Melbourne mayor looks to discourage cyclists from some streets

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

@fukawitribe

Fair point - Australia's just an abstraction to me, really, just a pretext for arguing the general point. But still, if a route is officially designated 'not desirable' one wonders how long before that becomes a factor in legal cases in the event of an accident?

Yeah, alas you're probably right.

crikey wrote:

Quote:

(It sounds as if you are coming from the stance that cycling is a leisure/sporting activity and that it doesn't much matter where you cycle?

Just as people who drive cars (incidentally many of the same people who ride bicycles...) don't get up in arms about not being allowed to drive through pedestrianised areas or on pavements, people who ride bicycles might want to consider that some roads are not desirable places to cycle on.

I don't personally agree with segregation and have never been a supporter of removing cyclists from traffic by using separate facilities. There are, however, a number of roads that I choose not to cycle on because I regard them as unsafe.

We could try to make them safe, but the effort would cost a vast amount of money, further destroy valuable natural habitats and scenic valleys all so cyclists can say they won.

If cycling is to become a viable, sensible option for commuting, leisure and sport there are concessions to be made, compromises to be reached and above all a reduction in the silliness that suggests that cycles should be allowed everywhere.

Perhaps we don't radically disagree, but personally I want to see cars to be not allowed in nearly as many places as they currently are (there aren't very many 'pedestrianised areas', that's kind of the problem). That would certainly be the best way to create safer routes for bikes (and pedestrians, for that matter). So yes, concessions need to be made - mostly by motorists, who currently have the upper-hand. The silliest aspect of it is the extent to which motorists are at war with themselves, wanting to both drive and park in the same space.

"I personally don't agree with segregation".

Well there's not much point listening to anything else you say then.

crikey wrote:

There are, however, a number of roads that I choose not to cycle on because I regard them as unsafe..

Surely whether s road is safe or unsafe is a matter of your own perception. You choose not to cycle on roads that you feel are unsafe but someone else might be cool with them. If there are objective standards on safe/unsafe then the councils ought to have already fixed the unsafe ones for fear of a corporate manslaughter charge...

crikey wrote:

I don't personally agree with segregation and have never been a supporter of removing cyclists from traffic by using separate facilities.

It's a slight misquote, but if you ARE in favour of 'banning/restricting cycling on existing roads' (to some degree), and are NOT in favour or providing alternative 'separate, dedicated infrastructure', isn't the logical conclusion of the two that your grand dream for cycling is, 'simply not being able to ride a bike in as many places'?

I'm really struggling to draw any other conclusion, and the two preceding statements seem pretty solid representations of what you've previously stated.

It just somehow doesn't seem very ambitious.

crikey wrote:

I don't personally agree with segregation and have never been a supporter of removing cyclists from traffic by using separate facilities. There are, however, a number of roads that I choose not to cycle on because I regard them as unsafe.

Think about the roads you do choose to cycle on - would everyone else aged 8-80 feel safe cycling on them? Would you be happy for your young niece or elderly aunt to venture out on them by bike? You seem to forget that many roads currently feel very unsafe for a large percentage of the population - including schoolchildren, the elderly, women - that would love to cycle but have no desire to mix with heavy traffic.

crikey wrote:

could try to make them safe, but the effort would cost a vast amount of money

Safe cycling infrastructure doesn't have to mean adding protected bike paths everywhere - just where other alternatives wouldn't be as effective. There is a whole range of things that cities and councils can do - such as filtered permeability - to remove conflict between different modes of transport, as the Netherlands has demonstrated to great effect.

In any case, DfT figures on the cost effectiveness of cycling infrastructure mirror those found across the world: projects in Cambridge and Oxford are expected to yield benefit to cost ratios of 35.5 :1 and 16.5:1. I think those benefits are well worth pursuing.

crikey wrote:

further destroy valuable natural habitats and scenic valleys all so
cyclists can say they won.

I'm mystified by this. First, the article is about central Melbourne and certain of its dangerous and supposedly completely unalterable streets. I visited last year and didn't see many 'valuable natural habitats' or 'scenic valleys'. In the Yarra Valley and Mornington Peninsula, yes, but not the CBD. Does the provision of infrastructure that offers a clean and active mode of transport as an alternative to congesting, polluting motor vehicles really destroy natural habitats?

But, whatever - we can't have cyclists seen to be winning, can we?

crikey wrote:

If cycling is to become a viable, sensible option for commuting, leisure and sport there are concessions to be made, compromises to be reached and above all a reduction in the silliness that suggests that cycles should be allowed everywhere.

I find it interesting that you feel that after decades of compromise and neglect on the part of transport authorities for a valuable mode of active transport, people who wish to use bikes deserve to expect no more than continued compromise and neglect.

And your argument is a strawman, anyway. No one is arguing that 'cycles should be allowed everywhere'. That isn't the case even in the Netherlands now.

crikey wrote:

I don't personally agree with segregation and have never been a supporter of removing cyclists from traffic by using separate facilities. There are, however, a number of roads that I choose not to cycle on because I regard them as unsafe.

Lucky you to have a choice.

Let me paint a real life scenario which is applicable in the UK as it is in AU:

Cyclist plans a new route to Upper Bottomwallop. Knowing the roads are designed by wuckfits he takes care to research and plan recommended roads avoid dangerous roads and sets off. Halfway there he realises the he has missed a turn somewhere and is no longer on the planned route. He has no idea where he is, but still heading in the right general direction so he cycles on looking for signposts. Some way on he finds a signpost pointing to Upper Bottomwallop. Joy! It's not a motorway so he follows the signpost because hey, Upper Bottomwallop is where he wants to go!

A few miles on and the road has merged with another and taken on a different character. He's now aiming a terrified course between HGV's passing on his right and a heavily ridged rumble strip on his left with no way out.

Improbable? That's happened to me and I bet I'm not the only cyclist who's had that, or a similar experience.

You can't have a road system where you say it's OK to use, except where it isn't. That's not OK. Not now, not ever!

Quince wrote:

crikey wrote:

One of the options is to suggest that some roads are not suitable for cycles just as some roads are not suitable for HGVs or buses or cars.

Ideally though, with the caveat that acceptable bicycle-suitable options are actually provided.

This system is already in place to an extent; bikes are banned on Motorways, and 'discouraged' from roads such as the A46 (by way of "Cyclists advised to seek alternative route" signs), as well as shorter strips of road like the Hammersmith flyover.

Designing different roads with different forms of transport in mind is indeed, not a bad idea.

What IS a bad idea is the that of 'improving cyclist safety' solely through restriction, rather than though the enabling safer options.

What 'the modern cyclist' wants above all else is what other person wants from a form of transport; to be able to get where they're going in a safe, straight-forward and direct manner. Simply 'being banned' is unsurprisingly, not what many people are looking for .

If you can argue that 'being banned' alone counts as a holistic solution to balancing the above 3 qualities, then the argument is yours for the taking, and you can continue poncing about on your high horse. If not, then you might be able to see what people are 'stamping their feet' about.

I'm not defending the plans, I haven't seen them and i'll warrant most of the people on here haven't either - however it does seem from the article and the quotes that that plan does not involve a ban (that's discussed a few times) and does have some other fluffier sounding stuff in it..

The proposals are part of the city's draft bicycle plan, which was presented to council after community engagement. Other aspects of the plan include building inter-connected neighbourhood routes and a floating pontoon bike route on the Yarra River.

..whether they are any use to man or beast is another matter, but it would be more useful to slate people for what's actually in the story and their comments rather than some imagined position or quote.

fukawitribe wrote:

I'm not defending the plans, I haven't seen them and i'll warrant most of the people on here haven't either - however it does seem from the article and the quotes that that plan does not involve a ban (that's discussed a few times) and does have some other fluffier sounding stuff in it..

The bit that screams 'ban' the most to me is ironically this one;

"The City of Melbourne's mayor, Robert Doyle, told 3AW radio station: "I don't like the word ban. I like to say some streets yes, some streets maybe, some streets no. A traffic light system.""

More specifically, the "some streets no" part. To my ears "no to bikes" means as much as "bikes banned", regardless of what words the mayor happens to "like to say".

But you're right in that I've swallowed the incendiary bit of the article with a bit too much gusto. It could be that the rest of the plan is full of sensible, progressive suggestions that would drastically improve Melborne as a place to live. I'll flick through it. It may stop me automatically interpreting any article with the words 'bicycle' and 'Australia' as a proclamation of the Apocolypse.

crikey wrote:

This completely ignores the sense of entitlement that the modern cyclist displays.
"I've bought a bicycle therefore I should be allowed to ride it anywhere and anyone who disagrees is a car bound fascist".

Yes, I mean why should we be allowed to use roads that we contribute towards the upkeep of, that by their very definition within the highway code are shared space?

Such entitlement...

crikey wrote:

This completely ignores the sense of entitlement that the modern cyclist displays.
"I've bought a bicycle therefore I should be allowed to ride it anywhere and anyone who disagrees is a car bound fascist".

Does the modern motorist not display pretty much the exact same thing (along with the condition that they be able to park it anywhere)?

Maybe that's just the way of the 'modern person'. Or maybe it's not even that modern at all.

crikey wrote:

This completely ignores the sense of entitlement that the modern motorist displays.
"I've bought a car therefore I should be allowed to ride it anywhere and anyone who disagrees is a cycle bound fascist".

Fixed that for you (I believe is the term)

Bear in mind that Australians are the second-fattest people in the world, after Americans. Discouraging cycling is not a great way to reduce mortality.

(It sounds as if you are coming from the stance that cycling is a leisure/sporting activity and that it doesn't much matter where you cycle? The point is that if its to be a practical way of going from one place to another, if routes aren't safe you need to fix that, not just ban cycling from them)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Bear in mind that Australians are the second-fattest people in the world, after Americans. Discouraging cycling is not a great way to reduce mortality.

Actually as much as I hate fat Australian Mayors I hate bad statistics even more.

For those who are interested you can get the most up to date stats from here: http://www.worldobesity.org/resources/

The league-toppers may surprise you.

Anyone recall the League of Fatties from Judge Dredd? Who would have thought that would be so prophetic...

2old2mould wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Bear in mind that Australians are the second-fattest people in the world, after Americans. Discouraging cycling is not a great way to reduce mortality.

Actually as much as I hate fat Australian Mayors I hate bad statistics even more.

For those who are interested you can get the most up to date stats from here: http://www.worldobesity.org/resources/

The league-toppers may surprise you.

Anyone recall the League of Fatties from Judge Dredd? Who would have thought that would be so prophetic...

I'm not sure I can be bothered to wade into the detail there (I'm lazy!). But I'm going on the study that was widely reported recently, that put Australia at number two in the developed world (the UK isn't very far behind, obviously). It surprised me because I had a completely stereotyped view of Aussies as being bronzed surfer types.

And I don't know what New Zealanders' excuse is, with all that nice pretty Lord-of-The-Rings scenery to go hiking in.

(I mean, Australians I guess have to worry about skin cancer, spiders and sharks, so maybe they have an excuse not to go out - what's keeping NZers from getting out and exercising?)

Might have been this story, can't remember.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/australian-obesity-rates-climbing-...

The only other surprise that came up recently was that Mexico is almost as bad as the US, but that didn't count as a developed country in the list.

I guess its not surprising that Saudi women are so overweight. Lack of cycle infrastructure being the least of the obstacles there.

crikey wrote:

This completely ignores the sense of entitlement that the modern cyclist displays.
"I've bought a bicycle therefore I should be allowed to ride it anywhere and anyone who disagrees is a car bound fascist".

But isn't it more that they've bought a vehicle which is legally entitled to ride on any road which is legally allowed to...? Bikes aren't allowed to ride on motorways so they don't go there. The rest of the road system- certainly here in the UK - is fair game. If a road, not a motorway, is so dangerous that they want to ban cycling there then it's too dangerous full stop, and something really needs to be done about it.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Some roads just aren't good for cycling though.

When I take my motorbike to work (rather than train and bicycle), I commute along a stretch of the A2. I regularly pass cyclists on that road. Yes, bicycles are allowed there technically, but this is a very busy section of dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit and it is not at all suitable for cycles.

Anyone riding it is mad if you ask me. There are other roads running parallel with 30mph limits that are a lot less dangerous for cycle use.

All true, but the public highway is nevertheless public space and should be fit for public use. Why can't cyclists - like any other road user - take a map or a satnav and plan a route from A to B on roads they don't know first hand, and expect it to be safe for their purpose?

ron611087 wrote:

All true, but the public highway is nevertheless public space and should be fit for public use. Why can't cyclists - like any other road user - take a map or a satnav and plan a route from A to B on roads they don't know first hand, and expect it to be safe for their purpose?

Well said, sir; well said!

P3t3 wrote:

Nothing wrong with the principle that bikes and cars/trucks don't mix.

Its just that the way to do that is to build the alternative before the ban not the other way round.

The other way round? You say that as though there is any intention to build the alternative routes!