More Complaints Regarding Motorists and Cyclists

As a motorist, I’d still prefer a Government that didn’t waste the taxes I allowed it to take from me on regulating something that didn’t need regulating over one that pandered to twats who thought it was a good idea to require licenses, registrateion and saftey checks for cyclists. It’s not an equity thing it’s an intelligence thing.

There’s a place for over regulation of every aspect of everything and it’s called “China”.

dvaey said :

Or simply require all road users, from a 50cc scooter or moped, upto a 45-ton road-train to have at least a basic licence level and prove they understand the rules, if they wish to be on the public roadway.

I don’t think there are too many cyclists that don’t have a drivers licence.

^^ Huh?

Modern trucks keep up pretty well with cars – typically not much of a speed difference, if at all.

I see trucks achieve and maintain the speed limit everyday. However I have yet to see a pushbike doing 100 km/h on roads such as the Monaro Hwy, or even 80 km/h elsewhere.

Postalgeek said :

For those who want registration plates so they can report cyclists, how many times a day on average do you currently report cars for infractions?

Before ratetheplate website went down, Id probably report 3 or 4 idiots per week. Most of my driving is local, so its not hard to remember the plate of a dangerous driver for a couple of minutes.

Postalgeek said :

The simple fact is that arguing that ‘vehicles’ weighing 15 kilos traveling in public space at around 30kph should be treated the same as ‘vehicles’ weighing 1.5 tons traveling in public space at around 60-110 kms (legally) requires a total suspension of reason.

..and..

Postalgeek said :

So separate cars from trucks.

Or simply require all road users, from a 50cc scooter or moped, upto a 45-ton road-train to have at least a basic licence level and prove they understand the rules, if they wish to be on the public roadway. If you check the road-ready book, youll see lots of places where they educate new car drivers about how to share the road with trucks, buses and bikes. What training/understanding is required to take a bike on the road?

In the old days, there were bicycle education centres that all kids attended as part of school. These centres offered courses where the kids could learn to ride a bike properly and safely on the road, and learn the important road rules.

So separate cars from trucks.

Postalgeek said :

The simple fact is that arguing that ‘vehicles’ weighing 15 kilos traveling in public space at around 30kph should be treated the same as ‘vehicles’ weighing 1.5 tons traveling in public space at around 60-110 kms (legally) requires a total suspension of reason.

Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy.

Similarly I’d argue that ‘vehicles’ weighing 15 kilos traveling at around 30kph and sharing the same roadspace as ‘vehicles’ weighing 1.5 tons traveling at around 80-110 kms ALSO requires a total suspension of reason.

Separation being the concept required for vehicles travelling at these vastly differing speeds – not the illusion of protection as provided by a thin white line.

Postalgeek said :

For those who want registration plates so they can report cyclists, how many times a day on average do you currently report cars for infractions?

And what action do you expect anyone to take about a report anyway?

Some froth-mouthed fatty calls the police in an apoplectic rage and informs the good constable that he saw a cyclist CROSS THE ROAD WHEN THERE WAS A RED LIGHT!!!

What do you expect the good constable to do? He’d probably suggest you wipe the spittle of the mouthpiece of your mobile phone and pay attention to your damn driving, that’s what.

Danman said :

When was the last time you heard of a bike launching 15 meters and lodging itself in the roof of a house while the occupants were asleep.

Well, to be fair, if there were any houses on the side of Mt Stromlo, there’s a chance it would be a pretty regular occurrence. Possibly even deliberate, bless those lil’ downhill scamps.

Well now, I find myself agreeing with dvaey about promoting sensible clothing and helmets. However, like seatbelts, you can try to legislate common sense but there’ll always be those who ignore it.

The simple fact is that arguing that ‘vehicles’ weighing 15 kilos traveling in public space at around 30kph should be treated the same as ‘vehicles’ weighing 1.5 tons traveling in public space at around 60-110 kms (legally) requires a total suspension of reason. Let’s take the argument to its logical conclusion and impose on car drivers the same registration requirements, training, sanctions, inspections, assessments, and restrictions that are imposed on heavy articulated trucks.

At the end of the day it’s an utterly myopic argument. Do these muppets have any sense of priority? Does car carnage even rate on the radar? Of course not. Bikes on the side of the road are the bane of driving, apparently. Forget that idiot talking on his mobile while straddling the middle line and approaching you at 200 kph.

For those who want registration plates so they can report cyclists, how many times a day on average do you currently report cars for infractions? Do you guys ever get to work because you’re so busy having to continually find a safe place to pull over in order to phone in your report? Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough at #75, so this time I’ll type a little slower so it will be easier for some of you to understand.

The legislation covering road use covers bicycles and cyclists to the extent that is reasonable, practicle, cost efective and warranted. That’s not a matter of opinion, that’s a fact – you can go an look at the legislation. We also know that there’s nothing wrong with the legislation because its not been amended – there’s another fact.

Now the reason no one has ever needed to amend the legislation to include registration, safety inspections, licensing or the like for cyclists and bicycles is because the legislation was prepared by smart people – not swivel-eyed loons.

No matter how dumb you might think our politicians are, if you genuinely believe that legislation should include registration, safety inspections and licensing for bicycles then … and this isn’t playing the man, or wildly casting insults it’s simply staing a fact … you are dumber than a politician.

^^ emphasis on the try part!

I’m neither here nor there on the issue really… it’s like complaining about some w@nker in a car/on a bike/on a skateboard. A w@nker will be a w@nker, no matter the mode of transport, no matter where they are. Sure, some drivers are flogs (arrogant, inexperienced), some riders are flogs (arrogant, inexperienced) but no matter how many annonymous arguements are posted on RiotACT it wont change. Let’s all move on shall we?

Danman said :

Its not about legislation anymore, its just about being as pr1ckish as you can toward cyclists.

What do you mean ‘anymore’? This sort of argument has *always* been about self-interest and kneejerk fear and loathing. Why else do we get such intelligent and considered posts as “If you ride your bike on the crossing, I’ll run over you”, and the timeless classic “cyclists should be as inconvenienced as possible because [insert previously discredited argument here].”

I mean, comparing cycling to recreational flying – yeah, that’s a great analogy! Maybe all cyclists should have to complete the same level of accreditation as fighter pilots before they’re allowed to buy a cycle. Wouldn’t that be great!

I’m waiting to hear dvaey’s next argument that cyclists should be made to wear prominent gold stars at all times or something. Maybe all cyclists should have to walk, really really slowly, while carrying their (registered) bikes above their heads, while yelling ‘I’m a cyclist, please watch out’ at 10 metre intervals, as well as reciting their insurance numbers.

Seriously, this has gone so far beyond a joke – the uneccessary bureaucracy you’re advocating puts Kafka to shame. Did you never ride a bike to school? Where’s all this fear and loathing of people cycling come from? Are you really fat or something?

Hmm let me see, Boats..capsise, drown, die.. Aviation, crash burn fall die, possibly killing people back on earth, cars – 1.8 tonne rolling coffins that are quite effective killing machines if used inappropriately.

Furthermore, all of the above are passenger vehicles/vessels, that means whilst under your control you are responsible for the lives of multiple occupants, hece th eneed for safety inspections, registration etc – rarely can the same be said for bikes.

