Interest in forming an ACT Motorised Road Users Association?

Try this instead.

I don’t know what point you people are trying to make, you’ve lost me. What Duke said.

peterh,

Again, thanks for the links and data previously – spent a very interesting lunchtime looking over it all.

A couple of points are curious. The TAC data you posted says:

On road New 2.5m wide on existing road (Assumming twin lanes, kerbed road), Including widening
TOTAL $165,000/km Based on Northbourne Avenue On Road Cycling

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Northbourne wasn’t widened at all, was it? I thought that’s why some motorists were getting their knickers knotted up – lanes were narrowed and speed limits lowered to accommodate the cycle lanes. Surely the Northbourne costs should have been based on the data immediately above (on road, no widening @$20K / km).

And for the GDE, given that there’s no kerb to move (like there would have been on Northbourne had they widened the road) then the cost should be similar to widening an existing path (the closest I found to adding a lane with no kerb involved) @$69K /km as you’ve already suggested. Looking at other data on the TAMS site suggests this is per side, so to do 1km of both sides of the road is $139K. The GDE is 16.6km long, so that gives (dives for calculator…) $2.3M, out of a total budget for the road of $116M (wikipedia)

Incidentally, the costs for a new cycle lane @$138K / km seem quite high, given that I found several reports from NSW councils apparently able to build full 2 lane roads for $160K / km. We must have very well engineered paths indeed!

I aggree with Impassive – riders on roads are dangerous fullstop.

Why should I pay for their recuparation – medical expences – etc – etc when they are hit by a car that has the rite to be on the rode.

If this group can remove them then I am all for it.

Otherwise I will keep beeping at them, and swerving at them because they have no right to be there, slowing everything down.

And I agree with Peter – they are taking all our taxes it is unbeleveable.

Impassive,

3 paras of your OP of 4 involve bagging cyclists or their accommodation by the ACT government – but it’s a red herring? OK…

Just to clarify for me then:

– would you personally support your Motorists Group actively lobbying for MORE funding for off-road cycle lanes, as two of the only three supporters of your idea have mentioned so far?

– where is your evidence to support the assertion at #67 “I am not surprised to see that there are so many motorists who feel that they are not well represented or considered by our government.

Tixylix said :

It just keeps on giving.

So, the GDE extension + legal battles, how much? And not the estimates this time please. Is it an official document or did you do the calculations in your head again?

Total roads expenditure, how much for the last financial year? It may help give some perspective to the topic of discussion.

And peterh, you keep quoting full posts and failing to address any part of them. That’s a nice tie you’ve got.

what the??

not wearing a tie today…

I was using the estimates as an example of the potential costings. the actual costings are buried in the budget doco. If you want to wade through them, go ahead.

I will pass on that.

here is the P&L for you to peruse at your leisure.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/69251/TAMS_Annual_Report_V1_Screen.pdf

if you have 5mb to spare…

It just keeps on giving.

So, the GDE extension + legal battles, how much? And not the estimates this time please. Is it an official document or did you do the calculations in your head again?

Total roads expenditure, how much for the last financial year? It may help give some perspective to the topic of discussion.

And peterh, you keep quoting full posts and failing to address any part of them. That’s a nice tie you’ve got.

Tixylix said :

I fully agree that cyclists and cars should be segregated by giving cyclists dedicated, functional infrastructure, is that the point you were trying to make, Impassive? I couldn’t tell because posting a moronic whinge which scapegoats some poor bastards who are trying to do the right thing is not an effective way to make a convincing appeal for consensus on anything.

Get a grip Tixy – what I have said is that Pedal Power is a fine example of a lobby group who have succeeded in achieving a lot for very few, and that motorists should take a leaf from their book..
The roads are critical infrastructure for more than commuters and remarks on how much is spent on them are ridiculous, but to fail to design infrastructure that allows for the free flow of traffic in a city like Canberra is irresponsible, and for the Chief Minister to say that we should put up with it shows how little concern he has for motorists needs, and demonstrates the need for organised representation.

I’d love to join your AMRUA, Impassive. The first thing I reckon we should lobby for is reduced registration costs for car owners who commute to work on bicycles. I’m just outraged that we have to pay the same rego costs as every other motorist, yet we contribute far less wear and tear to the roads! Outraged! Sign me up mate…

Tixylix said :

That’s hardly the millions which Impassive spoke of, and substantially less than the 1.5 million it cost to build a new car park at Phillip oval this year. How much did the Gungahlin drive extension cost again? And does that include the legal expenses?

I fully agree that cyclists and cars should be segregated by giving cyclists dedicated, functional infrastructure, is that the point you were trying to make, Impassive? I couldn’t tell because posting a moronic whinge which scapegoats some poor bastards who are trying to do the right thing is not an effective way to make a convincing appeal for consensus on anything.

if you calculate the areas of the parkway that have cycle lanes on them, and base them on the $69k per kilometer, with the parkway being lets say 17km long, it is around $1.17m for the cycle lanes. (what the estimates don’t tell us is whether this cost is per side, or both sides)

the gde, depending on where the cycle lanes end and start, might cost less or more.

the point is, where is the funding coming from? is it from the general taxation coffers, which everyone fills, or has the government used funding from other required services?

That’s hardly the millions which Impassive spoke of, and substantially less than the 1.5 million it cost to build a new car park at Phillip oval this year. How much did the Gungahlin drive extension cost again? And does that include the legal expenses?

I fully agree that cyclists and cars should be segregated by giving cyclists dedicated, functional infrastructure, is that the point you were trying to make, Impassive? I couldn’t tell because posting a moronic whinge which scapegoats some poor bastards who are trying to do the right thing is not an effective way to make a convincing appeal for consensus on anything.

