Skip to content Skip to main navigation

More Complaints Regarding Motorists and Cyclists

Kent Street 11 October 2009 105

Now I like to ride a bike as much as the next person, but I’m getting more than a little cheesed off with some of the goings-on around here.

I fully realise that I am leaving myself open to a torrent of abuse from the cycling community but here goes …

  • Why have the powers-that-be decided that there should be cycling lanes on roads when there are already dedicated tracks parallel to the road?Take, for example, what has happened to the south-bound lanes of Streeton drive at Weston. On an already busy road, with a dedicated parallel cycling track, someone has taken the decision to remove a full lane of motorist trafic and convert it to a cycling lane. I’ve tried, but I can’t think of any logical reason for this. What gives?
  • How can cyclists possibly expect cars to stop for them on pedestrian crossings when they are not travelling at pedestrian speed?As an example, when dropping my son off at school, I turn left off Athlon Drive [heading north] on to Beasly street at Melrose High School. On too many occasions there have been cyclists riding in the same direction that leave the cycle path and scoot across the pedestrian crossing in front of me. With barely a look they expect motorists to know they are coming and be able to stop. I’m really surprised that there aren’t more accidents on that intersection.

Has anyone else noticed anything simliar?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
105 Responses to More Complaints Regarding Motorists and Cyclists
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 4 5 6
Jim Jones Jim Jones 4:24 pm 08 Jul 10

Rcubed said :

I’m an angry person in a car … RA RA RA … my tax dollars … RA RA RA

Do you know why the ‘powers-that-be’ *really* decided to put cycling lanes on roads next to dedicated cycle paths?

Because f&ck you – that’s why!

Rcubed Rcubed 3:05 pm 08 Jul 10

1. Why have the powers-that-be decided that there should be cycling lanes on roads when there are already dedicated tracks parallel to the road?Take, for example, what has happened to the south-bound lanes of Tharwa/Drakeford drive from Conder-Bonython. On an already busy road, with a dedicated parallel cycling track, someone has taken the decision to remove a full lane of motorist trafic and convert it to a cycling lane. I’ve tried, but I can’t think of any logical reason for this. What gives?

2. I really don’t give a toss if a dedicated bike path which ALL TAXPAYERS have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars financing for you few to turn into white elephants diverges from the main road. Surely escaping the carbon monoxide is good and healthy for you big strong, holier-than-thou, Green types – part of you mantra surely.

3. How can cyclists possibly expect cars to stop for them on pedestrian crossings when they are not travelling as pedestrians? DISMOUNT AND WALK WITH YOUR BIKE AS THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO DO WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

4. The dedicated bike path network (which ALL TAXPAYERS have spent millions of dollars financing) is provided for YOUR SAFETY: to separate, and therefore protect, you from cars, trucks, buses. SO USE IT!

4. ACT cyclists need to get over themselves. We are not hosting the Tour de France on our roads here. The roads have been built for powered vehicles cars, MOTORbikes, buses, trucks. it’s great you are doing something for fitness by cycling, but don’t ram it down our throats with the slow, obstructive, pig-headed and dangerous self-indulgence of riding on the highway as though you have some invisible forcefield under the wanker lycra.

Thumper Thumper 8:48 am 30 Oct 09

And prams… ‘specially prams. Bastards, don’t pay rego, choke up the footpaths, go slowly across pedestrian crossings……

Deckard Deckard 8:22 pm 29 Oct 09

All people in wheelchairs should be licensed!! 😉

damien haas damien haas 3:37 pm 29 Oct 09

Today I saw something bordering on suicidal. On Gungahlin drive, adjacent Mitchell, heading to Gungahlin a gentleman in a racing wheelchair ON THE ROAD. I dont believe there is an onroad cycle lane there, but there is a cycle path 5 metres to his right.

When I was driving back from Mitchell, I saw him again – on the GDE, obviously his return journey. At a minimum he should have a flag on a pole like those chaps who ride recumbents. Dressed in black, on a black wheelchair, very low to the ground – its a recipe for tragedy.

ahappychappy ahappychappy 5:02 pm 23 Oct 09

Grrrr said :

ahappychappy – illogical arguments and bad economics. Why are they bad? Take your own advice and google for “Broken Window Fallacy” for an explanation, but basically it’s this: Petrol burnt is a Window smashed. Our economy does not have a net gain when you buy petrol – it is somewhere between zero sum and a loss by the whole cost of the petrol.