If I saw a bike on the road with a baby in a trailer or seat, I would think that pretty irresponsible.

Bikes though – how often do you hear of someone dying after being struck by a bike, or being in a bike accident and pasing away.

When was the last time a bike ran into a car and killed someone ?

When was the last time you heard of a bike launching 15 meters and lodging itself in the roof of a house while the occupants were asleep.

I am not saying it does not happen, but any road user should use those roads with the respect thay they deserve and accept the risks involved doin doing so..If you have issues with motorists, or cyclists, its probably best oif you distance yourself from the situation in which they mix.

No amount of licencing and registration is going to change peoples attitudes and skill.

Bikes will always be on the road – if you have trouble dealing with it, maybe best you change your form of transport. Do you really think registration and number plates (lol) will change peoples attitudes toward cyclists ??

Its not about legislation anymore, its just about being as pr1ckish as you can toward cyclists. All the abovementioned issues existed before cycle registration and will continue after if legislation is changed.

Personally, I refuse point blank to ride on the road, not because I lack confidence and ability, but because I see the attitude here on RA and whilst driving my car, that motorists have towards road user cyclists.

Why I would voluntarily subject myself to that is absurd.

As it stands it’s like this, bikes and cars will always use roads together. If you have a problem with motorists, stop riding your bicycle on the road, if the sight of a cyclist riding on the road infuriates you, perhaps its time to chose a better stress free method of transport.

For those who are left, act like adults and try and get on yeah ?

Clown Killer said :

or drivers could simply learn to drive safely…

To be fair, in order to have a drivers licence, you have to undergo a road-ready course to understand the rules, a theory test to prove that, then learn under supervision of someone experienced, until you finally prove to someone certified that you should be issued a licence. In order to ride a bike, you have to be above the age of about 4, and convince your parents to take the training wheels off.

Deckard said :

Loveulongtime said :

fair enough, we can share the roads but at a MINIMUM bike riders should
have to pay registration and have their bikes pass a safety inspection,
pay insurance, have a rego plate and all must wear specific clothing.

Why?

Why not? Why should cars have to be legal and safe, when bikes dont? Why should cars have to be insured if bikes arent? The ‘specific clothing’, well thats covered by the helmet law but it would be nice to see that enforced.

Aeek said :

In the idiots defence, bike rego existed before cars were common.
Have to wear lycra? Bizarre, most of the time yes but sometimes it doesn’t suit.
Pass a safety inspection, when? When the bike is sold? That’s all that cars need.
Pay insurance? Join Pedal Power, its about the only way you can get third party.
Rego plate? Bike sized you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway.

Personally, I’d like all licensed motor vehicle drivers to be capable of driving safely.

I love how in these threads when some people put forward arguments like this, the cyclists response at first is to call them an idiot, then extrapolate some unintended meaning from the comments.

I dont think the suggestion is about lycra, more about wearing helmet, gloves, sturdy shoes, all the things that should be common sense, such as wearing a seatbelt for drivers.

Safety inspection, why not? Why not have random inspections where if your bike is unsafe it gets ‘clamped’, until you fix it. Hey if its good enough for cars to be defected, why not bikes?

Insurance through pedal-power? Sounds good to me, arrange for Pedal Power to become the defacto authority in the ACT for cycling, and allow them to issue licences, registration, insurance and even rider training.

I fly recreational aircraft on occasion, so Im familiar with the idea that whether youre a jumbo jet, or a hot-air balloon being blown around by the wind, your vehicle is required to be safe and registered and the operator is required to be competent and certified. The same law applies to boats, whether youre a super-tanker or a small dingy/yacht. So how come on the roads, bikes figure because theyre smaller and ‘safer’, that they should be exempt from the rules of the vehicles theyre travelling near.

Cyclists on the road are a brave bunch! I just tried it once when I was a teenager and I only really ended up having to go down Aikman (I think) Drive. It was scary and I knew better after that day to loop up with the lake instead of going anywhere near roads with no bike paths. Given I’ve never owned a helmet is another reason I steer clear of roads 🙂 I don’t ride much.

But saying all that as a motorist, can’t say they have ever bothered me one bit, not usually happy if they are riding astride taking up all the road but I just bide my time patiently and get round when they move over or wait till the end of the road. I encountered that mostly when I spent a couple of years taking my ex hubby to work up top of Mt. Stromlo, so to be expected anyway.

I can’t see a need for them to pay for a single thing other than their bike and own personal safety and if they can think defensively, that’s a bonus.

Deckard said :

If you’ve been reading this site for any length of time you’d know it’s law that cyclists dismount to cross a zebra crossing. It’s also law to do the speed limit, indicate when turning, not drink and drive, not to j walk and not to download pirated movies off the internet, but that doesn’t seem to stop anyone.

As a cyclist I don’t get off my bike, but stop and wait to make sure a car is stopping. If they don’t stop it’s up to them. Most do stop, and I wave a thanks and am across the crossing before they can say ‘$#@#ing Cyclist’.

As a pedesetrian I also stop and make sure a car is stopping before walking across. Even though by law I own the pedestrian crossing (without paying a rego fee) and it’s my right to step out in front of a car if I want to. But I’m not going to trust an idiot who thinks they own the road with my life.

+1

And can I add that motorists might like to thank cyclists such as deckard and myself for this approach to pedestrian crossings – because if we fully dismount and walk across, you’ll be waiting a hell of a lot longer til you can drive through!!

I would have thought Canberra’s motorists would be more interested in Stanehopes interest in a congestion charge for the city rather than the 1 cyclist a week that might inconvenience them for a number of seconds (if they’re really unlucky).

Hey, maybe that congestion charge can go towards paying for some top quality off-road cycle lanes. Now that’s an idea – thanks Canberra drivers.

In the idiots defence, bike rego existed before cars were common.
Have to wear lycra? Bizarre, most of the time yes but sometimes it doesn’t suit.
Pass a safety inspection, when? When the bike is sold? That’s all that cars need.
Pay insurance? Join Pedal Power, its about the only way you can get third party.
Rego plate? Bike sized you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway.

Personally, I’d like all licensed motor vehicle drivers to be capable of driving safely.

that’s very big of you, loveulongtime

Loveulongtime said :

fair enough, we can share the roads but at a MINIMUM bike riders should
have to pay registration and have their bikes pass a safety inspection,
pay insurance, have a rego plate and all must wear specific clothing.

Why?

fair enough, we can share the roads but at a MINIMUM bike riders should
have to pay registration and have their bikes pass a safety inspection,
pay insurance, have a rego plate and all must wear specific clothing.

