NRMA sucks

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.
--

Done!

--
Remove norubbish to reply

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Zebee

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Wrong. He has done a dis-service to NRMA members as his solution would
not solve the traffic congestion in the longer time frame. Providing
more lanes would just last a few months and then it'll be just as
congested as before, if not worse. His statement was short term and
money driven. All this proved was that he is a man who lacked vision and
not deserve to lead the organization.
--

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Zebee

The arguement NRMA are trying to put up is for the amount of cost to put in
cycling infrastructure beside and seperate from major traffic arteries is
not being utilised enough and that the money could be spent otherwise on
motorised transport but my veiw say is, if we didn't have those cycleways
that keep most cycles off major arteries,then what is the cost to the
community for every cyclist that gets knocked off his bike,seriously hurt or
worse, Killed. When that cost is added up, then eventually the cycleways
will pay for themselves in todays dollars not tomorrows.
Most cyclists, including myself are rate payers,tax payers,car owners
contrubuting to road taxes etc; so I beleive that cyclists are as much
entitled to infrustructure as any other members of our communities.
It's about time Australian Governements woke up to themselves and promote
cycling as an alternative transport like they do in many European countries.
I guess this is a broad general statement to make but one i must get off my
chest, aaahhh feel better now!!

DJ

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/200...
/09/1199554742667.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.

Quoted message said:

What retrograde vision?

Quoted message said:

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Quoted message said:

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Quoted message said:

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Quoted message said:

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

Quoted message said:

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Quoted message said:

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Wrong. He has done a dis-service to NRMA members as his solution would
not solve the traffic congestion in the longer time frame. Providing
more lanes would just last a few months and then it'll be just as
congested as before, if not worse. His statement was short term and
money driven. All this proved was that he is a man who lacked vision and
not deserve to lead the organization.

Indeed... as an NRMA member, I see what his (short-sighted) point is,
but maybe he might like to delve a bit deeper. (I am also considering
as a member how I can voice my displeasure).

Is this $300,000/cyclist Epping cycleway the one being constructed as
a direct result of the M2 laneway closure? If so, blame is squarely at
the feet of the NSW gov't and their incompetent management of public/
private partnerships.

He doesn't appear to spot the underlying point: 130/day used the old
M2 cycleway, because it was a step in the right direction, and worked
(sort of). Now, however, only 25/day use the new facilities, because
they are a step backwards.

Personally, I have no problem with zero cycleways, as long as
motorists understand that I have a right to use the traffic lanes.
Stuck in a bus carrying 40 pax to the city behind a slow cyclist?
Tough.

Duncan said:

Is this $300,000/cyclist Epping cycleway the one being constructed as
a direct result of the M2 laneway closure? If so, blame is squarely at
the feet of the NSW gov't and their incompetent management of public/
private partnerships.

Ok.. so it seems the NRMA is complaining about the gridlock on Epping
road where it is now down to one lane.

What they seem to forget, is that
a) one lane on Epping Rd is in the tunnel contract. Roadworks are not
the cause, nor will there be more traffic lanes when they are
complete.
b) One of the other two lanes will be a bus lane (good)
c) if NSW govco didn't put a cycle lane in the remaining space, too
many people might start to ask questions around election time. Hence
the need for the NSW gov't to spend squillions on a cycle lane to
coverup their misdeeds ((see a), above).

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.
--

Media Release from CPF: Cyclists dispute NRMA's claim: Sydney needs more bike paths, not less
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/300/9/

Quote: NRMA claims that cycle paths are a waste of money show the motoring group to be out of touch with the realities of city livability, transport planning and even other motoring organisations. "Cities around the world are rediscovering the benefits of cycling. Soaring world oil prices, the urgent need to combat climate change and crippling traffic congestion have all converged to cause a surge of interest in boosting bicycle use" said Elliot Fishman, Policy Advisor at the Cycling Promotion Fund.

"Widening the road to relieve congestion, as the NRMA suggests, is like putting more holes in a belt to solve an obesity problem" said Fishman.

cfsmtb said:

Media Release from CPF: Cyclists dispute NRMA's claim: Sydney needs more
bike paths, not less
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/300/9/

CPF probably got the same response Evans' secretary sent to me and other
MTB-OZzers:

Dear John

Thank you for your email regarding NRMA's position on cycle lanes. It
is important to note that our recent comments were made specifically
regarding the current changes on Epping Road in Sydney.

NRMA believes that the priority for Sydney's road network is to keep
traffic moving and ensure that those limited resources are directed
towards achieving this goal.

When it comes to Epping Road, we believe this is simply not occurring.
At present 35,000 vehicles per day use Epping Road and recent roadwork's
and lane reductions has seen this result in serious congestion. By
comparison just 25 cyclists a day are using the taxpayer funded $7.5
million cycle lane. We do not believe that this is a sensible use of
resources.

Traffic delays resulting from a crash in the Lane Cove Tunnel could
easily stretch back to the CBD, impacting on all road users as the
proposed single lane on Epping Road simply will not cope.

Our concern is that Sydney motorists will be the biggest losers when the
Lane Cove Tunnel roadwork's are completed and new bus lanes, a cycleway
and single traffic lanes become permanent fixtures on Epping Road. We
have put forward a number of alternatives to the Roads and Traffic
Authority to ensure motorists are not forced to use the Lane Cove
Tunnel.

These measures include:

* Changing the bus and transit lanes to a T2 transit lane. The
current proposal for a T3 transit lane leading into a bus lane and then
changing to a T2 transit lane is inconsistent and deters people from
car-sharing.

* Widening the general traffic lanes, which have been squeezed to
make way for the new cycle path and will not be wide enough to cater for
the petrol tankers and other vehicles that are not allowed in the
tunnel, or alternatively introducing a tidal flow traffic lane to keep
Epping Road moving.

We will continue to work with the RTA - and in the public arena - to
ensure that motorists get a fair deal when it comes to Epping Road.

NRMA supports cycling in areas that are safe for the cyclist and safe
for the motorist.

NRMA's position on this, and indeed on all the issues that we address,
are derived from extensive and continuing research and surveying of our
Members.

We will not resile from defending our Members' interests on important
issues such as this.

Thank you again for taking the time to inform me of your views.

Regards
Alan H Evans
President
NRMA Motoring & Services

-----Original Message-----
From: John Stevenson [[email hidden]]
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:15 AM
To: Alan Evans
Subject: Cyclists are members too

Dear Alan

Please remember that plenty of cyclists are NRMA members too. In fact
the NRMA probably counts among its membership more cyclists than do any
of the cycling organisations in NSW.

Yours and the NRMA's attitude toward your cyclist members as implied in
today's Sydney Morning Herald is therefore extremely disappointing.

Provision of road facilities for different user types is not a zero-sum
game. Better facilities for cyclists means fewer cars on the road, which

in turn eases congestion for those who drive. Building bigger and better

roads just leads to more traffic at the inevitable city choke points, as

the M5 extension demonstrated. NRMA should therefore take a position
strongly in favour of well-designed bike facilities.

The bike lanes you mention in today's SMH story are not well-designed
and are under-used because they are either unfinished or so short as to
be useless. That's not an argument for spending the money on car
facilities instead, it's an argument for the government providing us
cyclists, your members, with useful alternatives to driving.

Sincerely

John Stevenson

Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply

Dear Jack

Thank you for your email regarding NRMA's position on cycle lanes. It
is important to note that our recent comments were made specifically
regarding the current changes on Epping Road in Sydney.

NRMA believes that the priority for Sydney's road network is to keep
traffic moving and ensure that those limited resources are directed
towards achieving this goal.

When it comes to Epping Road, we believe this is simply not occurring.
At present 35,000 vehicles per day use Epping Road and recent roadwork's
and lane reductions has seen this result in serious congestion. By
comparison just 25 cyclists a day are using the taxpayer funded $7.5
million cycle lane. We do not believe that this is a sensible use of
resources.

Traffic delays resulting from a crash in the Lane Cove Tunnel could
easily stretch back to the CBD, impacting on all road users as the
proposed single lane on Epping Road simply will not cope.

Our concern is that Sydney motorists will be the biggest losers when the
Lane Cove Tunnel roadwork's are completed and new bus lanes, a cycleway
and single traffic lanes become permanent fixtures on Epping Road. We
have put forward a number of alternatives to the Roads and Traffic
Authority to ensure motorists are not forced to use the Lane Cove
Tunnel.

These measures include:

* Changing the bus and transit lanes to a T2 transit lane. The
current proposal for a T3 transit lane leading into a bus lane and then
changing to a T2 transit lane is inconsistent and deters people from
car-sharing.

* Widening the general traffic lanes, which have been squeezed to
make way for the new cycle path and will not be wide enough to cater for
the petrol tankers and other vehicles that are not allowed in the
tunnel, or alternatively introducing a tidal flow traffic lane to keep
Epping Road moving.

We will continue to work with the RTA - and in the public arena - to
ensure that motorists get a fair deal when it comes to Epping Road.

NRMA supports cycling in areas that are safe for the cyclist and safe
for the motorist.

NRMA's position on this, and indeed on all the issues that we address,
are derived from extensive and continuing research and surveying of our
Members.

We will not resile from defending our Members' interests on important
issues such as this.

Thank you again for taking the time to inform me of your views.

Regards
Alan H Evans
President
NRMA Motoring & Services

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Russell [[email hidden]]
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:11 AM
To: Alan Evans
Subject: Cycle uise

Dear sir,

I am amazed by your attack on the building of cycleways -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/0
1

As a long term member (30 years plus) of the NRMA I am becoming more and

more disillusioned with the organisation and its aims. First you sold
the insurance arm nearly bankrupting yourself in the process, then
amongst other things dropped pre-purchase inspections and now seem to
have a "cars at the expense of everything" agenda.

Perhaps you would be better off trying to change the attitude of
Australian motorists from "might is right" to "everybody should share
the roads". It seems to work in most developed and many developing
countries so please stop trying to cause confrontation.

Jack Russell

Duncan said:

Duncan said:

Is this $300,000/cyclist Epping cycleway the one being constructed as
a direct result of the M2 laneway closure? If so, blame is squarely at
the feet of the NSW gov't and their incompetent management of public/
private partnerships.

Ok.. so it seems the NRMA is complaining about the gridlock on Epping
road where it is now down to one lane.

What they seem to forget, is that
a) one lane on Epping Rd is in the tunnel contract. Roadworks are not
the cause, nor will there be more traffic lanes when they are
complete.
b) One of the other two lanes will be a bus lane (good)
c) if NSW govco didn't put a cycle lane in the remaining space, too
many people might start to ask questions around election time. Hence
the need for the NSW gov't to spend squillions on a cycle lane to
coverup their misdeeds ((see a), above).

--
Remove norubbish to reply

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jack Russell said:

Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply

Dear Jack

Thank you for your email regarding NRMA's position on cycle lanes. It
is important to note that our recent comments were made specifically
regarding the current changes on Epping Road in Sydney...

Yep, a standard form response we all received. There are monkeys in
NRMA...
--

On 2008-01-10, Jack Russell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply

From : Me me me me me
To : [email hidden]
Cc : [email hidden]
Subject : NRMA Membership options
----- Message Text -----
Hi,

I was wondering if NRMA could create a new membership option: The roadside
service, without the increasingly naive and irrelevant political views and
commentary (for example, NRMA's war on bikes), and the claims of
representing my views to government along with my fellow NRMA members.
Perhaps NRMA could get together with RACV and the like to offer similar
membership options with those organisations as well, because wherever I
have lived, I would have appreciated the ability to have my car towed when
it broke down, but have not wished the motoring body to have counted my
membership as supporting their short sighted views. In the meantime,
enjoy the gridlock. I'm staying away from membership for the time being.

--
TimC
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect
the fuse by blowing first. --unknown

On 2008-01-10, TimC (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

On 2008-01-10, Jack Russell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply

From : Me me me me me
To : [email hidden]
Cc : [email hidden]
Subject : NRMA Membership options
----- Message Text -----
Hi,

I was wondering if NRMA could create a new membership option: The roadside
service, without the increasingly naive and irrelevant political views and
commentary (for example, NRMA's war on bikes), and the claims of
representing my views to government along with my fellow NRMA members.
Perhaps NRMA could get together with RACV and the like to offer similar
membership options with those organisations as well, because wherever I
have lived, I would have appreciated the ability to have my car towed when
it broke down, but have not wished the motoring body to have counted my
membership as supporting their short sighted views. In the meantime,
enjoy the gridlock. I'm staying away from membership for the time being.

Damn. What you think of after you hit send.

"In the meantime, enjoy the self imposed gridlock and increasing oil
prices. I'm staying away from membership for the time being. And
I'd appreciate not receiving the stock form response back, thanks.
Save the electrons."

--
TimC
"I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors."
-- Plorkwort, 26 September 2004 on alt.religion.kibology

I did a count of users on part of the facility that has actually
opened (@ the Herbert St ramp) from 7.30 - 8.30 this morning:

City-bound: 21 cyclists, 7 pedestrians
Ryde-bound: 10 cyclists, 6 pedestrians

That makes the figure of 25/day for the whole corridor looks VERY
wrong - no word from the NRMA about where it came from.

[email hidden said:

"]I did a count of users on part of the facility that has actually
opened (@ the Herbert St ramp) from 7.30 - 8.30 this morning:

City-bound: 21 cyclists, 7 pedestrians
Ryde-bound: 10 cyclists, 6 pedestrians

That makes the figure of 25/day for the whole corridor looks VERY
wrong - no word from the NRMA about where it came from.

Call the main NRMA office and ask for the cited references or who prepared the figures for their media release.

Todays SMH, nice article by Lisa Pryor, let us hope that she is right
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/sydney-is-cyclists-oyster-as-nrma-provides-grit-for-culturalchange/2008/01/11/1199988589357.html

cfsmtb said:

Quoted message said:

I did a count of users on part of the facility that has actually
opened (@ the Herbert St ramp) from 7.30 - 8.30 this morning:

City-bound: 21 cyclists, 7 pedestrians
Ryde-bound: 10 cyclists, 6 pedestrians

That makes the figure of 25/day for the whole corridor looks VERY
wrong - no word from the NRMA about where it came from.

Call the main NRMA office and ask for the cited references or who
prepared the figures for their media release.

--
Remove norubbish to reply

On 2008-01-12, Jack Russell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Todays SMH, nice article by Lisa Pryor, let us hope that she is right
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/sydney-is-cyclists-oyster-as-nrma-provides-grit-for-culturalchange/2008/01/11/1199988589357.html

Heh. Nice.

But I don't agree with her comment:
When party-goers head home drunk late on a Saturday night, it is
rarely by bicycle.

Just ride straight when passing the RBTs, and they wave you past.

--
TimC
Tim heals all wounds -- Ben Fisher on RHOD

Zebee Johnstone said:

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Zebee

I can't wait until petrol is $2 p/l then many of his members wont be able to afford to drive 'Effing' Rd. Then, you might have a chance of seeing the blinding obvious that your anti-cyclist coloured glasses will not let you.

scotty72 said:

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Quoted message said:

I can't wait until petrol is $2 p/l then many of his members
wont be
able to afford to drive 'Effing' Rd. Then, you might have a chance of
seeing the blinding obvious that your anti-cyclist coloured glasses
will not let you.

You think the worldd will sstop when petrol hits $2 a litre? It's more than
that in Europe now.

Scotty, I believe your glasses have clouded (steamed?) over, whilst Zebee's
are still clear.

Theo

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT

Artoi said:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile <[email hidden]>.

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Zebee

The NRMA is the National Roads and Motorists Association, so its not just
Motorists that Alan Evans represents, its all road users. He tries to
wriggle out of this in the stock reply about the NRMA not opposing cycleways
if they are in the right place etc. Ten years ago or so the NRMA went
through a phase of calling themselves as the "Mobility Specialists". They
were all in favour of cycling and public transport and were always turning
up at planning conferences and supporting cyclists (Mark McKenzie was the
NRMA environmental guy often seen). In fact BNSW had a campaign with them to
get rideable shoulders on roads- result was better shoulders on some roads,
including the M4 and M2 shoulders, and maybe some others (F6 too I think,
after some deaths, M7, CWL, M5/F5) and the RTA commitment to providing
cyclist facilities in or parallel to all major new works (which as a
principle is good but sometimes the money might have been better spent
elsewhere - eg M7 maybe). Of course they now take the shoulder from cyclists
if they want too (M4, M2), we didnt get a cast iron guarantee.

Seeing as most (adult)cyclists drive cars too, I'd say Mr Evans needs to
refocus on general mobility again. Its not impossible, given what they were
saying back then.

Re Epping Rd, the bike path is a lightweight pier and beam construction in
the Lane Cove to the Lane Cove River section, which is additional to the
roadway, so doesnt restrict number of lanes for motorists - the bus lane
does that. Wont be suitable for cars anyway, not strong enough. In addition
to this inconvenient fact, the NRMA failed to state that the path is not
finished yet and is only 1 m wide in places, so counting the no of cyclists
at this stage is misleading.

fb in sydknee