News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#931 Post by rev » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:19 pm

Nathan wrote:Following on from that, let's stop thinking about car infrastructure and cycling infrastructure as seperate things that require seperate funding. View the roads (along with rail) as infrastructure for movement, independent of the mode. From there, we plan and fund those roads by the most efficient (both movement and cost) way of using them — whether that's planning a non-stop motorway to cater for freight, or building separated bikeways along city and inner suburban streets. Cars, trucks, bikes, etc — none of them exist in a vacuum, so let's think and fund things holistically.
If the option is separated bike paths from roads, then yes. Who gives a shit what they do on their separated bike paths. Let them all crash into each other and have a big pile up like they do in the Tours, since most of them think they are the next big thing in world cycling.
But since we aren't going to see that happen, then there needs to be regulation and what not of the cycling nazis in this city. You can see from the responses they've given in this thread, many of them just pop in keyboard warriors, that their attitudes are completely wrong, arrogant and selfish.

We want this we want that, but we don't want to pay for anything. Because we already pay for other things.
But when you ask them if motorists with second vehicles should pay twice, or more, they go silent or change the subject.
When you point out the dangerous behavior of cyclists on roads, they change the subject, often going to their "go to" argument of bad drivers.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#932 Post by rev » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:43 pm

Llessur2002 wrote:I don’t think the funding argument’s as black and white as you make out Rubberman – it’s not just a case of we need more infrastructure so taxes have to be raised to pay for it. We already pay a significant amount of tax into the ‘pot’ – we need to have a sensible national conversation about how that tax is spent to build infrastructure suitable for 2050, not 1950.
What are you doing on a push bike then? get on your hover board.
As our population grows it seems absurd that such a large proportion of the money is spent on infrastructure which primarily caters for mass commuting via single-occupant vehicles.
So why are you on your bike again? Get off your bike and onto a train or bus or tram. Hypocrite.
For example, the North-South corridor – I agree this will be a fantastic piece of road but given the option of ploughing that money into public transport, cycling and walking I think I would have chosen the latter. I think the state government may have chosen that option too – if the federal funding had been made available for that purpose.
And that's why you'll never be given the choice of where to direct funding by being an elected member of parliament. Because you are disconnected from reality and the world around you.

Where do you work? Do you live close by?
You're situation, your financial situation, your work situation, may allow you to live close to your work, and therefore you are able to ride to work, or walk to work, or catch public transport to work, but for the majority of the population that is not possible.

Feel free to apply for a transport logistics job, and tell them that you'll be walking and cycling everywhere, or using public transport.
Let us know how your interview goes.
It could very easily be argued that roads have received too large a share of the overall funding pot in recent years and that this imbalance needs to be redressed - developed countries around the globe are moving increasingly towards more sustainable transit options and there is absolutely no reason why it won’t happen here in time.
We aren't a country, we are a small city.
There are limited funds.
Limited funds means things of more importance take priority.
Sorry but your crappy little bike isn't a bigger priority then the majority of the population who rely on their vehicles and freight transport for their goods.

Reality is over here mate..any time you want to join it, feel free.
So we can either build a few more roads and then sit stewing in our single-occupant cars for another couple of decades until even the new roads hit capacity - or we can start investing in alternative infrastructure creating a culture-shift away from private cars and onto public transport and bikes which, in turn will reduce demand for roads.
I like how the cycling nazis propaganda basically amounts to ignoring everything that doesn't suit their argument in order to paint as bleak a picture as they need.
Because the government hasn't spent any money at all on public transport. It drops all it's money on roads and only roads. Again, reality is over here..
It is perfectly possible – Holland had virtually no cycling infrastructure until the 1970s – it only took a change in political thinking and a couple of decades for cycling to become as popular as it is now. There is no reason why that can’t, shouldn’t or won't happen here.
Closest Dutch city in population to Adelaide is Utrecht.
It has a density of 3,507/km2...Adelaide has a density of 396.4/km2.
Adelaide covers an area of 3,257.7 km2, Utrecht covers an area of 99.21 km2.


If I actually need to point out the obvious conclusion from those figures above....then wow.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#933 Post by Wayno » Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:42 pm

rev wrote:We aren't a country, we are a small city.
There are limited funds.
Limited funds means things of more importance take priority.
Sorry but your crappy little bike isn't a bigger priority then the majority of the population who rely on their vehicles and freight transport for their goods.
Attempting to be agnostic here. Just noting as this is an interesting part of the puzzle.

Similar arguments are often used by the 'why waste money on <insert topic here> when our hospitals need more money' brigade.

Topics open to ridicule by such brigades range from Adelaide Oval, New Years fireworks, arts funding, and yes even road funding - basically anything that runs contrary to ones, often narrow, viewpoint. Culture-related funding is often the most misunderstood, hated and vilified.

