Adelaide's Dangerous Roads

Message

neoballmon · #16 Post by **neoballmon** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:28 pm

I understand that in peak traffic times, it's virtually impossible to reach 60 along this (and many other) stretches. I'm more patient than the average driver in this situation, and I'm content with bumper-to-bumper, because I know it's un-avoidable. My frustration comes at times like midday, or 7pm, when the road isn't overly busy, it is possible to smoothly drive at 60, and someone sits in the right lane, way under the speed limit, and matching the speed of the (more considerate) driver in the left lane. They generally have no intention to turn right, and are just being a nuiscence.

Also, whilst driving up South Road, a little south from this accident prone area (between Celtic and Daws), traffic was reduced to 1 lane this afternoon, from Tonsley, because a truck had veered off the road, demolished a stobie pole (almost beyond recognition; it took me a while to notice it was one), clipped the bottom of a business' sign, and rolled.. As I was passing through, they were setting up a crane to pick up the truck I presume. Not sure what caused this, inattentive driving and slamming on brakes, or if someone had cut the driver off, and they really didn't have much other option.
To clarify, it wasn't a semi or anything large. Was a relatively small truck.

claybro · #17 Post by **claybro** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:35 pm

mshagg wrote:There's plenty of times through the edwardstown stretch of south road that 45km/hr or less is an entirely appropriate speed to drive. Doing so doesnt make someone a dickhead.

The point is that as this is Adelaide's MAJOR North/South arterial road and it should not be appropriate that traffic is EVER required to sit on 45km/h for safety reasons. Means that this road is nowhere near fit for purpose. Which then has led to my other chestnut as to wheather any proposed minor widening in this strech will be sufficient. If left turns, bus turn outs driveways to businesses etc are still allowed after upgrade this will be a major contributer to rear end collsions as free flowing traffic even at 60km/h comes to a screaming halt (or in a trucks case -not) by nanna wanting to turn her hyundai into Spotlight for some knitting yarn.

mshagg · #18 Post by **mshagg** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:43 am

claybro wrote:Means that this road is nowhere near fit for purpose.

Completely agree with you there claybro. No matter how much additional capacity they can squeeze out of the expressway, it doesnt mean much as everything north of tonsley park is totally inadequate for the amount of traffic being generated by the southern burbs.

rhino · #19 Post by **rhino** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:25 pm

mshagg wrote:
claybro wrote:Means that this road is nowhere near fit for purpose.
Completely agree with you there claybro. No matter how much additional capacity they can squeeze out of the expressway, it doesnt mean much as everything north of tonsley park is totally inadequate for the amount of traffic being generated by the southern burbs.

Consider:

A fair chunk of traffic from the southern suburbs exits the expressway at Marion Road, and isn't in need of the "north-south corridor".

At the end of the expressway, South Road is what? 8 lanes wide? until the Ayliffes Road junction.

Another large chunk of traffic heads up Ayliffes Road towards Goodwood Road. Some of this traffic will then head up Springbank road. None of it is in need of the "north-south corridor".

By the time South Road is north of Tonsley Park, it is not carrying "the ammount of traffic generated by the southern suburbs".

I am not advocating the status quo, but please don't try to justify your thinking by using erroneous arguments.

claybro · #20 Post by **claybro** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:49 pm

rhino wrote:By the time South Road is north of Tonsley Park, it is not carrying "the ammount of traffic generated by the southern suburbs".

The North/South corridor discussion always seems to end up a discussion about how to handle commuter traffic. It is not the 2 hours per day peak demand that we need to address, but the large volume of commerical vehicles (and private cars) that travel between Southern industrial/warehousing ie Lonsdale, and the Northern manufacturing/warhousing and Port areas, and the average speed they are to travel. Time is Money! If as a result of significantly increasing the amount of capacity on South road also happens to improve traffic flow on Marion and Goodwood Roads during peak times then all the better.

rev · #21 Post by **rev** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:28 pm

Here's a few dangers on our roads, all clad in lycra.

