New Qld Bike Laws

[doug3030]

Where there is a narrow lane with an unbroken centre line. If the riders slip into single file, the driver will be 'invited' to overtake dangerously close to them. Sorry, but if he can't handle a slight delay, he's not emotionally equipped to drive.

I'm sure there are a few others, probably not many, but it's too late to do your thinking for you.

So you maintain that it is up to the cyclist to dictate to the motorist what is safe for them to do and what is not and to obstruct them unnecessarily in the process. So cyclists are now self-appointed traffic cops whose mission in life is to save all motorists from themselves?

Since this thread is about Queensland road rules, the penalty in Queensland for unnecessarily obstructing a driver or pedestrian is 20 penalty units.

If that's the best you can come up with I am glad I am NOT relying on you to do my thinking for me.

[rustynail]

Just like his father.

Peter.
So why did I drive the cyclist from Mt Boyce to Richmond station and freight his bike as well?
Why do I visit my mate Steve on a monthly basis?
How come I have never hit, nor wantingly inconvenienced any cyclist I have encountered?
I have clearly stated that my objection is not to their presence, it is to their mind set. But you choose to disregard that. I do not have to hate a person or persons to disagree with their actions. That maybe your chosen method. But it certainly isn't mine.

[rustynail]

Doug, I think it is fair to say that a cyclist has an obligation to himself to take whatever action he legally can to keep himself safe. In so doing, in many cases, he would also be preventing, or if you prefer, assisting the motorist not to make a maneuver he or she might regret later. I guess the way they see it is a slight delay for the motorist is less important than their physical well being. I dont think we can blame them for that.
The way I see it is, time is valuable to a motorist. Thats why they are motorists. Otherwise they could walk every where. The cyclist, on the other hand, has all the time in the world. He is prepared for a very different time schedule than the frustrated motorists now lining up behind him. Thats what I mean by mind set.
Your anecdote of the gentleman in Canberra, reminded me of my uncle and the profound affect his accident had on him.
When push bikes were invented, they were an alternative to a horse. You didnt have to feed it, brush it or saddle it.
You just hopped on and off you went. Very convenient. When cars replaced horses the push bike was still a viable option as the new fangled motor car was a fickle so and so and didnt go much faster than walking pace anyway.
Today things are very different. Our roads are not safe places. There are thousands of cars on them at any given time. The open road speed limit is 100kph and every car out there is capable of achieving it.
Not so our horse replacing push bike. At speeds of this nature the humble bike becomes a death wish. So in the interest of self preservation our rider must deprive himself the luxury of being able to keep up with the rest of humanity. He must travel light to get the best from his archaic mode of transport as he can. And in so doing, place himself and more importantly, everyone else at risk. Why not? After all, it's legal.
Mind set.

[silentC]

But motor vehicle registration fees do not cover the cost of the roads as that goes to the local states consolidated revenue.

You and I know that but it's surprising how many others don't.


The cyclist was dressed all in black and had no lights on his bike
Darwin award candidate.

Like I said countless times, it's pointless debating all this stuff. Some motorists do not want cyclists on the road. Just accept it and move on. Coming up with countless anecdotes about stupid things cyclists have done does NOT invalidate the sport/means of transport. If it did, motor cars would have disappeared a LOOOONG time ago. Stupid is as stupid does. You either want a society where people have freedom of choice or you want a nanny state where your every action is controlled. You can't have it both ways.

I really hate to tell you this rustynail but cycling is on the increase. There are more people riding bikes now than ever. Not only is it a sustainable and VALID mode of transport, it is increasingly gaining support through things like the draft cycling plan our council has just released. So you may as well get used to it. You'll be seeing more and more people on the road on bikes. Better start adding another 5 minutes to your travelling times.

[Sturdee]

I have clearly stated that my objection is not to their presence, it is to their mind set. But you choose to disregard that.

Notwithstanding your protestations you come across IMO as persistently haranguing and lecturing against cyclists using the roads in accordance with the road laws. If cyclists ride slower then a car or ride two abreast on a single lane road that's their right and any person that cannot accept that fact is the motorist with the wrong mindset to be on the road.

It's the motorists mindset that has to change not the cyclist. To me it seems your mindset has to change and thus I feel that you hate cyclist, like your son.

But convincing you seems impossible so I will now withdraw from this thread as I believe it has run its course and should be closed.


Peter.

[silentC]

It's the motorists mindset that has to change not the cyclist
You're exactly right Peter. Unfortunately I don't hold out any hope of that changing soon, which is why I don't really bother trying to convince anyone. And I think that laws to 'bludgeon' people into accepting it are just going to cause even more resentment. The kind of people who feel like this do not like being told that someone carrying out an activity that they disagree with is within their rights. "You're inconveniencing me, dammit. I'm an important motorist!" It's quite clear from the 'con' posts here that people think cyclists are mostly just out for an unnecessary leisurely ride and their own business is far more important.

In a perfect world we would have bicycle tracks everywhere and never the twain shall meet. But in a country like Australia, with vast open distances and not much budget for roads, I can't see that happening either.

So I will just do what I have always done. Dodge the hurled bottles, ignore the hurled insults, keep my eyes and ears open, and do what I enjoy doing even if others think I am insane.

[doug3030]

If cyclists ride slower then a car or ride two abreast on a single lane road that's their right and any person that cannot accept that fact is the motorist with the wrong mindset to be on the road.

Not so.


Since this thread is about Queensland road rules, the penalty in Queensland for unnecessarily obstructing a driver or pedestrian is 20 penalty units

While it is legal to ride two abreast, if it is not necessary to do so (and if two bikes will fit surely one will, so that's NEVER) if doing so unnecessarily obstructs traffic then they could and should be fined.


I really hate to tell you this rustynail but cycling is on the increase. There are more people riding bikes now than ever. Not only is it a sustainable and VALID mode of transport, it is increasingly gaining support through things like the draft cycling plan our council has just released. So you may as well get used to it. You'll be seeing more and more people on the road on bikes. Better start adding another 5 minutes to your travelling times.

Well maybe there are getting more and more of them. Much as I used to enjoy the health and fitness benefits when I was cycling (I could keep fit while commuting thus saving time even if it took twice as long to get to work) I would not go back to it now. No matter how fit and healthy you are you wont look good as someone's bonnet ornament. That is supposing that there really is a health benefit to inhaling all those exhaust fumes.

About 30 years ago the Indonesian government was facing a problem with an ever-increasing number of slow pedal-powered vehicles causing traffic congestion in the major cities. They directed the police to round them all up. They were loaded onto their Navy's Tank Landing Ships and taken out to sea and dumped. After a week there was a dramatic improvement in the traffic flow. I am not saying that our government should or would do that but it was what they did and it worked.

Cheers

Doug

EDIT: Incidentally I have noticed that our Navy has quite a large fleet of Heavy Lift Ships, supposedly for peacekeeping duties :D

[silentC]

you wont look good as someone's bonnet ornament
How would you know, you've never met me?

Refer to previous. No point me trying to convince you, so I don't bother. All I can say is that in my circle of cycling acquaintances, I know several who have come off at one point or another (if you don't you're not trying hard enough) including two who were hit by kangaroos, but no-one who has been hit by a car. My sister was hit by a car crossing the road at Manly, so crossing the road can be quite dangerous in my experience.

I did run into a bus once on Glebe Point Road but I don't think it noticed...

[doug3030]

No matter how fit and healthy YOU are YOU wont look good as someone's bonnet ornament.


How would you know, you've never met me?

