ACT assembly debate on cycle lanes

Bean Long said:

An interesting read:

www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2005/comms/plan13.pdf

Search for the first instance of "cycle paths" and read from there.
Great support from the minister Mr Hargreaves.

Enlightening reading. It's clear from the transcript that the purpose
of cycle lanes is to get them out of the way of cars.

Mr Hargreaves said:

What these lanes have done, which to me is the really big thing, quite apart from
encouraging people to be environmentally responsible about their commuting, is give
the cyclists their own piece of the road. They do not compete for the major lane as
they did in the past. We were finding that episodes of road rage were considerably
greater in number if people had seen a bike in the lane to be used by motor vehicles.
We have seen an accommodating use of the road between bicycles and cars and an
improvement in the relationship with the instigation of those bike lanes.

There's debate as to whether on-road cycle lanes reduce collisions
involving bicycles.

Mr Hargreves said:

I have some statistics here that you might be interested in. Going back to 2001, the
total number of crashes on the road was 8,627. The total number of vehicles involved
in the crashes was 16,396. The total number of bicycles involved was 122. The
numbers stayed static all the way through to 2005.

Going to 2004, the total number of accidents dropped. That was 7,275. The total
number of vehicles involved in the crashes was 13,720. So it dropped a couple of
thousand vehicles. There were 112 bikes involved. These are on-road figures. There
have been no bike accidents involving deaths on or due to bike lanes.

Vehicles involved in crashes reduced by 16% whereas bicycles involved in
crashes reduced by 9%. That's quite a disparity, even taking in to
account the reported 17% increase in cycling (on one particular road).

I suggest that the reason for the disparity is this:

Mr Pratt said:

In their media release where NRMA was commenting on the on-road
cycle lane system, they said that ACT on-road cycle lanes are a safety hazard. Have
you taken note of their comment that, of the cyclists they have interviewed using
on-road cycle lanes, four out of 10 of those surveyed said that they had had near
misses with cars, essentially around those green lanes and intersections? Have you
taken note of that?

Now consider this. A bicycle operating as a normal vehicle on the road,
sharing the road with other vehicles, is not required to merge nearly as
frequently as a bicycle which operates on a bicycle lane. When bicycles
do merge, they are much more visible to other traffic because they are
not popping out of their own designated bit of road in to the bit of
road for other road vehicles.

The problem of course is one of perception. People perceive that
segregated facilities are safer, that a bicycle cannot co-exist with
with motorised traffic on the same infrastructure. Experienced cyclists
who have learned the principles of sharing the road with other road
users know that this is false.

On-road cycle lanes give confidence to cyclists who lack the skills and
knowledge of sharing the road with motorised traffic to get out there
and ride. Unfortunately that lack of skills and knowledge makes them
very vulnerable at intersections and junctions.

Lastly the whole discussion about whether cyclists should give way to
all cars when bike lanes intersect with other roads would not exist if
there were no bike lanes. Cyclists would be regarded as normal traffic
using the road just as every other vehicle does.

I am of the firm belief that a cyclist fares best when they operate as a
normal vehicle. That's not to say that segregated facilities don't have
their place, they do, but they can not replace skill and knowledge of
how to share the road with other road users because that's exactly what
you need to do in order to operate safely on the roads. I fear that
message is lost in the bid to get more facilities on the road,
facilities which in many cases encourage dangerous practices such as
riding in the door zone and taking cyclists out of the line of sight of
other road users.
--
Cheers
Euan

Euan said:

Vehicles involved in crashes reduced by 16% whereas bicycles involved in
crashes reduced by 9%. That's quite a disparity, even taking in to
account the reported 17% increase in cycling (on one particular road).

I'd hardly call this a disparity... it doesn't rate as a statistically
relevant data set.

On the topic of whether or not bike lanes are safe... we just don't have
that data at all. I think it's pointless to speculate wither way
without the data.

Nonetheless, IMHO I find green strips a very handy addition to the road.

--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Bean Long said:

Euan said:

Vehicles involved in crashes reduced by 16% whereas bicycles involved
in crashes reduced by 9%. That's quite a disparity, even taking in to
account the reported 17% increase in cycling (on one particular road).

I'd hardly call this a disparity... it doesn't rate as a statistically
relevant data set.

The difference between 9% and 16% is nearly double, worthy of note IMO.

Quoted message said:

On the topic of whether or not bike lanes are safe... we just don't have
that data at all. I think it's pointless to speculate wither way
without the data.

I know Wikipedia's far from authoritative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facility

Quoted message said:

Nonetheless, IMHO I find green strips a very handy addition to the road.

I'd prefer to be part of normal traffic flow in the first place.
--
Cheers
Euan

Euan said:

Quoted message said:

I'd hardly call this a disparity... it doesn't rate as a statistically
relevant data set.

The difference between 9% and 16% is nearly double, worthy of note IMO.

Yes, 9% is clearly almost half of 16, but both values are determined
from n=1. They hardly 'represent' specific sets of data. I don't think
any more needs to be said[1].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nonetheless, IMHO I find green strips a very handy addition to the road.

