[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[whatstheirnamesmom]

Every time someone complains about bike lanes.
They could make an entire road a bike lane and some people still wouldn't be happy. And we all know many of the cyclists still wouldn't be able to stay within the marked bike lane.

In all honesty who gives a shit about how big the bike lanes are.
There's very few cyclists who use the bike lanes along T2T. Will be the same with T2D.

This project isn't about cyclists being able to race around faster between coffee shops on Sundays.

I encourage you to spend a week using a bicycle as your method of transportation (trips to work, the park, the beach, your local shops, to visit friends, to run errands, to get to a bus station, to ride to the train, etc).

I think you will quickly come to realise just how poor the quality of bike infrastructure is in this state, and how unsafe it is to make simple trips from A to B.

Painted bike lanes are not good infrastructure. They never have been. They are not safe. The safety criteria should always be: would I let a kid ride here? If the answer is no, it's no wonder no one is using the "infrastructure", because the infrastructure is too risky and unsafe. The govt. should know that painted bike lanes as part of this project are a 1990s era innovation, and they only need look to Japan, Singapore, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, England, or Korea to see how it's done in 2021.

It's clear your view on cyclists is shaped only by what you see from behind your steering wheel. I will gladly spend a Sunday biking around Adelaide with you to show you the dangerous lived experience of cyclists just trying to stay alive while running errands.

[rev]

You assume I don't ride a bike already.

The bike lanes might not be safe in that they offer no protection, but that raises other questions such as should they be there to begin with which as I've stated here before I think cycling lanes should be segregated from motorist lanes. For that very reason.
The other questions raised are are drivers doing the right thing, and are cyclists doing the right thing.

The answer to both of those is, unfortunately most do not do the right thing.

How many cyclists do you see giving appropriate hand gestures to indicate to motorists that they intend or need to change lane.

Ive lost count of how many times I've had a cyclist come up between my car and a parked car. A simple pot hole which most SA roads have in abundance and my vehcile could swerve inadvertently that little bit that makes all the difference between the cyclist getting to their location safely or ending up injured or worse.

And similarly very few drivers do not give enough room or give way to a cyclist. As much as I dislike most of the lycra brigade that I've encountered because of their behavior and attitudes, personally I let cyclists through or let them go first when possible.

[SBD]

You assume I don't ride a bike already.

The bike lanes might not be safe in that they offer no protection, but that raises other questions such as should they be there to begin with which as I've stated here before I think cycling lanes should be segregated from motorist lanes. For that very reason.
The other questions raised are are drivers doing the right thing, and are cyclists doing the right thing.

The answer to both of those is, unfortunately most do not do the right thing.

How many cyclists do you see giving appropriate hand gestures to indicate to motorists that they intend or need to change lane.

Ive lost count of how many times I've had a cyclist come up between my car and a parked car. A simple pot hole which most SA roads have in abundance and my vehcile could swerve inadvertently that little bit that makes all the difference between the cyclist getting to their location safely or ending up injured or worse.

And similarly very few drivers do not give enough room or give way to a cyclist. As much as I dislike most of the lycra brigade that I've encountered because of their behavior and attitudes, personally I let cyclists through or let them go first when possible.

I'd say all of the "lycra brigade" I see give appropriate hand signals, calls to each other about traffic, and calls and bells on shared paths. Perhaps the northern suburbs "lycra brigade" are better educated than the inner suburb brigade. The sub-group of cyclists who appear to have trouble following the rules tend to be the upper-teens with no helmets on cheap bikes or kero/petrol-powered bikes. Presumably they don't have their own hoon cars yet.

[SBD]

Im all for segregated bike lanes. Most cyclists in lycra make their own road rules, so it would be a huge benefit. Let the problems they create be solely confined to a realm affecting them selves and other cyclists only.

Why does every road project need to be a cycling route as well?
There isn't that many people who ride their bikes for leisure let alone to/from work, it hardly justifies the extra cost of segregated bike lanes especially on this project which already has constraints on available land.
People get pissed off over homes being bulldozed for a wider road, imagine how they'd react if you told them their homes being demolished for a bikeway.

