From: ilundy@spam.ua.oz (Ian Lundy)
Newsgroups: aus.bicycle
Subject: Re: Excellent bicycle paths...
Keywords: Accident statistics, NSW, cycle usage, compulsory helmets
Date: 1 Sep 92 06:20:43 GMT
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1697@spam.ua.oz> jday@spam.ua.oz (Jemery Day) writes:
>In article <lcampbel.715304673@adelphi> lcampbel@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Laurence Campbell) writes:
>>
>>In Adelaide we have an excellent bicycle track along the river Torrens,
>>almost continuous from the beach to the Hills, crossing the edge of the

It is nowhere near continuous.  Only the very foolish or very patient would 
attempt this path without a map.  Especially where the path crosses council
borders there are numerous dead ends, unsignposted side tracks and surface 
changes (it is often rough dirt).  There are parts of the path that are 
adequate for what they are intended for but the number of dangers encountered 
on this path makes cycling this path from the hills to the sea dangerous.

>>City centre. (Some of it is under water today, but this doesn't happen very
>>often.) The greatest hazard is people (95% of whom are female) who walk their

What a load of sexist crap.

>>vicious dogs (after filling them with laxatives, apparently), generally without
>>leads, allowing them to attack wildlife and cyclists and foul the track. I
>>suggest that in discussions concerning new bicycle tracks, it would be good
>>at the outset to get agreement that the track is for bicycles and not a
>>dogs' assault course and toilet.

The original plan was that it would adequately deal with pedestrians, dogs, 
bicycles and any other users. 

>
>While I agree with some of the sentiments in this post, excellent is not
>a word that I would use to describe this bicycle track. As a

Bicycle track is not a word I would use to describe this path.  This path
is often unsealed, requires several creek crossings on stepping stones 
(a challenge for the most experienced MTBer), is often dangerously steep and 
narrow for short sections (no warning signs) and has many other obstacles too
numerous to mention here.


>recreational facility it does have certain benefits but in my view
>Suffers from extremely poor design and engineering standards and in
>places is extremely dangerous - poor sight lines, sharp corners, bad
>cambering, steep inclines, inadequate signposting, much too narrow in
>places ...

Not to mention the notrious permapine bollard hidden under the bridge in
St. Peters.  Then there was Walkerville council making their section narrower
than the guidelines allow in order to save money.  

>
>As I recall, a recent report indicated that a very large proportion of
>cyclists admitted to hospital had accidents on this "excellent bicycle

I think the figure given was somewhere between 30% and 40%.

>track". Ok, granted it is better than no track at all, but it is not
>much better in my opinion. With sensible design and engineering to the

I dispute this given the accident rates on the path.  The linear park
authority (whatever it is called) is looking into improving the facility so 
that it meets minimum acceptable safety standards and to give it some sort of
continuity and signposting. 

>standards that car drivers expect this coul have been a first class
>facility.
>
>Dogs and pedestrians can be a problem, but I think they are
>comparatively minor. As a commuting facility, the track is hopeless -
>for recreational purposes it is best treated with a great deal of
>caution.

Parts of this track are even adequate for commuting cycling, but it could not
be considered a commuting facility due to its lack of continuity.  Anyone who
has tried riding this path on a Sunday recently would know that this path is
best avoided altogether on weekends, although during the week it can be a
pleasant ride provided you ride slowly and cautiously, especially around
corners, most of which are blind.

The really sad part about the linear park is that some councils seriously
believe that they have created a facility vauable to cyclists.  I believe
facilities like this are detrimental to cyclists, partly because they are so
expensive, but also because motorists then expect cyclists to use the
"bike paths" provided and get off "their" roads.  This facility will be 
improved in the future with councils becoming increasingly aware of the problems
with this path and their liability for injuries caused on an extremely badly
designed and implemented facility.

>
>For SA readers - here is a plug for BISA, the Bicycle Institute of South
>Australia, lobbying to make conditions better for cyclists. If you are
>not a member, or have not heard of BISA, write to GPO Box 792 for
>membership information. Membership includes subscription to Australian
>Cyclist. The more members, the stronger the organisation. Conditions for
>cyclists are unlikely to improve unless cyclists are willing to push for
>changes.
>
Ian Lundy