Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby il padrone » Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:33 pm

human909 wrote:I'm not sure that we bicycles should be encouraged onto "motorways", not only is it dangerous but it defeats the purpose of these roads.

Motorway is an odd NSW term that has no meaning in the road rules. In many cases "motorways" are in fact "freeways" which IS does have a meaning in the road rules. Sydney is a bit odd the fact in the fact that bicycles are allowed on their freeways in metropolitan areas. In general bicycles are banned from metropolitan freeways, exceptions seem to be made where there is no practical alternative route.

In Victoria bikes are able to be legally ridden on all rural freeways. The metropolitan freeways have bikes banned due to the traffic density. However Alan Parker, long-time bicycle advocate, held a cosistent opinion that bikes should be allowed on the safest roads per km. Freeways have no intersections, the number one collision point for urban cycling. There could be potential strategies developed to deal better with the slip-lane conflict.

human909 wrote:Why isn't Anazac and Botany Rd possible?

Probably because they just lead to the dead-end of Port Botany. Most road bunches on Southern Cross Drive are probably heading further south, or out along the M5 Cycleway.
Last edited by il padrone on Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:58 pm

BNA
 

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby human909 » Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:58 pm

il padrone wrote:In Victoria bikes are able to be legally ridden on all rural freeways. The metropolitan freeways have bikes banned due to the traffic density. However Alan Parker, long-time bicycle advocate, held a cosistent opinion that bikes should be allowed on the safest roads per km. Freeways have no intersections, the number one collision point for urban cycling. There could be potential strategies developed to deal better with the slip-lane conflict.

I can't see bunch riding dealing safely and intelligently with the sliplane conflict. In fact I've seen bunches do some crazy things jumping from shoulders across sliplanes without looking. With a big wide shoulder and sensible behaviour at sliplanes I don't see the issue with cyclists riding on rural freeways, and nor do most cyclists/motorists as far as I can tell.

But in metropolitan areas there should be safe alternatives that DON'T interfere with the purpose of the freeway. I know in many cases there isn't but that is the solution that is needed in my opinion, not bike lanes on freeways.
human909
 
Posts: 5202
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby hunch » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:26 pm

human909 wrote:(It puzzles me that there is no other practicable alternative exists, but I'm ignorant on Sydney topography. Why isn't Anazac and Botany Rd possible?)


Probably is, I think a bit of license is being taken saying there's no other way.

My old weekday commute decades back to Kensington was via Mascot, back of Eastlakes, Gardeners and Eastern side of Australian Golf Club, less convenient than Southern Cross - sure. Most life threatening section was exit of the Airport tunnel into a rising sun. Hard to know how this idiot plowed into people, judging by the traffic I saw that morning!
hunch
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby jules21 » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:29 pm

most metro freeways here have a shared path running alongside them. there isn't always a great need to allow bikes on the fwy. the traffic density is a problem, too. cars and trucks are often having to duck into the emergency lane - such as when leaving their braking too late. this causes a lot of nose-to-tail crashes between motorists, which carry a lower risk than intersection crashes (where the change in velocity tends to be higher), but would be lethal for cyclists.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8908
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby il padrone » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:42 pm

human909 wrote:I can't see bunch riding dealing safely and intelligently with the sliplane conflict. In fact I've seen bunches do some crazy things jumping from shoulders across sliplanes without looking.

BTW, a valuable lane maneuvering technique for bunches on multi-lane roads. Lead your bunch from the rear. When you consider where the traffic is coming from it all makes a lot of sense.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby Eleri » Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:57 am

il padrone wrote:BTW, a valuable lane maneuvering technique for bunches on multi-lane roads. Lead your bunch from the rear. When you consider where the traffic is coming from it all makes a lot of sense.


I agree and that's where I lead bunches from - back RHS - and manage lane changes myself rather than rely on perhaps an inexperienced bunch rider to look after our safety. That said, in recent weeks I've been very aware that I'm the most vulnerable position for being run over just going straight ahead. At least on lane changes in traffic I'm making eye contact with motorists and judging their behaviour before moving into the lane and calling the bunch across. Most let us in if we are travelling at a reasonable clip it must be said.
Image
Eleri
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Inner West, Sydney

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby TREKKER_MIKE » Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:10 am

human909 wrote:I'm not sure that we bicycles should be encouraged onto "motorways", not only is it dangerous but it defeats the purpose of these roads.

