[bikeqld] Bike NAZIs on Coro Drive

Thu Apr 30 04:37:35 CDT 2009

Not sure those signs are official MUTCD ones. They are yellow so I  
think they only have advisory status. It's a stupid situation but I  
did get some mild amusement this morning when I noticed that I was the  
only cyclist who did not walk my bike. It was 0830 so very busy and  
there was no opportunity to overtake for the entire length of the  
scaffold. I just cycled along at walking pace. Quite pleasantly  
relaxing really. The workers down on the asphalt shouted at me to  
walk, thererby enhancing my amusement. Others at work reported the  
same phenomenon (shouting workers on the other side of the fence) when  
they rode through. On the way home there are no traffic controllers so  
it's about 50/50 riding or walking their bikes. Plenty of joggers were  
jogging.

I wonder if the "cyclists dismount" thing is really because they know  
they have erected a structure which is not "Fit for Purpose". They  
have to cover themselves by requiring cyclists to become pedestrians.

The extra couple of minutes added to my journey along here don't  
really bother me but I am concerned that there will soon be an  
incident or a complaint that will impose even more unnecessary  
restrictions. There are worse parts of my journey than this. Just  
after the scaffold I turn left to go through the tunnel because I am  
headed for 57 Coro Drive. This requires me to cross the beginning of  
Hale St. That really is a nightmare. Hardly anybody adheres to the 40  
kph limit and very few who are turning from Coro Drive into Hale St  
use their indicators. The barriers erected around the site make  
visibility very poor and crossing here is little better than Russian  
Roulette. There is also a lot of pedestrian traffic and the Coro Dr  
footpath from Hale St inbound is very narrow, even without the  
barriers they have put up. This is where traffic controllers and  
visible policing are genuinely necessary but there's Buckley's chance  
of that ever happening.

Mick

On 30/04/2009, at 18:02 , kim wrote:

