|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
This was published as top billing on SMH today... [url]http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1[\url] Way to go Prof! Ritch __________________________________________________ _________ Get on a bike and you are a second-class citizen Having conducted research on cycling safety for the US, Canadian and several European ministries of transport, I am appalled but hardly surprised by a motorist's alleged attack this week on 20 cyclists riding legally in Brighton-le-Sands. For five months, I have been a visiting professor at the University of Sydney, examining cycling in Australian cities compared with the US and western Europe. Cycling in Sydney is notoriously unsafe. In sharp contrast with western Europe, cyclists are treated like second-class citizens in Australia and the US. The legal right of cyclists to ride on most roads is not respected by most motorists or even the police. When cyclists are injured or killed by motorists, there are rarely any serious sanctions for the guilty drivers. By comparison, European motorists are usually assumed to be guilty if they collide with cyclists, and the police and courts strictly enforce cyclists' rights. American and Australian police and courts largely ignore such rights, and motorists endangering cyclists are seldom given anything more than a slap on the wrist. It is time for our legal system to enforce the legal rights of cyclists on roads. While there are many reasons for the dangers of cycling in Sydney (insufficient bicycle lanes and paths, lack of training and education programs, dangerous design of roads and intersections, etc), the refusal of motorists to respect cyclists' rights is also an important factor. It is time for motorists to learn to share the road with legally riding cyclists. And it is high time for the police and courts to strictly enforce cyclists' rights. Professor John Pucher Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Camperdown __________________________________________________ _________ -- ritcho |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
ritcho wrote:
This was published as top billing on SMH today... [url]http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1[\url] Way to go Prof! Ritch __________________________________________________ _________ Get on a bike and you are a second-class citizen snip It is time for motorists to learn to share the road with legally riding cyclists. And it is high time for the police and courts to strictly enforce cyclists' rights. Professor John Pucher Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Camperdown __________________________________________________ _________ Good letter, but who hasn't known that for years? Had a moron crash into the kerb in front of me last week after over-correcting from a classic late reactor response. One English visitor commented that here people come blasting through in the left lane at terrifying speeds, which I've seen enough examples of. I hope I live long enough to see the cagers get their come-uppance when the oil runs out. Cheers, Ray. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:16:15 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
Brilliant job, John was in Melboring last week as part of the Connecting Cycling Conference: http://tinyurl.com/7p2u7 John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as many as he wishes. His presentation from last week: http://tinyurl.com/jkwbe Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies that make up pro-cycling propaganda. Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in Germany but not Australia is false: - pedestrians do have right of way over turning traffic in Australia too - a vehicle (cycle) continuing in a lane (bike lane) has right of way of cars turning across them - a vehicle (bike) turning left has right of way over a car turning right (reversed of course because of the different sides of the road in the two countries). That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers). Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher on the driver who mowed down the Australian women's cycling team than Australian courts (and may have in fact been a small slightly more lenient because the fine and suspension would have been a bit more in NSW). The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway patrols and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at little cost). His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system. As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume). The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing so. The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on Canterbury Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need better infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and cyclists. There are several factors that effect cycling rates 1) suitability of geography and climate 2) safety 3) infrastructure 4) culture. And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have better trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with cyclists. Whilst those two cities have been successful in further increasing the rates of cycling are many other cities where cycling initiatives have failed and there little correlation between amount of money spent encouraging cycling and cycling rates overall. While cities such as Portland and San Francisco have managed to boost public transport and cycling they have achieved this by restricting development which produces high property prices and restricting cars. This has created a class of wealth professionals living in the city, meanwhile the cities are collapsing as economic growth and people move elsewhere, usually suburbs and industrial parks located on freeways. Factors that have reduced walking and cycling also include increased wealth, changes in occupations, transporting of children to day care, schools and activities outside local areas. Frank Furedi, a UK sociologist, has done research finding that fear for children's safety seems to have been a driving factor for driving children everywhere in Anglo-Saxon countries more than other developed countries (when the children are probably more at risk from mothers driving other children around in SUVs than anything else!). There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety, education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out. Simply finding correlations between cycling and characteristics somewhere like Copenhagen does not prove causal relationship there, let alone prove chains of cause and effect you can apply in somewhere totally different like Sydney. A better place to look for Australia would be Perth, which has increased cycling and public transport rates. Though it should be noted that that has involved infrastructure projects bankrolled by a commodities boom and GST revenue from NSW and Victoria. dewatf. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT
dewatf wrote: Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The sentences handed out to drivers killing cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers and pedestrians are the same. And as we have just seen the German legal system was no tougher Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist. Do you have proof of this claim? Such as say a list of trials, convictions, and sentences? Zebee |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
dewatf Wrote: That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers). Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you just talking aloud? dewatf Wrote: Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with cyclists across Australia. Please do your research. dewatf Wrote: The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway patrols and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at little cost). So the German and Swedish authorities perform *exactly the same function*as Australian police. Oh, and raise revenue too. With more police on the roads than we have here. dewatf Wrote: His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system. You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system. dewatf Wrote: As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume). The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing so. The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on Canterbury Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need better infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and cyclists. So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very lazy debating you're presenting. dewatf Wrote: There are several factors that effect cycling rates 1) suitability of geography and climate 2) safety 3) infrastructure 4) culture. Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. dewatf Wrote: And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have better trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with cyclists. Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle. Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison) dewatf Wrote: Whilst those two cities have been successful in further increasing the rates of cycling are many other cities where cycling initiatives have failed and there little correlation between amount of money spent encouraging cycling and cycling rates overall. Please cite your references. dewatf Wrote: While cities such as Portland and San Francisco have managed to boost public transport and cycling they have achieved this by restricting development which produces high property prices and restricting cars. This has created a class of wealth professionals living in the city, meanwhile the cities are collapsing as economic growth and people move elsewhere, usually suburbs and industrial parks located on freeways. Again, please cite your references. I lurk on numerous SF and Portland bike email groups, and taking into consideration the anecdotal evidence that is presented on these lists, your conclusions are extremely off the mark. dewatf Wrote: Factors that have reduced walking and cycling also include increased wealth, changes in occupations, transporting of children to day care, schools and activities outside local areas. Frank Furedi, a UK sociologist, has done research finding that fear for children's safety seems to have been a driving factor for driving children everywhere in Anglo-Saxon countries more than other developed countries (when the children are probably more at risk from mothers driving other children around in SUVs than anything else!). Which, again, is a point which Pucher makes. Are you trying to illustrate this as *your* counterpoint to his presentation?!? dewatf Wrote: There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety, education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out. Simply finding correlations between cycling and characteristics somewhere like Copenhagen does not prove causal relationship there, let alone prove chains of cause and effect you can apply in somewhere totally different like Sydney. Then please expand upon what you imply by stating "integrated with sustainable economic systems and cultures". Peak oil (which may, or may not, be a theory) will certainly create major disruptions to our society. Have you given any consideration towards that looming issue? dewatf Wrote: A better place to look for Australia would be Perth, which has increased cycling and public transport rates. Though it should be noted that that has involved infrastructure projects bankrolled by a commodities boom and GST revenue from NSW and Victoria. WA massively restructured their equivalent to RTA/VicRoads. Do you intend to expand upon your final observation at the next Premiers Conference? Should prove to be highly entertaining. -- cfsmtb |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
cfsmtb wrote:
dewatf Wrote: That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers). Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you just talking aloud? dewatf Wrote: Nor is there any evidence of cyclists being treated as less worthy than cars in traffic offenses by Australian courts. The Eugene McGee case and the resulting Kapunda Royal Commission seems to completely eluded you. It obviously hit a *very raw nerve* with cyclists across Australia. Please do your research. dewatf Wrote: The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway patrols and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at little cost). So the German and Swedish authorities perform *exactly the same function*as Australian police. Oh, and raise revenue too. With more police on the roads than we have here. dewatf Wrote: His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system. You obviously don't have any substantial knowledge or experience of how cyclists are treated when they are in the legal system. dewatf Wrote: As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume). The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing so. The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on Canterbury Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need better infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and cyclists. So you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. That's very lazy debating you're presenting. dewatf Wrote: There are several factors that effect cycling rates 1) suitability of geography and climate 2) safety 3) infrastructure 4) culture. Again, you're simply reinforcing Puchers initial conclusions. dewatf Wrote: And the biggest one is culture. Cities that are suitable and have had a long history of cycling e.g. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have the highest rates of cycling, and always have. Having such a culture they have better trained cyclists and drivers are much better at driving with cyclists. Australia has a long history of cycling as well. Miners travelled to the WA goldfields, shearers travelled from job to job via bicycle. Workers commuted via bicycle to their jobs. Australian town planning since WWII has given preference towards the car over PT, cycling and walking. ('Car Wars', Graeme Davison) I remember reading that bicycles were far more numerous than horses in the 1880s and 90s. The bushranger era. And about wangaratta women cycling to melbourne to the markets in the 1940s. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
"dewatf" wrote: On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:16:15 +1100, cfsmtb wrote: John's an excellent public speaker, who incidently likes to mention how much he loves cookies. Because he rides a bike & therefore can eat as many as he wishes. His presentation from last week: http://tinyurl.com/jkwbe Every example he gives of cyclists and pedestrians being given priority in Germany but not Australia is false: snip The Germans and Swedish, however, are much more strict with highway patrols and in imposing traffic fines in general than in Australia (except where redlight and speeding cameras can raise revenue for State Governments at little cost). So you think that German and Swedish police don't contribute to government revenue from speeding fines??? His suggested that a presumption of guilt be applied without evidence is nonsense and does not apply in any civilised legal system. It is my understanding, from the accounts of numerous aquaintances who have travelled in European countries, that this presumption of guilt upon drivers in accidents with pedestrians or cyclists is in fact the case. Much of the French and German legal system operates under a reversed burden of proof. I guess some hard factual evidence (cited) would convince me they are all wrong. As to cycling and walking being safer where there are high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians that is purely a correlation (as Pucher partly concedes by claiming only a probable improvement in safety by volume). I do believe he clearly acknowledges this. From p.19 of his transcript "Thus it is _quite likely_ that increased cycling and walking in Australia, Canada and the USA would be safer than they are today" (my emphasis). He shows another correllation between increasing obesity and reduced rates of cycling, walikng and public transport use. Do you think that it is the increased obesity that is causing less cycling, walking and PT use? The main reason is that people cycle and walk when they feel safe doing so. The main claim for increased cycling improving safety come from Copenhagen where they managed to increase cycling and reduce accidents/km. The major drive for increasing cycling in Demark was by making cycling safer through bike lanes, off road cycleways, Copenhagen cycle lanes. Safety will not improve by just increasing volume, just putting more cyclists on Canterbury Rd or the shoulder of the M5 is simply going to put more cyclists in hospitals and morgues. To increase safety in Australia you will need better infrastructure changes and major changes in culture by both motorists and cyclists. And why do you claim that Pucher ignores this? See p.22 of the above transcript ( the section headed 'Better cycling and walking facilities' snip There are many things that can be done to improve cycling and public transport like planning, building infrastructure, improving safety, education but they have to be integrated with sustainable economic systems and cultures, and it is a lot more complex that Pucher makes out. And these improvements are exactly what Pucher is calling for!! Maybe you should try reading the transcript of his presentation. D'oh! Cheers Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
dewatf wrote:
snip Thanks, an interesting presentation. Though it is of course full of the usual correlations falsely presented as causes, distortions, myths and lies that make up pro-cycling propaganda. snip That seems particularly sloppy (as you would expect from an academic these days since facts no longer matter in Ivory Towers). snip Your criticism of academics is well noted. As is your lack of referencing. Tam |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:04:40 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote:
As is your lack of referencing. You are *so* lucky I'd finished my beer before reading this post. -- Dave Hughes | "Sanity is like money; you should just have enough to get by. Any more and you turn into a freak" - rone, ASR |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling related letter in SMH today
"MikeyOz" wrote:[color=blue] Zebee Johnstone Wrote: In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:27 GMT dewatf wrote: Really? There's just been a rather famous case in Sydney of sonmeone who didn't even have a conviction recorded for killing a motorcyclist. Zebee And the person who recently drove his car into a primary school, unlicensed, over the limit, did not kill anyone but has irrevocably changed the lifes of several kids, what did he get, no conviction. Yes. And a certain lady texting on her mobile phone whilst driving, who just slipped and killed a chap cycling in Geelong. No jail sentence for culpable driving ie. manslaughter. Then a friend of mine had the tragedy of his wife killed while reading her mail at a bus stop, by a runaway truack with faulty brakes. The company that owned it, knew about the failing brakes, and ordered the driver to drive it, got a slap on the wrist. Grrrr!! Peds and cyclists not treated as inferior citizens - ********! Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two more terrible cycling deaths today | scotty72 | Australia | 14 | September 26th 05 11:11 AM |
Cycling based Artwork - Visit today! | Gary Coles | Australia | 6 | August 31st 05 08:38 AM |
Critique of BMA paper | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 2 | November 11th 04 11:15 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Wachovia Cycling Series - Come meet the teams! | Steve | Racing | 0 | May 28th 04 02:46 PM |