15 posts • Page 1 of 1
I would rather take my chances in the traffic than ride in a GREEN painted kill zone next to parked cars. This project has been pushed by Bicycle Tasmania, a group that is unashamedly united with the Tasmanian GREENS. BikeTas have stated that they wanted safe cycle infrastructure for 8 to 80 year olds of any ability to commute on. Well they could have always ridden casually along the footpath that runs alongside the same stretch of road if they felt unsafe on the road. Just more GREEN self promotion that is going to further antagonise a lot of motorists that use this road. I have no problem with dedicated bike lanes that are separated from traffic and drivers side doors as was originally proposed by BikeTas. But to accept this compromise is going to be seen by many as just a stupid waste of $1.2 million in GREEN paint in my opinion.
I have to confess I haven't seen the actual plans, but from what I've read and what I know about Ald. Freeman's attitudes to cycling/cyclists suggests that it'll be the worst of all worlds.
My main concern is that we'll be legally obliged to use it, and it'll slow me down on my lunchtime rides to Bonnet Hill. What's more, drivers will *expect* us to use it anyway, and it may therefore marginalise cyclists even more. I can't see it benefiting me much, the main issues I experience with drivers on Sandy Bay Road won't be fixed by a cycle lane - ie stupidity.
Bike lanes are always an interesting topic. This one only covers a small length from Marieville to Long Point but it does give a width of 1.5m. That's a lot more than is there now. For mine its another small step - and lots of small steps gets you somewhere. The widening of the road for a bike lane up the climb next to Kingston Golf Club was a small step - but a good one. Perhaps we should see this for what it is - a change for the better from those that supply and maintain our facilities. We won't have a utopia - but we'll be one small step closer.
Will it slow us down - no. Will it decrease our likelihood of getting car doored - yes. Will it make us safer - yes. Will drivers get annoyed - no more than they do now. Do we want our facilities to be mainstream - yes. Do we want to have facilities like Melbourne - yes. At least we aren't going to have ot share footpaths with pedestrians or have a separated section that only makes it more dangerous for everyone.
Ah so its the Greens fault! ....sorry its the GREENS fault. I see what you did there....bazinga..
Let me introduce John Freeman http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Council/Al ... hn_Freeman
Sandy Bay Walking and Cycling Project - Community Reference Group (Chairman)
This is a man who while debating/justifying his and certain residents opposition to the concept of having bike lanes on the roads at all. Said something along the lines of what you need to realise is the roads are paid for by motorists and not by them. With "them" being cyclists.[I can't find the article] When it was pointed out by all and sundry that's not the case at all....silence. No retraction, nothing.
The latest piece of wisdom from this self serving dinosaur is here http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html
"Alderman John Freeman said the cycle lane debate had been an unfortunate discussion. Ald Freeman said it was important to make any change incremental because it would affect local residents who used the busy road."
Also, this is a good example of the attitude several alderman have taken throughout the whole debate going back several years. "Alderman Jeff Briscoe said the $4 million Copenhagen solution would have cost $27,000 per cyclist."
So he has cherry picked a number from a bike count on Sandy bay rd, most likely one done by Bike Tas volunteers for a couple of hours in the morning on one day. Its this kind of divisive, manipulative and irresponsible twisting of the facts that has led to this outcome.
I'm not a Bike Tas member. I get my insurance via my racing licence so the $100 membership is a bit much for what advocacy work they do in my opinion. Not that I have any problem with the work they do, I just support it by direct action. I've been on every demonstration/ride to support the Sandy Bay walking and cycling project in the last few years and supported other promotional events for Bike Tas and cycling projects around Hobart. Just remember that Bike Tas is mostly volunteers that are up against experienced, well paid bureaurocrats with vested interests.
I stupidly keep reading the letters to the editor in the Mercury newspaper. Apparently 47 cyclists use Sandy Bay rd
I took some photos on the last Bike Tas ride in support of the project.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 000&type=3
The facts are if the project is well designed as to offer the safest option possible, then build it and they WILL come. Those photos and countless other projects all over the world prove it.
Yet all we get is this from the Mayor "Is there a community appetite for a "Copenhagen" solution of separated cycleways? My response is a resounding "no"."
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html
The short sightedness of the old guard at council is very disappointing. No vision for the future other than their own legacy and retirement plans.
Ok, I've extracted my digit now and gone to the HCC website. This is a depiction of what has been approved:
And the HCC website says:
The full report is http://www.hobartcity.com.au/files/11fa3f26-adea-4986-88c9-a1dd00a45a2d/Sandy_Bay_Cycling_and_Walking_Project_11_June_2013.pdf
If it is designated as a bike lane, then rule 247(1) of the Road Rules 2009 requires that cyclists must used marked bike lanes unless "impracticable to do so" (whatever that, or the copper thinks, it means). Whilst final designs are yet to be developed, the 2nd image above shows that the bike lanes will be 1.5m wide. There is no buffer zone between either the parking zone and the bike path, or the bike path and the traffic.
