Cycling: is sharing roads inevitable?
- Share
WTF?! A pro-bicycle helmet advertisement by the Danish Road Safety Council (yes, Danish!)
The idea that cyclists should share road space with drivers might sound like putting the fox in the hen house, but it’s the best option we’ve got for significantly expanding cycling in Australia.
A spokesman for the Brussels-based European Cycling Federation, Julian Ferguson, says the magic formula in Europe for boosting cycling is to “slow cars down to 30 km/h and where speeds are above this, you need to have separate, segregated paths.” (See here for other possible explanations).
I think the 30 km/h limit is good advice. It’s consistent with the recommendations of Toronto medico, Dr David Mckeown, who says a 30 km/h limit on residential streets and a limit of 40 km/h on other roads would improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
He points out a pedestrian has only a 5% chance of dying if struck by a car travelling at 30 km/h. However the likelihood of dying rises to 85% if the car is doing 50 km/h.
Of course a fully segregated system of paths for arterial travel is preferable but it’s going to be a long time coming. Funding for dedicated cycling infrastructure has always been limited but it’s now getting even harder to come by.
For example, the Baillieu Government in Victoria has completely stopped funding for new cycling infrastructure projects. Only a few councils – like the Cities of Sydney and Melbourne – are putting serious money into cycling infrastructure.
It’s not just lack of money though that’s holding back infrastructure. Dedicated cycle paths need to take road space away from motorists. That’s an enormously difficult task, as the City of Sydney recently discovered when the O’Farrell Government showed its displeasure and it’s power. Motorists won’t give up territory easily!
If we’re going to get reasonable cycling conditions within the lifetime of anyone reading this, we can’t rely solely on segregated infrastructure, as important and desirable as it is. The primary strategy for boosting cycling has to be use of existing roads. That requires two basic areas of action.
First, establish an arterial cycling network based largely on use of quiet residential streets. The ‘father’ of utility cycling in Australia, Alan Parker OAM, laid out the basic idea years ago.
Second, give cyclists priority over cars on the network. Make it clear the routes are for cyclists and residents; that cyclists have priority over drivers; and cars are restricted to a modest maximum speed – say 30 km/h.
The main road network is more problematic. Many cyclists will continue to use it but motorists will resist loss of roadspace and/or slower maximum speeds. It should be the priority for whatever infrastructure funding becomes available but, as noted above, that’s likely to be a slow and fraught path.
A more immediate priority should be pressing for highly visible changes to the law to emphasise cyclists’ legitimate right to the roads. I support the moves to legislate on “dooring” and requiring motorists to provide a minimum one metre clearance when overtaking cyclists. Increasingly though, I’m drawn to the simpler idea that cyclists should have a legal right to occupy the centre of the road (or the centre of the outside lane).
The same story that quotes Julian Ferguson also quotes German Cycling Association spokesman Rene Filipek arguing that Australia needs to abandon its mandatory helmet legislation before it can grow cycling seriously. According to Mr Filipek:
Most traffic experts in Germany say mandatory helmet laws will bring no positive effects because the use of bicycles will decrease and for this we always have the example of Australia, because this is what happened there.
As I’ve pointed out before (e.g. here and here), that’s not an accurate account of what happened in Australia in the early 90s. Moreover, there are many reasons to think we’ve moved on since then and compulsory helmets no longer seriously restrain cycling in this country.
We have to be careful the task of increasing cycling levels isn’t made conditional on a non-existent constraint. That’ll just deflect attention from more important and more achievable ways of improving cycling.
Freedom from mandatory helmets isn’t why the residents of Amsterdam and Copenhagen cycle in such large numbers. It’s the other way around – they don’t wear helmets because it’s safe not to.
And cycling’s safe because drivers in those cities are sympathetic to cyclists; because the law supports cyclists; and because there’re separated bike paths on many major roads.
So while dedicated infrastructure is highly desirable, the pragmatic thing to do is to put at least equal effort into the sorts of institutional changes that will enable cyclists and drivers to share road space as happily and safely as possible. However compromises are inevitable – a 30 km/h limit is probably only plausible in the inner suburbs at this time.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
The 30k limit idea absolutely works. I experienced it as a rider in NL, Denmark and Sweden last year and as driver many times also in Sweden.
Its hard to get used to as a driver but you realise quickly the roads are just that much safer as you react to other road users behaviour without stress and as a cyclist it takes away the main source of danger which is a complacent driver.
Urban roads simply become less dangerous places and since we have given the speeding cars right of way for so long to no avail it really is time to try this approach.
If there’s a lack of willingness at State level to bear any costs for cycling infrastructure, I can’t see it as likely that State pollies would embrace the far greater political costs that would be associated with lowering the speed limit to 30km/h.
While disappointing, I’m not overly perturbed by Ted and Barry’s antipathy towards cycling. Like the majority of non-cyclists, they have no idea how fast rates of cycling are increasing and don’t perceive the cycling demographic as one they need to accommodate. This approach will come back to bite them quicker than they realise.
Rohan: I think you’re right – politicans generally prefer to give away money than take something away from voters. In this case though, I think it’s the loss of roadspace that would be the key problem. Any solution that favours cyclists will be hard, but I reckon sharing roads, albeit with lower speed limits, would be more feasible politically than taking an entire lane away from drivers. AD
Maybe the key in the Netherlands and Denmark is that most motorists are also cyclists. In Australia, all drivers are pedestrians and most adult pedestrians are drivers, but few of either are cyclists. I think the cycling community needs to evangelise, convince more people to take up cycling. I can see the health benefits as a major selling point. And in a city like Sydney, provided you can shower and change at your destination and park your bike, it could well be quicker than driving and certainly quicker than public transport. I don’t think you have much chance of advancing the cause of cycling by taking space from motorists until there are many more of you.
The contribution to poor health outcomes attributable to the sedentary behaviour of daily car travel needs to be politicised more. Contributions to health and wellbeing from active transport activity such as walking and cycling are required to be reflected in legislation and budget allocations. Voting patterns need to support political change favouring investment in health benefitting active transport infrastructure. The space between our buildings and fences is available for improved health outcomes but the reasoning to support an emphasis in change of land use will require a different and new mind-set.
Agreed on so many fronts. As a planner, cyclist and a person who has spent a bit of time in travelling and cycling in France, Germany and Holland it is incredibly frustrating to see how ignorant or insolent many planners, engineers and politicians are towards progressive cycling schemes and policies here in Australia. Especially considering they are already proven working models in other countries that could be easily adopted if we had the political will and professional influence!
In the end it’s really about getting momentum going by promoting cycling as much as possible to garner support from the wider community. We might also have to wait it out for a bit for the old guard, anti-cyclist designers and decision-makers to leave the scene and allow the future generation who are more cycle friendly and progressive to make a more meaningful and proactive contribution.
Thanks for this article Alan. We’ll just keep fighting the good fight and hopefully things will start to change for the best sooner rather than later (the impact of peak oil or other energy/fuel crisis might just be what we need as a catalyst here in Australia).
Parker Alan •OAM
In 2012 the Premier wants to bury Sir Rupert Hamer’s initiative in approving the metropolitan Melbourne Bike Plan many moons ago.
The cutback of funding for Victorian Bike plans and those in other states is because of the entrenched negative attitudes of Australian road planners and engineers. This negative attitude arises because the rights of access in British common law have been ignored. In the UK, separate footpaths and bicycle paths were part of new bridges and still are; see the Forth Road Bridge and the Severn Estuary Bridge. In Melbourne there was no separate provision for cyclists on the Westgate and Bolte bridges. In the Netherlands planners had positive and bicycle friendly attitudes. Engineers who planned and built bikeways, are part a bicycle culture which we did not have. I did my own bicycle planning study tour of the Netherlands to study how to develop a bicycle friendly culture in Australia.
Apart from collecting English language versions of Dutch reports and riding the bikeways in 12 cities, I discussed the lack of a “bicyclist culture” in Australia with several planners and research librarians. One of them said to me, “ I can show you the solution to your problem from that window”. We then looked out over the parking area where there were 250 bicycles in undercover racks and just a few cars. She said, “perhaps your problem in Australia is simple, most of our traffic and road engineers ride bikes to work and yours do not”. I heard these words 13 years ago and passed them on to VicRoads’ engineers and one CEO who were not amused.
What VicRoads (et al) should have done
If only VicRoads (et al) had sent their engineers to the Netherlands 20 years ago to see the many options for using rail line and road reserves, access paths along canals and rivers, and parks to create continuous bikeways. If only they had ridden bicycles along residential streets which have a 30 km/hour speed limit and bike lanes on roads with a mandatory 50 km/hour speed limit, they would have made small land acquisitions to create short cuts in the residential street network to link up other bicycle routes. They would have seen freeways which are designed to be integrated with the national bikeway network; indeed, freeways and major road bridges with separate bikeways and walkways.
Having been involved in planning for bike facilites in the then CRB (now VicRoads) in the 1970′s, I have to say blaming “dinosaur” planners and engineers is misplacing (some of) the blame.
Firstly, the vast majority of Melbourne or Sydney’s inner road networks that are most used by cyclists has been in place since around the time bikes where invented. Reassigning road space on these roads is principally a political and financial, not a planning, exercise. Road planners may be reluctant to reassign space, but that is because they know that the political backlash will get them in the neck!
Most new major roads in Victoria installed in the last 20 years have had bike lanes or bike paths incorporated.
More widespread retro-fitting of bike faciliities is again a funding issue – if the Gov’t only gives the road authority a few $m for bikes, then that is all they can spend. Organisations like VicRoads/RTA or Council Engineering Departments don’t have the freedom to throw cash at whatever project they like – that is decided at Budget time by the Gov’t/Council.
Yes, we do need more bike specific infrastructure, but the only ones who can make it happen are the politicians who dole out the cash. If you want to change things, concentrate on getting the message through to them.
The City of Melbourne is an example where the politicians on Council are finally getting into the head space of changing cultures as their electors have demanded change. And the projects and funding are following.
I cycle down to the beach every morning, along a quiet road that runs parallel with a highway, then along a path which is always in a shocking condition. I would never, ever cycle on a highway – highways have the specific purpose of moving a lot of cars, quickly – they’re not for bikes.
I’m not sure you can compare European cities with Australian ones: Perth, I think, is something like 120 kilometres long. Not many people will ever be riding from the outer suburbs of Perth to work. I think 30 km per hour is unacceptable for suburban streets, but 50 is reasonable. Along any major road you need separate paths for bikes because major roads are for moving a lot of traffic, quickly – you can’t safely mix that up with bikes.
Alan and Rohan I don’t think that’s the way things work in Spring Street these days. In fact as one chained to the world and pulling for all he’s worth, I don’t think anything is working there but I digress. Everybody’s funding was cut so Ted and his idiot treasurer could say they had a surplus. instead of the usual horse trading, everything was suborned to that goal. Even ideas they liked or that would make them look good. Honestly, I’ve never seen such a crap government and I’m on number 8 by now
“I’m drawn to the simpler idea that cyclists should have a legal right to occupy the centre of the road ”
When I cycle commute everyday in peak hour the traffic is in effect parked much of the time. So the best option is to run the ‘dooring’ gauntlet through the narrow cycle lane (adjacent to actual parked cars).
Otherwise, if cyclists just rode in the middle of the car lane they would be subject to the same congestion and poor average speed of all the cars that created the problem in the first place. This would be a big disincentive to growing the cycle mode.
Despite the typical portrayal of motorists hating cyclists, I think there are many drivers that would convert to the bike more often if they felt safe because dedicated infrastructure had been provided.
pedals: Well, you couldn’t occupy the centre of the lane in congested traffic anyway! What I’m suggesting applies when traffic is moving, which is when the consequences of a dooring would be higher.
Agree more drivers would shift to cycling if segregated infrastructure were provided but even if the money were available, I think that’ll be a long, long wait. AD
helmets suck.
I think we all know what ought to be done. We also know it’s not going to be done, not without a long period of agitation, that we’ve been engaged in for the past 30 years at least. Some things have changed. But without a major mind-set snap it’s going to be well after I’ve departed – ie, more than another 30 years.
Perhaps a short-circuit miracle might happen, eg, a major charismatic political leader becomes evangelistic about 30kph and motorists liability for any cycle/ped incident. But none of us are going to hold our breath are we?
boscombe states that: “Not many people will ever be riding from the outer suburbs of Perth to work” because Perth “is something like 120 kilometres long”.
Not sure that it is useful to focus only on travel to/from work – commuting trips are only around 16% of trips in Perth on a typical workday – a higher proportion in the peak, that’s true, but maybe those ‘mass’ travel demands are best served by public transport anyway.
Even if we do focus on work trips, the average commuting distance in Perth is 15km. To put that in perspective, 1 in 10 Perth cycle commuters rides 15km or more each way and 50% ride 6km or further.
Certainly, the proportion of commuters who cycle in Perth is very low, BUT:
- not everyone works in the Perth CBD – less than 20%
- for those who do have long commutes to the Perth CBD, they could try riding to a nearby train station
So let’s not get too defeatist, as is all too likely to happen if we try to convince ourselves that the bicycle ought to be THE answer to our transport problems. It is ONE response to a range of transport problems and let’s focus on where the greatest gains can be made.
“Increasingly though, I’m drawn to the simpler idea that cyclists should have a legal right to occupy the centre of the road (or the centre of the outside lane).”
Cyclists, already have the legal right to ‘claim the lane’. Although many drivers are unaware of this…. abuse can ensue
And only have to use the cycle lane when it is not impracticable(when a car door zone is in the same area*) to do so.
*my personal definition of impracticable
Parker Alan OAM
What about the needs of aging cyclists with a serious need for exercise but needing some pedalling assistance.
I am now Elderly (76) need heart transplant and live in an outer suburb of melbourne with no rail link. Have never wanted to drive a car. I Used to easily ride a bike and want a really good electric bike. Known as a “Pedelec” A 1990 Japanese invention that take 50% less effort to ride.
The 250 watt “pedelec” is perhaps the safest type of mass produced electric bicycle; available in Europe the US and Japan, but banned from sale in Australia and Victoria ( thanks to VicRoads and other state road agencies negligence) since 2001. It offers a simple, healthy alternative to much motor vehicle travel in urban areas. New EU Pedelec safety regulations will apply in Australia in 2012 according to the Commonwealths Department of transport and Infrastructure, and most likely by a new government and enthusiastic bike rider for PM .
Australia should adopt Pedelec EU standards for 4 reasons. 1: In 2010 pedelecs were considered safe and used in countries with overall low road death rates per 100,000 population:Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Denmark and Germany. In law they are bicycles,compulsory costs. 2. Pedelecs enlarge train and bus access and make cross suburban travel across radiating rail lines easier, Pedelec access is three times more efficient than a bicycle. 3. Millions of the elderly find walking and driving too stressful. Japan conducted research,which found thatelderly cyclists needed bicycles with auxiliary motors that took 50% less effort to ride. 4. Pedelecs are similar to bicycles, with similar low weight, wheels and frames; but safer with automatic motor start and cut out at 24 km/hr.
The finding that most bike friendly cities are safer has been reinforced by the recent experience of US cities such as Cambridge, Portland, and New York. These cities have garnered much press for their success in dramatically increasing bike use and an equally dramatic decrease total traffic fatality rates..
“So let’s not get too defeatist … let’s focus on where the greatest gains can be made.”
I am rather defeatist about cycling because my own experience is that local governments where I live steadily go about making cycling more dangerous: narrowing intersections with little roundabouts, building up kerbs, introducing hazardous new drains etc, and don’t maintain cycle paths which are overgrown with bushes, covered in shattered glass and broken up by trucks having parked over them, meanwhile there aren’t proper cycle paths even along major routes like the edges of railway lines.
I’ve written 3 letters to the Transport Minister recently and will compose a fourth this weekend, after I’ve been to the scene of the crime yet again and taken yet more photos as evidence for my case … this is my first attempt at writing to government to get a very small thing done, and it has turned me into the proverbial nutter – the letters will keep flowing!
Cycling also competes with Public Transport for roadspace and infrastructure spending.
Most people live too far from the city to make cycling to work a practical option. As a former bus driver I can’t even count the number of lycra-clad inner-suburban wanker types who have failed to give way to me and my bus load of equally enviornmentally conscious passengers. Even when safe options (paths) are provided, cyclists insist on taking up bus lanes. Good luck, I support you, but in PR terms cyclists are they’re own worst enemy.
Mattsui, I am trying to be nice here, which is difficult when two bus drivers have managed to hit me in 30 years of cycling. But the whole point is that we need to get past the antagonism between the differing modes of transport and actually understand the other. So, here’s how it looks from the bicycle:
Cyclists wear lycra because it is comfortable. Try and ride a few Km in jeans. 15Km is about the limit for non-specialist clothing (eg, footy shorts) and if you are unlucky you may have had bad things happen at the genitals/clothes interface in a shorter distance. That sort of damage is cumulative, something chaffing on Monday will be bleeding by Friday. This isn’t to deny the existence of lycra-wearing wankers, and we hate them just as much as you do.
Bike paths. Are fantastic when they are have good sight lines, are smooth, and are clean. But many bike paths are not like that: they wind about with no thought to sight lines, they have bumps from tree roots and the like, and they’re full of sand, branches, overhanging trees, and general washed-in crap. You will end up cycling on the road because there’s less chance of coming unstuck there. You don’t want to come unstuck and fall off your bike when you commute; having to do another 10Km with a hurting knee is the pits.
The other factor is what happens at the end of the bike lane/path — most of them disappear abruptly and dump you in the middle of some tricky situation, such as at traffic lights or a roundabout. Sometimes you don’t start a otherwise-good bike lane/path because of its end.
There’s always going to be a bigger ratbag element in cycling than in motor transport. After all, it includes people too young to have a car license and people who have had their license removed. I’d like to apologise for the behaviour of those and ask you not to judge us all by them. But I’d also point out that motorist ratbags are in control of a machinery powerful enough to kill with tap, whereas that’s not true of cyclist ratbags. So when I’m cycling along I am much more worried about the fewer motorist ratbags than I am about the cyclist ratbags, although I see plenty of both.
Mattsui at 7.05 pm is wrong for another reason. When Paris started getting serious about provision for cyclists they took a lane from a lot of the major boulevardes (grace a Haussmann!) and turned them into busways to be shared with cyclists (and some with taxis I think). Both these kinds of drivers can be effectively disciplined to drive appropriately and not harrass cyclists (or they lose their job plus get a serious police fine). Also cycle speed is not much different to normal traffic speed in most large city CBDs. I haven’t lived in Paris since they did this but my friends tell me it has worked surprisingly well; a few weeks I spent their a few years back shocked me with how Paris traffic had been tamed. If they can do it to Parisian car drivers they can do it anywhere.
But on the original point about focussing on backstreets: no. You cannot make an effective or efficient network that goes to where people want to go (which are the same places as the car drivers) for the same reason why there are main trunk roads etc. (In a few cases use of parks can be a partial exception.) If cyclists start succumbing to this kind of logic then the politicians will happily paint a few lines on suburban backstreets, do nothing about hoon car drivers and zilch about proper bikeway routes and networks. It would be entirely counterproductive.
That is why in any city either with an established successful cycle culture and system, or in cities attempting to make the transition, you will NOT see this. Clover Moore as Mayor of Sydney seems to be trying to do it right and I suspect BOF will be taking a risk if he tries destroying what she has done. Brisbane is back in the hands of neanderthals so we can only hope they go OTT as they are wont, and provoke a serious backlash.
By the way when Bertrand Delanoe (Mayor of Paris and the first openly gay French politician) began implementing his transformation of the city there was the usual furore. His demise was widely predicted. Within 12 months the system was working and he was a hero, one of the few actually popular French politicians! It was he who started Paris Plage (temporary sand beach over summer on part of the freeway on the banks of the Seine) and Friday night closure of some major roads to create a walking, cycling and skating route (now copied elsewhere including NYC).
Giving in to the road lobby or their proxies, the gutless politicians, IS defeatist and is no way to win this battle.
As a driver I have noticed the only problem between motorists and cyclists is the fact that amongst both groups there are the arrogant ignorant types who feel they are at war with each other.
I have had my vehicle thumped by cyclictc and equally, I have witnessed motorists who have acted just as stupidly with cyclists.
We need to address the behavioural problems of each of the groups badly behaved members before we waste money painting more white lines on our roads, of which there are already far too many.
I recall when I first got my licence, there was a little slogan on the cover of the learners manual which read “Courtesy is catching” It’s time the whole world went back to treating each other with a little courtesy and tolerance, we’ve had enough of control freaks and madmen.
