The Age Letters: 5th March 2007

Motorists pay to give bikies a free ride: why?

The proposed revamp to St Kilda Road by Melbourne City Council is pure madness as well as being unfair. What the MCC have lost sight of is that motorists pay hefty taxes via the bowser for authorities to maintain our roads in good condition and, if possible, to improve traffic flows. The new proposals will only slow and frustrate daily commuters. As far as I’m aware, cyclists do not pay road taxes. And yet here they are getting preferential treatment.

Essentially, motorists are being asked to fund an easy road for cyclists while they have to endure more traffic congestion! If the MCC wants to spend millions on helping cyclists, then let them tax cyclists to pay for it; after all, isn’t it a user-pay society? The trendies who live in the inner suburbs will be happy about the new proposals. But I doubt whether commuters from the medium-to -outer suburbs to the city will be ecstatic about further delays along St Kilda Road.

Alan Barron, Grovedale

The freeway incentive

“People have a right to drive their cars, and they have a right to do it without being impeded upon … for the purpose of looking after 2000 cyclists,” says Roads Minister Tim Pallas (“Minister runs down cycle plan”, The Age, 3/3). No, minister, you are wrong: a bicycle-friendly St Kilda Rd would invite others to join the 2000 — in the same way freeways invite thousands of cars. If car travel along St Kilda Road is so precious, why are cars not properly protected from the 20-tonne trams? Why does the clearway system only apply to one direction during peak hours and why is it not a tow-away zone during those times to ensure maximum flow? Seems like the only threat here is not to motorists’ “rights”, but to the status quo.

Robert Kemp, St Kilda East

Victim impact statement

I am incensed by Tim Pallas’ stance on the proposed enhancement of the St Kilda Road bicycle lanes. Six months ago I was riding south-bound on my way home from work when a motorist opened his door into my path in the bicycle lane. I collided with the door, fell into the line of traffic and was run over by a van. Six months and seven operations later, I am yet to return to work and my life has been upended. If only the Copenhagen-style bike lanes were a reality, VicRoads would save millions every year that it spends on accident victims.

Jayson Hambly, St Kilda

The Age Letters: 6th March 2007

There’s no such thing as a ‘free ride’

So cyclists get a free ride do they, Alan Barron (Letters, 5/3)? I’m tired of hearing this over-used, irrational argument.I cycle to work frequently, leaving my car at home. Therefore, using your “user pays” approach, I should get a discount on my car registration, don’t you think? I reduce traffic congestion for commuters like you, I reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I free up a parking spot. I also reduce my burden on your taxes, Alan, because I remain fit and healthy, reducing my medical costs, and I cause less deterioration of road surfaces than your car does.

But if you don’t agree with any of this, come with me to work. I work in an emergency department, and have treated many cyclists injured by cars. You could ask them if they feel that they have had a free ride.

Dr Alex Swain, Hawthorn

The Age Letters: 11th March 2007

Mobile phone danger has nothing on drink-driving

The claim in your recent article “Dicing with death – warning on cyclists” (4/3) that mobile phone use while driving is as dangerous as drink-driving is based on mistaken assumptions and an incomplete review of the research in this area. More importantly, the comparison could undermine other driver-safety campaigns by reducing the stigma of driving while drunk. No one is questioning that mobile phone use imposes physical, visual and cognitive demands on the driver.

However, drivers who get behind the wheel after drinking are more likely to take risks. They have reduced perceptions of the risk involved because alcohol impairs judgement.

A recent Australian study that compared the blood-alcohol levels of drivers involved in car crashes found the risk of an accident increased 25 times at a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08. Mobile phones have not been shown to present this level of risk in any research. In 2002 in the US, alcohol was a factor in approximately 41 per cent of all fatal traffic accidents and in 6 per cent of all crashes. In comparison, data collected by about 20 state highway authorities shows mobile phones have been a factor in an estimated 0.5 per cent of all crashes and they are more likely to be a minor, rear-end collision.

AMTA has developed 10 mobile phone and driving safety tips (see amta.org.au) and by adhering to these simple common sense practices, drivers can make full, productive and safe use of mobile phones while driving. It should also be remembered that mobile phone users provide the extra eyes for police in reporting aggressive, reckless or drunk drivers, accidents and other road hazards. Almost one-third of all genuine calls to 000 are made from mobile phones.

CHRIS ALTHAUS, CEO, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association