Talk about splitting hairs, I used the word "YOU" in its context of "a person", not meaning YOU, silentC, specifically, and you know it.

Cheers

Doug

[silentC]

Jeez you motorists are an uptight bunch, it was meant to be a joke. Sheesh...

[Vernonv]

... as I believe it has run its course and should be closed. There have been a lot of interesting comments, opinions and thoughts shared in this thread ... some I agree with, and some I don't, but I would never go so far as to ask for a thread to be closed because I didn't like what someone else was saying, or because I couldn't get someone else to see my point of view. Disappointing.

[Vernonv]

Here is an interesting excerpt from a South Aus transport PDF. It makes you wonder if that applies to cyclists.


It is illegal to drive so slowly that you unreasonably obstruct the path of the vehicle behind

[silentC]

I think it is targeted at drivers who deliberately slow down because someone is tailgating them or whatever. But yes maybe it could be interpreted that a cyclist who won't move over is in breach of it.

Otherwise, I think cyclists have a very good reason to be going slow (although 20kph is very slow).

[FenceFurniture]

... but I would never go so far as to ask for a thread to be closed because I didn't like what someone else was saying, or because I couldn't get someone else to see my point of view. Disappointing.Maybe because it has become tedious.

[Vernonv]

Maybe because it has become tedious.Easy fixed ... stop reading.

[Vernonv]

Otherwise, I think cyclists have a very good reason to be going slow (although 20kph is very slow).It wouldn't be hard for there to be a big speed differential between cars and bikes in 100km/hr zones, especially on hills.

[silentC]

I can just about manage 50kph in short bursts on the flat with no headwind but cruising speed is in the 30's. The best riders I know can average around 38kph over shorter distances, but it's usually in the mid to upper 20's.

But as I've said my philosophy is to try and give cars room to pass as much as possible. I don't want them on my tail any longer than necessary. I don't subscribe to 'claim your lane' unless I'm approaching a roundabout or something.

I'm a low-impact cyclist and I want to keep it that way, impact free :D

(I used a smiley so people will know I'm being humorous).

[rustynail]

How would you know, you've never met me?

Refer to previous. No point me trying to convince you, so I don't bother. All I can say is that in my circle of cycling acquaintances, I know several who have come off at one point or another (if you don't you're not trying hard enough) including two who were hit by kangaroos, but no-one who has been hit by a car. My sister was hit by a car crossing the road at Manly, so crossing the road can be quite dangerous in my experience.

I did run into a bus once on Glebe Point Road but I don't think it noticed...
Glebe Point Rd, great place for cycling:doh: Couldn't see a bus:doh: Imagine if it had been the other way around, the bus ran up the back of you, makes more sense, you are harder to see. Your chance of an early demise would be increased markedly. And the bus driver has to carry that with him for the rest of his life.
Remember one thing: But by the grace of us goes you. It is not the other way round.
That there is an increase in cyclist numbers causes me little concern. Afterall, it is inevitable with ever increasing fuel costs. And I am sure there will be increases in motor bikes as well for the same reason.
And while the numbers increase so will all the statistics.
You see, I value human life. It is more important to me than any change of regulation and how they may or may not inconvenience. I understand that risk taking is an adrenalin rush and there is precious little else for the average Urbanite to get excited about. But when it comes to a stage when it becomes a Mexican standoff between those who are in favour of chancing their luck verses those who dont, it all becomes a little personal.
You dont want to get cleaned up on the road and I dont want to clean you up. I value human life. Yes, even yours:D Short term answer; Revisit the rules. Long term answer: Remove the unnecessary risk.

[rustynail]

Maybe because it has become tedious.
So is oiling benchtops, but you persevered:D.

[silentC]

Yes if you live down Glebe point road and you're riding a bike, it's a pretty standard way of getting where you are going. Entirely my fault, I was tailgating and he stopped suddenly. Never mind. Like I've said countless times, I don't care what you think about it.

Actually I'm not an urbanite. I live on the outskirts of a town of about 800 and I cycle on the open road mostly, or on the bike track such as it is. WHen I lived in SYdney, I did ride quite a bit though. It's not as scary as you think but I understand that not everyone's nerves are up to it, so it's OK.

Why do you think you are in a 'Mexican stand off'? That's an unusual way of looking at it.

But every comment you make about the danger on the road reinforces the real solution in my mind: ban motor vehicles. Like you say they are very dangerous. Shouldn't be allowed. Imagine how low the road toll would be if they didn't exist? "Two cyclists had a collision today. They shook hands and went their separate ways." That would make a great change from "Family of 5 die in collision with semi trailer" don't you think?

[rustynail]

Notwithstanding your protestations you come across IMO as persistently haranguing and lecturing against cyclists using the roads in accordance with the road laws. If cyclists ride slower then a car or ride two abreast on a single lane road that's their right and any person that cannot accept that fact is the motorist with the wrong mindset to be on the road.

It's the motorists mindset that has to change not the cyclist. To me it seems your mindset has to change and thus I feel that you hate cyclist, like your son.

But convincing you seems impossible so I will now withdraw from this thread as I believe it has run its course and should be closed.


Peter.
You do not have the right to tell me who I hate or who I dont. I have had many arguments with my son regarding his attitude towards cyclists. One day it is going to get him into trouble.
I have not complained about the speed they travel at. My objection is the unnecessary risk placed on all concerned. The road is a dangerous place. The main road in my locality even more so. Statistics prove it.
Having been cleaned up big time myself, I feel I have every right to take the view I do. And if my persistence causes others to have a think about it, my time has been well spent.
And what were you trying to convince me of? That cycling is perfectly safe because the rules say so?:doh:

[silentC]

I feel I have every right to take the view I do
Of course you do. In a free society everyone has the right to an opinion. You only cross a line when you ram it down people's throats and suggest they are mentally deficient for believing otherwise. I prefer to believe that people are generally capable of making up their own minds about a subject and if they choose to have a different view to mine, that's their problem. I'll only try and convince you otherwise for the sport of it. At the end of the day, unless their opinion directly affects me in some way or it is someone I have great respect for, it doesn't matter to me what someone else thinks.

[AlexS]

About 30 years ago the Indonesian government was facing a problem with an ever-increasing number of slow pedal-powered vehicles causing traffic congestion in the major cities. They directed the police to round them all up. They were loaded onto their Navy's Tank Landing Ships and taken out to sea and dumped. After a week there was a dramatic improvement in the traffic flow. I am not saying that our government should or would do that but it was what they did and it worked.

Great. Go live there if you're so bothered by bikes.

[doug3030]

Great. Go live there if you're so bothered by bikes.

Here we go again! Putting words into other people's mouths.

I used to ride a bike. I have not said I am bothered by bikes. In fact I like bikes.

Its inconsiderate, selfish, arrogant people that I do not like, whether they are on a bike, in a car or truck or walking down the street.

And FYI I have lived there and it is a nice place to live. I felt safer on their roads, including the six-lane roundabouts with traffic lights, than I do on Melbourne roads.

If you enter a six-lane Indonesian road from the left lane in bumper to bumper traffic and you need to turn right, as soon as you put on your right indicator, the traffic in the lane to your right stops and lets you in, and so on until you are in the right hand lane. Its called consideration. In Melbourne, as soon as you put your indicator on, they close up the gap so you have no chance. That's why so many people don't indicate any more.

Cheers

Doug

[silentC]

Its inconsiderate, selfish, arrogant people that I do not like, whether they are on a bike, in a car or truck or walking down the street.
Well that's something we can agree on.

