[bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly

Tue Jan 12 21:00:09 CST 2010

Yes a law that came into force last year I believe, pedestrians have  
right of way at slip lanes. Zebra crossings at these places are made  
redundant. We had this issue with kids walking to school and crossing  
at lights, there is no zebra crossing across the slip lane to the  
island of lights. We were told that there doesnt need to be one. Shame  
most car drivers dont know this law.....

Bob Wagner
b.wagner at ozemail.com.au

On 13/01/2010, at 12:19 PM, kim wrote:

> Happy New Year too Michael.
>
> Yes the thread got a bit off topic, but back to the crossing there,  
> I have had no involvement in any of that so I really don't know what  
> transpired or what was/is planned there. As I said, I only just  
> noticed the red/green bike lanterns added but nothing else. I had  
> not heard any options about lights on the slip lanes, but I couldn't  
> see that happening, nor do I think it would make for a better  
> crossing for bikes or cars. I don't think there is any real need for  
> any sort of sophisticated system of priority either. It is pretty  
> clear that MR had always expected cyclists to ride over there and it  
> is pretty obvious that they would do so. Look how they placed the  
> yellow grab rails by the crossing button despite the dismount sign  
> being way over on the bike way entrance and across the slip lane.  
> While MR probably used the excuse in the past that it would involve  
> great expense with lights and changing the timings to reflect the  
> different time through intersection for mounted cyclists, additional  
> buttons etc, clearly that was not the case.
> I don't think there is any loss of amenity for pedestrians  
> regardless of what is done. If the zebras are scrubbed, peds (and  
> dismounted cyclists of course) still have priority over cars on the  
> sliplanes. The adjacent Moggill footpath up to the school is already  
> ped only, no bikes. It would be better in my opinion not to have to  
> scrub the zebras but to simply change the QRR to allow the zebras to  
> be shared zones (with the usual proviso of not bolting out into  
> traffic etc). That would fix the issue statewide. I do find it  
> ironic that we have some million km of shared paths in Bris but each  
> time they cross a road it becomes exclusively a pedestrian zone.  
> Then of course that could not happen quickly and the actual cost of  
> the bureaucracy and QRR changes would be high (altho the cost per  
> crossing would be no doubt lower).
> It really is a bit of a 'much ado about nothing' as 99.9% of riders  
> have not had a problem of just riding across there. If the police  
> had not got involved it probably could have continued that way too  
> without drama. I am not sure of what politics went on there but I  
> gather there was some and probably still is.
> You are familiar with that crossing, what are your thoughts on what  
> should have been done (if anything)?
>
> k
>
> ps.    I did arrive back up here in Qld to see that great progress  
> has been made on the Hale St Bridge and it is getting a splash of  
> paint. It looks uninspiringly like the Captain Cook Bridge and the  
> Victoria Bridge - a basic box section cantilever on a budget! Seems  
> to be a bit of a lump in Coro Drv there too but at least they don't  
> charge to drive over that (anyone christened that on their bike  
> yet?). I guess the Bus Lane on Coro is well and truly gone now with  
> that narrow two lane lump. Gateway2 joined up too and I hear someone  
> forgot about the design rights and simply copied Gateway1 without  
> permission of the original Italian designers and it cost Qld another  
> $12m to buy out the design rights after the fact! On the ball - not!
>
> cheers
>
>
> Michael Yeates wrote:
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100113/409dba61/attachment-0001.htm