Alex Simmons/RST wrote:AdelaidePeter wrote:If you don't like shared paths, you don't have to use them. But they are essential for many ordinary cyclists, who (a) don't want to mix it with traffic, and (b) co-exist with pedestrians just fine.
For those that tootle along at low speed and don't ride very far, they are fine.
But it still leaves utility cycling out of the picture, and let's face it, improvements for utility cycling will provide the greatest gains to society at large. So why use the space and resources for such a crummy solution when much better solutions exist?.
You're clearly using a different dictionary and set of experiences to the rest of us. Utility cycling is tootling along at low speeds. High speed long distance commuting (like I do) or sports cycling is not "utility cycling". Utility cycling is that quick trip to the shops; getting to the station or riding to school. Zero sweat riding and mostly sub 5km.
This is utility cycling
And you need get on a plane and out on the PSPs in the Wild West. They don't match your descriptions at all. They're mostly like this. Strangely, the pedestri-o-pocolyse has not eventuated. Neither on the PSPs nor on the foot paths.
And they're (slowing) joining the dots up - unlike 2GB land. There's work on "safe streets" but that'll take a while as we have drivers who struggle with 40kph zones. Even when their speed-made-good is under 30kph.
Or go spend some time in places where the planners, politicians and police are not extras from The Cars That Ate Paris. Like the real Paris. Or Tokyo. Or most older (pre-car) cities in Europe.
Secondly (as half highlighted by your joke re: the bar) the issue is the complete and utter mismatch between govt spending on supporting trucks & cars (Hello Duncan Gay) and the spending on every other mode of ground transport. Coupled with an anti enforcement, anti-alternative attitude (ah, Mr Gay, so good to see you again).
It's not cyclists "stealing" a few pennies from the pedestrians, it's that the roads department is given four times more money to build roads than the entire govt contribution to public transport (WA last year) and nearly 100x the budget for cycling works.
As for "will it get people out and about", this is the sort of volume of utility cycling we're missing out on
I get the message that you want keep the ability to ride on the roads but don't blame actual cycling infrastructure (that's aimed a the 90% of cyclists who
don't want to be fighting 60kph traffic) for poor road design; poor regulations; poor policing and worse education.
You also leave yourself open to
reductio ad absurdum: are you seriously suggesting that "sharing the lane" on the Mooney Mooney bridge (at rush hour and in bad weather) is
better than grade separation? Or that mixing with Mercs on an autobahn (where I've seen 220kph on the dial) is
better than a properly built PSP?
(images from my current
favourite article on cycling. Which I suggest you read and digest)