Share the road safely with those ‘lycra-clad clowns’

PW says:

07:47am | 28/07/11

They don’t like being delayed for even one second. That is why they are driving and not on the bus. It’s OK if its other cars delaying them, because they cannot really hate themselves. Its aso cowardice. If they scream and yell at a cyclist and then speed off it is unlikely the cyclist will catch them (but it does sometimes happen).

Anthony says:

08:25am | 28/07/11

Motorists pay road taxes in registration costs that fund the maintenance of the infrastructure! Why should paying users allow non-contributing users to utilise these facilities?

Tubesteak says:

08:41am | 28/07/11

Because your fat lycra-clad ass clogs up the road while you hog a lane doing 30km/h in a 60km/h zone (or worse at 80km/h).

Get off the road and get out of my way.

If you’re not going to show that you have the intelligence to have a bit of self-awareness and understand that you are a moving road-block then drivers shouldn’t have to give you any courtesy or lee-way.

Sceptic says:

09:06am | 28/07/11

There’s a ‘pathological’ right now!

Gareth says:

09:24am | 28/07/11

Anthony,
Yet again, the registration dollars pay for road infrastructure furphy. The cost of registration largely only covers the cost of administering the registration program. It is largely our taxes that pay for road infrastructure, and believe it or not, being a cyclist does not give you a free pass on paying taxes.
Beyond that, almost all cyclists own cars, so also contribute whatever small amount of the car registration that pays for road infrastructure to that purpose. I’ve paid my way, one way or another, for use of the road infrastructure.

RyaN says:

09:47am | 28/07/11

@Sceptic: I would hazard a guess that if there was a group of a make of cars that didn’t need to pay road tax and that were so severely underpowered that it held up the traffic, the same pathological hatred would exist toward said drivers of said cars.
Lets not even mention that if said cars were to skip up the inside and stop in front of everyone at every set of lights just to hold up the entire row of traffic in that lane that the response might in fact be worse than what we see directed towards cyclists.
As for the jumping of red lights and general disobeying of road rules, I won’t even try to draw a picture on that.

RyaN says:

10:24am | 28/07/11

@Gareth: I have two cars, does that mean I should only be paying road taxes on one? They both go on the road, only one at a time, please explain?

Geoff - Brisbane says:

10:43am | 28/07/11

Maybe you need to ask yourself why the car drivers do not show the same hatred towards motorcyclists. There are reasons for that.

Both cut through traffic to be at the front, only one actually takes off at a normal pace.

People get frustrated when, after waiting for a break to pass you people doing 25km/hr, they stop and have to repeat the process. All over one selfish, impatient idiot on a bicycle.

Thomas Anderson says:

10:44am | 28/07/11

Well, on some major roads, lanes have been closed to facilitate bike paths. Why are so many people forced into a traffic jam because of a few bicycle riders who pass by every now and again?

By the same token, building those bike paths in the CBD as opposed to the suburbs may encourage more people to take to the pedals. Although get rid of those skin tight clothes and ugly helmets, we’re not freaking kids anymore. Amsterdam has a flourishing cycle culture and the riders aren’t dressed up as circus gymnasts with watermelons on their heads. The nanny state strikes again

Shifter says:

10:54am | 28/07/11

@RyaN, - your income taxes are what pays for the roads. Not your rego, which these days is little more than an administration fee. Get over this little chestnut, it’s been done to death.

’ were to skip up the inside and stop in front of everyone at every set of lights just to hold up the entire row of traffic in that lane’

So you’re one of those people who wants to drive as fast as possible to get to the next red light so you can wait another two minutes? Seriously? Both the cars and cyclists average speed in CBDs is the same. By the time the light turns green and you’ve sat there stewing over how this cyclist is slowing you down he’s caught up to you again.

So what’s with the anger?

“As for the jumping of red lights and general disobeying of road rules, I won’t even try to draw a picture on that.’

Oh it’s the red light thing right? I can see how lights are frustrating to you, especially to the 4 cars and one bus today that had to get through the intersection at all costs regardless if they were going straight or turning. MIxing with the 20 odd pedestrians who figured the cars were backed up so they could ignore the red man.

There’s idiots out there who ignore reds and do not cross intersections safely, regardless of their mode of transport, all because they do not have the patience to wait for the signals to cross safely. Don’t single cyclists out, when every other group is raising the chances of an accident.

RyaN and Tube, you’re exactly the people the article is talking about. Your words suggest you have little tolerance and consideration for any other road user believe your own journey is of primary importance, at the cost of the safety of others.

Smidgeling says:

11:07am | 28/07/11

Some facts:

- bikes don’t do damage to the road as they are way too light.
- the little bit on the edge of the road (outside the lines you’re meant to be driving on is where cyclists usually ride. Or in bike lanes.
- most cyclists also pay car rego, yet drive their car a whole ot less. I don’t ride my bike currently, but if I did I would be paying for registration of an RX-8 and not driving it everyday. I’m essentially paying rego for the bike by not using my car.
- I see cars using cycle lanes to cut around traffic all the time, get the hell out of the cycle lanes, they’re not for cars.

RyaN says:

11:46am | 28/07/11

@Shifter: hardly mate, you are the one on here spewing forth assumptions and hate. Fact is pal, I am not the one jumping red lights like 97% of cyclists do, I am not the one pulling to the front of the queue then holding up traffic pulling away from the lights in a blatantly selfish move.

If cyclists acted less selfishly on the roads, obeyed the rules and payed the road taxes like a car then I am sure this would solve the issues. Done and dusted.

Don Draper says:

12:10pm | 28/07/11

No.  The point is, whether you are a cyclist or a driver, and whether you like it or not, the major arterial roads in our big cities have been designed for the usage of normal motorised vehicle traffic.  Full stop.

My quibble with cyclists is not that they are ‘slow’ or ‘bad’, it is the danger involved to both me (driving a car) and the cyclists, who are usually unable to maintain the posted speed limits and obstruct traffic flow.  Each time I approach and overtake a bike rider I am forced to take an unnecessary risk.  It places the cyclist in peril (who would undoubtedly come off second best in event of a collision), puts me as a driver in danger and could cause an accident with the cars in adjacent lanes as I take evasive action to manoeuvre around.  It’s hard enough out there just dealing with the other cars.
Get off the major roads - stick to the dedicated bikeways - drive, or catch the freaking bus.

P.S. Moped riders are only slightly better…

Shifter says:

12:25pm | 28/07/11

@RyaN - tell me, what are the ‘Road taxes’? The local council roads are funded from your rates. State and federal highways are mostly funded from income tax and GST. Registration for motor vehicles is used for administration and insurance. Petrol excises make up some of the funding for state and federal roads, most of which are avoided by cyclists due to the danger.

‘Fact is pal, I am not the one jumping red lights like 97% of cyclists do’ - like the 63% of statistics that are made up on the spot? You have no empirical data to back that statement up so why make it?

I’m not the one jumping red lights like all but one cyclist I saw this morning on my way in to work. I’m also not your pal.

’ I am not the one pulling to the front of the queue’.

Do you know why cyclists do this? It’s safer, because everyone can see you and the people you have to merge with up the road are able to make a safe judgement as to when to overtake.

If all road users acted less selfishly on the roads, and obeyed the rules then I am sure this would solve the issues.

RyaN says:

01:17pm | 28/07/11

@Shifter: “’ I am not the one pulling to the front of the queue’.

Do you know why cyclists do this? It’s safer, because everyone can see you and the people you have to merge with up the road are able to make a safe judgement as to when to overtake.”

This ^ has to be the poorest excuse for bullshit that I have ever read. So you are really trying to convince me that because you have pushed your way to the front is only so people can see you, its not as though they didn’t miss your slow yellow lycra wearing ass earlier on due to the pile of cars behind you in the first place, believe you me, they know you are there.

Fact is that actions like I have described just go to show that you people couldn’t give a toss about other road users furthermore that shows through your comments.

I will personally lobby for cyclists to have to pay rego, display a valid bicycle license, get a pink slip pay compulsory third party insurance and have a number plate, mainly so they obey the rules of the road and are subject to the same rules as everyone else but also so as they may have the same rights and respect on the roads as everyone else.

No one is asking you to do anything other than respect your fellow road user and enjoy the same back.

BJA says:

01:36pm | 28/07/11

@Ryan - In fact cyclist are well within their rights to overtake stationery vehicles on the outside of the left lane and move the front of the queue.

Tubesteak says:

01:39pm | 28/07/11

Shifter
I have a lot of tolerance for people that drive properly. That is, people that drive at the speed limit and people that don’t impede traffic.

I have no tolerance for anyone, motorist or cyclist, who thinks they exist in their own world and can hold everyone else up. This includes motorists that don’t do the speed limit, motorists that decide to turn right from the right lane and hold everyone up behind them, motorists that decide they want to park somewhere and take all day to reverse into the spot, and all cyclists that slow down traffic because they can’t do the speed limit.

What’s more, traffic lights are coordinated so that traffic can flow through them. Someone that slows this down causes a speed bubble where the flow is interrupted. Cyclists cause this speed bubble most of the time.

Matt says:

01:48pm | 28/07/11

Pushing to the front is actually legal in the road rules (for cyclists) As is passing on the left of a stationary vehicle. Know the rules

Shifter says:

01:58pm | 28/07/11

@Ryan - I’d like to hear your opinions on motorcycles filtering.

I’d also like to hear your opinion on slowing down for road works.

You’ve used phrases like ‘skip’, ‘hold up’, and ‘queue’ which suggests you value time over safety, which hasn’t rated a mention. I’d have thought the safety of any road user is paramount to the speed of the journey.

@Don Draper - ‘the major arterial roads in our big cities have been designed for the usage of normal motorised vehicle traffic’

Great point. If cyclists are using said roads, wouldn’t it be prudent to find out why? Most of the time it’s because there’s no better alternative. I suggest some of the time it’s because the rider is simply ignorant.

I applaud you for considering the fact a cyclist will likely be severely hurt in an accident, but I disagree though that you should need to take evasive action to manoeuvre around them. I’m reading this as you needing to move into an adjacent lane in a semi-merge style to avoid the rider. Surely you also have the option of slowing and waiting for a safe gap to use to overtake the cyclist?

RyaN says:

02:07pm | 28/07/11

@BJA: incorrect, this is illegal, as it is for motorcycles, cops just don’t enforce it.

BJA says:

02:20pm | 28/07/11

@Ryan - FYI NSW Road Rule 141

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.11-div.3+0+N?

RyaN says:

03:35pm | 28/07/11

@Matt: take a look at BJA’s link, clearly it states “in a marked lane” in item 141, 1 (a).

You people cannot pick and choose what you want to obey no matter how distorted you think it is.
Here are your special rules.. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bicycles/cyclingrules.html nothing in there about being allowed to push up to the front by illegally passing while not in a marked lane, because if you were in the marked lane you would be stuck behind the car.

Same applies to the side by side law, two abreast ONLY and not more than 1.5 meters apart. Don’t see you lot obeying that law either.

@BJA: thanks for confirming exactly what I said “in a marked lane” and item 144 (b) also states that ” must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.”
I would say pushing up to the front is in direct contravention of this law.

JuzzyD says:

04:00pm | 28/07/11

I don’t see Safety as being an excuse at all. Your presumption that everyone knows his lycra clad ass is there is spoken like a true cager moron.

http://gallery.drfaulken.com/d/9403-1/motorcycle+rear+ended-1.jpg That is why I filter to the front at lights, regardless of the law, that is why cyclists ride to the front at the lights. It’s not to inconvenience you, and laws in other parts of the world recognise the dangers of having the most vulnerable road users in the most vulnerable traffic position.

BJA says:

04:18pm | 28/07/11

@Ryan

A bicycle rider can move over an unbroken white line into the shoulder and back again as long as it is safe to do so. So, i could be riding in the lane then merge over the unbroken white line into the shoulder and overtake the stationary vehicles moving to the front of the queue. Then when the lights turn green I can ride along the shoulder and merge back into the lane when I can do so safely.

Shifter says:

06:43pm | 28/07/11

@RyaN - Rule 141 (1) states:

‘A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless’

This means the rider of a bicycle is exempt from this rule and all sub points below.

There is nothing wrong with Matt’s statement (in NSW) as rule 141 (1) a does not apply to the rider of a bicycle. Bicycle riders can filter on the left of other traffic on the roads in NSW.

Rule 141 (2) deals with what the rider of a bicycle cannot do, ie. attempt to overtake on the left someone who is indicating to turn left.

With reference to rule 144, you cannot obstruct the path of a stationary vehicle, which is what cars stopped at traffic lights are. Presuming the cyclist does not collide with said vehicle whilst filtering (safely overtaking on the left), they have that part of the regulation covered as well.

Tom says:

10:41pm | 28/07/11

RyaN, I would be interested to know the source for your claim that “I am not the one jumping red lights like 97% of cyclists do”. I would also question the implication that car drivers do not run red lights, considering the huge amount of revenue generated by red light cameras in pretty much every Australian state. Also consider that the cyclist isn’t likely to put anyone apart from themselves in danger by running a red. The same is not true for a car or truck.

And it is also good to see the old rego chestnut get trotted out almost immediately. Aside from the point that rego doesn’t come close to covering road costs, could someone please explain to me a) which other countries have such a scheme, and if it is such a good idea, why aren’t more countries following suit, and b) why it is a good idea to tax a form of exercise in a country with a massive obesity crisis?

Fact is, I would happily pay rego if it stopped the sanctimonious bleating of many on here. I am just curious as to what everyone thinks is a fair cost. My ~1400kg car costs $313 a year to register. On this ratio, my 8kg road bike should cost around $1.80 a year, and my 11kg mountain bike around $2.45. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

RyaN says:

09:41am | 29/07/11

@Tom: you missed the compulsory third party and the vehicle roadworthy.

In answer to your question “considering the huge amount of revenue generated by red light cameras in pretty much every ” well you answered your question right there, car drivers are held responsible for red light jumping, cyclist cannot because they are not registered and do not have number plates.

“why it is a good idea to tax a form of exercise in a country with a massive obesity crisis? ” in any sport you have to pay some kind of fees to cover the insurance, most public fields will not allow you to conduct your sport there unless there is liability insurance that covers them. Why should you be any different considering the fact that you regularly put peoples lives in danger, not just your own.

RyaN says:

09:44am | 29/07/11

@Shifter: good luck arguing your far fetched interpretation of the road laws. Keep at it though we’ll see.
I gave you a link for the list of road laws that are specific to cyclists, nothing in there mentions you having the right to filter through traffic and obstruct the flow of said traffic.

Bilby says:

10:53am | 29/07/11

Come on RyaN. You gave a link to a summary, which to be honest I have been guilty of believing. The actual rules however contradict the summary in regards to the requirement to signal, and are not comprehensive enough to describe the rules that you are arguing about (these are the differences that I have noted so far). Shifter is correct, and linked and referred to the actual rules, which in all cases supercede anything mentioned in a summary.

Hermano says:

11:07am | 29/07/11

RyAN, the link you gave is just a handy summary guide.  The body of the legislation states that a cyclist can ride to the left of traffic as long as there’s no vehicles indication to turn left.  Look it up for yourself.  No interpretation needed.
Also, cyclists are allowed to ride 2 abreast.  Also no interpretation needed.

Helen says:

11:45am | 29/07/11

Why is this old “motorists own the roads because they pay for them” furphy still trotted out every time this topic arises? surely it’s been refuted often enough? I think BV needs to put a Bicycle Facts 101 page on their website so people can just link to it instead of wearing their fingers out trying to educate the motoring masses!

Tom says:

01:44pm | 29/07/11

Ryan, In answer to your question “considering the huge amount of revenue generated by red light cameras in pretty much every ” well you answered your question right there, car drivers are held responsible for red light jumping, cyclist cannot because they are not registered and do not have number plates.”

If there is a cop there, they can order the cyclist to stop. Cyclists can and do get fined. My point is, that registration hasn’t exactly stopped cars from breaking the road rules, why would it be different for cyclists? It also reflects the huge difference in risk a car running a red light poses to others compared to a bike.

“in any sport you have to pay some kind of fees to cover the insurance, most public fields will not allow you to conduct your sport there unless there is liability insurance that covers them. Why should you be any different considering the fact that you regularly put peoples lives in danger, not just your own.”

I went running the other day, and then went and played a game of touch with mates, and I don’t recall paying any fees for that. If you play organised sport, yes, you have to pay fees. As for insurance, I am a member of cycling NSW which gives me 3rd party insurance. There are plenty of sports without fees - if you want to join a cycling club, you pay fees too. You also claim cyclists put others’ lives at risk - perhaps, but the risk is pretty insignificant. I googled for pedestrians killed by cyclists; I could find one case in Melbourne in 2006 - the guy was caught and charged as an aside. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning.

Fact is, registration of cyclists would be completely impractical. Does the 5 year old have to register their bike? Do I have to register the rusty old thing I ride the 3 blocks to the beach? You also didn’t address what would be a fair cost - I did some calculations based upon car rego, as registration is based on the vehicle weight, the amount would be insignificant. If you want my $3 or whatever, pass on your details to the punch and I will send it to you. As I pointed out, if it is such a good idea, why hasn’t any other country adopted the idea?

Graham says:

07:24pm | 29/07/11

@Anthony, believe it or not, but most of us cyclists also own cars!!!

