Almost all cyclists break the law says UNSW study.

Wow, go figure. In a system where transport planning actively prioritises motor vehicles over people; even when there are more walkers and riders in the corridor than cars (eg, Union St, peak hours).

Compliance is the issue you say? Consider a corridor shared by riders and pedestrians and to some extent cars: the Union St - Pyrmont Bridge - King St corridor. From the perspective of an inbound rider starting from Harris St, she is:

- just as likely to take the road rather than the Union St cycleway because of outrageously low access to the intersections (green time) granted those on the cycleway (she can be made to wait at each of the Pyrmont, Edward and Murray Sts crossings for more time than it takes to get to Pyrmont Bridge in this short run);

- just as likely as not to have to cross over Murray St under red lights (even though walkers and straight-through cars - both have green lights - because the Union St pavement loop detectors failed to detect the bike at the head of the column of riders);

- asked to share the poorly-arranged Pyrmont Bridge deck with walkers ...and unhelpfully-placed street furniture. (We'll ignore the State Govt's recent efforts to further confuse the Bridge deck...!);

- asked to miraculously negotiate the unfeasibly narrow and unsafe shared ramp path connecting the Pyrmont Bridge and the King St cycleway;

- relegated to having to suffer a disproportionate wait time to cross Sussex St;

- (dare we mention the impossible task of catching the second ("6 seconds") green bike light at Kent St?...)

- (...or that the King St cycleway spills eastbound riders directly into the traffic lane after Clarence?)

Compliance you say?

How about "misfeasance" and "malfeasance" mein RMS?

Views: 2114

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, but, yeah, but, yeah, but... There is a red arrow for traffic turning left from lane 2, so what is the problem with cyclists proceeding across the intersection along with pedestrians?

It makes too much sense.

The light signals are poorly implemented. Pedestrian or cyclists should be able to be the trigger for both to get green go signs. That, plus I've seen the "triggering" fail many times at many intersections as a cyclist…

Yeah I agree. The whole system was overthought and underimplemented... Yes I know that neither of those are real words.

Regarding the triggering, you have to be right over the middle line that is cut into the pavement. The RTA made a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRkoSa9IjWU) about it and then told no one and put up a couple of signs but you really have to look for them.

None of the cyclists know about the triggering and that it works in this way. I often tell people and they take offence because I'm interrupting their 'special time' or whatever but I really think the word needs to get out so at least cyclists can start using the system instead of writing it off.

From an implementation perspective, the loops appear to be far *far* less sensitive for bikes than the car loops are. Is this to "prevent" false positives?

But, as stated, given the synchronisation of walk/bike green lights, I fail to see why either do not trigger the other. Dual triggers would be a much better way of increasing flow rate for both – and where the bike lanes are (hence bike loops are too) should have some focus on improving bike flow rates…

Gaaaah... bikes are often made of plastic these days. How much metal in a person?

What goof thought that people could be detected by technology designed for a tonne or two of steel???

FFS

It doesn't actually require metal, but it works well with a ferrous metal due to the higher magnetic field (which induces the electric field in the loop which acts as the trigger).

BUT it depends a lot on the sensitivity at the other end. I've seen some alloy motorbikes having problems.

Someone was working on a device to make bikes "visible" to traffic loops. It's called Veloloops. It seems interesting enough, but is really a workaround to the weakness of traffic loops detecting something that is not a car.

I call it vehiclism

On a walk in some European cities , I found that I didn't need to push permission buttons as a pedestrian.  Everyone is treated equally by the traffic system there.

We are just too used to the concept of deferring to people choosing to run a 2000kg device to move their 100kg body.

steel bike?

The detecting needs work, not the bikes. Why detect anyway, just go green each cycle regardless, create a rolling green wave for multiple intersections. That way there is no stopping at each and every intersection.

A green wave of lights is a far more simple solution and is maintenance free.

Err, so what was the name of the study, who published it, and in which venue was it published?

Honestly, what kind of reporting is this?

RSS

© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service