> I had my first ride along there this afternoon. I did not notice any  
> dismount signs travelling inbound and there was a traffic controller  
> there who simply had his back turned looking out over the river. I  
> looked to him for a nod or an instruction of some sort but he did  
> not turn around and so I just rode along behind another cyclist  
> doing the same. It was not until I got to the city end that I  
> noticed the cyclist in front dismount and I saw some overhead paper  
> signs. It seemed a little odd to have signs at just one end. So I  
> did check it out more closely on my way back, outbound. There is in  
> fact an 'official' MUTCD design dismount sign at the city end and so  
> I dismounted for that. I then noticed all of the makeshift paper  
> signs overhead and in fact there was one at the Towong end on a  
> fence which I must have missed seeing. There is no 'official' MUTCD  
> design sign at the Toowong end. Any punter could have come along and  
> whipped up some paper signs on a laser printer. So perhaps you are  
> legally obliged to dismount travelling outbound but not inbound. I  
> think the treatment is wrong in other respects also. I think  
> technically there should be some end End Shared Path type signs and  
> a No Bicycles sign if they want to effect a No Bicycle zone. The  
> dismount sign is pretty vague as to where it applies, ie for what  
> length. The paper signs, while obviously unofficial, are also  
> totally useless at night as they are not reflective.
>
> I agree with Glen's observations and comments, I can't understand  
> why a pedestrian detour was not implemented given that there are two  
> footpath options and associated pedestrian crossing facilities where  
> necessary. The current detour requires that the cyclists also  
> dismount and take on pedestrian status on the cross walks. Cyclists  
> really do seem to draw the short straw up against both motorists and  
> pedestrians, kinda third rate citizens.
> Queensland Transport did tell me some time ago that the law provides  
> for a fine of up to $1500 for riding in the wrong direction on a  
> footpath. The Australian Road Rules were changed to allow riding in  
> both directions but the QRR did not adopt those changes. Last I  
> heard was that they were going to enact the changes last month with  
> the last round of road rule changes but when I checked some months  
> back I could see no proposed legislation changes and QT was of  
> little help.
>
> I reckon that a request to the OH&S Workcover folk would be the best  
> bet and force them to make an audit of the site. You have to have  
> some personal grievance in order to get some feedback or they will  
> investigate but tell you nothing. You need to ask them to advise you  
> if and when it is safe to re-visit the site of which you complain.
>
> At least this time they have taken to warning cyclists about  
> pedestrians with metal bars like the old codger that clobbered  
> Anthony last time on the sewer works - I noticed some Watch Your  
> Head signs above the detour too :)
>
> k
>
> Glen Fergus wrote:
>>
>> Just eyeballed the "detour".  Basically it's along the northern Coro
>> Drive footpath, although two outbound cyclists appeared to have been
>> directed to the southern Coro footpath by the traffic controller
>> while I was there.
>>
>> Ian's photos on the wiki are of the southern footpath, which is
>> totally unsuitable for cycling IMO.  It's barely wide enough for a
>> ped.  They would have to lean hard against the fence to let an
>> oncoming bike pass.  Joggers are already using this route in numbers
>> because they're supposedly not allowed to run along the scaffold.
>>
>> The northern footpath detour is better, but the path is barely 1m
>> wide in places and is already quite busy with pedestrians.  The
>> city-end access is signed via the tunnel, so that saves two of your
>> ped crossings.
>>
>> I observe:
>>
>> 1.  Given that traffic counts show roughly twice as many bikes as
>> peds on the bikeway, why wouldn't you divert the peds to the
>> FOOTpath and let the bikes cycle straight through?  Is this the
>> Bicentennial Bikeway, or WALKWAY ?!!
>>
>> 2.  Amusingly, the detours appear to be in technical breach of
>> the Queensland Road Rules, for reasons outlined here before.  (The
>> argument goes that while there is no specific rule against footpath
>> cycling in Queensland, the rule that says that drivers (including
>> cyclist) must keep to the left side of the road still applies.  So
>> technically you can't cycle outbound on the northern Coro footpath,
>> nor inbound on the southern.)
>>
>> 3.  The scaffold detour is just on 2m wide, and is totally
>> unsuitable for thousands of ped and bike movements per day as
>> indicated by the traffic counts.  That would be enough to shut
>> the job down if I was running it.
>>
>> 4.  The flimsy paper "Cyclists Dismount" signs do not appear to
>> comply with the Road Rules or MUTCD, and so are unenforceable.
>> Ditto the "No Running or Jogging" signs.  I'd also venture that
>> a direction from a contract traffic controller is likely to be
>> unenforceable too.  So if you wanted to ride through, in theory
>> you probably could.  Expect abuse.
>>
>> 5.  The works they've started this afternoon appear to be some
>> simple excavation for a low retaining wall on the Coro side of
>> the path.  No obvious reason why this couldn't have been done as
>> night works, with a night detour or (better) night-only one-way
>> traffic control.  That would have saved a half kilometre of
>> scaffold, and much angst.
>>
>> 6.  I still don't know who the Contractor is.  Some try-hard
>> tiddler, I'd venture.
>>
>> G.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au
>>> [mailto:bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Christopher  
>>> Biggs
>>> Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:35 PM
>>> To: entropic at iinet.net.au
>>> Cc: bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
>>> Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Bike NAZIs on Coro Drive
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Apr 2009, at 11:32 AM, Daniel Young wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Michael and all,
>>>>
>>>> Just one thing to note-  I have noticed previously that there are
>>>> cycling "detour" signs up around this area, implying that the
>>>> walkway can be avoided.  I haven't followed the detour,
>>>>
>>> does anybody
>>>
>>>> know what it is?
>>>>
>>> The "detour" is go up the park Rd ramp, cross at lights (3
>>> sets, walk
>>> of course, don't ride), ride along the coro drive inbound-side
>>> footpath to cribb st, cross again (dismount twice) down ramp
>>> back onto
>>> bicentennial jogway.
>>>
>>>
>>>>   I assumed it would be something that involves cycling through
>>>> Milton, then coming back to Coro Dr at a later point (obviously
>>>> crossing (and dismounting)) at pedestrian lights to re-join the
>>>> bikeway.  This might be brought up since you mentioned "the
>>>>
>>> lack of
>>>
>>>> ANY options".
>>>>
>>> Yeah, in their eyes they've "provided" a detour (involving 5
>>> separate
>>> pedestrian crossings), so cries of "no option" will not get anyone
>>> very far.
>>>
>>> If I was still riding to the CBD every day, I'd give St Lucia a hard
>>> look.
>>>
>>> --chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20090430/75857878/attachment.htm