Cycling in Sydney Australia
Is this something worth commenting on? I have not read it yet in detail but note we cant ride on the harbour bridge main deck, we cant ride in tunnels and no one can light a fire on a bridge.
Clause 41 is
a new provision which prohibits pedestrians and cyclists from travelling or riding in a
I sense a concern that cyclists will use the westconnex tunnels, absent parallel cycle paths which of course they are suppose to do.
Drove past Sydney Airport the other day, the underpass is labeled "Airport Tunnel" despite not actually being a tunnel. It hasn't been dug thru, rather the roadway has been covered over
Exactly... lol... rabbits do tunnels because??? they can... (now as a scientist!)
Just because a 'structure' runs underground are we treated like rabbits?
So what is the real definition of a tunnel? And what is the 'new' requirement of a cyclist who might use a tunnel?
Some questions might be... Do pedestrians need to use lights in a tunnel because as a bike rider it is mandatory that I have lights... in tunnels... otherwise how can a cyclist ride safely while seeing oncoming pedestrians? Is there a right within the current law that as a cyclist can defend their is no obvious normal situation when there is conflict???
Who knows before a cyclist is challenged within court?
Who wants to be first?
Steven the new requirement is that we don't use tunnels at all, nor do pedestrians, well at least tunnels with roads in them (or road related areas).
So the obvious answer is... tunnels need to be modified so that they reach the acceptable requirements for cyclists... otherwise not vehicle should be designated as a tunnel and banned for all users.
Who lobbies for cyclists here?
Interesting it is a called a tunnel. They need to define "tunnel" in the legislation (or preferably list tunnels or sign post individual tunnels) - otherwise you can just shop around for a definition until you find one that suits.
Exactly my point earlier.
Also note that plenty bridges across highways could be considered short tunnels under that definition. Lots of highways are dug through and then have covered over sections where bridges cross.
Likewise lots of shallow tunnels are constructed via cut-and-cover techniques.
And like mikesbytes very accurately pointed out earlier tunnels exist in the middle of roads a very long distance from any detour or any alternative. eg:
Simples: you drop rocks on SUVs from above until some cunt agrees to give you a lift through the tunnel.
There are very good reasons not to let some road users (including cyclists) from using some roads (including tunnels).
But if this is an issue then the solution really should be looking at appropriate signage and appropriate routes for those road users.
(The fact that Sydney allows cyclists on so many motorways does seem to be a problem. But from what I understand there isn't any alternatives provided so cyclists don't particularly want to be banned from them.)
I am just wondering... what is the alternative from using this road? Apart from that, is it more important that motorists can proceed through this tunnel taking up more than half the width of the road when a cyclist does not.
Another question...what if two cyclists riding in opposite directions met in the middle, who has to reverse out?
It becomes so obvious... these tunnels were meant for cyclist and cars should be banned!
Nah, bugger the rail trail through the tunnel, run taxpayer funded railcars through with opal readers at either end :-)