I saw this in the local paper yesterday:


Now I'd love the missing link fixed, but really, it's only missing because the RMS made it that way when they put the bike lights at the western end of Wilson St. They could solve half of it simply by removing the 'No right turn from cycle path' sign. Instead the council is looking at this abomination. To use it heading west we'd have to cross the Erskineville road traffic flow twice. Heading East it would be OK although we'd have to share on some very crowded footpaths.

This afternoon I did a little research, well, watched the intersection for 15 minutes or so. About 50 cars came from Newtown station direction. ~1 in 4 went down Wilson St, most of the rest down Erskineville Rd, so stopping all oncoming traffic and allowing cyclists to go straight ahead and right would have very little effect. Not that it would happen very often. ~15 cyclists also passed. Only one managed to actually trigger a green.

Views: 928

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Knowing Newtown cyclists, if it is easier to go west via Mary than via Eliza, they will ignore the no right turm sign any go via Mary.

If going east, it looks like an improvement for Camperdown/Stanmore originators, but still a bun fight if coming from Enmore Rd?

Pity if they remove the contraflow in Mary St too, as it adds a useful bit of access to King. They say Eliza will be safer, but any reported incidents in Mary?

I resent that completely accurate statement! ;)

It's actually pretty easy to get to Enmore Rd from Wilson and vice versa*, also legal now with the contraflow lanterns. It is much more difficult crossing King before the railway line however - so much so that I usually just take Erko then Station, zigzaging down to the Liberty underpass to get across to Campydown.

Doubt I would use the proposed Eliza St route however, since I prefer Bedford then Kingston over Salisbury, which is a traffic sewer on the best of days.

[*] - Assuming one is willing to mix it up with traffic and take a lane.

If it is a 10km shared zone then like other shared zones, such as Pyrmont Bridge, it would be an 'advisory' speed limit and carries no significance..

I wonder if they will need rangers at either end asking riders to slow down.

No, 10 K zones have legal speed limits, as is the requirement to give way to pedestrians in a shared zone. Policing the speed is pretty random/advisory though!

Re Pyrmont Bridge, the sign is not the sign that is usually put up, an R4-4, which has a car and a pedestrian on it, so it may be the case it is not a "proper" shared zone. Get your lawyer to investigate:)

see RMS TD from last year

Pyrmont Bridge is a shared path. A "shared zone" and a "shared path" are different things. The former is shared by people in motor vehicles, on bicycles or on foot. The latter is just for people on bicycles or on foot.

10km/h is the legal speed limit on a shared zone. There is no legal speed limit on a shared path.

doesnt mention "motor" in the TD, only "vehicle", so presumably it can apply to a space such as PB. I guess CoS or SHFA could provide an answer as to what PB actually is classified as, a road, a path or a road related area. This came up on the "amaze" incident thread too.

until they successfully prosecute someone, it is an advisory limit only.

perhaps better not to ask, in case they make it a 'zone' as a consequence

Is this article correct? ..... it refers to the Transport committee.  All / most NSW councils have RMS Traffic committees. If indeed a Transport committee that's welcome news. North Sydney Council has a Sustainable Transport committee. Non-traffic committees give non-motorised road users some hope of having input into local government.

I think CoS renamed theirs to the Pedestrian and Cycling Sustainable Transport plus Save the Gay Whales Tree Hugging Committee, just to get up RMS 's nose.

Different names, but same old Traffic Cttee, AFAIK.

The BAC tried to rename Leichhardt TC but the suggestion didn't get up.

Probably something for ACP to campaign on?

What's to stop "traffic" including bike traffic and pedestrian traffic?

I like the sound of the claim that converting an ordinary road lane into a cycleway increases the traffic capacity of the street. (It's true when "traffic" includes bike traffic. And why shouldn't it?)

Only problem is that local council TCs are set up by the RMS, for the RMS, to ensure nothing too far from the status quo can happen. Nothing too innovative round here, thankyou very much.  Need a very big change in attitude from them, and voting powers for cycling  and walking reps. And councils wont touch anything that might reduce car parking more than marginally. 

Councils can reject TC recommendations, or amend, but the RMS can appeal, to a regional Appeal meeting, run by the RMS.

Although "Transport Committee" makes a lot of sense, it leaves the word "traffic" to the RMS. We need to reclaim that word.

Councils could call their new committee "Traffic Committee", even though it would be a completely different committee from the "Traffic Committee" currently controlled by the RMS. Two committees, same name.

And after a year or so of confusion, push to rename the RMS committee to something like "Motor Vehicle Traffic Committee", which is linguistically a natural subset of the broader "Traffic Committee".

Sure, it's playing with words, but words frame people's thinking. We need to position cycling as part of the traffic problem/solution, rather than something opposed to it. And we need to avoid getting relegated to the "alternative" or "sustainable" ghetto.

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service