Lives are at risk on Commonwealth Avenue Bridge

Maya123 said :

I stated if one keeps left we should all have no problems sharing the path. I walk on the paths, but make sure I keep left; fast cyclists, slow cyclists pass me and there is no problem regardless of speed, because I am keeping left and when I change direction I look behind me to check the traffic; just as I do when driving. Why do some people (a minority) have such a problem doing this!

Most joggers stay left and are not a problem, as do most walkers. It’s only a few who don’t know to stay left.

My experience today must have been totally out of the norm then. I came across a person walking their dog on a leash, using up both sides of the path, indeed probably more of the right hand lane than the left. Then a parent pushing a stroller, again right in the middle of the path. After passing another couple of cyclists coming the other way, staying nicely in their lane, I had to again go out onto the grass to pass a couple walking side by side and taking up the whole path. Now I don’t mind doing this and always go off the path to give sufficient clearance so that I won’t accidentally clip them with my handlebars or surprise them if they haven’t heard me coming.
I am not a fan of ringing the bell as usually the other users panic, if they haven’t got their headphones plugged in. If they see me coming in the left lane, they jump into the right lane to get out of the way, unless they evacuate the path entirely. I don’t want or need this, just for them to be aware of my presence and not make sudden changes. Unfortunately that usually isn’t the case. They have as much right as me to be using the path, remembering that pedestrians have right of way over all other traffic.

There should be a set of quick fit training wheels at either end of the bridge. Cyclist could just snap them on then ride across to the other side safely. Unclip the traning wheels and leave them on a rack for the next cyclist who crosses back the other way.

Maya123 said :

Acton said :

Maya123 said :

Acton said :

Anne:

Once again you are focussing purely on the interests of cyclists without regard to the interests and safety of other road users, especially pedestrians.

The community does not have to put the interests of high speed cyclists above everyone else.

Cyclists, contrary to what Pedal Power believes, are not some elite group in the community deserving special privileges.

I’ve asked you before (without being given a direct answer) about the consequences to a pedestrian (adult or child) of a collision with a cyclist travelling at 30-50 km/h.

Observing the behaviour of erratic pedestrians and speeding cyclists around Lake Burley Griffin, there is a high likelihood of a serious accident on the shared path, particularly on the stretch from just before the Art Gallery, to just past the National Library. On the basis of your article that danger zone clearly includes the shared paths across Kings Ave and Commonwealth Ave bridges.

If the ACT Minister for Transport took her responsibility for public safety seriously, there would be a ban on all high-speed cyclists using the shared path around Lake Burley Griffin. These paths are suitable for leisurely scenic family cycle rides, not for wannabe Olympians trying to set a new personal best. The safety of pedestrians takes precedence over the convenience and aspirations of hoon cyclists.

When driving a car we now have to provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist. Despite the predictable howls of protest from Pedal Power there should be a similar rule such as:

‘When riding a bicycle you must provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a pedestrian’.

I agree with chewy14’s radical idea that if it is unsafe for cyclists to cross the bridge in high wind without putting themselves, pedestrians and car drivers at risk then they should get off their bicycles and walk.

The path around the lake wouldn’t exist except for cycling. That is why it was built. Now you basically want to ban many people from cycling on a path that was built for cycling. There should be no problem if people walk also on it. I do and have never had a problem. Most people get it and fortunately do keep left. Only a minority don’t, but I guess it is those who complain.
It’s not rocket science. KEEP LEFT! Easy. Then no matter how fast the bikes are going it won’t matter as you won’t be in each other’s way.

As for Commonwealth Bridge, it is dangerous in strong westerlies. I have on a number of occasions got off and walked.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well about the lack of courtesy, common sense and safety exhibited by certain cyclists who insist on their ‘right’ to travel at high speed on a shared community path.

A pedestrian passing another, a visitor who steps back to take a photo, a jogger, two young mums pushing prams together, the young child, the exuberant dog…. All at fault and all at risk from the selfish cyclist.

To use your words – it’s not rocket science. SLOW DOWN! Easy.

I didn’t illustrate any point about your claim, “about the lack of courtesy, common sense and safety exhibited by certain cyclists who insist on their ‘right’ to travel at high speed on a shared community path”

I stated if one keeps left we should all have no problems sharing the path. I walk on the paths, but make sure I keep left; fast cyclists, slow cyclists pass me and there is no problem regardless of speed, because I am keeping left and when I change direction I look behind me to check the traffic; just as I do when driving. Why do some people (a minority) have such a problem doing this!

