What were they thinking? - the get it right next time thread

[elantra]

We have a lot of things to be thankful for living in South East Qld but well-designed transport systems is not one of them.

Of course, As this is a bicycle thread we will restrict our attention to problems and deficiencies, stuff-ups, etc. in this regard.

The following new road graffiti is, in my opinion, a dangerous example of poor design and outcome.
It is located in Barry Parade, (between the City and Valley) and it looks like very recent work.

The most obvious problem is that the "bikepath" is so damn close to the car parks that to ride in this lane is really asking for disaster.

The painted "bikepath" extends for all of the short length of Barry Parade, which has always been a reasonably "bike-friendly" "avenue", and debatably a lot less hairy than Wickham St.
In case you are wondering, it unfortunately does not link up with any really useful bicycle-friendly thoroughfare.

[ldrcycles]

Yep typical 'bike lane', all it does is place the cyclist in greater danger and reinforce driver's views that we don't belong on the road. They're all over Noosa and i hate the lot of them. The thing that bothers me is how councils can get away with wasting thousands of dollars on those symbols and green paint when they are not actually bike lanes?

[jack11]

I think it could be worse. Here on the Gold Coast we have a lot of bike paths that are not split from on street parking so you constantly have to weave out on to the road. You more or less end up riding left edge of the road and not even bothering with the bike lane.

[BastardSheep]

They're all around my area in North Sydney/Willoughby too. The only section I've found that ISN'T door lane was built by people other than the council, and that's the Epping Rd cycle path. IMHO they shouldn't qualify for the "we have X km of bicycle lanes" claim that many councils were going for at one stage. They're not bicycle lanes. They're too dangerous to be.

At least yours seems to have some room. The ones in Willoughby, cars need to be right up against the gutter actually touching it for the car itself not to be in the door lane (wide 4WD's are in in no matter what). If cars are the legal minimum distance from the gutter, then the car is actually IN the door lane. If the car is the legal maximum distance from the gutter, the door lane is half blocked. The door lane is also thin enough that some cars, their doors extend from one side of the door lane to beyond the other side of it.

I never ride in them unless there's no cars in the parking spots. I treat the outside line as the closest I can get to cars. Trying to look inside cars for occupants takes too much effort and distracts me from watching the road and other threats. I occasionally ride on the line, but usually to the right. Most cars driving by are ok with that, few in the area seem to want to buzz me.

[newbris]

How disappointing this is seen as acceptable.

[sumgy]

Where do you think they should put it?
Sorry but as much as I complain about any lack of infrastructure in Brisbane, at least that is something to indicate that cyclists use that area.
Short of removing the parking all together, I dont see that there is much else they could do there.

[cyclotaur]

When there is less than 2 lane widths, but no lane marking, motor vehicles tend to crab all over the available width which makes cycling on the left virtually impossible. Although this may be a less-than-optimal first step, any road marking that helps keep motor vehicles in a more disciplined single lane is better than nothing.

Experience tells me that where these initial steps are taken we eventually end up with better designs and facilities over time. Unfortunately it seems too much to expect local authorities to jump directly from "zero bike lanes" to a fully evolved, well-designed solution. Each area seems to have to run through a series of trial and error options, which hopefully lead eventually to decent facilities.

It often requires some reconstruction and reallocation of road-space to get past this initial step of simply painting some lanes on an existing thoroughfare. This is much more expensive and requires proper road and drainage re-design, moving of kerb and channel, parking redesign etc etc

My personal advice is that local riders should be complimenting the relevant agencies for the initial effort, but encouraging them to go further and improve in subsequent efforts. Suggestions for the future, sandwiched in positive feedback and appreciation for initial efforts, go a long way in enabling authority staff to convince their managers to release funding for more significant future improvements. This is just how things work.

[BastardSheep]

You'll be amazed just how much more tolerant drivers suddenly become of cyclists just because there's a stencil of a bicycle in the middle of the road. I've seen it happen numerous times at numerous locations and cities, cars trying to squeeze out cyclists then a stencil appears and suddenly they make room in front of themselves for the cyclist. But these are just anecdotes rather than research.

I'd be much happier with said stencil in the road that gives cyclists the option to ride on the side of the lane or in the middle of it depending on which the cyclist deems safest, rather than a door-lane which forces the cyclists into the dangerous door zone and is more accurately described as a lane for doors rather than a lane for cyclists.

If my understanding of the rules are correct, if there's a cycle lane, even a door-lane, cyclists are supposed to use it rather than be on the road. We're only supposed to be on the road if there's no cycle lane, the road is deemed a shared car/cycle road, or if there's an obstruction or other dangerous item in the cycle lane.

So, my riding _just_ outside the door-lane is technically against the rules AFAIK, but I do it out of personal preservation. I just don't feel safe in a door-lane unless I'm riding at 5kph, in which case I may as well be walking.

