[bikeqld] Walking shoes for Coro drive... again?

Wed Apr 8 20:31:13 CDT 2009

I agree with Michael on standards and Kim on the emphasis of enforcement.
Compare the situation with the path downriver, where ferry  stops require
peds to cross the bike path. I often think how the peds must hate the
crossing and the interaction with cyclists, but we all seem to manage
without crashing into each other. How is this any different to what should
be happening at the HSL works, if well-designed? Instead of being able to
exercise our own rather substantial ability to solve spatial problems
(demonstrated), we need a WHS-mandated employment relief program for rather
simple blokes (no women seen yet) to earn $500 a week by attempting to
control us like kindy kids.

Pete

From: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au]
On Behalf Of Michael Yeates
Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2009 11:12 AM
To: BikeQld
Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Walking shoes for Coro drive... again?

It seems to be futile trying to get government and/or consultant support for
cyclists, but assuming at least some of the "lurkers" on this site are
either government or contractor/consultant employed, it can be nothing other
than deliberate "policy" to decide NOT to provide at least minimum space and
layouts for relatively long term and/or distance "temporary" diversions at
projects like these .. and clearly the government agencies esp QT have no
intention of setting a policy that requires such provision.

Lets face it ... the list of problem projects over recent years is endless.

Indeed my guess is that there has not been one project that HAS provided the
minimum space AND layout complying with the "code" requirements ... noting
of course that these people know there is NO code ...!

Anyone willing to name even one example of good temporary works that do/did
comply?

The speed thing is easy ... but won't work to solve conflicts if there is no
space and/or poor layout.

These are BCC projects along Coro Drive ... ask the Lord Mayor why he is
promoting himself with the $100m bike paths but won't comply with the
standards,

Sadly there does not seem to be much point in reminding everyone that for
example, the Dutch design guide has a chapter on temporary provision ... and
it is on the basis that cyclists will be able to cycle albeit usually on
minimum complying facilities ... which obviously require tolerance and
responsibility from all parties. 

In some cases where it is an option (as on Coro Drive), an adjacent road
lane will be closed to provide the temporary diversion ... imagine that ...
but then that is about the width required ... so why not? 

So what is a minimum width? 

At least 2400 and probably closer to 3000 if enclosed by barriers, fences,
walls, or similar.

As for cycling on the road (which I encourage of course), the problem on
Coro Drive (and city wide) is the lack of complying access to/from road and
path  ... another BCC "policy" designed to discourage use of the roads and
thus to encourage conflict between cyclists and between cyclists and peds.

Also the inability for police to enforce the speed limit ... but if it
extended further (and/or provision for enforcement was required as part of
the project as its a WH&S issue for the police as well as legal
constraints), then perhaps cyclists could help the traffic to travel slower
... maybe even get used to 40km/h?

Why not?

MY..............................

At 10:28 AM 9/04/2009, kim wrote:

Hi Ken, I think you will also find that there were more than 5
accidents/incidents in the past which could be blamed on the safety layout
of the site. There are many blatant examples of where the safety and design
manuals have not been followed. I do believe it is a mix of faults down
there. My gripe was that all the effort seemed to be directed at controlling
the cyclists. Why are police or BCC  resources not directed to enforcing the
40kph zone on the road?  Are the 'Single File' directives of any legal
significance? Are pedestrians being targeted as well? The BCC seems bent on
maintaining the fast flow for traffic to win a few points from the motorists
but does not regard the cycle traffic as needing a smooth flow, far from it.
Will the BCC direct pedestrian traffic to use the footpath when the narrow
bypass opens or will cyclists be encouraged to use the road? I am all for
addressing the big picture rather than just singling out cyclists for
enforcement.

kim

Ken.Yeo at allianz.com.au wrote: 

My understanding of it is they are there for the safety of the workers on
the site.  Blatant disregard shown by a number of cyclists riding through
the area has resulted in the injury of several workers.  I believe there
have already been at least five (avoidable) incidents. 

The stretch of path we are talking about is in total no more than 400
metres... yet some users [cyclists] just cannot allow themselves to
sacrifice 30 seconds of their time to slow down.... Does this sound familiar
to the issues put forward by cyclists against 'cagers' on the roads? 

B'gards.
______________________________________
Ken.Yeo at allianz.com.au
______________________________________

_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>  
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.48/2048 - Release Date: 04/08/09
19:02:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20090409/6bea85cd/attachment.htm