Pedal Power ACT calls for $50m over four years for cycling. Election Forum and list of grievances.

Jim Jones said :

thumper109 said :

Out of my way, I’m a motorist.

So?

Jim Jones said :

thumper109 said :

Out of my way, I’m a motorist.

And?

thumper109 said :

I really don’t mind $50,000,000 of my taxes being spent on bicycle infrastructural.. Especially if it removes the bicycles from the roads.

Introducing new legislation stating only vehicles that can sustain posted speed limit are permitted on roads would be even better solution, and worth the $50,000,000.

Wow you must pay a lot of tax…

thumper109 said :

Out of my way, I’m a motorist.

I really don’t mind $50,000,000 of my taxes being spent on bicycle infrastructural.. Especially if it removes the bicycles from the roads.

Introducing new legislation stating only vehicles that can sustain posted speed limit are permitted on roads would be even better solution, and worth the $50,000,000.

As a pedestrian, motorist and “rock-thrown-at” cyclist, I’ve found most of the aggression between the three parties comes from unpredictable and inconsistent behaviour. I have to admit, that the cyclist, being faster than a pedestrian and often very inconsistent in behaviour, is going to p*** every one else off in some way. And when grouped into a metro area (we have nothing on the dangers of Sydney/Melbourne) then the 3 parties can’t co-exist without hostility and danger.

Society may be learning slowly how to give each of the three parties a fair go, but democracy and fairness doesn’t mean, “great, I can do it my way”. I get very frustrated watching cyclists run red lights for example, quite a few while turning. I either makes motorists angry (not me), or freak out that they now have to avoid them (me). Most motorists “do it their way” when given the chance too, and pedestrians are happy to scuttle across the most ridiculous roads, with me thinking “Uh, I hope you don’t trip because I’m going 60 right now, guess I better slow down..”

My point is, sadly, that people are just jerks and we don’t like thinking about the other persons point of view. I try to do this however, with mixed success. As a cyclist, I’ve tried giving pedestrians a wide berth at a slow speed: pedestrian gets surprised and shakes fist while muttering something. I’ve tried the bell: but that seems to be equal to a car horn from 20 meters back (an insult which might get a rock thrown at you). I’ve settled on “Good [TIME OF DAY]”: but the people with earphones on still get twitchy. I dismount well before a pedestrian crossing as to not “surprise” the motorist, and it is a fair call as we don’t want the motorist to think “Can I go or not? Oh great he slowed down, what a jerk”.

From my point of view, we need more consistent behaviour (I don’t know what it should be but try not to break too many rules), to stop grouping everyone into the same bucket of hate (FU**IN [INSERT TRANSIT METHOD]), and to think about what the other party is experiencing from your actions.

Regarding $50 mil, well that’s tops, but I always want to know: is it cheaper to spend the money on repairing and making more of the off-road lanes, versus the heavily engineered and expensive on-road ones?

I only ask as, even though the Lycra Brigade do like to get to work faster than cars, most cyclists don’t feel safe riding next to the road. I’d like the best bang for my taxpayer buck, and whichever system ends up with more and safer passage for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I personally don’t like the heavy focus on the on-road lanes, I feel like I’m dicing with death when I use them and they seem very expensive to construct. Whereas the off-road lanes take longer, but you don’t get the smell of buses, the noise of cars and the fear of instant death. The worst example is when road lanes are removed to and a cycle lane, I think at that point we have gone way too far.

Holden Caulfield said :

Mully Cup here we come!

Was there ever any doubt? 😛

thatsnotme said :

the many thousands of drivers I’ve been around in that time have been courteous, have respected my right to be on the road – hopefully in some part because I try my hardest to give cars as much room as I’d like them to give me when there’s no dedicated lanes – and have simply let me go on my way. Past RA threads kinda built me up to expect a war zone out there. Reality has been pleasantly different.

+1

That’s one of the good things about cycling in Canberra. As we have so many more bicycles on the road than other cities Canberra motorist have encountered cyclist before and know what to do. In places such as Sydney they’ve never seen one before and tend to go into fits trying to figure out what to do.

PP (or Greens) will never get decent amounts spent on cycling (+pedestrian) infrastructure, that is not the ACT Government way.

They will do cheap, poorly maintained, incoherently design, inconvienient and bodgy cycling solutions forever more… that is despite a budget to run the ACT of over 4 Beeelion dollars.

And expensive, over budget road projects that take 10 times longer than you would think possible, lets see how the (long overdue) Majura Parkway goes (currently $288 million budget)

thatsnotme said :

Thank god the attitudes towards cycling on RA don’t actually reflect what happens out on the road – at least in my experience….

Tl:DR version – the real war is here, between keyboard warriors. Ride courteously, ignore these posts, and enjoy the crisp winter mornings while they last.

Very well said thatsnotme, my experience is the same. Been riding to work Weston Creek – Fyshwick at least twice a week for nearly 10 years now, and in that time I’ve had perhaps 3 dimwit tradies yell and carry on. Here on RA there’ve been innumerable frothings at the mouth that makes it sound like, as you said, a “war zone” out there. It ain’t, and all the piss-and-wind on RA is utterly ineffectual and irrelevant. See the following case in point for an example of typical vacuity:

dungfungus said :

A lot of us are unable to use bicycles for various reasons and we have a right to equity when this amount of money is earmarked only for bike enthusiasts.

Dungfungus it must really tick you off to see the government building womens toilets too, eh? (I’m assuming you’re male – your previous childish blatherings seem to indicate it) – you can’t use those either. But it’s okay because bike-impaired citizens like you get gobs of lovely government equity money in the form of BUSES. I’m quite sure you don’t pay anywhere near full cost for the use of those. Feel better now?

This fread brinz teh lolz!

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

There are some overweight people at the gym I go to….

“A moment of silence for all those stuck in traffic, on their way to the gym, to ride a stationary bicycle.”

One of the incredibly bizarre normalities in our society today…

Thank god the attitudes towards cycling on RA don’t actually reflect what happens out on the road – at least in my experience.

I started regular bike commuting (I aim for 4/10 of my trips to or from work per week to be on the bike) from West Belco 5 or 6 months back, and having read plenty of this type of thread before then, have to admit I was a bit anxious about the reception I’d receive out on the roads. In that time, and having done about 1,000km on the bike, I’ve only encountered one arseclown (a tradie in a ute who didn’t seem to like that I crossed in front of him while he was stopped dead in a slip lane, parked on the pedestrian crossing, waiting for traffic to clear…)

Despite my 14.5 km trip being a mis-mash of on-road cycle paths suddenly ending, or simply not existing (with only old and broken concrete footpaths as an alternative), the many thousands of drivers I’ve been around in that time have been courteous, have respected my right to be on the road – hopefully in some part because I try my hardest to give cars as much room as I’d like them to give me when there’s no dedicated lanes – and have simply let me go on my way. Past RA threads kinda built me up to expect a war zone out there. Reality has been pleasantly different.

Tl:DR version – the real war is here, between keyboard warriors. Ride courteously, ignore these posts, and enjoy the crisp winter mornings while they last.

