Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Wellbeing

Sponsored by Crucial - delivering premium web hosting to Australian businesses 24x7x365

Cycling dollars flow

By johnboy - 8 November 2011 71

simon corbell

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]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
71 Responses to
Cycling dollars flow
31
KB1971 12:12 pm
09 Nov 11
#

32
Keijidosha 12:16 pm
09 Nov 11
#

Grail said :

Keijidosha said :

By my maths, vehicle owners in the ACT contribute somewhere around $100 million in registration fees (excluding CTP) and another $270 million in fuel excise, per annum.

I pay an order of magnitude more in taxes each year in taxes than I spend on petrol, registration and car insurance. So if volume of spending is what entitles us to infrastructure, perhaps poor people shouldn’t be allowed to use rich people’s roads? By your math, should owners of small cars not be allowed to use big cars’ roads? What about motorbikes?

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.

Report this comment

33
puggy 12:30 pm
09 Nov 11
#

cranky said :

A question for the tribal mind.

If a cyclist cleans up a pedestrian at a crossing, can the pedestrian claim on some third party insurance to cover their medical bills, damages, etc?

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.

Report this comment

34
ABC129 12:37 pm
09 Nov 11
#

cranky said :

A question for the tribal mind.

If a cyclist cleans up a pedestrian at a crossing, can the pedestrian claim on some third party insurance to cover their medical bills, damages, etc?

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.

Report this comment

35
Holden Caulfield 1:14 pm
09 Nov 11
#

alaninoz said :

Holden Caulfield said :

There’s countless services our taxes pay for that individuals won’t always agree with, be an adult and deal with it.

I agree with much of what you say regarding cycling, but that last statement goes a bit far. Are you implying that the government always spends our money better than we would? Or perhaps that no matter what the government spends our money on we should just suck it up? I would argue that the answer in either case is – like hell!

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.

Report this comment

36
thatsnotme 1:43 pm
09 Nov 11
#

Holden Caulfield said :

Maybe I missed this and I’m sure RA will correct my ways, but what exactly does “Shared zone” mean? Who has right of way?

If it is pedestrians well it’s not a shared zone is it, haha. It should be called a pedestrian zone so it is more clear who has to give way to who.

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.

Report this comment

37
thy_dungeonman 2:07 pm
09 Nov 11
#

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.

Report this comment

38
Classified 2:22 pm
09 Nov 11
#

ABC129 said :

cranky said :

A question for the tribal mind.

If a cyclist cleans up a pedestrian at a crossing, can the pedestrian claim on some third party insurance to cover their medical bills, damages, etc?

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.

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.

Report this comment

39
johnboy 2:52 pm
09 Nov 11
#

The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration

Report this comment

40
creative_canberran 3:09 pm
09 Nov 11
#

johnboy said :

The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration

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.

Report this comment

41
Thumper 3:15 pm
09 Nov 11
#

creative_canberran said :

johnboy said :

The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration

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.

Hoever, bike registration is simply ridiculous.

Report this comment

42
Holden Caulfield 3:28 pm
09 Nov 11
#

johnboy said :

The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration

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.

Report this comment

43
darkmilk 3:38 pm
09 Nov 11
#

Holden Caulfield said :

What about bike identification?

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?

Report this comment

44
Jungle Jim 3:57 pm
09 Nov 11
#

Holden Caulfield said :

johnboy said :

The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration

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.

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).

Report this comment

45
KB1971 4:08 pm
09 Nov 11
#

Holden Caulfield said :

johnboy said :

The Greens’ have directed my attention to an argument against bike registration

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.

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.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site