All I ask is that people accept that there are people like that who ride bikes, just as there are in every other human activity, and so when you are jumping to judgement of a group of people, try not to let specific incidents get in the way. If a person is being inconsiderate, selfish or arrogant, it's because they are inconsiderate, selfish or arrogant. Not because they are riding a bike. In other words, don't tar all, or even most, cyclists with the same brush. Surely that's not too much to ask?

[Poppa]

I was reading this thread immediately before going out for lunch, and walking to the place I was going to I was almost hit by two cyclists. On the footpath... Now this is in the middle of Sydney (Bathurst St) and I can certainly understand them not wanting to be on the road, but riding on the footpath at lunchtime in the CBD is not the solution... Idjuts. I haven't been much of a cyclist since high school when it was my only practical method of self-transport. I did ride a motorcycle for some years and always took the attitude that everyone in a car was trying to kill me. Regardless of the road laws and my "right" to be on the road (which is a privilege for all of us, not a "right"), I understood very well that in an altercation with a car I was the one likely to end up in hospital or on a slab. The same is true for cyclists. I have absolutely no problem as a motorist sharing the road with cyclists, and I'm (usually) a patient driver who doesn't mind being slowed down a bit by the odd bike. But any cyclist that is foolish enough to believe that they are invulnerable because the laws give them rights on the road is a fool indeed. Being hit by a car - whoever is at fault - will cause serious injury or death. So all cyclists should be doing their best to avoid that. Unfortunately I've seen many who are too stupid to be allowed on the road. And the same is true of many motorists I see doing stupid and dangerous things. I believe I know the Steve that has been spoken of previously in this thread. I don't know him well - I used to work at the company he worked at prior to his accident and had a small amount of contact with him. Years later he is still discussed regularly at that work place and any updates on his wellbeing are distributed widely. It is an extremely sad situation. I also have a very good friend who had a sister killed by an errant and unlawful driver while she was cycling. Another extremely sad situation for all concerned. These were both examples of accidents (even though in the second case the motorist was at fault, they did not mean to cause injury or death). Accidents will happen regardless of how much care is exercised or how "safe" we attempt to make activities. If you choose to ride a bicycle, you should be aware that in the event of an accident you may be injured or killed. The same is true if you choose to ride a motorbike, drive a car, or undertake any human activity!

[silentC]

riding on the footpath at lunchtime in the CBD is not the solution... Idjuts
If I had to guess, I would say they were couriers. They are maniacs generally.

However if they were on the footpath, they were breaking the law unless they were 12 years old or less, or were accompanying a cyclist who was 12 years old or less.

http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/get_riding/nsw_road_rules.html

Having spent a lot of time in Sydney, the biggest menace on the footpath by far are smartphones.


any cyclist that is foolish enough to believe that they are invulnerable because the laws give them rights on the road is a fool indeed
Do you have any reason to believe there are people who think that way? I've certainly not met any, and I have probably met more cyclists than the average person. I assure you that no cyclist I have ever ridden with wants to take on a car just because he can. The car will always win.

[Poppa]

I would say one was a courier, although he wasn't dressed in a uniform nor could I see any branding, but he had a big box full of stuff that looked like courier type deliveries. The other didn't appear to me to be a courier. It was just funny, having been reading this thread immediately before going outside and then having to dodge 2 in 10 seconds. And no, I haven't met any cyclists who would say they think like that. But I've seen a lot who act like they think like that... :rolleyes:

[silentC]

I've seen a lot who act like they think like that
Yup :)

Bike couriers rarely have any kind of uniform. They usually dress in the kind of clothes you see kids on skateboards wearing. They have a habit of riding the wrong way up a one way street, which is why it pays to look both ways when crossing Pitt Street for example. I have been almost cleaned up a couple of times there.

Bike couriers are to normal bike riders what taxi drivers are to normal motorists...

[rustynail]

Yes if you live down Glebe point road and you're riding a bike, it's a pretty standard way of getting where you are going. Entirely my fault, I was tailgating and he stopped suddenly. Never mind. Like I've said countless times, I don't care what you think about it.

Actually I'm not an urbanite. I live on the outskirts of a town of about 800 and I cycle on the open road mostly, or on the bike track such as it is. WHen I lived in SYdney, I did ride quite a bit though. It's not as scary as you think but I understand that not everyone's nerves are up to it, so it's OK.

Why do you think you are in a 'Mexican stand off'? That's an unusual way of looking at it.

But every comment you make about the danger on the road reinforces the real solution in my mind: ban motor vehicles. Like you say they are very dangerous. Shouldn't be allowed. Imagine how low the road toll would be if they didn't exist? "Two cyclists had a collision today. They shook hands and went their separate ways." That would make a great change from "Family of 5 die in collision with semi trailer" don't you think?

A little idealistic, but you are dead right. It wasnt a push bike that put me in hospital for six months.:no:

[rustynail]

I have just returned from the post office after collecting our mail. This is usually a social trip and an opportunity to catch up with locals and get the latest news. Today was no exception. My neighbour lost their son in law last night
in Blacktown. He was riding home in the rain with what he thought were his lights on. Unfortunately the rear one had stopped working. He had no idea. He rides a dark blue bike and, as a boilermaker, his clothes would have been of an equally dark colour. His funeral is on Tuesday. Apparently,the driver stopped and rendered what assistance he could (male nurse, also a keen cyclist) but Michael was no more.

[dabbler]

Sorry to hear of your neighbour's loss

[silentC]

Sad news.

That's one reason I don't ride at night or pre-dawn.

The two blokes I know who were taken out by kangaroos were riding before sunrise. Even in a car with headlights it's difficult to see them coming until it's too late.

[rustynail]

Sad news.

That's one reason I don't ride at night or pre-dawn.

The two blokes I know who were taken out by kangaroos were riding before sunrise. Even in a car with headlights it's difficult to see them coming until it's too late.
Yes it is sad news. A real nice young bloke, married with three kids under six.
If it's all the same to you guys, I would like to step away from this thread as I dont think my objectivity is going to be enhanced at the moment.
My apologies to those who feel I have been a bit over the top. I meant no harm. When you have been through what I went through you tend to get a bit fed up with the "she'll be righters."

[Vernonv]

Sad news Rustrynail.


... with what he thought were his lights on.Just the other day (after this discussion had started) I went passed an oncoming cyclist on my way home. It was just on dusk and in a 100km/hr zone (fairly busy non-main country road) and he had a bright flashing front light ... I could see him a mile away. As I passed him, I looked in the rear vision mirror and noticed that he had no rear light (or a non-functioning one).

People coming from behind him would be lucky to see him before they were on top of him. Scary.

[rustynail]

Spoke to Mick's wife today. He was putting his bike up for sale this weekend. He felt it was a bit risky riding to work with winter coming on and having a family to support.
I hate these sort of funerals.

[silentC]

I looked in the rear vision mirror and noticed that he had no rear light
If I was riding at night, I think I would have a backup rear light and both would be on. I'd probably also get one of those hi-vis vests. But really I have no reason to ride at night, so I just don't do it. It's not just the cars you have to worry about. Even with a bright front light, you just can't see well enough in my opinion. But plenty of people do it, so I guess it's what you are comfortable with.

[AlexS]

I was always paranoid riding at night. As well as the tail light, I had a large reflector, a flashing rear light and reflective ankle bands. I was told that the first thing motorists noticed were the ankle bands because they were moving.

[rustynail]

Funeral is tomorrow . Hope they chuck his fn bike in with him.

