In a bid to make cycling safer, Peel District Club president Stephen Dodd is calling for better cycle paths in the Rockingham region.
Andrew
Postby Aushiker » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:51 pm
In a bid to make cycling safer, Peel District Club president Stephen Dodd is calling for better cycle paths in the Rockingham region.
Postby citywomble » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:58 pm
Postby HappyHumber » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:04 pm
Postby citywomble » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:30 pm
Postby Aushiker » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:39 pm
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.citywomble wrote: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?
Postby Sith1 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:59 pm
Postby Graeme H » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:44 am
citywomble wrote:Lanes or paths - which is it?
These articles show a complete lack of comprehension by the author as they interchange very different terms.
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.Aushiker wrote: Either confused spokesperson or a confused journalist or both.
Postby exadios » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:05 pm
Actually roads are provided for the common good - however that is specified. You have arbitarily specified that common good to consist of transport only.citywomble wrote: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.
For example:
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.
Postby citywomble » Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:43 pm
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.Actually roads are provided for the common good - however that is specified. You have arbitarily specified that common good to consist of transport only.
Postby higdawg » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:52 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.