Cycling dollars flow

Almost everyone pays car rego but a very small number of those people will actually ever use the cycling infrastructure that has cost so much to the community. Yes yes, you should all be applauded for your “greeness” but how about the squeaky wheel not getting all the grease for a change. It’s a lot of money being spent on a monority. I pay my rego for a car and 2 motorcycles but I don’t see my money going to good use, especially in terms of making our roads safer for motorcyclists.

See p1 post regarding previous comment.

And they don’t pick up their horse poo!

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.

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.

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?

Henry82 said :

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.

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.

Holden Caulfield 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.

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

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.

Jungle Jim 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).

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

Solidarity said :

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.

It’s clamp, not cap… as in wheel clamp. 😉

Jungle Jim said :

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).

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?

BicycleCanberra said :

Jungle Jim 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).

Yes lets number plate kids bikes, that will get more people out on their bikes won’t it.

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 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).

Yes lets number plate kids bikes, that will get more people out on their bikes won’t it.

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.

darkmilk said :

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?

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5bg_1rFbNw&feature=youtu.be

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Holden Caulfield said :

johnboy said :

And almost all adult cyclists own a registered vehicle.

Personally, I don’t have an issue with cyclists not paying registration for a number of reasons.

However, the simple rebut to the claim cyclists own a car too so they’re already paying rego, is that if I want to own more than one car I have to pay more than one annual registration fee.

If one is going to take that defence it seems a bit ‘all road users are equal but some are more equal than others’ to me.

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

thatsnotme said :

Don’t get me started on the shared zone between the National Library and Questacon either…it literally extends for the length of the pedestrian crossing across the road. So what’s the point?!

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.

johnboy said :

And almost all adult cyclists own a registered vehicle.

Personally, I don’t have an issue with cyclists not paying registration for a number of reasons.

However, the simple rebut to the claim cyclists own a car too so they’re already paying rego, is that if I want to own more than one car I have to pay more than one annual registration fee.

If one is going to take that defence it seems a bit ‘all road users are equal but some are more equal than others’ to me.

I reckon a better defence for cyclists in that specific instance would be to simply tell the other person to HTFU! There’s countless services our taxes pay for that individuals won’t always agree with, be an adult and deal with it.

krats said :

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!!

Are you actually pressing the [shift] key for each of those capitals, or are you using a program that puts everything you type in title case?

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 might have to get a premium subscription just to block that excessive capitalisation, how do you do that ?

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!!

thatsnotme said :

The shared space on Childers Street is nothing more than a normal road with an interesting surface for most people it seems

dtc said :

The shared zone at Childers St doesnt work because there arent enough people to ‘take over’ the areas.

Morgan said :

I work on Childers street and that place is not well suited for a shared zone. With all the car traffic leaving City West Parking and the Ernst & Young carpark of an afternoon it is simply too busy for pedestrians.

Agree with all those – plus:
1. It’s counterintuitive to have marked pedestrian crossings if pedestrians are entitled to cross anywhere…
2. 10km/h is so ludicrous it invites rational people to ignore it. Has anybody in an automatic car ever tried going 10km/h? Cars idle faster than that. Also, because the pedestrian crossings are marked, and the foot traffic is relatively low, there is no additional danger that would warrant different treatment to Hibberson St Gungahlin (40km/h), Bunda St (50 I assume?), or Woolley St, Dickson (again, 50 I assume?).

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!

As a cyclist, motorist and taxpayer I am very happy with the way that the ACT Government and NCA spend so much on Cycling infrastructure. With sufficient bike paths it keeps me off the road and away from traffic, safer for me and less stress for motorists (When I’m driving some Cyclists scare me with the scant disregard for self preservation)

I work on Childers street and that place is not well suited for a shared zone. With all the car traffic leaving City West Parking and the Ernst & Young carpark of an afternoon it is simply too busy for pedestrians.

Bunda street should not be a shared zone, but a one way south east with angle parking on both sides would calm traffic and make it easier for car traffic.

And almost all adult cyclists own a registered vehicle.

BicycleCanberra said :

This money is over three years, in that time we will spend another $300+ million on road infrastructure. So that will be 1% of road infrastructure upgrades.Yeh! I’m glad (not) that they are starting to even out the spending on walking and cycling infrastructure compared to motorist infrastructure!

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 have noticed that, just in time for daylight savings, the lighting along the bike path from Civic to Dickson has started working (well, except for the bit around the wetlands). Still, should be useful next year during winter and encourage people to ride along the path instead of the roads – their philosophy seems to be that if they dont have a light, its better to ride on the lit road, despite the cars being unable to see the rider.

The shared zone at Childers St doesnt work because there arent enough people to ‘take over’ the areas. If you go to places in Europe – for example, lots of the piazzas in Italy – cars can drive through but there are more people than cars, so the cars have to make way for the people. Childers St is the opposite. Bunda St will be the same, unless they make it one lane one way, thus making it too difficult for cars to bother using.

This is a drop in the ocean, as BicycleCanberra points out, but it achieves most of PedalPower’s wish list for improved cycling infrastructure. I think it’s awesome – when finished it will save lives and improve Canberra’s rep as a great cycling city.

Simon-Do You/Your Family Have Any Shares/Interest In Any Cycling Businesses??

This money is over three years, in that time we will spend another $300+ million on road infrastructure. So that will be 1% of road infrastructure upgrades.Yeh! I’m glad (not) that they are starting to even out the spending on walking and cycling infrastructure compared to motorist infrastructure!

How often does Simon Corbell cycle to work? How many of his staff cycle to work?

“Simon Corbell has announced a $9 million spend on motorcycling infrastructure…”

There, I fixed it.

thatsnotme said :

Please, no more ‘shared spaces’, they just don’t work.

I have to agree, I’m yet to see anyone, including the police maintain the 10km/hr speed limit on Childers Street. It’s just an accident waiting to happen.

Please, no more ‘shared spaces’, they just don’t work. The shared space on Childers Street is nothing more than a normal road with an interesting surface for most people it seems – occasionally, I’ve seen a brave pedestrian decide to exercise their rights, and just walk across the road despite the cars driving well above the speed limit…given that I drive along there most days, it’s only a matter of time until I actually see someone get hit.

I just don’t get why the government seems so obsessed with changing a formula that everyone recognises – ie, pedestrians cross the road when it’s safe to do so, unless they’re at a crossing, in which case cars stop for them. But instead of just providing some more crossings, we have to experiment with these shared zones.

Don’t get me started on the shared zone between the National Library and Questacon either…it literally extends for the length of the pedestrian crossing across the road. So what’s the point?!

At first glance this all looks great! I’ll have to drag the missus out for a ride to explore the locations they’re planning to modify.

So the ACT government is quite happy to spend $9mil on cycling infrastructure, along with their own race track, but we are stuck with decades old hillclimb and skidpan facilities and no drag strip? Awesome.