre To: the_chris_man_50@yahoo.com Cc: "Stephen Viller" , bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Received: Wednesday, 5 November, 2008, 3:52 PM I?don't have the time to check it, but for anyone so inclined the following interactive road fatalities map from Victoria has most of the data you'd need to verify this: Media release:?http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=17347 Direct link to map: http://snurl.com/54qrk Unfortunately, it is hard to distinguish the bicycle and motorcycle icons at a glance (but there are loads more of the latter). Motor cycle icons are easy to distinguish because there are always a lot more of them.? Believe it or not, the number of cyclists actually killed each year is considerably smaller than the number of drivers or motorcyclists killed.? In any case, while it might give locations, it doesn't tell us whether anyone was breaking the law or not when they were killed. The?manoeuvre is one I make in several places on my commute. This is the first time I've been called for it, and following this thread?I now guess that 'lane splitting' was the second offense the cop was referring to,?but?I'm not sure that what I do is wrong. I'm certainly no longer as confident as I used to be that what I was doing was not only the safest thing to do, but also legal. I would feel more confident (and therefore safe) out there if it was clear when I was interpreting the law flexibly, and when I had the law entirely on my side.? Yes, educating the public is all well and good (although why we think changing laws or dumbing down the legislation? to disadvantage ourselves is going to do this is beyond me) but there will always be a certain percentage of morons who don't (or don't want to) understand regardless.? And yes, some of them manage to obtain police badges.? Lane-splitting unfortunately falls into the category of "things people want to believe is illegal", so you aren't going to shut those yobbos up, even if the transport authorities permitted it outright.? After all, I'm sure we've all encountered our share of yobbos who don't believe cyclists should be on the road at all, and that's a particularly clear piece of legislation. ? Again, if we start asking transport departments for "clarification" on lane-splitting, all we'll achieve is having it banned outright.? So the real question here is whether we want to keep a "grey"* area of the legislation and occasionally have someone misinterpret it, or do we want to have the practice banned outright and actually be fined when we try it.? I know which I'd prefer.? Incidentally, I notice the cop didn't issue you a fine, makes me wonder whether he was really as ignorant of the law as he claimed, or whether he was just a bigot who wasn't brave enough to put his badge where his mouth was. ? * I don't see why this is being referred to as a "grey" area.? Is there a piece of current legislation that I may have missed that prevents it outright?? As far as I'm aware, there's no law absolutely mandating that you need to stay within a particular lane, there's no law preventing you from overtaking cars if you happen to be going faster than they are, so where is the law that bans it or makes it doubtful? ? Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081105/9b19b645/attachment.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 20:13:31 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Wed Nov 5 20:14:16 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] right hooks Message-ID: This one is about the hook turn. While it is certainly not a favoured movement up in Qld it is commonplace down in the land of rails on roads, Vic. In Bris there is little favour in providing for bikes on roads as footpaths and shared paths can all be used by bikes in Qld (despite a long standing 'anomoly' in the road rules). There are a few significant road routes shown on the bikeways maps and to some extent this is confirmed by some sort of pavement markings on the roads in question. One of the problems is that both MR and BCC don't seem to concerned about making these bike routes join up or indeed even turn corners at intersections. These matters seem to be often 'solved' by simply relying on cyclists making crossings at traffic lights and then rejoining the route on the adjoining road. On some of the more heavily trafficked roads there is not the room to provide for turning motorists let alone turning cyclists in safety. This is where I see the hook turn as being a valuable solution to allow a cyclist to make these turns safely without disrupting traffic flow or endangering themselves. A good example is the approach to the Green Bridge (Eleanor Schonell Br) on Annerley Rd. We spent $50M on that bridge with a view to increasing cycle traffic to and from the Uni but what did we do for the adjoining bike routes? Travelling down Annerley Rd from the bridge there is a T intersection (Annerley Rd is the top of the T) which turns right onto Park Rd between Woolloongabba and Dutton Park. Park Rd is a major connecting route then with the bikeway alongside the SE Freeway. So what provision was made for cyclists to turn right onto Park Rd when Annerley Rd is heavily trafficked and has no provision for right turn bays? None as far as I can see. I asked Council about the design in light of the big spend on the Green Bridge. Council said a cyclist could dismount and cross at two sets of traffic lights on pedestrian crossings and a further slip lane to effect the turn. If they did not want to do that they could use the footpath along Annerley Rd from the bridge and then only have to cross at one set of lights and a slip lane at Park Rd. Now both footpaths had nothing done to make them into bikeways, they were basically just marked on the bikeways map with a crayon after the bridge was built. Both are full of obstacles and one is only 900mm wide for most of its length. There are no signs or markings. There would seem to be a good opportunity for a hook turn facility here for the on-road bikelane on Annerley Rd to be able to make the right turn onto Park Rd with its own light phase. I put this to Council, and while they had no objection to hook turn facilities, I was told that there was not enough room to cut a storage bay into the footpath on Annerley Rd for this purpose. The footpath there directly under the rail overpass is huge, it must be 5 metres wide and I would estimate that you would only need to cut in about 1m to provide a bay to hold a few cyclists waiting to turn right onto Park Rd without holding up cyclists continuing along Annerley Rd. The very same footpath narrows shortly after to 900mm for most of its journey up Annerley Rd. So what gives? There looks like plenty of room to me. Perhaps it has something to do with the rail overpass, perhaps the footpath below it is also QR land and not Council. How much room would we need on an equivalent facility down in Melb? I would have thought they would represent a quite economical solution for a bicycle right turn (perhaps not as economical tho as an existing pedestrian crossing). Here is the gmaps link if anyone wants to take a look. (I hope it stays in one piece its rather long) http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=park+rd,+dutton+park,+qld&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=36.372507,63.369141&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.487525,153.0282&spn=0.008832,0.015471&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-27.491934,153.027375&panoid=ym45tXaYUYqWtX0Mj93pOg&cbp=1,356.34,,0,5 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081105/0a3cd9b2/attachment.htm From pharmer_kim at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 21:41:11 2008 From: pharmer_kim at hotmail.com (kim) Date: Wed Nov 5 21:41:27 2008 Subject: FW: [bikeqld] left of centre Message-ID: I don't contest the fact that the road rules are pretty clear for most part. My reason for querying QT are pretty straight forward. QT reviews the road rules and amends them from time to time, whether we like it or not. Cyclists have very little influence in that process. 99.9% of the time the changes are driven by concern for motorists. If cyclists say nothing, they certainly wont be heard anyway. QT has changes planned for the rules I mentioned in earlier posts, which will be enacted in Mar next year. Some of these rules seem to be relevant for cyclists travelling in lines or lanes on the left as well as road related areas commonly used by cyclists. I see it as a reasonable and responsible measure to question QT about how these will affect cyclists. Both Main Roads and BCC are building infrastructure features that are new, particularly in Brisbane. Existing rules may not facilitate the proper functioning of these new features. Main Roads recognises that, I don't know if BCC have given it any thought. The whole intention of these new features is to get cycle traffic up to the front of the queue at intersections to provide a safer and efficient flow of both cars and cycles. These features can be a very strong indication for support of various forms of lane splitting to arrive there at the front. It works in many places around the world. Lane splitting in Qld is perfectly legal providing the road rules are followed and I for one am in favour of it. I would have suggested that QT in fact relax some of the rules to facilitate this further in light of newer trends. Currently if you go between lanes there is a requirement to signal right each time you cross a divider line even by a small amount and to ride in one lane or the other not on the line. Clearly that is not necessary or optimal for the safest passage of a cycle between traffic where both hands on the brakes, eyes on the traffic and positioning the cycle midway between vehicles, irrespective of line markings is usually safest. Some police will take exception to this, trust me. If lane splitting is ever banned in Qld it will be because of strong pressure from the motoring lobby groups, it won't be because some cyclist asked for some clarification of how the rules work (I say that with due respect, Chris, and I appreciate that you may have had some other experience of this not being the case, feel free to elaborate on that experience if you wish as I am not aware of many/any road rules being changed that way in my time). While I don't believe an outright ban on it is in the current proposed amendments, it has been strongly mooted in the past. If anyone doubts the pressure from the motoring lobby on this issue, just check out some of the motoring forums; Chris from WoJ has been doing battle for us on these motor forums for years. I see no harm in talking about this topic with QT, they are certainly no strangers to the issue. I don't think it is beneficial that cyclists should be held up by motor car traffic that travels slower. In the days when motor traffic did the commute faster, there were plenty of complaints about cycles holding up car traffic. Now the tables are turned and certainly around Brisbane there does not seem to be a lot of hope in sight for the motorists to move any faster. I totally agree with you on the lack of compliance with the existing rules, and I don't believe it is because the rules are not clear. It is mostly ignorance of the actual rules. In the case of the rules which provide for cyclists, I think that these are often compromised by motorists because of some bad psychology which sees a resentment for cyclists using 'their' road, ie deliberately. The other reason is purely based on driver and rider experience and judgement. Most car drivers truly underestimate the speed at which a cyclist is travelling and the associated safe clearances needed. Many of the accidents involving cyclists are SMIDSY types, and while the rules do say to be vigilant, it is clearly more of a matter of better training and habits to watch out for cyclists as well of course as the cyclist making themselves as visible as practical. As for leaving a cycle lane being a 'grey' rule, that's not up to me to say. There has been many good words said on that topic on this list in the past and not all of those have been in agreement, so I am happy to use the term 'grey' here on that basis alone. I use your same rationale when using a bike lane and I am pretty content in doing so, but I concede that there is the view that riding out of the lane because some motorist 'might' break the law and open a door on me might not be deemed as 'practicable' by a copper stuck in traffic and having a bad day. Same if I started slowing right down at every green light just in case someone broke the law and ran a red light. I keep in mind the design specs and recommendations about safe riding distances from door zones just in case I am ever quizzed. There are virtually no bike lanes in Brisbane in which you could wholly ride and not compromise those recommended safe distances anyway, most double as parking lanes. Much of these issues is of greater concern for the less experienced cyclist and motorists out there, as an old salt myself, I try to not think in terms of my own judgements and abilities but those of others. kim Chris Lewthwaite wrote: --- On Tue, 4/11/08, kim wrote: Hey Chris,no need to be hesitant about the feedback, I do appreciate it and I am sure the other listees do too. Apologies too for my wording, I did not mean to imply that yourself or any cyclists got a kick out of 'flaunting a grey area', I meant to say that a cyclist would feel better flaunting a rule they considered grey than having to knowingly break a rule. I fully agree with your avoidance strategy, but as a cyclist with lots of on-road experience, are there any road rules, in your view, that could/should be amended to improve the lot of the cyclist or is the status quo just fine? Believe it or not, the road rules are a remarkably clear, concise and practical piece of legislation by law standards. I've studied Company Law in the past, and I deal with Tax law everyday. They're a million times more vague. I actually think the road rules as they are work extremely well when people are following the law. The problems only arise when people don't follow the law. Even then, the legislation is remarkably flexible in allowing cyclists the option of leaving the bike lane or changing lanes should the situation require. In fact, I'd wager that if the road toll was broken down on a case-by-case basis, you'd find that virtually every death (whether it involved a cyclist or not) was the result of someone not following the law. The left hook issue is a prime example. If every driver indicated prior to turning left, and every cyclist slowed and waited upon seeing the indicator, there wouldn't be an issue. Clearly, the problem is not with the law, but with compliance. What I don't understand is why people think that asking various levels of government to institute new laws (which is effectively what asking for "clarification" is) is going to fix the non-compliance issue. The real answer is greater law enforcement, and greater penalties for breaking the law (better yet, give me the portfolios of transport minister and commissioner of police and I'll halve the road toll within twelve months). Once we have the compliance, then we can more accurately measure the effectiveness or equity of a particular law, and identify areas in need of revision. However, simply changing laws without making anyone comply is just an exercise in tokenism. Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows? connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081105/218dc3d9/attachment-0001.htm From akayani at aapt.net.au Fri Nov 7 21:10:09 2008 From: akayani at aapt.net.au (Yani) Date: Fri Nov 7 21:10:20 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Warm up exercises In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F392E59471F43259BC487A62FC782A8@maud> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/sports/playmagazine/112pewarm.html?_r=1 &oref=slogin WHEN DUANE KNUDSON, a professor of kinesiology at California State University, Chico, looks around campus at athletes warming up before practice, he sees one dangerous mistake after another. "They're stretching, touching their toes. . . . " He sighs. "It's discouraging."....... The old presumption that holding a stretch for 20 to 30 seconds - known as static stretching - primes muscles for a workout is dead wrong. It actually weakens them. Interesting article worth the read. Yani -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081108/d7988576/attachment.htm From doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au Tue Nov 11 19:29:13 2008 From: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au (Anthony Lee) Date: Tue Nov 11 19:29:28 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? Message-ID: <938387.4673.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Does anyone have an idea the date of this article? http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mediawiki/images/5/53/OldSandgateRdBikeLaneIssue.pdf Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au Find your perfect match today at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081111/a7067f5f/attachment.htm From doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au Tue Nov 11 19:29:17 2008 From: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au (Anthony Lee) Date: Tue Nov 11 19:29:38 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? Message-ID: <837014.89605.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Does anyone have an idea the date of this article? http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mediawiki/images/5/53/OldSandgateRdBikeLaneIssue.pdf Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au Find your perfect match today at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081111/df4ee65d/attachment.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Tue Nov 11 20:54:34 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Tue Nov 11 20:55:03 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? In-Reply-To: <938387.4673.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <938387.4673.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20081112025433.MAAZ1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Hi Anthony and all, Not sure of date but from the description in the article, could be the early/first installation because what Mr Roberts is complaining about and is wanting changed is consistent with what was there but subsequently Main Roads has changed ... eg at the intersection of Sandgate and Rode Roads ... the subject of recent emails. MY....................... At 11:29 AM 12/11/2008, Anthony Lee wrote: >Hi all, > >Does anyone have an idea the date of this article? > >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mediawiki/images/5/53/OldSandgateRdBikeLaneIssue.pdf > > >Anthony Lee >The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? >........-- __o >....-- _ \<,_ >........(_) / (_) >E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au From doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au Tue Nov 11 21:05:53 2008 From: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au (Anthony Lee) Date: Tue Nov 11 21:06:06 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? References: <938387.4673.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20081112025433.MAAZ1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <656893.58608.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks Michael. Is that the same Neil Roberts who is now the Emergency Services minister? Pity he is not the transport Minister. On another note, do you think we could argue that building more non-road infrastructure would be the way to go to insulate QLD from the economic down turn. Bikeways being cheaper then most road project can employ people (stop them from being unemployed) but will not be such a big hole on the budget. What do you think? Anthony Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au ________________________________ From: Michael Yeates To: Anthony Lee Cc: BIQ Sent: Wednesday, 12 November, 2008 12:54:34 PM Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? Hi Anthony and all, Not sure of date but from the description in the article, could be the early/first installation because what Mr Roberts is complaining about and is wanting changed is consistent with what was there but subsequently Main Roads has changed ... eg at the intersection of Sandgate and Rode Roads ... the subject of recent emails. MY....................... At 11:29 AM 12/11/2008, Anthony Lee wrote: >Hi all, > >Does anyone have an idea the date of this article? > >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mediawiki/images/5/53/OldSandgateRdBikeLaneIssue.pdf > > >Anthony Lee >The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? >........-- __o >....-- _ \<,_ >........(_) / (_) >E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au Find your perfect match today at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081111/3d131ceb/attachment.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 12 17:30:25 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Wed Nov 12 17:30:47 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? In-Reply-To: <656893.58608.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <765095.11926.qm@web51510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Considering the vast majority of regular cyclists don't use "non-road" infrastructure, I think it would be a huge waste of money.? There are far more effective public works projects that governments could undertake if job creation is their primary motivation. --- On Wed, 12/11/08, Anthony Lee wrote: From: Anthony Lee Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? To: "BIQ" Received: Wednesday, 12 November, 2008, 2:05 PM Thanks Michael. Is that the same Neil Roberts who is now the Emergency Services minister? Pity he is not the transport Minister. On another note, do you think we could argue that building more non-road infrastructure would be the way to go to insulate QLD from the economic down turn. Bikeways being cheaper then most road project can employ people (stop them from being unemployed) but will not be such a big hole on the budget. What do you think? Anthony ?Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au From: Michael Yeates To: Anthony Lee Cc: BIQ Sent: Wednesday, 12 November, 2008 12:54:34 PM Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Old advocacy article? Hi Anthony and all, Not sure of date but from the description in the article, could be the early/first installation because what Mr Roberts is complaining about and is wanting changed is consistent with what was there but subsequently Main Roads has changed ... eg at the intersection of Sandgate and Rode Roads ... the subject of recent emails. MY....................... At 11:29 AM 12/11/2008, Anthony Lee wrote: >Hi all, > >Does anyone have an idea the date of this article? > >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mediawiki/images/5/53/OldSandgateRdBikeLaneIssue.pdf > > >Anthony Lee >The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? >........-- __o >....-- _ \<,_ >........(_) / (_) >E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. Find your perfect match today at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081112/9353b6fa/attachment.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Wed Nov 12 23:16:21 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Wed Nov 12 23:16:27 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Fwd: [Cmass-Sydney] Fwd: RTA SPEAK Message-ID: <20081113051610.QTMD1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Having noted a series of Main Roads adverts in the local Westside News telling the community about the Moggill Road upgrade that somehow continue the corporate lapses of Main Roads memory in regard to cyclists and cycling, the memory losses seem to be contagious ... ;-) Queensland Main Roads commitment to cycling is the Main Roads policy on "Cycling on State Controlled Roads", which was launched on 10 August 2004 ... although more often it seems to be used to avoid MR providing for or encouragement of, cycling on State Controlled Roads. MY............ >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:02:14 +1100 >To: cmass-sydney@lists.bikesarefun.org >Subject: [Cmass-Sydney] Fwd: RTA SPEAK > >The RTA's web page clearly states: > >Improving the NSW bike network > >The RTA is committed to making provisions for bicycles in all new >major road infrastructure and maintenance work. This is in line >with the NSW Government State Plan which is dedicated to decreasing >car dependence and improving the environment in NSW. > >http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/bicycle/improvingbikenetwork/index.html > >Just for a laugh, go to the link for the Spit Bridge and Military >Road, which states 'The Spit - Military road improvement initiatives >are intended to benefit all road users along the corridor, including >bus commuters', and do a word search for any variation of bikes, >bicycles, cycles or cycling ... > >http://tinyurl.com/SpitRoad >http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/sydney/spit_military_corridor_report_august2008.pdf > >Apparently spending $70M on a project does not qualify it as 'new >major road infrastructure' or 'maintenance work'. >On the other hand perhaps cyclists don't qualify as 'road users'. > >thanks for the tip, Norman Monshall, chair Manly Bicycle Committee And thanks for this to Sydney CM ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081113/f984aca4/attachment.htm From airportbug at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 04:47:21 2008 From: airportbug at gmail.com (Mitch Bright) Date: Sat Nov 15 04:47:37 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? Message-ID: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would be passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit is 15km/h. As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE Qld transportation system (recreational use is a secondary function), the speed limit, if there is to be one, should be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools where children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a similarly divided pathway. Mitch Bright Airport BUG airportbug@gmail.com http://airportbug.googlepages.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081115/930ac056/attachment.htm From busrail at fastmail.fm Sat Nov 15 17:57:21 2008 From: busrail at fastmail.fm (Norm Morwood) Date: Sat Nov 15 17:57:41 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c9477d$ea0d15e0$0200a8c0@Betty> I agree entirely Mitch. In my days of riding around Brisbane, the 10k speed limit on the Goodwill Bridge was a big frustration. It not easy to ride at 10k. Mostly I stuck to it, but would always be overtaken by any other riders going my way and several joggers, to whom I used to apologise , sometimes to their amusement. It is a joke. In the early days there were "security guards" on each end (soon after 911). I asked them what their job was as they never seemed to be concerned at bicycles going past at 20k plus. They said they were just watching for suspicious people and had no right to stop anyone for breaking speed limits etc. I contacted everyone I could think of at the time and wrote a couple of letters to the paper one of which was published but the stupid limit remains. Now is the best time to lobby for at least 20k limit on the gateway and hopefully get at least 15. Cyclists will still exceed that though. Regards, Norm. 07 5442 2916, 0409 63 99 44 140 Blackall Range Rd Woombye Qld 4559 Disclaimer: Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive, anyway. http://256.com/gray/quotes/misc.html -----Original Message----- From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Mitch Bright Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:47 PM To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would be passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit is 15km/h. As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE Qld transportation system (recreational use is a secondary function), the speed limit, if there is to be one, should be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools where children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a similarly divided pathway. Mitch Bright Airport BUG airportbug@gmail.com http://airportbug.googlepages.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081116/87a45122/attachment.htm From airportbug at gmail.com Sun Nov 16 19:56:49 2008 From: airportbug at gmail.com (Airport BUG) Date: Sun Nov 16 19:57:05 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <000a01c9477d$ea0d15e0$0200a8c0@Betty> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c9477d$ea0d15e0$0200a8c0@Betty> Message-ID: <9083b07a0811161756g6a5637bbo8ce5287bd419a806@mail.gmail.com> Tanks Norm Advice I have received from people who have been the cycle advocacy game a lot longer than me is to leave it alone. Comparisons have been made with the Goodwill Bridge where apparently no one obeys the 10 km speed limit. Though cyclists do ride at a sensible speed for the prevailing pedestrian traffic. However I don't think comparing what happens on the Goodwill Bridge can be applied to the Gateway. The Goodwill is only about 240 metres long, the Gateway Bridge is 2 km long. Also I'm not sure if ignoring it is the best response at this time... I concede there is a risk to pedestrians, particularly at the viewing platforms. All it takes is someone taking a photo stepping back into the path of a cyclist descending (even at 10km/h) and it will hurt. Perhaps some physical separation barrier is required in these areas. Current plans have only a painted line as a divider. (Perhaps rubber bollards with rope between them. The dividing structure would have to be collapsible to allow emergency vehicles to drive over them). I am of the opinion if nothing is done now : - There is a risk someone may be hurt in a collision. - We will have no case to argue to allow higher speeds and the slow speed will deter cycle commuters. - The Gateway project money for pedestrian and cycle facilities will be all spent on expensive landscaping of the paths in the park under the Bridge at Murrarie and there will be none left for expensive barriers on the bridge. Regards Mitch Airport BUG airportbug@gmail.com http://airportbug.googlepages.com On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Norm Morwood wrote: > I agree entirely Mitch. > > In my days of riding around Brisbane, the 10k speed limit on the Goodwill > Bridge was a big frustration. It not easy to ride at 10k. Mostly I stuck to > it, but would always be overtaken by any other riders going my way and > several joggers, to whom I used to apologise , sometimes to their amusement. > > It is a joke. In the early days there were "security guards" on each end > (soon after 911). I asked them what their job was as they never seemed to be > concerned at bicycles going past at 20k plus. They said they were just > watching for suspicious people and had no right to stop anyone for breaking > speed limits etc. I contacted everyone I could think of at the time and > wrote a couple of letters to the paper one of which was published but the > stupid limit remains. > > Now is the best time to lobby for at least 20k limit on the gateway and > hopefully get at least 15. Cyclists will still exceed that though. > > > Regards, Norm. > 07 5442 2916, 0409 63 99 44 > 140 Blackall Range Rd Woombye Qld 4559 > Disclaimer: Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive, anyway. > > http://256.com/gray/quotes/misc.html > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto: > bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] *On Behalf Of *Mitch Bright > *Sent:* Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:47 PM > *To:* bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au > *Subject:* [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? > > I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h speedlimit > for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway Bridge. I was shocked. > Riding at 10km/h the joggers would be passing you! Even at Southbank where > pedestrians and cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed > limit is 15km/h. > > As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE Qld transportation system > (recreational use is a secondary function), the speed limit, if there is to > be one, should be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this > environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation choice. If cars can > drive at 40 km/h past schools where children are crossing and walking on the > roadside, I can't see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a > similarly divided pathway. > > Mitch Bright > > Airport BUG > airportbug@gmail.com > http://airportbug.googlepages.com > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081117/a66c4201/attachment.htm From r.hockey at sph.uq.edu.au Sun Nov 16 19:57:53 2008 From: r.hockey at sph.uq.edu.au (Richard Hockey) Date: Sun Nov 16 19:58:10 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Sweden: Decrease in Bicycle-related Head Injuries Message-ID: http://www.whohelmets.org/headlines/08_fall_berg.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081117/17484019/attachment.htm From peter.whittle at qut.edu.au Sun Nov 16 21:45:56 2008 From: peter.whittle at qut.edu.au (Peter Whittle) Date: Sun Nov 16 21:49:08 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <9083b07a0811161756g6a5637bbo8ce5287bd419a806@mail.gmail.com> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com><000a01c9477d$ea0d15e0$0200a8c0@Betty> <9083b07a0811161756g6a5637bbo8ce5287bd419a806@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <51FC1E99A89C9E4796A8C2E296FFFBAE0383FEBFF0@QUTEXMBX03.qut.edu.au> Mitch I agree this should be actively debated. It's very hard to get this to happen. The usual story is that the developer gets in a huddle with Bicycle Queensland and the rest of us either have to get closely involved with BQ, or hope that what comes out the other end is good - experience is that it not always good and there is a strong role for other groups. For instance, the CBD BUG has been very effective in relation to the ongoing, changing detours for the SE Freeway/tunnel detours, because BQ simply does not have the resources to do everything, and is not great at involving all the people who care; hence we get to the end and blame BQ for the poor outcome. Maybe you could contact BQ and ask to be involved? Also, get along to any other opportunity for input and get to know the PR folk and try to be reasoned and constructive with them, so they seek you out. I agree with your concerns, partly. The Goodwill Bridge is very problematic because of the number of pedestrians and cyclists and the way the peds meander all over the bridge, and the 10 km/h speed limit is impossible to hold with the steep grade. This will be mitigated on the Gateway because Australians are too lazy to walk that far, and the few that do will hopefully be walking with some determination. The even steeper grade of the Gateway makes a 10 km/h limit patently ridiculous. I don't think it will deter anyone from commuting - people will just ignore it and ride at a sensible speed. It is interesting to look at how speed limits and other road controls are put in place for roads - they look at what motorists "naturally do" and what is "safe" or some such. So it beats me why they don't use the same design rules for this situation. As a matter of principle, I hate the suggestion of segregating peds and cyclists - extend the argument and you are saying cyclists should be segregated from cars, with which I completely disagree. Worried about risk? Just maintain your equipment, have good skills and ride to the conditions - ding your bell a lot and supplement with verbal warnings. On the other hand, I've been proven wrong with the Green Bridge - it works really nicely having one side cyclists and the other side peds. Pete ________________________________ From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Airport BUG Sent: Monday, 17 November 2008 11:57 AM To: Norm Morwood Cc: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Subject: Re: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? Tanks Norm Advice I have received from people who have been the cycle advocacy game a lot longer than me is to leave it alone. Comparisons have been made with the Goodwill Bridge where apparently no one obeys the 10 km speed limit. Though cyclists do ride at a sensible speed for the prevailing pedestrian traffic. However I don't think comparing what happens on the Goodwill Bridge can be applied to the Gateway. The Goodwill is only about 240 metres long, the Gateway Bridge is 2 km long. Also I'm not sure if ignoring it is the best response at this time... I concede there is a risk to pedestrians, particularly at the viewing platforms. All it takes is someone taking a photo stepping back into the path of a cyclist descending (even at 10km/h) and it will hurt. Perhaps some physical separation barrier is required in these areas. Current plans have only a painted line as a divider. (Perhaps rubber bollards with rope between them. The dividing structure would have to be collapsible to allow emergency vehicles to drive over them). I am of the opinion if nothing is done now : - There is a risk someone may be hurt in a collision. - We will have no case to argue to allow higher speeds and the slow speed will deter cycle commuters. - The Gateway project money for pedestrian and cycle facilities will be all spent on expensive landscaping of the paths in the park under the Bridge at Murrarie and there will be none left for expensive barriers on the bridge. Regards Mitch Airport BUG airportbug@gmail.com http://airportbug.googlepages.com On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Norm Morwood > wrote: I agree entirely Mitch. In my days of riding around Brisbane, the 10k speed limit on the Goodwill Bridge was a big frustration. It not easy to ride at 10k. Mostly I stuck to it, but would always be overtaken by any other riders going my way and several joggers, to whom I used to apologise , sometimes to their amusement. It is a joke. In the early days there were "security guards" on each end (soon after 911). I asked them what their job was as they never seemed to be concerned at bicycles going past at 20k plus. They said they were just watching for suspicious people and had no right to stop anyone for breaking speed limits etc. I contacted everyone I could think of at the time and wrote a couple of letters to the paper one of which was published but the stupid limit remains. Now is the best time to lobby for at least 20k limit on the gateway and hopefully get at least 15. Cyclists will still exceed that though. Regards, Norm. 07 5442 2916, 0409 63 99 44 140 Blackall Range Rd Woombye Qld 4559 Disclaimer: Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive, anyway. http://256.com/gray/quotes/misc.html -----Original Message----- From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Mitch Bright Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:47 PM To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would be passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit is 15km/h. As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE Qld transportation system (recreational use is a secondary function), the speed limit, if there is to be one, should be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools where children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a similarly divided pathway. Mitch Bright Airport BUG airportbug@gmail.com http://airportbug.googlepages.com -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081117/4bfba775/attachment-0001.htm From peter.whittle at qut.edu.au Mon Nov 17 21:07:26 2008 From: peter.whittle at qut.edu.au (Peter Whittle) Date: Mon Nov 17 21:08:04 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] FW: Mt Coot-tha (gap Creek) Trails Closed Message-ID: <51FC1E99A89C9E4796A8C2E296FFFBAE0383FEBFFF@QUTEXMBX03.qut.edu.au> From: Christopher Maierhofer [mailto:Christopher.Maierhofer@brisbane.qld.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2008 9:57 AM To: Darren Boman; gill_mtb@bigpond.net.au; Gillian Duncan; John Pinnell; Mad Aussie; Nick Byrne; Trail Care: Christopher Maierhofer Subject: Mt Coot-tha (gap Creek) Trails Closed Hi Everyone, I have been asked to tell riders that it is not currently considered safe to be out riding at Gap Creek at the moment. You would think it is obvious but apparently there were lots of riders out yesterday. There have been lots of trees damaged and fallen. There will also be weakened trees and hanging branches which pose a significant hazard. Please consider the area closed until further notice. I was rostered off yesterday so I have not been out to check the trails yet. I will most likely be helping out with other more important repair work or tree clearing work for the general public. When I can I'll get out and check on the trails. Please pass this on to other riders to get the word out. Yours Sincerely, Christopher Maierhofer B.Eng (Env) Trail Care Coordinator Local Asset Services - West Brisbane City Council West Regional Business Centre 46 Coonan Street Indooroopilly Qld 4066 Ph. (07) 3407 0099 Fax (07) 3407 0029 Mob. 0439 732 385 Email. christopher.maierhofer@brisbane.qld.gov.au ********************************************************************** This message has passed through an insecure network. Please direct all enquiries to the message author. ********************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081118/f825d533/attachment.htm From xdollarfuel at yahoo.com.au Tue Nov 18 07:56:55 2008 From: xdollarfuel at yahoo.com.au (mich rolling) Date: Tue Nov 18 07:57:12 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Boggo Road cycle link makes it to, but not over, the rail line. Message-ID: <438660.14829.qm@web44806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> OK, so this road overpass does not link directly to the Boggo Road redevelopment? from the Princess Alexandra Hospital but it does get cyclists and peds from the freeway across Ipswich Road and adjacent to the railway line. ? I can see increasing cyclist numbers from the south along the freeway and from the east along the Eastern Busway currently being developed using the link to access UQ and Boggo Road smart place. ? It might not take? long for pressure from cyclists and pedestrians forced to take the 400m detour via the Dutton Park/Gladstone Road rail bridge to force the crossing direct over the rail line to Boggo Road to be built. Ditto a decent overpass of O'Keefe Street from the east to the announced cycle bridge over Ipswich Road. ? Copied from Australian Cyclist: You gotta love it. Steamy, laid back Brizzie gets another half kilometre of elevated cycleway to link the main southern bicycle route along the freeway with the (relatively) new bus/bike/pedestrian bridge across the river to Queensland Uni and the western suburbs. Bicycle bridges and significant road overpasses for cycles in Bris; Schnoell Bridge, Goodwill Bridge, Jack Pesch Bridge, Tank Street (under construction), Toowong overpass (under construction), Morrisey Street Overpass (nearly complete) and now Boggo Road/Ipswich Road overpass announced. Forgot the Red Bridge at Beenleigh, the Normanby Underpass and there may be another bridge/underpass of the Mt Lindsay Highway and then yet another rebuilt crossing of the freeway near O'Keefe St. ""Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations The Honourable John Mickel Saturday, November 15, 2008 UP, UP AND AWAY ON NEW BIKEWAY Cycling is about to reach new heights with a $12.4 million cycleway now being constructed set to fly over Ipswich Road once complete. Transport Minister John Mickel said the cycleway will fly over Ipswich Rd at a height of eight metres ? taking cyclists safely out of traffic. The Minister said the new cycleway will be almost a kilometre long, with a 570 metre section elevated to span across Ipswich Rd and 350 metres of pathway along Kent Street. The east-west cycleway will form a critical connection from the South East Freeway cycleway and southern suburbs, to the hospital, and further on to the University of Queensland,? Mr Mickel said.." Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081118/c4c0638b/attachment.htm From aaron_wray at hotmail.com Tue Nov 18 16:31:56 2008 From: aaron_wray at hotmail.com (Aaron Wray) Date: Tue Nov 18 16:32:27 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Storm damage closes south-east parks In-Reply-To: <200811181800.mAII07Cm019417@laika.gnusto.com> References: <200811181800.mAII07Cm019417@laika.gnusto.com> Message-ID: Further advice on closures. Please don't go out there for a look, leave it to the professionals they have enough on their hands without cleaning up after people ignoring closures. http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/projects/park/display_news.cgi?newsid=1693&parkid=2Storm damage closes south-east parksNational parks and forests in Queensland?s south-east region including the Gold Coast hinterland are closed until further notice following severe thunderstorms on Sunday (16 November 2008).Parks affected include Springbrook National Park, Brisbane Forest Park, Samford Forest Reserve, Bunyaville Forest Reserve and Mount Mee State Forest and Forest Reserve.The storms caused substantial damage to a number of parks, forcing the closure of walking tracks, campgrounds and information centres.Damage includes tree falls over walking tracks, roads and facilities, with phone and power lines down.Storm debris will be cleared as quickly as possible and all areas and facilities will be checked to ensure they are safe before they reopen.For further information about park closures and affected areas contact the EPA Customer Service Centre on ph 1300 130 372. >> > Message: 1> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:07:26 +1000> From: Peter Whittle > Subject: [bikeqld] FW: Mt Coot-tha (gap Creek) Trails Closed> To: "bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au" > Message-ID:> <51FC1E99A89C9E4796A8C2E296FFFBAE0383FEBFFF@QUTEXMBX03.qut.edu.au>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"> > > From: Christopher Maierhofer [mailto:Christopher.Maierhofer@brisbane.qld.gov.au]> Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2008 9:57 AM> To: Darren Boman; gill_mtb@bigpond.net.au; Gillian Duncan; John Pinnell; Mad Aussie; Nick Byrne; Trail Care: Christopher Maierhofer> Subject: Mt Coot-tha (gap Creek) Trails Closed> > Hi Everyone,> > I have been asked to tell riders that it is not currently considered safe to be out riding at Gap Creek at the moment. You would think it is obvious but apparently there were lots of riders out yesterday. There have been lots of trees damaged and fallen. There will also be weakened trees and hanging branches which pose a significant hazard.> > Please consider the area closed until further notice.> > I was rostered off yesterday so I have not been out to check the trails yet. I will most likely be helping out with other more important repair work or tree clearing work for the general public. When I can I'll get out and check on the trails.> > Please pass this on to other riders to get the word out.> > > > Yours Sincerely,> > > Christopher Maierhofer B.Eng (Env)> Trail Care Coordinator> Local Asset Services - West> Brisbane City Council> West Regional Business Centre> 46 Coonan Street> Indooroopilly Qld 4066> > Ph. (07) 3407 0099> Fax (07) 3407 0029> Mob. 0439 732 385> Email. christopher.maierhofer@brisbane.qld.gov.aumailto:christopher.maierhofer@brisbane.qld.gov.au _________________________________________________________________ Your dream beach house escape for summer! Sign up for the Hotmail Road Trip today. http://www.ninemsn.com.au/hotmailroadtrip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081119/4aff393b/attachment.htm From list-bikeqld at lister.dnsalias.net Tue Nov 18 21:26:32 2008 From: list-bikeqld at lister.dnsalias.net (Ian Lister) Date: Tue Nov 18 21:27:43 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Upcoming PedBikeTrans AGM & Christmas Party (fwd) Message-ID: See below for the latest from PedBikeTrans, including their active transport movie night next week, the Australian Cycling Conference in January, and the current draft Gold Coast bikeway network operational plan consultation. The attached flyer is at: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/attachments/20081119/PBT%20Seminar%20Flyer%20_3_.pdf Cheers, Ian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: pedbiketransmail Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:14:26 +1000 Subject: Upcoming PedBikeTrans AGM & Christmas Party Upcoming PedBikeTrans Seminars AGM and Christmas Party: Movie Night Topic: This year PedBikeTrans are having a movie night. Come and be inspired by movies which illustrate best practice for active transport from around the world. Date: Thursday 27 November 2008 Time: 5:30pm for 6:00pm – 8:00pm Venue: Brisbane Square BCC Library Theatrette (266 George St, near cnr Adelaide Street) RSVP: to Stacey.mccosh@cardno.com.au by 25 November See attached flyer, nomination and proxy forms for further details and agenda Agenda for AGM at 6pm 1. Introductions, Apologies 2. President’s Report 3. Presentation of Audited Financial Statements 4. Appointment of Auditor 5. Vote for Executive Committee Members (President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Marketing Officer and four Ordinary Members) 6. Any other Business Followed by PedBikeTrans movie night at 6:30pm. Pizzas and drinks will be provided. If you are unable to make the meeting, please fill out a proxy and return to Jerryn (mail to: Jerryn Zwart, PO Box 3873 SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101 or Fax: (07) 3369 9722) before 25th November 2008, as we need to form a quorum of members on the night. Hope to see you there!!! Upcoming Seminars Australian Cycling Conference - Adelaide 19 January 2009 The 2009 Australian Cycling Conference will be held in the University of Adelaide’s Napier Building on North Terrace, Adelaide, on the rest day of the Tour Down Under — Monday 19 January. Topic: This Conference provides an opportunity for academics, practitioners and advocates of cycling to present papers on cycling research and new cycling projects. It is an opportunity to network with people involved in cycling research, policy development, planning and project implementation. The conference aims to develop cycling research, knowledge and expertise in Australia and New Zealand. Who should attend: Researchers, transport and urban planning professionals, cycling organisations and advocates. Costs and registration: The registration cost will be $75 including GST. This can be paid either as cash on the day, or by cheque or credit card. Morning and afternoon tea and lunch are included in the registration fee. To register for the conference, please download, fill in and return our registration form. Program: The program for the conference is expected to be available 8 December. Updates will be posted at www.hubtt.com.au/australiancyclingconference. Call for papers: If you are interested in presenting your cycling-related research, project, or implementation of a local strategy please contact the Convener, Dr Stuart Clement, by email ( conference@hubtt.com.au) or by mobile on 0405 702 483 by Friday 28 November, 2008. Further information: Contact Dr Stuart Clement, conference@hubtt.com.au or by mobile on 0405 702 483; or see www.hubtt.com.au/australiancyclingconference. Other items of interest GCCC Bikeway Network Operational Plan Draft for public comment The link is to the draft version of the Gold Coast Bikeway Network Operational Plan that is used to help guide the installation of bike facilities on the Gold Coast. GCCC is inviting comments (good and bad) and suggestions from members of the public on bikeway issues. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?PID=8007 or go to the GCCC web page and it's under - Have Your Say, Current Consultations, Bikeway Network Operational Plan. If you have any questions contact Iain Cummings on (07) 5667 3791 or 0414 180 610 Cycle Coaches GCCC is considering running school child & adult cycling programs such as learn to ride, bike maintenance, commuter / traffic riding skills, bike tours, Ride to School, Bike Buses, Ride to Work days etc. Do you know of any cycle coaches or similar around the Gold Coast who may be suitably qualified and interested in such programs? Please contact Iain Cummings on (07) 5667 3791 or 0414 180 610 Heart Foundation Conference call for abstracts now open Please visit http://www.heartfoundation2009.com/ for information Jerryn Zwart PedBikeTrans From michael at yeatesit.biz Tue Nov 18 23:29:04 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Tue Nov 18 23:29:12 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... Message-ID: <20081119052857.NKOW1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Hi all ... The new "bikeway" bka "shared footpath" beside the St Lucia Golf Course and Hillside Terrace is now open ... or at least the barriers have been removed ...! Feedback welcomed ... MY........................... From doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au Wed Nov 19 00:19:15 2008 From: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au (Anthony Lee) Date: Wed Nov 19 00:19:37 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... References: <20081119052857.NKOW1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <267641.75993.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I don't like the really windy bits near the front of the St Lucia golf course club house. Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au ________________________________ From: Michael Yeates To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Sent: Wednesday, 19 November, 2008 3:29:04 PM Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... Hi all ... The new "bikeway" bka "shared footpath" beside the St Lucia Golf Course and Hillside Terrace is now open ... or at least the barriers have been removed ...! Feedback welcomed ... MY........................... _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081118/8f62fc9f/attachment.htm From r.hockey at sph.uq.edu.au Wed Nov 19 23:29:05 2008 From: r.hockey at sph.uq.edu.au (Richard Hockey) Date: Wed Nov 19 23:29:20 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Ghost bike honours dead Melbourne cyclist Carolyn Rawlins Message-ID: http://www.theage.com.au/national/ghost-bike-materialises-20081119-6blw. html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081120/c39f1972/attachment.htm From doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au Thu Nov 20 16:28:44 2008 From: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au (Anthony Lee) Date: Thu Nov 20 16:29:02 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Damages on Coro Drive bikeway Message-ID: <655099.76308.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Coming in this morning there were lots trees and tree branches hanging very low or even fallen over on the bikeway, especially closer into the city. I wish more cyclists and pedestrian would help because they are a definite source of danger. Two helped me bend one back as far as we could. Be careful. I think the council is going to be overwhelmed. Anthony Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081120/cce45330/attachment.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Thu Nov 20 17:04:53 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Thu Nov 20 17:07:04 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Damages on Coro Drive bikeway In-Reply-To: <655099.76308.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <655099.76308.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20081120230440.QNUR1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Hi Anthony and all ... It is worth noting that it is ILLEGAL to interfere with trees etc on public property and in previous exchanges with BCC about us helping to maintain clearance, we have been threatened with prosecution. There are of course good reasons for this including the need for expert judgement in terms of how the trees etc will grow after being pruned or trimmed and to prevent or reduce vandalism etc. Best to ignore ... slow down, walk around if necessary ... and report to BCC Call Centre and to be reasonable about the reality. If using email attach e-photos. Moving already broken branches may be OK ... Mind you, do not expect to see the Lord Mayor in full media view striding along any shared footpaths to assess damage ... Perhaps cycle on Coro Drive until the shared footpath (is it really a "bikeway"?) is safe enough to use? MY.................. At 08:28 AM 21/11/2008, Anthony Lee wrote: >Hi all, > >Coming in this morning there were lots trees and tree branches >hanging very low or even fallen >over on the bikeway, especially closer into the city. I wish more >cyclists and pedestrian would >help because they are a definite source of danger. Two helped me >bend one back as far as we >could. Be careful. I think the council is going to be overwhelmed. > >Anthony > >Anthony Lee >The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? >........-- __o >....-- _ \<,_ >........(_) / (_) >E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au > > > >Make the switch to the world's best email. >Get >Yahoo!7 Mail. >_______________________________________________ >bikeqld mailing list >bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >20/11/2008 7:28 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081121/9a6f6925/attachment.htm From doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au Thu Nov 20 17:24:37 2008 From: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au (Anthony Lee) Date: Thu Nov 20 17:25:02 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Damages on Coro Drive bikeway References: <655099.76308.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20081120230440.QNUR1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <504553.9595.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks Michael. It was already damaged. I was riding through there yesterday afternoon and there was no branches hanging that low. I don't know how one would go "around" it. I supposed if you are flexible enough you could do the "limbo"??? :-). Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au ________________________________ From: Michael Yeates To: Anthony Lee Cc: BIQ Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2008 9:04:53 AM Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Damages on Coro Drive bikeway Hi Anthony and all ... It is worth noting that it is ILLEGAL to interfere with trees etc on public property and in previous exchanges with BCC about us helping to maintain clearance, we have been threatened with prosecution. There are of course good reasons for this including the need for expert judgement in terms of how the trees etc will grow after being pruned or trimmed and to prevent or reduce vandalism etc. Best to ignore ... slow down, walk around if necessary ... and report to BCC Call Centre and to be reasonable about the reality. If using email attach e-photos. Moving already broken branches may be OK ... Mind you, do not expect to see the Lord Mayor in full media view striding along any shared footpaths to assess damage ... Perhaps cycle on Coro Drive until the shared footpath (is it really a "bikeway"?) is safe enough to use? MY.................. At 08:28 AM 21/11/2008, Anthony Lee wrote: Hi all, Coming in this morning there were lots trees and tree branches hanging very low or even fallen over on the bikeway, especially closer into the city. I wish more cyclists and pedestrian would help because they are a definite source of danger. Two helped me bend one back as far as we could. Be careful. I think the council is going to be overwhelmed. Anthony Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail. _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: 20/11/2008 7:28 PM Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081120/eb4dbc3f/attachment.htm From ben at creative-engineering.com.au Sat Nov 22 18:05:20 2008 From: ben at creative-engineering.com.au (Ben Guymer) Date: Sun Nov 23 15:44:48 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... References: <20081119052857.NKOW1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <267641.75993.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <202FC2E74BB94190898D6FE0BFB4A189@Toaster> Maybe we just have to wait for the wind to stop blowing? ----- Original Message ----- From: Anthony Lee To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... I don't like the really windy bits near the front of the St Lucia golf course club house. Anthony Lee The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords? ........-- __o ....-- _ \<,_ ........(_) / (_) E-Mail: doctorw1963@yahoo.com.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Michael Yeates To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Sent: Wednesday, 19 November, 2008 3:29:04 PM Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... Hi all ... The new "bikeway" bka "shared footpath" beside the St Lucia Golf Course and Hillside Terrace is now open ... or at least the barriers have been removed ...! Feedback welcomed ... MY........................... _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081123/af3caefe/attachment.htm From r.hockey at sph.uq.edu.au Sun Nov 23 21:41:58 2008 From: r.hockey at sph.uq.edu.au (Richard Hockey) Date: Sun Nov 23 21:44:18 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany - Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal Message-ID: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/01441640 701806612 R -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081124/63dd7bba/attachment.htm From kim at teegee.com.au Sun Nov 23 23:49:10 2008 From: kim at teegee.com.au (kim) Date: Sun Nov 23 23:52:47 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> Yes, that's pretty slow for such a long section of a commuter route. Somebody should consider the science of it too; that's pretty hard on most rim brakes on that long a descent. On my back of the envelope calculations that's about 110 Watts of break heating for an 80kg bike/rider as the slope looks to be about 1:20. Now if the rider just cut loose, he or she would probably only reach about 40kph on that slope on a still day due to air resistance which is proportional to the square of your speed and in doing so their rims/brake pads would probably last a lot longer if they are doing it every day. Not everyone is going to have ceramic rims and what about the poor cyclist who is loaded up some extra? I think that QM have very little experience with either pedestrians or cyclists. The Gateway1 was supposed to get an upgrade too as part of the duplication but I don't know if that was just the lane reconfiguration, but it would have made more sense to put the pedestrians on the old bridge and give them a view back to the city if indeed they are going to venture out there for a stroll and a view. Or perhaps even a suspended walkway between the two spans with an 'adventure stroll' replete with wonky big gapped deck. kim Mitch Bright wrote: > I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h > speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway Bridge. > I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would be passing > you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and cyclists aren't > seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit is 15km/h. > > As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE Qld transportation > system (recreational use is a secondary function), the speed limit, > if there is to be one, should be a realistic one for commuter > cyclists to encourage this environmentally sustainable and healthy > transportation choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools > where children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't see > why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a similarly divided > pathway. > > Mitch Bright > > Airport BUG > airportbug@gmail.com > http://airportbug.googlepages.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > bikeqld mailing list > bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld > This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. From aaron_wray at hotmail.com Tue Nov 25 20:37:34 2008 From: aaron_wray at hotmail.com (Aaron Wray) Date: Tue Nov 25 20:37:50 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH Message-ID: FYI This should hopefully be a fairly quick build as they want to finish it around the same time they are opening the new northern busway section. Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial RelationsThe Honourable John Mickel26/11/2008 New Cycle Centre for RBWH Minister for Transport John Mickel has today announced plans to build a new $8 million, 750-bike cycle centre at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital as part of the Queensland Government's Toward Q2 plan. It's no secret that Queensland's rapid population growth is putting our roads and public transport under stress. That's why the Queensland Government is working in many ways to tackle traffic congestion and improve our road network. "Our Toward Q2 goal is to preserve what we love about Queensland, and then make it even better, even greener, and even smarter," Mr Mickel said. The new cycle centre will be constructed with the Northern Busway section from Herston to Windsor. Located next to the hospital, the cycle centre will be accessible to the thousands of people that pass in and out each day; it will be close to the Bowen Hills Urban Development Area; and close to Airport Link connections and the North South Bypass Tunnel. "We recently announced an $18 million boost for 89 new cycle projects across South East Queensland, which will make it easier and quicker to commute for work and leisure," Mr Mickel said. "Cycleways can make a significant contribution to reducing traffic congestion and cutting exhaust gas emissions. "Cycling is smart and it's green." To make cycling and walking a more attractive choice, the Queensland Government is delivering end-of-trip facilities with secure bike storage, showers and ironing areas. The Government has already provided these facilities in some of its own buildings, and has established the popular King George Square Cycle Centre in cooperation with Brisbane City Council. Mr Mickel said that when facilities such as these are built, results are seen. "We make a real difference by putting our plans into action," Mr Mickel said. "The cycle centres and bikeways we have built have resulted in a seven-fold increase in bicycle mode share in the past 20 years. "The wheels are in motion on the new cycle centre at Herston, and I'm advised construction will start early next year." -ends- 26 November 2008 Media contact: Jane Rowe 3406 7664 or 0409 588 302 _________________________________________________________________ Take a summer road trip with Windows Live Hotmail. Multiple prizes and the ultimate dream beach house! http://www.ninemsn.com.au/hotmailroadtrip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081126/b9ca7af7/attachment.htm From akayani at aapt.net.au Tue Nov 25 23:01:35 2008 From: akayani at aapt.net.au (Yani) Date: Tue Nov 25 23:02:36 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When I cycled up to the RBH and tied my bike to a post there were about 5 other cycles about. Strikes me that this stuff is being built on the basis of 'built it and they will come'. Yani _____ From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Aaron Wray Sent: November 26, 2008 12:38 PM To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Subject: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH FYI This should hopefully be a fairly quick build as they want to finish it around the same time they are opening the new northern busway section. Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations The Honourable John Mickel 26/11/2008 New Cycle Centre for RBWH Minister for Transport John Mickel has today announced plans to build a new $8 million, 750-bike cycle centre at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital as part of the Queensland Government's Toward Q2 plan. It's no secret that Queensland's rapid population growth is putting our roads and public transport under stress. That's why the Queensland Government is working in many ways to tackle traffic congestion and improve our road network. "Our Toward Q2 goal is to preserve what we love about Queensland, and then make it even better, even greener, and even smarter," Mr Mickel said. The new cycle centre will be constructed with the Northern Busway section from Herston to Windsor. Located next to the hospital, the cycle centre will be accessible to the thousands of people that pass in and out each day; it will be close to the Bowen Hills Urban Development Area; and close to Airport Link connections and the North South Bypass Tunnel. "We recently announced an $18 million boost for 89 new cycle projects across South East Queensland, which will make it easier and quicker to commute for work and leisure," Mr Mickel said. "Cycleways can make a significant contribution to reducing traffic congestion and cutting exhaust gas emissions. "Cycling is smart and it's green." To make cycling and walking a more attractive choice, the Queensland Government is delivering end-of-trip facilities with secure bike storage, showers and ironing areas. The Government has already provided these facilities in some of its own buildings, and has established the popular King George Square Cycle Centre in cooperation with Brisbane City Council. Mr Mickel said that when facilities such as these are built, results are seen. "We make a real difference by putting our plans into action," Mr Mickel said. "The cycle centres and bikeways we have built have resulted in a seven-fold increase in bicycle mode share in the past 20 years. "The wheels are in motion on the new cycle centre at Herston, and I'm advised construction will start early next year." -ends- 26 November 2008 Media contact: Jane Rowe 3406 7664 or 0409 588 302 _____ Multiple prizes and the ultimate dream beach house! Take a summer road trip with Windows Live Hotmail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081126/42a0fa4a/attachment.htm From akayani at aapt.net.au Wed Nov 26 00:40:12 2008 From: akayani at aapt.net.au (Yani) Date: Wed Nov 26 00:41:11 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH In-Reply-To: References: <9E37AE5261C0457FB24F65143743B849@maud> Message-ID: government 'the provider of substandard facilities since 1788' Love it! That's a perfect by line for the Mayor's emails. government 'drink shit' Anna Bligh could use that one. government 'internet fat controller' There is one for Stephen Con roy. I hope you dudes have made a protest on this 'Australian Firewall for All'. If it was that easy to do without loosing part of what is good then spam would be dead. There is some cash that could go into cycling or kindergartens. http://www.anti-filter.info Yani _____ From: Aaron Wray [mailto:aaron_wray@hotmail.com] Sent: November 26, 2008 4:12 PM To: akayani@aapt.net.au Subject: RE: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH It's a huge place and you were probably parking close to where you wanted to be. How dare you park close to your destination :-). As we have seen with Brisbane Square and the new BCC building not only are the racks so full it's rediculous they are also situated miles away from the library and facilities there. Ah government 'the provider of substandard facilities since 1788'. Cheers aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081126/233837ad/attachment-0001.htm From list-bikeqld at lister.dnsalias.net Wed Nov 26 00:57:07 2008 From: list-bikeqld at lister.dnsalias.net (Ian Lister) Date: Wed Nov 26 00:57:35 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Yani wrote: > When I cycled up to the RBH and tied my bike to a post there were about 5 > other cycles about. The whole Busway and Airport Link schmozzle brought an awful lot of cyclists out of the woodwork there. I believe there's now a sizable and active BUG just for the hospital, despite the negative impact of the construction. > Strikes me that this stuff is being built on the basis of 'built it and > they will come'. Surely that's better than not building it at all? Be careful what you wish for. Ian From akayani at aapt.net.au Wed Nov 26 02:59:07 2008 From: akayani at aapt.net.au (Yani) Date: Wed Nov 26 02:59:20 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C2830FB62E4426A82C1A692B7F7C3CA@maud> Absolutely build away. That is just me commenting on what I saw. 5 bikes. I'm happy to be corrected. Chermside shopping centre have bike racks, not many but a few. To my reckoning there would be no more than an average of 20 bikes on site at any one time. Seems to me that if these facilities are to be maintained over the longer term, the issue is going to be encouraging more commuter cycling. At a personal level what encourages me is NOT owning a car. I suspect you encourage commuter cycling by discouraging car ownership as opposed to making a direct marketing effort to encourage cycling. And somehow in the mix there needs to be a projection that it's not that hard to cycle. Nothing particularly wrong with 'build it and they will come'. That isn't without validity. Perhaps in the case of commuter cycling, a totally practical approach to increasing usage. I think you have to consider 'first car syndrome'. What 17yo can't wait to own a car? If you are going to change commuter patterns it's the 16> crowd that need to be worked with. Prove to them that it is negative to their needs. Do it while they are in school and easy to round up. Yani -----Original Message----- From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Ian Lister Sent: November 26, 2008 4:57 PM To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Subject: RE: [bikeqld] New Cycle Centre for RBWH On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Yani wrote: > When I cycled up to the RBH and tied my bike to a post there were about 5 > other cycles about. The whole Busway and Airport Link schmozzle brought an awful lot of cyclists out of the woodwork there. I believe there's now a sizable and active BUG just for the hospital, despite the negative impact of the construction. > Strikes me that this stuff is being built on the basis of 'built it and > they will come'. Surely that's better than not building it at all? Be careful what you wish for. Ian _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. From museduca at bigpond.net.au Wed Nov 26 14:56:59 2008 From: museduca at bigpond.net.au (Dave Mc) Date: Wed Nov 26 14:57:23 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public Message-ID: from the Audax list- same old? Or are our friendly plods going to be shadowing cyclists in agony in hope they might catch em? :-) read down the news release for the salient bit- although the Audax banter is amusing. -----Original Message----- From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au [mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of peter jenkins Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:41 PM To: 'Mike Boehm' Cc: audax-oz@vicnet.net.au Subject: RE: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance offences:Audaxriders beware Which means that one is more likely to be 'booked' than before as Mr. Plod can simply issue a ticket and not have to worry about the rigmarole of a formal charge, court attendance and so on. But never mind, here is a handy resource: http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ Cheers, Peter Jenkins Email: berlioz@bigpond.net.au Tel. 0407 149375 -----Original Message----- From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au [mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of Mike Boehm Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 7:15 AM To: Audax Mail List Subject: Re: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance offences:Audax riders beware It's not like this has suddenly become an offence. It just means now you won't have to go to court over it. Mike On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Sandy Vigar wrote: > having seen much peeing in public during PBP I thought Audax riders should > be aware of the new laws in Queensland - starting 1/1/09 "urinating in > public" will attract a $100 on the spot fine! > > > ________________________________ > > Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport > The Honourable Judy Spence > 25/11/2008 > > New laws passed for public nuisance offences: Spence > > New laws to allow police to issue on-the-spot fines for public nuisance > offences were today passed by State Parliament. > > Minister for Police and Corrective Services Judy Spence said the new laws > will enable a 12-month trial of the new ticketing system to start on 1 > January 2009 in the Townsville and South Brisbane police districts. > > "The new system will free up the court system, by removing thousands of > public nuisance offences each year," Ms Spence said. > > "It will also mean that police spend less time on court work and will be > able to devote more time to police work in the community. > > "In the trial areas of South Brisbane and Townsville, the Queensland Police > Service reported over 2600 public nuisance offenders over the last year > alone, translating to an estimated saving of over 150 police hours per > month. > > "Under the new system, police will have the power to issue tickets > on-the-spot, as an alternative to arresting the offender and issuing a > notice to appear in court. > > "As part of the new approach, urinating in public will be designated as a > specific public nuisance offence attracting a $100 on-the-spot-fine, > following the increase of penalty units by the Premier today. > > "The maximum penalty for public nuisance offences will be $300, depending > on the seriousness of the offence. > > "Police will also be able to issue tickets and on-the-spot fines for people > who obstruct police or disobey a police direction in relation to public > nuisance offences. > > "These new laws have been introduced in direct response to recommendations > made in a CMC review of public nuisance offences in Queensland." > > Ms Spence said in 2007-08, more than 26,000 public nuisance offences were > recorded in Queensland for disorderly, offensive, threatening and violent > behaviour. > > "While the new approach is expected to significantly reduce the number of > people entering the court system, serious offenders will still be arrested > and charged," she said. > > "By giving police the power to rapidly deal with public nuisance offences > on the spot, the new approach will also allow police to spend more time on > the beat responding to the needs of the community. > > "The new system means that those offenders who do not need to be arrested > can simply receive a ticket for their offence in the same way a person > receives a traffic ticket. > > "In addition, people who have been arrested can later be released and > issued a ticket - reducing the amount of paperwork our frontline police need > to complete. > > "This will be an extra option for police to apply more discretion when > dealing with public nuisance offences, in addition to the existing suite of > options including arrest, issuing a notice to appear, issuing a warning or > issuing a move-on direction." > > Ends > > Media contact: Minister's Office - 3239 6218 > > ============================================================== > > To unsubscribe from the Media Statements mailing list, or change the > minister(s) and/or portfolio(s) to which you are subscribed, please go to > the 'login' page at http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/Login.aspx > Enter the username and password you used to subscribe in the text boxes and > click on the link that allows you to check your subscription details. > The address with which you are subscribed is 'sandy.vigar@erm.com'. Please > ensure that you use the email address exactly as it appears, especially in > relation to upper and lower case characters. > > ________________________________ > This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY > PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM > DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names > herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for > delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, > copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and > take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer > system. Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) has > systems in place to encourage a virus free software environment, however we > cannot be liable for any loss or damage, corruption or distortion of > electronically transmitted information, or for any changes made to this > information during transferral or after receipt by the client. > > Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081127/2469c845/attachment-0001.htm From airportbug at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 16:29:24 2008 From: airportbug at gmail.com (Airport BUG) Date: Wed Nov 26 16:29:38 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> Message-ID: <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Gateway ped-cycleway observation point.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15009 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081127/60fc1dc4/Gatewayped-cyclewayobservationpoint-0001.jpg From michael at yeatesit.biz Wed Nov 26 18:58:52 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Wed Nov 26 18:59:05 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081127005843.XHEQ1935.nschwotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Thanks Dave ... In reality, about as likely to happen as police or local authorities issuing tickets for illegal parking eg on footpaths or in bike lanes. Interesting too that the number and "convenience" of location of public toilets seems to be being reduced so the likelihood indeed inevitability of being caught short must increase esp with an increasing population ...! Perhaps an "its just another tax" campaign similar to the RACQ campaigns against speed cameras would be appropriate if there is any hint that cyclists or other athletes in events or in training are being followed or booked by police ...! MY.......................... At 06:56 AM 27/11/2008, Dave Mc wrote: >from the Audax list- same old? Or are our >friendly plods going to be shadowing cyclists in >agony in hope they might catch em? J read down >the news release for the salient bit- although the Audax banter is amusing > >-----Original Message----- >From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au >[mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of peter jenkins >Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:41 PM >To: 'Mike Boehm' >Cc: audax-oz@vicnet.net.au >Subject: RE: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for >public nuisance offences:Audaxriders beware > >Which means that one is more likely to be 'booked' than before as Mr. Plod >can simply issue a ticket and not have to worry about the rigmarole of a >formal charge, court attendance and so on. > >But never mind, here is a handy resource: > >http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ > >Cheers, > >Peter Jenkins >Email: berlioz@bigpond.net.au >Tel. 0407 149375 >-----Original Message----- >From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au [mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] >On Behalf Of Mike Boehm >Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 7:15 AM >To: Audax Mail List >Subject: Re: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance >offences:Audax riders beware > >It's not like this has suddenly become an offence. It just means now you >won't have to go to court over it. > >Mike > >On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Sandy Vigar wrote: > > > having seen much peeing in public during PBP I thought Audax riders >should > > be aware of the new laws in Queensland - starting 1/1/09 "urinating in > > public" will attract a $100 on the spot fine! > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport > > The Honourable Judy Spence > > 25/11/2008 > > > > New laws passed for public nuisance offences: Spence > > > > New laws to allow police to issue on-the-spot fines for public nuisance > > offences were today passed by State Parliament. > > > > Minister for Police and Corrective Services Judy Spence said the new laws > > will enable a 12-month trial of the new ticketing system to start on 1 > > January 2009 in the Townsville and South Brisbane police districts. > > > > "The new system will free up the court system, by removing thousands of > > public nuisance offences each year," Ms Spence said. > > > > "It will also mean that police spend less time on court work and will be > > able to devote more time to police work in the community. > > > > "In the trial areas of South Brisbane and Townsville, the Queensland >Police > > Service reported over 2600 public nuisance offenders over the last year > > alone, translating to an estimated saving of over 150 police hours per > > month. > > > > "Under the new system, police will have the power to issue tickets > > on-the-spot, as an alternative to arresting the offender and issuing a > > notice to appear in court. > > > > "As part of the new approach, urinating in public will be designated as a > > specific public nuisance offence attracting a $100 on-the-spot-fine, > > following the increase of penalty units by the Premier today. > > > > "The maximum penalty for public nuisance offences will be $300, depending > > on the seriousness of the offence. > > > > "Police will also be able to issue tickets and on-the-spot fines for >people > > who obstruct police or disobey a police direction in relation to public > > nuisance offences. > > > > "These new laws have been introduced in direct response to recommendations > > made in a CMC review of public nuisance offences in Queensland." > > > > Ms Spence said in 2007-08, more than 26,000 public nuisance offences were > > recorded in Queensland for disorderly, offensive, threatening and violent > > behaviour. > > > > "While the new approach is expected to significantly reduce the number of > > people entering the court system, serious offenders will still be arrested > > and charged," she said. > > > > "By giving police the power to rapidly deal with public nuisance offences > > on the spot, the new approach will also allow police to spend more time on > > the beat responding to the needs of the community. > > > > "The new system means that those offenders who do not need to be arrested > > can simply receive a ticket for their offence in the same way a person > > receives a traffic ticket. > > > > "In addition, people who have been arrested can later be released and > > issued a ticket - reducing the amount of paperwork our frontline police >need > > to complete. > > > > "This will be an extra option for police to apply more discretion when > > dealing with public nuisance offences, in addition to the existing suite >of > > options including arrest, issuing a notice to appear, issuing a warning or > > issuing a move-on direction." > > > > Ends > > > > Media contact: Minister's Office - 3239 6218 > > > > ============================================================== > > > > To unsubscribe from the Media Statements mailing list, or change the > > minister(s) and/or portfolio(s) to which you are subscribed, please go to > > the 'login' page at http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/Login.aspx > > Enter the username and password you used to subscribe in the text boxes >and > > click on the link that allows you to check your subscription details. > > The address with which you are subscribed is 'sandy.vigar@erm.com'. Please > > ensure that you use the email address exactly as it appears, especially in > > relation to upper and lower case characters. > > > > ________________________________ > > This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY > > PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM > > DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names > > herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for > > delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that >reading, > > copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received > > this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and > > take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your >computer > > system. Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) has > > systems in place to encourage a virus free software environment, however >we > > cannot be liable for any loss or damage, corruption or distortion of > > electronically transmitted information, or for any changes made to this > > information during transferral or after receipt by the client. > > > > Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com > > >_______________________________________________ >bikeqld mailing list >bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 >- Release Date: 26/11/2008 8:53 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081127/a515d052/attachment.htm From the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 26 20:42:41 2008 From: the_chris_man_50 at yahoo.com (Chris Lewthwaite) Date: Wed Nov 26 20:42:57 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public In-Reply-To: <20081127005843.XHEQ1935.nschwotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <30658.83082.qm@web51512.mail.re2.yahoo.com> More likely just another two-week "crackdown" on an old law that's just been ignored for as long as anyone can remember.? Habitual offenders just need to lay low for long enough for the police to find something else to "crackdown" on, and then life goes on just as it always did.? That said, given the number of bogans on the Gold Coast who don't even have the discretion to go behind a tree, I'm not sure this particular "crackdown" is necessarily a bad thing. --- On Thu, 27/11/08, Michael Yeates wrote: From: Michael Yeates Subject: Re: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public To: "Dave Mc" Cc: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Received: Thursday, 27 November, 2008, 11:58 AM Thanks Dave ... In reality, about as likely to happen as police or local authorities issuing tickets for illegal parking eg on footpaths or in bike lanes. Interesting too that the number and "convenience" of location of public toilets seems to be being reduced so the likelihood indeed inevitability of being caught short must increase esp with an increasing population ...! Perhaps an "its just another tax" campaign similar to the RACQ campaigns against speed cameras would be appropriate if there is any hint that cyclists or other athletes in events or in training are being followed or booked by police ...! MY.......................... ?At 06:56 AM 27/11/2008, Dave Mc wrote: from the Audax list- same old? Or are our friendly plods going to be shadowing cyclists in agony in hope they might catch em? J read down the news release for the salient bit- although the Audax banter is amusing? ? -----Original Message----- From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au [ mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of peter jenkins Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:41 PM To: 'Mike Boehm' Cc: audax-oz@vicnet.net.au Subject: RE: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance offences:Audaxriders beware ? Which means that one is more likely to be 'booked' than before as Mr. Plod can simply issue a ticket and not have to worry about the rigmarole of a formal charge, court attendance and so on. ? But never mind, here is a handy resource: ? http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ ? Cheers, ? Peter Jenkins Email: berlioz@bigpond.net.au Tel. 0407 149375 -----Original Message----- From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au [ mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of Mike Boehm Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 7:15 AM To: Audax Mail List Subject: Re: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance offences:Audax riders beware ? It's not like this has suddenly become an offence. It just means now you won't have to go to court over it. ? Mike ? On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Sandy Vigar wrote: ? > having seen much peeing in public during PBP? I thought Audax riders should > be aware of the new laws in Queensland - starting 1/1/09 "urinating in > public" will attract a $100 on the spot fine! > > > ________________________________ > > Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport > The Honourable Judy Spence > 25/11/2008 > > New laws passed for public nuisance offences: Spence > > New laws to allow police to issue on-the-spot fines for public nuisance > offences were today passed by State Parliament. > > Minister for Police and Corrective Services Judy Spence said the new laws > will enable a 12-month trial of the new ticketing system to start on 1 > January 2009 in the Townsville and South Brisbane police districts. > > "The new system will free up the court system, by removing thousands of > public nuisance offences each year," Ms Spence said. > > "It will also mean that police spend less time on court work and will be > able to devote more time to police work in the community. > > "In the trial areas of South Brisbane and Townsville, the Queensland Police > Service reported over 2600 public nuisance offenders over the last year > alone, translating to an estimated saving of over 150 police hours per > month. > > "Under the new system, police will have the power to issue tickets > on-the-spot, as an alternative to arresting the offender and issuing a > notice to appear in court. > > "As part of the new approach, urinating in public will be designated as a > specific public nuisance offence attracting a $100 on-the-spot-fine, > following the increase of penalty units by the Premier today. > > "The maximum penalty for public nuisance offences will be $300, depending > on the seriousness of the offence. > > "Police will also be able to issue tickets and on-the-spot fines for people > who obstruct police or disobey a police direction in relation to public > nuisance offences. > > "These new laws have been introduced in direct response to recommendations > made in a CMC review of public nuisance offences in Queensland." > > Ms Spence said in 2007-08, more than 26,000 public nuisance offences were > recorded in Queensland for disorderly, offensive, threatening and violent > behaviour. > > "While the new approach is expected to significantly reduce the number of > people entering the court system, serious offenders will still be arrested > and charged," she said. > > "By giving police the power to rapidly deal with public nuisance offences > on the spot, the new approach will also allow police to spend more time on > the beat responding to the needs of the community. > > "The new system means that those offenders who do not need to be arrested > can simply receive a ticket for their offence in the same way a person > receives a traffic ticket. > > "In addition, people who have been arrested can later be released and > issued a ticket - reducing the amount of paperwork our frontline police need > to complete. > > "This will be an extra option for police to apply more discretion when > dealing with public nuisance offences, in addition to the existing suite of > options including arrest, issuing a notice to appear, issuing a warning or > issuing a move-on direction." > > Ends > > Media contact: Minister's Office - 3239 6218 > > ============================================================== > > To unsubscribe from the Media Statements mailing list, or change the > minister(s) and/or portfolio(s) to which you are subscribed, please go to > the 'login' page at http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/Login.aspx > Enter the username and password you used to subscribe in the text boxes and > click on the link that allows you to check your subscription details. > The address with which you are subscribed is 'sandy.vigar@erm.com'. Please > ensure that you use the email address exactly as it appears, especially in > relation to upper and lower case characters. > > ________________________________ > This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY > PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM > DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names > herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for > delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, > copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and > take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer > system. Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) has > systems in place to encourage a virus free software environment, however we > cannot be liable for any loss or damage, corruption or distortion of > electronically transmitted information, or for any changes made to this > information during transferral or after receipt by the client. > > Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com > _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 - Release Date: 26/11/2008 8:53 AM _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081126/a389f06d/attachment-0001.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Wed Nov 26 21:24:36 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Wed Nov 26 21:24:53 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.co m> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Thanks Mitch ... really good to have the detailed info ... (below ... in the following email from Airport BUG) However the info is confusing in terms of commonly accepted "standard" practices ... so much so that I trust it is not correct. It is a "good news and bad news" problem/dilemma..! I recall one political leader referring to "life wasn't meant to be easy" and another closer to home referring to the problem he described as "having a leg either side of a barbed wire fence" ... both are appropriate ... and both are appropriate here. Perhaps today the challenge is the challenge of populism and the desire for popular political support? According to my reading of AUSTROADS Part 14, there is no such thing as a "shared path" with the markings as described below ... see the bits now in bold ...!!! "Shared use paths" are obvious and are widely used here in Brisbane and elsewhere (eg see Pt 14 Fig 6-16) ... single centreline with pedestrian and cyclist traffic flowing in the same direction "sharing" the space to the left of the centreline and the wider the better, so cyclists can travel to the right of that "shared" space while pedestrians and slower cyclists travel to the left. What is described below based on the proposed markings would seem to be a "separated path" (see Pt 14 6.6.2 and Fig 6-20). It is not at all clear why a "separated path" has been selected for this project (and for consistency presumably selected for all or many other parts of the Gateway cycle network project and maybe other parts of the same network elsewhere?) given separated paths "are not common because they are generally considered to be justified only where there are large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists" (Pt 14 6.6.2.1 my underlining added). As a "shared path" gives far greater with and area flexibility for large numbers of pedestrians OR cyclists at the same time, it seems reasonable to assume these large numbers would only be of significance sufficient to justify a "separated path" if occurring more or less simultaneously when by way of the narrow spaces provided, both groups would be compromised. Is that really likely? When it does occur eg if a large ship or special aircraft can be viewed, surely non-compliance would be accepted as inevitable? If that does occur will the current design perform as intended and in compliance with the regulatory signs necessary to encourage and if necessary enforce compliance? If not, why bother with it? Why not use the generally accepted widely used shared path configuration? Perhaps only for consistency and hopefully understanding of use? As it is only about paint, the markings can be changed ... best to sort out now of course ... but always possible later. Far worse however, from a cycling perspective, 2.55m does not appear to comply with ANY known accepted cycling facility design standard based on the accepted operational space plus clearances requirements (eg see Pt 14 pp 70-73) AND the expected use by pedestrians and by cyclists. I am happy to be corrected and to have the basis for the selection of that width demonstrated with appropriate references. Clearly what is needed to test this width is the provision of a continuous physical "median" barrier to ensure (most) cyclists (and peds) stay in their proscribed area ...! A 150mm high kerb (as at Kangaroo Point ... see Pt 14 Fig 6-20) but painted and with solar powered or other night lighting in the edge of the kerb would do the trick. There is then no need for (much) further width to be added due to the barrier itself (see Pt 14 Fig 6-22) noting however that it would appear 200mm clearance from the kerb PLUS the kerb width should be added to the total width of the cycling section of the separated path (or more accurately subtracted from the operational areas of both cyclists and pedestrians). And on my reading of Pt 14, the cycling section should be designed as a cyclist only (ie "exclusive use") path and arguably should be a 3m wide path for operational reasons but that is only the travel path width as it is then necessary to ADD the required clearances to adjacent obstructions ie 300-500mm from the barrier between the path and the motorised traffic (see Fig 3-1) given it is being designed for high volumes of cyclists (and pedestrians). It really is very disappointing we continue to have such poorly designed and (apparently) non-compliant and/or compromised facilities being "praised" albeit as better than nothing ... when this project (once it was accepted as a necessary link in the cycling network) started as a major component of a major inter-urban bicycle network component ... one where large groups of cyclists are inevitable and where a mix of fast and slow, experienced and inexperienced cyclists (and pedestrians) are inevitable ... sometimes time separated, but at most times probably not. As for the "recommended speed" that is (as I think has been suggested previously) a means to try to shift liability (as are the yellow advisory speed limit signs on roads) in the event of an incident ... but also is probably a direct result of the chosen design not appearing to comply with Part 14 ... ie appearing to be yet another example in a long line of "sub-standard to minimum" or compromised facilities being provided and presumably assuming that numbers cycling won't increase much. Is the risk management document available to you/us? If so, it would be very useful if you would request a copy so it can be reviewed. If not, maybe a case for FOI ...? It may also be the case that the selected design width is similar to that at Kangaroo Point but do we necessarily need to refer to previous (now) substandard facilities to justify new ones, esp where widening in the future seems improbable? When does "better than nothing" become unacceptable? Or do we just keep on accepting "better than nothing" ? Should projects like this clearly comply with Pt 14 or similar so understanding of operation is more widely understood? How much compromise is reasonable especially if a serious or fatal injury event were to occur? As for the water being in the pipes for up to 2 years ... mmmmmmmmmm ... is this put forward seriously? If so, then hardly a site for so many pedestrians and cyclists as necessary to justify a "separated path" rather than a "shared path". Maybe it was proposed to use these sites to test and promote recycled water and it was thought nobody would drink it? Happy to discuss in more detail off-line but difficult to go beyond reference to Pt 14 in public without the documentation relied upon by the "risk management team". Michael Yeates Convenor BURG ............... At 08:29 AM 27/11/2008, Airport BUG wrote: >I attended a breifing yesterday on the Gateway Bridge cycle and >pedestrian path final design with the builders of the new bridge >,Leighton Abigroup Joint Venture. > >The welcome news is that the 10km/h speed limit is a recommended speed. > >The risk management team say this is a safe speed cycling through >pedestrians. They emphasised that this is a recommended speed not a >mandated speed. > >Some more details regarding the shared path for those interested : > >The designers confirmed the path will be a 4.25 m wide shared >concrete surface path, with a white dividing line and markings >indicating cyclists to one side and pedestrians to the other. The >division will be 1.7 m width for pedestrians and 2.55 m width for >cyclists. ( Pedestrian walking area will be on the outside with the >view and cyclists on the road side). > >The path incorporates 4 viewing stops ( see attached photos) with >shelter and emergency telephones. There are also drinking fountains >at the two lower stops but not at the higher stops. (apparently a >problem getting water quality at the higher stops because it would >be in the pipes too long- 2 years). > >The path will have concrete walls and wire mesh screens on top of >the concrete on both sides. The wire is apparently unclimbable. > >All over it looks like a pretty good facility and we could have done >a lot worse. It will be a uplifting view to start the day for >airport workers who cycle commute across that way. > > Mitch Bright >Airport BUG >airportbug@gmail.com >http://airportbug.googlepages.com > > >On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, kim ><kim@teegee.com.au> wrote: >Yes, that's pretty slow for such a long section of a commuter route. >Somebody should consider the science of it too; that's pretty hard >on most rim brakes on that long a descent. On my back of the >envelope calculations that's about 110 Watts of break heating for an >80kg bike/rider as the slope looks to be about 1:20. Now if the >rider just cut loose, he or she would probably only reach about >40kph on that slope on a still day due to air resistance which is >proportional to the square of your speed and in doing so their >rims/brake pads would probably last a lot longer if they are doing >it every day. Not everyone is going to have ceramic rims and what >about the poor cyclist who is loaded up some extra? >I think that QM have very little experience with either pedestrians >or cyclists. >The Gateway1 was supposed to get an upgrade too as part of the >duplication but I don't know if that was just the lane >reconfiguration, but it would have made more sense to put the >pedestrians on the old bridge and give them a view back to the city >if indeed they are going to venture out there for a stroll and a >view. Or perhaps even a suspended walkway between the two spans with >an 'adventure stroll' replete with wonky big gapped deck. >kim > > >Mitch Bright wrote: >I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h >speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway >Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would be >passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and cyclists >aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit is 15km/h. As >the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE Qld transportation >system (recreational use is a secondary function), the speed limit, >if there is to be one, should be a realistic one for commuter >cyclists to encourage this environmentally sustainable and healthy >transportation choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools >where children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't see >why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a similarly divided pathway. > >Mitch Bright > Airport BUG >airportbug@gmail.com > >http://airportbug.googlepages.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081127/4db98270/attachment.htm From kim at teegee.com.au Fri Nov 28 22:04:58 2008 From: kim at teegee.com.au (kim) Date: Fri Nov 28 22:08:28 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4930BF6A.1010806@teegee.com.au> Police now targeting wee wee! Dave Mc wrote: > > /from the Audax list- same old? Or are our friendly plods going to be > shadowing cyclists in agony in hope they might catch em? //J read down > the news release for the salient bit- although the Audax banter is > amusing?