Judging from comments in respect of various mainstream media stories concerning incidents where cyclists come off second best after altercations with powered vehicles, it appears impossible to have any semblance of intelligent debate between cyclists and motorists. Both sides clearly have an unbridled hatred for the other & as such they are not prepared to even listen to the other side, let alone take on board any viewpoint other than those of their own mob. For example, personally I have an opinion on how safety could be markedly improved in certain situations, however the very millisecond I identify what 'side' I'm on, there is a frantic screaming from the other 'side' that suggests I'm intent on mincing their first-born and feeding the bits to the fish. How then can the opponents (for such they clearly are) be kept from each others throats long enough to allow relevant issues to be aired in a halfway civilized manner ?? For what its worth, I spent hours yesterday on the phone with a range of stakeholders & it was quite obvious none of them was aware of certain significant issues. Clearly the debate needs to include 'ordinary' folk and not just 'experts'

The simple solution is for cyclists to contribute to a fund, to build a cycling only track.

After all, don't motorists do exatly that?

rehctub

This is my second attempt to post such a thread. First time the moderators claimed it was insensitive, maybe they have the odd lycra warrior in their ranks ?? I wouldn't necessarily ban bicycles from the roads completely although registration should have been mandated years ago. If motorists must be identifiable, then why not all road users ??

For what its worth, the issue that prompted me to start this discussion was a proposal by a couple of elected muppets in Queensland to mandate a metre exclusion zone between bikes & other road conveyances. That in turn was initiated by an incident where a cyclist got into a big trucks blind spot & didn't exactly come off best. Truckie got charged with manslaughter, jury acquitted him. Cyclists are demanding truckie be convicted & jailed.

There is a bit more to the story, firstly the road, like many around Brisbane isn't suitable for deadly-treadlies, driver training protocols are woefully inadequate with no heavy vehicle awareness whatever. I'm not aware if the cyclist actually had a car licence although his age suggests he would probably have had.

Every single one of multiple media reports crapping on about altercations betwixt bicycle & car / truck / whatever invariably descends into hysterical screaming matches within five posts. Seems the extent of the hatred between lycra warriors and everyone else is such that halfway intelligent debate is impossible. Interestingly, while the vast majority of differences relate to roads as such, there is a current Brisbane Times story in which a contributor has an apparently well founded gripe about careless / aggressive 'Tour de France' types terrorizing pedestrians on a shared path. I'm waiting with bated breath to see what responses come from the lycra fraternity.

rehctub,

Are you claiming that cyclists don't pay taxes towards the construction and maintenance of roads?

Why shouldn't motorists contribute to cycle-ways?

I agree, Poirot, but must disclose that I'm a cyclist. I also have a car, as my cycling is a leisure activity more often than a means of commuting, and it's challenging to carry groceries or mountains of student work home on a bike.

Vehicle registration doesn't pay for roads - it pays for administration costs and insurance. All taxpayers, road users or not, pay for roads. Whether cyclists should be on those roads or not is another question. A further question is whether or not cyclists should be required to have insurance. As a member of Bicycle Queensland, I am insured, but that's not compulsory.

When all is said and done, however, I have very few problems with motorists. The only near-altercation I've had was with a drunk driver who disappeared as soon as he could after failing to give way and giving me a little bit of a bump. I work on the principle (and I think all cyclists would be wise to work on this principle) that I can't litigate if I'm dead. Cars can do more damage to me than I can to them, so I take steps to preserve my life. I give way to cars until I know they have seen me (whether they have right of way or not); I ride in the bike lane whenever there is one and I avoid high-speed roads without bike lanes. Those bike lanes, however, are another matter altogether. Townsville has a wonderful network of bike lanes when viewed on a map, but the reality is that they are rarely anything more than shoulders - some gravel - with little bikes painted in them at regular intervals, often obscured by the parked cars. A few circuits of this town, though, and it's easy to find a route that provides sufficient exercise and pleasure, is safe for the cyclist and of minimal (or no) disruption to traffic. Is it really that hard?

Sorry Otokonoko, & Poirot you are talking rubbish here.

Less than 20% of fuel tax goes to the road funding, for which it was introduced. A very large chunk of health care & education is paid for by the motorist in fuel tax & excise, & now even GST on top of that.

You may recall this was called road tax previously, & was introduced to fund the roads motorists wanted. Very soon of course governments had their stick fingers into it, throwing it all over the place.

It got so bad of course, not only did motorists have to fund everything, governments reneged on the deal, & started toll roads, so motorists had to pay twice.

My barber lives over her shop on the outskirts of a shopping center, in a mixed residential/business area, right near a 1600 student high school. They deleted 6 car parking spaces, in front of her shop & replaced them with 2 parking spaces & a bike lane over 12 months ago.

The bike lane is so little used that she has only ever seen 5 bikes pass her shop, this is reinforced by the fact that there are only 30 bike racks at the school, & never are all full. It is this ridiculous waste of money & road space that get the motorists against bikes.

Bikes & any other unregistered item should be banned from all roads. We are not, & don't want to be Copenhagen.

Now if motorists were issued with free bull bars, & given a discount off their registration for every bike they eliminate, we could all have a bit of fun.

The issue of who pays for what is germane, in an ideal situation, fees & charges levied on a particular section of the community would all be quarantined & devoted to areas relevant to that group. Unfortunately, politicians being the duplicitious grubs they are, taxes invariably get siphoned into consolidated revenue, and somewhere down the track when the parasites through their own ineptitude, run the well dry, the cry goes out to make users pay. Its convenient to ignore the fact that the users are already paying through the nose, often several times over as is the case with motorists.

Whether or not cyclists already make some contribution to road maintenance through other vehicle registration, many car owners already pay multiple registration fees despite being able to operate only one vehicle at a time. This being the case, there is every reason why cyclists should also make a contribution in respect of their bicycle & this would also cover the insurance issue. Furthermore, no law-abiding cyclist would object to being identifiable would they ?? The bikeways matter as raised by Poirot is quite simply a load of male bovine dropping. Why indeed should motorists contribute to something of no use or relevance to them ?? Motorists are already regarded as milch-cows by gubmunts at all levels and there is no way known they would agree to something so nonsensical. Cyclists presently pay diddley-squat (lets not get into any registration fees they may pay, thats a completely different matter), so it only fair they get to wear some of the financial pain inflicted on us by the bloodsucking parasites.

Three things here, praxidice:

1) As I understand it, vehicle registration does not pay for the maintenance of roads. I confess, though, that most sources that point this out are cycling lobby groups, so they may not be entirely accurate. I've yet to see evidence to refute this, though, and the government websites dedicated to vehicle registration tend to refer vaguely to 'administrative costs' when talking about where rego goes. That said, your point about multiple vehicles is an interesting one. Given that a substantial chunk of the cost of registration is dedicated to CTP, perhaps insuring the driver rather than the vehicle is a better way to go. After all, if I have five cars, I can only drive one at a time and so I constitute no greater risk to the public.

2) When talking about cycling infrastructure, you say that it is 'of no use or relevance' to motorists. I disagree. Such infrastructure would be built to take cyclists off roads. Cyclists are, at present, legal road users and don't object to using roads. It's the motorists who want them gone, so it's the motorists who benefit from their removal. The question is equally valid: why should cyclists pay for the privilege of having their access to roads removed?

3) I'm perfectly happy to pay rego for my bike, as long as EVERY bike that ever sets tyres on the road is required to be registered. That includes the bikes of little toddlers who do inane circuits in quiet suburban streets. After all, I was a far more substantial road hazard as a kid than I am now.

prax the moderator owns the site;.
Constructed by a group in fact that thinks giving us such a site is worth while.
We all have had threads rejected, that makes it what it is, one of the very best.
Are you contributing to its upkeep? Most cyclists have a drivers license in their back pocket.
Yes some are not considering others.
As do pedestrians and? motorists.

Why shouldn't bicycles that go onto any designated road or public area be required to pay registration with compulsory insurance to cover injuries to other persons?

Why shouldn't there be a licence and testing regime for cyclists who go onto any designated road or public area?

Why shouldn't all bicycles that go onto any designated road or public area be reauired to always carry and display a number plate?

A bicycle is a vehicle and the rider is subject to road laws, including the offence of being in charge while undet the influence of a a drug or alcohol.

Why should cyclists who offend, examples being not having a cycle in roadworthy condition, and going through stop signs and red lights be able to thumb their noses at the laws because they not have a unique identifying number plate?

Restricted blanket approvals for children can easily be devised, but up until they obtain their adult licence they should travel at slow speed on and beside walkways, giving right of way to pedestrians at all times.

Legislators might wish to consider restricted licences for child and youths to certain routes for the purposes of education, training or work.

