[bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly

[kim]

I think that in both MR/QT and BCC design centres, cyclists being 
regarded as lesser forms of life, probably means we don't even get 
considered with that 80% (85%) rule in mind. Look at the 10kph limits 
BCC have put on their separated bikeway at 'Roo Pt. Supposedly a new 
extension to that coming soon (or already), wonder if that state-of-art 
design can accommodate better than 10kph speed? Same goes for the recent 
bridges and their 10 kph limit. Now what percentage of cyclists would 
normally go at 10kph or less in those places? Probably closer to 1% and 
that is being generous. So Pete might be onto something here. Perhaps 
that while they aim to please 80-85% of motorists, the figure that they 
aim to please though for cyclists is that magic 1%.

I have no problems with the need for zebras if there is a genuine need 
for the peds sake but I have my doubts that they were needed for 
pedestrians (other than dismounted cyclists) in this instance. I don't 
even think that there is a pedestrian crossing or lights across the rest 
of the entry to the motorway south at this point where pedestrians might 
come from the direction of Kenmore along the footpath. It really does 
not look geared up for pedestrians at all and the generators are not 
apparent to me either. I am sure they must have an objective process to 
make that determination tho.

k


Michael Yeates wrote:
> Pete ...
>
> It is "worse" (?) than 80%  ... its actually 85% ...!
>
> So presumably if 99% don't obey, then the facility should be changed ... !
>
> But NOT the rule because there are many other seemingly "similar" 
> circumstances where (as with traffic speed) the rule may be right or 
> wrong depending on context.
>
> Here at Indro, it is clear that peds need a high visibility and high 
> priority pedestrian crossing ie zebras, if only to encourage the 
> school kids and the occasional pedestrians.
>
> MY...............
>
> At 10:50 AM 19/01/2010, Peter Whittle wrote:
>