With this amount of money available, The Greens could start a light rail network using the latest battery operated trams with solar power to recharge the batteries (a totally green outcome) . The rarely used bike racks on the Action buses could be affixed to the trams and this way all Canberrans could benefit (not just the cyclists)
A lot of us are unable to use bicycles for various reasons and we have a right to equity when this amount of money is earmarked only for bike enthusiasts.

harvyk1 said :

Furthermore the cyclist community seems to be more than happy to have their representatives come on here and defend breaking laws and why they feel that certain laws don’t apply to them.

As far as I am aware the only law that cyclists are arguing against is the dismount when crossing the road law and that is because it is a completely unreasonable law that makes no sense.

People who argue in favour of the current law point to the small minority of cyclists who shoot through without slowing down and argue that this is why the law exists. They ignore the fact that this isn’t the only way these dangerous cyclists could be dealt with. The law would be more reasonable if it required cyclists to slow right down or even come to a complete stop but still allowed them to cross without dismounting. It would still require cyclists to cross the crossing safely and, if enforced, it would catch the small minority doing the dangerous thing without punishing the vast majority who can cross a pedestrian crossing sensibly without dismounting.

Imagine how most drivers would react if a new law was passed in response to the small minority of motorists who drive through pedestrian crossings without slowing down or giving way to pedestrians, which required all drivers to stop for 20 seconds at the crossing before proceeding through it, even if there were no pedestrians on or near the crossing. It would be a ridiculous law and no-one would obey it.

harvyk1 said :

..Could you please explain how a car or truck or bus driver breaking the law automatically gives cyclists the right to break the laws they don’t like as well?

Just because a car runs a red light, doesn’t mean that the cyclists get the right to do so as well. It should not be a case of “we’ll clean up our act as soon as every other road user does”.

Furthermore the cyclist community seems to be more than happy to have their representatives come on here and defend breaking laws and why they feel that certain laws don’t apply to them. I can guarantee that if the “president of the V8 owners club” (I don’t know if they are real or not, but it works for my example) came on here and tried to explain “how speeding on public roads is not really a problem because everyone speeds sometimes” they would be torn apart.

The “holier than thou” attitude I speak of is one not dissimilar to the various religions who believe that they are worshiping the one true god, and how everyone else must either join them, or they can go to hell.

There are many valid methods to commute into work, cycling is but one of the ways which suits some people. However it does not suit everyone for a variety of reasons, be it distance, be it timing, be it the type of work they do, be it health reasons, and yet some cyclists are virtually looking down on people where cycling does not work for them, be it on here or in other media forms.

Basically it boils down to this, if you wish to use the roads, what ever the method, you need to do so safely, using a degree of common sense, and at all times keeping within the laws of the road. Just as a car driver should be taken off the road if they can’t follow those pretty simple to follow instructions, so should a cyclist be taken off the road, if nothing else for their own safety.

Hahaha! I’m not saying # drivers breaking the law automatically means that cyclists are allowed to too! I’m trying to point out that you’re not really ‘playing the man’ when a thread that starts off talking about extra funding for cyclists, and ends up with your argument stating that cyclists are ‘holier than thou’ and ‘think the law doesn’t apply to them’?!? It’s all a bit ad hominem really!
So, you’ve gone a bit off track really (no pun intended!). Sorry if it sounded like I was condoning any illegal driving.
I’m simply saying that it’s boring if, for example, someone were to start a thread about a dragstrip and I replied with ‘I saw someone in a car run a red light yesterday…’ (kinda off topic, isn’t it?).
Really, anyone who has been reading RA for >1 month will have heard all these arguments (from both sides) before. I’m hoping now that with this current thread’s contents, JB can simply redirect any future thread on the cycling debate here and close the new one! That should save everyone a lot of time and energy restarting arguments that were probably thrashed out just a few days earlier….

In case you have the urge to restate any other points already made numerous times in other pro/anti cycling posts, try these examples for fuel:
http://the-riotact.com/jims-mowing-takes-a-red-hot-shot-at-taking-down-a-cyclist/76186
http://the-riotact.com/footpath-stoush-with-cyclist/68722
http://the-riotact.com/cyclist-on-london-circuit-at-745am/59047
http://the-riotact.com/cyclist-v-driver-rant/29456
http://the-riotact.com/motorist-on-hindmarsh-drive/59167

HTH 🙂

Postalgeek said :

Whitepointer said :

A fleet of Jim’s Mowing Commodores with trailers in tow. That will sort you ba$ta#ds out.

Given you call yourself Whitepointer, I’m guessing you’re a fat 41 year old virgin trying to overcompensate. I kind of tuned out of your troll from that point.

He he, haha.
Love it.

$50m? This reminds me of the budget cycle. Requesting 10 times your required budget so that when allocated a smaller amount, it matches up with what you really need/want.

pete74au said :

I totally support Pedal Powers call for further investment. I also support the need to register pushbikes and ensure on road riders have a certificate of competency attesting their knowledge of Road Rules.

Having say a $30 Registration fee would raise around $500,000 per year and having a Certificate of Competency would remove the claim I don’t need to know the road rules.

Just equitable suggestions.

Which would go some way towards the cost of running the scheme – but wouldn’t cover the cost of license plates or rego systems – which is bike rego and licensing normally get round filed

@gizmo1 post#90 ‘self centred morons … nutcases … self indulgent’ wow you really hate cyclists, don’t you?

p1 said :

Solidarity said :

50 million dollars for bikes?

Are you smoking crack?

Not yet, but $50 mil should buy some.

LOL.

What’s $50 million to a n—a like me, can you please remind me?

I ball so hard, s–t’s crazy.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

There are some overweight people at the gym I go to….

Therefore going to the gym won’t help anyone lose weight … if anything you could catch fat off them.

Much better to just drive around in a car all day getting angry at everyone else!

p1 said :

harvyk1 said :

Furthermore the cyclist community seems to be more than happy to have their representatives come on here and defend breaking laws and why they feel that certain laws don’t apply to them. I can guarantee that if the “president of the V8 owners club” (I don’t know if they are real or not, but it works for my example) came on here and tried to explain “how speeding on public roads is not really a problem because everyone speeds sometimes” they would be torn apart.

You have pretty much just described every thread about RushHour.

lol. +1

harvyk1 said :

Furthermore the cyclist community seems to be more than happy to have their representatives come on here and defend breaking laws and why they feel that certain laws don’t apply to them. I can guarantee that if the “president of the V8 owners club” (I don’t know if they are real or not, but it works for my example) came on here and tried to explain “how speeding on public roads is not really a problem because everyone speeds sometimes” they would be torn apart.

You have pretty much just described every thread about RushHour.

dpm said :

harvyk1 said :

…I’m not anti cycling, and I have no qualms in money been spent on cycling infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is the “holier than thou” combined with “the law does not apply to me” attitude I’ve frequently seen from cyclists.

Just wondering, have you seen the same attitude from a motorcyclist ever? What about a car driver? A bus driver? A truck driver? A snow plow driver?