[doug3030]

I was always paranoid riding at night. As well as the tail light, I had a large reflector, a flashing rear light and reflective ankle bands. I was told that the first thing motorists noticed were the ankle bands because they were moving.

When I was riding I used to ride at night a lot. I always had two battery powered flashing tail-lights, just in case one went flat and I was unaware. I had good headlights. When I first started I was riding on the bike paths at night for safety but they have no lighting on them so visibility as poor. I switched to riding on the roads at night both because of the visibility problems and the realization that if I had any kind of an accident on the bike paths I would not be found until the morning.

Unfortunately accidents do happen. RustyNail, hopefully the funeral tomorrow goes as well as those events can.

Cheers

Doug

[silentC]

I switched to riding on the roads at night
Before daylight savings ended, it was getting to be still quite dark at the time I usually went out for a ride. I have got a front light, which I have had for years, so I started using that first thing. However I found that it was a bit dodgy riding on the bike track because of the joggers and dog walkers. It was very hard to see them, especially in the winding sections of the track and it wasn't helped by the dark clothes they seem to wear. It's also hard to see obstacles on the track. So I decided it was safer on the road, because visibility is much better, the surface is better and you always knew there was a car coming behind you because of the headlights. In any case it was usually only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the ride before the sun came up and I usually ride on the road for most of that anyway.

[Jack E]

To me that just emphasises that they should be licensed.

Further down:
"You must


not ride more than two abreast unless overtaking
ride within 1.5 m of the other rider if riding two abreast."


Reckon that first law needs to be addressed in the light of the new 1 metre law. Single file should be fine. Otherwise the two cyclists would take up about 3.5 metres of the road width (presumably 1m from the kerb, minimum 1.5m from the other cyclist, and 1m from the cars.

Somebody hasn't thought it through properly.
Of course, the cyclists must obey the road rules as well.

This means they must give all other vehicles 1 metre of clearance.

That means the cyclists riding two abreast must ride quite accurately in order to not go within 1 metre of each other whilst remaining within 1.5 metres of each other.


If there is traffic and a cyclist rides with 1 metre are they not breaking the law?

Is this not a good reason for them to have a number plate, the same as cars, so they can be identified if caught on film?

[A Duke]

Before daylight savings ended, it was getting to be still quite dark at the time I usually went out for a ride. I have got a front light, which I have had for years, so I started using that first thing. However I found that it was a bit dodgy riding on the bike track because of the joggers and dog walkers. It was very hard to see them, especially in the winding sections of the track and it wasn't helped by the dark clothes they seem to wear. It's also hard to see obstacles on the track. So I decided it was safer on the road, because visibility is much better, the surface is better and you always knew there was a car coming behind you because of the headlights. In any case it was usually only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the ride before the sun came up and I usually ride on the road for most of that anyway.Yeah, dog walking, that's what I do, so don't tempt me to give my opinions of some cyclists, they range from good citizens to absolute @$$*$, but on the subject of lights on cycle paths and shared recreation ways I have to give you these two examples. Walking my dogs one night when they warned me a bike was coming so we got off the path and a bloke followed by his son go by with no lights and the youngster winged that he could not see where he was going, so daddy says " Just stay on the white line, you can see that." The other one was a double fatality when an unlicensed mini motorbike and a cycle both riding on a Canberra Path without lights had a head on collision.

Regards

[silentC]

I think it goes without saying that anyone riding in the dark without lights is an idiot. If a cyclist is abiding by the road rules, which includes lights after dark, then there should be no issue and no reason to 'get started' on an opinion of them.

Now don't get me started on some dog owners and the ruckus they cause up my street at sparrows fart as they stir up every dog in every yard they pass :)

And then there's the little deposits they leave. But of course not every dog owner does that, most are responsible and pick it up, right? So it's only the odd one who makes the rest look bad...

There's a guy who owns a couple of huskies and I often see him on the bike track riding his skateboard with the two dogs pulling like mad. I followed him once to clock him, they got up to 28kph. Wish I could train my dogs to do that.

[silentC]

This means they must give all other vehicles 1 metre of clearance.
No I'm pretty sure you will find that the 1 metre rule only applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a push bike. When riding two abreast, the rule says they must be no more then 1.5 metres apart. There's no minimum distance that I'm aware of, other than what common sense dictates. Nice try though :)

[Jack E]

No I'm pretty sure you will find that the 1 metre rule only applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a push bike. When riding two abreast, the rule says they must be no more then 1.5 metres apart. There's no minimum distance that I'm aware of, other than what common sense dictates. Nice try though :)
I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules :)

Surely that would be the case.

[A Duke]

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules :)

Surely that would be the case.
Now surely that would be an oxymoron if ever there was one.
:wink:

[silentC]

Yes, the 'road rules' encompass all rules that road users must abide by. So there are general rules that apply to all vehicles, and there are rules which apply to specific vehicle types. Car drivers don't need to wear helmets, but it is in the road rules that cyclists and motorcyclists must. There are already many precedents for rules which apply to one type of road user and not to others.

[dabbler]

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules :)

Surely that would be the case.

There are many cases where road rules differ for different classes of vehicle and different types of road user.

[FenceFurniture]

Just posted on ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-15/cyclists-accuse-police-of-going-soft-on-dangerous-drivers/5392438

Skip to about 60 seconds in.

[ian]

the driver of the white vehicle must have been really annoyed.
they almost got past the cyclist at the 10 sec mark, but had to slow for a light.
then they must have got "caught behind"

2 demerit points is a very light let off for what could have been a $20,000 fine and/or a year in the clink
see: http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/failure-to-remain-at-road-accident-qld-offence.html

[rustynail]

Can you believe it? Coming home from Mick's funeral this afternoon, another cyclist cleaned up on Bells Line Rd. Came to grief with a car towing a caravan. When will these people learn?

[silentC]

the driver of the white vehicle must have been really annoyed.
I can think of some other words to describe them.

Glad I don't ride in the city, too many idiot drivers who think that they have more right to be there than anyone else, and that includes other motorists.

[AlexS]

Can you believe it? Coming home from Mick's funeral this afternoon, another cyclist cleaned up on Bells Line Rd. Came to grief with a car towing a caravan. When will these people learn?Yep, those caravan drivers are slow learners.

[rustynail]

Yep, those caravan drivers are slow learners.
Only a cyclist would try to drive a caravan.

[rustynail]

How come every other vehicle on the road requires a licence,which requires both a practical driving test and examination on road rules. Add to this a learning period followed by two levels of provisional driving before a driver can obtain a full licence? What makes a cyclist so superior that they can bypass all the above? How come anyone can go into a shop, buy a bike and then peddle it into peak hour traffic?
At least with a motorist you have some satisfaction in knowing that sometime, somewhere, they have been deemed competent. With the existing regulations we have no idea what level of competency a cyclist has. The only thing we do know is they have never stood a practical riding test. And unless they have another form of driving licence, have never been required to even so much as read the road rules. If this doesn't place an unnecessary risk on road users , I don,t know what does.

[silentC]

You're absolutely right, there is no licensing or registration of cyclists or bicycles in this country. I know there is a debate about whether there should be. I linked to one of the main lobbyists earlier in this thread, you can read that for their view if you want to know it.

There is also no age limit (I think) for cyclists. Anyone can ride one, from a toddler to an old-aged pensioner. You don't need to demonstrate any competence or physical ability.

The above notwithstanding, I don't think that anyone anywhere has suggested cyclists are superior. Some motorists have an enormous chip on their shoulder about it, which occasionally leads to the type of incidents shown in that video on the ABC web site linked above. Some cyclists are quite militant about their rights on the road, which also often leads to incidents like that. I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill. So you could argue that driving tests and so on do not really achieve much in real terms. As a professional driver you must know that. My cousin, who is a truck driver, is always banging on about stupid motorists. People die regularly through stupidity on the roads. The licensing and registration regulations do not prevent that.

So I guess to argue that licensing cyclists and requiring them to do a test, while on the face of it seems like it would help, unless it is implemented properly would be no great improvement on what we have now.

But I would probably support it just to shut people like you up about it :D

[AlexS]

Perhaps a couple of years of cycling should be mandatory before you can obtain a learners permit to drive a car.

As a side note, I was once stopped at the traffic lights on the Pacific Highway at Chatswood when a learner in a driving school car stopped in the lane next to me. I listened as the instructor explained, accurately, why I was positioned where I was, what the law was, and why there is no need to get 'caught' behind a cyclist if you are anticipating as you should be.

[rustynail]

You're absolutely right, there is no licensing or registration of cyclists or bicycles in this country. I know there is a debate about whether there should be. I linked to one of the main lobbyists earlier in this thread, you can read that for their view if you want to know it.

There is also no age limit (I think) for cyclists. Anyone can ride one, from a toddler to an old-aged pensioner. You don't need to demonstrate any competence or physical ability.

The above notwithstanding, I don't think that anyone anywhere has suggested cyclists are superior. Some motorists have an enormous chip on their shoulder about it, which occasionally leads to the type of incidents shown in that video on the ABC web site linked above. Some cyclists are quite militant about their rights on the road, which also often leads to incidents like that. I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill. So you could argue that driving tests and so on do not really achieve much in real terms. As a professional driver you must know that. My cousin, who is a truck driver, is always banging on about stupid motorists. People die regularly through stupidity on the roads. The licensing and registration regulations do not prevent that.

So I guess to argue that licensing cyclists and requiring them to do a test, while on the face of it seems like it would help, unless it is implemented properly would be no great improvement on what we have now.

But I would probably support it just to shut people like you up about it :D
And that would be the only reason?
Well of course it would have to be implemented properly. Want to use the road? Get a licence. The same basic licence every other driver has.
As for arguing that licencing doesn't achieve much in real terms....You must be joking. With the number of vehicles on the roads these days can you imagine if none of those drivers had sat a practical driving test or had at least read the road rules?
Licencing won't prevent accidents but it sure as hell helps to reduce them.
I use the term "superior" as an adjective, not a noun.
As for the video? I think the driver has much to answer for. Also love the way other bikes in the vid just shoot around intersections, no indication whatsoever. Never seen a bike with a stop light. But a trailer needs them and there isnt even anyone in it.
I dont blame your cousin for banging on about stupid motorists, there are plenty of them out there. That is why the cops are as keen as mustard to get as many P platers off the road as quick as possible. But at least that stupid motorist has indicators, stop lights and a bit of paper that says he wasn't always stupid.

[Jack E]

and why there is no need to get 'caught' behind a cyclist if you are anticipating as you should be.
So you think there is never a situation where a motorist could be stuck behind a cyclist?

Anticipation will always avoid this?

[doug3030]

When I was driving today I saw two cyclists without helmets on take off from a standing position to ride across the road on a pedestrian crossing, just as the light turned green and the two trucks at the front had just started moving. That was a lot of rules being broken just there as well as displaying a total lack of common sense.

Before anyone starts, yes, I know not all cyclists are like that, and motorists do stupid things too but this was the most outstanding effort I saw today.

Yesterday a motorist won the award by trying to turn to their right across my path as I went straight through an intersection.

CHeers

Doug

[ian]

I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.neither would I. To my mind the cyclist was riding far too close to the gutter grates -- which is much further to the left than I was ever comfortable with when I regularly rode from Parramatta into the city around 30 years ago. I especially didn't like the man hole covers the cyclist was riding to avoid. But then again I used to wait my turn in the queue rather than overtake cars on the left to get to the front at the lights.


However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill.when I watched the video I was left with the distinct impression that the white vehicle was tailgating the cyclist -- look at the number of times the cyclist turns his head to the right in the seconds before the collision, presumably to look at what was behind him.

Besides two or three other cars were able to overtake the cyclist.

[AlexS]

So you think there is never a situation where a motorist could be stuck behind a cyclist?

Anticipation will always avoid this?

No, of course not. There will be occasions on single lane roads where motorists will be temporarily delayed. Sad, but rare and unavoidable, in the same way that cyclists are delayed by traffic jams caused by cars in the city. On multi-lane roads, unless the traffic is so heavy that cars are delaying each other anyway, I've never had any trouble, as a driver, spotting cyclists in time to change lanes and overtake them.
The other circumstance, as mentioned by Ian, is when a car is stopped at the lights and a cyclist threads through the traffic and sits in front of the car. Stupid, but the delay is usually fairly short.

[silentC]

And that would be the only reason?
Yes. I've said it at least twice, maybe three times now. Surely it has sunk in by now.


As for arguing that licencing doesn't achieve much in real terms....You must be joking.
No I'm not joking. I've learned to put a smiley in if I am, otherwise people take me seriously. What you are saying is that the licensing test takes people from being novices to exemplary drivers in most cases. You must be joking! The only thing that does that is experience and there are still people who have been driving for many years who fail to give way, speed, lose control in the wet, overtake in dangerous places, tailgate and on and on. Licensing does not fix that, it just gives the police something to take away after the fact.


love the way other bikes in the vid just shoot around intersections, no indication whatsoever. Never seen a bike with a stop light. But a trailer needs them and there isnt even anyone in it.
Cyclists are required to give hand signals when turning. I would like a dollar for every time I've seen a car turn without indicating. Same rules apply.


a bit of paper that says he wasn't always stupid.
Now that is hilarious...

[Jack E]

No, of course not. There will be occasions on single lane roads where motorists will be temporarily delayed. Sad, but rare and unavoidable, in the same way that cyclists are delayed by traffic jams caused by cars in the city. On multi-lane roads, unless the traffic is so heavy that cars are delaying each other anyway, I've never had any trouble, as a driver, spotting cyclists in time to change lanes and overtake them.
The other circumstance, as mentioned by Ian, is when a car is stopped at the lights and a cyclist threads through the traffic and sits in front of the car. Stupid, but the delay is usually fairly short.No problems, it's just that you had mentioned anticipating a few times in this thread.
All good drivers anticipate but that just means you have seen a problem, sometimes it still remains a problem.

They are not so rare and unavoidable on narrow winding country roads without a shoulder.

Not everyone lives in the city, but the problem also happens there more often than just a cyclist filtering to the front of the traffic lights.

As others have said, there are also idiot motorists who don't know what to do.

To get to the highway from my house I travel along a couple of k's of narrow road with no shoulder which is frequented by cyclists, sometimes in a peleton.

Often a cyclist will be coming the other way and a car will be dutifully giving him room, a metre or more.
Unfortunately this means the car is now in my lane, across the centre line meaning I have to take action such as move over or adjust my speed to avoid a collision.

I simply can't understand why people think it is okay to move slightly into the other lane when there is already a car there.
They do it to overtake cyclists but wouldn't do it to overtake a car???

It is a very unsafe road for cyclists but for some reason very popular.

[silentC]

They do it to overtake cyclists but wouldn't do it to overtake a car?
You've seriously never had to take evasive action to avoid a head on with a car that has decided to pull out and overtake another car coming the other way?

