[bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly

Wed Jan 27 19:03:50 CST 2010

Hi Bill et al ...

What is that saying about "simple solutions" ...? Always wrong?

Not necessarily true of course at least not in all cases.

But here the question is really why the zebra is there ... indeed why 
zebras are so common at slip lanes like this.

Surely "the" answer to these questions is the very real danger to 
those using the crossing location that is posed by the road design.

And while it might be the case the traffic engineers and road 
designers are supposed to be "experts", it isn't clear from their projects.

At least not here indeed not anywhere along the bikeway ... with 
perhaps one exception and even it might not satisfy such a diverse 
range of opinions ... ;-)

However, it would appear from seemingly endless negotiations with 
road designers that they want turning traffic to NOT slow down on the 
main through lane so the slip lanes inevitably have a fast radius 
entry (or rarely are longer before arriving at the left turn) so that 
traffic approaching and then arriving at the turn is still travelling 
relatively fast.

Add to that the fact the drivers tend to be looking to the right for 
a clear space to accelerate into after to complete the left turn ... 
and you get (i) crashes involving nose to tail and (ii) walking 
across the slip lane is much more dangerous.

So presumably is cycling across ... or so the traffic engineers and 
road designers say.

A little more analysis is needed or alternatively, consideration 
given as to why this set of zebras can be safely removed.

But then what about other zebras and similar crossing locations?

This reminds me of the long arguments about zebras being "dangerous" 
and removing them an improvement ... run in Qld by the RACQ ... but 
based on "research" that related to multi-lane not single lane 
crossings. Is that era still having an impact here?

The reason they were said to be dangerous tended to be supported by 
evidence that a lot of pedestrians were hit by motor vehicles while 
using the zebras ... and why was that? The pedestrians it was said 
just walked out on the crossings without looking.

Now looking has some merit ... but if pedestrians are supposed to 
have priority on zebras, then is the responsibility on drivers (and 
road designers) to create a road environment where drivers slow down 
to a speed such that they can stop if a pedestrian "suddenly" appears 
on the crossing?

Does the same apply for cyclists crossing roads or "suddenly" 
appearing? Do peds have any priority at zebras?

The problem seems to be that the motorists "might is right" implies 
that it is always the responsibility of the pedestrian (or cyclist) 
to ensure it is safe to cross a road ... but does this mean it is 
never the responsibility of the motorist or road designer?

Indooroopilly State School has an appalling traffic problem no doubt 
in part due to the percentage of kids being driven to school in part 
because there are such poor facilities for walking or cycling to the 
school ... not least because walking on the bikepath the only bit of 
reasonable quality facility for peds is where they are prohibited.

So why would advocates of cycling be arguing for making walking or 
cycling to school more dangerous?

The issue of bikes and peds crossing roads has been sorted out well 
in other places in Oz ... eg in Melbourne but also here in Qld.

So why not here at this particular crossing?

Surely it isn't yet another case of there being no suitable solution 
for peds and cyclists to cross?

But if it is, then what are the reasons that justify that position?

If this is part of a perhaps $40m NCV major bike route facility, then 
surely it should have some priority over motorised traffic?

Taking out the zebras does not seem to address that view ... but 
maybe it does?

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

At 07:56 AM 28/01/2010, Bill Guy wrote:

>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/
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2650 - Release Date: 
>01/28/10 05:36:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20100128/8d72f310/attachment-0001.htm