[ldrcycles]

If my understanding of the rules are correct, if there's a cycle lane, even a door-lane, cyclists are supposed to use it rather than be on the road. We're only supposed to be on the road if there's no cycle lane, the road is deemed a shared car/cycle road, or if there's an obstruction or other dangerous item in the cycle lane.

So, my riding _just_ outside the door-lane is technically against the rules AFAIK, but I do it out of personal preservation. I just don't feel safe in a door-lane unless I'm riding at 5kph, in which case I may as well be walking.

True, but the thing is, the 'lane' shown in the OP photos is NOT a legal bike lane, it is meaningless graffiti, there is no obligation whatsoever to ride there.

Cyclotaur and sumgy, I can see where you're coming from but when the 'incremental steps' make cycling MORE dangerous, not less, then it is better that they don't happen.

[elantra]

Yep typical 'bike lane', all it does is place the cyclist in greater danger and reinforce driver's views that we don't belong on the road. They're all over Noosa and i hate the lot of them. The thing that bothers me is how councils can get away with wasting thousands of dollars on those symbols and green paint when they are not actually bike lanes?

Yep. a total waste of green (and white) paint.
Paint is cheap though compared to the amount of time it must have taken for someone to design and paint it.
They say Qld is facing a debt crisis (like most levels of government presumably).
No wonder.
If they can't get some painting on the road done properly just imagine how many bigger projects must be duds too.

Bastardsheep wrote
You'll be amazed just how much more tolerant drivers suddenly become of cyclists just because there's a stencil of a bicycle in the middle of the road

Yep thats what i thought would have been appropriate here.
And yes, a few of the proper markers that you describe do exist in other parts of brisbane, sometimes on roads that carry a lot more motorised traffic than this one.

[RonK]

Where do you think they should put it?
Sorry but as much as I complain about any lack of infrastructure in Brisbane, at least that is something to indicate that cyclists use that area.
Short of removing the parking all together, I dont see that there is much else they could do there.

Yeah, makes you wonder. Barry Parade is a quiet backwater and hardly needs a bike lane. Anyway, you would be a brave commuter to tackle the bloody awful tangle of intersections at the Valley end. And there is no bike lane on busy Turbot Street (which is one-way) at the other end.

[sumgy]

If my understanding of the rules are correct, if there's a cycle lane, even a door-lane, cyclists are supposed to use it rather than be on the road. We're only supposed to be on the road if there's no cycle lane, the road is deemed a shared car/cycle road, or if there's an obstruction or other dangerous item in the cycle lane.

So, my riding _just_ outside the door-lane is technically against the rules AFAIK, but I do it out of personal preservation. I just don't feel safe in a door-lane unless I'm riding at 5kph, in which case I may as well be walking.

True, but the thing is, the 'lane' shown in the OP photos is NOT a legal bike lane, it is meaningless graffiti, there is no obligation whatsoever to ride there.

Cyclotaur and sumgy, I can see where you're coming from but when the 'incremental steps' make cycling MORE dangerous, not less, then it is better that they don't happen.

To be even more clear there is no such thing as a bicycle specific lane anywhere in QLD regardless of whether it is a meaningless paint line or an equally meaningless signposted bike lane.
And I fail to see how something that provides some indication to be aware of bicycles makes it more dangerous.

[sumgy]

For real examples of get it right next time I would throw out bike lanes on Hamilton Road and Albany Creek Road that just suddenly stop abruptly and also the new bike path that comes across from Albion and dumps you out on Herston Road where you either brave the busy traffic or else wait to cross 2 sets of lights so that you can proceed through to the CBD via either a footpath or take the longer route through the Ennogera Creek Bikeway.

[RonK]

To be even more clear there is no such thing as a bicycle specific lane anywhere in QLD regardless of whether it is a meaningless paint line or an equally meaningless signposted bike lane.

Well, I don't know about that. The Copenhagen lanes in Tank Street and in George Street seem pretty bicycle specific to me...

[cyclotaur]

Cyclotaur and sumgy, I can see where you're coming from but when the 'incremental steps' make cycling MORE dangerous, not less, then it is better that they don't happen.

Whether it makes it safer or not is arguable, but I'm just letting you know how these things work, particularly here in Oz. You'll never go from nothing>perfect in one step. Voice of experience speaking.

And it doesn't just apply to bike lanes/facilities.

[sumgy]

Ron
I cannot get Googlemaps to work at the moment to check.
You may be right, but my understanding is that on the whole all a bike lane sign means is that you cannot drive in it.
You can park in it IF there is no yellow line.
Therefore most bike lanes you see are a nonsense and are not cycle specific.

[trailgumby]

So, my riding _just_ outside the door-lane is technically against the rules AFAIK, but I do it out of personal preservation. I just don't feel safe in a door-lane unless I'm riding at 5kph, in which case I may as well be walking.

Actually, you have an "out".

Rule 247(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.
Rule 247(2)In this rule: road does not include a road related area.

Riding so close to doors I would regard as definitely impracticable.

I also have a daily situation on Allambie Road, Allambie, where I'm doing 45-50km/hr down the hill and the "bike lane" (which fails the requirements of Rule 153) ends with a sharp merge right with a give way line at a roundabout - a recipe for disaster.

You simply cannot afford to traffic check behind you on the approach because of the risk of vehicles turning right across your path from the opposite direction, or entering from the left, so I avoid the risk by electing not to ride in it at all.

That also meets the requirements of "impractical" in my view, and I would argue that in court.

[RonK]

Ron
I cannot get Googlemaps to work at the moment to check.
You may be right, but my understanding is that on the whole all a bike lane sign means is that you cannot drive in it.
You can park in it IF there is no yellow line.
Therefore most bike lanes you see are a nonsense and are not cycle specific.

When you get it working you will see that Copenhagen lanes have a kerb separating bike and car lanes.

You can't drive or park in a Copenhagen lane (unless you are prepared to drive over the kerb).

I will post a picture when I get home.

[thomashouseman]

In NSW a bike lane is defined as: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:
(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following:
(i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane,
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines),
(iii) if the road ends at a dead end—the end of the road.

VERY few so called "bike lanes" here in NSW have these signs. There's one on Holker St, not sure if I've seen any others.

[sumgy]

In NSW a bike lane is defined as: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:
(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following:
(i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane,
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines),
(iii) if the road ends at a dead end—the end of the road.

VERY few so called "bike lanes" here in NSW have these signs. There's one on Holker St, not sure if I've seen any others.

Not so in QLD.

[marinmomma]

To be even more clear there is no such thing as a bicycle specific lane anywhere in QLD regardless of whether it is a meaningless paint line or an equally meaningless signposted bike lane.

Well, I don't know about that. The Copenhagen lanes in Tank Street and in George Street seem pretty bicycle specific to me...

Which goes where???
The eastern end dumps you at Turbot Street and the Western End at the intersection of George and Roma...where to from there???
Up on to the footpath to get into the Roma Street Parkland to head north, and there's nowhere to turn right to go onto the Kurplia Bridge except back onto the footpath.

Great to have BAZ's but they're not bike lanes...not when they run out on you 2 meters past an intersection and force you into the traffic, better to claim your lane I think!

[queequeg]

In NSW a bike lane is defined as: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:
(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following:
(i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane,
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines),
(iii) if the road ends at a dead end—the end of the road.

VERY few so called "bike lanes" here in NSW have these signs. There's one on Holker St, not sure if I've seen any others.

I fired off a mail to the transport minister some years ago when NSW Labor made the audacious claim of rolling out 234km per year of "cycling infrastructure" in NSW since 1999. I asked the minister to provide with details so that I could go and ride on some of it.
The RTA kindly provided a breakdown of this "infrastructure", and it was no surprise to find that 80% of the 4000km of "infrastructure" was in fact nothing more than bicycle logos painted on the road shoulder.
In terms of actual on-road bicycle lanes that meet the correct criteria, in 2008 the total for the whole of NSW was 76km. That is mostly made up of disjointed short and useless sections of lanes, not with any actual real thought out lanes.
If anyone wants to see the actual minister's letter, I am happy to post it here.

[RonK]

To be even more clear there is no such thing as a bicycle specific lane anywhere in QLD regardless of whether it is a meaningless paint line or an equally meaningless signposted bike lane.

Well, I don't know about that. The Copenhagen lanes in Tank Street and in George Street seem pretty bicycle specific to me...

Which goes where???
The eastern end dumps you at Turbot Street and the Western End at the intersection of George and Roma...where to from there???
Up on to the footpath to get into the Roma Street Parkland to head north, and there's nowhere to turn right to go onto the Kurplia Bridge except back onto the footpath.

Great to have BAZ's but they're not bike lanes...not when they run out on you 2 meters past an intersection and force you into the traffic, better to claim your lane I think!

It would always be good to have more. I was grateful to get a new bridge, and as far as I know, the first ever Copenhagen lanes in Brisbane to access it.

[marinmomma]

Sure, it would be great to have more, I guess it has become a connector between north and south although it's just as easy to use the forecourt of the new law court building although it does nothing to give cyclists a traffic free access to the BIcentenial apart from going via Southbank.

Although care needs to be taken on Tank Street as there is vehicle access crossing over the lanes from a court building right at the end of the street by the bridge.
Tanks Street is good George St less so...

If they were to do more where would cyclists want them??

[Lukeyboy]

That bike lane along George Street is pretty !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!. I've seen gravel roads with a better surface quality than that thing. It also sucks big time considering you have to pretty much be in the far left lane to get around the traffic that turns right before it.