Coro Drive - oh goody
Sebastian Tauchmann
As always, they're asking "commentators" to throw dung at cyclists...
"Traffic controllers to restore safety for cyclists, pedestrians on bikeway
By Bruce McMahon
A SERIES of brushes between cyclists and pedestrians has forced a
stop-go rule on the Bicentennial Bikeway upgrade alongside the
Brisbane River.
Brisbane City Council has suspended pedestrian access on a 400m
section at Milton, in the city's inner-west, sending pedestrians on to
a narrow footpath along Coronation Drive.
Down below, cyclists - managed by traffic controllers from 5am to 8pm
- travel on a temporary construction boardwalk, one direction at a
time."
continues and asks "Your Say: Are cyclists on the Bicentennial Bikeway
out of control?" - nice priming of the pump there.
kenneth vaughan
Kenny
From: Sebastian Tauchmann <sebastian...@gmail.com>
To: Bikeqld <bik...@bikeqld.org.au>; CBD BUG Discussion List <cbd...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 4 May, 2009 7:57:51 AM
Subject: [cbdbug] Coro Drive - oh goody
Enjoy a safer web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now..
kenneth vaughan
From: kenneth vaughan <k_vau...@yahoo.com.au>
To: cbd...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 4 May, 2009 3:08:08 PM
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Coro Drive - oh goody
Ian Lister
On Sun, 3 May 2009, kenneth vaughan wrote:
> As a pedestrian what I find strange is near The Regatta Bus stop on
> Coronation Drive, is there a sign above away from eye level showing a
> picture of a bike and pedestrian, but on the path there is a inbound and
> outbound picture of arrows and bikes and further up from the city, is a
> very small and I do small section of pedestrians path, which forces them
> straight into the inbound and outbound bikepath.
Sorry for the slow reply. I'm not sure if there's a particular bit you
find confusing there, but there's certainly plenty to be confused about.
I'll have a stab at describing what's going on there and see if it makes
anything clearer.
Heading outbound, the path up until that point is a shared path i.e.
pedestrians and bikes share the whole path and both keep to the left of
the whole path. This is indicated by signs with a symbol of a pedestrian
above a symbol of a bike. There are also similar symbols and arrows
painted on the ground to try to make it clearer, but it's the signs that
are important in defining the path from a pedantic or legal point of view.
Approaching the bus stop, this changes to a separated path i.e. peds and
bikes each have their own parallel section of path, and just keep to the
left of that section. This is indicated by subtly different signs with a
symbol of a ped _beside_ a symbol of a bike, and a black line separating
the two. Bikes are supposed to stay left, around the back of the bus stop,
and pedestrians are supposed to head over to the right, across the front
of the bus stop.
At this particular location there is actually a whole swag of signs: one
set of shared path signs (one on each side of the path) with an "end" sign
(marking the end of the shared section), a set of separated path signs
(marking the start of the separated section), and of course the opposite
going in the other direction. There's also an assortment of "cyclists
beware of vehicles exiting driveways" signs and the like (including an
entirely unfathomable and inappropriate "cyclists must dismount to cross
road" sign).
The whole purpose of this arrangement is to allow pedestrians access to
the bus stop without them obstructing or getting hit by bikes,
particularly as they step out of the bus onto the path or out of the bus
shelter to get onto the bus. It's a complicated and confusing setup but it
was consciously designed to be that way. (Not to say that there mightn't
be better ways to do it, but...)
Anyway, once the path has become separated it continues like that the
whole way up to Glen Rd (and then from the other end of Glen Rd on to
Sandford St), but for some reason a little way past the bus stop the sides
cross over. Perhaps this is to make the pedestrians feel nicer by being
further away from the road. The path then switches sides again just before
the traffic light crossing to the RE, again to let pedestrians access the
crossing without conflicting with bikes.
Does all that make any sense? If it all makes sense to you then you might
just be twisted enough to qualify to be a road and path designer ;-)
Cheers,
Ian
Ian Lister
On Mon, 25 May 2009, kenneth vaughan wrote:
> Update on the cycling/pedestrian path near the Regatta City Cat Stop, I
> was contacted by someone from Council who actually rode the City cat and
> got off at the Regatta Stop and he said there is a problem and well be
> fixed up.
Hmm.. do you know what the specific problem is? The general confusion
isn't going to be easy for them to fix, so I guess there's a specific
problem with the signs? I checked out the spot before replying to your
previous mail and they seemed to be technically correct (apart from the
"cyclist must dismount to cross road" one); do you know if they've already
made some changes in response to your query?
Cheers,
Ian
kenneth vaughan
So the share cyclist/pedestrian out of eye view is ok?
