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
KB1971 KB1971 3:36 pm 12 Feb 12

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……..

Vix Vix 3:01 pm 12 Feb 12

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!!

Deref Deref 1:52 pm 12 Feb 12

Pommy bastard said :

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

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

Jethro Jethro 1:39 pm 12 Feb 12

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.

KB1971 KB1971 1:24 pm 12 Feb 12

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….. 🙂

astrojax astrojax 1:02 pm 12 Feb 12

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?

Jethro Jethro 12:43 pm 12 Feb 12

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?

astrojax astrojax 11:17 am 12 Feb 12

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

Potato Potato 10:46 pm 18 Jun 10

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!

shelby64 shelby64 9:41 pm 16 Jun 10

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 …….

tinea tinea 7:01 pm 12 Jun 10

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

Postalgeek Postalgeek 11:43 pm 05 Jun 10

‘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.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 6:45 am 05 Jun 10

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.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 6:21 pm 04 Jun 10

Relax guy.

J Dawg J Dawg 4:20 pm 04 Jun 10

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.

buzz819 buzz819 10:22 am 04 Jun 10

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…

Jim Jones Jim Jones 10:01 am 04 Jun 10

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.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 9:19 am 04 Jun 10

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.

J Dawg J Dawg 11:43 pm 03 Jun 10

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.

vg vg 9:11 pm 03 Jun 10

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

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site