There's also a dedicated bike lane along Military road at West Beach, taking them off the road, THEORETICALLY.
The problem is almost none of them, especially the lycra brigade, use it, instead they ride on the road often in packs.

Let's be honest. Its not your average Harriet and Harold asking for bike lanes or better riding infrastructure in general. Its the lycra type who is most vocal.

A small minority of people.
Why should my taxes pay for dedicated bike lanes segregated from the road for them, when they don't use it?

You can't argue that if you build it people will suddenly by bikes and use them.
If the government or cycling associations want more people using bikes and more frequently (I mean government should, it's good for health, healthier people less strain on public hospitals..), perhaps they should have a campaign promoting and encouraging it.

The 'dedicated bike lane' on Military road at West Beach literally starts in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere too - You have to use Military Rd to get to it, and you get dumped back on Military Rd at the end of it, so why not just stay on Military Rd? Military Rd at least will take you directly from A to B without dumping you at a skate park car park, and that stretch past the caravan park is both very wide and very quiet. It doesn't connect up with any popular bike paths (like linear path, not too far away) and it doesn't take you anywhere useful (ie Glenelg, also not too far away). It's a perfect example of *exactly* what is wrong with the dedicated cycling infrastructure in Adelaide. It exists & its there in some form, but its mostly unusable because its either hard to get to, or it takes you nowhere useful. Why would anybody use it if its not actually *useful*.

As for cycling advocacy, the overwhelming bulk of the work in Adelaide is done by community groups who are interested in cycling as a transport form. For example Port Adelaide has a reasonably good network of off and on road bike paths because of excellent work done by the Port Adelaide bike user group - mums, dads, kids, pensioners, commuters etc, who just want to get from A to B conveniently and safely in their local neighborhood. Maybe some of them wear lycra too sometimes, but it's actually very very rare for any of the racing clubs (anywhere in Australia, not just Adelaide) to speak up about infrastructure.

Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to get state governments to properly listen to groups like this at all, ever. (Hence all the crap paths to nowhere we end up with all over Adelaide - it's councils that end up doing all the heavy lifting for community pedestrian & cycling friendly infrastructure in this state, but they are mostly limited to little projects that start and end inside their own boundaries, and nothing ever links up).

It gets even harder if you are trying to modify infrastructure that's already there. It took the Port BUG more than *10 years* of ceaseless campaigning (and 3 or 4 deaths) just to get a no-brainer of an off road bike path constructed on completely vacant land along the Port Expressway for instance. And that's precisely why cyclists want suitable infrastructure put in place now along South Rd. It'll cost perhaps a few million dollars to get it right (probably way less than the cost of the consultancy fees for the advertising and marketing for this project), it will benefit literally everyone who uses the road by improving safely and usability for all the users of the road, and once in place the infrastructure is there for the lifetime of the motorway and doesn't have to be shoehorned in piecemeal over the next 30 years, costing 10 times as much.

I used to commute to/from work once or twice a week by bike - about 15km each way, 100m net altitude change mostly in the 5km closest to home. I usually wore lycra because it's the best clothes for cycling, and I wanted to change when I got to work anyway. A couple of bits of my commute had parallel shared paths but I rarely used them.

• The downhill part of the collector road (2km, starting about 1km from home) had a shared path, but as I would be doing 40-50km/h, it would have been quite dangerous to encounter a pedestrian (for both of us), and the path had to give way to three side streets that gave way to the road.
• Uphill on the comparable part in the afternoon, I could have used the path, but it was difficult to get to from the road that didn't have a path next to it. I sometimes chose the suburban streets for the uphill instead of the collector road.
• There was a shared path parallel to 2-3km close to my work. If there was no traffic, it didn't matter if I was on the road. If there was traffic, I never worked out a safe way of getting on/off of it in a way that wouldn't surprise drivers. The entrances were right-angle turns about five metres before or after a roundabout. To turn on to it meant using the full lane width just when drivers are either looking in a different direction, or accelerating. It's better to be travelling in the same direction on/near the road shoulder. I'd occasionally use part of this path on the way home, if there were no cars where I'd turn on to it and I could go 20 metres the wrong way along the lane approaching a roundabout in the middle then use a closed road (with a gap for bikes) to come out further along.

