In 20 years we will all be doing it? Maybe
Posted April 1st, 2007 in Advocacy, Roads
Today’s Sydney Morning Herald.
The Danish architect commissioned to redesign Sydney has a simple message for its residents: get on your bikes.
Henriette Mortensen and her boss, Jan Gehl, hope one day to see cycle lanes down George and Elizabeth Streets and a traffic system that favours pedestrians, not cars.
“Pedestrians have too much to struggle with in Sydney, and much more can be done to make walking more attractive,” she said.
Her first priority: get Sydneysiders to cycle to work.
“In 20 years we will all be doing it,” she said.
O course I agree, there will be a lot more folks riding bikes in Sydney is the image above is realised, but as a roadie I have some concerns about the way the needs of the largest road using demographic are being marginalised in favour of commuting cyclists.
It’s time for the cyclists who do more miles on our roadways to receive a seat at the table. Why? Because the vision above is a nightmare for us. I can’t and won’t ride on those lanes, there are inherently dangerous for anyone who wants to ride at speed. Secondly, the psychology inherent in this is that motorists will see someone like myself mixing it with the traffic and then make the claim that those are suitable roads for me. They are not.
What I’d like to see strongly articulated in every piece of correspondence by all bicycle advocacy groups is that (bunch) training and racing cyclists belong on the roads despite the provision of dedicated cycleways because our needs are different. You cannot articulate a vision and cut out the largest segment (in terms of miles ridden) of the cycling community.
To be fair, I should also say that the cycling clubs themselves should be more involved and all clubs should elect some kind of advocacy officer to their boards, someone who could be present at many of the meetings that discuss the needs of cyclists. In many ways roadies deserve to be marginalised, because outside of getting worked up about changes to Centennial Park no one appears to understand how these proposals might impact on their ability to ride and train.
That rant over, I’d also like to value add with a bit of snark regarding this claim by Henriette Mortensen.
Ms Mortensen said she would not be riding her bike while working in Sydney in May as “I would be killed”.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that it would be good for someone tasked with designing a cycling future for Sydney actually spend a bit of time on the roads? As to the specific quote, well there does appear to be an increasing number of people riding in Sydney despite the threat of being “killed.” Those Danes sure are a soft bunch.
Lastly, I’d like to point readers to The Oil Drum, my daily source for energy news. They’ve just thrown up a post on the case for physically separated bike lanes and have the usual comments thread going on this.
technorati tags: cycling, bicycles, bike, lanes, sydney
What others have to say…
“f the City of Sydney want to encourage cycling, they should sponsor adult ed classes to teach people how to ride safely in traffic, starting on the back streets and working up to George St. Ms Mortensen could attend.”
I’ll remember that when next year my 12 year old has to ride up King St Newtown. Now even thou she has been riding since 5 and rides to school now, I would not like her on a road like that.
Ralph Nader refuses also to ride a bike to get around because it’s “too dangerous.”
I have no real problem with these pieces of infrastructure because they don’t involve building any new roads, they are using existing space, which is something I agree with.
As I said, there will be more folks riding if the vision above is realised, but perceptions of safety are something we have to deal with.
Something that Ms Mortensen has articulated nicely if somewhat oddly given her brief.
So this will do the trick.
However…….don’t forget the experienced and the roadies. One size does not fit all.
Those bikelanes look luxurious compared to the ones in London which have to be seen to be believed (They wouldn’t be wider than 2 feet).
But you are dead right Phil, this is an all too frequent problem, people who don’t ride that much designing cycling infrastructure.
If people ride the roads in London (and they do), then there should be nothing stopping people in Sydney. I haven’t spent a lot of time in Sydney, let alone ridden in Sydney, but it doesn’t look that difficult and you don’t have to dodge 20 tonne double decker buses.
http://www.urbanarc.com.au/sites/courses.html
Maybe we could buy Ms Mortensen a ticket and she can learn from a cyclist
A few points:
a) few dual use paths are suitable for 30kph+ riding. The converted footpath types are dangerous at 12kph.
b) they STOP at every roadway (dismount in WA)
c) they don’t go everywhere.
d) corollary to (c) they’re on the wrong side of the road when you are going slowly.
e) footpaths are not the road. This has legal as well as political and psycological impacts.
What I do like are “dedicated bike lanes on the left of the road on ascending slopes -
a) this is where I hold the traffic up as the difference in speed (and therefore risk) is at its greatest.
b) they are CHEAP compared to other solutions
c) they are always on the correct side of the road
d) esp. on dual carriage ways, they are “no standing” zones
e) I’m still on the road
f) I’m still visible to other road users.
$350 bucks! Heck for that kind of money I can take ‘em all out for a ride around town that points out the low and highs of Sydney bicycle design.
And we all know how good the RTA is at helping cyclists don’t we? Good luck to the course participants.
