... but the two-way bikepath scheme has since been moved to Bourke Street (which isn't as wide as Crown Street) and is meeting a lot of opposition from the residents and cafes there. Some as yet unknown - but sizeable - number pf parking spots and/or trees will have to go to squeeze it into the very narrow bit around the "Il Baretto" where Bourke Street crosses Arthur St in Surry Hills.
> Is this going to be safer/faster/better than the existing Bourke > Street Bike Lanes?
Consider the fun if the parked cars are vans or big 4WDs, there's only one bicycle, and it's a BMX or similar small bike, and a car darts into a driveway.
I believe that the majority of crashes in places with Copenhagen lanes are at intersections, partly because the cars don't realise the bikes will be there, and partly due to sightlines.
> > Is this going to be safer/faster/better than the existing Bourke > > Street Bike Lanes?
> Consider the fun if the parked cars are vans or big 4WDs, there's only > one bicycle, and it's a BMX or similar small bike, and a car darts > into a driveway.
> I believe that the majority of crashes in places with Copenhagen lanes > are at intersections, partly because the cars don't realise the bikes > will be there, and partly due to sightlines.
On 2008-05-11, tenspeed <tensp...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Anyone got any thoughts about this recent announcement by the Sydney > City Council?
> There's some interesting 2007 stuff from when the Sydney City Council > Cycle Plan was launched at:
> ... but the two-way bikepath scheme has since been moved to Bourke > Street (which isn't as wide as Crown Street) and is meeting a lot of
<SNIP>
IIRC the plan was for a two way bike path on one side of the road i.e. bikes in two direction cars in one. They tried this in the Netherlands and bike/car accidents increased by 71% (if my memory serves).
Having traffic coming from an unexpected directions is just a stupid idea.
Cheers
Joel -- Human Powered Cycles | High quality servicing and repairs j...@humanpowered.com.au | Affordable second hand bikes (03) 9029 6504 | Bicycle reuse centre www.humanpowered.com.au | Mechanical and on-road training and instruction
> IIRC the plan was for a two way bike path on one side of the road i.e. > bikes in two direction cars in one. They tried this in the Netherlands > and bike/car accidents increased by 71% (if my memory serves).
The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in a slight drop in the total number of accidents and injuries on the road sections between junctions of 10% and 4% respectively. At junctions on the other hand, the number of accidents and injuries has risen significantly, by 18%. A decline in road safety at junctions has undoubtedly taken place after the construction of cycle tracks. If the figures for the road sections are combined with those for the junctions, an increase of 9-10% in accidents and injuries has taken place.
....The increase in injuries due to the construction of cycle tracks arises because there are more injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders at junctions. There has been an increase of 28%, 22% and 37% respectively for these three road user groups.
The increase in injuries to women was 18%, whereas there was only a small rise in injuries to men, just 1%. The increase in injuries is especially large among females under 20 years of age on foot and bicycle, as well as female pedestrians over the age of 64. On the other hand, there was a considerable fall in injuries among older cyclists and children in cars of both sex.
...From table 1, it can be deduced that the construction of cycle tracks has resulted in three important gains in road safety: fewer accidents in which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a parked car. These gains were more than outweighed by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists and pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.
Looking at the full report, 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?
This isn't a new bike route so there's no reason to think that Bourke Street car traffic will decrease. I think council are hoping that the two-way bicycle road will encourage more recreational cycling - it's a pretty street.
The narrow bit is Restaurant Row. It's often very difficult to park at the moment, with loads of three-point turns into the cross streets when drivers spot someone pulling out. Seems unlikely that this stuff will be reduced when the existing bike lanes and half the parking spaces are replaced by the bicycle road.
The area I'm describing - we often bike around there - is on pages 10 and 11 of the detailed plans, by the way. It's in the background of the pic in the council announcement leaflet.
-----------
On May 12, 6:54 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "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?