: 10153099_240094572850201_8797833087385581296_n.jpg (26.32 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

Pack riding in the middle of a road...when there is a marked bike lane. Notice the special kind of d*** head in the right lane..look how far the car has to move to the right, to avoid him. I'd imagine that car is very close to the curb.

: 10288783_242611385931853_8902412425149938668_n.jpg (47.03 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

Again, what's wrong with the bike lane? Do all these douchebags think they are in the tour down under on closed roads?
Are they just that arrogant and up them selves they think they can do whatever they want? Until a truck driver gets frustrated and mows them all down.

: 1530575_210855909107401_1186749906_n.jpg (41.17 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

: 1530575_210855909107401_1186749906_n.jpg (41.17 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

These are even better. Through the narrow roads of the god damn hills. Pack riding.
Bunch of lycra douchebags!!

Nathan · #22 Post by **Nathan** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:45 pm

Rev, I can't quite make it out, but it appears the bike lane signs have operational hours. Usually that means they're only bike lanes during peak, and are *not* bike lanes outside of those hours.

As for the pack on the hills road, they do that for safety, as people try to squeeze past within the same lane if they ride single file on the left. By taking the lane, they force drivers to wait and overtake safely (plus they're much easier to see).

rev · #23 Post by **rev** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:58 pm

Nathan wrote:Rev, I can't quite make it out, but it appears the bike lane signs have operational hours. Usually that means they're only bike lanes during peak, and are *not* bike lanes outside of those hours.

As for the pack on the hills road, they do that for safety, as people try to squeeze past within the same lane if they ride single file on the left. By taking the lane, they force drivers to wait and overtake safely (plus they're much easier to see).

To be honest I've never noticed any sign that says a cyclist can ride in a bike lane between certain times only.

Even if there was bike lanes like that, what would you rather, be dead, or get a caution and/or pay a small fine?

These idiots are PART of the problem on Adelaide's roads.
Those idiots who went around riding without helmets, that idiot who claims compulsory helmet laws are sexist, the idiots you see in the photos above, ARE THE PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO CYCLISTS.

Before someone gets all distressed and upset, I know not all cyclists are like the mindas above. But too many of them are.
There's more mindas driving cars. But that doesn't excuse or take away from the idiotic behavior in those photos, which are only a tiny example of what goes on on our roads daily.
And yes I know there's just as many horror stories if not more from cyclists about motorists.

Thought I'd post these as there was all that pro-cyclist share the road crap the other week.

Dog · #24 Post by **Dog** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:43 pm

I often wonder why many cyclist are all over the road and don't actually use the marked bike lanes, and if they do, they often use the edge closest to the traffic? My only thought would be other than being pigheaded is a fear of punctures as there's often a lot of crap on the road edges?
And why would anyone would take their life into there hands and cycle the Norton Summit road, as a motorist you never know what galahs you are going to come across riding two or three abreast around any bend. Even one cyclist can hold up dozens of cars from start to finish.

#25 Post by **Will** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:18 pm

Nathan wrote:

As for the pack on the hills road, they do that for safety, as people try to squeeze past within the same lane if they ride single file on the left. By taking the lane, they force drivers to wait and overtake safely (plus they're much easier to see).

I'm with rev on this one. What makes cyclists feel so entitled that they can take over an entire lane, on a road that probably has a speed limit of 80-100, forcing motorists to engage in dangerous overtaking manoeuvres or be forced to wait behind them at a significantly lower speed?

As a motorist, I always look out for cyclists and give them a wide berth. I would expect cyclists to show the same respect for motorists. And unfortunately as a victim of the abovementioned scenarios, such actions only show contempt and arrogance.

Nathan · #26 Post by **Nathan** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:36 pm

Let me start by saying I'm not a road cyclist, just an urban cyclist (in other words, I ride primarily for transport within the CBC and inner inner suburbs, not for sport/recreation. But I do have friends and family who are.

