Hello Rod!



 AW>> The health penality has to be weighed up against the many benefits.

 AW>> I've made a judgment that the risk is acceptable on the routes I

 AW>> travel.



 RS> I think personally people who ride to work in heavy traffic are

 RS> essentially just ignoring the risks, not rationally assessing them. Both

 RS> pushbike and motorbike riders.



I've had one bingle in the last year, and that was with a bicycle

courier anyway. Very minor - one broken nicad battery and a sore

finger.



Anyway, I've read in the paper that speed is now the number one killer

on the road. Presumably if I keep clear of Griffith, I'll be OK ;-)



 RS> We see a similar thing here, where some

 RS> fools even ride pushbikes out to some of the places well outside town

 RS> along narrow sealed country roads which have the whole of the heavy

 RS> transport traffic down to Melbourne, semis and stuff. Complete insane if

 RS> you ask me. There is no way they are carefully assessing the risk, they

 RS> are just closing their eyes to it.



I've ridden from Sydney to the Gold Coast 2.5 times, on both the New

England and Pacific Highways, without any dramas at all. Except for a

crop duster deliberately targeting me with a load of super

phosphate. Bastard.



 AW>> I have never seen these plain grass verges. All the ones I've seen

 AW>> have gravel or loose dirt immediately on the sides. You have some

 AW>> interesting views on freeway construction. Have you ever considered

 AW>> running for a seat on the NRMA board?



 RS> Well you want to try looking at some which work very well like that. Try

 RS> the main divided freeway which is north of Melb, heading for parts

 RS> north.



This one is an exception to the normal situation.



 RS> Even if the current system is gravel/dirt, IMO thats a much more

 RS> economic approach and it makes no sense to be sealing that so a very

 RS> occasional bike rider can use it.



That's why I pointed out other advantages.



 AW>> It says something useful about the fact that all new freeways have

 AW>> shoulder or breakdown lanes.



 RS> I dont believe they do. It may be that some do, maybe they are the ones

 RS> where the bike riding lobby group has managed to push their barrow more

 RS> effectively. That doesnt mean that its justifiable economically tho.

 RS> Clearly if some freeways work very well without it, it cant be

 RS> absolutely essential. Simple logic.



I'll bet the RTA weighed up all the benefits before considering how much

sense shoulders and breakdown lanes make.



 AW>> Do you not think the points I raised are valid? As a car driver, I'd

 AW>> certainly prefer to pull over onto a shoulder in the event of an

 AW>> emergency. Having two wheels on the gravel at 100 kmh provides a good

 AW>> chance for an accident.



 RS> I guess the reason is that you dont do it at high speed. So its no big

 RS> deal. I've pulled up on them a number of times for various reasons and

 RS> have never had a problem. I've even been pulled over by revenue raising

 RS> cops on them more than once. Again with no problem.



I mean the case where you have to pull off at high speed to avoid some

other idiot.



 AW>> Of course. But cyclists aren't all going to suddenly start riding

 AW>> bikes overnight. There would be a considerable ramp-up period.



 RS> Sure, but the point I was trying to make, not very clearly obviously,

 RS> that if you consider the absolute best possible outcome, after you spend

 RS> all the money on improvements, and its all actually used by bike riders,

 RS> the nett benefit for the total traffic flow in Sydney is relatively

 RS> small, so IMO not worth the cost.



I can't see the point in employing dog catchers and rangers, and

putting up signs in the park, when a blanket ban on dogs would be

simpler and probably cheaper. Simply employ someone to shoot dogs on

sight, until the owners get the point. He could even drag a cat around

to serve as a decoy.



The whole point is the the money spent on improvements for cyclists

isn't a massive amount.



 RS>> Bugger them IMO. Mainly because they fuck up the traffic system too

 RS>> much already. I'm essentially saying that nothing will produced a

 RS>> good complete integration of them so its essentially a waste of time

 RS>> and money farting around at the edges to keep the trendoids happy.



 AW>> Bugger the dogs. They fuck up the parks too much already. It's a

 AW>> waste of time and money farting around with rangers and signs, just

 AW>> to keep some dumb dog owners happy.



 RS> Again, you are talking about orders of magnitude different costs. And in

 RS> the case of the dogs and parks IMO its much better to not spend

 RS> anything, just continue with the approach used for decades and spend

 RS> nothing new. In fact the argument is reversed with the dogs, its the

 RS> fools like that mayor who want to spend money to address a problem which

 RS> doesnt need addressing.



The mayor is sick of spending money on rangers to enforce the laws, and

cleaners to pick up the shit from parks.



(continued next message)



--- FMail 0.94