Citizens' Jury submission form - YourSAy
Citizens’ Jury submission form One tricky policy problem. Countless potential solutions. Plenty of stakeholders with ideas about how it should be approached. 35 ordinary South Australians charged with finding solutions to some tricky policy issues. Welcome to South Australia’s second Citizens’ Jury! During September and October 2014, a Citizens’ Jury will be given the opportunity to deliberate and make recommendations on the issue:
Motorists and cyclists will always be using our roads. What things could we trial to ensure they share the roads safely? Please fill in this submission form prior to Wednesday 17 September. Your submission should be no more than two pages. Clearly outline your point of view and provide examples to supporting your submission. Details about you: 1.
Name Edward Stratton-Smith
2.
Private citizen
3.
Contact details:
The problem For some time, Australia has had a tiny number of people riding bikes as transport. Those who do are faced with a dangerous and hostile environment. They already do “share the road”. That is the problem. Because the environment is hostile and dangerous, very few other people bother to use a bike – even for short journeys.1 When people choose to drive under conditions hostile to cycling we need to recognise that a rational choice is being made given the options available. If we change the environment, we change the choices available. Calls for people to obey the rules and share the road do not work. We have tried that for years. Neither motorists nor cyclists deliberately try to hurt each other but far too often, cyclists and motorists are put in positions of conflict where a simple error can be fatal. There is no reason why Adelaide could not have many more people choosing the bike for some journeys. The bulk of car journeys in Adelaide are shorter than 2km – a distance easily achievable by bike if it were made a realistic choice. And our current car-based environment excludes many sectors of the population including the elderly, children and those who for a variety of reasons do not have access to a car. We achieve that by making it a safe and welcoming choice; by making choosing the bike safe and convenient and removing conflict with motor vehicles. Measures such as helmet laws, hi-viz2 and calls to “share the road” do not address the root problem. So what do we do? Our road system must be based on prevention and homogeneity.3 Crashes should be prevented from occurring in the first place and the risk of serious injuries occurring if they do should be reduced. Homogeneity requires equalising, as much as possible, the mass, speed and direction of vehicles to reduce collision risk. In particular, fast objects should not share space with slow ones. Vehicles travelling at speed should not be travelling in opposing directions without separation. Likewise measures should be taken to separate bodies of unequal mass; for example, heavy vehicles like buses and lorries should be not be sharing the same space as pedestrians and cyclists. Roads need to be designated by their type and proposed use. That determines speed and traffic volume and the corresponding treatment and layout, including provision for cycling.4 Residential areas In residential areas motor vehicles should be slowed down so that the speed differential between them and bicycles is lowered. That way the roads can be safely shared. In addition, roads should be blocked to motorised through traffic but not bicycles – using filtered permeability. Admittedly such measures can make car journeys longer but only those in the immediate neighbourhood; journeys that are short anyway. It is a small price to pay for a safer and more democratic road system.
1
The introduction of mandatory helmet laws (something unique to Australia and New Zealand) is an added disincentive. 2 http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ 3 These are principles of sustainable safety introduced by Thinker in Residence, Professor Fred Wegman. See: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/ 4 http://bikeadelaide.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/60-50-40-30.html
Main and arterial roads Once motor vehicle speeds reach 60km/h and more, it is simply inappropriate for cyclists to be in the same space as them. It is inviting trouble. At those speeds and with high traffic volumes, cyclists should be separated from motor traffic on protected high-quality bike paths. Separating different road users in this way means that not only are vulnerable road users protected but journeys for motorists are safer, smoother and less stressful. The protection should continue at intersections, including by the use of separate light signals for bike riders. The city Adelaide’s CBD is blessed with very wide streets. There is no reason why all of the main streets cannot have safe, separated and dedicated bike lanes on each. Recent experience in Sydney and New York reveals that they reduce rather than increase congestion. The result should be a safe, designated, joined-up cycling network that is safe enough for everyone to use; from children to the elderly. “It won’t work here” It is not practical here to list all of the many myths and excuses put forward for why a change in transport choices won’t work. I recommend a read of this where they are all succinctly dealt with: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html So how do we do it? Approximately every 15 years, roads are dug up and resurfaced. Depending on the expected volume of traffic, some work might be done on the foundations to increase their load bearing capacity. It is during these times when the road is resurfaced that we have the opportunity to rearrange the road layout to improve safety for vulnerable road users and to change the layout based on our future needs and preferences as well as, if necessary, to deal with congestion problems. Too often, the opportunity is wasted and the same flawed road layout as before is painted back on to the new surface.5 To rearrange the location of kerbs, median strips, bus lanes, bike lanes and traffic lanes ought to add little or no cost to the transport budget. Provided we use those opportunities to provide for all road users, after a relatively short time we should have the beginnings of a fairly comprehensive car and cycling network close to the standard of the Dutch and Danes.
I, the undersigned, provide this submission on the following basis:
The submission will be provided to the jury for consideration The submission will be hosted for public comment on the internet I may be invited by the Jury to present the ideas within this submission to the Jury.
Name:
Edward Stratton-Smith
Date:
14 September 2014
5
http://bikeadelaide.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-40-year-excuse.html
Motorists and cyclists will always be using our roads. What things could we trial to ensure they share the roads safely? Please fill in this submission form prior to Wednesday 17 September. Your submission should be no more than two pages. Clearly outline your point of view and provide examples to supporting your submission. Details about you: 1.
Name Edward Stratton-Smith
2.
Private citizen
3.
Contact details:
The problem For some time, Australia has had a tiny number of people riding bikes as transport. Those who do are faced with a dangerous and hostile environment. They already do “share the road”. That is the problem. Because the environment is hostile and dangerous, very few other people bother to use a bike – even for short journeys.1 When people choose to drive under conditions hostile to cycling we need to recognise that a rational choice is being made given the options available. If we change the environment, we change the choices available. Calls for people to obey the rules and share the road do not work. We have tried that for years. Neither motorists nor cyclists deliberately try to hurt each other but far too often, cyclists and motorists are put in positions of conflict where a simple error can be fatal. There is no reason why Adelaide could not have many more people choosing the bike for some journeys. The bulk of car journeys in Adelaide are shorter than 2km – a distance easily achievable by bike if it were made a realistic choice. And our current car-based environment excludes many sectors of the population including the elderly, children and those who for a variety of reasons do not have access to a car. We achieve that by making it a safe and welcoming choice; by making choosing the bike safe and convenient and removing conflict with motor vehicles. Measures such as helmet laws, hi-viz2 and calls to “share the road” do not address the root problem. So what do we do? Our road system must be based on prevention and homogeneity.3 Crashes should be prevented from occurring in the first place and the risk of serious injuries occurring if they do should be reduced. Homogeneity requires equalising, as much as possible, the mass, speed and direction of vehicles to reduce collision risk. In particular, fast objects should not share space with slow ones. Vehicles travelling at speed should not be travelling in opposing directions without separation. Likewise measures should be taken to separate bodies of unequal mass; for example, heavy vehicles like buses and lorries should be not be sharing the same space as pedestrians and cyclists. Roads need to be designated by their type and proposed use. That determines speed and traffic volume and the corresponding treatment and layout, including provision for cycling.4 Residential areas In residential areas motor vehicles should be slowed down so that the speed differential between them and bicycles is lowered. That way the roads can be safely shared. In addition, roads should be blocked to motorised through traffic but not bicycles – using filtered permeability. Admittedly such measures can make car journeys longer but only those in the immediate neighbourhood; journeys that are short anyway. It is a small price to pay for a safer and more democratic road system.
1
The introduction of mandatory helmet laws (something unique to Australia and New Zealand) is an added disincentive. 2 http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ 3 These are principles of sustainable safety introduced by Thinker in Residence, Professor Fred Wegman. See: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/ 4 http://bikeadelaide.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/60-50-40-30.html
Main and arterial roads Once motor vehicle speeds reach 60km/h and more, it is simply inappropriate for cyclists to be in the same space as them. It is inviting trouble. At those speeds and with high traffic volumes, cyclists should be separated from motor traffic on protected high-quality bike paths. Separating different road users in this way means that not only are vulnerable road users protected but journeys for motorists are safer, smoother and less stressful. The protection should continue at intersections, including by the use of separate light signals for bike riders. The city Adelaide’s CBD is blessed with very wide streets. There is no reason why all of the main streets cannot have safe, separated and dedicated bike lanes on each. Recent experience in Sydney and New York reveals that they reduce rather than increase congestion. The result should be a safe, designated, joined-up cycling network that is safe enough for everyone to use; from children to the elderly. “It won’t work here” It is not practical here to list all of the many myths and excuses put forward for why a change in transport choices won’t work. I recommend a read of this where they are all succinctly dealt with: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html So how do we do it? Approximately every 15 years, roads are dug up and resurfaced. Depending on the expected volume of traffic, some work might be done on the foundations to increase their load bearing capacity. It is during these times when the road is resurfaced that we have the opportunity to rearrange the road layout to improve safety for vulnerable road users and to change the layout based on our future needs and preferences as well as, if necessary, to deal with congestion problems. Too often, the opportunity is wasted and the same flawed road layout as before is painted back on to the new surface.5 To rearrange the location of kerbs, median strips, bus lanes, bike lanes and traffic lanes ought to add little or no cost to the transport budget. Provided we use those opportunities to provide for all road users, after a relatively short time we should have the beginnings of a fairly comprehensive car and cycling network close to the standard of the Dutch and Danes.
I, the undersigned, provide this submission on the following basis:
The submission will be provided to the jury for consideration The submission will be hosted for public comment on the internet I may be invited by the Jury to present the ideas within this submission to the Jury.
Name:
Edward Stratton-Smith
Date:
14 September 2014
5
http://bikeadelaide.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-40-year-excuse.html
