Bicycles are dangerous - it's official

A recent survey conducted by Newspoll for GIO research and discussed in a story on AdelaideNow came up with the following result:

The survey found cyclists were rated as the most dangerous type of road user by 54 per cent of all drivers, followed by taxi drivers (45 per cent), motorcyclists (44 per cent) and truck drivers (37).

That's right. Out of all road users, cyclists are the most dangerous. You can just imagine all of those people cowering in their cars terrified of the dangerous psychopath on his lethal bicycle.

It is difficult to know what to make of it. I assume that what people mean is not that cyclists are dangerous to them but that they ride in a way that is dangerous to themselves. It is a common thing you hear in this country. I wonder why.

I think the answer is obvious. The comments you read on AdelaideNow and the results of the survey are symptoms of the woefully inadequate system we have.

If driving and cycling ever comes up in a conversation I notice some common themes. Cyclists are dangerous because they disobey the road rules. For example, they ride through red lights, across pedestrian crossings, two abreast, not in bike lanes and so on. Putting aside the fact that it is quite silly to tar everyone with the same brush, a lot of the time people on bicycles are simply reacting to their environment. More often though, a motorist might think the cyclist is being dangerous when in fact they're not. The problem is that the motorist and cyclist are looking at the same thing from different angles.

This can be illustrated with some examples. Assume there is a line of stationary traffic. A cyclist, not unreasonably, travels along the left to the front of the queue. Is she cheating? What about when she gets to the front? Should she stay to the left and hope that she will be given enough space? What about if the driver rode down the right side? Is that against the law? What if that is the only side where there is space?

If they're supposed to stay behind the line of cars because they're a "vehicle" and "wait their turn" what happens when the traffic moves again? Are they then expected to move to the left and stay out of the way of motorists?

What about when a cyclist approaches one of the many small roundabouts around the place that have disappearing cycle lanes leading up to them? Self-preservation dictates that you take the lane so that you can be seen. I've tried that. One time the driver behind me gestured by pointing towards his head as he passed too close. Other times you might get the finger or a toot but most commonly you get the car accelerating away and passing a little too close for you to feel comfortable.

The problem is that most drivers do not understand "taking the lane" and other things that cyclists do to keep themselves safe. This is despite all of the "raising awareness" and "education". But even more problematic is that our road system sends conflicting and dangerous signals all over the place. You see it all of the time when a cyclist has to overtake a parked car. Many motorists have no idea what to do. Some genuinely think that the cyclist has to stop and wait for cars to pass before riding around the parked car. You also see it at intersections where a cyclist is not pretending to be a vehicle but is instead riding to the left. Problems arise when they are travelling straight on over the intersection but the cars passing them are turning left. It is a collision waiting to happen.

The problem starts with the fact that none of our roads are properly categorised. There are still very few streets that are blocked to through traffic and so motorists quite rightly believe that they can travel through them at 50 or 60 km/h. Across the city are countless places where motorists come into conflict with cyclists and neither really knows what to do because the road does not clearly tell them. On busy roads, the space for cyclists must be clearly delineated and what is expected from each road user must be made clear at conflict points. Cyclists can be kept separated not just through bike lanes but through proper road design and networks. You do not need a bike path on every road but you do need to design a network for cars and a separate network for bikes.

Other countries, as we know, are way ahead of us. We have barely begun.

Oh, and when you do require a bike path, it does of course need to be designed properly.



Just as a postscript, when I was riding home today, I came across the aftermath of a collision between a utility and a Subaru station wagon. The front of the Subaru was crushed while somehow the cab of the utility had been flattened from the top. How the crash happened I can only guess but judging by the damage to the two vehicles they hit each other with considerable force. It was a perfect illustration of system failure. This was at an intersection right in the middle of a residential area. It is also a busy pedestrian route for the local primary school. The road design allowed two cars to come into conflict at the speed they did. I do not know but I am willing to bet that they were both probably just passing through. Most of the traffic around here is.

Ride to School Day

It was Ride to School Day again recently. I had no idea until my children came home with a certificate from the police certifying that they had walked at least some of the 400 metres to school that morning.

Ride to School Day happens every year but I don't really know why. All the school children know about it so there is not really any more awareness to raise.

