Letters to the Editor

Thanks for the coverage of the bike wars by Peter Whitehead and Michael Gormly.

I was disappointed, though, that the issue of cyclists riding on our footpaths was not addressed by either writer. Yet it remains an offence to ride on the footpath. It warrants a police fine of $50 or more – and there are no ifs or buts (unless you are teaching a child how to ride).

The footpath is not a cycleway and however much a challenged cyclist may protest that they are special, very careful and above the law, the fact remains that even if their self-assessment was true, they still set a bad example.

How often must it be said: our footpaths are not cycleways.

Another issue not addressed by Whitehead and Gormly is the foul-mouthed rage of many cyclists when they are challenged about riding on our footpaths, especially at speed and without a warning bell. Many cyclists react with venomous ageism, sexism and other personal discriminatory abuse which, like cycling on footpaths, is against the law.

People, especially survivors of close shaves and near misses, are really fed up with this kind of behaviour and particularly at being deprived of safe passage to the shops, let alone a pleasant stroll around their neighbourhood. That’s why so many pedestrians are calling for cyclists and their bikes to be registered. They want at least some chance of redress at law.

In the meantime, let’s hope many cyclists follow Peter Whitehead’s example and attend one of the City of Sydney’s safe cycling courses.

We all approve of cycling and many of us continue our campaign for more and safer cycleways and lower speed limits and the prosecution of motorists who menace cyclists and do not acknowledge their equal right to use the road.

Again thank you for casting some light on the issue and for encouraging further discussion.

Bill Hubble, Pyrmont

More than 1,100 independent assessors, residents and business owners of Rosebery have considered the depot proposal and said “NO”. What part of “NO” does City of Sydney Council not understand?

I have been a resident of Rosebery, the Garden Suburb, for 33 years. Rosebery was developed in the late 1920s. My property adjoins the Rosebery industrial precinct.

The City of Sydney Council development application for a maintenance depot of heavy trucks is deliberately deceptive and vague as to the nature of the operations. However, the proposed hours of operation, for any purpose, exceed the hours allowed for other businesses in the Rosebery industrial precinct.

There are no businesses adjoining residential properties in the Rosebery industrial precinct which are approved to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. For example: DA Number D/2004/1592/A, modified on November 2, 2006, restricts internal warehouse and office hours of operation to between 7:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday, and 8:00am to 4:00pm on Saturdays. The operation of machinery or outside activity is further restricted.

Any development of this site MUST NOT be allowed to exceed the hours of operation of other businesses. To do so would create a precedent for all businesses to apply for the increased hours. Such a situation would be intolerable for the residents of Rosebery.

In selecting this site for a depot, Council has ignored its own guidelines as set out in the Gale report. Within 100 metres, there are residential houses, offices and food serving establishments. Within 200 metres, there are additional residential houses, childcare facilities and a school.

The clandestine approach adopted by City of Sydney Council makes it apparent Council was hoping that the purchase of the site and Development Application would sneak through the process unnoticed until it was a ‘fait accompli’.

John Burgess, Rosebery