Illogical bicycle laws

Why won’t other people simply do what I want?

It’s Simple !

Jivrashia said :

What is this I don’t even…?

If there’s a dedicated cycling lane (A) then how are any cars in their own lane (B) be considered as OVERTAKING the cyclist/vehicle in lane A?

The fact that the cyclist in lane A is right on the line between lane A and B, means that any cars coming from behind in lane B have to merge into lane C to give the cyclist 1.5 metres. Isn’t it a relief we don’t have to give any other vehicles the same buffer zone or the roads would have to be widened?

What is this I don’t even…?

If there’s a dedicated cycling lane (A) then how are any cars in their own lane (B) be considered as OVERTAKING the cyclist/vehicle in lane A?

@ #24 Hatter64,

Nobody does ride down Majura. There is no cycle lane, and you’re all texting whilst driving.

davo101 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

These rules are what happen when we (as in, road users) can’t show some common sense and courtesy to one another. If we were all (drivers and cyclists alike) just a bit more sensible and considerate, these rules wouldn’t necessary.

Begone voice of reason! Do not darken this thread with your talk of sense and consideration.

This morning I saw a group of 3 lycra-clad blokes riding along Parkes Way at about 25km/h in peak hour (causing chaos), then turned off into the city to see a bunch of cars stopping at the pedestrian crossing in front of the convention centre to let some people cross, only for a cyclist to come whizzing up the middle and almost hit the pedestrians.

On the same trip in I also saw motorists lane hogging, and some serious tailgating by a young chap in a commodore on the Monaro highway.

The problem with our rules, and these proposed changes, is that it takes away the elements of personal responsibility, common sense and courtesy. Witness the people on RiotACT who proudly lane hog because they aren’t breaking the law.

We need to think more.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

These rules are what happen when we (as in, road users) can’t show some common sense and courtesy to one another. If we were all (drivers and cyclists alike) just a bit more sensible and considerate, these rules wouldn’t necessary.

Begone voice of reason! Do not darken this thread with your talk of sense and consideration.

tuco said :

“Fluffy said :”

” I wonder. If a bunch of pedestrians started walking on the highway and demanding that cars make changes (e.g. driving very slowly past them, giving them a buffer zone, et cetera), would people think it is a good idea? Or would people think they were really silly for deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation without the protection of a car around them?”

“You’re new at this whole “framing a logical argument” thing, aren’t you?”

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

How did my phallus get involved in this?

Fluffy said :

2012 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior: http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841

Hit by car: 29.

Fell over: 17.

Rider error: 13.

Rider error + fell over > hit by car.

Rider error + fell over + hit by car = 59.

Remove riders from roads: cyclist injuries halved.

It is also worth noting that a quarter of cyclists had BACs over 0.08 (in Australia the limit is usually 0.05). If we increase the number of cyclists and total distance travelled by them as suggested in the article linked below, we would have a very large number of drink riders out there, compounded by increased cyclist traffic density, causing a seriously large number of injuries and fatalities.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3986796.ece

It should also be noted that for all the whining about rights and protections, cyclists actually have more rights than motorists and pedestrians.

Pedestrians:
– Can travel with right of passage on: footpath; pedestrian crossing; shared (ped/bike) path.
– Can at any moment switch from/to: footpath.
– Has/wants/will get special rights above and beyond other users of that medium: No.

Motorists:
– Can travel with right of passage on: road.
– Can at any moment switch from/to: road.
– Has/wants/will get special rights above and beyond other users of that medium: No.

Cyclists:
– Can travel with right of passage on: footpath (where they are actually more dangerous to pedestrians than cars are to riders – see below); pedestrian crossing; shared (ped/bike) path; road.
– Can at any moment switch from/to: footpath; shared path; road.
– Has/wants/will get special rights above and beyond other users of that medium: Yes.

But this has gone way off track. The fact remains: the proposed change, approved for trial, causes the logical problems addressed in the opening post.

—–

“For example, the speed and mass differential between a car and a cyclist appear to be substantially greater than that between a cyclist and a pedestrian. This is illusionary. The kinetic energy of, say, a 1500 kg family sedan car in a 50 km/hr zone compared to a 50th percentile cyclist’s kinetic energy of a riding at around 30 km/hr in the same direction is a ratio of around 44 to 1 in favour of the car. On the other hand, the kinetic energy ratio between the same cyclist still travelling at 30 km/hr and a 50th percentile pedestrian walking at normal speed [9] of say 5 km/hr is around 48 to 1 in favour of the cyclist, i.e. the car-cyclist kinetic energy differential is similar to that of the cyclist-pedestrian ratio.” – Pedestrian-Cyclist Collisions: Issues and Risk. Grzebieta R.H., McIntosh A.M., and Chong S. 2011. Centre for Research, Evidence Management and Surveillance (REMS), Sydney South West Area Health Service.

Nice one Fluffy. Good to see somebody doing some research and finding the facts that support our case. If only the end of the age of entitlement applied to cyclists as much as it did to healthcare, welfare and taxation our roads would be a better place. Unfortunately our P.M is of the lycra brigade so it won’t happen in this electoral term.

2012 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior: http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841

Hit by car: 29.

Fell over: 17.

Rider error: 13.

Rider error + fell over > hit by car.

Rider error + fell over + hit by car = 59.

Remove riders from roads: cyclist injuries halved.

It is also worth noting that a quarter of cyclists had BACs over 0.08 (in Australia the limit is usually 0.05). If we increase the number of cyclists and total distance travelled by them as suggested in the article linked below, we would have a very large number of drink riders out there, compounded by increased cyclist traffic density, causing a seriously large number of injuries and fatalities.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3986796.ece

It should also be noted that for all the whining about rights and protections, cyclists actually have more rights than motorists and pedestrians.

Pedestrians:
– Can travel with right of passage on: footpath; pedestrian crossing; shared (ped/bike) path.
– Can at any moment switch from/to: footpath.
– Has/wants/will get special rights above and beyond other users of that medium: No.

Motorists:
– Can travel with right of passage on: road.
– Can at any moment switch from/to: road.
– Has/wants/will get special rights above and beyond other users of that medium: No.

Cyclists:
– Can travel with right of passage on: footpath (where they are actually more dangerous to pedestrians than cars are to riders – see below); pedestrian crossing; shared (ped/bike) path; road.
– Can at any moment switch from/to: footpath; shared path; road.
– Has/wants/will get special rights above and beyond other users of that medium: Yes.

But this has gone way off track. The fact remains: the proposed change, approved for trial, causes the logical problems addressed in the opening post.

—–

“For example, the speed and mass differential between a car and a cyclist appear to be substantially greater than that between a cyclist and a pedestrian. This is illusionary. The kinetic energy of, say, a 1500 kg family sedan car in a 50 km/hr zone compared to a 50th percentile cyclist’s kinetic energy of a riding at around 30 km/hr in the same direction is a ratio of around 44 to 1 in favour of the car. On the other hand, the kinetic energy ratio between the same cyclist still travelling at 30 km/hr and a 50th percentile pedestrian walking at normal speed [9] of say 5 km/hr is around 48 to 1 in favour of the cyclist, i.e. the car-cyclist kinetic energy differential is similar to that of the cyclist-pedestrian ratio.” – Pedestrian-Cyclist Collisions: Issues and Risk. Grzebieta R.H., McIntosh A.M., and Chong S. 2011. Centre for Research, Evidence Management and Surveillance (REMS), Sydney South West Area Health Service.

dannybear said :

Fluffy said :

If you object to the findings of large scale studies showing that the average cyclist travels at around 15 km/h in urban environments, you should contact the researchers and explain in great detail precisely why they are all wrong.

Links to studies? An average speed would be majorly dependant on topographical and road conditions, an average speed for example in canberra could be vastly different to somewhere like new york where constant stopping and starting would be required so unless it’s a local study only counting actual road cyclists its likely to be wildly innacurate.

Lyon: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6266

Saint Petersburg: http://www.stpete.org/transportation/citytrails/docs/Examination_of_bicycle_counts_and_speeds_associated_with_bike_lanes.pdf

Copenhagen: http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2013/06/03/6995/

tuco said :

Fluffy said :

I wonder. If a bunch of pedestrians started walking on the highway and demanding that cars make changes (e.g. driving very slowly past them, giving them a buffer zone, et cetera), would people think it is a good idea? Or would people think they were really silly for deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation without the protection of a car around them?

You’re new at this whole “framing a logical argument” thing, aren’t you?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

gazket said :

Motor vehicles be prepared to do 2kph all the way up the hill out of the cotter while getting a close up view of a overweight middle aged lycra rider with some sort of jiggly blubbery fat pouch hanging of his buttocks staring you in the face for several kilometers.

Hurrah for the triumph of reason..staying off the bike and remaining behind the wheel is the way for all right thinking people. This poster should be in advertising! I’m inspired by this light bulb moment!

Since those lazy fat middle aged people aren’t listening to the voices of reason on this thread, maybe advertising will work on them to shame them off their bikes and back behind the wheel with all the other (undoubtedly perfect) physical specimens.

I can just see the ad campaign now – and there’s plenty of spare advertising guys now looking for work since their cigarette contracts went bust:

DRIVING…FAST…when you want…where you want

Keeps you looking good – no jiggly bits when you plant your arse firmly in the drivers seat…IN A CAR…

LIKE A REAL MAN

(cut to hot young guy with shirt off laughing hysterically as he drives within a 1m window, knocking a fat panting guy off his bike)

Winning

These rules are what happen when we (as in, road users) can’t show some common sense and courtesy to one another. If we were all (drivers and cyclists alike) just a bit more sensible and considerate, these rules wouldn’t necessary.

gazket said :

Motor vehicles be prepared to do 2kph all the way up the hill out of the cotter while getting a close up view of a overweight middle aged lycra rider with some sort of jiggly blubbery fat pouch hanging of his buttocks staring you in the face for several kilometers.

Yeah, I’d like to see 35km/h + coming up that hill.

Bosworth said :

When I drive my car, cyclists are very annoying.

and then when I ride my bike, car drivers are very annoying.

:

So, maybe the problem is simply “Other People” ?

Is there anything that can be done about the undesirable “Other” ?

If by “other” people you mean cyclists there already is a solution, it’s called bike paths. The government and us [taxpayers] have spent plenty of dollars building them to keep cyclists safe. Unfortunately cyclists don’t use them because they don’t conveniently take them in a straight line from A to B. Instead, they use the roads, which means we now have spent plenty more money making paths that DO go from A to B. This still isn’t good enough, so the next solution is to either ban cars from driving on the roads, ban cyclists from the roads or place an impenetrable barrier between the two.
I still believe that having bicycles on our main arterial roads is asking for trouble, like if you still had horse and carriage trotting down the Hume Freeway. The two totally different paced transportation forms cannot share the same medium without an eventual collision.

