On May 17, 1:07=A0pm, "PeteSig" <pete...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Jaaysus!!!
>
> Would it be too much to expect that our TERTIARY qualified TRANS****T
> PLANNERS might have the gumption to do a bit of a search of overseas
> experiences, before istalling patently unsafe traffic devices.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities
>
> "For urban roads, with many junctions, accident analysis suggests the
> opposite, that segregated cycling facilities are likely to produce a net
> increase in the number of collisions. These conclusions are sup****ted by
t=
he
> experience of countries that have implemented segregated cycling
facilitie=
s.
> In the U.S.[34], UK[35], Germany, Sweden[36], Denmark[37], Canada [38]
and=
> Finland[39], it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle
> tracks/sidepaths results in significant, up to 12 fold, increases in the
> rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1990 European conference on
cycling,
> the term Russian roulette was openly used to describe the use of
roadside
> cycle paths.[40]"
>
> "In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on the
> roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km
of
> cycle paths [41]. The Berlin police and Senate conducted studies which
led=
> to a similar conclusion in the 1980s [42]. In Berlin 10% of the roads
have=
> cycle paths but these produce 75% of fatalities and serious injuries
among=
> cyclists [43]. In the UK town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that
> cyclists using the "off-road" Milton Keynes redway system have, on a per
> journey basis, a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle
collisions=
> than cyclists who simply cycle on the ordinary unsegregated roads[35].
Cyc=
le
> lanes / bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban
situations=
> but even well-implemented examples have still been associated with 10%
> increases in casualty rates."
>
> Helsinki has many kms of two-way cycle lanes, and for 'wrong way'
cyclists=
> they are 10 times more dangerous than cycling on the road.
Just tried the "Sidepath Suitability Score" after following up the
Wiki stuff (thanks Pete):
http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/sidepathinfo.htm
Used a Gregory's to count the intersections on the west side of Bourke
St. Doesn't show the driveways so made a few guesses.
Score was between 17 and 31 depending on the guesses.
Guidelines say over 10 =3D silly idea.
And thats for a one-way path (Council plan is for a two-way one).
This is not looking good,
Anyone know why BicycleNSW are sup****ting it in their newsletter?
|
