View Full Version : Cyclists in T-way brawl with bus driver (Sydney)
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cyclists-in-t-way-brawl-with-bus-driver/comments-e6freuy9-1225791150829
A CYCLIST illegally riding on a T-Way lane in Sydney's northwest followed a bus, boarded the vehicle at a bus stop and then bashed the 64-year-old driver.
Police are investigating the incident, which took place near the intersection of Powers Rd and the Northwest Transitway, Seven Hills about 5.05am on Friday, and searching for the cyclist.
Police said the driver overtook the cyclist, who then pulled up alongside the bus at the next set of lights, banged on the bus window and broke the driver's mirror.
"At the next bus stop the rider entered the bus and allegedly assaulted the driver," a police spokesman said.
It is the latest in a series of violent incidents between drivers and cyclists, who are illegally using the T-Way.
The RTA has acknowledged that illegal cycling on the T-Way is rife, saying it was in the process of installing 61 "no bicycle signs" along the North West Transitway, in addition to signs already in place.
Motorists caught on camera using the purpose-built bus lanes, which begin at Parramatta, are fined $220 each but the RTA has no way of tracking down cyclists.
The cyclist was caught on CC-TV wearing a blue helmet and bike clothing and is described as white/European in his 30s and about 178cm tall.
Transport Workers Union spokesman Darcy Waller said the cyclist "got all upset because the bus overtook him" on a road he shouldn't be using.
"He was dressed like Cadel Evans and still wearing his helmet as he pushed past a woman and started throwing punches at this driver."
The RTA said it would be "taking part in discussions" with Hillsbus and union delegates in the next fortnight in a bid to stamp out the cycling problem.
Usual rhetoric in the comments from the readers - ban bikes, make them pay rego, run them over etc etc
bosworth*
26-10-2009, 08:36 AM
In Sydney, T-ways are dedicated lanes for buses and other authorised vehicles.
Oh, that's an unfortunate setback to sharing Sydney's public transport network - those T-Ways may be Sydney's transport salvation (yes, just spent the w'end with wife's family and experienced Sydney traffic grinding to a holt on a Sunday :eek:.)
Startrek
26-10-2009, 12:21 PM
Today while coming back on the Federal Highway a small truck came 3/4 into the bike lane and tried to hit me ,the only thing that saved me is i happen to be hugging the far left of the bike lane (hiding from the wind).This shook me up ,as a parent i wonder is it worth it to my children if i got killed by a Vehicle who would just get away with it .
I can understand the rage of the cyclist .He just had enough ,you only have to ride in the cycle lane down Northbourne to see how bus drivers treat you.
I do the right thing on the road ,stop at lights, obey the road rules
why can't i just ride in peace and enjoy my bike.
Its just sad.
Driver
26-10-2009, 12:42 PM
If riding in the T-lane is against the law, it's against the law. Imagine riding up Adelaide Ave in the transit lane..? Besides taking your life into your hands (or rather putting it in someone elses) it's not legal!
Just like running a red, he probably shouldn't have been there, and then the bus wouldn't have had to squeeze past.
Just trying to look at this objectively, or is that 'subjectively'...
SimonD
26-10-2009, 12:58 PM
An objective viewing sees likely fault among all parties.
-Cyclist: riding where it's illegal. Road raging and assault. Clearly he was at fault.
-Bus driver: Likely deliberately cut too close to the cyclist to make a point, and that's what got the rider so riled. Someone doing something illegal doesn't give you license to put their life in danger. If a drunk pedestrian crosses Belconnen way in peak hour when there are cars coming, you still have to drive around him safely.
-TWU spokesman: Has a mandate to defend the people in his union, but is exposed as a bigot in his use of language to belittle the rider and imply that there is something wrong with dressing in lycra. By doing so, he is saying it is OK to put someone at risk if they're doing the wrong thing and is contributing to animosity between different sorts of road users.
gsavage
26-10-2009, 01:31 PM
An objective viewing sees likely fault among all parties.
-Cyclist: riding where it's illegal. Road raging and assault. Clearly he was at fault.
