Cyclists are not people!

Jethro said :

astrojax said :

Jethro said :

However, cyclists who ride on main roads as opposed to bike paths probably should have some form of license to do so. Surely it is reasonable to expect a road user to be licensed in their class of vehicle?

maybe, but ‘pedestrians’? ‘skateboarders’? where does one draw the line?

I don’t see too many pedestrians or skate-boarders fully immersing themselves in traffic like cyclists can.

To use an example of some of my local roads. Imagine a cyclist cycling down the left hand lane of Belconnen Way, navigating their way into the far right turning lane to get onto Coulter Drive and then turning right at the round-about onto Springvale Drive. A cyclist with a driver’s license would know the specific rules governing their actions in this situation, but should be trained and tested on their ability to safely do this on a pushbike.

To be able to ride on the roads like this requires a strong ability to read the traffic, know when to go, how to signal your intentions, exactly where to go when you are changing lanes, turning right at a busy roundabout, etc. It should be something that is tested.

And I am a cyclist, so this isn’t some anti-cyclist rant. But I stick to the bike-paths and occasional on road cycle lanes. I just feel there is a vast difference between this type of cycling and full-immersion in the traffic cycling. If you are going to be fully in traffic, it is reasonable that you receive proper training and testing on how to do this safely and legally. I see plenty of cyclists riding in traffic who really do not know how to safely do something like the traffic manoeuvre I described above.

I regularly ride to work, the last bit is up Commonwealth ave & Vernon Circle. I need to turn right shortly after coming onto Northourne so I do it with the traffic. I always try to wait until there is a break in the traffic as I do this but it is not always possible. Most people are good as long as you give them plenty of notice and I am usually on & off within 100m.

But as with everything there is always the odd driver who hit there brakes & carry on even though I have waited & clearly signalled. It is as if I have not signalled to them & they seem surprised. Its really not much different to driving though, most people are pretty good, just the minority that suck.

Riders need to do this manouver with so much more caution its not funny.

It really is not us or them, its just people, the behavoir is the same no matter what form of transport they are on.

KB1971 said :

astrojax said :

reviving an old thread to not have to create a new one – interesting article, but not nec worthy of its own post: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bicycles-are-not-the-problem–theyre-the-answer-20120211-1syct.html

I didagree with him on one point, Canberra is a far better city to ride around than Melbourne….. 🙂

Bloody typo, disagree……..

kambahkrawler said :

when on the road is too slow therefore not a vehicle therefore should get off it (ie mingle with the pedestrians, and not be allowed across pedestrian crossings unless we dismount),
[/quote>

ummm – dismounting to cross a pedestrian crossing is actually a good idea – even if all cyclists seem to think not – the closest I’ve come to wiping out a “pedestrian cyclist” is turning left from Barry Dr onto Northbourne…look left – no one around, look right – no cars coming, turn left…oops there’s now a cyclist crossing the crossing!!

Pommy bastard said :

I prefer the term “target” to “cyclist”, don’t you?

Ah! Maybe that’s why they wear the motley!

astrojax said :

Jethro said :

However, cyclists who ride on main roads as opposed to bike paths probably should have some form of license to do so. Surely it is reasonable to expect a road user to be licensed in their class of vehicle?

maybe, but ‘pedestrians’? ‘skateboarders’? where does one draw the line?

I don’t see too many pedestrians or skate-boarders fully immersing themselves in traffic like cyclists can.

To use an example of some of my local roads. Imagine a cyclist cycling down the left hand lane of Belconnen Way, navigating their way into the far right turning lane to get onto Coulter Drive and then turning right at the round-about onto Springvale Drive. A cyclist with a driver’s license would know the specific rules governing their actions in this situation, but should be trained and tested on their ability to safely do this on a pushbike.

To be able to ride on the roads like this requires a strong ability to read the traffic, know when to go, how to signal your intentions, exactly where to go when you are changing lanes, turning right at a busy roundabout, etc. It should be something that is tested.

