Suzy the Media ****

[suzyj]

Hi guys,

My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived

Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's not such a big thing after all.

Nayways, Have a gander at http://www.bikenorth.org.au/~advocacy/photos/media june 2005V2.jpg

Cheers,

Suzy

 

[till!]

And from the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh)

Well, not only that, but we dont even get a good shot of your bike? Please ask the local rag to lift their game =)

till

 

[flyingdutch]

go goirl!

but there was no pic of your stem...

PS you wanna mention the US/Europe stats that show that having a bikepath built near you helps to increase real estate prices too!

 

[Marty]

suzyj wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived
>
> Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> not such a big thing after all.
>
> Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
>

Good one Suzy, keep the pressure on.

The cyclist of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains, cyclists
of the world unite.

(Apologies to Karl Marx)

Marty

 

[PiledHigher]

suzyj wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived
>
> Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> not such a big thing after all.
>
> Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
>

Good one Suzy, keep the pressure on.

The cyclist of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains, cyclists
of the world unite.

(Apologies to Karl Marx)

Marty

Suzy,

Be careful what you wish for in terms of cycling facilties, it is this type of 'footpath' solution to cycle paths that have rated very poorly in the past as safe places to ride. There were some Palo Alto studies that suggested that it was much safer to ride on the road than use this sort of facility, I think the transport planner is probably correct in opposing it.

PiledHIgher

 

[suzyj]

PiledHigher wrote:

> It is this type of 'footpath' solution to cycle paths that have
> rated very poorly in the past as safe places to ride. There
> were some Palo Alto studies that suggested that it was much
> safer to ride on the road than use this sort of facility, I think
> the transport planner is probably correct in opposing it.

I agree that shared paths are heaps more dangerous than proper on-road facilities, but they're better than nothing at all.

This has a lot of history, going back to the start of planning for the Lane Cove tunnel. Bikenorth asked for on-road cycle lanes either side of Epping Road, but RTA refused, saying that it was too dangerous to have cyclists riding on Epping road and insisted on an off-road facility. Now council are saying the off road path is too dangerous (for peds), and that we should be on the road.

But if we lose the off-road facility, then we end up with nothing, and I'd prefer something to nothing.

Regards,

Suzy (who will use the bus lanes that are supposed to be going in on Epping Road anyway)

 

[Marx SS]

Rock on.
Cycle paths !
Riding in Sydeny can be almost impossible on some roads I've seen!

 

[Alan Hutchison]

suzyj wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived
>
> Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> not such a big thing after all.
>
> Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
>
Well done.

I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
vehicle play?

Regards,

Alan.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Alan Hutchison wrote:
>
> suzyj wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived
> >
> > Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> > the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> > not such a big thing after all.
> >
> > Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Suzy
> >
> >
> Well done.
>
> I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
> could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
> vehicle play?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan.

Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard **** yet. Would
you like one? I have one going cheap.

Tam

 

[PiledHigher]

suzyj wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My 15 minutes of fame have finally arrived
>
> Well, I got a picture in the local free paper, at any rate... And from
> the side, so ya can't even see my face properly... (sigh) Maybe it's
> not such a big thing after all.
>
> Nayways, Have a gander at http://tinyurl.com/aaaoe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
>
Well done.

I notice the same tired old objections spewing forth. The "cycleway
could cause a death." Indeed. What part would the inevitable motor
vehicle play?

Regards,

Alan.

Dual direction cycle paths put bikes in conflict with exiting cars in a non-expected direction, that is why they are so dangerous, you have a fighting chance if you are behaving in a similar manner to other traffic.

 

[suzyj]

Tam wrote:

> Hey Suzy, I see you haven't been issued with your lard ****
> yet. Would you like one? I have one going cheap.

What the fsck is a lard ****? Do I want one, or are they really scary things?

Regards,

Suzy

 

[flyingdutch]

Dual direction cycle paths put bikes in conflict with exiting cars in a non-expected direction, that is why they are so dangerous, you have a fighting chance if you are behaving in a similar manner to other traffic.

wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective only gets backed up
"See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky fleshy-based-things...

F"ghost in the machine"Dutch

 

[PiledHigher]

wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective only gets backed up
"See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky fleshy-based-things...

F"ghost in the machine"Dutch

Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!

 

[cfsmtb]

wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective only gets backed up
"See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky fleshy-based-things...

F"ghost in the machine"Dutch

Yes, lets all submit to continued car-dominance over any attempts to influence modial shift and attitudinal change. Vehicles: they're big, they're dangerous and other modes of transport are inferior or at fault. That's the lazy logic this created "road arms race" we're all dealing with now.

 

[Gemma_k]

"PiledHigher" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news[email protected]...
>>
> Be careful what you wish for in terms of cycling facilties, it is this
> type of 'footpath' solution to cycle paths that have rated very poorly
> in the past as safe places to ride. There were some Palo Alto studies
> that suggested that it was much safer to ride on the road than use this
> sort of facility, I think the transport planner is probably correct in
> opposing it.
>
These studies refer to the types of facilities that have frequent road
crossings across sidestreets (and driveways!) - ie where motor vehicle
drivers don't expect you to dart across and there are frequent conflict
points. Completely separated (and grade separated) paths with good
alignment and sufficient width are considered the ultimate in bicycle
network planning. We even have a some paths in Adelaide that are
bike-only.....
Unfortunately having a completely separated system from the road system of
course isn't possible in an already developed city.

Gemm

 

[PiledHigher]

These studies refer to the types of facilities that have frequent road
crossings across sidestreets (and driveways!) - ie where motor vehicle
drivers don't expect you to dart across and there are frequent conflict
points.

Which is exactly what they are building!

 

[nebakke]

PiledHigher wrote:
> flyingdutch Wrote:
> > wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> > Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> > If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective
> > only gets backed up
> > "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> > now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and
> > drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky
> > fleshy-based-things...
> >
> > F"ghost in the machine"Dutch
>
> Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!

So which do you prefer? Being splattered on the road by a car and
getting in trouble for not clearing the path for him, or being
splattered on the road by a car and the driver getting in trouble for
driving on the bikepath?
I admit, it's only a small difference and legally there's no problem
with keeping your place on the road but I expect pretty much everyone
in this group take some sort of abuse from drivers every day because
drivers feel that the road belongs to them alone.
On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians. Maybe, some day, if
we keep pushing for bikepaths such as this, decent bikepaths will be
put in, and drivers will be taught to look for bicycles before they
turn... When you get a licence in Scandinavia you fail your test is you
don't look for bikes before turning right and most all drivers
remember to even after several years (of course that would propbably be
because of the likelyhood of the cyclists actually being there, but
that's not the point ;O) wouldn't it be nice if Australian drivers
learnt to look for bikes too?
Personally I belong in the group of people who feel a lot safer on a
bikepath, which sucks cos I'd really like to be able to ride from
somewhere a bit closer to home, but until more bikepaths are put in I'm
limited to what I've got and so is a lot of people who choose not to
use their bikes because of the percieve d risk of not having a bike
path...
Make sense? I hope so...

-Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....

 

[PiledHigher]

PiledHigher wrote:
> flyingdutch Wrote:
> > wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> > Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> > If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective
> > only gets backed up
> > "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> > now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and
> > drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky
> > fleshy-based-things...
> >
> > F"ghost in the machine"Dutch
>
> Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!

So which do you prefer? Being splattered on the road by a car and
getting in trouble for not clearing the path for him, or being
splattered on the road by a car and the driver getting in trouble for
driving on the bikepath?
I admit, it's only a small difference and legally there's no problem
with keeping your place on the road but I expect pretty much everyone
in this group take some sort of abuse from drivers every day because
drivers feel that the road belongs to them alone.
On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians. Maybe, some day, if
we keep pushing for bikepaths such as this, decent bikepaths will be
put in, and drivers will be taught to look for bicycles before they
turn... When you get a licence in Scandinavia you fail your test is you
don't look for bikes before turning right and most all drivers
remember to even after several years (of course that would propbably be
because of the likelyhood of the cyclists actually being there, but
that's not the point ;O) wouldn't it be nice if Australian drivers
learnt to look for bikes too?
Personally I belong in the group of people who feel a lot safer on a
bikepath, which sucks cos I'd really like to be able to ride from
somewhere a bit closer to home, but until more bikepaths are put in I'm
limited to what I've got and so is a lot of people who choose not to
use their bikes because of the percieve d risk of not having a bike
path...
Make sense? I hope so...

-Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....

I don't know where to start with this one.

To be recognized as traffic your right need to be respected on the roads. Not on a shoddy bikepath top get you out of the way.

So you would rather have an unsafe alternative that you think is 'safe' than a an actual safe solution. Were do I sign me up for that one.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

nebakke wrote:
>
> PiledHigher wrote:
> > flyingdutch Wrote:
> > > wot? like pedestrians do? where do you draw the line?
> > > Who is this society built around. people or cars? (dont answer that!)
> > > If you answer the common way then the same stereotypical perspective
> > > only gets backed up
> > > "See, even pedestrians/cyclists think cars are more important"
> > > now if we could just find some diabolical way for cars to build and
> > > drive themselves we would have no need for them pesky
> > > fleshy-based-things...
> > >
> > > F"ghost in the machine"Dutch
> >
> > Pedestrians don't move at 40kph!
>
> So which do you prefer? Being splattered on the road by a car and
> getting in trouble for not clearing the path for him, or being
> splattered on the road by a car and the driver getting in trouble for
> driving on the bikepath?

If the bikepath was their driveway, I'd seriously doubt that they'd get
in trouble. Maybe I'm just cynical.

> I admit, it's only a small difference and legally there's no problem
> with keeping your place on the road but I expect pretty much everyone
> in this group take some sort of abuse from drivers every day because
> drivers feel that the road belongs to them alone.

What's this? I hadn't noticed. You mean they weren't just honking and
calling out because they like me? Absent Husband, why didn't you explain
this to me?!

> On top of that flyingdutch makes quite an excellent point... It's not
> just about safety in having your own designated lane, it's also quite
> significantely about cyclists being recognised as a regular part of
> traffic on an equal par with cars and pedestrians. Maybe, some day, if
> we keep pushing for bikepaths such as this, decent bikepaths will be
> put in, and drivers will be taught to look for bicycles before they
> turn... When you get a licence in Scandinavia you fail your test is you
> don't look for bikes before turning right and most all drivers
> remember to even after several years (of course that would propbably be
> because of the likelyhood of the cyclists actually being there, but
> that's not the point ;O) wouldn't it be nice if Australian drivers
> learnt to look for bikes too?

And Australian pedestrians. And non-Australian drivers and pedestrians.
And dogs.

> Personally I belong in the group of people who feel a lot safer on a
> bikepath, which sucks cos I'd really like to be able to ride from
> somewhere a bit closer to home, but until more bikepaths are put in I'm
> limited to what I've got and so is a lot of people who choose not to
> use their bikes because of the percieve d risk of not having a bike
> path...
> Make sense? I hope so...
>
> -Rasmus, who will not be a Bresvegan for much longer it seems....

Where are you off to Rasmus?

 

[Tamyka Bell]

PiledHigher wrote:
<snip>
> I don't know where to start with this one.
>
> To be recognized as traffic your right need to be respected on the
> roads. Not on a shoddy bikepath top get you out of the way.
>
> So you would rather have an unsafe alternative that you think is 'safe'
> than a an actual safe solution. Were do I sign me up for that one.
>
> --
> PiledHigher

Have you been drinking? Just in a rush? I've never seen your
spelling/grammar deteriorate like that before!

Tam