Beer Garden

[rev]

lol, called it long ago. Here it is now from the RAH director of orthopaedic trauma.

Short version? Cyclists are morons.

Cyclists’ bad judgment most common crash cause

The majority of cyclists admitted to the RAH were in accidents that resulted from their own poor judgment - not bad drivers - a study has found. Tell us if you agree.

Cyclists are their own worst enemy on the roads, inflicting most of their injuries through their own bad behaviour, a Royal Adelaide Hospital study has found.

RAH director of orthopaedic trauma Associate Professor Mark Rickman studied 110 hospital admissions of cyclists during 2018 and 2019.

He found only 14 victims blamed bad drivers for their accidents.

“The majority of cyclists admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced riders, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,” Prof Rickman said.

“Speed is a common and avoidable factor involved in the presentation of orthopaedic-related trauma to the public system.

“Involvement of other vehicles was relatively uncommon, as was poor weather.”

Prof Rickman, an avid weekend cyclist, treats many of the serious cyclist injuries in Adelaide at the RAH and through his Ad Frac clinic at Calvary Hospital. He had expected more cyclists to have been hit by other vehicles and more to have crashed because of bad weather.

In 56 cases, cyclists involved in the study said they had been riding “too fast”, 10 times they said they were trying a stunt, and 12 times that they were fatigued.

The road surface was blamed 15 times, mechanical problems 15 times and hazards on the road three times.

In 25 instances, riders were not sure of the cause and some riders blamed multiple causes.

Nine patients had taken substances prior to cycling – alcohol (4), methamphetamines (3), diazepam (1) and a combination of alcohol and marijuana (1). “If you look after yourself, are sensible and don’t do stupid things, then you are reasonably safe,’’ Prof Rickman said.

“I have spoken to a lot of people who say ‘I don’t want to ride because I could be killed’ and I say ‘Actually, it is pretty safe’.”

The median age of the riders studied was 46, while 95 were male and 15 female.

Of the study participants, 101 considered themselves regular cyclists, riding an average of 118km a week. A total of 34 per cent of the accidents happened on a regular commute.

The median self-reported speed of the bike at time of accident was 30km/h, but speeds ranged from zero to 55km/h.

Prof Rickman said public health awareness campaigns addressing risk-taking behaviours would be beneficial, even for experienced riders.

“An emphasis on speed, use of illegal substances and fatigue would be of benefit,” he said.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 2163ee93ce

Now time to get them off the roads, or hit them with registration and insurance costs JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ROAD USER IS REQUIRED. Even a basic road safety course for cyclists should be made mandatory.
Enforced with heavy fines, just like other road users.

[Nort]

Now time to get them off the roads,

Thank you for your support for the bike paths common in well-developed first world cities.

[SBD]

lol, called it long ago. Here it is now from the RAH director of orthopaedic trauma.

Short version? Cyclists are morons.

Cyclists’ bad judgment most common crash cause

The majority of cyclists admitted to the RAH were in accidents that resulted from their own poor judgment - not bad drivers - a study has found. Tell us if you agree.

Cyclists are their own worst enemy on the roads, inflicting most of their injuries through their own bad behaviour, a Royal Adelaide Hospital study has found.

RAH director of orthopaedic trauma Associate Professor Mark Rickman studied 110 hospital admissions of cyclists during 2018 and 2019.

He found only 14 victims blamed bad drivers for their accidents.

“The majority of cyclists admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced riders, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,” Prof Rickman said.

“Speed is a common and avoidable factor involved in the presentation of orthopaedic-related trauma to the public system.

“Involvement of other vehicles was relatively uncommon, as was poor weather.”

Prof Rickman, an avid weekend cyclist, treats many of the serious cyclist injuries in Adelaide at the RAH and through his Ad Frac clinic at Calvary Hospital. He had expected more cyclists to have been hit by other vehicles and more to have crashed because of bad weather.

In 56 cases, cyclists involved in the study said they had been riding “too fast”, 10 times they said they were trying a stunt, and 12 times that they were fatigued.

The road surface was blamed 15 times, mechanical problems 15 times and hazards on the road three times.

In 25 instances, riders were not sure of the cause and some riders blamed multiple causes.

Nine patients had taken substances prior to cycling – alcohol (4), methamphetamines (3), diazepam (1) and a combination of alcohol and marijuana (1). “If you look after yourself, are sensible and don’t do stupid things, then you are reasonably safe,’’ Prof Rickman said.

