Accident locations...

[Jose Rizal]

Baka Dasai:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:18 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> > Peter Signorini:
> >
> >> Vicroads and local councils have a good program of bike lanes in progress, but I wonder about
> >> their 'build them and they will come' philosophy. When the oil crunch hits they will be an
> >> asset - but then it's not needed. Surely the aim is to get people riding, but there are lots of
> >> other social, financial and institutional factors that are holding the vast majority of people
> >> back.
> >
> > What are these factors?
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> 1. They like their car. Their whole self-image is wrapped up in their car, which they probably
> spent a lot of money on. Becoming a cyclist would mean that they'd have to change their whole
> self-image.

I don't know that the majority of vehicle owners are like this, or even a significant proportion. I
think that practicalities of everyday life dictate that a car be available to most, time and
distance being two quite prominent factors.

> 2. They don't want to look like a dork. They don't want to stand out and be different. None of
> their friends do it. The whole of the society's image of itself is wrapped up in cars, and to
> ride a bike means to locate yourself outside that image - you necessarily become a rebel of
> sorts. Most people aren't willing to do this.

There are a number of items there:
a. Looking like a dork only happens when you wear the Lycra gear and Team jerseys!
b. Standing out - see a. above
c. Friends - there is always an instigator in every group; who's to say that person will be cast out
for going against the grain?
d. Image and cars - I think advertisers only exploit what the underlying premise is in living
in modern societies these days: the necessity for automobiles. I think that if this
situation was somehow changed for any other form of transportation, image will be associated
with that particular form; that is, without the underlying necessity for automobiles, change
comes much easier.

> And now for the boring ones...
>
> 3. They're afraid of the traffic.

With good reason. You don't have to have a great potential for collision with automobiles to make
riding in traffic an ordeal; dodging vehicles, car exhaust fumes, verbal abuse from motorists and
road hazards make for a less than enjoyable experience.

Of course, all these will change if more people used their cars less.

> 4. They don't like exercise.

This is too much of a generalisation. How many fee-paying gym attendees ride bicycles?

> 5. They don't want to ride in the rain.

Who does?

> 6. Many of their trips are too far for comfortable cycling.

This is a fair reason though.

> 7. They often have to carry things or people (kids).

Another fair reason.

> Seriously, if the first two reasons didn't exist, people would find excuses TO ride, rather than
> the excuses not to ride seen in numbers 3 to 7.

Possibly, but it will take a lot of effort to overcome the practicalities, some of which you
mentioned. In fact, I don't think the utopian ideal of cyclists comprising a significant proportion
of commuters can ever be achieved.

 

[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.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Baka Dasai" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:18 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> >
> > What are these factors?
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> 1. They like their car. Their whole self-image is wrapped up in their car, which they probably
> spent a lot of money on. Becoming a cyclist would mean that they'd have to change their whole
> self-image.
>
> 2. They don't want to look like a dork. They don't want to stand out and be different. None of
> their friends do it. The whole of the society's image of itself is wrapped up in cars, and to
> ride a bike means to locate yourself outside that image - you necessarily become a rebel of
> sorts. Most people aren't willing to do this.
>
> And now for the boring ones...
>
> 3. They're afraid of the traffic.
>
> 4. They don't like exercise.
>
> 5. They don't want to ride in the rain.
>
> 6. Many of their trips are too far for comfortable cycling.
>
> 7. They often have to carry things or people (kids).
>
> Seriously, if the first two reasons didn't exist, people would find excuses TO ride, rather than
> the excuses not to ride seen in numbers 3 to 7.

All these things, especially #1 & #2 will deter many non-cyclists from taking up cycling for
transport, and #7 is one that impacts on me. 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?

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.

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'

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.

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.

Cheers Peter

 

[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.
B: 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]

Originally posted by Drs

...

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 the middle of the left most car lane... it will likely **** someone off but better than being stuck between say a truck on your left and a bus on your right. The other danger of course is that it is dark when going under the bridge so you have to hope that cars behind will see. But whats new.

 

[flyingdutch]

sorry drs

guilty of not reading the question properly, again

thats a ****e intersection as you say

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

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

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

 

[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.

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.

(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.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

[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]

Originally posted by Jose Rizal


<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) for most places in Australia. To generalize, most people would prefer to stay in their comfort zone and stick with the devil they know.

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

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

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

Cheers,
Troy

 

[Baka Dasai]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:45:17 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> Baka Dasai:
>> 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.

I did say that it would take decades, and that it would involve rebuilding. You don't need employers
(or anybody else) to create new towns as the old towns get rebuilt reasonably quickly as it is. As
for the "inherent disadvantages of high-density living", these are always overstated, and it's not
as though everybody will be forced to live high-density anyway.

>> 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.

Oh I'm sure the market and/or the govt will come to the rescue in creating public transport to solve
this problem. As it is it's a chicken and egg problem - you can't have PT and bicycles without the
density, but you can't have the density without the PT and bicycles. So somebody's gotta move
forward and break the impasse, at the risk of creating some short-term dislocation.

I've spent most of my adult life living in parts of the city where the dominant mode of living is
medium-density with no on-site parking. It works really well. There really isn't a reason why that
mode of living can't be extended further, as long as the PT expands with it.

>> (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.

No, they don't go to the CBD, because they have other options. (In Sydney, I'm thinking of regional
centres like Chatswood, Burwood, Hurstville, Strathfield, Parramatta, Hornsby etc.) I'm arguing
that those other options should be remodelled along similar lines to the CBD, ie, limited (or
extremely expensive) parking. They are all well-served by PT, but they currently are overflowing
with car-spaces.

My vision isn't utopian, it's quite pragmatic. It currently exists in any number of other countries.
It would require sustained changes in the fabric of Australian cities, and those changes will
inevitably attract political opposition, and therein lies the challenge.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?