Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

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, or connect with
71 Responses to
Cycling dollars flow
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
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.

johnboy 2:52 pm 09 Nov 11

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

KB1971 12:09 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?

Yes.

JonahBologna 12:06 pm 09 Nov 11

I noticed that NRMA is the only group with representatives for motorists…and they didn’t make any formal comments on these changes. Pedal Power has made formal comments about all of these changes.

If you are a motorist, and you want your opinion to be heard, you are going to have to do something about it.

P.S. I don’t have a car and I think all of these changes are GREAT!

alaninoz 11:51 am 09 Nov 11

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!

dtc 11:47 am 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?

No.

Car CTP exists because you take it out when you register every year (and cough up a bit for the nominal defendant to cover unregistered drivers). There is no such scheme for bicycles.

However, cyclist can take out specific insurance or possible have a home policy that extends cover to this situation. Being a member of Pedal Power provides insurance coverage.

Lack of insurance doesnt stop you suing the bike rider, of course. It just means you have to recover the money from the person rather than the insurance company – if the cyclist is one of those annoying middle aged men in lycra pretending to be cool, they may own a house or an Audi.

Solidarity 11:08 am 09 Nov 11

krats said :

p1 said :

You know what s**** me? Horse riders. They don’t pay rego but can ride along in places which would see me charged if I did it on my unregistered trail bike!

Almost All Adult Horse Riders Own A Registered Vehicle-They Don’t Ride Their Horse From Their Front Yard To The Paddock Where Their Horse Is Kept Do They!!

I do,

I own a horse and don’t have a car, it’s great.

Don’t pay parking, don’t pay any tax, great for picking up chicks and if you try and cap my horse he’ll kick you in the face.

johnboy 11:08 am 09 Nov 11

And drivers should remember that every cyclist has made more room on the road for their car.

Holden Caulfield 11:05 am 09 Nov 11

KB1971 said :

On the same token though, those that say “I pay rego, you dont, get off my roads” have the opinion? No?

Yes, indeed, which comes back to my point about those doing the whinging being adult about the situation and acknowledging they’re crying over spilt milk.

Chances are pretty damn high that almost all cyclists are going to be paying taxes somewhere along the line. So, let’s live and let live.

Holden Caulfield 11:02 am 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?

This partly why I think having some sort of visible ID for cyclists should at least be debated. I admit that such incidents where cyclists are at fault is likely to be low, but it could happen, either as you’ve described, or through damage to other road users’ vehciles in regular traffic, accidental or otherwise.

Grail 10:53 am 09 Nov 11

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?

From the $400M collected from vehicle owners, subtract the cost of running the motor registry. Now compare that to the $600M budget for roads. Where’s the money coming from to maintain our roads? That’s right, it’s coming from the rich bastards driving company cars, not the poor bastards who own their own vehicles.

cranky 10:52 am 09 Nov 11

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?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site