Ah Snarky… my original question was about the interest in a motorist’s lobby group to effectively represent the interests of motorist… the whole cycle path thing is a bit of a red herring really..

I don’t care what they cost or how much the Govt spent.. they spend lots of money on strange things.. my original point was that motorists don’t have a voice in government and could do worse than copy Pedal Power.

a guess of cost based on the length of northbourne (4km) vs the estimated cost per km ($165K) is $660K.
where does the $660k come from?

that is the question that really should be asked.

how much of the funding for the GDE was spent on the bicycle lanes?

Snarky said :

Thanks for the link and data peterh – something to browse over lunch 🙂

unfortunately, I spend 50% of my time researching for my clients, so finding this info was no biggie.

Thanks for the link and data peterh – something to browse over lunch 🙂

and here are the original figures from 2004 – when this proposal was made effective, mind you, they are just estimates:

Cycle Paths and Lanes – Cost Estimates/km
On road New 2.5m wide on existing road (Assumming twin lanes, kerbed road), No widening
Task Cost
Site Establishment 5,000
TTMs 5,000
Eradicate Linemarking 3,000
New Linemarking 5,000
Cycling Stencils 1,000
Cycling Signs 1,000
TOTAL $20,000/km

On road New 2.5m wide on existing road (Assumming twin lanes, kerbed road), Including widening
TOTAL $165,000/km Based on Northbourne Avenue On Road Cycling

Minor Streets
Signs Only
Task Cost
Site Establishment 5,000
TTMs 5,000
Cycling Signs 1,000
TOTAL $11,000/km

Off road New 2.5m wide (Assumming no underpasses or bridges)
Task Cost
Site Establishment $5,000
Sediment Control $5,000
TTMs $1,000
Earthworks $15,000 Based on 2.5mx1000m x 0.3 @20/m3
Gravel $75,000 Based on 2500m2 @30/m2
AC $25,000 Based on 2500m2@10/m2
Landscaping $5,000
New Linemarking $5,000
Cycling Stencils $1,000
Cycling Signs $1,000
TOTAL $138,000/km

Off road Widen Existing Path(Assumming 1m wide extension)
Task Cost
Site Establishment $5,000
Sediment Control $5,000
TTMs $1,000
Earthworks $6,000 Based on 1.0mx1000m x 0.3 @20/m3
Gravel $30,000 Based on 1000m2 @30/m2
AC $10,000 Based on 1000m2@10/m2
Landscaping $5,000
New Linemarking $5,000
Cycling Stencils $1,000
Cycling Signs $1,000
TOTAL $69,000/km

C03081/de/Appendix G2 – Construction Rate Estimates.xls 6/09/2004

want to read the full doc?

it is here:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/cycling/trunkcycleandpedestrianinfrastructure

and here is the cost that the govt thought that they were spending in 2000:

The ACT Government spends about $830,000 a year on cycling and cycle-related programs.

pelican said :

“a plate on the back of a bicycle is worth while, it allows identification for the police of non- plated riders.”

I love that. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once which depicted a big sign in the middle of a room that read “Beware, don’t bump your head on the sign”.

or watching people pulling at a door marked “push”??

problem that i have noticed on this site is that people seem to be biting at the silly things. come on. who would take a plate on the back of a bicycle seriously?

I certainly didn’t, but I enjoyed the interchange of views.

Cranky wrote:

Please re read the proposed expenditure timetable. I think you will find that any expenditure is cleverly spread over a number of years, and whilst the numbers appear big, the annual expenditure is considerably less than that garnered from the motoring taxpayers.

Ah, yes, you’re probably quite right about that. I’m still not convinced by your argument, but would very much like to see real numbers now. I don’t think we can get much further without them at this point.

Ah, Impassive. I don’t have those figures at hand Numbers aren’t a strong point are they?

I am not surprised to see that there are so many motorists who feel that they are not well represented or considered by our government.

Where the hell did this come from? I’ve gone back over this thread and found three posts in support of your premise, plus another one from you agreeing with yourself (can’t count that one, I’m afraid). Of those three, two wanted to join to lobby for MORE funds for off-road cycle paths 🙂

But you found these “numbers” somewhere (and I won’t suggest where they might have been pulled from):

Then we saw millions spent on widening our main roads to add the cycle paths and lanes handed over to cyclists at the expense of the motoring public,

and

we have all spent time sitting at unresponsive traffic lights giving way to nothing only to have 10 cars arrive and be stopped so that we can go. There are cities in the world where traffic is so well managed that signs show what speed to travel at to ensure you get to the next light while it’s green..

… which was also served up with a great big steaming dollop of pure fantasy about a perfect driving world where money and technology was no object.

This thread’s generated some interesting discussion, and that alone redeems it, but your contributions are a waste of space.

Tixlix – don’t know the proportions but that’s not issue as I see it – see above rant

Tixylix said :

tired of watching the Govt hand over money and resources to cyclists,

Impassive, can you please show us the figures for what proportion of the budget for road infrastructure is spent on cyclists, and how that allocation is split between on road cycling and dedicated cycle paths?

Ta.

I’d say about 60/40

Tixylix – I don’t have those figures at hand, but you only have to look at the number of people using the cycle paths vs the number of vehicles on the road to get a very clear picture. Also, the roads are essential for transport of everything, not just people to work.. I don’t remember when I last saw a bicycle towing a load of anything – outside of Asia.

We in Canberra have been happy to pay for cycle paths all over the city – the whole idea was to make it safe for cyclists – get them away from the traffic – and allow them to get their exercise while they commute. I have used them heaps and think they’re a great idea.

