Road raging pillocks in Perth

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 10:59 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> PeteSig wrote:
> > You have hit the nail on the head, of course. We can all see it, even
> > many car drivers. But so few are prepared to make the changes that
> > are needed. This is the role ofr some serious government
> > encouragement a la the European approach, eg the Netherlands
> >http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/pivot/entry.php?id=167
>
> > Your letter should be bottled as compulsory reading for every
> > political leader!
>
> Interesting line from your url
> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle owners,
> using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of bike lanes and
> trails"
>
> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle infrastructure
> would sir like to buy?

Just hit everyone in the same manner that they do for the roads, no
need to single out cyclists. Perhaps it would encourage more people
to cycle since they've already paid for it. Although my tax pays for
a shitload of roadworks in Shitney and I feel no desire to drive down
there and get my moneys worth, so maybe not.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

[email protected] wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Interesting line from your url
>> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle
>> owners, using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of
>> bike lanes and trails"
>>
>> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
>> infrastructure would sir like to buy?

> Just hit everyone in the same manner that they do for the roads, no
> need to single out cyclists. Perhaps it would encourage more people
> to cycle since they've already paid for it. Although my tax pays for
> a shitload of roadworks in Shitney and I feel no desire to drive down
> there and get my moneys worth, so maybe not.

Oh no, the Dutch are held up as a shining example of a country who obviously
got bicycling right. I think we need to 'heavily tax bicycle owners' to get
the bicycle infrastructure we need.

Theo

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 9:31 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> Interesting line from your url
> >> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle
> >> owners, using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of
> >> bike lanes and trails"
>
> >> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
> >> infrastructure would sir like to buy?
> > Just hit everyone in the same manner that they do for the roads, no
> > need to single out cyclists. Perhaps it would encourage more people
> > to cycle since they've already paid for it. Although my tax pays for
> > a shitload of roadworks in Shitney and I feel no desire to drive down
> > there and get my moneys worth, so maybe not.
>
> Oh no, the Dutch are held up as a shining example of a country who obviously
> got bicycling right. I think we need to 'heavily tax bicycle owners' to get
> the bicycle infrastructure we need.
>
> Theo


I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
thanks

 

[Theo Bekkers]

[email protected] wrote:

> I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
> thanks

I negotiated a serious payrise recently and I'm retiring next year. So i'm
putting all of the payrise, which would have been taxed at 40.5c in the $
into Super, where it is taxed at 15c in the $. I get it back next year with
no additional taxes to pay. That will save me $19,000 in taxes in 18 months.

And no, I don't want to invest it in bicycle infrastructure for you either.


Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

[email protected] wrote:

> I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
> thanks

So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?

Theo

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle infrastructure
> would sir like to buy?

Get a grip on reality Theo. Only because I already contribute heavily to
construction and maintenance of the existing road infrastrcture. So, I
fail to see why a proportion, say 5% for starters, ofthat existing roads
budget should not immediately be applied to building new, high standard
bicycle infrastructure.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 10:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
> > thanks
>
> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?
>
> Theo

Actually I'm pretty happy with the bicycling infrastructure we have in
my (small) town. I'd like more off road paths, but what we have I'm
very grateful for and I don't want extra paths enough to ask for
them. I think I'd prefer to see some driver education on sharing the
road with cyclists with an emphasis on safe/courteous passing. One
thing I do think would be great is extra wide shoulders on highways so
I could ride between towns easier (I can go the back way for an extra
10km and less traffic, or the highway has a decent shoulder *most* of
the way). Just sell it as a breakdown lane to keep the motorists
happy ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 10:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>  [email protected] wrote:
> > I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
> > thanks
>
> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?

Is it the infrastructure (roads) that's the problem or people's
behaviour on that infrastructure?

I'd argue that we don't need more special purpose bicycle
infrastructure in many cases.

Most of the time I'd far prefer that just roads were built, roads
whose design catered for all potential users of those roads, rather
than a parallel network of special bicycle ghettos.

> Theo

Adrian

 

[DeF]

Travis wrote:
> No doubt we'll be hearing a lot more about this around here, but
> police are currently interviewing a 19 year old who alledgedly mowed
> down a group of cyclists in Perth's northern suburbs this morning,
> fortunately causing only light injuries.
>
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=59164
>
> There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
> usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
> riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
> cars.
>
> Travis

Someone has been charged, according to the ABC:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/27/2173719.htm

--
e-mail: d.farrow@your finger.murdoch.edu.au
To reply, you'll have to remove your finger.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:26 -0800 (PST)
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>  [email protected] wrote:
>> > I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
>> > thanks
>>
>> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?
>
> Is it the infrastructure (roads) that's the problem or people's
> behaviour on that infrastructure?
>

Both. If there were lanes on every road that were not allowed to be
parked over and had the same priority over side roads that the car lane
in the same direction had, and each lane had an advanced stop line at
lights, that's infrastructure.

