27 April 2009

Cyclists pay to use the road (So why say they don't?)

| Horrid
Join the conversation
118

I want to confront head-on something that usually comes up as a side issue in countless Riot Act threads, especially recently, and has offended my sense of justice and fairness. In any thread remotely related to road transport , sooner or later, someone always posts something that essentially says or implies that “cyclists don’t pay for the use of the roads”.

Yet, as has been explained countless times, 1) very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration fees on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less road space on their bikes, 2) most road building revenue comes from funds other than registration fees anyway, ie taxes paid by cyclists the same as anyone else, and 3) in any case, the benefits that cyclists bestow on the community (health, pollution, congestion, etc) more than outweigh the costs of providing cycle infrastructure.

So my question is not intended to restart the debate about whether cyclists pay to use roads- this is a question of fact, rather than opinion, and has already been answered above- they indisputably DO. Rather, my question is to those that, despite the well known facts above, still choose to make completely false statements to the effect that ‘cyclists don’t pay their way” or similar. Why is this? Is it because you A) have never bothered to find out the facts? Or B) do know the facts but don’t understand them? Or C) you both know and understand the facts but choose to make such statements anyway, knowing they are false?

As a follow up question, if your answer is C) above, then why do you do it? Jealousy? A desire to create ill feeling against a minority? Because you want ALL the road space for yourself, including the part paid for by cyclists? Is it the feeling that says “until ALL cyclists obey the road rules then NONE of them should have any right to be on the road (which you would never apply to yourself or other motorists)?

None of this would matter too much were it not for the fact that such statements incite hatred (as I suspect is the deliberate intention of many of those making them) by falsely portraying cyclists as free-loaders, and thereby giving people an ‘excuse’ to drive less carefully and considerately than they otherwise might. This in turn leads to more dangerous conditions and ultimately deaths and injuries (perhaps something for discussion board editors, as well as posters, to think about?)

I doubt I will get any sensible response, let alone an honest answer, to the above questions from those that make the false accusations that cyclists don’t pay- but if nothing else, it’s worth reminding people that these accusations ARE false, and should be disregarded in any sensible conversation on transport.

Join the conversation

118
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Fishbat said :

Why is this rot in the environment category? Seems to me like political arse grease from pedal power… get it on your bike chain instead.

I think what you might’ve experienced on your chain was Arse Lube… no self-respecting cyclist uses Arse Grease.

Why is this rot in the environment category? Seems to me like political arse grease from pedal power… get it on your bike chain instead.

@Jim Jones

Jim Jones said :

There’s been some retarded comments in this thread, but you’ve really excelled yourself there champ.

Where this post is long dead, I wanted wanted you to know how you’ve excelled youself at looking ignorant, again, “champ”.

I had meant to make the following point shortly after my last comment, but sometimes, I do like to do other things than camp out on RA all the time.

Anyway, if the idea of Third Party Insurance for cyclists is so retarded why is it included with Pedal Power membership?

Well said Jim Jones!

Pegs & Holes. Proportionality. Economies of Scale. Live & Let Live. ex-cet-era.

or to take another perspective…

Would you prefer that all the cyclists on whatever part of the road start using cars instead? “Ooo… it makes me wonder.”
Of course folks will understand this means more traffic, but add to that increased demand for (& so prices/competition for) every bit of car stuff- fuel, parking, booking a service, yadda x3.

So, in a way, cyclists are doing you a bit of a favour, how about a bit of…

Reciprocity.

“What the majority of the comments have had are that bicycles should be as accountable as any other road user, given that they do have potential to do others injury and they DO have potential to damage property, why shouldn’t they be subject to the same rules as ALL other road users?”

Horses for courses. Cyclists have the ‘potential’ to do injury and damage property, but realistically this only happens once in a blue moon (and then it’s usually the case of a cyclist being hit by a car and leaving a dent). Why bother creating an enormous administrative monster, all for little to no result beyond wasting public money and wasting time.

As has been pointed out previously, cyclists are subject to road rules – there is a necessary difference because they are not cars.

The real problem here is the assumption that it’s only ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ for cars to drive on the road, and that anything else is impinging on this ‘normal’ way of doing things and needs to be reduced to this norm as much as possible. You can’t force an apple to be an orange, and I don’t know why anyone would bother.

Horrid said :

Summary:
No-one has raised a serious argument to prove that cyclists don’t pay their way. As already made clear, very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration and insurance on vehicles they then leave at home.

So what??? Everyone who has a vehicle has to purchase rego and insurance for THAT VEHICLE. It doesn’t matter if it’s a daily driver or only driven once a year. As we’ve pointed out numerous times, Rego and Insurance are not transferable between vehicles. I can’t simply register one of my cars and then drive the other because “I’ve already paid my taxes to drive”.

Also I have yet to see one truly anti-bike comment from the “bicycle haters” as you’ve put them. No one here has said that bikes shouldn’t be allowed. What the majority of the comments have had are that bicycles should be as accountable as any other road user, given that they do have potential to do others injury and they DO have potential to damage property, why shouldn’t they be subject to the same rules as ALL other road users?

Now the comment about pedestrians was made as road users. I disagree that they are road users. (Notice how I didn’t call you an idiot for holding a view point I don’t agree with), given except for a few circumstances, pedestrians are simply on the road for the purposes of crossing it. It’s rare that they will walk up the centre of a lane and expect cars to go around them.

Finally I’m in no way jealous of cyclists, because if I wanted to I can just as easily start ridding my bike for commuting. Furthermore even though bikes may get through built up traffic quicker than cars, they are still significantly slower than most of the arterial roads in Canberra, which means me as a driver will typically get to my destination faster than a cyclist.

The cycle lanes on major roads are mostly for those drivers who can’t cope with cyclists, they shift the cyclists off to the side “out of the way”. Sorry, can’t see the problem.

Horrid said :

Summary:
As we are at post 100 or thereabouts will summarise things so far. This will be especially handy for those that have asked questions/made arguments that were already answered/rebutted in previous posts you did not bother to read.

So far…..
No-one has raised a serious argument to prove that cyclists don’t pay their way. As already made clear, very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration and insurance on vehicles they then leave at home, and then use a form of transport that takes up a fraction of the roadspace….

If you have two cars, one new one old and the new one is insured, if the old one is in an accident it is in no way covered by the new cars policy. The same applies to the CTP component of your motor vehicle registration. Also how have you proven that a cyclist pays their way anymore than a non-cyclist has paid for the road? For a car owner its easy, their registration contribution amongst other things.

So it is firmly established that anyone who says that cyclists don’t pay to use the roads is either ignorant of the facts and needs to educate themselves, or is deliberately making false statements seeking to incite hatred against a minority.

I havent seen any facts of how a cyclist pays more than a non-cyclist.

Being unable to accept these facts, the anti-bike brigade has gone into its favourite desperate side arguments to distract attention from the original topic- firstly that some cyclists break the law and therefore ALL cyclists should have any rights removed entirely- a sickening double standard that they would never apply to themselves as motorists, who they of course would expect to be treated as individuals depending on individual behaviour, not punished collectively.

As a courteous professional cyclist, would you not appreciate the chance to get the ID of people you see commit an offence on a bike to report them, the same way you could report a motor vehicle? We’re not saying remove rights entirely, we’re simply saying have some accountability. Motorists are all required to have a number plate displayed on their vehicle, as are all other road users (even excavators that crawl along at 5km/hr).

