To not insubstantial fanfare (though not enough to distract from the continuing annoying sideshow that is Evan Thornley) the Victorian government has released its Cycling strategy, and it looks like it’s a step forward.
In essence, the plan acknowledges that over the past couple of years, cycling has re-emerged in Melbourne’s inner city as a significant mode of transport, and plans a network of bicycle lanes and paths within a ten-kilometer radius of the CBD to cater for and grow that demand. And it seems that the report writers have actually listened to the cycling bodies about what such a network needs. As the report puts it:
Central to a good bicycle network plan is the idea that its sum is greater than its parts. A path is more useful when connected to key destinations. Once one network is established it can be expanded, or strategic links can be added to connect it with others. A hierarchy of interlinked networks can be developed, linking a range of different types of destination, including public transport hubs and Central Activities Districts.
Routes within networks need to be visible, safe, and complemented by cycle parking facilities at destinations. On-road routes need to be continuous at intersections.
Yay, they’ve finally got it.
There’s a lot more to the strategy, including safety issues, integration with land-use planning, a public hire bike scheme for the CBD, plans (somewhat vague) to encouraging cycling within Melbourne’s newly-planned “activity centers” in key suburbs like Ringwood and Sunshine, and encouraging a return to children riding their bikes to school. Very much worth a read.
The plan, step forward that it is, is really still chicken feed money. The entire strategy is going to cost a tiny fraction of what the government’s blown on the myki automated ticketing system. Furthermore, it still doesn’t pay enough attention to considering – in a rigorous manner – the effect of cycling on the overall transport patterns of the city. Until that changes (as discussed on this earlier LP thread) it’ll still be fighting for table scraps compared to freeways.
C’mon mate. Lets get onto the real issues like the new Qld cabinet, the LNP’s propesctive leader and the media’s obsession with Newspolls about Turnbull v Costello. Who cares if Victoria is behind the rest of Oz in regards to bikeways and cycle transport.
I love your delightful description of the Thornley issue. Heaven forbid anything that would give some credit to the beleagured State Opposition would receive any favourable treatment on this site.
Nah, this corruption business is not that important. What is important is bicycles!
Why the bicycle hatred?
Yep, its a good step forward.
Now, if they just re-nationalise Connex (and they’ve admitted privatisation has saved the government *no money at all* – so what the point of enduring these crap prviate services a minute longer?) – and there’ll be fewer cars on the road, and we’ll all be safer on two wheels.
anyway, VIC GOV – excellent work , and step 1: can we get a decent map of all bike paths in this town? Not just council-by-council?
Quick skim says:
Shared walking and cycling lanes = instant fail. These never work. Ditto the concentration of funds on off-road cycling facilities which are built but never maintained, go through potentially dangerous and unlit parts of cities and are constantly littered with broken glass by wandering idiots or lurked in by various lowlifes. Fine for your average, fit 25-50yo male, they are female no go zones.
More “on-road” facilities which segregate cyclists directly into the door zone of parking spots and into the path of more intersections like drive ways. Another instant, epic fail.
Bike cages at train stations = win.
The whole “educate other road users” push is good on paper, but will result in another epic fail. The proper re-criminalisation of traffic offences needs to be legislated. Jail time for traffic offences rather than fines, better enforcement and higher penalties for inattentive/distracted driving caused by phone usage, coffee drinking, radio fiddling and lipstick application. We’ve been telling people to look out for motorcyclists and bicycles for decades now and it just hasn’t worked, time to bring out the stick. Also time to recognize that cyclists need to “take the lane” at intersections and motorists should suck it up, it’s safer even if it costs 20 seconds of travel time.
I’d like to see legislation that banned drivers from ever holding another license if they hit a motorcycle, bicycle or pedestrian. No exceptions. Put drivers licenses back into the “privilege” rather than “right” category.
Ride2School – fail. Two income families just aren’t schooling their kids within reasonable riding distance of their homes, it upsets after school child care arrangements and the roads are simply too dangerous for children now. Have a look at the survey results on page 26 as to why most parents won’t let their kids bike to school.
Conclusion: 44 pages of platitudes and things that have been tried and already failed overseas and here. Still, it’s 100% better than every other state in Australia which range from indifference to outright hostility, so mexicans should feel privileged.
As usual, Lefty E, NSW leads our Southern cousins by example.
The only place I’ve ever seen with half-way decent bike infrastructure is Canberra. (Well, it was pretty good 20 years ago, dunno what it’s like now.) The only problem I ever had was when the skiing season was about to start and you had to share the path with wankers on ski-shaped roller skates.
If any other city came close to Canberra, they’d be doing OK.
“Nah, this corruption business is not that important.”
O.K. I get it. When Liberal members of parliament speak to business reps it is “sensible liaison”. When it is a labor bloke… “oh look, corruption”. Thornley did what anybody would do and grabbed what he thought was the better job.
Jamo: point taken, but I’m a little stretched for time at the moment, and Mark’s kind of exhausted after covering the Queensland election so extensively.
Howard C: when the Opposition discovers evidence of actual corruption – instead of evidence that Evan Thornley acted like a dill, which has been blatantly obvious for some time – I’ll be more interested.
Lefty E, step 1: can we get a decent map of all bike paths in this town? Not just council-by-council? Huh? There are good commuter maps showing bike paths at all sorts of scales – I’ve got about three for the inner west and inner north. All using Melways as a base.
Robert, I thought Jamo was being ironic. I certainly hope so.
I read in one article that they were going to add bicycle lanes to Balwyn Rd – my immediate thought was wtf? Have any of these people every ridden a bicycle? It’s one of the hilliest roads in the inner eastern suburbs. Even if they converted the whole road in a big bicycle lane I’d choose an alternative route just to avoid the hills (and it’s not that hard to do so).
What I’d love to see is some money putting in providing flatter paths in areas where hills can’t be avoided…or even perhaps Montmatre-style Funicular. Pretty expensive sure, but bike lanes on excessively hilly roads seems like a pretty big waste of money.
David @ 5 – I suggest we’d win more favour on this if (some) cyclists didn’t flaunt the same road rules we so willingly expect car users to observe. We’ve all seen it done and we probably do it ourselves sometimes (e.g. running a lazy red) but it’s this sort of thing that infuriates drivers – so why then should they have any respect for us when we openly flaunt the rules in front of them?
Some of the solutions are mentioned in this paper (like continuous flow at intersections and better separation) – but we need to see action, not promises.