I think we can all remember at least one occasion where we have seen a # driver do something stuupid/illegal (well, maybe not the snow plow driver!).
Does it mean whenever ‘they’ are mentioned in any conversation we have to say “# drivers are ‘frequently’ holier than thou and all think the law doesn’t apply to them?”
It’s just soooo boring!

Could you please explain how a car or truck or bus driver breaking the law automatically gives cyclists the right to break the laws they don’t like as well?

Just because a car runs a red light, doesn’t mean that the cyclists get the right to do so as well. It should not be a case of “we’ll clean up our act as soon as every other road user does”.

Furthermore the cyclist community seems to be more than happy to have their representatives come on here and defend breaking laws and why they feel that certain laws don’t apply to them. I can guarantee that if the “president of the V8 owners club” (I don’t know if they are real or not, but it works for my example) came on here and tried to explain “how speeding on public roads is not really a problem because everyone speeds sometimes” they would be torn apart.

The “holier than thou” attitude I speak of is one not dissimilar to the various religions who believe that they are worshiping the one true god, and how everyone else must either join them, or they can go to hell.

There are many valid methods to commute into work, cycling is but one of the ways which suits some people. However it does not suit everyone for a variety of reasons, be it distance, be it timing, be it the type of work they do, be it health reasons, and yet some cyclists are virtually looking down on people where cycling does not work for them, be it on here or in other media forms.

Basically it boils down to this, if you wish to use the roads, what ever the method, you need to do so safely, using a degree of common sense, and at all times keeping within the laws of the road. Just as a car driver should be taken off the road if they can’t follow those pretty simple to follow instructions, so should a cyclist be taken off the road, if nothing else for their own safety.

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

There are some overweight people at the gym I go to….

harvyk1 said :

You got any links to back up your statement, and not only links, but links involving cities of similar population, size and geographic features as Canberra?

Would you be able to provide a list of cities that you think meet these criteria. I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

harvyk1 said :

– The fact it’s a 20km ride each way which has hills in it

Congratulations you’re not in the target market. The 40% of people who travel less than 10 km are the people who are best placed to ride to work. If you have chosen to live that far away from work then driving really is your only option.

harvyk1 said :

– The fact that it will double my commuting time each way, and that it will cut into time spent either at work or with my kids

I find this to be a plus rather than a minus. Less time at work means more sanity and from what I’ve observed of friends who are parents less time with kids equals more sanity 😉

harvyk1 said :

– The fact that I’d need to deal with extreme cold, extreme heat and birds in the spring time which might not like me.

Come on this is Canberra. I’ve ridden to work every day for five years and I’m still here. I might have to break out the wet weather gear maybe a dozen times a year but compared with winter cycling in the northern hemisphere it’s a doddle.

harvyk1 said :

…I’m not anti cycling, and I have no qualms in money been spent on cycling infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is the “holier than thou” combined with “the law does not apply to me” attitude I’ve frequently seen from cyclists.

Just wondering, have you seen the same attitude from a motorcyclist ever? What about a car driver? A bus driver? A truck driver? A snow plow driver?
I think we can all remember at least one occasion where we have seen a # driver do something stuupid/illegal (well, maybe not the snow plow driver!).
Does it mean whenever ‘they’ are mentioned in any conversation we have to say “# drivers are ‘frequently’ holier than thou and all think the law doesn’t apply to them?”
It’s just soooo boring!

JB had a go at a cycling benefits list. Shall I get us started on the standard ‘anti’ comments list, after which we can all move on to something more interesting? Off the top of my head:
You don’t pay rego so get off the road (or roadside).
Bikes are a danger to pedestrians on bike/footpaths, so should get off them.
You don’t ring your bell before you pass pedestrians.
You DO ring your bell before you pass pedestrians.
You ride across pedestrian crossings.
You wear a helmet and that is annoying.
You DON’T wear a helmet and that is illegal.
Your lights are too dim.
Your lights are too bright.
Some bike riders wear lycra, which I don’t like.
There are a couple of bike races a year that use public roads that may inconvenience a handful of motorists for a few minutes on those occasions and I don’t like that – even if I am at home, asleep or watching TV, when it is happening.
Stromlo forest park is a waste of tax payer money, even though it is well utilised by people having fun and enjoying themselves on most days.
Some bike riders use cafes and drink coffee, which I don’t like.
I’ve seen at least one cyclist do something illegal, so they are all law breakers out to scratch my paint and put blood on my car.
and so on….

Mysteryman said :

I saw a fat cyclist once

Great story bro. Keep it up!

johnboy said :

It’s a very simple argument, as with all things there are going to be anecdotal examples which do not apply.

bawling your eyes out because you saw a cyclist behave on a road in a manner unlike a car, at no risk to anyone but the cyclist, is a poor reason to invalidate the argument.

But the thing is, it’s not only a risk to the cyclist, personally I believe if a cyclist does something stupid such as rides out in front of a car it’s a nice simple bit of Darwinism at play. But you then have the problem of damage which happens to the car (eg damage to body work, and someone needs to pay to have it repaired, I suspect that 3rd party insurance is not always a given with cyclists either), and you also have the generally bad mental effects which also happen to the driver and witnesses.

A few years ago a colleague of mine witnessed a person getting hit by a car, it shook him up pretty badly for quite some time.

harvyk1 said :

Just out of interest JB, why are you so intent on insulting everyone where cycling is either not the best or at least not their preferred commuting option for them?

Insulting idiots is something I do, been at it since 2000.

My point is that even if you don’t choose to cycle you should acknowledge cyclists are doing you a big favour by their own choice instead of the spiteful bile we get from morons.

harvyk1 said :

I’m not anti cycling, and I have no qualms in money been spent on cycling infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is the “holier than thou” combined with “the law does not apply to me” attitude I’ve frequently seen from cyclists.

It’s a very simple argument, as with all things there are going to be anecdotal examples which do not apply.

bawling your eyes out because you saw a cyclist behave on a road in a manner unlike a car, at no risk to anyone but the cyclist, is a poor reason to invalidate the argument.

johnboy said :

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

Are you really so stupid you don’t think exercise has a relation to fitness?

If it weren’t for the riding they (and myself) would be in even worse shape.

There is certainly a correlation between exercise and fitness, but diet and genetic make up can also have a large effect as well.

Just out of interest JB, why are you so intent on insulting everyone where cycling is either not the best or at least not their preferred commuting option for them?

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

You got any links to back up your statement, and not only links, but links involving cities of similar population, size and geographic features as Canberra?

Now the other part is how will you grow the community? It’s not like you’d find too many people in Canberra who do not realise that cycling is a valid commuting option, I’ll be honest the things which are putting me off from doing so include

– The fact it’s a 20km ride each way which has hills in it
– The fact that it will double my commuting time each way, and that it will cut into time spent either at work or with my kids
– The fact that I’d need to deal with extreme cold, extreme heat and birds in the spring time which might not like me.

and I strongly suspect that I’m not the only person in Canberra who has the above putting them off cycling.

