<html>
<body>
Wow ... welcome to the New Year ...! <br><br>
Thanks Kim and Pete ...<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 ...! <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
So the regular "commuter" users are OK ... but what would
happen if a larger number of "novice" cyclists did use it?
<br><br>
Would they create problems for the regulars that are similar to those
created by joggers, walkers (without dogs or young kids), etc? <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 ...! <br><br>
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?<br><br>
Fitness for purpose ...!<br><br>
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.<br><br>
In most cases, roads that are safe enough for cyclists are safe enough
for pedestrians ... especially in the case of novice cyclists.<br><br>
So should the roads and paths be designed for novices or for regulars?
<br><br>
Perhaps we would get more paths if they are shared ... and designated for
both pedestrians and novice cyclists ...? <br><br>
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????<br><br>
As similar issues are discussed, namely who is designing what and for
whom, etc etc, you might like to have a look at
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2758349.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2758349.htm</a>
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.<br><br>
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
<b><i>walk and/or cycle instead</i></b> - to quote from QT's slogan ...
as that is where the "novice" cyclists are ...!<br><br>
MY............................<br><br>
At 10:17 AM 12/01/2010, kim wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Pete,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br><br>
k<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Peter Whittle wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Don’t be too shrewish about this – there are bigger fish to fry.<br>
<br>
Pete<br>
<br><br>
<pre>
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
bikeqld mailing list<br>
bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au<br>
<a href="http://www.bikeqld.org.au/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bikeqld.org.au/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld</a><br>
This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland.<br><br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com/" eudora="autourl">www.avg.com</a> <br>
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.135/2615 - Release Date:
01/12/10 05:35:00</blockquote></body>
</html>