Sensational-Adelaide.com

Nathan wrote:

One of the key criticism of MHL is deterring people from riding at all, which they claim isn't true despite not doing any of their own research in their study. The fact is it has had a massive impact on casual and commuter cycling, and entrenched a cycling culture that is dominated by sports cycling.

You won't ride your bike becuase you need to wear a helmet.

Is that really a legit reason people won't ride a bike?

Waewick wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:05 pm

Nathan wrote:

One of the key criticism of MHL is deterring people from riding at all, which they claim isn't true despite not doing any of their own research in their study. The fact is it has had a massive impact on casual and commuter cycling, and entrenched a cycling culture that is dominated by sports cycling.

You won't ride your bike becuase you need to wear a helmet.

Is that really a legit reason people won't ride a bike?

I do ride my bike, all the time.

But the MHL does discourage many, either directly (due to inconvenience, esp. with bike share schemes, and yes also appearance) or indirectly (gives the impression that riding a bike is inherently dangerous). Both disproportionality affected casual and commuter cyclists, less so than enthusiasts who'll ride no matter what.

Risks of head injury while riding a bike are not exceptionally high, certainly no greater (and in some cases much less so) than many other activities people do without head protection. We don't have helmet laws for driving a car, or playing football, or climbing a ladder, or taking a shower, or even just walking along a footpath. Why out of everything people do is cycling singled out for a helmet law? It's a poor and blunt response to injury rates that would be far far far better addressed by proper infrastructure. If helmets were some great panacea, we'd have much lower injury rates than countries without MHL, but that's not the case at all.

This is not an argument against helmets altogether, but just an argument against making them mandatory. I strongly think cycling shouldn't be seen as one thing. Riding an upright bike a short distance, to and from work or shops, in normal clothes is very different than a kitted up road cyclist riding at higher speeds and much longer distances. Just like you don't need gear for a short walk, but you put on trainers and activewear for going for a run. Helmets are still appropriate for that road cyclist, but not a necessity for others.

Thanks for that response, i wasn't intending to come across as having a crack at you so apologies.

I've always looked at seatbelts and bike helmets the same way. Didn't know the stats, either but i guess in the short term, given the current infrastructure isn't it the better option to have them on? (I mean hell i don't ride a bike in Adelaide because the drivers are insane, even with a helmet).

Waewick wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:07 am

Thanks for that response, i wasn't intending to come across as having a crack at you so apologies.

I've always looked at seatbelts and bike helmets the same way. Didn't know the stats, either but i guess in the short term, given the current infrastructure isn't it the better option to have them on? (I mean hell i don't ride a bike in Adelaide because the drivers are insane, even with a helmet).

There was also a strong backlash to compulsory seatbelt laws. Nobody advocates removing seat belt laws for short distances but keeping them for highways and long trips. Yet there are still people caught not wearing their seatbelts, forty-something years after it became compulsory to wear them.

Nathan wrote:One of the key criticism of MHL is deterring people from riding at all, which they claim isn't true despite not doing any of their own research in their study.

Actually, if you read the article, you will see that they refer to overseas research which supports their claim.

Nathan wrote:The fact is it has had a massive impact on casual and commuter cycling, and entrenched a cycling culture that is dominated by sports cycling.

Where is your reserach to support that proposaition?

Waewick wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:05 pm

We don't have helmet laws for driving a car, or playing football, or climbing a ladder, or taking a shower, or even just walking along a footpath. Why out of everything people do is cycling singled out for a helmet law?

Really? We have helmet laws for riding a motorcycle; laws requiring cars to be fitted with airbags, seat belts, side intrusion bars and safety cages etc; OH&S laws regarding climbing a ladder (e.g. safety harnesses, scaffolding etc); building regulations as to showers (non-slip surfaces, location of electrical switches, venting, size of shower recess etc) and australian standards for footpaths (126 pages). The only standards applicable to bicycles of which I am aware are no entrapment by moving parts (AS/NZS 1927:1998) and Australian Road Rules for lights and reflectors. Bicycling is, relatively, minimally regulated.

mawsonguy wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:54 pm

Really? We have helmet laws for riding a motorcycle; laws requiring cars to be fitted with airbags, seat belts, side intrusion bars and safety cages etc; OH&S laws regarding climbing a ladder (e.g. safety harnesses, scaffolding etc); building regulations as to showers (non-slip surfaces, location of electrical switches, venting, size of shower recess etc) and australian standards for footpaths (126 pages). The only standards applicable to bicycles of which I am aware are no entrapment by moving parts (AS/NZS 1927:1998) and Australian Road Rules for lights and reflectors. Bicycling is, relatively, minimally regulated.

Well that's just plain wrong. Bicycles, like any other vehicle, are subject to all road rules when used on a public road or footpath, then chuck on the helmet laws, requirements around bells and lights etc. So while the manufacture of the bike may not seem to have a whole heap of extra regulation (but really, there's not much to a bike anyway), the use of bikes in public is hugely regulated.

It's finally happening

Great news, is this the final piece of the puzzle between Port Adelaide and the CBD?

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu May 02, 2019 9:46 am

Great news, is this the final piece of the puzzle between Port Adelaide and the CBD?

It's the last major piece of work I think. Charles Sturt council was also rejuvenating a reserve in Croydon that the path runs through, but that should be finished soon, if not already. It's a brilliant example of how a cycle route can be created with a little traffic calming & linking existing side streets & it should be a model for other greenways running through residential areas where fully separated paths are not always practical. There's a few stretches that could be improved in the long term - for example the route zig zags through some side streets around Grand Junction Rd & it could possibly run straight along the railway line instead. The streets along the railway have very wide verges, so I think there's prospect to build a fully separated path along those streets in the future as well. There's some great examples of classic Adelaide residential & industrial architecture to be seen along the route - with some signage you could turn the trip into a good little self discovery tour for visitors.

There are still ongoing issues with pedestrians using the dedicated cycle way in Frome St.

Not only office workers during the week, but casual strollers on weekends and lately I witnessed women pushing prams. Often with two or more people they block the entire cycle path thoroughfare.

Signage is clear, so not sure if it is arrogance, ignorance or illiteracy.

People are quick to have a go at cyclists if anything is said, even politely.

If the cycle way gets rolled out east-west and the current north-south gets expanded, there needs to be an education program by ACC of some description.

Bob wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:22 am

There are still ongoing issues with pedestrians using the dedicated cycle way in Frome St.

Not only office workers during the week, but casual strollers on weekends and lately I witnessed women pushing prams. Often with two or more people they block the entire cycle path thoroughfare.

Signage is clear, so not sure if it is arrogance, ignorance or illiteracy.

People are quick to have a go at cyclists if anything is said, even politely.

If the cycle way gets rolled out east-west and the current north-south gets expanded, there needs to be an education program by ACC of some description.

Possibly they think that prams have wheels, so should use the cycle lane?

I see electric mobility scooters in normal bike lanes in the suburbs, despite there being a footpath, and sometimes even on a road that has a parallel shared path!

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:39 pm

Possibly they think that prams have wheels, so should use the cycle lane?

It's more that they have prams, so think that they have right of way over all other people at all other times under all other circumstances, and boy will they tell you about it if you think otherwise.

[/quote]

It's more that they have prams, so think that they have right of way over all other people at all other times under all other circumstances, and boy will they tell you about it if you think otherwise.
[/quote]

Lucky they don't have horses - horse riders' thinking seems to e the same.

rhino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:27 pm

It's more that they have prams, so think that they have right of way over all other people at all other times under all other circumstances, and boy will they tell you about it if you think otherwise.

Lucky they don't have horses - horse riders' thinking seems to e the same.

Horse riders do have rights on the road. They can wave at you to slow down, give a wide berth (much more than the metre that cyclists expect) or even get you to stop and turn the engine off while they pass. I'm not sure if they are allowed on the footpaths or bike lanes though.

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:38 pm

rhino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:27 pm

It's more that they have prams, so think that they have right of way over all other people at all other times under all other circumstances, and boy will they tell you about it if you think otherwise.

Lucky they don't have horses - horse riders' thinking seems to e the same.

Horse riders do have rights on the road. They can wave at you to slow down, give a wide berth (much more than the metre that cyclists expect) or even get you to stop and turn the engine off while they pass. I'm not sure if they are allowed on the footpaths or bike lanes though.

I lived for 20 years on a quiet, unsealed road in the Adelaide Hills, and was abused countless times for trying to get around people on horses to get to my home, as they took up the whole made road width at walking pace chatting to each other, rather than stop or move to the verge. This was not just the occasional group, this was the norm. In my opinion they are, in the main, a bunch of self-centred, self-important wankers who have little to no regard for other road users.