Gotta go with mtrauts — that reply summed up my feelings perfectly. As a commuter I’d be unlikely to use such infrastructure either. You imagine trying to not only get to and from work, but then get to another appointment on the other side of the city, then get back to do your shopping before all the shops close (note — we’re still on 1950’s shopping hours here in Queensland), and you’ll soon discover the limitations of such infrastructure.
There is a growing belief in many circles that a lot of the people who claim to be “advocates” supporting this type of infrastructure are, in fact, agents of the motoring lobby that just wants cyclists off the road by whatever means possible. That’s about the only purpose served by the lanes above.
God you people get so hung up on the little things - the sort of feature as placed in the artists impression, which does not show scale etc is not slated for ever road, only certain local roads - and obviously Chris does not know the people that have been actively involved.
Unless you want to see cycling remain at 2% things must change - these cycleways are not for roadies and not for the hardened commuter, it is to get the the next 5 - 10% of cyclists happening. Once they are on board we can start to look at getting the parking spaces removed
I was just about to comment on Chris’ comment Andrew.
Chris, I know quite a few of the advocacy folks and to suggest that they are somehow stooges for the motoring industry is completely and utterly inaccurate.
They all care deeply about the issues involved, all talk the talk AND walk the walk.
My specific criticisms regarding my needs are just that, my needs, I don’t want them to forget that my kind of rider exists.
As I have said before, I regard the work that all the advocates do, from BNSW, to the bugs to CM as important and valuable. I support them all, as we all should……..while being contrarian of course.
Which many on this thread seem to take particular delight in being.
One thing is for sure, we are a broad church, let’s keep talking.
It looks like it’s clarification time again. At no point did I suggest that *all* cycling advocates are necessarily stooges of the motoring industry. However, the simple fact is that when I was more closely involved in advocacy (and one of the main reasons I am no longer involved), many of the people seemed to have “getting cyclists off the road” as their sole motivation.
Policy of that nature appeases nobody apart from motorists. Just how having access to less of the road should be seen as a “win” for cyclists escapes me completely. I’m not totally convinced this will result in more people cycling.
It’s also worth remembering while we’re talking about the “benefits” of cycling, that the majority of those benefits do in fact, flow from the people who are out there doing it everyday. As far as the others are concerned, well, what’s the point of increasing bicycle “trips” if each additional trip is accompanied by an additional “Car trip” to transport the bike to and from the path? That will only increase pollution and traffic congestion.
If that’s the alternative, then I, for one, would rather see cycling remain at 2%. Yes, it may appear selfish, but then, most of the motives in any political movement are.
Chris,
I ride a zillion miles every day. I’m faster than the car traffic most of the time.
Think I’ll use the separated bike lanes? Maybe not as much as the next guy.
Think I’m excited about them? You betcha! Anything that doubles, triples, quadruples (or more) the number of bikes on the road is better for every single one of us.
The more paths like this, the fewer Parramatta roads need to be built to accomodate hords of single occupant smelly noisy f*ckers in falcons.
It’s a shame you’re so conflicted about all this: we could all use your help and energy trying to get to the next level of bike infrastructure.
And yeah, that IS a selfish attitude. Shame on you.
I have one very specific problem with the proposed solution: two way bike lanes are the most dangerous construct for cyclists of all persuasions.
What’s wrong with having a same direction lane on each side of the road?
The only good thing about bike lanes is they give uneducated and inexperienced cyclists the illusion of safety, and even that benefit is debateable as these constructs are much more hazardous than cycling on the road, whether you ride at 15km/h or 40.
Demographic: commuter. Sixty kms a day, speeds in exccess of 30km/h.
I think her “I’d be killed’ comment is an initial response to the fast speeds that cars travel at in Sydney. It just looks more dangerous out there than in European cities and even most other Australian cities. Whether it is statistically more dangerous, I don’t know. The only serious accident I ever had was in London and I’ve known of cyclists killed and badly injured there, whereas I don’t know any such horror stories here but suspect the proportion of cyclists is lower. I did have a near-miss last week which shook me up quite a bit, so bike lanes look an attractive proposition to me at the moment.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
These type of lanes wouldn’t be much good for regular commuters either. Riding speeds differ greatly and the lanes are so narrow that overtaking will be fraught with difficulty, especially if the lanes are heavily used. The same problem as e.g. Iron Cove Bridge during the morning rush.
As for encouraging more people onto the roads, these lanes would suffer all the usual problems of segregated bike lanes: they cede right of way to every side street and driveway, they only offer the illusion of safety, etc, etc.
If the City of Sydney want to encourage cycling, they should sponsor adult ed classes to teach people how to ride safely in traffic, starting on the back streets and working up to George St. Ms Mortensen could attend.
I’ve commuted in Sydney, Hobart, Canberra, and Adelaide. Australia’s biggest city is no more dangerours than the smaller ones if you’ve learned how to ride safely on the streets.