Dulwich Hill Bicycle Club

Centennial Park – can you help this weekend?

The new Children’s Crossing has been operating from Monday 8th October and will be eased into operation with Centennial Park Trust staff in assistance. This weekend will be the big test.

DHBC can assist with this. Any members in club kit who can come and help out on Saturday 13th October and Sunday 14th October, please post here and nominate a hour or so when you will be available between 9 and 4.30pm. We can use the opportunity in several ways:

· To understand how the crossing works in practice
· To promote DHBC in a positive way

For those who came in late, the Centennial Park Trust has been working with Cycle Centennial (of which DHBC is a part) and a new option has been announced.

It is a timed crossing near the children’s cycle path that will operate between 9am and 4.30pm.

More info on the Centennial Park Trust blog http://blog.centennialparklands.com.au/ ... nial-park/

I'm happy to be in on Sunday - 11am should be ok

Do people really think pedestrian park users, in particular parents/kids, would walk the extra distance to cross at this designated point? Take a look at the J-walkers on George St where traffic is heavier and faster by at least a magnitude.

I can do Sat, 10 till 11 if that helps.


Sent from my HTC Incredible S

Do people really think pedestrian park users, in particular parents/kids, would walk the extra distance to cross at this designated point? Take a look at the J-walkers on George St where traffic is heavier and faster by at least a magnitude.

Come down on the weekend and see I guess is the answer! There are other treatments designed to dissuade people from crossing at the wrong place including removing some of the car parking.

But if you have a better short-term alternative please let me know. The long-term plan is to move the children's cycleway so interim solutions are required.

What is actually involved in helping out? I have some free time on both days if needed but I don't know what we're actually doing there...

I've sought some clarification from CP Trust this morning. They haven't been very specific. I'll update later.

But if you have a better short-term alternative please let me know. The long-term plan is to move the children's cycleway so interim solutions are required.

Being frank, I think the better solution is not one that can appease all parties, irrespective of the validity of parties' claims. And the administrator does not have the capacity to objectively judge, but to provide compromises even if it makes no practical sense and money gets wasted.

Well, a bit of PR for the club is never a bad thing...

All I've been able to find out is - nothing more than I already knew. If you would like to turn up, just do it.

Camilla and I will go over Saturday morning sometime in between Slowies and Woop.

Thanks Eleri, if I'm not needed I'll do some laps

Sent from my HTC Incredible S

... Went by today, about 2 ish. A couple marshals at the crossing, and everyone crossing the road everywhere but the crossing( even with all the signs) maybe it will be like cyclists using the cycle ways. It just takes time to get used to the new design

The administrators can now walk away from the issue given this came out of an agreement b/n all interested parties and money has been spent. I look forward to some harmony and worthwhile cycling for a few years before the next flare up.

Did the club PR work out well?

Camilla, Mark L and I went down to CP on Saturday morning. Adam went down today. I also saw SCC Pres Stephen Berveling down there and we have a similar story to tell from riding around talking to cyclists of all types, and from observing the behaviour of people using the crossing (or not as Lizanne reports).

Firstly, it's important to note that the construction of the crossing is not yet finished. There are still the barriers to go in (some of this will be hedges that will grow) and flashing lights. This is scheduled over the next week. This will further effect behavioural changes I hope.

Generally the cyclists we spoke to were interested to know about the crossing. Some who were a bit grumpy about it got a different perspective when we told them it was a negotiated solution to a real problem. And that the first proposal was a lot worse. Everyone agreed that the timed solution was a good thing and were pleased to hear that one of the really positive outcomes was that there is an open dialogue with the CP Trust and that cyclists have an organised voice now.

We all met quite a few cyclists who were training but "Not usually here at this time". That's good, they'll go back and talk to their clubs I think.

We did see people crossing in other places other than the crossing and parking where they shouldn't. I think that will be harder behaviour to change. It might be that we have to keep giving feedback about that if we see it. The rangers will also be able to enforce some of that.

I think it was a good, if modest, PR exercise for DHBC. A couple of people I talked to wanted to know more about the club. We were all wearing club kit and people had noticed us in the park before. It is also useful to be seen as a constructive and helpful club with the CP Trust.

All in all, I think it is a useful exercise. Weiyun I don't share your cynicism about the public policy process. If I did - I'd have found another career by now!

Good to know that it was a worthwhile PR exercise for the club.

As for cynicism, guess one is entitled to be more cynical when one have seen this process before, one that brought in the speed limit/signs many years ago. Identical set of conflict just repeating itself in finite number of years down the track, each "resolved" with increasing restrictions. Cyclists, motorists and pedestrians aren't likely to go any faster or slower but accidents will still happen. Then there'll be another round of complaints by users who know not nor care of the history, leading to another round of agreement... Let's see and fingers crossed.

I am energized by logical and productive public policy processes but not ones that displace logic to allow for appeasement.

Come up with a different solution and, if it holds up to scrutiny, I will argue the case. I haven't heard one yet.

Come up with a different solution and, if it holds up to scrutiny, I will argue the case. I haven't heard one yet.

As I suggested, the objective here is to appease and that has been achieved, or "holds up to scrutiny" in your description. Logical solutions that require people to be more responsible for themselves simply won't "hold up to scrutiny" under this present appeasement system. As said, this is not the first time this consultative process has cycled through and not likely to be the last time.

Come to the park at various hours across the week, it's clear that traffic is hardly an issue b/n the hours of 9 to 4:30. Even on weekend peak hours, the congestion is with motor vehicles, not bikes. But unfortunately, cyclists have been picked on during this round of complaints (probably because non-cyclist park users largely come by car), resulting in a compromised solution that means little in practice. Fixtures installed and money spent are good show and tell to say that the park administrators have done "something".

The good thing out of this present set up is that if an accident happens, the responsibility can be more easily attributed. That's a good thing from a park administrator's perspective.

Weiyun you are demonstrating that you understand little about what happened in this process or what the issues are. The crossing is as much to control the cars and the pedestrians and not aimed at the cyclists per se. What we have achieved is a significant voice for cyclists that is not present for other users of the park. I'm quite pleased with that achievement as I think it gives us a sound base from which to negotiate other things that happen in the park.

And just for your benefit. I've been a lobbyist and public policy advocate for the majority of my career. I speak from a position of authority about what is a good public policy outcome. As far as I am aware, that is not your professional background.

If you want to argue the case, come up with an alternative policy solution and not more negative and cynical posts please.

Eleri, I am fully aware that you've been a PR officer by profession. Without anything personal, I think it's fair to say that not all public policies packaged by the professionals out there are effective/efficient. But the spins can always give a positive glow at launch. So let's keep an open mind on that.

As said, the outcome appeases all parties. That's hardly a negative comment.

BTW, take note of Parkland's registered complaints. 41 registered against cyclists vs 4 against motorists.
http://www.centennialparklands.com.au/c ... nformation
Against that, Cycle Centennial as a group has done a credible job in defence of the needs of us cyclists. The present outcome is probably the best we cyclists can expect, that's all.

Eleri, I am fully aware that you've been a PR officer by profession.

I am not now a PR officer, was never one, and never will be.

I saw a man and his child use this crossing on Sunday. Can somebody call the papers please!