-Bus driver: Likely deliberately cut too close to the cyclist to make a point, and that's what got the rider so riled. Someone doing something illegal doesn't give you license to put their life in danger. If a drunk pedestrian crosses Belconnen way in peak hour when there are cars coming, you still have to drive around him safely.
-TWU spokesman: Has a mandate to defend the people in his union, but is exposed as a bigot in his use of language to belittle the rider and imply that there is something wrong with dressing in lycra. By doing so, he is saying it is OK to put someone at risk if they're doing the wrong thing and is contributing to animosity between different sorts of road users.
Simon good points, the Lycra comments are edging toward a Magda Szubanski style slagging which was totally out of line :mad:. Heckle the individual not all of us!!!
Andrew
26-10-2009, 01:38 PM
If it was clearly stated that Cyclists should not be in the T-way, what are they doing there then? If Cyclists are such a problem, shouldn't they be looking at putting in dedicated lanes?
And agreed, Cyclists just don't jump off bikes and punch motorists for the hell of it - that bus driver did something really f*@king stupid/dangerous.
-TWU spokesman: Has a mandate to defend the people in his union, but is exposed as a bigot in his use of language to belittle the rider and imply that there is something wrong with dressing in lycra. By doing so, he is saying it is OK to put someone at risk if they're doing the wrong thing and is contributing to animosity between different sorts of road users.
QFT. I don't understand why I need to be derided for wearing the appropriate cycling gear. Apparently the non-cycling population don't understand the concept of 'function over fashion'
And Lee - I wouldn't think that the driver wanted to mow you down.. but sideswipe you enough that it'll shake you up.. Of course, the chance for something really bad happening is so goddamn high that the driver should be tracked down and charged for dangerous driving..
Driver
26-10-2009, 02:03 PM
Simon, well said.
Lee, I drove trucks many many moons ago, and still do every day - nowadays a lot less, but they're a lot wider.
I'd say the driver in your case was most likely either distracted, tired, had a lapse or more likely got wind affected. I'm especially aware of how high wind affects the handling of a large or very large vehicle and today was gusting - really bad driving conditions. In gusty high winds I stay off the highway all together (on the bike), truck drivers fight a constant battle to hold a straight line in high crosswinds.
Most professional drivers are quite protective of their job and their licences, loss of either means no $$.
Having said that, there are sh*tloads of long haul truckies taking some sort of 'medication' to help them stay awake and/or sleep, so you'll often see lapses in concentration, which most of the time end up nothing more than a lane wobble.
I ride the Fed all the time, being my 'local' up to the Old Fed and always sit in the gutter and try my darndest to get whoever I'm riding with to get as far away from the white line as physically possible.
Truck and car wobbles onto the verge on the highway are really common, but they don't often go more than a few inches into the emergency lane before the driver has realised.
Here is where your safety margin comes into it. If you ride the shoulder you are far more likely to have a close call or worse. If you ride the gutter (even when it's 2 metres wide) you'll have a far greater safety margin.
Everyone, ride as far left as possible, even when you have a huge shoulder, and avoid the highway on days of high wind.
bosworth*
26-10-2009, 02:50 PM
The RTA said it would be "taking part in discussions" with Hillsbus and union delegates in the next fortnight in a bid to stamp out the cycling problem.
"Stamping out the cycling problem" sounds quite ominous.
To clarify... a 'shared' Sydney T-way network is probably the only existing relatively-safe route for serious cycle training/commuting in Sydney that doesn't require major roadworks and infrastructure changes - it is dual lane, has easy grades, is a meaningful network and has no cars.
It's unfortunate that, irrespective of the 'why' and 'how', this incident may have undermined any political move to open the T-ways for cyclists.
pm0203
26-10-2009, 03:32 PM
Good advice from Driver about riding as far left as possible. I must admit I'm looking for the smoothest section of road which tends to be near the white line. But great points about high wind and slight wobbles due to wind hitting the truck.
Regarding the T-Way, the cyclist did us no favours but as usual the Bus driver may well of nearly killed the cyclist, but none of that is reported, just the biffo.
SimonD
26-10-2009, 03:37 PM
It's unfortunate that, irrespective of the 'why' and 'how', this incident may have undermined any political move to open the T-ways for cyclists.
Very true. The status of cycling is not improved through moral arguments but political ones. The personal is political and fish would be better off on bicycles.
...and fish would be better off on bicycles.
Apologies if this is already well known - http://www.fishonabike.com/
173 comments at last count, estimated 99% of them anti-cycling.
I just love the cyclists must pay rego comments, as if that would change any motorist's view of cyclists. The cyclist would still be doing 20km/h still making the car driver 3 seconds later on their journey.
What do these drivers do when they come up to a slow moving truck or tractor on the road? Do they act like total fcuktards over them like they do cyclists?
Startrek
26-10-2009, 06:18 PM
I just saw the footage on the News the bus driver tried to squash him ,ok he was in the wrong place but that doesn't give the bus driver the right to try and kill him.
SimonD
26-10-2009, 08:53 PM
You know what? I am quite proud of this thread. I doubt there would be many internet discussion groups that could have such a reasonable and thoughtful discussion about such an emotive and contentious topic. And not an ad hominem argument in sight, Bean!
The contributors all get positive rep from me.
Driver
26-10-2009, 09:25 PM
I just saw the footage. It's no worse than what we get every dam day on Northbourne and I've had worse on Mouat St.
I think he may have been having a bad day.
In a related article the proposed TWU solution is to teach the drivers self defence. I would of thought teaching them how to drive courteously and to obey the road rules would of been a better solution.
Not condoning the cyclist's attack at all, he was riding in the wrong place but this gives the bus driver no reason to 'buzz' him. The cyclist overeacted and has really bought cycling into disrepute, or rather just added fuel to the fire regarding the general public's perception of cyclists.
Sharing the road is a two-way street, to coin a pun. Cyclists have to realise that even though legally they are entitled to share the road they are pretty much a guest there and for their own health and safety they should obey the rules and be courteous to other traffic.
Car and truck drivers should be aware that cyclists are sharing the road and be more tolerant and courteous and give them as much room as possible when passing.
Hoops
27-10-2009, 08:49 AM
Do you sleep Ross?
SimonD
27-10-2009, 08:58 AM
NSW finest have posted the bus footage on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxrL-cTbwm8
j_young_80
27-10-2009, 09:00 AM
Do you sleep Ross?
He is gearing up for Halloween, the one day he can roam the earth in daylight hours and not get his pay docked.
(Neg rep me for taking this off topic)
pm0203
27-10-2009, 01:03 PM
"I'm not going anywhere mate, if your going to ride in th..."
Close inspection
1. 5:00am, Yes Transit lane should not be there.
2. No buses comming the other way
3. Cyclist in/on white line
4. Bus takes minimalist move to other lane
5. moves back into lane and over the white line. And the cyclist does sh!t himself because it is close. The driver is either doing this through bad driving or to make a point, that the cyclist should not be there.
6. Bus then moves back into lane
7. Front vision makes it look worse for driver attempting to move into the white line area, to make a point to the cyclist.
8. Lady does not get shoved out of the way, but "assume" she might be shoved after footage stops.
Cyclist bashes driver after the vision stops, so as cyclist we now lose....
SimonD
27-10-2009, 02:09 PM
"I'm not going anywhere mate, if your going to ride in th..."
Close inspection
1. 5:00am, Yes Transit lane should not be there.
2. No buses comming the other way
3. Cyclist in/on white line
4. Bus takes minimalist move to other lane
5. moves back into lane and over the white line. And the cyclist does sh!t himself because it is close. The driver is either doing this through bad driving or to make a point, that the cyclist should not be there.
6. Bus then moves back into lane
7. Front vision makes it look worse for driver attempting to move into the white line area, to make a point to the cyclist.
8. Lady does not get shoved out of the way, but "assume" she might be shoved after footage stops.
Cyclist bashes driver after the vision stops, so as cyclist we now lose....
I noticed you posted the same in the Vets discussion group, pm. Jamie's shameless forum advertising post to the same group was REJECTED! You should sneak a surreptitious plug into your next post for us!! The more hits we get the more ad money for juniors' travel.
pm0203
27-10-2009, 02:38 PM
N@ZI Germany started EXACTLY this way.
Cross forum posting and rejected posts advertising other forums.
NEXT thing people will start calling for registration for bikes using the roads, and Bus drivers will not use care at 5:00am, and cyclists will take offence and bash them.
.....
SimonD
27-10-2009, 04:20 PM
The V-Mobile Minister for Information and Truth will sort them out!
http://www.vikingscyclingforum.org.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=98&stc=1&d=1256620797
Do you sleep Ross?
Just having a quick surf of the 'net while I eat breakkie and then head out for an early CU loop. Roos nearly got me this morning. :(
bosworth*
27-10-2009, 08:19 PM
http://susty.com/image/western-grey-kangaroo-macropus-fuliginosus-twilight-trees-furry-cute-adorable-monpod-wildlife-animal-mammal-marsupial-photo.jpg
Vanessa
27-10-2009, 08:45 PM
Bossie do you just surf the net for random photos or does this one have a point? Maybe I'm missing something...
Startrek
27-10-2009, 08:48 PM
This is the Roo that attacked Ross ,get with it V.
Vanessa
27-10-2009, 08:51 PM
It seems to require FT work to keep up to date with the forum....just can't do it :p
Saw an old Beemer abandoned on the side of Urriarra Rd this morning, was gonna scratch my initials into the bonnet... :p
Boz - that's about how close the roo was except he was bigger and we were both travelling at about 50km/h :eek:
Startrek
27-10-2009, 09:09 PM
Yes a big beautiful M5 i saw that ,and then i got in and drove the big V 10 home ,and Ford man the engine just purred like a tiger .:p
bosworth*
27-10-2009, 09:28 PM
Is your name 'leeanne' ?
SimonD
28-10-2009, 01:38 PM
Jamie's shameless forum advertising post to the same group was REJECTED!
Either the Maxx has had a word or someone realised that Jamie is getting on a bit in years, as the shameless advertising post has just been ACCEPTED!
Chris
28-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Either the Maxx has had a word or someone realised that Jamie is getting on a bit in years, as the shameless advertising post has just been ACCEPTED!
Nah Jamie just hacked the system, it was easier than getting past the moderators.
j_young_80
28-10-2009, 02:59 PM
Either the Maxx has had a word or someone realised that Jamie is getting on a bit in years, as the shameless advertising post has just been ACCEPTED!
An olive branch eh? For a limited time only, I can now offer Vets members free registration to the forum. Get in quick!
James
29-10-2009, 12:24 PM
If anyone feels like building up a head of righteous rage, read on:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/roads-are-for-cars-not-lycra-louts-20091028-hkwr.html?autostart=1
Don't give Miranda Divine oxygen James. each hit just encourages her (and smh) to write and publish more bile.
James
30-10-2009, 01:57 PM
To give the herald its due- they published this article today in the opinion section as a cyclist's response...
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-road-is-there-to-share-20091030-ho1x.html
bosworth*
30-10-2009, 01:58 PM
There is a typo on the first line.
James
30-10-2009, 02:09 PM
How do you know? It could be a hive-mind style of thing.
We are cyclist... We are legion.
bosworth*
30-10-2009, 02:14 PM
/b/
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html?autostart=1
bosworth*
11-11-2009, 11:18 AM
This series by SMH is an exercise in manufactuing outrage. They publish deliberately provocative articles to increase website hits and newspaper sales, both of which mean more money for SMH.
SimonD
11-11-2009, 11:39 AM
That's a private media for you. Which only leaves us with the ABC. Or Green Left Weekly. i wonder what John Pilger's stance on the issue is.
Simonsky
11-11-2009, 11:56 AM
Time of day bans on cyclists during peak hours. Noice! (not). That'd be another reason not to move to Sydney as it disappears down a car exhaust pipe.
On the upside, the M7 cycle path is amazing! The Albinator and I did a 90k ride completely off the road while at the worlds. Not so scenic along the freeway, but a good facility. Pity about the rest of Sydney.
lynds
11-11-2009, 12:11 PM
Wow, this guy used to be a roads minister? Surely not..... with comments that are just wrong, like the one below??
I can only conclude like Bosworth said that this is a just a deliberate attempt to be controversial for the sake of getting more readers and hits (it is working on me :-( !!)
But I'll let myself get sucked in anyway.... so, I have a good idea. What about a time of day that cars are banned? Between around 6 am to 8.30 am. And then in the evening from 5.30 til about 7pm. Imagine how safe the roads would be for everyone, and I think it would encourage heaps more people onto their bikes to cycle to work and get some exercise in. How utterly wonderful that would it be to ride in to work each days with no cars around! And if the times for can banning were extended then there'd be less wear and tear on the roads and less need to cough up money to fix them all the time! Lots of problems solved.
"Cyclists are unlikely to be happy being regulated to time-of-day cycling or to footpaths and off-road facilities. But, before rejecting this option out of hand, they should consider not only how unsafe it is to be sharing the roadway with vehicles, but also acknowledge that it is motorists who pay fuel levies, tolls, registration and licence fees, as well as the huge cost of buying and running a motor vehicle. Apart from a negligible amount of GST on their equipment, cyclists pay nothing towards the cost of the roads they wish to use and rely on motorists to fund most of the cost of cycling infrastructure. Being more aware of this may make more cyclists a little more sensitive to the needs of the motoring public."
Simonsky
11-11-2009, 12:23 PM
It probably is a beat up. As a former roads minister he would surely know that most bike riders are in fact car owners and therefore pay registration. Moreover, he'd know that road use is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer (especially when indirect costs are taken into account). So if anything, what he really should be arguing for is a road use charge (per distance travelled).
Problem is, that's a vote loser. Cyclist bashing is much safer electorally.
SimonD
11-11-2009, 12:23 PM
" it is motorists who pay fuel levies, tolls, registration and licence fees, as well as the huge cost of buying and running a motor vehicle. Apart from a negligible amount of GST on their equipment, cyclists pay nothing towards the cost of the roads they wish to use and rely on motorists to fund most of the cost of cycling infrastructure. Being more aware of this may make more cyclists a little more sensitive to the needs of the motoring public."
So, Sheather has more right to the roads on her $20k Pinarello than I do in my $2000 Nissan Skyline + est $2000 per year in peripherals?
But more seriously, that's just patently false, isn't it? That car associated levies pay for roads (independent of the fact that most riders own a car anyway). My understanding (admittedly only from stats on the website of the Victorian Public transport Users Association) is that even with all this money there is about a 10 billion dollar shortfall on roads and car associated needs. this is covered by general taxes. So really, people who don't use cars are subsidising those who do. What conclusion does that lead to by this guy's logic?
The next argument is just a very general one, that roads are for transport of a societies population, not for cars. Cars are one way that the population moves between places, but not the only way. I'm pretty sure there weren't too many Commodores doing burnouts back in the days of the Roman Empire.
"Apart from a negligible amount of GST on their equipment, cyclists pay nothing towards the cost of the roads they wish to use and rely on motorists to fund most of the cost of cycling infrastructure. Being more aware of this may make more cyclists a little more sensitive to the needs of the motoring public."
I still pay 10% on my bike equipment, just like I do on any car-related purchase. What a dick of a statement that its!
And for a roads minister to assume all his road funding comes from motorists is frankly bizarre and deluded. To assume that cyclists don't contribute is patently absurd.
Making cyclists more sensitive to the needs of the motoring public???? WTF? I think that should be the other way around in this debate, surely?
SimonD
11-11-2009, 12:58 PM
Here are the stats from the Vicco PTUA. Does anyone with knowledge of this have comment on the validity of the conclusion that there's a $16bill deficit each year? That's 1.4% of Australia's GDP.