Damo says:

04:04pm | 30/07/11

I hate this rubbish about registration! I pay the ergo for 5 cars as business owner as do many other middle aged business men who also happen to be cyclists. Patience and tolerance aren’t such big issues when people’s lives are at stake

Old Bloke says:

09:20am | 28/07/11

Peter, you are perfectly correct in that not all cyclists do the right thing.  Similarly, not all drivers do the right thing either.  Neither has a monopoly on good or bad.  I am a cyclist and I get angry when I see other cyclists behaving badly but just as you can’t stop bad drivers you have to tolerate a lot and just keep yourself from doing the wrong thing.  I am always conscious though that if a cyclist comes to grief with a car it almost always ends badly for the cyclist!  In fact right now I am recovering from an accident 6 weeks ago when a careless rider struck me from behind resulting in 3 weeks in traction and a further 7 weeks on crutches so I know all about bad cyclists!

Andy D says:

09:49am | 28/07/11

I agree with Peter#1 and Old Bloke

I think the reality is that a small percentage of cyclists need to stop riding with a chip on their shoulder regarding cars. These cyclists tend to be the “screw you filthy polluter, I’ll block the road if I want to” type.

Unfortunately the percentage of car drivers who need to stop driving with a chip on their shoulder regarding cyclists is much higher.

I drive through Galston Gorge first thing every Sunday morning and am appalled by the ignorance and aggressiveness of some cyclists who seem to think they own the road because there are large numbers of cyclists there on Sundays, but I never see any of this behaviour anywhere else in Sydney.

For a road like Galston Gorge I think on Sundays it should be closed to cars for half an hour then closed to cyclists for half an hour and alternate like that for the whole of Sunday morning.

A Cyclist and Motorist says:

04:25pm | 28/07/11

@Andy D

Did you see the sign at the top of the Gorge that says “No Overtaking for 5km”?? Do you know what that means?

I quite often cycle through Galston Gorge, and I honestly don’t know what your issue is. On the Downhill sections cyclists are going close to the speed limit. You can only do 5km/h on the hairpins.

Going up the Western Side of the Gorge it is pretty narrow. Most cyclists, including myself, pretty much hug the wall or the side of the road for the wider bits, but in other places this is crazy because speeding drivers come flying around blind corners and don’t see you. In those places I take the whole lane. It indicates to the driver behind that it is not safe to pass me here. 99% of drivers understand this, and they can see that I have no option. Of course, since you are not permitted to overtake anywhere in the Gorge, the fact we keep to the far left is a courtesy. The least you could do is extend the same courtesy when we’re trying to climb up the hills.

On the subject of drivers not obeying road rules, I have been passed in Galston Gorge by a marked police car, not under lights and sirens, directly over double white lines. Sets a great example for everyone else.

Also, please explain how a cyclist exhibits “aggressive behaviour” against a 2 tonne motor vehicle?

Andy D says:

09:17pm | 29/07/11

I guess we found one of the small percentage of cyclists who I was talking about.

I hope your aggression spills out on the page more than it does on the road.

Maybe you are the jerk who rode his bike past me last week while I was waiting at the one lane bridge and nearly caused an accident when the cars already on the bridge tried to avoid running down an “innocent” cyclist.

If you seriously think that cars should stay behind you for 15 or 20 minutes while you struggle to drag yourself up that hill you are a fool. Take the fact that the police overtook you as a message, it’s not illegal to overtake cyclists on a one lane road, ever. It’s not right to do it dangerously but it’s not illegal to do it.

A Cyclist and Motorist says:

12:42am | 30/07/11

@Andy D
No, it wasn’t me. I haven’t been through the Gorge for a few months.

I still have no idea where you get the idea that this is “agressive behaviour”. Clearly you have a) Never ridden a bicycle, and b) never read the road rules.
Please explain how someone on a 10kg bicycle can intimidate a driver of a 2-tonne enclosed steel cage? Being assertive and being aggressive are not the same thing.

For the sake of everyone else on the road, I suggest you take a good read of NSW Road Rules 2008. Yes, it is illegal to overtake over double white-lines, and in the case of Galston Gorge there is even a blanket ban on it for the whole 5km. Go and read the Road Rules definition of what “Overtaking” is, and also make special note of the rule where it says that a vehicle (including a bicycle) that is travelling slower than you is not an obstruction. Hint: under NSW law, overtaking always require that you change into the adjacent lane. If you don’t, you are breaking the law.

This is the ignorance that most cyclists have to put up with. Motorists who think they are know it alls, but probably last bothered to read the road rules when they were 16.
I don’t expect cars to sit behind me while I climb a hill, which is why we keep to the far left. However, in some places it is not safe to do this. There is not enough room for a car and a bicycle in the one lane, so that is why we take the lane. It is not to annoy you, it is for safety, and we would not be there for more than is necessary.
In all the times I have been in the Gorge, I have only had one or two cars “held up” for the grand total of 30 seconds over 3 years. Motorists don’t have exclusive rights over the road, so you need to pull your head in and just accept that fact. If you don’t like it, go and get your local MP to change the law.
I drive a car too, and I do so through the Gorge. I don’t have any problems with cyclists through there. It is an extremely popular cycling route and it should be no surprise to see cyclists there, particularly on Saturday and Sunday mornings. The single cyclist that you encountered sounds like a moron, but that is the thing with morons, they are morons whether they are on a bicycle, in a car, or walking down the footpath. It doesn’t mean that every cyclist riding through the gorge is like that.
Maybe you should go and borrow a bicycle and try riding it yourself. It might change your perspective on things, and who knows, you might even have a life changing moment, and heaven forbid actually enjoy getting some physical exercise.

Andy D says:

07:35pm | 31/07/11

I guess we could just stick to the law that is very clear on the fact that cars are allowed to overtake cyclists without changing lanes? How would that make you feel?

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more considerate. I give at least 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist. I also do not think it wise for cyclists to try and stop motorists from overtaking. Could you imagine what would happen if you tried to block your average ute driving idiot from overtaking on the uphill climb of Galston Gorge.

Seriously, anyone who would actually advocate cars being forced to stay behind cyclists all the way through Galston Gorge is a total moron.

A Cyclist and Motorist says:

12:23am | 01/08/11

@Andy D
“guess we could just stick to the law that is very clear on the fact that cars are allowed to overtake cyclists without changing lanes? How would that make you feel?”

Sure Andy, go to http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+fn+0+N
Now, tell me which Rule # says you can overtake cyclists without changing lanes. Please post it for all to see.

BTW I didn’t say I prevented motorists from overtaking, just that I position myself in the lane so that the only way they can overtake is to do it properly by changing lanes, instead of trying to squeeze past with only a few cms to spare. My own personal experience is that far too many motorists have no clue where the side of their car is, and I have been shaved by too many brainless twits while I was riding in the gutter. So, I now ride in the middle (as I am legally entitled to do).

While you are scouring the road rules for your non-existent overtaking rule, pay particular attention to the special rules for cyclists. You might learn a thing or two.

Sceptic says:

06:56am | 28/07/11

@Mahhrat

Why do you have to register it?

Peter#1 says:

07:09am | 28/07/11

@Mahhrat
I have been saying the same thing for the past 40 years, but to no avail.
With registration and the issue of number plates it would be easier for offenders to be prosecuted.
At the moment, there is no identification system, so even if a rider runs a red light or goes the wrong way along a one-way street, they avoid prosecution unless there happens to be a law enforcement officer present to apprehend them.
Road safety rules and traffic laws should apply to motorists and bicycle riders equally.

Sceptic says:

07:34am | 28/07/11

@Peter#1

Same thing generally applies to motorists, ‘they avoid prosecution unless there happens to be a law enforcement officer present to apprehend them.’

PW says:

07:35am | 28/07/11

As the law currently stands, you do not have to register bicycles, in fact you could not do so even if you wanted to. Try going down to your local RTA and asking to register your bicycle. If you, Mahhrat or any other individuals think this is not a correct state of affairs, by all means lobby the Government. I don’t like your chances though. This issue has already been investigated and it has been determined that registration, etc, for human powered vehicles is completely pointless.

Mandatory taxes? That would be GST. Yes I’ve paid that. There are no other mandatory taxes. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle, you see.

Under the law as it currently stands, bicycles are entitled to use the roads, whether you like it or not, mate. Until such times as they change it, I’m afraid its your argument that is moot. You can whinge, honk, and even throw objects all you want (but be careful because more and more riders are recording every ride on video) but we aint going away. When the last car has used the last remaining drop of petrol, there will still be bicycles.

It would be nice to get along with smokebox drivers, and indeed most of them are perfectly polite, but just as there are a few idiot cyclists there are those who think they own the roads because they pay half a cent per km for rego.

toast says:

07:47am | 28/07/11

Not a problem Mahhrat.

I ride six days a week, I’ll happily pay registration. Then I’ll sit in the middle of the lane with my rego sticker proudly showing you that I now have the right to sit in the middle of the lane. Not that I didn’t have that right previously I just always keep left to be considerate and safe.

Oh, and another point, where I live only 300k’s of road are state funded, the remaining 6000k’s are funded by the City Council, which means they are funded by people paying rates. So anybody who pays rent can get the f*%k of my road.

Listen very carefully, for I shall say this only once:

The registration argument is always lame at best.

PW says:

07:53am | 28/07/11

@Peter#1 There are cameras that detect wrong direction travel in one way streets?

The law does apply equally to all road users, but the penaltes are different. If you think one group is not being policed, by aall means lobby accordingly.

Sarah says:

07:59am | 28/07/11

@MAhrat - I agree.
@Sceptic - Because they are using the ROADS and motorists PAY REGISTRATION which contributes towards the cost of maintaining ROADS.
On top of that - part of our registration is Compulsory 3rd Party insurance. Why are Cyclists allowed on the roads without compulsory 3rd party insurance when (according to the CEO of the Amy Gillet foundation) cyclists are at fault in 54% of cyclist/motorist accidents…

Hermano says:

08:00am | 28/07/11

Mahhrat: none of these things you desire are required by law.

Peter#1: see the body of the article above.  When a cyclist does the wrong thing you might be 5 minutes late.  When a motorist does the wrong thing you might be dead.  I would suggest asking for better enforcement of laws to prevent death rather than trying to divert funding to something which is merely an annoyance to you.

Hermano says:

08:04am | 28/07/11

Sarah: your “facts” are incorrect.
Rego doesn’t come close to covering road maintenance: everybody pays, road user or not.
The 54% you quote isn’t from AGF.  The AGF/monash uni study was closer to 90% driver at fault.

Sceptic says:

08:06am | 28/07/11

@Sarah

Are you going to call for pedestrians to be registered?  They also use the ROAD!!!

toast says:

08:14am | 28/07/11

@Sarah

Wrong. Paying registration contributes to consolidated revenue and the costs of running a transport department.

You’ll find that most (but I concede not all) serious cyclists do have insurance. Either through their State’s principle cyling organisation, if they are a member, and through Cycling Australia if they have a race licence.

Do your homework, or go away.

PW says:

08:17am | 28/07/11

@Sarah
Every taxpayer or ratepayer contributes to the cost of roads, whether they drive on them or not. You and your fellow motorists are in fact being subsidised by taxpayers who don’t drive. I paid $3,500 in council rates this year, much of which is to maintain local roads that you don’t seem to believe I contribute towards. Your $200 a year registration and motor vehicle tax (NSW) barely covers the administrative costs of the scheme. If bicycles ever have to be registered, I will be very happy to comply, and even happier to ride right in the middle of the roads I pay for.

Margot says:

08:18am | 28/07/11

I think that there are quite a few bad offenders in both corners.Having said that though I have to support the cyclist because the roads in this country are not completely paid for(not even close) by the revenue created form registration.They are paid for and maintained with tax dollars,if you pay tax you have a right to the road.

Mahhrat says:

09:05am | 28/07/11

Well lookie heer, paw!! I’s got me a cupple reel big’uns taday!!

Hermano says:

09:30am | 28/07/11

Lollin’ @ mahhrat

Simon says:

09:39am | 28/07/11

@Sarah, Mahharat etc
Registration is a payment made to register a car (or whatever vehicle).

Road Tax is a tax for using the road. It is not a tax to pay for roads. Is income tax for paying income? Is property tax for paying property? No. They are taxes on said things. Is GST a tax for paying to provide goods and services? No. It is a tax on goods and services etc etc etc

The reason why cars have to have compulsory third party insurance is that drivers of said vehicles kill and injure lots of third parties. Bicycle riders do not. Yes, there have been two pedestrians killed in what 15-20 years, but in that time period 10s if not 100s of thousands of people have been killed and injured by motor vehicles.

Roads are primarily funded by councils as other have pointed out anyway.

IMHO, they should scrap rego as it is now anyway. It should exist just to provide plates/records of vehicles and should provide no funding for anything else at all. The funding for roads should come entirely from fuel tax as this is the least intrusive way of implementing user pays, i.e. a fair system. Heavier vehicles cause more damage to the road, but also use more fuel. The longer the time a vehicle spends on the road the more damage it causes, but the more fuel it consumes. Bicycles use no fuel (other than food - which will be indirectly be paying the fuel tax anyway), but cause no damage.

Rover of North Cooma says:

10:22am | 28/07/11

Hermano, these stats are a bit out of date but they are from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and appear to be the basis for Sarah’s stats:
“In over 60 per cent of crashes, the cyclist was deemed to be ‘responsible’ for the action that precipitated the fatal crash. This was particularly the case in crashes at intersections where the cyclist was either riding through the intersection on the road or moving from the footway onto the intersection. Cyclists were also found to be primarily responsible in other crashes where the cyclist moved from the footway to the road.”

You can read the full report at http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2006/pdf/death_cyclists_road.pdf

If you have a link to the Monash study, I’d be interested in reading it.

Mahhrat, your rego argument is a crock. Parents would have to shell out for kids’ bikes, because at some point or other, the kids would have to ride on the road. If you have to pay rego and other taxes on something you’ve picked up for $20 at a garage sale, you’re more likely to let your kids get fat and lazy than buy them a bike and teach them the road rules.

I’m not a cyclist and I admit, as a driver I get nervous when I see a bike on the road. But since a cyclist friend of mine bounced into the path of a truck (and survived!), I’ve always tried to change lanes if possible when passing a bike. And as much as I dislike being almost taken out by a lycra warrior when on a shared pedestrian/bike path, I dislike seeing a bike underneath a car more.

Shifter says:

11:08am | 28/07/11

Please! Sign me up now for my barcode that I must wear at all times, for heaven forbid that I should not be able to be identified! Fear my extreme jaywalking abilities that cause terror in the hearts of men women and children!

Enough of the hyperbowl.

On Tuesday evening I rode to the shops and back I had 3 near misses from cars. The first decided he couldn’t wait at the stop sign a little longer and had to cross the street I was on. Had I not been on my MTB (better brakes) I’d be a hood ornament rather than missing the car by about a metre.

The second decided since the cycle lane merged he could turn left in front of me.

The third decided I wasn’t allowed to turn right in 200m in front of him and sped up to make it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible.

The common thing I have in all three is I can describe the cars fairly well but have no way of identifying their rego plates. No Police and no camera means they all got away with nearly killing me through impatience.

So Mahrat, listen very carefully because I shall only say this once:

The law states cyclists are allowed to travel on the road.

If you take actions to prevent this you are potentially breaking a law.

Hermano says:

11:16am | 28/07/11

Rover: linky- http://btawa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/4-HelmetCam-results.pdf

Smidgeling says:

04:24pm | 28/07/11

Mahhrat- it’s funny how you make statements that any average person would consider poor arguments rather than deliberately outrageous statements designed to troll, then claim they’re merely trolling when someone calls you out on it.

Note to Mahhrat- good trolls make people exclaim at the ridiculousness or hilarity of your effort. Trolling may not include arguments that an average person would think are acceptable.

That would be like me saying you have a sad little crush on Kate De Brito, then saying “Oh troll!!!!hahahaha” when you objected….because you know, it’s a pretty reasonable accusation that most people would deem serious.

Helens says:

11:59am | 29/07/11

Hermano,
“Peter#1: see the body of the article above.  When a cyclist does the wrong thing you might be 5 minutes late.  When a motorist does the wrong thing you might be dead.  I would suggest asking for better enforcement of laws to prevent death rather than trying to divert funding to something which is merely an annoyance to you.”

But, but, it’s much more than 5 minutes Hermano! You see they have that unfair rule about “leaving the scene of an accident” - granted many car drivers are quick thinking enough to scarper, but then the damn nanny state catches them and prosecutes them! So they’re doomed to hang around and people might even think they ought to provide first aid to these nuisances while they bleed out and turn blue! Which could hold them up for an HOUR while the cops take all those unnecessary, bureaucratic details! It’s a violation of motorists basic human rights, but what can you do!

Sceptic says:

07:08am | 28/07/11

Keep the Magpies from attacking - though they are wearing a helmet so I have no idea why they don’t think that affords them protection?

I have seen one nutty looking lady with small twigs and gum leaves sticking out of her helmet - thought that might attract magpies.

KH says:

07:43am | 28/07/11

Sceptic - ever been attacked by one?! I have - not only is it painful, some of those birds are quite big - on two wheels, they could literally knock you over.  The cable ties mean they can’t get a grip on you….......

PW says:

07:43am | 28/07/11

Why is “scores” of bicycles all in one lane a problem. You can still use those that remain. Otherwise you just have to wait a few seconds, same as if you are behind a bus, same as cyclists have to do when they want to cross a motorway ramp. Every day on my commute to work I see literally thousands of cars and trucks blocking all three lanes of the motorway.

If youi look carefully you might see a pair of eyes on top of these helmets as well. Magpies don’t always attack the helmet and its still not so nice getting buzzed even if they do attack your helmet.

Shifter says:

11:10am | 28/07/11

@Sceptic - I saw a youtube vid of a couple of blokes testing various magpie deterrents, and they found a giant afro wig was the best at keeping the little bastards from swooping.

Andy D says:

11:44am | 28/07/11

As much as I hate it when cyclists ride side by side on single lane roads I have to agree with PW, if there is more than one lane why shouldn’t the cyclists be able to use one entire lane?

I think cyclists and motorists should spend less time worrying about our differences and more time worrying about those things that make us one, like pathological hatred for magpies, I hate the buggers!!!

Bilby says:

02:54pm | 28/07/11

See!! This is what I’m talking about! Bloody Collingwood supporters.

Hermano says:

08:20am | 28/07/11

Are you referring to the lanes painted next to the parked cars, that are prevalent in Sydney?  The middle of those lanes is called the “door zone”, or “death zone”.  Cyclists, myself included, tend to ride to the right side of this lane or on the line to avoid being “doored” by motorists.  This is one of the most common causes of cycling accidents and is bloody painful.  Best to be avoided.

PW says:

08:22am | 28/07/11

Can’t help you there, mate. There are no bicycle lanes whatsoever in my area. Not a single dang one. I assist you though with the lane “designated for cars”. There is no such thing.

JuzzyD says:

08:27am | 28/07/11

It’s where all the crap from the roads ends up. Nails, screws etc. Having a puncture isn’t nice, so they stick to the line to avoid as much as possible.

At least that’s my understanding, I’m a motorcyclist, not a cyclist.

barefoot says:

09:22am | 28/07/11

Re: riding on the line. Most bike lanes are approximately one car door-width wide, and run alongside a line of parked car doors. If you’re riding in the middle of the lane when somebody throws a door open in front of you… they call this “winning the door prize” and it never ends we’ll for the cyclist.
Ensuring you have an evasive action to potential hazards is basic defensive riding.  Don’t place yourself on danger.
Really: comment above questioning why cyclists are not required to have third party insurance: cars are heavy and fast, and pose a significant risk to other road users. Cyclists are far less dangerous.

Shifter says:

11:13am | 28/07/11

Another point, beyond the door zone is that all the crap tends to get swept into bike lanes. The cleanest, most root-free, glass-free and storm drain grating free part of the lane is the line.

Cars don’t drive over these areas and they have much thicker and wider tyres. I don’t see why cyclists should have to risk an accident or a puncture.

ibast says:

12:36pm | 28/07/11

Riding on the line on a motorway gets me.  As a motorcyclists with 20 years traffic riding experience I know instinctively that; Buffer = Safety.  They even teach motorcyclist this these days in the compulsory training.

It seems to my cyclist think a flat tyre is more inconvenient than dying.

RyaN says:

01:22pm | 28/07/11

@Cry in my Gin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ I sort of understand their issues with the bike lanes, but don’t miss the attitude of the cyclist, apparently he is doing the world a favour by riding his bike.

Shifter says:

02:42pm | 28/07/11

@ibast - on the motorway thing, there’s a theory among cyclists that the more space they take, the more drivers take action to avoid them. The obvious obstacle so to say. Same goes for claiming the lane when there is no cycle lane.

Shifter says:

11:16am | 28/07/11

I agree Bunyip, there’s a lot of cyclists out there who don’t know they are breaking regulations. An example in WA is that it is illegal to ride on footpaths unless specifically signed (making them shared paths) if you are over the age of 12.

It wouldn’t hurt for an education campaign for both cyclists and drivers on various regs and sharing roads

epg says:

11:04am | 28/07/11

So leave the bike at home, get in the car and drive to the gym?  What about car and motorbikes driving for recreation purposes - ban the road trip and the sunday drive?  And if you’re using your car to go and see a movie or visit a friend - well that’s inconveniencing others and should be stopped.  Roads must only be used for the very important task of getting to school or work.  Just saying, plenty of car use is for frivolous reasons and this probably clogs up roads far more than cyclists.

JdR says:

01:51pm | 28/07/11

I’m not bagging the frivolous too much EPG.  My thought was about trying to get the debate away from the usual cars vs bikes rubbish.  What you’re driving is visible and so is typically people’s focus (when they don’t give it thought).  What we should all be thinking more about it what people are actually doing - what is their behaviour and what impact does it have on others?

All that said - yes riding or driving on busy roads purely for pleasure IS a different thing than riding or driving on a busy road for the purpose of getting from one place to another.  Yes you can of course do both and enjoy your bike ride to work (its a spectrum, not a black/white) or do a few errands while out for your exercise, but I imagine just as someone trying to park their car would get reasonably irritated if I insisted on playing touch footy in the carpark, it isn’t reasonable for purely recreational cyclists to impede traffic during times or in locations where that’s going to have a significant impact.

Hermano says:

09:12am | 28/07/11

Hey NSW, not a chance that I keep off the damn roads.  Roads have been around a lot longer than motor vehicles, mate.  The one I ride to work on was designed for horses and people, then bikes used it, now it’s clogged with cars and trucks most of the time.
Car drivers such as yourself need to lose the sense of entitlement that you seem to have about being the only ones who have the right to use the roads.  Your licence is a privilege, and the roads are paid for by everyone and should be used by everyone.
Do me a favour: the next ten times you’re stuck in traffic, make a note of how often the holdup is caused by a bicycle.  Chances are that every single time it’ll be other motor vehicles holding you up.

ibast says:

09:26am | 28/07/11

“Roads are for motor vehicles. “

Who says?  Seriously, these are your rules not mine.  Car drivers in Australia drive as though the road belongs to them, but it doesn’t.  It belongs to all road users.

The fact is in suburbia, and the city, cyclist get there just as quick as cars do and in some cases quicker.  So what are you complaining about?  The fact that they don’t have the same acceleration profile?  Why should they?  The road isn’t for cars only.  You are just as much as fault for driving a vehicle with that acceleration profile and lack of maneuverability as they are for riding the slower vehicle.  And don’t’ give me the rego bullocks.  If that was fair bikes would be paying $1 rego and you’d be paying $10k.

I really don’t get why car drivers insist on cutting their own noses off.  I person on a bike or motorbike is a car out of your queue.  By forcing two wheel vehicles off the road do you think they just dissapear?  No they go and get in a car and make your queue longer.

The rationalist says:

04:09pm | 28/07/11

NSW, you seem to have a penchant for worrying about infintisimally small time savings, so here is one for free.

When having the argument, you could just say it in 4 words:

I’m an ignorant fool.

There, saved you some of your precious time.  Your welcome.

Helen says:

02:18pm | 29/07/11

“Whenever I get in the argument I just say five words - Roads are for motor vehicles. “

So, you just repeat the same mantra every time even though you know it’s wrong? Brilliant.

Hermano says:

09:16am | 28/07/11

You must be from Melbourne:  here in Sydney I have 800 metres worth of bike path on my 32km commute.  I guess I’ll just have to wait until the rest of those bike paths get built before I can ride my bike…
Also, please note irony of motorist calling cyclist a “self important bastard”.

Al says:

09:24am | 28/07/11

provide me with bike lanes that link together and don’t just meander off to nowhere and i will. I prefer to use them where available as it is a much more enjoyable ride. But mate try piecing together a ride from A to B and then you’ll realise how pitiful these lanes are. So how about spending more of my tax/rate dollars on bike lanes? But of course when that happens ... as seen in Sydney and elsewhere ... more complaints.

barefoot says:

10:49am | 28/07/11

If the bike paths were “perfectly good”, they would be used.
The fact that cyclists use the road in preference indicates that the paths are not, as you claim, “perfectly good”. Economics 101.
What’s wrong with them? Among many problems, for mine the biggest is priority. Bike paths cede priority - either officially or in fact - to every side street and driveway they cross. Even when the main road lanes of a side street are supposed to give way a the bike lane adjacent to a main road, it would be a very brave cyclist to rely on this happening.
Slowing to give way then accelerating back up to cruising speed is a relatively simple act of flexing the right ankle in a car. It;‘s a much bigger inconvenience to a cyclist. If there’s a road that truly does get priority over side streets and can be ridden safely at speed, that’s going to be ridden in preference to an adjacent stop-start path.

kyzz says:

04:26pm | 28/07/11

I have a poem too.
Here lies a cyclist suddenly dead,
Broke the road rules running a red
blamed is the car driver with the green light
After all the cyclist was on the road because “IT’S HIS RIGHT!”

Brando says:

09:40am | 28/07/11

I actually saw one stop at a red light. I was so shocked I nearly went over and shook his hand in order to congratulate him. I spend 40 mins every work day walking to work and back and see cyclist breaking rules every day without fail.

They come flying past you on the footpath (where their not supposed to be) without warning.

I saw one guy break no less than 10 road rules in under 30 seconds once. I asked another one if was trying to set a record for the same thing and he got so ashamed that he responded the way morons do with anger and violence. (it didn’l help that I laughed right in his face)

Al says:

09:26am | 28/07/11

probably to avoid bogan droppings!

Jonathan says:

10:24am | 28/07/11

Simply because the bike lanes aren’t wide enough, are covered with obstacles, and are in what is known as the ‘door zone’ - the space which a parked car door would open into. Most cyclists avoid riding in that zone when there are parked cars, as an accident of that sort is arguably the worst thing that could happen to a cyclist, save getting hit from front on.

