Australia

You misspelled “murderous Psychopaths”

I know several people who believe that might-is-right on our roads and consider cyclists to be a “burden on society since they don’t pay fuel tax.”

The tragic irony is that some of them ride motorbikes and don’t see the hypocrisy of their opinions.

For me it's because almost nothing is within an hour's ride. My drive to work isn't far, but it'd be a 90 minute round trip on a bike.

33km on the bike as a commute is amazing! I only travel 12km and that is 25 minutes each-way.
Having the energy and commitment to ride 33km at the end of a long work day is very impressive. That has to be over an hour each way.

I’m just imagining a dedicated 2-way cycle path, lined with tall trees the whole way so it’s in the shade most of the day. What a beauty that would be!

I’m already jealous of you Aussies for the affordability of solar and your abundant sunshine making it highly efficient. Up here in Canada where I live solar is mostly a luxury and bike lanes and paths exist but are rather unpleasant to use when they’re covered with snow and ice from December to May.

People whinge about all kinds of things as excuses for why cycling doesn't happen. In Canada it's "it's too cold". In the UK it's "too wet". In Brisbane I alternately see "too hot" and "too hilly" brought up as excuses.

It's all bullshit.

The evidence tells us pretty clearly. Infrastructure is the whole thing. With good infrastructure, people will cycle in any weather. It's what happens everywhere in the world, every time they build actual good infrastructure.

And for what it's worth, I find it much easier to cycle in Brisbane's summer than its winter. Our winters are an awkward in-between temperature where you can't rug up properly because if you do you get too hot while riding. But it's too cold to go out in shorts. Speaking objectively, those Canadians are closer to having a good point. Warm weather doesn't make your tyres slip; doesn't require snow to be ploughed off of the path.

I ride all year round in Brissie. I find my comfort level depends on when I ride, distance, speed and my bike setup.

First, I ride to and from work in the morning and arvo when it's cooler, not in the middle of the day.

I ride 6km each direction which is manageable. In winter I barely break a sweat. In summer I have a shower on each side. I can and sometimes do get away without showering by riding slowly. Or I just catch PT if I'm going somewhere else after work.

The other thing I noticed is that not wearing a bag helps a lot with reducing sweat on my back. I have a basket on the back of my bike and just throw my bag in. A lot of other people use pannier bags.

But cycling is dangerous - do we really want to put our ideology ahead of peoples' safety? I'm not saying cars are safe, but they are required to have seat belts (which you are required to use) and I assume airbags are also mandatory. We shouldn't downplay the risks associated with an activity to get the "ignorant masses" to do it - that is misleading. We need more people out of cars and on bikes or public transport but we shouldn't get there by lying, good infrastructure will be a major factor.

I agree that the helmet laws are unnecessary, but I think they're far from the most important thing compared to having good infrastructure to ride on.

Hey as long as you're advocating for better infrastructure so people whose commutes are within a distance that's cyclable can do so, it doesn't bother me (and I doubt many other advocates would be bothered) if you drive. The thing that bothers me is that we frequently see people with long commutes explain that as though it's a reason nobody can ride, and therefore we shouldn't bother putting in the infrastructure.

The obvious counter is the fact that if everyone with a 10 km or less commute got out of their car and onto a bike, there would be so much less traffic. You'd probably halve the peak hour commute time for those 40 km commutes as a result.

As a small side note though, the distance is a problem, the "dropping kids off to school" is not. With good infrastructure, kids can be ridden in a bike trailer, in the front of a bakfiets, or on a kiddy seat. Older children can ride their own bikes alongside a parent. And teenagers can ride by themselves the whole journey. Bikes are amazing for independence of growing kids, rather than needing to be ferried everywhere by parents. But only if we build the infrastructure for them.

Of course there's also a big overlap between cycling advocates and urbanism. And that overlap obligates me to ask: is your commute 42 km because you love living way out rurally even though you work in the city, or is it because housing prices are so obscene that that's the only place you could afford to live with your family? Because a key point for urbanists is that it should be possible for anyone to be able to live close to where they work, in large part thanks to reducing the cost of housing by drastically increasing supply of medium and higher density housing. And that medium and higher density housing should come in a variety of configurations, instead of being almost exclusively 1 and 2 bedroom places with a small number of 3 bedroom, and 4 bedroom is basically non-existent, as is currently the case.

And as an urbanist, I'd say that even if you do just want to live 42 km out, it should be possible to take a train in. It's probably too low-density for public transport alone to be viable, but a 5 k–or–less cycle to a train station served every 15 minutes or more is absolutely possible, if there were political will.

A problem, for sure, and the evidence tells us it's a bad idea.

But the evidence also seems fuzzy enough that it seems very unlikely that this is the primary problem with cycling in this country.