Car stickers

When a car driver speeds past you leaving a space of only 6 inches, one of the benefits is that you get a good close view of their car stickers. Car stickers are good because they are a way of telling the outside world about the kind of person you are while you're stuck behind all that glass and steel.

For instance, your car sticker might tell the world that you're carbon neutral because some shrubs get planted each time you buy a new car. Some stickers tell politicians who might be stuck behind you at the traffic lights that you can do two things at the same time - fish and vote.

I saw a couple on a Commodore recently. One said simply, "Drive it as if you stole it". Sensible advice indeed.

The second sticker advocated, in a few words, open speed limits everywhere. It's all about freedom you see. A person in a car should enjoy the freedom to drive where they like, when they like and how they like. Any intrusion on that is a breach of a fundamental human right. After all, motorists pay billions of dollars every year in registration and petrol tax.

My all time favourite is one I saw a couple of months ago. It said:

Bring me coffee and nobody gets hurt.

Absolutely hilarious. It's as good as those signs you can put on your desk that say, "you don't have to be mad to work here but it helps". I nearly fell off my bike from laughing so much. In fact, it makes me giggle just writing it.

Perth

I took a trip to Perth the other week. The number of meetings I had meant there was little time to see daylight. Most people when visiting a new city will try and find time to see some attractions. Not me - I go looking for bike paths and trains. Perth has a couple of both.

While wandering around the CBD, I came across this cycle path:

It's quite similar to the short-lived Sturt Street bike path in that it's too narrow and ends abruptly. Unlike the Sturt Street one though, it has gently sloping sides so you could potentially overtake if you wanted to. Walking further I came across a similar path:

This one went around a square and even gave the appearance of taking priority over side streets:

and off-street car parks:

It went under this beautiful fig tree:

before coming to an abrupt halt like the other one:

Close to Perth station was this two-way path that I later found out was known as the Perth Veloway. It follows the route of the railway line. This part is off road and has proper treatments where pedestrians cross:

A bit of effort can be seen in the paving:

Later on, the Veloway just becomes painted lines on the footpath but it is not a busy footpath and so serves its purpose. Bikes have to share road crossing points with pedestrians though. Still, it's not bad.

By my observations, there seemed to be a similar number of people riding bikes as you see in Adelaide. As with the Eastern States, I saw a fair bit of helmet choice going on that you don't see here. Maybe we're the only ones.

The low numbers though were I think a reflection of the quality of the infrastructure - which is what you find the world over. There are a couple of bits of decent stuff but until it's properly joined up, your numbers are always going to be limited.

Great city though. Fabulous skyline.

One extra cyclist

I got an email the other day from a friend and neighbour. Although parking in Adelaide is cheap and plentiful compared to many other cities, she has decided that $250 a month is getting ridiculous and she is instead going to ride a bike to work each day.

It seems the fact that I ride a bike to work makes me something of an expert. My friend knows nothing about the garbage I write in this blog - which is probably a good thing.

Anyway, she asked what in my cycling experience is the safest route to take. She also said she was contemplating taking out life insurance. I found that remark quite interesting and telling. Despite so many educational campaigns about sharing the road and how a metre matters; despite 20 years of mandatory helmet laws and how we are told they save lives, her attitude is clearly that riding a bike is so dangerous that it justifies life insurance if you do not have it already.

That is not the first time I have heard such a view expressed. It is a serious problem and shows that riding a bike has completely the wrong image in this country. We are clearly doing something wrong. I cannot believe that her attitude is a one-off. In fact, from talking to other people, I know it is not. Something different from education campaigns and helmet laws is required.

It will be interesting to see how long my friend keeps at it. I explained the safest route I know - which is the one I take. It involves little bits of riding on the pavement at the end of dead-end roads and to get across very busy junctions. By recommending that, I appreciate I have set back the cause of cycling again. After all, we know from comments to the newspaper that thousands of people are nearly killed every year because of crazed cyclists speeding past them at lethal speeds on the pavement. Also, as we know, cyclists need to earn respect from motorists by obeying the rules. Once that happens, as if by magic, suddenly motorists will stop pulling out in front of you when you have right of way and will give you plenty of space as they overtake you (after slowing down of course). Because of me, it probably won't happen tomorrow.

Sorry about that.

When I responded, I recommended that my friend not bother with lycra but just ride in her normal clothes. After all, I said, plenty of people already do, you can ride in heels and while pregnant. She responded saying that she had bought a comfy bike with mudguards, a chain guard, etc and that she would be wearing suits and heels.

My brainwashing has paid off.

Not just Anzac Highway

I had yet another whinge the other week about the lack of places for pedestrians to cross on arterial roads in the metro area. It's not just Anzac Highway.

I took a bus along North East Road the other day and got off not far from the ABC building at Collinswood. Your chances are generally 50:50 but I drew a short straw and was dumped on the wrong side of the road. Here's a picture of the lonely bus stop. It's the small green shelter in between the graffiti and the urine stains:

This is the view towards the city. It is difficult to see but you can just make out the green lights of the crossing at Galway Avenue in the distance:

And here's the view in the other direction. You can't pick them out from all the car lights but the next traffic lights are at Hampstead Road. The problem is they are only for cars and there is no pedestrian crossing there. If you want a crossing with pedestrian facilities, you have to walk even further to Ascot Avenue - which is in the next suburb:

Each side of the road has three lanes of traffic with a speed limit of 60 km/h. You have to trust that people stick to it. In the middle you can see a median strip that's about the width of a narrow door. Generally you'll make it across half the road before you have to stand there and wait for the other side to clear. While you're there, drivers will happily speed past you without slowing down or giving you a bit of extra space.

They can't be blamed of course. If you see the world from behind a car windscreen, that will necessarily inform your view of the world. You certainly will have no idea what it feels like to cross North East Road as a pedestrian and get stuck in the middle there. If you see someone doing it, you assume - not unreasonably - that they are a weirdo.

And I was wearing my best suit too.

Anyway, whinge over. It's just another illustration of very little thought being given to pedestrians. Remember also, there is a primary school on that stretch of road. If you ever hear a motorist complaining that they are poorly treated, shake your head silently and walk away.

Urban moats

One of the many great things about Australia is the names we give things. In many cases, no research or further reading is required because the names says it all. Football Park was called Football Park because it is a big park where people play football. The Great Sandy Desert is a great sandy desert.

It also applies to some of our roads. Main North Road is a main road travelling north. Main South Road is a main road travelling, you guessed it, south. Anzac Highway is the same. It's named Anzac in honour of Anzacs of course. An it is a highway. The speed limit may "only" be 60 km/h but it has three lanes each side of motorised traffic with very few places for pedestrians to cross. Like many large roads througout the city, it separates suburbs from each other like a large moat unless you are in a car.

It was therefore no surprise recently to hear of yet another pointless death of someone trying to cross that road.

The story itself was on the Adelaide Now website and was about motorists ignoring red lights at pedestrian crossings - something that needs to be highlighted. Two examples were given - both occurred at designated pedestrian crossings:

From the Sunday Mail

You can see that one of the drivers sailed through the crossing while a group of students were crossing. It was apparently a "momentary lapse of concentration". A momentary lapse, it seems, that dragged on for about 12 seconds. Needless to say, as you would expect, the driver lost her licence for 12 months.

The same article mentions the Anzac Highway death in a single sentence. No detail is given. It is a pity. We should know where these deaths and injuries occur.

I have no idea, but my guess is that the man was crossing a significant distance from one of the few crossings on the road. He could, I suppose, have walked the distance to the crossing, crossed there and walked back again but given that he was 84 years old, that may perhaps been a bit too much to ask. It would be good to know why he was crossing there, where he was going and where he was coming from. He would have had a reason for wanting to get across the road. My question is why it is still, after all this time, made so difficult.

"Bugger this", said Nicky

There is an interesting discussion on the Adelaide Cyclists website at the moment. It's generating a good deal of interest. It so far has five pages of comments.

It starts by quoting an email to Stephen Yarwood, the Mayor of Adelaide, from a local cyclist saying she is giving up cycling for now because, to summarise, she simply does not feel safe between speeding cars and buses on Pulteney Street and having to ride into opening doors while using the "bike lane". This is despite wearing the obligatory safety gear like a fluorescent jacket and helmet.

The author, Nicky, has taken the time and trouble to write to someone about why she isn't bothering to use a bike in the city but how many other people are there, who we never hear about and who now leave their bike in the shed slowly gathering dust and spider webs - along with many others across the country?

Some commenters come up with some useful suggestions, such as removing on street parking, lowering the speed limit and having a "strict liability" law. My own humble opinion is that while all of those suggestions have merit, we really need so much more.

Quite a few people do cycle in Adelaide. Generally though, they are either doing it for recreation, usually during the weekend, or they are commuting. At other times of the day, it is rare. In the main, those people who cycle regularly are used to traffic and roads being in the condition they are. Some of them will offer lessons to "novice" cyclists. You have to ask yourself what sort of message that is sending though. It is saying that this activity is one that requires special safety training. In other words, it is dangerous to the unskilled. Most people can see that of course and it is why they do not bother. Others try it for a bit and, like Nicky, give up because it is just not worth it. We are told that for the upteenth year in a row, bicycles outsold cars yet again. I see quite a few new cars on the road but not quite so many bikes. I can't help thinking that many of them are used for a bit but then sit idle.

If you have been riding on Adelaide's roads for some time (or indeed any city with ride roads dedicated almost exclusively to motor vehicles), it is easy to forget how non-cyclists perceive them. You get used to traffic and become familiar with your favoured route. You learn what obstacles and dangers to watch out for. As your confidence builds, you can easily forget that you are in fact at great risk from those trucks passing closely by you. It then becomes easy to dismiss claims that cycling either is not safe or does not feel safe. As George says in one of the posts:

I'm also suspicious of surveys that ask non-cyclists why they don't ride. People will give the answer that makes them look good or they think the interviewer wants, and lack of safety is a good reason that doesn't make people look bad whereas reasons like "its too hard", "it takes too long", "I get sweaty", "there are no showers" makes them look self-centred. (I do think some people answer honestly).

Quite a reasonable point. Or perhaps they do genuinely think it is unsafe (cycling at a leisurely pace is less taxing than walking so sweat and showers should not be an issue). If it is claimed that safety is not the issue, you have to ask yourself, "would I allow my 8 year old child to ride in this way?" "Would I be comfortable if my child's teacher wanted to take the class on an excursion to the zoo by bicycle?" (it happens in the Netherlands all the time) "Would a pensioner feel safe riding a bike to their nearest public library?" If the answer is no, ask why.

In a separate post, Belinda says:

If people feel unsafe riding, then rather than expect the general population to fund massively expensive alterations to current infrastructure, they should have a look at their own skill-set in riding, and seek first to build their confidence. Other people ride Pulteney St confidently with no problem. To me, its like asking the government to shave a few hundred feet off the top of Mt Lofty because a few people find it a bit too steep.

That is a valid point but it is a symptom of the poor environment for cycling and in fact impliedly accepts that safety is an issue. What does it mean to "build your confidence"? If people are justifiably reluctant to get on a bike and ride in heavy traffic, the answer is not simply to change your perception and build your confidence. It may well be that other people ride on Pulteney Street confidently, but that statement (perhaps unintentionally) implies that those who do not or cannot must have a problem. I do not think they do. There is nothing strange about not wanting to ride in what people properly perceive to be a dangerous and hostile environment.

So what's the answer?

It is obvious and is explained in what in my experience is one of the most widely quoted cycling blogposts. You increase subjective safety. Read the post. First, the roads must be actually safe for cyclists - not just road warriors who speed along Pulteney Street with confidence, but children and adults of all ages. You do that by avoiding conflicts between people on bicycles and heavy motor vehicles. There are many tried and tested ways of doing so that can be applied to all sorts of junctions and road layouts. Second, you must make the roads feel safe for people on bicycles. If they are having to look over their shoulder and pull out into a lane of traffic to get past a parked car and then still worry about the driver's door being swung into their path, they will not feel safe and will not ride a bike there.

What Belinda describes as "massively expensive alterations to current infrastructure" is perhaps over-egging the pudding a little. It is not that expensive. We have very wide roads in Adelaide that can easily accommodate the types of road layout that would give people a choice of transport modes. Even on narrow streets it can still easily be done.

Until we do that, we will continue to have a tiny modal share for cycling made up almost exclusively of commuters and we will worsen congestion. No amount of additional road building will stop that.

Pulteney Street - not entirely cycling-friendly.

Norwood

I drove to Norwood the other day. Big mistake. 15 minutes to get there and 20 minutes to find a park. This is despite there being about six big car parks around one block of the parade. Here is one of them choc-a-block as it generally is all day Saturday:

And here's one of the many side streets off the Parade with a line of cars queueing near the entrance to one of the car parks:

It's all a bit silly really. Shopping on the Parade can be a lot of fun. It's not like a normal suburban shopping centre. For one thing, it's a proper street with shop fronts you can browse and it has plenty of places to stop and eat or drink - it has "High Street" feel you might say. For those reasons, unsurprisingly a good number of visitors come from further away than Norwood itself. Some car parking is of course necessary.

It would be interesting though to stand at the entrance to say Norwood Place and ask visitors what suburb they came from and how they got there. I can't help thinking that a lot of visitors are from Norwood and adjoining suburbs. Some are there buying the week's groceries and wheel out a trolley packed to the brim. That's not everybody though. Some just leave with pastry flakes on their fingers and coffee breath.

The parade in Norwood is the perfect suburb for the beginnings of a decent bike network. Start by removing the on-street parking on the Parade and go from there. Before you can say "segregated bike path", you'll see children riding around and locking their bikes outside Cibo's and then where will we be?

Meanwhile, a study in the UK confirms the obvious.