And I am a cyclist, so this isn’t some anti-cyclist rant. But I stick to the bike-paths and occasional on road cycle lanes. I just feel there is a vast difference between this type of cycling and full-immersion in the traffic cycling. If you are going to be fully in traffic, it is reasonable that you receive proper training and testing on how to do this safely and legally. I see plenty of cyclists riding in traffic who really do not know how to safely do something like the traffic manoeuvre I described above.

astrojax said :

reviving an old thread to not have to create a new one – interesting article, but not nec worthy of its own post: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bicycles-are-not-the-problem–theyre-the-answer-20120211-1syct.html

I didagree with him on one point, Canberra is a far better city to ride around than Melbourne….. 🙂

Jethro said :

However, cyclists who ride on main roads as opposed to bike paths probably should have some form of license to do so. Surely it is reasonable to expect a road user to be licensed in their class of vehicle?

maybe, but ‘pedestrians’? ‘skateboarders’? where does one draw the line?

astrojax said :

reviving an old thread to not have to create a new one – interesting article, but not nec worthy of its own post: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bicycles-are-not-the-problem–theyre-the-answer-20120211-1syct.html

Agree with the general argument against registration of bikes in general.

However, cyclists who ride on main roads as opposed to bike paths probably should have some form of license to do so. Surely it is reasonable to expect a road user to be licensed in their class of vehicle?

reviving an old thread to not have to create a new one – interesting article, but not nec worthy of its own post: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bicycles-are-not-the-problem–theyre-the-answer-20120211-1syct.html

C’mon SGT.BUNGERS there is nothing exclusive about the wording of this sign. If I say ‘whingers annoy people’ that doesn’t mean whingers are not people- you are, you just annoy the rest of us!

does it mean i should wear lycra as i drive a naturally aspirated form of wheeled transport…… 1977 toyota landcruiser ??????

and when will pedal pushers learn that its the law to dismount when using Pedestrian crossings !!!!!!

happy days …….

Re the OP ‘ Cyclists are not people’ . They are people who are pscyclists!

‘Douche’? Come on Dawg, using that watered-down (I’m so funny) Americanism just reflects badly on the user. There are plenty of colourful nouns out there; even boring ones like ‘wanker’ or ‘moron’ are preferable to ‘douche’.

As for admitting to being a bit of a ‘douche’, sorry to disappoint. I’m not the one wanting to dictate to other people where they can and can’t travel, contrary to any legal blessings. I will admit that, having found reason to be ineffective in the past, I now derive a satisfying pleasure from rubbing the noses of a few bigoted drivers in reality, and reminding them that their life on the road is only going to get more expensive and inconvenient. It’s totally self-indulgent so you’ll have to forgive me for that.

And if a cyclist wants to do something illegal and winds up underneath a car, there are enough crocodile tears here without me contributing.

Jim Jones said :

So we have countless reported incidences of drivers threatening to kill cyclists in their paroxysms of self-righteous internet rage, but it’s your considered belief that cyclists are ‘extremists’.

I suspect that many drivers get angry because when they have a ‘close shave’ involving a cyclist, they are aware of just how close they came to injuring or killing another person, regardless of who was in the wrong. And that can be quite confronting, and leads to strong feelings that can manifest themselves in a variety of ways.

I know there have been a couple of times when I’ve had to take evasive action to avoid a cyclist who did something silly, and knowing how close I came to potentially killing someone took my breath away.

Relax guy.

Jim Jones said :

That statement is perhaps the silliest thing ever written on this forum …

Ah yes, of course it would be, because I disagree with your opinion I must be wrong. And because you fail to see some forms of extreme behaviour, you believe it doesn’t exist. I think you are letting your bias on this issue clouding your opinion.

Postalgeek said :

Geez Dawg, nothing wrong with riding a scooter. More people should do it. But you’ll have to explain to me why you said “me riding a motorcycle/scooter” if you’d never be seen dead on a scooter.

Because I wanted to keep you on your toes! Good spot!

But seriously, I am of the opinion that scooters are very dangerous vehicles, something which is for an entirely different debate (if you really want to get in to it, make a new post about scooters).

Postalgeek said :

And thanks for proving it’s the drivers who are the extremists behind the keyboards. Very entertaining to see you demanding cyclists either stay on the road, or stay on the paths. What if the path is dissected by a road. Oh noes!