You’d have to wonder why no one has ever thought of doing this before. That in the whole history of regulating road users, no Government has ever had that ‘light bulb’ moment. No politician or bureaucrat has thought – hang on a minute: lets make everyone who rides a bike pay rego and have safety checks. Seriously, have you ever wondered why we don’t do it? Here’s a hint: it’s a bloody stupid idea!

fair enough, we can share the roads but at a MINIMUM bike riders should
have to pay registration and have their bikes pass a safety inspection,
pay insurance, have a rego plate and all must wear specific clothing.

another version of #70

aronde moves to Canberra and takes up cycling
aronde notes the rules regarding dismounting at pedestrian crossings
aronde goes out on his bike and approaches pedestrian crossing over a ‘turn left at any time with care’ slip lane
car driver approaches and slows down
aronde does the right thing and dismounts
car driver yells abuse at aronde because walking the bike across takes a few seconds longer then riding across – words to the affect of “why the f#!! did you stop and hop off”
aronde reads all the rants on Riot and realises it is perhaps a no win situation for cyclists!

Another version of #70…

s-s-a on bike towing child on hitch approaches zebra crossing (at Woden Library, so actually on the cross-town bike path route which runs from stormwater behind Police station thru bus interchange to Melrose Drive underpass).
Vehicle approaches zebra crossing.
s-s-a sees vehicle approaching, and stops bike at the edge of zebra crossing but remains standing astride it to hold the bike steady so that child does not have to dismount.
Car driver stops for crossing and appears prepared to yield right of way.
s-s-a moves across crossing (riding) at not much more than walking pace.
Car driver yells abuse out the window because cyclists are supposed to dismount to cross a road.
s-s-a rolls eyes and thinks to self that car driver would have actually had to stop for *longer* had they had to wait for us to get off and walk in front.
Car driver bitches the rest of the way home to accompanying passenger, and then gets home to rant about bloody cyclists on RiotACT.

… or drivers could simply learn to drive safely. You know, crazy stuff like looking ahead and anticipating trafic flow, thinking about what they were doing, having a look around. I never cease to be amazed at the twats who have to brake hard because they have to give way to a cyclist using a green lane … what is it about driving 101 that these incompetent ar$ewipes have difficulty understanding.

Big tough car drivers on the interweb… Here’s how it really plays out…

Kramer on bike approaches zebra crossing.
Vehicle approaches zebra crossing.
Kramer sees vehicle approaching, and trackstands bike at the edge of zebra crossing.
Car driver confused by bike antics stops at crossing and yields right of way.
Kramer darts across crossing (riding) while car is stopped.
Car driver continues on their way, minus 2 seconds of their day.
Car driver bitches the rest of the way home to accompanying passenger, and then gets home to rant about bloody cyclists on RiotACT.

ahappychappy said :

You’re also required to wear a helmet and high-viz clothing whilst riding a bike, and the bike must be equipped with flashing beacons to attract attention and lights.

Helmet yes, but you’d never know since the police don’t bother to enforce it.
Clothing, stealth black is legal.
Lights at night yes, but they don’t have to be flashing, rather only bicycles have that option.

Deckard said :

ahappychappy said :

Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do legally?

Yes, inconvenient isn’t it.

Legally as a pedestrian you’re not to cross the road when the man is red – even if there are no cars coming. Do you do this as well?

It may be inconvenient but that’s the law. You’re also legally required to stick to speedlimits (including those in roadworks), headcheck and indicate when merging/changing lanes. You’re also required to wear a helmet and high-viz clothing whilst riding a bike, and the bike must be equipped with flashing beacons to attract attention and lights. Do you do these things? Are you/your bike equipped with these things?

There’s no real need to start exchanging pleasantries, Postal was being sarcastic, yet his remark was quoting the law.

lot of

icantbelieveitsnotbutter said :

This may be a stupid question… most of mine are… but are horses legally allowed on Canberra roads?

Absolutely, possibly with some restrictions. Not in the handbook (like quite a road rules that differ for cyclists) so hard to be aware of.

Gutter said :

Ride where you like

But

Pedestrian crossing are for pedestrians (noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker), if you intend to ride over them expect me to ride over you.

Wow, that was stupid.

ahappychappy said :

Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do legally?

Yes, inconvenient isn’t it.

Legally as a pedestrian you’re not to cross the road when the man is red – even if there are no cars coming. Do you do this as well?

This may be a stupid question… most of mine are… but are horses legally allowed on Canberra roads?

Postalgeek said :

What we need is big bumper stickers on the front of cars that say ‘I only brake for pedestrians’. That way, if I come up to a pedestrian crossing and I see you coming with one of those stickers, we can all come to a complete stop, I’ll unclip, and then I’ll walk my bike across. In the meantime some other pedestrians have arrived and start to cross while you have been stationary waiting for me to cross.

Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do legally?

What we need is big bumper stickers on the front of cars that say ‘I only brake for pedestrians’. That way, if I come up to a pedestrian crossing and I see you coming with one of those stickers, we can all come to a complete stop, I’ll unclip, and then I’ll walk my bike across. In the meantime some other pedestrians have arrived and start to cross while you have been stationary waiting for me to cross.

Gutter said :

Pedestrian crossing are for pedestrians (noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker), if you intend to ride over them expect me to ride over you.

Well done. Haven’t heard that one before.

Gutter said :

Ride where you like

But

Pedestrian crossing are for pedestrians (noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker), if you intend to ride over them expect me to ride over you.

And presumably zebra crossings are for stripey horses. And that would mean that bike paths are only for bikes and no-one else should ever be able to use them.

If you ride over anyone, I’ll be the person laughing hysterically in court as they drag your sorry ass to jail.

Ride where you like

But

Pedestrian crossing are for pedestrians (noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker), if you intend to ride over them expect me to ride over you.

You’re confusing the bicycles with the motorised kind, but I’ll take any excuse for the promotion of cycling.

Kramer said :

You forgot the fat & unfit bludgers driving cars are a drain on our health system, whereas fit, friendly citizens riding their bikes require less health resources.

We also forget that most organ donations come from those who cant control 2-wheeled vehicles too, so maybe we should encourage more cyclists, since they can donate healthy organs.

You forgot the fat & unfit bludgers driving cars are a drain on our health system, whereas fit, friendly citizens riding their bikes require less health resources.

anatoli said :

OK, I’ll bite.

Firstly, money not spent on car travel does not mean money “saved” in an economic sense. A substantial proportion of that money will end up in the local economy regardless, due to being available for things other than car travel. Much of the rest, while being saved in the regular English sense of the word, will actually be invested which is quite different from being saved in the economic sense, or will be used to pay off household debt which is good for the economy in the longer term. So your basic premise is faulty.

Now let’s go through your detailed claims point by point.

Not much of the money spent on petrol remains in the local economy. Australia imports almost all of its passenger vehicle fuels. Reducing reliance on these benefits the Australian economy as a whole. Now if only someone would invent a coal-powered car…

It has already been pointed out that the majority of cyclists also own cars. I doubt that there is any noticable effect on car dealerships that isn’t simply business switching to bicycle shops.

By this argument, I should take a sledgehammer to Northbourne Avenue to increase economic activity.

Finally, your argument completely ignores the many indirect costs associated with car travel. Estimates of the cost of road congestion to the Australian economy number in the billions of dollars per annum, and the cost of road crashes is also substantial. One could similarly estimate the cost of vehicular air pollution. These are significant costs that are bourne by the economy as a whole, and are partially mitigated by some mode shifting from car to bicycle.

It’s like you’ve done a first-year course in economics and think that the simplistic income models adequately explain the workings of a real economy.

