I’d not heard of the ‘Dutch Reach’ (using the hand furthest from the car door to force turning to check before opening a door) but it seems like a good idea. Obviously I know to check before opening the car door - but not the Dutch Reach as a habit or requirement to prevent injury to cyclists.
Thoughts on this becoming a thing in Australian jurisdictions?
The thing to be promoted is looking, not which hand to use to open the door. One can look in the mirror and blind spot perfectly well before using their right hand which is naturally positioned to open the door.
The thing to be promoted is looking
Agree. I think (and have no data on this) by using the Dutch Reach method, a person could create a more repeatable habit of looking through the window and blindspot, than relying on a mirror check.
People get lazy and barely look when merging or changing lanes
Who? …you?
But without laws to try and enforce looking it doesn't happen, proof is all the give way signs that have changed to stop signs over the years.
I learned something today
Dutch Reach passport please.
Seriously, Im a cyclist, I couldnt careless what the law ( regarding about cyclist) is. Im actively avoid/give way to cars no matter circumstances ( whether Im in ground about first ect … ) Got hit twice by a SUV and 4x4, both of the drivers said " I didnt see you ". Yes I will always give way to car shrug
Same. Stopped cycling because of it.
"I didn't see you". Of course you didn't - you didn't look.
In the Netherlands, cars expect cyclists. Here, they assume there aren't any. It's a mentality issue.
Mad is a new world order
Who opens the door without looking and then slowly opening it?
Apparently enough people that it’s a problem https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclis…
I wonder if some people are also distracted by their phone, a kid or someone else in the car.
Karens…. always Karens
Who opens the door without looking and then slowly opening it?
As a cyclist, a surprisingly high number. Then followed up with a surprised, "Oops", or embarrassed, "Sorry", or the angry driver's, "Look out d*ckhead!".
My personal highlight, is the grossly overweight driver flinging the driver's door fully open without looking, then slowly rotating in the driver's seat before emerging by dragging themselves out, using the door as a leverage point, all the while remaining blissfully unaware of any other road user . This manoeuvre blocked a substantial part of the road.
the cyclists who are practically invisible wearing dark coloured clothing and riding with no lights on during hours of darkness
Absolutely agree! As a cyclist, these people are the worst, and they're usually the ones who will yell abuse at cars for not seeing them. They're the cycling equivalent of the drivers who tailgate and cut up others in heavy traffic, racing to get one car length ahead.
Let's not make it about what happens the most
Let's make it about what totally happened to you this one time because that's all matters
Did that invisibility include steady and flashing white lights on the front and a flashing red light at the back? Riding at night with no lights is against the law, its as bad on a bike as it is in a car. Good lights at night should mean you can see a cyclist long before you are able to make out the colour of their outfit.
I get your point, but do you really think someone as fat as that has any hope of doing a Dutch Reach? What about someone with a fused spine? Are we going to exclude medically ill people from driving?
Doesn't it make more sense to require bike riders to pass parked cars at a minimum set distance, say half a metre? And have speed limit in residential areas that most riders can't reach without a hill, like 20km/h, in residential areas that prevent serious injuries?
pass parked cars at a minimum set distance, say half a metre?
For most cyclist have no problem with that at all - we don't want to be doored, but then you often cop abuse/angry blasts of the horn, because "you're in the way". Poor infrastructure and general lack of tolerance of other road users is the issue.
We have a 1metre rule when passing a cyclist in my state, but a few drivers actually pass as close as possible to intimidate, often while gesturing.
@DashCam AKA Rolts: The 1 meter rule really should apply to both cyclist and motor vehicles. If a cyclist can't pass a car whilst maintaining a 1 m space then it's not safe to do so. I'd say this would significantly cut down on cyclists getting doored.
@berry580: Yes, I am aware of this, but it seems many motorists don't know this and or hate the idea of cyclists doing this.
Yeh, the worst are people who fully open the door before even looking!!!
If someone slowly opens the door it gives me time to avoid it, no matter how close I am…But I try to stay a door width away from parked cars if possible.
Who opens the door without looking and then slowly opening it?
Yeah I agree with DashCam. As someone who only has a bike (no car in an accessible territory), a surprisingly large number of people.
I'd even be as bold to say: "all of us." It's easy to think "I haven't seen a cyclist".
But the trick is to remember cyclists can be anywhere. They can be on sliproads. Roads with no separate cycleway. In the city. They even can be the only other vehicle on the road at 2am.
They're fast, nimble and can quickly appear out of nowhere.
Have they considered that the drivers who do this might actually be waiting for a bike to come?
There are a lot of people who don't want bikes on the road.
Personally, I'm not willing to sacrifice my door for the cause.
All the people who have injured me while riding~!
cabbies
Everyone who pays tax and rates pays road tax already whether they are a cyclist or not. Roads are not solely funded through car registration.
Well, how about, when cyclists pay CTP… Cyclists give as much respect to pedestrians as car drivers do to cyclists.
Yeah, I’m not completely opposed to CTP and registration for cyclists who ride on the road. The problem being that it would discourage many from cycling, particularly recreational cyclists and the government in general promotes cycling as a healthy (unless you get doored) and environmentally friendly activity and commuting option. Difficult balance to reach.
@morse: I don't agree with taxing cyclists either, for much the same reason as you stated, but we can't just keep adding rules. There also has to be some onus on the cyclists to ride to the conditions. Riding at 40km/h less than a metre from parked cars is only inviting an accident.
Instead of passing the buck and putting your own expectations of safety onto others via legislation, there also needs to be self reflection and accountability for ones own decisions.
