War on cars

[opik_bidin]

Seems Like there is a wave on car demonisation

https://bicyclensw.org.au/the-four-wheeled-fallacy/

Even as politicians promise more road building projects, we are falling out of love with driving.

Almost every car advertisement shows a vehicle travelling rapidly on empty roads. Manufacturers and marketers try to sell us the idea that car ownership is synonymous with freedom.

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... car-parks/

There is also evidence from Sydney and around the world that the construction of bike lanes has boosted commercial and residential property value.

Though it is understandable for owners to be concerned about their business, precedent proves that they need not despair at the loss of car parking, as cities around the world awaken to the health, environmental and (evidently) economic benefits of moving away from car-centric city planning.

The evidence is clear.
https://twitter.com/ewaterford/status/1 ... 1640024065

President of Roads Australia: “The Australian love affair with the car needs to come to an end. In its place, we need to invest massively and exponentially in the renewal and expansion of our public transport infrastructure and modes.”

[fat and old]

Why do evangelists (a term I’ve borrowed from Human, not meant to be disparaging. If you feel it is, I can withdraw) seem to only pick those parts of an article, study, op-ed or whatever that support their view when that article argues strongly against or at best sort of acknowledge’s their POV? Helmets for and against. Cycling infra for and against. Everything really, for and against. The ultra hardliners of both sides do this and while they’re talking to the converted I guess it works. Trying to win over the undecided is a little different. A presentation of the facts, along with a solid alternative plan to implement the change you advocate for seems to me to be the most effective way of building momentum. Maybe I’m wrong? So be it. Meanwhile...

The evidence is clear.
https://twitter.com/ewaterford/status/1 ... 1640024065

President of Roads Australia: “The Australian love affair with the car needs to come to an end. In its place, we need to invest massively and exponentially in the renewal and expansion of our public transport infrastructure and modes.”

Yet further on in that very same tweet

In truth this isn’t an ‘either/or’ question. Our current investment in Roads is warranted and will continue to pay dividends in the future..... In fact if I were a betting man I’d happily have a dollar each way on both road and rail, working in tandem, as effective and essential components of our transport future

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading.

Almost every car advertisement shows a vehicle travelling rapidly on empty roads. Manufacturers and marketers try to sell us the idea that car ownership is synonymous with freedom.

When talking about city driving I can agree with the direction of your argument. But again you limit yourself to a city based example to argue against a countrywide situation. In today’s “get out there and do things!” society those same commercials make sense. Loading the mountain bike into the ute to go out and ride the trails, even the standard pushie to hit the rail trails. How many here have looked at how transportation of their bike will fit in when buying a car/suv? And let’s not forget the majority who don’t ride and use their vehicles for recreational transport....the snow sports types, surfers, campers, day trippers, boaters and kayakers, rock climbers and many others.

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading.

[opik_bidin]

http://pricetags.ca/2019/03/01/suvs-tru ... destrians/

SUVs & Trucks Exponentially Killing, Maiming Pedestrians

While many cities have undertaken initiatives to make it safer and more convenient for walking and biking, the motor industry has been selling bigger and larger vehicles, with over 1.4 million Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and crossovers being sold in the United States in the first quarter of 2018. What is the difference between these two categories? A SUV is a vehicle built on a truck platform, while a crossover is a unibody construction on a car platform, and is supposed to be more maneuverable and parkable. Both of these are large vehicles and are outselling sedans.

Indeed trucks and SUVs comprise 60 percent of the new vehicle purchases in the United States, and have been contributing to an increasing proportion of pedestrian deaths. From 2009 to 2016 pedestrian deaths have risen 46 percent and are directly linked to the increase of these large vehicles on the road.

Statistics show that SUVs with the high front end grille is twice as likely to kill pedestrians because of the high engine profile, but this information has not been well publicized. In the United States a federal initiative to include pedestrian crash survival into the vehicle ranking system was halted by opposing automakers.

[opik_bidin]

https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magaz ... d-practice

The first canon in the NSPE Code of Ethics is to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” But what exactly does this mean?