Alan, I’m big supporter of an arterial network for cyclists using quiet streets, particularly because it’s something that’s very achievable in Melbourne. Along with 30 kmph limits it would also be preferable to restrict through-traffic on such streets because I often find rat-runners to be the worst offenders when it comes to speeding. Canning Street is the model I’d like to see cut and pasted all over Melbourne.
I still disagree with you on helmet laws but I’m not going there!
In my earlier post I mentioned Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe because the history of advances in cities that previously were dominated by the car lobby is that it takes a populist champion to make the difference. Delanoe in Paris, (Red) Ken Livingstone in London (he was a lifelong cyclist) luckily followed by Boris Johnston who is also a cyclist despite being an old Etonian upper-class type. Michael Bloomberg in NYC. Perhaps enlightened places like Portland and Seattle used people power? Sydney has Clover Moore but the reactionary forces in Australia are especially strong. We need strong champions, most likely mayors.
I agree with the premise that quiet suburban streets can make a good bike network, and I disagree with Michael R James that they can’t work. Providing streets are parallel to trunk routes they certainly can work, but only if they’re well connected and link in with separated infrastructure when they necessarily merge with trunk routes later on. A good example is Napier Street in Fitzroy. Smith Street and Brunswick Street are hell to ride on with the constant threat of doorings, loads of traffic and trams everywhere; Napier Street on the other hand is pleasan to ride on, with plenty of car traffic calming measures, yet still completely permeable to bikes from Alexandra Parade until Victoria Street where it’s annoying as hell to turn right and head to the CBD. It could be fixed easily as Victoria Road already has the space to accomodate a good two directional bike path, and a bike crossing light could be installed like the one at Napier and Johnson, but it would take a little bit of investment. This of course is only one example, but there are plenty of others where suburbs are pretty much a grid, with traffic calming on residential streets and trunk routes parallel.
I disagree though on a few minor points. Firstly I don’t think it will necessarily be any easier to drop the speed limit to 30km/h virtually anywhere. People howled and cried when speed limits were dropped to 50 from 60. It will be a much fiercer reaction another 20km/h.
Also a lot of the road network could have bike lanes added without needing to remove car lanes. VicRoads has insisted that the minimum width per lane for cars must be at least 3.5m for a long time, yet this needn’t be the case. When new lanes were added to the Westgate bridge, all lanes were reduced to 3.1m, while speed limits could remain at 80km/h. Add in the excess space along the side of many roads and there is enough space on a lot of the network to have a decent width bike lane painted on without killing any car lanes at all, especially if the roads we are talking about have limits of 60km/h or less. More on this under the heading Lazy roads a waste of space.
IkaInk: Interesting point – I’ll have a look at that SKM report. AD
IkaInk: “Providing streets are parallel to trunk routes they certainly can work..”
You are giving examples within the few kms from the heart of the CBD. Most Oz cities are not grid-based like American ones.
In any case I don’t think you have thought it through:a big problem is that even if it were grid all the way to wherever, the roads parallel to the main thoroughfare will have cross streets every 100 m or so that feed cars into the thoroughfare. Cars on those streets will either have legal right of way (via signage) or the drivers expect it regardless. The main thoroughfare will be a mix of traffic lights and stop or giveway signs that give the main road priority. Such an arrangement is never going to happen on a parallel road specifically for cycles!
In essence the concept logically leads to re-creation of an entire parallel network which simply doesn’t make sense, even if physically possible for good routes everywhere (IMO unlikely in most of our cities). If you believe that white lines painted on those secondary roads is more than enough for mere cyclists then we really are back to where we began: cyclists nowhere and cars dominant, everywhere. Indeed how is it really any different to today?
The thing is that all this is dancing around the issue. One has to look at what exists around the world and what has worked. There is little point pretending, least of all to politicians, that there are any easy and completely painless low-cost solutions. Though the final cost and pain is never as bad as car drivers think. Witness Paris (maybe London, someone else can speak to that), NYC where the closure of part of Time Square would have once seemed ridiculous.
The mess we have (certainly in Brisbane which is mostly dangerous pseudo-lanes demarcated by white lines–totally disrespected by cars and buses–and which end suddenly all over the shop) is not going to improve unless a proper cycleway system is begun. This means one thing only: cycle lanes next to the footpath with bollards separating it (discouraging spillover/driveover) from the car lane; parked cars if any, must be on the other side of the bollards (thus largely removing the dooring problem). One advantage of this arrangement is that where road width is limited the cyclelane can be narrow without bringing danger to the cyclists or anyone else. It also prevents the trucks or taxis nonchalantly parking over bike lanes. It is also much more compatible with street-side trees (which tend to get removed over the years to provide “fewer obstacles for cars and trucks” if not to provide extra lanes etc) and safer more pleasant sidewalks for pedestrians.
And incidentally once a city has a proper cycle network which is mostly side-by-side with the car routes, the side streets and minor roads everywhere will become more civilized and safer.
michael r james – Load google maps. Stick it on map view for clarity. Zoom and move the mouse over any Australian city. You’ll see grid patterns all over the place. Australian cities are full of grids, they’re obviously not everywhere, but they cover enough of our cities that they can contribute greatly to a decent bike network.
