Katy backflips on cycleway along Majura Parkway

BicycleCanberra 21 May 2012 117

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher stated to me last year that the planned Majura Parkway would have a physically separated cycle path next to the road like the M7 in Sydney:

Katy Gallagher said on 19 August:

Hi, as part of the Majura Parkway project a separate cycle path will be constructed off road along the length of the road similar to that of the M7 in Sydney. It will be similar to Copenhagen except it will be on one side of the road but wide enough for two way bike travel. We will continue to discuss as we undertake final planning for the road with the bicycle advisory group. KG

In a letter to pedal Power Katy Gallagher has stated that there is no money for the separated path. Brendan Nerdal from Pedal Power advocacy says:

An off-road path along Majura Parkway is critical because it allows people who are not confident riding on roads to also ride along that transit corridor.

“We need that facility built today. It will be the cheapest time to do it. To retrofit it later, such as the Gungahlin Drive extension, would cost a fortune.”

cartoon

I still don’t understand why ACT doesn’t follow international best practice for cycle infrastructure like other countries:


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
117 Responses to Katy backflips on cycleway along Majura Parkway
Filter
Order
harvyk1 harvyk1 3:41 pm 21 May 12

p1 said :

harvyk1 said :

OK, I’m going to play both sides of the debate right here.

Pro Cyclist – Standard Argument #615
Anti Cyclist – Standard Rebuttal #721, Standard Argument #16
Pro Cyclist – Your an idiot Standard Rebuttal #157, Standard Argument #72
Anti Cyclist – Your an idiot and so’s you mum, Standard Argument #78
Pro Cyclist – Keep my mum out of it, Standard Rebuttal #92

etc…

Why are all the standard arguments/rebuttals/insults in no particular order? Wouldn’t it make sense to number them temporally?

Wait, what was I thinking, nothing about this makes sense.

Because the order in which arguments and rebuttals come are slightly different in each RA thread.

I personally have no issue with a cycle way been built specifically for cyclists, of course the question needs to be asked, how many cyclists will chose to use said cycle path, and how many will still ride in lanes reserved for cars anyway?

I’ve lost count of the number of “serious” cyclists who chose to ride on the road, when there is a perfectly good cycle path running parallel to the road less than 2 meters away. It’s not as though those paths are not suitable for cyclists considering there are cyclists put there who do use them. It’s just the majority of “serious” cyclists I see are the first to refuse to use them, the first to ignore road rules when they don’t suit and the first to cry how it’s all unfair and how other countries do such a better job of looking after cyclists.

johnboy johnboy 3:37 pm 21 May 12

Is the truck driver wearing his seatbelt?

Erg0 Erg0 3:34 pm 21 May 12

Sgt.Bungers said :

Erg0 said :

If that cyclist is so concerned about his safety, he should probably put a helmet on.

Correct. A helmet would protect him if he were to be sucked under a 60 tonne B double.

Given that he’s two-dimensional, I doubt it will do him much harm either way. My (fairly obtuse) point is that it probably doesn’t serve the cycling lobby too well to use an illustration which shows a cyclist breaking the law.

dvaey dvaey 3:22 pm 21 May 12

Sgt.Bungers said :

Not onto this again are we? Motor vehicle licences and registration are required for a person who wishes to operate a vehicle powered by a motor in a public place.

So would the licence you’re suggesting allow a person to convey oneself or goods in a public place via a wheeled device? Would this licence be required for skateboards? Anyone pushing a shopping trolley? What about kick scooters? Wheel chairs?

Would you really want to legislate such a slippery slope into being?

I think one criteria youve missed, is the public roadway aspect, rather than a ‘public place’.

None of the things you mention (skateboards, shopping trolleys) should be taken in the on-road designated cyclepaths. No-one is saying you must get licence and rego for a bicycle, but, if you want to bring it onto our public roadway, why shouldnt you? There are hundreds of km of non on-road cycleways in this city.This law wouldnt affect the 8 year old riding his bike down his street (unless his street happens to be a designated public cycleway).

The same way that laws about registration and licensing do not apply to motor vehicles that arent on the public roadway. You can drive your car around on a farm with no traffic to your hearts content with no rego or number plates, but as soon as you join the traffic flow, why should you be any different to the rest of the traffic?

p1 p1 3:05 pm 21 May 12

harvyk1 said :

OK, I’m going to play both sides of the debate right here.

Pro Cyclist – Standard Argument #615
Anti Cyclist – Standard Rebuttal #721, Standard Argument #16
Pro Cyclist – Your an idiot Standard Rebuttal #157, Standard Argument #72
Anti Cyclist – Your an idiot and so’s you mum, Standard Argument #78
Pro Cyclist – Keep my mum out of it, Standard Rebuttal #92

etc…

Why are all the standard arguments/rebuttals/insults in no particular order? Wouldn’t it make sense to number them temporally?