There are already laws around red lights, stop and give way signs, but one only has to spend 5 mins on a Dashcams Australia video to see that all the laws you make are only as good as the people who actually adhere to them. We need to stop making more rules that make other people responsible for our own safety.
@morse: Requiring a form of registration for cyclists (e.g. small(er) CTP fee, a rear plate to be displayed) would only discourage cyclists in the same way requiring these for car owners discourages drivers - basically not at all.
Recreational cyclists already own a bike - if they want to ride it on public roads for health benefits/environmental reasons, they can - with registration.
Calculate their CTP fee based off actuarial studies off injuries to the general public by cyclists.
Sell the registration/plate requirement to them with a commitment the funds will be committed to cycle path/lane creation/maintenance.
It's important to take the risks of cars to cyclists seriously, as it is for the risks of cyclists to pedestrians.
the risks of cyclists to pedestrians
plus the risks posed by cyclists to all other road users
@payton: I actually saw the stats on this several years ago. In the last 40 or so years i think there has been 1 pedestrian killed by a cyclist in Australia, poor old guy killed crossing Beach rd i think. I know that there would be many more injured but the idea that there is some kid of equivalence when comparing risk between modes of transport is false. Every year many more people are killed by motor vehicles, even taking into consideration that it is a more popular form of transport. I'm not suggesting that users of all forms of transport don't need to be considerate of other road users, just pointing out that the odds of being killed or seriously injured are very firmly weighted against motor vehicles.
Calculate their CTP fee based off actuarial studies
With the price of actuaries there goes any discount.
Calculate their CTP fee based off actuarial studies off injuries to the general public by cyclists.
The cost that vehicles cause in injuries would be magnitudes higher than cyclists. You would probably end up paying a yearly CTP of a few bucks if they actually calculated it.
Do you really think the governemt would want to miss an opportunity to grab some extra tax AND make the cyclist-hating population of Australia even happier?
@miicah: I'm just describing what would be a fair system. CTP is designed as a form of insurance for the risk of a innocent bystander being injured by the activity of driving that vehicle.
Obviously a car does a lot more damage than a bike does when it hits a person on the road, so cars are more risk of grave injury… but bikes can also be easily driven on footpaths, so they have more 'opportunities' to do lesser injuries.
Bike riders throw tantrums at any suggestion of a tax because they wrongly assume there's no (or negligible) external costs associated with their activities. It would be wrong for them to pay zero CTP.
But they (likely) do nowhere near as much damage as cars, so it would also be wrong for them to pay "car CTP".
And so we need a balance between the two, hence the bike CTP calculation described.
As to whether a government would tax a fair amount or not is another matter.
@Crow K: do you think if there was an opportunity for the government to make money on this it wouldnt already be being done?
It's been studied many times, any type of system would cost more than it generates.
Every competitive cyclist who holds a race licence, and many recreational cyclists hold a rec licence which all include third party insurance.
The mums, dads and kids who go out for a park ride once or twice a month though would never sign up for that, the same way pedestrians never would.
You are generalising. Yes we have idiots on 2 wheels running reds but I guarantee you every cyclist that commutes sees at least 1 car running amber and red lights every commute, crossing double lines and performing other unsafe manouveres and let's not forget iphonedestrians walking blindly across roads. On some Sydney CBD roads we have metal barriers up around some bus stops because idiots were walking out in front of buses without seeing them and getting themselves killed.
Finally, a long term cyclist is unlikely to have the same health issues as a fat ass motorist later in life so should we reduce their Medicare levy and increase the levy for everyone with disease from a sedentary life? Trust me the drain these fatties will have on Medicare is the big long term problem. You should be encouraging all forms of fitness.
In that case they'd just call it going dutch.
I'm a cyclist, I pay road tax on two cars sitting at home that I'm not using. A lot of cyclists have cars they pay tax on anyway.
Cyclists and taxes are not the problem, poorly thought out infrastructure is.
Gov has plenty of money, problem is the nickel and dimes wont add up to anything. THis pointless "tAX DA cYCLISTZ" is stupid. I pay tax on two cars already and what are they doing with that, building more toll roads/speed cameras that cost us even more money.
as long as government hands out billions to stupid projects, Gerry Harvey, Transurban, mining and other billionare money sponges nothing will get done. This pointless debates will result in the status quo on nothing and situation is worse for both drivers and cyclist.
@Bid Sniper: It just seems disingenuous to be a part of a group wanting special treatment and when the concept of paying part of the cost comes up it's "oh, the government has plenty of money anyway, and they misspend it on things I don't agree with, and I pay taxes on other things that aren't related to this, trying to make us pay for this is pointless and stupid, here's some more whataboutisms"
Seriously. What's a good reason why there shouldn't be a bike tax that's used to pay for bike projects? Stay on topic.
@Crow K: My point is clear,
Extending your boomer logic here, What about pedestrians? Those jaywalking freeloaders should pay a pedotax for footpath use.
I pay for 2 cars, if I chose to cycle to maintain my health, reduce road congestion, reduce pollution, reduce strain/costs on medical system / taxpayer by maintaining my health. There is a significant cost saving here.
As I said, you're using boomer logic…
@Bid Sniper: I'm not going to pretend to understand the confused thought process that causes this to be "boomer logic". Let's just mark it down as an ad hominem by you and proceed, shall we?
Your point is "Bike tax? But I pay car tax, and the government already has money from other things, and they're useless in how they spend it". It would have just been faster and more honest to say "Bike tax? But I don't wanna". It's equally effective a point.
Re: pedestrians, not quite the checkmate you think it is. Footpaths would be a council matter, paid out of council rates, paid by local pedestrians. And yes, when you ask the council to undertake additional activities on your behalf/special interests ("It's summer and as a beachfront community the 'prawns in the bin' problem is back, we want garbage collection twice a week"), they'll impose an addition tax to pay for it.
Paying road tax on 2 cars has nothing to do with the discussion on whether bikes should pay for their infrastructure costs. In the same way boats don't affect it either.
Bike owner: "Hey government, can you add bike-only lanes to the roads, do some bike-specific planning and infrastructure stuff?"
Govt: "Sure, it'll cost money though. Extra money. We'd be doing additional things, new things, new plans. We'll have to tax the bike users"
Bike owner: "Make the car owners pay for it, they already pay for the car lanes and car planning"
Govt: "Will the car owners be allowed to use the bike lanes?"
Bike owner: NO
Govt: "So why are they paying for it, exactly?"
Bike owner: Boomer logic, boomer logic, just make them pay for it already.
@Crow K: Just a side note the benefit to the government by increasing cyclist uptake on reduced health loading, congestion issues and future road maintenance and construction, by itself would fund future cyclist/pedestrian path infrastructure.
The only reason why so much funding goes the way of cars is because it's ingrained into our culture.
Go to Netherlands the priority is the complete opposite with roads designed around cyclists.
Go to Singapore and the minority of the population own cars with public transport the go to.
@Drakesy: There are definitely a lot of upsides to cycling (yes, health benefits, lower congestion etc) - the tricky part is putting a $ value on it. It's too glib to assume it'll just be a trade-off with whatever the entire infrastructure costs. This is why we do costings and feasibility studies (and why we don't have a high speed rail project despite multiple government attempts to try to justify it).
We know we're always going to need cars for autonomous travel ("I'm not fit enough to use a bike exclusively / what if I want to deliver 2 boxes to a friend / what if it's raining / what if I want to take my 2 children to the aquarium on the other side of Sydney / I don't feel safe riding this tiny device in among the giant metal death boxes"). Cars have their many uses - it's just figuring out which rides we can safely replace with bike trips, among those willing to undertake them.
Realistically bikes will always be a niche aspect of this, which is why the infrastructure reflects the tokenistic benefits(footnote1) it provides. We paint a few lines here and there in suburban areas for free (which helps you with your weekly shop trip, sure), but if you're going to go hard-line on "every single road should have a bike lane and all of my city should be safely accessible by bike", then it's going to cost a motsa to build and maintain, and you can't pay for it by saying "at least the public health bill will be a bit cheaper now, maybe(footnote2)". Bike riders will need to pick up at least part of the cheque, and that means paying a tax.
(footnote1) tokenistic benefits sounds cynical, but it's how it is. If we agree being healthy/active is a future reduced cost in medical/hospital bills, it would make sense to "save" those costs by incentivising good health. But do we get a tax credit or deduction for joining a gym? No.
(footnote2) Maybe, because there's going to be healthcare costs and risks associated with that activity as well. Does the overall increase in lung health from being a bunch of cyclists reduce the cost on the health system to the extent of the increase in "someone opened a car door in front of me" injury increases?
@Crow K: Taxes/fees on cars like rego and the fuel tax are nowhere near to covering the cost of the road network and driving, especially when you consider externalities like healthcare costs for car accidents and pollution. Every Australian paying tax is subsidising drivers already. Look it up.
Not to mention money is fungible, car tax money = car infrastructure spending is a fundamentally naive approach to understanding how govts manage budgets. Governments spend money to win elections, improve the economy and ensure security for the state. Health, infrastructure, welfare, environment: these all fundamentally boil down popularity, productivity and security. Building cycleways and encouraging cycling reduces congestion (improving productivity), reduces the need for future road expansion (saving money) and improves health of the population (improving productivity / saving money). Taxing cyclists does the complete opposite of that and fundamentally defeats the point of building cycleways.
Also to address the idea that it's "unfair" that drivers pay for roads that have cycleways on them.
Local roads are controlled by Council, the rates of residents and businesses regardless of their road usage pay for them. Drivers who use a local road in an LGA they don't live have zero entitlement to use those roads fundamentally.
State roads are controlled by state transport departments and get their money from the state budget overall.
@Subada: I agree it's fundamentally naive to assume all the X taxes pay for X; we're part of a larger society that works on a inter-connected level.
If scientific research was paid for on this basis the 0.14% of people in Australia with HIV would be paying the entire costs for it, which clearly wouldn't work.
Realistically the government just hoovers up all the money it can via the various taxes it can get away with and then it decides what to spend it on (which leads to war chests for re-election, pork barrelling and all the rest).
But "the road taxes don't pay for roads" is an argument that cuts both ways - it puts the "but I already paid my car rego" non-argument that some cyclists try to wheel out to bed, for instance. I didn't have to rely on that, but anyone stewing on "car rego is for cars, it doesn't cover bikes", this is the evolution of that concept. The government doesn't care where the money comes from, you haven't "already paid" for your cycle lane.
A lot of your arguments for the benefits of cycling are hand-wavey at best. Bikes improve productivity? Let's be charitable and say everyone who uses bikes can travel consistently at 25 kph. Cars can consistently do 50 kph. Unless cars spend half of every trip immobile in traffic, bikes are absolutely not an increase in productivity. [Realisitically its the purpose of trips that matter - short versus long, single passenger versus … anything else. Bikes basically suit you going to the shops, which is great. Doing something a couple suburbs over, not so much].
