A new high-definition camera mounted in the tail-light of a bicycle, to record vehicles passing too closely, accidents, abuse and general bad driving, and to work towards improving road safety for cyclists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-vsYCybCs8&feature=youtu.be

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

So then, why can’t the same principle be extended to cars and indeed all vehicles?

Why don’t the police, Dept of Transport, RACQ and all other relevant parties encourage people to mount cameras in their cars?

This would surely make all the difference to the way the rank drivers drive, once they realise that their behaviour can easily be recorded in full and that this can then go to the police as hard evidence.

FOR JUST A FEW D0lLARS A DAY
WE CAN LIFE YOUR LFE FOR YOU.*

it seems clever//til your computer 'dies'
and they are designed/to die

no thanks/free public transportation
[im sick of walking in auto polution/put a tax on fuel/so us walkers can move/arround like the poluters do...anyhow i dont trust computer nurds

the FIRST DEATH BY AUTOMOTON?
will the comuter make life and death choices
[dont hit the lady and the kid in the pram/better to kill the single driver/by hitting the truck..[which person to avoid]..look its all clever/but at what cost?

i like the idea/of the 2000 dollar car
if that needs be self drive ok[think of all the instrumentation
mechanical engineering..we could save..these cars could behalf price
but instead they will be double

no i love driving/WHO NEEDS AUTOS
as you can see im conflicted/and unINTRESTED...how about google glasses/that auto upload all we see/for later edit..for free

never the less/auto..driver/less public transportation
the new norm?..[the nut behind the wheel is the biggest cost.]

Thaat is the case now. It just depends what state you live in.
Tailgators, No indicators, Illegal head lights. All good for keeping the driving comunity on their toes.

It's called hard evidence, and can't be disputed.

AUTHER/quote..<<.‘The central puzzle..is why the state should have to tolerate exemptions..from generally applicable laws..when they conflic..with religious obligations..but not with any other equally serious obligations of conscience.’>>

Section 116
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#Text_of_the_provision_and_location_in_the_Constitution

has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court of Australia: while the definition of "religion" adopted by the court is broad and flexible, the scope of the protection of religions is circumscribed. The result of the court's approach has been that no court has ever ruled a law to be in contravention of Section 116, and the provision has played only a minor role in Australian constitutional history. Among the laws that the High Court has ruled not to be in contravention of Section 116 are laws that provided government funding to religious schools, that authorised the dissolution of a branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that enabled the forcible removal of Indigenous Australian children from their families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#Meaning_of_.22religion.22

It asks whether there...<<..is ‘any reason to think that moral ideal would only single out religious claims of conscience, protecting our Sikh boy but leaving our rural boy with no legal remedy.’>>

OPEN CARRY*
the knife must be a Public declaration/of belief*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#Meaning_of_.22religion.22

L

OUG.... The public transport system was supposably the best idea ever, I don't think so.....buses in Sydney have turned three lanes of smoothly flowing traffic, into two lanes of bullsh@t. Then we add the push-bike maniacs to the equation....The world is moving quite fast with very little time to achieve the daily tasks needed......CCTV as a height-light of human ingenuity? has to keep in mind the congestion of modern day understandings, which brings more dangerous situations to the roads.

Bike riders pay your road TAX or get off the streets:)
I've nearly killed three of them so far...(in their minds, that's one meter...I don't have to look behind me, cause I don't, the law says so) ....so you can see the fear I have for their safety.

That extra 1 meter moves vehicles away from the left-hand side, as law 101 of the motor drives hand book states quite clearly.

I have seen many near misses, not with bike-riders, but with vehicle head-ons.

Q...OUG....then why spend millions on push-bikes tracks if their not going to use them?



KAT

oops sorry/wrong thread
no further thoughts

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16418&page=28

WE are ever making the list longer
the list/of lost skills/arts/TRADES

NOW/I CAN BUY THAT AUTO DRIVE TRUCK
A FLEET OF AUTO DRIVE BUSES/ point being who has the job to afford their work OFFER...[NOW A MINER/CAN Sell off our and/via auto drive truck/to auto drive trains/via auto loading onto auto shps/who deliver it/into the automated factory

and we still got fools working 24/7[mainly revenue raising sin taxes\
with comm car and huge ensions on highest pay scales/to go to private schools/oh who cares..

home james
MARK MY WORDS...PATENT THE PHRASE.

