Hard News: Staying Alive
347 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
This thread is remarkably long, and I've come into it late (only got back from a last-minute trip to PNG on Sunday night), so I'm not sure if this has been covered, but as a cyclist we're put into contradictory legal positions. We're required to ride as far left as practicable, but we're not allowed to pass vehicles on the left.
This wonderful contradiction caught me as I was riding through Otahuhu this morning, in fact. A van turned left ahead of me, and trundled up the road. No braking or indicating left, so I assumed that it was just a slow-on-the-uptake driver and stuck to the left. Shortly thereafter I was sticking to the left side of the van, as he proceeded to pull into a kerbside park (without indicating) right in front of me. I wasn't even entirely sure who was at fault, but I'd certainly have argued to a cop that I was given no reason to expect that following my legal obligation to keep left was going to be a problem. The driver surely didn't let me know that he was going to pull into a parking space, and he'd already done one bit of risky driving by turning left ahead of a vehicle travelling straight ahead.Fortunately I wasn't going particularly fast, and the angle of intersection was such that I braked hard and got away with a friction burn on my arm from the side of the van. Wouldn't have taken much for it to be a lot nastier, though.
-
James Butler, in reply to
That sounds like a frustrating death-trap. I know how I'd get to the stop-box. I'd ride on the road to it, amongst the traffic. If I couldn't do that, due to car speeds being too high at the time to allow a cyclist to take the right lane, I'd stay in the left lane, and do a hook turn onto Gt South Rd.
Yep, that's exactly what I do. It helps that it's all downhill, and on a blind approach to a major intersection, so I can maintain an easy 40+ km/h and merge pretty well with the (slowing) motor traffic. But it means pointedly ignoring the council's passive-aggressive sign. I'm pretty sure that even if it were mandatory to use the cycle lane, as I believe it is in some parts of the world, I would ignore it.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
TXTing is a hell of a lot easier on a bike.
And just as dangerous.
Now, if between 'Trucks (large)' and 'buses', you add the following:
Cars with military licence plates
Cars with People's Armed Police licence plates
Cars with diplomatic licence plates (especially if they have a little flag for the ambassador)and change 'Ford Falcons' and 'Holdens' to 'Hondas' (don't know why, but Honda drivers here are arrogant nutjobs), then you've pretty much described the situation in China, too.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
So which are the actual safe / safe-ish roads regularly used by cyclists in Auckland ?
Puhinui Road west/east to/from the airport is pretty popular, because although it's mostly open road it's got big, wide shoulders. Likewise George Bolt Memorial Drive, which is the north/south airport road. I have never felt in the least bit endangered while riding those roads, despite the high speed limit. They also get some really great tail winds, and they're sealed to a high standard. I frequently exceed 40km/h on flat sections of George Bolt.
-
Wearing my elected rep hat I’ll make the following comments:
Jane Bishop’s death is not by any ordinary use of the word an accident. The danger was identified four years previously. By all accounts, any number of regular users of that road regarded it as a notoriously life threatening spot. Yet nothing was done, until a life was lost. Only then the council acted, removing two car parks within days of her death – betraying that their corporate knowledge was aware all along where the danger was. Why isn’t the council in the dock? Why hadn’t they acted earlier? Was it just they were to incompetent or complacent or lazy or stupid (or all of them) to do their fucking job properly? These questions won’t get to be asked in a public forum now. The fact of the matter is this woman is dead, the poor bugger who was the immediate cause is considerably out of pocket for legal expenses and no one in charge of traffic design and management is going to be held accountable. If there was ever a poster child for restoring the right for people to sue under certain circumstances, this is it. Even worse in my mind, no systematic public investigation into the reasons for and causes leading up to her death has been conducted. No lessons have really been learnt, beyond a pathetic “try harder next time”.
Correct. Auckland City Council knew about that particular pinch point, but chose not to do anything about it. It is entirely disingenuous of the previous Chair of the Auckland City Council Transport Committee 2007-2010 to say that this particular corner where Bishop died was one of many pinch points along Tamaki Drive: there was only one, pointed out by Cycle Action Auckland.
I would like to clarify. Auckland City Council knew about this danger spot, and did not do anything about it.
The Super City came into existence on Nov 1, 2010. Bishop died on Nov. 17th. Auckland Transport, the CCO set up by the local government reform in Auckland region, removed the parking at this pinch point four days after Ms Bishop died.
This tells us something; politics had a large part to do with Ms Bishops death. A particular kind of politics that has no regard for cyclists refused to do anything in the period leading up to her death.
When roads were transferred from the control of politicians (i.e. from the control of the Chair of the Transport Committee) to a CCO, politics left the picture (at least temporarily). The CCO was able to act quickly and without political interference.