Most engineering disciplines assume people make mistakes. They test, monitor, and change their designs to prevent death and injury.Consider these examples:

1. A motorist killed while turning left across three lanes of 45-mph traffic is often deemed responsible for “failing to yield.” The signal could prevent this death, but it is designed to minimize motorist delay, requiring motorists to judge gaps in fast traffic.
2. A person “jaywalking” is killed by a motorist while crossing a seven-lane road to catch a bus, which comes once per hour. This person misjudged gaps in the high-volume, 40-mph traffic. A traffic signal is necessary for safe crossings under these conditions, but it is not installed because too few people are willing to attempt the crossing to meet industry standards; the standard justifies a signal for safety reasons after five or more people suffer personal injuries in a year.
3. A bicyclist operating in 35-mph traffic is killed by a motorist. The death is deemed an accident and discussion focuses on whether the bicyclist wore a helmet, even when the cause of death was internal injuries. To reduce motorist delay, a bike lane is not provided.

Recognizing that transportation system designers must be more accountable for the results, in 1997 Sweden adopted a Vision Zero approach, which states, “it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system.” It is, therefore, unethical to prioritize the mobility of one person over the safety of another user. Sweden has demonstrated that this approach saves lives, reduces injuries, and improves the overall quality of life for their people, with a 60% reduction in deaths since 1997. Many US cities and state departments of transportation are now adopting this vision.

[mikesbytes]

In Sydney the most convenient way to travel is in a motor vehicle. This convenience causes congestion and the majority of the population see investing in roads is the solution to this congestion rather than making alternatives more attractive

[opik_bidin]

All people should know, form the space, land use and budget. It is private cars vs others. More budget on cars, for their parking and for their lanes means cutting investment in public transport, walking and cycling.

While bike lanes, footpaths, dedicated lanes, crosswalks and signals can take years and several community meetings, building roads and widening them takes a more direct process and eats the budget easily.

And, why do many people still can't understand induced demand? more roads mean more cars and nightmare for every other mode of transport. Walking is unpleasant, cycling becomes unpleasant, busses in gridlock and trans run to the ground with underinvestment

[warthog1]

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading.

Nice work
Agreed.

[fat and old]

http://pricetags.ca/2019/03/01/suvs-tru ... destrians/

SUVs & Trucks Exponentially Killing, Maiming Pedestrians

While many cities have undertaken initiatives to make it safer and more convenient for walking and biking, the motor industry has been selling bigger and larger vehicles, with over 1.4 million Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and crossovers being sold in the United States in the first quarter of 2018. What is the difference between these two categories? A SUV is a vehicle built on a truck platform, while a crossover is a unibody construction on a car platform, and is supposed to be more maneuverable and parkable. Both of these are large vehicles and are outselling sedans.

Indeed trucks and SUVs comprise 60 percent of the new vehicle purchases in the United States, and have been contributing to an increasing proportion of pedestrian deaths. From 2009 to 2016 pedestrian deaths have risen 46 percent and are directly linked to the increase of these large vehicles on the road.

Statistics show that SUVs with the high front end grille is twice as likely to kill pedestrians because of the high engine profile, but this information has not been well publicized. In the United States a federal initiative to include pedestrian crash survival into the vehicle ranking system was halted by opposing automakers.

Oh well, it’s too hot to ride anyway.

Using an American article is dangerous. They have different units of measurement, different terms and different vehicles. I guess the major issue with the article is the reference to “trucks”. This is a unique to America phrase when talking about vehicles although it’s gaining traction here thanks to advertisers. A truck is a ute. Either full size (such as an F250,350 etc) or Mid sized ( the ubiquitous Hilux, Navara etc). We have very few full size “trucks” here in Oz. Sure, the utes all get a full ladder chassis; they’re essentially a work vehicle that requires strength to carry or tow. But they are not a truck. Not in Australia. As to front profiles, I think that buses and trains are less forgiving. And FWIW, people choose to buy these things, no one forces them. Certainly not the manufacturers.

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading

[find_bruce]

Using an American article is dangerous. They have different units of measurement, different terms and different vehicles. I guess the major issue with the article is the reference to “trucks”. This is a unique to America phrase when talking about vehicles although it’s gaining traction here thanks to advertisers. A truck is a ute. Either full size (such as an F250,350 etc) or Mid sized ( the ubiquitous Hilux, Navara etc). We have very few full size “trucks” here in Oz. Sure, the utes all get a full ladder chassis; they’re essentially a work vehicle that requires strength to carry or tow. But they are not a truck. Not in Australia. As to front profiles, I think that buses and trains are less forgiving. And FWIW, people choose to buy these things, no one forces or subsidies them. Certainly not the manufacturers.

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading

Its been a while since I looked at it, but IIRC "work vehicles" or "farm vehicles" (1) had lower standards required in the Australian Design Rules and (2) weren't subject to the luxury vehicle tax. Each of these things lowers the relative prices of the vehicles & could be argued to be a subsidy. It might have changed or my memory may be faulty, so feel free to run the Fat and Old Fact Checker over that.

[opik_bidin]

Using an American article is dangerous. They have different units of measurement, different terms and different vehicles. I guess the major issue with the article is the reference to “trucks”. This is a unique to America phrase when talking about vehicles although it’s gaining traction here thanks to advertisers. A truck is a ute. Either full size (such as an F250,350 etc) or Mid sized ( the ubiquitous Hilux, Navara etc). We have very few full size “trucks” here in Oz. Sure, the utes all get a full ladder chassis; they’re essentially a work vehicle that requires strength to carry or tow. But they are not a truck. Not in Australia. As to front profiles, I think that buses and trains are less forgiving. And FWIW, people choose to buy these things, no one forces or subsidies them. Certainly not the manufacturers.

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading

Its been a while since I looked at it, but IIRC "work vehicles" or "farm vehicles" (1) had lower standards required in the Australian Design Rules and (2) weren't subject to the luxury vehicle tax. Each of these things lowers the relative prices of the vehicles & could be argued to be a subsidy. It might have changed or my memory may be faulty, so feel free to run the Fat and Old Fact Checker over that.

Old news
https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... 23ba1debaa

The biggest selling vehicle in Australia in September was the Ford Ranger, a 185cm high, 2250kg vehicle. (Data is for 4x4 Wildtrak doublecab 3.2L.) Ford don’t even call it a ute. They call it a pick-up. (I guess now car manufacturing is over in this country we just get foreign cars and their foreign category names now).

Holden sells a popular big ute called the Colorado. When I asked a spokesman to comment about its aggressivity, he said that even small cars are designed to cope with a big impact.

“For example, Holden’s smallest car, Spark, also comes with a five-star ANCAP rating (tested the same way as Colorado) and a bunch of safety features.

“What stands out here though is Spark’s structural safety. It has a high-strength steel safety cage that is capable of carrying a roof load of four times its own weight — so much more than a Colorado, maybe even two Colorados!” said the spokesman, Mark Flintoft.

“Colorado is not your traditional light commercial truck. The whole range is rated the maximum five stars from ANCAP and it has a long list of safety features available including forward collision alert, lane departure warning and trailer sway control. It’s even got a rear view camera as standard across the range to help with reversing in high risk areas.”

Toyota, which makes the top-selling Hilux, emphasised not only crash performance but crash avoidance technology.

“This has translated into increasingly absorptive chassis structures, and bonnets and bumpers designed specifically to mitigate the impact on pedestrians. Proactive safety — that is, designing vehicles to avoid an accident — continues to be implemented at a rapid rate, said Marcus Umlauff, Manager of Toyota’s Product Planning department.

“For its part, Toyota Australia actively invests in the safety specifications of all its vehicles and we strongly believe that our ongoing commitment to developing vehicle design in this area will continue to yield benefits for all road users.”

Some utes get good ANCAP crash ratings. But those ratings, in my opinion, are not too comprehensive. They put most weight on how the vehicles’ occupants perform in a crash. Less emphasis goes on how the other party in a crash fares.

Associate Professor Newstead says sure, big Utes can do well in a crash, but it comes at the expense of other road users. “They are safer if you hit a small car in them because you will just obliterate the small car.”

https://www.motoring.com.au/local-safet ... hs-113730/

The increase is being linked to the SUV revolution and their high, blunt front ends that hit pedestrians, runners and cyclists, as well as a decrease in driver visibility.

But safety standards are higher in Australia and that is protecting pedestrians, according to the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) safety organisation.

“The story for Australia isn’t as stark as in the USA. Even our utes score quite well for pedestrian protection,” says James Goodwin, the CEO of ANCAP.

ANCAP reports a slight increase in pedestrian fatalities in Australia, with the death toll of 1222 fatalities to June 2018 only including 177 people for a 14.5 per cent share.
------------------
Australia is doing better than US

You can check the weight, blind spots, speed and how long it takes to brake of your cars
Is it safe for others? is it safe for pedestrians and cyclists?

People buy because they are 'forced". Your job requires it, your home requires it, the malls and shops requires it, you're bombarded by ads everywhere. and it not viable using the combination of public transport, cycling annd walking, no bus, no trains, no bike paths, bo footpaths, so if you are not in a car, you'll be rolled on and there is nothing against you.

FatnOld and NeddySmith would be angry and toot all peds and woman/man on strollers on the road and say "get the F*** of the road, in a road where there is no footpath or badly damaged.

Everybody wants the roads widened and built, the gov say yes, the construction guys love it, the business think it will increase the sales, but why, why people are getting further apart and isolate themselves in alike communities, why business along parrmatta road are closing down? The budget keeps deficiting, the cars keep increasing and there is no congestion relief. We now have to destroy and knock down old heritage building for parking of the increased cars

[find_bruce]

wall of text

TLDR

[fat and old]

Using an American article is dangerous. They have different units of measurement, different terms and different vehicles. I guess the major issue with the article is the reference to “trucks”. This is a unique to America phrase when talking about vehicles although it’s gaining traction here thanks to advertisers. A truck is a ute. Either full size (such as an F250,350 etc) or Mid sized ( the ubiquitous Hilux, Navara etc). We have very few full size “trucks” here in Oz. Sure, the utes all get a full ladder chassis; they’re essentially a work vehicle that requires strength to carry or tow. But they are not a truck. Not in Australia. As to front profiles, I think that buses and trains are less forgiving. And FWIW, people choose to buy these things, no one forces or subsidies them. Certainly not the manufacturers.

Fat and Old Fact Checker: Misleading

Its been a while since I looked at it, but IIRC "work vehicles" or "farm vehicles" (1) had lower standards required in the Australian Design Rules and (2) weren't subject to the luxury vehicle tax. Each of these things lowers the relative prices of the vehicles & could be argued to be a subsidy. It might have changed or my memory may be faulty, so feel free to run the Fat and Old Fact Checker over that.

The ADR’s are way too long for me to read and concentrate on so we’ll go with the luxury vehicle tax

The Fat and Old Fact Checker says: True

I’ll withdraw that comment.

[fat and old]

FatnOld.......would be angry and toot all peds and woman/man on strollers on the road and say "get the F*** of the road, in a road where there is no footpath or badly damaged.

Fat and Old Fact Checker: scraping the bottom of the barrel

[opik_bidin]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JontyFlower/ ... 6639763456

Jonathan Flower
@JontyFlower
·
Feb 28
Are young people getting this message? "Road deaths are the 8th leading cause of death worldwide, and the largest cause for the 5-29 year old population (TSUG)." Not guns, knives, drugs or war, but parents/grandparents driving cars. Do we 30+s care enough to do anything about it?

[opik_bidin]

OFC this thread wouldn't be complete without this twitter and their podcasts:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheWarOnCars

[fat and old]

OFC this thread wouldn't be complete without this twitter and their podcasts:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheWarOnCars

The bloke actually used a commercial for a 4wd filmed off road and a picture of city gridlock to show the “lies”.

[opik_bidin]

What's the path if you don't buy a car 'yet"/'never'

https://mobile.twitter.com/therilesyouk ... 5517208577
Sarah Riley @therilesyouknow
When I was 16 I couldn’t wait to get a car. In my 20s it seemed too big an expense so I got a bicycle. Now in my 30s, it’s a moral decision. I’ll buy when I can go electric.

What I’ve had in my adult life instead of cars:

1active lifestyle
2more money in my pocket
3less rage
---------------------------------------------------------------------
https://mobile.twitter.com/Spokes_wo_ma ... 8203681792
Spokes(wo)man@Spokes_wo_man
I’ll say it again; I used the money I saved from not ever having a car to buy my first house. By myself, no partner, no loan from family. And like Sarah, I’m now proud to make the ongoing resistance to car ownership my firm ethical choice

[opik_bidin]

land isn't free, in fact, land in sydney is precious and expensive, that is why, car storage should be priced accordingly, especially as drivers are D*** as they take 2 lanes from a street/road. Cyclists use the lane for travel and get honked everytime, why drivers say nothing about on street parking, which are basically free or very cheap.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ajlamesa/sta ... 1145804800
Anthony LaMesa@ajlamesa
"In Japan when you purchase a vehicle you must prove that you own or rent a private parking space suitable for the vehicle. There is no assumption that motorists have the right to store their vehicle in public spaces for free."

Todd Salerno@intjester
From the link in #5 on affordability of Tokyo:
In 2002, [the federal government] passed the Urban Renaissance Law. The law stripped municipalities of the ability to control private property. As a result, owners can build a variety of uses on their land, regardless of resistance

[outnabike]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JontyFlower/ ... 6639763456
Feb 28
Are young people getting this message? "Road deaths are the 8th leading cause of death worldwide, and the largest cause for the 5-29 year old population (TSUG)." Not guns, knives, drugs or war, but parents/grandparents driving cars. Do we 30+s care enough to do anything about it?

I am worried about you mate, You are getting into nicker Knot tying country here. You are talking Zealot, and my dad always said stay away from zealots..... Just saying. I mean you hate young people and the old people as well...that mate is crazey.

Every body that makes an arguement always bolsters it with worst case scenarios.

"I am going up hill and in an emergency and have to get to the hospital and this bike is in my way".....Get it... It is always an emergency they are always late or in a hurry etc. etc.?
No one considers that the cyclist might have his own life to lead.

They want to make the roads wider, yep they imported 100,000 immigrants into say Vic. They all want a car.

I am actually offended by your one eyed comments. Not upset but I don't like the rant I suppose.

This is going to shock you but i reckon I am one of your killer grand parents and I am really old. See you didn't think there would be old folk on the forum to upset right. (Ok you are writing with F&O but he aint old at all...maybe just feels it some times.)

I get the feeling some times I don't belong here and I might be just tolerated for fun.....but in my heart I am a true cyclist.

I love my bike, and no trip under 6 klm that I need to lug too much more than 15 kg of goods is done in a car.

And it is a killer car too. A falcon ute dang it. And the van, I tow it with a Land cruiser, it has a beaut bull bar too, darn it. I love to drive both of those vehicles.

I am the last one to complain about wider roads. My complaint is that along with the wide roads there is little cycling infrastructure. I want to ride direct to where I want to, and mostly do that. I don't want to take a five klm out of the way ped infested path to do it.

[opik_bidin]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JontyFlower/ ... 6639763456
Feb 28
Are young people getting this message? "Road deaths are the 8th leading cause of death worldwide, and the largest cause for the 5-29 year old population (TSUG)." Not guns, knives, drugs or war, but parents/grandparents driving cars. Do we 30+s care enough to do anything about it?

I am worried about you mate, You are getting into nicker Knot tying country here. You are talking Zealot, and my dad always said stay away from zealots..... Just saying. I mean you hate young people and the old people as well...that mate is crazey.

I am not and I don't, what I fight is the obvious blindness of what motorised vehicle is doing in terms of their health, environmental, social and economic impact.

Change isn't easy

Every body that makes an arguement always bolsters it with worst case scenarios.

many of the scenarios are already here

Urban sprawl (Western Sydney), transit deserts, the dependence on car, home and people eviction because of roads (West Connex), the fight against bike lane and their destruction (Alexandria cycleway), the balooning costs of car (loan payment, rego, insurance, toll, etc and also gov debt to make and widen the roads) and business dying (Parramatta Road), and Aborigins jailed as they use cars without licence and can't pay the fine as a car is only the feasible way for transport.

And its still not the worst case,

"I am going up hill and in an emergency and have to get to the hospital and this bike is in my way".....Get it... It is always an emergency they are always late or in a hurry etc. etc.?
No one considers that the cyclist might have his own life to lead.

They want to make the roads wider, yep they imported 100,000 immigrants into say Vic. They all want a car.

This is it, everybody have their own needs, they are in a hurry, and with thigs going, the current system always make the car most convenient and fastest, so it is the car people choose, and creates this congestion nightmare and other side effects. Nobody is going to win.

Everybody will want a car when that is the thing made easy, subsidized and is painted in gold by the ads we see everyday.

This is going to shock you but i reckon I am one of your killer grand parents and I am really old. See you didn't think there would be old folk on the forum to upset right. (Ok you are writing with F&O but he aint old at all...maybe just feels it some times.)

I get the feeling some times I don't belong here and I might be just tolerated for fun.....but in my heart I am a true cyclist.

I love my bike, and no trip under 6 klm that I need to lug too much more than 15 kg of goods is done in a car.

And it is a killer car too. A falcon ute dang it. And the van, I tow it with a Land cruiser, it has a beaut bull bar too, darn it. I love to drive both of those vehicles.

This is going to shock you but i am from Indonesia, an immigrant. not all immigrants love cars. I need my bike, I don't have much options beside other than taking bus and train, that is why I support things that makes it easier to take the bike on bus and trains, that is why I also support better services of bus and trains.

I'm also one of those young renters, get a car and maybe I can never get a house

I am the last one to complain about wider roads. My complaint is that along with the wide roads there is little cycling infrastructure. I want to ride direct to where I want to, and mostly do that. I don't want to take a five klm out of the way ped infested path to do it.

Those wider roads will become a pain once it meets an intersection and it basically a river, a wall that separate communities. For a bypass motorway its OK, but for streets where there are homes, and shops, its a killer.

Wide road mean high speed, making it hard and deadly to cross, the tunnel vision kills business as people don't have that side looking ad just pass by those small shops and when they want to slow down, they just can't. And who wants to travel by foot on sidewalks where there are cars going 60-80 km/h on the road? its polluting and unpleasant.

Just look how different King st and Parramatta rd is, it's only one lane, but it makes a huge difference.

[mikesbytes]

We will only get better facilities when we can win the general community over. Cyclist make up such a small % of the community that they can be easily ignored.

Without better facilities it will be more convenient to drive and so driving will be the first option for the majority.

So how to get the general community to appreciate those who cycle?

[caneye]

So how to get the general community to appreciate those who cycle?

i don't subscribe to the notion of "war on cars". it is more of co-existing with cars on the road.

anyway .. just stirring the pot further [putting my commuting hat on].

i've been thinking of events like the annual Commute-to-work days.
what purpose do those serve apart from getting a handful of people to try a once-in-a-year commute or to warm the hearts of fellow commuters to band-together have free coffee/breakie for a chinwag, etc ...
but do the rest of the road users care? do they even know such events exist?

we should have a don't-commute-by-bike-to-work day.
(https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-eco ... 07vr5.html).
if there are 15,000 cyclists riding to work daily in sydney and if you can coordinate 10,000 of them to DRIVE to work on one single day (drive their vehicles, mind you, that means not taking the public transport) imagine the impact of 10,000 additional cars on Sydney roads just for that one day?
now you are talking the language of the NSW government.

and to the drivers who constantly yell at us to get off the roads. awesome. we'll get off our bikes and get off the roads. but guess what, we will join you on the roads instead and ideally be the car in front of you.

then perversely, people can appreciate the impact of cycling as a means of commuting in Sydney.

[Thoglette]

So how to get the general community to appreciate those who cycle?

Get the general community cycling.

While that looks and sounds trite, it's what is needed.

Anyone who's been to Rottnest Island* for a few days undergoes The Transformation. That is, they reassess their relationship to the bicycle and rediscover its joy (mostly ) and its utility.

To get the general community cycling (as they do on Rottnest) we need to make the short trips easy and safe, particularly the trips to the shops; the school and the train station.

We also need to stop the sports-driven fetishisation of cycling-as-suffering-in-funny-clothes (there's got to be a better word but I can nae think of it. Snobby talks about this here).

We need to re-enforce the message that cycling is, for short trips, simply "a better form of walking".

In particular, it extends the 1km walking limit (as the rat runs) from facilities (e.g. train stations) to 2km. Which quadruples the catchment area. Some say 3km, which is nearly 10x.

I pick on trainstations in particular as these are the sort of trips that the general community regularly make. That is, as cycling trips they will be habit forming.

Of course, in the Netherlands, the rail company also runs all the bike hire schemes which solve the problem of what to do at the other end of the train trip. But let's do one step at a time...

The first step is to prioritise pedestrian and cyclist access to our transport hubs and schools. Which can be done cheaply and quickly, with a few speed signs, some paint and planter boxes.

We certainly need to fix law enforcement but that also costs next to nothing (if one ignores the political capital).

* Rottnest has no private cars and the maximum speed limit is 40kph

[opik_bidin]

Memes

[Ross]

The Psychology of Why Cyclists Enrage Car Drivers

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013021 ... e-cyclists