Simon Corbell has announced a $9 million spend on cycling and walking infrastructure:
– The City cycle loop;
– Kings Avenue on-road cycle lane and off-road cycle path improvements;
– accessibility improvements to walking infrastructure in the main town centres (Woden, Tuggeranong, Belconnen and Gungahlin) benefitting visually and mobility impaired people; and
– interim off-road footpath improvements at Kingston Foreshore;
– further examination of converting sections of Bunda Street in the City and Hibberson Street in Gungahlin to “shared spaces? of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers;
– construction of a missing link between the shared paths along Tuggeranong Parkway and Melrose Drive near Chifley and,
– the provision of cycling facilities along both sides of Yamba Drive between Yarra Glen and The Canberra Hospital.
More information is available from the TAMS Walking and Cycling Trunk Infrastructure Report
[Photo courtesy Simon Corbell's office]
Loading ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5bg_1rFbNw&feature=youtu.be
Grail said :
There are parity issues in most user-pays systems, but that is another can of worms! I was just pointing out that ACT motorists (as a whole) pay hundreds of millions in fees/taxes, and in turn the Government spends hundreds of millions on infrastructure for motorists. AFIAK this money also subsidises cyclists through the provision of on-road cycling.
I ride a bike, and I think that cyclists get a pretty good deal in the ACT. IMO $9 million for off-road projects is not a meagre amount of money considering the quality of existing infrastructure. The vocal minority of cyclists will disagree, and I won’t argue their right to lobby for improvements.
cranky said :
I’d assume yes, the bike needs to stop at a ped crossing just as any other vehicle does. I’m not planning on running people over with my bicycle, but in the event of causing an accident, I am covered by insurance.
cranky said :
As mentioned, if the cyclist is a Pedal Power Member, or member of Cycling Australia (through various cycling clubs) they are covered for 3rd party insurance purposes:
http://www.pedalpower.org.au/general/index.asp?IntContId=1760
http://cycling.org.au/default.asp?Page=39179&MenuID=Membership/c20013/43895
If you’re going to be on the bike for large periods of your life commuting then it makes sense to become a member even if it’s only just for the insurance cover.
alaninoz said :
Arguing over the merits of GovCo’s spending of our tax money is for another time, and you’re welcome to lead the charge. The point is you are never going to agree 100% with the decisions made.
By all means fight for what you want to see it spent on, but (within reason) there’s little point getting too upset if you don’t get your way. Your tears (or anyone else’s) aren’t likely to have much affect.
Holden Caulfield said :
It literally is just a zone where pedestrians have right of way. In theory, cars drive at an absurdly low speed in the zone, so that if a pedestrian steps out onto the road, the car has time to stop. In practice, any pedestrian who decided to exercise their right of way is taking their life into their own hands, because the majority of drivers are going well above the speed limit.
The shared zone on Childers street is particularly bad – there’s a lot of traffic with the car parks in the area, as mentioned before, and there’s also on street parking right along it, so pedestrians are obscured by parked cars. Originally, the dedicated pedestrian crossing was removed when it became a shared zone. That got put back pretty quickly though, and the majority of people just stick to using it anyway.
Keijidosha said :
There are parity issues in most user-pays systems, but that is another can of worms! I was just pointing out that ACT motorists (as a whole) pay hundreds of millions in fees/taxes, and in turn the Government spends hundreds of millions on infrastructure for motorists. AFIAK this money also subsidises cyclists through the provision of on-road cycling.
I ride a bike, and I think that cyclists get a pretty good deal in the ACT. IMO $9 million for off-road projects is not a meagre amount of money considering the quality of existing infrastructure. The vocal minority of cyclists will disagree, and I won’t argue their right to lobby for improvements.
In terms of how much car users contribute to government funds this seems fair but then again we have a government that is always trying to to appear environmentally conscious with terms like “active transport” frequently thrown around without the money to back it up. I also think that compared to roads cycling infrastructure requires a lot less to be adequate than roads so to encourage cycling it’s value for money to spend more on cycling infrastructure. Also if more people use cycle paths (which are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads) instead of roads then it is a saving for the government.
As a cyclist I find overall that some of the infrastructure in ACT is great while some is very poor, rather than just money (it would take very little to fix some of the poor parts) I think that more careful attention to the design of infrastructure and how cyclists use it would be helpful. Often I see a lot of double standards where something that would be completely unacceptable for roads is allowed in cycling infrastructure (even taking into account the differences between cars and bikes). So basically I think $9 million is still too little when so much could be done with just a bit more, but given that it’s the ACT government I’m glad to get anything out of them, I’m especially glad about the civic cycling loop since cycling there now is a bit haphazard.
ABC129 said :
Perhaps it would be an idea to require that all adults who ride a bike on public property in the ACT be a member of such an organisation. Membership is cheap and provides insurance cover, and that way we could also start to collect more info about how cyclists use the roads.
I think it’s a good idea to provide off-road cycling infrastructure to allow cyclists to avoid using roads with speed limits over 60km/h. Inevitably, cyclists and motorists have (and will continue to have) issues around safety and function, so separating them where practical is a good idea.
The amount being spent here is not ridiculous or excessive, and will probably bring real benefits.
The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration
johnboy said :
Love some of the suggestions in that fact sheet:
- Restrictions on motor vehicle use, including limited parking
- Slower traffic speeds (eg 40kms per hour) and traffic calming: this is the most effective way to increase real and perceived safety for people riding bicycles
Just proves that the hate for bike lobbyists is well placed. Not only is it “me, me, me” about bike infrastructure, going so far as to suggest showers and change rooms for cyclists, but they want to attack motorists freedoms.
creative_canberran said :
Hoever, bike registration is simply ridiculous.
johnboy said :
What about bike identification?
Look, I know it’s clearly not a big issue, or else others would be asking for it too. To me it’s just one of those funny anomalies about road use that we seem to accept.
Holden Caulfield said :
What about pedestrian identification? All those people walking to robberies, murders, assaults, carjackings, or just plain wandering onto the road would be so much easier to identify if they had to carry visible identification… and then what about their third party insurance, perhaps we need compulsury pedestrian registration too so that they can pay their share of the road costs?
Holden Caulfield said :
I think I agree with this the most. Fine – don’t force cyclists to pay registration, but maybe it’s a good idea for a ‘number plate’ system to ensure cyclists can be held accountable for infractions of the road rules (running red lights, hitting pedestrians etc).
Holden Caulfield said :
The legislation, stating the the Motor Vehicle Standards act draws a line here int he definitions:
motor vehicle means a vehicle that uses, or is designed to use, volatile spirit, gas, oil, electricity or any other power (not being human or animal power) as the principal means of propulsion, but does not include a vehicle used on a railway or tramway.
road motor vehicle means:
(a) a motor vehicle designed solely or principally for the transport on public roads of people, animals or goods; or
(b) a motor vehicle that is permitted to be used on public roads.
This is where your “anomaly starts” before the state legislation applies to the use of the vehilcles above.
Then the Austalian Design Rules define what a bicycle is:
4.2.1. PEDAL CYCLE (AA)
A vehicle designed to be propelled through a mechanism solely by human power.
4.2.2. POWER-ASSISTED PEDAL CYCLE (AB)
A pedal cycle to which is attached one or more auxiliary propulsion motors having a combined maximum power output not exceeding 200 watts.
One of the reasons they are treated differently.
darkmilk said :
Congratulations! You’ve completely missed the point.
If a motorist wrongs another road user a number plate can be used to help identify the offender. If a cyclist wrongs another road user they can be a bit harder to identify.
Last time I looked pedestrians weren’t wanting to play with the big kids on the road.
But as I said, and you chose to ignore, it’s not really a big drama, just an anomaly I find a bit strange/amusing.
Rather then registering bikes/riders/pedestrians/etc, I propose this alternative:
Install in each and every mobile phone location monitoring, which will real time report the position of the phone to the government for logging. While some people don’t carry one, most do, which will provide a record of movement which can be checked in the event of any collision regardless of mode of transport of registration status. Such a system could also be used to issue speeding fines, other infringements such as incorrect use of one way streets, no stopping zones etc. Good analysis of spatial data could also target drink driving (spend three hours in the pub then phone heads down the road at 80….).
Remember, you have nothing to fear if you aren’t criminal scum.
Jungle Jim said :
Yes lets number plate kids bikes, that will get more people out on their bikes won’t it.
BicycleCanberra said :
Well, now that you mention it, if you want to drive a car on the road you have to reach a certain age/maturity level and sit a test. Then you need an experienced driver alongside you to assist you through the learning phase. If, after a set period of minimum time, you want to drive a car by yourself on the road, you need to sit a further test to prove your credentials and knowledge of the road rules.
Despite these measures my own personal opinion is it is still too easy to get and maintain a drivers’ license in Australia; evidenced by the number of numpties I see driving most days.
But, if you want to ride a bike on the road you can be any age and simply need a pulse and a push bike (helmets are optional it would seem).
Go on, beat me with your big “BicycleCanberra” stick and tell me that’s reasonable.
Jungle Jim said :
I would think it is pretty hard to have a ‘number plate’ system that can identify those committing infractions without actually ‘registering’ those number plates to an owner? Unless you are suggesting all bicycles have a number plate just on the off chance the police see it again after it was reported doing something naughty elsewhere?
Solidarity said :
It’s clamp, not cap… as in wheel clamp.
Jungle Jim said :
So if i hit a pedestrian or run a red, do i get a fine? or lose points on my drivers license? If its the latter you’re imposing registration, which would discourage many people from giving cycling a go
actually, ignore my previous comment, my argument was crap.
I just don’t think that people will “try” cycling if they have to get their bike registered every year.
Surely the congestion argument would be enough for most people. When driving to work, every time you pass a cyclist riding in their special lane, think of it as one less car you have to overtake.
Holden Caulfield said :
No I agree with you about the Drivers licence, now that it is competency based and log book recording. I would rather see the test brought back in and advanced driver training for those needing to do so.
In Canberra we used to have road safety education for school students and the use of traffic training centre’s in Deakin and Belconnen. Belconnen only closed a few years ago after a consultant recommended that artificial traffic environments weren’t good for children to learn skills in.
So it is up to parents now days to provide that education. The Netherlands of course continue traffic education leading to a cycle test for students in the last year of primary school.
http://vimeo.com/31545084
Henry82 said :
Also, if you feel that a cyclist riding on the road is being insane, be very glad that they aren’t driving a car or bigger. You really want to share heavy metal with someone you’ve just judged insane?
Unfortunately, both points rely on common sense.
It seems all comments on this topic, even those apparently from the point of view of cycling, are made within a particular orthodoxy of the certainty of “car is king”. For example, actually it is irrelevant the division of financial support given by cyclists compared to carists. Without cars ( and get used to that idea) we don’t need to spend a fraction of the current amount on transport infrastructure.
The fact is car culture is extremely expensive and is a financial burden imposed upon us all by what is now, a tyranny of the majority. To engage in debate concerning cycling’s “fair share” would therefore be nonsensical except for the fact that by joining the debate, one acknowledges the fact of the superiority of car culture over other philosophies.
Why not place human beings ahead of cars as a starting point?
On this topic, here’s some interesting figures to get things into perspective:
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
The link is from a public transport user organisation, but their sources are Government figures.
They’ve done a rather odd thing on Ellenborough St right where the turn off is for the Barton Highway. The newly painted lines now include a bicycle lane on the city bound lane…………about 20 metres away from a purpose built bike/pedestrian path. Not the best idea.
And they don’t pick up their horse poo!
See p1 post regarding previous comment.