Cyclists needs

A presentation by John Offer (from the City of Stirling) to the WA Cycling Safety Forum has some interesting approaches to the needs of users and appropriate treatments to cater for them (follow the link to see it). In Western Australia cyclists older than 12 are not allowed on the footpath. The intent of this is to minimise conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. But John rightly points out that many adult cyclists have very similar riding styles and confidence/skill levels as younger cyclists. They are therefore proposing to allow adults to cycle on footpaths as long as they are slow. To reduce the speed of cyclists on pathways they are trialing a 'Stirling Gate' - photo below.

It would be interesting to find out how that has performed.

With regards the types of cyclists he uses three groups - the 12-year old cyclist, the casual adult or POBSO (don't know what that means), and the Adult experienced cyclist group or commuter. My personal preference is the classification I developed after reviewing several alternatives (including 'The Principles of Cyclist Network Planning’ Land Transport NZ). 

Type of cyclist	Description
Beginner	Beginner cyclists include young children and novice cyclists. They can be unpredictable and prefer full separation from other traffic, particularly when travelling along busy roads. Trips by beginner cyclists are commonly to school and shops and for pleasure near their homes or in recreation areas. Beginner cyclists often find it difficult interacting safely with vehicle traffic when not on traffic-calmed local streets. They prefer grade-separation or signal controlled intersections when crossing busy roads.
Cautious	Cautious cyclists include those with basic competence and more experienced cyclists who are risk averse. Cautious cyclists prefer separated cycle facilities but can ride on quiet two-lane roads, can manoeuvre past parked cars, and merge across and turn right from beside the centre line. They can cope with simple traffic signals and single-lane roundabouts that are designed for slow through traffic. When required to travel on busy roads, cautious cyclists prefer cycle lanes and facilities at intersections. They are not well equipped to interact with faster traffic, multi-lane roads and multi-lane roundabouts. They usually lack the confidence to defend a lane where the lanes are too narrow to share. Cautious cyclists are willing to use alternative longer routes in order to avoid situations perceived as high risk.
Confident	Experienced cyclists interact assertively with traffic. They do not require specific cycle facilities, only the space on the road when in amongst faster/busier traffic situations. Experienced cyclists will defend a lane where there is not enough room, judge the merge across faster multi-lane traffic, use multi-lane roundabouts in most cases (though apprehensively), and will not usually divert to a cycle path unless it provides a higher level of service than riding on-road.

I like this classification because it does not confuse the trip purpose, age or experience of the rider with their needs. Any classification that has a category 'commuter' does not recognise that commuters can range from novice cyclists to confident cyclists and the network needs to account for the needs of all to maximise the potential to promote cycling.

Bike Path Bollards

A hot topic for Brisbane-area cyclists is Council's use of these barriers to prevent vehicles from driving on off-street bikeways:

Cyclists contend that these barriers pose a crash danger to riders and, at a minimum, create an unnecessary pinch point. But Council maintains that these are needed to keep people from taking their cars right on the path. As of now, they are still installed as standard practice.

However, guidance from other cities and countries tends to recommend bollards only as a last resort and when actually needed. The US Federal Highway Administration offers the following guidance:

Trail managers should question whether bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers are needed at all. For the purpose of the bullets below, “bollard” includes bollards, gates, fences, or any other barrier constructed or installed next to, within, or across a trail presumably to restrict unauthorized access.

• Even "properly" installed bollards constitute a serious and potentially fatal safety hazard to unwary trail users. In addition, no bollard layout that admits bicycles, tricycles, and bicycle trailers can exclude single-track motor vehicles such as motorcycles and mopeds. For these reasons, bollards should never be a default treatment, and should not be used unless there is a documented history of intrusion by unauthorized cars, trucks, or other unauthorized vehicles.
• A landscaped median may be an appropriate method to reduce the likelihood that somebody might think the shared use path is a public street or driveway. See "What kind of barrier will keep cars off a bike path?" by John Williams and Kathleen McLaughlin, originally published in Bicycle Forum (Issue 30, August 1992), now NCBW Forum. See Article.
• Bollards are often ineffective: a determined person is likely to go around or go through. This may result in additional maintenance costs for the trail, either to repair or replace the bollards, or to repair trail or landscaping damage where vehicles go around the bollards.
• Bollards are often a hazard to trail users, who can crash into them, possibly resulting in serious injury or death. Poorly installed bollards can lead to head-on collisions. Bollards are involved in "second user" crashes, where the first user hides the bollard until it is too late to avoid it, even if the first user has adequate sight distance. These crashes can produce serious or incapacitating injuries. This can happen to pedestrians as well as bicyclists or other higher speed users.
• Unjustified bollards can create liability exposure. Trail managers should consider whether or not they increase their liability if they install bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers.
• Bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers can slow access for emergency response.

But the literature acknowledges that barriers are sometimes needed. What types are better than others? One of the most popular treatments is to split the path entrance into two one-way paths:

They can be designed just wide enough for emergency vehicles to fit through, while appearing too small for cars. If less space is available, the one-way path width can be reduced with low height plantings in the median so that emergency vehicles can drive over the top.

What other treatments have worked well?