'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.
 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.