Ah yes, once again the bias issue. You and Jim Jones would get along well. As far as “road dissecting a path”, well are you saying that cyclists are unable to use common sense? Or just admitting that you’re being a bit of a douche about this whole issue? Which one is it, geek?

Postalgeek said :

And again with the focus on the lycra? Is it some repressed self-loathing sexual thing?

Just a quick and easy way to stereotype about cyclists. No neo-Freudian explanation on my end, although perhaps your automatic link between lyrca and sexual imagery is the true disturbing factor.

Sorry to disappoint you.

buzz819 said :

You know, I can’t remember the last time a cyclist cut me off while I was driving?

I can, last week. Was in an 80km/h zone doing between 70 and 80, approaching a roundabout a few hundred meters off. I was in the right lane as I was turning right at the roundabout. Cyclist was in a cycle lane (or on the shoulder) on the left. As I was setting up to brake, cyclist shoots across two lanes and cuts me off, lucky I could brake quickly otherwise there might be one less cyclist on the roads (which, despite what geek probably assumes I think, would be a tragedy). Car behind me obviously wasn’t paying attention, so nearly rear-ended me. Cyclist did not notice anything, I drove around them and continued, I think the car behind me gave them an earful though.

Honestly, putting aside any other thoughts about cyclists, that was a bloody stupid move for him to make. A simple headcheck by the cyclist would have prevented this from happening.

You know, I can’t remember the last time a cyclist cut me off while I was driving? Yeah, some times they stop at a set of lights, cross the crossing then keep going. I catch up to them about 20 seconds afterwards because the lights change, who cares, it doesn’t impede my driving?

The amount of drivers that cut people off, pull out without looking, change lanes when ever for no reason, drive 10km’s under the speed limit, can’t go around a slight bend without stopping… the list goes on it is astronomical.

Concentrate on driving properly, concentrate on following the rules and just realise you don’t have to be in front of everyone at form one lanes…

J Dawg said :

more often than not on riotact it’s the cyclists who are the extremists behind the keyboards and wouldn’t front up in real life.

Yeah, that’s why we hear so many posts from drivers stating that it’s their right to run over cyclists if they refuse to dismount for pedestrian crossings, and the similar posts from drivers referring to cyclists as ‘speed humps’ or ‘crunchies’, whereas the cyclists … mmmm … well nothing – hang on, I think that some cyclists have advocated ignoring road rules when it they considered it safe to do so.

So we have countless reported incidences of drivers threatening to kill cyclists in their paroxysms of self-righteous internet rage, but it’s your considered belief that cyclists are ‘extremists’.

That statement is perhaps the silliest thing ever written on this forum … apart from maybe that one time that some dude equated gay marriage with beastiality.

Geez Dawg, nothing wrong with riding a scooter. More people should do it. But you’ll have to explain to me why you said “me riding a motorcycle/scooter” if you’d never be seen dead on a scooter.

And thanks for proving it’s the drivers who are the extremists behind the keyboards. Very entertaining to see you demanding cyclists either stay on the road, or stay on the paths. What if the path is dissected by a road. Oh noes! And equating cyclists going their own way to bogans using heavy V8 vehicles to intimidate was inspired. The thing I find really bizarre is what you have against a cyclist riding across an intersection? Do you mean that a cyclist can only ride on roads that aren’t intersected by other roads? It’s going to be real fun reading your rational arguments.

And again with the focus on the lycra? Is it some repressed self-loathing sexual thing? If cyclists thought lycra looked cool, they’d wear it to the pub. They wear it because it’s practical. The fact that it pisses some people off is an added bonus. In fact, I just want to wear it all day if it has that effect.

Postalgeek said :

Yes they can, and no, it doesn’t, and never will, apply to you and your scooter. AND they don’t have to pay rego! And the government wants to see MORE bikes, not less, being used.

Must drive those who hate cyclists and are resolved never to commute by bicycle absolutely frikking nuts 🙂 Sucks to be you.

Well thats a troll if I’ve ever seen one.

