I don't think about white lines much. But I was provoked to consider them this week because a new white line appeared on my route while I was pretending not to be a cyclist last week. I guess I only noticed it because it appeared so suddenly. Or at least that's how it seemed to me.
The line is question has been painted onto the corkscrew bend where Gardiners Creek Trail crosses Glenferrie Road. As shown in the photo below (which was taken from the path as it crosses Gardiners Creek at road level) the path sweeps around a bend and descends under the road bridge you've just crossed:
(The concrete column in the middle of the shot is a supporting pylon for the Monash Tollway, which is overhead at this point.)
On this sweeping curve we now have a solid, centre white line placed democratically right down the middle—it even makes a kink where the path does. Nice work Boroondara Council!
On the face of it, this is a good idea—the curve takes riders through 270° (almost a full circle) and the lower stretch is something of a blind corner. So it's a good idea to remind riders (and walkers) to keep left.
But is it all good?
For one thing, a white line painted dead centre does not take into account the way that cyclists tackle corners like this (demonstrated by the fact that, although only a bit over a week old, the new line is already well scuffed by the tyres of countless bikes that have not stayed to the left of it).
That's not really a problem until an ascending cyclist (or pedestrian) who mistakenly thinks the white line is sacrosanct meets a cyclist descending on the inside of the curve. Without a white line the corner appears dangerous so wise walkers and riders approach it with care (e.g. looking for oncoming bikes, ringing the bell); with the white line the corner is apparently safer
and people ascending in the outside lane may feel that they need only stay to the left of the line to avoid a collision. And that's a dangerous illusion.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have lines on shared pathways. Quite the reverse, I'm rather in favour of the idea because they serve to remind everyone that the trails are traffic routes that need to be shared, and that we all need to stay alert and keep left.
A different split?
But there are troublesome points like this where line marking needs to be done a bit more thoughtfully.
At this bend under Glenferrie Road I don't think a half-and-half split of the trail is wise; it would be better and safer to give a bit more space to the descending traffic. Why? Because even at a slow pace descending cyclists need to take their eyes off the trail directly in front of them to look ahead for traffic approaching around the bend. And it is almost impossible to keep a tight line when you're not watching the actual bend in the road. The descending cyclist making the left-hand curve will always tend to drift wide, so an uneven split—maybe two-thirds to the inside descending lane and one-third to the outside ascending lane—would have been a more realistic and safe division.
Of course some people will take the corner too fast, too wide, and too carelessly. But idiots will be idiots regardless of a painted line. It's not an armco barrier after all.
Well I'm no road engineer, so I could just be talking crap here.
Another odd one
Anyway, while these thoughts were fresh in my mind this morning, I noticed another misleading centre line not far away at the bottom of the ramp where the Gardiners Creek Trail joins the Yarra Trail. As you descend towards the Yarra Trail, you go between two bollards that make a pinch-point then there's a kind of gateway made by the railing on the ramp—here's a view looking back up the ramp from the Yarra Trail:
Your photographer was standing very close to the cyclists' line here so the path that the cyclist in shot is following is pretty clearly shown. Can you imagine another cyclist approaching the camera on the near side of the bollard? It very rarely happens because in practice this short section is a give way to oncoming traffic
single lane.
But still there is a centre line (again, marked dead centre) that gives the impression that it's a two-way traffic space. It's not. Regular commuters know this and adjust their behaviour accordingly. But lane markings and signage should indicate the real situation, not perpetuate another nice but dangerous illusion.
And there you go: another storm-in-a-teacup courtesy of Treadly and Me!
You're right on the money about collisions. I considered the physics but not the subsequent (and inevitable) litigation…
And I'd forgotten about the ol' slippery line problem. (How quickly we forget when it's not raining anymore!)
I guess your comments also get at what (I think) I was going on about here: not enough attention is given to stuff like this. To continue with your point about wet lines, surely someone, somewhere has invented a hard-wearing, non-slip paint that's suitable for line marking? And if so, why isn't this kind of paint used?
