Cycling Roundtable Forum 2013

In partnership with the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER), Bicycle Tasmania is hosting a forum involving road users, cycling groups and cyclists to identify issues and strategies to supporting and encouraging bike riding in Tasmania. 

The roundtable forum will take place on November the 5th with a focus on infrastructure, funding, positive provision, behaviour and regulation. 

We want to hear your thoughts to help inform discussion on the day and the framework for moving forward. 

What are the barriers and opportunities to get more people riding across the State? 


How you can contribute to the discussion: 

Comment below, by signing in with either your email or facebook account. 

Tweet with the hashtag #cycleforumtasmania 

Email Alasdair Doyle and Emma Pharo at advocacy@biketas.org.au


 


Activity 6 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2014-09-04 07:29:11 +1000
    Thanks Andreas, yes it was 2013, we’ve editted the post to make that clear.
  • commented 2014-09-03 21:00:54 +1000
    I take it this is a ‘Round Table Forum’ from about a year ago? Not for November 2014?
  • commented 2013-10-30 17:56:05 +1100
    Even with the best education and infrastructure, where cars, trucks and cycles have to share the same roadway (even where there is a cycle lane), I still believe a mandatory 1.5m passing distance is required. There is still the rogue element out there who will try to ‘squeeze past’, buzz you, or even push you off the road because they don’t think you have a right to be there. I have had each of these happen to me countless times over the years and it is time we had laws to protect ourselves and our space on the road. And it is possible to enforce! Other jurisdictions around the world do it. why can’t we here?
  • commented 2013-10-30 14:39:51 +1100
    I support all of Glenn Wickham’s comments, except the mandating of the 1.5m passing distance. I believe the 1.5m separation should be observed in practice, but not made mandatory, as it is impossible to enforce and may lead to undesired consequences for infrastructure such as onroad bike lanes.

    What is required is Safe Space for Cycling. What this means is determined by the other traffic on the road – how many and how fast. So where traffic volumes are low and travelling at low speeds (such as 20-40 kph), riders can feel fairly safe sharing the road. So strategies can include discouraging traffic from certain streets (e.g. no through traffic, or filtered permeability) and actively reducing speed limits. Where volumes &/or speeds of traffic are higher, then a good physical (or time based) separation is required for people of all ages to be able to ride safely and confidently. The Copenhagenize model is an example of a good way to adapt responses to the road in question.

    A coherent network of connected and safe bike paths and bike lanes needs to be created. For example, in Hobart lets build the Hobart Bike Plan, the Hobart Arterial Cycle Network, and implement the recommendations of the Jan Gehl report. Same goes for other cities and towns in the State. Bike paths and bike lanes are so much cheaper to build than roads. We could make great strides with this if State and Federal Governments committed 1 percent of what they currently commit to roads towards building the bike infrastructure that is already in the plans.

    In addition to improved infrastructure, we need drivers to understand a lot more about how their behaviour impacts on more vulnerable road users, and to accept that they don’t have a right to monopolise the built roads. Reduced speed limits and greater respect for other road users are imperative.
  • commented 2013-10-21 21:11:55 +1100
    I’d like to see the government run the ‘Share the Road’ campaign again, especially to remind motorists to look out for other road users and be careful. The adverts had graphics of a bike, a couple of pedestrians, a car, a motorbike and a truck, all legal road users.
    I agree with Glenn’s point about emphasising that taxes and rates pay for roads, not rego.
    I’d like to see a white unbroken line painted for the edge of the vehicle lane on many of our urban roads. Lots of our roads are big enough to drive a car and ride a bike, but not if car drivers ‘slip’ away from the centre line towards the curb.
  • commented 2013-10-09 11:49:16 +1100
    A couple of suggestions based around my experiences and observations of 30+ years of riding and commuting.
    1. We need a serious public education campaign and driver education to make people aware that cyclists are legal road users and have a right to be on the road
    2. We need to make cyclists feel safer by mandating a minimum 1.5m passing distance. 1m is not enough when being passed by a truck at high speed.
    3. We need to educate people that registration does not pay for our roads, our taxes, rates etc do and hence cyclists are playing their way like everyone else. A lot of abuse is given to cyclists due to drivers thinking that we don’t pay our way.
    4. An education campaign for awareness of what cyslists can legally do – take a lane, overtake on the left, ride 2 abreast, ride on footpath if necessary etc
    5. An education campaign for cyclists about obeying the road rules
    I think a lot of the issues we face on the roads are due to driver ignorance of the law and the rights of cyclists and this leads to bad behaviour and cyclists feeling unsafe and not supported.
    regards
    Glenn Wickham