When cyclists feel entitled to take an entire lane, is usually because they are. By law. As I pointed out before, if they are it's general because it's safer to do so. They're not doing it because they're trying to piss off motorists. If you feel like you're forced into a "dangerous overtaking manoeuvre", then you shouldn't be overtaking.

Dog, you're right. Bike lanes can collect a *lot* of crap. Even my short ride, I find plenty of rubbish, glass, and tree debris. You really don't notice it driving, it's only when you start riding that it becomes apparent. The other is when the bike lane is alongside parking. The bike lane conveniently marks out the exact width of an open car door, hence the number of cyclist riding right on the line.

As for helmets, there are plenty of reasons to do away with the compulsory law. The woman complaining about bad hair does a disservice to the debate. Cycling is actually much safer than it is perceived. The risk of head injury is actually lower than driving, or even taking a shower, and about the same as walking on a footpath - yet we would never force helmet laws on those activities. The real safety in cycling comes in numbers, so better to take measures which increase cyclist numbers. As well as making cycling seem more dangerous, it also contributes to the perception in Australia that cycling is primarily a sporting/recreational activity. (The cliche is the Lycra clad road cyclist). This discourages casual and commuter cyclists, and skews cycling heavily towards males as well.

Remember, cyclists aren't one group. Walking a couple of blocks to a meeting in the city wearing your suit is completely different than jogging 10km in your sweats. The mechanics are similar, but the purpose and infrastructure needs are completely different. The same applies to cycling. The way road cyclists use the road shouldn't colour the way commuters are perceived or the way infrastructure should be designed for them. (That's why mention of road cyclists should never enter the debate on things like the Frome St bikeway).

Maximus · #27 Post by **Maximus** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:01 am

I'm a road cyclist (on and off). My perspective on those photos...

No. 1 -- Yep, not a great example of considerate road riding. Unless they are preparing to do a right hand turn, there's no reason to be so far over towards the right hand side of the lane. And don't even get me started on the guy in the right hand lane! Whether they should even be claiming the lane at all is perhaps a matter of time-of-day (e.g. not such a big deal if it's a quiet Sunday morning -- particularly as it's a two-lane road). Nevertheless, the bike lane looks particularly wide and I see no reason (glass and other obstacles permitting) why they couldn't safely ride two-abreast within that lane.

No. 2 -- Even worse, particularly as it's a single-lane road. Again, the bike lane looks particularly wide. The group I ride with would definitely ride two-abreast within that bike lane. If we were to ride outside the bike lane, riders at the back of the bunch would generally call out "car back" to warn of approaching cars, and riders would move to the left upon that call.

No. 3 -- Don't have a problem with this, so long as they are riding considerately, although ideally they should be in a neater two-abreast formation. With a car approaching, I would expect a call of "car back" and for everyone to fall into single file as soon as there is a safe opportunity for the car to pass. In some instances, where the lead riders have a better view of the road ahead, I've even seen cyclists wave a car through to overtake.

rev · #28 Post by **rev** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:03 pm

The time of day and what day it is, isn't really relevant imho.
Road rules, such as staying in the designated lanes, not riding in packs hogging half a road, apply at all times. Correct me if I'm wrong and there is some obscure little known by-law somewhere though.

Number 3 should bother you the most actually.
In the other photos, there is room for them to get out of the way, should they see a speeding car or truck coming, or some other hazard to them.
In number 3, there is NOWHERE for them to go. By the time they get up that little rise on the left hand side of the road, they will have been collected by a car or truck.

What all three photos do is highlight the inconsiderate riders out there. The many hundreds, if not thousands, who are not only inconsiderate but arrogant, rude and very very aggressive when confronted.

