Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

So is it a case at that intersection of the efficiency of getting motorists thru is more important than the risk to non motorists?

queequeg wrote:
The intersection is also one of those ones that gives pedestrians and motorists a green light at the same time. There is no arrow for turning. It reminds of an almost identical fatality at Beecroft a number of years ago where a bus returning from a school trip made a left hand turn and ran over a mother, who was going to the school to meet her daughter, who was actually on the bus that ran her over. There was no turn arrow at that intersection either, and the turning driver also claimed not to have seen the pedestrian crossing the road.

Thinking about it too, on my daily commute, I have to cross 6 lanes of pennant hills road at a four way intersection, and motorists rarely give way to me. We both get the green light at the same time, and I barely get half way across before I have cars making left hand turns across the crossing I am using. I end up having to weave between cars to get around them as they end up blocking the crossing.

The easy fix would be giving pedestrians a head start, and has been one in many intersections in Sydney, 3-5 seconds before the red for cars turn green.

I don't think not seeing is an excuse as traffic lights with beg buttons have pedestrian light and could be seen by the driver.

mikesbytes wrote:So is it a case at that intersection of the efficiency of getting motorists thru is more important than the risk to non motorists?

You'd have to say yes to that. It's pretty much how pedestrians are treated at most signalised intersections where there isn't a turn arrow.

Here is the intersection I cross on my commute home, from the point of view of the motorist who turns across my path without fail.



You can see the pedestrian crossing on the left side, and I am starting from the far side, crossing towards this view. I get the green pedestrian light at the same time as the cars get their green light. I am on a bicycle and rarely get even half way across before I have motorists streaming through the crossing turning left onto Pennant Hills Rd. What then happens is that all the following motorists assume the crossing is clear and they just keep coming, as they don't want to get another red light.

mikesbytes wrote:So is it a case at that intersection of the efficiency of getting motorists thru is more important than the risk to non motorists?

Ofcourse, that is why Level of Service is very important in traffic modelling. Thing is, only motorised vehicle Level of Service is measured per vehicle. They don't measure human or cargo movement. They don't measure how much people walk and cycle.

This makes a bus carrying 10 people the same as a SUV carrying 1 and cyclists-peds as problematic.

This results in very few crosswalks, high bridges, and high speed wide roads

opik_bidin wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:So is it a case at that intersection of the efficiency of getting motorists thru is more important than the risk to non motorists?

Ofcourse, that is why Level of Service is very important in traffic modelling. Thing is, only motorised vehicle Level of Service is measured per vehicle. They don't measure human or cargo movement. They don't measure how much people walk and cycle.

This makes a bus carrying 10 people the same as a SUV carrying 1 and cyclists-peds as problematic.

This results in very few crosswalks, high bridges, and high speed wide roads

I don’t think you’re correct in your assumptions re bus and single occ. vehicle there.

opik_bidin wrote:This pic sums up the danger of speed, and we'll dig deeper, because as speed increase, the road and surroundings change too

as Tholgette brought up the topic of trucks :
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=101034

The danger of speed and view is more pronounced, as trucks are heavier and have more blind spots. And now, we have more and more of them on the streets and roads as Australia neglects it's rail freight system.

And a recalculation of the road costs must be made, as with the weight and speed, comes the road damages. A truck damages the road more. Speed+heavy and breaking abruptly means more road surface skinned

fat and old wrote:I don’t think you’re correct in your assumptions re bus and single occ. vehicle there.

All the MRD WA reports is vehicle counts. Hell, that's all they can measure with the magic tape.

Got some counter examples?

Thoglette wrote:

fat and old wrote:I don’t think you’re correct in your assumptions re bus and single occ. vehicle there.

All the MRD WA reports is vehicle counts. Hell, that's all they can measure with the magic tape.

Got some counter examples?

I’m assuming we’re talking amphometer counts? These can be (and are) set to differentiate between cars, trucks and other H/Vs including bus’s.

https://www.vehiclecounts.com/dwells

One manufacturer. There’s others obviously, but this is a fair example I think.

It stands to reason that if the different types of vehicles are accounted for during a count then LoS measurements are parsed out. If the concern is how a tape differentiates between truck and bus, then any competent T/C business will integrate bus timetables into their modelling and results. Finer results would be achievable through an integrated passenger count which can be captured through the Myki (or generic for a particular state) system.

Or the traffic counts could be half arsed shots in the dark

suburban sprawl + toll rise = Death to the environment and economy for the love of the car

what more density, bus, rail and cycling? JNo, we musat have these huge backyards, close to nature and also these huge gass guzzlers for offroad that we never take offroad. Plus we want these wide and straight roads from our house to the city where we can go 200 km/h

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/tol ... l#comments

opik_bidin wrote:suburban sprawl + toll rise = Death to the environment and economy for the love of the car

what more density, bus, rail and cycling? JNo, we musat have these huge backyards, close to nature and also these huge gass guzzlers for offroad that we never take offroad. Plus we want these wide and straight roads from our house to the city where we can go 200 km/h

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/tol ... l#comments

I thought you'd be happy with any increase in costs levied on car, truck and bus drivers?

fat and old wrote:

opik_bidin wrote:suburban sprawl + toll rise = Death to the environment and economy for the love of the car

what more density, bus, rail and cycling? JNo, we musat have these huge backyards, close to nature and also these huge gass guzzlers for offroad that we never take offroad. Plus we want these wide and straight roads from our house to the city where we can go 200 km/h

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/tol ... l#comments

I thought you'd be happy with any increase in costs levied on car, truck and bus drivers?

Its amazing to see the stupidity

1. gets closer to nature and escape the city by destroying nature
2. Gets faster in the same or longer time to the city by destroying nature
3. Spend most of the life in traffic, not enjoying the nature or the city
4. Pay huge cost, either individually or by government, that they cannot afford
5. Fight every transit and cycling infrastructure
6. Fight every further development
7. Have one car per one peraon in the family and want the freedom to free cost to park and drive ot anywhere
8. they hate cyclists and bikes
9. They hate tranport public users
10. They dont understand why cost is going up, why it takes so long to go anywhere, why its hard to hire workers, why the environment is degrading, and why they are isolated.

opik_bidin wrote:

fat and old wrote:

opik_bidin wrote:suburban sprawl + toll rise = Death to the environment and economy for the love of the car

what more density, bus, rail and cycling? JNo, we musat have these huge backyards, close to nature and also these huge gass guzzlers for offroad that we never take offroad. Plus we want these wide and straight roads from our house to the city where we can go 200 km/h

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/tol ... l#comments

I thought you'd be happy with any increase in costs levied on car, truck and bus drivers?

Its amazing to see the stupidity

1. gets closer to nature and escape the city by destroying nature
2. Gets faster in the same or longer time to the city by destroying nature
3. Spend most of the life in traffic, not enjoying the nature or the city
4. Pay huge cost, either individually or by government, that they cannot afford
5. Fight every transit and cycling infrastructure
6. Fight every further development
7. Have one car per one peraon in the family and want the freedom to free cost to park and drive ot anywhere
8. they hate cyclists and bikes
9. They hate tranport public users
10. They dont understand why cost is going up, why it takes so long to go anywhere, why its hard to hire workers, why the environment is degrading, and why they are isolated.

Yeah OK...plenty of generalist comment, but the question hasn't been answered? Aren't you happy with any increase in costs to motorists? Isn't that what you consider fair?

https://twitter.com/BrianAddisonLB/stat ... 8838586369

fat and old wrote:but the question hasn't been answered? Aren't you happy with any increase in costs to motorists? Isn't that what you consider fair?

It wasn't asked of me but I'll answer that. Increased individual and direct costs towards motorists is a good thing and actually benefits motorists as a whole not to mention plenty of non motorists.

Increased communal that motorists cause to themselves and others is inherently bad for all the community.

It is the tragedy of the commons again.

It is no surprise that the Dutch are among the world's happiest motorists. By enabling a transport system that enables and prioritises non private vehicle travel it makes life easier for those who need or chose private vehicle travel.

human909 wrote:

fat and old wrote:but the question hasn't been answered? Aren't you happy with any increase in costs to motorists? Isn't that what you consider fair?

It wasn't asked of me but I'll answer that. Increased individual and direct costs towards motorists is a good thing and actually benefits motorists as a whole not to mention plenty of non motorists.

Increased communal that motorists cause to themselves and others is inherently bad for all the community.

It is the tragedy of the commons again.

Economists view the roads as a resource. They enable the efficient delivery of goods and services in the economy. If the road system is inefficient or overloaded then it's efficiency is reduced. If the uber takes twice as long to get to you, he'll charge you more for the ride. If the tradie can only do two jobs a day instead of three because of traffic then he much charge you more.

As much as I dislike motorised transport - I know that when it's an utter mess it's actually costing everyone. Sure maybe those stuck in it directly more but ultimately it costs everyone.

And that's why we need to encourage cycling - yes it's beneficial to the rider but it also flows to society to some degree.

human909 wrote:

fat and old wrote:but the question hasn't been answered? Aren't you happy with any increase in costs to motorists? Isn't that what you consider fair?

It wasn't asked of me but I'll answer that. Increased individual and direct costs towards motorists is a good thing and actually benefits motorists as a whole not to mention plenty of non motorists.

Increased communal that motorists cause to themselves and others is inherently bad for all the community.

It is the tragedy of the commons again.

A fair answer that I pretty much agree with ( I’d change it to “benefits some motorists” ). Still doesn’t answer the question that I posed to the poster tho. He seems happier to abuse and denigrate without responsibility.

Comedian wrote: Economists view the roads as a resource. They enable the efficient delivery of goods and services in the economy. If the road system is inefficient or overloaded then it's efficiency is reduced. If the uber takes twice as long to get to you, he'll charge you more for the ride. If the tradie can only do two jobs a day instead of three because of traffic then he much charge you more.

As much as I dislike motorised transport - I know that when it's an utter mess it's actually costing everyone. Sure maybe those stuck in it directly more but ultimately it costs everyone.

And that's why we need to encourage cycling - yes it's beneficial to the rider but it also flows to society to some degree.

Makes sense to me. You can add public transport as a benefit to the economy also by that argument

warthog1 wrote:

Comedian wrote: Economists view the roads as a resource. They enable the efficient delivery of goods and services in the economy. If the road system is inefficient or overloaded then it's efficiency is reduced. If the uber takes twice as long to get to you, he'll charge you more for the ride. If the tradie can only do two jobs a day instead of three because of traffic then he much charge you more.

As much as I dislike motorised transport - I know that when it's an utter mess it's actually costing everyone. Sure maybe those stuck in it directly more but ultimately it costs everyone.

And that's why we need to encourage cycling - yes it's beneficial to the rider but it also flows to society to some degree.

Makes sense to me. You can add public transport as a benefit to the economy also by that argument

Yes absolutely. When you start looking at it like this you realise how much congestion costs and it rolls through the economy, and society in so many different ways.

So how do we determine who "deserves" to drive a motor vehicle on the road? And how much are we prepared to pay for it?

For all of the talk of congestion charges, tolls, permits, restrictions etc I've not seen a single discussion on just who WOULD qualify for a "permit" to drive, or under what conditions.

Will there be "restricted" areas i.e. inner city blocks where a "permit" is required or a congestion tax levied?
Will a "permit" be required to travel across "restricted" boundaries in order to get to an adjacent area or will I have to drive around the boundary...i.e. I want to visit friends living in the inner city, or on the opposite side to me.
Will travel to essential services be allowed without a "permit" or paying a congestion levy....i.e. I require treatment in a hospital. 4 major hospitals in Melbourne are on the edge of the CBD.


Do we understand and accept that in these scenarios

If the road system is inefficient or overloaded then it's efficiency is reduced. If the uber takes twice as long to get to you, he'll charge you more for the ride. If the tradie can only do two jobs a day instead of three because of traffic then he much charge you more.

That the costs of any permit or levies will be passed along anyway as is the case now with tolls?