Okay – I’ll elaborate on my comment full of assumptions. If I was to go through absolutely everything it would probably take a novel… but okay.

Sure, not every single cent “saved” by cyclists would be put into a savings account instead of being spent elsewhere, and sure, the bank would lend out some of this “saved” money through loans/investments/sponsorships etc. but in some instances this negates the multiplier effect within the local economy through consumption of goods/services – Everyone has to make a profit off such savings, reducing the amount passed on.

Sure, a franchise pays fees/taxes/percentages of profit to their franchiser, but the staff, owners and stakeholders are still losing the money. Staff/owners/stakeholders lose some expendable income, of which they cannot re-inject into the economy through consumption and investment/saving. Removing imports benefits the Australian economy? How do you figure that? Admittedly, by reducing the amount of imports we’re keeping resources within the local economy, but imports are relative to exports…

I say less income through parking costs/fines as this is potentially money lost to the local government, obviously leading to less government investment/expenditure (although that never seems to be the case within the ACT, apparently our expenditure isn’t relative to our budget).

The loss of business to car dealerships would probably be used on substitutes like bicycles etc. Admittedly, there is a large difference between costs levels – but your point is quite a good counter, touché. I have no arguement hahaha

It probably would produce economic activity if you took a sledgehammer to Northbourne Avenue. More expenditure/investment and people being paid? Give it a run, sounds like fun anyways.

Finally, each and every externality has a benefit. Jobs, investment and expenditure all come from the externalities you have mentioned. Scientists are employed, paid and grants/research projects formed through the costs of road congestion/pollution, aswell as road workers and builders to fix the congestion issue, all injecting further investment into the economy as a whole. Road crash costs help the car industry, in both sales and repairs, as well as encourage investment in roads and other alternatives.

To suggest that people shifting to bicycles would actually <b?noticibly mitigate the above-mentioned externalities is rather big suggestion. I understand that each little person makes a difference, but wow that’s a big leap.

As to your first year course comment – I hope that the above helps you understand my position a little more. We can sit here and argue for hours and hours with flow on effects etc, but it would be hardly worth it. Economics is such a hard thing to argue about.

ahappychappy said :

And anatoli – please do enlighten me where my economics is flawed.

OK, I’ll bite.

ahappychappy said :

As for the saving money, you’re completely wrong. By not driving a car, the community’s economy LOSES money (as it is being saved) … Not to mention the money people are “saving” on petrol, moves out of the monetary cycle, and the multiplier effect on income and expenditure is lost. These are all minor points, but if we want to get down to “facts” then a wider scope is needed.

Firstly, money not spent on car travel does not mean money “saved” in an economic sense. A substantial proportion of that money will end up in the local economy regardless, due to being available for things other than car travel. Much of the rest, while being saved in the regular English sense of the word, will actually be invested which is quite different from being saved in the economic sense, or will be used to pay off household debt which is good for the economy in the longer term. So your basic premise is faulty.

Now let’s go through your detailed claims point by point.

ahappychappy said :

Less income for the petrol stations within the community

Not much of the money spent on petrol remains in the local economy. Australia imports almost all of its passenger vehicle fuels. Reducing reliance on these benefits the Australian economy as a whole. Now if only someone would invent a coal-powered car…

ahappychappy said :

less income through parking costs/fines

Um…

ahappychappy said :

less income for car dealerships through car sales

It has already been pointed out that the majority of cyclists also own cars. I doubt that there is any noticable effect on car dealerships that isn’t simply business switching to bicycle shops.

ahappychappy said :

less need for road upgrades/repairs meaning less government spending.

By this argument, I should take a sledgehammer to Northbourne Avenue to increase economic activity.

Finally, your argument completely ignores the many indirect costs associated with car travel. Estimates of the cost of road congestion to the Australian economy number in the billions of dollars per annum, and the cost of road crashes is also substantial. One could similarly estimate the cost of vehicular air pollution. These are significant costs that are bourne by the economy as a whole, and are partially mitigated by some mode shifting from car to bicycle.

It’s like you’ve done a first-year course in economics and think that the simplistic income models adequately explain the workings of a real economy.

Beau Locks said :

I would like to make this point: cycle paths are slow. Not only that, they’re dangerous if you’re riding at high speed, because they are used by pedestrians, dogs, and slow cyclists. Not only that, they’re generally in poor repair. They also usually take a circuitous route, and force one to repeatedly stop and give way at road crossings.

City roads are also slow, and filled with distractions. It’s all part of living in a city.

ahappychappy said :

Hit them – They’ll learn pretty quick. AND, you can’t be legally responsible!

😉

Extremely bad advice. Doesn’t matter if the other party is in the wrong.
If you can safely avoid a collision and you chose not to, you are responsible.
Avoiding collisions is why we have road rules.

Mr Horrid,

I am merely throwing a line out for discussion.

Your suggestion drew my attention as you said all citizens paid for road use, which is a fact, but others have said some pay for a privilege to drive a car on such roads. If some have to pay for a privilege to use a vehicle (whether artificially powered or not) on these roads why should not all vehicles have to pay for such privilege? I agree that it is silly to charge bikes/trikes/magic carpets registration to use the road, but am only trying to engage conversation for the opposition through your comment and other’s assertions earlier. But, I do apologise for segregating only parts of your point, I was only being childish and picky as I said.

As to my last comment being laughable, google “Five Sector Circular Flow of Income” and have a read. Hopefully this will explain the logic I used in the last point.

The point that people saving were “more likely to spend on Australian goods” – I doubt it. Unless you’re buying agricultural resources, buying Australian made to “create/save local jobs and keep money here in Australia” is usually a misguided and silly assertion. But that is way off topic and hardly needed.

And anatoli – please do enlighten me where my economics is flawed.

none-a-wall said :

Just out of interest, how are you supposed to report a cyclist breaking the law to Police? i.e. Motor Vehicles have number plates – well most of them anyway. And can a cyclist be tracked down and made pay a red light and speed camera fine? Cause i’m sure the Police can charge people for ‘Drink Riding’…

The same way you’d report a pedestrian breaking the law, maybe?

If you think that having number plates makes it easy for you as a ‘concerned citizen’ to report traffic infractions to the police and have them prosecuted, I’d suggest you try giving the police a call and explain that you saw a car speeding and have it’s number plate written down.

Do let me know how you get on.

Just to prove that I am non biased when it comes to cycling and cyclists, I would like to thank the middle aged gentleman who I called out this morning on the corner of Ghirraween Street and Northbourne Ave for running a red light when I had my little green man walk signal.

I was unaware I was rotund and that you wished to make love to me.

Oh and none-a-wall – people are not registered and they get caught doing illegal things quite often.

Maybe we should all just be GPS tracked. For the safety of the community.

When you approach one you can get an alert over your car stereo to wake you up or so you can put down your phone and look at the road.

Just out of interest, how are you supposed to report a cyclist breaking the law to Police? i.e. Motor Vehicles have number plates – well most of them anyway. And can a cyclist be tracked down and made pay a red light and speed camera fine? Cause i’m sure the Police can charge people for ‘Drink Riding’…

Happy Chappy,

When I said “most cyclists pay registration fees on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less space and causing less wear and tear on roads” I meant precisely that, ie the whole sentence, not just the half of it you deliberately or otherwise quoted out of context. This completely negates your comment re registration. I neither claimed nor implied that for every single cyclist out on the road, there is at that precise moment also a car sitting in their garage. This is however the case, as I said, in ‘most’ cases.

