Bike group backs Greens move for tougher laws on collisions

+1 +1 +1………

How is it “unhinged” to want to reduce the risks of people dying by removing the risk?

“Roads are for public use”

This is clearly not true. Try walking down the middle of a road and see how you go. Roads are designed to achieve specific transport outcomes, which is why we already place limitations on the types of vehicles that can use them.

“The consequences for some are much greater than others due to the facts of physics.”

Exactly. It is an inherent part of allowing bicycles to use roads, that a significant risk of harm to vulnerable cyclists is created that cannot be removed or adequately controlled.

“This proposal wants to make fines for hurting vulnerable road users slightly less ridiculously unbalanced given the possible physical consequences.”

Which makes no sense to put more onerous conditions on cars for an obvious risk created by allowing those vulnerable users access to the roads in the first place.

“The shared paths are often kilometres longer point to point and can’t be accessed without going on a road at some point, so why should some have to travel further using a slower mode just because some other users are impatient, inattentive or lacking in other road awareness.”

Which is an argument for better separated infrastructure, not more fines. Also LOL at complaining that the shared paths are slower whilst wanting to make the roads slower and less functional for cars.

“Use roads better, get used to the idea that driving a car isn’t some inalienable right that must be never curtailed or involve dealing with other road users.”

The argument isn’t about other road users, it’s about removing vulnerable users who create an inherent and uncontrollable risk by their very presence on the road.

Cars make roads slower for other cars. Get more people out of cars and onto bikes, and the roads will speed up for the remaining drivers; hopefully making the journey quicker and more pleasant for those who need to be there, such as people with physical disabilities, older people, tradespeople going from job to job, etc, because there are less cars.
Yes it would be nice to have separate infrastructure for cars and bikes, but mention that and it’s often the same old, same old wingers who hate people on bikes who will then come in with, waste of money. Actually it appears these same old, same old wingers don’t recognise cyclists as people. People on bikes are ‘THEM’; some sort of enemy, alien creature who must be got rid of. Get them off the road, and don’t give any money for separate bicycle paths…waste of money. These people can’t think beyond their prejudices. Same old, same old….predictable!

Sure you drive on the right side lines from now on then. That they are public doesn’t mean there are no rules for using them.
How is a higher fine more onerous conditions on usage. Watch the video again, how is the cyclist in the wrong here?
If you were interested in looking after vulnerable users then you would be in favour of more 10km/h zones in every town or group centre and for school zones , 30km/h max speed on suburban streets, and maybe max 40km/h on main suburban roads. Alternatively cars have engine powers they can go longer lets make every road in the ACT one way. Monaro highway is south, Tuggerong Parkway is north. Cotter road to east, Parkes way to West. That should keep the more vulnerable drivers safe from each other. No merge lanes, replace with signalled intersections and reduce max main roads to 60 to 70.

The “less vulnerable than me logic” leads to everyone needing a tank to take out the RAM1500 trucks in their way. It makes a great dystopian fantasy, but not such a good city.

“That they are public doesn’t mean there are no rules for using them.”

Exactly my point. That the rules should preclude cyclists from using them because it’s inherently and uncontrollably dangerous leading to certain deaths for little to no overall benefit to the community.

“Watch the video again, how is the cyclist in the wrong here?”

I have watched it numerous times and it is the inevitable result of putting less visible, slower moving vulnerable users on the road.

The driver misjudged the location and speed of the cyclists who were travelling much slower than he was and he made the mistake of trying to overtake before the turn rather than hard braking.

It’s like blaming a worker for killing a colleague through inattention when the company they worked for paid little attention to safety and controlling risks at their workplace. Sure he may be at fault, but so is the company for putting them in that situation.

“If you were interested in looking after vulnerable users then you would be in favour of more 10km/h zones in every town or group centre and for school zones……..”

Why? My entire argument would be about separating the vulnerable users as much as possible. For areas like town centres, this could involve banning cars from certain areas, but in general it’s more advantageous to remove/separate the vulnerable road users. Particularly on higher capacity/usage roads that naturally have higher speed limits because of efficiency reasons.

And your strawman around making roads one way ignores the fact that my argument is primarily around safety and economics. The economic benefit of roads for car traffic is enormous and we shouldnt reduce that functionality so indivuduals can risk their lives in spaces they shouldn’t be allowed to go.

…or get rid of all the cars? (an equally stupid and self-centred idea)

What a dumb argument. I press that the government caused all accidents because they built the road which enabled the accident. – that’s your logic.

Paservank,
Except the economic return on car/road travel is many orders of magnitude higher than that for bicycles.

So it makes perfect sense to prioritise cars, trucks etc. over bicycles.

If you want to make an argument that bicycles have more utility value than cars, then go ahead.

Phwoa,
No it’s not even slightly my argument.

The argument is about risk management.

The benefits of cars and other vehicles on the road are enormous. Road travel is a building block of our economy and should be recognised as such.

The same cannot be said for bicycles on roads, particularly when their presence affects the overall utility of the roads negatively.

Visibility and significantly differing speed of travel is a massive risk factor on roads for accidents. So by allowing bicycles to use the road, the government is deliberately introducing a risk to users for no real overall benefit. And when considering the vulnerability of those road users, it seems willfully negligent to allow them to use the roads without significant amounts of physical separation and infrastructure.