Journalist... at the Daily Telegraph... hmmm.Nate wrote:geez you guys are harsh - a journo comes on here asking for info etc,
Nup. That'd be an oxymoron.
Postby trailgumby » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Journalist... at the Daily Telegraph... hmmm.Nate wrote:geez you guys are harsh - a journo comes on here asking for info etc,
Postby Nate » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:41 pm
chin up Gumby, dont be so disenchanted with the world!trailgumby wrote:Nup. That'd be an oxymoron.
Postby Cama7 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:15 pm
Postby hannos » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:23 pm
Postby philip » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:30 pm
Postby simonn » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:43 pm
Hmmm... actually, I would say the designs have to be compromised due to other interests.Cama7 wrote:As admirable as the bike lanes are, they have not been designed with a cyclist/commuter in mind.
Postby x8pg2qr » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:24 pm
Fair assumption: No. But if this is an opinion piece rather than journalism, then write whatever you want to.Cama7 wrote:Many thanks for your replies. Very helpful. (And thanks for your support Nate ... the cheque is in the post )
At this stage we are running a piece in the coming days suggesting that cyclists, while they like the idea of bike lanes to get more people on wheels, they themselves don't really use them, preferring to run the gauntlet in traffic where they don't have to stop all the time. As admirable as the bike lanes are, they have not been designed with a cyclist/commuter in mind.
This is my own personal belief (having biked up Bourke St for a few weeks), but judging from the comments received, probably a consensus.
Then balancing those thoughts is also the issue of encouraging non-cylists to take up the sport for recreation/commuting, and starting out on the bike lanes till they get their confidence to ride in traffic.
Fair assumptions?
Postby wombatK » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:39 pm
Yes, a fair summary so farCama7 wrote: Fair assumptions
I haven't seen that, but it wouldn't surprise me. If cyclists notice broken glass, reporting it to Council ought to get some attention to it - it's a risk to pedestrians as well as cyclists - and they might even put in an effort to track down the offenders if it happens repeatedly.Cama7 wrote: Also, I've also heard the Bourke St bike lane has its fair share of problems with glass, with fluorescent lights being shattered and spread across the lanes in an act of sabotage. Is this correct? Has anyone encountered such a low act?
Cheers
Postby trailgumby » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:48 pm
This confirms my view of Daily Tele .. ahem .. "journalists". Sorry, Nate it's not my view of the world. There are some good journalists about, they just don't surive at tabloids very long and especially not at News Ltd.Cama7 wrote:At this stage we are running a piece in the coming days suggesting that cyclists, while they like the idea of bike lanes to get more people on wheels, they themselves don't really use them, preferring to run the gauntlet in traffic where they don't have to stop all the time. As admirable as the bike lanes are, they have not been designed with a cyclist/commuter in mind.
Postby robbiejuve » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:15 pm
Postby ft_critical » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:26 pm
Postby queequeg » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:54 pm
Postby radiohead » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:01 am
Postby vitualis » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:43 am
Postby x8pg2qr » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:31 am
I think you’re referring to Bourke Road.vitualis wrote:I've used the Bourke Street cycleway quite a lot (Alexandria section).
Postby vitualis » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:48 am
Postby hannos » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:28 am
queequeg wrote:What I find interesting is that a lot of the Bike Paths that are built generally don't follow the RTA's own Guidelines on building Bike Facilities! Exhibit A, which is available from the RTA Traffic & Transport Technical Manuals section.
Postby Nate » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:40 am
Postby zero » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:17 am
Postby hartleymartin » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:50 am
Postby Chris249 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:10 am
Postby radiohead » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:30 am
Postby queequeg » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:46 am
Yep, that would be a "Road Shoulder Lane" as clearly described in section 4.6 on Page 19, and the "Door Zone" issue is clearly pointed out.hannos wrote:queequeg wrote:What I find interesting is that a lot of the Bike Paths that are built generally don't follow the RTA's own Guidelines on building Bike Facilities! Exhibit A, which is available from the RTA Traffic & Transport Technical Manuals section.
See photo 1.2 on page 6. This is part of the RTA's Bicycle Network. Pure and simply, it is a dangerous implementation.
Classic example of a 'Door Zone' and the reason I take up the entire lane when these 'Bike paths' are painted on the road.
Postby x8pg2qr » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:51 pm
Mmm… true that. Although Bourke Street does pass through Surry Hills & Woolloomooloo, which has lots of streetside shops in its own right. IMO a bicycle route there makes the place more accessible to people from “close by†(I mean Redfern, Newtown that sort of distance, where it’s a fair hike walking to Woolloomooloo for a coffee, and yet a shame to drive that distance). If a lane went through to shops in Darlinghurst or Kings Cross, then it would be a joy to casually explore those places on a bicycle.Nate wrote:I did a round past bourke st yesterday arvo & king st yesterday & today.
There's 2 main types of paths - "feeders" & "distributors"
Feeders - get lots of cyclists into the city & relatively quickly (Epping rd, MAYBE King st if they sort out the lights)
Distributors - get you around the city SLOWLY once you're there, sorta like a shared path without pedestrians & car doors.
For the moment Bourke St "doesnt work" because its for distributing traffic across town, which isnt in town yet!
it'll make sense once there's more traffic around & "feeders" to feed it! Pretty simple.
Postby hannos » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:01 pm
queequeg wrote:Yep, that would be a "Road Shoulder Lane" as clearly described in section 4.6 on Page 19, and the "Door Zone" issue is clearly pointed out.hannos wrote:queequeg wrote:What I find interesting is that a lot of the Bike Paths that are built generally don't follow the RTA's own Guidelines on building Bike Facilities! Exhibit A, which is available from the RTA Traffic & Transport Technical Manuals section.
See photo 1.2 on page 6. This is part of the RTA's Bicycle Network. Pure and simply, it is a dangerous implementation.
Classic example of a 'Door Zone' and the reason I take up the entire lane when these 'Bike paths' are painted on the road.
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.