(Continued from previous message)



 RS> about Canberra. Perth has always had some unique approaches on city

 RS> planning. It equally irrelevant to whats possible in Sydney now tho.



In many ways it is irrelevant.



 AW>> On current trends, 8% of all trips made in Perth will be made on bike

 AW>> by the year 2000. They also have Kings park - a cyclist's paradise.



 RS> Bugger current trends, far too prone to fantasy IMO. And even if that

 RS> figure is achieved, thats precisely what I meant by my 'marginally

 RS> better off possibly'. Doesnt come within a bulls roar of your

 RS> 'immeasurably better off'



I disagree that 8% is just marginally better off. This would be a

fantastic figure to achieve.



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

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

 RS>> actually a very expensive approach.



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

 AW>> cases the extra space can be found from areas such as the inner lane.

 AW>> I'm not suggesting removing a car lane.



 RS> Well you havent explained it very well. How the hell can you take an

 RS> existing 3 lane arterial road, with the cars using those lanes, and do

 RS> what you say without reducing the car carrying capacity ?



You need very little space for a bike lane. On many roads the space can

be pared from the median strip, other lanes, different gutter design,

and in more extreme cases, a small amount of the footpath. If this all

sounds expensive to you - well it is. The normal solution is to

incorporate bike access when other road maintenance (line marking,

drainage work, installation of S-lanes, footpath maintenance etc etc)

is being carried out. Most major arterial roads have one of these done

every few years.



 RS> Unless you are on the sealing the verges bit again. Cant be that tho

 RS> cos no one would call that painted lanes.



It's just semantics as to whether or not we call shoulders bike lanes.

If they can perform that purpose, then they can be called that.



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

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

 AW>> during peak times.



 RS> I'm saying it should become a clearway for cars in the times when

 RS> parking is banned. THATs the sensible approach. Its insane to be

 RS> reserving the lane for bikes when almost all the major routes around

 RS> sydney have a capacity problem at peak hours.



Using the same Mosman example, the road down to middle head doesn't

have a level of car use during peak hour that would require the bike

lane converted to a car lane. In this case, a clearway for cars would

be superfluous. A lot of cyclists use the road, and would clearly

benefit from a bikeway during peak hours.



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

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



 RS> And thats precisely what I meant by 'trivial impact'. It would have

 RS> likely no real impact on pollution or whatever, its trivial. Even if

 RS> that is achieved, and I have grave doubts myself.



I wouldn't call it trivial at all.



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

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

 RS>> about.



 AW>> No not crap. What I mentioned is one reason.



 RS> I think its a pretty fanciful reason myself when the bike rider is

 RS> generally very vulnerable. I cant see too many deliberately increasing

 RS> their risk just to be bloody minded. Some undoubtedly will, but mad

 RS> fools will always be with us.



I interpreted the recklessness as being behaviour such as running red

lights. In most cases this isn't mad behaviour or really increasing

risk, but instead is use of the knowledge that you have little chance

of being booked for it. Quite often, bike riders flaunt rules where

there is little chance of any retribution simply as a stick the finger

up gesture.



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

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



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

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

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

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

 AW>> been right thus far.



 RS> I think its mad myself. Those considerations are fine if they see you

 RS> and consciously or unconsciously allow for those factors. But a hell of a

 RS> lot of the time they dont even see you in time to make any decision at

 RS> all.



My view is that the only time car drivers don't see cyclists is at

night or on roundabouts. Generally cyclists wear bright clothing and

sit a lot higher than most cars. The sort of riding I do is the style

where your speed and the cars speed are fairly similar. This gives car

drivers plenty of time to react.



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

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

 RS>> a bike, the time they spend on their bike is adequately paid for

 RS>> already.



 AW>> How do you know what she is saying ;-)



 RS> I read minds, didnt I tell you that |-)

 RS> I think a lot of the time, on arguments like that, you can see whats

 RS> driving them. Lots of people have that petty attitude, 'I paid more than

 RS> you did and that gives me heaps more rights than you are entitled to'



True.



 AW>> Are you interested enough for me to transcribe her letter into

 AW>> Locsysop?



 RS> Sure.



Ok I will, I will.



 AW>> She's an idiot, and if you read her letter you may not be quite as

 AW>> sympathetic to her viewpoint.



 RS> I'm not actually that sympathetic to her, just took the opportunity to

 RS> shoot a few holes in some of your bodgier arguments.



The bullets appear to be made of cork and emanating from a little

pop-gun unfortunately ;-)



 RS> The fevered

 RS> bloodshot fanaticism visible in some of yours was presumably part of the

 RS> reason. I could just imagine the foaming at the mouth that was likely

 RS> going on as you wrote it |-)



No way. I generally leave it up to more radical bike lobbyists to write

the letters, but I was particularly bored on this occasion. I try quite

hard to be objective, and I am firmly convinced that a bit more

tolerance and a greater degree of cycling funding can provide some good

solutions.



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

 RS>> |-)



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



 RS> I'm too lazy to go back to the original, there were quite a few more than

 RS> one. Which I havent seen you use in email.



ie - there are no other Speedisms in the letter.



All that has happened is I've spent a little more time on the letter

than I would on a typical email letter. Just think, I can write

something in email and have a potential audience of 200. A letter, even

in the Manly daily (they published my letter yesterday BTW) will reach a

potential audience of 80,000. The potential to bore, irritate and

inform 400 times as many people.



The only problem is that Stuart Littlemore claimed that there is an old

shibboleth (there's that word again) that editors think all letter

writers are complete idiots. I've always enjoyed reading the letters

page of the paper though. It's quite easy to pick the loonies who are

only published for entertainments sake from the ones with valid points.



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

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

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

 RS>> money spent in Canberra making it work better for bikes was

 RS>> worthwhile. Not so much from a value point of view tho, more just

 RS>> increasing choice.



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

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



 RS> Cant agree with that actually, you'd be amazed at the rabid fanatical

 RS> bike following there is there. Very trendy |-)



I know. Actually there are about 110,000 regular riders (more than a

third of the ACT population). The ACT has .65 bikes per person or 2.3

per household. They're such a terribly smart and sensible bunch

down in Canberra, that these high figures don't surprise me. The other

possibility is that they may be all trying to do a Leo McLeay.





Regards, Alan



--- FMail 0.94