Some of them are so concerned about the need to identify lawbreaking cyclists that they want millions of dollars wasted on a cyclist licensing and identification system … Such is their hatred for cyclists and desire to ‘make them pay’ that they would prefer this to spending the same money in ways that would save a greater number of lives.

Slightly off-topic but it just cost me $15 to register my dog, for life. Do your comments above not apply similarly, that paying a small amount for registration in the event of any incident happening is unfair?

This will not, of course have any effect on removing cyclists from the roads that cyclist taxes pay for. We will still be there, like it or not. Accept it or get off the road yourself.

This brings me back to my original point back in the first dozen posts of this thread. My objection is in no way directed to cyclists in general, but to those who use the cycle lanes on public roads. This is a different situation to suburban streets where traffic levels and speeds are much lower. Someone above talked about parents having to register their kids bikes, which would not be an issue unless those kids were in the bike lanes on major roads. In which case, is it not in the parents interests that the kids at least have been taught the basic rules? These bike lanes dont appear on small suburban cul-de-sacs, they appear on major roads where in my opinion kids and people who dont understand the traffic rules shouldnt be.

what does all this have to do with people pushing in down at woolies Dickson? How will it be solved?

Identifying? a cyclist is as identifiable as a pedestrian (they use the roads too) – you can see the person clearly, something that is not true of drives in these days of tinted windows.

Oh and as a double post…

Clown Killer pointed out about people failing to indicate…. Were you not aware that indicators seem to be optional extras these days ??

Cyclists DO pay to use the roads, HOWEVER cyclists DONT pay to use their BIKES on the road.

So, what the hell’s going on at the Brumbies??

Horrid said :

Thanks Mono for so helpfully illustrating and reinforcing every point I was trying to make.

Well it’s a real shame that you believe that.

A point I was trying to make is that unless it is a toll road there is no user pays.
It really isn’t very smart to play into the we pay too argument. They’re everybody’s roads.

Another point was that the OP was essentially dishonest. A pretense for sensible response but essentially a rave.
You accuse people of getting off the point. How could one not. There was no real point other than having a bit of an argument.

And your purpose. To put the issue to bed once and for all. I doubt that comments will be censored regardless or that a controversial post will be denied unless you have convinced the proprietor that the opinions you have spotlighted really do incite cyclist hatred.

Thanks Mono for so helpfully illustrating and reinforcing every point I was trying to make.

Of course this is as blinkered a view as any of those posted in the comments. Did you really begin this post with the view that people who hold the view that cyclists don’t pay their way would respond with a sensible argument or tell you why they held that view. You had already told them they were wrong in the nicest way because they were either a) ignorant b) stupid or c) motivated by spite or jealousy.

You advanced a range of arguments. Everyone pays for the roads through other taxes not through registration. We register other vehicles. We benefit the community in other ways. Both latter are completely irrelevant in the light of your initial reason and the second one somewhat overblown but obviously it makes you and others happy to believe and it seems, feel superior.

Then throughout the post anyone who doesn’t fully agree with you is only trying to distract from the purpose of the post. One can disagree with your views and not be anti-cyclist. For instance licensing drivers is a way of indicating that these people are qualified to use the roads not as a means of identifying them. The cost would not be high. That is not anti cyclist.

That a few people having the idea of user pays and cyclists don’t incites hatred is a real stretch. It just gets up your nose.

Summary:
As we are at post 100 or thereabouts will summarise things so far. This will be especially handy for those that have asked questions/made arguments that were already answered/rebutted in previous posts you did not bother to read.
So far…..
No-one has raised a serious argument to prove that cyclists don’t pay their way. As already made clear, very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration and insurance on vehicles they then leave at home, and then use a form of transport that takes up a fraction of the roadspace, causes negligible wear and tear on roads, does not require the massive infrastructure things that really cost money (flyovers and suchlike). Cyclists also pay very nearly all taxes that go into providing roads, and the very small proportion of taxes that they don’t pay is too negligible in the context of the total funding to make any fundamental difference to the argument. Cyclists also reduce traffic congestion, parking shortages, pollution and health problems saving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Some have pointed out that they also use more than one vehicle but have to pay rego on all of them even when driving just one. Instead of the logical approach, which is to lobby the government for a different system to eliminate this unfairness, they simply want to extend the injustice to include cyclists- which does not help them at all.

So it is firmly established that anyone who says that cyclists don’t pay to use the roads is either ignorant of the facts and needs to educate themselves, or is deliberately making false statements seeking to incite hatred against a minority.

Being unable to accept these facts, the anti-bike brigade has gone into its favourite desperate side arguments to distract attention from the original topic- firstly that some cyclists break the law and therefore ALL cyclists should have any rights removed entirely- a sickening double standard that they would never apply to themselves as motorists, who they of course would expect to be treated as individuals depending on individual behaviour, not punished collectively. And of course, completely irrelevant to the original topic. Of course the fact that a staggering proportion of motorists also break laws (but in vehicles with much greater capacity to hurt or kill people) is not a problem to them.

Some of them are so concerned about the need to identify lawbreaking cyclists that they want millions of dollars wasted on a cyclist licensing and identification system that might actually prevent a death every second decade or so, given the microscopically small proportion of total road deaths caused by cyclists to someone else. Such is their hatred for cyclists and desire to ‘make them pay’ that they would prefer this to spending the same money in ways that would save a greater number of lives.

Finally, several others have commented on how ‘done to death’ this topic is (but can’t resist adding to it anyway) however I indicated in an early post that this is precisely why the original posting was made- to expose this furphy once and for all.

I think that sums up the main points. Naturally, this will not change the opinion of the cyclist haters one bit- they will always view the world from the “fact” that all cyclists are lawbreaking freeloaders (after all they KNOW this, so any evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming, must automatically be wrong). They will therefore continue to make completely false statements about cyclist contribution to road funding and incite hatred.

This will not, of course have any effect on removing cyclists from the roads that cyclist taxes pay for. We will still be there, like it or not. Accept it or get off the road yourself.

Zombie thread neeeds braaaainnnss… zombie thread starving!

BeardBoy said :

I guess I better get into this before it peters out completely (or will it be the undead issue for ever).

Arhh, zombie thread!

Jim Jones said :

You’re on the money, Horrid. The only reason people whine about cyclists is petty spite and jealousy.

You did forget about the fact that the majority of people that whine about cyclists are also massive fatty boom blattys who could do with a little bit more cycling in their diet.

I think it is only arrogance that certain cyclists would ascribe the notion that (what I also believe are erroneous) views about registration and who pays for roads arise from petty spite and jealousy.

Non cyclists are not the only people to come up with stupid ideas or hold and express contempt for others and whine as can be seen from the original post and other comments.

The advent of dedicated cycle lanes that drivers are not used to and an increasing number of commuting cyclists means that both cyclist and non cyclist need additional education and that some of the road rules should be changed. This has nothing to do with evening things up or with registration of bikes or the strange notion that a user pays policy should now apply for our roads but with road safety. For instance why should bike riders ride in an outer traffic lane except when overtaking when there is a dedicated lane for them. A keep as far left as you are allowed rule should apply.

An increasing number of cyclists may never get a drivers licence. Children can ride on the roads without anyone knowing what they know about the road rules. Why shouldn’t both need a bike rider’s licence. Have to ride with an adult for a certain time before this happens. Over the next 5 years at licence renewal time a bicycle awareness test could be made compulsory for everyone.

Even though not registered, if ridden on the road, why shouldn’t the bike be subject to vehicle inspection and the rider fined if it’s not road ready.

I guess I better get into this before it peters out completely (or will it be the undead issue for ever). Huk, huk.

An “interesting” diversity of opinions & manners for expression of such. World views perhaps?
Some of the proceeding really raise my ire, but I shan’t bite, just maybe prod a bit.

Some thoughts:

– Main topic, paying for roads (if you recall)- What about full cost recovery via fuel taxes (excise shmexise)? That is, the more gas you burn, the more you pay for your “share” of the road network. The fairness of this is based on the cost of road construction, & particularly maintenance, being (basically) proportional to the travelling vehicles’ weights and speeds (or powers of thereof), to which the amount of fuel used is (basically) proportional. The costs of all the public benefits of roads just get passed on to and through fuel users. So your next ambulance ride (heaven forbid) would come with a “fuel surcharge”.

http://www.amygillett.org.au/education-road-right# I was going to try & be amusing, but the AGF is about trying to make something positive of a truly tragic (& unnecessary) accident. For anyone with L’s (Learner’s Permit) before 30June, see the Road-Right quiz for a chance to win a Volvo (anyone know the song by the ‘Rifles?).

– Cops & Helmets. I know (normal) people who’ve been busted and have seen 2 prowlers (= 4 coppers) harassing some poor old hippy one day on David St. It’s a silly thing to do, but that individual (arguably) has the most to lose.

– Bike Registration. Apparently not done anywhere, but Oz pollies do bring it up, see http://treadly.net/2008/02/08/lift-your-game-bicycle-nsw/. Frankly, not being identifiable does give me more licence abike (pun intended)… but in terms of dangerous, or even pre-emptively ill mannered stuff goes, my physical safety by far eclipses any legalities. Regarding having a number plate-> Marcus Einfield. QED.

– Road Manners- I defy anyone to claim that they’re consistently 100% within the rules. But a bit of “common” sense goes a long way (oppps.. getting preachy). Riding makes most aware of their physical vulnerability. When your bodyl/soul connection relies on predicting the movements of other vehicles and their clocking of you, one gets pays pretty close attention what drivers (ie not cars) are doing. My pet hates are not indicating & on the phone, see it ALL the time- but unnecessary plus cut & dried illegal. An issue but not such a clear & present danger when you’re behind metal & an airbag. Defensive road use. Anticipation.Try traffic riding/driving a bicycle, motorbike, semi trailer for a while & see how your opinion of the average driver changes.
(Peterh (post #62)- I’m curious how you do the calling on of bad road behaviour in a way that’s effective & worthwhile for you? I often want to, but not sure how would result).

– Road Ragging- & so yeah, if a driver’s ignorance/laziness/stupidity puts me at risk, I will often go ballistic at them. Asymmetric warfare. ?Canine brain (woof, woof). Interesting factiod- It used to be that if a driver was “responsible” for killing someone on the road, they were tried for murder, but rarely were convicted because jurors would think “I could’ve done that”. So a “death by vehicle” offence was created, with presumably differing penalties, and “more just” conviction rates resulted. (Not legal brain here).

– Road Space- It’s interesting when you bike on a road just how much of the time there are no cars with you- generally about 60%, but even at peak times as high as 20%. Obviously a result of bikes slower speeds & traffic lights (so actually more pronounced in Sydney).
Josh (post #88 “wouldn’t you be a bit put off when people keep zipping by far-too-close?” I totally agree, if it’s going to be a squeeze I make it unequivocal & claim the space (take the middle or 3/4 right of the lane). This’d be unnecessary if you could trust drivers to give you appropriate room. That said only really needed to do it at roundabouts or places like Torrens St in Canbry.) & (post #84- there is pay as you go car insurance (can top up if you’ve hit the click limit, but otherwise no idea how it stacks up). Maybe rego one day?)

– Why are drivers so nasty to cyclists?- Well, as I saw on a forum years ago- “because they’re missing out on the fun!!”

So with my colours now nailed to the mast- “2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad”. Sometimes. 😉

(and I’ll admit I run red lights. It’s not an act of defiance, I just hate sitting around on cold days when I want to be warm/hold momentum/etc)

And that’s exactly how cyclists cause accidents…

God, I don’t just ride through blindly.

Have you ever walked across a street when the little red man was flashing? “There’s no cars, why the hell am I waiting?” kind of thing. I’m pretty sure thousands of people do it every day, but no one states “that’s how pedestrians cause accidents”.

Above all, I value my own safety. Waiting at a red light, or going through it when there’s no cars, I see little danger in either.

And before you retort, I’ll state that I won’t do it at just any intersection, in any conditions, at any time of day. I’ll only do it where I feel comfortable, and where it’s familiar.

For instance, sometimes I’d rather get a jump on traffic so I can get out of the way instead of trying to battle cars for road space in a narrow section. That way, despite me breaking the law, we’re all happier because I’m not in the car’s road, and I’m not slowing anyone down..whereas, if I wait for the green, I get yelled and beeped at. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.

I still don’t remember the last time I saw another car actually stop at a stop sign, either. We’re all guilty. Get over it.

And how many accidents have you seen that have occured because cyclists have gone through a red light? I’d guess absolutely none.

Being motivated by jealously and petty spite is nothing to brag about.

And please tell me why I would be jealous? I actually have seen a cyclist taken out after going through a red light and trust me it’s not a pretty sight. So don’t go making assumptions about things that you have no idea about. I wouldn’t make the comment if I didn’t have a reason.

harvyk1 said :

phototext said :

So to all these car driving folks who keep banging on about bicycle riders breaking the road rules, you travel at or below the posted speed limit every time you drive your car ?

“a. They start observing all road rules, and not just the ones they feel like.”

It works both ways harvyk1. If you never drive over the posted speed limit you must be the only driver in Australia who doesn’t.

But here is the difference, if I in my car break a road rule, I run a very real risk of getting caught, either by a copper noticing me (and more importantly my license plate) or by a camera. Cyclists on the other hand run no real risk. Keep in mind that a cyclist is for all intensive purposes unidentifiable.

Furthermore they can head off road to escape a copper (who either can’t easily drive off road, or can’t run fast enough to keep up with the now off-road cyclist) who does see them breaking the law, with very little worry that it’ll catch up to them.

So whilst there is an incentive for me to follow the law, there is very little incentive for a cyclist to do the same. As I’ve said in the past, some cyclists consider breaking certain laws (such as speeding) as a badge of honour.

Because we’re all aware of those terrible outlaw bicyclists who live to partake of nefarious criminal activity and then run away from the police cackling demonically to themselves.

I think you’ve been watching BMX Bandits too much or something.

PsydFX said :

Horrid, please address the reasons why road using cyclists shouldn’t require some form of CTP Insurance.

As a general point of information, cyclists who are members of PedalPower carry third party insurance. It comes with the membership. So should my head generate a small dent on your bonnet, relax. It’s all covered.

I understand the small desk devoted to third party claims involving cycles is staffed between 9.00am and 9.01am. After that they need all the staff they can get to deal with the third party claims involving cars.

harvyk1 said :

Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if they pay road taxes or not. What I do care about is that they (ok some, but it’s certainly a majority) expect car drivers to give them room, and to respect their rights on the road, without wanting to respect their obligations (eg not to unduly disrupt the traffic flow etc…)

Your sentiments would translate well to 4WDs obstructed by smaller, slower cars. Hey, I’ve got a 4WD…

I must say that I’m impressed by the dedication and patience displayed by motorists eager to see rego numbers on cyclists. As if they weren’t busy enough reporting all the illegal actions performed by drivers with number plates, they now have time to report cyclists too. Do they even get to where they want to go, having to pull over safely every minute to make a call?

motleychick said :

(and I’ll admit I run red lights. It’s not an act of defiance, I just hate sitting around on cold days when I want to be warm/hold momentum/etc)

And that’s exactly how cyclists cause accidents…

And how many accidents have you seen that have occured because cyclists have gone through a red light? I’d guess absolutely none.

Being motivated by jealously and petty spite is nothing to brag about.

motleychick said :

(and I’ll admit I run red lights. It’s not an act of defiance, I just hate sitting around on cold days when I want to be warm/hold momentum/etc)

And that’s exactly how cyclists cause accidents…

and get no support from motorists.

A cyclist on a grey and rainy day isn’t easy to see if they are crossing in front of a car. lights at front and back is all well and good, but what about the side?

I don’t begrudge cyclists. if you want to ride a bike, good luck. I just think it would be better to be able to see you in the fog, rain or night from side on.

Clown Killer4:17 pm 28 Apr 09

Here’s another equally stupid take on the situation:

I drive a larger vehicle – just a tad over three tonnes on the road in part from choice, work necessity and the invisible hand of a perverse taxation system. For that luxury of choice I pony up more registration, and a bunch more stamp duty. Naturally that gives me a greater entitlement to the road than some four cylinder buzz box driving arse-bandit. These mobile speed humps are constantly getting in my way, failing to merge properly, dawdling along in the right hand lane, talking on their mobiles and failing to indicate. If these people want to use the road in their tinny little piss-mobiles they should pay an equal amount of tax and registration.

(and I’ll admit I run red lights. It’s not an act of defiance, I just hate sitting around on cold days when I want to be warm/hold momentum/etc)

And that’s exactly how cyclists cause accidents…

phototext said :

So to all these car driving folks who keep banging on about bicycle riders breaking the road rules, you travel at or below the posted speed limit every time you drive your car ?

“a. They start observing all road rules, and not just the ones they feel like.”

It works both ways harvyk1. If you never drive over the posted speed limit you must be the only driver in Australia who doesn’t.

But here is the difference, if I in my car break a road rule, I run a very real risk of getting caught, either by a copper noticing me (and more importantly my license plate) or by a camera. Cyclists on the other hand run no real risk. Keep in mind that a cyclist is for all intensive purposes unidentifiable.

Furthermore they can head off road to escape a copper (who either can’t easily drive off road, or can’t run fast enough to keep up with the now off-road cyclist) who does see them breaking the law, with very little worry that it’ll catch up to them.

So whilst there is an incentive for me to follow the law, there is very little incentive for a cyclist to do the same. As I’ve said in the past, some cyclists consider breaking certain laws (such as speeding) as a badge of honour.

a. They start observing all road rules, and not just the ones they feel like. (School Zone Speeding \ Traffic Lights spring to mind here)

How often are cyclists holding over 40km/h in school zones? On a good day with a nice tailwind, I’d need to bust pretty hard to roll over 40km/h for any real sustained period..

b. They stop riding two or three abreast and realise they are in fact usually much slower than other traffic. Getting in other traffics way is counter productive.

Isn’t it legal to ride two abreast?

And from the cyclists’ perspective, wouldn’t you be a bit put off when people keep zipping by far-too-close? Taking a lane is a way of preventing that happening. It’s not ideal, but I don’t see a scenario that is..

What I do care about is that they expect car drivers to give them room, and to respect their rights on the road, without wanting to respect their obligations (eg not to unduly disrupt the traffic flow etc…)

There no easy answer. I guess, I expect cars to give me the same courtesy that they would for any other slow vehicle on the road (a tractor, a bus, etc).

Most cyclists I know are courteous (and smart) enough to make room when room is available, but when there’s no shoulder they aren’t going to pretend there is – they’ll take the lane and be assertive. If there’s no enough room for a car to safely pass, you know they’ll occasionally try anyway.

What I would like to see is a form of Rego on bikes. Make each bike which wishes to ride on the road carry a number plate which is used to identify who the cyclist is. No money has to change hands (bar the cost of initially purchasing the number plate), but it makes cyclists accountable for when they break the law.

When drivers are penalised for breaking speed limits and running red lights, I think it’d only be fair that cyclists get the same treatment, of course. Alas, I see more drivers breaking the law every day that I do on my bike (and I’ll admit I run red lights. It’s not an act of defiance, I just hate sitting around on cold days when I want to be warm/hold momentum/etc)

It’s really not an ‘us vs them’ issue though. Why can’t we just get along, instead of calling each other out on stupid shit? While it’s still a “motorist vs cyclist” world (instead of a “road user” world) we’ll get nowhere, only angry on internet sites 😉

So to all these car driving folks who keep banging on about bicycle riders breaking the road rules, you travel at or below the posted speed limit every time you drive your car ?

“a. They start observing all road rules, and not just the ones they feel like.”

It works both ways harvyk1. If you never drive over the posted speed limit you must be the only driver in Australia who doesn’t.

There’s reasons why there are bike paths. For cyclists. And instead of causing problems on the road and then whinging about the way motorists treat them, cyclists should use them.

I’m probably just repeating what many people have said, but seriously Horrid, you can’t argue that the fact that some bike riders pay rego for a car they leave at home is worthwhile. I own two cars, a show car and a car I drive everyday, and I need to register them both to drive them. You don’t have a valid argument. They should pay rego for their bikes due simply to the fact that they also use the road. They should also have to get a licenc to be able to use the road, as all motorists do. Just because they ride a bike doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as motorists. If they are going to use the roads they should make a contribution.

Maybe I’m a day late to the party with this, but have a read here:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/cyclists-save-nation-35m-a-year-20080708-39jk.html

And an increase in the number of people cycling to work has also reduced public health costs by approximately $154 million and produced traffic congestion savings of $63.9 million, the report found.

(The figures seem a bit rich to me, and don’t explicitly state they’re per-annum numbers, but still..)

Conversely, I pay vehicle registration and get virtually no use out of it as I ride my bike most places (and drive once every couple of weeks). So, should I be entitled to some kind of refund on vehicle rego? If only the system worked like that..

As a typical car driver, but as someone who has been on the “other side” all I can say is I’ll start respecting cyclists when

a. They start observing all road rules, and not just the ones they feel like. (School Zone Speeding \ Traffic Lights spring to mind here)

b. They stop riding two or three abreast and realise they are in fact usually much slower than other traffic. Getting in other traffics way is counter productive.

c. They carry a basic level of insurance, sure they probably won’t total a car in an accident, but they can easily do a lot of damage to cars, and they can easily seriously injury a pedestrian or other cyclist.

Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if they pay road taxes or not. What I do care about is that they (ok some, but it’s certainly a majority) expect car drivers to give them room, and to respect their rights on the road, without wanting to respect their obligations (eg not to unduly disrupt the traffic flow etc…)

Also Horrid, I have two cars. Rego (or CTP insurance) from one car can not be transferred to the other because I feel like it. When you pay rego you are simply purchasing the right for that ONE car to be used on the roads. Your not purchasing the right to use which ever car you own.

What I would like to see is a form of Rego on bikes. Make each bike which wishes to ride on the road carry a number plate which is used to identify who the cyclist is. No money has to change hands (bar the cost of initially purchasing the number plate), but it makes cyclists accountable for when they break the law. Expand the current car drivers license to include bikes and give cyclists demerit points. Lose too many points and your right to ride on the road is revoked for a period of time. Now unless your a cyclist who regularly breaks the law, what harm could come from such a system?

“I’m going to uninvent the wheel.”

When you do, can you let me know, got this great idea for a replacement, round thing with an axle like thing in the middle, I think I could make some good money from it once that damn wheel is gone. While you’re about it could you uninvent fire too.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy3:20 pm 28 Apr 09

You might as well ask why people who buy roller skates aren’t forced to pay compulsory CTP Insurance, or skateboards.

I’m going to uninvent the wheel. Are there tax implications of winning a Nobel prize?

Very Busy said :

Horrid said :

Because, PsyfDX, the overwhelming majority of cyclists already pay CTP on thier cars. When they then leave that car at home and instead use a vehicle with far less capacity (note I did not say no capacity) to injure third persons or their property they are actually reducing overall risk and costs to society.

That does not address the liability issue

What liability issue?

It doesn’t happen to be the very same liability issue that would occur if you injured a third person or their property while walking down the sidewalk would it?

Clown Killer3:08 pm 28 Apr 09

…please address the reasons why road using cyclists shouldn’t require some form of CTP Insurance

I’m guessing that the Government would be a better body to address that question to. Does anyone seriously believe that the ACT Government wouldn’t have gone down the registration/CTP for bikes path if it thought that there was even the slightest revenue return?

The simple reason that they haven’t is that there’s no realistically justifyable reason to do so.

It’s just a completely retarded argument.

You might as well ask why people who buy roller skates aren’t forced to pay compulsory CTP Insurance, or skateboards.

Hell, why not make everyone who buys (or wears) a pair of shoes pay CTP. They might walk on the road at some point, unfairly using the road while all those noble car drivers suffer in unjust silence.

Horrid said :

Because, PsyfDX, the overwhelming majority of cyclists already pay CTP on thier cars. When they then leave that car at home and instead use a vehicle with far less capacity (note I did not say no capacity) to injure third persons or their property they are actually reducing overall risk and costs to society.

That does not address the liability issue

Because, PsyfDX, the overwhelming majority of cyclists already pay CTP on thier cars. When they then leave that car at home and instead use a vehicle with far less capacity (note I did not say no capacity) to injure third persons or their property they are actually reducing overall risk and costs to society.

PsydFX said :

Horrid, please address the reasons why road using cyclists shouldn’t require some form of CTP Insurance.

Yeah, let’s legislate cycling out of existence!

Honestly, are you gonna insure your kids with CTP insurance on their road registered bikes to set them off for a weekend jaunt?

There’s been some retarded comments in this thread, but you’ve really excelled yourself there champ.

Horrid, please address the reasons why road using cyclists shouldn’t require some form of CTP Insurance.

You’re on the money, Horrid. The only reason people whine about cyclists is petty spite and jealousy.

You did forget about the fact that the majority of people that whine about cyclists are also massive fatty boom blattys who could do with a little bit more cycling in their diet.

Horrid said :

1. Because, as already firmly established, cyclists already pay for their road use,

I think I’ve missed something somewhere!!!!

Agree with you, Horrid. Although Peterh has given me an idea. We need to get licence plates onto all the kangaroos.

There are two very simple reasons why no system of bicycle rider identification exists anywhere in the world (or at least anywhere relevant that I am aware of).

1. Because, as already firmly established, cyclists already pay for their road use, therefore it is not justified or required as a means to raise revenue for road funding.

2. Because, as a means of identifying and punishing a tiny minority of bad behaving bicycle riders, no economic case can be made for it. It is extrordinarily rare for a bicycle rider to cause serious injury to another road user (note that I did not say it never happens) hence the massive nationwide publicity when they do. The chances of an innocent third person being killed by a law-breaking cyclist are microscopic- I can only think of a handful of cases in Australia anytime in the last decade. To set up a mssive system of administration at the cost of millions of dollars, even if tacked onto existing systems, which may or may not make a difference in these tiny number of cases, simply cannot be justified- no mattter how you do the sums, you could save more lives (eg by upgrading roads) by spending the same amount of money some other way.

By contrast, car drivers kill each other, and other road users, on a regular basis- hence the totally different economic and administrative case for identification.

Most people who want bicycles registered are fully aware of the above. Their real reason is because they want to impose expense and inconvenience onto cyclists out of petty spite and jealousy- not because there is any good reason for it. Not that they will ever admit that of course.

neanderthalsis said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I propose the following compromise:
a) Cyclists do their best to stay our of the way of cars/trucks/buses, such as by using cycle paths and road shoulders;
b) Motorists take care and try to not hit cyclists.

One thing that all road users, be they cyclists, motorcyclist, car drivers, truckies, low flying aircraft and pedestrains need to be aware of is that Darwinian theory is applied more consistently than the enforcement of the Traffic Act.

I do occasionally grumble when I see cyclists do something blatantly stupid/illegal/dangerous; but I do the same for other road users too.

I personally have no problem with cyclists using the roads. I just don’t like scraping the meat and hair off the bullbar.

kangaroos have a habit of doing that, don’t they??

neanderthalsis1:22 pm 28 Apr 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I propose the following compromise:
a) Cyclists do their best to stay our of the way of cars/trucks/buses, such as by using cycle paths and road shoulders;
b) Motorists take care and try to not hit cyclists.

One thing that all road users, be they cyclists, motorcyclist, car drivers, truckies, low flying aircraft and pedestrains need to be aware of is that Darwinian theory is applied more consistently than the enforcement of the Traffic Act.

I do occasionally grumble when I see cyclists do something blatantly stupid/illegal/dangerous; but I do the same for other road users too.

I personally have no problem with cyclists using the roads. I just don’t like scraping the meat and hair off the bullbar.

ant said :

peterh said :

come to think of it, if there was some sort of rego / identifier on a bike, would that change the riding behavior?

Well, it’s certainly been a startling success with cars!

hasn’t it??

peterh said :

come to think of it, if there was some sort of rego / identifier on a bike, would that change the riding behavior?

Well, it’s certainly been a startling success with cars!

Horrid said :

Then please explain why such a large proportion of cyclists seem so utterly ignorant or contemptuous of the road rules?

You might also ask – “Then please explain why such a large proportion of motorists seem so utterly ignorant or contemptuous of the road rules?”?

I guess you could take a few answers from this article http://www.smh.com.au/national/wheel-of-misfortune-cyclists-and-motorists-are-at-war-20090427-akn2.html

Surprisingly it comes from one of the most anti-cycling ‘news’ papers in the whole of the land. Just double the figures for Canberra though I’d say…

We all know bigotry begets bigotry, and all that. I’d go on about chunky muffintops that hurl abuse, and use words like ‘gutless’ with an ironic twist, but I’m a spent force now.

Horrid said :

I see that a lot of posters have gone off-topic into a discussion on how a minority of cyclists break the road rules. But what does the bad behaviour of a minority of cyclists have to do with the original question? (other than of course being the good old standby distraction topic from those losing the original arguement?)

But to those that would argue that ALL cyclists should have no rights, no respect, no funding for cycle facilities etc because of the bad behaviour of just a few, presumably you have also removed yourselves from the road because of the behaviour of other motorists who you have never even met?

After all, if you believe in collective punishment of an entire class of road users due to the actions of a few of them, then you believe in it for ALL road users including motorists right? You wouldn’t have a double standard would you?

Horrid, I would like to see identification on bikes. I see identification on cars, buses, trucks, motorbikes etc, etc. All road users. If I see something that i find to be dangerous, I will let the authorities know. Considering that I spend 3 out of the 5 days in the car, I see road users behaving badly. If it is really dumb behaviour, or putting other users at risk, i will advise the authorities. (I don’t call on my mobile whilst driving, I wait till it is a safe spot to stop and then call it in.

Postalgeek said :

I agree with the user-pay contingent.

Followed by a mixture of what might have been sarcasm incorporating unpleasant statements about fatter people.

Postalgeek said :

And what a miserable effing society we’ll have.

Agreed.

Postalgeek said :

There persists a bizarre bigotry towards cyclists, and I can only fantasise that oil prices will take it out back and club it to a bloody pulp with a heavy four-by-two, and then pour lemon juice onto the open wounds to make it suffer, in a few years. However, the sight of seeing asses enveloping bike seats is not a sight I look forward to so long may they rest on seats.

Bigotry to others is however quite justified. Simply in the interest of a better world and an opportunity to get rid of an excess of bile.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy12:07 pm 28 Apr 09

Perhaps we could cut to the chase. Cyclists are little more than an occasional minor inconvenience on our roads. They’re smaller than cars and rely on humans to power them. Provided they (generally) behave in a sensible manner, what’s the problem? We all have to occasionally put up with being inconvenienced by others, just as we inconvenience others ourselves sometimes.

I propose the following compromise:
a) Cyclists do their best to stay our of the way of cars/trucks/buses, such as by using cycle paths and road shoulders;
b) Motorists take care and try to not hit cyclists.

One thing we need to remember here is that regardless of the law, in a physical meeting between bicycle and car/truck/bus, the bicycle loses.

I see that a lot of posters have gone off-topic into a discussion on how a minority of cyclists break the road rules. But what does the bad behaviour of a minority of cyclists have to do with the original question? (other than of course being the good old standby distraction topic from those losing the original arguement?)

But to those that would argue that ALL cyclists should have no rights, no respect, no funding for cycle facilities etc because of the bad behaviour of just a few, presumably you have also removed yourselves from the road because of the behaviour of other motorists who you have never even met?

After all, if you believe in collective punishment of an entire class of road users due to the actions of a few of them, then you believe in it for ALL road users including motorists right? You wouldn’t have a double standard would you?

meh.

pay, don’t pay. I would like to see some sort of identifier on a bicycle so that I can
a)identify the red smear on the road after a really bad accident
b) identify an idiot rider making all cyclists look like weaving morons…

come to think of it, if there was some sort of rego / identifier on a bike, would that change the riding behavior?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I love threads like this for the simple reason that they remind me just how few real problems we have in our modern existence that we can whinge about this.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one reminds me of something I saw the other night that seems strangely relevant
http://www.thedailytube.com/video/17459/stewart-explains-sht-thats-never-going-to-happen

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I’d also like to see overweight people charged more by airlines. I’m sick of packing light and paying the same as fatty boombas who chewing up the fuel.

I think you’ll find the correct terminology is fatty boomsticks.

Fatty boom-blatty not getting a guernsey? And what about ‘fatty fatty fat fat’?

Im going to paddle across Northbourne in Peak hour in a Canoe while the man is red.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy11:30 am 28 Apr 09

I’d also like to see overweight people charged more by airlines. I’m sick of packing light and paying the same as fatty boombas who chewing up the fuel.

I think you’ll find the correct terminology is fatty boomsticks.

(double post curse) I find these threads quite cathartic. Nice one. Spleen feels better now.

niftydog said :

I think anything that discourages people from taking up cycling should be avoided. The benefits to the community, environment and the individual are frankly enormous and far outweigh the perceived cost of any ‘free-loading.’

The post is only peripherally about free-loading. It is a moan about how cyclists don’t get the RESPECT they deserve from the rest of us.

RESPECT because after all their means of transport is so benefical to every one, so healthy, so spiritually uplifting and so environmentally friendly that everyone else should be awed by their magnificence.

The community pays for footpaths sports fields parks and a ton of other infrastructure that is not paid for by the user. Roads, including that bit reserved exclusively for cyclists are the same. So I agree. Cyclists are not free-loaders and Horrid and all those other comments don’t need any justification.

Any hint that there might be some criticism leveled against cyclists brings them out in droves even those that say this particular argument is done to death.

Horrid wants censorship. He wants comments filtered out.

Horrid said :

It’s precisely because I am sick of seeing the same nonsense endlessly regurgitated that I made the original comment- if it were filtered out, as I too wish it were, it would not have been necessary to do so.

Horrid you are an idiot. Sick of the subject but posting it. A Hanson like “Please explain?” It must be like it was a nagging toothache.

ant said :

I really do not have a problem with them.

Good for you.

I agree with the user-pay contingent. Make cyclists pay rego for the road, on top of the state and Federal taxes they pay that are already diverted to the roads. Students and school kids should also be forced to register.

But don’t stop there. I’d like to see my taxes redirected away from healthcare that supports obesity-related illnesses, including heart disease and diabetes type 2. They should be made to pay for that care themselves. And I don’t want to see my taxes providing any medical support for smokers, druggies, or heavy drinkers.

I’d also like to see overweight people charged more by airlines. I’m sick of packing light and paying the same as fatty boombas who chewing up the fuel.

And what a miserable effing society we’ll have.

I’ll bet every cent you have that other vehicles delay the anti-cyclist whingers way more one their way to work than any cyclist. And I’ll make the same bet that on an average day you’ll witness many more breaches of road rules by drivers than by cyclists.

There persists a bizarre bigotry towards cyclists, and I can only fantasise that oil prices will take it out back and club it to a bloody pulp with a heavy four-by-two, and then pour lemon juice onto the open wounds to make it suffer, in a few years. However, the sight of seeing asses enveloping bike seats is not a sight I look forward to so long may they rest on seats.

I’d much rather share the roads with bikes, than trucks. Bikes are so low-impact: they don’t wreck the roads necessitating expensive repairs, they don’t kill people, they don’t add to congestion, they don’t fill up carparks. I really do not have a problem with them.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy11:10 am 28 Apr 09

It’s interesting that driving while talking on a mobile is illegal, but you can eat, smoke, chat to passengers, even use a CB radio. Of course, you could probably get done under failing to take due care, but it would be a long shot.

Not a criticism, just an observation.

phototext, go to the intersection I mentioned. I drive through it every day.

But I also hate drivers who don’t seem to be able to use the roundabout and just drive through the bastard and not swerve back and forth like they are driving a truck. Maybe It’s an O’connor problem and not just a bike problem.

Maybe I’m too impatient.

“PS. I agree on the mobile thing. But it is rare, in my experience, to see it. No bike helmets is a given.”

From my experience I think it is the other way round. I see a hell of a lot of drivers using mobile phones while driving. I hardly see helmetless riders these days, but, that could be related to my route. There could be suburbs full of poor students without helmets I never go to.

Also, riding without a helmet is a lot less dangerous to others than driving while on a mobile phone.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy10:22 am 28 Apr 09

I love threads like this for the simple reason that they remind me just how few real problems we have in our modern existence that we can whinge about this.

Almost all adult cyclists ARE licenced- to operate a vehicle (under the same road rules) of at least 10 times the weight and speed and greater complexity.

Mate, I WISH I could buy a car that weighs 200kg and does 500km/h!

I think anything that discourages people from taking up cycling should be avoided. The benefits to the community, environment and the individual are frankly enormous and far outweigh the perceived cost of any ‘free-loading.’

Having said that, you’re all missing a far more important and relevant issue – 3rd party insurance. This is widely available, many cyclists already have it and it’s of far greater personal benefit to everyone.

I find it unusual that there’s so many motorists feigning concern about road infrastructure funding when there’s a perfectly selfish, right-to-monetary-compensation argument going begging!

Question – Is it possible to be a cyclists and not be completely stuck up, arrogant, and think you are better than car drivers?

PS. I agree on the mobile thing. But it is rare, in my experience, to see it. No bike helmets is a given.

No worries, Points 1, 2 and 3 in the original topioc are opinions, not facts. Provide the facts to back them of STFU.

Eh?

RandomGit said :

To any coppers reading this thread, every morning at 8 to 9 am you could sit on the western exit of the roundabout at the intersection of McCaughey street and Masson Street and make a mint in fines for not wearing bicycle helmets. If you could fine them for crossing the road in front of on coming traffic (on coming from a roundabout to boot), that would also be good.

Can you fibe people for riding on the footpath? Actually, I think it’s a valid bike path there.

Then, in the afternoon, say between 4:30 & 5:30 could you sit on any road going out of the city and book all those motorists who’ve made a conscious decision to wait until they’ve left the office and got behind the wheel to make that very important mobile phone call. It would be a very productive day!!!

Back on topic now if you all like!!!!!

To any coppers reading this thread, every morning at 8 to 9 am you could sit on the western exit of the roundabout at the intersection of McCaughey street and Masson Street and make a mint in fines for not wearing bicycle helmets. If you could fine them for crossing the road in front of on coming traffic (on coming from a roundabout to boot), that would also be good.

Can you fibe people for riding on the footpath? Actually, I think it’s a valid bike path there.

Agree with Cletus and don’t know what registration fees have to do with the price of tea in Boston – unless your planning a party.

Bringing registration fees into it muddies the OP’s argument as it will never be a fact that a 100% of cyclists each have their own individual motor vehicle or that each driver only has one motor vehicle. Thus the OP’s statement is weakened for those that wish to dispute it – just a general observation.

Funding in even a vaguely socialist society is incredibly indirect and its very hard to tie funding from one source to one target. Trying to make a solid argument proving that one person pays X for Y is bound to end in tears.

It is how it is…until it changes. Not sure why it’s worth getting upset about people getting upset about the way things currently are – if the current situation is how you want it to be. Stop me if I’m gibbering…

Phototext, you think that’s bad, I get abused by motorists for riding my bike up Gundaroo Road from Gunghalin Drive, past the car wash then left onto mirrebei.

The only contact I have with the road is in crossing it. Doing the uphill slug on the BIKE PATH* people still drive past and yell abuse at me. I wear no lycra, I stay off their roads, so I am not too sure what the random abuse is about.

I do wear a high vis vest, and have flashing lights front and rear, so maybe the extra visibility allows random drivers more time to think of something witty to yell.

I challenge people to stop and abuse me, rather than use the security of a fleeting second to hurl abuse.

I do not have this self important I am better than road users, I am saving the environment etc attitude. I ride because each week I do a 5 day ride, I save about $100, including the cost of petrol and possible parking charges and lose half a kilo. Equates to about 7.5/8.5 hours exercise a week as well, depending on wind etc.

“I don’t have anything specifically against cyclists though, except there seems to me to be a bigger ratio of arsehole cyclists to car drivers on the roads”

You should try cycling a bit more then and you’ll soon discover how many car drivers are complete pricks.

I try to avoid the roads as much as possible as any argument between me and a car, I’ll end up worse off. I obey the road rules and it constantly amazes me how many car drivers don’t and how effin rude they will be about it.

It ticks me off when I see a cyclist do something stupid and I have on occasions had a go at them for it, but it is a rare thing, perhaps once a month I’ll see some piece of supidity by a cyclist. Car drivers on the other hand, everyday I witness car drivers breaking the road rules and being assholes. Speeding, talking on a mobile, not giving way, ignoring keep clear areas, overtaking dangerously, not indicating, indicating and then not turning.

The number of times I have almost come a cropper because some idiot doesn’t understand what an indicator is for or doesn’t understand that despite me being on a bicycle they still have to obey the road rules and give way to me like a car is insane.

Every other week I get abused by some car driver for no other reason than that I am a cyclist on “their” road. Obeying the road rules isn’t enough for some, your existance as a cyclist warrants abuse. All safe and sound in their metal box, bunch of cowards.

There certainly is some stupid and rude cyclists out there but compared to car drivers we are a bunch of effin saints.

Funny story by the way. Last time I was down in Melbourne, I saw this cyclist race across a green-man pedestrian crossing, then turn right onto the road in front of an intersection and nearly got collected by a car who hadn’t seen him until he was on the road.

Bloody cyclist started road raging the driver of the car, who then started back at him. Traffic was pretty heavy so they were in shouting distance of one another and at one point I thought the driver was going to get out and take up the cyclist on his persistent challenges. (I was in the car behind so had a prime view). Then a scooter came up the left lane, and he must have seen what had happened and started reprimanding the cyclist as well (who continued to insist he was in the right). Scooter guy ended up riding up to him and pushing him off his bike and into a muddy puddle. Ah that warms the heart again just to think about it.

I don’t have anything specifically against cyclists though, except there seems to me to be a bigger ratio of arsehole cyclists to car drivers on the roads, and also arsehole cyclists to pedestrians on shared paths. I just hate any kind of road raging, especially by someone who’s in the wrong (whether it be from drivers or cyclists).

The strawmen here are being built by the pro-cyclists.

“Yet, as has been explained countless times, 1) very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration fees on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less road space on their bikes,”

What does this have to do with anything? Am I allowed to drive a small unregistered car or motorcycle just because I have some other registered bigger ones that I don’t drive?

“2) most road building revenue comes from funds other than registration fees anyway, ie taxes paid by cyclists the same as anyone else, and”

I don’t know the numbers here. I assume you do? What are they?

As someone who doesn’t drive for work (nor have a registered car at the moment) I would love to force users to bear the entire cost of public infrastructure.

“3) in any case, the benefits that cyclists bestow on the community (health, pollution, congestion, etc) more than outweigh the costs of providing cycle infrastructure.”

Hmm, tell me all about it. Sound very self-important. Well I must bestow even bigger benefits because I do all that, plus I’m not a cyclist. Everyone should thank me too.

Anyway, your points may or may not be valid on their own, but they’re strawmen because that’s not the real argument for registering bikes. Think about the reasons for registering cars. The important ones are not to pay for infrastructure or maintainence (I assume your point 2 is correct). The biggest are things like third party insurance, to try to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy and aren’t posing undue risk to road users, and to have some means of identification if there is any illegal activity involving the vehicle. I think all these are quite applicable to cyclists.

I think the best route for cyclists to take here is to be very quiet about this issue and not draw attention to it. Only start the lobbying if a lawmaker actually proposes something. You’ve got it pretty good at the moment, I think.

Must be a topical topic right now, the SMH has a little article about motorists vs cyclists:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/wheel-of-misfortune-cyclists-and-motorists-are-at-war-20090427-akn2.html

Horrid, would you by any chance be one of those lycra clad types that ride through red lights, ride two abreast, take up one full lane if there’s no cycle lane, especially in peak hour, then use the foot path to overtake cars if congestion exists, and then brag about how it’s quicker to get to work on your bike rather than drive your car?

“My number one concern about the bike riders on the road, is that a goodly proportion do not follow the road rules.”

There are some stupid cyclists out there, no doubt, but a goodly proportion of car and truck drivers don’t follow the road rules either and their vehicles are quite capable of killing someone.

Fisho said :

Cyclists good. Lycra bad.

Lol, a noble compromise

Horrid said :

Another ignorant response. Almost all adult cyclists ARE licenced- to operate a vehicle (under the same road rules) of at least 10 times the weight and speed and greater complexity.

Then please explain why such a large proportion of cyclists seem so utterly ignorant or contemptuous of the road rules?

Surely, if a significant proportion of cyclists also drove cars, then one would see a significant number of car drivers in lycra suits – but we don’t.

Put a teaspoon of cement in your morning coffee and harden up will ya…
Don’t put a tax/license/levy/fee on cyclists, attach it to the sale of lycra.
Cyclists good. Lycra bad.

Jesus – I don’t drive and I don’t cycle. Where’s my frikkin’medal?!

At least Danman’s link made it worthwhile reading this thread.

Guess what. Cyclists don’t have to pay rego and I doubt they ever will.

Get over it.

Somebody has their knickers in a twist and looking for a fight in the special olympics..

YAWN!

tl;dr. Done to death, as Danman said.

Felix the Cat8:11 pm 27 Apr 09

LOL @ Danman’s link!

So you want a discussion, yet refer to anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant. Sounds like a fun way to spend an evening.

The point of if the vehicle/bicycle hits the road it needs registration is incredibly valid. Motorbike rego is way cheaper than car rego than truck rego etc. So why not a $50 bike rego? I have a motorbike and Car and need to pay both.

The consolidated revenue argument is hardly an argument it can be applied to a number of things, education ,health services etc

My number one concern about the bike riders on the road, is that a goodly proportion (and since you did nothing to justify your stats or assumptions I wont either) do not follow the road rules. They run red lights, they come up the side of traffic making their own lane (This is very much illegal, nice policeman told me this when I was on my motorbike)

Finally re license, Sure if they have a license and passed specific road rules as they apply to cyclists (Like motorcycles) And they carry it on them , then fine. For people who don’t they should need to obtain one to ride a bike on the road.

“If cyclists wish to use the roadway, I believe they should contribute through some form of registration and also prove they understand the road rules by obtaining a licence. If they dont wish to do this, no-one is stopping them from sticking to the off-road cycle paths. These problems seem to arise from people not understanding the use of cycle lanes, so why not require anyone who will use them, to be licenced?”

Another ignorant response. Almost all adult cyclists ARE licenced- to operate a vehicle (under the same road rules) of at least 10 times the weight and speed and greater complexity.

“I have two registered cars and I don’t get to ride my motorbike to work for free”

Another argument I have never understood- I agree that your situation’s not fair- so why don’t you do something to remove this unfairness to yourself instead of trying to extend it to others?

>> Yet, as has been explained countless times, 1) very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration fees
>> on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less road space on their bikes, 2) most road building
>> revenue comes from funds other than registration fees anyway, ie taxes paid by cyclists the same as
>> anyone else

1) Last time I checked, the registration follows the vehicle not the owner. It doesnt matter if I have 5 vehicles registered at home, if I take a vehicle onto the road, it must be registered.

2) ‘funds other than registration’, such as fuel tax, sales tax on vehicles, traffic infringements, etc? How do any of these apply for cyclists? Is there even a small percentage of bicycle sales contributed to bicycle safety at all in the ACT?

If cyclists wish to use the roadway, I believe they should contribute through some form of registration and also prove they understand the road rules by obtaining a licence. If they dont wish to do this, no-one is stopping them from sticking to the off-road cycle paths. These problems seem to arise from people not understanding the use of cycle lanes, so why not require anyone who will use them, to be licenced?

“very nearly all adult cyclists pay registration fees on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less road space on their bikes”

I have two registered cars and I don’t get to ride my motorbike to work for free.

“You always have to move into the second lane when passing”

Only if you’re driving a Sherman tank

@Tony – Strawman much?

The point being made here is that Cyclists do pay to use roads, not about the occasional cyclist riding on a road where the lanes aren’t so wide, which might cause someone to move over slightly, or change into a second lane if they have difficulty judging distances between their car and other objects.

Furthermore, your argument works just as well against Busses.. they should probably just bugger off as well huh

Ah the good old fuel excise furphy- a tiny fraction of the total revenue spent on roads, and used by the (C) brigade (to continue the adopted classifcation) to justify their entire argument.
Which reminds me- someone is bound to mention GST paid on cars and petrol, conveniently ignoring the fact that cyclists who save on these items simply spend their money on other things and still pay the same GST.
Good to get this garbage out and dealt with.

fiddlybits said :

Road construction and maintenance is funded by fuel excise (well, that part of the collected excise that isn’t used to pay for various non-road related follies). Fuel excise is paid by people who purchase fuel to use in motor vehicles. Bicycles do not use fuel. So apply (A) and (B) to yourself and stop doing (C).

But what if you drive and ride Einstein? Why don’t we licence people to get on buses using that logic? I mean ACTION pays for the fuel but the bus riders are ‘using’ your road

The sound you hear is your argument flying out the window

Road construction and maintenance is funded by fuel excise (well, that part of the collected excise that isn’t used to pay for various non-road related follies). Fuel excise is paid by people who purchase fuel to use in motor vehicles. Bicycles do not use fuel. So apply (A) and (B) to yourself and stop doing (C).

OpenYourMind25:49 pm 27 Apr 09

Why not have a RiotACT FAQ to cover off issues like this??

Josh,

There are about 20,000 new readers here since the last time this debate was had on RA. Its not old news to everyone.

the-whingeact

If it wasn’t cyclists, there’d be whinging about something even more relevant like, I dunno, the weather.

Cyclists and motorists won’t just magically get along, and shiny flu stated it pretty accurately above. Let’s quit beating this dead horse, hey?

It’s precisely because I am sick of seeing the same nonsense endlessly regurgitated that I made the original comment- if it were filtered out, as I too wish it were, it would not have been necessary to do so. Funny how it only becomes a boring repetitive topic when someone corrects the record.
But I am glad that others have identified the need for bike lanes on all roads not just some. Usually the same people that complain about cyclists holding people up are the same ones who think that no money (including that paid by cyclists) should be spent separating them.

…… make a real mess.

The simple answer is this:

When you realise that the world is populated with more idiots than people of reason/intelligence, it suddenly becomes a much easier place to live in.

Do you even want an answer or is this just a way to vent your frustration. Poor old put upon cyclist. Your no free loader. Buck up, here’s a tissue. Remember, sticks and stones won’t break your bones but suddenly swerving out in front of a car moving faster than you might.

I look forward to the day that there is enough going on in Canberra that posting on this site can be moderated and filtered of repeated opinion content like this.

Tony said :

On roads without dedicated cycle lanes, cyclist cause more traffic problems then they solve. You always have to move into the second lane when passing them

Can you find anything false about that statement, Horrid?

On roads without dedicated cycle lanes, cyclist cause more traffic problems then they solve. You always have to move into the second lane when passing then, usually causing a backup of traffic if the other lane already has traffic, and you have to slow before you overtake the cyclist.
Seems cyclist should be forced to sport rear view mirrors so they can actually see the chaos they cause behind them.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.