/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au > [mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of peter jenkins > Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:41 PM > To: 'Mike Boehm' > Cc: audax-oz@vicnet.net.au > Subject: RE: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance > offences:Audaxriders beware > > Which means that one is more likely to be 'booked' than before as Mr. Plod > > can simply issue a ticket and not have to worry about the rigmarole of a > > formal charge, court attendance and so on. > > But never mind, here is a handy resource: > > http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ > > Cheers, > From akayani at aapt.net.au Fri Nov 28 22:35:32 2008 From: akayani at aapt.net.au (Yani) Date: Fri Nov 28 22:35:41 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public Message-ID: <3AA6476865BF431B9B72307DF9AC28CF@maud> Police now targeting the piss out of you. Yani -----Original Message----- From: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of kim Sent: November 29, 2008 2:05 PM To: BikeQld Subject: Re: [bikeqld] new Qld nuisance laws- including urinating in public Police now targeting wee wee! Dave Mc wrote: > > /from the Audax list- same old? Or are our friendly plods going to be > shadowing cyclists in agony in hope they might catch em? //J read down > the news release for the salient bit- although the Audax banter is > amusing./ > > -----Original Message----- > From: audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au > [mailto:audax-oz-bounces@vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of peter jenkins > Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:41 PM > To: 'Mike Boehm' > Cc: audax-oz@vicnet.net.au > Subject: RE: [audax-oz] FW: New laws passed for public nuisance > offences:Audaxriders beware > > Which means that one is more likely to be 'booked' than before as Mr. Plod > > can simply issue a ticket and not have to worry about the rigmarole of a > > formal charge, court attendance and so on. > > But never mind, here is a handy resource: > > http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ > > Cheers, > _______________________________________________ bikeqld mailing list bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. From kim at teegee.com.au Fri Nov 28 22:53:15 2008 From: kim at teegee.com.au (kim) Date: Fri Nov 28 22:56:46 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> You raise some good points Michael, in essence, what is the best way to share a pathway between cyclists and pedestrians and all the variations on those users, given the limited (yes, substandard) width? Obviously the Austroads guide favours better widths but here we have a narrow reality. It is probably true that they/we don't know what the traffic patterns will be like either, so some sort of future-flexible arrangement might be good. I would have thought a narrower pedestrian section might be acceptable/tolerable but that may not be the case. Even in the case of a shared path arrangement giving a more flexible space, it would be hard to justify commuter speed cyclists mixed with pedestrians and that would probably result in a slower commute for cyclists as a posted speed limit would probably be mandatory (and of course there's that wear and tear on the rims with the braking every day). So how do you optimize the use of this reduced space? Perhaps the separated path without any barrier to provide overtaking options and no need for a speed limit to keep the lawyers at bay might be the best for now. If traffic volumes are a real problem, perhaps even some priority lane for cyclists during commute hours could work and allow pedestrians on outside of those hours. Have you noticed that the Kangaroo Point example of a separated (albeit a substandard one) has had a 10kph speed limit now for some time, hopefully that's not the same motivation for the 10kph 'recommended speed' on the Gateway2. BCC's ATU said that they really don't like to use speed limit signs on bike paths because it was not a requirement to have a speedo on a bike and so it was a grey area just a few months before the Council installed those signs, so I don't think the push comes from the Active Transport area, its more likely from the legal eagles protecting Council's collective bottom. Perhaps, if in time the cycle traffic does dominate the route, then it may be possible to build a lightweight steel gantry structure overhead and dedicate this to pedestrians and give the whole 4.25m to cyclists, now there's hoping! k Michael Yeates wrote: > Thanks Mitch ... really good to have the detailed info ... (below ... > in the following email from Airport BUG) > > However the info is confusing in terms of commonly accepted "standard" > practices ... so much so that I trust it is not correct. It is a "good > news and bad news" problem/dilemma..! > > I recall one political leader referring to "life wasn't meant to be > easy" and another closer to home referring to the problem he described > as "having a leg either side of a barbed wire fence" ... both are > appropriate ... and both are appropriate here. Perhaps today the > challenge is the challenge of populism and the desire for popular > political support? > > According to my reading of AUSTROADS Part 14, there is no such thing > as a "shared path" with the markings as described below ... see the > bits now in bold ...!!! > > "Shared use paths" are obvious and are widely used here in Brisbane > and elsewhere (eg see Pt 14 Fig 6-16) ... single centreline with > pedestrian and cyclist traffic flowing in the same direction "sharing" > the space to the left of the centreline and the wider the better, so > cyclists can travel to the right of that "shared" space while > pedestrians and slower cyclists travel to the left. > > What is described below based on the proposed markings would seem to > be a "separated path" (see Pt 14 6.6.2 and Fig 6-20). > > It is not at all clear why a "separated path" has been selected for > this project (and for consistency presumably selected for all or many > other parts of the Gateway cycle network project and maybe other parts > of the same network elsewhere?) given separated paths "are not common > because they are generally considered to be justified _only_ where > there are _large numbers_ of pedestrians _and_ cyclists" (Pt 14 > 6.6.2.1 my underlining added). > > As a "shared path" gives far greater with and area flexibility for > large numbers of pedestrians OR cyclists at the same time, it seems > reasonable to assume these large numbers would only be of significance > sufficient to justify a "separated path" if occurring more or less > simultaneously when by way of the narrow spaces provided, both groups > would be compromised. > > Is that really likely? When it does occur eg if a large ship or > special aircraft can be viewed, surely non-compliance would be > accepted as inevitable? > > If that does occur will the current design perform as intended and in > compliance with the regulatory signs necessary to encourage and if > necessary enforce compliance? > > If not, why bother with it? Why not use the generally accepted widely > used shared path configuration? Perhaps only for consistency and > hopefully understanding of use? > > As it is only about paint, the markings can be changed ... best to > sort out now of course ... but always possible later. > > Far worse however, from a cycling perspective, 2.55m does not appear > to comply with ANY known accepted cycling facility design standard > based on the accepted operational space plus clearances requirements > (eg see Pt 14 pp 70-73) AND the expected use by pedestrians and by > cyclists. I am happy to be corrected and to have the basis for the > selection of that width demonstrated with appropriate references. > > Clearly what is needed to test this width is the provision of a > continuous physical "median" barrier to ensure (most) cyclists (and > peds) stay in their proscribed area ...! > > A 150mm high kerb (as at Kangaroo Point ... see Pt 14 Fig 6-20) but > painted and with solar powered or other night lighting in the edge of > the kerb would do the trick. > > There is then no need for (much) further width to be added due to the > barrier itself (see Pt 14 Fig 6-22) noting however that it would > appear 200mm clearance from the kerb PLUS the kerb width should be > added to the total width of the cycling section of the separated path > (or more accurately subtracted from the operational areas of both > cyclists and pedestrians). > > And on my reading of Pt 14, the cycling section should be designed as > a cyclist only (ie "exclusive use") path and arguably should be a 3m > wide path for operational reasons but that is only the travel path > width as it is then necessary to ADD the required clearances to > adjacent obstructions ie 300-500mm from the barrier between the path > and the motorised traffic (see Fig 3-1) given it is being designed for > high volumes of cyclists (and pedestrians). > > It really is very disappointing we continue to have such poorly > designed and (apparently) non-compliant and/or compromised facilities > being "praised" albeit as better than nothing ... when this project > (once it was accepted as a necessary link in the cycling network) > started as a major component of a major inter-urban bicycle network > component ... one where large groups of cyclists are inevitable and > where a mix of fast and slow, experienced and inexperienced cyclists > (and pedestrians) are inevitable ... sometimes time separated, but at > most times probably not. > > As for the "recommended speed" that is (as I think has been suggested > previously) a means to try to shift liability (as are the yellow > advisory speed limit signs on roads) in the event of an incident ... > but also is probably a direct result of the chosen design not > appearing to comply with Part 14 ... ie appearing to be yet another > example in a long line of "sub-standard to minimum" or compromised > facilities being provided and presumably assuming that numbers cycling > won't increase much. > > Is the risk management document available to you/us? If so, it would > be very useful if you would request a copy so it can be reviewed. If > not, maybe a case for FOI ...? > > It may also be the case that the selected design width is similar to > that at Kangaroo Point but do we necessarily need to refer to previous > (now) substandard facilities to justify new ones, esp where widening > in the future seems improbable? > > When does "better than nothing" become unacceptable? Or do we just > keep on accepting "better than nothing" ? > > Should projects like this clearly comply with Pt 14 or similar so > understanding of operation is more widely understood? > > How much compromise is reasonable especially if a serious or fatal > injury event were to occur? > > As for the water being in the pipes for up to 2 years ... mmmmmmmmmm > ... is this put forward seriously? If so, then hardly a site for so > many pedestrians _and_ cyclists as necessary to justify a "separated > path" rather than a "shared path". Maybe it was proposed to use these > sites to test and promote recycled water and it was thought nobody > would drink it? > > Happy to discuss in more detail off-line but difficult to go beyond > reference to Pt 14 in public without the documentation relied upon by > the "risk management team". > > Michael Yeates > Convenor > BURG ............... > > At 08:29 AM 27/11/2008, Airport BUG wrote: > >> I attended a breifing yesterday on the Gateway Bridge cycle and >> pedestrian path final design with the builders of the new bridge >> ,Leighton Abigroup Joint Venture. >> >> The welcome news is that the 10km/h speed limit is a recommended speed. >> >> The risk management team say this is a safe speed cycling through >> pedestrians. They emphasised that this is a recommended speed not a >> mandated speed. >> >> Some more details regarding the *shared path* for those interested : >> >> The designers confirmed the path will be a 4.25 m wide *shared >> concrete surface path*, with a white dividing line and *markings >> indicating cyclists to one side and pedestrians to the other*. The >> division will be 1.7 m width for pedestrians and 2.55 m width for >> cyclists. ( Pedestrian walking area will be on the outside with the >> view and cyclists on the road side). >> >> The path incorporates 4 viewing stops ( see attached photos) with >> shelter and emergency telephones. There are also drinking fountains >> at the two lower stops but not at the higher stops. (apparently a >> problem getting water quality at the higher stops because it would be >> in the pipes too long- 2 years). >> >> The path will have concrete walls and wire mesh screens on top of the >> concrete on both sides. The wire is apparently unclimbable. >> >> All over it looks like a pretty good facility and we could have done >> a lot worse. It will be a uplifting view to start the day for >> airport workers who cycle commute across that way. >> >> Mitch Bright >> Airport BUG >> airportbug@gmail.com >> http://airportbug.googlepages.com >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, kim > > wrote: >> >> Yes, that's pretty slow for such a long section of a commuter >> route. Somebody should consider the science of it too; that's >> pretty hard on most rim brakes on that long a descent. On my back >> of the envelope calculations that's about 110 Watts of break >> heating for an 80kg bike/rider as the slope looks to be about >> 1:20. Now if the rider just cut loose, he or she would probably >> only reach about 40kph on that slope on a still day due to air >> resistance which is proportional to the square of your speed and >> in doing so their rims/brake pads would probably last a lot >> longer if they are doing it every day. Not everyone is going to >> have ceramic rims and what about the poor cyclist who is loaded >> up some extra? >> I think that QM have very little experience with either >> pedestrians or cyclists. >> The Gateway1 was supposed to get an upgrade too as part of the >> duplication but I don't know if that was just the lane >> reconfiguration, but it would have made more sense to put the >> pedestrians on the old bridge and give them a view back to the >> city if indeed they are going to venture out there for a stroll >> and a view. Or perhaps even a suspended walkway between the two >> spans with an 'adventure stroll' replete with wonky big gapped deck. >> kim >> >> >> Mitch Bright wrote: >> >> I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h >> speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway >> Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would >> be passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and >> cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit >> is 15km/h. As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE >> Qld transportation system (recreational use is a secondary >> function), the speed limit, if there is to be one, should >> be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this >> environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation >> choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools where >> children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't >> see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a >> similarly divided pathway. >> >> Mitch Bright >> Airport BUG >> airportbug@gmail.com < >> mailto:airportbug@gmail.com> >> http://airportbug.googlepages.com >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> From kim at teegee.com.au Fri Nov 28 23:28:57 2008 From: kim at teegee.com.au (kim) Date: Fri Nov 28 23:32:23 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... In-Reply-To: <20081119052857.NKOW1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> References: <20081119052857.NKOW1284.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <4930D319.5000804@teegee.com.au> What it didn't rank a ribbon cutting ceremony? Did you notice whether they had installed trackside LED lighting or reflective devices anywhere along there? Tried it out after hours? I will check it out some time but I think Hillside Tce itself is a much better/safer option unless you are riding a border collie. k ps I notice that Council is now fitting those recessed solar LED lights that they first used in Cliveden Pk and have retrofitted those in the notoriously dark section of Anzac Park in Toowong where the raised lights were constantly being 'mowed' off. I think the MR section will not have them tho. They are very sparsely placed and white only both sides so it is a little confusing if you are not familiar with the bends but they do help some. Michael Yeates wrote: > Hi all ... > > The new "bikeway" bka "shared footpath" beside the St Lucia Golf > Course and Hillside Terrace is now open ... or at least the barriers > have been removed ...! > > Feedback welcomed ... > > MY........................... > > _______________________________________________ > bikeqld mailing list > bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld > This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > > From michael at yeatesit.biz Sat Nov 29 00:38:34 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Sat Nov 29 00:38:40 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> Message-ID: <20081129063822.HTTZ3267.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Tks Kim ... You mention the speed limit issue ... What amazes me is the way the various government agencies keep returning to try on the same old furphies ... and blow me down, nobody seems to notice ...! Certainly there would appear to be a complete lack of Quality Assurance ...! Its hard to tell whether it is the same old people IN the agencies and/or consultancies once they see new people in the various "advocacy" roles, or it is the new people in the advocacy roles who are quite happy to "go along" with what they assume is acceptable .. based on what has been built ...! Or maybe nobody notices or nobody cares? Narrow "substandard" paths, not shared but without barriers (because the scheme won't work if there ARE barriers) ... reliance on regulatory signs but no enforcement likely ... etc etc But reliance on speed limits as distinct from advisory speed limits ... THAT was dispensed with years ago when BCC tried to put a speed limit on the Coro Drive shared footpath ... and very quickly it was withdrawn when it was pointed out that such a speed limit was unenforceable. BTW it is enforceable at South Bank because it has private property status ie entry is conditional and so is cycling on the permitted sections of the South Bank system of footpaths. Anything changed ... nope ...! Maybe the Gateway is not a public road ... but "owned" by the private company that "owns" the motorways? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....! I guess the way I see it, IF cyclists MUST give way to peds on a shared path, then it is better to have a maximum width shared path that have a narrow BIKES ONLY path with a 10km/h speed limit that nobody obeys and regulatory signs that nobody obeys ... assuming cyclists are hoping to be able to not comply with the segregated path ... ;-) Surely not??? Another opportunity to criticise cyclists? MY..................... At 02:53 PM 29/11/2008, kim wrote: >You raise some good points Michael, in essence, what is the best way >to share a pathway between cyclists and pedestrians and all the >variations on those users, given the limited (yes, substandard) >width? Obviously the Austroads guide favours better widths but here >we have a narrow reality. It is probably true that they/we don't >know what the traffic patterns will be like either, so some sort of >future-flexible arrangement might be good. I would have thought a >narrower pedestrian section might be acceptable/tolerable but that >may not be the case. Even in the case of a shared path arrangement >giving a more flexible space, it would be hard to justify commuter >speed cyclists mixed with pedestrians and that would probably result >in a slower commute for cyclists as a posted speed limit would >probably be mandatory (and of course there's that wear and tear on >the rims with the braking every day). > >So how do you optimize the use of this reduced space? Perhaps the >separated path without any barrier to provide overtaking options and >no need for a speed limit to keep the lawyers at bay might be the best for now. > >If traffic volumes are a real problem, perhaps even some priority >lane for cyclists during commute hours could work and allow >pedestrians on outside of those hours. > >Have you noticed that the Kangaroo Point example of a separated >(albeit a substandard one) has had a 10kph speed limit now for some >time, hopefully that's not the same motivation for the 10kph >'recommended speed' on the Gateway2. BCC's ATU said that they really >don't like to use speed limit signs on bike paths because it was not >a requirement to have a speedo on a bike and so it was a grey area >just a few months before the Council installed those signs, so I >don't think the push comes from the Active Transport area, its more >likely from the legal eagles protecting Council's collective bottom. > > >Perhaps, if in time the cycle traffic does dominate the route, then >it may be possible to build a lightweight steel gantry structure >overhead and dedicate this to pedestrians and give the whole 4.25m >to cyclists, now there's hoping! > >k > > >Michael Yeates wrote: >>Thanks Mitch ... really good to have the detailed info ... (below >>... in the following email from Airport BUG) >> >>However the info is confusing in terms of commonly accepted >>"standard" practices ... so much so that I trust it is not correct. >>It is a "good news and bad news" problem/dilemma..! >> >>I recall one political leader referring to "life wasn't meant to be >>easy" and another closer to home referring to the problem he >>described as "having a leg either side of a barbed wire fence" ... >>both are appropriate ... and both are appropriate here. Perhaps >>today the challenge is the challenge of populism and the desire for >>popular political support? >> >>According to my reading of AUSTROADS Part 14, there is no such >>thing as a "shared path" with the markings as described below ... >>see the bits now in bold ...!!! >> >>"Shared use paths" are obvious and are widely used here in Brisbane >>and elsewhere (eg see Pt 14 Fig 6-16) ... single centreline with >>pedestrian and cyclist traffic flowing in the same direction >>"sharing" the space to the left of the centreline and the wider the >>better, so cyclists can travel to the right of that "shared" space >>while pedestrians and slower cyclists travel to the left. >> >>What is described below based on the proposed markings would seem >>to be a "separated path" (see Pt 14 6.6.2 and Fig 6-20). >> >>It is not at all clear why a "separated path" has been selected for >>this project (and for consistency presumably selected for all or >>many other parts of the Gateway cycle network project and maybe >>other parts of the same network elsewhere?) given separated paths >>"are not common because they are generally considered to be >>justified _only_ where there are _large numbers_ of pedestrians >>_and_ cyclists" (Pt 14 6.6.2.1 my underlining added). >> >>As a "shared path" gives far greater with and area flexibility for >>large numbers of pedestrians OR cyclists at the same time, it seems >>reasonable to assume these large numbers would only be of >>significance sufficient to justify a "separated path" if occurring >>more or less simultaneously when by way of the narrow spaces >>provided, both groups would be compromised. >> >>Is that really likely? When it does occur eg if a large ship or >>special aircraft can be viewed, surely non-compliance would be >>accepted as inevitable? >> >>If that does occur will the current design perform as intended and >>in compliance with the regulatory signs necessary to encourage and >>if necessary enforce compliance? >> >>If not, why bother with it? Why not use the generally accepted >>widely used shared path configuration? Perhaps only for consistency >>and hopefully understanding of use? >> >>As it is only about paint, the markings can be changed ... best to >>sort out now of course ... but always possible later. >> >>Far worse however, from a cycling perspective, 2.55m does not >>appear to comply with ANY known accepted cycling facility design >>standard based on the accepted operational space plus clearances >>requirements (eg see Pt 14 pp 70-73) AND the expected use by >>pedestrians and by cyclists. I am happy to be corrected and to have >>the basis for the selection of that width demonstrated with >>appropriate references. >> >>Clearly what is needed to test this width is the provision of a >>continuous physical "median" barrier to ensure (most) cyclists (and >>peds) stay in their proscribed area ...! >> >>A 150mm high kerb (as at Kangaroo Point ... see Pt 14 Fig 6-20) >>but painted and with solar powered or other night lighting in the >>edge of the kerb would do the trick. >> >>There is then no need for (much) further width to be added due to >>the barrier itself (see Pt 14 Fig 6-22) noting however that it >>would appear 200mm clearance from the kerb PLUS the kerb width >>should be added to the total width of the cycling section of the >>separated path (or more accurately subtracted from the operational >>areas of both cyclists and pedestrians). >> >>And on my