GDE 90 km/h implementation failures

KB1971 said :

it took an accident with a cyclist for me to have an appiffany (it was even the cyclists fault too).

Appiffany. That sounds like a name certain levels of society would inflict on their offspring.

shadow boxer said :

Wow the mature response of the cycling lobby is to call people fatty, nice work from the cool kids….

He’s more of a troll than a representative of the cycling lobby.

I agree with the idea of bike lanes for roads with a 60km/h limit (or less) and separate lanes/paths for roads with speeds greater than that. It makes sense, and as mentioned a few times by others, will make everyone’s commute a lot easier.

shadow boxer said :

Wow the mature response of the cycling lobby is to call people fatty, nice work from the cool kids….

From memory JJ is not a cycling advocate, he just pointing out the faux pas in your reasoning.

As for Johnboy, I loled so hard I had to hold my not so fat belly.

shadow boxer said :

So if I choose to ride a horse to work as it is more environmentally friendly than a bike and car should I be able to have horse paths on every route I choose to travel ?

Firstly, let me just say this is an aside to the main point, but since it was mentioned, I thought I’d make an observation.

Overall, bikes are probably the most *envionmentally friendly* method of travel an individual commuter can make (obviously buses are more environmentally friendly if you’ve got a full load onboard, but if we look at individuals getting to work:

– A horse performing moderate work consumes around 103 MJ per day. That’s defined as taking a rider 30 km/day (which is not unreasonable for a town the size of Canberra).
– Cycling vigourously will use up an extra 0.65 MJ / km (those figures include the averaged lifetime energy cost of producing the bike as well as the additional food cost that a hungry cyclist will need to replenish themselves).
– Walking uses up 0.90 MJ per day (again, figures include average energy input of food and shoe leather). When you think about it, walking will use up more energy because you’re doing it all yourself without any help – plus it takes a lot longer to get there.
– Driving a 1.6L car uses up 3.19 MJ per km (petrol and assuming an average urban speed of 30km/hour – does not as far as I can tell, include the energy cost of producing the car).

So, to do a 30km trip, we’re looking at extra energy costs of (horse: 103 MJ; Bike: 19.5 MJ; Walking: 27 MJ; Car: 95.7 MJ).

Now, I’m not arguing for bikes or against cars, and I DO think those figures probably have a lot of assumptions (and some political bias) built into them that won’t always be correct (figures were obtained from “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living”). We also do need to take into account the there is more than just petrol that’s an environmental cost when you make comparisons.

But from those figures, that horse is actually about as environmentally friendly as the car when you look at the overall picture. Plus, if everyone had a horse in their backyard, the urban sprawl needed to accomodate it would mean significant extra infrastructre costs 🙂

Wow! 58 posts and about 12 of them were on topic. Even Bungers got caught up in the lycra debate.

Did you bring your concerns to Govco’s attention Sarge or is it more rewarding to have a rant here first.

youami said :

Firstly, most of the 55 comments are not related to the OP (ie. speed limits on GDE) so why are they still here?
.

Because, although less well-known than Godwin’s Law, the still prevalent Lycra Law ( there you go, Henry) states that “as an online discussion concerning roads grows longer, the probability of someone ranting about Lycra approaches 1”.

shadow boxer said :

johnboy said :

Generally i find the “massive portion of the normal rational community” don’t mind much either way.

But there are a few fat hate filled morons who shout a lot and the rest of the community likes to keep quiet around those arseholes in the hope they’ll shut up and go away.

As I said in my original post by all means share the road but dont inconvenience their primary purpose.

I think if that happens you would be correct and no-one would care.

Still can’t find a source for this ‘primary purpose’. Can you please link it as evidently I’m google-retarded 🙁

Can you also give an approximate estimate of the percentage of your average journey that is ‘inconvenienced’ by bicycles, and what percentage is ‘inconvenienced’ by cars?

Maybe even an explanation of what constitutes ‘inconvenience’ could be provided?

Because if your argument is that the primary purpose of roads is, say, to facilitate the unimpeded flow of cars, and it turns out that cars ‘inconvenience’ this primary purpose, we’re going to have a quite entertaining reductio ad absurdum

Firstly, most of the 55 comments are not related to the OP (ie. speed limits on GDE) so why are they still here?

Sgt.Bunkers is totally right in that the signage and off-ramp speed limits are completely haphazard, inconsistent, and require a revisit. If ACT Roads want to “warn” drivers when exiting the GDE about the upcoming intersection etc, they could simply apply the yellow “EXIT SPEED” advisory signs instead of imposing a speed limit change for 100m. There are a huge number of similar examples in the ACT. For example, travelling from Wentworth Av onto Bowen Dr then Kings Av and right onto Morsehead Dr -a distance of just 2.5km you go through 6 speed limit changes: 60 > 70 > 60 > 70 > 60 > 80.

Wow the mature response of the cycling lobby is to call people fatty, nice work from the cool kids….

where Kuringa Drive intersects with the barton is a stretch of on road cycle path. There is no other cycle path for kilometres. Kuringa drive is a road only a complete moron would cycle down, being so narrow. Who ever decided that it was the right place to paint a cycle path onto is an idiot.

shadow boxer said :

It’s the sense of self entitlement.

Lol.

This coming from the person arguing that anyone who isn’t an angry fatty in a car is a ‘secondary user’.

Irony of Morrisettian proportions.

johnboy said :

Generally i find the “massive portion of the normal rational community” don’t mind much either way.

