Page 3532 - Week 11 - Thursday, 24 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
TAMS collected quantitative data to allow for the analysis of driver behaviours with each of the treatments. The data classified vehicles which accepted the device and corrected their path to avoid the bike lanes and those who rejected the device and continued to drive through the bike lane.
The clear message from the observational records is that in all cases where separation devices were installed there was an initial reduction in the number of vehicles entering the bike lanes. It is also clear that over the duration of the trial the number of vehicles that accepted the device and corrected their trajectory reduced slightly. This probably represents drivers who are regular users of the network and consider the impact of the devices acceptable to cross.
It was also observed that driver behaviours were significantly different when a cyclist was present in the bike lane in the vicinity of the devices. As you would hope and expect, drivers were less likely to enter the bike lane when a cyclist was using it.
In addition to the analysis of the behaviour of vehicles, it is important for Roads ACT to understand how the devices perform with respect to durability and reflectivity. Regular inspections of the quality and performance of the products were undertaken and the report identifies where the performance of the devices was acceptable for use elsewhere on the network. From the observations of the sites included in this trial, it could be said that installing cycle separation devices at known potential conflict points would create a safer environment for cyclists to ride on, based upon the observations of driver behaviour.
While the quantitative data suggests that motorists are less likely to enter the on-road cycle lanes, it is important to gauge and assess the opinions of the user groups. The NRMA and ACTION buses were generally supportive of the separators, provided adequate lane widths for vehicles were maintained.
The view of cyclists, however, was not as supportive. It really does go without saying that they are perhaps the key stakeholders in this discussion. In their comments, Pedal Power were of the view that the devices were limited to a warning function, reinforcing a psychological incentive for people in vehicles to stay out of the cycle lane. While this is obviously a positive, their overall view was that the devices created a new hazard for cyclists and that therefore the devices were not appropriate for use on standard on-road lanes in the territory.
In light of this feedback and in discussions with TAMS, the conclusion that has been drawn from this trial is that the devices can be suitable in specific locations or for specific problems. For example, Roads ACT are considering the use of devices at known hot spots such as near intersections along Northbourne Avenue, as was identified in the recent cycling crash statistics report. However, there will not be a general rollout of the devices across the ACT. Use of the devices will be a matter for ongoing consultation with key stakeholders through fora such as the bicycle users group.
Cycling in Canberra continues to grow as an attractive and healthy means of commuting and recreation. It is important to continue to provide safe cycling routes
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video