Is it simpy that the folks responsible for maintaining bike facilities just don't know about these practical issues?
Another interesting post. There is indeed a non-slip paint that is used on lanes, it is mostly used for marking green contra-flow lanes in Sydney, but, I have been told, it is very expensive. As for your solid white lane marking, I suppose it is there to share the path equally between pedestrians as well as cyclists, and, as more people walk than ride, an equal division seems fair and practical to those responsible. I wonder if a dashed line, as per road markings, would work? It would still remind people that the path is there to share but that there is the possibility that someone may be on the "wrong" side.
Even as I was asking why, I knew the answer would come down to 36473$…
I didn't state it clearly, but I don't support solid lines everywhere. Generally—say on straight or gently curving paths—people just need a reminder that shared paths are traffic lanes, so I reckon a dashed line right down the middle should be sufficient:
But just like on roads, different types of centre lines indicate the relative importance of keeping left and whether it is safe and reasonable to overtake. And it's at tight corners and intersections that a bit more thought is required.
The section of trail that I mentioned first above is totally dominated by bikes because pedestrians cross Glenferrie Rd using traffic lights at grade level (it's usually faster for cyclists to use the underpass). So I don't think it's unreasonable for the lane markings to reflect that the main traffic on that bend is bicycles.
There is more foot traffic at the second point I mentioned, but as this is probably the busiest off-road commuting route in Melbourne it would be a safe bet that there would still be more cyclists that go through that gateway than walkers. In any case, as you can see in the photo the lane markings clearly reflect those used on roads for wheeled traffic than those used for pedestrians. I think it's reasonable to expect lane markings to indicate what's safe and at that point it's misleading to suggest that two-way traffic is practical.
What if you're a cyclist overtaking a pedestrian?
Shouldn't the "lanes" be a bit wider anyway?
Kind of illustrates the lack of insight that goes into designing bike paths altogether. There's little consideration of the difference in pace of pedestrians and cyclists, and little consideration given to increasing cycle traffic either. Not to mention seeming to expect cyclists to ride on top of one another.
I agree with your response to Pedaller, a broken line might be a better indication for track users... But if you're a road rider and there's no provision for you on the roads, you use the shared paths... yet they often don't take into account commuter cycle traffic.
This is probably only an extension of my situation at present, where I feel that if I'm not dodging cars, I'm dodging pedestrians, but there's no real space for me on a bike designed into the whole scheme of things.
Bugger hitting the nail on the head Crowlie—you've come in here with a bloody nail gun!
It certainly doesn't take much reframing to see my quibble about line marking not so much as a problem itself but merely a symptom of the much bigger problem of getting cycling infrastructure right.
Please be kind to me, I live in NSW, and here shared traffic zones all have a speed limit attached of 10km/h (ie, no ammendment to the Australian Road Rules). In theory, this means that if you ride on a shared path your speed shouldn't exceed 10km/h.
Well pedaller, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what speed limits have to do with where line markings appear, but I'll run with it. By my reading of the road rules you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on a couple of counts.
On your suggestion I've gone and had a look at the Australian Road Rules at the National Transport Commission—I presume that is the definitive source.
This is how rule 24 defines shared zones and their speed limits:
24 Speed-limit in a shared zone
(1) The speed-limit applying to a driver for any length of road in a shared zone is the number of kilometres per hour indicated by the number on the shared zone sign on a road into the zone.
Note A driver driving in a shared zone must give way to any pedestrian in the zone…
(2) A shared zone is the network of roads in an area with:
(a) a shared zone sign on each road into the area, indicating the same number; and
(b) an end shared zone sign on each road out of the area.
(3) In subrule (2) (a) and (b):
road does not include a road-related area.
Firstly, you are wrong that shared zones "all have a speed limit attached of 10km/h", although that speed limit is common it may be different depending on what is displayed on the sign. But that's a minor quibble.
However I do draw your attention to clause (3), and flipping back to rule 13 we find:
13 What is a road-related area
(1) A road-related area is any of the following:
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.
Shared zones specifically exclude road-related areas, and off-road bike facilities are included under clause (c).
According to rule 242, what we're actually talking about here is a "shared path":
(2) A shared path is an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians, and includes a length of path for use by both bicycles and pedestrians beginning at a shared path sign or shared path road marking and ending at the nearest of the following:
(a) an end shared path sign or end shared path road marking;
(b) a no bicycles sign or no bicycles road marking;
(c) a bicycle path sign or bicycle path road marking;
(d) a road (except a road-related area);
(e) the end of the path.
Indeed this is the kind of signage that I see along the off-road part of my regular route, not shared zone signs.
I can't find anything that stipulates a speed limit for shared paths, so it's possible that no speed limit actually applies to shared paths (and there's a lengthy discussion in that point alone). But at the very least extrapolating the speed limit from shared zones is not correct—and it certainly doesn't mean that "if you ride on a shared path your speed shouldn't exceed 10km/h".
Heh, so nail guns work with replies too, I see in your case ;-)
The issue pedaller raises is further in the complex you describe as simply needing more attention placed on developing infrastructure for bicycle traffic. Not to mention seeing bicycles as legitimate traffic both commuting and for other travel, rather than being a proto-pedestrian "fun" pastime.
I wonder how you'll go, pedaller, if you are pulled over by an officious constable and reply with treadly's summary? You could always provoke it and make your case in court as a test for bringing the whole issue to light for media and further discussion... It would make great copy on wheels of justice ;-) Ghandi on wheels.
I don't think pedaller would have any trouble arguing the case since shared zones and shared paths aren't the same thing.
It's amusing, although not particularly enlightening, to note that the term "shared path" is defined in rule 242: "Travelling in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy on a footpath or shared path". Wheeled recreation device or toy? What's that all about?
Incidentally, bicycles are neither "wheeled recreation devices" nor "toys"; they have their own section of the rules: "Part 15 Additional rules fo bicycle riders" (that's rules 245–262).
Which neatly brings us to Crowlie's point about legitimacy. Interesting word legitimate:
- according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
- in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
So, by virtue of their inclusion in the road rules, bicycles are inherently legitimate road vehicles. Clearly Crowlie is riding at is a different connotation: not the legal legitimacy (there's no room for argument there) but a more informal legitimacy: just being accepted as normal road traffic.
There are some very amusing shared paths in Sydney - Pyrmont Bridge, for instance, is a shared path (15m wide) with a posted 10kph speed limit on part of its length (the rest is presumably 60kph based on the roads it connects to :-). However it ends on a footpath at one end (must dismount... no-one does) and broken traffic lights at the other (5 way intersection with 4 sets of lights). This sort of thing is common here.
WRT "Wheeled recreation device or toy?" they mean skateboards, push-scooters and those infernal combustion engine powered scooters that have no legitimate place to go (as opposed to legal, they're legal on the footpath even at 30kph, but never on the road). Critical Mass periodically has cops get officious and tell skaters to get off the road.
Comments
Interesting ideas, and I'd agree with the fact that the belief that the magical white line is in any way binding is, well, ludicrous to say the least.
It does, however, present the question of what would happen if a fast-moving, descending, cyclist on the 'wrong' side of the line collided with an ascending cyclist who was 'observing' the line markings. If there was a resultant injury or damage that saw someone claiming against the other person, that white line would, I think, play quite a large part in deciding who was actually at fault in the accident.
Also, there's also the age old problem of wet white line + narrow, high pressure tyres = sliding on your side on concrete into the nearest braking zone (which invariably ends up being something hard).
So while I agree that the line can form a sort of warning system for people using the path that it is frequented by cyclists, I also think there must be a less potentially risky method. I think simple shared path signs would serve the same purpose.