Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

human909
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:20 am

Comedian wrote:It's hard getting safety improvements for cyclists. All the easy stuff is done, so it means taking road space away from people who own cars. This is not popular.


:P Are you trying to live up to you name? :D :wink:

I'd argue we have barely scraped the surface of the 'easy' stuff. Though granted it depends on your definition of 'easy'. One could argue all of it is hard because of the politics of cycling in Australia.

Move your way back up the hazard hierarchy. Administrative controls. This has started but we are still not there yet. We need to enforce the ones implemented and educate about safe vehicle operation around cyclists.


For example look at all the MPD videos ignored. If the police followed up on that and punished the offenders AND were vocal about it then behaviour would change. We did that with drink driving, we did that with speeding. Both have reduced massively due to these actions.

opik_bidin
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby opik_bidin » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:37 am

tgreenfield wrote:
The report is by an Australian and covers 60,000 accidents world wide and was presented at an international convention.
It's conclusion was:
...found helmets reduce the chances of serious head injury in a crash by up to 70 per cent...



What's the number now? it was 85%, you say 70%, then there is 55% : https://twitter.com/Liikennepsykol1/sta ... 5551941632

tgreenfield wrote:Fine if you don't want to wear a helmet, but don't ask me and the responsible people who do wear them to pick up your injury costs through the health system and/or be sympathetic.


Cool, can drivers injuring their head and have burn injuries or even burned to death like this one:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-10/ ... rs/9747648
Teenagers killed in fire after Tesla crashes, battery bursts into flames

return their money as they don't wear helmets and antifire suits which is a standard in MotoGP, F1 and Nascar?

Why don't you say to those lying in the hospital and their graves because of car, trucks, and bus fire and crash: "You deserved to die, you should pay the whole cost, you are a burden to the society, because you don't wear a helmet, anti fire suits, and in case of passengers, because you didn't wear seat belts. It's just a darwinian evolution, those who can't adapt die. "

People always go on about cyclitst bing emotionally unstable, ignorant and angry, etc. How can someone still be sane after repeated psychological attacks and shouting like that online, real life and on the roads, with an added bonus of physical threat of close passes and being swiped.

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:05 am

human909 wrote:
Comedian wrote:It's hard getting safety improvements for cyclists. All the easy stuff is done, so it means taking road space away from people who own cars. This is not popular.


:P Are you trying to live up to you name? :D :wink:

I'd argue we have barely scraped the surface of the 'easy' stuff. Though granted it depends on your definition of 'easy'. One could argue all of it is hard because of the politics of cycling in Australia.

Move your way back up the hazard hierarchy. Administrative controls. This has started but we are still not there yet. We need to enforce the ones implemented and educate about safe vehicle operation around cyclists.


I think I'm in agreement with the funny bloke here. Key word is easy.

For example look at all the MPD videos ignored. If the police followed up on that and punished the offenders AND were vocal about it then behaviour would change. We did that with drink driving, we did that with speeding. Both have reduced massively due to these actions


Drink driving was something that everyone cared about. No one wanted a pisshead wiping them and their family out, enforcement was a no brainer. However, try now to reduce the BAC to 0.0 (or 0.05 in states that have/had 0.08). Good luck with the push back on that, especially in places like Queensland and South Australia. Speeding was an easy one too. Just set up a pile of cameras, everywhere. No probs, done. Sure, there's whining etc about "revenue raising"....even by forum members here who've been caught out on their cycle :lol: ……..so what? As you said, it's working.

Now, who in the xyz cares about the poor cyclists? Around 100 odd forum members, and maybe 100 advocates? It's not about what your definition of easy is. It's about what the people responsible for legislating and enforcing those laws think is easy.

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:27 am

tgreenfield wrote:Personally I think that those people who advocate for no helmets are all about their freedom and are not considering the general good.


Hmm.... personally I have found plenty of evidence that the "greater good" is to actually repeal the helmet law and focus upon 'making cycling irresistable'.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

tgreenfield wrote:I'd put them in the same category as those who drive vehicles without a licence or insurance, or perhaps the anti-vaxxers.
Cycle accidents are costly to the general community.

I support mandatory driving licences (and heavier testing regimes than we currently have) and I support the medical benefits of vaccinations. There is nothing close to these benefits from MHL.

Sedentary lifestyles, motor vehicle use and road collisions are a far, FAR greater cost to the general community.

tgreenfield wrote:Fine if you don't want to wear a helmet, but don't ask me and the responsible people who do wear them to pick up your injury costs through the health system and/or be sympathetic.


THIS ^^^ is the voice of bike-hating bigotry speaking :x

No road user, and not even any citizen, is ever going to be denied access to medical care. (Hint: Medicare and the Hippocratic oath). Your attempt at victim-blame reaches new heights of idiocy and arrogance!

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:41 pm

Comedian wrote:I've had politicians say "I know it's dangerous but we just can't take parking away from the florist - they will go broke. Taking parking away is off the table". You could see the anguish. She knew what she was doing was wrong but right at the same time on so many levels.

That's like sooooo 2010 (to paraphrase). There's now a raft of examples (particularly Vancouver) showing this is utterly wrong - replacing the parking with pedestrians and cyclists increases sales. Read the book (now available from Boffins in Perth)

Coupled with some academic research showing that restaurants (in the case I've read) significantly overestimate the impact of parking on their business. (Sorry, don't have that cite at hand)
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5534
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:08 pm

human909 wrote:
Comedian wrote:It's hard getting safety improvements for cyclists. All the easy stuff is done, so it means taking road space away from people who own cars. This is not popular.


:P Are you trying to live up to you name? :D :wink:



Look I'm prepared to call that one. Every floodway in Brisbane has a nice bike path on it. Unfortunately though - hardly any floodways go to the CBD (except for the river). So, if you want to go out to sea you're in luck. If you want to go somewhere not on the floodway not so much.

The BCC claim they are spending $120 million every four years on bikeways. The problem is that they have put them in all the easy places that everyone can agree on. To the point where they are actively ripping them up and re building them every few years to make things more gooderer. The metric of commitment to cycling is spending the money, not expanding the network or getting more people cycling because that's rather hard. I believe after the last term's 120 million we only got a total of 5k or actual new bike way, and that was just a few hundred metres here and there in parks.

What Brisbane needs is for all the floodways to be linked. But that means taking road space away from people with cars and they aren't ready for that at this juncture. All the direct flat routes are given to motorists. For example, I live 7k to the north of the CBD. It's 8k by car, or 12-14k by bike.

Thoglette wrote:
Comedian wrote:I've had politicians say "I know it's dangerous but we just can't take parking away from the florist - they will go broke. Taking parking away is off the table". You could see the anguish. She knew what she was doing was wrong but right at the same time on so many levels.

That's like sooooo 2010 (to paraphrase). There's now a raft of examples (particularly Vancouver) showing this is utterly wrong - replacing the parking with pedestrians and cyclists increases sales. Read the book (now available from Boffins in Perth)

Coupled with some academic research showing that restaurants (in the case I've read) significantly overestimate the impact of parking on their business. (Sorry, don't have that cite at hand)


You know we both agree on this don't you? :mrgreen:

human909
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:22 pm

Comedian wrote:What Brisbane needs is for all the floodways to be linked. But that means taking road space away from people with cars and they aren't ready for that at this juncture. All the direct flat routes are given to motorists. For example, I live 7k to the north of the CBD. It's 8k by car, or 12-14k by bike.


I can imagine it being a tougher fight and a tougher sell to get cycling infrastructure built in Brisbane than other major capitals due to the massive size of the council.

In Melbourne the city council and many of the surrounding councils are putting plenty of money and effort into making cycling safer.
Image

The advantage of having smaller councils is they can more readily address local needs.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5534
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:46 pm

human909 wrote:
Comedian wrote:What Brisbane needs is for all the floodways to be linked. But that means taking road space away from people with cars and they aren't ready for that at this juncture. All the direct flat routes are given to motorists. For example, I live 7k to the north of the CBD. It's 8k by car, or 12-14k by bike.


I can imagine it being a tougher fight and a tougher sell to get cycling infrastructure built in Brisbane than other major capitals due to the massive size of the council.

In Melbourne the city council and many of the surrounding councils are putting plenty of money and effort into making cycling safer.
Image

The advantage of having smaller councils is they can more readily address local needs.


Dude that is an incredibly insightful comment. I'm rapidly coming to understand that the mega council status is the main cause for their dedication to the car and all that comes with it. Brisbane is really just a little country town that somehow got big.

Our roadnet work just can't cope with the incredible population growth. What's needed for cycling is direct routes - and unfortunately this needs space from the road network which is perceived as the exclusive right of motorists. So - not only do we not have any direct routes - to get around you can only go so far on the floodway network. You need to jump between floodways sometimes and the roads are over run with rat runners. BCC tacitly encourages them. So, the most dangerous park of my commute is riding through "quiet suburban" streets to the bike path due to crazed rat runners. One neighbourhood access street near me (designed just for residents to access their properties) can carry 1200 vehicles an hour when traffic is bad.

BCC won't address this because they might make a few hundred residents happy - but they could easily offend thousands of motorists. Because the council is so big it's likely they actually have a vote. So if you want to stay in power keeping the residents of the outer suburbs happy is a really good idea.

Image

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby antigee » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:52 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Comedian wrote:I've had politicians say "I know it's dangerous but we just can't take parking away from the florist - they will go broke. Taking parking away is off the table". You could see the anguish. She knew what she was doing was wrong but right at the same time on so many levels.

That's like sooooo 2010 (to paraphrase). There's now a raft of examples (particularly Vancouver) showing this is utterly wrong - replacing the parking with pedestrians and cyclists increases sales. Read the book (now available from Boffins in Perth)

Coupled with some academic research showing that restaurants (in the case I've read) significantly overestimate the impact of parking on their business. (Sorry, don't have that cite at hand)


"Sorry, don't have that cite at hand" ...possibly this article https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... r-business Bike lanes good or bad for business - looks at 12 examples

There was a pretty recent article posted on this forum which pointed the finger at athletic male town planners as being somewhat responsible for poor cycle infrastructure because they may cycle but are happy to do so in traffic (paraphrased)...pretty sure if you gave this article to a transport professional involved in active transport they would either say "I'll read it" or "I've read it" .... give it to a Councillor and more likely it will go straight in the bin - Politicians routinely ignore the advice of professionals.....maybe the wrong thread

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:29 pm

antigee wrote:"Sorry, don't have that cite at hand" ...possibly this article https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... r-business Bike lanes good or bad for business - looks at 12 examples

Thanks! Not the one but a nice collection
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

human909
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:01 am

Comedian wrote:Dude that is an incredibly insightful comment.

Thanks! But I think you're being a bit too generous there. :D I'm sure others have articulated similar.

Your cartoon alludes to the underlying issue. In Melbourne we still have problems with the major arterials because VicRoads doesn't even want to think about cycling as transport. But at least that still leaves 90% of the roads in a council area free for councils to provide for cyclists. This has been working well in the old suburbs where roads are interconnected. But 'modern' suburbs of the last 50 years we the roads aren't interconnected so even if the council wanted to retrofit cycling infrastructure it is much harder as most of the through roads are state controlled.

Also the snowball effect can't be understated. Once one progressive council starts investing in cycling it affects all the neighbouring areas too. Which in turn promotes the neighbouring councils to address the growing cycling needs.


Of course what I describe here covers here applies to maybe 5% of metropolitan Melbourne with another 5% doing something. The rest of the sprawl is probably only slightly better than Brisbane.
(Melbourne IMO has pockets of Australian best practice when it comes to cycling. But as an entire metropolitan area, the cycling participation rate points to Darwin and Canberra.)

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:19 pm

human909 wrote: In Melbourne we still have problems with the major arterials because VicRoads doesn't even want to think about cycling as transport.


Mate, you need to do some real world research, not just look at annual reports or rely on what happened 30 or 40 years ago. If you really do believe that Vic Roads does nothing at least you’ll be surprised. :)

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:38 pm

fat and old wrote:
Drink driving was something that everyone cared about.


Rubbish. There was huge opposition to it, which was significantly dented by a brilliant public advertising campaign (which would now be called 'social marketing') - then the results, which were a huge reduction in injuries.

But there wasn't a big push for it before it was introduced.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DavidS » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:05 pm

fat and old wrote:Robinson cites Rissell in her submission. Fail


Fat and Old attacks the messenger and does not engage with the evidence, monumental fail.

Given that helmets protect the head and only the head, how come head injuries as a proportion of cyclist injuries have not fallen?
Why has cycling safety improved more in countries where they don't have MHLs?
Why would any cyclist support anti-cycling laws demonstrated to discourage cycling, especially given more cyclists on the roads is demonstrated to improve safety for cyclists?

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

jasonc
Posts: 9891
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby jasonc » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:10 pm

DavidS wrote:
Given that helmets protect the head and only the head, how come head injuries as a proportion of cyclist injuries have not fallen?
Why has cycling safety improved more in countries where they don't have MHLs?
Why would any cyclist support anti-cycling laws demonstrated to discourage cycling, especially given more cyclists on the roads is demonstrated to improve safety for cyclists?

DS

Qft
Image

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:19 pm

fat and old wrote:Mate, you need to do some real world research, not just look at annual reports or rely on what happened 30 or 40 years ago. If you really do believe that Vic Roads does nothing at least you’ll be surprised. :)

Well please quote for us some real data on Vicroads bicycle facilities spending (beyond those trifling freeway add-on useless bits at the main road interchanges).

Because where I live and ride the Vicroads administered roads often have a lane to spare quite readily, but *almost* never have any bike lanes. On the few main roads where they do they always disappear at the intersections (even the minor ones) and this is where the collision data specifically identifies some of the greatest rider collision risks to be.

Vicroads are a huge WOFTAM for bicycle riders, in my estimation. You show me that this is not so, please.

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

BobtheBuilder wrote:
fat and old wrote:
Drink driving was something that everyone cared about.


Rubbish. There was huge opposition to it, which was significantly dented by a brilliant public advertising campaign (which would now be called 'social marketing') - then the results, which were a huge reduction in injuries.

But there wasn't a big push for it before it was introduced.


I didn't say there was a big push beforehand, and cannot honestly remember one way or the other so I'll accept that, without supporting evidence.

There was huge opposition by Hotels and pissheads. The rest of the population cared. Example; My old man was a regular drink driver. Not enough to be soused, but enough to over 0.05. My mum was extremely happy about the new laws. I think that carried through tbh, if my memories of the other families we socialised with at that time are anything to go by. Traditional, white anglo types....sunday lunch with the grandparents, boxing day bbq watching the cricket etc.
Last edited by fat and old on Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:27 am

DavidS wrote:
fat and old wrote:Robinson cites Rissell in her submission. Fail


Fat and Old attacks the messenger and does not engage with the evidence, monumental fail.

DS


Fat and Old will always attack anything that uses a discredited pseudo scientist as evidence of anything.

Given that helmets protect the head and only the head, how come head injuries as a proportion of cyclist injuries have not fallen?
Why has cycling safety improved more in countries where they don't have MHLs?
Why would any cyclist support anti-cycling laws demonstrated to discourage cycling, especially given more cyclists on the roads is demonstrated to improve safety for cyclists?



Why are you asking me? I'm against MHL's, and as stated many times do not require any convincing. I refuse to get bogged down in the he said/she said garbage roundabout that is injury statistics. If you're happy to keep flogging a dead horse by all means do so. I've already made the suggestion elswhere that as far as I can see, the only community in Australia that rides helmetless in the same areas that others cannot should be engaged and studied to prove some of your points. You have the Darwin example, limited that it is. Work with what you have, or go the Retro Pilot route. Refuse to wear one, and defend yourself if collared. The (succesful) precedent is there.

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:33 am

Scintilla wrote:
fat and old wrote:Mate, you need to do some real world research, not just look at annual reports or rely on what happened 30 or 40 years ago. If you really do believe that Vic Roads does nothing at least you’ll be surprised. :)

Well please quote for us some real data on Vicroads bicycle facilities spending (beyond those trifling freeway add-on useless bits at the main road interchanges).

Because where I live and ride the Vicroads administered roads often have a lane to spare quite readily, but *almost* never have any bike lanes. On the few main roads where they do they always disappear at the intersections (even the minor ones) and this is where the collision data specifically identifies some of the greatest rider collision risks to be.

Vicroads are a huge WOFTAM for bicycle riders, in my estimation. You show me that this is not so, please.


I might have known that you'd bite at this :lol:

You cannot seriously suggest that with the distances you travel you see no evidence of Vic Roads providing cycling facilities. Instead of taking the combative view and refusing to accept that maybe....just maybe...things are better than you'd like to admit why not look at the positives?

As for the dissapearing lanes and

(beyond those trifling freeway add-on useless bits at the main road interchanges
,

I'm exactly not sure what you mean, and what you propose as an alternative? I ask as I don't want to go off some tangent that is irrelevant to what you are saying.


Anyway, just quickly, and not what I was intending to do, but here's a few V/R projects

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/plannin ... kecorridor

Tenders planned

http://webapps.vicroads.vic.gov.au/VRNE ... enDocument

http://webapps.vicroads.vic.gov.au/VRNE ... enDocument

Tenders received

http://webapps.vicroads.vic.gov.au/VRNE ... enDocument

Supplying these things was not my intention, as stated earlier a real world look at what's being done is much more informative, and also provides examples of what is good and what can be improved.

human909
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:38 am

fat and old wrote:Supplying these things was not my intention, as stated earlier a real world look at what's being done is much more informative, and also provides examples of what is good and what can be improved.

And a real world look shows that roads managed by Vicroads continue to be a barrier to councils trying to build and link bike routes.

You've jumped in on how much Vicroads is doing dozens of times previously. Nobody is saying no bike infrastructure on VicRoads. But it is quite clear in many councils that they are THE impediment.

Image

If you see that as a shining example of commitment to cycling infrastructure then I see why we differ.

human909
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:44 am

Here is a good map that shows key cycling routes. It is by no means inclusive of all cycle lanes, paths and sharrows.

Image

In most cases these routes are busy avoiding VicRoads managed roads (a few exceptions). But most problematic at the cross over points like at Victoria Parade.

In the case of inner Melbourne as shown, having bicycle boulevards off major thoroughfares often works quite well for both cyclists and motorists. In fact the few times the issues arise is when council routes try to cross VicRoads managed roads.

This is less workable in middle and outer suburbs due to the meandering nature of residential streets and cul-de-sacs.

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:00 am

fat and old wrote:You have the Darwin example, limited that it is.


That should be NT example. We're not just Darwin.

There are big holes in the comparison, but if anything our climate would suggest lower riding rates ...

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:41 am

BobtheBuilder wrote:
fat and old wrote:You have the Darwin example, limited that it is.


That should be NT example. We're not just Darwin.



Yes, correct. My apologies for the typically southern attitude. :)

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:10 pm

I've spent almost 40 minutes replying to you Human, only to close the wrong window and lose everything :lol: I'll deal with it later. Suffice to say we're in agreement in some areas, not so in others.

Edit:

In most cases these routes are busy avoiding VicRoads managed roads (a few exceptions).


A "few" exceptions? :lol: :lol: Come on Human, there's heaps on that map alone!

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:04 pm

human909 wrote:In the case of inner Melbourne as shown, having bicycle boulevards off major thoroughfares often works quite well for both cyclists and motorists. In fact the few times the issues arise is when council routes try to cross VicRoads managed roads.

This is less workable in middle and outer suburbs due to the meandering nature of residential streets and cul-de-sacs.


Agreed, 100%.

https://goo.gl/maps/FhoM2xksHW12
Where I live and ride. Precious few Vicroads bike-lanes anywhere! Blackburn Rd being the one notable exception (which as with most main road lanes, disappears at any moderately major intersection). WOFTAM!

The "freeway trifling add-on bits" are on various main roads for 100-200 m either side of Eastlink - basically useless paternalism. Very few council bike-lanes too; mostly they are on minor streets and go nowhere much.

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users