Auckland Transport in acting so quickly in removing the danger at this pinch point demonstrated the power it had to act, and demonstrated the degree to which politicians interfered with situations of known risk.
It is the actions of Auckland Transport that indicate that it should be the Auckland City Council who should be in the dock, not Mr Becker.
In Auckland, the greatest distance of cycleway in the last few years has been made by NZTA, which is obliged to build new cycleway alongside new motorway.
Not obliged strictly speaking, but the BCRs are so awesome that they are obliged morally speaking to build them where they can. We are dependent on the good will of NZTA who have been very impressive at least in Auckland in actively seeking to build cycleways on their land (the Northwestern Cycleway is actually on NZTA land, and a wee change to regs had to be put in place to allow bicycles on motorways).
I am very grateful to NZTA in Auckland for building the Northwestern Cycleway, and very grateful that they are committed to extending this cycleway around the Central Motorway Junction (Spaghetti Junction), along Grafton Gully down to Beach Rd, with a spur to Wellesley Street. This will be built sometime in the next year or so.
Ditto taking up the whole lane on every two-laner, such as P-Road here in Auckland. There isn’t room for a bike and a car in most lanes, so being all passive and sitting on the left is just inviting trouble.
The speed limit on P-Rd is 40kph. The traffic situation along here has worsened noticeably in the past few years or so. I would advise cyclists along here to take the whole lane for the horrible parts of P-Rd if you like (or the entire length of it if you like!) It is probable that you will be going at 40kph anyway, and there are several dangerous spots along this stretch of road (the intersection with Richmond Rd, and going south at Williamson Ave) that demand you take the whole lane. I’ve found traffic to be generally tolerant of you taking the whole lane where needed along here.
Roads do need to be renewed from time to time, and it would be great if better cycling facilities were automatically incorporated.
I have, along with others such as Pippa Coom, have been arguing that engineers should as a matter of course incorporate cycle features in renewal works. There has been a noticeable shift in attitude towards doing so, but we have some way to go here. Nevertheless, it is becoming more common to see cycling features incorporated into renewal designs. It’s not a matter of policy yet, but given time, will be.
Auckland’s Wellesley Street extension to connect with motorway ramps is a classic example where no provision was made for walkers or cyclists to use the route to efficiently connect the education precinct and cbd with the Domain, hospital and routes to Newmarket and beyond.
This is still a perennial issue, and is currently the subject of lobbying by various people to get someone to provide pedestrian/cycle links here. It is probable that with the new cycle link from the Northwestern Cycle way through Grafton Gully that NZTA will rework this part of the traffic network to provide pedestrian/cycle links.
Doffing said hat.
Speaking personally,
Where the pedestrian crossings jut into the road, I take center, because there simply isn’t room for a car and me,
After a horrid fright in my early days of cycling where a car passed me while I was hugging the left hand side of these kinds of crossing and I observed the 10cm or so gap between us, I take the whole lane at these kinds of crossings. There simply isn’t room for both a car and me, and my life is more important than a driver saving 5 secs.
I should note that I do most of my cycling in and around Auckland CBD, and surrounding fringe suburbs where I have discovered that drivers tend to be very tolerant of cyclists, probably because there is a density of cyclists here to compared with other parts of Auckland. I suspect that my cycling behaviour would need to be different if I started cycling say, south past Newmarket.
-
There seems to be a huge discrepancy between the urban and rural with regard to cyclists. In the urban environment cyclists are travelling at closer to the speed of the vehicular traffic and are being increasingly well catered-for (I know it is a relative consideration). On rural roads, however, with their parlous pot-holes, variable surface conditions and fractal edges (seal breaking away, etc) and generally narrower lanes, cyclists seem to be far less safe.
Understandable, partly, through economics of scale as there tend to be far fewer cyclists per road-kilometre but I am surprised that more cyclists don't come to grief in the hinterland around Auckland.
Cycle clubs and their lycra-clad members often go for training (?) rides at the weekends and on summer afternoons, resulting in groups of riders, often 2 - 3 abreast, on narrow roads where they are very vulnerable and they often travel at speeds significantly slower than vehicular road-users. This tends to cause tail-backs, impatience on the part of car/van/truck drivers and plenty of anti-cyclist sentiment.
I can't see how this is going to be improved and I expect that more cyclists are going to be harmed unless there is a huge effort to improve the status of cyclists/bikes on all roads and to give them priority.
The focus on urban cycling and safety needs to rolled-out to the rest of our roads as a matter of some urgency.[As an aside, I believe that all peple seeking to get a driver's licence should have to complete a monitored minimum time riding a motorbike before being let loose in a car. This would, with the attendant focus on defensive driving skills, greatly improve the standard of driving when the survivors graduated to cars.]
