Imagine you’re approaching this stretch of road at about 40kph—actually quite easy to do, as you’ve just come off a steeper downhill section, so it’s not unusual for anyone to be coasting along at a fair clip here. Notice any particular hazards at this point?

Could you spot the hazard here at 40kph?

Let’s go in a bit closer:

If you hit this, where will you land?

Yep, that’s a base of one of those flexi-poles that I didn’t much like when they were installed last year. A number of these poles have been bent and a couple have snapped off, leaving the near-invisible base as a collision hazard for cyclists. And if a cyclist gets tipped off after crashing with that, where are they going to land…?

That this has been broken for weeks (and possibly months) without repair reflects poorly on the City of Melbourne’s willingness and/or ability to maintain dedicated cycling facilities. Not good when these lanes carry 17% of total vehicles in the morning peak on Albert St.

Upgrated

In fairness, it’s not all downside. Both of you might remember this dangerous drain cover:

An unforgiving grate

Astonishingly, that wheel-jamming hazard was simply left there unmodified as part of the initial installation. Well, over a year later, it’s had an upgrade:

A grate upgraded

That’s an improvement, but really that should have been fixed in the first place.

Any good at all?

Having sworn off Albert St in favour of Victoria St, I have found myself back there a bit more often, in spite of my ongoing concerns including:

• increased likelihood of clashes with entering traffic on the eastbound/downhill lane,
• turning lane conflicts—being dumped into a turning lane is still dangerous by design,
• the increased difficulty in merging into the main traffic flow to make a right-hand turn, and
• those damn poles are still a collision hazard (even when they aren’t broken).

I’ve also noticed a tendency for cars to stop in (and block) the bike lane during clearway times, something that drivers wouldn’t have dreamt of doing before the bike lanes were there.

But if I’m back on Albert St, does that mean I’m a convert? No way: I remain a committed bike lane agnostic. Maybe Albert St is better with curbside lanes than without, but for me it is just the least worst option on that part of my commute route.

Here are a few of my concerns:

The location

Firstly, the south (in-bound) side of Albert St is probably a reasonably OK candidate for a separated lane, at least alongside the parks and St Pat’s where there are few entry points for vehicles—a long uninterrupted run is a better location for a separated lane.

Albert St showing the new separated bike lane

However, this isn’t the case on the north (out-bound) side where there are many minor entry points (laneways and driveways). The textured green paint helps to cue drivers to stop and look, but it’s not a guarantee that they will. Incidentally, this is on a downhill incline where riders of all abilities will tend to pick up speed.

That aside, like the installation in the upper end of Swanston St, I’m utterly baffled as to why this particular stretch of road needed a separated bike lane at all. Prior to this installation, I always found this to be a pretty safe street—two traffic lanes kept the cars moving, leaving an empty parking lane almost exclusively for bikes during clearway times. And the traffic is not so heavy at other times that I ever felt threatened mixing it up in the main traffic flow.

As if to highlight the questionable need for the Albert St bike lane, I wonder why this lane stops at Gisborne St? The road layout between Gisborne St and Nicholson St is unchanged, but if the bike lane design is so good, why doesn’t it continue all the way to Nicholson St?

Spot the difference: Albert St between Gisborne St and Nicholson St

Conflicts guaranteed

I intensely dislike the way that riders are dumped from behind a line of parked cars into a turning lane. This guarantees conflict by design, and I’ve already seen a few close calls in the turning lanes. Of course, this is seen in other Copenhagen-style lanes—including those in Copenhagen (see this Copenhagen bike lane become a turning lane at about 25 sec):

Just because that’s the way they do it in Copenhagen doesn’t make it right or safe. Interestingly, BV’s own ‘promotional’ video for the new lanes (recorded in June—no lane paint, no poles) mysteriously skips a part of the lane where this conflict occurs, even without the line of parked cars (note jump cut at 39 sec mark as the riders approach the Lansdowne St intersection):

On the flip side, I have seen cars parked beyond the clearway times, and one-lane out from the curb is not where drivers expect to see parked cars. Forget the lines, surface paint and poles—you can’t see that stuff in the dark, and it just looks like cars are parked in the middle of the road. That must be dead scary for drivers coming over the rise near St Pat’s. I’ve seen a few close calls down that hill already—actual collisions seem likely.

And finally, at the risk of sounding churlish, you can’t get away from the possible conflicts with drivers crossing back and forth to the parking ticket machines. Sure it sounds trivial, but it’s a completely avoidable conflict that didn’t exist before these lanes went it. We need to ride carefully, but if someone is struck by a bike in these lanes it will at least partly be because unnecessary pedestrian-bicycle conflict has been designed-in to them.

Smooth moves prevented

Being able to smoothly merge into the right-hand lane in advance of making a right-turn used to be one of the pleasures of using Albert St. This option is now largely cut-off, as a rider is pretty much obliged to take the bike lane and becomes trapped behind a wall of parked cars or (during clearway times) must slalom through the row of flexi-poles and across the rumble-strip to access the main traffic lanes.

Bike lane behind a wall of cars

The alternative is to dart across two traffic lanes where the bike lane ends close to the intersection (the quick and dangerous option) or to make a hook-turn (i.e. right turn from the left) after the change of lights (the safer but considerably slower option).

Hacks

There’s nothing wrong with a good hack—some creative thinking happens when a hack is required. And then there are crappy, ugly hacks—those flexi-poles qualify as one of the latter kind.

I can’t see them on the original plan (or are they those unlabelled dots?) and it seems that they have been installed as a lazy afterthought. I’m sure they help to keep the cars aligned into the parking lane, but I don’t fancy a high-speed (or even moderate-speed) impact with one of them.

Gutter-ball

There are real downsides in forcing bikes right into the gutter lane:

• it’s where all the crap from the road tends to accumulate—to date there’s not much evidence that the Council is doing much about sweeping the lanes, and I doubt that the new poles will make it any easier to keep the lanes clean;
• there’s the lovely heritage bluestone guttering itself, which reduces the effective lane width (OK, not by much);
• but the king-hit is hazards like this (which can also be seen in BV’s video above at 27 sec):

Hazards of riding beside the gutter

How can they paint green textured paint around this and just leave it like that? Sure, I’ve seen worse but it’s not what you expect in something masquerading as a bike lane.

A better option?

By way of contrast, here’s the bike lane in nearby Clarendon St:

Bike lane in Clarendon St

I’m no road engineer but I presume (assuming we need a dedicated bike lane in Abert St at all) that there was a good reason why this model couldn’t have been used. Note the wide traffic lane, wide bike lane (wide enough to minimise exposure to the door zone), and parking space that is not shared with the bike lane.

Of course, there is less traffic flow on Clarendon St but that bike lane feels like a better and safer place to ride.

Clarification

In any case, I notice that the whole schemozzle is up for review and council may reverse its decision to install these lanes—of course, after you’ve installed them is the right time to “attempt to clarify the purpose of the bikes lanes”, isn’t it?

Looks like money well spent, as the whole thing descends into farce.

That said, while many others share my concerns, I’m sure heaps of people are finding the new bike lanes absolutely delightful.

But yesterday, for some inexplicable reason, I turned the other way and headed for Swanston. Surely those fancy “Copenhagen” lanes would whiz me down the hill just as quickly? Uh-uh. Sad to say, it was not a pleasant experience.

Here’s the scenario: a Mr Speedy jumped the lights in front of me then promptly slowed to about half my cruising speed. Can I pass on the right? No. Slip through on the left? Forget it. These lanes are just too narrow for overtaking.

So I’m stuck in Mr Speedy’s wake—but not too close, because I don’t trust him. And a good thing too. Not much further on a pedestrian (yes, over there on the footpath) waves a car into a driveway, despite several bikes approaching on the downhill. The driver noses into the bike lane and Mr Speedy almost gets turned into a hood ornament. I brake heavily and avoid making a mess of it.

And then I hear a lot of rubber being laid-down behind me—another rider under heavy, heavy brakes. I’m boxed-in: bike and car in front, gutter on the left, raised pavement and parked car on the right…and rapidly decelerating rider behind. Likewise, Mr Deceleration has no options: he can’t swerve because there’s nowhere to go that wouldn’t make things uglier.

Fortunately—amazingly—there were no collisions. But it could so easily have been a three-bike-plus-car pile-up. So very easily.

I didn’t really like the Copenhagen-style lanes before but now they really f•cking scare me. They give you no real room to manoeuvre, which leaves you exposed to the inability and inattention of whoever happens to be riding nearby. When we ride on the open road, we don’t have this safety restriction—it’s almost always possible to swerve your way out of trouble. And it’s easier to just give a potential problem a wider berth.

I’m not the only one who is disturbed by the Copenhagen lanes: members of the BV Forums have discussed the issue several times. Most interestingly is an entry by Euan that points to a report from April this year: Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen. It’s worth reading the whole report (only nine pages) but this section jumped out at me:

…it can be deduced that the construction of cycle tracks has resulted in three important gains in road safety: fewer accidents in which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a parked car. These gains where more than outweighed by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists and pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.

Sheesh. I think I’ll avoid Swanston St from now on.

(OK, the photo’s obviously a setup but the article is worth reading just for the crackpot reader’s comment about bike lanes being an example of Socialists at work. Priceless.)

Anyway, it sounds like this was a temporary balls-up while some roadworks were being done. As opposed to, say, the permanent arrangement on the Yarra Trail…

(Sadly, it appears that proposals to by-pass these steps have gone on the backburner—but YarraBUG is still pursuing it.)

The other bizarre bike lane (via wurple), sees road signs being installed in the bike lanes, as reported by the Whittlesea Leader:

Eye-rollingly bizarre. Who’d have thought that was a good idea? It’s not good for motorists and downright dangerous for cyclists. One would hope these will be removed pronto.

I don’t regularly ride in Ringwood but I do travel along Wantirna Rd fairly often in a car, and my experience is that even doing the speed limit I am usually overtaken on the left by people who are clearly more important than me (and the speed limit, for that matter). This must be a frightening prospect for cyclists who use that route.

Bike lanes aside, some form of traffic-calming would be a positive step in making Wantirna Rd safer for all road users.

Complete bollocks

But according to a report in the Maroondah Leader, local traders have banded together in an attempt to scotch plans by VicRoads to install bicycle lanes along Wantirna Rd, because it would create chaos on the already crowded thoroughfare. The arguments presented by the traders in this article are complete bollocks:

• It seems like a triplication because there’s a bike lane along Heatherdale Rd and one along EastLink – Dr John Tescher from Wantirna Rd Medical Centre. By this argument Wantirna Rd should be closed to all traffic because there are other general traffic lanes on Heatherdale Rd and EastLink.

• It will also make it hard for taxis that pick up our elderly patients – Dr John Tescher from Wantirna Rd Medical Centre. I’m pretty sure Wantirna Rd Medical Centre has its own off-street parking—indeed, I’d be surprised if planning regulations didn’t require it.

• customers would be reluctant to turn right to the shops if cars were behind them – Robert Cranston from the post office. As if that doesn’t happen already! In any case the road rules permit motorised vehicles to enter a bike lane in order to pass another vehicle that is indicating a right-hand turn. In other words, nothing would change in this regard.

• trucks would not able to stop to deliver goods – Robert Cranston from the post office. Where do the trucks stop now? You can clearly see in the photo from the article that the shops have their own off-street parking area, which is presumably where deliveries are currently made.

Nonsense from start to finish. And I despair at the narrow-minded, car-centric outlook that must have motivated many of the more than 1000 people who signed a petition in opposition to the plan.

Stick-up for Gordon Ashley

As for Gordon Ashley, former Liberal state member and now independent candidate Bayswater, he’s quoted in the article as suggesting that VicRoads take a dose of cold, hard morning reality on the issue. The quote is taken straight from his blog where he makes a rather poor argument against the bike lane proposal:

Inclusion of bicycle lanes will mean that double carriageways on this 12-metre wide stretch of road would have to be cut to a single carriageway in each direction.

This is wrong on a number of counts. Firstly the Victorian Road Rules do not define the term “dual carriageway” however a “multi-lane road” is defined as a road

with 2 or more marked lanes (except bicycle lanes) that are—

(a) on the side of the dividing line or median strip where the driver is driving; and

(b) for the use of vehicles travelling in the same direction.

Except at traffic lights, Wantirna Rd is not marked as a multi-lane road. And the fact that cars often travel two-abreast does not make it so—in fact anyone who drives in the left-hand row of traffic is overtaking on the left, which under clause 141 of the road rules carries a 3 point penalty. Hmm.

Mr Ashley again:

Even with two-lane flows in each direction, long tailbacks are common during morning and evening peak times. One dose of cold, hard-morning reality would surely force VicRoads to ditch this crazy proposal. It would be an act of madness.

I think the prospective MP needs a cold, hard lesson in the fundamentals of traffic flow. Maybe someone could send him a copy of the relevant article from the recent issue of Ride On? flyingdutch briefly summarises in the BV Forums:

What Vicroads does midblock is irrelevant to traffic flow.

It’s the intersections and their ability to allow traffic to get where they are going, that govern that. Given that both ends of this road flair out to 2-3 lanes to feed W’horse and Canterbury Rds the traders fears seem to be rather unfounded.

It’s the number of cars getting across an intersection at each change of lights that determines the number of cars in the tailback, not how many traffic lanes there are mid-block.

Mr Ashley:

Bicycle lanes would cause massive congestion, chaos, road rage and serious dangers for any cyclist foolish enough to attempt travelling this stretch of road. I have already described Wantirna Road as ‘Hazard Road’. Bicycle lanes would add yet another hazard.

Utter nonsense and blatant scare-mongering. Keep your children safely inside your SUVs mothers!

On the contrary, Bicycle Victoria provides Balwyn Road as an example where a bike lane beside a single general traffic lane has

significantly reduced the number of motor vehicle accidents by better defining the road space for all users.

Then Mr Ashley really starts heading for la-la land:

Residents already experience lengthy delays trying to get out of their driveways in peak times, especially if they are turning right. Single-lane traffic conditions will make entry even more difficult for them.

Excuse me? Getting across a one line of congested traffic is harder than getting across two lines of congested traffic? Totally illogical.

Mr Ashley also has other priorities for Wantirna Rd:

• reduction of speed limit from 70 km/h to 60 km/h;

• installation of a pedestrian crossing near Waldreas Lodge;

• widening of the road bridge over Dandenong Creek (with a pedestrian path built outside the bridge deck);

• installation of a roundabout at the Selkirk/Clarence roads intersection.

Internal confusion? VicRoads has advised me all these issues are being monitored and evaluated for possible action. The arrival of the “Bicycle Lanes” letter, however, suggests that the right hand may not know what the left hand is doing.

These are all very important and much required (likewise the pedestrian crossing at Reilly St that Mr Ashley mentions later), but none of this is mutually exclusive to the installation of bike lanes! And I’m sure the boffins over at VicRoads are perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. To try to muddy the waters with largely unrelated issues is just a politician’s trick for distracting attention from his patently weak arguments.

(Incidentally, people who are so concerned about congestion, chaos, and road rage are not normally in favour of reducing speed limits and installing more bloody traffic lights. Aren’t these the sort of things supposed to increase such hazards? He really doesn’t make a very consistent case, does he?)

Then we get to my favourite bit in Mr Ashley’s entry:

People interested in cycling already have miles of cycle paths available to them along Dandenong Creek where there are no exhaust pollutions to worry about.

It’s nice that he cares. But let’s apply this line of reasoning equally: People interested in driving already have miles of roadway available to them along Canterbury Road where there are multiple traffic lanes. Mr Ashley’s argument totally ignores the fact that many cyclists may not be interested in going for a tootle along Dandenong Creek—rather they may want to use their bicycle for transportation, to get somewhere specific for which Wantirna Rd is the most direct and sensible route.

I could go on, but I really can’t be bothered…

Action

You might want to follow the thread in the BV Forums for some good background on this issue, and Bicycle Victoria has a campaign page. If you favour bike lanes in this location email Carolyn.Lindsey@roads.vic.gov.au (and CC to campaigns@bv.com.au as well) to express support for the plan.

Given that Wantirna Rd is nominated as part of the Principal Bicycle Network and that it is a suitable location for bike lanes, I reckon the plan should proceed.