I’ll just quietly ignore the personal attacks (most of all, how DARE you accuse me of riding a scooter!) and assumptions.
If you think that you deserve your cake, those V8-driving bogans who go around intimidating cyclists can have their cake too, they have just as much right to honk their horns and think lycra-clad cyclists are complete tossers as you have to ride across intersections.

vg said :

I love how people get so fired up about cyclists (or ‘crunchies’??) on this site but wouldn’t dare sack up in a face to face confrontation with one

That goes both ways, more often than not on riotact it’s the cyclists who are the extremists behind the keyboards and wouldn’t front up in real life.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Mia80 said :

J Dawg… The act of a cyclist riding up to an intersection on the road, then pops off the road and rides across a green pedestrian light, only go back on the road after the intersection is not just irritating for you, me and most other motorist, it actually illegal.
I have witnessed a cyclist being pulled up by the cops and fined for doing just that, as he had “run a red light”.

I’m calling bull shit here.

He had not ‘run a red light’ if he had transited an adjacent street at an intersection in the manner in which you describe. They were not on the street to run the red light. Worst case scenario he/she/it may be done for riding across a crossing.

I love how people get so fired up about cyclists (or ‘crunchies’??) on this site but wouldn’t dare sack up in a face to face confrontation with one

J Dawg said :

Cyclists can’t have their cake and eat it too, otherwise the same should apply to me riding a motorcycle/scooter.

Yes they can, and no, it doesn’t, and never will, apply to you and your scooter. AND they don’t have to pay rego! And the government wants to see MORE bikes, not less, being used.

Must drive those who hate cyclists and are resolved never to commute by bicycle absolutely frikking nuts 🙂 Sucks to be you.

I can’t think of many instances when it’s safe to do this in a car – mind you, when parking in Sydney and other metropolises, I’ve done my share of curb-mounting to park in weird places. So, yeah, on the odd occasion, why not.

I still can’t see why people get so apoplectic about this, though. ‘Because it’s illegal’ isn’t a very good answer – it’s actually legal for bikes to act as pedestrians in some instances and as vehicles in others.

The problem is that cyclists don’t have a choice between the road and paths, they have a choice between grass or pavement. Most on road lanes don’t go all the way (or connect to paths) and most paths hardly go anywhere before turning into a footpath/road/dirt track/bottomless pit.

Jim Jones said :

Why is it ‘irritating’ that cyclists move between the road and the footpath? If it’s done safely, where’s the harm?

If you’re a cyclist who considers themselves a vehicle, stick to the roads. If you’re a mobile pedestrian, stick to the paths. Cyclists can’t have their cake and eat it too, otherwise the same should apply to me riding a motorcycle/scooter.

Plus, if it is in fact illegal (as Mia80 suggests) then the harm would be breaking the law.

Jim Jones said :

Why is it ‘irritating’ that cyclists move between the road and the footpath? If it’s done safely, where’s the harm?

If that’s the case, why can’t I do the same in my car ‘if it’s done safely’ to avoid traffic congestion or the increasing numbers of suicidal crunchies (cyclists) on the road?

Why is it ‘irritating’ that cyclists move between the road and the footpath? If it’s done safely, where’s the harm?

A lot of misdirected anger seems to go on about this sort of thing. It’s like people getting angry when motorcyclists use bus lanes (which they’re entitled to do). I just don’t understand why. Do you really hate people so much that you feel that should be hindered as much as possible?

Honestly, I have seen very very few cyclists cause accidents (maybe one or two a year), and an absolute stack of accidents caused by cars (at least one a week).

Mia80 said :

J Dawg… The act of a cyclist riding up to an intersection on the road, then pops off the road and rides across a green pedestrian light, only go back on the road after the intersection is not just irritating for you, me and most other motorist, it actually illegal.
I have witnessed a cyclist being pulled up by the cops and fined for doing just that, as he had “run a red light”.

You actually hung around for the entire exchange between the police officer and the cyclist? Are you sure the cyclist wasn’t simply booked for crossing against a red pedestrian signal?

Snarky said :

Mia80 said :

The fact remains very few cylists follow the rules anyway and cause more accidents than they are aware of or are personally involved in.

Got any citations or links for evidence of this? Or are you just mouthing off?

I’d say the source of Mia80’s assertions is a little further south.

Mia80 said :

The fact remains very few cylists follow the rules anyway and cause more accidents than they are aware of or are personally involved in.

Got any citations or links for evidence of this? Or are you just mouthing off?

