Mayor Rattenbury has penned a plea for motorists and cyclists to leave off all the hating:
There is a rumbling debate in Canberra about the rights and responsibilities of cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers. Many people take sides with one of these groups, depending on their personal perspective. As someone who drives, rides and walks around our town, it’s clear to me that that unfortunately there are irresponsible road users in all of these groups.
We need to come out of the trenches. This shouldn’t be a war between cyclists and car drivers. It should be a discussion about how we can have safe roads and paths for everyone in the community, because the truth is that neither car drivers or cyclists want to see or be involved in accidents.
“Vulnerable road users” is a term used for people who are most at risk in traffic, and who are the weaker party in any collision: pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
Last year there were 4 pedestrians, 3 motorcyclists and 1 cyclist killed on ACT roads, compared to 3 car drivers. While only 8% of all motor vehicle crashes involved injury, 57% of crashes involving bicycles were injury crashes.
I’d like to see the concept of “vulnerable road users” become well recognised in Canberra, and entrenched in our road transport laws. We need to recognise vulnerability in the way we plan and design our city, and road users need to recognise it in the way they interact. The reality is that car drivers have a special onus to be aware of the more vulnerable people around them. Cyclists and pedestrians need to behave in a way that is safe and respectful. Cyclists need to ensure they are visible, consider pedestrians, and show respect for road rules.
This week I will call on the ACT Legislative Assembly to establish a Committee inquiry to investigate the ACT’s approach to vulnerable road users. There are interesting and successful advancements being made all over the world and the Committee will be able to harness these new ideas and recommend improvements for the ACT.
There will, no doubt, be many trips required to Amsterdam and Copenhagen, so not a bad secretariat to get onto.
Loading ...
Aeek said :
The Tuggeranong Parkway has a concrete barrier all the way along it until Hindmarsh Dve where there is a large bank separating the lanes as they are aligned differently.
KB1971 said :
Don’t know about the parkway, but the wire rope barriers on the GDE have metal posts and, bonus, 2/3 are uncapped (how many cents does that save?). Easy to get a close look when I cycle that way.
jase! said :
I attended a motorcycle safety summit a few years ago and there has been a lot of testing done on these barriers and it concluded that they were safer than the steel girder types. The reason being is that when a rider comes into contact with the guard rail they are usually sliding along the ground and hit the posts which causes injury. The wire rope type barriers have fibreglass posts that break when hit causing less or no injury.
If I think of it tomorrow I will post a link.
dpm said :
well I’d trade 1 skywhale for safer barriers
jase! said :
$?
Safer barriers probably cost about $300k more…..
yes it is important to look after vulnerable road users Shane.
so why has the government that you have been a part of for 2 terms just built a road (Parks Way) using Briffen Wire Rope fencing?
Just in one trip yesterday evening.
Saw a close call between a car not paying enough attention or perhaps not anticipating all possibilities, and a cyclist slowly wobbling along a footpath talking on a mobile phone and turning onto a crossing.
Then I saw a cyclist in dark clothing and with no functioning lights on a fairly dark road in the rain.
Then I saw a dark-coloured four wheel drive well after dark with no lights on, perhaps the driver didn’t notice because it was a well-lit street and there were other cars around but I hope the driver caught on before someone failed to see their vehicle.
Btw, was it pegs in the spokes, or did the pegs hold a playing card or something? Long time since I’ve seen it.
tim_c said :
Hipster Ninja single speeders……..
bd84 said :
I walk, ride a bike and drive a car. I hate myself six ways.
Ben_Dover said :
You need what is called a “Feasibility Study”, usually conducted by an individual. Wanna volunteer? You’d probably have to qualify in a selection criteria along with other feasibility study applicants, prior to being awarded the task, if successful. There is however a committee required to oversee the selection of the candidate, so there is an opening for you if all else fails.I can see how these committees never get any results, by the end they forget why they are there.
wildturkeycanoe said :
Can we have a committee to investigate the feasability of that?
Wait… so this site isn’t the committee on cyclists?
PrinceOfAles said :
That will go quite nicely next to my lighting setup, aimed at spotting those crazy phantom cyclists who go around after dark with no lights (and usually wearing black – like most of the pedestrians).
That’s all we need, another committee. I propose we have a committee investigate all these government committees to see how effective they were in achieving the goals they set out to achieve. Why does a word need so many ccappittalls in it anyway? What’s wrong with comitee or comity anyway, stupid English languaagge….
Masquara said :
I’ll give you the Easy Peasy Albanese. That was quite amusing.
It’s hard to disagree that special care needs to be taken to protect vulnerable road users but I fear this is going to turn into an assumption of culpability on the part of motorists when incidents occur.
I drive to work through Braddon and the city and I treat all cyclists with same care as I would treat my friends who cycle. I’ve had several near misses and I’ve seen many more. In most cases it’s caused by cyclists who are willing to use their vulnerability to gain right of way when they don’t have it. I don’t accept that I’m more responsible for a cyclists safety than they are for their own safety.
I can’t argue with Shane Rattenbury’s starting position but we’ll see where the debate goes from here.
Postalgeek said :
Easy Peasy Albanese! Read comment #1 for starters! : ]
“…it’s clear to me that that unfortunately there are irresponsible road users in all of these groups.”
Rattenbury may be a simple sort, but this observation is spot on.
Masquara said :
Can you show me evidence of this bipartisan hate agreement, or is this just another example of you oozing hate and squirting it onto everyone else again?
Why can’t we all just get along?