Australian Infrastructure Audit
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby AUbicycles » Fri May 22, 2015 9:00 pm
How does cycling rate?
Infrastructure is more than just transport, but looking into the report on the transport, the word "cycling" has two mentions... one to talk about Hobart having a higher than national average bicycle commuting rate, and to Darwin who had the highest national average. That's It.
The Prime Minister announces that congestion is a problem.... so we need more roads and bigger roads and more public transport. I agree with public transport, right now there are serious deficits. With motorised transport - sure, to an extent improving road infrastructure is progress and necessary.... but we all know that bigger roads get more cars and more congested so action is also need create alternative transport alternatives, make public transport more attractive, personal mobility and of course... cycling. Cycling is a transport solution and together with public transport creates viable transport alternatives which reduce congestion.
Here is the link to the main page of the Audit where the key findings and complete documents can be viewed (PDF).
http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov. ... Audit.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby warthog1 » Fri May 22, 2015 10:57 pm
It needs a groundswell of support from the public to make our pollies worry about votes. Its hard to get that going when popular media is controlled by conservative thinking individuals.
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby AUbicycles » Sat May 23, 2015 10:06 pm
The value of the audit however is that the federal government now focusses on infrastructure, including transport infrastructure so cycling interest groups need to ensure that this alternative transport is also part of the mix... and it is not just more roads and bigger roads - without cycling provision.
You are right, the power of cycling bodies is more limited than other bodies... but persistence and activity is still important.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:19 pm
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby Top_Bhoy » Sun May 24, 2015 2:45 pm
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby AUbicycles » Sun May 24, 2015 7:57 pm
But through the different levels of government, this is a basic overview of which cycling groups are, or should be active.
Local = BUGs / local groups
State = State adocacy organisations
Federal = National Body
There is cross-over, state groups can be active in local issues. Likewise, speciality interest groups such the Amy Gillet Foundation are active on different levels, and in some states together wuth the main state advocacy group.
On a federal level, one group is trying to move from state to national. Otherwise on a political front the CPF directly connects with Federal politicians and also consciously doesn't have and end user (cyclist) member base, rather is industry.
There is a lot of interest for a single united representative body, but power plays, personalities and history has unfortunately always blocked this...although it is what we also need.
- yugyug
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
- Location: Sydney
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby yugyug » Sun May 24, 2015 8:12 pm
Pity us all if its BN(v) you mean.AUbicycles wrote: Federal = National Body
~
On a federal level, one group is trying to move from state to national.
So if Cycling Australia is sports focussed it's an inappropriate advocate at the national level. Personally I think AGF is inappropriate for the same reason, more or less. Who else operates at the national level?
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby AUbicycles » Sun May 24, 2015 11:21 pm
Nationally, aside from the Cycling Promotion Fund (CPF) mentioned earlier (BNV chose not to attend the recent summit in Canberra, which was attended by all other state advocacy groups and a few other key interest groups such as the AGF and Australian Cyclist Party).
On the AGF, they have a specific agenda. At one time it was suggested that they wanted to be a peak Australian advocacy body to effectively replace others. As time has past, their focus has become clarified and means that they work well on this and often in partnership with other groups - for example the with state advocacy groups generally have a much broader role in cycling advocacy (i.e. the often have long term relationships with planning departments and are regularly involved as an interest group representative for planning decisions). AGF also have a different organisational model - more corporate alignment and the charitable fund-raising whereas the state organisations have a paid member paid.
While there are different groups out there, the best way that they can represent cyclists is actively working together to unit and provide support and access across all government levels. The summit in Canberra run by the CPF was an approach to unite the various groups to agree on common objectives, such as the min. 1 metre safe passing distance. The CPF is not a national cycling advocacy managing body but has down very well in bringing the groups together to talk.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:19 pm
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby Top_Bhoy » Tue May 26, 2015 5:37 pm
A very sad state of affairs that it appears there are too many egoists and drama queens who, at a national level, would rather not have a single united representative body than compromise or look at alternative methods.AUbicycles wrote:There is a lot of interest for a single united representative body, but power plays, personalities and history has unfortunately always blocked this...although it is what we also need.
Cycling is the only loser. It will be too late if Govt level decisions are taken while cycling is too busy in-fighting one another.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby Xplora » Wed May 27, 2015 10:54 pm
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby AUbicycles » Thu May 28, 2015 9:52 am
Though adding to the mix, many groups know the affect of MHL on cycle participation and as we call all see in the Mandatory Helmet Laws discussion forum, there is no single view when it comes to the safety value.
In the content of advocacy, the MHL is something I have discussed with many advocacy groups and the unlying theme is that most acknowledge that it is a valid topic for cycling advocacy... however it is 'too hot'. Far from shying away from important topics, the reason that advocacy groups choose not to deal with this is that there far more progress can be made in other areas.
For example the "1 metre minimum safe passing distance" has been adopted by all of the main Australian cycling advocacy groups, except for one. It comes down to choosing the topics which the organisations can make a realistic positive impact and the MHL is not one of this at the moment. Of course it means that they have to encourage their members to abide by the laws which govern us.
- Thoglette
- Posts: 6605
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby Thoglette » Fri May 29, 2015 5:28 pm
Indeed, there's plenty to argue that safety is the wrong point to focus on.AUbicycles wrote:there is no single view when it comes to the safety value.
Further, (and as mentioned by others), "official national bodies" have a bad habit of becoming mouthpieces of "industry" and unwilling to "upset key stakeholders"
The League of American Wheelmen is suffering exactly this problem
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:19 pm
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby Top_Bhoy » Fri May 29, 2015 8:05 pm
Expressed in the context of cycling, safety is very much an all encompassing word. However, what would you argue on if you don't concentrate on safety? What in your opinion is the way forward to reduce cycling fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicular collisions every year?Thoglette wrote:Indeed, there's plenty to argue that safety is the wrong point to focus on.AUbicycles wrote:there is no single view when it comes to the safety value.
Further, (and as mentioned by others), "official national bodies" have a bad habit of becoming mouthpieces of "industry" and unwilling to "upset key stakeholders"
The League of American Wheelmen is suffering exactly this problem
- Thoglette
- Posts: 6605
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm
Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit
Postby Thoglette » Sat May 30, 2015 1:03 am
I didn't talk about it in the context of safety, I talked about it in the context of MHL. MHLs (as AUbicycles points out) are a long way down the ladder.Top_Bhoy wrote: Expressed in the context of cycling, safety is very much an all encompassing word. However, what would you argue on if you don't concentrate on safety? What in your opinion is the way forward to reduce cycling fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicular collisions every year?
Attitudes are the biggie.
What will help?
* Enforcement of existing safe-passing/reckless/dangerous driving laws
* Public education campaigns - including in driver (re)testing.
* advocacy groups taking the hard line and supporting cyclists in the courts
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.