[bikeqld] 10km/h speed limit on Gateway Bridge ?

Sun Nov 30 19:51:05 CST 2008

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 ( 1.28ô$è0âÿÿÿÿðÏø/ 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
>><mailto:bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au>bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
>>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/
>><http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld
>>This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland.
>
>_______________________________________________
>bikeqld mailing list
>bikeqld at 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