Hello Rod!



 AW>> They do and can mix.



 RS> I'm not saying they dont, just that its impractical and non viable IMO.



 RS> You can say the same thing about bikes and high density city traffic,

 RS> they do mix, they are quite impractical there IMO.



High density city traffic in many ways lends itself to bicycle

riding. Thats why bicycle courier services are so popular - people

are unwilling to wait for their documents to be delivered via the

slower and less efficient (in the city) means of car.



 RS> And in the opinion of

 RS> many bike riders who just wont ride there.



Many people won't walk on the beach at the Gold Coast at night

because of perceived risk. Many drivers toddle along at 90 in a 110

zone because anything higher is just too unsafe. Many potential bike

riders use the traffic and congestion of the city as a pathetic

excuse when they're actually just too lazy. Many are a fucking pack

of old women too lazy to get off their collective dates IMO. They

probably wear those pink furry slippers that look like little

rabbits so they won't catch a chill at night, and they probably make

sure they're in bed by 8.00pm every night. Wimps, girlies and woozes!!

They'll live to 120, but christ, they can have it.



 AW>> Have you noticed how all new freeway/tollways have breakdown lanes?

 AW>> These makes perfect bike lanes.



 RS> Depends, some of them dont, essentially have grassed verges. I think

 RS> breakdown lanes are in general shocking waste of resources. You do need

 RS> them sometimes but its wildly impractical to have them for the whole

 RS> length of all new freeways.



All new freeways, in my experience, have some form of shoulder or

breakdown lane. The RTA built roads have this and normally ensure

that this is written into the contracts of the private constructors.



 AW>> One of the most cost effective ways to reduce vehicle/bicycle

 AW>> conflict apart from this is by use of sealed shoulders on semi-rural

 AW>> roads.



 RS> I dont think thats cost effective at all myself, outrageously expensive

 RS> for the use they get by bikes.



You've missed the point that sealed shoulders are beneficial to car

drivers for other reasons as well - They're a potentially safe place

to pull over to if some idiot veers towards you, and slow drivers can

pull to the left to allow quicker drivers through.



 RS> I think bikes work even worse on high

 RS> speed roads like that. Grossly unsuitable mix. I think the only viable

 RS> approach is the traditional one of banning bikes from them myself. The

 RS> volume of bike riders wanting to use those roads is trivial anyway.



Why ban bikes from these roads, especially if there is a safe place for

cyclists to ride.



 AW>> These shoulders can virtually act as exclusive bicycle lanes but also

 AW>> have a major flow-on safety benefit for other road users.



 RS> I cant see it myself, I think its an academic wank to in effect create a

 RS> massive subsidy to a tiny minority of the traffic flow.



They provide a safe pull over area.



 AW>> A study by the Monash University Accident Research Centre found that

 AW>> accidents on two-lane highways were reduced by 43% on a vehicle

 AW>> kilometre basis when sealed shoulders were provided.



 RS> Sounds like typical academic bodgy stats like the ones which purport to

 RS> show that its futile to create new high volume traffic routes in citys,

 RS> cos they will just saturate immediately at the new capacity. Its a

 RS> complete academic wank. As can be seen by the fact that that did not

 RS> happen with Melbourne with its quite substantial increase in use of

 RS> freeways in the last couple of decades, often quite close to the city.



I can't see how these figures can be fudged. It's not like the Monash

Centre has a vested interest in providing inflated figures in either

direction.



 AW>> They concluded that it becomes cost-effective to seal shoulders for

 AW>> traffic flows greater than 350 vehicles per day. Taking an example in

 AW>> Sydney, sealing the Old Northern Road, which carries over 20,000

 AW>> vehicles per day, would have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 57 to 1.



 RS> If the original figure on accident savings is right. IMO its a total

 RS> wank. The main super freeway to the north of Melb, well outside the

 RS> built up area is a classic example of a divided freeway which has

 RS> resulted in almost no accidents at all. You may be able to get some

 RS> wanky 50% reduction in almost nil by sealing the verges, which it doesnt

 RS> have, but its a complete wank IMO.



