Will add extracts from
Towards Zero Together – South Australia's Road Safety Strategy 2020
Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists
In urban areas provision for people walking and cycling is important and in some locations these modes should be given priority over motorised traffic when designing the road network.
Infrastructure initiatives to address the particular needs of vulnerable road users will include the provision of safe and separate facilities for people walking and cycling, as well as the provision of a safe speed environment when separation is not possible. We cannot continue to define cycle lanes as a painted white line that peters out when it gets too hard. Promotion and facilitation of safe shared-use pathways for cycling and walking and safer speeds will encourage people to move away from the dominant car culture and re-establish active transport as an attractive and healthier alternative to driving.
An overall framework for safe and credible speeds requires a stronger functional approach to the road network.
Reductions in travel speeds saves lives and injuries and these benefits have been clearly demonstrated on South Australian roads. The 2003 reduction in urban speed limits to 50km/h produced a reduction of over 50% in urban crashes. Other targeted speed limit reductions, such as in parts of the Adelaide Hills where the speed limit was reduced to 80km/h and selected 110km/h rural roads reduced to 100km/h have produced similar results.
Reductions in average travel speed across the network is the most effective and swift way to reduce road trauma and would produce significant and immediate road safety benefits. A reduction of 5km/h in average travel speed would reduce rural casualties by about 30% and urban crashes by about 25%. A blanket application of the 100km/h default speed limit on rural roads (excluding national highways) would be projected to save over 20 fatalities and serious injuries each year.
Travel speed have consequences for crash risk and also for injury severity when a crash occurs. Bio-mechanical research into the capacity of the human body to absorb crash energy without significant harm suggests that safe travel speeds would ideally be less than 30km/h in areas where conflict with people walking or cycling is possible, less than 50km/h where side impacts are possible, and less than 70km/h on roads where head-on collisions are possible (see figure 5). This illustrates the need to address speed within a functional approach to road management.
For example, approximately 5 minutes is added to a 100km trip when travelling at 100km/h, rather than 110km/h, travelling at 100km/h uses an average 8% less fuel than travelling at 100km/h.
The wider benefits of reducing speed limits including better fuel consumption, lower greenhouse gas emissions, less traffic noise, and better support for active travel modes contribute to South Australia's environmental, sustainability, and well-being objectives.
Included the quote because I know cyclists who object to lower vehicle speeds (that would be safer for all road users and much safer for cyclists) because they do not want to be slowed down when driving. They do not comprehend that it would have limited impact on driving time, especially in urban areas.
The current RAA motor magazine includes driving time tests of Adelaide arterial roads during peak hours. Indication that it could be quicker to cycle.
@Allan - if you'd like to add to discussion I'd suggest you make informed comments. Whilst the title to this thread could perhaps be different the linked to stuff is most relevant to a cycling forum.
As an example from page12 of the PDF:
We cannot continue to define cycle lanes as a painted white line that peters out when it gets too hard.
Research into the capacity of the human body to absorb crash energy indicates that speeds would ideally be less than 30km/h where conflict with people walking and cycling is possible, less than 50km/h where vehicle side-impacts are possible and less than 70km/h where head on collisions are possible.
The graph of vehicle vs pedestrian indication that at 60km/h 90% risk of death, at 50km/h is 70%, and and at 40km/h is 35%.
The frontal design of vehicles can have a major effect on the severity of injuries to pedestrians. ANCAP test the pedestrian friendliness of vehicles, but while the ANCAP star rating for occupant protection has improved considerably, there has been little change in vehicle safety ratings for pedestrian collisions in the same period.
Figure 6: Serious casualties by user type, South Australia, 2008-2010
6% cyclist. [Vulnerable road users of] Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists make up the remaining 30%.
Pages 24, 25:
During the last 10 years 37 cyclists have been killed and 631 seriously injured in road crashes on South Australian roads. Seriously injured cyclists were predominantly male and included all age groups.
Most bicycle crashes occurred in Adelaide where high bicycle and motor vehicle numbers coincide. Cycling in South Australia is increasing and data shows that of any Australian State capital city, Adelaide has the highest percentage of people cycling to work.
The most effective counter measures to improve bicycle safety are by providing lower speed environments where motor vehicles and bicycles travel at comparable speeds, or by providing separation between vehicles and cyclists where there is significant speed differential. Providing a low speed environment reduces both the likelihood of collisions occurring and reduces crash severity.
Separation can be achieved by having separate operating spaces on-road in the form of bicycle lanes, or through the use of off-road bicycle paths. New approaches for on-road bicycle lanes are being considered which provide greater physical separation than a painted line. Comprehensive, safe bicycle networks are required so as to meet the diverse needs of the range of people who cycle, from athletes in training to family groups and children riding to school.
New approaches for on-road bicycle lanes are being considered which provide greater physical separation than a painted line.
Please no, not a raised 'median strip' style. Anyone who considers these a good idea needs to spend a week commuting. IMHO I think they are dangerous.
What do you say makes them dangerous? Overseas experience would suggest the opposite.
Not sure what you mean by a raised 'median strip' but I can speak from personal experience that 'raised segregated bike path/lane/track (call whatever you like)' as found in Copenhagen is the deluxe and proven infrastructure that works (not omitting driver education, liability legislation etc. etc.). These track have to be on the inside of parked cars (if there are any car parks ) - right adjacent to the pavement (which is raised another notch).
Forget paint (only serves as a extra left turning lane for cars - are not respected - and are typically on the wrong side of parked cars leading to invitation for dooring). Paint can be used in intersections - that's it.
Forget vibralines and all sort of ofther inventions. Too easy for cars to trespass. This is the sort of material (granite) you use to edge the raised bike tracks. Leaves nice footprint on tires, rims and shocks if running to close/across in cars.