How will a person or business "qualify" for a "permit"? Or in the case of a congestion levy, how will a person's socio economic status be factored into the determinations? Will the levy be based on the vehicle, it's intended use or the wealth of the user? Will any "permit" or levy be able to pay for itself (enforcement, administration etc) or will this be an accepted loss making venture? How would this be justified to the taxpayer? If I am employed in a "permit" area or one where a congestion levy is imposed is it reasonable to expect my employer to increase my wage by the amount incurred by a new act of government that was not existent when I began employment? What if I'm required to work in said are on an ad hoc basis?

I'd like to see some answers or ideas on this. There's plenty of discussion on the apparent benefits of less vehicles on the roads, but next to none on how to achieve this and the intended (and importantly Unintended) outcomes. There must be some detail about the WWW about the cities that have done this already?

fat and old wrote:So how do we determine who "deserves" to drive a motor vehicle on the road? And how much are we prepared to pay for it?

The answer in part is who has to drive and unfortunately taxation will partially answer that question

The other part of the equation is if one doesn't drive how do they get to/from their destination? If there isn't good public transport and safe cycling then they are likely to fall into the have to drive category

mikesbytes wrote:

fat and old wrote:So how do we determine who "deserves" to drive a motor vehicle on the road? And how much are we prepared to pay for it?

The answer in part is who has to drive and unfortunately taxation will partially answer that question

Undestood and agree. So what is the metric used to determine who "HAS" to drive?

The other part of the equation is if one doesn't drive how do they get to/from their destination? If there isn't good public transport and safe cycling then they are likely to fall into the have to drive category

Which is a planning issue. Will this be accounted for in any future levy or "permit"? Do we really expect a PT system that will cope with the existing population and their various requirements to be in place before said permit or levy? Do we really expect anyone to cycle 25 or more km to see a friend in order to save paying a levy or permit (if they can get one? If not, is it reasonable to expect the friends to meet at another location, this putting the cost on the party who already has the permit/pays the levy?)?

fat and old wrote:Undestood and agree. So what is the metric used to determine who "HAS" to drive?

The same metric that we use for most things. Pricing. Pricing is an excellent metric.** And if you are worried about equality or equity then you address that in other ways. Subsidise the socially beneficial things and tax/restrict the socially harmful things. It is basic economics and governance.


**There is plenty of reasons why price and wealth is a poor way to allocate some resources public or otherwise, but in general it is pretty much the best and most efficient approach. (Efficient if you avoid market distortions as much as possible eg free roads, non free rail.)

human909 wrote:

fat and old wrote:Undestood and agree. So what is the metric used to determine who "HAS" to drive?

The same metric that we use for most things. Pricing. Pricing is an excellent metric.** And if you are worried about equality or equity then you address that in other ways. Subsidise the socially beneficial things and tax/restrict the socially harmful things. It is basic economics and governance.


**There is plenty of reasons why price and wealth is a poor way to allocate some resources public or otherwise, but in general it is pretty much the best and most efficient approach. (Efficient if you avoid market distortions as much as possible eg free roads, non free rail.)

Or such market distortions as the notion that everyone is entitled to the same level of service from our Government (in this case access to the road network)?

It appears that London's Congestion Levy exempts only Disabled Drivers. No one else. The newer Pollution Levy is imposed on all non Euro-4 vehicles...app. 2006 or earlier. My way of thinking sees this as fair enough, but gee it's regressive. &($(AT)! The Poor indeed.

On the other hand, in Victoria the Parking Congestion Levy imposed by the SRO has many loopholes in it.

A parking space is exempt if it is owned by one of the following types of organisations:

municipal councils,
religious bodies,
charitable or public benevolent institutions,
hospitals,
universities,
libraries,
museums.

The exemption does not apply if a fee is charged for parking in the space.

Good to be a priest then. Even a poor priest. Just not poor

Anyway, floggin a dead horse. Seems few are prepared to nominate HOW to fix the issue, and are more comfortable complaining and ridiculing (at least here in public. There may well be people hereabouts who engage in real advocacy...the type that supplies realistic alternatives to our present system).

God drives a Merc?