Get On Your Bike

The Vic State Government does some pretty silly things to pander to interest groups, minor parties, independents and to try win marginal seats. And this one is right up there.

This time its Public Transports Minister, Terry Mulder, banging on about the ridiculous Melbourne Bike Share scheme, and trying to get people into it after 3 years of failure by offering free helmets.

An unexpected side effect of the bike share was the
 explosion of artistic Melbourne photos on Instagram.

Here you can see how stubborn a government can be to not admit they made a mistake, even if it means saying things that can’t possibly be believed. This kind of Government spin in defiance of facts hasn't been seen since the start of the Iraq war, when the Iraqi Information Minister insisted the Americans were nowhere near Baghdad airport, despite the fact B52s were happily landing there under the Stars and Stripes. Mules are said to be stubborn but even a mule would be a better option for getting around the CBD than those ridiculous chunky blue bikes.

"mmmuuuule"

The article in today's Age says it all...

Two hundred free helmets will be distributed, covering a third of the bikes in the Melbourne scheme, which costs Victorian taxpayers about $50,000 a month in helmet subsidies, plus $5 million over five years

How can the State Government justify spending even one dollar on a useless, pointless scheme that has proven to be a money draining failure? Surely the $5 million could better be spent on 1001 other things within the Public Transport portfolio. A new tram or train. An improved road. Anything. But no. Melbourne has the same public transport problems and the same traffic jams which existed in 1970. Good money is continually thrown into harebrained publicity stunts disguised as improvements.

Public Transport Minister Terry Mulder said helmets, which to date have not been available at bike stands, had been a stumbling block since the program began in 2010.

"The big hitch from day one was the issue with helmets," Mr Mulder said. "It really wasn't given enough consideration when the program was put into place in Victoria.

Not given enough consideration? Lack of common sense is rife in parliament, so I can accept that Mulder wasn't able to understand simple and obvious realities. But the fact that none of the advisers, consultants, staffers and hangers-on who would have been paid millions to develop this scheme – none of these guys thought helmets might be an issue? It was never raised once? That is utterly unbelievable. And with every media outlet, every article, every member of the public saying this scheme wouldn't work because of the helmets, it's impossible that it wasn't brought to the attention of Mulder.

Its a simple formula:

Helmet owners = bike owners = don't need to rent a bike. 

Potential bike renters = not bike owners = don't own helmets.

No. They all KNEW helmets were going to be the problem that would kill this scheme. But no doubt the funding was approved, they'd got the greens on side with an environmentally friendly initiative, the press conference was booked, and too many consultants had contract extensions pending for anyone to hit the brakes on this out of control bike racing down Collins St.

"That caused the system to be very slow in terms of uptake. We'd like to think we'd get to a point where we would break even, if possible."

Break Even – if possible. Reach for the stars. If possible.

There are so many other reasons that this program was never going to work. Unlike Amsterdam and Copenhagen where everybody rides bikes, here in Melbourne, either you ride, or you don't. Its that simple. If you ride, you have a bike and helmet, and if you don't ride, you don't own either, and have no intention of hiring a bike.

Perfect spot for a leisurely ride

And not forgetting the CBD is one of the worst possible places for tourists and novices to ride. This is not San Francisco, where you can jump on a bike, leisurely ride along the foreshore and Golden Gate bike tracks with all the other slow going tourists and catch the ferry back! Here you get trams, tram tracks, hook turns, pedestrians with iPods walking all over the place, traffic, weekend hero bike riders with Cadell Evans complexes, all with the seemingly single minded intent of making you go over your handlebars and breaking your collarbone. There is no worse way for someone to get to know Melbourne or biking in general.

[Mulder] said RACV contractors would regularly clean the free helmets and he understood there would be no health issues

Will the RACV also be fishing the helmets out of drains and rubbish bins? Will they be taking them from drunken city workers' heads on Friday nights? Would you wear a helmet that still had chunks of vomit in it?

Would you rub your head all over the filthiest, sweatiest person you see walking past you on Bourke St? No? What about wearing their helmet?

Mr Mulder said the government had no plans to axe the program, despite its failure to break even. "There is no intention whatsoever to stop the scheme. We just want to make sure we get the scheme working better than it is at the moment," he said.

Of course not, axing it would be to admit they made a mistake, and may look bad.  Never change your mind, even if it is the most obvious action and will save money. The only solace is that eventually this program will quietly disappear, no doubt with the Government claiming it was only ever a 5 year trial.

The bikes are still struggling to attract users, with some bike docking stations being used less than once a day on average in January. 

The busiest stations are at Federation Square and Sandridge Bridge at Southbank, the only two that attracted more than 1000 users in January.

There are roughly 50 bikes at those two stations. That's 0.65 usages per bike per day. So a bike being used less than once a day in Melbourne's warmest and sunniest month is as good as it gets? You'd get in trouble from your parents for using the shiny new bike they got for your birthday that little. Would hate to see the August results.

But Mr Mulder said the government was considering expanding the scheme further into the inner suburbs, with Port Phillip and Yarra councils indicating interest.

Mulder, are you MAD? It is one thing to try save face by not axing the program, in spite of common sense, the blatantly obvious, and clear-as-day facts. But to even imply that this program could be extended is a farce. Based on that comment alone, Mulder should hire one of his beloved bikes, and ride himself straight to the closest asylum. He should even take the helmet with him, he'll need it for his padded room.

Mr Mulder said uptake rose about 30,000 last year from 102,000 uses to 137,000.

These may look like big numbers...

As per the bike share website there are 600 bikes at 51 stations. So the 137,000 uses equates to each bike being used two times every three days. Enough said.

Worlds Most Liveable City?

Once again all the news is about Melbourne getting bigger, and about the inevitable failure of infrastructure thanks to the do-nothing State Government. And of course, rather than the news being about what it'll be like to live in the Melbourne of the future, its about Melbourne possibly losing the title of World's Most Liveable City. God Forbid!

One of the worst things ever to happen to Melbourne is this ridiculous title of World's Most Liveable City. It's a dubious honour which means nothing at all to the people that actually live here. In fact the only people it does mean something to are the dopey State Government who have found themselves in charge of the state. The problem is that every time Melbourne is lauded with this title, the state politicians give themselves a pat on the back, and stick with their business as usual of walking around with their hands over their ears, and doing absolutely nothing. Why do work when there are lunches to be eaten and overseas junkets to go on?

Every time I see this stupid title, I’m reminded of the slogan on the fat guy's T-shirt on that Fat Boy Slim Album – I'm Number One So Why Try Harder. Seems like the state politicians have grabbed onto this mantra with both hands. Why would they be distracted by Melbourne's problems – The decaying mess of public transport, corrupt and incompetent councils drunk on their own power, urban sprawl creating suburban wastelands as far as the eye can see, the mistake that is docklands – when they have the tag of World's Most Liveable City to chirp about every time someone challenges them?

"Mr Premier, what do have to say about the fact the train network hasn't been upgraded in 40 years?"

"Worlds Most Liveable City. No further questions."

And doesn't the Government love it. Every time this silly award is announced, whichever flog is Premier at the time stands there grinning like a Cheshire cat accepting praise for something he has done nothing at all to deserve. You can almost hear his thoughts "this should keep the stupid voters distracted and happy for another few months – can't believe I've done no work for the past 3 years"

The more you look into this award, the more irrelevant it becomes. To begin with, the rankings are about how much hardship allowance that companies have to pay their expats to come and live here. A goal worth striving for – "Melbourne is such a great city that hardship allowance is not required for expats to live here" Woah, way to reach for the stars there... And secondly, it seems to exclusively include only Australian and Canadian cities. Which leads me to think that the award has more to do with the stability of the country that it does with the liveability of the city. "Australia and Canada's Most Liveable City" is a more appropriate title.

Why any Melbourne resident should give a hoot that their city is more desirable to live in than any other city (which they don't live in) is beyond me. If Vancouver becomes the crime capital of the world, what difference would that make to Melbourne? Who cares how much or how little companies have to pay their expats to come and live here? The real question – forget about what other cities are doing - is what does Melbourne have to do to improve? And whats being done to make these improvements? And of course the competitive juices come out – we're better than Sydney, we're better than Helsinki. Who cares? Different cities, with different priorities and challenges. Comparing Melbourne against other cities means nothing. I can run faster than an 80 year old, I'm stronger than a 10 year old. Does that make me an elite athlete?

So whoever gives out these stupid awards – please stop including Melbourne. It just gives our lazy State Government more of an excuse to do nothing. Melbourne is a great city, but just like Fat Boy Slim, the more the Government believe they're number one, the less they try. And our Government works at a sedentary pace already, any less work and they won't even bother to get out of bed.

Melbourne's Kardashian Kaos

When Kim Kardashian recently arrived in Melbourne, there were thousands of over-hyped teens, and more than a few blokes who should know better, all excited to catch a glimpse of the one and only Miss Kim K.

But not everyone was happy she was here. Journos, experts, and social commentators all came out with their pitchforks and their matches, ready to burn her at the stake. But what were her sins, what did she do that was so evil?

Its no secret that the Kardashians are the business of making money, and Kim didn't come to Australia on a humanitarian mission of goodwill. Was it news to anyone that she came here on a promotional tour? of course it wasn't, so why the outrage? People want to see her because she is stylish, beautiful, and cool. And she delivered on every level.

There was one particularly nasty article in The Age which reeked of a reporter who thought he was far too good to be there. As is unfortunately all too common here in Aus, the Tall Poppy Syndrome came out in full force, and it was self righteously ugly.

There were the customary swipes about having to provide questions to her Publicist before the interview. But why wouldn't this be the case? With reporters baying for blood and controversy at every turn, wouldn't it be negligent for any Publicist not to screen the questions? And don't all celebs screen their questions? Even politicians do. The tone of the interview is the very reason why its required!

Then there were the 'lets show how stupid you are' questions about politics, legal proceedings and the Mars Rover. Kim isn't here for her thoughts on politics, court cases and space, so why ask? Why does she have to prove herself on this stuff? Whether or not she knows or cares what the answers are, she is not claiming to be a political activist or scientist. Its painfully clear the purpose of these questions were an attempt to show her as a dumb pretty celeb. 

Why didn’t anyone ask the Olympians about their political or legal views?

The Australian media is always so quick to cut down big celebrities who don't measure up to their lofty standards. Its as though they have a chip on their shoulder because the celeb is too beautiful, or not wholesome enough. Of course, this isn't the first time an international star has had to put up with this.

Who could forget David Beckham's visit to Aus a few years back. He did everything 'right' - visited kids in hospitals, posed in photos, signed autographs - way more than 99% of the population has ever done. And that is not to mention the great game of football he played. He put on a show for the fans, bent it like Beckham to score a superb goal, he was entertaining, and the fans loved it.

But of course, this just wasn't good enough for some areas of the media, especially those TV channels who didn't have the rights to the match. How could this foreigner with all his money, fame, and good looks actually be a good and likable guy?

So the story was run that he snubbed some kids at the airport. Obviously there was no mention that security whisked him into his hotel before he knew the plane had landed. Anything for a bit of controversy, and the more negative the better. The media had found an open wound and were going in for the kill, using children as weapons. But unfortunately for the blood thirsty journos, Becks found out about it all, and those same kids were invited to the match, and got to meet their hero after all. And funnily enough, the same media outlets that had championed the cause of these children had slinked away nowhere to be seen.

Its a sad state that not only is it ok, but its almost expected for reporters to demean international celebs who are beautiful and successful. You get the feeling that these reporters think they are speaking for us all.

But the the reality is, they wouldn't be celebs if no one liked them. No one waits at the airport, the red carpet or buys tickets to see a celebrity they hate.

Come back soon Kim!

Slow Walking to Nowhere

What’s the theory behind slow walkers?

There is nothing worse that coming across a gang of oblivious slow walkers, strolling side by side, clogging the footpath while they amble to wherever they’re not going to be anytime soon. Obviously they have nowhere to be, but don’t they get bored spending so much time walking nowhere on footpaths?  Do they know they are going so slow? Or do they just think that everyone else is walking too fast?

Its a worldwide problem. Here's an inspired solution from New York City...

Slow walkers are habitually unaware of their surrounds, and generally walk aimlessly in the middle the footpath, four or five abreast, in snail paced gangs.  Together they form an impenetrable human wall of footpath congestion.  Its not in a slow walker's nature to be alert and their reaction time is non existent, so evasive action to get past is left up to everyone else on the footpath.  You may notice them reacting to your presence with a shock, 20 seconds after you passed them, when you are already 10 meters clear.

Its important to know where slow walkers congregate in abundance.  In Melbourne, I wouldn't work anywhere west of Swanston St, as down that end there are so many tourists and students that you may not return fro days from a trip to the ATM. The eastern side of the city has the advantage of hills, which slow walkers avoid due to the increased degree of difficulty.

But they can’t be avoided all the time. I live on a major shopping strip, which on weekends, attracts slow walkers like slow flying bees to honey.  And here they are armed with shopping bags to increase their footpath coverage.  The footpath isn't particularly wide, so they need to be avoided to save yourself from being caught in an endless walk to frustration.  Thankfully, there are a few ways  to combat slow walkers from stealing your day away, minute by minute.

One option is to take the section of the footpath between the kerb and street signs and bus stops.  Slow walkers can’t strike here for a number of reasons.  Primarily, to know that it exists would take a level of awareness that slow walkers aren't capable of.  Looking around is just not something a slow walker wants to do.  Its also unattractive as its far too narrow for a gang of slow walkers to walk side by side.  And finally, this section of the footpath is full of obstacles, not to mention the kerb. It requires some basic concentration to navigate, and slow walkers are unwilling to concentrate at any point.  If a slow walker did find themselves here it wouldn't be long before they will have fallen over a rubbish bin, and end up rolling about on their back unable to get up like an upside down turtle.

I have nowhere to be anyway

Crossing roads is a good way to catch and overtake a slow walker.  Jay-walking is completely against the slow walker’s raison d’être, so is a great way to beat them.  You may be risking your life on the road, but its worth it, you’re lost in limbo behind a slow walker anyway.  If the traffic is too busy, thanks to the slow walker’s lack of awareness and general unfitness, there is a usually a 5 second delay between the pedestrian light flashing green, and the slow walker realising its time to move.  The key is to get to the front position at the kerb, even if it means an evasive lateral detour a few meters down the street you’re crossing. Never wait behind a stationary slow walker, they are even more effective when not moving.

But be careful, some pedestrian lights are trickier than others...

watch where you step

Slow walkers still stealing your time? Try this. Problem solved. The narrator is a bit of a worry, but he's on a winner...