Accident locations...

[DRS]

flyingdutch <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> Avoid the hill totally and turn left at Alexandra Parade and then
> turn right ang go over the bike/pedestrain only bridge (cant remember
> the name) and continue north along bike path back to the intersection
> of Swan St.

How does that get a cyclist heading north safely over the Punt Rd/Swan St
Intersection?

> I am assuming you meant the parade brifge as Swan St bridge and Punt
> road are about 1.5km apart!

I didn't say bridge. I said Punt Rd/Swan St intersection. You can't miss
it. It's huge, very badly designed and right next to Richmond station. The
rail bridge is not really part of the problem, it's the way the two leftmost
lanes are forced to turn left into Brunton Ave. The only way for a cyclist
to stay on Punt Rd is to either ride in one of the car lanes or straddle the
lane markers until past Brunton Ave.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Jose Rizal]

Baka Dasai:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:14:07 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> > In fact, I don't think the
> > utopian ideal of cyclists comprising a significant proportion of
> > commuters can ever be achieved.
>
> It has already been achieved in a number of other countries, and even
> in Australia if you go back 70 years or so.

The difference though is Australia's sprawl today, and part of the work
ethic.

 

[Jose Rizal]

Peter Signorini:

> But I was
> thinking more about other built in deterrents, that stop keen cyclists like
> myself from commuting:
>
> 1. Workplaces that have no provision for secure storage of bikes, showers or
> even a space to store clothes and get changed. Hilly suburban commutes of
> 10-20 km or more are not easily done in street clothes, so a change is
> necessary.
>
> 2. Employers who provide nice salary packages with a car included for
> motorists. If you knock it back will you get an extra $10K pa to spend on
> lots of nice bike bits?

This isn't too common though, and those which offer such packages
usually has a requirement for the employer to travel by car (Sales
people and such).

> 3. Cities built around the sort of low density sprawl that the silly Save
> Our Suburbs Nimby group want to preserve. Most people find a car an
> essential tool on account of travel distances invovled.

How will you get around this? Sprawl is geographic.

> 4. Tax concessions available for the use of a motor vehicle in the course of
> business, not to mention that outrageous tax break on 4WDs because they're
> 'farm vehicles'

The first part of that is a good and fair entitlement; the second part
is just nonsense. In the US there is a huge tax break for SUVs, for no
other reason than to provide incentive to a). buy these monsters and b).
to keep consuming petrol.

> 5. Growing attitudes in society that it is UNSAFE for even a 14 yr old to
> walk, let alone ride to school; coupled with women's fears of walking, using
> public transport or even cycling. It's much safer driving on the roads _of
> course_!! So if you do cycle your colleagues look on you as a slightly
> crazed, irresponsible left leaning tree-hugger. Who needs it.

This is something that can be changed in the long term, but I would
suggest that it can only be done once there is a great reduction in
automobiles on the roads.

> Most will find the practical organisation of cycle commuting in the suburbs
> too hard and just get in their driving seat. Some active discouragement of
> motor vehicle use is needed to show that society values the use of cheaper
> sustainable transport like cycling, PT, and walking. I won't hold my breath
> though.

That's because you'll have a hard time convincing people to cycle to
work when it will take them orders of magnitude longer than they can
with a car, and near impossible to take their children and luggage
anywhere on bikes. It's more practical to improve public transport.

Encouraging people to ride bikes more is great, and it shouldn't be
surprising nor unreasonable that bicycles get confined to mainly
recreational use by most people. It's over-reaching to think that
bicycles can replace the utility and convenience of automobiles.

 

[ftf]

Drs wrote:
> ...
> The only way for a cyclist to stay on Punt Rd is to either ride in one
> of the car lanes or straddle the lane markers until past Brunton Ave.
> --
> A: Top-posters.
> B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


If I had to go that way Drs, I would do like you say and ride up th
middle of the left most car lane... it will likely **** someone off bu
better than being stuck between say a truck on your left and a bus o
your right. The other danger of course is that it is dark when goin
under the bridge so you have to hope that cars behind will see. Bu
whats new


-

 

[flyingdutch]

sorry dr

guilty of not reading the question properly, agai

thats a ****e intersection as you sa

all the wide ones are but that ones is weird cos of the split leftlan
and the bit going left into brunton avenu

possibly stick as far left as you can and up near brunton ave go over t
the second lane to continue nort

not really a solution, more of ahybrid workaround (it is called
freedom machine afterall


-

 

[Jose Rizal]

Baka Dasai:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:24:42 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> > Peter Signorini:
> >> 3. Cities built around the sort of low density sprawl that the silly Save
> >> Our Suburbs Nimby group want to preserve. Most people find a car an
> >> essential tool on account of travel distances invovled.
> >
> > How will you get around this? Sprawl is geographic.
>
> You get around it by rebuilding the suburbs. It will take decades,
> but rebuilding is always happening. The challenge is to make sure
> that the rebuilding occurs in a way that promotes cycling and
> discourages car use.
>
> Look at all the apartments that are springing up all over Sydney.
> These could be considered to promote cycling (by increasing
> population density), but the effect is spoiled by the fact that each
> of those apartments comes with a car space.

All that don't take into account work locations, and the inherent
disadvantages of high-density living. Employers would have to build
their own towns, like the big companies in Japan do. How many employers
do you think will do this, and how many employees will agree to it?
Otherwise, emplyers will have to arrange for shuttles for people, and
you can be assured these won't be bicycles.

> Building applications for apartments should be rejected if they
> include parking for more than a couple of cars (for the
> handicapped). The property developers would scream about this, but
> so what.

You haven't suggested what the solution is for people who work
significant distances away from their workplaces, which I daresay is the
majority of people.

> (Lack of) parking is an under-used weapon. Not many people drive to
> the CBD because it's too difficult/expensive to park. That
> difficulty/expense should be built into every commercial district.

Your argument is extremely simplistic. Many of those who don't drive to
the CBD don't go there at all because of that. There is no rush for
those people to buy bicycles simply so they can get access to the CBD.

 

[Terry Collins]

Peter Signorini wrote:

....snip....

> 3. Cities built around the sort of low density sprawl that the silly Save
> Our Suburbs Nimby group want to preserve. Most people find a car an
> essential tool on account of travel distances invovled.

This is a bit of a catch 22 situation. When you look at the road
hierachy, there can be as much land under "roads" as under house lots.

....snip....

> Most will find the practical organisation of cycle commuting in the suburbs
> too hard and just get in their driving seat.

Funnily, the older towns/suburbs with many parallel routes are preferred
by me over newer towns/suburbs where the only practical commuting route
is the major road.

 

[ftf]

Jose Rizal wrote:
> <snip>
> You haven't suggested what the solution is for people who work
> significant distances away from their workplaces, which I daresay is the
> majority of people.
> > (Lack of) parking is an under-used weapon. Not many people drive to
> > the CBD because it's too difficult/expensive to park. That
> > difficulty/expense should be built into every commercial district.
> Your argument is extremely simplistic. Many of those who don't drive to
> the CBD don't go there at all because of that. There is no rush for
> those people to buy bicycles simply so they can get access to the CBD.


Lets face it, mass commuting by bike is a distant dream (my dream) fo
most places in Australia. To generalize, most people would prefer t
stay in their comfort zone and stick with the devil they know

But... to open another can of worms - those ugly words 'publi
transport'

It still is well used for getting to the cbd, but I think more and mor
people are losing patience (melbourne: price increases, cancelled train
etc, sydney: no one to drive them!). Busses percieved as being fo
school children and trams a novelty

The biggest problem I see is that people are moving from P.T t
cars, not the other way around. I think there is greater chance o
someone becoming a cycling convert who is/was a P.T user, than o
someone who drives

Cheers, Tro


-