That's a great point, I've lived in cycling commute distance (5-20km) my entire working life. The only time I didn't commute by bike regularly was when I was living near parramatta and working near Liverpool. The commute was 35 km on bike paths and around 30 directly.
I wouldn't ride on the direct route as Henry lawson drive is suicidal on a pushie, the only time I've been deterred from riding in my life.
I managed the ride/train combo a few times but it was more trouble than what it was worth. Either way cycling through sydney's industrial heartland was far from pleasant ( especially after coming from Perth). Eventually i gave up and drove to work.
as a committed bike commuter, I was deterred by cycling 30 km in western sydney, I can only imagine how impossible it would seem for someone riding daily from Liverpool to central sydney.
I think you can have all the infrastructure for cycling that you like, relax helmet laws, have secure parking, have showers, give away free bikes... But who, apart from the already committed and fit, is going to ride 30 km to work? Thats an hours' ride if youre fit...probably close to 1:45. If you're not. And who can fix the inevitable flat tyre when it happens? It's been a long time since the NRMA has done that for bikes.
I think the posts discussing electric bikes are on the money- that and better linking of cycle paths and public transport. Bike/train or bike / bus ( which may fit the authors definition of infrastructure although I don't recall it being mentioned) would be necessary to promote wholesale usage of bicycles.
It would be lovely to return to the 1940 s when photos of the time showed men in serge suits and work clothes commuting to work by bike, hardly a car to be seen.... But they were probably commuting less than 5 Km's..... Sort of the distances you see commuters in sydney and melbourne readily riding today.
It's not only bike paths we need its a return to reasonable commuting distances.

I agree. Electric bikes are a great way to commute, several of my friends have them and speak highly of them.

Electric bike motors aren't the problem, it is the cycle paths that are the problem. A fit cyclist doing 30-40 kmph on a cycle way is just as dangerous as an electric bike doing those speeds.

As with cars, we need to institute speed limits on certain paths, not power limits. A 3L V6 doesn't require a different license or different roads than a 1.3L 4 cylinder.

Until last week I was commuting 39 km a day by bike in ACT, the large majority of it on the shared paths. I gave up last week after two near death experiences, one in an on-road cycle lane and one on the road. I like the shared use paths in general, but you eventually have to join the road because the path network is limited, and Australian drivers are shockingly bad at safely dealing with vulnerable road users.

I really miss the ride each day and would get back on my bike as soon as I could make it all the way to work safely.

I notice that there's a recent trend in ACT to add cycle lanes to roads in small unconnected sections as well, almost all petering out at round-abouts and intersections where they are needed most.

Andrew, its a pity you do not cycle anymore for this reason. If you have to return to the road when you come off a cycle path, you should take up as much of the lane as you can to indicate to motorists behind you that it is not safe for them to pass you. This is legal, since a bicycle travelling in the same direction as a motor vehicle is not obstructing the roadway (unlike a door opening). In Sydney, many roads a single lane and I do not let vehicles pass me on these roads especially since vehicles are leaving their parks, or doors are being opened. I also drive a motor vehicle and believe that if you want to get somewhere fast, find a motorway. If Sydney had a motorway system like Shanghai for instance, the minor roads would be much safer for cyclists. It amazed me on my first visit to Shanghai how a developing country with scant regard for written road rules can be safer to cycle than Sydney with our complex schedule of pecuniary penalties for road offences.

I largely agree Pete. I actually stopped riding to work after being clipped by a truck. No injury but I felt it was only a matter of time.

Roads and bike paths need to be more readily available and user friendly. When roads are too narrow or drivers/cyclists too arrogant crashes occur. When bike paths are clogged with pedestrians, crashes occur.

Andrew, I tend to agree. I think that electric motors on bikes are superfluous...as one gets fitter (which happens pretty quickly if one cycles more than three days/week), one can ride further, faster, steeper hills, and so on.

I live in Newcastle, where there are some excellent bike tracks, which do actually go to useful places. Most cyclists are critical, in that, they are shared with pedestrians, dogs, skateboards, roller bladers, prams, small children learning to ride, and so on. The suggestion from the council is that cyclists slow down, but, who wants to slow to a walking pace for their entire journey, because there are inconsiderate people walking shoulder to shoulder?

The other problem is that the cycle paths end abruptly, forcing cyclists onto narrow strips next to busy roads. There are very few signs warning drivers or cyclists of the danger (although it should be pretty obvious). There are also places where the cycle path is simply the pedestrian footpath with a picture of a bike, with the ensuing dangers to walkers and cyclists.

I would have thought that dedicated bike tracks would be the go, a la Canberra, but, according to Mr Remely, they seem to not work so well!

This study doesn't even indicate whether it took bike motors into account at all so I would suggest assuming they are irrelevant is jumping the gun. My personal experience shows me that having a decent size bike motor has made the difference between riding or not riding to work.

I can let the electric motor do most of the work in the morning and thus turn up to work not needing a shower and as it is powerful enough to allow me to keep up with local traffic and yet still take shortcuts, I get there in the same time as the car in peak hour.

On the way home, I pedal hard so still get a decent workout. Traveling at near car speeds, I am far safer in traffic and the bike option ends up having far fewer disadvantages.

I am convinced that decent-size electric motor assist is absolutely one of the best ways to encourage people onto bikes and out of their 2 tons of metal. Obviously, safer cycle routes and the like are essential as well, but please do not pooh pooh the significant positive factor bike motors represent.

See also http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/07/18/3546884.htm

Helmets are irrelevant to the debate as there is no evidence that relaxing helmet laws will stimulate an increase in cycling. There was a a decline in cycling coincident with the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws, some of which is probably attributable to the the MHLs. There is little evidence to suggest that removing MHLs now would increase cycling uptake. as the authors of this article state the bulk of the evidence is that infrastructure is the greatest barrier to cycling. Cycling has increased, except where infrastructure and safety concerns hamper it.
I was in London 4 days ago... No MHLs and a rate of cycling commutes which is the same or less than ours. You could bring Copenhagen into the argument, except Copenhagen is not sydney and its not london...the difference- cycling safety and infrastructure.
Helmets are a red herring. As cycling uptake has increased markedly in affluent inner city suburbs for short trips (and for sport) do you really contend that if helmet laws were relaxed thousands of bike commuters would suddenly appear from the great bogan western heartland into their workplaces?
I agree that their is an argument to relax MHLs from a libertarian perspective (and even from an epidemiological perspective for short inner city commutes on bike paths) but to contend that it is the panacea to fix cycling rates in Australia is hysterical.

I forgot to add my reference to my comment:
Relative cycling rates between the UK and Australia:
http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/files/Cycling_Infrastructure_Background_Paper_16Mar09_WEB.pdf
Head injury rates subsequent to MHLs in oz ( not completely germane to my comment but the comment that helmets are not protective is often used):
http://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23026203
For those who don't like the argument from physics that helmets protect kid's heads:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_129836.html and
Oblique impact testing of bicycle helmets
N.J. Mills, , A. Gilchrist

Seamus Gardiner:
"there is no evidence that relaxing helmet laws will stimulate an increase in cycling."

Come to Europe.

@will,
I'm in prague right now. I've seen 4 cyclists in as many days, all bike couriers. Just been to London, seen a few- but as my post suggests the UK has poorer cycling participation rates than Australia, despite no MHLs.
It rather supports the point that cycling occurs independent of helmet laws but dependant upon cycling distances, infrastructure, safety and culture.
I'm off to Salzburg tomorrow.... Shall I keep reporting anecdotal cycling rates for you?

@Seamus,
What's the weather like?...

Thanks for adding those references Chris. I was trying to compress much info into something others might read., so could only touch on issues.
But the helmet question is important. Whether they should be compulsory or maybe just compulsory for children? The other question of whether they improve safety or work against it, is to me (and I stress the "me") even more important. I just skim read the reference on New Zealand, but would have to see a much more detailed breakdown of the data befiore drawing any real conclusions.
That a spike of any significance in m/v injuries resulted indirectly from helmet laws turning X people away from cycling to me is questionable, but would be worth examining further.
You would have a very up hill battle to convince mainstream researchers and transport authorities/pollies that helmets are not improving injury reduction -so would require top quality data.

@Martin. Cold, -5 yesterday. Roads slippery and narrow, probably explained why the bike courier I saw had a helmet on :)
Don't know how they keep traction on icy cobblestones.

Also;
http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/files/Cycling_Infrastructure_Background_Paper_16Mar09_WEB.pdf

'Unfortunately, the general upward trend since 2000 is simply reversing a rapid downturn that occurred between 1996 and 2000 when the percentage of commuters travelling by bicycle plunged 73% nationwide (from 1.9% to 1.1%). This large drop remains unexplained.'
6years after the 'catastrophic' introduction of MHLs.... Not even correlation, let alone causation.

Also:
From http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/the-bicycle-helmet-laws/2972404#transcript

'Mikael Colville Anderson: And what happened in the Netherlands and in Denmark is that our urban planning took a paradigm shift in the '50s where it started to revolve around the car in the post-war economic upturn, you know people started buying cars and we started thinking, 'Right, we have to do our urban planning around the automobile for the first time ever', and the direct result was that people stopped riding bicycles, because they were sort of forced off the roads. We separated infrastructure that we had even back then, and gave it to the cars. And what happened was a plummet in the number of cyclists all over northern Europe.'

So even in Copenhagen cycling rates had fallen, totally independent of MHLs but wholly subject to infrastructure..
The helmet debate is the biggest distraction from the cycling issue.