On the morning of Ride to School Day you'll see children at the gate with clipboard (and probably fluoro jackets) checking children as they arrive to ensure that they walked or rode at least some of the way to school.

The next day, we're all back in our cars blocking the roads and little ramps where children cross the road on the way to school.

There is a video that has been doing the bike blog rounds lately. It shows that if you're going to do Ride to School or Ride to Work Day, then do it properly. The text at the end says, "If this is what riding a bike is like, why do we sit in traffic jams?"



Now that's more like it.

Democracy is a wonderful thing

Whether it is because of the upcoming Olympics or because the message is finally getting through, London appears to be taking concrete steps to protect people who get around by bicycle. There are some horrendous junctions in London such as Elephant and Castle and Blackfriars Bridge that have been the subject of justified criticism lately.

The London Cycling Campaign has a design for Parliament Square that involves raised "Danish" style bicycle lanes leading to advanced stop lines at junctions (not everybody, including me, is a fan of advanced stop lines). The response to the plans has been cautiously positive but it has nevertheless attracted some criticism. One particular constructive bit of criticism (especially as it also provides a better alternative) was written by Paul James. His plan adds proper provision for people on bicycles across the junctions:

That in turn led to some interesting discussion including by the person who designed the original scheme. One comment that struck me was this one:

LCC is a broad church, and there are a lot of objectors to Go Dutch. My intention is to ensure that schemes like this demonstrably allow everyone to have the choice of using dedicated infrastructure or the carriageway,  by visually reinforcing the right to use the carriageway.

The LCC has a campaign called "Go Dutch". Hence the reference. It seems that not everyone likes it so to be democratic the LCC tries to accommodate both supporters and detractors.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. Theoretically, everyone's voice is heard. If for example, out House of Representatives in Canberra was indeed representative, each policitical party would be represented as a propotion of their national vote. The ALP might win 40%, the Libs 45% and the Greens 15%. They would be allotted the number of seats in proportion to their vote. We do not have that type of voting system but have a system of preferences. In the main most people are heard even if it is their third choice.

Local councils are slightly different because we do not have compulsory voting and there is a low voter turnout. What many progressive councils do is hear the voice of the people by having a "consultation". The problem with that of course is that only the voices of those who speak are heard and so often it is the loudest.

That was illustrated to me recently when our local council consulted on a traffic management plan. It was brilliant. In one part of the council area bordered by four main roads, the plan was to introduce traffic calming in the form of blocked roads and road narrowing. It would have gone a long way to stop people from different areas from using residential streets as thoroughfares. I of course supported it and said so.

But oh my goodness you should have heard the complaining. In the end, it was the complaining that won out and the scheme was all but abandoned except for a couple of speed bumps and a do not turn right sign. The argument, in so far as I could understand it, was that the traffic calming would harm local businesses. Not being able to drive in a direct line to the shops meant that people would be marooned in their houses and the businesses would die. There was a petition to that effect on the counter at the local booze shop. When I say "local" I mean only that it was close by. It was (and is) in fact a BWS outlet - part of the nationwide Woolworths chain (one of two supermarkets that pretty much run the grocery market). I couldn't help noticing that a lot of the people who signed the petition didn't even live in the affected area. Funny that.

The plan was shelved.

In the end, the loudest were heard which I suppose is fine but it was on the basis of what was an untested assertion. Why would the BWS fail just because people were asked to drive around the block instead of in a straight line? Show me where that has happened before? Once upon a time, our local streets used to have independent delis, butchers and corner shops. With the advent of big supermarkets surrounded by even bigger car parks, they slowly died. What was bad for business again?

Nobody seemed to balance the complaining with the benefits of the plan. Nobody asked whether it might lead to somewhere safe for the local children to ride their longboards. Nobody seemed to accept that it might be a good thing for the incessant burnouts and loud exhausts to end. Nobody seemed to think that lower traffic levels might mean a safer walk for our children to school instead of the obstacle course they currently enjoy. Nobody asked the obvious question - will it really destroy those businesses?

No. The need to drive in a direct line to the booze shop trumped everything else and a big middle digit was aimed at peace, quiet and children's safety.

It happened well over a year ago and it still bothers me. I really should learn to lighten up.

The Bicycle: It's that simple

Loving this video:


Amsterdam loves bicycles. from PROG21 on Vimeo.