Bikes increase the health of the population? Sure, I'll admit some longer term cardio health benefits (among the relatively few willing and able to cycle regularly), but are we going to turn a blind eye to the healthcare costs of being in a traffic accident on a bike? Even just falling off a bike onto cement without anyone else being involved can result in fairly serious injuries (that car users will never experience), but getting into a bike accident with a car is not a trivial matter.
I never said it was unfair for drivers to pay for roads that have cycleways on them. I said it was unfair for cyclists to expect massive infrastructure benefits to be built and developed for them for free. The "think of the future health saving" stuff is the same logic behind gym memberships being tax deductible. Sure, it'd be nice. Sure, there's an armchair argument for it. But it's not going to happen short of a massive social shift in how our society currently operates.
@Crow K: I might as well clarify here that I'm not some bike-hating diesel head - I'm highlighting the additional costs and difficulties our country would face in attempting to replicate the infrastructure success of a country that had more successfully factored this in to their development. (It's the same reason it's ridiculous to say "Australia has got gun control right, America should just do that" - there's decades upon decades of civil, financial and cultural underpinnings to be removed/reworked).
Amsterdam is a wonderful biking success story. It's also flat and 200km in area. Sydney or Melbourne can't just decide to become Amsterdam.
@Crow K: The reality is there is not enough infrastructure in the cities to deal with everyone driving to work/shopping/play. Forget about money even, there just isn't enough physical space to support it.
Hence, public transport and cycling is encouraged by governments at all levels to make the situation manageable. [Footnote 1]
As part of this arrangement, the government creates busways, subsidies, cycleways and numerous other initiatives to make these options feasible.
[Footnote 1] It isn't tokenistic
@Crow K: To quickly answer some of your responses.
https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/documents/about…
This is still slower than a car but speed and travel time is not the only factor in productivity. You need to consider the time and cost associated with providing and finding parking, not to mention the opportunity cost of all the prime real estate dedicated solely to roads for cars. You also need to consider network resilience to major shocks like accidents and infrastructure failure etc. A methed out truckie crashes on the M4 and 1/3 of Sydney is (profanity) for the day. Also this average travel time for cars is only going to go down in future, I'll explain at the end.
The tax issue doesn't cut both ways, it's completely irrelevant. Cyclists who say "I already pay my rego" are missing the point, which is that no one is directly paying for anything the govt builds. How we choose to structure our transport system for the benefit of society as a whole is entirely agnostic to "who's paying". Otherwise there'd be no such thing as welfare, or medicare for all.
People falling off bikes is not a major issue. The Dutch have massive cycling mode share in their cities and don't even have compulsory helmet laws because it's a non-issue. Not to mention cycleways can be used by electric micro-cars for vulnerable people. Collisions with cars can be solved by protected bicycle paths which seems to be a point against your argument.
This all leads to the main issue. The shift towards remote work may change this but currently we're headed towards a congestion "crunch". Based on current growth the NSW volumes from the Strategic Travel Model shows that our road networks will fail before 2040. This is the subject of jokes internally at some offices in TfNSW that I've experienced as a consultant. Obviously come 2040 we won't actually head into permanent grid lock, as people will choose not to drive once things become unbearable, but this begs the question that we need alternative modes ASAP and cycling is a well-proven viable alternative. Keep in mind cycleways are not a solution on their own. Sydney is transitioning to its "Three cities" vision where Parramatta and Western Sydney Airport become major employment hubs on par with the eastern CBD. This means less long-distance commutes and more people living within the cycling catchment of their jobs, making the provision of a safe cycling network even more important.
As a nation we have have two choices, keep demolishing homes to widen motorways and arterial roads, or get people cycling and using public transport. No one is saying ban the personal car however the reality is we as a nation can't afford to have the car as the dominant transport mode going into the future.
@Subada: You've argued your points well, and I agree with the substance of them. Mostly. People falling off bikes being a non-major issue sounds suspiciously like "Well, who's to say I'm GOING to have an accident?" rebuke to the insurance salesman. We'll have to agree to disagree on how trivial that one is. Also, to take Sydney as an example, it seems remiss to take comfort in the concepts of WFH and employment hubs and overlook how inappropriate cycling/public transport is for servicing major sectors (Architects aside, I can't think of another role in the entire construction industry that would be able to function, for instance).
I personally feel it's less likely our (existing) crumbling infrastructure will be converted to bike utopia to address these problems - the ease of application and the revenue raising success of London's 'congestion tax' seems the more likely path.
New infrastructure definitely should factor in cycle-way possibilities, but with roughly 67% of the population overweight or obese, I think it's unrealistic to expect a significant uptake of it. I'm not even talking about distances involved or underlying conditions [rain, shine], just getting people onto a bike.
A cycleway future for Sydney would be a wonderful thing to behold and I'll cross my fingers, but I can't see it happening frankly.
@Crow K: I love driving and hope to be able to do so well into the future and I think provision of cycleways will help keep driving viable for those who need it. I just want the majority of Sydney to have a legitimate choice about how they move about and I think the reality of congestion will have people banging on the doors of our state politicians demanding that choice soon enough.
@Subada: And where might you live in Sydney? And what sort of job do you have. Not everyone is supplied with showers and such to clean up at work after a hot ride in summer or a cold wet one in winter.
As a nation we have have two choices, keep demolishing homes to widen motorways and arterial roads, or get people cycling and using public transport. No one is saying ban the personal car however the reality is we as a nation can't afford to have the car as the dominant transport mode going into the future.
Many of us have to accept jobs where the factories are, which many dont like to have in the area's that are close by to houses. Likewise if you live in a hilly area. And what happens if you change jobs, sell your house and move to a new area. But what about your partners job, the kids at school?
Unfortunately life isnt that simple that we can plonk down little satellite towns and encourage mini village life.
Many of us arent 10 kms from work. Try 30-40 thats a good 90 -120min on a bike by the time you stop etc and then double that when you head home again.
A simpler solution is to stop growing the city with so many extra people we import. Saves the resources, power, and the planet
Edit - And I forgot about the kids. They cant even walk to school, mums now pick them up. If you want to get people back on their bikes and cars off the road, make the kids ride to school and ban mums from dropping/picking them up. (good luck with that)
@RockyRaccoon: The issue of suburbs and car dependent sprawl are a separate one to cycling. That's fundamentally a planning / zoning issue. There are cities far larger in population than Sydney that function better because they build up and not out. We should be converting suburban town centres to hubs of high-density residential serviced by metro lines kind of like what's happening out north right now. Of course cycling can be used to get you to those metro lines. Western Sydney Airport and Parramatta won't be "little satellite towns". Most major international corporations and govt departments have offices in Parra already.
I lived in Kensington and would cycle to work all the time. Now I'm a 60 minute cycle from the city but walking distance from a train station so I do that. I'm not saying everyone should 100% use bikes. I'm saying we need the option alongside public transport. E-bikes will help address a lot of the usual concerns about steep hills / hot weather.
I like how you say that cutting off growth to a city like Sydney is a "simple solution", as if that wouldn't have major economic ramifications. We've been in a per-capita-recession since before COVID. Without population growth we'd be in a recession. Yes endless growth is a dumb way to structure your economy, no I don't see us solving that in the next 30 years. A bike newtork expanded metro network and new urban centres is far simpler than a complete revamp of how our economy works.
@Subada: So is a recession not a bad thing?. We want to increase power costs to save the planet, so that also can lead to a recession.
Harking back to your earlier comments about destroying homes to make highways etc, and that cycling/public transport would mean we can avoid that. Wouldnt converting town centres into hubs also create dislocation, through reconfiguration. Clearing out homes nearby for these flats, then clearing space for those to have recreational facilities etc. Ever seen how individual house prices have skyrocketed compared to apartments. You would be extremely lucky to live in a house within walking distance of a station. So well done.
The city is the way it is, ironically the beauty of Sydney, its harbour, the urban landscape (not flat like Holland etc) makes it much harder to lay it out. As much of its already built.
We know the only cheap way to grow the city is to save on infastructure. Building new suburbs, without increasiing simple things like dams to supply water is just one example.
Again not to say these arent great ideals, just not that simple to develop, let alone just change everything and everyones mindsets. Have you ever tried changing a mums idea…
@Crow K: Building more bike infrastructure would lower the cost of healthcare even if more people took up cycling, because it would be orders of magnitude safer than both driving and cycling in its current state.
@jrowls: Do you have data on the cost of healthcare from current driving/cycling unsafeness versus the costs of building more bike infrastructure?
It's easy to say it's cheaper. And equally easy to say it's orders of magnitude cheaper.
But isn't actually more expensive? In fact, I heard someone say it's orders of magnitude more expensive.
@Crow K: Assuming that points 1-3 from link 1 scale reasonably well to Australia, I would suggest that getting cars off the road would bring major benefits to the economy through less road accidents.
Given the finding from link 2 that for every dollar spent on cycling infrastructure and programs, three dollars are saved on public health expenditure, it's a no brainer - even if it was half as effective in Australia.
Other countries are PAYING people to cycle to work (link 3). Don't you think their economists have run the numbers, or is it all 'political'?
Cycling to work decreases mortality risk by 40% over other transport methods AFTER adjustments were made to account for participants' activity levels (link 4). That's just the exercise and safety aspect. When you also consider pollution, how many lives could be saved per year? In a US study based on an area with a population of ~31m, they found that eliminating short vehicle trips would save 1,295 deaths per year (link 5). How much is that in economic terms, since you folks love to see the numbers case? I don't know how you want to value a life but I reckon it'd be better for everyone if those people were working and consuming, not dead. They also found that making just 50% of those short trips by bicycle would save 3.8 billion dollars per year in health care costs (link 5).
Drivers have a chance of death that is 5 times higher than that of cyclists (though they do get injured in similar frequencies - however I caveat that by suggesting that a lot of injuries are from sports cyclists riding on-road at high speed, rather than commuters in bike lanes) - yet cyclists are the main concern? (link 6).
So please, how would registration of cyclists benefit anyone? If anything, we should be slashing budgets for new highways and roads and funnelling it all into cycling projects. But we don't, because automobility is politically tied to 'freedom' in this country, and I daresay there's a large factor of urban sprawl-loving developers wanting cars to stay in pole position too, because it enables their projects to go ahead no questions asked.
Oh all this is without even talking about other modes of active transport like ebikes / scooters and walking. Better infrastructure for bicycles generally benefits those groups too which would amplify all the other effects mentioned.
@jrowls: I appreciate the meatier response.
As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, I don't feel Netherlands (a flat country that's 3 times the size of Sydney) 'scales reasonably' to Australia, so I take such studies with a grain of salt.
I personally feel bikes are great, but it's not trivial to substantially integrate them into our existing infrastructure. There will be significant costs, and you can't buy concrete with an I.O.U. from the health sector dated 30 years in the future.
Also, the "never ever ever ever EVER tax or regulate or register bikes" arguments are just what-about-ists scrambling for any avenue to scoop up all the rights and none of the responsibilities. I've come to accept it's not my job to change the thinking of entitlement, but that doesn't mean I won't call it out.
I think the "but some of us ALREADY paid car rego" and "we haven't killed a pedestrian in AGES" things that get trotted out as part of those discussions are bad faith, and I call them out as such. It's possible to be pro-bike and call out a steaming load of a hand-waved argument.
Having said that, frankly I think it's ludicrous that such a small marginal group thinks they can insist upon such a large amount of societal change without acknowledging the good faith and serious costs and difficulties they'd be imposing on everyone else. Cyclists really are the "vegan who want to discuss your diet at parties". If they just became a modicum less self-righteous about how their lifestyle was the panacea to the world's problems you feel you'd be able to sit down and have a beer with them. Maybe.
@Crow K: Well there you have it, meat provided and the response moves on to talk about how cyclists suck and so do vegans. FYI I’m not either of those things.
Cyclists are a small marginal group because of the way Australia has been planned since the end of WWII. There’s nothing structurally different about Australian cities than anywhere else. Short trips in Sydney are hardly hilly at all, yes it’s flatter in the Netherlands but that doesn’t mean every commute is a Tour de France stage here in Sydney.
Where I live is well and truly in Sydney and it’s pretty flat for miles around, easy riding territory.
As for the “enormous structural changes hefted on to other people” - what does that even mean? How do bike lanes really affect peoples lives? Not in any significant way. You can still drive to wherever you want to go, there would just be marginal changes of speed or direction here and there. Probably less traffic to contend with too!
You don’t have to be able to sit down and have a beer with someone to know they’re right or for change to come from them.
@jrowls: I'm glad you've decided it's not a problem after all, I was worried there might be some issues but I guess there's not!
Whew!
@Crow K: Well you’ve shown your true colours - typical of any “where’s your source?!?” centrist. Soon as the sources arrive it’s back to the crap. No worries champion, can write your username off.
Also it’s hilarious that you write off my responses as ‘well YOUVE settled it then!’ while you’re perfectly happy to go ‘aw nah yeah mate but the NL is flat so I FEEL xyz’
@Crow K: … was my response to “but u can’t ride in Sydney it’s too hilly and it’s so flat in the NL and they’re European so it’s different!!!!!11!1!!”. It was not a suggestion that it was fine for me.
You continue to be arguing in bad faith.
@jrowls: A lot of exclamation points and 1's from someone who claims to be arguing in good faith.
Write-off my username already. I don't need your anecodotal 'proof' that Sydney isn't actually hilly at all.
@jrowls: Speaking candidly, this is exactly the sort of deflective non-argument stuff I was talking about above. (The rest of this post is a criticism of the argument the website puts forward, and not jrowls themself. The website is the "you" and so forth)
"Hills really aren't that big a factor, not really much more than walking" and so on.
If we're discussing the benefits of switching from car trips to cycle trips and someone brings up hills as a counter-point and you go "Well, people already walk up hills anyway" then you're moving the goalposts of the discussion.
Why are we suddenly interested in how easy it is for people to walk to places? Oh, wait, is it suddenly less convenient for your argument to focus on cars vs bikes when hills come up? Is that why we had a subtle change of comparatives, and so on..
A responsible comment would be "Yes, hills are a weakness in cycling infrastructure". Not "who says there's going to be any hills anyway, and even if there were, they wouldn't be so bad".
This is why I say things like "Oh, I'm glad you've decided it's not a problem" - hand-waving away inconvenient points as a discussion tactic - call it out and punish it. If you don't want to discuss an issue, fine; don't gaslight people and say it doesn't exist.
@Crow K: MYTH: During bad weather, cycling would be less convenient than driving because users could get wet in the rain, for instance.
FACT: You can probably wear a poncho and it wouldn't be so bad, it's OK to get a bit wet, people get wet when they go swimming.
Et bloody cetera.
@Crow K: It’s not worth acknowledging because it’s just obvious. OBVIOUSLY when we build cycling infrastructure, you don’t pick the steepest route. The fact that Sydney is hillier than the flattest place in the world doesn’t even come into it. Yes it makes it slightly harder, but having no infrastructure makes it much harder.
Saying “oh no one would use it even if we built it because it’s too hilly” is just a cop out. There’s so many routes around that are close enough to flat. Along train lines for example. We generally don’t send those up steep hills either so it’s already a given.
It’s just a completely disingenuous argument, that’s why people are rude or dismissive to you etc.
@jrowls: "Well OBVIOUSLY there's going to be hills" is the sounds of someone clambering down from the "there's no hills, there's hardly any hills, hills aren't even part of this" deflections, previously documented.
If you're pushing a bike infrastructure project and someone says "Wait, what about the hills?", you engage with them in good faith: "Cycling uptake in hilly areas will be expected to be less (because cycling is more difficult on hills), but we'd expect still strong uptake by those who don't live in the hilly areas or those with regular commutes that are otherwise flat but include (some) hills along the route. The projection is [as there are more people living in flat areas than hilly areas, thus making this project appropriate], there'd still be a significant uptake of cycling for short trips and cycling to replace cars, which would justify the project".
Note that the above depends on some analysis of the distances involved and the hill % - there's going to be cities where cycle travel is viable [current layout Amsterdam] and cities where it is not [current layout Sydney]. If you want to hand-wave and say "there's so many routes around that are close enough to flat (that it doesn't affect it)" then you do you. There's hardly any hills really, after all, is there? Especially not where you live. Very compelling anecdotal assurances, I'm sure.
I mean, I got a laugh out of 'let's just ride besides the trains' thing (next time you're on a train, keep a stopwatch out for sections when you're at "ground level" next to some existing roads and let me know how that goes), but god bless you for trying, I guess. And speaking genuinely, I appreciate you making an actual argument (eventually) as opposed to the 'look let's not discuss if it's viable or not, it's probably trivial to solve' nonsense that's previously been floating around. It's good faith engagement, and frankly we need a lot more of it.
@Crow K: I can't believe your end conclusion is this: "cities where it is not [current layout Sydney]". Like, after all this, it's still not possible in Sydney because… why? And how does that explain that there are people doing it already, regardless of a complete dearth of infrastructure? Have you ever even been to Sydney?
@jrowls: I probably cycle more in Sydney in a day than you do in a week. And while I draw from my own personal experiences, I don't generalise from them and mistake them for comprehensive data (you should see how flat my street is, I frankly think you could roll a tennis ball from one edge of Sydney to another based on that). I call out bad arguments where I see it, and "Sydney getting substantial cycle infrastructure is somewhat trivial and not costly" is a whopper.
Sydney's geography, cramped infrastructure and majority obese population are 3 significant obstacles to the program. Any one of these would require a lot of work arounds. The unholy trinity (bikes are hard to ride, there's no safe room for their paths and no one wants to ride them anyway) is a show stopper, and I'm yet to see a compelling plan to address this. Beyond the armchair discussion, anyway.
I have however seen a lot of people say "stop asking us to wear helmets and stop mentioning registration and stop talking about who's going to pay for it none of this is helpful to the thing just happening which it somehow will". It's become frankly tiresome. I'm sure a lot of people would be less rude and dismissive to me if I just smiled and said "yes, i wish for all that too, i'm sure the eggheads will figure something out", but that's not how I roll.
@Crow K: If you build it they will come. Happens all the time in urban planning, social infrastructure etc. You're just a major doubter.
Pedestrianising streets? Oh my business will fail! Oh what about parking! Oh nobody wants to walk!
They're workin. Cycling is the same. Build a network people can use and they will use it.
I STILL don't know how you can say Sydney's geography is that bad, and I can say no it's not that bad - why do I have to provide evidence but you don't? When I was talking about how flat my area is, I wasn't talking about my street either. 2 km in any direction yields a max change of 30 metres, though most directions it was closer to 14m. That's nothing. Even if I was to ride 30km, to the city, it's 90 up and 90 down total. That's absolutely nothing over that distance. Where's your evidence then? Again, I never ever ever said that "this entire country is flat and I'll ride a bike across the whole thing" as your quotes that exponentially diverge from their origins seem to indicate. My suggestion is simple. In most parts of Sydney (MOST) there is a route (A ROUTE) that is reasonably (REASONABLY) flat (i.e. between TRUE LEVEL and HILL I WOULDN'T RIDE UP). It's really simple. You're just arguing in bad faith.
@jrowls: I frankly think "If you build it, people will use it" is willful blindness (Sydney's monorail of the past and the repeatedly-proposed-but-always-fails-viability planning inland highspeed rail of the future beg to differ), but I'm not going to fault another person on the scope (or not) of their vision.
If it gives you comfort to label these doubts as the continued bad faith arguments of someone who for some reason just won't sip the refreshing KoolAid, so be it. I won't deign to label your optimism as 'head in the clouds' or 'rose tinted' and so forth; I'm comfortable with you having a different take.
I'll even go one further - you know what, I just realised that there are a lot of convenient flat routes across Sydney that would viably be converted to a form of bike path/lane proto-infrastructure. I agree with you that it's actually not going to be so difficult after all. And you know what? The (slightly) tricky stuff that comes after that? Well, I'm sure the eggheads will figure something out.
@Crow K: Ok so you're out of date there. The last fast rail report I read had it (at least in part) returning a positive ROI. The monorail was a joke of a project built to be a white elephant from the start, not an actual urban planning intervention.
Ah yes, the KoolAid that is a strategic urban planner suggesting cycle routes are a possibility in a huge and diverse city. That's the KoolAid. You're an absolute nutter mate, carry on.
@jrowls: Isn't it funny how fundamentally disappointed you became when I changed my mind and agreed blindly with your position.
I wonder why that's dissatisfying. This can't be the first time you've had the phantasm of validation pass your ideas by.
And for dessert, the "w-well, I don't care what you think anyway mate, you're clearly mental, ha-ha, trot on".
Imagine my disappointment of not having your approval. And while you're at it, imagine becoming a person who doesn't seek out approval to those depths.
@Crow K: Who exactly do you have a problem with in life? You're extremely prickly for no reason. Is it you or everyone else you hate? It's like dealing with Dr House except less impressive.
@Crow K: Is it fair that someone who drives once a week pays as much as an uber driver who is on the road most of the day?
@StalkingIbis: There's a whole bunch of taxes that a driver has to pay to get their car on the road. Here's how they are taxed and what they're supposed to cover.
Drivers License (annual, though you can pay for 5-10 years worth up front): proves you have passed the road rules tests, etc.
CTP: (annual) insurance against the costs of hitting a third party to the state (e.g. hitting a pedestrian at an intersection crossing)
Registration: (annual) 'Plate cost', means you've paid for the right for that vehicle to access to road network
Fuel tax: (discretionary/varies with car use): Pollution costs, wear-and-tear on the road
If you want the right to drive a car on the road, you have to pay the first three. Why would it be reasonable to ask for a discount on any of them based on the extent to which you choose to participate? [selling a car or having it written off is 'choosing to opt out of the system', which can get you refunds - I'm talking here about the 'but I only drive on Fridays' crowd]. If you want a saving, you get one on the fourth tax (because you're using less fuel).
It's "unfair" in the same way paying the same amount for a gym membership regardless of how often you go is "unfair" - not unfair at all.
Some costs aren't measured on how much you use a service (shrug).
@Bid Sniper: Agree completely. Also, people seem to think that fuel excise tax directly pays for road projects….it doesn’t: all tax goes into general revenue, at both state and federal level.
It's not a convincing or compelling argument…because you say so?
OK
@GrueHunter: If there was a requirement for bike riders to have a car, there'd be a logical connection between the two ["Look, we know that the bike riders already have paid the following costs <list of car costs>"].
"Anecdotally, I happen to have paid some car costs, and I reckon some others have as well" is not the same thing.
If that convinces you that bike riders have already paid various road taxes, that's fine. But it's not a structured argument. Right now it's entirely possible to go out and buy a bike and access the road network without paying a single tax of any sort (except perhaps the GST on the bike/helmet purchase price).
I dont want cycle lanes if its going to cost me that much, I'll just take the whole lane instead and save money.
Exactly. Have my vote +1
Hit you +1 back Jack
I pay registration and CTP on my car and motorcycle.
The registration and CTP is there on my car for when I drive my car.
The registration and CTP is there on my motorcycle for when I ride my motorcycle.
Cyclists don't pay anything yet expect the same treatment as other road users, regardless of how they block traffic or blow through traffic lights and pedestrian crossings without any care.
I've ridden my bicycle on the road, and will again in the future. But it doesn't stop me from looking at things from another perspective.
Many of us do have liability insurance. Membership of a state cycling association or competitive cycling club/association has insurance cover included.
Have you noticed that registration is tied to vehicle mass? The heavier a vehicle, the more damage it does to a road surface ….. not something a bicycle is doing.
rego is mainly insuring you against damaging other people or property…..of which there is a fairly significant risk in a motor vehicle.
On a bike, not so much.
Most people you see riding on the road hold a cycling licence and ctp insurance. Does understanding this a little better make you less annoyed?
@StalkingIbis: Rego actually pays mostly for the state road authority to keep track of who owns the vehicle you are driving. CTP pays for the damage and trauma from road accidents. Keeping track of who owns which bike would be a total nightmare. The cost of keeping track of ownership for the $200 bike you bought the kids at KMart for Christmas then when they grow out of it you want to sell on Gumtree ….. unworkable. Stamp duty to pay the wages and IT costs for the bike ownership database would literally make the cost of the scheme unworkable. Its been tried before around the world and abandoned. What happens to an old bike you found at the tip, a bike you dragged off a hard rubbish collection etc. If you own an AirB&B at the beach and keep a couple of beach cruiser bikes in the garage for the use of the guests are you liable as the landlord if they are caught running a red light?
In real terms the majority of cyclists aren't the stereotypical aggressive idiot running red lights in inner city gridloclk causing mayhem. Not saying those guys don't exist, just that they are the cycling equivalent of the lunatic doing burnouts and drag racing a car past suburban schools. They are a statistical anomaly regardless of how many angry drivers swear they see one each day during their wait in inner city gridlock. It makes no sense to overburden a whole system and to negatively restrict a whole bunch of other people that are so unobtrusive that nobody actually even notices them. Kids riding to school, mountain bikers, solo long distance riders out on remote country roads, the list goes on. The overly restrictive rules proposed to catch the lunatic at the red light are the equivalent of saying all cars should be mechanically limited to 40 km/hr so that the burnout guy cant terrorize schoolkids.
People genuinely don't realise how much road infrastructure costs. Especially retrofitting treatments to existing infrastructure.
Think of this; to widen the road by 0.5m-1.0m in established areas, you will have to:
* relocate above ground and underground (power poles, signal poles, signage, sewerage lines, drainage pits, telstra lines, high volage lines, etc),
* relocation of pedestrian facilities ie footpaths, crossings etc (to design and account for cyclist movements),
* considerations for access way restrictions or careful design (ie multiple driveways or side parking etc),
* then the actual bitumen and road construction. all that x2 to cover the other side of the road.
* sometimes expanding the road reserve to cater for the "little" extension can also result in forced acquisition of land from homes etc, which is again costly and time consuming
The above is not an excuse for why it can't be done, but hopefully to provide some appreciation for why it doesn't happen as quickly or as often as one might expect.
For literal widening of roads to cater for cycle lanes or shared user paths it can cost millions per kilometer/route (no exaggeration). That is not easy money for the government to commit where there is competing road safety issues and treatments that dramatically demonstrate higher benefit for return. It is a balancing act. Victoria's TAC (forced rego insurance) is investing in cycling, has an increasing program, and is trying to get cyclists off the road (with off road facilities) to provide a better safety outcome.
Some parts of government know what they are doing, are themselves cyclists, and are genuinely trying to provide safer solutions for all. Unfortunately most of the time this work gets caught up in the politics and always has to demonstrate "good support from the community" before it is given a green light.
Why do you own two cars that you aren't using? That's very strange.
Sunday dream car + daily beater.
Economically makes sense when factoring in insurance, depreciation, fuel costs and no having to worry about the beater getting dented/vandalised in shopping centre car parks.
I am a cyclist and I pay road tax due to the car that is sitting at home whilst I am riding my bike.
I should get a discount on my road tax as my bike puts less wear and tear on the road than my car
I'm going to say promoted/taught cause it seems like a trivial thing to enforce by law.
Good thing for people to know about for sure though.