Your second comment is simply irrelevant to the facts. Cyclists pay very nearly all the taxes used to build roads, hence they are automatically entitled to ride on them. Complex arguements about who is paying for what elswhere don’t change that. End of story.

Your final comment is just laughable- are you really serious or just desperate? To suggest that people on bikes are costing the economy because they are spending less on petrol and cars is plain dumb. The money they save they either spend on other things (far more likely to be made in Australia)or they bank so that other people can borrow or spend it. The same money goes round, it is just spent in a more sensible and efficient fashion that causes less pollution and traffic jams.

After reading your post I catagorise you as falling into the second catagory as defined in posting #38 above. If, after I have explained carefully to you what you have misunderstood, you continue to maintain in this thread that cyclists don’t pay for their road use, this will place you in the third category.

ITT: ahappychappy fails at reading comprehension, then logic, then economics.

“we pay for the priviledge to use our roads”… Yes… motor vehicle owners do pay for the privilege to use their motor vehicle on a public road.

However all tax payers pay for the construction and maintenance of public roads and the *RIGHT* to use them, though GST, stamp duties, income taxes, etc.

Look closely at your next motor vehicle registration bill… because that’s what it is… a MOTOR vehicle registration bill… not a “privilege to use our roads” bill.

What motor vehicle owners pay for with their Rego is the right to use private, *artificially powered* transport on public roads. You also pay in advance for the comparatively high risk of injury that your choice of transport imposes on others… through the form of CTP insurance.

Just because the numbers of people who choose to use motor vehicles is higher than those who choose not to, does not mean that everyone else should not be permitted on public roads. That would be discrimination.

Every human being has an automatic *right* to use a public road or transport corridor if they choose to do so through naturally aspired forms of transport. There is no such automatic *right* to use a motor vehicle on a public road. That is a privilege that must be payed for.

Horrid said :

I wondered how long it would take for the usual utterly false claims(to the effect that cyclists don’t pay for their road use) to appear.

FACT: Most cyclists pay registration fees on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less space and causing less wear and tear on roads.
FACT: Registration fees in any case contribute a negligible portion of the money spent on roads- these are largely funded from the same taxes (income tax, GST, etc) that all citizens pay regardless of transport mode. The only exception is taxes levied directly on petrol, but even taking this into account, cyclists more than pay for their road use.
FACT: Cyclists save the community money by reducing the need for car parking, improving community health and air quality.

Note that unlike opinions, well known and substantiated facts are not open to debate- anyone who claims that cyclists don’t pay their way is automatically making a false statement. And as I have patiently explained on numerous occasions before, it then becomes necessary to question why people post false information on sites like this.

quote]

See, I like this comment.

If we want to be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY picky I can pull your facts apart.

Sure, MOST cyclists pay a registration fee on a car. But it isn’t a fact that ALL cyclists have a car at home that isn’t being driven whilst they ride? Perhaps their partner/spouse/housemate/god is driving the car whilst they ride? Perhaps not all cyclists do indeed have a registered car at home paying registration. What about those others that aren’t actually paying to use the road? (I told you I was getting picky).

Everyone does pay the government some form of taxes, but using your logic, we can say that most of the funding for hospitals comes from the tax on alcohol. It doesn’t matter what the money goes towards, a tax is a tax. Registration is paid by car drivers, and isn’t paid by cyclists – yet registration is needed for a car to legally be on the roads. Sure, both drivers and cyclists pay money in taxes, but so does every pimpley sixteen year old working at maccas who walks to work. Do they deserve walking lanes on major roads as they’re scared of rollerbladers and horse riders on foot/bikepaths?

As for the saving money, you’re completely wrong. By not driving a car, the community’s economy LOSES money (as it is being saved). Less income for the petrol stations within the community, less income through parking costs/fines, less income for car dealerships through car sales, less need for road upgrades/repairs meaning less government spending. Not to mention the money people are “saving” on petrol, moves out of the monetary cycle, and the multiplier effect on income and expenditure is lost. These are all minor points, but if we want to get down to “facts” then a wider scope is needed.

At least we can all agree that recumbent cyclists are a bunch of useless w@nkers.

+ Grail

Kent, to answer your first question, it comes down to right-of-way.

Next you drive along, imagine if every single side road you pass required you to give way. And every time you stopped you had to expend significant physical energy to start your car again and accelerate.

Every single road.

Because cycles paths running parallel are intersected by every single side road.

And cyclists are far more likely to have an accident at these intersections:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

It’s not rocket science.

And I can tell you that I, probably along with every cyclist in the world, would infinitely prefer a direct, dedicated, well-maintained cycle path well away from cars. But the expense is prohibitive and people would start winging about all the money being spent on dedicated cycle paths.
So we’re stuck with sharing roads and having to listen to mindless comments from lazy motorists who obviously have never ridden outside for any practical reason in their life because if they had they would understand the conditions being encountered and understand that resources need to be shared.

As for cyclists darting across pedestrian crossings,they can expect the same fate as drivers who overtake on the crest of a hill, or drag off at traffic lights, or talk on a mobile, or ignore a stop sign or traffic light, or fail to indicate, or don’t turn their lights on during periods of poor visibility, or fail to give way. Except that they’ll only kill themselves.

Damnit, nobody took my hook. =(

Why can’t everyone just be friends? Just like many people stated in the “clear up alcohol fuelled violence” thread, a muppet will be a muppet whether drunk/sober or travelling on a bike/horse/hovercraft/car.

Lets all just get over it, stop living in the past four threads in two weeks, recycling previous posts etc. and move on. Rant/rave on the next impossible to win arguement like religion/politics/generations.

I wondered how long it would take for the usual utterly false claims(to the effect that cyclists don’t pay for their road use) to appear.

FACT: Most cyclists pay registration fees on vehicles they leave at home while taking up less space and causing less wear and tear on roads.
FACT: Registration fees in any case contribute a negligible portion of the money spent on roads- these are largely funded from the same taxes (income tax, GST, etc) that all citizens pay regardless of transport mode. The only exception is taxes levied directly on petrol, but even taking this into account, cyclists more than pay for their road use.
FACT: Cyclists save the community money by reducing the need for car parking, improving community health and air quality.

Note that unlike opinions, well known and substantiated facts are not open to debate- anyone who claims that cyclists don’t pay their way is automatically making a false statement. And as I have patiently explained on numerous occasions before, it then becomes necessary to question why people post false information on sites like this. There can only be 3 reasons:

1. They are ignorant- ie unaware of the facts stated above
2. They are stupid- ie aware of the facts above but unable to understand them
3. They are liars- ie fully aware of the facts above, and able to understand them, but choose for reasons of spite and malice to knowingly make false statements with the deliberate intention of inciting hatred against cyclists.

And yes, it will annoy some that I repeat this point a lot, but while others continue to regurgitate the same ignorant, stupid and deceitful statements, it will remain neccessary to correct them with the same truths.