Then we saw millions spent on widening our main roads to add the cycle paths and lanes handed over to cyclists at the expense of the motoring public (see Caswell Drive and the bottleneck between Kent St and National Circuit). It’s not just inconveniance either – every extra second the traffic spends on the road is an extra second of burnt petrol and pollution times x thousand vehicles. Making a lane of traffic slow to give way to a cyclist costs how much and generates how much pollution??

I know the aim is to frustrate drivers so that they too cycle or catch busses but that is a fantasy in Canberra. We would all be better off if the bikes were back off the roads, the cyclists would be better off – getting their exercise and not inhalng the pollution and the traffic would flow more freely and spend less time on the road.

Anyway, it’s not just about cyclists – we have all spent time sitting at unresponsive traffic lights giving way to nothing only to have 10 cars arrive and be stopped so that we can go. There are cities in the world where traffic is so well managed that signs show what speed to travel at to ensure you get to the next light while it’s green..

That is the sort of smarts we could have in place. How much better for everyone if the traffic spent less time on the roads?? Where are the Greens on this?? It’s not all about bike riders – it’s about minimal effort put into traffic management and the need for the driving community to do what the cycling community has done – lobby effectively to get things improved. Pedal Power is just a great example of how people who are well organised can get the ear of our government.

tired of watching the Govt hand over money and resources to cyclists,

Impassive, can you please show us the figures for what proportion of the budget for road infrastructure is spent on cyclists, and how that allocation is split between on road cycling and dedicated cycle paths?

Ta.

“a plate on the back of a bicycle is worth while, it allows identification for the police of non- plated riders.”

I love that. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once which depicted a big sign in the middle of a room that read “Beware, don’t bump your head on the sign”.

I am not surprised to see that there are so many motorists who feel that they are not well represented or considered by our government. If you’re interested in getting involved in a discussion about forming some type of representative group, be it a Registered Association, or whatever, then checkout http://groups.google.com.au/group/amrua.
As an aside, I don’t get why cyclists want to ride in the exhaust fumes anyway, I thought it was all about being healthy. There have been a heap of studies which have shown the dangers of inhaling the nanopollution that are now being generated by cars – an interesting one in the New Scientist 26 January 2008 – and others which show that getting a few metres away from the source significantly reduces the risk.
In a city where a 60km round trip to work is not unusual, cycling is not a realistic alternative for the average person. The goverment should be doing all it can to ensure that traffic flows freely, minimising the fuel burnt and the pollution generated and inhaled by residents, not telling us to put up with it.

Bungle said

Bungle said :

Bike paths should be for kids, families and part time cyclists riding out in the sunshine.

Serious cyclists need to stick to the roads where they can go as fast as they want.

This is true. I went for a walk with a friend along the path on the lakefront last weekend. and there were all these cyclists yelling and ringing their bells, and roaring through at mach 1. If these people were in cars, they’d be tailgating for sure. The speeds they were doing and their aggression were not appropriate to mixed-use recreational paths on a sunny Sunday.

There were old people with their dogs ambling along these paths… WTF were all these speed-obsessed wnackers doign on them? If they want to beat the sound barrier, get them onto the roads where they belong.

To put some figures on rego fees. I have an old ,fairly light pommy sh*tbox, which costs $200pa for rego. I also have a Commodore wagon which costs $580pa (rego alone!). I suspect fines/fees and commercial rego, on top of the ‘road rescue’ and ‘road safety contribution’ add up to a figure in the vicinity of $40 mill or so, on top of the rego charges.

Please re read the proposed expenditure timetable. I think you will find that any expenditure is cleverly spread over a number of years, and whilst the numbers appear big, the annual expenditure is considerably less than that garnered from the motoring taxpayers.

I am with snarky. Motorists don’t pay their way. Consolidated revenue subsidises them heaps.

ANyway, is this motorists lobby group going to deal with the lunacy around the multiple speed cameras on the Parkway. The behaviours they have inspired is plain dangerous. Typical Hargreaves co$k up!!!!!

Cranky wrote:

280,000 passenger cars paying an average of say $400 PA for rego reaps the Gov about $110 million…

The ACT Gov would never come close to returning these monies to the ACT motorist.

I don’t have any numbers to refute or confirm these, other than to note that my last rego certificate showed an annual fee of $610.00, of which half was CTPI and only about a third ($220.00) was the registration fee itself. Also, 280,000 cars seems high, but probably in the ballpark.

But using your maths gives $110M so we’ll go with that. The coming budget, which Gungahlin Al has helpfully noted for us here shows some $250M allocated to “transport, of which $43M is used by two single projects alone (Tharwa drive, Flemington Rd, Atthlon drive, Airport road). I don’t know how long these add up to – maybe 60km??? There’s a hella LOT more than that tied up in major roads alone in the ACT, and easily four times as much again in (cheaper) minor roads.

I cannot believe car rego pays for all that capital construction and subsequent maintenance, so I still believe that ACT motorists get far more back than they put in via rego fees.

Of course, if anyone has access to actual data please wheel it out – I’d be happy to be proved wrong!

Sorry for the double post, but

Bike paths should be for kids, families and part time cyclists riding out in the sunshine.

Serious cyclists need to stick to the roads where they can go as fast as they want.

maybe i will just ride my (motorbike) on the bike paths. I am certain, though, that I won’t encounter any cyclists, they all seem to be on the roads…

no you’ll find the kids, dogs and pedestrians that cyclists have to put up with on the bike paths. That’s why they ride on the road.

Kids riding bikes are in their own world. They tend to keep their head down and will ride on the wrong side of the path around a blind corner. Could you imagine a 100kg cyclist hitting a 6yo kid at about 30kph?

Snarky wrote

‘And comments re “paying for the road” are a very slippery slope – if motorists had to pay the REAL cost of their roads through their rego fees then the rego fee’s would triple, at least. Is that also part of you plan?’

280,000 passenger cars paying an average of say $400 PA for rego reaps the Gov about $110 million. This does not include parking fees, various motoring/parking fines, or the astronomic fees levied on commercial vehicles.

The ACT Gov would never come close to returning these monies to the ACT motorist.

Requiring bikes to be registered is a bit silly, I think.

Personally I think we should narrow the lanes on Canberra roads a bit. In some instances we may be able to get three lanes in where we currently have two. As an added bonus, people will need to drive more carefully so as not to stray from their lane.

I’m also a fan of building more bike paths that aren’t attached to roads. Separating the bikes doing 30km/h from the cars doing 80km/h reduces risks for all concerned.

fnaah said :

G-Fresh, if you can cut its weight to under 975kg, you could save yourself about $50 a year! I guess that doesn’t count as “hectic”. 😉

Sick. But I’d have to set aside my hot stereo and subwoofers… Something I am not prepared to sacrifice ey.

Thanks for the tops info but 🙂

Tixylix said :

Rego fees already are calculated based on the weight of the vehicle:

http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regofee.htm

Thanks for clarifying that, but it doesn’t quite work ‘by the kilo’, as a 2 1/2 tonne car does not cost 2 1/2 times more to register than a one tonne car.

maybe i will just ride my (motorbike) on the bike paths. I am certain, though, that I won’t encounter any cyclists, they all seem to be on the roads…

Mate, if you are going to tell jokes at least try to make them funny. I will also point out that you completely failed to address the point which you quoted, something you seem to have made a habit out of.

tixylix, for reference, i ride a pushbike. a treadly as me and my bogan mates like to call them. i ride on the bike paths. i don’t bother riding on the roads, as the bike paths get me where i am going eventually. and that is the difference. I don’t ride my treadly to work, I ride for recreation. I have never ridden my treadly on the road, and i stop, dismount & cross roads. I was taught to do this when the old bike safety courses were run, many years ago.

I have mates who gave up riding on the roads, as the amount of sh!t that cars leave on the side of the road makes it impossible to avoid flat tyres. I would rather cycle around LBG on my treadly than walk. it is great fun, and I do recommend it to friends who come to canberra for a holiday. I also point them in the direction of the bike hire place, those 4-wheel bikes are good value.

I would prefer to see all cyclists on the road with adequate protection, if you are travelling down a big hill, and come off, the bark that you lose is quite painful. No excuses for no helmet either.

in regards to the OP, there is a motorists organisation in operation in the ACT. it is called the NRMA.

oh, and the parkway camera near hindmarsh is now operational.

no fanfare, but it is on and working.

not trying to be funny, just wasn’t being serious.

heaps of work on at the moment, but as it is monday, not a lot of motivation.

Thanks for clarifying that, but it doesn’t quite work ‘by the kilo’, as a 2 1/2 tonne car does not cost 2 1/2 times more to register than a one tonne car.

Granted, but a car that weighs twice as much doesn’t necessarily spit out twice the exhaust either.

Rego fees already are calculated based on the weight of the vehicle:

http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regofee.htm

Thanks for clarifying that, but it doesn’t quite work ‘by the kilo’, as a 2 1/2 tonne car does not cost 2 1/2 times more to register than a one tonne car.

maybe i will just ride my (motorbike) on the bike paths. I am certain, though, that I won’t encounter any cyclists, they all seem to be on the roads…

Mate, if you are going to tell jokes at least try to make them funny. I will also point out that you completely failed to address the point which you quoted, something you seem to have made a habit out of.

G-Fresh, if you can cut its weight to under 975kg, you could save yourself about $50 a year! I guess that doesn’t count as “hectic”. 😉

I love this bullsh1t argument that cyclists should pay rego.

I have been a licenced motor vehicle driver, owner and tax payer than 90% of the people who post here. Does that mean I have a right to use the road more often than those that who have ‘contributed’ less? What about pedestrians or people who dare to walk on the side of the road? Charge them too? How many more pedestrians get injured on the road every year than cyclists……a boat load.

Bikes riding on a road, whoop dee doo. You’ll pass them in a millisecond, move on and whinge about something else…..because the traffic is just sooooooo busy in Canberra.

Lets just change the name of the site to ‘The Aimless Whinge’. Should clarify things a bit.

Maybe if some of you who are so tied to your motor vehicles got your fat asses onto a bike occasionally the world would be a healthier place………here we go!!

Tixylix said :

I never said that I was being serious.

Bit of advice: you are failing at humour, give up. Hard for anyone to take you seriously.

but, actually being serious, cyclists have to start recognising that they make a choice to either be on the road or the footpath, not both.

Why the f*** not? It is legal to ride the bike on the footpath and on the road. If you are so jealous of not being able to drive on the footpath then get a bike.

maybe i will just ride my (motorbike) on the bike paths. I am certain, though, that I won’t encounter any cyclists, they all seem to be on the roads…

fnaah said :

I also think that calculating rego by the weight of the vehicle would have a far more positive impact on emissions than the government giving a concession for hybrid vehicles.

Rego fees already are calculated based on the weight of the vehicle:

http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regofee.htm

If I fully strip a S2000 and change some steel panels to alloy, can I get a hectic reduction in my rego fees?

I also think that calculating rego by the weight of the vehicle would have a far more positive impact on emissions than the government giving a concession for hybrid vehicles.

Rego fees already are calculated based on the weight of the vehicle:

http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regofee.htm

I never said that I was being serious.

Bit of advice: you are failing at humour, give up. Hard for anyone to take you seriously.

but, actually being serious, cyclists have to start recognising that they make a choice to either be on the road or the footpath, not both.

Why the f*** not? It is legal to ride the bike on the footpath and on the road. If you are so jealous of not being able to drive on the footpath then get a bike.

Look, I really am going to sound snarky here, but bear with me…

Your comment cyclists have to start recognising that they make a choice to either be on the road or the footpath, not both. I can’t mount the kerb and drive down a footpath to save time on my journey is simply not true – it’s perfectly legal in the ACT to ride a bicycle on the footpath, subject to perdestrians having the right of way, the cyclist to merge on and off safely, to obey traffic signals etc etc etc. As a cyclist you’d have to have rocks in your head NOT to take whatever measures are legally open to you to shorten your journey. The fact that cars and motorbikes don’t have this option is just not relevant to this discussion.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you appear to be objecting to is not “cycling” but idiots who endanger themselves and others by flouting already existing laws. And in this I fully agree with you.

Where we differ is in the value of bringing a registration system developed for vehicles faster, larger, more commonplace and far, far more lethal as a method of “control”. Rego ties up details of ownership (and therfore liability), insurance, legal responsibility (age limits, driver certification) that simply don’t apply to bicycles. I personally don’t think such a system is worth the cost.

Snarky said :

how do the authorities police the mandatory helmet law?

Same way they police tailgating, drivers not using their indicators and dangerous merging behaviour – not at all actively, and only if you’re busted for something else first.

bit hard, when a bicycle can duck off the road onto a footpath and be away.

now, if there was a plate system, the offender would be done for no plate, or the cops would be able to report the offence back to the revenuers.

(must go, need to extract tongue from cheek)

Is the tongue in cheek because you recognise that if you can’t catch a non-plate-displayer who pulls off onto a foothpath you’re not going be be able to identify them because they have no plate, or because of the nod to “the revenuers”, which admits that such a system has no real value other than as a revenue raising exercise?

snarky,

I never said that I was being serious. I have heard the for and against for cycles on the roads, I have assisted a couple of accidents where the moron driver has attempted to wipe the cyclist from existence, and there WERE examples where the cyclist did not have a helmet. (and it wasn’t knocked off & thrown further away)

I, too, love these cycling posts. They break up an otherwise monotonous monday….

but, actually being serious, cyclists have to start recognising that they make a choice to either be on the road or the footpath, not both. I can’t mount the kerb and drive down a footpath to save time on my journey, neither can motorbikes. Cyclists should make their decision, and stick to it.

how do the authorities police the mandatory helmet law?

Same way they police tailgating, drivers not using their indicators and dangerous merging behaviour – not at all actively, and only if you’re busted for something else first.

bit hard, when a bicycle can duck off the road onto a footpath and be away.

now, if there was a plate system, the offender would be done for no plate, or the cops would be able to report the offence back to the revenuers.

(must go, need to extract tongue from cheek)

Is the tongue in cheek because you recognise that if you can’t catch a non-plate-displayer who pulls off onto a foothpath you’re not going be be able to identify them because they have no plate, or because of the nod to “the revenuers”, which admits that such a system has no real value other than as a revenue raising exercise?

Snarky said :

peterh

i would prefer that the cyclists who are using the roads appreciate that fact that they can

Geez, that’s just a motherhood statement. OF COURSE it’d be good if they did!

It’d be good if drivers recognised that car driving was a privilege, not a right, too. But this is the real world – that level of awareness across the board, 24/7 is simply not going to happen.

helmets should be mandatory, but there are plenty of accidents i have seen where the helmet may have made a difference, but weren’t worn.

Helmets ARE mandatory. As are seatbelts in cars and a BA of less than 0.08. Is your beef with “cyclists” or “idiots”? A change in perspective might prove interesting.

a plate on the back of a bicycle is worth while, it allows identification for the police of non- plated riders.

That’s actually pretty funny. Pointless, but funny.

Oh, i know.

I appreciate that i have a car, and that it is a privilege to be able to drive to work, and appointments daily.

how do the authorities police the mandatory helmet law? bit hard, when a bicycle can duck off the road onto a footpath and be away.

now, if there was a plate system, the offender would be done for no plate, or the cops would be able to report the offence back to the revenuers.

(must go, need to extract tongue from cheek)

Tixylix said :

-think that you people blaming cyclists for you woes are pathetic whinging imbeciles.

lol much

peterh

i would prefer that the cyclists who are using the roads appreciate that fact that they can

Geez, that’s just a motherhood statement. OF COURSE it’d be good if they did!

It’d be good if drivers recognised that car driving was a privilege, not a right, too. But this is the real world – that level of awareness across the board, 24/7 is simply not going to happen.

helmets should be mandatory, but there are plenty of accidents i have seen where the helmet may have made a difference, but weren’t worn.

Helmets ARE mandatory. As are seatbelts in cars and a BA of less than 0.08. Is your beef with “cyclists” or “idiots”? A change in perspective might prove interesting.

a plate on the back of a bicycle is worth while, it allows identification for the police of non- plated riders.

That’s actually pretty funny. Pointless, but funny.

Snarky said :

Gosh I love these cycling posts – they’re the gift that just keeps on giving 🙂

peterh

if the cyclists want to ride on the roads they should:

-start paying rego,

Why? Has there been a rash of cyclist-caused injuries in the ACT requiring a massive amount of third party personal insurance backup? If so, why haven’t we been told of this?

And comments re “paying for the road” are a very slippery slope – if motorists had to pay the REAL cost of their roads through their rego fees then the rego fee’s would triple, at least. Is that also part of you plan?

