Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13292
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AUbicycles » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:41 pm

Thanks AdelaidePeter and Thoglette.

--

@Alex, On the Single Issue Party, the idea is that they generate enough political influence that the main ruling parties begin shifting policies. In the best case, they become so powerful that the main ruling party requires them in a coalition.

The main parties will try and tell you that a vote for a minority party is a wasted vote but that is a scare tactic because they prefer the votes to be dished between the main contenders.

--

@fat and old, I trust it is ok with Glenn to disclose that his first post is a second draft which I asked to be penned in a more appropriate manner.

1 & 2 - Yes, there is history but as a discussion forum, if a topic can be discussed in a fair manner then I think it is still important to allow different views to be expressed. Challenge the issue not the person.

In this discussion, it is a bit borderline because behind words, the emotion and sentiments can still be clearly visible so it's tricky for me and the mods to know where to draw the line. If a tough topic can be discuss while retaining thoughtful / respectful discussion, then this helps avoid upsets.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4641
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:34 am

Thoglette wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:I wouldn't vote for a single issue party. Primarily because I'd have no idea how they will deal with the multitude of other very important matters.

You misunderstand the role of SIP candidates, particularly when they have no-hope of getting a quota.

Where a SIP candidate won't get a seat (typically lower house) votes cast for them act as an unmissable signal to the main parties of voter concerns.

In that situation, voting 1 for a SIP candidate is a very good idea, (assuming you support their view on that issue).

Plus their presence forces the primary candidates to at least talk about their issue (if they do a decent job).

E.g. Recently a local government single issue candidate played significant role in getting a missing piece of the Perth-Freo PSP built. He talked PSP and talked PSP and talked PSP; eventually the main candidates had to respond, and both eventually promised to get it built.

It's now being built, after a delay of two decades.

OTH Where there's a chance a "minor" will get up (e.g. upper house), recent history has shown that knowing the candidate is much more important that knowing the party. So YMMV. And do your homework!

So what you're saying is if I vote for a single issue party then I might if I'm lucky have something they are interested in started two decades later.

By the way, I hate such shared paths. Just accidents waiting to happen IMO. If that's what such a single issue party is focussed on, then they wouldn't get my vote even if I were inclined to support the single issue.

I think I'm more likely to get somewhere by talking with those with a chance to win/lose power.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13292
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AUbicycles » Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:20 am

It depends on the issue popularity. Some parties generate immediate success because they are topical such as the Pirate Party in Sweden. In Australia it was the Pauline Hansons' fish'N'chips party (or whatever it is called) that swiftly gained popularity.


The other very important effect of voting for smaller parties is that directly influencing the power and majority of the ruling parties. I have to hold back from being too political... but smaller parties serve their purpose and are a signal of dissatisfaction of a group of people and create possibilities to shift opinion and policies.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4306
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:00 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:So what you're saying is if I vote for a single issue party then I might if I'm lucky have something they are interested in started two decades later.

Sorry not being absolutely clear: this single issue candidate got some cycling infrastructure built that had been stalled for two decades.

So what I'm saying is if you vote for a single issue party then you might have something you are interested in built, finally.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4641
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:55 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:So what you're saying is if I vote for a single issue party then I might if I'm lucky have something they are interested in started two decades later.

Sorry not being absolutely clear: this single issue candidate got some cycling infrastructure built that had been stalled for two decades.

So what I'm saying is if you vote for a single issue party then you might have something you are interested in built, finally.

They got a shared path built. I'm not sure I'd call that cycling infrastructure.

Call me cynical but these groups, particularly when elected, are in it for themselves and little else.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4306
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:07 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:They got a shared path built. I'm not sure I'd call that cycling infrastructure.

Happy for you to start another thread explaining how you are right and the Dutch (and WA DoT and everyone else) are wasting their time on non-car spaces for cyclists and pedestrians. Or at least explaining what it is you mean.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4306
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:43 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:They got a shared path built. I'm not sure I'd call that cycling infrastructure.

Happy for you to start another thread explaining how you are right and the Dutch (and WA DoT and everyone else) are wasting their time on non-car spaces for cyclists and pedestrians.
Or at least explaining what it is you mean with that comment :?: :?: :?: . But in another thread, please
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9916
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:22 pm

AUbicycles wrote:It depends on the issue an popularity. Some parties generate immediate success because they are topical such as the Pirate Party in Sweden. In Australia it was the Pauline Hansons' fish'N'chips party (or whatever it is called) that swiftly gained popularity.


The other very important effect of voting for smaller parties is that directly influencing the power and majority of the ruling parties. I have to hold back from being too political... but smaller parties serve their purpose and are a signal of dissatisfaction of a group of people and create possibilities to shift opinion and policies.


One Nation. I could probably start up a similar party to her one, campaign with shrill tones and polarising messages and scare the major parties.

But I wouldn't, because I'm not like that, I have principles - unlike a lot of politicians who make more changes of direction than a mountain pass.

Thoglette wrote:Happy for you to start another thread explaining how you are right and the Dutch (and WA DoT and everyone else) are wasting their time on non-car spaces for cyclists and pedestrians. Or at least explaining what it is you mean.


What have the Dutch got to do with any cycling infrastructure built here (particularly in Sydney for that matter).

I'm with agreeing with Alex on this. And you don't even need miles of shared paths everywhere, you just need drivers of motor vehicles who are behaving themselves (which is done by enforcing the laws). Only in Nice, France did I see any particular cycleways, everywhere else the bicycle riders all shared the road with cars, trucks and buses.

You also find these signs everywhere:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EYCB5H/french ... EYCB5H.jpg

Some of those would be handy here too.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4306
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:08 pm

g-boaf wrote:What have the Dutch got to do with any cycling infrastructure built here (particularly in Sydney for that matter).


Firstly, they know more about the subject than anyone else on the planet.

Secondly: They've been advising those in Australia (including Sydney) formally (Dutch Cycling embassy) since 2014.

Three: despite many claims to the contrary, 2GB land is not "special". It's got some serious attitude problems but it's not alone in that either.

I'd still like to understand how a PSP (3m wide and illuminated) connecting the two primary business areas in Perth is "not infrastructure".
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9916
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:14 pm

Thoglette wrote:
g-boaf wrote:What have the Dutch got to do with any cycling infrastructure built here (particularly in Sydney for that matter).


Firstly, they know more about the subject than anyone else on the planet.

Secondly: They've been advising those in Australia (including Sydney) formally (Dutch Cycling embassy) since 2014.

Three: despite many claims to the contrary, 2GB land is not "special". It's got some serious attitude problems but it's not alone in that either.

I'd still like to understand how a PSP (3m wide and illuminated) connecting the two primary business areas in Perth is "not infrastructure".


I wonder if these PSPs are just reinforcing the notion that a cyclist should get off the road, cyclists don't belong on the road, cyclists don't pay rego, etc. I do appreciate these shared paths, and we've got a lot of them around my area (probably hundreds of kilometres of them), they aren't so well linked together though. Additionally, some of them are getting quite old and in a state of disrepair. Some of them date back to the times of the last state Labor government in NSW. I'm unsure if that means the Dutch were responsible for getting them built or not.

But I think the better way would be some really tough enforcement of safe passing distances so car drivers behave themselves:

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2018/0 ... evolution/

This is what we really need most urgently. West Midlands Police has the right idea.

Get Police on bicycles on the road, not in uniform, with cameras on the bikes and running enforcement operations against motorists, that will change behaviour pretty fast. The moment any motorists sees a rider on the road, they'll be wondering, could that person be a cop? Better be cautious.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4306
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Thoglette » Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:10 pm

g-boaf wrote:I wonder if these PSPs are just reinforcing the notion that a cyclist should get off the road,

PSPs are very important in separating "unsure" and "non-sweaty" bike riders from heavy and fast traffic. In the case of this PSP there's also proper bike lanes on most of the roads running parallel to it. The new section is a single lane "main road" used by semitrailers accessing the port. In "sweaty" rider mode (i.e. with a shower at the end) I am happy to use that section of road. And of course on the weekends & early mornings the MAMILs are out in force.

Importantly this is an additional route which helps complete a major connecting route - it's not a PSP to nowhere

g-boaf wrote:But I think the better way would be some really tough enforcement of safe passing distances so car drivers behave themselves:

I agree that this is one of the three key elements to reestablishing cycling as a "normal" behaviour: road design (both hard and soft: eg speed limits); driver (mis)behaviour and (anti)cycling laws (MLHs, dinking, "equal responsibility" nonsense etc)

More so than anywhere else in .au NSW has a serious problem with govt. persecution of people on bicycles & almost complete inaction on driver misbehaviour. (I regularly drive in four states and spot the differences)
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13292
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AUbicycles » Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:31 am

On the suggestion for a thread split - a fair call, but if everyone is on track... lets see if it works in one as it can break a topic when suddenly disenfranchised.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Call me cynical but these groups, particularly when elected, are in it for themselves and little else.


Well... most cycling advocates have their hearts in the right place... but where things go wrong is that there are different approaches and views (example, helmets and separated lanes). It is all about personality.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4641
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:31 am

AUbicycles wrote:On the suggestion for a thread split - a fair call, but if everyone is on track... lets see if it works in one as it can break a topic when suddenly disenfranchised.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Call me cynical but these groups, particularly when elected, are in it for themselves and little else.


Well... most cycling advocates have their hearts in the right place... but where things go wrong is that there are different approaches and views (example, helmets and separated lanes). It is all about personality.

For me it's evidence and personal experience. If that's what you mean by personality, I get what you are saying.

I'd prefer lobbying to focus on separate infrastructure dedicated to each of:
- functional cycling, and
- pedestrian traffic, along with
- cultural change of the behaviour of our driving public since cyclists belong on the roads.

This is the way to make significant changes to cycling participation rates and improve safety but more importantly to have a better society. In the end it requires a realignment of transport budget and priorities because this is not going to happen with piecemeal approaches.

Shared paths are an abomination for anyone capable of riding >15km/h and they are pretty crap for pedestrians too. A single issue candidate who thinks that's a win when in my view it's an overall step backwards for cycling.

It's treating cyclists and cycling as if it's motorists dirt needing to be swept under a rug.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19235
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:52 pm

A motorist, a cyclist and a pedestrian walk into a pub and orders 12 beers. The motorist takes 10 beers and says to the pedestrian "careful the cyclist wants one of your beers"

This emphasis the problems that the cycling community has, at best we can get to share with the pedestrian but to cut into the motorist's portion is political death and hence why we needed 1 upper house seat
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9916
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:27 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

Shared paths are an abomination for anyone capable of riding >15km/h and they are pretty crap for pedestrians too. A single issue candidate who thinks that's a win when in my view it's an overall step backwards for cycling.

It's treating cyclists and cycling as if it's motorists dirt needing to be swept under a rug.


I'm just quoting that bit and backing you on that comment, because I know there will be a storm of criticism.

If motorists behave themselves, you don't need shared paths. Good luck getting politicians to support that. It's more important to get on board the gravy train.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:36 pm

g-boaf wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

Shared paths are an abomination for anyone capable of riding >15km/h and they are pretty crap for pedestrians too. A single issue candidate who thinks that's a win when in my view it's an overall step backwards for cycling.

It's treating cyclists and cycling as if it's motorists dirt needing to be swept under a rug.


I'm just quoting that bit and backing you on that comment, because I know there will be a storm of criticism.

If motorists behave themselves, you don't need shared paths. Good luck getting politicians to support that. It's more important to get on board the gravy train.


This argument for safe driving instead of shared paths reminds of this:

Image

If you don't like shared paths, you don't have to use them. But they are essential for many ordinary cyclists, who (a) don't want to mix it with traffic, and (b) co-exist with pedestrians just fine.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7966
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby find_bruce » Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:30 pm

The issue is the claim, made by the insurance company, that a cyclist doing 30km/h was at fault because they should have been on a shared path. I’m confident Alex is familiar with this assertion

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13292
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AUbicycles » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:15 am

I agree with you on this and have seen it first hand working with the councils. Often there isn't an appreciation of different needs, sometimes it is building in too many levels of inconvenience and sometimes created dead-end infrastructure that suddenly ends and for this reason is impractical.


One of the approaches for advocacy groups is to identify where they can get their wins as they struggle to make progress at all with the government. It is suboptimal, local governments tend to be the most action orientated but solutions can be tainted by short-sightedness and lack of understanding / guidance. In state politics, let alone federal politics, having a voice at all let alone getting anything positive done is a struggle and appears to be getting worse (with NSW as my example).

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4641
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:57 am

find_bruce wrote:The issue is the claim, made by the insurance company, that a cyclist doing 30km/h was at fault because they should have been on a shared path. I’m confident Alex is familiar with this assertion

Believe me they tried all sorts of arguments in my case, including that one.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4641
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:09 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:If you don't like shared paths, you don't have to use them. But they are essential for many ordinary cyclists, who (a) don't want to mix it with traffic, and (b) co-exist with pedestrians just fine.

For those that tootle along at low speed and don't ride very far, they are fine.

But it still leaves utility cycling out of the picture, and let's face it, improvements for utility cycling will provide the greatest gains to society at large. So why use the space and resources for such a crummy solution when much better solutions exist?

Cyclists belong on the roads and on dedicated cycle lanes. Shared paths are OK for short network linkages, and of course for those who are only pootling along at 15km/h.

If a cycling oriented political candidate is pushing for shared paths as the solution, I may even consider specifically lobbying against them because I think their stance does more harm than good.

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9916
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:15 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:If you don't like shared paths, you don't have to use them. But they are essential for many ordinary cyclists, who (a) don't want to mix it with traffic, and (b) co-exist with pedestrians just fine.

For those that tootle along at low speed and don't ride very far, they are fine.

But it still leaves utility cycling out of the picture, and let's face it, improvements for utility cycling will provide the greatest gains to society at large. So why use the space and resources for such a crummy solution when much better solutions exist?

Cyclists belong on the roads and on dedicated cycle lanes. Shared paths are OK for short network linkages, and of course for those who are only pootling along at 15km/h.

If a cycling oriented political candidate is pushing for shared paths as the solution, I may even consider specifically lobbying against them because I think their stance does more harm than good.


And a lot of those utility cyclists ride along quite quickly with their backpacks on, panniers, etc. I'm really dubious about 'shared paths' because sometimes they are totally inadequate, even for people wanting to ride along at very slow speeds. Never mind two pedestrians who want to walk along side by side and can't do so because the path is too narrow.

Might as well just focus on really tough enforcement on driver behaviour so that all riders feel safe riding on the roads.

If shared paths are to be the way, then they've really got to be properly done, not just pedestrian footpaths with lines painted on them.

I'm also tempted to lobby against the shared paths solution because they are often not adequate. In any case, it's all academic, even those projects that get 'approved' sometimes don't get completed or started.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:29 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:If you don't like shared paths, you don't have to use them. But they are essential for many ordinary cyclists, who (a) don't want to mix it with traffic, and (b) co-exist with pedestrians just fine.

For those that tootle along at low speed and don't ride very far, they are fine.

But it still leaves utility cycling out of the picture, and let's face it, improvements for utility cycling will provide the greatest gains to society at large. So why use the space and resources for such a crummy solution when much better solutions exist?

Cyclists belong on the roads and on dedicated cycle lanes. Shared paths are OK for short network linkages, and of course for those who are only pootling along at 15km/h.

If a cycling oriented political candidate is pushing for shared paths as the solution, I may even consider specifically lobbying against them because I think their stance does more harm than good.


Well we'll have to agree to differ, because I "utility cycle", and I use shared paths for a fair proportion of my commute. In general they are the better parts of my commute, because I don't have to worry about cars. So my perspective is that decent shared paths are an important part of utility cycling.

And on the topic of this thread, this illustrates a problem with single issue candidate: cyclists don't even agree on cycling issues, let alone other issues.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4641
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:43 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:Well we'll have to agree to differ, because I "utility cycle", and I use shared paths for a fair proportion of my commute. In general they are the better parts of my commute, because I don't have to worry about cars. So my perspective is that decent shared paths are an important part of utility cycling.

That you personally have managed to live with them is missing the point (but it's great you cycle and can do that).

Will a shared path solution get a significant number of people out of motor vehicles and onto bicycles?

No, because with a shared path solution the priority for utility is still given to the motor vehicle. It's sweeping cycling under the rug.

When road real estate is instead made exclusively available for cycling and when road culture is changed so that cycling on roads is normalised such that cycling becomes a safe, viable, enjoyable and more convenient alternative to motor vehicles then we'll get some traction. Shared paths simply push that prospect further away.

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9916
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby g-boaf » Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:58 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:If you don't like shared paths, you don't have to use them. But they are essential for many ordinary cyclists, who (a) don't want to mix it with traffic, and (b) co-exist with pedestrians just fine.

For those that tootle along at low speed and don't ride very far, they are fine.

But it still leaves utility cycling out of the picture, and let's face it, improvements for utility cycling will provide the greatest gains to society at large. So why use the space and resources for such a crummy solution when much better solutions exist?

Cyclists belong on the roads and on dedicated cycle lanes. Shared paths are OK for short network linkages, and of course for those who are only pootling along at 15km/h.

If a cycling oriented political candidate is pushing for shared paths as the solution, I may even consider specifically lobbying against them because I think their stance does more harm than good.


Well we'll have to agree to differ, because I "utility cycle", and I use shared paths for a fair proportion of my commute. In general they are the better parts of my commute, because I don't have to worry about cars. So my perspective is that decent shared paths are an important part of utility cycling.

And on the topic of this thread, this illustrates a problem with single issue candidate: cyclists don't even agree on cycling issues, let alone other issues.


Your post supports what Alex is saying very well, you want paths because driver behaviour is making you worry about cars.

In France, you can ride on the roads even in peak hour in Nice and you won't be intimidated by cars.

Do you want to continue being scared to ride on roads by threatening drivers, or change that so anyone can ride on roads without fear?

User avatar
kb
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Australian Cyclists Party formally closes

Postby kb » Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:06 pm

The other issue is just the sheer volume of roads versus paths. A detour for maintenance on a shared path can mean kilometres of backtracking or diversion rather than an extra block.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cardy George, madmacca