4 ms·

Those aiming to debunk me - and all I said is that public transport should take priority over some dramatic increase in spending as envisioned in this article -

Those aiming to debunk me - and all I said is that public transport should take priority over some dramatic increase in spending as envisioned in this article - seem to read rather too much into the fact that some demographic cycles a lot. There are huge demographic clusters (particularly late-middle-age to old, middle-aged-to-older women) who, statistically speaking, don't. I'm sure that we're off to the Proof By Anecdote races again about all the spry old folks who cycle everywhere. But in practice weekly cycling rates in places like NSW and VIC for the middle-aged are about 10%, tops, and this declines faster as people get older. I would hazard a guess that on bad weather days, this skew gets even more extreme i.e. fewer people cycle total, and even fewer proportionally out of the demographics that don't ride much. I don't know about Melbourne, but the idea that we should splash out Serious Cash on cycling infrastructure in Sydney (vs filling out our shithouse transit network) is just laughable. I'm pro bike lanes and better infrastructure (particularly at the expense of cars), but this 'think big' stuff is really on the nose in terms of equity of access.

WalterBright 7y ago
Here in Seattle, with a powerful bike lobby, the cyclists come out when it's warm, dry, and daylight. Which is about 30% of the year. The demographic that bikes are young, fit adults. Can't bike much of anywhere without struggling with hills.
- bkor 7y ago
  > The demographic that bikes are young, fit adults. Can't bike much of anywhere without struggling with hills. If only young/fit people use the infrastructure then the infrastructure is really poor! Note than I'm from the Netherlands and comparing countries is a bit weird. Why not aim for a better infrastructure than the Netherlands? Anyway, for hilly areas I expect a large share of people to use electric bikes. And way more care for safety. In Netherlands they think about possible safety issues. Meaning, someone on a bicycle going down a huge bridge is probably going fast and doesn't want to stop. You could argue that a bicyclist shouldn't do that, but that's pretty pointless. What's better to engineer the infrastructure in a way that deals with that. Hillier areas would require a lot of thought.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    The Netherlands bike culture is very different than in Seattle. In the Netherlands people ride cheap beater bikes in street clothes with no helmets. In Seattle people ride expensive racing bikes with Tour de France outfits on and helmets. Electric bikes come at a large cost premium over that.
inopinatus 7y ago
The demographics regarding participation are well known to be self-fulfilling negative prophecies. That is, if you don't build the infrastructure, then participation declines (or stays low), and particularly amongst the groups you mentioned. Low participation from a particular group != low latent demand. I've ridden in every Australian state capital bar Darwin, and rate Sydney drivers as the most aggressively incompetent of the lot - which, combined with the spectacular hostility of the state government to cycling, is a clear recipe for low participation. Notwithstanding which, I agree that mass transit infrastructure should be built up to the level where it is an easy choice for every commuter, and not the unhappy choice for those within reach of a station.

WalterBright 7y ago

Here in Seattle, with a powerful bike lobby, the cyclists come out when it's warm, dry, and daylight. Which is about 30% of the year. The demographic that bikes are young, fit adults. Can't bike much of anywhere without struggling with hills.

bkor 7y ago
> The demographic that bikes are young, fit adults. Can't bike much of anywhere without struggling with hills. If only young/fit people use the infrastructure then the infrastructure is really poor! Note than I'm from the Netherlands and comparing countries is a bit weird. Why not aim for a better infrastructure than the Netherlands? Anyway, for hilly areas I expect a large share of people to use electric bikes. And way more care for safety. In Netherlands they think about possible safety issues. Meaning, someone on a bicycle going down a huge bridge is probably going fast and doesn't want to stop. You could argue that a bicyclist shouldn't do that, but that's pretty pointless. What's better to engineer the infrastructure in a way that deals with that. Hillier areas would require a lot of thought.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  The Netherlands bike culture is very different than in Seattle. In the Netherlands people ride cheap beater bikes in street clothes with no helmets. In Seattle people ride expensive racing bikes with Tour de France outfits on and helmets. Electric bikes come at a large cost premium over that.

inopinatus 7y ago

The demographics regarding participation are well known to be self-fulfilling negative prophecies. That is, if you don't build the infrastructure, then participation declines (or stays low), and particularly amongst the groups you mentioned. Low participation from a particular group != low latent demand. I've ridden in every Australian state capital bar Darwin, and rate Sydney drivers as the most aggressively incompetent of the lot - which, combined with the spectacular hostility of the state government to cycling, is a clear recipe for low participation. Notwithstanding which, I agree that mass transit infrastructure should be built up to the level where it is an easy choice for every commuter, and not the unhappy choice for those within reach of a station.