Well said Grail – especially the glass bottle bit.

I have had to invest a great deal of time and money to ensure that my bike is puncture proofed for my daily 32km on (OFF ROAD) bike pathes.

I would really be surprised if it was cyclists breaking glass on shared pathes.

Perish the thought a cyclist would do similar things on a road – imagine outpouring of emotion.

For the record, at the northern approach to Sandford Street on the eastern side of Gunghalin Drive, from Bartom Highway (On shared off road cycle lane) I usually arrive pretty nackered (1km uphill stretch) – I have lost count of how many people scowl at me and cut me off when I dismount and attempt to cross the zebra crossing walking my bike.

Dont even get me started on how many cars I watch go through my little green man whilst I wait to cross the road.

Oh and if you ride through a little red man and there is a goateed dude wearing trackies and a hoodie mouthing you off whilst waiting for the green, please, say hello, its probably me

Unfortunately, stupidity is universal, it is not exclusive to motorists, cyclist, pedestrians etc. .

Most of you are just making shit up (or at least vastly overstating the facts and making massive generalisations) in a vain attempt to win the ultimate un-winable argument.

Here’s an idea – stop giving a shit about shit that doesn’t mean shit!!!!

You use for free what we pay for, so you must be able to understand that other road users can get slightly annoyed when cyclists abuse this priviledge.
Welcome to society.

Here’s something that may surprise you – Cyclists pay taxes too.

Seriously, hasn’t this been done to death at least 20 times on here before?

Jim Jones said :

PigDog said :

Cars do not have to give way to cyclists riding across pedestrian crossings.

And if you don’t have to, well then, hell, why bother, right?

Other people only exist to get in your way and cause trouble – who needs ’em?

Jim: I am not saying run people down, but the rules say the cyclist must give way unless they get off the bike. What am I meant to do otherwise?

Regarding bike lanes parallel to roads: they’re shared paths which often have pedestrians with (untrained) dogs, folks on horses, or just couples out for a quiet walk, holding hands side by side. In addition the shared paths are often in poor condition (root damage, smashed VB bottles, other damage from car drivers), and transiting from road to shared path often requires a detour of several hundred metres. Most horses on bike paths are familiar with bikes, but even then if they didn’t notice you coming you can spook them.

A classic case is the shared path near the Mint in Deakin, which runs parallel to Adelaide avenue. Between the road and the path is a field of gravel, with a two-foot-high fence. There is a special entry/exit just after the Cotter Road overpass, and another transition point just after the exit ramp onto Carruthers Street, which means you can get onto the path to enjoy the worst of the root damage, just before you have to get off again in order to continue on Yarra Glen. Alternately, the bike rider could use the overpass with its broken concrete path (each slab is about 60cm wide, and none of them match in height).

Regarding the cyclists who dart across pedestrian crossings: they’re daft people who do daft things regardless of whether they’re on a bike, rollerskates or behind the wheel of a car. So rather than ranting at “cyclists”, you’d be better served ranting at “selfish idiots”, which will also cover about 50% of the four-wheel-drive drivers out there who don’t seem to realise that give way and stop signs apply to four wheel drive vehicles too.

I personally would like to complain about the number of people who take it upon themselves to whinge on The RiotACT about one or two incidences involving stupid people riding bikes. Yes, you were inconvenienced. You don’t see me ranting here about the occasions when I’ve had bike tyres slashed by VB bottles purposefully smashed on bike paths by you stupid car drivers, do you? Or the times I’ve had nuts, bolts and even complete wheels separating from their vehicles and hitting or narrowly avoiding me on the road. Or the times that VB bottles have mysteriously dislodged themselves from cars and flown past my head at 80km/h. Like any sensible person, I submit my complaint to urban services (for cleaning/repairing paths) or the police (for assault with various missiles).

Stupid people come in all shapes, sizes and vehicles.

PigDog said :

Cars do not have to give way to cyclists riding across pedestrian crossings.

And if you don’t have to, well then, hell, why bother, right?

Other people only exist to get in your way and cause trouble – who needs ’em?

A few things I noticed when reading the comments above:

1. People complained that using cycle paths include many dangers, such as pedestrians who move at a slower speed then them making it dangerous for the cyclist and the pedestrian. This sounds VERY similar to the situation where a cyclist is riding on the road at a slower speed then other vehicles…

2. Many cyclists here embrace the fact that they are allowed to ride on the road. Unfortunetly, the rest of us road users don’t share in the benefits of cycle-lane riding, when we pay for the priviledge to use our roads. You use for free what we pay for, so you must be able to understand that other road users can get slightly annoyed when cyclists abuse this priviledge.

Don’t take these comments the wrong way, these aren’t aimed at anyone personally, as I’m sure that if you ride you aren’t one of the few idiots who ruin it for the rest of the cyclists.

If you’ve been reading this site for any length of time you’d know it’s law that cyclists dismount to cross a zebra crossing. It’s also law to do the speed limit, indicate when turning, not drink and drive, not to j walk and not to download pirated movies off the internet, but that doesn’t seem to stop anyone.

As a cyclist I don’t get off my bike, but stop and wait to make sure a car is stopping. If they don’t stop it’s up to them. Most do stop, and I wave a thanks and am across the crossing before they can say ‘$#@#ing Cyclist’.

As a pedesetrian I also stop and make sure a car is stopping before walking across. Even though by law I own the pedestrian crossing (without paying a rego fee) and it’s my right to step out in front of a car if I want to. But I’m not going to trust an idiot who thinks they own the road with my life.

From my understanding – A cyclist must dismount across pedestrian crossings and the like to be given way to “legally”

Hit them – They’ll learn pretty quick. AND, you can’t be legally responsible!

😉

I love how people infer that cyclists cause them massive delays and frustration, then the moment they get to work they post about it on RiotACT then argue moot points with complete strangers, thus wasting yet more time and getting even more frustrated!!

Life is too short for this bullshit. So many heart attack candidates…

Cars do not have to give way to cyclists riding across pedestrian crossings.

“The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of a road, on a school crossing or pedestrian crossing. You may only ride across a road, or part of a road, at a marked foot crossing if there are bicycle crossing lights showing a green light.”

From here:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/64482/Part_E_-_Other_Road_Users_2009.pdf

Kent Street said :

May I also say that at no stage did I defend the poor driving behaviour on our roads. That would have taken a full post on its own. But I won’t go there because it’s probably been done before and I wouldn’t like to further upset Horrid.

Kent Street said :

Nearly every week on RA there is an anti-cycling thread (that usually results in the OP being shot down in flames) so maybe instead you should of posted one about the poor performance of car drivers, even if it was only for the variety.

Kent Street said :

And to those that are insinuating that the problem at that particular crossing is of my own doing by not slowing down, it is only because I have slowed down

Another dangerous spot is the pedestrian crossings on the slip lanes on the left from Gungahlin Dr into Kosciuszko Ave Palmerston, heading towards Lakes Golf Club. Motorists look right at the traffic even when the traffic in the GD lanes are stopped for red light and most times fail to look left to see if there are any pedestrians or cyclist coming off the path wanting to cross on the pedestrian crossing.

I commute home from work this route on my bike (on the bike path) and almost daily have near misses with cars that fail to stop or even acknowledge I am trying to use the crossing. Some see me at the last second but quickly look away and pretend they didn’t and roar off into the sunset. Others just blindly motor around the corner and have no clue whatsoever that they broke a road rule by not giving way at a pedestrian crossing and nearly ran over a cyclist or pedestrian (I’m sure a lot have no clue that there is a pedestrian crossing there or if they do, have no idea what they are for or what they are expected to do when they come to them).

The people that fail to give way aren’t impatient young P plate hoons in hotted up cars but rather just ordinary mum and dad citizens that I’m sure would be the first to call for action if their Mary or Johnny was hit there while commuting home from school. A raised pedestrian crossing would go some way to fixing the problem, driver education would also be part of the solution.

Let’s see if we can go a whole week without another bike bashing thread on RA.

I would like to draw your attention to the roadworks along Tharwa Drive Conder, particularly at the intersection with Mentone View. If anyone has not seen this section of road, there is a painted bike lane along the north bound side of this road with a provision for cyclists to exit this lane onto the shared ‘footpath’ and pass the roundabout off the road, then to re-enter the cycle lane after the roandabout. There is also, however, a green painted line approaching this roundabout, beyond this diversion and right up to the entrance to the roundabout. The vehicle lane running along side the cycle lane is reduced considerably to accomodate for the green cycle lane which raises 3 concerns if it is intended that cyclists continue through the roundabout. 1. The attention of a driver in this first lane is divided by any cyclists using the lane and any vehicles approaching from the right on the roundabout. 2. The reduction in lane width doesn’t allow a lot of seperation between cyclists and vehicles entering the roandabout at the same time. 3. The cycle lane itself doesn’t continue through the intersection, rather it just ends which can lead to confusion as to who gives way to who once the lanes merge.

Horrid said :

All this could have been found out simply by phoning up TAMS and asking them, in less time than it takes to put the post up on Riot ACT and unnecessarily stirring up the red-neck anti-cycling brigade yet again. How many times must this same question be answered?

and

Horrid said :

As for people doing the wrong thing on pedestrian crossings, why not take your frustrations out on those people directly, on the spot, instead of posting them here?

Sorry for venturing the question in the first place. Looks like, if you post something that is not to Horrid’s liking, then you shouldn’t have bothered.

May I also say that at no stage did I defend the poor driving behaviour on our roads. That would have taken a full post on its own. But I won’t go there because it’s probably been done before and I wouldn’t like to further upset Horrid.

And to those that are insinuating that the problem at that particular crossing is of my own doing by not slowing down, it is only because I have slowed down that I have seen these cyclists and managed to avoid hitting them.

I can,t help but wonder how many males that whine about cyclist, see a Lycra covered butt as a sexual object and then have there sexuality challenged when realizing that it was a mans butt. So then they find any excuse to bag out cyclist, when they them-selves have unresolved problems. Get over it !!!

I’ve been told all this on road cycle lanes & bike racks on buses mostly has to do with a high up Pedal Power member is married to a certain ACT Minister.

There are certain groups that complain about safety issues with these on road cycle lanes & bike racks on buses but nothing is done because of what I mentioned above.

Lets stop referring to each other as “motorists”, “cyclists”, “traffic” etc. Let’s refer to each other as “people on bikes” or “people driving cars.” After all, that’s what the roads are about, people, humans, trying to get from A to B without dying, regardless of their mode of transport.

After 15 years of living in Holder, I know well of the bit of Streeton Drive Kent mentioned. I have no doubt that the primary reason for the minor “re-engineering” there was to make it easier for people turning right out of Namatjira Drive onto Streeton, to see vehicles approaching from their right. Given how quiet that road is even in peak hour, I fail to see how there being a single motor vehicle lane for that small stretch will ever be a problem.

In regards to pedestrian crossings, how about slowing down on the approach to any crossing, particularly if you know that people on bikes frequent them at speed. Not that hard. It’s what I do and I never have a problem. People in cars who race up to pedestrian crossings at speed to scare or bully people on bikes, are the same breed as the people on bikes who race up to them at speed… power tripping idiots who have simply chosen different forms of transport.

BTW, it’s worth noting that under ACT’s Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, a person who drives a motor vehicle with intent to menace another road user, may be imprisoned for up to 1 year.

Rather than ranting about how people on bikes shouldn’t use pedestrian crossings without dismounting, how about write to the ACT Gov and request they stop putting crossings where bike paths intersect roads… it’s bad, lazy practice that creates conflicts amongst sensitive Canberran’s who would rather endanger each others lives than have to stop their vehicle for another person if they technically mightn’t have to. There should be fully marked intersections with give way/stop signs facing either the bike path or the road.

In regards to people on bikes on 110km/h dual carriage ways, briefly move to the right lane and give them space to make that accidental “wrong move”, or indeed give you more margin for error should you make that wrong move. Not that difficult. Being an almost daily user of the Federal highway now, I move to the right lane for people on bikes on a regular basis. There’s been one or two situations where I couldn’t as i was being overtaken, so I hit that dreaded “cancel” button on my cruise control and slowed down passing them at 80 odd… I survived.

I don’t understand why Australians are so uptight on the road. Slow down, back off, expect the unexpected, and your road user experience will be far more pleasant. Yes the actions or presence of some people on the road will require you to slow down, and maybe even stop! Fancy that… an extra 10 seconds to your trip because someone else also wants to use the public road.

Well GNT maybe “cyclists should not expect cars to stop for them on pedestrian crossings if they are not going at pedestrian speed.” but neither should pedestrians going at pedestrian speed.

When I’m in my car I expect someone is coming along a pedestrian crossing no matter what time of night just to make sure.

Unfortunately though for some other people it seems its more important to be on the phone or playing with the GPS in car DVD or they are just making amazing time to be able to slow down when approaching a pedestrian crossing. I have a few friends who have been hit on pedestrian crossings, one guy has been hit twice on the same crossing (Challis street Dickson).

I think they should make every pedestrian crossing in the ACT a raised speed bump style one. Atleast that way your more likely to ensure that motorists will slow down when they approach one which is what you SHOULD always do.

AND

So Cranky are you saying we should ban cars from the Federal Highway, I mean “in these days of OH&S” 110km/h is too fast for anyone to travel.

cranky: but the track record would suggest its safe

….and the latest trick by the lycra clad types is to use the dedicated bus only lanes at traffic lights. Not only are they breaking the law, but they are leaving themselves open to extremely serious injury or worse!!! Cyclist vs bus = not pretty!!!!

It appears that these on road cycle lanes have given a few cyclists (mainly some of the lycra clad types) some idea that it is all OK to get out there and play with the traffic. What so many of them don’t or can’t grasp, is that they will be the one that gets killed or seriously injured, not the car drivers, no matter what the law is.

Cyclists have been riding the Federal Highway for years. The Federal has a huge section to the side that can be safely cycled on.

Is this a set up?

Has anyone else noticed anything similar?

No. I’ve never seen a cycling thread on The RiotACT before.