Not again!

The passing of the Crap Cycling and Walking in Waltham Forest was a tragic blow for followers of wit and sullenness in equal measures. It's happened again.

Any blog about riding bikes, improving conditions for cyclists or general safety would link (or should have) to David Hembrow's blog, A View from the Cycle Path. I have been trying to read it for the last few days and could not understand why I kept being greeted with the Blogspot login page.

It's because it's been deleted. I only found out after reading commentary on As Easy As Riding A Bike and Vole O'Speed.

Once you read the reasons for why the blog was deleted you can fully understand why. It was exceptionally well written and informative but it would appear that the quality of the blog led to a lot of freeloading. It is a great pity because even if the blog were no longer to be updated, it is a huge resource of correct information about why so many trips in the Netherlands are taken by bicycle, why practically every child rides a bike to and from school over there and how pretty much everybody cycles - all ages, both genders. It also dealt with the many myths and excuses about why it is somehow impossible in other places to be able to make things pleasant for people on bicycles - myths about population density, distances, temperature, petrol prices, flatness and helmets.

More recently, David Hembrow co-wrote the blog with Mark Wagenbuur. He is the maker of some amazing videos that are all available on YouTube. He has also started a new blog called BicycleDutch, which contains a number of his own original posts.

If you're still convinced that bicycles are used for many trips in the Netherlands because it's a small, flat country with its cities close together, the blog is no longer there to help you. However anyone who wishes to benefit from David Hembrow's extensive expertise, especially local council and State government employees in charge of roads and/or cycling, book yourself a study tour or cycling holiday.

Update (4 March 2012) 

It was all a terrible dream. The blog is back and now I know who Mark Wagenbuur is.

Two gazillion dollars

On a particularly slow news day, the local newspaper is helped when a media release is dropped on its doorstep. The local newspaper, the Advertiser, received one recently about roads. It wasn't published on the website so I scanned it:



The words at the bottom are from an advertisement telling us there is a "massive pool sale". I think what is left is fitting.

We are told that every month, 2334 additional cars hit the roads in South Australia (their growth is twice the population rate). No analysis is made of how many leave the roads, nor is there any analysis about whether this is a good or bad thing or what it might mean. The RAA tells us though that we need more roads to fit all these cars on to and that the Government should do something about it. It says the Government should spend more of the "$2.4 billion tax slug from SA motorists on transport infrastructure" - roads in other words.

How that figure is arrived at is not made clear. It cannot include revenue from speeding and other traffic fines. Ther're not taxes. They're entirely voluntary.

Is it car registration? Well no. In South Australia, registration for three months a 4-cylinder car is calculated as follows:

Registration: $28
CTP Insurance Premium $127
GST Component of CTP Insurance $10.40
Stamp Duty on Insurance $15
Emergency Services Levy $6
Administration $22

Making a total of $198

So the actual registration is just a little more than the administration cost. The bulk of it is an insurance premium and part of it pays for ambulances and fire engines.

$28. Paying for the roads? Hardly.

Is it petrol tax? Well no. 38 cents is paid on each litre of unleaded. That was reduced when the GST was introduced to avoid claims of "double-dipping". It also has not increased with inflation since 2001 so has been decreasing in real terms since then. The RAA is correct that about 75% goes to general revenue. The rest is spent on national road infrastructure. However, it would be an error to conclude that that is the only money spent on roads.

The $2.4 billion apparently stolen from motorists is a common figure that is bandied about. It amounts to about $200 per motorist. When you consider the cost of running a car each year, and the cost of just maintaining all of the roads we have, how far do you think that $200 goes? When a car yet again mows down a street sign, will $200 cover the damage? How many potholes created by all those cars can be fixed for $200? What about the opportunity cost of all that space set aside for free or subsidised parking? What about the cost of all of that oil, grease and brake dust running into our waterways? $200 doesn't come close to covering all of that.

The fact is we all pay for cars to use our roads. Not just in money but in the noise, pollution, inconvenience, illness and injury that they cause. The suggestion that motorists somehow pay to use the roads is, as the article says, "massive poo". It is astounding that the assertion is so rarely challenged (if ever) either by our politicians or journalists.

The subject has been covered in detail by the PTUA.

