Bike path attacks?

Mr Magoo never had an accident IIRC!

Yep, 15 hours a day, 15 years on the road – zero accidents and 12 points on licence. If you don’t want to share the road with professional drivers (cabs, hire cars, trucks, buses, coaches all do similar if not more hours), that’s fine.

Car registration is a contribution towards the cost of providing facilities. The balance comes out of consolidated revenue. This means that on a simple cost recovery basis the average motorist is in deficit. Further, to argue to register bicycles logically introduces an argument to register shoes because people walk across pedestrian crossings which are also provided. I wonder how much rego on a pair of thongs would cost?

And to the 15 hour a day masochist, pleae let me know where you are so I can be somewhere else just in case you nod off?

Jube, 15hrs+ a day is a lot. You are critical of cyclists breaking road rules, but admit to being ‘on the road’ for over 15 hours a day. I’ve seen it measured where a tired driver’s reactions are as bad as an intoxicated drivers. Most of that rego you pay isn’t rego, but third party person liability insurance – it’s expensive because car drivers are very efficient at injuring other people. A major cause of car accidents is fatigue.

Jube says: “As a business owner who spendes 15+ hours a day on the road, I am sick to death of seeing cycle lanes running parralel to cycle paths on major roads”.

So i was wondering, if there’e been a decision to put in cycle lanes on the road so that the hard-core commuter or competititve cyclist can go in a straight line (rather than the somewhat more meandering, if scenic, routes offered by the more established bike/walking paths), should we simply be tearing up the old path that runs parallel to the new on-road cycle lane? That seems like a wonderful use of resources.

The fact is that the existing paths are fine if you are in no hurry , but they do go the long way round. Cyclist are entitled also to use the road (registration/road tax notwithstanding, as the law currently stands, cyclist ARE entitled to ride on the road) and the govt has wisely set aside specific lanes to improve the safety of the cyclist and make it easier for motor vehicles. In some places in Canberra the cycle paths run alongside the roads, without lots of twists and turn, for short stretches – alongside the Mint is a good example – but then they branch off and wander through the adjacent suburbs. For the on-raod paths to be even mildly useful for your average Tuggers to Civic cyclist commuter, they need to be on the road the whole way, not jumping off onto an existing bike track that doesn’t maintain a straight line or gradient and infested with prams, joggers and the like.

Finally, Jube: remove bicycle seat, sit, spin.

Yes, Bonfire, but I’d prefer it if they firstly got the people who drop cigarette butts and then claim the butts are no different to leaf litter.

i wonder if i can subcontract these hooligans to only attack cyclists not using lights and cyclists on recumbent bikes.

JD, thnks for the comment! I can tell how many brain cells you currently have a tenuous hold on by the first sentence of your post. As a business owner who spendes 15+ hours a day on the road, I am sick to death of seeing cycle lanes running parralel to cycle paths on major roads (infrastructure cost directly related to cyclists and their lobby groups), still at a loss to understand the need for said lanes with the most extensive cycleways of any city in the country and specifically targetting cyclists as the vast majority have zero respect for other road users and an inadequate grasp of the road rules (if any at all). I agree that cycles have a lower social cost – no argument – but again, how much is enough? Road money would be better spent on duplicating major arterials to lessen traffic snarls than direct duplication, would you not agree?

OYM, I also agree with you – no-one deserves to be attacked by thugs in any line of work or pleasure activity, yet attacks on drivers in my line of work go along weekly without guvmint money being appropriated for them either. I wasn’t attacking this point, more the suggestion of millions being spent on what is nearing the point of flogging a dead horse.

I’d prefer to counter Jube’s comments with rational arguments rather than insults, but I agree with your sentiment JD114.
This issue really has nothing to do with bicycles and cycling discussions and a whole lot to do with thugs attacking people. It’s a fear I had when I I walked home from civic to Braddon after being out. The cycleways/recreation paths or whatever you want to call them are used as much by pedestrians and additional lighting is a worthwhile investment for the safety of everyone.

jube, you’re a deadset loser. An example of the pathetically small-brained wankers that infest this town who by dint of posting idiotic statements only serve to prove that democracy and the right of free speech has its hazards.

Taxes pay for lots of things. The reason motor vehicles have their own taxation regime is because they cost the community so much in all sorts of ways, from infrastructure to health costs and so on. The net cost to the community of the cycle network is quite small in the scheme of things, and some would argue the net benefits outweigh the cost when all factors are taken into account.

But of course you will never research the subject well enough to counter your blind prejudice against bicycles, so I’m wasting my time even writing this tome, because I doubt your three or four working brain cells could collectively galvanise themselves into comprehending anything that doesn’t deserve a label warning of reactionary redneck opinions.

Spend more money on cyclists – gee, there’s a great investment! They demanded cycle lanes so they didn’t have to use the damn bike paths in the first place!

2 solutions spring to mind:

1) Make up their minds which they want – you can’t have your cake and eat it too

or

2) If they want all this public money spent, start paying a fee in relation to use of facilities – we could call it something snappy like….i dunno….REGISTRATION or maybe ROAD TAX.

Gee I wonder if these attacks are in any way correlated with the large amount of public housing in the area?

Just a thought.

I for one would not be buying property in that part of town.