Motorway is an odd NSW term that has no meaning in the road rules. In many cases "motorways" are in fact "freeways" which IS does have a meaning in the road rules. Sydney is a bit odd the fact in the fact that bicycles are allowed on their freeways in metropolitan areas. In general bicycles are banned from metropolitan freeways, exceptions seem to be made where there is no practical alternative route. Likewise freeways, motorways, interstates and autobahns across the globe normally ban bicycles and other slow moving vehicles except where no alternatives exist.

Now if there is a there is no practical alternatives to cyclists than the motorway then that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Having bikes on a metropolitan motorway even with a dedicated lane is NOT a good fix. Dutch cyclists, in fact most European cyclists, would find this concept laughable.


(It puzzles me that there is no other practicable alternative exists, but I'm ignorant on Sydney topography. Why isn't Anazac and Botany Rd possible?)


This whole topic is seriously doing my head in. I said once before that motorways are dangerous (this was before the accident) i suggested alternative routes instead, i was berated "we have a legal right, blah blah blah" so i gave it some thought and figured a transit lane for cyclists , particularly for morning club bunch rides would be a safe way to train, and motorists are not allowed in the lane at all, negating the need to overtake and eliminating a certain amount of danger. The bunch riders will be on those roads because they are smoother, quieter that time of morning and there is no intersections that idiots could run red lights and cut off cyclists. A cycle lane Anywhere is a victory for cyclists and safety. We dont have the space to put a dedicated cycle lanes, plus they are too narrow IMO for bunch riding. and you will be doing 40kph, and come across my son riding his little bike with training wheels on enjoying a safe bike path, there will be a tragedy. Bike paths are great for one or 2 riders and commute, but the serious incidents have happened with bunch training rides.

This does not cost a fortune in making new roads/paths, it is using current infrastructure. Can be implemented sooner rather than later. we need an solution and fast to save cyclists on the roads.

Morning bunch training rides can be more dangerous with alot of stop and start at intersections
Professional rear gunner for "E" grade crit's
TREKKER_MIKE
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby queequeg » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:42 am

human909 wrote:I'm not sure that we bicycles should be encouraged onto "motorways", not only is it dangerous but it defeats the purpose of these roads.

Motorway is an odd NSW term that has no meaning in the road rules. In many cases "motorways" are in fact "freeways" which IS does have a meaning in the road rules. Sydney is a bit odd the fact in the fact that bicycles are allowed on their freeways in metropolitan areas. In general bicycles are banned from metropolitan freeways, exceptions seem to be made where there is no practical alternative route. Likewise freeways, motorways, interstates and autobahns across the globe normally ban bicycles and other slow moving vehicles except where no alternatives exist.

Now if there is a there is no practical alternatives to cyclists than the motorway then that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Having bikes on a metropolitan motorway even with a dedicated lane is NOT a good fix. Dutch cyclists, in fact most European cyclists, would find this concept laughable.


(It puzzles me that there is no other practicable alternative exists, but I'm ignorant on Sydney topography. Why isn't Anazac and Botany Rd possible?)


I just came back from a weekend in the Hunter Valley, and we used the new "Hunter Expressway". It is neither a motorway or a freeway, but is designated the "M15".
Anyway, the full length of it has a 3m wide shoulder which as marked for cyclists, and I saw quite a few riders out on their TT bikes.
If there had been any inclination there could have been a separated facility fir cycling, but the expressway starts and finishes almost in the middle of nowhere.
Still, next time I go up there I might take the bike as the new road passes pretty close to the wineries and access is easy.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
User avatar
queequeg
 
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby human909 » Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:35 pm

il padrone wrote:
human909 wrote:I can't see bunch riding dealing safely and intelligently with the sliplane conflict. In fact I've seen bunches do some crazy things jumping from shoulders across sliplanes without looking.

BTW, a valuable lane maneuvering technique for bunches on multi-lane roads. Lead your bunch from the rear. When you consider where the traffic is coming from it all makes a lot of sense.


I haven't seen that stated before but it makes complete sense. It would be great if more bunches operated like that.

(In a non-cycling specific sense; sensible and responsible leadership in informal groups is often lacking. I've seen this first hand myself in multiple environments.)
human909
 
Posts: 5202
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby simonn » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:53 am

TREKKER_MIKE wrote:Morning bunch training rides can be more dangerous with alot of stop and start at intersections


Was on a group ride with someone who works for the insurance provider for Cycling Australia. FWIW, he told me the opposite. They rarely have injury (or any? Can't remember the exact context) claims from bunch rides, most are from solo riders.

So I guess riding in a peleton might be like riding on a bike path - more minor incidents that injury insurance doesn't get involved with, but less severe/catastrophic incidents.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby wellington_street » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:25 am

If motorists cannot use the left lane at all then how do they get on/off the motorway? :nuts:
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby biker jk » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:33 am

wellington_street wrote:If motorists cannot use the left lane at all then how do they get on/off the motorway? :nuts:


I presume it would work similar to a bus lane where cars can briefly enter it to exit/enter the motorway.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby queequeg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:45 am

human909 wrote:
il padrone wrote:
human909 wrote:I can't see bunch riding dealing safely and intelligently with the sliplane conflict. In fact I've seen bunches do some crazy things jumping from shoulders across sliplanes without looking.

BTW, a valuable lane maneuvering technique for bunches on multi-lane roads. Lead your bunch from the rear. When you consider where the traffic is coming from it all makes a lot of sense.


I haven't seen that stated before but it makes complete sense. It would be great if more bunches operated like that.

(In a non-cycling specific sense; sensible and responsible leadership in informal groups is often lacking. I've seen this first hand myself in multiple environments.)


I have ridden with a few bunches, and only one handles lane changes in what I consider a safe way. The bunch leader at the front raises their hand to indicate a lane change is needed. The rider at the rear of the bunch then has to claim the required lane when safe, and then call the bunch over to the lane. It works very well and the whole bunch comes over in one smooth lane change (except the rear rider who is already claiming the lane and blocking anyone coming up from behind)

On other bunches it is just a mess where every rider comes across when they feel like it.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
User avatar
queequeg
 
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:45 am

NSW use to use the term 'freeway' which meant being free of stoppages by traffic lights etc. A lawyer decided to challenge the toll saying the signage coming onto it said 'freeway' but it wasn't free, so they switched to 'motorway' as per NZ

Anyway back on topic....
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 14910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby queequeg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:29 pm

mikesbytes wrote:NSW use to use the term 'freeway' which meant being free of stoppages by traffic lights etc. A lawyer decided to challenge the toll saying the signage coming onto it said 'freeway' but it wasn't free, so they switched to 'motorway' as per NZ

Anyway back on topic....


And just to confuse everyone, they rebadged the freeways (F3, F6) as Motorways, but the M15 has been called the Hunter Expressway.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
User avatar
queequeg
 
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby zero » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:01 pm

jules21 wrote:most metro freeways here have a shared path running alongside them. there isn't always a great need to allow bikes on the fwy. the traffic density is a problem, too. cars and trucks are often having to duck into the emergency lane - such as when leaving their braking too late. this causes a lot of nose-to-tail crashes between motorists, which carry a lower risk than intersection crashes (where the change in velocity tends to be higher), but would be lethal for cyclists.


its also lethal to motorcyclists. If its occurring a lot then the speed limit is too high for the prevailing traffic conditions.

any purpose designed 110km/hr motorway/freeway or faster should have a dedicated cycleway at least in urban areas. That is a basic social contract, if you exclude one type of road transport from a road, or build a road such that its dangerous to use one type, you need to provide an equivalent performance in the same corridor, which is never achieved by trying to string together local roads. The reason that local roads will never achieve performance, is that since the 70s, the standard suburb design has been the barrier suburb, which is intrinsically designed to be slow to cross with vehicles to prevent them being useful to rat runners. Similar blockading has been performed on pre 70s suburbs now as well, and the really old suburbs (ie I live in inner city Sydney) are actually easier to ride in, because they are gridded more with straighter roads and they have narrower lanes which makes it easier for me to claim a lane.

I don't mind riding alongside the roadway on the hume highway as for the most part the gap between me and the traffic is well over 2m and mostly I can hear an intrusion from the rumble striping. It disappoints me to see that numerous bridges were poorly designed on the route, and force me into the lanes (and as a result of that, have had to have cyclist awareness signage).
zero
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby human909 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:33 pm

mikesbytes wrote:NSW use to use the term 'freeway' which meant being free of stoppages by traffic lights etc. A lawyer decided to challenge the toll saying the signage coming onto it said 'freeway' but it wasn't free, so they switched to 'motorway' as per NZ

Anyway back on topic....


Thanks for explaining that! As a Victorian myself I find it all a bit silly. Freeways and tollways and highways is what we have, (only freeways are mentioned in the road rules).

But I would like to make a minor correction to your statement. The word freeway actually came from the fact that it is free to travel as opposed to a turnpike where travel is charged. Turnpikes, aka toll roads, have been around for a centuries. The more general term is controlled-access highway. Which brings us back to why I believe that Freeways in general should not be a place for bikes, (but provisions should be allowed for parallel bike travel).
human909
 
Posts: 5202
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:22 pm

human909 wrote:Which brings us back to why I believe that Freeways in general should not be a place for bikes, (but provisions should be allowed for parallel bike travel).

