Call for road signs about overtaking cyclists as concern increases over recent deaths

Mike Jensen maybe make all cars hi vis too…..

People don’t see what they don’t look for. I’ve been dressed in full fluoro and lit up like a Christmas tree and STILL get ‘Sorry mate, I didn’t see you.’

Actually, if Bikes rode in the middle of the road, as opposed to in a cycle lane, or “on the left”, they would be more visible and likely safer. Plus, it forces cars to go wider to get around them – so makes sure that is safe to do so, and prevents cars trying to “squeeze” past a cyclist. How about we respect all road users?

Paul Casimir that is a stupid reply- hi vis clothing can go a long way to improving safety

Margaret, that is hardly a stupid reply from Paul. The latest fad colour for motor vehicle owners seems to be bitumen, or black as night. Hardly the high visibility you are calling for. Much accident research has shown that high vis clothing has had little to do with why cyclists are getting hit by motor vehicles. Here is just one report. https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/making-high-vis-compulsory-reduce-number-crashes-study-finds-374898

Margaret Freemantle maybe it is – on work sites where people are expecting it and are looking out for it.

But the actual evidence from the actual studies on this in an application on roads for cyclists is, to be charitable, mixed.

But if you want to hold onto your biased evidence-free proposition, knock yourself out and remember to paint your car dayglo yellow.

Or everyone could just follow south east Asia. No road rules. Every person for themselves. Max speeds of 40kmh. Of course when cyclists and scooters get run down for cutting off cars they don’t get upset, they pick their ride up and go on their way. Not a bad option! No more one sided studies, no more complaints.

Oh yeah, pedestrians are in the mix too, let’s not forget about pedestrians.

Adam Meadows these rules are in place and have been for a few years now…

I understand that Paul but they have yet to work safely. Not to mention the aggression on both sides I have witnessed them produce.

Adam Meadows I’ve yet to see them produce aggression. What have you seen?

My experience is that most motorists at least try, and I expect this to increase as the law bends down.

Well you really need to change lanes (when that is possible) to give most cyclists a safe berth and the size of the cycling group doesn’t seem to affect the scenario greatly. Around 18 months ago I saw a group of 30+ cyclists take over the southbound lane of Lady Denman Dr. going across Scrivener Dam. A line of cars had formed behind, honking and the back line of the cycling group were all giving them the finger.
Conversely, I came up to the Springvale Dr. roundabout on Coulter Dr. Heading to Belconnen at 7am to find a lady cyclist gathering a shoe and limping off the road, her male partner following with her bike as she had just lost a ‘right of way’ argument with an idiot running late for work.
These accounts and others like them are just the stories of people in potentially conflicting situations refusing to consider the needs of others in the same space. Sadly it has no easy solution.

Adam Meadows I doubt that either of those confrontations can be attributed to the mpd laws. That’s just garden variety car/bike confrontation that’s been going on for as long as I can recall.

The issue isn’t space, I think, it’s impatience.

We shall just have to disagree Paul. Those scenarios were the results of vehicles with extremely different characteristics being told to share the same space, the results of which are too often fuelled by impatience, lack of consideration and the societal Snowflake Syndrome.

Adam Meadows so why do these same scenarios in many European countries cause no anger or impatience?
Could it be to do with the Australian toxic culture of road entitlement by motorists?

Adam Meadows there are bad road users in all groups, but safe passing laws are common in America and Europe as well, and when implemented, they save lives, which in sure we are all for.

Stuart, just to clarify – my contention is not with the creation of the rule but how impossible it is to monitor and enforce satisfactorily. It is not with the principle of cycles and cars sharing the roads (where no paths exist), it is with the amount of space it has to act out within.
This is a politician’s rule; it is unarguable without sounding profoundly anti-social, it has automatic mass appeal as the likes in this thread demonstrate nicely, it will be impossible for authorities to uphold competently and will ultimately be honoured far more in the breach than the observance.
This is obviously a minority opinion but it is mine until I am swayed away from it.