Just as I wouldn’t ride a bike over the centre of a shared path, if cycling with another person, so foot traffic, such a pushing two prams, shouldn’t go over the centre of the path (whether lined or not), but unfortunately some do, such as the example of two prams (probably most of these), which often fill the whole path, leaving no room for others to pass on the path. How would it go if two cars drove down a two way road, side by side, ignoring other traffic, the car on the right in the oncoming traffic lane. By your logic, that is okay and the oncoming traffic and other traffic that wants to get around, is selfish.

Most joggers stay left and are not a problem, as do most walkers. It’s only a few who don’t know to stay left. Children should walk on the left of their parents and dogs should be kept under control on a short lead. If the dogs are so “exuberant” they can’t be properly controlled, they should be walked away from a path. As should children too young to understand path rules. You give examples of pedestrians are at fault, but then state it is the person cycling who is selfish. So, it seems that although the examples you gave they are at fault in, they are not selfish for being so. Interesting logic.

Explain your logic to the police when you hit and kill a child who was in your way.

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

So the solution is what exactly?

Could it be that instead of asking for large sums of money to be spent, so that cyclists do not have to alter their riding styles or speed one iota, they take the same advice that they give to motorists about driving near bike riders?

Slow down around hazards, and if it’s too windy for even that, get off and walk.

You’re absolutely right. Motorists are expected to slow down and wait until it’s safe to pass cyclists when they are sharing the same stretch of road. Cyclists can do the same for pedestrians on the bridge. And if it’s too windy, slow down. Just like motorists do when the environmental conditions aren’t suitable for driving as fast as legally possible.

As for the barrier – in the 20+ years I’ve lived in this city, despite seeing numerous accidents on that bridge, I’ve NEVER seen a vehicle cross those barriers.

It’s not the vehicle crossing the barriers that is under discussion above, but a strong westerly hitting a person on a bike and hurling them over the low barrier into the path of vehicles.

chewy14 said :

So the solution is what exactly?

Could it be that instead of asking for large sums of money to be spent, so that cyclists do not have to alter their riding styles or speed one iota, they take the same advice that they give to motorists about driving near bike riders?

Slow down around hazards, and if it’s too windy for even that, get off and walk.

You’re absolutely right. Motorists are expected to slow down and wait until it’s safe to pass cyclists when they are sharing the same stretch of road. Cyclists can do the same for pedestrians on the bridge. And if it’s too windy, slow down. Just like motorists do when the environmental conditions aren’t suitable for driving as fast as legally possible.

As for the barrier – in the 20+ years I’ve lived in this city, despite seeing numerous accidents on that bridge, I’ve NEVER seen a vehicle cross those barriers.

Maya123 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

The comment about the path around LBG being built for bicycles just goes to show the arrogance of cyclists. I counter with this – Commonwealth Avenue bridge wouldn’t exist except for vehicles and pedestrians, so why are cyclists allowed on it?
Jason.edu pretty much sums up the whole thing, take some personal responsibility and stop asking for the government to protect you from everything. If a gust of wind can push you over into traffic, what about all the other roads where you have no barriers? Ride to the conditions. If you have to keep close to the barrier due to pedestrian traffic, then logically you should also be going slower as a safety measure. It seems the only reason cyclists keep asking for safety infrastructure is so they can ride as fast as possible. Here’s a tip for getting somewhere more quickly, drive!

You do realise that bicycles existed when the bridge was build! It would have been built for people to cycle over too. So, please don’t talk about arrogance.

Lycra, the miracle garment material that enables cyclists to speed excessively is only a recent innovation however.

Acton said :

Maya123 said :

Acton said :

Anne:

Once again you are focussing purely on the interests of cyclists without regard to the interests and safety of other road users, especially pedestrians.

The community does not have to put the interests of high speed cyclists above everyone else.

Cyclists, contrary to what Pedal Power believes, are not some elite group in the community deserving special privileges.

I’ve asked you before (without being given a direct answer) about the consequences to a pedestrian (adult or child) of a collision with a cyclist travelling at 30-50 km/h.

Observing the behaviour of erratic pedestrians and speeding cyclists around Lake Burley Griffin, there is a high likelihood of a serious accident on the shared path, particularly on the stretch from just before the Art Gallery, to just past the National Library. On the basis of your article that danger zone clearly includes the shared paths across Kings Ave and Commonwealth Ave bridges.

