If you are designing a new cycle way for your city you might not do it this way. You might also get some cyclists involved in the design process. The problem here is that the path contains numerous very sharp bends. Both the Mayor and the CEO say that “We have to slow these cyclists down.” Cyclists maintain the opposite view.
The new winding, bendy path is a pleasure to ride along at a leisurely place while you chat. It is a hazard to use if you are a serious cyclist. The bends are so tight that you must stop pedalling and lift your inside pedal. After dark and before dawn you cannot see where the path goes and risk serious injury. In each case, a cyclist with their shoes clipped or strapped to the pedals has no way of preventing a hard fall.
The unintended result of this is that transit cyclists will be discouraged from using the path and will:
- choose the old path instead, the one with pedestrians, because it is straight
- choose to use their cars, so losing the benefits of cycling: less road congestion, less pollution, less parking space, better health
- ride on Mill Point Road, so being in an environment of higher closing speeds and with much more serious accidents. We really don’t want to have bikes and cars mixed together.
It seems that our engineers did not consult with users or with the Bicycle Transport Alliance. They did not understand that transit users have foot straps and clips that fasten their feet to the pedals. They certainly did not think of users after sunset and before sunrise, of which there are very many. They definitely did not understand that to get cars off the road we must make bike travel easy and that bike travel is not the same as a recreational doddle with the grandchildren.
C’mon! We say we are good at consultation. Cycling is fun and is a perfectly viable alternative to driving for many trips. We can do this better and this cycle way must be modified now and made safe.
Have your say. Just click on “Comments” below and log in as Name (preferred) or Anonymous, or email me and I’ll post your comments for you. What you say makes a difference.
9 comments:
You are so right! I cycle to work and often think that those cycle paths are designed and build by people who never have cycled at all.
You forgot to mention those 90 degrees turns from a path back to the road or onto the path...
I can’t agree with you more. There needs to be a distinction made between the recreational cyclist, and cyclists travelling daily back and forth to work. At the moment, government puts cyclists in the recreational basket – resulting in meandering bike paths, with lovely views. But if they were serious about getting cyclists travelling to and from work on their bikes, then they need to be building serious bike paths, wide and straight, so that cyclists can commute from home to work and back as fast and as safely as possible. My solution to this would not involve building new infrastructure. Instead, I would advocate choosing one or two of the quieter, safer suburban roads in every Council and devoting half of their width to cyclists – so creating “high speed, dedicated cycle routes”. A cyclist can then seek out the nearest high speed cycle route in their local area, get on it, and get to work asap.
In Subiaco where the cycle path meets the busy paths the path runs between a little hedge, about 250 – 450 mm high.
This makes a good visual barrier for people wandering across the path so they do in allocated areas.
In addition it makes it clearer that there is an obstruction. i.e. cyclists.
I ride my bike a lot around the river for exercise and it concerns me in some areas. Barrack st for example where there are a lot of people cross the path without looking.
We hit on the tandem someone some time ago who was blind and being assisted by someone!
But many you have to dodge.
It would be much nicer for all if there was a better visual clue.
As speed cyclist the new path is 0.2 km longer I sit on 35 kmph and like you said break frequently and almost lost it a couple of times because in the open field situation of the new path it is hard to gauge extent of the curves (without straight line reference points) but I thought that the S bend at the west end near the car park is particularity dangerous, especially if you have overtaken someone and the corner is suddenly there. I have now ridden this pathway many times and I am used to it but every time I have near misses it is from cyclists who are not, I am also a solo rider and every time I ride this new section I shudder at the thought of being in a group as some cyclist ride. Why on earth they would build a separate cycle way and then aim to slow cyclist down is beyond comprehension. Thousands of cyclist use the path along the river in front of your house, it is straight, fast and safe. Every near miss I have is on a corner when inexperienced cyclist stray wide, especially children or kids on a scooters or when families and couples ride two abreast around the corners.
It is definitely safer not to have pedestrians to navigate through but then many pedestrians are choosing to use the new cycleway for some reason. I also feel that mixed groups, e.g. mum & dad with little kids on new bikes should be discourage from using the new path for safety reasons.
I don’t think the people designing the pathway understand what a corner means to a cyclist. It means you have to slow down, not such a problem but then what follows is that you have to stand up on your pedals use about as much energy as it takes to ride a kilometre to get your bike back up to speed, do this too often and it starts getting really hard and you loose a lot of the energy you need to ride your distance. To put this in context, on the new path I have to do this 5 times this means I have to use the energy equivalent to around 5 kms to ride this section. Whilst I am a frequent cyclist, I don’t mind as it is a safer option. But daily commuters just want to get to work and home from work as quickly as possible, they will run red lights and take short cuts. After all they do the each way ride 10 times each week and many travelling 20 – 30 kms each way. They will choose the shorter straighter path along the fore shore.