So to put it simply, to attract additional people to the cycling community, the strategy needs to be more than “build it and they will come”.

johnboy said :

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

Not quite true, there are these things called buses which whilst they are as rare as white rhino’s, they have been known to venture beyond the Woden-City-Belconnen corridor from time to time. I would guess that at least some cyclists would use them as an option over driving a car.

johnboy said :

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

Again, not entirely true, like any physical activity there is always a risk of injury from said activity, there is also conditions which can result from said activity which mean that you too can be as much of a burden on the health funds as a coach potato.

johnboy said :

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

Finally finishing a well thought out argument by insulting all those who don’t agree with you multiple times is hardly a good way to win an argument. It is in my opinion much like picking apart someones spelling because you have no other comeback.

I’m not anti cycling, and I have no qualms in money been spent on cycling infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is the “holier than thou” combined with “the law does not apply to me” attitude I’ve frequently seen from cyclists.

I totally support Pedal Powers call for further investment. I also support the need to register pushbikes and ensure on road riders have a certificate of competency attesting their knowledge of Road Rules.

Having say a $30 Registration fee would raise around $500,000 per year and having a Certificate of Competency would remove the claim I don’t need to know the road rules.

Just equitable suggestions.

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

I think you have failed to appreciate the difference between fitness and fatness. Exercise will make you fit, it’s not going to make you thin.

well, since yesterday, someone has done a “kate carnell” and respray painted the green killing zone at the Carruthers Street turn at Yarra Glen.

jase! said :

while i appreciate what the cycling lobby groups do i think a lot of the time they confuse what can be achieved with pie in the sky dreams as is proven by the comment quoted

+1

Of the seven “problems” only Bowen Place is really an issue and the NCA has it on their to do list.

johnboy said :

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

Are you really so stupid you don’t think exercise has a relation to fitness?

If it weren’t for the riding they (and myself) would be in even worse shape.

I saw a bloke riding the other day who was so fat it looked like the seat had gone spelunking.

BicycleCanberra said :

Sic said :

I don’t see a problem with the Melrose underpass. Why shouldn’t bikes have to slow down for pedestrians that might step around a blind corner while going through the underpass?

The problem is gone now, there is no barrier there any more. If you want to make the tunnel safer then the tunnels need to be widen to at least 5-6 metres wide and separate pedestrians and cyclists where volume are high. http://youtu.be/dwCqpGggS1I

back in reality the underpass isn’t going to get made wider and there is a reduction in pedestrian safety with the barrier removed just so riders don’t need to slow then accelerate again.

Rather than spending a bucket of cash widening a tunnel i’d be much happier to see some properly laid surfaces for bike tracks so that decent speeds can be maintained without re-truing wheels quite so often.

while i appreciate what the cycling lobby groups do i think a lot of the time they confuse what can be achieved with pie in the sky dreams as is proven by the comment quoted

Mysteryman said :

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

Are you really so stupid you don’t think exercise has a relation to fitness?

If it weren’t for the riding they (and myself) would be in even worse shape.

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

You seem pretty keen to point out how fit and healthy cyclists are. So how do you explain all the fat arse cyclists that are all over Canberra roads every morning? There are a hell of a lot of them who have been riding for a long time and are still total lard arses.

pikiran_keruh…. that is a typically stupid comment you self centered morons use, so if I pay rego on my car, by your logic I dont need to pay for rego on my motorbike? Plus, I actually pay insurance on both, correct me if Im wrong, but you nutcases dont pay any sort of insurance yet you seem to think you have a right to be on the road? How bout you lot actually contribute for all these costly services you want, your vehicle rego pays for (or flaming should) road upkeep and maintenance and new projects which now cost alot more than they should. It would be nice not to have to pay for road upgrades at the expence of the majority. You want it, get your self indulgent hands off it and pay.

johnboy said :

If we got the majority of commuters on bikes it would certainly make life easier for everyone trying to lug cargo.

People don’t see it like that.

People go “bike riding is for losers” and hence they don’t ride.

Solidarity said :

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

But i’m heaps better looking that you, am probably stronger too, and haven’t touched a bike ever since my BMX got retired when I got my P’s…. which was 8 years ago.

So there.

Time to get a Gazelle bike ,since your a big boy now! http://vimeo.com/7284431

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

The logical follow on, then, is that we spend almost all the money we have on cycle infrastructure, so that the users of motor vehicles is reduced to me.

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

But i’m heaps better looking that you, am probably stronger too, and haven’t touched a bike ever since my BMX got retired when I got my P’s…. which was 8 years ago.

So there.

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

But what do you really think, JB?

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

Cycling also makes you happy and relaxed.

johnboy said :

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

Now now JB, you could’ve said all that without stooping to use the word ‘atrophied’.

Allright, once more with feeling for the brain dead, lard arsed cycling haters.

1) There is a proven correlation between cycling infrastructure and rates of cycling. Every time you wheeze “it won’t make people cycle” you are wrong.

2) Every cyclist would otherwise be driving a car and competing with your morbidly obese arse for room on the road and parking.

3) All of those cyclists, thanks to their superior cycling granted health, are going to compete with you less for space in the emergency room when your revolting carcass starts to give up the ghost.

So if your brain has not completely atrophied you might be able to realise that people cycling are doing you a great favour and even if you’ll always be too revoltingly ugly to get on a bike yourself it’s in your own self interest to encourage more people to do so.

You retards.

Masquara said :

His point is that cyclists are f***tards and shouldn’t break the road rules.

There are f***tards in all walks of life, some of them are cyclists, some are motorists, some are builders, some are butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.

Don’t forget that these “bike paths” are used by pedestrians, joggers, skateboarders, roller bladers, dog walkers as well as cyclists, so if you take this into account the $50M is benefitting an even broader part of the community.

Sic said :

..Cyclists seem to want everything their way, but don’t want to be inconvenienced by anyone else.

Hahaha!
I actually can’t believe Pedal Power started a pro-bike thread on RA! Are they nuts?

It’s almost impossible to stop a thread on a completely different topic (pick any topic – it’ll eventually end in blaming a cyclist!) from turning into an anti-bike b$%chfest, and they serve up a thread primed for it! Hahahaha! Gutsy effort!

The funny thing is, there are about ?100 anti-cyclist thread on RA/year, and *all* repeat the same arguments! Can’t we just have a FAQ, or ‘Frequently made comments (FMC!) page made up with the standard arguments (from each side) so we can save some time and just redicrect each cycling thread that page? 🙂

Sic said :

I don’t see a problem with the Melrose underpass. Why shouldn’t bikes have to slow down for pedestrians that might step around a blind corner while going through the underpass?

I bet these are the same cyclists who ride in the car lane next to the bike lane because they can go faster on the smoother surface the cars they hate have cut out, and there is less debris to pop their little tyres.

Cyclists seem to want everything their way, but don’t want to be inconvenienced by anyone else.

The problem is gone now, there is no barrier there any more. If you want to make the tunnel safer then the tunnels need to be widen to at least 5-6 metres wide and separate pedestrians and cyclists where volume are high. http://youtu.be/dwCqpGggS1I

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

Dunno about you, but I don’t tend to drive across pedestrians crossings in front of other traffic.

Motor vehicles do this all the time, when there is pedestrian traffic at high volumes across a Pedestrian crossing many car drivers don’t wait and try to inch there way across the crossing to make pedestrians stop for the car.

If a car can come to a complete stop then proceed slowly across a pedestrian crossing then so can a person on a bike, there is no need to dismount.

Having said that you are no allowed to ride across pedestrian crossing is most countries , what is usually provided for is a separate cycle path crossing next to the pedestrian crossing with no issues at all as long as motor vehicles give way to the most vulnerable of traffic. Pedestrians & Cyclists.
http://youtu.be/yh_13xg4Wpg

I don’t see a problem with the Melrose underpass. Why shouldn’t bikes have to slow down for pedestrians that might step around a blind corner while going through the underpass?

I bet these are the same cyclists who ride in the car lane next to the bike lane because they can go faster on the smoother surface the cars they hate have cut out, and there is less debris to pop their little tyres.

Cyclists seem to want everything their way, but don’t want to be inconvenienced by anyone else.

Innovation said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

I agree. I can’t understand why they shouldn’t just be required to stop before crossing. Car drivers shouldn’t be able to have it both ways, many want the cyclists off the roads and then when the footpaths intersect with crossings they want them off the bikes too. As a cyclist I tend to stay away from the crossing until there are no cars around, walk if there are cars or preferably ride on the roads before those types of intersections.

As a driver though, something needs to be done about cyclists that don’t slow down for crossings. I still break out in a sweat over the one I nearly hit in Dickson who was airborne when he hit the crossing.

I think it’s pretty risky if you don’t slow down as a cyclist to cross at a pedestrian crossing and make eye contact with oncoming cars, etc.

But… I don’t really get why this would be different from a give way sign at an intersection and that’s how I treat these crossings when I’m driving. I know you sometimes cannot look far up those paths, but that means you have to slow right down until you can look as far as you can and are very sure that you can stop if someone appears suddenly, regardless what speed they are going. That’s giving way… You don’t expect other cars to stop or even slow right down when you approach a give way sign, do you?

And now I reread that, it would also be a good idea to make some improvements to some paths that offer very poor visibility, like the one near Turner Primary. A bend in the path so close to the crossing is just not a very smart design.

Whitepointer said :

A fleet of Jim’s Mowing Commodores with trailers in tow. That will sort you ba$ta#ds out.

Given you call yourself Whitepointer, I’m guessing you’re a fat 41 year old virgin trying to overcompensate. I kind of tuned out of your troll from that point.

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

Dunno about you, but I don’t tend to drive across pedestrians crossings in front of other traffic.

A fleet of Jim’s Mowing Commodores with trailers in tow. That will sort you ba$ta#ds out.

Felix the Cat said :

neanderthalsis said :

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

Fine, I’ll pay rego, keep your $50M and I’ll ride on the road and ride in the middle of the lane and do 20km/h. Rego fee is based on an engine capacity or weight isn’t it? Average bike probably weighs 10kg and most don’t have motors so that should make bicycle rego worth about $5. Where do I send the cheque?

Which is less than the cost of running a registration scheme, so in effect, every unregistered bicycle is subsidising the system.

Masquara said :

jb1964 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

And I’ve seen a similar number of rear end collisions on the park way in last month. What’s your point?

His point is that cyclists are f***tards and shouldn’t break the road rules.

Whereas you’re a f***tard who is sh*t at paraphrasing.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

From the posts I’ve read, you don’t seem qualified to comment “with authority” on anything.

Again, you appear to be specualiting instead of relying soley on factual evidence.
I just gave 3 facts as to why more bike infastructre spending is a good thing.

No, you gave three consequences of people riding instead of driving. You offered no facts related to how the extra infrastructure is going to get people riding instead of driving, why that amount of money is justified, or why it’s “a good thing”.

I dont think you seem to understand what the word fact means.

here is another one, FACT: if money is spent upgrading and improving bicycle infastructure, more people will be inclined to use it.

Thats 4 facts for you, mysteryman.

Then why has the number of bike riders remained stagnent for the past two years, despite further money being spent on cycling infrastructure? Your “facts” are nothing more than your opinion.

For future reference, yelling “fact” doesn’t make a nonsensical claim a fact.

jb1964 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

And I’ve seen a similar number of rear end collisions on the park way in last month. What’s your point?

My point is there are lots of cyclists breaking the law and endangering their own lives. That needs to be fixed.

Are you one of the said bell ends?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

I agree. I can’t understand why they shouldn’t just be required to stop before crossing. Car drivers shouldn’t be able to have it both ways, many want the cyclists off the roads and then when the footpaths intersect with crossings they want them off the bikes too. As a cyclist I tend to stay away from the crossing until there are no cars around, walk if there are cars or preferably ride on the roads before those types of intersections.

As a driver though, something needs to be done about cyclists that don’t slow down for crossings. I still break out in a sweat over the one I nearly hit in Dickson who was airborne when he hit the crossing.

jb1964 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

And I’ve seen a similar number of rear end collisions on the park way in last month. What’s your point?

His point is that cyclists are f***tards and shouldn’t break the road rules.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

And I’ve seen a similar number of rear end collisions on the park way in last month. What’s your point?

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

Well that’s pathetic.

Sure. Once cyclists stop cycling across pedestrian crossings, we might think about funding some stuff for you.

Jethro said :

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

I myself have nearly cleaned up 5 or 6 bell end cycalists racing across crossing without looking in the last few years. It’s lucky I’m very attentive as I spend a lot of time driving around.
Having said that, it’s dumb cyclists need to dismount to cross, just slow down so they can be noticed easily should be enough.

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

I’ll start doing it right after they have a public education campaign to explain to drivers that cyclists are required to dismount at crossings. When I started riding regularly in Canberra I dutifully dismounted at pedestrian crossings and walked my bike across (all very nice and legal). The only problem is that not all motorists know that you have to do this and some of them think that you’re just taking the piss (because you’re holding them up) and will yell abuse, blow the horn, or try and hit you with their car (no I don’t recall if they were white commodores). I find that a policy of just slowing right down and getting eye contact with the driver before riding across is much safer, the worst thing that’s happened is that a terribly earnest chap wound down his window and gave me a brief lecture about the Australian Road Rules.

Felix the Cat said :

neanderthalsis said :

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

Fine, I’ll pay rego, keep your $50M and I’ll ride on the road and ride in the middle of the lane and do 20km/h. Rego fee is based on an engine capacity or weight isn’t it? Average bike probably weighs 10kg and most don’t have motors so that should make bicycle rego worth about $5. Where do I send the cheque?

I’ll double your $5 if I can ride a 1Kw electric bike on the road…

BicycleCanberra said :

DrKoresh said :

“Cyclists must turn left on Yamba Drive Mawson.”

Or, you know, use the pedestrian crossing that is there for the purpose of getting to the other side.

Seriously, what else are you suggesting, that cyclists cross two lanes of traffic to turn right?

Intersections in the ACT and Australia in general are designed for the fast movement of motor vehicles and left slip lanes that allow motor vehicles to make fast left turns at the expensive of other transport modes.