Segregation is the best way to stay safe. Using the safety hierarchy of hazard control the following process should be followed to keep a cyclist safe on a roadway.
1. Elimination – Do not ride your bike on the road, use a bike path.
2. Substitution – Don’t ride a bike, drive a car.
3. Isolation – This means riding on the road when there are no cars running along it, not going to happen.
4. Engineering Controls – Physical barriers to be constructed, preventing possible collision.
5. Administrative controls – What we are doing right now on this forum, implementing rules to try and stop the accidents. Unlikely to succeed given what we are seeing the problems thus far.
6. PPE – There isn’t a helmet or airbag designed yet that will keep one from having their spine crushed by a bumper bar.
We have already implemented a procedure first on the table, but apparently it isn’t preventing accidents. Of course, the first solution isn’t being adhered to because of people using their sense of entitlement instead of people using their sense of self preservation. I wonder if people lobbied hard enough they could get motorcycles access to shared cycle paths, to make commuting much easier? It all depends of course on lobbying power, not consideration for the current users of the paths.

If cycling in Copenhagen works so well why do they strive for figures like this

In Copenhagen “it is considered realistic to reach the goal of only 193 fatal and serious injuries in 2012.”

So let me see if I have this right. Motorists don’t want cyclists to use the roads, pedestrians don’t want cyclists to use the foot/shared paths and I’m guessing the bushwalkers and horse riders don’t want cyclists using off-road areas either?

So where is it suggested cyclists ride? How will people riding bikes get to work or school or shopping or visit friends?

Motor vehicles be prepared to do 2kph all the way up the hill out of the cotter while getting a close up view of a overweight middle aged lycra rider with some sort of jiggly blubbery fat pouch hanging of his buttocks staring you in the face for several kilometers.

When I drive my car, cyclists are very annoying.

and then when I ride my bike, car drivers are very annoying.

:

So, maybe the problem is simply “Other People” ?

Is there anything that can be done about the undesirable “Other” ?

Antagonist said :

Postalgeek said :

You haven’t referenced your little statistic so I had to look for one. *SNIP*

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing (and made yourself look a lot smarter) if you had looked at the three references provided for you at post #27.

That’s what happens when you bury a reference half way through a thread when you should have cited it in the original post. Nothing to get too smug about. But you’re right, I could have saved myself a lot of typing by omitting the first line.

Antagonist said :

Postalgeek said :

You haven’t referenced your little statistic so I had to look for one. *SNIP*

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing (and made yourself look a lot smarter) if you had looked at the three references provided for you at post #27.

dannybear said :

Have you gotten a tape measure out and measured one meter in relation to your vehicle? It really isn’t that large of a space and I’d be hesitant to overtake any type of vehicle in a space smaller than that.

Yep. Ford Falcon, car door opened as far as it goes is 960mm. Mitsubishi Lancer gives 980mm. It means I can’t get the cyclist with the passenger door on the way past anymore. On a more serious note, if a cyclist gets ‘doored’ when passing a parked car, it is because they were passing within 1 metre and not leaving themselves enough time to take evasive action. This 1 metre rule should work both ways for everyone’s safety.

Your last comment there I totally agree with. If a 1 metre rule for safety’s sake applies to speeds under 60km/h, then cyclists should also give a 1 metre clearance to pedestrians as well when they are passing. This would make it safer for all involved. When a cyclist rings their bell some 5 metres behind a pedestrian, the likelihood the pedestrian will side step a metre or so is quite good, so this distance should be a safe minimum. What’s good for the goose….

Postalgeek said :

You haven’t referenced your little statistic so I had to look for one. *SNIP*

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing (and made yourself look a lot smarter) if you had looked at the three references provided for you at post #27.

dannybear said :

Have you gotten a tape measure out and measured one meter in relation to your vehicle? It really isn’t that large of a space and I’d be hesitant to overtake any type of vehicle in a space smaller than that.

Yep. Ford Falcon, car door opened as far as it goes is 960mm. Mitsubishi Lancer gives 980mm. It means I can’t get the cyclist with the passenger door on the way past anymore. On a more serious note, if a cyclist gets ‘doored’ when passing a parked car, it is because they were passing within 1 metre and not leaving themselves enough time to take evasive action. This 1 metre rule should work both ways for everyone’s safety.

justin heywood said :

I predict this thread will be a long one.

Prediction of the century right there. I don’t think these guys have learned to stop feeding the trolls. Or as my father used to say, “Don’t climb into cages with monkeys!” 🙂

Apology to Fluffy, you did link, but not in the OP. Same Copenhagen study.

To ensure my compliance with the law, I am going to tape a 1 metre ruler to my LH mirror. Hopefully I can master parallax error before I whack too many people on the arse as I drive past…

Fluffy said :

If you object to the findings of large scale studies showing that the average cyclist travels at around 15 km/h in urban environments, you should contact the researchers and explain in great detail precisely why they are all wrong.

You haven’t referenced your little statistic so I had to look for one. If you’re referring to this particular Copenhagen study, you’ve neglected to mention the following:

A) In places with green wave for cyclist the average speed is 20.72 km/h. Green wave is a succession of green traffic lights, so in fact your average of 15kmh includes people stopping at traffic lights.

B)The average speed for cars in the same study was 27 km/hour.

Moving on, focusing on averages will give you all sorts of false impressions. Two riders ride on average at 30 kmh while one rider rides at 5 kmh. Average speed is roughly 21 kmh. No rider has travelled at that average 21kmh. The majority have travelled well above the average. It’s like determining who is the ‘average’ Australian. White female in her thirties? Well, you’ve just removed all men, all people who aren’t in their thirties, and all people who aren’t caucasian. In other words, the majority of the population.

Moreover, your typical Canberra cyclist on a flat road in Canberra isn’t likely to be cycling at an average speed of 15km/h for the simple reason that unconfident (and therefore more likely to be slower) riders are less likely to ride on roads, preferring instead dedicated and shared paths. Intermediate and advanced riders are the ones who tend to use on-road lanes regularly so your Canberra on-road sample is going to differ from your Copenhagen dedicated cycleway sample.

Finally pointing at an average speed without any idea of conditions, time span, coverage is rather pointless as there are so many variables, including demographic, fitness, incline/decline, road surface, wind, type of bicycle etc etc.

dannybear said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here is a question for those supporting these new trials. If a driver passes by and doesn’t leave the required minimum safe passing distance, who is going to be policing it?

There are guides on one of the major cycling forums on creating video overlays to calculate passing distance using action cameras which can be used as evidence for a police report.

And since passing a cyclist within 1.5 metres is such a terrible and heinous crime, I can see the overlay evidence being filed somewhere between f-this and f-that. Storm, meet teacup.

Fluffy said :

If you object to the findings of large scale studies showing that the average cyclist travels at around 15 km/h in urban environments, you should contact the researchers and explain in great detail precisely why they are all wrong.

Links to studies? An average speed would be majorly dependant on topographical and road conditions, an average speed for example in canberra could be vastly different to somewhere like new york where constant stopping and starting would be required so unless it’s a local study only counting actual road cyclists its likely to be wildly innacurate.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here is a question for those supporting these new trials. If a driver passes by and doesn’t leave the required minimum safe passing distance, who is going to be policing it?

There are guides on one of the major cycling forums on creating video overlays to calculate passing distance using action cameras which can be used as evidence for a police report.

Fluffy said :

I wonder. If a bunch of pedestrians started walking on the highway and demanding that cars make changes (e.g. driving very slowly past them, giving them a buffer zone, et cetera), would people think it is a good idea? Or would people think they were really silly for deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation without the protection of a car around them?

You’re new at this whole “framing a logical argument” thing, aren’t you?

If you object to the findings of large scale studies showing that the average cyclist travels at around 15 km/h in urban environments, you should contact the researchers and explain in great detail precisely why they are all wrong.

I wonder. If a bunch of pedestrians started walking on the highway and demanding that cars make changes (e.g. driving very slowly past them, giving them a buffer zone, et cetera), would people think it is a good idea? Or would people think they were really silly for deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation without the protection of a car around them?

the average cyclist travels at 15 kmph???

Pull the other one… Try 30 kmph for an average cyclist – and 40-45 kmph or above for the boy racers

So on a lengthy section of a major ACTION bus intertown route it is illegal for a bus to pass a cyclist. On Athllon Drive between Drakeford Drive and Atkins Street the entire width of both the cycle lane and regular traffic lane is 4.5 metres. Both edges are lined with kerb and guttering which restricts vehicles to remain within that 4.5 metre width. The cycle lane is 1.5 metres wide and the normal traffic lane is 3 metres wide. An ACTION bus is 2.6 metres wide. A typical bicycle would be 0.7 metres wide. It is an 80kph zone. Doing the maths (0.7 + 1.5 + 2.6), we don’t all fit even if the cyclist is riding to the far left of the cycle lane.

Will ACTION be adjusting their timetables to allow for a speed of about 15 kmh along this lengthy stretch of road or does Simon Corbell expect ACTION drivers to break the law?

OpenYourMind said :

Kids on bikes are probably doing no more than 20km/h. Some joggers run that fast. While I’m not suggesting that it’s not a responsibility of cyclists to slow down at pedestrian crossings, if you were approaching the pedestrian crossing at a reasonable speed, right of way or not, you should have had ample time to stop. When you approach a regular intersection, cars can be doing more than 60km/h, yet you have time to react to them. Why not the same with pedestrian crossings?

Are you familiar with the crossing in question? If not look at Google maps, or even better go drive Challais Street yourself. I too have seen the issue the poster is talking about here and elsewhere, in fact this crossing is a perfect example of why I don’t like the new rule that allows a bike to basically cut in front of the traffic at pedestrian crossings. Again if you look at it the path approaches kinda parallel to the crossing then quickly (and behind a tree) turns onto the crossing)

Also the reason for cyclists to dismount is not for the safety of pedestrians, it is for the safety of the cyclist and to give drivers time to stop at crossings.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Feeling vulnerable would make one try to keep safe distance from the path of motor vehicles, but the imaginary 1 metre of cotton wool that surrounds them will not offer any protection whatsoever.

I guess that would be the same imaginary cotton wool that you rely on to keep the oncoming car on their side of the road and not have a fatal head-on. 766 drivers and passengers had the wool pulled from their eyes last year. And yet you still drive.

Comparing that to the 50 cyclists were killed last year, it’s clear the law is doing too much to encourage drivers to push their rights upon other road users, thus increasing the odds of collision.

Just share the road. What’s being asked is an adjustment in attitude, not an guarantee against injury and death.

Here is a question for those supporting these new trials. If a driver passes by and doesn’t leave the required minimum safe passing distance, who is going to be policing it? What are the chances that a police officer is going to be present every time a vehicle passes a cyclist too closely? I’d say the odds are almost astronomical, in terms of actual enforcement and penalty definitely astronomical. So apart from creating another rule to remember, making cyclists feel even safer [even though they aren’t actually any safer at all] and tying up tax payer money in the legalities and awareness campaigns, is this whole concept going to make any difference? Those who don’t pass safely now are not likely to change their habits even with all this fuss.
I honestly think that the more the law favors cyclists, the more riders will push their rights upon other road users, thus increasing the odds of collision. Feeling vulnerable would make one try to keep safe distance from the path of motor vehicles, but the imaginary 1 metre of cotton wool that surrounds them will not offer any protection whatsoever.

15 km/h? If you couldn’t average that on Stromlo, I’d go home and cry. So, on flat roads with no rocks….
But go on, you obviously know your stuff.

A few people have asked why cyclists ride in the far right of their lane or within a car lane. The main reason is the amount of debris, such as sharp stones, small tree branches, cans, bottles, in particular broken bottles deliberately thrown into cycle lanes.
That debris is thrown up and into the bike lanes by cars as they travel past, it’s simply the reality of the matter.
This debris is both dangerous and a nuisance. Dangerous because it could cause a cyclist to crash, and crashing next to or in a car lane would probably end badly. A nuisance because it can often cause tyre punctures.

The only way to solve the issue other than separated (with a solid barrier) bike lanes is for the street sweepers to be used more than once a year on each road in Canberra. We know both options are unlikely.

Also, 15km/h on a flat road is very slow, I travel at about 40.

Two way road, single lane each way.. Cyclist driving close to the centre line..

Does any driver coming the other way have to swerve off the road to avoid the 1.5metre with the cyclist?

Have you read the information in the links you have provided, Fluffy? Actually read it in the context of your original post? In the context of Canberra?

drfelonious said :

Here’s some facts for you Fluffy (nice touch with your nom de plume by the way, as your post has much in common with asbestos):

Number of motorists killed by cyclists ever: 0

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists ever in the history of the ACT: 0

Number of “entitled” cyclists killed and injured by motorists: nearly 50 in Australia in 2013

Proportion of times the motorist is at fault in a collision with a motorist according to police reports: 79 percent

The only thing cyclists are “entitled” to is a modicum of respect as fellow human being with a family, just like drivers.

Peace to you and props to Simon Corbell – I didn’t used to like him much before this 🙂

Cyclists killing motorists:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394015/Cyclist-killed-motorist-road-rage-attack-driver-opened-car-door-him.html

Cyclists killing pedestrians:

“When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3986796.ece

Other articles about deaths caused by cyclists:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-06/elderly-pedestrian-killed-cyclist-crash-bassendean-perth/5575242

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/man-struck-by-cyclist-dies/2006/08/28/1156617253330.html

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/09/a-death-in-central-park-raises-real-questions-about-bicyclist-behavior/380605/

http://road.cc/content/news/89218-us-cyclist-who-killed-pedestrian-guilty-vehicular-manslaughter-escapes-jail

http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/new-yorks-cycles-of-death-our-arrogant-biker-nightmare/

http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/12/cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law-335527/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/san-francisco-cyclist-charged-with-manslaughter.html?_r=0

Average speed for cyclists in urban environments:

15.5 km/h: http://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/CycleStatistics.aspx

17.7 km/h: http://www.livestrong.com/article/413599-the-average-bike-riding-speed/

15 km/h: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/07/3086655.htm

RichRick said :

A couple of weeks ago late afternoon I was driving towards the pedestrian crossing at Dickson before the Motor Registry. Suddenly two school kids on bikes appeared riding fast and apparently thought they had the right of way. I had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting them. They gesticulated to me rudely as they rode across. I’m still having flashbacks to what could have happened. I’m now wondering if the new rules will make nasty accidents even more likely?

Kids on bikes are probably doing no more than 20km/h. Some joggers run that fast. While I’m not suggesting that it’s not a responsibility of cyclists to slow down at pedestrian crossings, if you were approaching the pedestrian crossing at a reasonable speed, right of way or not, you should have had ample time to stop. When you approach a regular intersection, cars can be doing more than 60km/h, yet you have time to react to them. Why not the same with pedestrian crossings?

For the record, I cycle and drive. I prefer to cycle though, whenever I can.

To answer a few questions that have been asked:

There are a few reasons why cyclists tend to the right hand side of road based cycle lanes. Often, they run alongside parking. It’s simply not safe to get close to parked cars – you get doored.
The other reason is that often there are drains, debris and other obstacles located more of the left than the right. I would rather be on a dedicated, separate bike path, which is where I normally cycle.

The assertion that cyclists never kill pedestrians is false. It’s not common, but it happens. A quick google search shows it happening recently in New York central park, Melbourne, and Bassendean in WA.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pedestrian+killed+by+cyclist

I often cycle across pedestrian crossings while not dismounting. I slow down to a walking pace, and give other pedestrians heaps of space. I guess some kids might go fast, but hey, at least they might use the crossing.

In some cities and countries, it’s not safe to ring a bell to warn people on shared paths that you are approaching. Often, if the pedestrian is not familiar with cyclists, they panic and become unpredictable. Sometimes, they actually turn around and step into your path. Canberra people are more used to it, than others. Though one problem is that many ‘visitors’ to Canberra are from places where they drive on the other side. So they often get confused. I generally always ring if I have no other option. If the person is walking and keeping to the left, I slow down, but don’t ring. If they have children or dogs, I generally always ring.

I think the new trial is a good thing. It re-enforces the view that cyclists have a right to be out there cycling. Drivers need to simply be aware of that, and give cyclists adequate space, which is now clearly defined.

I suspect some angry drivers are simply frustrated at the cyclists who are able to cycle, enjoying the fresh air and outdoor environment, while they’re stuck in the traffic jam.

People need to get used to more cyclists being everywhere. The new electric bicycles are everywhere in europe, and will likely explode in use around Australia. And of course, cycle sales are growing every year, at a rate far outpacing cars.

So what does one do when a cyclist chooses to ride down Majura Road in the short 80KPH region. B-Doubles cross dangerously to the opposite side of the road to give them clearance? Bike riders need to take some responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately you can’t legislate against stupidity!!

RichRick said :

A couple of weeks ago late afternoon I was driving towards the pedestrian crossing at Dickson before the Motor Registry. Suddenly two school kids on bikes appeared riding fast and apparently thought they had the right of way. I had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting them. They gesticulated to me rudely as they rode across. I’m still having flashbacks to what could have happened. I’m now wondering if the new rules will make nasty accidents even more likely?

Yes, the favourite gesticulation of cyclists who break the law is the bird finger.
I almost got wiped out by one travelling very fast (in pixie suit) near the Nara Gardens this afternoon.
When I yelled out “I didn’t hear your bell” he turned around and gave me the finger but like all the cowards cyclists are, he didn’t stop and discuss it..
Is there such a thing as “shared-path rage”? – because it will happen one day.

A couple of weeks ago late afternoon I was driving towards the pedestrian crossing at Dickson before the Motor Registry. Suddenly two school kids on bikes appeared riding fast and apparently thought they had the right of way. I had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting them. They gesticulated to me rudely as they rode across. I’m still having flashbacks to what could have happened. I’m now wondering if the new rules will make nasty accidents even more likely?

Grail said :

miz said :

Bikes are in some ways more dangerous to pedestrians than cars are to cyclists because you can’t hear bikes coming up from behind.

That’s why bikes are required to have bells or other warning devices.

miz said :

Yes, that’s right, they are called PEDESTRIAN crossings because they are for people to cross on foot.

They are called pedestrian crossings because they are for pedestrian traffic to cross the road. As far as the law is concerned, bicycles are vehicles when on the road, pedestrians when on the path. You’ll also note that there is no distinction between footpath and bicycle path in Canberra, they’re all shared paths. So if you really want to gripe about safety, ask why foot pedestrians walking dogs are allowed to share commuter bike paths with high speed cyclists.

If you want to stop the selfish and entitled brats having access to bike paths, I’m more than happy to support you in that argument. The fewer uncontrolled dogs and small children I have to contend with on bicycle paths, the happier I’ll be!

Wow. And you wonder why people call cyclists out on their ‘entitled’ attitude. Notice in the following link that TaMS make a very clear distinction between ‘shared paths’ and ‘footpath/laneways’.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

drfelonious said :

Here’s some facts for you Fluffy (nice touch with your nom de plume by the way, as your post has much in common with asbestos):

Number of motorists killed by cyclists ever: 0

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists ever in the history of the ACT: 0

Number of “entitled” cyclists killed and injured by motorists: nearly 50 in Australia in 2013

Proportion of times the motorist is at fault in a collision with a motorist according to police reports: 79 percent

The only thing cyclists are “entitled” to is a modicum of respect as fellow human being with a family, just like drivers.

Peace to you and props to Simon Corbell – I didn’t used to like him much before this 🙂

Sounds like you have put forward a well reasoned and rational argument for having cyclists removed from the road altogether, which I am sure you will agree is not a desirable outcome. The claimed 79% of accidents being the fault of a motorist does not mean anyone is being disrespectful either. At the end of the day this new 1-1.5m clearance rule will not change that statistic one bit. Cyclists who insist on playing in traffic (entitled or not) are still going to come out worse off EVERY single time no matter what nanny state legislation you introduce. You cannot change the laws of physics.

miz said :

My biggest beef with the proposed new laws is allowing cyclists to cross pedestrian crossings without dismounting.

Pretty sure they are gong to be required to come to a stop first, then they can cross. Will they stop? Unlikely.

miz said :

It just makes me so mad that the government is bending over for this incredibly selfish and entitled lobby group, who already have access to bike (shared) paths and those stupid strips on the side of the road, yet the government seems to have a complete disregard for the need of pedestrians (that is, everyone except cyclists) to feel safe on bike paths, footpaths and pedestrian crossings.

On this point I do agree. Cyclists should be required to give the same 1-1.5m minimum clearance to pedestrians. I have been collected from behind by two different cyclists in the last 10 years on ‘shared’ paths while walking dogs, leaving both myself and said cyclists bruised and sore.

And one last one in support of cyclists being required to give appropriate space to other people (personally I think they are both at fault) we have this nugget from the reputable (LOL) Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bike-rider-says-she-couldve-been-killed-when-doored-on-brisbane-road/story-e6frg6n6-1227061529995

Back to the 1.5m rule on the roads, this will get interesting on roads like the Cotter loop when the lycra brigade want to ride two-abreast (but applied equally in urban areas). This will require motorists to move completely into the opposing lane to comply with the 1.5m rule. This does not sound safe for anyone. Personally I don’t really mind either way. I have a big metal cage on four wheels that will ensure I live to tell the tale (along with a dash cam for good measure).

miz said :

Bikes are in some ways more dangerous to pedestrians than cars are to cyclists because you can’t hear bikes coming up from behind.

That’s why bikes are required to have bells or other warning devices.

miz said :

Yes, that’s right, they are called PEDESTRIAN crossings because they are for people to cross on foot.

They are called pedestrian crossings because they are for pedestrian traffic to cross the road. As far as the law is concerned, bicycles are vehicles when on the road, pedestrians when on the path. You’ll also note that there is no distinction between footpath and bicycle path in Canberra, they’re all shared paths. So if you really want to gripe about safety, ask why foot pedestrians walking dogs are allowed to share commuter bike paths with high speed cyclists.

If you want to stop the selfish and entitled brats having access to bike paths, I’m more than happy to support you in that argument. The fewer uncontrolled dogs and small children I have to contend with on bicycle paths, the happier I’ll be!

Here’s some facts for you Fluffy (nice touch with your nom de plume by the way, as your post has much in common with asbestos):

Number of motorists killed by cyclists ever: 0

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists ever in the history of the ACT: 0

Number of “entitled” cyclists killed and injured by motorists: nearly 50 in Australia in 2013

Proportion of times the motorist is at fault in a collision with a motorist according to police reports: 79 percent

The only thing cyclists are “entitled” to is a modicum of respect as fellow human being with a family, just like drivers.

Peace to you and props to Simon Corbell – I didn’t used to like him much before this 🙂

miz said :

My biggest beef with the proposed new laws is allowing cyclists to cross pedestrian crossings without dismounting.
Cyclists constantly indicate that they are aggrieved about a lack of regard for them from car drivers, yet do little to consider pedestrians (except to consider that they are a nuisance who get in their way) even though pedestrians are the most vulnerable of all. Bikes are in some ways more dangerous to pedestrians than cars are to cyclists because you can’t hear bikes coming up from behind.
Pedestrians don’t have active, petulant lobby groups and just expect general courtesy on shared paths and PEDESTRIAN crossings. Yes, that’s right, they are called PEDESTRIAN crossings because they are for people to cross on foot. It is a legitimate expectation, from both the pedestrians’ and approaching car driver’s perspective, not to be dangerously startled by cyclists zooming across a pedestrian crossing as if they were a pedestrian.
It just makes me so mad that the government is bending over for this incredibly selfish and entitled lobby group, who already have access to bike (shared) paths and those stupid strips on the side of the road, yet the government seems to have a complete disregard for the need of pedestrians (that is, everyone except cyclists) to feel safe on bike paths, footpaths and pedestrian crossings.

Cyclists are required by law to give way to pedestrians.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

Some cyclists are as#holes and ignore the law in the same way some drivers are as#holes and ignore the law.

You are hundreds of times more likely to be killed or injured by a car at a crossing than by a bike, so maybe get angry about the big picture if you’re so concerned about pedestrian safety.

Does this new ACT Gov’t law apply only where there is one of those silly bike only lanes painted on a road or does the 1 or 1.5 metre exclusion zone also apply to roads that dont have a bike lane painted on them ?

My biggest beef with the proposed new laws is allowing cyclists to cross pedestrian crossings without dismounting.
Cyclists constantly indicate that they are aggrieved about a lack of regard for them from car drivers, yet do little to consider pedestrians (except to consider that they are a nuisance who get in their way) even though pedestrians are the most vulnerable of all. Bikes are in some ways more dangerous to pedestrians than cars are to cyclists because you can’t hear bikes coming up from behind.
Pedestrians don’t have active, petulant lobby groups and just expect general courtesy on shared paths and PEDESTRIAN crossings. Yes, that’s right, they are called PEDESTRIAN crossings because they are for people to cross on foot. It is a legitimate expectation, from both the pedestrians’ and approaching car driver’s perspective, not to be dangerously startled by cyclists zooming across a pedestrian crossing as if they were a pedestrian.
It just makes me so mad that the government is bending over for this incredibly selfish and entitled lobby group, who already have access to bike (shared) paths and those stupid strips on the side of the road, yet the government seems to have a complete disregard for the need of pedestrians (that is, everyone except cyclists) to feel safe on bike paths, footpaths and pedestrian crossings.

Thanks Fluffy, masterful reducto absurdum
But why stop there, what about cyclists on footpaths? They would place you in the other lane too!

Fluffy said :

The average cyclist on a flat road travels at around fifteen kilometres per hour.

Great use of facts.

Fluffy said :

So if we have cyclists insisting that bicycles are vehicles, and should be perceived as vehicles by all other vehicles and therefore deserve the rights of all other vehicles in traffic, should they not be held to the same laws as other vehicles?

Hells yes! except for trucks having different laws, or vintage cars having different laws or motorbikes having different laws.

Or even those pesky buses with their own give way zones! What is up with that? A personal force field? Who do they think they are? Moses?

Fluffy said :

Nor does declaring someone a partisan of one side or another change the facts and logic.

Lol. I heard that 68% of facts are made up anyway

Fluffy said :

What we have here is a law which will ultimately mean one person choosing to ride a bicycle on a road has the right to block traffic and screw over everyone else who has chosen to use that road

+1
Sweet as bro! I like the way you built up to that one

Seriously though, please give room to bikes you over take on account of them being pretty vulnerable and bring on strict liability!

The average cyclist on a flat road travels at around fifteen kilometres per hour you say?

I used to average 30 km/h from Calwell to Woden. On the flat it was more like 45. And I don’t consider myself to have been particularly quick.

Kinda puts a dent in your argument, don’t you agree?

wildturkeycanoe said :

In order to pass, a car must go to the opposite lane and THEN another 1.5 metres, placing them in the gravel on the wrong side of the road.

Glad to see you have a firm grasp of this law.

Remember too that you are legally required to maintain acceleration and have a head-on with an oncoming vehicle instead of slowing and passing the bicycle when it is safe to do so.

#3 – Justin, sadly, I think you will be proven correct !

But as the eternal optimist, a couple of thoughts:

– the OP took the worst case scenario, but OK it happens – as it does with all sorts of slow vehicles – get out of Canberra and be caught behind a big tractor on a windy road, or old bus, or tired semi on a coastal run. It’s called having a licence and learning to deal with the circumstances that confront you when, on the odd occasion, they do;
– on the comments about travelling in the RH side of the lane (which, frankly, I have VERY rarely seen a cyclist do) – this is exactly what you are told, very clearly, to do riding when a motorbike. Why ? Because if you ride on the LH side, car drivers will not see you/try and run you off the road, and if you ride in the middle, you will end up, especially in the wet, sliding off from all the oil that cars drop in the centre of lanes.

As I understand it, the whole idea of giving bikes some clearance comes from the Amy Gillett Foundation (http://www.amygillett.org.au/) – for those who don’t know, Amy Gillett was a young (29yo) Australian national representative track cyclist and rower who was killed while on a training ride in Germany by a driver who lost control of her car and cleaned up six riders – Amy was killed, the others had a range of very serious injuries.

Really, is slowing down for a few seconds that much to ask in comparison ???

I can handle the passing law, but not the law that allows bikes to turn right across a pedestrian crossing. As it is now it can be quite hard to see bikes coming along a bike path who then wizz out across a crossing (never mind of course they are meant to dismount). But with the new laws it is possible a bike will without much clear warning just hook it across the path of vehicles who are expected to stop. Silly silly silly this one.

So in lane A, heading north, we have a bicycle. As cyclists like to do in Australia, this cyclist is riding on the very edge of his lane, as close as possible to all the cars

An inane generalisation from the very start. I wonder if anything fresh will come out of this thread….computer says no.

This new law obviously means that on roads such as Lady Denman Drive, Cotter Road and any single lane road with speed limit over 60km/h, no vehicles can pass a cyclist who is legally using their allocated lane. In order to pass, a car must go to the opposite lane and THEN another 1.5 metres, placing them in the gravel on the wrong side of the road. Dumbest rule ever, next to the the rule that says they are allowed on the road at all. How about any of the narrow streets in suburbs, where parked cars on the kerb place a cyclist around a metre from the center line? Do cars coming the opposite way also have to give a metre of clearance or must they stop and reverse until the road becomes wider, in order to let the cyclist through safely?
Pedal power has gone too far in my opinion and cyclists aren’t looking after their own safety anymore, they are simply forcing their “rights” upon the rest of the community and instead of courtesy they are displaying arrogance, which will eventually end up going badly for them. If I was to assert my “rights” according to law when driving, instead of having a bit of care for my fellow road user, I don’t think I’d make it through a day without forcing vehicles off the road and suffering some serious panel damage.
Why do cyclists insist on riding to the extreme right of their allocated cycle lane, if not on or over the lane separator? It only places them in harm’s way and serves no other useful purpose whatsoever.

Do red light camera catch cyclists?

That’s an awful lot of work you went to to criticise this new law without even reading it. What if it turns out that the 1m gap is only required when passing a bicycle in the same lane?

And what if it turns out that “no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road” doesn’t apply when a vehicle has reason to be driving at a low speed (because, e.g.: it is incapable of achieving higher speeds)?

And what if it turns out that riders of bikes and motorbikes and scooters don’t fall into the same category as drivers (i.e.: of cars and trucks)?

Have you gotten a tape measure out and measured one meter in relation to your vehicle? It really isn’t that large of a space and I’d be hesitant to overtake any type of vehicle in a space smaller than that.

I predict this thread will be a long one.

The root of this and many other stupid impositions by the ACT Government comes down to the fact that Corbell really needs to go!

It should also be noted that a bicycle should rightfully be considered a vehicle which occupies that entire slot in its lane, so it is legally acceptable for a cyclist to ride at the very edge of the lane closest to all the dangerous traffic. However, in addition to the cyclist thereby electing to ride in the most dangerous position, there are two other related points to consider:

1) That places the 1.5 metre buffer zone smack in the middle of the next lane, as already discussed, preventing all traffic from passing.

2) If a cyclist is anywhere but at the very edge of a lane which is more than 1.5 metres wide, no other cyclist can pass that cyclist in that lane, because bicycles are vehicles and must leave 1.5 metres of clearance. If the lane is 1.5 metres wide or less, no other cyclist can pass at all. Does this mean there can no longer be any road bicycle races, because none of the bicycles can bunch up together or pass each other?