I'd prefer to be part of normal traffic flow in the first place.

On slow roads I don't mind at all, but I prefer my own piece of road at
80kph and above. Personal preference.

--
Bean

[1]Statistics is the science that says "if you have your head in the
oven and your feet in the freezer, you're at just the right temperature"

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:37:01 +1100

Bean Long said:

Euan said:

I'd prefer to be part of normal traffic flow in the first place.

On slow roads I don't mind at all, but I prefer my own piece of road at
80kph and above. Personal preference.

This may be a Canberra/Melbourne difference.

Heaps of fast roads in urban canberra, few in Melbourne. This may
lead to the different views.

I'm not sure either way though. MOst of the roads I travel it would
be silly to have designated lanes as the roads are narrowish but not
heavily trafficked. On others it would be good, but as they are wide
enough now, they aren't really needed.

The problem in Sydney is that a lot of the roads in inner Sydney are
narrow already. So bikes would be forced to take the long way round.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:37:01 +1100

Bean Long said:

Euan said:

I'd prefer to be part of normal traffic flow in the first place.

On slow roads I don't mind at all, but I prefer my own piece of road at
80kph and above. Personal preference.

This may be a Canberra/Melbourne difference.

Heaps of fast roads in urban canberra, few in Melbourne. This may
lead to the different views.

I'm not sure either way though. MOst of the roads I travel it would
be silly to have designated lanes as the roads are narrowish but not
heavily trafficked. On others it would be good, but as they are wide
enough now, they aren't really needed.

The problem in Sydney is that a lot of the roads in inner Sydney are
narrow already. So bikes would be forced to take the long way round.

Zebee

No the car drivers are happy to give up a lane on every road, it will
make Sydney impossible in the car but great on a bike.

Euan said:

Lastly the whole discussion about whether cyclists should give way to
all cars when bike lanes intersect with other roads would not exist if
there were no bike lanes. Cyclists would be regarded as normal traffic
using the road just as every other vehicle does.

Before the bike lanes, on Adelaide Ave which is freeway style with on
and off ramps to over bridges, I had to signal right so cars expecting
to exit THROUGH me would twig.

Then there are the zealous keep lefters who think that means driving
to the gutter and don't get that "unless overtaking" includes
overtaking cyclists. Cycle lanes are especially for them.
Easier than real driver education?

Canberra's different. There is a huge off road shared path network and
riding on the footpaths is legal for adults. There are no quiet back
street routes between suburbs for most of Canberra. Its the paths or
the main roads. In this context, I see onroad bike lanes as
integration. Segragation is "Get on the path!" which I hear less now.

Andre

Aeek said:

Euan said:

Lastly the whole discussion about whether cyclists should give way to
all cars when bike lanes intersect with other roads would not exist if
there were no bike lanes. Cyclists would be regarded as normal traffic
using the road just as every other vehicle does.

Before the bike lanes, on Adelaide Ave which is freeway style with on
and off ramps to over bridges, I had to signal right so cars expecting
to exit THROUGH me would twig.

Sounds to me like your road position is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Then there are the zealous keep lefters who think that means driving
to the gutter and don't get that "unless overtaking" includes
overtaking cyclists. Cycle lanes are especially for them.
Easier than real driver education?

Again, sounds like your road position is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Canberra's different. There is a huge off road shared path network and
riding on the footpaths is legal for adults. There are no quiet back
street routes between suburbs for most of Canberra. Its the paths or
the main roads. In this context, I see onroad bike lanes as
integration. Segragation is "Get on the path!" which I hear less now.

On road bike lanes is one approach, changing attitudes is another. I'd
rather attitudes were changed.
--
Cheers
Euan

Aeek said:

Easier than real driver education?

You've hit the nail on the head Aeek. Bike lanes, speeding fines,
anti-hoon laws, etc, are all cheap measures that the govt uses to appear
to be doing something about road safety but they are infinitely less
effective than educating people how to drive safely.

--
Ben
Car related lyric of the week: "Rollin', in my 5.0, with my ragtop down
so my hair can blow"

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:37:01 +1100

Bean Long said:

Euan said:

I'd prefer to be part of normal traffic flow in the first place.

On slow roads I don't mind at all, but I prefer my own piece of road at
80kph and above. Personal preference.

This may be a Canberra/Melbourne difference.

Heaps of fast roads in urban canberra, few in Melbourne. This may
lead to the different views.

I'm not sure either way though. MOst of the roads I travel it would
be silly to have designated lanes as the roads are narrowish but not
heavily trafficked. On others it would be good, but as they are wide
enough now, they aren't really needed.

The problem in Sydney is that a lot of the roads in inner Sydney are
narrow already. So bikes would be forced to take the long way round.

Zebee

I think you may be right Zebee. I haven't ridden in Melbourne for about
6 years and that was prior to any green strips (at least in my area). I
felt fairly uncomfortable in many areas (e.g. Bulleen Rd, north of the
freeway, for example... didn't likey much) but don't really know what
it's like with bike lanes. Canberra on the other hand is extremely well
set out for riding and, apart from few sections of cycle lane, I feel
extremely safe [touches the nearest piece of timber].

