There is no doubt in my mind: the Sandy Bay Cycleway project has been compromised by the same argument put forward two years ago which tried to stymie it. Saturday’s Mercury letter by Alderman Thomas smacks of comments he trotted out in 2010 (“Soft pedal on cycleway” the Mercury, 27/10/2010). He is again masquerading behind the honourable principle of more consultation, all the while disregarding the public’s comments and public engagement processes the Council has already undertaken on the Sandy Bay Cycleway.
This looks to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, mislead, and back pedal out of a very comprehensive process. In my opinion he has reduced the trust and public faith in Council’s extensive public engagement.
In Mercury Letters on Saturday 6/10/2012, Alderman Thomas “commends” the role Alderman Freeman has taken in “relation to the process so far”. I do not share that praise, as the process started back in 2008, with arguably the most rigorous public engagement strategy for a specific project the Council has ever undertaken. Alderman Freeman’s involvement, coming very late in the day as it does, has effectively hijacked the original consultation process conclusions.
Alderman Thomas in his letter also says that both Cycleway proposals are still being considered, which at the time of writing, is not the case.
The design proposal Council has “live” before it now – let’s call it the Freeman solution – is a sorry departure from the first model the Council had agreed to on April 16 2012.
The original Sandy Bay Cycleway proposal is a thoroughly researched proposal that put safety first and foremost. The intention is to encourage those commuters currently, and appropriately, too fearful to cycle Sandy Bay Road, to get onto their bikes. Leading expert cycleway consultants Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) were engaged by Council and reported back to Council on concept design. Midson reported on safety issues. Community consultation was undertaken by Wadsley consultants to get the position of the general public, residents, cyclists and other key stakeholders.
The Freeman solution is a dangerous compromise. It allows cars to be parked alongside the cycle way and thus allows the possibility of “dooring” from either side of the car. Dooring occurs when a car door is opened and a cyclist does not have time to avoid crashing into it. A young Melbourne university student, James Cross, was killed in such an event in 2010. Far from being a freak incident more than one hundred cyclists a year are injured in such accidents in Melbourne.
Has Alderman Freeman considered the legal ramifications of rejecting the advice of safety experts in favour of his personal preference? What is the point of engaging expensive consultants if their advice is simply ignored? Months and months of consultation and report writing had already provided us with the design and safety recommendations.
In the interests of safety we must reject the Freeman solution. We must ensure that we do the best for all – pedestrians, car drivers, and cyclists – by designing a road that will provide safe facilities for all users.
Who wins with the Freeman solution?
Strangely enough, the biggest winners of the Freeman solution aren’t people. The first prize winners are inanimate: they are the stationary cars. These parked cars have been invited back into the Cycleway proposal. They take up road space between cyclists and moving cars. Passengers getting in and out of parked cars can be considered as yet another hazardous obstacle for the cyclist. Safety buffers should separate the cyclists and moving cars. Car parking should not be allowed on the river side of Sandy Bay Road adjacent to the cycleway.
Second prize goes to the moving cars. Even though the focus is meant to be on a cycleway, the Freeman solution is set to deliver more laneway width for cars.
Coming in third is the pedestrians who, under the Freeman solution, will be forced to give up some of their footpath to share with cyclists. The cycle lane width is a narrow 1.3 metres for each cycle lane.
This is not the intercity cycleway between Hobart and Glenorchy where there is the relative safety of a dedicated ribbon for 100s of metres, with no driveway crossovers, passing vehicle noise and cars to consider. On the Sandy Bay shared footpath, pedestrians will at times have to contend with cyclists of all skill levels crossing into their space.
The Freeman solution creates points of conflict all the way from the Hobart Rivulet right through to Long Point Road.
Coming in a very long way back in the field is the winner of the wooden spoon: the family who wants to cycle. The Sandy Bay Cycleway should be promoting safe cycling for commuting and recreation.
Other losers include Council’s image to promote good public health outcomes through active commuting. The Council could take a positive step on climate change by preparing our citizens for a carbon constrained economy.
The original cycleway proposal has the support of the cycling community, is supported, amongst others, by parents whose children attend Taroona High and who want to have a safe way of travelling to Sandown Park.
Last year I visited and cycled in Copenhagen. Around 50% of movements into the city centre are on bicycles. Cyclists are young and old, and they are well respected by the motorists. Cyclists, after all, are making the city less polluted and the streets less congested. In fact every one is a winner. There is no need to have an “us and them attitude”.
I will be moving to rescind the Freeman solution at Monday night’s full Council meeting. This is a call for the Council to see reason and reject a poor solution when we have the opportunity to provide one of the best pieces of infrastructure for the health and safety of our community.
• Helen Burnett, Tuesday: Sexist comment has no place in council chamber
Today Greens Alderman Helen Burnet was aggrieved after being the target of a sexist comment made at Monday’s full Council meeting by fellow Alderman John Freeman.
“To be called an “insulting little girl” is patronising, sexist and just plain rude. Clearly Alderman Freeman is out of touch with how to treat women in this day and age.
“It is not the first time Alderman Freeman has resorted to this tactic in the Council chamber, and frankly, I have had enough.
“I think this is deplorable, outdated behaviour amongst elected equals. How is it that in the 21st Century this is still occurring?
“The comment is completely out of touch with current acceptable practice. I sincerely hope this interaction will never be repeated by Alderman Freeman. This way of operating should be relegated as a thing of the past.
“It is yet another example of the appalling sexist put-down women face in public life. For years we have heard sexist comments from Tony Abbott. Recently Alan Jones has been tripped up from his consistent barrage of derogatory, hurtful and sexist comments made about the Prime Minister.
“Last night’s meeting was particularly caustic, and I don’t think that sort of behavior should go unmarked, but nor should it ever be repeated.”
The comment was withdrawn after Alderman Burnet called a point of order.