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Yes, I lived in Christchurch during my student days, and remember the cycling very fondly indeed. The ease of getting around the city, no real need to own a vehicle except for mountain getaways, and the wonderful roads all over Banks Peninsula, which are mostly still accessible apart from Evans Pass to Lyttelton and Evans Pass to Rapaki rock (I think). The ride along to Gebbies Pass is still open and awesome.
There's quite a lot of glass on the roads - I got some Armadillo tyres last year and they are totally worthwhile.
To keep it in perspective - even with earthquake damage, Chch is still awesomely more conducive to cycling than Wellington. Depending on what part of town you'll be in you may find a sturdy fat tyred beast more useful than a road bike.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I have, along with others such as Pippa Coom, have been arguing that engineers should as a matter of course incorporate cycle features in renewal works.
Good stuff. I imagine permanent cycle lanes need less costly sub-surface treatment than other vehicular lanes. That should also be an attractive cost-benefit argument (unless the engineering profession firmly believes they all need to be build to carry trucks for when the cycling fad passes).
-
Sacha, in reply to
without political interference
A classic example was the former Auckland City Council's C&R councillors headed by Mr Hay (with Banks as ceremonial frontpuppet, a role he seems to relish) demanding that the bus lanes all be marked with blue paint because green was the colour of the opposition City Vision bloc. Seriously.
-
Keep up the good work, Christopher. That Grafton Gully connection will be much appreciated. It will also border on a surreal level of cycling infrastructure to cross right through the middle of the busiest motorway junction in the country, without even having to slow down. There's a thrill seeking side of me that imagines the stretch down to Wellesley St being long and straight, completely devoid of vehicles and pedestrians, and wonders how long before it becomes a popular spot for extreme sports types, conveniently located right next to the hospital.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It will also border on a surreal level of cycling infrastructure to cross right through the middle of the busiest motorway junction in the country
Then you'll love the proposed future from the draft central city masterplan - scroll about halfway down until you find an picture of this:
A more expensive, and long-term, project would involve the ‘capping’ of the motorways through parts of Grafton Gully, and then building open space sports fields on top of that cap. That’s Wellesley Street winding its way through the new area, looking towards the domain.
-
Maz,
I'd like to comment on a few different issues raised here:
It sounds like some of you think that a few k's of cycle paths/lanes is all a city can afford or should be expected to provide. Growing up in Scandinavia, I've come to expect so much more, in fact separate bike paths with kerbs are the rule in Copenhagen, in the city as well as in the suburbs.
Yes, they cost money to establish, but pay for themselves very quickly and are worth it. It is the safe and civilized way to do things.And please, let's not trot out the old "cyclists only have themselves to blame, cause they don't follow the road code yada yada" line. For the non-believers, I urge you to pack a collapsable chair and make an excursion to any roundabout. Make yourselves comfortable and count the number of drivers indicating correctly (if at all). Yes, not many. Or, while driving, observe how often someone changes lanes or turns without indicating AND making sure no one is endangered or impeded. The list goes on.
From my experience, NZ is easily the scariest place to cycle and drive. I think a big reason is, that most Kiwis are taught to drive by their parents, who themselves were taught by their parents etc. Hence, bad habits are perpetuated.
It may be a hassle and much more expensive, but there is definitely something to be said for learning from a professional. Decades on, I still remember my instructor asking "did you check the mirror? Did you look back over your shoulder? Did you see that pedestrian approaching the crossing? Did you indicate 3 seconds before turning?
People can and will make mistakes on bikes. As drivers, our mistakes come at a much higher price. -
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Oh, well said, Maz. I was recently in Norway and Germany and thought the environment for cyclists was much, much nicer. My aunt, who is approaching 70, thinks nothing of jumping on her bike and setting off to run errands around town. A small town, admittedly. My uncle cycled for decades from this same small town into work in Bonn, and the only mishap he ever had was when he collided with a wild boar in the forest.
-
Maz,
Oh, and forgot to add, that riding two abreast is legal. And how many seconds does it add to your drive, patiently waiting for that safe opportunity to pass a group of riders? 10? 15 max?
-
IIRC in Germany the license test is so onerous that it is just impossible to pass without professional instruction, which typically will cost thousands.
It's an interesting thing, because the high cost of gaining a license is a barrier to poor people, but in mitigation it's much easier to be a non-driver there. Here, I expect that mandating professional lessons or making the test stricter would have unpleasant social consequences without further changes to make being a non-driver easier. Another chicken and egg problem...
-
merc, in reply to
Here, I expect that mandating professional lessons or making the test stricter would have unpleasant social consequences
I had visions of Vigil.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It may be a hassle and much more expensive, but there is definitely something to be said for learning from a professional.
