Deaths drive cyclists to promote road rules to address confusion and ease frustration

Ian Campbell 10 July 2018 64
Hardly a 1.5 metre gap - it's the law. Cycling in the Bega Valley. Photo: Kate Smith.

Hardly a 1.5-metre gap – it’s the law. Photo: Kate Smith.

Cyclists in the Canberra region have been shaken by two recent road incidents, including one that resulted in the death of a 72-year-old man.

Police are still investigating the circumstances surrounding the South Coast man’s death, and are appealing to the public for dashcam vision and any information.

About 10:50 am on Saturday 23 June, emergency services were called to Mt Darragh Road at Lochiel, about 20 kilometres north of Eden.

The cyclist had suffered serious injuries and was taken to Canberra Hospital in a critical condition, where he died earlier last week.

Initial inquiries suggest a 37-year-old man stopped his Nissan utility to speak with the cyclist prior to the crash.

Meantime on Thursday (5 July) just after 8:00 pm, emergency services were called to the intersection of Tumut Plains Road and East Street in Tumut after a cyclist was struck by a Toyota Hilux.

The rider, a 50-year-old man, was treated at the scene by NSW Ambulance paramedics before being taken to Tumut Hospital. He was later airlifted to Canberra Hospital with head injuries.

The driver of the Toyota, a 19-year-old man, was uninjured and taken to Tumut Hospital for mandatory blood and urine testing.

These two events follow the death of a 55-year-old female cyclist on Tarago Road at Bungendore in early June, after which a 37-year-old man was charged with dangerous and negligent driving occasioning death.

Merimbula’s Kate Smith has been riding weekly for the last five years and recently contacted The RiotACT on the back of these incidents, keen to promote changed road rules and encourage a culture of sharing local roads.

“The cycling community in the Bega Valley is a very close bunch and we are feeling this loss very deeply,” Ms Smith says.

The informal group of around 25 cyclists Ms Smith rides with, gets together four times a week either riding towards Eden or Wyndham or closer to home around Merimbula and Pambula.

“You won’t ever find us all together at the one time, we are all spread out depending on our ability. I am generally at the back, but I do a couple of hundred kilometres each week,” Ms Smith says.

“It’s a fantastic thing to be doing, that is growing in popularity.

“And when you are riding with a bunch of people you form a great bond, it’s something that turns you from friends into family.”

Motorists can cross double white lines when safe in order to pass a cyclist and give them the space they need. Photo: Kate Smith.

Motorists can cross double white lines when safe in order to pass a cyclist and give them the space they need. Photo: Kate Smith.

Doug Reckord, from the Bega Tathra Safe Ride committee, sends his condolences to the family and friends of the rider killed and regrets the impact bad news has on peoples’ interest in cycling.

“We know that there is a high number of people who would ride more if they had a safe place to do it,” he says.

Construction of stage one of the Bega Tathra shared pathway is proposed to start in October linking Tathra and Kalaru and separating bicycles, cars, and trucks for roughly 4km.

“This project complements the Bega Valley Bike Plan and that idea of saying – we want you to ride, we want you to ride safely, we want you to get home,” Mr Reckord says.

Like Ms Smith, Mr Reckord says he is mostly comfortable on local roads, but both accept that some cyclists will always want to go ‘beyond a path’, which calls for cooperation and clear heads from all road users.

“The overwhelming majority of the motorists that I encounter between Bega and Tathra are good drivers, they slow down at the crests and the curves, they give you plenty of room,” he says.

Ms Smith says, “We’ll do a ride of 120 kilometres and we accept that cycling is inherently a risky activity, but so is walking out your front door.

“Everything has a degree of risk and we do what we can to minimise that.

“Most car drivers negotiate us without incident. It’s not our intention to obstruct traffic or hinder anyone; we just want to share the road safely.”

Having better-informed road users on two and four wheels is important to both cyclists and the community they ride with.

Mr Reckord says there are a few things you can do that make yourself safer as a rider.

“If you are a bike rider you are vulnerable, you should bear that in mind: hi-viz clothing, lighting on the bike, avoid the peak times if you can as they are not necessarily the best time to be on the road, you might need to go earlier or later,” he says.

