NRMA sucks

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 .
--

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 .
--
Done!

--
Remove norubbish to reply

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

In article ,
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

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?

Wrong. He has done a dis-service to NRMA members as his solution would
not solve the traffic congestion in the longer time frame. Providing
more lanes would just last a few months and then it'll be just as
congested as before, if not worse. His statement was short term and
money driven. All this proved was that he is a man who lacked vision and
not deserve to lead the organization.
--

"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 arguement NRMA are trying to put up is for the amount of cost to put in
cycling infrastructure beside and seperate from major traffic arteries is
not being utilised enough and that the money could be spent otherwise on
motorised transport but my veiw say is, if we didn't have those cycleways
that keep most cycles off major arteries,then what is the cost to the
community for every cyclist that gets knocked off his bike,seriously hurt or
worse, Killed. When that cost is added up, then eventually the cycleways
will pay for themselves in todays dollars not tomorrows.
Most cyclists, including myself are rate payers,tax payers,car owners
contrubuting to road taxes etc; so I beleive that cyclists are as much
entitled to infrustructure as any other members of our communities.
It's about time Australian Governements woke up to themselves and promote
cycling as an alternative transport like they do in many European countries.
I guess this is a broad general statement to make but one i must get off my
chest, aaahhh feel better now!!

DJ

On Jan 10, 12:03 pm, Artoi wrote:
In article ,
Zebee Johnstone wrote:



In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:18:20 GMT
Artoi wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...lists-nrma/200...
/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?

Wrong. He has done a dis-service to NRMA members as his solution would
not solve the traffic congestion in the longer time frame. Providing
more lanes would just last a few months and then it'll be just as
congested as before, if not worse. His statement was short term and
money driven. All this proved was that he is a man who lacked vision and
not deserve to lead the organization.

Indeed... as an NRMA member, I see what his (short-sighted) point is,
but maybe he might like to delve a bit deeper. (I am also considering
as a member how I can voice my displeasure).

Is this $300,000/cyclist Epping cycleway the one being constructed as
a direct result of the M2 laneway closure? If so, blame is squarely at
the feet of the NSW gov't and their incompetent management of public/
private partnerships.

He doesn't appear to spot the underlying point: 130/day used the old
M2 cycleway, because it was a step in the right direction, and worked
(sort of). Now, however, only 25/day use the new facilities, because
they are a step backwards.

Personally, I have no problem with zero cycleways, as long as
motorists understand that I have a right to use the traffic lanes.
Stuck in a bus carrying 40 pax to the city behind a slow cyclist?
Tough.

On Jan 10, 12:50 pm, Duncan wrote:
Is this $300,000/cyclist Epping cycleway the one being constructed as
a direct result of the M2 laneway closure? If so, blame is squarely at
the feet of the NSW gov't and their incompetent management of public/
private partnerships.

Ok.. so it seems the NRMA is complaining about the gridlock on Epping
road where it is now down to one lane.

What they seem to forget, is that
a) one lane on Epping Rd is in the tunnel contract. Roadworks are not
the cause, nor will there be more traffic lanes when they are
complete.
b) One of the other two lanes will be a bus lane (good)
c) if NSW govco didn't put a cycle lane in the remaining space, too
many people might start to ask questions around election time. Hence
the need for the NSW gov't to spend squillions on a cycle lane to
coverup their misdeeds ((see a), above).

Artoi Wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/278ezz
/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 .
--

Media Release from CPF: Cyclists dispute NRMA's claim: Sydney needs
more bike paths, not less
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/300/9/


Quote: NRMA claims that cycle paths are a waste of money show the
motoring group to be out of touch with the realities of city livability,
transport planning and even other motoring organisations. "Cities around
the world are rediscovering the benefits of cycling. Soaring world oil
prices, the urgent need to combat climate change and crippling traffic
congestion have all converged to cause a surge of interest in boosting
bicycle use" said Elliot Fishman, Policy Advisor at the Cycling
Promotion Fund.

"Widening the road to relieve congestion, as the NRMA suggests, is like
putting more holes in a belt to solve an obesity problem" said Fishman.


--
cfsmtb

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:43:14 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:

Media Release from CPF: Cyclists dispute NRMA's claim: Sydney needs more
bike paths, not less
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/300/9/

CPF probably got the same response Evans' secretary sent to me and other
MTB-OZzers:

Dear John

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.

NRMA believes that the priority for Sydney's road network is to keep
traffic moving and ensure that those limited resources are directed
towards achieving this goal.

When it comes to Epping Road, we believe this is simply not occurring.
At present 35,000 vehicles per day use Epping Road and recent roadwork's
and lane reductions has seen this result in serious congestion. By
comparison just 25 cyclists a day are using the taxpayer funded $7.5
million cycle lane. We do not believe that this is a sensible use of
resources.

Traffic delays resulting from a crash in the Lane Cove Tunnel could
easily stretch back to the CBD, impacting on all road users as the
proposed single lane on Epping Road simply will not cope.

Our concern is that Sydney motorists will be the biggest losers when the
Lane Cove Tunnel roadwork's are completed and new bus lanes, a cycleway
and single traffic lanes become permanent fixtures on Epping Road. We
have put forward a number of alternatives to the Roads and Traffic
Authority to ensure motorists are not forced to use the Lane Cove
Tunnel.

These measures include:

* Changing the bus and transit lanes to a T2 transit lane. The
current proposal for a T3 transit lane leading into a bus lane and then
changing to a T2 transit lane is inconsistent and deters people from
car-sharing.

* Widening the general traffic lanes, which have been squeezed to
make way for the new cycle path and will not be wide enough to cater for
the petrol tankers and other vehicles that are not allowed in the
tunnel, or alternatively introducing a tidal flow traffic lane to keep
Epping Road moving.

We will continue to work with the RTA - and in the public arena - to
ensure that motorists get a fair deal when it comes to Epping Road.

NRMA supports cycling in areas that are safe for the cyclist and safe
for the motorist.

NRMA's position on this, and indeed on all the issues that we address,
are derived from extensive and continuing research and surveying of our
Members.

We will not resile from defending our Members' interests on important
issues such as this.

Thank you again for taking the time to inform me of your views.

Regards
Alan H Evans
President
NRMA Motoring & Services


-----Original Message-----
From: John Stevenson ]
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:15 AM
To: Alan Evans
Subject: Cyclists are members too


Dear Alan

Please remember that plenty of cyclists are NRMA members too. In fact
the NRMA probably counts among its membership more cyclists than do any
of the cycling organisations in NSW.

Yours and the NRMA's attitude toward your cyclist members as implied in
today's Sydney Morning Herald is therefore extremely disappointing.

Provision of road facilities for different user types is not a zero-sum
game. Better facilities for cyclists means fewer cars on the road, which

in turn eases congestion for those who drive. Building bigger and better

roads just leads to more traffic at the inevitable city choke points, as

the M5 extension demonstrated. NRMA should therefore take a position
strongly in favour of well-designed bike facilities.

The bike lanes you mention in today's SMH story are not well-designed
and are under-used because they are either unfinished or so short as to
be useless. That's not an argument for spending the money on car
facilities instead, it's an argument for the government providing us
cyclists, your members, with useful alternatives to driving.

Sincerely

John Stevenson

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.

NRMA believes that the priority for Sydney's road network is to keep
traffic moving and ensure that those limited resources are directed
towards achieving this goal.

When it comes to Epping Road, we believe this is simply not occurring.
At present 35,000 vehicles per day use Epping Road and recent roadwork's
and lane reductions has seen this result in serious congestion. By
comparison just 25 cyclists a day are using the taxpayer funded $7.5
million cycle lane. We do not believe that this is a sensible use of
resources.

Traffic delays resulting from a crash in the Lane Cove Tunnel could
easily stretch back to the CBD, impacting on all road users as the
proposed single lane on Epping Road simply will not cope.

Our concern is that Sydney motorists will be the biggest losers when the
Lane Cove Tunnel roadwork's are completed and new bus lanes, a cycleway
and single traffic lanes become permanent fixtures on Epping Road. We
have put forward a number of alternatives to the Roads and Traffic
Authority to ensure motorists are not forced to use the Lane Cove
Tunnel.

These measures include:

* Changing the bus and transit lanes to a T2 transit lane. The
current proposal for a T3 transit lane leading into a bus lane and then
changing to a T2 transit lane is inconsistent and deters people from
car-sharing.

* Widening the general traffic lanes, which have been squeezed to
make way for the new cycle path and will not be wide enough to cater for
the petrol tankers and other vehicles that are not allowed in the
tunnel, or alternatively introducing a tidal flow traffic lane to keep
Epping Road moving.

We will continue to work with the RTA - and in the public arena - to
ensure that motorists get a fair deal when it comes to Epping Road.

NRMA supports cycling in areas that are safe for the cyclist and safe
for the motorist.

NRMA's position on this, and indeed on all the issues that we address,
are derived from extensive and continuing research and surveying of our
Members.

We will not resile from defending our Members' interests on important
issues such as this.

Thank you again for taking the time to inform me of your views.

Regards
Alan H Evans
President
NRMA Motoring & Services


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Russell ]
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:11 AM
To: Alan Evans
Subject: Cycle uise


Dear sir,

I am amazed by your attack on the building of cycleways -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...ts-nrma/2008/0
1

As a long term member (30 years plus) of the NRMA I am becoming more and

more disillusioned with the organisation and its aims. First you sold
the insurance arm nearly bankrupting yourself in the process, then
amongst other things dropped pre-purchase inspections and now seem to
have a "cars at the expense of everything" agenda.

Perhaps you would be better off trying to change the attitude of
Australian motorists from "might is right" to "everybody should share
the roads". It seems to work in most developed and many developing
countries so please stop trying to cause confrontation.

Jack Russell

Duncan wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:50 pm, Duncan wrote:

Is this $300,000/cyclist Epping cycleway the one being constructed as
a direct result of the M2 laneway closure? If so, blame is squarely at
the feet of the NSW gov't and their incompetent management of public/
private partnerships.


Ok.. so it seems the NRMA is complaining about the gridlock on Epping
road where it is now down to one lane.

What they seem to forget, is that
a) one lane on Epping Rd is in the tunnel contract. Roadworks are not
the cause, nor will there be more traffic lanes when they are
complete.
b) One of the other two lanes will be a bus lane (good)
c) if NSW govco didn't put a cycle lane in the remaining space, too
many people might start to ask questions around election time. Hence
the need for the NSW gov't to spend squillions on a cycle lane to
coverup their misdeeds ((see a), above).


--
Remove norubbish to reply