Links to AC discussions include:

 

Doddsy, would you like to contribute?

Views: 130

Replies to This Discussion

Doddsy, thanks for contributing. You are the first, other than coordinator I. The group was started last week and already 14 members. Will promote the new group when more links added.

2nd attempt at posting the letter to NSW's new transport minister.

 

"Dear Duncan,

I'd just like to congratulate you on becoming the new roads minister.
I'd also like to talk about your statement in regards to cycleways "If you don't use them, you may well lose them." Fair enough i say and i believe cyclists/motorists such as myself have nothing to worry about as we do use them and they appear to be crowded of a morning/afternoon, in particular the Harbour Bridge Bike route is already overcrowded and in need of an upgrade. It is however hard to use cycleways that don't exist, you see the cycleway network is not complete yet and so far there's only 5 cycleways in Sydney. Would you judge a motorway that is incomplete? I don't think so.

Cycling is the best way to travel short distances and the healthiest way to travel long, it is the ideal way for the millions of Australians that live and work locally to travel, although all road users have a right to use public space, motorists have no right to put cyclists safety at risk and they certainly have no right to create a congested and hostile traffic environment. Unfortunately this is already the case, our business districts are already congested and hostile, i am worried about the "build more roads" election promise, why on earth would you try and funnel more traffic into an already congested area? Have you ever flushed a blocked toilet? The result is never pretty.

A high level of cycling participation is crucial towards reducing the congestion and safety issues created by unnecessary automobile use.

I hope that you can pull the RTA into line in regards to the pedestrianisation of traffic light sequences, many of Sydney's traffic lights are missing entire crossings, its as if the RTA expects people to cross at lights three times in order to cross a road once, it is a very dangerous practice. Apparently we have a state of the art traffic light system, if you ask me there is not much state of the art about making people wait longer just to be able to cross a road. According to the link below our "state of the art system" has been around since the 70's and congestion has only got worse.
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/australia_innovates/?behaviour=view...
This traffic light system is even worse at accommodating cyclists, as we generally stick to quiet roads (or cycleways).
Please consider recalling this state of the art traffic light system and start prioritising the movement of people instead of machines. It is hard to use the new college street cycleway when our "state of the art" traffic lights funnel you away from the cycleway and onto the main road.

We'd also like you to consider introducing some form of vulnerable road users legislation.
The amendment to the Crimes Act requires the vulnerability of a victim to be taken into account when sentencing. Vulnerability due to age, or occupation, but vulnerability in the road environment is not, yet it fits the spirit of this legislation.
To tackle road rage, to boost security and protection for all road users we need to hold people responsible for the danger their vehicles impose on others, a new form of Vulnerable Road Users Legislation is required. Australian road rule legislation needs to acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes, but the motor vehicle always kills the pedestrian or cyclist.
Right of Way on our roads needs to be based around the least most threatening vehicles on our roads. Pedestrians should have right of way over cyclists and motor vehicles (As they already do.) Cyclists should have right of way over motor vehicles etc. (As they currently do not.)

Section 236 subsections 1-3 of the Australian road rules must apply to cyclists as it does to pedestrians.
236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or
Obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into
the path of a driver.
Offence provision.
(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any
driver or another pedestrian.
Offence provision.
(3) For sub rule (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct
the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more
slowly than other pedestrians.

Please update our legislation so as to keep pedestrians right of way over cyclists and automobiles, but give cyclists right of way over automobiles also.

Thanks for your time and good luck for the future.

Kind Regards

Michael Dodd.
R1633 royal exchange,
38-40 Pitt street
Sydney 2000


p.s the photo's attached are.
1. A demonstration of how much space 60 cyclists save when compared to 60 single occupant motorists
2. How crowded the Sydney harbour bridge steps are of a morning.
3. A photo taken back when Sydney had a rich main stream cycling culture, long before cyclists were forced off the road and pedestrians had the west side of the bridge confiscated."

 

Thanks for the mention, i need to think about this media section further.

Not such a fan of the "look left, look right, look bike." Type road safety advertisements, i d much rather see people reminded of the driving basics, such as how to signal and look before changing lanes. No one even seems to know how to change lanes anymore.
As much as i love my car, lets face it, a car is a piece of machinery and it is dangerous. To me road safety is leaving my car at home and only using it as a last option. I only drive my car to carry heavy things and get out of town when public transport isn't an option.

I like this advertisement, it isn't reallya bout road safety, but it does encourage people to leave their cars at home.

Doddsy, you ask for vulnerable road users legislation which is a longer term aim of this group.

Your turn of phrase made me laugh.

i am worried about the "build more roads" election promise, why on earth would you try and funnel more traffic into an already congested area? Have you ever flushed a blocked toilet? The result is never pretty.

Many cyclists using the Sydney Harbour Bridge steps. Thankfully a bicycle ramp was added.

A Vulnerable road users legislation is definitely something that we tend to overlook, although many of us admire Copenhagen or other cycling friendly cities in Europe, we seem to only have tunnel vision for bike lanes and cycleways. Cyclists have right of way over machinery in many european cities. 

 

The general cycling community needs to start pushing for more and i believe some form of Vulnerable road users legislation is the way to go.

When you think about it, its probably easier to introduce than infrastructure, because it doesn't involve funding or fighting for public space.

We need to get the Australian cycling community to start pushing for this. 

Thanks for the support Doddsy. I have put that in the header as a future aim of Look For Cyclists.

I would also like the one metre minimum clearance become law, rather than suggested in multiple government documents like The Driver's Handbook and Austroads for truckies. The State Government approved narrowing of Churchill Road until not enough space for one metre clearance between bicycle and trucks. Despite a legal case where authorities found liable when a cyclist injured as a result of not following Austroads. Making it law would not help where roads are too narrow, but it would make authorities think twice before narrowing other freight / arterial / commuter routes, or when designing new roads. Thinking of the newish Port River Expressway where plenty of land, but DTEI designed a road that does not safely cater for cyclists. A possible factor in the death of a cyclist there on Ride to Work Day 2010.

I would also like local and state governments to more closely follow Austroads when designing, upgrading or maintaining roads. Recently I attended a presentation by international road safety expert Prof Fred Wegman where he spoke of designing good guidelines and improving them. In my question, I referred to the many guidelines that were not being followed by Prospect Council and the State Government in regards to cyclist safety in changing Churchill Road. I asked him, "What is the use of guidelines if authorities do not follow them?" He paused for a while, before saying, "I cannot answer your question."

I did something similar at a later presentation by Fred Hansen, again supported by the government. I said that I had noticed he talked of active transport. Some info about Churchill Road. That I had contacted authorities and politicians to no avail. Then asked how to get authorities to walk the talk. His response was vague. Premier Rann, whom I had written to, was present. Unfortunately when a cyclist is killed in Churchill Road, I can provide info to the courts on how the authorities ignored cyclist safety.

Looking again at the photo of congestion as cyclists use the steps on Sydney Harbour Bridge.  Once on the bridge, is there a (separated) bicycle lane, or what?

I walked the bridge a few years ago outside of peak hour but was not looking for cycling facilities. Many years since I drove the bridge and overwhelmed by the amount of lane changing, as drivers try to get to the correct side for their exit street. I would not want to cycle in those conditions.

Story in The National of 2-Jun-2011. Survey found that Australians too scared to ride their bikes.

" Aussies want to jump on their bike but they're just too afraid to start pedalling . . . Most said they would like more Federal Government action on active transport."
http://www.news.com.au/national/australians-too-scared-to-ride-thei...

Lives at risk from unsafe car designs [This is about pedestrians but also applies to cyclists.]
http://www.indaily.com.au/?iid=50415&sr=0#folio=001, Published in Prospect Indaily on 18-Jul-2011 on page 1, Melissa Mack

The lives of Adelaide pedestrians are being put at risk by car companies more interested in making their cars cheap and good-looking rather than safely designed, a safety research group says.
It means that being a hit by a car in Adelaide can be more dangerous for a pedestrian than being hit by a car in Europe or Japan, where the safety standards are more stringent.
In one case cited by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research [CASR], an imported vehicle had some safety features removed to make it more attractive for the Australian market.
CASR, based at Adelaide University, has called for international safety regulations to be introduced in Australia.
“If we had a regulation similar to Europe or Japan we would see a reduction in the fatalities and injuries of pedestrians,” CASR’s Andrew van den Berg told Indaily.
The regulations include such design elements as a minimum clearance between a car bonnet and the engine; and leg protection including foam or crushed aluminium cans behind the front bumper.
Ten pedestrians have been killed in SA this year. In one frightening statistic provided by CASR, a vehicle fitted with a steel bull-bar need only be travelling at 30km/h to cause a pedestrian fatality.
Earlier this year the federal government moved to introduce minimum pedestrian safety standards for vehicles but halted the consultation phase after strong lobbying from the automotive industry, particularly the manufacturers of bull-bars. [Can AC and cyclists lobby for their protection from unnecessary bull-bars?]
Van den Berg is the manager of CASR’s Impact Laboratory at Kent Town, which tests cars from Asia and Japan on behalf of the national safety regulator, Australia New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP).
“In some cases [safety] measures could be removed for the Australian and American market, but by doing these tests it encourages manufacturers to keep those designs.”
He said ANCAP generally accepted at face-value the European test results for cars imported from there, although he knew of one case where the Australian model had been changed and made more dangerous.
“It has happened once but has been fixed,” he said, without naming the make.
Next year ANCAP will include minimum performance levels for pedestrian safety standards in its five-star rating system and will progressively lift the standard each year until the maximum is reached in 2015.
But van den Berg said the ANCAP change would not necessarily be enough to improve the safety of imports.
“There are some manufacturers that don’t pay attention to ANCAP. Some aren’t looking to get a five-star safety rating; they are looking to bring cars in as cheaply as possible.
“A lot of the cheap imported cars don’t have the pedestrian safety design elements there.”
Vehicle imports from China, Malaysia and India were under particular notice, he said.
Van den Berg also said some safety elements could come second to a car’s appearance.
“You want as much clearance as possible between the engine and the bonnet skin.
“So if there are design elements like a low bonnet and a large engine, adding more clearance might mean raising the height, which means changing the aesthetics.”
Without at least 60mm of clearance, a person’s head had a high chance of fatally hitting the objects under the bonnet including the battery, suspension towers, engine or steel firewall.
Local car manufacturer Holden said the ANCAP safety ratings would be taken into account but pedestrian safety was a complicated issue. Durability was a factor, for example ensuring that a bonnet was not easily dented simply from being closed.
Holden director of external communications Emily Perry said another factor was the minimum five years it took to develop a new car.
“So the introduction of new regulations like vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, emissions standards, etcetera, need to give car makers reasonable time to design and engineer new features into a car and bring to market,” she said.
“We don’t talk about future product because it is commercially sensitive but a range of new pedestrian safety features can be expected in our upcoming locally-made and imported models.”
Of all the claims to the SA Motor Accident Commission, 5.6 per cent are for pedestrian injury but they account for 11.6 per cent of all claims costs for rehabilitation – about $40 million annually.
“The over representation in costs is as a result of a pedestrians vulnerability in any impact with a car,” MAC corporate affairs general manager Ben Tuffnell said.
Victoria led a change to mandatory electronic stability control in new cars, a move that is being adopted nationally next year, and CASR’s van den Berg suggested SA could similarly lead the way in legislating for pedestrian-safe vehicles.
However, Road Safety Minister Tom Kenyon said the SA market was “not big enough for us to go it alone”.
“The Federal Government is responsible for the introduction of nationally consistent pedestrian safety standards for new vehicles,” he said.
“While Victorian leadership in relation to mandatory electronic stability control was commendable, South Australia continues to be committed to a national approach for new vehicle safety standards, and will not pursue individual state-level regulation.”


Pedestrians: Be Holden aware, http://www.indaily.com.au/?iid=50415&sr=0#folio=001, Published in Prospect Indaily on 18-Jul-2011 on page 1.

From next year the Australian New Car Assessment Panel (ANCAP) will introduce a minimum standard of pedestrian protection for cars to achieve its 5-star rating. From its existing current testing regime, here are two examples.

http://www.ancap.com.au/pdf/387.PDF
The Subaru Imprezza, Tested on 09/2007, Pedestrian rating 4 stars
This is the first vehicle tested by ANCAP to achieve a four star rating – the maximum available for pedestrian protection. Child head impacts 10.53. Adult head impacts 8.94. Upper leg impacts 2.29. Lower leg impacts 6. Total (out of 36) 27.76.

http://www.ancap.com.au/pdf/299.PDF
The Holden Commodore, Tested on 10/2008, Pedestrian rating 1 star
The Commodore’s bonnet provided fair to marginal protection for many of the adult and child head zones. Leg results were uniformly poor, and performance could be improved in this area. Child head impacts 5.980. Adult head impacts 3.000. Upper leg impacts 0.000. Lower leg impacts 0.000. Total (out of 36) 8.980.

AC post at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/forum/topics/bicycle-anti-harassmen... alerted me to media story.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21/local/la-me-bicycle-law-201...
Bicyclist harassment outlawed by Los Angeles City Council
New law makes it a crime for drivers to threaten cyclists verbally or physically.
Published in Los Angeles Times on 21-Jul-2011
By Kate Linthicum

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday passed a pioneering new law intended to protect bicyclists from harassment by motorists.
The ordinance, which backers described as the toughest of its kind in the nation, makes it a crime for drivers to threaten cyclists verbally or physically, and allows victims of harassment to sue in civil court without waiting for the city to press criminal charges.
Its passage comes one day after a 63-year-old bicyclist was struck and killed by a car on a downtown street — an incident that bicycle advocates say underscores the dangers cyclists face.
The new law is the latest bicycle-friendly measure to hit L.A., where an increasingly vocal community of activists has been calling for more protections.
Several of them showed up at City Hall on Wednesday to share stories of harassment; they described motorists who threw objects, shouted insults and tried to run them off the road.
As the number of cyclists on L.A. streets has swelled — local census data from 2008 show that about 13,000 commute to work on bikes, a 48% increase over the last eight years — so too have conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. Some motorists have accused cyclists of flouting traffic laws, while cyclists have complained that they are treated like second-class citizens.
The new law allows cyclists to sue in civil court and collect up to three times their damages, plus attorney's fees. Ross Hirsch, a lawyer who helped craft the law, said the potential for high compensation will make attorneys more likely to take on cyclists as clients.
Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists, said no other city offers bicyclists an equivalent civil recourse. "It's a ground-breaking move," he said.
L.A. lawmakers have garnered national attention with several bike-friendly measures in the last two years.
In 2011, the Los Angeles Police Department convened a bicycle task force and launched new training that acquaints officers with laws that protect cyclists, including traffic codes that relate to bicycle lanes and rights of way. And earlier this year, the city passed an ambitious new bicycle master plan that calls for the paving of more than 200 miles of new bicycle routes every five years.
City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who championed that plan and wrote the new anti-harassment law, said, "It's about time cyclists have rights."
He became an advocate for the community in 2008 after two cyclists pedalling on a curvy road in his Brentwood district were seriously injured when a driver slammed on his brakes in front of them. The motorist, physician Christopher Thompson, was convicted of numerous charges, including assault with a deadly weapon.
At the state level, legislators are considering a law that would require drivers to give cyclists at least 3 feet of space while passing. Senate Bill 910 is cosponsored by the city of Los Angeles, and it has won the support of local politicians, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who recently launched a "Give Me Three!" safety campaign.

I think this is a big deal and thanks to Cadel recent media attention provides a  great opportunity.

If you agree with me in regards to the idea of some form of Vulnerable Road Users Legislation. Please send belows message or something similar to our cycling figureheads.

 

Titled:  Extra Media Attention and an opportunity for Vulnerable Road Users Legislation.

Hi,
 
Just curious why you aren't advocating for some sort of weight based right of way system (Vulnerable Road Users Legislation)?
 
Surely we should be following the trend of world leaders in regards to a weight based right of way system.
 
Everyone makes mistakes, but the vehicles that cause the damage should certainly pay for the damage.
 
The amendment to the Crimes Act requires the vulnerability of a victim to be taken into account when sentencing. Vulnerability due to age, or occupation, but vulnerability in the road environment is not, yet it fits the spirit of this legislation.
To tackle road rage, to boost security and protection for all road users we need to hold people responsible for the danger their vehicles impose on others, a new form of Vulnerable Road Users Legislation is required. Australian road rule legislation needs to acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes, but the motor vehicle always kills the pedestrian or cyclist.
Right of Way on our roads needs to be based around the least most threatening vehicles on our roads. Pedestrians should have right of way over cyclists and motor vehicles (As they already do.) Cyclists should have right of way over motor vehicles etc. (As they currently do not.)

Section 236 subsections 1-3 of the Australian road rules must apply to cyclists as it does to pedestrians.
236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or
Obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into
the path of a driver.
Offence provision.
(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any
driver or another pedestrian.
Offence provision.
(3) For sub rule (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct
the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more
slowly than other pedestrians.
 
Thanks
 
Michael Dodd

 

SA office@bikesa.asn.au

NSW http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/contact

VIC https://www.bv.com.au/sendmessage/?cx=2

Quehttp://www.bq.org.au/about/contact/

ACToffice@pedalpower.org.au

WAhttp://btawa.org.au/contact-us/

TASinfo@biketas.org.au

Speed limit review for Adelaide CBD

MOTORING: A blanket 40km/h speed limit might yet be imposed on the Adelaide CBD, despite city councillors rejecting plans for a trial in Hutt St. A report to a council committee a fortnight ago recommended against a trial and said a review of the councils traffic management for the whole CBD was underway.

The review has the potential for creation of a lower speed limit of 40km/h to apply city wide or on a majority of streets.

The review will involve public consultation over the next three months. Any change to speed limits would have to be approved by the Transport Department.

Above from City North Messenger of 17-Aug-2011 on page 3.

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2020   Created by Gus.   Powered by

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