On the News tonight people are once again complaining about the Frome Street Bikeway. Now they are trying to say it slows down ambulances (although there was nobody on the News from SA Ambulance making any complaint). 

They are saying that businesses are being affected by lack of parking (even though there is now more parking than before.

They are complaining about motorists being fined for parking in the bikeway claiming there is no clear signage ( there is plenty of signage are they blind?)

They are complaining bout traffic congestion although the time lapse filming by the TV station showed no congestion at all.

I wish people would stop their whinging and lying. Bikeways are hear to stay so get used to it.

Views: 1445

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The whole article was set-up with a specific agenda to disparage the particular project and sepertaed cycling infrastructure in general. Yesterday morning as I was cycling along Frome St I was flagged down by by Channel 10 for an interview. I spent probably 5 minutes giving my perspective to various questions and it was cut down to a 2 sec grab of me saying that Frome St is excellent and I like it. A couple of quick grabs from cyclists saying they like it, but 2 minutes of disparaging remarks for the rest of the article. What crap!

I think it's safe to say that the media in SA have an irrational negative bias towards cyclists, cycle infrastructure, lower speed limits, bus lanes etc... Anything remotely progressive regarding urban transport planning...

Care to show us where those 'stats' are?.

I am just asking so were the negative stories nearer the front page than the other stories?

How poor of Ch10 - not impressed at all with the negative bias.

And that silly person stating how they nearly got run over by a cyclist - "it's a nightmare". Guess the person puts blinkers on and crosses the road regardless.

This is a very good response to the argument from The Atlantic's Citylab.

When adding bike lanes acually reduces traffic delays.

In New York, smart street design helped the city have its safety and its speed, too.

Image

NYC DOT

A big reason for opposition to bike lanes is that, according to the rules of traffic engineering, they lead to car congestion. The metric determining this outcome (known as "level of service") is quite complicated, but its underlying logic is simple: less road space for automobiles means more delay at intersections. Progressive cities have pushed back against this conventional belief—California, in particular, has led the charge against level of service—but it remains an obstacle to bike lanes (and multi-modal streets more broadly) across the country.

Read more...

Some more whinging - this time about 40kpm zones to go

 

The road is blocked with cars so the ambulance had to drive around the cars.

Some how you should get rid of bikes.

I would hope that anybody who thinks this is sensible is too silly to be allowed on the road.

I saw the news report, the 'Tiser story and the news about the increase back to 50k around Hutt street- Just too much stupid for me to process. 

SAPOL reporting a serious crash between a car and pedestrian, less than a week after they put the limit back up to 50.

That area should be zoned 30 not 50. Too many small businesses and pedestrians.

Ruddager, I also saw on the news that pedestrian hit in Hutt St, and thought of inconsiderate drivers who successfully pushed for higher speed. The Advertiser reported that many wanted 40 km/h -- pedestrians, cyclists, businesses and the nearby school. Too often in car-centric Australia the drivers get priority. Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth have 40 km/h CBDs.

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2020   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service