Look up flaunt and flout in the dictionary.
It’s just the dismissive nature in which you mentioned it. I mean, did you even need to mention it? It’s a snide aside, which seems to coincide with one of the few areas where the opposition may be able to land a punch. Hmmmm.
So, the logic is: Car drivers often “flaunt” the road rules. Bicycle riders often “flaunt” the road rules. Car drivers often kill people (including riders). Bicycle riders rarely kill people. Ergo: Bicycle riders have less right to safe, dedicated road lanes than do cars.
(Shakes head, wonderingly)
GoTroppo says:
I hate to see that old trope repeated (cyclists run red lights OMG!!111!!) GoTroppo – it’s a load of rubbish and a teensy, tiny proportion of law breaking compared to the daily drongo-ness of your average motorist.
What I’d really like to see is the scrapping of every off-road and road-side cycle path. Yes, really. Both measures are anti-cyclist in the extreme. Off road cycle paths are built for the benefit of motorists. Road side cycle paths simply put cyclists in the danger zone of poor visibility from every direction, especially motor vehicles entering from the left side who rarely look down the gutter for oncoming traffic.
Cycle paths should, in fact, be built smack down the centre of major arterial roads, with bike boxes painted at roundabouts and traffic signals. The side of the bike path could simply be a rumble strip for quieter arterials or wire rope for busy ones, eliminating the stupid concrete centre that is just a waste of space. Being in the centre makes negotiating a roundabout much simpler and makes the cyclist far more visible to other traffic, eliminating the sub-human “I didn’t see you” response you get from the drooling, gormless knob twiddler who nearly killed you with his inattentiveness.
This design puts cyclists right in the main vision of other road users, not in their peripheral visions, removes cyclists from the parking door zone and subjects them to far fewer intersections where accidents occur. Turning right will be less of a hassle, turning left slightly more of a hassle but the compromise would be worth it. It would also be far cheaper than dedicated paths or useless shared use paths.
It allows cyclists to go where the roads go (unlike the special paths, which restrict you to where the path designer thinks you want to go) and discourages pedestrians from straying into cycling zones.
You know it makes sense.
“…….. which seems to coincide with one of the few areas where the opposition may be able to land a punch.”
The target isn’t even in parliament, Howard C. It is not as if they can force a resignation from cabinet. The opposition are doing a great job, like their federal colleagues, at spraying punches like a drunken sailors.
Frankly, it’s amazed me that the Opposition haven’t been able to land more punches on things like the Myki debacle.
David – I like my off-road cycle path and probably wouldn’t use a bicycle at all if it involved being closer to heavy traffic – just too dangerous and uncomfortable. The path I do use, covered in broken glass and never swept, runs alongside a 6 lane road used by a lot of trucks – cyclists and trucks can’t mix. If the roads are wet, and you’re close to the vehicles, the spray off their wheels will blind you.
To get to the path I could use a nearby highway, but I don’t think bikes should be on highways, so I use quiet streets that run parallel to the highway.
Lefty E @ 5 – would also be great to the bicycle route data available to google so it can be included into google maps.
David @ 17 – I’m not really a recreational cyclist (just home/office or home/shop cycling), but I much prefer off road cycling routes or if they aren’t available then well marked cycling lanes on the side. There’s no way I’d ride on lanes in the middle of the road. Where there are well maintained footpaths they can be even better than on-road lanes (its legal to ride on footpaths in some places).
btw I disagree about shared pedestrian/cycling lanes failing. They work really well in Canberra. It does require a bit more patience by cyclists during peak periods, but its not really anything more than we cyclists ask of motorists on the road.
Howard C, the Opposition should be absolutely pummelling the government on the useless job thy’re done on public transport. But ‘the Age’ seems to be the de facto opposition on this one. Why is that? Dunno. Maybe they just aren’t supporters of public transport.
Chris wrote:
I know people like them – but the road side lanes are basically dangerous. The best place to ride on them is straight down the marked line itself. Footpaths are basically russian roulette for a cyclist. Even just for trips to the shop.
I know it doesn’t seem as safe, but riding on the road itself is usually safer, as long as you can make yourself as visible as possible (which includes riding in the middle of the lane where appropriate).
For what it’s worth, both the NSW and VIC cycling strategies are indistinguishable, in that they reduce cyclists to unwanted guests on public roads. This is wrong.
Rumours from google are that they are working on a bicycle route option for google maps. Right now it doesn’t work at all, even bikely is not brilliant but it’s a lot better than naked google maps. Both are way, way ahead of any GPS I’ve seen.
The bike plan is good, as plans go. I prefer to rate the concrete rather than the plan having lived in NSW for too long.
“Maybe they just aren’t supporters of public transport.”
The Libs did a great job at closing down country train services that are now pretty nifty. It is difficult for them, as you say, on city public transport because they alway spruik freeways above everything else.
Robert, I am not sure how “Evan Thornley acted like a dill”. He has the great job with high pay and answers only to the board of a company not the plebs.
Open street map is incomplete, but where it’s mapped, it’s often superb.
And, best of all, you can fix it yourself, though the barrier to making contributions is a bit higher than, say, Wikipedia.
Perhaps it depends on how wide the cycle lanes are (they seem much wider in Canberra compared to other cities). Riding on the line will greatly increase the probability of getting nudged by a driver who doesn’t realise how wide their car is. I prefer to ride in cycle lanes on main roads than in side streets where there aren’t any cycle lanes – have had many more close calls in the side streets.
I trundle along at around 20-30km/h. I think it would be much more dangerous for both me and the number of cars having to overtake to ride in the middle of the lane with the cars going at around 50-70km/h. And really quite rude too.
Robert, I couldn’t see the route-finding part of http://www.openstreetmap.org which is the only thing that really counts. Without that it’s just another map.
I’ve only had a quick squiz but the Bike Plan looks more than ok. Sure it won’t win a lot of praise from the Deep Bike/Ban Cars group but then….
Joining up the bike paths is a must if they are to reach their full potential as inter and intra suburb travel routes. My rough calculation is that there are about 500ks of bike paths around Melbourne – a bit of commonsense work on joining them up, getting some to go somewhere and putting ina few routes to rail stations would make the network unparrelled both for recreation and point to point travel
If they are wide enough they’ll work for pedestrians and bikes as long as they macho roadies doing their PB on the way to work on a bike path are clamped down on. Bloody dogs on paths are another matter.