“I have spoken to a lot of people who say ‘I don’t want to ride because I could be killed’ and I say ‘Actually, it is pretty safe’.”

The median age of the riders studied was 46, while 95 were male and 15 female.

Of the study participants, 101 considered themselves regular cyclists, riding an average of 118km a week. A total of 34 per cent of the accidents happened on a regular commute.

The median self-reported speed of the bike at time of accident was 30km/h, but speeds ranged from zero to 55km/h.

Prof Rickman said public health awareness campaigns addressing risk-taking behaviours would be beneficial, even for experienced riders.

“An emphasis on speed, use of illegal substances and fatigue would be of benefit,” he said.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 2163ee93ce

Now time to get them off the roads, or hit them with registration and insurance costs JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ROAD USER IS REQUIRED. Even a basic road safety course for cyclists should be made mandatory.
Enforced with heavy fines, just like other road users.

Rich of you to be calling people morons

I suspect there is more spin in the author's viewpoint than in the data. The unbiased statement might be "people are morons".

“The majority of cyclists admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced riders, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,” Prof Rickman said.

Could probably be rewritten just as accurately about drivers and car users:

“The majority of drivers admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced drivers, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,”

The data is derived from "cyclists admitted to hospital", not a representative set of "cyclists". The data might be equally skewed if analysing "drivers admitted to hospital" compared to just analysing "drivers". The majority of law-abiding and competent vehicle operators are unde-rrepresented in the sample.

[rev]

Now time to get them off the roads,

Thank you for your support for the bike paths common in well-developed first world cities.

I've actually said many times there should be dedicated purpose built bike lanes that segregate that traffic from regular road traffic.
But nice try.

[rev]

lol, called it long ago. Here it is now from the RAH director of orthopaedic trauma.

Short version? Cyclists are morons.

Cyclists’ bad judgment most common crash cause

The majority of cyclists admitted to the RAH were in accidents that resulted from their own poor judgment - not bad drivers - a study has found. Tell us if you agree.

Cyclists are their own worst enemy on the roads, inflicting most of their injuries through their own bad behaviour, a Royal Adelaide Hospital study has found.

RAH director of orthopaedic trauma Associate Professor Mark Rickman studied 110 hospital admissions of cyclists during 2018 and 2019.

He found only 14 victims blamed bad drivers for their accidents.

“The majority of cyclists admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced riders, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,” Prof Rickman said.

“Speed is a common and avoidable factor involved in the presentation of orthopaedic-related trauma to the public system.

“Involvement of other vehicles was relatively uncommon, as was poor weather.”

Prof Rickman, an avid weekend cyclist, treats many of the serious cyclist injuries in Adelaide at the RAH and through his Ad Frac clinic at Calvary Hospital. He had expected more cyclists to have been hit by other vehicles and more to have crashed because of bad weather.

In 56 cases, cyclists involved in the study said they had been riding “too fast”, 10 times they said they were trying a stunt, and 12 times that they were fatigued.

The road surface was blamed 15 times, mechanical problems 15 times and hazards on the road three times.

In 25 instances, riders were not sure of the cause and some riders blamed multiple causes.

Nine patients had taken substances prior to cycling – alcohol (4), methamphetamines (3), diazepam (1) and a combination of alcohol and marijuana (1). “If you look after yourself, are sensible and don’t do stupid things, then you are reasonably safe,’’ Prof Rickman said.

“I have spoken to a lot of people who say ‘I don’t want to ride because I could be killed’ and I say ‘Actually, it is pretty safe’.”

The median age of the riders studied was 46, while 95 were male and 15 female.

Of the study participants, 101 considered themselves regular cyclists, riding an average of 118km a week. A total of 34 per cent of the accidents happened on a regular commute.

The median self-reported speed of the bike at time of accident was 30km/h, but speeds ranged from zero to 55km/h.

Prof Rickman said public health awareness campaigns addressing risk-taking behaviours would be beneficial, even for experienced riders.

“An emphasis on speed, use of illegal substances and fatigue would be of benefit,” he said.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 2163ee93ce

Now time to get them off the roads, or hit them with registration and insurance costs JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ROAD USER IS REQUIRED. Even a basic road safety course for cyclists should be made mandatory.
Enforced with heavy fines, just like other road users.