OUG....are you feeling alright?..."Constitutional guarantee of the freedom"...Just one thing to say to you...(nine steps back and one step forward)....welcome to the human race:)....

Kat

It's called hard evidence, and can't be disputed.
579,
Yes, indisputable evidence of the failure of our education system ! It's a mentality thing & poor education can not improve poor mentality.

<< It's called hard evidence, and can't be disputed. >>

Yes 579.

So why then are the police and all other relevant authorities so reluctant to promote the use of in-vehicle cameras?

Recent comments from the Qld Police Minister, Jack Dempsey are positive, but this is the only bit of positivity I have heard from any authority.

<< It just depends what state you live in. >>

Could you please elaborate. Is there actually a state police service or government that views this positively?

My experience (I’ve been a prolific driver all around the country for decades. My little Xtrail is just coming up 400 000 on the clock, after having had it for six years) is that there are an awful lot of very ratty drivers out there who feel as though they can act as aggressively and unlawfully as they like with complete impunity, because the ordinary citizen can’t do jack sh!t about it, and there is sweet stuff all chance of the police actually seeing them do it.

Speeding, tailgating and general abuse of those who are observing the law is rife. And many of these total wank*rs just go totally feral if you give them any signal of discontent.

Cameras mounted in vehicles would CURE this problem.

I can’t see why it wouldn’t be the answer to greatly improving road safety – to a greater extent than all the speed cameras and most of the rest of the police effort that gets put into road safety.

And only a small percentage of vehicles would have to have them in order to make law-breakers or would-be law-breakers realise that there is a high chance of them being sprung if they muck around.

It is such a simple idea. And yet it is somehow good for cyclists, but not good for cars and trucks, in the eyes of our illustrious police and politicians.

Luddy,
you got my support for that one. What are people doing on the road that makes so upset about being filmed ? I suppose the wank*rs & crims but otherwise why object ?
If I did something stupid then I'd rather have the images of a camera as evidence rather than some asexual acdemic's version.

In car cams are very common in Vic, It not only keeps people at a safe distance it is good for keeping an eye on police when you get pulled over. With picture and sound.

I have a bumper sticker that says this car takes photo's.

One rear and one forward, when you turn the key the cams are on. No need to rewind it just keeps rotating on a 32 mb micro disc.

I think the idea generated from police cars having them, they are a good thing.

It would be the answer to promote road rage. Vigilantism is not a good idea on the roads, or anywhere for that matter.

Luddy old mate, perhaps you should ask yourself just what you are doing to promote this tailgating you are always on about. Does it happen to you often, or does it annoy you so much you are still on about something that happened years ago.

I was tailgated by a dill out near Sofala in 2002, & have not been tailgated since. Why should you be?

I did have a few cars coming a bit closer than usual when I first put my restored Triumph TR8 back on the road. I realised I had not put the Triumph emblem back on the boot since painting the car, & they were trying to figure out what the car was. It stopped after I put the emblem back.

On my 25 kilometer drive to town I regularly find people driving at 80/85 Km/H on the 100Km/H main road, but they don't get tailgated , so I don't think it is a speed thing.

I do find the school taxi mums, who seem to be incapable of driving at a constant speed, fluctuating from 75 to 115 Km/H for no apparent reason, get tailgated. These ladies get tailgated by frustrated drivers desperate to get past & away from them. Interestingly, some of these have a tendency to wake up, speed up & tailgate anyone who passes them

I was surprised to find recently, a number of other drivers like me, who will go & have a coffee before leaving town, if they are likely to leave around the dreaded 3.00/3.30 PM departure time of these ladies.

I can't for a moment imagine that you would be so incapable of concentrating on the task in hand, to drive in this way, but could you be distracted by some unusual plant, & thus slow unexpectedly? Could it be your high mileage Xtrail is blowing a lot of fumes, & again people are desperate to get past you?

So why you in particular?

That’s excellent 579.

Have you ever had cause to take your hard evidence to the police?

That’s pretty amazing that they are common in Vic. I’ve never even heard a mention of it up here in north Qld.

Hazza, empowering the public to assist the police in upholding the law is not vigilantism.

Vigilantism is taking the law into one’s own hands. Totally different.

People are much more inclined to take things into their own hands if they feel that they will get nowhere in their efforts to report things to the police.

There would be FAR less road-rage if people could simply take a matter to the police, with hard evidence recorded on an in–car camera, and get their complaint properly dealt with.

Regarding tailgating; I don’t know what planet you are on if you never get subjected to it. But at least you witness it, so you know that it does happen.

Crikey, if you sit on or just over the speed limit, you WILL get someone following too closely pretty damn often.

As far as I’m concerned, tailgating does not only include whose morons who sit as close up your rear as they possibly can, it also includes whose who sit about one or two car lengths back at 60 or 80 and perhaps three car lengths at 100.

This is far too close, given that all the various authorities recommend a minimum 2 second gap in good conditions, which is about 6 car-lengths at 60, 8 at 80 and 10 at 100.

A vehicle sitting too close behind you is very irritating indeed as far as I’m concerned. And I’m certainly not alone. Tailgating and following too closely has come out as the top or the second top most annoying thing in a number of RACQ surveys about what peeves drivers off.

I witness it far more often than I get subjected to it. I see it all the time in traffic coming towards me. A line of vehicles, all of them following much closer than the recommended minimum following distance, is a very common sight. And very often one or two of them are full-on tailgating… while the front car is presumably just sitting on the speed limit, or perhaps just a little bit under.

continued

I had a classic incident just an hour ago. Sitting on 62 in a 60 zone, a vehicle came up behind me like a bat out of hell. I thought it was going to drive straight through me, so I put my hazard lights on. But the mongrel still just rode right up my rear end. I pulled over and let the fool past, then quickly pulled back out behind him and raised my high beam and left it on.

As far as I’m concerned I will not let that sort of driving go without giving a signal of discontent. However, if I had cameras that had recorded that, I would feel no need to do anything, other than simply go to the police.

Oh…….. hold on.

There is one rather vital necessity – that the police be receptive to complaints of that sort.

I have no idea of whether they would be. But I do know that they have been UTTERLY DISMAL in the highest order regarding my attempts to report rank drivers in the past, without hard evidence. So I would be very reluctant indeed to go anywhere near the police until I get an assurance that they will act on that sort of complaint…. and be decent to those who bother to make such complaints.

Just say that one has a camera to catch tailgaters and one is approaching a speed restriction such as at a Road Work site; one slows down as does the driver behind and closes the gap, as we all do in these circumstances.
Now if a picture is taken how does the driver of the photographed car prove that he was driving in a safe manner and was being law abiding and courteous?

Then there would be the court appearances, the possible appeals etc., etc.
How often would the accuracy of the cameras have to be tested and at what cost and by whom?

In 62 years of driving I have been tailgated about 5 times and all that I did was tap the stop lights and accelerate, that made the offender think.

On the open road if I'm driving for economy I keep an eye out for overtaking traffic and slow down and let them pass, if there are double lines then I speed up so that they are not impeded and slow down when i reach the broken lines.

If I'm in a hurry then I'm the one overtaking and tail gating doesn't occur.

Actually I complain about exactly the opposite behavior. Cars drive around town about 50 to 75 meters apart, rather than close to each other.

When you want to get out of a parking spot, or into a main road from a side street, you can sit for weeks, [or it feels that way]. Single cars dribble past, too close for you to safely pull out in front of them, but so far apart it takes for ever for a safe gap to appear.

I do think you are asking for trouble with aggressive behavior with other cars. It is not your place or right to try to dictate to other drivers how fast they should drive. You are likely to give yourself a heart attack fighting with headlights with other motorists. You really need to take it easy, & not let these people get to you, even if they are dills, you'll live longer that way.