We've got one spot locally where trucks pull up in the left hand lane to make deliveries and the only way around is to go out into the middle of the road. I don't know how many times I've seen two cars going in opposite directions in the one lane. I've sometimes had to wait up to 20 seconds to get past, or decide to make a dangerous manoeuvre to get round. I'm an important and busy motorist! We should ban truck deliveries!

[Jack E]

You've seriously never had to take evasive action to avoid a head on with a car that has decided to pull out and overtake another car coming the other way?
Yes, it has happened to me occasionally.

However, on the road I mentioned it happens regularly when oncoming cars are avoiding cyclists.

We just need to ban idiots, problem solved :)

[silentC]

Yes this is the problem with knee-jerk reactions to things. You get a handful of idiots that do stupid things and next thing you know someone wants the activity curtailed. They just seem to be a bit selective about what activities should attract the penalty. I know someone who was minding their own business up at Thredbo when someone on a snowboard ploughed into her, breaking her hip and putting her in hospital. So should we get up in arms about snowboarders? Someone got wiped out by a jet ski. Ban 'em! A tree fell on a tent killing a couple of people. Ban camping, or cut down all the trees!

There's something about driving a car, and I am guilty of this at times, where you lose a bit of respect for other people. It's particular to cars, I used to experience it a lot in Sydney. Normally mild-mannered office workers become ravenous beasts if someone cuts them off or delays their trip by a few seconds. People have been beaten or stabbed to death over stupid little incidents. People just need to take a chill pill and realise that the 3 seconds they gain now they will lose ten-fold at the next set of lights. Listen to ABC Classic FM instead of Triple J. Used to work for me :)

[FenceFurniture]

Perhaps the point is that to overtake a cyclist the car need only stray a little way onto the other side of the road, but to overtake a car means more than likely fully on the other side. Therefore the view might be that (for some reason) it's ok to stray partially onto the other side of the road, even when it wouldn't be safe to do so completely.

I just watched that vid on ABC news again. At the 30 second mark the cyclist goes through a length of road for maybe 30-50 metres where he has a wall on his left - it leaves him with NOWHERE to go for evasive action. As a cyclist that would scare the bejaysus out of me, and I would only ride that route once in my life (in ignorance), and then elect to find a way around that passage - short as it may be.

Just the same as I would elect to step out of the firing line of a loaded gun - it's illegal to shoot me, but I'm just not going to take the risk. :no:

[FenceFurniture]

People just need to take a chill pill and realise that the 3 seconds they gain now they will lose ten-fold at the next set of lights.Indeed.

Countless times I've witnessed a (usually young) idiot screaming along, in a desparate hurry to stop at the next set of lights (which I have observed is going to stop him at his speed). I carry on with my usual practice of "no forward promotion" i.e. foot off the accelerator waaaaay before the lights, and it allows me to then pick up speed (from say 30-40 kph) for the now green light. The idiot disappears behind me. He's used up brake linings and significant extra fuel - AND lost time. Lose-lose-lose.

Unfortunately he (and it's usually a he - almost always) all too often reappears within not too long........and at this point, if I can, I'll go to "cunning mode" by positioning myself that will keep him away from me, hopefully trapped several cars back. That may entail an unnecessary lane change on my part to "choke" that part of the road, but one does what one has to do to stay safe.

[rustynail]

Yes. I've said it at least twice, maybe three times now. Surely it has sunk in by now.


No I'm not joking. I've learned to put a smiley in if I am, otherwise people take me seriously. What you are saying is that the licensing test takes people from being novices to exemplary drivers in most cases. You must be joking! The only thing that does that is experience and there are still people who have been driving for many years who fail to give way, speed, lose control in the wet, overtake in dangerous places, tailgate and on and on. Licensing does not fix that, it just gives the police something to take away after the fact.


Cyclists are required to give hand signals when turning. I would like a dollar for every time I've seen a car turn without indicating. Same rules apply.


Now that is hilarious...
Please show me where I have said that licencing takes drivers from novice to exemplary.
And while your at it and seeing you are very familiar with cycling, could you give me some method of determining a rider's competency as I approach.
I cant even remember the last time I saw a cyclist give hand signals.
And if hand signals are ok for cyclists, why cant other road users do the same?

[AlexS]

And if hand signals are ok for cyclists, why cant other road users do the same?Because they're too busy texting?

[silentC]

Please show me where I have said that licencing takes drivers from novice to exemplary.
It is implicit in your post that you believe making cyclists 'sit a test' will make them more compliant with the road rules and less likely to be involved in an accident.

My point is that we already have such a scheme in place for motorists and even taking into account the greater numbers of motorists, there are proportionally as many, or perhaps more, motorists who demonstrate daily a blatant disregard for the road rules and for other motorists. So I believe that forcing cyclists to 'sit a test' will make little or no difference to the bad behaviour you are complaining about.

Add to that the fact that a very large percentage of the cyclists you complain about are also motorists and have already 'sat a test' and so have already been deemed competent by your measure.

I am licensed to drive a car and ride a motorcycle. What more do you want?

[rustynail]

It is implicit in your post that you believe making cyclists 'sit a test' will make them more compliant with the road rules and less likely to be involved in an accident.

My point is that we already have such a scheme in place for motorists and even taking into account the greater numbers of motorists, there are proportionally as many, or perhaps more, motorists who demonstrate daily a blatant disregard for the road rules and for other motorists. So I believe that forcing cyclists to 'sit a test' will make little or no difference to the bad behaviour you are complaining about.

Add to that the fact that a very large percentage of the cyclists you complain about are also motorists and have already 'sat a test' and so have already been deemed competent by your measure.

I am licensed to drive a car and ride a motorcycle. What more do you want?
This may come as an ego crushing shock but we are not talking about you.
Any one with half a brain would know if you have already sat a competency test ie hold a drivers licence there is no need to do it again because you ride a bike.
I have never said a drivers licence makes good drivers.
We have kids on the road on bikes that have no idea of road rules.
We have aged people on the road on bikes who can no longer hold a licence.
If you lose your licence for DUI go and buy a bike. Now we have drunks on bikes.
If you fail a medical and cant have a drivers licence, buy a bike. Now we have deaf, sight impaired etc.
What do I want? Safety.

[silentC]

OK so you've narrowed it down to a very small subset of cyclists who are either too old or too young to hold a drivers license. Therefore your solution to the perceived problem of all these nongs who ride up the Bells Line of Road is to stop kids under 16 and people over 80 from being allowed to ride a bike on the road. Oh and drunks too.

Most of the people who ride bikes on the road are not in either of those categories, and in your words anyone with half a brain would know that if you have a drivers license, you wouldn't need to get a push bike license. So given that kids under 16 can't get a driver's license and people over 80 need to jump through hoops to keep one, exactly who is this group of people who you think would benefit from a cycling license test?

[rustynail]

OK so you've narrowed it down to a very small subset of cyclists who are either too old or too young to hold a drivers license. Therefore your solution to the perceived problem of all these nongs who ride up the Bells Line of Road is to stop kids under 16 and people over 80 from being allowed to ride a bike on the road. Oh and drunks too.

Most of the people who ride bikes on the road are not in either of those categories, and in your words anyone with half a brain would know that if you have a drivers license, you wouldn't need to get a push bike license. So given that kids under 16 can't get a driver's license and people over 80 need to jump through hoops to keep one, exactly who is this group of people who you think would benefit from a cycling license test?
Anyone that doesnt have a licence. It aint rocket science.

[doug3030]

We have kids on the road on bikes that have no idea of road rules.
We have aged people on the road on bikes who can no longer hold a licence.
If you lose your licence for DUI go and buy a bike. Now we have drunks on bikes.
If you fail a medical and cant have a drivers licence, buy a bike. Now we have deaf, sight impaired etc.
What do I want? Safety.

And that's exactly what its all about. SAFETY.

If someone is coming the other way at me, I want to know that he or she has sufficient knowledge of the road rules that they know that they are supposed to pass on the left and keep to the left side of the road. I should be able to expect that they understand the "give way" rules and have eyesight good enough to see me.

Ok, if you see a young kid on a bike on the road, instinctively you know that he or she probably doesn't know the road rules, but if they swerve in front of you and you hit them and kill or maim them chances are that the car driver with the license, registration and insurance is going to take the fall for the unlicensed, uninsured and unregistered bike rider. That's how the legal system works; find someone in the chain of events who has enough insurance to get adequate compensation for the "victim".

If a court deems someone not suitable to drive a motor vehicle on our roads why should they be able to jump on a bicycle just because you don't need a license to ride one? How do you justify people whose eyesight or hearing is not up to driving being able to just mix it on the roads with the cars and heavy transport on a bicycle just because they don't need a license to do so? How does the law-abiding driver who has to take evasive action to avoid a blind cyclist and hits another car in the process fare in the legal proceedings that follow?


Cheers

Doug

[ian]

If a court deems someone not suitable to drive a motor vehicle on our roads why should they be able to jump on a bicycle just because you don't need a license to ride one? How do you justify people whose eyesight or hearing is not up to driving being able to just mix it on the roads with the cars and heavy transport on a bicycle just because they don't need a license to do so? How does the law-abiding driver who has to take evasive action to avoid a blind cyclist and hits another car in the process fare in the legal proceedings that follow?Hi Doug

I hear what you are saying, but the bits I've highlighted same applies equally to people riding "gophers" -- which you might call the "scourge of the senile"

I'll stand to be corrected, but while you can be done for DUI riding a bicycle or horse, I'm not sure the same blood alcohol rules apply to skate boards and gophers

[rustynail]

Hi Doug

I hear what you are saying, but the bits I've highlighted same applies equally to people riding "gophers" -- which you might call the "scourge of the senile"

I'll stand to be corrected, but while you can be done for DUI riding a bicycle or horse, I'm not sure the same blood alcohol rules apply to skate boards and gophers
Blood alcohol laws apply to gophers .05 NSW QLD VIC. The law states a gopher can only be used on the edge of the road and in circumstances where a foot path or trafficable naturestrip is not available. They are deemed pedestrian and are to be ridden against the flow of traffic.

[FenceFurniture]

Slightly off-topic, but definitely related....

There used to be (probably still is) a guy in Menai who charged around on a gopher. Within the Marketplace (Woolworths Shops) he would drive it flat-knacker straight at you (like, in a shop) and you'd have to jump out of the way. He clearly had a chip on his shoulder about being restricted to a gopher for mobility, and was a classic case of should have been fined or had his licence (do they have one?) revoked for a while.

Musta wanted all the able bodied people to join him riding gophers.....

[silentC]

Anyone that doesnt have a licence. It aint rocket science.
Thank you, you have confirmed what I expected. So we need to go out and get the 0.001% of adult cyclists that don't have a drivers license to sit a test and get a bike license. Yes that will solve all of your problems.

The anecdotes that you guys are throwing up are such a small, I would even say infinitesimal, proportion of cyclists, it gives clutching at straws a new meaning. Now you are worried about blind people on bikes. And you want to license kids.

This is why it is pointless getting into these debates because it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous faster than you can blink. Just accept that you have a problem with cyclists being on the road and we can all carry on with our business and stop wasting our time trying to defend something that needs no defence.

[rustynail]

Thank you, you have confirmed what I expected. So we need to go out and get the 0.001% of adult cyclists that don't have a drivers license to sit a test and get a bike license. Yes that will solve all of your problems.

The anecdotes that you guys are throwing up are such a small, I would even say infinitesimal, proportion of cyclists, it gives clutching at straws a new meaning. Now you are worried about blind people on bikes. And you want to license kids.

This is why it is pointless getting into these debates because it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous faster than you can blink. Just accept that you have a problem with cyclists being on the road and we can all carry on with our business and stop wasting our time trying to defend something that needs no defence.
There is nothing ridiculous about a kid getting cleaned up on a bike. There is nothing ridiculous about having concern that there are people using the roads that have never been subjected to any form of formal training prior to depositing themselves into a life and death situation.
There is nothing ridiculous about having concern that no sight test is required to ride a bike on the road.
You seem to be very dismissive of the fact our roads are the greatest killing fields in our country.
Oh and by the way, the only person who can waste your time is you. Think about it.

[silentC]

So now we have switched the debate from the adult cyclists who get wiped out on Bells Line of Road to kids. That's OK, given the ducking and weaving you've done throughout this thread, I can go with the flow.

So how does your licencing recommendation work with kids? Are you going to require them to be licensed to ride their bikes too? Would you let your kid ride on the road, even with a license? I wouldn't that's for sure. I must admit that as ever I'm struggling to follow your logic, but keep going, I'm sure I'll get there.

[doug3030]

So how does your licencing recommendation work with kids? Are you going to require them to be licensed to ride their bikes too? Would you let your kid ride on the road, even with a license?

When I was a kid I was not allowed to ride my bike on the road until I could satisfy my father that I could ride competently and understood the rules of the road. I thought that was sensible so I applied the same principal to my own kids.

Personally, I think it might not be a bad idea to remove the onus from the parents to determine when their children have a sufficient understanding of the rules. Why not take them in to the local license testing office and sit the written road rules test? Then they would not need to sit the test again when they are old enough to get their car license.

Cheers

Doug

[silentC]

I'm all for better education in bike safety and road rules. I reckon kids should learn them at school. I'm pretty sure we did. I distinctly remember a booklet on cycling and road rules from Primary School. Maybe if they start testing it on the NAPLAN teachers might see value in adding it to the curriculum :D

In fact, if you brought bike education into schools, you might even eventually create a population that is more accepting of cyclists than the current one.

[rustynail]

So now we have switched the debate from the adult cyclists who get wiped out on Bells Line of Road to kids. That's OK, given the ducking and weaving you've done throughout this thread, I can go with the flow.

So how does your licencing recommendation work with kids? Are you going to require them to be licensed to ride their bikes too? Would you let your kid ride on the road, even with a license? I wouldn't that's for sure. I must admit that as ever I'm struggling to follow your logic, but keep going, I'm sure I'll get there.
False accusation.... There has been no ducking or weaving. All statements made am happy to standby.
As Doug said, his father wouldn't let him on the road until he thought he was competent. My father, a detective, the same. That was over fifty years ago. The carnage on the roads today has increased dramatically. I will refrain from using bogus percentages as you have a propensity to do.
I have never said kids shouldnt ride bikes. But I am saying that riding on the road is dangerous. Riding on the road without knowledge of the rules is even more dangerous. There are plenty of kids riding bikes on the road. Just because you wont allow yours, doesnt mean others don't. And seeing you feel the road is a safe enough place for you, why the ban on the kids?
Anybody using the road should have knowledge of the road rules. If that's too illogical for you there's not much hope.

[silentC]

There has been no ducking or weaving
Well I don't know, we started off talking about adult cyclists riding on the road and being blown off it by coach drivers, or picked up from a huddled mess on the side of the road, then there was the bloke who ran into the back of your uncle's car. Then you tried to say that licensing cyclists would help that. Somehow we got from there to kids and blind people.

