Pedal Power gives ALP, Greens a 'pass' grade on cycling

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Isn’t it reasonable to expect that an investment of millions of dollars of taxpayers money be utilised 24/7 instead of only 2 hours every day?
It is incomprehensible that it has been built apparently for some elite commuters who pay nothing for the privilege and even sponge a daily free shower from their employer.
What a niggardly mob they are.

Silly argument, this 24/7 nonsense. Our roads, and this may surprise you are designed more or less for peak load with an allowance for a bit of delay during peak hour. So they are not actually utilised to their full extent 24×7 either. So by your argument, most of our roads should just be single lane. Doesn’t matter if peak hour lasts 4, because then we would be using em roads and not wasting the 22, ok I will give you 20 hours a day our roads are actually very very very under utilised.

Not as much as the (sometimes) shared bike paths though.

dungfungus said :

Isn’t it reasonable to expect that an investment of millions of dollars of taxpayers money be utilised 24/7 instead of only 2 hours every day?
It is incomprehensible that it has been built apparently for some elite commuters who pay nothing for the privilege and even sponge a daily free shower from their employer.
What a niggardly mob they are.

Silly argument, this 24/7 nonsense. Our roads, and this may surprise you are designed more or less for peak load with an allowance for a bit of delay during peak hour. So they are not actually utilised to their full extent 24×7 either. So by your argument, most of our roads should just be single lane. Doesn’t matter if peak hour lasts 4, because then we would be using em roads and not wasting the 22, ok I will give you 20 hours a day our roads are actually very very very under utilised.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Anne Treasure said :

As a car driver myself, I’m pretty happy that some of my fees go to cycling infrastructure, because the more people who cycle for transport means fewer cars on the road.

But it also means more cyclists on the road, who are more of an obstruction to traffic than a car is, because they travel half the speed of a car but still [legally] take up as much space on the road. As long as they use the off-road cycling infrastructure it is money well spent but if they insist on using car lanes instead of the smoother, designated paths, they shouldn’t get another cent.

Posts from the pro-cycle lobby on this thread confirm that the expensive off-road cycling infrastructure is not being utilised extensively so I guess it is not money well spent.

dungfungus said :

Isn’t it reasonable to expect that an investment of millions of dollars of taxpayers money be utilised 24/7 instead of only 2 hours every day?
It is incomprehensible that it has been built apparently for some elite commuters who pay nothing for the privilege and even sponge a daily free shower from their employer.
What a niggardly mob they are.

Only recently there was a discussion here that concluded that Canberra has shared paths, not cycleways, and that the paths exist for all off-road users.
The majority of Canberrans are at some point an off-road user, whether walking, riding, or using a wheel chair, so the paths are there to cater to the majority of Canberrans, not just ‘elite commuters’. And to rehash a response to an earlier point you made, roads and paths are funded out of consolidated revenue, so everyone pays for roads, even if it’s only through GST. To say that cyclists don’t contribute to funding their demands is ignorance.

As for 24/7? Are you saying we should be directing truck traffic through every suburban throughout the night to make sure every road is used 24/7? Exactly what percentage of roads do you think is used ’24/7′? What is 24/7? How many vehicles are supposed to pass a point every minute to constitute ’24/7′ usage and how is that different from bicycle usage? Have you ever walked down a suburban street in the early hours of the morning? Ever driven in regional Australia?

dungfungus said :

Most Canberrans can drive a car but not all can ride a bicycle and there are parts of Canberra that only the fittest cyclists can negotiate.

Car drivers that never cycle not only pay for the roads they drive on but they pay for the cycle paths they will never ride on. Does that sound equitable?

I have difficulty in reconciling your claim that you want fewer cars on the road but you are happy to see revenue collected from cars being applied to cycling infrastructure (that very few people use).

Yesterday, I drove along the Monaro Highway from Hume to Gungahlin. Despite this thoroughfare having dedicated cycle lanes (the section between the Airport and Federal Highway costing millions of dollars) I did not see one cyclist. The weather was perfect for “active transport” and the road traffic was very light.

How do you explain that and justify the massive expenditure for it?

Mate are you kidding. It was a work day, cyclists tend towards 35-45 male professionals, so they are all working.

The reason why cyclist registration will never work is because all those who have a license and car registration but do not actually drive will demand equal treatment. Funds for roads etc come out of general funding not some special ‘car driver’ fund. I have a license and contribute to rego/insurance etc but only drive once maybe twice a week on weekend and ride the rest. I actually subsidise the road system for everyone else by paying taxes (and insurance etc). If we made costs proportionate to use and economic contribution then I would be riding on the best paths in the world and you’d be paying a huge increase.

By the way, the hidden cost is insurance. My risk profile is practically non-existent and yet I subsidise insurance costs for those who drive two or three times a day. Surely it is only fair I pay 1/10 or less for insurance costs. They would ever only offer me a token reduction on my premium and jack your insurance costs up an order of magnitude. Next time you are listening to talkback radio, you should definitely bring that up. (I pay cycling insurance as well through PP membership.)

wildturkeycanoe said :

Anne Treasure said :

As a car driver myself, I’m pretty happy that some of my fees go to cycling infrastructure, because the more people who cycle for transport means fewer cars on the road.

But it also means more cyclists on the road, who are more of an obstruction to traffic than a car is, because they travel half the speed of a car but still [legally] take up as much space on the road. As long as they use the off-road cycling infrastructure it is money well spent but if they insist on using car lanes instead of the smoother, designated paths, they shouldn’t get another cent.

Convenient paths are not everywhere’

“smoother, designated paths”

You are joking aren’t you, or are demonstrating you have never ridden on them? Go for a ride around the lake and then tell me what parts are smoother (in better condition) than the roads. Dirt and small stones washed across the paths, grass intruding, patched (if lucky).

Anne Treasure said :

As a car driver myself, I’m pretty happy that some of my fees go to cycling infrastructure, because the more people who cycle for transport means fewer cars on the road.

But it also means more cyclists on the road, who are more of an obstruction to traffic than a car is, because they travel half the speed of a car but still [legally] take up as much space on the road. As long as they use the off-road cycling infrastructure it is money well spent but if they insist on using car lanes instead of the smoother, designated paths, they shouldn’t get another cent.

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

dungfungus said :

Dondon said :

dungfungus said :

[
Car drivers that never cycle not only pay for the roads they drive on but they pay for the cycle paths they will never ride on. Does that sound equitable?

Waa wa. We get it you don’t like cyclists.

I pay for a whole bunch of government services in my rather large tax bill that I don’t use. Rather than be a pork chop about it, I suck it up as it is part of living in a civil society.

I have never said I don’t like cyclists. In fact, I am on record as stating I always give way to them and respect they have a right to share our roads.
There are idiot cyclists and idiot drivers.

What I don’t like is the disproportionate amount of resources that are allocated to cycling infrastructure in the Territory and the way it has become politicised.

Instead of offering a puerile attack on me why don’t you try and explain why no one appears to be using the multi-million dollar cycleway adjacent to the new Majura Expressway?

I drive along there multiple times a week to and from work, and can assure you I see cyclists using it almost every single time I drive along that way.

“almost every time…..”

My case rests.

Unless you are driving along there between 7:30am and 8:30am, then again in the afternoon between 4:30 and 5:30 you are unlikely to see many. Generally speaking commuter cyclists who need to travel a more than 10km are early starters and early finishes. Even if they aren’t they generally get to work to shower and change before 9 and takes a minimum of about 20 minutes.

Also when you look at the traffic cams at intersections with 10 cars and 10 cyclists the cyclists get going faster and spread out far more quickly than cars do. So the volume of cycist get dealt with quicker.
Though it seems that you are of the opinion that the cycle path must have cyclists on it all the time.

Isn’t it reasonable to expect that an investment of millions of dollars of taxpayers money be utilised 24/7 instead of only 2 hours every day?
It is incomprehensible that it has been built apparently for some elite commuters who pay nothing for the privilege and even sponge a daily free shower from their employer.
What a niggardly mob they are.

Dondon said :

dungfungus said :

“almost every time…..”

My case rests.

I didn’t see any cars on the Majura expressway the other day, I guess then why did the government pay 100s of millions of dollars building that when we could have stuck with the old road.

My case rests

More puerility in trying to defend the indefensible.

dungfungus said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

dungfungus said :

Dondon said :

dungfungus said :

[
Car drivers that never cycle not only pay for the roads they drive on but they pay for the cycle paths they will never ride on. Does that sound equitable?

Waa wa. We get it you don’t like cyclists.

I pay for a whole bunch of government services in my rather large tax bill that I don’t use. Rather than be a pork chop about it, I suck it up as it is part of living in a civil society.

I have never said I don’t like cyclists. In fact, I am on record as stating I always give way to them and respect they have a right to share our roads.
There are idiot cyclists and idiot drivers.

What I don’t like is the disproportionate amount of resources that are allocated to cycling infrastructure in the Territory and the way it has become politicised.

Instead of offering a puerile attack on me why don’t you try and explain why no one appears to be using the multi-million dollar cycleway adjacent to the new Majura Expressway?

I drive along there multiple times a week to and from work, and can assure you I see cyclists using it almost every single time I drive along that way.

“almost every time…..”

My case rests.

Unless you are driving along there between 7:30am and 8:30am, then again in the afternoon between 4:30 and 5:30 you are unlikely to see many. Generally speaking commuter cyclists who need to travel a more than 10km are early starters and early finishes. Even if they aren’t they generally get to work to shower and change before 9 and takes a minimum of about 20 minutes.

Also when you look at the traffic cams at intersections with 10 cars and 10 cyclists the cyclists get going faster and spread out far more quickly than cars do. So the volume of cycist get dealt with quicker.
Though it seems that you are of the opinion that the cycle path must have cyclists on it all the time.