Narrow tunnels and bike paths

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ChrisS on January 30, 2008 at 6:02pm

There was similar incident like this back in 2000 when a cyclist became a paraplegic (?need to check this again) after crashing into barriers on a off road path. Inner city council & land management authorities settled out of court.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adrian Tritschler on January 31, 2008 at 2:20pm

Hopefully it will lead to the realisation by Vicroads, BikeVic and sundry councils that they can't just build dinky little pieces of mickey-mouse path, label them as bike paths and then expect people to use them without putting some thought into the design, construction and maintenance.

Having been run into head-on by someone who overtook a couple of cyclists without looking, resulting in two dislocated shoulders (yup, one on each side), misc. grazing and approx. $300 damage to my bike and belongings and destruction of his front wheel and forks I am extremely wary of using the "perfectly good bike path" instead of the road.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob on February 4, 2008 at 10:47am

Sadly the path builders ignore good practice and put in what they feel their short sightedness will allow them to get away with. The Beach Road cycle path is a prime example, only part was built, it had missing links, forced people onto roads, they built a beach connection later at cost of Millions then finally realised they had all the parking lot access points wrongly signed and were causing injury to riders by permitting cars to roar across the path at blind points without stopping... now at great expense they have reversed all sign and changed that, but the path is riddled with dangerous grade changes, unexpected twists, blind paths off beach access points for dogs and kids and it is used heavily by walkers with too many Beach Rd drivers expecting all riding commuters to use the path instead of the road when it is the most unsafe path in town, at any speed...
It is sad this case has arisen out of a tragic incident, but it will continue to be until paths are properly built for their purposes and roads are shared responsibly, and the bogans, red necks, and selfish hard heads on this earth finally realise that cycling is normal, not malignable, unlike their own attitude driven, loutish behaviour.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hielke on February 1, 2008 at 9:57pm

Very tragic story. Very tragic accident too. I'm just wondering why nothing is allowed to be called just that, an accident. It seems someone has to be blamed 100% of the time. Without an accurate eyewitness account we'll never know (there was mention of a pram being overtaken) but either one or both riders were riding pretty fast/applied the brakes too late or it was just a freak accident. From casually reading the article it seems the path was not necessarily too narrow for two riders but both riders for some reason or another were using the same 'half'. Otherwise you can't have a head on collision of course. One of them must not have kept left. So I can see an argument for suing the other rider, providing his/her riding was negligent or dangerous [cf in the case of Adrian's crash described above]. I just can't see what the three public bodies should be sued for. Sure councils can build better, but they don't build bikelanes/paths to purposely inconvenience and hurt people. I should conclude by saying that I would probably sue too. I have no issue with suing at all. I guess my concern is with the judge/courts.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Crowlie on February 7, 2008 at 7:05pm

This really sucks. Only a week or so ago I was having a look at some of the corners on bike tracks around here thinking they're not exactly suitable for sharing...

If a bike path runs near a train station or other main carriageway, it's a fair bet someone will use it for commuting.

If commuters are riding on a path, they'll probably have a deadline and be riding pretty quickly.

If you have bike paths to be shared with people who walk their (untrained) dogs with earphones on, then the paths need to be pretty wide, have good surfaces and no blind corners... one would have thought.

Every now and again someone mentions that all the infrastructure we need for safe cycling already exists, on the roads, it's simply a matter of getting drivers to share.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nic on March 1, 2008 at 11:08am

Yay! I totally agree!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Treadly and Me on February 19, 2008 at 11:05pm

After a somewhat perplexing experience this afternoon, I must discuss bike bells (again).

Here’s the scenario: eastbound on the Gardiners Creek Trail, approaching the Burke Rd underpass I pass two other riders as we enter the tunnel with one more slower rider ahead of me. With these two gentlemen very much in mind, I seriously consider my options:

1. surge by and trust that I can make it back to the left before the tunnel ends, or
2. sit back and coast for a hundred yards until it’s 100% safe to pass.

If you’re not familiar with this spot, you should also know that in the eastbound direction there is not a clear view of the path beyond the tunnel: there is an S-curve in the path, in less than 50 metres it swings right then left. Both bends are blind corners. Google Maps doesn’t really show it well, but you get the idea.

I’m no daredevil (and anyway it’s a warm evening), so I decided to ease back and slot in behind the front guy.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Because there are two blind corners here, I’m in the habit of making a warning ring on my bell—two or three sharp rings in quick succession—just before I enter each bend. Other riders rarely return the courtesy but I’m damn sure it’s saved me from a few close calls over the years.

And when I’m close in behind someone I have no problem using my bell in this manner from the second position—I figure even if the lead rider doesn’t care for his/her own safety, if they have a head-on with someone, I’ll be caught up in the mess.

So tonight, as usual, I did my ring-ring-ring thing as we entered the right-hander, and did that guy in front wobble a bit? Maybe. The left-hander approaches and I ring-ring-ring again, and this time the lead guy shouts at me in a resentful kind of way “Pass! Pass!” Let’s be clear here: we’re approaching a tight, blind left-hander and he thinks I’m ringing to overtake…the mind boggles.

Of course, I didn’t take his suggestion and sat back until we were on the straight before I moved to overtake. As I came up beside him I could see he was preparing to give me a spray so I got in first, calmly advising him that I wasn’t ringing at him but that I was warning people coming the other way. “Oh. Right, thanks”, says he. (Clearly a reality check moment: it’s not all about you, mate.)

I’m kind of pleased that I passed on a useful safety tip to another rider, which I sincerely hope he’ll use. But I’m frankly appalled and astonished that I actually had to explain it to him. I’d have thought it was perfectly obvious what my intentions were and the fact that it wasn’t—and that he signalled that I should pass him on a blind bend—is a little scary.

Maybe the dangers of blind bends on shared paths aren’t generally as obvious to others as they are to me? And if so, that is much more scary.


[cross post]

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by GeeBee on February 20, 2008 at 8:34am

I was at my chiropractor's office yesterday and she had her right arm in a brace. Bike accident she said, narrow path, rider overtook without warning and cut in, she caught the chainlink fence with her bars, and down she went.
Upfield Path? I asked, knowing she lived in the Coburg area. It was.

I'm a great supporter (and user) of the Upfield path and the work the council(s) have done to create it, but with the increase in use it may be time to look at widening it where possible. Some of the newer parts are better, but in some places there are chainlink fences right on the edge of the path (and pushed into the path envelope by cars parking against the fence). Space is tight along much of the route, but some creative thinking and some shifting of fences, to fall in line with Austroads Part 14 recommendations (min 500mm set back for adjacent structures), could improve the experience for all.

There is an attempt to constrain the path at Brunswick station as an adjacent landholder wants to shift his boundary. That is being opposed through Council channels at the moment, and path width and increased use is being cited as reason not to restrict widening options, especially across the entrance to a railway station

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by luke on February 29, 2008 at 6:21pm

Unfortunately, I think the dangers of blind corners on bike paths aren't that obvious to a lot of people!

I ride outbound on the Yarra trail (on at Church St, head towards Hawthorn) to get to work. I only do this sometimes because I've often encountered riders two abreast on the corners. On one memorable occasion I encountered three guys abreast, pedaling ferociously to overtake each other. I'm normally a quiet fellow, but I had something to say as I bounced off the path to avoid them.

A crap path (and the bit of the Yarra trail I'm talking about isn't crap at all) isn't an excuse to ride dangerously.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nic on March 1, 2008 at 11:01am

I have always felt I am more likely to have an accident when riding on a bike path than on the road for the reasons stated above. I can see around me when riding on the road and only use a bike path when the roads are too scary and busy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ChrisS on March 2, 2008 at 12:17pm

I've reached the personal conclusion of *not* using shared paths during peak commuting times. There's far too much risk of encountering wobbling gumbys (however well intentioned), other riders racing for sheep stations and clueless wannabe rockstars chasing some PB on the way home. I was thinking about 5-6 years ago that most shared paths were designed on minimum spec and if commuting numbers reached critic@l m@ss, then obvious usage issues would start to emerge. Which they have.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Treadly and Me on March 3, 2008 at 11:57am

Alas, I've started thinking the same way in the last year.

There has been a noticeable jump in commuter numbers in the recent years (I could probably go and look up the numbers, by why bother? We all know it's true.) and, yes, not all of these riders ride well. Indeed, some riders who have been doing it for years are prone to mistakes and errors of judgement--myself included!

Riding with the peak flow is relatively safe but not always entirely enjoyable--you'd be amazed at the number of Darwin Award candidates who'll overtake on corners when travelling against the heavy peak flow. Not to mention the bozos travelling with the peak flow who act as if there's no one coming the other way... I think if I were a contra-flow commuter, I'd have abandoned the trails a long time ago.

There was recently a detour setup on the Gardiners Creek trail (discussed here in another thread) and I've got to say that I found spinning along quiet streets rather refreshing.

That said, I'm not (yet) ready to abandon the trails because it remains the most direct route for me between the burrow and the salt mine. But it's only a matter of time before I'll be looking to the roads for an alternative. One or two more frights on blind corners might be enough...

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2