Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

I'm loving the pictures and discussion in here.

I used to be a dedicated car guy. But now I'm very much not.

People have asked me whether I'd actively discourage my kids from driving and learning to drive. The answer is no I won't - I'm happy for them to be licenced etc.

However I will consider myself a failure if they don't know for themselves that they don't have to drive if they don't want to.

Comedian wrote:I'm loving the pictures and discussion in here.

I used to be a dedicated car guy. But now I'm very much not.

People have asked me whether I'd actively discourage my kids from driving and learning to drive. The answer is no I won't - I'm happy for them to be licenced etc.

However I will consider myself a failure if they don't know for themselves that they don't have to drive if they don't want to.

I think I know where you're coming from.

The car ads depict an old romantic picture of the cars. When they were a few, a luxury, and cannot be afforded by the mass. When driving was a pleasure.

But as more and more people owned cars and it became more affordable, that was when the disaster happens. The global planning which was for human now have car as their god.

The car makes us psychopaths, sacrifixing other peoples lives, their homes, their business, the children.

I remember when the population of Australia was around 17 million, there didn't seem to be the influx of people everywhere as it is now that we have not long ago cracked 25 million.(that we know of)
I still think this figure is a bit conservative but with all the have came here from other lands, now many also have cars....young people getting their L's & P's have seemed to exploded for their right of passage/freedom.
But with all the construction in Sydney going on right now with all these motorways being built, so many trucks and commercial vehicles going round.....
Driving anywhere on Saturdays is almost impossible, every man and his dog out there in a motorcar...weekend warriors obviously.....but without the clearways of the Mon-Fri, the weekends are murder on our suburban roads, much worse than any time through the week.....something seriously needs to be done but councils turn a blind eye to congestion saying it's good for business......how can it good for business when most are looking for carspots to park and those not actually in shops coz they are in their cars. Our buses run an extra 10 to 15 minutes late on average more on weekend services than they do weekday because of all the extra congestion.
I'd been away from Sydney for 7 years from 2010 till 2017 and coming back to Sydney I was astounded on how heavy the traffic is now all times of the day, not just peak, what on earth will it be like in 10 years from now...it's really not that far away.

brumby33

brumby33 wrote:I'd been away from Sydney for 7 years from 2010 till 2017 and coming back to Sydney I was astounded on how heavy the traffic is now all times of the day, not just peak, what on earth will it be like in 10 years from now...it's really not that far away.

brumby33

20 years ago the NSW central coast wasn’t too bad during the week, the was a morning and afternoon peak that largely went in one direction (toward Sydney). Weekends were terrible, as you describe with every man and his dog headed in every direction all day.

brumby33 wrote: .....something seriously needs to be done but councils turn a blind eye to congestion saying it's good for business......how can it good for business when most are looking for carspots to park and those not actually in shops coz they are in their cars. Our buses run an extra 10 to 15 minutes late on average more on weekend services than they do weekday because of all the extra congestion.
brumby33

you know... I'm always perplexed by this emphasis of being "seen" as full.

When I attended a transport forum in Liverpool's WSU. There was a guy saying the Bus only lanes were a waste because they were empty. I remembered how the same thing is said about bike lanes and other public transport. I confronted him that the point is they move more people efficiently ( I forgot to add it also makes the development concentrated and decrease the need of private vehicles).

That was also a point I made in the forum. Look and count the people movement, count the A->B time, not the Car movement, not the speed.

This makes for a good Sarcasm Meme


Seriously, someones want to rip bus lanes as they are empty. You Could use the train analogy. There are times were the train will come at a 1 h interval, do you think those train lines should be ripped. It is empty after all. These Guys are crazy

Their logic is that a bus carrying 30 people is poor usage of a lane that could carry 15 cars

Lets step side a bit

https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status ... 2394215432

it rules that multiple generations of car dorks have been falling for this scam

Ah, the car vs bike thing is picking up. Bicycle NSW seems to be following.

One of the things to bring against the bike rego and insurance. Talk back and say let's calculate the infra needed, the cost of infra. The fee that cyclists or drivers pay should relect the infra cost.

https://twitter.com/BicycleNSW/status/1 ... 7690211328

If those flying taxi drivers flew like they drive around Sydney, the sky would be a very scary place to be lol

opik_bidin wrote:Lets step side a bit

https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status ... 2394215432

it rules that multiple generations of car dorks have been falling for this scam

Yep.. it's even less likely to happen than autonomous cars.

opik_bidin wrote:

What the general public need to be educated is that the best way to make their motoring trip easier is to enable a proportion of the public use other forms of transport reducing the congestion they are experiencing

mikesbytes wrote:

opik_bidin wrote:

What the general public need to be educated is that the best way to make their motoring trip easier is to enable a proportion of the public use other forms of transport reducing the congestion they are experiencing

You see.. the problem we are at in Brisbane is that the local council knows that all they actually want to do is convince the drivers that they have enabled cycling. They don't actually want to enable cycling they just want to be seen to have enabled cycling.

So, re the diagram above the commitment to cycling is not measured by new infrastructure that is delivered, or by critical links that are made but by the amount of $$$ spent on cycling. So, we see all sorts of very dubious and rubbery figures used to "price" ripping up and widening existing cycle paths on floodways. Once that don't take parking away from motorists.

One little example.. the exit to my local floodway bike path was ripped up and widened. It didn't need doing - it was totally fine but they decided to do it anyway. So, literally 10m of widened existing bikepath was billed 147,000 to the bikeway budget. You can see that at those rates dollars don't go far.

In the nine years since I started cycling again not one new piece of on road separated cycle infrastructure has been provisioned by the local council (BCC). The Wooloongabba bikeway when finished will be the first. I don't think we can count it though as it took a coroners report to spark action.

At this rate we'll have the facilities we need in about 400 years to make cycling safe in Brisbane.

Comedian wrote: One little example.. the exit to my local floodway bike path was ripped up and widened. It didn't need doing - it was totally fine but they decided to do it anyway. So, literally 10m of widened existing bikepath was billed 147,000 to the bikeway budget. You can see that at those rates dollars don't go far.

My local council recently placed signs along the entry/exit points to the Darebin Creek Trail. Corten/Stainless, with infographic maps etc. Really, really nice. And good too....helps you know where you are and where to go, all the way to outer north or back to Main Yarra Trail. My estimate based on doing similar things for councils (not on cycling trails but around Docklands and CBD, local shopping strips etc) would place those signs at $4-5,00.00 each, installed.

Same council has been busy removing fancy swing gates at entrances and exits as well. Better access for wheelchairs, cargo bikes, trike types etc. Less than 5 years old. Guess some are happy now.

brumby33 wrote:If those flying taxi drivers flew like they drive around Sydney, the sky would be a very scary place to be lol

even the ground will be scary as crash aftermaths nose dive and become a mini carpet bombing. We'll live in bunkers with enhanced top structure

The Northwest rail line will be including 4000 car parking spots and 340 bicycle parking spots

https://nsw.liberal.org.au/Our-Plans/Po ... MUTERS-(1)

Confronting a Driver from Your Bike Is Never Worth It
https://www.outsideonline.com/2391829/i ... le-cycling

Below is just a schnippet from the article, I reccommend clicking through and reading the rest of it

Sometimes the best offense is none at all

Confrontations with strangers are a fact of life. Fortunately, most of these are relatively minor, and unless you’re Larry David, you’re unlikely to get into a heated argument with someone over an airplane seat armrest or a poorly-placed shopping cart. Some situations, however, can be considerably more fraught, like when you’re riding a bike and a driver almost kills you.

You don’t have to be a cyclist to almost get killed by a driver; you can be in your own car, on foot, or simply enjoying a donut. However, what’s unique about being on a bicycle is that you’ve got all the physical vulnerability of a pedestrian, yet thanks to the potent combination of a bike and the shot of adrenaline that accompanies nearly dying you’re also often able to catch up with and directly address your would-be assailant. And when someone plays fast and loose with your life, the impulse to do just that can be irresistible.

So should you?

Ross wrote:Confronting a Driver from Your Bike Is Never Worth It
https://www.outsideonline.com/2391829/i ... le-cycling

Below is just a schnippet from the article, I reccommend clicking through and reading the rest of it

I just be a deaf person and just pass on

The "might is right" is real. and in this case, even if they kill you using their car, it will only be treated as an accident in most cases (probably close to 99%), not a murder.

