[bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly

Wed Jan 27 15:56:52 CST 2010

the simple solution is to remove the zebra crossing
________________________________________________________________________________

Bill Guy | Transport  | Aurecon 
Ph: +61 7 3173 8325 | Fax: +61 7 3173 8001 | Mob: +61 (0) 421 327 599 
Email: guyb at ap.aurecongroup.com 
32 Turbot Street (Locked Bag 331) | Brisbane Queensland 4001 | Australia 
http://www.aurecongroup.com
http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/groupentity/        
________________________________________________________________________________

Please consider your environment before printing this e-mail.

Bob Wagner <b.wagner at ozemail.com.au> 
Sent by: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au
27/01/2010 07:47 PM

To
BIQ <bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au>
cc

Subject
Re: [bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly
Project
Not assigned ...

Isn't the simple solution a sign on the Cycle way that says that 
"Cyclist do not need to dismount to cross" at the zebra crossing, or 
"Cyclist must stop before riding across" the zebra crossing.

Bob Wagner
b.wagner at ozemail.com.au
b.wagner at staidan.qld.edu.au

On 27/01/2010, at 7:10 PM, Ian Lister wrote:

> Hi Kim,
>
> CBD BUG has not yet received (nor pursued) a reply to the original 
> request. The issue came up at the meeting today, and we'll be 
> following it up.
>
> You might be right that the CBD BUG letter gave MR an "out" by 
> asking for (rather than specifying) a solution but, at the time I 
> wrote the letter, we hadn't been able to come up with a satisfactory 
> solution ourselves. I must admit the reason your suggestion (of 
> adjusting the pedestrian crossings to allow cycling across the slip 
> lane without cycling on the pedestrian crossings themselves) was not 
> put forward was that we didn't think of it, but I'm not sure whether 
> I would suggest it if I was writing the letter again today. I worry 
> that it would similarly give MR an "out", by suggesting an approach 
> that would quite likely be even less safe than the current situation 
> (admittedly that's speculation, and difficult to judge), and 
> possibly even fewer people would understand the relevant road rules 
> (speculation again, admittedly).
>
> As you know, there's always pros and cons of requesting rather than 
> dictating solutions. On the one hand MR (in this case) undoubtedly 
> has the responsibility for designing and implementing a solution to 
> the problem. It has teams of professional engineers at its disposal. 
> Although we armchair traffic engineers might not like to admit it, 
> they do actually have a lot of relevant knowledge that we don't. On 
> the other hand, sometimes a good solution is pretty obvious to us 
> and worth identifying explicitly, or a more novel idea (such as 
> yours) is _not_ obvious, and worth suggesting. The risk of 
> suggesting something is that it's not the optimal solution, and the 
> responsible agency uses the suggestion as an "out" to provide 
> something sub-optimal because it's cheaper/easier.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, kim wrote:
>> Thanks too Ian,
>>
>> That letter from CBD BUG looks like it might have been what 
>> prompted MR's attention. My assumption that BQ might have taken up 
>> the case was probably then wrong. Good on the CBD BUG for taking up 
>> the issue with MR. It seems that the BUGs are doing the lion's 
>> share of the advocacy for cyclists. I would have hoped that such a 
>> major commuter bikeway and what is a more universal problem in Bris 
>> (that of the not riding across crossings despite footpaths being 
>> shared paths) might have attracted some interest from BQ.
>>
>> What's CBD BUG's view on the outcome? MR did say something occurred 
>> just before Christmas, not sure if he meant a complaint or that was 
>> when the lights were put up.
>>
>> I think that in the letter the mere mention that the zebra 
>> crossings might be more of a problem and asking MR is they had any 
>> ideas was a bit of a way out for MR. There was always the option of 
>> removing the zebra crossings as pedestrians still have priority 
>> there; that was not suggested nor was the idea of making provision 
>> beside the zebra or even narrowing the zebra to achieve this, all 
>> possibilities. I think that they might be there simply by some 
>> policy that it is an intersection/interchange with a motorway 
>> rather than because of the number of pedestrians expected. You 
>> might think that if they were indeed placed there for dismounted 
>> cyclists that now they would make them into mounted cyclists 
>> crossings under the same rationale. There are slip-ons and slip- 
>> offs further along Moggill that notably don't have zebra crossings 
>> which have more actual pedestrian use. Places such as Taringa Pde 
>> by the school rightfully have zebras on the slip lanes on and off. 
>> It was a gallant suggestion tho, in these harsh financial times to 
>> say the BUG supported a nice cycle bridge there after MR just 
>> forked out some $20m on the Toowong bridge which might get buggered 
>> by the tunnel :)
>>
>> k
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Disclaimer - http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/disclaimer/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20100128/94cdf223/attachment.htm