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
Annual costs of car use in Australia
Item: $million
Road construction and maintenance : 9,000
Land use cost: 6,000
Road trauma: 17,300
Noise: 700
Urban air pollution: 4,300
Climate change: 2,900
Tax concessions for car use: 5,800
State fuel subsidies: 600
Total: $46,600 (million that is!)
Annual revenue collected from Australian motorists
Item: $million
Petrol and diesel excise (net of rebates): 9,900
GST on fuel and vehicles: 4,000
Vehicle registration fees: 3,500
Insurance premiums: 10,400
Tolls: 800
Other revenue: 2,300
Total: $30,900
Therefore the deficit is $15,700,000,000 ($15.7 billion) or one third of the total cost.
SimonD
11-11-2009, 01:16 PM
Wikipedia on this most honorable of pollies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Scully
Carl Scully was sacked as NSW Police minister on 25 October 2006 by Morris Iemma, after having misled parliament twice in two weeks[3] over the consequences of the 2005 Cronulla riots in December 2005. He had misled parliament when he had said he had not seen a report on the incident. Then-Opposition Leader Peter Debnam had repeatedly called for Scully's resignation.
Scully did not recontest the seat of Smithfield at the March 2007 State election.[4]
Carl Scully was the NSW State Minister for Roads during the 2008-09 widely unpopular implementation of a cashless tollway system of Sydney roads dubbed the "$100m e-tag swindle". It initially included a $24 administration fee for Interlink accounts not used more than 24 times per quarter - which he said the Government would not prevent - and a $40 bond to purchase the essentially compulsory tags. Due to widespread complaints these decisions were reversed however, the final cost to commuters is currently unknown.
what a joker. no wonder his "article" is written like something you would expect to find in the news.com.au reader comments
SimonD
11-11-2009, 01:25 PM
OK, check this out!!
SMH declared his history as a NSW minister. [But why not his current employment?correction -they do. Not sure why I didn't notice before.] Since his parliamentary fall from grace he is now "Principal" at this company: http://www.evanspeck.com/Pages/raods.html
The f&^*knuckles can't even spell 'roads' correctly in the url!
tobyk
11-11-2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html
From today's Sydney Morning Herald. "I don't want to offend, BUT I'm going to" sort of attitude...
Give me Canberra over Sydney any day of the week
Woops - didn't see that this was already up...
Steven
11-11-2009, 02:29 PM
But more seriously, that's just patently false, isn't it? That car associated levies pay for roads (independent of the fact that most riders own a car anyway).
Last I looked at the ACT Government budget, all road infrastructure was funded from general revenue. Our rates dollars at work!
Sadly it seems that mainstream politicians don't have the stones to front up to the media about this. Labour and Liberal alike prefer to keep appeasing the redneck/motoring activists (I Will Vote for a Dragway, NRMA, etc) because they make more noise than us meek and mild cyclists.
Simonsky
11-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Thanks folks. All this is getting me suitably fired up for the crits. I might even last longer than 5 minutes now!
I still pay 10% on my bike equipment, just like I do on any car-related purchase.
Technically a lot of us don't actually pay 10% on our cycling related purchases...PBK and Wiggle ring any bells?!
I agree the article is just sensastionalism, just written to sell papers to uneducated bogans.
Technically a lot of us don't actually pay 10% on our cycling related purchases...PBK and Wiggle ring any bells?!
Shhhh!
Startrek
11-11-2009, 06:00 PM
Have we forgotten the green issue here ,lets just keep eating up all the fuel reserves in the world and pollute the planet at the same time .What happen to the goverment trying to get as out of cars .There would a lot less obesity if more of the population rode to work.
What happen to the goverment trying to get as out of cars.
There WAS one??
Steven
11-11-2009, 09:03 PM
What happen to the goverment trying to get as out of cars.
Ah, that ended when the economy slowed and auto companies started sacking a few workers.
Of course business has never been better for the bicycle industry :)
Simple economics. Of course the govt will lose a lot of revenue if everyone gets on bikes. Much less petrol being used (around half the price per litre is made of different taxes), a lot less cars being rego'd, less servicing and repairs for these vehicles, less vehicles insured etc etc so the govt will have a massive shortfall in revenue that won't be made up from purchase of bikes, accessories, repairs and clothing. The govt is just paying lip service to the green people, they will never get serious about cycling or any other policy that costs them money. They are only interested in making money so they can waste it on other perks and junkets like pollies super, mobile phone bills and first class flights around the world for Kevin 747.
Steven
11-11-2009, 09:28 PM
What a happy bunch we are today ... Viva la Revolución! :D
SimonD
12-11-2009, 08:57 AM
Simple economics. Of course the govt will lose a lot of revenue if everyone gets on bikes. Much less petrol being used (around half the price per litre is made of different taxes), a lot less cars being rego'd, less servicing and repairs for these vehicles, less vehicles insured etc etc so the govt will have a massive shortfall in revenue that won't be made up from purchase of bikes, accessories, repairs and clothing. The govt is just paying lip service to the green people, they will never get serious about cycling or any other policy that costs them money. They are only interested in making money so they can waste it on other perks and junkets like pollies super, mobile phone bills and first class flights around the world for Kevin 747.
Where's EPO4eva when you need him? Does this sow that our economic set up is flawed, because it's good for us to do bad things. The faster we destroy the world, the better our GDP!
Simonsky
12-11-2009, 09:03 AM
I'm afraid perverse incentives abound, particularly in Australia. Not just in transport. We're a hip pocket voting, short term thinking, middle class welfare, policy cesspit. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Chris
12-11-2009, 09:40 AM
Where's EPO4eva when you need him? Does this sow that our economic set up is flawed, because it's good for us to do bad things. The faster we destroy the world, the better our GDP!
If you want to be a real economist start talking about externalities. The basic problems it that there are a number of costs that are not born by the person making the decision.
The driver is not directly aware of the the environmental costs and health costs when the make their transport choices. Similarly until recently the Govn't didn't have to factor in the carbon cost of energy and so on. Hence the personal economic decisions are not optimally efficient from an economic perspective.
Of course politics is the other factor, this is why we have been propping up the SA and Vic car industries when any economist would be telling gov to let them die.
A real economist? Ross Gittens (of the SMH) and paul Krugmann are about the only ones who talk any sense.
The rest of them seem to rely on nothing more precise than reading chicken guts!
Chris
12-11-2009, 11:09 AM
A real economist? Ross Gittens (of the SMH) and paul Krugmann are about the only ones who talk any sense.
The rest of them seem to rely on nothing more precise than reading chicken guts!
Actually these guys aren't what I mean by real economists. In the SMH context they are better though of as commentators with an economic background.
I am not an economist, but I do have an economic degree to complement my engineering degree and I can generally say there is an awful lot of chicken guts in marco economics compared to the hard sciences.
This is a great come-back to the SMH (NSW) article.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/10/18/104181_tasmania-news.html
TASMANIAN cyclists are safer on the state's roads than ever, a peak cycling body says.
The Tasmanian Bicycle Council says the increasing numbers of cyclists on roads has boosted motorists' awareness of cyclists and increased funding for dedicated bike infrastructure.
However, more needed to be done to reduce the number of serious injuries and deaths, council chairman Tim Stredwick said.
Tasmania Police say there is room for improvement to motorists' attitude, calling for them to treat cyclists with the same respect as any other road users.
The number of cyclists seriously injured on Tasmania's roads has dropped from 27 in 1998 to 10 this year, according to the Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources.
The Western and Southern districts continue to be injury blackspots, recording 34 and 28 incidents respectively since records began in 2001.
"Basically one injury or one fatality is one too many," Mr Stredwick said. "But there has been vast improvement, and research conclusively and repeatedly tells us that safety improvements are linked to greater numbers of cyclists using the road."
"Bikes have a traffic-calming effect, plus the more cyclists there are on the roads the more motorists become use to them."
Tasmania Police Acting Commander John Arnold said improving drivers' attitudes towards cyclists was still high on the agenda.
"Motorists need to steer away from the attitude that roads are for cars and bikes don't belong there," he said.
Startrek
13-11-2009, 01:14 PM
I wonder how hard it is ride with two heads.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.