NRMA sucks

In article ,
Jack Russell wrote:

Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply

Dear Jack

Thank you for your email regarding NRMA's position on cycle lanes. It
is important to note that our recent comments were made specifically
regarding the current changes on Epping Road in Sydney...

Yep, a standard form response we all received. There are monkeys in
NRMA...
--

On 2008-01-10, Jack Russell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply


From : Me me me me me
To :
Cc :
Subject : NRMA Membership options
----- Message Text -----
Hi,

I was wondering if NRMA could create a new membership option: The roadside
service, without the increasingly naive and irrelevant political views and
commentary (for example, NRMA's war on bikes), and the claims of
representing my views to government along with my fellow NRMA members.
Perhaps NRMA could get together with RACV and the like to offer similar
membership options with those organisations as well, because wherever I
have lived, I would have appreciated the ability to have my car towed when
it broke down, but have not wished the motoring body to have counted my
membership as supporting their short sighted views. In the meantime,
enjoy the gridlock. I'm staying away from membership for the time being.


--
TimC
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect
the fuse by blowing first. --unknown

On 2008-01-10, TimC (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On 2008-01-10, Jack Russell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Here is my email to the NRMA and their reply


From : Me me me me me
To :
Cc :
Subject : NRMA Membership options
----- Message Text -----
Hi,

I was wondering if NRMA could create a new membership option: The roadside
service, without the increasingly naive and irrelevant political views and
commentary (for example, NRMA's war on bikes), and the claims of
representing my views to government along with my fellow NRMA members.
Perhaps NRMA could get together with RACV and the like to offer similar
membership options with those organisations as well, because wherever I
have lived, I would have appreciated the ability to have my car towed when
it broke down, but have not wished the motoring body to have counted my
membership as supporting their short sighted views. In the meantime,
enjoy the gridlock. I'm staying away from membership for the time being.

Damn. What you think of after you hit send.

"In the meantime, enjoy the self imposed gridlock and increasing oil
prices. I'm staying away from membership for the time being. And
I'd appreciate not receiving the stock form response back, thanks.
Save the electrons."

--
TimC
"I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors."
-- Plorkwort, 26 September 2004 on alt.religion.kibology

I did a count of users on part of the facility that has actually
opened (@ the Herbert St ramp) from 7.30 - 8.30 this morning:

City-bound: 21 cyclists, 7 pedestrians
Ryde-bound: 10 cyclists, 6 pedestrians

That makes the figure of 25/day for the whole corridor looks VERY
wrong - no word from the NRMA about where it came from.

Wrote:
I did a count of users on part of the facility that has actually
opened (@ the Herbert St ramp) from 7.30 - 8.30 this morning:

City-bound: 21 cyclists, 7 pedestrians
Ryde-bound: 10 cyclists, 6 pedestrians

That makes the figure of 25/day for the whole corridor looks VERY
wrong - no word from the NRMA about where it came from.

Call the main NRMA office and ask for the cited references or who
prepared the figures for their media release.


--
cfsmtb

Todays SMH, nice article by Lisa Pryor, let us hope that she is right
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/s...988589357.html



cfsmtb wrote:
Wrote:

I did a count of users on part of the facility that has actually
opened (@ the Herbert St ramp) from 7.30 - 8.30 this morning:

City-bound: 21 cyclists, 7 pedestrians
Ryde-bound: 10 cyclists, 6 pedestrians

That makes the figure of 25/day for the whole corridor looks VERY
wrong - no word from the NRMA about where it came from.


Call the main NRMA office and ask for the cited references or who
prepared the figures for their media release.




--
Remove norubbish to reply

On 2008-01-12, Jack Russell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Todays SMH, nice article by Lisa Pryor, let us hope that she is right
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/s...988589357.html

Heh. Nice.

But I don't agree with her comment:
When party-goers head home drunk late on a Saturday night, it is
rarely by bicycle.

Just ride straight when passing the RBTs, and they wave you past.

--
TimC
Tim heals all wounds -- Ben Fisher on RHOD

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

ZebeeI can't wait until petrol is $2 p/l then many of his members wont be
able to afford to drive 'Effing' Rd. Then, you might have a chance of
seeing the blinding obvious that your anti-cyclist coloured glasses will
not let you.


--
scotty72

scotty72 wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

I can't wait until petrol is $2 p/l then many of his members
wont be
able to afford to drive 'Effing' Rd. Then, you might have a chance of
seeing the blinding obvious that your anti-cyclist coloured glasses
will not let you.

You think the worldd will sstop when petrol hits $2 a litre? It's more than
that in Europe now.

Scotty, I believe your glasses have clouded (steamed?) over, whilst Zebee's
are still clear.

Theo

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT
Artoi wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...s-nrma/2008/01
/09/1199554742667.html

Looks like NRMA under the present president needs to be voted out at the
next AGM for his lack of long term vision. A quick email to blast his
and the organization's retrograde view under his leadership would be
worthwhile .

What retrograde vision?

His job is to promote the interests of his members, which means more
and better facilities for cars.

Not more and better facilities for bicycles.

Sure, be nice if it wasn't so, but that *is* his job.

Now, if you can show why better cycle facilities are good for NRMA
members (and all you know about them is they drive cars) then attack
him with that.

THe evidence before the NRMA is that the cycle paths along Epping Rd
are not attracting enough cyclists to thin the car traffic enough to
ease things for his members. That is the point you must deal with.

Why shouldn't he be against them, given that?

Zebee


The NRMA is the National Roads and Motorists Association, so its not just
Motorists that Alan Evans represents, its all road users. He tries to
wriggle out of this in the stock reply about the NRMA not opposing cycleways
if they are in the right place etc. Ten years ago or so the NRMA went
through a phase of calling themselves as the "Mobility Specialists". They
were all in favour of cycling and public transport and were always turning
up at planning conferences and supporting cyclists (Mark McKenzie was the
NRMA environmental guy often seen). In fact BNSW had a campaign with them to
get rideable shoulders on roads- result was better shoulders on some roads,
including the M4 and M2 shoulders, and maybe some others (F6 too I think,
after some deaths, M7, CWL, M5/F5) and the RTA commitment to providing
cyclist facilities in or parallel to all major new works (which as a
principle is good but sometimes the money might have been better spent
elsewhere - eg M7 maybe). Of course they now take the shoulder from cyclists
if they want too (M4, M2), we didnt get a cast iron guarantee.

Seeing as most (adult)cyclists drive cars too, I'd say Mr Evans needs to
refocus on general mobility again. Its not impossible, given what they were
saying back then.

Re Epping Rd, the bike path is a lightweight pier and beam construction in
the Lane Cove to the Lane Cove River section, which is additional to the
roadway, so doesnt restrict number of lanes for motorists - the bus lane
does that. Wont be suitable for cars anyway, not strong enough. In addition
to this inconvenient fact, the NRMA failed to state that the path is not
finished yet and is only 1 m wide in places, so counting the no of cyclists
at this stage is misleading.

fb in sydknee