[bikeqld] Cycling across crossings enforcement

[Michael Yeates]

Simple answer to your last question Pete ... different police traffic 
units ...!

There are pedestrians and footpaths there ... however the area is so 
unfriendly for them and NO access to the obvious desire lines by way 
of the Bikeway, so like cycling constrained by very poor connectivity.

My guess is that Ronan Lee (remember him?) and BQ (but not some of us 
locals) somewhat secretly tried several times to get MR to change the 
intersection ... but BQ is somewhat constrained by its apparent 
tendency to agree with government agencies in public ...!

It would be useful for the public historical record of rebuttals by 
MR if BQ was to put such proposals on its website ... given it 
apparently claims to represent more cyclists than its members ... ;-) ;-)

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

At 12:16 PM 17/04/2009, Peter Whittle wrote:

>  Ian
>
>I understand the intersection in question is the bikeway crossing 
>across Mogill Road. There is no footpath, so pedestrians are not (or 
>should not be) an issue (and I have rarely encountered them).
>
>[Even on a pedestrian crossing, I find peds more of a problem than 
>cyclists, due to their brownian movement (semi-random, like cows or 
>tiny particles, take your pick).]
>
>On this particular crossing, rather than deciding to enforce the law 
>after so long, the police could simply continue to be pragmatic. End 
>of issue. ... So it's a bandaid. Who cares? Not in Qld - that's how 
>business is done ... Can't fix everything today.
>
>As to the police, there's a lot more risk in red-light-runners at 
>the top of the Green Bridge - so why did they pick this particular 
>"non-compliance" to blitz?
>
>Pete
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au 
>[mailto:bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Ian Lister
>Sent: Friday, 17 April 2009 11:06 AM
>To: bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
>Subject: RE: [bikeqld] Cycling across crossings enforcement
>
>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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