[LINK] Re: RUF Dual Mode transport system

Marghanita da Cruz marghanita at ramin.com.au
Wed Jun 7 10:53:56 EST 2006


Tom Worthington wrote:
> At 01:51 PM 6/2/2006, Karl Auer wrote:
> 
>> ... Cycle lanes with a dotted divider, at least a metre wide, are a 
>> good compromise. You need minimal legislative support, cars can use 
>> the extra width when there are no bikes, and they offer a basic safety 
>> margin. ... delivery trucks and telephoning car drivers
>> think of them as extra parking space.
> 
> 
> Cambridge UK has some clever bicycle use, including streets which are 
> one way for cars but two ways for bicycles. There is also an automatic 
> bollard outside King's College Chapel, which retracts into the roadway 
> to let some vehicles through <http://www.tomw.net.au/2004/europe/>.
<snip>
 From visits to Beijing in 1993/4 I recall the main road which passes
the forbidden city has three lanes for cars, another lane as wide as two
car lanes  for cycles and then wide pedestrian paths - going each way.

Guess where there is a demand, the authorities respond.

There is a problem with mixing cars and bicycles on the roads. Cyclists
do not have rear vision mirrors and cannot check for traffic, their
signalling is pretty poor also. Recently I was on a road, northern
beaches Sydney, with a group of cyclists. They were obviously trying to
stay on the shoulder... but the problem, for me as a driver, was I did
not know when they would pull out into the traffic to overtake another
cyclist.

If bikes are going to be registered, cyclists will have to be licensed -
this is not going to encourage more people to use bicycles.

It would be useful to see statistics of bicycle injuries...and whether
this is a health insurance issue or not.

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
Ramin Communications
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414-869202
Email: marghanita at ramin.com.au








More information about the Link mailing list