Haphazard Harold’s latest missive “Will these people ever give up?” Maj Kilgore Apocalypse Now

 

Haphazard Harold

 

 

 

 

Having recently returned from the ACT it’s disappointing that Harold has to go trolling against bicycle infrastructure, particularly shared user paths. The Big Canberra Bike Ride as previously reported took riders both on a journey through Canberra both on the road and on Shared User Paths. Everything about it went well. No bogans yelling at the riders from the safety and comfort of their cars, shared paths that were in good repair and riders who used common sense when using the shared paths.

It seems that Haphazard Harold has decided to keep the issues raised in his previous missive in an interview for the Inner-West Weekly, which was posted in their on line edition. In this report Haphazard Harold had decided to extend his ambit claims that cycle paths should be abolished with “

a plan that includes insurance for pedestrians, fines for speeding and other offences such as negligent cycling, and a comprehensive identification system such as numberplates on bikes.”

Fortunately the reporter for the Inner-West Weekly was principled enough to seek out an opinion from the RTA which stated

all cyclists in NSW were governed by state laws which prohibit riding in a “negligent or reckless fashion”. “The legal advice obtained by the Pedestrian Council does not raise anything new which would warrant a change to existing RTA policies,”. Pretty much what I and everyone else thought and it would appear that Harold’s desire to get rid of shared paths will go the same way that his efforts to get rid of bull bars from four wheel drives went. Nowhere!

It is worth refuting some of his latest claims. Firstly Haphazard Harold claims “

said shared bike paths, such as the Bay Run foreshore and Cooks River bike path, were “a farce”. The only people who have made The Bay Run foreshore a farce have been pedestrians who won’t stay in the pedestrian sections of the path. Many walk two abreast and use the sections marked for cyclists. As for the Cooks River bike path there are usually no problems the path is wide enough for everyone’s needs.

The hypocrisy from Haphazard Harold continues with “

councils must enforce a 10km/h speed limit on bike paths ”. Given Harold’s backing of the state government’s decision to reduce the demerits for motorists exceeding the speed limit by more than 15 km an hour it this sounds too cute by far. If it is just a “misdemeanour” for motorists to exceed the speed limit by not more than 10km per hour what about cyclists doing the same? Haphazard Harold’s proposal for a “comprehensive identification system such as numberplates on bikes” is similar to the other idiocy that came from Paul (Pot)tinger and the Mosman Farmer. The best response to those proposals came from the Cycling Promotion Fund http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/factsheets/Issue_Sheet_5_Bicycles_belong_on_the_road.pdf

As seen from this document the amount of money raised from the registration of cars and other government imposts on cars is way overshadowed by the costs to society incurred by motor vehicles.

If Harold really wanted to improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians he would be pushing for more safer cycle paths not less.

Just to sort things out It seems to my mind to be a good idea to provide a rebuttal of arguments for bicycle registration. The long and the short is

It’s too costly, It’s unenforceable, It would be detrimental to the broader social benefits of cycling, Compliance would be minimalist (especially among those it’s supposed to catch.

 

Bicycle Victoria spokesman Harry Barber said The Germans tried to do it to the Dutch during World War II and it didn’t work,” to quote Treadly and Me (see http://treadly.net/2007/04/05/bike-number-plates-dumb-idea-redux/) “it only provoked resistance. And without taking the comparison to Nazis too far, how much fun would cyclists have swapping registration plates backwards and forwards between themselves, and between all sorts of different bikes”. Something that has come up during the spate of petrol thefts during the recent period where petrol was $1.50 and above, was the number of numberplates stolen from cars, there has also been issues with people modifying numberplates with electrical tape and texta pens and what has become an urban legend about people using hair sprays to fool speed cameras – no one can say the same cannot happen to number plates on bikes.

As Chris Gerhard points out “

Consider the effectiveness. Number plates on cars don’t stop them jumping lights or speeding so there is no reason to think this measure would be effective for cyclists”. There are a huge number of hit and run drivers who have not been caught. It seems Harold Scruby (now known as Haphazard Harold) doesn’t do anything to urge continuing investigation of these cases. These drivers would have been driving registered cars and the fact that they were registered did not deter them from committing homicide with their registered motor vehicles.A number plate on a bike no more identifies the rider than a number plate on a car identifies the driver.

The impracticality is screamingly obvious when as Gerhard points out again “

Consider the size of a number plate. It has to be unique to cope with the 30 million bikes so seven digits. Seven digits on the back of a push bike. Pretty big then or not readable. If it is big that will make most bikes, like the ones I ride to work on illegal as there is no room for a number plate once you have lights, reflectors etc. All “racing” bikes would be illegal and most mountain bikes”

In short what Haphazard Harold is trying to do is pretty much like most anti-cycling whingers try to do and deter cycling – by pushing for a registration system, a system that would be

prohibitive in cost and would deter people from owning and riding a bike. In short Harold’s plan sounds about as futile as a plan that would force pedestrians to wear number plates and carry lights at night (red at the back and white at the front).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M7 breakdown lane tragedy

For those who do not know we have had a tragedy in Sydney as on Saturday the 27th of January a group of triathletes on a training ride using the breakdown lane on the M7 were struck by a truck. One rider is dead, while another is in hospital there is also another who was treated for shock. For those who do not know NSW road rules it is perfectly legal for cyclists to ride in the breakdown lane on major highways. This includes the M7.

