Cycling related letter in SMH today
- Thread starter ritcho
- Start date
Brilliant job, John was in Melboring last week as part of the Connecting Cycling Conference:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t317505-[melb]-connecting-cycling-melbourne.html
John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as many as he wishes.
His presentation from last week:
http://www.yarrabug.org/wp-content/MelbournePubHealthandTransportSatFeb1806.pdf
BTW FD, got the reduced pdf, just haven't uploaded it yet. Shall do at some point.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t317505-[melb]-connecting-cycling-melbourne.html
John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as many as he wishes.
His presentation from last week:
http://www.yarrabug.org/wp-content/MelbournePubHealthandTransportSatFeb1806.pdf
BTW FD, got the reduced pdf, just haven't uploaded it yet. Shall do at some point.
R
ray
Guest
ritcho wrote:
> This was published as top billing on SMH today...
> http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index...e-uppance when the oil runs out. Cheers, Ray.
> This was published as top billing on SMH today...
> http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index...e-uppance when the oil runs out. Cheers, Ray.
R
ray
Guest
ritcho wrote:
> This was published as top billing on SMH today...
> http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index...e-uppance when the oil runs out. Cheers, Ray.
> This was published as top billing on SMH today...
> http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index...e-uppance when the oil runs out. Cheers, Ray.
D
dewatf
Guest
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:16:15 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
> Brilliant job, John was in Melboring last week as part of the Connecting
> Cycling Conference:
> http://tinyurl.com/7p2u7
>
> John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how
> much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as
> many as he wishes.
>
> His presentation from last week:
> http://tinyurl.com/jkwbe
Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the
usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies
that make up pro-cycling propaganda.
Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
Germany but not Australia is false:
- pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too
- a vehicle (cycle) continuing in a lane (bike lane) has right of way of
cars turning across them
- a vehicle (bike) turning left has right of way over a car turning right
(reversed of course because of the different sides of the road in the two
countries).
That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these
days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers).
Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to
drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are
the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher
on the driver who mowed down the Australian women's cycling team than
Australian courts (and may have in fact been a small slightly more lenient
because the fine and suspension would have been a bit more in NSW).
The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway patrols
and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where
redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at
little cost).
His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is
nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system.
As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of
cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly
concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume).
The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing so.
The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen
where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major
drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through
bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not
improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on Canterbury
Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in
hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need better
infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and
cyclists.
There are several factors that effect cycling rates
1) suitability of geography and climate
2) safety
3) infrastructure
4) culture.
And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a
long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest
rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have better
trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with cyclists.
Whilst those two cities have been successful in further increasing the
rates of cycling are many other cities where cycling initiatives have
failed and there little correlation between amount of money spent
encouraging cycling and cycling rates overall.
While cities such as Portland and San Francisco have managed to boost
public transport and cycling they have achieved this by restricting
development which produces high property prices and restricting cars. This
has created a class of wealth professionals living in the city, meanwhile
the cities are collapsing as economic growth and people move elsewhere,
usually suburbs and industrial parks located on freeways.
Factors that have reduced walking and cycling also include increased
wealth, changes in occupations, transporting of children to day care,
schools and activities outside local areas. Frank Furedi, a UK sociologist,
has done research finding that fear for children's safety seems to have
been a driving factor for driving children everywhere in Anglo-Saxon
countries more than other developed countries (when the children are
probably more at risk from mothers driving other children around in SUVs
than anything else!).
There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public
transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety,
education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems
and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out. Simply
finding correlations between cycling and characteristics somewhere like
Copenhagen does not prove causal relationship there, let alone prove chains
of cause and effect you can apply in somewhere totally different like
Sydney.
A better place to look for Australia would be Perth, which has increased
cycling and public transport rates. Though it should be noted that that has
involved infrastructure projects bankrolled by a commodities boom and GST
revenue from NSW and Victoria.
dewatf.
> Brilliant job, John was in Melboring last week as part of the Connecting
> Cycling Conference:
> http://tinyurl.com/7p2u7
>
> John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how
> much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as
> many as he wishes.
>
> His presentation from last week:
> http://tinyurl.com/jkwbe
Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the
usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies
that make up pro-cycling propaganda.
Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
Germany but not Australia is false:
- pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too
- a vehicle (cycle) continuing in a lane (bike lane) has right of way of
cars turning across them
- a vehicle (bike) turning left has right of way over a car turning right
(reversed of course because of the different sides of the road in the two
countries).
That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these
days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers).
Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to
drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are
the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher
on the driver who mowed down the Australian women's cycling team than
Australian courts (and may have in fact been a small slightly more lenient
because the fine and suspension would have been a bit more in NSW).
The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway patrols
and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where
redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at
little cost).
His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is
nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system.
As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of
cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly
concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume).
The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing so.
The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen
where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major
drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through
bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not
improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on Canterbury
Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in
hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need better
infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and
cyclists.
There are several factors that effect cycling rates
1) suitability of geography and climate
2) safety
3) infrastructure
4) culture.
And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a
long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest
rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have better
trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with cyclists.
Whilst those two cities have been successful in further increasing the
rates of cycling are many other cities where cycling initiatives have
failed and there little correlation between amount of money spent
encouraging cycling and cycling rates overall.
While cities such as Portland and San Francisco have managed to boost
public transport and cycling they have achieved this by restricting
development which produces high property prices and restricting cars. This
has created a class of wealth professionals living in the city, meanwhile
the cities are collapsing as economic growth and people move elsewhere,
usually suburbs and industrial parks located on freeways.
Factors that have reduced walking and cycling also include increased
wealth, changes in occupations, transporting of children to day care,
schools and activities outside local areas. Frank Furedi, a UK sociologist,
has done research finding that fear for children's safety seems to have
been a driving factor for driving children everywhere in Anglo-Saxon
countries more than other developed countries (when the children are
probably more at risk from mothers driving other children around in SUVs
than anything else!).
There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public
transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety,
education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems
and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out. Simply
finding correlations between cycling and characteristics somewhere like
Copenhagen does not prove causal relationship there, let alone prove chains
of cause and effect you can apply in somewhere totally different like
Sydney.
A better place to look for Australia would be Perth, which has increased
cycling and public transport rates. Though it should be noted that that has
involved infrastructure projects bankrolled by a commodities boom and GST
revenue from NSW and Victoria.
dewatf.
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT
dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
> cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to
> drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are
> the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher
Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone
who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist.
Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials,
convictions, and sentences?
Zebee
dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
> cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to
> drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are
> the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher
Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone
who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist.
Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials,
convictions, and sentences?
Zebee
dewatf said:
Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you just talking aloud?
dewatf said:
The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with cyclists across Australia. Please do your research.
dewatf said:
So the German and Swedish authorities perform *exactly the same function*as Australian police. Oh, and raise revenue too. With more police on the roads than we have here.
dewatf said:
You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system.
dewatf said:
So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very lazy debating you're presenting.
dewatf said:
Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions.
dewatf said:
Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle. Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison)
dewatf said:
Please cite your references.
dewatf said:
Again, please cite your references. I lurk on numerous SF and Portland bike email groups, and taking into consideration the anecdotal evidence that is presented on these lists, your conclusions are extremely off the mark.
dewatf said:
Which, again, is a point which Pucher makes. Are you trying to illustrate this as *your* counterpoint to his presentation?!?
dewatf said:
Then please expand upon what you imply by stating "integrated with sustainable economic systems and cultures". Peak oil (which may, or may not, be a theory) will certainly create major disruptions to our society. Have you given any consideration towards that looming issue?
dewatf said:
WA massively restructured their equivalent to RTA/VicRoads. Do you intend to expand upon your final observation at the next Premiers Conference? Should prove to be highly entertaining.
D
dave
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic
>>these
>>days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers).
>
>
> Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you
> just talking aloud?
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
>>cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts.
>>
>
>
> The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems
> to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with
> cyclists across Australia. Please do your research.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway
>>patrols and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia
>>(except where
>>redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments
>>at
>>little cost).
>
>
> So the German and Swedish authorities perform *exactly the same
> function*as Australian police. Oh, and raise revenue too. With more
> police on the roads than we have here.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is
>>nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system.
>
>
> You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how
> cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>> As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of
>>cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly
>>concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume).
>>The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing
>>so. The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from
>>Copenhagen where they managed to increase cycling and reduce
>>accidents/km. The major drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by
>>making cycling safer through bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen
>>cycle lanes. Safety will not improve by just increasing volume, just
>>putting more cyclists on Canterbury Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is
>>simply going to put more cyclists in hospitals and morgues. To increase
>>safety in Australia you will need better infrastructure changes and
>>major changes in culture by both motorists and cyclists.
>
>
> So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very
> lazy debating you're presenting.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>There are several factors that effect cycling rates
>>1) suitability of geography and climate
>>2) safety
>>3) infrastructure
>>4) culture.
>>
>
>
> Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a
>>long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest
>>rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have
>>better trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with
>>cyclists.
>
>
> Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to
> the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle.
> Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning
> since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and
> walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison)
I remember reading that bicycles were far more numerous than horses in
the 1880s and 90s. The bushranger era.
And about wangaratta women cycling to melbourne to the markets in the
1940s.
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic
>>these
>>days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers).
>
>
> Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you
> just talking aloud?
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
>>cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts.
>>
>
>
> The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems
> to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with
> cyclists across Australia. Please do your research.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway
>>patrols and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia
>>(except where
>>redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments
>>at
>>little cost).
>
>
> So the German and Swedish authorities perform *exactly the same
> function*as Australian police. Oh, and raise revenue too. With more
> police on the roads than we have here.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is
>>nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system.
>
>
> You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how
> cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>> As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of
>>cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly
>>concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume).
>>The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing
>>so. The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from
>>Copenhagen where they managed to increase cycling and reduce
>>accidents/km. The major drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by
>>making cycling safer through bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen
>>cycle lanes. Safety will not improve by just increasing volume, just
>>putting more cyclists on Canterbury Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is
>>simply going to put more cyclists in hospitals and morgues. To increase
>>safety in Australia you will need better infrastructure changes and
>>major changes in culture by both motorists and cyclists.
>
>
> So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very
> lazy debating you're presenting.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>There are several factors that effect cycling rates
>>1) suitability of geography and climate
>>2) safety
>>3) infrastructure
>>4) culture.
>>
>
>
> Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions.
>
> dewatf Wrote:
>
>>And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a
>>long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest
>>rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have
>>better trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with
>>cyclists.
>
>
> Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to
> the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle.
> Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning
> since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and
> walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison)
I remember reading that bicycles were far more numerous than horses in
the 1880s and 90s. The bushranger era.
And about wangaratta women cycling to melbourne to the markets in the
1940s.
P
Peter Signorini
Guest
"dewatf" wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:16:15 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
>
>> John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how
>> much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as
>> many as he wishes.
>>
>> His presentation from last week:
>> http://tinyurl.com/jkwbe
> Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
> Germany but not Australia is false:
<snip>
> The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway
> patrols
> and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where
> redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at
> little cost).
>
So you think that German and Swedish police don't contribute to government
revenue from speeding fines???
> His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is
> nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system.
It is my understanding, from the accounts of numerous aquaintances who have
travelled in European countries, that this presumption of guilt upon drivers
in accidents with pedestrians or cyclists is in fact the case. Much of the
French and German legal system operates under a reversed burden of proof.
I guess some hard factual evidence (cited) would convince me they are all
wrong.
> As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of
> cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly
> concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume).
I do believe he clearly acknowledges this. From p.19 of his transcript "Thus
it is _quite likely_ that increased cycling and walking in Australia, Canada
and the USA would be safer than they are today" (my emphasis).
He shows another correllation between increasing obesity and reduced rates
of cycling, walikng and public transport use. Do you think that it is the
increased obesity that is causing less cycling, walking and PT use?
> The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing
> so.
> The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen
> where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major
> drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through
> bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not
> improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on
> Canterbury
> Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in
> hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need
> better
> infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and
> cyclists.
And why do you claim that Pucher ignores this? See p.22 of the above
transcript ( the section headed 'Better cycling and walking facilities'
<snip>
> There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public
> transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety,
> education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems
> and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out.
And these improvements are exactly what Pucher is calling for!! Maybe you
should try reading the transcript of his presentation. D'oh!
Cheers
Peter
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:16:15 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
>
>> John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how
>> much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as
>> many as he wishes.
>>
>> His presentation from last week:
>> http://tinyurl.com/jkwbe
> Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
> Germany but not Australia is false:
<snip>
> The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway
> patrols
> and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where
> redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at
> little cost).
>
So you think that German and Swedish police don't contribute to government
revenue from speeding fines???
> His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is
> nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system.
It is my understanding, from the accounts of numerous aquaintances who have
travelled in European countries, that this presumption of guilt upon drivers
in accidents with pedestrians or cyclists is in fact the case. Much of the
French and German legal system operates under a reversed burden of proof.
I guess some hard factual evidence (cited) would convince me they are all
wrong.
> As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of
> cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly
> concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume).
I do believe he clearly acknowledges this. From p.19 of his transcript "Thus
it is _quite likely_ that increased cycling and walking in Australia, Canada
and the USA would be safer than they are today" (my emphasis).
He shows another correllation between increasing obesity and reduced rates
of cycling, walikng and public transport use. Do you think that it is the
increased obesity that is causing less cycling, walking and PT use?
> The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing
> so.
> The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen
> where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major
> drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through
> bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not
> improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on
> Canterbury
> Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in
> hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need
> better
> infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and
> cyclists.
And why do you claim that Pucher ignores this? See p.22 of the above
transcript ( the section headed 'Better cycling and walking facilities'
<snip>
> There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public
> transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety,
> education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems
> and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out.
And these improvements are exactly what Pucher is calling for!! Maybe you
should try reading the transcript of his presentation. D'oh!
Cheers
Peter
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
dewatf wrote:
>
<snip>
> Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the
> usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies
> that make up pro-cycling propaganda.
>
<snip>
>
> That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these
> days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers).
>
<snip>
Your criticism of academics is well noted.
As is your lack of referencing.
Tam
>
<snip>
> Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the
> usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies
> that make up pro-cycling propaganda.
>
<snip>
>
> That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these
> days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers).
>
<snip>
Your criticism of academics is well noted.
As is your lack of referencing.
Tam
R
Random Data
Guest
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:04:40 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote:
> As is your lack of referencing.
You are *so* lucky I'd finished my beer before reading this post.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Sanity is like money; you should just have enough to get by. Any more
and you turn into a freak" - rone, ASR
> As is your lack of referencing.
You are *so* lucky I'd finished my beer before reading this post.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Sanity is like money; you should just have enough to get by. Any more
and you turn into a freak" - rone, ASR
P
Peter Signorini
Guest
"MikeyOz" wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT
>> dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone
>> who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist.
>> Zebee
>
> And the person who recently drove his car into a primary school,
> unlicensed, over the limit, did not kill anyone but has irrevocably
> changed the lifes of several kids, what did he get, no conviction.
Yes. And a certain lady texting on her mobile phone whilst driving, who just
slipped and killed a chap cycling in Geelong. No jail sentence for culpable
driving ie. manslaughter. Then a friend of mine had the tragedy of his wife
killed while reading her mail at a bus stop, by a runaway truack with faulty
brakes. The company that owned it, knew about the failing brakes, and
ordered the driver to drive it, got a slap on the wrist.
Grrrr!! Peds and cyclists not treated as inferior citizens - BOLLOCKS!
Peter
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT
>> dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone
>> who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist.
>> Zebee
>
> And the person who recently drove his car into a primary school,
> unlicensed, over the limit, did not kill anyone but has irrevocably
> changed the lifes of several kids, what did he get, no conviction.
Yes. And a certain lady texting on her mobile phone whilst driving, who just
slipped and killed a chap cycling in Geelong. No jail sentence for culpable
driving ie. manslaughter. Then a friend of mine had the tragedy of his wife
killed while reading her mail at a bus stop, by a runaway truack with faulty
brakes. The company that owned it, knew about the failing brakes, and
ordered the driver to drive it, got a slap on the wrist.
Grrrr!! Peds and cyclists not treated as inferior citizens - BOLLOCKS!
Peter
T
Terry Collins
Guest
dewatf wrote:
>
> Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the
> usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies
> that make up pro-cycling propaganda.
Oh Look, our little car loving troll is back.
Coming from you, those comments are a compliment.
>
> Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
> Germany but not Australia is false:
> - pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too
Yer right.
Rest of poo flushed.
>
> Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the
> usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies
> that make up pro-cycling propaganda.
Oh Look, our little car loving troll is back.
Coming from you, those comments are a compliment.
>
> Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
> Germany but not Australia is false:
> - pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too
Yer right.
Rest of poo flushed.
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
dave wrote:
> I remember reading that bicycles were far more numerous than horses in
> the 1880s and 90s.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep a horse? This is why cars
were invented.
Theo
> I remember reading that bicycles were far more numerous than horses in
> the 1880s and 90s.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep a horse? This is why cars
were invented.
Theo
P
percrime
Guest
Yes yes indeed I do. It was actually my point that one doesnt think of
the 1880s as bushrangers on bicycles. But that was actually fairly
close to the truth.
How come you are always asking if I have any idea anyway? Not my
impression that I come across as particularily dimm. I have never
owned a BMW for example
the 1880s as bushrangers on bicycles. But that was actually fairly
close to the truth.
How come you are always asking if I have any idea anyway? Not my
impression that I come across as particularily dimm. I have never
owned a BMW for example
D
dewatf
Guest
On 25 Feb 2006 19:20:27 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT
> dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
>> cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to
>> drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are
>> the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher
>
> Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone
> who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist.
The was a case in Dubbo recently. A driver wiped out a motorcyclist by
pulling out, against the rightway, and flattening him. The driver claimed
he failed to see the motorcyclist and got away while a fine and no goal
time. Same as in all the cycling cases that are quoted. The father launched
a campaign for tougher penaties for driving offences, sound familiar.
The laws recognise no difference between victims on foot, on cycles or on
cars. Read the offenses.
> Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials,
> convictions, and sentences?
Does the academic?
dewatf.
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT
> dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than
>> cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to
>> drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are
>> the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher
>
> Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone
> who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist.
The was a case in Dubbo recently. A driver wiped out a motorcyclist by
pulling out, against the rightway, and flattening him. The driver claimed
he failed to see the motorcyclist and got away while a fine and no goal
time. Same as in all the cycling cases that are quoted. The father launched
a campaign for tougher penaties for driving offences, sound familiar.
The laws recognise no difference between victims on foot, on cycles or on
cars. Read the offenses.
> Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials,
> convictions, and sentences?
Does the academic?
dewatf.
D
dewatf
Guest
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:57:39 +1100, Terry Collins wrote:
> Oh Look, our little car loving troll is back.
I don't like driving, I much prefer cycling.
I just don't feel the need to make up ******** arguments as why I want to
cycle, nor try to force that on other people, nor pretend that a bunch of
irrelevant statistics are going to change things.
It is stupid, and counter productive since all it does is get the cycling
lobby dimissed as nutcases.
>> Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
>> Germany but not Australia is false:
>> - pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too
>
> Yer right.
See example 9 rule 72 of the Australian road rule, driver turning right
giving way to a pedestrian crossing the road.
The same applies at T intersections.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/p7.pdf
dewatf.
> Oh Look, our little car loving troll is back.
I don't like driving, I much prefer cycling.
I just don't feel the need to make up ******** arguments as why I want to
cycle, nor try to force that on other people, nor pretend that a bunch of
irrelevant statistics are going to change things.
It is stupid, and counter productive since all it does is get the cycling
lobby dimissed as nutcases.
>> Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in
>> Germany but not Australia is false:
>> - pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too
>
> Yer right.
See example 9 rule 72 of the Australian road rule, driver turning right
giving way to a pedestrian crossing the road.
The same applies at T intersections.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/p7.pdf
dewatf.
D
dewatf
Guest
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:30:47 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, was unusually busy in the last fortnight.
> Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you
> just talking aloud?
I deal with lots academic work. These days citing another academic is taken
as proof and evidence. What you end up with is a bunch of academics all
citing each other and proving nothing. What's more academic work is now so
specialised that academics go to conferences and only attend their groups,
only publish papers on their topic only read by like minded people. They
never have to confront any broader opinion or any arguments contrary to
them. And in academia where relativism has taken hold there is no need to
take in to account any contrary evidence because everybody is entitled to
their own opinion, they are all right and therefore anything they say is
right. The groupthink is sickening.
That is different from science which requires replicable experimentation,
and attempts to prove that there is real cause and effect, not just
correlations.
> The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems
> to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with
> cyclists across Australia. Please do your research.
A Commission into police and DPP bungling in one case.
I have mentioned a case involving the fatality of motorcyclist.
60 Minutes did a story last week on police and DPP bungling in the case of
the death of cyclist.
> You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how
> cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system.
Non cyclists complaining just as much about how they are treated in the
legal system, rape victims don't give the system great wraps either.
So his unsupported biased claim must be right, just because it agrees with
your and your friends prejudices.
No of this proofs any claimed anti-cycling conspiracy by the system.
It does not prove that the Germany legal system is more pro-cyclist than
the Australian system (not that a legal system should be pro anyone, a pro
cycling system would be anti-car). The way the German legal system dealt
with the accident involving the Australian women's cycling team was no
unusual for the German system, and similar to how the Australian system
would have dealt with the matter.
> So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very
> lazy debating you're presenting.
No I am arguing that a correlation between large number of cyclists and
lower accident rates/cyclist does no prove a causal relation.
Which Pucher is forced to conceded but is still trying to falsely imply in
that section.
Pucher and I don't disagree that improving safety will increase cycling,
where he states that. I do disagree with the degree.
Nor did I disagree that traffic engineering in Australia is often poor and
that a lot better can be done for all road users.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> There are several factors that effect cycling rates
>> 1) suitability of geography and climate
>> 2) safety
>> 3) infrastructure
>> 4) culture.
> Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions.
They were not his initial conclusions. And you can't have initial
conclusions, the thing about conclusions is that you examine the evidence,
prove ideas then form conclusions. When you start with conclusions and
manufacture arguments to support them what you have are prejudices.
> Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to
> the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle.
> Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning
> since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and
> walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison)
Australia does not have the same history of cycling. Even when cycles were
used, their use was much lower than in Europe. That is because the
disttances were much greater and roads much poorer.
And it is after the invention of the car that the differences arose. Italy
also had a lot of cycling, but after the invention of the motor scooter
that took over, especially in the hill regions.
Cities like Amsterdamn and Copenhagen where built and densely populated
hundreds of years ago. They have narrow roads, little parking.
Most of the cities in Australia were largely built after the car was
invented. In Sydney for example the Western Suburbs of Sydney, up until the
40s was Ashfield. There were middle class settlements out along the rail
lines, but most workers lived with in walking distance of their jobs, or
along inner city trams lines.
Sydney's population took off after WWII with the baby boom, the movement
from rural areas, caused mechanisation and industrialisation of agriculture
and a massive post WWII immigration programme. Sydney's suburbs were thus
built around the car, and have been for 60 years.
And the suburban pattern has been the dominant settlement pattern after
WWII around the world. Is is cities whose patterns were set and reached
high populations before that differ. The Zones around Paris( central
Paris's population is now 2m, where as it used to be 3m, the millions more
are living in Zones around Paris). Milton Keys etc. around London that were
built after are laid out according to the same suburban and motorway
pattern.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> Whilst those two cities have been successful in further increasing the
>> rates of cycling are many other cities where cycling initiatives have
>> failed and there little correlation between amount of money spent
>> encouraging cycling and cycling rates overall.
>
> Please cite your references.
France and Germany have spent millions trying to replicate the cycling
success of Copenhagen and Amsterdam. They always had higher cycling rates
that Australia, but all that money has only managed to keep cycling at
around 10% (as is shown in Pucher's statistics), about the same as Perth
has managed.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> While cities such as Portland and San Francisco have managed to boost
>> public transport and cycling they have achieved this by restricting
>> development which produces high property prices and restricting cars.
>> This has created a class of wealth professionals living in the city,
>> meanwhile the cities are collapsing as economic growth and people move
>> elsewhere, usually suburbs and industrial parks located on freeways.
>
> Again, please cite your references. I lurk on numerous SF and Portland
> bike email groups, and taking into consideration the anecdotal evidence
> that is presented on these lists, your conclusions are extremely off the
> mark.
If you are a wealthy employed cyclist in SF and Portland, who likes living
in dense urban areas then things are great. Taxes of others are supporting
you. Doesn't mean that the model is economically sustainable in the long
term, with out the economic growth to sustain it they will collapse.
San Francisco has lost 4% of population and 10% of its population. The rest
of the population now lives in the "Greater Bay Area", suburbs hundreds of
kilometers up and down the down the coast all served by freeways.
I don't have details sources, they are facts that I have read or listened
too from a wide variety of sources, backed up by evidence, which is more
than Pucher gave in his presentation.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> Factors that have reduced walking and cycling also include increased
>> wealth, changes in occupations, transporting of children to day care,
>> schools and activities outside local areas. Frank Furedi, a UK
>> sociologist,
>> has done research finding that fear for children's safety seems to
>> have
>> been a driving factor for driving children everywhere in Anglo-Saxon
>> countries more than other developed countries (when the children are
>> probably more at risk from mothers driving other children around in
>> SUVs
>> than anything else!).
>
> Which, again, is a point which Pucher makes. Are you trying to
> illustrate this as *your* counterpoint to his presentation?!?
No where did Pucher examine fear in his presentation.
> Then please expand upon what you imply by stating "integrated with
> sustainable economic systems and cultures". Peak oil (which may, or may
> not, be a theory) will certainly create major disruptions to our
> society. Have you given any consideration towards that looming issue?
Considered it and dismissed it.
Peak Oil Theory is just irrational eschatology from the nut cases claiming
the sky is falling, the sky is falling, some time in the next 1 to 50
years.
The real problem is if oil hasn't peaked and recent data supporting greater
greenhouse gas climate change is correct. The reality of Peak Oil is a
great thing. The price of oil will rise promoting more efficient use and
making alternatives relatively more viable and driving the switch to other
forms of energy.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> A better place to look for Australia would be Perth, which has increased
>> cycling and public transport rates. Though it should be noted that that
>> has involved infrastructure projects bankrolled by a commodities boom
>> and GST revenue from NSW and Victoria.
>
> WA massively restructured their equivalent to RTA/VicRoads. Do you
> intend to expand upon your final observation at the next Premiers
> Conference? Should prove to be highly entertaining.
It is a point that was well made at the conference. And the head of the
reserve bank has also backed it.
Yep. I am praising what WA has done, and that it would be good thing for
academics to study, rather than rehashing the same old rubbish about
Europe.
dewatf.
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, was unusually busy in the last fortnight.
> Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you
> just talking aloud?
I deal with lots academic work. These days citing another academic is taken
as proof and evidence. What you end up with is a bunch of academics all
citing each other and proving nothing. What's more academic work is now so
specialised that academics go to conferences and only attend their groups,
only publish papers on their topic only read by like minded people. They
never have to confront any broader opinion or any arguments contrary to
them. And in academia where relativism has taken hold there is no need to
take in to account any contrary evidence because everybody is entitled to
their own opinion, they are all right and therefore anything they say is
right. The groupthink is sickening.
That is different from science which requires replicable experimentation,
and attempts to prove that there is real cause and effect, not just
correlations.
> The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems
> to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with
> cyclists across Australia. Please do your research.
A Commission into police and DPP bungling in one case.
I have mentioned a case involving the fatality of motorcyclist.
60 Minutes did a story last week on police and DPP bungling in the case of
the death of cyclist.
> You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how
> cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system.
Non cyclists complaining just as much about how they are treated in the
legal system, rape victims don't give the system great wraps either.
So his unsupported biased claim must be right, just because it agrees with
your and your friends prejudices.
No of this proofs any claimed anti-cycling conspiracy by the system.
It does not prove that the Germany legal system is more pro-cyclist than
the Australian system (not that a legal system should be pro anyone, a pro
cycling system would be anti-car). The way the German legal system dealt
with the accident involving the Australian women's cycling team was no
unusual for the German system, and similar to how the Australian system
would have dealt with the matter.
> So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very
> lazy debating you're presenting.
No I am arguing that a correlation between large number of cyclists and
lower accident rates/cyclist does no prove a causal relation.
Which Pucher is forced to conceded but is still trying to falsely imply in
that section.
Pucher and I don't disagree that improving safety will increase cycling,
where he states that. I do disagree with the degree.
Nor did I disagree that traffic engineering in Australia is often poor and
that a lot better can be done for all road users.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> There are several factors that effect cycling rates
>> 1) suitability of geography and climate
>> 2) safety
>> 3) infrastructure
>> 4) culture.
> Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions.
They were not his initial conclusions. And you can't have initial
conclusions, the thing about conclusions is that you examine the evidence,
prove ideas then form conclusions. When you start with conclusions and
manufacture arguments to support them what you have are prejudices.
> Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to
> the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle.
> Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning
> since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and
> walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison)
Australia does not have the same history of cycling. Even when cycles were
used, their use was much lower than in Europe. That is because the
disttances were much greater and roads much poorer.
And it is after the invention of the car that the differences arose. Italy
also had a lot of cycling, but after the invention of the motor scooter
that took over, especially in the hill regions.
Cities like Amsterdamn and Copenhagen where built and densely populated
hundreds of years ago. They have narrow roads, little parking.
Most of the cities in Australia were largely built after the car was
invented. In Sydney for example the Western Suburbs of Sydney, up until the
40s was Ashfield. There were middle class settlements out along the rail
lines, but most workers lived with in walking distance of their jobs, or
along inner city trams lines.
Sydney's population took off after WWII with the baby boom, the movement
from rural areas, caused mechanisation and industrialisation of agriculture
and a massive post WWII immigration programme. Sydney's suburbs were thus
built around the car, and have been for 60 years.
And the suburban pattern has been the dominant settlement pattern after
WWII around the world. Is is cities whose patterns were set and reached
high populations before that differ. The Zones around Paris( central
Paris's population is now 2m, where as it used to be 3m, the millions more
are living in Zones around Paris). Milton Keys etc. around London that were
built after are laid out according to the same suburban and motorway
pattern.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> Whilst those two cities have been successful in further increasing the
>> rates of cycling are many other cities where cycling initiatives have
>> failed and there little correlation between amount of money spent
>> encouraging cycling and cycling rates overall.
>
> Please cite your references.
France and Germany have spent millions trying to replicate the cycling
success of Copenhagen and Amsterdam. They always had higher cycling rates
that Australia, but all that money has only managed to keep cycling at
around 10% (as is shown in Pucher's statistics), about the same as Perth
has managed.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> While cities such as Portland and San Francisco have managed to boost
>> public transport and cycling they have achieved this by restricting
>> development which produces high property prices and restricting cars.
>> This has created a class of wealth professionals living in the city,
>> meanwhile the cities are collapsing as economic growth and people move
>> elsewhere, usually suburbs and industrial parks located on freeways.
>
> Again, please cite your references. I lurk on numerous SF and Portland
> bike email groups, and taking into consideration the anecdotal evidence
> that is presented on these lists, your conclusions are extremely off the
> mark.
If you are a wealthy employed cyclist in SF and Portland, who likes living
in dense urban areas then things are great. Taxes of others are supporting
you. Doesn't mean that the model is economically sustainable in the long
term, with out the economic growth to sustain it they will collapse.
San Francisco has lost 4% of population and 10% of its population. The rest
of the population now lives in the "Greater Bay Area", suburbs hundreds of
kilometers up and down the down the coast all served by freeways.
I don't have details sources, they are facts that I have read or listened
too from a wide variety of sources, backed up by evidence, which is more
than Pucher gave in his presentation.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> Factors that have reduced walking and cycling also include increased
>> wealth, changes in occupations, transporting of children to day care,
>> schools and activities outside local areas. Frank Furedi, a UK
>> sociologist,
>> has done research finding that fear for children's safety seems to
>> have
>> been a driving factor for driving children everywhere in Anglo-Saxon
>> countries more than other developed countries (when the children are
>> probably more at risk from mothers driving other children around in
>> SUVs
>> than anything else!).
>
> Which, again, is a point which Pucher makes. Are you trying to
> illustrate this as *your* counterpoint to his presentation?!?
No where did Pucher examine fear in his presentation.
> Then please expand upon what you imply by stating "integrated with
> sustainable economic systems and cultures". Peak oil (which may, or may
> not, be a theory) will certainly create major disruptions to our
> society. Have you given any consideration towards that looming issue?
Considered it and dismissed it.
Peak Oil Theory is just irrational eschatology from the nut cases claiming
the sky is falling, the sky is falling, some time in the next 1 to 50
years.
The real problem is if oil hasn't peaked and recent data supporting greater
greenhouse gas climate change is correct. The reality of Peak Oil is a
great thing. The price of oil will rise promoting more efficient use and
making alternatives relatively more viable and driving the switch to other
forms of energy.
> dewatf Wrote:
>> A better place to look for Australia would be Perth, which has increased
>> cycling and public transport rates. Though it should be noted that that
>> has involved infrastructure projects bankrolled by a commodities boom
>> and GST revenue from NSW and Victoria.
>
> WA massively restructured their equivalent to RTA/VicRoads. Do you
> intend to expand upon your final observation at the next Premiers
> Conference? Should prove to be highly entertaining.
It is a point that was well made at the conference. And the head of the
reserve bank has also backed it.
Yep. I am praising what WA has done, and that it would be good thing for
academics to study, rather than rehashing the same old rubbish about
Europe.
dewatf.
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:42:08 GMT
dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> The laws recognise no difference between victims on foot, on cycles or on
> cars. Read the offenses.
No. BUt the sentencing (or lack thereof) clearly does.
>
>> Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials,
>> convictions, and sentences?
>
> Does the academic?
I expect so, read his paper and find out. You have made a claim, are
you able to back it up?
Zebee
dewatf <dewatf@!coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> The laws recognise no difference between victims on foot, on cycles or on
> cars. Read the offenses.
No. BUt the sentencing (or lack thereof) clearly does.
>
>> Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials,
>> convictions, and sentences?
>
> Does the academic?
I expect so, read his paper and find out. You have made a claim, are
you able to back it up?
Zebee
