Just finished reading the newly published report Public Spaces and Public Life about Adelaide which is chock-a-block full of goodies. Carefully analysed, great comparisons, perfect examples and terrific suggestions and solutions. Well worth a read.

Page 100 and 101 are the hightlights for me:

p100

"Along key streets, bicycle links in terms of raised (or by other means separated) bicycle paths should be created to promote safety and comfort for the bicyclists."

p101

"CREATE PROTECTED BICYCLE STRUCTURES

Introduce designated bicycle paths on the ‘safe’ side of parked cars - close to the footpath and next to possible on-street parking or traffic lanes to promote safety. "

which to me is the single most import message in the report.

I can only hope that the report doesn't get to collect dust like the report from 2002 mostly did (which is also rather diplomatically highlighted)

Views: 891

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well done! Speed reading, I only found the report an hour ago, saved for later reading.

Look forward to reading it - but do have concerns about raised or separated bike lanes. I think these cater to people riding to the shops or taking the kids to school. But not sure they work for longer paced rides. And the more we separate cycling activities from the road the more marginalized cycling might become. IMO. Happy to be proven wrong.

Longer paced rides necessarily take people right out of the city. The raised lanes are specifically for busier city streets. In the absence of decent infrastructure, cycling in this country is about as marginalised as it can be. Our modal share is at the bottom of the scale along with the UK and USA. This is the proven way to increase it.

Remember also, we already have separated bike routes outside the city, eg: Stuart O'Grady Bikeway, etc.

True. And you are right, raised lanes in CBD makes sense. If that is where they are placed that is a great way to integrate cycling into the city.

Is it safer to get doored by passengers rather than drivers?

I've always wondered about this idea that the passenger side is safer.  I guess you are better off being pushed by a door onto the footpath than the road.  But the likelihood of dooring on the passenger side seems to me to be higher than the likelihood of dooring on the drivers side.  At least until passengers get used to the idea that a vehicle (ie bicycle) may be moving rapidly past there door.

Ken the Dane what's your experience of this ?

Indeed, I don't get how the passenger side is safer at all.

The bike lane would be limited in width whereas the road has lots of room. Of course ignoring the fact of vehicular traffic the passenger side would have the kerb and along the kerb there would be sure to be plenty of poles and other "furniture" to tangle with - as they say it's not the falling it's the sudden stop at the end.

If bike lanes were to be on the passenger side then they would have to be designed correctly, that is a buffer space such that open doors can not intrude the bike lane. An island that passengers could utilized before entering bike/car/whatever areas. Plant trees along it.

Every car in Adelaide has a driver.  Perhaps 60-70 % (could be higher) don't have passengers.  So that's less doors potentially opening.  Only a moot point though.

Yeah, all those single passenger cars, for 10 doors opening 9 must be on the drivers side...

Heather posted a picture of something like this in Melbourne.  There was a buffer about a door width wide. 

Ah here it is on the next page

Permalink

A sad case in Melbourne where a driver of a Mercedes doored a cyclist who went under truck wheels and died. Disgusting that she was not even charged with lesser offence of dooring but then she could afford a good lawyer. I think being pushed onto a road could have worse outcome for the cyclist.

+1

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2020   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service