In you own words - a super freeway and a divided freeway. The figures

from the study were for two lane highways. If the freeway you're

talking about is indeed a superfreeway then there is going to be at

the very least, a sealed shoulder on both sides.



 AW>> Not possible to make them work properly together my arse.



 RS> I meant more the say Sydney city area, including the bridge and northern

 RS> freeway area.



But you've just been discussing freeways outside Melbourne.



I'm not sure what freeways in Sydney you mean by "the northern freeway

area". Apart from the shortish feeders to the Harbour bridge (including

the Gore Hill and Warringah freeways), which are too short to really

call freeways, then there aren't any. There's no point in riding on

these feeders (an illegal and stupid proposition), when there are

perfectly viable back roots through Milsons Point.



If you mean the pseudo freeways of Mona Vale road or the Wakehurst

parkway, then they have massive shoulders and breakdown lanes

incorporated. They're some of the safest bikeriding roads in Sydney.

99% safe IMO, and providing 100% happiness for car drivers. Unless of

course you mean the Sydney-Newcastle freeway which I've ridden on

many times with a strong feeling of safety, and which has

those shocking wastes of resources -  breakdown lanes.



 RS> I dont personally think its viable now to combine them

 RS> except with outrageously inappropriate spending like reserving whole

 RS> lanes for bikes.



Or perhaps as I mentioned previously with regard to freeways, use the

breakdown lane.



 AW>> On my way to work, there is an ideal shortcut up Parrawi road,

 AW>> instead of Spit road. There is a 'NO LEFT TURN' sign there because it

 AW>> is such a great shortcut. It probably cost the RTA less than $300 to

 AW>> change the sign to read "BICYCLES ACCEPTED". Now I
have a car-free

 AW>> shortcut, and I don't bother car commuters whilst I wheeze up Spit

 AW>> Hill. Another example of a cheap solution.



 RS> I'm not saying there arent a few small areas like that with unique

 RS> special solutions but thats hardly going to make much impact on the

 RS> total traffic flow in Sydney.



 If a number of small areas are attacked over a period of time, then

 the overall picture for cycle commuters becomes brighter. Total

 traffic flow in Sydney perhaps won't change vastly either way but

 people with a belief in cycle commuting should be afforded some

 respect and tolerance.



 AW>> One of the squeeze points on my road to work used to be the Spit

 AW>> Bridge. It cost the RTA less than $20,000 to change the western

 AW>> pedestrian-way to combined access. Modifications were - footpath

 AW>> widening and raising the height of signs. This is not an unreasonable

 AW>> amount to spend to vastly improve cyclist safety and reduce conflict.



 RS> Yeah, no problem with those when they are cheap. But IMO it will have no

 RS> great impact on sydneys traffic even if you do them all.



It might save a few hot headed moments and make life brighter for the

cycle commuters though. It's a good example of sensible and sensitive

road modifications.



 RS>> I'm not sure thats true actually if you consider total costs paid,

 RS>> including all fuel excise etc type costs.



 AW>> There's no way it even comes close, even if you include sales tax on

 AW>> the car. Hardly anyone disputes that. If you remember reading in the

 AW>> SMH earlier this year about the results of a study commissioned by

 AW>> the German government, you would realise this. This wasn't a

 AW>> Greenpeace pseudo scientific piece.



 RS> Dunno, that doesnt sound right. The NRMA kicked up a big stink about the

 RS> percentage of the car rego, fuel excise etc which got used on road stuff



They have a duty to lobby on behalf of their members, who happen to

be car drivers. I tend to notice the Aboriginal Legal Centre having

a bit of pro-Aboriginal bias as well. The German study wasn't done at

the behest of any vested interest groups.





(continued next message)



--- FMail 0.94