Jane Bange, a Mitcham councillor and regular Greens parliamentary candidate in SA and NSW, was today quoted by The Advertiser as advocating for banning cyclists from Old Belair Road

“I would ban bikes, and I think we have the right to do that as a community.”

Elsewhere in the article she claims to be in favour of building a separated path to link the Mitcham Hills with the plains. But we all know talk is cheap with politicians, so how about a look at her actions to see if she's serious about it?

Earlier in the year she voted to scrap the Randell Park path which would have helped mitigate the problems with Old Belair Road. Not only did she vote to scrap it, she was actually the councillor to move the motion!

MOVED Cr Bange

(1) That Administration continues the implementation of the endorsed Randell Park Trail Plan to manage trail use in Randell Park without a sealed commuter trail.

(2) That Administration does not continue to investigate the Randell Park Sealed Commuter Trail Link Concept.

I call on the Greens to either back Bange and confirm that they are now an anti-cycling party, or reprimand Bange and confirm that she has been suspended from the party. If she gets selected to run as a Greens candidate, it can only be interpreted as an endorsement of her policies.

Views: 508

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I wish I could vote her out (and Tim Hein too) but I'm unfortunately in the wrong ward.

What I really want for Mitcham is for it to be abolished and the area split between Marion, Unley, Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga.

just amalgamate the whole of Adelaide. I'm thinking 1 council should do it... Central Adelaide E/W from beach to hills & N/S Elizabeth to Onkaparinga borders. Abolish state gov while we're at it, make the country a country of regions; use the RDA borders.

Another reason why a ban would be unacceptable is that there are about 2 dozen homes along Old Belair Road with no other access to their properties than this road.  Sure, cyclists are banned from freeways, but there aren't any houses on freeways.  Preventing residents from cycling to and from their own homes is unacceptable, which is why the emphasis must be on a safe parallel route that accesses all the same destinations as the road.

Agree. I live off a dead end street off Old Belair Road, and while I normally ride to and from Mitcham station, I try to ride once per week from home, down old Belair and up new Belair road. And I ride up the top 200 metres to start a Sunday ride.

Not sure where this proposal would leave me.

The minutes of the latest City of Mitcham full council meeting have been put online, and it turns out we have another bizarre performance on a cycling issue from Cr Bange.

First she voted against a motion requesting a report on options for safe cyclist access to Randell Reserve:

CR HOCKLEY – SAFE CYCLIST ACCESS TO RANDELL PARK TRAIL

MOVED: Cr Hockley That Council investigates ways to provide improved access for cyclists to Randell Reserve from its southern and eastern boundaries and that a report be brought to council detailing those options and making recommendations.

SECONDED: Cr Hein

LOST

A DIVISION WAS CALLED BY CR HOCKLEY AND THE DECISION WAS SET ASIDE:

For the motion: Crs Fisher, Todd, Hein, Taeuber, Hockley

Against the motion: Crs Economos, Sanderson, Munro, Bange, Tilley, Greer

THE CHAIR DECLARED THE MOTION LOST

Keen observers will note that the division was 5-6, and so had Bange voted in support would have seen it get up. 

After this, Bange introduced a replacement motion which simply suggested it be re-examined without a report, restricted it to unsealed routes, restricted the scope to recreational cyclists and then shoehorned her 'ban cyclists from roads' hobby horse in for good measure. This motion was also lost:

MOVED: Cr Bange

CARRIED That Council re-examines routes to provide a better unsealed access for recreational cyclists into the Randell Reserve Area, in order for these cyclists to avoid using busy main roads as their access to this reserve.

SECONDED: Cr Economos

LOST

A DIVISION WAS CALLED BY CR HOCKLEY AND THE DECISION WAS SET ASIDE:

For the motion: Crs Economos, Hein, Bange

Against the motion: Crs Wilson, Fisher, Sanderson, Todd, Munro, Tilley, Taeuber, Hockley, Greer

THE CHAIR DECLARED THE MOTION LOST

What could possibly be so bad about an investigation into safe cycle paths that it needed to be suppressed? Surely the more democratic option would be to get the report done and assess it on its merits?

The response from Mr Parnell last time around was disappointing, I had seen more credible attempts at spin when I helped run In2Cricket sessions with primary school kids. With the state election just around the corner and Bange likely to put her hand up again, you would think that alarm bells should be ringing and a search for viable alternative candidates launched.

I asked her about it. She said that Cr Hockley's proposal wasn't specific enough about access. It seems she's concerned about them investigating a sealed trail again, despite in January (?) putting forward the motion herself to quash that.

That's bordering on Stalinism. Why bother getting the report done by the professionals (which would have included assessments of impacts to the park for each option) when you can just suppress it.

I hope there is an unequivocal response from Mr Parnell (Greens SA spokesman on cycling policy) this time around. 

sounds like the ACC

I often find myself thinking that the purpose of Mitcham is to prove ACC is not so bad after all.

All of them should be abolished. Replace ACC with a state government Department of the Capital City, and the other metro councils with no more than six administrative regions.

Dave M I'm hesitant at furthering a political discussion, but I'm curious, why six administrative regions (in ADL or SA?)?

Apart from that, abolishing councils may not better cycling or make it safer. What it might do is make the message more clearer, but that message could also be more clearly anti-cycling.

You could give Crs Bange this https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2017/11/londons-future-more-peopl...

although this book could be a better option https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IAUGA4G/

Remove a level of representation? Yeah I've Heard talk of this kind of stuff.

Perhaps compulsory local council voting should be the norm...

A similar motion with a few more specifics is before the council again tomorrow.

RSS



MidSeason wk20 - 120x600

Support our Sponsors

© 2017   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service