Rich of you to be calling people morons

If I was to respond to you calling me a moron (a personal attack) by calling you what you are, there'd be a problem, the mods would intervene. In the little bubble of delusion you lot live in, you're the victims of Revs aggressiveness and abuse.

This is how I'll respond from now on to shit like this.
Instead of me copping the blame always, lets see how long it takes for people like you to cop it from the mods everytime you feel you can throw personal attacks my way just because you disagree with something I've posted.

[rev]

I suspect there is more spin in the author's viewpoint than in the data. The unbiased statement might be "people are morons".

No spin, i call it how i see it SBD.

Could probably be rewritten just as accurately about drivers and car users:

Of course. But our roads are designed for motor vehicles not push bikes. Painted bike lanes which reduce lane width doesn't change that.
That's why I'm of the opinion that dedicated and purpose built bike lanes that segregate them are needed.

Road laws are applicable to cyclists, most dont obey them.
Road laws and heavier fines don't deter all motorists doing the wrong thing. They wont deter most of the idiots in lycra who think and act like every bike ride they take is the tour down under.

They should be licensed, insured and registered.
So that road laws canbe enforced, so that when they cause an accident they are able to be held accountable jusy like motorist's.

Anyone who argues against that is more then likely one of those cyclists you see in lycra who doesn't stop for red, rides in the middle of the road, cant stay in their bike lane when there is one, doesn't gice hand signals to other road users indicating they are going left or right and so on..

“The majority of drivers admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced drivers, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,”

The data is derived from "cyclists admitted to hospital", not a representative set of "cyclists". The data might be equally skewed if analysing "drivers admitted to hospital" compared to just analysing "drivers". The majority of law-abiding and competent vehicle operators are unde-rrepresented in the sample.
[/quote]

Well who else is it going to be derived from?
The article is about those injured, and that their own actions caused the accident/their injuries in most cases.
We know many of them do the wrong thing, its why they fight tooth and nail against bicycle registration for example. Because they'll be held accountable and identifiable by the police.
But it highlights also most are full of shit, when they complain that motorists don't care about injuring them on the road.
As I've said before, many of them ride like they own the roads and everyone else should play second fiddle to them.
I've been personally attacked on this forum for saying such things..cyclists to blame or at least share the blame..
I assume the professor in the article can look forward to much the same abuse?

Just another iasue I'm 100% spot on about.

[Nort]

Now time to get them off the roads,

Thank you for your support for the bike paths common in well-developed first world cities.

I've actually said many times there should be dedicated purpose built bike lanes that segregate that traffic from regular road traffic.
But nice try.

I didn't accuse you of saying otherwise?

In regards to your registration argument, do you have any international examples showing that such actions produce the outcomes you claim they would? I've seen a bunch of studies that suggest safer cycling outcomes come with increased normalization and adoption of cycling (including dedicated infrastructure where possible), whereas barriers to cycling accessibility only reduce numbers and subsequently safety. It's a common theme of the debate over mandatory helmets for cyclists in Australia, because while a helmet increases an individuals safety, overall mandatory helmets seem to reduce cycling numbers which lowers overall safety. (I'm not taking a side in that helmet debate here)

[SBD]

Now time to get them off the roads,

Thank you for your support for the bike paths common in well-developed first world cities.

I've actually said many times there should be dedicated purpose built bike lanes that segregate that traffic from regular road traffic.
But nice try.

It is not politically acceptable to spend the amount of money that would be required to build a parallel bike road network across the state mirroring the current road network, nor is it required in most areas. Smooth sealed shoulders and painted bike lanes that don't disappear at pinch points would be a great improvement for separating cyclists and drivers, and could probably be rolled out across a lot of main roads. Even just fixing the metropolitan intersections and road segments between disjointed bits of bike lane would be a great start.

[SBD]

I suspect there is more spin in the author's viewpoint than in the data. The unbiased statement might be "people are morons".

No spin, i call it how i see it SBD.

Could probably be rewritten just as accurately about drivers and car users:

Of course. But our roads are designed for motor vehicles not push bikes. Painted bike lanes which reduce lane width doesn't change that.
That's why I'm of the opinion that dedicated and purpose built bike lanes that segregate them are needed.