This means that on road cyclists are forced between two fast moving vehicles and the off road cyclists are forced to make a sharp right hand turn and or dismount to get across the intersection.

There are certainly better ways to design intersections for everyone that doesn’t cause congestion.
http://youtu.be/5HDN9fUlqU8

Actually I think Pedal Power might be stretching it just a little bit. A closer view shows that there is a turn bay for cyclists and they are not forced to turn left. This layout may be safer than the green lane idea because as you point out they are not forced to ride between two lanes of traffic.

As for the “cycle lane” that ends at Ginninderra Drive, what’s in the photo is the road shoulder the cycle lane is the green bit that runs down to the lights and if you want to turn left it meets up with the cycle lane on Ginninderra Drive.

The cycle path to nowhere, next to the Barton Highway, probably dates back to when it was planned to have 15 000 people living out at Kinlyside and now that this plan has been dropped there really isn’t any point extending it anywhere. Casey, Ngunnawal and Nicholls already have a cycle path network that comes down Gungahlin and Gundaroo Drives.

What are the traffic volumes like in Brisbane Ave? Is it so busy that it need a cycle lane? There is currently no cycle lanes in Brisbane Ave, they’ve photographed the short section that turns into it from Wentworth Ave. Would they be happier if the ACT Government just went out and rubbed off the lines?

BicycleCanberra said :

There are certainly better ways to design intersections for everyone that doesn’t cause congestion.
http://youtu.be/5HDN9fUlqU8

You know, we’ve been here before: propaganda from countries with 5 times our population density and only 1/3rd of the commuting distance bears no relevance to the almost total lack of appeal that cycling around Canberra has for the majority of people.

FD10 said :

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

I’m not advocating either side in this debate, but just a heads up: nothing will undermine your argument more than effectively saying “I will pick and choose the laws I wish to follow, and ignore those I don’t agree with”.

Oh wait, I was wrong. There is one thing which can further undermine it: trying to rationalise it with a stupid analogy.

Come on – aren’t we all sick and tired of all those car drivers who use pedestrian crossings to cross the road?

To add, as I’ve mentioned before, the only 2 cyclists I have seen nearly get collected at pedestrian crossings were people who stumbled while attempting to dismount and feel into the oncoming traffic.

There is a happy medium between shooting out without looking and being forced to dismount and walk across.

Most cyclists will slow down, wait for the car to stop or pass, and then ride across after making sure it is safe to go.

The law clearly doesn’t stop the dickheads who shoot through but does inconvenience the vast majority who can navigate a pedestrian crossing safely without dismounting.

I reckon anyone who argues that all cyclists must dismount at every crossing would change their mind by about the 3rd or 4th crossing if they actually rode a bike.

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

I’m not advocating either side in this debate, but just a heads up: nothing will undermine your argument more than effectively saying “I will pick and choose the laws I wish to follow, and ignore those I don’t agree with”.

Oh wait, I was wrong. There is one thing which can further undermine it: trying to rationalise it with a stupid analogy.

BicycleCanberra said :

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

Don’t forget what Sir Isaac Newton said:

‘The car and bike
are not alike
and yet are both quite cool,
but if the bike
asserts his right
and gets hit HE’S the fool!

Mully Cup here we come!

Cyclists dismounting to cross an intersection? Did we lose a war or something?

DrKoresh said :

BicycleCanberra said :

DrKoresh said :

“Cyclists must turn left on Yamba Drive Mawson.”

Or, you know, use the pedestrian crossing that is there for the purpose of getting to the other side.

Seriously, what else are you suggesting, that cyclists cross two lanes of traffic to turn right?

Intersections in the ACT and Australia in general are designed for the fast movement of motor vehicles and left slip lanes that allow motor vehicles to make fast left turns at the expensive of other transport modes.

This means that on road cyclists are forced between two fast moving vehicles and the off road cyclists are forced to make a sharp right hand turn and or dismount to get across the intersection.

There are certainly better ways to design intersections for everyone that doesn’t cause congestion.
http://youtu.be/5HDN9fUlqU8

No, I’m not clicking the link, I don’t want to see anymore of your bloody Swedish videos, if you love the place so much you should move there >:(

So cyclists have to dismount to cross at the intersection and can’t just ride willy-nilly across the road, BFD, can you guys really not spare the 2 minutes it takes for the little green man and the buzzer to go off?

If you don’t like it here you can Geeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit out! http://youtu.be/xMOcyCLZHBQ

I’ll dismount when drivers are required to geeeeiiit out and push their cars across crossings also.

BicycleCanberra said :

DrKoresh said :

“Cyclists must turn left on Yamba Drive Mawson.”

Or, you know, use the pedestrian crossing that is there for the purpose of getting to the other side.

Seriously, what else are you suggesting, that cyclists cross two lanes of traffic to turn right?

Intersections in the ACT and Australia in general are designed for the fast movement of motor vehicles and left slip lanes that allow motor vehicles to make fast left turns at the expensive of other transport modes.

This means that on road cyclists are forced between two fast moving vehicles and the off road cyclists are forced to make a sharp right hand turn and or dismount to get across the intersection.

There are certainly better ways to design intersections for everyone that doesn’t cause congestion.
http://youtu.be/5HDN9fUlqU8

No, I’m not clicking the link, I don’t want to see anymore of your bloody Swedish videos, if you love the place so much you should move there >:(

So cyclists have to dismount to cross at the intersection and can’t just ride willy-nilly across the road, BFD, can you guys really not spare the 2 minutes it takes for the little green man and the buzzer to go off?

DrKoresh said :

“Cyclists must turn left on Yamba Drive Mawson.”

Or, you know, use the pedestrian crossing that is there for the purpose of getting to the other side.

Seriously, what else are you suggesting, that cyclists cross two lanes of traffic to turn right?

Intersections in the ACT and Australia in general are designed for the fast movement of motor vehicles and left slip lanes that allow motor vehicles to make fast left turns at the expensive of other transport modes.

This means that on road cyclists are forced between two fast moving vehicles and the off road cyclists are forced to make a sharp right hand turn and or dismount to get across the intersection.

There are certainly better ways to design intersections for everyone that doesn’t cause congestion.
http://youtu.be/5HDN9fUlqU8

p1 said :

Really? How the hell have they worded that law?

Are tandem bike banned? What about bikes with seats on the back for toddlers? What if I have pegs on the back of my BMX for my girlfriend to stand on (don’t tell my wife)?

CBF looking up the actual words but it’s something along the lines of ‘only carrying the passengers that the bike is designed for it’, so tandems, child seats etc are all fine, trailers are ok (but I think now have to meet the Australian standard for prams?), and carrying someone on BMX pegs or a cargo bike would depend on how it’s interpreted. That rule is part of why the ‘dismount at crossings’ rule is so stupidly inconsistent, when there’s more than one rider it just doesn’t make sense – who/how many of the riders have to dismount?

says the guy from pedal power doing an interview this morning on 2cc on his way to work in his CAR.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

From the posts I’ve read, you don’t seem qualified to comment “with authority” on anything.

Again, you appear to be specualiting instead of relying soley on factual evidence.
I just gave 3 facts as to why more bike infastructre spending is a good thing.

No, you gave three consequences of people riding instead of driving. You offered no facts related to how the extra infrastructure is going to get people riding instead of driving, why that amount of money is justified, or why it’s “a good thing”.

I dont think you seem to understand what the word fact means.

here is another one, FACT: if money is spent upgrading and improving bicycle infastructure, more people will be inclined to use it.

Thats 4 facts for you, mysteryman.

That’s not a fact at all. If money was spend upgrading and improving bicycle stuff, most wouldn’t wouldn’t care.

“Cyclists must turn left on Yamba Drive Mawson.”

Or, you know, use the pedestrian crossing that is there for the purpose of getting to the other side. Seriously, what else are you suggesting, that cyclists cross two lanes of traffic to turn right?

Felix the Cat said :

Solidarity said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

No, nobody is going to ride a bike, so if they spend all this money it benefits like 4 people. They have this grand idea that all this infrustructure means people are going to take up riding bikes… it’s just not going to happen. These pedal power people need a dose of reality.

http://www.ethicalinvestor.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4035&Itemid=402

Bikes outsell cars by 2 million in last decade so I’m guessing sombody is riding them.

I’m guessing not.
I have about 8 or 9 bicycles in my shed, and only 3 cars. I use the cars on a daily basis. One of the bicycles might get used once a week. Several of them haven’t been used for years.

The fact you have to use bicycle sales as your proxy for cycling use says it all, really. Surveys of road-use show that cycling counts for virtually nought in terms of getting normal people from A to B.

BicycleCanberra said :

Sadly that’s one of the stupids rules now that you can’t ‘dink’ someone and is a $79 dollar fine.

Really? How the hell have they worded that law?

Are tandem bike banned? What about bikes with seats on the back for toddlers? What if I have pegs on the back of my BMX for my girlfriend to stand on (don’t tell my wife)?

Is the no dinking law only applicable to roads? Not that it matters, no one ever gets booked for not wearing a helmet, you would have to really piss off a cop to be done for giving someone a dink.

Can’t be asked reading the usual anti-cyclist comments.

But man, I hate it when a cycle path just ends. The sign only seems to add insult to injury because by the time you see it, it’s too late. It’s especially not funny if you have a 15 kilo child on the back of a road bike and then need to haul your bike up a kerb and push it across the lawn (if you’re lucky) or gravel to get to safety.

Whingeing about the rails across the underpass is a bit petty though. Sure, it would be nice to not have to slow down, but it’s probably also nice to slow down if it is used by pedestrians. And you get bonus points if you can negotiate them smoothly without dismounting.

People need to stay out of the right hand lane too!

BicycleCanberra said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

johnboy said :

Well I rode a bike to work this morning. Pretty sure I wasn’t alone.

Did you give someone a dink?

Sadly that’s one of the stupids rules now that you can’t ‘dink’ someone and is a $79 dollar fine. Infrastructure is only one part of the solution for a cycle friendly city getting rid of these stupid laws is another.

https://vimeo.com/26600854

WHAT? No dinking?

That IS ridiculous.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

johnboy said :

Well I rode a bike to work this morning. Pretty sure I wasn’t alone.

Did you give someone a dink?

Sadly that’s one of the stupids rules now that you can’t ‘dink’ someone and is a $79 dollar fine. Infrastructure is only one part of the solution for a cycle friendly city getting rid of these stupid laws is another.

https://vimeo.com/26600854

As a Canberra rates payer, I’m all for it. I’d much rather less spent on our roads and more on our cycling infrastructure.

Felix the Cat said :

Bikes outsell cars by 2 million in last decade so I’m guessing sombody is riding them.

Yeah, but I bet quite a few of them are people like me who bought a bike, rode it a few times and now only get it out a few times per year (and not for commuting either).

johnboy said :

Well I rode a bike to work this morning. Pretty sure I wasn’t alone.

Did you give someone a dink?

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

From the posts I’ve read, you don’t seem qualified to comment “with authority” on anything.

Again, you appear to be specualiting instead of relying soley on factual evidence.
I just gave 3 facts as to why more bike infastructre spending is a good thing.

No, you gave three consequences of people riding instead of driving. You offered no facts related to how the extra infrastructure is going to get people riding instead of driving, why that amount of money is justified, or why it’s “a good thing”.

I dont think you seem to understand what the word fact means.

here is another one, FACT: if money is spent upgrading and improving bicycle infastructure, more people will be inclined to use it.

Thats 4 facts for you, mysteryman.

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

You mean the motor sports people who they thought they weren’t getting there entitlement?

Solidarity said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

No, nobody is going to ride a bike, so if they spend all this money it benefits like 4 people. They have this grand idea that all this infrustructure means people are going to take up riding bikes… it’s just not going to happen. These pedal power people need a dose of reality.

http://www.ethicalinvestor.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4035&Itemid=402

Bikes outsell cars by 2 million in last decade so I’m guessing sombody is riding them.

neanderthalsis said :

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

Fine, I’ll pay rego, keep your $50M and I’ll ride on the road and ride in the middle of the lane and do 20km/h. Rego fee is based on an engine capacity or weight isn’t it? Average bike probably weighs 10kg and most don’t have motors so that should make bicycle rego worth about $5. Where do I send the cheque?

Solidarity said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

No, nobody is going to ride a bike, so if they spend all this money it benefits like 4 people. They have this grand idea that all this infrustructure means people are going to take up riding bikes… it’s just not going to happen. These pedal power people need a dose of reality.

Around 80,000 people ride a bike at least once a year in Canberra, according to Cycling Promotion Fund, Australian Sports Commission and Pedal Power estimates – and bike sales outstrip car sales in Australia. So it’s not exactly a niche activity.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

From the posts I’ve read, you don’t seem qualified to comment “with authority” on anything.

Again, you appear to be specualiting instead of relying soley on factual evidence.
I just gave 3 facts as to why more bike infastructre spending is a good thing.

No, you gave three consequences of people riding instead of driving. You offered no facts related to how the extra infrastructure is going to get people riding instead of driving, why that amount of money is justified, or why it’s “a good thing”.

Licence road-using cyclists and use the cash to upgrade facilities. Added bonus of being able to hold the rare cyclist-knobs accountable.

(Not Pirate Party ACT policy.)

Diggety said :

Why don’t you all save your own pennies and buy a f**king motor.

As soon as you ask for funding – you fail.

So nobody has ever asked for funding for a road? You must be from the I reject your reality and substitute my own school of debating.

So this is a “build it and they will come” scenario?

Not sure I support registration for bikes, after all, its only effective if policed. Who pays for the extra policing required, given the ACT can barely enforce bike helmet laws?

That said, bike riders, please come up with a different argument to “I pay rego for my car already”. Registration on one vehicle doesn’t cover another; if it did, I’d be a very happy fellow.

This is carrot (spending), now where’s the stick (funding recovery)? If the gubmint was serious about moving people out of cars, and onto bikes and public transport, we’d see a couple of things:
– Congestion charge for town centres.
– Increased parking fees for town centres.
– Reduced public transport fares
– Increased park and ride facilities.

Let the arguments begin…. now.

neanderthalsis said :

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

So say, in a similar proportion to the road infrastructure component of a car rego fee? Oh wait car rego barely covers admin cost while infrastructure costs come from federal and terratory consolidated revenues…

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

From the posts I’ve read, you don’t seem qualified to comment “with authority” on anything.

Again, you appear to be specualiting instead of relying soley on factual evidence.
I just gave 3 facts as to why more bike infastructre spending is a good thing.

neanderthalsis said :

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

The savings from reduced obesity and health care costs and also traffic accidents caused by cars far out ways any rego cost.

Should Pedestrians wear rego plates for walking on footpaths as well? silly argument as always.

johnboy said :

Well I rode a bike to work this morning. Pretty sure I wasn’t alone.

Yep & the 30 odd other people that I passed on my 30km commute this morning.

I would like this money to go to the existing infrastructre of off road paths & additions to new roads before the Civic Cycle loop.

There has been line marking in Tuggereanong but 50m down the path the grass is growing through the middle.

I cant really whinge though, a guy I ride MTB’s with used to commute 30km on a 4 lane road with no dedicated lane in Brisbane. Bugger that.

BicycleCanberra said :

Mysteryman said :

How do we ride through at Melrose Drive Underpass, Woden?

Same way I did when I was 12. It’s not rocket science.

$50 million over four years sounds like a lot , I would have doubled it to $100 million. The ACT Government from 2000-2011 has spent over $1 billion dollars on roads(which includes new sub divisions) and according to BIS Shrapnel, and will spend on average $150 million each year between 2012-2016.
So Pedal Powers $16 million each year over 4 years pales into insignificance compared to road funding. $25 million a year would be better.

Not when you consider how many people use roads and how many use bike infrastructure. I’d say that spending on roads is less per user by a long shot.

neanderthalsis said :

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

but that would be a disentive to ride considering most cyclists already pay full rego on their cars. If it came to it most people would stick to cars if they had to pay both.
Not to mention all the school kids who wouldn’t ride anymore

@neanderthalsis

here we go, here we go, here we go …… I pay rego… next

Want more infrastructure dollars for cycling? Simple solution, pay rego on your bike.

Here_and_Now said :

I was once told that the reason for rails like the ones near the Melrose underpass entrance…

Perhaps traffic calming is a side benefit, but usually they exist to stop cars accessing footpaths.

I had this problem at an underpass in Kaleen a few years ago – some Muppet in a shitty Skyline would cut off Ginninderra Drive onto a gravel path then drive 500m up a shared path and through the underpass as a short-cut to his house. Canberra Connect helped me find the appropriate Govco employee to talk to, and I requested they install a new bike-friendly barrier. It was installed within a month and I received several follow up calls. Pleasantly surprised.

how about repairing some of the footpaths that cyclists and pedestrians use?
There are a few badly damaged areas that I ride on going to and from work. (I don’t hit them when I walk to work.

Also a few paint jobs where cars shouldn’t park because the footpath runs out and has a slopey bit onto the road. Also more slopey gutter bits to paths would also be nice.
(yes I’m being selfish but I’m a new rider to work and from work and there is no way that I would ride on the main roads to work)

Here_and_Now said :

I was once told that the reason for rails like the ones near the Melrose underpass entrance were so bikes (and skateboards and whatever else) would have to slow down to navigate them and have less risk of collision in or around the underpass.

Of course, I don’t think the person who told me was either a cyclist or an urban engineer, so that might not be set in concrete (unlike the rails).

Pedestrians and cyclists need to be separated also, but particularly at underpasses and bridges, but getting ACT roads to do this is very difficult indeed.

http://youtu.be/ZFTd8kuVrHY

Mysteryman said :

How do we ride through at Melrose Drive Underpass, Woden?

Same way I did when I was 12. It’s not rocket science.

The barrier at Melrose Dr underpass was removed some time ago, thanks to “yours truly”, but there are many more barriers around Canberra that need to be removed.

$50 million over four years sounds like a lot , I would have doubled it to $100 million. The ACT Government from 2000-2011 has spent over $1 billion dollars on roads(which includes new sub divisions) and according to BIS Shrapnel, and will spend on average $150 million each year between 2012-2016.
So Pedal Powers $16 million each year over 4 years pales into insignificance compared to road funding. $25 million a year would be better.

Apparently the Dutch spend $30 per capital on Bicycle infrastructure, but they spend a hell of a lot more on roads also. http://youtu.be/bUIdIuuPoZo

They are absolutely right that you have to be a very confident rider to tackle anything off the bike paths and quiet suburban streets. Bike lanes should be physically divided from cars wherever possible. Often it’s not the distance of a ride but the danger that puts people (well, me) off.

I am highly unlikely to use any of the infrastructure which pedal power has asked for. That said cycling is a very valid and popular commuting method, and anything which can make that method safer for the not-insignificant number of people who chose this method then I am all for it, with two proviso’s.

1. They don’t take away from other forms of transport to give to the cyclists. Any work done should complement the current road infrastructure, not degrade it.

2. Cyclists need to use this new infrastructure. It’s all well and good to build proper cycle paths running along major arterial roads, but if the cyclists still chose to take their chances with the cars despite being within 5 meters of dedicated infrastructure which is running the same way as them, then that is not on. In fact I believe cyclists who chose to ride on the road despite having dedicated infrastructure near by going the same way as them should both have their head examined, and their wallets made lighter.

So provided those two proviso’s are met, I have no problem with $50 million been spent on such infrastructure.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

No, nobody is going to ride a bike, so if they spend all this money it benefits like 4 people. They have this grand idea that all this infrustructure means people are going to take up riding bikes… it’s just not going to happen. These pedal power people need a dose of reality.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

From the posts I’ve read, you don’t seem qualified to comment “with authority” on anything.

I was once told that the reason for rails like the ones near the Melrose underpass entrance were so bikes (and skateboards and whatever else) would have to slow down to navigate them and have less risk of collision in or around the underpass.

Of course, I don’t think the person who told me was either a cyclist or an urban engineer, so that might not be set in concrete (unlike the rails).

Mysteryman said :

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

difference being, motor sport benifits nobody besides a small group of bogans, yet the more people out of cars ande onto bikes equals less polutuion, less traffic, more available parking etc etc.

BTW, i do not ride a bike as its not possible with my job, so im qualified asa outsider to comment with authority on the benefits of more peeps riding bikes.

@solidarity You still driving a car??? Wake up and smell the exhaust fumes!

Why don’t you all save your own pennies and buy a f**king motor.

As soon as you ask for funding – you fail.

How do we ride through at Melrose Drive Underpass, Woden?

Same way I did when I was 12. It’s not rocket science.

I’m waiting for the people who bitched out about the $800,000 funding for motorsport to come in here and post about how this is a great idea and money well spent.

Solidarity said :

50 million dollars for bikes?

Are you smoking crack?

Not yet, but $50 mil should buy some.

50 million dollars for bikes?

Are you smoking crack?