Re: es] 10/07/05: Do we belong on bike paths?

Sharon said:
> I would not take a trike on a "Walkers Path" ... but didn't mind
> walkers on a 'Bike Path"... Annie


Unfortunately in Sydney we actrually *have* a cycle-only path. It's an
excellent demonstration of why pedestrians should not be allowed to
use the roads, as it goes over a bridge with a big hump in the middle.
So on the downhill side the cyclists are doing 30-50kph, and the
pedestrians are still wandering drunkenly all over the place.

There have been collisions, some resulting in serious injury. It's not
big enough to get a motor vehicle into, nor can you get a helicopter
over it. So the injuried parties need to be hand-carried up to 500m
before they can be looked after. For this reason pedestrians are
banned from the cycling side of the bridge (and cyclists banned from
the pedestrian side). Some pedestrians ignore this, but it seems to be
fewer now that there are security guards on the bridge (so the guards
are actually useful!).

We have another bridge that's become a shared path over the whole bed
(four lanes or more), and that IMO needs lanes marked. The problem is
that you're mixing commuters and couriers on bikes with commuters and
tourists on foot. So it's common to ride at 20+kph in an area where
most pedestrians are in straight-line mode but a few are completely
aimless. Painted lanes would help a little, I hope, but unfortunately
it's in a high-security area so we have to wait until the PTB decide
to try it.

Moz



"Download your pictures for free at ftp://www.ihpva.org/incoming/"
trikes mailing list  -  trikes@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.ihpva.org/mailman/listinfo/trikes
%(disclaimer)s