-have a roadworthy check every 12-months

Again, why? Have you seen peletons of 20 year old 3 speed klunkers blowing billows of smoke as they plod along Belconnen way of a morning?

-own a licence to operate a vehicle on the road

A cyclist version of driver ed… Yeah, I could get behind that. See Cycle Education for more.

But what’s your cut-off age? 16? 14? 12? 4? Are you suggesting people without a licence ca’t ride a bike. Because I’d contend that that is completely unrealistic.

-have a rego plate on the back of their bike, just like a motorbike.

Maybe. To be seen by a car driver it’d have to be car number plate sized I reckon. Where you going to mount ’em? And don’t say that’s my problem because if I can’t put it on where it won’t impede me on my bike, I won’t.

stick to the road if they want to ride it, not cut across an intersection on the ped crossings or straight through because the coast is clear. (even though the light is red)

Against the law now. Just like tailgating in cars is illegal.

if they have an accident, or cause one, at least the other people can take notice of their plate. if they have an accident, may be useful for identification.

For accident ID, what’s wrong with looking for a wallet? Or, given that very few bike accidents are fatal, why not just ask?

I think that cyclists would object if motorbikes used the cycle lanes, or the bike paths. so why can cyclists cut through traffic lights?

Quite right – cyclist DO object when object when motorbikes used the cycle lanes, or the bike paths. It’s illegal and dangerous. Just like it’s illegal and dangerous already for cyclists to cut through traffic lights.

Seriously, most of this seem to be a petulant whinge that some cyclists are naughty and need a good smacking, and that they need to pay “just like car drivers”.

i would prefer that the cyclists who are using the roads appreciate that fact that they can

helmets should be mandatory, but there are plenty of accidents i have seen where the helmet may have made a difference, but weren’t worn.

a plate on the back of a bicycle is worth while, it allows identification for the police of non- plated riders.

Gosh I love these cycling posts – they’re the gift that just keeps on giving 🙂

peterh

if the cyclists want to ride on the roads they should:

-start paying rego,

Why? Has there been a rash of cyclist-caused injuries in the ACT requiring a massive amount of third party personal insurance backup? If so, why haven’t we been told of this?

And comments re “paying for the road” are a very slippery slope – if motorists had to pay the REAL cost of their roads through their rego fees then the rego fee’s would triple, at least. Is that also part of you plan?

-have a roadworthy check every 12-months

Again, why? Have you seen peletons of 20 year old 3 speed klunkers blowing billows of smoke as they plod along Belconnen way of a morning?

-own a licence to operate a vehicle on the road

A cyclist version of driver ed… Yeah, I could get behind that. See Cycle Education for more.

But what’s your cut-off age? 16? 14? 12? 4? Are you suggesting people without a licence ca’t ride a bike. Because I’d contend that that is completely unrealistic.

-have a rego plate on the back of their bike, just like a motorbike.

Maybe. To be seen by a car driver it’d have to be car number plate sized I reckon. Where you going to mount ’em? And don’t say that’s my problem because if I can’t put it on where it won’t impede me on my bike, I won’t.

stick to the road if they want to ride it, not cut across an intersection on the ped crossings or straight through because the coast is clear. (even though the light is red)

Against the law now. Just like tailgating in cars is illegal.

if they have an accident, or cause one, at least the other people can take notice of their plate. if they have an accident, may be useful for identification.

For accident ID, what’s wrong with looking for a wallet? Or, given that very few bike accidents are fatal, why not just ask?

I think that cyclists would object if motorbikes used the cycle lanes, or the bike paths. so why can cyclists cut through traffic lights?

Quite right – cyclist DO object when object when motorbikes used the cycle lanes, or the bike paths. It’s illegal and dangerous. Just like it’s illegal and dangerous already for cyclists to cut through traffic lights.

Seriously, most of this seem to be a petulant whinge that some cyclists are naughty and need a good smacking, and that they need to pay “just like car drivers”.

Maybe we also need a lobby group to represent people who were dudded a few bucks on a woodfire pizza as well.

I ride a bike on the road sometimes and:

-I have a car
-pay rego and taxes
-have a license
-haven’t had a roadworthy test on my car in the last 12 months
-see motorcyclists in the on road cycle lane whenever traffic is at a standstill
-think the GDE should have been 2 lanes
-think that there should be more off road cycle paths, and better signage, lighting and maintenance for them
-think that you people blaming cyclists for you woes are pathetic whinging imbeciles.

I also think that calculating rego by the weight of the vehicle would have a far more positive impact on emissions than the government giving a concession for hybrid vehicles.

I have no problem with cyclists using the cycle ways if there are no bike paths right next to the road but what is with the idea of putting a cycle lane on Hindmarsh Drive when there is a bleedin’ bike path not more than a few metres away?

We should be encouraging the use of bicycles and low emission EVs and hybrids where possible but someone still has to pay for the infrastructure and this cost should be shared.

I don’t agree with the recent development to provide free bus rides for cyclists when other passengers (who are also not using cars) are still required to pay. In fact I am going to start a Walkers Party to lobby for free fares for walkers. 🙂

As for a motorist’s party – what would be the point? What would such a party want to achieve? What about the more important issues of health, education and sustainability?

The lower running costs of Motorcycles should be encouragement enough for people to stop driving every day. They take up less space and create fewer emissions.

No matter what state the roads are in, there will be traffic jams. This is the very nature of peak hour when evry man and his dog is trying to get to a parking spot in a built up area.

I think that the following fundamental points have been overlooked for this – if the cyclists want to ride on the roads they should:

-start paying rego,
-have a roadworthy check every 12-months
-own a licence to operate a vehicle on the road
-have a rego plate on the back of their bike, just like a motorbike.

stick to the road if they want to ride it, not cut across an intersection on the ped crossings or straight through because the coast is clear. (even though the light is red)

if they have an accident, or cause one, at least the other people can take notice of their plate. if they have an accident, may be useful for identification.

I think that cyclists would object if motorbikes used the cycle lanes, or the bike paths.
so why can cyclists cut through traffic lights?

Blah blah blah..

I use established cyclepathes (I think they are now called pedestrian pathes, and that they actually have right of way over cyclists) to get from Ngunnawal to Braddon.
I also have a car and pay rego.

That said – there is a lot to be desired about the bike pathes from Lyneham to Turner – they are really lumpy and have tree roots pushing them up here and there – not too user friendly when you have turned your bike into the chafemaster2000.

Arguing for less cyclists on teh road is going to be an uphill battle – besides the infrastructure has been established – may as well use it now…

Tell em when you get a motoring club sticker organised, ill stick on on my bike for ya.

I will never use the on road cycleways – not because I dont want to, because trust me they are much more direct – but I see the attitude every other day that cyclists get from vehicle users and vice versa and I do not wish to be a party to that

Happy to tootle along on my own minding my own…

It’s true; the cycling lobby has hijacked the local government diverting much needed funds from maintaining roads & infrastructure to dangerous on-road cycling programs. The cyclists are by far the most spoilt sector of the community. Ask any truck driver using Adelaide Ave if on-road cycling should be encouraged. The dynamics of traffic simply don’t allow the current situation of obscured relatively slow bikes and 1.5 tonne cars and up to 70 tonne plus trucks jostling & vying for position on green bike lanes. I agree the more cyclists the less cars, I myself cycle but stick to the 500 km of established off road cycle lanes. Cycling should be promoted and encouraged but not at the expense of narrower lanes & reduced traffic speeds effectively creating a slower city. Government spending should be impartial and on a needs basis not just to those who scream the loudest. There has got to be a happy medium, motorist in Canberra are becoming very frustrated with the current poorly thought out approach regarding cyclists and motorists and their respective needs.

The Impassive confusion continues. Most cyclists are also motorists so they do pay to use roads, just like every taxpayer, regardless of their vehicle status.

What baffles me most is why you would want MORE cars on the roads by protesting against the rights of cyclists. You need to get out of your steel shell more often. The already existing off-road bike paths are indirect with many in poor condition.

Thanks Bigred – that’s exactly my point – the cyclists have done a great job of organising a lobby group to represent their interests, and motorists need to do the same.
The fact that the ACT Govt took the advice of Pedal Power in relation to the green zones on the main roads over the advice of the NRMA shows how much influence the NRMA has and the fact that it is not considered a serious representative of the motoring public.
I really don’t care that we have better roads than London or Sydney – we’ve got better cycle paths as well no doubt..
We pay for the roads with our registration fees and our numerous other levies that the cycling public are exempt from and should make sure that we get what we want. A Chief Minister who says ‘suck it up’ is out of touch and needs to be properly informed, and it seems that lobby groups are the primary way of informing government.

Those old blokes where everything has begun to move south must never wear lycra. But some do.

teepee said :

Hmmm. Some butts weren’t designed for lycra.

Ahhh, yes. I prefer to think about the nice fit ones ‘though. The ones with LOOK on their tush make me laugh… like I wasn’t already ?

I think what Impassive missed is that the cyclists said “enough” and got together to effectively lobby the pollies for what they thought was needed. No need t bag the cyclists. Take a leaf out of their book instead of bagging them.

Hmmm. Some butts weren’t designed for lycra.

Whatsup said :

Those pesky bike riding freaks should be banned from the roads. The government should put in more bike tracks with tunnels and create two push bike expressways from the north and south. This will give us more space on our roads and make us less distracted by the tight lycra clad arses that zoom past.

I’ve been thinking about it…. keep the bikes on the roads. I like being distracted by the lycra clad arses. Puts a little enjoyment in an otherwise dull drive.

I see your point teepee but the green lanes don’t really change the fact that a car still has to give way to a bike if the bike is in front of it and the car wants to exit an off ramp etc.

If car drivers are as they should, aware of their surroundings then there is no need to brake suddenly as they would see the cyclist well in advance.

I do agree though the off road options could be better. I don’t ride competitively anymore but rather for enjoyment maybe once or twice a week and for safety sake we pretty much stick to bike paths now where possible but there is not a great deal of maintenance around the lakes and in between. There is virtually zero maintanence of broken asphalt/tree roots etc in these areas making for a very uncomfortable ride on occasion.

I am all for off-road cycle lanes. I used to use the one from Woden to Deakin, but stopped after a while because not so happy with the options north of Deakin.

I think the on-road Green lanes are stupid. I understand how the manic-lycra-wearing-cyclist set likes to mix it up with traffic going 80km an hour. They are entitled to be deranged, but they are a danger to themselves and to car drivers who have to break suddenly to accommodate them. The Green lanes are another example of Stanhope pandering to minority interests ahead of broader community interests.

Level headed cyclists who value their lives ought to have better off-road infrastructure. Clearly the planners had some vision and money a couple of decades years ago, but one or both of those commodities ran out.

I agree with VG et al… I come from London and while it would take about 20 mins for me to get from Tuggers to Flynn on a bad day in a car, the same distance in Greater London would take about an hour. Canberra has it good, trust me.

On top of that, I sometimes drive to work in the city and sometimes ride my bike (I used to have a motorbike too). If I had my way I’d cycle far more often than I use the car, and I very rarely take up road space due to riding on the bike path that goes around lake BG. Unfortunately, these paths are getting worse as time goes by.