I found out about the incident when I was visiting a friends place in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney. The channel 10 news reporter made the report from the scene and made special mention of the M7 Cycle pathwhichwas on the opposite side of the road. It is rather interesting following the discussion on Sydney Cyclist. There have been people who have been outraged and there have been some who have given their reasons for not using the breakdown lanes on various highways. It has also been curious to note that one person registered on the site especially to claim that they knew the riders and knew that the truck was a cement mixer/pumper and that the driver would have had limited rear visibility and would have been unable to locate the cyclists in their mirrors or by doing a head check. They claim that the whole incident was a tragic accident and that we should keep our thoughts with the injured cyclist, the dead cyclists family and friends. I am one of those who believes there should be a thorougher investigation so that we can ascertain if it was an “accident” or if indeed it was actually caused by negligence. 

There in lies the problem. In many states of Australia if a cyclist is killed there is no investigation of  the incident  Motor Accidents Authority (MAA) or any police crash investigation unit. Ironically it was after the incident when a pedestrian – James Gould was killed by a participant in the Hell Ride that a recommendation that crashes involving cyclists be investigated by the Victorian Traffic Accidents Commission (TAC – the equivilant of the MAA in NSW). I have yet to hear if this recommendation was followed up. The media are also quick as in this case to put blame for the incident on the cyclist. I wondered if the reporter on Ten news would have come out with “if the woman had not been wearing read lipstick and miniskirt she would not have got raped”.

From another cycling forum I got this: “The impression that I got from the news reports were that it was the cyclists fault for being there, rather than the truck drivers for hitting them. I feel that, most of the time, the general public perceives cyclists as not being a road user and not having the same rights as other road users”. With the recent commentary on cycling in the NSW media being skewed toward the issue of pedestrian cyclist conflict due to a letter from one person who claimed that his wife struck by a cyclist on a shared path and the subsequent press release and comments by Harold Scruby many cyclists may have been lead to believe that they were not welcome on  what are “shared paths”. Of course it is interesting when you have a look at the M7 cycle path. It meanders around and has a number of climbs. It is often closed in places due to the poor quality of construction. In contrast to the shoulder on the M7 which is relatively flat and of good quality construction.

In a press release from Bicycle NSW on the issue of the Premiers Council for Active Living recommendations for more funding of cycling facilities Liz Hole from Bicycle NSW said .

““The road is for everybody – it would be ignorant and selfish for anyone to think otherwise. Cyclists, drivers and pedestrians need to follow road rules and keep an eye out for each other. This way NSW roads will be safer for all of us,””  Of course I would like to here the thoughts of both the NRMA and Pedestrian Council on that issue. Something tells me we won’t hear anything from either organisation.

The update on the M7 issue on the Transitions website (a triathlon forum)is that the rider in hospital has been put into a medically induced coma and has been operated on. The posts on the forum also state “Specifically with this incident, just want to point out that it wasn’t at an off ramp- so no chance imo of an unsafe crossing by the cyclists being the fault- it was about 200m after the off ramp to M4 at light-horse going west. After this off ramp the M7 is a bit narrower than before (that could be perceived, I don’t have measurements) where the M7 starts to rise over the M4.”

The ultimate thing that made me interested in what was happened was a discussion witha guy who rides with DHBC who actually knew the cyclists involved. He said that they had been riding on the M7 shoulder due a lack of access to the M7 cycle path. They had rode up the M4 and could not access the M7 cycle path.

The funeral was held on the following Friday with many cyclists and triathletes in attendance. I often wonder if this will have been borne in mind by the magistrate who presided over the trail of Hassan Bakr. It is interesting that after a number of incidents that resulted in injuries after pedestrians threw rocks at cars on motorways and highways the NSW government passed laws that increased penalties for throwing rocks from or at vehicles. To back this up ironically the NSW police bicycle patrol was sent to patrol the M7 cycle path. Nothing has been heard as to if any charges have been laid against the driver. Everyone’sthoughts and prayers are with the cyclist in hospital and the cyclist who witnessed the event. It is hoped that justice will prevail and the driver be charged. It is a thin hope given the state of the NSW judiciary and police.

Everyone I know (or a lot of them anyway) hates Harold Scruby and so do I!

There is one thing I have marvelled at in history is how people who would have done well working together wind up at each others throats. When I think about the new wonderful plans for the creation of a more environmentally sustainable Sydney. I find that the latest missive from Harold Scruby otherwise known as the Pedestrian Council of Australia (it literally is only him and a fax machine) quite a bit perplexing. 

In my opinion cyclist and pedestrians ought to be doing something about their real danger – cars.  There are groups in other cities such as Transport Alternatives in New York who lobby for better pedestrian and cycling facilities. They also promote cycling and walking as alternatives to cars. I have read Car Busters and found articles on both walking and cycling. The New York Bicycle Messenger Association even organised a ride/march in memory of pedestrians and cyclists who have been killed by cars.

Harold is usually on the ball with his observations of motoring culture but the latest claims regarding the demerit points for motorists exceeding limits for motor vehicles makes me wonder if he really is just pretending to be a road safety advocate. From the Sydney Morning Herald of November 15 “The Pedestrian Council chairman, Harold Scruby, said he had long been pushing for an overhaul of demerit points.”As it is at the moment, it is inconsistent and unfair because gradations of the speed limit go up by 10 kilometres while the penalties go up by 15 kilometres,” he said.” He also mentioned that those drivers caught exceeding the speed limit by less than 10km were committing just a “misdemeanour”. Drivers caught committing a “misdemeanour” would get just a whopping big fine. Harold evidently has not seen Victorian road safety adverts that demonstrate that going just 5 kilometers over the speed limit run the risk of killing or seriously injuring pedestrians and cyclists. This risk is due to the increased stopping distance that just 5 kilometers over the speed limit incurs.

On the 3rd of December 2008 he issued a press release trying to frighten the councils of Sydney and elsewhere into not creating more Shared User Paths. In the press release he claims that “It is an offence for anyone over the age of 12 to ride a bicycle on the footpath.  However, the Australian Road Rules allow the authorities to create a Shared Bicycle Path (SBP) and invite all cyclists to ride upon them.” Unfortunately for Harold the lie  (by omission) in this paragraph is that an adult cyclist supervising a cyclist under the age of 12 is permitted to ride on the footpath.

Second omission is “There is no offence for speeding on a bicycle in NSW (and most other jurisdictions)” . He obviously has not figured that a bicycle is a vehicle and as such is liable for speeding fines (that is what the organisers of the Sydney Spring Cycle & the Gong Ride assert) It is also enforced in Centennial Park.

The other bits of idiocy and stupidity in the press release were “Mr Scruby added:  “This is utter lunacy.  Under the current system, a cyclist can hit an elderly person on the footpath, cycle away and disappear.  Such injured persons can then be required to pay up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care costs from their own pockets, unless they sue the authorities.” Should a cyclist collide with a pedestrian they are also likely to be injured. They may even be injured seriously enough not to be able to ride away. Furthermore members of Bicycle NSW, Cycling NSW and other bicycle organisations get 3rd party insurance. Cyclists who are not members of the state based bicycle organisations are also liable to be sued for damages should they injure a pedestrian in a collision.

The line that gets the ultimate piece of stupidity “Cyclists are not required to display number-plates or be licensed and are almost impossible to recognise especially when most are wearing helmets and sunglasses.” Apart from using the usual lies from motorists who use the registration (number plates) and licencing arguments this line made me wonder which other groups in society Harold thinks all looks the same?

The other issue that made me laugh was “Cyclists are required to give way to pedestrians at all times on a SBP.  Yet many Councils erect signs advising cyclists to ring their bells.  This frequently frightens pedestrians and creates a most threatening and unfriendly environment.” Ooooh dear! Which would you prefer me just riding past or me warning that I was coming? Mind you they do actually have to have their hearing unencumbered by Ipods, walkmans and mobile phones etc.

There have been some wide reactions in the community. I will be doing an edition of this blog on the activities of the Bicycle NSW CEO Alex Unwin soon, but suffice to say that he is obviously in fear of Harold. Alex was heard on ABC radio a while ago and made a meal of  fending off the usual trolling from squawk back radio as well as a hostile interviewer.

We had the usual crap from idiotic drivers in of all places the Sydney Morning Herald. I suppose they must have made a transition from reading the Terror.

The sad fact is that the cup is half empty as regards pedestrian cyclist conflict as it is known. I have see other riders riding extremely fast past pedestrians on Shared User Paths such as the Pyrmont Bridge and the paths near the SCG. However I have had my share of pedestrians walking around in the night on unlit paths in black. I have had them dawdling along with Ipods etc.

A warning for Harold is beware of what you want for you might just get it. “For all the above and many other compelling reasons, we demand that the RTA and all Councils immediately cease the approval and creation of any future Shared Bicycle Paths and remove all existing SBPs”  I would love to have the Cooks River and Bay to Bay cycle paths pedestrian free.

 The shared user paths could be divided. There are sections of the bay to bay cycle  path that are divided into pedestrians and cyclists. Ultimately the Sydney Harbour Bridge has a bicycles only path on one side. Pedestrians are warned that they face fining if they walk on the cycle path.

The only token acknowledgement we get from Harold is “While cycling is also a great form of exercise and transport, councils must be required to build Dedicated Cycle Paths.” How about you put your money where your mouth is Harold? Get your shoulder to the wheel and lobby for the Bourke St bike road and other facilities. Oh that’s right you won’t be able to drive or walk on them!