Vic Roads: More Roads Are Not the Answer

[redsonic]

The city [Melbourne] cannot just "build its way out of congestion", VicRoads chief executive John Merritt says...
Mr Merritt advised motorists to use public transport, ride a bicycle or find a new job closer to home to deal with the city's growing traffic congestion...
"We need to invest heavily in public transport, which we are, through Melbourne Metro and we need to encourage people to cycle or to walk and make that feel as safe and as practical as we can"...

Article here:
ABC News

I have cherry picked the quotes a bit, but it is excellent to hear a government with such a strong message against building more roads as an answer to congestion. How easily it could have gone the other way after Victoria's State election.

[yugyug]

A timely turn of events. Interesting to me when I see it through the prism of advocacy issues I care most about.

From theGuardian reporting:

The key to easing congestion would be the building of public transport infrastructure, as well as getting people out of their cars and onto their bikes, Merritt said.

“The research into both walking and cycling indicates a large number of people would do it more if it felt safer, particularly cycling,” he said. “If we can make the experience safer, though not a solution in itself, [that] is part of the solution.”

My emphasis. Cycling is already very safe, but the perception if its safety is whats important. Separated infrastructure is needed of course. But it also why MHL needs to be repealed/relaxed post-haste. With helmetless/helmet-optional riding, cycling will be perceived to be safer and it will feel safer - especially for those who commonly observe helmetless riders but still choose to wear a helmet themselves, as an option but no longer a legally required item of personal protection.

“When the head of the roads authority comes out and says ‘don’t drive and take the train,’ then by God we’ve got real problems,” [opposition leader Matthew] Guy told radio 3AW.

I laughed when I read that. Guy intends to mean political problems, but itself the statement is entirely accurate, its just that the problems are infrastructure, cultural and mode share based.

Acting Greens leader Sam Hibbins said much of the congestion could be blamed on single-occupant car trips, which he said were “choking our roads”.

“Many people sitting in Hoddle street and on the Monash freeway are there because they can’t rely on our public transport system,” Hibbins said. “People love to ride their bike but are concerned for their safety. We need cultural change on cycling safety.”

Spot on. Like the cultural emergence signposted by the year 1990 or thereabouts.

[g-boaf]

There is a whole topic for MHL discussion.

The key thing is getting enforcement on drivers who behave badly towards riders. That's one of the biggest barriers, people scared of traffic.

The way cars behave now, I don't feel safer. Up here in Sydney it has neen getting worse in the last month or so.

Just this afternoon on Bridge Street Sydney, a truck driver very deliberately close shaved a bike courier who was riding perfectly reasonably and very responsibly in the middle lane, claiming that lane in order to do his right turn. I was waiting at the lights watching the whole thing happen.

[Drizt]

Yep. Take the mhl stuff to its dedicated thread.

[Drizt]

Agree with law enforcement... It's the main problem IMHO.

[g-boaf]

And YugYug, if cycling is already so safe, why do you need separated infrastructure "of course"?

That suggests to any reasonable minded person that it isn't safe.

[newie]

And YugYug, if cycling is already so safe, why do you need separated infrastructure "of course"?

That suggests to any reasonable minded person that it isn't safe.

I was thinking about this the other day on one of my rides. I was wondering whether we could reframe the advocacy around separated cycling infrastructure. Something along the lines that separated infrastructure is actually built for the benefit of motorists. The onus is on motorists to give plenty of space when passing cyclists, and if it isn't safe to do so, they have to wait patiently until it is. Building more separated infrastructure is something that is being done so they experience fewer delays. Probably loads of holes in my thinking...
It bothers me a bit that the solution to the appalling attitudes towards cyclists on our roads seems to be to get cyclists off them. We need to somehow emphasise that cyclists have a right to be on the roads and motorists have a responsibility to drive safely around them, but at the same time, separated infrastructure, when achievable, is best for everyone.

[human909]

And YugYug, if cycling is already so safe, why do you need separated infrastructure "of course"?

That suggests to any reasonable minded person that it isn't safe.

Safety is a relative term objectively as well as being having significant subjective variation in assessment. Your argument assumes safety is binary, it is not, your argument is flawed. Just because safety can be improved doesn't mean that things are unsafe.

266 Australians died from being drowned in one year alone. This is a telling statistic if we want to bring up the benefits of mandatory lifejackets in all water activities.

While the objective safety of cycling can certainly be improved. Improving the subjective opinions of Australians is a big part of getting more people on bikes. From what I've observed the biggest barrier to cycling in Australia is poor urban layout and the social acceptance of cycling. Where I live (Brunswick, Melbourne) we have great urban layout and in the last few years the social acceptance has sky-rocketed. As a consequence cycling has become mainstream. Seppated facilities are desired but are rare. (There really only two shared paths in the suburb.)

Navigation in the outersuburbs of our cities is impractical and unfriendly towards cyclists. Only the very committed bother. Furthermore the incentives pushing people to bicycles are much lower.

Agree with law enforcement... It's the main problem IMHO.

It is interesting the significantly varying opinions (including myself here) on what the main problems facing cycling uptake in Australia are.

I would suggest that law enforcement is largely irrelevant regarding the wider acceptance of cycling. Sure if you are an existing cyclist, especially a Lycra roadie riding on higher speed roads then this and driver behaviour is a big issue. But wider acceptance of cycling as a practical transport is more and urban/transport layout issue and simply social acceptance.

[Thoglette]

That suggests to any reasonable minded person that it isn't safe.

Ask the Dutch. They think shared infrastructure has an acceptable accident and injury risk rate if the motorvehicles' speed is capped at 30kph in urban settings and 50kph in rural ones.

I'd argue those limits are a little low, but the problem here remains the utter unwillingness of motor vehicle operators to take responsibility for their actions.

It wasn't always that way - my grandfather ((a successful competitive motorcycle racer) insisted on silence in the car, refusing to talk or have the radio on. He took his responsibilities seriously.

[g-boaf]

I would suggest that law enforcement is largely irrelevant regarding the wider acceptance of cycling. Sure if you are an existing cyclist, especially a Lycra roadie riding on higher speed roads then this and driver behaviour is a big issue. But wider acceptance of cycling as a practical transport is more and urban/transport layout issue and simply social acceptance.

What's that bold and underlined bit supposed to mean? You can be riding on lower speed back roads and still be intimidated/harassed by motorists. It happens often. And on busy main roads here in central Sydney, anyone and everyone is on bikes of all sorts.

All cyclists, regardless of what they ride, what they wear or if they have a helmet or not deserve protection from bad drivers under the law.

You aren't going to get separated infrastructure everywhere, it just isn't going to happen, or at least not quickly. So at the least, you've got to make the road environment more friendly for riders, and that means hefty penalties for motorists who do the wrong thing. Because "education" clearly doesn't seem to be working. Make the road environment safer, more people will get on bicycles and use the road, and there on it increases.

That suggests to any reasonable minded person that it isn't safe.

Ask the Dutch

But they aren't in Australia though. If the road environment is already safe, then it makes separated infrastructure irrelevant. But we know already from all the incidents that happen, that it isn't all that safe, and that there is an element of bad motorists out there among the great many good ones.

[human909]

Ask the Dutch. They think shared infrastructure has an acceptable accident and injury risk rate if the motorvehicles' speed is capped at 30kph in urban settings and 50kph in rural ones.

I'd argue those limits are a little low, but the problem here remains the utter unwillingness of motor vehicle operators to take responsibility for their actions.

My personal tolerance is 40kph on back streets and 60 on bigger ones... I take little pleasure on riding on 70kph+ roads. But I'll do it if i have to.

What's that bold and underlined bit supposed to mean?

I think the meaning is clear. There is not meant to be subtext. The comment is largely based on my personal experience, though there is plenty of other anecdotes both here and in the comments of tabloids to support it.

All cyclists, regardless of what they ride, what they wear or if they have a helmet or not deserve protection from bad drivers under the law.

Nobody is even remotely implying otherwise.

You aren't going to get separated infrastructure everywhere, it just isn't going to happen, or at least not quickly. So at the least, you've got to make the road environment more friendly for riders, and that means hefty penalties for motorists who do the wrong thing. Because "education" clearly doesn't seem to be working. Make the road environment safer, more people will get on bicycles and use the road, and there on it increases.

No matter how safe you make the road environment, our outer suburbs which have poor urban layout will not see widespread adoption of bicycles for transport. The areas that have seen the great growth in cycling have had little change in law enforcement. Education and enforcement are important I absolutely agree. But the biggest changes occur simply by getting more cyclist on our roads.

[yugyug]

There is a whole topic for MHL discussion.

The key thing is getting enforcement on drivers who behave badly towards riders.

Yeah well there's also a whole thread about drivers behaving badly towards riders. I'm discussing a recent, relevant news article and its implications its own thread here.

And YugYug, if cycling is already so safe,

~snip~

We shouldn't need to argue about whether cycling is actually safe, the facts speak for themselves e.g lower injury rates than netball, safer by miles travelled than walking etc... sure I accept there are some conflicting facts and it depends on the type of cycling one does and where, but whatever I'm not really interested in arguing that right now.

There was an emphasis in the Vicroads article on perception:

...

why do you need separated infrastructure "of course"?

Perception. Every piece of separated infrastructure is an invitation for a parent to go cycling with their child, for every student an invitaton to get to school without worrying about motorists, for every retiree an invitation to do the shopping without starting the car. Yes infrastructure has a direct effect on safety by reducing motorist collisions, but I suggest they have an equal or greater importance in changing the perception of safety and getting more riders out on their bikes. THAT will increase cycling safety in Australia in a very real way.

A great example is the Bourke St cyclepath in Sydney. It one sense it wasn't even actually necessary - its built on a street that in Holland or Denmark it probably wouldn't have been. From my experience living in Holland I reckon it might be a woonerf street - traffic calmed shared space. For whatever reason that wasn't proposed or even possible, but still, ok, look at the cyclepath - filled with kids every weekday going to school who just a few years ago they were probably being dropped off in SUVs. The perception of safety, not just the actual safety, of the cyclepath is significant, or the parents wouldn't let them use it in the first place.

I raise MHL because such perception of safety is a key problem with them. It needs to be evaluated against the actual benefit of forcing helmets to be worn.

No matter how safe you make the road environment, our outer suburbs which have poor urban layout will not see widespread adoption of bicycles for transport. The areas that have seen the great growth in cycling have had little change in law enforcement. Education and enforcement are important I absolutely agree. But the biggest changes occur simply by getting more cyclist on our roads.

Precisely. The issue raised by the VicRoads CEO is mode shifting. The emphasis of his comments, and that of the Greens rep., are not just about actual safety but perception as a means for mode shifting commuters to bicycles. While I agree that better law enforcement is important, I think that is something that has more impact in changing the perception of driving by drivers (their perception of whether they can get away with negligence, harassment or worse), and has less relationship to how would-be cyclists perceive cycling safety. For mode-shifting them away from cars, its infrastructure, and MHL repeal - even though, or rather especially because, in many cases these new cyclists will choose to wear helmets regardless. In the same way that though they can ride on the road, they will choose to ride on separated infrastructure.

[Drizt]

The mhl thread says (only) in the title.... That is the difference

[yugyug]

.

[Mulger bill]

The mhl thread says (only) in the title.... That is the difference

Nope. The word "was" indicates that the thread was renamed. The "only" refers to it being the only place to discuss the pros and cons of the law. As is often the case, this thread has drifted slightly away from discussion of the report to how a major part of it could be made to happen. Which is a time honoured Forum and BNA tradition. ALL possible means of boosting rider numbers as a way to reduce road congestion are in the pool, they sink or float according to merit.

[Drizt]

Same people, same barrows.

[human909]

Same people, same barrows.

That "barrow" as you call is very much linked to the actual/perceived safety of cycling and is one of the many barriers to cycling. It cannot be simply ignored when discussing such topics. Whether it is the elephant in the room or simply the cat in the corner might be open to debate, but it definitely is in the room.

Personally I can't be bothered talking about the H-word. You might notice that I haven't in this thread. Surely the time spent moaning about people pushing barrows is just as tiresome as watching the person push it?

(Sorry for all the analogies, I didn't start it! )

[Thoglette]

Ask the Dutch

But they aren't in Australia though.

Well, they were, and we did.

Those pesky people actually involved in planning transport and (oo-lala) advocating for it.

Cycling Imagineering Workshop 2015

[human909]

It really does seem that NSW is living in the dark ages... Other states seem intent on moving towards better cycling infrastructure. NSW seems intent on fighting cycling.

From the stuff I've heard about Perth, the peak state body might even be more bicycle friendly than Melbourne's. Vicroads is hardly what you would call a bike friendly organisation. Melbourne's cycling success has come about from a few friendly councils along with demographic change in the inner north.

[richbee]

I think on the subject of enforcement the authorities have got it all wrong. Traffic law enforcement seems to be focussed on speed, with the odd "blitz" on DUI or other matters. Now while speeding is as much a sin as any other traffic law infringements, the perception amongs motorists is that as long as they keep to the speed limit they can pretty much get away with anything else. What is really needed is for an attitude change away from speed enforcement towards a more visible (and invisible) presence on the roads. Marked cars to show they're out there to remind other motorists of their responsibilities, but also unmarked cars to catch those who think they can get away with anything if there isn't a cop around. The fear of getting caught by an unmarked car will soon lead to a behavioral change, which will have a spin off in making everyone safer on the roads.
I know there's already patrol cars, both marked and unmarked, out there, but there aren't enough of these to really make a difference.

[human909]

Now while speeding is as much a sin as any other traffic law infringements, the perception amongst motorists is that as long as they keep to the speed limit they can pretty much get away with anything else.

I agree. But it is even worse than that and it isn't just enforcement. The don't speed and don't drink messages have drowned out pretty much all other messages regarding safe driving. Tailing gating and aggressive behaviour in general is common. The way road users behave towards people driving under the speed limit is insanity. There are so few police on the roads that education is more important than enforcement. But right now tailgating is an accepted practice in Australia, despite that extreme danger in it on our high speed roads. (Whereas in Germany the Autobahns have no speed restrictions but are now extremely strict on tailgating.)

In contrast in areas where speed limit is less enforced people spend less time watching their speed and more time watching the road. If somebody is driving over or below the speed limit then that is fine. You move over to let them pass or you pass them. I spent 6 months drive US roads and found their highways far more relaxing than ours. I regularly sped all the time, I figured as long as 20% of the traffic was still overtaking me then it wouldn't be an issue. Of course if you are silly about your speed then you'd get caught, but driving 70mph in a 60mph zone was the norm. Drive 90mph in a 60mph zone and you'd get done.

[fat and old]

I agree. But it is even worse than that and it isn't just enforcement. The don't speed and don't drink messages have drowned out pretty much all other messages regarding safe driving. Tailing gating and aggressive behaviour in general is common. The way road users behave towards people driving under the speed limit is insanity. There are so few police on the roads that education is more important than enforcement.

Have to agree here. I was using the work ute more often over the last two months, and I've pretty well given up and parked it. 5 instances of get out of the car road rage in two months, along with the usual argy bargy and I've had enough. I'm getting to old for this crap.

Education is where it's at....and it needs to start in the schools, on the TV's, on the billboards....everywhere. And given that change is generational (you only need to be over 30 to understand that....no offense to those under) it needs to start now. Or legalise murder. Either/Or.

On separated infrastructure/the Dutch methods etc.....I think there's a great deal of misinformation and assumption going on there. Rose tinted glasses are no good when reality steps in and belts you in the back of the head with a truck mirror.

Vic Roads is sadly maligned by many. Given the influences and various stakeholders that get a say they do pretty well imo.

The areas that have seen the great growth in cycling have had little change in law enforcement. Education and enforcement are important I absolutely agree. But the biggest changes occur simply by getting more cyclist on our roads.

You won't get them on the roads until it's perceived as being safe. There's a big difference between riding Brunswick St, Fitzroy in peak and Plenty Rd, Sth Morang at the same time. Expecting a Yarra type revolution in Whittlesea or Dandenong is pointless. That is where Vic Roads picks up the ball (and should be doing more imo) when widening existing or building new arterials is concerned.

[fat and old]

Spot on. Like the cultural emergence signposted by the year 1990 or thereabouts.

A better analogy would be when the .05 laws were introduced, or the seat belt laws (Victoria). I remember both, and the difference they made. Another good analogy for education is the old Life be in it campaign, with Norm.

It can be done, if approached seriously, without agendas.

[il padrone]

On separated infrastructure/the Dutch methods etc.....I think there's a great deal of misinformation and assumption going on there. Rose tinted glasses are no good when reality steps in and belts you in the back of the head with a truck mirror.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement? Are you suggesting that the Dutch separate bike lanes are actually not working? More dangerous? Doesn't seem to be born out in their cyclist death and injury toll.

Or are you saying that these lanes do not work here in Australia? I hear of great results on Sydney's Bourke Rd lane, and that Swanston St is very good to ride now.

You won't get them on the roads until it's perceived as being safe. There's a big difference between riding Brunswick St, Fitzroy in peak and Plenty Rd, Sth Morang at the same time. Expecting a Yarra type revolution in Whittlesea or Dandenong is pointless. That is where Vic Roads picks up the ball (and should be doing more imo) when widening existing or building new arterials is concerned.

Seems to be a contradiction here - segregated lanes are proving very successful in changing rider perceptions. Maybe not so easy out in Sth Morang, but I didn't think any segregated lanes have even been tried out there. Who knows what might happen if they were constructed?

[human909]

You won't get them on the roads until it's perceived as being safe. There's a big difference between riding Brunswick St, Fitzroy in peak and Plenty Rd, Sth Morang at the same time. Expecting a Yarra type revolution in Whittlesea or Dandenong is pointless. That is where Vic Roads picks up the ball (and should be doing more imo) when widening existing or building new arterials is concerned.

Forget about the transport infrastructure. The big impediment to cycling in those suburbs is the distances involved in travel to shopping an workplaces. Even if you put in safe cycling infrastructure the entire area is laid out assuming you are driving a car. Walking or cycling is not a realistic way to get to work or the shops for most people.

In Brunswick you have a suburb laid out in a manner that your local shops are likely to be within 1km. Your also have significant employment opportunities withing the 5km range. The fact of the matter is that no matter how SAFE things are, most people have no desire to ride more that 10km for commuting. The desire to cycle drop off rapidly at distances longer than 5km.

If you lay out a suburb in a sparse manner then you need higher speeds to give sensible travel times. If you lay out a suburb in a dense manner then lower speeds are suitable. Urban density and transport go hand in hand. There is a reason why the density of our residential areas of our cities 100 years ago were far high than they are now. Despite the fewer people and more space.