Anyone read this report?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mon ... 42667.html
And here's the email address for the President.
<alan.evans@mynrma.com.au>
Fellow members/clients/stockholders, time to write an email and remember his name. That AGM voting paper will get used by me this year.
Write to NRMA
Good stuff Weiyun!
And write to the herald as well. I rode along part of the cycleway last week. It simply isn't finished and doesn't go anywhere, so how can anyone complain about it having low numbers. The good news is, that this will backfire in the NRMA.
And write to the herald as well. I rode along part of the cycleway last week. It simply isn't finished and doesn't go anywhere, so how can anyone complain about it having low numbers. The good news is, that this will backfire in the NRMA.
I saw the article this morning.
I can understand why he said what he said, at the end of the day, he is the head of a Motoring Body, which gets it's revenue because people drive. To him Cycling is a threat to his Company.
To me, investing in Cycling Infrastructure is an investment in the future, both from a lifestyle point of view (exercise and weight loss) and a future transport option (considering Petrol is due to hit $1.50/litre this week and is forecast to go to $3-$5/litre in the next 7 years).
Personally, I am surprised by the figures of cyclists using those paths, I think last night I saw 10 (or close to) cyclists on my commute, which contains roughly 0 cycle paths/lanes. So I don't see how it is possible for a dedicated path to have so few cyclists. Other motorists in the office have also noticed an increased number of cyclists as well.
In relation to the M7, I have used it exactly once, but then again, I don't live or work out that way. I saw some of the bike path when I was on the shoulder, and it looked fantastic. I can see that it would encourage a lot more people to cycle as it looks like a really nice spot to ride.
James
I can understand why he said what he said, at the end of the day, he is the head of a Motoring Body, which gets it's revenue because people drive. To him Cycling is a threat to his Company.
To me, investing in Cycling Infrastructure is an investment in the future, both from a lifestyle point of view (exercise and weight loss) and a future transport option (considering Petrol is due to hit $1.50/litre this week and is forecast to go to $3-$5/litre in the next 7 years).
Personally, I am surprised by the figures of cyclists using those paths, I think last night I saw 10 (or close to) cyclists on my commute, which contains roughly 0 cycle paths/lanes. So I don't see how it is possible for a dedicated path to have so few cyclists. Other motorists in the office have also noticed an increased number of cyclists as well.
In relation to the M7, I have used it exactly once, but then again, I don't live or work out that way. I saw some of the bike path when I was on the shoulder, and it looked fantastic. I can see that it would encourage a lot more people to cycle as it looks like a really nice spot to ride.
James
I agree James. That response is a typical corporate short term money driven statement. It's a shame that NRMA has transformed itself into a run of the mill corporate entity with no vision for the longer term nor environment. To truly reduce motor traffic congestion in Sydney, we need car pooling, public transport and bikes.
Word!
I personally have given up on this Government when it comes to a true commitment to cycling infrastructure, and am of the view that the entire political culture in this state is "pro-motorist" and not about to change anytime soon. I hope that, one day, I am proven wrong. Possibly when petrol prices hit $3:00 a litre.
I personally have given up on this Government when it comes to a true commitment to cycling infrastructure, and am of the view that the entire political culture in this state is "pro-motorist" and not about to change anytime soon. I hope that, one day, I am proven wrong. Possibly when petrol prices hit $3:00 a litre.
I can understand why he said what he said, at the end of the day, he is the head of a Motoring Body, which gets it's revenue because people drive. To him Cycling is a threat to his Company.
To me, investing in Cycling Infrastructure is an investment in the future, both from a lifestyle point of view (exercise and weight loss) and a future transport option (considering Petrol is due to hit $1.50/litre this week and is forecast to go to $3-$5/litre in the next 7 years)...
James
Democracy, majority rules...I personally have given up on this Government when it comes to a true commitment to cycling infrastructure, and am of the view that the entire political culture in this state is "pro-motorist" and not about to change anytime soon.
Actually, it isn't a majority rules here.
As is often the case, the government is dictated to by accountants.
As we know, a reasonable amount of the cost of petrol is tax. According to Shell, about 30-35% of the cost is in tax, and part of this is GST, so the higher the cost of Fuel, the more tax you pay on it.
So, at the end of the day, the accountants see that driving creates revenue, cycling doesn't. That is all they see. If someone is prepared to look at the big picture, you would see that while cycling doesn't create revenue, it doesn't cost as much in the long run. We all know the benefits, but I will list them anyway.
- Less Road Damage, hence lower maintenance costs
- Fitter Population, hence lower medical costs (prevention is better than cure)
- Less Air Pollution, as above, better health, and with climate change...
- Less congestion, people wasting less time commuting, so better productivity.
But of course, the accountants only look at their own area, they see income and costs, they don't look beyond their own balance sheet so they can't see that there are benefits outside of it.
The same is true for Public Transport. There are compelling arguments that Public Transport should be made free and deliberately run at a loss, as it will reduce costs in other areas (road maintenance for starters) which will balance that loss.
James
As is often the case, the government is dictated to by accountants.
As we know, a reasonable amount of the cost of petrol is tax. According to Shell, about 30-35% of the cost is in tax, and part of this is GST, so the higher the cost of Fuel, the more tax you pay on it.
So, at the end of the day, the accountants see that driving creates revenue, cycling doesn't. That is all they see. If someone is prepared to look at the big picture, you would see that while cycling doesn't create revenue, it doesn't cost as much in the long run. We all know the benefits, but I will list them anyway.
- Less Road Damage, hence lower maintenance costs
- Fitter Population, hence lower medical costs (prevention is better than cure)
- Less Air Pollution, as above, better health, and with climate change...
- Less congestion, people wasting less time commuting, so better productivity.
But of course, the accountants only look at their own area, they see income and costs, they don't look beyond their own balance sheet so they can't see that there are benefits outside of it.
The same is true for Public Transport. There are compelling arguments that Public Transport should be made free and deliberately run at a loss, as it will reduce costs in other areas (road maintenance for starters) which will balance that loss.
James
They need to build bigger spreadsheets.The same is true for Public Transport. There are compelling arguments that Public Transport should be made free and deliberately run at a loss, as it will reduce costs in other areas (road maintenance for starters) which will balance that loss.
Again, you are spot on.
I will also add that, whilst I am a strong believer in democratic system of Government, I find it appalling that today's politicians (not only here, this is the trend everywhere), have dispensed with leadership and with making the tough decisions of investing in the future in favour of shortsighted policy and pandering to petty populist sentiments because it wins easy votes (think, for example, protectionist sentimentis in the US and how both parties seem to be getting on the bandwagon to win favour with the voters the populist vote, or the former French president's reluctance to face the unions over market reforms, or (closer to home) our government's failure to stand up to the liquor lobby, or the motoring lobby etc. because they are easy vote (and fund) getters and less painful in the short run (elections are always 4 years away at most and thats as far as a government need to look, isn't it?).
Whilst Democracy is great, government's should also show some leadership and have a vision for the future not just pander to vested interests. You should also remember that what you referred to as majority is just the vested interst and we have come to know that these vested interest shout the loudest when they come under threat without necessarily being the majority.
The current appaling state of our cycling infrastructure is not a reflection of the sentiments of the majority or our population, or voting population for that matter. It is a result of years upon years of short sighted transport policy, which has been about nothing more than road building while, under-investing in all other public transport systems. Why? in the short run it is cheaper to build a road. Give it to the private sector and they will build (not to mention botch) it for you. The result? people see rodas and buy cars. Had these people seen decent dedicated cyclepaths alongside these roads, the majority of them would have done their maths and opted in favour of the bike. Likewise with public transport, etc etc... Its all about leadership and a vision for the future. Unfortunately, politicians of this day and age are found wanting.
Sorry for this rant.
I will also add that, whilst I am a strong believer in democratic system of Government, I find it appalling that today's politicians (not only here, this is the trend everywhere), have dispensed with leadership and with making the tough decisions of investing in the future in favour of shortsighted policy and pandering to petty populist sentiments because it wins easy votes (think, for example, protectionist sentimentis in the US and how both parties seem to be getting on the bandwagon to win favour with the voters the populist vote, or the former French president's reluctance to face the unions over market reforms, or (closer to home) our government's failure to stand up to the liquor lobby, or the motoring lobby etc. because they are easy vote (and fund) getters and less painful in the short run (elections are always 4 years away at most and thats as far as a government need to look, isn't it?).
Whilst Democracy is great, government's should also show some leadership and have a vision for the future not just pander to vested interests. You should also remember that what you referred to as majority is just the vested interst and we have come to know that these vested interest shout the loudest when they come under threat without necessarily being the majority.
The current appaling state of our cycling infrastructure is not a reflection of the sentiments of the majority or our population, or voting population for that matter. It is a result of years upon years of short sighted transport policy, which has been about nothing more than road building while, under-investing in all other public transport systems. Why? in the short run it is cheaper to build a road. Give it to the private sector and they will build (not to mention botch) it for you. The result? people see rodas and buy cars. Had these people seen decent dedicated cyclepaths alongside these roads, the majority of them would have done their maths and opted in favour of the bike. Likewise with public transport, etc etc... Its all about leadership and a vision for the future. Unfortunately, politicians of this day and age are found wanting.
Sorry for this rant.
Actually, it isn't a majority rules here.
As is often the case, the government is dictated to by accountants.
As we know, a reasonable amount of the cost of petrol is tax. According to Shell, about 30-35% of the cost is in tax, and part of this is GST, so the higher the cost of Fuel, the more tax you pay on it.
So, at the end of the day, the accountants see that driving creates revenue, cycling doesn't. That is all they see. If someone is prepared to look at the big picture, you would see that while cycling doesn't create revenue, it doesn't cost as much in the long run. We all know the benefits, but I will list them anyway.
- Less Road Damage, hence lower maintenance costs
- Fitter Population, hence lower medical costs (prevention is better than cure)
- Less Air Pollution, as above, better health, and with climate change...
- Less congestion, people wasting less time commuting, so better productivity.
But of course, the accountants only look at their own area, they see income and costs, they don't look beyond their own balance sheet so they can't see that there are benefits outside of it.
The same is true for Public Transport. There are compelling arguments that Public Transport should be made free and deliberately run at a loss, as it will reduce costs in other areas (road maintenance for starters) which will balance that loss.
James
Exactly as you said, short run. Building road and doing short term road fixes can generate immediate results, and that's good in the electorates from a politician's point of view....Why? in the short run it is cheaper to build a road...
-
Eugen Schilter
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 20:05
- Location: Eastwood
- Contact:
Yes GST works that way but is collected by the Federal Govenment, and is only little (1/11th of the sales price). The bigger part is 'fuel excise' which is fixed in cents per litre.As we know, a reasonable amount of the cost of petrol is tax. According to Shell, about 30-35% of the cost is in tax, and part of this is GST, so the higher the cost of Fuel, the more tax you pay on it.
Shell has a vested interest to confuse matters.
The public costs - including environmental, police force, property devaluation etc - are so enormous that the fuel excise and GST does not come near to cover it. Consequently it is fair to say that public costs caused by motor traffic is overwhelming paid from ordinary tax revenue.
On the other hand I was disappointed to see the M7 cycleway. The lighting is a blatant waste in every sense and now backfires on cyclists badly. I have cycled the M7 at least 10 times and still cannot find away to join that cycleway!
There was a response in today's SMH from the Bicycle Lobby/Greens
This is something which I found ages ago, I may have posted it here before, but it is relevant again.
This is something which I found ages ago, I may have posted it here before, but it is relevant again.
JamesWestern society has embraced travel by automobile to the extent that for most the thought of going anywhere to perform basic needs such as purchasing food, visiting friends, attending work or study, the default option is no longer to use the human body, but to use a car. It has become so accepting of this choice of travel, so soft that it clings to the car as the most essential machine of our existence, that the immediate negative impacts of this mode of transport (collisions, death, disability) are seen as an inevitable part of daily life.
If in any other task we performed, we so carelessly used a machine that weighs over twenty times our own body weight, is typically propelled at over 15metres every second, is fed once use-only resources, pollutes on a massive scale, costs around a year’s salary, but is considered obsolete in five, contributes greatly to a reduction in physical fitness and attractiveness, all in close proximity to unprotected bodies you would face jail sentences, massive fines and lifelong stigma and ridicule.
There was also a response by Clover Moore
-
mcrkennedy
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 24 Nov 2006, 18:03
- Location: Balmain
I think Eugen's comments go to one of the central issues about bike paths in NSW. They don't connect to the rest of the transport system in any meaningful way. It took a concerted effort on my part to find the start to the M7 cycleway. The cycleway end just in streets with no supporting cycle-paths. This lack of connection is typical of the many plans including the Sydney City Council plan. The Sydney council plan has lots of streets identified but no proposed path or paths that run fully east-west or north-south.
The cycle-paths in Leichhardt council area are really after thoughts and not really cycle paths or routes, rather roads that the council is happy to see cyclists go on.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
Some interesting comments.
Having spent the week in Melbourne, there seems to be 10 fold the number of people commuting in the CBD to that of Sydney. Reason is simply better facilities. Bicycle commuting numbers are directly related to the facilities. Before Anzac bridge hardly anyone bike commuted from the inner west.
Having spent the week in Melbourne, there seems to be 10 fold the number of people commuting in the CBD to that of Sydney. Reason is simply better facilities. Bicycle commuting numbers are directly related to the facilities. Before Anzac bridge hardly anyone bike commuted from the inner west.
Yet another reply in the Herald.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/sydn ... e=fullpage
It almost looks like opinion is against the NRMA guy.
James
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/sydn ... e=fullpage
It almost looks like opinion is against the NRMA guy.
James
yes. I don't know what she's got against cycling advocates.
Still, I'm glad this and the NRMA piece came out. I think more people talk about cycling in the city can only be a good thing. The tide is slowly changing. Most other sensible cities have got the message and are working hard to develop bike infrastructure plans. I don't think it will be easy in Sydney but slowly, I think the NSW gov will get the message.
Still, I'm glad this and the NRMA piece came out. I think more people talk about cycling in the city can only be a good thing. The tide is slowly changing. Most other sensible cities have got the message and are working hard to develop bike infrastructure plans. I don't think it will be easy in Sydney but slowly, I think the NSW gov will get the message.
-
mcrkennedy
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 24 Nov 2006, 18:03
- Location: Balmain
The NRMA seems to have a real problem with cyclist. I remember earlier this year when Critical Mass has one of their Bridge rides the NRMA spokesman said that what ever they were trying to achieve they had done their cause harm. That seem to me to be one of the most ill informed statement the NRMA could make about cycling.
Bit of a follow up piece from Alan Evans (NRMA)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/eppi ... 72326.html
He has tried to justify his reasons in the first piece, I can see where he is coming from more in this article than in the first one he wrote.
James
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/eppi ... 72326.html
He has tried to justify his reasons in the first piece, I can see where he is coming from more in this article than in the first one he wrote.
James
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest