Australian Bicycle Summit with NSW Gov as partner

[AdelaidePeter]

That's nice, except for people (even commuting/transport bike riders) who ride at 40km/h or more. Where would we go then without having people aiming speed cameras at us.

A higher speed limit road, or a track. People shouldn't be riding over the speed limit on a suburban street.

Perfect. I'll go and drive to those areas then. More cars on the road, counter to what you wanted.

Unlike a lot of other riders, I ride to the start of the rides I want to do, and I do ride near the speed limits on quite a number of the suburban roads I use. The issue isn't speed of the road, it's the way the drivers overtake you. If they give you enough room or wait behind you patiently, then you don't need to worry. That is what we really need, not much lower speed limits.

Maybe 70km/h roads in suburban areas should be 50km/h, but I don't see the need for much lower than that if people drive with care.

If a kid runs out on the street, they can still be hit by a careful driver doing 50. The speed limit matters for pedestrians, even if maybe not for cyclists. Personally I think 40 is good for suburban streets.

But that's not a problem for the cyclist who wants to go over 40. Suburbs are always connected by higher speed limit roads. So you'd only have to do the first km so below 40, before you reach a faster road.

[Thoglette]

Unlike a lot of other riders, I ride to the start of the rides I want to do, and I do ride near the speed limits on quite a number of the suburban roads I use.

You're still taking the view that streets are predominately about people driving through them.

That is, to serve the transportation needs of people who don't live or work or shop there.

Now, in Australia, this is the dominant meme and supportedenforced by the AS/NZ standards for road design.

The only way developers can get around this is by creating culs-de-sac. Which they do, in massive quantities, to try and create the sorts of streets where people can walk and kids can play. (Unfortunately, without additional "through" pathways these suburbs make it impracticable to walk anywhere: shops; school; trainstation; pub)

We definitely need connecting and through roads with 50kph and higher speeds.

It's just that a 50kph through road is the wrong place to start designing suburban and urban areas.

Maybe 70km/h roads in suburban areas should be 50km/h, but I don't see the need for much lower than that if people drive with care.

The need is driven by the likelihood of surviving an impact from a vehicle. And the ability of people to actually drive with care. The vast majority of people cannot "drive with care" in a complex, urban environment at 50kph as they lose situational awareness with the result that the child/cyclist/motorcyclist "came out of nowhere". (aka SMIDSY).

The problem is that people don't slow down (if they did, other drivers would start tooting). Indeed, the tendency is to treat the signposted limit as a minimum target speed.

As I said, we definitely need 50kph, 70kph and higher speed roads in urban areas. But our design practices at route-planning and implementation level are far from world's best practice.

[mikesbytes]

Little will be achieved without NSW Govt support. Lets hope the various bike groups can lead the NSW Govt in the right direction

[BobtheBuilder]

If a kid runs out on the street, they can still be hit by a careful driver doing 50. The speed limit matters for pedestrians, even if maybe not for cyclists. Personally I think 40 is good for suburban streets.

That kid can also be hit by a cyclist. I have the shame of having collided, at a much slower speed, with a pedestrian, a young bloke, and the poor fella went flying. My inattention was unforgivable, but luckily, apart from a few scrapes, he was alright.

I think as cyclists we have to accept limits on our own speed, if we're asking others to change their behaviour.

The debate about speeds is a funny one, because the effective speed of cars in most urban areas is bugger all - surely going slow for the rare bits the road isn't clogged with other vehicles isn't too much too ask, especially as it's well-established that if everyone drove slower, the traffic would move faster!

[Jmuzz]

PS. we were a purely industry program, now with the 100% support of all our supporters, we have re-launched as an independent, charitable foundation - albeit still with huge support from industry and corporate sponsors - and hopefully you all.

Being an "industry and corporate" program, do all the participants actually have cyclists best interests as priority? Or is making profit involved?

Eg. Mandatory helmets and the unique Australian Standard make some local labs, universities and importers/distributors lots of money since it keeps the Australian market a unique isolated bubble in the world with no external competition.
It is in their best financial interest to maintain the current system.

Insurance industry like to say they are fighting for safety, but really they don't care since more accidents and lawsuits means higher premiums which means their turnover and profit goes up.

Have seen submarining of committees in my own industry, from the industry side, where standards and safety programs are steered towards a business agenda.

[tubby74]

If a kid runs out on the street, they can still be hit by a careful driver doing 50. The speed limit matters for pedestrians, even if maybe not for cyclists. Personally I think 40 is good for suburban streets.

when my street went from 50 to 40 the RMS insisted on speed humps. Suddenly cars had to get in front before the hump, then slam on brakes and veer when they get to it, veering wildly to try and get the best line over them. It was a tick box for safety that made it worse than the problem it was solving. Any of the current traffic calming measures I am very suspicious of as they create squeeze points. but safety is about the most explanation you will get out of the RMS or state government offices about why they like to make it worse

[AUbicycles]

I have published an article with a fairly good overview of the event including an overview of the role, who should attend and also a critical look at the partnership of Transport for NSW and the problems and opportunities:

2018 Australian Bicycle Summit in Sydney with Transport for NSW as event partner

Being an "industry and corporate" program, do all the participants actually have cyclists best interests as priority? Or is making profit involved?

In the article above, there in information about the industry so you get the context. In essence, the industry fund the work and the rub-off is indirect - specifically it is promoting cycling growth so if / when cycling participation increases and sales increase, this benefits business. Another way to describe it is lobby work and in the ACPF are transparent in their operations (financials and operations).

The question is a little more complex - so each of the business members may have individual ideas or views though I understand that there is limited (perhaps no) direct influence in advocacy matters so it is more about supporting advocacy - particularly on a national level, but not defining it.

To make it slightly confusing, there was a reshuffling of the organisation so I accept that my understanding may not be accurate. And the Australian Cycling Promotion Foundation now use We Ride Australia which is their 'public facing' identity and it appears that they are increasing their activity with more visibility to advocates and the public.

But my views is that member businesses sacrifice profits (and in cases, time and effort) to support the organisation and activities without immediate returns. The respective websites should provide a few more insights.