From Helen.Moore@act.gov.au Fri Dec 10 14:19:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: from cs (root@cs [150.203.164.35]) by antares (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14700 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:19:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from gondor.dpa.act.gov.au (firewall-user@gondor.dpa.act.gov.au [136.153.2.50]) by cs (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06200 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:19:37 +1100 (EST) Received: by gondor.dpa.act.gov.au; id OAA02939; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:19:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from unknown(136.153.1.100) by gondor.dpa.act.gov.au via smap (V5.0) id xmaul0447; Fri, 10 Dec 99 14:19:24 +1100 Received: from act002.dpa.act.gov.au (act002.dpa.act.gov.au [10.226.1.2]) by signas.dpa.act.gov.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14522 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:27:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by act002.dpa.act.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:26:46 +1000 Message-ID: <6F1777C0F004D311A7D000A0C9F2D614AF4B8A@cal013.dpa.act.gov.au> From: MOORE Sender: "Moore, Helen" To: "'Peter Strazdins'" Subject: RE: National Road Rules - cycling Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:26:46 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Status: RO Content-Length: 6041 Dear Mr Strazdins, I am very aware of the need to maintain the level of cycling in Canberra and if possible increase the number of people using bicycles both from the point of view of general public health and environmental concerns. There is of course an issue of safety which is important for all road users. Any rules for road users are a compromise between ensuring the safety of users and not inhibiting the enjoyment or usefulness of the transport. I have been advised that the changes to the rules for cyclists have been made after extensive consultation with national cyclist groups. The changes that have been made are thought to provide the best compromise situation. For experienced riders there may be some level of irritation but for others, the new rules should provide more protection on the roads. Thank you for your interest and concern. I hope your own cycling remains enjoyable. Yours sincerely, Michael Moore MLA -----Original Message----- From: Peter Strazdins [mailto:Peter.Strazdins@cs] Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 1999 13:33 To: moore@dpa.act.gov.au Cc: reecenrma@one.net.au Subject: National Road Rules - cycling Mr Michael Moore MLA, Health Minister. ACT Legislative Assembly Dear Mr Moore, it was with considerable dismay that I recently heard of some of the new National Road Rules which have a potential negative impact on cyclists, especially commuter cyclists. I commute daily by bicycle on a 10 km journey to the Australian National University where I work. Indeed I have been commuting by bicycle in the ACT for the last 12 years. Furthermore, I am the contact for the CSIT (Computer Science and Information Technology) Ride to Work Group. (see http://cs.anu.edu.au/csitRTW/index.html). I am very pleased that the ACT Government has a strategy to promote cycling, especially as a form of commuting, for health, traffic and environmental reasons. I see some of the new road rules proposed would compromise this commitment, as they would severely discourage cycling, especially for commuting over any distance. I *strongly urge* you to abort or amend rules r248, r111, r119 and r46/48(3) in a way so that cyclists would not be strongly disadvantaged. Rules r253 requires clarification, or ammendment. Based on my long experience as a commuting cyclist, I give my reasons below. ----- Applied to ACT conditions, r248 (cyclists must not ride across a road, or part of a road, on a children's crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing) is inconvenient to the point of discouraging riding altogether. I can see the use for such a law in crowded urban areas or school crossings where many pedestrians are use the crossing. Unfortunately, as stated, it would equally apply to places where multi-use paths cross roads and cyclists are the main users. For example, many cycling commuters use the path from the north entrance of ANU to Lyneham. Under this rule, they would be obliged to dismount and remount at least 5 times each way! For many crossings, the main users are cyclists. For example, the crossing at the intersection of Haydon Drive and Ginninderra Way I very rarely see any pedestrians using it, but regularly see other cyclists using it. Furthermore, dismounting a bicycle is awkward and requires space. The Barry Drive crossing at the north entrance to ANU often sees 5 or more cyclists congregating in peak times on the small traffic island. Requiring them all to dismount at this point could be extremely dangerous. I urge you to abort this rule, or at the least exempt the crossings used by relatively few pedestrians from it. ----- Rules r111 & r119 (cyclist in left lane staying on roundabout must give way to traffic exiting from right lane) is to apply, for the first instance I know of, a situation where a non-stationary road user must give way to traffic coming from behind. Furthermore, it is difficult even for an experienced cyclist to have to look behind and yet maintain a steady curve in which to negotiate the roundabout. I cannot see how this rule then can act in the overall interests of safety. ----- Cyclists having indicate by hand signal for at least 5 seconds (rules r46(3) and r48(3)) is not only unreasonable but would also endanger the cyclist. Are drivers required to indicate for at least 5 seconds beforehand as well? And for drivers, this does not require one hand be committed to maintain the signal. But for cyclists, both hands are needed for braking as well as control. I urge that this rule be amended to a shorter period (eg. 2 seconds). ----- Similarly, rule r253 (a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian) seems unfair to cyclists. Does such a rule to the other categories equally, (eg. a driver must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a cyclist or a pedestrian)? In any case, the interpretation of `moving into the path' is problematic, not just from the legal point of view, but it could be interpreted in any way by drivers predisposed to be hostile to cyclists. ----- Please feel free to contact me if you would like any further elaboration on these views. While I commend most of the new National Road Rules, I strongly feel that the rules cited above are not only unfair and discouraging to cyclists, but that at least in ACT conditions, they offer insufficient or even negative improvements in road safety. I sincerely ask you to consider aborting or amending these