Otokonoko

The whole revenue / who pays for what circus is a minefield, mostly due to moronic politicians who couldn't run a chook raffle. Gubmunt websites are more about wool-pulling than fact. Only about half the registration fee goes to CTP (at least in Queensland anyway) however your point about paying for the same cover on multiple vehicles is perfectly sensible, in fact I've thrown that around several times without the relevant muppets looking even remotely interested, but thats only one of a zillion reasons I habitually refer to them as bloodsucking parasites.

I don't buy your argument re motorists funding bikeways, cyclists should pay their own way.

My main objective of registering bicycles is identification, revenue is a secondary matter. Note however its unimaginable that a gubmunt that figures it can siphon money off something will neglect to do so.

What about leisure, onthebeach? Are you suggesting that kids should not be allowed to ride their bikes like most of us did as kids: for fun? To get to their friends' places? To get to footy training?

Otokonoko,

I am more concerned that when a person reaches adulthood s/he should take up the responsibilities that go with it. Do you have any comments on that?

As far as children are concerned I am open to suggestions. However in the increasingly 'victim' culture that is now Australia and noting that lawyers are in over-supply and spruiking for work, I am interested to know how a parent might pay for an injury caused or contributed to by his/her child. Schools have already buckled to demands of clever, litigious parents rather than pay tens of thousands to mount a case in defence. What do you say to that?

onthebeach

As you say, a very real issue. That point alone is more than sufficient justification for registration & insurance of **ALL** bicycles . Its infinitely more relevant with rug-rats & yard-apes due to the prevailing culture that regards them as deities.

Poirot>> Are you claiming that cyclists don't pay taxes towards the construction and maintenance of roads?

Why shouldn't motorists contribute to cycle-ways?<<

Cyclists are like birds Poirot....birds don't pay for air space or landing rights.

Re cyclists, had a neighbour who cycled competitively and cycled to work, full on cyclist. He was aggressive smart arsed and expected exceptions to the law because he was in the most vulnerable road user group out there.

Praxi, have you heard of paragraphs, they give you a rest between the dribble and diatribe.

Why shouldn't cyclists pay registration and display plates?

Shopping centres have heaps of problems with gangs using cycles as a blind and as a the transport to check vehicles in car parks to break into and for human targets for assaults. Home burglaries too.

Such regular events are not the stuff that can be sensationalised by the media and politicians and escape publication. For every drive by sshooting by some ethnic drug gang pretending to be bikies there are dozens of other crimes, mostly home burglaries. Home burglaries have a very poor clearance rate.

Again, to crap on about Stevens hitting Richard Pollett on Kenmore Rd because he was in Stevens' blind spot is merely showing you for the idiocy that you credit others with today. ALSO again - as per my comment to you in today's replies in the Brisbane Times - I know of no roadworthy vehicle that has a blind spot through any section o it's front windscreen, and given that Stevens took the opportunity to SQUEEZE THROUGH between Pollett and traffic to his right, he had seen Pollett and made a judgement call. I'd suggest that before you begin throwing the term Muppet around and seeking to contact those with a vested interest in the call for a minimum safe passing distance - of which I would have assumed would have included SCA as the first such furry cab off the rank - I'd suggest you check your basics facts and reevaluate your own assumptions first and foremost. Glad I could help annoy you even more than the "experts" already had.
Dave Sharp, Safe Cycling Australia

<< I know of no roadworthy vehicle that has a blind spot through any section o it's front windscreen… >>

Oh dear Dave Sharp, Safe Cycling Australia, do you drive a car?

There are significant blind spots in my car, and in every car I’ve ever driven. The roof braces down both sides of the windscreen are real traps that I have to be very vigilant about. The one on the right is about 50cm from my eye and is about 12cm wide, which creates a very significant gap in my view. The external rear-vision mirrors are also traps if you are looking down a bit of a slope.

It is very easy for a cyclist, pedestrian or even a car to get behind one of these and out of your line of sight, and to be moving along at just the right speed to stay in the blind spot.

I find myself moving my head from side to side all the time when driving in urban areas to check these blind spots. But no amount of vigilance can prevent the occasional person or vehicle from suddenly appearing close to me when I thought I’d thoroughly checked my whole field of view.

Thankyou for the condescending tone I am a professional truck driver, Stevens' view was not obstructed at the time, and the model of truck driven offers excellent visibility.

Dave, I deleted the last paragraph of my last post at the last minute.

I shouldn't have. It reads....

BTW Dave, you are apparently representing an organisation called Safe Cycling Australia, but your language and tone is certainly not in keeping with the type that one would expect from such an organisation – a cool measured comment without insulting those who may hold different views. Not impressed.

My comment was to the OP and more than adequately highlighted his own ignorance. If you expect more from me - as the petitioner who started this after being asked for help by Mrs Pollett not ten minutes after Mr Stevens was allowed to walk from the courtroom a free man - and those who fear for their lives in the course of doing something to which they're legally entitled and have been since before federation, then I i will forever fail to meet your expectations. I make no apology for any offence taken or for doing what I and my org can to save lives on the roads we all pay for.

The Cook Highway between Cairns and Port Douglas is closed all day tomorrow to accommodate the cycling leg of an international triathlon event.

This is an example of the terrible lack of understanding that cyclists, drivers and the governing authorities have of the safety issues inherent in the mixture of cyclists and powered vehicles on this road.

Cyclists use it abundantly, not least in the lead-up to this event. Rather than encouraging cyclists to use this road and triathlon-entrant very fast cyclists to train on this road, cyclists should not be allowed on this road at all!

It is a very busy highway. It is narrow with lots of sharp blind curves. Lots of trucks and busses. And lots of really rank drivers who treat it as a race track.

I had a very close-call on this road yesterday, simply driving a normal car at a conservative speed, I passed a cyclist which meant getting out there close to the centre line but not over it, right at the same as some turd blasted around the curve towards me at break-neck speed and right out on the centre line. Half an inch was the gap between that vehicle and mine, I reckon.

I managed to have a long and amicable chat to the cyclist and impress on him just how dangerous it is to be out there on that road, not only for him but for all others involved. He said he knows…. But that hasn’t stopped him from doing it.

I witnessed the same sort of thing on the Great Ocean Road in Victoria earlier this year.

There are simply some roads where cyclists SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. Particularly busy highways on hilly winding stretches, unless they have wide strips outside of the white line that marks the edge of the road for vehicles and that can accommodate cyclists.

Ludwig, the very thought of cycling along that stretch makes me shudder. Hell, even driving along that stretch is painful at times. Breathtakingly beautiful - especially heading north - but hard work the whole way. It's the shortest but most tiring leg on a trip to Port Douglas, in my opinion.

Ultimately, you are right: there are just some stretches where bikes don't belong. Not solo cyclists and not bunches. I struggle to understand how cyclists ride up Hervey Range, too, with all those trucks. And the descent would terrify me.

Praxidice, I am perfectly happy with your proposal that cyclists be registered. I'm not sure how it would work logistically, but others are paid to work those things out. I obey the rules when I'm on the road (so have nothing to fear), and have to admit that those cyclists who don't obey the rules really get my hackles up. It's hard work convincing those around us that cycling is an acceptable activity when so many ride down the wrong side of the road, unlit after dark and without helmets, or when so many blatantly ignore other road rules. I don't think we'll find agreement on the subject of funding for cycleways, though, so I won't continue down that path.

Onthebeach, I'm just not sure what comments you are expecting. Your tone suggests that you're expecting me to disagree with you, but I can't really work out why. All I can suggest is that, if we are living in a society so litigious that our way of life is threatened, it is the litigation that we must attack rather than the way of life. Kids need to learn the rules and follow them (which is why I think their bikes should also be registered if mine is); adults need to learn that there is no surefire way of preventing mishaps in our day-to-day lives.

<< I struggle to understand how cyclists ride up Hervey Range, too, with all those trucks >>

Oto, the Paluma Range road, being much narrower and with much tighter curves, is one that I have driven up and down hundreds of times. I’ve had a few near-misses with mad cyclists on that one.

But hey, I was a cyclist for forty years. I rode up and down Castle Hill in the evenings with great frequency for many years.

<< Now if motorists were issued with free bull bars, & given a discount off their registration for every bike they eliminate, we could all have a bit of fun. >>

Deeear o deary me! Hazza, you’re a hazard if ever there was one!!

If you ride a quad bike in Bamaga you'll get booked yet some club is driving dozens of quad bikes up the whole of the Cape, taking up all the road & disturbing the peace & quiet & inconveniencing locals.
It all makes sense, apparently because I haven't heard a single Greenie objecting to it.

wide strips outside of the white line that marks the edge of the road for vehicles and that can accommodate cyclists.
Ludwig,
Please stop making sense ! The proponents of nonsense will never get off here.

Ludwig, I loved the Paluma Range when I lived in Townsville, it's one of the great driving roads if you've got a smallish high-powered car that turns in well. Oh yeah, good fade-free brakes as well. It's hell on a motorcycle if you try to go fast though. Nearly all 1st and 2nd gear.

The logging tracks and backroads past Paluma are also great fun, but can be incredibly slippery.

Thanks for the memory.

Otokonoko, "I'm just not sure what comments you are expecting. Your tone suggests that you're expecting me to disagree with you,"

Sorry, not intended. I am open to ideas. I oppose more State intervention in citizens' lives. However there is a small proportion of road users who are poorly behaved and serial nuisances whether they are on bikes or motor vehicles. Then there is the general crime like home burglary that depends on access to a vehicle and bicycles are often used (but rarely reported upon).

There is a lot of arrogant stupidity that irritates. Such as the cyclist in bad weather who holds up traffic on a busy multilane carriageway. Then, after vehicles have struggled to pass him, the cyclist weaves a path to the front again at the next red light to re-start the process all over.

Oh, you're very right on that one, onthebeach. It's one of the many things that many cyclists do that just irritate me no end. I said earlier that it is invariably in cyclists' best interest to ride safely and courteously. I should have added that it's in society's best interest for cyclists to ride courteously as well. Cyclists, like people on little motor scooters that can barely hit 50, let alone 80 or 100km/h, need to be mindful of the fact that they (we) can't keep up with traffic and need to get out of its way whenever possible. When it's impossible to stay out of the way of traffic, I work on the principle that my route needs adjustment - not the traffic.

Australia must go close to having the highest road kilometres per taxpayer of any country.

It follows that we simply cannot afford some of the enhancements we would like. All must make concessions and act reasonably. Maybe people do not always consider the restrictions on the other vehicle, which goes both ways. Police are too busy with speeding offences, more is the pity.

we simply cannot afford some of the enhancements we would like.
onthebeach,
Mentality not the road conditions are the dilemma in Australia.

Some cyclists refuse to use bike paths even when they are provided, it's not uncommon for a single cyclist to take up a whole lane of St Georges Rd in Thornbury in the morning rush even though there's a dedicated bike path running down the median, they also ride along the tram tracks and footpath. Because it's stop start at that hour the bike rider ends up at the head of the pack at the lights then forces dangerous lane changes as the cars pass him on the other side of the intersection, then at the next set of lights he catches up and the process repeats all the way down to Fitzroy North.
Bike riders are some of the worst offenders when it comes to misusing the roads, if they hold car licences they should losse points or have them revoked for serious breaches such as running red lights or lane splitting.

individual, "Mentality not the road conditions are the dilemma in Australia"

I agree with you on mentality. More licences should be lost and some permanently.

However, the rapid population growth attributable to record migrant numbers for years has put unrealistic pressures on infrastructure and on our* capacity to pay.

*Our being taxpayers.

We don't see many bike riders out here in the sticks, but this highlights Jay's comment.

The ABC had a session on bike commuting. Apparently this is a good thing for our green voting ABC commentators.

Motorists were complaining of the problems caused by bike riders on Coronation Drive, a major riverside Brisbane commute road. Traffic is greatly delayed as a few cyclists make one lane so slow it is effectively redundant.

The president of some cyclist association was telling them to go jump. They the cyclists had as much right to the road as the motorists, & they were going to use it regardless.

Apparently a bike path has been built, at great cost, alongside the road, in the riverside park, between the road & river. When asked why our cyclists don't use this bike path, purpose built for them, the answer was that walkers used the bike path, holding up the cyclists. They don't like anyone holding them up.

Even the ABC presenter could see the irony in this, & said so, at which time the cyclist became quite shirty. He obviously had not expected to have his lack of cooperation with everyone questioned by the ABC. He had obviously expected only complete support against those awful motorists from the ABC.

Apparently a bike path has been built, at great cost, alongside the road
Hasbeen,
no doubt the cost of that was covered by the registration fees of all the bikes ?

Hasbeen,
I was down in Carlton the other day standing with a client beside her car talking and I guess we were standing with one foot in the bike lane, anyway a large bottomed woman on a bike blustered past then stopped and commenced to give us a serve for blocking her "right of way". My client just laughed at her and I called her a "Fascist", that did not go down well LOL.

Yikes! I've ridden down Coronation Drive once, and I can safely say that I'll never do it again. As has been the theme of many of Ludwig's posts, there are places where bikes just don't belong. It's unsafe - plain and simple. And there are plenty of other ways to get to the same places.

The riverside path is ostensibly a cycleway as well as a footpath, and it is a great facility for families ambling along slowly. It's dreadful for commuters or cyclists out for exercise. That's the trend around Brisbane - paint a bike on a footpath and call it a cycle path. The solution there is simple as well: find another route! It's not like Brisbane is a one road in, one road out town ...

Many cyclists would disagree with me, of course - and that's their right. But I would hazard a guess that I spend less time jeopardising my own life and annoying motorists than many other cyclists!

Otokonoko,
I have been to Brisbane quite a few times & my impression is that it is one of the most hopelessly designed cities in the so-called western world.

individual,

Brisbane was once a beautiful, overlarge country town. It was a kind place to live and raise a family.

The over-population resulting from the reckless, over-enthusiastic immigration policies of federal governments overwhelmed Brisbane's land planning, infrastructure and the capacity of Brisbane and Queensland taxpayers to fund the transport, power, hospitals and so on.

God knows what might happen to Brisbane and other cities if Canberra wins any more power and control over State affairs. Canberra is presently trying to wrest Councils away from States.

General Comment
Returning to cycleways, the Centennial Bikeway along Brisbane's Coronation Drive is no simple path painted aith a cycle logo. The Bikeway rivals sections of the Bruce Highway and is better and more expensive per kilometre than parts of Highway One. Its surface is better than many of the roads connecting country towns.

Thinking of use and equity, why should some cyclists need for speed come before improving the critical links for country areas?

What goes wrong on bikeways is what goes wrong where bikes mingle with traffic. Simply put, there are lycra-clad bullies who fantasise that they are competing in the Tour de France and have similar right of way and domination of the thoroughfares. They are in fact louts who so often have conflicts with louts in cars or on foot.

What has changed in Australian culture that we now need heaps of expensive road signage, specially coloured pavement surfaces and patrols to ensure some order, where once people happily went about their business of walking, jogging or running without the risk of affray? When and how did some road users turn into gladiators and serial nuisances? Why do they get away with it?

Even where separated from other path users, the road warrior cyclists clash with other cyclists.

The only practical answer is user pays: tollways for all new cycle path upgrades; and bike registration to ensure they pay tolls and are apprehended for their breaches of traffic laws.

Fortunately Otokonoko, I live a couple of kilometers up a quiet country road from a not very major country main road. With my knees this ensures I never become involved with any traffic, when bicycle mounted. Drivers around here are likely to encounter not only little kids on bikes, but also on skate boards, scooters, horses, or jogging with a dog, so slow & careful is in order.

Individual, what on earth ever gave you the impression that Brisbane was designed. That it was not is probably it's only redeeming feature. You will find absolutely charming leafy green enclaves, just a block removed from a horrible main road, all over the town.

Yes onthebeach, I think it's the lycra. Just as some motorists can be adversely affected by a rumbling V8 under their right foot, I think that particular fabric has much to answer for, in the way it turns meek minded accounts clerks into fire breathing idiots.

Looking back I shudder to think that at age 10 I rode a bike along a very narrow lane Cove Road, to North Ryde public school. I & my fellow school kids must have given motorists the horrors as we wobbled our way to school. It is a compliment to the Sydney Motorists of the early 50s that we survived.

Fortunately for their nerves & my survival we went bush after a year in what seemed so big, but was a very small city back then.

bottom line as a cyclist I would rather be careful and alive than arrogant and maimed or dead.

Hasbeen, "I think that particular fabric has much to answer for, in the way it turns meek minded accounts clerks into fire breathing idiots"

LOL

The wrap around cycling sunglasses as well.

My experience with driving in the city, is that traffic rules are treated as suggestions and that cycling through red traffic lights, on the wrong side of the road, and between moving lanes of traffic is considered standard practise, as is their general immunity from fines. Just last week I saw a cyclist swearing at a motorist who turned left while oblivious of a cyclist riding straight on his left hand side well within his blind spot.

I think that these cyclists in order to ride in traffic should get a license that should be displayed, and should be subject to fines and suspensions as are other road users

I find these debates highly amusing. There are many undercurrents.

Cycling: Synonymous with Clover Moore types. Everyone hates a self righteous queer leftie do-gooder. The only thing more annoying than being put in the position of attempting not to kill someone who has purposely put themselves in grave danger by riding a push bike on a 3 lane highway with cars doing 70-100 km/h, is the annoyance of seeing a whole dedicated lane set up for the exclusive use of such a small section of the community. Never before has so many resources been spent to accommodate such a fringe activity.

Driving: People who would deny the safety of someone in a ridiculously vulnerable situation in order to get to work, yes work that thing everyone hates, 2 minutes earlier. Begrudging someone who is being healthy and saving the planet because it simultaneously makes them look bad and inconveniences their own planet and health destroying apathy and laziness..

Houellebecq

For what its worth, this thread has proven to be somewhat more enlightening than I expected when I started it. The issue is of particular relevance to me because of the roads I use frequently & number of times I encounter cyclists (both responsible & irresponsible). Both myself & a number of others with similar concerns have canvassed opinion from a range of road-users including known moderate cyclists, various advocacy groups etc, in fact the only mob we've ignored is one that can only be described as 'fanatic'. Interestingly, cyclists generally have proven to be surprisingly receptive to motorist concerns, including issues with the two abreast provision, bicycle registration & the metre exclusion business. We've also raised the issue of heavy vehicle awareness since its clear precious few road users have a clue about the peculiarities of big trucks (particularly in respect of visibility, manoeuvering & braking). Even suggestions to exclude cyclists from certain roads hasn't drawn the expected condemnation expected once the matter of visibility was fully explained.

praxidice

that is the most moderate you have ever posted. Why do you come across as an extremist in so many other posts?

So observes our not-so-moderate fundamentalist Christian.

Bit of a hoot, that one, runner.....

runner

Politicians AKA bloodsucking parasites are right at the very top of my hate list, in my book there is no lower life-form than bottom-feeding grubs who abuse a position of trust, even snouts like banksters are higher up the evolutionary ladder. Cyclists are only bit players in the scheme of things, for the most part they are just as much victims of the system as motorists, truckies, ratepayers, solar power system owners, non-solar owners & all the other small groups targeted by the bloodsucking parasites who figure 'divide & conquer' is a legitimate political tool.

Prax,

It's interesting that you put in a lot of time and energy around here criticising the status quo.

Does it ever occur to you that roads and cars and the whole kit and kaboodle of industrial civilisation is invested in keeping you in your car and commuting and consuming...just like the pollies are part of it. It's all one big crazy bundle with us chucked in.

And your beef is with a few cyclists who happen to slow the bullsh!t down a bit.

Bit of a laugh....

'So observes our not-so-moderate fundamentalist Christian. '

yes Poirot the observance from a fundie feminist/secularist. I realise anything that exposes your gw religion and other dogmas comes across as very extreme to u. I do note that my voting intentions are alot more in line with the majority than yours.

Poirot

The issues involving cyclists & motorists in my particular area is slightly more significant ... for a start there have been two deaths on one 20k length of road already this year & neither cyclists nor motorists were deemed to be 'at fault'. Seems to me there is good reason to take the matter seriously.

runner,

You keep calling me a feminist...I'm supposing it's because you're incapable of scouting around inside your noggin for something that actually resembles moi, but instead rely on your regular and generic classification system employed for people who disagree with runner.

Prax,

I don't have aproblem with people looking seriously at the issue.

I was just curious how you so fulsomely critique other aspects of the status quo - yet defend it on the subject of pesky bike riders.

Hasbeen your comments are typical of many drivers dangerous attitudes on this list, when he states that.

“Bikes & any other unregistered item should be banned from all roads. We are not, & don't want to be Copenhagen.” and goes on to say ” Now if motorists were issued with free bull bars, & given a discount off their registration for every bike they eliminate, we could all have a bit of fun”.

Consider the road safety facts about Copenhagen and Swdwen which are far safer for cyclists and pedestrians. But more importantly for all road users when measured by road safety experts Sweden and Australia in 2012 for all road deaths per 100,000 population In Sweden of 2.9 and 6.1 in Australia.

Which means that Sweden’s roads are twice as safe as Australia’s and that in 2012 there would have been 625 less roads in Australia.

Grow up Australian petrol heads you need to get rid of your dangerous driving attitudes because you are at serious risk to cyclists, pedestrians and especially the elderly. All because of the crap you have in your heads.

'And your beef is with a few cyclists who happen to slow the bullsh!t down a bit.'