But let's get back to the point of the article: we have to build more roads to make space for all of these additional cars. Anyone who has driven on the M25 in London would know that it is generally full of cars. During rush hours in places it is practically at a standstill. When it was finished it had three lanes on each side right around London. In places it has now been expanded to five. It has made no difference to congestion. It is not hard to find pictures of highways in and around cities like Los Angeles with anything up to nine lanes of traffic on each side - close to stationary. The number of lanes makes no difference. They just fill up.

I often hear that one of Adelaide's plus points is it wide roads. Their width is an accident of history. The main ones through the city are generally either 4 or 2 lanes wide (with space for parking). Some, like North Terrace, are up to six lanes wide. They weren't built like that to accommodate hundreds or cars years later. It was because Colonel Light wanted wide boulevards. If you've got the space, why not use it?

But what day was it when we no longer had enough road space and more had to be built? And how much extra asphalt is required?

The amount of road space we have is entirely arbitrary. The city is divided into a grid as we know:

 
(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

But imagine if say North Terrace was not there (that's the one at the top of the grid next to the railway station). Imagine that when Adelaide was settled, instead of as a six lane street as it is now, that space was designed from the outset as a public park and it was grassed over with trees planted the whole way down. If it still existed like that, what difference would it make to today's traffic?

None whatsoever. It would just be the shape of the city and traffic would adjust. It's the same as all those cities with rivers running through them. London could have had one extra road bridge or one less. It would make no difference to the traffic at all. The same applies here. Just adding lanes and roads won't help congestion. It will do the opposite. That is not to say that work should not be done to eliminate bottlenecks and change dangerous intersections but continually building more roads is old school. We've done that and it doesn't work.

To be fair, in its submission to the recent Henry Tax Review, the RAA argued for the abolition of fuel excise and instead for a user pays road pricing scheme with prices changing depending on the time of day. Now that sounds more like it. If it was a genuine user pays system, I would be all for it.

Bike boxes

As part of recent amendments to the Australian Road Rules, something called a "bicycle storage area" appeared in them. It took me a while to work out what was meant by that. For a while I thought it was one of those little lay-bys that are on certain four lane roads that are designed for cyclists to sit in, turn their head 180 degrees like an owl and wait until the coast is clear before turning right:

It turns out that they are what are known elsewhere as bike boxes. I understand four are planned for Adelaide CBD. One is on the corner of Rundle Street and Pulteney Street next to the scramble crossing:

In theory, the idea is pretty good. If it is connected to a bike lane, it allows cyclists to get past all the stationary traffic and make themselves nice and visible. Alternatively, you might think it's an easy way for cyclists to say to motorists, "hey, look at my arse". Like I say though, they work best when they are connected to a bike lane. The one on Rundle Street is - sort of:

While the idea behind them is admirable, they do suffer from a couple of problems. If they are installed with no other traffic treatments, the cyclist suffers from being intimidated by a line of cars leaving the intersection at the same time as them. A motorist may believe that the cyclist has cheated a little by moving to the front of the line of traffic. They would be wrong of course but they may be even more upset at what they perceive to be the audacity of the cyclist in then plonking him or herself right in front of their car for no apparent reason. The bike box allows that of course but the motorist may still wonder why, especially if after the intersection is a continuing bike lane to the left of them. You might wonder why the cyclist needed to sit in front of them at all.

Another problem is what happens after the bike box. In the case of the Rundle Street bike box, if the cyclist turns left, this happens:

One block beyond the truck (which admittedly is not always there) is a door zone bike lane that is designed primarily to protect parked cars from moving traffic. However, if they turn right (and they have to get across 4 lines of traffic travelling in that direction), there is nothing for them:

It is a very wide arc turning right there and cars can pick up a fair bit of speed. If they are doing so behind a cyclists who took their position right in the middle of the bike box, it could well be intimidating. Bike boxes can be seen in North America and judging by posts on blogs like At War With The Motorist and As Easy As Riding A Bike, they are also appearing across London. They're not so common in Europe though. That does not mean of course that they are the wrong way to go about things but I do think they suffer from the two shortcomings I have mentioned. A possible improvement would be separate lights for cyclists that allow them to leave the bike box and get across the intersection to the safety of a decent bike lane before any cars are allowed to start moving.

Better still, follow these instructions: