Save William Street Ride - Friday 30 June

[scotty72]

For all of you guys who may be reluctant to ride with C-Mass because you see them as a rabble without a cause....

Friday's ride has a very good cause... the saving of the William Street bike lanes. An action that all the BUGs support.


Please get out there friday 5:30p (Hyde park fountain) to show the govt that cyclists do count and deserve safe places to ride.

SCotty

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:58:44 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For all of you guys who may be reluctant to ride with C-Mass because you
> see them as a rabble without a cause....
>
> Friday's ride has a very good cause... the saving of the William Street
> bike lanes. An action that all the BUGs support.
>

Problem is... will it be a carefully done protest with very clear aims
and giving a clear message?

Or will it be a bunch of cyclists without any obvious aim or reason
for their behaviour causing drivers to focus on "cyclist as nuisance"
and not make the connection between bikes on the road and bikes
without bike lanes?

The protest ride I went to on Sunday needed, I realised later alas, some
signs and some organisation. IT needed signs on rider's backs saying
"get used to it - they are taking the bike lanes away". It needed people
organised to take lanes, others to explain to motorists what's going on.
Leaflets, petitions, signs, ways to get the message across.

I'm annoyed with myself that I didn't really think about this before
I went, I could have done something. Because it was someone elses's
protest I had this "make up numbers" mindset and thought they'd have
done it, and looks like no one did

I don't like protests where what you are doing isn't clear to those
outside the group. CM seems to be a prime example of those. They claim
to be "the traffic" but keep tightly together, cork intersections, and
generally behave unlike traffic. And the general public has no clue
what they are on about or why, and put another tick in the "cyclist -
useless annoyance" box.

Zebee

 

[scotty72]

Ahhh, someone else ought to have done it...

I wasn't there, but from your description everyone else thought the same too.


Even if CM is seen as this horrible rabble that causes disruption, that is good for the BUGs.

If CM does manage to bring the city to a grinding halt (doubtful but nice to aim for), the govt in its normal reactionary way will want to know how to solve their latest crisis. The BUGs then step in as the voice of reason.


It is very silly to think that cyclists should stand as one in a unitied front. That way, we are certain to lose this war..

SCotty

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:58:44 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For all of you guys who may be reluctant to ride with C-Mass because you
> see them as a rabble without a cause....
>
> Friday's ride has a very good cause... the saving of the William Street
> bike lanes. An action that all the BUGs support.
>

Problem is... will it be a carefully done protest with very clear aims
and giving a clear message?

Or will it be a bunch of cyclists without any obvious aim or reason
for their behaviour causing drivers to focus on "cyclist as nuisance"
and not make the connection between bikes on the road and bikes
without bike lanes?

The protest ride I went to on Sunday needed, I realised later alas, some
signs and some organisation. IT needed signs on rider's backs saying
"get used to it - they are taking the bike lanes away". It needed people
organised to take lanes, others to explain to motorists what's going on.
Leaflets, petitions, signs, ways to get the message across.

I'm annoyed with myself that I didn't really think about this before
I went, I could have done something. Because it was someone elses's
protest I had this "make up numbers" mindset and thought they'd have
done it, and looks like no one did

I don't like protests where what you are doing isn't clear to those
outside the group. CM seems to be a prime example of those. They claim
to be "the traffic" but keep tightly together, cork intersections, and
generally behave unlike traffic. And the general public has no clue
what they are on about or why, and put another tick in the "cyclist -
useless annoyance" box.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:55:28 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Even if CM is seen as this horrible rabble that causes disruption,
> that is good for the BUGs.
>
> If CM does manage to bring the city to a grinding halt (doubtful but
> nice to aim for), the govt in its normal reactionary way will want to
> know how to solve their latest crisis. The BUGs then step in as the
> voice of reason.

Hmm.. that only works if a) the BUGs have good answers and b) CM goes
away.

I think it is more likely that people will make the "cyclist - slow
nuisance" connection and the govt will rant about lawless idiots and
talk more about getting cyclists of the road entirely.

Don't forget that the objection seen on car groups to CM and cyclists
is about how they "slow everything down in peak hour". Now anyone who
isn't completely clueless works out (by the number of bicycles
lanesplitting...) that what slows things in peak hour is number of
cars and nothing to do with bicycles at all, but perception doesn't
have to have anything to do with reality. Not to mention that
stereotypes are reinforced by anything that looks even a little like
the stereotype, and things that aren't like it are ignored.

So what will a bunch of people riding on William St achieve?

I've been trying to think of a good answer to all this, but realise
I'm not really sure what the question is.

The big one of course is "how to keep people happy" but that's
unanswerable... The smaller ones are things like "how to get people to
work in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money"
and the answer to that is so huge and variable, my head hurts.

A smaller question is "how to make Sydney more livable for cyclists
without causing problems for other road users" and I am not sure there's
a good answer for that which doesn't involve "Govt appropriates cross
city tunnel and makes it toll free". With a side order of "have more
options to get people now in cars where they are going that doesn't
involve cars in the city."

To do that latter we'd have to know who are the people using William St
and Kent St. Where are they coming from, where are they going, why are
they taking that trip, why use that road, what are their alternatives.
Something the govt clearly didn't know before the CCT went ahead!

Zebee

 

[scotty72]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:55:28 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Even if CM is seen as this horrible rabble that causes disruption,
> that is good for the BUGs.
>
> If CM does manage to bring the city to a grinding halt (doubtful but
> nice to aim for), the govt in its normal reactionary way will want to
> know how to solve their latest crisis. The BUGs then step in as the
> voice of reason.

Hmm.. that only works if a) the BUGs have good answers and b) CM goes
away.

Bugs often do have good answers. Don't get BUGs confused with BNSW. BNSW are clearly being run less as an advocacy organisation and more as a business enterprise (ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching). If you get involved in a BUG you will find many hard working volunteers who tirelessly write letters, attend meeting etc. Many of the concessions on the Lane Cove Tunnel for example only happened due to BUG pressure.

I think it is more likely that people will make the "cyclist - slow
nuisance" connection and the govt will rant about lawless idiots and
talk more about getting cyclists of the road entirely.

Now, you know that would never happen! The reaction would be cataclysmic. Govt know that would only bring out lots of more moderate cyclists onto the streets. I doubt the courts would wear such a clearly draconian measure either.

Don't forget that the objection seen on car groups to CM and cyclists
is about how they "slow everything down in peak hour". Now anyone who
isn't completely clueless works out (by the number of bicycles
lanesplitting...) that what slows things in peak hour is number of
cars and nothing to do with bicycles at all, but perception doesn't
have to have anything to do with reality. Not to mention that
stereotypes are reinforced by anything that looks even a little like
the stereotype, and things that aren't like it are ignored.

Good, let's slow 'em down. Let them scream for answers. Then the BUGs come in and say, "I told you so - if there were bike lanes - there would be no problem"

So what will a bunch of people riding on William St achieve?

see above

I've been trying to think of a good answer to all this, but realise
I'm not really sure what the question is.

The question is - "How do we convince the drongos to keep William St bike lanes?"

The answer is to show 'em how bad it will be without them.

The big one of course is "how to keep people happy" but that's
unanswerable... The smaller ones are things like "how to get people to
work in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money"
and the answer to that is so huge and variable, my head hurts.

Why should we care about keeping people happy? We are lobbying for cyclists - not 'the people'. I don't hear motorists asking, "How do I keep people happy?" They are just thinking "I wanna freeway built from me <sic> office to me door- and no one else should be allowed on it - and a don't wanna pay for it."

A smaller question is "how to make Sydney more livable for cyclists
without causing problems for other road users" and I am not sure there's
a good answer for that which doesn't involve "Govt appropriates cross
city tunnel and makes it toll free". With a side order of "have more
options to get people now in cars where they are going that doesn't
involve cars in the city."