Wait, what was I thinking, nothing about this makes sense.

dtc dtc 3:04 pm 21 May 12

Myles Peterson said :

“I presume you are trolling…”

Not in this instance. If you can fit a plate to a motorcycle, you can fit one to a bike.

Well, there are a fair few physical differences between a motorcycle and a bike. I can see how you could feasibly fit a very small plate to a bike, but I dont see how a very small plate helps your ’cause’ since you wouldnt be able to read it.

Why stop at taxing wheeled vehicles? Around Marcus Clarke st they have spent a lot of money fixing up the paving, no doubt to the benefit of those tax dodging pedestrians. Not sure why I have to pay for that.

HenryBG HenryBG 3:04 pm 21 May 12

Erg0 said :

BicycleCanberra said :

HenryBG said :

Canberra ratepayers already pay far more per cyclist on cycling infrastructure than do the taxpayers of Denmark and Holland.

What Rubbish! In Holland they pay at least $39 per person on cycle infrastructure ,in the ACT it’s around $8 per person. Compare that Australia wide and that would be far less. Its about spending the transport dollars evenly and not just on roads, and improving safety for everyone.

I have no particular stake in this, but I thought I’d point out that you and Henry are talking abou two different things (dollars per cyclist vs. dollars per citizen).

Thank you.

Trust “BicycleCanberra” to attempt to use completely misleading statistics in pushing its barrow.

The reason the vast majority of Canberrans do not and will never cycle to work is that their average commute
a) is about 3 times longer than the average commute in Holland
b) incorporates steep hills

The average Canberra commute, if done on a bicycle, would involve a similar amount of effort to a day’s work – not many people have so little life that they are willing to waste 30% of it just commuting to work, risking heart attacks, repelling work colleagues because of their stink, and having to fork out vastly increased costs on groceries to up their calorie intake to cover all this pointless and endangering effort.

Baldy Baldy 2:59 pm 21 May 12

harvyk1 said :

OK, I’m going to play both sides of the debate right here.

Pro Cyclist – Standard Argument #615
Anti Cyclist – Standard Rebuttal #721, Standard Argument #16
Pro Cyclist – Your an idiot Standard Rebuttal #157, Standard Argument #72
Anti Cyclist – Your an idiot and so’s you mum, Standard Argument #78
Pro Cyclist – Keep my mum out of it, Standard Rebuttal #92

etc…

You make some valid points there

Baldy Baldy 2:59 pm 21 May 12

Myles Peterson said :

Licence ACT cyclist and use the money to help fund infrastructure. It’ll weed out the reckless bad apples, create accountability and provide some badly needed road-rule training.

And number plates. It’s almost impossible to identify and report a cyclist for dangerous riding.

Just curious how much would you expect an 8 year old to pay for his/her licence? I presum that they would have to get a licence if they wanted licence plates or would they just be sold to anyone.

If so, what would be the qualifications for a cycle licence and would you have the same parameters for a 10 and a 50 years old? After all they will be using the same equipment in the same manner in the same circumstances.

Not being a smart @55 but just curious. These questions alway pop into my head when someone suggests it and I have never gotten around to asking.

harvyk1 harvyk1 2:52 pm 21 May 12

OK, I’m going to play both sides of the debate right here.

Pro Cyclist – Standard Argument #615
Anti Cyclist – Standard Rebuttal #721, Standard Argument #16
Pro Cyclist – Your an idiot Standard Rebuttal #157, Standard Argument #72
Anti Cyclist – Your an idiot and so’s you mum, Standard Argument #78
Pro Cyclist – Keep my mum out of it, Standard Rebuttal #92

etc…

EvanJames EvanJames 2:43 pm 21 May 12

Sgt.Bungers said :

Erg0 said :

If that cyclist is so concerned about his safety, he should probably put a helmet on.

Correct. A helmet would protect him if he were to be sucked under a 60 tonne B double.

Heh, nice! Much like skiing/snowboarding injuries, someone smacks into a tree, and all the sheep shake their heads and talk about helmets being mandatory for snowsports. Only smacking into trees and other such objects usually results in busted ribs/internal injuries. Helmets are excellent for those.

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 2:32 pm 21 May 12

Postalgeek said :

HenryBG said :

If you come up with a scheme to use labour drawn from imprisoned criminals to build you more paths, however, I would be supportive. Especially if there were whips involved.

I think some cyclists and Henry BG could find some common ground here, especially if it involved Canberra’s finest hit-and-runners.

Disappointing news from Gallagher.

Very. The lack of foresight continues. Next time there’s a genuine oil shock, Canberrans will continue to be doomed to their cars… unless we change our way of thinking now.

Postalgeek said :

I don’t believe we needed separated lanes everywhere (though it would be nice), but certainly for high speed corridors like the Monaro and Majura the traffic should be separated.

I agree. Any road classed as major collector or higher, or any road that has a speed limit of 60 km/h or higher should have segregated cycle facilities. Throw a bicyclist averaging 20 – 30 km/h into motor vehicle traffic averaging 60 to 100 km/h, and we’ve got ourselves a conflict. Look at Adelaide avenue where cyclists must negotiate those horrendous exit ramps whilst being unable to see if a motor vehicle is bearing down on them.

Postalgeek said :

Once again I would suggest, if money is an issue, flexible road reflectors or raised reflectors would at least create a visual barrier and audible alert. Cars can still pass over them but are far less likely to casually stray.

http://www.reflectiveroad.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Leitboy_L30.jpg

http://www.autospec.co.za/thumb/browse/property/productmedia/pekay/images/adhesives/237-road-reflector3.jpg

These would help a bit, but will not physically stop a straying vehicle from running over the top of a person. They’d also create the disadvantage of making it difficult for someone driving to pull over and stop if they had to.

They also don’t address the other key problem with cycle lanes… that sharing a space motor vehicles traveling at high speed, when you’re not in one yourself, is an incredibly nerve racking and unpleasant experience. Hence why only the tiniest proportion of Canberrans brave current cycle lanes to get to work.

Postalgeek said :

The other approach should be to locate cycle lanes in the median strips when they are wide enough, to protect cyclists from traffic leaving and entering from side roads. This would be most effective on somewhere like Northbourne.

Spot on. This would be a far better use of median strip space than… nothing.

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 2:16 pm 21 May 12

Erg0 said :

If that cyclist is so concerned about his safety, he should probably put a helmet on.

Correct. A helmet would protect him if he were to be sucked under a 60 tonne B double.

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 2:15 pm 21 May 12

Myles Peterson said :

Licence ACT cyclist and use the money to help fund infrastructure. It’ll weed out the reckless bad apples, create accountability and provide some badly needed road-rule training.

And number plates. It’s almost impossible to identify and report a cyclist for dangerous riding.

Not onto this again are we? Motor vehicle licences and registration are required for a person who wishes to operate a vehicle powered by a motor in a public place.

So would the licence you’re suggesting allow a person to convey oneself or goods in a public place via a wheeled device? Would this licence be required for skateboards? Anyone pushing a shopping trolley? What about kick scooters? Wheel chairs?

Once we’ve got everyone licenced to use their own body to power a vehicle, we can talk about registering all wheeled vehicles… including the aforementioned kick scooters, skateboards, shopping trolleys, wheel chairs… should probably register electric scooters for the elderly and disabled while we’re at it.

If we did implement regulations which required human powered vehicles to be registered… why stop there? A person walking on a road may break a rule every now and then as well. Let’s require anyone walking in a public place to be registered and bearing a registration plate… when too many people flout that law, we’ll shave everyone’s heads and tattoo registration numbers and bar codes to their scalps…

Would you really want to legislate such a slippery slope into being?

gasman gasman 2:00 pm 21 May 12

Austroads standards specify that on high volume roads at 80km/h and above, the bicycle lane should be physically separated from the road for safety reasons.

Spending a small amount of money on proper cycle ways saves the community a lot of money in the long term, and benefits everyone:

– every bicycle means one less car on the roads, so less congestion for everybody
– less pollution and carbon dioxide release, lowering the future costs of climate change
– less demand for foreign oil, better for the economy
– less health costs as cycling leads to lower levels of obesity, heart disease, depression and cancer
– less parking problems for cars. One car space can park 10 bicycles
– less injuries for cyclists
– lower third party premiums

It really is a no brainer – better cycle infrastructure, at a very small cost, benefits everybody, including non-cyclists. Unfortunately, our leaders seem to have no brains.

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 1:54 pm 21 May 12

connno said :

Maybe the money has now gone to something more important… Something like the upgrade of an intersection where yet another life was lost over the weekend.
Worried about riding along Majura Rd? Don’t…

Same logic could be applied to upgrading Majura road at all. Worried about driving along Majura road? Don’t…

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 1:53 pm 21 May 12

Solidarity said :

Need it build today? Why is it a need? If you don’t like it, move to Holland.

Ahh, the old “If you don’t like it, you can git out…” Reached for by people who have nothing intelligent to bring to the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMOcyCLZHBQ

connno connno 1:46 pm 21 May 12

Maybe the money has now gone to something more important… Something like the upgrade of an intersection where yet another life was lost over the weekend.
Worried about riding along Majura Rd? Don’t…

BicycleCanberra BicycleCanberra 1:38 pm 21 May 12

poetix said :

Can I just say that that illustration of the whinging cyclist (inexplicably without a helmet, though he has helmet hair) next to the truck is so lame that it’s amputated?

Thank you.

The illustration is a blown up view of the proposed section view of road. All I did was add the annotation!
http://www.majuraparkway.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/242328/Road_Typical_Cross_Sections.pdf

poetix poetix 1:14 pm 21 May 12

Can I just say that that illustration of the whinging cyclist (inexplicably without a helmet, though he has helmet hair) next to the truck is so lame that it’s amputated?

Thank you.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site