Steve Juicey thanks, but no thanks.

Steve Juicey, how about you acquaint yourself with road rule 15(b).

Transport planners are trying to do the opposite, get cars of our urban roads.

Again bikes should NOT be on the road with motor vehicles

Garrin Ross well if you think bikes are a vehicle then pay rego like everyone else

Steve .. you need some light and love in your life. Come and feel the joy of riding around freely, using just body power. You might become a convert!

Ah well, your loss! 🙂

Steve Juicey if you think a bicycle is a motor vehicle that requires motor vehicle registration then you clearly fit into the bottom 2.1 percenters.

Several reasons. One is that the path might not be “perfectly good” or safer and certainly not faster. They are unlit with poor camber and are not regularly cleared of obstacles.

Ok, but are they less safe that the road, when you have the very real possibility of being hit by a car or truck? Gravel rash versus death or serious injury? That’s what I don’t get.
Speed – leave earlier.
IF the paths were clear and in better condition, do you think they would be used more often?

Jackie White often the path doesn’t lead to where I want to go and the road does ; or it is difficult and time consuming getting on and off the path / it takes a circuitous route; paths are not necessarily in good condition. Usually it’s the fact that the road is often faster. The onroad lanes are usually good, there’s plenty of room, and I assume people will drive properly and carefully.

Thanks for the explanation 🙂

Also Jackie .. paths will often cross myriad driveways or road crossings where the rider is faced with motor vehicle cross traffic. It can be very tedious and dangerous at times.

(shared) paths will also often include people walking w headphones, people cycling at a leisurely pace, kids on bikes, dogs etc – road cyclists might average 25-30km/hr so it’s safer for them to be on the shoulder of the road than to possibly also risk having an accident on a shared bike path

Shared paths also tend to leave you crossing roads regularly, perpendicular to the traffic flow, or trying to rejoin the traffic flow. They’re high risk spots for accidents. It’s often safer to move with the traffic, which tends to be predictable.

Eliza Zekalo I’m the person ‘cycling at a leisurely pace” !

Matt Turtles Cyclists on roads don’t bother me too much, (unless they are driving in pairs instead of single file or ignoring road rules etc) but this comment doesn’t make much sense to me. Unless you are a bird, everyone has to take a “circuitous route” no matter what transport you are in. You can’t fly straight to the MCG, you have to land at the airport, then make your way on other modes. You could take a helicopter to the shops, but I guess you need a helipad… Cars use the road even though it is not direct to where I want to go (tears me apart taking a few extra minutes to drive around Mt Taylor instead of being able to drive straight through it, or not being able to drive right across the ovals to the shops). So this argument doesn’t carry much weight…

Jackie White if you ride a good road bike at 30-40+ km/h then you’ll quickly work out why road bike cyclists ride on the roads and rarely ride on paths.

Garrin Ross I’m much too old and slow with gumby legs to ever do that!

Garrin Ross Actually, hypothetical question which no one has answered:

IF cycle paths were of good quality, and followed main roads (which many do, eg from Fyshwick to Qbn), would those with ‘good road bikes at 30-40 kmph’ use them?

Jackie White there is a cycle path in Brisbane into the city, good quality, separated from pedestrians, had 1.25 million recorded users last year, that is around 4,000 a day. That is not hypothetical, that is a fact.

Stuart Brogan So basically the ACT gov needs to lift it’s game re cycle paths, so more use them.

Jackie White ACT was always put forward as a city with good cycling facilities over the years, but I have not spent much time there, so cannot comment.
I had a photo somewhere of a cycle path, was taken with a telephoto, and was just a continuous row of signs telling cyclists to dismount. Sometimes the engineers that design them have no idea, but things are slowly changing.

Stuart Brogan I recall back in the 80s when cycle paths were first being built (may have been earlier, but that’s my first recollection) – they were held up as being terrific. I didn’t ride much, if at all, then, due to having 3 small kids.

