I’m quitting cycling after 30 years as it’s just too dangerous. I was a victim of a hit and run where the motorist turned right in front of me and just drove off. I dont think he registered it as a hit and run, just that myself being a cyclist shouldn’t be on the road at all.

Sydney motorists are becoming so aggressive towards cyclists that i was on the footpath on Australia Day in Mosman, i was at a standstill and i copped abuse for simply being a cyclist. I’ve had enough!!!

They had growing numbers of motorists. They then added more lanes, made them wider. Then more motorists, they did the same again.

Finally they realised that by adding more lanes they only encouraged more people to drive and the system kept getting more congested again.

Then they decided to do the not so obvious. Reduce the number of lanes and put in place citywide bicycle lanes that are usually physically seperated by a step, with most major arterial roads having an adjacent fully seperated 2 way cycleway, and another pedestrian walsking track. Cyclists can get practically anywhere that motorists can, in safety. The cyclists have their own traffic lights, and prefference is given to cyclists. This is why 38% of the citizens of Copenhagen cycle for transport, and why this number is set to excede 50% in 5 years on present trends.

While the country is reasonably flat, it is also true that that they also have winters with snow and people cycle in the snow and when it rains.

What would also help reduce congestion, is improving and widening public trasport, and creating affordable housing in area’s closer to peoples place of work.

Sometimes the solution is not obvious

COMMONWEALTH expenditure on roads is all that is included in the AAA numbers. Of course, local councils do not collect fuel excise, so where does their revenue come from to pay for local roads??

James, don’t pretend that the AAA study is perfect. It is not!

I’ll say it again for James…. STATISTICS ARE EASY TO MANIPULATE!!

Just as the AAA has a vested interest in showing automobile use to be a huge win for society, the study I quoted has an interest in taking the opposite position. Don’t try and prove this to me with fancy accounting terminology. You are just proving my point once again!

Stop getting so attached to small-picture concepts, like what an accounting standard defines as a cost or an asset. If the whole of Sydney was turned into one big car park, that would be a cost to society. Maybe your accounting book would still say, “oh, but the land is still an asset”. I think that everyone else would say, “This city is terrible”.

James, you keep missing the point entirely! You still haven’t addressed any of the real issues I’ve raised in my posts. If you can’t ackowledge anything I’ve said to be true and you just want to try and pick little holes in insignificant details, you will never see the other side of the story.

Remember…

If EVERYONE rode bikes where possible we would have:
- Less congestion
- Less air pollution
- Less noise pollution
- Less obesity
- Less expensive roads
- Fewer deaths from accidents (maybe more bruises or broken arms though)
- Less landfill
- Less mining and habitat destruction

And… I nicer city to live in.

That is a huge list of positive externalities.

Sure, we still need roads for goods transport and the many trips that can’t be made with bicycles. I’ve never said that we don’t need roads.

Open your mind just a little bit…

Stop looking at only the small-picture ideas…

Look at the big picture…

By comparison the analysis by the Public Transport Users Association that Tony provides a link to is completely bias and is an incomplete analysis. The reason why is that it includes as costs a number of non-cash costs such as Noise, Climate Change, Urban air polution etc. These are negative externalities (which do have a cost) but if you include these externalities you should also include positive externatilites such as reduced travel times, economic benefits from facilating the efficienent movement of goods and services and productivity benfits. These are not included.

Also the inclusion of land use is simply wrong. Land is not a cost (in fact it can not be depreciated under taxation rules) it is an asset and it retains its value over time.

Also the analysis double counts the subsidies on petrol. On the revenue side they include “petrol and diesel excise net of rebates”. But on the cost side they also subtract the cost of any rebates and subsidies. This is double counting…

Also the cost of trauma includes many intangible costs which do not result in cash costs but instead refer to a reduction in the quality of life or the value attached to a loss of life.

An accurate analysis should compare like with like. The Australian Automobiles Association’s figures do this. It is a fair way of looking at the issue.

By comparison The Public Transport Users Association’s figures do not compare like with like. In fact its analysis is self servinge and incorrect.

In Sydney, we have a “car culture” which will take a long time to change. However, we have improving cycling infrastructure, great weather and a beautiful city to encourage us to get out there and experience all the pleasures of cycling. Maybe one day we will be listed with some of the top pedestrian/cycling cities in the world and benefit from all the things I’ve mentioned in previous posts!

“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race.” — H.G. Wells

I’m with H.G. Wells on this one!

$7.5 million for 25 cyclists ad ay is a joke. It is bad policy and it is a waste of money. Cyclists should stop free-riding on the wallets of motorists.
Over and out!

As for obesity, the likelihood of everyone suddenly exercising for an hour each day is pretty small (if they did, they’d use more water and electricity right?!) Cycling is a way of building exercise into your daily life. You don’t need to get up early or stay back late to go to the gym and there is no feeling of “I should do this so that I stay fit”. It is enjoyable and time-efficient.

Of course the Australian Automotive Association would skew the costs and revenues in favour of automobiles. To see another take on the same data, see the Public Transport Users Association of Victoria page:

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

They show the complete opposite story.

Like I’ve said in other posts, statistics can be used to prove many things if you include the right data. This is why our war of stats will not get us anywhere. You believe one thing and I believe another. It is easy to find stats that support either argument.

I’d prefer to rest on some emperical analysis (since stats can be skewed so easily).

If EVERYONE drove cars everywhere we would have:
- More congestion
- More air pollution
- More noise pollution
- More obesity
- More expensive road systems
- More deaths from accidents
- More landfill
- Move mining and habitat destruction

If EVERYONE road bikes everywhere we would have:
- Less congestion
- Less air pollution
- Less noise pollution
- Less obesity
- Less expensive roads
- Fewer deaths from accidents (maybe more bruises or broken arms though)
- Less landfill
- Less mining and habitat destruction

In my mind, these are facts. I know that James will need some study that proves an absolute causal relationship with no other correlating factors, but to me this is just obvious. All the stats confirm it, but James still says that these relationships COULD be due to something else and that we don’t have any real data! There ARE plenty of studies. There is a LOT of informed debate.

Here is just one carried out by Trafitec in Denmark (surely this is not as biased as a study by the Australian Automotive Association):

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/05/rewarding-cyclists.html

The study even states, “For every 1 krone spent, society would save 5 kroner.”. So there you go James, there ARE studies that say exactly the same about cycle paths as your studies show about roads.

James, why is all the evidence I’ve given so doubtful, but evidence from the Australian Automotive Association so believable?

Besides, I’ve never argued that roads are not useful. Proving that roads are useful and economically beneficial is a no-brainer. The economy definitely wins by being able to transport goods by road. I also drive a car and definitely benefit from its use.

Does the study prove that there is a benefit when an extra person decides to drive to work instead of cycle? This is really what we are talking about. Doesn’t that extra person actually descrease the efficiency of the road network for things like goods transportation?

Places like Copenhagen still have roads, but they don’t clog the inner city with cars. Especially for trips under 10km. The city streets are designed for walking and cycling as well as providing community and culture.

You can argue about stats until you are blue in the face. I just know that I’d prefer to live in Copenhagen than Los Angeles. We need to collect data and study it. But we also need to look at the big picture and use some common sense. Then we can actually have an informed debate.

In the grand scheme of things cycling may have little impact on these things. For example if say 1 milion more people cycled every day to work… people may want work places to install showers at work… this may lead to more water use and electricity use (burning coal) so the environmnetal benefits may be somewhat offset. As for obesity… people may substitute cycling to work for other types of physical activity… so it may no effect on obesity. Do you see what I am saying…. we need a causal relationship. I don’t know what the net impact is but beforethe government spends millions of dollars of other peoples money they should do their homework.

Also you do not understand what PPPs are. They are private projects paid for by user charges. If the project includes a cycle way then that means the private business needs to charge a higher user charge as a result. Taxes have nothing to do with PPPs. It is motorists who use the road who pay. Not taxpayers and unfortunately not cyclists.

Go look at the taxation figures… look to see whether or not the petrol excise revenues exceed the cost of roads. According to the AAA 2008/09 budget submission, in 2007-08, revenue collected by the Federal Government from fuel excise is estimated to be $14.42 billion – yet Commonwealth expenditure on roads is estimated to be $3.41 billion. This expenditure is equivalent to revenue from only 9.02cpl of the 38.143cpl petroleum products excise. Income tax does not pay for roads…. fuel tax does and then there is about $11 billion left over to spent on other things.

Roads and motor vehicles result in a real benefit to everybody. According to a 2005 study by CEDA ” For every $1 invested, the economy reaps a return of up to $5″ In NZ it was estimated that for every dollar invested in the road network would return between $4.209 to $5.60. This means roads are good and they more than pay for themselves.

I don’t know of studies like this for cycleways…. some should be conducted. Lets have an informed debate….

Cycling is an alternate means of transport, and increasingly the only reliable one available to me if I want to arrive at work on time.

People have a right to use the roads in whatever way they choose. We ALL pay for them not just the drivers. We pay when we buy food, we pay when we pay our taxes. We don’t split up the tax pool by individuals and only tax them for things they use because its a stupid, time wasting concept.

The people as whole all pay taxes to pay for the things the people as a whole need – such as infrastructure. I don’t go to school, but my taxes pay for that, do you see me whining?

I cycle to work three times a week. I pay income taxes, I pay council rates AND I pay registration for my car. I CHOOSE to use the infrastructure I’ve helped to pay for to cycle on rather than drive my car. Why should I pay again?

Infrastructure is not built for the sole purpose of cars and trucks and other petrol guzzling vehicles. Infrastructure is built by the government, using TAX payers money, to connect people, maybe you walk, maybe you drive, maybe you ride a horse or skateboard, and yes, maybe you cycle.

If you CHOOSE to drive, then yeah, you’ll pay for petrol and any associated taxes for you vehicle, if you CHOOSE to cycle then you pay for the food you eat to fuel your ride as well as all the associated taxes with the food, like GST and the costs of transport that already added in.

ALL people have a right to infrastructure. After all, we each pay taxes. I bet the same people whining about a cycle path also called council and complained about cyclists sharing the road with them.