Warney’s not the only one who needs a road refresher

wolf says:

08:12am | 19/01/12

How the hell has he not been charged?  He failed to stop at the scene of an accident, has admitted it publicly and the police in an equally public manner refused to charge him. This isn’t the first time either - he hit a photographer last year and kept driving.
The message this sends to the community is it’s ok not to stop if you hit someone.  This could lead to the ‘Warnie defence’.  Chilling.
Surely the police commissioner Ken ‘road safety’ Lay should publicaly prosecute, even if its only a fine for failing to stop, to act as a general deterrant against drivers moving off after an accident without at least stopping to see if the person is ok.
On another note I’ve taken to yelling ‘bowled Shane’ whenever a car moves into the cycling lane and stops without indicating.  It seems appropriate.

Hermano says:

08:31am | 19/01/12

Victorian police don’t give a shit.  They’ve got enough witnesses to get Warne for leaving the scene of an accident, yet they’r encouraging “civil action”. 
Can’t bat, can’t bowl, can’t be bothered.

poa says:

09:03am | 19/01/12

Got to say that running over someone and not stopping is obscene. I want the police to pursue this…From yesterday’sreports it would seem a Traffic accident report was not filed “due to the minor nature of the incident”.
Gee…since when has that been minor?
It is getting more and more frightening out here with the verbal abuse and near misses of drivers who hardly attempt to give you any distance when passing.
They probably feel justified with the media’s treatment of bloody cyclists who “must have a death wish for being on the roads.”
No we don’t. And what sort of human being runs over another (either accidentally or by not moving over enough) just because they have the bloody cheek to ride a bike?
Probably someone just like Warne.
Theres laws against inciting violence against gays, religious groups, or races.
Pity theres no such protection for us cyclists.
The coppers have to get involved. For all our safety.

RyaN says:

09:33am | 19/01/12

@wolf: The police have investigated and there is nothing in it, which means the cyclist was a barefaced LIAR.

Nathan says:

10:18am | 19/01/12

@ RyaN No, it means like with most incidents when bikes are involved, the police can’t be bothered and let the driver get a way nothing.

Hermano says:

10:20am | 19/01/12

@Ryan: Vic police are notorious for not pursuing incidents where cyclists are assaulted, including where motorist negligence has killed a cyclist.  To state that there’s nothing in it is a falsehood, as there are witnesses that saw Warne’s vehicular assault on the cyclist.  The cops just put it in the too hard basket.

RyaN says:

10:46am | 19/01/12

@Hermano: So you are making a statement of fact that you know that Victoria police do not investigate deaths of cyclists where a car was involved. That sounds like a falsehood to me. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Simonious says:

11:30am | 19/01/12

Wolf by his own admission the cyclist was breaking the law. “So same as every other day I and the other 10 or so cyclists at the intersection began the precarious weave through the stationary traffic to bridge the gap to the bike lane on the other side of Kings Way.” You cant do it on a bike, a motorbike, a horse, on foot or in a car. you are simply just not allow to ‘weave your way through stationary taffic” But thats right these laws dont apply to you bike riders do they.

wolf says:

12:26pm | 19/01/12

@Siminous Two wrongs dont make a right. Regardless of who is at fault (neither of us were there so cant really comment) Warnes vehicle was involved in a collision.  He had a legal obligation to stop and exchange details. Which he didnt, for at least the second time that can be confirmed.
Because he hasnt been charged it is effectively a green light for drivers to not stop if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist. Think about that for a moment.
On another note, there were noticably less cyclists on the ride in today, and the bike racks at work were practically empty. Well done Warnie and Vic Police.

Craig says:

02:37pm | 19/01/12

@Simonious ... As I understand the law, cyclists are the only road users allowed to overtake on the left (s.141), so the cyclist was within his rights to split the lane.  There is no specific law regarding lanesplitting stationary vehicles (I know because I’ve tried looking for one).  Presumably, the cyclist ought to indicate each time he crosses the white line, but that’s not practical when you are trying to maneuvre a bicycle and the law consistently uses the term “practicable”.  As far as I know, the cops can only book a cyclist for lanesplitting stationery traffic if they believe the circumstances constituted “careless” or “dangerous” behaviour, and that is arguable when the cars aren’t moving.

Hermano says:

07:41am | 20/01/12

@rYAn:  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/musician-suffers-death-by-car-door/story-fn7x8me2-1226191821236
The woman whose negligence caused this death didn’t even get a fine, even though she clearly broke the law.  Tell me that the cops did their job in this case and I’ll call you a liar.

RyaN says:

08:57am | 20/01/12

@Hermano: I don’t get it, are you claiming that this case was motorist negligence? How was the motorist responsible for this?
If I was driving a car and someone flung a door open, I took the door out, whose fault would it be?
Now you tell me why bicycles should be treated differently to any other vehicle on the road?
I see a tragic accident and yet another reason why all cycling on major arteriole roads should be banned, not to mention parking.

Hermano says:

09:14am | 20/01/12

*sigh*.  The law states that all care must be taken when opening a car door.  If you’re driving along and run into a door that someone has opened, the person who opened the door is in the wrong and is liable for all damage.  Same goes if they open a door, flinging a passing cyclist into the path of a truck.  They didn’t take responsibility for their actions, and their actions caused a death.
You sure do have a car-centric view of the world, to the detriment of all else.  And yet, strangely, you don’t really know much about the obligations of owning and driving a vehicle.  This will come off as me being a smart-arse, but isn’t intended as such: please have a good read of the road rules, particularly those relating to your obligations as a driver, and also those relating to cyclists.  It would make a lot of these clarifying responses unnecessary.
Thanks.

Mark says:

10:22am | 20/01/12

@Hermano- Correct, I remember a case where a driver opened her door and another car swerved into oncoming traffic and someone died, the door-opener got charged with culpable driving but that was reduced to dangerous driving causing death. Harsh, but the sad reality of our society seems to reflect the selfish, tunnel visioned state of mind that most people reside in. And not just in the driving sense (which is appaling, there is more than 1 lane on most roads people!! you need to be aware of more than just what’s in front of you!!!)

wrong again says:

08:21am | 19/01/12

1 death per week is not small

TChong says:

08:36am | 19/01/12

you got me there , of course, anon..
See if you can think about overall figures.
10s of Millions of motorised vehicle journeys every week,
10s of thousands ( if not more) bicyclist journeys.
Agree 1 death a week is 10 deaths a week too many, but it also shows the roads are hardly Mad Max type anarchy, doesnt it?
If the majority of drivers werent aware, and cautios, and accomadating of bicyclists, the toll of bicyclists would be much greater.

Hermano says:

08:46am | 19/01/12

TChong, this may be true.  But it’s not just cyclists that get killed by cars.  In NSW alone, the average is more than one a day.  I know that doesn’t sound like much, but think of the pain and trauma each family goes through with each one of these entirely preventable deaths. 
Yet we just accept this as part of life.  We drive, we sit in traffic, we get killed by an inattentive person who was in a hurry.

Unicycle says:

12:17pm | 19/01/12

Only one a week! we’ll never get rid of them at that rate something needs to be done!

Michael says:

10:54pm | 20/01/12

@ Hermano….While agree that road deaths are not acceptable, why is it that you single out those in a hurry? Daily I see many drivers in absolutely no rush at all,nearly kill or injure because, by all apearances they have no interest in what they are doing at the time (driving). Not to mention those that are just completely incapable of applying more than vague control of their vehicle.
As for cyclists, (I cycle and drive), I also see them act completely selfishly, meanining “I am allowed to do this, so I will” ( usually taking up road space they don’t need to), then get stroppy should someone try and pass.
I live in QLD, and I think that QLD drivers would have to rate among the worst (yes I have travelled), but I see much foolishness in both camps. Sometimes I wonder that, if road rage were condoned, whether or not people might just be a bit more considerate on the roads, due a bit of fear of retribution for their ignorance.

Bertrand says:

07:19am | 19/01/12

I don’t think it is reasonable to focus on the stupid things cyclists do without acknowledging that cars do the same.

I’m a 50/50 driver/cyclist - about half of my trips are made by bike and half by car (although to be fair I travel more distance by car, as I will usually take a car for the long 50 or 60km journeys but a bike for the short 20km journeys.

I feel this gives me the perspective of both driver and cyclist, and I would say that the percentage of jerks and wankers is spread fairly evenly across the two modes of transport.

As a cyclist it dismays me to see so many of many fellow cyclists running red lights, not indicating, riding two abreast when the road really only allows for people to ride one abreast, etc. There are quite a few cyclists who have an arrogance about them that gives the rest of us a bad name.

However, I also experience the drivers who will blast their horn and yell abuse simply because I have committed the sin of being on the road (for the record I only ride on roads with on-road cycle lanes, so I’m not even in the drivers’ lanes when they do this. I get the drivers who will overtake me only to turn left straight across my path and cut me off. I get the drivers who open their doors without so much as a shoulder check. There are a lot of drivers who simply hate cyclists and will deliberately abuse them.

The key is attitudes and knowledge of road rules. For this reason I’m not opposed to some sort of licensing system for cyclists who ride on the road. Every other road user needs to hold a license applicable to their class of vehicle. I don’t see why cyclists should be treated differently.

Phil says:

07:40am | 19/01/12

The same can be said in greater amounts for people driving cars, 4x4’s and vans. It seems that almost every day some idiot who cant drive does something stupid while im on the road.
To the extent I’ve purchased an in car camera that is always recording.

What makes it ok for those people to drive around like idiots in a dangerous manner wrapped in a ton or more of metal but you have the problem with some cyclists who filter through traffic (like motorcyclists) and do nothing more dangerous or stupid than car drivers.
Why the immunity for car drivers?

There is such a low level of skill (probably wrong word) required to get a license and drive a car in this country, As a nation they quality of driving is very poor.

Donny says:

08:57am | 19/01/12

@Bertrand says:08:19am | 19/01/12
Have to say I agree with you. 
I mix Public Transport and Cycling during the week and generally only use a car on weekends.
The issues are not just with one group.  There are idiots in both groups.  I am lucky though, I do not have to use the roads to get to and from work. Along the Linear Park in Adelaide is a great ride.

Gymmer says:

09:06am | 19/01/12

Totally agree Bertrand, last year I was cycling on the roads a fair bit in training for an event. We stuck to roads that contained bicycle lanes (and also avoided pretty much all major roads) and back streets. We *always* indicated, road single file, never ran red lights etc. And yet still I would get cars honking me and deros hanging out the windows yelling abuse - for riding within a bicycle lane on a straight bit of road! The mind boggles.

Plenty of car drivers do stupid things, some cyclists also do stupid things. It would annoy me no end if I saw a cyclist run a red because I knew it gave the rest of us a bad name. But if you see a car driver run a red or not indicate (I saw both on my 5km drive into work this morning) you don’t tar all car drivers with the same brush and declare them all dangerous incompetents. Those of us who do the right thing don’t deserve to have abuse hollered at us and cars driving dangerously near us because a cyclist pissed you off once. If I get then more than likely it will result in serious injury.

Just a driver says:

09:12am | 19/01/12

Well, Phil, when two drivers are “wrapped in a ton or more of metal”, chances are that a tap at low speed will result in nothing more than a dint and no injures.  If you tap a cyclist, the outcome can be very bad for the cyclist. And most people do not actually wish to hurt others – believe it or not! Feeling like we’ve been put in the position where our tiniest mistake can result in an injury to another human being makes us feel anxious, and eventually we start feeling dislike towards those that force us to feel that way.

Pickles... The Drummer says:

09:56am | 19/01/12

@Just a Driver - Very valid point. The emotional side of driving around cyclists, whether recognised or not is bound to breed resentment.

My only problem with cyclists is them not obeying the rules. In Sydney CBD they have bike lanes, with their own lights at intersections. They have their own lights and yet they still can’t stop at a red and go on green. I’ve seen a few almost cause accidents running their own red and forcing a car to lock up its brakes in flowing peak hour traffic.

Cyclists also run reds into pedestrians. i’ve almost been knocked over by one guy who thought red meant go for him because he is a special cyclist. I was very tempted to knock him to the ground, locked in cleats and all.

And who’s insurance covers this when they cause an accident, or bowl over an old lady or man? They aren’t registered, don’t pay for their road works and lanes, and don’t pay third party personal or property insurance. Inevitably the car driver will pay for many years to come, and the old lady will be left with no compensation.

Phil says:

10:24am | 19/01/12

@ just a driver,

So exactly how many cyclists on the road do you pass each day? Are there that many (dozens or more) that you feel extra pressure to pay attention to where you are driving so much its distracting?
I really doubt it, it just sounds like you are not a confident driver.
That isn’t the cyclists fault, they aren’t forcing you to feel like that you are just making up excuses for being a poor driver.
We could apply the same logic to other passengers in the cars around you, a small accident with another car that had children, babies, old people or animals in the car could do them a huge amount of injury or death why aren’t you anxious about that too? do you start to dislike other people in cars for the same reason or aren’t they forcing you to dislike them enough?

Its an excuse for being a poor driver, if drivers were given much more education and training in random situations before being handed a license you might not find it a problem, other countries around the world seem to manage with cyclists and drivers on the same roads without so many problems.

@Pickles… The Drummer
You will find most cyclists dont like the ones who do run red lights or speed across ped crossings, real cyclists belong on the trails in parks but well the greens are against that too so there isnt much a cyclist can do without copping shit from everyone these days.
Consider it a problem with a poorly designed city with too many people, very poor public transport and ways of getting in and around the city and suburbs.
Forces people in to cars or on bikes if you live close enough.

iMitchy says:

01:30pm | 19/01/12

At the very core of the whole driver vs cyclist issue is speed, not behaviour.
Why is this always overlooked?

I don’t find cyclists to be a problem in the CBD - sure, they pick and choose when they want to follow road rules and when they want to follow pedestrian rules and other times just take advantage of their small size to zip around stationary traffic, but in a flash they are gone, or are travelling at the same speed as the cars anyway.

The only thing that really pisses me off about city cyclists is that they sometimes prioritise the fact that they have the “right-of-way” over their own safety. You have to understand that a driver doesn’t know if you are playing “cars” or “pedestrians” today and while there might be a cyclist waiting with the pedestrians patiently for the “little green man” to flash, you are busy flying through intersections with cars travelling in the opposite direction turning right in front of you. So which cyclist was in the right - the one waiting at the crossing or the one smeared across the intersection?

The answer is both. But what does that do to the drivers’ ability to predict, anticipate or judge the vehicular environment he is in? And if he/she cannot do that, how can you anticipate what they in turn will do?

The suburbs are different. In Perth there are plenty of open spaces and parks around the suburbs and perfectly maintained footpaths surrounding them, with very few side streets, which go mostly unused. If there is no bike lane, why must they choose to use the road instead of the footpath?
If you have to compete with the odd pedestrian then you know how it feels to be in a car competing with cyclists. The difference is that you can ride onto the grass and go around them (maybe ringing your bell, the equivelent of the car horn, to let them know that you are there - that’s not aggressive so why are horns considered so?), which cars cannot do, and it is likely that if you cannot pass and must brake suddenly, you will not end up rear ended by several other cyclists.

When passing a cyclist, there are also other things going on - like the traffic that we must read around us anyway - but now we have to anticipate possible events of not only the surrounding vehicles, all travelling at similar speeds to us - which is what we are familiar with judging, but we must also judge the cyclists’ speed and try to anticipate our position and theirs in an emergeny event. That is a lot harder than it sounds but we are forced to do it, and it’s dangerous so it pisses people off.

Many people say that a car travelling too slow on the road can be just as dangerous as a car speeding on the road because it is a hazard to other drivers, and they are right. But the slow drivers are at least surrounded by a metal cage designed in-part to save lives.

Cyclists, which are often slower than even these “dangerous” slow drivers, try to tackle the same feat with nothing but a foam hat. Then when accidents happen, as they do, you’d think that no-one told them there would be any cars on the road. It beggars belief.

Errors in judgement are a part of life and sometimes the two parties in an accident are equally at / not at fault. That’s why they are called accidents. People don’t usually set out to get involved in fatal crashes.

Cyclists on the road must accept the risk that all other road users accept but remember that they will always come off second best in a collision - so take extra care, be courteous and consider the footpath if one is available.

Just a Driver says:

02:22pm | 19/01/12

iMitchy - very well said.

Barge says:

08:44am | 19/01/12

I agree. I live on the Redcliffe Peninsula (in Qld) and it is well catered for with bike paths. Do the bike riders use them - no. They ride on the roads right next to the bike path in great packs holding up the traffic. How stupid can they be?

centurion48 says:

09:20am | 19/01/12

@KH: It is interesting that you single out cyclists slowing you down on a busy road but ignore the greatest impediment to traffic flow - the parked car. At least the bike is moving (and, realistically, not much slower than the cars) but a single parked car on a main road completely stuffs up the traffic flow. Why can’t they park in the nearest side street?
I also came across a considerate cyclist, apart from me, on McCarrs Creek Road (Sydney), which is a windy narrow road. He rode down the centre of the road but at his best pace because that was the safest thing to do. When he reached a part of the road where it was safe to pass he waved me through. We both had a happy day.
As for cycling on bike paths, it is hypocritical of you to insist on bikes using the bike path because they slow you down when bike paths are always slower than using the roadway. Probably great for a social cycle but too slow if you are commuting. Bike paths are built by governments not cyclists and do not take the shortest rote from A to B.

Wynston Cruso says:

10:49am | 19/01/12

centurion48 - I’d put that down to poor town planning (the car parking in the main streets part). The bike paths may be slower than using the road, but that’s what they’re there for. I’d like our roads to be of a higher quality so that driving were easier but they’re not, and for cars there is no other option, and I’m sure people wouldn’t take kindly to a WRX driving on a bike path.

PW says:

11:04am | 19/01/12

It’s pretty simple really. Cars and motorbikes are not allowed to travel on cycleways. This does not however mean that bicycles are not allowed to travel on roads. If a bicycle lane is provided (ie it is part of the road)cyclists are supposed to use it where practicable. If there is a cycleway nearby cyclists are under no obligation to use it instead of the road. The only roads bicycles are not allowed to use are those signposted accordingly.

Kika says:

10:26am | 19/01/12

@Zoyd - my car is really hard to judge the dimensions. Not even my husband gets it all the time. They sharply curve downwards making it hard to see where the edge is. So even though I may be 1 metre away to me it seems much closer.

How about you stick to the left and all will be fine?

Wynston Cruso says:

11:00am | 19/01/12

Kika if you can’t judge the dimensions of your car it’s not just cyclists you’d be endangering. Look into getting a car you can drive properly. It’s not a 4x4 is it?

Kika says:

02:20pm | 19/01/12

No, it’s a hatch Subaru.  Trust me, parking is more of the issue and I will not take a iffy park with that thing. We’re going to sell it because it’s too hard to see the corners.

Wynston Cruso says:

02:48pm | 19/01/12

Good move to get rid of it then. Subaru’s are generally pretty good for visibility etc, although in saying that I’ve hit a few curbs when I first got mine. I tend to park away from people as a matter of habit, what with the number of people who have no respect for other peoples property. I especially love the parents who let their kids climb over someones car while putting the shopping in their 4x4, I’ve had a go at more than a few of these douche bags.

Zoyd says:

02:59pm | 19/01/12

No, sorry, its easy.

Go and expalin the problem to a competent driving school. Get a couple of lessons on how to sight. It’s a piece of cake. Both sides. Truly.

Seriously. You don’t need to be able “see” the front corner. What you need is a sighter point , and a bit of practice, eg with the lane markers. 

Seriously. It *is* easy, and it only needs a lesson or two and then some practice on a quiet road. Once you learn how, you can work it out in any car, in a few minutes.

Wynston Cruso says:

04:19pm | 19/01/12

All I was saying is I’ve hit literally a couple of curbs, in my subaru as it’s slightly lowered. Knowing where the corners of my car are wouldn’t have helped in the slightest, and I figured out how to judge that even before the 3 advanced driver training courses I completed. Plus I’m not sure what the driving school could possibly do to rectify the fact that some developers produce abnormally high curbs. Zoyd driving in general should be easy, unfortunately for some it isn’t, however it’s not like it’s going to get any harder in the future for people to get a drivers license.

Zoyd says:

04:45pm | 19/01/12

For pete’s sake, this isn’t about your lack of ability to park on the kerb.

It’s about safe lane clearance while driving. It*is* easy.

If you don’t know how, won’t learn how, or ask a competent instructor to show you how, what does that say about *you*?

A cyclist needs just 1 metre of lane. One lousy meter.

Pushy riding Pete says:

07:10am | 19/01/12

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bicycles/index.html
Bicycles are vehicles too, and from what I gather, can only use a footpath if they’re accompanying a child, or it’s a shared footpath.

As a casual cyclist myself, I reckon there’s some 60kph roads where you’d have to have a death wish to ride on, that’s why they advise using backstreets where possible, and I go by that, but Steve I suggest you keep looking for that rule and once you find it, post the link for all to see.

CBR says:

07:32am | 19/01/12

Steve, we don’t have that rule in Australia. Lord, I wish we did.

Al says:

07:39am | 19/01/12

The rule is actualy regarding the ‘impeding of traffic flow’ and can be considered dangerous driving in certain circumstances.
I don’t believe their is a specific speed indicated.
As an example, a bike rider ridding down a double lined road in the centre of the lane and not permitting anyone to pass them may be guilty of impeding traffic flow, but if they allow the traffic to pass by moving to the shoulder etc then they wouldn’t be guilty of said offence.
A car traveling well below the speed limit is MORE likely to be impeding traffic flow than a bicycle and so traveling too far below the speed limit in a car can be prosecuted as well.

Timinane says:

07:40am | 19/01/12

Steve I’ll ask to you to back up that claim by providing the relevant law.

If that was true no learner or P plated driver in my state would be able to drive outside of a town meaning many rural drivers couldn’t legally learn how to drive. Of course my state has no such law as it’s a bloody stupid law to have and sounds made up by impatient drivers who hate travelling below the limit.

CBR says:

08:10am | 19/01/12

@Timinane

Such laws exist in the US, where they recognise that if someone is doing 70 on a 110km/h road for no reason, it is dangerous to both themselves and to other traffic. Works well, too.

PW says:

08:21am | 19/01/12

@Steve
The word used is not conditions but circumstances, which covers much more than just the weather. The cops might be able to book a cyclist doing 10km/h on the flat in a 60 zone and holding up traffic under this rule, but one doing 25km/h would be travelling at an appropriate speed in the circumstances. The circumstances being that it is a bicycle.

And since when do drivers slow down in heavy rain?

jf says:

08:40am | 19/01/12

Steve says: 07:19am | 19/01/12

It’s a bit rich for you to be pontificating on road rules when you clearly don’t know them.

As far as vehicles travelling well below the speed limit, surely it isn’t to hard to go around a cyclist. I will concede that some tossers can be inconsiderate and make it difficult but a quick toot of the horn may remind them to be more considerate.

As far as congestion goes: more bikes, less cars.

Steve says:

08:51am | 19/01/12

@jf – which part of “I will admit I need to get this rule clarified” are you struggling with?
I’ve conceded right there that it is not something I am certain of…

Wynston Cruso says:

11:06am | 19/01/12

This is why I drive around 40k’s over the speed limit, so as to even out the average speed of a road and maintain traffic flow. I gets it flowin’ like a mofo. Just helping out where I can

On a serious note, I agree that if cyclists want to use the road, and are in a situation that impedes traffic, then they should move, or get on the roids so they can maintain the speed limit.

PsychoHyena says:

11:33am | 19/01/12

@Timinane, given that during my first Ps test I was warned that I was driving too slow (35kph in a 50 kph zone) and could be charged for obstruction of traffic, I would say yes there are laws regarding this in Australia.

The reason why this doesn’t kick in for L and P platers on a 100 - 110 kph highway is because by law they can’t travel above 80kph, however it is expected that they get experience travelling on highways.

jf says:

11:48am | 19/01/12

Steve says:09:51am | 19/01/12

“I’ve conceded right there that it is not something I am certain of”

Didn’t stop you pontificating though.

rob brown says:

07:14am | 19/01/12

Top post, PW and i agree about Amber. A good role model.

Adam Diver says:

08:01am | 19/01/12

Nah, cyclist should be banned. If they are unsafe for a footpath, then I can’t understand the logic of allowing them on roads. If you want exercise get a stationary bike, if you want to get somewhere drive a motor vehicle or catch public transport.

Warren says:

08:44am | 19/01/12

The logic Adam Diver is that I’m a lot faster through the city on my bike than any car. Cars need to be banned from the inner city and increased investments made in public transport. Cars are inefficient, create pollution and decrease the quality of life.

Adam Diver says:

09:11am | 19/01/12

“decrease the quality of life” what rock do you live under? Are you advocating a move back to horse and cart?

Inner-city I can agree with.

Donny says:

09:14am | 19/01/12

@ Adam Diver - Nothing wrong with Bikes. Most days I can get home on a bike quicker than Public Transport and sometimes my car.

Warren says:

12:47pm | 19/01/12

“what rock do you live under?”

Ever been to Europe? Even a huge city like London is more enjoyable since implementing bike friendly facilities, let alone places like Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

Steve M says:

03:19pm | 19/01/12

Well we arent Europe Warren. And as for banning cars from the city, thats all well and good should you happen to live in it or next to it, but for the majority of us that just isnt practical. Sure, some car drivers are tools. Just as MANY cyclists are tools. Its great to be aware of your rights as a road user, how about brushing up on your responsibilities? And the cyclist that holds onto or rests on my car in traffic is living on borrowed time. Who the hell do they think they are.

jf says:

08:43am | 19/01/12

Bikes must comply with all road rules including the speed limit. Happy?

Seb Vetal says:

09:12am | 19/01/12

Rbt and drug testing would slow down these pedalling sociopaths

Anubis says:

09:17am | 19/01/12

@ jf - you say “Bikes must comply with all road rules”. As a defined vehicle there are also design rules they must comply with, these include:

Fixed rear view mirrors
Headlights that are are capable of emitting a continuous beam of light
Taillights that emitt a continuous beam of light

Cyclists are also required to indicate their intentions (turning, stopping) and are required to stop and wait at red lights.

These five points are where a large of number of cyclists fail.