So I’m wondering if cycle paths have deteriorated over the years, or if people just prefer roads, or both? Sounds like both by many of the above comments.

I do know that the cycle path between Fyshwick and Qbn appears to be in very good condition, as do many others near main roads. Not sure about ones that are less obvious…

Jackie White road bike cyclists usually ride 50-100+ km in any ride, so building bike paths to facilitate this would be cost prohibitive.

A far better solution is implementing Presumed Liability Law, as this has proven to be very effective in many European countries.

If they’re no good then let’s get rid of them

I agree…..it could also stop random crazy cyclists having a few drinks and driving home…also reduce hit and run accidents! 😉

I was walking at that point lol

David Todd so…by your logic, pedestrians can’t cross roads either as they are unregistered.

People don’t ask to be treated like vehicles you dunce. Cyclists do

David Todd in fact we’re just asking that you stop running into us. Is that too much for you?

If that’s all you want, then don’t ride on the road.

No one tries to hit cyclists

David Todd you obviously have difficulty understanding the difference between a motor vehicle and a bicycle.
How on earth is bicycle registration going to improve safety for cyclists? Most cyclist deaths are cause by motorists hitting them from behind. How is a number plate going to stop that?

That seems like a good reason to not ride on the road

David Todd it’s been well proven that the physical and mental health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by over 20 to 1.
That seems like a good reason to ride on the roads.

The physical and mental health benefits would be just as beneficial if you were riding on paths instead of the road.

You’re taking an unnecessary risk that you know could kill you.

You knowingly risk your life because it’s mildly easier on your legs.

Really think about it

David Todd In most places, what paths? Just learn to share and be a more accepting person, and drive with consideration for others, and as if not only you count. Learn to accept there are other people out there. In other words, be a nicer person than you are displaying here.

Craig Rogerson charles darwins theory at work again.good for population control.

It’s only high risk due to the <1% of motorists who lack the competency, caution, patience, temperament and attentiveness to drive safely around cyclists.

I do love your ownership of the road! 🙂

Garrin Ross maybe in some cases Garrin, but I have had a few occasions where I have been cautious, patient, was in a good mood. And the cyclist has lost control of his/her bike and came swinging out in front of me. I have also seen situations where cyclists have not been aware of their surroundings riding straight into the middle of the road and not signally . I think it’s extremely dangerous that bikes are even considered to be allowed on the roads! A bike and a car/truck are very different! One is simply more powerful then the other, they cannot hold the same amount of speed. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t a safe driver apiding by the speed limit, even at 40km/hr is probably going to be traveling at a speed greater than most bike riders. Another thought I have what’s wrong with the perfectly good path on the side of the road ? Wasn’t made to look pretty !

Hayley Genevieve I’ve never encountered a situation where cyclists have caused me issues when driving. Maybe I’m just a driver that’s more aware of cyclists, more cautious, patient and attentive.

Speed is irrelevant and bike paths are not suitable for road bikes. Ride a road bike and you’ll understand.

More cyclists should mean less cars on the road

Hayley Genevieve As a driver I have never experienced this. Sure you are not hallucinating.

Driving a motor vehicle safely around cyclists is one of the easiest things a motorist will ever encounter. If you struggle with it then how on earth do you manage to merge into oncoming traffic or reverse parallel park? If your driving temperament and/or competencies are that bad then get some driving lessons or surrender your license.

Garrin Ross totally different scenarios. If you can’t see that then you should get off your bike.

Rick Reeks of you can’t see a cyclist and drive safely around them then you should never drive a motor vehicle.

Rick Reeks I’ve never seen a road that was unsuitable or dangerous for a cyclist. It’s only when you add cars that things become risky. Perhaps that suggests the solution.

Paul Casimir I think you have it back to front. Roads were built for cars and I know which one comes off second best when they collide.

Garrin Ross also I don’t think I’ll try merging into oncoming traffic, I’ll leave that to you to do on your bike.

Rick Reeks I know who comes off second best too. That’s because it’s cars that are dangerous, not roads. I’ve never collided with a road.

The obvious solution is to remove drivers who can’t or won’t drive safely and legally. That would make it better for everyone.

Rick Reeks because they usually are to blame.
The Australian Automobile Association study undertaken by Adelaide University showed motorists are responsible for 80% of accidents between them and cyclists. It is very clear what is the danger on our roads.

Paul Casimir the problem is they continue to drive, unregistered and unlicensed.

Rick Reeks there is another option, use your brake, slow down. If you do not understand this concept, you should not be on the road.

Rick Reeks merging into oncoming traffic travelling in the same direction as you, as you enter a major road. If your driving competencies are that bad then please surrender your license for your safety and everyone else.

Michael Barnes when you say
“they are putting their and other road users lives…at risk”, who is at risk, bar the cyclist, when a cyclist rides on a road you have deemed unsafe for them?

Damien Kell when you swerve out to avoid hitting them and head on another car killing or injuring those in both cars

So, rather than observe and slow down .. you’ll race to overtake and kill everyone. Fantastic driving skills! 👍

John Wilson can’t observe a cyclist when they ride on roads with no shoulders, that are 100km/h, and have blind corners and rises. They’re good at that, and claim we as drivers should ‘drive to the conditions’. Sorry, if we’re doing the posted speed limit, we are doing that.

not sure if hitting a blind corner at 100km/h is driving to the conditions

Andrew Morrison if it’s a 100km hour zone it is mate there are plenty of peaks and blind corners in 100 zones

Generally something like this in front of it

Andrew Morrison not always. This is where common sense should prevail, not a sense of entitlement.

Jenna Vdv correct, that’s where I said generally. Also correct that common sense should prevail and slow down a little on a blind corner. Not sure why people’s entitlement to drive bears a greater importance over someone’s life.

You’re entitlement to drive is the same as ride but you keep saying the cars need common sense not the bikes? I’m saying we actually both do and we should review which roads should not be ridden on and promote awareness and enforce it!

Michael Barnes if you cannot stop within your sightlines then you are overdriving.
Plain, simple and accurate!

Michael Barnes It’s the drivers that lack the required competence, caution, patience, temperament and attentiveness that are dangerous on our roads, not the cyclists.

Only if the motorists is driving unsafely, which is the main problem.
The Australian Automobile Association study undertaken by Adelaide University showed motorists are responsible for 80% of accidents between them and cyclists. It is very clear what is the danger on our roads.

Jenna Vdv posted speed is not a target, it is the limit, drive to the conditions, learn the road rules.

Ha .. the ol rego for cyclists gem! 🙄

Yeah John, people keep bringing it up because there’s no valid argument against it

There are plenty of arguments against requiring rego and they are easily found if you google for them. But I suspect you won’t be swayed by the most persuasive of them. I’ve engaged in this argument it seems like for ever, so I’ll stop here!

😂 The old “Google it, I don’t have time, you wouldn’t accept it anyway” excuse when you can’t form a valid argument.

David Todd Just because people don’t a. listen to, or b. understand and argument, doesn’t make it not valid #antivaxers

Then instead of avoiding the question, you could try answering it.

Unless you’re scared to have a logical debate about it…like an anti-vaxxer 😉

David Todd Motor Vehicle Registration is merely a contribution towards the damage vehicles do to roads, that’s why it’s levied at a rate around $25-$30 per 100 kg of vehicle class average tare weight in ACT. Bicycles do zero damage to roads so bicycle registration is correctly zero.

However, if bicycle registration was levied at the same rate as motor vehicles it would cost no more than $3.00 per year and you’d pay more just to help pay for the huge administration costs of such a stupid revenue negative system.

No other country, state or jurisdiction anywhere in the world has bicycle registration per motor vehicle registration, and all that have tried it in the past ended up repealing it because it simply didn’t work and was very revenue negative.

I try to learn from history and logic, but those who call for bicycle registration seem to learn from neither.

PS: Here is the latest report to an Australian state government on the topic for your education.
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2014/07/03/5566906/regofour.pdf?rand=1404379610781

If car rego is just about vehicle damage to roads then why do cars need identifying number plates?

David Todd

Lynne Staunton because they are lethal weapons that must be roadworthy and must have CTP insurance to be legally operated on public roads by a licensed driver.

Authorities also need a way of identifying that a motor vehicle has current registration payment.

I feel like I’m spoon feeding people like you.

Sorry, so basically the argument is “no one else does it”.

Really? Driving registration started somewhere. I’m sure it wasn’t perfect right off the bat.

Cyclists ask to be treated like any other vehicle.

Every other vehicle needs to be registered to ensure that it’s road worthy and so it can be easily identified when an incident takes place.

Cyclists want it both ways. They want the perks that come with operating a vehicle, but squeal when people want them to take the same responsibilities.

Fact.

David Todd which part of “Motor Vehicle Registration” don’t you understand?

BTW, non-motorised vehicles do not require motor vehicle registration. Acquaint yourself with road rule 15.

When cyclists pose anything more than a negligible risk to endangering other road users and damaging roads, then you can start calling for bicycle registration.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758/full

David Todd if you want a detailed explanation try reading the 2013 report of the Queensland Parliament Transport committee when it considered this issue at length. You’ll find their conclusions at page 105.

Except it’s based on a presumption that cyclists don’t pay any form of road tax. Which might be true if it wasn’t for the fact that most cyclists are also vehicle owners.

Sue Ellen I have numerous vehicles and can only drive one at a time so should I only have to pay one rego

Steven Arranz Motor Vehicle Registration is merely a contribution towards the damage vehicles do to roads, that’s why it’s levied at a rate around $25-$30 per 100 kg of vehicle class average tare weight in ACT. Bicycles do zero damage to roads so bicycle registration is correctly zero.

However, if bicycle registration was levied at the same rate as motor vehicles it would cost no more than $3.00 per year and you’d pay more just to help pay for the huge administration costs of such a stupid revenue negative system.

No other country, state or jurisdiction anywhere in the world has bicycle registration per motor vehicle registration, and all that have tried it in the past ended up repealing it because it simply didn’t work and was very revenue negative.

I try to learn from history and logic, but those who call for bicycle registration seem to learn from neither.

PS: Here is the latest report to an Australian state government on the topic for your education.
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2014/07/03/5566906/regofour.pdf?rand=1404379610781

Qld Govt 2013 Cycling Inquiry. Section 7.3 states:

The Committee has examined the various arguments put in submissions and at public hearings regarding the impacts and benefits of bicycle registration and understands that this issue causes a considerable amount of tension between motorists and cyclists in Queensland.

The Committee notes the claim made that because cyclists do not pay bicycle registration they are not contributing to the cost of road or cycling infrastructure.

However, the Committee does not accept this argument based on the following facts:

– more than 80% of cyclists pay car registration and are not driving their car when they are riding thereby reducing the impact of motor vehicles on the road infrastructure
– council rates and federal taxes (such as the GST) are the main source of road revenue and cyclists pay rates and GST along with other road users
– cyclists save the community $0.60 for each kilometre they ride instead of drive.

The Committee acknowledges the concern that it is difficult to hold cyclists accountable for their actions if they breach the road rules as there is no way of identifying them unless they are “caught in the act”. However, the Committee is of the view that the significant negative consequences of
introducing a registration scheme far outweigh the limited benefits of such a scheme.

The Committee is therefore recommending against the registration of bicycles, or the licensing of cyclists, in Queensland on the basis that:

– the registration or license fee is likely to be a disincentive to cycling with all the associated health and environmental benefits
– there is little evidence that registration would improve road safety
– it would not be cost efficient due to the administrative resources required
– most adult cyclists also own a car and pay registration and regardless, most road funding comes from council rates and federal taxes

http://www.qisu.org.au/ModCoreFrontEnd/upload/rp-39-29Nov13.pdf

David Todd 98% of facts on the internet are made up on the spot. 😀👍

Garrin Ross cars need to brake and manoeuvre to avoid cyclists thus creating extra wear on the road and I’m not exactly sure how rego is worked out but I have a 280 kg motorcycle and pay well over $90 rego

It funny bike rego. In Hawaii all their bikes are registered and when I asked the local copper about it he said they can trace the owner if the bike was stolen and since bike rego was induced bike theif is down to maybe one bike a year and because they pay rego you are fully insured and it cost 10 dollars a year. You also don’t see cyclists running red lights over there and they are a lot more user friendly.

Colin Mitchell conflating the two things is a little mischievous of you. Their registration scheme does allow ownership tracking – and there are lots of ways to do that – but implying that a small sticker on a frame stops people from running red lights may be over egging your argument…

http://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/dts/bike_imgs/registration.jpg

Sue Ellen so if i have more than one vehicle trailers etc i just pay once?

Steven Arranz you’re partly correct, you have absolutely NFI how rego is calculated. Motorbikes have an average vehicle class weight around 250 kg.

In ACT your overall bill will consist of:
a) Road Rescue $26.90
b) Road Safety Contribution $2.50
c) Lifetime Care & Support Levy $36.60
d) CTP Insurance Regulator Levy $1.00
e) Registration $83.00 + Admin Fee $46.60
f) CTP Insurance NRMA $493.60

So your $83.00 registration is actually levied at $33.20 per 100kg for a nominal 250kg motorbike. Cars are levied at a slightly lower rate.

Steven Arranz road wear due to cars braking and manoeuvring around cyclists is an infinitesimally small percentage of the overall damage done to roads.

You seem to have a total lack of perspective.

Colin Mitchell it’s funny that you can’t even get the facts correct. Bicycle registration in Honolulu is a once of fee of $15 for the life of a bicycle and a $5 fee for ownership transfer.
http://www.honolulu.gov/bicycle/bicycleeducation/bicycle-registration.html

Lexie Donald no, you only have to pay motor vehicle registration, CTP insurance, etc for every motor vehicle and every extension to a motor vehicle that you own.

You, like everyone else, can choose to own a non-motorised vehicle and be exempt from motor vehicle registration and associated fees for that vehicle.

Pretty simple hey?

You know that rego does not pay for roads, and that rego for bikes is unfeasible, will cost the community millions. Sort of why rego is not s thing throughout the world, it is not smart.

Colin Mitchell you say cyclists don’t run red lights in Hawaii, cash you back that up with a study, any links, our is that something you just make up. I’m bet they do, just like they do everywhere, at basically the same rate as motorists, and this is backed up by a major study in Florida.
We know motorists who pay rego, with clearly identifiable motor vehicles, continue to run red lights, so I think you make this stuff up.

Lynne Staunton because the people that drive them kill 1,200 and injure thousands a year, cyclists kill abbot 0.2 a year and injure very few, usually only themselves.

Garrin Ross so therefore cycle rego should be slightly less because of their weight

Garrin Ross I have perspective it just isn’t the same as yours

Steven Arranz if bicycle registration was levied at the same rate as motor vehicles it would cost no more than $3.00 per year and you’d pay more just to help pay for the admin costs of such a stupid revenue negative system.

Smart people understand this.

Steven Arranz that’s OK, don’t feel bad, half the population is below average intelligence.

Steven Arranz insurance a lot less too because cyclists don’t kill people like motorists do.

Garrin Ross I refer you back to your previous msg with all the fees that you mentioned. Fees all road users should share. Rego is also about accountability

Steven Arranz when cyclists pose more than a negligible risk to causing serious injury or death to other road users then you can call for bicycle number plates.

Cyclists can only endanger pedestrians and cyclists. However, pedestrians cause over 100 times more carnage to pedestrians than cyclists do so there’s a much stronger case to have accountability for pedestrians than cyclists.

https://amp.smh.com.au/national/90-killed-in-single-punch-assaults-since-2000-20131201-2yjtr.html