That is the REALLY BIG question except we don't care about motorists. Number one rule for a lobbiest, other groups are only secondary to yours. Why do you think that motorist lobbiers are so successful? They don't really want to share the roads. Far from a free tunnel or roads, we should be advocating a London style congestion tax, and a city gone mad with bus and bike lanes. An ambit claim perhaps, but a starting point.

To do that latter we'd have to know who are the people using William St
and Kent St. Where are they coming from, where are they going, why are
they taking that trip, why use that road, what are their alternatives.
Something the govt clearly didn't know before the CCT went ahead!

No, no. WE don't care who is using them. We have them put in and then people will come to them (esp if the traffic is so appalling they have no choice). Not a lot of people will currently use William St because it is seen as historically high stress for bikes. The bike lanes will gradually allow cyclists to feel more comfortable and more will use it. It is no different to a new motorway. First few months - little traffic then, gradualy the numbers increase.

Scotty

 

[Resound]

"scotty72" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ahhh, someone else ought to have done it...
>
> I wasn't there, but from your description everyone else thought the
> same too.
>
>
> Even if CM is seen as this horrible rabble that causes disruption,
> that is good for the BUGs.
>
> If CM does manage to bring the city to a grinding halt (doubtful but
> nice to aim for), the govt in its normal reactionary way will want to
> know how to solve their latest crisis. The BUGs then step in as the
> voice of reason.
>
>
> It is very silly to think that cyclists should stand as one in a
> unitied front. That way, we are certain to lose this war..
>
> SCotty
>

Ah, nothing like taking what someone says and turning it into an
unreasonable absolute so you can use it as a handy strawman. Zebee didn't
say they shouldn't be there. She said if they are there then it should be
clear *why*. A protest cannot and will not achieve its aims unless *other*
people know why it's being held. If there's a large group of cyclists very
clearly saying "We need lanes too, don't renege on the agreement." then they
have a purpose and send a useful message. It there's a large group of
cyclists which aren't putting forward any clear message to someone who
hasn't got any links to the cycling community and really couldn't care less
at that point then they're not going to *get* the message. They'll just see
a group clogging the roads to no good purpose and put a tick in the
"Cyclists are a nuisance" box. That doens't enhance the chances of cyclists
being taken seriously by the wider community. By all means, protest. If I
was in Sydney I'd join you. But please, PLEASE make sure the casual passerby
can EASILY work out why you're there so that the message received is
positive, not negative.

 

[scotty72]

Ah, nothing like taking what someone says and turning it into an
unreasonable absolute so you can use it as a handy strawman.

Good point, so don't do it to me. You have yourself constructed a very clear dichotomy here - so don't play all sweet and innocent

Zebee didn't
say they shouldn't be there. She said if they are there then it should be
clear *why*.

Let me retort with my own polarising statement.... So what you're saying here is that before any group of cyclists decide to go for a ride, we must demontrate a clear purpose - otherwise our activities should be deemed illegal. Kinda rules my daughters rides out because she just likes to ride "around".

A protest cannot and will not achieve its aims unless *other*
people know why it's being held. If there's a large group of cyclists very
clearly saying "We need lanes too, don't renege on the agreement." then they
have a purpose and send a useful message.

Totally disagree. CM is there to show that uncatered for bikes can mix with traffic in a way which is unpleasant for all. They don't need a clear purpose. They have the right to just ride in the same way that is you just decide to drive a car around and around the block - no-one will try to arrest you. However, when people complain that all these bikes are in the way - then the BUGs look far more reasonable to deal with simply because CM are there. If the radicals are there, then the moderates become the radicals.

It there's a large group of
cyclists which aren't putting forward any clear message to someone who
hasn't got any links to the cycling community and really couldn't care less
at that point then they're not going to *get* the message. They'll just see
a group clogging the roads to no good purpose and put a tick in the
"Cyclists are a nuisance" box.

Exactly. They see that something needs to be done. Then because CM are a 'bunch of leftie loonies" - the BUGS step in as the voices of reason.

That doens't enhance the chances of cyclists
being taken seriously by the wider community.

Yes it does - clearly... The BUGs condemn the mass and state that they are a silly minority. We will help you silence these people - just give us a little-bitty lane.

By all means, protest. If I
was in Sydney I'd join you. But please, PLEASE make sure the casual passerby
can EASILY work out why you're there so that the message received is
positive, not negative.

That is the domain of the BUG.

Think of CM as the fire - without the fire who needs the hero fireman.

Scotty

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:52:58 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> business enterprise (ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching). If you get involved
> in a BUG you will find many hard working volunteers who tirelessly write
> letters, attend meeting etc. Many of the concessions on the Lane Cove
> Tunnel for example only happened due to BUG pressure.

Lobby groups that are focused get results. The more money and people
they can get behind them, the better.

NRMA vs BUG? I know who wins where it counts.


> Now, you know that would never happen! The reaction would be
> cataclysmic. Govt know that would only bring out lots of more moderate
> cyclists onto the streets. I doubt the courts would wear such a clearly
> draconian measure either.

I'm sure it could be done piecemeal. Make a bunch of city streets "no
bikes". Widen it. Do it while saying "it's so cars work better" and
the number of cars and drivers outweighs the number of bikes.

> Good, let's slow 'em down. Let them scream for answers. Then the BUGs
> come in and say, "I told you so - if there were bike lanes - there
> would be no problem"
>

And the driving lobby would say "no - we need more car lanes, and no
cyclists". At which point number of votes counts. The government
looks at its marginal seats, works out who to pacify first.

Not to mention who has the money for campaign contributions.


>
> The answer is to show 'em how bad it will be without them.

So, how many people use them on an average day? Cm is one day a
month, they just have to count on the other days to know it is an
empty threat.


>
> Why should we care about keeping people happy? We are lobbying for
> cyclists - not 'the people'. I don't hear motorists asking, "How do I

Because there are more of them than there are of you, and if it comes
to a faceoff you lose every time.

So you have to find a way to get them to agree. They don't have to
please you - they have the numbers. You have to get them to think
they aren't going to lose.

> That is the REALLY BIG question except we don't care about motorists.
> Number one rule for a lobbiest, other groups are only secondary to
> yours. Why do you think that motorist lobbiers are so successful? They
> don't really want to share the roads. Far from a free tunnel or roads,
> we should be advocating a London style congestion tax, and a city gone
> mad with bus and bike lanes. An ambit claim perhaps, but a starting
> point.

On the other hand, motorcycle lobbying hasn't been successful until it
started working *with* other groups rather than whining on the edges.

The MRA in Vic still hasn't worked this out. The MCC of NSW has, and
have made more gains.


> No, no. WE don't care who is using them. We have them put in and then
> people will come to them (esp if the traffic is so appalling they have

That's what they said about the CCT.

> no choice). Not a lot of people will currently use William St because
> it is seen as historically high stress for bikes. The bike lanes will
> gradually allow cyclists to feel more comfortable and more will use it.
> It is no different to a new motorway. First few months - little traffic
> then, gradualy the numbers increase.

Only if they are going places people want. If there is no reason to
go there doesn't matter if they are there or not.

If there is a reason for lotsa cars to use those roads then they won't
stop using them, so know why they are using them.. Then you can sell
alternatives.

If you don't sell alternatives you won't get what you want because you
are too small and too poor. In money and votes.


Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:53:36 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Let me retort with my own polarising statement.... So what you're
> saying here is that before any group of cyclists decide to go for a
> ride, we must demontrate a clear purpose - otherwise our activities
> should be deemed illegal. Kinda rules my daughters rides out because
> she just likes to ride "around".

You are the one who said this particular CM had a purpose.

Make up your mind.

Zebee

 

[Peter Signorini]

"scotty72" wrote:

> The question is - "How do we convince the drongos to keep William St
> bike lanes?"
>
> The answer is to show 'em how bad it will be without them.

Taking a different approach, a rally where all cyclists group together and
drive along William St in their cars (one per vehicle) with a bike on the
roof, rear rack or in back seat. This could be used to show how much worse
the congestion would be if cyclists do not ride. Appropriate signs and
banners would be needed, along with mass rally techniques. I've often
thought this could be a format for a Critical Mass, to get people off the
idea that CM causes congestion when it occurs.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[dewatf]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:58:44 +1000, scotty72 wrote:

> For all of you guys who may be reluctant to ride with C-Mass because you
> see them as a rabble without a cause....
>
> Friday's ride has a very good cause... the saving of the William Street
> bike lanes. An action that all the BUGs support.
>
>
> Please get out there friday 5:30p (Hyde park fountain) to show the
> govt that cyclists do count and deserve safe places to ride.

Indeed, and do support BUGs. But in this case:
- its a done deal
- you can't screw up access to one side of Sydney's CDB to do it
- the cycle lane isn't that safe due to cars and taxis doing stupid things
to get in and out of the equally stupid parking bays that the RTA and
Sydney Council put in
- doesn't the cycle lane just die in a freeway style intersection around
Bayswater Rd anyway?

I've seem more people just riding on Oxford St than using the William St
cycle lanes, but that is just from looking.
Are there any figures on its use?

dewatf.

 

[dave]

Peter Signorini wrote:
> "scotty72" wrote:
>
>
>>The question is - "How do we convince the drongos to keep William St
>>bike lanes?"
>>
>>The answer is to show 'em how bad it will be without them.
>
>
> Taking a different approach, a rally where all cyclists group together and
> drive along William St in their cars (one per vehicle) with a bike on the
> roof, rear rack or in back seat. This could be used to show how much worse
> the congestion would be if cyclists do not ride. Appropriate signs and
> banners would be needed, along with mass rally techniques. I've often
> thought this could be a format for a Critical Mass, to get people off the
> idea that CM causes congestion when it occurs.
>
Its been suggested (by cfsmtb I think) that we do this the next time
there is a winge about cyclists on beach rd. I thought it a great idea
and I am up for it. Will even fire up my old sprite so I have a car

Dave

 

[scotty72]

True, but the thread kinda went way off track (imagine that)

I wish people would stop thinking of CM as a group or a lobby.

Sure, it may well be - but the idea is that it is not. It is a disorganised rabble - at least it should be.

It starts the fire that others can put out. A fire doesn't organise and lobby - it just is. So too should CM

Scotty

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:53:36 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Let me retort with my own polarising statement.... So what you're
> saying here is that before any group of cyclists decide to go for a
> ride, we must demontrate a clear purpose - otherwise our activities
> should be deemed illegal. Kinda rules my daughters rides out because
> she just likes to ride "around".

You are the one who said this particular CM had a purpose.

Make up your mind.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 1 Jul 2006 01:10:01 +1000
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> It starts the fire that others can put out. A fire doesn't organise and
> lobby - it just is. So too should CM

Fires are destructive and a nuisance unless lit for a reason and
carefully contained.

Zebee

 

[cfsmtb]

Its been suggested (by cfsmtb I think) that we do this the next time
there is a winge about cyclists on beach rd. I thought it a great idea
and I am up for it. Will even fire up my old sprite so I have a car

From memory, actually FD & several others, suggested that idea after a few Goats. Still in the notebook as a potential activity.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 1 Jul 2006 01:10:01 +1000
> scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It starts the fire that others can put out. A fire doesn't organise and
>> lobby - it just is. So too should CM
>
> Fires are destructive and a nuisance unless lit for a reason and
> carefully contained.

Go along and talk to some of the many and varied people who go on CM and
suggest they are "destructive and a nuisance" and I think you'll get a
shocked response. Personally I think the Melbourne Grand Prix is destructive
and a nuisance, but the authorities support it.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[cfsmtb]

True, but the thread kinda went way off track (imagine that)

I wish people would stop thinking of CM as a group or a lobby.

Sure, it may well be - but the idea is that it is not. It is a disorganised rabble - at least it should be.

It starts the fire that others can put out. A fire doesn't organise and lobby - it just is. So too should CM

Invaribly the concept of CM still confuses people even after the rides being in existance since the early 90's. It's an idea, and that simple notion bemuses & confuses the hell out of folks who can't understand why the rides don't have a *regulatory authority*. Back to topic, how did it all progress last evening? I'm on several NSW BUG email lists, so hopefully feedback may forthcoming soon. From a south-of-the-border, we're observing with great interest.

Private public partnerships, road to hell. Paved.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 1 Jul 2006 10:13:31 +1000
Peter Signorini <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 1 Jul 2006 01:10:01 +1000
>> scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It starts the fire that others can put out. A fire doesn't organise and
>>> lobby - it just is. So too should CM
>>
>> Fires are destructive and a nuisance unless lit for a reason and
>> carefully contained.
>
> Go along and talk to some of the many and varied people who go on CM and
> suggest they are "destructive and a nuisance" and I think you'll get a
> shocked response. Personally I think the Melbourne Grand Prix is destructive
> and a nuisance, but the authorities support it.

I dont know if CM is or is not. But if it thinks of itself as fire,
without purpose except to make work for others in putting it out, then
it is destructive and a nuisance, no matter what the participants
think.

I don't think Scotty72 is doing them much of a favour though.

Zebee

 

[scotty72]

I dont know if CM is or is not. But if it thinks of itself as fire,
without purpose except to make work for others in putting it out, then
it is destructive and a nuisance, no matter what the participants
think.

I don't think Scotty72 is doing them much of a favour though.

Zebee

No, I didn't say that - you are twisting my words. It was a m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r.

Funnily enough, the advocates generally want to do the work - that is why they volunteer... Now if there was no critical mass. If we were compliant drones who were never heard from, do you really think there would be any political reason to listen to an advocate politely tapping on the door.

The fire metaphor is simply to highlight that no one ever considers fire danger until the flames are licking at the back gate. If there is nothing that agitates for or awareness or change - then awareness and change will never happen.


Scotty

 

[Fractal]

"dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> But in this case:
> - its a done deal

Labor is under some electoral threat so nothing is a done deal right now,
there should be room for negotiation. There may be a better solution than
the existing bike lanes anyway, as suggested below.

> - you can't screw up access to one side of Sydney's CDB to do it.

But you can provide some clear indication that cyclists should be expected
on this street, as it is the only reasonable route between the Cross and the
CBD.

> - the cycle lane isn't that safe due to cars and taxis doing stupid things
> to get in and out of the equally stupid parking bays that the RTA and
> Sydney Council put in

Agreed. The bike lane near Palmer and Bourke is prone to left hooks from
turning vehicles. Might be better off if cyclists shared a lane there and
they put some nice big bike logos in the centre of the lane, plus some Share
the Road signs , lower speed (40 K), or whatever. They have already admitted
there is a safety problem if they dont provide for cyclists.


> - doesn't the cycle lane just die in a freeway style intersection around
> Bayswater Rd anyway?

Yes but the main thing is access from the Cross. Cyclists coming from Double
Bay are few and could go via Barcom and Burton/Liverpool anyway, or maybe
use the footbridge into Roslyn St ( or even go through the old Kings Cross
Tunnel). Craigend St is a big hill and the approach is difficult- maybe a
footpath option up to Barcom would be good. That is something that could be
negotiated maybe, if there was anyone or any group to negotiate something.
Where is BNSW on this? It would be a chance to get some wider benefits than
just William St, which is what should have happened when the tunnel project
and asociated cycle facilities and surface road works were first designed.

>
> I've seem more people just riding on Oxford St than using the William St
> cycle lanes, but that is just from looking.
> Are there any figures on its use?

There would be because there is a bigger catchment area that way, you get
cyclists from Maroubra/Kingsford as well as Bondi coming through, and the
gradients are gentler than from New South Head Rd way, where its BMW
territory anyway ( tho I have seen a few cyclists struggling up Craigend
St).

>
> dewatf.

fb in sydnee