Cycling packs trimmed by park authority
|
Report ANDREW LONDON "On your bike!" - that's the message from Centennial Park users sick of speeding cycling packs. The Courier received an oveIWhelming re- sponse to its report about park management banning packs of more than 15 training on the Grand Drive circuit. Centennial Parklands banned the practice for the safety of cyclists and other park users. Park management also made allegations of bullying and abusive behaviour, based on user complaints. Of the 49 park users who responded to the Courier report, all but 15 said they supported the ban, with many wanting rangers to en-
|
force the rules. On the other hand, bunch- training advocates want park management to close the park to cars two mornings a week. Queens Park resident Neil Richards said bunch cycling was safer than solo riding. "I think it's all a storm in a teacup. Where are the statistics of accidents or incidents ca,!sed by the bunch?" he said. Cyclist Adrian Boss wants bunch cycling to continue but with clubs abiding by a code of conduct. However, Bondi Junction resident Lee Davis said that many of the cyclists used the ano- nymity of the pack to be rude to and incon- siderate of other park users. Mother-of-three Kristen Moore referred to the |
Large packs banned: The Courier report.
Cyclists as “lycra thugs” and would “sign any petition going to get rid of them.” Cyclist Jean Bousseau said he loved the sport but “the park is there for everybody - bunch |
cycling is for tracks or velodrome, not Centennial Park". "Fifteen is still a rugby team on wheels - seven-a-side would be better," Double Bay resident Tristram Miall said. Paddington resident David Pinsett desribed the pack as "frightening" in their huge num- bers. "My concern now is whether the trust has the means and the determination to en- force these restrictions," he said. "In the past, their efforts have proved ineffectual." Woollahra resident John Peel said that the be- haviour of the packs of cyclists had grown "increasingly belligerent and dangerous" be- cause of the park management's reluctance to enforce existing regulations. . |
|
Box 154 Kensington NSW 1465 Email: cyclecentennial@hotmail.com
TEXT OF LETTER DELIVERED TO Andrew London Journalist at the Wentworth Courier
15th August 2003
Andrew,
We have all been guilty at one time or another of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. But let’s not condemn without first at least going to trial! Your article in this week’s Wentworth Courier did seem pretty one-sided. I urge you therefore, before you next write about cycling in Centennial Park, to consider a number of balancing factors.
The weight of interest – Yes, you did receive 34 messages from Park users who opposed bunch training in the Park (34 responses from your total readership of 48,000). You did not, however, acknowledge that the Cycle Centennial Petition has thus far received 674 signed responses supporting the continuation of bunch training in the Park.
The safety factor – In the last 12 weeks I know of two cyclists killed on public roads in Sydney and of half a dozen more who have been hospitalised. Yet in the Park over the last three years there have been only 16 collisions between car and cycle and only 3 between cyclist and pedestrian. To my knowledge, no hospitalisations were involved. The Park is a safe haven for cyclists in an increasingly dangerous world.
The multi-user factor – Yes, in the last year there have been 40 written complaints against cyclists. However, the Parklands are visited by more than 5 million people each year. Is this 0.0008% negative response rate really a sufficient reason to ban an activity that has been in place since Grand Drive was paved over and which occurs only at times when other activities are at low ebb? Because the number of cyclists in the Park is not constant. Although cyclists may account for over 50% of Grand Drive activity at bunch training times, they make up only 10% of Grand Drive activity between 7am and 4pm. Bunch training only occurs on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 5:45am and 7:15am in the early morning and between about 4:00pm and 6:00pm in the late afternoon. Bunch training is underway, therefore, for less 10% of available access time in the Park.
The bigger picture – You might just want to spend some time sitting on a park bench by the intersection of Parkes and Grand Drives, as I did from 5:40am through 7:20am on the morning of Tuesday 12th August. You might come to different and more positive conclusions about cyclists and their smooth integration in a multi-user environment. You might also start to ask yourself about why there seem to be so many cars, driven by individuals be-suited for the office, sweeping off Grand Drive and up to the Paddington Gates at speeds that appear to be well in excess of 40kph. Does the Park have a bunch cycling problem or a rat-runner problem?
The prejudice factor – You have referred to cycling “packs” in both of your articles. Perhaps you might consider the view adopted by Peter Duncan, the former Director of Centennial Parklands. We had a series of productive meetings with Peter through 2001 and 2002. Peter accepted that the term “pack” was unfairly prejudicial. Peter was persuaded by the explanation provided below and declared that the term “bunch” should be used in all future Centennial Park documentation.
Planning proposals refer to groups of cyclists as “packs”, a word that implies predatory behaviour. A “pack of wolves” threatening defenceless sheep. In reality, cyclists cycle together for protection in what they prefer to call a “bunch”. Almost every cyclists, at one time or another, has been hit by a beer can flung from a passing car or has suffered verbal abuse from chemically stimulated taxi passengers early on a Sunday morning. Cyclists know that it is safer to ride in a bunch. They do it for visibility. They do it because they are the sheep, not because they are the wolves (Sydney Morning Herald, 9th August 2001).
The history factor – Your article gives no weight to the fact that it was cyclists who first proposed a Code of Conduct back in September 2001 (on which we received no feed back from Park Administration until June 2003). Your article gives no weight to the fact that cycling interests stopped the proposal for a ‘contra-lane’ on Grand Drive which would have seen cyclists, roller-bladers and wheel chair athletes placed at risk from the very factor which kills people on the public roads system, namely head-on collision. Cyclists are also behind proposals to enhance traffic exit at Randwick Gates and to introduce workable parking on Grand Drive. Cyclists are not avoiding the issue or dictating terms. We are trying to make the Park a better place for all users.
And finally, the unfortunate misrepresentation – Yes, our letter to Marlene Krasovitsky does state for the sake of brevity “two car free mornings per week – with parking permitted on Carrington Drive”. But you chose to leave out the crucial second phrase and you would be fully aware, from the detailed material we sent you, that Cycle Centennial’s stated proposal is for Centennial Parklands Administration to consider:
· delay of formal Park opening only until 7:15am on Tuesday and Thursday mornings with Grand Drive closed to motorised vehicles; and with · access through the ‘top gates’ from sunrise to allow car parking on Carrington Drive and the continuation of early morning access for all users.
It doesn’t seem too much to ask in an increasingly overcrowded city.
Fergus Neilson Cycle Centennial http://www.randwickbotanycc.com/Cycle%20Centennial
|
|
Dear Andrew I am writing to you as a member of Randwick Botany Cycling Club and as an advocate of bunch training. I myself have been using Centennial Park as a cyclist for over 4 years now, firstly as a resident of Paddington and now Waterloo. I typically cycle in the park anywhere from 5 to 10 hours per week both in the bunch with RBCC and training by myself. With regards to the points made in your article (Wentworth Courier, 13/08/2003) referring to rude and aggressive behaviour by cyclists within the park, I personally have never seen anything of this nature. The primary issue has been the safety between pedestrians and cyclists and as such, bunch cycling proves to be much safer than soloing in Centennial Park. The reason being is that a bunch of cyclists is far more visible to pedestrians wishing to cross the road. I have witnessed on many occasions, pedestrians waiting by the side of the road for a car to pass, only to step out directly in front of a cyclist traveling some distance behind the car.
I use Centennial Park not only for cycling but for many other recreational activities. I certainly advocate that the Park is there for everyone and that it provides a safe environment for many of our activities which are difficult to enjoy within a city such as Sydney. I hope that with a little care, patience and common sense from all involved, we can arrive at a situation for the benefit of everyone.
Regards,
Ryk Budzynski
|
|
Dear Andrew,
|
|
Dear Andrew,
|
|
It is interesting to read your articles regarding the current situation that cyclists are facing in using Centennial Park. It is however disappointing to see that the majority of your respondents were not in favour of allowing bunch training to continue in its present form. I have been cycling seriously for about 3 years covering an average of 400km per week. Of this amount 25% are normally completed in Centennial Park on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. These afternoons are when 1 or 2 large bunches of cyclists form about 4 pm and circulate around the park averaging approx 30kmh. The bunch does swell to large numbers particuarly on nice warm days, much larger than the arbitrarily developed rule of 15 riders. In Centennial Park it is surprising to see the number of people who do not watch for other park users. I feel that cyclists are one group that are aware of all park users because their safety is paramount to be aware of the actions of all park users whether it be cars, pedestrians, dog walkers or horses. In watching this debate unfold I feel that the majority of criticism of cyclists is not correct. Cyclists are hardly "thugs". The people who are anti - cyclists are most likely those park users that have endangered the safety of a bunch of cyclists and have received a response from the cyclists as they are trying to avoid falling off. The only warning system that a cyclist has is his/her voice. We don't have loud horns like cars, hence we must warn of impending danger by voice. Language used is sometimes colourful but no different to that which we receive from car drivers in the first instance. Other park users fail to recognise the danger they pose to cyclists. A fall off the bike will most likely result in broken bones at best and death at worst. But Centennial Park is still a far safer place to ride a bicycle than on the open road. The majority of the cyclists in the park are upstanding people, with business owners, managers, accountants, barristers, police officers being amongst the bunches. These people are unlikely to undertake or allow to take place the kind of actions that other park users are trying to say is the norm. The bunch simply does not ride along and abuse other park users for no reason. The only time I have ever seen a cyclists become irate was when they have been endangered by another park user, usually being an off the leash dog or aggresive, impatient, speeding car driver. We had an instance recently where some high school children decided to have a game of 'Chicken' with the bunch. The cyclists had to brake and shout to avoid the students but the students moved at the last moment thinking this was a great joke. One of the youths then decided to throw a stone at the passing bunch. No retaliation or response came from the cyclists. However the next lap the student who threw the rock took it one step further and threw a large branch (approx 5cm in diameter) under the wheels of the two front cyclists. A number of cyclists ran over this branch and it is a wonder how nobody fell off. A response to this action was inevitable but was undertaken in a mature fashion. The youth was apprehended after attempting to decamp and the park rangers were called. Naturally there were some very irate cyclists due to the danger of the youth's actions, but the youth was not assaulted and handed over to the park rangers to be dealt with. Training for cyclists in large bunches is actually the best way for the park to manage cycling in Centennial. By allowing the large bunches, the park will be a safer place for all users. This is achieved by:
I invite you to come for a ride one Tuesday or Thursday afternoon and see why we enjoy riding in Centennial. I can be contacted on one of the follwoing numbers
Kind Regards
-----------------------
|
|
I have been a park cycling since the early nineteen eighties and am an occasional bunch cyclist. I have just read your Courier article on bunch cycling in Centennial Park, and I want to support the riders and point out your article's unfounded accusations.
If you want to talk about the dangers posed by cyclists, you should acknowledge that the number of speeding motorists in the park is a far greater and more common danger to all park users. The danger of just one speeding car is far greater than that of twenty or thirty cyclists who are highly trained and motivated to avoid collisions! Furthermore, motorists can speed every day of the week, while bunch cycling occupies a mere four to five hours a week of park time (Tuesdays and Thursdays 3:30-6:00).
Time and again I have witnessed drivers running into the path of cycists, joggers and roller bladers while distracted by their mobile telephones. or by thier impatience to exit the park at the turn offs into the gateways. Some drivers park in the cycle lane illegally, and this forces cyclists and others to veer dangerously into the driving lane. Drivers attempting to overtake swear and abuse cyclists who are riding at the speed limit. This can only suggest that the drivers are attempting to exceed the speed limit.
Dog owners create a hazard when their dogs are unleashed. Walkers create a danger when they neglect to look right when crossing the road. Cyclists will raise their voice so that the pedestrian, roller blader outside the lane, dreaming driver on a mobile, or stray dog) will hear the approach of the cyclist. This is often considered rude, but in fact it is a practical way of warning others.
Bunch riding etiquette requires the cyclist to be super aware of all hazards and to obey traffic laws. If buches do exceed the speed limit, then they have broken the law. However, if a pedestrian, dog owner or driver fail to behave as expected, they are failing their duty of care and responsibility. There are many undocumented cases of cycling accidents caused by park users. In a court of law the cyclist would have have a strong case for suing that park user.
I urge you to apply common sense in this matter and to take a more balanced approach to reporting the issue. Your article fails to investigate the relevant points of view, and reflects a very knee-jerk response.
If you intend to write more articles about the issue, please consult those who participate in cycle racing and training. It is a very clean, safe and healthy past-time practised by responsible, mature men and women.
yours sincerely
Adam Aitken Sydney 19 August 2003
|
