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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

"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

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

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

"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