[bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly

[Michael Yeates]

Wow ... welcome to the New Year ...!

Thanks Kim and Pete ...

A useful concept here is "fitness for purpose" 
... noting that (i) fitness and "fit" are not 
necessarily regulated (and it would appear are 
quite arbitrary in Qld) and (ii) purpose may vary 
... including along a facility as well as over time.

When the first stage of the Western Freeway 
Bikeway (WFB) was completed, it had a soft 
opening some time later on May 8, 1998 as I look 
at a piece of the officially cut ribbon on my notice-board ...!

In the interim, several of us did a "user" audit 
... and using Part 14 and personal 
experience/observation as the criteria, there was a lot wrong.

However MR argued that it was for a very specific 
user group who would know how to use it. And so 
it would seem for few complaints are made about 
how badly it is designed ... most about how it is 
(mis)used ie not used as intended. Is the 
intended use forever or subject to change?

So the regular "commuter" users are OK ... but 
what would happen if a larger number of "novice" cyclists did use it?

Would they create problems for the regulars that 
are similar to those created by joggers, walkers 
(without dogs or young kids), etc?

Realistically the answer is "yes" and the reason 
is that more or less the whole facility (ie Stage 
1) is too narrow ie it was NOT designed to meet the user criteria in Part 14.

Putting aside the time separation argument (as 
this too is problematic), would use by a lot of 
primary school "novice" cyclists be acceptable or 
cause a similar problem to the "regulars" ? And 
what about people walking to get access to a better bus or train option?

So moving on 10 years or more, it might be that 
the best outcome is for more of the network to be 
"shared" ... for reasons not unlike those Pete 
espouses ... namely that the sooner the various 
modes learn (how?) to interact safely, the better for all.

An example is the speed issue where it is claimed 
cyclists are exposed to too much danger (as 
distinct from risk or threat) if using roads with 
higher speeds yet rather than lower the speed 
expectation, separation is preferred ... as for 
example on the Western Freeway which wasn't too 
bad for cycling (with a couple of exceptions) 
until MR designed the WFB and used up some of the road shoulder ...!

The novices won't enjoy cycling on facilities 
like the WFB if it is "shared" with 50 and 60 and 
higher speed cyclists ... and the latter clearly 
won't enjoy "sharing" it either ...! So should 
the fast cyclists still be permitted on the 
freeway shoulders? Should the freeway and other 
highway and fast road "shoulders" be wider for 
general safety? Yes...! So wouldn't that be 
better than narrowing the shoulders to build a 
bikepath if the purpose of the bikepath is for 
novices and not for high speed regulars?

Fitness for purpose ...!

Also of course the question arises more across 
the whole network than just on "footpaths" 
whether designated (as against designed) for 
pedestrians, or for cyclists or "shared" ie for both.

In most cases, roads that are safe enough for 
cyclists are safe enough for pedestrians ... 
especially in the case of novice cyclists.

So should the roads and paths be designed for novices or for regulars?

Perhaps we would get more paths if they are 
shared ... and designated for both pedestrians and novice cyclists ...?

If that "purpose" creates a problem for (or 
caused by) the regular or high speed cyclists, 
then should we let them on the roads and if 
necessary, then, make the roads safe enough????

As similar issues are discussed, namely who is 
designing what and for whom, etc etc, you might 
like to have a look at 
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2758349.htm 
re on road cycling ... but also at "Housing the 
Millions" from last weekend (a repeat it would 
seem of an earlier programme on the same topic 
from 22 November 2009) but with some different 
comments ... all worth considering as part of 
planning and in planning of infrastructure.

And noting that the subject has been slightly (?) 
hi-jacked, at a "network" level, while it may be 
the case a lot of cyclists use the WFB and 
therefore there should be better provision for 
them to cross the Moggill Road corridor with less 
delay and perhaps increased priority (including 
replacing the slip lane zebra crossings with 
traffic lights?), its worth noting that there is 
the need to preserve walking routes and where 
necessary, to give pedestrians priority too ... 
including priority over cyclists ... if only to 
encourage kids (and everyone else) to walk and/or 
cycle instead - to quote from QT's slogan ... as 
that is where the "novice" cyclists are ...!

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

At 10:17 AM 12/01/2010, kim wrote:

>Hi Pete,
>
>I think what the fuss is really about, is that 
>the Western Arterial Bikeway is a pretty useful 
>and valuable commuter route where cyclists can 
>travel at a reasonable pace and this risks 
>turning into what the Centennial Bikeway became 
>with shared traffic. It is basically generating 
>conflict by design or rather, lack of it. Your 
>'pedestrian point of view' is that of a seasoned 
>runner who is deliberately choosing to flaunt 
>the rules and take/make the risk. I don't think 
>the issue of signs is going to deter those 
>people but if the police point of view or that 
>of the BCC is correct in that the lack of signs 
>allows other pedestrians to inadvertently get 
>onto the bikeway then it is not fair on those 
>people if they are exposed to or cause risk. The 
>'pedestrian point of view' should be through 
>their eyes. I would venture to say that it is 
>those people who present the greater risk to 
>cyclists also. I have encountered the most WTF 
>situations along there making me wonder if it is 
>just me riding at some odd hour or what.
>I think it is fair to say that most of the 
>seasoned road cyclists are already out there 
>doing their thing but if Brisbane wants to grow 
>its cyclist numbers its going to have to attract 
>the new, less experienced riders or indeed the 
>not-as-yet riders. Your survival of the fittest 
>philosophy doesn't really foster that, that's 
>why much of the advocacy needs to look at some 
>of the stumbling blocks for those lesser 
>experienced people. Same goes for the bike 
>lights, the average Joe Pedal's bike probably 
>costs less than a high tech super bright light, 
>so it is unreasonable to expect bikes to have 
>much in the way of lumens to spare. That's where 
>passive reflective devices on the posts and 
>rails at the bridges are not only useful but are 
>dirt cheap and required in the manuals.
>While you say that there are bigger fish to fry, 
>I would say that it is not simply a matter of 
>spending your life going for the big ones, like 
>Ahab pursuing Moby Dick, it's about getting bang 
>for buck and a more immediate result. I reckon 
>that significant improvements to that bikeway 
>can be made at very little cost and for that 
>reason alone have a better chance of coming to 
>fruition. The crossing there of Moggill Rd is an 
>obvious one that can be improved with a small 
>outlay and some cheap thought. Same goes for the 
>lighting issues. If there is a need to 
>accommodate pedestrians in there, then by all 
>means look into it, but do it by design, not by 
>lack of design. If small improvements are not 
>made, its utility will eventually just degrade the way the Centennial did.
>
>k
>
>I must say that I am pleased that MR is still 
>slogging along with these freeway corridor 
>bikeways despite the lack of monies; the SE 
>freeway one is gradually connecting up with 
>Logan while other MR projects have basically just stalled.
>
>Peter Whittle wrote:
>>I’m not sure what the fuss is. Even on “bikes” 
>>roads, the hazard/complexity between motor 
>>vehicles/bikes is far greater than encountered 
>>between bikes and the occasional peds on the 
>>bikeway. To be honest there is far more hazard 
>>from the occasional wayward cyclist than any ped.
>>
>>I’ve been known to use “no bikes” roads where 
>>it suits me. Looking at it from the point of 
>>view of a pedestrian, it is the only decent 
>>linear, uninterrupted run for miles around. 
>>When living on the Sunshine Coast, I flouted 
>>the “no bikes” rule on the motorway, along with 
>>many other cyclists, and if I was a runner 
>>these days and living around there, I’d be out 
>>there running on the bikeway, and telling outraged riders to chill out.
>>
>>I agree about lighting issues but again, 
>>cyclists are often just as bad as any ped, even 
>>though they are legally required to be lit. 
>>These days, after nearly hitting a dog on a 
>>road in the dark, I take responsibility for my 
>>lighting by using a very bright one, and I try 
>>to anticipate dark things emerging from darkness.
>>
>>Don’t be too shrewish about this – there are bigger fish to fry.
>>
>>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: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 
>270.14.135/2615 - Release Date: 01/12/10 05:35:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20100112/b1390ba0/attachment.htm