In your instance today, was it a dual carriageway? If not how could you pull over, then back out? Were you driving in the center lane of a dual carriageway? Are you sure you are not trying to enforce the law on others.

There must be some reason this happens to you so often, & not to others.

A few years back I had a brilliant show jumper, who was a very bad traveler in a horse float. I had to drive very carefully, & slowly particularly around corners. My slow progress could very easily have annoyed other drivers.

I made a point of moving over & letting traffic past whenever I could safely, & never had a problem with other drivers getting too close, or becoming aggressive. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I would have expected more impatient drivers here in the south east, than up your way.

<< …one slows down as does the driver behind and closes the gap, as we all do in these circumstances. >>

Hold on, that’s not right, Is Mise.

You slow down in accordance with the slower speed limit, and you expect the car behind you to do the same…without coming right up close behind you.

<< Now if a picture is taken how does the driver of the photographed car prove that he was driving in a safe manner and was being law abiding and courteous? >>

Firstly, if you are slowing down gently, having just passed a speed limit sign and hence gone from one speed zone into a slower one, then there is no excuse for the vehicle behind to come right up you.

Secondly, there is no excuse for tailgating at any time. A vehicle may come up close behind if you slow down very quickly. Then if they should pull back. If they stay right up you, then they are driving very poorly and illegally.

Thirdly, even if you do drive in a less than ideal and courteous manner, that is no excuse for the driver behind you to do the same.

One of the basic principles of driving is to realise that there are a lot of poor drivers out there and to have patience, and to certainly not set the law aside and drive dangerously or offensively as a result of someone driving in a less than proper manner.

<< Then there would be the court appearances, the possible appeals… >>

The whole idea of cameras is to record hard evidence. This would surely mean far fewer challenges and court proceedings, as well as much less opportunity for either the complainant or offender/defendant to lie or exaggerate.

continued

Ideally what is needed is an integrated camera system, with at least three cameras. One out back, one out front and one on your speedo….. and possibly one out either side as well. If you could get all three or five cameras to record onto one screen, it would simply be a matter of finding the piece of recording you want, and you would have the full picture, of tailgating, dangerous overtaking, etc, along with the speed you were doing, all presented together.

Police have caught offenders with in car cams, as well as saving courts time in finding the real story.

Car cam offenders get plenty of air time on tv as well, to show people the attitude of some drivers out there.

Cars need black boxes for speed checks.

Police cars started the craze recording people they pull over, and for chases.

There is available a "Black Box" that can be installed in any car that holds say the last
5 minutes of video and a days worth of speed and location that could be interigated by
police to prove or clear a driving offence.
It could be made inaccessible to be altered and would sove many he said she said
arguments.

"one is approaching a speed restriction such as at a Road Work site; one slows down as does the driver behind and closes the gap, as we all do in these circumstances."

As we all do in these circumstances.

That is right, you don't wait till you are passed the sign before you slow down.

We have to signs here and you slow down between the signs.

<< I do think you are asking for trouble with aggressive behavior with other cars. >>

Haz, what do you think a driver should do? Just do nothing, which effectively rewards the wank*r behind you and just encourages them to keep driving in an offensive manner with a considerably increased risk of mishap?

Sorry, but I’m not willing to do that. Giving a signal of discontent is perfectly fair and reasonable. Doing nothing when subject to bullsh!t driving is NOT fair and reasonable, and you can’t expect people who give a damn to do that.

<< It is not your place or right to try to dictate to other drivers how fast they should drive. >>

Hey, it IS the right and indeed the responsibility of EVERY citizen to implore others to act in a sensible and lawful manner. Tailgaters and aggressive drivers are dictating to others how they would like them to drive – in a manner that is not showing due courtesy to other road-users, does not consider the speed limit, road conditions, weather, pedestrians, etc, etc. No conscientious person should allow them to do that, without at least signalling their discontent.

<< In your instance today, was it a dual carriageway? >>

No. A single-lane road. I had room to pull over into a wide cycle lane or strip of road outside of the solid white line.

Luddy my perspective on motoring comes of course from my youth.

In the early 60s I regularly drove to Melbourne or the Gold Coast from Sydney, as did many of my friends. In 50s, & 60s motorcars, on the narrow, twisty & often rough roads of the day, I would usually average something well over 70 miles/hour.

I did not speed through towns, I did not break my cars, & I did not have accidents. I regularly cruised at 80 to 90 MPH, [140 Km/h or so], which was a safe sensible speed. Unlike droning along at todays 100 Km/H, almost designed to put you to sleep, it was fast enough to help keep you awake, but slow enough to allow you to avoid trouble.

From this experience I can't see todays ridiculously low speed limits as anything but revenue raising. I have nothing but contempt for them, & comply only because it is too much hassle not to. I know it is more dangerous to drive long distances at these speeds, but can't be bothered bucking the system.

With this attitude I have no problem with others who refuse to comply with them, provided they drive safely. If they chose to risk their drivers licence, driving at higher speeds, I don't mind at all.

I can't stand hoons, spinning wheels, or street racing, there are venues where such behavior is admired, & where these clowns should go if they want to play these games.

Perhaps if I had some respect for todays speed limits I could agree with you, but a lot would have to change before I could respect them.

Hasbeen, I think you will find like minded people on this site.

http://www.carr.org.au/about%20carr.htm

I have known Ziggy for many years and he is a very intense fellow.

Hasbeen,

I drove a modified 2.5 litre 1949 Riley that cruised happily at 90mph and would do over the 100, later I had a 1951 Alvis 3 litre saloon that had been fitted with a 4 speed Rover box with electronic overdrive on top gear, this machine could and did cruise at 100mph.

Only ever booked once for speeding, in those days, and that was in a 1926 Alvis "Ducksback" Super Sports for doing 35 in a 30 zone. This was at 06:00 hours one morning passing the stockyards at Bathurst, NSW, when there were no stock anywhere near there and not a house for half a mile in any direction.

Second booking for speeding was in Tenterfield, NSW, when I passed a speed camera in a 50kph zone at a bit under 60, not long after what had formerly been a 60 zone was reclassified.

When overseas I regularly drive at the legal limits of 130 and up and on roads that are no better than ours. One advantage of such speeds is that by accelerating to 130 on the bottom of a slope then the crest of the next hill can be topped at 2.5 to 4.5 litres/100 kilometres instead of 12 to 15 Lt/100km. This in a 4 litre engined car.

Speed, properly applied, saves fuel and cuts fatigue times as well, as you say, keeping the driver alert.

<< I can't see todays ridiculously low speed limits as anything but revenue raising >>

Haz, I can sympathise with you to some extent. I see many speed zones that I think are ridiculously slow. I particularly hate the continuation of slow zones after towns and after roadworks well out onto the open road before the return to normal speed. I consider those to be patently absurd. And I hate a lot of the 50kmh zones on many straight wide flat main roads, that proliferated when 50 became the fall-back speed limit in built-up areas a few years back.

<< I have no problem with others who refuse to comply with them, provided they drive safely. >>

Again I can sort of agree. If people want to speed, safely, without increasing the risk to others, then fine, for as long as they drive safely. But tailgating or following too closely is NOT safe driving. There is no excuse for it.

On the open road I often get drivers with scant little respect for the speed limit but with the good sense not to follow too closely come up behind me when I’m sitting on 105 in the 100 zone. Not all speeders are rank tailgaters.

You've had a couple of nice cars there Is Mise. I just missed out on a 2.5L 2 seater convertible Riley about 14 years ago. By the time I found out it was for sale, someone had beaten me to it.

Still if I had got it I would not have a couple of nice Triumphs, a TR 7 & a 4.6L V8 TR8. They were a lot cheaper so I could afford a pair.

I became somewhat disenchanted with law enforcement in the 60s. I bought a new Morgan +4 in 62. I found it a bit too quick to really enjoy on the public road, so started racing it. I drove it to Bathurst for race meetings 3 times, & despite carefully complying with all reasonable road rules, I was booked each time.

The last time I had crossed a dotted center line by about 6 inches passing a pushbike & was booked for failure to indicate intentions. That cop had followed me for about 15 miles to book me for that. I think they must have had instructions to book all sports cars for something every easter.

