9 October 2008

Pedal Power community forum - Some thoughts

| johnboy
Join the conversation
103

[First filed: October 08, 2008 @ 15:30]

Every now and then readers suggest I should attend some community council event or forum thingy.

I always beg off because I suspect they’re populated by overly intense people. Women wearing capes and men wearing beards.

Last night I went to the Pedal Power Community Forum. Partly I went because I thought I should give at least one of these things a go this election. Mostly I went because a friend’s sig other was organising it and she made me scared about the consequences of not attending.

Women in purple capes were certainly in attendance, and a disproportionate number of the men sported beards. Being a cycling event, however, most attendees were in pretty good physical shape.

As political theatre it lacked bite. All the candidates said how much they loved Pedal Power and cycling. To some extent they tried to outbid each other in promising to deliver Pedal Power’s agenda and then raise it.

Brendan Smyth was on the nose with the crowd for some perceived slight to cycle racing funding in the past.

Richard Mulcahy gathered the second greatest round of applause for reasons not immediately obvious to me.

The greatest warmth in the room came for the Greens Shane Rattenbury who was very much one of the tribe and made sure the crowd knew he owns five bikes.

When it came to the Q&A some issues were universal to the community; “police treat us with contempt”, “urban infrastructure is crumbling”, etc.

On the other hand it was a treat to hear that an overly masculine approach was responsible for a lack of general cycling uptake.

Changes to the L-plate test were suggested to incorporate more cyclist related questions. We look forward to that one bearing fruit in 60 years.

The problem was raised of broken beer bottles on cycle paths. It was suggested that banning open beer bottles in cars would fix this. We wondered if that wouldn’t encourage more throwing of beer bottles out of windows. Shane Rattenbury suggested that the Greens’ proposed container deposit legislation would be help reduce this problem.

To be fair to the organisers though, they’d won before they’d started. By putting together sensible submissions on what’s needed to improve cycling in the community, based around how cycling can improve the community.

The Pedal Power advocacy group are sensible serious people. But they do have a fringe of colourful supporters. Chief among those was the pictured helmet-guy who sounded like he was channelling Rik from The Young Ones.

These events are great for the groups holding them. I’m still not sure they’re adding much to debate and discourse. But there seems to be at least one every night so no going back now.

Here’s some video, apologies for Che’s occasionally shaky camera work:

Join the conversation

103
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I have to say as a car driver .. motor cycle rider and occasional pushie rider that cyclists shit me to tears, they seem to be one of those sectors of the community that want all the rights and none of the responsibilities. The key incident that caused these feelings towards cyclists started many years ago as I walked out of a building onto a footpath ( not a cycle path ) and was nearly flattened by a speeding cyclist who rode very close to the front of the building and if I hadn’t have reacted and gotten out of his way there would have be a painful collision, I walked to my car parked on the street got in started it and prepared to make a U turn to go in the direction I needed to go .. made sure there was no one coming, and started to go .. and what happened next .. the same dickhead cyclist came tearing down the road on the wrong side of the street and I had to stop and give way to him.
honestly why is it that this cyclist along with many others feel that not only pedestrians must get out of his way car drivers also need to move aside and get out of his way, even tho he wasn’t obeying any of the rules the rest of us mere mortals have to heed to. every day I see cyclists use the road expecting the same rights as cars then turn into pedestrians so they aren’t delayed by traffic lights like the cars are, they ride across pedestrian crossing instead dismounting as they’re legally required to blah blah .. I saw a comment up there somewhere wondering why car drivers treat cyclists with contempt .. seems if a little respect was shown to the car drivers perhaps the favour may be returned.

Ralph said :

The hysteria being spewed from all the part-time pedal power posters is astounding; getting themselves into all sorts of contortions trying to justify why other ratepayers’ money should fund their leisure activities.

Lecherous cretins.

…except that we’re not talking about cycling as a leisure activity – most of this thread has focused on cycling as a TRANSPORT activity.

All I want to see is a bit more maintenance of dedicated cycle paths (which I use for TRANSPORT all the time), and some sort of regular cleaning of on-road paths which are typically littered with glass from bottles tossed out of the windows of oil-depleting, climate-changing gas guzzlers. That is hysterical? How about you STFU?

You, sir, are a tool of the highest order.

I think Ralph’s just fishing.

I’m sure he ‘leaches’ off the Govt for something. Since his car rego doesn’t cover the cost of the roads he’s driving on then that would be a good first example.

Ralph said :

trying to justify why other ratepayers’ money should fund their leisure activities.

Lecherous cretins.

So just curious do people who advocate for funding for ‘there’ leisure activities such as playgrounds, nature walks, picnic areas, swimming pools, sporting club grants, skateparks and libraries also fall into the category of lecherous cretins because they are asking for ‘other ratepayers money’??

*Jake wonders if Ralph will ever successfully apply that principle across the board and become a libertarian*

The hysteria being spewed from all the part-time pedal power posters is astounding; getting themselves into all sorts of contortions trying to justify why other ratepayers’ money should fund their leisure activities.

Lecherous cretins.

Matto said :

It’s great to hear everyonje getting along, and apologising.
Where’s vg when you need him? He doesn’t mind sticking it to anyone, and not worrying about the consequences. But still, I find it a hell of a lot easier to read and enjoy posts where there’s not a heap of petty name calling.

VG’s sulking in moderation again. Where he ends up regularly for abusing other commenters.

Something of a recidivist.

RuffnReady said :

I’ve got to laugh at those people who say that cyclists leach “tons of money” from government coffers… so, exactly how much money goes to cycling projects? $3.6million in the 08-09 budget, or about $10 per ratepayer. Ha! Cycling costs the taxpayer SOOOOOOOOO MUCH!

What about all the other community-funded activities (sports infrastructure, arts funding, etc.) which, you’ll note, don’t pay “registration” for what they do? But no, complain about cyclists and their drain on the public purse – what a friggin joke. At $10 per taxpayer, the carbon abatement alone, not to mention public health benefits, less road congestion, etc. probably pay for that $3.6mil a number of times over.

I think i deserve some credit then for actually whingeing about all of those things in addition to cycling programs ;-P

the conversation has moved on a little, but astrosapien’s “I don’t think it unreasonable to expect that everyone on the roads around me know the laws and obligations, and quite frankly there is no way of being able to identify if someone on a bicycle has that knowledge.” deserves a short comment.

why are school zones for instance so marked, and slated for lower speeds than similar roadways? because things and people ‘on the road’ may not be expected to know their obligations – it is incumbent on the vehicle operator (driver) to be aware of a range of ‘obstacles’ on the road, including other users who may not be driving / road using to your maximal desires and utitlity. sorry about that. s’why express ways specifically ban the use by a range of vehciles and other users to allow quick reliable and easy passage – life wasn’t meant to be easy – this is the ‘attitude’ i was hoping to propagate.

tylersmayhem said :

My apologies if you thought I was calling you anything derogatory. That wasn’t the intention

There would be no need to apologise for calling me that Astro. I’m sure I’d deserve it, but take it on the chin and not fret about it. My point was simply to draw the double standard it appeared you had shown. Point taken about the quotation marks. I withdraw my gripe…and MIGHT learn some manners one day?! 😛

It’s great to hear everyonje getting along, and apologising.
Where’s vg when you need him? He doesn’t mind sticking it to anyone, and not worrying about the consequences. But still, I find it a hell of a lot easier to read and enjoy posts where there’s not a heap of petty name calling.

tylersmayhem1:14 pm 10 Oct 08

My apologies if you thought I was calling you anything derogatory. That wasn’t the intention

There would be no need to apologise for calling me that Astro. I’m sure I’d deserve it, but take it on the chin and not fret about it. My point was simply to draw the double standard it appeared you had shown. Point taken about the quotation marks. I withdraw my gripe…and MIGHT learn some manners one day?! 😛

You’re not even close!

I’ve got to laugh at those people who say that cyclists leach “tons of money” from government coffers… so, exactly how much money goes to cycling projects? $3.6million in the 08-09 budget, or about $10 per ratepayer. Ha! Cycling costs the taxpayer SOOOOOOOOO MUCH!

What about all the other community-funded activities (sports infrastructure, arts funding, etc.) which, you’ll note, don’t pay “registration” for what they do? But no, complain about cyclists and their drain on the public purse – what a friggin joke. At $10 per taxpayer, the carbon abatement alone, not to mention public health benefits, less road congestion, etc. probably pay for that $3.6mil a number of times over.

I’m a driver and a cyclist, but I’m totally sick of a-hole drivers who terrorise cyclists even if they are obeying the road rules, and shiiiteheads who behave like cycling groups are somehow trying to undermine the fabric of our democracy. Get a grip!

(PS Yes, johnboy, I am going for nutter of the month with this, although if you look closely I actually made some sense…)

tylersmayhem said :

however I must admit that I am disappointed by personal name calling. I had expected better from a group of adults coming together to discuss issues within our fair city of Canberra, but it seems I was wrong to.

Right, right. So calling me s**tbrains is appropriate under your own disappointment? If you are going to be “disappointed” on here, perhaps practice what you preach! Or perhaps you were just emotional when you called me that!?

Will you respond to this post, or will you just be quite now?

I wasn’t calling you s&*brain… I forgot to add the quotation marks to mark as a quote… My apologies if you thought I was calling you anything derogatory. That wasn’t the intention

tylersmayhem12:14 pm 10 Oct 08

I’m sure he’ll be quite quite Tylers.

Yes, quiet! 😛

tylersmayhem12:12 pm 10 Oct 08

Oh, BTW just for the record – I’m not the helmet wearing freak in the picture. It would not be fair to him having people assuming my comments are his.

Quite a committed looking bloke tho I must say.

tylersmayhem9:58 am 10 Oct 08

I’d just love to see those people who are all for the idea of licensing cycles, lining up during their lunch hours to get “little Billy’s” first bike registered.

It’s all such a hair-brained and half-baked idea. My suggestion is simple – when roads are resurfaced, make sure all major roads have a bike lane included (ideally with a smoother surface), then us cyclists and motorists can keep out of each others way. Mind you, I don’t thins will change the frankly weird general angst toward cyclists.

I know there is a small percentage of cyclists who are wankers, and kick cars etc – but I think it’s a very small number. From my daily cycling experience, there is plenty more ignorance and aggression to cyclists from motorists (hot coffee thrown at me, flicked the bird and spat at – all while in a cycle lane), than cyclists towards motorists. I think generally cyclists have a much better understanding of their rights and responsibilities, and respect for the road than most motorists.

I’m sure he’ll be quite quite Tylers.

tylersmayhem9:45 am 10 Oct 08

however I must admit that I am disappointed by personal name calling. I had expected better from a group of adults coming together to discuss issues within our fair city of Canberra, but it seems I was wrong to.

Right, right. So calling me s**tbrains is appropriate under your own disappointment? If you are going to be “disappointed” on here, perhaps practice what you preach! Or perhaps you were just emotional when you called me that!?

Will you respond to this post, or will you just be quite now?

astrosapien said :

If cyclists paid the $20 a year … and going off the odd 80,000 cyclists in the ACT you would be pumping $1,600,000 through

I dont think you would end up with $1.6 mllion as you would need to deduct admin costs such as staffing to get everyone registered and ongoing issuing of bills, computer systems to keep track of it all, printing and postage of bills and then there is the enforcement aspect ie chasing up people who do not pay. Of course you could save some money by not worrying about enforcement (as it is only $20) but then why would people bother paying? And increasing the fee would just discourage people from cycling so most likely you would not have 80000 cyclists anymore!

Oh yeah, I did some basic math of my own. If cyclists paid the $20 a year that I had mentioned earlier (and it was a random number, that was low and not too outrageous) and going off the odd 80,000 cyclists in the ACT you would be pumping $1,600,000 through which I think would be an excellent start to creating safety programs and license/rego infrastructure…

Snarky said :

Astrosapien, Bike rego has been debated at length here before. My view is that the costs far outweigh the claimed benefits, and that it’d be extremely difficult to persuade the police to enforce when there are real criminals out there to be caught.

A quick google for “bicycle registration” seems to show that while there are schemes in place around the world, all have the sole aim of tracking stolen bikes via either serial number or small tamperproof sticker, and owner details. I can find none that allow identification of a cyclist while riding (that is, i can find no “licence plate” type scheme).

Now, Canberra is a pretty bike-friendly place, at least in terms of infrastructure if not always drivers, but we aren’t Robinson Crusoe here. If there was a benefit in licencing bikes for road use (because that’s what you’re talking about) surely it’d have been done by now?

But you’ve got me thinking. Why do we register cars at all? It’s a very convenient tax vehicle (‘scuse the pun) and thus revenue source; it keeps a track of how many vehicles there are, and therefore how much infrastructure needs to be provided; and it also allows the tracking of a vehicle for insurance and law enforcement purposes.

Now, the tax component only works because, high as it is, people think it’s worthwhile to pay it to keep driving their car; for a vehicular census it works well too. But with regard to your bicycle rego suggestion it’s the last reason that you’ve said you’re interested in – law enforcement. And in this case the VEHICLE rego is only of value in identifying the owner, who is presumably the driver. Your Bike Rego would be the same – bike don’t run red lights – riders do.

So, what you’re really proposing is a Cyclist Licence as well, with a teaching, testing, recording and record maintenance regime that must be at least as complex as the existing motor vehicle / drivers licence arrangement already in place. How are you going to pay for this? I’d suggest that if you tried to charge cyclists what it costs, you’ll eliminate all cycling in the city virtually overnight – taxed out of existence.

And don’t hitch it onto the RTA – I don’t know how many drivers there are in the ACT (I know there are about 200,000 cars, but many people own more than one) but the RTA could not cope with an influx of an addition 80,000 clients without some MASSIVE expansion. And Iif you charge less than what it costs then you’re saying that other Canberrans should subsidise them, and you’ve already made your views on THAT pretty clear.

Don’t do it.

The feelings that I made clear about other Canberrans subsidising the costs was in the context of the number of services that have been provided, not the fact that other Canberrans have subsidised it at all… Every facet of the community receives services from the government that has been subsidised somewhat by other portions of the community. It’s how it works. I just personally felt that free bus rides was going a bit too far…

The law enforcement was only one example of where a benefit may lie. If you re-read my posts, you’ll also notice a rather heavy element of focus on driver and cyclist SAFETY. I would much rather have my tax payer contributions subsidise a compulsory cyclist safety program (whilst also increasing the education on the motor vehicle driver side too) than to have it subsidise free bus rides.

As for license and/or registration programs being used for different reasons around the world, that’s fine. Just because no other system like the one we’ve been discussing has been used before isn’t enough of a reason to not at least discuss the matter. To shoot it down without proper consideration and discussion only serves to encourage a regressive mindset in which people don’t continue to work for a fairer and more equal system for all.

Snarky said :

A quick google for “bicycle registration” seems to show that while there are schemes in place around the world, all have the sole aim of tracking stolen bikes via either serial number or small tamperproof sticker, and owner details. I can find none that allow identification of a cyclist while riding (that is, i can find no “licence plate” type scheme)

Most ANU colleges have the sticker you’re talking about. As for bicycle license plates, the Sydney city council put pressure on the bicycle couriers a few years back to implement plates so that repeat offenders that were causing accidents or having near misses could be caught. I don’t think it worked.

Good turn out for an election forum with 230+ people, second only in size to the Christian lobby group. Well done to the Pedal Power Advocacy team, who showed everyone that if you want to get something done, put it in writing to them and let them take it to the government or TAMS and it will get sorted out rather than all the people who whinged about footpaths, glass and drivers.

Sorry about the shaky camera work.

Astrosapien, Bike rego has been debated at length here before. My view is that the costs far outweigh the claimed benefits, and that it’d be extremely difficult to persuade the police to enforce when there are real criminals out there to be caught.

A quick google for “bicycle registration” seems to show that while there are schemes in place around the world, all have the sole aim of tracking stolen bikes via either serial number or small tamperproof sticker, and owner details. I can find none that allow identification of a cyclist while riding (that is, i can find no “licence plate” type scheme).

Now, Canberra is a pretty bike-friendly place, at least in terms of infrastructure if not always drivers, but we aren’t Robinson Crusoe here. If there was a benefit in licencing bikes for road use (because that’s what you’re talking about) surely it’d have been done by now?

But you’ve got me thinking. Why do we register cars at all? It’s a very convenient tax vehicle (‘scuse the pun) and thus revenue source; it keeps a track of how many vehicles there are, and therefore how much infrastructure needs to be provided; and it also allows the tracking of a vehicle for insurance and law enforcement purposes.

Now, the tax component only works because, high as it is, people think it’s worthwhile to pay it to keep driving their car; for a vehicular census it works well too. But with regard to your bicycle rego suggestion it’s the last reason that you’ve said you’re interested in – law enforcement. And in this case the VEHICLE rego is only of value in identifying the owner, who is presumably the driver. Your Bike Rego would be the same – bike don’t run red lights – riders do.

So, what you’re really proposing is a Cyclist Licence as well, with a teaching, testing, recording and record maintenance regime that must be at least as complex as the existing motor vehicle / drivers licence arrangement already in place. How are you going to pay for this? I’d suggest that if you tried to charge cyclists what it costs, you’ll eliminate all cycling in the city virtually overnight – taxed out of existence.

And don’t hitch it onto the RTA – I don’t know how many drivers there are in the ACT (I know there are about 200,000 cars, but many people own more than one) but the RTA could not cope with an influx of an addition 80,000 clients without some MASSIVE expansion. And Iif you charge less than what it costs then you’re saying that other Canberrans should subsidise them, and you’ve already made your views on THAT pretty clear.

Don’t do it.

astrosapien said :

ricketyclik said :

Ralph said :

If I could be assured of getting equality on the road by paying road user charges – ie rego for my bicycle – I would happily do so.

Right on…

It’s not about one or the other side “winning” or beating the other, but about being open enough to the idea to come to the table in the middle and work out what compromises can be made from either side…

Re: your other comment about license and registration fees not covering the cost of maintenance on roads, it may not, but it’s a contribution none-the-less, and every little bit helps…

But bravo for being level headed enough to consider coming to the bargaining table if a mechanism such as this were ever to be implemented… The extremism on both sides of the argument are not going to get us any closer to a resolution.

Don’t my income taxes, rates, driver’s license, GST and rego on our two cars (which are usually in the driveway, because I’ve chosen to commute by bike) count?

But yes, I agree with your point – us and them is no way for a community to function.

ricketyclik said :

Ralph said :

If I could be assured of getting equality on the road by paying road user charges – ie rego for my bicycle – I would happily do so.

Right on…

It’s not about one or the other side “winning” or beating the other, but about being open enough to the idea to come to the table in the middle and work out what compromises can be made from either side…

Re: your other comment about license and registration fees not covering the cost of maintenance on roads, it may not, but it’s a contribution none-the-less, and every little bit helps…

But bravo for being level headed enough to consider coming to the bargaining table if a mechanism such as this were ever to be implemented… The extremism on both sides of the argument are not going to get us any closer to a resolution.

Ralph said :

Parasites. Benefits from cycling are largely private, so any arguments for leeching of taxpayers are tenuous at best. Following some of the logic on here, the government should also be subsidising running shoes and gym memberships.

If people don’t register their cars, they can’t legally use the roads. Start paying road user charges and people might start taking you a little more seriously.

1. As pointed out a zillion times whenever this argument is raised, roads are actually subsidised – license and rego (minus CTPI) doesn’t nearly cover the cost.

2. If I could be assured of getting equality on the road by paying road user charges – ie rego for my bicycle – I would happily do so. However, no such mechanism exists, so please don’t cockroach me as you pass me in your resource-eater Ralph.

But what % of the 80,000 cyclists actually choose who to vote for by the party positions on cycle lanes/paths etc. I’m a cyclist and I’m not basing my vote on that. I’d say it would only be those cyclists who choose to be members of pedal power. How many members does pedal power have?

I don’t think that the 200,000 motorists will vote for the Motorist Party – I’d hope not anyway.

Snarky said :

Astrosapien and others,

If there really are 80,000 cyclists in this fair city of 320,000 then it’s hardly surprising that all parties are courting them – assuming similar proportions of eligible voters per head of population, then from the Electoral Commission’s website there were 226,000 voters on the rolls in 2004 – about 70% of the population. 80,000 cyclists, will likely be about 56,000 voters, or about 5.6 quotas. Well worth pursuing, I’d have thought.

Also, if there are 80,000 cyclists, then they represent 25% of the population. Now, the latest data i can quickly find says there were 198,000 cars registered in Canberra in 1999 when the population was about 310,000 – about 2 cars per 3 people, and given that the population is only slightly higher now I doubt it’s changed much. So there are about 2.5 motorists per cyclist, or alternatively, cyclists are 40% of the motorist population.

So it seems to me, in light of previous numbers bandied about this site where we discovered that (for example) the cycle lanes on the GDE were about 1.5% of the total cost, that it should be up to motorists to justify why they need such a high proportion of the road budget. If anything, cyclists should be receiving not 1.5% of the budget but closer to 28%, and the motor vehicle road allocation decreased by this amount. Imagine how many off-road cycle lanes could be completed with this!

What do you think?

I think that seems perfectly reasonable… However I still personally think that it’s a shame that the pursuit of a vote still means that a portion of the community, no matter the percentage, would be exempt from any type of regulation… If everyone is wanting to be treated as equals on the roads, wouldn’t it therefore be reasonable to expect that all those users be subject to the same fees and expectations as the other (whilst obviously being in proportion… I certainly would be against any expectation for a cyclist to have to pay anything near what a motorist driving a car would be expected to pay. That would be absurd). Again, it’s not like cyclists would be expected to do anything that other users of the road aren’t having to do already…

But awesome research…

Astrosapien and others,

If there really are 80,000 cyclists in this fair city of 320,000 then it’s hardly surprising that all parties are courting them – assuming similar proportions of eligible voters per head of population, then from the Electoral Commission’s website there were 226,000 voters on the rolls in 2004 – about 70% of the population. 80,000 cyclists, will likely be about 56,000 voters, or about 5.6 quotas. Well worth pursuing, I’d have thought.

Also, if there are 80,000 cyclists, then they represent 25% of the population. Now, the latest data i can quickly find says there were 198,000 cars registered in Canberra in 1999 when the population was about 310,000 – about 2 cars per 3 people, and given that the population is only slightly higher now I doubt it’s changed much. So there are about 2.5 motorists per cyclist, or alternatively, cyclists are 40% of the motorist population.

So it seems to me, in light of previous numbers bandied about this site where we discovered that (for example) the cycle lanes on the GDE were about 1.5% of the total cost, that it should be up to motorists to justify why they need such a high proportion of the road budget. If anything, cyclists should be receiving not 1.5% of the budget but closer to 28%, and the motor vehicle road allocation decreased by this amount. Imagine how many off-road cycle lanes could be completed with this!

What do you think?

Aeek said :

Motor vehicles as a form of transportation is equally voluntary, providing for anything more than walking is a waste of public funds! Somehow, I think not.

Yes and no. One could argue that considering the distances that are required to be travelled to work each day from say the furthest South to Civic or the Brindabella Business Park that for most a car is the only practical option.

The public transport system is a mess at the moment, making it a less than practical option, and whilst there are cyclists that traverse that distance each day (Banks to Civic for example) the majority of people are not able to factor in the travel times required to get to and fro on bike… I certainly can’t spare hours each day for travel and I only need to get from Spence to the Airport…

So yes, cars are voluntary but our reliance on them to get to and fro, means that for many of us it’s not so voluntary…

As for the public funds bit, car drivers pay annual registration fees which cycles back into “wasted public funds”.

Motor vehicles as a form of transportation is equally voluntary, providing for anything more than walking is a waste of public funds! Somehow, I think not.

Well, it seems as though I stirred up a bit of a hornets nest here, even though it wasn’t quite my intention. I understand that the issue of licensing and registering is a controversial topic, however I must admit that I am disappointed by personal name calling. I had expected better from a group of adults coming together to discuss issues within our fair city of Canberra, but it seems I was wrong to.

In response to some people that responded to me directly:

P1: The public housing issue is kind of valid, except for the fact that it is part of the welfare system designed to assist people with obtaining affordable housing. In addition to this, as with most welfare systems within the country the end goal is to assist the welfare recipient with becoming self-reliant so that their need for welfare, be it in the form of housing or monetary benefits, is diminished.

Cycling as a means of transportation is completely voluntary, so comparisons to a form of welfare aren’t completely valid.

Having said that, I do agree with you. Governments are there to provide ammenities and services for the entire community. Similar to this topic, I did also acknowledge in my original post that bike riders are tax payers too, however I didn’t think that it was unreasonable to suggest an opinion that perhaps a license/registration wouldn’t be entirely unreasonable.

I understand that those two words conjure thoughts of absurd fees that are a pain to have to deal with any time they come round, but even though I am not a cyclist I certainly would not suggest that the fees be silly. I truly believe that even though a license/registration scheme could work, it would only work if the cost was kept to an absolute bare minimum, mostly so that other people would still see an incentive to making the change to two wheeled transportation (and when I say low I mean like $20).

I also do believe that there would be a peace of mind by other motorists knowing that if someone is displaying some sort of registration that it would be reasonable to assume that they would be well versed in road laws. This is of course a two way street and I do feel that ALL the people using the roads in the Territory should be aware of what ALL of their obligations are. But fair is fair.

Which brings me to Johnnytheknife:
You are of course correct in that just because someone in a vehicle has a license that they aren’t necessarily going to stop running red lights, speeding or general anti-social driving. However, with the license and registration comes a means to potentially identify the driver (although I concede that sometimes it is still difficult to determine who the culprit actually is). However, with identification comes the ability to reprimand people for their behavior with extreme cases leading to a loss of license. However, with bicycle riders there is currently no way of identifying and thus very little chance of reprimanding cyclists who continually break the laws. Of course this is a hypothetical situation, but I don’t think it is fair to expect the community at large to accept that someone could get away with continual behavior such as that simply because as bike owner they are fitter and doing more for the environment than other road users.

Also, I realise that this issue has been raised in the past, and it will likely be raised again in the future. But just because an issue has been raised doesn’t mean that anyone wanting to raise it, and others who want to discuss shouldn’t be able to. For instance, if issues were meant to never be raised and challenged again we would all still be walking around thinking the Earth is flat. I think it is important and healthy that issues be raised time and again as you never know what may have eventuated since to change a particular outcome.

Astrojax:
I think the claim that I am biggoted is harsher and much more uncalled for than I deserved for raising an opinion. I certainly don’t want to see an end to bicycle riders on our roads, but a system that treats us all as the equals that bicycle riders rightfully expect to be treated as.

I get what you are saying with truck drivers to cars etc, however the difference is that truck drivers and car drivers as used in your examples are all licensed for their respective vehicles. A car driver certainly wouldn’t be able to just up and get into a truck and start driving it around.

Additionally, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with my attitude. I don’t think it unreasonable to expect that everyone on the roads around me know the laws and obligations, and quite frankly there is no way of being able to identify if someone on a bicycle has that knowledge. Granted it is assumed with other motorists too, but their license/registration is at least some indication that they have the relevant knowledge. And whilst Pedal Power may very well have programs in place to address road safety and laws, it doesn’t sound compulsory meaning that there are still many bicycle riders that may not be fully aware of the laws.

Tylersmayhem:
S&*tbrain. Pretty uncalled for just because we have a difference in opinions. And self-importance? No. As was mentioned, the roads are a resource for us all, but I don’t think motorists are expecting any special treatment. Nothing suggested in my posts is anything that other users of the roads aren’t already doing themselves. So I don’t think that it falls under self-importance. Public safety yes, self-importance no.

Bungle:
You make an excellent point about 11yr olds on bikes. There is no way that they would be fully aware of the laws that they would be expected to follow, and exactly one of the reasons that 11yr olds aren’t allowed to drive cars. At that age, it would definitely be a case where the encouragement of the use of off-road networks would be in the best interests and safety of those young drivers. I think the important thing is that it not be seen in the negative light of denying access to a utility such as a road to a person, but more the positive light of safe-keeping the individual by keeping them out of harm’s way.

I hope that this has cleared the air on some of this topic. I certainly hope that the healthy discussion relating to this issue can continue and hopefully in a civilised manner which doesn’t resort to senseless name calling and bickering. This is a forum for ideas and should be treated as such.

I look forward to reading the responses…

😀

ACT Light Rail said :

All parties except the Motorist Party managed to appear at the ACT Light Rail ‘Meet the Candidates’ forum last week. This stands in contrast to every other person that was invited, independents included. The Motorists Party did not even acknowledge that they wouldn’t appear.

Im not exactly sure what they represent. There policies seem to be a grab bag of populist aphorisms. I own cars, and am a motorsport enthusiast as well, but they do not represent my interests.

For those who are interested, a video of the ACT Light Rail Candidates forum is here: http://actlightrail.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=45

Including David McAlary from the LDP?

The cops and the Govt have a hard enough time keeping unregistered cars off the road. A little hard to police 11 year old kids on bikes don’t you reckon?!?!

anyway, as has been raised in other posts, car registration doesn’t even cover the cost of roads. I reckon the GST payed on the bike would more than cover the cost of any road use.

captainwhorebags said :

Imagine, having to licence and then police 80,000 or more road users, how could it be done?

Share the road. Share the responsibilities.

More cops on bikes? Or possibly on Segways? Good grief, I hope not.

Your last point is where it’s at – but beyond the current situation I can’t see any solution beyond common sense on the part of everyone.

From what I have heard, the pollies completely rolled over to everything Pedal Power asked for. Probably due far more to the rising number and increasing voting power of cyclists than anything immediately attributable to Pedal Power itself.

Scoreline on cycling policies of anyone likely to be elected- Cyclists 10, anti-cyclists NIL

ACT Light Rail5:46 pm 09 Oct 08

All parties except the Motorist Party managed to appear at the ACT Light Rail ‘Meet the Candidates’ forum last week. This stands in contrast to every other person that was invited, independents included. The Motorists Party did not even acknowledge that they wouldn’t appear.

Im not exactly sure what they represent. There policies seem to be a grab bag of populist aphorisms. I own cars, and am a motorsport enthusiast as well, but they do not represent my interests.

For those who are interested, a video of the ACT Light Rail Candidates forum is here: http://actlightrail.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=45

captainwhorebags5:45 pm 09 Oct 08

Hmm, some back of a bar napkin policy making…. major road? 60km or over? 70km or over? No difference between roads with lanes or without as it seems that cyclists pick and choose where to ride regardless of lane markings. Yeah, the bureaucracy would be impossible.

Imagine, having to licence and then police 80,000 or more road users, how could it be done? We’d need like, a government department or something set up just to handle road licensing and registration! Impossible.

Share the road. Share the responsibilities.

captainwhorebags said :

I’m in favour of licensing and registration for bike riders on major roads. I don’t care if it’s completely free (in fact I think that would be the way to go). My decision on this was settled when I saw a cyclist post a message about how a driver pissed him off so the cyclist then kicked off his side mirror on the way past. A minority to be sure, but what’s the recourse?

Make every vehicle on the road identifiable and the operator accountable for their actions.

Having a licence isn’t going to stop a knob on a bike from doing anti-social things, like kicking off side mirrors. That’s probably more of a spur of the moment rage issue. Definitely poor form by the cyclist and I do not condone his actions.

Putting on my policy hat and looking at your proposal of cyclist licences, I wonder – What’s a major road? What’s a minor road? Is there a difference between a major road with on-road bike lanes and a major road without them? What if there is no off-road bike path adjacent to a major road? Who can ride there? And what about the bureaucracy required for issuing to licences to, and enforcing the behaviour of, 80,000 cyclists. And so on.

Sorry dude, can’t see it happening.

captainwhorebags5:06 pm 09 Oct 08

tyler: it’s a fair point about already paying rego for your car even though you ride a bike.

Does this mean that I should only have to pay rego for one of my vehicles too?

In all seriousness, I’m in favour of licensing and registration for bike riders on major roads. I don’t care if it’s completely free (in fact I think that would be the way to go). My decision on this was settled when I saw a cyclist post a message about how a driver pissed him off so the cyclist then kicked off his side mirror on the way past. A minority to be sure, but what’s the recourse?

Make every vehicle on the road identifiable and the operator accountable for their actions.

‘shameless plub’. God I’m good…

johnnytheknife said :

Ralph said :

And the list goes on. Using your argument, pretty much any government funding for anything which does not support the community in it’s entirety should not be supported. The Tharwa bridge springs to mind. There are two alternative routes to Tharwa, and fixing the bridge only provides a personal benifit to a few people so it shouldn’t go ahead. Same for public housing, public schools (applying your logic, and not having any children, why should I pay for public schools with my tax dollars) and libraries.

I certainly recognise the positive externalities of the items you have listed, however I’m not sure that is sufficient reason for the use of force.

As an incrementalist though, I would support programs that would reduce the overall revenue burden on people. I think cycling programs generally could come under this heading (due to our public health system).

However there is a difference between items such as a basic education or a welfare/health safety net, and programs that are merely designed to take resources from one grouping and give them to another, based on an imbalance in political power (often due to public choice theory). As such I am naturally cautious. It’s far better when possible to let people make their own choices.

Psuedo – With all that angry energy you’ve got I think you could ride up Mount Everest.

Ralph – You and your tired old argument are not worth the effort. But I’ll say this. Based on your user pay idea, and the fact that I own a car and pay rego but rarely drive. Then I should be expecting a rebate from the ACT Government soon, yes?

Gungahlin Al said :


Much my thoughts last night when the Motorists Party rep (after being pretty good on some other issues) trotted out the “Canberra was built for the car so we oppose light rail” line.

Did they mean it as in ‘the way Canberra is designed, light rail is not viable’ or did they mean it ‘WE LOVE CARS SO GET STUFFED’?

The first one I think is a reasonable argument potentially. I’m not well versed in the figures surrounding the light rail debate (shameless plub: Liberal Ginninderra candidate Matt Watts is a supporter though, http://www.wattstherightchoice.com), however I could potentially see there being a hypothetical problem with the way a town has been designed that would preclude light rail. The opposite is of course also possible.

The latter one though is simply pigheadedness. I assume that was their attitude.

tylersmayhem4:20 pm 09 Oct 08

Ralph, you loser – most people I know who cycle, also own cars and pay rego and licensing. Also, most of us cannot ride a cycle and drive our car at the same time. I pay my bit for the road. You are yet another ignorant cretin who doesn’t understand the rights of cyclists or show any tolerance to SHARE the road!

johnnytheknife4:01 pm 09 Oct 08

Ralph said :

Benefits from cycling are largely private

Benifits like:

– Reduced traffic congestion
– Reduced demand on limited car parking in areas like Woden and Civic
– Reduced carbon emmissions
– Improved personal health which reduces demands on public and private health systems

And the list goes on. Using your argument, pretty much any government funding for anything which does not support the community in it’s entirety should not be supported. The Tharwa bridge springs to mind. There are two alternative routes to Tharwa, and fixing the bridge only provides a personal benifit to a few people so it shouldn’t go ahead. Same for public housing, public schools (applying your logic, and not having any children, why should I pay for public schools with my tax dollars) and libraries.

The reality is that cycling facilities represent a tiny portion of the overall capital works budget in the ACT. Governments are here to support ALL sectors of the community (not just works which support the WHOLE community at once), and this is why cycling facilities will enjoy continuing funding in the ACT (along with the birdge, schools and libraries).

The ACT will be in real trouble if any of the Motorists Party people get in.

If they wanted people to ride, they should have built Canberra somewhere flat.

Everytime some smug #$*@ from the inner north cocoon tells me I should ride to work, I get the urge to run them off road.

Until they eliminate some hill, they can stick their bike path cash up their bike path holes.

(with added vitriol purely to fit in with the riot act mystique)

Parasites. Benefits from cycling are largely private, so any arguments for leeching of taxpayers are tenuous at best. Following some of the logic on here, the government should also be subsidising running shoes and gym memberships.

If people don’t register their cars, they can’t legally use the roads. Start paying road user charges and people might start taking you a little more seriously.

tylersmayhem3:22 pm 09 Oct 08

Exactly Al, good way to look at it!

Gungahlin Al3:14 pm 09 Oct 08

“However, I am happy for cyclists to keep riding to work. it removes cars from the road and frees up car parks.

A win win situation ;)”

Much my thoughts last night when the Motorists Party rep (after being pretty good on some other issues) trotted out the “Canberra was built for the car so we oppose light rail” line.

tylersmayhem3:08 pm 09 Oct 08

I’m sure you rock your bicycle hard but fair.

Wha?!

One Nation On Wheels

p1 said :

And how do their policies alight with the motorist party with respect to recycling drinking water? ‘Cause I say a Motorist Party ad’ just yesterday opposing it vehemently.

Bloody Motorist Party. I knew they would suck at everything non motorist. Integrity and respect my arse.

Are you seriously arguing the semantical point that I should have used the phrase ‘preconceived notion’ instead of stereotype?

Mate I never said you were selfish, I’m sure you rock your bicycle hard but fair.

And how do their policies alight with the motorist party with respect to recycling drinking water? ‘Cause I say a Motorist Party ad’ just yesterday opposing it vehemently.

tylersmayhem2:29 pm 09 Oct 08

Way to pick a fight with someone who has a stereotypical view of cyclists and Pedal Power by spouting off your own stereotype laden rant!

No Jakez, I simply asked if BigDave has those stickers on his car, based on his previous and general “pricks” comment.

You will also read my comments always include “sharing” the road.

tylersmayhem said :

(helmet man was lefty)

No I’m not!

Wait wait wait, you are helmet man?

I think johnnytheknife and tyler make good points about extending registration. Do we really want to live in a society where you have to register your bike? It’s happening in places in the USA (land of the free that it is). Where does the bureaucracy end?

I have sympathies with cyclists as they face similar problems that motorcyclists face (in terms of relations with cars).

However the real determination of whether Pedal Power is good or evil is:

Where do they stand on the recumbent bicycle question?

tylersmayhem said :

Pedal Power are just a minority of pricks that nobody takes seriously anyway.

I am not part of Pedal Power, but I suspect I know exactly the type of ignorant driver you are BigDave. As a matter of interest, are you one of those with a southern cross stars on your car or ute? I suspect so!

Way to pick a fight with someone who has a stereotypical view of cyclists and Pedal Power by spouting off your own stereotype laden rant!

tylersmayhem1:43 pm 09 Oct 08

(helmet man was lefty)

No I’m not!

tylersmayhem1:40 pm 09 Oct 08

Yes, yes astrosapien – I think that pedestrians should ALSO have to get licensed to walk on the cycle ways, on the footpaths and on the side of the road. I mean, that would only be fair under your s**tbrain theory that you seem to share with many others.

Try just SHARING the road instead of carrying on with all your self-importance as a motorist.

Pedal Power have their won brief summary of the forum…
http://www.pedalpower.org.au/services/content.asp?IntContId=291#electionforum

They say “Labor was prepared to stand on its record” – I’m not sure whether they believe Labor has a good record or a bad record? Otherwise they seem pretty keen on the $4 Million promises from the Liberals to improve cycling infrastructure.

I wouldn’t say they’re particularly lefty, just very pro cycling.

(helmet man was lefty)

Cycling groups such as pedal power also provide 3rd party & personal insurance for their members; skills & info sessions; and social & competitive events – not just political campaigning. I would much rather see our pollies being persudaded by the lefty pedal power mob, than the right wing christian lobby group.

If no license, use the off road network

this, astrosapien (bit too close to my own moniker – no relation, if anyone wonders!), is the kind of shallow and bigotted reaction tintoppers have to lose.

the roads are there as passageways for all citizens – or would you have truckies tell you to get off ‘their’ roads, ’cause they’re bigger and so more [self-]important?

get real and change you attitude to one where we can all share the roads. roads go where we need them to, many off road networks don’t, so why should we give up the convenience of the road network just because you’re too precious to share it?

johnnytheknife12:53 pm 09 Oct 08

astrosapien said :

For example, the other night at the forum there was a push to have more cycling related questions added to the Learner Drivers test so that motorists are more aware of their obligations and conduct when encountering cyclists on the roads, yet right now there is nothing, not a SINGLE thing, that identifies that someone riding their bicycle on the road is aware of what THEIR obligations are (evident anytime a cyclist runs a red light, for instance). I don’t think too many people would object to some sort of simple and cheap license and registration for the right to ride their bikes on the roads. If no license, use the off road network.

A motorist being licensed signifies that they are aware of their obligations on the road and aware of the road rules and laws. Which is more than we can say for the cyclists on our roads…

Because nobody ever runs red lights in their car (or truck, or bus), exceeds the speed limit, operates a motor vehicle while drunk or drives on an expired / cancelled licence because the piece of plastic in their pocked with drivers licence written on it stops them.

Holding a licence simply indicates the person was able to pass a couple of tests, it makes little difference to their potential behaviour. What makes you think an on-road cycling licence would alter the behaviour of cyclists?

At any rate, as with other road users, it is a small minority of cyclists who break the law by running red lights etc (although in some instances, this is unavoidable. Traffic lights have a magnetic sensor, and if there is no traffic around to trigger it, a bike made from aluminium and carbon fibre is unlikely to be sufficient to change the lights).

The argument that cyclists should be required to register a bike and hold a licence to ride it on the road has been done a dusted so many it surprises me that it still pops up. Cycling as a form of commuter transport has many benefits to the wider community such as those outlined by other posters.

Furthermore, a significant proportion of vehicle registration covers third party insurance. Except in a couple of well publicised incidents, cyclists are very unlikely to injure another road user in a collision, making the risk so minimal that mandating such insurance would be absurd.

The WIN news said the other night that there is an estimated 80,000 cyclists in the A.C.T, which would still make it a minority group who has had lots of tax payer money directed at them.

There is something like 11,500 public houses in Canberra (pp54) so the residents of those are clearly a minority. Why the hell are we all paying for them? My answer is that the joy of living in a functioning society is that the group as a whole can provide services that benefit all by supporting a few.

tylersmayhem said :

So which candidate said they’d fix and complete cycles lanes?!

All of them!

tylersmayhem11:07 am 09 Oct 08

Pedal Power are just a minority of pricks that nobody takes seriously anyway.

I am not part of Pedal Power, but I suspect I know exactly the type of ignorant driver you are BigDave. As a matter of interest, are you one of those with a southern cross stars on your car or ute? I suspect so!

tylersmayhem11:05 am 09 Oct 08

So which candidate said they’d fix and complete cycles lanes?!

RuffnReady said :

What’s with the Pedal Power hate??? Cyclists need some sort of peak body to lobby government, just like every other industry and community group, so why the hate? Someone needs to bring cycling issues to the government’s attention, like the horrible state of the cycle paths which seem to get very little maintenance, and the issue of glass strewn all over our gutters. Cycling keeps cars off the road and has many adjunct benefits, and they need a voice.

Perhaps they feel that Pedal Powers actions rather than balancing out the ‘other’ lobby groups, only add to the increase in Government action directed at specific groupings, as explained by public choice theory branch of economics.

Or perhaps they just hate cyclists.

That picture is a laugh, I ride down that path pretty much every day at about 40kmh.
Never had any issues.

Thumper: yes if you run regularly you will be fitter and will be less likely to need seriously expensive medical care for things like heart conditions. (although the chance of needing a moderately expensive knee reconstruction is increased) Also, if you run to get somewhere instead of driving or taking the bus, then you save even more and decrease the vehicle traffic on our roads!

Gungahlin Al9:57 am 09 Oct 08

“everyone knows you can’t wear a cape on a bike, it gets caught up in the wheels”

Every super knows you don’t wear a cape cos it gets sucked into passing jet engines…

Jeez I wish David McAlary from the LDP was there. If they hated Smyth for some funding slight years and years ago, David would have incited a riot.

Especially on a treadly, Thumper.

Totally off the topic of bikes, but in the States there’s a cross-border problem in Michigan where people pay 10c/can more for beer & drinks in Michigan, as they’re including the can subsidy in purchase price.
The can despoit only gets returned in Michigan, so people who buy beer & cans nearby in Ohio then cross the border to get the Michigan deposit.
Its not really profitable unless you’re doing it in bulk (like the Seinfeld episode with the postal truck), but I can see this being a scam for people in Quangerbangers.

As long as there are idiots with no idea that cyclists exist (image link)
We need people with extreme views on a cyclist’s peak body to balance things out!

As for the “cyclists don’t pay registration” crowd, here is a study which shows Australians who cycle regularly save the government health system $227.2 million per year . Compare this net saving with a few hundred dollars each licensing/registration fees minus the enormous cost of motor vehicle accidents…

RuffnReady said :

What’s with the Pedal Power hate??? Cyclists need some sort of peak body to lobby government, just like every other industry and community group, so why the hate? Someone needs to bring cycling issues to the government’s attention, like the horrible state of the cycle paths which seem to get very little maintenance, and the issue of glass strewn all over our gutters. Cycling keeps cars off the road and has many adjunct benefits, and they need a voice.

I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I think one of the issues that a lot of Canberrans have is that there have been a lot of changes to infrastructure for the cycling community that hasn’t been completely adopted or supported by the community. The roads all being reworked to fit potentially dangerous on-road bike paths when there is a brand new bike path within a stone’s throw (such as the GDE) is a perfect example of this. The cyclists have also been given free rides on buses. Action is a government body, so in a sense the Canberra tax-payer is paying for their lanes and their bus trips. Bicycle riders are tax payers too, of course, but they aren’t the only members of the community riding buses to be more conscientous of the environment or to keep cars off the roads, but all the other people riding the buses for those reasons are completely ignored in this initiative.

The WIN news said the other night that there is an estimated 80,000 cyclists in the A.C.T, which would still make it a minority group who has had lots of tax payer money directed at them. The group Pedal Power, again in my personal opinion, seems to have continued to expect privelege after privelege with seemingly little in the way of compromise from their end.

For example, the other night at the forum there was a push to have more cycling related questions added to the Learner Drivers test so that motorists are more aware of their obligations and conduct when encountering cyclists on the roads, yet right now there is nothing, not a SINGLE thing, that identifies that someone riding their bicycle on the road is aware of what THEIR obligations are (evident anytime a cyclist runs a red light, for instance). I don’t think too many people would object to some sort of simple and cheap license and registration for the right to ride their bikes on the roads. If no license, use the off road network.

A motorist being licensed signifies that they are aware of their obligations on the road and aware of the road rules and laws. Which is more than we can say for the cyclists on our roads…

What’s with the Pedal Power hate??? Cyclists need some sort of peak body to lobby government, just like every other industry and community group, so why the hate? Someone needs to bring cycling issues to the government’s attention, like the horrible state of the cycle paths which seem to get very little maintenance, and the issue of glass strewn all over our gutters. Cycling keeps cars off the road and has many adjunct benefits, and they need a voice.

As for bottle deposits, it’s an absolutely fantastic idea. Over 99% of bottles in SA are recycled due to that scheme. Know why it isn’t Australia wide? Packaging companies successfully lobbied against it back in 2002 (because they have to pay the 5c refund), and instead gave a token contribution to “Keep Australia Beautiful” day. Want to know more, 4 corners reported on it back in 2003:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s941450.htm

Shameful case of government not standing up to industry for what is right… but then again, when does government ever stand up to industry these days???

Pedal Power are just a minority of pricks that nobody takes seriously anyway.

Serious enough for 1.5m of your precious driving space to be turned into a bike lane on most major roads in this city.

I’m with Shiny Flu several posts above. I love riding my bike, but the trouser clip brigade turn me off joining pedal power.

BigDave said :

Pedal Power are just a minority of pricks that nobody takes seriously anyway.

ha. gold.

And I got to feel good about that extra Coopers Pale I was having…after all…it was for the children…and won’t someone think of the children?

ant said :

The greens bringing back bottle deposits is about time.

Off topic, but I love the system in South Australia where you get 5 cents per bottle/can (aluminium, glass or PET plastic). It is a great way to teach kids both the value of earning your own cash and the importance of recycling.

BigDave said :

Pedal Power are just a minority of pricks that nobody takes seriously anyway.

Nobody but the government.

Pedal Power are just a minority of pricks that nobody takes seriously anyway.

The greens bringing back bottle deposits is about time. Even in Vermont, they have this. I mean, the USA doesn’t even have proper recycling yet, you have to pay extra for a recycling tub (tub) at your kerbside. They burn their paper.

Anyway, it was fun, outside the supermarket, feeding one’s bottles into the bottle machine, and it totted up how many and how much. Then it offered to give you cash, or a coupon for the amount to use in the supermarket inside. bloody good system.

Hey mouthface: its people like you who have made Pedal Power an activist group. Keep up the good work.

Pedal Power SUCK!!!!

When I become dictator, they will all be tattooed so that everyone knows who they are and throws tomatoes at them. Bunch of self obsessed wankers.

Thats a whole lot of time in your life that you will never get back. Whilst I don’t mind some of the Greens, I absolutly can’t stand pedal power. They are similar to our aboriginal friends who just keep wanting more and more for less.

The women in purple capes must have been rent-a-crowd….. everyone knows you can’t wear a cape on a bike, it gets caught up in the wheels

As much as I love riding my bike(s)… I loathe bearded helmet wearing-too-stingy-to-buy-a-proper-bike-light-and-unable-to-take-helmet-off-whilst-inside-and-actually-not-on-velocipede pedal power members that just join so they can get a 10% discount and ramble on about how bad drivers are when most of them can’t ride a bike properly and wouldn’t survive a day in a larger city.

And Kerry Taranto – or at least someone claiming to be her – was there. She lives!

Holden Caulfield4:45 pm 08 Oct 08

Isn’t that why you ride a bike?

Yeah, let’s take the piss out of the guy with no idea what he had to say…

Government should put far more effort into supporting cycling – it has wide-ranging personal and community benefits that tackle many of the issues of our time, from climate change to obesity to crumbling communities.

I believe there’s someone for everyone, amarooresident … even helmet man.

amarooresident4:29 pm 08 Oct 08

I betcha helmet man doesn’t have a girlfriend. Or boyfriend for that matter.

Ooh, the light would be awesome!!

Loquaciousness4:07 pm 08 Oct 08

Granny said :

This is the kind of helmet we need, L. I think it’s even better than the tinfoil!

Maybe we could cover one like that in tinfoil. With a light sticking up out of it.

/me goes off to find the foil …

L

Who couldn’t love Rik?

The woman in the background looks less than impressed with wannabe Rik from The Young Ones ranting.

This is the kind of helmet we need, L. I think it’s even better than the tinfoil!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.