Rev, I'm not saying your viewpoint is narrow. Far from it. I'm in 100% with roads for business as top priority, with 'roads for peak hour single occupancy commute to the CBD so I can park out front of my office everyday' as a much much lower priority.

Now for an opinion with which some may not agree. This isn't a car vs bike argument. We simply need better cycling infrastructure as a contributor to a broader set of 'cultural' improvements, including Adelaide oval, festivals, riverbank precinct, etc. Why? Because Adelaide is in dire need of retaining its youth, and we're already seeing good in-roads with the city becoming an oasis.

Trams, as Turnbull puts it, can also catalyse cultural improvements, and you can bet body parts that the same bike-hating populous will be furious about the impact of trams on their daily commute.

Now for a bit of a tangent, just to open the door on this aspect of the conversation. Will our working-age youth tend to stay in Adelaide because of excellent hospitals and roads without annoying cyclists, with only mediocre lifestyle/culture related funding? At the risk of sounding negative. No they won't.

Will these same people stay in Adelaide because of an excellent focus on culture and lifestyle coupled with slightly better than average hospitals and roads? Well maybe not all of them but I think the answer will tend towards more yes than no.

My point is the cost-benefit of cars and cycling is far more complex than what Joe Public could contemplate, and far more complicated than this discussion to date.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#934 Post by Llessur2002 » Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:43 pm

Jesus Christ Rev - you're one special guy.
rev wrote:Again, reality is over here..
And no mate. It's really not. I get the impression reality hasn't been 'over there' for quite some time...

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#935 Post by rev » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:47 pm

Wayno wrote:
rev wrote:We aren't a country, we are a small city.
There are limited funds.
Limited funds means things of more importance take priority.
Sorry but your crappy little bike isn't a bigger priority then the majority of the population who rely on their vehicles and freight transport for their goods.
Attempting to be agnostic here. Just noting as this is an interesting part of the puzzle.

Similar arguments are often used by the 'why waste money on <insert topic here> when our hospitals need more money' brigade.

Topics open to ridicule by such brigades range from Adelaide Oval, New Years fireworks, arts funding, and yes even road funding - basically anything that runs contrary to ones, often narrow, viewpoint. Culture-related funding is often the most misunderstood, hated and vilified.

Rev, I'm not saying your viewpoint is narrow. Far from it. I'm in 100% with roads for business as top priority, with 'roads for peak hour single occupancy commute to the CBD so I can park out front of my office everyday' as a much much lower priority.

Now for an opinion with which some may not agree. This isn't a car vs bike argument. We simply need better cycling infrastructure as a contributor to a broader set of 'cultural' improvements, including Adelaide oval, festivals, riverbank precinct, etc. Why? Because Adelaide is in dire need of retaining its youth, and we're already seeing good in-roads with the city becoming an oasis.

Trams, as Turnbull puts it, can also catalyse cultural improvements, and you can bet body parts that the same bike-hating populous will be furious about the impact of trams on their daily commute.

Now for a bit of a tangent, just to open the door on this aspect of the conversation. Will our working-age youth tend to stay in Adelaide because of excellent hospitals and roads without annoying cyclists, with only mediocre lifestyle/culture related funding? At the risk of sounding negative. No they won't.

Will these same people stay in Adelaide because of an excellent focus on culture and lifestyle coupled with slightly better than average hospitals and roads? Well maybe not all of them but I think the answer will tend towards more yes than no.

My point is the cost-benefit of cars and cycling is far more complex than what Joe Public could contemplate, and far more complicated than this discussion to date.
I'm all for better infrastructure including bike infrastructure, but better bike infrastructure shouldn't be at the cost of road infrastructure because roads are far more important and vital then bike infrastructure. You aren't going to transport frieght with your bike. You aren't going to cross the metro area or a large part of it on your bike(time is a major factor) to go to work.
New roads and road upgrades should be done with separated bike paths and footpaths. Bikes do not need to have the width of a road as infrastructure. You are not riding the peloton in the tour while on your way to work or out for a ride to keep fit.

Failing that, and I very much doubt we will see such things done any time soon, there should be specific road rules for cyclists, that are enforced by sapol, as well as a licensing course. Because the alternative to separated paths is cyclists on the roads.
Everyone else using the road has road rules a license for that vehcile etc.
It's part of how road rules are enforced. It's part of how road safety is managed.

To now have one group of self entitled extremists on the road who are exempt from the regulations everyone else on the road is, is ridiculous and a dangerous situation.

You do an honest survey of drivers. I bet you well above half will say they don't feel comfortable with cyclists on the roads now.

And it was never my intention to have a cars vs bikes argument, but to point out the dangerous situation on our roads with this stupid 1 meter rule, while almost every cyclist you see is breaking road rules all the time.

An example..do you often see if at all, motorists doing burnouts and donuts and drifting in traffic?
No you don't.
Why? Because they have a rego plate and people can report them or take a photo or video of them and send that to police.
It obviously doesn't stop every moron out there, and there'll be more morons as a percentage in cars given more of the population drive cars then ride bikes on our roads.

I ask again why shouldn't cyclists who want to use roads(who think public roads are their personal tour down under) be subject to licensing and a form of registration where at the least they can identified by authorities?

The only reason I can see why the cyclists on this forum are opposed to it, besides the iffy argument of cost to the government, is that they them selves are guilty of doing the things I've mentioned many cyclists do on our roads, and they know if at least a registration system is introduced where they have to have plates on their bikes, their little rogue adventures of using public roads as their personal tour down under courses will be over.

My belief is that we need better infrastructure of the sort that separates dangerous heavy vehicles from lighter flimsy vehicles like push bikes. Not because I don't want to share the road or think I own the road in my car but because the last thing I really want to do is run over and kill a cyclist even if it is their fault and not mine(example).

We aren't likely to ever see that, and the decision has already been made to let the cycling hoons on our roads, so the compromise has to be about making sure every road user is able to be held accountable for their behaviour and actions on public roads. Motorists can be held accountable because they can be identified by authorities through their rego plates.
Cyclists can't because there's no way to identify them.

If everyone is able to be held accountable and everyone has something to lose, then our roads will be safer then they are now.

They say they want safe roads and a safe environment and to share the road. Try passing a group who think they are in the peloton, try telling them they need to get out of the way because what they are doing is illegal.

You'll get the R rated version of the responses I've had in this thread from some people.

bits
Legendary Member!
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#936 Post by bits » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:37 am

Rev you have a greater imagination than most children.
Most commenting here have stated they don't even own a bike, they just see bikes as reasonable and normal.
There is no unofficial tour down under on the roads, they are just riding their bike.
The 1m rule is a sound logical road rule.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#937 Post by rev » Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:32 am

Lol who is this guy? Seriously never seen him before till now..


It doesn't surprise me actually that Adelaide cyclists are generally a bunch of twats. Lots of drivers are as well.
But we don't have race car drivers coming onto our public roads and breaking road rules.
See below..



Will sapol track down this YouTube user and also go after the "professionals" shown in this video clearly breaking the road rules?

Or can Craig Lowndes at the next Clipsal 500 tear around the streets of Adelaide in his V8 supercar without worry or being pulled up by the cops? Are we average motorists going to be allowed to tag along in our cars too?


[img]
http://www.weekendnotes.com/im/002/00/a ... 295121.JPG[/img]

This seems safe and reasonable.
Because these 4 idiots would really get out of the way and allow a car to pass.

There's even a video on Today Tonight of an idiot cyclist with a camera a using drivers he thinks are breaking the law...meanwhile he's riding in a car lane when there's a clearly marked bike lane..and when another cyclist pulls him up on it while he's abusing some poor woman on her own in her car, the other cyclist pointing out that he's not in the bike lane...his response is basically so what I can ride where I want.

He basically sounded like some in here.

Here's a little exercise for the keyboard warrior from a certain cycling forum above who pops in only to bitch about cars and defend cyclists as if they were angels sent from heaven..



Obviously this video is before the 1m rule.

Now let's apply this situation which still happens to today with the 1m rule.

Traffic is obviously moving slow.
You then have a bunch of sorry Mono for the language, but fucktards riding past the traffic at a faster speed, closer then 1m. Have a look how bloody close they get to the semi trailer.
Do these sorts of idiots realise how difficult it is to drive a truck and see other vehicles behind you? And then if they got run over by the truck they'd be blaming everyone but them selves.

Then watch the second half..especially from around 5:40 onwards.

Although, what am I saying..Bits said there's no problem..we don't have cyclists on our roads who think they are in a tour.

Because motorists dress up like race car drivers to go to work you see, when I take a corner I go wide and come in through the apex and then floor it as I exit the corner...all without any consideration for other road users around me. I do a bit of curb hoping too.



Police use YouTube videos to prosecute hoon drivers when they can identify rego plates.
Can anyone tell me how they are supposed to identify this idiot cyclist without a rego plate?
Yeh exactly.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#938 Post by Llessur2002 » Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:26 am

Rev you crack me up.

bits
Legendary Member!
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#939 Post by bits » Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:09 am

Uh is that driver holding their mobile phone to record this video with the semi trailer while driving? Why are you not outraged about that? You are fixated on the bikes that may or may not be too close to the truck and glaze over the guy filming.
His face is clearly shown and should be the idiot the cops go after.
I would say the driver is the one doing the most dangerous activity in that video, worried more about filming the bikes than actually driving.

First 2 videos are broken and fourth is one idiot doing something wrong, but pedestrians cross roads illegally all day long in the city. Imagine if someone sat and filmed them at the same intersection for just 1 day.

Show an Adelaide video where the bike rider or pedestrian ran a red after looking and caused an issue or crash.
Otherwise this is almost trifling.
Leave this to the cops to warn or throw out fines as they see it.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#940 Post by Waewick » Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:25 am

I don't get how hard it is to understand the 1m rule

if it is safe, you do it, if it is not safe you do not overtake

pretty bloody simple really.

bdm
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#941 Post by bdm » Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:55 am

I don't think I've ever read such irrational anti-cyclist words before.

Perhaps my own circumstances might help here. I live approximately 6km from the city, and own one car (a 4WD!) and one bicycle. I pay motor rego, and earning a median income, pay my fair share of taxes.

Every work day my car sits outside my apartment, not adding to congestion. Meanwhile, I ride my bicycle down Beulah Road and Rundle Street into the city each day.

There are plenty of people who do this and who otherwise would be in their cars, adding to congestion, but instead are riding backstreets or alongside cars on main roads to get to work.

They're paying the same amount of taxes as drivers but, as most road funding is directed towards cars, are not getting their fair share from the situation. Cycling infrastructure is generally absent or half-arsed.

I'm not quite sure how a coherent argument, based on equity (money contributed to the system, versus money taken out to fund projects) and efficiency (lessening congestion) can be made against cyclists:

EQUITY - Cyclists pay the same amount in tax, but don't get a fair amount back in cycling infrastructure.
EFFICIENCY - Additional cyclists lessen road congestion; additional motor vehicles increase it.

User avatar
Vee
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1105
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Eastern Suburbs
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#942 Post by Vee » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:07 am

To add to the conversation re traffic congestion, cycling etc... check out this draft plan from across the border.

City of Melbourne plan - one in four to commute by bike.
Cyclists will make up a quarter of morning traffic into the city centre by the end of the decade, if the City of Melbourne's latest four-year bike plan meets its ambitious target.
The plan would mean 20,000 cyclists would enter the city each morning, up from 12,000 today.
The draft plan ... involves filling in the many gaps in Melbourne's bike lane network, as a way to encourage more novice riders to cycle into the city and relieve pressure on congested roads and crowded public transport services.
The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/city- ... nfhgr.html

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#943 Post by Wayno » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:32 am

Thanks Vee. Interesting stats. Wonder how much of the anticipated Melbourne cycling traffic is planned to be roadside or separated bikeways
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#944 Post by Wayno » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:39 am

Another aspect of this conversation is akin to the renewable energy vs baseload power debate.

Think of the Melbourne stats above. 20,000 cycling regularly in summer, but 15,000 (my guess) reverting to car/bus in winter.

We still need to spend $$$ on greater road infrastructure to handle seasonal peak periods.

My point is that while cycling has worthy benefits (esp culturally) the bike line infrastructure spent will always be additional cost.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: News & Discussion: Road Issues & Traffic Congestion

#945 Post by rev » Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:45 pm

bits wrote:Uh is that driver holding their mobile phone to record this video with the semi trailer while driving? Why are you not outraged about that? You are fixated on the bikes that may or may not be too close to the truck and glaze over the guy filming.
His face is clearly shown and should be the idiot the cops go after.
I would say the driver is the one doing the most dangerous activity in that video, worried more about filming the bikes than actually driving.

First 2 videos are broken and fourth is one idiot doing something wrong, but pedestrians cross roads illegally all day long in the city. Imagine if someone sat and filmed them at the same intersection for just 1 day.

Show an Adelaide video where the bike rider or pedestrian ran a red after looking and caused an issue or crash.
Otherwise this is almost trifling.
Leave this to the cops to warn or throw out fines as they see it.
I purposely didn't say anything about the driver holding his mobile phone OR camera, to see if someone like you would do a whole song and dance about it. And you did. I wanted to see how long it will take someone to make that a point in their reply, while ignoring the videos, especially the video where there's a pack of cyclists taking up the road, which is the exact sort of behavior I'm talking about. Because we all know how some people want to pretend that cyclists are innocent victims who obey the road laws.

And yes, the police should do something about it. Just like they should do something about the cyclists. Interesting how those arguing against me, never seem to be too interested in seeing cyclists policed and road rules enforced against them. But will always bang on about motorists doing the wrong thing. Because some people doing the wrong thing obviously is a great excuse for others doing the wrong thing.
Rather childish.

You denied there's people who behave like they are in a tour while cycling on our roads.
I posted evidence which proves there are such people on our roads.
You ignore that because it doesn't suit your childish arguments.

Your response is "well it didn't cause a crash so big deal".

Thing is, kiddo, I'm specifically talking about cyclists doing certain things.
If you want to shift the goal posts whenever your shit childish argument gets sunk, that's your problem.

But I'm done interacting with you troll.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests