News & Discussion: Cycling

[Wayno]

for commuting cyclists I believe its freeloading to an extent

It's a loophole that the govt should encourage people to take advantage of! Sell your car, and use the roads for free!

Only when a critical mass of cyclists are on Adelaide's roads (and i mean literally Tens of Thousands) should the govt consider changing the road funding model.

[Aidan]

In addition to my previous response:

In response to Mono, its not so much about balancing the books, but sharing the costs.

Do you object to the lack of tolls on the ferries across the Murray?

for commuting cyclists I believe its freeloading to an extent.

I seem to recall freeloading has a very different meaning in a cycling context: the dangerous practice of hanging onto a moving truck.

Cyclists in some form should make a contribution to building costs that ultimately the tax payer must outlay.

No they must not. Cycling is something we should encourage, not discourage. Imposing costs on cyclists would discourage it.

But don't worry - cyclists pay taxes like everyone else, so you'll still get the money from them.

I can't really think of anything where an income stream isn't sought for a service or usuage. Boat rego. Car rego. School fees. Health gaps. Council rates. Airport taxes. Every service that the tax payer at some stage forks out to provide there is some sort of user pay system.

But that's mainly about balancing the books, not sharing the costs.

[monotonehell]

In response to Mono, its not so much about balancing the books, but sharing the costs.

for commuting cyclists I believe its freeloading to an extent. Cyclists in some form should make a contribution to building costs that ultimately the tax payer must outlay.

Is there actually a report out there on the economic savings form cyclists?

I can't really think of anything where an income stream isn't sought for a service or usuage. Boat rego. Car rego. School fees. Health gaps. Council rates. Airport taxes. Every service that the tax payer at some stage forks out to provide there is some sort of user pay system.

You do realise that if you implemented a user pays system that motor registration would be approximately 60% more expensive don't you? If you want to speak to the amount of the motor reg fee that goes toward road infrastructure it's much less than zero. MAC's third party insurance system runs at a loss every year, even after the automatic premium built into motor reg. The taxpayer (that's the pool of funds I was speaking about before) picks up the other third of its costs.

Perhaps there's something to be said about cyclists paying for third party as well, but in the majority of cases they are the ones being paid.

Bottom line: motor reg pays for insurance, all other taxes pay for infrastructure.

[fabricator]

Cyclists in some form should make a contribution to building costs that ultimately the tax payer must outlay.

No they must not. Cycling is something we should encourage, not discourage. Imposing costs on cyclists would discourage it.

But don't worry - cyclists pay taxes like everyone else, so you'll still get the money from them.

With cars the roads are built using some of the money taken from petrol tax, with cyclists it would be tax from food and drink they burn up from exercise. Besides which a lightweight bike is going to do almost no damage to a road compared to 1+ tons of car.

[Hooligan]

When i was a youngin I was always told to ride in single file, not abreast of another rider. Yet down the lefevre peninsula on sunday mornings i see huge amounts of cyclists completely ignore the bike path and ride in a massive hoard down the road along the beach front. It pisses me off and i can see it is a matter of time before someone gets killed.

[rhino]

When i was a youngin I was always told to ride in single file, not abreast of another rider. Yet down the lefevre peninsula on sunday mornings i see huge amounts of cyclists completely ignore the bike path and ride in a massive hoard down the road along the beach front. It pisses me off and i can see it is a matter of time before someone gets killed.

You should try living in the Onkaparinga Valley! I know exactly what you mean.

And on the quiet unsealed backroads like the one I live on, you get a bunch of horses with a bunch of horses arses astride them, who take up the whole road and pretend they can't hear your car behind them.

[Prince George]

South Australian road rules do allow two-abreast riding, any more than that (unless you were overtaking a pair of cyclists) is outside the rules. It also states that there is no obligation to ride on a path where one is available, and indeed there are times when it is better that they don't. For example, the paths are generally mixed-use, where apart from cyclists there may be walkers, roller-bladers, dogs on leads, or even kids learning to ride. As a result, cyclists are expected to slow down to accomodate other users. For cycling clubs out for training rides, they want to be riding at speeds that are too high for the paths, so it's better that they stick on the street.

[rhino]

For cycling clubs out for training rides, they want to be riding at speeds that are too high for the paths, so it's better that they stick on the street.

That's quite acceptable, but when they ride as a pelaton (4 and 5 abreast) through the hills every Sunday morning, it pisses people off. Their speed may be too high for paths, but it's too slow for public roads

Back on topic, it would be a sad day for health and wellbeing if cyclists had to register their bikes. The amount of wear and tear they cause to infrastructure is more than saved in medical costs because they are that much healthier.

[Omicron]

http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/T ... __web_.pdf

With that in mind, cyclists are obliged to remain in their lane unless an obvious obstruction permits them to be otherwise. Riding two abreast is only permitted if it is done so within the designated cycling lane.

But again, roads are not designed for bikes, nor should they be.

[Prince George]

If you're referring back to Hooligan's post, remember that bike lanes are not the same as bike paths - lane means on-street, path means off-street.

Notice also that it says "bike lanes are for the exclusive use of cyclists", but drivers routinely interpret "avoiding an obstruction" to include getting around people in their lane that are turning right. Some of our bike lanes are also very poorly thought out, such as one near our house that's frighteningly narrow, and many that run along side lines of parked cars (Peacock Tce, for ex) putting riders at risk of catching "the door prize" (see #2 here). And then there are others that only operate at certain times of the day (like Daws Rd), which are a constant source of confusion.

I'm confused by your comment "roads are not designed for bikes, nor should they be" - since we're hardly about to build out a network of segregated bike paths comparable to our street networks, that seems tantamount to saying people shouldn't ride anywhere. You may be interested to know that there are programs like http://www.completestreets.org/ with the aim of building streets that accommodate more users than just drivers.

[Archer]

Notice also that it says "bike lanes are for the exclusive use of cyclists", but drivers routinely interpret "avoiding an obstruction" to include getting around people in their lane that are turning right.

Ahhh... The Forth bullet point above actually states that this is allowed for up to 50 metres, and in fact all of those bullet points are cases where other road users (ie. Drivers in Cars) are allowed to use the Bicycle lane. So As with most things, the Bicycle lane is for the exclusive use of cyclists, but there are exceptions.

[Hooligan]

Along the road i was talking about there is a seperate bike path.

Also bike riders travel in huge groups like those that rhino mentioned

[Sugar]

Surely it\'d be far safer for cyclists and better off from an environmental perspective - whereby any 2-way street running parallel to a major road with on-street bike lane-ways, simply be converted to one way streets, with the curbside extended on one side to accommodate a bikeway. Such a proposal would be similar in fashion to the Copenhagen-style by allocating half the streets for the people and cyclists, and the other half for the cars. It could then also double up as vegetation corridors or linear parks through suburbia, providing a safe retreat and green oasis of landscaping making it more attractive for joggers, cyclists and families to utilize.

For anyone in the know; Rugby Street, Unley could very well be a suitable candidate for such an experiment.

[RayRichards]

Surely it\'d be far safer for cyclists and better off from an environmental perspective - whereby any 2-way street running parallel to a major road with on-street bike lane-ways, simply be converted to one way streets, with the curbside extended on one side to accommodate a bikeway. Such a proposal would be similar in fashion to the Copenhagen-style by allocating half the streets for the people and cyclists, and the other half for the cars. It could then also double up as vegetation corridors or linear parks through suburbia, providing a safe retreat and green oasis of landscaping making it more attractive for joggers, cyclists and families to utilize.

For anyone in the know; Rugby Street, Unley could very well be a suitable candidate for such an experiment.

What about the footy crowd at Unley Oval. Where would they park? (I like your idea overall though)

Ray.

[rhino]

City, motorists ride roughshod over cyclists
CAMERON ENGLAND From: The Advertiser May 26, 2010 10:08AM

IT IS no surprise Adelaide City Council has scrapped the Sturt St bike lane.
What is a surprise is that no cyclists have been seriously injured traversing its well-intentioned but poorly planned expanse.
What should happen with city bicycle lanes? Fill in the comment box below
Or maybe, as with me, they just have the good sense to stay away from this white elephant, which, after it is ripped up, will have cost Adelaide's ratepayers $500,000.
I first rode the "Copenhagen-style" bike lane early this year, and until yesterday, I haven't been back. I'm not sure how they work in Copenhagen, but the design here, as pointed out by residents and business owners who signed a petition to have the lane removed, is just plain bad.
Cyclists have a devoted lane - which sounds safe - but this is sandwiched between the footpath and on-street parking. This means cars coming out of side streets have to push across the bike lane to see oncoming traffic.
Not that they know the lane is there - apart from a green swath painted on the ground, there appears to be no signage to tell unwitting drivers to keep a lookout.
This is not a story of bikes versus cars, but one of a misguided attempt to do the right thing. That is a shame for, while Adelaide bills itself as a cycle-friendly city, the reality does not bear this out.
Coming into the city from almost any direction, the cyclist often is trapped in a pincer movement, as spacious bike lanes evaporate into nothing. Across the city, and the suburbs, it is obvious that, where you have a wide street, you might be lucky enough to get a bike lane.
Where the roads are narrow, and cost is a factor, they are nowhere to be seen. What is needed - and what will encourage people to see bike commuting as a safe option - is bicycle transport corridors which are well thought out and implemented. Olympic gold medallist Brett Aitken said cyclists and the council should persist with making cycling safer in the city.
He said that while it was disappointing the bike lane experiment in Sturt St was not a success, "it was probably dangerous".
"I don't think it was constructed properly. There are too many side streets," he said.
"I think if anything it was probably more dangerous. Cars pull out and they're looking for the street they're pulling out on to, looking for cars and not the bike path.
"It's a lack of education. The amount of times cyclists physically have to stop because cars aren't aware of them, they tend to just pull out in front."
Bicycle SA chief executive officer Christian Haag said it was disappointing the bike lane would be demolished.
He believes if they were trialled more widely, they could be a success.
"I completely respect the views of residents, shop owners and parents of school children," Mr Haag said. "But it does defy logic that we would tear down infrastructure which is part of a transport solution for this town that actively seeks to reduce traffic emissions and congestion and promote healthy outcomes."
Bicycle courier Dougie Kerr said he preferred to ride on the road in Sturt St rather than the bicycle lane.
"Bicycle lanes do kind of disappear when you need them," he said.
"Or pedestrians use them as a place to stand.

"They don't have to rebuild as such, they just need to change road markings."