But there are a few fat hate filled morons who shout a lot and the rest of the community likes to keep quiet around those arseholes in the hope they’ll shut up and go away.

As I said in my original post by all means share the road but dont inconvenience their primary purpose.

I think if that happens you would be correct and no-one would care.

@sgt bungers

I like your posts generally but comparing the right of a cyclist to a deicated on road cycle path to the right of a disabled person to move around does you no favours.

Cycling is clearly a secondary road use regardless of how much you love it. The thing I think cyclists struggle with is they think there is this mass of people just waiting for a cycle path before they hop on a bike wheras the truth is most people who are able and for whom the form of transport suits their personal needs probably already do.

Cyclists should calm down and reflect on why it is such a massive portion of the normal rational community is so down on them.

It’s the sense of self entitlement.

TheDancingDjinn said :

KB1971 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

I’ll add my bit, just because i have had problems with the cyclists recently. My son goes to Turner school and his entrance is on David St. There is a large zebra crossing there – many mornings i almost hit cyclists becasue they fly across it at top speed, i have no issues with cyclists, other than the fact that i almost hit them daily because they cannot bother to follow road rules. It would be my worst nightmare to hurt someone on the road, i do not want to hit you so please take care with yourselves. I am in a 1 ton bubble of safety, and your on 12kgs of metal with a styrofoam helmet on your head. Get off your bike and walk it ! And before anyone goes on about why i drive, i have said before, that i HAVE to drive, as i could not enrol my son in the neighbourhood school so i have to drive from the back of Spence to Turner every day

You know cyclists are only one road user group but you are hightlighting them as special. What about anybody else who does not use the road properly?

In the last two days I have nearly had two accidents, neither my fault. One was after the Glenloch on Parkes Way, all the left hand lanes from the GDE & William Hovell heading into the city going slow. I was last in a line of cars coming in from Tuggers & anybody who knows this stretch of road knows that it builds up in the morning. I had my safety gap & there was no one behind me but that didnt stop the bloke in the Moroon N15 Pulsar from pulling out from a near stop in front of me travelling at 60 (20km under the posted limit) forcing me to brake evasively (lucky for us I was not in my old Patrol but my newer Pathfider as I would most certainly have cleaned him up).

Number two, was in my street, a woman in a black Holden Astra failed to stop a stop sign & was well in my path before she even looked right, crapped herself & stopped in my path. I was doing 50 which if I had hit her would almost have certainly put her in hospital.

So, only bike riders do stupid things on the roads?

No no your 100 % correct – when i see almost car accidents becasue of stupid drivers im upset just the same – but for me persoanlly, i would hate to hit a cyclist – no air bags, no nothing that person is gonna be really hurt, and i don’t want to be the person who accidently hurts them. So i ask nicely becasue i have no other problems with bikes on my roads or anything – i just wish they would slow a bit at that spot so i have time to stop and not hit them, because i don’t want to hurt people.

Sorry for getting on the defensive, the haters here seem to think riders are the only people here that do anything wrong on the roads. 😉

shadow boxer said :

Probably a good example of why people dont like cyclists here.

The concept that a minority sport is being “discriminated” against because they are not catered for on the roads displays a sense of self entitlement the majority of the community finds offensive.

This, sir, could the the most idiotic and uninformed opinion I’ve ever heard expressed on the RA.

Lucky for you we live in a democratic country where people are entitled to express their views, even if those views are only held by a minority.

Firstly, cycling is not necessarily a “sport” for everyone. It is perfectly valid form of commuting. The way you are thinking is the way Australian Governments have implemented road infrastructure for the last several decades… For motorized vehicles only. This has lead to less people getting around via any other means. It’s lead to Australia being the fattest country in the world with amongst the highest levels of heart disease. It’s lead to high levels of pollution in our major cities. It’s lead to a scarily high 1 in 1 million chance of being permanently disabled thanks to a traffic collision in Australia on any given day.

Do you feel the same way about providing infrastructure for the minority of people who are disabled? Do they have no right to be catered for?

Or people who become sick from a rare disease? Should medicare not cover them?

What about religions that aren’t of a christian denomination? Should they not be entitled to whatever government benefits (such as tax breaks) that christian churches receive?

shadow boxer said :

Roads are overwhelmingly built for cars because this is how the community overwhelmingly moves around., by all means share them with us if it works for you but there is no obligation on the community to support your lifestyle choice or replicate everything we build because you choose to ride.

What if someone cannot afford a car and are unable to catch buses due to poor service in their area… yet they’re paying taxes such as GST, stamp duties etc, all of which contribute to the roads which you somehow feel should only cater for those who own a motor vehicle?

The community overwhelmingly moves around by motor vehicle because our roads are primarily built to cater for motor vehicles.

If cyclists did not feel they were placing their lives into other peoples hands every time they got on their push bike thanks to our rather ordinary infrastructure, then a much larger proportion of people would be cycling.

KB1971 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

I’ll add my bit, just because i have had problems with the cyclists recently. My son goes to Turner school and his entrance is on David St. There is a large zebra crossing there – many mornings i almost hit cyclists becasue they fly across it at top speed, i have no issues with cyclists, other than the fact that i almost hit them daily because they cannot bother to follow road rules. It would be my worst nightmare to hurt someone on the road, i do not want to hit you so please take care with yourselves. I am in a 1 ton bubble of safety, and your on 12kgs of metal with a styrofoam helmet on your head. Get off your bike and walk it ! And before anyone goes on about why i drive, i have said before, that i HAVE to drive, as i could not enrol my son in the neighbourhood school so i have to drive from the back of Spence to Turner every day

You know cyclists are only one road user group but you are hightlighting them as special. What about anybody else who does not use the road properly?

In the last two days I have nearly had two accidents, neither my fault. One was after the Glenloch on Parkes Way, all the left hand lanes from the GDE & William Hovell heading into the city going slow. I was last in a line of cars coming in from Tuggers & anybody who knows this stretch of road knows that it builds up in the morning. I had my safety gap & there was no one behind me but that didnt stop the bloke in the Moroon N15 Pulsar from pulling out from a near stop in front of me travelling at 60 (20km under the posted limit) forcing me to brake evasively (lucky for us I was not in my old Patrol but my newer Pathfider as I would most certainly have cleaned him up).

Number two, was in my street, a woman in a black Holden Astra failed to stop a stop sign & was well in my path before she even looked right, crapped herself & stopped in my path. I was doing 50 which if I had hit her would almost have certainly put her in hospital.

So, only bike riders do stupid things on the roads?

No no your 100 % correct – when i see almost car accidents becasue of stupid drivers im upset just the same – but for me persoanlly, i would hate to hit a cyclist – no air bags, no nothing that person is gonna be really hurt, and i don’t want to be the person who accidently hurts them. So i ask nicely becasue i have no other problems with bikes on my roads or anything – i just wish they would slow a bit at that spot so i have time to stop and not hit them, because i don’t want to hurt people.

I love a good brawl between cyclists and motorists. I also thought the bloke wanting a horse only track was good also. Now perhaps we could hear from a segway advocate.

stahmo said :

Thanks for posting. I was really confused when I drove on GDE on Canberra Day. It felt quite unsafe, particularly when driving northwards at the traffic light intersection (turning right into Mitchell). How can you go at 90 and then be expected to stop at a red light around a bend/hill-top? I estimate you get about 200–300m before you can see whether it’s red or not. That’s not a lot of time.

Yes, I came around that bend driving the Indian-Pacific train and I had to apply the emergency brake. Of course when I’m in a car, there is actually plenty of room.

gasman said :

To those of you who are expressing anti-bike sentiments: You and I want the same thing!

You, in a car, want to be able to drive without bikes slowing you down. I, on a bike, want to be off the road where car drivers often drive badly at 90km/h. This can easily be acheived by building fairly inexpensive infrastructure to separate bikes from cars. At the moment, the ACT Govt spends far less than 1% of its roads budget on cycling facilities. If it spent a little more, we would have more people on bikes, less in cars, and that would benefit us all, including those that choose to drive.

Here is the issue though. In times past a whole heap of things called bicycle paths were built. These were built to get the cyclist from A to B without having to ride on the same road as cars legitimately doing 80km/h+ as bikes and cars travelling at these speed do not mix.

However the cycle lobbyists wanted to also ride on the roads. So over the last few years on road bicycle lanes have also been built at the expense of dedicated bike paths.

Quite frankly I reckon on road bike lanes should be built on roads with a speed limit less than 60km/h and separate facilities built for roads like Gungahlin Drive/Caswell Drive (why do people refer to it as GDE can anyone show me a road sign with this on it?). But until the cycle community can work out what I really wants there is no way for a win win situation to be found. Instead we have bicycle riders moaning about drivers and how dangerous it is to ride on roads, and we have car drivers moaning about bike riders and how dangerous it is for them to ride on the roads.

Postalgeek said :

And what is it with this recurring obsession with Lycra? You can’t seem to take your eyes off it. Is it driven by some form of self-loathing homoerotic phobia? A lot of cyclists don’t wear the stuff and those that do obviously don’t give a shit what you think.

You do yourself a disservice by immediately pigeon-holing yourself as a dumbarse bigot with your repititious and tedious need to use the word as some form of perceived denigration (as if anyone else gives a shit), and it detracts from the rest of your arguments (those with some element of factual basis).

All I can hear from Henry in this thread is blah, blah, blah – bullshit excuses why I dont ride bikes – blah, blah, blah. I think you are right on the lycra fetish 🙂

I used to be a hater but now I have changed my ways & it took an accident with a cyclist for me to have an appiffany (it was even the cyclists fault too).

TheDancingDjinn said :

I’ll add my bit, just because i have had problems with the cyclists recently. My son goes to Turner school and his entrance is on David St. There is a large zebra crossing there – many mornings i almost hit cyclists becasue they fly across it at top speed, i have no issues with cyclists, other than the fact that i almost hit them daily because they cannot bother to follow road rules. It would be my worst nightmare to hurt someone on the road, i do not want to hit you so please take care with yourselves. I am in a 1 ton bubble of safety, and your on 12kgs of metal with a styrofoam helmet on your head. Get off your bike and walk it ! And before anyone goes on about why i drive, i have said before, that i HAVE to drive, as i could not enrol my son in the neighbourhood school so i have to drive from the back of Spence to Turner every day

You know cyclists are only one road user group but you are hightlighting them as special. What about anybody else who does not use the road properly?

In the last two days I have nearly had two accidents, neither my fault. One was after the Glenloch on Parkes Way, all the left hand lanes from the GDE & William Hovell heading into the city going slow. I was last in a line of cars coming in from Tuggers & anybody who knows this stretch of road knows that it builds up in the morning. I had my safety gap & there was no one behind me but that didnt stop the bloke in the Moroon N15 Pulsar from pulling out from a near stop in front of me travelling at 60 (20km under the posted limit) forcing me to brake evasively (lucky for us I was not in my old Patrol but my newer Pathfider as I would most certainly have cleaned him up).

Number two, was in my street, a woman in a black Holden Astra failed to stop a stop sign & was well in my path before she even looked right, crapped herself & stopped in my path. I was doing 50 which if I had hit her would almost have certainly put her in hospital.

So, only bike riders do stupid things on the roads?

And what is it with this recurring obsession with Lycra? You can’t seem to take your eyes off it. Is it driven by some form of self-loathing homoerotic phobia? A lot of cyclists don’t wear the stuff and those that do obviously don’t give a shit what you think.

You do yourself a disservice by immediately pigeon-holing yourself as a dumbarse bigot with your repititious and tedious need to use the word as some form of perceived denigration (as if anyone else gives a shit), and it detracts from the rest of your arguments (those with some element of factual basis).

HenryBG said :

Oh, one of these idiots cleaned up my 4-year-old nephew a few weeks ago, right in front of me. God forbid somebody wearing lycra should actually slow down in consideration of other users of the cycle paths. He completely failed to apologise or in any way make it clear that he regretted knocking a small child off its bicycle. I gave that @#%# an ear-bashing, let me tell you.

I assume you were controlling the child on a cycle path and keeping him to the left, and the cyclist veered into you, which is sincerely terrible..

…because if not I’m going to have an absolute pharking field day with this: all this whinging about cyclists on roads and then whining about cyclists on cycle ways, and bollocks about cyclists clogging roads (post a photo on Monday if it happens so often. If you can’t, just take a photo of cars clogging a road; 8.30AM Monday on Monaro Hwy if you need a guaranteed starting point) and then bellyaching that they are going too fast on cycle paths to avoid wayward kids belonging to deluded adults who think shared infrastructure should be a safe place for all.

But that’s not you, is it?

I’ll add my bit, just because i have had problems with the cyclists recently. My son goes to Turner school and his entrance is on David St. There is a large zebra crossing there – many mornings i almost hit cyclists becasue they fly across it at top speed, i have no issues with cyclists, other than the fact that i almost hit them daily because they cannot bother to follow road rules. It would be my worst nightmare to hurt someone on the road, i do not want to hit you so please take care with yourselves. I am in a 1 ton bubble of safety, and your on 12kgs of metal with a styrofoam helmet on your head. Get off your bike and walk it ! And before anyone goes on about why i drive, i have said before, that i HAVE to drive, as i could not enrol my son in the neighbourhood school so i have to drive from the back of Spence to Turner every day

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

Again. HenryBG I don’t understand why you are so anti-cyclist when you also fervently believe in global warming.

Surely if it is an issue that concerns you, you would be ditching the car yourself and switching to bike?

It seems to me that you are in denial yourself, with regards to the impact driving has on the climate. To criticise global warming denialists on one thread, and then criticise cyclists on another thread seems to be more than a bit hypocritical.

I don’t “believe” in anything – I assess the facts and conform to reality, unlike the minuscule minority of astronomically selfish lycra fans who labour under the delusion that their extreme fringe choice of sporting activity is deserving of support from *any* of our taxes.

Now they’ve got a new one one – “In Vancouver…blablabla”.
Well, the last was was “In Copenhagen…” and I conclusively demonstrated that Canberra ratepayers have funded cycling in this city by an order of magnitude higher than the citizens of Copenhagen have done in theirs. I really can’t be bothered looking past the cycle-fundie propaganda about Vancouver to see what the truth of that one is, but it’s safe to assume they are lying to us, again and as usual.

And despite all this spending, far, far fewer people are cycling today than ever before. It’s probably time the government stopped listening to cycle lobbies and started listening to real people instead.

Oh, one of these idiots cleaned up my 4-year-old nephew a few weeks ago, right in front of me. God forbid somebody wearing lycra should actually slow down in consideration of other users of the cycle paths. He completely failed to apologise or in any way make it clear that he regretted knocking a small child off its bicycle. I gave that @#%# an ear-bashing, let me tell you.

You didn’t respond at all to my comment.

If, by assessing the facts, you accept the scientific consensus behind climate change, you must also acknowledge that cars are one of the biggest contributors. Why with the cycle hate, when people who choose to commute by cycling are clearly doing something which is a positive for the environment.

To me, anyone who truly cares about climate change would be all in favour of diverting funding from policies that encourage people to drive and towards policies that encourage alternative forms of transport, particularly zero emission forms such as cycling.

caf said :

HenryBG said :

And despite all this spending, far, far fewer people are cycling today than ever before.

I believe this is what’s usually known as “bullshit”.

Less people were cycling to work or full-time study in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory (both 5% in 2006 down to 3% in 2009).
2.5 WALK OR CYCLE TO WORK OR FULL-TIME STUDY
The most common reason reported by people for why they did not walk or cycle to their place of work or full-time study was that the distance was too far (71% for not walking, 45% for not cycling). This was reported by people in every age group.

http://www.abs.gov.au

1301.0 – Year Book Australia, 2009–10

HenryBG said :

And despite all this spending, far, far fewer people are cycling today than ever before.

I believe this is what’s usually known as “bullshit”.

Jethro said :

Again. HenryBG I don’t understand why you are so anti-cyclist when you also fervently believe in global warming.

Surely if it is an issue that concerns you, you would be ditching the car yourself and switching to bike?

It seems to me that you are in denial yourself, with regards to the impact driving has on the climate. To criticise global warming denialists on one thread, and then criticise cyclists on another thread seems to be more than a bit hypocritical.

I don’t “believe” in anything – I assess the facts and conform to reality, unlike the minuscule minority of astronomically selfish lycra fans who labour under the delusion that their extreme fringe choice of sporting activity is deserving of support from *any* of our taxes.

Now they’ve got a new one one – “In Vancouver…blablabla”.
Well, the last was was “In Copenhagen…” and I conclusively demonstrated that Canberra ratepayers have funded cycling in this city by an order of magnitude higher than the citizens of Copenhagen have done in theirs. I really can’t be bothered looking past the cycle-fundie propaganda about Vancouver to see what the truth of that one is, but it’s safe to assume they are lying to us, again and as usual.

And despite all this spending, far, far fewer people are cycling today than ever before. It’s probably time the government stopped listening to cycle lobbies and started listening to real people instead.

Oh, one of these idiots cleaned up my 4-year-old nephew a few weeks ago, right in front of me. God forbid somebody wearing lycra should actually slow down in consideration of other users of the cycle paths. He completely failed to apologise or in any way make it clear that he regretted knocking a small child off its bicycle. I gave that @#%# an ear-bashing, let me tell you.

Gungahlin Al said :

shadow boxer said :

gasman said :

I finally realise I’m arguing with “one of those”. I’ll let it rest. Enjoy your traffic jams, your bushfires and your future coronary bypass, Shadow Boxer.

lol, you got owned dude.

And we shall all remember this admission that you are indeed trolling, every time in future you trot out your stupid anti-cyclist “arguments”. I for one am over your games. Life’s too short.

Where did I admit that ?

Self entitlement

It means that an individual believes he is entitled to have whatever he want when he want it, without regard to what is fair or reasonable to others. So he takes everything and everyone for granted. He expects to receive favours without ever having to do anyone else a favour. He feels entitled to invade and trespass on others’ boundaries; believes that everything he receives is his due.

He has no concern or respect for the rights of others but vigorously protects his own. Rules, guidelines, convention and laws apply to other people and he alone is entitled to disregard them. Often he projects an image of arrogance, inconsiderateness and selfishness.

Does that pretty well sum up the Cyclist vs car debate ? I’m glad i’ve got my horse.

Meanwhile back OT, good summary Sgt Bungers.

On disappearing bike lanes, this is my favourite (NOT) spot on my monthly night rides after Belco Arts Centre board meetings: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=mitchell+ACT&hl=en&ll=-35.218901,149.131417&spn=0.001665,0.003168&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=58.257118,103.798828&hnear=Mitchell+Australian+Capital+Territory&t=h&z=19

The lane just disappears and you find yourself in the middle of a 90kph road pedalling your guts out to get up to the lights before traffic takes you out.

I wrote to Tony Gill about this weeks back and he said it would be fixed, but nothing yet. Looking at the satellite shot I see there is a disconnected bike path up on top of the bank, but no connection to it. And it’s a bit of a steep climb. But it’s a simple job to fix – just extend the bikepath down to t and chuck in a ramp in the gutter. Sorted.

So why didn’t the people building it sort this in the first place. This ain’t bloody rocket science…

Is this a record for how long it took for the Subject to devolve into “Bikes vs. Cars?”

shadow boxer said :

gasman said :

I finally realise I’m arguing with “one of those”. I’ll let it rest. Enjoy your traffic jams, your bushfires and your future coronary bypass, Shadow Boxer.

lol, you got owned dude.

And we shall all remember this admission that you are indeed trolling, every time in future you trot out your stupid anti-cyclist “arguments”. I for one am over your games. Life’s too short.

gasman said :

shadow boxer said :

I rest my case, when they write the history of the most deluded and self entitled groups that pissed everybody off in the early 21st century the nominees are;

Soccer fans (who think everybody wants to watch soccer if we could just force them to)
Cyclists (who think everybody wants to ride a bike if we could just force them to) and
Dog owners (who think everybody loves their dog and is happy to listen to them bark, bound up to their children and leave faeces everywhere).

Honourable metions to the public transport and climate change folks.

I finally realise I’m arguing with “one of those”. I’ll let it rest. Enjoy your traffic jams, your bushfires and your future coronary bypass, Shadow Boxer.

lol, you got owned dude.

Are you sure you dont want to join my horse riding advocacy group, we could ride on the paths but we find them a bit bumpy so we are demanding on road horse paths.

If we dont get them I will be off to the anti discrimination commissioner.

shadow boxer said :

I rest my case, when they write the history of the most deluded and self entitled groups that pissed everybody off in the early 21st century the nominees are;

Soccer fans (who think everybody wants to watch soccer if we could just force them to)
Cyclists (who think everybody wants to ride a bike if we could just force them to) and
Dog owners (who think everybody loves their dog and is happy to listen to them bark, bound up to their children and leave faeces everywhere).

Honourable metions to the public transport and climate change folks.

I finally realise I’m arguing with “one of those”. I’ll let it rest. Enjoy your traffic jams, your bushfires and your future coronary bypass, Shadow Boxer.

HenryBG said :

Postalgeek said :

First, bikes aren’t just a sport, anymore than driving is a sport.

Get off the grass.

Those pixies don their lycra gear and clog the roads entirely for reasons of sport.

Transport infrastructure in the form of roads has as its purpose to enable motor vehicles to move about. It is expensive enough without paying even more to cater for every lunatic fringe element that wants to stick its oar in.

Again. HenryBG I don’t understand why you are so anti-cyclist when you also fervently believe in global warming.

Surely if it is an issue that concerns you, you would be ditching the car yourself and switching to bike?

It seems to me that you are in denial yourself, with regards to the impact driving has on the climate. To criticise global warming denialists on one thread, and then criticise cyclists on another thread seems to be more than a bit hypocritical.

gasman said Actually, I regard the needs of cyclists not as equal to that of car drivers but even more important.

I rest my case, when they write the history of the most deluded and self entitled groups that pissed everybody off in the early 21st century the nominees are;

Soccer fans (who think everybody wants to watch soccer if we could just force them to)
Cyclists (who think everybody wants to ride a bike if we could just force them to) and
Dog owners (who think everybody loves their dog and is happy to listen to them bark, bound up to their children and leave faeces everywhere).

Honourable metions to the public transport and climate change folks.

HenryBG said :

johnboy said :

They put an on-road cycling lane near my house about 2.5 years ago – I have *never* seen a single, solitary cyclist *ever* use it.[/quote>

Probably because it doesn’t go anywhere important (sorry) or doesn’t link to other cycle routes. Although Canberra is often touted as the cycle capital of Australia, in reality the cycle network is extremely patchy. Cycle lanes have often been put where the road is wide enough to accommodate. As soon as the road narrows, the cycle lane ends. A patchy cycle network is almost as useless as no network at all, and won’t be used.

I spent 2 years in living in Vancouver, BC. While I was there, there was a shift in policy on bicycle infrastructure. The new mayor formulated a goal to decrease congestion in Vancouver, one of North America’s busiest downtown areas. Bike lanes and paths were created, back streets shut down or traffic calmed to allow cyclist safe routes through the city. Entire lanes on bridges shut down to cars, and converted to cycleways, initially as a trial, but was so successful it became permanent. Old railways converted to bike trails. Signage, maps, point of interest and refreshment stations.

Read my write-up here.

It became so successful that downtown car traffic decreased by 7%, with a concurrent increase in cycling. Vancouver is far more hilly than Canberra, yet there are far more cyclists in that city.

It means that those people that want to or have to drive can do so more easily, and those that want to or choose to ride bikes can do so more safely.

shadow boxer said :

The idea that the needs of cyclists are equally important to that of cars, trucks and buses on our roads is quite silly.

Any debate that starts from this premise is flawed.

By all means share the road but dont interfere with their primary function.

Actually, I regard the needs of cyclists not as equal to that of car drivers but even more important.

Firstly, cyclists are far more vulnerable to injury and death from cars, and therefore there are standards that are formulated (in Australia, by Austroads) to ensure safety of all, standards that are not complied with by the new speed limit on the GDE. There exists a duty of care from society to look after its more vulnerable members.

Secondly, riding a bike is far more justifiable on many grounds than driving a car. We cost the community far less in terms of oil, health and environmental degredation. Or to put it another way, by spending more on cycling facilities (or in the case of the GDE, simply complying with Austroads standards), the community as a whole, including car drivers, save money.

By giving cycling a higher priority, we all benefit.

Skidbladnir said :

PrinceOfAles said :

Cyclists pay taxes. Therefore they`re entitled to have cycle paths/on road cycle lanes built for them.

That’s an awfully weak line of argument.
First, road users pay additional fees and surcharges on top of standard taxes, which (in theory) go to building and maintaining a road network, services, and regulation thereof. That the roads, services, and regulatory bodies cost significantly more than these fees cover is legitimised by the overlap of roads with basic economic infrastructure.
So when road users complain, government listens. When cyclists complain, most governments pretend to listen. For some strange reason our government started to do more than nod politely, and tried providing for all desires of all people, but disproportionately burdens its current tax base.

Less seriously, pedophiles also pay taxes, but we give them prison sentences and therapy.
Do you really want to draw comparisons between cyclists and the demands vs actual returns of -any possible subcategory- of taxpayer?
Or are you advocating a user-pays model, because then cyclists will start getting only what they pay for, instead of what they simply expect handouts for…

No, no – THIS^^^^

To those of you who are expressing anti-bike sentiments: You and I want the same thing!

You, in a car, want to be able to drive without bikes slowing you down. I, on a bike, want to be off the road where car drivers often drive badly at 90km/h. This can easily be acheived by building fairly inexpensive infrastructure to separate bikes from cars. At the moment, the ACT Govt spends far less than 1% of its roads budget on cycling facilities. If it spent a little more, we would have more people on bikes, less in cars, and that would benefit us all, including those that choose to drive.

HenryBG said :

Postalgeek said :

First, bikes aren’t just a sport, anymore than driving is a sport.

Get off the grass.

Those pixies don their lycra gear and clog the roads entirely for reasons of sport.

Transport infrastructure in the form of roads has as its purpose to enable motor vehicles to move about. It is expensive enough without paying even more to cater for every lunatic fringe element that wants to stick its oar in.

So because motor vehicles require such expensive infrastructure it should prohibit cheaper forms of transport. Wow, we’re in the A-League of logic here.
You cite an official source for your assertion of infrastructure purpose, because at the moment it has all the hallmarks of something you’ve pulled out of your arse.
And instead of being a keyboard coward how about you do something about your fixation with lycra and go and call cyclists ‘pixies’ to their faces.

Gungahlin Al said :

johnboy said :

It’s not a question of entitlement it’s that sane governments (and sane motorists for that matter) want more people cycling because it is massively less infrastructure intensive with huge downstream benefits to the body politic at large.

Infrastructure which gets more people cycling than would otherwise do so is good for cyclists, good for motorists, and good for the wider community.

From a (sane and intelligent) motorist’s point of view every cyclist they see is one less car competing with them for space on the road, parking, and that rapidly depleting supply of petrol.

^^^^^ THIS.

I thought we put the petrol argument to bed ages ago, electric cars will be hear inside 20 years and there is plenty of petrol to see us through.

Read his post again Al, it oozes self entitlement.

So if I choose to ride a horse to work as it is more environmentally friendly than a bike and car should I be able to have horse paths on every route I choose to travel ?

If I dont get these am I alowed to complain about “discrimination” agasinst horse riders.

The idea that the needs of cyclists are equally important to that of cars, trucks and buses on our roads is quite silly.

Any debate that starts from this premise is flawed.

By all means share the road but dont interfere with their primary function.

johnboy said :

It’s not a question of entitlement it’s that sane governments (and sane motorists for that matter) want more people cycling because it is massively less infrastructure intensive with huge downstream benefits to the body politic at large.

Infrastructure which gets more people cycling than would otherwise do so is good for cyclists, good for motorists, and good for the wider community.

From a (sane and intelligent) motorist’s point of view every cyclist they see is one less car competing with them for space on the road, parking, and that rapidly depleting supply of petrol.

^^^^^ THIS.

johnboy said :

erm, it happens all the time. we’re not talking about getting everyone on a bike. We’re talking about things that cost bugger all but get more people out of their cars to the benefit of all.

I heard a bloke on the radio on Friday morning talking about how they need to design parking in such a way as it forces people to get 1 or 2km of walking done to and from their cars every day.
Same deal with cycling – if you provide park & rides with a sub-3km flat route into the city centres AND re-educate people onto bicycles again AND get rid of the compulsory helmet law, then you could get some useful results.

Long stretches of expensive road pavement to cater for a tiny, tiny minority of cycling fundamentalists is not money well-spent.
They put an on-road cycling lane near my house about 2.5 years ago – I have *never* seen a single, solitary cyclist *ever* use it.

PrinceOfAles said :

Cyclists pay taxes. Therefore they`re entitled to have cycle paths/on road cycle lanes built for them.

That’s an awfully weak line of argument.
First, road users pay additional fees and surcharges on top of standard taxes, which (in theory) go to building and maintaining a road network, services, and regulation thereof. That the roads, services, and regulatory bodies cost significantly more than these fees cover is legitimised by the overlap of roads with basic economic infrastructure.
So when road users complain, government listens. When cyclists complain, most governments pretend to listen. For some strange reason our government started to do more than nod politely, and tried providing for all desires of all people, but disproportionately burdens its current tax base.

Less seriously, pedophiles also pay taxes, but we give them prison sentences and therapy.
Do you really want to draw comparisons between cyclists and the demands vs actual returns of -any possible subcategory- of taxpayer?
Or are you advocating a user-pays model, because then cyclists will start getting only what they pay for, instead of what they simply expect handouts for…

johnboy said :

Infrastructure which gets more people cycling than would otherwise do so is good for cyclists, good for motorists, and good for the wider community.

Never will happen.
This is not Amsterdam, where there are no hills and everybody lives within 1500m of their cycling destination – here the average commute is at least 10000m, most routes include a gnarly hill, and most people are never going to want to turn up at work already wrecked.
This is a city for car owners, for better or for worse.
Unless we get some *serious* urban in-fill and some proper Park’n’Ride setups.

Postalgeek said :

First, bikes aren’t just a sport, anymore than driving is a sport.

Get off the grass.

Those pixies don their lycra gear and clog the roads entirely for reasons of sport.

Transport infrastructure in the form of roads has as its purpose to enable motor vehicles to move about. It is expensive enough without paying even more to cater for every lunatic fringe element that wants to stick its oar in.

shadow boxer said :

Probably a good example of why people dont like cyclists here.

The concept that a minority sport is being “discriminated” against because they are not catered for on the roads displays a sense of self entitlement the majority of the community finds offensive.

Oh dear – this is what I was hoping to avoid.

Firstly, for me its not a minority sport. Its how I get around this city for shopping, school, work. I choose to commute by bicycle for very many good reasons.

What you are displaying in your post is a actually a sense of entitlement for car drivers. You seem to be saying that because the majority of commutes are by car, we should not provide safe, effective facilities for those of us that use other forms of transport. By that logic, we should also not cater to those with disabilities, because the overwhelming majority of people don’t have any.

Roads are overwhelmingly built for cars…

And Australian society is overwhelmingly obese – the highest rates of car driving and obesity in the world.

And wars are overwhelmingly fought over oil.

And the car drivers are putting overwhelmingly large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

And sedentary car drivers are putting and overwhelmingly large strain on the health system.

because this is how the community overwhelmingly moves around.

I think you have your cause and effect mixed up. The majority of people go by car because public transport on Canberra is hopeless and riding bikes is too dangerous because of lack of effective infrastructure.

In more enlightened parts of the world, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Holland and Denmark, they have built comprehensive, safe infrastructure for bicycles, starting in the 1970’s. 60% of the population there cycles regularly, and their incidence of obesity is about one quarter of that of Australia. Health expenditure on healthcare (that ultimately comes from your taxes) is far less than what we spend.

Many other Western nations are starting to copy their example. I saw huge changes in roads works to cater for cycling in Vancouver, Portland and San Francisco. They are actively shutting down lanes and roads, converting them to bicycle ways, increasing parking fees, imposing congestion taxes, to discourage car use in the cities. Initially the population was against the idea, but now they are overwhelmingly in support of it.