Most cyclists don’t actually swerve either, unless to avoid an obstacle that would put them off their bike. I know if I see something well ahead, I’d check behind me and merge slowly into the traffic… oh yeah, that traffic lane where we ARE entitled to be if we choose to.

Warren says:

10:25am | 28/07/11

To avoid the door zone. A cyclist needs to be one meter away from parked cars otherwise they are guaranteed to get taken out by a car door.

The Sage says:

12:34pm | 28/07/11

What’s this? Cyclists complaining about the obstacles in “their” lanes? Oh the irony.

The Sage says:

12:34pm | 28/07/11

What’s this? Cyclists complaining about the obstacles in “their” lanes? Oh the irony.

Chris L says:

04:57pm | 28/07/11

@The Sage - When they start telling you that you can’t park there you may have a point.

Sceptic says:

09:29am | 28/07/11

@Steve

Probably because your ‘vast majority’ lacks empirical validity.

Elphaba says:

09:31am | 28/07/11

Well said.

Or pedestrian crossings, when I’m crossing.  Lycra-clad arseholes, I just want to shove a stick in their spokes and watch them go A over T.

Vladimir Sodoff says:

09:51am | 28/07/11

No one replies to you as your 4 out of 5 minimum is a figment of your imagination.

ibast says:

10:05am | 28/07/11

Once again we get into this mentality that the road belong to cars and therefore all other users must obey the car rules.  The law already makes exemption for different vehicle types.  You are not required to wear a helmet when you are driving a car, for example.

There isn’t a law that exempts cyclist from running reds, nor is there every likely to be, but there should be.  Why? Because it is safer for push bikes and it facilitates better traffic flow.  Once again car drivers get pissed off by this, not for any good reason, but because they falsely perceive it as pushing in.  The fact is push bikes are not in the queue.  The queue you created for yourself by choosing to drive a car.

Andrew K says:

02:57pm | 28/07/11

I am one of the very few cyclists who stops at red lights, I get annoyed and will call other cyclists on it if they wizz past me through a red.

BUT

Many traffic light sensors do NOT register the light weight of a bicycle and rider. I will always give a set of lights a full cycle, but after that I have no choice but to go through the red when safe, or wait in the middle of the road until a vehicle that is turning my way comes along. After peak hour you could be waiting hours - want to come and keep me company and we can discuss it?

Hell even the bike lane sensor, supposed to be calibrated for bikes, on the Bourke St Cycleway southbound downhill at Liverpool Street Darlinghurst does not register (all the others do though). Have spoken to CoS council about it but still not fixed.

Many cyclists do the wrong thing. So do many cyclists. Sometimes though it really is just down ot unavoidability.

Simon says:

04:19pm | 28/07/11

I do stop at red lights.

As a driver, should I hold you to account for the actions of other drivers?

Andrew K says:

03:03pm | 28/07/11

Recently returned from a trip around many European and Asian cities. All respect the bicycle, and in many it is the main form of private transport. It is Australian attitudes against cyclists, amply demonstrated here in this thread, that are the biggest issue here. Most drivers sprout their hate without even having a clue what they are talking about. Filtering at lights. One often cited gripe, but it is legal. Here: (Australian Road Rules as amended in 2009 and as adopted in relevant legilsation in each state and territory):

141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless:
(a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the
vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the
left of the vehicle; or
(b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U–turn from
the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of
direction signal and it is safe to overtake to the left of
the vehicle; or
(c) the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the
left of the vehicle.
Offence provision.
Note 1 Bicycle, centre of the road, marked lane, multi-lane road,
overtake, right change of direction signal and U–turn are defined in
the dictionary.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the
left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left
change of direction signal.
Offence provision.
Note Left change of direction signal is defined in the dictionary.

And motorists call for bike riders to be licenced, when they fact that they are (assumedly) so licenced makes bugger all difference to their knowledge.

Al says:

10:14am | 28/07/11

best thing with MTBs is adding a few off-road detours to a ride, i have fire trails nearby.

They are also better for bike paths and mixed surface riding. I can ride further off the shoulder when there is no bike lane ... though it would be great if they were better maintained as there is a lot of space there on verges that is often wasted.

And I don’t want to be down on roadies at all LOL ... but if more riders new to cycling jumped on a MTB instead of straight onto a racer. Well i think a lot of noobs are out of their depth in traffic without good bike handling skills. Less margin for error on some sturdier bikes IMO.

Al says:

10:22am | 28/07/11

sorry i meant “more” margin for error ... bleh ...

Shifter says:

11:22am | 28/07/11

@Al - agreed. Disc brakes saved my life on Tuesday eve.

Frequent Flyer says:

10:02am | 28/07/11

Ali - in QLD it is perfectly LEGAL to ride on a footpath. i.e. it is not illegal.

Seth Brundle says:

04:04pm | 28/07/11

Bicycles are NOT zero emission vehicles.  The way that they force the hundreds of motorists behind them to crawl along in second gear, I would say your average cyclist is responible for more emissions than a dozen V8 owners.

Jason Todd says:

10:38am | 28/07/11

I wish I had the source of this study handy, but I recall reading a paper that indicated that the carbon footprint of people all cycling for transportation would be larger than if people continued to use cars. The argument being that the extra food required to generate energy for the ‘pedal power’ needed to be farmed and transported, with the net carbon emissions winding up being more than if people stuck to their current energy needs and drove. Taken with a large grain of salt, and a bit of an odd study anyway, but it was an interesting way of looking at the problem that I hadn’t considered.

The Badger says:

10:49am | 28/07/11

Jason
All of which would be more than offset by the reduction in the carbon footprint associated with their health care.

barefoot says:

11:17am | 28/07/11

@Jason Todd: That’s nonsense about the extra food required to cycle.
Most Australians consume vastly more food energy than they require for normal daily activities. Many of them go (drive?!) to the gym in order to burn off some of the excess energy they’ve consumed by doing non-functional work.
That’s one positive reason for cycling for transport; I don’t have to waste time going to a gym to “do excercise”. It takes me 5 minutes at each end of the day to get a good 20 minute aerobic session. That’s the 15 minutes I would have spent driving to or from work, plus an extra 5 minutes. And that allows me to eat as much as the next person without getting obese like the next person.
And that’s without mentioning the simple overriding fact that riding a bike is fun.

Tammy says:

03:49pm | 28/07/11

The Badger,

It is the first sensible contribution I have read out of you.

Great comments Tom Tom and yeah why not push bikes if we are really serious about climate change. In the mornings when people are going to work and late afternoon after work the roads should be closed to motorists, only buses, push bikes and pedestrians allowed.

Hermano says:

10:30am | 28/07/11

Well said sir, well said.

Al says:

10:19am | 28/07/11

so your point is ... this “cyclist” gets your attention with a stupid move ... so every “cyclist” from here on better “stay out of my way”?

Jonathan says:

10:30am | 28/07/11

And your point is, if a car driver decides to rush an amber, narrowly missing you as you are about to rev off, and doesn’t show a whiz of remorse… all car drivers should stay out of your way too?

One cyclist does not represent all of us. And yes, as a cyclist I can’t stand the loons on bikes who break road rules too. That includes the lycra bunch (I wear lycra) or commuter who think it okay to rush red lights, or the grungy teen ion a BMX who rides on the footpath with his helmet on his handlebars, no lights in the dark, whatever…  the same way I can’t stand the louts in smokeboxes who think it okay to drive close to my back wheel, or to cut in front my other traffic, whether I’m in my car or bike.

Big Ted says:

10:40am | 28/07/11

No not every cyclist, just the next Cadel Evans try-hard who pulls a stupid move and expects me to save him.

My point is that the agro seems to go both ways. Cylcists aren’t the innocent victims of rabid bogans. Us motorbike riders are scathing of the Casey Stoner wannabes that give the rest of us a bad name. Maybe you cyclists need to start pulling a few of the agressive lycra-clad heroes into line.

Shifter says:

11:25am | 28/07/11

Your mother forced you to generate the house’s power on an exercise bike?

Jonathan says:

10:32am | 28/07/11

And your point is… ?

I’ll give you that some of us are try-hards. Heck, I sometimes feel that I’m one myself. Does that mean it’s okay to drive unsafely near us? Or heck, near anyone that you don’t agree with, for that matter. Heck no.

Hermano says:

10:35am | 28/07/11

Mmmm, I love lycra.  Makes me feel like I’m wearing nothing at all,
nothing at all,
nothing at all…

Dave says:

11:08am | 28/07/11

@ Hermano - Stupid sexy Flanders!!!

Giraffe says:

11:10am | 28/07/11

Football fans wearing their teams guernsey - Try hards!
Runners wearing running shorts -  hella Try hard.
Swimmers wearing speedo’s - What Try hards.
Walkers wearing sneakers - T-R-Y H-A-R-D
Motorcyclist in leather? Give me a T, give me a R etc etc

SM, you Bint. As with every activity you can think of, people wear what is practical for that activity. Get a life and give the ‘try hards’ a break.

Josh says:

11:15am | 28/07/11

And I for one have never seen try-hards in motor vehicles, such as HSVs, V8 Falcons, Skylines, WRXs…

Bilby says:

12:55pm | 28/07/11

Really Josh? Because just the other day… oh wait… I see… Good job old chap. Carry on

Motorcycle Rider says:

02:07pm | 28/07/11

Giraffe the reason motorbike riders wear leather is because skin tends to rip apart when you start sliding down the road because some idiot didn’t see you and then runs into you. I don’t do it to look like motogp riders.

Giraffe says:

02:41pm | 28/07/11

MR, clearly you missed the point of my post.

Motorcycle Rider says:

05:07pm | 28/07/11

What that you wear lycra so do a lot of people at ARQ. But I dont see them holding up traffic.

TheBrad says:

10:00am | 29/07/11

100% Truth is spoken here by SM - Well done squire, well done!!

Phil says:

01:52pm | 28/07/11

Not just pedestrians but their Queen, Harold Scrubby.
Take him out and then pedestrians will be too scared to walk the streets!

Al says:

10:40am | 28/07/11

tyre contact area? I’m no physicist but i think you’re forgetting a little thing called weight.

ibast says:

10:47am | 28/07/11

But the lesser weight of the vehicle mean the pressure work out to be similar, and because the contact patch is so much smaller they damaging a much smaller portion of the road.

Also consider they are alleviating traffic congestion and parking congesting, which in a user pays world would be part of registration cost.

As to third party insurance, wide of the mark again.  Third party covers the passenger in an at fault accident.  A cyclist is unlikely to harm a passenger in your car, even if he is a fault and unless he is doubling someone, it’s not going to apply to his vehicle either.

barefoot says:

11:51am | 28/07/11

Road surface - possibly true. Damage may depend on contact pressure.
Road structure - not at all true. Damage depends on axle mass.

The road surface is easy and cheap to fix, as long as the underlying structure is intact.
Rule of thumb is that road structure damage rate scales proportionally with the fourth power of axle mass. A 1000kg car does 10,000x the damage of a 100kg cyclist.

Al says:

12:42pm | 28/07/11

thanks @ barefoot ... i was sure half of the OPs equation was missing ... despite being a dunce at maths.

the ghost of christmas past says:

01:40pm | 28/07/11

@al, no I’m not.  A woman weighs much less than an elephant, but if she wears high heels thereby making the actual are on the ground smaller, she would exert more pressure on the ground per square centimeter than an elephant. likewise a bike compared to a car, you can be lighter than a car which has its weight distributed over 4 wheels which have more rubber on the road as compared to a bike

Al says:

03:00pm | 28/07/11

well ghost thats great if u live in a per square cm world ... we do not ... we live in a world where people drive around over-engineered heavy vehicles beyond what is necessary for the task. Like one person in a five person car or 4wd for example. So per sq/cm sure ... but as a whole i am still saving the road wear and tear by using a lighter vehicle, aren’t I?

barefoot says:

07:57pm | 28/07/11

In the end, though, cars and bikes are quite irrelevant when it comes to road damage. It’s all about the trucks.
Like I said, road base damage scales with axle mass ^4. Bike axle mass is about 100kg (fat cyclist doing a mono!), car axle mass is about 1000kg, truck axle mass is typically somewhere around 8000kg. So a truck does about 4000 times as much damage as a car, about 40 million times more than a bike.
In reality, roads are designed based on the heavy freight traffic they’ll be subjected to. Damage by cars is not really a consideration, and bikes don’t rate a consideration.
Take a look at what happens if you drive a truck across a lightly-built bike path just once…

Hermano says:

12:12pm | 28/07/11

Cos it feels so good. 
What’s so offensive about a fit bloke kicking around in figure-hugging lycra?  Are you a little bit turned on?  Does it make you question your sexuality?  Worried your wife might be paying more attention to their amazingly toned legs than your love handles?
Yeh, and it feels so good.  So, so good.

Edward says:

12:37pm | 28/07/11

As I gay guy I love checking out all the men in their lycra… well at least the hot ones (which unfortunately is few and far between)

Al says:

12:50pm | 28/07/11

+1 @ Edward ... if only i had a thing for middle aged men with oversized calves. Its not that hard to let them “blend into the background” ... the fact that M&Ms; notices them so much says it all.

Lycra makes perfect sense for a number of practical reasons, though i prefer mtb shorts and snug jogging type shirts.

Glen T says:

02:42pm | 28/07/11

M&M, do you go swimming in your jeans?  Why not?  Because they are heavy, wet and uncomfortable. You wear some bathers. And that’s why when I set off to ride 25Km in an hour through the Adelaide summer on my way to work I use a nice pair of nicks that won’t saw through my private bits and a freebie jersey from Amy’ Ride which breathes well enough that I don’t overheat in the 40C sun. Now the enthusiasts ride for 60 - 120Km, so they’re more serious about their clothes again. And some of them are obviously too serious, as many people are about their hobbies

The simple truth about cycling is that it is great fun, utterly destroyed by the behaviour of a proportion of motorised traffic, some of whom have quite deliberately tried to kill me.

I’ve been on a few “group rides” of the sort you despise and my first impression was of safety in numbers. No car was going to run me down saying “sorry mate, didn’t see you”. So I can well understand why people out to enjoy the fun of cycling ride in groups.

As for coffee shops and bakeries, the cyclist grape vine keep good tabs on where the shopowner makes them welcome and where they are not. And if the shopowner is comfortable with people in lycra drinking their coffee and the parked bikes aren’t causing a hazard to others, well that’s all that really matters, not so much your view of their fashion sense.

marrickvillain says:

04:34pm | 28/07/11

Cyclists wear lycra because it doesn’t chafe and breathes. We shave our legs because, if we crash, it means any wound is cleaner. If you don’t like the way we look in lycra, avert your eyes!

PW says:

06:21pm | 28/07/11

Cadel Evans wannabe? Would I want to be able to ride a bicycle 4000 odd km in 21 days at speeds averaging about 50km/h, up and down huge hills, and receive a seven figure salary for doing it (not to mention being built like a Greek god)  Hell yeah! Wouldn’t you?

If I could only have Cadel’s bike, and worked really hard for a few months, I’m sure I could ride half as fast as he can.

Oh and bike racers slipstream each other for a speed advantage due to wind drag. Motorcycle racers, car racers, even jockeys on racehorses do it as well. It is part and parcel of pretty well all kinds of racing.

Joey Joe Joe says:

12:00pm | 28/07/11

I feel for you Philip cause I have been involved in a similar situation.

I was verbally abused by a group of cyclists, with one of them actually stopping and coming back to yell more at me after I stopped to let them ride off.

Whilst I did my best to avoid things getting physical the guy started to push me… and long story short I beat the snot out of him and threw his bike in the river as he lay on the bike path.

Moral of the story - not all bike riders are pussies I guess… that and I can kick ass when needed.

Hermano says:

12:28pm | 28/07/11

I think both of those experiences are more to do with packs of arseholes, rather than packs of cyclists.
That’s the problem: you’re bound to meet arseholes in life.  Some of them drive cars, some of them ride bikes.

Hermano says:

12:28pm | 28/07/11

I think both of those experiences are more to do with packs of arseholes, rather than packs of cyclists.
That’s the problem: you’re bound to meet arseholes in life.  Some of them drive cars, some of them ride bikes.

Penny Farthing says:

12:46pm | 28/07/11

Don’t give up so soon. Think of cycling as a kind of war. Think 007, Aston Martin, military strategy and tactics. 1) Have rear vision mirrors fitted to the bike. 2) deploy mini smoke making machine when you exceed 100 kph, downhill of course, and suspect you’re being followed. 3) when Grand Pricks cyclists are seen approaching from the rear, employ the 1 metre axle hub extensions (those ones with blinking strobe lights, not the others), and 4) get a couple of really cool bikes, with the lot.  Cyclists should not ride two a breast. Those mothers should leave their babies at home, and not let them grow up to be cowboys.

bigmuzz says:

11:26am | 29/07/11

lol, “packs of arseholes” sums up the situation brilliantly…... 1 cyclist looking out for himself doing the right things is fine by me… it’s when they start to gather in groups that they start to cause problems….

also on a side note, if i am stopped at the lights and a cyclist cuts to the front and leans on my car, i’m sorry but sh*t is about to go down! don’t be doing that…...

fairsfair says:

01:31pm | 28/07/11

Yep and also acknowledgement that sometimes people make mistakes/are having a bad day/f*cked up.

In the past couple of years my driving demeanor has completely changed. If someone cuts me off, I refuse to get angry, what is the point afterall? If I have to break for a bike and sit behind them for a bit, who cares? Most of the time people have just lapsed concentration for a bit - we all do it and we have all done it. A courtesy wave that says ” my bad” usually rights any wrong. Afterall, no bike rider, driver or pedestrian is perfect. We’ve all walked on the red man, we’ve all cut outside of the bike lane at some point. 

I am now struggling to work out why I was so highly strung behind the wheel beforehand and why other people are like that. It is just so unecessary.

(...and I now have that stupid “why can’t we be friends, why can’t we be friends” song stuck in my head )

Hermano says:

03:25pm | 28/07/11

^^This guy gets it.
I love getting little courtesy waves from drivers, and I always make sure I give a wave when someone does me a kindness. 
Life really is too short to get steamed up about sitting in traffic, or about anything that trivial really.

fairsfair says:

05:10pm | 28/07/11

What the hell is it about the courtesy wave? That simple gesture can certainly turn a frown upside down

There is not enough of it.

bigmuzz says:

11:30am | 29/07/11

the courtesy wave from anyone in traffic is good… it is only topped by the awesomeness that is the truckie left-right indicator flash when you let them in a lane…....

Hermano says:

01:33pm | 28/07/11

There’s a reason that motorcyclists and drivers need to be tested: their vehicles are deadly.  Really deadly.  Like thousands dead per year deadly.  Really really really deadly.

Quite phenomonally deadly in fact: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/rsr_04.pdf

Motorcycle Rider says:

02:13pm | 28/07/11

So are bike riders who like to pull out in front of me with out looking. So apush bike couriers in the city. Bush bikes can kill as well. You should be licenced like everyone else and have number plates as well.

Hermano says:

03:32pm | 28/07/11

Point taken MR.  There are idiots in cars, on motorbikes and on pushbikes.  But the stats don’t lie: each one of us is a hell of a lot more likely to be killed by a 2 tonne piece of metal or a motorbike doing a 100km/h than we are by a rogue cyclist. 
Hence the licencing and registration for motor vehicles.

Mortorcycle Rider says:

05:16pm | 28/07/11

Hermano fair point, motorcycle riders can be just as bad as the worst cyclist and card drivers.

PW says:

06:35pm | 28/07/11

Have you ridden up the Putty Road recently, MR? You’ll notice there’s a wreath on just about every sharp bend for 160km (do yourself favour and look for them as a pillion passenger though). They have been put there in honour of (mostly) motorcyclists who have bought the big one while out riding their Fireblades and R1’s at the hideous speeds that this machinery is capable of. Motorcyclists are hugely over-represented in road fatalities. That is why you have to jump through hoops to get a motorcycle licence. Unfortunately it’s not helping a great deal.

barefoot says:

09:15pm | 28/07/11

Conversely, it’s been suggested that all motorists should be required to do some time on a bicycle before being granted a license. Partly so they can get some road sense before taking charge of a dangerous vehicle, partly so they can learn some empathy and respect for more vulnerable road users.

Rev says:

02:20pm | 28/07/11

who in their right mind would prefer to swim in a chlorinated pool?!

TRBNGR says:

02:39pm | 28/07/11

See, now your gonna have all these crazed chlorine lovers spruiking the benefits of chlorine and the next thing you know they’re facing off against the equally nutty salt water types about red-eyes, Ralph Wiggums infamous - My face is on FIRE! quote and that’ll be just the bloody start of it.

It’s madness I tells ya. Madness.

PW says:

06:44pm | 28/07/11

Yes, Jade, that is most people’s gripe. They don’t like to slow down for anything. So how do you manage to cope when you find yourself behind a bus? Or, as is more likely, 10,000 other cars just like your own? And if a move is risky, why are you doing it? Is it that hard to wait a few seconds?

poa says:

03:29pm | 28/07/11

You can’t. Try going 30kmh on a bike path., They are called roadbikes for a reason.

Motorcycle Rider says:

05:13pm | 28/07/11

poa fair point

Hermano says:

03:17pm | 28/07/11

Tip o’ the hat to you, sir.  Very well said.

ibast says:

03:29pm | 28/07/11

This is exactly right.  In CHOOSING to drive a car, you have made the decision to wait in a queue.  Don’t make others who chose differently wait in YOUR queue, because then the benefits of making a different decision disappear and pretty soon your queue will be longer.

Look around people.  All those cars in traffic with one person in them.  You should be lobbying the government to encourage motorcycles and cycles, to get as many of those single occupant cars off the road.  Instead you do the opposite.  You insist that cyclists can’t run reds, you insists that motorcyclist shouldn’t be allowed to filter.  Meanwhile the population continues to grow and your queue (the one you made a choice to sit in) gets longer.

The fact is Motorcyclists and cyclists have made a decision that makes everyones life better, but most people are too narrow minded to see that.

Potato says:

03:50pm | 28/07/11

This is exactly the point I was making before. 

When I’m sitting in my car at the lights on my way to work and a guy goes past me a on a bike I don’t think ‘look at that idiot holding me up’.... I always think….‘gee, if those 4 cyclists were in cars they would probably be parked in front of me at these lights….’

Helen says:

02:20pm | 29/07/11

Yes, well said Biker.

Ron V. says:

11:07pm | 28/07/11

Tez, your a real richard head. Take a look in the mirror and if your happy with your remark, give yourself an uppercut. Oh, and by the way, let’s know where you park your bike so we can let your tyres down.
Ron

stephen says:

12:58am | 29/07/11

Alan is very supportive.
(‘Cross your heart, support and seperate.’)

cycle commuter says:

11:02am | 29/07/11

Depends on your philosphical outlook I suppose Dave. You see cyclists as not paying anything and getting in ‘your’ way. The alternative is that the cyclist (in the vast majority of cases having a motor vehicle sitting idle somewhere) is subsidising you rego, CTP and road maintenance costs - we all pay the same yearly rate despite how much we actually use the roads. High km users are largely subsidised by low km users. Bring on pay per km rego costs I say, but that is probably the last thing you would want. The cyclist is also increasing the remaining fossil fuels remaining for you to use by choosing not to use it when they otherwise could. A reduction in demand will also reduce increasing fuel pricing pressures. A bike will also not take a parking spot at your destination. It’s all swings and roundabouts, and to ignore the pro’s to focus soley on the cons does the anti-cyclist agenda no favours. But also think about the time in which a cyclist has held you up. In total. And then think about how many times you have been held up by a motor vehicle. Be honest. The total time you are likely to have been delayed by a bicycle is very much likely to be significantly less than the time you have taken to contribute here against maybe a few cyclists that have held you up for a few seconds here and there. 

The no rego/tax argument has been done to death though and is a result of not understanding how Australia’s taxation system works.

You might have something on the insurance issue though, it is not compulsory. Most serious sport cyclists have insurance through their compulsory racing licencing and rego fees, and many commuters (like myself) have comprehensive insurance through our state bicycle associations - which includes third party and public liability insurances. The main groups of uninsured cyclists will be the fair weather, once every now and again cyclists - but these are the very ones you are least likely to encounter.

You live in a beautiful part of the world Dave, try and enjoy it more. I drive that stretch at least once a month (either via Gerroa or Berri) and have never really noticed any cyclists. Actually maybe on the coast road on a morning, but they have never once delayed my end to end trip in any measurable way.

cycle commuter says:

08:17am | 29/07/11

Yep Amber, no cyclists pay income tax, nor do they pay GST on their bikes and gear. We also do not pay rates, or any state based taxes. We are indeed a special breed and very well looked afterby the ATO. Yeah right. Those general taxes being what actually provides roads in the first place - weight based rego fees are used to administer the rego scheme and repair the roads caused by the weight of motor vehicles. If it makes you REALLY happy I will donate an extra $30 (approx the annual rego I would pay based on weight) to charity this year (Amy Gillett foundation would be appropriate) in lieu of the rego fee that the RTA will not accept from me. A charge which will never exist as it would cost the government much more to administer than what they would recoup. Clearly you have read none of the above, so hopefully this direct response reaches you. If you participate in the debate, at least see what others are saying. And this has been explained ad nauseum. The main thing that is not good for road relations is ignorance.

stephen says:

11:42pm | 28/07/11

Driving to the gym ?
Get on yer bike man, keep the money from the crims, (who own a lot of gyms) and learn to sweat outdoors.

(Driving to the gym ? Reminds me : i was waiting at a restaurant for service once and out of frustration yelled out to the chef…‘hey, garcon, is there any place round here where I can get a bite to eat while I’m waiting ?)
Reminds, as in, like, appetite ?
Get it ?

stephen says:

12:48am | 29/07/11

‘As quickly as possible from A to B ?’
Where are you going in such a hurry ?
Slow down a little.
Look at the houses whizzing by.
See where you are going, look in the mirror.
See where you’ve been.
Stop for milk. Stop for bread.
Have a word with the baker, the postman.
Nod to the kid on the bike, and when you get in the car and take off, make sure you don’t run him down, even if he isn’t your own.

stephen says:

08:53pm | 30/07/11

Very funny.
Beach road is called ‘head-job highway’ by the girls in the know.
Yer know ?