Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:13 pm

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:40 pm

Got a map of the green spline?

Best thing I've found so far is the Cycling Geelong's webpage on the topic

Thanks Thoglette

Looking at the graphics I get the impression that a lot of the space is taken up for pedestrians, places to sit etc. I'd say that one purpose of the design was to de-clog the streetscape of motor vehicles whizzing past the business's that aren't receiving foot traffic due to the unpleasant environment

Malop St is much better since it was made narrower and trees put in. The council should resign for suggesting such stupidity.

DS

I saw news reports over the weekend that the Vic state government is going to take over those roads and prevent any changes. So, that's a win!

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:16 pm

P!N20 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:18 pm

Yeah I’m sure it’s the bikes causing congestion:

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-02- ... e/12002544

You're right, it's not the bikes, it's the busses

In Brisbane there was a new bikeway put in at Kangaroo point. There was a small road which really only serves as a rat run, and parking. To put the bikeway in they had to remove some trees. One of the residents told a friend "You bike riders are causing the destruction of these trees!".

He suggested that perhaps we could take the space used for parking and keep the trees, or better still close the road completely and then the trees could stay. But no, that was unacceptable.

Cycling really is the transport mode of last resort in Australia. We will give space to it as long as it's not useful for motorists.

Even SUperman is an anticar villigant, and wages his own war on cars,

ofc, outide the law, but isnt that the point of superheroes?


https://mobile.twitter.com/TheWarOnCars ... 8831714306

Why is Superman taking out his frustrations on inanimate objects? Wouldn't he be better off knocking over the drivers who make the decision to be a peon?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 11:20 am

Why is Superman taking out his frustrations on inanimate objects? Wouldn't he be better off knocking over the drivers who make the decision to be a peon?

Well, it's part of the plan to distract one from the real cause of the problem: planning (and the lack thereof by the public sector).

I apollogise a'forehand, but it's impossible to discuss the problem of cars without very rapidly running into politics.

At first, the fetishism of cars and freeways (which was perhaps understandable up until maybe 1974) and the sheer worn-out state of the rail and tram systems might excuse some of the mistakes.

But after that, (that is, the last forty years), it's pure get-out-of-the-way-while-captial-makes-money (and socialise the costs) hidden under a veneer of "individual rights".

As demonstrated by the last few weeks, (but known for decades), if you want to drop the road toll (and free up some hospital beds) the answer is simple: get drivers off the road. All other forms of land transport are orders of magnitude safer. And most are more effective (not just in cost) than freeways. (Like "cycling", "roads" and "trucking" are terms that cover a huge range of vastly different things)

Not sure this deserves a seperate thread. There is an article in the online motoring page whichcar which half-heartedly (was gonna use a different adjective starting with A...) which goes through the numbers for fatal traffic incidents (they still call them accidents ) for March 2020 comparing them to other months and years.

Remembering most of the country is in lockdown or should be self isolating due to Coronavirus so there should be a lot less traffic on the road. So the reduced fatality figures were reduced but not as much as you might think.

Professor Max Cameron from Monash University Accident Research Centre says this is likely due to more people drink driving (most states have suspended static random breath tests for the foreseeable future because of Coronavirus) and more people speeding because the roads were less clogged with traffic.

Interesting read even if the figures aren't all that scientific

https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/co ... -road-toll

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/california ... er-lining/

California COVID-19 Traffic Report Finds Silver Lining
Crashes and Traffic Are Down by Half, Saving State $40 Million Per Day During Shelter-In-Place

Milan is looking to reduce car usage post COVID-19

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -pollution

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:37 am

Milan is looking to reduce car usage post COVID-19

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -pollution

https://mobile.twitter.com/demescope/st ... 2445453314

The revolution will not be televised, will be live.

Today Milan has started the implementation of the #StradeAperte #OpenStreets project for low-cost temporary bike lanes and widened sidewalks.

Stay tuned.

Ofc car lobby is fighting back , NYc, USA

https://mobile.twitter.com/motorists/st ... 2478035968

NYC Mayor Caves into Big Bike and City Council—100 Miles will now ban cars in NYC: Big Bike Works its Plan – latest post on the NMA's Keep the US Moving Blog
@motorists
#NO2CarBansduringCOVID19Crisis #KeeptheUSMoving #DrivinginAmerica http://ow.ly/HjbQ50zshIb

Replies are gold like this one

@MrTinDC

I like how the SUV in your crappy graphic is intruding into the bike box, says a lot about your views on road safety. #bancars #bigbike Face with tears of joy

https://mobile.twitter.com/MedMezghani/ ... 6100445184

Between 1960 and 2017, this is how new cars have evolved in France:
- Weight +62%
- Power +192%
- Maximum speed +43%
- Width +14%
- Length +3%
- Height +21%
- Average occupancy -30% (2.3 vs. 1.58 pax)
So, Bigger, fatter, taller, stronger but useless.
Via
@AurelienBigo

opik_bidin wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 12:59 am

https://mobile.twitter.com/MedMezghani/ ... 6100445184

Between 1960 and 2017, this is how new cars have evolved in France:
- Weight +62%
- Power +192%
- Maximum speed +43%
- Width +14%
- Length +3%
- Height +21%
- Average occupancy -30% (2.3 vs. 1.58 pax)
So, Bigger, fatter, taller, stronger but useless.
Via
@AurelienBigo

So maybe a balanced representation of the physics of modern cars would be appropriate, i.e. how much has braking performance improved (trust me, it's massive) plus the development of traction control, stability control, ABS, collision avoidance technology, vehicle design rules aimed at minimizing pedestrian injury in the event of collision.

The bigger, fatter whatever trend is primarily because of the active and passive safety features which have been built into cars to progressively higher and higher levels since the late '60s, mainly to address the issues you seem to be highlighting.

I would argue a 2017 VW Golf poses far less danger to any pedestrian or cyclist than a 1967 VW Beetle.

10speedsemiracer wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 9:30 am

So maybe a balanced representation of the physics of modern cars would be appropriate, i.e. how much has braking performance improved (trust me, it's massive) plus the development of traction control, stability control, ABS, collision avoidance technology, vehicle design rules aimed at minimizing pedestrian injury in the event of collision.

The bigger, fatter whatever trend is primarily because of the active and passive safety features which have been built into cars to progressively higher and higher levels since the late '60s, mainly to address the issues you seem to be highlighting.

I would argue a 2017 VW Golf poses far less danger to any pedestrian or cyclist than a 1967 VW Beetle.

Safety for those inside the cage has certainly improved. Your theoretical gains about safety for those outside the cage are not matched by any data. It once was that people on the footpath were rarely injured - pedestrian deaths were mainly people crossing a road, esp the old & the drunk. In the last 10-15 years however there has been a significant increase in pedestrians being killed on the footpath, waiting at a bus stop, having a coffee etc.

What would you rather be hit by at 50km/h, a current model VW Golf which has to comply with TUV/ADR/EU/ViA regulations regarding pedestrian impact (front end height-bonnet profile-body fittings and attachments)...or a 1960s Beetle.

I would argue that the data you'd like doesn't exist as it wasn't measured/collected at that time. If anything, the safety-oriented intervention systems (ABS/DSC/TC) all contribute to a modern vehicle being exponentially safer toward anyone outside or around the car than their predecessors.

Driver behaviour or ability is a different argument.

opik_bidin wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 12:59 am

but useless.

It’s probably useless to expect an answer, but I’ll give it a shot

Why are motor vehicles useless? Are you absolutely sure of this stance?

What would be interesting is to look at the average fuel consumption of the 1960 car and compare it with the average fuel consumption of the 2017 car and then also compare with a 2017 car that was the same dimensions, weight and power of the 1960 car

It’s interesting to note that fuel consumption has improved significantly over the past 15 years, but consumers have chosen to offset this improvement by purchasing much larger cars. Witness the number of comments re “I bought an SUV, but it’s all ok, it doesn’t use any more fuel than my old sedan”.

There is only a small extra cost in manufacturing a larger car and you can sell larger cars for more money.

https://mobile.twitter.com/anneramsey74 ... 69792?s=21

Cyclegranny
@anneramsey740
Please let’s make how the roads are funded part of the theory test. This might make drivers less arrogant in the long run.


David Stebbings
@Pionir
Put learners on a spin bike by the side of the road, then drive past at 60mph, half a meter away from them.

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 2:34 pm

What would be interesting is to look at the average fuel consumption of the 1960 car and compare it with the average fuel consumption of the 2017 car and then also compare with a 2017 car that was the same dimensions, weight and power of the 1960 car

Can't give comparisons to 2017 cars but the Austin A40 Somerset from 1956, that had the 1200 motor that Datsun bought the rights to, returned me 42mph. Then the Datsun 240K, I got 36mpg out of it once, on a trip to Bundy from Ipswich and retur, with my track bike on top (ya know how aero that is) but I constantly got 32mph out of that 2.4ltr motor and I didn't drive it for fuel economy. At one point, this motor held the land speed record for a naturally aspirated motor, of 143mph.

Foo

10speedsemiracer wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 9:30 am

I would argue a 2017 VW Golf poses far less danger to any pedestrian or cyclist than a 1967 VW Beetle.

Probably should be comparing a 2CV or Renault 4 commonplace in France then, to their modern equivalent, rather than Hitler's revenge - which probably would account for most of opik_biden's stat's on weight, power, etc, etc.

A mate's uncle had a late 50s rusty 2CV, just over 500kg, no seat belts and would do over 50mpg in the old money in town, despite the aero efficiency of an outdoor dunny and the structural integrity of a coke can. I wouldn't fancy getting hit by anything at a supposedly survivable 40k, the certain lower limb and potential head injuries on an old car don't bear thinking about, especially if t-boned. Double the energy from that 1300~1400kg hatch over that laden 2CV being imparted into this meatbag crumple zone, still doesn't have a huge appeal though, no matter the deformable structure on the modern chariot.

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 2:34 pm

What would be interesting is to look at the average fuel consumption of the 1960 car and compare it with the average fuel consumption of the 2017 car and then also compare with a 2017 car that was the same dimensions, weight and power of the 1960 car

So this is completely just my experience. I've fairly consistently owned Similar size cars throughout my life so let's run through it.

1985 Sigma.2.6l cab manual Manual this guzzled fuel.. 15l/100 urban was typical.
1992 pulsar 2.0 fuel injected manual 10-12 urban.
2002 Mini Cooper 1.6 Supercharged manual. 10/11 urban
2004 Fiesta 1.6 man. 8/9 urban
2008 Audi 1.8 turbo DSG Direct injection, 8 urban
2016 VW 1.4 turbo DSG Direct Injection 6/7 urban.

All of those cars are broadly similar (except the sigma LOL). I'm constantly gobsmacked by the fuel efficiency of the current VW. That's a massive drop in consumption over the years. It's got all the current fuel saving tech. Stop/start, electric power steering (and AC I think), small capacity turbo. On the highway I can get mid 4's which is circa 60 MPG in the old money. Not that I've ever done a long highway trip, but 1000k off a 50 litre tank is plausible.

Clearly.. going forward I think that ilk of car will be viewed as "the end of the line" for ICE efficiency. The only way forward from here is increasing electrification. I think when we (if) actually force manufacturers to comply with current and future emissions regs the cars will cease to become more economical. Also, some other technologies that were mooted for ICE I don't think will ever see the light of day due to it just being simpler to electrify.

It's at this point that I'd like to mention...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox