Stop signs also create problems with right of way. For example; if you want to turn right at a stop sign and there is a vehicle opposite coming straight ahead, also on a stop sign, they have the right of way… but only if they have come to a complete stop first... unless neither of you have stopped... in which case neither has the right of way, coz you are both driving illegally! But the lawful technicalities don’t mean much in the real world unless an accident results, and then you cannot rely on the police or magistrates to know the detail of the law and whatever the case it is just about impossible to prove or show beyond a reasonable doubt. It gets mucky at the technical level. Giveway signs simplify this sort of thing. As for the legal technicalities at 4-way stop sign intersections, I don’t even want to think about it.

So in the interests of increasing respect for the law and law enforcers, making the law more appropriate for the circumstances, and not insulting the intelligence of most drivers, everyone with a bulbar on their 4WD should go out and flatten a few stop signs! O alright, I guess not. But they should be progressively replaced with giveway signs.

I hate cyclists. Yes those damn pesky runtish ignoramuses on two wheels who seem to have no regard for road rules or their own safety.

Hold on, I am a cyclist… and have been for 36 years. Alright I take it back, I only hate cyclists other than me!

No seriously, what I do hate is the lack of clarity of law as it pertains to cyclists. I have found it impossible to get straight reliable answers from police, RACQ, Dept of Transport or my local council. I am left totally bewildered.

Apparently it is illegal for a vehicle to pass another vehicle in the same lane. But of course cyclists are in the same lane as the cars whizzing past them. It is legal to ride in the middle of the lane, even when you are doing 25kmh in a 60k zone for example.

Apparently it is legal for cyclists to ride on any footpath, as long as there is not a sign indicating that they can’t, and they give pedestrians the right of way. Apparently it is illegal for cyclists to ride the wrong way on the road, ie along the righthand side, but it is not illegal for them to ride the wrong way on a footpath. Apparently it is legal for cyclists to ride on the road when there is a cycleway right next to them. Cyclists have to wear a helmet, and have to have lights at night when riding on the road, but apparently not on the footpath. Cyclists have to stop at stop signs and traffic lights just like all other traffic, but they can apparently legally nip up the curb and along the footpath and go past these obstacles.

It is an absolute mess. And yet year after year there seems no will to straighten it out. Not only does the public not know the law, neither do the police or any other authorities, and yet the police will be the first to tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We see just the same sort of extremely selective policing of road safety with respect to cyclists as we see with the general policing of road safety (which I have discussed in full on this thread).

From observations around my town over many years, the police tend to book or warn cyclists without helmets at least a fair bit of the time, but inexplicably they turn a blind eye to cyclists riding up the wrong side of the road or riding at night without lights. The latter two things are much more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have witnessed the police ignore a cyclist undertaking these infringements or more to the point, undertaking these totally unnecessary and very significant risks.

As with most tailgaters and other risk-taking drivers, by not enforcing these laws the police are effectively training cyclists to behave in this way.

Also, as with other risk-takers, cyclists who put themselves at risk do so without really knowing what risks they are taking, and without being prepared to take quick action if necessary. Those who are prepared to take quick aversive or defensive action are those that have the presence of mind not to put themselves under unnecessary risk in the first place.

I’ve got the brightest double headlights I could find on my bike. I wouldn’t have anything less. These d.ckhead cyclists without lights, half of whom also ride up the wrong side of the road, are a real hazard to legitimate cyclists.

Alright, so you think this business is so trivial that I shouldn’t be wasting my time with it. Well, in the early evenings, lightless and brainless cyclists are prolific all around my town, outnumbering lighted cyclists at least ten to one. It is a very significant road-safety factor.

We are also likely to see a proliferation of cyclists in the near future as fuel prices continue to rise. So it is pertinent to sort out this aspect of road safety sooner rather than later

Even worse than cyclists riding at night with no lights are cyclists with these pathetic little white flashing lights on the front of their bikes. Man, they are bad news! I very nearly took out one of these lunatics a couple of nights ago, and as you can imagine after perusing the comments that I have put on this thread, I am about as careful as any driver can be.

These little flashing lights are actually more dangerous than no lights, both for the cyclists and the drivers who encounter them. They give a false sense of security. So whereas a cyclist may be inclined to be very careful and be ready to take evasive action if they don’t have a light, they don’t have this inclination when they have one of these flashing doovers. The cyclists that have these flashing lights tend to be those that travel fast, making the risk all the greater.

These things should be banned outright. ONLY decent headlights should be allowed.

As for red flashing taillights, no worries, they are good value.

So why am I in favour of flashing taillights but not headlights? Well, I’m so glad you asked.

Two reasons; the difference in brightness between flashing tail-lights and car taillights is nowhere near as great as with the headlights, which means that the flashing taillights don’t get lost amongst other red lights to anywhere near the same extent as pissy little flashing headlights do amongst really bright car headlights.

Secondly, when coming up behind a cyclist, a driver has much more time to see a cyclist, and make sure that they don’t sideswipe them or rear-end them. There is a low risk compared to a cyclist coming up on a vehicle that is potentially about to turn in front of them, for example.

This issue with lights, and with the rules and policing of cycling in general, is just another example of our absurdly poorly managed road-safety regime that could so easily be rectified.

So Ludwig, how do you feel about the inconsiderate twerps who think it's unnecessary to dip their high-beam until your car and theirs are just about to pass? And how terrifying is it that in 15 years time, the 4WD that's being marketed with the slogan 'get in or get out of the way' - Toyota and its advertising agency should be charged with incitement to something or other for that, as should the TV channels which run it - wil be the clapped out old banger some 17-year-old gets as a first car? What do you think of the idea of sliding scales for registration charges on 4WDs, by postcode, with a $5000 cost premium for those registered to inner city addresses, $2000 for suburban adddresses, $1000 for outer metropolitan, and a few more besides?

Anomie

I don’t find high beams too much of a problem. Annoying yes, but the vast majority of the time when you flash your headlights you get results. My experience as a passenger with drivers that fail to lower their headlights is that it is usually just a touch of absent-mindedness or sometimes a lack of judgement. But we will never get around minor issues of judgement or lack of full concentration. The best way to deal with it to signal your discontent, in a non-offensive manner. With this particular issue it is simple.

Extending the concept of signalling one’s discontent - it is often impossible to send simple messages without them being taken the wrong way. This is one aspect of road safety that I haven’t discussed. I reckon there should be a standard set of signals that drivers can use for various offences or circumstances in which they are affected by other drivers’ actions. Tailgating is my primary consideration in this regard.

I think there are fundamental problems with a lot of vehicle advertising, not least those that concentrate on presenting an image not in keeping with careful safe driving.

We could implement sliding scales in all sorts of ways. Some of these would have considerable merit, but we would have to be careful to make it as fair as possible.

A sliding scale for 4WDs depending on distance from city centre has some merit, but you would also have to consider what the vehicle is used for. For example, I am an urban dweller who owns a 4WD. A lot of the time it gets used for local commuting. But I bought it because I am a field-oriented botanist and geologist… and it gets frequent use in low range 4WD in places that I wouldn’t be able to get to without it. I think I compromise very nicely by cycling to work and around town a lot of the time. I would object to having to pay a higher premium than a city-edge rural residential dweller who hardly ever uses their 4WD for 4WD purposes.