I laugh in derision and disgust at the "provision for cyclists" on my local fumeway. On crossing roads a bike lane has been provided, for about 200m either side of the fumeway crossing bridge :roll:

The parallel provison takes cyclists in the most circuitous and time-consuming routes to get through interchanges. Bridges that double you back and climb to excessive heights (rather than a pre-planned and gentler-grade underpass), bush sections with steep grades and dangerous timber boardwalks, pedestrian crossings at the bottom of grades across high speed slip lanes..... At one interchange to follow the designated bike path route involves no less than five seperate pedestrian/bike crossings, with minimal synchronising. Cyclists are so obviously at the bottom of the pecking order. Needless to say I ignore the cycle crossings and follow through on the road.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby human909 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:54 pm

il padrone wrote:I laugh in derision and disgust at the "provision for cyclists" on my local fumeway. On crossing roads a bike lane has been provided, for about 200m either side of the fumeway crossing bridge :roll:

Yes. Most I've seen are pretty poor. I grew up new the Eastern Freeway and its shared path. It is about the best I've seen from Bulleen Rd to Springvale. Underpasses are the norm for most of the route. As a slight negative it meanders and curves a bit in sections where it could simply be straight but that is partly to cater for a pleasant shared path. But overall it is a lesson on how things should be done, it has been extremely successful both for recreational use and as a transport link. The Eastlink extension to the path seems to have more traffic lights and badly designed bridges of the kind you mention.


Incidently. A did come across this blog post today on the recent poor journalism on cycling. For those who don't know Macrobusiness is a business/finance/economics blog, it is popular among is more thoughtful people not mainstream sheep. The comments are mostly refreshing, while there still are a few cyclists bashes, you at least don't have the bogans calling for violence.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04 ... n-cycling/
human909
 
Posts: 5202
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:33 pm

The Eastern Freeway path (Koonung Trail) in its first rendition, left quite a few underpasses out eg. Springvale, Blackburn, Middleborough, Elgar, and Doncaster roads were all at-grade ped crossings, time consuming and dangerous. Over the years with lobbying the government and Vicroads did eventually retro-fit the underpasses. It would be so very sensible (and cheaper) to do this correctly in the design phase, but we have too many bicycle facility penny-pinchers in authority.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:52 pm

human909 wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:NSW use to use the term 'freeway' which meant being free of stoppages by traffic lights etc. A lawyer decided to challenge the toll saying the signage coming onto it said 'freeway' but it wasn't free, so they switched to 'motorway' as per NZ

Anyway back on topic....


Thanks for explaining that! As a Victorian myself I find it all a bit silly. Freeways and tollways and highways is what we have, (only freeways are mentioned in the road rules).

But I would like to make a minor correction to your statement. The word freeway actually came from the fact that it is free to travel as opposed to a turnpike where travel is charged. Turnpikes, aka toll roads, have been around for a centuries. The more general term is controlled-access highway. Which brings us back to why I believe that Freeways in general should not be a place for bikes, (but provisions should be allowed for parallel bike travel).


In NSW they were using the term 'freeway' for roads that included tolls
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 14910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby roller » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:02 pm

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread, but according to 730 report:

"Police documents show the man behind the wheel of the car when the cyclists were knocked down is a 28-year-old man from Sydney's south, who was driving his mother's car at the time of the collision.

7:30 understands he has told police he blacked out behind the wheel."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-15/c ... rs/5392438


Blacked out behind the wheel but managed to stay on the road??? *scratches head*
Image
User avatar
roller
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: embleton

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby InTheWoods » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:35 pm

I don't believe it, but I guess its possible and weirder things have happened.

But if he wants to stick with that, an unexplained blackout means he should not be allowed to hold a license ever again.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby rjk » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:39 pm

InTheWoods wrote:I don't believe it, but I guess its possible and weirder things have happened.

But if he wants to stick with that, an unexplained blackout means he should not be allowed to hold a license ever again.



yeah like a father who had a sneezing fit and drove his car and 3 sons into a damn, he got murder and a life conviction
Boardman CX pro now the commuter, Salsa Casseroll, Trek Domane
rjk
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:11 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Collision on Southern Cross Dr 16/3/2014

Postby biker jk » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:42 pm

Does the driver's mother know he suffers from "blackouts"? If so, it's pretty irresponsible to allow her son to drive her car. I'm calling "bull****" on the "blackout" claim. Seems he lawyered up early, probably used one of those vehicle "accident" firms that advertise online. :roll:
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: duncan16v



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit