Comments on: Elizabeth’s badly designed bike lanes

By: Treadly and Me

Treadly and Me — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:51:14 +0000

Closing comments due to excessive spam received on this entry.
I can't imagine why, but there you go…

By: Treadly and Me

Treadly and Me — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:45:07 +0000

Now that's a pretty sound suggestion: if we're going to have bike lanes to make new riders feel safer, let's design them in such a way that they actually encourage safe riding.

Frankly, I shudder ever time I see a rider cruising along in the door zone, and more so when riding on one of those rare bike lanes that are wide enough to keep you clear of most doors.

By: jimmay

jimmay — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:40:59 +0000

I would like BV to campaign (and I would join them) for a dotted door line to be painted alongside any of these ‘bike lanes’, to indicate the new cyclist where it is actually safe to ride. I got doored on St Kilda Road a few years ago, and since then have decided in general that it is unsafe to ride within 1.5m of a parked car, and I am sure all cycling guidelines would agree. Therefore, a bike lane in a door zone is impractical, Mr Bush Lawyer.

By: Treadly and Me

Treadly and Me — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:58:46 +0000

That clarification is duly noted and updated in my introduction to this entry.

It's really a separate discussion, and possibly a topic for another entry, but I think advocacy groups are motivated (at least in part) towards very tangible outcomes: it gives them something to point to (especially when it comes to recruiting new members) and say "look what we've done for cyclists". It's helpful if those tangibles are things that beginning cyclists will find attractive.

As for the "impracticable" defence, I honestly don't expect to be stopped by police for riding outside this particular bike lane, but if I am my opening question will be to politely ask how familiar the officer is with road rule 247…

By: Chris L

Chris L — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:57:55 +0000

I’ll just make one minor point of clarification. I’m not necessarily opposed to dedicated “facilities” per se — even if I’ve learned to live without them. I do, however, have a problem with poorly designed facilities, as you do. It has been my experience, however, that the vast majority of dedicated facilities are indeed poorly designed, usually without any consultation with the cyclists who are expected to use it.

Until people start listening to experienced cyclists who are out there dealing with these issues day after day (and unfortunately many so-called “advocacy” groups are just as bad as councils in this respect), the situation will not get any better. Consequently, I’ll continue relying on the “impracticable” clause in the legislation, but doing so quietly in case someone decides it should be removed.