[bikeqld] Cycling across crossings enforcement

Thu Apr 16 21:48:18 CDT 2009

Interesting ...

First the police have every right to enforce any laws .. indeed not 
long ago, we had the problem in reverse ... they chose not to enforce 
laws and look what happened ...!

But moving right along ... and hoping the police post-Fitzgerald have 
too ... surely it is expected they enforce all laws - not some but 
not others ... or it was until now ...!

The REAL problem is none of the following (or is included by 
implication) but rather it is an ongoing "policy" reluctance to 
provide any options to cycle on the road.

In cycling friendly places, it is VERY common to find that access 
ramps designed with cyclists in mind are provided prior to and after 
intersections to allow movement between the path system and the road 
system and across the road system. Kerb jumpers do this here ... but 
presumably it is better if the facility is provided ... and with no 
barriers ie fences etc provided either.

So people who want to cross on bike simply leave the path and join 
the traffic across the intersection then move back to the path ... or 
stay on the road ... and those who want to make a turn or want to 
stay on the path network can do so but walk.

The problem is really a reluctance to acknowledge cyclists needs ... 
and while the promotion of that might well have been with QT and the 
SCC (noting my being the initial BFA rep on the initial period of the 
SCC) the application and implementation is with MR ... and nothing 
there has changed aside from some name changes and attractive (but 
apparently on the evidence to date, almost totally ineffective) role 
descriptions ...!

In practice, introduce cyclists on the road and virtually none of the 
road designs in Queensland will operate safely aka as intended for 
motorists ... keep the cyclists on paths and the roads are great ...!

But what happens at intersections is ALWAYS the problem ... and 
therefore MR has simply chosen to ignore it ... with heaps of good 
reasons and justification no doubt.

At the most basic level, it does not need special facilities for 
cyclists at all ... it simply needs a continuous connected path of 
travel as expected by motorists ... in this case one that allows 
cyclists to travel without moving onto the pedestrian crossing ... in 
which case, all that is needed is a CYCLISTS MUST GIVE WAY TO ALL 
OTHER TRAFFIC or similar sign eg a GIVE WAY would do ...prior to the 
cyclist moving from the footpath to the road at what is in effect an 
intersection.

MR really treats cyclists as an unwanted nuisance ... almost none of 
its "standards" for intersections, road line marking, signage, etc 
include even the simplest examples of facilities with provision for 
cyclists ... and so project after project is rolled out using 
standards that are opposed to cycling provision ... and this can be 
traced back to the MR "Policy for ... cycling ..." ...!

And if you look for the standard designs allowed in Queensland, you 
will find that the kerb ramps are not designed with cycling in mind 
... so that is what gets built.

The FIRST and for about 12 years ONLY intersection with cycling 
crossing included was part of an extensive (never-to-be-repeated) BCC 
project and even then it was treated as a "special" project ... in 
around 1993-4-5 ...!

With the new super ministry structure, one potential opportunity now 
presents itself and that is to build on the progress achieved by the 
former DG for Transport and to pressure the new DG and if ever such a 
person eventuates, the Minister for both Main Roads AND Transport AND 
Infrastructure AND anything else relevant to cycling ... whoever that 
is ... to force MR to include for cycling in ALL its standards AND in 
ALL its projects ... no matter how big or small ... no matter what 
the cost or how many cyclists ...!

This of course also illustrates that QT is often cited as the project 
procurer eg with all sorts of projects, but how many of those 
included cycling provision of any merit given MR had no common 
standards for the facilities?

In other words some 16 years after Part 14 was first published (and 
probably more than 20 years after deciding there was a need for such 
a document) and just before it is extinguished to be replaced by 
supposed inclusion of cycling across a range of replacement AUSTROADS 
Guidelines, MR should be required to at least try implementing some 
of the stuff it could have implemented but refused to do so.

One example is redesigning crossings and building some "new" C21 
models ... which include for cyclists.

Not much of this is a high priority for Cap'n Blight I suspect ... 
despite her athletic prowess, it seems cycling as transport is not up 
there ... esp with LNP advocacy ...!

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

At 11:06 AM 17/04/2009, Ian Lister wrote:

>Hi Peter,
>
>Getting Main Roads to "upgrade" one intersection or getting the 
>police to ignore the law is just a band-aid that ignores the real 
>problem. The real problem is the law.
>
>On most crossings it's perfectly safe for all concerned to allow 
>cycling across. If there are some crossings where that is really not 
>the case they should be the exception, not the rule. A sign saying 
>"cyclists must dismount" (ugh) on such an intersection is surely far 
>more sensible than needing expensive cycle-specific lights at each 
>intersection where it should be permissible to cycle across (in 
>terms of cost effectiveness for the desired result, ignoring whether 
>we really want such signs at all).
>
>The only real issue is discourteous cyclists causing a hassle for 
>pedestrians. It's not really any different from the same situation 
>on a footpath (which is typically much narrower than a crossing) or 
>a shared path. Existing or slightly modified laws about keeping 
>left, unreasonable obstruction, causing a traffic hazard, etc should 
>be entirely appropriate for enforcing safe behaviour on crossings. 
>Of course there will always be some cyclists who ignore the law and 
>behave discourteously or dangerously, but those people are almost 
>certainly already cycling across the crossings anyway.
>
>Of course, law change is difficult and takes a long time, so 
>pursuing the band-aids in the meantime is still worthwhile 
>(particularly as it may increase pressure for law changes), but we 
>should really be aiming for the big goal and not the little ones.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ian
>
>On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Peter Whittle wrote:
>>It completely sucks that the police should decide to enforce this. 
>>The main reason cyclists ride across is because it is too hard to 
>>walk in cleats and hence it safer to ride - nor is it dangerous! 
>>This seems to be recognised by Main Roads who say they are getting 
>>around to changing the crossings to make it legal. So the police in 
>>enforcing it are just being pricks - they are quite able to make a 
>>policy decision not to enforce a particular law, and they do this 
>>all the time. I wonder if they have bothered to consult? I hope BQ 
>>is going to take up the cudgels on this - please Ben?
>>
>>Pete
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.11.59/2063 - Release Date: 
>04/16/09 16:38:00