Braddon roundabout to go in intersection makeover

Bede Mcfadden this isn’t the rainbow roundabout lol. That’s Lonsdale St

Nick Barker yes I know. They wasted all the paint on that one

Craig Larsen There literally isn’t space for the amount of parking that area needs

Craig Larsen so… What’s your solution? A wormhole?

Benny Mackney how about just preserving the parking spaces that are there for a start

Craig Larsen This isn’t removing any parking so… check ✅

4 stop signs, grab a beer, sit back and watch…

Grga Norman even if they don’t do this, rates will still go up

Danandmandy Hynes it’s always been a part of motor culture before it was even a food destination it’s part of its identity

Connor Erwin yeah but mate motor culture now is hatchbacks with off the shelf tunes on afterpay that sound like someone poured sprite into rice bubbles

I’m all for car culture but if you want a carpark to hang out in braddon ain’t it

Danandmandy Hynes we could also turn it into a tent city for the growing homeless population?
Or leave it…and allow cars to drive through.

Jackson Bohlsen That’s the idea … get people moving around the city on foot, by scooter, by bike …

Fiona Lyall and kill all the businesses in Braddon at the same time.

Canberra has some absolutely atrocious public transport (unless you live in a very specific part of Canberra), and making Braddon inaccessible to the wider population, will just mean people refuse to go to Braddon. Removing car parking, and decreasing traffic flow are the quickest ways to kill a whole load of small businesses

Jackson Bohlsen decreased traffic flow won’t be an issue because there’s nowhere to park as all the business owners and staff occupy all the parking spaces.

Christine Stevens the walk or bike ride from Banks to Civic to start work at 9am is highly recommended.

Sashay Sikal I prefer a shorter commute, but if that’s your thing, enjoy!

Christine Stevens my point is not everyone lives within a short walk or bike ride to where they work.

Sashay Sikal I’m not ignoring them at all. I’m pointing out that they don’t have to be given preference in every situation. The roads are for everybody, not just for people who drive.

Christine Stevens when I was a kid I was told don’t play on the road because you might get run over by a car, truck or bus.

Sashay Sikal When I was taught how to drive, I was told not to run over kids. Or anybody else.

Christine Stevens roads aren’t playgrounds.

Sashay Sikal Some are. Sometimes.

But playground or not, people who drive shouldn’t run over kids. Or anybody else.

https://www.playaustralia.org.au/1000-play-streets

Christine Stevens and when you were taught to drive there weren’t draconian speed limits with speed humps everywhere and you still managed not to hit people. Well done, judging by the laborgreens policies on urban planning that is impossible for a Canberra driver to achieve in the modern day.

Sashay Sikal When I was taught to drive, there were speed limits and speed humps.

Not impossible, but not nearly as rare as it should be. 64% of surveyed Australians over 18 with driver’s licenses have experienced at least one car crash. I’m one of the exceptions rather than the rule.

Nearly 40,000 people are hospitalised due to injuries sustained in a vehicle collision every year. There’s no sensible reason to consider that level of violence acceptable.

We need to do better, and making our roads safer for ALL users is one way to do that.

Christine Stevens making roads safer for all users?

Like allowing drunks to stagger next to or across the road outside Mooseheads for example?

Sashay Sikal Yes, making the roads safer for everyone includes making them safer for pedestrians, which means they’re also safer for drunk pedestrians.

How there could possibly be any drunk people coming out of Mooseheads or any other licensed businesses, given the RSA requirements, is a completely different issue.

Don’t run over kids. Don’t run over drunk people. Don’t run over drunk kids. Don’t run over anybody.

Christine Stevens Roads are for vehicles, all this sharing is making them unsafe. Walk and ride on pathways.

Christine Stevens Removing all but motorised traffic would make the roads safer

Todd R. Fink Most people killed or seriously injured in road-related incidents are drivers or passengers in motor vehicles. Fewer cars = safer roads.

Christine Stevens Better roads is the issue. Doesn’t detract from my original comment either.

Todd R. Fink Wrong. Roads are for people, not vehicles. If you cant or won’t share, then stay off the roads because you’re part of the problem.

Christine Stevens Wrong, they are for vehicles, get your facts straight. Your sad attempt at trying to insult is also a joke. Explain why walking and riding a pushbike are illegal on many roadways and freeways if roads are for people not vehicles. I’ll wait.

Todd R. Fink No joke. The law requires you to share the road. If you refuse to follow the law, then don’t drive.

Because different types of roads have different rules. On some roads, vehicles are illegal. On many, they’re to be shared.

Roads like the one mentioned in the article are being re-designed to more inclusive. There will be a lot more of that going on in the ACT, and that’s a good thing.

