Off Bike II (the obligatory op-ed response)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "dewatf" == dewatf <[email hidden]> writes:

dewatf> The SMH has an op-ed response to Duffy's piece.

dewatf> It misses the poitnt that Duffy is complaining about
dewatf> cyclists on arterial roads only. And that the only piece of
dewatf> infrastructure Duffy singled out for critism was a cycleway
dewatf> from Preston to Seven Hills in a circular root via Rooty
dewatf> hill which seems completely useless for commuting, (though
dewatf> make a nice 150km Sunday ride).

If Duffy had put some balance in to his article instead of
monstoring cyclists he'd have been better understood. I read the
article, all I got from it was that Duffy has a pathological hatred of
cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Contrary to Duffy's assertion that cycling is inherently unsafe,
cycling in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany is quite safe
indeed, with clear cycling infrastructure within and between
cities, and less than a third as many cycling fatalities per bike
trip as in Australia.

dewatf> So cycling is safe in Sydney on arterial roads because it is
dewatf> safe in Denmark, but cycling in Sydney is 3 times as deadly!
dewatf> And that is when there are mostly only experience fit
dewatf> cyclists on the roads in Sydney! So Duffy is wrong to
dewatf> discourage cycling on arterial roads?

Yes he's wrong.

Multiply something very small by three and it's still something very
small. The risks of cycling on arterial roads are greatly exaggerated,
especially by naive martyr cyclists who cry wolf and thump their chests
about how much riskier their chosen form of transport is.

Cycling safety increases when cycling numbers increase. That is fact,
not fiction, and the reason's pretty simple.

Cycling is a benign form of transport, motorised transport is not. In
ten years cyclists collectively have killed two people. Cars manage to
kill someone every second day or so. The more people on bikes and out
of cars, the safer it is for everyone.

dewatf> Do you think Denmark managed to get such high cycling rates
dewatf> and such low accident rates by enouraging cyclists to cycle
dewatf> on over congested arterial roads full of cars, buses and
dewatf> trucks and 60-80km speed limits?

There are many areas of Denmark which are not served by cycleways and
cyclists use the roads in safety.

Cycleways are not the answer to cycling safety, indeed there's plenty of
research which indicates the most dangerous place for a cyclist in the
Netherlands is a two way cycle path
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

dewatf> Or by building cycleways from nowhere to nowhere? (which
dewatf> the NSW government has turned into an artform, along with
dewatf> cycle route that contain anticycling barriers and flights of
dewatf> steps!).

dewatf> Denmark did exactly the opposite and seems to agree with
dewatf> Duffy.

For different reasons.

The people wanted separate infrastructure before they'd get on a bike.
The people did not feel safe on the roads.

The cycling infrastructure in Denmark was built for be people because the
people wanted it; that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. If
you know what you're doing the road's a perfectly safe place to be on a
bicycle. The more people who ride on the roads, the safer it is for
everyone.

We already have a decent communications network in roads, it's senseless
to reproduce it, especially as in many areas it's impossible to put in
additional infrastructure purely for cyclists.

dewatf> And yes the point about health benefits is a good one, it is
dewatf> however a better one when you aren't cycling on arterial
dewatf> roads, or even the shoulders of motor ways where there is
dewatf> most pollution.

If people were serious about pollution they'd do something about the
diesel fuel in this country.

dewatf> Ride on shoulders is also dangerous: hit a rock, or a stick
dewatf> or clip the peddals of another cyclist (as happened recently
dewatf> in Sydney on the M4) and you go down possibly in the path of
dewatf> an 80+km stream of traffic.

Right, just like driving a car on arterial roads is perfectly safe?
Accidents happen. The most dangerous activity most people undertake is
driving a car. Cycling is /slightly/ more risky than driving a car and
that risk factor will come down with increased cycling numbers.

dewatf> And given that only 1% of trips in Sydney are no bicycle (it
dewatf> is buggeral percentage of commuting to work or school) a
dewatf> very small benefit.

And guess what? Increase cycling and the percentage grows. When the
percentage grows it becomes a very tangible benefit or did you miss the
part in the op-ed about obesity levels in the Netherlands being a third
of what they are in Australia.

dewatf> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cycling-is-a-healthy-way-to-break-the-iron-grip-of-the-car/2005/12/07/1133829660316.html
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

dewatf wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

And given that only 1% of trips in Sydney are no bicycle (it is
buggeral percentage of commuting to work or school) a very small
benefit.

<snip>

See, now this would have to be the stupidist argument I've ever heard.

It's like saying, "There's no point improving our public transport
system because only x people use it." It ignores the fact that more
people could use it if it was improved.

It's as stupid as saying, "Only a small percentage of people have to go
to hospital, and they're sick anyway, so we might as well close
hospitals down."

Hello, wake up. More people could cycle. More people should cycle. And
then it will make a bigger difference.

Were you born in a Prado?

Tam

dewatf said:

The SMH has an op-ed response to Duffy's piece.

It misses the poitnt that Duffy is complaining about cyclists on
arterial roads only.

hahahahahahaha, the blind troll is back and once again re-interpreting
Fluffy's writing. Who puts money in your pocket troll?

Quoted message said:

And that the only piece of infrastructure Duffy
singled out for critism was a cycleway from Preston to Seven Hills in
a circular root via Rooty hill which seems completely useless for
commuting, (though make a nice 150km Sunday ride).

Seems is the correct word. It actually is a magnificent route for
communting as it passes several industrial estates amongst other places
of employment.

Now, if only my bunch of labor egg-nogs had put in the cycle route for
commuting that was suggested to them, we might have the chance of cycle
commuting to employment. But instead, they oppossed having proper zoning
and gave "special" consideration to all thos housing estate development
applications and now everyone in Campbelltown City has to have a car
and is gunna be a bigger lard [censored] than they all ready are.

Euan said:

If Duffy had put some balance in to his article instead of
monstoring cyclists he'd have been better understood. I read the
article, all I got from it was that Duffy has a pathological hatred of
cyclists.

Someone in lycra probably stole his and pierce akermans girlfriends.

Terry Collins said:

Seems is the correct word. It actually is a magnificent route for
communting as it passes several industrial estates amongst other places
of employment.

We shall see.

For someone who works in an industrial area by the M7 and lives
somewhere with good access to the M7 then it may be a good option
(when it doesn't rain and isn't 40C). As you point out the NSW
government has again ignored that residences need access to cycling
infrastructure (on end of my nowhere complaint).

However, the number of people who will cycle the 20-50km journeys that
people in the region often commute to work is near enough to zero.
Hell most people won't even walk 1km these days.

The number of people who cycle out that way is near enough to zero.
And the number of people in light industrial complexes who cycle is
also near enough to zero (they all drive utes and 4WDs 🙂

And this cycle way is sealed, drained, kerbed and sodium lit so
probably costs about the same as as road lane (not the same as the
average concrete cycleway).

My guess is it will be a white elephant but would be overjoyed to have
the figures and to be proved wrong.

dewatf.

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:19:01 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

See, now this would have to be the stupidist argument I've ever heard.

It's like saying, "There's no point improving our public transport
system because only x people use it." It ignores the fact that more
people could use it if it was improved.

A perfectly logical argument. 1% are using public transport and you
might improve it to 2% then it is pointless to spend billions on
public transport.

Quoted message said:

It's as stupid as saying, "Only a small percentage of people have to go
to hospital, and they're sick anyway, so we might as well close
hospitals down."

Hospitals are an essential service. A cycleway from Preston to
Sevenhills is not.

In the end whether to decide money on either is simply a matter for
the community to decide through the political process allocating money
to those which are desired.

It is not for the cycling lobby to decide how taxpayer money is spent
but Parliament. The cycling lobby are free to lobby for cycleways, the
motoring lobbies and Duffy are free to lobby for motorists against
them.

Quoted message said:

Hello, wake up. More people could cycle. More people should cycle. And
then it will make a bigger difference.

That is just your opinion, not a fact.

dewatf.

Euan said:

If Duffy had put some balance in to his article instead of
monstoring cyclists he'd have been better understood. I read the
article, all I got from it was that Duffy has a pathological hatred of
cyclists.

Duffy isn't after balance. It's an op-ed piece pushing the motorists
postion, one he believes is under represented since the left and
cycling lobby position which dominates is blatantly anti-motorist
(even the motorist lobby group the NRMA is antimotorist because
control of it has been seized by Dawn Fraser and the Left again).

The balance comes between a weighting up of the motorist and cyclist
positions.

And all I get from you is rapid ideology about cycling of a religious
fanantic's intensity, who won't even contemplate any other view point.

"Rule number one of bicycle advocacy, cycling is great. It's the best
fscking thing eva. Even when it's pissing down with rain I'd rather
eat tar than even hint to a non / anti cyclist that cycling in such
conditions is anything less than great."

Quoted message said:

Multiply something very small by three and it's still something very
small. The risks of cycling on arterial roads are greatly exaggerated,
especially by naive martyr cyclists who cry wolf and thump their chests
about how much riskier their chosen form of transport is.

Yet when each traffic fatality is costed at around $2m in direct
costs, more if you look at future loses and serious disability can
cost 10s of millions, then it starts to add up. And when we are
talking about attempts to get a 10 fold (NSW government aim) and 30
fold (cycling extremist position) increase in cyclists, while
encouraging them to ride on arterial roads in fast moving traffic.
Also Sydney has twice the population of Copenhagen which doubles it
again.

Also risk of accident and fear of riding in traffic are two of the
major barriers to mass adoption of cycling.

Quoted message said:

Cycling safety increases when cycling numbers increase. That is fact,
not fiction, and the reason's pretty simple.

Cycling is a benign form of transport, motorised transport is not. In
ten years cyclists collectively have killed two people. Cars manage to
kill someone every second day or so. The more people on bikes and out
of cars, the safer it is for everyone.

Your opinion.
Cars manage to transport people where they need to go for 90% of trips
quickly. Cycles 1% and for most cyclists much, much slower and exposed
to the elements and greater risk of injury.

Quoted message said:

Cycleways are not the answer to cycling safety, indeed there's plenty of
research which indicates the most dangerous place for a cyclist in the
Netherlands is a two way cycle path
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

But the accidents are much less severe.

And how do they compare to recreatational cyclists riding on arterial
roads with 70+km/h speeds?

Quoted message said:

For different reasons.

The people wanted separate infrastructure before they'd get on a bike.
The people did not feel safe on the roads.

The cycling infrastructure in Denmark was built for be people because the
people wanted it; that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. If
you know what you're doing the road's a perfectly safe place to be on a
bicycle. The more people who ride on the roads, the safer it is for
everyone.

It is the people's taxes, it is right that it is spent how they want.

It is not perfectly safe. A simple error in judgement by you, or a car
or truch beyond your control, a pothole, a rock a blow out can kill
you in traffic.

Quoted message said:

We already have a decent communications network in roads, it's senseless
to reproduce it, especially as in many areas it's impossible to put in
additional infrastructure purely for cyclists.

In many areas no.

In other spaces cycling ways can increase transport capacity and
improve things for both cyclists and motorists.

There is no one solution to transport problems. And everybody just
cylces on the roads in Sydney is certainly not the solution.

Quoted message said:

Right, just like driving a car on arterial roads is perfectly safe?
Accidents happen. The most dangerous activity most people undertake is
driving a car. Cycling is /slightly/ more risky than driving a car and
that risk factor will come down with increased cycling numbers.

You are much safer in a car with airbags and modern safety equipment
than on a bike.

Quoted message said:

dewatf> And given that only 1% of trips in Sydney are no bicycle (it
dewatf> is buggeral percentage of commuting to work or school) a
dewatf> very small benefit.

And guess what? Increase cycling and the percentage grows. When the
percentage grows it becomes a very tangible benefit or did you miss the
part in the op-ed about obesity levels in the Netherlands being a third
of what they are in Australia.

So what?
The obesity levels in Japan are lower than in Denmark, yet they cycle
less. Cycling must cause obesity then.

dewatf.

It all kinda makes you wanna stop in the middle of a busy intersection on a Friday evening & loft your bike over your head making a racket.....
:p

dewatf said:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:19:01 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

See, now this would have to be the stupidist argument I've ever heard.

It's like saying, "There's no point improving our public transport
system because only x people use it." It ignores the fact that more
people could use it if it was improved.

A perfectly logical argument. 1% are using public transport and you
might improve it to 2% then it is pointless to spend billions on
public transport.

I really like those numbers that you just picked out of your [censored]. Do
you have any more up there?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's as stupid as saying, "Only a small percentage of people have to go
to hospital, and they're sick anyway, so we might as well close
hospitals down."

Hospitals are an essential service. A cycleway from Preston to
Sevenhills is not.

Well I'd agree, because I'm all for bikes on the road. But if petrol
jumped to $3 per litre, I reckon it'd be money well spent.

Quoted message said:

In the end whether to decide money on either is simply a matter for
the community to decide through the political process allocating money
to those which are desired.

It is not for the cycling lobby to decide how taxpayer money is spent
but Parliament. The cycling lobby are free to lobby for cycleways, the
motoring lobbies and Duffy are free to lobby for motorists against
them.

It is not for Parliament to decide, but the people. FFS it's our money.
And you've said it perfectly "lobby for motorists against them."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hello, wake up. More people could cycle. More people should cycle. And
then it will make a bigger difference.

That is just your opinion, not a fact.

dewatf.

Um... no, it is logic. It's like, if more people ate a bite of cake,
more bits of cake would be eaten.

If 100,000 rode their bikes tomorrow, who normally drove cars, yes, that
would make a bigger difference.

Tam

dewatf wrote:
<snip the sdm demonstration>

Your post indicates:

(1) poor memory of earlier posts and discussions, which contained many
facts you ignore;

(2) a lack of understanding of statistics; and

(3) immaturity.

Tam

dewatf said:

Duffy isn't after balance. It's an op-ed piece pushing the motorists
postion, one he believes is under represented since the left and
cycling lobby position which dominates is blatantly anti-motorist
(even the motorist lobby group the NRMA is antimotorist because
control of it has been seized by Dawn Fraser and the Left again).

hahahahahahahaha This is as entertaining as that neo-con on the sbs rise
of nightmares doco "The fact that that movie looks just like a home
movie of a trip to disneyland, proves that this was an Al Queada
training film because it was made to look like a home movie".

dewatf said:

In the end whether to decide money on either is simply a matter for
the community to decide through the political process allocating money
to those which are desired.

It is not for the cycling lobby to decide how taxpayer money is spent
but Parliament. The cycling lobby are free to lobby for cycleways, the
motoring lobbies and Duffy are free to lobby for motorists against
them.

I think you're just [censored] because the cycling lobby has successfully
used the same tactics as the motoring lobby and is starting to get the
essential infrastructure they need.

Lets face it, motorists are just like druggies; give them what they want
and they come back for more and more and more and more......

dewatf said:

The number of people who cycle out that way is near enough to zero.

As the 74 year old man replied to my wife when she said "I don't see you
out cycling much these days" Well, not many people are up at 5am.

When was the last time you joined the M5 carpark? It starts from 6:30am
I am told.

Quoted message said:

And this cycle way is sealed, drained, kerbed and sodium lit so
probably costs about the same as as road lane (not the same as the
average concrete cycleway).

hahahahaha, you so obviously know nothing about road construction costs.
P.S. it is also a pedestrian way as well, so you can waddle your lard
[censored] along it as well.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:45:42 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I really like those numbers that you just picked out of your [censored]. Do
you have any more up there?

If you had a clue you would notice that 1% is the amount of trips in
Sydney made made cycle. You were the one comparing cycling and public
transport. A doubling is more than all the cycle initiatives in Sydney
funded with taxpayer money have achieved in the last 15 years.

Quoted message said:

Well I'd agree, because I'm all for bikes on the road. But if petrol
jumped to $3 per litre, I reckon it'd be money well spent.

If petrol jumps to $3 a litre you can just use one lane of the toll
way for cyclists and you wouldn't need a cycleway at all.

Quoted message said:

It is not for Parliament to decide, but the people. FFS it's our money.
And you've said it perfectly "lobby for motorists against them."

Sorry, but you obviously don't understand parliamentary democracy.

Parliament raises the taxes and decides how they are spent. The people
elect representatives to parliament.

Quoted message said:

If 100,000 rode their bikes tomorrow, who normally drove cars, yes, that
would make a bigger difference.

Even better if they all turned in to pigs and flew.

dewatf.

Terry Collins said:

I think you're just [censored] because the cycling lobby has successfully
used the same tactics as the motoring lobby and is starting to get the
essential infrastructure they need.

Not at all. I am all for good cycling (and public transport)
infrastructure that is well used.

However, I am yet to see the NSW RTA ever build any, nor any increase
in cycling, nor any decrease in the number of accidents so will remain
skeptical till data showing such exists.

Perth does well in terms of cycling, in Melbourne cycling is growing.
But not Sydney, and I don't think that difficulties in cycling in an
arc between Preston and Seven Hills are the main problem.

dewatf.

Terry Collins said:

hahahahaha, you so obviously know nothing about road construction costs.
P.S. it is also a pedestrian way as well, so you can waddle your lard
[censored] along it as well.

Ah so it both a route for fast commuting cyclists and route for
walkers and their dogs, who under road laws have right of way over the
cyclists. It's just sounding better and better.

dewatf.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "dewatf" == dewatf <[email hidden]> writes:

dewatf> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:38:03 GMT, Euan

dewatf said:

Quoted message said:

If Duffy had put some balance in to his article instead of
monstoring cyclists he'd have been better understood. I read the
article, all I got from it was that Duffy has a pathological
hatred of cyclists.

dewatf> Duffy isn't after balance.

Duh! You wondered why the Op-Ed responding to Duffy missed the point, I
just pointed out why.

dewatf> The balance comes between a weighting up of the motorist and
dewatf> cyclist positions.

No, someone intelligent can see both points of view.

dewatf> And all I get from you is rapid ideology about cycling of a
dewatf> religious fanantic's intensity, who won't even contemplate
dewatf> any other view point.

dewatf> "Rule number one of bicycle advocacy, cycling is great.
dewatf> It's the best fscking thing eva. Even when it's pissing
dewatf> down with rain I'd rather eat tar than even hint to a non /
dewatf> anti cyclist that cycling in such conditions is anything
dewatf> less than great."

Well in my case I enjoy riding in the rain. In the words of the Big
Yin, "Live a little, buy yourself a sexy raincoat!"

Regardless, as you well know that was said in counterpoint to the
cycling fanatics such as yourself who do nothing for cycling 'cause
they continuously grossly over-exaggerate the dangers of cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Multiply something very small by three and it's still something
very small. The risks of cycling on arterial roads are greatly
exaggerated, especially by naive martyr cyclists who cry wolf and
thump their chests about how much riskier their chosen form of
transport is.

dewatf> Yet when each traffic fatality is costed at around $2m in
dewatf> direct costs, more if you look at future loses and serious
dewatf> disability can cost 10s of millions, then it starts to add
dewatf> up.

Well for fsck's sake why are you targetting cyclists? Cyclists do not
kill or seriously injure people to nearly the same extent as motorists
do. If you're that concerned about the costs incurred by traffic
fatalities and disabilities look no further than your friend the
motorist, or did the recent campaign `46 a day' pass you by?

dewatf> And when we are talking about attempts to get a 10 fold (NSW
dewatf> government aim) and 30 fold (cycling extremist position)
dewatf> increase in cyclists, while encouraging them to ride on
dewatf> arterial roads in fast moving traffic. Also Sydney has
dewatf> twice the population of Copenhagen which doubles it again.

You miss the point. More cyclists makes it safer for all. If they're
on a bike they're a lot less likely to kill or seriously injure other
people.

In just about every country with high per capita cycling, the roads are
safer for all users. That is fact, not fiction. I can't be arsed
Googling for cites, how about you find cites that disprove what I say?
Good luck.

dewatf> Also risk of accident and fear of riding in traffic are two
dewatf> of the major barriers to mass adoption of cycling.

Nearly correct, perceived risk of accident. People like yourself
grossly over-exaggerate the risks associated with riding in traffic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling safety increases when cycling numbers increase. That is
fact, not fiction, and the reason's pretty simple.

Cycling is a benign form of transport, motorised transport is
not. In ten years cyclists collectively have killed two people.
Cars manage to kill someone every second day or so. The more
people on bikes and out of cars, the safer it is for everyone.

dewatf> Your opinion.

No, it's fact. Find me a cite which proves that cyclists kill more
people than cars do. Go on, good luck.

dewatf> Cars manage to transport people where they need to go for
dewatf> 90% of trips quickly.

You're kidding aren't you? In the CBD I'll beat a motorist every time,
legally. I'm scrupulous about red lights. For urban trips cars may
have an advantage but I'm getting all that exercise for a very small
outlay of time.

dewatf> Cycles 1% and for most cyclists much, much slower and
dewatf> exposed to the elements and greater risk of injury.

What the fsck does cycles 1% mean? Please construct coherent sentences.

Elements are fun, they let you know you're alive and as stated before
you continue to grossly over-exaggerate the risk of injury associated
with cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycleways are not the answer to cycling safety, indeed there's
plenty of research which indicates the most dangerous place for a
cyclist in the Netherlands is a two way cycle path
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

dewatf> But the accidents are much less severe.

You obviously didn't read the site I directed you to. Here's a clue,
Milton Keynes. Go on, read again.

dewatf> And how do they compare to recreatational cyclists riding on
dewatf> arterial roads with 70+km/h speeds?

Very favourably indeed. In Milton Keynes more cyclists died on
cycleways than on the roads. Go on, read all about it at the site I
provided for you. (On and for 70+km/h speeds try 70+mp/h speeds).

Sod it, seeing as you're so ignorant and lazy I'll paste in the relevant
bit for you:

``In Milton Keynes over the past decade, there have been six deaths to
off-road cyclists against just one (a child) on the alternative road
network, where main roads largely have a 70mph speed limit and there are
large roundabouts at all major junctions. Even when account is taken of
relative distance cycled, the death rate for the cycle paths is
significantly greater than for the roads. The same is the case for
serious crashes. Even the official statistics, for all their
shortcomings, have included 23 serious injuries on cycle paths over the
decade, against 21 on main roads; the actual path total is much
higher. Milton Keynes Hospital has treated some 2,000 cyclists over the
decade for injuries relating to the cycle paths, and less than one-third
that number for roads covering a larger geographical area.''

You have demonstrated a total inability to follow up on information
provided to you by others in support of what they say. You are nothing
but and arrogant, self-opinionated and close minded troll.

If you start referencing and researching your opinions I may engage in
debate with you in the future. Until that time I'm done with you. I
have better use of my time.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan said:

Well in my case I enjoy riding in the rain. In the words of the Big

Quoted message said:

Elements are fun, they let you know you're alive and as stated before
you continue to grossly over-exaggerate the risk of injury associated
with cycling.

Rain is the best time to commute. Wet days are when the traffic goes to
hell and travel times out my way nearly double in a car (close to double
on the motorbike). But cycling in it only takes me a few minutes extra.
Hell I'm gonna need a shower and get changed at the other end anyway so
gettign wet along the way isn't going to make a difference.

DaveB

Quoted message said:

(1) poor memory of earlier posts and discussions, which contained
many facts you ignore;

His postings are certainly better argued than the usual trolls from
aus.cars and the cut&paster advocacy that this place has seen for the
past 10 years.

(*cough* quite a few regular posters are showing a bit of the Old
Reality Distortion Field, that's keeping them from using the making
any substantial rebukes..)

--
Chris