You can’t win against this sort of logic. Because there are “special” facilities for cyclists, we’re told to “get on the bike path” regardless of whether it follows a route that we want to take. The flip side is that non-cyclists object when cycling facilities are proposed because there are already “special” facilities for cyclists, regardless of where they are. (See the Wantirna Rd objections for a classic example of this kind of nonsense.)

I think I might start telling motorists to “get on the freeway” because those are “special” roads built just for them—and surely it won’t matter if takes them the long way around…

It’s not usual for me to ride from the Gold Coast to Brisbane (the rough equivalent of riding from Geelong to Melbourne) for pure utility purposes. If I’m doing that with a deadline, I want a direct route, the same as I would if I was driving a car. If you’re going to try to compel me to use an indirect route (which is what many off-road paths are, if they connect at all), then I’m going to find another transport option.

I think it’s important to distinguish between end-of-trip facilities (e.g. secure bike parking, showers, lockers) and bitumen-on-the-ground cycling facilities. Few would argue against the former, but the latter will forever be up for grabs. (Actually, it’s probably possible to extend Chris’s argument to end-of-trip facilities: will people choose not to ride simply because they can’t take a shower when they get there?)

In terms of off-road cycling facilities, this is an engineer’s solution: build something then stand back and say “look at this good thing we’ve made especially for you”. Sometimes that’s the right thing to do, sometimes it’s not but it’s the solution a local council engineer (for example) will almost always recommend.

More subtle things—like constructing roads that are safer for all legal modes of transport and not just the automobile—are harder concepts to “sell” to the public consequently there are fewer political brownie points in them. (When was the last time you saw some notable dignitary cutting the ribbon on a traffic-calming device?)

So what we get is a procession of politicians saying to cyclists, “look at this bike path we’re promising to make especially for you”. It’s an easy concept to sell and therefore an easy win.

That said, most of my commute is along shared pathways and I don’t think it would be any faster for me to find an on-road route. Therefore I’m forced to conclude that shared pathways do have a role to play in cycling infrastructure. The trick is to work out in what way and to what degree.

Positioning bike lanes between footpaths and parked cars is a recipe for disaster when you consider that people will get out of their cars on that side without looking (yes, it happens on the other side too, but at least being on the traffic side gives me the space to avoid it). And where are you going to go when the bike lane is strewn with broken glass or other debris during Schoolies’ week?

Most of this sounds like rhetoric aimed at making inexperienced cyclists feel safer, with nothing at all for those who ride everyday, which is fine until they discover the limitations of such infrastructure, at which point they’ll probably ditch the bikes because of all the places they “can only get to by car”. The simple fact is that when you try to combine cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, it’s the interests of the cyclists that will always be compromised.

A far better option for anybody who actually cares about utility cycling is to work on the existing roads, and look to promote the idea that cyclists can go anywhere. Any party that promoted the idea of actually enforcing traffic laws would do far more for the cause of cyclists than all the above policies combined. Sadly, most of the above is the same old idea of building purely recreational facilities without any thought given to the different requirements of transportational cyclists.

There’s no doubt that Victorians who live outside Melbourne are generally more reliant on the car. But it’s misleading to say that they “do not have the luxury of choice” and the conclusion that follows from that is that they must totally “depend on cars for transport” is also false.

The truth is that hundreds of thousands of country Victorians live in urban environments in places like Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Shepparton, Wodonga, and the Latrobe Valley. And in urban settings there is no need to make every journey by car. You don’t need a car to take the kids to school, collect a handful of groceries from the shops, or even to get to work if your job is in town. In fact many people in regional cities would have a shorter bike commute than I have.

Maybe the Hon Philip Davis assumes that many Liberal and (more importantly) swinging voters think that cycling is some kind of “fringe” activity, so it’s an easy free kick using it to beat-up on the Greens. Unfortunately, it’s probably a valid assumption.

But it’s not important. I mean, who the hell has even heard of Philip Davis, let alone cares what was attributed to him in some boilerplate press release from months ago? I only brought it up because it’s one of the few references to cycling on the Liberal Party web site…