Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9919
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:31 pm

kb wrote:The other issue is just the sheer volume of roads versus paths. A detour for maintenance on a shared path can mean kilometres of backtracking or diversion rather than an extra block.


Or rather that you just can't ride to work for a few weeks, or months (or worse, an entire year) because the shared path route is blocked and the drivers don't want you on the roads.

If driver behaviour was better, many commutes would be a lot easier and quicker. You'd be able to take the most direct route on roads rather than lengthy diversions on so called "quiet" streets or shared paths that don't go exactly where you want to go.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:11 pm

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
Image

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.
Image

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
Image

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)
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9919
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:37 pm

Australia doesn't have autobahns where people are allowed to go 220km/h. :roll:
Nice try though.

And why do people have to fight with traffic? That's the problem here - it's too adversarial. Fix driver behaviour and then everyone can get around on the roads without bother.

My commute would then probably be about 6km instead of 12km. It would also be on smooth roads instead of crumbling, rough shared pathways.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:22 pm

g-boaf wrote:Australia doesn't have autobahns where people are allowed to go 220km/h. :roll:
Nice try though.

The argument stands, regardless of location. And despite what a Sydney taxi driver might say.

g-boaf wrote:And why do people have to fight with traffic? That's the problem here - it's too adversarial. Fix driver behaviour and then everyone can get around on the roads without bother.

The general concensus is with you here, particularly in 2GB land. Some driver education would help, too. And the fear of God (or at least bankruptcy and gaol time)

It also requires that you ban dangerous HGVs such as dog trailers and non-cab-over trucks, both of which kill numbers of pedestrians and cyclists each year (and traumatise the poor drivers who really didn't see their victims)

It also starts breaking down once traffic volumes get up and the speed limit is over 30kph, for reasons which have been chewed to death elsewhere.

That's not going to work for the Mooney Mooney bridge.

g-boaf wrote:My commute would then probably be about 6km instead of 12km. It would also be on smooth roads instead of crumbling, rough shared pathways.

Yes, we need to blame the PSPs for that (remember, that's Alex's thesis here). it couldn't be a symptom of a bigger set of problems, now?
Image
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby DavidS » Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:44 pm

Shared paths suck, they are an excuse to get bikes off the road.

I have no problem with bike paths, it's just that they are never going to cover the whole road network, there's just no need.

What really gets me about this debate is that it was quite normal for me to ride on the roads as a kid but now it is apparently unacceptable to other road users and too dangerous. This is bollocks, the road toll is a fraction of what it was and traffic moved much faster decades ago as there was far less congestion. What has changed is the attitudes of other road users - in short, car drivers. They are frustrated with congestion and they take that frustration out on those who, unlike them and the other car drivers, are not causing the problem.

As for the notion commuting is not utility cycling, what rubbish. What is it then? Sport?

If a Cyclist Party advocates for ways to get cyclists off the road and on to an option where we have to dodge pedestrians then they certainly wouldn't get my support.

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:12 pm

DavidS wrote:What really gets me about this debate is that it was quite normal for me to ride on the roads as a kid but now it is apparently unacceptable to other road users and too dangerous.

Wow! Another person who can't or won't read the thread (and certainly won't read the linked articles).

This sub-thread started because Alex said (and I paraphrase) that PSPs are 'A Bad Thing' and I asked him to explain why.

You've now determined from this thread (and I'd love to understand how) that the ACP was promoting removing cyclists from the road.

You've also misquoted me (I said "high speed commuting"). High speed commuting is not "utility" (as opposed to "transport") cycling as it requires a shower at the end.

DavidS wrote:Shared paths suck, they are an excuse to get bikes off the road.


It appears that, like some others, you consider cycling a zero sum game where providing separated facilities somehow equates to removing cyclists (and specifically high speed riders) from the roads.

DavidS wrote:I have no problem with bike paths, it's just that they are never going to cover the whole road network, there's just no need.


No-one with half a brain proposes that shared or bike paths should cover the whole road network.

What is being argued for is better driver behaviour (more care, less speed, more space, less attitude) on low speed or low traffic roads which are shared.

What is being argued for is an understanding that "cyclists" are not a single, monotype group. In .au we've managed to make utility cyclists almost extinct - if it weren't for the hipsters they'd be almost invisible. Whereas they could and should be 90% of cyclists.

What is being argued is that any high traffic, high speed (60kph+) roadway should have dedicated, separated pathway(s) for vunerable road users. If the traffic volumes and speeds are high enough, then MVs, bikes and peds should all have their own infrastructure.

Right now we build four lane freeways hundreds of km long with zero thoughts for non-MV traffic (hello Pacific Hwy) as the AS/NZS don't demand it.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby DavidS » Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:45 pm

Thanks for putting words in my mouth Thoglette.

Barely worth responding except maybe with this:

Image

You might want to actually read my post.

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4642
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:22 am

If the shared path strategy is so great, why are cycling participation rates still tanking so badly?

Image

When you have strategies that actually work, let me know.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4642
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:24 am

Thoglette wrote:
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
Image


And guess what these utility cyclists are riding on?

Yep - dedicated cycle lanes and roads. Not shared paths.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19239
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:07 am

Guys please stop attacking each other, just debate the topic, which now seems to be as to what lobby groups should lobby for.

To get a voice that is heard we need more numbers. Once we have that voice we will be able to lobby for something decent. So how do we get those numbers? This is something we have significant disagreement on but in reality we are probably all correct to some extent;
- Shared paths will increase the numbers of sub 15kph social riders
- Separated paths will increase the numbers of transportation riders
- Better perceived safety will increase the numbers for on road cyclists, a mix of the above plus the sports riders such as me
- Relaxing of regulations [a bunch of things here and there's dedicated threads on some of them] will reduce barriers of all of the above

Of course it isn't as simple as what I've written as you know
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:18 am

DavidS wrote:You might want to actually read my post.

I did and I quoted from it. If you believe I've misinterpreted what you said, please do elaborate.

And to repeat and rephrase: I don't get to define what "utility" cycling is. The definition does have some 'fuzzy edges' but it generally precludes getting dressed up in lycra and funny shoes. (Or foam hats, where they are optional)

DavidS wrote:Shared paths suck, they are an excuse to get bikes off the road.

OK, my reading: You're taking a (local) political problem and presented it as an underlying principle of transport design. Particularly in the context of Alex's previous line of argument I take this as you saying you'd rather have no shared paths than well-designed ones.

I thought I'd gone to some pains to point out that I agree with your point that PSPs are only a part of an overall pro-cycling approach to transport design and that on-road cycling is an important part of this approach.

Likewise, that "driver behaviour" (and all the influencers on it) needs to be changed.

So I thought I was agreeing with two of your three points. If I'm reading you wrongly, please do explain.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7970
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby find_bruce » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:50 am

One of the characteristics of cycling advocacy over the past 20 years has been infighting over what needs to be done to improve cycling safety.

Is there any sign of this changing ?

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9919
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:15 am

find_bruce wrote:One of the characteristics of cycling advocacy over the past 20 years has been infighting over what needs to be done to improve cycling safety.

Is there any sign of this changing ?

What do you think? And look at the Political guy who has rightly gone away after getting quite a telling off.

It might have been nice to have a discussion on the Outdoor Recreation Party though and the actions it took in helping advance our cause. Glenn Druery I believe was involved with that party.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:44 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:If the shared path strategy is so great, why are cycling participation rates still tanking so badly?

Image

When you have strategies that actually work, let me know.


Leaving aside the problems with that data, you can't attribute it to shared paths. Cycling rates are affected by a whole range of factors.

fat and old
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby fat and old » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:13 pm

g-boaf wrote:
find_bruce wrote:One of the characteristics of cycling advocacy over the past 20 years has been infighting over what needs to be done to improve cycling safety.

Is there any sign of this changing ?

What do you think? And look at the Political guy who has rightly gone away after getting quite a telling off.

It might have been nice to have a discussion on the Outdoor Recreation Party though and the actions it took in helping advance our cause. Glenn Druery I believe was involved with that party.


How will it change when people are so rusted on to their viewpoints that they can’t even interpret an interwebs forum statement correctly ( and I’m guilty of this as well)?

Old mate would have had a different reception if he’d not posted solely to gloat. I’ve apologised to the head honcho, I wouldn’t do it again, but my attitude hasn’t changed on this. I’d be interested (I may do a search when at a computer later rather than using my phone which is useless) to know what positive inputs Mr Druery has made hereabouts previously. Maybe he’s been a solid contributor with progressive ideas that will work?

fat and old
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby fat and old » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:55 pm

Topical, and in NSW

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... uary-zones

This can happen when a single issue party gets a seat.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby DavidS » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:24 pm

Separated paths are used as an excuse to claim bicycles should not be on the road, it isn't a zero sum game (I never said that) but it is a reality that cyclists are told to use a bike path rather than the road (even when there isn't a bike lane or path as I have found).

I see no point in shared paths. Sure, build a bike path, but a shared path is neither a road nor a footpath. Given bicycles are road vehicles what is the point of a hybrid path? Dodging pedestrians who have no idea what shared means, and just don't share, is pointless. Surely if riding on footpaths is legal they are even more pointless as a footpath is a shared path in those jurisdictions.

I also never said ACP promoted removing cyclists from the road, that was putting words in my mouth.

It is problematic (but not an issue, just problematic for a political party perspective) that cyclists don't have one position on many issues, but it isn't going to change. A party promoting cycling will have to decide to either take a position on such issues or deliberately not take a position. PSPs are relatively uncontroversial, I don't know what their position was on MHLs but I would imagine that would cause enormous problems for any cycling party. Single issue parties can have influence and can be a vehicle for promoting their issue, especially if you understand our voting systems (preferential and multi-member proportional rep), but they have their issues. It is a political judgement whether they are worthwhile and whether to vote for them.

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19239
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:47 pm

In regards to my comment about broadening the scope of a cyclist party, as expected no comment has been made on the pedestrian council about the recent deaths of pedestrians on the footpath. http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/page.asp

Looking at the site, it appears to focus the pedestrians increasing their own focus rather than focusing on the cause of death, which is usually a collision with a motor vehicle. The most recent article provide is this;


I'm seeing an active transport party that makes it better for everyone by providing a balance between the transportation options (or lack of)
- public transport actually worth using
- pleasant environments for walking
- pleasant environments for cycling
- reduced traffic congestion due to less car dependency
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7970
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby find_bruce » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:29 pm

Um Mike do you know the individual & his fax machine who is the "council" & his history, including his previous history with the NRMA. In my opinion the 7 bridges walk is simply a device to justify government funding.

He has regularly railed about how pedestrian deaths are primarily due to being drunk or elderly

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19239
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:46 am

find_bruce wrote:Um Mike do you know the individual & his fax machine who is the "council" & his history, including his previous history with the NRMA. In my opinion the 7 bridges walk is simply a device to justify government funding.

He has regularly railed about how pedestrian deaths are primarily due to being drunk or elderly

Sure do

And how just about anything except motor vehicles are the cause of pedestrian problems
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19239
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:41 pm

Saw a bumper sticker this morning by the shooters and fishing party, it said "supporting 4WDrivers" Another example of how that party has extended its support base
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

fat and old
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby fat and old » Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:29 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Saw a bumper sticker this morning by the shooters and fishing party, it said "supporting 4WDrivers" Another example of how that party has extended its support base


The shooters and fishing party could make a good partner for cyclists. It would take some work by both sides, but there’s common threads among the pursuits. Even the 4wd mob.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alf, march83, queequeg