Thing is, you can be as safe as possible and know all the safety tactics, but you could still be killed. The best example is Ken Kifer. An experienced cyclist, wrote many pages about safe cycling, still got maimed a by drunk driver

This page is his legacy to Cycling Safety and Advocacy :
http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www ... /index.htm

Jennifer Keesmaat@jen_keesmaat
Researchers have found that when people move to cities planned around cars, they gain weight; that some public park designs actually repel women + girls; that drivers in heavy traffic experience the same stress response as fighter jet pilots. Designing for happiness matters.


Copying Grnoningen Strategy from the 70s (CMIIW)
https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/stat ... 8063805441
Ghent goes Dutch: cutting through-traffic in 2017.
Now:
⬇ 13% less car trips
⬇ 10% less car owners
⬆ 35% more cycling trips

better economy
better air
saver walking/cycling
better public space
better quality of life

opik_bidin wrote: The "might is right" is real. and in this case, even if they kill you using their car, it will only be treated as an accident in most cases (probably close to 99%), not a murder.

And one more time with feeling:
Driver whose car struck and killed schoolgirl pedestrian found not guilty of dangerous driving
Run over from behind.

Thoglette wrote:

opik_bidin wrote: The "might is right" is real. and in this case, even if they kill you using their car, it will only be treated as an accident in most cases (probably close to 99%), not a murder.

And one more time with feeling:
Driver whose car struck and killed schoolgirl pedestrian found not guilty of dangerous driving
Run over from behind.

Seriously W T F?

""It is manifestly clear that the description of the sun being blinding is a matter, in my view, that is almost without argument," he told the court.

Judge Sutherland also found it likely that the girl was either on or near the road's bitumen with her back to oncoming traffic at the time of the accident. There are situations in which human tragedy occurs as a result of a combination of circumstances," he said.

"This appears to be one such circumstance."

I would have thought this combination of circumstances occurs hundreds of thousands of times a day. Two road users and the sun was shining. Not particularly complex. The difference was in this case on road user was driving in a dangerous fashion and killed the other.

I also find it a little disturbing that the judge highlighted the girl having her back to oncoming traffic and the sun "being blinding". Very keen on excusing the driver of their obligations.

human909 wrote:I also find it a little disturbing that the judge highlighted the girl having her back to oncoming traffic and the sun "being blinding".

The question in my mind is whether, (and you'll have to excuse my choice of words), the sun "jumped out from behind a tree" or was a foreseeable event.

Likewise whether the pedestrian was also visible from some distance.

I can just imagine a situation where a driver could be caught unawares. But for someone on a regular school run this seems even less likely than for Joe Random driving down an unknown road.

The reality is that some people just keep hurtling along into the sun. After all, if they slowed down, someone might run into them!

human909 wrote:Very keen on excusing the driver of their obligations.

Indeed that's the way it reads, as reported.

the sun being blinding

This is called not driving the conditions

human909 wrote:

Thoglette wrote:

opik_bidin wrote: The "might is right" is real. and in this case, even if they kill you using their car, it will only be treated as an accident in most cases (probably close to 99%), not a murder.

And one more time with feeling:
Driver whose car struck and killed schoolgirl pedestrian found not guilty of dangerous driving
Run over from behind.

Seriously W T F?

""It is manifestly clear that the description of the sun being blinding is a matter, in my view, that is almost without argument," he told the court.

Judge Sutherland also found it likely that the girl was either on or near the road's bitumen with her back to oncoming traffic at the time of the accident. There are situations in which human tragedy occurs as a result of a combination of circumstances," he said.

"This appears to be one such circumstance."

I would have thought this combination of circumstances occurs hundreds of thousands of times a day. Two road users and the sun was shining. Not particularly complex. The difference was in this case on road user was driving in a dangerous fashion and killed the other.

I also find it a little disturbing that the judge highlighted the girl having her back to oncoming traffic and the sun "being blinding". Very keen on excusing the driver of their obligations.

Two points to add:
* the girl was walking on the road because there is no footpath (this was highlighted in an earlier story on the case). I brought this up in another thread the other month - infrastructure fails pedestrians as well as cyclists.

* Yes, the sun really can be blinding when driving soon after dawn. But it is no excuse. I was driving into very blinding the sun the other morning, so I slowed right down (probably to about 20, on a 60 road), and this driver should have done the same.

The judge should have convicted him anyway. That would have sent a clear message that poor visibility is no excuse for dangerous driving.