We’re falling off our bikes

TOURIST and heritage rail in Tasmania languishes not so much for the need of capital, but because of the priority this Government affords the plethora of cycle activities. In 2017 the Tasmanian Government established a $6 million Cycle Tourism Fund as part of its drive to make the state Australia’s premier cycling destination. It’s part of the Tasmanian Cycle Tourism strategy released by Premier Will Hodgman who is also Tourism Minister. This is aside from the dollars already spent on bikes: 2015: 80km of track at Derby, $3 million; 2019: 120km of track in George Town, $4 million.

Fewer than 10 per cent of Australians ride bikes regularly. But 100 per cent of Australians and international visitors are able to ride trains. The 2017 National Cycling Participation survey published by Austroads and Australian Bicycle Council suggests cycling is in free-fall and has been since 2011 when the National Cycling Participation strategy was launched with the aim of doubling participation by 2016. From 2011 to 2017, almost 640,000 fewer Australians aged two-plus riding a bike at least once a week and about 1.4 million fewer having cycled the year prior. While bike riding across the world grows, Australia’s participation falls away. And here we are — our Government focusing on 10 per cent of the tourist population.

This incompetence cannot be blamed on overwork as they were scheduling us for connection access in July 2018 and with the rollout supposedly complete the workloads would have eased to such an extent you would have thought there would be a multitude of staff available. So we continue to sit and wait for the executives in charge to extract themselves from their long lunches and finally realise the rollout is not complete.

BIKE OR TRAIN? Tasmanian rail tracks.

No progress there

I ATTENDED a so-called public meeting organised by South Hobart Progress Association. I found the flyer was a one-sided affair because it only dealt with potential excess traffic flow through South Hobart. It should have included potential economic and employment gains. This would have reflected a more balanced discussion.

On arriving I was handed an A4 printout which reflected this one-sided affair. A great surprise came towards the conclusion. The association had pre-prepared a number of motions. They were carried. I was the only person dissenting.

How wrong that this handful of South Hobart residents is endeavouring to stop progress that will affect enjoyment and benefit of future generations. If only 100 or so attended out of 5000-plus residents, then sure enough there is a silent majority in support of the cable car. The only thing good, if I heard correctly, was that the decision will be made by our elected parliamentarians and not by the grace of the South Hobart Progress Association.

I have been in South Hobart for 35 years and witnessed many changes. Some have even affected me but I have adapted. I have seen the progress association stirring and being against any worthwhile progress, for example, the TV antenna on the top of kunanyi/Mt Wellington, a chicken farm in West Hobart and residential development of the former Blundstone tannery. All in place now and the dust has settled quietly. South Hobart residents enjoy watching their TV sets where transmission is relayed from the tower and investments made in the building developments. We all must accept changes and adapt same for the good of progress.

High standards at home

I HAVE been involved with Mary Ogilvy Home for nearly 20 years. My parents were residents and I have been a volunteer there during their stay and since then. To include Mary Ogilvy under the headline “Eight care homes unfit” ( Mercury, August 16) is a gross injustice because there were never any issues of personal and clinical care found wanting. As an auxiliary member and a volunteer I have observed the high standards set and maintained at Mary Ogilvy and commend the staff for their professional and caring work ethics.

Private hospital for all

HOBART Private already has 24-hour emergency so nothing new there! What will be more telling is whether the new operators (along with Minister for Health) still allow the shameful “turn-aways” that have come to the public’s attention over the last few years with those who are so vulnerable. Vetting because “not meeting their criteria” ie age and costs? If so, RHH Emergency will still operate under duress, and nothing changes other than a new operator with a bottom line.