--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Euan said:

Aeek said:

Before the bike lanes, on Adelaide Ave which is freeway style with on
and off ramps to over bridges, I had to signal right so cars expecting
to exit THROUGH me would twig.

Sounds to me like your road position is wrong.

No, not at all. Adelaide Avenue prior to bike lanes would surely have
been a death trap for cyclists (I arrived in CBR just as they went in).
I've said many times before on this group that I believe CBR drivers
to be among the worst in the country and they haven't got any better.
If you are suggesting that Aeek's correct position is in the middle of
an 80 kph lane (IN CANBERRA) in order to pass an off ramp, then all I
could say is Aeek! Canberra drivers are usually either blind or not
looking so without the lanes I still feel we would not be as safe. Mind
you, even with the lanes we often have drivers park in them to chat on
the phone or drive along them right up your clacker at exit ramps. I
think they (cagers) are getting the hang of it slowly :-)
--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Aeek said:

... Segragation is "Get on the path!" which I hear less now.

I think you're due for a hearing test, Andre! ;-)

BTH

On 2006-11-15, Bean Long (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

Quoted message said:

I'd hardly call this a disparity... it doesn't rate as a statistically
relevant data set.

The difference between 9% and 16% is nearly double, worthy of note IMO.

Yes, 9% is clearly almost half of 16, but both values are determined
from n=1. They hardly 'represent' specific sets of data. I don't think
any more needs to be said[1].

Well, actually, you are invoking bogus statistics.

However, what you are saying is on the right track. Assuming a
poisson distribution of collisions (close enough), if you start of
with 122 collisions per year, you expect a year to year variation of
sqrt(122) collisions. So 122 collisions this year, and 111 collisions
next year are completely within the realms of chance, and not
necessarily a sign of things improving.

So a politician, or anyone unfamiliar with very basic statistics would
think that a 9% decrease from 122 to 112 collisions per year was
marvelous, but in reality, it means nothing conclusive -- there's a
32% chance that it came out of luck, rather than a real sustained
difference. Even a 16% decrease from such numbers would have a bit
over 5% chance of happening out of pure blind luck, rather than
policy. Hardly anything to be proud about.

However, the 16% decrease from the ... um, several thousand, was it,
car collisions, is very significant. There, a decrease of 60
collisions would be significant to the 95% level. Or 90 collisions to
the 99% level.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd prefer to be part of normal traffic flow in the first place.

On slow roads I don't mind at all, but I prefer my own piece of road at
80kph and above. Personal preference.

I got indignant when touring in southern victoria last year, when told
that I was only allowed to ride on the shoulder of this particular
freeway -- the shoulder was [censored], I was travelling darned fast with a
tailwind, and the cars were giving me plenty sufficient room.

Quoted message said:

[1]Statistics is the science that says "if you have your head in the
oven and your feet in the freezer, you're at just the right temperature"

Well no, that's a layman's misunderstanding of statistics, or a
demonstration of how it can be misused by corrupt people with an
agenda and/or misunderstanding themselves.

--
TimC
bash awk grep perl sed df du, du-du du-du,
vi troff su fsck rm * halt LART LART LART!
-- the Swedish BOFH

Bean Long said:

Euan said:

Aeek said:

Before the bike lanes, on Adelaide Ave which is freeway style with on
and off ramps to over bridges, I had to signal right so cars expecting
to exit THROUGH me would twig.

Sounds to me like your road position is wrong.

Euan: about 1.3m out from the virtual line where the right edge of the
green lane now is. Riding on the far right of the green lane is a
worse position but the drivers understand it better. I establish far
right early to give every hint that I'm going straight on.

Quoted message said:

No, not at all. Adelaide Avenue prior to bike lanes would surely have
been a death trap for cyclists (I arrived in CBR just as they went in).

Bean: I was riding home northbound for 2 winters and find it much the
same, improved by:
No longer a need to signal right for straight.
The new curb ramp so I can switch from road onto the bridge path.
Two exits where I could be stuck waiting to cross are fixed.
Southbound, the shoulder was very gappy, 3 lanes fine, 2 less so.
Off peak it was fine, claiming the lane where needed. Not to commute.

Quoted message said:

the phone or drive along them right up your clacker at exit ramps. I
think they (cagers) are getting the hang of it slowly :-)

The lanes simplify the interaction for drivers and help them develop
good habits. Hey, I think they signal left more!

Driving behind is unnerving, and annoying since there's usually space
to exit safely on the left. Its not passing on the left, and they can
legally use the left exitting bike lane. Misunderstood road rules.

Its better than the compuslive need to exit through the needle ahead
than the barndoor I'm leaving on the left.

Timid cyclists put themselves at risk by staying left, giving every
impression that they are exitting left, then snapping right at the
last second.

Andre

TimC said:

Well, actually, you are invoking bogus statistics.

However, what you are saying is on the right track. Assuming a
poisson distribution

Sounds fishy already.

Theo