Re: Bourke Street Bicycle Road

In aus.bicycle on 12 May 2008 08:41:15 GMT
Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
http://cycledog.blogspot.com/2008/01/copenhagen-cycling-not-what-it-seems.html
>

Looking at the full re****t, the biggie appears to be (as you would
expect) how many vehicles turn across the bike lane.

In the area studied, the construction of the cycle lane meant parking
was removed from the main road, meaning people were now parking on the
side roads - more turning traffic.

It also seems that - again as you would expect - that if you mix bikes
and cars at traffic lights, especially if the cars want to turn and
the bikes want to go straight then that's bad news.  I'm not sure what
a "shortened cycle track" is, but I think it's where the copenhagen
lane finishes so the bikes are spat out into the road, and where that
happened and there was no turn lane for cars, so cars and bikes mixed,
then bike injuries increased even though actual crashes decreased.

The injury rate at intersections with Copenhagen lanes increased 45%.

Apparently what increased was right turning (in Oz, left turning)
traffic hitting cyclists.  I suspect that's a sightline thing -
drivers not turning their heads to look but relying on mirrors which
are notorious for being badly adjusted and not good at seeing
singletrack vehicles.  A driver turning from the far lane has more
vision of the bike lane.

The other big rise was bike on bike action.  Usually, it appears, from
passing.  I can see that - anyone who rides on bike paths knows the
Sunday rider is as bad as the Sunday driver for having poor lane
discipline and poor awareness.

However...

"The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an
increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of
9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in
accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads"

Stats aren't my strong point, but doesn't that mean that the injury
rate is half the expected increase?

Zebee