21 posts • Page 1 of 1
I am firmly of the opinion it should be left how it is as a shared path..
Interesting article. I think the point made by the Syd Harbour Foreshore Authority saying that a lot of people go from side to side on the bridge and a bike lane could create additional risk is better than the knee-jerk responses from Mr Scruby.
Particluarly loved this one:
50-1 on traffic and 1-50 on spending? This guy is a raving lunatic. Has he checked the kilometres of dedicated pedestrian infrastructure in NSW vs the amount of properly designed and built dedicated bike infrastructure? There's a major imbalance that desperately needs to be redressed. I would always have assumed that the crackpot would be cyclist friendly. After all, a bike hitting a ped is going to end a lot better than his sworn enemy, a car...
Paths would be the way to go...
the more you separate the kinetic energies the safe it is - keep the low speed limits with the huge amounts of traffic, but it would just make it a lot easier to have a dedicated space for cyclists visible instead of having to weave in/out all over the shop.
The same was done at the top of Kent with the overpass/underpass area - used to be madness trying to weave through pedestrains all over the shop - now they get their half & we get ours.
The main issue is that people(peds) cant self organise - which leads to lots of weaving!
The fact that an idea is promoted by 'arold screwloose is usually a good indication that it is has some serious issues. I will resist the urge to say what I really think about the person and instead focus on the issue.
I agree that separating pedestrians from cyclists would be a good result. Unfortunately I don't think a strip of green paint will achieve this, principally for two reasons
(1) why did the pedestrian cross the path? To get to the other side. Pyrmont bridge is used not only by people walking to the city from Ultimo & Pyrmont, but also by tourists who appreciate the view of darling harbour & who want to see things from both sides of the bridge. The path alongside the western distributor is significantly narrower, but with fewer issues because it is just a way to get from A to B so people stick to the left hand side and walk more or less in a straight line.
(2) it relies on the idea that people will look where they are walking & as people don't even look where they are going I don't see how they are going to look at the ground for green paint.
I do wonder if anything will actually be done though, because while there is no doubt that the flow of people through the area could be significantly improved, I have seen no evidence of a danger to the safety of pedestrians or cyclists. Contrary to the pronouncements that the bridge will be flowing in blood, that does not appear to be happening.
. . . . . . .
keep left unless overtaking...why is this so hard for people to get through their heads?
Unless there's a fenced off bike path, I don't see any safety improvements on that tourist bridge. An unfenced bike path may be even more dangerous for both parties in terms of more severe injuries. An elevated bike path on the monorail pylons would be a nice alternative in my book.
Q. Has anyone ever done 10km/h across the bridge?
I tried but nearly fell off my bike, when it is busy I am averaging 12.5kms per Garmin 200. When it is less busy I can get up to 15km/h.
One can jog and run faster than 10km/h. It's a ridiculous speed limit, let alone the practicality of it for cyclists.
We all know that this would never happen. But just for one moment imagine how cool it would be. Especially if they kept the entire loop around the city (ok, maybe some bits would have to go). What a funky bit of infrastructure it would be.
there are few tourists on the bridge at peak hour anyway and outside of peak hour the odd meandering tourist will be relatively easy to avoid.
the problem is people (both peds and cyclists) walking and riding against the flow, three & four abreast and not holding their line. a green painted lane for bikes down the middle is not perfect but a good start.
Here's my comments that was rejected by the SMH nazi
"Firstly, Harold, go back to your fax machine. You are a so called "expert" on all matters roads that the "Pedestrian Council of Australia" who no one can vote you out for run out of a fax machine issuing crazy and baseless dribble like tinting car windows is a risk to homeland security, but forget about skin cancer but I digress.
Secondly, speed over the Old Pyrmont bridge should be monitored. Having a green strip does nothing because pedestrians (especially tourist who just want to check out the sights) don't recognise it so you might as well have cyclist ride at the appropriate speed, expect the unexpected that pedestrians can be and just share the road. As for Anzac bridge, if people ride when there's higher pedestrian activity, you'd be an idiot to ride 30+. I ride before 7:30am and there may be 1 walking/running on the bridge if even. That's a time it is OK to ride 30+. People just need to use their commonsense rather than have a fax machine driver dribble out crap telling us how to do something even though he himself would never have ridden a bike himself."
I must say the path is not the way to go unless it's fenced off to random pedestrians. They already ignore the green paint on the roads where it's clearly marked so how can they be trusted to stay off and actually look both ways for cyclist on the bridge?
I'd say SMH gives Harold $$ to fund his fax machine. Woolworths is a big funder to his campaign too but if he's a council of something, where and when can I vote him out and get someone that actually represents me as a pedestrian?
Lol, cameraman deliberately goes against traffic to make it look worse.
Putting bike lanes next to the pylons would not be the smartest move.
Give the SHFA staff tazers, that will ensure complete compliance.......
How dare you! "Good" old 'Arold represents you, me and everyone who travels on legs. Just ask him, he'll tell you. It's him, his fax machine and a seemingly drunk and colourblind web designer against all them evil Psycholists.[/tongueincheek]
How does one nominate for board membership of his most worthy society for self aggrandizement? I'd like to table a brown motion...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
When I rode through last night one of those 'Safety' officers had his head down playing on his phone
I've had to slam on the brakes a few times when people have suddenly shifted, it's such a bad system, and 10km/h isn't reasonable for a bike, as others have pointed out at that speed you lose alot of control.
Ideally they would do something along the lines of what we have in the city, a strip on one edge for bikes, with a brick embankment 2 or 3 bricks high, or even better, 4 or 5 bricks.
A solution for both would be a waist high railing, with a foot high brick step for tourists to climb up on to still take their happy snaps.
To be blunt, it's rarely the tourists who cause issues for me, Yesterday I had a bunch of tourist kids from India of around 15, and their minder asked them to stand to one side to let me pass, and then this morning I had an American mum who said "Step aside sweetie, the man on the bike needs to get past, and he looks like he has a better idea where he's going than we do". Whereas it's usually people in business suits with their eyes glued to their phones that cause dramas.
I'd support this one. Great idea!
+1. It is a law designed to fail. The first step in any hazard management strategy ought to be to remove the hazard. Speed limits
and rangers hitting people with fines are poor hazard management strategies.
There is clearly a congestion issue around peak hours, and I've found that even on weekends
wandering tourists are a problem. Many come from countries where the convention is to keep right,
not left - and apparently lack the wit to work out what the correct road rules are when they visit or settle
in another country. And some are just plain arrogant in darting from one side to the other without looking
anywhere but where their camera is pointed.
The opinion offered in the article that tourists must have access to both side of the bridge ought to
be challenged. It doesn't happen on the harbour bridge, does it, so why should it be paramount here ?
A dedicated cycleway ought to be built along one side - probably the northern side, to fit with
the King St exit ramp, and fenced off from the general pedestrian traffic area. If you really want
a spot for tourists to take photos, build an elevated platform in the middle for them to look out
above the cyclists.
Betcha it would cost less than the first law suit from an injured pedestrian or cyclist.
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
Well, get off the bike and jog across the bridge while pushing it... Then they won't have right of way if they suddenly change direction into your path!
Hmm, so you can only vote if you agree with them
Ooooh, promotion of pedestrian responsibilities... Haven't seen any evidence of this, though.
21 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users