Cyclists are not people!

Sgt.Bungers 2 June 2010 71

That is if you believe the road works sign located at the Flemington Road/Sandford Street intersection in Mitchell:

“CYCLISTS WATCH FOR MERGING TRAFFIC”

The definition of traffic being;

  1. The passage of people or vehicles along routes of transportation.
  2. Vehicles or pedestrians in transit

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

The purpose of this road sign is beyond me. For starters… people on bicycles are part of traffic. Secondly… any road user, regardless of their mode of transport, shouldn’t need a road sign to remind them to watch for merging traffic… that’s just an everyday part of using our road network. Signs like this breed complacent road users.

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.

I’ve digressed… I’m sorry to announce to those who choose to use naturally aspirated forms of wheeled transport… according to Roads ACT, or construction companies contracted by ACT GovCo, when you get on your bike, you are apparently no longer a “people”, your bike is not a “vehicle”, you are not even a lowly “…pedestrian in transit”… you are just a cyclist.

How do you feel?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
71 Responses to Cyclists are not people!
Filter
Order
Postalgeek Postalgeek 7:39 pm 03 Jun 10

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.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 6:38 pm 03 Jun 10

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.

thy_dungeonman thy_dungeonman 5:49 pm 03 Jun 10

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.

J Dawg J Dawg 5:04 pm 03 Jun 10

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.

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 4:43 pm 03 Jun 10

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?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 4:22 pm 03 Jun 10

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).

Thoroughly Smashed Thoroughly Smashed 3:47 pm 03 Jun 10

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?

Postalgeek Postalgeek 3:41 pm 03 Jun 10

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.

Snarky Snarky 2:11 pm 03 Jun 10

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?

Mia80 Mia80 1:08 pm 03 Jun 10

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…

ProudTenant ProudTenant 9:40 am 03 Jun 10

May I suggest this is the whinge of all whinges.

Honestly. It’s a freakin’ sign.

Aeek Aeek 9:14 pm 02 Jun 10
Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 6:50 pm 02 Jun 10

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?

bd84 bd84 6:33 pm 02 Jun 10

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!

TheVirulentOne TheVirulentOne 6:22 pm 02 Jun 10

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

Thoroughly Smashed Thoroughly Smashed 6:05 pm 02 Jun 10

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?

J Dawg J Dawg 5:00 pm 02 Jun 10

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)

hellspice hellspice 4:49 pm 02 Jun 10

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

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 4:48 pm 02 Jun 10

snakeye said :

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

Me too. Those chicks are so hot.

snakeye snakeye 4:40 pm 02 Jun 10

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

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site