In a bid to make cycling safer, Peel District Club president Stephen Dodd is calling for better cycle paths in the Rockingham region.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
From the Western Australian - Regional.
Lanes or paths - which is it?
These articles show a complete lack of comprehension by the author as they interchange very different terms.
A bike path is away from traffic of all types (pedestrians and motor vehicles) normally above the kerb and within the road verge. The cyclist here is the only user in their own space but will be required to give way at intersections
A bike lane is a single purpose lane, exclusively for bicycles, but located within the carriageway, below the kerb adjacent to or within motor vehicle lanes. The cyclist here is required to ride within the lane, in a false primary position, which is actually in the worst secondary location where most vehicle drivers would rather not be.
My own personal gripe, and I am not alone here, why is that valuable road space and expensive infrastructure is expected to be provided for 'training' and sports?
Roads are provided from the public purse (taxes and rates and not rego) for the purposes of transport. Cycling for transport is a very important and neglected function of the road infrastructure, on which our very existence and prosperity is predicated, and should be properly funded as such! However, cycling for sport and training should not be the basis on which infrastructure provision or funding is provided. Like all other sports these should fund themselves, either by direct contribution or specific grant funding, and not use transport funding or space to do so.
That does not mean that training cannot be undertaken, while respecting the road laws, on roads - but it should be by using the facilities provided for transport and not by seeking facilities for training. If those are needed then find somewhere, away from the limited transport facilities, where they can be catered for.
The optimum solution (for transport cycling) could be cycling on road with no specific lanes, where the speed limit is reduced and the traffic signals are all set for a 20 kph 'green wave' (as works so well in Holland). This is both better, and cheaper in terms of road space and cost, than bike lanes - but absolutely useless for training. Conversely, the ideal solution for training would be worse than useless for transport and would either create dangerous conflict at intersections etc (as often occurs) or require priority for cyclists over other users.
This why cycling facilities must be designed for those cyclists that don't currently cycle and must not be designed for those that do currently cycle.
Personal rant over, going to find a flame proof suit now.
Do you two realise you would make a beautiful couple?
Since I keep misplacing my common sense down the shed, I guess I'll have to borrow someone elses off the internet.
Not a good idea as, apart from the fact he disqualifies by being a man, we would always argue - even about things we agree about. That said Andrew is a 'good bloke' and I agree with him a lot and he does a lot for cycling, the world would be a lesser place without him.
Anyway, back to topic, it seems that even the City of Rockingham realises where sports funding should be directed as the councillor was quoted as saying “The City is undertaking planning for the Baldivis District Sports Complex, and this work to date includes the establishment of cycling facilities". I am pleased to see that cycling (training) facilities are intended for the district sports centre.
There are times, generally outside peak use periods, where roads are used for sports. Running, City to Surf etc (pedestrians), TDF, Freeway Ride, and other road races (cyclists) and Grand Prix, rallies etc (cars) do take place on roads but this is when they are closed to traffic and properly marshalled.
I initially thought they where seeking a purpose built cycle path for training which seemed a pretty stupid idea, but then as you note they also talked about cycle lanes. Either confused spokesperson or a confused journalist or both.
80% of the roads from Kwinana to Rockingham inc of back roads have a white line with 6 inches max. The abuse from the local rock apes and factory workers is legandary I have had hard hats thrown out car windows at me, hit and run in Bertram , bottles smashed everywhere , bogan glitter as we call it. The Kwinana /Rockingham councils are beyond lazy at road sweeping.
One guy down here got cleaned up by a young hoon on a trail bike riding on the road this morning.... Awesome hey
I can't see any conflict or inconsistency in the use of these terms in the article, so it might have been edited since you read it.
As it reads now:
- President Dodd wants bike paths and cycling facilities.
- Rider Fish wants cycle lanes and training facilities.
- Mayor Sammels says they have both paths and lanes among the City's existing facilities.
Actually roads are provided for the common good - however that is specified. You have arbitarily specified that common good to consist of transport only.
Not at all! I agree that the common good does not consist of transport only, but the basis on which the investment of limited resources is made should be. It is the case that cycling, for training and recreation, on public roads is and should be acceptable (provided it is undertaken in accordance with the road rules) however, it should not drive the provision of infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the public, economic and sustainability need for an effective road network (including pedestrian, cyclist, public transport, freight and private vehicle traffic) means that there are constraints on any and all of the traffic. This is managed with road rules without which the system would fail. Those very rules make 'on road' training very difficult to facilitate without constraining other uses. The shared network will always require moderation and stopping, by all users, and the reality is that this impacts as much on cyclists.
Cyclists will always experience transitions to different infrastructure and stopping points, as do pedestrians at road crossings and road vehicles at intersections, traffic signals and through application of speed limits. These are an anathema to training cyclists and one one reason why roads cannot be designed/provided for pedestrians or drivers to train, nor should they for cyclists (particularly given that the laws of physics and conservation of motion are felt most strongly by cyclists thus acting as an incentive to bend the rules to the detriment of the whole).
One of the worst situations with the Rockingham area that I have come across is your choice between Warnbro Sound Ave or Ennis Ave.
You either have the choice of 70km/h and no shoulder at all or 100km/h with about a foot of shoulder.
And the roundabouts at the Warnbro Train station are just a pain in the arse.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users