If there was a presumption of guilt if a car struck a cyclist, and the
car driver had to show it was the cyclist's deliberate action that
caused the strike, that's behaviour....

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:26 -0800 (PST)
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 10:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
>>>> thanks
>>>
>>> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?
>>
>> Is it the infrastructure (roads) that's the problem or people's
>> behaviour on that infrastructure?
>>
>
> Both. If there were lanes on every road that were not allowed to be
> parked over and had the same priority over side roads that the car
> lane in the same direction had, and each lane had an advanced stop
> line at lights, that's infrastructure.
>
> If there was a presumption of guilt if a car struck a cyclist, and the
> car driver had to show it was the cyclist's deliberate action that
> caused the strike, that's behaviour....

Agreed. Why can't we have the kind of 30 seconds a night on TV education I
saw in the UK, in the Netherlands, and in the USA, last time I was in those
places. Too expensive?

Theo

 

[PeteSig]

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:26 -0800 (PST)
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Is it the infrastructure (roads) that's the problem or people's
>> behaviour on that infrastructure?
>>
>
> Both. If there were lanes on every road that were not allowed to be
> parked over and had the same priority over side roads that the car lane
> in the same direction had, and each lane had an advanced stop line at
> lights, that's infrastructure.
>
> If there was a presumption of guilt if a car struck a cyclist, and the
> car driver had to show it was the cyclist's deliberate action that
> caused the strike, that's behaviour....

Ahem! Not sure what you're trying to say, but I think that's legislative
structures you're referring to.

'Behaviour' is Joe Bloggs in his sick SS Commode doesn't give a rats about
any **** cyclists and cuts them by close.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[PeteSig]

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:
> PeteSig wrote:

>> It's a lot more than simply a flat landscape. Oh and by the way, both
>> parts of Perth and Melbourne's northern, southern and western suburbs
>> have a relatively flat terrian, much like Amsterdam!
>
> No way is that true of Perth Pete. Unless you're following the river or
> the coast, Perth is mountainous compared to Amsterdam.
>
> Fairly flat where my son lives in Cranbourne Vic.

None of which changes the fact that there is a whole lot more to the
strategies the Dutch have used to encourage a booming use of bikes for
transport.

Ahah! Here is the document from some Dutch planners that I was referring
to.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/irresistible.pdf

Look in particular at the last two pages for a detailed summary of changes
made to Dutch society that have boosted cycling.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[PeteSig]

"PeteSig" wrote:
> Ahah! Here is the document from some Dutch planners that I was referring
> to.
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/irresistible.pdf
>
> Look in particular at the last two pages for a detailed summary of changes
> made to Dutch society that have boosted cycling.

Oh yeah, Theo, look also at Fig. 12 for the trend in bicycle use (annual kms
cycled per person) 1950-2005, transposed with the cycle fatality rate
(cyclist deaths per billion kms) over the same period. A nice mirror image,
and a huge drop in cycle use from 1950 to 1975. The Netherlands of your
youth was disappearing until the 70s changes came about.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Resound]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:26 -0800 (PST)
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 10:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> > I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
>>> > thanks
>>>
>>> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?
>>
>> Is it the infrastructure (roads) that's the problem or people's
>> behaviour on that infrastructure?
>>
>
> Both. If there were lanes on every road that were not allowed to be
> parked over and had the same priority over side roads that the car lane
> in the same direction had, and each lane had an advanced stop line at
> lights, that's infrastructure.
>
> If there was a presumption of guilt if a car struck a cyclist, and the
> car driver had to show it was the cyclist's deliberate action that
> caused the strike, that's behaviour....

So what would happen if it was the inadvertant action of the cyclist that
caused the strike?

 

[TimC]

On 2008-02-27, [email protected] (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Feb 27, 10:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
>> > thanks
>>
>> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?
>>
>> Theo
>
> Actually I'm pretty happy with the bicycling infrastructure we have in
> my (small) town. I'd like more off road paths, but what we have I'm
> very grateful for and I don't want extra paths enough to ask for
> them. I think I'd prefer to see some driver education on sharing the
> road with cyclists with an emphasis on safe/courteous passing. One
> thing I do think would be great is extra wide shoulders on highways so
> I could ride between towns easier (I can go the back way for an extra
> 10km and less traffic, or the highway has a decent shoulder *most* of
> the way). Just sell it as a breakdown lane to keep the motorists
> happy ;-)

My commute home has no shoulder, and lots of blind bends, but the
drivers all seem to be courteous and have waited minutes for a
clearing long enough to overtake safely -- apart from the occasional
Sydney tourist in 4WD. The only improvement I want is a road surface
that is less bumpy than boulders. I've been waiting a while for that,
and see no hope of it in the near future.

I think the drivers are mostly courteous because they all know me.
The other day I went to the "cinema" (pirated DVD in town hall), and a
person I have never met before[1] asked whether I had just come down
from night shift to watch the movie. She recognised me when she asked
her husband whether he knew of anyone with a ponytail riding home from
the observatory. We hired him back for a few days this and last week
for consulting since all of the people who know about the aluminising
tank have all retired.

[1] Happens all the time. I'm used to completely unknown people
saying "Hi Tim!".

--
TimC
READING MICROSCOPIC DISCLAIMERS ON COUPON MAY CAUSE PAPER CUTS ON EYEBALLS.
-- Disclaimer on Kibo's Pot Pie of Pain

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:55:53 GMT
PeteSig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ahem! Not sure what you're trying to say, but I think that's legislative
> structures you're referring to.
>
> 'Behaviour' is Joe Bloggs in his sick SS Commode doesn't give a rats about
> any **** cyclists and cuts them by close.

Yes, and how does behaviour change?

Education and Enforcement. Education alone won't, Enforcement alone
won't.

I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap" will
make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus you'll cop
several points and a whacking great fine" will.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:09:50 +1100
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If there was a presumption of guilt if a car struck a cyclist, and the
>> car driver had to show it was the cyclist's deliberate action that
>> caused the strike, that's behaviour....
>
> So what would happen if it was the inadvertant action of the cyclist that
> caused the strike?

How caused?

As the operator of the more dangerous vehicle, it's the car driver's
job to leave enough room and pass at a speed that means should the
rider ride as normal there won't be a strike. Should the rider say
swerve to pass a pothole, the driver should have seen it too!

(I can see road irregularities a fair way away because as a
motorcyclist it's important to me. Driver retinas work the same way
mine do...)

Zebee

 

[Resound]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:09:50 +1100
> Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> If there was a presumption of guilt if a car struck a cyclist, and the
>>> car driver had to show it was the cyclist's deliberate action that
>>> caused the strike, that's behaviour....
>>
>> So what would happen if it was the inadvertant action of the cyclist that
>> caused the strike?
>
> How caused?
>
> As the operator of the more dangerous vehicle, it's the car driver's
> job to leave enough room and pass at a speed that means should the
> rider ride as normal there won't be a strike. Should the rider say
> swerve to pass a pothole, the driver should have seen it too!
>
> (I can see road irregularities a fair way away because as a
> motorcyclist it's important to me. Driver retinas work the same way
> mine do...)
>

Playing devil's advocate to a certain extent but thinking of things like
teenage kid pounding out of sidestreet without looking or gumby trundling
through red light (emerging from behind a truck on the other side of the
intersection, say, so the driver couldn't have seen them).

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
>> infrastructure would sir like to buy?
>
> Get a grip on reality Theo. Only because I already contribute heavily
> to construction and maintenance of the existing road infrastrcture.
> So, I fail to see why a proportion, say 5% for starters, ofthat
> existing roads budget should not immediately be applied to building
> new, high standard bicycle infrastructure.

Hark, do I hear the gallery? Certainly money should be spent on both. What
percentage do you think is realistic, and of what? You say 5% of the roads
budget, but the road budget is not just for infrastucture, is it? Also the
infrastructure we seem to get is some very nice, and some appalingly
designed, paths which may make some people feel good about catering for
cyclists, but in a lot of cases don't actually go anywhere. Certainly not
from where you live to where you work. Where these paths interact with roads
is so dangerous that many cyclists don't use the paths at all. I believe
most of the money being spent on cycling infrastructure in Perth is not
being utilised, allowing motorists to say, 'Look at those empty paths I paid
for', and at the same time causing cyclists to say, 'Where's the safe route
to work for me?'

Are you asking for 5% of the money currently being spent on roads to be
diverted to cycle infrastructure, or are you asking for 5% more money. If
so, where will this 5% come from? Motorists maybe?

Theo