Impassive – buy a bike and ride around the ACT one morning. It’s the best way to see the beauty of our city!

Is the OP(Impassive) going to take credit for the disappearance of the south bound bike lane on the Caswell Drive section of the GDE? Be a bummer if anyone breaks down, it was also the breakdown lane.

I think the original poster thought he was going to get a heap of support from some anti cyclists supporters on here, but all he has managed to do so far is sound foolish.

As mentioned previously, the amount of funding spent on cycling infrastructure pales in significance to the the amount of money spent on roads maintanence. I also can’t remember where I heard it (I think on a previous thread here) but doesn’t Canberra have one of the largest cyclist populations per capita in Australia?

Anyway, sounds like some fresh air could do you good, maybe go for a ride perhaps?

Hundreds of thousands of motorists? Canberra only has a population of 340,000, of which only a third actually drive each day by estimates I have seen.

And the idea of a “motorised road users association” is just dim. It fuels the us vs them mentality of cars vs busses vs bikes. A good idea may be a group in Canberra to address the needs of all road users so that comprehensive solutions may be found. For looking after roads, NRMA is fine for me.

Davo111 said :

The roads are so much better here too, back in Sydney your whole car can fall into a pot hole. 😉

In the last 12 months I have preferred driving in NSW (especially sydney) over the ACT. Canberra’s roads are on a steady downhill slide due to poor or no maintenance.

As if Canberra gets traffic jams! (lol) Drive down to Sydney for a week and you’ll find a ‘real’ jam! The roads are so much better here too, back in Sydney your whole car can fall into a pot hole. 😉

I’d love to see ‘ACT Motorised Road Users Association’ bumper stickers on members of your lobby groups vehicles on my daily bicycle commute. It would give me fair warning of the drivers red neck attitude. I truly believe this would be an useful community service for all road user’s.

I think the bike lane on the GDE is a ‘breakdown lane’ that they have allowed cyclists to ride within (like quite a few of the major arterial roads in the ACT). The cost of painting a few stenciled bicycles on the road must be a real concern.

VG is right I grew up in Canberra but only visit regularly now and one thing I do notice when I visit is the empty wide open roads. The place seems deserted almost in comparison to other larger cities.

I don’t think any govbt. (except for mayber the libs) would consult with a lobby group with such an agenda. Governments are interested in solving traffic problems by making a range of transport options viable. The suggested lobby is delibrately non-inclusive of an important aspect in the transport solution. The cyclist lobby does not want to outlaw motorists (as most cyclists are motorists) and in fact works closely with other groups. Govts (even the greens) and cycling lobby groups want people to use a range of transport options and do not want to dictate how people travel.

Everyone not in a car makes motoring easier, not harder… that’s why comparatively small sums can be spent on cycling facilities.

If cycling laws do change in the ACT it would be to ban cycling on pedestrian walkways, making traffic laws more consistent with the rest of Australia, not getting bikes off streets. Even the Motoring Part of Australia would have to lean towards more consistent, rather than less consistent laws.

Canberra drivers already have more ‘space’ than any city I’ve seen anywhere in the world. To top that off the majority of Canberra drivers could not drive a greasy stick up a dog’s bum.

What additional ‘space’ do you require past the standard width lanes that most, if not all, roads have?

For every cyclist you see thats one less car on the road. Think about that for the millisecond it takes to overtake one

Those pesky bike riding freaks should be banned from the roads. The government should put in more bike tracks with tunnels and create two push bike expressways from the north and south. This will give us more space on our roads and make us less distracted by the tight lycra clad arses that zoom past.

There is a steady procession of people that ride to both Fairbairn and Brindabella Park on a daily basis who come from both Northside and southside

Drivers switching to bikes has its limits though. The sheer distance many people have to travel to work means there will always be cars, especially if you’re talking about places like the offices out at the airport (the new buildings alone are for 3000+ staff aren’t they?), I can’t imagine too many people riding from the north to the south to go to work there.

Oh my hat, what rubbish!

Get on a bike on a public street in this town and tell me all about the advantages. Get rid of all the bikes and put more cars on the road, see how happy you are then.

“20,000 cars idling in traffic while 10 cyclists whizz by”

Where? Not in this town. Come on dude, that’s just a lame effort. If you are trying to gee up support among motorists for a lobby group then you are going to have to do better than use gross exaggerations and dubious claims (GDE built with single lanes to suit the cycling fraternity – uh huh).

Re NRMA. Most people seem to buy membership for roadside assistance but NRMA has become a more vocal advocate for motorist rights lately.

Isn’t that what we pay our NRMA membership for?

Badly designed roads are not the fault of cyclists, they are the fault of an incompetant government and its public service. Focussing resentment on cyclists is to miss targetting the real culprit.

and watch the increase in cyclist numbers during spring and summer.

Do you really think the GDE was made single lane just for the space needed for cycle lanes? Could it possibly be the government saving a buck or two after all delays (and penalties) caused by the save the ridge Nimbys.

Your logic is confused Impassive. You complain of traffic jams and insufficient roads for motorists but fail to acknowledge that more bicycles means less cars.

Keep in mind this simple equation: Each bicycle you see peddaling down the road represents one less car. If we build better lanes for cyclists more people will take up the cycling option, as I have done.

The ten cyclists on the GDE you speak of is incorrect. Yes you may see ten at peak times, but of a very early morning you will count dozens as is the case on Adelaide Avenue.

You are right when you say some roads are too narrow for the amount of traffic they carry but blaming cycling groups for this is wrong. In this day of expensive fuel and parking it is important for Governments to encourage alternative means of transport, particularly healthy ones like cycling. You should try it Impassive – lose weight, feel great, save money!