Nothing since then has changed my low opinion of traffic branch cops.

I saw a few problems in the utube clip. Riding two abreast when there obviously wansnt enough room to do so safely. Then the guy leaving his footpath and heading in the wrong direction. Something that could have resulted in a fine for a car driver.

Best solution of all is to remove them from the roads. It's also the safest.

What ever happened to user pays!

<< Riding two abreast when there obviously wansnt enough room to do so safely. >>

Yes rehctub. There are many poor cyclists out there when it comes to road safety.

Hopefully cameras will help pull them into line as well as drivers.

There is also a big need for a revision of all road rules concerning cyclists. Lots of them are outdated, redundant, inappropriate or just ignored.

When riding on public roadways it would not matter one iota if you fitted revolving beacons, flashing lights, high intensity strobe lights of yellow/white/red to your bicycle/tricycle. (Some) people simply do not observe, they get in their motor vehicle/truck/4WD...whatever and switch off their brains with the turn of the ignition switch. Mobile phone distraction is a huge concern.

Darwin has a relatively good shared bicycle/pedestrian path network from Palmerston to CBD and a few years ago extended along the old NAR alignment out to Howard Springs Rd...BUT there are areas, particularly in the subdivisions of Rosebery, and around the northern suburbs where the older paths cross busy roads and the orientation of the on/off ramps cause the rider to actually go back onto the roadways. There was an excellent over-bridge built over the Tiger Brennan Rd extension that works well. The maximum speed allowable in the NT on bike path networks is 20 kph.

By far though, is the issue of broken glass on the bike paths - on average I could expect 3 - 8 flat tyres per week if I kept exclusively to the bike paths.

In Perth where I now reside, things are obviously on a larger scale, more hills (whereas Darwin & surrounds are relatively flat), heavier traffic volumes of motorists and cyclists, & a greater frequency of interactions both good and bad.

It is the mindset of Australian motorists generally that cyclists do not pay rego and should have no rights on the roads and therefore should not be taking up valuable spaces on roads with their slower speeds. I refer specifically to commuter cycling - not the lycra clad loonies 3 abreast and 40 metres long that do themselves no favours here, they are another issue entirely.

In most jurisdictions the current laws regarding cycling on public roadways are not adequate, so in contrast to a goodly percentage of fellow riders, I would propose a $5.00 per annum "REGISTRATION" fee, this would enable an insurance levy, Third Party whatever to cover injury/damages.

I hear the civil rights lawyers baying at their briefs already!

Albie I am one of those who want to see this incredibly expensive stupidity of bikeways stopped, & bikes banned from the roads at least during rush hour.

My barber has a shop in a little group of 4 on a minor suburban artery on the outskirts of a moderately large large shopping center. Across the road is a large high school, with no off street parking, So the planners removed the 2 hour parking limit so the teachers can park in front of it all day.

There were 7 angled parking spaces in front of her shop, enough to cater to her trade, the real estate next door, & the other 2 shops.

Some clown planner, no doubt just back from their mandatory trip to Copenhagen for brainwashing on bicycles as urban transport, decided a bike way was needed.

As usual they usurped a part of the existing road paid for by motorists over many years, for this stupidity. They also changed the 7 angle parking spaces to just 3 parallel spaces to fit the bikeway.

Now my barber lives over her shop, & has in over a year, seen just 3 bikes use this bit of stupidity. Meanwhile, with no other parking with in a couple of hundred meters, she has lost 30% of her business, & the real estate agent has to move to other premises, with adequate parking. The owner can't find a new tenant for that shop, & is in financial trouble.

The 100 space bike rack at the school has never had more than 30 bikes in it, so why was this stupidity inflicted on people ?

I think it is time for at least $250 registration fee for any bike, & this stupidity of bikeways be consigned to the trash heap of history, to join other stupidity, such as communism, & the Oz immigration policy.

