Canberra's cycle path repair shame

FD10 said :

thy_dungeonman said :

What I’m trying to say is that cyclists should get the same consideration when it comes to infrastructure as car users, only on a smaller scale.

I’d totally agree with that if cyclists funded this in a similar (albeit smaller scale) to how roads are funded through rego. Until then, cycle paths should be second to roads (note, I’m not saying we shouldn’t fund cycle paths).

Having said that, it is a joke that this hasn’t been fixed yet.

How about to make it fair we divide tax funding equally between paths and roads and then add to road funding whatever car registration raises, I’m sure paths would get more than the current $2m in that case.

I lobbied ACT Govt to fix this section after the damage originally occurred. The temporary path, while not ideal, is much better than blocking the path all together as was done at first. There’s no on-road cycling on the section of road above this path and the roundabouts are positively bicycle unfriendly.
So, while the temporary path isn’t perfect, we are very appreciative of at least having this as an alternative.

And FD10 and others, no, rego doesn’t pay for our roads & cycleways. Stop repeating this nonsense.

FD10 said :

thy_dungeonman said :

What I’m trying to say is that cyclists should get the same consideration when it comes to infrastructure as car users, only on a smaller scale.

I’d totally agree with that if cyclists funded this in a similar (albeit smaller scale) to how roads are funded through rego. Until then, cycle paths should be second to roads (note, I’m not saying we shouldn’t fund cycle paths).

Having said that, it is a joke that this hasn’t been fixed yet.

OMFG someone who STILL believes that car rego pays for road funding! Surely the last one in captivity.

thy_dungeonman said :

What I’m trying to say is that cyclists should get the same consideration when it comes to infrastructure as car users, only on a smaller scale.

I’d totally agree with that if cyclists funded this in a similar (albeit smaller scale) to how roads are funded through rego. Until then, cycle paths should be second to roads (note, I’m not saying we shouldn’t fund cycle paths).

Having said that, it is a joke that this hasn’t been fixed yet.

remmi2 said :

thy_dungeonman said :

zig said :

It seems a bit unfair that cars get double lanes both ways when cyclists can hardly get a narrow strip of path.

You are kidding right? How unfair is it that the majority of road users get double lanes and cyclists get zilch. The “narrow” path is fine for a bike, unless you ride in a group which you should ride in a single file anyway. I ride everyday and have no problems with narrow paths, it’s better than nothing.

what I meant was that while cars have two lanes each way so that they can overtake and traffic can flow freely cyclists are given a path to share with pedestrians or in many cases (like this) simply a dirt track or even nothing at all. If this was a road (more) people would be outraged. when it comes to pedestrians they always complain that bikes should be treated as fast-moving vehicles but when it comes to the paths themselves they are treated a s pedestrians.

What I’m trying to say is that cyclists should get the same consideration when it comes to infrastructure as car users, only on a smaller scale.

Felix the Cat said :

remmi2 said :

The “narrow” path is fine for a bike, unless you ride in a group which you should ride in a single file anyway.

Suggest you back and study the road rules.

Suggest you learn the difference between “should” and “are legally required to”.

remmi2 said :

The “narrow” path is fine for a bike, unless you ride in a group which you should ride in a single file anyway.

Suggest you back and study the road rules.

thy_dungeonman said :

zig said :

It seems a bit unfair that cars get double lanes both ways when cyclists can hardly get a narrow strip of path.

You are kidding right? How unfair is it that the majority of road users get double lanes and cyclists get zilch. The “narrow” path is fine for a bike, unless you ride in a group which you should ride in a single file anyway. I ride everyday and have no problems with narrow paths, it’s better than nothing.

wow thats quite a bit of ground movement.

zig said :

But meh what does it matter as cyclists use the roads that run alongside the cycle paths anyhow. May as well rip them up.

Mainly because the cycle paths are in such bad repair and because they are not as direct as the roads since most were built for recreational use around the lake and haven’t been changed since.

It seems a bit unfair that cars get double lanes both ways when cyclists can hardly get a narrow strip of path.

Yeap, those tyre marks in the gravel are from all the cyclists not using the bike path.

It’s part of the stanhope art for canberrans project.

We buy Japanese technology, that’s about as close as we come to Japanese efficiency/urgency.

Maybe the greens can introduce a policy so they look like they are doing something about this. Amazed that pedallypoower hasn’t sooked to chiefly about this yet.

The reason the repairs have lacked Japanese efficiency and urgency, is that we are not Japanese.

This be Australia.

zig said :

But meh what does it matter as cyclists use the roads that run alongside the cycle paths anyhow. May as well rip them up.

That particular bit of path was badly missed by me at least – riding a bike on the corresponding busy, cycle-lane-less stretch of Parkes Way is a charmless experience. Even in its current crappy gravel base incarnation the path is an improvement on that!

Probably haven’t had any focus on them due to the amount of roadworks happening everywhere in the ACT.

But meh what does it matter as cyclists use the roads that run alongside the cycle paths anyhow. May as well rip them up.