I can't see how legally forcing cyclists to ride right next to parked cars, rather than further away in a traffic lane (as now) will reduce the risk of dooring. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that in Melbourne, bike lanes don't do this and even one coronial report recommended moving bike lanes to the left side of parked cars. With a bike lane that's only 1.5m wide, and with no buffer zone, if someone does open their door, your only option will be to (a) stop if you can, or (b) swerve unexpectedly into the traffic.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doori ... 248fl.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/new ... 6191821236
Even VicRoads seems to think it's a problem: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/counc ... 2jc7e.html
I agree with fixedlegs2012, if they're going to go down this path, they're better off fixing the crappy concrete surfaces between the Casino and Lower SB - a co-worker and his friend were both injured only recently (one seriously) because the front rider caught his wheel in the cracks. Curiously, the HCC appear to be engaging in roadworks at that particular spot now!
IMO, Freeman's (and others) strategy is to get this done to force cyclists off the traffic lanes. After that, they can argue that they've already spent money on the issue, that further improvements (Ald. Thomas' "incrementalism") would be just gold-plating for a minority, that "some people are never satisfied" etc etc - it's the least cost option for making the "problem" of cyclists go away. Once implemented it will be too costly to go for the Copenhagen solution because the design will be radically different from the one they've already spent money on, yadayada.
My 2c anyway.
Just like fixedlegs I have had no problems either.
Just measured how far my car door opens into traffic, 104cm. That would leave a gap of 46 cm to fit yourself between the door and a Metro bus. Given the fact that my bars are 44cm I reckon I may be in a bit of trouble, and I am a skinny little fella.
There's 22 less car parking spaces available in the proposal being 27 less on one side and 5 more on the other. The loss of parking is obviously in those current squeeze points where we need to take the whole lane to make it safe. Under this process we don't - therefore surely less issue with car dooring. Small steps - long journey.
I'm sorry, no disrespect, but I disagree. Currently you are legally entitled to ride in the middle, or even the far right of a traffic lane if it suits you. I stay in the left-hand lane obviously, and stay as far left as I can out of courtesy, but I keep at least 0.5-1m away from cars parked on the side of the road (eg the parked cars between King St and Queen St is a good example). Under the proposal you WILL BE LEGALLY REQUIRED (rule 247) to cycle within 1.5m at most of parked cars, and no further away, because it's a bike lane (ie it forces cyclists to be closer to the parked cars). If a car door takes up ~1m of that space, you are left with 0.5m to ride around the obstacle without swerving into traffic that - under current conditions - would be required to drive behind you.
Sorry - I can't see this as an improvement. Furthermore, I don't see this as reducing dooring when I can occupy any space I choose within a traffic lane presently. At the moment, I can legally ensure I am more than 0.5m away from any parked car simply by riding in the centre of a traffic lane, and most of the time I'm not holding up traffic either (30-40km/h).
Zero dooring risk.
I am with you datanerd. Unless I can convince myself that there is no one in the drivers seat I always give them a wide birth. This proposal compels you to ride the suicide lane or take another street. Think I would rather take the footpath. Much rather argue with pedestrians than 2 ton of steel.
My last contribution. Sorry - my logic doesn't always transcribe.
If you currently ride 0.5-1m away from parked cars to keep safe and the new proposal gives you 1.5m hasn't the proposal increased your margin for error?
The report is suggesting a reduction of speed limit to 50kph - doesn't that increase your margin for error?
There are a net 22 less car spaces. If there are a thousand spaces (say) now and capacity for 978 in the future the risk of you being hit be a door is less - isn't it?
And - I don't have any problems with Sandy Bay Road traffic now.
It is an ideal solution? No
It it better than what's there now? Debatable. As it is it's a pretty low risk bit of road. It will remove the parking at the pinch points around Red Chapel Av., which is really the only very slightly dodgy stretch.
Will it be perceived as being safer for cyclists, and hence may encourage more of the non cycling fraternity? Yes, if the experience at the end of the report with respect to Yarra council is anything to go by.
I used to live in the northern suburbs of Melbourne around the time that the first generation of bicycle infrastructure (i.e. white painted bike lanes) was installed, and the consequent rapid increase in cyclist numbers was impressive to see first hand. As someone who uses Sandy Bay road every day for commuting, I have no problems using the road in the current state, but if you want to encourage more people to start using it then I think it's at least a first step. And frankly if it gets a few more bikes on SB road that can only be a good thing longer term. I probably average seeing only 3-4 other bikes per direction (although more in summer) which is disappointing in my book, given how easy and time comparable with cars/ buses a commute anywhere from Baringa Rd inwards to the CBD is.
Have to say I'm a bit surprised - given the rhetoric from Freeman, and opposition from locals to the loss of any parking spaces, a 1.5m wide lane is a pretty decent result. Better than the lanes on the Kingborough side where parking is allowed in the bike lane, anyhow.
There are four phases of bicycle commuting; first there's fear, then rage, then self-righteousness and finally, fun.
15 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users