They're rubbin' our faces in it Poirot. Nobody should rub self righteous environmentalism and clean living in the face of people without such a luxury. Just like class envy, well, this is.... class envy.

A class of people have been fortunate enough to not only live in Paddington and Surry Hills, they have the gall to show off by residing so close to their workplace that they can ride a push-bike, all the while presenting the sanctimonious attitude they're doing the world a favour, with the entitlement to think people should allow them a lane to travel at 15km/h or else build them a special track.

That's not escaping the rat race, that's winning it, when you get your own bloody roads built, and still keep the self-righteous tone and the doin' the world a favour business.

Then you have the Tour-de-France lot that prove you actually can ride 20KM+ a day to work in all weather, and be a super health freak. Nobody likes a clean-living show off in Lycra.

'road deaths per 100,000 population'

Surely it's road deaths per km traveled, or time on the roads that is a more relevant metric.

Houellebecq

Whilst I've never been there, I understand from associates who know about that stuff the effect of being dead is much the same, regardless of how it occurred, or indeed the relevant statistics. Funnily enough, I've yet to hear about a case where lycra provided much protection to a cyclist who ended up under the wheels of a 20 tonne behemoth. Personally I'd rather be a live wuss than a dead hero. Among other issues, I could well be the poor mug who has to extract the bits left over after an altercation in my area ... not good.

Poirot

If you care to check, you'll find the target of my wrath is almost always a politician. Slimeballs who misappropriate the 'honorable' title, get into a position of trust & abdicate that trust, fully deserve any and all reprobation levelled at them. For what its worth, JC had some pretty choice words for comparable bottom-feeders. I said earlier, cyclists, motorists, truckies, ratepayers, taxpayers, solar power people, non-solar power people, even legitimate & illegitimate refugees etc are victims of bloodsucking parasites who employ the 'divide & conquer' principle whenever they believe they can pit one group against another.

Hi Houellebecq,
You are mistaken in saying.
“ Surely it's road deaths per km traveled, or time on the roads that is a more relevant metric”

Not so In the last decade the most important change that has taken in Europe is that several bicycle friendly countries have made their road systems much safer for children, bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly the elderly.The metric of deaths per 100,000 population is is used for consistent accident monitoring throughout.

European road safety and health experts are agreed that national road deaths to be compared per 100,000 population from 1970 to 2010. This is why Bicycling has become much safer in Japan, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia because of their innovative bicycle planning  and intermodal bicycle/public transport planning  practices.

Wake up you live in country run by petrol heads to generate more and more car traffic on freeways, its only petrol heads in the road agencies that use the metric you think is appropriate.&#8232; Those concerned with reducing roads deaths know that deaths per 100,000 population is the way to go

PEST

Australia is not Europe nor ever will be. In particular, those of us who live well outside the suburban rat-race & who travel distances on a daily basis that Europeans wouldn't even contemplate for their annual holidays simply cannot use bicycles as much as some clearly hope for. There is no reason to accept ANY death rate as acceptable. Cyclists will always be more vulnerable than other road user despite the invulnerability many appear to believe lycra confers on them. There is nothing to be lost from making cyclists, and indeed all road users, aware of the risks peculiar to heavy vehicles, there is nothing to be lost & much to be gained from compulsory registration of bicycles, there is nothing to be lost & potentially a few lives saved by banning bicycles from narrow congested roads where anyone wanting to insist on their 'right' to ride a bicycle really should consult a good shrink, same applies to cyclists who ride two or more abreast on narrow roads with stuff-all visibility, or those who refuse to use shared paths 'because they don't like being held up by pedestrians'. I'd much prefer people to utilize common-sense than have the clowns in gubmunt make more stupid laws, unfortunately common-sense isn't all that common.

PEST,

I see no actual argument of why your metric is better.

'consistent accident monitoring'

hahahaha. Like unemployment figures these days.

you fit the mould nicely...

A class of people have been fortunate enough to be able to afford to reside so close to their workplace that they can ride a push-bike, with the sanctimonious attitude they're doing the world a favour, and the entitlement to think people should allow them a lane to travel at 15km/h or else build them a special track.

I drive past a multi million dollar bike lane on the way to work, I see about 1 cyclist every 15 minutes. Funny how the most privileged people in the world get their own track to ride their bike to work, while the poor drive an hour, being held up by the yuppies who refuse to use it because they think they're in the tour de France. I suppose your solution is to put the poor in high density apartment blocks so they are close to coal powered rail.