“And if you are not confident, look for those safer places to ride.”

Ms Smith believes a lot of people aren’t aware of the road rules.

“About a year and a half ago, road rules changed to allow car drivers to overtake cyclists on double white lines where it is safe to do so,” she says.

“It’s never really been promoted and it often causes frustration.”

On top of that, in NSW and the ACT, drivers who pass a bicycle rider must allow a distance of at least one metre when the speed limit is 60 km/h or less and 1.5 metres when the speed limit is more than 60 km/h.

Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast on both sides of the border, however, when riding two abreast, riders must travel within 1.5 metres of the other rider. This means that riders should ride as close together as is safe to do so.

There are rules too for bicycle riders. Cyclists must stop at red lights or stop signs, give way as indicated by signage, and give hand signals when changing direction. Under both ACT and NSW road rules, a bicycle is considered a vehicle, which means the same road rules apply.

Ms Smith says attitude and aggression between road users is very frightening.

“We are lucky around here that the roads as so quiet, most of the time we don’t have problems, but when we do it’s really distressing, it makes you feel sick in the guts,” she says.

Police are keen to hear from witnesses to the recent incidents at Lochiel and Tumut or anyone with dashcam vision.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
64 Responses to Deaths drive cyclists to promote road rules to address confusion and ease frustration
astro2 astro2 7:56 am 16 Jul 18

Marko Lehikoinen, making unsubstantiated assertions about what happened in the Tumut crash won’t get you anywhere. From the article, the only fact you got right was that the accident happened at night (8pm). If you have any evidence to back up the rest of your claims you should cite it. Otherwise it’s just more of the same tiresome anti-cyclist ranting.

    wildturkeycanoe wildturkeycanoe 5:53 am 17 Jul 18

    Astro2, the poor fellow’s parents live next door to my parents, my sister talks regularly with his brother….if these sources aren’t reliable then who can believe anything the media says. Yes I am anti-cyclist when circumstances are justified, but in this situation the cycle lobby is sensationalizing the story to suit themselves.

    astro2 astro2 8:04 am 17 Jul 18

    I doubt whether neighbourhood gossip would be admissible in this situation though. Have the police released a statement supporting what you are claiming?

David Riddel David Riddel 2:23 pm 15 Jul 18

Just completed a 400 km (24 hrs) bike ride entirely on roads. Absolutely no problems from any motorist—all overtook with care.

It’s only a tiny minority of motorists who have a problem—what makes them so special?🙄

Sam Momcilovic Sam Momcilovic 11:23 pm 14 Jul 18

It is a two way street, cyclists need to obey the rules as do motorists. It shouldn't be an us and them argument it should be about keeping everyone safe and being accountable for our own actions. It is frustrating that cyclists are not held accountable for their actions on the road and when they cause an accident or injure someone they are not held accountable as they are untraceable. That is not a fair system. If motorists have registration plates and pay insurance then so to should cyclists. If we are all sharing the roads then we should all be registered and insured for the protection of all.

    Julie Macklin Julie Macklin 11:36 pm 14 Jul 18

    Many people who ride bikes do pay insurance. I do.

    Matt Donnelly Matt Donnelly 10:34 am 15 Jul 18

    Has the idea of cyclists displaying plates been trialled elsewhere in the world? Have any countries adopted it?

    Julie Macklin Julie Macklin 11:20 am 15 Jul 18

    Matt Donnelly I have seen this in a couple of countries. One was Switzerland (I can't remember what the other country was). They no longer do this, but it appears the plates are now collector's items. Initially plates; then stickers, until abandoned.

    Matt Donnelly Matt Donnelly 3:14 pm 15 Jul 18

    From the article; “The conclusion drawn was that more than 90% of the population already had private third-party liability insurance, and the stickers therefore resulted in an inappropriate double cover for the same risk.”

    From the limited research I’ve conducted, Australia would be the only nation in the world to require such plates/stickers.

    I also notice all of Europe, and most of North America, isn’t fining people for riding without a helmet. Personal responsibility trumps the nanny-state. Good.

    Julie Macklin Julie Macklin 3:55 pm 15 Jul 18

    "Australia would be the only nation in the world to require such plates/stickers" Not required here, except by a small vocal minority, who mostly don't like people to ride bikes; think bikes shouldn't be on the roads, don't want money spent on separate paths, because too much is spent of cycling already. Basically, bikes should not leave people's back yards and everyone should drive. Of course what I wrote would be denied, but I have read so much anti-bike arguments, to know that's what basically it boils down to.

    Sam Momcilovic Sam Momcilovic 5:55 pm 15 Jul 18

    I want to clarify that I am not saying plates etc. are the only way forward, it was merely a suggestion. Both sides need to come to the table with ideas and devise a solution rather than arguing, belittling and finger pointing in online forums. The aggression needs to cease on the roads and online.

    Julie Macklin Julie Macklin 5:41 pm 16 Jul 18

    Sam Momcilovic The aggression mostly comes from one side; the anti bike people. They might stir up cyclists who then return it, but it usually begins by people who don't want others to cycle. Some set out on purpose no doubt to stir up cyclists, and then stir up the cyclists even more when they ignore any facts presented to them, because facts aren't what they are about. They are about stirring up the cycling public. Some might see this as a game, but others do it because of a strange hatred of said cycling public, because somehow they feel threatened. Why, what is their weakness?

astro2 astro2 6:24 pm 14 Jul 18

Hi chewy14, since you have asked me to clarify the meaning of my post I shall do so. I was referring to an attitude amongst a minority of motor car drivers (only a minority thankfully) that the road is exclusively for them. This gives rise to comments such as ‘cyclists should only ride on dedicated bike paths.’ If anything happens to a cyclist riding in a cycle lane on a road they then blame the cyclist, no matter how much at fault the driver of the car was. It’s a particularly Australian attitude unfortunately but as I said, only a minority. By the way, if I see any horses and carts would certainly give way to them. However, cannot say I’ve seen any recently, (unlike cycles, which have been around before cars and are still around and increasing.)

    chewy14 chewy14 8:06 pm 16 Jul 18

    The point being made is that for safety reasons, bicycles should only be permitted to ride on dedicated bike infrastructure rather than roads (at least major ones) which should be dedicated for cars.

    No one is blaming cyclists if they get hit by a car, simply recognising the fact that placing 1.5+ tonnes of metal travelling at 60-80km/hr+ next to unprotected cyclists travelling much slower is inherently unsafe.

    No amount of “education” in this area will stop accidents and incidents from occurring and the smartest way to prevent them is by removing cyclists from the road.

    It’s hard to argue you were in the right if you’re dead.

    astro2 astro2 8:05 am 17 Jul 18

    By the same logic cars should not be allowed on roads where there are large trucks operating. For safety reasons of course.

    chewy14 chewy14 7:37 pm 17 Jul 18

    “By the same logic cars should not be allowed on roads where there are large trucks operating. For safety reasons of course.”

    Not even slightly comparable level of risk.

    The main danger risk and difference between cars and cyclists is the speed differential, visibility of cyclists and unprotectedness of them.

    In relation to large trucks, there is little to no speed differential, cars are far easier seen and car occupants are surrounded by massive amounts of safety technology to keep them safe from the risk.

    But you do make a good point that trucks are not allowed on certain streets or town/city areas. You’re clearly supportive of the same logic being applied to cyclists then.

astro2 astro2 2:18 pm 13 Jul 18

Well, bicycles were around before cars so that means you’ll just have to remove your private motor vehicles from the road and wait around for some “dedicated infrastructure” to be built. Enjoy your cycle, bus or light rail trip in the meantime.

    chewy14 chewy14 5:20 pm 13 Jul 18

    What does this even mean?

    Horse and Cart was around before bicycles so you’ll just have to take your bicycle off the road and get a chariot.

    Our roads were specifically built for cars and that’s where the majority of the benefit of having roads comes from, the use of a private motor vehicle.

Charlie Azzopardi Charlie Azzopardi 10:41 pm 12 Jul 18

And they want to ease frustration not lol. I know a few road cyclists that have got the shits whit their extreme counterparts that are now srarting to affect him when riding.

Kate Smith Kate Smith 5:15 pm 12 Jul 18

Happy to share the road with cyclists but please could you angle your front light in a slight downward position the same way car headlights should be and have more than one tiny flickering red tail light. I want to see you and avoid you- the damage to you, me and my car is not worth it. Stay healthy- you impress me

    Tim Coleman Tim Coleman 9:28 am 13 Jul 18

    I'll be more careful with my bike headlight when car drivers are more careful to switch off their foglights when it's not foggy (unlike car headlights, fog lights do not have the same requirements to point downwards - that's why it's illegal to use them when it's not actually foggy)

    Kate Smith Kate Smith 10:31 am 13 Jul 18

    Tim- this still doesn’t make your action right.......

bigred bigred 8:01 am 12 Jul 18

The mayhem in the ACT is likely to continue as it has for the recent past until government gets serious and enshrines vulnerable road user protections into the law and backs them up with vigorous prosecutions. By vulnerable road user protections I mean well thought out infrastructure implemented progressively in a staged manner, proper speed limits in neighbourhoods, a police force that takes complaints from cyclists and pedestrians seriously and decent legislation that includes a reverse onus of proof should a school mum mow down a cyclist or pedestrian.

    chewy14 chewy14 12:00 pm 12 Jul 18

    ah yes, let’s forget one of the fundamental principles of our legal system because cyclists don’t like it.

    The “mayhem” in the ACT won’t stop until the government recognises the fact that cyclists and cars cannot ever safely coexist on roads and that cyclists must be separated on dedicated bike infrastructure where feasible.

    bigred bigred 11:31 pm 13 Jul 18

    I congratulate you on understanding the thrust of my suggestion. However, my suggestion covers cars being squashed by trucks, cyclists creamed by SUVs and pedestrians creamed by trucks and cars. Also includes motorcycles splattered by cars, trucks and buses.

    I reckon if you are in charge of a vehicle and you are considering taking a risk, the potential of criminal conviction should be part of your decision making. It is simple really, just think about the other person’s well being!

    chewy14 chewy14 5:29 pm 14 Jul 18

    “I reckon if you are in charge of a vehicle and you are considering taking a risk, the potential of criminal conviction should be part of your decision making”

    There are already significant penalties for dangerous and negligent driving.

    It’s still a ridiculous proposition to consider changing a fundamental tenet of our legal system such that you would be guilty until proven innocent. It would even be deliberately in opposition to the UN charter for human rights.

    tim_c tim_c 9:13 am 13 Jul 18

    Reverse onus of proof? You are actually calling for people to be declared guilty until they can prove themselves innocent – this would be a very dangerous shift in our legal system. Perhaps you don’t understand the benefits of being innocent unless someone can actually prove you are guilty – changing this means anyone could potentially accuse you of something and you are automatically guilty of that offence unless you can prove you didn’t do it. Whatever you hope to gain by such a significant change is not worth the risk.

    bigred bigred 11:34 pm 13 Jul 18

    I understand the benefit of not being run down by someone who is not cognisant of the risks their demeanour creates.

Simon Wigram Simon Wigram 9:30 pm 11 Jul 18

I have no issues with cyclist on the road however I think they need to be more responsible and wear high vis clothing so they are visible from a distance

Maya123 Maya123 10:20 am 11 Jul 18

Renea Hazel wrote, “That’s all fine with the 1m rule but those roads where it isn’t practical for drivers to give the 1m cyclists probably shouldn’t be on.”

I have never found such a road when out driving. It’s a matter of patience and being considerate to all road users. I am not more ‘special and deserving’ than another road user. I wait a little while and then an opportunity to pass will come up. I observed this on European roads being done as the natural thing to do and brought this attitude back when I returned to Australia. It was an eye opener; the difference between here and there.

So, if anyone thinks such roads exist where “it isn’t practical for drivers to give the 1m cyclists probably shouldn’t be on”, then I would suggest your driving attitude and skill level is not up to driving on these roads and you should not; not that the person on the bike should not.

The very narrow (single lane), rough dirt tracks where there might genuinely not be enough room, it would be extremely rare to find people cycling on. The few occasions that I have, and it was few, (say a mountain road) it has been people on mountain bikes and we have negotiated each other without problem. Besides, it wasn’t the sort of road/track one would drive fast on, attempting to miss as much as possible, the holes, mud patches, etc. And the person on the bike was not going fast either.

actcyclist actcyclist 9:55 am 11 Jul 18

If you can’t see a cyclist, no matter what they’re wearing, you can’t see a child, pedestrian or kangaroo either.

What I see is a lot of distracted drivers on their phone- not when I’m on my bike as I use cycleways, but when I’m in the car- huge amounts of people are not paying attention to the road.

    tim_c tim_c 9:34 am 13 Jul 18

    What are you saying? That cyclists should be able to ride at night, wearing dark clothing, disregarding their legal obligation to have a front and rear light that are clearly visible from a distance at least 200m, and expect people to see them? And that bumping into a cyclist is only as serious as bumping into a kangaroo?!

    astro2 astro2 2:34 pm 13 Jul 18

    I think actcyclist’s point is that a lot of motorists aren’t paying attention when they’re driving. There could be a number of factors behind this, one of which is that cars are so sealed off from the conditions around them these days that their drivers seem to be in their own little metal carapace world, oblivious to the world around them. Unfortunately, some motor vehicle advertising (remember “Zoom! Zoom! Zoom!”?) encourages this behaviour. Then when things go wrong there’s a finger-wagging at the cyclist who wasn’t at fault in the collision in the first place.

Peter Major Peter Major 9:14 pm 10 Jul 18

Keep left and in single file and don't obstruct traffic flow. It's not a race track cyclists you are not permitted to form paletons. I cycled on road for 8 years commuting Kambah to Civic and Russell Offices and never had an issue with other traffic. Its not the cars its the "ITS MY RIGHT sans the ACCOUNTABILITY" of the cyclists.

    James Davies James Davies 1:10 pm 11 Jul 18

    Does that give people rhe right to drive dangerously around vulnerable people. No. Its like someone saying sorry officer i only stabbed the guy cause he was slow in thw que at the checkout.

    Peter Major Peter Major 5:35 pm 11 Jul 18

    James Davies wrong. You are accountable and responsible for your actions even cyclists.

    If you cycle on a narrow high speed country road you are puting yourself at risk. It is your decision alone. If you cycle in a group and take up most of the road then you are exposing yourself/selves to danger. Again your call.

    You are not allowed to impede the flow of traffic which is a road rule. Thus you need to ensure traffic can flow around you.

    Having personally cycled on many country roads (never in groups) and keeping as far left as possible I have never encountered any issue with other road users.

    Laura Norder Laura Norder 12:43 am 12 Jul 18

    cyclists don't 'obstruct traffic flow'. they ARE traffic.

    Peter Major Peter Major 8:28 am 12 Jul 18

    Laura Norder wrong. Any vehicle can obstruct traffic if its tavelling inordinately slow in relation traffic movement.

    Dylan Fry Dylan Fry 10:28 am 12 Jul 18

    Peter Major thank you peter for showing some people who cycle have brains and actually get it! 👏🏻 👏🏻

    Daniel Endicott Daniel Endicott 7:09 am 13 Jul 18

    Some people rant: “You need to pushbike in the gutter and let traffic through (pushbikes should not hold up faster vehicles). Cars have paid for the right to use the road, so I will squeeze past cyclists because they should be more over to the left”

    Then think about: “Primary school kids need to walk in the gutter and let adults through (Playing games on smart phones is holding up people walking faster). Adults have paid to be able to walk to the shops, so I will barge past kids and scare them because they should make room for adults”.

    The point is that we do not scare kids off footpaths and want to make them walk in the gutter. We know the gutter is dangerous and we want kids to be safe.

    Many motorists want cyclists to ride in the gutter or parked car door opening zone. Currently it is seen that it is too dangerous to cycle in part of the traffic lane, with cars.

    But some things are complicated. It is safer to cycle away from parked cars because the door can open anytime. And cyclists need room to dodge things (1 metre), so the gutter is too far to the left. Road rules say “as far left as practical (totally different to as far left as possible)” and it is law for adults to ride on roads without rego. We all want to be safe and not break road rules, so guess what?: Non registered cyclists riding on roads are following road rules because the road rules say they should not be registered!

    Drink driving became socially unacceptable when society decided their were too many deaths that were easily preventable. Now sedentary lifestyles (almost no exercise) and obesity epidmic means we have more hospital costs and life years lost to unhealthy living than to road deaths. Again it is easy to prevent sedentary lifestyles as seen in many European countries that have less car use. When will Aussies wake up to the elephant in the room and stop listening to the political spin that is designed to win elections and not to benefit the health (mental, physical, etc) of the nation. Short term promises of new highways to ease traffic congestion misses the big picture.

    1g1. Why is a pushbike hogging the road?

    It is courteous to pushbike in the safest part of the lane: sometimes near gutter, sometimes middle of the lane. Many motorists think pushbikes are being dangerous by forcing cars to do unsafe overtaking actions over to the other side of the road. But cyclists are just lane positioning so cars pass them leaving 1m clearance. Would you run past a pedestrian closely holding knifes out to your side? One small wobble of the pedestrian would have a knife in their arm. But walking slowly and small bumps with other people is ok. But any small bump between a bicyclist and a car is NOT OK. Exactly the same issue with cyclists needing 1m clearance from a passing motorist . The sooner people learn the complex issues we can all be happy. Not road hogs deliberately hogging the lane, just following road rule 129: Ride as far left as PRACTICAL on roads. This is totally different to as far left as possible, make sure you know the difference. Bust the transport myths that 99% of people are confused about:

    Peter Major Peter Major 1:27 pm 13 Jul 18

    Daniel Endicott there is nothing wrong with on road cycling, just keep as far left as safe to do so.

    On road cycling does not mean form palatons or phalanxes of pushbikes obstructing the road.

    As I have said I cycled/commuted for years and never had an issue with other traffic. I complied with the road rules, kept as far left as was safe to do so and maintained situational awareness.

    Laura Norder Laura Norder 2:28 pm 14 Jul 18

    Peter Major incorrect. the wording of the law also clearly states that where "there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed"

    So a bicycle rider will be exempt

    Oversize loads, machinery etc will be exempt

    Towing a trailer (eg caravan) which the manufacturer recommends not going faster than a certain speed will also be exempt

    Peter Major Peter Major 3:39 pm 14 Jul 18

    Laura Norder why would a bicycle be exempt as there is no reason per se, the rest have reasonable reasons.

    Boweavil Kat Boweavil Kat 4:36 pm 14 Jul 18

    Peter Major you’re not nor have you ever been a cyclist. You’re just a troll.

    Laura Norder Laura Norder 8:49 pm 14 Jul 18

    Peter Major because for a cyclist to travel at 30 kmph on an 80 kmph road is NOT unreasonable.... 😒

    nor is it unreasonable for a dozer to drive that slow. nor someone to tow a caravan at 80 kmph on a 110 kmph...

    Karl Brown Karl Brown 6:21 pm 15 Jul 18

    So Peter Major, is my fault when I am riding by myself and a car passes me close/pulls out at an intersection/cuts me at a roundabout etc?

    James Davies James Davies 2:17 pm 17 Jul 18

    Peter Major sorry, wrong. Go and talk to a lawyer mate. As i have to clarify what impeeding traffic means. My point stands. Just because someone inconveniences you does not give you the right to endanger their life. Thats the rationale of a lunatic.

    The law on impeeding traffic does not refer to vehicles (which a bicycle is under the road rules) moving slower then the speed limit. Impeeding traffic with regards to the law applies where a person deliberately halts, or slows traffic with some kind of obsticle when they are not authorised to do so or possibly if they are travelling deliberately slowly AND deliberately preventing other traffic from passing. For example, if someone parks their car on the road at 90 degrees to block off traffic lanes as a deliberate act, or errects barriers (unless they are an authorised traffic controller). It does NOT refer to slower vehicles operating in the lane in a standard way, or way they are capable of. Ive had it checked by a lawyer.

    James Davies James Davies 2:21 pm 17 Jul 18

    Peter Major Talk to a lawyer as i have. You dont know the law.

    James Davies James Davies 2:28 pm 17 Jul 18

    Peter Major, there are legitimate reasons for a bicycle to take the lane, for example if its too narrow to safely share. The law on obstruction of traffic only refers to going deliberately slow (and even that is questionable) or putting barriers in place.

    James Davies James Davies 2:30 pm 17 Jul 18

    Peter Major Also so, why are all the car drivers not booked because they are holding me up at the lights because they can't accelerate at the same rate as me on my motorcycle. Your rationale is flawed.

Marcia Denman Marcia Denman 7:48 pm 10 Jul 18

Let’s just all be courteous and thoughtful. Bikes and cars

Robert Honeybone Snr Robert Honeybone Snr 4:48 pm 10 Jul 18

Also White with foggy days can’t see you

Rollersk8r Rollersk8r 4:44 pm 10 Jul 18

When Ken said +1.

I ride on the road most days – but there are all sorts of roads in Canberra that it makes no sense to ride on at all! If there’s a cycle path adjacent to a skinny road – then use the path! My no.1 example would be William Slim Drive all the way through to Gundaroo Drive.

Tony Armstrong Tony Armstrong 3:51 pm 10 Jul 18

Ban black Lycra! Bike riders blend into the shade of trees especially in the winter months.

    Tony Mclean Tony Mclean 7:30 pm 10 Jul 18

    Black cars too. 😎

    James Davies James Davies 1:06 pm 11 Jul 18

    Maybe go to an optometrist.

    I ride a recumbent trike, and a motorcycle. Plenty of people see me on my motorcycle even though im mostly wearing black. On my recumbent trike ive heard people talk to me and say, people might not see you. But they do. I suggest if you cant see bicycle riders then you should pay more attention, or go and get an eye examination.

    Tony Armstrong Tony Armstrong 1:33 pm 11 Jul 18

    Surely it's best to do all you can to be seen? My eyes are fine. A slow bike on a narrow, tree lined road tends to blend into the shadows when the rider is in black, especially in the morning or evening. I don't want to get into an argument that ends in abuse, I'm stating what I've experienced.

    James Davies James Davies 6:51 pm 17 Jul 18

    Tony Armstrong Not true. Ive worn hi viz only to have people go past really close. Then if im on a motorcycle they "see me". Experience tells me your wrong. Its car drivers contempt for bicycle riders thats the problem, plain and simple. Some car drivers are happy to intimidate bicycle riders and come up with a lame excuse to justify their psychotic behaviour.

Ken Owers Ken Owers 1:34 pm 10 Jul 18

I am a cyclist who rides to work almost everyday (50km round trip) and I am fully aware of the road rules and passing distances. I am also aware of cyclsts being permitted to ride two a breast however, cyclists should have the manners and commonsense to see whn riding two a breast is causing a back up of traffic as cars are not able to over take the cyclists under the new rule. I believe half the angst shown by motorists towards cyclists would go away if riders were aware of the situation around them and did the ride thing.

    Mick Nicholls Mick Nicholls 2:06 pm 10 Jul 18

    I agree with you on this, it is a two way solution and not just the drivers problem but the cyclists as well, one cant happen without the other.

    David Riddel David Riddel 5:09 pm 10 Jul 18

    If riding on or right of the ‘fog line’, a car overtaking will need to cross the centre lines anyway. Riding abreast means a shorter distance that the car need to be over centre lines.

    Jude May Jude May 8:33 pm 10 Jul 18

    It means they need to go further over the lines to give you 1.5m ride single file.

    Brett Griffiths Brett Griffiths 6:47 am 12 Jul 18

    We travel the Monaro Highway more than weekly, and were shocked coming back on dark, on a Sunday night, to come across a cyclist on the highway, all I saw at the last moment, in the dark, was a small stripe of reflective material on his back, didn’t see lights at the back, had to swerve towards a semi coming the other way! Frightened the bejesus out me!

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site