What does Malcolm Turnbull mean for cycling?

[Thoglette]

That's real. The others are stage managed.

You'd better tell the City of Stirling (WA) who's included a whole bunch of non-Dutch evidence in the Integrated Cycling Strategy (ICS) they've just adopted.

[DavidS]

Don't know about you but I began cycling as an 8 year-old..... riding on the roads and streets. No such thing as bike trails or shared pathways. And my parents had fairly little to do with it, in fact when I began commuting as an adult, my dad was positively hostile to it.

You do need to start cyclists young and we all know what has been the major factor in less young people riding, like to school for instance.

I started riding, on roads including highways, at age 7 (you know, back in the days when roads were safe, the road toll was triple what it is now and the population less than half). Rode for years until, you guessed it, MHLs. Didn't ride for years but slowly came back to riding many years later. Since I had cycled as a kid it was very easy for me to return to cycling, previous experience on the roads was a huge help as I knew how to ride on roads.

Yes, bicycle infrastructure is important and having separate paths is great. But, the roads are there for cyclists as well as those in or on motorised vehicles and this needs to be a lesson learned very young and constantly reiterated.

No idea what Turnbull and the like will do about any of this. He does at least seem less hostile towards public transport. But I expect the same policies from the new PM, this is, after all, a neo-conservative government. If Barnardi forms his own party I'm sure there will be plenty of his comrades in the Liberal Party who will celebrate.

DS

[Ross]

Is there money in cycling?

Yes
- reduced infrastructure and maintenance costs
- better health (reduced health costs)
- reduced environmental impact (and cleanup costs)
- economic benefits for retail


But
These are all long term financial benefits which don't match the short-term political cycles. It means that investment and support of alternative transport and bicycle riding is always about a long-term vision where the benefits and kudos are often years ahead. It doesn't provide fast gratification and media approval as investing into roads and quick-fixes.

I tend to diagree. Cyclists pay less tax (GST) because less consumption. Cyclists buy less or no petrol, buy less or no cars, pay less or no tolls and for the more serious cyclists (such as most on BNA) they buy most of their bike parts o/s so no GST for govt.

Not convinced about reduced health costs. Sure cyclists are healthier and should be less prone to heart attacks and similar obesity related health issues but they are more prone to getting injured from falling off the bike, getting hit by a car or just a general sport related strain/injury. SO I would say it balances out to be roughly the same.

Building infastructure (roads) would be more costly than bike paths due to width of road, (hopefully but not neccessarily guaranteed) better construction and associated kerbs and gutters/drainage but
this keeps people in jobs and makes the economy tick along and people (motorists) like it when a new road is built because it makes their journey quicker, even though after a short time the road will most likely become congested again and the journey will be as slow or slower than before.

Road cyclists are generally frowned upon by the general public and it would be an unpopular move (less votes come election time) to spend millions/billions of $$ in bicycle related infastructure. Perhaps I am wrong here and it is just a myth or perception created by the media (ie Daily Telegraph and most talk-back radio hosts).

Not sure where benefits in retail come from? Maybe cyclists can afford to spend more on consumables because they aren't spending money on buying and maintaining vehicles/petrol/parking/rego? About the only thing I see cyclists buy is a latte at the coffee shop after a ride. Plenty of non-cyclists do that as well. Oh and premium upgrades to their Strava accounts!

Not sure either your point about " reduced environmental impact (and cleanup costs)". Maybe you mean cyclists aren't putting out poisonous emissions (except CO2!) when riding their bikes and they don't generally crash ther bikes causing major damage to each other and infastructure. If so, the crashes does actualy have an economic benefit. First off the tow truck comes and tows the wrecked vehicles away to a panel beater shop or insurance company holding yard (tow truck driver is employed, paid wages and in turn pays tax and buys stuff contributing GST to govt coffers and keeping the economy ticking over. Also tow truck company buys new truck every few years but in the meantime pays rego/fuel/maintenance on the current one meaning GST for govt and keeping the economy ticking along...). Then the vehicle(s) are either written off or repaired (either way money is spent, more GST for Govt, economy ticking along etc). Then if infastructure is damaged (say a lightpole is knocked down) then there is a bunch of people that have to fix this that are all in a job getting paid, contributing GST and helping out the economy etc.

The Govt is all about votes and money (income, for themselves). Nothing or very little to do with helping people out.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Road damage increases to the 4th power of vehicle weight.

That means one 1,500kg car does, on average, about the same damage as 50,000+ cyclists.

A modest 15 tonne truck does same damage as 10,000 cars or over 500 million cyclists.

Road infrastructure designed to cope with heavy vehicles is very expensive.

[g-boaf]

Road cyclists are generally frowned upon by the general public and it would be an unpopular move (less votes come election time) to spend millions/billions of $$ in bicycle related infastructure. Perhaps I am wrong here and it is just a myth or perception created by the media (ie Daily Telegraph and most talk-back radio hosts).

All riders are frowned upon, especially curb jumping, red light running bike couriers (to use the shock jock phrases). It's an unpopular move to spend money on anything the majority doesn't like. Everyone wants money spent on themselves, rather than anything or anyone else.

[Thoglette]

Not convinced about reduced health costs.

Well, go read the published literature. Or at least the abstracts.

e.g.
De Hartog, Jeroen Johan, Hanna Boogaard, Hans Nijland, and Gerard Hoek. "Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks?." Environmental health perspectives (2010): 1109-1116.
Rojas-Rueda, David, et al. "Health impact assessment of increasing public transport and cycling use in Barcelona: A morbidity and burden of disease approach." Preventive medicine 57.5 (2013): 573-579.

Not sure...economy[/url]
Fortunately the RAC WA *yes, a car club) and many others are very clear on this. Cars are heavily subsidised, costing around $2,000 per household, per year (US data, Dutzik Weissman and Baxandall 2015). This is roads alone - ignoring the subsidies of mandatory (both de jure and defacto) parking spaces and similar issues. The RAC WA reckon you get about $2.50 back from spending a $1 on bike infrastructure.

Not sure either your point about " reduced environmental impact (and cleanup costs)". Maybe you mean cyclists aren't putting out poisonous emissions (except CO2!) [/url]
Including CO2

[mikesbytes]

Road damage increases to the 4th power of vehicle weight.

That means one 1,500kg car does, on average, about the same damage as 50,000+ cyclists.

A modest 15 tonne truck does same damage as 10,000 cars or over 500 million cyclists.

Road infrastructure designed to cope with heavy vehicles is very expensive.

Ironically I was thinking about this exact thing while I was riding home tonight and wondering what the figure was.

Huge savings in infrastructure maintenance if cycling was promoted to where it should be

[Ross]

Yes but the govt doesn't really want to save money on infastructure (for motor vehicles). As I mentioned in my previous post building new/widening old roads is generally popular for pollies (votes) and the side benefit is it keeps the economy ticking along.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Not convinced about reduced health costs.

Well, go read the published literature. Or at least the abstracts.

Cognitive and mental health benefits of cycling (about 50 studies):
http://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-con ... nefits.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Physical health benefits of cycling (about 70 studies):
http://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-con ... nefits.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Medical conditions and injuries (cycling):Healthcare costs (about 50 studies):
http://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-con ... -Costs.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[il padrone]

Yes but the govt doesn't really want to save money on infastructure (for motor vehicles). As I mentioned in my previous post building new/widening old roads is generally popular for pollies (votes) and the side benefit is it keeps the economy ticking along.

So does typhoid and AIDS, so lets get rid of those pesky vaccines and condoms

[Ross]

Ummm not really. People with medical conditions like this generally don't live long enough to contribute too much to the economy. I guess they keep medical staff employed (though I'm sure medical staff have enough to keep them occupied without this) and probably the funeral industry. I would say these people would contribute more financially by being alive and well and in employment, not near death in a hospital.

[yugyug]

Jees I want to respond intelligently to this "keep the economy ticking along" crap but it's so naive it makes my brain hurt.

[mikesbytes]

Its an interesting debate about the cost of poor health vs the cost of a long life. I would prefer the govt to enact policies that encourage good health, such as those around tobacco products. In China the govt doesn't pay for health care, so while tobacco costs the govt $25B a year, its not a concern for the Chinese govt as they don't bear that cost and it shows in the lack of regulation to discourage smoking

[misterhorsey]

I would think that Malcolm may have a positive impact but I guess its a matter of wait and see.

Jules was spot on when he suggested local authorities will have more impact. But Malcolm seems to have a more up-to-date understanding of the importance of well functioning cities to the economic well-being of a community/nation.

It's an approach that is steeped in an ideology that privileges economic efficiency above all else - but he also seems to have a more progressive social and environmental awareness to balance this - and a desire to investigate new ways of doing things.

A city will always be a contested space. I think its understandable that most mainstream Australians assume that prioritising the car is natural. Above a certain age we all have memories of a less congested environment where driving around and parking in the city was easily doable, and people carry these perceptions/expectations with them, not appreciating that the city that they lived in when they were 20 now has 1.5 more million people in it. Younger people won't know of any other way of doing things, unless they travel and see other ways of managing transport or click on this thread and view il Padrone's slide show!

I just hope that a different government will recognise the positive contribution that building better cycling infrastructure will have for everyone.

This is what he had to say about transport during a recent doorstop interview:

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/Ministry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We often overlook the fact that liveable cities, efficient, productive cities, the environment of cities, are economic assets. You know, making sure that Australia is a wonderful place to live in, that our cities and indeed our regional centres are wonderful places to live, is an absolutely key priority of every level of Government. Because the most valuable capital in the world today is not financial capital, there's plenty of that and it's very mobile.

The most valuable capital today is human capital. Men and women like ourselves who can choose to live anywhere. We have to ensure for our prosperity, for our future, for our competitiveness, that every level of Government works together, constructively and creatively to ensure that our cities progress. That Federal funding of infrastructure in cities for example is tied to outcomes that will promote housing affordability.

Integration is critical. We shouldn't be discriminating between one form of transit and another. There is no -- roads are not better than mass transit or vice versa, each of them has their place. Infrastructure should be assessed objectively and rationally on its merits. There is no place for ideology here at all. The critical thing is to ensure that we get the best outcome in our cities."


Meanwhile, this is what Tones had to say about transport in Battlelines, his memoir/bio before he became PM. Surprisingly he does suggest that bike paths should be built into every new road, but he also does still seem to be generally supportive of car dominated transport. The link to the full extract sets out a bit more context for his comments.

“In Australia’s biggest cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still hideous drain on the public purse. Part of the problem is inefficient, overmanned, union-dominated government run train and bus systems. Mostly though, …there just aren’t enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.” P174

“They underestimate the sense of mastery that many people gain from their car. The humblest person is a king in his own car….For people whose lives otherwise run largely at the beck and call of others, that’s no small freedom.” P174.

“For too long, policymakers have ranked motorists just above heavy drinkers or smokers as social pariahs….They’re citizens going to work, doing the shopping, taking the kids to school…” P174

“New roads would provide space for dedicated bus lanes… It should be a standard condition for new roads that they make space for bikes …and new commercial buildings that they have lockers and showers for people who walk or ride to work.” P175

Full extract:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=R4 ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What puzzles me about the Tony's branch of conservatism is a certain head in the sand quality to effecting change to address modern problems associated with the city. Boris Johnson in London was very much behind re inventing London as a cycling city. And I lived in Sydney during his reign, but didn't Jeff Kennett do a lot of work in building up Melbourne's cycling infrastructure? Or at least much of it was built while he was in office? Correct me if I'm wrong, obviously.

[human909]

No Melbourne's big changes happened well after Jeff Kennett. The successive state governments in Victoria have not been impressive regarding cycling. We have the progressive local coucils to thank for most of the infrastructure improvement. Though there has been plenty of grass roots growth in inner north cycling that has promoted the councils to act. Moreland in particular had the cyclists come before the infrastructure.

At least our state governments havent ripped up council bicycle infrastructure for backward ideological reasons.

[human909]

Its an interesting debate about the cost of poor health vs the cost of a long life. I would prefer the govt to enact policies that encourage good health, such as those around tobacco products. In China the govt doesn't pay for health care, so while tobacco costs the govt $25B a year, its not a concern for the Chinese govt as they don't bear that cost and it shows in the lack of regulation to discourage smoking

Hmmmmm. Those arguments can be troubling. Such arguments are then used to justify restricting other peoples freedom based of the percieved risks of the majority. MHL are just one example. There are plenty of other 'dangerous ' that can be frowned upon by authorities and the general public. Yet in fact participants live healthier lives and are a lower burden on the health care sysyem.

[mikesbytes]

In the case of Tobacco they are not stopping you from smoking. I take the point that they are demanding that you wear a helmet, seatbelt, not exceed the speed limit, etc, which brings up the point of what should be law and what should be recommendation

[Alex Simmons/RST]

In the case of Tobacco they are not stopping you from smoking. I take the point that they are demanding that you wear a helmet, seatbelt, not exceed the speed limit, etc, which brings up the point of what should be law and what should be recommendation

You are free to smoke as you say, but that freedom is limited by law which prevents smoking in many locations. In this case it's just a matter of defining where you are permitted to do certain things such as smoke, or not wear a helmet or seat belt.

The same applies to helmets and seat belts and speeding - the law requires you to wear a helmet when riding a bike or a seat belt when in a car and observe the speed limits when on roads or road spaces as defined in the relevant legislation.

You are free to not wear a helmet or seat belt or to speed on locations not covered by road regulations. e.g. if you want to speed, you are free to arrange time at a race track, or to not wear a helmet when cycling on your own private land.

[misterhorsey]

More on Malcom, not so much on cycling but on PT.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... kcp9m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;