A good but unfortunately partisan article, Roger. That is, it's unfortunate that the issue tends to be partisan; get ready for the petrol heads, they'll be venting their collective spleen presently, blaming the cyclists rather than the attitudes of some motorists. I've been bicycling on QLD roads for many years and we remain an endangered species. Part of the problem remains, in my opinion, that the cycling fraternity down under is still a comparatively small cohort; until it grows substantially the pressure for change remains minimal. But the biggest problem, which you allude to, is that motor vehicles are much more than modes of transportation; they are marketed to reflect the personalities of their occupants. Hence, for instance we have the macho-fluro utes with their chromium accessories and manic owners who are obliged to live up to the stereotype they've bought into. Or the arrogant executive, hermetically sealed in his BMW, who doesn't deign to notice the tooling pedalist he just cut-off. Or the "Mad Bitch" in the Berina who's obliged to act like the harpy depicted under her auto's insignia.
As I've said elsewhere, we need to de-sex cars, turn them into clean, efficient, slow and nerdish modes of conveyance. Triple the price of petrol too, and force the socially challenged occupants onto their pins or a set of pedals. The time is coming!
In the meantime, imo, rather than spending millions building facilities that segregate our CBD's, reduce speed limits to 40kph, and enforce it. Make the roads social and civilised places where commuters of all persuasions can cohabit peacefully. Of course this might add a few minutes to the average motorised commute, how dreadful--so, get a pushbike!

I agree with the author that the roads are just not adequate for both cars and bicycles at the same time. How often do you see roads narrow and then there is no where for a bicycle to go except to get in front of cars, and irritate everyone concerned, or onto the footpath.

Until the road system caters adequately to the cars, then bicycles just can't expect the system to cater to them as well. I ride a bicycle, and value my life and health, so stay off the roads if at all possible - if I need to go somewhere I know the roads or paths will not be adequate, I take the car.

Getting aggro at car drivers who are already stressed by poor road systems is hardly the way to go. Of course car drivers get defensive, it's probably the only way they can get around where cyclists, like me, clearly have choice - you don't always have to ride your bike.

It's not the car drivers fault, nor is it the bicycle riders fault, it's our pathetic governments who cannot come to grips with changing lifestyles and infrastructure.

We have to stop blaming road users and blame the ones we pay taxes to who should be providing services and infrastructure the community requires, like roads, water, law and order, courts, hospitals, education etc.

Good article Roger. But there are several other factors of vital importance to cyclists’ safety.

Firstly, it is certainly not just car drivers that are remiss. It is very much cyclists that all too often put themselves in highly risky situations. Most riders don’t have a good understanding of the risk factors and therefore don’t ride in a manner so as to maximise their safety.

Secondly, the law is dog’s breakfast when it comes to cycling, with such absurdities as it being legal for a cyclist to ride on the road when there is a cycleway right next to the road, it is legal for a cyclist to travel out in the middle of the lane, it is apparently illegal for a car to overtake a bicycle in the same lane, etc, etc!

The law is archaic, confused and totally at odds with reality. The community doesn’t understand it and neither do the police. It needs to be sorted out. We’ve all GOT to know just where we stand wit the law!

Thirdly, the policing of road safety as it concerns cyclists is pathetic. Indeed, it is pathetic overall. The complaints regime is of particular concern. What are the police going to do if a cyclist reports a driver for dangerous driving that nearly caused their death? NOTHING. Similarly for drivers who report cyclists. The police are not interested in that sort of stuff unless an accident has happened. The community needs to be empowered to make complaints and have them acted upon. EVERYONE needs to be able to do something about law infringements and dangerous antics on our roads, and not just the very thin blue line!

In Queensland we have just had a considerable boost to the number of covert police vehicle on our roads, across a range of models and makes, so we are told. This is GOOD. With a greater covert police presence, people will start feeling as though just about any vehicle on the road could be a police vehicle, instead of only the extraordinarily sparse and ridiculously obvious normal sort of police vehicle.

I drive a car but now I am now afraid to ride even my motor cycle because of the half blind other stupid car drivers.
I ride my bicycle only on side roads.

More cycleways ,more cyclists ,less imports of cars,less imports of oil.
Fewer road injuries or fatalities.Get fit without gym fees.
Maybe the cycleways would pay for themselves by what they save.

Cities like Melbourne and Sydney to name a couple, have a million miles of footpaths designed for pedestrians who no longer use them. What is wrong with them being made more bicycle friendly and getting the bike riders off the roads?

I also might ask, what is wrong with bicycle riders learning that traffic lights are also for them. It would be interesting to learn the percentage of accidents from various causes. Pushbike riders, like motor bike riders need to remember that they are virtually invisible to motorists and act accordingly.

David

I fully agree VK3AUU
"Cities like Melbourne and Sydney to name a couple, have a million miles of footpaths designed for pedestrians who no longer use them. What is wrong with them being made more bicycle friendly and getting the bike riders off the roads?"

It becomes especially annoying when the footpaths are in front of no houses, shops, or anything that could possibly have any pedestrian use.

I'm convinced that the people who make these laws work in the few areas with busy footpaths (CBDs) and can't appreciate that the remaining 99% of the city is the opposite.

I'd support converting most walkways into walk/cycleways, possibly even converting cyclists into pedestrians instead of road-users- and simply having zones specifically saying that cyclists must convert to road-use when the pedestrian-use is too high.
Chances are they'd actually get around a LOT faster too.

Another whinge from the cyclist brigade who expect taxpayers generally, and "petrol heads" specifically, to pay for their transport option. Roads are paid for out of registration charges and fuel levies- why should non-contributors expect the same rights as cars and trucks (and of course, motorcycles, the owners of which have long been stung for the "privilege" of using what passes for roads in this country). Why should I "feel for" some idiot in tight pants doing at best, 40km/hr in 110km/hr zones, taking up an inordinate amount of road while doing so? Or worse still, some maniac from Norway with huge panniers and flags on poles, travelling at walking pace on outback roads? Someone who has paid nothing towards our atrocious roads at all, yet can cause incredible road blockages and angst for other road users. While I treat cyclists with all possible care and courtesy, their general road attitude and behaviour fequently annoys the hell out of me.

VK3AUU said:

"Cities like Melbourne and Sydney to name a couple, have a million miles of footpaths designed for pedestrians who no longer use them. What is wrong with them being made more bicycle friendly and getting the bike riders off the roads?"

Not a bad idea..

VK3AUU said:

"I also might ask, what is wrong with bicycle riders learning that traffic lights are also for them."

Sure - people who run red lights give us all a bad name

VK3AUU said:

"Pushbike riders, like motor bike riders need to remember that they are virtually invisible to motorists and act accordingly."

And then you had to go and ruin it all with an idiotic statement like that. So are pedestrians "invisible" too? There's even less to see, are they fair game? Open your freaking eyes for goodness sakes!

Viking 13 - thanks for the inflammatory rant, very helpful.

Cyclists pay tax too, research would tend to indicate more than most as we are more likely to be from a higher demographic. Most of us own cars too, so there goes your idiotic tax argument. In addition, we do next to no damage to the road we are on, unlike motor vehicles. Plus - minimal CO2 emissions while riding.

We would never/rarely ride at 40km/h in a 110 km/h zone, because that would be in a *lane* and cyclists stick to the breakdown lane on roads with that limit, to keep away from people like you.

And how the hell does a Norwegian riding on a deserted outback road bother you? Get a life.

Stickman, I could have included little old ladies with shopping trolleys as well as a whole raft of other entities, but the discussion was centred on bicycles; and motorcycles are are a similar genre.

David

On the note of difficulty of dealing with cyclists I actually agree stickman; the problem is that a cyclist is just as small as a pedestrian walking along the road, and are more difficult to spot in the corner of your eye (unlike a large car) and also fit much more precisely in your blind spot.

I think any opportunity to transfer footpaths into cycleways should be taken and fast, because getting the two transport modes to use the same area is actually more dangerous than most realize.

Sorry, but I don't agree with making footpaths into cycleways. Footpaths in many major city suburbs pass through people's front lawns and across their driveways in many instances.

I can see many more accidents involving cyclists and kids playing in their own front yards, or with cars backing out of their driveways crashing into bikes.

If many cyclists can't be bothered using their bells to warn pedestrians of their approach on the current cycleways, then they certainly won't be any different on the proposed new converted footpaths would they?

We need a new network of dedicated cycleways built if we really want to maintain any safe cycling environment for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians.

Well as I said Suzie- we should analyze every road and determine whether it's suitable to be a cycle-footpath or cycle-road zone. And as we said earlier, a lot less people use footpaths than roads so it definitely makes sense to prioritize the footpaths for conversion.

Plus, Sydney (and I'd wager Melbourne and Brisbane) is simply way too large to get around on any transport method beyond a car- so it's vital that motorists get as much infrastructure as possible.

I'd suggest a compromise; cycleways outside the CBD and lower speed limits and shared facilities within them (also discouraging motor vehicles in CBD's in favour of bikes, buses etc. As Suzie, alludes, cycling on footpaths is almost as dangerous as busy roads!

Stickman,
How does "paying taxes" entitle cyclists to use an amenity they haven't contributed to? I pay taxes which contribute to the Navy, doesn't get me a ride in a ship.

"Higher demographic" what, cyclist earn more and are more intelligent, so you pay more tax? What a dumb argument. The fact that some cyclists also own cars is irrelevant, if they are riding a bike which requires no fees which contribute towards road maintenance, they shouldn't be there. In other words, if cyclists expect to use roads directly, they should pay in some way, and not by leaving their car at home. Your "no damage" argument is also stupid, since it also applies to motorcycles, riders of which have paid outlandish rates for registration for many years (in fact as youth I paid more to register a 650cc than the family station wagon).

You also obviously have no comprehension of what it's like to encounter a lunatic on a cycle on the open road in the outback. I have, as that's where I live, and I have encountered both the shiney black lycra backside and the panniered foreigner types in some hairy places.

If you cyclists want to use the roads, PAY FOR IT, and if you want nice smooth cycle lanes free of nasty petrol heads, dozy pedestrians and snarling dogs, PAY FOR THEM YOURSELVES.

I might also add that cyclists add to the burden on society by the number of accidents they have and the hospital beds they take up, and the loading on premiums for other road users that cyclists DON'T PAY.

"Viking 13 - thanks for the inflammatory rant, very helpful."

You're welcome. Have some more.

Having spent my childhood cycling in a relatively flat city before coming to Sydney, I was a big fan. However, with the relatively hilly terrain here, one requires much more effort to travel, which precludes all but fit enthusiasts or those living close.

While the concept of cycling is a great idea, it is probably impractical for Sydney. There would be a better investment in say Melbourne, Brisbane, or Perth.

Viking13 said: "How does "paying taxes" entitle cyclists to use an amenity they haven't contributed to?"

They HAVE contributed to it, because they paid tax. That Navy argument is a meaningless non-sequitur.

Viking13 said: ""Higher demographic" what, cyclist earn more and are more intelligent, so you pay more tax? What a dumb argument."

Well, you have to laugh sometimes don't you? Intelligence has nothing to do with it, but yes, that is actually how it works. More income = more tax. It's called "the income tax system!"

Here's a link to explain how progressive taxation works!

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm

Viking13 said: "In other words, if cyclists expect to use roads directly, they should pay in some way, and not by leaving their car at home."

Well since you seem a little slow on the uptake, let me break it down for you.

1. I have a car
2. I paid to register it.
3. I have a bike
4. Every time I travel somewhere, I could
a: use the car
b: use the bike
5. Every time I DON'T use the car, I DON'T cause damage to the road, I DON'T spew out noxious exhaust fumes and I get fitter, reducing my chances of ending up a burden on the public health system.

Face it - you just hate people who ride bikes and are using this forum to vent.

And to quote Mark Twain: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference", so that will be all, you are doing a far better job of making a fool of yourself than I can.

I have spent my first week working in the Brisbane CBD. I catch my bus in Gladstone Road, Highgate Hill. This narrow 2 lane road caters to cars, buses and cyclists. The number of near misses I have witnessed in the few days is simply shocking and I am sorry to say that 99% of the time the cyclist has been at fault. A faster cyclist overtaking a slow group riding 4 or 5 abreast with out even bothering to look what is coming up behind - another inexplicably moving from the left to the middle of the lane again unaware of what is coming behind - a very slow rider overtaking a bus at a stop forcing the bus to follow at snails pace to the next stop - and the poor guy who couldn't make it any further and simply stopped in front of a bus - and don't forget that most of these cyclists have ipods stuffed in their ears and can't even hear what is going on around them. Build more bikeways and get these fools off our roads for everyone's sake (but particularly the bus drivers).

Sparkyq,
as a devoted cyclist I'm shocked and disappointed at the behaviour you describe. Cyclists should be heavily penalised like anybody else for traffic offences. However I do not trust your account, or believe that the majority of cyclists are the "fools" you imply them to be. Go to one of the world's genuinely cosmopolitan capitals (in terms of traffic) and you will witness many abuses of etiquette (among all road users), but not many outright misdemeanors, or at least nothing that's not a commonplace infringement, such as when a motorist runs that arrow as it changes from orange to red. Cyclists are ordinary people, capable of the same mistakes and poor judgement as anyone, except they are more vulnerable (and ergo more cautious). Just as 90% of motorists behave themselves, so do 90% of cyclists. As for "four or five abreast", surely you exaggerate? A group of cyclists, from different angles and distances can "appear" to be severally abreast, but this is seldom the reality; I ride in groups all the time and none of us ever ride more than the legal two abreast; we also fall into single file for motorists--actually a courtesy that we are not required to observe. It's rare, in my experience, that cyclists are offered similar courtesy's.
All this strengthens my argument for lower CBD speed limits; humans can be unpredictable and irrational in general, they're maladapted to the speeds currently permitted.
Btw, Viking 13, you're an idiot!

squeers, I don't care what you think I am. I'm sick of having dangerous enounters with morons in the open road taking up more then their fair share of the road.
Stickman, if your car's at home, you are not paying as you go by using fuel, which is taxed.

By all means use your bikes safely and in a way which doesn't inconvenience other road users, just don't expect me to help you pay for your hobby.

I must also stress an important factor in the cyclist/motorist road use issue, and that is the fact that Greater Sydney (that is, everything between Camden/Windsor/Cronulla/Hornsby- is simply much too large, too crowded and already much too slow for its size to expect people to convert to public transport or cycling from one end to the other.

The reason European cities have little trouble is because they are tiny enough to walk around in a couple of hours (instead of a couple of DAYS), and their streets were never even meant for motorists to begin with.
Basically, most people drive in from other towns on the (uninhibited) high-speed expressway or via bullet-train, park outside the city and cycle in (or walk or catch the tram).

Here any compromise on motorists travelling "inter-city" (more like "interstate" would simply worsen traffic jams- and fail to encourage cycling use (because it's too far) or public transport (which is WAY to limited further out).

Near to where I live in Brisbane is a 4-way intersection. About six months ago the Brisbane City Council changed one road sign from "Give way" to "Stop". This road is used by the "lycra brigade" on their way to and from work. About 60 cyclists use the road daily. I have observed these cyclists' behaviour at the stop sign since its erection. Not one of them has stopped.
So I find it difficult to sympathize with this group of cyclists who believe that road laws apply only to other road users.