I thought there was already a bike lane on Balwyn Road, at least from Whitehorse to Doncaster Rd. Although who on earth thought is a good idea to put a bike lane on the busy hilliest few ks in Melbourne must have had whatever Lance Armstrong wasn’t getting from Michele Ferrari. I drive up and down Balwyn Road a lot and I’ve never seen a bloody cyclist on it in many years.
The Report seems to acknowledge that the inner burbs are a different creature to the middle and out burbs. That is it’s flat and well suited to bikes for lots of reasons. Those same reasons don’t translate well outside the expensive inner postcodes and a slightly different approach is needed in the non inner areas.
For the first time the reports seems to understand that many inner bikes at least are replacing Public Transport ( trains trams) and not necessarily cars. About time.
Canberra is not directly comparable to anywhere else. Canberra has more roads per person than almost anywhere om earth than I’ve been. In fact there seems to be a rule “Why have only one road going to X when we can put another one going there right alongside it”. That makes for good bike spaces.
David Rubie
Mar 25th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Quick skim says:
Shared walking and cycling lanes = instant fail.
so cyclist sharing a pathway with slower pedestrians is an issue for cyclist because it requires your patience (I assume), but cars sharing a road with much slower cyclists is what u demand?
seems a bit weird that u want car drivers to make way for u, but u dont want to make way for pedestrians….
Your federal tax dollars at work
Though I’m told things have deterioated since self government.
Oh – I’ve looked at those bike rental plans for years and I can’t see them working at all in Melbourne. I’m not even clear that they really work in Paris. I did rent one in Beijing where it was a cheaper to rent one for a year about 100 yuan as it was for a week about 120 yuan.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/bike_rental_sch.php
With the numbers of electric bikes on the streets of Beijing, and the low price to buy a new old school Flying Pigeon I can’t see many Beijingers renting bikes.
kat wrote:
It’s not an issue of patience and the car analogy fails. Pedestrians are generally out for an amble. This is not a problem if the cyclists are also out for an amble. The problem comes when you get mixed use cyclists (faster commuters say) who won’t ride at a safe speed in mixed foot+bike company, or pedestrians with dogs on leads. The paths simply aren’t wide enough for pedestrian+bike, where the roads are generally ample for cyclist+car. Most bike paths are barely wide enough for two cyclists going different directions. Mixed use requires much wider paths and perhaps even speed limits of 12km/h, but nobody is going to do that.
Roads are a different story wrt. cyclists. Normally, there is plenty of room for sharing, and advocating cyclists “taking the lane” should only happen where it is dangerous for the cyclist (i.e. near intersections). This does not interrupt traffic and isn’t rude, just sensible and safe.
Chris wrote:
That’s the reason why the bike path should be in the centre of the road – it’s far easier for a car driver to judge where you are plus far more visible. If they can’t judge where you are, how are they going to judge where the line is?. Centre cycle paths sound crazy, but it’s a much better idea than having to ride past opening car doors and driveways and having to get across the entire roadway just to turn right instead of just half of it, and negotiating a roundabout to turn right becomes trivial + cyclist is less of a roadblock. Everybody wins.
“….it’s a much better idea than having to ride past opening car doors….”
BTW. If ever there was a need for a safety campaign with bells and whistles it is on that very issue. Peeps very rarely look before opening and it is bloody dangerous especially for the cyclists let alone upcoming driver.
Personally, I’d like car doors to have an interlock system, so that 3 seconds before the door actually opens a big warning light goes on at the back of the car.
The only trouble is that motorists would then take this as an invitation to never look behind them when opening a car door, rather than every so often as they do now.
moz: there’s a project to do just that in the works, and it does specialized route-finding for bicycles.
Regards the door openers. I think I’ve mastered the art of distinguishing a ‘head’ in the driver’s seat who could possibly throw open a door as you attempt a pass. Older, larger folk particularly in country towns … the whole world’s an ashtray… tend to be the worst as they throw open the door to its fullest in order to swing their country legs. But it is the tinted window in the city that is the real bane of cyclists imho. You just can’t see them coming but, hand on brake just in case. Fingers crossed. I think I like Robie’s centre lane idea.
Where was the public consultation process for this bike strategy? I did not see any and watch for such things fairly closely. Some steps forward, but quite a bit of spin about “mainstreaming cycling as a transport mode” without much clear detail on how this would be achieved.
The Eastern Suburbs content is wierd. Balwyn Road, as others have noted, already has big bike lanes and is a hilly nearly bike free zone.
They are building a bike path over more hills to get to the VicRoads office in Kew?
Their “bike commuter route” through Hawthorn the Camberwell should also connect to Box Hill, follows bike hostile roads, and ignores the obvious rail easement alignment. Basically, it is futile[link]
No new funding either. This is repackaging of many things that have already been delivered.
I detour to get on bike paths to avoid dangerous traffic that often ignores bike lanes painted on the roads. Now the bike paths are crowded to the point they are dangerous too.
I still think its a bit crazy – aren’t you much more likely to get into a head on collision with a car? Especially when cars cut corners to turn right. And although it makes turning right easier it makes turning left much harder. It might be better for experienced, fit and fast riders but some other cyclists like me like to be able to stop and take a breather on the side of the road which won’t work so well if I’m in the middle of all the traffic
When I want to turn right as a cyclist on a busy road, I just stay on the left and then use the pedestrian lights at the intersection. And yes, I avoid multi-lane roundabouts (but then I was lucky when I was regularly commuting by bike in that the off-road cycle routes avoided all the big roundabouts).
Well, Ive never seen a whole-of-Melbourne bikeways map, Wilful.
I stand to be corrected (or preferably linked!) but most are single council area only.
Well, maybe just a little. However, I like to take the accident statistics for cyclists into account when comparing it to the wish lists of non cyclists or “would be” cyclists and compare them occasionally. Would be cyclists are generally terrified of things that in reality aren’t much of a threat (getting hit from behind for example is only a problem on country roads). Cyclists running into opening doors or getting cleaned up at intersections and driveways are far bigger actual problems. Neither of which are addressed by roadside cycle paths or dedicated paths that deliver cyclists straight into dangerous intersections like many do.
I am admittedly cynical about big statements about cycling that attempt to take recreational facilities and dress them up like transport infrastructure. Those proposed paths in Victoria would be great recreationally, but not necessarily good as a transport replacements. Dedicated commuters are generally fast and gently sweeping, dedicated but single lane bike paths are just inappropriate for most of them.
That’s not to say that recreational paths might not be desirable, they are, just that they might not be useful for transport.
Add to that the necessity of doing exactly the opposite to the usually proposed and already failed solutions (roadside paths being a pet hate) and you end up with the path in the centre of the road. I’d like to see it implemented somewhere as a trial, seriously.
Oops – sorry about the lack of end of blockquote.
Dedicated commuters are generally fast and gently sweeping, dedicated but single lane bike paths are just inappropriate for most of them.
Further to Chris, David you’re just speaking to the elite of the young to middle aged and fitter crowd. Of course dedicated commuters are thus NOW because these are the people that tend to survive in the traffic setup now. We need a system that can take slower people and children, not just the lycra set. Doesn’t mean we can’t improve on the current design of bike paths though.
When peak oil happens, maybe we can turn all those freeways to luxurious bike paths with light rail up the middle/sides.
Also, I’m a bit enraged because Tim Pallas pooh-poohed the idea of proper bike paths in St Kilda Road – one of our widest boulevardes – and now the State Government reckons it’s so bike friendly. Gah.
“One already exists along St Georges Rd in Melbourne; it doesn’t work very well. Cross roads across it tend to really stuff up the flow of cycling.”
The problem there is the hedges – it’s actually pretty difficult when driving across the median strip to tell if there’s a bike coming or not. People must have near-misses all the time – they’re almost pathetically grateful when someone doesn’t cut them off horribly!
Helen wrote:
Point taken. Although I’m not sure making unfit people and children ride further out of the way of their destinations is going to encourage them. If the amount of exercise equipment left out on hard rubbish days is any indication, lots of people say they’d like to exercise more, cycle to work etc. but few if given a choice will take it up regularly. That leaves a dedicated cycle path network as a purely recreational facility.
We’d probably be better off spending the money on bike ambassadors – experienced cyclists who are willing to “bike bus” the less experienced, and make sure the local councils actually repaint the bike lane markings more often than once a decade with a liberal sprinkling of silent cops/rumble strips.
If what FDB above says is right (that the centre cycle lane in question is hedged) that defeats the purpose of centre lanes – extra visibility right where motorists are usually looking. I’m sure it’s not a panacea, but the current infrastructure designs are awful and that demands researching alternatives.
Further to Lefty E. The only whole of melbourne map of bike paths (and suggested bike routes on road) is in the Melways I have which I think is a 2007 model. Its a two page spread down the back and so useful I was gunna buy a new Melways and rip out the bike path one for the bike.
However Ms FX got ‘erself a new 2008 Melways for ‘er mota (I’ve just been possesed by the spirit of Arfur Daly for a minute)and it doesn’t have the complete bike path map in it.
Given that as I said before theres at least 500ks of bike paths, I’m sure there would be a bit of a market for a complete map as its a bugger trying to get somewhere across Melbourne to be defeated by a map that stops at a local government boundary. Why on earth anyone thinks that you’d ride a bike path and know or even care where municipal boundaries are remains a mystery.
I’d like to support Helen above. There are a wide variety of bike persons and potential bike persons. Too many vocal “activists” are either lifelong sporty lycra types going for a personal best down beach road or mid 30′s fit males and females from the flat inner burbs who are either on a fixie or imagine themselves as a hip NYC courier taking on the man in the form of cars, trucks, helmets or geared bikes.
If bicycling is ever going to be easier then there needs to be acknowledment that the existing and potential riders are a broad church – of kids, elderly, nerds, the frumpy, people recovering from heart attacks or broken limbs, people with high BP, diabeties, overweight who are tentitively trying to get fit/loose weight, unco people with no sporting ability, people who just want to pootle to the shops or friends, people who want to cycle to work wearing civilised clothes and not raising a sweat, etc etc etc.
A big part of the difficulty of getting a bicycle culture in Australia is the deeply ingrained notion in this land that any activity must be a SPORT. Any sport will be dominated by the sporty types and competition.
We have to get away from the notion of bike riding (and I’d argue most activity) as a SPORT in order to nurture bike riding. Strangely most advocates of changing our culture to more activity, like bike riding, can’t see that to change the culture you have to change the culture.
Uncoes of the World Unite!
“but few if given a choice will take it up regularly”
Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sure one of the reasons more people don’t use bikes as transport is because they perceive it as too dangerous.
I’m the perfect example of this. Most of my transport needs centre around the inner suburbs and CDB of Melbourne. If I felt safe riding, I would use my bike as my primary transport tool. As It is, I won’t. The point is, I’m not given the ‘choice’. Whether this new bike plan will change that, I’m not sure. And no, I wouldn’t be happy riding my bike down the middle of the road.
Yes! I ARE ELITE! Woohoo! Go me!
On the contrary, it’s the older and less fit who really benefit from decent bike paths, because they’re the ones who really struggle to get back up to speed every time they have to stop.
The difference between the Upfield bike path (compulsory stop at every intersection) and the Moonee Ponds Creek path (goes under, round, all over to avoid road intersections) is quite marked – even little old ladies on grannybikes seem to doddle happily along on the latter but I just don’t see them on the Upfield path anywhere near as often. Ideally we’d have a proper path where the Upfield one is because it’s nice and level (next to the train line) but that’s apparently difficult because the railway track people are not co-operative and and the motorists are vehement about the need to drive dangerously in that area (much more effort is spent on trying to stop motorists driving onto the railway line when they can’t drive off than goes into establishing good sight lines for cyclists so fewer have to stop. The two conflict… the “look idiots, there’s a railway line here” signs block cyclist sight lines).
On the other hand, we’ve recently got the council to change the stop signs on O’Hea St from “all cyclists stop, all the time” to “motorists turning into side streets must stop”, because their first attempt was a joke. There’s a side street every 50m, so having to stop at each one made the cycleway really harsh even for school kids. As it is now it’s actually quite good even for commuting because there’s a 1.2m footpath, a 2m-odd cycleway, a nature strip, then the road. The remaining niggle is just that it jogs around the power poles (but at least it doesn’t go through them, as is often the case). Overall though, a really good effort.
Yes Fine – we’d all like to change the world but it’s sooooooo hard, we put all sorts of mental roadblocks in the way. Cycling is not a dangerous activity. Motorists die at a rate of 13:1 compared to cyclists.
Being a regular cyclist, I don’t see the distinction between lycra louts like myself and ordinary pootlers (at least here in Armidale). The pootlers/unfit/wearing work clothes cyclists are at a ratio of about 4:1 on my morning commute to the university. None of them are in any particular hurry and good on ‘em.
It maybe that Armidale is different than Melbourne in terms of traffic. I duuno, I’ve never been there. I think we’d want to dig deeper into that 13:1 figure for it to have much meaning.
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying, because at an earlier post you seemed to be making the point that people who weren’t already riding as a means of transport were making that choice and there wasn’t much to be done that could change their minds.
As for the ‘bike ambassador’ idea – it doesn’t really work for me.
FXH said:
This is pretty much the outlook of the cycling organization that I am a member of. Cycling as transport is it’s major focus.
Fine said:
Overall, I’m dismissive of the claims that addressing the perceived needs of non-cyclists will make them regular cyclists, because non-cyclists have a distorted view of the risks, which is backed up by the accident statistics, and the sedentary usually require a health scare to get them off the couch.
Yes, I can see you’re being very dismissive, which is probably the attitude that FXH is referring to above and why I’m not very keen on the idea of ‘bike ambassadors”. You could try listening to what people say they actually want. But, that’s your choice.
“and the sedentary usually require a health scare to get them off the couch.”
Again the patronising attitude. You’re assuming non bike riders are sedentary. It maybe that they’re extremely fit and active, but happen not to ride bikes for a variety of reasons. Safety may well be one of them. In fact, I can think of several friends who fit into this category.
Quite so! Complete bike map for Melbourne, NOW!
Great place to cycle. Australia’s best. Brisbane is far too hilly, Sydney is too angry – Melbourne’s made for two wheels.
David. I’ve only been a bike rider for just over two years. I never owned a bike before that. The least helpful people when I started were bike riders – even well meaning ones. I was advised that I would be foolish to get anything other than a road bike at a minimum cost of $1,000+ plus bikes shoes, clip ins (clipless) at an extra $300+ and so on. Bike shops were talking bullshit jargon and condescending, sneering or just selling up – nearly as bad as Apple Computer dealers.
I started out with an $80 kmart special and old sneakers for the first 9 months until I was confident enough to know what I wanted and if I even wanted to do riding.
I can think of at least a dozen other people I know in the roughly same situation – none of us were lazy fat slobs on the couch and none of us had a health scare to get us riding. But were were all initially put off by the sporty orientation of bike shops and lycra roadies.
If a bike policy doesn’t cater for potential riders but only caters for existing riders it won’t get my vote.
Francis, it sounds as though you struck it very unlucky. I’ve been a member of a variety of cycling groups that try to help (and recruit) people like you. Most of the Bicycle User Groups, for instance, should be just what you’re looking for. It does depend on where you live, bigger cities have more options.
Of course, if you ask sporting cyclists and sport cycle shops you’ll get those answers. Unfortunately they’re often the most visible, as you discovered. And in smaller towns the only way to keep a bike shop running is to have a core of dedicated cyclists who both run through a lot of consumable items and buy expensive bikes. So of necessity those will be the things they focus on. Especially since KMart sells bikes for less than it costs a bike shop to get one from the delivery truck into your hands. {insert rant about dodgy imports}
FXH, the advice you were getting may well have been a function of the demographic you are in – you were smart to ignore their advice. Your point about bike shops is also unfortunately pretty representative of a lot of the shops I’ve been to.
Most of the people that I know who cycle started off on either second-hand bikes or entry level new bikes. They may now have more expensive bikes but they bought them after either becoming more confident and riding more and wanting a sturdier, more comfortable bike capable of carrying a heavy load or after their financial position improved. That is essentially what happened in my case.
A list of organizations that recycle bikes for worth purposes
PeterC, my understanding si that the consultation with BV was extensive – I’m on their friends mailing list, they have been talking about this for a while, I think they were quite influential. But no, I’m not aware of any formal external public consultation. I’m not sure about your claim that it’s all rebadged stuff, no new money – that’s not what BV have been saying. Anyways…
I wrote to both the council and VicRoads recently to get them to simply put up a sign reminding drivers that they have to give way to cyclists along the Dynon road bike path. Not interested at all, no budget, no care. There are a couple of intersections along that road that really dangerous, and it all peters out over the Spencer street bridge anyway. Pity, because it’s such a useful path otherwise.
moz – I realise that there are good groups around but sadly my experience is all too typical. Theres no way me or the majority of other beginners would join a bike group straight up as it requires a committment that doesn’t exist initially.
I was refused repairs on my dodgy Kmart bike by my two local bike shops as it was “a piece of shit” – so I bought another one for $80 cannabilised it and repaired it myself.
I now have 3 bikes including a good hybrid and a Surly LHT (the LHT speced up and new to what I now have it would be $3,400+). I now know the difference between a canti brake and a v brake, brifters vs seperates, drop bars vs straight vs euro trek bars, gel saddles and Brookes etc etc etc – I have found two good bike shops 14 and 25 ks away for service etc
Theres no way I will darken the doors of my local bike shops even for a tube these days.
FXH wrote:
The bike shops are only catering to the market FXH – it’s a good indication of who is putting their cycling money where their legs are. K-Mart and Big W bikes are fine for what they are, but bike shop mechanics can’t charge you what it really costs to fix one of those bikes as it could easily exceed the value of the whole bike.
I’m not being dismissive or elitist, just realistic. We know what tends to happen to casual cyclists if they don’t invest in decent equipment that’s being used for a demanding purpose like commuting – those bikes are always found on trash collection day or hung in the shed gathering dust. The rest of us, riding in the rain, through winter, through magpies, through thoughtless motorists and being treated as 3rd class citizens on our own roads every day have been consistently ignored by authorities hell bent on trying to attract people to cycling who don’t really want to cycle and pandering to motorists who simply want us off the road.
Wow, you know a different demographic of bike rider than I do.
My standard advice is:
buy a $50 bicycle if you’re prepared to do all the servicing yourself (and you’ll have to); or more likely
spend $300-$500 if you are going to ride once a week or less
spend $500-$1000 if you are going to ride several times a week
spend >$800 if you are going to ride daily.
The litmus test for distinguishing a good bicycle shop from a bad one is if they will lend you some tyre levers and a pump to change a flat yourself after you’ve just bought a tube from them. If they inisist that they can’t lend tools (store policy you know) but will happily change the tyre for you (at a small cost) then I will never go there again.
Jeez – you’re a cheap bastard FHX
Jus kiddin – and re cheap bikes, CERES has good recycled ones at v low prices. Good place to donate your old one to a good cause!
david – I’m not convinced the bike shops are catering to the market with new bikes. I’d be willing to bet there are bigger volume sales and dollars in catering to the “family” bikes where most families might buy 2 to 4 bikes for the whole mob.
I see bike shops catering to what they know and letting their bike preferences predjudices get in the way of business. It is changing though.
I’d say Goldcross for one will be cutting a swathe through the large volume market of decent bikes at reasonable prices and a general lack of snobbery. Their recent purchase by Supercheap Auto willsee them become the Bunnings of bikes. In addition a few stores catering to commuters and non sport bike riders have sprung up in Melbourne. This competition will see a big squeeze on the narrow focussed bike bike shops.
While I have certainly encountered plenty of bicycle shops that are as elitist as described, I don’t think the attitude is quite as ubiquitous as is being suggested. There are a lot of decent ones as well IMO.
Francis, if you don’t see the value in going to a meeting but instead expect the BUG volunteers to seek you out and help you without payment, I’m not sure what you can do. Buying a bike from KMart is probably as good as it gets.
The problem is that no matter what volume a bike shop deals in KMart will always beat them both on price and number of sales. It’s just not possible to get a reasonable quality bike at the price the KMart sells at, let alone add the cost of running a shop and sell it at a profit. Goldcross and other big chains still struggle to come in under $200 on something that they are willing to offer warranty on. Of course, the KMart warranty is “you assembled it, you fix it” as you found out.
I know a few shops that are specifically targeting the market of “people like Francis but who are willing to spend money”, and they’re finding that the niche is quite large. Cheeky Transport in Newtown (Sydney), Human Powered Cycles and Commuter Cycles in Brunswick (Melbun) are doing quite well. But I’m pretty sure that their cheapest bikes are over $500, and their biggest sellers are well over that. Such is life if you want to stay in business.
I’m not sure I’d get too excited about SuperCheap/Goldcross. Australia is currently enjoying an unprecedented boom in bicycle sales – bigger than the 1970s bike boom by a large margin. I give SuperCheap 3 years tops after being so late to the party, after which the bike boom will have ended and all those bikes will be gathering dust. Commuter cycling is pretty much always going to be a niche activity anyway (“I’ll get smelly”, “don’t like the rain”, “roads are scary”, “no time” etc, sound familiar?).
Tip shops are full of the last two bike boom bikes, either cheap heavy steel framed 10 speeds or cheap heavy steel framed mountain bikes that their owners gave up on. I expect it to be no different this time around.
moz _ I wasn’t knocking BUGs at all. I think they are great and I know they are supportive of newbies. I was just saying that someone starting out is unlikely to be a joiner as they are unsure even if they are a bike person at all.
I did mention that mobs like Human Powered and Commuter are just the sort of thing that is making a difference.
HPC are now in Brunswick Far-North-East aka Thornbury
The primary feature that convinced me to join the local bicycle group was the offer of insurance. I don’t drive without insurance and I really didn’t like riding without insurance.
If only there was rain insurance (I’m a wimp who refuses to ride in the rain).
Fine @ 57 – I’ve seen how some ambassadorial type things can help in the workplace
- Organising with employers for somewhere people can safely store their bikes
- Getting people bike path maps and helping them plan routes
- Riding with them the first time they do a commute
What is “rain”?
Rain is horrible stuff Helen. Watch what happens to the wicked witch of the west when the side effect of rain (aka water) hits her. Instant melt. What a world, what a world indeed!
I’m not sure as a society exactly when we became scared of the outside world, but I find it both puzzling and disturbing. A little rain (when it falls) doesn’t hurt anybody, it does make people drive more erratically and reduces their apparent vision to a tiny cone, but that’s an even bigger problem for other motorists.
A little bit of rain after an extended period of no rain makes the roads very slippery. And in heavy rain especially after sunset visibility of cyclists can be quite poor. Besides, I normally ride in jeans and wet jeans aren’t much fun.
I’m quite happy to go hiking in the bush in the rain – where there’s no cars trying to squish me and I have really good wet weather gear.
Chris wrote:
What’s the difference between dressing appropriately for bushwalking and dressing appropriately for cycling?
Depends how long you are riding for.
I often ride in jeans, but never if riding for longer than an hour. Too chafey.
All your rain are belong to us!
Re biking to work: People bang on about post-ride showers, and associated inconvenience etc. I have to say, having grown up in Brisbane, I almost never feel “hot” in Melbourne. I rarely sweat – (and when I do i ‘perspire’, of course)
Even 40 degrees is a breeze, being dry as it is. Compared to the nightmarish, heart-of-darkness sweat-prison that is Brisbane at 30 degrees, its like a spring morning.
AS such, bit of deoderant does fine. Showers be naffed!
I agree. I also don’t quite understand why so much lycra is necessary for a 20 minute ride to work, but that’s just me.
In my case, because when the road is clear I do like to scream along as fast as I safely can.
But you don’t have to do that; and, frankly, it barely shaves any time off the trip, as the limiting factor is usually traffic lights.
Lycra is simply more convenient – it helps with the sweat, the knicks are built for comfort and if you decide to ride slowly that day, you can avoid a shower altogether with a little deodorant and your clothes neatly rolled in your backpack. If it rains and you get wet, it dries quickly.
Lycra isn’t just for show, it’s just functional like Chris’ bushwalking clothes, plus it can be bought cheaply online or at Aldi. I see a lot of the commuters in the morning ride in their street clothes, but for me it just doesn’t work.
I like to scream along because it’s the same as going to the gym, but more fun. I also eat like a teenager (I’m 40), so there’s a happy circle of eat what I like, ride fast, stay slim.
Cycling is faster because I don’t have to wait for trains or look for parking. I get reminded of this every time I’m forced into motorised transport. Bah! Plus there’s the Melbun bonus: I live between the Upfield and Moonee Ponds Creek cycleways so my ride to work usually involves very little road riding and few to no traffic lights. Coburg to Docklands is great… a kilometre of back streets to MPCC, then the only set of traffic lights is at Docklands Hwy then more cycleway to work. Oh, plus the ones Melville Rd in Brunswick. So nice
One side benefit of cycling is that when you’re in a hurry you can do what your body is programmed to demand: pedal like buggery. Sitting in motorised transport fidgeting just causes high blood pressure and ulcers, going hard out relieves the tension
Yeah, Human Powered has moved, but I think the suburbs are too small, it’s still only 10 minutes away from my house so it’s effectively still in the Republic of Moreland.
Well there you go, I find that a particular subsection of my wardrobe functions perfectly adequately for bushwalking as well.
In both cases I find that wet weather gear needs to be a bit more specialised than it otherwise would, but that’s about it.
The only thing that looks especially ‘convenient’ about lycra is the pocket in the back
Yes, knicks are more comfy but as I said, for me it just doesn’t make any difference until you get to about an hour in the saddle (and after two hours you sure can feel that difference).
I got no prob w lycra – whatever floats your boat. My only issue is that I wouldnt bother riding if i then had to change afterwards. So I just work clothes.
However, clipping my foot into a pedal – Im sorry, that just seems wrong!
For me bushwalking is for pleasure and cycling is normally just to get somewhere so I’m happy to go to more effort for the former. I think its much easier to stay warm and dry walking in the rain than it is cycling. I’d be interested to hear how people who wear glasses manage too.
I wear jeans and a t-shirt at the office so thats what I cycle or drive in (a bit more in winter!) – I really can’t bothered with packing clothes and changing at either end. Add too much overhead and its just easier and faster to drive. So when its when its wet (or if its a suit day) thats what I used to do – I mostly work from home now which gets rid of all the commute issues.
Chris said:
Another perfect example of why bike paths are a total waste of money. None of the issues which stopped you cycling more are addressed by them.
I think their are certainly a lot of people for whom ‘perceived effort’ is the biggest barrier to cycling, and bike paths won’t do a lot for that, but I’m pretty sure that their are a lot of people for whom ‘perceived safety’ is a much bigger barrier, and bike paths will work for these people.
And don’t get me wrong I’m not anti-lycra. Just not understanding
Bike paths are particularly valuable, I should think, in encouraging parents to let children cycle around the place, which I would think (sans research) is a good way to get those children to become adult riders. (Says someone who would have ridden a bicycle about 5 times before age 16.)
David @ 87 – Decent bike paths are why I tried riding to work in the first place. Nice wide bike lanes on a major road are why I ended up riding regularly (3-5 days/week) to work. But I’ll readily admit I’m a fair weather cyclist.
I’ll just add that the main reasons I’m not doing much cycling around the place we’ve moved to is that there are only very narrow on road cycling lanes which disappear completely at intersections and no off road cycle paths at all. Not surprisingly whilst I see quite a few lycra wearing cyclists on road bikes on the road, there are very few less experienced and fit riders around. Its particularly noticeable around the shopping center – people just drive instead and the bike racks are normally empty. Luckily we’re within walking distance so have a good alternative to the car most of the time.
MartinB @ 89 – I agree – I’ll be taking (probably driving!) my daughter to an area with good off road bike paths for quite a while before she’s allowed on the road.
With regards to the Lycra issue, I ride to work in Lycra because it wicks the sweat away so I don’t need a shower afterwards. Changing clothes takes about 2 minutes, time more than made up for by the fact I don’t have to park a long distance away from work.
Oh dear. Please Lord help me restrain my tongue.
FXH: when you work in academia, with individual offices, nobody cares how you smell…
I wear lycra because it gives me a socially acceptable reason to shave my legs
Most of my riding is done in a pair of those MTB baggy cargo style things. I can’t ride to work because I don’t work in the same place every day, but I’ve a couple of friends who love the new CBD change rooms/lockers they’ve put in place in Brisbane.
The BCC seem to be taking it at least a little seriously. They even have CD-roms available of the cycling routes.
Mmm Link doesn’t like the url format… try
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2636
Work?
In academia?
Individual offices wtf? It’s 2009
I’ve got an office too – instant change room and secure bike parking in one (although there’s a shower here too).
Start here for more information about how to overcome the road jitters. No, it doesn’t necessarily involve lycra but John Forester is an interesting cycling advocate who neatly debunks the safety theory of side of road cycle paths.
He has, of course, been largely ignored. Partly because he comes across as a crank, partly because popular cycling initiatives are usually little more than pandering to the “get off the road” crew, hence their popularity.
Oh, and this wiki article has some good references on places that have spent fortunes on cycling facilities that made accidents worse and had no effect on the numbers of people cycling.
David @ 98 – there’s an interesting comment in that wiki article about the cycle paths working best for cyclists riding at low speeds. That may help explain why inexperienced/casual slow riders prefer them and the more experienced faster riders don’t.
Chris, I think there’s a good argument to be made for cycle paths as recreational facilities, or as training grounds, but the Victorian proposal doesn’t do this – it conflates these recreational facilities with providing a transport solution. Most people who are going to use cycling as transport would (I think, at least) find cycle paths restrictive once they’ve gained experience. Anyway, I think the Helsinki experience detailed at the wiki is probably the most interesting one in that the NSW and Victorian proposals both mimic the same mistakes made there.
so, I’m not against recreational paths, I am against the idea that recreational paths are supposed to be transport. I don’t want to be forced to use cycle paths as has been proposed many times in the past by the motoring lobby and I don’t want the availability of cycling paths to be used an excuse to take me off the road.
I like the heritage, and traffic calming impact, of the cobblestone gutters in bits of inner melbourne – particularly along Victoria parade – but try riding down it? No thanks.
David, the wiki you linked to also talks about ‘segregated cycling’ eg bike lanes and says ‘Cities that are providing such facilities are reporting a high degree of usage, for example Montréal and Ottawa (Canada) and many European cities. Research indicates that cyclists are willing to pay a higher price in longer travel time for designated facilities such as an on-street bike lane.[9][10]‘
Fine wrote:
…and other research in the article indicates that once those facilities are provided, there is no measurable diversion to cycling from other transport modes. The stated aims of cycling specific facilities (to increase cycling, to increase safety for cyclists) have not eventuated in many places where facilities have been constructed and have arguably made things worse for cyclists.
There is a gap between the stated intentions of prospective cyclists and the actual outcomes, with regular cyclists copping the fallout.
David, I don’t disagree with what you are saying, cyclists should be able to use the road, and separated lanes are over-rated in terms of safety (though perceptions matter if your aim is to increase cycling mode share). But I don’t think you should write off off-road paths as potential transport solutions, some work quite well. From my experience there are two issues.
One is operational, there are lots of daft rules governing shared paths, many of which are ignored. Pedestrians really shouldn’t be on the left; it is standard practice to walk on the right side of roads, because you can see traffic coming and step aside, whereas on shared paths the cyclist comes up to a pedestrian on their blind side. Ringing a bell is the worst solution, even apart from the fact that constant bell ringing ruins a perfectly good walk, it isn’t clear to a pedestrian whether the bell means “coming”, “move to the left”, “move off the path”, or “stay perfectly still”. Similarly, signs that ask cyclists to dismount turn them into hazards (x10 with clips), as do the gates that adjoin roads and make them dismount. Those things are relatively easily fixed though, design-wise.
