<html>
<body>
Hi Bill et al ...<br><br>
What is that saying about "simple solutions" ...? Always wrong?
<br><br>
Not necessarily true of course at least not in all cases.<br><br>
But here the question is really why the zebra is there ... indeed why
zebras are so common at slip lanes like this.<br><br>
Surely "the" answer to these questions is the very real danger
to those using the crossing location that is posed by the road
design.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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 ... ;-) <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
So presumably is cycling across ... or so the traffic engineers and road
designers say.<br><br>
A little more analysis is needed or alternatively, consideration given as
to why this set of zebras can be safely removed. <br><br>
But then what about other zebras and similar crossing locations?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Does the same apply for cyclists crossing roads or "suddenly"
appearing? Do peds have any priority at zebras?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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. <br><br>
So why would advocates of cycling be arguing for making walking or
cycling to school more dangerous?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
So why not here at this particular crossing? <br><br>
Surely it isn't yet another case of there being no suitable solution for
peds and cyclists to cross? <br><br>
But if it is, then what are the reasons that justify that
position?<br><br>
If this is part of a perhaps $40m NCV major bike route facility, then
surely it should have some priority over motorised traffic?<br><br>
Taking out the zebras does not seem to address that view ... but maybe it
does? <br><br>
MY.............<br><br>
At 07:56 AM 28/01/2010, Bill Guy wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>the simple solution
is to remove the zebra crossing<br>
</font><font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>
________________________________________________________________________________</b>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b> </b></font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>Bill Guy |</font><font size=2>
Transport
</font><font size=2 color="#8F8F8F">|</font><font size=2 color="#0060A0">
Aurecon </b></font><br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>Ph: +61 7 3173 8325 | Fax: +61 7 3173
8001 | Mob: +61 (0) 421 327 599 </b></font><br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>Email:</font><font size=2 color="#0060A0">
guyb@ap.aurecongroup.com </b></font><br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>32 Turbot Street (Locked Bag 331) |
Brisbane Queensland 4001 | Australia </b></font><br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>
<a href="http://www.aurecongroup.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.aurecongroup.com</a></b></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#8F8F8F">
<a href="http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/groupentity/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/groupentity/</a></font>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"> <b>
</b></font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"><b>
________________________________________________________________________________</b>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#8F8F8F"> </font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#008000">Please consider your environment before
printing this e-mail.</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<font size=1><b>Bob Wagner <b.wagner@ozemail.com.au></b>
</font><br>
<font size=1>Sent by: bikeqld-bounces@bikeqld.org.au</font> <br>
<font size=1>27/01/2010 07:47 PM</font> <br>
<div align="right"><font size=1>To<br>
</div>
BIQ <bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au></font> <br>
<div align="right"><font size=1>cc<br>
Subject<br>
</div>
Re: [bikeqld] Moggill Rd crossing at Indooroopilly</font> <br>
<div align="right"><font size=1>Project<br>
</div>
<b>Not assigned ...</b></font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<tt><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>Isn't the simple solution a
sign on the Cycle way that says that <br>
"Cyclist do not need to dismount to cross" at the zebra
crossing, or <br>
"Cyclist must stop before riding across" the zebra
crossing.<br><br>
<br><br>
Bob Wagner<br>
b.wagner@ozemail.com.au<br>
b.wagner@staidan.qld.edu.au<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
On 27/01/2010, at 7:10 PM, Ian Lister wrote:<br><br>
> Hi Kim,<br>
><br>
> CBD BUG has not yet received (nor pursued) a reply to the
original <br>
> request. The issue came up at the meeting today, and we'll be
<br>
> following it up.<br>
><br>
> You might be right that the CBD BUG letter gave MR an
"out" by <br>
> asking for (rather than specifying) a solution but, at the time
I <br>
> wrote the letter, we hadn't been able to come up with a
satisfactory <br>
> solution ourselves. I must admit the reason your suggestion
(of <br>
> adjusting the pedestrian crossings to allow cycling across the
slip <br>
> lane without cycling on the pedestrian crossings themselves) was
not <br>
> put forward was that we didn't think of it, but I'm not sure
whether <br>
> I would suggest it if I was writing the letter again today. I
worry <br>
> that it would similarly give MR an "out", by suggesting an
approach <br>
> that would quite likely be even less safe than the current
situation <br>
> (admittedly that's speculation, and difficult to judge), and
<br>
> possibly even fewer people would understand the relevant road
rules <br>
> (speculation again, admittedly).<br>
><br>
> As you know, there's always pros and cons of requesting rather
than <br>
> dictating solutions. On the one hand MR (in this case)
undoubtedly <br>
> has the responsibility for designing and implementing a solution
to <br>
> the problem. It has teams of professional engineers at its
disposal. <br>
> Although we armchair traffic engineers might not like to admit
it, <br>
> they do actually have a lot of relevant knowledge that we don't.
On <br>
> the other hand, sometimes a good solution is pretty obvious to
us <br>
> and worth identifying explicitly, or a more novel idea (such
as <br>
> yours) is _not_ obvious, and worth suggesting. The risk of
<br>
> suggesting something is that it's not the optimal solution, and
the <br>
> responsible agency uses the suggestion as an "out" to
provide <br>
> something sub-optimal because it's cheaper/easier.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Ian<br>
><br>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, kim wrote:<br>
>> Thanks too Ian,<br>
>><br>
>> That letter from CBD BUG looks like it might have been
what <br>
>> prompted MR's attention. My assumption that BQ might have taken
up <br>
>> the case was probably then wrong. Good on the CBD BUG for taking
up <br>
>> the issue with MR. It seems that the BUGs are doing the
lion's <br>
>> share of the advocacy for cyclists. I would have hoped that such
a <br>
>> major commuter bikeway and what is a more universal problem in
Bris <br>
>> (that of the not riding across crossings despite footpaths
being <br>
>> shared paths) might have attracted some interest from BQ.<br>
>><br>
>> What's CBD BUG's view on the outcome? MR did say something
occurred <br>
>> just before Christmas, not sure if he meant a complaint or that
was <br>
>> when the lights were put up.<br>
>><br>
>> I think that in the letter the mere mention that the zebra
<br>
>> crossings might be more of a problem and asking MR is they had
any <br>
>> ideas was a bit of a way out for MR. There was always the option
of <br>
>> removing the zebra crossings as pedestrians still have
priority <br>
>> there; that was not suggested nor was the idea of making
provision <br>
>> beside the zebra or even narrowing the zebra to achieve this,
all <br>
>> possibilities. I think that they might be there simply by
some <br>
>> policy that it is an intersection/interchange with a
motorway <br>
>> rather than because of the number of pedestrians expected.
You <br>
>> might think that if they were indeed placed there for
dismounted <br>
>> cyclists that now they would make them into mounted
cyclists <br>
>> crossings under the same rationale. There are slip-ons and slip-
<br>
>> offs further along Moggill that notably don't have zebra
crossings <br>
>> which have more actual pedestrian use. Places such as Taringa
Pde <br>
>> by the school rightfully have zebras on the slip lanes on and
off. <br>
>> It was a gallant suggestion tho, in these harsh financial times
to <br>
>> say the BUG supported a nice cycle bridge there after MR
just <br>
>> forked out some $20m on the Toowong bridge which might get
buggered <br>
>> by the tunnel :)<br>
>><br>
>> k<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<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>
_______________________________________________<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>
</font></tt><br><br>
<br>
<font size=1><br><br>
<br>
Disclaimer -
<a href="http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/disclaimer/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/disclaimer/</a> </font><br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2650 - Release Date: 01/28/10
05:36:00</blockquote></body>
</html>