And did you looked at the painted signs on the footpath, where there is nothing to tell people getting off the bus to look for cyclists on the on the path that is for cyclists only until further up going towards the Old ABC Site?
Which I was told well be fixed up and I had look again, there is a building work going on, so hopefully this doesn't take up the path like it is doing now, when the building is finished.
Kenny
From: Ian Lister <list-...@lister.dnsalias.net>
To: cbd...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 8:32:41 PM
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Coro Drive - oh goody
Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now..
kenneth vaughan
But are we talking about the same Location?
Kenny
PS It good too see "oh Goody" Council is doing something?
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Coro Drive - oh goody
Ian Lister
> So the share cyclist/pedestrian out of eye view is ok?
I didn't say that, although I can see how you might take my comments that
way. I agree that (as you said in your first mail) the signs are not at
eye level, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "out of eye view".
The problem with putting signs at eye level (aka head height) is that they
become a hazard unless they are well clear of the path. You won't find too
many signs on paths that are any lower than those ones.
> And did you looked at the painted signs on the footpath, where there is
> nothing to tell people getting off the bus to look for cyclists on the
> on the path that is for cyclists only until further up going towards the
> Old ABC Site?
Yes, I did. Leaving the bus stop and heading towards the ABC site, in my
opinion the biggest hazard is the big driveway. There is a fairly clearly
visible separated path sign straight ahead, a few metres on the other side
of the driveway. Walking straight ahead keeps you on the pedestrian side
of the path until you reach the crossover point. There are fairly visible
bike symbols painted on the bike part of the path. There are also
pedestrian symbols on the pedestrian side, but they're much less visible,
partly due to the lighter colour of the surface, and partly due to vision
being obstructed by the crash barriers. That could certainly be improved,
but I don't think it's as dangerous as the driveway or any number of other
locations around the place. (Not that that makes it OK, just trying to
keep perspective).
> Which I was told well be fixed up and I had look again, there is a
> building work going on, so hopefully this doesn't take up the path like
> it is doing now, when the building is finished.
Indeed :-/
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, kenneth vaughan wrote:
> The following doesn't make sense Ian, so since it make sense to you then
> you might just be twisted enough to qualify to be a road and path
> designer ;-)
I might.
> But are we talking about the same Location?
I'm pretty sure we are, yes.
> PS It good too see "oh Goody" Council is doing something?
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking?
Regards,
Ian
kenneth vaughan
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Coro Drive - oh goody
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, kenneth vaughan wrote:
> So the share cyclist/pedestrian out of eye view is ok?
>>I didn't say that, although I can see how you might take my comments that
>>way. I agree that (as you said in your first mail) the signs are not at
>>eye level, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "out of eye view".
>>The problem with putting signs at eye level (aka head height) is that they
>>become a hazard unless they are well clear of the path. You won't find too
>>many signs on paths that are any lower than those ones.
But do you think a cyclist and pedestrian won't look up to see a sign unless it way ahead of something?
So maybe a sign should be at eye level, clear of the path?
> And did you looked at the painted signs on the footpath, where there is
> nothing to tell people getting off the bus to look for cyclists on the
> on the path that is for cyclists only until further up going towards the
> Old ABC Site?
>>Yes, I did. Leaving the bus stop and heading towards the ABC site, in my
>>opinion the biggest hazard is the big driveway. There is a fairly clearly
>>visible separated path sign straight ahead, a few metres on the other side
>>of the driveway. Walking straight ahead keeps you on the pedestrian side
>>of the path until you reach the crossover point. There are fairly visible
>>bike symbols painted on the bike part of the path. There are also
>>pedestrian symbols on the pedestrian side, but they're much less visible,
>>partly due to the lighter colour of the surface, and partly due to vision
>>being obstructed by the crash barriers. That could certainly be improved,
>>but I don't think it's as dangerous as the driveway or any number of other
>>locations around the place. (Not that that makes it OK, just trying to
>>keep perspective).
As at the Regatta bus stop which would be before the big driveway you mentioned, in my opinion the biggest hazard is the very short pedestrian path with a arrow directing pedestrians to a two way bike path, as there is no pedestrians path with symbols due to the building work.
> Which I was told well be fixed up and I had look again, there is a
> building work going on, so hopefully this doesn't take up the path like
> it is doing now, when the building is finished.
>>Indeed :-/
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, kenneth vaughan wrote:
> The following doesn't make sense Ian, so since it make sense to you then
> you might just be twisted enough to qualify to be a road and path
> designer ;-)
I might.
> But are we talking about the same Location?
I'm pretty sure we are, yes.
> PS It good too see "oh Goody" Council is doing something?
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking?
Regards,
Ian