Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Melb City Council releases Road Safety Strategy - Not much in it for PTW

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by robsalvv, Apr 15, 2013.

  1. So the Melbourne City Council Road Safety plan has finally been issued. Read about it here: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Abo...ents/10652/6.5 ROAD SAFETY PLAN 2013-2017.pdf

    Despite a strong focus in the plan on the trio of VRU's: Ped, Cyclists and Motorcyclists, the majority of the strategy is clearly targeting Peds and cyclists. Motorcyclists get some focus, some good words and positive motherhood statements in some key areas, it doesn't have a single concrete proposal that moves rider safety forward. This is despite *cough*"consulting"*cough* with rider groups.

    Now get this, the strategy was released late last week and it's being voted on for adoption into policy by the council TOMORROW evening. There's been no genuine stakeholder review of the issued plan.

    We need as many of you as can get to the Melbourne Council meeting on Tuesday evening at 5:30pm. Council Chamber with access to public gallery Level 3 Melbourne Town Hall Administration Building. A mass of bikes parked outside and a full gallery will be a Good Thing for motorcycling in Melbourne.

    VMC will be making a representation to defer the adoption of the plan until genuine stakeholder review can be solicited and the plan updated accordingly.

    What do you think about the plan?
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Wish I had seen Rob's post sooner than today.

    I read the plan yesterday and thought that it had a lot of good stuff in it. Of course it would be nice to see a lot more.

    Heard VMC on 3AW this morning.
  3. ...with motorcyclists at the bottom.

    This why we aren't getting any concessions. They still see motorcycles as a threat to pedestrians and cyclists, and not as significant in terms of value. By what statistical measure are motorcylists less vulnerable than other humans? This is absurd and insulting.
  4. Everyone feel free to pluck out positive and negatives for PTW's and proposals you'd like to see put forward, even if posed previously.

    The MCC had concerns about the lack of review and due process and saw fit to grant an extension. Let'a put some good stuff forward. It's very likely that other municipalities will adopt slabs of the MRSP so the implications could be significant.
  5. #5 titus, Apr 17, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2013
    This affects motorcycles as well as cyclists. Raising this will inveitably lead to contention about splitting, lane sharing etc, but this would be a good thing. There seems to be a mindset that motorcyclists are invulnerable to anything but direct hit by a car.

    Where are they doing this?
    Yet they are continuing to apply car strategies to motorcycles in this proposal.

    This is only a side issue, as VMC is clearly involved, but the document lists IRG, MRAV and VSRA as participants, not VMC. Just sayin...
  6. In the same way that they didn't invite the Public Transport Users Group, VMC wasn't invited to contribute. We only got a foot in the door after making a point about our exclusion, and subsequent documents didn't include us (the VMC).

    Councillors aren't stupid, and they held the author of the Plan to account last night for not including the PTUG. He was somewhat gobsmacked and admitted his error, so the Plan is suitably tainted for reasons other than poor PTW outcomes.
  7. they're geniuses... they want to close ANOTHER bridge in/out of the city... well, half of flinders st bridge anyway.... so 3 lanes of traffic will have to merge to one. brilliant.
  8. rob it would be good if the MCC adopted some of Elliot's proposals from the last election. Increasing traffic flow by increasing the amount of land available to road users via moving parked vehicles off street and increasing speed limits.
  9. SRA, it won't happen. Doyle is a believer in the 40kmh limits and 1hr on street parking.
  10. Not even reading it.... Melb city council strategy for years has been the same - reduce parking, reduce roads, reduce open roads and discourage traffic as much as possible. They do not want powered vehicles in the cbd. Their strategy is that if they remove that, then no one can get hurt.

    I think ultimately it is a flawed philosophy but at the same time they have some massive congestion issues that aren't going away.

    Bad strategy, but bad strategy with a cause. As for motorcyclists - I just don't think we rate as anything compared to what they consider the real issues...
    • Like Like x 1
  11. governments around the country are simply trying to force all road users off the roads by making deliberately inept decisions that will cause more and more jams. Traffic jams are as much a construct of purposeful planning as they are caused by population increases. This is to force people into public transport to limit their freedom of movement and sovereignty it is phase one of the socialist agenda that australia is being lulled into supporting.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Read it - the big losers are Cage Drivers. Not PTW.

    They have opened a huge door to which VMC are now charging into - following the decision made by MCC to send the report back for further development.

    They do want single tracked vehicles in the CBD. Why? Because they take up a lot less space, and are the most vulnerable. Read the Plan and then come back and express your view. VMC via Rob needs your input so that they can develop their input - which they have been invited to make by MCC.
  13. The Road Safety Plan workshops lost on one major point, thank goodness. Every (and I mean every) workshop discussion point had an underlying requirement for the speed limit to be dropped to 30kph :eek:

    We can but hope it stays off the radar for now, but it will resurface at one stage.

    The council also took the plan to task for failing to engage major groups such as the Public Transport User Group, on the basis that their membership are essentially pedestrians once they leave the tram/train. So expect even more pedestrian demands during the rethink, plus howls of outrage from Gary and the lycra louts.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Not only Gary. A rep from Melbourne Bicycle Users Group wrote (about 3 months ago) that they are lobbying for it to be dropped to 20kmh in all high density areas, not just CBD.
    I'm extremely wary of 'pedestrian demands' We are all pedestrians, and I don't believe there is any grass roots pedestrian activism. Victoria Walks is an bogus entity designed to claim representation of the public for the policies of social fundamentalists in the public service and MCC staff.

    Ultimately, we would all be better off if control of these matters was back in the hands of Vicroads, who are far from perfect but at least have more professional expertise than these fringe nutters.
  15. It is becoming more evident that there are interests lobbying for the end of the personal ownership of powered vehicles and currently "safety" is the tool used to gain ground. What the community needs to do is shift the focus from "safety" to transport, travel times, congestion etc. We need to regain control of the agenda and that includes all powered road users including cars, motorcycles and trucks. We must stay united and not allow these interests to divide us.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Didn't read what I wrote? I never said PTW were the loser. Hence my point around motorcyclists not even being a real though. I said all powered vehicles. Melb city council opinions are well known in general.
  17. Have you read the plan? That PTW rate a mention is a huge step. Sure - not big enough for me either - but, the fact that PTW get a mention is the point I am making.

    This is probably one of the first documents that I have seen that actually recognises motorcyclists as being part of the Vulnerable Road User group. That puts PTW in a very competitive position - a position from where VMC can leverage influence.

    My interpretation of what you said was that you hadn't actually read the plan. If I'm wrong - then please tell me and I'll apologise for casting any doubt......
  18. VMC is just trying to get a good outcome for riders. IRG and VSRA are also involved trying to do the same.

    In some respects, we are the victim of our own success. Rider stats have dropped by 75% in the same time that rider uptake has increased by 73%. That's a massive real terms drop. I'd hate complacent road safety strategy to reverse that trend.

    The plan spends quite a bit of time talking about PTW's which is great - but the authors are probably surprised at our "outrage" as a result, but they are thinking like non riders.

    The only concrete points I see are related to parking amenities. That is welcomed and excellent, but if this increases riders coming into the city, in an environment where road space is restricted, escape routes will be cut off (flinders and collins street are already classic examples due to tram stops) and we'll be sharing single lanes with apparently fewer cars, but with more of the drivers being frustrated at the gridlocked conditions. Stressed drivers make rash decisions. The road environment ahead will be worse for riders. That's essentially my point to the MCC.

    There's some good motherhood statements too about filtering, bus lane trial and shared responsibility - I would have liked to have seen some concrete proposals around these areas, not that they can make filtering happen forexample, but they could advocate for it given the benefits.

    Seeing as that this plan might become a model for other municipalities (City of Yarra is starting up its road safety plan), I'm looking for a diverse range of rider views on the pluses and minuses of the plan.


  19. Ok, so forgiving the noob style here, what exactly is it "we" want that MCC can deliver? They can't deliver filtering, and whilst positive statements are nice, in concrete terms what can we achieve?

    Trying to learn something here.
  20. I think the big issue is that MCC are giving an increasing share of road real estate to bicycles, because they want to penalise and discourage cars. As a consequence motorcycles are being squeezed into an increasingly small space, that we have to share with cars.
    That increases risk, and discourages motorcycles and scooters. Ideally, a road design that leaves one and a half lanes for powered vehicles is what I would be asking for.