If the ACT Minister for Transport took her responsibility for public safety seriously, there would be a ban on all high-speed cyclists using the shared path around Lake Burley Griffin. These paths are suitable for leisurely scenic family cycle rides, not for wannabe Olympians trying to set a new personal best. The safety of pedestrians takes precedence over the convenience and aspirations of hoon cyclists.

When driving a car we now have to provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist. Despite the predictable howls of protest from Pedal Power there should be a similar rule such as:

‘When riding a bicycle you must provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a pedestrian’.

I agree with chewy14’s radical idea that if it is unsafe for cyclists to cross the bridge in high wind without putting themselves, pedestrians and car drivers at risk then they should get off their bicycles and walk.

The path around the lake wouldn’t exist except for cycling. That is why it was built. Now you basically want to ban many people from cycling on a path that was built for cycling. There should be no problem if people walk also on it. I do and have never had a problem. Most people get it and fortunately do keep left. Only a minority don’t, but I guess it is those who complain.
It’s not rocket science. KEEP LEFT! Easy. Then no matter how fast the bikes are going it won’t matter as you won’t be in each other’s way.

As for Commonwealth Bridge, it is dangerous in strong westerlies. I have on a number of occasions got off and walked.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well about the lack of courtesy, common sense and safety exhibited by certain cyclists who insist on their ‘right’ to travel at high speed on a shared community path.

A pedestrian passing another, a visitor who steps back to take a photo, a jogger, two young mums pushing prams together, the young child, the exuberant dog…. All at fault and all at risk from the selfish cyclist.

To use your words – it’s not rocket science. SLOW DOWN! Easy.

I didn’t illustrate any point about your claim, “about the lack of courtesy, common sense and safety exhibited by certain cyclists who insist on their ‘right’ to travel at high speed on a shared community path”

I stated if one keeps left we should all have no problems sharing the path. I walk on the paths, but make sure I keep left; fast cyclists, slow cyclists pass me and there is no problem regardless of speed, because I am keeping left and when I change direction I look behind me to check the traffic; just as I do when driving. Why do some people (a minority) have such a problem doing this!

Just as I wouldn’t ride a bike over the centre of a shared path, if cycling with another person, so foot traffic, such a pushing two prams, shouldn’t go over the centre of the path (whether lined or not), but unfortunately some do, such as the example of two prams (probably most of these), which often fill the whole path, leaving no room for others to pass on the path. How would it go if two cars drove down a two way road, side by side, ignoring other traffic, the car on the right in the oncoming traffic lane. By your logic, that is okay and the oncoming traffic and other traffic that wants to get around, is selfish.

Most joggers stay left and are not a problem, as do most walkers. It’s only a few who don’t know to stay left. Children should walk on the left of their parents and dogs should be kept under control on a short lead. If the dogs are so “exuberant” they can’t be properly controlled, they should be walked away from a path. As should children too young to understand path rules. You give examples of pedestrians are at fault, but then state it is the person cycling who is selfish. So, it seems that although the examples you gave they are at fault in, they are not selfish for being so. Interesting logic.

Sad news just in:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-31/cyclist-killed-on-road-south-of-canberra/8403812

I wonder if the organisers of this race warned the competitors about riding in the dark on 100kmh highways with no dedicated bike lanes.

wildturkeycanoe said :

The comment about the path around LBG being built for bicycles just goes to show the arrogance of cyclists. I counter with this – Commonwealth Avenue bridge wouldn’t exist except for vehicles and pedestrians, so why are cyclists allowed on it?
Jason.edu pretty much sums up the whole thing, take some personal responsibility and stop asking for the government to protect you from everything. If a gust of wind can push you over into traffic, what about all the other roads where you have no barriers? Ride to the conditions. If you have to keep close to the barrier due to pedestrian traffic, then logically you should also be going slower as a safety measure. It seems the only reason cyclists keep asking for safety infrastructure is so they can ride as fast as possible. Here’s a tip for getting somewhere more quickly, drive!

You do realise that bicycles existed when the bridge was build! It would have been built for people to cycle over too. So, please don’t talk about arrogance.

Maya123 said :

Acton said :

Anne:

Once again you are focussing purely on the interests of cyclists without regard to the interests and safety of other road users, especially pedestrians.

The community does not have to put the interests of high speed cyclists above everyone else.

Cyclists, contrary to what Pedal Power believes, are not some elite group in the community deserving special privileges.

I’ve asked you before (without being given a direct answer) about the consequences to a pedestrian (adult or child) of a collision with a cyclist travelling at 30-50 km/h.

Observing the behaviour of erratic pedestrians and speeding cyclists around Lake Burley Griffin, there is a high likelihood of a serious accident on the shared path, particularly on the stretch from just before the Art Gallery, to just past the National Library. On the basis of your article that danger zone clearly includes the shared paths across Kings Ave and Commonwealth Ave bridges.

If the ACT Minister for Transport took her responsibility for public safety seriously, there would be a ban on all high-speed cyclists using the shared path around Lake Burley Griffin. These paths are suitable for leisurely scenic family cycle rides, not for wannabe Olympians trying to set a new personal best. The safety of pedestrians takes precedence over the convenience and aspirations of hoon cyclists.

When driving a car we now have to provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist. Despite the predictable howls of protest from Pedal Power there should be a similar rule such as:

‘When riding a bicycle you must provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a pedestrian’.

I agree with chewy14’s radical idea that if it is unsafe for cyclists to cross the bridge in high wind without putting themselves, pedestrians and car drivers at risk then they should get off their bicycles and walk.

The path around the lake wouldn’t exist except for cycling. That is why it was built. Now you basically want to ban many people from cycling on a path that was built for cycling. There should be no problem if people walk also on it. I do and have never had a problem. Most people get it and fortunately do keep left. Only a minority don’t, but I guess it is those who complain.
It’s not rocket science. KEEP LEFT! Easy. Then no matter how fast the bikes are going it won’t matter as you won’t be in each other’s way.

As for Commonwealth Bridge, it is dangerous in strong westerlies. I have on a number of occasions got off and walked.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well about the lack of courtesy, common sense and safety exhibited by certain cyclists who insist on their ‘right’ to travel at high speed on a shared community path.

A pedestrian passing another, a visitor who steps back to take a photo, a jogger, two young mums pushing prams together, the young child, the exuberant dog…. All at fault and all at risk from the selfish cyclist.

To use your words – it’s not rocket science. SLOW DOWN! Easy.

The comment about the path around LBG being built for bicycles just goes to show the arrogance of cyclists. I counter with this – Commonwealth Avenue bridge wouldn’t exist except for vehicles and pedestrians, so why are cyclists allowed on it?
Jason.edu pretty much sums up the whole thing, take some personal responsibility and stop asking for the government to protect you from everything. If a gust of wind can push you over into traffic, what about all the other roads where you have no barriers? Ride to the conditions. If you have to keep close to the barrier due to pedestrian traffic, then logically you should also be going slower as a safety measure. It seems the only reason cyclists keep asking for safety infrastructure is so they can ride as fast as possible. Here’s a tip for getting somewhere more quickly, drive!

why is this different to cycling on any other road? you get hit by a gust of wind, blown into traffic and the result will be the the same.

people need to take personal responsibility for their safety and not look to the Government all the time to solve the problem for them. do we really want to live in this type of society?

if you don’t like riding the bridge walk, go around the lake or better yet wrap yourself in cotton wool and stay at home.

jcjordan said :

chewy14 said :

jcjordan said :

Chewy14 and i should be happy with millions being soent on car drivers infrastructure just so they dont have to change their driving style?

jcjordan,
where exactly do motorists ask for expensive infrastructure to be spent so they don’t have to alter their driving style (note style) for a minute? Driving to the conditions of the road is a fundamental requirement of driving.

And that’s not even to start on the taxation, funding and economics issues regarding infrastructure funding.

The major remodel of the roundabout on the Barton Hwy and the demand that it should be an overpass so that they are not forced to slow down is a good start. The double of the lanes along Ashely drive is another. Every one of these are so that drivers can drive at their preferred style of ‘high speed without interruption’

jcjordan said :

chewy14 said :

jcjordan said :

Chewy14 and i should be happy with millions being soent on car drivers infrastructure just so they dont have to change their driving style?

jcjordan,
where exactly do motorists ask for expensive infrastructure to be spent so they don’t have to alter their driving style (note style) for a minute? Driving to the conditions of the road is a fundamental requirement of driving.

And that’s not even to start on the taxation, funding and economics issues regarding infrastructure funding.

The major remodel of the roundabout on the Barton Hwy and the demand that it should be an overpass so that they are not forced to slow down is a good start. The double of the lanes along Ashely drive is another. Every one of these are so that drivers can drive at their preferred style of ‘high speed without interruption’

Haha, I was almost certain you were going to bring something like this up which I why I mentioned driving “style” and pure convenience.
Most large upgrades like the ones you’ve mentioned have a safety component yes, but they also have a large economic payback because of reduced accidents and because they allow workers to travel quicker between places of work and reduce CO2 emissions and fuel usage from cars idling in gridlock.

If they were simply about drivers not altering their driving style at all, they would never be built. For example, the Majura Parkway has a cost benefit ratio of over 5:1 for the money spent, it isn’t about drivers demanding that they not have to slow down.

The problem in the OP is mainly about cyclists being unwilling to ride to conditions, and is completely unreasonable considering there is an easy fix that costs $0 and has very little downside

chewy14 said :

jcjordan said :

Chewy14 and i should be happy with millions being soent on car drivers infrastructure just so they dont have to change their driving style?

jcjordan,
where exactly do motorists ask for expensive infrastructure to be spent so they don’t have to alter their driving style (note style) for a minute? Driving to the conditions of the road is a fundamental requirement of driving.

And that’s not even to start on the taxation, funding and economics issues regarding infrastructure funding.

The major remodel of the roundabout on the Barton Hwy and the demand that it should be an overpass so that they are not forced to slow down is a good start. The double of the lanes along Ashely drive is another. Every one of these are so that drivers can drive at their preferred style of ‘high speed without interruption’

What priority should this section of path get, relative to the risks at the many other places where pedestrians and cyclists have _actually_ been injured, as indicated on the Government’s pedestrian crash map (https://www.data.act.gov.au/Transport/Pedestrian-Crashes-Heat-Map/9pg2-xhki ) and cyclist crashes map (https://www.data.act.gov.au/Transport/Cyclist-Crashes-Map/qf9h-86cj )?

Acton said :

If the ACT Minister for Transport took her responsibility for public safety seriously, there would be a ban on all high-speed cyclists using the shared path around Lake Burley Griffin. These paths are suitable for leisurely scenic family cycle rides, not for wannabe Olympians trying to set a new personal best. The safety of pedestrians takes precedence over the convenience and aspirations of hoon cyclists.

If you actually believe what you say about the safety of pedestrians taking precedence over convenience, I guess you’ll be pushing for all urban road speed limits to be lowered to leisurely scenic family 40 kmph speeds, given that from 2009 -2014 bicycles made up 0.4% of the vehicles involved in fatal pedestrian accidents and that 60% of pedestrian fatalities occur in in 50-60 kmph zones.

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/files/is_070.pdf

Otherwise I’ll assume you’re okay with pedestrian deaths when it comes to not inconveniencing you and your personal choice of mode of transport.

Acton said :

Anne:

Once again you are focussing purely on the interests of cyclists without regard to the interests and safety of other road users, especially pedestrians.

The community does not have to put the interests of high speed cyclists above everyone else.

Cyclists, contrary to what Pedal Power believes, are not some elite group in the community deserving special privileges.

I’ve asked you before (without being given a direct answer) about the consequences to a pedestrian (adult or child) of a collision with a cyclist travelling at 30-50 km/h.

Observing the behaviour of erratic pedestrians and speeding cyclists around Lake Burley Griffin, there is a high likelihood of a serious accident on the shared path, particularly on the stretch from just before the Art Gallery, to just past the National Library. On the basis of your article that danger zone clearly includes the shared paths across Kings Ave and Commonwealth Ave bridges.

If the ACT Minister for Transport took her responsibility for public safety seriously, there would be a ban on all high-speed cyclists using the shared path around Lake Burley Griffin. These paths are suitable for leisurely scenic family cycle rides, not for wannabe Olympians trying to set a new personal best. The safety of pedestrians takes precedence over the convenience and aspirations of hoon cyclists.

When driving a car we now have to provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist. Despite the predictable howls of protest from Pedal Power there should be a similar rule such as:

‘When riding a bicycle you must provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a pedestrian’.

I agree with chewy14’s radical idea that if it is unsafe for cyclists to cross the bridge in high wind without putting themselves, pedestrians and car drivers at risk then they should get off their bicycles and walk.

The path around the lake wouldn’t exist except for cycling. That is why it was built. Now you basically want to ban many people from cycling on a path that was built for cycling. There should be no problem if people walk also on it. I do and have never had a problem. Most people get it and fortunately do keep left. Only a minority don’t, but I guess it is those who complain.
It’s not rocket science. KEEP LEFT! Easy. Then no matter how fast the bikes are going it won’t matter as you won’t be in each other’s way.

As for Commonwealth Bridge, it is dangerous in strong westerlies. I have on a number of occasions got off and walked.

Another suggestion to offer immediate respite from the apparent life threatening hazard of the low barrier on the western side of Commonwealth Ave bridge is to make the cycle traffic one way and mirror the direction of traffic the adjacent lanes. Not perfect, but it could be done in a very short time frame with a few signs, some new paint, and at little cost to the taxpayer.

The point about the Russell end of Kings Ave bridge is a good one too, and even as a pedestrian I sometimes remind myself not to be too complacent while doing my best to keep left when walking across the bridge towards Parliament House.

There are a few pinch points on the central loop where patience is a cyclist’s best method (near the Sculpture Garden, for example). But when I’ve been on my bike other cyclists have overtaken me here while I’ve been waiting behind a pedestrian for a safe moment to pass.

Taking the central basin discussion further, around two thirds of this loop has no barrier at all to help prevent users of the path from falling into the lake. While this outcome would be much better than falling into the way of an oncoming car, or worse, does Pedal Power hold any concerns over the safety of its constituents in this regard?

jcjordan said :

Chewy14 and i should be happy with millions being soent on car drivers infrastructure just so they dont have to change their driving style?

jcjordan,
where exactly do motorists ask for expensive infrastructure to be spent so they don’t have to alter their driving style (note style) for a minute? Driving to the conditions of the road is a fundamental requirement of driving.

And that’s not even to start on the taxation, funding and economics issues regarding infrastructure funding.

Anne:

Once again you are focussing purely on the interests of cyclists without regard to the interests and safety of other road users, especially pedestrians.

The community does not have to put the interests of high speed cyclists above everyone else.

Cyclists, contrary to what Pedal Power believes, are not some elite group in the community deserving special privileges.

I’ve asked you before (without being given a direct answer) about the consequences to a pedestrian (adult or child) of a collision with a cyclist travelling at 30-50 km/h.

Observing the behaviour of erratic pedestrians and speeding cyclists around Lake Burley Griffin, there is a high likelihood of a serious accident on the shared path, particularly on the stretch from just before the Art Gallery, to just past the National Library. On the basis of your article that danger zone clearly includes the shared paths across Kings Ave and Commonwealth Ave bridges.

If the ACT Minister for Transport took her responsibility for public safety seriously, there would be a ban on all high-speed cyclists using the shared path around Lake Burley Griffin. These paths are suitable for leisurely scenic family cycle rides, not for wannabe Olympians trying to set a new personal best. The safety of pedestrians takes precedence over the convenience and aspirations of hoon cyclists.

When driving a car we now have to provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist. Despite the predictable howls of protest from Pedal Power there should be a similar rule such as:

‘When riding a bicycle you must provide a minimum distance of 1 metre when overtaking a pedestrian’.

I agree with chewy14’s radical idea that if it is unsafe for cyclists to cross the bridge in high wind without putting themselves, pedestrians and car drivers at risk then they should get off their bicycles and walk.

Chewy14 and i should be happy with millions being soent on car drivers infrastructure just so they dont have to change their driving style?

The cited incident had nothing to do with wind! It was “two cyclists colliding” – how did that happen exactly?

I’d like to see an assessment of the risk from someone not associated with Pedal Power. Let’s not forget that the powers that be regard spray from the Captain Cook Water Jet as a safety risk to motorists! Until the budget can afford these measures, get off and walk your bike if it’s windy …

So the solution is what exactly?

Could it be that instead of asking for large sums of money to be spent, so that cyclists do not have to alter their riding styles or speed one iota, they take the same advice that they give to motorists about driving near bike riders?

Slow down around hazards, and if it’s too windy for even that, get off and walk.

IMHO Kings Ave has a even worse problem with no barrier at all on the Russell end. See here:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-35.3006096,149.1435168,3a,75y,284.83h,68.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMHRDvEWz4n_fR4EOJgNKNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Being such a popular family route, you often see 2-3 yo kids riding their balance bikes/scooters there with no barrier and little distance to cars/trucks going 70kph.