Actually, if you really wanted to place a cyclist at the scene of an accident, all you would need to do is search the Strava or Map My Ride databases for the GPS coordinates and time. They'll all be in there :)
Printable View
Actually, if you really wanted to place a cyclist at the scene of an accident, all you would need to do is search the Strava or Map My Ride databases for the GPS coordinates and time. They'll all be in there :)
Yeah I know, but I would have to say that the incidents of cyclists behaving badly would be a very small number, simply because there are relatively few of them and the capabilities of a cyclist to achieve dangerous speeds or inflict damage to other vehicles is limited. Not saying it doesn't happen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
I'd say I'm not a advocate for it, but I wouldn't get upset if it was inflicted upon us. As long as the proper cost-benefit analysis has taken place and it is not just being done to appease other road users. Although as I say it would be worth a certain cost just to remove the objection, err reason...
Actually according to the ABC this morning, there is a new threat to cyclists on the south coast: kangaroos. In fact I know both the blokes who hit kangaroos, prompting the story. One is just back on his bike after a few weeks off it. The other I think got out of hospital recently.
Registration for kangaroos, I say!!
It is not a matter of having to decide whether what I am saying is true or a lie (and thanks very much for the connotation towards the later,) The fact is that when a collision between a bike rider and a motor vehicle takes place, invariably the rider comes out second best. It took a fair bit of cleaning of my uncles car to remove the facial features from the back seat. My mate Steve left a pretty significant calling card on the pacific hwy after his mishap. And I got 9pints pumped into me after my little dance routine. :DNot.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Heres another little gem to consider. In every case I have mentioned, the driver has come to the assistance of the bog ignorant cyclist,,,,,Trip to the station 45klm. Trip to hospital about 38klm. The lady that visits Steve, goodness knows how many ks shes put up. Thats what I mean about being a nuisance. Not the fact of how much room you take up, the fact that you are prepared to go out there and inconvenience every body else, just because you can. And then you want to whinge about the size of a number plate...Please:doh:
Nah, just give road users guns ... no more kangaroo problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Yes the size of the number plate is a concern for a cyclist, but I don't expect you to understand. It's one of those mystical things like the lycra and the leg-shaving. You don't need to concern yourself over it, just accept that it's important to we temporary Australians.Quote:
And then you want to whinge about the size of a number plate
Any connotations you read in what I posted are of your own making, not mine. I don't think you're lying, I don't really care if you are. Makes no difference to me. I was taking the p*ss out of you, simple as that.
But you've got me, yes the highlight of my day is to inconvenience a motorist. If I can do that at least once per ride, then I am happy. It's not easy but I'll make a special effort tomorrow knowing that it upsets you so much. :)
I'm a little confused about this registration/insurance business. While I'm not especially against it, can someone please clarify whether you're saying a bike/cyclist should have comprehensive insurance to cover the damage they may do to your beemer. It seems like that's what's being demanded, but since cars are only required to have the compulsory 3rd party, why should bikes have anything more?
What a charming fellowQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I think the rules should be the same as for other road users i.e. compulsory 3rd party, and then anything over and above is optional.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
If a cyclist chooses not to have comprehensive insurance and damages another vehicle, then they will need to cover it out of their own pocket. At least if they are licensed (have a license plate), the other road users can identify them as they race off between cars and through red lights. :)
I doubt anyone has given it much thought Alex. It's just one of those pub debating points.
But yes it would make sense that it was limited to 3rd party personal for the little old lady you wipe out on the crossing. Equality, right?
But I gather it's more about a) identifying naughty cyclists and b) making them contribute to the cost of the roads. The insurance thing is just thrown in as a job lot.
I'm quite good company actually :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
No really, ask anyone. I have this same argument with my neighbour and he still invites me to dinner.
Self praise is no recommendation. But I will take you at your word. If ever you are stupid enough to take on Bells Line Rd,:oo: dont be a stranger.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
That sounds like a challenge!
On one of the cycling forums, I found this comment on the subject:
I've driven up it once, I used to go rock climbing up in the mountains (another reckless activity) but it was so long ago I don't remember it.Quote:
RIP is all i have to say on the matter. That stretch of road is exciting in a car, for all the wrong reasons - on a bike, well...enough said...
Must say I'm not overly enticed. But then some of what they say about it could also apply to the roads I ride on around here (no shoulder, poor sight lines, trucks). You have to choose your time, and stay very alert.
That one sentence I think sums up your point of view neatly. You don't like cyclists. They are in your way and the only reason they are on their bikes is to be an inconvenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
As for the laws which this thread is about, I think it's a bit like a warning on a packet of nuts saying "warning, may contain traces of nuts". It shouldn't be required but apparently there are enough idiots out there to justify it.
I'm happy the laws exist if only to further legitimise cyclists as legal road users. Those who don't believe I should be on the road won't change their small minds but they now have one more piece of legislation to consider before they choose to drive in an unsafe manner.
This will be my last post in this thread, I will now hand over to you Rustynail for the last word... you were probably going to have it anyway.