reading of Pt 14, the cycling section should be designed >>as a cyclist only (ie "exclusive use") path and arguably should be >>a 3m wide path for operational reasons but that is only the travel >>path width as it is then necessary to ADD the required clearances >>to adjacent obstructions ie 300-500mm from the barrier between the >>path and the motorised traffic (see Fig 3-1) given it is being >>designed for high volumes of cyclists (and pedestrians). >>It really is very disappointing we continue to have such poorly >>designed and (apparently) non-compliant and/or compromised >>facilities being "praised" albeit as better than nothing ... when >>this project (once it was accepted as a necessary link in the >>cycling network) started as a major component of a major >>inter-urban bicycle network component ... one where large groups of >>cyclists are inevitable and where a mix of fast and slow, >>experienced and inexperienced cyclists (and pedestrians) are >>inevitable ... sometimes time separated, but at most times probably not. >> >>As for the "recommended speed" that is (as I think has been >>suggested previously) a means to try to shift liability (as are the >>yellow advisory speed limit signs on roads) in the event of an >>incident ... but also is probably a direct result of the chosen >>design not appearing to comply with Part 14 ... ie appearing to be >>yet another example in a long line of "sub-standard to minimum" or >>compromised facilities being provided and presumably assuming that >>numbers cycling won't increase much. >> >>Is the risk management document available to you/us? If so, it >>would be very useful if you would request a copy so it can be >>reviewed. If not, maybe a case for FOI ...? >> >>It may also be the case that the selected design width is similar >>to that at Kangaroo Point but do we necessarily need to refer to >>previous (now) substandard facilities to justify new ones, esp >>where widening in the future seems improbable? >> >>When does "better than nothing" become unacceptable? Or do we just >>keep on accepting "better than nothing" ? >>Should projects like this clearly comply with Pt 14 or similar so >>understanding of operation is more widely understood? >> >>How much compromise is reasonable especially if a serious or fatal >>injury event were to occur? >> >>As for the water being in the pipes for up to 2 years ... >>mmmmmmmmmm ... is this put forward seriously? If so, then hardly a >>site for so many pedestrians _and_ cyclists as necessary to justify >>a "separated path" rather than a "shared path". Maybe it was >>proposed to use these sites to test and promote recycled water and >>it was thought nobody would drink it? >> >>Happy to discuss in more detail off-line but difficult to go beyond >>reference to Pt 14 in public without the documentation relied upon >>by the "risk management team". >> >>Michael Yeates >>Convenor >>BURG ............... >> >>At 08:29 AM 27/11/2008, Airport BUG wrote: >> >>>I attended a breifing yesterday on the Gateway Bridge cycle and >>>pedestrian path final design with the builders of the new bridge >>>,Leighton Abigroup Joint Venture. >>> >>>The welcome news is that the 10km/h speed limit is a recommended >>>speed. The risk management team say this is a safe speed cycling >>>through pedestrians. They emphasised that this is a recommended >>>speed not a mandated speed. >>> >>>Some more details regarding the *shared path* for those interested : >>> >>>The designers confirmed the path will be a 4.25 m wide *shared >>>concrete surface path*, with a white dividing line and *markings >>>indicating cyclists to one side and pedestrians to the other*. The >>>division will be 1.7 m width for pedestrians and 2.55 m width for >>>cyclists. ( Pedestrian walking area will be on the outside with >>>the view and cyclists on the road side). >>> >>>The path incorporates 4 viewing stops ( see attached photos) with >>>shelter and emergency telephones. There are also drinking >>>fountains at the two lower stops but not at the higher stops. >>>(apparently a problem getting water quality at the higher stops >>>because it would be in the pipes too long- 2 years). >>> >>>The path will have concrete walls and wire mesh screens on top of >>>the concrete on both sides. The wire is apparently unclimbable. >>> >>>All over it looks like a pretty good facility and we could have >>>done a lot worse. It will be a uplifting view to start the day >>>for airport workers who cycle commute across that way. >>> >>> Mitch Bright >>>Airport BUG >>>airportbug@gmail.com >>>http://airportbug.googlepages.com >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, kim >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, that's pretty slow for such a long section of a commuter >>> route. Somebody should consider the science of it too; that's >>> pretty hard on most rim brakes on that long a descent. On my back >>> of the envelope calculations that's about 110 Watts of break >>> heating for an 80kg bike/rider as the slope looks to be about >>> 1:20. Now if the rider just cut loose, he or she would probably >>> only reach about 40kph on that slope on a still day due to air >>> resistance which is proportional to the square of your speed and >>> in doing so their rims/brake pads would probably last a lot >>> longer if they are doing it every day. Not everyone is going to >>> have ceramic rims and what about the poor cyclist who is loaded >>> up some extra? >>> I think that QM have very little experience with either >>> pedestrians or cyclists. >>> The Gateway1 was supposed to get an upgrade too as part of the >>> duplication but I don't know if that was just the lane >>> reconfiguration, but it would have made more sense to put the >>> pedestrians on the old bridge and give them a view back to the >>> city if indeed they are going to venture out there for a stroll >>> and a view. Or perhaps even a suspended walkway between the two >>> spans with an 'adventure stroll' replete with wonky big gapped deck. >>> kim >>> >>> >>> Mitch Bright wrote: >>> >>> I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h >>> speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway >>> Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would >>> be passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and >>> cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit >>> is 15km/h. As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE >>> Qld transportation system (recreational use is a secondary >>> function), the speed limit, if there is to be one, should >>> be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this >>> environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation >>> choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools where >>> children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't >>> see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a >>> similarly divided pathway. >>> >>> Mitch Bright >>> Airport BUG >>> airportbug@gmail.com < >>> mailto:airportbug@gmail.com> >>> http://airportbug.googlepages.com >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >bikeqld mailing list >bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1818 - Release Date: >28/11/2008 7:31 PM From aaron_wray at hotmail.com Sat Nov 29 01:50:24 2008 From: aaron_wray at hotmail.com (Aaron Wray) Date: Sat Nov 29 01:50:40 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] Re. new bikeway open ... Message-ID: Michael etal I had the chance to ride both directions on the new shared footpath at St Lucia golf course. My initial impressions are- - It was a mess. Branches leaves, stones etc made some sections rather entertaining. I would not have been happy riding it on a road bike. I figure that's from the storms but some parts indicate design flaws. - It doesn't go anywhere. It drops you part way along the road. - It goes from wide path to all of a sudden subcode 2m path then winds erratically. - some of the corners even on the new section visibility was poor. I'm not going to ride it next time I go that way it was too slow and didn't really make me feel any safer. Cheers Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Michael Yeates To: bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au Sent: Wednesday, 19 November, 2008 3:29:04 PM Subject: [bikeqld] new bikeway open ... Hi all ... The new "bikeway" bka "shared footpath" beside the St Lucia Golf Course and Hillside Terrace is now open ... or at least the barriers have been removed ...! Feedback welcomed ... MY........................... _________________________________________________________________ Your dream beach house escape for summer! Sign up for the Hotmail Road Trip today. http://www.ninemsn.com.au/hotmailroadtrip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081129/e513f65d/attachment.htm From airportbug at gmail.com Sat Nov 29 18:38:58 2008 From: airportbug at gmail.com (Mitch) Date: Sat Nov 29 18:39:11 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <20081129063822.HTTZ3267.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> <20081129063822.HTTZ3267.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Message-ID: <9083b07a0811291638h5fd983b5g63fa895d4c5993c4@mail.gmail.com> Hi Michael & Kim Generally, I believe transport planners are still so 'car centric' in their thinking that bicycle and pedestrians facilities are considered more like part of the project landscaping, rather than part of the transport network. I am a newbie to bicycle advocacy but in my short experience, I get the impression the facilities provided for bicycles and pedestrians are often built with what is left over from space and budget once cars have been provided for. As a result the facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are often sub-optimal and the peds and cyclists end up fighting over the 'scraps'. I think the Gateway Bridge with all it's flaws may be the first glimmer that transport planners are beginning to consider bicycles and peds as part of the transport network mix. The width of the path allocated to cyclists is not optimal as you say, but the area allocated for pedestrian / disabled access doesn't meet the requirements for two wheelchairs to pass ( 1.2 x 2) either. The squeaky wheel gets the oil as they say and cyclists wheels seem to have been squeakier than wheel chair wheels, as cyclists have been allocated more space. Hopefully the white dividing line will wear out over time and won't be remarked if everyone behaves. On a positive note, there will be no toll for bicycles. This may encourage more people to ride thus and adding to the lobby for better cycle facilities everywhere. :) Mitch On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Michael Yeates wrote: > Tks Kim ... > > You mention the speed limit issue ... > > What amazes me is the way the various government agencies keep returning to > try on the same old furphies ... and blow me down, nobody seems to notice > ...! Certainly there would appear to be a complete lack of Quality Assurance > ...! > > Its hard to tell whether it is the same old people IN the agencies and/or > consultancies once they see new people in the various "advocacy" roles, or > it is the new people in the advocacy roles who are quite happy to "go along" > with what they assume is acceptable .. based on what has been built ...! Or > maybe nobody notices or nobody cares? > > Narrow "substandard" paths, not shared but without barriers (because the > scheme won't work if there ARE barriers) ... reliance on regulatory signs > but no enforcement likely ... etc etc > > But reliance on speed limits as distinct from advisory speed limits ... > THAT was dispensed with years ago when BCC tried to put a speed limit on the > Coro Drive shared footpath ... and very quickly it was withdrawn when it was > pointed out that such a speed limit was unenforceable. > > BTW it is enforceable at South Bank because it has private property status > ie entry is conditional and so is cycling on the permitted sections of the > South Bank system of footpaths. > > Anything changed ... nope ...! > > Maybe the Gateway is not a public road ... but "owned" by the private > company that "owns" the motorways? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....! > > I guess the way I see it, IF cyclists MUST give way to peds on a shared > path, then it is better to have a maximum width shared path that have a > narrow BIKES ONLY path with a 10km/h speed limit that nobody obeys and > regulatory signs that nobody obeys ... assuming cyclists are hoping to be > able to not comply with the segregated path ... ;-) > > Surely not??? > > Another opportunity to criticise cyclists? > > MY..................... > > > At 02:53 PM 29/11/2008, kim wrote: > > You raise some good points Michael, in essence, what is the best way to >> share a pathway between cyclists and pedestrians and all the variations on >> those users, given the limited (yes, substandard) width? Obviously the >> Austroads guide favours better widths but here we have a narrow reality. It >> is probably true that they/we don't know what the traffic patterns will be >> like either, so some sort of future-flexible arrangement might be good. I >> would have thought a narrower pedestrian section might be >> acceptable/tolerable but that may not be the case. Even in the case of a >> shared path arrangement giving a more flexible space, it would be hard to >> justify commuter speed cyclists mixed with pedestrians and that would >> probably result in a slower commute for cyclists as a posted speed limit >> would probably be mandatory (and of course there's that wear and tear on the >> rims with the braking every day). >> >> So how do you optimize the use of this reduced space? Perhaps the >> separated path without any barrier to provide overtaking options and no need >> for a speed limit to keep the lawyers at bay might be the best for now. >> >> If traffic volumes are a real problem, perhaps even some priority lane for >> cyclists during commute hours could work and allow pedestrians on outside of >> those hours. >> >> Have you noticed that the Kangaroo Point example of a separated (albeit a >> substandard one) has had a 10kph speed limit now for some time, hopefully >> that's not the same motivation for the 10kph 'recommended speed' on the >> Gateway2. BCC's ATU said that they really don't like to use speed limit >> signs on bike paths because it was not a requirement to have a speedo on a >> bike and so it was a grey area just a few months before the Council >> installed those signs, so I don't think the push comes from the Active >> Transport area, its more likely from the legal eagles protecting Council's >> collective bottom. >> >> >> Perhaps, if in time the cycle traffic does dominate the route, then it may >> be possible to build a lightweight steel gantry structure overhead and >> dedicate this to pedestrians and give the whole 4.25m to cyclists, now >> there's hoping! >> >> k >> >> >> Michael Yeates wrote: >> >>> Thanks Mitch ... really good to have the detailed info ... (below ... in >>> the following email from Airport BUG) >>> >>> However the info is confusing in terms of commonly accepted "standard" >>> practices ... so much so that I trust it is not correct. It is a "good news >>> and bad news" problem/dilemma..! >>> >>> I recall one political leader referring to "life wasn't meant to be easy" >>> and another closer to home referring to the problem he described as "having >>> a leg either side of a barbed wire fence" ... both are appropriate ... and >>> both are appropriate here. Perhaps today the challenge is the challenge of >>> populism and the desire for popular political support? >>> >>> According to my reading of AUSTROADS Part 14, there is no such thing as a >>> "shared path" with the markings as described below ... see the bits now in >>> bold ...!!! >>> >>> "Shared use paths" are obvious and are widely used here in Brisbane and >>> elsewhere (eg see Pt 14 Fig 6-16) ... single centreline with pedestrian and >>> cyclist traffic flowing in the same direction "sharing" the space to the >>> left of the centreline and the wider the better, so cyclists can travel to >>> the right of that "shared" space while pedestrians and slower cyclists >>> travel to the left. >>> >>> What is described below based on the proposed markings would seem to be a >>> "separated path" (see Pt 14 6.6.2 and Fig 6-20). >>> >>> It is not at all clear why a "separated path" has been selected for this >>> project (and for consistency presumably selected for all or many other parts >>> of the Gateway cycle network project and maybe other parts of the same >>> network elsewhere?) given separated paths "are not common because they are >>> generally considered to be justified _only_ where there are _large numbers_ >>> of pedestrians _and_ cyclists" (Pt 14 6.6.2.1 my underlining added). >>> >>> As a "shared path" gives far greater with and area flexibility for large >>> numbers of pedestrians OR cyclists at the same time, it seems reasonable to >>> assume these large numbers would only be of significance sufficient to >>> justify a "separated path" if occurring more or less simultaneously when by >>> way of the narrow spaces provided, both groups would be compromised. >>> >>> Is that really likely? When it does occur eg if a large ship or special >>> aircraft can be viewed, surely non-compliance would be accepted as >>> inevitable? >>> >>> If that does occur will the current design perform as intended and in >>> compliance with the regulatory signs necessary to encourage and if necessary >>> enforce compliance? >>> >>> If not, why bother with it? Why not use the generally accepted widely >>> used shared path configuration? Perhaps only for consistency and hopefully >>> understanding of use? >>> >>> As it is only about paint, the markings can be changed ... best to sort >>> out now of course ... but always possible later. >>> >>> Far worse however, from a cycling perspective, 2.55m does not appear to >>> comply with ANY known accepted cycling facility design standard based on the >>> accepted operational space plus clearances requirements (eg see Pt 14 pp >>> 70-73) AND the expected use by pedestrians and by cyclists. I am happy to be >>> corrected and to have the basis for the selection of that width demonstrated >>> with appropriate references. >>> >>> Clearly what is needed to test this width is the provision of a >>> continuous physical "median" barrier to ensure (most) cyclists (and peds) >>> stay in their proscribed area ...! >>> >>> A 150mm high kerb (as at Kangaroo Point ... see Pt 14 Fig 6-20) but >>> painted and with solar powered or other night lighting in the edge of the >>> kerb would do the trick. >>> >>> There is then no need for (much) further width to be added due to the >>> barrier itself (see Pt 14 Fig 6-22) noting however that it would appear >>> 200mm clearance from the kerb PLUS the kerb width should be added to the >>> total width of the cycling section of the separated path (or more accurately >>> subtracted from the operational areas of both cyclists and pedestrians). >>> >>> And on my reading of Pt 14, the cycling section should be designed as a >>> cyclist only (ie "exclusive use") path and arguably should be a 3m wide path >>> for operational reasons but that is only the travel path width as it is then >>> necessary to ADD the required clearances to adjacent obstructions ie >>> 300-500mm from the barrier between the path and the motorised traffic (see >>> Fig 3-1) given it is being designed for high volumes of cyclists (and >>> pedestrians). >>> It really is very disappointing we continue to have such poorly designed >>> and (apparently) non-compliant and/or compromised facilities being "praised" >>> albeit as better than nothing ... when this project (once it was accepted as >>> a necessary link in the cycling network) started as a major component of a >>> major inter-urban bicycle network component ... one where large groups of >>> cyclists are inevitable and where a mix of fast and slow, experienced and >>> inexperienced cyclists (and pedestrians) are inevitable ... sometimes time >>> separated, but at most times probably not. >>> >>> As for the "recommended speed" that is (as I think has been suggested >>> previously) a means to try to shift liability (as are the yellow advisory >>> speed limit signs on roads) in the event of an incident ... but also is >>> probably a direct result of the chosen design not appearing to comply with >>> Part 14 ... ie appearing to be yet another example in a long line of >>> "sub-standard to minimum" or compromised facilities being provided and >>> presumably assuming that numbers cycling won't increase much. >>> >>> Is the risk management document available to you/us? If so, it would be >>> very useful if you would request a copy so it can be reviewed. If not, maybe >>> a case for FOI ...? >>> >>> It may also be the case that the selected design width is similar to that >>> at Kangaroo Point but do we necessarily need to refer to previous (now) >>> substandard facilities to justify new ones, esp where widening in the future >>> seems improbable? >>> >>> When does "better than nothing" become unacceptable? Or do we just keep >>> on accepting "better than nothing" ? >>> Should projects like this clearly comply with Pt 14 or similar so >>> understanding of operation is more widely understood? >>> >>> How much compromise is reasonable especially if a serious or fatal injury >>> event were to occur? >>> >>> As for the water being in the pipes for up to 2 years ... mmmmmmmmmm ... >>> is this put forward seriously? If so, then hardly a site for so many >>> pedestrians _and_ cyclists as necessary to justify a "separated path" rather >>> than a "shared path". Maybe it was proposed to use these sites to test and >>> promote recycled water and it was thought nobody would drink it? >>> >>> Happy to discuss in more detail off-line but difficult to go beyond >>> reference to Pt 14 in public without the documentation relied upon by the >>> "risk management team". >>> >>> Michael Yeates >>> Convenor >>> BURG ............... >>> >>> At 08:29 AM 27/11/2008, Airport BUG wrote: >>> >>> I attended a breifing yesterday on the Gateway Bridge cycle and >>>> pedestrian path final design with the builders of the new bridge ,Leighton >>>> Abigroup Joint Venture. >>>> >>>> The welcome news is that the 10km/h speed limit is a recommended speed. >>>> The risk management team say this is a safe speed cycling through >>>> pedestrians. They emphasised that this is a recommended speed not a >>>> mandated speed. >>>> >>>> Some more details regarding the *shared path* for those interested : >>>> >>>> The designers confirmed the path will be a 4.25 m wide *shared concrete >>>> surface path*, with a white dividing line and *markings indicating cyclists >>>> to one side and pedestrians to the other*. The division will be 1.7 m width >>>> for pedestrians and 2.55 m width for cyclists. ( Pedestrian walking area >>>> will be on the outside with the view and cyclists on the road side). >>>> >>>> The path incorporates 4 viewing stops ( see attached photos) with >>>> shelter and emergency telephones. There are also drinking fountains at the >>>> two lower stops but not at the higher stops. (apparently a problem getting >>>> water quality at the higher stops because it would be in the pipes too long- >>>> 2 years). >>>> >>>> The path will have concrete walls and wire mesh screens on top of the >>>> concrete on both sides. The wire is apparently unclimbable. >>>> >>>> All over it looks like a pretty good facility and we could have done a >>>> lot worse. It will be a uplifting view to start the day for airport workers >>>> who cycle commute across that way. >>>> >>>> Mitch Bright >>>> Airport BUG >>>> airportbug@gmail.com >>>> http://airportbug.googlepages.