I’ve thought it through plenty. I don’t own a car. I ride everywhere. I know exactly the sorts of streets that I like to ride on, and they’re the streets where there isn’t bucket loads of traffic, where there are traffic calming measures and where bikes have priority. They’re mainly inner suburbs because inner suburban councils have spent money and effort making roads more bike friendly and have seen increases in ridership accordingly. Yes intersections can be annoying, but even on arterial roads this is equally true. Often its worse on arterial roads because you’ll be stopped at traffic lights instead of a stop or give way sign.
Nobody is arguing that we need an entirely separate network. Alan hasn’t said that (“The main road network is more problematic… It should be the priority for whatever infrastructure funding becomes available”), Alan Parker hasn’t said that and I’m not saying that (“Providing streets are parallel to trunk routes they certainly can work, but only if they’re well connected and link in with separated infrastructure when they necessarily merge with trunk routes later on”). You’re creating a straw-man.
Your ideas about creating separate pathways are good. I believe wholeheartedly that we need to greatly expand the number of separated pathways and that we should do it pretty much exactly as you’ve outlined. But many roads can’t accomodate that. Between cars, buses, trams and pedestrians there just isn’t space for the sorts of infrastructure you’re promoting on a lot of major streets, especially not politically. That’s when nearby roads, and even other nearby arterial roads can help complete a network.
Finally you made one very good point: “One has to look at what exists around the world and what has worked.”. Read Alan Parkers piece (again if you have already), it talks about what has worked in the Netherlands. Quiet residential streets form a big part of it.
Gladys Berejiklian, the NSW transport minister has just announced $170 million for 1200 new car parking spaces at Sydney stations. That equates to $ 141,666 per car parking space. All for the purpose of keeping 1200 cars of Sydney roads for 5 days a week. Just imagine if they spent that kind of money on developing undercover cycling storage rooms at stations that were manned so that some bogan with his baseball cap on backwards couldnt steal your ride, and imposed a congestion tax on cars being driven into the CBD . Most cars only have one person in them during the work comute, the most inefficient form of transport on the planet. The government already has the technology to tax vehicles in this way (safety cam, number plate recognition etc.) but dont hold your breath. Governments dont want less cars on the road, because the revenue that is collected in the form of GST on fuel, tyres, servicing, repairs, rego etc, all goes to the states. Bicycles produce bugger all tax revenue for governments. Like I said , dont hold your breath.
IkaInk Posted June 3, 2012 at 1:19 am
No, not convinced. The grid patterns you are looking at are small patchwork bits and do not solve the main issue; what I would call the only issue. For cycling paths to mean anything at all they have to interlock to form a network, and of course a seamless network just like mains roads do for cars.
Please look at those Google maps for Brisbane and show me routes to the north (and NE) and West; for that matter south and SE along the river parallel routes. To the north (&NE) there is essentially a single route, Lutwyche road (namechanges along its long route Gympie road etc ): any grid alongside is only patches for short bits and lead into deadends or hills, and it is pretty much like that all the way out to Chermside and beyond. To the West either via Toowong or NW via Waterworks roads etc, it is exactly the same thing.
Of course this is why Newman wanted his tunnels, which brings me to your: “there just isn’t space for the sorts of infrastructure you’re promoting on a lot of major streets, especially not politically”. For better or worse the tunnels have added (potential) huge capacity for cars–I would say that this opens the political argument to take some modest part of surface major roads for bikes–yet Lutwyche road has been massively widened in places, eventually all the way to Chermside. There are now places where it is, incredibly, 8 lanes sometimes 10 with turning lanes. BUT they have not put in any provision for cycles in any of this billion dollar effort! And parallel streets simply cannot substitute.
The point about Alan Parker/Netherlands does not support what you want to claim. Of course these streets are the endpoint or startpoint for almost all journeys just as they are for cars. They do not remove the need for the major connection pathways which almost by definition (certainly as in Briz) have to be the main car routes, and form the network. Trying to form the network from those side streets will (1) mostly not be possible or (2) would impose circuitious and longer routes on cyclists–is it reasonable to ask cyclists to keep doing continuous dog’s legs every few blocks? And what I remember from the time I lived a few months in Holland (admittedly 30 years ago) is that the main car routes have cycle paths along their sides (and both sides and separated).
Again, my main point is that Alan D’s approach is counterproductive, especially politically. It would not encourage them to build anything more serious than what the Brisbane past and current mayor have done: white lines in stop/start fashion ONLY where it doesn’t interfere in any way with cars; at this rate it is impossible to see a real network being built in 10 years or longer despite Newman’s BS PR about spending $100 million on bicycle infrastructure (the failed cycle hire scheme is probably swallowing it all but is failing for the very reason that there is no safe network for users). BOF and Baillieu would readily agree to AD’s ideas, and doesn’t that tell you something!
You continue to argue against a straw-man.
For cycling paths to mean anything at all they have to interlock to form a network: I agree, precisely why I said: “only if they’re well connected and link in with separated infrastructure when they necessarily merge with trunk routes later on”. Alan Parker’s diagram, also show parallel streets being used where there isn’t room for bike lanes (Narrow main road), and a clearly marked ‘bikeway’ directly alongside the east-west main road.
You can provide me with any examples from Brisbane and you’re almost certainly right with those examples. You obviously live there and know the city. However I can point out that virtually any of Melbourne’s famous shopping streets that feature trams and currently act as major car routes make terrible bike routes; on these routes other paths must be found. Luckily, some routes not suitable to high volumes of car traffic can make terrific bike routes, with just a few modifications.
By demanding that bike routes must stick to trunk roads, you’ve ignored the vast majority of the road network. You also put yourself up for a much tougher political battle. You ignore roads that are not suitable as major car traffic corridors because they’re: too narrow; or intersected by a park; or intersected a rail line or waterway (bridges and cutaways for bikes are much cheaper and easier than car equivalents).
You also claim that the these measures are counter productive, as if by creating parts of a network where it is politically and economically easy, will somehow weaken the resolve to start work on where things are difficult politically. It won’t, it will get the ball rolling, encouraging cycling which then creates more political pressure to do what else is necessary.
Once again I can use Napier Street as an example, both of what has already been done to make it good, and what can be done to make it even better.
——-
From the already heavily used bike path next to Park Street (the A on the map linked above), take the bike path down to Edinburgh Gardens and head south through the park to Napier Street. There’s already decent bike lanes (for a quiet street) along this section of Napier Street until you hit Queens Parade where the intersection could be handled better.
A speed hump with a raised green cycle path in the middle to slow cars down, and make them aware that bikes cross frequently, would do a lot to improve this intersection.
At the other side of Queens Parade Napier hits a dead end that is pedestrian permeable (despite Google Maps telling you its not), but it’s not well set up for bikes. An altered gutter, and a bit of paint telling pedestrians its a shared path could fix it.
The pedestrian crossing works fine, but is slow because the two halves are not timed. They should both turn green for long enough to cross both sides of the road.
Once again, Google Maps doesn’t know it, but the line of trees between the pool and the park has a shared path running below them. You’re back on Napier, which is quiet, and pleasant until you Johnston St.
Thankfully the council has already fixed Johnston Street with a pedestrian style crossing button on the side of the bike lane. Once you press it, bikes have about 30 seconds to get into the intersection before cars get the green, which stops you getting hit/cut-off by cars turning left across the path.
Between Greeve’s and Chapel St the council has put in place a pedestrian and bike permeable road block to stop cars using Napier Street for rat runs.
Then everything is peachy again, until you hit Victoria Parade. Here you need: a proper bikeway, most likely in the nature strip besides the tram tracks; and another bike crossing, like the one on Johnston Street to reach it.
—-
This sort of approach can be used to make use of quiet streets as parts of a bike network; other parts like Victoria Parade, will require the sorts of measures you suggest. None of this example would be very expensive, technically challenging or politically difficult.
You could also very easily connect this path to the St Georges Road bike path, by fixing up the short stretch between where the bike path ends and St Georges intersects the Park Street bike path with the sort of bikeway you suggest should be used on major roads. Once the suggestions I’ve made are complete, this bike lane would fall into the sort of “missing link” politics that constantly gets new freeways built and cyclists would be in a much stronger political position.
Mr bus drive, when those ‘lycra-clad inner-suburban wanker types’ fail to give way, do they endanger the life of your bus load of passengers? Do they critically delay your timetable? Are other road users appreciably more polite? And what is it about lycra that you think is worthy of abuse? Does it challenge your masculinity?
The scene of a 0.08 tonne road user failing to respect the rights of a 40 tonne one is not one I recall seeing for what I would think are obvious reasons.
I want to post part of an article from last year, to show what we are up against, before then making one last post.
That previous post of an article from the Age is to show that money is never the deciding factor that some people believe. I have never understood (because he has never deigned to give an explicit answer) why AD rejects the comparison of the billions wasted on these kind of useless road upgrades and the miserably small budgets on alternatives (including pedestrian and cyclists). It is a powerful argument to throw in the face of politicians who are always banging on about being frugal with the taxpayers money: as the article says “’300 kilometres of bike path can be built for one kilometre of freeway.”
IkaI
I think we have reached an impasse.
I am not raising a strawman. I am not against using suburban streets, and in the relatively rare instances they can be part of the “arterial network” (in AD’s words), as cycle routes.
But as an earlier commenter noted, there is a strongly defeatist tone about both the strategy and the supporters of such an approach. Read what McCarthy Denis (at 2:47 pm today) wrote. And what Newman, now Mayor Quirk in Brisbane, BOF in NSW and Baillieu in Vic are doing. Make no mistake that this is a battle.
You don’t win a battle by ceding to the other’s arguments especially if you believe the critical thing is to establish a network (which AD essentially admits to: “course a fully segregated system of paths for arterial travel” alas followed by defeatism). I cannot see where this strategy leads. Whereas I actually believe we are on the cusp of a major change in mindset in Australia, at least amongst a critical fraction of people.
If you look at comparable major battles in Australian history it can inform us of the strategy most likely to succeed. Think Franklin Dam in Tassie. Native forests and pulp mills in Tassie. Heritage buildings in 1970s Sydney. Daintree and the Reef in Bjelke-Petersen Queensland.
No doubt there are times for tactical retreat but frankly I cannot think of any examples of social issues where it has worked (and BTW, despite all the handwringing over the physical difficulties–taking space from car drivers etc–this is primarily a social issue). We need and must have segregated bike lanes on many major arterials, and they must join up to form a continuous network. These are the only things that will make cycling efficient and safe (without or with helmets). Do I have to type that in capitals to emphasize the point? Anything else is either fiddling at the edges or, worse, ceding surrender to the dark forces.