My Son is a very keen rock climber. Spends every weekend shimmying up something and has climbed on every continent. It now has become a part of his job as an electrical engineer. Particularly with cable cars and chairlifts etc. The funny thing is, he is one of the most safety conscious people I have ever met. Like his father, he is a keen whitewater kayaker and we spend a lot of time trying to drown ourselves. The climbing I leave to him. Its a wiry persons game. Im built for comfort not for speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
His pet hate? Cyclists.
Nobody's perfect :)Quote:
His pet hate? Cyclists.
They are not in my way at all. I couldnt care less if they are on the road or not. I dont judge people by whether they ride a bike or not. But I dont like seeing people taking unnecessary risks, on dangerous roads, forcing other people to have to take evasive action on roads that kill with monotonous regularity. And I object to having my time wasted carting them back to civilization when it all goes pear shaped.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
How come cars need seat belts, most are fitted with air bags and the driver is encapsulated in a metal cocoon. Yet a cyclist can go out with nothing but a puny helmet between him and what ever comes next? Now you tell me who has the tiny mind.
Ok, so as I said earlier its not illegal to ride two abreast, but just because it is legal does not mean that it is smart or considerate in all circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
So while it is legal to ride two abreast, it is the cyclist's prerogative to do so if they choose to exercise this right regardless of the inconvenience caused to others? But if a motorist shows the same lack of consideration to a cyclist , the cycling fraternity pillory him.
And please cite an example of where it is safe to ride two abreast but not safe to "slip into single file".
Yes I have been a cyclist, I have had the end of my handlebar clipped by Canberra buses more than once. I have endured cars pulling out from parking spots into my path and opening their doors in my path without looking. I had three runners come around a corner on a bike path leaving me nowhere to go but into the lake, and plenty more incidents too numerous to mention. I am not against cyclists or motorists or pedestrians. The majority of them all are good considerate people but the few idiots spoil it for the rest of them.
About 15 years ago I was one of the first on the scene of an accident when a cyclist was killed. It was just before dawn and the unfortunate rider was the outside one of a pair riding two abreast on a major country road, one lane in each direction. The cyclist was dressed all in black and had no lights on his bike. I discovered later from newspaper articles that the cyclist was regarded as one of the more popular and highly regarded members of the local cycling club.
I quickly discovered that I knew the driver of the car, a gentleman in his 80's who had devoted his retirement years to charitable work and a more generous, kind human being you would be hard pressed to find. The impact with the cyclist damaged his van enough to write it off.
For months after the accident the cycling fraternity bombarded the local press with letters demanding that there be a mandatory death sentence on any motorist who caused the death of a cyclist. The level of hysteria was incredible.
Meanwhile it was the beginning of the end for my friend. He was abused when he went out in public and as much as he tried, he really did not reestablish his position in is charitable fundraising. He went downhill and passed away a couple of years later.
An inquest was held into the accident before my friend died. The man who the cycling fraternity wanted put to death was totally cleared of any blame. The coroner determined that the cyclist was responsible for the accident because he was wearing black and did not have lights on his bike and was riding two abreast where there was no good reason to do so. How do you keep a metre away from something you cannot see?
Did the attitude of the cyclists change when the results of the inquest were published? Well of course not. It sparked a new round of letters to the press claiming that the coroner was biased and calling for blood. My friend was still being persecuted 12 months after his death despite having been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Cheers
Doug
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.Quote:
And please cite an example of where it is safe to ride two abreast but not safe to "slip into single file".
I'm sure there are a few others, probably not many, but it's too late to do your thinking for you.
But motor vehicle registration fees do not cover the cost of the roads as that goes to the local states consolidated revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Local roads are paid for by the adjoining owners when first made, the upkeep and main roads are paid for by the residents through their council rates and only state highways and freeways are paid for by taxes and then mainly by grants contributed by the Commonwealth.
Peter.
Just like his father.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
Peter.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
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.
So why did I drive the cyclist from Mt Boyce to Richmond station and freight his bike as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
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.
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.
You and I know that but it's surprising how many others don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Darwin award candidate.Quote:
The cyclist was dressed all in black and had no lights on his bike
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
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'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.Quote:
It's the motorists mindset that has to change not the cyclist
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.
Not so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
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
How would you know, you've never met me?Quote:
you wont look good as someone's bonnet ornament
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Talk about splitting hairs, I used the word "YOU" in its context of "a person", not meaning YOU, silentC, specifically, and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Cheers
Doug
Jeez you motorists are an uptight bunch, it was meant to be a joke. Sheesh...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Here is an interesting excerpt from a South Aus transport PDF. It makes you wonder if that applies to cyclists.
Quote:
It is illegal to drive so slowly that you unreasonably obstruct the path of the vehicle behind
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).
Maybe because it has become tedious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
Easy fixed ... stop reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
It wouldn't be hard for there to be a big speed differential between cars and bikes in 100km/hr zones, especially on hills.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
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.
So is oiling benchtops, but you persevered:D.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
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?