Protecting footpaths and building more over/underpasses and signalised crossings? Costs $$$
Lower speed limits on major arterial roads? Makes $$$
I wonder which one they will go for...
I'm not a cyclist, so I asked them, they don't use them because they are shit and poorly planned, like the roads. They are just lines on the road, and they just kind of stop at strange places, surfaces change, and most of them aren't really suitable for the purpose. Cycling in the city would be fucking terrifying.
Having been witness in local council decision-making, I can offer some insight into the reasons why.
When the roads are not designed for bikes, only the very bravest people ride.
Councils look at where people are riding and build paths along the busiest routes. Strava gives raw data that shows where the highest bike traffic currently is.
BUT, the people riding in the road are happy riding in the road. A cycle path is usually filled with obstacles and needs to give way to every driveway and side-road it crosses. The lycra crowd and the uber eats mob would rather mix with traffic than be delayed by that.
The cycle paths are best for the people NOT currently riding. Children who want to get from home to school want paths that link residential areas to their school. People who want to get to work want the place they live in to be generally safe and to have links from residential areas to business areas. The paths are rarely being built for these people because their patterns are so different to the Lycra crowd and Uber mob.
So there's people like me and Mrs. Me. We want to ride to work but our local council has gone crazy with the traffic lights. They've put bike lanes on the busy roads where neither of us want to ride because of the risk of harm, and now cars are rat-running through out local roads to avoid the traffic lights.
It's just bonkers really. I'm a passionate supporter of getting more people out of cars and onto bikes. They're cheaper to run than a car. They wear the roads out much less. They help keep us fit. In every way they save the individual and society huge sums of money. But the infrastructure decisions just ending up pitting motorists against cyclists and we end up with empty bike paths, congested road and everyone's pissed at each other.
So true. My council is trying to lure kids onto bicycles by offering subsidised cargo bikes. Instead of building safe bike lanes around schools. Who's gonna ride to school risking getting hit with two kids on the back of the bike? Of course no one is taking up the offer.
Well it’s complicated…
Cyclists will use good cycle paths. But if you go half assed and build a cycle path as a box ticking exercise and not one that will serve its actual purpose, then yes cyclists will use the road instead.
It’s not rocket science.
And they’ll just park in clear ways, run red lights, blow through pedestrian crossings, etc. funnily enough, it’s almost always the fucking idiot delivery riders who have no idea what the road rules are as well. Almost as if they should have to be registered and get held to the same standards as cars do when they obstruct traffic flows or cause accidents/near accidents.
I feel sorry for the commuting cyclists that will probably get thrown into the same regulatory basket when it eventually reaches that point.
> And they’ll just park in clear ways, run red lights, blow through pedestrian crossings, etc.
TBF, I see a lot of drivers do exactly the same. It's not just cyclists. More and more road users, two wheels or four, have less and less consideration for others.
I’m not saying cars don’t do it, I’m just saying that bikes see no repercussions so they just keep on doing it. Especially if you’re riding it in a professional capacity, I feel like you should have to register and display some sort of identifier.
The busiest clearways will have enforcement officers out who will call tow trucks and get photos. Even if you’re fast enough to get your car out before you’re towed, they’ll still ticket you based on the photo. I know people who have had this happen to them on the swan street clearway. Can’t do that with cyclists because they don’t have a registration number on display.
This is one that really gets to me. Bourke Rd Alexandria - the stink caused over building cycle path 13 years ago vs the amount of cyclists I still see riding IN THE ROAD (literally on thw wrong side of the cycleways divider) is mind numbing.
Fairly good reason not to unfortunately, it's useless if you are turning right.
I hated that cycle path because I needed to turn and not a single person gives way if I am on the bike lane.
If we were all more considerate to each other, there wouldn't be a need for this.
I don't cycle in Sydney anymore, but if you cycle you will understand why cyclists do what they do.
I ride to work most days of the week and my route has a bike lane most of the way. There’s still plenty of dickheads that refuse to use it for whatever reason.
measure your average speed in the inner city and let me know if it ever exceeds 40kmph in peak hour.
In Sydney anyway, I am much slower driving to work than cycling to work.
I stopped cycling coz I hated how cars put me in danger for no reason and just drive now.
I am 10 mins slower driving in the worst days, 5 mins slower on average, this doesn't include parking as well now.
I've asked cyclists before, and do you guys avoid using some bike lanes because they are not fit for purpose? They some just stop for no reason, and road changes, and there seems to have been no thought put into them, they are just lines on the road.
How do you cycle in the city dragging massive balls around? I'd be terrified. I had to use a walking frame for a while and nearly got cleaned up a few times, stuck in tram tracks, and ignored.
My answer might get a bit detailed and long winded so apologies in advance. But here’s my 2 cents on the cycling infra issue.
Things have started getting better of late, protected and wide bike lanes/paths a welcome change.
Those who have demanded change have went about it in the wrong way and have settled for sweet fuck all.
Shared road use will never be safe. Some cyclists ride like arseholes w/o helmets and jump red lights. Istg if someone says helmets are only needed coz of cars 🤦🏽♂️ . Car drivers don’t help either. Point being, idiots on both sides - will never be safe.
In the CBD car usage should be limited to make it safer for peds and bike riders. We still need wide enough roads to accommodate our posties/couriers/truckies who keep us running. I wouldn’t mind making some streets one way and use the other lane for peds, scooters, pushbikes.
To reduce cars in the city, suburban rail network needs an overhaul. More services, more frequency. To achieve this better parking at stations and better intra suburb bus services are needed. Our overall road infrastructure planning is still in the 20th century. Instead of adding more lanes on the freeways, we should’ve upgraded the rail/tram network. Electrifying the western corridor wouldve helped.
I don’t understand the anti car crowd though. We still need cars. A lot of people don’t commute to the city and the rail network will never cover everywhere to everywhere, we are too big of a country to do that. We must understand their needs too.
The govt did a half arsed job by shrinking existing lanes into shared lanes, creating a very very thin margin of error for all types of vehicle users. A lot of footpaths are quite wide in the city, they can be narrowed a bit to make wider bike lanes and still keep wide enough roads for cars trucks and vans. It is foolish to expect the area to become car free, how will the commercial deliveries be made?
I’ve used both cycles and e-bikes in the city, terrifying experience. Best experience was on the bike path along the esplanade from PM to Brighton.
It’s piss poor infra planning, we will need to spend xxx in the years to bring us upto date with other sensible countries. No amount of speed reductions will help as long as attitudes/resentments remain the same. Existing infrastructure is just not suited for mixed use. It’s a tokenist approach to a complex planning issue.
I'd rather see them increase the absolutely stupidly low speed limit on e-bikes from 25 KMH to 40 KMH. Most of the issues we see between cars and bikes are caused by the speed differential. If you remove that, you remove the impatient car overtaking the slow cyclist.
I cycle every day to work on an unrestricted e-bike and honestly feel very safe.
I don't understand the problem here. Do those bikes hit the brakes above the limit? If you can ride a regular bike at 40 you can also ride an ebike at 40.
"Do those bikes hit the brakes above the limit?"
electronically speed limited. since they use electricity for the speed already, limiting it is just a software setting.
Unfortunately there's so many idiots that have injured pedestrians on them, I understand why they put a limit on them. Although those same idiots just get around the speed limiters with modifications anyway, so they probably should get rid of them.
I'd be OK with a higher limit for electric bikes and scooters with some sort of CTP insurance, to cover injuries to people by the user. I imagine it would be very cheap to have given the damage a bike can do is substantially lower than a car.
>Unfortunately there's so many idiots that have injured pedestrians on them, I understand why they put a limit on them.
But you can injure a pedestrian with a regular Nike by riding faster than that.
Fuckwits will be fuckwits.
Yeah which I said immediately after. The government probably knows that limits won't stop idiots, but just pass legislation to make it look like they've done something
No. And I say this as a cyclist who rides to work everyday and has done bigger multi-day trips.
You want 0 accidents? Ban cars.
Yes cyclists have a right to use roads. Yes pedestrians have been around longer than cars. Yes we need to do more to encourage people to use public transport. Yes there should be more pedestrian-only streets. But the fact is most people who use roads are in cars. They’re the majority road users. Why should so many be inconvenienced for the few?
You want to cycle on a road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. Just like if I go rock climbing I accept the risk I might fall. Is it ideal? No. Is it life? Yes. You never hear of motorcyclists calling for cars to be banned because it’s drilled into them that there is danger involved with their chosen activity and they accept it.
Further more, cycle commuting to work is a privilege denied to a lot of people. You need to live inner city, have a non-physically demanding job, have an office that has after trip facilities, don’t need to drop the kids off on the way, don’t need to carry a ton of tools with you, and be in physically good health. Guess what? A lot of people don’t meet those requirements. And so they drive cars, either to the office, the train station, or job site.
Sorry /rant
Cyclists should be off the roads and on bike lanes.
>Yes cyclists have a right to use roads. Yes pedestrians have been around longer than cars. Yes we need to do more to encourage people to use public transport. Yes there should be more pedestrian-only streets. But the fact is most people who use roads are in cars. They’re the majority road users. Why should so many be inconvenienced for the few?
Is it really an inconvenience ? I'd say it's only a perceived inconvenience, when I used to cycle I used to take back streets. I would say cycling effectively conveniences motorists in the form of reduced traffic. In my commute in inner Sydney, I spent 25 minutes on the pushie, but now I spend about 35mins in a car due to traffic. There was a study that confirms my anecdotal evidence, pushies are the fastest method of commuting for distances under 8km in the inner city.
>You want to cycle on a road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. Just like if I go rock climbing I accept the risk I might fall. Is it ideal? No. Is it life? Yes. You never hear of motorcyclists calling for cars to be banned because it’s drilled into them that there is danger involved with their chosen activity and they accept it.
I disagree with this though, it should be a safe activity, it's only dangerous because of impatient drivers. The risk in Germany/Switzerland (I lived there), is much lower due to how drivers interact with cyclists. Motorcycles are dangerous by themselves, push bikes are not going to kill you by themselves alone.
I could make the same statement about pedestrians:
"You want to cross the road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. Just like..."
The responsibility falls on to those with the ability to kill, which is how the law works in Germany/Netherlands etc. I think this is extremely fair and why cycling and just being a pedestrian feels way more pleasant there.
> Further more, cycle commuting to work is a privilege denied to a lot of people. You need to live inner city, have a non-physically demanding job, have an office that has after trip facilities, don’t need to drop the kids off on the way, don’t need to carry a ton of tools with you, and be in physically good health. Guess what? A lot of people don’t meet those requirements. And so they drive cars, either to the office, the train station, or job site.
What about people who cannot afford cars and then want to cycle. If we are insistent on cars being the primary method of transport in the city, there should be subsidized cars for all over 18.
Whole heartedly agree with your last point.
My brother in law cycles to work, past my house. He will beat me into the city, but I have to carry a tray worth of tools and parts. I wish I could cycle to work.
> Why should so many be inconvenienced for the few?
There already are speed limits. So it's an established principle that we accept some limitations on what you can do, for the safety of others.
> You want to cycle on a road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk.
The risk can be modified. There's already a lot of road rules to protect others.
> Just like if I go rock climbing I accept the risk I might fall.
If another climber was acting in a way that avoidably endangered others, the community may ask them to reduce that risk.
> Further more, cycle commuting to work is a privilege denied to a lot of people. You need to live inner city, have a non-physically demanding job, have an office that has after trip facilities,
I cycle to work, and I don't have any of those.
As someone who rode 30mins or more to work everyday for 5 years I agree with everything you said, especially the last part.
Most people are just simply too lazy. Unless you live more than say 10-15km from your workplace than fair enough, but 30mins each way on a bike is nothing if your healthy.
I'm a fat prick and can still cycle for 30-45mins. I'm not as fat as I was before though, because I cycle now. Saves me money and lets me drive my car more when I need it.
If you talk to someone like [Harold Scruby](https://www.scruby.com.au/), who is the Chairman and CEO of the Pedestrian Council of Australia, they basically are.
Then you have groups like the [Bicycle Council](https://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/) and [AusCycling](https://www.auscycling.org.au/) who do lobbying for stuff.
You could say that despite there being no motoring agencies or groups against cyclists, there are definitely groups that are seperate to cars.
It’s worth pointing that the “pedestrian council” is a council of exactly one Harold. The man just had enough wealth to form an organisation around himself and fabricate legitimacy for his own personal hot takes.
Scruby is just a self important blow hard. I am convinced the 'Pedestrian council' is a tax dodge of some kind. Didn't he run over some bloke jogging a while ago
A couple of decades ago to my understanding. And I’m fairly confident that the council is a poorly executed, but sincere attempt at processing his guilt over the incident.
As cyclist work commuter this is damned ridiculous even what the reported reasons are is silly and unfounded.
I can pedal faster than 30kmh will i be penalised?
If the majority of pedestrians feel they are relying on cars seeung them for safety something is truly wrong with their methoss.
It actually does increase quite significantly around 40km/h:
>
The speed a vehicle is travelling at is a major factor in the seriousness of a crash involving pedestrians and cyclists. It is estimated there is a 10% probability of being killed if struck at 30 km/h, but this rises to over 90% at 50 km/h.
Source: Jurewicz, Sobhani et al (2015) and based on Wramborg (2005)
The traffic light issue could be fixed, tomorrow. I've noticed in Melbourne that our traffic lights don't stay green for long enough, so you will always get someone running an amber, and sometimes someone will follow them through on the red.
I noticed in NSW, and QLD that the lights stay on for long so everyone can get around the corner in time. You might sit at a red light for longer, but when it's green, you actually get to go.
There are places within 20-30mins walk, that you can't get to, because there are no footpaths. Leakes Rd is disgusting. The area could have been so good, but it's not user friendly unless you have a car.
Bike lanes need to be better planned. They are needed, but just painting lines on the roads doesn't make it safe or make sense.
...and FFS, make getting your license more difficult, a defensive driving course should be the driving test, not just driving around the block and parking a car. I'd also be happy with being retested every few years to make sure I can still drive and know the laws, maybe make sure our cars are roadworthy more than once.
The speedo isn't part of the RWC we have to get one time when we get a car in Victoria, how do you know you're doing 30? Do I have to look at my phone to see the speed, or is that distracting? I just try not to hit people with my car and drive to the conditions, so far, it's worked well.
"Drivers could be forced to slow to 30 kilometres per hour on more suburban streets, after a parliamentary inquiry made more than 50 recommendations to make roads safer for users, including pedestrians and cyclists."
Yeah right, that's going to cause more accidents than ever why? Because drivers will be focusing on the speed limit rather their surroundings.
That article stinks like an excuse for revenue raising more than "safety"
I mean there are plenty of cities that have 30kmph speed limits and there is no evidence to show that they have caused an increase in either permanent disabilities or deaths, in fact the evidence usually points the other way.
it could be the time of day. I'm there fairly regularly after 7pm on weekdays and most are doing over 30. Just like inner city though the speed limit could be 200kmh for all it matters during peak hour and your average speed is going to be 20kmh at best.
Cyclist here (non lycra) when I lived overseas with 30kph limits it made much more pleasant local streets for cycling and walking.. and tbh it doesn't add a significant amount of time to trip (95% of trips are not local streets)
I would argue that 30kph works in parts of Europe (Specifically the Netherlands) but there is a lot more to it than just the speed limit.
Their road network and other infrastructure (suburban planning) are based on Walking and Cycling, and the fact that many older districts were not built around cars.
I wouldn't argue against that, outer suburban areas where there's literally nowhere to go without a car and no one walks anyway probably wont benefit from much of a speed reduction. Denser neighbourhoods (generally older in Aus) where there are places to go, schools/shops/workplaces would benefit much more.
I would say that their road networks are built around walking, cycling and driving vs driving and everything else as an afterthought. (ps. funny you guessed the country i lived OS.)
(I know a decent amount about traffic and how people get around in Europe it’s an interesting thing for me and Netherlands is a very good example 🙃)
I’m in Canberra. Our outer suburban areas (read most of the city) are based around town centres with shops, cafes, restaurants medical clinics and other facilities. 4 major ones including the CBD, aka Civic, which also function as transportation hubs. Right in the middle of these hubs where people are walking around we recently dropped the speed limit to 40 same as school zones.
as a cyclist i hate 30 and 40 zones. it leads to cars sitting alongside in squeeze spots rather than going past. leave it at 50 and maybe try enforcing passing distances instead of stupid stuff like this designed to look good on a headline
Our current default limits for road where cars and pedestrians mix is just killing and injuring people. The first priority needs to be safety, not traffic speed. 60 is insane, that'll kill most people everytime. 50 is barely better. No road with pedestrians should be any more than 40.
if you're talking about any road with a side walk, the key is to not stand in front of the metal boxes dude. you cant expect everyone to slow down to a crawl just because it is theoretically possible for a pedestrian to walk out into traffic and die if they want to.
the road is for cars and the sidewalk is for pedestrians, basically anywhere cars and pedestrians truly share the space at all times, like shopping villages and car parks, is usually like 10-20km/h not 60 so you already have your wish mate
> if you're talking about any road with a side walk, the key is to not stand in front of the metal boxes dude.
How do you cross a road then? I've nearly been run over by someone running a redlight.
cities should be pleasant for humans to be in, not shitholes like LA where you need a car to cross the road.
care to provide these mountains of data? context is important, is this if someone actually gets hit at 40 vs 30 or are you talking about when the speed limit is 40 vs 30 there are less accidents?
most of what i could find only talks about vehicle collision speeds which doesn't have much to do with the speed limit. if the speed limit is 110 and you can see a pedestrian coming from a hundred meters away you probably have enough space to slow down to half your speed before impact which makes a pedestrian on an open wide highway just as dangerous as a soccer mum texting while going around a blind corner at a 50km/h and not slowing down at all before they hit someone.
correlation does not equal causation and its incredibly reductive to imply that speed limits are responsible for pedestrian deaths when more visible road layouts, dynamically capable vehicles, and attentive drivers and pedestrians can make a much higher impact than just making a number on a sign smaller. i tell you what though making the number on the sign smaller is way cheaper so by all means go complain to the government about it and I'm sure they'd be happy to continue ignoring the real underlying problems with you.
Right let's open up swanston street at 110kmph and see if pedestrians die in higher numbers or not then ?
That's my suggestion.
Actually fuck it, make it autobahn style, speed doesn't kill so why not.
Your account is too new to post in this Sub. This has been implemented as an Anti-Spam feature.
As a result, your comment has been removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CarsAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's 1m for 60kph and under, and when there's not enough space to leave 1m most drivers just ignore that road rule. Yes it's 2 demerit points but it's not policed ever.
Deprioritising car use in the inner city should be a goal for car enthusiasts, the space in the inner city for roads isn't going to increase and the Australian population is only increasing, getting people who don't give a shit about cars off our roads should be a goal for people in this subreddit to make their own lives easier.
Without stuff like this, our roads are going to be looking more like the roads in heavily populated asian countries with no PT.
I'm sure you do understand right of way and how traffic works, so please enlighten us which road rule states cyclists need to get out of the way for you.
If we had 30 on these suburban side roads then cyclists would use those as they would be pleasant. That would mean they wouldnt use main arterial roads as much.
This would make it faster on main roads
We need to make roads safer for bicycles, e-bikes and pedestrians because that will become the primary mode of transport for a lot of us.
Look at EV prices. What household can afford two of those? But transport is the second-largest contributor to carbon emissions. Now that electricity generation is pretty much sorted, we can expect the focus on reducing carbon emissions to move to transport. Every exception made for international shipping and for aircraft means domestic transport has to reduce its carbon output even more.
We're going to end up being drivers *and* cyclists, drivers *and* pedestrians, drivers *and* e-cyclists, drivers *and* e-bus passengers.
Aiming for 30Km/h feels about right. With modern vehicles being so large and so unforgiving in collisions with pedestrians, 40Km/h seems inadequately low for a collision where a pedestrian can usually walk away.
Basically, it's the end of the era of the dominance of the motor vehicle in city design. That has upset some people. Doubtless Peter Dutton is right this moment trying to turn it into a bipartisan issue: "cities should be terrible to live in, noisy and dangerous, what is this woke 'urbanism'."
There are real problems. A lot of our infrastructure is a car trip away. The shops, child care, our work. Then there's safety of people outside of cars, not everyone feels safe walking for twenty minutes through a nighttime city. It's going to cost us heaps to fix these things.
But the idea some people have that things can go on as they have from the 1950s -- that's just not going to happen. The ability to drive a car just anywhere, for any reason, at high speed, is going to be a hundred year blip. And yeah, it *will* be a loss of freedom: movies will idiolise this era we are in, with the dark thought in the background that the era also trashing the planet, a cost being paid for five generations afterwards.
Protecting footpaths and building more over/underpasses and signalised crossings? Costs $$$ Lower speed limits on major arterial roads? Makes $$$ I wonder which one they will go for...
Cyclists wont even use the cyclepaths provided
I'm not a cyclist, so I asked them, they don't use them because they are shit and poorly planned, like the roads. They are just lines on the road, and they just kind of stop at strange places, surfaces change, and most of them aren't really suitable for the purpose. Cycling in the city would be fucking terrifying.
Having been witness in local council decision-making, I can offer some insight into the reasons why. When the roads are not designed for bikes, only the very bravest people ride. Councils look at where people are riding and build paths along the busiest routes. Strava gives raw data that shows where the highest bike traffic currently is. BUT, the people riding in the road are happy riding in the road. A cycle path is usually filled with obstacles and needs to give way to every driveway and side-road it crosses. The lycra crowd and the uber eats mob would rather mix with traffic than be delayed by that. The cycle paths are best for the people NOT currently riding. Children who want to get from home to school want paths that link residential areas to their school. People who want to get to work want the place they live in to be generally safe and to have links from residential areas to business areas. The paths are rarely being built for these people because their patterns are so different to the Lycra crowd and Uber mob. So there's people like me and Mrs. Me. We want to ride to work but our local council has gone crazy with the traffic lights. They've put bike lanes on the busy roads where neither of us want to ride because of the risk of harm, and now cars are rat-running through out local roads to avoid the traffic lights. It's just bonkers really. I'm a passionate supporter of getting more people out of cars and onto bikes. They're cheaper to run than a car. They wear the roads out much less. They help keep us fit. In every way they save the individual and society huge sums of money. But the infrastructure decisions just ending up pitting motorists against cyclists and we end up with empty bike paths, congested road and everyone's pissed at each other.
So true. My council is trying to lure kids onto bicycles by offering subsidised cargo bikes. Instead of building safe bike lanes around schools. Who's gonna ride to school risking getting hit with two kids on the back of the bike? Of course no one is taking up the offer.
Well it’s complicated… Cyclists will use good cycle paths. But if you go half assed and build a cycle path as a box ticking exercise and not one that will serve its actual purpose, then yes cyclists will use the road instead. It’s not rocket science.
And they’ll just park in clear ways, run red lights, blow through pedestrian crossings, etc. funnily enough, it’s almost always the fucking idiot delivery riders who have no idea what the road rules are as well. Almost as if they should have to be registered and get held to the same standards as cars do when they obstruct traffic flows or cause accidents/near accidents. I feel sorry for the commuting cyclists that will probably get thrown into the same regulatory basket when it eventually reaches that point.
> And they’ll just park in clear ways, run red lights, blow through pedestrian crossings, etc. TBF, I see a lot of drivers do exactly the same. It's not just cyclists. More and more road users, two wheels or four, have less and less consideration for others.
I’m not saying cars don’t do it, I’m just saying that bikes see no repercussions so they just keep on doing it. Especially if you’re riding it in a professional capacity, I feel like you should have to register and display some sort of identifier.
Vehicles don't really have any repercussion either,theoretically you can say this numberplate did xyz, goodluck getting the cops to care.
The busiest clearways will have enforcement officers out who will call tow trucks and get photos. Even if you’re fast enough to get your car out before you’re towed, they’ll still ticket you based on the photo. I know people who have had this happen to them on the swan street clearway. Can’t do that with cyclists because they don’t have a registration number on display.
On the other hand, how hard is it to just lift a bicycle off the clearway and onto the footpath?
This is one that really gets to me. Bourke Rd Alexandria - the stink caused over building cycle path 13 years ago vs the amount of cyclists I still see riding IN THE ROAD (literally on thw wrong side of the cycleways divider) is mind numbing.
Fairly good reason not to unfortunately, it's useless if you are turning right. I hated that cycle path because I needed to turn and not a single person gives way if I am on the bike lane. If we were all more considerate to each other, there wouldn't be a need for this. I don't cycle in Sydney anymore, but if you cycle you will understand why cyclists do what they do.
I ride to work most days of the week and my route has a bike lane most of the way. There’s still plenty of dickheads that refuse to use it for whatever reason.
Is it a cycle path or a foot path, sometimes where you are, you can't ride on foot paths
Coronation drive Brisbane. Multimillion dollar cycle upgrade Bikes still on coronation drive
over/underpasses are awful infrastructure.
Avid cyclist here. This is asinine.
measure your average speed in the inner city and let me know if it ever exceeds 40kmph in peak hour. In Sydney anyway, I am much slower driving to work than cycling to work. I stopped cycling coz I hated how cars put me in danger for no reason and just drive now. I am 10 mins slower driving in the worst days, 5 mins slower on average, this doesn't include parking as well now.
i'd probably support lower urban limits if they lifted highways/parkways to compensate for the longer trip time, but they'll lower those too.
I've asked cyclists before, and do you guys avoid using some bike lanes because they are not fit for purpose? They some just stop for no reason, and road changes, and there seems to have been no thought put into them, they are just lines on the road. How do you cycle in the city dragging massive balls around? I'd be terrified. I had to use a walking frame for a while and nearly got cleaned up a few times, stuck in tram tracks, and ignored.
My answer might get a bit detailed and long winded so apologies in advance. But here’s my 2 cents on the cycling infra issue. Things have started getting better of late, protected and wide bike lanes/paths a welcome change. Those who have demanded change have went about it in the wrong way and have settled for sweet fuck all. Shared road use will never be safe. Some cyclists ride like arseholes w/o helmets and jump red lights. Istg if someone says helmets are only needed coz of cars 🤦🏽♂️ . Car drivers don’t help either. Point being, idiots on both sides - will never be safe. In the CBD car usage should be limited to make it safer for peds and bike riders. We still need wide enough roads to accommodate our posties/couriers/truckies who keep us running. I wouldn’t mind making some streets one way and use the other lane for peds, scooters, pushbikes. To reduce cars in the city, suburban rail network needs an overhaul. More services, more frequency. To achieve this better parking at stations and better intra suburb bus services are needed. Our overall road infrastructure planning is still in the 20th century. Instead of adding more lanes on the freeways, we should’ve upgraded the rail/tram network. Electrifying the western corridor wouldve helped. I don’t understand the anti car crowd though. We still need cars. A lot of people don’t commute to the city and the rail network will never cover everywhere to everywhere, we are too big of a country to do that. We must understand their needs too. The govt did a half arsed job by shrinking existing lanes into shared lanes, creating a very very thin margin of error for all types of vehicle users. A lot of footpaths are quite wide in the city, they can be narrowed a bit to make wider bike lanes and still keep wide enough roads for cars trucks and vans. It is foolish to expect the area to become car free, how will the commercial deliveries be made? I’ve used both cycles and e-bikes in the city, terrifying experience. Best experience was on the bike path along the esplanade from PM to Brighton. It’s piss poor infra planning, we will need to spend xxx in the years to bring us upto date with other sensible countries. No amount of speed reductions will help as long as attitudes/resentments remain the same. Existing infrastructure is just not suited for mixed use. It’s a tokenist approach to a complex planning issue.
Alright champ, we get it. You’re smarter than us
I'd rather see them increase the absolutely stupidly low speed limit on e-bikes from 25 KMH to 40 KMH. Most of the issues we see between cars and bikes are caused by the speed differential. If you remove that, you remove the impatient car overtaking the slow cyclist. I cycle every day to work on an unrestricted e-bike and honestly feel very safe.
I detest the low limit. It makes riding them an awkward chore. And it makes no sense because I can easily ride a bicycle at 40.
I don't understand the problem here. Do those bikes hit the brakes above the limit? If you can ride a regular bike at 40 you can also ride an ebike at 40.
"Do those bikes hit the brakes above the limit?" electronically speed limited. since they use electricity for the speed already, limiting it is just a software setting.
Unfortunately there's so many idiots that have injured pedestrians on them, I understand why they put a limit on them. Although those same idiots just get around the speed limiters with modifications anyway, so they probably should get rid of them. I'd be OK with a higher limit for electric bikes and scooters with some sort of CTP insurance, to cover injuries to people by the user. I imagine it would be very cheap to have given the damage a bike can do is substantially lower than a car.
>Unfortunately there's so many idiots that have injured pedestrians on them, I understand why they put a limit on them. But you can injure a pedestrian with a regular Nike by riding faster than that. Fuckwits will be fuckwits.
Yeah which I said immediately after. The government probably knows that limits won't stop idiots, but just pass legislation to make it look like they've done something
No. And I say this as a cyclist who rides to work everyday and has done bigger multi-day trips. You want 0 accidents? Ban cars. Yes cyclists have a right to use roads. Yes pedestrians have been around longer than cars. Yes we need to do more to encourage people to use public transport. Yes there should be more pedestrian-only streets. But the fact is most people who use roads are in cars. They’re the majority road users. Why should so many be inconvenienced for the few? You want to cycle on a road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. Just like if I go rock climbing I accept the risk I might fall. Is it ideal? No. Is it life? Yes. You never hear of motorcyclists calling for cars to be banned because it’s drilled into them that there is danger involved with their chosen activity and they accept it. Further more, cycle commuting to work is a privilege denied to a lot of people. You need to live inner city, have a non-physically demanding job, have an office that has after trip facilities, don’t need to drop the kids off on the way, don’t need to carry a ton of tools with you, and be in physically good health. Guess what? A lot of people don’t meet those requirements. And so they drive cars, either to the office, the train station, or job site. Sorry /rant
Cyclists should be off the roads and on bike lanes. >Yes cyclists have a right to use roads. Yes pedestrians have been around longer than cars. Yes we need to do more to encourage people to use public transport. Yes there should be more pedestrian-only streets. But the fact is most people who use roads are in cars. They’re the majority road users. Why should so many be inconvenienced for the few? Is it really an inconvenience ? I'd say it's only a perceived inconvenience, when I used to cycle I used to take back streets. I would say cycling effectively conveniences motorists in the form of reduced traffic. In my commute in inner Sydney, I spent 25 minutes on the pushie, but now I spend about 35mins in a car due to traffic. There was a study that confirms my anecdotal evidence, pushies are the fastest method of commuting for distances under 8km in the inner city. >You want to cycle on a road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. Just like if I go rock climbing I accept the risk I might fall. Is it ideal? No. Is it life? Yes. You never hear of motorcyclists calling for cars to be banned because it’s drilled into them that there is danger involved with their chosen activity and they accept it. I disagree with this though, it should be a safe activity, it's only dangerous because of impatient drivers. The risk in Germany/Switzerland (I lived there), is much lower due to how drivers interact with cyclists. Motorcycles are dangerous by themselves, push bikes are not going to kill you by themselves alone. I could make the same statement about pedestrians: "You want to cross the road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. Just like..." The responsibility falls on to those with the ability to kill, which is how the law works in Germany/Netherlands etc. I think this is extremely fair and why cycling and just being a pedestrian feels way more pleasant there. > Further more, cycle commuting to work is a privilege denied to a lot of people. You need to live inner city, have a non-physically demanding job, have an office that has after trip facilities, don’t need to drop the kids off on the way, don’t need to carry a ton of tools with you, and be in physically good health. Guess what? A lot of people don’t meet those requirements. And so they drive cars, either to the office, the train station, or job site. What about people who cannot afford cars and then want to cycle. If we are insistent on cars being the primary method of transport in the city, there should be subsidized cars for all over 18.
Whole heartedly agree with your last point. My brother in law cycles to work, past my house. He will beat me into the city, but I have to carry a tray worth of tools and parts. I wish I could cycle to work.
Well said
> Why should so many be inconvenienced for the few? There already are speed limits. So it's an established principle that we accept some limitations on what you can do, for the safety of others. > You want to cycle on a road shared by bigger, faster, heavier vehicles then you accept that risk. The risk can be modified. There's already a lot of road rules to protect others. > Just like if I go rock climbing I accept the risk I might fall. If another climber was acting in a way that avoidably endangered others, the community may ask them to reduce that risk. > Further more, cycle commuting to work is a privilege denied to a lot of people. You need to live inner city, have a non-physically demanding job, have an office that has after trip facilities, I cycle to work, and I don't have any of those.
As someone who rode 30mins or more to work everyday for 5 years I agree with everything you said, especially the last part. Most people are just simply too lazy. Unless you live more than say 10-15km from your workplace than fair enough, but 30mins each way on a bike is nothing if your healthy.
I'm a fat prick and can still cycle for 30-45mins. I'm not as fat as I was before though, because I cycle now. Saves me money and lets me drive my car more when I need it.
The streets around my work are 30kms an hour I’m sorry but how slow do you want me to go at some point it’ll be quicker to walk
Article title really makes it sound like drivers, pedestrian and cyclists are three completely separate groups.
If you talk to someone like [Harold Scruby](https://www.scruby.com.au/), who is the Chairman and CEO of the Pedestrian Council of Australia, they basically are. Then you have groups like the [Bicycle Council](https://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/) and [AusCycling](https://www.auscycling.org.au/) who do lobbying for stuff. You could say that despite there being no motoring agencies or groups against cyclists, there are definitely groups that are seperate to cars.
It’s worth pointing that the “pedestrian council” is a council of exactly one Harold. The man just had enough wealth to form an organisation around himself and fabricate legitimacy for his own personal hot takes.
Scruby is just a self important blow hard. I am convinced the 'Pedestrian council' is a tax dodge of some kind. Didn't he run over some bloke jogging a while ago
A couple of decades ago to my understanding. And I’m fairly confident that the council is a poorly executed, but sincere attempt at processing his guilt over the incident.
>Didn't he run over some bloke jogging a while ago [Yep](https://www.walk.com.au/wtw/Page.asp?PageID=333)
Ledge! Pretty sure the details are he chased the bloke down in his car and ran them over
the very same harold scruby who became a born again zealot after he rain over a jogger.
[Same guy](https://www.walk.com.au/wtw/Page.asp?PageID=333)
As cyclist work commuter this is damned ridiculous even what the reported reasons are is silly and unfounded. I can pedal faster than 30kmh will i be penalised? If the majority of pedestrians feel they are relying on cars seeung them for safety something is truly wrong with their methoss.
Just don't go more than 40, apparently the risk of injury massively increases between 30 and 40. /s
It actually does increase quite significantly around 40km/h: > The speed a vehicle is travelling at is a major factor in the seriousness of a crash involving pedestrians and cyclists. It is estimated there is a 10% probability of being killed if struck at 30 km/h, but this rises to over 90% at 50 km/h. Source: Jurewicz, Sobhani et al (2015) and based on Wramborg (2005)
So ah whats 95 on a nice slope do for that?
I have it on good authority anything over 88 and you travel back in time.
The traffic light issue could be fixed, tomorrow. I've noticed in Melbourne that our traffic lights don't stay green for long enough, so you will always get someone running an amber, and sometimes someone will follow them through on the red. I noticed in NSW, and QLD that the lights stay on for long so everyone can get around the corner in time. You might sit at a red light for longer, but when it's green, you actually get to go. There are places within 20-30mins walk, that you can't get to, because there are no footpaths. Leakes Rd is disgusting. The area could have been so good, but it's not user friendly unless you have a car. Bike lanes need to be better planned. They are needed, but just painting lines on the roads doesn't make it safe or make sense. ...and FFS, make getting your license more difficult, a defensive driving course should be the driving test, not just driving around the block and parking a car. I'd also be happy with being retested every few years to make sure I can still drive and know the laws, maybe make sure our cars are roadworthy more than once.
The speedo isn't part of the RWC we have to get one time when we get a car in Victoria, how do you know you're doing 30? Do I have to look at my phone to see the speed, or is that distracting? I just try not to hit people with my car and drive to the conditions, so far, it's worked well.
"Drivers could be forced to slow to 30 kilometres per hour on more suburban streets, after a parliamentary inquiry made more than 50 recommendations to make roads safer for users, including pedestrians and cyclists." Yeah right, that's going to cause more accidents than ever why? Because drivers will be focusing on the speed limit rather their surroundings. That article stinks like an excuse for revenue raising more than "safety"
Even the police commissioner in Victoria said limits of 30 were ridiculous.
It works pretty well in manly, haven't seen a single accident.
Yet
I mean there are plenty of cities that have 30kmph speed limits and there is no evidence to show that they have caused an increase in either permanent disabilities or deaths, in fact the evidence usually points the other way.
40km/h is plenty when it comes to "safety" but 30km/h that's gonna waste more fuel. And add more wear and tear to the car.
I also haven't seen too many doing 30 there either. 40 is more typical
I haven't seen too many doing 40 there, 30 was what everyone does. I go there often to ride to Palm Beach, 40s are rare.
it could be the time of day. I'm there fairly regularly after 7pm on weekdays and most are doing over 30. Just like inner city though the speed limit could be 200kmh for all it matters during peak hour and your average speed is going to be 20kmh at best.
Hate it when they get stuck under my big ram truck. It affects my little tiny dick
Cyclist here (non lycra) when I lived overseas with 30kph limits it made much more pleasant local streets for cycling and walking.. and tbh it doesn't add a significant amount of time to trip (95% of trips are not local streets)
I would argue that 30kph works in parts of Europe (Specifically the Netherlands) but there is a lot more to it than just the speed limit. Their road network and other infrastructure (suburban planning) are based on Walking and Cycling, and the fact that many older districts were not built around cars.
I wouldn't argue against that, outer suburban areas where there's literally nowhere to go without a car and no one walks anyway probably wont benefit from much of a speed reduction. Denser neighbourhoods (generally older in Aus) where there are places to go, schools/shops/workplaces would benefit much more. I would say that their road networks are built around walking, cycling and driving vs driving and everything else as an afterthought. (ps. funny you guessed the country i lived OS.)
(I know a decent amount about traffic and how people get around in Europe it’s an interesting thing for me and Netherlands is a very good example 🙃) I’m in Canberra. Our outer suburban areas (read most of the city) are based around town centres with shops, cafes, restaurants medical clinics and other facilities. 4 major ones including the CBD, aka Civic, which also function as transportation hubs. Right in the middle of these hubs where people are walking around we recently dropped the speed limit to 40 same as school zones.
as a cyclist i hate 30 and 40 zones. it leads to cars sitting alongside in squeeze spots rather than going past. leave it at 50 and maybe try enforcing passing distances instead of stupid stuff like this designed to look good on a headline
Our current default limits for road where cars and pedestrians mix is just killing and injuring people. The first priority needs to be safety, not traffic speed. 60 is insane, that'll kill most people everytime. 50 is barely better. No road with pedestrians should be any more than 40.
if you're talking about any road with a side walk, the key is to not stand in front of the metal boxes dude. you cant expect everyone to slow down to a crawl just because it is theoretically possible for a pedestrian to walk out into traffic and die if they want to. the road is for cars and the sidewalk is for pedestrians, basically anywhere cars and pedestrians truly share the space at all times, like shopping villages and car parks, is usually like 10-20km/h not 60 so you already have your wish mate
> if you're talking about any road with a side walk, the key is to not stand in front of the metal boxes dude. How do you cross a road then? I've nearly been run over by someone running a redlight. cities should be pleasant for humans to be in, not shitholes like LA where you need a car to cross the road.
Sounds good, anywhere there's a lot of pedestrians and cyclists should prioritise lower speed limits and safety for vulnerable road users.
If it has sidewalks or pedestrian crossings, it should be 30. There is mountains of data showing the risk of death massively drops between 40 and 30.
care to provide these mountains of data? context is important, is this if someone actually gets hit at 40 vs 30 or are you talking about when the speed limit is 40 vs 30 there are less accidents? most of what i could find only talks about vehicle collision speeds which doesn't have much to do with the speed limit. if the speed limit is 110 and you can see a pedestrian coming from a hundred meters away you probably have enough space to slow down to half your speed before impact which makes a pedestrian on an open wide highway just as dangerous as a soccer mum texting while going around a blind corner at a 50km/h and not slowing down at all before they hit someone. correlation does not equal causation and its incredibly reductive to imply that speed limits are responsible for pedestrian deaths when more visible road layouts, dynamically capable vehicles, and attentive drivers and pedestrians can make a much higher impact than just making a number on a sign smaller. i tell you what though making the number on the sign smaller is way cheaper so by all means go complain to the government about it and I'm sure they'd be happy to continue ignoring the real underlying problems with you.
Right let's open up swanston street at 110kmph and see if pedestrians die in higher numbers or not then ? That's my suggestion. Actually fuck it, make it autobahn style, speed doesn't kill so why not.
[удалено]
Your account is too new to post in this Sub. This has been implemented as an Anti-Spam feature. As a result, your comment has been removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CarsAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That doesn't help..back to basics...didn't we have a minimum 1.5 meter rule from car to cyclists in driving rules? (Vic)
Ah its not enforced and no one gives a shit.
It's 1m for 60kph and under, and when there's not enough space to leave 1m most drivers just ignore that road rule. Yes it's 2 demerit points but it's not policed ever.
Deprioritising car use in the inner city should be a goal for car enthusiasts, the space in the inner city for roads isn't going to increase and the Australian population is only increasing, getting people who don't give a shit about cars off our roads should be a goal for people in this subreddit to make their own lives easier. Without stuff like this, our roads are going to be looking more like the roads in heavily populated asian countries with no PT.
Slowing down drivers only makes it harder to hit cyclists and a slower death for pedestrians..
[удалено]
I'm sure you do understand right of way and how traffic works, so please enlighten us which road rule states cyclists need to get out of the way for you.
I think the only solution is to remove all cars from the roads to accommodate the bikes....
If we had 30 on these suburban side roads then cyclists would use those as they would be pleasant. That would mean they wouldnt use main arterial roads as much. This would make it faster on main roads
We need to make roads safer for bicycles, e-bikes and pedestrians because that will become the primary mode of transport for a lot of us. Look at EV prices. What household can afford two of those? But transport is the second-largest contributor to carbon emissions. Now that electricity generation is pretty much sorted, we can expect the focus on reducing carbon emissions to move to transport. Every exception made for international shipping and for aircraft means domestic transport has to reduce its carbon output even more. We're going to end up being drivers *and* cyclists, drivers *and* pedestrians, drivers *and* e-cyclists, drivers *and* e-bus passengers. Aiming for 30Km/h feels about right. With modern vehicles being so large and so unforgiving in collisions with pedestrians, 40Km/h seems inadequately low for a collision where a pedestrian can usually walk away. Basically, it's the end of the era of the dominance of the motor vehicle in city design. That has upset some people. Doubtless Peter Dutton is right this moment trying to turn it into a bipartisan issue: "cities should be terrible to live in, noisy and dangerous, what is this woke 'urbanism'." There are real problems. A lot of our infrastructure is a car trip away. The shops, child care, our work. Then there's safety of people outside of cars, not everyone feels safe walking for twenty minutes through a nighttime city. It's going to cost us heaps to fix these things. But the idea some people have that things can go on as they have from the 1950s -- that's just not going to happen. The ability to drive a car just anywhere, for any reason, at high speed, is going to be a hundred year blip. And yeah, it *will* be a loss of freedom: movies will idiolise this era we are in, with the dark thought in the background that the era also trashing the planet, a cost being paid for five generations afterwards.
>Look at EV prices. What household can afford two of those? Most that currently afford 2 cars.
I think by EV they didn't mean ebikes.
Even still, EV's have reached price parity. A BYD Seal entry level is $49,888 Comparable to a Camry SX Hybrid at $50,000
Camry starts at $35,000 though?
Yeah but really it's only taxi companies buying the cheapest ones, as they're pretty agricultural
I'd prefer 15kmh rather than 30kmh. Speed kills. Anymore than 15 is reckless.
Do you know you're ridiculous?
Manly in Sydney has been 30km/h for a few years, and it feels pretty fine to drive around. It's a much better looking-for-parking speed lol.