Drivers v. cyclists - Research finds some people are arseholes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

never enough!

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.)

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”?

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

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.