Wow, I love people resurrecting old threads just when everyone got over it/didn’t care anymore…

We could really sit here and argue the economic flow of income/expenditure or economic theories until this post is eight pages longs, but everything theory/situation leads to another theory/situation.

That’s the beauty of economics.

Grrrr Grrrr 3:49 pm 23 Oct 09

J Dawg said :

2. Many cyclists .. use for free what we [motorists] pay for, so you must be able to understand that other road users can get slightly annoyed when cyclists abuse this priviledge.

Please re-read the numerous Cyclist threads here on RiotACT – and see who pays what for the roads. Cyclists do less damage per journey to the road than cars or trucks, so actually cars are freeloading on cyclists. Also, it’s use, not abuse.

ahappychappy – illogical arguments and bad economics. Why are they bad? Take your own advice and google for “Broken Window Fallacy” for an explanation, but basically it’s this: Petrol burnt is a Window smashed. Our economy does not have a net gain when you buy petrol – it is somewhere between zero sum and a loss by the whole cost of the petrol.

A tax is not a generic tax when it is a license/registration for a specific activity. If no-one bought car rego, no cars would be using the roads and the roads would not need money spend on repairing them.

Very Busy said :

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.

Get over yourself and your passive-agressive threatening of cyclists. You wouldn’t like it if a truck driver said the same thing about cars “playing in traffic with trucks.” Thank-you though for your use of the “lycra clad types” generalisation, which is an indicator to cyclists that you know little about cycling.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 10:54 am 20 Oct 09

Cyclists can incur $50 on the spot fines for not wearing helmets (I’d also suggest that more cyclists are charged with on the spot $50 fines for not wearing helmets than motorists are charged for using mobile phones while driving).

And there’s nothing preventing cyclists from being charged with a range of different offences if they fail to follow the road rules and cause danger to other peoples.

How exactly would registration change anything for the better?

dvaey dvaey 9:46 am 20 Oct 09

Special G said :

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.

This is called a drivers licence. If you drive a motor vehicle you have to obtain one, demonstrating an understanding – this includes a pocket bike, 50cc moped or 45 tonne road train. Some licences require more testing depending on the vehicle.

Check your understanding of the road rules before spouting this sort of thing. It just makes you look silly.

How exactly did I look silly? I said that to have a vehicle on the road, you need a licence. You then comment and confirmed exactly what I said, while adding a few extra words (pocket bike), then go and tell me I need to read the rules to get a better understanding? Other than calling it a ‘licence’ instead of ‘drivers licence’ and omitting ‘pocket bike’, I said the same as you. I think you missed my point though, that whether youre driving a 50kg scooter or a 30kg pushbike (or a 1.5-ton car or 40-ton truck) on the road with other mentioned vehicles, that you should be treated as equal. If you expect equal space on the road, and equal rights from other road users, you should be held to the same responsibilities.

Having said all of what Ive said in this thread, I understand that the whole licencing and registration of bikes would never happen. However, I seriously do believe that in order for bikes to achieve equality on the road things have to change, and one possible change could be making cyclists more responsible and accountable. Dont want to wear your helmet or follow the road-rules? Thats fine, but you should be able to be fined and held responsible like any other road-user who chooses not to use their safety gear or break the road-rules that apply to them.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 9:05 am 20 Oct 09

dvaey said :

Before ratetheplate website went down, Id probably report 3 or 4 idiots per week.

And what did you achieve by doing this?

Special G Special G 7:16 am 20 Oct 09

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.

This is called a drivers licence. If you drive a motor vehicle you have to obtain one, demonstrating an understanding – this includes a pocket bike, 50cc moped or 45 tonne road train. Some licences require more testing depending on the vehicle.

Check your understanding of the road rules before spouting this sort of thing. It just makes you look silly.

Clown Killer Clown Killer 1:10 am 20 Oct 09

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”.

Deckard Deckard 9:55 pm 19 Oct 09

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.

nota nota 9:08 pm 19 Oct 09

^^ 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.

dvaey dvaey 8:25 pm 19 Oct 09

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.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 7:17 pm 19 Oct 09

So separate cars from trucks.

nota nota 5:35 pm 19 Oct 09

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.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 4:24 pm 19 Oct 09

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.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 3:59 pm 19 Oct 09

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.

Clown Killer Clown Killer 3:32 pm 19 Oct 09

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.

« Previous 1 4 5 6

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site