rules for the ACT. Yours sincerely, Peter Strazdins ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Strazdins (Dr), Lecturer / Research Fellow, Department of Computer Science, Australian National University, Acton ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA ph +61 2 6249 5140. fax +61 2 6249 0010 e-mail Peter.Strazdins@cs http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Peter.Strazdins ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Kerrie.TUCKER@act.gov.au Fri Dec 10 14:47:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: from cs (root@cs [150.203.164.35]) by antares (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14788 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from gondor.dpa.act.gov.au (firewall-user@gondor.dpa.act.gov.au [136.153.2.50]) by cs (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06367 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:44 +1100 (EST) Received: by gondor.dpa.act.gov.au; id OAA09958; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from unknown(136.153.1.100) by gondor.dpa.act.gov.au via smap (V5.0) id xmazh7032; Fri, 10 Dec 99 14:47:39 +1100 Received: from act002.dpa.act.gov.au (act002.dpa.act.gov.au [10.226.1.2]) by signas.dpa.act.gov.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11491 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:15:38 +1100 (EST) Received: by act002.dpa.act.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:15:11 +1000 Message-ID: <6F1777C0F004D311A7D000A0C9F2D6140EB5FF@cal013.dpa.act.gov.au> From: "Tucker, Kerrie" To: "'Peter Strazdins'" Subject: RE: National Road Rules - cycling Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:15:12 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Status: RO Content-Length: 5233 Thanks for message re road rules Peter. We will have an opportunity to debate the issues next year and we will take your concerns into account. By the way I am Ms Tucker, not Mr!! Thanks again-Kerrie -----Original Message----- From: Peter Strazdins [mailto:Peter.Strazdins@cs] Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 1999 11:29 To: tucker@dpa.act.gov.au Cc: reecenrma@one.net.au Subject: National Road Rules - cycling Dear Mr Tucker, it was with considerable dismay that I recently heard of some of the new National Road Rules which have a potential negative impact on cyclists, especially commuter cyclists. I commute daily by bicycle on a 10 km journey to the Australian National University where I work. Indeed I have been commuting by bicycle in the ACT for the last 12 years. Furthermore, I am the contact for the CSIT (Computer Science and Information Technology) Ride to Work Group. (see http://cs.anu.edu.au/csitRTW/index.html). I am very pleased that the ACT Government has a strategy to promote cycling, especially as a form of commuting, for health, traffic and environmental reasons. I see some of the new road rules proposed would compromise this commitment, as they would severely discourage cycling, especially for commuting over any distance. I *strongly urge* you to abort or amend rules r248, r111, r119 and r46/48(3) in a way so that cyclists would not be strongly disadvantaged. Rules r253 requires clarification, or ammendment. Based on my long experience as a commuting cyclist, I give my reasons below. ----- Applied to ACT conditions, r248 (cyclists must not ride across a road, or part of a road, on a children's crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing) is inconvenient to the point of discouraging riding altogether. I can see the use for such a law in crowded urban areas or school crossings where many pedestrians are use the crossing. Unfortunately, as stated, it would equally apply to places where multi-use paths cross roads and cyclists are the main users. For example, many cycling commuters use the path from the north entrance of ANU to Lyneham. Under this rule, they would be obliged to dismount and remount at least 5 times each way! For many crossings, the main users are cyclists. For example, the crossing at the intersection of Haydon Drive and Ginninderra Way I very rarely see any pedestrians using it, but regularly see other cyclists using it. Furthermore, dismounting a bicycle is awkward and requires space. The Barry Drive crossing at the north entrance to ANU often sees 5 or more cyclists congregating in peak times on the small traffic island. Requiring them all to dismount at this point could be extremely dangerous. I urge you to abort this rule, or at the least exempt the crossings used by relatively few pedestrians from it. ----- Rules r111 & r119 (cyclist in left lane staying on roundabout must give way to traffic exiting from right lane) is to apply, for the first instance I know of, a situation where a non-stationary road user must give way to traffic coming from behind. Furthermore, it is difficult even for an experienced cyclist to have to look behind and yet maintain a steady curve in which to negotiate the roundabout. I cannot see how this rule then can act in the overall interests of safety. ----- Cyclists having indicate by hand signal for at least 5 seconds (rules r46(3) and r48(3)) is not only unreasonable but would also endanger the cyclist. Are drivers required to indicate for at least 5 seconds beforehand as well? And for drivers, this does not require one hand be committed to maintain the signal. But for cyclists, both hands are needed for braking as well as control. I urge that this rule be amended to a shorter period (eg. 2 seconds). ----- Similarly, rule r253 (a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian) seems unfair to cyclists. Does such a rule to the other categories equally, (eg. a driver must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a cyclist or a pedestrian)? In any case, the interpretation of `moving into the path' is problematic, not just from the legal point of view, but it could be interpreted in any way by drivers predisposed to be hostile to cyclists. ----- Please feel free to contact me if you would like any further elaboration on these views. While I commend most of the new National Road Rules, I strongly feel that the rules cited above are not only unfair and discouraging to cyclists, but that at least in ACT conditions, they offer insufficient or even negative improvements in road safety. I sincerely ask you to consider aborting or amending these rules for the ACT. Yours sincerely, Peter Strazdins ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Strazdins (Dr), Lecturer / Research Fellow, Department of Computer Science, Australian National University, Acton ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA ph +61 2 6249 5140. fax +61 2 6249 0010 e-mail Peter.Strazdins@cs http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Peter.Strazdins ------------------------------------------------------------------------