<< When riding on public roadways it would not matter one iota if you fitted revolving beacons, flashing lights, high intensity strobe lights of yellow/white/red to your bicycle/tricycle. (Some) people simply do not observe… >>

I wouldn’t go that far, Albie. But I agree that bright lights, flashing lights, bright vests and big reflectors are not the be-all and end-all of cycling safety.

They all certainly help. But there will always be situations where a driver is just not going to see a cyclist.

We’ve got to be aware of the false-sense-of-security factor – cyclists thinking they are highly safe because they have all the safety gear, and might therefore do things that they wouldn’t do if they weren’t so well equipped.

Cyclists need to realise that when they are riding along the side of the road, they are pretty much hidden from many drivers’ view a lot of the time. If you’ve got a road curving to the right, or if a driver has a truck in front of them and can’t see over to the left side of the road, if a driver is following the vehicle in front too closely or just at any time when a driver has one or more vehicles in front, his/her view to the side of the road is compromised.

It is this realisation that saw me hang up my bike shoes five years ago. It finally dawned on me after 40 years as an avid cyclist, that I had been very lucky indeed not have been cleaned up from behind.

continued

<< The maximum speed allowable in the NT on bike path networks is 20 kph. >>

That’s ridiculous! There must surely be plenty of situations where a considerably higher speed would be perfectly safe. I am glad that that absurdity doesn’t apply in WA or QLD.

I rode from Canning Bridge to WA Uni for three years. Sticking to 20kmh on the cycleway around the Swan River foreshore would have been intolerable. Likewise with my ride around Rowes Bay to work at Pallarenda in Townsville for many years.

<< By far though, is the issue of broken glass on the bike paths… >>

I never found that to be a problem. Pedestrians who are oblivious to cyclists were a hassle. And their dogs, leashed and unleashed, were a pain in the backside around Rowes Bay, because you never knew what a dog would do, except that when they are walking in a straight line and they hear you coming, they look around and angle out in front of you.

<< I am one of those who want to see this incredibly expensive stupidity of bikeways stopped, & bikes banned from the roads at least during rush hour. >>

Hold on Haz, why wouldn’t you want to get cyclists off the roads and ON to cycleways??

We should definitely be encouraging people to get out of their cars and on their bikes.

<< My barber has a shop… >>

You’ve got hair?!?!

I always imagined you as being as bald as a badger!!

Sorry. Where was I….

<< I think it is time for at least $250 registration fee for any bike >>

Hmmm. Difficult. I want to see cycling encouraged. But I also want to see it well regulated, with cyclists who break the law being easily brought to account by way of having number plates via which the police can easily track them.

This brings me back to cameras. Cyclists should have cameras, front and back. As well as improving cyclist safety, this would also help to keep rogue cyclists in line…. if they had number plates and could easily be found by the police.

All they are doing Luddy, is pinching our roadways, & giving them to cyclists.

If cyclists want bikeways, they should bloody well pay for the things themselves.

Haz, we shouldn’t be thinking of it in an ‘us-and-them’ manner. We should be looking at the greater good for our society.

Surely more cycleways would be good for reducing congestion, improving health and exercise, and reducing fossil fuel consumption and thus addressing climate change.

To these ends, we should all be paying for cycleways through our taxes, whether or not we use them.

Luddy you are on the wrong [cycle] track there.

If you're interested in health you should want to ban bikes anywhere near roads & cars.

I think a good case could be made that those obsessed in bike riding are suffering a degenerative brain disorder, caused by the ingestion of too much CO2 & N20 from riding in exhaust fumes.

Ban bike riding for better health.

Haz, you think in very black and white, hard and fast, all or nothing terms. You need to think more in shades of grey, of points of balance between the good and bad factors.

<< If you're interested in health you should want to ban bikes anywhere near roads & cars. >>

Too extreme. There are certainly some roads on which cycling should be banned, such as the Cook Highway up here north of Cairns, and many very busy narrow roads in our cities. But cycling should generally be encouraged, in conjunction with a very high-profile safety-awareness campaign.

<< …too much CO2 & N20… >>

Yes there is…. which is one reason why we need a concerted effort to promote cycling and reduce the numbers of vehicles on our roads…. in conjunction with a net zero immigration and population stabilisation policy.