Commenting on the opinion piece: The unsafe laziness of painted bike lanes

Bravo Daniel Bennett for fingering the vacuity of our politicians and public servants.

When is a bike lane not a bike lane?

All too often, when it peters out 50 metres before a junction or traffic lights. Imagine the uproar if motorists ran out of tarmac!

I cycle, but rarely on public roads. The odds of serious injury or death are impossible to ignore. Soldiers have gone to war with a better chance of survival.

And here come our leaders, banging on about obesity and the need to get fitter; about climate change and the need to reduce the amount of oil-driven traffic.

Anyone who wants a look at how our leaders stuff up only need visit the suburb of Brompton – touted as innovative.

The reality is: horse-and-cart-narrow streets, three vehicles per dwelling and scarcely a blade of grass to be seen.

We hear tales of distant lands with concrete walls between vulnerable cyclists and vehicles. I plan to contact Hans Christian Andersen and check the facts. – Robbie Brechin

Make every state politician, every councillor and every planner ride a bike to and from the city for 12 months.

Those that don’t quit out of fear will have a gained a real appreciation of its not a matter of “if”, just “when” an accident will happen.

You can only use the painted areas when there’s no cars parked over them, taxis pulled up for extended periods, vehicles pulled across them trying to cross an intersection, parents dropping of their precious children rather than putting them on a bus then tooting or hitting you as they must have right of way when backing out with their coffee in hand, holes, blocked off cycle ways for building, poor quality roads – the list goes on.

I had hoped after 4 months of riding to and from work in the city that my first two weeks were just a series of unfortunate events.

Unfortunately, it is a never-ending story of apathy and ignorance and this comes from someone that is not a dedicated cyclist but a self-confessed petrol head.

My helmet cam regularly fills up with instances of people that either cannot see the bike lane or don’t acknowledge it exists.

The State government and city council don’t want less traffic and more bikes; they want parking spots on roads that back out directly onto cycle paths and they want cars because they are revenue sources.

They argue about which road should have a dedicated bike line in an east-west direction. How about all of them! – Rob Naudi

Commenting on the story: Marshall “considering” concert hall as part of new arts plan

I think there would be very strong local resident and business support for Sandy Verschoor’s idea of building a new concert hall at 88 O’Connell Street, North Adelaide.

However, it must have sufficeint underground parking as part of the development.

The Adelaide Oval redevelopment did not address this and consequently North Adelaide suffers parking problems on Oval event days, especially in the northern areas, bizarrely not covered by “event parking” restrictions. – George Hobbs

Delighted to read about the possibility of a dedicated acoustic concert hall in Adelaide.

I want to get in right now, right at the beginning, and volunteer to contribute advice and opinion about accessibility for people with disability to whoever is developing the venue.

They must get those of us with a lived experience of disability involved at the very start of the process so that we get the best venue possible, and don’t have to suffer inadequate facilities or the less-than-adequate outcomes from retro-fitting. – Nicola Stratford

Commenting on the story: Crows to pitch North Adelaide HQ vision to council

I object to this move as the parklands of Adelaide which are meant for the enjoyment by the public, should be left  intact  for the public to enjoy the open space 

The Council should do all to preserve these open spaces and not allow them to cull the trees and make way for buildings and sporting events and facilities.

The Crows clubrooms should be built on private land purchased by the club.  Not using public land for their business ventures.

They are a business and should not expect government, local or State, to subsidise their ventures. – Rosemarie Ward

Commenting on the story: “Unfair, unsustainable, uncompetitive”: Lib MP unleashes on land tax

I would like to respond to the letter from David Carollo, who states that as the eastern states already have aggregation of land tax in place, he can’t see why there would be any reason to preference those states above SA for investment.

As much as I agree with Steve Murray MP’s four points on the effect of aggregation in SA, it is not aggregation in itself that will further decimate the competitiveness of this state compared to any other mainland state.

Aggregation exacerbates the fact that South Australia’s land tax rate is significantly higher than any other state.

For example, South Australia’s top rate at 3.7% compares poorly with say Queensland’s top rate of 2.25%.

The other factor that cripples the property sector in SA is the low threshold at which the top rate applies.

In SA the top rate currently applies at values above $1.3m. Queensland’s much lower top rate kicks in at $10m.

So, land tax payable on property with a land component of $1.5m is $22,479 in South Australia and $12,750 in Queensland.

And for a property with land component of $2m it is $21,000 in Queensland, and $40,979 in SA.

That is the reason anywhere interstate will be more attractive to investment than SA.

If the State government is determined to pursue aggregation it must at least make the rates and thresholds competitive with those applying interstate.

The current proposals for aggregation make SA anything but an attractive place in which to do business. – John Wyk

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.