I always had front and rear lights, and a retroflective thing on my right ankle if it was dark. I don't really think the colour of my jersey makes much difference - brightly coloured parrots easily disappear in gum trees.

[rev]

Im all for segregated bike lanes. Most cyclists in lycra make their own road rules, so it would be a huge benefit. Let the problems they create be solely confined to a realm affecting them selves and other cyclists only.

Why does every road project need to be a cycling route as well?
There isn't that many people who ride their bikes for leisure let alone to/from work, it hardly justifies the extra cost of segregated bike lanes especially on this project which already has constraints on available land.
People get pissed off over homes being bulldozed for a wider road, imagine how they'd react if you told them their homes being demolished for a bikeway.

There's also a dedicated bike lane along Military road at West Beach, taking them off the road, THEORETICALLY.
The problem is almost none of them, especially the lycra brigade, use it, instead they ride on the road often in packs.

Let's be honest. Its not your average Harriet and Harold asking for bike lanes or better riding infrastructure in general. Its the lycra type who is most vocal.

A small minority of people.
Why should my taxes pay for dedicated bike lanes segregated from the road for them, when they don't use it?

You can't argue that if you build it people will suddenly by bikes and use them.
If the government or cycling associations want more people using bikes and more frequently (I mean government should, it's good for health, healthier people less strain on public hospitals..), perhaps they should have a campaign promoting and encouraging it.

The 'dedicated bike lane' on Military road at West Beach literally starts in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere too - You have to use Military Rd to get to it, and you get dumped back on Military Rd at the end of it, so why not just stay on Military Rd? Military Rd at least will take you directly from A to B without dumping you at a skate park car park, and that stretch past the caravan park is both very wide and very quiet. It doesn't connect up with any popular bike paths (like linear path, not too far away) and it doesn't take you anywhere useful (ie Glenelg, also not too far away). It's a perfect example of *exactly* what is wrong with the dedicated cycling infrastructure in Adelaide. It exists & its there in some form, but its mostly unusable because its either hard to get to, or it takes you nowhere useful. Why would anybody use it if its not actually *useful*.

As for cycling advocacy, the overwhelming bulk of the work in Adelaide is done by community groups who are interested in cycling as a transport form. For example Port Adelaide has a reasonably good network of off and on road bike paths because of excellent work done by the Port Adelaide bike user group - mums, dads, kids, pensioners, commuters etc, who just want to get from A to B conveniently and safely in their local neighborhood. Maybe some of them wear lycra too sometimes, but it's actually very very rare for any of the racing clubs (anywhere in Australia, not just Adelaide) to speak up about infrastructure.

Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to get state governments to properly listen to groups like this at all, ever. (Hence all the crap paths to nowhere we end up with all over Adelaide - it's councils that end up doing all the heavy lifting for community pedestrian & cycling friendly infrastructure in this state, but they are mostly limited to little projects that start and end inside their own boundaries, and nothing ever links up).

It gets even harder if you are trying to modify infrastructure that's already there. It took the Port BUG more than *10 years* of ceaseless campaigning (and 3 or 4 deaths) just to get a no-brainer of an off road bike path constructed on completely vacant land along the Port Expressway for instance. And that's precisely why cyclists want suitable infrastructure put in place now along South Rd. It'll cost perhaps a few million dollars to get it right (probably way less than the cost of the consultancy fees for the advertising and marketing for this project), it will benefit literally everyone who uses the road by improving safely and usability for all the users of the road, and once in place the infrastructure is there for the lifetime of the motorway and doesn't have to be shoehorned in piecemeal over the next 30 years, costing 10 times as much.

I used to commute to/from work once or twice a week by bike - about 15km each way, 100m net altitude change mostly in the 5km closest to home. I usually wore lycra because it's the best clothes for cycling, and I wanted to change when I got to work anyway. A couple of bits of my commute had parallel shared paths but I rarely used them.