Its really odd that you are anti-bike. If there would be adequate bicycle infrastructure in Canberra, more people would be on bikes, less in cars, so that those who choose to drive would have less traffic jams, and easier parking. Ultimately, the community would be healthier and we all pay less taxes. Good cycling infrastructure means that you in a car do not have to mix with me on my bike on the roads. Bikes and cars on the same road is annoying to you, and dangerous for me. We both actually want the same thing!

PrinceOfAles said :

Cyclists pay taxes. Therefore they`re entitled to have cycle paths/on road cycle lanes built for them.

Really? Who knew paying taxes entitled you to whatever you desired!

shadow boxer said :

Probably a good example of why people dont like cyclists here.

The concept that a minority sport is being “discriminated” against because they are not catered for on the roads displays a sense of self entitlement the majority of the community finds offensive.

Roads are overwhelmingly built for cars because this is how the community overwhelmingly moves around., by all means share them with us if it works for you but there is no obligation on the community to support your lifestyle choice or replicate everything we build because you choose to ride..

First, bikes aren’t just a sport, anymore than driving is a sport. People rely on them for commuting, or choose cycling over the gross expenditure of resources ( personal and community) to move a body from A to B

Second, this is a good example of why people don’t like car drivers here: a hypocritical sense of self- entitlement.

Third, there is no obligation on the community to support your lifestyle choice or replicate everything we build (like the GDE) because you choose to drive.

shadow boxer said :

Probably a good example of why people dont like cyclists here.

The concept that a minority sport is being “discriminated” against because they are not catered for on the roads displays a sense of self entitlement the majority of the community finds offensive.

Roads are overwhelmingly built for cars because this is how the community overwhelmingly moves around., by all means share them with us if it works for you but there is no obligation on the community to support your lifestyle choice or replicate everything we build because you choose to ride..

Cyclists pay taxes. Therefore they`re entitled to have cycle paths/on road cycle lanes built for them.

Probably a good example of why people dont like cyclists here.

The concept that a minority sport is being “discriminated” against because they are not catered for on the roads displays a sense of self entitlement the majority of the community finds offensive.

Roads are overwhelmingly built for cars because this is how the community overwhelmingly moves around., by all means share them with us if it works for you but there is no obligation on the community to support your lifestyle choice or replicate everything we build because you choose to ride..

Further failures:

There is a bicycle lane for most (?all) of the length of the GDE. Austroads (the federal Govt body that sets the standards for roads and road safety in Australia), specifies that for a road with high traffic, but limited to 80km/h, a 2.5m wide bicycle lane is deemed adequate.

On roads with high traffic flows above 80km/h, Austroads standards specify a bicycle lane that is physically separated from the road.

The GDE has no physical separation of the bicycle lane from the road. As soon as the speed limit was raised to 90km/h, the GDE instantly failed to meet Austroads safety standards for bicycle lanes.

Also, while for most of its length, the bicycle lane is 2.5m wide, there are sections (at overpasses) up to 50m long that narrow to about 1m in width. Its no fun having trucks whizz just a few centimetres past my right ear at 90km/h.

The report commissioned by the government was prepared by AECOM. Their report almost completely ignores cycling aspects of the GDE. The AECOM report incorrectly states that a 90km/h speed limit on the GDE complies with Austroads standards for bicycles.

Finally, the exits along the GDE have no green lane markings for bicycles that continue straight through. These green lanes at exits, while not an Austroad standard, are becoming standard in the ACT for high-speed roads. Again, consistency is important.

Now before this becomes a car vs bike slanging match, I use the GDE as both a car driver but more commonly as a bicycle commuter. I don’t necessarily oppose the 90km/h speed limit for cars on the GDE. I pay my taxes, and those taxes paid for the GDE. If I choose to ride a bicycle, for whatever reason, I should not be discriminated against, nor my safety put in jeopardy.

Safety should be the number 1 priority. If the GDE speed limit is now 90km/h, there should be a physically separated bicycle lane. There should be green lanes for bicycles at all exits.

Mr Gillespie said :

80/90? Not much of a difference, what’s 10km/h?

A requirement to keep left at 90 unless overtaking, not so at 80.
The Aranda through Glenoch section flows better if people going straight through keep right,
and leave the left lane to those exiting and entering – especially when busy.
Contradictory.

Mr Gillespie said :

80/90? Not much of a difference, what’s 10km/h?

A $162 and 1 point fine I believe.

I am involved in trying to sort out a similar mess – disability parking in the ACT. Same problems different standard. Again an example of a national standard being appallingly implemented by the ACT.

Mr Gillespie said :

80/90? Not much of a difference, what’s 10km/h? And WHY is “noise” being weighed into decisions about speed limits, instead of genuine safety??

Because roads go through planning approvals and decisions processes, which do take noise exposures into account. Speed limits and resident noise exposures were some of the many issues in the mix through the planning & legal history of the GDE.

80/90? Not much of a difference, what’s 10km/h? And WHY is “noise” being weighed into decisions about speed limits, instead of genuine safety??

Thanks for posting. I was really confused when I drove on GDE on Canberra Day. It felt quite unsafe, particularly when driving northwards at the traffic light intersection (turning right into Mitchell). How can you go at 90 and then be expected to stop at a red light around a bend/hill-top? I estimate you get about 200–300m before you can see whether it’s red or not. That’s not a lot of time.