Hello Rod!



 AM>> But what pisses me off more about bike riders, is the ones that take a

 AM>> whole left hand lane to themselves in peak hour, forcing everyone to

 AM>> change lanes around them.  THey may be allowed to do so, buy what do

 AM>> you guys want to be: correct or alive? It's just an unworkable

 AM>> situation to have bike riders doing that sort of thing during peak

 AM>> hour.



 RS> I agree with Tony in general, basically bike riders and high volume

 RS> traffic routes just plain dont mix. Its just not possible to make them

 RS> work properly together IMO, they are too different in detail.



They do and can mix. Have you noticed how all new freeway/tollways have

breakdown lanes? These makes perfect bike lanes.



One of the most cost effective ways to reduce vehicle/bicycle conflict

apart from this is by use of sealed shoulders on semi-rural roads.

These shoulders can virtually act as exclusive bicycle lanes but also

have a major flow-on safety benefit for other road users. A study by

the Monash University Accident Research Centre found that accidents on

two-lane highways were reduced by 43% on a vehicle kilometre basis when

sealed shoulders were provided. They concluded that it becomes

cost-effective to seal shoulders for traffic flows greater than 350

vehicles per day. Taking an example in Sydney, sealing the Old Northern

Road, which carries over 20,000 vehicles per day, would have a

benefit-to-cost ratio of 57 to 1. Not possible to make them work

properly together my arse.



On my way to work, there is an ideal shortcut up Parrawi road, instead

of Spit road. There is a 'NO LEFT TURN' sign there because it is such a

great shortcut. It probably cost the RTA less than $300 to change the

sign to read "BICYCLES ACCEPTED". Now I have a car-free shortcut, and I

don't bother car commuters whilst I wheeze up Spit Hill. Another

example of a cheap solution.



 AW>> I agree that the situation is pretty unworkable at the moment.

 AW>> However, my view is that in blaming the bike riders, you're blaming

 AW>> the wrong party.



 RS> I dont think its blame so much as just recognising that the impossible

 RS> is being attempted.



I've just mentioned some options to achieve the so called "impossible".

One of the squeeze points on my road to work used to be the Spit

Bridge. It cost the RTA less than $20,000 to change the western

pedestrian-way to combined access. Modifications were - footpath

widening and raising the height of signs. This is not an unreasonable

amount to spend to vastly improve cyclist safety and reduce conflict.



 RS> Oh no, a rabid bike rider no less |-)



And proud of it ;-)



 RS> I thought that salutation to the media alliance from a solicitor was the

 RS> best I had seen



 RS> Dear Cousin It



Rings a bell, I can't remember the full story though.



 AW>> Being a keen bicycle commuter, I feel compelled to respond to Mrs J

 AW>> Dranes' anti-bike rider diatribe (MD Oct 2). Her suggestion that

 AW>> bicycle riders don't have a legal right to use the road is utterly

 AW>> mad. Whilst her statement that other road users pay hundreds of

 AW>> dollars a year in registration and insurance fees is superficially

 AW>> correct, I'm sure even she realises that this sum does not come close

 AW>> to fully covering the real cost of car usage.



 RS> I'm not sure thats true actually if you consider total costs payed,

 RS> including all fuel excise etc type costs.



There's no way it even comes close, even if you include sales tax on

the car. Hardly anyone disputes that. If you remember reading in the

SMH earlier this year about the results of a study commissioned by the

German government, you would realise this. This wasn't a Greenpeace

pseudo scientific piece.



 AW>> Costs in areas such as air pollution, noise pollution, medical care

 AW>> for road trauma victims,



 RS> I think this one is likely a myth. The much higher accident rate which

 RS> incurs medical costs would likely make bike riding pretty poor. It

 RS> certainly does for motorcycles.



The UK's Dr D Mulray has done studies which indicate that on a

cost-benefit analysis, health gains exceed costs associated with

accidents. It could be argued from his conference papers - published as

"The bicycle:Global Perspectives" - that health budgets should fund

bicycle programs.



 AW>> encouraging unfitness,



 RS> Jeeze, clutching at straws now I see |-)

 RS> If its anything like the impact of on the medical costs incurred by most

 RS> of the sports people, it might be better not to talk about this one too

 RS> |-)



Well if you play thughby or run on hard surfaces your medical costs may

be significant, but not with cycling. An interesting corollary is that

initiatives such as compulsory helmet wearing may actually cost the

community through poorer health of those discouraged from cycling,

rather than make any gains through reduced injuries.



I'm not sure whether you're at the age where you may be looking at

problems such as osteo-arthritic hips, but this disability can be

managed and the operation postponed, via regular bike riding.



 AW>> and usage of non-renewable energy sources.



 RS> Corse staying home would have even less impact.



Yeah why not tele-commute.



 AW>> Cycling should not be regarded as a problem when in fact it easily

 AW>> provides many solutions to the modern dilemma of a degraded

 AW>> environment and poor community health.