You don’t get those 650 km of bike paths (mostly segregated) in Berlin by getting stridently opposed politicians to grudgingly cede to some “compromise” plan; you get it by defeating the reactionary politicians or (more likely but amounts to the same thing) making them realize this issue is not going away and they either agree or suffer serious damage. And to bang on a bit more, one thing that truly craps me off in Australia is the defeatism, complacency and the “things can’t change so let’s not even try attitude” of so many voting citizens.
…………
OK, we should call it to an end since we are not going to convert the other, even if we want the same goal.
I love the idea of putting the bike paths along railway lines. The rail reserve is already there and can easily accommodate a bike path as well.
(apologies for the stream of consciousness that follows…)
Although I have to admit some doubts as to what happens to the path at each station – presumably, it goes around the station, or better still, tunnels under it, so as not to cause interaction because people heading for the train and the cyclists. Or build the whole thing on an elevated platform above the train line itself, which would allow plenty of space and not get in anyone’s way (though this would be expensive and expose the cyclists to a lot of wind, which would make the cycling a bit harder, but it could also be enclosed in perspex on one side to negate this AND above to protect them from the rain, which would encourage all-weather cycling. Hmmm, maybe an underground tunnel would be cheaper, but less scenic…).
“Freedom from mandatory helmets isn’t why the residents of Amsterdam and Copenhagen cycle in such large numbers. It’s the other way around – they don’t wear helmets because it’s safe not to.” Some cyclists don’t wear helmets for other informed reasons such as it is not safe to do so which has already been demonstrated even in Australian courts. See http://crag.asn.au/
Whilst Alan Parker is a fantastic advocate for Utility Cycling and E-bikes in this country, we need E-bikes without the constraints of EU regulations. We should take into consideration issues such as increased average commute distances and terrain variables especially in Sydney. 250 watts, 25kph with a helmet on would get me off E-bikes which I have ridden now for 12 years. Also banned would be a hand throttle and leaving just the pedelec. (pedelec is automatic motor cut in when pedalling)
In my experience the pedelec system is far more dangerous than throttle as the rider is more at risk of an unintentional advance, a prospect decreased with experience though it must be said. It seems to be that a throttle detracts from the nature of an E-bike being a pedal assist rather than self powered. Why that this should matter is not clear either but how anyone can find pedelec safer than throttle is beyond me.
If Alan Parker does, then I am wrong and one experienced person holds that opinion. Also Alan frequently argues (and quite properly) for positive E-bike legislation as a boon for the elderly. Whilst without doubt an electric motor will keep the elderly on a bike for many more years and are a great thing, the technology is equally suited to the young as a utility cycle vehicle. Most people young, old, fit, infirm with E-bike experience will attest to an increase in fitness; many people find that they use an E-bike on more occasions than an ordinary cycle and travel longer distances.
The pedelec started in Japan as an aid for the elderly indeed and it is a huge success but perhaps a majority of people consider such a vehicle as an aid to the elderly only, quite far from the reality. They are THE solution to the Australian car problem, or at least a necessary part of. Ordinary bikes are never going to cut it here.
Alan, I’ll pick up on what one respondent said, the need to evangelize for cycling, esp. of the European sort . This is why I’ve devoted a lot of time to making bike art.
Bike art is important in unexpected ways. If bike art ends up on walls, it brings bike images intro people’s lives, hanging around as a constant reminder of a beautiful activity to be remembered, taken up again, or continued
The cycle chic movement out of Denmark, Copenhagenize.com , started promoting the beauty of transport cycling. The many cycle chic blogs which that movement has spawned, now effectively proselytize the beauty of the body on the bike
But these cycle chic images are mostly eyed on line, the eye time they get is short. Few such images get put on walls, The bike art I’m doing is also seen on line, but maybe has more chance to end up on walls, being wall destined in its conception.
Arriving on walls, bike art brings status and attention to cycling beyond the buyer’s conscious intentions. They’re images which have been favored. They’ve had money spent on them. They are thus precious. If there is a story attached to them, even better for art has much to do with story
Arriving on walls in their privileged place, the images slowly sink in both for adults and esp. kids, even if not consciously viewed much of the time.
I bet you remember what was on the walls of your home when you were a kid. Most people do. Chances are those images are still important to you, often made story rich by your imagination and even now many years removed, stay in the mind. They’re images which helped to anchor you, images which made home home
Imagine bike art building that sort of impact on young minds.
So that’s my manifesto and here’s the art, http://situp-bike-art.com
Click here to Reply
Here here Mike Rubbo. I can add to your statement with this comment concerning MHL. The beauty of the bicycle in art tends to be in general a helmet free kind of affair most obvious in the chic cycle movement. Technical arguments which doubt the importance of a helmet free experience on a bike to encourage popularity ignore the artistic value. As you are aware the artistic value also equates to a marketing value. This is routinely neglected in the never ending helmet argument in Australia.
I have recently read (and promise to dig up) comments from European government cycling bodies concerning the low level of cycling in Australia. They state that whilst infrastructure development is good and important, if Australians think cycling will grow to European levels with compulsory helmet laws, then they are having a laugh. That’s what they think, but what would they know? (“Cheese eating surrender monkeys”-Willie the Groundskeeper)
Australians also assume that Europe is covered in cycling infrastructure. In fact only a small percentage of trip time is covered on dedicated cycle paths.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.