[bikeqld] Survey

Sun Oct 4 18:22:42 CDT 2009

Pete and Anthony and interested others,

Interesting news ... thanks for the info and comments ...

Yep it is a pity too that because CARSS-Q is 
(perhaps inevitably?) so much funded by road 
authorities and other government agencies and it 
has quite a few staff who are former employees of 
such agencies which in itself isn't necessarily a 
problem if they and their research unit are 
fearless and their briefs etc are transparent and 
open to public scrutiny and critique.

Clearly it is difficult to get funding for 
research that might be critical of government 
especially so if both the researchers and the 
government know the research is likely, perhaps 
inevitably, to be critical. And sadly, in my view 
and experience over some 20 or more years, and 
more recently with CARRS-Q, they know.

To illustrate, here are some further examples.

#1 ... It is easier to research whether the whole 
or partial population consider older drivers 
should have a restricted licence than it is to 
see what might cause or contribute to older 
drivers (as a group) tending to drive slower ... 
could it be that it is safer and easier for ALL 
road users (ie motorised, cyclists, pedestrians 
and of all ages and abilities) if ALL urban road traffic was to move slower?

#2 ... It is easy to blame "victims" and/or the 
"powerless" eg cyclists or pedestrians, and for 
the "research" to appear legit, rather more 
difficult to question a dominant belief system 
embedded by up to 14 years of "road safety" 
education ie from K-12 ... so is it "safer" for 
all road users to separate/segregate these 
"vulnerable" road users (and would they be likely 
to agree to that) or would it be safer for all if 
urban road traffic was to move slower given those 
14 years or more of "education" followed by "x" 
years of experience on the roads as currently used and managed?

#3 ... Is research based only or primarily on 
community experience in a current road 
"environment" valid or biased, if the majority of 
those surveyed have insufficient, little or no 
experience of other road operational environments 
eg the increasingly dominant 30/50 speed limits 
in urban Europe and the 20mph in UK and 25mph in parts of the USA?

#4 ... The cyclists v motorist "what makes 
motorists and cyclists mad with each other" 
adversarial mentality is endemic ... yet arguably 
addressing this at the level of individual 
behaviour etc is biased if the system level 
requirements eg speed limits, road design, road 
operational management, etc are not open to 
change or critique or research. One example is 
the previous "trial" of 30km/h speed limits in 
SCHOOL ZONES instead of the current 40km/h. There 
is a similar "trial" either starting today or 
soon to see as to whether 40km/h can be applied 
to SCHOOL ZONES  on two lane each way roads. Are 
the trials and their conditions etc, and results 
and findings available for public scrutiny? If not, why not?

#5 ... Given the "new" cycle lanes in 
George/Tank/Turbot, etc and the new "spiny" 
bridge, anyone thought much about why the cycle 
lanes were/are deemed necessary or what other 
alternatives might have been applied that were 
"better" (or worse) and for whom?

#6 ... To what extent if at all, does the current 
CARRS-Q research project and/or the survey 
referred to below, address issues such as those 
above? Might it act to bring forward, or delay, 
research in these and related areas at a whole of 
or wider, population level? To what extent might 
it have been more (or less) useful and beneficial 
(and to whom) if that research or similar have 
been implemented ... perhaps instead of the current project?

In other words, if the Australian road 
authorities and related government agencies know 
the roads could and can be managed very 
differently AND achieve a far "safer" (used here 
to include the many related issues which are 
inevitably compromised eg convenience, priority, 
etc) outcome and there is strong evidence that 
can be drawn upon from both here and overseas, 
then is much of the "safety" and related research 
essentially being funded and undertaken so it 
does not question critically what some of us 
might argue is obvious ... namely that urban 
speed limits are too high and roads designed and 
managed and operated accordingly ... causing or 
contributing to many of the "problems" that are 
the topic of research esp in relation to 
cyclists, pedestrians, and other particular 
groups eg older drivers, etc, rather than ALL road users?

So if cyclists ride where they ride because other 
locations are (or are perceived as) too dangerous 
or too inconvenient (eg too long waiting at 
traffic lights to cross a road) or too polluted 
(due to what?) etc, then research derived from 
cyclists stating where they ride may well be 
self-serving for the government agencies ie it 
might well endorse the current situation ... and 
thereby remove or hide any incentive or need to 
address the issues and concerns that lead to 
other routes not being used or indeed to choice of other modes than cycling ...

Or as the previous research Pete referred to 
seems to suggest, much research can result in 
what is commonly described as "blaming the 
victim" or as blaming (or concern for) the 
vulnerable road users ... but why are they so 
vulnerable is the question and what options are 
there to make the roads both safer and more convenient for all road users?

This isn't a new issue of course ... if 
interested, try a search in GOOGLE for < 
safety+convenience > then try < 
"safety+convenience" Queensland cycli* > ... or 
for a somewhat different view, try < "sharing the 
road" > ...etc etc etc ... If you wish, you could 
even see what you get if you add  < Yeates > to those searches ...!

Care needed with surveys ...??

BTW, when I do get to read the survey, I am 
hoping at least some the above is no longer the 
case ... just wondering how long to wait ...!

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

At 06:58 AM 5/10/2009, Peter Whittle wrote:

>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01CA4589.4ED2BBB0"
>Content-Language: en-au
>
>This wouldÂ  be from the group that in their 
>last survey and paper, basically concluded that 
>bikes got hit by cars because the driver 
>didnâ€™t see them till too late (oh boy) and the 
>solution was in cyclist education (obviously the 
>cyclistâ€™s fault for not being seen!).
>
>P
>
>From: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au 
>[mailto:bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Anthony Lee
>Sent: Monday, 5 October 2009 6:14 AM
>To: BIQ
>Subject: [bikeqld] Survey
>
>This survey sounds useful. And you can get a T-shirt.
>
>it's taken quite a while, but we've finally 
>launched our Queensland Cycle Survey, as of 
>today it's your chance to tell us why you ride, 
>where you ride, how much you ride & any glorious 
>injuries you've received while riding.
>
>you can complete survey online: 
><http://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/cyclingsurvey.jsp>www.carrsq.qut. 
>edu.au/cyclingsu rvey.jsp
>or I can send you a paper copy: 31384944; 
><mailto:cyclesurvey at qut.edu.au>cyclesurvey@ qut.edu.au
>
>please pass it on to anyone you know who rides, 
>any kind of bike at all (tandem, bmx, track, 
>downhill, triathlon, road, hybrid).
>
>cheers,
>amy
>
>Anthony Lee
>The Doctor -- the last of the Time Lords?
>........-- __o
>....-- _ \<,_
>........(_) / (_)
>E-Mail: doctorw1963 at yahoo.com.au
>
>
>__,_._,___
>
>
>Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more.
>_______________________________________________
>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: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 
>- Release Date: 10/04/09 18:42:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20091005/0c256dfd/attachment-0001.htm