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.