The problem in Adelaide is our roads aren't designed to accommodate motor vehicles and push bikes.
Painting on some extra white lines to designate bike lanes, doesn't work. What it does is create less room for cars, or take away lanes, and create more headaches. Taking away lanes and building concrete curbs to create separate lanes on roads for bikes, ie Frome St, doesn't work either.
From my pov, and I'm not an engineer or planner, our road infrastructure needs a major overhaul, overall anyway, but also to better incorporate things such as bike lanes.
How are motorists supposed to leave a one meter gap between their vehicles and cyclists in bike lanes, when there isn't a meter to spare?
Are motorists supposed to slow down and bank up traffic behind them, while there's a cyclist in a bike lane, if there is traffic in the other lane? How does this work during peak hour? It doesn't.

The bike lanes we see are a reaction to a problem. They aren't a solution.

Police also need to start enforcing bike related road traffic laws.
Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to just ride all over the road. Sorry, but a bike does not fit into an environment(roadway) with motor vehicles that can not only crush the bike but kill the cyclist. Just like we have footpaths, we need proper bike lanes. Just like pedestrians have to use a crossing and wait for the little green man, so should cyclists have to use the same crossings.
Cyclists should not be sitting at the front of a lane of traffic waiting for the lights to go green. They shouldn't be sticking their arms out to indicate which way they are about to swerve in front of you.

Helmets shouldn't be compulsory. They should be advisable to wear. If you choose not to wear a helmet and you suffer a head injury while riding your bike, you should automatically forfeit all insurance cover.

If you feel like you're forced into a "dangerous overtaking manoeuvre", then you shouldn't be overtaking.

The problem though is that motorists SHOULDN'T be FORCED into making overtaking manoeuvrings, dangerous or not, because some cyclists are cowboys who think when they are on the road that they own it.
Roads weren't built for people to ride around at 30-40kmh on push bikes and mix it up with motor vehicles weighing a tonne and more.

The other is when the bike lane is alongside parking. The bike lane conveniently marks out the exact width of an open car door, hence the number of cyclist riding right on the line.

I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with a cyclist moving out to avoid a parked car. I've slowed down plenty of times in anticipation of just that happening. It's another reason why we need our roads overhauled properly to include bike lanes instead of the bandaid fix we get which is just an after thought and a reaction.

But how about when there are no parked cars ahead? What, do the lycra brigade need a wide berth of hundreds of meters or a few kilometers or something to avoid the parked car?

Aidan · #29 Post by **Aidan** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:09 pm

So you're saying that delaying motorists slightly is so abhorrent that cyclists should lose their right to use roads such as #3?

Road design is not the main problem — the main problem is that attitude to cyclists!

In most cases the solutions you say don't work do. And since when did the 1m rule apply to bike lanes? Although if a bike is in a bike lane, it's usually very easy for a car to give it a metre of room without leaving its lane.

rev · #30 Post by **rev** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:23 pm

Sorry pal but the roads of Adelaide were built for motorists, not cyclists. Painting a few extra lines onto congested roads to appease a few noisy people, doesn't solve anything.
No enforcement of laws regarding cyclists doesn't solve anything either.

Can every cyclist maintain a 60 or 50kmh speed? No.
Then what makes anyone think it's a good idea to have these objects which weigh considerably less then 100kg, on main roads between motor vehicles? A guy above even thinks helmets aren't necessary.

What happens if a cyclist, like the photos above stacks it? They're dead.
If you crash in your car, into another car ahead of you, at least you have safety devices on your at to protect you and minimise inuries. Cars are also designed now to lessen injuries and damage.
Are you going to fit airbags to your push bike?

Which is why I'm saying we need a new approach to our road infrastructure that takes bike lanes into account to make it safe for motorists and cyclists. The last thing a cyclist wants is to get hit by a vehicle..the last thing a motorist wants is a cyclist and/or his bike through his windscreen.

Cyclists don't belong on main roads mixing it up with motor vehicles weighing multiple tonnes.

Do it properly, not the usual bandaid approach.

What attitude to cyclists? Did you even read what I said..
If I had said motorists were the problem you'd probably have argued back that cyclists are the problem.

The logic some of you are displaying, is like saying the kid mma cage fighters in the USA should be allowed to fight against adult mma fighters.