Drivers v. cyclists – Research finds some people are arseholes

johnboy 17 December 2010 32

The ABC has the rivetting news that research from the University of Canberra’s Ruth Wright has found that in the cyclist-driver flame wars some people are just wankers.

The study by the University of Canberra identified both drivers and cyclists who think they have a greater right to the space on the road, and drive or ride accordingly.

“There seems to be a sense of entitlement to the road and to the road space amongst Canberra drivers,” she said.

“The other thing we’re getting a sense of, is there’s possible clashing senses of entitlement amongst different groups of road users.”

But apparently her findings support funding more research in this area, didn’t see that one coming.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to Drivers v. cyclists – Research finds some people are arseholes
Filter
Order
OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 10:14 pm 20 Dec 10

Nice one Postalgeek.

And dvaey when you speak of cyclists getting away with breaking the law, it may be prudent to first have a look at car drivers. Count how few drivers are NOT breaking the law on Tuggeranong Parkway – specially around the roadworks.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 12:38 pm 20 Dec 10

You might not have noticed it, Dvaey, but there are some differences between bikes and cars. Start with the physics of mass and energy, and then move on to ABS road statistics and compare deaths by cyclist vs death by car. I’ll make it easy by giving you the last decade to work with, in which two(2) people have been killed by cyclists in Australia. Now you go work out how many people have been killed by cars in that time, then let me know if the numbers are similar. Then we can start comparing bicycle training programs with driver programs.

dvaey dvaey 10:39 am 20 Dec 10

The registration component is relatively small. Compulsory training and registration for bicycles isn’t such a silly idea, however the catch is that it just wouldn’t work in administrative terms and that’s why it isn’t implemented anywhere that I am aware of.

It used to be implemented in the ACT. There used to be compulsory bicycle training as part of primary schooling. There were 2 facilities setup, one at Deakin and one at Belconnen, where kids were educated in road rules, bicycle safety, etc, exactly as you describe. Im sure many RA readers older than about 20 will remember doing it. I heard the program was stopped due to lack of funding, probably in-part because it was being run out of the policing budget rather than a road-safety budget.

Even if you could come up with some system of registering bicycles and licencing riders, do you really think that would make any difference to the crap attitude of some drivers.

Imagine for a second that the same people who canned the bicycle training facility due to lack of costs, also canned the road-ready and learner driver programs in the ACT too. If you think theres a crap attitude for drivers, imagine if they were allowed to get away with what cyclists do.

Furry Jesus Furry Jesus 10:22 am 20 Dec 10

Simple really roads are for cars bike paths are for bikes that should stop the problem. Thats right I pay rego fee’s it’s my road!

That’s some sense of entitlement, what will it take to educate you?

Both of you could do with some educating about Punctuating your sentences. Compare the following with the above.

1. Simple, really. Roads are for cars. Bike paths are for bikes. That should stop the problem. That’s right. I pay rego fees. It’s my road!

(Well done for putting the apostrophe in ‘it’s’.)

2. That’s some sense of entitlement. What will it take to educate you?

That’s better. My teeth have ceased grinding.

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 12:11 pm 19 Dec 10

When people say, I pay for the roads because I pay rego, they most often are talking about registration plus the 3rd party person component. The registration component is relatively small. Compulsory training and registration for bicycles isn’t such a silly idea, however the catch is that it just wouldn’t work in administrative terms and that’s why it isn’t implemented anywhere that I am aware of.

Dvaey, registration doesn’t pay for your right to use the road, it pays for the entitlement to have that particular car used on the roads.

Even if you could come up with some system of registering bicycles and licencing riders, do you really think that would make any difference to the crap attitude of some drivers. Ironically, the people most likely to follow those rules of licencing and registration are the very same people the Government is trying to encourage – commuter cyclists.

Just remember every time you see a bike using ‘your’ road, that’s one more parking spot for your car, one bit less pollution and congestion. Annual bicycle sales consistently outnumber car sales, there’s a reason for that: Bikes are awesome!

astrojax astrojax 8:32 am 19 Dec 10

JB, how many cyclist vs motorist threads does RA host now?

never enough!

Holditz Holditz 11:03 pm 18 Dec 10

WalkTheTalk said :

Taxes also go to a bunch of other stuff that neither group may ever use.

Yup- buses. (Well, bike riders use buses, but real cyclists will ride the WHOLE way.)

WalkTheTalk WalkTheTalk 8:33 pm 18 Dec 10

JB, how many cyclist vs motorist threads does RA host now?

These arguments keep going over old ground. I love the point made by motorists that their taxes go to cycle lanes. Yes they do, as do the taxes of tax paying cyclists. Taxes also go to a bunch of other stuff that neither group may ever use.

A different perspective arose at a community meeting last year. A firm (forget which) was contracted by the ACT government to expand and improve cycle ways in and around the Tuggeranong town centre.

The point made by the contractor was that on road cycling lanes cost 1/10th that of off road cycle paths. For those that are upset that some of their taxes go to on road cycle lanes (and other infrastructure and/or rebates that you may never use), isn’t this the best “bang for your buck”?

Deckard Deckard 4:41 pm 18 Dec 10

dvaey said :

OpenYourMind said :

Grumpy Old Fart, your rego doesn’t pay for the road. Consolidated revenue does – the same consolidated revenue that cyclists contribute to.

Youre right, rego doesnt pay for the road. Rego pays for your right to use the road. If you believe that the only requirement to use a public road, is to pay consolidated taxes, Im sure the police will be waiting for you with their RAPID system to educate you on the errors of your ways. You could also say that the consolidated revenue that a cyclist pays, goes towards cycle paths, which they then choose to leave empty so they can ride on a main road, then complain that they have to share the road? Bikes have numerous options, they can ride on roads, paths, and some people will even ride their bikes over dirt and grass. Cars can travel on sealed roads, and only between the painted lines.

OpenYourMind said :

Your rego doesn’t even cover the cost of 3rd party comprehensive combined with costs associated wtih injuries from motor vehicle accidents.

What the heck does rego have to do with comprehensive insurance? Firstly, rego *doesnt* cover the costs of insurance. The compulsary insurance motor vehicles have is paid extra to the registration cost. People who elect to have comprehensive insurance pay extra on top of that again. People who cycle, might be a member of a private organisation who have their own insurance, however they do not pay directly for their insurance, and they are only covered if they choose to join the cyclist advocacy group.

OpenYourMind said :

In fact for all those people that bitch and moan about cyclist breaking the law (and unfortunately some do), recent studies show that cyclists are rarely to blame for accidents.

What training and checks do cyclists have to undergo before using the road? If a cyclist DOES break the law, or behave dangerously, what recourse to other road users have? If a cyclist repeatedly breaks the law, what can be done about it? Compare this to those in control of any other vehicle (car, motorbike, truck, scooter, etc).

Case Study 1

purple diva purple diva 4:22 pm 18 Dec 10

Yes anyone can be a wanker, whether in a four-wheeled tin can, or on a two-wheeled bumper magnet.

And yes cyclist shoud stick to the cycle paths – but have you seen the state of many of them? They’re not maintained like your average road is, and are often covered in rocks and smashed bottles.

Maybe instead of the pathetic penalties we have for drink drivers and those who insist of driving without a licence, we should be sending them on community service to clean up those paths. Keeps them off the streets, and makes a safer means of travelling for cyclists too.

Everyone wins.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 2:11 pm 18 Dec 10

Because we all know registration of vehicles has solved the problem of poor driver behaviour. Ask any White Commodore driver.

And rego doesn’t pay for any ‘right’ to use the road. If you don’t have a license, you can’t legally operate any heavy motor vehicle on a road, irrespective of whether it is registered.

dvaey dvaey 12:09 pm 18 Dec 10

OpenYourMind said :

Grumpy Old Fart, your rego doesn’t pay for the road. Consolidated revenue does – the same consolidated revenue that cyclists contribute to.

Youre right, rego doesnt pay for the road. Rego pays for your right to use the road. If you believe that the only requirement to use a public road, is to pay consolidated taxes, Im sure the police will be waiting for you with their RAPID system to educate you on the errors of your ways. You could also say that the consolidated revenue that a cyclist pays, goes towards cycle paths, which they then choose to leave empty so they can ride on a main road, then complain that they have to share the road? Bikes have numerous options, they can ride on roads, paths, and some people will even ride their bikes over dirt and grass. Cars can travel on sealed roads, and only between the painted lines.

OpenYourMind said :

Your rego doesn’t even cover the cost of 3rd party comprehensive combined with costs associated wtih injuries from motor vehicle accidents.

What the heck does rego have to do with comprehensive insurance? Firstly, rego *doesnt* cover the costs of insurance. The compulsary insurance motor vehicles have is paid extra to the registration cost. People who elect to have comprehensive insurance pay extra on top of that again. People who cycle, might be a member of a private organisation who have their own insurance, however they do not pay directly for their insurance, and they are only covered if they choose to join the cyclist advocacy group.

OpenYourMind said :

In fact for all those people that bitch and moan about cyclist breaking the law (and unfortunately some do), recent studies show that cyclists are rarely to blame for accidents.

What training and checks do cyclists have to undergo before using the road? If a cyclist DOES break the law, or behave dangerously, what recourse to other road users have? If a cyclist repeatedly breaks the law, what can be done about it? Compare this to those in control of any other vehicle (car, motorbike, truck, scooter, etc).

Grumpy Old Fart Grumpy Old Fart 11:13 pm 17 Dec 10

Aeek said :

Simple really roads are for cars bike paths are for bikes that should stop the problem. Thats right I pay rego fee’s it’s my road!

That’s some sense of entitlement, what will it take to educate you?

Not much – bikes go on bike paths cars drive on roads. With motorists talking on mobile phones, wearing ipod headphones, texting and generally being idiots any cyclist with an inkling of risk management would stay off the road as they have no shielding against the drivers that seem to be complained about in the forums like my friends at Rush Hour (not). How many cyclists win in an impact with a vehicle? Like a typical cyclist you have your head down and your a**e up.

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 9:37 pm 17 Dec 10

Sorry 3rd party person, not comprehensive.

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 9:33 pm 17 Dec 10

Grumpy Old Fart, your rego doesn’t pay for the road. Consolidated revenue does – the same consolidated revenue that cyclists contribute to. Your rego doesn’t even cover the cost of 3rd party comprehensive combined with costs associated wtih injuries from motor vehicle accidents. Car drivers have a nasty and damaging habit of running into anything and everything.

In fact for all those people that bitch and moan about cyclist breaking the law (and unfortunately some do), recent studies show that cyclists are rarely to blame for accidents. It’s far more often the car driver. eg: http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/forum/topics/risky-cycling-rarely-to-blame
or http://subtropic.com.au/2010/10/05/motorists-at-fault-in-bicycle-crashes/

Aeek Aeek 8:53 pm 17 Dec 10

Simple really roads are for cars bike paths are for bikes that should stop the problem. Thats right I pay rego fee’s it’s my road!

That’s some sense of entitlement, what will it take to educate you?

Deckard Deckard 7:14 pm 17 Dec 10

troll-sniffer said :

Ruth Wright is obviously angling for a position as Dean of the School of Inconsequential Studies.

Either that or the School of the Bleeding Obvious.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 6:37 pm 17 Dec 10

dtc said :

But why are more people wankers when they are driving (or riding) than during, say, their time at work? Or, putting it another way, why do people feel they can be a wanker when on the road but dont feel they can be a wanker at some other time?

In the case of drivers, I’d say being in a confined space where you’re generally alone or with people you know well provides an opportunity to act as one’s true self.

mr_spoon mr_spoon 5:51 pm 17 Dec 10

I say persecute the grocer’s apostrophe. Possibly because I’m a wanker.

Grumpy Old Fart Grumpy Old Fart 5:29 pm 17 Dec 10

Simple really roads are for cars bike paths are for bikes that should stop the problem. Thats right I pay rego fee’s it’s my road!

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site