Emily says:

10:33am | 19/01/12

@Anubis - cyclists do have to obey the road rules, but this doesn’t mean they have the same road worthiness specifications as cars. They have their own set of specifications to follow, which includes compulsory use of front and rear lights when travelling at night.

I’m not sure any cyclists would be stupid enough to cycle at night without lights, and if they are, then Darwin’s theory will take care of that.

PW says:

10:41am | 19/01/12

@Anubis

Flashing headlights on bicycles are legal. In most situations at night most riders would prefer a steady light, though.

Flashing rear lights are also legal. Most if not all tail lights currently available for bicycles can either flash or give a continuous display. Flashing is much more noticeable which is why this mode is so widely used.

Headlights and tail lights are only required when riding at night.

Rear vision mirrors are not required on bicycles. Some riders use them, but they are not mandated by law. I use an Italian handlebar mirror on the right bar only and unless you looked very carefully you wouldn’t notice there was a mirror at all.

Cyslists are required to indicate when turning/veering right only.

The thing I notice most frequently missing (even on some new bikes) is an audible warning device, such as a bell (or an AirZound).

Sorry mate but it is you who failed.

jf says:

11:09am | 19/01/12

Anubis says:10:17am | 19/01/12

“As a defined vehicle there are also design rules they must comply with, these include:”

Perhaps for your vehicle but there are different rules depending on the vehicle.

“Cyclists are also required to indicate their intentions (turning, stopping) and are required to stop and wait at red lights.”

Yes. And so the ought. I am sure that, just as with cars, they would be fined if they broke the law. 

“These five points are where a large of number of cyclists fail.”:

I do concede that some cyclists break the road rules and they annoy me as much as I’m sure that annoy you, as much as because some people seem to think that because one does it we all do. Are you suggesting that no motorists ever break the road rules? If so, you are wrong, because I know that, as a motorist and a cyclist I have probably broken more road rules in my car than I have on my bike.

Eva says:

05:13pm | 19/01/12

Emily,

you clearly never go out at night in the inner northern Melbourne suburbs. Plenty of rogue cyclists with no lighting at night.

Just last night I was traveling home at 1am and passed a guy with no lights, I stopped for a red light at a major intersection and he sailed on through.

I really wish we could put these cyclists into a car at night and show them how difficult they are to see. They may be picked up in our lights eventually as we get close to passing them but would not be seen easily by any driver turning into the road.

PsychoHyena says:

07:48pm | 19/01/12

@PW from what I was taught when doing Bike Safety in school, you also have to indicate when stopping (by raising a closed right hand). Yes when I was at school they did bike safety, including teaching the road-rules. Most cyclists I see tend to break all of these rules.

Here are the road rules for Tasmania regarding cyclists and I have seen many cyclists break them without any recourse because Police won’t investigate a case of “A person riding a black mountain-bike did…”. This is why there needs to be registration of bikes.

http://www.cyclingsouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=0 you will see that cyclists are required to follow the same laws as motorists except where indicated.

Mike says:

08:47pm | 19/01/12

Psychohyena when were you at school? Was it some time ago? The rules have changed. Cyclists are no longer required to make such hand signals. Just think, their “failure” to do so has been annoying you for years ... but you just didn’t realise you were wrong in your assumptions.
I’m glad to have helped to relieve your future stress levels!

PW says:

09:49pm | 19/01/12

The trouble with hand signals, and particularly a stopping signal, is that making them means that hand cannot at the same time be operating the brakes, which are on the left and right handlebars. In days gone by, many bikes had “back pedal” brakes and those with handlebar brakes mostly only had one of them. Even the right turn signal is problematical at times.

Geoff Russell says:

07:32am | 19/01/12

Mahhrat. Are you male or female. There’s a difference. Assuming you
are male (most women don’t call themselves bastards!), the
seat is intended to sit under two “wings” of bone on your bottom. Your symptoms don’t sound “seat induced” more likely irritation of nerves in lower back from the seating position. See a sports doctor.

PW says:

07:52am | 19/01/12

Mahhrat you might try one of those gel covers they sell in K-Mart. Use it until your tush becomes acclimatised and then discard it. Unfortunately, some degree of rear-end discomfort is a part of life for cyclists who do any sort of distance but it gets more bearable the more regularly you ride. I use a Brooks B17 which is hard leather and takes a long time to break in, but once it does you never go back. Oh, and buy some padded bike pants and ditch your undies. Commando = comfort on a bicycle.

A rider like Amber was would be interested in only one thing in a bike saddle, and that is weight. Comfort is barely an issue. Racing saddles are quite uncompromising.

I have a Grand Star spring loaded saddle thats similar to those found on exercise bikes in the gym (and that I never use). Its as wide as it is long, and they are cheap too. Any bike shop should be able to get hold of one of these for you.

Simon says:

07:55am | 19/01/12

Try a gel seat cover.  I was quite tubby once myself and had a wider seat but it didn’t help much.

Keep up the effort and join a local B.U.G.

marley says:

07:57am | 19/01/12

@Mahrat - I’m not an expert in cycling, but a couple of thoughts do occur to me.  Gel saddle;  bike shorts (really a “must” even if they do make you look like a wanker); and maybe you need to adjust your handlebar height.  It sounds like you might be putting too much pressure on your back, not your bum.

SamO says:

08:37am | 19/01/12

Mahhrat check out any of the cruiser style bike seats, a local bike shop or Ebay will have them for sale. These are much wider and more padded than normal. Many even have springs underneath for added comfort. See this page for just one example: http://www.nirve.com/cruiser-bike-accessories.asp?cid=3004 these may not suit your style of bike however.

There are also padded gel covers you can buy that go over your existing seat, I bought one for my exercise bike from eBay.

James says:

09:08am | 19/01/12

1) Ditch your undies and ride in padded bike shorts.
2) Measure the width of your sit bones. do this by sitting on a piece of cardboard and measure the distance between the indentations. This will help determine whether your seat is too wide or narrow. Look for seats where your sit bones are on the wings of the seat as someone above mentioned.
3) Know that bigger / softer seats doesn’t always mean better. Many cyclists use smaller harder seats that are the right width and size to place pressure on the bones rather than the soft tissue areas (trust me after riding long distances things can get very numb).
4) Go get fitted up at a bike store, get them to adjust your seat & handlebar position and try out some different seats. You might have to pay more for the right seat but it would be worth it.

Wauker says:

11:34am | 19/01/12

@Mahhrat, if you’re that fat no one will notice the tractor seat

Mahhrat says:

11:46am | 19/01/12

This is good advice re the cardboard, @james, I’ll try that.  I knew about sit bones, but not how to measure them.

I already have a gel seat, but I’m placing too much weight on it! Unfortunately, I can’t adjust the handlebars, just hte seat height on the bike.

marley says:

02:32pm | 19/01/12

@Mahrat - are you sure about the bars?  You can usually adjust the height of the stem (or buy a longer one).  It took me a few tries with my bike to find a position that didn’t leave me really, really uncomfortable and sore.  Of course, that might not be the issue at all.

Anyway, this might give you a bit more info if you’re interested:

http://sheldonbrown.com/handsup.html

Betsy Bicylist says:

08:23pm | 19/01/12

Try any Electra branded seat… I have one on my Electra Amsterdam and I never have a pain issue.

PW says:

08:10am | 19/01/12

I wear a helmet, Sophie, and I stop at lights too.

Why do ALL drivers chuck screechies in front of my home at 2am?

Hermano says:

08:38am | 19/01/12

Sophie, please don’t tar all cyclists with the same brush.  I once witnessed a car passenger drag a cyclist under the car, causing significant injury, right after the driver had swerved at the cyclist with his 2 tonne vehicle.  Yet I don’t assume everyone in a car is a homicidal maniac.  BTW, 2 cops in a paddywagon also saw this crime and locked up the driver and passenger…

Also, how long were you held up for? 30 seconds? Must’ve been bloody horrible for you…

jf says:

08:50am | 19/01/12

Why do all motorists make wild, baseless generalisations? Why do all cyclists do donut? Why don’t they have to obey road rules like traffic lights and the speed limit?

I have never seen a serious cyclist in Australian without a helmet. Ever. In my 25 years as a motorist driving roads all over Australian roads Never.

Almost all obey road rules. Some do roll through red lights but so farking what. They get out of the way of the traffic. Surely this makes sense.

Anubis says:

09:11am | 19/01/12

@ PW - bit of a generalisation there. I don’t remember ever “chucking screechies” outside of your house at 2 a.m. and I have been driving for 37 years (and cycling for longer).

James says:

09:42am | 19/01/12

Sophie how close were you to him when you overtook? You need to give cyclists a minimum of 1 meter.
I have been overtaken many times much closer (including by very big trucks) and that is the primary reason why I would be hurling abuse and shaking my head at the driver. Most drivers who do this are completely unaware that they were 30cm away from hitting me.

and BTW your horrid generalisations do nothing for your argument.

PW says:

10:46am | 19/01/12

Anubis, you missed the point entirly.

Sophie suggested ALL riders don’t wear helmets and run red lights because she’s seen a few do it.

Thus I suggested (using her logic) that because some car drivers chuck screechies outside my door at 2am, they all must do it.

I did not think I would need to explain this in detail, but there you go.

Wauker says:

11:37am | 19/01/12

@PW, what a strange response to Sophie, WTF?

Sam says:

11:40am | 19/01/12

@Hermano“Also, how long were you held up for? 30 seconds? Must’ve been bloody horrible for you…” 
This is the typical arrogant attitude that causes conflict between cyclists and motorists.

On another note:  how many people here let bikes hitch a ride in the city (puts hand up).  Well after that kid got charged with manslaughter after towing his mate on the skatie I am implementing a “No hands on my Hilux” policy.  If any bike rider touches my car I will stop immediately and tell them to let go.

Sam says:

11:40am | 19/01/12

@Hermano“Also, how long were you held up for? 30 seconds? Must’ve been bloody horrible for you…” 
This is the typical arrogant attitude that causes conflict between cyclists and motorists.

On another note:  how many people here let bikes hitch a ride in the city (puts hand up).  Well after that kid got charged with manslaughter after towing his mate on the skatie I am implementing a “No hands on my Hilux” policy.  If any bike rider touches my car I will stop immediately and tell them to let go.

jf says:

02:01pm | 19/01/12

Wauker says:12:37pm | 19/01/12

“@PW, what a strange response to Sophie, WTF?”

Only if you don’t understand basic logic.

Sophie suggested that because one cyclist temporarily held her up from her meeting with the World Health Organisation to discuss her cure for cancer that all cyclist are “the Antichrist on the roads”, “don’t have to obey road rules” and don’t “wear helmets”.

PW illustrated how stupid her generalisations by using satire: that is he suggested that because one driver did screechies outside his house at 2am then, using Sophie’s logic, “ALL drivers chuck screechies in front of my home at 2am”.

How sad that you needed this explained.

PW says:

08:38am | 19/01/12

@DaveC

Yep, it costs heaps to drive. No doubt about it. Especially if you disobey the road rules.

The right of cyclists to use roads is not God-given, it is given by legislation. There is no need to demand, we already have this right. Do you really think drivers shouldn’t have to look out for other road users? Or is it just bikes they shouldn’t have to look out for?

Rather than whinging, you might like to consider cycling yourself. It might help as you appear to be on the verge of an aneurism.

Jimbob says:

08:46am | 19/01/12

Dave, if things are sooooo bad for motorists, and so good for cyclists, the solution is simple… become a cyclist!

ICFB says:

08:54am | 19/01/12

@Dave C – you should be knighted. Brilliant!

Hermano says:

08:56am | 19/01/12

Wow.  There’s a whole lot of anger there.
The reason there’s so much regulation and taxing of motor vehicles is that they are deadly implements and the roads they drive on are expensive to build and maintain.  The money you pay in rego/fuel excise/fines doesn’t even come close to covering the expense that motor vehicles incur on society.  You are in fact subsidised by every non-driving taxpayer by a massive amount. 
So you can stop your whinging and think about how much worse it would be if you actually paid your way.  You just come off sounding like a whiny child.

jf says:

09:02am | 19/01/12

Dave C says: 08:29am | 19/01/12
“cyclists should not be on the major roads full stop”

Cyclists aren’t allowed on major roads.

“Car drivers pay excessively high levels of tax on petrol plus high car registration and ctp insurance”

I’m happy to pay one trillion percent tax on the petrol I use for by bike. I am happy to pay for whatever damage I cause to a third party vehicle in any accident I have. As to rego, I would be happy to pay an amount proportional to the amount of road I use and the wear and tear I cause the road compared to the amount caused by the average motorist. 

“cyclists pay SFA”

Well cycle then. I costs SFA after all.

I didn’t copy your rant but dude, what’s this got to do with cyclists?

“bike lanes are there for free”

I pay a shit-load of federal tax and council rates that pay for those bike lanes.

“and then we get cyclists some how demanding they have a god given”

Nah mate, that right is provided by the law not God.

“pay SFA compared to car drivers”

It seems that it is about the money Dave. Why? Do you get upset with all those pedestrians using roads to get to the other footpath without paying a cent? What about Ma Kettle walking her dog at 5 in the morning? Is she sponging of all those benevolent motorists?

centurion48 says:

09:34am | 19/01/12

@Dave C: Here is a suggestion that is a win-win for all of us. Why don’t you emigrate to Auckland NZ where they are about to build a bike/pedestrian crossing across the harbour and bikes will pay a toll but cars using the existing bridge (to which this bike path will be attached) pay nothing. That will make you happy, and it will certainly make me happy knowing I don’t have to share a road with you.
I suggest you also see a psychologist too because you have real anger management problems and probably are unfit to drive.

Dave C says:

09:43am | 19/01/12

Gee all the precious lycra boys and girls have come out to attack havent they. Lets rebut their arguments 1 by 1 shall we.

1) Jimbob- The distance between my wifes work and mine is 85km, and since public transport is non existent we both HAVE TO DRIVE god knows we have both tried to find jobs closer so the option of becoming a cyclist is non existent.
2) JF, PW - the whole point of my rant is that yes cyclists do have rights under the law which they should not have. With rights come responsibilities. I am saying the cyclists should have have the legal rights which the two of you refer to.
3) Hernando- PROVE IT, provide a link or a source, prove the amount spent on roads across Australia over the last 40-50 years is more than that collected in Rego tax, Petrol tax collected at both state and federal levels as well as speeding fines (which do nothing but collect revenue especially when the cops are always on the good roads not the bad ones). By the way yes country roads are subsidised by city taxpayers however if we want people to live away from the city then thats the price that has to be paid otherwise lets cram another 5 million people into Sydney and 5 million more into Melbourne and see what that does to the existing infrastructure.
4) JF- good to see you are prepared to pay to use the road, very good we can start with a bike licence, bike rego, bike ctp insurance and when your on a specific bike lane that cars cannot use such as the one parallel to the M7 then you can pay a toll to use it like drivers have to on the M1, M2, M5 M5 East and M7 do in NSW (I am sure other states have toll roads as well) As I said I cant ride to work as circumstances beyond my control prevent it. As for Ma kettle the pedestrian. When she starts writing articles for the punch demanding her rights to be on the road then I might get annoyed. Hoever this has not happened and I have never had any trouble with Pedestrians ever (i know you must stop at lights and zebra crossings) so thats a non issue as far as I can see it.

Dave C says:

09:46am | 19/01/12

No centurian I wont migrate to NZ just to satisfy the ignorant assumptions of people like yourself. If you want to disagree with me fine but dont attck my character. Typical though get personal even though in my ranting I have not personally attacked the character of anyone, I suggest you try and do the same.

When I drive I dont get angry, I obey the rules and try and get to work and back (to see my family) on time. I only get angry when I see pieces this this on The Punch.

Dave C says:

09:53am | 19/01/12

For all you cycling enthuisasts this article from the Tele may interest you, its a different take on Warnies tweets….

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/when-will-they-stop-pedalling-nonsense/story-e6frezz0-1226247783775

Hermano says:

10:27am | 19/01/12

Geez Dave C: you really are in a tizz there.
For expenditure on roads, it’s all there in the budgets of states and councils etc.  I don’t need to prove anything.
2 minutes of google searching found this: http://www.btre.gov.au/info.aspx?NodeId=167
and this: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/38/Files/IS37_RoadExpend.pdf

Hermano says:

10:34am | 19/01/12

Also, just noticed that DaveC is linking to Miranda Devine.  Oh my.  If she’s the spokesperson for your anti-cycling movement then heaven help us all.

I suggest that if you don’t like the rights that cyclists have, you should lobby the government.  Would get you a lot further than arguing on the internet, and we wouldn’t have to watch you embarrass yourself while bringing on a heart attack.

jf says:

11:29am | 19/01/12

Dave C says:10:53am | 19/01/12

From Devine’s article.

“We are sick of the way they weave through traffic, run red lights, come out of nowhere and ignore road rules to suit themselves.”

What a load of BS. Some do - a very small number. But then again some motorists speed dangerously, weave in and out of lanes, run red lights, drive drunk, do donuts, race and ignore road rules to suit themselves. The consequences of a motor car having an accident are far greater than a cyclist.

And so what if they run the odd red light. What a petty complaint.

“Bike registration may be too unwieldy, especially for casual riders, but if guerrilla skirmishes between cars and bikes continue on our roads, the heavy hand of the law will have to intervene.”

What a petty, over-governed country we have become. All over the world from the most cosmopolitan cities to busy third world countries cyclist, motorists and others co-existing happily and safely. How sad that motorists are so angry about being held up from time to time (most cyclists ride before they are even awake), how sad that a healthy and globally popular activity is under fire from people who are so angry that cyclist get to roll through a red light even though it hasn’t inconvenienced them one iota. What an angry, petty mob of whingers we are. How bloody pathetic.

LukeW says:

11:51am | 19/01/12

Registration fees and petrol taxes do not pay for roads, they go to general revenue.  In any case registration fees probably wouldn’t even cover the cost of administering the system.  We all pay for the roads whether we drive or not.  Cyclists act not as if they own the road, but that they are entitled to be there, which they are.

Bikes were on the road before cars and it is the cars that cause all of the congestion, all of the pollution, all of the major accidents and deaths and all of the wear and tear.

Cyclists on the other hand only irritate drivers because they can’t go as fast as the cars. This is the only reason for the disproportionate amount of attention this discussion gets.  When people get into cars they become selfish and intolerant - of everyone.

It always amazes me that a modern society would entertain the idea of introducing measures to reduce cycling not encourage it.

jf says:

11:59am | 19/01/12

Dave C says:
10:43am | 19/01/12

“With rights come responsibilities.”

I agree. And, just as there is with motorists, some cyclists are knuckleheads. Those that break the road rules should be fined. They annoy me as much (more?) a they annoy you.

“I am saying the cyclists should have have the legal rights which the two of you refer to.”

I agree.

“we can start with a bike licence, bike rego, bike ctp insurance”

Are you seriously suggesting that if bikes did have to pay rego that they should pay the same as cars? If that’s the case, presumably you chip in and pay the same rego as a sixteen wheeler then.

Maybe rego should be based on formula determined by kilometres driven and weight of vehicle to reflect the individuals usage. That would work for me because, whilst I’d have to pay rego on my bike, my car rego would decrease dramatically.

You’d supppor that, after all, if you want riders to pay because they use the road, you, like me, are obviously an advocate of user pays.

Also, on this, my eight year old has a bike. How much rego should she pay?

“As I said I cant ride to work as circumstances beyond my control prevent it.”

Ah right. So let’s draft legislation and modify the rules that apply to millions of people around your specific circumstances then.

PW says:

09:17am | 19/01/12

Motor bikes are not bicycles. The issues involved are completely different. The danger on bicycles can be avoided by a skilled motorcyclist due to the outstanding power-to-weight ratio that they have. Most motorcycle fatalaties are single vehicle, typically caused by locking up the front wheel at speed. Bicycles are most often hit by another vehicle.

Dkx says:

03:13pm | 20/01/12

@PW - You made a point earlier to Anubis, regarding his missing the facetious nature of your comment.
Maybe you should re-read what John has said here, as he quite clearly was only drawing a comparison with respect to motorcycles before moving to more on topic statements.

Chris L says:

11:03am | 19/01/12

I’m with you Al. Especially regarding points 2 and 3. I don’t think people are being deliberately rude, it just doesn’t seem to occur to them that other people actually exist.

I find it especially amusing/annoying when I approach a group of people walking as a single mob blocking the entire footpath. While I’m always happy to make a course correction to avoid walking into people, sometimes this won’t work and it’s the other people that have to adapt. More often, as we approach each other, they each just stare at me without adjusting their course, as if expecting I’m about to leap over their heads or become insubstantial so they can walk through me. Sadly the laws of physics intervene and I end up stopping in my tracks while their brains slowly process the necessity of making some room for me to pass.

marley says:

08:00am | 19/01/12

Funny, isn’t it, hen, that in lots of cities in North America the cops ride bikes in the downtown core because they can get around faster than with a car.  It’s not the bikes that are clogging the roads.

Phil says:

08:29am | 19/01/12

@Tubesteak,

If thats the case so should Asians, its genetic they just dont have the ability to drive.

Hermano says:

09:23am | 19/01/12

@tubesteak

Lame troll is lame.

Look around next time you’re stuck in traffic.  Guarantee it won’t be a cyclist holding you up.

The Truth says:

10:05am | 19/01/12

@Hermano

So Critical Mass is made up of what exactly? I’ve been stuck behind these assholes on multiple occasions.

Hermano says:

10:31am | 19/01/12

Ah yeh, well.  Critical mass is made up of “assholes” (sic), they’re a firnge group.  In the same way that street racing hoons that kill pensioners or road ragers who stab each other are a fringe group.

Tubesteak says:

12:06pm | 19/01/12

marley
I also see some cops riding horses around Sydney. They also drive EVOs and WRXs and motorbikes.

Phil
Old people, too.

Hermano
I always see cyclists holding up traffic on William, College, Crown, Elizabeth and King St. They seem to think they can go at a leisurely pace in rush hour. They then wind their way through stopped traffic at a traffic light just to take off slowly and hold up traffic again. There’s no excuse for it. They should be banned from the road, forced to pay rego for the bike (and not just their car sitting at home if they have one) and fined for doing stuff like that.

Sporn of Erick says:

02:35pm | 19/01/12

@ Phil
Do not forget women, immigrants(ALL) and homosexuals. Oh, and Jews, Muslims and Pastafarians.
Don’t even talk about people in VOLVO’s.

PW says:

08:44am | 19/01/12

@Ron Vincent

Because the law says they can.

Craig says:

03:31pm | 19/01/12

@Ron Vincent, see section 141 of the road rules.  Should answer your question.  Cyclists are the only road user allowed to overtake on the left.

Kika says:

10:36am | 19/01/12

Exactly. That’s my point. It’s safer and less likely to end up in fatalities. Fights maybe, but less fatalities.

Craig says:

03:26pm | 19/01/12

Shamwow, it has been my experience that footpaths are more dangerous for bikes than the roads.  The paths are uneven and there are overhanging branches.  You have to overtake pedestrians by moving off the path and back on, which is very dangerous in some places due to the change in level between the path and the grass.  Also, you have to stop at every sidestreet and give way to cars reversing out of driveways.  My work commute is 22km each way.  If I had to take footpaths, it would take forever and I would probably wreck the skinny wheels of my ‘road’ bike.

Allergic to Lycra says:

03:36pm | 19/01/12

So… you don’t like being inconvenienced by the obstacles in your way, or the wear and tear on your vehicle, or spending more time than necessary commuting?
Funny that…

Craig says:

04:19pm | 19/01/12

@Allergic, your choice of sarcasm is a bit unwieldy.

Honestly, it really doesn’t matter because cyclists are allowed on the road.  End of story.  When a person makes a choice to don lycra and ride a bike instead of driving a motor vehicle, that is their choice.  I was merely pointing out that I have a different assessment of the relative safety of the road vs footpath environment compared to ShamWow.

And, by the way, the time difference of a cyclist taking footpath vs. road is vastly greater than the time difference of a motorist safely overtaking a few cyclists on the road.  Just think how many more cars would be in your way if those same cyclists chose to drive instead of ride?

Allergic to Lycra says:

08:07am | 20/01/12

Craig, you haven’t convinced me. You have just given me your subjective opinion as to why YOU think you’re more inconvenienced if you have to ride on the footpath vs. drivers being inconvenienced by cyclists on the roads. It boils down to that YOUR convenience is more important than mine. Why do you think you have that right?

You have given me your list. Well, here is mine. It only has one item.

I don’t want to become an accidental killer.

Even the best drivers and cyclists can make a mistake. In car vs. car, a small mistake usually amounts to no more than annoyance and financial cost of repairing a piece of inanimate machinery.

In car vs. cyclist, the stakes are huge. Cyclist is even more vulnerable than a pedestrian, as their whole contact with the ground consists of two thin tyres, they’re higher up off the ground, and if they lose balance, they can regain it easily and they would end up trapped under their bike, especially if they have pedal clips.

You said: “And, by the way, the time difference of a cyclist taking footpath vs. road is vastly greater than the time difference of a motorist safely overtaking a few cyclists on the road.”

Is it worth your life? You’re betting your life on the assumption that all the drivers, and all the cyclists, will do the right thing. You’re betting your life that the driver next to you isn’t drunk, distracted or simply a moron. You’re betting your life that there will be no slippery patches on the road that will make you lose your balance and fall. You’re betting your life that a dog, or a child, or oblivious pedestrian, won’t run out on the road unexpectedly.  As I driver, I am also facing those very same risks, but my stakes are not as high as yours.

If time is so important to you, then drive.

Except, you say that… “how many more cars would be in your way if those same cyclists chose to drive instead of ride?”

I don’t care. Seriously. I would prefer the inconvenience of spending extra time on the road, I would prefer the inconvenience of statistically higher possibility of fender-benders, all of that rather than finding myself with a cyclist under my car.

Craig says:

01:23pm | 20/01/12

@Allergic ... Granted the stakes are higher when you are on a bike and you get involved in an accident.  But not everyone has an accident and only a small portion of those who do have accidents face life altering changes (the writer of this article was one of the unluck few).

I’ve been a commuter cyclist for about eight years now, and I like doing it because it gives me a cardio work-out at the same time as I’m getting from home to work and work to home (I can’t get that in a car and as a father of three, soon to be four, I don’t have the time to waste at a gym).  As I understand it, the health benefits of cycling statistically outweigh the risks of cycling.  There’s a lot of good research that has been done on this topic, so I’m not just spinning rubbish.

As for convenience ... honestly, relative convenience (yours or mine) has nothing to do with it.  The road network has been provided by the taxpayers of this country for the convenience of its people.  Whether a person is on a bicycle, scooter, motorbike, car, ute, truck or bus, doesn’t matter.  All are valid forms of transport on our roads (unless signage says otherwise).

You ask, “is it worth your life?”  The answer is that my life has improved immeasurably since I began cycle commuting.  I am fit and healthy and I have an improved awareness of the road environment (whether driving a car or riding a bike).  I believe that my quality of life would be significantly less if I was not a regular cycle commuter.

And, as for the “if time is more important, then drive” comment.  I cycle 22km each way.  I have driven this route and cycled it on many occasions.  I time myself every time.  During peak hour (which is the time I am on the road), the car takes between 42min and 1hr37min with a mean of 47min.  Compare this to the bike which takes between 43min and 55min with a mean of 48min.  My cycle time is very similar to my drive time, however, it is much more consistent because I don’t get held up by the traffic to the same extent.

And, by the way, I used to be allergic to lycra too.  After my first 100km ride, I realised that I needed it.  You should try it sometime, it’s fun, healthy and doesn’t stress the environment.  Safe driving / cycling ... Craig.

Zoyd says:

08:46am | 19/01/12

Please learn how to judge where the external corners of your car are, in relation to road markings.

Overtake when safe, either in your own lane, or by changing lane.

Problem solved.

Craig says:

01:39pm | 20/01/12

PS motorists - a lead foot is not a good enough excuse to speed.  You want rights on the road, follow the bloody rules.

PS pedestrians - your desire to cross a road is not a good enough excuse to jaywalk.  You want rights on the road, follow the bloody rules.

Honestly, Sarah, rule breaking is clearly not the sole domain of cyclists.  You only focus your anger on cyclists that you see running red lights because they chose that particular rule to break, however, I’m 99% certain that you have exceeded the speed limit as a motorist and jaywalked as a pedestrian.  If you rode a bike, you would probably run a red light or two.  Why, because it is in your nature as a human being to bend the rules to suit your own convenience.

Let those who are without fault cast the first stone.

Pete says:

11:00am | 19/01/12

Probably the most concise and to the point comment in this whole group rant.
(I’m a cyclist and motorist)

Hermano says:

09:30am | 19/01/12

Bicycles were on the roads long before motor vehicles. 
Maybe you should present the case for why cars should be allowed on the roads.

Wynston Cruso says:

11:20am | 19/01/12

Hermano - Because it’s after 1881.

Sarahh says:

11:48am | 19/01/12

By that reasoning Hermano, someone should present a case why we aren’t all still getting around with a horse and buggy.

Hermano says:

07:59am | 20/01/12

I’d be down with horse and buggy.  Or better yet, make everyone walk everywhere.  It’s improve the air quality, get rid of all the fatties, and make people appreciate their neighbourhood more.  Sounds pretty good, hey.

Cars are evil, albeit mostly (sadly) necessary in our ultra-sprawling cities.

jf says:

09:38am | 20/01/12

Hermano says:08:59am | 20/01/12

“Or better yet, make everyone walk everywhere.”

That’s crazy talk. This morning I saw a car ahead of me go to make an apparently safe right turn only for a pedestrian to step out on the crossing causing the car to stop in front of them which caused the car behind him to stop quickly as well as the two lanes of oncoming traffic. It nearly caused multiple accidents not to mention holding everyone up momentarily.

Clearly all pedestrians are selfish, dangerous jaywalkers and should be banned from the road. As this is unlikely to happen and they will continue to use the road they should be registered (a) for using the road (parasites that they are and (b) so that they can be identified for traffic violations like this.

Warren says:

08:47am | 19/01/12

Motorists don’t pay for the roads. Roads are paid for by all tax payers, irrespective of whether they drive. Registration covers the cost of administration only.

Anubis says:

09:22am | 19/01/12

@ Warren - and that is why State Governments add additional levies to fuel and registration costs in order to pay for road upgrades improvements is it? Because drivers don’t pay for roads. Hmmm logic fail there. And toll roads - how much are cyclists (and motorcyclists) charged for using toll roads?

Emily says:

10:45am | 19/01/12

The wear and tear on roads by cyclists is far, far less than that of cars. Not to mention the savings to both the environment and the health system from the increases in physical activity, even after factoring in injury costs. It doesn’t make sense to charge them for something that is saving the rest of us money.

By charging cyclists to ride their bikes, you will be encouraging them back into their cars, further raising road costs and taxes, and increasing congestion on our roads. Not to mention the need for increased parking - cycle parking is much cheaper and uses less space.

We should be encouraging more people to cycle, not providing them with another reason to jump in their cars.

SamO says:

08:42am | 19/01/12

I believe it’s an old fashioned thing.

Women’s bicycles had a frame you could step through so when wearing dresses they were able to get on the bike more easily.

Nathan says:

08:51am | 19/01/12

The standard diamond frame is the strongest - hence why it’s standard on Men’s frames. Women’s city and commuter bikes have the lower bar so that it’s easier to mount and dismount (and I assume, ride) while wearing a skirt.

Zoyd says:

09:10am | 19/01/12

The usual diamond frame was and is the strongest and simplest construction, for strength, firm “spring”, and power to the pedals.

The older Ladies step through was/is less strong, much more “squashy”, more sway in the frame,  under heavy pedal pressure or with heavily loaded (baskets). 

The Mixte frame, twin-tubes from the headset to the rear axle, came in the 70s - stronger, firmer spring than older step-throughs. But not as good as the plain diamond.

The main thing for many women, who just want to cycle recreationally,  eg short spins to the shop/cafe,  is simply they’d rather not do the full leg lift in public, in street clothes incl slacks/jeans.

These days, though, there’s as many speedy lasses on classy road bikes on full-on rides - and they wear good cycling gear and mount the diamond frame without a care. Quite right too.

And if you’re in serious femme competiton, you’ll find higher-end frames made specifically for women - in the diamond form.

For blokes, impact with the headstem is rather more likely than with the top tube - unless you bust a crank or miss the pedal. It’s still an ouch.

I’ll let someone else explain why sloping top tubes have become popular recently on some bike forms. I’m not a fan.

Gymmer says:

09:16am | 19/01/12

If you have you seat height correct then you should be fine with the standard frame? Works for my partner (a bloke).

TChong says:

09:24am | 19/01/12

Thanks
Sam, Nath and Zoyd for lessening my ignorance about 1 subject.
Now, for everthing else…...

Zoyd says:

03:35pm | 19/01/12

Umm, true, Gymmer - assuming he knew what size frame to buy.

Oddly, “frame size” is now more complicated than it used to be, with some real variation in claimed size from brand to brand and between frame types.

Always worth taking extra care over, to get it right first up. A frame too big will be likely be an unfixable misery. A frame too small *may* be able to be fiddled right with seat post length, seat rail length, and head stem rise/length. May be.

Enjoy the Gym and the bike!

There is nothing like a descent of the Macquarie Pass or the Clyde Mountain to get the eyes sparkling!

Gymmer says:

05:22pm | 19/01/12

Yeah I guess he must have known..or the guy in the shop told him more likely, lol. I have a ‘ladies’ mountain bike, and the apparent correct seat height according to my partner was much higher than I initially felt comfortable with when dismounting, but I got used to it like most things. Giving the bike a rest for a while now after recovering from last year, 12 months of trying to keep up with my partner and his standards took its toll!  If you ever have the chance to cycle in Vietnam - do it. Amazing.

Zoyd says:

08:51am | 19/01/12

Cyclist Helmet, essential.
Cycle Mirror/s, handy.
Cyclist Ears, working: at least as handy as a mirror.
Cyclist Neck, working: at least as handy as a mirror.

Cyclist in Earphones: totally stupidly dangerous.

And I’d like to see the source of the 80% fatals hit from behind claim, pls.

James says:

09:56am | 19/01/12

Stats are that 80% of incidents between a motorist and a cyclist are the fault of the motorist.
This was established by the Monash Accident research centre following a study using helmet cams worn by riders. Google it I’m sure it will come up.

Bertrand says:

09:23am | 19/01/12

Gold!

Joe can’t drive a Segway so why would we expect him to be able to drive a car?

Nathan says:

09:11am | 19/01/12

No, everyone pays to use the road through their taxes. Roads are paid for out of general revenue. The registration fees you pay on your car are to cover CTP Insurance and administration costs. The amount the government gets from registration is a tiny fraction of the amount that is spent on roads.

Apart from certain roads (like freeways), cyclists have as much right to use the road as any other vehicle.

Gymmer says:

09:30am | 19/01/12

Umm, do you really think that most cyclists do not also own a car and hence pay registration fees? Or have a job and pax taxes? Or own a house and pay rates?

Hermano says:

09:36am | 19/01/12

Your first sentence is blatantly incorrect.  Your second sentence is also incorrect.  Your third sentence is incorrect, and implies that motorists don’t have to respect the rights of other road users.
I suggest you have a good long read of the road rules and legislation.  I fear you have a grave misunderstanding of the obligations of road users, and of how the roads and infrastructure in this country are funded.

poa says:

10:36am | 19/01/12

Roads are paid out of general taxation, not out of car regos.
I can safely bet I pay more tax for them than you do.
Doesn’t mean I’m entitled to any more of the road sweetheart.
respect….its in the Vicroads Handbook. Look it up. You have a legal obligation to respect other road users.
Sheesh…morons.

Gymmer says:

09:24am | 19/01/12

Your tone is very condescending.  I rode a lot on the roads last year. Did not see one single incident of a cyclist abusing anybody (car driver or otherwise) let alone kicking a vehicle. I’ve also been a driver myself for over 10 years and never witnessed this.  So forgive me, but I don’t think the incident that occured to you is common place.  Road rage between other drivers however… 

And as for cyclists abusing other cyclists, I can’t speak highly enough of how friendly all the other many cyclists I encountered on the roads were. 95% of the people that cycled past or around me said hello or offered words of encouragement (particularly when going up tough hills).  I am no speed demon either (I was on a mountain bike in my defence) - no one ever abused me for being too slow or in their way.  You must live in a very angry part of the world.

Your scary last few paragraphs are exactly what did make me nervous about riding on the roads, nasty drivers who have had one bad incident and now are on a vendetta against anybody on two wheels.

Kika says:

09:37am | 19/01/12

Absolutely agree. 

Once a cyclist rode straight into my dad’s stopped stationary car, fell off got up and rode away. Dad was sitting there with heart palpitations thinking this poor guy has just injured himself and he just got up and rode away.

Nobody wants to hurt cyclists but they have to consider their own safety first.

I’m not exactly going to ride a moped down the freeway for the very same reason as riding on a bike is often dangerous for the very reason that it causes an obstruction to the flow of traffic on a busy road.

Hermano says:

09:41am | 19/01/12

@just a driver:  some people are idiots, as the person who kicked your car.  There are also idiots in cars, as shown by the bloke who got stabbed in road rage incident on the way home from a 20-20 last night.
Some idiots ride bike, some ride in cars. 
I don’t want you to like me, but you have to respect my right to be on the road.  And your last sentence implies that you endorse vehicular assault.  Not nice.

Just a driver says:

10:03am | 19/01/12

Condescending? Talk about pot, kettle, black.
So your good experiences trump everybody else’s bad experiences. In addition to being condescending, you’re also narrow-minded and arrogant. I have personally been abused by cyclists for having to jump on my brakes to avoid running them over, for trying to get past when they decided that they won’t let me, and deliberately blocking me, screaming at me while they were speeding wrong way down one-way street, abusing me for being too slow to cross the road (as a pedestrian), Ohhh… every day I suffer or witness at least several instances of cyclists doing wrong things and abusing the innocent drivers and pedestrians. Angry part of the world? Yes, Melbourne inner suburbs and CBD. And it is the CYCLISTS that are angry ones. I drive 70km to/from work each day. 60 of those km are reasonably peaceful. 10 of those km are gut-wrenching hell thanks to the cyclists.
“Your scary last few paragraphs are exactly what did make me nervous about riding on the roads, nasty drivers who have had one bad incident and now are on a vendetta against anybody on two wheels.”
Scary??? Typical cyclist overreaction. I made a very clear point that I DON’T WANT TO hurt cyclists. I also can’t guarantee that among hundreds of thousands of drivers on our roads there are not some idiots who would take violent action against vulnerable cyclists. That is not a threat, just an observation. It is not a threat to point out that in cyclist vs car, cyclist will suffer the consequences. It is not a threat to point out that cyclists should be extra careful, because they ARE vulnerable – no protection except a flimsy helmet.
And you should be nervous on the roads. Don’t worry about angry drivers - one slippery patch may result in you ending under wheels of a truck. I just hope I don’t have to witness it.

PS: your self-righteous rant does nothing to warm my heart towards cyclists.

Just a driver says:

10:11am | 19/01/12

I DO NOT endorse any kind of assault. But does that mean that I’m not allowed to point out that there ARE morons with short fuses who will use their vehicles or their fists to express their frustrations?
I believe that “no woman asks to be raped.” Nonetheless, I avoid dark alleys and groups of drunk yobbos. Why expose myself to unnecessary risk???
Same principle. You may be in the right, but fat lot that’s gonna do you if you get hurt.

Gymmer says:

10:29am | 19/01/12

Lol, hit a soft spot did I?  As I said, I do not believe your experiences are common place given that I have never ever witnessed anything like it on the roads. Not saying it hasn’t happened to you but I certainly do not believe it is common place to have near misses every single day on the road with a cyclist.  I have personally experienced people opening doors on me in the bike lane, getting abused for no reason other than being on a bike. I don’t dislike all motorists though. Your hysterical rants about driving through the trenches of Melbourne and a white knuckled trip everyday frankly sound very exaggerated. 

I drive far more than I ever rode so I don’t define myself as a ‘cyclist’.  I have retired now from cycling for the moment actually, getting over a rather lengthy charity cycling event at the end of last year. Maybe I’ll make a come back, maybe I won’t.  What I do define myself as is a reasonable person. I know that a few wrong-doers does not tar everybody with the same brush. Cyclists or motorists. I know that in a car I am far more likely to injure a cyclist than they are to injure me so I drive with respect and caution around them.  I expect them to do the same. And 95% of the time they do.  I know that cyclists typically pay rego on their cars too so I don’t assume they are all free-loaders living off the good will of the motorist.

Writing stuff like you hope you don’t have to witness me going under the wheels of a truck because I slipped on the roads makes you just sound totally lovely and reasonable doesn’t it?  The fact that you claim to be abused by cyclists on a daily basis says a lot about your driving.  I know no one who claims to have had daily experiences like this.

Gymmer says:

10:45am | 19/01/12

Well if that’s the case then Just a Driver, then nobody had better go driving on the roads either near drivers who are potentially fatigued, drunk, on drugs, inattentive, on their mobile phones etc. because you are far more likely to be injured in a car crash than you would be say walking to work or taking the bus. Why take unnecessary risks?? I used to work in Road Safety and read the fatality reports. Sobering stuff.

Just a driver says:

11:16am | 19/01/12

Well, that’s me seeing the error of my evil ways, thanks to Gymmer. You’re right, I must be a bad driver wih nary speeding or parking ticket, let alone an accident in all of my driving career. Can I come and live in your perfect world where cyclists are sweetness and light and everything bad is done by drivers? I might even get on the bike, because horible accidents only happen if someone points out that they could - I promise I will think only happy thoughts.

/sarc off

You dismissing my bad experiences with selfish, arrogant cyclists as “you must be a bad driver” just shows that your head is so far up your own posterior, you don’t need a helmet.

I won’t reply to any more of your posts, because if I do, of course it means that you “hit the spot”. Naturally, if I don’t reply, that means that your arguments are so devastating that I have no comeback.

I saw a cyclist nearly being taken out by a truck on my way to work this morning. Of course, let’s not mention that he went trough the red and then screamed abuse at the truckie whose quick reflexes saved the moron’s life. Incidents like that tend to really upset me and leave me shaken, because I HAVE witnessed a female cyclist killed by a bus in CBD couple of years ago and I NEVER WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN. So take your reports, your arrogance and your smugness and shove them.

Gymmer says:

11:37am | 19/01/12

Get off it Just a Driver, obviously you cannot comprehend the jist of my posts which is there are douchebags in both camps and let’s not hate on a particular group because of some bad apples.  Your reading comprehension skills are clearly as good as your driving skills.  You may have missed the bit where I said I don’t even cycle anymore - you don’t have to be cyclist to know when people are being treated unfairly.

Zoyd says:

09:24am | 19/01/12

Oh for god’s sake.

Nearly every cyclist you see on the road is an employed, tax-paying, rate-paying,  rego-paying and license-paying car-owner.

End of.

Hermano says:

09:45am | 19/01/12

@ Kika: sit down and have a read of the road rules sometime.

James says:

09:46am | 19/01/12

Cyclists have the right to use the road because it is the LAW. Registration has nothing to do with it. It is the LAW.

End of story.

Kika says:

10:21am | 19/01/12

@Zoyd - So you are saying EVERY cyclist owns their home to pay rates, has a job and has a car licence? Assumptions! If you want to make an argument, make a sensible one. Not every cyclist has a job or owns their home.

Just because it’s ‘law’ doesn’t mean it’s right or safe. You are an obstruction. You make a lot of drivers nervous because you are likely to do anything and any moment and you DONT STICK TO THE LEFT!  Quite often I have to move into the other lane to make sure I don’t clobber you. What if another car was in that lane? Do you want me to tail gate you?  You will be the nervous one then !

subotic says:

10:25am | 19/01/12

Hey c’mon, Kika knows what she’s talking about.

Just like Warnie does…...

James says:

11:26am | 19/01/12

I don’t stick to the left hmm? I’m sorry do you know me? Have you passed me before? No. Just another silly generalisation. I stick to the left and if move into the lane its for a damn good reason (think car doors, dogy road conditions, steep descents etc etc).  If that is the case I’m sorry but it is for my safety.

Kika I see the problem. You clearly do not understand cyclists and this lack of understanding makes you afraid and unable to predict what we’re doing. I suggest you ride on the road a few times to get a better idea. its not hard and it will open your eyes about how to drive with cyclists.

Good cyclists will ride a straight unwavering line and won’t be easily spooked. To pass just move slightly into another lane and give us 1 meter. That’s all that is needed because we are comfortable with you passing at that distance, we are used to it. Also make sure to check rear view mirrors on our distance behind you before moving back in or turning left.  We’re actually faster than you expect when you are braking (can average 30-40kms on the flat so keep that in mind).

If there is traffic slow down keep some space behind and wait until there is an opportunity. On a curving mountain road some cyclists will even indicate when it is safe to overtake.
We will try our best to indicate what we are doing if we are changing lanes or turning but know this: Our hands are our indicators but they are also our brakes. Braking takes preference over indicating. So don’t expect me to be indicating, braking and turning at the same time because it it not possible!

What makes us most nervous is panicky drivers who freak out when they see a cyclist. Relax, don’t be in a rush to pass, give us 1 meter and don’t cut us off after passing. Follow those guidelines and we are much less of an obstruction than parked cars.

PW says:

11:35am | 19/01/12

Kika: “The cyclist behind me became aggressive because I ‘overtook them’ or ‘cut them off’ even though they were riding slowly. I have a right to the road because I pay registration to do so, and they are causing the obstruction, not me. Again my point above, if I tail gated them they would also become annoyed.”

Absolutely charming He was on your road that you pay for, and so you have the right to endanger his life. And you couldn’t understand why he didn’t like it. What a piece of work you’d be.

You are lucky it wasn’t me. I’d have taken my video evidence straight to the cops.

Luke says:

12:11pm | 19/01/12

Could someone explain to me in regards to Kika’s point No.2. If I overtake a cyclist and then get in front of them and have to make a left hand turn am I required to wait for them to pass on the inside? Shouldnt the cyclist slow down to allow me to make my turn and then proceed through the intersection?

Lukew says:

12:46pm | 19/01/12

Kika, what is wrong with moving into another lane?  Apart from your obvious misunderstanding how these things work, it sounds like you need to rethink how you drive.  If there is another car in the lane you want to change to, slow down, wait and change lanes when it has gone.  Better still, you could plan all of this ahead and you might not even have to slow down.

James says:

12:55pm | 19/01/12

@Luke: Best practice is to judge how far ahead you will be of the cyclist after overtaking and before turning. Despite being small and slow we actually have quite crap stopping distances so if you brake to turn the cyclist might end up running into you if you haven’t gained enough distance ahead of him. If it looks like that will be the case just wait and turn after he has gone through the intersection instead of overtaking.

Personally, I would much rather you wait behind me or accelerate ahead and turn quickly (with enough distance so I don’t have to slam on brakes) than me having to pass on your inside (even the thought feels very unnerving).
Does that help?

Luke says:

01:11pm | 19/01/12

@James, thanks that does help. Just comes down to common sense on using the road really. I live in Canberra where the bike lanes are very good and I have not experienced to many problems. Roundabouts seem to be a different story!

Kika says:

02:38pm | 19/01/12

Seriously, are you guys daft? AT NO POINT DID I ENDANGER THAT CYCLISTS LIFE!!!! FFS!  I moved into the other lane and turned left into the street I was after. There was loads of room for both of us. He was probably cranky coz I have a loud car and assumed I was being aggressive. He was also fat, slow and tired from reaching the top of the hill.

@PW - Great. You would have done it and the video would have shown me miles away from you, the cyclist, and showing you the cyclist going mad for no reason other than you being unit and slow and having a car overtake you.

Zoyd says:

03:13pm | 19/01/12

What part of “Nearly every cyclist you see on the road” are you having trouble getting, Kika?

We’re not talking dopey schoolkids in the morning suburban street.

We’re talking about adults. In cars and on bikes.

Nearly every cyclist you see on the road is an employed, tax-paying, rate-paying,  rego-paying and license-paying car-owner.

End of.

RyaN says:

09:37am | 19/01/12

@ JA: This argument has been debunked thousands of times over, I own a car, I also own a motorcycle, clearly I shouldn’t be paying road taxes on my motorcycle because of the same lame list of excuses above.

All vehicles on the road including bicycles should be registered, have to show the registration documents, be tagged with an easily visible number plate, have rear view mirrors, indicators etc..
All vehicles should be road worthy to the same standards, i.e. be able to stop in the shortest specified distance.
All vehicles need to OBEY THE LAWS OF THE ROAD!

Nathan says:

09:53am | 19/01/12

@ RyaN - There is no such thing as “road taxes”. Registration does not pay for roads, it comes out of general revenue which is paid for from everyone’s taxes.

JA says:

10:24am | 19/01/12

@RyaN: I’m not making an argument for or against registration of vehicles. I am merely saying I already pay one form of registration.
The point i was making (since you seemed to miss it) is that we all need to treat each other with more respect on the roads that we share, and for EVERYONE to obey the road rules - cyclists included.

Anubis says:

10:34am | 19/01/12

@ Nathan - and that is why state governments add levies to fuel to cover roadworks and road repairs is it - because drivers don’t pay for roads. Hmmm Do you remember the NSW 5 for 5 campaign where they added 5c per litre to fuel for five years in order to cover roadworks? And at the same time they boosted registration for the same reason. both Queensland and Victoria have done similar things in the past too. Registration covers more than just the admin costs its just that Governments tend to siphon this in to consolidated revenue. Then there is the issue of CTP insurance. A cyclist who injures a pedestrian leaves that pedestrian with no compensation options, a cyclist who either accidentaly or deliberately damages a car has no CTP insurance coverage.

So Nathan, I do not swallow your glib “There is no such thing as “road taxes”.  statement because, yes there is. Also - do cyclists pay tolls on tolled roads - no, well there you go

RyaN says:

10:40am | 19/01/12

@Nathan: Split hairs on whatever you want, the same payments including pink slips and green slips required by any other vehicle on the road should be required for bicycles.

PW says:

11:15am | 19/01/12

er, RyaN, the laws of the road are that bicycles don’t need to be registered, mate. And even if you rock up to the RTA wanting to register one, you can’t. That’s the law of the road, whatever you might think. Get over it.

RyaN says:

12:53pm | 19/01/12

@PW: “All vehicles on the road including bicycles should be registered” it was a suggestion not a statement of fact.

wolf says:

05:40pm | 19/01/12

Now that this maniac has been identified, it is imperative that Victoria Police charge him with disrespecting an Australian legend, racial villification of German machinery, indecent assault with a witty repartee and high treason.
The media have always had it in for Warnie over these things, I remember him being unfairly targeted when he tried to share his love of photography with a couple of kiwi fans. Sadly, some of the younger generation don’t know how to respect an Australian legend.
Shane should be commended for taking matters into his own hands and proving to all of us why he serves as such an extraordinary example to the younger generation.
Further proof of his brilliance is his use of twitter. For many years Shane has been ahead of the curve in mobile communications and he is still on the cutting edge.
That deserves some respect.

Gymmer says:

09:45am | 19/01/12

But that would hold a previous driver up for approximately 5 seconds. 5 seconds!! Don’t you know that people’s time is important?!  They can’t spend 5 extra seconds of their day to allow a cyclist to pass safely, totally unreasonable to expect this.

Kika says:

10:31am | 19/01/12

He wasn’t passing me - travelling in the same direction. I safely overtook and turned left. I saw in my rear vision mirror his annoyance at being held up by having to wait for me to turn the corner, even though he was miles off.

Kika says:

10:33am | 19/01/12

Ok, again

Cyclist ahead of me, going very slowly. Heading in the same direction as me. He was unfit and quite overweight. I safely overtook and turned into my street. He may have become annoyed because a) he just made it over the hill and had to apply brakes to wait for me to turn, even though he was miles off. However I drive a Subaru which revs loudly. He may have assumed my revs were me being aggressive at having to tail gate him and then overtake him.

Either way he was the one with the issue, not me.

Nathan says:

11:05am | 19/01/12

Kika, you are in the wrong. If you are turning then YOU have to wait for him to pass, he does not have to give way to you. The fact that you turned in to his current line of travel forcing him to take evasive action (in this case, brake) means that you didn’t overtake safely. What his fitness and weight was is completely immaterial.

Bertrand says:

11:14am | 19/01/12

@Kika - I’m fairly sure you are the one with the issues.

Every comment you have made on this thread seethes with self righteous anger and contempt. If you are taking this attitude onto the roads, it is likely you are making some dangerous decisions.

Horthy says:

11:31am | 19/01/12

I think it’s up for debate whether Kika overtook safely or not (Nathan, have you ever driven a car, been overtaken by another car, which subsequently turns left, meaning you have had to slow down for it to turn?), but this seems a good place to put this:

http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/92659/

It’s a different scenario, yes, but still worth reading.

Nathan says:

11:50am | 19/01/12

Horthy, yes, and in that case the person overtaking before immediately turning is the jackass.

But a better comparison would be if you’re driving in the left lane, and a car passes you in the lane to the right, and makes a left turn right in front of you from the right lane. They’re cutting across your lane in making the turn.

Luke says:

12:25pm | 19/01/12

What the poor guy had to brake and wait to pass safely…umm pretty sure that is exactly what a vehicle is required to do when using the road. You are all on about sharing the road but it seems like only when it suits you.
I had a similar problem recently when turning left at a roundabout, checking the traffic to my right a cyclist flying down the inside was going straight through the roundabout and had to brake suddenly when I made my turn. Sorry mate but my indcator was on and you should be required to slow down and wait behind me until I have made my turn. Ride on the road abide by the rules!

Horthy says:

12:43pm | 19/01/12

There are jackasses all over the place, yes, and in that scenario I possibly agree with you. But that’s not what I’m arguing. What happens when the car in front of you was already there, they didn’t change lanes, they’ve been in front of you for kilometers, and they are now indicating and turning left, causing you to slow down (wait now, not because you were tailgaiting, but because (for example) there are pedestrians crossing the road and the car in front must wait for them before completing their turn). Are they a jackass? Of course not. Well, they may be, but not because of that.

“Just how much length between the (1) legal lane change and (2) legal left turn is needed?”, I guess is the question.

The only point I am trying to make is that sometimes you have to slow down for other people in traffic, and there’s nothing you can or should do about that. If they legally changed in front of you, and they are legally turning left, and you need to slow down for a legal reason, you’re legally obliged to. Whether you’re driving a car or riding a bike (with the provisos in the link I posted).

Of course in reality there are a number of people who just do not plan their trip, or consider anyone on the roads, cut in stupidly, and so frustration increases when scenarios like the one you posted occur.

Nathan says:

12:59pm | 19/01/12

@Horthy I agree with you there. If the person has been in front for a reasonable time, then yes, the person behind gives way. I’m only arguing about the person that does the overtake then turn, which seems to be what Kika is describing.

Absolutely I understand that sometimes you just have to slow down. I do that all the time, especially at intersections where I know people tend to turn with little warning. But it doesn’t make what Kika did correct.

Kika says:

02:26pm | 19/01/12

How is what I did wrong? I overtook safely, he had PLENTY of room and I turned left. There was NEVER an issue of safety here. He was the one angry and pissed off either because I had been behind him (he being in the left lane and me wanting to make the next left turn). It was safe for me to overtake, so I did.

There is nothing in the road rules that state you cannot ever overtake a cyclist. Of course you can. When it’s not safe to overtake you can’t of course.

The cyclist was the one with the issue either because I had been waiting for his fat a*ss to make it up the hill or that I turned left in front of him, even though he was MILES away from me.

Cyclists like you guys - the self righteous arrogant “follow the road rules cars but we cyclists have right of way” sort of attitude give all cyclists a bad name.

Nathan says:

02:55pm | 19/01/12

Kika, you said yourself the cyclist had to apply his brakes while waiting for you to turn. If you were well ahead (or “miles” ahead) as you are now claiming, then he would have not had to brake at all, and you would have been well through your turn before he reached the intersection.

I’m not saying you’re not allowed to pass a cyclist ever, don’t be ridiculous. I’m saying you’re not allowed to pass a cyclist and then immediately turn in front of them.

Hermano says:

08:06am | 20/01/12

FFS, Kika is clearly in the wrong, and has stated as such, but won’t admit it.  Time to get back in your loud revving and probably illegally modified subaru and move on.

(FYI, I’m trolling for more hits from Kika, let’s see if she bites.)

Lukew says:

12:19am | 20/01/12

Sydney seems particularly bad for cyclists. The roads are dangerous and some drivers are actively menacing.  I wouldn’t ride there, especially within say 10 kms of the city.

Hermano says:

08:10am | 20/01/12

LukeW:  I commute 32km each way from NW sydney to the CBD most days.  It ain’t so bad.  I get very little grief from drivers, apart from the odd (2 yesterday) driver that doesn’t see me.  The roads vary in quality from great to rubbish strewn, but I’ve got decent tyres that don’t often puncture (touch wood).
So despite all the huffing and puffing about “You deserve to be run off the road” etc, I find the vast majority of motorists to be fine.  I don’t see what the problem is with these car-driving whingers who go on and on about it.  We’re just trying to get from A to B, just like them.  We just happen to be going faster than the traffic most of the time.

Zoyd says:

10:22am | 19/01/12

No, and No.

Stupid driving and stupid riding are stupid.

End of.

Nathan says:

10:11am | 19/01/12

Spraying a toxic material in to the face of cyclists? What the hell is wrong with some people that they think that’s a valid response to being held up for 15 seconds?

wolfie says:

11:20pm | 19/01/12

I suspect most (or all) professional truck drivers don’t. A few meth addicts that are rapidly losing their contracts to real drivers may. It sucks for the few independents that are left, but wankers posting shit like this don’t actually help them. Although it makes them feel like men for a little.

James says:

10:33am | 19/01/12

Are volunteering yourself to implement that? You aware of what a massive beauracratic task that would be to get every person who owns a bike registered? think of all the kids that have bikes, all the recreational riders you see. How do you draw the line? And are you aware that it would do nothing to quell the deep seeded conflict between cyclists and motorists?
Bicycle Victoria and the Amy Gillet foundations both profoundly reject this notion on those points. Pointless, costly, time wasting idea, that wouldn’t achieve anything. 

Make no mistake: if I had to register to ride on the road, I would. As would most cyclists because they love riding. But I’m telling you it would make no difference what so ever.

Nathan says:

10:37am | 19/01/12

Identification is it? Please tell me exactly how many times you’ve jotted down the number plate of motorist doing something stupid, and rung the police to report them.

And on the extremely remote chance that number is greater than zero, how many would result in anything further than police saying “so what?”

It’s not about identification at all, it about motorists getting jealous that they have to pay large amounts for registration that cyclists don’t have to.

Anubis says:

11:01am | 19/01/12

@ Nathan ICB on that comment. Other than reporting infringements, number plates (car identification) are important when reporting an accident, damage, injury so that CTP insurance and general vehicle insurance claims can be made, correctly identifying all involved persons. Why do you have a problem with being able to be identified while you are cycling? Are you one of those cycling cretins who abuse drivers for imagined offences against your rights, or are you of the other class of cretins who take their frustrations out by hitting cars as you ride past (sometimes causing costly dents that need to be repaired) or do you occassionally feel the need to run a coin down the side of a car that has, in your mind, infringed your rights. If you are none of the above then what is the problem with nbeing identifiable?

Nathan says:

11:27am | 19/01/12

Cyclists can be identified by the same means as any other person on the street - or do you suggest we can only ever identify a person if they’re driving a vehicle?

And just because I think registration for bicycles is a bad idea, doesn’t make me a cycling cretin who abuses cars, hits cars, or runs coins along the side of the car. The fact that you assume all cyclists are like that speaks volumes about how you see yourself on the road.

My issue with registration is that it would be far more expensive to administrate than it would make back, would be incredibly hard to implement, would offer no real benefits, and add another barrier for people considering riding when we should be encouraging more people to do so.

yokahontas says:

11:54am | 19/01/12

Actually I have contacted the police and given them a vehicle’s registration on a couple of occasions - in one instance it was because the car was being driven so erratically we were concerned for the safety of the elderly driver (not to mention other road users), on a remote stretch of highway miles from anywhere.

More to the point - on more than one occasion I’ve witnessed one car damage another while attempting to park, then drive off without leaving details. Which is difficult to get away with when witnesses are able to take down your registration and pass it onto the driver of the damaged vehicle.

Last year, a psycho on a bike kicked my car in response to a ‘near miss’ - the near miss being that he narrowly avoided colliding with my driver’s side door when he rode out of a side street and attempted a right turn without looking. I was proceeding along the main street that he was turning onto, in a straight line and at a steady speed, but somehow him nearly hitting me was MY fault? After damaging my car when I stopped at a Give Way sign a little further up the road, he then rode down a footpath, across two pedestrian crossings and through a pedestrian shopping arcade. What boils my blood about this incident is I had to have the dent repaired at my expense, yet there were plenty of witnesses (both pedestrians and other drivers) who would have been able to assist in making this lunatic take responsibility - had we had any way to identify him!

My sister was also knocked down (from behind) by a cyclist while walking on a footpath some years ago (she was probably 9 or 10 years old at the time). Shouldn’t that man have been accountable for his actions?! I know if I did the same thing in my car I certainly would be!

And as for how you administer it and where you draw the line - well, take NSW Fishing Licences as a start point/example. You’re required to have one, there are fines if you’re caught without. Pay a small fee (to cover the cost of the identification plate), show your photo ID and have your details registered on a database. Institute fines for anyone caught riding on the road without displaying an identification plate. And as for kids - under a certain age they shouldn’t be riding on the road without adult supervision anyway, so don’t require them to display an ID plate below whatever age that is deemed to be - but require the supervising adult to have one. Under 12s can ride on footpaths anyway by law, and you wouldn’t allow them to operate a motorised vehicle on the road, why should a bicycle be any different?

Anubis says:

12:26pm | 19/01/12

@ Nathan - read my post again, at no time did I say all riders were like that, neither did I infer that you were. I pointed out the types that would be vehemently opposed to being able to be identified easily and did ask that, if you are neither of these types .....?

BTW - I spend almost as much time on a bike as I do behind the wheel of a car so do not presume to lump me in to either category. And, I would not be opposed to paying a small fee to obtain provide my contact details in order to get an identifying plat (number plate) on my bike.

Allergic to Lycra says:

12:36pm | 19/01/12

Nathan: “Cyclists can be identified by the same means as any other person on the street”
I’m sorry, but what are you suggesting? If I see a cyclist run the red, am I supposed to chase them down, stop them and demand to see their ID? What if they don’t have an ID? Even if they had an ID, as I’m not a member of police, they don’t have to show it to me.

Nevermind. I might go and reseach whether it contravenes any laws to start a website outing bad cyclists and snap pics of them to post on such site. There is already one for bad drivers…
http://www.dobadriver.com/

Wynston Cruso says:

01:47pm | 19/01/12

Allergic to Lycra - I’m not a fan of that at all, what’s stopping dickheads from listing anyone they dislike on that site? I usually take off fast from lights, as I have a 2011 WRX, but slow down when I reach the speed limit. What’s to stop some ignorant douche for dobbing me in for being a hoon, even though I’ve never been in an accident and I think I’ve had a grand total of about 2 fines for minor offences in 13 years of driving. I’ve had people be jerks to me on the road, purposely slowing down and holding me up in the right lane just because my car is fast, even though I’m not actually going fast in it. Dangerous shit, sites like this.

Allergic to Lycra says:

01:56pm | 19/01/12

I agree - I was being facetious.

Wynston Cruso says:

02:53pm | 19/01/12

Apologies. I actually checked it out…. scary stuff indeed, as it seems literally anyone can pretty much make up anything about anyone else and put it on there with no fact checking. I’d hope not many people take it seriously.

Anubis says:

12:29pm | 19/01/12

Nice synopsis ther A to L.

PW says:

12:33pm | 19/01/12

“I don’t have to register my bike because I already register my car,”

No thats not it at all. I don’t have to register my bike because bicycles do not have to be registered.

Allergic to Lycra says:

12:47pm | 19/01/12

Well, PW, D’uh!
The point isn’t that you CAN’T register your bike, but the illogical excuses cyclists give as to why they shouldn’t have to!

Hermano says:

08:16am | 20/01/12

Settle down mate, you’ll do yourself an injury.
What’s the real problem here?  How often are you actually slowed down by a cyclist? 
My opinion as someone with no training in psychology is that you have deed-seated psychological issues that somehow manifest as hatred of cyclists.  Or do you hate everybody that isn’t the same as you? 
Seriously though, maybe you should talk to someone.

Bertrand says:

12:03pm | 19/01/12

Rant of the day!

Let’s see, who and what has been ranted about: old people, Asians, corrupt governments, corrupt cops, Kiwis, young people, women, Japanese cars, pedestrians, children, the Labor party, large cars, traffic police, and those nebulous figures - the Authorities (with a capital A).

Pure awesomeness.

Kika says:

02:44pm | 19/01/12

Kiwis aren’t used to our speed limits. The standard speed limit there is 50km/h on major roads. That’s our residential speed limit!

Donny says:

01:45pm | 19/01/12

Spot on !

PW says:

12:41pm | 19/01/12

The world will run out of oil before cycleways are built to all destinations. That will ultimately solve the problem once and for all.

The NSW bike plan, issued about 2 years ago, shows a planned cycleway following the rail corridor from Penrith to Parramatta (Western Sydney). If something as useful as this gets built within the next 8 years under an O’Farrell government I will eat my hat.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:53pm | 19/01/12

pffft, when oil runs out we’ll just run our cars on the tears of baby fur seals.

Cynicised says:

04:43pm | 19/01/12

@PW. Move to Victoria! We have major bike paths into the CBD from most directions and if not, alternatives to arterial road routes which are logical and direct. Good Ol Grid System!

@Wynston. I’d prefer electricity to baby fur seal tears, but hey, they might be high octane, who knows? Haha! Nah, I agree we will always have cars, no matter what they run on.

neil says:

12:23pm | 19/01/12

Would baggets and red and white striped shirts be mandatory?

Sam Chowder says:

12:44pm | 19/01/12

Now we’re getting somewhere, cyclists dressed in such a manner would certainly not escalate driver tempers like lycra does.

Eva says:

05:37pm | 19/01/12

My son has just repaired my lovely ladies bike with curvy handle bars and wicker basket. I might even use it if I can work out how to avoid the two pinch points for cylists in my area that they have to safely maneuver through to get between safe cycling paths.

But as I see lots of women riding similar types of bikes and wearing pretty dresses here in Melbourne I am not sure that it would improve cyclist behavior as they do often seem to have a set of ear plugs in their ears.

Betsy Bicylist says:

08:15pm | 19/01/12

No wonder I never have a problem! I have two wicker baskets on my rear rack! Drivers must love me!

Du says:

12:43pm | 19/01/12

Some bicyclists are as bad as inconsiderate drivers

PW says:

12:49pm | 19/01/12

It’s illegal. They should be on the road. I hope they get caught. They give the rest of us a bad name.

Mind you I ride on certain footpaths, where there is no safe alternative. But I do so very carefully at little over walking pace.

James1 says:

02:31pm | 19/01/12

I don’t say anything.  I just step aside and push the one closest to me towards the other, and blame them for not giving way.

Al says:

03:04pm | 19/01/12

Say?
Why say anything? Just stretch out both arms in a non-chalant yawn type stretch and then say: “sorry, I didn’t notice you” when they end up flat on their backs.

PW says:

02:09pm | 19/01/12

I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you take the alternative routes instead?

neil says:

06:50pm | 19/01/12

When I’m riding my bike I do, secondary roads, bike paths, parks and gardens any way I ca keep away from heavy traffic.

So I never have problems with cars, that’s most likely because I’m not a lycra wearing wanker.

Anubis says:

01:17pm | 19/01/12

Any links to that court decision there Alex? Sounds a bit dubious and I am sure there is more to this than you make out.

PW says:

01:43pm | 19/01/12

Ask the fellow who is in jail charged with murder up in Mullumbimby if you are allowed to hit cyclists with your car.

And here I was thinking Warnie lived in Melbourne.

Hermano says:

08:25am | 20/01/12

Incident: http://www.smh.com.au/news/beijing2008/road-rager-takes-out-aussie-cycle-champ-pack/2008/05/08/1210131112608.html

Outcome: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/734590/driver-found-guilty-over-cyclists-crash

Was found guilty, copped a $1200 fine, but only for obstructing a lane and leaving an accident.  Severely injured a bunch of people, quite obviously deliberately, and got a slap on the wrist.

PW says:

01:38pm | 19/01/12

Loxy, I don’t mind that you don’t pay for the roads. You can still use them as long as you are considerate to other road users.

Because if you are suggesting that I don’t, you are quite mistaken.

Hermano says:

08:28am | 20/01/12

It’s actually kinda fun.

Craig says:

04:01pm | 19/01/12

@MaryM, I agree that both cyclists and motorists ought to apply common sense on the road.

Common sense tells me that riding two abreast is safer than riding single file because it forces the motorists to change lanes when overtaking in lieu of trying to pass within the lane.

Common sense tells me that passing on the left or lanesplitting stationary vehicles at traffic lights is safer because I will be visible to all the motorists when the lights turn green.  By the way, your claim that it is illegal is false (see s.141 of the road rules).

Common sense tells me that most of the time a cyclist will be travelling well below the speed limit, so it is inevitable that we will slow some motorists down from time to time.  Cyclists are traffic in the same way that scooters, motorbikes, cars, utes, trucks and buses are traffic, deal with it.  This means that all road users ought to drive accordingly.

Zoyd says:

03:03pm | 19/01/12

Yup.

Common sense and courtesy help.

Hermano says:

08:30am | 20/01/12

Best suggestion I’ve read all week.

PW says:

02:04pm | 19/01/12

The internet is like that, LM. Because of the anonymity some feel they can get away with saying just about anything, and its true, they can. The Punch does very little censoring of posts, so you’ll read it all here.

Zoyd says:

02:41pm | 19/01/12

Louis, in spades. Say G’dayee to the Kellies, eh.

poa says:

03:00pm | 19/01/12

Theres a word for those who dob in everyone to the police….I think thats “DOG”.
You a dog Shane?
No…didn’t think so.
Just full of it.

Kika says:

02:41pm | 19/01/12

Exactly! Everyone is having a go at me for saying that it’s DANGEROUS impeding the flow of traffic and that cyclists are often an obstruction to the flow of traffic, causing further risk for traffic accidents involving them and other vehicles.

On the road near me where cyclists tend to congregate - Logan Road - often times in peak period cyclists hold up the traffic so significantly that it’s impossible to avoid having to tail gate them because you can’t change lanes the road is that busy at that time.

Zoyd says:

02:53pm | 19/01/12

How wide are the lanes on that road?

What vehicle are you driving?

Do you know how much clearance you have on the left side of your vehicle on that road? Do you know how to judge accurately?

A cyclist needs just 1 metre of read space.

Zoyd says:

03:01pm | 19/01/12

Duh. 1 metre *road*  space, obviously.

Kika - see reply earlier. Please, try it.

steve says:

03:09pm | 19/01/12

@hillsgirl—as a regular rider through that same part of the world (and a hills resident so they are my home roads too) I can honestly say that I and the people I ride with, certainly do all we can to help traffic flow when we are out making the most of those beautiful roads. 

We stick to the left as far as we practically can; we ride single file; we wave cars through when there is no oncoming traffic; we even pull over or slow down where there is a *safe* spot to do so to allow any cars to pass; we ride early in the mornings so there is less traffic. 

Now I can’t speak for all of the people that ride, but I know we do the best we can to try and remove any impedance and have a peaceful, harmonious co-existence. 

Peace.

Allergic to Lycra says:

03:20pm | 19/01/12

Oh, Kika, don’t you know? We drivers are all fat, selfish, murderous redneck gas-guzzling killers of the Mother Earth and we deserve all the scorn, hatred and inconvenience that Saint Cyclist can toss our way.

They take holier-than-thou attitude because they’re not burning petrol, adding to pollution and greenhouse effect. They conviniently forget that they are the cause of lot of needless burning of petrol as we crawl behind their sanctimonious butts on their “freedom machines”, our engines idling uselessly, adding needless minutes of fuel-wasting to our daily trips. And all for what? So that some smug lycra warrior can feel oh-so-superior.

They arrogantly proclaim that all the problems would disappear if only everyone rode to work. I’m happy to do so, as long as they swap their place of residence with me. If I lived within 5-10 km from my place of work, I’d be quite tempted to ride. However, living around 40 km away - that means, 80 km ride each day - it is kind of not time-efficient for me. I like having life away from my work and daily commute, thankyouverymuch.

Riding, apparently, makes you fit - fine, if you’re fit enough already. Imagine the spate of heart-attacks as unfit suburban masses try to make it to work on-time, having severely misjudged their fitness level and the amount of time it will take.
Not to mention that some people are just not fit enough due to age or disability. No, in Saint Cyclist’s world, everyone is young, fit and able-bodied, except them damn drivers.

And I’d really like to see how would they fit everything one needs to take to work with them. Not everyone works in the office, where you only need your pass, wallet and mobile. Some people carry around their folders, laptops, lunches - others carry tools, ladders, heavy equipment. Not so easy to fit in a tiny backpack, and quite likely to seriously impede the balance.

Yeah, Kika, let’s just accept that we’re ALWAYS in the wrong, even when we’re in the right.

And finally…
I walk my dogs in an off-lead park, clearly labeled as such every 100 meters or so. Almost every day there’s at least few lycra warriors who use the path as their own personal velodrome, angrily dinging their bells and yelling to get the dogs off the path as they rush towards us from behind at break-neck speed. So not only do they demand (and get) bike tracks an bike lanes, but now they’re aggressively taking over the only place where I can let my dogs stretch their legs, meet and socialise with other dogs, people and children and get some exercise. I swear, if one of them runs over my dog, I won’t need a car to do some serious damage!

Hillsgirl says:

03:29pm | 19/01/12

@Zoyd - I think your comment was meant for Kika, but that’s what I’m getting at - there isn’t a spare metre on many of the roads in my area without crossing an unbroken line, stretching for km. This is when many cyclists need to back off and do their bit of the sharing of the road, not give attitude to the driver who’s just trying to obey the rules.

@steve, I hope to see you and your mates out enjoying our beautiful hills soon I agree that most are courteous riders but I just don’t get some cyclists and guess I never will; there will always be some bad apples spoiling it for all the rest. And to be fair, last Saturday every single rider I saw while out and about—and there were a lot given it was the TDU warmup weekend—was excellently behaved and put to shame the many motorists that I seemed to come across inexplicably doing 20 under the limit… Plus 10 to the treddlies that day!

Zoyd says:

04:16pm | 19/01/12

Correct, to Kika.

However, all my comments here have been about sharing. About courtesy and commonsense on both sides. And under some flak I’ve done my best to stay cool and polite.

I’ve never tried to ride on a road where a car and a cycle cannot co-exist.  I’d be interested to see a serious, checkable estimate of the lane widths v road standards v vehicle widths for this Hills road.

As we’ve seen with Kika, at the end of the day she’s had to explain she simply does not *know* how to judge her vehicle’s clearance in the lane. It’s too hard, she says.

Indeed, she says she’s going to sell it ‘cos its too hard to see the corners.  Rather than learn how to sight it properly! And she still thinks its all the fault of cyclists.

So. Hillsgirl - suggest:
a) check *your* vehicle width. Easy.
b) ask local Council or Roads authority for lane width on road *you* complain of.
c) if b-a is more than 1 metre, the case is solved…

but

d) do *you* know how to judge/sight the corners of your vehicle, and hence your lane clearance - both to the left, and to the right?

If not - time to seek advice on how to do it from a competent driving instructor.

It’s quite simple, all you need is some features (bonnet line vs wiper blade, eg) to “sight” by from the drivers seat, and some practice on a quiet road or street with good raised lane markings. Once you learn how, you can work it out in a few minutes, and a bit pf practice. In any car.

James says:

06:13pm | 19/01/12

How is passing a cyclist harder at the appropriate dotted lines harder than passing a TRUCK that has pulled over on a narrow road?

Or are you just a fool?

poa says:

03:42pm | 19/01/12

Twit. Its legal to ride 2 abreast. And possibly safer!
Maybe Warnie should obey roadrules as well…How do you descibe leaving the scene of an accident.

Zoyd says:

04:28pm | 19/01/12

We all pay for the roads mate.

Nearly all of us are licensed drivers, too.

Simple.

PW says:

05:43pm | 19/01/12

@thatmosis

If you want the law changed, don’t whinge to a blog, lobby your local member. Simple.

milo of Brizvegas says:

09:07am | 20/01/12

thatmosis ; Isn’t it the Councils and road authorities idea to encourage cycling and more people to commute to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles that clog the roads in peak hour thereby reducing the enormous costs of continually having to upgrade road networks and spend billions on tunnels. Don’t like your chances of increasing costs or more regulation for cyclists.

Zoyd says:

07:34pm | 19/01/12

Mate, you’re a goose. You’re making cycling harder.

stephen says:

08:29pm | 19/01/12

Who wants to get along with fuckwits ?
Do you ?

Or don’t you have any standards ?

marley says:

08:17am | 20/01/12

@Stephen - I quite agree. I don’t think I could get along with you at all.

stephen says:

06:38pm | 20/01/12

Mondostef won’t help me Marley.
What about you ? Will you help me ?

(And leave your beads alone.)

Amazed says:

05:47am | 20/01/12

We hate you so much because you bang on about obeying road rules like riding two abreast etc, then go through the next red light!! Or you decide to take up a car lane even though you have a bike lane, or worse still, take up a car lane when there is a perfectly good, made for you, bike path available!!

Col Sanders says:

06:38am | 20/01/12

Amazed, are you against bikes going through lights when there is no conflicting traffic because it is horribly dangerous or because you cannot get away with it. If you ever had impatient, aggressive drivers trying to ram you through an intersection because you are slow to start off maybe you would understand. Bike paths are shared recreational space with low speed limits, joggers, dogs, small children and pedestrians with the same F.U.  attitude displayed by a lot of SUV drivers. But the good news is (with all these cyclists now) the car drivers who used to intimidate motorcyclists and go ballistic because a pedestrian dared to step onto a zebra crossing impeding their progress are now united in their hatred of cyclists.

PW says:

02:34pm | 20/01/12

In fairness to the bottle-tanned one, a witness cannot say whether an action was intentional or otherwise. It is even problematical to say it was a certain individual. He can, however, describe the person, the vehicle, and what he saw, which would seem to be enough to see SKW before the courts, I’d suggest.