Totally. I initially learned from my mother, which was great for the basic mechanical business of driving a car, but after that my folks paid for professional instruction by the AA. My instructor was also a defensive driving instructor. He constantly kept opening my eyes to the hazards I hadn't noticed, and instilling important habits.
Perhaps the most powerful lesson, though, was that despite this guy's experience, and the dual control nature of the instruction vehicle, we still managed to have quite a bad prang. I was not at fault, the other guy admitted he was very distracted (he had just been visiting his sick wife), but he also said "I had a look and I didn't see you", which was not believable - the AA car was bright yellow and exactly where you'd expect cars to be driving along a main thoroughfare.
The lesson was, even with the very best practices and training, you're still going to have accidents because of other people doing stupid things. That accident would most likely have killed a cyclist. A little infrastructure goes a long way.
Driver training is quite costly, though. Hard to see any way around that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the only mishap he ever had was when he collided with a wild boar in the forest
couldn't resist
-
Sacha, in reply to
Driver training is quite costly, though. Hard to see any way around that.
Subsidised or free compulsory training paid for from taxes and transport-user fees? Not that hard.
-
merc, in reply to
training paid for from taxes
/sacred cow dies/
-
Islander, in reply to
Depends on the number of cyclists, whether they have panierbags on their machines, and how they are grouped (e.g in pairs, trios or - as I once came across round a corner on a notoriously twisty hill, a quartet...the fourth person was well over the double yellows into the opposite lane.)
Generally, these are tourist groups... -
BenWilson, in reply to
And how many seconds does it add to your drive, patiently waiting for that safe opportunity to pass a group of riders? 10? 15 max?
In most cases, I think it doesn't actually add any time at all. This is a great fallacy that many drivers believe, that if you drive faster, without anyone impeding you, and taking every cheap dangerous advantage that you can, that you will get where you want to go substantially quicker. You won't - along your way, you will encounter many stops, most of which are far, far longer than all of the little cut corners and risks and speeding added up to. Average speeds are the same for high and low risk drivers, because they are dominated by the volume of traffic on the road. Most of the traffic ahead is going slower than the speed limit, so anything that slows you down for 10 seconds here, 20 there, doesn't make a difference - you will still catch up with the queue.
Just even knowing this fact is a big part of defensive driving - that hurrying will not actually help, and that your survival on the road begins by beginning your journey with some padding built into the time.
Subsidised or free compulsory training paid for from taxes and transport-user fees? Not that hard.
To me it's obvious, but selling it to user-pays society is the hard part. So far as I can tell, there would be a very straightforward case that it would cost far less in ACC bills to do it.
-
James Butler, in reply to
In most cases, I think it doesn't actually add any time at all. This is a great fallacy that many drivers believe, that if you drive faster, without anyone impeding you, and taking every cheap dangerous advantage that you can, that you will get where you want to go substantially quicker. You won't - along your way, you will encounter many stops, most of which are far, far longer than all of the little cut corners and risks and speeding added up to.
Heh - saw a concrete example of this on my ride this morning. There was a boy racer in a hotted-up purple Skyline, booming exhaust, hissing wastegate, tailgating, wheelspinning, dodging into gaps, all the way from Greenlane Hospital to the Panmure roundabout - I know this because I kept up with him the whole time on my bicycle.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
Subsidised or free compulsory training paid for from taxes and transport-user fees? Not that hard.
My own Grandmother, who is in her mid-80s, still drives around. She's cautious, but has less control of the vehicle than she should. Nevertheless, owning a car greatly increases her mobility and allows her to be a full member of society. Having acquired a manual car from her sister's estate, her driving deteriorated, and she decided she needed an auto again. At which point she booked in of her own accord for a few hours supervised with an instructor, who pointed out gently some of her failings and how to address them.
Driving a car is a privilege. Having sat with a number of drivers whose inadequacies scare me, I think there's call to have people take supervision about once per decade, and if necessary have those people referred for further training. This wouldn't address the wilfully dangerous, but it would greatly increase safety for the rest of us. The cost would be fairly low (based on a cost of about $50-60/hour).
There are a number of ways to crack this nut, and this is my suggestion.
-
Or, put another way: Michael Schumacher drives dangerously, but has absolute awareness and full control of the vehicle. Others drive 'safely' but have limited awareness and often very little control of the vehicle.
I know who I'd rather drive with. This of course isn't an indictment of speeding campaigns and other road safety messages. But it's my experience as a cyclist that the incompetent are more of a threat to me than the reckless.
And to questions of payment above, I'd suggest that there would be cause to call for an ACC funded trial. However, under our current perverse government there's less chance of that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.