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.

[Melb] Traffic strategy

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Loz, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/31/1138590502659.html?from=top5

    What... about.... the.... f*cking.... motorcycles?

    Has this vehicle nothing to offer in the reduction of congestion? Where can I get councillor Ng's email addy?

    In other news, the article was written by a good mate's sister... Go Lizzie!
  2. hate to be a courier
  3. True, true. Lets hope with advancement of technology and tighter pollution control (around the world) we can catch up with the more greener (by comparison) vehicles.
  4. I'm all for it.

    within our city CBD's pedestrians need to be the priority rather than cars.

    Hey at least you guys have trams. We will hopefully be getting some trams back (after 40-50 yrs) in a few years time.

    Bring on more pedestrian friendly cities and more light rail.
  5. Cutting speed limits in the CBD shouldn't be a major issue, in heavy traffic most cars rarely get above 40kph anyway. Although less pedestrians would be killed/injured if they actually crossed the road when/where they're supposed to.
    Edit: actually lowering speed limits could make things worse, pedestrians seem to be far more likely to walk across in front of slower moving traffic assuming that they'll stop/slow for them.
  6. Don’t believe that, where will the Melbourne City Council replace the $50+ million p.a. that they flog motorists with in parking fees & fines.
    They thrive on kaos & clutter in the CBD, it is a big earner for them, they are shysters of the highest order, i see the tow truck drivers every arvo licking their chops as they load up the clearway victims that get slugged $400 to get their car back.
  7. personally all i can see that doing is driving business out of the cbd, as i don't see people (as a whole giving up their personal transport) IMO
  8. perosnally... i drive my car into the city a fair bit... i go out in the city... being a designated dave a lot of the time, i'm required to get people home... having to walk 5k's trying to direct drunk people could be devastating!

    if ther'es no cars in CBD... make the transport 24/7... cool thanks bye :p
  9. The answer is quite simple - they can't include motorcycles, because Lane Splitting is illegal (as defined by a number of laws that have come to the surface - via the NTC and 115A).

    If Lane Splitting were legal - then I bet that they would be incorporating us into their plans.

    This is why we need to win the Lane Splitting debate guys. By now I hope that the full significance of what the MRAA did last week is going to be recognized by everyone.
  10. Submissions for the strategy closed 30 September 05, it's a pity that any rider groups (AFAIK) didn't get a submission in.

    On the plus side, infrastructure-wise, accomodating bicycles more is a good thing as we can generally (practically, if not legally) use whatever they put in place - especially with reduced speed limits, there should be no reason why bikes and bicycles couldn't share bike lanes at 40kph.

    Let's see them have another crack at footpath parking, I bet that's coming.
  11. Well, actually the MRAA did make a submission. :!: :!:

    Yet again, you guys spread misinformation..... Is it no wonder that the motorcycle community is always chasing its tail :evil: :mad:
  12. My mistake. I did say AFAIK... and AFAIK, IKJS :LOL:
  13. Well, if you ever needed proof that social planning decisions are nowadays in the hands of complete NOOMPTIES, without the slightest grasp of reality - this is it.
    It's all feel-good, green as grass, let's-save-the-world-by-holding-hands-and-singing DRIVEL, without a single shred of actual problem solving in the entire document.
    To these people, problems just go away when you use words like "enable", "encourage" and "facilitate". Where are the mechanics of moving an extra 3-400,000 people every day? They don't exist. Like the very real problems of exactly how to meet the costs of their decisions don't exist.
    Don't get me wrong. I think it would actually be good if nobody HAD to drive to the city any more. But there are no concrete answers here, just more punitive measures and hot air.
    I never thought I'd long for "the good old days", but at least then you had competent people trying to build achievable answers to real issues.
  14. Maybe they're going to build a monorail :LOL: .
  15. [chant]monorail....monorail....monorail....monorail....[/chant]


    mmmm....donuts - is there anything they can't do?

  16. A monorail?

  17. It solved all Sydney's traffic problems didn't it :LOL:. (can't help but watch the monorail episode of the Simpsons and not compare it to Sydney).
  18. how about a mag lev monorail , now yer talkin
    That'll put melbourne on the map
  19. shouldnt the head line read
    "victorian motorcyclists take it up the arse again"
    john so comments on this was "Would you like cashews with that biker boy"
  20. I'm quietly hoping the full report does mention PTWV and its only the newspaper that is focusing on cars as thats where they see the most news readers are at