Whilst I feel the new pathway is a good thing I feel that the lack of real consultation it will not solve the problem of separating (fast) cyclist from the walkers and joggers because lets face it the slow cyclists are not the problem. To use the words of one of the most famous men in the world “doh”.
Hi, SP BUGgers.
FYI.
As a commuter cyclist who does not use straps this one would have escaped me. Peter makes a good point about consulting with BTA. But also, perhaps it means we need to get members who do use such gear? I haven't checked it out myself so am not sure just how many slow points there are. If just one, then hopefully there is a good reason for it.
Regards, Warwick
Thanks Pete for raising these important issues. I agree that the City needs a high speed commuter network and I look forward to working with you and bike users to help review the CITY BIKE PLAN to improve cross city connection links such as Canning Bridge to Curtin and the Narrows to the Causeway -- Officers are about to begin the review and soon will seek input and feedback from Council and the Community.
Unfortunately I don't think you asked the correct question in relation to the design of the new foreshore cycle path -- had you spoken with the design engineers you would have found that the purpose of the path is different to your assumptions. Evidence based decision making shows:
1. Sir James Mitchell Park (SJMP) is a passive recreation reserve. Accordingly, the new cycle path has been designed to respect the locality, the many different uses of SJMP, and the very high number of people who frequent the reserve;
2. The new cycle path is NOT a Perth Bike Network route or principal shared path as prescribed by the Department of Transport. It is primarily a recreational route that traverse a passive reserve and is not an ideal location for high speed commuter use;
3. Mill Point Road and SE route 28 (via Angelo Street) is provided for commuter use. Evidently improvements need to be made and I welcome input on how to improve these links and possibly identify others;
4. The new cycle path has been designed and constructed to accommodate both recreational and commuter users, however the alignment selected is a route that respects the locality and value adds to the experience for all bike users -- even those on training wheels;
5. The new path has been designed and constructed for recreational cycling only. However, it needs to be recognised that pedestrians will walk on or cross the path even when signage designates "cyclists only". Hence, the speed of cyclists needs to be regulated to ensure that recreational cyclists (i.e. mums&dads with kids on wobbly bikes) and pedestrians are protected at all times. If this did not occur then the City would be faced with a situation not dissimilar to the recent incident occurring at the Como Beach path involving Margaret Evans;
CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
6. The new cycle path has been designed and constructed with bends at critical locations to slow bicycle riders on the approach to roads (i.e. Coode Street) and to avoid structures within the Park (i.e. playgrounds, shelters, bins, trees and shrubs, lighting, reticulation and below ground services);
7. The alignment has been designed to meander and break up the straight lengths of cycle path and not to create a physical separation of the reserve;
8. The new cycle path has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standards / AustRoads. In this regard, the width and curve radii comply with the minimum standards;
9. The City consulted the Department of Transport (BIKE WEST) who initially questioned the curved alignment of the cycle path. However, Bike West acknowledged the problems and safety issues that the City faced with high speed cyclists riding through a passive reserve. Hence, Bike West fully supported the final alignment of the bike path.
10. In 2009/2010, the City only had funding to construct the new cycle path and make improvements to the existing pedestrian pathway network. Lighting is earmarked for installation in 2010/2011 to illuminate the cycle path at night. However, due to a limited budget not all of the lighting will be installed. The sections not completed in 2010/2011 will be completed in 2011/2012, budget permitting.
11. The city has received many many complaints about high speed cyclists riding dangerously through the park -- and risk management has been taken into account.
I hope this explains that the design has been carefully considered and the outcome is the optimum result that in my opinion makes the best compromise for all park users.
James Best, MAYOR OF SOUTH PERTH
What about the Preston Street overpass? Should cyclists not dismount there to avoid kids, tourists and other strollers rather than continue with the expectation that it is part of the bike right of way? Please make this clear at the entries to the overpass. Ditto for bike riders on the jetty.
The stretch of bike path between the Narrows and Canning bridge, except where there is a separate pedestrian path is quite dangerous with 'mixed traffic' namely walkers, joggers and cyclists. The real problem as I see it is car predominance, the rest take what they can get and fight it out amongst themselves. Compare with Copenhagen where an entire lane or a nice big slice on many streets is for bikes only, so they don't need to ride on the footpath etc. Strangely from what I could see there were few lycra clad folk using them and most were dressed in what they were going to wear when they got off and went about their business. That is low speed dedicated cycle routes. THey were heavily used.
Post a Comment