 RS> Bullshit. Its never going to be more than an approach adopted by a tiny

 RS> minority.



Well it's not bullshit that cycling provides solutions to health and

environmental problems. That's irrefutable plain fact.



 AW>> Cycling for transportation can contribute to the quality of life in

 AW>> cities if conditions are improved, and decades of neglect properly

 AW>> addressed.



 RS> Pigs might fly. In a third world country like Cuba, possibly. In a

 RS> modern western society, its pissing against the wind IMO.



What about the other 'third world country' where there are around 8

times as many transport cyclists per thousand population as in Australia.

Japan.



In Japan, 15% and in some cities 20% of trips to work are by bicycle.

Since 1988, Japanese consumers have been buying 8 million bicycles a

year. In Tokyo, 15% of all trips to work are by bicycle, compared to 2%

in Melbourne.



 AW>> If just 1% of road funds were directed towards improving cycling

 AW>> facilities, we would be immeasurably better off.



 RS> Cant see that myself. Marginally better off possibly. I'm not even

 RS> convinced its that practical even with a fresh site like Canberra.

 RS> Completely and utterly infeasible in Sydney IMO. Its far too late now.



You mention Canberra as an example, so you obviously aren't

aware that Perth is a city known as one of the world's top cycling

ones. It's not a 'fresh site' like Canberra. Their new veloways linking

Perth, Fremantle, Midland, Armadale, Wanneroo and the southern end of

Kwinana freeway will connect to a network of dual-use paths and on-road

routes. On current trends, 8% of all trips made in Perth will be made

on bike by the year 2000. They also have Kings park - a cyclist's

paradise.



 AW>> Simple and inexpensive measures such as painted bike lanes on arterial

 AW>> roads



 RS> Wildly impractical. They arent inexpensive anyway when you consider the

 RS> cost in the fact that the lane is gone from normal use. Its actually a

 RS> very expensive approach.



No. I'm not suggesting removing any level of normal use. In many cases

the extra space can be found from areas such as the inner lane. I'm not

suggesting removing a car lane.



 AW>> and declaring bicycle clearways during busy periods



 RS> Fanciful, when there is already a problem with inadequate capacity. That

 RS> would just reduce the capacity of the transport route even more. Quite

 RS> mad.



I'm not sure that you understand this method. In areas like Mosman

that allow parking in the bikelane, simply change it to a clearway

during peak times.



 AW>> would help reduce our reliance on petrol and private cars.



 RS> Big deal. Even with the most widespread likely adoption, say what you

 RS> see in Canberra, its a trivial part of the reliance on petrol and cars.

 RS> Of no real importance at all.



As I mentioned above, judging by trends, 8 per cent of all trips are

expected to be made by bicycle in the year 2000 in Perth.



 AW>> Her other point that riders exhibit reckless behaviour may be

 AW>> explained by the fact that bicycle riders are treated with utter

 AW>> contempt by many car drivers.



 RS> Thats crap too. You know as well as I do that many are just plain mad.

 RS> The couriers in the city for example. Thats whats she is talking about.



No not crap. What I mentioned is one reason. You and I know that the

main reason for reckless riding is because they can get way with it,

but I'm hardly going to write that in my letter.



 AW>> There is no incentive for bike riders to afford any consideration to

 AW>> four wheeled road users, when we are so accustomed to being cut-off,

 AW>> or seeing cars overtake with only millimetres to spare.



 RS> Sounds like special pleading to me. I would have thought one incentive

 RS> was to not get run over and squashed flat |-)



Yeah that's a good incentive. My experience is that you can get away

with a fair bit. The average Joe in a car doesn't want to make a mess

of his duco and deal with the delays and possible charges if they do

squash a cyclist. I've always gambled on this train of thought. I've

been right thus far.



 AW>> And by the way Mrs Drane, you will be pleased to know that I do pay

 AW>> registration and insurance fees for my car.



 RS> She is essentially saying that they people who dont should pay too. Its

 RS> an arguable position. OTOH I agree that if someone has a car and a bike,

 RS> the time they spend on their bike is adequately paid for already.



How do you know what she is saying ;-) Are you interested enough for me

to transcribe her letter into Locsysop? She's an idiot, and if you read

her letter you may not be quite as sympathetic to her viewpoint.



 AW>> Note the Speedism in the letter.



 RS> Yeah, I noticed a few stylistic techniques stolen without attribution |-)



Well I can only see one. What are the others?



 AW>> I actually don't feel quite this extreme over the issue, but GAF.



 RS> I still think the fundamental problem in a place like Sydney is that its

 RS> just not feasible to come up with a workable total system. So most of

 RS> the proposals are a waste of money. I do OTOH think that the money spent

 RS> in Canberra making it work better for bikes was worthwhile. Not so much

 RS> from a value point of view tho, more just increasing choice.



Many more people would ride bikes in Canberra, if it weren't for the

fact that the city is occupied be lazy bureaucrats and pollies.





Regards, Alan



--- FMail 0.94