Road laws are applicable to cyclists, most dont obey them.
Road laws and heavier fines don't deter all motorists doing the wrong thing. They wont deter most of the idiots in lycra who think and act like every bike ride they take is the tour down under.

They should be licensed, insured and registered.
So that road laws can be enforced, so that when they cause an accident they are able to be held accountable jusy like motorist's.

Anyone who argues against that is more then likely one of those cyclists you see in lycra who doesn't stop for red, rides in the middle of the road, cant stay in their bike lane when there is one, doesn't gice hand signals to other road users indicating they are going left or right and so on..

“The majority of drivers admitted were male patients who assessed themselves as experienced drivers, and yet still were involved in accidents that resulted predominantly from episodes of poor judgment,”

The data is derived from "cyclists admitted to hospital", not a representative set of "cyclists". The data might be equally skewed if analysing "drivers admitted to hospital" compared to just analysing "drivers". The majority of law-abiding and competent vehicle operators are under-represented in the sample.

Well who else is it going to be derived from?
The article is about those injured, and that their own actions caused the accident/their injuries in most cases.
We know many of them do the wrong thing, its why they fight tooth and nail against bicycle registration for example. Because they'll be held accountable and identifiable by the police.
But it highlights also most are full of shit, when they complain that motorists don't care about injuring them on the road.
As I've said before, many of them ride like they own the roads and everyone else should play second fiddle to them.
I've been personally attacked on this forum for saying such things..cyclists to blame or at least share the blame..
I assume the professor in the article can look forward to much the same abuse?

Just another issue I'm 100% spot on about.

Road laws can be and are enforced for cyclists now. I haven't heard the police complaining that they have difficulty in catching or identifying speeding cyclists running red lights etc.

My point is that the article cherry-picked data to attempt to paint cyclists in a worse light than drivers, without providing any comparative data to demonstrate if the premise has any basis. The author had an anecdote from a doctor who said that a significant number of the riders he treats caused their injuries through inattention and incompetence. He could have at least provided the same subjective experience about drivers, and perhaps provided objective data for both groups.

Incidentally, most roads are only "designed for cars not bikes" because we have allowed them to be. Bikes are already not permitted on the roads that is actually true for (e.g. N-S motorway). Most of our road network was designed for horses and carts. Motor vehicle registration and licensing was introduced to attempt to ensure that operators of these strange new contraptions could safely use the roads.

[rev]

Road laws can be and are enforced for cyclists now. I haven't heard the police complaining that they have difficulty in catching or identifying speeding cyclists running red lights etc.

How so? Can other road users be tracked down and fined/prosecuted without a number plate?
How do Police identify the owner of a vehicle if isn't registered or insured (vin/engine numbers)??

My point is that the article cherry-picked data to attempt to paint cyclists in a worse light than drivers, without providing any comparative data to demonstrate if the premise has any basis. The author had an anecdote from a doctor who said that a significant number of the riders he treats caused their injuries through inattention and incompetence. He could have at least provided the same subjective experience about drivers, and perhaps provided objective data for both groups.

What's cherry picked exactly? Its cold hard facts. The same cold hard facts I've repeatedly posted here in different words, and been personally attacked for.

Even if a cycling association comes out and says it, some of you will never accept it.

Incidentally, most roads are only "designed for cars not bikes" because we have allowed them to be. Bikes are already not permitted on the roads that is actually true for (e.g. N-S motorway). Most of our road network was designed for horses and carts. Motor vehicle registration and licensing was introduced to attempt to ensure that operators of these strange new contraptions could safely use the roads.

So registration and licensing were introduced for motor vehicles so that some level of safety can be adhered to? So why shouldn't the same be done for cyclists since they are now a more common presence on roads?

Yeh sorry, but the bitumen road surfaces, concrete curbs and storm water infrastructure, the current street lighting and traffic signals, were NOT designed for horse and cart.
Nor was any of it designed to accommodate bicycles. That's why proper infrastructure that segregates them is needed.
If for nothing else then there own safety (which according to the professor at the RAH is needed since his first hand facts show that most end up in hospital from their own actions).

Bicycles have no protection for riders, but they should be mixing it up with vehicles greater then a tonne on the roads?
At least motor vehicles have safety features, so even if they have a collision with a larger vehicle occupants are unlikely to be killed.