J Dawg… The act of a cyclist riding up to an intersection on the road, then pops off the road and rides across a green pedestrian light, only go back on the road after the intersection is not just irritating for you, me and most other motorist, it actually illegal.
I have witnessed a cyclist being pulled up by the cops and fined for doing just that, as he had “run a red light”.

The rule is simple, if a cyclist is on the path that’s where they stay until the path runs out. If they are on the road… that’s where they stay until it is necessary to change.

The fact remains very few cylists follow the rules anyway and cause more accidents than they are aware of or are personally involved in. So why should the Gov’t pander to the whims of a minority that aren’t going to listen anyway.
That $$ is much better spent on fugly “art” and having a re-do of the GDE!!!

OP… It’s just a sign… I would hope that there are more pressing issues in your life, than an advisory street sign…

May I suggest this is the whinge of all whinges.

Honestly. It’s a freakin’ sign.

Reply

la mente torbida said :

Dammit! … reading this has made me realise that there’s 3 minutes of my life I’m not getting back.

You’re lucky you got in early, I had to read till post #25 thus consuming a further 3 minutes..

What would one be classed as if one travelled by pogo stick?

Well given that they are putting up a warning sign that would likely be no bigger than an A4 piece of paper with writing that needs to be big enough for people to read, the current wording of the sign would be the most appropriate. I don’t think they can display a full definition of the meaning of the sign on the sign or include every possible thing the cyclist should be watching out for.

On the same subject, there are recently installed signs near the Athllon Dr/ Beasley St intersection and Melrose High/Marist that say “watch for pedestrians”. Would you like them to say something different too! Maybe.. watch for stupid school kids running across the road? or, watch for cyclists riding in the middle of the lane? or, motorists who fail to indicate? Hey we could just put signs everywhere!

Hmmm, I thought the Roads ACT folk got it exactly right, cyclists aren’t people.

J Dawg said :

And it gets a bit annoying when a cyclist rides up to an intersection on the road, then pops off the road and rides across a green pedestrian light, only go back on the road after the intersection!

Other than the question of dismounting and walking vs riding across pedestrian crossings, what’s your issue with this?

James-T-Kirk said :

It gets a bit scary when they decide to “change mode” from Pedestrian to Vehicle without paying attention to traffic flows…..

And it gets a bit annoying when a cyclist rides up to an intersection on the road, then pops off the road and rides across a green pedestrian light, only go back on the road after the intersection!

kambahkrawler said :

The end result is that when we’re on a bike and have laws that bounce us around like a pinball, it gets a bit grating.

Hmmmm I fail to see why this is a problem since the majority of cyclists do not obey the most basic of cycling laws. (see http://the-riotact.com/?p=20210)

James-T-Kirk said :

This problem is simply created by the blithering idiots who believe that they can be pedestrians at one time and vehicles a millisecond later. It gets a bit scary when they decide to “change mode” from Pedestrian to Vehicle without paying attention to traffic flows…..

Sounds like we need some “transformer” sign’s. That might cover the situation for a while

snakeye said :

Podgy middle aged lycra clad people on bikes turn me on.

Me too. Those chicks are so hot.

Podgy middle aged lycra clad people on bikes turn me on.

The big question here is that the original poster complained of not being recognised as a road user.

normally when they are called road users (i.e. vehicle traffic) they jump up an down and say nay. nicely forgetting htat when they run a red light and get hit by a car that it was their fault in the first place. Like when they run into pedestrians and other cars they are at fault. But they dont pay up since they arent insured, etc.

so heres the deal

as the original poster has in black & white demanded to be treated like a normal vehicle user so the answer is a definate:

Licence
Registration
CTPI

or we put on some work for the dole types to go round and cut their spokes

You have posted a definition of Traffic from answers.com.

How about you check up on some actual legislation, see what makes a bike qualify as traffic, because not all do.

Cyclists need signs like that, especially in Canberra, because they think that they are untouchable, and only follow the road rules when it suits them (suddenly switching to pedestrian mode and using the footpaths and vice versa, pushing to the front of the red light queue and then slowing everyone down when it turns green, etc, etc…).

Regrettably, most Canberra drivers also need convoluted signs and visual indicators on how to drive, but hey, it’s better than VIC or QLD!

“The sign suggests that a “cyclist” is none of these?”

Um… no it doesn’t.

“Much like the “Watch For Entering Traffic” signs that can be found on Drake Brokman Drive in Holt. The sign is redundant… road users should always be looking out for other road users or animals that might be entering the road at any stage of their journey, not just when a sign tells them to.”

There you go – maybe you’ve just contradicted yourself. Is the cyclist sign redundant, or is the government discriminating against cars, too, by suggesting they aren’t traffic?

Ahhhhh – the old Cyclists are vehicles question..

This problem is simply created by the blithering idiots who believe that they can be pedestrians at one time and vehicles a millisecond later. It gets a bit scary when they decide to “change mode” from Pedestrian to Vehicle without paying attention to traffic flows…..

Sorry guys…. Pedestrians have their feet on the ground, and are not supported by wheels.

I completely approve of signs targeting cyclists. It is just like the pictures of bikes in the walk/don’t walk signs – Just there to remind them that like the pedestrians – crossing while the light is red may be very very bad…..

BenjaminL said :

Cyclists, like gingers, have no souls.

That’s why I find these Haryy Potter movies unconvincing.

A ginger with two mates? Hardly likely.

Dammit! … reading this has made me realise that there’s 3 minutes of my life I’m not getting back.

OMG, finally one of them has worked it out !!

Sweet Jesus.

I think his point is that when a cyclist rides on the pavement s/he is not a pedestrian so has to get on the road (with the cars),
when on the road is too slow therefore not a vehicle therefore should get off it (ie mingle with the pedestrians, and not be allowed across pedestrian crossings unless we dismount),
when riding in a a national park IS a vehicle and therefore only allowed on roads (with cars) or firetrails (where 4wd’s and moto’s play),
when thinking about riding a mountain bike in a catchment area is also a vehicle and therefore not allowed even on firetrails because of the ‘contamination’ s/he may cause (despite walkers being allowed).

The end result is that when we’re on a bike and have laws that bounce us around like a pinball, it gets a bit grating.

Cyclists, like gingers, have no souls. This sign is really just to single you out and warn other soul containing motorists of your presence. You ARE being targeted for being less than human.

Maybe we need another sign that says:
GINGERS WATCH FOR MERGING TRAFFIC

I read the original post three times, and I’m failing to find a point.
If anyone spots it, and can show it to me, that’d be handy.
Thanks. Cheerio.

“How do you feel?”

I feel like a Toohey’s, I…

a bicycle is a vehicle, ffs.

the sign simply targets a particular sub-set of vehicles – suggest you pop back to primary school for rudimentary maths…

Richo said :

I think he’s right They aren’t.

They are generally inconsiderate people who don’t know the road rules or choose to ignore them because it suits them.

As opposed to car drivers who continue to prove that speed cameras will never pay for themselves, don’t require law enforcement on the road, and never have accidents or require insurance.

I think he’s right They aren’t.

They are generally inconsiderate people who don’t know the road rules or choose to ignore them because it suits them.

I prefer the term “target” to “cyclist”, don’t you?

1. Build a bridge

I think you know what “2.” will be.

What a stupid whinge about nothing.

Umm the exact opposite of you? The sign is there as a warning, it isn’t picking on cyclists, it isn’t doing anything like that.

You are looking at it an totally PC way… OOOHHH IT SAYS CYCLIST IT IS BEING DISCRIMINATORY OOOHH!! IM A BIG GIRLS BLOUSE WHO HAS TO WHINGE BECAUSE I FEEL DIFFERENT!!!

It makes for complacent drivers? No it makes people more aware, they can be driving down see the sign and say, yeah that’s right even though this is pretty muchily a rural road there might be traffic coming out of driveways.

It’s trying to help people, what the road workers and the government do not need, is people getting up in arms over the most stupid inane things that have no real bearing on every day life.

You have no real idea do you Sgt?

is a cyclist not a pedestrian in transit?

how is that different than addressing drivers, and alerting them of potential road hazards?

if nothing else, pedestrian, vehicle or otherwise, I’m sure we can all agree that you’re an abrasive twat just stirring the pot and looking for trouble.

Maybe it’s a lycra thing?