• The downhill part of the collector road (2km, starting about 1km from home) had a shared path, but as I would be doing 40-50km/h, it would have been quite dangerous to encounter a pedestrian (for both of us), and the path had to give way to three side streets that gave way to the road.
• Uphill on the comparable part in the afternoon, I could have used the path, but it was difficult to get to from the road that didn't have a path next to it. I sometimes chose the suburban streets for the uphill instead of the collector road.
• There was a shared path parallel to 2-3km close to my work. If there was no traffic, it didn't matter if I was on the road. If there was traffic, I never worked out a safe way of getting on/off of it in a way that wouldn't surprise drivers. The entrances were right-angle turns about five metres before or after a roundabout. To turn on to it meant using the full lane width just when drivers are either looking in a different direction, or accelerating. It's better to be travelling in the same direction on/near the road shoulder. I'd occasionally use part of this path on the way home, if there were no cars where I'd turn on to it and I could go 20 metres the wrong way along the lane approaching a roundabout in the middle then use a closed road (with a gap for bikes) to come out further along.

I always had front and rear lights, and a retroflective thing on my right ankle if it was dark. I don't really think the colour of my jersey makes much difference - brightly coloured parrots easily disappear in gum trees.

How about slowing down? You're not in a controlled environment, and as you state it could be dangerous for you and others around you.

There's also shared lanes that you chose not to use. Because there was no traffic.
So if there's no pedestrians, can I drive my car on the footpath?

Lycra wearing cyclists, as you just showed and I have said repeatedly, almost always think they're in a race, and can chose when they need to obey laws and use their lanes. Thats a huge part of the problem.

[Simmos083]

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

[Nort]

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

You might want to direct your ire towards the department of infrastructure, because they are touting the surface level roads and the positive impact they will have on the area.

The James Congdon bike path is a great example of halfassed infrastructure in Adelaide. Every morning it's busy with riders going into town, then you get to Sir Donald Bradmam and the choices are to ride on the narrow footpath over the train overpass, or get onto Sir Donald Bradman and use the bike lane where you start off stationary at lights and then ride up in a narrow lane on the road with no way of getting off it.

The expressway certainly shouldn't have bike paths, that's not the part we're talking about. If you live in the area you'd know lots of people ride, if you don't and just pass through then don't worry, this doesn't affect you.

[SBD]

The 'dedicated bike lane' on Military road at West Beach literally starts in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere too - You have to use Military Rd to get to it, and you get dumped back on Military Rd at the end of it, so why not just stay on Military Rd? Military Rd at least will take you directly from A to B without dumping you at a skate park car park, and that stretch past the caravan park is both very wide and very quiet. It doesn't connect up with any popular bike paths (like linear path, not too far away) and it doesn't take you anywhere useful (ie Glenelg, also not too far away). It's a perfect example of *exactly* what is wrong with the dedicated cycling infrastructure in Adelaide. It exists & its there in some form, but its mostly unusable because its either hard to get to, or it takes you nowhere useful. Why would anybody use it if its not actually *useful*.

As for cycling advocacy, the overwhelming bulk of the work in Adelaide is done by community groups who are interested in cycling as a transport form. For example Port Adelaide has a reasonably good network of off and on road bike paths because of excellent work done by the Port Adelaide bike user group - mums, dads, kids, pensioners, commuters etc, who just want to get from A to B conveniently and safely in their local neighborhood. Maybe some of them wear lycra too sometimes, but it's actually very very rare for any of the racing clubs (anywhere in Australia, not just Adelaide) to speak up about infrastructure.

Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to get state governments to properly listen to groups like this at all, ever. (Hence all the crap paths to nowhere we end up with all over Adelaide - it's councils that end up doing all the heavy lifting for community pedestrian & cycling friendly infrastructure in this state, but they are mostly limited to little projects that start and end inside their own boundaries, and nothing ever links up).

It gets even harder if you are trying to modify infrastructure that's already there. It took the Port BUG more than *10 years* of ceaseless campaigning (and 3 or 4 deaths) just to get a no-brainer of an off road bike path constructed on completely vacant land along the Port Expressway for instance. And that's precisely why cyclists want suitable infrastructure put in place now along South Rd. It'll cost perhaps a few million dollars to get it right (probably way less than the cost of the consultancy fees for the advertising and marketing for this project), it will benefit literally everyone who uses the road by improving safely and usability for all the users of the road, and once in place the infrastructure is there for the lifetime of the motorway and doesn't have to be shoehorned in piecemeal over the next 30 years, costing 10 times as much.

I used to commute to/from work once or twice a week by bike - about 15km each way, 100m net altitude change mostly in the 5km closest to home. I usually wore lycra because it's the best clothes for cycling, and I wanted to change when I got to work anyway. A couple of bits of my commute had parallel shared paths but I rarely used them.

• The downhill part of the collector road (2km, starting about 1km from home) had a shared path, but as I would be doing 40-50km/h, it would have been quite dangerous to encounter a pedestrian (for both of us), and the path had to give way to three side streets that gave way to the road.
• Uphill on the comparable part in the afternoon, I could have used the path, but it was difficult to get to from the road that didn't have a path next to it. I sometimes chose the suburban streets for the uphill instead of the collector road.
• There was a shared path parallel to 2-3km close to my work. If there was no traffic, it didn't matter if I was on the road. If there was traffic, I never worked out a safe way of getting on/off of it in a way that wouldn't surprise drivers. The entrances were right-angle turns about five metres before or after a roundabout. To turn on to it meant using the full lane width just when drivers are either looking in a different direction, or accelerating. It's better to be travelling in the same direction on/near the road shoulder. I'd occasionally use part of this path on the way home, if there were no cars where I'd turn on to it and I could go 20 metres the wrong way along the lane approaching a roundabout in the middle then use a closed road (with a gap for bikes) to come out further along.

I always had front and rear lights, and a retroflective thing on my right ankle if it was dark. I don't really think the colour of my jersey makes much difference - brightly coloured parrots easily disappear in gum trees.

How about slowing down? You're not in a controlled environment, and as you state it could be dangerous for you and others around you.

There's also shared lanes that you chose not to use. Because there was no traffic.
So if there's no pedestrians, can I drive my car on the footpath?

Lycra wearing cyclists, as you just showed and I have said repeatedly, almost always think they're in a race, and can chose when they need to obey laws and use their lanes. Thats a huge part of the problem.

I believe I obeyed all relevant laws at all times. Please indicate what you think I did wrong in my description? What speed do you consider is appropriate to freewheel (it's a road bike not a kids' toy bike) either on a road or on a shared path? There are two roundabouts on that descent, which slow both cars and bikes. Kids walk to school on the path. What speed should the cars be doing? I rarely held up cars on the descent, and took my place in the line for the second roundabout, not filter to the front along the kerb. I never had drivers beep or shout abuse for my behaviour on that road.

OK - maybe I broke the law for a total of about 20 metres on my commute: After the traffic lights at the bottom of the collector road, the next section has a bike lane while continuing downhill but not far off flat. The westbound bike lane over the level crossing is rough enough that I have broken spokes crossing it, so I would (if safe to do so) swing out of the bike lane and ride on the left wheel track across the railway line. If not, I would signal that I was slowing down to cross the railway much slower. I think that's actually legal anyway as the bike lane is not fit for purpose.

About turning on to the shared paths on the flat. There's a median approaching the roundabout, and being in the Elizabeth area, the single-lane carriageway spreads to two lanes for the roundabout. Most cars at that time of day are turning left or going straight (like me) into the same road I am intending to use. My usual path was to use the left lane of the roundabout to continue straight on. I could signal to turn left at the exit of the roundabout, swing right as I exit the roundabout as the car behind me is accelerating, then almost stop to make the sharp left turn around the bollard. As a driver, would you prefer that to my continuing to do ~25km/h (not racing) and stay on the left edge line? Alternatively, I could turn left at the roundabout, then immediately signal and cross two lanes exiting the roundabout, through the gap in the median and cross the two lanes entering the roundabout to join the path on that side.

I got beeped and waved at once after the second roundabout on that road. I reported the driver to the number on the back of his truck, the same as I would have if that driver had behaved like that and I was in my car.

This conversation has drifted well off of the North-South motorway topic and should probably be moved to the beer garden if anyone knows how? The shared path along the Northern Expressway is generally good, and pedestrians respond positively to a bell when approached from behind, unlike on the Torrens linear park. The road intersections are wide enough to turn into from the road without the risks I described on the smaller road, and they are further from the roundabouts. Paths along the central section similar to what is next to the Northern and Southern Expressways would be nice, but can't be done as the surface roads have too many intersections

How long should a 13-15km cross-suburban commute take by each mode of transport? I think mine would be a touch over 100 minutes by public transport (at limited times), 30 mins to work and 40 home (uphill) by bike, and about 20 minutes each way by car. I never tried walking it all the way, and one bit has no formed footpath at all so pedestrians use the edge of the bitumen.

[omada]

#5481 Post by Simmos083 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:13 pm

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike

. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

Oh go away troll. It represents a good opportunity to get people off the roads, so its a win win for road users too. Remember most cyclists are tax payers too (drive cars, pay income tax) so the argument that its not worth the extra money as rev has suggested is nonsense.

Can we put this one to bed? This is a forum for exchange of ideas and recently I have noticed it has become victim to keyboard warriors and trolls. That's why I don't bother posting anymore.

[rev]

#5481 Post by Simmos083 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:13 pm

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike

. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

Oh go away troll. It represents a good opportunity to get people off the roads, so its a win win for road users too. Remember most cyclists are tax payers too (drive cars, pay income tax) so the argument that its not worth the extra money as rev has suggested is nonsense.

Can we put this one to bed? This is a forum for exchange of ideas and recently I have noticed it has become victim to keyboard warriors and trolls. That's why I don't bother posting anymore.

For the amount of use it will get compared to cost, no it's not worth it. That's why I said, perhaps government needs to start a campaign to get people riding?

I pay taxes, registration etc. If I was to buy a motorbike, I'd have to get another license and pay more.
Why should all this extra cycling infrastructure be built, and cyclists not pay extra as cyclists?

I'll tell you why cyclists aren't viewed in a positive way. Because the lycra brigade are a law unto them selves. They are the most visible cyclists on the road, and often the ones associated with and causing the most headaches by doing the wrong thing/whatever they want.

Whereas some of you think by spending tens of millions building extravagant bikeways that suddenly thousands of people will jump on push bikes. It's just not going to happen, because 1) we have a different culture here in Australia compared to Belgium, and 2) the vast majority think cyclists are dick heads thanks to your friends in lycra who do what they want.

[Simmos083]

#5481 Post by Simmos083 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:13 pm

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike

. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

Oh go away troll. It represents a good opportunity to get people off the roads, so its a win win for road users too. Remember most cyclists are tax payers too (drive cars, pay income tax) so the argument that its not worth the extra money as rev has suggested is nonsense.

Can we put this one to bed? This is a forum for exchange of ideas and recently I have noticed it has become victim to keyboard warriors and trolls. That's why I don't bother posting anymore.

Mate, read the majority of comments in this thread. Majority of us do not give a shit about bike lines. This is a MOTORWAY thread not a bike thread.

[Nort]

Mate, read the majority of comments in this thread. Majority of us do not give a shit about bike lines. This is a MOTORWAY thread not a bike thread.

This is about the surface level works happening as a result of the motorway, which are a massive part of the consultation and planning required to figure out how the motorway itself is built.

If you want to be that pedantic anyway this is the UC thread, so since this section isn't UC yet should we have no discussion of it?

[Nort]

#5481 Post by Simmos083 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:13 pm

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike

. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

Oh go away troll. It represents a good opportunity to get people off the roads, so its a win win for road users too. Remember most cyclists are tax payers too (drive cars, pay income tax) so the argument that its not worth the extra money as rev has suggested is nonsense.

Can we put this one to bed? This is a forum for exchange of ideas and recently I have noticed it has become victim to keyboard warriors and trolls. That's why I don't bother posting anymore.

For the amount of use it will get compared to cost, no it's not worth it. That's why I said, perhaps government needs to start a campaign to get people riding?

I pay taxes, registration etc. If I was to buy a motorbike, I'd have to get another license and pay more.
Why should all this extra cycling infrastructure be built, and cyclists not pay extra as cyclists?

I'll tell you why cyclists aren't viewed in a positive way. Because the lycra brigade are a law unto them selves. They are the most visible cyclists on the road, and often the ones associated with and causing the most headaches by doing the wrong thing/whatever they want.

Whereas some of you think by spending tens of millions building extravagant bikeways that suddenly thousands of people will jump on push bikes. It's just not going to happen, because 1) we have a different culture here in Australia compared to Belgium, and 2) the vast majority think cyclists are dick heads thanks to your friends in lycra who do what they want.

Counterpoint: it's ok to say no to the over-focus of infrastructure of individual vehicles.

[Llessur2002]

Mate, read the majority of comments in this thread. Majority of us do not give a shit about bike lines. This is a MOTORWAY thread not a bike thread.

The majority of forum users aren't spouting semi-aggressive anti cyclist rhetoric. This is a thread about the entire project, not just the motorway.

Pedestrian, public transport and cycling infrastructure being impacted by or built as part of this project are all perfectly valid topics of discussion. As is urban design, greening and impact of this new infrastructure on surrounding communities.

To be honest, for someone who's only contributed to the forum a handful of times your tone comes across as unnecessarily blunt. Respectful discussion of different opinions helps make this an interesting forum but wading in, seemingly from nowhere, declaring a particular mode of transport as 'pathetic' and directing far more active members of this group to move their comments about non-road aspects of this project elsewhere seems like a bit of an overstep to me.

There are more constructive ways of getting your point across and contributing positively to the forum.

Just my two cents.

[SBD]

#5481 Post by Simmos083 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:13 pm

This motorway is needed to get our state moving with freight and cars which is critical for any city. It encourages cars to use it which is what we need. We do not need to waste our money on stupid bike lines for people who think for one minute they are riding in the Tour de France. The state needs more motorways and easy way to transport people around. Not waste money on a handful of people who ride a bike

. I can’t remember the last time someone delivered a large truck load of goods on a bike. This is a motorway conversation not a bike conversation. If you want to discuss this pathetic mode of transport then start another threat around bikes.

Oh go away troll. It represents a good opportunity to get people off the roads, so its a win win for road users too. Remember most cyclists are tax payers too (drive cars, pay income tax) so the argument that its not worth the extra money as rev has suggested is nonsense.

Can we put this one to bed? This is a forum for exchange of ideas and recently I have noticed it has become victim to keyboard warriors and trolls. That's why I don't bother posting anymore.

For the amount of use it will get compared to cost, no it's not worth it. That's why I said, perhaps government needs to start a campaign to get people riding?

I pay taxes, registration etc. If I was to buy a motorbike, I'd have to get another license and pay more.
Why should all this extra cycling infrastructure be built, and cyclists not pay extra as cyclists?

I'll tell you why cyclists aren't viewed in a positive way. Because the lycra brigade are a law unto them selves. They are the most visible cyclists on the road, and often the ones associated with and causing the most headaches by doing the wrong thing/whatever they want.

Whereas some of you think by spending tens of millions building extravagant bikeways that suddenly thousands of people will jump on push bikes. It's just not going to happen, because 1) we have a different culture here in Australia compared to Belgium, and 2) the vast majority think cyclists are dick heads thanks to your friends in lycra who do what they want.

There is an element of "use it and they will come". It is really hard to guess how many people are not riding along South Road because they don't feel safe.

We are talking about a path all the way from Darlington to Wingfield, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be used for much shorter journeys. I'm not familiar enough with the area, but can't think of any other north-south cycling routes suitable for kids, families, or casual transport between the parklands and Tapleys Hill Road.

The "lycra brigade" you keep harping on about can ride on the road and occupy a lane of traffic just like every other single-occupant passenger vehicle. It's these other groups of cyclists who need better infrastructure.