Hello Rod!



 AW>> High density city traffic in many ways lends itself to bicycle

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

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

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



 RS> I didnt mean that, just that I dont believe they are a viable mix. Mainly

 RS> because its far to dangerous for the bike riders. Many bike riders think

 RS> the same thing.



The cup of hot chocolate before bed at 8:00pm brigade.



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

 AW>> because of perceived risk.



 RS> But in the case of bike riding in city traffic its not perceived risk,

 RS> its real risk. Some are prepared to take that risk but the main reason I

 RS> say they dont mix is because of the real risk. Its an unacceptable risk

 RS> for most. You were the one using the bodgy health benefit gains from

 RS> bike riding, but ignoring the health penalty on the accident side.



The health penality has to be weighed up against the many benefits.

I've made a judgment that the risk is acceptable on the routes I

travel.



 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

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

 RS>> whole length of all new freeways.



I have never seen these plain grass verges. All the ones I've seen have

gravel or loose dirt immediately on the sides. You have some

interesting views on freeway construction. Have you ever considered

running for a seat on the NRMA board?



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

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

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



 RS> Nope. And anyway that says nothing useful about whether its the right

 RS> approach even if they did.



It says something useful about the fact that all new freeways have

shoulder or breakdown lanes.



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

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

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

 AW>> pull to the left to allow quicker drivers through.



 RS> Nope, I think its another bodgy argument, desperately searching for a

 RS> way to justify an outrageous cost for a bike lane. For example the super

 RS> freeway north from Melb works fine without it. So does the one out to

 RS> Bribie Island in Qld.



Do you not think the points I raised are valid? As a car driver, I'd

certainly prefer to pull over onto a shoulder in the event of an

emergency. Having two wheels on the gravel at 100 kmh provides a good

chance for an accident.



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

 AW>> for cyclists to ride.



 RS> Because its outrageously expensive to allow for them.



Not at all, especially since they virtually all have shoulders and

breakdown lanes. It's only the very odd ones such as the bridge in

Melbourne, or perhaps in your example, the Bribie Island bridge that

don't have them. These are the minority.



 AW>> They provide a safe pull over area.



 RS> Which is normally not needed. Grassed verges do that fine.



That's rubbish. Virtually all of these roads have loose gravel or dirt

on the immediate edge.



 AW>> I can't see how these figures can be fudged.



 RS> They are fudged by taking a close to zero accident rate and

 RS> demonstrating a 50% reduction in a near zero rate. While its true that

 RS> there is a 50% reduction in something close to zero already, its clearly

 RS> pretty academic if its basically zero anyway. Or in a more

 RS> mathematically rigourous way, the 50% saving amounts to bugger all in

 RS> value. Just like the old argument that its easy to get a 300% growth

 RS> rate when starting from bugger all.



When you're working on road accident figures of dozens on some roads,

then the figures must be given some credence.



(Continued to next message)



--- FMail 0.94