[SBD]

Road laws can be and are enforced for cyclists now. I haven't heard the police complaining that they have difficulty in catching or identifying speeding cyclists running red lights etc.

How so? Can other road users be tracked down and fined/prosecuted without a number plate?
How do Police identify the owner of a vehicle if isn't registered or insured (vin/engine numbers)??

I am not familiar with police processes and practices, but I often hear on the radio that people have been arrested for driving unregistered/uninsured/unlicensed, so I know they have a way of doing it for drivers too.

Have you heard the police calling for bike registration to make their jobs easier ?

What's cherry picked exactly? Its cold hard facts. The same cold hard facts I've repeatedly posted here in different words, and been personally attacked for.

Even if a cycling association comes out and says it, some of you will never accept it.

The article would have more credibility if it reported statistics on what proportion of hospitalised drivers get there through inattention or excessive speed. The police report that they are major causes of car crashes too. It would be interesting to see if the proportion is significantly higher or lower than for cyclists. The article's tone is that cyclists are worse, but it could just be "some humans are idiots" or that the proportion of cyclists is much less than for drivers.

So registration and licensing were introduced for motor vehicles so that some level of safety can be adhered to? So why shouldn't the same be done for cyclists since they are now a more common presence on roads?

Yeh sorry, but the bitumen road surfaces, concrete curbs and storm water infrastructure, the current street lighting and traffic signals, were NOT designed for horse and cart.
Nor was any of it designed to accommodate bicycles. That's why proper infrastructure that segregates them is needed.
If for nothing else then there own safety (which according to the professor at the RAH is needed since his first hand facts show that most end up in hospital from their own actions).

Bicycles have no protection for riders, but they should be mixing it up with vehicles greater then a tonne on the roads?
At least motor vehicles have safety features, so even if they have a collision with a larger vehicle occupants are unlikely to be killed.

"Cyclists are now a more common presence on our roads" - is this true over any particular timeframe longer than COVID? Is it a consequence of the F1GP being replaced by the TDU?

I agree that some aspects of roads have been developed to support cars at the expense of other kinds of transport. We could relatively easily retrofit smooth sealed shoulders to the country roads that have been left with unsealed shoulders or rough and loose surfaces that discourage cycling off of the main carriageway.

The way you talk about wanting better separated cycling infrastructure, I take it you would support a bikeway connecting Wingfield to Darlington instead of the current proposal for a motorised-vehicle-only tunnel? The bikeways along the Northern Connector and Expressway currently have at-grade crossings of the road network at interchanges. I guess they should be separated before we spend more on roads too?

There are plenty of places that separated infrastructure would improve safety and efficiency. There are also thousands of kilometres of roads that cannot practically have a separate bike path alternative, so cyclists and drivers have to get along safely anyway. Removing the bits of roads that look like they are deliberately designed to put cyclists in danger would be a good start.

[Ho Really]

Rev, you are the lamest, attention seeking, trolling f-wit. You are truly pathetic

And what does it make you by calling him names? He is entitled to give his opinion whether you like it or not. That's the whole point of a forum as long as he follows the rules which you haven't.

Cheers

[rev]

I am not familiar with police processes and practices, but I often hear on the radio that people have been arrested for driving unregistered/uninsured/unlicensed, so I know they have a way of doing it for drivers too.

Have you heard the police calling for bike registration to make their jobs easier ?

Police are able to track down unregistered vehicles because they are usually still owned and driven by the person who last had it registered.
Unlicensed drivers aren't tracked for that, they get caught commiting other offences.

Now just imagine if there was no registration of motor vehicles, no licensing system in place, and no insurance.

The article would have more credibility if it reported statistics on what proportion of hospitalised drivers get there through inattention or excessive speed. The police report that they are major causes of car crashes too. It would be interesting to see if the proportion is significantly higher or lower than for cyclists. The article's tone is that cyclists are worse, but it could just be "some humans are idiots" or that the proportion of cyclists is much less than for drivers.

The article isn't about motorists its about cyclists.

I agree that some aspects of roads have been developed to support cars at the expense of other kinds of transport. We could relatively easily retrofit smooth sealed shoulders to the country roads that have been left with unsealed shoulders or rough and loose surfaces that discourage cycling off of the main carriageway.

The way you talk about wanting better separated cycling infrastructure, I take it you would support a bikeway connecting Wingfield to Darlington instead of the current proposal for a motorised-vehicle-only tunnel? The bikeways along the Northern Connector and Expressway currently have at-grade crossings of the road network at interchanges. I guess they should be separated before we spend more on roads too?

There are plenty of places that separated infrastructure would improve safety and efficiency. There are also thousands of kilometres of roads that cannot practically have a separate bike path alternative, so cyclists and drivers have to get along safely anyway. Removing the bits of roads that look like they are deliberately designed to put cyclists in danger would be a good start.

You're looking at it all as individual roads.
It should be looked at as the whole network in Adelaide.
Some roads may lose a lane, but others can be widened to cope. An overall master plan should include PT expansion as well.
But nothing of the sort exists. Thats why no government ever shows you anything other then a project here or there.
Labor showed their tram network idea, but did nothing.
They wasted a decade and a half with small extensions in the city, when they could have done so much more.

Thats the problem in this state. Its all made up as we go along.
We're building a motorway, but almost all major roads leading to/from are inadequate. There's no plan how to link it to the SEF. That'll be another election promise in 20 years.

We're electrifying a train line, but theres no plan to upgrade stations properly.

And so on.

[SBD]

I am not familiar with police processes and practices, but I often hear on the radio that people have been arrested for driving unregistered/uninsured/unlicensed, so I know they have a way of doing it for drivers too.

Have you heard the police calling for bike registration to make their jobs easier ?

Police are able to track down unregistered vehicles because they are usually still owned and driven by the person who last had it registered.
Unlicensed drivers aren't tracked for that, they get caught commiting other offences.

Now just imagine if there was no registration of motor vehicles, no licensing system in place, and no insurance.

The article would have more credibility if it reported statistics on what proportion of hospitalised drivers get there through inattention or excessive speed. The police report that they are major causes of car crashes too. It would be interesting to see if the proportion is significantly higher or lower than for cyclists. The article's tone is that cyclists are worse, but it could just be "some humans are idiots" or that the proportion of cyclists is much less than for drivers.

The article isn't about motorists its about cyclists.

I agree that some aspects of roads have been developed to support cars at the expense of other kinds of transport. We could relatively easily retrofit smooth sealed shoulders to the country roads that have been left with unsealed shoulders or rough and loose surfaces that discourage cycling off of the main carriageway.

The way you talk about wanting better separated cycling infrastructure, I take it you would support a bikeway connecting Wingfield to Darlington instead of the current proposal for a motorised-vehicle-only tunnel? The bikeways along the Northern Connector and Expressway currently have at-grade crossings of the road network at interchanges. I guess they should be separated before we spend more on roads too?

There are plenty of places that separated infrastructure would improve safety and efficiency. There are also thousands of kilometres of roads that cannot practically have a separate bike path alternative, so cyclists and drivers have to get along safely anyway. Removing the bits of roads that look like they are deliberately designed to put cyclists in danger would be a good start.

You're looking at it all as individual roads.
It should be looked at as the whole network in Adelaide.
Some roads may lose a lane, but others can be widened to cope. An overall master plan should include PT expansion as well.
But nothing of the sort exists. Thats why no government ever shows you anything other then a project here or there.
Labor showed their tram network idea, but did nothing.
They wasted a decade and a half with small extensions in the city, when they could have done so much more.

Thats the problem in this state. Its all made up as we go along.
We're building a motorway, but almost all major roads leading to/from are inadequate. There's no plan how to link it to the SEF. That'll be another election promise in 20 years.

We're electrifying a train line, but theres no plan to upgrade stations properly.

And so on.

A network is made up of individual links. For someone to feel safe to make a journey by bike, the whole route must feel safe. For a driver to be able to drive without regard to the possibility of cyclists on the road, the entire route must prohibit cycling on it, by providing viable alternatives.

I agree that we need a plan to link the SEF to the NSM. Presumably, GlobeLink was to be that plan, but it has failed for the foreseeable future, possibly for political reasons. The assessment paper considers a number of other options (Short North and Short South, was there another?) I expect at least one of these to become election promises for the next elections (state and federal).

There also appears to be general agreement that the main interstate/regional highways require improvements (perhaps in part because rail is failing), but little enthusiasm for planning in one hit to spend that amount of money away from Adelaide. Every now and then, someone picks a bad spot and does something about it, while the other side complains.

[rev]

We shouldn't have to wait for an election campaign to begin.