Yes it would be helpful if cyclists understood the road rules. My repeated question is how many of them don't? I know you love percentages, so I'll say I bet 99.9% of adult cyclists (the ones who dress in Lycra and get up your nose) already have a drivers license.

Round and round we go.

[doug3030]

I know you love percentages, so I'll say I bet 99.9% of adult cyclists (the ones who dress in Lycra and get up your nose) already have a drivers license.

Pretty safe bet. Nobody will be able to prove it either way. Its just the kind of meaningless and unsubstantiated statistics that are spewed out by those with no substantial facts to back up their opinions.

I would however suggest that a lot more than 1 in 1000 cyclists ride because they aren't allowed to drive for one reason or another. I don't have any hard statistics to back that claim up either but I know seven people who ride because they have had their licenses suspended or cannot get licenses for medical reasons. And that is seven people out of the well under 1000 cyclists who I know.

Cheers

Doug

[silentC]

Pretty safe bet.
That's all you needed to say :) I wouldn't have any idea of the real number, I just put it there for rusty's benefit. I know he likes numbers.

I don't know anyone who currently has a suspended drivers license and all but one of the cyclists I know has a drivers license too, so I must move in different circles ;)

But you are arguing around the fringes here for sure. The 'big problem' is the number of, let's call them 'sporting cyclists', on the road. Not the idiots who can't manage to count their schooners on Friday night and have to borrow their son's mountain bike for 6 months to get to work. They don't ride two abreast taking up a whole lane as if they own it. It's those MAMILs that everyone hates so much. They are the ones we started talking about. You see them on the news now every second night. They are a menace!

[doug3030]

The 'big problem' is the number of, let's call them 'sporting cyclists', on the road. Not the idiots who can't manage to count their schooners on Friday night and have to borrow their son's mountain bike for 6 months to get to work. They don't ride two abreast taking up a whole lane as if they own it. It's those MAMILs that everyone hates so much. They are the ones we started talking about. You see them on the news now every second night. They are a menace!

UMMMM... Isn't that basically all that everyone has been saying in this thread? And yes I think we all agree that they are a real menace.

Cheers

Doug

[silentC]

Exactly! Not kids or blind people or victims of DUI blitzes. The people that you are complaining about are people like me and some of my friends who choose cycling as a sport or fitness activity and as a part of that ride on the road. Most of us are licensed drivers. We know the road rules. If we break them, it is through a lack of care, not ignorance. The number of cyclists who do not know the road rules at all must be very small indeed. We all know that the same rules apply to us.

The problem is not ignorance of the road rules. Licensing will not help. The problem is a small number of people doing stupid things - both in cars and on bikes. Lack of attention is probably the major cause (I'm guessing, don't have numbers). If you want stats, about 75% of cycle-car accidents are the fault of the car driver (it was in the Australian the other day). That means that 1/4 of accidents are caused by stupid or unlucky cyclists. The number is too high, but it is not going to come down with some rubber-stamp process.

Attitudes need to change on both sides. I can't see it happening, hence my stance on the subject as expressed from the very beginning.

[doug3030]

The people that you are complaining about are people like me and some of my friends who choose cycling as a sport or fitness activity and as a part of that ride on the road.

Well I am not sure what you, personally have been going on about but as far as I am aware everyone else has been discussing exactly what you summarized so well here:


The 'big problem' is the number of, let's call them 'sporting cyclists', on the road. Not the idiots who can't manage to count their schooners on Friday night and have to borrow their son's mountain bike for 6 months to get to work. They don't ride two abreast taking up a whole lane as if they own it. It's those MAMILs that everyone hates so much. They are the ones we started talking about. You see them on the news now every second night. They are a menace!

It does not seem to matter what anyone else says about cyclists, we are all wrong. Then you agree with us then turn it all around again to say we are wrong for agreeing with you.

Sorry old mate, I give up. I am not going round the loop again. I think that most cyclists are well accepted on the roads. Those who feel that there is a problem with acceptance of cyclists are probably the ones who ride like tossers and therefore get treated accordingly.

I am unsubscribing from this thread.

Love and kisses

Doug

[silentC]

as far as I am aware everyone else has been discussing exactly what you summarized so well here
You are the one who introduced kids and blind people to the argument! I was just trying to get you back on track.


I am unsubscribing from this thread

Oh well...

[rustynail]

There is nothing wrong with the introduction of new subject matter. Provided the subject matter is relevant and correct. There are plenty of people using the roads who would do well with a brush up on the rules and that goes for motorists and cyclists. There are plenty of people with medical conditions that should prevent them from driving. I have eyesight issues. I'm legal to drive. I choose not to until my eyesight is rectified. I dont wish to endanger others.
You have made good argument and despite your propensity for pulling fictitious figures out of your hat, a lot of what you have said makes perfect sense, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Our roads are deteriorating , vehicle numbers are increasing, peoples attitude toward others is deteriorating (look no further than ourselves.) Yet despite all this, you want to ride your bike. Well so did Freddie Mercury and look what happened to him:D
Like I said previously, if ever you are up this way, dont be a stranger.

[Jack E]

I am in no way a fan of cyclists, I can't stand the lycra clad clogging our roads and endangering the lives of motorists :)

However, many of those arguing here against cyclists have done nothing to help the cause, in fact, I feel dumber for having read some of the arguments here.

[Foo]

It must be a bastard being in a hurry all the time and not being able to judge distance and pass safely. :doh: I really would hate to see most of you lot running down cyclists for the new rules and put in place because you can't get your act together on the road.:no: Spend a week with me driving a B-double and you will see that cyclists are less of a problem on the roads than fools in cars and caravaners.:-

Foo

[silentC]

There is nothing wrong with the introduction of new subject matter.
Indeed. My only complaint is when it is used to try and shore up a weak argument.


Yet despite all this, you want to ride your bike
Now you're getting it!

As I said from the outset, I am at pains to NOT get into a debate about whether bikes should be on the road or not. All I'm trying to do is to follow people's logic.

[rustynail]

Indeed. My only complaint is when it is used to try and shore up a weak argument.


Now you're getting it!

As I said from the outset, I am at pains to NOT get into a debate about whether bikes should be on the road or not. All I'm trying to do is to follow people's logic.
And I am having just as much trouble following yours.
A weak argument is one fortified by fictitious figures and percentages, in the vain hope of making the perpetrator sound as if they know what they're talking about.

[silentC]

I'm not making the argument, you are!

Let's summarise shall we.

You expressed the opinion that cyclists need to be familiar with the road rules and that licensing those who don't already have a drivers license would aid that. The departed Doug extended your argument by suggesting that licensing would prevent people who otherwise would not qualify for a drivers license from taking to a push bike. You agreed.

My point was that the people you are talking about there are, in my opinion, very much a minority when we are talking about the kind of cyclists that you and several others are whinging about. The overwhelming majority of that group, I am certain, are adults who already have 'competency' in the form of a drivers license.

I don't think I need numbers to make that point. If you disagree, well I suppose that's your prerogative. But if you think that most of these cyclists do not have a drivers license and are not already familiar with the road rules then I think you are misguided.

Therefore your insistence that licensing cyclists who don't already have a drivers license (your stipulation, not mine) will help prevent the type of behaviour that you have complained about in this thread is based on a weak premise.

That's as clear as I can put it. Maybe try reading what I wrote instead of latching on to some pedantic point in it and we might get somewhere.

[A Duke]

I think this is enough of a "Oooh ah " thread already, with out either latching onto anything more in each others posts.
:):D:oo::oo: