On May 10, 3:25=A0pm, "Noddy" wrote:
> Next time you see a broken down car blocking a lane on a busy road while
> you're trying to get past, take a look back and see how far the traffic is=
> affected. It's no different for a slow moving bike.
>
that's not always true - traffic flow is much like fluid flow. if you
constrict a pipe to half its diameter at a given point (analagous to a
broken down car blocking one lane) then it may halve the fluid flow,
or it may have no effect. the latter is true if the flow is similarly
constricted further along the pipe. much of our road network is like
that. drive along Alexandra Parade at 60 km/h, then do it at 30 km/h.
you'll get to the end in the same time - the lights will get you the
same at either speed.
in any case, the smarter bike lanes are placed on side roads where
that doesn't happen, or where there is ample space - such as on Royal
Parade.
> > furthermore, in part due to negligent transport planning in Melbourne,
> > single occupant motoring has reduced in its viability. there is little
> > doubt that cyclists reduce congestion in Melbourne peak hour traffic,
>
> Little doubt?
>
> Frequent any road where there are lots of bikes and no bike lanes and you'=
ll
> be gauranteed to be on one of the busiest and slowest moving roads around.=
> Beach road in Melbourne is a *prime* example.
>
the large packs of bikes on Beach Road are really the exception. most
cyclists don't congregate like that. in the incident that occurred in
Sydney, they held the ride very early in the morning to avoid conflict
with traffic and congestion.
> > if you're in any doubt attend a presentation by transport planners who
> > explain the theory of traffic flow and the impact of increased/
> > decreased vehicle traffic. putting more cyclists on the roads in peak
> > hour has a material benefit to the same people who tend to dislike
> > them so much.
>
> Theory is lovely until it's put into practise, where it often turns to shi=
t
> in a hell of a hurry.
a guy i know is a traffic engineer. i remember asking him why, on
school holidays, the traffic seems to halve. he explained it doesn't,
it drops by only about 10-15%, but critically, it drops below the
threshold for congestion at which everything clogs up and nothing
moves (mainly due to morons desperately filling and blocking
intersections).
there isn't much doubt that removing cars from the network helps those
who stay on it.
> > that's fixable, copenhagen bike lanes have benefits for cyclists and
> > drivers alike.
>
> I was talking about the problems of riding a bike in traffic with cars and=
> trucks blowing their stinking carcenogenic crap all over you.
the story is that it's worse if you're inside your car. don't ask me
if that's true or not.
> So now the traffic is well and truly .ed in that section of the road as=
> everyone crawling along looking for a park holds up the entire lane as the=
y
> won't drive over the bike lane to get out of the way.
ok so in practice it isn't always ideal, fair enough. in my opinion,
councils are just a bad idea in general. they often deliberately
constrict through traffic on their local roads in order to try and
channel it into neighbouring regions. this is intended to win the
support of local citizen-NIMBYs in by-elections. you probably only
need to be a grade 5er to realise this is not a good idea when viewed
in a more wholistic sense.
in that case, the bike lane was quite possibly catering for more than
just a perceived need to promote cycling. another example was Auburn
Road, which carried traffic off the Toorak Road exit of the Monash. as
soon as tolls started and they realised traffic would leave at the
last toll-free exit (Toorak Road), they put a bike lane on Auburn Road
to discourage it and reduced 2 lanes to 1.
the point is though, that it is possible to place bike lanes more
strategically in order to not hold up traffic. the fact that some
councils have no intention of doing that shouldn't be blamed on
cyclists. |