Christine Stevens What roads are vehicles illegal? You still haven’t answered my question either, just playing the deflection game. Fact; it is illegal to walk on a public roadway unless at a designated crossing point, people are not vehicles. I also notice you are having difficulty sticking to the subject that you are questioned about and choose to randomly change to another point. Nothing you have said detracts from my comment that the increased road sharing is a major issue for vehicle traffic and lowers the level of safety.

Todd R. Fink City Walk has been vehicle free for decades now. Verity Lane is now closed to vehicles after 4pm. Part of Bunda Street is a shared zone. 🎵The times, they are a-changin’ 🎵.

Road sharing that prioritises people who walk, roll, and ride over people who drive increases the level of safety. As does reducing speed limits. Fewer cars moving at slower speeds = safer roads.

Also, it’s not true that it’s illegal to walk on a road except to cross at a designated crossing point. If you don’t know the road rules, you shouldn’t be driving. You’re part of the problem.

Christine Stevens You spouting the same old arguement. It IS illegal to walk on a road unless designated, end of story, accept it. Naming streets that are no longer roads is a very poor arguement. Clearly you are anti cars so common sense is beyond you, clearly making you a part of the issue drivers face. The ACT is a nanny state when it comes to traffic. Pandering to those who want not need.

Christine Stevens Also your little snippet proves my correctness regarding designated points

Todd R. Fink A street is still a street even if cars aren’t allowed on it.

I’m a person who drives. I’m also a person who walks. And a person who rides a bicycle. Cars have their usefulness, but their days of completely dominating urban planning are coming to an end.

The “snippet”, from ACT Policing, shows that you’re wrong about the law.

Christine Stevens Here you go again, a street is not a road. A street contains a road as well as other infrastructure. The snippet does not show I’m wrong as it is only referencing crossing NOT walking along.

Todd R. Fink You said “Fact; it is illegal to walk on a public roadway unless at a designated crossing point”. The “snippet” shows that you’re wrong. Try not to run over people LEGALLY crossing the street more than 20m away from a designated crossing.

A street is a road. A road is a street. Neither of them need to allow cars to be useful.

Here’s another “snippet”, this one from Transport ACT, that explains that it’s legal for people to walk on the road. Not every road, of course, and I never said they could. You’re wrong.

Christine Stevens Here’s a little snippet for you…you must use a pedestrian crossing if there’s one within 20 metres • don’t spend more time crossing than necessary and always cross the road directly, without changing direction or stopping • you must walk on the footpath or nature strip, not the road……None of the above allows for walking on the road, only crossing. So again, walking on the road is illegal. Sadly you have confused yourself and got off topic from my original point. No surprise here though as you seem to attempt a superior condescending attitude with all that you reply to. No doubt you will have a desperate need for the last word so I’m sure you will reply again and again and again………….

Todd R. Fink Here’s another snippet for you. From page 96 of the ACT Road Rules Handbook.

“If you are a pedestrian walking along a road that does not have a footpath or nature strip, you should walk on the right hand edge of the road facing oncoming traffic.”

And as part of the Slower Streets program in 20 ACT suburbs, drivers are encouraged (but not legally required) to slow down below the posted speed limit on residential streets to make it safer for people who are WALKING, rolling, or riding ON THE ROAD.

Christine Stevens Which basically means in the gutter, you truly are a simpleton. Try it in the road and watch what happens legally. Your simple confusion of crossing and walking in general is astounding. Next time I hope to reply in crayon to make it easier for you.

Todd R. Fink I walk on the side of the road almost every day. I ride a bicycle on the road almost every day. I drive a car on the road some days. And you know what’s happened to me legally? Nothing. You know what’s going to happen to me legally? Nothing.

I’m not confused. You’re just wrong.

Christine Stevens Yawn; clearly you have difficulty interpreting and understanding. Walk on a road in traffic and get what’s coming. Other than a legal crossing a pedestrian has no right of way, full stop.

Todd R. Fink Some days there’s more traffic than others, but I’m rarely if ever alone on the road. Other people are walking ON THE ROAD. People are riding bicycles ON THE ROAD. People are driving cars and trucks ON THE ROAD. We all manage to share nicely.

If a motorist runs over a pedestrian when they could have reasonably avoided doing so, they’ll be held responsible for any injuries. If it’s determined that they did so deliberately, they may be criminally charged.

As explained on page 95 of the ACT Road Rules Handbook, “When driving a car, you should always drive responsibly and recognise the potential harm you could cause to vulnerable road user.” ALWAYS.

Christine Stevens Interesting how you consider all responsibility falls to the driver, sorry not the case, if a pedestrian is hit whilst incorrectly using a road the responsibility is theirs not the drivers. There are many cases where this has been proven. Again you are just spouting mostly irrelevant information. Little of you comments address anything other than your desperate need to be right. And as predicted you have to have the last say.

Finally Relented err it’s a roundabout

Robert Azzopardi err no it won’t be a roundabout

Robert Azzopardi aren’t they getting rid of one? Soz don’t bother reading properly..