> Looking at the full report, 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
That's a pretty stunning set of statistics there. I would be very interested to know what kind of evidence base council is working from in terms of claiming this kind of development would then be making the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Nobody so far has been able to show me any kind of evidence that this type of development has worked in the past but maybe I'm just not looking in the right places?
I am tempted to email the woman in charge of the project Fiona Lewis and ask her about this but to be honest I really don't feel like being brushed off again like all my other queries have been up to this point.
>> Looking at the full report, the biggie appears to be (as you would >> expect) how many vehicles turn across the bike lane.
snip >> Zebee
> That's a pretty stunning set of statistics there. I would be very > interested to know what kind of evidence base council is working from > in terms of claiming this kind of development would then be making the > roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Nobody so far has been > able to show me any kind of evidence that this type of development has > worked in the past but maybe I'm just not looking in the right places?
> I am tempted to email the woman in charge of the project Fiona Lewis > and ask her about this but to be honest I really don't feel like being > brushed off again like all my other queries have been up to this > point.
The original city bike plan up for submissions didnt have any "Copenhagen style" lanes in it but somewhere along the line after the submissions were received and the final plan was released they appeared. Probably under pressure from local bike groups and maybe a few councillors who have been to Europe etc and think they know whats best, or maybe the troglodyte traffic engineers who dont want cyclists on the road. King St will be the first such 2 way bike lane (down a steep hill, hate to think of possible handle bar tangles) then Clarence I think it is, and Bourke St after that. SS Council did part of Bourke St in Surry Hills a few years ago with a contraflow bike lane with median, but that was when Bourke St was one way I think, and its flat there. I dont like the idea of two way bike lanes on hills like Bourke St North. I have a book called Collection of Cycling Concepts, put out by the Danish Govt for free, and they dont reccommend two way bike lanes if there are many side streets or driveways etc, and there aent any pictures of them, so I dont know where the so called Copenhagen style lanes come from. From memory 10 years ago Copenhagen had one way separated cycle lanes on its big wide main streets. So much room it was no wonder everyone rode a bike.
Sorry if that was all one long line but how do you adjust line length in in Outlook Express?
> The original city bike plan up for submissions didnt have any "Copenhagen > style" lanes in it but somewhere along the line > after the submissions were received and the final plan was released they > appeared. Probably under pressure from local bike groups and > maybe a few councillors who have been to Europe etc and think they know > whats best, or maybe the troglodyte traffic engineers who dont want cyclists > on the road. King St will be the first such 2 way bike lane (down a steep > hill, hate to think of possible handle bar tangles) then Clarence I think it > is, and Bourke St after that. SS Council did part of Bourke St in Surry > Hills a few years ago with a contraflow bike lane with median, but that was > when Bourke St was one way I think, and its flat there. I dont like the idea > of two way bike lanes on hills like Bourke St North. I have a book called > Collection of Cycling Concepts, put out by the Danish Govt for free, and > they dont reccommend two way bike lanes if there are many side streets or > driveways etc, and there aent any pictures of them, so I dont know where the > so called Copenhagen style lanes come from. From memory 10 years ago > Copenhagen had one way separated cycle lanes on its big wide main streets. > So much room it was no wonder everyone rode a bike.
> Sorry if that was all one long line but how do you adjust line length in in > Outlook Express?
> FB in Syd knee
Just done a search or ten. BINGO!
Looks as if a "focus group" of "potential cyclists" was shown pics of various sorts of bike lanes and thought the two-way ones looked nice:
" "People are not accustomed to thinking hard," writes Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, "and are often content to trust a plausible judgement that quickly comes to mind"."
""Psychology and media aside, a third element skewing our perceptions of risk is marketing. Simply put, fear is useful. Fear sells products. Fear wins votes. Fear attracts public attention. "
People with little or no experience of cycling in traffic fear traffic. And so see something that "looks right" and think it is right. THinking hard about it, using intelligence and looking for problems is too hard (and probably not worth the effort for a bit of focus group silliness).