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, kim >>> kim@teegee.com.au>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, that's pretty slow for such a long section of a commuter >>>> route. Somebody should consider the science of it too; that's >>>> pretty hard on most rim brakes on that long a descent. On my back >>>> of the envelope calculations that's about 110 Watts of break >>>> heating for an 80kg bike/rider as the slope looks to be about >>>> 1:20. Now if the rider just cut loose, he or she would probably >>>> only reach about 40kph on that slope on a still day due to air >>>> resistance which is proportional to the square of your speed and >>>> in doing so their rims/brake pads would probably last a lot >>>> longer if they are doing it every day. Not everyone is going to >>>> have ceramic rims and what about the poor cyclist who is loaded >>>> up some extra? >>>> I think that QM have very little experience with either >>>> pedestrians or cyclists. >>>> The Gateway1 was supposed to get an upgrade too as part of the >>>> duplication but I don't know if that was just the lane >>>> reconfiguration, but it would have made more sense to put the >>>> pedestrians on the old bridge and give them a view back to the >>>> city if indeed they are going to venture out there for a stroll >>>> and a view. Or perhaps even a suspended walkway between the two >>>> spans with an 'adventure stroll' replete with wonky big gapped deck. >>>> kim >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Bright wrote: >>>> >>>> I have heard that Queensland Motorways are proposing a 10km/h >>>> speedlimit for bicycles on the shared path on the new Gateway >>>> Bridge. I was shocked. Riding at 10km/h the joggers would >>>> be passing you! Even at Southbank where pedestrians and >>>> cyclists aren't seperated by a dividing line, the speed limit >>>> is 15km/h. As the Gateway Bridge is primarily part of the SE >>>> Qld transportation system (recreational use is a secondary >>>> function), the speed limit, if there is to be one, should >>>> be a realistic one for commuter cyclists to encourage this >>>> environmentally sustainable and healthy transportation >>>> choice. If cars can drive at 40 km/h past schools where >>>> children are crossing and walking on the roadside, I can't >>>> see why cyclists would be considered more dangerous on a >>>> similarly divided pathway. >>>> >>>> Mitch Bright >>>> Airport BUG >>>> airportbug@gmail.com < >>>> mailto:airportbug@gmail.com> >>>> http://airportbug.googlepages.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> bikeqld mailing list >> bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >> http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >> http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >> This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1818 - Release Date: >> 28/11/2008 7:31 PM >> > > _______________________________________________ > bikeqld mailing list > bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld > This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > -- Airport BUG airportbug@gmail.com http://airportbug.googlepages.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081130/578addb0/attachment-0001.htm From kim at teegee.com.au Sat Nov 29 18:49:11 2008 From: kim at teegee.com.au (kim) Date: Sun Nov 30 04:52:55 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <9083b07a0811291638h5fd983b5g63fa895d4c5993c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> <20081129063822.HTTZ3267.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <9083b07a0811291638h5fd983b5g63fa895d4c5993c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4931E307.9050401@teegee.com.au> Hi Mitch, I think you will find that the Road Rules allow wheelchair users and pushers to use the bike only section of the separated path as well as the pedestrian section, same actually goes for roller-bladers, skaters, and other wheeled recreational devices. They are however still bound by the keep left rule on the section on which they are travelling which would complicate things further. I think that is one of the problems with having it as a shared path too because the pedestrians would then have to be on both sides and quite often you will get pedestrians walking two abreast and if you get this on both sides it is a problem. That is a common problem on the old section of the Bi-Centennenial Shared Path. At least constraining the peds to the 1.7m 'window seat' goes some way to preventing this and if it was a shared path it is highly likely that pedestrians on the road side (northbound) would constantly be crossing over to take in the view. The shared path approach definitely gives more legal priority to pedestrians to pretty much walk where they want as there is no requirement to walk single file or give way to cyclists. I think a cyclist would be constantly on the bell if indeed there were a lot of pedestrians using it. There is a push from pedestrians for cyclists to sound their bell when approaching from behind on the Bicentennial but there is so much mixed traffic there at commute time that if every cyclist was to ring their bell for each pedestrian they passed it would sound like cicadas in mid summer down there. I can't imagine a huge number of pedestrians, or skaters on the Gateway tho. k Mitch wrote: > Hi Michael & Kim > > Generally, I believe transport planners are still so 'car centric' in > their thinking that bicycle and pedestrians facilities are considered > more like part of the project landscaping, rather than part of the > transport network. > > I am a newbie to bicycle advocacy but in my short experience, I get > the impression the facilities provided for bicycles and pedestrians > are often built with what is left over from space and budget once cars > have been provided for. As a result the facilities for cyclists and > pedestrians are often sub-optimal and the peds and cyclists end up > fighting over the 'scraps'. > > I think the Gateway Bridge with all it's flaws may be the first > glimmer that transport planners are beginning to consider bicycles and > peds as part of the transport network mix. > > The width of the path allocated to cyclists is not optimal as you say, > but the area allocated for pedestrian / disabled access doesn't meet > the requirements for two wheelchairs to pass ( 1.2 x 2) either. > The squeaky wheel gets the oil as they say and cyclists wheels seem to > have been squeakier than wheel chair wheels, as cyclists have been > allocated more space. > > Hopefully the white dividing line will wear out over time and won't be > remarked if everyone behaves. > > On a positive note, there will be no toll for bicycles. This may > encourage more people to ride thus and adding to the lobby for better > cycle facilities everywhere. :) > > Mitch > > > From cameraperson at bigpond.com Sun Nov 30 15:08:10 2008 From: cameraperson at bigpond.com (Mick Fanning) Date: Sun Nov 30 15:14:41 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <4931E307.9050401@teegee.com.au> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> <20081129063822.HTTZ3267.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <9083b07a0811291638h5fd983b5g63fa895d4c5993c4@mail.gmail.com> <4931E307.9050401@teegee.com.au> Message-ID: <32BF6660-CEC1-4944-9C90-ADAB6E077AA1@bigpond.com> How about rules 236 & 239? One has to remember of course that these rules have little to do with what happens in reality on shared and separated pathways every day. 236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction (1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver. Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. (2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian. Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. (3) For subsection (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other pedestrians. (the rules state that the meaning of "driver" includes "rider") 239 Pedestrians on a bicycle path or separated footpath (1) A pedestrian must not be on a bicycle path, or a part of a separated footpath designated for the use of bicycles, unless the pedestrian? (a) is crossing the bicycle path or separated footpath by the shortest safe route; and (b) does not stay on the bicycle path or separated footpath for longer than necessary to cross the bicycle path or separated footpath safely. . . (3) A pedestrian who is crossing a bicycle path, or a part of a separated footpath designated for the use of bicycles, must keep out of the path of any bicycle, or any pedestrian who is permitted under subsection (2) to be on the bicycle path, or the part of the separated footpath designated for the use of bicycles. On 30/11/2008, at 10:49, kim wrote: > Hi Mitch, > > I think you will find that the Road Rules allow wheelchair users > and pushers to use the bike only section of the separated path as > well as the pedestrian section, same actually goes for roller- > bladers, skaters, and other wheeled recreational devices. They are > however still bound by the keep left rule on the section on which > they are travelling which would complicate things further. I think > that is one of the problems with having it as a shared path too > because the pedestrians would then have to be on both sides and > quite often you will get pedestrians walking two abreast and if you > get this on both sides it is a problem. That is a common problem on > the old section of the Bi-Centennenial Shared Path. At least > constraining the peds to the 1.7m 'window seat' goes some way to > preventing this and if it was a shared path it is highly likely > that pedestrians on the road side (northbound) would constantly be > crossing over to take in the view. The shared path approach > definitely gives more legal priority to pedestrians to pretty much > walk where they want as there is no requirement to walk single file > or give way to cyclists. I think a cyclist would be constantly on > the bell if indeed there were a lot of pedestrians using it. There > is a push from pedestrians for cyclists to sound their bell when > approaching from behind on the Bicentennial but there is so much > mixed traffic there at commute time that if every cyclist was to > ring their bell for each pedestrian they passed it would sound like > cicadas in mid summer down there. I can't imagine a huge number of > pedestrians, or skaters on the Gateway tho. > > k > > > Mitch wrote: >> Hi Michael & Kim >> Generally, I believe transport planners are still so 'car >> centric' in their thinking that bicycle and pedestrians facilities >> are considered more like part of the project landscaping, rather >> than part of the transport network. I am a newbie to bicycle >> advocacy but in my short experience, I get the impression the >> facilities provided for bicycles and pedestrians are often built >> with what is left over from space and budget once cars have been >> provided for. As a result the facilities for cyclists and >> pedestrians are often sub-optimal and the peds and cyclists end up >> fighting over the 'scraps'. >> I think the Gateway Bridge with all it's flaws may be the first >> glimmer that transport planners are beginning to consider bicycles >> and peds as part of the transport network mix. The width of the >> path allocated to cyclists is not optimal as you say, but the area >> allocated for pedestrian / disabled access doesn't meet the >> requirements for two wheelchairs to pass ( 1.2 x 2) either. The >> squeaky wheel gets the oil as they say and cyclists wheels seem to >> have been squeakier than wheel chair wheels, as cyclists have been >> allocated more space. >> Hopefully the white dividing line will wear out over time and >> won't be remarked if everyone behaves. >> On a positive note, there will be no toll for bicycles. This may >> encourage more people to ride thus and adding to the lobby for >> better cycle facilities everywhere. :) >> Mitch >> > > _______________________________________________ > bikeqld mailing list > bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ > http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld > This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081201/8e85380f/attachment.htm From michael at yeatesit.biz Sun Nov 30 19:51:05 2008 From: michael at yeatesit.biz (Michael Yeates) Date: Sun Nov 30 19:51:56 2008 Subject: [bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ? In-Reply-To: <32BF6660-CEC1-4944-9C90-ADAB6E077AA1@bigpond.com> References: <9083b07a0811150247k54750c35pc304722de7bb5de5@mail.gmail.com> <492A4056.4010503@teegee.com.au> <9083b07a0811261429m54904328sf6946283cf4b05c9@mail.gmail.com> <20081127032427.DVOI21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <4930CABB.1030307@teegee.com.au> <20081129063822.HTTZ3267.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> <9083b07a0811291638h5fd983b5g63fa895d4c5993c4@mail.gmail.com> <4931E307.9050401@teegee.com.au> <32BF6660-CEC1-4944-9C90-ADAB6E077AA1@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <20081201015111.QOXK21966.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@yit01.yeatesit.biz> Thanks Mick .. It is these types of rules which together with those applying to cyclists PLUS the apparent reluctance of cyclists (consultants, bureaucrats, or who else?) to agree to having a raised barrier kerb (or a change in level etc as often applies in those places we love to cite ... but also see AUSTROADS Part 14) which seem to imply that cyclists don't want peds on the BIKES ONLY section but at the same time, cyclists should be able to easily use the PEDESTRIANS ONLY section ...! Hardly any wonder then that the "reality" is quite different ... and we get half-baked ideas like a pretend 10km/h speed limit ... and half baked designs ... and inadequate space ...! A number of overseas studies using continuous CCTV of spaces that are claimed to be contested have found little evidence ... indeed it is more the threat than any real risk of collision ... and unofficial surveillance of long distance BCC traffic videos apparently showed the same situation on shared paths in Brisbane. Solutions include (i) cyclists giving pedestrians at least 1m clearance AND slowing down when approaching or overtaking to make sure you can stop or avoid any sudden unexpected movement by the peds (ie same collision-avoidance principles/obligations apply as the road rules) ... and (ii) "sharing the path" ... ie the full width of the available space ... according to the road rules and Part 14 design guidelines ... as on the Goodwill Bridge and almost all of our shared footpaths. So if a separated/segregated path is supported, why not install the kerb to separate the peds and bikes ...? At the viewing points, the kerb would have breaks in it to allow ease of crossing the kerb. And lets face it, if it was permitted, these viewing points would be ideal locations for "zebra crossings" and/or "pedestrian priority" zones again as used in Europe ... but sadly, these are banned here...! Surely not a case of two bob each way ... ;-) Mind you, rules that rely on intent and/or rely on opinion (ie what is "unreasonably" and who decides?) and/or are in apparent contradiction (eg Rule 236 (1) and (2) seem to be in apparent contradiction with the signs that cyclists must give way to pedestrians on a shared path ... until more detailed consideration is given) are hopeless in "reality" ... but that too is another story ... along with having industry guidelines such as AUSTROADS Part 14 which are and have been widely used but then a variety of decision makers and advocates tending to (i) not use them and/or (ii) argue against using them ... ;-) MY............................ At 07:08 AM 1/12/2008, Mick Fanning wrote: >How about rules 236 & 239? >One has to remember of course that these rules >have little to do with what happens in reality >on shared and separated pathways every day. > >236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction >(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path >of a driver. >Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. >(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or >another pedestrian. >Maximum penalty?20 penalty units. >(3) For subsection (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the >path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other >pedestrians. >(the rules state that the meaning of "driver" includes "rider") > >239 Pedestrians on a bicycle path or separated footpath >(1) A pedestrian must not be on a bicycle path, or a part of a separated >footpath designated for the use of bicycles, unless the pedestrian? >(a) is crossing the bicycle path or separated footpath by the shortest >safe route; and >(b) does not stay on the bicycle path or separated footpath for longer >than necessary to cross the bicycle path or separated footpath >safely. >. >. >(3) A pedestrian who is crossing a bicycle path, or a part of a separated >footpath designated for the use of bicycles, must keep out of the path of >any bicycle, or any pedestrian who is permitted under subsection (2) to be >on the bicycle path, or the part of the separated footpath designated for the >use of bicycles. > > > > >On 30/11/2008, at 10:49, kim wrote: > >>Hi Mitch, >> >>I think you will find that the Road Rules allow >>wheelchair users and pushers to use the bike >>only section of the separated path as well as >>the pedestrian section, same actually goes for >>roller-bladers, skaters, and other wheeled >>recreational devices. They are however still >>bound by the keep left rule on the section on >>which they are travelling which would >>complicate things further. I think that is one >>of the problems with having it as a shared path >>too because the pedestrians would then have to >>be on both sides and quite often you will get >>pedestrians walking two abreast and if you get >>this on both sides it is a problem. That is a >>common problem on the old section of the >>Bi-Centennenial Shared Path. At least >>constraining the peds to the 1.7m 'window seat' >>goes some way to preventing this and if it was >>a shared path it is highly likely that >>pedestrians on the road side (northbound) would >>constantly be crossing over to take in the >>view. The shared path approach definitely gives >>more legal priority to pedestrians to pretty >>much walk where they want as there is no >>requirement to walk single file or give way to >>cyclists. I think a cyclist would be constantly >>on the bell if indeed there were a lot of >>pedestrians using it. There is a push from >>pedestrians for cyclists to sound their bell >>when approaching from behind on the >>Bicentennial but there is so much mixed traffic >>there at commute time that if every cyclist was >>to ring their bell for each pedestrian they >>passed it would sound like cicadas in mid >>summer down there. I can't imagine a huge >>number of pedestrians, or skaters on the Gateway tho. >> >>k >> >> >>Mitch wrote: >>>Hi Michael & Kim >>> Generally, I believe transport planners are >>> still so 'car centric' in their thinking that >>> bicycle and pedestrians facilities are >>> considered more like part of the project >>> landscaping, rather than part of the >>> transport network. I am a newbie to bicycle >>> advocacy but in my short experience, I get >>> the impression the facilities provided for >>> bicycles and pedestrians are often built with >>> what is left over from space and budget once >>> cars have been provided for. As a result the >>> facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are >>> often sub-optimal and the peds and cyclists end up fighting over the 'scraps'. >>> I think the Gateway Bridge with all it's >>> flaws may be the first glimmer that transport >>> planners are beginning to consider bicycles >>> and peds as part of the transport network >>> mix. The width of the path allocated to >>> cyclists is not optimal as you say, but the >>> area allocated for pedestrian / disabled >>> access doesn't meet the requirements for two >>> wheelchairs to pass ( 1.28?$?0????????/ x 2) >>> either. The squeaky wheel gets the oil as >>> they say and cyclists wheels seem to have >>> been squeakier than wheel chair wheels, as >>> cyclists have been allocated more space. >>> Hopefully the white dividing line will wear >>> out over time and won't be remarked if everyone behaves. >>> On a positive note, there will be no toll >>> for bicycles. This may encourage more people >>> to ride thus and adding to the lobby for >>> better cycle facilities everywhere. :) >>> Mitch >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>bikeqld mailing list >>bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >>This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > >_______________________________________________ >bikeqld mailing list >bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/ >http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld >This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland. > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 >- Release Date: 30/11/2008 5:53 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20081201/e155e3c1/attachment-0001.htm