The second is technical. As Rob noted above, the biggest determiner of overall cycling speed is the frequency of stops, particularly lights. Grade separated off-road paths (the type that sit next to freeways, and on abandoned railway-reserves) are much faster than equivalent road routes, with the possible exception of arterial roads. Un-grade separated off-road paths and on-road paths on minor roads generally have to stop at every single intersection (if they don’t periodically stop altogether), which makes them slower than cycling on normal roads.
The point being that there is nothing wrong with the idea of a PBN in principle. Merely that, as with the creation of an arterial road network that makes driving faster, easier and safer, the creation of an arterial bike network needs to do the same. This nice thing about this plan is that it is closer to recognising that than any plan that preceded it.
Russ, I just don’t see it, especially with shared pedestrian facilities. The ipod generation can’t hear bells through the doof-tizz of their personal reverie. Even if you stuck to a slow jogging pace of 10km/h on your bicycle, injury will result.
As for the idea of arterial cycle paths being good “in principle” – they always are, but it doesn’t hurt to be skeptical about the motives and superstition which underpin the Victorian version.
David, I live conveniently close to a couple of shared paths, and one is grade separated and a major commuter route (the Moonee Ponds Creek cycleway). It’s brilliant, as I said above there’s only one set of lights (and no other stops) on that route so it’s a great, fast, easy way to get to and from work. Pedestrians on that path learn to be quite aware of cyclists (and there are a fair number of them because it’s also a nice place to walk or jog, or take the dog for a stroll). It does actually work. Sure, it could be improved, but I think the money would be spent on other areas where the bike paths are missing or suck.
In contrast, the Upfield Path parallels the railway line, is very narrow, heavily used by pedestrians AND has intersections with roads every hundred metres that cyclists are expected to stop at. For all that, it has fewer stops than the adjacent main road and is probably safer.
Compared to Sydney, Melbourne is astonishingly good. The closest to either of those off-road routes in Sydney would be the Paramatta River shared path way out in Paramatta so it’s not heavily used, or perhaps Wilson St in Newtown, which is shared with cars. Just not playing the same game at all.
David, that’s why I say pedestrians should be on the right. If you need to tell a pedestrian you are coming through then there is a problem. If they can see you it doesn’t matter if they are deaf. As someone who walks on the right myself, I can tell you it is much better for both.
As for skepticism. If you like. There are a lot of statements of intent in this plan, regarding the processes that surround future projects and policy. That is an improvement, in the sense that, in the past, those processes were absent, and everything was a little ad hoc. But the processes mentioned don’t exist yet, nor are there indicators to judge success against. The only improvement is that there is now a more substantive collection of statements to tell what the government might regard as success so as to judge the intent. And, from my reading, and in comparison to past efforts, the intent is admirable.
As a small example, count how often they use the term “legitimate”, and consider the implications of the use of that particular phrase. It isn’t one that crops up in road and public transport plans.
Personally I don’t mind whether people walk on the left or the right, as long as they hold a line and I can ride around them, which most people seem to do on the shared paths I have used for commuting. If it looks as though they are drifting, then I’ll bell or call out and let them know I’m coming through. It probably helps that I’m trundling on my old mountain bike, so I’m never really working up much pace.
It is more annoying when a group clumps across the entire – particularly if they are walking toward you and refuse to get out of the way.
Mal, I find a jousting stick does wonders >:D
I have a copy of Forester’s book and I think it is quite impressive, but I’m not in the least surprised that he is perceived as a crank.
One other (untrelated) matter he has very strong opinions on is that he totally opposes flashing lights, because he believes that they make estimation of distance to the cyclist more difficult.
Agree Wilful – cobblestone laneways are b*llshit for bikes. Even worse with a kiddies trailer on too.
Lefty E (Slightly O/T) I saw a Dad in the CBD yesterday with the most awesome twin stroller. It was actually a bike kid trailer which obviously must detatch and work as a stroller, with a third wheel in the back, which has now of course become the front, and the gear which fastens the trailer on becomes the handle. Does yours do that?
I predict the trend (which I hope continues, of course) of dads spending more kid wrangling time will mean an upsurge in this kind of wonderful Dadget.
as you were. /O/T
Not at all Helen – this was an issue of great market research round at ours a year or so ago – and yes, we say those ones. But we didnt erally need a stroller anymore, so just went basic: two seater (tho really only one, with a near 5 yo), with a handy boot area, and after checking out the overpriced shopfllor ones at bike shops, and bought a perfectly good Chinese manufactured one over the net for a sweet, sweet $150. New.
I enjoy riding to work. So much so that public transport is now actually quite annoying. Even in the rain – in fact, there’s a certain entertainment in that as well, especially when it’s bucketing down!
The key things at work are the provision of showers and somewhere to park the bike. A supportive management helps (not entirely so where I am, but improving!).
What does annoy me is when fellow commuters flout the law by running red lights. Sure, it might be a minority, but it gives the rest of us a bad name!
Working on the “flow” could be useful as well. Traffic lights could be programmed to allow for smooth travel (at assumed speeds) by cyclists and pedestrians.
What amuses me is the occasional assertion by Miranda Devine (among others) that the NSW transport department has been “captured” by cycle nuts! If only! (They’re clearly not doing a very good job!)
We have used a bike trailer for our daughter. It is a Canadian model (Chariot Wagon) which has a very nifty linkage system and converts to a pram (click on small front wheels) and even a sled (click on skis) and cross country walker. It is also quite lightweight. Highly recommended but not cheap.
I ride a lot – on roads, cycle paths, bike lanes, MTB, and criterium and road racing. I actually don’t feel particularly safe towing the trailer in a bike lane or on many roads when there is a lot of traffic. We tend to stick on bike paths. It takes a bit of room and the paths are all quite narrow. OK for weekend rides, but no good for commute time.
One reason I like the bike paths is the flow. I can just ride, and do some sprints up hills. Stopping at lights can be very frustrating.
Sydney has just made a major commitment to improving cycling. Melbourne is still far behind Perth.
The PBN is good, but not the only answer. More dedicated paths would get lots more people onto bikes for commuting and recreation, and link in with the PBN.