Interesting that the OP predicted a ‘torrent of abuse’ from cyclists, and then the only abusive comment so far (no 1) was aimed not at the OP but at cyclists.

Yep, as others have confirmed, everyone in the cycling world knows that the primary objective of reducing the traffic lanes down to a single lane on Streeton Drive was for reasons unrelated to cycling. The cycle lane was put in just to do something useful with the leftover road space. All this could have been found out simply by phoning up TAMS and asking them, in less time than it takes to put the post up on Riot ACT and unnecessarily stirring up the red-neck anti-cycling brigade yet again. How many times must this same question be answered?

As for bike paths next to bike lanes, perhaps 5% of the total cycle lane network has what most Canberrans would describe as a proper bike path (as opposed to a footpath) next to it, and where they do, these often force cyclists to lose right of way at each intersection, making it sensible to give commuter cyclists a faster and fairer option. The amount of duplication is negligible, and yet the little there is always seems to enrage people who understand perfectly well why big fast roads for through traffic run often alongside small quiet roads for local access, and yet don’t apply the same reasoning to a different vehicle type.

As for people doing the wrong thing on pedestrian crossings, why not take your frustrations out on those people directly, on the spot, instead of posting them here? As a motorist, I am not responsible for the actions irresponsible actions of other motorists who I don’t even know- ditto as a cyclist.

Travelling the Federal Highway yesterday morning, groups of cyclists were passed as they pedalled north.

In these days of OH+S, who in their right mind thinks pushies on the same road as 110Kph+ traffic is acceptable.

A wrong move by any of the participants is going to end in tragedy.

Goodness me. As a responsible cycling commuter, I have reason to be routinely incensed by the attitude of motorists. Not once, but twice in the last week I’ve had someone fail to give way to me and then abuse me.

I would like to make this point: cycle paths are slow. Not only that, they’re dangerous if you’re riding at high speed, because they are used by pedestrians, dogs, and slow cyclists. Not only that, they’re generally in poor repair. They also usually take a circuitous route, and force one to repeatedly stop and give way at road crossings.

Perhaps a good analogy would be to suggest that a motorist wishing to go from Tuggeronong to Civic do so on a windy, pot-holed, unsealed road full of people participating in a vintage car Sunday drive, and do so traveling via Belconnen town centre. I say this because, for my daily commute, I reckon that’d approximate the time difference between taking cycle paths and hammering along on the excellent surface of the on-road cycling network without having to constantly slow down.

It’s been interesting reading the various letters to the editor in The Crimes lately, with various anti-cycling punters suggesting we take a leaf out of Melbourne’s book regarding fining cyclists for riding in parks. I agree–riding at dangerously high speeds when you’re surrounded by pedestrians is not sensible. What you will not find in Melbourne, however, is the extraordinary bigotry that we have here in Canberra. Riding there is a joy. It’s flat, and there’s good on road cycling infrastructure. More importantly, however, is the attitude of motorists–far more enlightened souls than the selfish lot we have here. I grew up in Canberra, and I’m constantly defending the joint, but sometimes I find myself at a loss. To the bigots: be thankful we’ve got such a great road network for cars–you could be living in any other city in the world.

On a related note, whats up with the slip lanes coming into Drakeford Drive out of Kambah? There used to be a nice slip-lane space for half a dozen cars to wait in for a gap in the traffic, then someone decided to put a bike lane in (where there has been a crossing already for decades), which made the slip lanes about 2 car-lengths long, and puts the cars at about a 45 degree angle to oncoming traffic as opposed to a nice easy 10-15 degree angle that was previously there.

As for Streeton Drive, there is a path that runs past the skate park, under some underpasses and straight into Weston Ck. A friend many years ago used to ride a motor-scooter and occasionally rode (illegally) along that path because it is more direct than the roadway. Similar story to Ginninderra Dr, over the bridge near Lake Ginninderra, where there is a bike lane which shares its left edge with a bike path, which then veers away from the road and directly towards the town centre.

Ban bikes from roads, they don’t belong on them.

thomped2 said :

If they want to ride on the road it should be ilegal on roads above 60kph.
the spead difference is way to much!!! who the hell in their right mind would ride a bike 1 foot away from a car or truck that is going 50KPH faster than you…
stupid.

Good point, all roads should be lowered to 60kmph unless there is a bike path adjacent so retard motorists don’t run over cyclists. The “spead” difference definitely is too much, should be “ilegal” to drive so quickly past cyclists.

The Streeton Drive thing has been raised before here, and it turned out that the removal of the car lane was incidental to the addition of the cycling lane – it was done for unrelated traffic management reasons, do to with accidents at some intersection.

to add to gnt’s excellent comment, many of the bike lanes on roads that have a cycle/pedestrian path parallel only have it parallel for some of the way and the path doesn’t conveniently take the commuting cyclist whence s/he wants to go.

i also agree with gnt on pedestrian crossings and, while i know i err technically against the ‘cyclists dismount’ signs, i always slow down to walking pace and wait until motorists acknowledge me and signal me to cross, which i rekkun is easier all round – esp for cyclists with clip in shoes, which can be slippery and difficult on bike/pedestrian paths. feel free to yell at those who barge across at cycling speeds and even nudge forward and scare them into thinking you’ll not stop..! ; )

Streeton drive was discussed earlier. Apparently they wanted to restrict the road there but didn’t have the budget to do it properly, so painted a cycle lane as a means to their end.

Yep same crossing, same corner and I got a mouthful of expletives from the rider !

To answer your first question: Because the government has made a commitment to put cycle lanes on all major roads, regardless if they have a parallel cycle path. Many roads do not have parallel cycle paths, and bike lanes make it much quicker and more direct if you are using your bike for transport (as opposed to leisure or fitness). The cycle paths can cause problems for cyclists since they are not, as you say “dedicated parallel cycling track[s]”; rather, they are shared paths which pedestrians also use. Putting bike lanes on all major roads benefits the community in many ways; it benefits cyclists, who have a more convenient route; it benefits pedestrians, who are not going to get knocked over by fast bikes; it benefits the environment and the roads by encouraging more people to cycle; and thus it benefits the motorist by reducing the number of cars on the road.

To answer your second question: you are right, cyclists should not expect cars to stop for them on pedestrian crossings if they are not going at pedestrian speed.

Here we go again. These arguments have already been done to death on RiotACT.

If you really want to get angry, get angry with car drivers. For all the bitching about bicycles, they are not our problem cars are.

Recent articles in the Canberra Times highlight how often car drivers are driving drunk, killing and maiming themselves and others, texting while driving etc. This is something to get angry about.

Even the hoary old chestnut about cyclists running red lights is a furphy. A recent survey I read showed that more car drivers (as a percentage) run red lights more often than bicycle riders.

The Streeton Dr lane is far from ideal. It’s construction was more about making it safer for cars turning out from Namitjira than about cycling. It was also a poor example to use as there really isn’t an adequate cyclepath that leads up to Rivett and Chapman from the City.

If they want to ride on the road it should be ilegal on roads above 60kph.
the spead difference is way to much!!! who the hell in their right mind would ride a bike 1 foot away from a car or truck that is going 50KPH faster than you…
stupid.