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.